From Conception to Landfill by Sam Jones

From Conception to Landfill: An exploration and discussion of environmental impacts created during the lifecycle of fast-fashion garments Samuel Clive Jones A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of the degree BA (Hons) Fashion Buying and Merchandising The London College of Fashion University of the Arts London 20th May 2014

No portion of the work referred to in this dissertation has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this institution or any other university or other institution of learning.

I would like to thank my course leader and supervisor Chloe Mason for her calming guidance throughout the entire degree but especially while working on my dissertation. I would like to thank my entire immediate family but especially my parents Clive and Davina and grandparents Patrick and Mair for their continued support throughout all of my endeavours - whether aspiring to be a prince, wizard, PokĂŠmon trainer, detective or a fashion buyer. I would also like to thank Jennifer Summers, Sean Bagnall, Ellis Parker-Wilson, Thomas Humphris, Robert Jones, Nicole Edey and Daniel Hussey for their support throughout my final year studies and for making it an enjoyable experience. Finally I would like to thank everyone who contributed in any way to the research referred to in this dissertation.

Abstract This study describes and investigates the lifecycle of garments from the fast-fashion sector of the UK fashion industry. The environmental impacts of the processes are recognised, examined and discussed throughout. A mixed method research approach has been used. Models and theories from secondary research have been applied to provide structure, support and a balance of perspectives to underpin this study. Statistics from secondary research have been used as evidence of impacts generated. Primary research took place to gain direct perspectives from consumers and a fastfashion buying professional. One hundred consumers who are considered within the fast-fashion target demographic partook in an online survey, expressing purchasing habits and perceptions of eco-fashion. The buying professional took part in an interview, providing first-hand knowledge and opinions of the relationship between the sourcing process and the environment. Findings from both the survey and interview have been applied and discussed alongside secondary findings. Results from both primary and secondary sources conclude that cultivating, manufacturing, retailing, washing and disposing of fast-fashion is resource intensive, wasteful and vastly ecologically damaging. These processes take place to allow businesses to generate profit and to meet the demand of consumers, who prioritise personal gains over the welfare of the planet. Positive results exist in an increase of interest of eco-fashion related activities over recent years. Total Number of Words: 11,992

Table of Contents Chapter One: Introduction 1.1 Background & Rationale…………………………………………………………………..1 1.2 Aims & Objectives………………………………………………………………………....5 1.3 Research Methodology……………………………………………………………………6 1.4 Chapter Outlines & Content……………………………………………………………....8 Chapter Two: Production 2.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………....9 2.2 Fibre Cultivation…………………………………………………………………………....9 2.3 Fabric & Garment Production…………………………………………………………...13 Chapter Three: Product & Retail Management 3.1 Introduction……………………………………………….…………………………........19 3.2 Product Management…………………………………………………………………….19 3.3 Retail Management………………………………………………………………………25 Chapter Four: Consumer Attitudes 4.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..28 4.2 Purchase Influences……………………………………………………………………..28 4.3 Perceptions of Eco-Fashion……………………………………….…………………….34 Chapter Five: Post-Purchase 5.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..38 5.2 Washing & Drying Garments……………………………………………………………38 5.3 Product Life Extension…………………………………………………………………...39 5.4 Disposal……………………………………………………………………………………42 6. Summary……………………………………………………………………………………44 5. References………………………………………………………………………………….45 6. Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………...51 7. Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………56

8. Personal & Professional Development…………………………………………………..67

List of Tables 2.1 Types of pollution associated with dyeing a range of fibres……………………...….15 4.1 Survey results expressing top ten most mentioned words that consumers associate with ‘eco-fashion’……………………………………………………………………..……….36

List of Figures 1.1 Current garment lifecycle model……………………………………………………...….2 2.1 Energy consumption of fibres expressed in Energy MJ/kg………………………….10 2.2 Water use in fibres expressed in Water 1/kg………………………………………….11 2.3 Survey results displaying where consumers rank manufacturing in terms of perceived environmental damage…………………………………………………………..17 2.4 Common words used by green fashion communities during sample discussions in 2010 & 2011……………………………………………………………………...…………...18 3.1 Where the floral trend came from………………………………………………………20 3.2 The Continuum of Clothing and Fashion………………………………………………21 3.3 Fashion Product Distribution Channels………………………………………………..23 3.4 The Evolution of Product Management………………………………………………..24 3.5 Survey results expressing who consumers believe is more so to blame for the lack of environmental consciousness in the modern fashion industry………………………..25 4.1 Factors influencing fashion consumers’ eco-fashion consumption decisions……..28 4.2 Chart expressing survey results for consumers’ ranking of economy, ecology and society in order of importance to themselves……………………………………………...30 4.3 The Category Lifecycle…………………………………………………………………..33 4.4 Sales of Soil Association-certified organic textiles expressed in £Millions………...35 4.5 Survey results for participants agreeing or disagreeing that a garment should be classed as being eco-friendly despite generating leftover unsold stock due to being aesthetically unpleasing amongst consumers……………………………………………..37 5.1 Primary energy profile for the T-shirt expressed in Mega Joules per piece at each lifecycle phase………………………………………………………………………………...38

Chapter One: Introduction

1. Introduction! 1.1 Background & Rationale Fashion is a perplexing and compulsive concept, which has ‘one of the most visible forms of consumption’ (Crane, 2000:1) and ‘has the ability to represent both the best and the worst of its contemporary culture’ (Arnold, 2011:88). The modern industry is different to previous eras due to it now being pluralistic – any number of looks may be simultaneously in vogue, and a rapid turnaround is the norm (Black, 2008). Welters (2008) describes the twenty-first century as an era of overabundance, where clothes are available at all price-points and disposable styles are presented so frequently the sector has been titled fast-fashion. This relatively new sector of the industry and its product lifecycle are clear focuses of this dissertation. Every year the production of approximately eighty billion garments takes place worldwide (Siegle, 2011) and thus high demand to warrant this. An estimated 30kg of textile waste is landfilled per person, every year (Gwilt & Rissanen, 2011), which merits public interest. Siegle (2011) believes consumers and the fashion industry are sinking deeper into a cycle of exploiting one another, as well as the planet. It is these cycles and the levels of exploitation of the planet that are to be explored in this study. Siegle’s opinions and tone are the foundation of a valuable book that differentiates itself from academic sources and increases mass-awareness on a topic that is otherwise gaining little exposure and attention. Most would argue the idea of sustainable fashion is an oxymoron, due to sustainability valuing longevity, while fashion values change (Alexander, 2012; Hethorn & Ulasewicz, 2008). Despite this, the levels of sustainability and awareness of environmental issues in modern retail merits discussion and further study. Edwards (2005) describes The Core of Contemporary Sustainability by highlighting key areas of analysis. The first is Ecology/Environment, which is a focus of this piece. The other two categories are Economy/Employment and Equity/Equality (Edwards, 2005), factors considered throughout the exploration of key environmental issues. Fashion is at the heart of Western culture and generates employment for 26 million worldwide citizens (Fletcher, 2008) as well as inspiration, creativity, profit and entrepreneurism (Nordic Fashion Association, 2012), proving that fashion has several

cultural and economic benefits, but at what cost? It is difficult to compare the positives and negatives of such diverse factors, however one could argue the negative environmental impacts outweigh and counteract many economic and social positives.

Fig. 1.1 Current garment lifecycle model (Adapted from Nordic Fashion Association, 2012:2) Fig. 1.1 demonstrates the basic timeline which general garments including fast-fashion are consistently propelled through. This study will take the reader through this timeline focusing on four core stages, each identified as ‘events’ with environmental impacts generated by all agents involved. These stages also take the form of chapters and are: production, product & retail management, consumer attitudes to purchasing and postpurchase life. Fletcher & Grose (2012) have developed models that simplify the flow of fashion to and from consumer’s wardrobes. The initial inputs exist as water, air, energy and capital while the final outputs exist as landfill, incineration and offshore shipment (Fletcher & Grose, 2012). Fletcher & Grose provide a design lead perspective of the lifecycle, such as analysing fabric maximisation and waste creation from pattern cutting techniques. Nordic countries such as Denmark are considered leaders in sustainable fashion development (Pasquinelli, 2013) and thus the Nordic Fashion Association (NFA) are an ideal source for best practice in environmental analysis. NFA have developed a valuable framework that divides consumers’ participation in the lifecycle into four focus stages. The first is consumer’s awareness of the environment, consumption and production prior to purchase. The second is planning, searching and acquiring the garment. The third is wearing, caring and sharing the product and the final stage is End-of-Life, which factors disposal (Nordic Fashion Association, 2012). NFA have provided a useful structure, helpful for the investigation into consumers’ relationships with garments and their attitudes and behaviours towards associated ecologic factors. Materials play an emphatic role in the fashion industry, a key commodity to various agents who appear during the lifecycle - farmer, designer, manufacturer, industry, consumer and recycler (Fletcher, 2008). Each role in the process generates different ecologic outcomes. Cotton for instance is the world’s biggest non-food crop and also

the biggest user of insecticides and pesticides. This poisons water at a critical time when clean water can be seen at the same level of preciousness as oil, an unsustainable input of manufacturing and energy. However the organic cotton market in the UK is growing by 50% a year with a variety of high-street retailers such as Florence & Fred, Katherine Hamnet and Marks & Spencer introducing organic cotton collections to their product mix (Portas, 2011), reflecting the growing interest in ethical fabric at varying price points. However sourcing organically produced cotton, like every sourcing strategy has certain drawbacks. Organic cotton is considerably more difficult to produce than non-organic methods, making supply unpredictable and a difficult method for fast-fashion brands like Topshop or Zara due to the belief that fast-fashion ‘relies on the fast and efficient manufacture of new seasonal trend-driven products in a competitive market place’ (Gwilt & Rissanen, 2011:13). Buyers and merchandisers are key agents in a fast-fashion garments’ story and have the responsibility of creating and maintaining a successful supply chain strategy. Supply chain management is ‘the active, efficient and effective control and monitoring of stock into the business’ (Jackson & Shaw, 2001:196) and involves buyers and merchandisers aiming to get the highest levels of value to their customer. The actions that buyers and merchandisers make have a cascade of environmental implications, for instance, the questions they ask suppliers of production processes (Fletcher, 2008) and whether to pursue the manufacturer based on their answers. The discussion of where the blame lies is worth considering. ‘The continued cycle of [consumers] buying, using and disposing of fashion clothing is based upon a system of [fashion retailer’s] production that has serious consequences for our society and the environment’ (Gwilt & Rissanen, 2001:13). The systems that fast-fashion retailers have created with rapid supply chains and sourcing strategies have established a repetitive cycle of consumption amongst consumers, which fuels retailers to supply demand and has created a continuous loop. Once the fabric has been made and the product has been constructed, the next part of a garment’s story is retail – where the consumer decides whether to make a purchase. Portas considers consumer perspectives and believes that ‘once the only questions that came while shopping for fashion were ‘Do I like it?’ ‘Do I look good in it?’ and, sometimes, ‘Can I afford it?’ Now we can add to that ‘Where was it made, who made it and from what?’ and ‘How come it’s so cheap?’’(Portas, 2011:16). These questions can be categorised under aesthetics, cost or ethics. The differentiation between

fashion and clothing is worth considering – ‘fashion being based on desire rather than need, clothing being more of a commodity’ (Black, 2008:11). This raises two more questions that consumers find themselves asking while making a purchasing decision ‘Do I need it?’ and ‘Do I even want it?’ There are different varieties of consumers of fashion to be considered, for instance, Workman and Caldwell (2007) have developed four key groups: fashion innovators, fashion opinion leaders, innovative communicators, and fashion followers. Each category hold different characteristics and motivations to purchase fashion, relationship with other categories and time in which they adopt trends, and thus each generate different levels environmental impact. As an example, fashion opinion leaders tend to promote trends from high-end collections; encouraging fashion followers to wear massproduced fast-fashion imitations of these trends. What is titled as the Caring part of a garments’ lifecycle involves how consumers wash, dry and potentially repair or alter their products (Nordic Fashion Association, 2012). The analysis of the levels of environmentalism studies the temperatures used in washing, the use of electronic or non-electronic methods of washing and drying as well as avoiding further purchasing of fashion by prolonging the life of owned garments by repairing or prolonging use. Prolonging a garment’s life involves avoiding disposal and maximising use of the product for as long as possible. Fletcher & Grose (2012) have taken the linear flows that materials go through in the industrial system and have developed alternative strategies that keep resources in use. For instance, by finding a new user for a garment by using a Sharing or a Vintage loop, where garments continuously find new users by being shared with others or being donated or sold to charity or vintage outlets (Fletcher & Grose, 2012). This is environmentally beneficial due to lessening waste and need to produce new products. End of Life is the point that a garment’s story comes to an end, where consumers dispose of unwanted fashion due to a lack of longevity, lasting quality, fit or modern fashionability. This in-turn contributes fashion to landfill, being incinerated or being shipped offshore (Fletcher & Grose, 2012). In whatever form, the high level of disposed fabric from fast-fashion has clear negative implications on the welfare of the planet.

It is believed the topic warrants study and public interest due to the vast environmental outcomes that exist at every stage of the fast-fashion garment timeline. The majority of studies consider only parts of the garment cycle (Madsen et al, 2007) where as this study intends to consider issues raised throughout fast-fashion’s entire lifespan. 1.2 Aims and Objectives 1.2.1 Aims This investigation intends to describe and examine key stages of the fast-fashion garment lifecycle in the modern industry - from conception, to the consumer and afterwards. Manufacturers, retailers and consumers’ relationships with products are to be looked at, exploring and discussing the environmental impacts and awareness of this, whilst considering economic and socio-cultural perspectives. 1.2.2 Objectives

•

Define, describe and give an overview of the key stages in the fast-fashion garment lifecycle.

