LITERATURE REVIEW
To provide an understanding of the research related to the current study, the literature that follows
will be broken into four sections: the birth of fast fashion, the dark days of fast fashion, the rise of
sustainable fashion, and existing campaigns and gaps in the research. The first two sections will
describe the birth and growth of fast fashion. That is, following the birth of mass production in the
1960s and 1970s, there has been a growing trend towards cheap, fast fashion. With new styles
frequently introduced at low prices, consumers are able to refresh their wardrobes with minimal
monetary investment (Cline, 2012). These benefits, however, come with their fair share of negative
side effects on people and ecosystems around the world. For instance, approximately 80% of the
cotton used to make clothing has been treated with pesticides that harm farmers, soil, water, and
surrounding biodiversity (Cline, 2012; Ross, 2015). Moreover, major corporations’ desires for high
profit margins subject workers to extremely low wages and poor working conditions (Clark, 2008;
Fletcher, 2007). Furthermore, these repercussions are having harmful effects on the well-being of
consumers (Klein, 2013). The third section will introduce the rise of sustainable fashion in response
to the destruction caused by fashion manufacturing, consumption, and disposal, as a wave of
sustainable initiatives has emerged. Finally, this literature review will conclude with an overview of
relevant research studies and gaps in the literature.
The Birth of Fast Fashion
During the 18th and 19th centuries, fashion was dictated by the elites of society and largely served
to signify status and wealth (Wilson, 2003). Through the creation of their own garments, the middle
and working classes could appear “in fashion” by imitating the highly sought after couture styles of
the upper-class elite (Black, 2008). During this time, women were producing approximately two-
thirds of fashion from their homes. Due to their labour-intensive production, garments generally
featured simple silhouettes and were maintained and worn for many years (Scott, 2005). However,
the industrial revolution brought automation and moved garment production from homes to
factories (Scott, 2005). Following the Second World War, the birth of mass production brought
fashion to the masses by virtually eliminating hand labour and implementing offshore
manufacturing, assembly line production, and inexpensive synthetic textiles (Wilson, 2003). With the
advent of additional technological advancements, the fashion industry quickly became globalized. As
competition increased, overseas production was further implemented to meet the growing
consumer demands for fast, cheap fashion (Black, 2008). Specifically, fast fashion refers to
inexpensive clothing collections that imitate current luxury fashion trends at the expense of quality
(Cline, 2012) and was “made possible by advanced technology, quick manufacturing, and supply
chain control” (Ozdamar Ertekin & Atik, 2015). Today, the vast majority of fashion is mass produced
and companies continue to develop new ways to reduce their prices to meet consumer demands
(Cline, 2012). The roughly $105 billion spent on clothing and accessories by Indians in 2013 (Statistics
India, 2013) equates to approximately one clothing-related purchase per person, per month. This
metric is in line with recent industry standards, for which the rate of production has fallen from
approximately six to as low as three months and new collections are introduced every one to three
weeks (Ozdamar Ertekin & Atik, 2015; Cline, 2012). The growing trend towards frequently
introduced styles at low prices has enabled consumers to revamp their wardrobes at a faster rate
than ever before (Cline, 2012). However, the side effects of this convenience, including excessive
waste, psychological harm, a loss of fashion-related jobs in India, and poor working conditions for
third-world garment producers, are a heavy price to pay (Cline,2012).
The Dark Days of Fast Fashion
Impacts on worker welfare. Into the 1990s, Western companies responded to growing regulations in
their home countries by moving their products offshore to take advantage of the limited restrictions
for minimum wage, age requirements, and daily hours worked in other countries (Cline, 2012;
Wilson, 2003). In response to unanticipated Western demands, overseas suppliers struggled to
organize orders, factories, and employees. As a result, workers were subjected to excessive overtime
hours to complete orders with impractical deadlines (Clark, 2008; Fletcher, 2007). Nike was an
extreme exemplar of exploitation and their behaviour lead to a major milestone towards sustainable
fashion. Founded in 1954, Nike was a corporate success story for more than three decades. By 1998,
they controlled over 40% of the athletic footwear market in the United States. It was Nike’s
production strategy, rather than product, that differentiated them from competitors. As early as
1962, Nike outsourced all of their manufacturing to independent contracting factories, making them
the first “virtual” corporation with no physical assets. Furthermore, Nike took their savings from
outsourcing and invested in marketing, including celebrity endorsements (Spar & Burns, 2000). By
1992, activists and reporters began to expose Nike’s labour practices in Indonesia. For example, a
famous comparison between the average wages of Indonesian workers and Michael Jordan (Nike’s
celebrity endorsement at the time) revealed that an Indonesian worker would need to work 44,492
years to match Jordan’s income from Nike (Spar & Burns, 2000).
