0

Skip to Content

the consequences of fast fashion

English

the consequences of fast fashion

English

Back

Landfills Where Old Clothes End Up

Solutions & Alternatives

Reduce consumption by buying less. Don’t buy what you don’t need.

2. If you need new garments: buy second hand, swap clothes, or support brands that use sustainable materials and quality materials that will last you years.

3. Extend the life of clothes through proper care, repair, and up cycling.

4. Borrow or rent clothing for special occasions.

5. Prevent deforestation by avoiding raw materials and polyester. If possible, opt for natural fibres instead.

reduce, reuse, recycle…

Earth has enough clothing to last us 7 generations

-

Earth has enough clothing to last us 7 generations

-

Earth has enough clothing to last us 7 generations - Earth has enough clothing to last us 7 generations -

Adidas

Produces a massive volume of clothes annually, is lacking transparency around wages, and has been accused of wage theft.

In 2022, Adidas produced more than 1 billion items of clothing, footwear, and accessories.

the Stan Smith Forever 100% iconic, 50% recycled campaign gave shoppers the impression that 50% of the total material used in the shoe was made of recycled materials, which was false.

Finances millions of dollars on athlete sponsorships, yet pays poverty wages to the workers (primarily women) who make their products.

a few manufacturing locations:

solutions & alternative options

^

Aritzia

Uses synthetic materials and hasn't committed to recycled or organic alternatives at scale. Their sustainability initiatives lack comprehensive sustainability reporting.

Aritzia releases new collections every 1-2 months, focusing on micro-seasonal releases to keep customers returning.

Though the brand published a Supplier Code of Conduct, they provide limited transparency about factory conditions and living wage practices. They haven't achieved full supply chain transparency or third-party certifications for ethical manufacturing across their entire production network, making it difficult to verify living wage commitments throughout their global supply chain.

Aritzia is not a good example of slow or sustainable fashion.

a few manufacturing locations:

solutions & alternative options

^

American Eagle / Aerie

The brand has worked with Chinese factories that are using sandblasting to make jeans, a dangerous process that can cause a fatal respiratory disease called silicosis.

American Eagle claims to use some lower-impact materials including recycled ones, stating that “all cotton used in products will be 100% more sustainably sourced,” but doesn’t explain what’s meant by that.

They have set a science-based target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but there’s no evidence it’s on track to meet it.

a few manufacturing locations:

solutions & alternative options

^

Brandy Melville

Aside from a history of fatphobia and racism, the brand prioritizes mass production and exploiting human labour.

Brandy Melville has no information about the actions it’s taking to address its impacts on people, the planet, and animal issues.

Their sweatshops are located in Accra, Ghana, a country whose trade deal with western countries accepts tons of western clothing waste that pollutes their beaches.

The company also uses sweatshops in Prato, Italy, using the “made in Italy” label to use immigrant labour.

solutions & alternative options

^

Dynamite / Garage

The family brands exploit labour and resources while encouraging over consumption.

They use few eco-friendly materials, and have no evidence of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, taking action to reduce hazardous chemicals or of implementing water reduction initiatives.

Garage started a “sustainable denim” line, claiming jeans are made with organic cotton, but the fabric was made only from 25% of organic cotton.

There’s no evidence they ensure living wage payments in its supply chain. They audit some of their supply chain but don’t specify what percentage which can result in poor working conditions and unlivable wages.

Garage manufactures at least 1,800 styles per year.

a few manufacturing locations:

solutions & alternative options

^

Forever 21

Now removed, on their Social Responsibility page they stated they had a “goal of eliminating child labor and forced labor”, implying that these working practices are still used.

There is no evidence that the brand is taking meaningful action to reduce its climate impacts, protect biodiversity in its supply chain, and minimize textile waste.

Forever 21 had refused to sign the Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety, not protecting factory workers as a result.

Additionally, the US Labor Department investigators found that their workers in a Los Angeles factory were paid $4 per hour, which is lower than the state’s minimum wage.

a few manufacturing locations:

solutions & alternative options

^

Gap / Old Navy / Banana Republic

Large proportions of Gap Inc. clothing is made with synthetic fibres. It’s unknown if the corporation achieved its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50% in 2020, indicating it was unlikely reached.

