- Annabel Lindsay
- Jul 27, 2020
(Own Photos)
The most sustainable outfit is our birthday suit. The clothes we already own are the second. Could circular fashion be the third?
New to who?
To put it blatantly, not buying clothes ever is simply not an option. It’s not practical. It’s not desirable. However, aspiration for a circular fashion system, is not justification to maintain current levels of production or consumption either. Rather, circular fashion is an ideal for when occasions arise in which new-to-us clothing may be required. I use the phrase new-to-us with intent of challenging what ‘newness’ really means. Modernity leads us to believe that newness is an essential component of curating our identity, particularly through the medium of fashion micro-trends. But I think we need a new outlook on newness in fashion.
The economic system of capitalism within which fashion operates sees brands take from the natural world and profit off the backs of cheap labour, to provide us with trend-led clothing. We get the opportunity to update our curated self-image through buying into these trends. Pursuing economic prosperity, brands introduce newer trends to entice us to spend again. Whether compelled to want to keep up with these trends or in the practice of ‘retail therapy’, our submission to fashion consumption is vital for sustaining the linear way it operates.
It's increasingly common knowledge that the globalised, rapacious, fast fashion system, is living on borrowed time. It’s diminishing our worlds eco-systems, as well as directly and indirectly harming the most vulnerable people across the entirety of fashion supply chains.
Needs for circularity arguably stem from the merging of Latouche’s ‘Degrowth’ theory and mounting pressure for fashion to align its industry practices with sustainability. ‘Degrowth’ is said to break “break the way of thought that considers infinite growth to be possible and sustainable” focusing on reducing, “overproduction and overconsumption.” [48:32], and prioritising societal developments with new measurable wealth metrics, like education and experience.
A linear model cannot reverse the fashion industries damage, as it prioritises recycling as the solution- failing to recognise that when your bathtub is overflowing, turning the tap off comes before mopping the floor. For example, textiles recycling begins to tackle the landfill crisis, but doesn't to resolve the resource crisis.
I’ve noticed the term ‘circular’ emerging, especially on Instagram, to describe garments that are up-cycled, made from recycled materials or labelled as such for conveying circular messaging. But circularity is not just about material recovery, nor resale or rental or designing for longevity. It’s about unifying all these concepts and more to generate true systemic change. Knowing who holds the greatest capacity to initiate this change is an ongoing debate. Will brands be reluctant to change unless there’s demand for circular fashion solutions? Contrastingly, how can we access and support circular fashion solutions, if they’re not accessible to us, in both an informative and physical sense?
Take material recovery for example. In regard to take-back recycling schemes popping-up in fast fashion stores, such as H&M, Fashion for Good's The Future of Circular Fashion report identified that 80% of customers returning garments for recycling “utilise their voucher to purchase a new item from the same brand”. Whilst appearing to be a solution, this incentivises increased consumption within problematic, environmentally destructive brands. Whilst also keeping a hold of customers whom may neglect to challenge a brands practices as, on the surface, they appear to be doing some sort of good. A circular fashion economy challenges ‘the impact of business models that rely on continual growth, ever increasing volumes of production and consumers’ desire for newness.’
(Own Photos)
Brands Need to Step-Up
Whilst exciting to see discussions emerging about a circular fashion future, there’s still arguably a lack of urgency from both brands and consumers. An explanation as to why circularity has not advanced further is because 'today the use of virgin resources is often subsidized, so their full cost isn’t necessarily reflected in their price' (Lacy & Rutqvist, 2015:42). Keeping fast fashion prices low, omits emphasis on the value of the human labour and raw materials behind a garment’s existence- as also brought to light with the current Boohoo slave labour investigation occurring within my own home city of Leicester.
Established brands, like Timberland, introducing circularity to us could be a good place to start. Timberland have reworked their classic boot to create 'Timberlands Earthkeeper boots, constructed purposefully for ‘disassembly’, enabling components to be repurposed in the future, “with features such as soles made of recycled tire rubber'. (Lacy & Rutqvist, (2015:64). To transform the fashion industry, brands should design in circularity from the very beginning. But progress could really advance if enough consumers can overcome needing ‘newness’ as a component of identity and embrace a circular mentality.
