https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9214-4655
![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The introduction of the Australian Modern Slavery Act in 2018 has important implications for the fashion sector and the supply chains that it furnishes. However, it also introduces an added layer of complexity to the already crowded space of ethical fashion information. This article investigates how fashion consumers navigate the increasingly complex landscape of ethical fashion against the backdrop of new legislation and alongside the moral imperatives and pressures of environmental media. Research into sustainable fashion often suggests that more reporting, more transparency, more information is necessary in order to educate consumers about ethical options. However, our survey and interview data illustrate that even the most informed and knowledgeable consumers find it difficult to navigate the information that is available, often becoming overwhelmed when it comes to buying ethically. Taking seriously the competing demands driving ethical consumption, we argue that understanding how the mechanisms of failure operate in the ethical fashion landscape, particularly feelings of shame and guilt, can give us greater knowledge of fashion consumer attitudes and practices. This, in turn, may lead to a better awareness of the needs of conscious consumers as well as the limits of ethical fashion. We advocate for an acknowledgment of consumer imperfection to shift away from pathologizing the consumer or the commodity itself and to focus instead on the consumer’s thwarted relationship with the means of production and the complicated global networks of engagement that inform ethical consumption.
Acknowledgements
This research was conducted as part of a large, interdisciplinary project looking at the impact of the Australian Modern Slavery Act on a variety of industries in Australia. Our pillar of the project investigated modern slavery, fashion and consumer awareness. We would also like to thank Larissa Barrows for all of her research support.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 The Australian governments’ Online Register for Modern Slavery Statements (The Register) houses all statements provided by entities reporting under the 2018 Act and are available for public access.
2 Baptist World Aid (Citation2021).
3 The majority of participants were also under 45 years old, with seven between 18 and 25, six between 26 and 35, six between 36 and 45, two between 46 and 55 and one over 55. All interviews were conducted online via Zoom due to Covid-19 necessitated lockdowns.
4 Respondents to the initial survey constituted a broader spread of ethnic and cultural identity, including two Indigenous Australian participants.
5 From under AU$45,000 for a number of younger participants still studying, to over AU$200,000 for one participant.
6 The demographics of our participants resonated with our own cultural identities as two feminist cultural studies scholars of European descent. While our relationships with environmental activism differ, we nevertheless share a profound attachment to garments and curiosity about how people make decisions about the clothes they buy and wear. We also represent the generational range of our participants: a 50-something single parent in secure employment who struggles to buy sustainable clothes for her teenage son; and a 30-something in fixed-term employment, in a child free, de-facto relationship whose personal relationships with clothes are informed by a strong sense of environmental and social responsibility.
7 Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General California Department of Justice (Citation2015).
8 Quoted from the Modern Slavery portal for businesses and entities on the Australian Government Department of Home Affairs website: https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/criminal-justice/Pages/modern-slavery.aspx Accessed 3 February 2021.
9 Pseudonyms used throughout.
10 The Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) is a global not-for-profit that supports sustainable cotton production. BCI cotton accounts for approximately 14% of all global cotton production. https://bettercotton.org/ Accessed 5 March 2021.
11 This was also the case when participants assumed that items were made in certain places due to their marketing. For example, participants expressed surprise and disappointment to learn that Icebreaker was not made in New Zealand, despite the strong brand connection with New Zealand.
12 Xu et al. (Citation2020). Report for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
13 Further reports continue to emerge about the degree to which the fashion industry is implicated in forced labour of the Uyghurs. In late March 2021, it was reported that Inditex had removed a statement about the company’s zero-tolerance policy on forced labour from its website (Bain Citation2021). The removal of this statement reignited concern regarding the fashion industry’s complicity in human rights abuses in China and sparked a Sum of Us petition, which, at the time of writing, had received over 100,000 signatures. https://actions.sumofus.org/pages/zara-stop-using-uyghur-forced-labor/?akid=87933.17016175.1RFBft&rd=1&source=fwd&t=1 Accessed 28 May 2021.
