The author of this article is Julie Kuenneke, and she is a s a freelance writer and content creator with a passion for thrifting the latest trends and discovering the holy grail items buried beneath the rubbish. This source provides both the perspective of the massive corporations in question and also the perspective of the factory workers.

The article was published on november 11, 2019. This means the source is still reliable as it was only a few years ago. There could be bias since it is the CEO of the company that is speaking, so obviously he will cherry- pick information

Quotes/Evidence:

"Karl-Johan Perrson, chief executive officer of Hennes & Mauritz AB—better known as fast fashion juggernaut H&M—said in an interview with Bloomberg that while the movement “may lead to a small environmental impact, it will have terrible social consequences.”

"And, clearly, Perrson claims to be concerned about poverty and its affect globally. Yet, climate and poverty co-exist in the same fashionable ecosystem. Mindful consumerism requires buying less, buying quality, and making purchases from companies that treat workers fairly and pay living wages."

"To further point out hypocrisy in Perrson’s professed concern for garment workers, one must only look to the fact that it is these disenfranchised communities who will be the first to feel the effects of climate change, not the CEOs of billion-dollar fast fashion companies or even the consumers who keep brands like H&M in business. The Union of Concerned Researchers in Fashion (UCRF) states that the places that will suffer the most from climate impact will be the places that take on the toll of industrial pollution — the same countries where vast amounts of clothing are currently being manufactured"

Evidence/Quotes:

"Over the years, companies have increasingly chosen to outsource their labor to countries with lax labor laws (or a willingness to overlook them) to pay less for the work that is necessary for clothing"

"Workers in the factories told their managers that they had noticed cracks in the building but were told to go back to work. At one point, the managers were even given an evacuation order (which they ignored). Nothing was done. As a result, 1,129 workers died, and even more were injured."

"Outside of the tragedies that have occurred in the industry’s factories, many of the factories cut corners on a regular basis to reduce production costs. Work areas are frequently found to have poor lighting, which can be damaging to the workers’ sight, and toxic chemicals, which can be harmful to their respiratory systems. As of 2016, the minimum wage in $67 dollars each month, which is far less than fair compensation for the labor of these workers, especially in such poor conditions. "

"Fast-fashion is also an incredibly unsustainable industry. Eileen Fisher, a high-end fashion retailer who aims to use sustainable and ethical production methods, has called the clothing industry “the second-largest polluter in the world."

"Article 23 of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that every person has the right to “just and favourable conditions of work,” as well as the right to “just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity.” The harmful work environments and low-wages involved in the clothing industry prevent workers from accessing these rights."

Gethin Chamberlain is the author of this source.  He is a freelance photojournalist. He previously covered India and South Asia for The Observer. He has spent over 30 years working in countries in Asia, specifically India. The article was made 11 years ago, which could potentially ruin its credibility because the companies in question may have changed

Another source I found from Earth.org and it had also talked about the problems that Sweatshop workers face every day. They also interviewed workers, making it a very reliable source. Ultimately, they had similar perspectives and lenses in the topic of Fast Fashion

Evidence/Quotes:

"It hurts us to be paid so little. I have to do this and they sell one piece of clothing for more than I get paid in a month," she said. "We cannot eat nutritious food. We don't have a good life, we live in pain for the rest of our life and die in pain.

Sakamma, a 42-year-old mother-of-two working for Gap supplier Texport in Bengaluru, told the tribunal she earned just 22p an hour and that when she finished at the factory she had to work as a domestic help to top up her wages.

Physical and verbal abuse is rife, while female workers who fail to meet impossible targets say they are berated, called "dogs and donkeys", and told to "go and die". Many workers who toil long hours in an attempt to support their families on poverty wages claim they are cheated out of their dues by their employers.

The targets are too high. They want 150 pieces an hour. When we can't meet the targets, the abuse starts. There is too much pressure; it is like torture. We can't take breaks or drink water or go to the toilet. The supervisors are on our backs all the time," she said. "They call us donkey, owl [a creature associated with evil], dog and insult us … make us stand in front of everyone, tell us to go and die."

