SFI0026
Written evidence submitted by Dr. Mark Sumner, University of Leeds
Dr. Mark Sumner spent over 15 years working for the UK’s largest clothing retailer, where he was involved in supply chain management and was the Sustainability Specialist for 5 years. He delivered projects many projects that delivered business benefit and also reduced the environmental impact fashion. Projects included sustainable cotton cultivation, animal welfare best practice, energy and water management, and clothing recycling. He has developed his knowledge further by returning to academia to research the systemic nature of sustainable fashion with a focus on consumer behaviour, clothing longevity, modern slavery, microplastics and retail business models. He supplements this work by supporting clothing brands for sustainable fashion and business, as well as Chairing the Metrics Working Group for the Sustainable Clothing Action Plan (SCAP).
Executive Summary
Fashion is worth $1.5 trillion and employs well in excess of 300 million workers. Fashion is also one of the most important social and cultural devices for non-verbal communication, pleasure and well-being. However, fashion is strongly associated with environmental damage and social injustice in the UK and across the global. The complex and opaque fashion supply chains provide a source of GDP growth for many in the global south, but at the same time expose workers and local communities to environmental and social harm; achieving a balance between the benefits and the harm associated with the industry is the crux of the sustainability challenge the industry faces.
It is argued that the complexity of the industry, its diversity of stakeholders and the global scope of impacts necessitates a systemic approach to identify solutions. Only by understanding the sustainability challenges of fashion in the context of business and the behaviour of consumers can lasting solutions be developed.
Have UK clothing purchasing habits changed in recent years?
The 4 major changes in fashion that have impacted on purchasing behaviours are:
Consumers are less likely to be loyal to a brand and shop across a wide range of channels, particularly online channels. Therefore, brands work harder to react to consumer demands faster, hence the focus on fashion and price; leading to the rise of Fast Fashion.
It is important to recognise the symbiotic relationship between brands and consumers. It would be easy to identify brands as agents of change for the fashion industry, however, fashion is a cultural phenomenon, where brands and consumers are reacting to and feeding from changes in modern culture. There is a very strong complex interdependence between brands and consumers that is mutually beneficial. To create a sustainable solution for fashion requires understanding of this interdependency and the nature of cultural pressures driving purchasing behaviour.
What is the environmental impact of the fashion supply chain? How has this changed over time?
Across the full lifecycle of clothing the global clothing industry has an annual carbon footprint of 3,290 million tonnes CO2e, consumes over 79 billion m3 of fresh water and is associated with biodiversity degradation, aquatic pollution and is a significant source of pre and post consumer waste. The industry’s dependency on cheap labour also exposes it to all aspects of modern slavery.
The industry is associated with conspicuous consumption; consumption that supports economic growth for a large number of developing nations, but leaves them with the majority of the environmental and social costs. Most brands source materials and products from long, disjointed supply chains in the global south. These brands and suppliers have little awareness of or understanding of each other. The European Union has highlighted this lack of transparency and the fragmented nature of the industry as a major challenge to a more sustainable industry.
However, there are pockets of positive changed in the industry. A growing number of responsible UK brands and their suppliers have reduced their impact on the environment and have built capacity within local communities. For example, the growth in the use of sustainable cotton has reduced the dependency on pesticides and has reduced water consumption. Best practice developed through NRDC, PaCT, SAC and SCAP has reduced carbon emissions, and clothing take-back schemes have reduced clothing waste going to landfill. But this ‘eco-efficiency’ does not off-set the growth of consumption of fast fashion, hence the need for systemic solutions for the industry.
What incentives have led to the rise of “fast fashion” in the UK and what incentives could be put in place to make fashion more sustainable?
Fashion has many positive impacts for society and individuals. Fashion allows consumers to identify themselves within their group and in society. Fashion also meets the consumers’ need for hedonistic pleasure; to live out their fantasies and to gain pleasure from the process of shopping and wearing new clothes. Importantly, fashion also satisfies consumers’ psychogenic needs; what we wear communicates who we are and our status.
The non-verbal communication about ourselves through the clothes we wear is a vital part of society. This has been the basis for fashion for thousands of years, and our modern culture is no different. But Fast fashion is so successful because it has democratised fashion and the benefits of fashion, especially through the omnipresence impact of social media. Fast fashion has allowed all segments of society, irrespective of class, income or background to engage in the hedonistic and psychogenic pleasures of fashion. At no other time in human history has fashion been so accessible to so many people across our society. This is the power of fast fashion.
Experience from mainstream brands and academic research on consumer behaviour suggests that consumers can be incentivised to engage with sustainable fashion. However, the incentives must not compromise these powerful desires for hedonistic and psychogenic pleasures derived from fashion.
