The Future of Fashion – Part 2

Eco-Fabrics: Balancing Fashion and Ideals

By Susan and Yves Gagnon

The demand for eco-friendly fashions has skyrocketed. When we founded SYKA Textiles, most North American designers were skeptical that the concepts “fashionable” and “eco-friendly” could coexist. Perish the idea! We’re not making dungarees. We’re in the business of fashion! But with initiatives like FutureFashion, leaders in the field incorporated new fabrics into their designs, educated their customers, and created new niche markets. The excitement of eco-fashion had begun.

As textile wholesalers, we were thrilled to see beautiful fabrics whose production had less of a negative environmental impact. Our goal was very clear: to make stunning, high-quality, eco-friendly fabrics accessible to the fashion industry. We did this by launching the first-ever brand of eco-friendly fabrics, the Eco-Lux™ Collection. However, since SYKA™’s inception, one of the greatest challenges we have faced is striking a balance between the ideals that define and shape what makes a fabric eco-friendly and meeting the particular demands of the fashion market. This has been exciting as well as frustrating, since both forces are dynamic and, when considered together, often appear at odds.

We find that the expansion and success of eco-friendly fabrics in fashion depend strongly on compatibility between the green movement, market demand, and the strong business skills required in this industry.

As a result of the explosion in environmental concern, businesses seeking to become “greener” face many options. Unfortunately, the trend has also brought with it many unsubstantiated claims from advertisements, magazines, and of course, the Internet. Rather than using solid scientific evidence, these claims often take a very emotional and moralistic more-perfect-and-pure-than-thou position. Often misusing all of the latest buzzwords, they compare the “greenness” of various eco-fibers and fabrics (complete with winners) and make lists of too-good-to-be-true fabric properties that are not substantiated. We acknowledge our bias. At the same time we firmly believe that if businesses circulate unproven information, green improvements are less likely to occur. Eco-fashion simply becomes a short-term way to capitalize on a passing trend, and may end up doing more damage than good.

We feel it’s necessary to clarify, as best we can, some of the “green” qualifiers used in the fashion industry and how they relate to fabric and fashion.

In fashion fabrics, much confusion arises from the misuse of the terms “natural,” “organic,” and “eco-friendly.” These terms have often been used interchangeably, diluting any specific meaning. For instance, “natural” and “organic” are not the same. Yet we have many people asking us for “natural” or “organic” fabrics, while actually meaning “eco-friendly.” “Natural” means that the fiber has been harvested and produced with minimal human processing. For today’s most popular fibers, this usually means cotton, wool, silk and linen. In apparel, unless specified (and certified) otherwise, natural fibers are not organic. To qualify a fiber as “organic,” as in “organic cotton,” fiber production must adhere to strict standards and be certified by the appropriate governing body. The Organic Trade Association has clear and comprehensive information on this matter. For producers who go to great lengths to make a certified organic product, it must be extremely frustrating to see conventional fibers marketed as “organic.”

An “eco-friendly” fiber may or may not be natural and/or organic. What it unequivocally does not mean is that the fiber has zero negative environmental impact. We do not know of any fiber that has zero negative impact. Certainly, all production has some.

The most straightforward way to define an “eco-friendly” fiber is by specifying that at least one major step in its production has less of a negative environmental impact than the conventional alternative. For example, bamboo, soy, and hemp fibers are eco-friendly because their production requires lower levels of herbicide and pesticide usage compared to conventional cotton. Similarly, organic cotton, a natural, certified organic fiber, is also eco-friendly for this reason. All of these fibers bio-degrade at a faster rate than petroleum-based fibers such as polyester and nylon, and come from resources that may be renewed. These fibers, as well as others, make up a large portion of the new “green” fibers used for fashion, and their usage is an important step in the right direction.

From Eco-Fibers to Eco-Fabrics

Ultimately, it is the fabrics that are important in fashion. If eco-fibers are gentler on the environment than the conventional alternative, we must identify which stage(s) of fabric production has a less negative environmental impact. There are numerous stages in fabric production, and if all are not considered, it is next to impossible to discern the relative “eco-friendliness” of one fabric over another. With the widening concern over the environmental impact of the fashion industry, there are many opinions on which fabrics are better. We don’t see how these conclusions can be drawn, because there have been no good comparisons of the overall process. At this point, we can only compare, at best, one stage in the process and ask ourselves, “How does this fabric’s stage of production compare with another fabric, in terms of negative environmental impact?”

