The term “Fast Fashion” was coined in 1989 in an article by the New York Times[1]. Since then, the term has been thrown around a lot and used to brand companies with the binary “good” or “bad.” But what does fast fashion mean? And how does it relate to us as individuals and the planet as a whole?
Fast fashion impacts everyone in different ways. From the perspective of a teenage girl, it is a constant in my life. All around me are social norms of how to dress and how to get the most for the least amount of money. To dress like myself and buy only what I need or repair torn textiles is an act of rebellion towards the normalization of always being on trend. I am in a position where I should not talk about my values towards shopping without shaming so many peers who are thriving off cheap clothing. Yet with these struggles I am still on the fortunate end of fast fashion’s impact on earth. My country is not being used as a dumping site for unsold textiles, and the rivers and lakes are cleaner than those with chemicals pumped into them. I can go swimming in the country I live in, Austria, without worrying about the red waters that are a result from illegal factories. There are people my age who deserve this too but are instead faced with water contaminated by chemicals and color dyes. The following images show the contrast from where I live to where another kid just like me does. The first image was taken by me of a lake near my school, and the second was sourced from “All That is Interesting[2],” featuring the Yangtze River in China.
Fast fashion is the practice of mass-producing clothes, often with profit and not sustainability in mind, as dictated in an article by The Good Trade[3]. Fast fashion is bad for numerous reasons, most predominantly being, as described by the UN Environment Program (UNEP), the second-biggest consumer of water and the cause of approximately 10% of global carbon emissions. This problem alongside waste generation, and the normalization of over consumption, are often overlooked by consumers for the sake of buying cheap. The latter is a problem as it increases the number of the former two. Water usage to produce fast fashion has been estimated by the EU to result in 20% of global freshwater pollution; the utilization of microplastics for textiles and other non-biodegradable substances that make up the poor-quality clothing; excess energy consumption; and lack of recycling unused/unsold products all result in the world we know today that is suffering. Various sources agree on this, including Greenly Earth[4] and, Europa.eu[5]., and Earth.org[6].
Fast fashion production/consumption has doubled over the past 15 years. Earth.org states that the fashion industry is currently the second-largest industrial polluter, responsible for approximately 10% of global carbon emissions4, thus ranking their carbon emission contributions greater than air travel and maritime transport combined. According to the UN Environment Program[7], the industry consumes beyond unethical amounts of water, around 93 billion cubic meters, and the waste is exposed to dangerous chemicals. From the same source, 20% of global wastewater is a result of textile dyeing. And because most productions where such waste is produced are in countries with less regulation, the wastewater is deposited into rivers and seas. When this occurs, health and ecosystems are put at risk. Given this information, it is apparent that fast fashion is doing more than wasting textiles, it is wasting valuable water sources and leaving destruction in its wake.
“Fashion/lifestyle” influencers will glorify purchasing clothes in sweeping amounts but will only keep them as long as the trends dictate. As the label “influencer” implies the fans or consumers of the “fashion/lifestyle” content creators are influenced or pressured into believing that more is better, and that style comes from what others wear. Not only does this process strip us of individuality and expression through clothing, but it also creates heaps of waste that is not being dealt with in the way that it should.
Fast fashion brands are easier to spot than one might think. They will use marketing strategies like “must have” or “flash sales” to trick you into purchasing more than you need. Often, these brands have new arrivals every week and mass-produce only to replace those clothes when the trend ends. If a brand refuses to talk about their workers, it is likely a sign that they are hiding unethical treatment such as long working hours, little pay, exposure to chemicals, and overworking their employees. In 2021, the “Bangladesh Accord on workers’ safety” was introduced as a means to protect people from unjust treatment in the workplace, similar to the examples previously provided. Should the company failed to sign the “Bangladesh Accord on workers’ safety” from 2021, it would likely be because the company’s profit would have suffered should they treat workers better. The “Bangladesh Accord on workers’ safety” is an agreement that confirms the continued commitment of those who signed to support and ensure workplace safety programs in Bangladesh. Through cooperation with the RSC (RMG Sustainability Council), those who signed further commit to establishing workplace safety programs in other countries based on the success of this accord. The source of this information was updated in 2023 in the International Accord for Health and Safety in the Textile and Garment Industry. Thus, companies that do not sign an agreement that prioritizes human life over profit, are likely hiding something or are blatantly ignoring ethical working conditions.
The following are examples of well-known fast fashion brands, and some of their questionable practices that the average consumer may be less aware of according to sources such as Modern Retail, Good on You, and Clean Clothes Campaign:
Shein – This brand from China has only grown thanks to social media. It adds 500 new arrivals each day for very low prices. This brand uses the mask of making clothing more affordable to cover the massive waste they produce and alarming unethical treatment of workers. By producing so much so rapidly, Shein contributes to the throw-away culture fast fashion brands are promoting, directly or indirectly, which comes at the cost of the environment. There is no evidence that Shein is trying to subside its environmental impact. The brand also is refusing to share any information about where its products are made and is very evasive about the supply chain. Additionally, the “fabrics” and “textiles” used by Shein are very similar to those described in further detail in the next example, which have been shown to contain hazardous chemicals.
