mary creagh mp

This is my third piece dedicated to focusing on the UK Parliament’s inquiry into the sustainability of the fashion industry. This piece focuses on how the Government has responded to the final report, put forward in February 2019. You can read my initial piece and interview with Mary Creagh MP here, and the second follow-up, here.

---

The Government’s response to the Fixing Fashion report can be read in full, here.

---

On May 1st 2019, UK Parliament approved a motion to declare a climate emergency. Now, not long after, we have a response from the Government when it comes to the fashion industry’s crucial role in it. This response clarifies the Government’s position on different key recommendations from the Environmental Audit Committee, including those of which I covered in my most recent post covering the inquiry.

In line with my opinions in that post, I’m going to run through each response from the Government and explain what is actually being done to make the fashion industry more sustainable in the UK.

However, it’s important to note (not only with fashion-based climate-related issues), that in the UK, we export a huge amount of our manufacturing overseas. This means that our contribution to pollution, carbon emissions and social issues can often look like they are reduced (or are reducing) due to the fact that statistics and numbers, often refer to those contributions made solely in the UK, rather than what we contribute to elsewhere, globally.

---

Protest in support of the Bangladesh Accord, January 2019

---

Made in the UK should mean workers are being paid fairly…
Work in progress.

In response to evidence suggesting that garment workers based in the UK directly are not receiving the National Minimum Wage, the Government states that with increased budgets, more is being done to ensure the minimum wage is being enforced, and that it’s recommended that textile retailers sign up to the likes of the Global Framework Agreement.

The Global Framework Agreement is in place to protect the interests of workers across multinational companies, ensuring the best standards of ‘trade union rights, health, safety and environmental practices, and quality of work principles across a company’s global operations’.

Retailers failing to report and comply with the Modern Slavery Act should be faced with a penalty…
No recommendations adopted.

In the response, it’s said that the Transparency in Supply Chains (TISC) provision in the Modern Slavery Act has led to thousands of businesses publishing statements in regards to how they are addressing slavery in their global supply chains.

The Government “agrees that greater transparency is essential to tackle modern slavery” and that they are “committed to improving business compliance with the Act”, however, this recommendation will not be adopted. 

The Government should ban incinerating or landfilling unsold stock that can be reused or recycled…
Recommendation rejected.

Although the Government agrees that recycling and reusing unsold stock should be prioritised, it doesn’t believe that placing a ban on incineration or landfill is the way to move forward, despite the financial and environmental impacts and the imbalanced proportion of energy produced when unsold stock is incinerated.

In my own personal opinion, I am unsure as to why this has been rejected and isn’t being explored further. The Government say they want to focus on ‘positive approaches’ yet I see nothing negative in this recommended ban.

---

GIF originally featured in a post about embroidery for #MAKESMTHNG Week

---

Lessons on designing, creating, mending and repairing clothes should be taught in schools…
There is scope.

This section of the Government’s response focuses on the current curriculum and how there is already room for these topics to be approached within schools, whether it be in Key Stage 3 (age 11-14) geography that “covers how human and physical processes interact to influence and change landscapes, environments and the climate” or whether it be in the design and technology curriculum.

An Extended Producer Responsibility scheme for companies that take positive action to reduce waste, should be introduced…
Not accepted.

Under the Resources and Waste Strategy, which aims to set out how we preserve natural resources by reducing waste and moving towards a more circular economy, a commitment has been made to review and consult on “measures such as EPR [Extended Producer Responsibility] and product standards for five new waste streams by 2025, with two these to be completed by 2022″.

With the UK announcing a commitment to reducing emissions to net-zero by 2050, it’s concerning to me that approaching the issue of waste and overproduction could take us into 2025, with what seems to be little urgency.

The Government should reduce VAT on repair services…
Not accepted.

Although in other responses it’s been suggested that the focus should be on reuse and recycling, when it comes to repairs, reducing VAT on repair services is unlikely to happen, due to the fact that VAT funds the Government’s spending on priorities such as education, health and defence. The Government claims that not enough evidence has been found that supports Sweden being used as a prime example in the original inquiry.

---

Extinction Rebellion at Oxford Circus, London, in April 2019.

