If I Ruled the World...

Everyone’s perception of the world around them differs in many ways, as is assumed through the variety of cultures in existence across the globe. An individual’s culture can explain a lot about how someone envisions a possible future based on their state of existence both in the past and present. Because of this, grasping one universal vision from the massive human race is overwhelmingly impossible. After reflecting on my own capacity for future consciousness, I am able to imagine a world where sustainability is the ONLY “cool” thing to do, and people are undertaking anything and everything they can to be socially accepted.

As a student having studied the apparel industry for the past few years, I feel confident in saying that most of us focus on optimism in how we view the stories and outcomes of life. In Thinking Ahead: The Value of Future Consciousness, psychologist Martin Seligman argues that “the belief that one can positively affect the future is critical to optimistic thinking”. The apparel industry is wholeheartedly about affecting the future in as many positive ways possible, starting with individually impacting consumers. People within this industry also have high self-efficacy, since setting goals and not giving up are crucial qualities to possess. Falling under the optimism category, I am 100% hopeful that we are in charge and capable of impacting our environment in a positive way for the future.

On the down side, being optimistic and hopeful can only go so far when it comes to actually eliciting a worldwide transformation. Even in analyzing my future consciousness for a sustainable future, I realized that there were some things that I would have to change personally in order for my optimism to stabilize. For one, I do believe in a higher external force that also contributes to what is yet to come. While I do not wish to change this belief, I do understand that I will have to incorporate it into whatever ultimately ends up happening to our environment. I do notice that believing in this higher external force however, can bring about more negative emotional states which could put a damper on my positivity for the future. Therefore, keeping these negative states in check in order to continue down my vision’s path is an important change to make. Another mindset that will need some minor adjustments has to do with viewing the human population as a whole. At times, it is hard for me to visualize a hopeful future when I have little to no faith in those around me to also practice optimism and work toward making a change. In Thinking Ahead: The Value of Future Consciousness, increased empowerment is defined by “expanded foresight, goal setting, planning, and goal-directed behavior”. Each of these defining characteristics is without a doubt lacking among people today for reasons beyond what I can understand. Laziness is taking its toll within our society, and unfortunately on my optimism as well. Visioneering: an essential framework in sustainability science points out that a sustainable future will require a “purpose-driven transformation of society”. How can society’s transformation have a purpose and be driven and goal-oriented if we ourselves aren’t? Hopefully these impeding issues will be able to change overtime, making my vision for a sustainable future something achievable.

My first thought when trying to define my vision for a sustainable future was to limit consumption of product users. However as I pondered the idea more, I came to the realization that I am seeking a career in a field that profits from the overconsumption of consumers! My future would not be sustainable at all if my industry was unable to make any profits due to limitations. The reading Limiting Consumption: Toward a Sustainable Culture focused primarily on aspects of overconsumption and how it affects the human race as well as the environment. Apparently, “the percentage of Americans who report that they are ‘very happy’ has been relatively stable since 1957, despite phenomenal growth in consumption”. In my opinion, the reason for this stagnation also has to do with the downfalls of the economy that are causing overall dissatisfaction among product users who are desperately seeking any amount of disposable income. Realistically however, consumption levels are most likely not going to change much within society now or in the future.  In switching my train of thought, I concluded that my vision of a sustainable future resembled more efforts toward creating efficient technology and advertisements. The basic principle of my vision is going to continue to guide consumers down the path of what is “cool”, but this time in a sustainable light rather than the opposite. The concept is simple: make sustainable efforts more mainstream through encouraging the practice of sustainability rather than making it seem like an option that is available if consumers choose to do so. Ultimately, sustainability is the ONLY option. Because technology and advertisements make such strong impacts on generations today, they are prime targets in transforming consumption patterns of people. Making changes in technology was a key topic in the video 2057: The World, where the chemical composition of solar panels was being altered to preserve the limitless use of solar energy.