The first stage of production relates to fiber production, and is the main focus considered for most eco-friendly fabrics like bamboo, soy, hemp and lyocell (commonly known as Tencel®). Matters such as irrigation levels, natural or chemical fertilizer use, herbicide and pesticide use, land availability, speed at which source plants grow and replenish, and the overall treatment of animals needed to produce hair or silk all must be considered.

After the fiber production, the second major stage is yarn spinning. Issues here include the energy and materials used to process the fibers, the type of dyestuff used (e.g., for yarn-dyed fabrics), as well as the actual waste by-product derived from the different processes. Lyocell is environmentally friendly because the solution used in the yarn fabrication is not flushed into the environment.

The third stage is the actual fabric production. This differs according to the particular standards of each weaving and knitting mill, and/or dye house. Mills and dye houses concerned with producing eco-friendly fabrics will often obtain international certifications for compliance (see below). In addition to considerations of energy use and other by-products when making greige fabrics, energy and water usage along with dyeing/finishing multi-phase processes are extremely important factors. If the fabric is to be used to make fashionable garments, then it needs to be dyed and finished to certain specifications. Here, the important steps in the process become the type of dyestuff used, the application of toxic mordants to improve fastness, the other chemicals and solvents used in the finishing process, the energy and water required for dyeing and finishing the fabric, and the extent of runoff and wastewater treatment. Reactive dyes, commonly known as “low impact dyes,” vary in terms of environmental friendliness depending on the type used and the manufacturer. In general, however, they are gentler on the environment than conventional dyes, because they are more efficiently absorbed resulting in less polluting runoff. These dyes are used in Eco-Lux™ fabrics.

Finally, for the last step of post-production, the distance and transportation required to ship the fabric to the garment manufacturing plant and eventually, to the end consumer are factors to consider when determining if a product is eco-friendly.

These steps offer a very rough framework in the production process, but illustrate the numerous points at which the environment can be affected by fabric manufacturing. This obviously does not begin to address the very important and related subject of fair and ethical conditions for workers. We are not aware of any published scientific study by an unbiased third party that has come close to addressing these numerous steps in fabric production. This would be a monumental task, but one that we feel the scientific community should address.

Eco-Fabrics in the Fashion Market

Author Katherine Govier said, “When everything is fashion, the only genius is timing,” and all indicators tell us that the time is ripe for eco-fashion. Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” and British entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson’s financial commitment to combat the threat of climate change have helped bring green concerns to the forefront of the public agenda. In Vancouver, Canada, where SYKA™ was founded, preferential consideration is given to green businesses competing for contracts for the upcoming 2010 Winter Olympics. In fashion, we have seen companies such as Patagonia and, more recently, the U.K.-based retailers Marks & Spencer and Tesco successfully make headway in this arena. Will this trend to be replaced as quickly as it arrived, or will it endure?

The term “sustainable” is not one we use often, because its meaning seems to have been lost. From our perspective, “sustainability” refers to long-term objectives that are both environmental and economical. The definition of sustainable development, as originally drafted by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987, refers to “meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the needs of future generations.” As such, development policies and environmental protection are not at odds, as both aim to increase people’s overall welfare. In fashion, this means that environmental and business practices need to interact often to keep up with a fast-paced and changing industry. Using the environment as a canvas for strategy, businesses must be able to provide the right product at the right time, and at the right price.

Supplying the right fabrics for fashion has both intuitive as well as pragmatic elements. Fashion is a product of many factors including culture, geography, and cycles that turn at an ever-increasing speed. Even though fashion is currently considering green issues, television shows like “Ugly Betty,” and movies like “The Devil Wears Prada,” remind us that the industry is generally portrayed with a certain lightness in relation to serious world issues. In order to be used more extensively in fashion, eco-fabrics must complement fashion design with high quality.

The intuitive element in our work is finding the right quality, texture, hand, style, weight and color of fabric. Almost all eco-friendly fabrics have wonderful tactile properties, but we have found that the job of successfully sourcing consistently high-quality and fashionable fabrics requires a substantial investment of time and resources. We travel around the world and attend major textile trade fairs to learn what’s up and coming. We also consult fashion experts, monitor industry publications and, of course, listen to our customers’ input.

Finding and achieving what is fashionable is no small feat, especially when working with some of the new eco-fibers. Bamboo and soy, while wonderfully soft, are new and the quality can be highly variable. Hasty production, lack of experience with new fibers and less-than-optimal technology can add up to frequent defects. Because we have built a reputation around quality with Eco-Lux ™, we take a number of steps to ensure a solid, environmentally sound product rather than a quick fabric fix for a booming market.

