John Galliano returns to the atelier. But the collaboration with the Spanish giant Inditex raises questions that the press release hasn’t yet answered.

In January 2026, in Paris, a women’s dress designed by John Galliano for Dior sold at auction for € 637,500. A few weeks later, the same designer announced he would be working for Zara. Not for a six-piece capsule collection to be photographed on Instagram—for two years, with seasonal collections, drawing on the Spanish brand’s archive.

If you had a strange feeling reading these two sentences one after the other, that’s understandable. It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong. It means it’s complicated. And complicated things deserve to be explored in depth.

In an era where sustainable and slow fashion are gaining ground, it’s legitimate to ask whether this choice represents a step forward or a contradiction to the sustainability values ​​many consumers seek today.

Who is Galliano?

John Galliano is one of the greatest fashion technicians of the twentieth century. Born in Gibraltar, he trained in London at Central Saint Martins, and became creative director of Givenchy in 1995, then of Dior in 1996. For fifteen years, he transformed fashion shows into theatrical events—shows inspired by feudal Japan, Tsarist Russia, and the homeless of Paris—with clothes constructed on a sartorial architecture that many consider unsurpassed. His fashion shows were cinema, theater, and the anthropology of beauty. His bias-cut silk dresses reappear today on red carpets and at auctions.

In 2011, he was fired from Dior after a video showed him drunk in a Parisian bar uttering anti-Semitic remarks. It was a disastrous fall. Three years of silence followed, a detox, a year of study with a rabbi, and finally a public apology in the 2024 documentary High & Low. Professional rehabilitation came in 2014, when Renzo Rosso appointed him creative director of Maison Margiela. In ten years, Margiela’s sales grew by 24%. The Artisanal collection for winter 2024—presented under a Parisian bridge, featuring extreme corsetry and fabrics worked like sculptures—is considered one of the most powerful of the last twenty years.

In 2024, he left Margiela. For two years, silence. Then, on March 17, 2026, Zara.

What exactly does the agreement provide — and what doesn’t it?

The joint statement states that Galliano will work directly with pieces from Zara’s past seasons, deconstructing and reconfiguring them into new expressions and seasonal creations. The process is called “re-authoring“—a word invented for the occasion, which doesn’t exist in the vocabulary of fashion or sustainability.

Here, it’s necessary to be precise. International press reports indicate that Galliano will create new toiles inspired by pieces from the Zara archives, with new shapes, fabrics, colors, and clothing bearing his distinctive signature (WWD). A toile, in tailoring parlance, is the canvas pattern that precedes the creation of the final garment—it’s the creative starting point. Translated: Galliano uses the Zara archive as a point of inspiration and formal starting point, not as physical material to be transformed piece by piece.

How significant this will be will depend on how much of the line actually comes from reworked stock versus newly manufactured products (Grazia International). We don’t know at this time, as the details of the collection are still unknown. Zara has announced that further information will be released later.

This distinction isn’t a technical detail. It’s the difference between an upcycling operation and a creative effort that uses the archive as inspiration—potentially producing entirely new garments. One reduces production volumes. The other doesn’t, or not necessarily.

Why Galliano says it’s sustainable

During Paris Fashion Week, Galliano told Vogue Business that the project is “a very positive thing to do right now, and truly creatively sustainable.”

The expression is interesting precisely because it contains an important qualification: creatively sustainable. It doesn’t say “environmentally sustainable.” It doesn’t say “low-impact.” It says: it’s sustainable as a creative approach—in the sense that it reuses, reinterprets, and doesn’t start from scratch.

It’s a fair distinction, if you read it that way. The problem is that in public discourse, and especially in marketing, “sustainable” has become a word used without specifying what it’s used for. And when Zara—one of the world’s largest fast-fashion producers—says that one of its lines is “sustainable,” the word carries with it all the weight of what isn’t said.

Inditex’s track record: what it says, what it does

Since 2022, Zara has been undergoing a strategic repositioning process to break away from fast fashion. Galliano is not an isolated case—he is the latest in a string of high-profile designers who have collaborated with Zara, including Narciso Rodriguez, Stefano Pilati, Kate Moss, and Steven Meisel.

Inditex is a company that claims not to ignore sustainability. In its 2025 report, it states that 88% of the fibers used are alternatives with a lower environmental impact, with 47% recycled fibers. Between 2020 and 2025, it reduced unit water consumption in the supply chain by 25%.

These numbers exist. But they must be read within a broader context. A Thomson Reuters Foundation investigation has documented how Inditex’s use of air freight to fuel the fast fashion market is excessive and growing—a practice that contributes to the climate crisis and increases pressure on workers, forced to work unsustainable hours for low wages, exactly the opposite of what is disclosed in sustainability reports.

And there’s a structural question that no press release answers: does the Galliano line add to Zara’s existing production, or does it partially replace it? If the answer is “adds,” the company’s net environmental impact increases, not decreases—regardless of the creative sophistication of the project.

Why this news is also a symptom

Beyond Galliano and Zara, this story tells about something larger about the fashion industry right now.

With Dior and Chanel charging €5,000 for a jacket, €4,000 for a bag, and couture reaching €135,000 for a dress, the trend is moving in the opposite direction (The Hollywood Reporter). Galliano isn’t alone—Francesco Risso, former creative director of Marni, has taken the helm of Gu, a brand of the Fast Retailing group; Clare Waight Keller, former creative director of Givenchy, is now creative director of Uniqlo; and Zac Posen has taken over as creative director of Gap (Il Sole 24 Ore).

This phenomenon has at least two interpretations. The first, optimistic: high-end creativity is finally becoming accessible to a wider audience, democratizing an aesthetic language that had remained locked away within the fashion houses for decades. The second, more critical point: big names lend their cultural reputation to brands that need it to compete with Shein and Temu on a terrain—credibility—where low prices are no longer enough.

Ultrafast players like Shein and Temu can always be cheaper and faster. They can’t easily compete on cultural authority. Partnering with a designer whose archive breaks auction records is a way to buy credibility, not just clicks (Grazia International).

A phenomenon that has a name

The decision came after the French consumer watchdog (DGCCRF) discovered disturbing ads on the Shein marketplace: sex dolls with “child-like” features and even prohibited weapons, such as machetes and large knives.
In response, Shein announced a global ban on the sale of sex dolls on the platform, temporarily suspended the “adult products” category in France, and took action against the responsible sellers.
The investigation is ongoing, and French authorities have also involved the European Commission. Until proven otherwise, access to the site has not yet been completely blocked, but the suspension procedure is active. Shein took immediate measures to limit the reputational damage.

The paradox is clear: on the one hand, France appears to be targeting the ultra-fast fashion model with aggressive policies—such as a proposed law to impose a penalty on low-cost imports, fines for unfair business practices (e.g., Shein was fined €40 million for misleading discounts), and strong political action against Shein.

On the other hand, France is granting Shein prestigious physical access, thanks to a partnership with Société des Grands Magasins (SGM), which operates BHV and other stores in France, allowing for an “offline test” of the brand.

This means “banning online” but “accepting a physical store” at the same time—a contradiction that reflects real tensions between political values, economic interests, and market dynamics.

Why did France give the green light to the physical store?

Here are some hypotheses that help explain why:

Local business strategy: Shein states that France is “a major global fashion market” and that the physical opening serves to “respond to the demand for real-world contact” (Retail Gazette). In other words, from a traditional retail perspective (department stores, foot traffic), the deal makes commercial sense for SGM.

Differentiation between online and offline: The regulations France is implementing often primarily concern e-commerce, imports, low-cost shipping, and deceptive discounting practices. Opening a local physical store may seem like a more “controllable” environment.

Regulatory framework still evolving: Fines, anti-fast fashion rules, and import controls are coming but are not yet fully implemented or may have time limits. France appears to be “making the rules,” but in the meantime, the market continues to shift.

