From Rags to Riches:

Understanding the impact of disposable clothing trends begins by examining the source and production of raw clothing materials and their detrimental effects on the environment. Clothing is produced with an array of materialsーstandard cotton fabric, various synthetic materials, and leathers—contributing to over 70 million tons of material worldwide (Cline 125). Each fabric production has a distinct effect on the environment and the people involved in the process even before the design of a shirt is implemented. 

The production of synthetic materials illustrates the extent of the environmental impact clothing begins to have before they are even manufactured. Due to relatively cheap production costs and easy-care qualities of synthetic materials, they are a favorite for manufacturers and consumers. These fabrics undergo a complex process comprised of toxic chemical baths to obtain brighter fibers, softer material and wrinkle-free fabric (Cline 125). As a result, around 8,000 toxic chemicals pollute 200 tons of freshwater resources (Drennan). Despite the early stages of production, these common polyester fabrics are already detrimental to the environment through their large resource usage along with their immense water pollution. As the demand for 46 greater amounts of clothing increases, fabric production will follow, perpetuating fashion’s large carbon and water footprint. 

Additionally, cultivated throughout the United States and India, cotton provides a large supply of fabric to create the staples of a typical wardrobe. Similar to synthetic fibers, the mass production of cotton urges farmers and producers to go to great lengths to maximize the efficiency of production at any cost. For example, to improve cotton yield, genetically modified cotton was created to be resistant to the bollworm pest (Perry). However, the consequences of chemicals and modified seeds can far outweigh the benefits of their use. The genetically modified cotton, for example, lead to the emergence of “superweeds” which resulted in the use of stronger toxic pesticides that posed a fatal threat to livestock and humans (Perry). This common pesticide usage perpetuates the endangerment and contamination of the surrounding soil and water. 

Furthermore, these consequences span beyond the environment as there is a correlation between the use of agricultural chemicals and health defects. For instance, men who work in the agricultural field with chemicals were often found with the development of brain tumors after age 45 (Morgan). Moreover, leather production has a similar negative impact on its surrounding communities. In Kapur, India, the process saturates the nearby air, water, and soil with Chromium-6 which harms the production of crops while also infiltrating the town’s drinking water supply — resulting in cancer and jaundice (Morgan). The correlation between chemical production methods and ill patients is irrefutable, illustrating the devastation raw material production can pose to humans. With greater amounts of fabric being required to fulfill consumer needs for clothing, these health effects will continue to wreak havoc on small farming populations. Thus, the creation and treatment of these materials not only have a detrimental effect on the environment but also have staggering repercussions on human health. 

Following material production is the manufacturing process in factories; the poor working conditions consisting of low wages, grueling long hours, and cramped quarters, illustrate the impact of fast fashion on the lives of workers. The majority of these factory conditions are found in third-world countries as many companies outsource production to avoid minimum wage laws and labor regulations, therefore, obtaining the cheapest production costs. Yet large corporations claim that they are in compliance with mandated laws and are providing much needed economic growth to these countries. Benjamin Powell, the Director of the Free Market Institute, asserted that low wage manufacturing helps raise the living standards of third-world countries while providing a better alternative than other possible employment opportunities (Morgan). Similarly, as stated by Kate Ball-Young, the former Sourcing Manager of Joe Fresh,“There is nothing intrinsically dangerous about sewing clothes” (Morgan). Ball-Young attempts to illustrate the safety and economic security of garment factories in comparison to other possible job options. However, these corporate representatives fail to acknowledge the true effect of sweatshops on its workers. Since, companies prioritize lower production costs and efficient turnover rates, they continue to ignore the quality of life and living standards of their employees. 

Instead, large clothing companies thrive off of the poor economic situation found in third world countries, pitting factory owners against one another. Manufacturing companies will compete with neighboring factories for business from major retail companies by lowering their production rates. Once hired by retailers, factories are pressured to fulfill daily quotas while operating under a tight budget. As a result, factory owners are forced to make budget cuts to workers’ salaries and the upkeep of buildings. This is illustrated with the Dream High Factory; the retailer pays factory owner Chang Mo Yang $1.30 for a top, which amounts to 51 cents to pay workers, 40 cents to ship the garment and 39 cents to cover rent (Kitroeff and Kim). David Weil, the former head of the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour division stated, “[The companies] force the production costs to as low as they want because of their power in the supply chain. With the result of workers ultimately bearing the whole cost and risk of the system” (Kitroeff and Kim). While retailers continue to profit off of this process, factory owners are forced to cut corners to make ends meet and garment workers receive well under the required minimum wage. 

