The Good, the Bad, and the Sustainable: How Technology Has Changed and Continues to Change the World of Fashion, from Cotton Gin to Digital Clothes

Abstract

The fashion industry is considered to be the second most polluting industry, largely due to the production model of fast fashion, which tends to maximize profits at the expense of the environment and workers’ rights. The development of technology and fast fashion are intertwined: The invention of the cotton gin pushed the world from the agricultural era toward the industrial revolution, and the invention of synthetic dyes created a demand for bright clothing. Today, technology plays a significant role in the marketing and sale of fast fashion. Social networks and trading applications have led to shortening the duration of wear and increase in the amount of clothes sold and thrown away shortly, mostly in the global south, presented as donation. At the same time, the development of technology is the main factor in the development of sustainable fashion; mostly in the fields of production efficiency, disposal of clothes, and increased transparency. This chapter highlights the most recent developments and trends in the field of sustainable, technology-based fashion. While reviewing the environmental consequences of fast fashion, as well as the historical connection between technology and fashion. This includes reference to fast fashion corporations and consumer protests that were distributed and operated by technological means.

1. Introduction

Fashion, technology, and society are closely related. The clothing culture testifies to the present and the history of a society; reveals changes in economic behavior; and reflects religious, moral, and political norms [1]. In this way, according to the philosopher Gilles Lipovetsky, the emergence of fashion in the fourteenth century symbolizes the separation from the traditional view that clothes are used as a purely functional means and the confirmation of the autonomous ability of humans to constantly change. The rise of ready-made clothing in the 1960s is a result of improvements in production technologies and in the global means of trade [1, 2].

The establishment of the dominance of the cotton plant in the fashion industry is also related to technological developments, which have dramatically changed the face of the fashion industry, as well as the face of society and the modern economy. Cotton is one of the crops most associated with fashion, as well as slavery, but things were not always that way. Until the eighteenth century, slaves in the United States grew tobacco; slavery was not perceived as financially profitable. The invention of the cotton gin in 1793 changed the course of history.

The cotton gin is an agricultural tool that separates the cotton fibers used in the textile industry from the seeds in the ginning process. The first cotton gins were 50 times more efficient than manual ginning, enabling 23 kilograms to be ginned per day [3, 4]. This shifted the cotton production bottleneck to the rate of harvesting by the slaves, constituting a significant limitation to increasing profits. The cotton gin enabled a large expansion in cotton production and at the same time created a large expansion in the demand for slaves as well. In fact, with the invention of the cotton gin, cotton, as well as slavery became a highly profitable business.

Beginning in 1800, the yield of raw cotton doubled each decade. By 1850, America supplied three-quarters of the world’s cotton, with most of it sent to New England and Great Britain. New England mills consumed 283.7 million pounds of cotton, accounting for 67 percent of the cotton used by US mills in 1860. Britain, the most economically powerful nation at the time, relied on cotton for over 80 percent of its essential industrial raw material and about one-fifth of the 22 million people living in Britain at the time were directly or indirectly involved with cotton textiles [3, 4]. Thus cotton became a powerful stimulus to international trade and fueled the industrial revolution in both Europe and America. At the same time, the demand for slaves also increased. In 1790 only six states allowed slave ownership. By 1860, there were 15 states that allowed slavery, with 4 million enslaved people in the United States who were valued with a worth greater than all the railroads and factories in the nation combined [5].

Technology has also been influenced by fashion since its inception. The first IBM computer in 1944 was based on the logic of an 1801 Jacquard weaving loom [6]. The revolutionary 1850 invention of the sewing machine expanded clothing production beyond the capabilities of handmade items and dramatically changed the way clothing was treated. The shipping container revolution that changed the face of the modern economy originates from a technological change, the result of the invention of a cotton grower who wanted to lower export costs. Container technology is also one of the most significant factors in promoting globalization, while cheapening clothing items, which later enabled the rise of fast fashion [7].

