Is Fast Fashion Bad For The Environment?

Have you ever wondered why the clothes sold today just don't last or fit properly? Or why does that shirt from your grandpa's wardrobe still feel superior decades after it was made? And these are not some nostalgic observations; they actually represent the outcome of the modern fast fashion business model. 

Fast fashion isn't just about quickly catching up with trends and following low manufacturing standards. It nurtures the throwaway culture, which in turn contributes to overconsumption: over the past 15 years, the number of times a clothing item is worn before its disposal dropped by 36%. 

Sadly, fast fashion and throwaway culture have staggering environmental consequences, too. Only in the UK, around 350,000 tons of waste clothing end up in landfills every year.

Thus, the question of whether fast fashion is bad for the environment is rhetorical. However, in this piece, apart from taking a closer look at the scope of the environmental damage, we'll try to find out what there is to be done to revert this unsustainable trend.

Fast fashion is a clothing production model that focuses on the rapid production of trendy, affordable clothing. It prioritises short product lifecycles to encourage quick garment disposal and frequent replacement.

As of 2024, the global fast fashion industry is valued at £106 billion, which is 10.74% higher compared to £94.44 billion in 2023. By 2032, the industry is expected to reach £228.22 billion.

While the fast fashion phenomenon appeared in the '90s, there were a number of cultural, technological and economic changes outside the fashion industry leading to its rise. Here are some key developments:

These factors fundamentally transformed the fashion industry and made fashion more accessible worldwide. However, they also caused significant sustainability challenges that pose staggering environmental changes.

The fashion industry is accountable for 10% of global carbon emissions, producing 1.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually. This is higher than emissions coming from international aviation and maritime shipping together.

This is mainly due to resource-intensive processes, reliance on synthetic materials, and overproduction. Dyeing and finishing are responsible for 36% of the industry's greenhouse emissions, and yarn preparation accounts for 28%.

Since the top fast fashion brands locate their facilities in countries with limited renewable energy infrastructure, fossil fuel-dependent manufacturing processes continue to drive these figures up. 

If current trends persist, the fashion industry could account for 26% of the world's carbon emissions in 2025. 

It's a new cold reality: typically, clothing items are worn between 7 and 10 times before being discarded. On top of that, one in three young women labels clothes as "old" after being worn once or twice!

In 2022, returns tech platform Optoro estimated a staggering 9.5 billion pounds (4.3 billion kg) of returned clothes ended up in landfills, the weight equivalent to 10,500 fully loaded Boeing 747s.

With 92 million tons of clothes thrown away each year, the world's textile waste generation problem has reached a point where it is visible from space.

In 2023, SkyFi published satellite photos of a mountain in the Atacama desert of northern Chile piled up with discarded clothes. The clothes were reportedly manufactured in China and Bangladesh and then failed to be sold in the American, European and Asian markets. 

This garment pile is reportedly growing by around 39,000 tons per annum, coming mainly through the port of Iquique in the north of Chile.  

Such wasteful practices contribute to a substantial economic loss of $500 (£391) billion annually, mainly because the discarded clothes are underused and under-recycled. The main challenge with recycling lies in the clothing's intricate material composition, often blending natural and synthetic fibres, plastic, and metals.

To tackle this issue, circular fashion economy programs like State of Matter's 360° AFTERLIFE PROGRAM, SuperCircle, Tracing Textile Waste Project, T-REX Project and many others have been introduced. The programs consist of a take-back system, upcycling, recycling, reselling, and refurbishing garments. 

They aim to improve transparency in the certified supply chain and textile-to-textile recycling, demonstrate the full recycling process for various materials, and streamline closed-loop textile recycling through digital tools. 

Cotton is one of the primary materials used in fast fashion manufacturing. Producing a single cotton T-shirt and a pair of jeans requires 2,706 and 7,570 litres of water, respectively. This excessive water consumption highlights the serious environmental impact of cotton, raising questions about its sustainability. 

Polyester, another major fabric used in fast fashion manufacturing, has a large grey water footprint because it cannot be dyed naturally and requires chemical dyes. Polyester clothes shed around 124-308 milligrams of microfibres per kilogram, with 40-60% of microplastics emitted with the first wash. 

Because of this, synthetic fibres like polyester are responsible for 35% of global microplastic pollution in oceans.

Dyeing and finishing processes, which are inseparable parts of clothing production, also require significant water resources. 

Generally speaking, the textile sector consumes around 1.5 trillion litres of freshwater across its entire value chain globally. Such high water consumption is extremely problematic for countries with already scarce water resources, such as Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Pakistan, and Vietnam. 

