I wanted to explore ethics in textiles from a different point of view following my post a few weeks ago on a specific textile; wool (Wool: sustainable by definition). In particular, I am looking to explore ethics to inform my choice of textiles for a current project on 'Mapping my cultural experience of Bradford'. My stimulus for this reflection is three 'objects' that have come my way recently:
- An article about a luxury brand's collection in Paris Fashion week (Cartner-Morley 2021);
- A webinar, ‘Innovative approaches to woven design and manufacturing’ presented by Bradford Textile Society;
- A book, Clothing Poverty by Andrew Brooks.
Still from Chloe Autumn/ Winter 2021 collection
The Guardian article, on the luxury brand Chloe's Autumn/ Winter 2021 show, describes the company, under their new designer Gabriela Hearst, as leading a new 'values-led' rather than aesthetics-led approach to fashion. They think this will drive up customer loyalty in an age where consumers are becoming more concerned that their purchases contribute positively to the environment and support strong ethical approaches, for example in labour conditions. The article rather praises the brand and points out that Chloe specifically claims to promote equal opportunities in the company, fair trade sourcing, a positive impact on communities and environmentally responsible business practices (chloe.com/gb).
Specifically, some components of the Chloe operation include eliminating virgin synthetic and artificial cellulosic fabrics and including 80% recycled yarn in their cashmere products (Cartner-Morley 2021). The show also included second hand (bought back and upcycled) bags and displayed the models wearing clothes made from 'upcycled' garments.
A screen shot from Dash & Miller's webpage
Ethics was also a feature of the presentation by Juliet Bailey of Dash & Miller and Bristol Weaving Mill when she gave a talk at the Bradford Textile Society about her company's innovative approaches to design and manufacturing. She emphasises their stress on accountability, traceability and sustainability. What does this appear to mean in practice:
- sourcing fibres and other materials locally, from the UK where possible and even locally to the Bristol area to reduce carbon costs in transport;
- using livestock farmers with the highest welfare standards, traceability of fibres;
- using rare breeds;
- using undyed yarn or natural dyes whilst admitting that natural dyes still have a cost in terms of water and land usage;
- manufacturing from recycled or waste materials like selvedge waste and fabric remnants;
- only manufacturing products to order so there is no waste
- They are also considering recycled wools, cottons and other fibres. Interestingly, when asked what she couldn't source in the UK, she said natural dyeing on an industrial scale (there's a market opening for someone younger than me!).
Whilst Chloe and Dash & Miller/ Bristol Weaving Mill operate in different parts of the textile industry, they both trade in expensive textiles. One might argue that it is easier for luxury brands to adopt sustainable and ethical business practices because there is a cost to working with, for example, natural fibres such as wool or Fair Trade criteria which cheaper brands may not be able to afford. Creating high quality items which are capable of lasting, and thus have less impact on the environment, is expensive. So I asked Juliet Bailey if the strategies her company uses for sustainable and ethical production can only work for high end, luxury textiles; could they be translated to the mass market. She replied that modern UK customers were becoming more "savvy" and demanding about environmentally friendly and ethical textile production but the challenge is to get suppliers from abroad to take on these types of strategies. On the other hand, Brooks argues that the premium pricing of most 'ethical' garments effectively prevents them being available to the poor.
Sustainable/ ethical textile innovations
As exemplified in the two examples above, there is undoubtedly movement designed to improve ethical practices in the textile industry including some exciting innovations and ideas. Some relate to the fabrics, for example the manufacture of polyester using recycled materials is becoming more common. We also have the development of new, bio fabrics, exemplified by the RoundCouture project which aims to investigate the creation and manipulation of bioplastics and biomaterials that can serve as substitutes for silicone, latex, resin and many other plastics currently used in the industry.There are also innovations in post-manufacture practices, for example:
- Upcycling used items such as in Chloe's fashion show and the company E.L.V. which makes very expensive jeans from combining old pairs. ELV is given the top rating by the Good on You website which judges brands on environmental impact, labour conditions and animal welfare.
Illustration from E.L.V. Denim
- More widespread renting or leasing of clothes rather than wearing them very little and disposing of them. Whilst renting has been available for a long time for specialist garments and high end fashion, there are moves to make it more accessible, aided by the internet. Patagonia, for example, is considering this for outdoor clothing and the Mud Collective leases jeans for a monthly fee and then recycles them once they are finally returned.
- Peer to peer selling of second hand clothing which is booming through organisations such Ebay, Debop, the Vestiare Collective.
- Stores such as H&M offering vouchers to buy new clothes to customers who bring in old clothes for recycling. Note that, as Brooks (2015) points out, this practice 'explicitly links discarding unwanted clothes to a new cycle of consumption' (p226).
- Ethical superstores which sell the products of small operations which must meet at least two of their 'philosophies': Fair trade, organic, eco-friendly, small scale production, heritage and vegan.
Screen shot from Patagonia's web page following a link labelled 'Activism'.
Patagonia supports its claim to be saving the planet by using garment manufacturing businesses that have earned the Fair Trade label, paying a premium for each garment with the Fair Trade label. It also is making increasing use of recycled materials and offers a repair service. The company makes a convincing case in its yet unfulfilled 'quest for circularity' where no garments should end up in landfill, but it points to the difficulties explaining why it hasn't yet managed to make this work at scale.