14 Nike Statement on Xinjiang. https://purpose.nike.com/statement-on-xinjiang Accessed 15 April 2021.
15 In China, the Map provides details of 107 factories, which together employ 140,866 workers, 77.7% of whom are female and for whom the average age is 39. http://manufacturingmap.nikeinc.com/# Accessed 13 March 2021.
16 As we were writing this article an ABC Four Corners episode on ‘Fast Fashion’ was screened on Australian television (May 2021). The program used much of the dramatically ‘alarming' rhetoric familiar in this form of environmental media and tired tropes of moralism and consumer responsibility that we critique here. It did, however, investigate new modes of worker exploitation and unsafe working conditions via its coverage of the UK fast fashion brand boohoo, and the ongoing concerns about the use of modern slavery in the garment district of Leicester, now under investigation by the UK’s National Crime Agency.
17 For more research on young people’s alternative fashion consumption practices see: Clark (Citation2005).
18 For more research on ethical fashion consumption when buying for children or other dependents see: Huopalainen and Satama (Citation2020), Ritch (Citation2019), Ritch and Schröder (Citation2012).
19 The demonization of fast fashion also ignores the way elite or luxury brands are often less transparent about their supply chains and have less ethical production practices. The BoF Sustainability Index (Citation2021) shows that luxury brand conglomerates such as LVMH (which houses the likes of Givenchy, Louis Vuitton, Fendi, and Marc Jacobs, among others) score far lower than high street fast fashion brands such as Zara and H&M.
20 In 2020, Fast Retailing’s global sales were US$19.6 billion, in comparison to H&M’s US$26.99 billion and Inditex’s US$33.68 billion (https://www.fastretailing.com/eng/ir/direction/position.html).
21 Popular books such as Lauren Bravo’s How to Break up with Fast Fashion (2020) and Emma Matthews’ How to Quit Fast Fashion (2020) and blogs and social media accounts like Leah Musch’s Unmaterial Girl describe the transformation from ‘fast fashion addict' to ‘slow fashion advocate' and provide tips and advice on how readers or followers can undergo a similar ethical makeover.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Natalya Lusty
Natalya Lusty is a Professor of Cultural Studies and an ARC Future Fellow (2018–2022) at the University of Melbourne. Her Future Fellowship examines the history of consumer culture, including fashion, and its relationship to modernism and informed consumption through the institution of the department store. Natalya is the author of Surrealism, Feminism, Psychoanalysis (Routledge, 2017); Dreams and Modernity: A Cultural History, co-authored with Helen Groth (Routledge, 2013); Photography and Ontology: Unsettling Images, co-edited with Donna West Brett (Routledge, 2019); and Cambridge Critical Concepts: Surrealism (CUP, 2021). She is an editorial board member of Australian Feminist Studies and co-edited with Harriette Richards and Rimi Khan, a special issue on ‘Fashion Futures’ for Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies (2021).
Harriette Richards
Dr Harriette Richards is a Lecturer, Fashion Enterprise in the School of Fashion and Textiles at RMIT University. Previously, she was a Research Associate in the School of Culture and Communication at the University of Melbourne working on the ARC Future Fellowship project ‘Modernism, Cosmopolitanism and Consumer Culture’ (2018–2022) with Professor Natalya Lusty. She is co-founder of the Critical Fashion Studies research group and is currently working on projects investigating modern slavery and transparency in the Australian fashion industry and ethical and sustainable fashion innovation. Her work has been published in a range of journals, including, most recently, Australian Feminist Studies, Cultural Studies, Critical Studies in Fashion & Beauty and Gender, Work & Organization, and in the edited collection Rethinking Fashion Globalization (Bloomsbury 2021). She co-edited with Natalya Lusty and Rimi Khan, a special issue on ‘Fashion Futures’ for Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies (2021).