Since these are also the top locations for fast fashion production, high water consumption is particularly concerning there:

With major brands like Zara, H&M, Primark, Uniqlo, Mango, and others locating production facilities or outsourcing to low-cost suppliers in these countries, the water pollution problem will continue to exacerbate there.

China, the world's largest textile producer, also faces similar challenges. While producing 65% of clothing in the world, it's responsible for 20% of global industrial water pollution. 

To tackle this issue, the Chinese government implemented the "Water Pollution Prevention and Control Action Plan" (aka Water Ten Plan) in 2015. The plan focused on waterless dyeing processes and a closed-loop water recycling system. 

These measures boosted the water recycling rate from 15% to 30% and reduced the wastewater and pollutants discharge by over 10%. 

Did you know that around 8,000 different chemicals are involved in clothing production? The most common chemicals are:

These substances are called "forever chemicals" as they don't break down and threaten ecosystems. Heavy metals like lead, chromium, and antimony accumulate in ecosystems and enter the food chain, affecting wildlife and human health. They have been found to cause hormone disruption, cancer, respiratory irritation, liver damage and other health issues. 

Sadly, these chemicals affect not only the planet but also workers and consumers. Chemical exposure is accountable for 50% of occupational diseases affecting garment workers. Consumers are also at risk as the end product can still contain residual chemicals.

In 2024, Seoul's government discovered that SHEIN, TEMU, and AliExpress were selling clothing with dangerous chemical levels. For example, a shocking discovery revealed that a pair of SHEIN shoes contained phthalates at a staggering 428 times the permissible level.

To address this, the Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC) program was started in 2011 in response to the "Detox My Fashion" campaign by Greenpeace. This program involves 30 brands, 101 value chain affiliates, and 19 associates. It aims to shift the focus from end-of-pipe to beginning-of-pipe chemical management. 

The Chemicals to Zero (CtZ) Programme was launched to categorise chemicals as "foundational," "progressive," and "aspirational." Its Manufacturers Restricted Substances List (MRSL) sets limits to certain substances in chemical formulations and targets 70% industry-wise conformance by 2030. 

According to the non-profit Canopy, over 300 million trees are cut down every year to be further transformed into viscose, modal, lyocell and rayon. 

While not being heavily discussed in the media, the supply chains of 48% of fast fashion brands are linked to deforestation, often times illegal.

The Cerrado, Brazil's vital ecosystem, has reportedly lost half of its vegetation due to extensive agriculture, especially cotton farming. 800,000 tons of tainted cotton have been traced to 8 clothing manufacturers in Asia supplying Zara and H&M, Earthsight claims. 

Because of this, brands like H&M, Zara, Allbirds, Uniqlo, SHEIN, and Nike have been accused of greenwashing. They all allegedly launched their eco-friendly collections while engaging in unsustainable practices.

Apart from that, the supply chains of the abovementioned fast fashion titans, together with luxury brands Prada, Adidas, and Nike, are responsible for cattle ranching for leather production, which has destroyed 80% of the Amazon rainforest. 

Sadly, these statistics are projected to climb up by 2025 as the fashion industry will reportedly require 430 million cows every year to meet the demand for leather products.  

These environmental consequences of fast fashion are devastating and far-reaching. While the casual observer can't readily see and feel how fast fashion affects the environment, we can certainly witness how it affects our wallet and wardrobe. 

Which changes in consumer behaviour and industry practices can we make to tackle this problem?

The term "slow fashion" was coined in 2007 by Kate Fetcher, a design activist. She drew inspiration from the slow food movement, which started in Italy in the 1980s as a reaction to the rising popularity of fast food culture. 

Slow fashion is meant to prioritise timeless design, durable materials, ethical production practices, and conscious consumption. The key is to find an approach that aligns with your values, budget, and lifestyle. How does one embrace the slow fashion principle?

Great representation of slow fashion principles, but what did Dame Vivienne mean exactly?

While saving money remains the top reason to shop secondhand, 42% of US  consumers visit thrift shops to achieve sustainability goals. The global second-hand market share is expected to reach $350 (£274) billion by 2028, with an estimated growth of 12% per annum.

Buying secondhand clothes extends their life and diverts them from ending up on landfills prematurely. Apart from reduced waste generation, shopping secondhand lowers CO2 emissions, too. 

