Aspirational consumers have a strong overlap with the fast fashion industry. Yet when we look, at the values of aspirational shoppers, it seems like these values would be incongruent with industry retail leaders such as H&M, Zara, and Topman. These companies have business models that conflict with sustainability in terms of low purchasing cost offset by frequent and high volume purchase, high inventory turnover to meet trends, and short sales cycles.
Fast fashion has outpaced by the rest of the retail industry and key driver of sales stems from aspirational consumers. These are the same individuals who align with the following statements far more than any other segment “We need to consume less to preserve future generations” and “Willing to pay more for products produced in a socially and environmentally responsible way” (Elks, 2013).
So why do these concerns about the environmental and social impact of non-fashion purchasing decisions not apply to fashion? Perhaps it is because fashion has always strived for and embraced obsolescence. Fast fashion has simply raised these stakes. According to a survey conducted of fast fashion consumers between 20-35, “sustainability is not something that is associated with fashion, but they are open to environmentalism” (Joy, Annamma, et al. 2012). When asked to define environmentalism, they spoke in general terms like eating organic, recycling, and saving the environment.
However, this same group also responded far more positively than any other segment to “I want to stand out by the way I look, my style”. (Elks, 2013). This is what likely plays a major role in disconnect between survey statements. Fast fashion companies have set industry benchmarks that clothes should last 10 washes before they are out of fashion. Disposability makes everything limited edition.
Perhaps we should look at what inspires fast fashion; luxury fashion. Fast fashion mimics luxury in terms of style, but not quality. However, this is a point that I believe there could be some shift upon in the future. Sourcing has already permeated the public consciousness, and has already seen traction. For instance, Topshop, and Gap have faced backlash for their manufacturing processes. This point could change ethical standards, which could be then used as an important aspect of differentiation that directly ties into sustainability. This distinction is what made the rise of “organic” and “responsibly sourced” in food so prevalent. Unfortunately for fashion, sourcing must be framed purely as an ethical issue, as there are no health concerns for what we wear.
Sources:
Bain, Marc. “Is H&M misleading customers with all its talk of sustainability?” Quartz, Quartz, 16 Apr. 2016, qz.com/662031/is-hm-misleading-customers-with-all-its-talk-of-sustainability/.
Elks, Jennifer. “2.5 Billion Aspirational Consumers Mark Shift in Sustainable Consumption.” Sustainablebrands.com, 4 Oct. 2013, www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/brand_innovation/25-billion-aspirational-consumers-mark-shift-sustainable-consumption.
Joy, Annamma, et al. “Fast Fashion, Sustainability, and the Ethical Appeal of Luxury Brands.” Fashion Theory, vol. 16, no. 3, 2012, pp. 273–295., doi:10.2752/175174112×13340749707123.