Mohini Priya
‘My planet, my pride’, a theme as beautiful as this is often lost and forgotten about when we move with a rapid pace towards the future. This theme was the highlight of the show where the big names such as Blenders Pride Fashion Tour and Fashion Design Council of India (FDCI) collaborated to bring in the second edition of ‘The Showcase to life’, the motive hidden behind the show was to display a peek into the fashion’s future. As the audience on the global level is becoming more aware regarding the climatic conditions, it is obvious that questions related to sustainability are ought to be asked.[1]
In the current times, many big fashion houses are evolving their thinking to upgrade their textile in a way which reduces environmental damage.
On an average about 53 million tonnes of fibre is produced by the big fashion houses every year, and in that 70 percent is wasted, IndiaSpend stated in a report[2]. But as new statistics come in, it has been noticed by a UK based charity, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, that the production of fibre will reach 160 million tonnes by 2050. It is also observed that less than 1 percent of fibre which is consumed by the fashion houses harms the environment on a larger rate.
It would be even wrong to say that there is no change whatsoever in the attitude of fashion houses when it comes to environment, some of which are moving towards a change. It is a slow process, but fashion designers are trying to do their part and put in an effort to bring in a change which also inspires others, like, “There is always scope to repurpose sarees and create them into an Indo-western outfit,” Nitya Chandrashekhar, Founder of Mumbai-based Anya Designs, told IndiaSpends.[3]
COP26 take on Fashion and Trends:
In the UN Climate Change News, it’s evident to see that the fashion industry is raising its motive with the updated technological targets that are set for reducing the emission under the Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action.
On 8th of November, 2021, it was announced at COP26, the commitments that were renewed to form a decarbonization plan which was set aside with Paris Agreement with one of the motives to reduce the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
Another motive was for brands to set technology based targets or reduce to half their emissions by 2030, with the goal to achieve net-zero emissions by the year 2050.
“This is an important milestone for the Fashion Charter, as it increases the ambition level in an effort to align the industry with 1.5 degrees. It is a signal that we need to work closely together with our peers, our supply chain, policymakers and consumers to get on the track to net-zero,” says Stefan Seidel of PUMA, who Co-Chairs the Fashion Industry Charter Steering Committee.[4]
Few of the goals that were set by the Charter (Fashion Charter) include the usage of 100% electricity from renewable sources by the year 2030, also using the environmental friendly raw materials, and ‘phasing out’ coal from the supply chain by 2030, etc.
At this current timing 130 companies or brands and 41 organisations are a part of Fashion Charter. Some well-known brands which are a part of this charter are, Burberry, H&M Group, VF Corporation, adidas, Kering, Chanel, Nike, and PUMA as well as suppliers such as Crystal Group, TAL Apparel and others.
If the UN climate conference has cleared anything in a right manner it’s certainly that the general public wants change and they desperately want a change which is sustainable in nature. By sustainability, we understand that it’s that concept which prioritises environment and it’s welfare and benefits. Although the lawmakers still have a lot to work on regarding the issue, but it even more proves how the fashion sector is that one sector that is in dire need for such a change.
The following event ended disappointing many after China and India, which are two of the leading countries in the apparel business and which also tops in polluting the world globally, when the emphasis by them was more made on “phase down” coal production and not “phase out”, in the conference’s final agreement.
“China and India did not upgrade their commitments at COP26, and yet these are the key sourcing countries for the industry. This means that the fashion industry has the power and potential to step up and make really meaningful reductions in these countries,” says Maxine Bédat, founder of the New Standard Institute. “There will not be the progress necessary in these countries without intervention from the industries, i.e. fashion, that do their production there.”[5]
According to many experts and advocates it is viewed in a new report on ‘fashion’s climate funding gap’ which makes it really evident that by just saying how emissions should be reduced and expect it from the supply chain does not remotely bring even 1% of change in the entire scenario. There are some of the fashion houses which have tried to bring in a change such as pushing the Vietnam government to support the creation and use of renewable energy. But the statement given by China and India as talked about in the previous paragraphs makes it clear that we still have a long road to cross.
