The CSR Newsletters are a freely-available resource generated as a dynamic complement to the textbook, Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation.

To sign-up to receive the CSR Newsletters regularly during the fall and spring academic semesters, e-mail author David Chandler at david.chandler@ucdenver.edu.

Showing posts with label fashion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fashion. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 10, 2025

Strategic CSR - Fur

In class, when I want to demonstrate to students how most things (other than the natural sciences) are social constructs and society's values can shift, relatively quickly, I use the example of fur. 50-60 years ago, I argue, wearing fur was a sign of status; today it is unacceptable, but who knows what society will think about fur in the future. After all, we have used parts of animals for all of our existence – there is nothing objectively 'wrong' about wearing fur. What society thinks about wearing fur is impactful, however, especially if you are a company producing fur or using it to make clothes. I find that trying to understand how society changes its opinion so dramatically (and occasionally rapidly) on such issues is extremely challenging. All of a sudden, or over a long period of time, we stop believing one thing and start believing something else. And logic often has nothing to do with it.

Anyway, the article in the url below suggests I need to update my example as, apparently, fur is back:

"A few weeks before the Manhattan Vintage Show opened this month, its owner, Amy Abrams, was predicting a "fur-a-palooza," with vendors fielding an uptick in demand for fur. … The racks of fox, mink and Mongolian at booths, including the Igala NYC and the Jennie Walker Archive, which was selling a sable coat for $2,495, were swarmed by shoppers, many already wearing fur."

The shift seems sudden, and turns back a slide away from fur that played out over decades:

"It happened slowly — Calvin Klein banned fur in 1994; Ralph Lauren in 2006 — and then all at once. After Gucci announced in 2017 that it would eliminate real fur in its collections, the big luxury fashion houses followed: Michael Kors, Burberry, Prada, Versace, Tom Ford, Marc Jacobs and more. Since introducing her label in 2001, Stella McCartney has been a fiercely vocal animal and cruelty-free advocate. Fendi, which was founded in 1925 as a fur and leather shop in Rome and is owned by LVMH, remains one of the last luxury holdouts."

As a result, the "fur industry" may not be positioned for the revival:

"According to the Fur Free Alliance, global fur production is down 85 percent in the last decade. Roughly 20 million animals were killed as part of the fur trade in 2023 versus 140 million in 2014. The number of fur farms in the European Union fell to 1,088 in 2023 from 4,350 in 2018."

The moral compromise that many appear to be making is that they are wearing "pre-owned" fur clothes, which aligns with the recent rise in popularity of thrift shopping:

"For years, in much of the United States and Europe, wearing real fur has felt taboo. Except, suddenly, some people don't seem to care — especially if the wearer can assert the mantle of 'vintage,' as no animals were freshly killed and upcycling old clothes is more virtuous than buying new."

Some are even presenting vintage as the sustainable option:

"'I think people are really misunderstanding vintage fur versus faux fur,' [Carly Mark, the designer of the fashion line/art project Puppets and Puppets] said. Vintage, in her eyes, is the superior sustainable option. She cited plastics and microplastics in faux fur fibers, often made from petroleum-based materials, as 'worse for the environment in the big picture.'"

Understandably, animal rights activists are not impressed:

"Animal rights groups see vintage fur as a dangerous trend. "If someone sees a person wearing used fur and they don't know it's used, they could very well go buy new fur," said PJ Smith, the director of fashion policy for the Humane Society of the United States."

Take care
David 

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e  
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Wearing It Proudly, and Pre-Owned
By Jessica Iredale
February 16, 2025
The New York Times
Late Edition – Final
ST11
 
Posted by David Chandler at 8:00 AM

Thursday, April 3, 2025

Strategic CSR - Secondhand

The article in the first url below makes the case that secondhand clothes no longer carry the stigma they had in the past:

"Last year, [shoppers worldwide] spent $227 billion on secondhand apparel, accounting for nearly 10% of all global spending on clothes."

