Reasons Sustainable Fashion Remains a Niche Industry

Is this type of thinking advancing solutions or perpetuating #sustainability challenges? The attached word cloud is a summary of the keynote at the Textile Exchange (TE) conference. TE does great work convening the #fashionindustry to establish standards and provide insights. And yet, I wonder how the “hopeism” (thanks to Maxine Bédat for the phrase) reflected in the summary of the keynote engenders progress? Consider but a few of the arguments made to progress a #sustainable industry: 🌞”The Cost of Doing Nothing is much Higher than than the Cost of Doing Something:” No doubt, estimates of the negative consequences of climate change (e.g. up to 18% of GDP by 2050 according to Swiss Re) are far more consequential than the investment required to temper the negative consequences. This is true but unhelpful. System structure, rules and incentives at the micro (corporate) level do not incentivize necessary action. The great work of the Apparel Impact Institute and Conservation International aggregating funds to support industry decarbonization represents < 1% of the capital needed to decarbonize the industry. 🌞“Decoupling”” This is the principal selling point for fashion’s #1 most proffered solutions - #circularity. According to this line of thinking, resource reuse is the key to separating growth from extraction and resource overuse. Subsequent sessions were devoted to textile to textile recycling. This is great. But, it has not, and will not #decouple growth from resource use nor will it engender consequential industry decarbonization. This is the result of a host of factors including CAPX, cost, logistics, and the locus of carbon emissions in fashion (far more in processing than in raw materials). 🌞 “Being Courageous, Caring, Leading with Empathy:” These are all worthy leadership attributes. They are also cliches that are quashed by the mindset, rules and incentives of the system. 🌞”Setting Goals Bigger than Your Operations:” We have a surfeit of goals and a dearth of delivery of these same targets.” According to McKinsey & Company, 2/3 of public fashion companies that have made commitments to decarbonization not on path to deliver. Instead of goals, we need different rules with associated consequences. A handful of fashion brands (e.g. Polo Ralph Lauren®, PUMA Group, H&M, Inditex, Decathlon , Reformation, Another Tomorrow, Patagonia, EILEEN FISHER, INC., ..) are trying to lead, but, absent new rules and incentives and far more aggressive support for suppliers and from countries, the industry will continue to convene, converse and not advance authentic sustainability. Abbie Morris Ryan Gellert K. Stewart Sheppard Randi Marshall Anna Turrell Anne-Laure Descours Veronique Rochet Matt Powell Gil Friend Sarah Kent Jack Kittinger Saqib Sohail Dr. Vidhura Ralapanawe Delman Lee Michael Sadowski Greer, Linda Mads Oscar Haumann Samantha Taylor Rachel Arthur Leslie Johnston, M.Sc. Kathleen Talbot Veronica Bates Kassatly

𝟳𝟭% 𝘀𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗼𝗻. 𝗢𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝟮𝟬-𝟰𝟬% 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗯𝘂𝘆 𝗶𝘁. Here's why (and how to fix it)... I had the privilege of speaking with 𝘛𝘏𝘌 fashion psychologist Shakaila Forbes-Bell. She shared what it takes to sell sustainability:  "People don't buy sacrifice. They buy desire." Here's what actually works: 𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝟭: 𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗯𝘂𝘆  People buy clothes to express identity, feel belonging, become who they want to be, get quick mood boosts, and mark special moments. Logic isn't on this list. 𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝟮: 𝗔𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝘀𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗬𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆  Don't bolt sustainability onto your brand. Weave it into what you already stand for. 𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝟯: 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆  Skip vague terms like "sustainable" and be specific about what you're actually doing. Make the sustainable choice the obvious choice - the most beautiful, coolest, highest quality option. Focus on the person your customer wants to become, not the problems they should solve, and use your full marketing toolkit. Some brands 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 cracked it: - Patagonia: "We're in business to save our home planet" - sells adventure and activism, not just jackets - GANNI: "We've never claimed to be perfect... but we are committed to challenging the way things have always been done" - sells rebellion and being different - Pact: "Insanely soft... free of toxins, dyes and pesticides" - sells comfort and peace of mind As I was writing this, I realized that fashion has a unique opportunity. The relationship with consumers is emotional, and sustainability 𝘐𝘚 an emotional topic. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝗳 𝘄𝗲'𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲?  Instead of "How do we get people to buy our sustainable pieces?" what if we asked "How do we get people to fall in love with sustainable practices?"  The fashion industry doesn't just sell clothes.  It sells dreams, identity, and belonging.  That's exactly the power we need to shift how people think about sustainability itself. I know that there are real limitations like business incentives for growth, but I can see the opportunity ahead of us. 💭 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸? 𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝘀𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆? 👇 Full how-to guide in the comments. 

