Injustices in sustainable fashion: what does it want to “sustain”?

“Before finding solutions, perhaps one should first ask: What do we want to sustain in fashion? Such a question may at first seem abstract and idealist. But without questioning the basic framework under which the work toward sustainability occurs, the risk is of sustaining unintended dynamics in fashion. Sustainability risks becoming a cloak under which to hide how injustices are made permanent, suffering made invisible, while maintaining social conflict and systemic inequities, rather than boosting the democratic principles the industry suggests it desires to sustain. Much everyday brand-initiated discourse on sustainable fashion is an excuse for keeping up the status quo, implementing surveillance regimes on goods and labor, and effectively blaming the poor for their aspirations and consumption” – Otto von Bush

In the fashion industry there is growing attention to sustainability, especially the impact of fast fashion. However, often attempts are made to solve the problem in a limited way, emphasizing technological solutions and consumer ethics and avoiding addressing social complexities, such as globalization, social conflict, identity and community politics , precarious work, labor organization and the imperative to achieve public and mental health. The emphasis on sustainability can become an excuse to maintain the status quo and blame the poor for their consumption.
This is the theme of a study that invite to think (von Busch 2022*) of which we share the main ideas in the present article. The author uses Guattari’s three ecologies model** to analyze conflict in fashion, considering the environmental, social and mental levels. The challenge of sustainable fashion is characterized by tensions and contradictions which often do not receive the necessary attention. An obvious conflict is between the idea of “democratic” fashion and its impact on global systems. Applying Guattari’s three ecologies model, it turns out that the fashion industry negatively affects all three dimensions:
– exploits the resources of the planet and labour
– influences social relationships
– affects consumer attitudes.

particularly affecting poor and marginalized communities.

“It is ‘they’ who consume too much, the consumers of cheap garments. While goods and behaviors readily available to the upper strata of society are deemed sustainable”

In fashion, as in other industries, there are systemic inequalities that contribute to social injustice. Recommendations for more sustainable consumption are often spread in a paternalistic way and do not take into account different social positions. For example, advice on repairing clothes or buying high-quality parts assumes a certain economic and social standing, and may not be accessible to everyone.
It is important to address these reflections and consider what behavior is really suitable for achieving sustainability in fashion. The goal is to reflect to develop more inclusive sustainability practices that take into account the aspirations of people with fewer resources.

Environmental ecology

In the fashion industry, the trend is to look for technical and industrial solutions to tackle environmental problems, such as river pollution, the use of toxic chemicals in agriculture and the accumulation of textile waste. However, often these solutions are focused on the interests of the industry and do not take into account global disparities. Developed countries have shifted polluting production to developing countries, creating double standards in how the pollution problem is viewed.

“While this is perhaps most obviously happening in production, we see it as well under the umbrella of “circularity,”in recycling and waste management. It is also inherent in the label of “recycling”or “reuse”as garments are dumped in developing countries. While the incremental fixes of the industry arenot useless, they distort the overall picture. As production and consumption keep increasing, the industry’s improvements are not keeping up, and overall levels of extraction and pollution become worse still.”

The “solutionist” approach to sustainable fashion tends to reduce complex problems to technological solutions and to favor efficiency and transparency at the expense of other values by continuing to reproduce consumerism.“Pollution isreduced to ecologically friendly fibers, transparencyis a street address to a factory on the product web-site, and ethics is a collection labeled ‘conscious.’ Transparency gets easily mistaken for power. Whileit may be an ethical opportunity to see a photo ofwho works in a factory and know its address, itgives little agency to consumers to change the con-ditions of the workers. Instead, the same regime oftransparency is used to hide abuse, shift blame, andincrease surveillance of laborers and consumerswhile bypassing the systemic responsibilities of cor-porations and international trade negotiations.” As an example, the absence of criticisms of power systems is reported in True Cost (2015), a documentary popular among Western consumers. “The scene misses the political games of trade and globalization, the corporate C-suites, the growth of capital and stocks, and all systems of power promoting and profiting from the current paradigm. All, except the powerful, are to blame for the catastrophe we witness in the movie.”

Fast fashion and fast food are often viewed as negative, while artisanal food and slow production are associated with greater nutrition and health. Technology, when applied to quality, can distinguish those who have access to luxury goods that don’t require repairs from those who consume cheaper consumer goods that often need to be repaired. While artisans may work in factory-like conditions in developing countries, their work is often considered superior and more sustainable due to the slowness and involvement of the hands. Not always slow equals sustainable.

