Out of Sight, Out of Mind Part 1

INTRODUCTION

Quality over quantity, a phrase known and applied by everyone, whether in regards to purchasing an expensive but functional smartphone or finding a small number of meaningful friends. Yet, what happens when the opposite of the principle is applied—or even prioritized in one of the most influential and lucrative economic sectors yet, the fashion industry. Over the past few years, the world has slowly been uncovering the once underground issue of “fast fashion.” “Fast fashion” is a “business model of rapidly replicating recent catwalk or celebrity culture or high-fashion designs and making them available to retail stores quickly and at a cheaper rate” (ReAnIn, 2022). According to ReAnIn, the global fast fashion market was valued at USD 88.9 billion in the year 2021 and is projected to reach USD 126.8 billion by the year 2028. With the rising usage of social media, fashion trends go as easily as they come into style. Disappearing at alarming rates, trends often last extremely short durations, lasting from a few weeks to a few days. Because of this, there has been a rise in consumption of brand new, popular clothing items based on social media. As a result, current analysts are observing spikes in clothing production as staple brands create fashion items based on weekly trends.

In this age, the fashion world is not simply contained in international high-end shows or elaborate art museums, but instead has made its way into our daily lives, and with it, its cost. The industry’s impact on artists’ property rights and global labor exploitation often goes unnoticed when T-shirts and skirts are purchased from local malls. Such issues frequently are not wondered about as consumers are often distracted by dangerously cheap prices. Consequently, these ignored costs have crept their way into our closets.

To avoid contributing to the growth of the fast fashion business, several consumers have resorted to alternative methods of shopping. Still, the “easy” solutions popularized by social media, such as thrifting, are not as simple as one may think. With dozens of ramifications on impoverished communities (such as reducing the clothing supply available for the low-income class), shopping secondhand ethically is another challenge in itself. With the ever-present issue of fast fashion’s ramifications on artist rights, the misuse of human resources and the lack of government solutions as well as the faultiness of the secondhand thrifting scene, the fast fashion issue presents the ethical dilemma of the decade.

I. THE CONFLICT OF CONSUMPTION

The rise of social media usage has contributed to the vast development of the fashion industry. According to a survey conducted, around 60% of high schoolers in Springfield, Jakarta, Indonesia claimed that their clothing choices were influenced by social media. The public view of fashion has evolved, now abandoning the traditional pattern of fashion seasons and now approaching a new pattern of consumption related to microtrends. While trends demonstrate types of clothing that are popular at the moment (the moment lasting weeks or months), microtrends are trends which are often more short-lived and frequent than regular trends (lasting only a week or several days). Due to the role of influencers and online marketing, microtrends have pushed “the public's addiction to ever changing fashion fuels” and also the fashion industry’s incentive to cater to these frequently changing tastes (Brewer, 2019). According to Ross (2021), fast fashion companies like H&M produce 52 “micro seasons”, meaning there is a new line of clothing produced every week of the year. Additionally, the immense amount of clothing produced has been argued to contribute significantly to waste, with H&M alone producing 53 million tonnes of clothing per year (Brewer, 2019). On top of that, compared to the average person in 2000, the average person in 2014 bought 60% more clothing but kept it for half as long (Ross, 2021).

Generally, fast fashion businesses can be categorized based on the fulfillment of four categories:
1. Rapid and efficient production process
2. Large volumes of clothing are produced in short periods of time (less than two weeks)
3. Clothing is produced according to microtrends in social media
4. Clothing is sold at low prices

The conflict between consumer satisfaction and the sustainability and responsibility of the industry has resulted in the “fashion paradox” (Brewer, 2019). Due to the rising demand for clothing, fast fashion businesses are obliged to create clothes at a faster rate and at an inexpensive cost in order to make as many sales and profits as possible. However, such efforts to reach low costs, including exploitative labor practices, have resulted in doubts regarding the industry’s responsibility for the welfare of those involved in the production process. Overall, it can be argued that the possibility of satisfying consumer demand but also maintaining the accountability of fast fashion businesses is impossible.

II. IMMORALITY IN PRODUCTION

1. Copyright and Creativity

One of the main ethical concerns of the fast fashion industry is the source of clothing design. Trends in social media are often imitated in clothing sold from fast fashion outlets, such as Zara and H&M. For example, the “Boxy Style Cardigan” and “Striped Knit Cardigan” are displayed in Fig 1.1. Both items contain a beige color and are made of soft knit material, a v-neckline, cuffs at the end of the sleeves, and a front button-down using plastic buttons. Though these items may be discernible from one another due to their line and button pattern, the issue is further emphasized in the comparison between H&M’s “Fine-Knit Collared Sweater” and Zara’s “Striped Knit Oversized Sweater.” Both made of knit material, several similarities between the two garments can be spotted, including the same color, collar pattern, sleeve shape, and overall oversized fit on the body. As a result, these sweaters may appear indifferent without further inspection, reducing the gap between Zara and H&M’s brand identities.