The “Social Trap” mental mode of ‘everybody else is doing it, so why shouldn’t I’? combined with the “collective action” approach is what led me to formulate my vision. In addition to overconsumption not being likely to subside, the basic human need to conform is also going to be ingrained within society for years to come. For that reason, if sustainability can be enforced more heavily throughout society as something that is more mainstream, people will be forced to follow. In addition to adopting such mental modes to bring about my vision of popularizing the efficient consumption for the future, some will also have to give up the desire to be a unique distinction from others around them. Having this mindset would not benefit my vision, and would ultimately bring us right back to where we are currently. We have to focus on popular group conformation in order make the sustainable footprint that my vision hopes for.

Communicating and engaging others in my vision is going to be the challenge, since my vision is almost the complete opposite of what consumers are practicing today. That is, following a path down the popularized unsustainable road, that suggests more negatives over positives when it comes to adopting ecological practices. However, I do believe that making my vision a reality will be easily obtainable if I am able to educate those within the technology and advertising industries about how they will benefit from creating a new band of followers. Through innovation and fresh ideas regarding sustainability, consumers will be intrigued by what new products are being created and promoted. After all, that is a lot like how our society is today. Now if we can only shift gears toward adopting a more sustainable lifestyle through letting go of historical tradition, taking more risks, and having more faith in others, our complete community will transform into following a path where sustainability is commonplace.

The Face behind the Masked "Brands" of Today

It is more than apparent that products within the apparel industry today are represented on the basis of “eco-friendly” and “organic” production methods. But how do we as consumers really know whether or not a product was produced in an environmentally-conscious way? Do the terms “eco-friendly” and “organic” actually mean anything to consumers? To me personally, these words are “fluff” words with no substance or real meaning. I feel confident in saying that the majority of consumers most likely feel the exact same way. While we all know that purchasing more environmentally-friendly products is the “right” thing to do, we are not willing to invest our hard earned money or precious time into anything beyond what we are comfortable with. So, how can companies persuade consumers that the extra money and time is worth it? It turns out that honesty is actually the key when it comes to successful selling through advertising and promotion.

The definition of eco-promising, according to Eco-promising: Communicating the environmental credentials of your products and services is the practice of making claims about the environmental attributes of products. These so-called eco-promises can include anything from pictures, to direct claims, to symbols and labels. They also focus on a particular issue, input characteristics, or third-party labels. With the wide variety of false product claims floating around the industry today, it is easy to see how consumers tend to lose sight of reality upon exposure. Supposedly from the start of the 1970s to present-day, eco-promising strategies have developed more sophisticated approaches to reaching the consumer market. These sophisticated strategies are centered more on being descriptive and open as to product composition and production, and less on promoting the exterior “fluff”. This more detailed approach in advertising products seems to provide consumers with the perception that the company is serving their best interests. But are they really? According to the reading, there are numerous obstacles to face when eco-promising comes into play. The one obstacle that I felt as though I related to as a shopper was the risk of the “confused consumer”. Without any universally accepted definitions, specific terms are virtually meaningless. As a result, consumers choose to buy the brand that does not have “organic” written ten times on the package because what does that even really mean anyways? Furthermore, the higher price of these “organic” products when faced with consumers ready to purchase causes instant un-attraction. At this point, there seems to be no middle ground upon which a compromise can be made.

To confuse consumers even more, the concept of “greenwashing” is overtaking advertisements of all kinds of products and services. The definition of greenwashing, according to The greenwash guide is an unsubstantiated environmental claim found in advertising that ultimately undermines consumers’ confidence in their purchasing choices as they no longer know who or what to believe. From featuring un-credible sources, the lack of proof, or irrelevant claims, greenwashing can be seen in many different forms. It can be hard to tell a good product claim example from a bad one, but greenwashing can be avoided by taking the time to accurately inspect the advertisement.

Below is an illustration of a bad product claim example from a website found on the Eco Fashion World database:

URL: http://www.hoodlamb.com/wintersite/index.html

This ladies fleece miniskirt has a very poor description of what dictates its “organic” composition. In addition, there are no certified labels anywhere on this ad or throughout this organization’s website. If I came across this product as a consumer, I would take my money elsewhere as I would not be convinced.

