The fashion industry – a reflection of global events and movements

In many ways, the global fashion industry is a reflection of key events and movements in our global society at large. This is especially clear when we look at central concepts and trends that have arisen within in the global fashion industry over time.

• To begin, one of the first wake-up calls triggering environmental movements at larger scale was the book Silent Spring by Rachel Carson in 1962. This book and other events spurred the so-called ’environmental protection movement’ in the 60s and 70s. The fashion industry may not have responded straight away; yet it inspired ”fashion with a message”, often of political nature, for example to protest against wars and human injustices.
• The next important event in our global society was the release of the Brundtland Report, which introduced the term ”sustainable development”. This spurred a worldwide movement calling for sustainable development in the late 80s and 90s, which in turn, inspired the concept ”sustainable fashion” within the fashion industry.
• A third historical event to shape the fashion discourse was the signing of the international Slow Food Manifesto in 1989. This initiated the Slow Food Movement and later inspired Kate Fletcher to coin the term ”slow fashion” in 2007.
• A fourth event to shape our modern history in significant ways, was the launch of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation in 2010. This caused a surge of interests in circular economy around the world. This in turn inspired the concept ”circular fashion” coined in spring 2014 by myself, Anna Brismar, in English (and unknowingly also by staff-member at H&M headquarters in its Swedish form, almost at the same time).
• In 2013 the collapse of the Rana Plaza building in Bangladesh intensified the debate around transparency, accountability and ethics within the industry. Also, it resulted in the Fashion Revolution Movement founded by Orsola de Castro and Carry Somers. This, and other events, inspired the concept ”compassionate fashion”, which was reintroduced by myself (Anna Brismar) in 2017, now with a broader definition to emphasize the need to lead businesses not only using our minds but also based on consistent heartfelt values.

Still more concepts have been introduced over time, such as conscious fashion, ethical fashion and eco-fashion.

Figure 1. Key societal events and subsequent global movements have in fact shaped the global fashion industry and given rise to central sustainability concepts within the industry, such as the notions ”sustainable fashion”, ”slow fashion” and ”circular fashion”. (Image made by Anna Brismar, Green Strategy, in October 2018)

A common global fashion agenda – embracing mind, heart and body

When we look more closely at the three concepts ”conscious fashion”, ”compassionate fashion” and ”circular fashion”, we see that they have interesting resemblance with the three dimensions ”mind, heart and body”, which are used by many philosophies around the world to describe key attributes of human life.

While ”conscious fashion” primarily emphasizes what we SHOULD do based on reason, logics, knowledge, skills and available technologies, ”compassionate fashion” emphasizes what we want to do based on our heart-felt values, ethics and compassion for other beings, both humans and other organisms.

Lastly, ”circular fashion” looks at the natural ecosystem as a complex circular system on which we depend and always interact with, and how we CAN create healthy circular systems within society based on new design practices, business models and different types of collaboration.
When we take these three dimensions – which are both complementary and partly overlapping – we have a comprehensive integrated framework that can be used to build one common vision for the global fashion industry.

Figure 2. I here propose an integrated framework and ONE unifying vision for the global fashion industry. This agenda unites the three concepts conscious, compassionate and circular fashion, by embracing the dimensions of our mind, heart and body. (Image developed by Anna Brismar, Green Strategy, in 2018.)

When you look at the world around you, what do you see? Is it an abundant world with plenty of resources to go around for everyone? A world with almost endless supplies of water, land, energy, minerals and other resources to serve the needs of every human on Earth? Or, do you see natural resource constraints, physical limits to growth, and large differences in resource distribution globally? Are you disturbed by the ongoing degradation of natural ecosystems, water bodies and air quality; the diminishing of endangered species; and the threatening of indigenous cultures? Do you recognize serious injustices between different societal groups, cultures and countries? Perhaps at the same time, do you see enormous human potentials and opportunities to benefit societies and improve the Earth’s conditions worldwide? Or perhaps you have a mixed view or partial understanding of the global situation?

At a personal level, have you taken the time to deeply reflect upon your own values, beliefs and perceptions of life? Have you questioned the purpose of your existence on Earth? Do you believe we are here for a limited time and should make the most of it on every level? Do you believe we should strive to maximize our living standards and material quality of life? Shall we strive to attain financial abundance, material abundance and perhaps a certain career position or role in society? Or are we here on Earth as human spirits to learn important lessons for the soul; lessons that we will bring with us to “the other side” as the only essential “treasures” when we leave this human lifespan.

Similarly, do you believe that we as humans have a natural birthright to do whatever we wish with the Earth’s waters, land, soil, animals, plants, trees, minerals and ecosystems? Are we allowed to act the way we please? Or do we have a moral plight and responsibility to pass on the Earth’s natural resources and ecosystems that we have inherited in the healthiest state possible to future generations? Are we responsible for carefully interacting with and protecting existing animal and plant species and their life conditions? Do some societies, companies and individuals have the right to make use of Nature’s resources at the expense of others? Should we respect human beings from other cultures and faraway places? Or, should we act in accordance with “the precautionary principle” in every situation, with true compassion, respect and care for all life forms and beings, both existing and future ones? Based on your beliefs about our roles and responsibilities as human beings on this Earth, you will have your own perspective on what we are entitled to do in relation to everyone else and everything around us.

