# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Introducing the New Ray-Ban | Meta Smart Glasses | Meta

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In partnership with EssilorLuxottica, we’re launching a new generation of Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses, available for pre-order now.

# data[].attributes.headline
The emergence of smart glasses and spatial computing devices (examples from the industry - RayBan and Meta glasses and Apple Vision Pro) 

# data[].attributes.subject
The emergence of smart glasses and spatial computing devices (examples from the industry - RayBan and Meta glasses and Apple Vision Pro) 

# data[].attributes.body
Apple Vision Pro

- those accessories might become a new fashion statement when worn in public, over time they will become sleeker and smaller

- AR and spatial computing go hand in hand with each other. fashion might become more AR oriented.

- a new generation of designers might emerge, creating virtual and augmented fashion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SAN FRANCISCO, United States - Google Inc. is partnering with Luxottica Group SpA, which owns eyewear brands Ray-Ban and Oakley, to help the Web company's Glass eyewear go mainstream.

Luxottica is setting up teams focused on design, development, tooling and engineering of products, the world's largest maker of eyeglasses said in a statement today. Google's Glass technology combines a tiny screen, camera and audio on a small device that's worn at eye level.

Google, seeking new ways to get consumers to use their services on mobile devices, has been stepping up efforts to show how Glass can appeal to a wide audience. While the gadget has received a lot of media attention, it's also faced challenges, including criticism for its ability to record images or distract users. The Mountain View, California-based indicated said it plans to release mainstream versions "down the road."

"Luxottica has built an impressive history over the last 50 years designing, manufacturing and distributing some of the most successful and well-known brands in eyewear today," Astro Teller, the head of Google X, the lab where Glass was first developed, said in the statement. "We are thrilled to be partnering with them as we look to push Glass and the broader industry forward into the emerging smart eyewear market."

The Ray-Ban and Oakley brands will be included in the collaboration with Google Glass, the companies said.

"We live in a world where technological innovation has dramatically changed the way in which we communicate and interact in everything that we do," Andrea Guerra, chief executive officer of Milan-based Luxottica, said in the statement.
By Brian Womack; Editor: Pui-Wing Tam, Reed Stevenson, Ben Livesey

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Google Glass Products Coming From Ray-Ban, Oakley Eyewear Maker

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SAN FRANCISCO, United States - Google Inc. is partnering with Luxottica Group SpA, which owns eyewear brands Ray-Ban and Oakley, to help the Web

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Apple has announced its long-awaited Vision Pro headset will go on sale on 2 February in the United States.

US customers have been given the option to pre-order the $3,499 (£2,749) mixed-reality device from mid-January, though no date has been set for a UK launch.

It is the first major new product to be released by the firm since the Apple Watch launched in 2015.

After years of rumours during development, the company revealed the headset in June 2023.

But there have been issues since then. According to the Financial Times, Apple has more than halved its production forecasts, dropping from an estimated one million units to 400,000 in 2024.

As well as the release date, Apple also announced the device will have 256GB of storage, and it clarified that the headset's eye-tracking technology can function by monitoring just one dominant eye, for people who do not have full use of both their eyes.

But interestingly the firm is trying to separate the headset from other devices on the market, telling developers for the device to instead brand their apps as "spatial computing".

"Don't describe your app experience as augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), extended reality (XR), or mixed reality (MR)," it said in a blog post targeting developers.

Apple has also released a trailer online, featuring characters from films donning goggles and helmets, in what feels like an attempt to recreate the hype around the launch of the iPhone in 2007.

If successful, this could be a new multi-billion dollar source of income for Apple. But as many people all over the world struggle to afford life's basics, the high price tag is likely to keep this in the realm of a toy for the well-off.

Hands-on

The BBC had the opportunity to try out the Vision Pro in June last year, and found mixed reality to be a mixed bag.

We were among the few news organisations in the world allowed to test out the device - but no photos or filming were allowed.

Unlike many existing headsets, Apple has detached the battery, so it doesn't sit heavy on your head - although it does mean the battery has to sit beside you instead, attached to a cable.

The user experience is classic, minimalist Apple. Once the headset is on, you see the room around you but you're not seeing it through glass, you're seeing it through the many on-board cameras.

This is the "mixed-reality" experience - digital content projected on to your surroundings.

You physically press a single button on the top right-hand side of the headset, and up pops familiar app icons you'll recognise if you have used an iPhone - iMessage, Photos, Apple TV (there will be more as developers make them).

And from then on it's all about gesture control - the headset tracks where you are looking so when you look at an app and pinch your thumb and forefinger together, it opens.

You can choose your level of immersion using a physical dial to turn up or down the size of whatever it is that you're looking at. It can fill the entire room or appear like a TV screen superimposed against your wall.

But if someone walks in front of you in real life, you can see them no matter how immersed you are.

Still, whenever there was an issue with the demo, an Apple employee would remind us that it was not a finished product, and Apple's ban on any filming during the demonstration meant that these issues couldn't be recorded or shared online.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Apple Vision Pro: $3,499 headset finally gets release date

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Apple's long-awaited mixed-reality headset will launch in the US on 2 February.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Without stores of their own, young shoppers are turning adult stores into Gen A "playgrounds" (Credit: Getty Images)

The youngest consumers can't yet drive themselves to the shops. It won't stop them from buying like their millennial parents.

When I was 13 in the late 2000s, finally old enough to be dropped off at our local mall in Delaware, US, there was only one place I wanted to shop: Limited Too. The store, founded in 1987, was a younger offshoot of adult clothing brand The Limited, and was a tween fashion destination filled with logo tees, floral sundresses, plaid skirts, denim vests and plenty of sparking accessories.

Limited Too was among many stores of the time that catered to the in-between age - Wet Seal, Delia's, The Body Shop, Lush, Charlotte Russe - where young people were playing with ideas of who they could become. But by 2008, Limited Too's retail locations had vanished, many having merged with the tween store Justice, which, as of 2020, also shuttered all physical locations.

Today's tweens have few retail spaces to frequent, not because their generation isn't interested in shopping - quite the opposite. Gen Alpha, born between 2010 and 2024, is more brand-aware than ever, but they have few dedicated spaces or brands targeting their specific needs. Instead, Gen Alpha want to enter directly into the brands of adulthood, preferring to shop where their millennial parents shop: Lululemon, Sephora, Walmart, Target.

