As fashion continues to change and clothing becomes more affordable, the negative environmental impacts of this epidemic grows. Harmful pesticides, pollution, animal endangerment, non-biodegradable fibers, and unhealthy working conditions are just a few dangerous aspects that the fashion industry has accumulated. Fashion Sustainability has suggested some solutions to these issues that I believe could catch on and in the long run, help save our planet. Sustainable production could be pursued by making new goods from renewable material, produce only organic cotton or fibers that do not contain harsh chemicals, and only allow animal skins/fur from the meat industry. If harmful chemicals are banned from t textiles productions, unhealthy working conditions will no longer be a problem. Sweat shops should be banned all together and should remain illegal. The disposal of garments should be pursued in terms of recycling, refurbishing, and biodegradability. Caring for a garment should be performed with little resources.
The Ecosystem Assessment correlates with Fashion Sustainability in the fact that both articles show how the ecosystems are dwindling due to the abundant amount of resources that are being abused. Flows of nitrogen in terrestrial ecosystems have doubled, and flows of phosphorous have tripled. More than half of all the synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, which was first manufactured in 1913, ever used on the planet, half has been used since 1985. This shows that as ready to wear apparel availability grows, harmful waste is being produced along with it. Ecosystem Assessment suggests effective responses for specific sectors. For agriculture, removal of production subsidies that have adverse economic, social and environmental effects. Investment in agricultural science and technology that can sustain the increase of food supply without harmful tradeoffs involving excessive use of water, nutrients and pesticides.
The Fashion Sustainability article suggests many valuable eco friendly changes that could potentially change the way consumers go about buying, caring, and disposing of their garments. This resource gives a narrow spectrum of how these changes should be made and does not go into what the costs may be when making such restrictively narrow changes. Ecosystem Assessment provides a much broader view on how the environment could be positively changed and gives an explanation on how these changes will affect the cost of goods and how that could possibly turn negative.
Great post! You did a great job connecting all of the readings and giving your opinion. When reading the Fashion Sustainability article, did you read the part about the investigations they found Nike was doing to their workers? Do you think if more corporate reports where to be done for large apparel companies, sustainability would become a better impact in their company?
ReplyDeleteYour post is very clear and you did a great job on connecting the two readings! About your comment on animals in the meat industry, I took it as you saying we need to use all of the animal when it is taken to the slaughterhouse? From what I understand the majority of slaughter houses in the US utilize all of the animal when it is time for them to killed. That doesn't mean that there are not illegal farms that only use just the hide or just the meat. Other than that I think all of your suggestions would make for a better apparel industry! Great job.
ReplyDeleteOlivia, about the Nike article, I heard about that scandal many years ago and I do think that if more companies were confronted and exposed the same way, then they would be forced to change their practices and become more sustainable like Nike has become.
ReplyDeleteDo you have an idea how it came forward to make a corporate report for Nike? You would think that as large of a company that Nike is, that more companies would change the way they are producing their products because if a company as big as Nike got caught, don't you think smaller ones should be caught as well? Maybe smaller companies don't have to worry about how they are producing their products because they don't have as large of a demand as the larger companies do. Do you think it was right for Nike to be exposed for there wrong doings? Do you think that the government should have a say on how companies should be ran?
DeleteLindsey, yes I agree with your point and like all other things illegal, many will still practice unlawful things to make money.
ReplyDeleteNike's sweatshops were discovered in the 1990's but who actually exposed them I don't know. Because Nike is such a mega company, exposure was much easier. Small companies get away with child labor and worker abuse because finding their sweatshops are possibly more difficult and perhaps the public may just simply not care as much about smaller company practices. Nike is so large and so respected that when the sweatshops were discovered people were shocked and disgusted. I am glad Nike was exposed because they were the such role model on how to run a successful company and they were deceiving customers by their unlawful practices. As for the government control, absolutely. Sweatshops are illegal so any American company should be made to follow all regulations even if the manufacturing shops are outside the United States.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the extra research you did on Nike. I completely agree with you on how all companies from American should follow all of the laws even if their manufactures are in a different country.
Delete