A Double-Edged Sword: The Paradoxes of Fast Fashion
By Emma Wardell
May 6, 2021
What was the price of your clothing? Not in terms of money, but in impacts? What resources were spent allowing you to wear that shirt today? As a whole, the fashion industry stands as one of the world’s largest polluters, second only to the oil industry. This impact is cultivated through the “fast fashion” aspect of the industry, creating the bulk of circulated clothing items and, odds are, what you’re wearing right now. An incredibly harmful, wasteful, and unethical source of apparel, fast fashion is defined as “cheap, trendy clothing, that samples ideas from the catwalk or celebrity stores at breakneck speed to meet consumer demand.” This rapid mass-production of clothing pilfers the newest styles from the runways to the streets as quickly as possible, repeating the cycle ad nauseam. As new trends hit the racks, old trends are thrown out, literally. Barely-worn or used clothing is dumped into secondhand stores, filling the pockets of shop owners who profit off thoughtless trends while offering a new avenue that fulfills the socially constructed desires of the consumer. Utilizing tactics such as greenwashing, this industry has polluted our minds just as much as our wallets. We are led to believe that the clothes in our closets are never satisfying enough and are constantly tempted by online stores available to us anytime, anywhere, and in the comfort of our own homes.
On the other side of the coin stand those who rely on secondhand stores as a means of necessity. Increased access to “thrifting” through online social media platforms has helped bring secondhand fashion to the forefront of our commercialized culture. However, the rise and development of online thrift stores such as Depop, Poshmark, and ThredUp have caused secondhand items to fly off the racks just to be re-sold online. This typically comes at a higher, up-charged price, with significant socioeconomic consequences for communities who may have previously relied on secondhand options for all of their clothing needs out of economic necessity. Low-income consumers who first relied on the concept of thrifting for practical means are being left out. These parallel issues—the fast fashion industry and the resulting commercialization of the thrifting industry—have profound implications. Examining the root of these issues is critical to understand how to mitigate their harmful consequences.
What do Urban Outfitters, H&M, and Forever 21 have in common? Each of them is a fast-fashion enterprise brought to the limelight of the industry due to the flourishing of online shopping. However, to truly understand how the industry reached its current peak, we must first understand how it arose in the first place. Preceding the fashion industry’s industrialization, the fabrication and mending of clothing were tasks reserved for lower-class citizens. Even for the wealthy, fashion consumption was limited to a once-per-year wardrobe restock that valued quality over quantity. Following the invention of new technologies, such as the spinning jenny, the sewing machine, and a standard sizing system, the mass-production of ready-made clothing became easier and cheaper. Prior to the mid-twentieth century, the production of new styles occurred four times per year, coinciding with each season. Today, the industry produces about 52 “micro-seasons” per year—virtually one new collection, or trend, per week.
Low-cost fashion reached its stride in the mid-twentieth century when the fashion industry saw the development of “trend replication” and “rapid production” as means to bring inexpensive styles to the public. The invention of trend replication allows corporations to design elements from couture fashion and rapidly produce them quickly and cheaply. It became customary for stores to hold massive supply stocks at any given time, limiting concerns of running out of items. Increased production has swept across the fashion industry as a whole, raising concerns for environmental and social activists, and involving perhaps more unsuspecting brands, such as Vans and The North Face. According to Fast Company, this “culture of overconsumption” is perpetuated by the countless apparel companies within the industry that produce more than 50 million tons of clothes annually. At its current growth rate, the industry “is expected to reach 160 million tons by 2050”. The increase in production coupled with the evolution of “micro-seasons” invariably generates waste. Clothing is thrown out as quickly as it is consumed, overflowing landfills and secondhand stores.
As a response to fast fashion’s textile waste in the late 1800s, the thrift store industry developed as a more sustainable, less costly alternative to the growing and wasteful fashion empire. Throughout the early 1900s, secondhand clothing stores persevered against rising concerns about hygiene and racial stigmas. By the 1920s, thrift stores were well established, supported by the rising immigrant populations and aid from Christian charity organizations, such as the Salvation Army, which helped destigmatize secondhand shopping. Since then, thrift stores have amassed stability within American society, growing in popularity with emerging clothing trends. Despite what both fashion brands and the media sell you, the most sustainable choice you can make is to wear clothes that already exist. However, the thrifting industry can be very nuanced, especially within the “re-commerce” market of secondhand clothing.
Online thrift stores have reshaped thrift shopping by creating a capitalistic, new industry that profits off of older and worn apparel, making the clothing “new” once again in the eyes of the consumer. The assumption that cheap, pre-existing clothing equals sustainability has become a popular belief. Although buying secondhand is generally more sustainable than buying new, over-produced clothing, the issue of overconsumption is still prevalent.