Mature brands are ready to welcome these young shoppers - and for good reason. As an estimated 2.5m Gen Alphas are born weekly, the demographic's economic footprint is expected to reach $5.46tn (£4.32tn) by 2029 - almost as much as the spending power of millennials and Gen Z combined. By setting their sights on the youngest consumers, adult brands can secure the loyalty of the next generation by simply expanding the offerings they already have.

Limited Too was among the 2000s stores that specifically provided an environment for young shoppers (Credit: Getty Images)

The concept of a "tween" is largely a North American term, and wouldn't exist were it not for advertising. Short for "tweenager", one of the word's first appearances was in 1964 as a size designation in a New York Times article about shopping. By the late 1980s, the term had taken firm hold, with tween shopping habits for things like Polaroid cameras and video games making frequent headlines.

"No, not teen-ager. Tween-ager," a 1988 USA Weekend article reads, per the Oxford English Dictionary. "She's that nine-year-old suddenly dressing to the nines. He's that 10-year-old buying Benetton instead of baseball cards. They hang out at the local tween mecca - the shopping mall."

Other languages have their own designations, such as "teini" in Finland; and the Arabic "sin el morahqa", which translates to "age of getting closer". Tween shopping has similarly gained an international foothold. There was Tammy Girl, a haven for UK tweens in the '90s that shut its doors in 2005, and Pull&Bear, a streetwear-casual store for young people founded in Spain in 1991. It's still going strong. American tween brands like Abercrombie & Fitch and Hollister have also found success abroad, with stores in Asia, Europe and South America.

But recent attempts by adult brands to target the tween demographic - like Franki, the younger version of the women's mall-brand Francesca's, and Project Gap, a category within the larger Gap brand - come nowhere near the top of Gen Alpha's favourite stores. According to US advertising and media company Razorfish, that honour goes to Amazon, Apple, Nintendo, Target and other places on a typical adult's gift list. The same goes for the UK: Smyth's Toys, Sports Direct and Tesco top Performance Marketing World's list of "coolest" brands for kids.

"Because this cohort is so brand mature, you have to be very aware of the authenticity of your brand," says Josh Campo, New York-based CEO of Razorfish. "I do think that that's part of the reason that you see their affinities not towards the typical kid brands. It probably doesn't have the same authentic feel because it's almost like you're patronising them."

Many young shoppers share the same favourite brands as their millennial parents, including Target (Credit: Getty Images)

Brand audiences are also no longer defined by narrow demographics: everything is for everyone. Razorfish reports Gen Alpha and Gen Z share all but two of the same top 10 favourite brands. And millennials are likely to share the same Stanley tumbler as their kids.

"Trends these days are not age specific," says Casey Lewis, who writes the youth consumer analysis newsletter After School. For example, instead of creating a new line of clothes specifically for tweens, brands have simply expanded the size range of their current lines. "Women's clothing comes in smaller sizes," explains Lewis, so it's easier to start wearing at a young age. "Young girls are wearing baggy jeans and flared leggings, and so are millennials, so there's really less of a distinction."

But while Gen Alpha may have strong preferences in their shopping choices, they don't yet have independent spending power. The reality of what kids wear, buy, and apply to their faces is still, for the most part, down to their parents' purses. As of now, Gen Alpha has an additional $300bn (£237.3bn) in spending power through parental influence, which is why brands continue to market to adults, even if their consumers are getting younger. If you're wondering why $45 (£35.50) products with retinol and exfoliating acids are appearing in 10-year-olds' shopping carts, look at who's paying for it. "Millennial habits are trickling down to their own kids," says Lewis.

Online habits and offline experiences

These habits were built online throughout the past decade, first on Instagram, where millennials learned to lead photogenic lifestyles; and then on TikTok, where Gen Z and Gen Alpha have learned to "get ready with me" by listing off the brands they consume in a morning.

Stores such as Lululemon are drawing Gen A consumers, who want to buy the same products as older generations (Credit: Getty Images)

By associating with these brands, tweens can participate in online culture. Trends popular with multiple generations, such as "face-baking" and "pimple-patching", are based entirely on trying and reviewing different products.

The relentless appearances of certain products across Instagram Stories, YouTube haul videos and TikTok For You Pages has elevated them to cult status. They do more than serve their functional purpose. The possession of certain brands also grants the tween immediate acceptance into an elite community of multigenerational tastemakers. Purchasing a certain brand has become the new entry into adulthood.

Perhaps this is just what happens when three generations that span nearly 40 years share the same digital space: 43% of Gen Alphas in the US had tablets before the age of six, and 58% received their first iPhone by age 10.

"What we see is not so much as the targeting of Gen Alpha, it's the overlap of where content gets consumed between Gen Alpha and Gen Z and older generations more generally," says Razorfish's Campo. "It is leading them to have a far more sophisticated brand maturity than we would've expected."

You go into a Sephora and it's like an amusement park for make-up. It really is sort of a free-for-all for adults and kids alike - Casey Lewis

"The rise of the 'shelfie', a photo of what's in your bathroom shelf, has been a game changer for our brand," Marc Elrick, who launched the global skincare brand Byoma in 2020, told Business Of Fashion. "This demographic is collecting skincare and it helps if your brand is aesthetically pleasing and fun."

There are brands creating and marketing with Gen Alpha in mind, mainly focused on price point and visual appeal. While trending skincare brand Drunk Elephant's best-selling products land somewhere between $30 to $80 (£23.70 to £63.75), the UK skincare brand Bubble - which markets itself towards Gen Z and Gen Alpha - keeps its individual products under $20 (£15.80), while also remaining age-appropriate for their skin.

Other brands hope to target the younger generation by emphasising their values. Sustainability is already a value important to Gen Alpha, reports Razorfish, and Australian clothing store Ziggy Zaza secures the loyalty of environmentally-minded kids and their parents by manufacturing using sustainable and renewable materials. London-based What Mother Made has a similar ethos, but hopes to attract children and their parents by offering handmade, zero-waste clothing products for both.

But more often, the "tween" designation works the other way around - that items from brands designed for all ages end up getting an unintended "tween" designation, thanks the demographic's enthusiasm. At the end of 2023, Lewis rounded up the most popular Christmas presents for teens, based on TikTok haul videos. The gifts included Stanley tumblers, mini-platform Uggs, Dyson hair gadgets and Birkenstock clogs - all items adults can buy for themselves, but also purchase for their kids.

