It is clear to anyone who spends a little time looking at the impact of the fashion industry that things need to change, and that they need to change quickly. This change requires brands, governments, consumers and companies across the supply chain to work together to make any real material difference.

What action is being taken by brands?

Bangladesh Accord 

After Rana Plaza, there was a bit of a turning point - it took a long time, but eventually through campaigning the Bangladesh Accord was set up in May 2013. The Accord  is a binding instrument initiated by Bangladeshi trade unions and Global Union Federations together with labour rights groups. It has been signed by over 200 global fashion brands and retailers (though it took a long time to get any brands to sign up). This introduced really robust inspections on factories.

However, in 2018 the Accord elapsed as it was a 5 year agreement. And now support for this intervention is wavering and there is a real threat that it will all fall apart. A number of the signatories signed a transition agreement to continue for the next 3 years, but others have dropped out. Last year, there was a petition brought to the High Court of Bangladesh by a Factory Owner to have the Accord removed. The High Court put in place a restraining order to have the inspectorate removed by November last year - this is being appealed in the Supreme Court but the agreement is in huge danger.

The Fashion Pact 

In 2019 the ‘Fashion Pact’ was unveiled at the G7 summit. François-Henri Pinault, chair and CEO of Kering was tasked by French President, Emmanuel Macron to establish a set of objectives and aims to reduce fashion’s impact on the environment. It will bring together a collection of brands that would pledge to reduce their environmental impact over the coming years through a series of recommendations (yet to be decided upon). So far 32 companies, accounting for approximately 150 brands have signed up to the coalition, including Gucci, Chanel, Tapestry, Nike, Alexander McQueen, Prada, Hermès, Burberry, Gap, Zara, and Nordstrom. 

On the face of it, this announcement looks positive; and in such trying times, with the threat of a dying planet looming over it, we need some positivity. However, the use of the term ‘pact’ diminishes all urgency of the issues we face. 

Does this action go far enough? 

In short, no. There are two main reasons why the ‘pact’ does not go far enough. 

1. Pact Goals and objectives have yet to be outlined

The unveiling of the pact a mere 3-4 months after its conception from a discussion between Pinault and Macron left little time to sort out the finer details. Quoted by Vogue Pinault suggested ‘the Pact revolves around science-based targets in three areas: global warming (the objective being to achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 in order to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius until 2100), restoring biodiversity (with a focus on restoring natural ecosystems and protecting species), and preserving the oceans (namely by reducing the use of single-use plastics).’ 

With 32 companies already signed up to the coalition and no hard targets there remains a massive scope of what these could be, what kind of transparency is required when sharing the results, and what timeline will be set out. The danger in this is that, yet again, brands will be setting targets that are conducive to their business model with the ability to cherry pick ‘sustainable practices’ that show the consumers they are a ‘responsible brand’ without presenting the full picture.

What’s likely is that the main focus will be placed on producing clothing using more sustainable materials and that it will ignore the sheer volume of clothing that is produced and wasted, while most likely also ignoring the exploitative conditions in which (mainly fast-fashion) garments are made. 

2. This ‘Pact’ has no legal framework

From current reporting on the topic it seems that the actual ‘binding of the pact’, the reason brands will stick to these guidelines, is that CEOs have signed this and it is their reputation that is on the line should they not follow through. In an industry that already exploits so many garment workers and is one of the top polluters in the world, what is likely is that several years down the line these CEOs won’t have a problem getting a small wrap on the knuckles or having to orchestrate a quick PR spin having not met the vague targets outlined in the pact.

For example, H&M have been running a take-back scheme in stores since 2013, stating that ‘All clothes collected by H&M are either reused, reworn or recycled with 0% going to landfill.’ However, nowhere on their site have they provided actual figures of what they have taken back and what has been done with this supply. Many of these take-back materials will be blended fabrics making it almost impossible in many cases to recycle them. But, with no accountability, does it really matter? It seems for all of these initiatives the onus is on the customer to demand transparency, which will also be the case with this pact. 

What could the solution be? 

If governments and fashion brands are looking for true and lasting change a better step would be to go straight to the fixing fashion report compiled by the UK Environmental Audit Committee as a first step. The report provides tangible framework and recommendations to be implemented by the government to ensure all brands operating within that jurisdiction are forced to make the same changes. 

When brought to the UK government these recommendations were all rejected in June 2019 - a major blow for us sustainable fashion activists! But, what is most infuriating is that if the members of this ‘pact’ truly want to achieve a reduced environmental impact they should be the ones fighting for the government to implement measures such as these. 

This pact has led us to a place where the government can look at the fashion industry and point to their self-regulatory approach to sustainability and use it as an excuse to look away. The industry is applauded by well-intentioned customers looking for strong sustainability leadership and these customers in many cases do not realise there is no framework to hold brands accountable for any promises they make. 

Promises without underlying policy delay progress. We do not have the luxury of delay.