1.1 Introduction: key issues affecting textile and fashion design
Designers have privileged access to the production process since they are responsible for specifying up to 70% of the subsequent material and production processes in any given project (McAlpine, undated). However, they do not have the power to implement environmental changes in the production of products because much of their work is confined by a brief that is set by the employer. (Unless of course they run their own business, where arguably they may have the freedom and flexibility to make changes.)
A brief is the means by which an employer purchases the appearance and often the practical instructions for production from a designer. The overall objective of all manufacturing businesses is to profit by fulfilling the demands of the marketplace. The price point for the product is the single most important aspect. The product has to sell, it has to be affordable, fit for purpose and desirable, or else the company can not survive. The number of colours in a print, the quality of cloth, finishes, accessories such as buttons and zips, ease and speed of production, hand finishes and embellishments – all are crucial to the bottom line. Is it possible to change these priorities? This is a challenge, not only for the eco-designer, but for everyone from producer to consumer. How can we convert the destructive consequences of the way the profit imperative is systematically allowed to undervalue material and human resources, into a constructive and new method of use and recognition of the true values that conserve these resources?
The whole field of environmental design is very alive, constantly changing and evolving, and is as much about changing systems and mind sets as with immediate problem solving. It has to be lively, because putting these ideas into practice is challenging. Resources and materials, processes, supply chains, new ways to sell, use and return goods, reuse and recycle, along with the underlying understanding about whys and wherefores, all are being defined and refined as we go along. On a personal level it is also about having enough courage to choose what we do with our time, this might mean making less money, but needing less, doing more for ourselves and our immediate locale, inventing systems of change, and being aware of how we are enjoying all our activities of living. Enjoyment is one of many examples of a greater value. How much have we tried to buy enjoyment that is mediated through products, but devalued by having to work too hard doing something we disliked? Ghandi said, ‘Be the change you want to see in the world.’
However, a thriving economy does not demand that we have to make less money. The success of the service industries has proved this. Because environmental design is still in this state of flux, it can not be implemented without a self-conscious and informed effort. It soon becomes clear that whole new chains of production, relationships, dependence and interdependence need to be invented and developed. This author believes that informed and regular referral to every actual activity as well as the requirement to make profit in new ways, will enable us to rebalance the product lifecycles with the true environmental and human values. If we are courageous enough to accept what elements constitute a future environmentally friendly series of ideals, and are honest enough not to lie to ourselves when we do things that are still cleaving to the old, environmentally abusive patterns, we can align our steps. We may not get there, but having a courageous and ambitious aim, helps us decide what to do, and how to do it. This is a creative process.
1.1.1 Starting where we are
Most businesses are already locked in economically competitive chains of supply and demand, and are not easily able to make unilateral changes to their methods or products. In current practice, a designer might be given a cost–benefit analysis between the available resources on the one hand and on the other, the required product and the price point where it enters the marketplace. There are many scenarios: cheaper materials; cutting costs and processes; abandoning whole factories, manufacturing capacity and workforces in search of cheaper options in order to avoid legislation that protects the environment and workforce. All this can be accomplished by moving production to countries where the abuse is tolerated. These factors all lead to an ability to undercut competitors in the marketplace, and although there might be a low profit margin on each item, high sales volumes yield a larger overall profit. This system does nothing to ensure that the skills, the machinery and the ability to manufacture are conserved, if the profits tumble, everything can be lost. The baby gets thrown out with the bath water. Again, we need to realign our values.
Such practices have made clothes and textiles available to the masses, but these products are not of good quality, and there are knock-on effects. Loss of employment, loss of the ability of a given local population to provide for its own basic needs, loss of skills, the creation of monopolies and general destabilisation. For example, when the world bank wrote off Zambia’s debt in the 1980s, it demanded the implementation of a free market, which destroyed the country’s small indigenous manufacturing capacity because of cheap Chinese imports (Woolridge, 2006).
In the UK these cheap Chinese imports are also adversely affecting the charity trade in clothes. People buy them instead of quality items, do not wear them often and throw them away. The Salvation Army finds that the poor quality of these items placed in the recycling system, cannot be reused or sold on so easily, and there are no longer enough good-quality clothes for its charity shops. The second-hand cheap Chinese imports are also sent in mixed batches to Zambia where the Saluala industry, which means ‘to select from a pile in the manner of rummaging’ (Tranberg Hansen, 2000), employs two million workers in re-selection and reuse. White collar workers in Lusaka choose the designer labels, then wholesale lots work their way down through the social and economic orders and clothe the whole country. In the villages it is possible for a family to survive by specialising in one particular type of garment. Care is taken to clean and present the items beautifully. Nothing is wasted. However, when the quality of those clothes diminishes, their potential for reuse becomes increasingly compromised. No country is immune. The UK has lost much of its textile manufacturing capacity in this way, and India is currently concerned about losing out to China.
1.1.2 What is wrong? – the facts
Theodore Roszak in his book ‘The Voice of the Earth’ (Roszak, 1992), thinks that if psychosis is an attempt to live a lie, then our psychosis is believing we have no ethical obligation to our planetary home. Are designers, architects and engineers responsible personally, and legally liable, for creating tools, objects, appliances and buildings that bring about environmental deterioration? Probably not, unless one is looking for a scapegoat rather than a solution. Designers should be able to understand the environmental issues within their own practice, even if they are not required to do so by their employers. This could make them indispensable and key to the survival of a company, not least because of increasingly stringent environmental legislation. The following five headings describe the issues that make the life cycles of textiles and clothing unsustainable. If we include issues of fair-trade and ethical treatment of workers the list is even longer.
1 Water. Misappropriation and inappropriate use. Excessive use. Contamination.
2 Chemicals. Profligate use of pesticides and herbicides in agriculture and of toxic chemicals in production.
3 Asset stripping of non-renewable resources, including energy sources. Undervaluation and non-regulation.
4 Waste. Too much is destroyed. Systems need to be developed to recycle all non-renewables or compost renewab...