According to Indian government figures, the national textile industry is worth £35bn a year and employs 35 million people. Garment exports are worth £21bn. But human rights campaigners accuse international brands of subcontracting to firms paying poverty wages to the people who make their clothes.

One worker said that a colleague was electrocuted by a bare wire last year in a factory supplying Gap. Ashok Kumar Singh, 29, who works for Gap supplier Modelama Exports in Gurgaon, gave evidence that he was paid just 5,097 rupees a month (24.6p an hour), although the legal minimum rate for his job was 5,300 rupees.

The article uses sources from other articles, and also information coming straight from workers in these Sweatshops

LEI NGUYEN is the author of this source. She is a student at Masaryk University pursuing her studies in Politics, Media, and Communication. With a strong passion for writing and journalism, she aspires to become a prolific writer in the field of social issues, particularly mental health and climate change. Currently, she is working as an Editor Assistant at IVolunteer International and Contributing Writer at Earth.Org. This source provides a perspective of the Sweatshop workers. This was published October 10th, 2022. This is a very recent article meaning that its argument is still applicable today. Didn't notice any bias

Connection: Another source I found from The Guardian had also talked about the problems that Sweatshop workers face every day. They also interviewed workers, making it a very reliable source. Ultimately, they had similar perspectives and lenses in the topic of Fast Fashion

Quotes/Evidence:

"Working conditions are poor, unhygienic and unsafe since a large number of sweatshops are located in poor nations with weak labour laws and little government control; as a result, if workers attempt to challenge their rights or work conditions, they risk losing their jobs."

"Workers in the garment industry are required to put in 14 to 16 hours per day, seven days a week, and endure verbal and sometimes even physical abuse from managers. Oftentimes, workers are exposed to harmful substances while working without enough ventilation. Accidents and injuries are also frequent. In 2013, over 1,000 garment employees in Bangladesh lost their lives while at work as a result of the collapse of the Rana Plaza factory."

"60% of the employees were under the age of 18 when they started working. These kids are particularly vulnerable to being compelled to work in sweatshops because they are caught in the cycle of poverty."

"In several manufacturing nations, including Bangladesh, China, and India, the minimum wage only covers half to a fifth of what a family needs to make ends meet."

The primary author of the paper is Joy Annamma, a Professor at the University of British Columbia. This provides her with a lot of credibility to speak about this topic.

This source talks more about the ethical issues regarding the environment and social issues of fast fashion

The paper was made in 2012, so this can definitely reduce the credibility of it.

There seemed to be no biases regarding this source

Evidence/Quotes:

"With fast fashion, new styles swiftly supersede the old, defining and sustaining constantly emerging desires and notions of self. As Binkley (2008: 602) argues, the idea of "multiple selves in evolution" is central to fast fashion lovers. Fast fashion replaces exclusivity, glamour, originality, and luxury with "massclusivity" and planned spontaneity (Toktali 2008)."

"Our finding is unsurprising; other studies have similarly documented irrational consumer choices that are poorly connected to, or completely disconnected from, consumer values (Moisander and Personen 1991). The moral-norm activation theory of altruism proposed by Schwartz (1973) states that environmental quality is a collective good, and therefore will motivate consumers to embrace environmentalism in all aspects of life. The rapid rise of fast fashion implies otherwise. Schwartz' theory presumes that consumers will thoughtfully evaluate the life cycle of different products, and will then select whichever product has the least environmental load. However, in our study, participants had little overlap with the "ethical hard liners" (those living entirely in line with their commitment to sustainability, and thus purchasing only eco-fashion) discussed by Niinimaki (2010: 152) in her study of eco-fashion in Finland. Solomon and Rabolt (2004) argue that sustainability is simply not an attribute that most consumers consider when purchasing clothing."