On the other hand, the next example shown below is an illustration of a good product claim example from a website also found on the Eco Fashion World database:

URL: http://www.bagthehabit.com/shop_bags

This ad does a much better job at explaining how these reusable produce bags are produced organically with the environment in mind. It provides clear and specific product production details and includes other examples of products with the same concept at work. In addition, the home page of this website provided a list of custom design partners including third-party labels. The strong presentation of information along with the honest feeling of the ad provokes me to actually invest in the products.

In conclusion, I believe that the only answer to making an impact among consumers when it comes to efficiently communicating product claims is standardization. Through simplifying product claims into ONE universal methodology that consumers are better able to comprehend, I believe that shifts toward a more sustainable world will excel. While there are some limitations to the concept of standardization, I believe that it is those boundaries that will enable the true transparency of a company. In standardizing product claims, the customer is being served rather than the reputation of one company over another. In the end, this will benefit the company’s success since the customer is ultimately who drives the business. Unmasking the realities of brands and products of today is going to constitute a much more profitable industry.

High Hopes for the Future of Cotton

It’s just a basic t-shirt, right? As an avid t-shirt wearer, I had somewhat of an idea as to the amount of work that went into constructing this simple and very comfortable apparel item. However, after reading The Sustainability of Cotton and viewing a couple of different videos featuring cotton production methods online, I came to the realization of how harmful my basic t-shirt was on the environment as well as on the individuals who contributed to its creation. When I think about it, there are similar misconceptions around multiple facets of life. As the cliché goes, “you can’t judge a book by its cover”. And it is the truth! It is difficult to measure the hardships of cotton cultivation until someone explains them to you, or you learn about them in a class such as this one. Fortunately, the future of cotton seems to be a bright one.

Reading The Sustainability of Cotton brought to my attention many pressing issues that cotton producers experience, as well as what the environment experiences. Some of the issues mentioned include irrigation, fertilizers, pesticides, pests and diseases, and human impact.  All of which, if taken into consideration, make a significant difference between conventional and organic cotton growing methods. One issue that I found myself wanting to know more about was irrigated cotton cultivation. I was shocked to read about how much water is required for the farming and processing of cotton. According to the reading, it takes 10,000-17,000 liters of water to produce 1 kilogram of cotton lint. To put it into perspective, that is equal to 2,642 gallons, which is enough to fill close to 30 standard-sized bathtubs of water! (answers.com; answers.yahoo.com). In order for irrigation to be applied, many environmental sacrifices have to be made. This includes diverting rivers, constructing dams, and pumping water up from the soil. While there are prospective innovations to more efficient irrigating techniques, the high investment costs bring cotton producers to a halt. In order to avoid spending a fortune and sacrificing higher profits, farmers have to pay attention to the quality and quantity of the water being used, and be more efficient overall as much as possible.

The Cotton, Inc. website did a great job in lifting my spirits and informing me of the current conservation methods being enforced today. The video “Cotton & Water: White, Blue and Green” pointed out that apparently, there is a recent “spark” being seen within cotton farmers as they are being driven to find creative ways to conserve their water usage. In another video titled “Protecting and Preserving Soil with Today’s Cotton-Growing Techniques”, I learned about a new “conservation tillage” technology where instead of consistently plowing the farm fields, no tilling is involved and a new residue is planted. This new residue has many benefits not only in water conservation, but in reducing soil erosion as well. It makes more water available for plants because of its ability to soak up the rainfall and spread it more efficiently across the crops. It would be great if these conservation methods showed successful results, but it is ultimately up to the farmer as to whether or not they will be practiced.

The valuable information presented in the reading and the short videos led me to form the opinion that the current cultivation methods of cotton are not sustainable at all. However, I do see definite potential in the future for sustainability to be better enforced. This will ONLY occur if the more efficient methods are actually adopted and correctly performed by farmers. Consumers can also take part in this effort by being more aware of the production history of the garments that they purchase. So in conclusion, your t-shirt isn’t basic at all! However, the required steps to be more sustainable in producing your t-shirt CAN become basic and simple if we choose to exert the needed effort.  

Naturally? Not Necessarily.

