A: Amsterdam Fashion Week

The average catwalk might not be the greenest place on the planet. But there’s definitely a shade of green to be seen at the catwalks of Amsterdam Fashion Week.

In the past few years, The Green Fashion Competition served as the most prominent sustainable event on the Amsterdam Fashion Week agenda. Started in 2010 as a challenge for international designers to find a balance between the economic, ecological and social impacts of their collection, the competition enabled labels such as OAT Shoes, Elsien Gringhuis and Carrie Perry to present at Amsterdam Fashion Week.

In 2012 the government’s financial support to The Green Fashion Competition has ended, which has led the Amsterdam Fashion Week to look for new ways to incorporate sustainable fashion in its programme. Since 2013, that spot has been found predominantly in Amsterdam Fashion Week’s business programme. European not-for-profit organisation Made-By regularly hosts workshops, for instance to inform fashion brand about ways to make wet processing in their supply chain more sustainable.

Perhaps surprisingly, Amsterdam Fashion Week, which refused a ban on fur in 2012, has also hosted aworkshop by Bont voor Dieren (Fur for Animals, Dutch campaigners against fur). In a much-debated talk show in January 2013, Honest By designer Bruno Pieters and textiles manufacturer Ecological Textiles shared their experiences with sustainable collections and materials. And talked about the pros and cons of furfree fashion.

Meanwhile, sustainable collections that can often be seen on the Amsterdam catwalks include Studio Jux (a slow fashion label that produces its collections in their own factory in Nepal), MLY (a locally producing, artisanal green fashion designer based in Eindhoven), and Winde Rienstra (a finalist of The Green Fashion Competition in 2010). Brands with a green touch include Marga Weimans (who creates her own fabrics), Elise Kim (who embraces craftsmanship in her collections), Tessa Wagenvoort (who designs handprinted textiles), FREDFARROWBRITTAVELONTAN (a designer duo that celebrate handmade knits and artisanal embroideries) and Sophie #1234567+ (a designer collective whose approach to seasonal collections could be called slow).

And there’s a small consolation for eco fashion lovers that are unable to attend the invitation only press events at Amsterdam Fashion Week. The downtown programme, which is open to the public, often includes collection presentations by sustainable fashion brands, such as Shekila Eco Fashion and O My Bag.

A: Alternatives to mainstream fashion

Ever changing trends, the continuous creation of new must-haves, constant pressures on reducing labor costs. The fashion industry does not generally serve as a model for sustainability. So do we need to develop an alternative fashion system? Some experts are convinced we do – and very soon too.

According to cradle to cradle philosophy, a closed loop system will be infinitely more sustainable than the current linear process. In the fashion industry, this would mean that clothing would be recycled into new products without creating any garbage. That’s not an easy feat, even for vintage loving designers. In fact, for an eco-efficient, cradle to cradle proof fashion system to become a reality, designers would need to take into account the future recycling options (‘designing for recycling’). An example is making garments made of one type of fabric – and using recyclable elements such as zippers and labels – so that they can be re-used in their entirety.

As cradle to cradle is considered to be a rather complicated business model, sustainable fashion pioneers have also suggested other alternatives to the contemporary fashion system. Slow fashion is probably the most popular one. Fast fashion is often associated with trend driven, low quality, cheap items that contribute to labor exploitation in production countries and to throwawayism among Western consumers. In response, slow fashion has produced timeless, high quality collections that are meant to be worn for a long time.

Needless to say, slow fashion cannot compete with fast fashion when it comes to price. What’s more, given the current pace of fashion trends, slow fashion designers have difficulties to increase their market share. In a sense, slow fashion suffers the same fate as cradle to cradle design: if the mainstream fashion system does not change at its root, these alternatives have little hope of keeping up.

Does all this sound abstract to you? Being aware of what you buy can be a first step towards an alternative (in the sense of: more sustainable) fashion style. Items with a price tag that is too good to be true are just that. Someone else – put bluntly: most likely some overworked, underfed employee in a low wage country – will pay the costs. Environmentally friendly fabrics may not sound too sexy, but there are ever more attractive options available, ranging from lyocell to eco linen. And let’s not forget the increasingly trendy swapping parties, vintage stores and upcycling collections.

Adopting a slow fashion attitude will also require cherishing the items in your wardrobe, creating your own style regardless of seasonal trends. Another must-do: hiring or lending special items you’re not likely to wear often, such as wedding party outfits.

In the end , it all comes down to that good old cliché: buy less, choose well. Now that does not sound too complicated, does it?

A: Animals in fashion

Massages for horses, designer wear for dogs, aroma therapy for cats. Thanks to a growing wellness industry, we’re able to pamper our pets in unprecedented ways. (Antidepressants for rabbits, anyone?). But while we spoil Beauty, Buddy and Tiger, our daily outfit is far from animal friendly. And we’re not just talking about fur here.

Just think about the ubiquitous jeans. Every year, about 50 billion pairs of jeans are made worldwide. In the Chinese town of Xintang, the effects of the large-scale production of denim have become clearly visible. The rivers and lakes in the vicinity of the city, which produces some 260 million jeans every year, have come to be colored the darkest of blues – the result of (illegal) dumping of dyes and chemicals. Needless to say, these toxic chemicals have negative effects on the environment, and are life threatening to fish and other waterlife.

And the fashion industry poses other threats to the world’s aquatic life as well. One clothing item made of polyester can emit more than 1900 fibers per wash – and these all add up to the island of plastic waste that is floating somewhere between Australia and Africa. Experts estimate that every year about 100.000 sea mammals and one million sea birds die as a result of this plastic soup.

Do woolen jumpers offer viable alternatives to polyester tops? That’s doubtful. Traditional wool production in Australia is based on large-scale cattle farming which involves practices such as mulesing and tail cutting. Closer to home, wool is largely a byproduct of the meat industry – with all the hormones and antibiotics that come with it.

What about silk, you wonder? In order to produce silk, caterpillars are cultivated and then boiled alive. Only in the production of so-called peace silk are caterpillars’ pods harvested after the butterflies have outgrown them, which means no animals die in the process. But because peace-silk creates fabrics of lower quality than conventional silk, it’s rather rare in the fashion industry.