Economic and negotiating pressures: French department stores likely saw the agreement as an opportunity to boost sales (increased footfall, new products). Although politically criticized, there is significant private interest.

Possibility of control and oversight: The fact that the physical store was physically “visible” in Paris, within a regulated space, may have induced the authorities to accept the opening while simultaneously maintaining pressure on online sales.

Timing and lobbying: The fact that the opening caused a stir may also indicate that deals were made before the anti-fast-fashion law was in effect, or that the negotiation took place in a context where the brand was able to enter “before everything was clear.”

Social Reactions and Comments

The store’s opening was accompanied by protests: demonstrators holding signs (“From Colonization to Your Closets”) gathered outside the BHV.
But not everyone was opposed: one customer explained that the appeal for many is simply the price:

“With €200 a month, I can buy 50 T-shirts from Shein, or three made in France..”

(source The Guardian)

This comment underscores how ultra-cheap fast fashion responds to real economic demand, even among those on limited incomes. France’s action has not been confined to the national level: the government has written to the EU, requesting action under the Digital Services Act (DSA) (source: euronews).
The European Commission is involved, and the case could set a precedent for how member states can regulate digital platforms selling potentially illegal or morally controversial items.
Furthermore, according to the Brussels Times, French authorities have threatened permanent bans if certain products return to Shein’s platforms.

In Paris, Deputy Mayor Nicolas Bonnet Oulaldj openly criticized the agreement between Shein and SGM, declaring that allowing an ultra-fast fashion giant to enter the traditional retail landscape is “incompatible” with the city’s environmental and social goals. “Shein cannot be blamed for all the problems affecting French ready-to-wear,” reacted a spokesperson for the Shein platform in France. The Chinese giant plans to open five more discount clothing and accessories stores in the Galeries Lafayette department stores in Dijon, Reims, Grenoble, Angers, and Limoges. “This decision,” stated Anne Hidalgo, Mayor of Paris, “is contrary to the environmental and social ambitions of Paris, which supports responsible and sustainable local retail.” (source: Ansa.it)

BHV owner Frédéric Merlin responded firmly to the criticism, calling the partnership with Shein “the beginning of a new adventure” that combines e-commerce and traditional retail (source: The Guardian). According to him, the products sold in the store are manufactured by Shein itself (“made by Shein in Shein factories”) and are not solely third-party suppliers—a detail that could influence liability assessments.

Things We Don’t Know

There doesn’t appear to be an official French statement stating, “We allowed the physical opening because…” The explanations are drawn primarily from Shein’s statements.
It’s unclear whether the business license for the physical store comes with special conditions or whether there are specific monitoring agreements with local authorities.
It’s not yet clear how future legislation or French government action will impact that physical store (for example, inspections, restrictions, sanctions).
It’s unclear to what extent the physical opening is seen as a “loophole” with respect to online regulations (one possibility); there are no sources that explicitly state this.

Why aren’t Primark and Uniqlo receiving the same pressure as Shein?

Not all major “low-cost” clothing brands are receiving the same public and political pressure that Shein is currently experiencing, as the comparison with Primark and Uniqlo demonstrates. Both brands are present and expanding in France: Primark has announced a €200 million investment in France and Spain to expand its retail network by 2026 and has some of the most profitable stores in the French market; Uniqlo, for its part, continues to strengthen its presence with flagship stores, such as the renovated one in the Paris Opera district, and a large and stable network.

The reason these brands aren’t experiencing the same pressure as Shein?

• Different business models: Primark and Uniqlo operate primarily through established physical stores; they don’t rely on ultra-low-cost imports shipped individually from non-EU countries, as Shein does. This makes them less vulnerable to certain anti-import regulations or micro-parcel taxes.
• Clearer regulation: Many of the measures proposed by France (and other countries)—such as the tax on low-cost parcels—are aimed primarily at cross-border e-commerce, not at brick-and-mortar retailers with established chains.
• Visible and local presence: Having physical stores implies local responsibility, European-wide inventory management, and more direct control, elements that can make their presence more acceptable (politically and socially) compared to an ultra-fast, digital-only player.
• Sustainability and image strategy: Uniqlo, in particular, focuses heavily on “LifeWear” and an image of quality, functionality, and durability, which can mitigate criticism of “disposable” fashion. Primark, despite being “fast fashion,” has a very different model from Shein, with different margins and operating methods. So does greenwashing make a difference?

Primark e Uniqlo non sono però completamente fuori dal radar: l’UE ha richiamato tutti i grandi retailer, compresi questi due marchi, a maggiore trasparenza sulla tracciabilità e sulle performance ambientali attraverso il nuovo quadro normativo del Green Deal, dal Digital Product Passport al divieto di greenwashing e claim ambientali vaghi. La differenza è che, pur essendo criticati per il modello fast fashion, Primark e Uniqlo rientrano in una struttura regolatoria già conosciuta e gestita dall’Europa, mentre Shein rappresenta una sfida nuova: un “gigante digitale” che accelera più velocemente delle norme che cercano di incasellarlo.

Primark and Uniqlo aren’t completely off the radar, however: the EU has called on all major retailers, including these two brands, to increase transparency on traceability and environmental performance through the new Green Deal regulatory framework, from the Digital Product Passport to the ban on greenwashing and vague environmental claims. The difference is that, despite being criticized for their fast fashion model, Primark and Uniqlo fall within a regulatory framework already known and managed by Europe, while Shein represents a new challenge: a “digital giant” that is accelerating faster than the regulations that seek to pigeonhole it.

Reflections

The Shein case is emblematic of the fact that the transition to more sustainable fashion is not linear and full of contradictions. On the one hand, France seems to declare “enough with low-cost fast fashion,” while on the other, it accepts—without apparent resistance—the physical arrival of one of the protagonists of the model it seeks to limit.

What lessons can we learn?
Legislation may lag behind the market. Anti-fast fashion regulations, import taxes, and restrictions on misleading discounts are still being implemented. Meanwhile, fast fashion brands are expanding.
The “online” vs. “offline” model creates arbitrage: a physical store may appear more respectable or at least more visible, and therefore perhaps “less risky” in the eyes of authorities, than an e-commerce site shipping low-cost packages from abroad.
Public policies can clash with local economic interests (department stores, employment, customer traffic). This can lead to compromises or seemingly contradictory choices.
Finally, it’s a reminder: consistency between political statements and concrete actions is difficult. The effort towards sustainable fashion requires not only regulations, but also control tools, transparency, and perhaps alternative sales models that aren’t just “faster, cheaper.”

Fast fashion consumption thrives largely as a function of our purchasing behavior, driven by the desire to own more and more clothes and supported by the continuous decrease in prices.

Through what we buy, we express ourselves and strengthen our identity towards ourselves and towards others. In cultures where our purchases convey self-realization and identity expression, clothes represent a visual language that communicates our belonging to certain social groups, cultures or communities. We are driven to change our identity through new clothes and we are fascinated by being fashionable, leaving in the shadows concerns for the environment, working conditions, ethical supply chains.

With this premise, a research conducted in Spain used agent-based modeling (ABM* ) to analyze consumer decisions regarding fast fashion. Because social and environmental progress requires that the public has the will to take part and support initiatives that address fast fashion and other issues.

How much do environmental concerns and awareness of the (un)sustainability of fast fashion affect our purchasing choices?

The study by Soboleva & Sánchez (2024) investigates how individuals choose to purchase fast fashion and how awareness of the effects of fashion, particularly fast fashion, affects this process, examining the influence of factors such as government intervention, social media and peer pressure.

Government intervention:

The analysis finds that government interventions are critical, with state’s campaigns setting the overall tone of progress, but up to a point beyond which they produce diminishing returns. One of the key findings is therefore that the state does not need to be extremely proactive or continue campaigns indefinitely to achieve optimal results. The state’s influence on public opinion reaches a point where further interventions produce insignificant results.