•

Highlight, investigate, analyse and discuss the negative environmental impacts created during the fast-fashion garment lifecycle.

•

Consider economic and socio-cultural influences whilst discussing environmental impacts created.

•

Consider various agents’ perceptions and awareness of the environmental impacts created.

•

Critically evaluate key issues raised throughout.

1.3 Research Methodology The research undertaken for this dissertation used a mixed method approach, combining theoretical ideas and models with knowledge gained first hand. Both quantitative and qualitative data has been collated. This has created a varied and balanced understanding of fast-fashion, product lifecycle, environmental impacts and awareness of these impacts from the perspective of both retailers and consumers. 1.3.1 Primary Research Methodology The chosen group who took part in the convenient online survey included men and women with an age range of 18-30, who are believed to be the main target market of fast-fashion in Britain today (Smithers & McCabe, 2011). It was decided to keep the age range varied to gain an accurate reflection of modern retail. The aim of the survey was to gain a balanced and accurate consumer perspective, providing an understanding of the purchasing decision-making process as well as awareness and perceptions of eco-fashion. The data collected from the survey is in the appendices. A buyer who has experience in fast-fashion and other sectors of the industry was interviewed to gain an insiderâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perspective. The results gained were subjective to the interviewee and the research can therefore be defined as being interpretive. This could arguably act as a constraint to the results, however this has been considered upon discussing issues raised. The buyer wants to keep their name anonymous, so please note that they have been titled as J.O (2014) throughout the study. The research has provided a first hand understanding of a buyerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role, responsibilities and considerations in terms of sourcing and environmentalism. The interview is in the appendices in the form of a typed transcript. An observation was conducted in the form of a wardrobe audit, reviewing the garments in the possession of an avid fashion consumer. The most useful findings focused on most common fabrics used in fast-fashion garments as well as reviewing information available on labels. The data collected from the audit is in the appendices.

1.3.2 Primary Research Ethics The primary research activities that have taken place in support of this study were approached responsibly. Consent from all people who took part in the research gave permission for the findings to be discussed in this dissertation. All participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; privacy, confidentiality and anonymity have been retained. 1.3.3 Secondary Research Methodology The secondary research focused on gaining ideas, theories, findings and statistics that helped underpin a balanced and varied discussion throughout the dissertation. A variety of perspectives have been applied from journalists, researchers, academics, designers and other professionals to maintain balance. Case study examples of various businesses, notably fast-fashion retailers are referred to throughout to contribute realism and accuracy to the study.

1.4 Chapter Outlines and Content

Chapter Two: Production This chapter will provide an insight into the physical creation of garments, looking at how fibres commonly used in fast-fashion are cultivated and how fabrics and garments are actually produced, whilst exploring and discussing the environmental impacts. Various experts in the field’s opinions are to be discussed along with statistical evidence to provide an accurate insight into environmental impact. Chapter Three: Product & Retail Management Retailers’ role in the fast-fashion lifecycle is to be defined while exploring and discussing the environmental impacts caused, including the buying and merchandising process. Theories are to be discussed alongside findings from an interview with a buying professional, providing both theoretical and first-hand experience based perspectives. Retail considerations are also to be made, looking at store environments, retail logistics and environmental considerations. Chapter Four: Consumer Attitudes Consumer factors and beliefs, perceptions of eco-fashion and their influence on purchase decision-making are to be looked at, considering the cascade of environmental impacts caused. Information acquired from the online survey is of most importance in this chapter and will provide mainly quantitative but also qualitative findings of consumers’ attitudes to eco-fashion and purchasing fashion in general. Chapter Five: Post-Purchase This chapter focuses the later stages of the overall lifecycle, factoring – washing and drying, product life extension activities and disposal. All processes and their environmental impacts are to be defined, explored and discussed. This chapter is heavily secondary research based, analysing statistics of environmental outcomes of these processes.

Chapter Two: Production

2. Production 2.1 Introduction This chapter aims to describe how fast-fashion garments are produced in the modern industry while exploring and discussing the notable environmental impacts that are created during this process. 2.2 Fibre Cultivation For garments to exist manufacturers need fabric, and for fabric to exist fibres must be cultivated or synthetically produced. The analysis of the environmental effect of fibre production can be split between use of chemicals, water and energy. 2.2.1 Chemical Use Agriculturalists use chemicals to resist infestation of pests and pathogens (Fletcher & Grose, 2012) reducing wasted crop and increasing yield of sellable produce. Orzada and Moore (2008) believe cotton farmers actually ‘require’ the use of insecticides due to the significant threat from boll weevils among other pests, implying that without the use of insecticides cotton farmers would be vulnerable to lose sellable stock and lower their chance of economic survival. Combined with the high demand for fashion and thus fabric, this generates high expectation of fibre cultivation and profit potential for various agents in the lifecycle, requiring high chemical use to meet consumer demand. Two billion US dollars worth of chemicals are sprayed on the world’s cotton crop every year, nearly half of which is considered toxic enough to be classified as ‘hazardous’ (Environmental Justice Foundation & PAN UK, 2007). As a result of intense chemical use animals are harmed or killed and air and water pollution is created (Orzada & Moore, 2008). Aside from insecticides, other chemicals are used to create manufactured fibres that are used in textiles. These fabrics are synthetic or formed by the chemical regeneration or modification of a natural source; an example of this is polyester production, which relies on fossil raw materials among other non-renewable resources (Kalliala & Nousiainen, 1999) and pollutes water as a result. Water circulates in a closed hydrological cycle, its use during cotton and other fibre cultivation limit access to water for more essential purposes such as drinking and food-

crop irrigation - contaminating water with chemicals make water unfit for vital survival purposes (Fletcher & Grose, 2012). Natural growth of cotton is different in each country, due to climate and element differences. Modern economic models however prioritise universal solutions over regional ones due to being easier to roll out (US Department of Agriculture, 2009). These models consider a wholly economic perspective, fuelling high chemical use and exacerbating environmental damage to favour profit and ease. 2.2.2 Energy Consumption

Cotton rain-fed Cotton irrigated Flax Hemp Wool Lyocell Viscose Acrylic Nylon PET PLA PTT 0

100

120

140

160

Fig 2.1 Energy consumption of fibres expressed in Energy MJ/kg (Adapted from Food & Environment Research Agency et al, 2009:26) Carbon dioxide is a key indicator of sustainability activity and has been catalysed by the analysis of a garmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s carbon footprint (Fletcher & Grose, 2012). The chart displays that fibres each consume different amounts of energy and fuel different levels of carbon emissions. Fig 2.1 expresses clear evidence that justifies certain fabrics being recognised as being eco-friendly such as hemp and flax. Conversely there is a stark difference of energy use compared with eco-fibres and fibres that the wardrobe audit show as being common amongst fast-fashion apparel such as cotton, polyester (PET, PLA and PTT on Fig 2.1), acrylic and wool. These carbon emissions are caused due to the extraction of many fibres relying on energy-intensive machine picking. It is somewhat understandable why these methods are adopted; with high and consistent demand for fabric, the rapidness of machine

picking is appealing to farmers and other lifecycle agents. As a result of this process however, energy is utilized and noise, heat and additional by-products are produced (Orzanda & Moore, 2008). 2.2.3 Water Use As industrialisation spreads and populations expand, pressure on limited water resources increases (Fletcher & Grose, 2012). Despite this, high units of water continue to be consumed and become contaminated with chemicals during fibre cultivation.

Cotton rain-fed Cotton irrigated Flax Hemp Wool Lyocell Viscose Acrylic Nylon PET PLA PTT 0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Fig 2.2 Water use in fibres expressed in Water 1/kg (Adapted from Food & Environment Research Agency et al, 2009:29) Even though the production of many synthetic fibres such as polyester (PET, PTT and PLA on Fig 2.2) relies on various non-renewable resources, its use of water during production is actually very low in comparison to other fibres. However garments that use small amounts of water in production are often energy-intensive (Fletcher & Grose, 2012), as is proven in comparing the three polyester typesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; consumption of energy and water in Fig 2.1 and Fig. 2.2. Cotton fibre consumes a vast amount of water during its process due to irrigation techniques. Irrigation is a water demanding method and with the evidence presented cotton uses over five times more than any other fibres on Fig 2.2 significantly above all other examples. This is especially worrying with cotton being such a commonly used fibre amongst various sectors of the fashion industry including the fast-fashion sector,

with approximately 60% of the sample of garments during the wardrobe audit being cotton based. Prior to fabric production, fibres are cleaned using water and reagents that are toxic, corrosive or biologically modifying (Orzada & Moore, 2008). Although this is another damaging process the need to remove impurities from fibres is considered unavoidable, without the cleansing process Slater (2005) believes that consumers would not consider the final product acceptable to purchase. 2.2.4 Eco-Fibres It is important to note that not all fibre cultivation is heavily damaging, with many examples that are naturally cultivated low in impact. For instance, ‘in addition to familiar natural fibres such as organic cotton, wool, and linen, new ‘green’ fibres, now popular for apparel, include bamboo, soy and hemp’ (Paulins & Hillery, 2009:120). These fabrics are more likely to survive and grow without the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides as well as being cultivated using low amounts of water and energy (refer to hemp in Fig.2.1 and Fig.2.2), reducing the impact on natural resources and energy use. 10% of survey participants associate the word ‘hemp’ with eco-fashion, making it the most mentioned word along with ‘environment’. This demonstrates the very strong association between hemp and consumer’s perceptions of eco-fashion. Other eco-fabrics have unconventional origins, such as Sorona from corn, Modal from wood pulp and Repreve from recycled bottles (Paulins & Hillery, 2009), creating fabrics from less valuable or recycled sources, lessening use of natural resources and chemicals. Survey results show that consumers believe environmentally conscious apparel is higher in retail price with ‘expensive’ being a top ten word that consumers associate with eco-fashion. However Tencel, a fabric developed from wood pulp is used to make a top in the H&M Conscious Spring / Summer 2014 Collection, which retails at £7.99 (H&M, 2014). This displays how low resource intensive fabrics can be used in fast-fashion clothing lines, while offering competitive prices to consumers. This also shows a rising use of eco-fabrics amongst retailers, potentially triggered by or able to trigger higher consumer demand for eco-fashion.

2.2.5 Consumer Perception of Fibre Cultivation Farming fabric averages as what survey participants believe as being the third most environmentally damaging stage of a garment’s life, with 55% placing it in third place or higher. This demonstrates consumers’ relative recognition and awareness of the damaging effect that cultivating high amount of fibres has on the planet, generated to fulfil consumer demand for apparel. However on average participants consider other stages, most notably manufacturing as being a more damaging process. 2.3 Fabric & Garment Production Once fibres are cultivated the fabric and garment production process takes place. This process can be broken down in various stages that each result in different environmental impacts respectively. 2.3.1 Spinning, Weaving and Knitting Spinning, weaving and knitting are mechanical processes and use a high volume of energy and generates vast solid waste production. ‘All three processes involve the application of lubricants (in spinning), oils (in knitting) or size (in weaving) to strengthen and protect the fibres from the stresses of processing. These coatings and lubricants become waste as they are washed out of the fabric prior to dyeing (in scouring) and can be hard to treat, as they are slow to biodegrade’ (Fletcher, 2008:48). The use of lubricants, oils and size in water results in highly polluting effluent (UNEP, 1993) as well as further contaminating water. 2.3.2 Fabric Finishing Fabric finishing is the bridging process between processing and dyeing or printing fabric where specific finishes are used to achieve traits including crease resistance or water repellence (Fletcher, 2008) often achieved with purfluorinated chemicals (PFCs). Greenpeace (2014) research shows that PFCs take long periods to break down and can multiply as they climb the food chain until it reaches human consumption. High levels of PFC in food have been suggested to cause liver and reproductive hormone damage, promoting the growth of tumours amongst animals and humans (Greenpeace, 2014).

This is a somewhat neglected stage of the garment lifecycle with Fletcher believing this processes is actually ‘the chief cause of environmental impacts in the production phase, using significant quantities of water, energy and chemicals and producing substantial amounts of effluent’ (2008:49). Effluents caused from this stage specifically have high polluting loads, high solid content and reach high temperatures (UNEP, 1993), in contrast to effluent generated from other stages. With high production of apparel come high amount of fabric finishing and thus a high amount of greatly damaging effluent, which results in high waste and water pollution. 2.3.3 Dyeing and Printing Dyeing textiles sees dye or pigment thickening agent and other chemicals alter the colour of entire garments, while printing involves accurate application of these agents or chemicals to select areas of fabric generally using fewer resources (Fletcher, 2014b). Dyeing and printing are difficult processes to specify exact levels of damage due to the processes varying by dye, manufacturer, machine, water to chemical ratio and water temperature, as a result the consumption of dye can vary between 2 and 80g per kilogram of textile, with an average of 20g (Laursen & Hansen, 1997). The level of environmental damage will also vary between country, retailer, units and fibre. The impacts created by dyeing and printing processes are ‘resource intensive in terms of water, energy and chemicals and produce effluent that is often highly coloured, with dyes being the most likely source of major metal pollutants’ (Fletcher, 2008:51).