Temu – This brand discloses little to no information on the treatment of those making the clothing. They deny any involvement in slave/child labor, but allegations have come forward that point to Temu refusing to pay workers. Not only do their clothing and materials have detrimental impacts on our soil and water because of the toxic chemicals they contain, but they are also hazardous to health around the communities that these workers live in, according to the Eco Stylist[8], last updated in May of 2024. While the materials utilized are not always apparent, most of the clothing items sold are made from synthetic fabrics, namely, polyester. Synthetic fabrics are made from petroleum, thus making them a form of plastic. The production of synthetic fabrics is severely detrimental to our world as they take hundreds of years to decompose.
Zara – Live Frankly[9] and other sources have brought to light that while this brand claims to use recycled packaging and has opened a textile recycling program in April 2024, it remains guarded around what goes into making their products. As of 2017 the brand has been found to refuse to pay living wages, and secret messages have allegedly been found within the clothing asking for help. In 2017, BBC covered the story about tags found on Zara products in Istanbul, stating that the employees were not paid for their labor. The source of these messages was proven to be Bravo Tekstil, which produced clothes for Zara and other flourishing international brands such as Next and Mango. The employees have come forward to demand over three months’ worth of unpaid compensation. Ultimately Zara and the other companies that had benefited from Bravo Tekstil managed to raise a hardship fund of 210,000 euros ($246,000; £188,000). But even with this payment, a question must be asked: Does Zara care about its employees, or its image? Had the notes never come to light, would Zara have done anything? Zara is also not releasing information just yet to say whether it is on track to reaching its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, though a common theme for the brand is withholding information that damages the company’s image and thus sales.
Primark – Primark is an Irish company that has grown to one of the largest textile distributors in Europe. As the brand is one that outsources the manufacturing of products, it holds no influence over the treatment of workers. Whilst the brand states that factories must follow an ethical code of conduct, there is a lack of evidence that suggests workers are paid fairly or are provided with clean and safe working conditions. Customers have claimed to find “SOS” messages written in Chinese within the textiles, and this story was further addressed by BBC in an article published in 2014[10]. It is not certain whether the note was staged or true, but it warranted consideration and investigation. Whilst Primark shares the locations of many factories it produces through, there is always room to improve the company’s transparency. Primark is a member of the Sustainable Apparel Coalition and has been donating unsold/unused clothes and textiles to charities. Though this is a good step towards a circular economy, the production of what is sold is rapid and made with unanswered questions that signify unethical behavior.
Mango – Mango is a brand originating in Spain but has since opened 2,743 stores and counting in 115 markets. While Mango is progressive in listing the number of factories it has and greenhouse gas emission amounts, Mango has not set (or has not announced) goals to lower them. The brands Code of Conduct has also revealed that the workers in the factories are paid minimum wage, rather than recommended or living wages. The brand has also failed to disclose whether and how it supports the families of 1,134 garment workers who died in the Rana Plaza collapse in Bangladesh back in 2013. This information has been sourced from the article “Global Actions Targeting Benetton and Mango” in Clean Clothes.org.
Nike – Nike, a popular sportswear brand that has done well recently in inclusivity and diversity of models and thus representation in sports, is failing to live up to ethical standards that should warrant such popularity. Numerous ethical concerns have been raised throughout the “Just Do It” brand’s history. In 2022, the Guardian[11] reported a lawsuit against the company addressing sexual harassment and mistreatment of female employees. The lawsuit was 5,000 pages long listed the disgusting treatment women have faced, such as when they are told to “dress sexier.” Nike has also come under fire in the past for links to sweatshops and unethical manufacturing including child labor since the 1970s. The brand was slow at first to respond in the ’90s, though under increasing pressure it has made some changes such as raising the minimum age of workers and increasing the amount of factory audits. In May 2023, Nike was charged with a lawsuit over “greenwashed” clothing. The lawsuit was 47 pages and accuses that Nike has illegally capitalized on consumers demand for ethical and “green” clothing by making false claims denying the damaging truth that their clothing is made with non-biodegradable plastic, says Good on You[12] and Green Matters[13].
The tricky bit about discussing these brands is not knowing what has been exaggerated (e.g. the notes sewn into clothing) but also how to go about preventing further purchases. The former problem can be solved bit by bit by spending time working to find your own answers from credible sources that likely are not from TikTok, while the latter can take a more abstract approach. One of the most important parts you want to put into the message about why not to buy from fast fashion companies is that you are not placing blame or shame. Often, the spread of information about fast fashion creates shame around anyone who has already or continues to buy from fast fashion brands. But you should know what you bought before knowing your power and the impact it has on the world you can fix by stopping and spreading awareness. The point of this article is not to call consumers out, but instead to help them realize alternatives and why to turn to them, which results in a better world for us all.
