Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality,
and to see the links to virtual rooms.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Daniela Guerreiro
(ISCSP- University of Lisbon)
Heike Derwanz (Academy of Fine Arts Vienna)
Send message to Convenors
- Format:
- Panel
- Location:
- Main Site Tower (MST), 02/009
- Sessions:
- Thursday 28 July, -
Time zone: Europe/London
Short Abstract:
This panel reflects on the concepts of sustainability used by ethical, slow, green or eco brands producing consumer goods. What do they mean by choices, practices and sustainable production? Are they transforming industries like fashion into a more environmentally and socially sustainable industry?
Long Abstract:
Ethical, fair, green, eco, slow or sustainable –sustainable brands describe their take on sustainable production differently.
Whether it concerns the entire production process (from the choice of raw materials to the adoption of production practices), circular design or even cradle-to-cradle approach. They have been also criticized for using the concept of sustainability ambiguously (Ehrenfeld 2015; Evans and Peirson-Smith 2018), which has led to consumers’ misunderstanding (Thomas 2008) and a distrust towards their statements.
More recently, Guerreiro (2021) found that despite similar conceptions of sustainability, fashion brands in her analysis of Portuguese online representations had diverse concerns and practices. So, beyond the concept what is considered sustainable for some is not sustainable for others.
As most studies in the area of fashionable consumer goods concentrate on consumption (Becker-Leifhold and Heuer 2018; Middlemiss 2018), they mostly build on an understanding that consumers can choose between different alternative products and act in a circular way. But what is the foundation layed by the industry? This panel seeks to reflect and question the way in which sustainable brands have used the concept of sustainability, as well as what meanings they attribute to it. What kind of sustainability do they claim? Are there brands more committed to sustainability than others? Are they looking for sustainability at an environmental level or at an economic level? And is it possible for both to coexist?
We welcome empirical as well as theoretical reflections on these issues.
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Thursday 28 July, 2022, -Emmi Holm (University of Helsinki)
Paper short abstract:
Drawing on recent fieldwork in Ghana and Finland, this paper asks how ‘sustainability’ is defined and (re)produced in an independent fashion designer’s work. I argue that ‘sustainability’ is valued and objectified differently in Ghanaian and Finnish supply chains.
Paper long abstract:
When everything and anything can be labelled as ‘sustainable’, how are independent fashion designers navigating the materiality of their work? When and why does a piece of fabric become sustainable? I examine these questions through two very different ethnographic locales: Finland and Ghana. I argue that designers in both countries deal with systems of sustainability rather than a singular concept: on one hand, their work is evaluated against an institutionalized “sustainability”, that often carries the notions of economic growth and pursuit to maintain individual consumption habits (Moore 2017), on the other hand, their work reflects local moralities and virtues. My ethnography traces the material realities of Ghanaian and Finnish artisanal fashion brands, that produce locally, utilize expert craftsmanship and traditional techniques and, above all, market themselves as sustainable to a cosmopolite and conscious clientele. In Ghana, designers base their sustainability claims on sociality and aesthetics, as Finnish designers search for “objectively” ecological materials. While Finnish designers looked for “100 per cent sustainable fabrics”, creating individual distress due to the sheer impossibility of the task, Ghanaian designers would label a polyester shirt as sustainable, as long as the fabric itself was sourced locally and the shirt was sewed by local tailors. However, dealing with the logic of global fashion and textile circulation, the daily lives of designers in both countries were imbued with material scarcity, precarity and obscurity of reliable information. I argue that these (material) uncertainties are, in turn, used in the marketing efforts of a brand's sustainability claims.
Daniela Guerreiro (ISCSP- University of Lisbon)
Paper short abstract:
Despite Portuguese ethical fashion brands have the same understanding of what is a sustainable production, at the end of the day the sustainable choices and practices that some adopt are not seen as sustainable by others.
Paper long abstract:
Despite fashion and sustainability being considered opposite concepts of impossible coexistence (Woodward 2015), with the collapse of Rana Plaza in 2013 in Bangladesh (Horton 2018), fashion brands began to identify themselves as “ethical fashion” (Haug and Busch 2016).
In their official pages they claim to be sustainable since their production process is designed to have the least impact on the environment. However, they have been criticized, especially for using the concept of sustainability, as they use it in an ambiguous or unspecific way (Ehrenfeld 2015; Evans and Peirson-Smith 2018), which has led to consumers’ misunderstanding (Thomas 2008), thus leading them to distrust the veracity of their speeches.
This article, which is based on the analysis that I did on official pages (website and Instagram) of seven Portuguese ethical fashion brands, seeks to reflect and question their sustainability. It is intended to demonstrate that, even though they understand the sustainability of the same way, this does not necessarily lead them to have the same kinds of concerns, nor does it lead them to adopt the same practices, because as I learned what is sustainable for some is not sustainable for others.
Harriette Richards (RMIT University)
Paper short abstract:
This paper analyses New Zealand brand Maggie Marilyn to argue that the dependence of sustainable fashion brands on the sale of high-cost items available only to a select consumer market overlooks the need for an authentic, intersectional politics of solidarity in the pursuit of a ‘better world.’
Paper long abstract:
In late 2021, at a volatile moment in New Zealand’s campaign against Covid-19, Maggie Hewitt, founder of sustainable fashion brand Maggie Marilyn (MM), published an article in the New Zealand Herald advocating for the immediate reopening of national borders. In response, fashion journalist Zoe Walker Ahwa argued that Hewitt had exposed her privilege by focusing on the economic benefits of reopening with no concern for the Māori, Pasifika, immunocompromised and vulnerable communities who would be disproportionately affected by a dissolution of public health restrictions. Referring to MM’s Instagram bio, which reads, ‘We’re on a mission to Create a Better World,’ Ahwa confronted Hewitt on her disregard for the wellbeing of these populations and asked rhetorically: you want to ‘create a better world for who, exactly?’
This paper takes Ahwa’s question as a starting point from which to ask: what does a politics of solidarity mean in relation to sustainable fashion? And how is this politics affected by crises that threaten the communities of privilege upon which such sustainable fashion so often relies? MM’s social and environmental goals are admirable; the company manufactures in New Zealand and uses only recycled, organic and chemical-free materials. However, their pursuit of these ends glosses over classed and raced dimensions of the fashion system and depends entirely on the sale of high-cost items available only to a select consumer market. I argue that it is only through the active pursuit of an authentic politics of intersectional solidarity that we might build a ‘better world.’