When it comes to shoes and accessories, animal lovers better pay attention too. Leather production does not only involve a lot of hazardous chemicals and, in some low wage countries, child labor. For animals, it’s no fun either. Reports by international research organizations have repeatedly shown that in India, which produces leather for amongst others European shoe brands, illegal factories tend to skin cows alive. Producers of fake Uggs have been accused of illegally killing raccoon dogs.

And if this weren’t too much bad news already, there is of course jewelry made of pearls and ivory. Even though the ivory trade in Africa and China has been forbidden since the 1980s, illegal trade has continued. The African elephant is now one of the most endangered species on the continent.

Now let’s not spoil the average World Pet Day with too many depressive thoughts. Because there’s also good news.
Greenpeace has convinced labels such as G-Star, C&A, H&M, Nike and Adidas to put an end to clothing factories dumping hazardous chemicals in rivers and lakes. Because the global clothing industry is based on a large number of subcontractors, it’s unlikely the production process will be cleaned up in a few years. But the ambition is to end pollution in 2020 at its latest.

The fight against the plastic soup has so far focused primarily on reducing the use of bags and packaging. But experts have called upon fashion brands and washing machines producers to develop new methods to prevent plastic fibers from being emitted during consumer washing. Until they do, we’d better avoid buying polyester and fleece cloths and minimize washing the polyesters that we already own.

In the case of wool, consumers can also make a positive difference. Organic wool production is more animal friendly than conventional cattle farming. Sheep (and goats as well) are kept with ample space to graze, fed with organic food and not treated with antibiotics. What’s more, mulesing is not allowed in organic farms. Clothes made from organic (or even recycled) wool are therefore a good choice for animal lovers who just love the look & feel of wool.

Finally, let’s not forget that there are plenty of imitation fabrics that are animal friendly as well as comfortable to wear and stylishly fashionable. Think: imitation silk, faux leather, fake suede and imitation pearls. Linen, rubber and hemp all provide excellent fabrics for shoes. Creative producers are even working towards bioengineered, i.e. labgrown, animalfree leather. And let’s face it: who really needs real fur to keep warm in our rainy climate?

B: Bangladesh

With approximately 28 euros per month per month it has the lowest minimum wage in the world for factory workers. Between 2006 and 2012 more than 800 clothing factory workers have been killed as a result of fire and building violations. An estimated 4500 textile factories in the country are unsafe. And although officially banned, the deadly sandblasting technique is still in use in sweatshops. These are some of the sad facts about the 15 billion euro textile industry in Bangladesh.

These unfair labour practices, although taking place in a distant country, are not unrelated to our wardrobes. Bangladesh is among the top three producers of European clothing. H&M is the largest buyer of clothing in Bangladesh. The Rana Plaza factory disaster, which killed over 1000 garment workers in April 2013, demonstrated unequivocally that Bangladeshi factories produce for high street retailers such as Zara and Benetton.

So what can be done to make things better? In Spring 2013, the Dutch government announced its intention to coordinate international donations and efforts to improve factory safety in Bangladesh for the next two years, which would result in a widely shared action plan. In the meantime, a growing number of international fashion retailers, including H&M, C&A, Tommy Hilfiger and Calvin Klein, have signed the binding Fire and Building Safety Agreement which was initiated by the Clean Clothes Campaign amongst others.

Worryingly, companies such as Disney have announced to stop producing in Bangladesh, and move business to countries such as Myanmar and Thailand. Obviously this wouldn’t help garment workers in Bangladesh, nor contribute to fair labour practices in its rival developing countries. Another challenge concerns our clothing shopping habits. A Dutch survey held a mere week after the Rana Plaza factory collapse revealed that just 24% of consumers intend to check clothing labels in shops in order to see where an item was made. No more than 1% of Dutch consumers think they are responsible for the Rana Plaza tragedy. The majority of respondents says it’s primarily up to the Bangladesh government and factory owners to take action.

The good news is that the Dhaka factory collapse has put the labour rights situation in Bangladesh's garment industry firmly on the agenda of governments, brands, retailers as well as consumers. This awareness could put the spotlights on fashion labels that are producing ethically in Bangladesh, such as Tulsi Crafts and People Tree. And surely once Western consumers become familiar with the appeal of these types of brands, they will be more likely to embrace sustainable collections in favour of the cheap, fast fashion that is at the root of the problems in the Bangladesh garment industry?

B: Bamboo

As bamboo clothing becomes ever more popular, an increasing number of critics openly question its green nature, it seems. Bamboo being a plant that grows quickly without the need for irrigation, pesticides and fertilizers, its fibers have increasingly been promoted as environmentally friendly. Add to that the positive features that we tend to ascribe to a fabric made from plants plus bamboo clothing’s silky feel, and bamboo’s popularity among a green consumer audience becomes understandable. Companies like Green Daddy, Under the sun and Royal Bamboo benefit from this trend.

Perhaps in response to this, critics of bamboo – and they’re not always eco cynics – have become more vocal in citing the downsides. Bamboo fibers are made by dissolving cellulose into chemicals and creating what’s called a viscose solution. And viscose, as everyone will know, is a man-made fiber that does not score well on sustainability. In Made-By’s environmental benchmark, viscose fibers (including bamboo viscose) are classified as E, which means they are the least sustainable option available to clothing producers. What’s more, bamboo is not biodegradable and as the fashion industry often uses bamboo-cotton blends, bamboo clothing is difficult to recycle.

So should we steer clear from bamboo clothing and accuse companies promoting its sustainability of greenwashing? It’s not that simple. There are ways to mechanically produce bamboo fibers for clothing production and these do not use chemical treatments (although the subsequent dyeing processes tend to be far from clean). Because these production methods are relatively expensive, they are less common than viscose, but of course when the market for bamboo fabrics grows these costs may decrease.

In addition, experts agree on one thing when it comes to sustainable fabrics: our planet will benefit from a fashion industry that embraces a diversity of fibers. And that would mean that bamboo could have a considerable role to play in clothing production. That role may be more modest that its current proponents may wish. But then it’s up to us consumers to make greener choices, choosing not only appealing materials like bamboo, but also its sustainable counterparts like hemp and nettle. And let’s face it, don’t these good old fibers deserve a chance in our closets too?

B: Big brands

H&M has agreed to stop using toxic and nonbiodegradable perfluorinated compounds (PFCs for short) in their outerwear by 2013. Nike has recycled more than 28 million pairs of athletic shoes through their Reuse-a-Shoe program. And as a result of Greenpeace actions, brands like Puma, Adidas and C&A have promised to stop their clothing factories from dumping hazardous chemicals in nearby rivers.