As well as "a growing online ecosystem for buying used, including eBay, ThredUp, Poshmark and other sites where customers can directly sell and purchase items," more mainstream retail brands are also beginning to incorporate "online resale offerings" into their range of clothes offered (such as "outdoor apparel maker Patagonia Inc and sneaker seller AllBirds Inc"). Such innovations are fueling the trend, which is anticipated to grow:

"Global secondhand fashion sales, which rose 15% in 2024 from the previous year, are projected to surpass $250 billion in 2025 and then exceed $300 billion in 2027."

Part of this trend reflects a rejection, by some, of the fast fashion business model, as noted in the article in the second url below, which also contains a visualization of the massive amounts of waste the industry produces (see also Strategic CSR – Slow(er) fashion):

"The U.S. throws away up to 11.3 million tons of textile waste each year – around 2,150 pieces of clothing each second."

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e  
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Why Buying Thrift Clothes Is Getting More Appealing
By Zahra Hirji
March 19, 2025
Bloomberg

The Global Glut of Clothing Is an Environmental Crisis
By Rachael Dottle and Jackie Gu
Febaru 23, 2022
Bloomberg
 
Posted by David Chandler at 9:38 PM

Thursday, February 13, 2025

Strategic CSR - Cotton + water

I knew that the production of cotton took vast amounts of water, but only a vague sense of how much. The article in the url below quantifies this amount in a very relatable way:

"For all the water you'll ever use to wash your cotton T-shirt over its entire lifetime, it will have taken 50 times as much water to grow the cotton that went into it."

In addition to the water used to grow cotton, large amounts of insecticides and pesticides are used; there are also challenges related to the harvesting and processing of this crop:

"Cotton uses about 2.3% of global arable land and accounts for 16% for all insecticide sales. And the fashion industry has been forced to reckon with allegations of forced labor and poor working conditions in certain cotton-harvesting regions."

The article proceeds to detail a "Boston-based startup Galy" that is developing a more sustainable alternative, which (if it can be commercialized and scaled – always huge barriers) addresses many of these challenging issues, for which the fashion/apparel industry is only now beginning to be held accountable (see Strategic CSR – Fast fashion), or perhaps not (see Strategic CSR – Shein + Boohoo):

"Galy takes cells from a cotton plant, adds them to a large vat and feeds them sugar. After they have sufficiently multiplied, Galy technicians use their genetic understanding of the plant — which has been developed over decades of research — to activate certain genes and deactivate others. The result is the cell transforms and elongates into a cotton fiber. So far, Galy has only been able to make a few kilograms of vat-grown cotton. If it can make more at scale, the company has big dreams to also make lab-grown cocoa and coffee powders."

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e  
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Fast Fashion Bets on Greener Lab-Grown Cotton
By Akshat Rathi
September 3, 2024
Bloomberg
 
Posted by David Chandler at 7:22 AM

Tuesday, October 1, 2024

Strategic CSR - Sweatshops

Ever since we have had greater awareness of the global supply chain, and the low wages that drive it (and underpin the cheap prices we pay in the West for much of our clothing), there has been pressure on fashion firms to pay their contracted workers more. An important point along the way was the Nike sweatshop scandal of the 1990s, but nothing much has changed since, as noted in the article in the url below. What never ceases to amaze me, however, is the scale of the operation required to sustain the mass market fast fashion industry:

"In Bangladesh, the nearly 600,000 people making clothes for Swedish giant H&M—one of the biggest retailers in this space to start talking about paying living wages—earned an average of $119 a month in the first half of 2023, excluding overtime, the latest available data shows. That is well below the $194 living-wage figure for the suburbs of Dhaka, the capital, where clothing factories are clustered, according to the Global Living Wage Coalition, a research and advocacy group whose benchmarks are widely used in the industry."

The implications of these pay levels?

"At those income levels, workers say they have no savings. Often, they borrow from relatives to cover medical expenses or meet unforeseen emergencies. Some months, they even buy food on credit. Frustration over low wages boiled over in October when workers in Bangladesh set factories ablaze and smashed machines in protest."

The article makes the case that firms would like to change that, but are not sure how best to do that:

"[Western fashion companies] generally don't own the factories where their products are made and don't determine pay for workers. They say they don't want to go down the road of imposing specific wage levels on supplier factories. Instead, they have tried other solutions. H&M, for instance, brought Swedish study circles to Bangladesh to train workers in negotiation, experimented with model factories and pushed for more transparent pay structures for workers."

