Companies | Not all the problems of responsible fashion can be solved with sales campaigns

First came the coronavirus pandemic, then inflation and rising interest rates. Many consumers’ wallets have become lighter without asking and unexpectedly.

As a result of the drop in demand, several domestic fashion companies have openly talked about their financial difficulties during the past year. A couple of Finnish clothing and accessories brands have closed their brick-and-mortar stores and some have stopped operating completely or at least narrowed down their selection.

Some have organized support-themed sales campaigns to get the stock moving. Consumers who emphasize responsibility when shopping for clothes may have been in conflicting moods: they would like to support a company that operates in accordance with their own values, but acquiring clothes just for the sake of supporting them does not seem sustainable.

Is a campaign to encourage consumption sustainable from an environmental point of view, even when the production is at least relatively more responsible than much evil fast fashion? Professor of responsible business at Aalto University Minna Halme says that the answer is not an unequivocal yes or no.

“Subsidy purchases won’t save a bad business, but they can save an otherwise profitable brand from a momentary pitfall,” he says.

According to Halmee, the pits have arisen when production costs have risen while demand has fallen.

“

“Buying more than necessary is never ecological.”

Support campaigns are a positive phenomenon in Halmee’s opinion. They can make consumers realize that relatively sustainable brands will be lost if consumers make their purchases from less sustainable operators, for example, after a cheaper price.

At the same time, however, no consumer should acquire unnecessary goods just for the sake of support, no matter how high-quality, recyclable and resaleable they are. Halme points out that the most essential thing is to make purchases according to the need and think about what kind of product to invest your money in.

“Buying more than necessary is never ecological, neither from responsible brands nor from anything else.”

Along the same lines is the information and communication coordinator of the Dutch innovation platform Fashion for Good Paola Darce. She says via email that the late fashion designer Vivienne Westwood the philosophy “buy less, choose carefully and wear for a long time” applies to everything in life, not just clothes.

Fast fashion and in general, the huge environmental impacts of the textile industry are well known, as are the problems related to production, for example in terms of workers’ rights and adequate remuneration.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that clothes are made directly to the landfill: Darce says that more than 70 percent of the hundred billion pieces of clothing produced in the world each year end up in incineration or landfill. At the same time, we spend even more and the number of times we wear clothes has decreased significantly.

Darce describes the fashion industry as a traditional industry that favors quick returns over long-term sustainability. However, short-sighted thinking does not lead to activities based on, for example, the circular economy, i.e. reusing products and materials.

Current solutions are not perfect, but many companies are trying to improve the situation. Darce emphasizes that honest operators also openly talk about what still needs to be done.

However, responsibility is also a buzzword, which many people try to use without justification.

Darce advises consumers to be particularly critical of exaggerated expressions and unrealistically high numbers, such as the claim of 100% zero emissions. If the company does not provide detailed additional information even when asked, it can be a sign of greenwashing, according to Darce.

Go Halme reminds that even Finnish brands have clear differences in how sustainable their production is, both in terms of quality and other effects.

“It’s rare that all elements of responsibility are taken into account wonderfully,” he says.

At the same time, however, Halme emphasizes that there are also some long-standing brands in Finland that have tried their best long before sustainability became trendy and consumers started paying attention to it.

However, the opportunities for small operators are limited, especially if there are only a few employees. For example, the procurement of textile raw materials for local production may be impossible when there is not much left in Europe to manufacture yarn and fabrics.

“As a small operator, for example, monitoring the beginning of the supply chain is extremely demanding,” says Halme.

The business must be financially profitable. According to Halmee, there is not a lot of manufacturing capacity in Europe, and production already in Eastern Europe increases the cost of the product to such an extent that it cannot compete with the cheaper ones on price.

“

Halme says that sometimes the demand for perfection can be a stumbling block.

Responsible and brands that market themselves as sustainable are often looked at with a significantly more precise magnifying glass than other operators, and grievances are also pointed out sharply.

Is it petty to get indignant if you notice that a brand you value repeatedly flies people abroad for filming? Do we then stumble into the fact that we demand perfection from those who strive for better, while many big players do not even succeed in basic things?

Halme says that sometimes the demand for perfection can be a stumbling block. For example, there is no way to get all the raw materials nearby, and new innovative materials often go directly to big players, so small brands don’t have a chance to get their hands on them.

However, many responsibility issues are quite achievable, such as, according to Halmee, shooting the collection as a close-up production.

“Flying to shoots is actually an example of the fact that not all Finnish design brands have a deep understanding of the whole of responsibility. Brands may have a favorite point of responsibility that they focus on, but there is a lack of comprehensiveness.”

Darce also says that some companies promote one aspect of responsibility in their operations in particular, but ignore others. He reminds us that responsibility runs through the entire value chain, from material purchases to end users’ washing machines, so brands must be transparent about their shortcomings as well.

You still have to be able to make mistakes, because development is needed.

“It’s important to give room for growth, and that often happens as a result of mistakes. It is unreasonable to expect that the pioneers will immediately do everything right,” Darce writes in his message.

“

Darce advises consumers to be particularly critical of over-the-top expressions.

Responsible Halme advises those who tend to spend more to remember a few rules of thumb when shopping for clothes.

First of all, it is important to get the clothes you need. It is good for them to be timeless, physically durable and as versatile as possible. Those who visit flea markets can find very durable clothes from a time when fast fashion had not yet taken over the market and seams were sewn to last.

In addition, Halme encourages you to avoid impulse purchases and to think of clothes as investment goods. A well-made and responsibly produced product may no longer seem so expensive if you intend to use it continuously for many years and if you wish, you can sell it at a moderate price even further on.

“Calculating at the daily price, for example, a 20-euro garment worn five times is more expensive than a 150-euro garment that is worn regularly for years,” Halme points out.

For example, when buying a silk dress or a mohair shirt, according to Halmee, it is worth thinking about whether the garment will be used, even though it cannot be thrown into a 40-degree washing program among everyday clothes. If you feel that the garment may remain on the shelf, it is better not to make the purchase.