WEBVTT

00:00:01.708 --> 00:00:03.475
We’re constantly bombarded with media

00:00:03.475 --> 00:00:06.413
that puts pressure on us
to buy newer and trendier clothes.

00:00:06.764 --> 00:00:09.415
Just to throw them away
when they’re no longer in style.

00:00:09.892 --> 00:00:14.089
An estimated 93 million tons
go to landfill or are burned every year.

NOTE Paragraph

00:00:14.150 --> 00:00:19.328
“And that’s roughly
about a garbage truckload of textiles,

00:00:19.328 --> 00:00:22.192
every second going to landfill.

00:00:22.192 --> 00:00:23.332
Every second!”

NOTE Paragraph

00:00:23.449 --> 00:00:26.792
Producing clothes also pollutes
our water and churns out CO2.

00:00:26.859 --> 00:00:29.186
The fast fashion model pioneered by Zara

00:00:29.186 --> 00:00:32.619
means that brands are churning out
double the amount of clothing per year

00:00:32.619 --> 00:00:34.093
as they did in the early 2000s.

00:00:34.093 --> 00:00:35.995
But companies say that’s about to change

00:00:35.995 --> 00:00:38.362
because we can now
buy eco-friendly fast fashion.

00:00:38.431 --> 00:00:41.288
And also recycle our clothes
when we don’t want them anymore.

00:00:41.543 --> 00:00:43.020
But can we believe them?

NOTE Paragraph

00:00:50.057 --> 00:00:51.921
Inditex, Zara’s parent company,

00:00:51.921 --> 00:00:52.928
and H&M Group

00:00:52.928 --> 00:00:55.452
are two of the biggest
fashion retailers in the world,

00:00:55.452 --> 00:00:57.599
and both have collections
that claim to reduce

00:00:57.599 --> 00:00:59.628
the environmental impact
of making clothes.

00:00:59.628 --> 00:01:01.576
Not only that, but the two fashion giants

00:01:01.576 --> 00:01:04.246
say they are making
their entire brands more sustainable.

NOTE Paragraph

00:01:05.518 --> 00:01:08.685
Let’s take a look at these promises,
starting with the materials.

NOTE Paragraph

00:01:08.685 --> 00:01:10.309
[MATERIALS]

NOTE Paragraph

00:01:11.031 --> 00:01:15.159
Main materials at Zara & H&M,
as well as worldwide, are polyester,

00:01:15.159 --> 00:01:18.761
which accounts for around 52%
of total fiber production,

00:01:18.761 --> 00:01:21.374
and cotton, which is around 24%.

NOTE Paragraph

00:01:21.500 --> 00:01:23.929
PET is a different name for polyester

00:01:23.929 --> 00:01:26.839
and is the same type of plastic
that's found in water bottles.

00:01:27.109 --> 00:01:28.887
Actually,

00:01:28.887 --> 00:01:31.718
60% of PET production goes to textiles,

00:01:31.718 --> 00:01:33.906
and only 30% to water bottles.

NOTE Paragraph

00:01:35.313 --> 00:01:37.355
The material is produced from petroleum,

00:01:37.355 --> 00:01:39.167
and the process uses lots of energy

00:01:39.167 --> 00:01:40.517
and releases CO2,

00:01:40.517 --> 00:01:43.670
as well as acids and ammonia
into the water supply.

00:01:44.360 --> 00:01:48.968
Recycled polyester uses up to 60%
less energy than virgin material

00:01:48.968 --> 00:01:51.070
and can be made from textile scraps

00:01:51.070 --> 00:01:52.336
or plastic trash.

00:01:52.758 --> 00:01:56.873
But inconsistencies in the threads
can make it require more dye,

00:01:56.873 --> 00:01:57.876
and experts say

00:01:57.876 --> 00:02:01.699
that polyester fabrics can shed
700,000 microplastic fibers

00:02:01.699 --> 00:02:03.062
with every wash,

00:02:03.062 --> 00:02:04.764
which end up in the ocean,

00:02:04.764 --> 00:02:06.226
and also in our food.