As these examples show, a growing number of international fashion companies are taking up the challenge to produce in more sustainable ways. Brands like H&M and Puma have developed ambitious CSR programmes, which include targets about topics as diverse as the use of water based adhesives in shoe production and CO2 emissions.

The general consensus is that large companies are crucial to changing the fashion industry and improving the environmental and social issues at stake. For example, the buying power of players such as C&A and Zara means that they can decisively stimulate organic cotton trade.

At the same time, due to their global operations, multinationals have difficulties controlling their supply chain. For instance, production for H&M takes place at approximately 1650 supplier factories around the world. Controlling labor conditions in all these factories – and the many subcontractors that are often involved as well – is no easy feat.

According to many of the upcoming sustainable fashion brands, producing clothes ethically may be more difficult for large, established companies than for young, small labels. The current forerunners in sustainable fashion are often small, visionary companies that have embraced corporate social responsibility from the start. Contrary to large corporations that are now pressured into changing their ways of doing business, ecofashion labels have sustainability in their genes. As a consequence, they are able to quickly adopt new strategies and develop innovations.

It may therefore come as no surprise that The Ethical Fashion Consultancy’s Ilaria Pasquinelli has claimed that sustainable innovations have come primarily from small companies with visionary, highly specialized designers and product developers. Only these types of companies are able to have the ideas and flexibility to be unique and stay ahead of the masses, Pasquinelli says. If this is true, we’d better support the pioneering fashion brands that have put sustainability on the fashion agendas – from People Tree to Kuyichi, RE-5 and Camilla Norrback. Enjoy!

C: Cynics (they can live green too)

Vanessa Farquharson, of the blog Green as a thistle and the book 'Sleeping naked is green', knows all about the changes towards a greener lifestyle. And ecofashionistas, please read on, because Farquharsons account of 366 days of greener living include quite a few pieces of advice for those of you working towards a sustainable closet.

Here are some of the clothing & textiles related things that Canada’s former eco cynic did to improve the environment.
291. Only buying organic, unbleached cotton towels.
153. Buying organic cotton or bamboo bedsheets.
327.Only buying handmade, bamboo or organic cotton blankets.
219. Only buying wooden hangers, preferably used.
16. Using tote bags, no more plastic bags.
158. Only buying eco-friendly jewellery.
233. Only buying organic cotton underwear.
156. Not buying any leather.
167. Only buying eco-friendly shoes.
265. Knitting scarves instead of buying them.
270. Learning to sew and mend clothes.
93. Recycling anything and everything that can be recycled — no excuses.
362.Recycling old running shoes.
171. Buying and donating clothes to Goodwill and other thrift stores.
227. Borrowing and sharing.
260. Not bothering with any rubber charity wristbands or ribbon campaigns.

Now, who’s up for a similar challenge?

C: Consumer waste

A coat made from recycled materials that costs half as much as it would be if it had been made from virgin wool. That’s the first shwop coat by Marks & Spencer. The limited edition coat, which hit the stores in October 2012, is the first tangible result of Marks & Spencer’s shwopping initiative. With shwopping, the British retailer encourages customers to donate an old item of clothing to charity every time they come into the store to buy something new. In collaboration with Oxfam and Italian fibre manufacturers, Marks & Spencer upcycles these donations into new must-haves.

It turns out that Marks & Spencer receives lots of unwanted clothes that are suitable for recycling: in the first six months of the shwopping initiative, a staggering one million clothes have been donated. That’s no mean feat: in the United Kingdom, approximately 1 billion clothes end up as landfill each year.

Shwopping may sound revolutionary, but there are several other innovative clothing companies embracing recycling. Retailers like Eileen Fisher and Patagonia have been accepting returns of their worn products for quite some time. Fisher resells them in her Green Eileen retail store, while Patagonia recycles theirs into new products.

Patagonia is known for its imaginative approach to sustainability in fashion. It’s famous ‘Don’t buy this jacket’ campaign called upon consumers to think twice before buying something new. Advertising a fleece jacket made from 60% recycled polyester, Patagonia wrote: ‘We ask you to buy less and to reflect before you spend a dime on this jacket or anything else.’ Now that’s a remarkable challenge posed by a company that’s been among the most sustainable brands in the fashion world for many years. Marks & Spencer still have a long way to go, I’d say.

C: Campaigning

If everyone keeps their promises, environmental issues in clothing production will be significantly reduced in 2020. Because with its Detox Campaign, Greenpeace have pressured internationally operating fashion brands such as H&M, G-Star, Nike and Adidas to eliminate toxic discharge in their supply chain by 2020. Successfully so. A growing number of fashion companies, ranging from M&S to Victoria’s Secret, have pledged to engage with their clothing factories in order to prevent hazardous chemicals, such as dyes and bleaches, from polluting water (including the rivers that local communities are dependent upon for their daily water supplies...).

Campaigning has been a consistent element in the sustainable fashion movement. With the Detox Fashion campaign Greenpeace has been one of the most creative environmental activists to join the anti fast fashion movement. Of course, the worldwide Clean Clothes Campaign has been putting the spotlights on the negative side effects of our (cheap) fashion consumption for years. And for designers like Vivienne Westwood and Katherine Hamnett, campaigning for a more green & fair fashion world has been part of their ways of doing business. (Yes, that's the power of slogan shirts for you).

With sustainability and corporate social responsibility becoming ever more popular in the world of fashion, it seems that activism is being gradually supplemented with, if not replaced by, business consultancy and consumer support. Even Greenpeace has indicated a willingness to collaborate with fashion brands to assist them in detoxing their supply chain. In addition, initiatives such as Rankabrand.nl, GoodGuide and Fashioning Change provide consumers with resources to make their shopping carts more fair and green. Because as the concept of Changeanomics suggests, consumers voting with their wallets may be just as crucial to a more sustainable fashion industry than activists campaigning.

C: Competitions

China may be better known for its mass production than haute couture. But it’s also home to a growing number of sustainable fashion designers. Enter the Ecochic Design Award, the nation’s first mainstream ecofashion design competition. Aimed at stimulating textile-waste-reducing designs, 10 finalists compete for the top prize: the chance to design a sustainable collection using innovatively recycled textiles for Esprit. In 2012, the prize went to Gong Jia Qi, a student at the Raffles Design Institute in Shanghai. Gong reconstructed five garments using unsold stock from Taobao, one of China’s leading online retailers.

