By Clare Purser (BSc Economics & Finance)
Introduction
I know that many are wanting to make a more conscious effort about our buying habits, specifically our clothes shopping. To do this we need to build awareness of some of the problems within the fashion industry and promote the ways/organisations in which such problems are being dealt with. In this blog, I look at how Covid-19 has impacted the balance of power between suppliers and fashion brands/retailers. I then look at the environmental impact in the fashion industry, more specifically water pollution. To finish I highlight two ways in which Norwich is contributing to a more sustainable fashion future.
Impact of Covid-19 and the balance of power
With the sudden shutdown of retail stores across the globe in 2020, the impact within the fashion industry hit those already struggling. According to the Centre for Global Workers’ Rights (CGWR) and the Workers’ Rights Consortium (WRC), major brands and retailers cancelled US$40 billion worth of orders at the start of the pandemic leaving the factories and suppliers to foot the bill (Anner, 2020a). In a supplier report using data from July and August 2020, 47% of the suppliers stated that less than 25% of their originally cancelled orders were paid in full (Anner, 2020b). This is despite the clean clothes #Payup campaign which has aided in recouping US$15billion owed to such factories, according to CGWR and the WRC estimates (Anner, 2020a). In the same supplier report, 56% will need to accept orders below costs and are now having to wait an additional 34 days for payment after the order is shipped relative to the pre-pandemic period (Anner, 2020b). It is becoming known that many of the new clothing items we buy may not have been paid for by the brand. Less than 10% of the major fashion brands disclose a policy for paying suppliers within 60 days (Fashion Revolution Transparency Index, 2021 pp.8). These huge cost pressures are likely to force many factories out of business, causing further disruption in the labour market as well as the industry. In terms of the workers, the supplier report indicated 75% of the suppliers had to reduce workers hours with over ¼ reducing hours by more than 25% (Anner, 2020b). Further to this, 97% of brands have not disclosed the number of workers who have lost their jobs as a result of the pandemic (Fashion Revolution Transparency Index, 2021 pp.8). There is an imbalance of power between some brands and their suppliers, many of whom are in developing countries. The pandemic has exaggerated such issues and the need for change has accelerated in pace. Major brands need to accept responsibility for their actions, and this is the first step to ensure that the supply chains survive through the pandemic and beyond because short term fixes are just that short term. To better understand individual brands actions, check out the Worker Rights Consortium Covid-19 Tracker: Which Brands Are Acting Responsibly towards Supplies and Workers?
Water pollution
Textile dyeing is globally the second largest polluter of the water and to make a pair of jeans uses around 2,000 gallons of water (UN Environment Programme, 2018). Yet research has found, out of 62 reporting companies, only 13 cited water pollution as a financial or strategic risk (CPD, 2020). Only 6 of the 62 disclosing companies acknowledged the water pollution risks at each stage of the value chain and only 1 acknowledged the issue of microfibre pollution. Water pollution can be a real threat to businesses and is certainly an area that requires greater consideration. While water pollution itself is a serious cost to businesses, being able to resolve and/or reduce this issue provides opportunities to these same businesses. Of the 62 reporting businesses, 29% estimated opportunities regarding reduction in water pollution worth some US$184 million (CPD, 2020). This value can be derived in the form of reduced operational costs, improved brand image from both customers and investors as well as a decreased risk from regulation and operations. Many businesses are likely underestimating the gain from undertaking such changes in their systems, as such many are not seizing the opportunities available. An improvement in information and transparency of such issues will help to improve policy decisions by businesses.
Fashion sustainability in Norwich
Colorifix
Colorifix is a biotechnology company based in the Norwich Research Park to use science to develop a more sustainable and cost-effective alternative to dyeing. According to Colorifix, the technology can reduce water consumption by 49%, electricity by 35% and carbon dioxide emission by 31% relative to conventional methods of cotton dyeing. Furthermore, the dyes are biologically produced and nontoxic allowing for more sustainable production. Moreover, the technology can be used with the existing infrastructure and can allow companies to switch to a cheaper and more sustainable solution more easily to clothes dyeing. Brands such as H&M and designer Stella McCartney are already showing support for this technology, and this is one step closer to developing a more sustainable fashion industry.
New-U Enterprises Ltd.
From the Charity Commission for England and Wales, the New-U Enterprises Ltd aims to:
- Help individuals in long term unemployment by providing opportunities to develop their skills capacities and capabilities to help them participate in society.
- Protect and preserve the environment by promoting and educating the public on waste generation, management, and recycling. Furthermore, the charity offers financial relief through the recycling and provision of clothing and other household items through the Swap-Shops and jumble sales.
For more information on the New-U Enterprises Ltd and their aims, you can refer to the Charity Commission for England and Wales.
The New-U has two swap shops one in Norwich Castel Quarter and the other is in Cromer. These Swap-shops provide a new way of shopping where individuals swap clothing for points. Looking at their impact within the fashion industry, in the first 7 months of opening in Norwich, 25,000 pieces of clothing had been swapped. If these items were newly manufactured this would have cost an additional 4.5 billion litres of water and 3 million Kg of Carbon dioxide (Norfolk Chambers of Commerce, 2019).
Conclusion
Overall, there is an opportunity for both big businesses, as well as individuals. Sustainability is a process, and yes, you can still have more than a few pieces in your wardrobe to still be sustainable. If we all made small manageable changes that would add up to a substantial difference.
Bibliography
Anner, M. (2020a) Unpaid Billions: Trade Data Show Apparel Order Volume and Prices Plummeted through June, Driven by Brands’ Refusal to Pay for Goods They Asked Suppliers to Make. PennState College of the Liberal Arts. Available at: Unpaid-Billions_October-6-2020.pdf (workersrights.org)
Anner, M. (2020b) Leveraging Desperation: Apparel Brands’ Purchasing Practices during Covid-19. PennState College of the Liberal Arts. Available at: Leveraging-Desperation.pdf (workersrights.org)
CDP (2020) Interwoven Risks, Untapped Opportunities The business case for tackling water pollution in apparel and textile value chains. CDP. Available at: CDP_Water-Apparel_analysis_report
Colorifix (2022) Our Impact. Available at: Our Impact – Colorifix (Accessed:07/02/2022)
Fashion Revolution (2021) Fashion Transparency Index 2021. Fashion Revolution. Available at: Fashion Transparency Index 2021 by Fashion Revolution – Issuu
New-U Enterprises Ltd. (2022) About Us. Available at: New-U Enterprises Ltd (new-ultd.co.uk) (Accessed:07/02/2022)
Norfolk Chambers of Commerce (2019) New-U Enterprises Ltd- Our proposal to you. Available at: Norfolk Chambers of Commerce (Accessed:07/02/2022)
UN Environment Programme (2018) Putting the brakes on fast fashion. Available at: Putting the brakes on fast fashion (unep.org)
Worker Rights Consortium (2022) Worker Rights Consortium Covid-19 Tracker: Which Brands Are Acting Responsibly towards Supplies and Workers? Available at: Worker Rights Consortium Covid-19 Tracker: Which Brands Are Acting Responsibly towards Supplies and Workers? (Accessed:07/02/2022)
Banner Image by Edward Howell on Unsplash