Fast fashion is mass fashion produced by huge corporations in an identical, regulated, and global manner, similar to fast food. Among the prominent examples of fast fashion chains are ZARA, H&M, TopShop, and Primark. The profit model of fast fashion is based on maximizing reductions in production costs together with rapid and broad distribution and production, often at the expense of workers’ rights and the environment. The “fast” refers both to the speed of arrival of the clothing from the luxury brand runways to the consumer in a cheap and ready-to-wear version and also to the short-term use by the consumers [8, 9, 10].

Between technology and society, there are also complex interrelationships based on political and environmental ties, economic interests, and social norms. Society has a great influence on the development of science and technology. The society develops technologies according to its needs and under the influence of social, ideological, and political changes. In fact, many times, technological developments are created as a result of social considerations and not necessarily due to an acute need. For example, the historic landing of the first man on the moon, Neil Armstrong, in 1969, which is considered one of the peaks of human technological development, occurred due to social-political interests. During the years of work on the development of technology, the United States was a few decades after the Great Depression and in the midst of the Vietnam War, which both took heavy economic tolls on the US economy. Despite this, and due to the Cold War with the USSR, which took place in those years, the United States chose to invest billions of dollars in the development of technology that would allow a man to land on the moon. And this is against the backdrop of millions of poor across the United States. Therefore, technological developments are not created in isolation from the social structure but are the product of society and serve as a catalyst for social transformations and even create them [11].

Fashion also reflects and creates transformations in society: the industrial revolution, which reached its peak at the beginning of the nineteenth century, led to the improvement of technology for mass production and subsequently to the birth of consumer culture. These significant changes were reflected in an increase in the amount of clothing produced, which led to the separation of the clothing concept from the fashion concept; in changing the purpose of clothing from a means of reflecting rank and profession to a tool of expression for leisure preferences and class and cultural association; and later, in the 1980s, to the development of the production model of fast fashion. The same model, which in many ways made the fashion industry the winner of the unflattering title, the second most polluting industry on the planet.

1.1 Environmental and social consequences of fast fashion

The annual carbon footprint of the fast fashion industry includes 145 million tons of coal and 2 trillion gallons of water used to create fibers [12]. Cotton is one of the most common materials to create clothes, second only to polyester, accounting for about 33 percent of all fibers found in textiles [13]. Cotton farming is also responsible for 24 percent of insecticides and 11 percent of pesticides despite using about 3 percent of the world’s arable land. For example, to create one cotton-based t-shirt, approximately 2700 liters of water are required.

However, most of the fibers in the fast fashion industry are synthetic fibers of the plastic type, which are mostly nylon and polyester, produced from petroleum [14]. Even cotton-based clothes use a variable amount of plastic fibers; this is due to the relatively cheap cost and durability of plastic compared to cotton. Thus, since the beginning of the 2000s, fashion production has doubled, and so has the use of petroleum-based synthetic fibers, which represent over two-thirds (69%) of all materials used in the textile industry to create clothing and are expected to reach almost three-quarters by the year 2030. As a result, already today, the production of fossil fuel-based fibers for the fashion industry requires more oil than the annual consumption of Spain [15].

The fashion industry’s increased use of oil is not only responsible for the heavy use of fossil fuels, which exacerbates the climate crisis, but also for the release of particulate matter, acid gases such as hydrogen chloride, and volatile organic compounds such as monomers, solvents, and other by-products that end up in the wastewater of the manufacturing plants [14]. This pollution occurs mostly in the producing countries, which are in the global south and not where most of the excess consumption occurs. For example, China is responsible for 30 percent of world apparel exports, produces over half of the world’s supply of polyester, and 10 percent of the world’s textiles [16] and at the same time, it is at the top of the list of countries emitting greenhouse gases (GHG). However, the main part of these emissions is a product of the production of products for export [17].

Another example of the environmental injustice that prevails in the fashion industry and in the clothing manufacturing process is from the Punjab Province in India, the largest supplier of cotton in the world. In Punjab, due to the widespread use of pesticides that are considered necessary for growing cotton, and often contaminate the water sources, there has been a dramatic increase in cancer, in the proportion of children born with birth defects, and rates of autism among children. All of this, together with the phenomenon of land desertification, which is caused by the increased use of fertilizers, and the debt of the farmers due to falling cotton prices, led to the largest recorded wave of farmer suicides in history, with one farmer committing suicide every 30 minutes for 16 years [18].