In the Netherlands, the Amsterdam Fashion Week and Ministry of Economic Affairs first supported young ecofashion designers in 2010, when the The Green Fashion Competition was launched. The Green Fashion Competition serves as a talent show challenging fashion designers to balance the social, ecological and economical impacts of their ideas. The award winners receive a sum of money that they can use to make new collections, as well as an individual coaching programme stimulating their corporate social responsibility and marketing skills. In addition, the Amsterdam Fashion Week allows the first prize winner to show a new collection as part of its catwalk programme. Dutch topmodel Lonneke Engel being ambassador of the competition, the winners are likely to receive plenty of media attention.

Between 2010 and 2012, The Green Fashion Competition, which was open to international designers and labels, awarded prizes to sustainable design talents such as Elsien Gringhuis, Carrie Parry and Studio Jux. According to Lonneke Engel, the competition has put the spotlights on the Netherlands as a forerunner in eco & fair fashion. What’s more, because the prize winners receive plenty of information and support, they are more likely to develop a profitable as well as people & planet-friendly business. And it remains to be seen if the Ecochic Design Award can also achieve that.

D: Do’s & don’t’s

With eco-chic becoming ever more popular, there is a growing range of shopping suggestions, style advice and must-do lists. One of the most practical guides is 12 Rules To Dress By, an initiative by jewelry designer Amisha Ghadiali who has been fighting for a green and fair fashion industry since 2008.

So how do these 12 Rules To Dress By work? The Elegance Rebellion website provides a handy overview of the basic rules, which consumers are encouraged to keep in their wardrobes and wallets in order to prevent unnecessary purchases and make the most sustainable style choices. In addition, the 12 Rules To Dress By poster includes a wardrobe checklist to keep track of the contents of your closet.

The rules include relatively simple principles such as buy fair trade, choose organic fabrics, and ask yourself if you really need something new. But Elegance Rebellion also suggest you’d research ethical designers, ask shop assistants about the origin of the clothing, and upcycle old clothes into new ones.

It may not be easy to follow each of the 12 Rules To Dress By all the time. In fact, it took Amisha Ghadiali two years to work them out and make them part of her daily routine. For anyone who’s just started that challenging journey towards a sustainable wardrobe, it will be a relief to know that there are many ways to reach that destination. Buy less is a simple yet effective way to start. Rent or borrow clothing for special occasions, such as weddings, is another. And what’s difficult about taking care of your clothes: washing them sparsely and at low temperatures, repairing them when necessary – and making them last?

And let’s not forget the don’t’s. Dumping clothes in the garbage can, washing at high temperatures and using a tumbler dryer are definite no-no’s when it comes to a green wardrobe. The same goes for buying cheap clothing and frequenting fast fashion stores. Now how difficult can that be?

E: Eco-chic

A fashion paradox. That is how Sandy Black describes ecofashion in her book 'Eco-chic'. How can an industry that thrives on innovation, trends and newness ever be green? It is safe to say that a growing number of sustainable fashion designers have found a way out of this dilemma. They embrace slow design, casting no more than a sideward glance on trends.

Which items are typical must-haves for lovers of slow fashion? Obviously, the little black dress, pencil skirt, trench coat, cardigan and a good pair of jeans are the kind of classics that slow designers happily introduce to today's fashion scene. Designers such as Monique van Heist also remake coveted items such as boyfriend pants, the jumpsuit, biker jacket and leggings. These items sometimes return in her collection in a new color or different fabric, thus expanding the lifespan of her designs.

Slow fashion may be no more than a niche in today's shopping street, its proponents believe in its positive future. In order to become mainstream, slow fashion labels have to overcome at least two hurdles. First of all, slow fashion can never compete with fast fashion when it comes to price. Therefore, in times of economic downfall, slow fashion businesses will not have it easy. Secondly, the pace of slow fashion does not seem to match with consumer attitudes to buying clothing. We're used to buying a new piece of clothing on an almost weekly basis. How can slow fashion, which launches an average of two new collections per year, provide consumers with enough goodies to keep them happy?

It is here that the paradox of slow fashion comes to fore with particular force. As Sandy Black concludes in 'Eco-chic', we need to investigate how much we consume and how we can challenge the paradigm of growth and change that drives current fashion. Therefore, the future success of slow fashion lies in the hands of consumers.

F: Facts & Figures

You may be vaguely aware of the fact that a green clothing style is not something you’d need to consider some time in a distant future. But maybe – probably? – the urgency of greenifying your closet has not come home to you quite yet. Fret not. Here are some facts & figures that make clear the importance of working towards a sustainable lifestyle. Once you’ve read them, is there still an excuse for not taking immediate action?

According to research by Elizabeth Cline, Americans buy an average of one new clothing item per week.
Almost half of the American population (48%) trash re-usable clothing, says USAgain.
Less than a third of US consumers (31%) is prepared to pay more for environmentally friendly clothing, according to a 2011 study. A staggering 49% say they're definitely not to willing to pay extra.

In 2012, a UK study found that in the average British household 30% of clothing has not been worn for a year. This equals 1.7 billion unused items.
One in five Britons are wearing items only once before throwing them away, a survey of 2200 UK consumers by M&S found in spring 2012.
In 2001, two Guardian journalists calculated that a pair of jeans sold in the UK had travelled 40.000 miles and visited 13 different countries before hitting the store.

One in five Dutch citizens admitted in 2012 not knowing which clothing is suitable for donating.
Dutch consumers tend to use their jeans for a considerable amount of time. In 2010, the lifespan of a pair of jeans in a Dutch closet was 1 to 3 years.
According to a 2012 survey, 89% of female consumers in the Netherlands prefer sustainable clothing to conventional fashion.

According to estimates, the production of a woolen suit requires the use of 685.000 liters of water.
It is estimated that in cases where production is out sourced to a developing world country, workers' wages only account for between 0.5 to 4% of the final retail cost of a garment.
During the production of a clothing item, 15% of the fabric will be binned, says Sass Brown in her book 'Ecofashion'.
Textile waste takes up 5% of the global landfill space.
A large part of carbon emissions (70%) related to clothes results from consumer behavior, not the production of cotton or distribution.
An average clothing item can be washed 52 times before it’s worn out.
Every year, approximately 50 million animals worldwide are killed for fur. This includes an estimated two million cats and dogs.
The environmental impact of one kilo fur is five times as big as the climate impacts of one kilo of textiles.

