Is H&M’s New Lower-Priced Clothing Encouraging Disposable Fashion?

H&M, H and M, fast fashion

CLEAN BY DESIGN

H&M isn’t completely insouciant about Ma Nature. Despite the occasional PR stumble, it has been forthcoming about attaining specific sustainability benchmarks, including increasing its use of organically grown cotton by 50 percent every year until 2013. Working with the Natural Resources Defense Councils’s “Clean by Design” initiative, H&M has also committed to working with its Chinese suppliers to reduce water, energy, and toxic-chemical use in its supply chains.

Textile manufacturing consumes—and pollutes—as much as 200 tons of water per ton of fabric.

Textile manufacturing, after all, consumes—and pollutes—as much as 200 tons of water per ton of fabric, according to the NRDC. If only 100 small-to medium-size textile mills followed the environmental nonprofit’s recommended improvements, China would save more than 16 million metric tons of water annually (enough to provide 12.5 million people potable agua for one year), as well as eliminate nearly the same amount of emissions from 172,000 cars annually.

What’s in it for H&M besides good press and a warm, fuzzy feeling? A case study with the Redbud textile factory in Changsu (a Walmart supplier) showed that by adopting some of the NRDC’s best practices and ponying up an investment of $72,000, the factory is generating savings at a rate of $840,000 annually.

But will the Swedish label’s environmental cleanup efforts amount to a hill of knitted beanies if it compensates by cranking out clothing at an even more furious pace?

H&M, H and M, fast fashion

FASTER FASHION

Designer Eliza Starbuck likens the new, cheaper clothing to candy wrappers. “It’s throwaway fashion or ‘trashion,’” she says. “If their prices are that cheap that people are throwing their disposable income at them—only to find that the clothes fall apart on the hangers and after a wash or two—they’re just creating garbage.”

Designer Eliza Starbuck likens the new, cheaper clothing to candy wrappers.

Concern for recession-pummeled pocketbooks is one thing, she notes, but at what cost? “It takes such a huge amount of human energy and textile fibers, dyes, and chemicals to create even poor-quality clothes,” she says. “They may be offering fashions at a price anyone can afford in an economic crunch, but they’re being irresponsible about what happens to the goods after the consumers purchase them.”

Few people, in the end, have the fortitude to pass up a good deal; like magpies, we’re drawn to what’s newest and shiniest. “When those items are cheap, we can consume more—and therefore compete—with less financial risk,” says Tara St. James, who designs Study NY, a sustainable fashion label in Brooklyn.

St. James isn’t convinced, however, that this isn’t a learned behavior, nor that consumers cannot be reeducated to prize quality over quantity, longevity over novelty. And when demand for higher-quality goods peaks, supply will not be far off. “It creates a responsibility in designers to develop products that not only have longer life spans but also products that will not be discarded after a season of use,” she says.

As mercurial as the speed of the fashion cycle is, it’s as dependent on the customer as it is the designer, since one party fuels the earnestness of the other. But whether the new frugality that the recession has ushered in will precipitate in a desire for long-term investment pieces or short-term throwaway garments—well, that remains the $4.95 question.

+ H&M

Related Posts

3 Responses to “Is H&M’s New Lower-Priced Clothing Encouraging Disposable Fashion?”

  1. gfair says:

    H&M isn’t starting this trend. The entire fashion industry is encouraging disposable fashion. Yesterday’s dress is out of date, and out of fashion. If you don’t dress seasonal you look like an idiot.

    These are the “fashion rules” drilled into people year after year by the industry and by peers. This is why stereotypes exist about fashionable women having huge numbers of shoes and a closet full of clothing, yet “nothing to wear”.

    The entire industry is organized around disposable fashion. After all – if you use a little black dress for five years, it’s five years of revenue they never see from you. The business has grown as big as it is only because it has found ways to make people chuck out the old, and buy the new.

  2. irate says:

    I find it intriguing that the author presents this article as investigative journalism through use of the question marked headline, then proceeds to cite only a handful of small business entrepreneurs and independent label fashion designers as experts on H&M’s manufacturing and marketing practices. An inquiry put through to someone who actually worked for H&M, or any big box retailer for that matter, might make for a more balanced article. How, for instance, is Mr. Brown so certain that H&M must be “squeezing the stakeholders in their supply chain” in order to keep costs down? As a veteran of fashion retail, I can assure you there are many ways to cut costs, and operations at an L.A. boutique like Mr. Browns, where a t-shirt costs $65, are going to be vastly different than operations at a global retailer like H&M, where the very nature of their business allows for t-shirts to cost only $5.
    Speaking of the price difference, as someone who lives in “middle America” and has little to none of the disposable income that those cited in this article are so concerned about, I am always thrilled to be able to dress my family in ANYTHING for under $20 a garment, and I can guarantee that it will be worn at least a year or longer due to sheer financial necessity, allowing for greater financial leeway when it comes to goods of greater consequence, i.e. food and shelter, two things that I highly doubt people who own their own sustainable fashion boutique in L.A. or Brooklyn have any difficulty securing.
    The most insufferable part of this article, however, is the insinuation by both Mr. Brown and Ms.Starbuck that H&M and companies like them are encouraging a “race to the bottom” by offering $4.95 dresses as well as being “irresponsible about what happens to the goods after consumers purchase them,” and should somehow enforce both taste and rate of consumption guidelines on the general populace. I personally enjoy living in a society where I am allowed to purchase whatever kind of clothing I want and replace it at whatever rate of speed I am economically capable of, which I thankfully do not have to justify to the Mr. Browns and Ms.Starbucks of the world. I suspect that the sort of society the author and her sources slyly suggest would be environmentally beneficial, i.e. one in which a personal liberty like clothing is mandated and controlled by government and corporations, would be a society conducive to neither small business entrepreneurship nor uncensored internet journalism. What an amusing quandary the author and her sources might find themselves in were their fondest wishes to come true.

  3. phntsticpeg says:

    There is a whole industry of cheap knock off stores that cater to women who either can’t fit into a size 4, can’t afford a $200 dress and what to look good. Dots in particular is comparable to H&M. I have pants I brought years ago that still fit and wear great at $18 .

    The problem with fashion is so much changes so quick you can’t keep up without going broke. I know I can’t afford cashmere, silk and organic cotton so I dig in racks at Marshall’s and Filene’s looking for a deal. Then I go to Dots for updates in style and have whatever doesn’t fit nicely tailored for a few bucks. And that is usually the only difference between an expensive piece and cheep stuff.

Leave a Comment

Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.

Please note that gratuitous links to your site are viewed as spam and may result in removed comments.

Add your comments

NEW USER

Sign me up for weekly Ecouterre updates

Let's make sure you're a real person:

CURRENT USERS LOGIN

Lost your password?