The environmental damage of the fast fashion industry does not end with the production process. Wasteful consumption patterns have turned textile waste into one of the most urgent environmental problems today; on average, Americans throw away 68 pounds of textiles per person a year [16]. This is in addition to a 60 percent increase in purchases of clothing items compared to the year 2000 [13].

The status quo in the western world is now increased purchasing of clothing items together with shorter periods of use resulting in 85% of the clothes in the United States being thrown away less than a year from the moment of purchase [19]. Much of this discarded clothing is transferred as a donation to the countries of the global south. For example, Chile receives 59,000 tons of donated clothes every year, most of which becomes waste.

As a result, in 2019, a series of East African countries led by Rwanda tried to outlaw the acceptance of clothing donations. In response, the United States threatened to exclude the countries that refused to receive contributions from the preferential trade agreement between the United States and Africa [20], a threat that was de facto an embargo on the weakest countries in the world. This led to the failure of the attempt. The president of Rwanda, Paul Kagame, who was the vocal leader of this effort, argued that East African countries should stay the course, even if this meant sacrificing economic growth. Or to use his words: “This is the choice we have to make. We may suffer consequences. Even when faced with difficult choices, there is always a way out” [21].

1.2 History of technology and fashion: Shortening of global supply chains and the return to production as substance, through technology

In the 1980s, an increase in purchasing power of individuals, along with the improvement of global means of communication, led to an increased interest in fashion trends and a massive industrialization of the fashion market [22]. This industrialization was reflected in a significant reduction in item prices, which was made possible by the shortening of global supply chains and led to the development of the competitive trade model of fast fashion [23, 24]. Alongside the shortening of supply chains and the great improvement in production technologies, marketing strategies also changed. Among the dramatic changes that occurred, the increase in the number of collections (e.g., a gathering of clothes with a common theme, presented as a design and conceptual innovation.) per year stands out, from 2 to 4 in the 1980s, through 8 in the 1990s and up to 52 collections per year nowadays [25].

Another important change is the separation between the image of the brand and of the product and the actual production of the product. This shift divorced the production of clothing from the image of the fashion brand allowing the production of clothing to be outsourced and subcontracted [26]. Indeed, the member states of the European Union imported clothes worth 154 billion Euros in 2019, with more than half of them coming from countries that are not members of the European Union (52%, or 80 billion Euros), the three largest countries of origin being: China, Bangladesh, and Turkey [27].

It should be mentioned that the increasing use of technology among fashion companies, with the aim of making fashion companies greener and more sustainable, has changed this perception. The way clothing is made is starting to come back and unite with the essence of the garment and the brand image. For example, at the Coperni fashion show at Paris Fashion Week 2022, supermodel Bella Hadid modeled a dress that was not ready until the middle of the show – when audience members witnessed its preparation right in front of their eyes with a special spray [28]. During the preparation of the dress, Dr. Manel Torres, the inventor of the sprayed fabric, and other technology experts surrounded Hadid and sprayed her with a spray that resembled snow.

The material sprayed on Hadid, patented by the London Company Fabrican, was a liquid fiber bound together with polymers, bio-polymers, and greener solvents, which evaporates when the spray comes into contact with some surface. Thus, during the show, the spray dried on the model’s body and turned into a white dress and a particularly viral moment. In fact, the Tik Tok hashtag of the spray dress received 73.6 million views in less than a week. “It is our duty as designers to try new things and present a possible future,” said the pair of designers Arnaud Vallian and Sebastian Meyer, who worked on the dress for 6 months, to Vogue. “We will not make money from it, but it is a beautiful moment, an experience that creates emotion” [29].