Is “fast fashion” unsustainable?
The materials, processes, and supply chains for fast fashion are generally the same as those used for the more traditional types of fashion. Traditional fashion suffers from the same environmental issues as fast fashion; garment for garment there is little difference in impacts. It is the higher ‘churn’ of fashion trends that drives the consumption and disposal of fast fashion that differentiates this mode from other types of fashion.
The speed at which new trends are introduced has increased year on year, as a result, the rate of material consumption and creation of clothing waste has increased substantially; this makes fast fashion more impactful than traditional fashion. Current predictions for the growth in consumption suggests that the current model for material supply and clothing waste is not sustainable.
However, fast fashion can be made in ways to minimise environmental impacts; consider the ‘Conscious’ fast fashion range offered by H&M. This range makes use of sustainable materials such as organic cotton, lyocel and recycled polyester. H&M also have a clothing take-back scheme (I:co) to minimise clothing waste.
Yet to make significant improvements for fast fashion there needs to be a move away from the current linear business model. Models need to be developed that incorporate the need for business growth, that recognise the desires of consumers and that retain the value of the industry to workers in the supply chain.
What industry initiatives exist to minimise the environmental impact of the fashion industry?
The Sustainable Clothing Action Plan (SCAP) is a voluntary agreement for UK stakeholders to reduce carbon and water footprints of clothing by 15% and reduce waste by 7.5% by 2020. By identifying best practice in material selection, manufacturing and the management of clothing waste, the SCAP initiative is on target to hit its 2020 targets.
The Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC), mainly driven by US brands, has developed a methodology to measure the impacts of garments, manufacturing and brands based on their Higg Index. It is still under development and requires significant input and transparency from brands and suppliers but it is driving best practice across the industry. Other industry wide environmental initiatives include ZDHC (Chemical management), NRDC (resource efficiency) and PaCT (water efficiency in Bangladesh).
There are also numerous initiatives with specific focus on environmental hotspots. For example, cotton is the most important fibre in fashion and has the potential to be the most environmentally damaging fibre if grown irresponsibly. Initiatives such as BCI, Organic and Fairtrade Cotton minimise the impact of cotton cultivation. Schemes exist to minimise animal welfare issues for wool, cashmere, angora production, as well as initiatives to reduce deforestation associated with viscose production and to manage environmental risks linked to leather production.
However, the majority of these schemes are aimed at ‘eco-efficiency’ rather than system wide changes. It is also argued that the proliferation of these initiatives, schemes and certification bodies is creating confusion and unnecessary competition which is hampering progress towards improved sustainability.
How could the carbon emissions and water demand from the fashion industry be reduced?
There are a very wide range of Best Available Technologies (BAT) currently available to minimise the water and carbon footprints of the industry. For example, drip feed irrigation in cotton cultivation, recycling manufacturing water, reducing the reliance on synthetic fertilisers, using low temperature technology for dyeing can all lead to significant reductions in CO2 emissions and water use. Through the use of such BAT by SCAP signatories, this initiative has already achieved 15% reduction in water use and 11% reduction in carbon emissions.
Best practice exists to address many of the environmental issues that plague the industry. However, a more important question is why brands and their suppliers are not making better use of BAT to achieve significant savings across the industry. The answer to this is complex, but it is related to a lack of information and knowledge about BAT across the industry, the cost pressures of the highly competitive clothing market and globalised nature of the industry. There is also an argument that there is a lack of policy pressure to incentivise best practice.
What typically happens to unwanted and unwearable clothing in the UK? How can this clothing be managed in a more environmentally friendly way?
The typical routes for dealing with domestic clothing waste are:
The most environmental friendly option for clothing waste is to ensure garments are re-used as clothing. Peer to peer generally ensures 100% reuse, while traders, charities and store take-back have good re-use rates.
Those garment that cannot be reused (due to damage or hygiene issues) are recycled. Clothes containing high value fibres such as wool and cashmere can be recycled into new textile products. Other garments with high cotton content are used as industrial wipes. The remaining waste is chopped and shredded to create very low value products such as thermal and acoustic insulation, and furniture and mattress padding.
Clothing that enters the municipal waste stream generally becomes contaminated and damaged and has no reuse or recycling value so tends to end up in landfill. Although the textile recycling industry is still based on processes that have changed little in 200 years, it is an effective route to divert waste from landfill. The most efficient recyclers may have as little as 7% of waste going to landfill. Avoiding municipal routes for clothing waste is by far the most important objective to manage clothing waste. Strategies to ensure garments remain in options 1-4 ensure a reduction in the environmental impact of clothing.