As accusations surrounding underage workers, coerced overtime, and dangerous working conditions
began to pour in, Nike ultimately made mainstream news. Students from major universities in the
United States implemented organized boycotts of Nike products and Nike became known for its
labour abuse.
Between 1997 and 1998, their earnings fell by 69% (Spar & Burns, 2000). Fuelled by economic loss,
Nike decided to make serious changes, beginning with implementing significant sustainable changes,
starting with the rise of the minimum age of workers, increased factory monitoring, and
implementing clean air standards in all of their factories (Spar & Burns, 2000). Over the next few
years, Nike performed over 600 factory audits and became the first company to publish a complete
audited list of their factories, including factory conditions and wage information (Spar & Burns,
2000). Today, Nike continues to release annual manufacturing reports (“Nike Sustainable Business
Report,” 2016) and is recognized as one of the world’s most sustainable companies (Dill, 2015).
According to Karl Marx’s conflict theory, social inequality is the result of a disproportionate share of
resources, controlled and defended by individuals in power (Sullivan,2016). With respect to labour,
under capitalist ideologies, the garment worker may be considered a commodity to a corporation
(Windsor & Carroll, 2015).
Interestingly, it was a monetarily underprivileged class (i.e., university students) who rallied for
change against Nike, which further aligns with Marx’s notions of revolution and rebalancing as
sources of change (Sullivan, 2016). To restore order, especially with one of their largest consumer
bases in university students, Nike was forced to make sweeping changes. Overall, this catastrophe
and eventual response catapulted the perils of fast fashion into the mainstream and spurred the
production of fast fashion alternatives.
Impacts on the environment
The production and consumption of vast amounts of low-quality garments with a short life span are
having negative impacts on the environment. Each step of a garment’s life—including
manufacturing, consuming, wearing, and discarding—is resource intensive (Waste and Resources
Action Programme, 2016). With respect to materials, today’s garments are generally made from a
combination of natural and synthetic fibres (Cline,2012). Cotton is the most widely-used natural
fibre. Across over 100 countries, cotton farms occupy approximately 76 million acres of land. Cotton
production is centered in developing countries, where limited health regulations are in place to
protect workers from chemical exposure during the growing, harvesting, sorting, bleaching, dyeing,
and printing stages of fabrics. These processes also require significant water and energy, and
produce enormous amounts of waste by-products for which associated environmental damages are
often unregulated in developing countries (Ross, 2015).
To reduce costs, garment quality standards are generally low, resulting in a shorter life span for
garments before they end up in a landfill (Cline, 2012). Prior to fast fashion, clothing was constructed
with high-quality materials and sold at a higher price point. Garments were purchased for the long-
term and their life was maintained through mending and altering.
However, today’s increased competition for lower prices has resulted in lower quality garments with
a shorter life expectancy (Cline, 2012). Although most garments are recyclable, the majority end up
in landfills.
Impacts on psychological well-being
According to McCracken (1988), the fashion system involves the creation of symbolic meaning and
transferring such meaning to cultural products and goods. Today, behind beautiful fashion shows
and enticing advertisements, there is a world that the fashion industry actively works to hide (Cline,
2012). Instead of accurate knowledge about the fast fashion system, consumers are inundated with
carefully-timed and attractive advertisements that change as quickly as the fashion season
(Ross,2015).
Consumer desire has been further cultivated by the accessibility and newness of the fast fashion
system (Fletcher, 2010). To remain on trend, consumers find themselves constantly feeling the urge
to replace their existing garments with fresh ones, which results in high product turnover and
extreme volumes of waste (Fletcher, 2008). Individuals collect and wear clothes to reflect their
identity and signify their status to others—to let others know that they are in the present and are
therefore fashionable. For decades, psychologists have studied the role of brands in personal
identification and they have found that emotions significantly drive consumption (Achbar &
Simpson, 2004). Privy to this finding, advertisers tailor their ads to target specific emotions and
thereby persuade consumers. Thus, it should come as no surprise that many individuals use brands
as an outlet for personal expression and identity formation (Fletcher, 2010).