The minimum wage in Bangladesh, for instance, is less than $3 a day; factory workers like Shima Akhter have reported their salary to be merely $10 a month while being locked and beaten in the factory (Morgan). And still, the legal minimum wage in areas like Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Indonesia only amount to one half of the cost for a worker to live a decent life (Hymann). With these frugal working requirements barely being met, the means of survival for workers are nearly impossible, even for third-world countries. 

Additionally, due to the tight budget and high demand, factories also fail to abide by common safety and fire regulations. Factories are quickly and haphazardly constructed resulting in imminent factory fires and infrastructure problems (Cline 184). The deadliest consequence to these unsound buildings occurred in 2013; the Rana Plaza collapse resulted in the deaths and injury of over 3,000 people due to poor construction methods and lack of proper safety exits (“Real Costs of Cheapest Clothes”). This is just one of the numerous factory disasters faced by companies, such as Ali Enterprises and Tazreen Fashion, which have resulted in hundreds of worker deaths due to lack of safety exits and fire extinguishers (Morgan). Unbeknownst to consumers, behind the price tags of popular clothing items are often the lives and sometimes deaths of workers. If the lives of workers were valued over fulfilling production quotas and profit margins, these unfortunate incidents can be prevented. 

Throughout all these instances, a common element remains — the inability of workers to protect their rights. Without the power to unionize or protest abroad, workers become silenced before the eyes of the law. For instance, in Cambodia, Sochua Mu attests to the government’s violent reaction to the peaceful minimum wage protest through civilian beatings and gassings (Morgan). The government ignores the unjust working conditions of the factory employees and seeks to suppress the worker’s voices. Similarly, exploited garment workers from Los Angeles factories have filed over sixty complaints pertaining their sub-minimum wage rates yet only three claims were settled in the past five years (Kitroeff and Kim). The lack of protection of workers’ rights, coupled with the growing demands and pressure from clothing companies, allow factories to exploit employees and ignore inadequate working conditions in the manufacturing process. Not only do regulations and government laws need to be altered for better working conditions, but also companies need to relieve pressure on factory owners by valuing the lives of workers over production rates and quotas. 

The causes of these pernicious fast fashion practices that result in cheaper prices and larger quotas can be attributed to the consumers themselves. Many people fall victim to the belief that cheap clothing is the sole way to keep up with an ever-changing fashion landscape. Consumers believe they cannot afford to spend a large portion of their salary on clothing, however, prior spending trends illustrate otherwise. Previously, the average annual family income in 1901 was $750, yet $108 (approximately 14%) was spent on clothing (Cline 20). Now, American families spend only 3% of their total income on clothing, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (22). With the rise of efficient manufacturing methods, the cost of clothing has quickly descended and consumer trends have been drastically altered. Families are no longer searching for a few durable suits or dresses for the year, but instead are chasing monthly fashion trends, driving consumers to more inexpensive retailers and creating more wasted clothing to litter landfills. This shift in consumer spending incentivizes retail corporations to insist on lower productions costs as companies generate more profits from creating cheaper products. 

With the American mindset geared towards finding the cheapest clothing items with exposure to high-end clothing brands, fast fashion options seem greatly more appealing. As consumers compare the exorbitantly priced clothing items to the sales of fast fashion corporations, C.W. Park, the editor of the Journal of Consumer Psychology and a marketing professor at USC Marshall School of Business, asserts that the psychological effects cause highend products to “serve as a reference prices when people buy inexpensive products” (Cline 69). People yearn to receive the name brand items for only a fraction of the cost, due to the false assumption of receiving better quality clothing. Thus, low-end apparel companies attempt to replicate the elusive and designer products that high-end retailers such as Louis Vuitton and Marc Jacobs provide by partnering with celebrities and well-known designers. The Missoni collection from Target, for example, attracted an unprecedented amount of consumers although it featured cheap, acrylic blended dresses (69). Shoppers no longer prioritize the quality and sourcing of clothing, but rather the low costs and famed designer names. 