Primarily driven by Millennials and Generation Z, this “re-commerce” market is booming. Currently valued at about $24 billion, its projected worth is $51 billion by 2023. The sustainable re-commerce market is fueled by younger consumers who gain more buying power while becoming more passionate about pushing the fashion industry in a sustainable direction. These consumer pressures on brands have manifested in the development of sustainable fashion brands, such as Chnge and Afends. These companies strive to treat their workers ethically, minimize water and resource consumption, and reduce their overall environmental impacts by using less toxic production methods and more sustainable recycled materials, such as hemp and organic cotton. Unfortunately, these ethical and sustainable methods tend to be more expensive to both the producer and the consumer.
Because of this, many environmentally-conscious consumers turn to thrift stores in order to shop sustainably without breaking the bank. But they rarely realize that this leads to the overconsumption of secondhand clothing, transforming the industry into a money-making enterprise of its own. The development of online thrift stores, false advertising, and up-charging is becoming a significant issue. Although it is crucial to keep all of this in mind, it is also necessary to remember that the problem here is not thrifting; it is the overconsumption of thrifted items. As I mentioned earlier, this overconsumption creates accessibility issues for marginalized communities.
Megan McSherry is a sustainability activist and conscious consumer who shares her thoughts and advice on various platforms, such as Instagram and Tik Tok (@acteevism), along with her blog, Tunes and Tunics. In an interview with McSherry, she addressed how this perceived inaccessibility proves to be laden with falsehoods. How sustainability is marketed to the masses paints “sustainable living” in an unattainable and expensive light. While there are definitely aspects of sustainability that are costly and elusive, that issue has more to do with the marketing of “sustainable living” and “sustainable fashion” than with the actual reality of sustainability.
Speaking to the issue of accessibility and the involvement of more people with sustainable fashion practices, McSherry states, “I think over the past few years especially, as sustainability has grown in popularity on social media, it’s become this very ‘purchase-focused’ aesthetic kind of thing.” Despite its convenience for connection and communication, social media, especially over this past tumultuous and unprecedented year, can easily oversaturate the mind with information and ideas. Specifically, it can be problematic in its “purchase-focused” approach to the everyday human and consumer, who subsequently is made to feel as though there is always something to buy into. However, from McSherry’s perspective, “sustainability is about using what you already have”.
In this day and age, deciphering what to believe can be difficult. Distinguishing a fashion brand that is greenwashing from a fashion brand that truly is “green” is key. Brands such as Uniqlo, H&M, and Lululemon are all guilty of using this marketing tactic to salvage their environmental reputations as consumers are becoming increasingly aware of the industry’s overall impact on the planet. Sustainability can actually be quite accessible. It’s something that numerous marginalized groups have historically practiced because it saves money, and they look at things as reusable, even when it’s not marketed to be.
Amidst the fashion industry’s trend cycle, it is often easy and automatic to create snap judgments about why someone is able or unable to shop sustainably. The individual struggles people may carry are often invisible, and therefore it’s important to keep this in mind when approaching the “sustainable fashion” conversation. In this same vein, living with a chronic illness impacts the many trials and tribulations of a person’s life—the ability to dress sustainably being one. Personally, I live life as a Type 1 Diabetic and will never be able to live a plastic-free, zero-waste life—that is, of course, unless the big corporations that produce my life-sustaining medical supplies allow me to.
In order to develop sustainable fashion into an industry that is truly comprehensive and inclusive, we must reimagine the narrative of sustainability and move away from the idea that it is something to buy into. We must return it to its original definition: using what has been made available to you for as long as possible. Many groups are excluded from the sustainability movement because of dominant “white environmentalism” or purchase-focused narratives. More people must be included and involved in this conversation, specifically indigenous peoples who are the true sustainability trailblazers, acting as stewards of the earth.
Collective action is an important tool in reforming the fashion industry. Zero-waste chef Anne-Marie Bonneau said it best: “we don’t need a handful of people doing zero-waste perfectly. We need millions of people doing it imperfectly.” The path to a more sustainable fashion future cannot be tread alone. On the contrary, it’s one that needs widespread support and dedication to see real, meaningful change. From McSherry’s point of view, becoming more conscious of the life that you’re living and identifying what hinders your ability to access sustainability are two ways to implement self-awareness practices into everyday life. Finding ways to have fun with sustainability is crucial to maintaining motivation. That could be through learning how to sew and mend your clothes or even creating your own garments, ultimately thinking creatively about how you can reduce your own impact.
Looking to the future, McSherry offers a few actions we can all take to inspire sustainable living. “I think one thing that all students can do whenever you feel frustrated about not being able to do something that’s more sustainable, find somebody to write to about it.” For UVM students, that person might be Mayor Miro, President Suresh Garimella, or anyone else in our community that you can hold accountable. “I think it’s a good time to practice advocating for larger-scale change, rather than feeling guilty for what you are not able to do in the situation. Try to get the ball rolling on a larger scale.” Sustainability starts with making a conscious choice to look differently at the life you’re living as a consumer. Instead of viewing a product through a capitalistic lens, regard it as a multi-purpose, multi-use resource. Turn overconsumption into motivation to work towards a more sustainable future, starting in your closet.
