Radically Regulating Fast Fashion Advertising
I recently submitted my essay, ‘Radically Regulating Fast Fashion Advertising – Reframing Fast Fashion as Harmful Goods In An Effort To Combat Overconsumption’ to the Klaus Hohenegger Essay Competition by Fair Wear Foundation. I am thrilled to share my essay and just as excited to celebrate that it placed third in the competition with a special acknowledgement. The competition invited fashion graduates and students to critically engage with the pressing issues faced by garment workers, whose human rights are too often overlooked within the fashion industry.
The jury awarded a special mention to my essay regarding the regulation of fast fashion advertising saying that it showcased innovative thinking and research, particularly regarding marketplace dynamics.
You can follow the following link to Fair Wear Foundation to read more on the competition and see the essays of the winner and second place entrant.
https://www.fairwear.org/stories/celebrating-the-klaus-hohenegger-essay-competition-winners
The Klaus Hohenegger Essay Competition – Emily Cooper Submission
Title: Radically Regulating Fast Fashion Advertising – Reframing Fast Fashion as Harmful Goods In An Effort To Combat Overconsumption
A Radical Approach
The question of whether consumers can drive sustainability often relies on arguments of how informed and empowered they are to make responsible choices, however, while consumers express concern about the ethics of fast fashion their behaviour rarely aligns with their apparent values. Simply put, consumers are either ill-informed or actively choosing to work against the knowledge they possess about fast fashion and through their consumption only continue to further fuel the industry. This is also largely due to the power of fast fashion advertising and relentless presence across so much of the media consumers interact with. So, unfortunately, we cannot trust the consumers to make these responsible and ethical choices especially when acting against huge marketing powers and their own personal desires. Therefore we must adopt a far more radical approach: treating fast fashion as we do harmful goods like alcohol, cigarettes, and medications.
By imposing stricter laws and regulations on its advertising and media presence we could drastically reduce the allure of fast fashion and shift the culture towards more mindful consumption. To truly bridge the gap between the “sustainable” industry we need and the reality of consumer behaviour we must restrict the influence these companies and conglomerates have over people’s consumption/buying behaviours.
Reframing Fast Fashion as a Social and Environmental Harm
To rightly address the harmful impacts of fast fashion, it must be reframed as a social harm, similar to cigarettes and alcohol, in the eyes of global regulatory legal systems. While the environmental devastation and exploitation of garment workers is well-documented (Niinimäki et al., 2020), fast fashion remains largely unregulated within the media landscape; especially across social media. If we truly want to curb overconsumption, mandatory environmental and ethical disclaimers should be included in all fast fashion advertisements, in a similar manner to the health warnings on cigarettes that address cancer and other risks. These warnings would highlight the product's environmental footprint and labour conditions through textual facts or confronting imagery, such as “This garment contributes to 500 litres of water waste”, “This Garment travelled 12,000km through its supply chain producing x amount of co2” or “Made by unfairly paid labourers in the Global South.”
These disclaimers would introduce a more radical layer of consumer consciousness which could cause consumers to critically evaluate the consequences of their purchases and creates a cognitive dissonance between the desire to purchase and the awareness of its true consequences. Research shows that raising consumer awareness of environmental harm can reduce demand for unsustainable goods (Hassan, Shiu, & Shaw, 2016). This approach could not only deter excessive consumption but could shift the fashion industry's practices by making the environmental and ethical costs of fast fashion more transparent (Bick, Halsey, & Ekenga, 2018).
Regulating "Haul Culture" and Influencer Endorsements
Influencer marketing, particularly “consumption core” and "haul" content that saturates social platforms like Tik Tok, Pinterest and Instagram and that glamorise fast fashion, have become major drivers of overconsumption. These influencers' behaviours and constant brand endorsements only encourage unsustainable consumer behaviour and further negative environmental issues. (Joy et al., 2012). Additionally, governments and platforms should impose legal restrictions on "overconsumption culture," incentivizing influencers to promote mindful consumption and sustainable fashion alternatives (Jenkins & Molesworth, 2018). Limiting the number of fast fashion partnerships influencers engage would further curb overconsumption. Applied regulation around EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility) is only in its infancy on a global scale however a method of solution to the issue of overconsumption may be found within EPR. Policies could be extended to and therefore applied to the Fashion Industry through this method – where advertising and marketing take on some of the responsibility load. (Coalition (SPC), 2021)
Supply Chain Clarity and Awareness
It is crucial to address the supply chain implications of fast fashion and the industry’s vast and ever illusive supply chains which are notorious for relying on exploitative labour practices, flippant environmental harm, and negligent resource use. (Rakshita et al., 2023) Governments should, as we know, mandate full transparency in supply chains, requiring brands to publicly disclose every stage of their production process—from raw material sourcing to factory labour conditions and environmental impact. Such transparency must be coupled with radical reforms in advertising practices within fashion; pushing brands to not only adopt sustainable awareness in their campaigns and promotions but also from the ground up in their production.
Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) are directives which have been put in place to prohibit companies from being selective about which sustainability statistics and information to share and instead enforce the sharing of all reports and necessary information on sustainability issues. (World Favor) However this has not yet bled into the advertising, marketing and influencer spaces and if enforced would mean that fashion brands would not be able to cherry-pick which data points are best for advertising and could potentially stop greenwashing. If brands are forced to advertise with clarity the full truth of their production and its negative effects they will be much more likely to make the needed changes to how their garments are made.
Legal Repercussions for Irresponsible and Negligent Brands
Implementing stricter regulations on fast fashion advertising should be accompanied by significant consequences and more intense enforcement on brands and individuals who violate these laws, similar to the pharmaceutical and tobacco industries. Potential repercussions may include penalties, legal action, reputational damage or even the forced closing of brands and companies. This should also mean that marketing professionals could face the revocation and loss of licences for violations, reinforcing the seriousness of these regulations in a similar way medical practitioners can lose their ability to practise when they make a violation. This would lead to the restrictions of what can be advertised and forced clarity of unsustainable production/ greenwashing be made to be taken seriously and widely practised. Currently the ACM (The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets) have some guidelines around sustainability claims and what business should be doing yet in 2022 H&M and Decathlon were reprimanded for their use of broad greenwashing terms (NL Times, 2022) yet not to the level that makes a true impact on an industry to change its bad habits.
Conclusion
Radically addressing the overconsumption of fast fashion requires bold, systemic changes to how the industry fundamentally operates, especially with how it’s marketed. By treating fast fashion as a harmful good we can impose age restrictions, mandatory disclaimers, bans on haul culture, and even limits on how much consumers can buy. These measures may seem extreme in theory, but they reflect the urgency of the global sustainability crisis. If we are to reduce the fashion industry's negative impact on the planet and make an overall shift toward more mindful consumption, we must drastically rethink how we market, regulate, and consume fashion.
References
Works Cited
“(PDF) the Global Environmental Injustice of Fast Fashion.” ResearchGate, Nov. 2018, www.researchgate.net/publication/329938899_The_global_environmental_injustice_of_fast_fashion. Accessed 8 Oct. 2024.
Bîzoi, Alexandra-Codruța . “Fast Fashion and Sustainable Supply Chain Management.” The Young Economics Journal , May 2015.
blog.worldfavor.com. (n.d.). CSDDD vs. CSRD: what’s the difference? [online] Available at: https://blog.worldfavor.com/csddd-vs-csrd-whats-the-difference [Accessed 11 Nov. 2024].
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361440265_Fast_Fashion_and_Sustainable_Supply_Chain_Management.
Hassan, Louise M., et al. “Who Says There Is an Intention–Behaviour Gap? Assessing the Empirical Evidence of an Intention–Behaviour Gap in Ethical Consumption.” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 136, no. 2, 19 Nov. 2016, pp. 219–236, link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-014-2440-0, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2440-0. Accessed 8 Oct. 2024.
Health. “Tobacco Advertising Bans.” Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care, Feb. 2024, www.health.gov.au/topics/smoking-vaping-and-tobacco/tobacco-control/advertising-bans. Accessed 8 Oct. 2024.
HIPAA Journal. “What Happens If You Break HIPAA Rules?” HIPAA Journal, 22 Feb. 2023, www.hipaajournal.com/what-happens-if-you-break-hipaa-rules/. Accessed 8 Oct. 2024.
Jenkins, Rebecca, and Mike Molesworth. “Conceptualizing Consumption in the Imagination.” Marketing Theory, vol. 18, no. 3, 26 Nov. 2017, pp. 327–347, https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593117740753. Accessed 8 Oct. 2024.
Niinimäki, Kirsi, et al. “The Environmental Price of Fast Fashion.” Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, vol. 1, no. 4, 7 Apr. 2020, pp. 189–200. ResearchGate, www.nature.com/articles/s43017-020-0039-9, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0039-9. Accessed 8 Oct. 2024.
NL Times (2022). H&M, Decathlon promise to improve sustainability information after regulator warning. [online] NL Times. Available at: https://nltimes.nl/2022/09/13/hm-decathlon-promise-improve-sustainability-information-regulator-warning [Accessed 11 Nov. 2024].
Rakshita, M., Allapanavar, J., Jain, M., Doshi, K., Parua, S. and Thapa, S. (2023). THE DANGER OF SWEATSHOPS IN FASHION INDUSTRY. THE DANGER OF SWEATSHOPS IN FASHION INDUSTRY. [online] doi:https://doi.org/10.37118/ijdr.26580.03.2023.
Coalition (SPC), S.P. (2021). Extended Producer Responsibility - SPC’s Guide. [online] epr.sustainablepackaging.org. Available at: https://epr.sustainablepackaging.org/ [Accessed 11 Nov. 2024].