Writer Kate Lindsay, shown aged 12, shopped often at US tween stores in the 2000s (Credit: Courtesy of Kate Lindsay)

"If you, 10 years old, saw that Drunk Elephant serum on TikTok and then you talk to your mum about it and your mum does a little research, she's like, 'Huh, this is actually well reviewed on Sephora'," says Lewis. "So, then you end up buying that Drunk Elephant. Kids have always had tons of purchasing power even before having the money, but I do think... because Gen Alpha and Gen Z are so digitally native, this group of young consumers will have even more purchasing sway over their parents' decisions."

While Gen Alpha might lean into adult tastes, they still want a place to play. "The thing with tweens is there are fewer spaces specifically for them now," says Lewis. Physical retail has seen a decline in recent years, with US malls closing at a rate of 15 to 20 per year, according to real-estate advisory firm Green Street Advisors. Overall, the US saw the closure of at least 2,800 retail stores in 2023.

Yet Gen Z increasingly prefer to shop in person. Malls that remain, like New Jersey's Garden State Plaza, have seen their occupancy rate rebound to pre-pandemic levels, and sales at malls increased more than 11% between 2021 and 2022. And the places that are the most popular are those that feel like a place to play. "You go into a Sephora and it's like an amusement park for make-up," says Lewis. "It really is sort of a free-for-all for adults and kids alike."

Big-box stores such as Walmart and Target, two of Gen Alpha's favourite brands, also offer a similar kind of retail playground. But this is not without growing pains: malls like Garden State Plaza have been so overrun with young shoppers that they've begun instituting curfews for minors due to a rise in unruliness. Unaccompanied minors must be picked up outside by 17:00, or in the case of a Los Angeles mall, be required to wear lanyards with their names and parents' phone numbers.

There is also the potential that adult brands granting Gen Alpha early access may run the risk of alienating their adult consumer base - think the ongoing Sephora teen panic, in which older customers have complained about a surge of misbehaved young shoppers. "I don't really want to have to elbow my way through a gaggle of 10-year-olds to get some blush," says Lewis. But with $5.46bn and an even longer lifetime of brand loyalty on the table, it's a risk brands are willing to take.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gen Alpha are ready to spend - and they want to be treated like adults

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The youngest consumers can't yet drive themselves to the shops. It won't stop them from buying like their millennial parents.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here's what kids around the world think, feel, and do. From social media habits to entertainment trends, get the full picture of tomorrow's consumers.

# data[].attributes.body
History

Current trends

Ultra fast fashion (make a table)

Legislations

Future of fast fashion - consumer behaviour etc

# data[].attributes.body
Intro to the generation

Consumer behaviour

Values

Shopping habits

Lessons for brands

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Understanding Generation Alpha - McCrindle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Within 4 years they will outnumber the Baby Boomers, and many of them will live to see the 22nd Century. Meet Generation Alpha.

# data[].attributes.body
History

COVID-19 influence

Current strategies used

Customer behaviour

Looking into the future

Survey

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How much do members of "Generation Alpha," or any generation, really have in common?

The cutoff for being born into Generation X was about 1980, the cutoff for Generation Y (a.k.a. the Millennials) was about 1996, and the cutoff for Generation Z was about 2010. What should the next batch of babies be called-what comes after Z?

Alpha, apparently. That's the (Greek) letter that the unofficial namers of generations-marketers, researchers, cultural commentators, and the like-have affixed to Gen Z's successors, the oldest of whom are on the cusp of turning 10. The Generation Alpha label, if it lasts, follows the roughly 15-year cycle of generational delineations. Those delineations keep coming, even as, because of a variety of demographic factors, they seem to be getting less and less meaningful as a way of segmenting the population; in recent decades, there hasn't been a clear-cut demographic development, like the postwar baby boom, to define a generation around, so the dividing lines are pretty arbitrary. How much do members of this new generation, or any generation, really have in common?
Read: Generations are an invention-here's how they came to be
A picture of Generation Alpha, if a blurry one, is starting to emerge. In various articles about its members, analysts have stated that they are or will grow up to be the best-educated generation ever, the most technologically immersed, the wealthiest, and the generation more likely than any in the past century to spend some or all of their childhood in living arrangements without both of their biological parents. These are all notable features, but some of them are broad and fairly low-stakes observations, given that the global population has been getting richer, better educated, and more exposed to digital technology for a while now.

Some marketers and consultants who analyze generations have tried to get more specific. One suggested that Generation Alpha might be particularly impatient because they'll be used to technology fulfilling their desires from an early age. And a branding agency recently polled a bunch of 7-to-9-year-olds on a wide range of mostly nondivisive issues (such as the importance of "making sure everyone has enough food to eat") and arrived at the conclusion that Generation Alpha "cares more about all issues than their Millennial and Baby Boomer [predecessors] did when they were kids, or even than they do now."

Many of these takeaways seem premature, or at least overeager. "They're still kids," says Dan Woodman, a sociology professor at the University of Melbourne who studies generational labels. "A lot of things we attach to a generation are around the way they start to think about politics, the way they engage with the culture, and [whether they] are a wellspring of new social movements." The narrative of a generation, he told me, "starts to get filled in with some meaningful-maybe not correct, but at least substantial-content probably more when they start to enter their teens."

The term Generation Alpha is usually credited to Mark McCrindle, a generational researcher in Australia who runs a consulting agency. McCrindle told me that the name originated from an online survey he ran in 2008 that yielded a slew of now-discarded monikers, many of which focused on technology (the "Onliners," "Generation Surf," the "Technos") or gave the next round of humans the burden of undoing the damage done by the last (the "Regeneration," "Generation Hope," the "Saviors," "Generation Y-not").

One popular option from the survey was "Generation A," but, McCrindle told me in an email, he thought the name for a cohort that would shape the future shouldn't "be labelled by going back to the beginning." So once the Latin alphabet was exhausted, he hopped over to the Greek one-"the start of something new."

A consensus has formed around Generation Alpha, but it may be a temporary one. The generic "Generation [Letter]" format began with Generation X. "It was meant to be a placeholder for something a bit uncertain or mysterious, almost like X in some algebraic equation," Woodman told me. Generation Y followed, though it was usurped, at least in the U.S., by Millennials; nothing has overthrown Generation Z. Placeholder names, in a way, make generational generalizations easier. "They're almost like empty labels that you can put anything in," Woodman said. He thinks Generation Alpha will stick for at least a little while, but can also see how it might get replaced by something "a little more descriptive."