Are we being conned?
So we have companies here that appear to be making good strides towards ethical practices. It's enough to make you feel warm inside. But then I started looking beyond what companies say, particularly reading Clothing Poverty (Brooks 2015) and viewing Amber Buchart's From Rags to Riches and the Good on You website, all of which provide some insight into company practices (or lack of them).
This material provides a considerable challenge to the self-serving claims of companies. Brooks, examines particularly how the clothing industry, from the industrial revolution onwards, has promoted wealth in the 'Global North' and created poverty in the 'Global South'. For example, whilst Patagonia asserts the positive use of Fairtrade classified garment factories, Brooks points to the small premium that companies pay for that name; just enough to allow workers subsistence living and access to basic health care and education but nothing that would lift them from poverty to the type of lifestyle enjoyed in the 'Global North' which consumes the finished garments. He points out that workers in the USA earn roughly 34 times those of garment workers in Bangladesh. Indeed he argues that small steps like Fair Trade may even 'crowd out' more radical alternatives. For the most part, the well-paid and controlling jobs such as design, marketing and retail decision-making remain with richer countries leaving little opportunity for those in the Global South to develop their own wealth-making initiatives. And, as individual countries use regulation to improve labour conditions, as in Europe during the 20th century, multi-national companies just move production to states which exert weaker control and allow more exploitation.
Brooks is particularly condemnatory about interventions such as Vivienne Westwood's 'Made with love in Nairobi' which like others such as Geldof, Bono and Madonna creates a spectacle for Western consumers (p224) projecting African garment workers as the deserving poor rather than equal partners in business. I think this comes over in this arguably rather patronising comment made by Westwood on the Made with love website: “What a wonderful experience it’s been. I really want to thank the International Trade Centre and the team in Africa. It’s been, and still is, such a gratifying experience to know the opportunities we are able to give to people. And the bags we make in Africa are still my favourite!”
 |
| Image from the website |
In addition, both Brooks and Buchart examine the impact of fast fashion not just at the manufacturing stage but also at disposal. They argue that there is a huge business selling secondhand clothes in the Global South which undermines local industry and leaves people in a state of dependency.
At heart, Brooks is arguing that where companies adopt apparently ethical practices, they make us feel good about our consumption and promote their own sales. It means we, as consumers, don't really have to change our shopping practices. In addition, such practices do not disrupt the essence of the capitalist system which generates fast fashion, workforce exploitation, environmental degradation and the negative consequences of vast quantities of unwanted clothes. As Brooks argues Capitalism requires growth and the maximisation of profit, both which work against sustainable and ethical practices. It needs something more radical to really make changes.
At heart, Brooks is arguing that where companies adopt apparently ethical practices, they make us feel good about our consumption and promote their own sales. It means we, as consumers, don't really have to change our shopping practices. In addition, such practices do not disrupt the essence of the capitalist system which generates fast fashion, workforce exploitation, environmental degradation and the negative consequences of vast quantities of unwanted clothes. As Brooks argues Capitalism requires growth and the maximisation of profit, both which work against sustainable and ethical practices. It needs something more radical to really make changes.
Conclusion and implications
This has left me feeling rather dispirited about the nature of the textile industry. I could write so much more about this subject but it would turn from a blog post to an essay. However, I would encourage you to read more and not accept the simple assertions of so-called green and ethical companies.So what are the implications for me and my work with textiles?
Brooks writes 'From an environmental perspective the individually responsible decision is to shop less often, wear clothes until they are worn out, and then repair or recycle them within the household or replace them with locally produced goods. Slowing the rate of clothing consumption by buying fewer high quality clothes is a far more environmentally friendly approach than continuing to buy fast fashion and donating excess clothes' (p231-2).
I, at least, have the choice to be careful about what I buy and how I use and dispose of it. At least it's made me feel good about my practice of darning socks and patching jeans even if friends laugh at me! In relation to my current project for Bradford 2025, the implications are very clear. I should try to reuse fabric rather than purchase more. I've got two suitcases of remnants upstairs so that will be my source of materials until, at least, the charity shops reopen. It means that my colour palette will be determined by my fabric rather than the other way round!
Brooks writes 'From an environmental perspective the individually responsible decision is to shop less often, wear clothes until they are worn out, and then repair or recycle them within the household or replace them with locally produced goods. Slowing the rate of clothing consumption by buying fewer high quality clothes is a far more environmentally friendly approach than continuing to buy fast fashion and donating excess clothes' (p231-2).
I, at least, have the choice to be careful about what I buy and how I use and dispose of it. At least it's made me feel good about my practice of darning socks and patching jeans even if friends laugh at me! In relation to my current project for Bradford 2025, the implications are very clear. I should try to reuse fabric rather than purchase more. I've got two suitcases of remnants upstairs so that will be my source of materials until, at least, the charity shops reopen. It means that my colour palette will be determined by my fabric rather than the other way round!
References
Cartner-Morley (2021) Fad free? Chloe design debut geared to upcycling. Guardian. 3rd March.Brooks, A (2015) Clothing Poverty: the hidden world of fast fashion and second-hand clothes. London: Zed books.
Comments
Post a Comment