Environmental Concern, Awareness, and Sustainability Education:

Investigating the impact of awareness and sustainability education on individuals’ decision-making processes regarding fast fashion purchases indicates that environmental concerns do not significantly influence purchasing habits, nor do normative expectations (beliefs about what others think we should or should not do).

Social pressure:

Positive social pressure can stimulate collective change. If knowledge is not enough, feeling that one’s sustainable behavior is shared and appreciated by others can influence choices.

The study highlights that there are no explicit or implicit social expectations that push people to choose sustainably. In other words, in the society analyzed, there is no cultural climate or relational context in which sustainable choices are encouraged, rewarded or considered the norm.

The absence of social pressure is worrying, because without it it is not possible to address issues such as fast fashion and shape collective behavior: even those who are educated on the topic may choose to remain silent. Those who know the negative impact of fast fashion may not act, nor speak out, if they feel alone or lack social support.

Bandwagon effect or bandwagon effect: When there is no social pressure to make sustainable choices, the bandwagon effect is activated in the opposite direction: people unconsciously follow the crowd that continues to buy fast fashion. The bandwagon effect is part of a larger group of cognitive distortions that influence people’s judgments and decisions. Cognitive distortions can help people think and reason faster, but they often introduce errors of calculation and evaluation. Among these, the bandwagon effect is a psychological phenomenon in which people adopt behaviors or attitudes simply because others do so. It describes the tendency of people to follow the crowd, to desire what others have, to act as others act, deciding based on what the larger group is doing.

The term bandwagon originates from the traveling circuses of the nineteenth century, whose musical bands paraded on wagons to attract the public. Clown and entertainer Dan Rice used this float to support Zachary Taylor’s 1848 presidential campaign, inviting people to “jump on the bandwagon” to support him. After Taylor’s success, other politicians imitated the strategy, giving rise to the phrase “bandwagon effect”, which refers to the tendency for people to join a cause simply because it is popular, and some began to use the idea of ​​”jumping on the bandwagon” as a negative action.

Food trends and the popularity of certain foods can be influenced by the bandwagon effect. Even the acquisition of generational slang terms can be an example of “getting on the bandwagon.” On social media, trends can involve the recreation of specific types of posts or the sharing of certain types of content. A recent example? The AI-generated Barbie dolls kit that have filled our Instagram feeds. The very use of specific social media platforms and the popularity of certain TV shows and movies can also be attributed to the bandwagon effect. Additionally, research has shown that the effect can also influence decisions made by doctors, therapists, and other healthcare professionals.

In fashion, trends appear to be particularly vulnerable to the bandwagon effect and also tend to be fleeting, making certain items quickly obsolete and forgotten in our closets. We buy clothes, shoes, and accessories because so many do, following the popularity of brands, stores, and products.

Why exactly does the bandwagon effect occur? Individuals are strongly influenced by peer pressure and norms. When it seems like most of the group is doing something, it becomes increasingly difficult not to do it. If our peer group, the people in our social circle, buy fast fashion, it is difficult to do otherwise.

Why is it so difficult?

It’s a natural tendency for people to follow the rest of the group. because we feel pressured. In other cases, we compare ourselves to others and then try to change to be more like the group. Following trends can even help build bonds with others.

When it seems like everyone is doing something, there’s a huge pressure to conform, which is perhaps why “bandwagon” behaviors tend to form so easily. People want to be right. They want to be on the winning side. One reason people conform is because they seek information from other members of their social group about what is right or acceptable. If it seems like everyone else is doing something, people feel like it’s the right thing to do.

Fear of exclusion also plays a role in the bandwagon effect. People generally don’t want to be on the excluded side, so conforming to what the rest of the group is doing is a way of ensuring social inclusion and acceptance. The need to belong drives people to adopt the norms and attitudes of the majority in order to gain acceptance and approval from the group.

Although the bandwagon effect can have potentially dangerous consequences in some cases, it can also lead to the adoption of healthy behaviors. If it appears that most people reject unhealthy behaviors (such as smoking) and adopt healthy choices (such as physical activity and exercise), people may then be more likely to avoid risky choices and adopt healthy behaviors.

Bandwagon effect, peer pressure and sustainable fashion:

• Popular pressure creates the context.
• The bandwagon effect spreads behavior that appears successful or approved in that context.

If peer pressure is absent, the bandwagon reinforces the unsustainable status quo. If it is present and positive, it can accelerate collective change. If a cultural inversion is triggered – for example, by showing that more and more people are choosing sustainable fashion – the bandwagon effect can become a powerful ally: sustainability can be perceived not only as right, but also as popular.

In this way, positive peer pressure can exploit the bandwagon effect to make more ethical behavior desirable and “fashionable”. The bandwagon effect can lead consumers to follow sustainable trends if they are perceived as popular.

Social media:

According to the Spanish study, social media profoundly influences concerns and opinions, playing an important role in shaping our behavior. They can both promote progress and hinder the adaptation of new purchasing habits. Furthermore, the general bias of social media has a significant impact on efforts to change current purchasing habits in the fashion industry.

A study published in Frontiers in Communication analyzed how key opinion leaders (KOLs), including influencers and celebrities, influence consumers’ purchase intentions regarding sustainable fashion products. The findings highlight that:

• KOLs can significantly influence purchasing decisions, brand perception, and marketing strategies.
• Their presence on social media and their credibility can motivate consumers to adopt more sustainable purchasing behaviors.

Generational influences:

A master’s thesis from the Portuguese Catholic University examined how peer pressure influences sustainable fashion purchasing decisions among Generations Y and Z. The results indicate that:

• Generation Y is more susceptible to peer pressure in purchasing eco-fashion products
• Generation Z is more influenced when eco-fashion is promoted on social media platforms such as Instagram.
• The study suggests that peer pressure acts as a mediator between generation and purchase intention, with social media amplifying this effect.

Social norms are not enough to influence the choice of what we buy:

A study published byMDPI investigated the role of social norms in sustainable clothing purchasing behavior. The results indicate that:

• Social norms influence the perception of the social acceptability of sustainable clothing.
• However, no significant moderating effect of social norms was found between purchase intention and actual purchasing behavior.

This suggests that, although social norms may influence intentions, other factors such as personal values ​​and financial availability may play a more determining role in actual purchasing behavior.

Conclusions:

Education on sustainability and government interventions are not enough to slow down the purchase of fast fashion. Social media and social pressure are crucial to guide more responsible and ethical purchasing behaviors. Added to this are other elements such as personal values ​​and financial availability.

Defined personal values ​​and identities can overcome the bandwagon effect. Evaluating yourself based on what is considered popular at a given moment can also damage self-esteem and prevent you from reaching your full potential. Just because you like something that is not popular or has an interest that many others do not seem to share, does not mean that those activities, that style, those ideas are not worth pursuing.

To avoid the bandwagon effect, do not listen to just one source when evaluating information. Look for a variety of data and opinions, including alternative or contrary points of view, legitimate and evidence-based information that can support or refute those claims.

The point remains of the financial availability and accessibility of alternatives to fast fashion. But that’s another story, which you’ll hear about soon.

*An agent-based model can simulate how consumers decide whether to buy fast fashion or ethical fashion. Each consumer is represented by a virtual actor with their own behaviors, to observe how sustainable choices spread.

Study mentioned in this article: Soboleva & Sánchez, 2024, Agent-Based Insight into Eco-Choices: Simulating the Fast Fashion Shift, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.18814

Other sources: Ebsco; Frontiers; MDPI; UCB Repository; Very Well Mind.com

Photos: Julia Андрэй (cover),Markus Spiske, Kate Trysh, Toa Heftiba on Unsplash

The French National Assembly has unanimously adopted the bill aimed at reducing the environmental impact of the textile industry, which will have to continue its legislative process in the Senate. Intended to curb “fast fashion”, the text provides: 

• the ban on advertising for the sale of clothing at rock-bottom prices
• the decision to define fast fashion based on a set number of items placed on the market annually
• an enhanced environmental penalty to make fast fashion products less attractive

Furthermore, companies that sell disposable fashion online will have to display messages near the price on their website that:

• raise awareness of the environmental impact of their products;
• encourage sobriety, reuse, repair or recycling.

