What are the main issues facing fashion companies (both fast fashion and luxury brands) today regarding sustainability?

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has put the fashion industry at the front of the queue when it comes to its investigations and enforcement activities. The main, underlying issue is that the fashion sector, taken as a whole, is reported to account for as much as 10% of all carbon emissions.

Consumption of so called ‘fast fashion’ appears to be a major contributor, as these low cost, low margin, lower quality garments are shipped from afar, consumed in significant volume, and are not made to last – or at least they aren’t used for long in practice. It is often cheaper, quicker and easier to throw something away, rather than mend it. It is understood that consumers bought around 60% more garments in 2014 than they did in 2000, and that 85% of all textiles end up as landfill each year, and it is estimated that it results in 500,000 tons of microfibers ending finding their way into our oceans each year.

Consumers and fashion companies are focusing on sustainability to redress the balance, but it is difficult to sort the truth from the puffery, and to ensure consumers are not being misled, so the UK’s CMA has made fashion a top priority. They are focusing in particular on retailers that make claims about clothes that are held out as being ‘sustainable’ or less harmful to the environment.

At the end of July, the CMA announced it has launched an investigation into ASOS’s ‘Responsible edit’ range, Boohoo’s ‘Ready for the Future’ range, and ‘George for Good’ by George at ASDA. It is important that readers do not assume these companies have done anything wrong, of course. The investigations are at a very early stage and might yet come to nothing. Also, the CMA set a very high bar in its detailed Green Claims Code, and it is yet to be seen whether a court would share its interpretation of many of these claims, concepts and ideas. Nevertheless, the fact the CMA has named these companies and announced its investigation to the press will have been very unwelcome news for those involved.

What are the main differences in the approach that fast fashion brands should take versus luxury brands when tackling sustainability issues?

Fast fashion and luxury brands will have different approaches to tacking sustainability issues purely based on their revenue model. This is because fast fashion will have lower margins and enjoy less price elasticity, so despite having economies of scale, there may be a practical limit to what these companies are willing or able to spend on reducing their own environmental impact as a company, including the impact of the products they sell. Nevertheless, concern over the environment is not a passing fad, so these companies will need to prioritise this issue – not least because consumers are becoming increasingly discerning and demanding about the environmental credentials of the companies they support and the products they buy.

Luxury brands usually have less power in terms of economies of scale, as they deal in lower volumes. However, they often have greater price elasticity, so they are better able to do what needs to be done when it comes to sourcing higher quality and more sustainable materials, improving traceability of those materials, and so on, and increasing the price of their products as necessary to achieve their goals. The other benefit of high-end products is that they are designed and built to last, they are more likely to be well cared for during their lifetime, and are much more likely to be repaired when the need arises as opposed to being thrown away at the first sign of wear. They can even increase in value over time, and can be kept for many decades and passed on.

It's also important to keep in mind that where high end fashion leads, the rest of the market tends to follow. So, luxury fashion brands can keep flying the flag and showing that sustainability is at the top of their agenda, and this should have a trickledown effect on the whole fashion sector.

How do you think legislation will influence the future of fashion’s sustainability and what form do you anticipate it will take? How successful do you think it will be?

In the UK, the CMA and the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) have made environmental claims a priority. In the UK, we have not introduced new rules in any material sense, and we might not need new rules, as these regulators have simply decided to interpret the existing rules wish fresh eyes, and to apply these rules with dramatically more zeal. These rules include the general rules around misleading claims and unfair commercial practices in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (enforced by the CMA, Trading Standards and others), and the CAP Codes (enforced by the ASA).

Whether or not legislators, the press, the public, businesses, or the regulators themselves will call for more specific or stricter rules, including via primary legislation, will remain to be seen.

Personally, I would like to see more research into consumer understanding of various terms such as ‘sustainable’ and ‘net zero’ and for that to result in clearer guidance, but not necessarily new legislation.

In the fashion sector, it is up to companies to make choices that reduce the amount of plastic in the products themselves, and to switch to other, less harmful materials. But that is just one issue. The United Nations Environment Programme Sustainable and Circular Textiles (UNEP) plays an active role consulting stakeholders across the supply chain in defining priorities, and companies can and should engage with others to see what more they can do up and down the supply chain.

More broadly, I would like to see greater consistency when it comes to labels on plastic (or otherwise harmful) packaging. For example, in much the same way that we are presented with traffic lights and percentages for the nutritional profiles of the food we buy, a simple label on all packaging to confirm whether any plastic packaging itself is 100% recycled, reusable and 100% recyclable would be a good start. Single use plastic packaging that isn’t 100% recycled and 100% recyclable should be discouraged and eventually eradicated where possible, using taxation or other financial levers. When we see how much waste each of us generates in our homes, it shows us the tip of a very horrible plastic iceberg, but it shows that small steps on a very large scale can have a very significant impact. The sad but obvious truth is that not all recyclable materials are recycled, so telling ourselves that 100% recyclable plastic packaging will not find its way into landfill or the oceans is hopelessly naïve, so we do need to take drastic action, and legislation will be needed to come up with effective solutions to these problems.

Want to join The Collective, and contribute to the debate?

Email us at: The.Collective@lewissilkin.com