When we source our fabrics, we also source our suppliers. Of the numerous mills we visit annually, we shortlist the ones that not only have the technology to produce beautiful fabric with minimal defects, but also stand behind their words with good business practices. We test and monitor our fabrics and develop strong relationships with our mills. We visit the mills in person several times a year. We also seek international certification and verification from mills, such as ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and Oeko-Tex Standard 100. We have developed relationships with serious mills that care about quality and eco-friendly fabrics. This approach also helps us to customize and develop new and unique fabrics.

The issue of price is a contentious one when it comes to eco-friendly fabrics. If the industry is to become more environmentally friendly, eco-fabrics should be reasonably accessible and affordable. However, as it currently stands, if variables such as quality and quantity are controlled, eco-friendly fibers or fabrics cost more. This is because there is less supply, fewer suppliers, and quickly increasing demand. While it’s likely that prices will fall as supply increases, it’s doubtful that these fibers will ever cost as little as conventional ones.

Recent media reports have suggested that sustainable fashion can be had for the same cost as conventional clothing. This builds unrealistic expectations for consumers, which leads to disappointment when faced with a higher price tag. When uniqueness (as in eco-friendly fibers) and quality are demanded along with low prices, there’s always something in the equation, such as fair trade, that has to give. Implementing environmentally friendly practices comes at an added cost. If there was none, the debate would be needless, because changing our ways would be cheaper and thus swift and easy. Ultimately, the consumer must be willing to pay extra for an eco-friendly garment, at least until regulation forces all producers to meet these standards.

If we are to improve the health of our planet and build a sustainable future, the massive international garment industry must adopt the eco-friendly movement. We have seen amazing strides in the improvement of the quality, availability and impact of eco-fabrics, but there is still plenty of work to be done. Green businesses must start to acknowledge that eco-friendly fabrics are worth pursuing and not a fading trend. There is no quick solution. In fabric and fashion, we have the choice to turn around some of the environmental consequences of rapid industrialization.

Susan and Yves Gagnon are owners of SYKA™ Textiles Trading Corp.

Reprinted courtesy of earthpledge.org. Earth Pledge has also published this book on the topic:

The Future of Fashion – Part 1

The Consumption Crisis

By Deborah J. C. Brosdahl

Sustainability requires a long-term outlook that encourages responsible consumption. Fashion, it seems, is fundamentally at odds with this goal. Perhaps apparel can be made sustainably, but fashion? Fashion is more than a product; fashion is a mode of thought. It affects everything from design to purchasing to obsolescence, and is usually distinguished by a fast-paced and ever-replenishing chain of supply and demand. The inevitable consequence of quick and constant change is ravenous resource consumption and a vast accumulation of waste. Better production methods can slow resource use and recycling can reduce waste, but buying (and therefore making) fewer products will address both problems.

Stemming consumption in America will be hard. The United States represents only five percent of the world’s population, while its consumers use up approximately 25 percent of the world’s natural resources. Our motivations for buying (sometimes more than we can afford or need) are complex and deeply rooted in our culture. Whether it’s ordering a supersized McDonald’s fries or purchasing yet another pair of Manolo Blahniks to add to the 100 pairs of shoes already in a closet bursting at the seams, clearly, sheer quantity is seductive. In addition, a basic human need is looking as though you belong to a place, a culture, a moment in time. It seems that Americans not only need to belong, we need to be better. We demonstrate our superiority through conspicuous consumption, and fashion lets us wear our aspirations on our sleeves.

Apparel long since ceased to simply protect us from the elements, and as soon as it did, it took on connotations of fashion. Probably since the last Ice Age, anything worn has communicated the wearer’s sense of self and position in society. This is true whether the clothes in question are full-on Goth, a Diane von Furstenberg wrap dress and kitten heels, or a blue suit, white shirt and red tie. Specifically “fashionable” clothes (i.e., clothing promoted by the fashion industry) can enhance the consumer’s status by communicating a person’s ability to purchase products without regard to price (higher prices for new products are not necessarily related to higher quality), and a person’s knowledge of what is “in.” For many fashion leaders, fashion is addictive because it advertises how “with it” someone is with the newest and most cutting-edge ensembles.