Similarly, at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games, the USA flag-bearers wore classic blue polo jackets that included electroluminescent panels from Ralph Lauren. And in the 2018 Winter Olympics, the USA flag-bearers wore Ralph Lauren coats as well, with adaptable heat technology that could be controlled by a smartphone app. Jackets had no great environmental or technological significance. However, the jacket represented Ralph Lauren’s ongoing commitment to being a trailblazer in fashion through innovative design and manufacturing processes [30, 31].

This phenomenon of fashion designers who tie the essence of the garment to technological developments in the production processes, is still on the fringes of the fashion industry and is especially common among high-end brands, such as Coperni and Stella McCartney, which produces “leather” clothing from mushrooms with the aim of promoting sustainability in fashion. Based on past experience, it can be assumed that it will not be long before what happens on the runways of high-end brands spills over into mass production as well.

Despite the optimism, most of the clothing in the world, as of today, is produced in the countries of the global south, and the production of the clothing by subcontractors in the developing countries is not based on innovative technology, but on cheap labor employed in many cases under slave like or actual slavery conditions. The fashion industry is labor-intensive: currently every sixth person in the world works in the fashion industry [32, 33], and most of the clothing sold in the world are sewn with manual machines, usually by women [34]. The reason for this is trade liberalization, which characterizes a neoliberal economy. This means that an exploitative – but legal – transaction is cheaper than investing in the development of advanced sewing technologies, much as the landfill and incineration of clothing is cheaper than using advanced textile recycling technologies to recycle clothing from mixed materials.

2. Technology as a promoter of fast fashion consumption

2.1 Mobile phones as amplifiers of excess consumption

Technology plays a significant role in marketing fast fashion and increasing the amount of clothing purchased in the Western world. In the last decade, with the increase in smartphone ownership, the volume of online commerce has grown unprecedentedly. Fifty eight percent of the global population of Internet users made an online purchase in the last 12 months, with about half of the purchased items falling into the fashion category (i.e., clothing or footwear) [24]. The Internet, with an emphasis on social networks, allows consumers ongoing access to vast amounts of information on the latest fashion trends and a direct, quick, and easy connection between viewing a trendy product and purchasing it. The 1995 release of Internet Explorer 1.0 by Microsoft laid the groundwork for the e-commerce boom in fashion, forever changing the way consumers shop for fashion [35].

In an analysis of fashion shopping habits from 2019, based on millions of shopping visits to fashion sites around the world, mobile phones accounted for 67% of traffic to fashion retail sites and 52% of sales revenue, with conversion rates on phones at 53% higher than the previous year [36]. The 2019 revenue from online commerce amounted to almost 5.42 trillion US dollars, with clothing accounting for 66% of all the online commerce of fashion worldwide [37]. In 2021 retail e-commerce using mobile phones (m-commerce) sales hit 359.32 billion US dollars, an increase of 15.2% over 2020. Moreover, by 2025, retail m-commerce sales should more than double, reaching 728.28 billion US dollars and accounting for 44.2% of retail e-commerce sales in the US [38]. The fashion e-commerce industry, from clothing and apparel to accessories and footwear, has become an industry valued at 9.91 trillion US dollars [39].

Social networks, which are often accessed through mobile phones, play a significant role in promoting excess consumption of clothes. In 2020, people spent an average of 10 hours a day using their mobile phones; this number has since been steadily increasing [38]. Social network users tend to buy based on the recommendation of influencers at a higher rate than based on the recommendations of celebrities in advertisements [39]. Facebook and Instagram are leading the way as the top platforms for influencer marketing. Social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest have introduced “buy buttons” that let shoppers make purchases without having to leave the platform [40]. And indeed, 19% of consumer decisions are made after seeing a post on Facebook [41]. Even if the customer did not intend to purchase anything, the mere use of social networks increases the likelihood of a purchase.

