Fashioning Sustainability suggested numerous solutions to some of the problems found in garment production that seem to have extreme impacts on the environment. These issues include fashion consumption, cotton production, working conditions, energy consumption, chemical exposure, unsustainable fibers affecting degradation, fashion miles, and animal cruelty. In addition to highlighting these problems, the report gave multiple actions that can be taken to reduce the harmful effects of production on the environment. They include options such as raising awareness amongst key industry players, promoting transparent supply chains, developing international trade standards, offering supply chains with the necessary training and support, empowering consumers to practice better care methods, and convincing designers to incorporate sustainability into their projects. As I read the report’s thoughts on action steps to take, I noticed the simplicity of them all. Is it really as simple as raising awareness of the impact that recycling has on clothing disposal? We all know the positive effects of recycling, but the number of those who actually participate is way lower than it should be. That being said, would consumers really take the increased awareness to heart and actually adopt a new lifestyle that included going out of the way to protect the environment? While it seems easy, I believe that most consumers ultimately will not have the desire to take the time out of their already demanding schedules to follow some of the action steps mentioned, unless a law required it. However if garment producers more openly became aware of the importance of conserving resources, I believe that significant change could be made. If production sustainability were taken more seriously, consumption sustainability would be equally as important in the apparel industry.
Last week’s Ecosystem Millennium Assessment touched on some “promising interventions” that I noticed related to the action steps mentioned in Fashioning Sustainability. One of the first interventions listed in the ESMA was the elimination of harmful subsidies where excessive use of harmful fertilizers and pesticides occurs. This relates directly to the concept in FS of improving fiber quality, which will in turn decrease the harms of degradation on the environment. ESMA went on to mention possible taxes or user fees being placed on activities of production that included “external” costs, such as the excessive use of nutrients that may harm the ecosystem. This partnered with the action FS promoted, which was developing international trade standards. By ensuring fair prices policies among garment producers worldwide, there would be more of a desire to save money which would in turn, promote less environmental harm. Another intervention proposed by the ESMA was to educate resource managers on the characteristics and history of a product being used in the line of production. The same action steps were also discussed in FS as the idea of transparency and empowerment of consumers. Through tracing the origins of the stock being used, garment producers would be better able to inform consumers of what exactly they are buying and the amount of harm that was imposed on the environment during the production process. Another important intervention that the ESMA discussed were the endless methods that garment producers as well as designers could utilize in order to make better sustainability decisions. As pointed out in FS, these people play the key roles in actually promoting sustainable solutions for clothing and creating fashions that appeal to the ultimate consumer in a stylish and fashionable way. Through helping the production team make better decisions as far as what methods to take in creating a garment that will not do as much harm to the environment, the end consumer can be equally as inspired to do the same, starting a cycle of sustainability.
Another efficient method to measure environmental impact from garment production was researched in Pricing Environmental Impacts: A Tale of Two T-Shirts. In the reading, the techniques of life-cycle analysis have been translated into monetary costs to be more easily understood by decision makers. Because some environmental impacts cannot be given an exact price and therefore are not measurable, they are deemed “externalities” within this report. The externalities, along with other production cost “drivers”, were paired with an estimated cost per stage through activity-based costing. The report concluded that for both conventional and organic cotton t-shirts, that the stage with the greatest environmental impact is consumer care, followed by the actual growing of cotton fiber, and then the transportation of materials and garments. Overall, I enjoyed reading this report because it was easier to picture the harmful effects on the environment in number form. Since I am more of a visual person, I appreciated the opportunity to compare and contrast the different methods of producing a basic t-shirt while clearly taking note of the “price” difference in production on the environment. I believe that this method to enhance the impacts of garment production has a chance of being an extremely successful addition to the solutions mentioned in both Fashioning Sustainability and the ESMA.
To conclude my fashion intervention, I can’t help but wonder what future steps will be taken in the effort to increase apparel sustainability awareness among designers as well as consumers. There is already so much information out there just waiting to be adopted and put into action, and I’m sure that as the world becomes accustomed to more “green” lifestyles there will be an increase in the research of the subject matter. After the readings this week, I actually found myself more interested in the subject of garment sustainability than I ever have been before. I had no idea that simply by switching from conventional to organic cotton t-shirts, I could save my environment billions of dollars. What other ways are there besides reading these lengthy reports that we can illicit this same realization onto consumers? Do you think that by the time we peak within the industry, sustainability will be an even bigger issue being addressed? And are these “environmental impacts” really a threat to the future of the ecosystem? I suppose that only time will tell.