The history of generational labeling is littered with names that gained some traction, but not enough. Gen X has been referred to as " Baby Busters," the " slacker generation," " latchkey kids," and the " MTV Generation," though the placeholder won out. The same, so far, has been the case for Gen Z, whose proposed alternate names include "iGeneration," the "Homeland Generation," "Multi-Gen," "Post Gen," and the "Pluralistic Generation."
Read: How generations get their names
For researchers and consultants, picking a winning name and becoming an authority on a particular generation can be highly lucrative. "It's worth a heap of money," Woodman said. "One of the things we do with generational labels is make claims about how different this cohort is-they're so different, almost alien in their attitudes, that you need to pay some experts to come in and explain them to you." For instance, Neil Howe, one of the coiners of Millennials some 30 years ago, has gone on to make a career out of consulting, speaking, and writing about generations.

Of course, the enthusiasm about naming generations isn't just among marketers and consultants. People "do love generations talk," Woodman said. They're "drawn to using these labels to pin down something they intuitively feel about young or old people these days." He thinks that this desire is strong when the world is perceived to be changing rapidly-people want to be able to identify their position amid the flux.

Unfortunately, though, "generations talk" can often devolve into stereotyping, as generational labels necessarily lump together people with a wide variety of experiences. "We'd probably bristle if we did with gender or race what we still seem to get away with with generations," Woodman said.

Generalizing is additionally unwise because the process of delineating generations is hardly scientific. To be sure, today's coexisting cohorts have had meaningfully different experiences-Baby Boomers and Millennials, for instance, came of age in eras with markedly different technologies and paradigms of education and work. But, Woodman noted, shifts involving "generational factors" like these are usually gradual, and don't vary drastically from one year to the next.

"There's a continuous stream of people emerging in a population. How do we draw the line between the end of one cohort and the beginning of another?" said Rick Settersten, a professor of human development and family sciences at Oregon State University. "At some point, it's an arbitrary game."

In some regards, the game is more arbitrary now than it used to be. Take the Baby Boomers, for example. "We can see them more easily in the population because there's a fertility boom in 1946 right after World War II, which tails off by about 1964," Settersten told me.

The moderately logical boundaries of the Boomer generation set a precedent that in some ways led to the less logical boundaries for the generations that followed. If the final birth year for Boomers is 1964, counting out 15 more years gets you to the Gen X-Millennial border, and another 15 or so gets you to the Millennial-Gen Z border. But even though this is an orderly way of doing things, big societal changes don't always follow neat 15-year increments.

For instance, the youngest Millennials, born in 1996, might have more in common with the oldest Gen Zers, born in 1997, than the oldest Millennials, born in 1981; to name just one difference, many children of the late '90s grew up with the internet, while the 1981 babies spent most of their childhoods without it. (This sort of tension has birthed some niche generational labels for those born on the outer edge of their cohort, such as " Xennials.") Even the Baby Boomer label-which is grounded in a measurable fertility trend-doesn't entirely make sense, Settersten pointed out, as some of the oldest Boomers are the parents of some of the youngest ones.

Further, Millennials are often considered the children of Boomers, and Gen Zers are often considered Gen Xers' children. But these sorts of one-to-one matchups of parents and children become less valid as the average age at which parents have their first child has gotten higher. The age range of first-time mothers-whether they are 21, or 31, or 41-"has widened dramatically," Settersten wrote in an email. "They share a life event-they all had first births at the same time-but they potentially come from different 'generations.'" (He put the term in scare quotes to note that generations are essentially social constructs.) Woodman raised this point about other life milestones, such as leaving one's childhood home, starting a committed relationship, and purchasing a house. "The life course isn't as synchronized as it once was, where everyone does stuff at the same time," he said.

That means that, from here on out, even more diversity of human experience has to be crammed into broad generational labels. Woodman said that "attach[ing] attributes to an entire group, like optimistic or pessimistic or entitled, snowflakey, resilient, or whatever, has always been a stretch, but it'll probably get even less helpful as time goes on."

Settersten made a similar point: "It probably has gotten more difficult to distinguish one generation from another, especially if you can't point to meaningful things that might define it, like a baby boom or bust; or a historical event like the Great Recession; or maybe the emergence of some new technology, if we had reason to believe that it would mark [people] as a distinct group."

The march through the Greek alphabet may continue anyway. In 2024, by McCrindle's definition, the last of Generation Alpha will be born, making way for Generation Beta, whose birth years will span from 2025 to 2039. "If the nomenclature sticks, then we will afterwards have Generation Gamma and Generation Delta," McCrindle said. Those placeholder names stand a good chance of catching on-so long as nothing important and generation-defining happens in the next half century, of course.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
15-year cycle of generational delineations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Oh No, They've Come Up With Another Generation Label

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How much do members of "Generation Alpha," or any generation, really have in common? The cutoff for being born into Generation X was about 1980, the cutoff for Generation Y (a.k.a. the Millennials) was about 1996, and the cutoff for Generation Z was about 2010.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fast fashion is 'fast' in a number of senses: the changes in fashion are fast, the rate of production is fast; the customer's decision to purchase is fast; delivery is fast; and garments are worn fast - usually only a few times before being discarded.

The rise of fast fashion has had devastating consequences, from its reliance on plastic fabrics and its enormous carbon footprint to its erosion of workers' rights.

In this article we explain what we mean when we say 'fast fashion' and why it is so bad for people and the planet.

What is fast fashion?

In the last few decades, we have seen fashion trends changing more and more quickly. Pressures on workers to produce more and at lower prices have grown alongside pressures on consumers to turn to the newest trends.

Fast changing trends

At its heart, the fast fashion business model relies on consumers endlessly buying more clothes. Brands tempt consumers by offering ultra-cheap garments (for example, Missguided's £1 bikini) and ever-changing new ranges. At the time of writing, fast fashion brand Shein featured 21,139 clothes under the 'New in' section of its website.

Fashion brands have long used new styles and lower prices to attract customers, but previously brands would plan new ranges many months, even years, in advance. The pace of change was relatively slow and there were fewer products on offer. In comparison, fast fashion is focused on responding to ever-changing consumer tastes as quickly as possible.

For example, in the BBC's 'Breaking Fashion' show we see Manchester-based fast fashion company, In the Style, reproducing a bodysuit worn by Kylie Jenner. The company manages to have the piece designed, manufactured and on sale within 10 days of the piece first being worn publicly by the celebrity.