What is required, argue advocates, is exactly the coercive methods the companies are saying they want to avoid:

"What will work … is setting a higher wage level supplier factories must meet and a clear schedule for phasing in those higher wages."

The companies instead advocate for self-sufficiency:

"H&M said it agrees wages are too low in many sourcing markets, but that setting wage levels for suppliers is a 'shortsighted tactic that undermines the role of workers, unions, employers' organizations and governments.' They, and others like Zara-owner Inditex, stress the importance of workers negotiating higher pay for themselves via collective-bargaining agreements, where labor unions hammer out higher wages with employers."

The problem is whether the infrastructure for such agency exists (let alone the training to know how best to self-advocate):

"… in many of the places Western brands buy from, such as China, Vietnam and Bangladesh, independent unions are either banned or repressed. A review of Inditex disclosures shows just 3% of its supplier factories in Asia have collective-bargaining agreements."

The key barrier to progress, of course, is whether the higher costs that lead to higher prices will be supported by customers in the West. In other words, are they willing to pay more for their clothes, so that the workers who made them can be paid something close to what Western consumers say they want them to be paid?

"Part of the problem is low wages are core to fast fashion. It is no coincidence that Bangladesh, the world's second-largest exporter of clothes, is also the place where workers who make clothes earn among the lowest wages of industrial workers anywhere. To sell shorts and shirts cheaply—and increasingly, compete with so-called ultrafast fashion brands like China-founded Shein, known for their rock-bottom prices—clothing giants pressure their suppliers to keep costs down."

The key point:

"Insisting on higher wages would mean paying more for the clothes and potentially putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage if other companies aren't making similar moves."

Which is another way of saying that the companies do not have faith their consumers are willing to pay (even slightly) higher prices to support the working conditions they say they want for these workers:

"German shoemaker Puma said in its 2022 annual report that its factories in Pakistan and Bangladesh—accounting for roughly an eighth of its total products—don't pay a living wage. Even California-based Patagonia, known for its progressive ethos, says that of the 29 factories it bought clothing from, only 10 paid a living wage in 2022."

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Fashion Firms Still Wrestle with How to Pay Workers a Living Wage
By Jon Emont
January 4, 2024
The Wall Street Journal
Late Edition – Final
B2
 
Posted by David Chandler at 7:55 AM

Thursday, March 28, 2024

Strategic CSR - Slow(er) fashion?

The article in the url below suggests the message that fast fashion is increasingly a hard sell for some consumers (due to the huge amount of associated waste) is beginning to make progress:

"Fast-fashion retailers including H&M, Uniqlo and Zara have for years enticed shoppers to buy more and more new clothes. Now these brands are pushing consumers to repair their old ones, too."

More specifically:

"Zara this year is launching nationwide repair services in several of its largest markets, Uniqlo is adding repair studios to a number of stores, and H&M-owned Cos is working with a startup to help customers fix damaged dresses and jackets."

Of course, if the material is lower quality (which is a big part of fast fashion's low cost business model), it might not be repairable. I thought the whole point of Zara was that it made clothes you could wear five times and then discard (see Strategic CSR – Fast fashion):

"While some high-end brands have long offered to fix pricier products, the large-scale rollout of repair services is a new venture for mainstream fashion retailers whose clothes are typically much cheaper. The trend could also threaten to cannibalize sales of new products."

Somehow, I think it will be the other way around and customers will ignore the repair option. Given that the price of labor drives repair costs, it is probably going to be cheaper to buy replacements than it will be to repair items that might not last much longer, anyway:

"In the U.K., Zara takes in garments for repair and handles payments, but uses a network of third-party repairers to do the work. Mending a hole, for example, costs £10, equivalent to roughly $13."

I would think you could buy half of the items in a typical fast fashion store for that price – certainly among companies such as Shein and Boohoo (see Strategic CSR – Shein + Boohoo).