However, there are consequences associated with garment reuse. Take-back schemes and charity donations has seen an increase in the volume of clothing entering the used market. However, this increase has not been matched by an increase in the demand of used clothing. The oversupply of waste has devalued the used garment market, which has forced a number of textile recyclers into bankruptcy. The oversupply of clothing waste has also lead to an increase in clothing waste exports to developing nations. There may be negative long term impacts of this on the cultures and textile industries of these nations.
How much unwanted clothing is landfilled or incinerated in the UK each year?
It is very difficult to determine the full scale of clothing waste but WRAP, through the SCAP initiative, have developed a methodology to estimate clothing waste generated in the UK. Approximately 1.3 million tonnes of waste is generated per year, with approximately 350,000 million tonnes of this going to landfill or incineration.
Does labelling inform consumers about how to donate or recycle clothing to minimise environmental impact, including what to do with damaged clothing?
A number of attempts have been made to encourage consumers to donate or recycle garments at the end of life. For example, Dr. Sumner instigated a large labelling exercise when he worked in retail, where the care labels in over 70 million garments carried the message ‘Recycle at Oxfam’. However, there was no evidence to indicate if this influenced recycling rates, and after 2 years the labels were phased out.
Consumer guidance through other means such as ‘Love your clothes’ from SCAP has been developed to encourage consumers to take better care of their clothing and dispose of their garments responsibly at end of life. It is not clear if approaches such as these are the most cost effective methods to change consumer behaviour.
What actions have been taken by the fashion industry, the Government and local authorities to increase reuse and recycling of clothing?
Some brands have used passive approaches to encouraging recycling by providing garment recycling bins in their car parks and stores. Other have employed proactive clothing take-back schemes. These schemes encourage consumers to deposit old clothing in the brand’s stores, with the old clothing donated to a nominated charity or sold to recyclers. Financial incentives have been used to encourage donations, through cashback vouchers, and these have been relatively successful. However, all take-back schemes are costly to implement. More importantly, there is evidence to suggest that take-back schemes encourage consumers to purchase more new clothing (an example of the rebound effect).
Beyond take-back, there have been trials to test the use of clothing repair shops to help consumers extend the lives of their clothing. However, consumer engagement in such schemes has been poor, while the long term return on investment for these shops has also been poor.
At an industry level, there have been attempts to ‘educate’ consumers on the value and virtue of recycling clothing. As with all such consumer campaigns it has been difficult to determine the impact on behavioral change.
How could consumers be encouraged to buy fewer clothes, reuse clothes and think about how best to dispose of clothes when they are no longer wanted?
The psychology of consumer behaviour shows there are powerful forces that drive fashion consumption. In modern society, the purpose of clothing is not for modesty or protection from the elements. Clothing is used for communication; it is one of the most powerful non verbal communication device that plays a role in all human interactions. Clothing is used to project to others aspects of our identity and our position within society. The powerful individual, social and cultural forces that stimulate the consumption of clothing implies reducing our love affair with fashion will be complex and difficult to do.
However, action must be taken to mitigate the negative impacts the industry. This action must be based on considering the systemic dynamics of the industry. By understanding the needs of consumers, businesses and the wider society, it is possible to identify how new models for fashion can be developed. The role of policy makers will be important, if the policies reinforce the need for these systemic solutions.
How has the domestic clothing manufacturing industry changed over time? How is it set to develop in the future?
The current UK clothing manufacturing industry consists of two extremes. At one extreme the UK industry has developed a highly skilled and technically proficient sector creating high value products for the luxury and high performance clothing sectors. At the other extreme is manufacturing where fast response to the latest trends is the most important factor. Here the industry delivers quick response, but low value and poor quality products. Between these two divergent sectors, there is little in the way of large scale mass manufacturing of clothing.
It should be noted, however, that fabric production in the UK is relatively strong, especially for high quality wool, performance and homeware fabrics.
How are Government and trade envoys ensuring they meet their commitments under SDG 8 to “protect workers’ rights” and “ensure safe working environments” within the garment manufacturing industry?
The UK is leading the world in its attempts to deliver SDG 8 through the Modern Slavery Act. This Act has the potential for significant positive impact on worker rights and health and safety in the global textile industry. Dr Sumner is current exploring the the impact of the Act on clothing supply chains in India through a British Academy funded project.
It is clear that more could be done to ensure more companies are compliant with the Act and other initiatives to protect workers, as well as providing more information to help consumers recognise those businesses that are acting responsibly or not.
In addition, legislation to drive greater transparency would have a major impact in driving positive change. A very simple requirement for brands to declared the source of raw material used in their garments would lead to a paradigm shift in attitudes. This type approach would be ground breaking for the industry, setting an aspirational, but achievable standard that would be the envy of the rest of the developed world.
September 2018