In case of violation, companies will incur a financial penalty (up to 15,000 euros).

It’s not a tax

It is incorrectly called a tax but it is a bonus/malus system: the products with the worst environmental impact will not be able to benefit from the bonuses but will be subject to dissuasive sanctions starting from 2025. The ecological penalty will be over product:

• 5 euros in 2025
• 6 euros in 2026
• 7 euros in 2027
• 8 euro in 2028
• 9 euros in 2029
• 10 euros in 2030.

These sanctions should help finance bonuses for the benefit of virtuous companies in the textile sector.

Taxes are generally imposed by governments as mandatory payments on individuals, businesses, or other entities to fund government spending and public services.

Sanctions, on the other hand, are associated with punitive measures for violations of laws or regulations.

While they might work similarly to taxes in terms of their financial impact on businesses, they are not exactly the same.

Will the measures be effective?

From a macroeconomic perspective, the effectiveness of a bill targeting fast fashion companies depends on various factors, including the specific provisions of the bill, the reactions of consumers and businesses, and broader market dynamics. Here are some considerations:

• Elasticity of demand: If consumers are highly responsive to changes in prices or advertising restrictions, then the penalties and advertising bans imposed by the bill could lead to a significant decrease in demand for fast fashion products. However, if demand for fast fashion is relatively inelastic, meaning consumers are less sensitive to price changes, the impact of the bill may be limited.
• Substitution effects: Companies operating in the fast fashion industry may respond to the penalties and advertising bans by shifting their production strategies or diversifying their product offerings. For example, they may focus on producing higher-quality, longer-lasting clothing or explore alternative business models such as sustainable fashion lines. The extent to which they can successfully adapt will influence the effectiveness of the bill as a deterrent.
• Market competition: The fast fashion industry is highly competitive, with numerous companies vying for market share. If only one country implements penalties and advertising bans, companies may simply shift their operations to other countries with more lenient regulations. The effectiveness of the bill could be enhanced if it is part of a coordinated effort across multiple countries or regions.
• Innovation and technological advancements: Fast fashion companies may invest in research and development to find ways to mitigate the environmental impact of their products or improve their sustainability credentials. This could involve innovations in materials, production processes, or supply chain management. The bill may incentivize such innovation by creating market opportunities for companies that can offer more sustainable alternatives.
• Enforcement and government support: The effectiveness of the bill will depend on the French government’s ability to enforce its provisions and provide support to companies in transitioning to more sustainable practices. Effective enforcement mechanisms, together with financial incentives and support for innovation, could help ensure compliance and promote industry-wide change.

From a microeconomics perspective, the sanctions imposed by the fast fashion law can have different effects on the behavior of individual companies and consumers in the fashion market. Here are some of the possible effects:

• Reduced fast fashion production: Financial sanctions and advertising bans can make it less cost-effective for companies to produce and market fast fashion products. As a result, companies may reduce the quantity of such products offered on the market, instead focusing on more sustainable and higher quality product lines.
• Incentives for innovation and differentiation: Penalties can push companies to invest in research and development to develop more sustainable materials and production processes. This could lead to increased innovation in the fashion industry and the creation of differentiated products that stand out for their sustainability and quality.
• Increased retail prices: If companies pass on the costs of sanctions to consumers through retail price increases, this could reduce demand for fast fashion products. Consumers may be willing to pay more for more sustainable or higher quality products, but they may also reduce their overall spending on clothing due to higher prices.
• Changes in consumer preferences: Sanctions and advertising bans can influence consumer perceptions and preferences towards fast fashion products. Reducing advertising exposure to such products could lead consumers to seek more sustainable alternatives or to evaluate brands that promote more ethical and responsible practices differently.
• Consequences for small businesses: The sanctions could disproportionately affect small businesses operating in the fast fashion sector who may have limited resources to comply with the new regulations. This could lead to a reduction in competition in the sector and favor large companies that have greater financial resources to adapt to the new rules.

Pros and Cons

Pros:

1. Environmental benefits: By imposing penalties and advertising bans on fast fashion products, the bill encourages companies to adopt more sustainable practices, such as reducing carbon emissions, minimizing waste, and using eco-friendly materials. This can lead to long-term environmental benefits, including reduced pollution and resource conservation.
2. Market correction: Fast fashion has been criticized for its negative social and environmental impacts, such as exploitative labor practices and excessive consumption of natural resources. The bill provides a mechanism for correcting market failures by internalizing the external costs associated with fast fashion, thereby promoting more socially responsible behavior among companies.
3. Innovation and job creation: The bill incentivizes investment in research and development to develop sustainable alternatives to traditional fast fashion products. This can stimulate innovation in the fashion industry and create new opportunities for businesses that specialize in eco-friendly materials, technologies, and production processes. Additionally, the shift towards sustainable fashion may create new jobs in areas such as sustainable design.
4. Enhanced competitiveness: Adopting sustainable practices can enhance the competitiveness of French fashion companies in both domestic and international markets. As consumer preferences shift towards more environmentally friendly products, companies that prioritize sustainability may gain a competitive edge and attract more customers. This can contribute to the long-term viability and success of the French fashion industry.

Cons:

1. Cost implications: Compliance with the bill’s provisions, such as penalties for fast fashion products and restrictions on advertising, may increase production costs for companies. These additional costs could be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, potentially reducing consumer purchasing power and overall demand for clothing. This may have negative implications for economic growth and employment in the fashion industry.
2. Market distortions: The bill may create distortions in the fashion market by favoring companies that can afford to invest in sustainability initiatives over smaller or less financially secure businesses. This could lead to market concentration and reduced competition, potentially limiting consumer choice and innovation in the long run. Moreover, if the penalties disproportionately affect domestic companies compared to international competitors, it may result in market inefficiencies and trade imbalances.
3. Supply chain complexities: Implementing sustainable practices in the fashion industry requires collaboration and coordination across complex global supply chains. Companies may face challenges in sourcing sustainable materials, ensuring ethical labor practices, and maintaining quality standards throughout the production process. This could lead to supply chain disruptions, increased administrative burdens, and higher operational risks for businesses.
4. Unintended consequences: The bill’s provisions may have unintended consequences that negatively impact certain stakeholders, such as workers in the fast fashion industry or consumers with limited purchasing options. For example, restrictions on advertising could affect the livelihoods of workers employed in marketing and advertising roles, while penalties on fast fashion products could disproportionately affect low-income consumers who rely on affordable clothing options.

Shein’s reaction

Next steps

The issue of thresholds, which would define disposable fashion, has come under criticism for being left to the government, with fears it may not be implemented effectively.

Furthermore, the introduction of social criteria to ensure respect for human rights in clothing production has raised debate, with some supporters citing previous scandals such as Rana Plaza. However, others have warned that ultra-fast fashion may not be the right context for establishing global rules against social dumping.

The minister of ecological transition has promised to launch a mission to define social and ecological criteria in the next two months. After being adopted at first reading by the National Assembly, the bill will then have to continue its legislative journey in the Senate. Meanwhile, France’s environment minister has announced plans to propose an EU-wide ban on used clothing exports, seeking to tackle the growing problem of textile waste.

Sources: LCP Assemblée Nationale; Vie Publique; Reuters

Shein

Shein, the popular ultra-fast fashion brand based in China and Singapore, is known for offering a wide selection of fashionable clothing, accessories and beauty products at very affordable prices. It primarily targets a young audience, with an emphasis on the latest fashion trends and a significant presence on social media for the promotion of its products. In his message to investors, Donald Tang, the executive vice president of Shein, said that the company reported its highest net profit in its history in the first half of 2023, a significant achievement compared to the near breakeven in the same period of 2022 He also highlighted that the company’s continued momentum in the United States is solidifying its leadership position in the market. The Chinese e-commerce giant is known for its rock-bottom prices and campaigns targeting Generation Z on social media platforms, including the hugely popular TikTok. We talked about Shein here:Dangerous chemicals, Inside factories, False statements.