After more than two decades inside global apparel, I have reached an uncomfortable conclusion: Sustainability without sacrifice is not sustainability. It is narrative management. Production scale remains the industry’s largest environmental driver. Language has evolved. Certifications have multiplied. Materials have improved. Volume has not meaningfully slowed. In this article, I examine the structural tension between growth and impact — and why restraint, not optimization, will define the next era of fashion leadership. This is written for operators, sourcing executives, board members, and investors who understand how the system actually works. If we are serious about environmental responsibility, we must be serious about structural change. I welcome thoughtful discussion from those building inside the system. #SustainableFashion #ApparelIndustry #SupplyChain #CircularEconomy #ESG #FashionLeadership #ResponsibleGrowth #ClimateStrategy #MadeInUSA #WearWhatMatters

Eighteen years to make one dress. That's how long it took Japanese biotech company Spiber Inc. to get a lab-grown protein fiber onto Iris van Herpen's couture runway. And it perfectly captures why sustainable fashion is harder than anyone wants to admit. In 2007, two researchers thought they'd cracked it. Spider silk. Seven times tougher than Kevlar. They analyzed over 1,000 spider species, figured out the DNA, and grew it in a lab. Then they tested it in water. It shrank. Catastrophically. (Imagine launching your revolutionary jacket and watching it shrivel in the first rainstorm. Back to square one.) So they spent the next decade rewriting DNA from scratch. Not tweaking it. Completely redesigning the genetic code to make something that wouldn't betray wearers in bad weather. This resulted in the first commercial product launched in 2019 as a single jacket collaboration with The North Face. Today, after nearly two decades of work, Spiber produces 200 tonnes of this bio-protein annually, and they want to scale up to 500 tonnes. For context, the global textile industry produces 100 million tonnes every year. That's a big gap. And it will take time to close. Everyone talks about sustainable fashion like it's a software update. Just flip the switch from bad materials to good ones. This dress proves otherwise. Material innovation doesn't happen in quarters or even years. It happens in decades. With spectacular failures. With patient capital that most companies don't have. Van Herpen's dress is beautiful proof that saving fashion will take longer and cost more than anyone wants to hear. Thoughts? ⭐ 𝘍𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘶𝘹𝘶𝘳𝘺 | 𝘗𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 VOGUE CS | 𝘖𝘷𝘦𝘳 500𝘒 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨.

The fashion industry is in the midst of a sustainability crisis. The dominance of fast fashion, particularly ‘ultra-fast-fashion’ brands like Shein and Temu, has shaped consumer expectations for artificially low prices. The shift to a high-volume, low-cost operating model driven by thin margins within a globalised supply chain is concealing harmful side effects not born by the fashion brands or their customers. Regulation is lax and limited consumer demand for ‘ethical’ clothing means there are few incentives for fashion companies to invest in sustainable practices*. These structural challenges have dire environmental consequences. On average, garments are worn only seven to ten times before being discarded, approximately 92 million tonnes of textile waste is generated annually, and fashion accounts for nearly 10% of global carbon emissions*. Rita Wyshelesky explores whether sustainable fashion can overcome cost pressures, regulatory hurdles, and scalability challenges : https://okt.to/xQ1zMf #Investment #Marketingcommunication #ESG #Finance #Fashion *Sustainable practices are defined as: using biodegradable or recycled materials, promoting fair labour practices, reducing waste, and encouraging mindful consumption. * 10 Concerning Fast Fashion Waste Statistics | Earth.Org