"As noted above, participants cared greatly about sustainability, but only as it related to food, recycling, and, in some cases, cosmetics (now available containing organic ingredients). If consumers recognize the demands that fast fashion makes on the environment, they seem to block it from their consciousness (Joergens 2006). Aesthetics trump ethics, at least for the time being. Niinimaki (2010) notes that, while ethical hard liners are increasing in number, that number is still low."

"Fast fashion companies such as Topshop and Gap (McDougall 2007), have also come under relatively recent scrutiny concerning their compromised manufacturing ethics. Consumers are demanding more information about sourcing and manufacturing, which can be a point of differentiation by companies. Such changes in the marketplace suggest that there is a greater need to understand the relationship between ethical markets and mainstream consumer markets. As Shaw and Riach note, "it is through individual and collective struggle that continually sets the parameters and makes meaning over what is constituted as 'ethical' within the dominant market."

"Fast fashion companies indirectly help in alleviating the lasting effects of classism in developed countries by pro- ducing apparel and marketing it to both higher and lower income individuals, so everyone begins to wear the same items regardless of social or economic class. Those with a lower income may not have as many pieces of clothing, or cycle through them as quickly, as people in the middle- and upper-class, but fast fashion gives them the opportunity to wear the same styles as their peers, thus diminishing one method people use to discriminate against those who are different than them (von Busch, 2018)."

The author of this text is Rebecca Niemen, a PhD student at the University of San Diego

This perspective is neutral, as It is an experiment

This paper was made in 2023, meaning that It can be really reliable for even today

There seems to be no bias in this source

Evidence/Quotes:

"When identifying potential stakeholders, students may discuss whether considering every stakeholder is untenable in deciding whether the company should make a fashion collection that seemingly belittles low-income workers. Instructors could note that oftentimes companies see investors (consumers) as the most important stakeholder."

"Fashion has been present in society for years; however, our perspective on fashion has changed. Technology has opened a global marketplace and allows consumers more avenues in which to admire and purchase items. Additionally, an increased interest and hyper-focus on celebrities and their fashion, as well as private lives, help to catapult the amount of advertisements for brands and styles. Finally, in the past decade, an increasing list of new

designers has caused the industry as a whole to grow."

The main author of the paper, Bahareh Zamani, has a PhD in economy and sustainable fashion, making them reputable to speak about this topic

The paper talks about the ethical aspects of environmental degradation due to fast fashion. It includes perspectives from higher-ups in these fast fashion companies and many of their workers.

This source was published in 2017, which was a long time ago. This could potentially discredit its use today.

There could potentially be some bias against the fast fashion companies

Evidence/Quotes:

"Normalised results of environmental impact potential indicators of one use of a pair of jeans for the medium transport impact baseline and clothing library scenarios, the results related to low and high impact transport for each scenario are shown as error bars."

"In terms of freshwater eutrophication, the online scenario with four times longer service life and low transportation impact potentially leads to 60% lower impact. Among the medium transportation impact scenarios, the online scenarios lead to lower impact compared with the offline scenarios.

The results for freshwater consumption show savings up to 75% in the clothing library scenarios in comparison with the baseline scenario with medium impact transportation. For freshwater consumption the type of transportation does not play a major role since most of the water consumption is related to the production phase. Since there were almost no variations in the results due to the type of transportations in the scenarios, no error bars are shown for this indicator."

"One surprising result from the assessment of the collaborative consumption business models was the decrease of freshwater ecotoxicity potential especially in scenarios using high impact transportation systems. It is possible that this represents an imbalance between the level of detail in LCI data for textile production compared with transportation – toxic emissions from the production phase are seldom inventoried satisfactorily in the database data"

"Shows that the number of customers per garment life cycle can considerably influence the environmental impact of clothing libraries, as more customers mean more transport to and from the store (offline scenario) or pickup point (online scenario). So the frequency of garment transactions, and the number of uses per customer, matter greatly. These factors can be influenced by the setup of the clothing library membership system, for example by the number of clothing pieces the customer can borrow within a set time period, and the length of that time period. Fewer items and a longer time period could give an incentive to reduce the number of customers per garment life cycle, which would be environmentally preferable"

Emma Williams, a PhD student at the University of Southern California, is the author of this paper. The paper itself is published in a top peer-reviewed journal, making it very reputable. The source provides a perspective of big corporations, the workers that are abused, and scientists

This paper was purchased in 2022, making it very relevant to today. There does not seem to be any biases.