In addition to the deep spread of shame instead of information, the message of what you can do gets lost and a common thing to hear is “ just thrift!” But thrifting is such an open-ended concept, and what is the difference between buying used clothes to buying new? And what are some examples of alternatives?
Buying second hand does not benefit the original company, and is a way to save money, earn money, and limit mass production. To take a step further towards a circular economy, small businesses have begun thrifting and then upcycling their clothes. This is a creative way to give clothes a new life that does not benefit the original company nor use up resources for something that will only be used a handful of times.
Options for buying second hand/used shops and sustainable brands include the following:
Uptraded – “Tinder für Kleidung” (Tinder for Clothing) Matching/Trading/Lending clothes to prevent buying more or wasting clothing. Anna Greil made this program, and it is used to share clothing and create a more circular fashion industry. The website of Uptraded states that as of now, 2025, Uptraded is compatible with Germany and Austria and has opened shop in Vienna[14].
Vinted – A site where you can buy, sell, or rent secondhand items (primarily clothing and accessories) across 21 countries. Vinted is a great website to buy secondhand online and sell items thus preventing waste and moving away from a linear economy[15]. Through Vinted one can buy cheaper, gain money through selling, give life to a product no longer in use, and limit purchasing new items. All of which benefit the consumer, seller, and the planet whilst not benefiting the original company that produced the items.
Patagonia – Patagonia is a brand known best for the outdoor apparel it provides. The brand has an entire page dedicated to the transparency of the brand’s goals and practices, which is admirable in comparison to so many brands trying be secretive. On this page the following quote was found “Patagonia has built a robust social-responsibility program that analyzes and manages the impacts our business has on the workers and communities in our supply chain. Our goal is to not only minimize harm but also create a positive benefit for the lives that we touch through our business.”[16]
SuperDry – SuperDry is a Japanese brand that, while it is not perfect, much like any brand, is trying and is open about what they are doing and how they can improve. The website contains easy to find information with statements such as “We want to help limit the global temperature rise. So, we’re making several changes to how our products are made. We’re switching to lower impact and recycled materials which have a lower carbon footprint – kilo for kilo – when compared to conventional alternatives. We’re also adapting how we move them and where we sell them.”[17] This quote shows awareness that not all brands have about the world around them. In addition to the quote loads of information is provided about SuperDry’s goal of 65% target by 2025 and 96% by 2030, and the transparency helps consumers know where the brands priorities are.
The first step to combat fast fashion, overconsumption, waste culture, and ultimately global warming is through education. Most who are purchasing from unethical brands do not do so to spite the earth, but because they have not been educated about it. Every individual has the responsibility to keep the world green, it is when just one person believes they don’t matter in the grand scheme of things that this system crumbles. Someone might think just one more order from Shein or Zara or Temu will not matter, but it always does. And when more people follow suit and say, “I’m only one person,” the impact is pernicious. Together, we can change the world, and individually, we can change the world. Each time just one person stands up, our earth becomes a greener place, because what you do matters.
Meet the author
My name is Lyla Walker, and I am fourteen years old and come from the U.S.A, but now I live in Austria. I have always been interested in marine biology and science, but my goals around sustainability are a recent thing for me. Though I consider myself a beginner when it comes to bioeconomy, I am eager to learn and spread awareness however I can. I enjoy writing articles, reading, and I don’t back down from a challenge. I am excited to keep growing with GenB and hope to make the world a better place!
[1] New York Times Article “Fashion; Two New Stores That Cruise Fashion’s Fast Lane”
[2] All that is Interesting Article “Welcome to The Yangtze: A Source Of Life, And Now Death, For 400 Million Chinese Residents”
[3] The Good Trade Article “What is Fast Fashion Anyway?”
[4] Greenly Earth Article “All You Need to Know About Fast Fashion”
[5] European Youth Parliament Article “The History of Fast Fashion”
[6] Earth.org Article “The Environmental Impact of Fast Fashion, Explained”
[7] UN Environment Program Webpage (UNEP)
[8] Eco-Stylist Article “Is Temu Fast Fashion? How Sustainable Are They? Let’s Discuss”
[9] Live Frankly Article “How sustainable is Zara and can I shop there with a clean conscience?”
[10] BBC Article “Primark investigates claim of ‘cry for help’ note in trousers”
[11] The Guardian Article “Nike lawsuit records allege culture of sexism, bullying and fear of retaliation”
[12] Good on You Article “How Ethical is Nike”
[13] Green Matters Article “”Just Do It,” but at What Cost? Exploring the Complex History of Nike’s Ethics”
[16] Patagonia Webpage “How We’re Making Change”
[17] Superdry Webpage “Our Mission to be the #1 Sustainable Science Brand”