I wonder that moreso when I see individual Vinted profiles rammed with sooo much stuff, or people on Facebook resell groups for mums/kids with bags and bags of stuff - there’s definitely a consumption problem, I can’t remember what the stat was but think it was the British fashion council who said we have enough clothing in circulation to meet the needs of the next 3 generations?
Locally and especially in (post war?) suburbs imagine house clearances will play a part too. And I don’t think they’re collected v often tbh
There’s a huge overconsumption problem. It’s why I buy the vast majority of my clothing second hand. Even a lot of my furniture and decor in my house is antique/vintage or second hand. Because overconsumption has become a cultural norm, and as a problem extends beyond fast fashion.
In the 90s/noughties the high street relied heavily on sweat shops etc and had frequent, seasonal collections which started driving consumption.
By the teenies, the rise of internet shopping meant cutting out the middle man of physical store shopping, it was immediately accessible online and then the likes of ASOS, Missguided, PLT etc started doing weekly launches for really low prices. They didn’t have physical overheads and relied on cheap Labour. In the case of Boohoo, they essentially had slave Labour in the U.K.
Bigger, more established brands changed their business models as well, with greater emphasis placed on increased manufacturing speed at a low price. Topshop notoriously began doing this when Phil Green took over, and it caused the then-creative director I believe, to quit her job. She didn’t like the exploitive nature of it, and the huge reductions in quality.
At one point, Zara prided itself on having knock offs on the shop floor within weeks of them being shown in collections. For a long time it was seen as a positive move, because it generated huge profits, made clothing more accessible and more affordable. I guess board rooms just shrugged off the human/environmental cost or actively ignored thinking about it.
However it’s gone to the extreme now. The cost to people and the environment is huge, and social media is making it too difficult to ignore.
A lot of stores are trying to establish themselves as “greener”. H&M is a huge culprit of this - it looks as though they are establishing themselves as a “sustainable” alternative via greenwashing while they slowly (hopefully) change their supply chains and business model. Zara has made some paltry attempts at clothing banks and “sustainble” denim (though new clothing is never sustainable at this point).
Currently, there are approx 150 billion garments produced a year. They are made with fossil fuels that don’t decompose, they are dyed with harmful toxins that cause huge pollution. They are made with slave labour and cruelty to animals. They use energy and resources to create, ship around the world and advertise.
They make a small, unpleasant section of society hugely wealthy, while cheating the rest of us of value for money and quality. They prevent local textile industries from gaining foothold - because even donating used clothing is harmful.
Approx 92 million tons of clothing end up in landfill each year, globally. The average person in the U.K. wears a garment 3 times before discarding it, and only 20% of textiles are collected for recycling (note: this doesn’t mean they even are eventually recycled, as there’s huge difficulty in recycling blended fabrics).
I loved Topshop at the time, but before I get too nostalgic I always have to remind myself that.. I was blissfully ignorant at the time.
For more info;
What is fast fashion? Learn about the origins of fast fashion, and its impacts on labour, environmental, and animal justice
goodonyou.eco