Moreover, the use of mobile phones to increase sales also significantly influences in-store purchases. Mobile phones are now one of the key sources for retailers to build a better connection with their customers so as to provide a personalized shopping experience, and as a result, increase sales. In fact, almost 49 percent of retailers use mobile phones to enhance the in-store shopping experience. For example, the largest fashion and clothing retailer ZARA has added QR codes to its clothing labels, which can be scanned to obtain the manufacturing details of the product and information on different colors and sizes available in the product range. Many retail chains use QR codes to monitor the time customers spend on each product within the store, and how often he or she lingers near a particular product [42]. In addition, many fashion chains, including Urban Outfitters and American Eagle Outfitters, use beacon devices in their stores that transmit Bluetooth signals to the customers’ phones located in the vicinity of the store. The signals transmit advertising content to customer phones and may also enable monitoring the owners of the phones during their stay in the store [42].

2.2 The rise of ultra-fast fashion

Fashion brand apps, which are becoming increasingly popular, are in now a central mechanism to leverage mobile phone use with the intent of motivating purchases. In 2021 there was an 11.4% increase in downloads and purchases through the top 15 fashion apps. Consumers’ use of these applications allows the fashion chains not only to sell but also to collect data on consumers’ usage habits. Indeed ASOS, Forever 21, Urban Outfitters, SHEIN, and Zaful, among others, utilize a Recommendation Engine based on machine learning which is designed to entice consumers to purchase more [43]. Fashion brand apps often make an effort to create a user experience similar to social networks. For example, the SHEIN app added a tab for live feeds of its influencer and customer community [43].

Transferring the “desired ideal” from the runways of high fashion brands to the screens of social networks is one of the central drivers enabling the emergence of ultra-fast fashion. Ultra-fast fashion, represented by websites such as SHEIN Boohoo and Emmiol, which are popular mainly among under 25 s, is produced at a faster pace than fast fashion and in larger quantities. The time of use of garments is even shorter, and accordingly, the environmental damages are greater [44]. For comparison, while fast fashion chains spend between 50 for 100 collections per year, ultra-fast fashion chains upload about 5000 new models to their websites every day. Ultra-fast fashion chains exist almost only on the Internet, which allows them to have a greater variety of products and is characterized by extremely cheap clothing prices, aggressive advertising based on network influencers, and a very short response time. As Kane, Boohoo’s founders put it, “A traditional retailer might buy three or four styles, but we’ll buy 25” [45].

In addition, the unique characteristics of online purchasing further enable the existence of fast and ultra-fast fashion. Online purchasing is characterized by the blurring of physical boundaries, so that it is possible anywhere and at any time, regardless of the opening hours of the stores or where they are located in the world, making the buying options endless. The GAP store chain took it to the next level, when by using Augmented Reality (AR), it created an application allowing potential customers to try their collections from anywhere in the world [37].

Online purchasing also increases the chances of additional impulse purchases and excess consumption [46]. In addition, the fact that it is not possible to try on or feel the garment often leads to gaps between the buyer’s expectations and the actual item. This results in a considerable increase in the number of returns transferred to second-hand stores, for recycling, or landfilling without ever being worn [47]. Social networks also encourage shortening clothing wear time. Over 40% of social media users in the US report that they are not interested in wearing the same item of clothing twice due to the fear that they will be photographed wearing it; many even state that they buy clothes specifically for Instagram and do not wear them except for photographs [48]. This phenomenon is often expressed on Instagram under the hashtag #out fit of the day [46]. The result is that the average American throws away approximately 32 kilos of textile waste every year; manifested in a datum every minute in the US, the amount of textile waste that enters a truck is buried in the ground or burned [34].

3. Technology as sustainable fashion promoter

Against the background of the aforementioned, it may appear that technology and sustainable fashion are in opposition to each other. However, a closer analysis reveals a symbiotic relationship between the two. Technology, in fact, enables sustainable fashion to thrive and develop. Moreover, in a broader sense, fashion has always been a wearable expression of the technological state of society: in the days of the Qing Dynasty in Imperial China, technical developments in looms made it possible to create weaving structures that expressed social classes. The invention of synthetic dyes in the nineteenth century created a demand for extremely bright clothing. Dior’s “new look,” launched in 1947, was based on the synthetic polymers developed for the production of parachutes in World War II and marked the end of World War II and the promise of clothing that are not just utilitarian [49]. The proliferation of polyester in clothing, in the last two decades is a product of improvement in production technologies, as well as the rise of fast fashion, associated with the rise of neoliberal economics [15].