Old Navy was accused of working with factories that employed girls as young as 12 years old, regularly physically abused workers and forcing them to work 100-plus hours a week. The brand is not certified by any labour standards.

GAP Inc. initially refused to pay workers at the start of the pandemic and lobbied against the Garment Worker Protection Act.

a few manufacturing locations:

solutions & alternative options

^

H&M

The brand’s textile recycling program Conscious only recycles 35% of clothing. The program itself is not enough to offset the amounts of garments the brand produces each year.

In 2016, H&M burned 19 tonnes of new clothes.

In 2018, H&M failed to pay 850,000 garment workers a living wage. In 2023, any female workers reported cases physically & sexually abused.

They have also ignored garment worker complaints, which resulted in 100 deaths.

a few manufacturing locations:

solutions & alternative options

^

Lululemon

Lululemon’s largest procured materials are nylon and polyester. These are non-biodegradable, fossil fuel-derived materials that have the potential to release harmful microfibers that pollute the environment.

While the brand has set a science-based target to make a 60% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, it is unclear whether it’s on track to meet its target or to minimize microplastics.

There is no evidence of Lululemon paying their workers a living wage, even though they’ve promised to pay ‘legal’ wages, which doesn’t equate to proper compensation. This is concerning since they subcontract their labour from countries that statistically have the worst workers’ rights.

In 2021 their supply chain was found to be connected to companies that used Xinjiang cotton, from the Uyghur Region of China which is associated with forced labour and human rights violations.

Around 120 new women’s items launch every week. This number doubles during the holiday season.

a few manufacturing locations:

solutions & alternative options

^

Nike

In 2023, Nike falsely promoting their Move to Zero initiative, which was actually made from non-biodegradable plastic-based materials.

The brand uses sweatshops and child labour, paying workers below minimum wages, and offering them terrible working conditions. In 2017, Nike prevented labour rights experts from assessing its factories.

There is no evidence they’re on track to meet their target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions generated from its operations and supply chain.

a few manufacturing locations:

solutions & alternative options

^

Roots

Roots sources fabrics and merchandise from third-party suppliers and manufactures to produce most of their apparel products. They do not disclose traceability information for its raw materials.

While organic cotton makes up 25-30% of its cotton-based products, 20% of its collections still use synthetic fabrics like polyester, minimally using recycled materials.

Root’s leather environmental impact unknown as sourcing is not certified by the Leather Working Group, and only a select few of its leather goods are handcrafted in Toronto.

The brand outsources most production from China, India, and Turkey, where labour risks are high. No evidence Roots ensures its workers receive a true living wage.

a few manufacturing locations:

solutions & alternative options

^

Simons

Simons provides no evidence it’s taking actions to protect biodiversity or to minimize textile waste in its supply chain.

While Simons has made changes to produce collections made from more sustainable materials, the majority of its products use non-organic cotton and virgin synthetic fibres, which have a higher environmental impact.

There’s no evidence they ensure workers are paid living wages.

Claims of responsible sourcing animal-derived products are not backed by third-party verifications.

Viable progress towards the brands commitment to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030 have not been disclosed.

solutions & alternative options

^

Uniqlo

Uniqlo produces around 600 million items of clothing every year, 80% of which are made in China.

In 2021, Uniqlo shirts were blocked at the US border for being suspected of have been made with cotton from the Chinese Xinjiang region where there have been cases of forced labour.

The brand uses leather, exotic animal hair, and silk.

The brand has been caught violating human and labour rights on various occasions. Workers in Uniqlo’s factories have been compelled to work excessive 18-hour days in an unsafe environment, earning unfair wages, and were regularly punished.

The owner is the richest man in Japan, meanwhile UNIQLO has refused to pay 5.5 million dollars in severance pay to its workers.

a few manufacturing locations:

solutions & alternative options

^

Urban Outfitters

The brand claims that by 2027 60% of their raw materials will be sourced more responsibly, yet as of now only 10% of them are.

Urban Outfitters still hasn’t signed the International Accord for Health and Safety in the Textile and Garment Industry, which helps to ensure workers’ safety and encourages disclosure of suppliers.