Problems of Privilege…
The prospect of circularity is not without concerns. Andersen (2007) sheds light on the 'costs of circular systems that must be balanced to avoid the creation of negative value'. Allwood (2014) also raises concern of the problematic 'technical impossibility of a closed circle in combination with growing demand'. Meaning circularity needs to be accessible and beneficial to all, deriving from capability to adequately fulfil the needs of today’s consumers and not just exclusively those whom may have privileged access.
It is a privilege to even have the time and possibility to discuss sustainability, and more so to be able to purchase sustainable garments. And of course, this then induces problems regarding privilege and accessibility to circular solutions, if they attract a premium in production which is then reflected in the garment price to end-consumers. Can a solution really be a solution if it isn’t accessible for everyone?
Old Habits Die Hard
In 2000, Microsoft conducted a study which showed the average person’s attention span was 12 seconds. In-part due to social media,15 years later, it had dropped to 8 seconds. Shortening attention span's may sound irrelevant, but it could highlight a possible hinderance to circular fashion’s momentum. Circular fashion concepts have to be highly stimulating to stand a chance of gaining traction amongst our fast-paced, digitised world.
What’s more, switching to sustainability requires individual conscious effort, to break away from conditioned psychological behaviours. It’s easier to process conditioned thinking, like returning to shops where pricing, clothes sizing, and garment quality is somewhat presumed. 'Frequently repeated conscious actions create unconsciously driven behaviour...Studies show that thinking uses glucose, so the more thought an activity requires the more tired we will become' (Graves, 2010:45). Seeking sustainable alternatives therefore requires mental energy to break away from routine psychological behaviours. Suggesting that we have to actively condition our behaviours, against our routine fashion consumption, to identify sustainable fashion alternatives. Maybe that’s why old habits die hard.
Power to the People
Consumers can often be classified as either value-driven or purpose-driven. Value-driven consumers seek value for money and brands offering practical convenience. Purpose-driven consumers seek brands that represent their values, and will change their behaviour to “walk the talk” when it comes to sustainability. Increasingly as consumers, we’re spending with brands whom resonate with our values and take stances on important social causes. 6/10 consumers are willing to change their shopping habits to reduce environmental impact, with 8/ 10 indicating sustainability is important for them. For the 35% whom say sustainability is very/extremely important, over 70% would pay more.
(Our Good Brands, 2020)
These are optimistic statistics, as an article by Our Good Brands highlighted much circular solution focused on the role of consumers, as ‘just under half the fashion ‘hotspot’ areas identified revolve around consumer behaviour, mindset and education.
Going on to identify the “circular fashion consumer” as ‘a person who appreciates the true value of a garment, including all work that lies behind and all precious natural resources that have been used throughout its supply chain – including Fair Trade conditions for the workers who make the clothes’. With an expressed interest in circular participation and contribution also being a key attribute of the circular fashion consumer.
Chicken + Egg Paradox
So, I guess, you could argue that we shouldn’t underestimate our power as individuals. But especially when we from a collective of individuals with determination and desire for change, we can command space to project the needs of where brands and the fashion industry must do better- again, referring back to Boohoo as a current example. But this is the tip of the iceberg.
In terms of such behaviour for circular fashion, lack of public, relatable information may make it harder for us to collectively know what we want to see regarding solutions. And without clear desires, brands may neglect to set foot on the path to circularity. It’s a two-way thing, a balancing act perhaps. One won’t work without the other and this is why transparency is vital. The fashion industry needs to commit to transparency so that we as consumers, can understand how we can demand justice and change with direct benefits from cause to action.
Circularity must be embraced separately from traditional brand growth models and won’t work unless we’re willing to trade-up retail therapy as we know it today and realign new values at the centre of fashion experience (i.e. customisation, repair services, clothes swaps). If we truly commit, we could hatch a new era for fashion.
I like to see this as exciting opportune for innovation, but do we want circularity, as much as we need it? Do we have to be anti-shopping or just anti-fast fashion? Who do you think holds the greatest capacity to change, the brand or the consumer? Share your thoughts below…
Annabel Lindsay
Non-Linked Sources:
Allwood, J.M. (2014) ‘Chapter 30 - Squaring the Circular Economy: The Role of Recycling within a Hierarchy of Material Management Strategies’. Handbook of Recycling, pp. 445-477.
Graves, P. (2010). Consumer.ology the market research myth, the truth about consumers and the psychology of shopping. London: Nicholas Brealey.
P, Lacy and J, Rutqvist. (2015) Waste to Wealth the Circular Economy Advantage. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