Table. 2.1 Types of pollution associated with dyeing a range of fibres (Adapted from Cooper, 2008:30-38) Note: Categories of pollution key - 1 = Relatively harmless; 2 = Readily biodegradable; 3 = Difficult to biodegrade; 4= Difficult to biodegrade, moderate pollution load; 5 = Unsuitable for conventional biological treatment. Table. 2.1 expresses how different fibre and dye class combinations generate different types of pollution and levels of damage. Every fibre and dye class combination, excluding 1.2 Metal Complexes, is at least difficult to biodegrade, while direct, chrome and disperse dye processes are environmentally damaging to the extent of being unsuitable for conventional biological treatment. When considering this, along with the high units of dyed garments that fast-fashion retailers distribute year on year, it is undeniable that this causes high environmental damage. As an alternative, natural dyes exist that come from a variety of plant, animal and mineral sources, consume less energy and water and are more biodegradable that synthetic equivalents (Orzada and Moore, 2008). However natural dye consistency is low, fabrics are not as colourfast as synthetic fibres and due to colour variation being so great, re-dyeing is often needed (Slater, 2005), counterbalancing their ecological

benefits. Another drawback for the use of natural dyes is that they can’t be produced in high enough quantities to sustain commercial production (Orzada and Moore, 2008), which is an essential aspect of sourcing fast-fashion. 2.3.4 Cutting, Making and Trimming The cut-make-trim (CMT) process is a manual operation where fabric is cut and sewn into garments. The ethical impacts associated with CMT relate to manufacturers competing with one another for a place in the supply chain of big brands, including fastfashion companies, putting a downward pressure on labour right and working conditions of their employees (Fashioning an Ethical Industry, 2008). Although the focus of this study is environmental rather than social issues, it is interesting to note that 77% of survey participants consider where a garment is made and who made it as the least important factors while averages express these issues as being the clear least considered. An environmental perspective of this stage is fabric waste that is generated during the cutting process, contributing to the 300 millions tonnes of waste generated every year – most of which is from construction and industry (M&S, 2014). Hawkens, Lovins and Hunter-Lovins (2006) describe this as the ‘hidden history of industrial process’ that mine, extract, shovel, waste, pump and dispose of billions of kilos of resources to produce fabric that reach end-of-life on the floor of a cutting-room. Final cutting efficiencies are often calculated by a supplier’s computer-aided design (CAD) software, an invisible process to the designer and wearer, providing little or no awareness of ecologic impacts caused (Fletcher, 2014b) to many agents in the process.

2.3.5 Consumers’ Perceptions of Manufacturing

35% 27%

17% 14% 6% 1% 1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

Fig. 2.3 Survey results displaying where consumers rank manufacturing in terms of perceived environmental damage out of six options Note: 1st is most damaging - 6th is least damaging 62% of survey participants rank manufacturing as being either first or second most perceived environmentally damaging stage during the garment lifecycle, while only 1% place it as the least environmentally damaging stage. This average overall is markedly above all other stages meaning that consumers are fully aware of the massmanufacture of fashion’s negative effect on the planet. Despite consumers believing that manufacturing is one of the most environmentally damaging stages, other results show that 78% of applicants placed ‘What is it made from?’ as 5th, 6th or 7th place, the three lowest ranks of importance to consumers. These results are especially surprising due to believing that consumers would be more likely to question what a garment is made from not only for ecologic purposes but to determine quality, longevity and value against selling price for personal benefits. This shows that despite consumers recognising that fashion manufacture is considerably environmentally damaging, consumers still don’t question garment origins or what they are made from, instead prioritising personal benefits such as wanting and looking good in the product. This means the societal attitude towards clothing needs to change to put a higher pressure on the promotion of ethical fashion, increasing supply chain transparency and thus public awareness of the damages caused to increase the likeliness of future generations investing in consciously produced clothing lines.

2.3.6 Evolution of Green Communities’ Perceptions of Manufacturing Cervellon & Wernerfelt (2012) observed an online green fashion community and created tag clouds to demonstrate the commonly used words during discussions in 2010 & 2011.

Fig. 2.4 Common words used by green fashion communities during sample discussions in 2010 & 2011 (Cervellon & Wernerfelt, 2012:185) Note: The bigger the word, the more times it was uttered during discussions. There is a specific focus on fabrics, due to the words cotton and organic being used frequently, implying the community has a focus on the early stages of a garment’s life, considering how organic the fabric’s origins are. Other frequently used words include pesticides, chemicals, water, waste and energy, further proving the community’s focus on production. It is worth noting the frequency of words - business, company and stores, an increase in contrast to a similar analysis that took place in 2007 & 2008. This implies that green fashion communities are increasingly considering an economic perspective, gaining a more informed and wider perspective on eco-fashion compared to in 2007 & 2008. This may be a reflection of wider green fashion communities and potentially general consumers’ perceptions of fabric and garment production. Increased interest and more informed awareness are likely to encourage more conscious purchasing.

Chapter Three: Product & Retail Management

3. Product & Retail Management 3.1 Introduction This chapter aims to describe how fast-fashion garments are developed and managed by retailers in the modern industry while exploring and discussing the notable environmental impacts that are created during this process. 3.2 Product Management Fast-fashion design and buying teams create products that meet consumer needs, tastes and lifestyles whilst adhering to fashion and market trends, and design for a specific vision, occasion and function (Gwilt & Rissanen, 2011; Paulins & Hillery, 2009). Designers initiate and generate ideas while buyers make qualitative decisions and merchandisers make quantitative decisions about sourcing strategies (Varley, 2006). 3.2.1 Trends Fast-fashion retailers interpret trend information gained from prior research into novel designs. Silhouettes and styles that have achieved significant sales success in previous seasons are repeated by making changes to the design, fabric, print or colour-ways (Gwilt & Rissanen, 2011) benefiting from past sales history and forecasting trend demand.

Fig. 3.1 Where the floral trend came from (Adapted from Carvel, 2014:53) Fig. 3.1 demonstrates how fast-fashion retailers tactically support certain colour, design, pattern or fabric trends, heightening customer demand, guaranteeing sales, and generating less remaindered stock – which the retailer may have been left with if they veered off-message (Tungate, 2005). Fast-fashion retailers follow trends simply because it fulfils demand, is a low-risk strategy and increases chance of economic survival. Due to following trends and increasing the product’s appeal, it is likely to generate less remaindered stock and thus reduces the waste of unsold garments; this could be a rare argument that imitating trends is actually environmentally beneficial, in contrast to sourcing garments that aren’t ‘on trend’ that may have a higher risk of becoming un-purchased, un-worn leftover stock.

Fig. 3.2 The Continuum of Clothing and Fashion (Adapted from Jackson & Shaw, 2009:91) The trickle-down-theory sees trend relevant products showcased by the highest end of the relative price and level of aspiration categories like haute couturiers and high-end designers to the lower categories, however doesn’t generally follow the exact order as Fig. 3.2 implies. For instance supermarket lines such as F&F are now known to adopt trends at similar times as fast-fashion retailers. The chart shows that high-street imitations of high-end designers are sold at lower prices, most likely bought at lower cost and hold lower levels of quality, durability and longevity. Selling at low prices often drives up units bought and sold by the retailer (Jackson & Shaw, 2001) meaning that although price per unit may be lower in fastfashion, the retailer is able to achieve high profitability through high unit sales. Fastfashion trend imitations impacts negatively on the environment in two key ways - by fuelling mass-manufacture of transitory apparel and supporting a wasteful ‘throw away’ mentality amongst consumers. 3.2.2 Buying Responsibilities Once designs are finalised, it’s the buying and merchandising team’s responsibility to source garments, considering budgets, deadlines, selling and shipping (Gwilt & Rissanen, 2011). Buyers must broker deals between manufacturers and retailers,

driving prices down and attempting to gain competitive advantage over saturated and competitive UK high streets (Siegle, 2011). The ‘Six R’s of Purchasing’ (Hines, 2004:165) outline crucial factors that professionals consider during the buying decision-making process.

•

The right goods

•

In the right place

•

The right time

•

The right price

•

The right quality

•

The right quantity

The factors differ in levels of importance and relevance depending on each retailer. Although Hines’s focus is on corporate and business strategy, it is interesting to note that no direct ethical factors, including environmentalism are mentioned. J.O (2014) states that ‘whilst it would be great for all products to adhere to social and environmental standards, this would only be commercially viable if it could be produced at the right price and sustain the right quality, as these are key’ (2014). The interviewee mentions two of the Six R’s – the right price and the right quality – as being key and as a priority over meeting social and environmental standards. J.O (2014) goes on to describes the ultimate goal of buying as making a profit and sustaining business growth which Hines (2004) believes is more achievable by adhering to the six listed factors. Therefore buyers’ responsibilities to fulfil profit targets and meet consumer expectations generally override environmental considerations, notably in fast-fashion. Gwilt & Rissanen (2011) go as far as stating that most buyers don’t question production processes or recognise the negative environmental or social outcomes that are created with a product’s creation, use and disposal. However Gwilt & Rissanen (2011) raise the point that an unquestioning approach is typical in all fashion sectors and somewhat understandable due to business’s interests in and time available to conduct sustainable production research is generally at a minimum. Although this approach results in economical benefits and fulfils customer desires, it results negatively ecologically by continually fuelling the production of apparel, draining resources and generating waste.

3.2.3 Cut, Make and Trim Buying vs. Branded Buying

Fig. 3.3 Fashion Product Distribution Channels (Adapted from Jackson & Shaw, 2009:206) Note: The ‘Wholesale/Agent’ and ‘Agent’ stages do not apply to all fashion businesses J.O states that ‘in branded buying you are not shown the processes as you are buying a collection which is a fully completed product’ (2014) implying that buyers of branded goods are somewhat more so blind to the processes in which the collections originate. Fig. 3.3 demonstrates how the product management process is spread across various agents. It should be noted that although cut make and trim (CMT) buyers discuss and in many cases see the production process, it is still difficult to question the participation and environmental considerations of all agents prior in the distribution channel due to time constraints. J.O (2014) however believes ‘the onus’ of sourcing as environmentally consciously as possible should be shared with all people involved in the buying process, whether working with branded or CMT products. 3.2.4 Ethical Contracting An anonymous buyer interviewed by Siegle (2011:81) describes the fast-fashion buying process as being solely driven by price and believes that it is almost impossible to apply ethical contracts and stipulations when buyers are pressing for bigger volumes to be turned around at consistently rapid speeds. This further proves that a buyer’s

priorities of achieving high volumes of desirable product at low prices within short periods of time are favoured highly over ethical sourcing. However ethical contracts differ between retailers, with J.O (2014) stating that ‘for large companies like ASOS the supplier compliance and criteria are very strict and uniformed across the business with each supplier researched and agreed to [ASOS’s] terms and conditions’. This implies that although buyers are somewhat safe in the knowledge that their suppliers have fulfilled the retailer’s uniformed conditions in terms of environmentalism and other ethical factors, allowing them to focus on price and fulfilling consumer expectation. 3.2.5 Evolution of Fashion Product Management The evolutionary path which product management has moved as the fashion industry has changed over recent years in Western economics is an important consideration.

Fig. 3.4 The Evolution of Product Management (Adapted from Varley, 2006:16) Fast-fashion retailers and brands in general have progressively begun adopting more of a consumer focus when rethinking their sourcing strategies (Cervellon & Wernerfelt, 2012). This supports Varley’s (2006) evolutionary theory visualised in Fig. 3.4. Consumer led product management is geared to responding more so to consumer needs, rather than forecasting what they will buy (Varley, 2006). ‘This idea converges with the concept of a ‘lifestyle retailer’ that provides a product and service combination for a group of consumers whose needs are determined by particular values, attitudes and choices made about how their money and time is spent’ (Varley, 2006:16). Fastfashion retail buying is consumer and lifestyle led, creating garments that satisfy the consumer, as well as the values, attitudes and choices they live by. This can involve how the consumer spends their time such as regularly socialising and what they spend their money on, such as garments to wear whilst socialising. As a result this encourages retailers to source high units, fulfil consumer demand, fuel high production and sacrifice resources. J.O’s (2014) opinion on Varley’s evolutionary theory is - ‘I think it is a pull from both sides - buying is about knowing your customer, listening to demand whilst sourcing products which reflect what is going on in the wider environment’.

3.2.5.1 Industry vs. Consumers The theory of product management becoming consumer and lifestyle led brings to question where the blame for the environmentally damaging effect of fast-fashion is currently perceived to lie.