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


H&M, Zara and Fast-Fashion Peers Are Pushing Into Repair Services
By Trefor Moss
August 2, 2023
The Wall Street Journal
Late Edition – Final
B1-2
 
Posted by David Chandler at 6:50 AM

Thursday, February 29, 2024

Strategic CSR - Allbirds

The article in the url below records the rapid rise and equally dramatic fall of Allbirds – the once trendy "eco-friendly wool sneakers worn by Silicon Valley tech bros." The story also highlights the obvious fact about business (life?), which has always been true – good intentions do not necessarily lead to good outcomes. And, in particular in the marketplace, good intentions do not replace the need to have a great product:

"It turns out that not everyone wants to dress head-to-toe in merino wool, which although better for the environment than nylon or polyester, isn't as durable. Customers complained of holes in their sneakers months after buying them. And the leggings, which were made from a blend of wool and other fibers, in addition to being see-through, didn't hold their shape, the people said. Allbirds said the sheerness was limited to one light color and that it was a minor issue caught at an early stage."

The case is an insightful story of how to attract a loyal following among customers, and then lose it just as quickly:

"[Co-founder] Zwillinger has a saying: Customers will accept one degree of weirdness, but not two. Iterations of existing styles are preferred over brands pushing too far into new categories. He said in an interview that shoppers who came to Allbirds for its original shoes weren't ready to buy technical gear such as running shoes or workout clothes from the brand. He acknowledged problems with the leggings and other workout clothes. 'You've got to get [the] fit right,' he said."

The ultimate takeaway has implications well beyond the lifespan of a marginal apparel company:

"Allbirds said it isn't changing its commitment to sustainability, even though it doesn't always drive shoppers to buy its products. Emails sent to customers touting the environmental benefits of Allbirds shoes and clothing produced fewer sales than messages that prioritized comfort among other attributes. Environmental concerns are among the least important attributes consumers look for when buying shoes and clothing, according to a survey in March of 750 U.S. consumers by Wedbush Securities. Comfort and price are among the most important."

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


How a Hot Allbirds Lost Its Way
By Suzanne Kapner
July 17, 2023
The Wall Street Journal
Late Edition – Final
A1, A10
 
Posted by David Chandler at 7:29 AM

Thursday, January 18, 2024

Strategic CSR - Welcome back!


Welcome back to the Strategic CSR Newsletter!
The first newsletter of the Spring semester is below.
As always, your comments and ideas are welcome.
 

In the aftermath of the consumption and materialistic fueled holiday season, the video in the url below reveals the extent of waste that is embedded in the growing economy of online retail:


The video features Amazon, but really applies to all online retail and fast fashion (e.g., see Strategic CSR – Fast fashion and Strategic CSR – Casper). While the video clearly identifies a problem, however, it also suggests Amazon is fully aware of the problem and, encouragingly, is trying to do something about it.

Have a great semester.
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Where Online Returns Really End Up and What Amazon Is Doing About It
January 27, 2022
CNBC
 
Posted by David Chandler at 8:12 AM

Wednesday, November 22, 2023

Strategic CSR - Fast fashion

The article in the url below caught my eye. It focuses on "single-material clothing" and an attempt by the EU to encourage the reduction of waste (and an increase in recycling) in the fashion industry:

"Clothes often contain a mix of fibers, including organics, such as cotton grown on farms, and synthetics, such as polyester refined usually from petroleum. Garments with multiple materials—such as a T-shirt made from 99% cotton and 1% spandex—are difficult to recycle because separating the fibers is tricky."

And, clearly, the room for improvement is significant:

"Currently, less than 1% of the world's textile waste is recycled into new clothes, with the bulk ending up in trash heaps. The EU wants to change this, and the relatively short time frame promises to challenge the big players in fast-fashion, which may have to retool their design processes and rethink their sourcing."

The underlying motivation is to combat the wastefulness of fast fashion (see Strategic CSR – Fast fashion) and, instead, promote an industry that produces products that are more sustainable:

"The European Commission, the EU's executive branch, published a plan in March that aims to put 'fast fashion out of fashion' by 2030, referring to the trend of people buying clothes and throwing them out in less than a year. Clothing should be 'long-lived and recyclable, to a great extent made of recycled fibers,' the EU said."

