The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1361-2026.htm

Sustainability innovators and Global expert

study on
anchor draggers: a global expert sustainable
fashion
study on sustainable fashion
Esben Rahbek Gjerdrum Pedersen and Kirsti Reitan Andersen 315
Copenhagen Business School, Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility, Received 15 August 2014
Copenhagen, Denmark Revised 5 February 2015
Accepted 17 March 2015

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore current barriers and opportunities for sustainability
in the fashion industry.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on a study among 36 fashion experts from
academia, industry, and non-governmental organizations, who took part in an online study on
sustainable fashion.
Findings – The results from the study indicates that the fashion industry faces immense social and
environmental challenges and that the scale and scope of current approaches to sustainability are
limited and fail to address more fundamental challenges linked to the dominant business models and
consumption behaviors.
Research limitations/implications – As the study is based on the knowledge, values, attitudes,
and cultural stances of the participating experts it cannot claim to provide a picture of the “real world.”
Nonetheless it contributes with a nuanced understanding of current challenges and opportunities
within the industry, as experienced by key stakeholders in the field.
Originality/value – The expert study approach moves beyond “good practice” case studies and allow
a broader discussion of micro- and macro challenges for sustainability within the fashion industry. The
learnings gained through such an approach could inspire future system level research as well as
business model innovation in the industry.
Keywords Consumer behaviour, Sustainability, Organizational change, Partnerships,
Business models, Accountability
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The fashion industry is a major contributor to problems of social and environmental
sustainability. Sustainability challenges span across the entire life cycle of a piece of
garment. The environmental impacts include energy use and generation of greenhouse
gas emissions in production and use, water use, toxicity, hazardous waste and effluent
associated with production stage pre-treatment chemicals, dyes, and finishes. Social
impacts include poor working conditions, including sweat shops and child labor, low
wages and long hours, workers’ rights and health and safety risks, and animal welfare
(Pedersen and Gwozdz, 2014). All impacts are exacerbated by the ever-increasing volume
of clothing consumption (Goworek, 2011; Moore, 2011, Gam et al., 2009; Defra, 2008/2011;
Birtwistle and Moore, 2007). Today, more than 80 billion garments are produced around
the world and in 2011 global fiber production (mainly cotton and polyester) set a new
global record of 86 billion tons, reaching nearly 12 kg per capita (Deloitte, 2013).
Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Researchers, media and the public alike have discussed the sustainability impacts of Management
each stage of the fashion supply. When it comes to the manufacturing processes, the Vol. 19 No. 3, 2015
pp. 315-327
Natural Resource Defense Council (NRCD, 2011) have concluded that textile-making is © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1361-2026
one of the most polluting industries in the world. This is due to the production of cotton DOI 10.1108/JFMM-08-2014-0059
JFMM and synthetic fibers as well as the typical back-end of production, which is characterized
19,3 by outdated manufacturing methods used in the dyeing and finishing of fabric. When it
comes to the social aspects, the recent collapse of the Rana Plaza in Bangladesh, which
killed more than 1,100 workers, serves as a tragic reminder of the poor working
conditions among fashion suppliers in developing countries (Burke, 2013a, b). Looking at
the demand-side of the fashion industry, the social and environmental impacts of fashion
316 consumption have received relatively little attention. The fashion consumption stages
are pre-purchase (the idea and decision to buy a garment), purchase, usage, maintenance,
and disposal of clothes (throwaway, recycle, etc.). Goworek et al.‘s (2012) qualitative
study of UK consumers’ perspective on sustainable clothing consumption shows that
consumers believe that the main sustainability issues related to clothing is at the stage of
manufacturing. Research however, has shown that laundering, which is part of the use
stage, is the single aspect of clothing consumption that has the greatest impact upon
society (Laitala et al., 2011; Allwood et al., 2006), in some cases being responsible for up to
82 percent of energy use during the life cycle of a piece of clothing (Fletcher, 2008; Harris,
2010). Disposal of clothing is another key sustainability issue. In Europe and America, an
estimated ten million tons of textiles are discarded every year (Wang, 2006). In the UK
alone over one million tons of clothing is thrown away each year, more than half ending
up in landfills (Harris, 2010). According to Politiken (2013), in Denmark more than 25,000
tons of clothing was donated to NGOs in 2012, which equals to each Dane giving away
seven pairs of jeans or 30 T-shirts. In addition, large amounts of textiles end up in
incineration (Laursen et al., 2007).
Fashion is not the only industry struggling with social and environmental problems
but the challenges depend to a large extent on the characteristics of the sector. For
instance, Sarah Roberts (2003) concludes based on a comparative analysis of branded
confectionary, clothes/footwear, and forest products that the nature of the supply chain
puts limitations on the ability to address corporate social responsibility (CSR). Supply
chain power, reputation, length, and diffusion are all key factors in understanding how
CSR is implemented in different sectors (Roberts, 2003). Moreover, André Martinuzzi and
colleagues have compared sustainability barriers and opportunities in the chemical,
textile, and construction sector (Martinuzzi, 2011; Martinuzzi et al., 2010). One of the
differences is that competition in the chemical industry is centered in Europe, whereas
European textile manufactured are faced with global competition especially from Asia
(Martinuzzi, 2011; Martinuzzi et al., 2010). Last, Thomas Laudal (2010) argues that the
structure of the global clothing sector (high labor-intensity, lack of transparency, etc.)
result in higher risk of violating social and environmental norms. In addition to sectoral
differences, evidence also indicates that sustainability challenges vary across countries
(de Abreu et al., 2012; Akyildiz, 2012; Cosmic Project, 2009; Thauer, 2014).
The objective of this research is to discuss sustainability within the fashion industry
and to share concrete ideas for the future development of sustainable fashion, whether
it concerns new materials, new partnerships, new consumption patterns, or new policy
options. This study takes on a novel approach to provide a broader overview of the
barriers and opportunities for systemic changes for sustainability in the fashion
industry. Much research on sustainable fashion focusses on a single issue (e.g. codes of
conduct) or agent (e.g. designers) even though it is generally acknowledged that a more
holistic and systemic perspective is needed to address the global and interrelated
sustainability challenges in the supply chain. Moreover, the literature of CSR is
dominated by case studies of single companies whereas there is little knowledge about
the broader tendencies and trends within the field of sustainable fashion.
 The remaining paper is structured as follows. The paper begins with a short Global expert
description of the online research method used in this expert study of sustainable fashion. study on
This section is followed by the analysis were the main results from the online study is
presented. The analysis will focus on a limited number of themes that were also used to
sustainable
structure the discussions in the data collection phase. The analysis will result in a fashion
broader discussion of the need for collective action for sustainability within the fashion
industry. The conclusion wraps up the main results from the findings and reflects on the 317
limitations of the study.