The industry supplying the demand 62% The consumers creating the demand 38%

Fig. 3.5 Survey results expressing who consumers believe is more so to blame for the lack of environmental consciousness in the modern fashion industry 62% of participants believe it is the industryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fault supplying demand rather than consumers creating the demand. However it should be noted that this survey is from the perspective of consumers who may hold a self-presentation bias (Tourangeau & Yan, 2007) as well as the fact that 38% of applicants actually disagree and admit to believing that the fault is more so in the hands of consumers. Kate (2012) points out that the fast-fashion sector follow trends and will produce ethical fashion if the demand exists, implying positive or negative ecological impacts however in the hands of the retailers, actually stem from consumer demand. 3.3 Retail Management 3.3.1 Retail Logistics â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;The logistics of getting the right product to the right person involves materials acquisition, forecasting, production management, and distributionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (Loker, 2008:113), regulating the flow of garments throughout the distribution system. The shipping route of any garment through sourcing, production and retail, reveals a mass of intersecting

transportation lines, each generating a number of carbon emissions (Fletcher & Grose, 2012) most notably in transportation. The transportation and retail stage of a garment’s life is what survey participants believe is the second most damaging point of the lifecycle after manufacturing. Interestingly however studies show that transport specifically results in only 1% of the carbon emitted during the total lifecycle of a garment (Loughman, 2007). Although low in contrast to other stages, it should be noted that 1% from the total lifecycle of garments still accounts for a high amount of carbon emissions. Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) is a system where products are tagged to optimise control of the flow of garments through a supply chain. These systems allow retailers to track, analyse and redirect stock to match sales, reducing excess inventory and production of garments (Loker, 2008). Although this seems beneficial both ecologically and economically due to reducing unsold excess goods, Fletcher & Grose (2012) raise the argument that these systems allow high product units to rapidly reach consumers, resulting in ‘post-season’ discards where waste is generated at a later stage of the overall lifecycle. 3.3.2 The Retail Environment Alongside other factors, fast-fashion retailer Gap (2009) consider packaging, shopping bags, in-store fixtures and building construction as issues warranting sustainable alternatives to be put in place, bringing attention to a somewhat neglected stage of the lifecycle – the physical retail environment. Plan A is Marks & Spencer’s five-year eco-plan that was launched publically in 2010 which has commitments to combat climate change, reduce waste, improve recycling and cut down on plastic bag use (Marks and Spencer, 2014). M&S encourage customers to not use carrier bags by charging 5p for every bag distributed, the profit of which is charity donated. A similar concept is the ‘I’m Not a Plastic Bag’ branded bag by Anya Hindmarch, an accessory that encourages ‘responsible consumption’ (Paulins & Hillery, 2009:112). This allows users to re-use said bag rather than continually using and disposing of carrier bags, similar to the ‘Bag for Life’ initiative common in supermarkets. Reducing the use and disposal of plastic bags is vastly ecologically beneficial as it lessens demand for production, use of valuable resources and reduces waste at various stages.

The majority of in-store sales professionals of fast-fashion companies are likely to know nothing about the origins of the products they sell, while product labels express little information (Sheridan, 2012) beyond what is required to fulfil legislative purposes. This means that not only consumers are unaware of product origins but also retail employees, both blind to how their decisions and actions impact on the planet. Consumers have indicated they are unaware of the availability and existence of ecofashion lines (Joergens, 2006:208), implying that although consumers are willing to invest in environmental pieces, there is not enough options available and attention drawing marketing activity which indirectly dis-encourages conscious purchasing. Despite the lack of in-store information, findings show that ‘whether shoppers did, or did not look at the environmental information and claims on products, they were united in wanting that information, in expecting it to achieve high standards of accuracy, clarity and truthfulness, in hoping that it was regulated or would be regulated in some way’ (National Consumer Council, 1996:2). Further findings express that consumers are interested in obtaining information on production processes, labels guaranteeing environmental claims and scientific underpinnings of these claims (Cervellon et al, 2010; D’Souza et al, 2006). This shows that consumers are interested in obtaining information that isn’t wholly available at present that may increase conscious purchasing. However fast-fashion retailers may be reluctant to make their supply chains publically transparent as it may deter sales and reduce their profit potential.

Chapter Four: Consumer Attitudes

4. Consumer Attitudes 4.1 Introduction This chapter aims to describe, explore and discuss the relationship between consumer attitudes to the modern industry and environmental impacts created by their decisions. 4.2 Purchase Influences Paulins & Hillery (2009) believe the underlying function in a free economy is consumer sovereignty - the notion that consumers are all-powerful. This is a crucial stage of the lifecycle to discuss, where consumers’ purchasing decisions result in environment repercussions by fuelling resource use, manufacture and waste. 4.2.1 Consumer Factors

Fig. 4.1 Factors influencing fashion consumers’ eco-fashion consumption decisions (Chang & Wong, 2012:203) Fig. 4.1 distinguishes the factors that influence consumers’ purchasing decisions and imply that consumers who sit within different personal attribute categories such as age, gender, education and income are likely to make different purchasing decisions and

provoke different levels of environmental damage. However survey findings show relatively consistent results across both genders including the most important purchasing priorities being product desire and the way it fits. The order of the average ranking of purchasing priorities follow greatly similar orders between men and women with the acceptation of women prioritising whether they look good in a garment over whether they can afford it, while men prioritise branding over occasion relevance. It should be noted however that gender difference also differs the frequency of shopping and units purchased; Goworek (2007) states that women historically consume fashion at a much faster rate than that of men. If this study was undertaken again, an assessment of individual differences from education and income would be a crucial area of future research to consider how these factors may effect ecologic considerations whilst purchasing apparel. The other three contributing factors that Chang & Wong believe influence fashion consumersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; consumption decisions in Fig. 3.1 are arguably more so in control of the retailer. The importance of product-related attributes focuses on the garment while the attributes of the retail environment focuses on the store, both of which have been discussed. 4.2.2 People vs. Profit vs. Planet A factor that can strongly influence a consumerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s purchasing decision is their favouring of - profit, people or the planet. Edwards (2005) describes a similar idea, which factors Environment/Ecology, Economy/Employment and Equity/Equality. To explore this topic, survey participants were asked to rank these three intertwined factors in order of importance to themselves.

Ecology & Environment Society & Equality

1st 2nd

39%

3rd

36%

1st

55%

2nd 3rd

Economy & Employment

25%

1st

29% 16%

20% 32%

2nd

48%

3rd

Fig. 4.2 Chart expressing survey results for consumers’ ranking of economy, ecology and society in order of importance to themselves Over all, Society & Equality hold the highest average ranking and is clearly an important factor for most consumers, due to the highest findings (55%) specifically placing it in first place, while the lowest findings (16%) placed it in third place. The results show that a majority of consumers favour issues associated with society, people and equality over environmental and economic factors. This can imply that consumers are conscious of the welfare of employees who make fashion products, however other findings from the same participants express that where garments are made and who made them average as consumers’ least important consideration. Ecology & Environment hold the second highest average ranking, with the majority (39%) of participants placing it in second place which is the third strongest finding, however more consumers consider it to be less important than society and economy (36%) rather than vice versa (25%). This shows that consumers somewhat value the importance of environment, however there is clear a split of opinion visualised in Fig. 4.2 where the findings are more so even across all three rankings when compared with the other two factors. Consumers who favour the environment are more likely to buy eco-friendly apparel however there is still a large amount of consumers (approximately 37.5%) who prioritise economics and people over ecologic issues. Economy & Employment hold the third and lowest average ranking. Despite this, there isn’t a large difference between economy’s average ranking at 1.72 and ecology’s average ranking at 1.89. The second strongest findings show a majority of consumers placed economy in third/last place (48%). These results are believed to be unsurprising

due to society and environment directly factoring living organisms, where as economy focuses on financial issues. However 20% of participants consider economy to be the most important factor, only 5% less than ecology. 4.2.3 Personal Gains vs. Being Ecological Various observers have noted that price, fashionability and desirability of garments are of greater importance to most consumers than a product’s ethicalness (Boulstridge & Carrigan, 2000; Carrigan & Attala, 2001; Dickson, 2001; Swinker & Hines, 1997). J.O (2014) agrees with this theory, adding that that ‘price, along with commerciality, trends and quality will override the demand for highly environmentally friendly fashion’. Further findings support this, with the average consumer favouring wanting, looking good in and being able to afford a product over where it was made and who made it. ‘Consumers often make decisions primarily based on cost and perceived quality rather than on the actual value that will be gained as an outcome of the purchase’ (Paulins & Hillery, 2009:214). This means that consumers are driven by perceived quality gained from fashionability and desirability rather than actual value or ethicalness. By prioritising personal gains, consumers purchase products that harm the environment, sustain retailers and manufacturers (Paulins & Hillery, 2009) and fuel the manufacture of further apparel, which increases damage. Various studies have revealed that consumers are interested in purchasing eco-fashion however are not willing to sacrifice personally, such as paying a premium price (Carrigan & Attala, 2001). This means that eco-fashion can be defined as being elastic within the elasticity of demand framework, which compares the relationship between price and consumers’ willingness to pay said price. Elastic products exist when the ‘percentage change in the unit quantity sold is greater than the percentage change in the price’ (Jackson & Shaw, 2009:126). Essentially elastic products are commonly sold at lower prices to generates less profit per unit however is likely to generate high profit given the affordable price can stimulate high sales, a common strategy within fastfashion. J.O (2014) agrees with this, stating ‘it goes back to price and commerciality being the leading factors for most customers when buying products. Obviously this does not apply to everyone, which is why there are niche companies who focus on making totally environmentally friendly products’ such as People Tree and Patagonia. However ‘as people become increasingly aware of environmental issues, manufacturers and retailers may find that their consumers will pay more for

environmentally friendly products’ (Paulins & Hillery, 2009:120) implying that ecofashion has the capability of becoming inelastic in terms of price, value and demand. Inelasticity exists when the percentage change in the unit quantity sold is less than the percentage change in the price (Jackson & Shaw, 2009), where a price increase to fund more ethical production does not deter consumers from making a purchase. Chang & Wong’s (2012) findings show that Product Related Attributes (PRA) is not directly related to Eco-fashion Consumption Decision making (ECD). ‘Such may be due to respondents’ ECD being less likely to be stimulated by their physical needs to protection and functionality, emotional needs of expressing their personality, and psychological needs of identity building’ (Chang & Wong, 2012:205). These findings show that consumers’ decisions to buy ethically are not directly related to, likely to stimulate or alter what consumers’ gain from purchasing apparel on a personal level. This is notable in consumer’s attraction to merchandise that is visually appealing and affordable (Paulins & Hillery, 2009), two traits that can be associated with fast-fashion. It can however be argued that the emotional need of expressing personality and the psychological need of identity building can actually be achieved through consumption of eco-fashion specifically. Findings by Niinimäki (2010) have found that ‘fashion consumers have psychological needs of ethical identity building’ (2010:209) as well as emotional needs of feeling good, energetic, and stimulated. For many modern consumers this may exist if the garments are eco-friendly, allowing the consumer to feel positive and stimulated in the confidence that their purchase has not impacted negatively on the planet. Findings from an experiment testing a positive or negative bias to sustainable products amongst consumers (Luchs et al, 2010) shows that participants were more likely to choose an organic product over the conventional option if shopping with a confederate, to create a good impression of themself. However when shopping alone, participants were vastly more likely to choose the conventional option due to either a lower price or the product being marketed as being ‘stronger’ (Luchs et al, 2010). This shows that consumers are likely to purchase organic options to gain social capital or decrease the likelihood of being judged however when alone want to reap directly personal benefits rather than being environmentally friendly.

4.2.4 Trends & Consumers Trends are an integral part of a fast-fashion garment’s lifespan and propel products through a highly seasonal cycle, which brings great opportunities for businesses to repeatedly offer new collections and maximise sales and volume opportunity (Varley, 2006). Affordable on-trend pieces have created a culture where consumers can revamp their wardrobes on a seasonal basis with minimal spend. These garments generally hold low longevity due to consumers only using them for short periods (CCA, 2013), continually fuelling further garment production. In contrast, Vivienne Westwood (2012) encourages consumers to not buy cheap fast-fashion seasonally but rather invest in good quality pieces that can be worn repeatedly for longer periods, lowering overall consumer spend and environmental impact.

Fig. 4.3 The Category Lifecycle (Adapted from Varley, 2006:50) Fig 4.3 visualises how trends are introduced, grow in sales, peak in season and then decline as trends go out of fashion. Products that have a steep curved lifecycle at the growth and decline stages, with short periods of maturity are defined as fads (Varley, 2006). Fads are essentially short-lived trends and offer retailers the opportunity to generate high sales over short periods. However two highly undesirable outcomes of forecasting errors can occur from this, with ‘missed sales opportunities through stockouts and mark-downs through high unsold inventory levels’ (Mattila et al, 2002:342). Both of these outcomes result in low profitability for retailers and in the later case cause severe environmental impacts - by fuelling resource intensive production of unwarranted apparel. Survey results show consumers on average find a garment’s trend relevance as being more important than occasion relevance and branding, however less important than fit, price, quality, longevity, design and colour. 66% of survey participants placed trend relevance as being either 5th, 6th or 7th most important factor out of 7 options, implying

that a majority of consumers care little for trend relevance or simply prioritise other factors more so. However these results may be inaccurate due to participants holding a self-presentation bias (Fisher, 1993), where consumers are reluctant to admit purchasing trends and being perceived as what Workman & Caldwell (2007) would define as a ‘fashion follower’. 4.3 Perceptions of Eco-Fashion 4.3.1 Increasing Demand for Eco-Fashion According to Paulins & Hillery (2009) ‘Green is the new black’ is a familiar phrase in recent fashion publications, demonstrating that sustainability is perceived as being valuable amongst consumers. Ethics have become a part of the decision-making process amongst a rising amount of consumers (Paulins & Hillery, 2009) who actively seek produce due to their conscious mode of manufacture. Cervellon & Wernerflelt (2012) agree with this, believing consumers are progressively becoming more interested in understanding how fashion can be more sustainable rather than how sustainable clothing can be more fashion. The number of consumers who report a willingness to purchase ecologically friendly merchandise grew from 6% in 2001 to 18% in 2006 (Lipke, 2007) more than doubling in the space of five years. In more recent years, sales of organic product grew by 2.8% in 2013, which accounts for £1.79 billion total sales (Soil Association, 2014). ‘The rate of growth was above the annual inflation rate of 2%, despite the continuing squeeze on family finances in a year in which wages rose by only 0.8%’ (Soil Association, 2014:3). Expressing that despite relatively consistent wages, a rising amount of consumers are willing to invest in organic options.