Given the size of the European trading bloc, a significant change there will affect supply chains and product quality, worldwide:

"European Parliament members and the heads of its 27-member states still need to agree on specific laws. But the regulations would cover all clothes sold in the bloc, which imports nearly three-quarters of its textiles. This will affect not only Europe's homegrown brands, but also American multinationals such as sportswear giant Nike Inc. and jeans-maker Levi Strauss & Co., and Japan's Uniqlo or China's Shein. EU nations have already agreed to collect discarded textiles separately from other waste by 2025."

I didn't realize that the barrier to progress in the fashion industry relies so heavily on this issue of material composition. It is something on which some firms are making progress:

"German sportswear maker Adidas AG, for example, launched a line of single-fiber clothes last year including shoes, coats, T-shirts and pants under its 'Made to be Remade' label. 'These products are created with just one material and once they reach the end of their useful life, they can be cleaned, shredded and recycled for use in new products,' an Adidas spokesman said."

But not to the extent or speed that is needed:

"Still, some single-fiber garments may not be durable enough in some cases, a Hennes & Mauritz AB spokeswoman said. The current share of fabrics with a 100% composition constitutes around a third of the total output of the Swedish fashion retailer, better known as H&M. … in fashion, design remains the most important element, said Christina Dean, founder of fashion nonprofit Redress. She said the EU's focus on the makeup of clothes will drive designers to choose single materials. 'That is addressing this cocktail of fibers that is currently being used,' Ms. Dean said."

Happy Black Friday!
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


EU Regulators Add to Push for Single-Material Clothes
By Joshua Kirby and Dieter Holger
September 7, 2022
The Wall Street Journal
Late Edition – Final
B4

Posted by David Chandler at 9:01 AM

Thursday, April 6, 2023

Strategic CSR - Shein + Boohoo

Following on from Tuesday's newsletter, what evidence do we have that, given the opportunity, people will choose to do the right thing? The article in the first url below suggests, to the contrary, that they might not, and may even prefer not to. Specifically, the article profiles the company, Shein ("officially pronounced 'she-in,' though often pronounced 'sheen'"), which is described as a "Chinese fast-fashion company" and is becoming very popular in the U.S., its "most valuable market." Shein is becoming so popular that it "recently surpassed Amazon as the most downloaded shopping app in the United States." What consumers are attracted to is the shockingly low prices for most items ("things like $1 daisy earrings, $4 bucket hats, $12 cable-knit crop tops, $13 faux leather baguette bags and $29 neon PVC mule sandals"). What they are willing to ignore, it seems, is the ethical compromises that come with producing reasonable quality goods at those very low prices:

"… as Shein has grown, so have questions about its practices. Shein frequently makes headlines for its controversies, like selling a $2.50 swastika necklace or copying the work of designers. … Shein has also been accused of working with suppliers that violate labor laws, and failing to make necessary disclosures about factory conditions. … Last year, a CBC Marketplace investigation found elevated levels of lead in some Shein products, like a toddler's jacket and tiny purse."

As the article notes, fast fashion raises a number of issues that many consumers prefer to overlook:

"All of this has contributed to Shein becoming an archetype of a certain genre of supercheap clothing companies: It is the leader of a pack of Gen Z-favored brands, like Fashion Nova and Boohoo, accused by critics (including those from Gen Z) of contributing to overconsumption and waste. … Still, many of the videos on social platforms made about Shein … inspire comments raising these issues: How can a $4 top be made to last, so it doesn't end up in a landfill? How can the workers who sewed and shipped that garment be compensated fairly? Yet this hasn't deterred Shein's devotees, many of whom feel they haven't seen enough evidence to stop shopping with the brand."

In the article in the second url below, the influence of social media stars is explored in the context of the fast-fashion company, Boohoo. The article discusses how much influencers can increase sales, while at the same time encouraging the worst excesses of the fashion industry, even when "sustainability" is promised:

"Good news for people who like being lied to and wearing clothes that smell of petrochemicals: Boohoo, a UK-based online fast-fashion brand that has grown quickly in the US, has announced that they will be partnering with Kourtney Kardashian to embark on a 'sustainability journey.'"

The theory:

"The destination is unclear, but the 'journey'' will involve 46 limited-edition pieces of clothing made from 'recycled fibers, traceable cotton, recycled sequins and recycled polyester' as well as 'transparent practices for shoppers who want to learn more about the apparel.'"