Method
Existing research sustainable fashion is mainly based on evidence from surveys
(i.e. Pedersen and Gwozdz, 2014; Kozar and Connell, 2013; Langhelle et al., 2009) and
especially case studies analyses (interviews, participant observation, secondary
sources) (e.g. Arrigo, 2013; Curwen et al., 2013; Dickson et al., 2012; Goworek, 2011;
Hvass, 2014; Perry, 2012; Plieth et al., 2012). Existing research also tends to pick
individual organizations or a limited part of the fashion life cycle as the locus of
analysis. Few studies provides a broader analysis of the multiple stakeholder groups
related to the fashion industry which all have a role to play in bringing about changes
toward sustainability (e.g. design students, NGOs, governmental bodies, industry
associations, technology providers, consultants, research institutions, etc.).
This study adopts a slightly different and more relational approach by including the
voices of more stakeholder groups in the analysis. The study was conducted as a
Sociolog.dx, a digital qualitative research tool provided by the data provider GfK
(Growth from Knowledge). The Sociolog.dx is an online forum with restricted access,
where a selected group of participants answer questions, solve tasks, and share various
material (pictures, links, drawings, etc.). The main advantage of the Sociolog.dx is that
the method is flexible and allows participants from around the world to decide
themselves when to contribute. Moreover, contrary to traditional interviews and
questionnaires, the participants in the Sociolog.dx gain insights about the contributions
of the other experts and are able to comment on each other’s answers.
In this study, the data provider recruited 51 participants to the Sociolog.dx based on
a contact list with information on 200+ experts identified by the researchers. The initial
list of experts in sustainable fashion was developed over a longer period of time from
various sources (literature review, speaker documents from conferences/workshops,
newspaper articles). 36 participants ended up taking part in the actual data collection
which took place May 6-10, 2013. The experts in the Sociolog.dx include independent
designers, business representatives, faculty members, as well as civil society
organizations from 13 different countries. Some of the participating experts hold
multiple roles within the fashion industry.
The discussions in the Sociolog.dx were structured around a limited number of
activities/questions within the field of sustainable fashion (training/education,
consumer behavior, policy making, etc.). All participants in this study were given
the opportunity to be anonymous to the other experts participating in the Sociolog.
An external moderator from the data provider helped facilitate the discussions.
The researchers were able to observe the activity on the Sociolog.dx but did not
interfere in the discussions between the experts.
The researchers received full transcripts of the discussions under each of the
Sociolog.dx activities/questions. The data were analyzed using open-ended coding and
subsequently grouped into higher-level categories and organized in various typologies
JFMM inspired by the existing literature (Lewins and Silver, 2007). As an example, the
19,3 analysis of a question relating to policy making for sustainable fashion was organized
and inspired by an existing continuum between soft and hard regulation (Lozano et al.,
2008). Lastly, quotations, links, and pictures were selected to illustrate the categories
identified during the previous analysis stages.