In sum, it is now high time that we as global citizens start looking within to examine our core values, beliefs, emotional needs and priorities in life. Our inner world is, in fact, responsible for motivating both our good behavior AND our bad choices and actions. Once we start examining and identifying our dominant thought patterns and “emotional longings” can we begin to find the real root causes to today’s environmental and societal challenges. Only by understanding the beliefs, values, thoughts and emotions that drive our unsustainable modern lifestyles, can we find long-lasting solutions to our global problems. Thus, by shifting our minds and hearts towards greater care, compassion and respect for other living entities (including humans, animals, plants and ecosystems), can we begin to create truly sustainable, harmonious and flourishing societies.

Photo source: Unsplash.com

However, there are many challenges and uncertainties that need to be resolved before this concept can be approached as merely a thought-provoking idea that helps us understand our present fast fashion system and its challenges. Here follows a background to the concept.

Origin of the concept “ultra-fast fashion”

A year ago, a special afterwork event on sustainable fashion was held in Stockholm, Sweden. The event was arranged by Hybrid Talks and consisted of a panel debate with leading thinkers in the field of fast and slow fashion. In direct association to the debate, a more intimate side-conversation was held with some of the panelists, led by Ulf Skarin (Veckans Affärer) and Elin Frendberg (CEO of Swedish Fashion Council). One of the panelists was Professor Rebecca Earley (at University of Arts London), whose team has been leading the research on fast and slow fashion over the last decade, and more recently exploring different speeds of fashion, including “ultra-fast fashion”.

Below is an excerpt from the interview of CEO Elin Frendberg with Professor Rebecca Early. The interview was recorded in full length. It sheds important light on the concept of ultra-fast fashion, its origin and the main reasoning behind:

Elin Frendberg: “Speeking about different speeds in fashion, tell me what is that?”

Rebecca Early (see image): “Well we have all heard of fast fashion, right, and we may have heard about slow fashion as well. My team and I are really keen to understand what that really means. Because it doesn’t take sort of very much poking around and what you actually see is that people are consuming products that are made very, very quickly in traditional sort of manufacturing processes, and buying those garments with not very much money and not owning them for very long before they discard them. So this is going on all the time and this is fast fashion. But actually, quite often, those materials are going to be around for an awful long time. It may have taken long time to grow them if they are natural fibers, it may have taken years and years to create oil and polyester. So we have this problem where we are looking at fast fashion but we are actually using slow materials. Polyester is the one that hangs around an awful lot because it is basically a plastic. So, you know, if a fashion brand is bringing out something bright, colorful and shiny, and you are going to buy it that season, you may not want to wear it the next season. And so that polyester shirt could go into landfill. It might go into a secondhand shop. Eventually, it will go. If it goes in landfill, that is where it lasts two hundred years. And as it decomposes, as it rots, as it degrades, it will emit toxins into the soil and gases into the air and actually we are wasting a valuable resource.”

Elin Frendberg: “But how can ultra-fast fashion be sustainable?”

Rebecca Earley: “We think that there could be better materials to use for maybe a younger consumer that does want to change their identity more often than perhaps old ones like us. You know, but it is true, people sort of settle into a sense of style, they have the time to look after things, they have the money to buy beautiful quality maybe later on in life, and the younger generation, a lot of them, they just want to be out with their friends, looking different, feeling good, and that is where a lot of the fast consumers are. So, if we look at them and if we look at their needs, I think we need a whole different pallet of materials to feed that sector, ones that could be made compostable. Actually what about domestic recycling? What about putting clothing into your compost heap? What about having other loops or sort of charities and collaborative consumption models? What about keeping these products going in the right places? It is all about the materials going into the right place.”

Should “ultra-fast fashion” be made a reality?

As expressed in the interview with Rebecca Earley above, the original idea behind the concept “ultra-fast fashion” was not to promote speedier consumption of fashion products, but rather to question the choice of materials that are being used in today’s fast fashion industry. Thus, instead of surrendering to the idea that we need to feed certain consumers’ desire to consume faster, we focus on a very different set of questions.The relevant questions to ask are rather:

What are the actual drivers behind today’s fast fashion consumption? Whose needs are we actually serving by introducing ultra-fast fashion at large scale? Is it possible to find other more long-lasting solutions for sustainable and circular fashion consumption? Perhaps the clues can be found in the mindsets of today’s fashion consumers, specifically in their underlying beliefs. One such common belief is that “we must refresh our style and update our wardrobes in order to become approved of by our peers and by society”. Our basic human fear of not being accepted as we are, of rejection by others, and of exclusion from the group, is driving our behavior to try to fit in by adjusting our attitudes, behavior and looks to those of our peers and of society at large. Abandoning such fear-based beliefs and behaviors could become a key solution for achieving a healthy and sustainable symbiosis between humans, societies and the Earth.