G: Greenwashing (do your own bit of it)

The fashion industry is no stranger to accusations of greenwashing. Elaborate reports on Corporate Social Responsibilty suggest that people, planet & profit are in perfect harmony in the everyday business practices of Nike, Puma, H&M and C&A (to name but a few of the brands that go to considerable lengths to explain their sustainable ambitions). At the same time, ngo’s and media regularly report on illegal dumping of chemical substances, child labour and other not very sustainable practices in clothing factories producing for those very same brands.

It seems that the chances of fashion companies engaging in greenwashing are getting bigger every day, now that green fashion is ever more en vogue. While it’s business as usual in the design and production departments, the marketing offices are doing overtime to build a green image and to attract a new group of (environmentally aware) consumers.

The good news is that we can do some green washing ourselves – with immediate positive effects on the environmental friendliness of our wardrobes. A study by Dutch research bureau CE Delft on environmental effects of clothing and textiles suggests that two phases in the lifecycle of a clothing item have the biggest (negative) impact: the production of raw fibers (especially cotton and wool) and consumers’ laundry habits. No less than 32 percent of the effects of clothing on issues such as fossil depletion and climate change result from the way we wash and dry our clothes.

So no matter how unfashionable it may sound, truly green consumers would not only need to think about the sustainability of their clothing purchases. They would also need to consider washing less frequently, washing at low temperatures and ban the tumble dryer. Now that’s what I’d call green washing.

H: High fashion with hemp

Does that make you high? It’s a question that always seems to be asked about clothing made from hemp. Sustainable fabrics like nettle (doesn’t that sting?) and bamboo (isn’t that depriving the panda from its favorite food?) are fighting similar public misconceptions. (Because the answer to all three questions is, of course, a firm no). Hemp also has another battle to fight: it tends to be seen as a coarse, inflexible fabric suitable only for workmen’s pants and similarly unfashionable items.

Understandably, proponents of hemp are vocal about the stylishness as well as the environmental benefits of its fabrics. By blending hemp with softer fabrics such as cotton, it becomes possible to create a versatile garment with a great fit. And because natural fabrics such as hemp and cotton are breathable, they are comfortable to wear. What’s more, hemp threads are strong and therefore a perfect base for making long-lasting clothes. A pair of trousers made from hemp is estimated to last more than five times longer than a cotton one.

The environmentally friendly properties of hemp fabrics are more controversial. At first sight, the benefits appear obvious: hemp is a fast growing plant that needs little water, pesticides or fertilizers. Cultivation does not lead to soil erosion and is highly efficient when it comes to land use: yields are reported to be two to five times higher than cotton.

Like bamboo, hemp cultivation raises environmental issues primarily in the fiber processing stages. Generally, vast amounts of chemicals are used during the processing of coarse stalks into fibers. Manual processing is possible, but – again, like bamboo – is more expensive and therefore less common.

Another issue concerns the energy-intensive distribution networks that are inextricably connected to the current hemp production facilities. India and China are the largest producers of hemp, whereas the United States are crucial in the garment production. A piece of hemp clothing often has travelled literally around the world before it reaches your closet.

Centuries ago, the use of hemp for clothing was fairly common in the Netherlands. Nowadays, hemp cultivation has become virtually extinct (for clothing production, that is!). Several European research projects have attempted to revive the industry, developing new plant varieties and creating networks between cultivation and processing of fibers on the one hand design and production of clothes on the other. So far, none of these initiatives have resulted in local production facilities. (In fact, in 2009, the Dutch police reportedly destroyed the only test field of hemp plants because they were under the impression it was related to drugs production).

In the mean time, China is anxious to expand its hemp production, which would offer considerable benefits for its labor force. First, it would free large areas of cotton-growing land for food production. In addition, hemp cultivation promises to generate extra income for millions of small-scale farmers in some of the country’s poorest rural areas. If this is true, we’d better tackle that image issue soon …

I: Investment dressing

Critics of fast fashion can’t seem to stop talking about the throwawayism associated with cheap, trend driven clothing. They propagate slowing down our consumption habits, which means buying fewer garments that are classic and will last for years. Enter investment pieces, those instant classics that are meant to be a basic, long-term part of every woman’s wardrobe.

With consumers becoming ever more dissatisfied with fast fashion – feeling the constant pressure to buy into new trends every season, and being confronted with low quality garments that quickly fall apart – its slow counterpart is gaining momentum. However, for those accustomed to affordable fashion the price tag of the average investment pieces can be a setback.

A tool called cost-per-wear provides new insights in this issue. How does this work? First estimate how many times a newly bought garment will be worn during its lifespan. Then, calculate how much each wear would cost. (Advanced users of this method also take into account the number of items in the wardrobe that it can be worn with). According to experts, this would often make clear that a high quality, organic garment that you will covet for years actually costs less per wear than a cheaper option that is quickly worn out.

Consumers who are willing to put this theory into practice appear to have one more hurdle to take: finding the right investment pieces. Unfortunately, an ethical production process is no guarantee for a high quality garment. The same goes for designer labels and high retail prizes. In addition, it can be difficult to assess an item’s future-proof design. Will that bootcut jean, colorful beach dress or wedge heel belong to your wardrobe staples for the next five or ten years, or will you soon get tired of them?

A good way to overcome these issues is by taking a long, hard look at your current wardrobe. Which items are more than five years old and still wearable? How come they have retained their value? Are you still wearing them, and why (not)? By exploring these questions, it will become clear not only which elements tend to characterize high quality clothes, but also which type of clothing you’ll be inclined to covet for many years. And with that knowledge, it’s safe to take those exciting new steps towards a sustainable wardrobe.

J: Jeans

Eco-chic is a paradox, says Sandy Black. And that seems particularly true when we look at sustainable denim. Having a history as workwear, jeans have originally been long-lasting garments. But today, denim has become a trend item that is likely to be thrown away before it’s worn out.

There are other reasons why jeans are not the most likely candidates for green fashion. Denim is generally made from cotton, which is infamous for having negative environmental impacts. The ecological footprint of a pair of jeans tends to be even bigger than the energy consumption of your average cotton garment. In order to give jeans its classic blue color, an above average amount of water, chemicals and dyes are used. In addition, jeans production is characterized by a global distribution system that inevitably leads to considerable carbon emissions. In 2001, two British journalists calculated that a pair of jeans sold in the UK had travelled no less than 40.000 miles (65.000 kilometers) – and had visited a total of 13 different countries – before it reached an Ipswhich store.