NOTE Paragraph

00:02:08.658 --> 00:02:10.329
Cotton doesn't have these problems,

00:02:10.329 --> 00:02:12.780
but is still a chemical
and water intensive crop.

00:02:12.910 --> 00:02:15.237
According to the World Wide
Fund for Nature,

00:02:15.237 --> 00:02:19.141
it takes 20,000 liters of water
to make one kilo of cotton,

00:02:19.141 --> 00:02:21.861
which is enough for one T-shirt
and a pair of jeans.

00:02:22.630 --> 00:02:27.239
Also, around 11% of the world’s pesticides
are used on cotton fields.

00:02:27.415 --> 00:02:28.840
So is organic cotton better?

NOTE Paragraph

00:02:28.840 --> 00:02:32.733
"Essentially there's a massive difference
between organic cotton and cotton."

00:02:33.200 --> 00:02:36.079
This is Suki, a representative
of Fashion Revolution,

00:02:36.079 --> 00:02:38.395
which is an organization
that advocates worldwide

00:02:38.395 --> 00:02:41.501
for transparency and sustainability
in the fashion industry.

00:02:42.418 --> 00:02:48.019
“Organic cotton is, in the long term,
much better for the farmer that grows it

00:02:48.019 --> 00:02:51.158
and the environment
and the soil that produces it,

00:02:51.158 --> 00:02:54.001
and it's less water intensive

00:02:54.001 --> 00:02:56.801
and doesn't require
as much irrigation as such.”

NOTE Paragraph

00:02:57.303 --> 00:02:59.003
We requested an interview with H&M

00:02:59.003 --> 00:03:01.007
about the sustainability
of their products,

00:03:01.007 --> 00:03:02.008
but they declined.

00:03:02.008 --> 00:03:03.013
Over email they said,

00:03:03.013 --> 00:03:05.347
"We are happy to say
that by the end of this year,

00:03:05.347 --> 00:03:07.868
all cotton we use will come
from sustainable sources."

00:03:07.933 --> 00:03:10.862
Zara also responded
only through email, saying,

00:03:10.862 --> 00:03:14.888
"In 2019, the Group [Inditex,
Zara's parent company]

00:03:14.888 --> 00:03:18.450
used over 38,000 tonnes
of sustainable cotton in its clothing,

00:03:18.450 --> 00:03:20.851
(up 105% from 2018)."

NOTE Paragraph

00:03:21.842 --> 00:03:23.996
But what does sustainable actually mean?

00:03:24.386 --> 00:03:27.434
There’s no standard definition,
and it doesn’t equal organic.

00:03:27.660 --> 00:03:30.975
H&M says that sustainable cotton
can also mean recycled

00:03:30.975 --> 00:03:34.280
or cotton that uses
less pesticides and GMOs.

00:03:37.540 --> 00:03:39.484
Zara portrays its cotton as sustainable,

00:03:39.484 --> 00:03:42.452
but calls it ecologically grown
instead of organic.

00:03:42.452 --> 00:03:46.084
It claims the cotton uses
natural fertilizers and pesticides,

00:03:46.084 --> 00:03:49.220
and is certified
by the Organic Content Standard

00:03:49.220 --> 00:03:51.946
and the Global Organic Textile Standard,

00:03:51.946 --> 00:03:54.265
which say they control
for chemical and water use

00:03:54.265 --> 00:03:55.979
in the whole production process.

00:03:59.041 --> 00:04:01.648
Terms like "conscious"
and "ecologically grown"

00:04:01.648 --> 00:04:02.935
are hard to fact-check,

00:04:02.935 --> 00:04:05.103
as well as confusing for the consumer.

00:04:05.383 --> 00:04:08.142
But according to the non-profit
Textile Exchange,

00:04:08.142 --> 00:04:12.917
in 2016, H&M was the second largest
user of organic cotton in the world.

00:04:13.127 --> 00:04:14.469
Zara was the fourth.

00:04:16.253 --> 00:04:17.742
Let’s focus on synthetics.

