Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Fashion as if people and the planet
actually matter
A discussion paper released by Freedom Clothing Project,
the fashion thinkanddo tank
Joe Turner, MSc BSc (Hons)
Director, Freedom Clothing Project Ltd
February 2009
Introduction
For many years, the global textile industry has been an enormous blot on the ethical
landscape. The size and scale of it is hard for anyone to comprehend. Millions toil making
clothing in unholy conditions for extremely low pay. Many more work the cotton fields,
picking and processing the heavily-sprayed cotton crop for a pittance. Once it has been used
by our disposable British culture, most of this labour-intensive product is turned into a waste
problem in a landfill site. And it is truly a waste – a waste of millions of lives, a waste
of resources to make and fuel to transport the finished products around the world and a
toxic waste gift to future generations.
In the UK, much has been made of the Organic and Fairtrade movements, with certain
sectors of the textile industry racing to embrace the profits of being 'ethical' and 'green'.
Whilst in some ways these are positive developments, it translates into very slight ripples in
the global textile industry sea. However much we might try to hide from the reality, the
system requires a pool of poorly paid people to produce items in poor countries to feed our
endless appetite for new clothing. Fairtrade certainly makes a slight income difference to
people in a small part of the supply chain, but can never force meaningful changes
throughout the system because consumers would never pay for it. Often a major part of the
attraction for the large brands is that they can sell the items at a premium which is out of
proportion to the extra production costs involved. It also does nothing to address the
wanton destructive force of the global textile industry. We fool ourselves into believing that
a few extra pennies to the producer does anything more than paper over the cracks that we
would rather not think about.
We have to reinvent the process
so it provides for our clothing
needs in a sustainable future
At some point we have to rethink fashion. We have to reinvent the process so that it provides for our
clothing needs in a sustainable future. In this paper, we will argue that there is an alternative which
few have so far examined. We will further argue that the answers lie in front of us and that the
moral imperative is within us and not in some distant forgettable land.
A global problem
Figure 1 – Global Exports
© Copyright 2006 SASI Group (University of Sheffield) and Mark Newman (University of
Michigan)
Figure 1 shows the worldmapper1 image of global fashion net exports where the territory size is
related to the net value of exports of clothing in US$ using figures from the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development statistics from 2005.
Fashion exports represent 7% of
global international trade.
1 http://www.worldmapper.co.uk/display.php?selected=83# accessed 10 October 2008
Figure 2 – Global Imports
© Copyright 2006 SASI Group (University of Sheffield) and Mark Newman (University of
Michigan).
Figure 2 shows the worldmapper2 image of global fashion net imports where the territory size is
related to the net value of imports of clothing in US$ using figures from the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development statistics from 2005.
The UK imports 3.6% of the
total world production of
clothing
These figures show that of clothing exports worth nearly US$450,000,000,000
1. About 18% went to North America, 6% to Western Europe and 4% to Japan.
2. The UK net imported 3.6% of the total worth US$16,000,000,000
What is clear from these figures is that most trade is in a certain direction – from the factories of
Asia and towards the consumer markets of North America, Europe and Japan.
2 http://www.worldmapper.co.uk/display.php?selected=84# accessed 10 October 2008
Figure 3: Global population
© Copyright 2006 SASI Group (University of Sheffield) and Mark Newman (University of
Michigan).
Figure 3 shows the worldmapper3 image of population, where the territory size is related to the
proportion of the world's population living there.
When we compare Figure 3 with Figure 2, we see that the minority of people that live in the
consumer countries (less than 15% of the total) are buying a disproportionate amount of global
clothing exports. Some of the exporter countries are highly dependent on textile exports. For
example 85% of Bangladeshi exports are said to be textiles, in a country where half of the
population – 70 million people – live on less than $1 a day4.
85% of Bangladeshi exports are
textiles, in a country where 70
million people live on less than
$1 a day
3 http://www.worldmapper.co.uk/display.php?selected=2 accessed 10 October 2008
4 BBC report 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4336085.stm accessed 10 October 2008
Trashion
According to the UK Government5, the UK consumes around 2 million tonnes of textiles per year.
At the end of its use, 1.52 million tonnes are disposed of. 63% of that ends up in landfill, 16% is
recovered and the other 21% is unaccounted for. Charity shops6 say that they receive 250,000
tonnes of textiles per year which they either sell themselves or pass on to the textile merchants. The
merchants sort and bale garments for reuse into other products or export, which in 2003 amounted
to 207,000 tonnes.
2 million tonnes of clothing
waste per year, 63% goes to
landfill
A detailed report by in 2005 by Oxfam7, a major player in the second hand export market, examined
the impact of second hand clothing (SHC) on developing countries. It found that as a whole, more
than 26% by value of all imports to countries in SubSaharan Africa were SHC in 2003. In Kenya,
Cameroon, Rwanda, Niger and the Central African Republic more than 80% by value of all imports
were SHC. 95% of all Ghanans wear SHC and it represents a staggering 60% of all clothing
purchases. Whilst Oxfam recognised that there were likely local economic impacts from the cheap
imports, they argued that the trade in SHC was likely to generate some jobs and SHC would only be
replaced by other cheap imports if the trade stopped.
A study of the impact of SHC in Kenya8 observed that there were 1.5 million people working in
clothing reclamation worldwide with 250,000 in Europe. However, as Table 1 shows, the majority
of the profit for sale of SHC (94.7%) remains in the UK.