Temu

Temu is a new Chinese platform that recently entered America, launched in September last year by parent company Pdd Holdings, linked to Chinese e-commerce Pinduoduo. Behind there is the Chinese founder and businessman Colin Huang, 43 years old, who according to Forbes has a fortune of over 32 billion dollars. Today he is the 39th richest person in the world according to Forbes’ Real Time Billionaires. Temu offers a wide range of products, from clothing to household items, from surveillance tools to household utensils, and the prices initially seem cheaper even than those of Shein. “Shop like a billionaire,” says the new platform. Temu is known for undercutting competitors like Shein and Wish and also offers free shipping and returns, creating the illusion of lower costs overall. Consumers appear to have spent about 20% more Temu products than Shein in May this year. Unlike Shein, Temu sells a wide range of products, not just fashion, and is appreciated by fans for the slightly higher quality of its products compared to rivals. The key to their low-cost model is the direct connection between consumers and suppliers, with Temu mainly taking care of the shipping process. However, there has been criticism regarding the pressure placed on small producers to lower prices at levels that make it difficult to achieve sustainable profits.This practice has raised concerns about possible ethical implications, such as pay cuts and extended working hours for workers. Additionally, Temu has received criticism for lacking formal brand affiliations, often selling knock-off products that raise issues of copyright infringement and quality control. The Better Business Bureau (BBB) gave Temu a C-minus rating amid complaints from customers, who often complain that the cheap prices hide delivery or quality issues. Reviews on TikTok vary greatly, with some extremely negative and others full of praise, some of which appear to be influenced by discount codes or affiliate links, raising questions about the degree of objectivity of the reviews.

The fight

Shein and Temu focus on ultra-fast fashion, producing thousands of new items a day, and can offer lower prices thanks to the lack of expensive physical stores like those of Zara and H&M. Shein is the market leader, but there are signs that its smaller rival is catching up or even racing ahead: in May, total U.S. spending on Temu eclipsed that of Shein by 20%, according to Second Measure. Both companies are locked in an antitrust battle in a growing industry, expected to reach $185 billion in global sales by 2027.

Temu’s lawsuit claims that Shein dominates more than 75% of the U.S. ultrafast fashion market, exercising a monopoly. Shein will likely try to demonstrate that the ultra-fast fashion market is not distinct and that the company competes in the traditional fast fashion market. A Shein spokesperson responded that Temu’s lawsuit is “baseless and we will defend ourselves vigorously.” Temu also accuses Shein of forcing major manufacturers to accept exclusive deals and threatening to impose fines if they don’t comply.

In recent months, the two have increasingly clashed with each other. Shein obtained a temporary restraining order, in a separate case accusing Temu of using its copyrighted images in product listings, to stop sales of products offered for sale on Temu. Additionally, Shein sued Temu alleging that Temu had enlisted online influencers “to make false and deceptive statements” about Shein to promote its products or statements such as: “Shein is not the only affordable option for clothing ! Check out Temu.com, cheaper and much better quality.”

“For a long time we have exercised considerable restraint and refrained from pursuing legal action,” Temu told CNN in a statement about the new lawsuit against Shein. “However, Shein’s escalating attacks leave us with no choice but to to take legal measures to defend our rights and the rights of merchants who do business with Temu, as well as the right of consumers to have a wide variety of products at affordable prices.”

The battle could last years and require significant resources on both sides. However, it is also possible that the two companies will reach an out-of-court settlement.

The question of whether the ultra-fast fashion market exists or not seems to be fundamental, a group of companies that only market a huge number of low-priced products.

Temu and Shein in comparison

Temu:

• Customers can purchase a variety of products at rock-bottom prices that not only fall into the category of fashion but also household utensils, electronics, etc.
• It includes various styles in the catalog, such as casual wear, formal wear, sportswear, outerwear and seasonal collections. There is also a section dedicated to plus sizes.
• It focuses on affordable prices and tries to offer a sense of luxury and indulgence through its Shop like a Billionaire marketing campaign.
• It does not produce its own items but operates as a marketplace.
• It has not been fully scrutinized for its ethical practices. It emphasizes the promotion of sustainable and ethical brands, focusing on quality and responsible consumption. It claims to offer unique, eco-friendly products while supporting small businesses and artisans.
• It offers more affordable prices than Shein, with seasonal discounts lowering prices even further, and some customers find the quality of their products to be slightly better, but it can vary between sellers.
• Target Audience: Focuses primarily on the average consumer in the United States. It has around 17 million active users, although it is a newer platform.
• It presents itself as a large online retailer and offers a discovery platform based on users’ individual preferences.
• It uses marketing tactics such as discounts, offers and user incentives, with a marketing budget of $1 billion for 2023. Use hauls on TikTok and collaborate with influential figures. Cross-dressing and unboxing aim to influence consumers and create a strong connection with the brand.
• Customer Satisfaction: Has an average rating of 3.4 stars from 820 reviews.
• It provides free returns within 90 days and the possibility of changing products.
• It has customer service described as mediocre, but often offers vouchers as compensation for any inconvenience.

Shein:

• It is a fast fashion brand that mainly targets young women, offering fashionable and trendy clothing at low and accessible prices.
• It offers a wide variety of clothing, including dresses, tops, bottoms, activewear, swimsuits and more. The catalog also includes a wide range of accessories such as jewellery, sunglasses and bags to complete different outfits.
• It is headquartered in China and Singapore, with R&D and logistics centers in several locations.
• It is not considered an ethical or sustainable brand. It claims to produce small quantities of each design, but puts thousands of styles on the market every day. Applying an ultra-fast fashion business model, it prioritizes speed and convenience, aiming to meet the ever-changing demands of fashionable consumers.
• It offers cheap prices but with questions about the durability and quality of the products.
• Target Audience: Target Gen Z and Millennials worldwide. It has around 43 million active users.
• It offers a curated user experience with an algorithm-based recommendation system.
• Primarily use micro-influencer marketing with a few hundred to a few thousand followers on platforms like Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok. It has a large social media presence, with influencers often showing off their purchases made from the brand. Shein offers them free products on a monthly basis. Some of these influencers receive commissions of 10 to 20% of sales.
• It tends to be less convenient than Temu.
• It has an average rating of 2.6 stars from 4,380 reviews, indicating lower satisfaction among customers.
• It provides free returns within 45 days.
• It has automated customer service that may not always effectively resolve specific customer issues.

Ultra-fast fashion

Ultra-fast fashion is an identifiable business model compared to fast fashion. The global ultra-fast fashion market was valued at $17 billion in 2020 and is expected to continue growing. According to MarketResearch.Biz, ultra-fast fashion differs from fast fashion in supply chain strategies, avoids excess inventory, focuses on internal sourcing, on-demand production and shorter delivery times, from a few days to a week, with a combination of agile and responsive procurement strategies. Times become even faster, weeks become days. New styles are increasing, up to thousands per day.

Ultra-fast fashion companies adopt a pull model instead of the conventional push model: from the data continuously collected on customers, products are made within a couple of weeks, unlike the traditional model in which products are offered on the market by pushing retailers to sale, with an accumulation of warehouse stocks. Ultra-fast fashion brands  incite consumers to buy quickly with digital marketing tactics like fast fashion companies but with much more and more precise data. Furthermore, ultra-fast fashion companies follow a “trial and repeat” logic. They produce a small batch of products according to the current trend. If the response from the market is good, they move to mass production, otherwise they do not continue production. Furthermore, they have an even faster supply chain, prefer a national production base to shorten delivery times, offer a wider range of sizes and with the lowest possible prices.