It is a common misperception among those both within and outside of the apparel industry, that natural fiber production is the answer to ending the environmental sustainability issues faced today. The hidden truth however, is that there really isn’t a favorable direction to go when it comes to deciding which material to use for textile fiber production. As an apparel designer and an avid synthetic material user, I was taken aback when I overheard a fellow coworker discussing the negative impacts that synthetic materials have on the environment. Her comments prompted me to do some research on my own to prove to her that natural materials were not as “pure” as she insisted that they were. I also wanted to gain insight into possible ways that I could produce my garments with a more diverse mindset, incorporating the idea of change, in hopes to inspire my consumers to do the same. Kate Fletcher made some great comparisons in the first chapter of Sustainable Fashion and Textiles, while Textile Exchange’s Charline Ducas also made some strong points as far as the realities of the production and consumption of the two materials.

As I read through Sustainable Fashion and Textiles, I was surprised to learn that it is not ONE specific textile that will lessen the effects on the environment, but rather the LACK of diversity of the materials used. The fact that material diversity is a concept that is lacking in garment production surprised me, as I was convinced that the apparel industry was one of innovations and risks. Apparently, more attention needs to be paid to the use of alternative, more resourceful fibers of a garment and less to a particular look or style of a garment. The reading is not promoting that cotton and polyester, or the “big two fibers”, be cut out of fiber production completely. Instead, Fletcher believes that more work should be done to incorporate more environmental-friendly fibers within the production process. Essentially, it is time for the “underdogs” of fibers to shine!

Synthetic fiber processing is just as harmful as natural fiber processing, according to Fletcher’s assessment of sustainability impacts. Even though 1 kilogram of cotton draws on 8,000 liters of water while 1 kilogram of polyester uses little or no water, polyester does consume twice the energy that is needed to make the same amount of cotton. The reading continues to discuss the range of natural fibers that exist, which include cotton, wool, silk, and linen. Each of these natural fibers are similar in their harm done to the environment, as they all require excessive amounts of water, pesticides, and fertilizers to ensure accurate processing. In comparison, the manufactured fibers mentioned include polyester, nylon, acrylic, and viscose. Once again, high energy consumption, chemical usage, and pollution indexes resulting from generated air emissions are necessary in ensuring accurate processing of these fibers. There are many alternatives listed that can be used in replacement of both the natural and manufactured fibers, but the most impact is attributed to consumer care. Again, by extending ways to improve harmful environmental impacts for BOTH producers and consumers, we are better able to view these issues as a “whole” unified problem. Therefore, we all need to work together on each end to elicit a change.

Textile Exchange’s Charline Ducas also emphasized a stronger focus on improving the impacts of fibers on the environment. She discussed six “trends” that are currently being assessed in order to address these harmful influences, one of which is titled “doing more from less”. This trend highlighted how producers can be more clever in using less water, energy, and chemicals. According to Ducas, the chemical industry is practicing such a change by lessening the amount of indigo used in denim production. A new “Clariant” technology for denim apparently uses 92% less water, 30% less energy, and 87% less cotton waste! Utilizing this technology can save so many of our natural resources while reducing the amount of harm that is done simply by producing one pair of jeans. When you view the cost of improvements through percentages, it is easier to understand how much of a change can be made by researching alternatives in production. I enjoyed the last bit of information that Ducas shared in the video, which was that solutions are available if we just take the time to adopt them into our everyday lives! Collaboration between designers and supply chains are also deemed as vital in promoting such solutions, which means that a change in mindset must also be made to achieve success.

Both Sustainable Fashion and Textiles and Charline Ducas extend very insightful information regarding the natural vs. synthetic conundrum currently being reviewed. In my opinion, making a decision between choosing a natural fiber or a synthetic fiber shouldn’t generate much of a “headache” to whoever is doing the picking, because it is clear that both are equally at fault for the sustainability issues we are facing today. While incorporating some of the mentioned fiber alternatives would make a world of economic difference, it is also important that the consumer do everything in their power to extend the use of their garment. Inspiration to do so however, comes from the careful sustainability efforts used in the production phase by the fiber grower or designer. So my question to you is do you agree with the fact that the environmental impacts should be a two-sided approach? In my opinion, this continual system of push and pull efforts will be sure to bring about a change within the apparel industry, regardless of whether a product is made naturally or synthetically. And even though my coworker and I are on different “fiber teams”, at least now she can realize that changes need to be made by every member of both teams.