ty and the future of fashion

the growing importance of sustainability and the future of fashion

As sustainability has become a significant mainstream concern, Generation Z (Gen-Z) are beginning to use their consumer power to present their beliefs about sustainability. Research has shown that with every generation, the quest for sustainability strengthens. In 2015, a Nielsen report found that 73 percent of Gen-Z and Millennials were willing to pay more for sustainable goods. According to research from the New York University Center for Sustainable Business (CSB), CSB found 50 percent of sales growth among consumer packaged goods between 2013 and 2018 came from sustainability-marketed products, despite the fact such goods account for just under 17 percent of the market. It’s tough to build a case that making the planet a cleaner place is not in everyone’s best interest but the question has always remained about whether the cost of implementing models that make products more sustainable was actually economically sustainable for retailers.

So what can you personally do to be as sustainable as possible when purchasing goods (more specifically clothing)? In an article for Forbes titled ‘Sustainable Retail: How Gen Z Is Leading The Pack’ by Greg Petro stated ‘younger generations have … [proven that they are] seeking not only sustainable products and brands, but openly stating they are willing to pay more for them’. A Forbes report from 2019 “The State of Consumer Spending: Gen Z Shoppers Demand Sustainable Retail,” notes that 62 percent of Generation Z, who will begin entering the workforce this year, prefer to buy from sustainable brands. Further, the majority of Generation Z (54 percent) state that they are willing to spend an incremental 10 percent or more on sustainable products. This compares to 34 percent of Generation X and 23 percent of Baby Boomers. ‘With Generation Z on track to becoming the largest generation of consumers this year, retailers and brands must start supercharging sustainability practices now if they are to keep pace with expectations around sustainability for these next-generation consumers.’ This article also cites several studies that show that a majority of younger generations - 59 percent

of Generation Z and 57 percent of Millennials are buying upcycled products while only around 15% of Baby Boomers and the Silent Generation are using these more sustainable options.

An ABC news article titled ‘Three ways you can reduce your fashion footprint for a sustainable wardrobe’ by Lucy MacDonald states several ideas such as ‘choosing fashion made from more sustainable fibres’ (but this can be expensive), ‘Op shopping’ and ‘ getting the most out of the clothes you already own’. Australians collectively spend about $5 billion on fashion and three-fifths of that is trashed within a year and according to the United Nations, the fashion industry is responsible for 8 to 10 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. We send half a million tonnes of leather and textiles to landfill each year, that includes 6,000 kilograms of clothing thrown away every 10 minutes. One of the best choices is to embrace pre-loved clothing and go second-hand shopping. Second-hand fashion is on the rise and it’s expected that in the next 10 years, as an industry, it will exceed the fast fashion industry. According to sustainable fashion academic Dr Lisa Heinze, the first step is to check what the garment is made of. “There’s no silver bullet in terms of what is the best fabric or the most sustainable fabric. Like everything in the world, every material we make has some type of impact,” she said. “Natural fibres are a better textile to use because there’s fewer chemicals involved in the production of that textile and also it means that the textile can biodegrade at the end of its life.”

In the article ‘Sustainability and Diversity: True Development or Trendy BuzzWords?’ by Anastasia Vartanian, asks if sustainability is simply a trend in the fashion industry or a long term …. Vartanian cites the January 2020 Vogue Italia covers which used illustrations rather than photoshoots. Editor of Vogue Italia, Emanuele Farneti, painted a picture of just how wasteful getting the perfect cover photo can be: ‘One hundred and fifty people involved. About 20 flights and a dozen or so train journeys. Forty cars on standby. Sixty international deliveries. Lights switched on for at least ten hours nonstop, partly powered by gasoline-fuelled generators. Food waste from the catering services. Plastic to wrap the garments. Electricity to recharge phones, cameras.’

By working directly with the illustrators, Vogue Italia was able to save on resources and money. The fashion industry is all about statements, however, is this just Vogue making a political statement meant to feign innovation? Its clear that fashion journalism is so vital to the development of the industry, critiquing and developing the ideas and ethicality of the fashion industry.