318 Analysis
Participants in the online study were requested to visualize the fashion industry by
uploading photos, drawings, videos, or other material that best represented their view
of the industry and subsequently reflect on the rationale for their choice. Moreover,
the participants were asked to articulate what they considered the main barriers for
change toward sustainability. The analysis of the visual material and the text clearly
indicate that the fashion industry is having a serious image problem as most experts
portray the sector as superficial, irresponsible, unsustainable, and/or unethical.
Upstream, lack of visibility and transparency in the fashion supply chain is repeatedly
highlighted as a problem by the experts. As an example, one of the participants has
chosen a retail window to illustrate the fashion industry because it looks glamorous but
provides little information about the journey of the individual garments. Downstream,
overconsumption, and a throwaway culture implies is a significant barrier for
sustainability in the fashion industry. In the words of a participant:
We certainly don’t need all the clothes and fashion that is produced today. We produce and
consume in excess. All these clothes, all these resources, when the charm of novelty fades, are
soon thrown on the dump. We are very much involved in luxury production and consumption,
for the sheer enjoyment of creating and buying something new, again and again. But this has
implications. The textile industry exerts a heavy toll on the environment and on the people
involved in production, and after the textiles are discarded they create a lot of waste and a
further burden on the environment.
Overall, the results from the online study indicate that the sustainability challenges in
the fashion industry are deeply rooted in current “fast fashion” business models and
consumption patterns. Moreover, there is an element of skepticism toward the current
sustainability efforts within the fashion industry which are considered insufficient in
addressing the more fundamental social and environmental challenges. For instance, a
participant argues that the sustainability initiatives of big fashion companies are often
about being “Less Bad” within a limited number of areas rather than making more
fundamental changes in the organization:
[T]hey change a small portion of some material to be a bit less bad, but don’t think of the
production process as a whole. We should think of the life cycle of a product and its impact on
the environment and people. We cannot be just a bit less bad – we should change the fashion
industry to be truly good.
The experts participating in the online study were also asked to provide example(s),
pictures, links, etc., of innovative sustainability initiatives within the fashion industry.
Despite the challenges in the fashion industry, the results indicate that a number of
companies are in fact experimenting with new products, processes and business
models that hold promises for a more sustainable fashion future. The participants
highlighted for instance various recycling/upcycling initiatives that represent first
steps to break with the prevalent linear system within the fashion industry (e.g. Marks
& Spencer’s Shwop Coat). Other examples include for instance From Somewhere and
Goodone, which make upcycled products from pre-consumer (cuts and leftovers Global expert
fabrics) and post-consumer waste (stuff that is thrown out), respectively. The study on
participants also pinpoint the transformation from products to services (swapping,
leasing, repairing, hiring, reusing, etc.). As one of the participants argue: “We all have
sustainable
plenty to wear! We need to be offered more support and encouragement in looking for fashion
the alternative ‘new’.” Examples include “Rent the Runway,” which promotes reuse
through renting, and “Stylish Girl,” that enables consumers to organize a wardrobe and 319
thereby extending the life of a garment. Last, the participants mention a number of new
systems, tools, and technologies that support the development of sustainable fashion.
This includes for instance, first, new technologies for reducing the social and
environmental footprint of manufacturing processes, packaging, and transportation,
second, new tools for promoting transparency and traceability in the supply chain, and
third, new systems for managing and measuring the social and environmental footprint
of various garments.
A number of innovations highlighted by the participants have a partnership-like
character involving participants from a variety of organizations (design schools,
NGOs, local communities, etc.). For instance, the participants mention a number of
collaborative projects that have been introduced to benefit vulnerable groups,
e.g. immigrants, disabled, and HIV-patients). Moreover, companies have developed
special collections in collaboration with local artisans and thereby contributing to local
economic development and perhaps also greater understanding among people across
cultures. Companies are also working together with universities/design schools on
sustainability-related teaching and research. As noted by a participant: “Universities
and (their) design schools are in a very strong position to work with fashion companies
– to develop good practice, but also to be involved in exploration, research, ‘thinking
outside of the box.’ ” While the partnerships highlighted by the experts often have a
project-like character, which involves a limited number of actors for a limited period of
time, there are also examples of collaborative efforts with multiple partners and a
longer time perspective. This includes for instance multi-stakeholder initiatives such as
the sustainable apparel coalition and the sustainable clothing action plan, respectively.
Just like there are a number of upstream challenges in the fashion supply chain,
there is also a need to address the downstream challenges caused by unsustainable
consumer culture. To challenge dominant fashion consumption patterns, the experts
highlight a number of consumer campaigns which aim at avoiding certain products
(e.g. fur), lowering the environmental footprint in the use phase (e.g. washing at lower
temperatures), and extending the product lifetime through repairing, recycling, reuse,
etc. Especially the last category seems to receives a great deal of attention in the
discussions and perhaps reflect a broader trend in sustainable fashion. As noted by a
participant: “People have really become much more aware of exchanging, borrowing
and re-using clothing as well as up-cycling, customizing and repairing what they have.”
However, it is also acknowledged that consumers often have no or very little
knowledge of the social and environmental impact of their purchases. The industry is
characterized by scant information and lack of transparency, which means that
consumers have to make a big effort to find better alternatives. As noted by one of the
participants: “Most consumers think that an organic cotton label is enough to
safeguard that the garment is ‘green,’ when in fact the ensuing dyeing process drenches
the textile in lots of hazardous dyes and chemicals […].” Moreover, it is acknowledged
that there are limitations to the sacrifices consumers are willing to make in relation to
sustainable fashion. In the words of a participant: “[…] you can’t just dissuade certain
JFMM purchasing behaviors, without offering some better alternatives. We have to promote
19,3 sustainable consumer behavior by offering better choices.” Last, there is a need to look
at the price structure where consumers today have to pay a price premium for
sustainable alternatives. To quote a Sociolog.dx participant:
It is also important to introduce consumers to a pricing scheme that is representative of what
clothing actually costs to produce – unlike the dominant global supply chain that externalizes
320 costs [in the form of environmental & social impacts] promoting misleading pricing/costing
mindset to consumers.