The rise of fast fashion is intertwined with social media and celebrity/influencer culture. A celebrity posts a photo wearing a new outfit, and their followers want it, so fast fashion brands rush to be the first to provide it. Fast fashion brands often target young people - so called Gen Zs -, who have been brought up amongst social media and influencer culture. In fact, a recent survey found that almost 75% of 18-24 year olds believe influencers can be held somewhat accountable for the rise in disposable fashion.

Of course, the flow of causality is not that simple: fast fashion brands are not simply reacting to consumer demand, they are also creating it. But the essential point is that these brands operate on the basis of constantly producing new lines of clothes to meet the insatiable and ever-changing consumer demand for all things new.

Fast production

Faster changing trends means that producers are under pressure to manufacture clothes more and more rapidly. Factories are expected to produce new lines with only a couple of month's notice, meaning that their workload - and therefore the amount of employment they can offer to workers - is unpredictable and insecure.

The drive to produce garments rapidly has led many UK fast fashion companies to reshore clothing production to the UK, where previously almost all clothing brands sourced from less-economically developed countries such as Bangladesh or Vietnam.

Leicester has become a central hub for clothing production and many of the scandals associated with workers' rights in the UK have been found in factories in the city.

The exploitation of workers in fast fashion supply chains is partly the result of brands pressuring suppliers to produce clothes as cheaply and quickly as possible. We talk about this more below.

Fast sale and delivery

The low-cost of fast fashion items encourages fast sale. The average person in the UK buys 60% more clothing today than in 2000. We buy more clothes per person in the UK than in any other country in Europe, and our addiction has grown - with online searches for 'cheap clothes' increasing 46.3% during the first coronavirus lockdown.

Even if you are out-of-pocket you can buy items using Klarna and other easy credit services. Its post-purchase payment options allow you to defer paying for your garment for 14 to 30 days, much like a payday loan.

Most companies also offer cheap deals for quick delivery. At the time of writing, Boohoo offered unlimited next-day delivery for one year for just £7.99.

Fast use

It's estimated that the average item of clothing is worn just 14 times, and in 2019 The Guardian reported that one in three young women considered an item worn just once or twice to be old.

Much modern clothing is not made to last. Due to super-fast production, designs are generally not well stress-tested before sale, and cheap synthetic fabrics are used in order to keep costs low. Much of it will end up in landfill after only being worn a handful of times.

Five things you need to know about fast fashion

The problems with fast fashion

What are the environmental problems with fast fashion?

The endless creation of new clothes comes with a heavy environmental price. Every year the sector requires 93 billion cubic meters of water, which is enough to meet the consumption needs of five million people, and is responsible for around 20% of industrial water pollution as a result of textile treatment and dyeing.

There are also numerous problems with the materials and processes used. For example, cotton production uses 6% of the world's pesticides and 16% of insecticides.

The industry also has a heavy carbon footprint, which is responsible for up to 10% of total global carbon emissions, and estimated to increase by 50% by 2030.

The above problems affect the clothing sector more broadly, but one issue is particularly endemic to fast fashion: plastic.

How much plastic do clothes contain?

The rise of fast fashion has been heavily dependent on synthetic fibres such as polyester, nylon, acrylic and elastane, which are made from heavily processed petrochemicals (fossil fuels). These materials are cheap to produce - polyester, for example, costs half as much per kilo as cotton - and therefore allow brands to keep prices low, though with a high environmental price-tag.

Polyester is the most widely used of these synthetic fibres and is now found in over half of all textiles produced. It is generally produced from polyethylene terephthalate, better known as PET, a type of plastic derived from crude oil and natural gas - also used to make items such as plastic bottles.

The ubiquitousness of plastic in clothing means that the textile sector accounts for 15% of total plastic use; the only sectors that use more are construction and packaging. Many brands are making a song and dance about using recycled plastics for their clothes, but a recent report by the RSA found that the actual level of recycled content was pitifully low. Across four major online fast fashion brands, the use of recycled fabrics was a mere 4%.

Our analysis of Shein's website found its recycled content was even lower, at only 0.5%, despite the brand claiming, " When selecting materials, we do our best to source recycled fabric, such as recycled polyester."

Recycling plastics where possible has some benefits, but it does nothing to address the problem of microfibres - the miniscule bits of fabric that are released when clothes are worn, washed, or disposed of, that find their way into our bodies and the natural world.

According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, clothes release half a million tonnes of microfibres into the ocean every year, equivalent to more than 50 billion plastic bottles.

These fibres have been found almost everywhere: from the summit of Mount Everest to the placentas of unborn babies. We still do not know the effects they may have.

How much waste does the clothing industry cause?

The industry is also responsible for enormous amounts of textile waste. The amount of textiles being produced globally per person has more than doubled from 5.9kg to 13kg over the period 1975-2018.

Many of the clothes bought are thrown away after being worn just a handful of times: the industry produces an estimated 92 million tonnes of textiles waste annually, much of which is burnt or finds its way to landfill, while less than 1% of used clothing is recycled into new garments.

Some of this waste consists of items that never even reached the consumer - clothing lines that have become outdated and so are destroyed instead of sold.

Atacama clothing mountain highlights over-consumption

The shocking reality of fast fashion's waste problem hit the headlines in November 2021 with an Agence France-Presse (AFP) report on the mountains of discarded clothing ending up in Chile's Atacama Desert. A total of 59,000 tons of second-hand clothing is said to arrive in Chile for resale each year from Europe, the US and Asia. However, an estimated 39,000 tons is unable to be sold and ends up dumped in the desert.

The situation highlights the myriad of problems in the fashion industry. The over-consumption of new clothing means that even an increasingly thriving second-hand clothing market cannot keep up, and this is exacerbated by the amount of poor-quality clothing not suitable for resale.

While second-hand markets certainly play a huge role in reducing the carbon impact of clothing when replacing the purchase of new items, a system where clothing gets shipped around the world multiple times, only to be wasted anyway is clearly not sustainable.

Clothing made of plastics

The piles mounting up in the Atacama, and in landfills across the world, are not biodegradable. Much of our clothing is made from synthetic plastics and also contains chemicals harmful to the environment.

Many fashion brands are pledging to address the issue of the use of virgin plastics in clothing manufacture, a material derived from the fossil fuel industry. However, this is often by replacing it with recycled synthetics.

And this may well be from recycled plastic bottles but, as a recent Guardian article points out: "PET bottles are also part of a well-established, closed-loop recycling system, where they can be efficiently recycled at least 10 times. The apparel industry is 'taking from this closed-loop, and moving it into this linear system because most of those clothes won't be recycled', said Maxine Bédat, Executive Director of New Standard Institute. "Converting plastic from bottles into clothes may actually accelerate its path to the landfill, especially for low-quality, fast-fashion garments which are often discarded after only a few uses."