Technology in and of itself is not a negative thing; its environmental impact depends on its use and its goals. From an environmental point of view, correct technological choices in production and sales methods can have extremely positive effects. Much like in the fields of energy, transportation, and agriculture, many in the fashion industry place their hope in technological developments to reduce the environmental effects, and according to many, the future of the world of fashion lies in technology and sustainability [50].

At the forefront of the research of technological developments to reduce the environmental effects of the fashion industry are corporations alongside modest ventures. Huge corporations, such as ZARA, H&M, and Microsoft, are developing digital ID cards for clothing to increase the ability to follow their production steps (i.e., trackability) in collaboration with the technology company EON [51]. Stella McCartney is developing, in collaboration with the start-up company Bolt Threads, a technology for the production of micro-silk without the use of animals and mushroom-based “leather” vegan clothing [19]. Small ventures and start-ups, such as RoundRack, allow fashion designers easy access to sustainable fabrics based on artificial intelligence [52]. The Teemill project produces and recycles t-shirts in a circular model by using renewable energy [53]. Made2Flow promotes tracking of the production stages, measurement of the environmental impact of the clothes, and its translation into impact visualization with the help of technological aids, with an emphasis on machine learning [54].

3.1 Main technological developments

3.1.1 Technology developments in the production processes

Technological developments in the production processes primarily focus on production efficiency and developing or sourcing fibers from recycled and sustainable materials. The use of 3D printing, which enables a “zero waste” production process alongside customization for the customer and personalization of the clothing to reduce the environmental effects during the cutting and dyeing stages, as well as avoiding the “dead stocks” phenomenon, is a major development [55]; Artificial intelligence monitors quantities of clothing produced and the accurate production without excess. Developments in the field of digital printing possess great environmental potential because the fabric dyeing process involves the use of upwards of 3500 toxic chemicals with 10–20% material loss during shearing [56].

Among the start-up ventures developing technologies to achieve precision in the quantities produced, Teemill, whose motto is “conscientious use of technology,” stands out positively. Teemill only makes clothing to order, maintaining no stock on hand. Their clothing items are made from materials that are recycled in the factory and are “pure material” (unlike most clothes made from a mixture of materials), which allows for additional recycling in a circular model and at a relatively cheap cost. Furthermore, the venture provides open online access to its supply chain through cloud technologies allowing anyone to use the company’s systems for free to achieve accuracy in production quantities [53].

Another technological use to reduce the quantities produced in digital clothing is called Tokenizing (i.e., NFT). Tokenizing allows customers to purchase digital clothing to upload to Instagram, Zoom, online games and platforms, or use for additional applications, instead of a physical garment [57]. In a reality where 40 percent of teenagers report that they do not want to wear an item of clothing again after being photographed with it, digital clothing enables more sustainable fashion consumption. In addition, the absence of surplus production manifested in dead stocks, and the saving of depreciation in the shearing process, are also notable environmental advantages. On the other hand, it is important to note that most digital clothing is based on blockchain technology, which has high energy costs that will increase in a nonlinear manner as the use of blockchain increases.

Digital clothing is gaining popularity. In November 2020, Scandinavian brand retailer Carlings released its first digital clothing collection. The 19 gender-neutral and size-less items cost between €10 and €30, each with a limited production run of up to 12 copies. Carlings hired a number of influencers to promote the collection on Instagram, and it completely sold out within a week. In January 2021, the London fashion house Alexander McQueen launched their first digital collection [58]. In February 2021, digital fashion shows were held in New York and London as part of their respective Fashion Week programs [59]. In February 2022, the first all-digital Fashion Week (MetaVerse Fashion Week) was held under the auspices of Decentraland, a platform that allows consumers to purchase spaces in an online and three-dimensional space [60]. Many predict that as virtual reality becomes more commonplace, the deeper digital clothing will penetrate.