A transformation of fashion industry also necessitates deep, organizational changes in

the structure, organization and management of the individual fashion company.
Therefore, the participants were asked to give recommendations regarding the practical
implementation of sustainability in a non-specified organization. Overall, the results
indicate that there is no one-size-fits-all model for the successful adoption of sustainable
fashion. Therefore, a thorough understanding of the unique organizational
characteristics is required prior to the implementation process. However, management
commitment is always an important precondition for a successful implementation
process as it is upper echelons in the organization sets the direction, allocate resources,
and reward performance. Moreover, it will be important to identify internal change
agents, who can play a key role in the transformation process, as well as local anchor
draggers, who will defend status quo at all costs. As noted by a participant: “Finding
early adopters and championing them is important, as is identifying the obstructors of
change.” With regards to the implementation of the internal changes, multiple
approaches are suggested – some participants favor a cross-departmental strategy which
involves everyone in the organization (and sometimes the entire supply chain) whereas
others want to begin the company’s sustainability journey in a single department
(e.g. sourcing or design). Still others emphasize a differentiated strategy which combine a
broad information strategy with deep involvement in selected departments. One of the
participants refers to this strategy as a T-shaped approach which combines: “[…] lecture
format to reach lots of people […] and a deeper learning experience with at smaller group,
over a longer period of time.” There is also some disagreement when it comes to the
involvement of outside experts (consultants, designers, researchers, etc.). On the one
hand, external parties can bring important expertise to the organization. On the other
hand, it is the internal organizational members who need to take ownership for the
transformation. In the words of one of the participants:
I think that external consultants can be extremely valuable in re-evaluating corporate current
practices, as it often needs a fresh set of eyes to view processes that have become automatic,
and evaluate them from a sustainability perspective. That said, consultants do not always
take the time to consult and work with existing staff effectively, who quite often are very
aware of their own shortcomings and poor practices.

Participants in the online study also reflected on the role of public policies in promoting
sustainable fashion. Overall, the suggestions fall into two categories: punishments and
rewards. With regards to the former, companies should be financially sanctioned for non-
compliance with social and environmental standards and current externalities should
be dealt with through taxation of certain materials (e.g. virgin polyester), resources
(e.g. water), and business practices (e.g. violations of workers’ rights). With regards to
the latter, organizations promoting sustainability should pay lower taxes just like
sustainable fashion should be cheaper for consumers compared to conventional fashion.
Overall, the findings indicate that there is a need to “fix the prices” in the fashion Global expert
industry, which today provides no incentives for companies and consumers to study on
produce and buy socially and environmentally friendly fashion. As noted by one of the
participants: “It should not be the case that brands that choose to produce their garments
sustainable
ethically should pay a premium for those choices, whether through the cost of materials fashion
or production. Unethical and polluting processes are what should be taxed, while ethical
production should be financially incentivised.” Other policy recommendations mentioned 321
by the participants include requirements for companies to promote transparency
(reporting, certifications, labels, etc.), the banning of environmentally harmful materials,
and compulsory sustainability teaching at educational institutions.
While there is an element of disillusion when it comes to the current state of affairs in
the fashion industry, the participants expect the fashion industry to make progress on all
fronts: exploration of new materials, downcycling/recycling/upcycling, clothes sharing,
slow fashion, and sustainable consumption. One of the participants makes the following
comment: “Many good things are happening everywhere: the fast, mainstream
fashion system is slowly, but steadily improving, led by a few leaders. Platforms for
interchanging experiences, best practices, and solutions, are being created, as well as
practical tools to be used by designers to make more informed decisions when choosing
materials and processes.” As an example, systems for transparency and traceability in
the fashion supply chain are perceived as being steadily more sophisticated and
advanced. A more transparent supply chain is needed to allow companies, retailers as
well as consumers to know what takes place at each stage of the supply chain. As one of
the participants argues, today it is difficult to be only one organization when changes are
required in the entire industry: According to a participant:
I feel that one of the main barriers for sustainability in fashion is the complexity of the fashion
supply chain. It is really difficult to start with sustainability as just one company or
organization. For sustainability to work, all the actors in the supply chain have to work together
and link their activities, expectations and wishes in terms of sustainability to each other.