20 18

16 14

13.2

11.68

10 8.83

8 6

5.49

4 2 0 2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Fig. 4.4 Sales of Soil Association-certified organic textiles expressed in £Millions (Adapted from Soil Association, 2014:10) The market for organic cotton in the UK has continually grown over recent years, as Fig 4.4 expresses. 7.8% of cotton used in fast-fashion brand H&M’s products in 2012 accounts for certified organic cotton (Soil Association, 2014). This shows that a trend in eco-purchasing and thus sourcing, has and continues to be expected to grow as awareness and interest increase in restoring and maintaining a healthy global environmental (Paulins & Hillery, 2009). Consumer interest in environmental and social issues continues to increase which has caused the market for eco-apparel to grow. This encourages friendly manufacturing and sourcing operations which rewards companies with sales, positive publicity and an ethical position within their respective markets (Fletcher, 2008; Paulins & Hillery, 2009). This raises the profile of eco-fashion and stimulates higher demand for sustainable products, encouraging companies to launch relevant lines to claim a share of the market, positively reinforcing the industry (Fletcher, 2008) ecologically, economically and socially. This chain of events minimises ecologic impacts due to consumers purchasing more so in conscious apparel. This also generates business opportunity with Paulins & Hillery (2009) going as far as stating that trading within the ethical fashion sector is completely economically viable. 4.3.2 Negative & Narrow Perceptions of Eco-Fashion A Wall Street Journal article (Binkley, 2009) believes that eco-fashion doesn’t currently resonate with mainstream consumers and blame ‘dowdy and unattractive fashions’ as

the reason. This is further proven by a study (Cervellon et al, 2010) that reveals that consumers consider eco-fashion as being dull and lacking glamour and style however appreciate that it is useful and beneficial to society. Other findings show that consumers have a narrow view of green fashion that neglects the wide-ranging complexity of the garment lifecycle and its environmental and social concerns (Hethorn & Ulasewicz, 2008). Cervellon & Wernerfelt (2012) blame the use of words such as ‘ethical,’ ‘green’ and ‘sustainable’ as being abused which has caused what they describe as a ‘green wash of ethical efforts and a confusion for both companies and consumers’ (2012:117).

Table. 4.1 Survey results expressing top ten most mentioned word that consumers instantly associate with the term ‘eco-fashion’ Personal findings further prove this narrow view of green fashion in Table. 4.1. Survey participants’ perceptions of ‘eco-fashion’ focus on arguably stereotypical ideas such as hemp, hippies, green and brown and like in Hethorn & Ulasewicz’s (2008) findings, neglect the complexities of the entire garment lifecycle. However some of the words such a recycle show that consumers consider various lifecycle stages, aware that extending product life is an ecologically beneficial activity. These findings show that a negative, narrow and essentially uneducated perception of environmentally friendly apparel is common amongst many consumers. This deters

consumers from investing time, energy and money into seeking and purchasing ecofashion, instead regularly purchasing apparel that are catalysts to ecologic damaging outcomes. 4.3.3 Defining Eco-Friendliness

Strongly agree 5% Agree 39% Disagree 48% Strongly disagree 8%

Fig. 4.5 Survey results for participants agreeing or disagreeing that a garment should be classed as being eco-friendly despite generating leftover unsold stock due to being aesthetically unpleasing amongst consumers There is a clear split of opinion where a slight majority of consumers (56%) consider the entire lifecycle of a garment to factor whether a product is environmentally friendly e.g. whether it sells at retail stage and so disagree. However only a slight minority (44%) actually agree and consider the production to be the main factor to class a product as being eco-friendly. It should be noted that only 13% of applicants either strongly agree or disagree, representing a high majority of consumers (87%) who donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t consider their opinion to be strong on either side of this debate. Looking at male participants exclusively, 68.96% disagree and think this example shouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be classed as being eco-friendly due to vast unsold stock being generated, while women express a more balanced split of opinion with 50.7% disagreeing and 49.3% agreeing. Consumersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; perceptions of what defines a product as being environmentally friendly can potentially encourage or deter a purchase, which results in different ecologic outcomes.

Chapter Five: Post-Purchase

5. Post-Purchase 5.1 Introduction This chapter aims to describe the use, washing, life-extension and final disposal of fast-fashion garments by modern consumers while exploring and discussing the environmental impacts that are created. 5.2 Washing & Drying Garments Looking specifically at the carbon emitted during the garment lifecycle it is surprising how much the impact increases once a product is in consumers’ possessions. Black (2014) explains that resources used in growing, manufacturing and transporting apparel are much lower in comparison to water and energy consumed to wash and dry garments, which uses the largest amount of resources and has the largest carbon footprint.

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10

Material

Production

Transportation

Use

Disposal

Fig. 5.1 Primary energy profile for the T-shirt expressed in Mega Joules per piece at each lifecycle phase (Adapted from University of Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing, 2014) Black’s (2014) theory is proven in Fig 5.1, which shows that ‘use’ is the lifecycle stage that consumes the most energy at 65 Mega Joules per garment, more than double than ‘production’, the second highest at 24 Mega Joules. Fletcher (2014a) goes as far as stating that washing garments uses approximately six times more energy that

needed to produce the product. The blame from this lies in using conventional electronic washing, which also uses high units of water. Survey participants placed the using and washing stage as what they perceive as being the second least environmentally damaging stage, further proven by 46% of participants placing it as least or second least damaging stage. Despite the highenergy use and environmental damage created, findings express this is relatively unknown amongst participants. Consumers somewhat push the blame onto industry with manufacturing ranked highest most perceived damaging while transportation and retail is ranked second highest. This supports Hawkens’ (2012) belief that consumers believe that other people; experts for instance, will solve environmental problems without their participation. This unawareness and belief that others will solve issues further exacerbates the problem, encouraging unaware consumers to continue their activities, draining energy and water. This shows that even if a garment exists from environmentally friendly production, consumers still generate environmental damage however at postproduction stage. This can somewhat counteract an eco-garment’s environmental benefits, bringing up the question – Can fashion ever really be sustainable? A wardrobe audit finding discovered M&S’s labelling that supports eco-friendly washing by encouraging consumers to wash their items at 30°C, which can save up to 40% energy. This is another initiative that is part of M&S’s widely acknowledged Plan A ecoplan. By following these guidelines consumers allow themselves to save their use of energy which reduces bills, directly benefiting themselves which prior research has proven is a priority amongst a high amount of modern consumers. 5.3 Product Life Extension Useful life is an idea that measures how long a product operates and meets performance standards when maintained properly and not subject to stresses beyond its limits (Keoleian & Menerey, 1993). Measures of useful life vary between products but for apparel its most relevant mode of measurement is number of uses or time in action. Keoleian & Menerey (1993) believe that product life extension maximises the ‘useful life’ of a garment, which directly reduces environmental impact by saving resources, generating less waste and lessening units needed to satisfy the same

needs. Apparel re-use activities can actually conserve around 90 to 95% of the energy needed to make new items (Lauren et al, 2005). 5.3.1 Garment Alterations Consumers can extend the life of a garment by mending and updating the garment personally in some way. As an example, Vivienne Westwood’s Spring / Summer 2010 collection was based on this notion of Do It Yourself (DIY) fashion (Black, 2012). The press release for the collection encourages consumers to re-use favourite garments until they grow old and fall apart, borrow garments from family members and update looks in fun ways manually such as adding embellishments or altering the silhouette (Westwood, 2009). Westwood’s press release also implies that economic instability amongst consumers and businesses is a factor to encourage users to make the most of the ‘useful life’ of each garment, rather than continually sustaining the environmentally damaging production of new apparel. 5.3.2 Reusing Apparel Commoner’s (1971) book The Closing Circle, explores the relationships between increased industrialisation and its effect on various aspects of modern life. He developed four Laws of Ecology: 1. Everything is connected to everything else 2. Everything must go somewhere 3. Nature knows best 4. There is no such thing as a free lunch The four laws each promote recycling and conservation activities from different perspectives - whether a directly ecologic perspective with ‘nature knows best’, considering physical space management with ‘everything must go somewhere’ or the positive or negative cascade of implications that agents cause with ‘everything is connected to everything else’. Recycling sees materials that would otherwise be landfilled be used as valuable resources, allowing financial, environmental and societal benefits to occur. Both fastfashion retailers H&M and M&S, who each target different clienteles respectively have launched initiatives attempting to change the mind-set of consumers to see old clothes

as a resource as apposed to viewing them as disposable (Balch, 2013). Both initiatives are slightly different however follow the basic principal of encouraging consumers to hand over no longer used clothes at select outlets, in H&Mâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s case in return for voucher to use in-store. This can however be argued to encourage purchasing of new apparel in store, arguably counterbalancing benefits. These initiatives, like many others pass on garments to be distributed to markets, to be used as other products such as cloth or recycled into textile fibres (Balch, 2013). By doing so, recycling textiles of any sort reduces - virgin material extraction, use of natural resources, manufacturing, landfilling, incineration and greenhouse gas emissions, and helps sustain the environment for future generations (Paulins & Hillery, 2009). By re-using already created product, it reduces the demand for manufacturing and disposal. Mass re-use is where quality pieces are redirected to second-hand or vintage boutiques and the remainder is sent to less specialist markets (Fletcher & Grose, 2012), in the hope of finding a new user. However a vast majority (approximately 90%) of re-use involves being shipped to used-clothing markets abroad (Allwood et all, 2006). Both methods have economic and ecologic benefits by offering business and employment opportunity, using pre-existing merchandise as well as keeping garments in use for longer and minimising resource use. 5.3.2.1 Fashionability of Second-Hand Apparel The 1980s saw wearing second hand clothing as being more acceptable in Western youth cultures, although more so as a fashion choice rather than to consider conservation, allowing used apparel to find a new market (Welters, 2008). â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;By the 1990s, actresses began donning vintage designer gowns on the read carpet in an effort to distinguish themselves from the competitionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (Welters, 2008:24), with celebrities and consumers believing vintage apparel provided and still provides social capital of being individual and cool (Portas, 2011). Vintage fashion continues to be in high demand today; Portas (2011) believes this is due to consumers seeking something different from homogenised fast-fashion. Interestingly however brands such as Topshop and Topman have attempted to benefit from this demand by housing second-hand concessions in select outlets including their Oxford Street flagships. Second-hand apparel has also progressively been discussed more amongst green fashion communities (Cervellon and Wernerfelt, 2012), which demonstrates the ecologically valuable status of vintage apparel. Selling second-hand clothes saves

resources and generates less waste due to the garment existing without further production and satisfies the same needs as new apparel (Keoleian & Menerey, 1993). 5.4 Disposal 5.4.1 Reasons for Disposal Keoleian & Menerey (1993) describe retirement as a defining event of a garment’s useful life and outline reasons why consumers decide to retire their products. Even though a garment continues to perform its design function, consumers retire garments prematurely due to fashion obsolescence (Keoleian & Menerey, 1993). This implies that due to social pressure and to fulfil feeling ‘on trend’; consumers are likely to dispose of no longer desirable garments in favour of current trend relevant pieces. Repeatedly using products generally degrades performance due to deformation and fatigue until the garment no long serves its useful life (Keoleian & Menerey, 1993) and thus forces users to eventually retire the product. Research undertaken (CCA, 2013) tested 70 pieces by fast-fashion retailers including Zara and Mango, which expressed that over 30% of the garments failed to meet their quality standards. This means that a high amount of fast-fashion garments don’t hold great levels of longevity, however as previously stated consumers are relatively comfortable with this due to wanting to purchase new apparel on a seasonal basis – to stay trend relevant. 5.4.2 Landfilling Statistics reveal that three-quarters of UK textile products reach end-of-life in landfill after being used (Allwood et al, 2006). Fletcher & Grose (2012) describe the resources used to make garments as ‘embodied energy’ and believe that garments aren’t fully epitomised by consumers, where physical garments that could fulfil further uses are buried in the ground out of reach, sacrificing not only resources but also design and business opportunities. Like in earlier stages of the garment lifecycle it is difficult to calculate an exact longterm environmental cost of textile landfilling however the impacts that are created are clear. Decomposing clothing is a common procedure within landfilling and releases methane, which is a harmful greenhouse gas that contributes greatly to global warming (Wallander, 2012). The dyes and long living chemicals used during the creation of

fabric and garments can leach from the product into soil, contaminating surface and groundwater, which affects plants, animals and humans (Greenpeace, 2014). The issue of the physical space that landfilling takes is also a factor, with 11 million tons of textiles taking up approximately 126 million cubic yards of landfill space from just one years worth of discards (Wallander, 2012), which brings to question â&#x20AC;&#x201C; how much more landfilled disposal can the planet actually accommodate? 5.4.3 Incineration Incineration results in ash, which according to Connett (2010) results in approximately a quarter of the size of waste inputted prior to incineration. High carbon is emitted and left over ash needs to be disposed, expressing the environmental severity of this process. Harmful pollutants such as dioxins and furans are emitted into air, land and water, which influence negatively on the health of humans, animals and the environment (Zafar, 2008). Incineration also indirectly promotes and eases a continually wasteful cycle amongst businesses and consumers whilst un-encouraging and thus hindering prior discussed environmentally friendly waste prevention activities (Zafar, 2008). However, energy recovery sometimes takes place when the incineration of waste results in creating energy to be used in other ways. Palm (2011) points out that the impact from energy recovery using textile incineration results in much lower overall impact in comparison to new textile production. However much lower, impact still continues to exist. The carbon emissions from incinerating natural fibres for instance can actually be considered a part of the natural flow of biogenic carbon dioxide emissions and replace sources that to some extent lower overall impact (Palm, 2011).