Thus, if the reason for ultra-fast fashion is to serve our desire for the new, varied, and socially approved, we should instead go back to ourselves and ask more fundamental questions about self-perception, self-acceptance and self-love.

“Ultra-fast fashion” – a rapid way to consume resources

One of the main problems with ultra-fast fashion is that it is not adapted to the speeds of Nature. It takes time for trees to grow and become large enough for felling, and it takes time for cellulose material to decompose and become mulch. These time-dimensions also need to be considered in the equation. And even though the paper-like clothes are recycled into new paper-material, it would still take energy and other natural resources to fuel these recycling processes.

Any type of fashion cycle – whether ultra-fast, fast, slow or ultra-slow – requires the input of natural and human resources, in terms of water, energy, plant- or oil-based materials, minerals, labor and time. Most people would agree that we need our existing resources for more vital matters, such as feeding our growing populations, building secure housing, and developing vital infrastructure, particularly in the face of continued climate change and future unpredictability. Our ecosystems provide not only “goods” for us to harvest but also life-supporting functions, including climate regulation, oxygen production, erosion control, and biodiversity support.

Although ultra-fast fashion would consume significantly less resources than today’s typical fast fashion industry, still resources will be required. Just like any other “fast” fashion, ultra-fast fashion would be a rapid way to turn natural resources into “waste”, even if the inherent material eventually becomes mulch. Thus, instead of focusing our attention and resources on developing ultra-fast fashion, why not create broader support for “ultra-slow fashion” among today’s consumers?

“Ultra-fast fashion” – to promote a critical mindset

It would be my professional call to peers and the industry that the concept of ultra-fast fashion remains as it was originally intended, that is, a thought-provoking idea that raises questions about the materials being used in today’s fast fashion industry and what materials should ideally be used for any faster consumption still at work. Possibly, for the shorter term, it may be used as a temporary solution in the form of paper-like materials, being less resource demanding, less toxic and more degradable than today’s typical fast-fashion materials and thus better suited for fast overturn. Yet, over the long haul, our central concern should be to support and encourage a rapid transition to slower forms of fashion consumption using long-lasting materials, quality constructions, and more timeless or universal designs – in the face of heavily pressured natural resources and climate uncertainties.

Article written by Dr. Anna Brismar, CEO/Owner of Green Strategy. All photos sourced from Unsplash.com

What we once thought of as a socioeconomic system that would bring wealth and happiness to humanity, has today become a driver of environmental destruction, socioeconomic injustices, unforeseen financial risks, human diseases, impoverished health and increased stress. The ready-made society that we have created for ourselves on a global scale is no longer serving its desired purpose but rather contradicting it.

A ”ready-made society” here refers to a society in which consumer products (such as clothing, shoes, accessories, home textiles, furniture, IT-devices, home appliances and other consumables) are designed and manufactured – often in large volumes and similar varieties – based merely on trend forecasts, estimated sales and expected consumer behavior.

In a ready-made society, production is primarily driven by businesses’ urge to maximize sales, increase economic profits and grow market shares. Products are rarely designed and manufactured to meet any real need or specific demand by customers. Rather, businesses rely on effective PR-strategies to create and impose constructed demands for their pre-designed and pre-manufactured products, and customers have to adjust their preferences to what is already made available to them. Without any other option or a strong character, customers can easily fall for the temptation to buy the ready-made products (and more than needed), perhaps reasoning that ”they cannot influence what is already there but only buy what is presented to them”. In other words, the ready-made society creates an impression that consumers cannot be held responsible for an unsustainable act of buying the wrong or too much products, as they have not been involved in their creation at any point. What is not evident to most people however is that production was actually based on previous sales numbers and consumer behavior.

This ready-made society is essentially a result of the widespread industry strategy called ”planned obsolescence”, which has been dominating our modern industry since at least the 1950s. This strategy implies that products are designed and manufactured at the onset to become obsolete within only a short time span, typically due to broken parts (which were intentionally made to break easily), an impoverished functionality (intentionally made to be weak) or an out-dated style (intentionally made to be replaced by a new style). In this way, the industry is able to create an endless demand for new products as the previous ones break, become outdated or begin to function improperly. With this short-term profit-focused strategy, a global market of ready-made products is created and maintained. Companies today rely heavily on this inter-dependency between consumers and their market shares.

Yet the truth is, most people rarely need mass-produced and ready-made products, may it be clothes, home textiles or IT-devices. Especially in more developed countries, the need to fill our homes with additional pillows, glasses, appliances, table cloths, t-shirts, pants or accessories is no longer real. This may have been true in the 40’s or 50’s when our homes were not filled to the brim with ”stuff” and we still had some actual need for basic garments and household items. Today, in contrast, people long for the ”exclusive and special”, items that hold personal meaning and add value to life – things that we feel emotional bonds to, in terms of beauty, intrinsic values, history or special personal meaning.