A lot of people think branding is just your logo, your company colors, your fonts, etc., but it’s so much more than that. Branding is the entire experience and perception that consumers have with your company. It's the emotional connection they feel, the trust they build, and the values they associate with your brand. It's the story you tell, the consistency of your message, and the way you make people feel when they interact with your products and services. In essence, branding is about creating a unique and compelling identity that resonates deeply with your audience, inspiring loyalty and setting you apart from the competition. It's the combination of tangible and intangible elements that collectively shape the overall perception of your brand in the minds of consumers. Sustainable fashion may be more expensive, but that's not why people don't buy it. 🙈 🙈 We know sustainable fashion is more expensive because it prioritizes ethical manufacturing, fair wages for workers, the use of sustainable materials, and environmentally friendly practices in its production, etc, etc. These costs are then passed down to the consumer, making sustainable fashion items more expensive than their fast fashion counterparts. For many shoppers, especially those with limited funds, this higher price point can create a barrier to entry, limiting the accessibility of sustainability to a broader audience. But this isn't the case for everyone. Revolve is not cheap.  Agolde is not cheap.  Stanley's 40-ounce Quencher cups are not cheap. 😝 Skims is not cheap. Yet, the same people who say sustainability is too expensive are buying from Revolve, Agolde, Skims, etc., and are running people over at Target trying to get their 14th Stanley mug. 😩 Meanwhile, there are sustainable brands with similar price points that are struggling to survive. This tells me that it's not just a price issue for consumers who have the ability to make choices. It's about perceived value, branding, and consumer priorities. As humans, we are driven by the pursuit of social validation, acceptance, individual expression, belonging, and status. Consumers aren't just buying products; they are buying into a lifestyle and a vision that resonates with their identity and aspirations. A brand that successfully taps into these intrinsic human desires can command a higher price, even in the sustainable fashion sector. A strong brand can create additional value that consumers are willing to pay more for. This perceived value stems from the brand's ability to create a world and community that customers aspire to be part of. How do we get consumers to pay for sustainable fashion? By building stronger, more compelling brands that align with their intrinsic human desires, wants, and needs.

Patagonia has finally admitted they do greenwhashing. Yesterday, Patagonia published its first-ever environmental report — and it starts with a disarming sentence: “Nothing we do is sustainable.” As The Business of Fashion notes, the report is both a scorecard and a confession. Despite its decades of activism, Patagonia admits it cannot fully control its factories, supply chains, or the lifetime of its products. It has fought oil pipelines, yet a lot of its garments still rely on fossil-based materials. It promotes repair and resale, yet less than 1% of its products ever return for recycling. Why is Patagonia not sustainable? Because it: 1) does not own its factories and cannot control energy sources or working methods, 2) cannot fully oversee global supply chains, 3) has historically used harmful chemicals, 4) despite powerful ads "Don't buy this jacket", it cannot control consumer behaviour, including demand for merchandise that often becomes waste - and that they've produced historically. These structural limits mirror the findings of our study: even well-intentioned brands face systemic barriers — and often fall silent about the most difficult issues, especially overproduction. This paradox is precisely what we examined in our recent paper: Hejlová, D., Ariestya, A., Koudelková, P., & Schneiderová, S. (2025). Strategic silence in corporate communication concerning deadstock and overstock in the fashion industry. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 30(2), 294–312. https://lnkd.in/eXN489ya https://lnkd.in/eAi43tvH Patagonia’s statement is not simply an honest admission — it is an overdue acknowledgment that the brand has long presented a more sustainable image than its operations could truly support, a pattern our research identifies across the industry.

