Consumers are waking up to the negative consequences of fast fashion, but a new study shows that the environmental problems can begin long before most clothes are even made.
What's happening?
In late April, Glimpact released its findings after assessing the full environmental impacts of 100 apparel items by popular brands. Surprisingly, the study found that "90 percent of a garment's environmental impact occurs before it is even stitched together," according to FashionUnited.
The study's results challenge some commonly held beliefs about the apparel industry's ecological toll.
Using its Global Impact Score tool, Glimpact says it can show that carbon pollution is only 23% of the typical apparel product's environmental footprint. The majority stems from the choice of raw materials and manufacturing processes, such as dyeing.
"Carbon is just the tip of the iceberg," said Glimpact chief executive officer Christophe Girardier in a statement. "Because the environmental crisis is not just climate, it's systemic."
Packaging and distribution were found to account for less than 7% of a garment's average environmental impact, according to the organization, which describes itself as "the first digital platform for assessing the overall environmental impact of products and organizations."
Why is understanding this industry's environmental footprint important?
Efforts to give fast fashion and the rest of the apparel industry a sustainable makeover can be more effective when people know which aspects do the most harm.
Fast fashion is notorious for the massive amount of textile waste it generates. These products have a short life cycle and quickly deteriorate, winding up in landfills or accumulating in the environment. Since they're often made from synthetic fibers, they can also release toxic microplastics into soil systems, water sources, and, ultimately, the food chain.
This study suggests that the beginning of an apparel product's life cycle holds even more risk for environmental damage — and at least as much room for improvement.
"While brands are investing significantly in sustainable packaging and carbon offsets, they ignore the fact that 90 percent of their impact comes from their raw materials and certain industrial processes like weaving and dyeing," said Girardier.
TCD Picks » Upway Spotlight
💡Upway makes it easy to find discounts of up to 60% on premium e-bike brands
|
What should the government do about the fast fashion industry?
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. |
Set strict regulations 🚫 It's unclear if the popular brands Glimpact assessed — including Patagonia, Reformation, H&M, Ralph Lauren, and Alo Yoga — have intentionally participated in greenwashing by touting the steps they've taken to reduce packaging waste and carbon pollution.
With this new data, though, all manufacturers and retailers will have the chance to make more strategic and more responsible adjustments to the pieces they make and sell.
For example, since this research shows how important raw materials can be to a garment's overall impact, brands could make key changes to the fabrics and finishes they're working with. But companies — and consumers — may need to rethink some assumptions about what the least-damaging fabrics might be.
FashionUnited highlighted that a 100% organic cotton hoodie from Reformation actually had the highest environmental impact of all the women's sweatshirts tested.
What can be done about the industry's environmental footprint?
FashionUnited also noted the finding that "sourcing a different type of cotton for Reformation's hoodie could reduce its impact by as much as 40 percent." Choosing low-impact natural fibers like linen could make a significant difference, and sourcing natural fibers can do double duty by supporting farmers.
Glimpact also showed that modifying dyeing techniques can significantly cut a garment's environmental footprint. A 2022 study from the University of Minho laid out ecological approaches to dyeing processes, including the use of natural dyes and new technological solutions, with a special focus on reducing the contamination of the global water supply.
The Sustainability Directory pointed out earlier this year that "low-income communities and communities of color are often located near textile factories and are therefore more likely to be exposed to the harmful effects of dye wastewater and air pollution."
There's also a labor component: Just as sourcing natural fibers can support farmers, reforming dyeing techniques might help to protect textile workers.
The European Union recently passed the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, per FashionUnited, which will mandate that fashion brands disclose the environmental footprint of their products.
Using data like this, consumers should be able to make informed decisions about the items they choose to purchase, essentially voting with their wallets.
Fast fashion companies and other apparel brands unwilling to change their ways may already be seeing the consequences of such decisions, with consumer preferences shifting.
Shopping at thrift stores is another way to source more durable textiles at a discount and give them a second life, preventing them from becoming environmental waste.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