It’s all well and good to preach sustainability and diversity in a time when social awareness is popular and trendy but it is clear from the Vogue Values (an international commitment signed by the editors-in-chief of every edition of Vogue at the end of last year) that sustainability and diversity are priorities for the industry. It is important to preach sustainability, but we should be careful not to alienate lower-income customers who may not have access to sustainable brands or wearable second-hand clothing. It is clear that our purchases exercise a certain voting power over businesses. But to ensure that this mood of social consciousness is more than just a tokenistic PR exercise, we need a passionate public stoked by the fire of honest, critical, accessible journalism. A video from the youtuber Gabe (aka ‘Trollfunk) speaks on a popular brand favored by Gen-Z in the video ‘UNIF Needs to STOP!’ from October 2019. UNIF produces 90s and Y2K inspired clothing popular with Gen-Z (especially from its newfound popularity on Tik Tok). She cites the fact that UNIF used to be ‘high quality’ and handmade in LA, presented their manufacturing and distribution services publicly and spoke on ethical business practices as a large reason why many members of gen-z with ‘alternative’ style shopped at UNIF. However according to Gabe ‘none of that is true anymore’. Although their clothes came with a ‘very high markup’, gen-z were willing to pay due to the high quality of their clothing, focus on sustainability and their unique style however the clothing now appears to be made in China but the prices have stayed the same or even increased. The number of sweatshops have reduced in China however, due to the fact that China does not have the same level of regulations as Australia, Canada or the USA (UNIFs biggest customer bases), therefore it is the companies responsibility to make sure that the chinese manufacturing company is paying their workers a living wage and are working in safe conditions. According to the co-founder of UNIF on twitter,

Christine Lai (Username: @xxchristeric): ‘we are friends with our factory in China … have been for over 10 years. They only make UNIF items so its a small family business like ours. I assure you they are all living well cuz we pay a higher than standard price for their work hence our prices aren’t cheap.’ However, according to Gabe, the company had only existed for 9 years at the time, and until recently their tags said ‘made in LA’. @UNIFcopied, an instagram account which documents the blatant copying of vintage ‘rare’ designs that UNIF has stolen, has commented several times on the blatant ‘green-washing’ that UNIF presents in its instagram and other social media. UNIF has been shown to project a positive halo based on sustainability that may aim to draw attention away from the fact that they have unethical and potentially dangerous treatment of their workers in China.

‘Why there is no “ethical consumption” under capitalism’ by Olive Pape mentions the history of sustainable culture as when companies ‘began to advocate for what is called “ethical consumption”’. Ethical consumption is the idea that if each of us, as individuals, choose to ‘vote with our dollar’, then due to the laws of supply and demand, capitalism will in time stop exploiting people and the environment. Some even have gone so far as to refer to this new movement as ‘compassionate capitalism’, declaring that it would end the ills of capitalism while leaving the market system in place. According to Pape, although people have “gone green”, eaten vegan, shopped “fair-trade”, and recycled for years now, the atrocities that spurned the ethical consumption movement continue unabated, however, it is not individual consumers that are to blame. Statistics show that the richest 10% are responsible for 59% of the world’s private greenhouse gas emissions, while the poorest 50% are responsible for only 10%.’ Research done during a 2012 study at the Corvinus University of Budapest found that there is ‘no significant difference’ between the carbon footprint of those who consume “ethically” and those who do not. The study concluded that targeting consumer purchasing cannot counter the impact of the pollution caused by major corporations. The study also showed that working class people cannot afford a ‘sustainable lifestyle’ due to poverty, lack of accessibility and long working hours, among other things. Many of these workers are unhappy about these circumstances, but find the

system rigged against them. Sustainability is more expensive but makes no real difference in the carbon footprint of consumers. These individual based solutions may make the consumer feel better about living under capitalism, but do they really address the root cause of exploitation and environmental destruction? Not only will it never be possible for everyone to make environmentally friendly choices due to systemic economic and social inequality, under capitalism the desire to do so by many working class people has been made into a commodity for the capitalists to profit from. For example, so-called ethical products are often more expensive than products created unethically and the profits often go to the same major corporations who are doing the majority of polluting. As long as the majority of wealth and resources are owned and controlled by a minority exploiting class, producing for profit instead of human need, workers’ rights and environmental sustainability will always suffer. The choices of individual consumers are ineffectual within the context of capitalist production. The major flaw in ethical consumption is the illusion that there is a more ethical option under capitalism. Ethical consumption suggests that production for profit is acceptable, as long as it comes from a more kind and gentle version of capitalism which treats its workers nicely and cares about the environment. Ethical consumerism ends up dividing the working class by implying that those who purchase ethically are more moral than those who do not, regardless of their means of doing so. It does not matter how many people turn to more ethical options under capitalism, the system will never be ethical. Exploitation, oppression and environmental destruction are inherent to a system based on private ownership of the means of production and production for profit. In my opinion, the answer to this question is not to be found in the individualistic approach of ethical consumption, but rather through organizing all layers of the working class in a united struggle against capitalism, which is the root of all modern exploitation and misery. The answer to the question of ethical consumption can only be found under socialism – a truly democratic economic system with a rationally planned economy that meets the needs of the majority.

However, you can not conflate the idea of ethical treatment of the workforce and environmental sustainability. As with the example of UNIF, a company