The fashion industry, governments and consumers need to act to slow down consumption and ensure that garments are sustainable at every stage of their life cycle, from fibre production, to manufacture, to end-of-life.

Why is it bad for workers?

In order to offer clothes at ultra low prices, fast fashion brands need their costs to be low. One of the main ways of doing this is to drive down the wages of garment workers in the supply chain.

For years, brands have 'chased the cheap needle' around the world, seeking countries with the lowest labour standards so that garment workers can be easily exploited. In recent years, many UK fast fashion brands have found the cheap needle closer to home, often in quasi-legal factories in cities such as Leicester.

In the UK, Boohoo has become somewhat the symbol of fast fashion's worker exploitation problem. Numerous exposés have shown that while the pockets of Boohoo's directors are bursting at the seams, the people who actually stitch the seams of its clothing are paid a pittance, with some found to have been paid under half the minimum wage.

The Levitt report, which looked in depth at Boohoo's Leicester supply chain, found that "The allegations of unacceptable working conditions and underpayment of workers are not only well-founded but are substantially true." Levitt also claimed that these problems were endemic to the system and likely found across Boohoo's supply chain.

Worker exploitation is an essential part of the fast fashion model. If an item is very cheap, chances are that the person who produced it was paid little.

A 2022 report Unbearable Harassment: The Fashion Industry and Widespread Abuse of Female Garment Workers in Indian Factories, found that every single woman spoken to for the report (90), had either experienced or witnessed gender-based violence and harassment (GBVH) carried out by male supervisors and managers at the factories they worked at.

"Verbal, physical, and sexual harassment exists in every garment factory - not just this one. It existed before COVID, it exists during COVID, and it will exist after COVID..." Smita, Tamal Nadu.

The report goes on to state that:

"Violence on the factory floor cannot be dismissed as just a factory-level problem; rather, it must be understood as an industry-wide culture of violence driven by the business model of global fashion brands".

Which are the leading fast fashion brands?

It is important to note that most of the fashion sector has become 'faster' in recent years. As such, even the more mainstream, established brands will be 'fast' to some extent. However, there are some brands that stand out as much faster than the rest:

Boohoo, which also owns the following brands: Burton, Coast, Debenhams, Dorothy Perkins, Karen Millen, MissPap, Nasty Gal, Oasis, Pretty Little Thing, Wallis, Warehouse

In the Style

I Saw it First

Missguided

If a brand is offering vast numbers of 'new in' clothes (usually thousands of new items every day) and its products are super cheap, then it is a fast fashion brand.
UPDATE
Missguided collapsed at the end of May 2022, leaving suppliers and workers out of pocket for months of completed orders.

The Frasers Group, controlled by the Sports Direct founder Mike Ashley, has reportedly bought the company out of administration for £20m. This process will take around two months to complete.

We will review the impact of the collapse and new owner in due course.

Meanwhile, Labour Behind the Label have campaigned to demand workers and suppliers are paid, amidst reports that many are owed thousands of pounds.

Update from COP26 on fashion

Considering its comparative carbon impact, maybe the fashion industry deserved more focus at the recent COP26 summit in Glasgow, but it was not totally without attention.

In the second week, an update to the Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action was announced, with more ambitious targets for carbon reduction to align with the Paris Agreement's 1.5-degree aim. The charter currently has 130 signatories including brands such as H&M, Primark, Levi's, Chanel and Adidas.

A request for government-backed incentives for using sustainable materials was also submitted by global non-profit Textile Exchange, with its COO, Claire Bergkamp, stating: "We need both regulations to stop bad action and incentives for sustainable materials to help reduce the price burden that currently exists for sourcing more responsibly. Our hope is through trade incentives and tariff reductions, we can level the playing field, without placing the burden on suppliers across the value chain".

The call was supported by 50 of the world's largest fashion and textile companies. It is an interesting turn of events considering the UK Government's complete reluctance to regulate the UK fashion industry as recommended by the 2019 Fixing Fashion report. The call could also be viewed as a profit-driven industry with a history of wreaking havoc on the environment, now demanding it be subsidised for doing the right thing. However, it is true that with such a harmful and complex industry strong legislation is badly needed to start curtailing fashion's destructive path.

Awful conditions at a Shein factory exposed

A Channel 4 documentary broadcast autumn 2022 went undercover at a Shein factory to expose predictably awful conditions and exhausted, exploited workers.

The brand is also shown to copy designs from independent designers, rely on unpaid influencers for its marketing, and use manipulative sales techniques such as countdown timers and multi-buys to encourage overconsumption.

Yet the company is hugely popular and massively outsells its fast fashion rivals. Despite many similar documentaries and decades of campaigning on garment worker rights, it seems that cheap clothes are an addiction we just can't break.

Check out our clothing guides to find some much more ethical options for new clothes, or choose second hand.

What progress has been made in the decade since the Rana Plaza disaster?

The Rana Plaza disaster and the Accord

April 2023 marks the 10th anniversary of the Rana Plaza disaster in Bangladesh which killed more than 1,100 garment workers, an event that exposed the appalling human cost of fast fashion. Simon Birch asks what progress, if any, has been made over the past decade in the fight against fast fashion.

Following the Rana Plaza disaster the Bangladesh Accord was established. This was the first and only legally binding agreement that holds brands to account for health and safety in the garment industry, and is designed to prevent another Rana Plaza tragedy from ever happening again.

"The Accord represents a significant victory for textile workers," says Anna Bryher from Labour Behind the Label, one of the UK's leading campaign groups against fast fashion. "There's been a massive improvement in the safety of clothing factories in Bangladesh," acknowledges Bryher.

Whilst this is welcome good news, the bad news is that the Accord hasn't done anything to address the pitifully low wages that Bangladeshi garment workers still receive.

But whilst the global fast fashion business model is still based on exploitative low wages, the brands themselves are now coming under increasing pressure.

Profits at fast fashion pioneers ASOS and Boohoo are tumbling whilst last year Missguided, one of the UK's flagship fast fashion companies went bust, all largely as a result of the cost-of-living crisis that's seen soaring costs of everything from cotton to shipping.

Environmental claims from fast fashion companies under the spotlight

Last year, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority launched an investigation into whether eco-friendly and sustainability claims made by the fast fashion chains Asos, Boohoo and George at Asda constitute greenwashing.