Another path that the fashion houses needs to follow is helping out their suppliers in the context of finances that move more towards success of the brand. The importance of this step indicates that it’s not only necessary to avoid fashion’s failure in the environmental context but also in the context of consumers.
The COP26 also marked the need for the entire industry to amend its ways in the context of sustainability in the apparel sector. With the rage of pressure rising between the investors and consumers, Anson Bailey, head of consumer and retail for KPMG China stated: “Walking the talk on sustainability issues is something that apparel companies can no longer afford to ignore.”[6]
COP26 take on microplastics in fast fashion:
As we see that COP26 concluded with a pledge to “phase down” of the use of coal, but still the production and use of plastic is triple by the year 2030. Plastic accounts for 1.8 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year. In the gone years we have clearly noticed that the companies such as ExxonMobil and Dow have built or started construction on at least 42 new US polyethylene plants and lines.
The House of Commons environment selected a committee which is currently focused on a fresh inquiry into how to deal with plastic waste.
If we focus on the statistics then we notice that the packaging accounts for only 40% of plastic production. The dangerous part is the quantity of plastic generated each year to support fast fashion. Indeed, synthetic fibres represent over two-thirds (69%) of all materials used in textiles, with that amount expected to rise to three quarters by 2030 according to a report from the ‘Changing Markets Foundation’.[7]
The maximum items of clothing which are generally made from plastic, the Earth’s most unbreakable substance are used on average four times before being dumped.
The danger that plastic is causing is not only related to the clothes that we as public, wear, in fact it has now risen up to destroy our physical health too. Fossil fuel-based microplastics and nanoplastics are in everything we eat in and breathe out.
The important question that has been missed out by the COP26 is not only to know how to deal with this plastic but also how to stop producing it. It is necessary for the COP26 to lay down the guidelines and laws on a global agreement which focuses on plastic reduction, and also state new incentives and innovations which promote the use of natural fibres in the apparel field.
Famous and well-known brands such as Nike and Inditex, the parent group of Zara and Massimo Dutti, both use an unbelievable quantity say 10 million gallons of oil each year to produce their garments, while other brands fail to open up about their use of synthetics.[8]
According to the Synthetics Anonymous report, Changing Markets Foundation surveyed the top 46 fashion houses on their use and reliance on synthetic materials. The research that was conducted disclosed that few brands have reported almost 90 percent of their collections being produced from fossil fuels.
Of all the companies that were surveyed, only one of them has made clear pledge to “phase out” the use of synthetic fibres from their collections – VF Corp brand, Icebreaker, by the year 2023.
“The fashion industry uses a significant amount of oil and gas to produce cheap fast fashion garments, yet its addiction to fossil fuels flies under the radar,” said George Harding-Rolls, campaigns adviser at the Changing Markets Foundation. “Each year, the production of synthetic fibres, such as polyester, produces the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions as 180 coal power plants and this is set to nearly double by 2030. These same brands will be at COP26 profiling how committed they are to stopping climate change – today we are calling out their hypocrisy.” [9]
One of the cheap synthetic fibres have become the most used fibre in the fast fashion’s production. Its use has been doubled since the year 2000.
Changing Markets and Stand Earth are pressurizing these brands to cut down the emissions by at least 555 by the year 2030, and to stoop down the use of synthetic material from fossil fuels by 50% by the year 2030.
It’s also calling out on brands and motivating them to bring in some transparency between the suppliers and the consumers regarding the products and its contents.
“The research undertaken by Changing Markets has revealed the shocking extent to which fashion brands rely on fossil fuels to mass produce fashion lines at increasingly low prices,” said Livia Firth, founder and creative director of Eco-Age. “Urgent action is now needed to reduce the amount of synthetic materials being produced at this scale, and to halt the damaging effects of this practice on the natural environment. This is why we are also putting pressure on the EU to Make The Label Count in order to educate consumers on the social and environmental repercussions of their purchases.”[10]
Heavy consumption of plastic fibres has also seen an immense rise in invisible microfibres, which are dangerous to the human and environmental health, and this danger cannot be avoided at any cost.