Moreover, companies go to great lengths to appease consumers with the latest fashion trends by copying designer works if partnerships are not a viable option. Forever 21 has been sued over 50 times for copyright violations yet has not been found liable for any of these claims (Cline 105). Not only do consumers prefer inexpensive options to long-desired designer clothing, but also companies are more than willing to comply in order to gain profit. With these consumer standards and business practices, the unethical manufacturing process is perpetuated and more fabric is being wasted as the trends become “out of style”, adding to the already harmful effects of fast fashion. 

For many American consumers, the immediate solution for out-of-style clothing is to donate unwanted items, however, this causes more harm than good. With the poor quality of clothing and fast trends, this practice is becoming more common as consumers look to free up closet space for the newest items or dispose of easily ripped and torn clothing items. Due to poor production standards, polyester garments often shed plastic microfibers when cleaned in domestic washing machines, not only polluting water and harming aquatic life but also rapidly degrading the quality of clothing (Perry). With most clothing items created in this fashion, the lifespan of a shirt becomes shorter and shorter. 

Rather than mending or upcycling clothing, the immediate reaction for Americans is to donate. Despite their good intentions, 90% of clothing from second-hand storesーsuch as Goodwill, the Salvation Army, and thrift storesーwill never reach their intended audience (Bockenstedt). The results of these items are either repurposed to make rags known as “shoddy” or sent overseas to be sold (Cline 128). Although locals benefit from the consumption of secondhand clothing, the practice damages local tailors and economy (Murphy). Additionally, it creates long-term disposal problems as large amounts of clothing pile up in areas like Africa (Martinko). Thus, the perceived notions of donated clothing greatly offering aid to those in need are far from the truth. Even after consumer use, fast fashion continues to have a lasting impact on other countries’ societies, further exemplifying its detrimental effects. 

Another perceived alternative is to recycle the clothing by repurposing the material for other items of clothing. However, due to the poor quality of modern fast fashion manufacturing processes, the materials are often non-recyclable fabrics. Due to the complexity of man-made materials, only 0.1% of clothing that is donated in clothing drives are recycled (Arnold). Without the technology to separate the fibers or recycle the material, synthetic materials continue to pile up in landfills. Each year, the average American throws away 82 pounds of textile waste amounting to 11 million tons (Morgan). In addition to the environmental damage done through production methods, this textile waste continues to pile up in landfills and pollute the Earth. And as the demand for greater amounts and variation of clothing rises, this trend will continue. The environment and third-world countries are not only burdened by the production of clothing, but also the afterlife of apparel as well. 

With the multifaceted problems attached to fast fashion, it is hard to imagine a plausible solution to solve the large issue at hand. Although the eradication of fast fashion practices will not end in the near future, small changes taken by manufacturers, clothing companies, and consumers can alleviate the detrimental impact of fast fashion. 

The change begins with the manufacturing process; by allowing garment workers the proper wage rates and the right to unionize, this will raise the living standards in many thirdworld countries. Patricia, a worker in Alta Gracia, a Dominican factory, can attest to these changes as the international labor community helped the workers rally for a union (Cline 154). As a result, these workers gained pay raises, medical and retirement benefits which have allowed Patricia to install plumbing and amenities in her mother’s house where her family lives (155). Similar inspiring stories can be seen throughout the Dominican neighborhood where Alta Gracia provides work to many people within the community. The Knights Apparel company, the owner of the Alta Gracia factory, is just one of the many companies involved in the Fair Trade Movement where clothing factories “create an environment in which workers are comfortable reporting any problems in the workplace” (Cline 158). If this same environment is replicated throughout the manufacturing process, the quality of lives will have significantly improved within third-world countries. 

Industry initiatives have also lead to legal agreements to hold apparel companies and factory owners accountable. In 2013, the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh created a five year legally binding agreement to create safe working conditions within the garment industry (Drennan). According to Drennan, “As of September 2014, more than 1,000 factories had been inspected, and over 500 Corrective Action Plans had been approved.” Positive changes such as these will greatly encourage factory owners to continue implementing all necessary safety precautions. 