Meanwhile over in Europe, the EU is stepping up its fight against throwaway culture by aiming to end fast fashion by 2030.

In an ambitious initiative launched last year, the EU announced its intention to vastly expand its clothing design rules on recycling and sustainability. In just seven years' time, all textiles sold within the EU must be recyclable, free of hazardous substances and contain a high percentage of recycled fibres.

All these actions are clearly good news for the environment but the bottom line is that fast fashion still demands the exploitation of garment workers.

However, it's important to remember that the problem is with the clothing companies, not with the clothing industry.

"We all need clothes and the clothing industry provides millions of jobs around the world from farmers who provide the cotton and fabrics to workers in garment factories," says Heather Webb, a former researcher at Ethical Consumer who has since worked within the fast fashion industry as an ethical trade analyst.

"Big fashion brands are consistently treating the factories they buy from poorly and it's the workers and environment who suffer," says Fiona Gooch from Transform Trade that campaigns for a more ethical global trading system.

"We need a fashion watchdog to regulate UK garment retailers along the same lines as the existing supermarket watchdog that's successfully reduced the unfair buying practices of the UK's largest food retailers," explains Gooch. "A fashion watchdog would reduce abusive and unfair purchasing practices of the garment retailers which would ultimately benefit garment workers."

Whilst acknowledging that a fashion watchdog would be a good thing, Anna Bryher believes that it wouldn't fix the problem of low wages within the clothing industry. What's needed says Bryher is new legislation to enable clothing brands to be held to account for their unfair purchasing practices.

Heather Webb agrees. "We need government intervention in the market," says Webb. "One of the key things that could improve both the pay and working conditions of garment workers is a law outlawing the unethical buying practices of clothing brands."

Progress by brands is extremely slow

The Ethical Fashion Report published in 2023, 10 years after the first edition, found that although there has been some progress for garment workers, overall change is still too slow. Their research found that at the current rate of progress, it would be 75 years before all companies are paying a living wage at even a minimum of one factory per company. The vast majority of clothing companies (84%) were not sourcing from any factories which paid a living wage.

Find out more in the report and also use the charity's 'Speak Out' tool to see how individual brands are doing and let them know what you think.

People's clothing habits are changing

Despite the pervasiveness of fast fashion, things are beginning to improve.

New research from WRAP has found that compared with similar research carried out in 2013, we are wearing our clothes for slightly longer. Jeans, for example, now have a longevity of just over four years, compared to just over three in 2013. The research also found that more than half of us are happy to buy second hand clothes; nearly 60% of us put a lot of effort into maintaining our clothes; and that a similar proportion look for ways to repair clothes when they're damaged.

The WRAP research also estimates that the UK's wardrobes hold 1.6 billion items of unworn clothes, an average of 31 items for each adult. And yet we're still spending more than £4 billion on shopping for clothes each month. WRAP makes the point that as textiles and fashion are responsible for between 4% and 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions, we need a revolution in our clothing habits to make our wardrobes sustainable.

Circular clothing industry

The purpose of the WRAP research was to understand the population's receptiveness to circular business models for clothing. These included second hand, upcycling, subscription, rental (pay-per-wear) and repair (where a brand repairs an item of clothing a customer has purchased from it for a fee).

WRAP found that 40% of people are likely to use a subscription service and that 58% are open to using a repair service. Among those who have already used a circular business model, the majority said they would do so again.

WRAP argues that this shows there is a clear case for clothing brands and retailers to adopt circular business models.

Read the full WRAP report into clothing longevity on their website and read tips on repairing and buying second hand in our article on upcycling and buying second hand clothing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is fast fashion and why is it a problem? | Ethical Consumer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Alex Crumbie explores the growing concern about the social and environmental impacts of the fast fashion clothing industry and sets out what's wrong with fast fashion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2019, then 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg stood up in front of world leaders at Davos to deliver a chilling wake up call:

Greta sparked a wake-up call across the globe demanding drastic change to save our planet and in turn, ourselves. We're all feeling the effects of the climate emergency, but it is not affecting us all equally.

The world's poorest people have contributed the least to the climate crisis, yet are suffering the full force of its impacts: increased flooding, droughts and storms destroying lives, homes, jobs, livestock and crops.

When Greta said, "our house is on fire" she wasn't wrong. We are seeing unprecedented wild fires spreading across the Amazon rainforest, the lungs of our planet, producing 20% of the world's oxygen. Greenland's ice sheet is melting so fast it has caused global sea levels to rise 0.5mm in just one month.

Farmers like Hudan in Ethiopia are having to adapt in a drastically warming world to months without rainfall. Our planet is in serious trouble.

But things could be different. As Greta pointed out "The main solution is so simple that even a small child can understand. We have to stop our emissions of greenhouse gases."

Obvious actions stand out - flying less, driving less, taking more public transport. But how about buying fewer new clothes? With the global textile industry producing more greenhouse gas emissions than international aviation and shipping combined - it could be a more important change than we think.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Oxfam GB | New Shocking Facts about the Impact of Fast Fashion on our Climate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our addiction to new clothes is doing serious harm. Read the latest research, facts and statistics about fast fashion and its shocking impact on the environment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Clothing retailers like Zara, Forever 21, and H&M make cheap and fashionable clothing to satisfy the needs of young consumers. Yet, fast fashion has a significant environmental impact. According to the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the industry is the second-biggest consumer of water and is responsible for about 10% of global carbon emissions - more than all international flights and maritime shipping combined. Unfortunately, fast fashion problems are often overlooked by consumers.
-

What Is Fast Fashion?

The term ' fast fashion ' has become more prominent in conversations surrounding fashion, sustainability, and environmental consciousness. The term refers to 'cheaply produced and priced garments that copy the latest catwalk styles and get pumped quickly through stores in order to maximise on current trends'.

The fast fashion model is so-called because it involves the rapid design, production, distribution, and marketing of clothing, which means that retailers are able to pull large quantities of greater product variety and allow consumers to get more fashion and product differentiation at a low price.

The term was first used at the beginning of the 1990s, when when Zara landed in New York. "Fast fashion" was coined by the New York Times to describe Zara's mission to take only 15 days for a garment to go from the design stage to being sold in stores. The biggest players in the fast fashion world include Zara, UNIQLO, Forever 21 and H&M.