And the production of a pair of jeans affects people just as much as our planet. As Greenpeace campaigns have demonstrated, denim factories in China producing for Western brands such as G-Star, C&A and H&M have repeatedly engaged in illegal dumping of waste water. This affects the health of water life in rivers and seas as well as the well-being of local communities that are dependent upon these for their water supplies.

Sandblasting is another pressing issue in the denim industry. This popular method aimed at giving jeans a worn look has serious health consequences for factory workers. Sandblasting can even lead to death, resulting from chronic lung diseases.

Now before you get depressed and ban jeans from your wardrobe: there are numerous initiatives to make the industry greener and fairer. Labels as diverse as Kuyichi, H&M, C&A and Nudie Jeans include organic cotton in their denim collection, thus reducing the toxicity of jeans fabrics. Replay, Girbaud and Levi’s experiment with water saving dyeing methods. And in 2011, G-Star launched its first unique denim collection made from (part) nettle.

Textile recycling provides another perspective on sustainable denim. Brands such as Kings of Indigo have incorporated the re-use of second-hand clothing and fabric in their day to day business. Customers can donate their worn items which will be re-used in new collections. And by re-using previous collections, denim brands avoid having to resort to sandblasting: the vintage look is of course the logical result of pre-used textiles.

Are you anxious to start greenifying your denim style? There’s no need to start flashing your credit card. The environmental impact of a pair of jeans relates for 50% not to its production but to its use phase. This means that you can significantly reduce the ecological footprint of your favorite jeans by washing it sparsely and at low temperatures, wearing it for many years , and donating it to charity after extensive use. And to make this lifestyle change easier, it is recommended to buy jeans that are likely to stand the test of time. Such as instant classics made by Levi’s, Denham the Jeanmaker or Atelier Tossijn. I bet you’ll be looking eco-chic!

K: Killer fashion

“Change has to be subtle. When a woman alters her look too much from season to season, she becomes a fashion victim.” This is, according to Terry Agins’ ‘The end of fashion’, a statement by Georgio Armani . Pitiable as fashion addicted women may be, there are more victims of the fashion industry.

According to a 2012 documentary, every hour one cotton former in India commits suicide. Other estimates suggest that the wave of so-called GM genocide in India means that suicides occur every 30 minutes. The cotton farmers are desperate because they cannot pay back the loans that have been forced on them by seed companies. Crop yields tend to be lower than promised, which makes it impossible for farmers to return the 7% interest rates.

Casualties also occur in other clothing production countries. For example, in Uzbekistan, every year almost 2 million children are forced to pick cotton during harvest season. Child labor is not uncommon in other parts of the world either. Dutch research centre SOMO has repeatedly shown that garments for several US and European brands and retailers are being produced by young girls in the South Indian region of Tamil Nadu under exploitative working conditions.

And then there are of course animal victims. In Defence of Animals claims that 50 million animals are killed for fur on a yearly basis. Animal lovers will also be sad to hear about the many stories about mulesing. And did you know about illegal leather production in India, where cows (yes, those animals considered holy in that very same country) are skinned alive?

Knowing all this, it’s laudable that Puma has made tentative steps to diminish the use of leather in its sneaker collections. This could turn out to contribute to the welfare of people in the lothing production industry as well. Because not only animals suffer in current shoe production practices. The hazardous chemicals that are widely used to tan leather also negatively affect workers’ health and lives. I wonder if Mr. Armani is aware of the thousands of animals and people that are the true victims of the global fashion industry?

L: Local fashion

Wool made of British sheep. Clothing made of nettle grown in the Dutch polder. Shoes made in Italy. The European production of clothing and shoes is a niche market. Textile production having been moved to low wage countries in Asia, Africa and South America, very little of our current wardrobe has been made locally. The negative environmental and social effects of this shift have become evident. To name but a few: energy intensive global distribution processes, water pollution, child labor in cotton harvesting, and sweatshops where factory workers earn less than a living wage while working 80 to 100 hours per week.

The gravity of these issues have stimulated sustainable fashion labels to search for more planet & people friendly production processes. At the same time, pressure by Greenpeace, the Clean Clothes Campaign and others have made mainstream fashion companies more aware of the need to consider the environmental and social impacts of their ways of doing business in low wage countries. What’s more, recent developments in Asia, where wages are getting higher and transport costs are increasing, have made these companies consider the benefits of producing closer to home.

In the UK, initiatives like Handmade in Britain and the Campaign for Wool have attempted to stimulate local textile and fashion production. For consumers, local enterprises promise to offer high quality, often unique products with a good story – about authenticity, heritage and sustainability.

In a similar vein, a growing number of Dutch fashion designers have chosen to work with local production facilities. Many of these are (subsidized) sewing studios for disadvantaged groups, including physically challenged men, women with a psychiatric background, immigrants who don’t yet speak Dutch or teenagers who have dropped out of school. The reason why labels such as Ellen Willink, Coverbee, i-did and Ami-e-toi work with these production facilities is not just out of a concern with labor standards in low wage countries and a commitment to enable vulnerable groups to participate in the job market. They also take into account the environmental benefits of producing locally. And the fact that they create unique, feelgood products? For all of us consumers that’s a free bonus.

L: Lease a jeans

The circular economy, cradle to cradle, upcycling. They’re all sustainability ideas that the average fashion consumer might find difficult to grasp. Enter the fashion concept launched by MudJeans. Presented as the world’s first rental denim, MudJeans’ lease a jeans concept makes the idea of a circular economy both tangible and affordable.

By signing a lease contract and paying a first installment, MudJeans customers embrace a new, sustainable way of using fashion. After 12 months, the jeans can be sent back to MudJeans, which will take care of recycling or upcycling each garment. The consumer will receive a discount on a new pair of jeans, which can be either be rented or bought.

According to MudJeans CEO Bert van Son, the lease a jeans concept aims to make sustainable fashion affordable for consumers while at the same time stimulating recycling within the fashion industry.

