Thoughts on Topic 2 – Sustainability and Consumer Society
- Michael O'Connor
- Oct 29, 2020
- 5 min read
Updated: Dec 20, 2020
DESCRIBE
The notion of new ethical brands cropping up to produce and sell sustainable clothing is something of an oxymoron – it’s widely recognised that there is no need to make more clothing and thus, thinly-veiled green claims are often construed merely as ways for brands to try sell more products, a sort of pseudo-environmentalism informed by changing trends and consumer behaviour. Cash-grab capitalism is transparent and does not resonate with conscious consumers in 2020.
You can’t get away from #Sustainability in 2020. We have Greta Thunberg. Extinction Rebellion. The Sustainable Apparel Initiative rating brands on the Higg Index. The Copenhagen Fashion Sustainability Summit. John Elkington revising his Triple Bottom Line of people, planet, profit to prioritise the planet! Documentaries like the True Cost exposing the fashion industry. New sustainable fabrics like Pinatex (Pineapple leather!) on the market. The rise of resale, and clothing rentals via the likes of Depop, The RealReal and RentTheRunway. Circularity. The developments in this space are endless!
INTERPRET
However, while brand’s sustainability endeavours are routinely ridiculed and dissected online, you can’t help but think that the brands who remain silent on these matters, electing not to enter the conversation at all, are getting off scot-free. Take the Irish brand, Dunnes Stores, for example, there is no mention of the word ‘sustainability’ across their entire website. Nor is there any reference to where they source their fabrics or where their garments are produced. This is unbelievable in the context of fashion’s current fixation on all-things sustainability! When you compare them to the Swedish outfit H&M, albeit a brand that’s continuously been called-out for ‘greenwashing,’ you have to think that Dunnes’ strategic decision, to opt out of this debate was wise but must also be a ticking timebomb.
H&M have cause to feel a little hard done by in terms of their public perception. They have made forays into sustainable fashion, launching a ‘conscious’ collection that accounts for a miniscule percentage of the fast fashion retailer’s output of predominantly unethical clothing.
Is it better to do something, even if that’s labelled as tokenism, or to do nothing at all? A self-imposed, pursuit of perfection-or-nothing is unrealistic and a barrier to progress. The black-and-white view that you are either doing something right or wrong, fails to consider the nuances, can prevent development and inhibit brands from taking the necessary steps to grow and commit to a path of improvement. Fashion, by design, does not align with sustainability. Although, surely the more that brands can evolve and innovate to do better, the more positive the industry’s environmental impact will be? Net-gains and incremental improvements are more realistic than an overhaul of the industry at-large so should they not be celebrated as they still serve as a (carbon) footprint in the right direction?
EVALUATE
Becoming too bogged down in sustainability removes the ‘je ne sais quoi’ from fashion. It’s all very serious. Our Legacy’s ‘Workshop, their upcycling project, demonstrates how sustainability can be fun. This wildly popular experimental niche for the brand utilises years of residual fabrics and off-cuts to create new garments. Workshop simultaneously generates excitement through producing more experimental, once-off pieces while providing a circular solution so that the excess material that brands are often stuck with, due to minimum order quantities, is not left unused. Workshop designs tend to be a bit more avant-garde than Our Legacy’s core collections. The designers can have fun with the garments, reworking designs or testing new processes, a sort of R&D for the brand, that can then be sold. Workshop satisfies customers appetite for new, fashionable products. It achieves this in a palatably sustainable way, repositioning sustainability as a cool concept, which is not at odds with the ideals of conscious consumers.
Another interesting take on sustainability comes in the shape of US designer Reese Cooper’s DIY series. In response to cancelled ordered due to the pandemic, the young designer was left with a surplus of raw materials so created $98 home craft kits. Included is the pattern for his quintessential chore jacket with pre-cut fabric, an instructional manual, customisable patches and essential tools. The buyer just needs a sewing machine. The DIY box contains an email address for people to send back their creations, promoting a community feel between brand and consumer and concurrently involving the consumer in the production process. Reese Cooper jackets generally retail for upwards of $600 in store so this circular project for recycling excess materials also manages to democratise his designs for a larger audience. In this case, consumers respond well to transparency.
PLAN
The caveat here, though, is that Our Legacy and Reese Cooper are smaller independent labels at a restrictively high price point for most. The costs associated with their implementation of sustainable measures can be embedded in their sale price which their loyal customers will be willing to pay. Perhaps this lends itself to their sustainable offerings being received so well. They don’t target the mass market like H&M or Dunnes. The real challenge lies with the high street. While cancel culture can keep us in check, it also frequently tears down brands attempting to move in the right direction which doesn’t feel constructive. As always, it’s not black or white, we exist in the grey, so a healthy dose of cynicism that doesn’t spill over to militant opposition, to brand’s imperfect attempts to do better, may be what’s needed.
How might the public respond to a major brand if they owned up to overordering for a season? Is the reluctance from the brands to be transparent influenced by a perceived inevitable backlash? This seems likely because at present, those who express honourable intentions attract scathing critiques, a sort of trial by Twitter. Should owning up to your mistakes not elicit a more positive public response? We find ourselves in a less-than-ideal space, rife with cynicism, where some brands can knowingly do the minimum, consciously staying tight-lipped, while others are lambasted for their attempts. This approach will not lead to industry change. Should brands under-promise and over deliver to avoid criticism? Maybe a more human approach of managing expectations and not proclaiming themselves as the saviours of sustainability is what’s required? It’s a tricky one. Intention is imperative. Of course, brands need to do better and policy needs to change to accelerate this, but maybe the audience needs to do better too. I believe this can be a catalyst for change.
Reading/Media References
Bain, M. (2016). Is H&M misleading customers with all its talk of sustainability?. Retrieved 18 December 2020, from https://qz.com/662031/is-hm-misleading-customers-with-all-its-talk-of-sustainability/
Jenkins, M. (2015). Millennials want to work for employers committed to values and ethics. Retrieved 18 December 2020, from https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/may/05/millennials-employment-employers-values-ethics-jobs
John Elkington, ‘Keynote Speech on the Future of Business,’ B Corp Summit 2019
Topic Two pre-recorded lectures
Comments