6. Summary Secondary findings have expressed that inputs of energy, water and chemicals along with carbon emissions and pollution, all generated from the production of fast-fashion garments collectively result in vast ecologic damage. At a later stage of the lifecycle, consumers continually wash garments, which heavily relies on its energy use. A garment’s end-of-life exists when it is landfilled or incinerated which further pollutes air, soil and water. Primary research findings support secondary evidence that these damaging outcomes take place to allow retailers and manufactures to reap profit. This ecologically damaging cycle fulfils mass consumer desire for affordable on-trend pieces, with numerous primary and secondary findings revealing that consumers prioritise personal gains over reducing ecologic damage. There are however positive research findings expressing an increase in – interest, awareness and sales of eco-fashion, interest and sales of second-hand clothing and interest and participation in product life extension activities. 6.2 Recommendations for Further Study There are various areas of this study that would benefit from further research. Interviewing a higher and more varied amount of lifecycle agents such as farmers, manufacturers, retail professionals and consumers would provide a greater balance of direct insight on the topic. A more focused analysis into consumers’ personal attributes including income would expose their potentially differing effect on levels of environmental purchasing decisions. Due to the discovered high-energy use of washing, observations or survey-acquired information on this stage would provide a clearer understanding of consumers’ mentality of this process. Finally undertaking this study in different cultures would allow an analysis of difference in westernised and nonwesternised countries’ ideas, which will provide further reliability of findings.

7. References Alexander, H., (2012), In Black, S., The Sustainable Fashion Handbook. London, Thames & Hudson Ltd. p. 6. Allwood, J. M., Laursen, C., Malvido de Roderiguez. and Brocken, N.M.P., (2006), Well dressed? Cambridge, University of Cambridge Institute of Manufacturing. p.16. Anonymous Buyer., (2011), In Siegle, L., To Die For: Is Fashion Wearing Out the World? London, Harper Collins. p. 81. Arnold, R., (2001), Fashion: A Short Introduction. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Balch, O., (2013), “H&M: can fast fashion and sustainability ever really mix?” Guardian Online, 3rd May. [Internet] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/sustainablebusiness/h-and-m-fashion-sustainability-mix Binkely, C., (2009), In Paulins, V. and Hillery, J., Ethics in the Fashion Industry. New York, Fairchild Books. p. 121. Black, S., (2008), Eco Chic – The Fashion Paradox. London, Black Dog Publishing. Black, S., (2012), The Sustainable Fashion Handbook. London, Thames & Hudson Ltd. Black, K., (2014), “Fashion's Dirty Little 'Sustainable' Secret; Wear More and Wash Less”, Huffington Post Online. 4th January. [Internet] Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-black/fashions-dirty-little-sus_b_5065124.html [Accessed 7th April 2014] Boulstridge, E. and Carrigan, M., (2000), “Do consumers really care about corporate responsibility? Highlighting the attitude-behaviour gap”, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 355-68. Carrigan, M. and Attala, A., (2001), “The myth of ethical consumer: do ethics matter in purchase behaviour?”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 560-77. Carvel, N., (2014), British GQ Magazine, May Issue. London, Condé Nast Publications. p 53. CCA / China Consumers’ Association in Staff Reporter., (2013), “Fast-fashion fails to meet quality standards” Want China Times Online [Internet] Available at: http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclasscnt.aspx?id=20131126000107&cid=1102 Cervellon, M., Hjerth, C., Ricard, S. and Carey, L., (2010), “Green in fashion? An exploratory study of national differences in consumers concern for eco-fashion”, Proceedings of 9th International Marketing Trends Conference, Venice. January 20-21. Cervellon, M. and Wernerfelt, A., (2012) "Knowledge sharing among green fashion communities online: Lessons for the sustainable supply chain", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp.176 – 192.

Chang, T. and Wong, C., (2012) “The consumption side of sustainable fashion supply chain: Understanding fashion consumer eco-fashion consumption decisions”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 16 No. 2. Commoner, B., (1971), The Closing Cycle: Nature, Man and Technology. New York, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. Connett, P., (2010), “Why incineration is a very bad idea in the Twenty First Century” Global Alliance for Incineration Alternative Online [Internet] Available at: http://www.noburn.org/why-incineration-is-a-very-bad-idea-in-the-twenty-first-century [Accessed: 13th April 2014] Cooper, P., (2008), “The consequences of new environmental legislation on the UK textile industry”. Textiles Horizons International, 2(10), pp30-38. Crane, D., (2000), Fashion and Its Social Agendas. London and Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Dickson, M. A., (2001) “Utility of No Sweat Labels for Apparel Consumers: Profiling Label Users and Predicting Their Purchases”, The Journal of Consumer Affairs Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 96-119. D’Souza, C., Taghiam, M., Lamp, P. and Peretiatko, R., (2006), “Green decisions: demographics and consumer understanding of environmental labels”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 371-6. Edwards, A. R., (2005), The Sustainability Revolution – Portrait of a Paradigm Shift. Canada, New Society Publishers. Environmental Justice Foundation & PAN UK., (2007), The Deadly Chemicals in Cotton. London, Environmental Justice Foundation & PAN UK. Fashioning an Ethical Industry., (2008), The structure of the fashion industry Factsheet 2, Fashioning and Ethical Industry Online [Internet] Available at: www.fashioninganethicalindustry.org [Accessed: 13th April 2014] Fisher, R. J., (1993), “Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning”. Journal of consumer research. Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 391-2. Fletcher, K., (2008), Sustainable Fashion and Textiles – Design Journeys First Edition. London, Earthscan. Fletcher, K., (2014a), In Black, K., “Fashion's Dirty Little 'Sustainable' Secret; Wear More and Wash Less”, Huffington Post Online. 4th January. [Internet] Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-black/fashions-dirty-little-sus_b_5065124.html [Accessed 7th April 2014] Fletcher, K., (2014b), Sustainable Fashion and Textiles – Design Journeys Second Edition. London, Earthscan. Fletcher, K. and Grose, L., (2012), Fashion and Sustainability – Design for Change. London, Laurence King Publishing.

Food & Environment Research Agency., Centre for Technical Textiles at University of Leeds. and Textile Engineering and Materials Research Group at De Monfort University., (2009), The role of business case for existing and emergency fibres in sustainable clothing in Fletcher, K. and Grose, L., (2012), Fashion and Sustainability – Design for Change. London, Laurence King Publishing. pp 26-29. Gap., (2009), In Paulins, V. and Hillery, J., Ethics in the Fashion Industry. New York, Fairchild Books. pp 121. Goworek, H., (2007), Fashion Buying, Second Edition. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing. Greenpeace., (2014), Little Monsters: A Field Guide to Hazardous Chemicals. London, Greenpeace International. Gwilt, A. and Rissanen, T., (2011), Shaping Sustainable Fashion: Changing the way we make and see clothes. London, Earthscan. Hawkens, P., (2012), In Fletcher, K. and Grose, L., Fashion and Sustainability – Design for Change. London, Laurence King Publishing. pp. 4-5 Hawkens, P., Lovins, A. and Hunter-Lovins, L., (2006), Natural Capitalism, as cited in J. Thakara, In the Bubble, Cambridge, MIT Press. p. 12. Hethorn, J and Ulasewicz, C., (2008), Sustainable Fashion: Why Now? A conversation about issues, practices, and possibilities. New York, Fairchild Books. Hines, T., (2004), Supply Chain Strategies: Customer Driven and Customer Focused First Edition. Oxford, Heineman Books. H&M / H&M Advertisement., (2014), In Cosmopolitan., Cosmopolitan Magazine UK, May 2014. London, Hearst Magazines. p.16. Jackson, T. and Shaw, D., (2001), Mastering Fashion Buying and Merchandising Management. Basingstoke, Macmillan Publishers Ltd. Jackson, T. and Shaw, D., (2009), Mastering Fashion Marketing. Basingstoke, Macmillan Publishers Ltd. J.O., (2014), Personally conducted interview with fashion buyer at ASOS, refer to Appendix. Joergens, C., (2006), “Ethical fashion: myth or future trend?”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 360-71. Kalliala, E. M. and Nousiainen, P., (1999), “Life cycle assessment environmental profile of cotton and polyester-cotton fabrics”. AUTEX Research Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1. p. 1 Kate, K., (2012), In Cervellon, M. and Wernerfelt, A., "Knowledge sharing among green fashion communities online: Lessons for the sustainable supply chain", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp.176 – 192. Keoleian, G. A. and Menerey, D., (1993), Life Cycle Design: Guidance Manual. Cincinnati, US Environmental Protection Agency. Lauren, S. E., Allwood, J.M., De Brito, M.P., and Malvido De Rodriguez, C., (2005) Sustainable recovery of products and materials – scenario analysis of the UK clothing

and textile sector, Design and Manufacture for Sustainable Development, 4th International Conference, Newcastle, 12-13 July 2005. Laursen, S. E. and Hansen, J., (1997), Environmental Assessment of Textiles. Copenhagen, Danish Environmental Protection Agency, p. 124. Lipke, D., (2007), In Paulins, V. and Hillery, J., Ethics in the Fashion Industry. New York, Fairchild Books. pp. 121. Loker, S., (2008), “A Technology-Enabled Sustainable Fashion System: Fashion’s Future” in Hethorn, J and Ulasewicz, C., Sustainable Fashion: Why Now? New York, Fairchild Books. pp 95-126. Loughman, E., (2007), Environmental Analysis, Patagonia, Horizontal Issue: Climate Change, panel at Organic Exchange, Pacific Grove, 1st January. Luchs, M. G., Naylor, R., Irwin, J. R. and Raghunathan, R., (2010), “The sustainability liability: potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 5, pp. 18-31. Madsen, J., Hartlin, B., Perumalpillai, S., Selby, S. and Aumönier, S., (2007), Mapping of Evidence of Sustainable Development Impacts that Occur in Life Cycles of Clothing. Environmental Resources Management (ERM) Ltd. London, Defra. Mattila, H., King, R. and Ojala, N., (2002), “Retail performance measures for seasonal fashion”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 340-351. M&S / Marks & Spencer., (2014), Plan A Website, Marks & Spencer plc. [Internet] Available at: https://plana.marksandspencer.com. [Accessed 1nd May 2014] National Consumer Council., (1996), Green Claims: A Consumer Investigation into Marketing Claims About the Environment. London, National Consumer Council. Niinimäki, K., (2010), “Eco-clothing, consumer identity and ideology”, Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 150-62. Nordic Fashion Association / The Business of a Better World., (2012), The NICE Consumer: Framework for Achieving Sustainable Fashion Consumption through Collaboration. Copenhagen, Business for Social Responsibility. Orzada, B. and Moore, M. A., (2008), “Environmental Impact of Textile Production” in Hethorn, J. and Ulasewicz, C., Sustainable Fashion: Why Now? New York, Fairchild Books. Palm, D., (2011), Improved waste management of textiles: Environmentally improved recycling. Göteborg, Swedish Environmental Research Institute. Pasquinell, I., (2013), “Sustainable fashion design: learning from Denmark’s example” Guardian Online, 27th February [Internet] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/sustainable-fashion-designdenmark [Accessed 13th April 2014] Paulins, V. and Hillery, J., (2009), Ethics in the Fashion Industry. New York, Fairchild Books. Portas, M., (2011), How to Shop with Mary, Queen of Shops. London, BBC Books.

Sheridan, J., (2012), In Cervellon, M. and Wernerfelt, A., "Knowledge sharing among green fashion communities online: Lessons for the sustainable supply chain", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management. Vol. 16 No. 2, pp.178. Siegle, L., (2011), To Die For: Is Fashion Wearing Out the World? London, Harper Collins. Slater, K., (2005), Environmental impact of textiles: Production, processes and protection. Cambridge, Woodhead Publishing Ltd. Smithers, R. and McCabe, M., (2011), “Store Wars: H&M and New Look” Guardian Online, 11th November. [Internet] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/money/poll/2011/nov/11/store-wars-hm-new-look [Accessed 13th April 2014] Soil Association., (2014), Organic Market Report 2014. Bristol, Soil Association: Healthy soil, health people, healthy planet. Swinker, M. E. and Hines, J. D. (2006), “Understanding consumers’ perception of clothing quality: a multidimensional approach”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 30 No. 2. Tourangeau, R. & Yan, T., (2007), Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological bulletin, Vol. 133 No. 5, p 859. Tungate, M., (2005), Fashion Brands: Branding Style from Armani to Zara. London & Philadelphia, Kogan Page. University of Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing., (2014), In Black, K., “Fashion's Dirty Little 'Sustainable' Secret; Wear More and Wash Less”, Huffington Post Online. 4th January. [Internet] Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-black/fashionsdirty-little-sus_b_5065124.html [Accessed 7th April 2014] UNEP / United Nations Environmental Programme., (1993), The Textile Industry and the Environment, Industry and the Environment Technical Report No. 16, Paris, United Nations Publications, p 48. US Department of Agriculture., (2009), Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. ERS Online [Internet] Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/ [Accessed 13rd April 2014] Varley, R., (2006), Retail Product Management Second Edition. Abingdon, Routledge. Wallander, M., (2012), “Why Textile Waste Should be Banned From Landfills” Triplepundit Online, 12th January [Internet] Available at: http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/01/textile-waste-be-banned-landfills/ [Accessed 13th April 2014] Welters, L., (2008), “The Fashion of Sustainability” in Hethorn, J and Ulasewicz, C., Sustainable Fashion: Why Now? New York, Fairchild Books. pp. 7-29. Westwood, V., (2012) In Black, S., The Sustainable Fashion Handbook. London, Thames & Hudson Ltd. p 38. Westwood, V., (2009), Vivienne Westwood Spring / Summer 2010 Collection Press Release. London, Vivienne Westwood.