The Dark Side of Fast Fashion

According to an analysis by Business Insider, fashion production comprises 10% of total global carbon emissions, as much as the European Union. It dries up water sources and pollutes rivers and streams, while 85% of all textiles go to dumps each year. Even washing clothes releases 500,000 tons of microfibres into the ocean each year, the equivalent of 50 billion plastic bottles.

The Quantis International 2018 report found that the three main drivers of the industry's global pollution impacts are dyeing and finishing (36%), yarn preparation (28%) and fibre production (15%). The report also established that fibre production has the largest impact on freshwater withdrawal (water diverted or withdrawn from a surface water or groundwater source) and ecosystem quality due to cotton cultivation, while the dyeing and finishing, yarn preparation and fibre production stages have the highest impacts on resource depletion, due to the energy-intensive processes based on fossil fuel energy.

According to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, emissions from textile manufacturing alone are projected to skyrocket by 60% by 2030.

The time it takes for a product to go through the supply chain, from design to purchase, is called a ' lead time '. In 2012, Zara was able to design, produce and deliver a new garment in two weeks; Forever 21 in six weeks and H&M in eight weeks. This results in the fashion industry producing obscene amounts of waste.

This story is funded by readers like you

Our non-profit newsroom provides climate coverage free of charge and advertising. Your one-off or monthly donations play a crucial role in supporting our operations, expanding our reach, and maintaining our editorial independence.

About EO | Mission Statement | Impact & Reach | Write for us

You Might Also Like: The 9 Essential Fast Fashion Statistics
Fast Fashion and Its Environmental Impact

1. Water

The environmental impact of fast fashion comprises the depletion of non-renewable sources, emission of greenhouse gases and the use of massive amounts of water and energy. The fashion industry is the second largest consumer industry of water, requiring about 700 gallons to produce one cotton shirt and 2 000 gallons of water to produce a pair of jeans. Business Insider also cautions that textile dyeing is the world's second-largest polluter of water, since the water leftover from the dyeing process is often dumped into ditches, streams or rivers.

2. Microplastics

Furthermore, brands use synthetic fibres like polyester, nylon and acrylic which take hundreds of years to biodegrade. A 2017 report from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) estimated that 35% of all microplastics - tiny pieces of non-biodegradable plastic - in the ocean come from the laundering of synthetic textiles like polyester.

According to the documentary released in 2015, The True Cost, the world consumes around 80 billion new pieces of clothing every year, 400% more than the consumption twenty years ago. The average American now generates 82 pounds of textile waste each year. The production of leather requires large amounts of feed, land, water and fossil fuels to raise livestock, while the tanning process is among the most toxic in all of the fashion supply chain because the chemicals used to tan leather- including mineral salts, formaldehyde, coal-tar derivatives and various oils and dyes- is not biodegradable and contaminates water sources.

3. Energy

The production of making plastic fibres into textiles is an energy-intensive process that requires large amounts of petroleum and releases volatile particulate matter and acids like hydrogen chloride. Additionally, cotton, which is in a large amount of fast fashion products, is also not environmentally friendly to manufacture. Pesticides deemed necessary for the growth of cotton presents health risks to farmers.

To counter this waste caused by fast fashion, more sustainable fabrics that can be used in clothing include wild silk, organic cotton, linen, hemp and lyocell.
You might Also Like: How to Recognise Fast Fashion Brands and Which Ones to Avoid
The Social Impacts of Fast Fashion

Fast fashion does not only have a huge environmental impact. In fact, the industry also poses societal problems, especially in developing economies. According to non-profit Remake, 80% of apparel is made by young women between the ages of 18 and 24. A 2018 US Department of Labor report found evidence of forced and child labour in the fashion industry in Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Turkey, Vietnam and others. Rapid production means that sales and profits supersede human welfare.

In 2013, an eight-floor factory building that housed several garment factories collapsed in Dhaka, Bangladesh, killing 1,134 workers and injuring more than 2,500. In her project An Analysis of the Fast Fashion Industry, Annie Radner Linden suggests that 'the garment industry has always been a low-capital and labour intensive industry'.

In her book No Logo, Naomi Klein argues that developing nations are viable for garment industries due to 'cheap labour, vast tax breaks, and lenient laws and regulations'. According to The True Cost, one in six people work in some part of the global fashion industry, making it the most labour-dependent industry. These developing nations also rarely follow environmental regulations; China, for example, is a major producer of fast fashion but is notorious for land degradation and air and water pollution.
You might also like: The Danger of Sweatshops
Is Slow Fashion the Solution?

Slow fashion is the widespread reaction to fast fashion and its environmental impact, the argument for hitting the brakes on excessive production, overcomplicated supply chains, and mindless consumption. It advocates for manufacturing that respects people, the environment and animals.

The World Resources Institute suggests that companies need to design, test and invest in business models that reuse clothes and maximise their useful life. The UN has launched the Alliance for Sustainable Fashion to address the damages caused by fast fashion. It is seeking to 'halt the environmentally and socially destructive practices of fashion'.
You might also like: What Is Slow Fashion and How Can You Join the Movement?
One way that shoppers are reducing their consumption of fast fashion is by buying from secondhand sellers like ThredUp Inc. and Poshmark, both based in California, USA; shoppers send their unwanted clothes to these websites and people buy those clothes at a lower price than the original. Another solution is renting clothes, like the US-based Rent the Runway and Gwynnie Bee, the UK based Girl Meets Dress, and the Dutch firm Mud Jeans that leases organic jeans which can be kept, swapped or returned.

Other retailers like Adidas are experimenting with personalised gear to cut down on returns, increase customer satisfaction and reduce inventory. Ralph Lauren has announced that it will use 100% sustainably-sourced key materials by 2025.

Governments need to be more actively involved in the fashion industry's damaging effects. UK ministers rejected a report by members of parliament to address the environmental effects of fast fashion. On the other hand, French president, Emmanuel Macron has made a pact with 150 brands to make the fashion industry more sustainable.
Featured image by EO Photographer Chin Leong Teo
The best advice on reducing the environmental impact of fast fashion comes from Patsy Perry, senior lecturer in fashion marketing at the University of Manchester, who says, "Less is always more."

This story is funded by readers like you

Our non-profit newsroom provides climate coverage free of charge and advertising. Your one-off or monthly donations play a crucial role in supporting our operations, expanding our reach, and maintaining our editorial independence.

About EO | Mission Statement | Impact & Reach | Write for us

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fast Fashion: Its Detrimental Effect on the Environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fast fashion has a massive environmental impact, it is the second-biggest consumer of water and is responsible for nearly 10% of global carbon emissions.