One of the challenges of sustainable fashion is the wording used to define it. We commonly associate adjectives like “sustainable”, “green”, “eco”, “responsible”, “conscious”, “ethical” with the word “fashion”. The question is: are certain words more popular than others? Or are some others nowadays outdated? How do consumer talk about sustainable fashion? And the industry?
In 'To Die For', Lucy Siegle jumps head on into her very own wardrobe full of hidden skeletons - the results of her love for fashion and shopping. In 15 chapters she tells the story of why that is so - and how to do better.
With the end of the year upon us, we tend to think of the past year and what the upcoming one holds for us.
With H&M recently announcing the launch of a new clothes takes-back and recycling scheme – accepting clothes from any brand, and in any condition – starting from January 2013 at stores in 48 countries, I am prompted to look at other interesting consumer engagement campaigns we have seen in the past few months and years.
"Sustainable Fashion & Textiles" makes it - beautifully - clear why the fashion industry, from the field to the consumer, needs change. And why design is key.
Could it be that a a precipitate green revolution in design and fashion is taking place? PPR is ready “to jump on the sustainable fashion bandwagon.” But how do we define responsibility?
Global Goals are called ‘global’ for a reason: they apply to everyone, everything. Every business, every government, every church, charity … In case there was any doubt about it: The Sustainable Development Goals and Paris Climate Agreement are global goals. In fact, probably the Global Goals par excellence. Yet, while organisations of all different types and characteristics are making progress in translating those to their different contexts, environments, business models etc. the same does not hold true when it comes to individuals. Beyond a few platitudes. A few arbitrary and personal musings on the role of the individual in achieving the goals.
The RSA brought together a group of thinkers and practitioners who have each been exploring ways to bring the principles of 'slow' to their life and work – whether in finance, culture or fashion. A brief summary, and some key insights.
There is no doubt that Greenpeace makes an important point in what they are saying, and always has done so ever since they published their first Detox report:
The lack of transparency in supply chains is a massive problem, and – evidently now – is increasingly become both a strategic as well as operational risk for the brands.
Nearly a year ago I wrote about how the terminology we use abstracts from the fact that there are living and sentient human beings doing 'supply chain' work. Listening to a recent podcast it dawned on me that language can be just as useful to gloss over the seriousness and impact of scientific facts. And the resulting necessary actions. Climate Change vs Climate Emergency? Green energy vs renewable energy vs clean energy? Hence, some more thinking about the role of language.
London Fashion Week 02/2011 - Day 4: Ethical fashion and the luxury sector. The high-end segment is awakening to its responsibilities. Or does it really?
Mistra Future Fashion (MFF) is a 4-year research project (2011-2015), funded by the Swedish government via Mistra, the Foundation of Strategic Environmental Research.
MFF has a very holistic approach that has the goal of supporting the industry to re-think their business models, design and industrial processes and promote consumer behaviour change.
In the retail gazette’s article ‘Fashion retailers work towards green future’, dating from August 19th 2011, the following was quoted...
Looking at the sales figures of luxury brands a single conclusion can be drawn: The luxury sector is doing well.
The structure of its customers, and the brands' efforts to maintain expert craftsmanship suggests that the luxury sector is where ethical brands really can start changing the world.
There exist basic assumptions that are commonly, but wrongly, accepted as universal truths. Shirahime has cherry-picked 6 myths and will examine them close up and outside in over the course of 3 article instalments. Part 2.
There exist basic assumptions that are commonly, but wrongly, accepted as universal truths. Shirahime has cherry-picked 6 myths and will examine them close up and outside in over the course of 3 article instalments. Part 3.
There exist basic assumptions that are commonly, but wrongly, accepted as universal truths. Shirahime has cherry-picked 6 myths and will examine them close up and outside in over the course of 3 article instalments. Part 1.
Previous: London Fashion Week September 2010: Summary – Sustainability & Fashion: Lessons learned Tomorrow: Paris Ethical Fashion Show September 2010:...
There are two approaches on how we can define of what is viable and desirable for our global economy.
In one, the 'soft attributes' and non-physical factors such as consumer desires, lifestyles or distribution of goods are a fixed attribute. In the other, quantifiable, physical attributes - amongst them natural resources - are fixed.
The challenge of boards in this time and age: Recognising that the first - the present - is failing. And outlining the path towards the second.
t is fairly old news, but merits repeating nevertheless: our current economy, at the verge of collapse as it is, is egocentric, and at the same time understates costs while overstating benefits.
In other words, it promotes a type of behaviour that is degeneratively competitive: the ‘me’ wants, needs, more of whatever it may be, while anything and everything else is losing out. No matter how high the cost for the bigger picture – society and the planet, that is – may be.
In the 1990s, Nike was caught in a sweatshop scandal showing poor working conditions in its suppliers’ Asian factories. Not...