3.1.2 Solution concerning alternative fibers

Sustainability efforts also are emerging to provide alternative fiber sources. Recycled synthetic fibers can be made from a variety of materials including used plastic bags and glass bottles. For example, in 2015, Adidas launched shoes made from waste from the bottom of the ocean. This is of course a positive development, but it is important to remember that about 90% of Adidas clothing items are made of, or mixed with, synthetic fibers based on fossil fuels [15]. In addition, due to the mixing of materials in the production process, clothing and shoes made of recycled plastic are not recyclable, and constitute a “final stop” for the material. Therefore, sustainability efforts in the field of fashion should focus on reducing the use of fossil fuels and the overall reduction in production.

Packaging of fashion products purchased on the Internet has also been an area for sustainability innovation. This includes biodegradable packaging made from sugar cane and recycled plastic, which are becoming more and more common and are used by fast fashion giants such as H&M and ASOS [61]. However, caution is also required. While reducing the use of plastic is a positive thing, the essential question that needs to be asked is what the garment inside the bag is made of, and more importantly, how many garments are produced each year by these fashion companies?

Synthetic fibers also allow for more ethical fashion alternatives, such as leather substitutes. Again, skepticism is warranted as most skin substitutes are based on synthetic fibers, primarily polyester, which are produced from fossil fuels, such as oil and gas. Polyester production has far-reaching environmental consequences. In 2015, polyester production for textiles alone was responsible for more than 700 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions, an amount equivalent to Mexico’s annual GHG emissions. Moreover, with the increase in the proportion of polyester in clothing, there was also an increase in the proportion of microplastics. As of today, the fashion industry is responsible for the emission of half a million tons of microplastics into the sea every year. Finally, more environmentally friendly packaging may create a moral license among consumers for excess consumption.

3.1.3 Developments concerning the disposal of unwanted clothes

Disposing of unwanted clothing (postconsumer textiles) appears to be the most urgent category. As mentioned, according to the report of the United Nations Economic Commission, 85% of the textiles sold every year are sent to landfill [19]. Today it is 40 billion tons of textiles, and the amount is increasing every year. Paradoxically, this category is characterized by the smallest number of solutions. The main obstacles are the fact that most clothing is made from mixed fiber compounds and the need to sort clothing based on fabric composition and color. Sorting, currently done almost exclusively manually, makes the process significantly more expensive.

Automated sorting technologies can turn nonwearable textiles into valuable raw materials with the potential for use in construction and plastic products. One of these technologies is Fibersort, an infrared (NIR) based technology capable of cataloging textiles for recycling according to their composition, structure, and color of the fibers. However, despite being a promising technology, it currently faces a series of regulatory and economic barriers [62].

Solutions in the field of textile recycling not only demonstrate an environmental benefit but also an economic one. The value of the fashion industry is estimated at approximately 2.4 trillion dollars a year. Every year it loses approximately 500 billion dollars due to the lack of recycling capabilities and the clothing that is thrown away before reaching the sale’s floor [63]. More efficient allocation of resources, amputation, and recycling of the lost material, improvement of employment conditions, and use of sustainable materials are expected to increase industry profits by 1–2% by 2030, in contrast to a business-as-usual scenario, which is expected to result in heavy losses [64].

4. A look into the future

In line with the economic forecasts, the large fashion corporations, which have become synonymous with fast fashion, are placing themselves at the forefront of technological developments for sustainable fashion. ZARA has committed to using only organic, sustainable, or recycled cotton by 2025 [65]. H&M has promised to complete a similar move by 2030 [66]. Nike has committed to operating its factories using only renewable energy by 2025 [67]. The Wrangler Company boasts of developing a process for the production of jeans that reduces water waste [50, 68].

These improvements are all driven by new technologies, which, in addition to the resources available to fashion corporations, can change the way clothing is produced on an unprecedented scale. However, alongside the hope for significant technological developments, it must be remembered that a production model of 52 collections per year, based on exploitation in the production process, cannot be sustained, even if the most innovative developments are used. Also, the degree of sustainability of these moves is questionable, and often they amount to greenwashing. Therefore, it is important to emphasize the role of technology in changing consumption patterns and increasing transparency in production.