Workman, J. E. and Caldwell, L.F., (2007), “Centrality of visual product aesthetics, tactile, and uniqueness needs of fashion consumers”, International Journal of Consumer Studies. Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 589-596. Zafar, S., (2008), “Negative impacts of incineration-based waste-to-energy technology” Alternative Energy Online, September 8th. [Internet] Available at: http://www.alternativeenergy-news.info/negative-impacts-waste-to-energy/ [Accessed 13th April 2014]

8. Bibliography Balch, O., (2013), “H&M: can fast fashion and sustainability ever really mix?” Guardian Online, 3rd May. [Internet] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/sustainablebusiness/h-and-m-fashion-sustainability-mix Black, S., (2008), Eco Chic – The Fashion Paradox. London, Black Dog Publishing. Black, S., (2012), The Sustainable Fashion Handbook. London, Thames & Hudson Ltd. Boulstridge, E. and Carrigan, M., (2000), “Do consumers really care about corporate responsibility? Highlighting the attitude-behaviour gap”, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 355-68. Carrigan, M. and Attala, A., (2001), “The myth of ethical consumer: do ethics matter in purchase behaviour?”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 560-77. CCA / China Consumers’ Association in Staff Reporter., (2013), “Fast-fashion fails to meet quality standards” Want China Times Online [Internet] Available at: http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclasscnt.aspx?id=20131126000107&cid=1102 Cervellon, M., Hjerth, C., Ricard, S. and Carey, L., (2010), “Green in fashion? An exploratory study of national differences in consumers concern for eco-fashion”, Proceedings of 9th International Marketing Trends Conference, Venice. January 20-21. Cervellon, M. and Wernerfelt, A., (2012) "Knowledge sharing among green fashion communities online: Lessons for the sustainable supply chain", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp.176 – 192. Chang, T. and Wong, C., (2012) “The consumption side of sustainable fashion supply chain: Understanding fashion consumer eco-fashion consumption decisions”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 16 No. 2. Commoner, B., (1971), The Closing Cycle: Nature, Man and Technology. New York, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. Connett, P., (2010), “Why incineration is a very bad idea in the Twenty First Century” Global Alliance for Incineration Alternative Online [Internet] Available at: http://www.noburn.org/why-incineration-is-a-very-bad-idea-in-the-twenty-first-century [Accessed: 13th April 2014] Cooper, P., (2008), “The consequences of new environmental legislation on the UK textile industry”. Textiles Horizons International, 2(10), pp30-38. Crane, D., (2000), Fashion and Its Social Agendas. London and Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Datschefski, E., (2001), The Total Beauty of Sustainable Products. Switzerland, RotoVision. Dickson, M. A., (2001) “Utility of No Sweat Labels for Apparel Consumers: Profiling Label Users and Predicting Their Purchases”, The Journal of Consumer Affairs Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 96-119.

Dombek-Keith, K. and Loker, S., (2011), “Sustainable Clothing Care by Design”, In Gwilt, A. and Rissanen, T., Shaping Sustainable Fashion: Changing the way we makes and see clothes. London, Earthscan. D’Souza, C., Taghiam, M., Lamp, P. and Peretiatko, R., (2006), “Green decisions: demographics and consumer understanding of environmental labels”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 371-6. Durning, A., (1992), How much is enough?: The Consumer Society and the Future of the Earth. UK, Earthscan. Edwards, A. R., (2005), The Sustainability Revolution – Portrait of a Paradigm Shift. Canada, New Society Publishers. Elgar, E., (2004), The International Handbook of Environmental Technology Management. McDonough, W. & Braungart, M. (2003), Remaking the way we make things – Creating a New Definition of Quality with Cradle-to-Cradle Design. Environmental Justice Foundation & PAN UK., (2007), The Deadly Chemicals in Cotton. London, Environmental Justice Foundation & PAN UK. Farrer, J., (2011), “Remediation: Discussing Fashion Textiles Sustainability” in, A. and Rissanen, T., Shaping Sustainable Fashion: Changing the way we makes and see clothes. London, Earthscan. Fashioning an Ethical Industry., (2008), The structure of the fashion industry Factsheet 2, Fashioning and Ethical Industry Online [Internet] Available at: www.fashioninganethicalindustry.org [Accessed: 13th April 2014] Fisher, R. J., (1993), “Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning”. Journal of consumer research. Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 391-2. Fletcher, K., (2008), Sustainable Fashion and Textiles – Design Journeys First Edition. London, Earthscan. Fletcher, K., (2014b), Sustainable Fashion and Textiles – Design Journeys Second Edition. London, Earthscan. Fletcher, K. and Grose, L., (2012), Fashion and Sustainability – Design for Change. London, Laurence King Publishing. Food and Environment Research Agency., Centre for Technical Textiles at University of Leeds. and Textile Engineering and Materials Research Group at De Monfort University., (2009), The role of business case for existing and emergency fibres in sustainable clothing. London, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Freeman, R. E., Institute for Corporate Ethics: What is Stakeholder Theory? Interview [Internet] Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lh5lBe1cnQw Goworek, H., (2007), Fashion Buying, Second Edition. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing. Grant, J., (2007), The Marketing Manifesto. UK, John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Greenpeace., (2014), Little Monsters: A Field Guide to Hazardous Chemicals. London, Greenpeace International.

Gwilt, A. and Rissanen, T., (2011), Shaping Sustainable Fashion: Changing the way we make and see clothes. London, Earthscan. Hawkens, P., (2012), In Fletcher, K. and Grose, L., Fashion and Sustainability – Design for Change. London, Laurence King Publishing. pp. 4-5 Hawley, J., (2011), “Textile Rescycling Options: Exploring What Could Be” in Gwilt, A. and Rissanen, T., Shaping Sustainable Fashion: Changing the way we makes and see clothes. London, Earthscan. Hethorn, J and Ulasewicz, C., (2008), Sustainable Fashion: Why Now? A conversation about issues, practices, and possibilities. New York, Fairchild Books. Hines, T., (2004), Supply Chain Management: A Strategic Approach. Checkmate Publications. Hines, T., (2004), Supply Chain Strategies: Customer Driven and Customer Focused First Edition. Oxford, Heineman Books. Hutter, L. Capozucca, P. and Nayyar, S., (2010), Deloitte review, issue 7, 2010. Jackson, T., (2009), Prosperity without Growth. London, Earthscan. Jackson, T. and Shaw, D., (2001), Mastering Fashion Buying and Merchandising Management. Basingstoke, Macmillan Publishers Ltd. Jackson, T. and Shaw, D., (2009), Mastering Fashion Marketing. Basingstoke, Macmillan Publishers Ltd. Joergens, C., (2006), “Ethical fashion: myth or future trend?”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 360-71. Kalliala, E. M. and Nousiainen, P., (1999), “Life cycle assessment environmental profile of cotton and polyester-cotton fabrics”. AUTEX Research Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1. p. 1 Kate, K., (2012), In Cervellon, M. and Wernerfelt, A., "Knowledge sharing among green fashion communities online: Lessons for the sustainable supply chain", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp.176 – 192. Keoleian, G. A. and Menerey, D., (1993), Life Cycle Design: Guidance Manual. Cincinnati, US Environmental Protection Agency. Lauren, S. E., Allwood, J.M., De Brito, M.P., and Malvido De Rodriguez, C., (2005) Sustainable recovery of products and materials – scenario analysis of the UK clothing and textile sector, Design and Manufacture for Sustainable Development, 4th International Conference, Newcastle, 12-13 July 2005. Laursen, S. E. and Hansen, J., (1997), Environmental Assessment of Textiles. Copenhagen, Danish Environmental Protection Agency, p. 124. Loker, S., (2008), “A Technology-Enabled Sustainable Fashion System: Fashion’s Future” in Hethorn, J and Ulasewicz, C., Sustainable Fashion: Why Now? New York, Fairchild Books. pp 95-126. Loughman, E., (2007), Environmental Analysis, Patagonia, Horizontal Issue: Climate Change, panel at Organic Exchange, Pacific Grove, 1st January.

Luchs, M. G., Naylor, R., Irwin, J. R. and Raghunathan, R., (2010), “The sustainability liability: potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 5, pp. 18-31. Madsen, J., Hartlin, B., Perumalpillai, S., Selby, S. and Aumönier, S., (2007), Mapping of Evidence of Sustainable Development Impacts that Occur in Life Cycles of Clothing. Environmental Resources Management (ERM) Ltd. London, Defra. Mattila, H., King, R. and Ojala, N., (2002), “Retail performance measures for seasonal fashion”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 340-351. McQuillan, H., (2011), “Zero-Waste Design Practise: Strategies and Risk Taking for Garment Design” in Gwilt, A. and Rissanen, T., Shaping Sustainable Fashion: Changing the way we make and see clothes. London, Earthscan. National Consumer Council., (1996), Green Claims: A Consumer Investigation into Marketing Claims About the Environment. London, National Consumer Council. Niinimäki, K., (2010), “Eco-clothing, consumer identity and ideology”, Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 150-62. Nordic Fashion Association / The Business of a Better World., (2012), The NICE Consumer: Framework for Achieving Sustainable Fashion Consumption through Collaboration. Copenhagen, Business for Social Responsibility. O’Mahony, M., (2011), “Sustainable Textiles – Nature or Nurture?” in Gwilt, A. and Rissanen, T., Shaping Sustainable Fashion: Changing the way we make and see clothes. London, Earthscan. Orzada, B. and Moore, M. A., (2008), “Environmental Impact of Textile Production” in Hethorn, J. and Ulasewicz, C., Sustainable Fashion: Why Now? New York, Fairchild Books. Palm, D., (2011), Improved waste management of textiles: Environmentally improved recycling. Göteborg, Swedish Environmental Research Institute. Pasquinell, I., (2013), “Sustainable fashion design: learning from Denmark’s example” Guardian Online, 27th February [Internet] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/sustainable-fashion-designdenmark [Accessed 13th April 2014] Paulins, V. and Hillery, J., (2009), Ethics in the Fashion Industry. New York, Fairchild Books. Phaidon Editors., (2013), The Fashion Book, Second Edition. London, Phaidon Press. Portas, M., (2011), How to Shop with Mary, Queen of Shops. London, BBC Books. Rissanen, T., (2011), “Designing Endurance”, In Gwilt, A. and Rissanen, T., Shaping Sustainable Fashion: Changing the way we makes and see clothes. London, Earthscan. Schumacher, E. F., (1973), Small is Beautiful. UK, Abacus Books.

Siegle, L., (2011), To Die For: Is Fashion Wearing Out the World? London, Harper Collins. Slater, K., (2005), Environmental impact of textiles: Production, processes and protection. Cambridge, Woodhead Publishing Ltd. Smithers, R. and McCabe, M., (2011), “Store Wars: H&M and New Look” Guardian Online, 11th November. [Internet] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/money/poll/2011/nov/11/store-wars-hm-new-look [Accessed 13th April 2014] Soil Association., (2014), Organic Market Report 2014. Bristol, Soil Association: Healthy soil, health people, healthy planet. Strinati, D., (1995), An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture, Second Edition. London, Routledge Publishing. Swinker, M. E. and Hines, J. D. (2006), “Understanding consumers’ perception of clothing quality: a multidimensional approach”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 30 No. 2. Tourangeau, R. & Yan, T., (2007), Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological bulletin, Vol. 133 No. 5, p 859. Tungate, M., (2005), Fashion Brands: Branding Style from Armani to Zara. London & Philadelphia, Kogan Page. UNEP / United Nations Environmental Programme., (1993), The Textile Industry and the Environment, Industry and the Environment Technical Report No. 16, Paris, United Nations Publications, p 48. US Department of Agriculture., (2009), Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. ERS Online [Internet] Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/ [Accessed 13rd April 2014] Varley, R., (2006), Retail Product Management Second Edition. Abingdon, Routledge. Wallander, M., (2012), “Why Textile Waste Should be Banned From Landfills” Triplepundit Online, 12th January [Internet] Available at: http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/01/textile-waste-be-banned-landfills/ [Accessed 13th April 2014] Watt, J., (2012), Fashion: The Ultimate Book of Costume and Style. London, Dorling Kindersley. Welters, L., (2008), “The Fashion of Sustainability” in Hethorn, J and Ulasewicz, C., Sustainable Fashion: Why Now? New York, Fairchild Books. pp. 7-29. Workman, J. E. and Caldwell, L.F., (2007), “Centrality of visual product aesthetics, tactile, and uniqueness needs of fashion consumers”, International Journal of Consumer Studies. Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 589-596. Zafar, S., (2008), “Negative impacts of incineration-based waste-to-energy technology” Alternative Energy Online, September 8th. [Internet] Available at: http://www.alternativeenergy-news.info/negative-impacts-waste-to-energy/ [Accessed 13th April 2014]

9. Appendices Appendices A â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Letter Requesting an Interview Flat 3 145 Ditchling Road Brighton East Sussex BN1 6JA Dear I am in my third and final year studying towards gaining a BA (Hons) Fashion Buying and Merchandising degree at The London College of Fashion, which requires me to conduct a dissertation. The working title of the study is as follows From Conception to Landfill: An exploration and discussion of the environmental impacts created during the lifecycle of fast-fashion garments I am writing to enquire whether you would be willing to partake in an interview for me to refer to during my study. I believe your experience, knowledge, insight and opinions would provide me with a deeper understanding of the buying process and its role in the lifecycle of fashion products in relation to environmentalism. Your demands for levels of anonymity will be respected. I look forward to hearing back from you! Yours Sincerely, Sam Jones