In addition to these examples, it has been observed that most Zara and H&M products utilize the same fabrics, including wool, polyester, and cotton. With clothes utilizing similar textiles, patterns, and colors based on the same inspiration sources (from social media), products sold within these stores have become increasingly indistinguishable from one another. As Brewer (2019) statede, the trend of clothing being curated after social media trends “may actually discourage creativity and individuality as well as hamper new and emerging designers.” This trend has been known to reduce the overall incentive of fashion designers, hence leading to adverse long term effects. As a result, the rising similarity between garments sold risks reducing creativity and originality in the fashion world.

Similar to the originality issue, the problem of property rights has become strengthened by the rise of fast fashion. Intellectual property allows designers and creators to “cease others from replicating his work and for him to make money related… out of his creation” (Singh, 2020). While luxury brands such as Gucci have the capability and opportunity to bring light to intellectual property infringements, small designers and business owners often do not. However, in some cases, even these large corporations fail to protect their own designs. For example, in 2017, Forever 21, a fast fashion business, was sued by Puma as Puma claimed that Forever 21 had infringed the patent plans of Puma’s Fenty shoe range which had been endorsed by Rihanna, who had served as the Women’s Creative Director for Puma since December 2014 (Jain, 2021). The shoes were classified as Bow Slide shoes, both containing a satin bow on top and pink colors. A dismissal of Puma’s claim was requested by Forever 21 which stated that the shoe designed by Forever 21 was inspired from styles in the 1940s. Moreover, though Rihanna was repeatedly mentioned to be the designer of the shoes, she was not mentioned as an inventor on Puma’s patent.

In the end, though the shoes were admitted to have several similar design elements, the judgment passed was in favor of Forever 21. Puma’s responsibility was to “secure and uphold” its future design plans, such as their plan for the Creeper shoe, another model they had released in the Fenty Puma shoe range. However, the similarities between the two shoes were sufficient enough to “confuse purchasers” (Jain, 2021). With high-end corporations not being able to completely fend off the threat of duplication from fast fashion businesses, the future of the fashion sector seems to be becoming progressively dangerous for designers, whether emerging or well-known.

2. Lack of Government Intervention

In order to maintain the inexpensive prices and affordability of fast fashion items, brands have resorted to labor exploitative practices in the production of their products. According to Ross (2021), only 2% of the 75 million fast fashion employees in the world earned the minimum wage, hence suggesting that a majority of the workforce lived below the poverty line. To keep up with microtrends, brands require large volumes of production to occur in short periods of time. As a result, a regular work day may take up to 16 hours, accumulating to 112 hours of work in one week (seven days). As most firms tend to prioritize “short term” deals rather than long term deals (related to quickness of social media trends), sustainability and responsibility are often not prioritized, causing the negative externalities to be experienced by labor forces.

Furthermore, concerns of ethical labor practices have been raised in the midst of the fashion industry’s growth. The unsafe working conditions in fast fashion factories have led to several tragedies, including the Rana Plaza event. On April 24, 2013, in Bangladesh, the Rana Plaza building, which contained several clothing factories, collapsed as a result of several structural issues in the building that had not been monitored. Brewer (2019) states that in spite of the warnings regarding the building’s integrity being pointed out previously by inspectors, workers were still demanded to work that day. If they hadn’t, their pay would have been reduced. On the same day, banks and shops on other floors were closed. As a result of the collapse, there were 1134 deaths and 2500 injured (Brewer, 2019). After the Raza Plaza collapse, 1,106 fast fashion factories were inspected, and 80,000 safety-related issues were discovered in these buildings (Ross, 2021). From this case, it is known that employees of fast fashion brands are often placed in dangerous sites, repeatedly risking these employees’ health and their lives for their job.

These working conditions are achievable due to the lack of oversight in the production process. As the subsidiaries of fashion brands are “largely unregulated,” the legal responsibility for the health and safety of labor remains unsettled (Ross, 2021). Additionally, “soft law” is frequently imposed. “Soft law” includes voluntary codes which are used to “guide companies… to adhere to higher standards in their supply chain” (Brewer, 2019). However, it has been observed that “soft law” is rarely enforced, with it mainly being dependent on “voluntary adherence” (Brewer, 2019). Although these regulations have pushed transparency in the supply chains of brands, “soft law” remains more similar to encouragements rather than strict legal limitations, resulting in brands being purposefully ambiguous in the information they disclose. For example, in 2013, proposals to pay living wages were released by H&M. Still, by 2018, no clear explanation regarding how this would be achieved had been published. Moreover, though the brand stated where their factories are located, the “living” wages of workers had not been disclosed (Fredrikson, 2015). Though H&M declared that trade unions were available to negotiate wages, the “freedom of association” and “trade union representation” had not been explained further. In fact, the addition of committees had instead repressed trade union power as committees were used to “thwart unions” (Frederikson, 2015). Because of the lack of monitoring by governments and other legal organizations, information of fast fashion brands’ supply chains has remained concealed, preventing brands from taking accountability for their production practices.