And, the reality:

"It's unclear how sustainable any of the pieces in the upcoming collection – which ranges in price from $6 to $100 – actually are. The official press release includes absurdist statements such as '41/45 contain pieces that contain recycled fibres like recycles [sic] cotton' with no information about what percentage of the materials are recycled (Boohoo did not respond to repeated requests for clarification). Although the collection promises to be 'traceable,' only 2 items are made with cotton from CottonConnect, an agricultural project that promotes sustainable cotton farming practices with specific farms."

Ultimately, the underlying problem is that a small effort (even of questionable quality) often then excuses the rest of operations, which remain unhindered by even the promise of change:

"Even if Kardashian's range turns out to be as sustainable as Stella McCartney, her collection makes up less than 0.1% of the clothes available on Boohoo. Her endorsement, however, will help the whole company, including the 99.9% of their far less sustainable clothing."

And, the underlying challenge for the whole industry remains problematic:

"Anyone who says a company like Boohoo can create sustainable clothing is lying. Fast fashion retailers – from Shein and its lead-filled $1 sunglasses to Zara and their $50 polyester cardigans – are predicated on a system of always wanting more that is at odds with the environment."

As I have mentioned before (Strategic CSR – Jeans), sustainability, by definition, is the antithesis of fashion. Whenever the underlying goal is to get people to throw away what they have currently and replace it with something sustainable, there is a significant disconnect in coming to terms with the core problem.

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Overlooking Ethical Concerns for a $7 Tube Top
By Jessica Testa
September 1, 2022
The New York Times
Late Edition – Final
D5

Kourtney Kardashian wants to make Boohoo's fast-fashion sustainable. Spoiler alert: she can't
By Niloufar Haidari
September 12, 2022
The Guardian

Posted by David Chandler at 9:28 PM

Wednesday, April 5, 2023

Strategic CSR - Fast fashion

The article in the url below highlights that, even the fast fashion companies acknowledge their business model is a threat to their own future success:

"In its 2021 annual report, Swedish retailer Hennes & Mauritz AB identified one trend as a 'high' risk to its business for the first time, higher-risk even than increased energy costs or availability of raw materials. Should consumers increasingly prefer 'products and services with low climate impacts from trusted companies that are seen as leaders in sustainability,' H&M wrote, the company might see a negative impact. As recently as 2018, H&M didn't list sustainably-minded shopping as a risk at all."

The reason these companies are growing more wary, the article argues, is that there are plenty of signals that a backlash is possible:

"… the past few years have seen tough feedback for fashion companies that push the limits on how quickly they can churn out clothing and accessories. Retailers like Shein, H&M, Zara and Boohoo have been repeatedly dinged by consumers, activists, the press and public officials for their mounting climate, water, and plastic pollution footprints, for labor conditions and for greenwashing. Meanwhile, report after report shows consumers signaling more focus on the environment when it comes to purchasing decisions. In one 2021 survey, for example, two thirds of US consumers said they would pay more for sustainable products."

The only problem is that, any resource intensive industry characterized by waste (and that is as good a definition of fast fashion as anything else) is only a problem if the stakeholders of these companies (i.e., customers, employees, suppliers, etc.) think it is a problem. If, instead, these stakeholders are quite happy for these firms to continue polluting the environment at a heady rate, then nothing changes:

"Except, people don't always shop their values. And for all the talk about shifting shopping patterns, there is no clear quantitative evidence of any demographic ditching fast fashion en masse — not even environmentally conscious Gen Z. That leaves retailers whose business model relies on fast fashion to size up the threat against it in their annual reports, sustainability reports and climate disclosures, where little consensus exists."

Seen in this light, the conclusion of the article is damning:

"It's clear that shopping habits could change, but no one is sure how, when or if climate-conscious consumers will be good or bad for business."

So, there we have it – an industry that is a heavy polluter; widespread acknowledgement that this is happening and is not good; and the complete absence of change since, ultimately, the stakeholders of these companies don't (yet) care sufficiently to do anything about it. Fast fashion might be the perfect metaphor for our whole approach to the environment and climate change.