Furthermore, we can no longer ignore the widespread adverse environmental impacts that modern society has caused, and still does, in terms of greenhouse emissions, changing climate, melting icecaps, polluted air quality, destroyed forests, impoverished marine and river ecosystems and reduced biodiversity in many parts of the world etc. More so, our modern society has also brought various adverse impacts on human health, particularly in urban and industrial areas of developing countries. Nearby and downstream of textile and garment factory sites and conventional cotton farming areas, for example, studies have shown increased frequencies of neurological diseases and various cancer forms due to the release of toxic chemicals and substances into the environment. Even in more developed areas, our ”modern” society has caused air pollution, degraded water quality, noise disturbances, higher stress-levels, and in some instances, increased prevalence of various cancer types and pulmonary diseases linked to lifestyle and/or the environment.

The time has come for our global manufacturing industries to transition from a ”ready-made production approach” to an ”on-demand production strategy”. (Dr. Anna Brismar)

We need to build industries that are meant to serve people’s and society’s actual needs and specific demands to meet also the long-term and higher good of society, as opposed to meet constructed desires of consumers underpinned by short-term economic interests of the companies. The new ”on-demand strategy” is likely to be the missing piece-in-the-puzzle of a wider global sustainability strategy that will help to create a society in which humanity can live in harmony with Nature, and in which the true needs of people and societies are ethically, fairly and responsibly met.

In sum, we need to develop a society in which humans can live in harmony with Nature. This will require stepping away from our ”ready-made” modern society dominated by ”planned obsolescence”. Instead we need to create a society where industries center on ”on-demand production” (such as made-to-order, custom made etc.). Our Earth can no longer support industries that manufacture ready-made products based on estimated, constructed and make-believe desires. Our natural resources are dwindling and heavily affected by pollution and over-extraction. In order to enable a sustainable lifestyle, we must focus our natural resources on meeting the actual needs and individual demands of people within reasonable limits and in fair distribution. Hereby we can prevent further waste generation, environmental destruction and socioeconomic injustices.

Photo sources: Unsplash.com

In an interview in The Guardian in early 2015, H&M’s CEO Karl-Johan Persson expressed that if we stop buying things that we do not need, it will lead to an economic and social catastrophe. Specifically, he stated that:

..if we [people] were to decrease 10% to 20% of everything we don’t need, the result on the social and economic side would be catastrophic, including a lot of lost jobs and poverty. (The Guardian, 2015)

It is a common perception among conventional economists that the world’s economies, especially in developing regions, depend on continuous material consumption and production in order to keep societies and their markets alive and growing. Thus, instead of decreasing the production and consumption of goods, CEO Karl-Johan Persson places his hope in innovation: “So the challenge is doing it in a way where you still can have economic growth and jobs creation, while finding the innovations that can limit the damage to the environment”. The greatest opportunity, he continues, lies in the circular economy, which enables companies to move away from the current linear system of produce, use and throw away. This is where H&M’s investments in global take-back schemes and textile recycling come in, which are indeed important parts of the equation.

Undoubtedly, the circular economy is bringing a surge of much-needed innovations, new modes of production and new patterns of consumption, including take-back schemes and material recycling. However, in a circular society, consumption relies primarily on the provision of services and not goods. Producing more material goods is not the main answer given by the circular economy but quite the opposite. Instead the circular economy advocates careful, resource-effective, long-lasting and repeated use of existing products and components on the market. This is articulated in the following well-known report published by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013):

Such an economy is based on few simple principles. First, at its core, a circular economy aims to ‘design out’ waste. Waste does not exist—products are designed and optimised for a cycle of disassembly and reuse. These tight component and product cycles define the circular economy and set it apart from disposal and even recycling where large amounts of embedded energy and labour are lost. “ — “The tighter the circle, i.e., the less a product has to be changed in reuse, refurbishment and remanufacturing and the faster it returns to use, the higher the potential savings on the shares of material, labour, energy, and capital embedded in the product and on the associated rucksack of externalities (such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, water, toxicity). (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013, p. 8)

In other words, products shall be designed and manufactured for high durability, longevity and functionality as well as easy maintenance, repair and remanufacturing, in order to enable maximum use and reuse in society – with the last stage being material recycling (before composting or even incineration). The circular economy thus depends on cross-sector collaborations and business-to-business partnerships to enable effective logistics for leasing, secondhand, repair, remanufacturing and other forms of sharing and life-extension services. Service provision is a central part of the circular economy, as expressed in the following sentences:

Unlike in today’s ‘buy-and-consume’ economy, durable products are leased, rented, or shared wherever possible. If they are sold, there are incentives or agreements in place to ensure the return and thereafter the reuse of the product or its components and materials at the end of its period of primary use. (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013, p. 8)

In other words, a key feature of a circular economy is the design of durable products that can be reused and “shared” by many users, as illustrated by the inner circles (See Figure 1 below). Innovations in the field of textile recycling are thus only one aspect along a spectrum of innovations and new strategies that will be needed to develop a more circular fashion industry. At another side of the spectrum lie design practices and production processes that enable more extensive use of biodegradable materials, non-toxic substances, renewable energy, as well as effective use of water and other resources, preferably in closed loops. In a circular fashion industry, fabric recycling belongs to the last stage of a garment’s lifecycle, as illustrated by the outer circle (see Figure 1).