The true change, however, stems from the consumers themselves. Catarina Midby, the UK & IE sustainability manager of H&M, has asserted that “The greatest change-makers are consumers who, with their growing awareness, are demanding an added value of sustainability in the products and services that they buy” (Hall). With greater consumer awareness, shoppers can place pressure on clothing companies by turning to more ethical clothing brands. This will encourage corporations to implement better guidelines and initiatives to receive more business from customers. Some startup apparel companies have turned to the performance economy model where consumers pay for the value they receive from products to promote prioritizing the physical durability of clothing (Arnold). Rent the Runway, for example, is a company that rents out high-end fashion brands to consumers for affordable rates which showcase the practicality of the performance economy (Arnold). Meanwhile, large fashion corporations such as H&M, Zara, and Gap have made strides in offering eco-friendly alternatives and better working conditions. H&M, for instance, has created a created an eco-friendly line called “Conscious” while also promoting their global initiative where customers can donate unwanted textiles with a guarantee that all 100% of clothing will be recycled (Hall). By supporting these brands, other retailers will realize the viability of supporting the lives of workers and the environment over the number of shirts produced. 

Through rallying for garment workers’ rights, supporting ethical clothing brands and placing pressure on large corporations, average shoppers can create an above-average impact. As a global citizen, it is the consumer's responsibility to be mindful of their clothing. Alternatives such as upcycling old clothing, creating minimalist wardrobes and shopping at thrift stores will reduce the mounds of rags left in landfills. Although there is still a multitude of problems facing the practice of fast fashion, it is these changes that will allow the high expense of fast fashion to become a lesser expense to the world. 

Bockenstedt, Lara. "Fast Fashion Denies Basic Human Rights." University Wire, 20 Sept. 2016, SIRS Issues Researcher, https://sks.sirs.com. 

Cline, Elizabeth L. Overdressed: The Shockingly High Cost of Cheap Fashion. New York: Penguin Group, 2013. Print. 

Drennan, Kelly. "Picking Up the Threads." Alternatives Journal, 2015, pp. 21-23 +6, SIRS Issues Researcher, https://sks.sirs.com. 

"Fast Fashion: The Real Costs of Your Cheapest Clothes." University Wire, 20 Oct, 2015, SIRS Issues Researcher, https://sks.sirs.com. 

Hall, Jake. “What Is Fast-Fashion Actually Doing About Sustainability?” Refinery29, 23 June 2017, https://www.refinery29.com/2017/06/159074/fast-fashion-hm-transparentsustainability. Accessed 26 Feb 2018. 

Hymann, Yvette. “The Impact of a Living Wage for Garment Workers.” Good On You, 2015, https://goodonyou.eco/impact-living-wage-for-garment-workers/. Accessed 10 April 2018. 

Kitroeff, Natalie, and Victoria Kim. "Behind a $13 Shirt, a $6-an-Hour Worker." Los Angeles Times, 03 Sep, 2017, pp. A.1, SIRS Issues Researcher, https://sks.sirs.com. 

Martinko, Katherine. “Recycling won’t Fix the Fast Fashion Problem.” Treehugger, 12 Dec 2016, https://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-fashion/recycling-wont-fix-fast-fashio n-problem.html. Accessed 3 April 2018. 

Morgan, Andrew. The True Cost. Directed by Andrew Morgan, produced by Michael Ross, Untold Creative, 29 May 2015. Netflix, https://www.netflix.com/title/80045667. 

Murphy, Tom. “Are second hand clothes actually a problem in Haiti?” Humanosphere, 17 July 2013, http://www.humanosphere.org/basics/2013/07/are-second-hand-clothes-actually-aproblem-in-haiti/. Accessed 10 April 2018. 

Perry, Patsy. “The Environmental Costs of Fast Fashion.” Independent.co.uk, 8 Jan 2018, https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/environment-costs-fast-fashionpollution-waste-sustainability-a8139386.html. Accessed 26 Feb 2018.