Discussion: reflections on the journey toward sustainable fashion

The results from the online study point in a number of different directions. In general,
the participants echo the view that current approaches to sustainability often lack scale
and scope (Visser, 2010). Moreover, the discussions between the participants also
highlight the complexity and interconnectedness of the challenges of sustainability in
the fashion industry. However, in order to better understand the findings from the
analysis, the results need to be related to the broader literature on sustainability and
CSR. Therefore, a number of continuums have been developed inspired by the existing
literature which is used to structure the discussions of the progress toward
sustainability within the fashion industry (see Figure 1).
In terms of innovation, a continuum exist between incremental process and product
improvements within the existing (“old”) business layout and the development of more
innovative business models (“new”) which break with predominant approaches to
value creation, delivery, and capture value (Davenport et al., 2006; Schaltegger et al.,
2011; Smeds, 1994). For instance, Puma’s Clever Little Bag is an example of incremental
process innovation which attempts to minimize the use of materials for packaging.
A more innovative business model includes for instance from somewhere which uses
pre-consumer waste (i.e. cuts and leftover fabrics from designers) in creating their
clothes. Other examples of more radical innovations include new types of sustainable
services which reduce the need for buying new products. It is often new, small-scale
JFMM businesses rooted on ideas of sustainability which experiment with radical innovations
19,3 whereas major fashion brands rarely depart from the predominant manufacturing and
consumption patterns. As noted by one of the participants, new business models will
be met with reluctance from well-established brands have based their business on
fast production of quick commodity goods: “I would agree with the importance of
developing new business models e.g. based around service rather than the production/
322 commodity models. It is likely however, that such models will have to come from
outside/beyond those already invested [literally and figuratively] in the fashion status
quo.” The quotation resonates with the business model literature which also highlights
the difficulties of changing an existing business model which has proven successful in
the part and has become institutionalized in the existing organizational infrastructure
(Chesbrough, 2010).
Internal change in the organization can be implemented top-down, bottom up, or by
a combination of both (Paton and Boddy, 2007). The participants seem to agree that an
element of top-down implementation is needed for change to happen in an organization.
For instance, it is recognized that management commitment is an important
precondition for a successful implementation process as it is the top management who
sets the direction of the company and allocate resources to different agendas and
priorities. To quote one participant: “[…] without senior management buy-in, the
exercise would be futile.” Moreover, it is argued that: “Motivation only lasts so long
unless there is a major shift in the company’s strategy and core structure.” However,
the participants also argue that changes are unlikely to take place without the
ownership of staff from across the organization. One participant says: “the whole
process of change should be co-created, co-designed with the core team consisting of
representatives (natural leaders) from different departments.” Overall, the results seem
to indicate that the success of internal changes toward sustainability depends on
leadership from the top as well as involvement from the bottom of the organization.
Partnerships can be divided between transactional partnerships with limited
commitment, communication, and learning between the parties, and transformational
partnerships, which are characterized by frequent interaction, high levels of trust, and
joint management (Bowen et al., 2010). While it is generally acknowledged that
collective action is needed for systemic change in the fashion industry, the majority of
partnerships highlighted by the participants are often small-scale and having a project-
like character, which cannot be said to be fully integrated in the fashion supply chain.
For instance, one-off partnerships between major fashion brands and selected NGOs or
community groups can hardly be seen as a transformational engagement. However,

Level of Innovations
Business Model “Old” “New”

Type of Internal Change

Internal Change “Bottom-up” “Top-down”

Type of Partnership
Partnership Approach “Transactional” “Transformational”
Consumer Action

Figure 1. Consumer Strategy “Influencing” “Editing”

