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: 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.