In the supply chain of ultra-fast fashion companies, the influencer culture is deeply rooted. These companies rely on TikTok, Instagram and YouTube, where they offer shopping as entertainment. While fast fashion has often taken inspiration from high fashion catwalks, making the latest runway trends accessible, ultra-fast fashion brands follow popular figures more on social media.

Which companies can be considered ultra-fast fashion?

• Shein
• Boohoo Group plc
• Missguided
• ASOS
• Fashion Nova
• PrettyLittleThing
• Cider

Ultrafast companies have been criticized for unethical practices, including piracy, mass pollution, and a disposable production and consumption model. Most clothes are made from unsustainable materials, such as polyester, and of questionable quality, quickly ending up in landfills. Since the offering is based on micro-trends, people are encouraged to wear these items a few times before throwing them away. Furthermore, there are accusations of human exploitation and practices that do not respect workers’ rights. Despite this, we continue to buy from these companies and drive them to record revenues.

Sources: BBC; YourSustainableGuide); CNN; Forbes; Euronews; Market.biz.

The findings show SHEIN’s careless attitude towards the environmental and human health risks associated with the use of hazardous chemicals.

Strict concentration limits are set for products sold in Europe in accordance with the regulation on dangerous chemicals, known as REACH, present as additives or contaminants in fabrics for clothing, accessories and shoes. The EU regulation places the responsibility for providing information on the hazards of the chemicals used on producers of chemicals and manufacturers of products containing the substances. All companies (both manufacturers and brands) must therefore be fully aware of the chemical substances used by their suppliers and take responsibility for eliminating their use, their presence in products, their impacts and any discharges, including those into water.
The REACH Regulation is based on the principle that it is the responsibility for manufacturers, importers and downstream users to ensure that they manufacture, place on the market or use only such substances that do not adversely affect human health or the environment.

It has emerged that SHEIN is breaking hard-won EU environmental regulations on chemicals and risking the health of consumers and the workers at the suppliers that make the products.

Of the 47 products purchased, 7 contained dangerous chemical substances in excess of the limits set by EU regulations, i.e. 15% of the items analysed.

Very high levels of phthalates were found in 5 boots or shoes (FT-17, FT-27, FT-15, FT-35, FT-42) at above 100,000 mg/kg (100%), compared to the requirement in the EU’s REACH regulation of <1,000 mg/kg. The highest level of phthalates was found in some black snow boots (FT-27) bought in Switzerland, at 685,000 mg/kg of DEHP (680%).

The release of nickel above the EU REACH requirements of <0.5 μg/m2/week was found in a pair of red stiletto boots (FT-22) bought in Spain, at 1.5 μg/m2/ week. Also in a suedette moto jacket bought in Spain a quantity of 0.7 μg/m2/week of nickel was found, apparently breaching the REACH requirements for the release of nickel (<0.5 μg/ m2/week). However, there is a margin of uncertainty in the testing.

A total of 15 of the products contain hazardous chemicals at levels of concern (32%).

At least one hazardous chemical was quanti- fied in 45 of the 47 products, although most were at relatively lower levels.

The concern is not only that SHEIN products with illegal levels of hazardous chemicals are being widely sold in Europe, contravening EU regulations, with potential impacts on consumers. It also suggests that SHEIN has little oversight of hazardous chemical management within its supply chain.

“It’s the workers in SHEIN’s suppliers, the people in surrounding communities and the environment in China that bear the brunt of SHEIN’s hazardous chemical addiction”, explained Viola Wohlgemuth, Toxics and Circular economy Campaigner with Greenpeace Germany. “At its core, the linear business model of fast fashion is totally incompatible with a climate-friendly future – but the emergence of ultra fast fashion is further accelerating the climate and environmental catastrophe and must be stopped in its tracks through binding legislation. Alternatives to buying new must become the new norm.”

We also talked about Shein in these articles:

L’indagine Channel 4 dentro le fabbriche di Shein;

Le false dichiarazioni di Shein sulle fabbriche;

Patagonia vs Fast Fashion: leader a confronto.

Source: Greenpeace Germania

• they work 7 days a week
• up to 18 hours a day
• they don’t have a break, the employees are forced to wash their hair during their lunch break
• they only have one day off per month
• they make 500 items of clothing a day
• they are paid a maximum of 4,000 yuan per month (about 550 euros)
• for every mistake made, they lose 2/3 of their daily salary
• they receive 4 euro cents per item

violating both Chinese labor laws and Shein’s Supplier Code of Conduct.

Starting at 8 in the morning and ending at 2 the next morning, not having rest, not receiving an adequate salary: this is what, according to the survey, employees endure in order to work.

A Shein spokesperson said to City AM: “We are extremely concerned about the claims made by Channel 4 that they would violate the code of conduct agreed upon by every Shein supplier. Any non-compliance with this code is dealt with quickly and we will end partnerships that do not. meet our standards. We have requested specific information from Channel 4 so that we can investigate.”

It’s not – unfortunately – the first time

In November last year, another report revealed non-compliant working conditions in 17 factories supplying Shein. In interviews conducted by Public Eye researchers, employees reported working three shifts a day, often having only one day off per month, not having an employment contract, and being encouraged to work long hours motivated by the “payment per item” approach. By receiving a sum of money for each completed piece, they are also not guaranteed to be paid in case of quality problems.

From Public Eye’s report:

“We follow our researcher once again, a few kilometres to the West where numerous additional textile factories are located. These factories are generally slightly larger and have up to 300 employees. They usually have reasonably well-functioning ventilation systems and slightly larger workspaces, and there are employee canteens and accommodation in the vicinity. The five employees of larger companies with whom the researcher speaks describe similar working conditions to those already noted: 11 hours a day, no employment contract, and no social security contributions.

In one of the companies, we encounter something that we have not seen elsewhere – a guaranteed minimum income. A recruitment poster at the factory entrance states the minimum incomes for specific tasks: cutting threads: 4,000 yuan; packaging: 5,000 yuan; ironing: 7,000 yuan. The pay difference for ironing is explained by the fact that the workers iron the clothes in constant heat, due to the steam, and can seldom sit down”.

In August 2021 we told about Shein’s false statements about the factories.

Meanwhile, Shein continues to launch “sustainable” initiatives

The company, which releases between 700 and 1,000 new items a day, announced a few days ago the launch of a platform for exchanging and reselling products, currently only available in the US market. “At Shein, we believe it is our responsibility building a fair fashion future for all, while accelerating solutions to reduce textile waste, ”said Adam Whinston, head of the company’s CSR division (Forbes, October 2022).

The reaction of an influencer agency

Meanwhile, Georgia Portugal, who recruits UK influencers to promote brands on social media, told her followers that she has decided she and her agency will no longer work with Shein: “We will no longer be working with Shein, no longer getting our clients any collaborations with Shein, until their working conditions change”. Portogallo made its decision after learning how workers are paid in Chinese factories that produce clothes for Shein. The influencer appears in Channel 4’s investigative video to explain how young people are drawn to Shein’s social media promotions with the lure of free clothes. “After watching this documentary, I now know – 100 per cent it’s confirmed to me – that their staff are underpaid, they work too many long hours, they don’t get days off. The whole working conditions are horrendous.” (iNews, October 2022). “Shein Hauls” are viewed millions of times on YouTube and TikTok. Young people open the delivered packages, try on clothes and comment in front of the camera.

The severance of relationships with Shein by influencer marketing agencies is a good way to increase the pressure on the ultra-fast fashion brand, which is aimed primarily at younger people.

Cover photo: Channel 4

Does more sustainable cotton automatically indicate a brand’s sustainability? Primark communicates the progress of the Sustainable Cotton Program and there is nothing but talk of sustainability after the launch of the Primark Cares line. The Irish fashion retailer, owned by Associated British Foods (ABF), says it aims for garments to last longer, to reduce the company’s impact on the planet and to improve the lives of the people who make the products.