Since brands are constantly evolving, those who identify with branding the most are forced to keep
up. If one’s identity is defined by what is in fashion and fashion is constantly in flux, they become
part of a perpetual cycle of consumption with an unattainable goal. In fact, compulsive buying is part
of a recognized medical condition called oniomania, which is defined by irresistible, uncontrollable
urges resulting in excessive, expensive, and time-consuming retail activity. Individuals suffering from
oniomania have essentially lost their sense of identity and attempt to recover it through the
consumption of goods (Klein, 2013). While shopping addictions are often joked about,
overconsumption highlights a serious societal concern that is having negative effects on the health
of consumers.
The Rise of Sustainable Fashion
While most of the world was consuming, oblivious to their negative impact on the environment,
scientists were studying environmental degradation as early as the 1950s. Today, sustainable fashion
is no longer synonymous with the coarse hemp fabrics of the 1970s. Instead, it goes beyond the final
product to include each aspect of a garment’s life, including its design, manufacturing, and disposal
(Niinimäki, 2013). By incorporating research from various social and environmental outlets,
sustainable fashion seeks to find an economic, social, and environmental balance. Currently, a single
industry-standardized definition of sustainable fashion does not exist. Instead, a variety of
definitions and terms have been developed—such as eco-friendly, ethical, green, fair trade, slow,
and sustainable—each attempting to embody an alternative to the current fast fashion industry. The
current paper adopts the broadest definition of sustainable fashion possible, for which sustainable
fashion serves as a platform to make sizable, systemic sustainable change within the industry. In
addition to Nike, many large companies are implementing sustainable values to enact change within
the fashion industry (Niinimäki, 2013).
However, the recent factory collapse in the Savar Upazila of Dhaka, Bangladesh in 2013 serves as a
reminder that while some large companies have taken significant strides towards a sustainable
future, others have inexcusably ignored sustainable alternatives. On April 24th, 2013, the deadliest
garment factory accident in history occurred when Rana Plaza, an eight-story commercial building,
collapsed killing 1,129 people and injuring 2,515. The building, which produced clothing for major
Western brands, such as Joe Fresh, Primark, and Benetton, was operating under poor safety
regulations (McClearn, 2013). In fact, one day before the collapse, workers reported cracks in the
building to management, but their concerns were ignored (Ross, 2015). Fast fashion companies are
drawn to Bangladesh for its low-cost production. In Bangladesh, garment workers make
approximately $1.00 a day (The Economist, 2012), similar to the wage that Indonesian workers
received 18 years prior. Additionally, while building codes exist in Bangladesh, they are rarely
enforced. To keep up with growing production demands, Bangladesh is consistently constructing
new factories, repurposing existing non-industrial buildings, and adding floors to existing factories
without considering the additional weight and safety constraints (The Economist, 2012).
In sum, despite Nike’s boycott and countless sustainable initiatives and regulations, today’s fashion
industry continues to ignore these concerns in a race to produce the cheapest garments at any cost.
Due to a disparity in power, countries such as Bangladesh are unable to catch up to the countries
exploiting their labour (McClearn, 2013). Indeed, fashion companies are choosing countries like
Bangladesh because their adherence to industry regulations is known to be poor. Thus, in an
attempt to stay competitive and meet Western demands, factory owners often neglect codes of
conduct, including those against low wages and unsafe labour conditions, and the gap between rich
and poor continues to expand (Ross, 2014). In the previous case of Indonesia, consumers demanded
that Nike change their production practices following the discovery of labour exploitation. However,
18 years later, the production practices of others remained unchanged.
Existing Campaigns and Gaps in the Research
Despite major strides taken by companies to make sustainable fashion products available to the
masses, fast fashion options continue to trump their counterparts on the consumer market (Joy et
al., 2012). Recent initiatives from Greenpeace and Fashion Revolution have sought to increase public
awareness of fast fashion harm. The Greenpeace Detox campaign launched in 2011 to expose the
relationships between clothing brands, their toxic supply processes, and water pollution. Detox uses
well-supported laboratory tests to reveal the negative environmental impacts of fast fashion
production.