00:04:18.202 --> 00:04:20.122
In H&M's sustainable collection,

00:04:20.122 --> 00:04:23.124
the synthetic clothing has to be
at least 50% recycled.

00:04:23.578 --> 00:04:27.498
Zara doesn’t specify their percentage,
and their labeling can be confusing.

00:04:27.692 --> 00:04:30.778
This jacket says
it’s 100% recycled polyamide,

00:04:30.778 --> 00:04:33.261
which makes it seem like
it’s completely recycled.

00:04:33.441 --> 00:04:35.091
But the filling is polyester.

00:04:35.091 --> 00:04:36.552
That’s a different material.

00:04:37.246 --> 00:04:39.489
And this isn’t the only time this happens.

00:04:39.489 --> 00:04:43.390
The percentage recycled statement
often doesn’t refer to the whole garment,

00:04:43.390 --> 00:04:46.748
making it look like the item
is more recycled than it actually is.

00:04:47.538 --> 00:04:49.600
On the subject of transparent labeling,

00:04:49.600 --> 00:04:52.242
the Join Life tags
are also on the Zara website

00:04:52.242 --> 00:04:54.970
and are stamped by
the Forest Stewardship Council.

00:04:54.970 --> 00:04:58.390
This would seem to imply the clothing
is certified by this organization.

00:04:58.650 --> 00:05:01.735
The stamp, however,
is only referring to the tag,

00:05:01.735 --> 00:05:03.460
not to the whole clothing item.

00:05:03.921 --> 00:05:05.570
Talk about misleading.

00:05:07.399 --> 00:05:11.719
Zara has committed to sustainable cotton
and polyester by 2025.

00:05:11.719 --> 00:05:16.669
H&M says all of their materials will be
sustainable by 2030, and for 2019 that

00:05:16.669 --> 00:05:19.253
figure was already at 57%.

00:05:19.700 --> 00:05:23.600
If they stick to these commitments it
could mean big changes for the industry.

00:05:23.600 --> 00:05:25.442
But material is only part of the story.

00:05:29.176 --> 00:05:33.714
To find out if that cotton is actually organic or
that polyester is actually recycled,

00:05:33.714 --> 00:05:36.200
consumers need to be able to
check the production process.

00:05:37.607 --> 00:05:42.195
With an H&M Conscious T-shirt, you can
find out in which specific factory it was made,

00:05:42.195 --> 00:05:45.639
so it’s theoretically possible to
check the factory’s sustainability.

00:05:46.000 --> 00:05:50.221
Zara only lists how many suppliers it has
in one city, but not their names and addresses.

00:05:50.800 --> 00:05:54.926
They were both evaluated by Fashion
Revolution, an organization advocating for

00:05:54.926 --> 00:05:57.248
transparency and sustainability in fashion.

00:05:58.000 --> 00:06:03.679
None of the 250 large brands scored over
80%, but for 2020 H&M was the highest

00:06:03.679 --> 00:06:07.229
scoring brand, with 73%,
so quite transparent.

00:06:07.616 --> 00:06:09.841
Zara scored a 43%.

00:06:09.841 --> 00:06:10.797
Not so much.

00:06:10.882 --> 00:06:12.418
This is important because:

00:06:13.266 --> 00:06:17.826
“Suppliers are one of the few stakeholders with a
front row seat to brands’ inner workings.”

00:06:18.820 --> 00:06:22.791
Kim has a background in human rights and
was a garment factory manager in Cambodia.

00:06:22.791 --> 00:06:28.891
“They uniquely have access to the information 
that consumers need to be able to cross check

00:06:28.891 --> 00:06:31.051
brands’ actions against their words.”

00:06:31.329 --> 00:06:33.863
So being able to research suppliers allows people

00:06:33.863 --> 00:06:37.122
to hold brands accountable to their sustainability claims. But...

00:06:37.320 --> 00:06:40.141
“Just because you're transparent, it
does not mean you're sustainable.

00:06:40.900 --> 00:06:42.475
It does not mean that at all.

00:06:42.475 --> 00:06:44.197
And that's really, really important.”