Americans buy and buy and buy clothes. As a comparison between American and European spending habits demonstrates, our appetite for fashion is not simply an inevitable consequence of affluence and available choice. Let’s look at Americans first. The most recent Bureau of Labor figures on consumer spending habits show that the average American family of three has approximately $44,400 (after taxes) to spend on everything it needs to sustain living. Of this, it spends approximately 11 percent on apparel and apparel services (laundry, dry cleaning, etc.). This works out to approximately $4,884 or $1,628 per person in a family per year—an increase over apparel spending for the several previous years. Now, let’s look at the Europeans. On average, Europeans (of the 12 EU countries tallied) spend only seven percent of their disposable income on apparel and apparel services (according to www.eustatistics.gov.uk). Not only do Europeans spend less of their income on clothing, they: 1) don’t focus on price as the first feature they look for when buying, 2) are willing to pay more for their clothing because they fully expect their clothes to be worn longer than do Americans, and 3) demand high-quality products. Could Americans become more like Europeans in our apparel-buying habits?  Should we?

Given the statistics related to ravenous apparel consumption and its attendant waste, I’m going to answer the second question with a “yes.” For the sake of the environment (as well as their individual credit ratings!), Americans should buy fewer clothes. (They should buy less stuff, period, but that is beyond the scope of this article.) The answer to the first question is more elusive. I believe we can become more like Europeans in our buying habits, but realizing that possibility is complicated.

In the old adage “quality vs. quantity,” quality is contrasted with quantity as if it’s only possible to have one of these characteristics. Yet quality-loving Europeans do indeed buy less per year, and they still end up with closets full of clothing.  This is possible because their higher quality-based purchases last longer than clothing designed solely with low price in mind.

However, the word “quality” invites interpretation. Indeed, noted quality assurance author, educator and researcher, Dr. Sara Kadolph of Iowa State University has concluded that when a person describes a product as “quality,” she could be ascribing to it any number of positive attributes, among them: performance, features, reliability, conformance between design and function, durability, serviceability, aesthetics and other perceived quality issues, such as those related to brand name. Given the abundance of types of quality, do Americans value the right kind of quality, the kind of quality that would persuade them to be happy with less?

Before we can evaluate that question, we should first be explicit about what the right kind of quality would be. With an eye to reducing resource use and landfill, I propose that reliability (both in wear and care) and durability are necessary for a piece of apparel to escape being replaced after a season. In other words, the knit pullover can’t sag and pill, the white shirt can’t turn dingy grey and the coat placket can’t have buttons hanging by a mere thread. Of course, sustainable fashion (not just apparel) is our challenge; I would be cheating if I didn’t acknowledge that the piece has to stay genuinely fashionable, or at least attractive and wearable, for several seasons. I don’t see this as an impossibility. While fashions come and go, surely we all have a few items that we have kept for years. The goal would be to keep most of our items for many years and only acquire very few new pieces a year.

So, do Americans appreciate this kind of quality? There’s some evidence that they do. Relatively recently, my research revealed that even teenagers respect quality. After conducting several studies related to apparel shopping behavior in 12- to 18-year-olds, it came to light that the kids interviewed were aware that quality is supposed to be an important consideration when shopping for clothing. When pressed for an answer about what quality meant to them, the children said that the clothes they bought should be long-lasting. They were probably repeating what they’d heard from their parents.

While it’s nice to know that a reverence for quality is still being passed down from generation to generation in America, actions speak louder than words. Widespread American devotion to stores like Old Navy and H&M suggests that our working definition of quality has more to do with achieving the highest quantity to dollar ratio. According to this understanding, the consumer “wins” by being able to acquire a lot with practically no money, leaving her with a lot of money left over, which represents a lot of new opportunities to buy more. Obviously, this kind of quality holds no promise for curing shopaholism and overconsumption, and results in a cycle of demanding more and more for less and less.  This buying philosophy is not good for society, consumers or the apparel industry.

The European meaning of quality conjures an image of the artisan hunched over his bench, painstakingly stitching away. Europeans tend to assess quality by how an object measures up to the ideal (defined in part by traditions of craftsmanship). The European consumer “wins” by buying the most “perfect” object. Having achieved her aim, she takes pride in the object for its own sake, an attitude which reduces the chance that she will want to replace it quickly. Quality à la Europe seems like a concept that can quell consumption.

Although Americans give a lot of lip service (and mostly just lip service) to quality in their apparel, the mere fact that the adolescents did identify quality as a good thing suggests to me that quality is not so foreign to Americans that we cannot learn to appreciate it fully. Like taste, an eye for quality can be developed.