Fashion Revolution’s annual Fashion Transparency Index tracks the climate and energy actions of 250 major fashion brands and retailers (basically everyone with a turnover of >$400m). This year’s report reveals that big fashion is failing to invest in necessary climate actions to meet the 2030 goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The best thing to do would be to stop reading this post and go and read their full report, which is fascinating and brilliant, if a bit bleak (link below). You can also make a donation towards the work they do on the website. If not, here ’s a quick summary: 1. Nearly a quarter of the biggest brands disclose nothing on decarbonisation. Among 117 brands with targets, 42 report increased scope 3 emissions, and only four have emissions reduction targets aligning with UN recommendations. 2. Zero-emission claims are misleading. Companies set targets without a baseline, relying on carbon offsets instead of absolute reductions. Most lack public targets for coal phase-out, renewable energy, and renewable electricity for their supply chains. 3. ‘Sustainable’ clothes may still be made using fossil fuels. While 58% disclose sustainable material targets, only 11% reveal their supply chain’s energy sources. 4. The industry evades accountability for excessive clothing production. 89% of big brands do not disclose annual production volumes, and 45% do not disclose production or raw material emissions footprints. Despite tougher EU environmental regulations and the 2030 deadline, the industry faces challenges. Most fashion companies do not allocate necessary budgets for renewable energy. Larger brands shift the costs of achieving climate targets onto suppliers, burdening workers and communities. Report authors Maeve Galvin and Ciara Barry highlight the need for $1tn to reach net zero by 2050, urging big brands to invest 2% of their annual revenue in transitioning away from fossil fuels. To quote them, “It’s ‘hard’ because brands refuse to take action. This isn’t about feasibility, it’s about willpower”. We have to know the baseline, and measure progress, if we are going to get anywhere as an industry. This is the most helpful report of this kind that I’ve seen.

Today's rant: So, when did sustainability become a marketing department, not an operating system? Fashion’s “green” movement talks a big game—conferences, pledges, recycled buzzwords—while massive production and emissions keep climbing. RPET from bottles? Downcycling. Compostable hangtags and “carbon-neutral” shipping? Optics. The core machine—speed, volume, cheap money, thin supplier margins—hasn’t changed. Real work is upstream: farms, dyehouses, boilers, wastewater, wages. Yet we still demand lower FOBs, faster turns, and capital-heavy upgrades—on the factory’s dime. That’s not partnership; it’s risk transfer dressed up as purpose. And the conference circuit? Endless panels, zero consequences. More selfies than solutions. If we want real progress, we should cut over-production, fund suppliers, tie executive compensation to verified reductions (energy, water, chemicals), publish wage ladders, and stop hiding behind vanity metrics. Less theater, more metering. Fewer decks, more contracts that share risk and reward. Environmentalism in fashion isn’t doomed—it’s just stalled. Substance over spin, or we’ll be having the same debate in 2030 with less trust and fewer options. #fashion #sustainability #apparel #supplychain #ESG #textiles #transparency

Sustainability in fashion is no longer optional. But I know sourcing sustainable materials is easier said than done. From my experience, here are some of the biggest challenges brands face: 𝘾𝙤𝙨𝙩 𝙫𝙨. 𝘾𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙞𝙩𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩: Sustainable fabrics often come with a higher price tag. Balancing the desire to be eco-friendly with the need to maintain profitability can feel like walking a tightrope. 𝙁𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙍𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙎𝙪𝙥𝙥𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙧𝙨: Not every supplier is transparent about their practices. It takes time and research to find partners who truly align with your sustainability goals. 𝙈𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙢𝙪𝙢 𝙊𝙧𝙙𝙚𝙧 𝙌𝙪𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙚𝙨 (𝙈𝙊𝙌𝙨): Many sustainable fabric suppliers have high MOQs, which can be especially challenging for start-up brands or small collections. 𝙇𝙞𝙢𝙞𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙊𝙥𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨: While the industry is evolving, the range of sustainable fabrics is still catching up to conventional materials in terms of colors, textures, and functionality. Despite these challenges, the rewards are worth it. Using sustainable materials tell a story about your brand’s values and connect with the growing demand for conscious fashion. If you’re navigating the sourcing process, here’s my advice: Build relationships with trusted suppliers. Start small with sustainable details (like trims or linings) if larger investments aren’t feasible yet. You could even start as small as sustainable packaging. Be transparent with your customers. I know they value the effort, even if it’s one small step at a time. ------ 👋 Leslye Young 🪡 Freelance Fashion & Technical Designer 👗 Women’s Workwear and Business Attire