Evidence/Quotes:

“About 60 per cent of material made into clothing is plastic, which includes polyester, acrylic and nylon textiles,” and, because of this, “laundry alone causes around half a million tons of plastic microfibers to be released into the ocean every year—the equivalent of almost three billion polyester shirts"

"This sizable mass of clothing waste is formed in conjunc- tion with the depletion of the income of consumers and the resources used to manufacture the garments, not to men- tion the long-term effects of textiles laying in landfills. De- pending on the material of the garments, apparel pieces can sit in the landfill for over 200 years (Stanes & Gibson, 2017). This may not seem like a significant issue that expands past the potential of overflow, however, overtime, chemicals and dyes from the fabric of these clothing pieces begin to seep into the ground. This leaching can cause toxic materials to “be taken up by plants and animals, contaminate a human drinking water supply or volatilize and contaminate the in- door air in overlying buildings”

Motala, Taskeen created the text. The research paper is published in the IIESpace RepositoryCorporate, a reputable journal. This source provides the perspective of the consumer of the fast-fashion business model. This voice matters because they are the people that fuel this disgusting industry. This text was produced in 2018, so some of the things said may be out of date. There could be bias leaning towards the consumer

Connection: This source connects with the source “H&M’s CEO Says to Keep Consuming: Here’s Our Rebuttal” because they both talk about the consumer

Evidence/Quotes:

"Young consumers who encompass the purchasing

power and appeal of cutting - edge fashion apparel are sought to be key fast fashion

buyers. Such young consumers discovered in the Hong Kong and Canadian fast fashion industry are consumers who pose interest towards the environment but little

association with corporate social responsibility, with regards to the human element in

fashion. Subsequently there is consumer hesitancy to purchase sustainable fashion

apparel because of high-priced items and a limited selection."

"Consumers now purchase more apparel than ever before and move through fashion trends at a greater pace. In the age of ‘fast fashion’, luxury apparel brands ironically cannot afford the luxury of working with the same suppliers and safeguard company standard (Allen, 2015). Such manufacturing middlemen are ‘Nike’ sweatshops in Indonesia, run by Taiwanese and Korean firms. These mega suppliers also known as sweatshops dominate the fashion apparel industry and leave much to be desired concerning the corporate social responsibility regarding luxury apparel brands"

"The concept of fashion consumption is related to showcasing the self and utilised as

an indicator for identity consequently the higher leisure class embrace a fashion trend

or style, which is then mirrored by the lower classes of society. As soon as the lower

class embrace a particular apparel, trend or style, the higher leisure class embrace a

nouvelle fashion."

"The social identity of individuals is designed by the consumerism of fashion apparel.

The concept of conspicuous consumption supersedes the significance of merely

existing. The consumer’s appeal for products and brands creates a market that enjoys

novel trends and apparel, retail giants such as Zara and Forever 21 contribute to the

development of luxury apparel brands and apparel consumption"

The author of this article is Mary Jo DiLonardo, who has over 30 years of experience with fashion and environmental issues.

Evidence:

Textile Waste: Fast fashion contributes to massive amounts of textile waste, as cheap and low-quality garments are often discarded quickly, leading to environmental problems.

CO2 Emissions: The fashion industry is a significant contributor to global carbon emissions, with the production, transportation, and disposal of fast fashion items all contributing to environmental pollution.

Water Pollution: The use of synthetic fabrics and harmful chemicals in textile production can contribute to water pollution, affecting marine life and ecosystems.