Just let that sink in for a second and consider all that it means. Heavy, isn’t it? But is it true? I’ve been batting this around in my head for quite some time actually, and have admitted already here that I find what I and other eco-fashion bloggers do hypocritical, to say the least. But I also don’t believe that producing and consuming are inherently evil or bad for the environment; there’s a fine line, however, between balance & excess in the world of fashion. I do believe that waste should be avoided at ALL costs (starting with the producers and ending with consumers) – I’d even argue that that’s more important that the actual materials used in producing a garment. It’s about resources, and using them intelligently and as ethically as possible.
Given the recent scandals with H&M throwing out clothing that had been SLASHED so as not to be wearable, and their disclosure that their organic cotton may not have been as organic as they said it was, thoughts and discussion about organic cotton and eco-fashion have set the blogosphere on fire. And I don’t want to be all “I told you so…” but I have always advocated shopping smaller boutiques & designers as opposed to fast fashion or large chain stores EVEN if you’re buying organic cotton clothing. In my mind, buying eco-friendly means buying more than just the item of clothing – you’re also buying into the company and its suppliers. I’m never really that surprised when a gigantic corporation discloses information like this – I almost expect it, which is why I prefer to focus on smaller designers and boutiques who start out and are guided by ethics and concern for resources. The idea that you can purchase organic cotton clothing at H&M or WalMart and that makes you “eco-friendly” is so misguided it’s not even funny…
I don’t mean to rant, but there was way too much shock & awe over recent revelations for my taste 
But back to the original statement and title of this blog post: “I don’t think any eco-brand exists.” That’s a quote from SANS designer Lika Volkova from a video about her new “printable patterns” initiative & the idea of eco-friendly clothing in general. It provides absolutely brilliant insight into what it means to be an eco-friendly designer and the use of resources in the fashion industry. (Thanks so much to makool loves you for introducing this on her blog today.)
Her argument is essentially that as a designer, because you’re producing things, using up resources, you can’t possibly be eco-friendly. I don’t agree with that 100%, but there is a significant amount of truth to what she says. It would simply not be possible for all the producers to stop producing, not even for a small amount of time; economies would collapse, and nothing would be accomplished. It’s much more about using resources ethically and intelligently so as not to produce WASTE along with a product that’s important. And that is where the challenge lies: it’s relatively easy for a designer to just say, okay, I’m going to work only with organic cotton. But that does not an eco-friendly designer make. The hard part is deciding to work with hemp, to find uses for scraps, to makes smaller batches, to pay fair wages, and so on.
Please take a few minutes to watch the video if you haven’t yet – it’s really valuable. I love that Lika puts her money where her mouth is with her printable patterns and very unique designs. I don’t think anyone could argue against the fact that if you were to print out one of her patterns and create it yourself with a conventional cotton fabric it would be much more friendly towards the environment than buying organic cotton or even hemp clothing from a larger outlet. (I also just love to hear her talk) And she makes some very interesting points about “making things” for yourself and that being enough. This really hit home for me, as I’m wanting very much to get back into needlework and sewing and “making things” myself…
Do you think there’s such a thing as an “eco-brand?” What does it take for a designer to be eco-friendly in your opinion?
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