Appendices B – Interview Transcript with J.O, Buyer at ASOS Plc Date of Interview: 11th April 2014 It should be noted that the following answers express the opinions of J.O only, not ASOS Plc, Liberty Ltd or any other company. Sam Jones: ‘Hi J.O, could you please begin by explaining your job role and responsibilities please?’ JO: ‘My job as a buyer at ASOS involves sourcing new brands and selecting products each season, which are best suited to the ASOS customer. The ultimate goal is to make a profit and sustain business growth so my part to play involves having good relationships with the brands, who are my suppliers, skills to negotiate and a great understanding of customer base and trends.’ SJ: ‘How did your previous fashion buying or merchandising positions differ from your current role?’ JO: ‘Working at ASOS is a completely different experience from my last job at Liberty. As an e-tailer it takes time to get used to not having a shop floor and the size of the business is dramatically different; instead of job sharing and blurred lines between departments, ASOS is an organised and well-oiled machine! Each department has its own unique responsibilities and job roles are clearly stated. One advantage is increased efficiency and knowledge of your role, however there is not a lot of interaction between teams and having the opportunity to action things outside of your remit.’ SJ: ‘How do you, and the merchandising team you currently working with, decide on the units that you buy for future seasons?’ JO: ‘If the brand is an existing supplier with ASOS, then quantifying orders is based on historical sales. Buying and merch will work together to first identify the winning products and cash drivers. Layered on top of this are key trend pieces which will be ordered in lower volumes. Based on the planned spend for the brand as well as considering the growth of the department, and the strength of the collection, the product is assigned units. Looking at Sell through reports from the previous year and

current season are integral to your stock position and will dictate the direction of the brand; if it is downtrending or gaining momentum.’ SJ: ‘Does this differ from your previous position at Liberty?’ JO: ‘The principles are the same in terms of analysing historical sales in order to make an informed decision about how much money will be used to back the order with.’ SJ: ‘To what extent do you as a team consider environmental issues when making buying decisions?’ JO: ‘It is a consideration and ASOS really champion these ethical issues; being a global online business means that you are fully exposed, transparent and accountable for actions so it is important. With regards to product selection, whilst this is a factor, commerciality is still the leading reason for buying. This could be price driven, trend driven or both!’ SJ: ‘Do you believe that cut-make-and-trim buying professionals have more of a responsibility to make environmentally friendly buying decisions rather than wholesale buying professionals?’ JO: ‘I think that the onus should be shared amongst all people involved in the buying process.’ SJ: ‘Do you think fashion-buying professionals ever consider the entire lifespan of the garment, or just the pre-consumer part of a garment’s story?’ JO: ‘I do think it is considered. Lots of garments come with labelling encouraging recycling however I don’t believe that the ethical and environmental factors will ever come before quality, price and aesthetic. These demands from the customer need to be considered by the buyer first and foremost. The life span of the garment will play a part but will not be overriding.’ SJ: ‘How socially responsible do you believe the Fashion Retailer that you currently working at is in regards to environmentalism specifically?’

JO: ‘ASOS is very socially responsible with strict supplier compliance policies as well being environmentally conscious. As a global online retailer, the company is exposed, transparent and accountable.’ SJ: ‘Who do you think is more so to blame for the lack of environmental consciousness in today's rapid fashion industry - The industry supplying the demand or the consumers creating the demand? (And can you please explain your answer)’ JO: ‘It is certainly a two way street! One fuels the other and they exist mutually. It goes back to price and commerciality being the leading factors for most customers when buying products. Obviously this does not apply to everyone which is why there are niche companies who focus on making total environmentally friendly products.’ SJ: ‘How much do you agree with the following statement and can you explain your answer? – ‘Most designers or product developers [buyers] would probably admit that they do not question the production processes involved in developing a fabric or recognise what negative environmental and social impacts may be associated with a fabric during the manufacture, use and disposal of a garment’ (Gwilt and Rissannen)’ JO: ‘I would agree in the way that in branded buying you are not shown the processes as you are buying a collection which is a fully completed product. Whilst it would be great for all products to adhere to socially and environmentally standards, this would only be commercially viable if it could be produced at the right price and sustain the right quality, as these are key.’ SJ: ‘How much do you agree with the following statement and can you explain your answer? - Fashion buying has become ‘driven purely by price. Yes, there are ethical contracts and criteria and stipulations, but it is almost impossible to apply these when you’re constantly pressing for bigger volumes to be turned around at breakneck speed. You can’t have everything.’ (Unanimous freelance fashion buying consultant interviewed by Lucy Siegle)’ JO: ‘I do agree that price, along with commerciality, trends and quality will override the demand for environmentally friendly products - which may lack in the above. Whilst customers may not want to compromise by paying a premium, there is a responsibility for the retailer to educate and communicate new processes which are better for the environment and to be more socially responsible. For large companies like ASOS the

supplier compliance and criteria are very strict and uniformed across the business with each supplier researched and agreed to our terms and conditions. Thankfully the fashion industry is not just full of value retailers but also caters for customers looking for luxury products where price is not the leading factor and quality is more important.’ SJ: ‘How much do you agree with the idea that product development within the fashion industry has become less buying/merchandising led and is now more consumer/lifestyle led?’ JO: ‘I think it is a pull from both sides. Buying is about knowing your customer, listening to demand whilst sourcing products which reflect what is going on in the wider environment.’ SJ: ‘Thank you so much for taking the time to answer all my questions!’ JO: ‘No problem!’

Appendices C â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Online Survey Data Question: What is your gender?

Request: Please rank the following questions in order of importance to yourself when making a decision about purchasing a fashion garment: (1 is the most important - 7 is the least important)

Question: Please rank these interlinked factors in order of how much we should priorities and value them as a nation? (1 being the most important - 3 being the least important)

Question: A garment is produced using environmentally conscious methods however doesn't sell due to being widely perceived as being aesthetically unpleasing. This garment is still considered to be an environmentally friendly garment. How much do you agree with this?

Request: Please rank the following factors of a fashion garment in order of importance: (1 being most important - 7 being the least important)

Request: Please rank each point of a garment's total life that you think generates the most negative environmental implications: (1 being the most environmentally damaging - 10 being the least environmentally damaging)

Question: Who do you think is more so to blame for the lack of environmental consciousness in today's rapid fashion industry?

Question: How old is the oldest garment that is in your wardrobe that you wear on a regular (monthly to every other month) basis? (From your possession, not the garment's total age e.g. vintage coat you've owned for 2 years)

Appendices D – Online Survey Data: ‘What is the first thing that comes to mind in relation to ‘eco-fashion’?’ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • •

A trend - A better word should be used to describe environmentally friendly fashion Brown Hemp hippies Green Hemp / Marijuana plant Ugly bold colours organic Trying to produce a product that has little impact in the environment Environmentally friendly Economic sustainably sourced material Expensive hippy..? Environmentally friendly substance over style Linen, bad designs, brown Hippies Hemp Ick Organic cotton new concept Hippies Hemp environment friendly fashion! friendly, cotton everlasting environmentally friendly. Recycled People tree Future People Tree Material that is environmentally friendly. Usually not too flattering YES!! Awareness Horrible cardigans Yay! More. Good initiative, but aesthetically dull. Green washing Recycled material No. Hahaha! Recycled garments From what I see on the high street products are labeled ECO because they use a 'green material' but it is the hole system a garment is designed into that really effects its impact on the environment. ECO is almost a false brand for people to feel better about their impact on the world rather than a considered system. Up-cycling, re-used materials. Always green! Where? I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT IT Environmentally friendly

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Clothing that doesn't harm the environment , generates less waste. Stella McCartney Hemp hippy clothing and hipsters ;) Sustainable Recycle Boring but inevitable environmentally friendly clothes hippy, expensive . Hemp Yes Fair-trade Expensive All the way! Clothing that is well designed and more expensive but similar in design to cheaper alternatives something that every designer and fashion house should begin to incorporate into their design process, not matter how small the change. On trend fashion green, sustainable, slow fashion, expensive, transparent, conscious boring. We need another word for eco! Turbo consumerism and fast fashion needs to change before "eco fashion" clothes become fashionable enough for consumers to start purchasing them. I must be dashin Vegan ...what? Not fast fashion Organic cotton Sustainability Green up and coming nonsense Organic go for it! Misunderstood Nice. Environment A fashion fad. Sustainable fashion is the way forward. Hippies! ugly brown fabrics charity shop Poor Quality, Very Thin and Flimsy Cardigan all fashion SHOULD be eco fashion GREEN AND HEMP Good. Hemp One Direction Hemp. H&M Conscious Collection. Not haute couture. Not catwalk. Specialist. The future Should be seen on the high street more. Great NEEDS TO BECOME THE NORM IN THE FASHION INDUSTRY renewal clothing YOLO. If it looks good, Just as affordable. sufficient quality. There is no excuse. Hemp

Appendices E â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Wardrobe Audit Data

Cotton % 100 100 100 100 100 100 36 100 100 100 100 73 100 100 80 100 77 100 100 50 100 50 100 100 50 100 100 50 100 100 100 100

Polyester % 100 64 100 100 100 20 23 100 50 100 100 50 48 100 23 30 100 100

2866

1308

Acrylic % 100 70 50 33

Wool % 30 80 50 44 50

Totals 253

254

Polyamide % 27 20 20 2

10. Personal & Professional Development

I have thoroughly enjoyed my final year of studies at London College of Fashion, it has been challenging and rewarding on a personal, professional and academic level.

The decision to live in Brighton during my final year offered a relaxed environment to conduct research and write my assignments. Although the commute to London for University was long, it offered time to read useful extracts and allowed me to prepare notes to discuss in tutorials. Although I enjoyed living in Brighton I am looking forward to return to the busyness of London in the hope of beginning a career in buying.

I knew from the outset of my final year that I wanted to focus on the exploration of environmentalism in fashion, due to being inspired while attending an Erasmus funded Sustainable Fashion Summer School in Copenhagen. Upon reading academic literature to provide an initial understanding of the topic, I was firstly overwhelmed by how big of a subject it is with many avenues that can be explored. Due to this I found it difficult to decide on what direction to focus, however after several early tutorials and further reading I came to a final decision and a working title to complete a research proposal.

I was initially overwhelmed by the large workload, especially in terms of word count. However creating a critical path for the research proposal helped decrease my fear, allowing me to break down the workload into mini-deadlines across several months. This made the project considerably less daunting and more of an exciting long-term project. I loosely followed the critical path and feel that my ability to manage time effectively has improved during the overall process.

I began reading a variety of useful extracts acquired on my computer however found this confusing due to it being difficult to fully absorb and understand the information. As a solution I printed various essential extracts from books, reports, articles and other sources to get two research files bound. This allowed me to make notes alongside extracts, describing information in my own way that helped me to fully understand concepts. These research files allowed me to easily carry around a wide amount of resources to read whenever I had free time.

Reading work from such a wide range of resources has helped me not only learn about the subject but also learn about the wide amount of perspectives that exist not only on environmental fashion but on other subjects as well, the most notable differences of perspective discovered lie in the favouring of either economic, ecologic or societal factors.

Combinations of academic and non-academic sources were used, including literature, journals, trade publications, magazines and various trusted online sources. I have gained a great insight into the vast amount of resources and information that is available to me, something that I didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t fully maximise in my previous years at University however believe Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve especially maximised whilst conducting research for this study.

I enjoyed conducting research personally, something I havenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t had great exposure to previously. I found it rewarding to apply what I learned from secondary research to my primary research activities as well as maximising use of contacts acquired whilst interning in my earlier years at University. The primary research that I enjoyed conducting and analysing the most was the online consumer survey, which allowed me to apply personally discovered findings alongside academic theories.

A weakness during the process existed in my lack of confidence in sentence structure and fear that I had made spelling or grammatical errors. I overcame this simply by taking the time to continually re-read my word, checking spelling, grammar and punctuation throughout. Although study support was available to me, which I did benefit from, as a whole I found working alone more beneficial to my development and learning which I believe strengthened my ability to work independently.

Achieving higher grades than anticipated in my two projects prior to my dissertation gave me confidence in my ability to conduct research and write at an academic level. This also motivated me to continue to put as much effort into my work as time allowed.

Being approached by the teaching staff of the course to take part in a talk alongside a fellow student to other students gave me further confidence in my academic abilities. Taking part in the talk allowed me to consider and voice my experiences and lessons learned while overcoming final year challenges.

I initially found it difficult to structure the dissertation and struggled to decide where each discussion belonged within the piece. However I overcame this by having several word document open while writing which allowed me to cut, copy and paste relevant ideas and findings around the dissertation until I found the most suitable and relevant place.

My familiarity and interest on the topic has grown during the researching and writing processes, which has increased my ability to discuss the specific topic. I wrote an article on the subject for Pigeons & Peacocks Magazine that was posted on their website, a quote from which has also been selected to be published in LCFâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 2014 Annual.

I greatly benefited from the lectures and seminars that took place throughout the year, which demonstrated best practise in academic research and writing. I enjoyed attending University each week, which provided an environment to discuss projects with other students, supporting each other throughout the process.

The tutorials with my personal tutor were greatly beneficial throughout the final year; answering my questions, ensuring I was on the right track and lessening my fears of making major mistakes in my work.

I believe the entire degree including working on this dissertation has provided me with a varied, strong and realistic foundation of industry knowledge to build upon as I begin pursuing a career in fashion. Number of words: 965