Fast fashion findings

An article I found recently brought up some interesting points about garment ethics: Analysis: Do consumer concerns threaten fast fashion?

1. "In countries like Vietnam or China, worker exploitation isn't hard-wired into how business is conducted. Some businesses might well exploit their workers if they think they can get away with it - but so might businesses in the US or Sweden."
   
   Absolutely. This makes it even more difficult to know whether a garment is made by an exploited worker or not. Even garments made in Australia may be made by workers who don't receive adequate pay and conditions, usually homeworkers.
   
   
   (image source)
   
   
   
2. "Last-minute changes of mind, or delayed decisions, rarely translate into extended delivery dates: factories are expected to get garments out in time to meet a ship, however often the buyer might have changed the brief. And with greater pressure on time comes pressure on workers, and pressure to use unvetted subcontractors."
   
   This indicates that the fault may lie mostly with the buyers rather than the factories. I hadn't thought of this before. Factories may feel backed into corners by buyers, just as the workers feel backed into corners by the factories. The reason that buyers change their minds so often is probably due to the nature of fast fashion - a fad trend is discarded just as fast as it was introduced.
   
   
3. "So it's easy to assume that the further a garment travels while being made, the more carbon gets emitted... Cambridge University's Institute for Manufacturing published some serious analysis of carbon emissions in apparel manufacturing in late 2006 [1]. It showed that - even for a T-shirt made in China from American cotton, transport to Europe accounted for only 10% of the carbon emissions produced during the garment's life.

   How the consumer washed and dried the T-shirt mattered most; and manufacturing the T-shirt emitted three times as much carbon as transporting it round the world.

   But here's what Cambridge didn't look at. A factory that's heated in winter, air-conditioned in summer, highly automated and operated by people who commute to it by car must dump more carbon than a factory that's properly ventilated, is highly labour-intensive and where workers walk, cycle or get a (very overcrowded) bus to work.

   On this basis a factory in Bangladesh must be better for the planet than a factory in France or South Carolina."
   
   Something I'll definitely be thinking about. Obviously working conditions should be considered to look at the bigger ethical picture, but from a purely environmental standpoint, this is an interesting theory.
   

Southland discoveries

I was over at my old turf today (I'm ashamed to say), Southland Shopping Centre, for lunch and a stroll with mum. Here's what I discovered:

• Cue has some surprisingly unique designs. I'd be interested to know of their 'sweatshop or not' status.
• My old coworkers at Miss Shop in Myer are seeing the pinch with decreased sales and shifts. It's kind of a relief to know that the economy is affecting big business too, and it makes me feel prouder of the sales I have had.
• Being in Valleygirl makes me annoyed. Mum was in there for a good half hour. They're pretty much against everything I stand for. For non-Australian readers, Valleygirl is a 'cheap and nasty' clothing store where most things are $10-$20 and attempt to follow trends. I browsed the racks, and found one really nice striped knit top among the rubbish, but wouldn't buy it on principle. It's weird how the fabric quality varies in there - sometimes there are pieces that aren't made from horrible thin synthetic.
• There's a 'leggings as pants' trend going on that I find a little confusing. I saw about 10 girls in them. All black.

I think the world would be much more fashionably interesting if clothing couldn't be bought and everyone had to make their own or barter them.

The eco-bandwagon

There are so many products spouting 'eco-friendly' or 'recycled' these days that it's hard to know who's legitimately and passionately trying to make a difference, and who's using it as a marketing ploy. Perhaps I'm being cynical, but I'm not interested in supporting a brand like Sportsgirl, despite their small range of organic garments. If they were really passionate about environmental ethics, they would design for longevity, rather than fad trends. "The motivation was to give our customer the opportunity to buy 'on trend' fashion while understanding her concerns about the environment. The collection delivers on that," said Sportsgirl's buying manager (source). To me, this is a blatant contradiction.

No one seems to be saying 'buy less'. If you want to help the environment, that's the best way to do it. An organic cotton tee, while it doesn't poison the earth with pesticides, still uses up massive amounts of water and resources through production and distribution. Unless you really need it, is it all necessary?


I do think it's great that awareness is increasing, and Sportsgirl is taking a step in the right direction. However, I question their motives, and would much rather support a brand that is passionate about change and shows it in all aspects of their business.

Sometimes the ethical options aren't there or aren't evident or are out of our price range. No one can fix all of the environmental imperfections in their life, I certainly have a long way to go, but I do think it's important that we try.

Press

heidi and seek was featured on V-Raw! I was hoping for a little write-up too, but this is still pretty awesome. Thank you V-Raw!

I've been meaning to add previous press to the website, but haven't gotten around to it. Here are the links until I do:
Design Federation
Craftgossip
And I've received the most lovely write-up from Amy of Bean Pickle Sprout. She makes the most adorable appliqued goods - I might send Tim the link of my favourite item come Christmas time. Subtle, no?

Giraffe in the Polka Dots bib by Bean Pickle Sprout