SUSTAINABLE FASHION: FAUX POSSIBILITY? Jennifer Lin & Amanda Zheng Cornell University CRP3840: Green Cities December 20082 o green. One home, one earth. The alarming consequences of natural resources abuse and neglect for the environment have forced the human race to react to an unfamiliar crisis. With the human population pushing 7 billion—and the size of the Earth not changing anytime soon—the focus has shifted to preventing further pollution and reversing damage. Initiatives such as reducing carbon emissions, encouraging recycling and reusing, have permeated into popular culture. The “Green” epidemic has stormed the globe and is here to stay. So with all this “Green” talk, why are we focusing on clothing and fashion? Clothes are a necessity. Clothing serves as protection and coverage. The simple act of wearing clothing has become inherent. In response to an opportunity to propagate preferences and opinions of a population, a new industry called fashion was born. Fashion, the concept of wearing styles that are trendy and of the time, has burgeoned into a multi-billion dollar industry. Fashion sends messages. Whether subdued or blatant, clothes allow personal expression. Messages attached to clothing can spread awareness and opinions. We are taking a critical look at the fashion industry because while it is one of the most visible forms of expression, the inner-workings of the industry remain mysterious. Greedy consumerism, the constant investment of the end product without thought of the production process, has completely overshadowed the environmental and social repercussions of mass clothing production. We do not think about how these choices affect the environment; there is nothing about the act of buying clothing that makes us stop to think about the environmental consequences. How is the fashion industry responding to the “Green” craze? The fashion industry serves as a viable harbinger for any type of popular movement, fad, or trend, due to its widespread influence and effective reach to all types of demographics. With the recent “Green” movement, the fashion industry serves as a natural choice for propagating this issue. Nevertheless, there is disconnect in this partnership. The fashion industry profits from simple changes in aesthetics of garments for a large consumer base. With a significant sphere of influence, clothing companies easily convince buyers to get rid of their “out-of-style” wardrobe and purchase the latest styles. However, buying new clothing every season—or perhaps every week—in order to stay in style is a choice that harms the environment. People who buy into trends, throwing away perfectly good clothing in the process, cannot see the indirect harm on the environment in the same way that other obvious issues, such as noise and air pollution, lack of public transportation, and building initiatives affect people. G Fashion and Clothing: A Primer Trend spotting in magazines encourages consumers to follow suit.3 ashion has shifted from one-of-a-kind handmade haute couture pieces to traditional ready-to-wear. Today, the fashion industry, once a slow paced business where clothing items could be worn for an entire decade because of their high quality and consistently similar styles, continues to change at alarming rates. The quick changes in styles and trends allow for the regular consumption of clothing, which resulting in steady profits for companies. Every month, new styles appear on the market and as different trends surface, consumers wanting to keep up with the industry are forced to buy new clothing and replace their seemingly “outdated” styles. Out of our fast paced buying culture, “fast fashion” was born. Rather than investing more time and money in each piece of clothing, fast fashion buys into impulsive consumerism and fleeting fashion trends. Fast fashion companies stock the latest styles, many just six weeks after their runway debut. The purpose of fast fashion is to supply countless new styles in stores as rapidly as possible and at the lowest feasible price. Less cost per item perhaps implies lesser quality, but affordable prices lure customers who desire to spend as little possible on the most up-to-date looks. Low prices also imply that consumers are able to buy clothes frequently; they can wear an outfit a couple of times and then replace it. Clothing has become disposable due to neglect of quality and style obsolescence. Current culture considers keeping a single garment for years as archaic and passé. A clothing company in the fast fashion market would have 20% of their inventory replaced weekly with new styles; this means that in a little over a month, companies such as Zara, Mango, and Hennes & Mauritz (H&M) will have entirely different inventories in retail than just a month prior (Radar 2). Due to the short-lived lifespan of clothes, everything in the supply chain from designing, manufacturing, to transport is accelerated. Since the produced clothing sells at much lower prices, companies must turn a profit through time and budget-based cuts in their pre-retail operations. Most clothing companies cut transporting time by opening more stores and outlets; Spanish fast fashion pioneer Zara has around 1000 stores, the majority in Europe. Vertical integration in pre-retail and short transporting distances allows Zara to efficiently manufacture and deliver clothing at lower prices with an even shorter turnover. Fast fashion companies beat ready-to-wear companies to the market, many who ironically originate many of the designs themselves. Larger international companies, such as H&M and the Gap, have more stores—1400 and 3000 respectively, but due to their larger global market and outsourced production, transportation costs are higher than mid-sized Zara, which owns factories in Spain (Tokatli 23). With a large number of styles per year, the time constraint forces