Furthermore, consumption of fast fashion is associated with the poor, while luxury goods are considered sustainable, creating a paradoxical gap in judgment. “The consumption of the rich becomes invisible, if not celebrated as more techno-logically sophisticated. Those who can afford to doso can enjoy splurging on more goods, as these arenow from biomaterials, eco-friendly fibers, and artisanal labor. In the end, all goods end up in landfills”.

Social ecology

Fashion is a social phenomenon that is based on imitation and thrives on the differences and tensions between groups and styles. However, fashion is often criticized for its connections to trade, capitalism and social inequalities. Nonetheless, fashion can uphold democratic principles through individual expression, intergroup solidarity and respect for difference. However, these democratic principles can be corrupted by consumerism and the creation of social hierarchies.

Sustainability talk often:

• blames low-income consumers and suggests buying less and investing in durable pieces, but this can limit individual expression and social mobility
• blames the poor for their consumer aspirations
• does not address the systemic injustices present in fashion.

Luxury fashion, on the other hand, is often seen as sustainable and representative of quality and ethics. This approach favors those who are already privileged and gets in the way of fashion’s empowering potential for the disadvantaged.

“With their longing for ‘democratic’ tokens of inclusion, the masses’ desires quickly accumulate to unsustainable amounts of goods, and with their cheap copies they undermine the actual value of fashion. When not physically limiting the number of pieces people can buy, the sustainability discourse tries to make consumers ‘buy classic pieces.’ But there appears to be little concern about who can afford the quality of such items. It is much easier to buy a classic piece when one is in a social position that cements this social standing, making it last over time. A classic piece must also fit into therest of one’s status environment. It is easy to do this if I am higher in the social strata, but less so if I am poor or marginalized. The imperative to ‘buy classic’ basically tells the needy ‘buy only what you can afford, stay at the low rung, and do not aspire to beone of us’. The second suggested method translates to something similar, like ‘buy things your kids can inherit.’ Most people want to inherit a vintage Chanel bag, but less so the cheap copy.”

Mental ecology

Mental ecology promotes sustainability through the modification of cultural values, moving away from selfish desires (lust, greed, vanity) towards virtues such as authenticity and honesty and the desire for a beautiful and ethical life. However, this approach often excludes the poor and condemns their consumption.  “The wealthy set these standards with the modeling of the perfect life, while the poor are excluded and later cursed if they aspire for these same standards beyond their means.”

Changing values and cultures becomes a priority to achieve sustainability, but this jeopardizes individual freedom.

“If discussing values, one may need to take a stepback and ask: Can fashion promote any ethical values in the first place? It is a question not commonly appearing in academic inquiries. Karen Hanson (1990)*** suggested three decades ago that fashion stands in contrast to many of the foundational values and virtues of social reality that philosophers have examined over the ages. The hedonistic need to acquire the symbols of affluence and status undermines the liberal possibilities of society and only comes to serve competitive consumption. Following Lipovetsky (1994)****, fashion is a movement that finally helps consumer society to overcome the old virtue of thrift and to make vanity not only acceptable but a precious cornerstone of contemporary identity production. These forces emphasize the individual subject as the moral center of gravity aligned with what and how it consumes. This move has shattering consequences for the discourse around sustainable fashion and howt he issue is addressed as a call for ethical and virtuous behavior.”

The current debate on sustainable fashion focuses on consumers’ responsibility and suggests that only by changing their habits can sustainability be achieved. This view tends to blame the masses, attributing them a “problem” with excessive consumption. However, cultural change and the redefinition of values are crucial aspects to promote sustainability at a systemic level. This leads to a moralization of consumption, in which “good” consumers are seen as virtuous and respectable, while “bad” consumers are condemned for their supposed wickedness.

Sustainable fashion brands target mainly affluent consumers, creating an elite who can afford ethical products, while the poor are excluded from this possibility. This approach emphasizes wealth as a criterion for virtue and denies less well-off people the ability to aspire to these standards.

Furthermore, fashion itself is inherently unfair in terms of looks, race, skill, and wealth. Thus, sustainability discourse risks stigmatizing and regulating those in poverty.