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Where Is the Fast Fashion Backlash?
By Zahra Hirji
March 15, 2023
Bloomberg
 
Posted by David Chandler at 2:54 AM

Tuesday, March 8, 2022

Strategic CSR - Fast fashion

The article in the url below presents stark evidence to suggest that our love of fast fashion is an unsustainable trend:

"Between 1990 and 2018, the latest annual data available, real prices of footwear and clothing halved in the U.S., an analysis by Cambridge Econometrics shows. In the U.K., where consumers can't get enough of cheap fashion brands, prices fell by three quarters."

The trouble is that cheaper clothes appears to encourage consumers to purchase more of them, even while their overall costs decline:

"U.S. consumers spend just 3% of their disposable income on clothing, down from 10% in the 1960s, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data."

The result is incredible amounts of waste:

"Of the roughly 100 billion items of clothing produced each year, more than 50 billion are thrown away and subsequently burned or landfilled within 12 months of being made, according to a recent UBS report."

But, after making this case, the article takes an interesting turn (particularly so, perhaps, because the article appears in the WSJ):

"The situation seems unsustainable, yet investors in fashion stocks face a conundrum: Consumers don't seem to care. The amount of clothing and footwear sold globally fell 10% in 2020, Euromonitor data shows, but that is easily explained by the pandemic-related lockdowns that kept shops shut. Before the Covid-19 outbreak, the amount sold globally was increasing steadily at around 3% a year."

Moreover:

"For now, there is no direct threat of a regulatory crackdown either. The fashion sector's long supply chain cuts across multiple countries and sectors, including petrochemicals for fibre manufacturing, making it more complex for governments to rein in. That is despite the fact that the fashion industry contributes up to 10% of global carbon emissions. By comparison, commercial aviation generates just 2% to 3%, according to Citi analysts."

Yet, in spite of these indicators that there is no impediment to continuing with the status quo, the article introduces a note of caution for existing or potential investors in the industry:

"Environmental, social, and governance risks don't appear to be priced into the share prices of publicly traded fashion companies, even as analysts report that investors are asking more questions about sustainability. That might help explain isolated examples of extreme share-price volatility. Last year, a scandal about labor conditions at British fast-fashion company Boohoo Group wiped 40% off its market value in three trading days."

In other words, just because you can get away with something today does not mean you should; nor does it mean you always will be able to get away with it:

"It is possible that shoppers aren't yet aware of the climate impact of their sartorial choices. … But that could easily change. … Take Sweden, where 'flygskam,' or flight shaming, became a trend in 2018. That led to a 3% fall in domestic passenger travel that year, followed by an 9% drop in 2019, official data shows."

The article concludes by showing however reluctant society is to wake up to the unsustainability of our fashion choices today, the fact that the developing world consumes fractions of what the developed world consumes suggests the industry will need to be more sustainable in the very near future:

"In 2006, Chinese shoppers bought 14 items of apparel every year, but this number had more than doubled by 2019, according to UBS. Americans' purchases also increased over the period, but not by as much—from 48 to 54 items a year."

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2020

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Cheap Clothes May Prove Costly
By Carol Ryan
May 22-23, 2021
The Wall Street Journal
Late Edition – Final
B12
 
Posted by David Chandler at 12:10 AM

Tuesday, November 23, 2021

Strategic CSR - Sweatshops

Today's newsletter is perhaps appropriate for Thanksgiving week here in the U.S. – at least, appropriate for the traditional Black Friday that follows what is otherwise a relatively non-materialistic holiday. This video was introduced to me by a colleague as an insightful commentary on the fast fashion business model:


The video tells the story of a campaign to educate German consumers about the implications of their fast fashion purchases (#WhoMadeMyClothes). Specifically, the organization (which subsequently seems to have stopped operating) set up a vending machine advertising €2 t-shirts. When someone inserts their money, however, they are presented with a video profiling the people who work in fast fashion sweatshops and emphasizing the amount they need to be paid in order to generate the low prices western consumers pay/demand. At the end of the video, the consumer is then presented with the question, "Do you still want to purchase the €2 t-shirt?" and are given the option of donating the €2 instead.