There is no evidence that the company’s workers are paid fair wages, and in 2015 workers were asked to work for free on weekends claiming it would be a “great team-building activity”.

Their re-purposing program’s claims to reuse second hand flannels and sweater, and salvage denim which deceives the brand’s unsustainable model of producing large quantities of new styles, which is ultimately unsustainable.

a few manufacturing locations:

*Specific factory location depend on the various brands Urban Outfitters carries.

solutions & alternative options

^

Zara

Zara produces new styles extremely fast, with designs going from the drawing board to stores in about 2 weeks.

The brand doesn’t pay its garment workers living wages. In 2017, customers found messages in clothing written by garment workers claiming to have to work for free.

Zara’s taken insufficient steps to correct their links to cotton sourced from Xinjiang, a region in China at risk of forced labour.

They’re not transparency about the number of natural resources that go into the production of their clothing.

a few manufacturing locations:

solutions & alternative options

^

Landfills Where Old Clothes End Up

Solutions & Alternatives

Reduce consumption by buying less. Don’t buy what you don’t need.

2. If you need new garments: buy second hand, swap clothes, or support brands that use sustainable materials and quality materials that will last you years.

3. Extend the life of clothes through proper care, repair, and up cycling.

4. Borrow or rent clothing for special occasions.

5. Prevent deforestation by avoiding raw materials and polyester. If possible, opt for natural fibres instead.

Earth has enough clothing to last us 7 generations

-

Earth has enough clothing to last us 7 generations

-

Earth has enough clothing to last us 7 generations - Earth has enough clothing to last us 7 generations - Earth has enough clothing to last us 7 generations - Earth has enough clothing to last us 7 generations -

Adidas

Produces a massive volume of clothes annually, is lacking transparency around wages, and has been accused of wage theft.

In 2022, Adidas produced more than 1 billion items of clothing, footwear, and accessories.

the Stan Smith Forever 100% iconic, 50% recycled campaign gave shoppers the impression that 50% of the total material used in the shoe was made of recycled materials, which was false.

Finances millions of dollars on athlete sponsorships, yet pays poverty wages to the workers (primarily women) who make their products.

Aritzia

Uses synthetic materials and hasn't committed to recycled or organic alternatives at scale. Their sustainability initiatives lack comprehensive sustainability reporting.

Aritzia releases new collections every 1-2 months, focusing on micro-seasonal releases to keep customers returning.

Aritzia is not a good example of slow or sustainable fashion.

American Eagle / Aerie

The brand has worked with Chinese factories that are using sandblasting to make jeans, a dangerous process that can cause a fatal respiratory disease called silicosis.

American Eagle claims to use some lower-impact materials including recycled ones, stating that “all cotton used in products will be 100% more sustainably sourced,” but doesn’t explain what’s meant by that.

They have set a science-based target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but there’s no evidence it’s on track to meet it.

Brandy Melville

Aside from a history of fatphobia and racism, the brand prioritizes mass production and exploiting human labour.

Brandy Melville has no information about the actions it’s taking to address its impacts on people, the planet, and animal issues.

Their sweatshops are located in Accra, Ghana, a country whose trade deal with western countries accepts tons of western clothing waste that pollutes their beaches.

The company also uses sweatshops in Prato, Italy, using the “made in Italy” label to use immigrant labour.

Dynamite / Garage

The family brands exploit labour and resources while encouraging over consumption.

They use few eco-friendly materials, and have no evidence of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, taking action to reduce hazardous chemicals or of implementing water reduction initiatives.

Garage started a “sustainable denim” line, claiming jeans are made with organic cotton, but the fabric was made only from 25% of organic cotton.

There’s no evidence they ensure living wage payments in its supply chain. They audit some of their supply chain but don’t specify what percentage which can result in poor working conditions and unlivable wages.

Garage manufactures at least 1,800 styles per year.

Forever 21

Now removed, on their Social Responsibility page they stated they had a “goal of eliminating child labor and forced labor”, implying that these working practices are still used.

There is no evidence that the brand is taking meaningful action to reduce its climate impacts, protect biodiversity in its supply chain, and minimize textile waste.

Forever 21 had refused to sign the Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety, not protecting factory workers as a result.