Over the last decades, many scientists have argued, that if we continue to buy the things we do not need, it will result in a global environmental disaster. This is also a fundamental recognition on which the notion of a circular economy resides. We have already seen too much evidence of what our predominantly linear society leads to, in terms of melting ice caps, more dramatic weather patterns, heavily congested air in cities, polluted rivers, depleted lakes, plastic waste in the ocean, diminishing rain forests, extinguished species, etc. around the world. The environmental consequences of our “take, make, dispose ” system will not only have harmful consequences for people and societies that live in or near affected areas, but also for people, societies and companies that live off these resources, including consumers and fashion companies in Europe and North America. Producing more of the same and then recycling the material is not the best answer, as it will still require energy, labor, water, other material and capital to uphold such processes and surrounding logistics (even if the processes operate in closed systems). Instead, we need to carefully manage all natural and human resources that we have on Earth. Businesses based on material production and consumption will not be able to grow indefinitely without a very high cost for humanity. As Professor Johan Rockström and an international team of 28 scientists pointed out in 2009, there are planetary limits to growth:

The exponential growth of human activities is raising concern that further pressure on the Earth System could destabilize critical biophysical systems and trigger abrupt or irreversible environmental changes that would be deleterious or even catastrophic for human well-being. This is a profound dilemma because the predominant paradigm of social and economic development remains largely oblivious to the risk of human-induced environmental disasters at continental to planetary scales…” — “Planetary boundaries define, as it were, the boundaries of the “planetary playing field” for humanity if we want to be sure of avoiding major human-induced environmental change on a global scale.“ (Rockström et al, 2009)

In conclusion, an ambition to limit our environmental damage will unfortunately not be enough to avoid catastrophic environmental events. Our industries need to drastically change the predominant business model of “take, make, dispose”. We need to shift from manufacturing good-enough products in large volumes with fast turnover that are sold and hopefully recycled, to instead creating long-lasting products in on-demand volumes that will be cared for, used actively over long periods of time, shared by many users, with components recycled for new uses, and with material recycling being the last option before composting or incineration. This could summarize the basic logic on which future investments should ideally rest.

As some final words, this article is by no means a critique of H&M’s or any other company’s work and ambitions in the field of sustainability and circularity. Instead, it is an attempt to take a critical view on conventional economics’ approach to growth in light of the circular economy and planetary boundary paradigms.

(Photo at the top by Hannah Morgan via Unsplash.com)

This article was originally written for Make it last (June 23, 2015).

Make it last: A century ago, the fashion industry aimed to produce quality goods that lasted a lifetime. For at least half a century now, the mainstream fashion industry has intentionally produced goods of poorer quality to encourage continuous consumption. Do you see any shifts in attitudes today among the larger fashion brands and retailers in “moving away” from this business strategy?

Anna Brismar: The business strategy that has dominated our manufacturing industry for more almost a century now is called “planned obsolescence”. In essence, it means that a company deliberately designs and manufactures products with shortened lifespans, by making them either worn out, broken, non-functional or unfashionable sooner than necessary (source). Or as explained by The Economist:

Planned obsolescence is a business strategy in which the obsolescence (the process of becoming obsolete—that is, unfashionable or no longer usable) of a product is planned and built into it from its conception. This is done so that in future the consumer feels a need to purchase new products and services that the manufacturer brings out as replacements for the old ones. (The Economist, 2009)

The expression “planned obsolescence” was first used in the mid-1920s by critics who questioned the new business proposal of Alfred P. Sloan, then head of General Motors. In order to increase sales, Sloan proposed that the company should change car model design annually to encourage car owners to buy a new car every year (source). In the 1930s, Bernard London wrote the pamphlet “Ending the depression through planned obsolescence” in which he advised the U.S. government to legalize planned obsolescence for consumer articles at large scale, in order to stimulate manufacturing, consumption, employment, and national economic growth. London’s advice had a great impact on the American industry.