In the section dedicated to sustainability, between attention to the environment and commitment to people the multitude of virtuous messages strikes the reader. Is this really the case if we take a closer look at the data? Why did the sale of the recycled plastic sweatshirt with the word Earth Day, close to Earth Day, aroused not a few accusations of greenwashing?

First, the information on the site is not easily accessible, clear and transparent. Referring also to the pages of the parent company ABF, we try to find out more.

Environment

Raw materials

Currently one third of the products are made with recycled, organic or materials from the Sustainable Cotton Program, which involves farmers who apply more sustainable practices. While many techniques are used by organic farmers within the cotton program, Primark’s sustainable cotton is by definition not organic. Primark expects to reach 100% products with more sustainable materials by 2030.

A collection was created in collaboration with Recover, an innovator in recycled cotton. There are recovered plastic fabrics. There is no evidence of the sustainability of all other materials used.

Primark is committed to reducing harmful substances subject to production restrictions (Restricted Substances List) along the supply chain, reaching the goal of “zero release” in 2020. However, there is no evidence that this target is achieved.

Design

Primark declares a commitment to reducing the environmental impact in the design phase of products in the coming years, but there are no details on the decrease in production or the raw materials used, nor on the increase in quality and on the extension of the life cycle of the product.

They say they want to increase the durability level. At the moment it concerns in practice only denim. A much more intensive test cycle of 30 washes was introduced for a large sample of men’s, women’s and children’s denim. This level of rigor is recommended by WRAP and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation.

Waste

“96% of all waste generated by Primark’s direct operations was diverted from the landfill”, is reported in the ESG report, without specifying which processes they refer to (it seems to mean those relating to the distribution and sale of fashion items) . Among the published data we read that out of 57,000 tons of textile waste produced in 2021, 54,000 were recycled, with no details on how. The in-store recycling scheme is mentioned, with collection boxes available in all 191 stores in across the UK, recently extended to Germany, Austria and the Netherlands Primark partners with Yellow Octopus, whose goal is that all donations are reused or recycled so that nothing ends up in landfills.

Packaging

In 2021 Primark created 41,000 tons of packaging. It removed 175 million units of plastic. Uses recycled paper bags. The hangers are made of recycled cardboard. It has eliminated 86 million labels and adhesives from products and aims to eliminate single-use plastics by 2027.

Water consumption

In the ESG report, we read about the commitment to reduce the use of water but cotton, which requires large quantities, is an essential raw material for Primark: in 2020 it represented about half of the total mix of fibers used. There are no data on the total use of water for textile production.

Emissions

Also in this case we read the objective: 50% reduction of emissions (GHG) along the Primark value chain by 2030. Last year the company directly produced 119,000 tons of CO2e, to which it add 4,783,000 tons indirectly generated by third party transportation and extended inventory.

Energy

In the reports of the parent company, the total use for the retail part of 461 GWh is indicated, of which 0% is currently renewable. Primark has achieved ISO 50001 certification for retail outlets, offices and distribution centers in some of the established markets.

People

Suppliers are chosen according to a Code of Conduct, defined by the company. This set of guiding principles is based on the internationally recognized labor standards of the International Labor Organization (ILO) and the Basic Code of the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI)*. Primark audits its suppliers through an annual on-site inspection. “Our Fair Trade and Environmental Sustainability team has more than 130 local experts”, it explains on the website. “Their task is to carry out, at least once a year, in-person checks at all the plants we work with and also to hold training courses for staff and workers”.

The site mentions a number of projects in India, Myanmar, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Vietnam and Cambodia. Among these, the collaboration with the ILO in the Better Work program is the one that gives the greatest guarantee of commitment to improving labor standards in countries where workers are less protected.

Primark was among the first retailers to sign the Fire and Building Safety Agreement in Bangladesh, initiated by IndustriALL and UNI Global Union. It was also one of the first to provide factory victims and families affected by the collapse with financial support and food aid after the Rana Plaza disaster. Primark has since been committed to offering financial advice and guidance. In addition, the Irish retailer has launched the “Pashe Achi Project” to ensure that compensation recipients retain access to their financial compensation.

* It is a leading alliance of companies, trade unions and NGOs that promotes respect for workers’ rights around the world.

Is everything okay on the social point of view?

On traceability, Primark shares online the map and the list of Tier 1 suppliers map and list of the Tier 1 suppliers (the partners with whom it interfaces directly, who cut and sew the garments).

However, there is no evidence of an increase in the number of paid workers with a living wage, nor transparency on existing working conditions for workers and the supply chain. There is no evidence that all the raw materials used were produced with respect for the human rights of farmers and their communities.

Someone fears that the company’s private talks with workers, described as an instrument of protection, are not sufficient to protect them, because they are not carried out by reliable external organizations. Often union members are threatened or fired: how does Primark ensure that they are allowed inside the factories and protected so that they can do their job freely?

It appears that the annual inspections are supported by independent audit firms, so that the integrity of the audits is not affected. However, the audit reports are not publicly shared, thus generating many questions about how well Primark is ensuring the protection of its workers’ rights. Similarly, the company has a complaints system in place but does not disclose data relating to complaints submitted.

Clean Clothes Campaign  denounced lower wages and non-payment during months of detention due to the pandemic by multinationals including Primark. Nearly 70% of the workers surveyed endured periods when normal pre-pandemic wages were not paid. All these workers survived on poverty wages even before the pandemic and it has become even more difficult to live in dignity. Additionally, workers report increased production targets, unsafe working conditions, and harassment from management. Primark has made some progress this year by engaging in  #PayUp to raise wages and signing the renewal of the Fire and Building Safety Agreement in Bangladesh.

There is recent news of a Primark manager who sues the company for sex discrimination, after she was told to work late despite having a newborn child (source Independent).

Certifications

There is no information on the certifications most used in the more responsible fashion, except in some garments such as a type of jeans certified CradleToCradle. Only in cosmetics, cruelty free certified by Leaping Bunny. However, they are not vegan, because some products may contain ingredients from animal derivatives.

Responsible consumption and other issues

Low prices

The policy of the retail giant is that of low prices, reaffirmed by the recent statement by George Weston, ABF CEO: “We are committed to maintaining our leadership position in terms of price and accessibility in everyday life, especially in this context of growing economic uncertainty”. However, Primark has recently communicated an increase on the tags of the autumn-winter collections, due to the increase in the prices of raw materials and energy following the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. For this reason alone, the group expects a reduction in the margins of its activities.

“For more than ten years”, explains Luca Ciuffreda, head of Primark for Italy, “we have been able to guarantee low prices because we do not advertise, we have reduced the packaging to a minimum, the hangers are made of recycled cardboard, and we have control, ethical too, on the production chain, which is often the same as that of luxury brands”(Source Laborability).

Sandals at £ 4, summer bags £ 10, perfume and clothes £ 7, sunglasses £ 2. How is it possible to implement especially social sustainability with such low prices?

The quality is also in doubt. This is the case of surf wetsuits, the subject of debate in these days. A Cornish surf magazine recently attacked Primark’s new range of wetsuits, calling them “cheap”, “sad” and “high treason at sea”. Cornwall Live says the garments will be “thrown away in no time”. The cost for Primark wetsuits is £ 38 for the full length and £ 32 for the short version. By comparison, an Xcel wetsuit, considered one of the world’s leading companies in the field, costs between £ 100 and £ 300. Another trade magazine, Real Surfing Magazine, also hit the fashion chain urging readers to think twice first. to purchase the new product line.

Volumes and speed of purchases

There is no trace of the company’s commitment to produce less with the aim of spreading a more responsible consumption and production model. A fundamental aspect to demonstrate awareness of the climate crisis and the limits of our planet’s resources.

Instead, there are clues to strategies for inviting customers to buy more and things they often don’t need. In the Channel 5 documentary Primark: How Do They Do It?, psychologist Dr Amna Khan put tools on the table to induce people to buy extra items and extend their stay in the store. In the documentary she declares:

“A destination store creates an experience for the consumer, almost like going to a theme park where all your senses are activated and you want to stay longer”.

