“The True Cost,” a documentary which focuses on the impact of the fashion industry, better known today as the fast fashion industry, reveals who is really paying the price for clothing. H&M is featured in this film as one of the fast fashion “giants,” and before this year I had heard nothing of H&M’s sustainable practices, despite having shopped there quite frequently.

It turns out, in 2013 H&M launched a worldwide garment collection program (1). No matter the brand, clothing can be taken to any H&M location to be sorted into three categories:

1. Re-wear: to be resold in second-hand clothing stores;
2. Reuse: turned into new products, such as cleaning products;
3. Recycle: made into textile fibres to be used as insulation and cardboard boxes.

H&M calls for “the useless, the misfits, the redundants,” and according to their website, over 40,000 tonnes of garments have been collected and given a second life. However, the pieces sorted into the re-wear category are much more problematic than they may seem.

“True Cost” mentions that only 10% of clothes that are donated end up being sold (2). What about the other 90%? A significant proportion are sent overseas so that they can be re-worn. One outcome of the redistribution to developing countries has been harm to local industries, as jobs opportunities are taken away from textile workers (4). The ultimate result: millions of dollars are spent on transporting this clothing, to have a significant portion end up in an “exotic” landfill.

So how can we better utilize the clothing that we no longer want? The website 1 Million Women has a few suggestions:

1. Do not donate trash: this saves charities unnecessary expenditures.
2. Take your clothing to a local organization: this increases the chance that someone will benefit from your donation.
3. Just don’t donate: repurpose your used clothing yourself. (3)

While H&M’s garment collection program is taking a step toward environmental sustainability, I’m interested to see if social sustainability will follow.

References:

1. https://about.hm.com/en/sustainability/get-involved/recycle-your-clothes.html
2. https://www.1millionwomen.com.au/blog/5-crazy-facts-new-fashion-documentary-true-cost/
3. https://www.1millionwomen.com.au/blog/the-pros-and-cons-of-donating-clothes-to-charity/
4. https://fashionista.com/2016/01/clothing-donation

After reading an assigned article on the Guardian (7) that deemed that Nike was a green giant, alongside Tesla and Whole Foods, I couldn’t help but wonder “is Nike really that green?” So I went looking, and this is what I found:

1. Nike is targeting sustainability through innovation.
   According to Nike’s website their environmental footprint is being reduced through efforts centred on  waste, energy, water and chemistry. Impressively, they were able to divert 92% of their footwear manufacturing waste in 2015 (2).
2. For Nike, the key is materials.
   Almost 60% of their shoe’s environmental impact is due to the materials used, and this is why material innovation has been their focus (3).
3. Nike launched their energy and carbon program in 2008.
   By 2025, the goal is to be using 100% renewable energy in their owned and operated facilities (2). When first reading this, I was extremely impressed! I mean, it can’t get better than that, a perfect A+! Upon rereading however, I questioned the terminology “owned and operated,” and it turns out, contract factories are not included in Nike’s 100% (4).

Overall, a significant number of positive changes have been made at Nike and are continuing to be developed in realtime. The company is focused on the footwear industry, which is logical considering they are deemed one of the most, if not the most, popular footwear brands in the world (1).

Although Nike’s focus is on materials, there appears to be a lack of consideration for materials post-purchase. I have worked three summers in the shoe department at Sport Check, and there were a number of shortcomings that I identified regarding Nike’s (and other brand’s) shoe packaging- generally speaking, the packaging is excessive. Additionally, there is not a concrete system in place for shoe’s “after lives.” 
Nike’s Grind technology has existed for 20 years and is used to recycle worn shoes into turf fields, tracks and 71% of their footwear and apparel products (6). Although this is impressive, I was unable to find out how Nike acquires these shoes for recycling. Do customers recycle them? Are they recovered from landfills? If majority of other shoe purchasers are also unaware of the answers to these questions, how much impact can this technology really have?

According to TheShoeIndustry.com, manufacturing is the greatest area of environmental concern regarding the lifecycle of shoes (5). This means that Nike is starting where it matters. In the future, I hope to see increased customer knowledge surrounding shoe disposal and more aggressive attempts at package reduction.

Sources

1. https://successstory.com/lists/10-most-popular-shoe-brands-263
2. https://about.nike.com/pages/environmental-impact
3. https://news.nike.com/news/nike-inc-and-mit-climate-colab-materials-innovation-to-combat-climate-change
4. https://news.nike.com/news/sustainable-innovation
5. http://theshoeindustry.weebly.com/environmental-impact.html
6. http://www.nikegrind.com/faq
7. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/jan/02/billion-dollar-companies-sustainability-green-giants-tesla-chipotle-ikea-nike-toyota-whole-foods