The common portrayal of sustainability unjustly vilifies the poor for their lack of resources, stigmatizes them for consuming fast fashion, and labels them as flawed individuals within a consumerist system. While this may not have been the original intention, sustainability discourse has become a “new Victorian morality” that regulates and punishes those living in poverty. By shifting the discussion towards brands that define themselves as “guided by values”, the moralization of consumption becomes increasingly evident. Fashion isn’t just about the “cool stuff,” but focusing on values means that the customer buys a product that reflects their deep-seated beliefs. Brands claim to “create value for customers”, and these values become an integral part of consumers’ lives. In other words, virtuous and respectable consumers are considered good consumers, while those who do not follow the values are rightly condemned as bad and vicious people. This becomes particularly relevant when applied to the concept of sustainability, considering it a brand value. The needy are deprived of means and desirable goods and are now also deprived of sustainable and ethical values or are not very conscious, at least compared to the “enlightened” consumers who are dedicated to sustainable fashion. Or even worse, because they are considered deplorable, they are included in an inferior culture.

Conclusions

According to the reflections contained in von Busch’s study, the values promoted in the context of sustainability in fashion can limit the opportunities of the less well-off to use fashion as a tool to overcome their precarious condition. On the one hand, the more socially elevated sections of people have less need of fashion for social mobility or for control over their lives. On the other hand, the consumption of the lower classes is accused of being unsustainable and their habits are often perceived as problems that need to be corrected, while their values and cultures need to become “aware” and “rectified”.

Per superare queste limitazioni, si suggerisce di spostare l’attenzione dalle vendite di prodotti sostenibili alle pratiche sostenibili, legate all’uso e alla cura dei vestiti. Questo significa mettere in luce il fatto che molte persone praticano già la sostenibilità attraverso la cura dei propri abiti, facendoli durare e non legando necessariamente la sostenibilità all’acquisto di beni costosi o simbolici. Questa prospettiva metterebbe in luce il potenziale democratico della moda e aprirebbe la strada a una comprensione più approfondita delle pratiche di cura che vanno al di là degli oggetti stessi.

To overcome these limitations, it is suggested to shift attention from the sales of sustainable products to sustainable practices related to the use and care of clothes. This means highlighting the fact that many people already practice sustainability through the care of their clothes, making them last and not necessarily linking sustainability to the purchase of expensive or symbolic goods. This perspective would highlight the democratic potential of fashion and pave the way for a deeper understanding of care practices that go beyond the objects themselves.

Fashion can have democratic potential and should in fact be seen as a social practice beyond consumerism and the reproduction of identity. To fully embrace the democratic potential of fashion, it is suggested to emphasize experimentalism combined with limitations on power, as proposed by political philosopher Roberto Unger. According to Unger (2007)*****, democracy is a form of radical experimentation that does not preserve the status quo, but leaves the future open for people-led reorganization. Therefore, democratic fashion should be based on Unger’s ideas, so as to allow people to actively participate in social and political reorganization.

Questo approccio richiede di considerare la moda non solo come bene di consumo o come strumento per l’affermazione dell’identità, ma come una pratica sociale più ampia. Si dovrebbe andare oltre la reazione immediata di incolpare il “fast fashion” e adottare un approccio olistico delle iniziative di sostenibilità, che coinvolga tutte e tre le dimensioni dell’ecologia della moda: l’ambiente, le relazioni umane e la soggettività, attraverso la promozione dell’azione degli utilizzatori, dell’autostima e delle “capacità della moda”. This approach requires considering fashion not only as a consumer good or as a tool for identity affirmation, but as a wider social practice. One should go beyond the immediate reaction of blaming “fast fashion” and adopt a holistic approach of sustainability initiatives, involving all three dimensions of the ecology of fashion: the environment, human relationships and subjectivity, through the promoting user action, self-esteem and ‘fashion capabilities’.

Finally, it is essential to avoid the hypocrisy of luxury producers and not systematically punish the poor for their aspirations. Sustainability in fashion should be founded on the democratic, dynamic and vital principles of fashion, staying within the limits of the planet. This implies overcoming approaches hidden behind virtuous sustainability that favor social stratification. Although the global increase in the production of fashion items is a challenge to face, sustainability promoters must be aware of not penalizing the less well-off for their aspirations and work to improve democratic principles in fashion.

*von Busch, O. (2022). “What is to be sustained?”: Perpetuating systemic injustices through sustainable fashion, Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 18:1, 400-409, DOI: 10.1080/15487733.2022.2069996

**Guattari, F. 2000. “The Three Ecologies”. London: Athlone

***Hanson, K. 1990. “Dressing Down Dressing Up –The Philosophic Fear of Fashion.”Hypatia 5 (2): 107–121. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.1990.tb00420.x