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.

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!

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.

T: Toxics

High levels of toxic phthalates, several cancer-causing amines and plenty of NPEs. That’s what Greenpeace found in a 2012 investigation of 141 clothing items produced by 20 well-known fashion brands. Hazardous substances were found in just under two-thirds of all garments tested. These include items sold in Europe by Zara, H&M, Mango, C&A, Armani, Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger, Benetton, Diesel and Levi’s.

The hazardous chemicals found by Greenpeace – not only in this recent report but also in a previous investigation – pose a clear threat to the environment. Because so many garments are made each year – a staggering 80 billion world-wide – the apparently small quantities of a hazardous chemical such as NPEs, which in the European Union are legally allowed in clothing, cumulatively amount to the widespread dispersal of damaging chemicals across the planet. In rivers and lakes, these chemicals can accumulate in sediments and build up in the food chain, in fish and other wildlife. This happens not only in textile producing countries, but also – as a result of consumers washing these clothes – close to our homes.

For the past few years, Greenpeace has urged a number of well-known brands to commit to Zero Discharge of hazardous chemicals by 1 January 2020. Amongst others Puma, Nike, Adidas, H&M and C&A have already made this commitment.

In 2012, Greenpeace has also launched worldwide consumer campaigns, asking fashionistas, customers and activists to put pressure on amongst others Zara to put an end to the use of hazardous chemicals. Within 48 hours after its start, over 200.000 consumers had signed the petition urging Zara – which, because of the sheer size and scale of its production, could be a true catalyst for wider change within the clothing industry – to commit to the Zero Discharge joint roadmap.

And there’s more that we can do. Greenpeace recommends buying fewer new clothes, asking brands to act responsibly with respect to planet and people, and demanding governments to restrict the sales and import of products containing hazardous chemicals. Does that sound like a whole lot of work to do? Just start with coveting your current wardrobe and buying secondhand clothes, and take it from there. And rest assured that Greenpeace will keep the issue of toxics high on the agenda in the fashion industry.