Since the 1950s, the strategy of planned obsolescence has played a fundamental role in our modern society, also for the apparel industry. In particular, fast fashion chains and large retailers act upon this strategy to encourage customers to shop frequently, so as to spur revenues. By changing fashion styles often and rather drastically, consumers are encouraged to buy new items although their existing wardrobe may work perfectly. In other words, what is “high trend” today will soon be yesterday’s news. For example, this season’s rounded shoes will be replaced by pointed toes next year, long wide skirts will be outdated by short and tight skirts, and slim dark jeans will be surpassed by light blue and flared. Consumers acting upon such trend variations (by updating to the latest trends) will indirectly contribute to a society built on planned obsolescence.

Perhaps the “worst case” of planned obsolescence is the situation where a producer deliberately designs and manufactures a product so that it will break easily or after only a few uses, either by making one or more components weaker than necessary or by programming a shortened lifespan into the product (for example in electronic software). Either the broken part will need to be replaced, which may be costly, or the consumer is encouraged to buy a new or similar item. A classic example is how easily the screen of an iPhone breaks and how the cost of replacing the glass is almost one fifth of the price for a new phone (i.e. 1300 SEK for repair and 7500 SEK (for a new iPhone 6). According to some journalists, “planned obsolescence has been part of how Apple, and just about every other PC maker, has operated since time immemorial.” (See a video test comparing iPhone’s and Samsung’s screen breakability!)

Similarly, as for clothes, most of us have experienced how the new t-shirt quickly wears out as the fabric catches small holes and becomes asymmetrical in shape. A typical reason for this early quality degradation is a thinner and more delicate fabric and poor pattern-fabric matching. As for shirts and blouses, side seams that used to be double are today single, while buttons that used to be carefully stitched now easily fall off. When the garment break in the fabric, it is often difficult to restore its original look, while broken seams or lost buttons can more easily be fixed. Yet, many consumers would rather buy a new blouse than go through “the hassle” of fixing its seams or buttons (this, regardless of the fact that sewing a button takes about 10 minutes, while going out shopping probably takes a lot longer).

Although it may be understandable that companies wish to encourage customers to buy more and frequently (to uphold company revenues), this business strategy causes severe impacts on the environment, particularly in production countries like China, India, Bangladesh and Indonesia. Our modern fashion industry is in fact responsible for an alarming over-consumption of clothes, shoes and accessories, which also leads to huge amounts of fashion items being incinerated or dumped into landfills every year. In Sweden, the population consumed almost 132 000 tons of clothing and home textiles in one year (in 2008), of which an estimated 70 000 ton were thrown into the household bin and subsequently incinerated. In the UK, incineration of garments is not legalized (other than as household waste); instead, around 350 000 tons of unwanted clothes are sent to landfill every year (source). Meanwhile, the industry continues to manufacture new products. Thus, as we speak, large flows of raw oil are extracted to produce polyester clothes, huge amounts of water are diverted (from rivers, lakes and below ground) to irrigate cotton land, and substantial amounts of water, dyeing agents and potentially harmful chemicals are used to wash, dye, and treat fabrics and yarns, as part of the supply chain. The global fashion industry of today is clearly not sustainable.

Fortunately, the concept “circular economy” is changing the agenda worldwide. With the adoption of new circular business strategies, the fashion industry seems to be entering a new era of design and operation. Some large fashion companies now begin to rethink their business models and adjust their design practices to enhance product life expectancy. Weaker parts of a product are targeted in order to strengthen overall quality and to facilitate repair. Yet, few companies today would probably consider producing more long lasting styles (that is, lasting more than a few seasons) to discourage unmotivated shopping.

In sum, “planned obsolescence” as a business strategy is today being questioned, much thanks to the notion of circular economy. (An EU institution even called for a total ban on planned obsolescence in 2013.) Yet, while some fashion companies are now prepared to upgrade their product quality and reparability to create products that will last in durability, making products that will also last in style for more than a few seasons seems to be a far greater challenge. (For more, watch the film The Light Bulb Conspiracy!)

This article was originally written and published for Make it last on June 23 (2015). Republished here with permission.

Make it last: Fashion companies are beginning to explore new business models and customer services, such as rent and repair. How do you think such services can benefit the company apart from increasing its sustainability performance?

Anna Brismar: As you mention, the obvious advantage of launching new services, such as second hand, rent or repair, is an increased sustainability performance and brand value of the company. In addition, these services will also contribute to a more sustainable fashion industry a large, by making clothes and other products circulate longer in society before being incinerated, sent to landfill, or downcycled through industrial recycling. For example, selling clothes secondhand in-store helps to extend their lifetime by letting new customers make use of them. Likewise, letting customers rent a fashion piece as opposed to buying it may bring higher usage to the item than if it stayed with the same owner for lifetime. According to Uniforms of the Dedicated, leasing also makes economic sense, bringing increased revenues to certain pieces as opposed to selling them. Repair is yet another service that has found its way into the fashion world, not only among jeans brands (Nudie Jeans and Levi Strauss) but also among other forward-thinking companies (such as Houdini and Filippa K). Repair services not only help to increase product longevity but can also strengthen the emotional bond to a product, making its owner hold on to it even when it goes out of fashion or looks worn down.

In other words, apart from being good for the planet and adding “sustainability creds” to the company, the general idea behind additional services such as rent and repair is to maximize the number of occasions that each item is used over its lifetime. Simply put, an item can be either maximally used by the same owner during its lifetime (through repair) or it can be used by a maximum number of different users (through rent or second hand).

Yet, there are also additional positive side-effects of these services, on which a company could (and should!) benefit intentionally and strategically. Some of the most interesting questions and valuable input generated by these services are:

• For Second hand: What special products are often returned as secondhand from the own brand? What do customers have to say about these items? What did they like and not like about them? Anything with the design, fabric, pattern, or fit that was particularly appreciated or not desirable? What clothes seem to last longer in terms of style or material durability? What clothes are returned only after a short time or few uses? What products are reluctantly handed in after many dear uses? Are there any popular secondhand items often asked for by secondhand shoppers? All these questions bring valuable feedback to the company in terms of how to create new collections – considering style, design, fabric, pattern and fit – in order to increase customer satisfaction and minimize unsold stocks.
• For Rent: What products are most often asked for within the leasing range? What do customers have to say about their user experiences? Anything that customers would like to alter in terms of design, fabric or fit for specific pieces being leased? Such questions could generate useful information as to what types of products are more popular and suitable for leasing, for example outerwear as opposed to innerwear. Also, for certain pieces such as evening dresses, what styles are more popular than others? Leasing can also provide good opportunities for salespersons to engage in dialogues with the customers about washing and caring practices. This in turn could generate ideas on how to improve care labels (washing instructions) and tags.
• For Repair: What items are most often handed in for repair? Why specifically do they need repair? For example did they break because of frequent wear, poor seams, sensitive fabric, or too tight fit? Does the zipper break easily? Do buttons easily fall off? For trousers and jeans, can the original seams around the knees be modified to facilitate repair? All such questions bring information that could help improve product durability by adjusting the original design, sourcing or tailoring practices.

In conclusion, providing new services such as secondhand, rent and repair will not only strengthen the sustainability performance of the company and help to improve overall sustainability of the fashion industry, but also provide valuable information for the company. If customers’ ideas, suggestions, and experiences are carefully tapped, systematically analyzed and effectively forwarded to the right teams within the company, this information could both reduce unnecessary costs and increase revenues in the short and long term.

This article was originally written and published for Make it last on April 10 (2015). Republished here with permission.

Make it last: Fashion can be both about following new trends and finding your own personal style. How do you think sustainability and fashion can be combined in this perspective?

Anna Brismar: Fashion consumers are becoming increasingly aware of the serious sustainability challenges facing today’s fashion industry, in terms of various environmental, social and ethical issues needing to be addressed on a global level. Yet, fashion consumers also seem to get keener to developing their own personal styles, and this latter trend actually rhymes with the development of more sustainable wardrobes. The reason hereof is that fashion consumers are beginning to see the various benefits of mixing different sources of fashion pieces; but such different sources of fashion may also constitute different forms of more sustainable fashion! (See image here.)

More specifically, fashion consumes are starting to blend and combine various fashion sources. For example, new eco-friendly garments (”Green & Clean”) are paired with second hand or vintage pieces, and rented or borrowed pieces (”Rent, Loan & Swap”) are matched with tailored or self-made items (”On demand or DIY”). To mend and redesign one’s favorite clothes has also become a more common phenomenon, representing another type of sustainability strategy (referred to by Green Strategy as “Remake, Repair & Upcycle”). On top of this, the concern for ethical issues within the fashion industry has also intensified over the last years.

Poor working conditions, low factory wages and violations of animal rights have been quite extensively debated in media, especially since the large factory accident at Rana Plaza in Bangladesh in April 2013, and now re-actualized through the Norwegian television series (Sweatshop – Deadly Fashion) about three young fashion enthusiasts who went to Cambodia to experience the actual working conditions in sweatshops first hand. To buy clothes made in an ethically responsible way now seems obvious to most people (referred to as ”Fair & Ethical”), although lack of transparency in supply chains remains a major obstacle.

For most fashion companies, certain sustainability strategies tend to be in greater focus than others. For example at Filippa K, “sustainability” has always been synonymous with long lasting fashion in both design and quality (referred to as ”High Quality & Timeless Design”). Nudie Jeans, on the other hand, has taken ”Repair” services to its heart. Houdini Sportswear has been using recycled polyester materials and offering ski outfits for rent for quite some time, while DEM Collective has embraced the concept of ”Green & Clean” since its start.

Perhaps in response to the growing interest in circular economy worldwide, forward-oriented fashion companies in Sweden are now opening up to new business models and sustainability strategies, including new customer services. For example, Filippa K now works towards a more circular business model, and as part of this effort, they recently launched a new rental service, a take-back scheme, and also presented their “Front Runners” collection, which consists of three pieces made of 100% renewable and natural Tencel fiber. Three new strategies of Filippa K towards more sustainable fashion!