Continuums Public Policy

of change Public Policy “Soft” “Hard”
a few smaller fashion brands (e.g. Indigenous and Gudrun & Gudrun) seem to have Global expert
adopted a more transformational approach by partnering with local artisans who study on
manufacture their core products.
When it comes to the demand-side of sustainable fashion, it is possible to influence
sustainable
consumers using a variety of means: information, education, campaigns, incentives, fashion
engagement, etc. (Bocken and Allwood, 2012). Here, a distinction is made between
influence strategies which are about encouraging consumers to be act more 323
sustainably, and editing strategies, which actors decide to remove or add options
available to the consumers (editing). The participants mention that it is possible to
challenge consumption behavior through campaigns and information sharing, e.g.
PETA’s anti-fur activities and the work of Clean Clothes Campaigns. Moreover,
consumers can be provided with new options for reusing clothes, e.g. renting and
swapping initiatives offering consumers the ability to use designer clothes without
having to buy it and then throw it away later after limited use. This also increases the
life cycle of the garment, as it is taken care of, and shared for longer period of time than
it would potentially be in a “private” ownership. The participants in the online study
provides little evidence of editing strategies where major fashion brands remove
unsustainable fashion or make sustainable fashion the default option.
A continuum exists between “soft” (e.g. awareness-raising and facilitation) and
“hard” (taxation and legislation) public policies (Lozano et al., 2008; Albareda et al.,
2007). Here, the recommendations of the participants typically fall into the latter
category. Even though there is a need for, e.g. consumer information, these efforts
cannot fix more fundamental flaws in the system which makes sustainable alternatives
more expensive than conventional fashion. One participant says: “Unethical and
polluting processes are what should be taxed, while ethical production should be
financially incentivized.” Most participants agree that governments should play an
important role in the future of sustainable fashion. Currently, however, participants do
not feel that governments are investing enough to the future of the industry. According
to a participant:
Governmental legislation does not currently support brands producing ethically and
sustainably, and does not hold brands directly accountable for the production of their own
goods. The old excuse of lack of control and thereby responsibility due to contracted and
subcontracted labor, no longer holds water. I believe that governments must hold brands
responsible, and that consumers should exert their power through social media and
purchasing choices.

Overall, the participants highlight a long list of barriers, which range from organizational
impediments to broader societal tendencies. Together, the voices of the experts give a
portrait of an industry where everyone is trapped in a system, which make it difficult and
costly to develop less impactful ways to supply and consume fashion. In this system,
consumers and companies receive little or no rewards for pursuing new approaches to
fashion. Even people trying to do things differently often have to adhere to the existing,
unsustainable logics of the system. In the words of one of the participants:
The traditional systems of sampling materials, making sample lines, engaging sales agencies
or agents, across the country, each of whom require a sample set, showcasing the collection
during fashion week through fashion shows or trade shows, wholesaling the collection and
delivering months prior to actual consumer use, then turning around and repeating the
process for 2, 4 or more drops per year, is in itself inherently wasteful and unsustainable, and
requires a major rethink. We need alternative models to deal with alternative products.
JFMM Conclusion
19,3 The purpose of this paper was to map the current challenges and opportunities for
sustainable fashion by conducting an online study among fashion experts from different
sectors and geographies. The online discussions among the participants document the
inadequacies of the current fashion supply chain – from extraction of raw materials to end
consumption – and the surrounding institutional environment. However, the emergence of
324 new and more sustainable alternatives to conventional fashion manufacturing and
consumption also offer potentially interesting avenues for lowering the social and
environmental footprint of the fashion industry. The systemic nature of the sustainability
challenges in the fashion industry highlight the need for concerted action from all stakeholder
groups (businesses, designers, policy makers, consumers, researchers, NGOs, etc.).
With its relational approach, the results of the study can inspire and inform business
as well as education in the area. By highlighting the systemic character of
sustainability challenges, it is a call for re-thinking existing practices and business
models. In particular, there seems to be a need for knowledge sharing and collaboration
in between and across companies and sectors (partnerships). The study could, for
example, lay the foundation for the development of teaching cases, targeting business
and design students as well as industry. Also, the study brought to light a number of
new and more sustainable ways of doing business that might inspire further
explorations, in education and in practice. The Sociolog.dx method in itself might also
pose interesting opportunities for knowledge exchange and learning, as it can serve as
an online meeting point where stakeholder groups (design students, fashion brands,
supplier brands, NGOs) can engage in debates on specific themes related to sustainable
fashion (closed loop, collaborative consumption, slow fashion, etc.).
The paper has limitations. It is based on insights of a limited number of experts selected
by the researchers and thus cannot be said to represent the voices of all stakeholders
throughout the fashion supply chain. Therefore, the Sociolog.dx study is dominated by
businesses, consultants, designers, and academics whereas there are no representatives of
upstream supplier factories or downstream consumer groups. A broader study including
the perspectives of more stakeholders could have improved the breadth and depth of
the analysis. In the future, it will be relevant to conduct a more thorough analysis of the
perception and practice gaps within and between stakeholder groups to provide a more
holistic view of the sustainability challenges and opportunities. Moreover, it will be relevant
to look more closely at how consumers perceive the sustainability innovations introduced
to better evaluate their potentials for bringing about systemic change in the fashion
industry. In the absence of efficient public policies and industry initiatives, the future of
sustainable fashion still resides in the behaviors of individual consumers.