“It’s frightening to know that airborne microplastics from synthetic clothes get into the human body, becoming engulfed by immune cells which can cause significant inflammation,” said Maria Westerbos, director of the Plastic Soup Foundation. “Our bodies are simply not equipped to break down these particles, so the question is, how much damage are they causing? This way, fast fashion becomes fatal fashion.”[11]
The expansions of the plastic industry cannot be just stopped with one “no”, but more and more efforts could be made to at least decrease and avoid the use of plastic as much as we can as a whole.
Judgments focusing on the context of Fashion and Environment:
In few of the U.S. Supreme Court cases such as Dodge v. Ford[12], Schlensky v. Wrigley[13], and Revlon, Inc. v. Forbes Holdings[14] a similar point of view was considered and it was held that the companies must focus on the maximization of shareholder value which sometimes ignores those stakeholders that adversely leave an impact on the company because companies go forward in pursuing those short term profits which results in the exploitation of locals, labour and the environment as well.
In one of the cases of UK a similar point as mentioned above was held in Percival v. Wright (1902)[15] a new specified concept of “enlightened shareholder value” was introduced in the Companies Act 2006, which requires directors to regularly focus on the interest of stakeholders keeping in mind the employees and the environment too.
Conclusion:
With the times moving forward and the awareness increasing in every sector of the globe, a lot of awareness has also been increased at a higher rate when it came to climatic conditions. Buyers are well notified about what they are investing into and what can be the consequence of any action. In a way pandemic has also helped in making people look into their lifestyle and make better choices such as using products which are sustainable in nature. The choices of buyers have also led fashion houses and companies to look in their business and see that where they are actually going wrong. A compilation of all these efforts are growing towards making a change, but a lot is yet to be done.
Authored by: Mohini Priya and Palak Mathur
(Views expressed are of authors)
References:
[1] The Future of Sustainable Fashion, Blenders Pride Fashion Tour, available at: https://www.vogue.in/story/the-future-of-sustainable-fashion/
[2] Fast Fashion is destroying the planet, here’s how, available at: https://www.cnbctv18.com/environment/fast-fashion-is-destroying-the-planet-heres-how-11916332.htm
[3] Fast Fashion is destroying the planet, here’s how, available at: https://www.cnbctv18.com/environment/fast-fashion-is-destroying-the-planet-heres-how-11916332.htm
[4] Fashion industry steps up climate ambition with renowned charter, by Lindita Xhaferi-Salihu
Available on: https://unfccc.int/news/fashion-industry-steps-up-climate-ambition-with-renewed-charter
[5] The Fashion Takeways from COP26 by Rachel Cernanskey, available on: https://www.voguebusiness.com/sustainability/the-fashion-takeaways-from-cop26
[6] The Fashion Takeways from COP26 by Rachel Cernanskey, available on: https://www.voguebusiness.com/sustainability/the-fashion-takeaways-from-cop26
[7] COP26 failed in its ignorance to the issue of plastic production, Sian Sutherland, available on: https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/sustainability-and-environment/cop26-failed-in-its-ignorance-to-the-issue-of-plastic-production/662415.article
[8] Polyster under attack at COP26, available on: https://www.innovationintextiles.com/industry-talk/polyester-under-attack-at-cop26/
[9] Polyster under attack at COP26, available on: https://www.innovationintextiles.com/industry-talk/polyester-under-attack-at-cop26/
[10] Polyster under attack at COP26, available on: https://www.innovationintextiles.com/industry-talk/polyester-under-attack-at-cop26/
[11] Polyster under attack at COP26, available on: https://www.innovationintextiles.com/industry-talk/polyester-under-attack-at-cop26/
[12] Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. 170 N.W. 668, 684 (Mich. 1919)
[13] Schlensky v. Wrigley, 95 Ill. App. 2d 173, 237 N.E.2d 776 (App. Ct. 1968).
[14] Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173 (Del. 1986).
[15] Percival v. Wright, [1902] 2 Ch. 421.
