Every article of clothing you wear has a history - it tells a story. Each piece is a combination of many resources and many hands from across the globe. We represent those people and that story when we purchase and wear garments. By purchasing clothing, a vote is cast in support of the ways it was produced.
The consumer is indeed responsible to support sustainable practices through purchases; however, the most power lies on the designers clothing industry. Garments have an energy and resource intensive production, distribution, and use cycle. Because retailers and brands are at the top of the supply chain, they are the ones propelling the production cycle, which boils down to the destruction of ecosystems and people around the globe. The Ecosystem Millennium Assessment reports that humans have changed ecosystems “more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of time in human history.” The clothing industry is a direct contributor to this manifestation of mass irresponsibility.
The clothing industry is worth $1 trillion worldwide and employs 26 million people, according to the 2007 Fashioning Sustainability report, and proves unsustainable in its practices. Fierce competition and massive global supply chains are the primary factors inhibiting the industry from sustainable practices. Examples of the effects of the industry include fiber production, distribution, and disposal. Cotton production is the largest produced fiber in the world according to the report. And requires mass amounts of water for irrigation and highly chemical pesticides which seep into the ground and run into the oceans, killing sea life. According to the EMSA, approximately 20% of the worlds coral reefs were lost and 20% degraded in recent years. Distribution of clothing reaps major CO2 emission consequences, which as the EMSA tells, has dire effects on the Earth’s natural cycle and ecosystems around the world.
These external outputs of production are termed “externalities,” according to Walsh and Brown in their Pricing Strategy report. Currently, in general, these costs are not incorporated into the price of clothing. Walsh and Brown created a system that set a monetary number associated with environmental costs incurred of a traditionally grown cotton shirt and an organic cotton shirt. The system relies heavily on assumptions, but would be useful as a costing technique for assigning priorities to an environmental performance project, according to Walsh and Brown. Externality accounting methods are young, but are progressing. Developing useful externality accounting methods will increase industry transparency and allow customers to cast a more educated vote for the story they wish to represent.
Hi Brittney,
ReplyDeleteHope your week is going well. Your post is well written and brings up some good points. For the report by Walsh and Brown, it is an interesting way to assess the cost of environmental impacts. By using a form of accounting to see what effect we are having on the environment is not a way I would have thought of using to assess our global situation. They do a good job of explaining the production processes of t-shirt making and how those processes can effect our environment. I believe reading their report is also a good way to both spread the knowledge about our global condition and to shine a spotlight on unsustainable practices for both industry players and the general public. Let me know what you think. Have a good weekend.
Thank you for bringing up consumer choice! This is an issue that I think isn't touted nearly as much as it should be. If consumers stopped buying a particular brand, that brand would have to innovate or die. Although achieving that kind of success is very unusual and rare, it can be done, just look at what happened to Netflix! They lost a large percentage of their customer base in a matter of a month or so. Good post, and good integration of the sources.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Jamie that the costing method is a great way to increase transparency, I just wish tracking raw materials all the way to its source was more doable. That would increase the precision of the method.
ReplyDelete