00:06:44.872 --> 00:06:50.007
Even for brands who know their whole supply chain,
making an eco-friendly garment is hard.

00:06:50.800 --> 00:06:55.657
“Let's pick up a denim. You can see the dyeing
is done in a more environmentally responsible way,

00:06:55.657 --> 00:06:58.189
but the cotton is not produced the same.”

00:06:58.803 --> 00:07:02.937
Jessie has worked in different industries
from product inspection to purchasing,

00:07:02.937 --> 00:07:05.725
to product development,
in both China and Cambodia.

00:07:06.304 --> 00:07:08.286
“Or take another example.

00:07:08.286 --> 00:07:14.077
The whole piece of the clothes is made out
of waste, but not dyed in a responsible way.

00:07:14.181 --> 00:07:20.175
So, they're green, but it's different degrees
of green or different degrees of less bad.”

00:07:20.551 --> 00:07:23.682
Because an item of clothing is made
up of many different materials

00:07:23.682 --> 00:07:28.630
all manufactured in different ways, it’s hard
to make each piece less harmful to the environment.

00:07:29.200 --> 00:07:32.932
This is also the reason why recycling
clothing is much harder than H&M and Zara

00:07:32.932 --> 00:07:33.853
would seem to claim.

00:07:36.971 --> 00:07:39.015
H&M’s advertisements say that the company

00:07:39.015 --> 00:07:41.303
is working towards a circular future for clothing.

00:07:42.229 --> 00:07:44.099
According to the website, you can bring

00:07:44.099 --> 00:07:47.094
your clothing to any store 
and it will be resold as second-hand clothing,

00:07:47.094 --> 00:07:50.000
re-used as other textiles, or recycled.

00:07:54.923 --> 00:07:56.707
Zara has a similar campaign.

00:07:56.707 --> 00:08:00.874
It says it partners with different local
organizations, which then take over what

00:08:00.874 --> 00:08:01.962
happens to the clothing.

00:08:04.839 --> 00:08:06.563
So what does happen?

00:08:06.563 --> 00:08:11.181
They ARE re-sold, re-used, and recycled,
but not in the proportions you might think.

00:08:11.321 --> 00:08:14.421
Over half of donated clothing
is sold overseas.

00:08:15.200 --> 00:08:20.300
The rest is mostly turned into industrial
material, burned, or goes to landfill.

00:08:22.400 --> 00:08:24.832
Less than one percent of the material in

00:08:24.832 --> 00:08:27.219
used clothing is recycled into new clothing.

00:08:27.219 --> 00:08:29.235
A big reason is lack of technology.

00:08:29.761 --> 00:08:31.942
Remember how many materials were
in the jacket?

00:08:32.000 --> 00:08:34.745
Well, they need to come out again
to recycle it.

00:08:35.379 --> 00:08:41.846
“Garments that are made from mono
materials or can easily be taken apart

00:08:41.846 --> 00:08:48.179
into pieces, can be recycled.”

00:08:48.179 --> 00:08:54.064
Maxi started her career as a certified dressmaker
over 10 years ago and has headed product development

00:08:54.064 --> 00:08:55.883
for Hugo Boss and major online retailers.

00:08:56.953 --> 00:09:02.417
“But think about your wardrobe, how many
pieces would fulfill these requirements?”

00:09:03.210 --> 00:09:06.986
So giving back clothing is better than
throwing it away, but the chances of it

00:09:06.986 --> 00:09:10.241
actually getting recycled are very low.

00:09:11.400 --> 00:09:15.405
H&M and Zara are investing in recycling
research, but we looked at their annual

00:09:15.405 --> 00:09:20.423
reports and the amount is 0.5 percent and 
0.02 percent of their profits, respectively.

00:09:20.700 --> 00:09:24.192
They say returning clothes is circular,
which isn’t really true. And even if it were:

00:09:24.192 --> 00:09:27.542
“That's not the solution to our overconsumption.

00:09:28.405 --> 00:09:29.995
Or our overproduction.”

