Fashion and apparel production has faced both evolutionary and revolutionary change throughout its existence . Originally, the manufacturing of apparel was completed by hand—a painstakingly slow process—until the onset of the Industrial Revolution. Machinery and factories drew thousands into the workforce, with textile mills and apparel manufacturers allowing clothing to be made quickly and in vast quantities. Increased production time combined with the consumers’ need for constant change led to what is known as “fast fashion.” “The phrase, ‘fast fashion’ refers to low-cost clothing collections that mimic current luxury fashion trends,” (Joy, Sherry, Venkatesh, Wang, & Chan, 2012). Stores such as Forever XXI, Zara, and H&M are fast fashion giants and attract a younger set of consumers. The benefits of fast fashion are products are low-cost, trendy, and made to be used for a short period of time. One consumer in a study commented, “If the style is going to be dead in a year, why would I buy a piece that lasts longer?” (Joy, Sherry, Venkatesh, Wang, & Chan, 2012). This mindset, in which consumers are expecting a quick turnover, combined with the trendiness of the garments and the disposable income of Millennials and Gen Z created a toxic conglomerate of corporations that have a negative impact on the environment.
The process of making garments and textiles has many steps, most of which require water. “The textile dyeing and finishing industry has created a huge pollution problem as it is one of the most chemically intensive industries on earth, and the No. 1 polluter of clean water (after agriculture).” (Kant, 2012). In the natural science report by Kant, it is noted that the standard textile mill uses about 1.6 million liters of water per day. To dye just one kilogram of fabric requires about 60 liters of water.
Dyeing not only requires a voluminous amount of water, but it also pollutes the environment. The baths textiles are washed in during post-dyeing leaves the water full of chemicals, such as sulfur and formaldehyde (Kant, 2012). This contaminated water flows into drains and nearby bodies of water, which creates an oily sheen that blocks sunlight from dispersing in the water. Not only are the organisms living in and consuming poisonous water, but marine plants are unable to undergo photosynthesis.
“About 40 percent of globally used colorants contain organically bound chlorine, a known carcinogen. All the organic materials present in the wastewater from a textile industry are of great concern in water treatment because they react with many disinfectants, especially chlorine. Chemicals evaporate into the air we breathe or are absorbed through our skin and show up as allergic reactions and may cause harm to children even before birth.” (Kant, 2012).
Fast fashion leads to millions of garments being disposed, which increases the pollution output of the fashion industry. The disposed garments wind up sitting in landfills, but due to their synthetic nature , the garments are not breaking down. Incineration is being introduced as a way to reduce the output to landfills, but that too pollutes the air with smoke and chemicals.
Most would think more energy is required to produce a garment than maintain it. But after careful consideration, it is obvious that the consumer use cycle, or post-production process, of the garment actually requires more energy than the production cycle. Washing, drying, ironing, and dry cleaning are all processes that may be required in the general upkeep of the garment, all of which result in the usage of energy, water, and chemicals. Drying clothes alone takes up 60% of the energy needed to maintain the garment. Small start-up companies have been experimenting to solve this issue of post-production waste. One solution is from Wool & Prince, a company producing button-down shirts that are made to be worn for one hundred days without any need for washing or drying. Their development of a textile called “Cotton-Soft”, a fine wool fabric made to feel like cotton, allows for this extended period of wear. The benefits of wool are that it has anti-wrinkle properties and it naturally fights odor. Products like these are beginning to be developed, in efforts to reduce the impact fashion has on the environment.
Today’s population may be very concerned with the environment and eco-friendly goods, but many forget the impact the textile industry has. As environmental awareness becomes an increasingly important topic, many are trying to find ways to reduce the carbon footprint of the industry. On the production side, granulated activated carbon was found to remove the dye from wash water, therefore cutting back on contaminated water and runoff. (Kant, 2012). Oxygen based bleaches are being developed, rather than chlorine-based, reducing the chemical usage in the bleaching process. Air dyeing technology is advancing, cutting back on water consumption and pollution (Kant, 2012). New forms of waste management are being tested for environmental impact. Designers such as Vivienne Westwood, Oliver Madison, and Stella McCartney are all creating eco-friendly collections, in an attempt to reduce the stigma that eco-friendly clothing is unfashionable (Weber & Hui, 2015).
On the post-production side, consumers are encouraged to buy green and natural products, as well as reduce consumption. Patagonia, a company striving to advance the eco-friendliness of fashion, ran an ad on Black Friday in 2011 which read, “Don’t Buy This Jacket.” Many were shocked at first glance of this advertisement. However, upon further analysis , Patagonia was urging customers to buy the jacket, and all new clothes in general, only if they are needed. Other brands are making their customers aware of the eco-friendliness used in their production, allowing consumers to decide whether the environment plays a role in which brands they purchase. With the help of corporations and consumers, the textile industry can help to protect the planet rather than destroy it.
References
Joy, A., Sherry, J. F., Venkatesh, A., Wang, J., & Chan, R. (2012). Fast Fashion, Sustainability, and the Ethical Appeal of Luxury Brands. Fashion Theory, 16(3), 273-295.
Kant, R. (2012). Textile dyeing industry an environmental hazard. Natural Science, 04(01), 22-26.
Weber, S., & Hui, S. (2015). Designing a better world: fashion finds its soul in social and ecological justice. Alternatives Journal, 41(3).