For example, Retail Dive found that if every consumer preferred a single secondhand piece of clothing to a new one, it would also save 87 billion litres of water as well as reduce CO2 emissions by over 2 billion pounds, which is equivalent to taking 76 million cars off the road for a day. 

Eco-thrifting reduces the need for new production, which in turn lowers resource extraction and promotes a more circular economy in fashion. 

Apart from the environmental benefits, secondhand shopping provides affordable fashion options for consumers on tight budgets and grants access to high-quality, brand-name items cheaper than their original prices.

Moreover, secondhand shops, especially vintage ones, offer unique pieces that aren't represented in mainstream fashion, which helps consumers curate their personal style. 

Other sustainable and creative fast fashion alternatives are DIY fashion and upcycling. It encompasses modifying or transforming old or unwanted clothing into new pieces. 

While it technically requires some tailoring skills and equipment, you can begin with basic projects like hemming and cropping, for example, turning old jeans into shorts or T-shirts into tote bags. 

Invest in a sewing machine for more advanced projects or learn embroidery to personalise clothes. You could also adjust your old clothes with a tailor's help, which is still eco-friendlier than buying a new item. 

Alternatively, you could donate excess and unnecessary clothing to charity, allowing others to use your garments in their own upcycling endeavours. Doing so can save 236kg (522 lbs) of carbon emissions each year. 

As the well-known economic model states, demand generates supply. Therefore, as long as there's demand for inexpensive, trendy clothes, companies will continue offering low-quality, unsustainable items.

So, when discussing the future of fast fashion and ways to tackle its atrocious environmental consequences, we should address consumer behaviour and education. Here are key fast fashion trends and ways to shift consumer and companies' mindsets.

To capitalise on rapidly changing styles and meet consumer demand, the production speed of fast fashion brands has been reduced to 2-3 weeks. 

For example, as opposed to 2 collections coming from clothes manufacturers in the 1980s, Zara currently has over 52 "micro-seasons" every year, with a new collection appearing every week.

Fast-fashion brands like SHEIN continuously use AI to analyse social media engagement, online searches, and purchase history. Machine learning algorithms identify emerging micro-trends and update the brand's 5,400 suppliers on new consumer preferences. 

Suppliers immediately adjust their production processes and are ready to sell the new items as soon as 10 days.

With 3.5 billion monthly active users globally, Instagram and TikTok are at the forefront of trend propagation and distribution. 78% of consumers admit the influence of social media when making fashion purchases. 

Influencer impact, TikTok viral challenges and hashtag trends propel fashion items into the spotlight and shape patterns and micro-trends and will continue doing so. The abovementioned platforms will introduce more seamless shopping options, which will allow users to buy directly from posts and videos. 

Since brands like H&M, Zara, Uniqlo, Mango, and ASOS are all slowly but surely implementing various environmentally friendly measures, we can conclude that they are driven by shifts in consumer behaviour. There's indeed a reason. 93% of eBay sellers state that sustainability is either "very" or "somewhat" important to them. 

According to the same eBay report, 36% of Gen Zers, 39% of Millennials, and 26% of Boomers claim they "value sustainability and environmental benefits when buying pre-loved goods."

And over 40% of consumers are less likely to buy an item without a good resale value. 

Brands will continue to focus on using recycled materials, eliminating toxic chemicals from production, and introducing measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Hopefully, fast fashion brands like H&M and Zara will succeed in their endeavours to launch garment collecting, recycling, repairing, resaling, and upcycling programs in the future. 

Currently, ultra-fast fashion is fueled by brands like Zara, which introduces new collections weekly, and companies like SHEIN and Temu, which sell clothes often as cheap as (or cheaper than) $5. Frequent turnover generates textile waste and exploitative labour practices to meet the "wear once" mentality. 

This trend has no chance of stopping as Gen Z's purchasing power is growing. Since they are both trend-conscious and tech-savvy, they will likely fuel the demand for ultra-fast fashion. The competing brands will partner with micro-influencers to create limited-time collections and monetise on the hype-powered campaigns.

Which conclusion can we draw from this? Fast fashion is here to stay. However, both governments and brands continue introducing and adopting more and more measures to tackle the environmental and economic changes the industry has brought about. Yet, the main change depends on the end consumer. 

When shoppers are educated enough about the harmful effects of careless, thoughtless, trend-based consumption, they will be able to drive systematic change in reducing the environmental challenges the industry causes. 

By keeping consumers continuously informed, developing a circular economy and performing regulatory pressures, we might be able to transform the fast fashion concept into a model that prioritises speed and style without compromising environmental and social responsibility.