MudJeans is a Dutch casual wear label that has embraced sustainability as part of their business practices since their start in 2007. MudJeans uses organic, fair trade cotton and other sustainable fabrics (such as recycled PET) and works together with partners in Italy to re-use and upcycle all denim. For the lease a jeans collection, which started off with four types of jeans - two for women and two for men - MudJeans has designed for recycling, for instance by avoiding the use of any leather labels and by choosing organic cotton yarns.

MudJeans has even thought of denim lovers who tend to grow attached to their favorite pair of jeans. The lease a jeans concept allows them to extend the lease contract for many months more. In addition, the MudJeans webstore also includes items that can simply be bought instead of leased.

L: Laundry balls for greenwashing

According to a Dutch lab test of laundry balls, which use mineral salts or magnetic materials designed to replace washing powder, two out of three of these supposedly environmentally friendly laundry detergents are actually non-effective.

The results of the Ecowasbal and Green FX ball on stained cotton shirts were exactly the same as doing your laundry in a washing machine without any detergent at all. The Ecozone wash ball provided mixed results: some stains disappeared, while others merely discolored.

The test led to quite a few public debates. Experts concluded that ordinary washing powder was evidently an entirely different league than laundry balls – even though the latter advertise themselves as a simple, effective and economical way to care for clothes. Satisfied consumers indignantly protested that their clothing became perfectly clean with eco laundry balls.

Of course, this debate is not new: over the past few years, several consumer groups in countries all over the world have come to similar conclusions as the Dutch lab. The US Federal Trade Commission has even accused a number of washing balls manufacturers of fraudulent claims. New technologies, such as Woolzies’ handmade dryer balls a made from New Zealand wool that promise to reduce static and wrinkles and also cut back drying time by 25% per load, are as yet untested by independent organizations.

So why are there still so many happy consumers, some of who are even willing to defend the washing balls in the face of a growing evidence of their ineffectiveness? I gather it’s not only because of the (perceived) cost benefits but also because there are so few green alternatives to conventional laundry detergents. Washing powders generally contain chemicals that are not so environmentally friendly. So isn’t it time Unilever, Procter & Gamble, Henkel et al embark on some serious greenwashing?

M: Model behavior

What do Lily Cole, Lonneke Engel and Emma Watson have in common? Well, of course they are all green & gorgeous! And for anyone who hadn’t noticed before: they’re not the only celebs embracing fair fashion. Check out my favorite ecofashionistas and be inspired to become an ethical follower of fashion yourself.

Gisele Bundchen
Why sexy: Well, that’s pretty obvious, isn’t it?
Why sustainable: It’s not just her fipflop brand Ipanema that make Gisele worthy of the term eco warrior. She’s also an Environmental Ambassador for the United Nations and an avid supporter of Earth Hour. And there’s also that Seeja Pure Skinline cosmetics that help make our planet more beautiful. And make our faces look good too, I assume.

Livia Firth
Why sexy: Erm, because her husband is?
Why sustainable: Well, you’d better ask: what’s not sustainable about this woman? Livia’s London store Eco Age is all about sustainable fashion and so is her shop in store on Yoox. She also designs her own line of ethical clothing and walks the red carpets worldwide in sustainable gowns. Plus she’s convinced the likes of Armani, Gucci and Valentino to design sustainable dresses and then makes actresses like Meryl Streep, Julianne Moore and Cameron Diaz wear these ethically made outfits during their red carpet moments. Sigh. It’s all so impressive that one wonders: doesn’t this woman ever get tired of all that green fashion stuff?

Stella McCartney
Why sexy: Possibly the best-looking mother of four alive today, Stella McCartney is also a top designer whose fashion house is owned by luxury mogul PPR.
Why sustainable: In her collections, Stella never uses leather or fur and she prefers organic cotton over other fabrics. Head offices are fitted with leds, recycling programmes, CO2 compensation and what not.
And maybe the best part of it all is that the Stella McCartney label has made sustainable fashion available to celebs, stores, catwalks and magazines that have traditionally been reluctant to associate themselves with environmental issues.

N: New luxury

The luxury fashion sector does not excel in sustainability. Ever changing trends and a widespread love of fur make designer brands rather unlikely proponents of green fashion. What’s more, the democratization of fashion has diluted luxury brands’ traditional commitment to handmade, high quality collections. As Dana Thomas has eloquently written, a designer label is no longer a guarantee that a bag, scarf of pair of trousers will last a long time.

There’s no reason to become depressed about this development (or bury your credit card). So-called new luxury promises to be the green frontier to Gucci, Prada, Louis Vuitton et al. Even though new luxury does not always promote itself as sustainable, the trend has some seriously green features. Take the focus on craftsmanship, limited editions, trans-seasonal designs and classic shapes. All this high quality clothing can support a slow and hence sustainable fashion consumption.

According to the prominent Dutch etiquette book on clothing, 'Het Blauwe Boekje', personal comfort, individual style, care and quality are central to new luxury. New luxury is trendy with a hint of classic style, keeping a balance between vintage and forward fashion. You’ll never end up in a business look or mousey grey outfit if you choose new luxury design, Roel Wolbrink says. High quality fabrics are used by young designers to offer a luxurious yet modern look. Now, who would really need a traditional luxury brand then?

N: Naming & shaming – and beyond

In October 2012, Textile Exchange put the spotlights on ten companies that are committed to organic cotton. Anvil Knitwear, C&A, Dibella, Ethicus, Gossypium, H&M, Hess Natur, Nike, Patagonia and Veja all received a Future Shapers Award, a reward for their growing use of organic cotton and for their ambitions to adopt more biocotton in their future collections.

Textile Exchange is a non-profit organization that aims to accelerate sustainable practices in the textile value chain. It was founded in 2002 in the United States and works with clothing brands as diverse as Adidas, H&M, Patagonia, Anvil and Lenzing. The Future Shapers Awards ceremony was part of the annual Textile Exchange conference, which took place in Hongkong in October and celebrated the organization’s ten year anniversary.

Handing out awards to companies that have demonstrated a willingness to adopt sustainable practices seems to be more popular nowadays than the naming & shaming strategies that labour associations and organizations like the Clean Clothes Campaign have traditionally adopted. For instance, in 2012 a number of Dutch consumer groups launched the Push Fashion Forward campaign, which rewarded companies that publicly admitted to improve environmental and social standards in their supply chain. After critically reviewing brands such as Tommy Hilfiger, DIDI, Steps, Zara, Esprit, Mango, Only, Pieces, Jack & Jones and River Island, those that pledged to commit to more sustainable practices were surprised with a visit from a group of enthusiastic consumers. In the end, three Dutch brands – Hema, Sissy-Boy and Protest – received a Push Fashion Forward Award to celebrate their increased commitment to sustainable fashion.