References
Akyildiz, F. (2012), “Comparative corporate social responsibility in the United Kingdom and
Turkey”, in Aras, G. and Crowther, D. (Eds), Business Strategy and Sustainability
(Developments in Corporate Governance and Responsibility, Volume 3), Chapter 6, Emerald
Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 115-153.
Albareda, L., Lozano, J.M. and Ysa, T. (2007), “Public policies on corporate social responsibility:
the role of governments in Europe”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 391-407.
Allwood, J.M., Laursen, S.E., de Rodriguez, C.M. and Bocken, N.M.P. (2006), Well Dressed? The
Present and Future Sustainability of Clothing and Textiles in the UK, Cambridge University
Institute of Manufacturing, Cambridge.
Arrigo, E. (2013), “Corporate responsibility management in fast fashion companies: the Gap Inc. Global expert
case”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 175-199.
study on
Birtwistle, G. and Moore, C.M. (2007), “Fashion clothing – where does it all end up?”, International sustainable
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 210-216.
Bocken, N.M.P. and Allwood, J.M., (2012), “Strategies to reduce the carbon footprint of
fashion
consumer goods by influencing stakeholders”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 35,
pp. 118-129. 325
Bowen, F., Newenham-Hahindi, A. and Herremans, I. (2010), “When suits meet roots: the
antecedents and consequences of community engagement strategy”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 95 No. 2, pp. 297-318.
Burke, J. (2013a), “Bangladesh eases trade union laws after factory building collapse”,
The Guardian, May 13, available at: www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/13/bangladesh-
trade-union-laws (accessed July 24, 2013).
Burke, J. (2013b), “Bangladesh factory collapse leaves trail of shattered lives”, The Guardian,
available at: www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/bangladesh-factory-building-
collapse-community
Chesbrough, H. (2010), “Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers”, Long Range
Planning, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 354-363.
COSMIC Project (2009), Final Report of analysis about relationship existing between CSR and
competitiveness in the textile/clothing sector, available at: www.asev.it/ricerca_
innovazione/doc/CSR%20and%20Competitiveness%20Report%20%20COSMIC.pdf
(accessed July 9, 2015).
Curwen, L.G. , Park, J. and Sarkar, A.K. (2013), “Challenges and solutions of sustainable apparel
product development: a case study of Eileen Fisher”, Clothing and Textiles Research
Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 32-47.
Davenport, T.H., Leibold, M. and Voelpel, S. (2006), Strategic Management in the Innovation
Economy, Publicis Corporate Publishing, Erlangen.
de Abreu, M.C.S., de Castro, F., de Soares, F. de A. and da Filho, J.C.L. (2012), “A comparative
understanding of corporate social responsibility of textile firms in Brazil and China”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 119-126.
Defra (2008/2010), “Sustainable clothing action plan”, available at: www.gov.uk/government/
uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69193/pb13206-clothing-action-plan-100216.
pdf (accessed August 11, 2013).
Deloitte (2013), “Fashioning sustainability”, available at: www.deloitte.com/assets/
Dcom-Denmark/Local%20Assets/Documents/Din_branche/Tekstil_og_beklaedning/CSR
fashion.pdf (accessed July 29, 2013).
Dickson, M.A., Waters, Y. and López-Gydosh, D. (2012), Stakeholder expectations for
environmental performance within the apparel industry: the urgency of business
response”, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Vol. 45, Spring, pp. 37-51.
Fletcher, K. (2008), Sustainable Fashion and Textiles: Design Journeys, Earthscan, London.
Gam, H.J., Cao, H., Farr, C. and Heine, L. (2009), “C2CAD: a sustainable apparel design and
production model”, International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 166-179.
Goworek, H. (2011), “Social and environmental sustainability in the clothing industry: a case
study of a fair trade retailer”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 74-86.
Goworek, H., Fisher, T., Cooper, T., Woodward, S. and Hiller, A. (2012), “The sustainable clothing
market: an evaluation of potential strategies for UK retailers”, International Journal of
Retail & Distribution Management Vol. 40 No. 12, pp. 935-955.
JFMM Harris, B. (2010), A More Sustainable Future for Fashion, Defra, London.
19,3 Hvass, K.K. (2014), “Post-retail responsibility of garments – a fashion industry perspective”,
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 413-430.
Kozar, J.M. and Connell, K.Y.H. (2013), “Socially and environmentally responsible apparel
consumption: knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 315-324.
326 Laitala, K., Boks, C. and Klepp, I.G. (2011), “Potential for environmental improvements in
laundering”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 254-264.
Langhelle, O., Blindheim, B.-T., Laudal, T., Blomgren, A. and Fitjar, R.D. (2009), Conceptions of
Corporate Social Responsibility – Case: The Clothing Business, International Research
Institute of Stavanger, Stavanger.
Laudal, T. (2010), “An attempt to determine the CSR potential of the international clothing
business”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 96 No. 1, pp. 63-77.
Laursen, S.E., Hansen, J., Knudsen, H.H., Wenzel, H., Larsen, H.F. and Kristensen, F.M., (2007),
“EDIPTEX – environmental assessment of textiles”, Working Report No. 24 2007, The
Danish Environmental Protection Agency, available at: http://orbit.dtu.dk/fedora/objects/
orbit:110259/datastreams/file_7635219/content (accessed July 29, 2013).
Lewins, A. and Silver, C. (2007), Using Software in Qualitative Research, Sage Publications Ltd,
London.
Lozano, J.M., Albareda, L., Ysa, T., Roscher, H. and Marcuccio, M. (2008), Governments and
Corporate Social Responsibility: Public Policies beyond Regulation and Voluntary
Compliance, Palgrave MacMillan, Aldershot.
Martinuzzi, A. (2011), “Responsible competitiveness – linking CSR and competitive advantage in
three European industrial sectors”, Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht, Vol. 3,
pp. 297-337, available at: http://bach.wu-wien.ac.at/bachapp/cgi-bin/fides/fides.aspx?
search=true;pub=true;tid=57701;lang=EN;style=only_content)
Martinuzzi, A., Gisch-Boie, S. and Wiman, A. (2010), “Does corporate responsibility pay off?
Exploring the links between CSR and competitiveness in Europe’s industrial sector”, in
Research Institute for Managing Sustainability, Vienne University of Economics and
Business Administration, Vienna, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/
sustainable-business/files/csr/documents/competitiveness/101124_csr_comp_final_report_
long_version_final_en.pdf
Moore, B. (2011), Style Over Substance: Why Ethics are not in Fashion for Designer Labels, Ethical
Consumer Research Association (ECRA), Manchester.
NRDC (2011), “Green fashion: beautiful on the inside”, available at: www.nrdc.org/living/stuff/
green-fashion.asp (accessed July 24, 2013).
Paton, S. and Boddy, D. (2007), “Stuck in the middle: a case study investigating the gap
between top-down and bottom-up change”, Journal of General Management, Vol. 32 No. 4,
pp. 39-51.
Pedersen, E.R.G. and Gwozdz, W. (2014), “From resistance to opportunity-seeking: strategic
responses to institutional pressures for corporate social responsibility in the Nordic fashion
industry”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 119 No. 2, pp. 245-264.
Perry, P. (2012), “Exploring the influence of national cultural context on CSR implementation”,
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 141-160.
Plieth, H., Bullinger, A.C. and Hansen, E.G. (2012), “Sustainable entrepreneursip in the apparel
industry: the case of Manomama”, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Vol. 45, Spring,
pp. 123-136.
Politiken (2013), “80 Procent af Genbrugstøjet Ender i Butikker i Afrika”, available at: http:// Global expert
politiken.dk/tjek/forbrug/indkoeb/ECE2031548/80-procent-af-genbrugstoejet-ender-i-
butikker-i-afrika/ (accessed July 29, 2013).
study on
Roberts, S. (2003), “Supply chain specific? Understanding the patchy success of ethical sourcing
sustainable
initiatives”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 44 Nos 2-3, pp. 159-170. fashion
Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F. and Hansen, E.G. (2011), Business Cases for Sustainability and
the Role of Business Model Innovation – Develpoing a Conceptual Framework, Centre for 327
Sustainability Management, Leuphana Universität Lüneburg, Lüneburg.
Smeds, R. (1994), “Managing change towards lean enterprises”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 66-82.
Thauer, C.R. (2014), The Managerial Sources of Corporate Social Responsibility, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Visser, W. (2010), “The age of responsibility: CSR 2.0 and the new DNA of business”, Journal of
Business Systems, Governance and Ethics, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 7-22.
Wang, Y. (Ed.) (2006), Recycling in Textiles, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.