The ploy is very effective – so much so that the organization reports that over 80% of the people who insert money into the vending machine end up donating the money instead of purchasing the t-shirt (see here).

It is a good story, but lots of reasons to question the donation stats that are reported (e.g., it is only 2 euros in a highly developed economy, moral shaming, etc., etc.). Most important, however, the video doesn't grapple with the most important question – what happens to these workers' livelihoods if people do not buy the t-shirts? In other words, what options do they have as alternatives to their current condition, however bad when judged from a western perspective?

The key issue for me in attempting to understand the conditions under which people accept employment elsewhere and then judging their choice is whether there was coercion involved. If so, that is a separate situation/discussion. But, assuming free choice, then it is most likely that the person who elected to work at the factory felt that this job was their best option, given their economic reality. In other words, that this job is adding more value for that individual than any other alternative option.

The other macro-level consideration in this discussion is the idea that all economies progress through phases and that the sweatshop phase is a necessary step along the road to greater prosperity. In other words, every economy that we think of as developed today, at one point went through a sweatshop phase. Think of the original outsourcing economies – Japan, Korea, etc. And, before that, think of the first countries to industrialize – the UK and U.S./Canada. How are all of those economies doing today?

The benefit that developing economies have over the first economies to industrialize is that they know what is on the other side of their sweatshop phase. In other words, they are likely to be in their sweatshop phase for less time than the earlier industrializing economies because they see what better looks like. None of this is to say that a sweatshop phase is good in an objective sense (in fact, I generally struggle with the idea of what good means in an objective sense), but it does suggest that we should think of such things as relative. Even, perhaps, that the sweatshop phase is a good thing in that it suggests the economy is developing and will someday leave that phase to move on to something more developed.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2020

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

Posted by David Chandler at 8:02 PM

Thursday, September 30, 2021

Strategic CSR - Jeans

The article in the url below is a review of a new book, Unraveled, by Maxine B̩dat. The book highlights the devastating amount of waste (and overall harm) generated by the global clothing and fast fashion industry. This particular book explores the industry's supply chain using the example of a pair of jeans Рhow they are made and find their way to consumers across the world. As the review notes, however, the punchline is not necessarily news Рthere is now a growing library of books that take a similar approach to highlighting the mess we are getting ourselves into:

"In [highlighting 'the pretty awful reality' of the global fashion supply chain, the book] joins Lucy Siegle's To Die For: Is Fashion Wearing Out the World?, Elizabeth Cline's Overdressed: The Shockingly High Cost of Cheap Fashion and, most recently, Dana Thomas's Fashionopolis: The Price of Fast Fashion and the Future of Clothes (along with documentaries like The True Cost)."

Beyond the great harms that are identified in the review, however, it is the final four paragraphs that caught my attention. The writing is tight and the points damning, but the idea that our concern about sustainability has become part of the problem is what I took away:

"Because now, much in the way a sale price tag can seduce us into thinking we should buy a garment we might otherwise pass up, the fact that a dress is made from, say, recycled polyester or orange peel has become part of its allure.

Just as the opportunity to recycle an old garment becomes part of the rationale for replacing it, because in doing so you will not be adding to your closet — even though, as Ms. Bédat makes clear, you will still be adding to the volume of clothes in the world, which adds to the problem. Personal math and public math don't always equate.

And one of the unforeseen, ironic results of the genuinely valuable conversation and consciousness raising that books like 'Unraveled' have spurred is that sustainability itself has been transformed into a selling point.

That may be the most horrifying development of all."

To me, this speaks to the superficiality with which we continue to approach the core problem. Our economic system is unsustainable, so what are we going to do about it? 'Buy more stuff,' even if it is more sustainably produced than before (while still being fundamentally unsustainable), is clearly not the answer. The idea of 'sustainability' can only be 'fashionable' in a society that has completely missed the point. If that is our proposed solution to this existential problem, then all the issues the books quoted above have raised in recent years have clearly fell largely on deaf ears.

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2020

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Jeans Are the Villain of a Horror Story
By Vanessa Friedman
June 3, 2021
The New York Times
Late Edition – Final
D3
 
Posted by David Chandler at 9:01 PM
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)