Primark buys large retail spaces and adds extra experiences such as bars and beauty services to tempt customers to hang out and spend more. Because it doesn’t sell online like many of its competitors, shoppers are forced to visit the store in person, where they are exposed and tempted to purchase more goods and services, such as manicures. The £ 1 secret toy is another tool that Primark shoppers are obsessed with, emotionally captured by childhood memories.

The company has included some recommendations on the maintenance of the garments by the customers in order to extend the life.

Other issues

A Primark’s customer claims that a store-bought bra left her skin sore and sore. Rika Smith from Blackwood was left with itchy and sore skin after wearing the garment for the first time.

A woman in size UK 10 was furious after purchasing a pair of size 12 pants from Primark without being able to put them on. Ally Marie told her story on TikTok to send a message: “Primark this is ridiculous, no wonder people are struggling with body image. I normally have a size 8/10 in jeans and I have to take a size 14 from Primark”.

In the speed of releasing new collections and the pressure to design new garments, ultra-fast fashion companies are not new to episodes of plagiarism. The presentation of a coat on Instagram was greeted by an avalanche of “likes” and compliments, but also by the Daily Record‘s observation of the strong resemblance to the oversize coat from the winter collection of Blancha, a Tuscan clothing brand. The original garment is in shearling, made in Italy, and the quality in the design and production phase is reflected in the price.

How sustainable do you think Primark is? Let us know what you think by clicking here

Textile consumption in Europe has the fourth largest impact on the environment and climate change, after food, shelter and mobility.

The strategy implements the commitments made under the European Green Deal (#EUGreenDeal) and the new action plan for the circular economy. The EU thus begins to define end criteria for textile waste used not only as clothing, but also for household, cars, medical equipment, buildings and many other applications. The strategy aims to propose actions for the entire life cycle of textile products, supporting the ecosystem in the green and digital transitions, even in the design and consumption phases of fabrics. The Commission will work to enhance resource-efficient manufacturing processes, reuse, repair and other new circular economic models.

EU Environment Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius said the committee wanted fast fashion to go out of fashion: “By 2030, textiles placed on the EU market should be durable and recyclable, made to a large extent by recycled fibers”.

Re-use and repair

The strategy encourages Member States to support re-use and repair practices at national, regional and local levels and to adopt tax cuts and other tax measures to facilitate their adoption. The EU is proposing new rules that foresee a mandatory minimum use of recycled fibers by 2030 and a ban on the destruction of many unsold products.

Microplastics

The Commission wants to address the unintended release of microplastics from synthetic fabrics, considering measures to prevent and reduce it through product design, improvement of production processes, pre-washing in industrial production plants, labeling and promotion of materials innovative.

Export

The Commission will work to limit the export of textile waste and increase transparency and sustainability in the trade in waste and textiles by promoting sustainable textiles globally. To avoid the mislabeling of waste as second-hand products, the strategy foresees the development of criteria to distinguish it correctly.

Social

The strategy proposes the promotion of decent and fair working conditions, in particular with reference to gender equality, because most of the textile workers in the world are women (70% -80%). Through the Better Work program, the Commission continues to support partner countries to improve working conditions and comply with international labor standards.

The proposal also includes the introduction of a sustainability obligation for large companies to address negative impacts on human rights and the environment throughout their global value chain.

Consequences for producers and companies

The sector will have to commit to reducing the environmental footprint and introducing the principles of circularity. The Commission is working to support the transition process by preparing a roadmap to develop and streamline industrial technology research and innovation and by making financial support available (under Horizon Europe’s European Partnerships, the LIFE programme, and the Digital Europe Programme for the development of skilled experts to support the textiles industry in its digitalisation).

Give your feedback

The Commission invites all stakeholders and in particular SMEs, public authorities, social partners and research organizations to express their views on how best to achieve the transition while strengthening resilience. Anyone interested can provide feedback through an online survey and follow-up workshop.

Source: European Commission

Puoi ascoltare qui l’articolo: Strategia Tessile EU

Il consumo di tessili in Europa ha il quarto maggiore impatto sull’ambiente e sui cambiamenti climatici, dopo cibo, alloggio e mobilità.

La strategia attua così gli impegni presi nell’ambito del Green Deal europeo (#EUGreenDeal) e del nuovo piano d’azione per l’economia circolare. L’UE inizia infatti a definire i criteri di fine vita dei rifiuti tessili utilizzati non solo come abbigliamento, ma anche per la casa, le automobili, le apparecchiature mediche, gli edifici e tante altre applicazioni. La strategia vuole proporre azioni per l’intero ciclo di vita dei prodotti tessili, supportando l’ecosistema nelle transizioni verde e digitale, anche nelle fasi di progettazione e consumo dei tessuti. La Commissione si impegnerà per potenziare i processi di produzione efficienti sotto il profilo delle risorse, il riutilizzo, la riparazione e altri nuovi modelli economici circolari.

Il commissario per l’ambiente dell’UE, Virginijus Sinkevičius, ha affermato che la commissione voleva che il fast fashion uscisse di moda: “Entro il 2030 i tessuti immessi sul mercato dell’UE dovrebbero essere longevi e riciclabili, realizzati in larga misura da fibre riciclate”.

Riutilizzo e riparazione

La strategia incoraggia gli Stati membri a sostenere prassi di riutilizzo e riparazione a livello nazionale, regionale e locale e ad adottare riduzioni e altre misure fiscali che ne favoriscano il ricorso. L’UE propone nuove regole che prevedano un uso minimo obbligatorio di fibre riciclate entro il 2030 e il divieto di distruzione di molti prodotti invenduti.

Microplastiche

La Commissione vuole affrontare il rilascio involontario di microplastiche da tessuti sintetici, considerando misure di prevenzione e riduzione del fenomeno attraverso la progettazione dei prodotti, il miglioramento dei processi di produzione, il prelavaggio negli impianti di produzione industriale, l’etichettatura e la promozione di materiali innovativi.

Esportazioni

La Commissione lavorerà per limitare l’esportazione di rifiuti tessili e aumentare la trasparenza e la sostenibilità nel commercio dei rifiuti e dei prodotti tessili, promuovendo tessuti sostenibili a livello globale. Per evitare l’etichettatura erronea dei rifiuti come prodotti di seconda mano la strategia prevede lo sviluppo di criteri per distinguerli correttamente.

Sociale

La strategia propone la promozione di condizioni di lavoro dignitose ed eque, in particolare con riferimento all’uguaglianza di genere perché la maggior parte dei lavoratori tessili nel mondo sono donne (70%-80%). Attraverso il programma Better Work, la Commissione continua a sostenere i paesi partner per migliorare le condizioni lavorative e conformarsi alle norme internazionali del lavoro.

La proposta include anche l’introduzione di un obbligo in materia di sostenibilità per le grandi aziende di risolvere gli impatti negativi sui diritti umani e sull’ambiente lungo tutta la loro catena del valore globale.

Conseguenze per produttori e aziende

Il settore dovrà impegnarsi nella riduzione dell’impronta ambientale e nell’introduzione dei principi di circolarità. La Commissione è al lavoro per sostenere il processo di transizione, preparando una tabella di marcia per sviluppare e razionalizzare la ricerca e l’innovazione della tecnologia industriale e mettendo a disposizione supporto finanziario (nell’ambito delle Partnership Europee di Horizon Europe, del programma LIFE e del Programma Europa Digitale per lo sviluppo di esperti qualificati a sostegno dell’industria tessile nella sua digitalizzazione).

Dai il tuo feedback

La Commissione invita tutte le parti interessate e in particolare le PMI, le autorità pubbliche, le parti sociali e gli organismi di ricerca a esprimere le proprie opinioni sul modo migliore per realizzare la transizione, rafforzando nel contempo la resilienza. Tutti gli interessati possono fornire feedback attraverso un sondaggio online e un workshop di follow-up.

Fonte: Commissione Europea