4.1 Technology to increase transparency in the fashion industry

Despite its importance, the use of technology to increase transparency and awareness receives relatively little attention [56]. Among the most prominent examples includes the designer Martine Gralgaard, who, in collaboration with the high technology company Provence, uses blockchain technology, so that consumers can follow the garment production process, from the fiber stage to the sale’s transaction [69]. Stella McCartney is collaborating with Google Cloud to build a tool that allows companies to assess the environmental impact of production based on data analysis such as soil quality, wastewater, material waste, and greenhouse gas emissions [70].

The Made2Flow initiative enables manufacturers to measure and improve the environmental effects of products, with the aim of promoting active ownership of the processes occurring in the supply chains. The online tool “How dirty is your closet?” allows consumers to examine the environmental impact of their consumption habits [71]. What all these examples have in common is the need for both producers and consumers to bear joint responsibility, which is essential for their success. As well as the need for the willingness of producers to provide transparency, in order to allow the consumers accurate information for their decision-making.

Past attempts to encourage consumers to bear responsibility include the “Who made my clothes” campaign. The campaign arose in response to the 2013 Rana Plaza disaster, the biggest disaster in the history of the fashion industry. 1147 workers were killed, and about 3000 more were injured in the collapse of a textile factory building in Bangladesh. The Fashion Revolution movement that arose following the disaster called on fashion bloggers from around the world to upload to Instagram a photo with the label of their clothing plus the hashtag “Who made my clothes” and tagging the fashion companies. The fashion corporations responded to the campaign quickly, uploading photos of the farmers and production workers to Instagram, plus the hashtag “I made your clothes” and information about their terms of employment. The disclosure of the information led to a certain improvement in the terms of employment, and increased the transparency and traceability in the supply chains, which constituted important progress [34].

Moreover, thanks to the power of social networks, which often function as an amplifier, even individual actions receive a wide distribution, which allows them to produce a significant impact. It was a post on Facebook that led to the expansion into the textile sector of the law prohibiting the destruction of surplus food (Food Act) in France. In the winter of 2019 in Paris, a passerby named Nathalie Beauval encountered the employees of the fashion company CELIO destroying unsold clothing outside the store. Destroying the clothing was more profitable than selling them at a discounted price in order to preserve the economic value of the clothes in the eyes of the customers. Nathalie took a picture of the piles of destroyed clothing and uploaded the picture to Facebook, and crafted a post about what she had seen. The post quickly became viral, and within 6 months, France passed the extension of the law prohibiting the destruction of surplus food to also include the field of textiles, as part of France’s new Circular Economy Roadmap [10, 72, 73].

5. Macro inference

Past experiences show that this approach of direct consumer calls for accountability, as opposed to technological solutions designed to allow continued consumption on the same scale, is the most effective one for promoting sustainable fashion. Unlike green fashion and eco-collections that refer only to environmental aspects, sustainable fashion relies on the values of sustainability in the broad sense of the relationship between economy, environment, and society. In many ways, this difference is also at the heart of the distinction between the environmental quality approach and sustainability in practice.

This does not mean that all responsibility should be placed on the consumer. The consumer’s power to influence the economic production fields is limited. There is no doubt that regulation and corporate responsibility play an important role. The main damage to natural resources is the result of the industrial production process and not at the hands of the consumer. However, those who finance the environmental and social damage, and because of this, enable the continued existence of fast fashion, are the consumers. On the other hand, the consumers are also the ones who push fashion corporations to look for technological solutions in an attempt to produce sustainable fashion.

It must be remembered that fashion is one of the most influential factors in the economy and culture. It is a business with a global turnover of over two trillion dollars and employs more than 300 million people worldwide. This is alongside fashion’s ability to shape the consciousness of many and set far-reaching social processes in motion. As a result, it can not only be part of the solution to the climate crisis but even lead it.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Rachel A.M. Gould for the initial editing, and to the Israel Pollak Fellowship Program for Excellence, for supporting the research.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.