Further reading
BBC (2011), “Fashion chain Zara acts on Brazil sweatshop conditions”, available at: www.bbc.co.
uk/news/world-latin-america-14570564 (accessed July 24, 2013).
Chamberlain, G. (2010), “Gap, Next and M&S in new sweatshop scandal”, The Observer, August 8,
available at: www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/08/gap-next-marks-spencer-sweatshops
(accessed July 24, 2013).
Chen, H.-L. and Burns, L.D. (2006), “Environmental analysis of textile products”, Clothing and
Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 248-261.
Gibson, C. and Stanes, E. (2011), “Is green the new black? Exploring ethical fashion consumption”,
in Lewis, T. and Potter, E. (Eds), Ethical Consumption: A Critical Introduction, Routledge,
London, pp. 169-85.
Graedel, T.E. and Allenby, B.R. (1995), Industrial Ecology, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Greenpeace (2011), “Dirty laundry”, available at: http://issuu.com/greenpeaceinternational/docs/
dirty-laundry-report?e ¼ 2537715/1378473#search (accessed July 29, 2013).
Hearson, M. (2009), Cashing in: Giant Retailers, Purchasing Practices, and Working Conditions in
the Garment Industry, Clean Clothes Campaign, Amsterdam.
Hefley, B. and Murphy, W. (2008), Service Science, Management and Engineering: Education for
the 21st Century, Springer, New York, NY.
Smeds, R. (2014), “Managnig change towards lean enterprises”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 66-82.
United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (2013), “Cotton & wool:
overview”, available at: www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/cotton-wool.aspx#.UffOzWTwIho
(accessed July 30, 2013).

Corresponding author
Kirsti Reitan Andersen can be contacted at: kra.ikl@cbs.dk

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com