Ideally, industry professionals would educate consumers about quality. They are in a prime position to do so. Wouldn’t it be great if retail brands used their marketing materials to convince customers that improved quality (and increased price) is, in fact, a good thing, because in the long run they will pay less per wear with a longer-lasting item? Or what if industry leaders let consumers know that by paying more for something they’ll never want to throw away, they will not only have something they’ll love, but they will also be contributing to a cleaner planet?

Would such ground-breaking tactics cause companies to lose sales and, therefore, income? Not necessarily. A calculated price increase could offset lower sales volume. Better yet, if companies demonstrate how higher prices fund higher wages, more U.S. jobs and responsible environmental stewardship, that could create a devoted customer base. If the same amount of money currently spent on advertising low prices were spent instead on advertising the advantages of purchasing longer-lasting and higher-quality apparel, perhaps consumers would change their purchasing habits.

Reality check: very, very few brands even try to make these claims. Retailers rarely focus on the quality characteristics mentioned previously, especially features such as reliability and durability. As the monumental success of Wal-Mart demonstrates, cheap makes money! For at least several decades, purchases have increasingly been driven by lower prices. And inexpensive mass production makes money because consumers support it. Well, no wonder. In a marketplace characterized by indifferent quality and buy-one-get-one-free retail gimmicks, who can blame Americans for basing their purchasing decisions on the lowest price? The unfortunate upshot of this is that Americans have been desensitized to quality. (Possibly most of us couldn’t even recognize its hallmarks if we tried). Ironically, the race for low prices has also resulted in companies’ losing profitability and being forced to move overseas, where they can produce more cheaply and thus give consumers the price they demand—for now. It seems inevitable that, unless we completely ignore worker equity, the price of goods must bottom out. When it does, companies will look for a way to differentiate themselves and justify raising their prices. A return to quality is one way they might do that.

I hope consumers will call for industry change before that. As Thomas Friedman pointed out in his bestseller, The World is Flat, every buying decision a consumer makes is a vote indicating their support or lack of support for how companies conduct business. Consumer power was decisively proven in the apparel industry during the great “midi” disaster of the 1970s. After several seasons of selling miniskirts, the fashion industry deemed it time for the “mini” to cycle into obsolescence and attempted to introduce a new, longer style called the “midiskirt.” In a proud statement of rebellion, women refused to give up their short skirts to embrace the new style. Firms in the fashion industry were left with millions of unsold midis, as well as the realization that consumer demand was the true industry driver.

But who else can get consumers excited about quality? The answer is simple: Teachers. Being a professor myself, I strongly believe in the power of curriculum to catalyze societal change. Teachers can impart skills and concepts that will help students identify quality in apparel, and understand the effect of their buying habits on their own lifestyle as well as on the environment and on other human beings. In part, I blame a lack of educational resources for the ongoing surge in overconsumption, and the average person’s general ignorance about how products are made. In recent years, the programs that have traditionally exposed kids to important issues related to clothing purchasing have been wiped out by slashed budgets for public education and the Department of Agriculture.

Home economics programs (now known under various pseudonyms such as Human Environmental Sciences, etc.) and 4-H programs had their heyday in the 1950s, through the 1970s. Started in the 1800s as a way for young women to be self-sufficient (by sewing their own clothes, for instance), home economics evolved in the latter 1900s as a program to shape young men and women into resourceful and knowledgeable consumers. Similarly, one goal of today’s 4-H programs is to teach kids not only how to make clothing, but also how to manage an apparel budget and to determine if apparel is well made. It is within the scope of such programs to include information on how clothing is manufactured, and to emphasize the consumer’s responsibility to seek out companies that pay their employees living wages and use organic fibers or nontoxic dyes.  As home economics and 4-H programs have declined in number and importance, issues such as sustainability have become more problematic and widespread. I don’t think that this is a coincidence.

Can apparel and fashion be sustainable? The answer is yes, but only if Americans change their way of thinking.  To do this, apparel industry leaders, home economics teachers and 4-H leaders (to name just a few) can join forces and help convince the next generation of consumers that buying better and fewer clothes will not only benefit them, but also the planet.

Deborah J. C. Brosdahl is Associate Professor at the Department of Apparel, Textiles and Interior Design, College of Human Ecology, Kansas State University - Manhattan, KS

Reprinted courtesy of earthpledge.org. Earth Pledge has also published this book on the topic: