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

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.