Thus, while some fashion companies may still be hesitant to exploring new forms of sustainable fashion, consumers have every opportunity to test and embrace additional if not all seven forms! Thus, for your daily wear, you can quite easily pick a home-knitted scarf, a secondhand outerwear, a tailored blazer, a rented pair of pants, an environmentally friendly shirt (of organic cotton, Tencel or other more sustainable fiber), a pair of tights in recyclable Nylon, a borrowed pair of shoes, ethically made jewelry, and a timeless high quality bag. Mixing clothing, shoes and accessories in this way will probably be the most common way to build a more personal as well as sustainable wardrobe.

Approaching “sustainable fashion” simply as a wardrobe full of organic cotton or recycled polyester is no longer the case. Rather, a more sustainable wardrobe means developing your personal style and mixing your carefully selected favorites, may they be rented, borrowed, secondhand, vintage, remade, DIY, tailored, custom-made, ethically made, locally made, high quality, timeless, and/or environmentally manufactured. Mixing pieces in a responsible way and according to your own personal taste and style is now the way to go!

This article was written by Anna Brismar and originally published by Make it last on February 13, 2015. Republished here with permission.

(Photo at the top from Unsplash.com)

Make it last: In your opinion, what issues are often neglected in today’s debate on fashion and sustainability?

Anna Brismar: One issue that is rarely discussed is the need to reduce today’s enormous annual production volumes of new clothes, shoes and accessories by the fashion industry on the global market. This is especially true for the production of fast fashion items aimed to serve the demands of industrialized countries. The present production rate of fast fashion – often of lower quality and short-lived design – is by no means sustainable. This is evident when we learn about the various harmful environmental impacts throughout the production chains, the poor working conditions in most fast fashion garment factories (mainly located in Asia), and the vast amounts of clothes, shoes and accessories that end up in landfills or are incinerated every year. It is also apparent when we study statistics of annual consumption rates by European countries over the last two decades. In Sweden, for example, we have increased our annual consumption level of textiles by 40 percent, from 2000 to 2009. In Great Britain, the volume of sold clothing has increased by 60 percent between 1995 and 2005.

The continuous increase in fashion consumption per capita in industrialized countries is hardly generated by an increase in people’s basic needs for more clothes etc., nor can it be fully explained by a growing world population, or by a growing middle-class segment. Rather, it is an incautious shopping behavior primarily driven by psychological and sociocultural factors. Various studies have shown that we tend to buy new clothes for various non-functional reasons, for example to express a cultural belonging, to get momentary satisfaction by finding a new trendy piece or shopping at a good price deal, or we shop to cure an emotional unease or even spiritual void. Today, shopping is rarely about filling an actual gap in the personal wardrobe of a “necessary” functional piece, such as a new pair of running shoes (if the old ones are worn out) or a new winter jacket (if the old one is too small or torn).

But, how do fast fashion companies address this trend of increased fashion consumption per capita? Are companies actively looking for ways to promote a more conscious and healthy shopping behavior? Are they starting to question their present production levels and their ambition to “grow” in volumes to meet stockholders’ demand for profit and consumers’ demand for fashion news? Are fast fashion companies today considering the possibility to actually reduce their annual production volumes and finding other means of upholding revenues? Unfortunately, there is still little evidence pointing in this direction. (Yet, new circular business models provide promising possibilities and a number of “more conscious” fashion brands are already working along these lines.)

To add to the case, “the need to close the loop on textiles” has become a common statement among large fashion chains in Sweden in recent years, primarily by H&M. Only in the last year, several Swedish chains have followed the example of H&M and launched their own textile collection initiatives (such as Hemtex, KappAhl and Gina Tricot). H&M are also investing big money in new fiber recycling technologies, primarily as a means to secure their supplies of raw material (textile fibers) for future production. Yet, circularity and sustainability in fashion is not only about creating closed loops of textiles (through reuse, redesign and recycling). Also, it is about addressing the key question “How can we do more with less?”. Only working to promote closed loops will not bring sustainability in the fashion industry. Production rates or volumes, as well as the contents, purpose and beneficiaries of the fashion flows, will have to be considered too. In essence, a more sustainable fashion industry means making wise, careful, efficient and purposeful use of our limited natural resources on a global level, as well as preventing, mitigating or reducing any adverse impacts on the environment (and creating fair and ethical working conditions).

In sum, fast-fashion companies need to start seriously questioning their present production rates and instead begin to explore new ways of making profitable business that do not rely on high/increased production rates (which require high natural resources input). Business models that offer custom-made, locally made, long-lasting and high quality fashion, as well as more sustainable fiber alternatives and toxic-free production, will have to lead the way and become the industry norm in the future. Offering a selective, high quality and more sustainable range of fashion products would also serve the demands of an increasingly conscious middle and upper class worldwide.

This article was originally written and published for Make it last on December 15 (2014). Republished here with permission.