5 DEFRA, 2007 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/consumerprod/pdf/clothingbriefingDec07.pdf accessed 10
October 2008
6 Association of Charity Shops http://www.charityshops.org.uk/recycling.html accessed 10 October 2008
7 Oxfam, 2005 http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/trade/downloads/research_shc.pdf accessed 10 October
2008
8 Field, S et al (2007). Who Benefits From the SecondHand Clothing Trade?: The Case of Kenya: Full Research
Report ESRC End of Award Report, ESRC
Table 1 – profits through the supply chain of SHC from UK grader (textile merchant) to Kenyan
retailer
Source: Field et al (2007) page 30
So, it is clear that UK SHC often has a useful secondlife as clothing for people in countries where
they cannot afford anything else. It provides jobs and some income from something that would
otherwise be a waste product. Having said that, not much of the money reaches the retailer selling
the clothing and only a small proportion of all the waste produced is reused. Most still goes to
landfill.
Toxic threads
As the Australian company Instyle point out9, there are negative environmental problems associated
with many commonly used materials in clothing.
Most obvious are the manmade synthetic fibres, which nearly always originate from petroleum. In a
changed climate future, it is hard to see how we will be able to justify the continuation of such
processes and the massive burden of disposal it produces, not to mention the energy demands and
toxic emissions caused by the processing.
Of the others, cotton is the most used material. Whilst some argue that conventional cotton is a
highly sustainable crop10, this seems to be mainly justified by the fact that it is a natural rather than a
synthetic material.
According to the Deadly Chemicals in Cotton11 report, issued in 2007 by the Pesticide Action
Network UK and the Environmental Justice Foundation, cotton production results in
• 16% of global use of insecticides, more than is applied to any other crop
• Pesticide usage worth $US2 billion every year
• Illness and death to workers caused by the use of highly toxic chemicals on the crop.
• Pollution to the environment, particularly in places such as Uzbekistan where chemicals are
used which are banned elsewhere.
It is a pretty damning catalogue of environmental and social damage unleashed on the farmers, 99%
of whom live in developing countries.
16% of global use of insecticides
are used on the cotton crop
As if that is not bad enough, the processing of the cotton into clothing is a longwinded process
which causes further pollution12 and damage to human health.
For these reasons, the increasing demand for organic cotton by discerning consumers is obviously
welcome and far better than conventional cotton. But it still needs to be grown and processed and
transported. Whilst global production is increasing all the time, the biggest producer of organic
cotton is Turkey and the total crop is less than 0.2% of the global cotton crop. Also, clothing
production requires huge amounts of water13 to grow the crops and to process the fibres.
9 Instyle accessed 9 February 2009 http://www.instyle.com.au/impact_of_textiles/Environmental%20Impact%20of
%20Fibres%20%20Print%20Version.pdf
10 Cotton Inc accessed 9 February 2009 http://www.cottoninc.com/sustainability/USCottonMostSustainableCotton/
11 Pesticide Action Network 2007 http://www.panuk.org/Projects/Cotton/Resources/downloads/deadly.htm
12 Environmental Health Perspectives 2007 http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/1159/focus.html
13 BBC Thread accessed 9 February 2009 http://www.bbc.co.uk/thread/features/howdirty/
Hung out to dry
According to the UK government14, in 2005 the UK clothing retail sector represented 5% of all
expenditure on consumer items with £21 billion spent on womenswear, £10 billion on menswear and
£6.7 billion on childrenswear. UK designers sold £750 million of designer products, two thirds of
which were exported. Whilst the sector is expanding, the amount of clothing produced locally in the
UK is in steep decline with many established brands going out of business and others moving
production offshore. Those that continue with British manufacturing have often significantly
downsized and moved into more exclusive markets. This has led to an inevitable reduction in staff
and production. Others have been able to sell the fact that they are close to the market and rapidly
produce very low quality garments for low cost retail such as market stalls. One group which has
been particularly affected by the decline has been the homeworkers. These are primarily women
who cannot work ordinary factory hours so complete work on a piecerate basis (ie they are paid for
each completed garment). These often are not classed as employees, so do not have the rights
associated with employment and are often pressurised into working long hours for little pay15.
According to a recent survey by the National Group on Homeworking16, the numbers of people
working in this way are likely to be more than the 3.1 million people suggested by the Office for
National Statistics Labour Force Survey in 2005, since many will not admit to working at home for
fear of losing their work. NGH's survey found that 23% of respondents were still sewing at home,
even though this was far less than a similar survey found in 1994. There are many reports of low
wages, poor conditions and irregular work. Workers are reluctant to complain about conditions as
the money they receive is an important part of the family income which they do not want to lose.
Hence there are thousands of people working in an ignored and shadowy underground economy.
Unfortunately the NGH closed during the writing of this report, leaving some of the most
vulnerable British workers without an advocate.
14 Prime Minister's Office, 2006 http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page10308 accessed 10 October 2008
15 For further resources on homeworking, see the National Group on Homeworking http://www.ngh.org.uk
16 Subject to Status, An investigation into the working lives of homeworkers in the UK 2007 NGH
http://www.ngh.org.uk/resourcefiles/Subject_to_Status1195636482.pdf
Dressing for a better world
The consequences of this massive international trade include:
• Impoverishment of workers in the supply chain including
• Poorly paid factory workers in intolerable conditions
• Damage to the environment by overspraying of the cotton crop with agrochemicals
• A massive use of fuel for transportation
• A huge waste clothing problem leading to
• Millions of people in subsaharan Africa who depend on waste clothing from the UK
• A disposal problem in the UK
• Destruction of local production in favour of imports of Second Hand Clothing
• The destruction of our local clothing industry which leads to
• Increasing unemployment of workers in the sector
• Adverse affects on some of the most vulnerable workers in the UK homeworkers
Environmental concerns would clearly encourage as local production to the market as possible and
use of locally available materials. We believe this would mean using the locally available skills and
waste materials to produce new clothing for brands in the future. These brands would be able to
quickly produce new styles for the market and would be run for the benefit of the producers rather
than shareholders.