Additionally, the US Labor Department investigators found that their workers in a Los Angeles factory were paid $4 per hour, which is lower than the state’s minimum wage.

Gap / Old Navy / Banana Republic

Large proportions of Gap Inc. clothing is made with synthetic fibres. It’s unknown if the corporation achieved its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50% in 2020, indicating it was unlikely reached.

Old Navy was accused of working with factories that employed girls as young as 12 years old, regularly physically abused workers and forcing them to work 100-plus hours a week. The brand is not certified by any labour standards.

GAP Inc. initially refused to pay workers at the start of the pandemic and lobbied against the Garment Worker Protection Act.

H&M

The brand’s textile recycling program Conscious only recycles 35% of clothing. The program itself is not enough to offset the amounts of garments the brand produces each year.

In 2016, H&M burned 19 tonnes of new clothes.

In 2018, H&M failed to pay 850,000 garment workers a living wage. In 2023, any female workers reported cases physically & sexually abused.

They have also ignored garment worker complaints, which resulted in 100 deaths.

Lululemon

Lululemon’s largest procured materials are nylon and polyester. These are non-biodegradable, fossil fuel-derived materials that have the potential to release harmful microfibers that pollute the environment.

While the brand has set a science-based target to make a 60% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, it is unclear whether it’s on track to meet its target or to minimize microplastics.

There is no evidence of Lululemon paying their workers a living wage, even though they’ve promised to pay ‘legal’ wages, which doesn’t equate to proper compensation. This is concerning since they subcontract their labour from countries that statistically have the worst workers’ rights.

In 2021 their supply chain was found to be connected to companies that used Xinjiang cotton, from the Uyghur Region of China which is associated with forced labour and human rights violations.

Around 120 new women’s items launch every week. This number doubles during the holiday season.

Nike

In 2023, Nike falsely promoting their Move to Zero initiative, which was actually made from non-biodegradable plastic-based materials.

The brand uses sweatshops and child labour, paying workers below minimum wages, and offering them terrible working conditions. In 2017, Nike prevented labour rights experts from assessing its factories.

There is no evidence they’re on track to meet their target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions generated from its operations and supply chain.

Roots

Roots sources fabrics and merchandise from third-party suppliers and manufactures to produce most of their apparel products. They do not disclose traceability information for its raw materials.

While organic cotton makes up 25-30% of its cotton-based products, 20% of its collections still use synthetic fabrics like polyester, minimally using recycled materials.

Root’s leather environmental impact unknown as sourcing is not certified by the Leather Working Group, and only a select few of its leather goods are handcrafted in Toronto.

The brand outsources most production from China, India, and Turkey, where labour risks are high. No evidence Roots ensures its workers receive a true living wage.

Simons

Simons provides no evidence it’s taking actions to protect biodiversity or to minimize textile waste in its supply chain.

While Simons has made changes to produce collections made from more sustainable materials, the majority of its products use non-organic cotton and virgin synthetic fibres, which have a higher environmental impact.

There’s no evidence they ensure workers are paid living wages.

Claims of responsible sourcing animal-derived products are not backed by third-party verifications.

Viable progress towards the brands commitment to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030 have not been disclosed.

Uniqlo

Uniqlo produces around 600 million items of clothing every year, 80% of which are made in China.

In 2021, Uniqlo shirts were blocked at the US border for being suspected of have been made with cotton from the Chinese Xinjiang region where there have been cases of forced labour.

The brand uses leather, exotic animal hair, and silk.

The brand has been caught violating human and labour rights on various occasions. Workers in Uniqlo’s factories have been compelled to work excessive 18-hour days in an unsafe environment, earning unfair wages, and were regularly punished.

The owner is the richest man in Japan, meanwhile UNIQLO has refused to pay 5.5 million dollars in severance pay to its workers.

Urban Outfitters

The brand claims that by 2027 60% of their raw materials will be sourced more responsibly, yet as of now only 10% of them are.

Urban Outfitters still hasn’t signed the International Accord for Health and Safety in the Textile and Garment Industry, which helps to ensure workers’ safety and encourages disclosure of suppliers.

Earth has enough clothing to last us 7 generations - Earth has enough clothing to last us 7 generations -