Cynics will be quick to point out that it remains to be seen if mainstream brands such as Hema, C&A, H&M, Nike and Adidas will live up to the expectations that have been created by their elaborate CSR policy reports. I’m sure that organizations such as Textile Exchange and GoedeWaar.nl will keep an eye on that. And of course, let’s not forget that consumers can stimulate sustainable change as well, both through their buying behavior and by consistently pestering their favourite stores and brands about environmental and social standards.

O: Overconsumption

In 2008, humans used up the equivalent of 1.5 planets to support their daily activities and consumption. Qatar, Kuwait and the United States have the biggest ecological footprints, ranging from well over eight times the earth’s resources to more than ten times. The World Wildlife Fund calculated this in its 2012 Living Planet report.

The ecological footprint indicates the area that people use in order to sustain their lifestyle. Clothing takes up a relatively small part. According to a Dutch study, 8% of greenhouse emissions are related to clothing, which is significantly less than those associated with food (30%) or tourism and leisure time (22%).

All this does not necessarily mean that our consumption of clothing is marginal. Textile waste takes up 5% of the global landfill space. According to a study by journalist Elizabeth Cline, the average American buys a new item of clothing every week. In 2012, a UK study found that in the average British household 30% of clothing has not been worn for a year. This equals a staggering 1.7 billion unused items taking up closet space in the UK alone.

It’s easy to blame our overconsumption on advertisements and the media. As Annie Leonard showed in the unequalled anti-consumerist video Story of Stuff, the average Western consumer is confronted with 2000 to 5000 advertisements every day. Each of these ads tells us that our hair isn’t good enough, our faces aren’t pretty enough, our clothes aren’t trendy enough, our cars aren’t big enough, etc. – and they promise that all will turn out OK if we just buy that new must-have.

Writers such as Lucy Siegle and Neil Boorman have suggested another explanation for our consumption patterns: lifestyle behaviors that come frighteningly close to addictions. We have become used to the fast, cheap fashion that is available in every shopping street. And we are rewarded with an adrenaline boost every time we manage to purchase this week’s must-have for a bargain.

So how do we get rid of this unhealthy (and, frankly, sad) consumption behavior? Economist Cecilia Solér from Gothenburg University suggests we need to come to understand why we shop the way we do. Then it becomes possible to find other, more sustainable ways to spend our free time and express our identities. This may not be as easy as it may sound. Psychological studies have shown that it takes an average of 66 days to change a habit.

As Ellen Ruppel Shell, author of the revealing book ‘Cheap’, writes: “We can choose to buy or not, choose to bargain or not, and choose to follow our hearts or not, unencumbered by the anxiety that someone somewhere is getting a “better deal”. No longer slaves to the low-price imperative, we are free to make our own choices.” Doesn’t that sound like a wonderful prospect?

P: Paper magazines

No more tabloids or trashy magazines. It was one of the changes Vanessa Farquharson made in the 366 days that she attempted to greenify her life. There’s no denying it: one simple way to keep your fashion obsession eco-friendly is to cut out magazines. At least, the print ones. Needless to say, all those trees being killed and print chemicals being used to deliver the monthly trends on fashion lovers’ doorstep are not so green.

In April 2012, Fashionista.com (bless them) presented some of the best ways to read fashion magazines online. Thanks to a growing number of online mags, numerous apps and a host of magazines available for e-readers, there really seem very little reasons to bother going to the bookstore and drag your monthly dose of fashion news home (not to mention the ever unfashionable task of bringing last month’s editions to the paper recycling bin).

'Oh, alright', I hear die-hard ecofashionistas calling out already. 'Why bother with keeping up with the latest fashions, trends and must-haves anyway? It’s so unsustainable to revamp your entire wardrobe every six months or change your style every month!' Well, maybe... But please don’t forget that there’s a growing amount of news on fair fashion in the mainstream fashion mags nowadays. And we wouldn’t want to miss that, would we?

Q: Quotes

Are you in dire need of some green inspiration? Check out what some of ecofashion’s pioneers are saying.

We worship chefs but we also worship the home cook – I’d like to see the same thing happen in the world of clothing. – Elizabeth Cline.

Cheap fashion means disposable fashion, and encourages more consumption, creating a vicious circle. – Sandy Black.

Making a product last is very different from making a long-lasting product. – Kate Fletcher.

How we consume shapes the future of the planet. – Katherine Hamnett.

Our planet and workforce are already stretched at the seams; to go faster is not the option. – Jessica Robertson.

People have never looked so ugly as they do today. We just consume far too much. I’m talking about all this disposable crap. What I’m saying is buy less, choose well. Don’t just suck up stuff so everybody looks like clones. – Vivienne Westwood.

We want every fashion consumer to look at garments in a different way – to see the recyclable potential, the quality of cloth and durability of design. – Annika Sanders & Kerry Seager.

As appealing as it may seem at times, what we need to do is refrain from fast fashion! When we buy a £3 t-shirt, we don’t see the true cost of fashion because the producers don’t sit on our doorstep to remind us. – Jen Marsden.

I think that sustainability is a trend that is really about going back to basics: you know what you’re wearing, eating, playing with, who you’re working for. You’re being conscious about your life and the way you live it. – Lonneke Engel.

The idea that second-hand and recycled items pass on their life experiences is what imbues redesigned clothing with its sense of value. When wearing a pre-owned item of clothing it is as if you inherit a history of lived experiences. – Sass Brown.

And not only the supergreen have sensible things to say about the sustainability of our wardrobe (or the lack thereof). Read some inspiring examples here.

To continue to buy clothes that cost about the same as a piece of gum, and then to express shock that they were not woven by contented couturiers, hand-sewing the goods while reclining on satin quilts in a Paris atelier, seems more than a touch naive. – Hadley Freeman.

So many people spend money they haven’t earned, to buy things they don’t want, to impress people they don’t like. – Will Rogers.

So much of fashion is inspired by nature and in turn, we must respect its delicacy. – Diane von Furstenberg.

True fashion is about non-toxicity. If fashion pollutes, it should no longer be called fashion, it should be called pollution. – Horst Rechelbacher.

Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months. – Oscar Wilde.