00:09:30.660 --> 00:09:36.261
The problem is that too much clothing is produced,
and bought, whether the clothing is eco-friendly or not.

00:09:36.261 --> 00:09:41.189
“Let's just say you're putting one person
here who says, you know what, I don't give

00:09:41.189 --> 00:09:44.418
a bleep about anything recycled or organic.

00:09:45.617 --> 00:09:49.780
I will once a year buy a nice pair of pants

00:09:49.780 --> 00:09:53.257
and I don't care about anything, and
then there are these people who are saying,

00:09:53.257 --> 00:09:58.153
yes, I'm really aware, I want to do that.
I want to commit to the environment.

00:09:58.153 --> 00:10:03.753
And the pair of jeans that I'm going to buy
every four weeks will always be sustainable. So.

00:10:04.637 --> 00:10:07.218
Still, this person is better.”

00:10:07.793 --> 00:10:12.397
Buying clothing every four weeks is relatively new.
Before the 90s designers made clothes

00:10:12.397 --> 00:10:18.702
for two fashion seasons per year, and now fashion
retailers put out clothes in as little as two weeks.

00:10:19.100 --> 00:10:24.753
More clothes mean cheaper prices, lower
quality, and more ending up in the landfill or burned.

00:10:26.100 --> 00:10:30.460
But it’s not just big fast fashion brands,
it’s the fashion industry in general and

00:10:30.460 --> 00:10:33.948
our desire for constantly changing outfits
that need to hit pause.

00:10:35.400 --> 00:10:40.400
“We need to think about how we shop and
what we're really calling for.

00:10:42.200 --> 00:10:50.038
But there is a bold step in a number of
notable fashion brands and fashion houses

00:10:50.038 --> 00:10:55.886
now going seasonless and hats off to them. 
It's an important thing to do.”

00:10:56.635 --> 00:11:01.593
The concept doesn’t mean sacrificing style – 
but instead making clothing to last rather

00:11:01.593 --> 00:11:02.540
than be thrown away.

00:11:03.400 --> 00:11:09.241
“So all in all, what we're trying to do is working 
with clothing that is not very seasonal, so to say.

00:11:09.241 --> 00:11:13.968
It should be something that you can wear
year after year, we want to focus on quality.”

00:11:14.206 --> 00:11:19.146
Karishma is the founder of Ka-Sha, an Indian brand 
featured in magazines like Forbes and Vogue

00:11:19.146 --> 00:11:21.134
for championing eco-friendly fashion.

00:11:21.312 --> 00:11:26.892
"We try to make products that try to fit into
different places depending on who's

00:11:26.892 --> 00:11:30.240
wearing it and how it's worn. So we have a lot of 
different aspects to our clothing.”

00:11:30.782 --> 00:11:33.006
So what do you do when you
want to buy new clothes?

00:11:33.006 --> 00:11:38.769
H&M and Zara say their eco-collections are better
for the environment, and they actually are.

00:11:38.769 --> 00:11:41.910
If you want to make sure the whole supply
chain is sustainable, there are

00:11:41.910 --> 00:11:46.287
many smaller brands that can account for every
step of their production process.

00:11:47.880 --> 00:11:51.799
And buying seasonless instead of trendy
clothing means it won’t go out of fashion

00:11:51.799 --> 00:11:52.932
and end up in the trash.

00:11:53.796 --> 00:11:58.743
Because this is a rare industry where
consumers actually have a real influence.

00:12:00.500 --> 00:12:05.609
“When I look at the whole picture, I realize 
maybe only end consumer is the power

00:12:05.609 --> 00:12:13.362
[that] can balance brands and can push them,
give them pressure to make some changes.”

00:12:13.917 --> 00:12:17.814
So, ask yourself not only who made
your clothes and what they are made of,

00:12:17.814 --> 00:12:22.118
but also, do I need these new clothes?
And go from there instead.

00:12:23.749 --> 00:12:28.261
And if you want to see more videos like this, 
we post about environmental topics every Friday.

00:12:28.300 --> 00:12:30.200
Like and subscribe so you don’t miss out.