---

Other thoughts…

Some of the language used and statements made within the response were in some ways, rather contradictory. Although the Government “recognise how crucial it is for the environmental and social impacts [of the fashion industry] to be well managed, particularly in this era of fast fashion”, in the next breath, it also suggests that “the industry has the primary role to play in achieving change, helped by consumer behaviour”, almost entirely ignoring the fact that fast-fashion is a double-edged sword when it comes to consumption.

Yes, the industry thrives off our demand for more and how we vote with our money but that demand is only maintained by the fast-fashion industry’s role in the normalisation of over-consumption. Within the inquiry, fast-fashion brands openly disclosed the selling of ‘loss leaders’ (products which are sold simply for the sake of driving site traffic and which are produced at a loss for the company). Just look at one controversial example in recent times, with Missguided selling a £1 bikini made from synthetic materials.

This addictive nature to fast-fashion will only ever be strictly controlled if regulations (or penalties) are in place to slow down that consumer demand that we’ve become so accustomed to.

Along this same vein of brand responsibility, the Government praises retailers for “offering in-store take-back and resale clothing collection services”, despite the fact that many of these in-store take-back services are often incentivised with vouchers that once again, keep consumers in a loop of consumption.

I don’t want to have to point it out but there seems to be one common theme here – money. 

The only positive that I can find related to consumer behaviour, is the suggestion of a ‘domestic ecolabel scheme’ that the Government seeks to develop, enabling consumers to be provided with better information when shopping.

In summation, I am disappointed in the Government’s response to the inquiry as I do not believe it aligns itself to the targets which we need to be reaching in order to face the climate crisis head-on or the weight of responsibility that is on us as a country when it comes to fashion as a global industry, whether that be environmentally or socially.

---

What do you think of the Government’s response (or lack of)? Let me know in the comments…

 

Last year and into 2019, the UK’s parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee has been investigating the sustainability of the UK fashion industry, leading up to the final report which includes recommendations for the Government, who have two months to respond.

---

The Fixing Fashion report can be read in full, here.

---

For those of you who missed my initial piece on the inquiry, I would highly recommend going back to take a read. I interviewed Mary Creagh MP, who is the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. In the piece, I discussed the purpose of the inquiry and some of the main issues and concerns being raised as evidence was being put forward.

Now, after over six months, the final report – Fixing Fashion – has been released. Although the Government does have two months to respond, it is under no obligation to accept the recommendations suggested in the report – which would be a crushing blow, considering the fact that the majority of the issues raised throughout the inquiry haven’t exactly been surprising.

It would also be a defeat because, as the report states, in the UK, we are buying more clothes than any other European country; therefore, we are also responsible for a greater environmental impact, than any other European country – which of course, doesn’t just affect the UK, alone.

If you’re less aware of some of the key issues we’re facing when it comes to effects of fashion in the UK – specifically, fast-fashion -, here are some of the main facts to remember:

---

And although there might not be a specific statistic or piece of data to show for it, we also know that transparency within the industry is a factor that plays a part too; sustainability and ethics-wise.

For example, in the report, Boohoo (or Boohoo Group), stated that they do not see the benefits of joining the ETI (the Ethical Trading Initiative; an alliance that protects the rights of workers around the world). Carol Kane, Boohoo Group’s co-founder and joint Chief Executive said, “being members we will be required to publish our whole supply chain, which is currently our engine room”.

Carol Kane was also asked about Boohoo’s position on workers unions and the report quotes her saying, “if the workers would like it”. You can read my piece that covers the Bangladesh Accord, here, as it goes into detail as to why initiatives similar to the ETI, as well as unions, are so vital to the protection of garment workers.

Boohoo wasn’t the only brand which provided evidence to the inquiry. Within the report, there is a table of retailer’s responses which is an eye-opening record of the actions and commitments that many well known British brands are and are not achieving. Missguided and Boohoo were two of the worst offenders, shockingly alongside Amazon UK.

So, what are the recommendations being put forward to the Government? I’ve listed below some of the suggestions that stood out to me. They are a mix of ethically focused and sustainability-focused suggestions but the two go very much, hand-in-hand…

Made in the UK should mean workers are being paid fairly…

There is known evidence that garment workers in the UK (yes, the UK itself, not just overseas) are being underpaid. Leicester is one of the main textile manufacturers in the country, home to 700 factories employing 10,000 textile workers, and under a study by the University of Leicester, it was found that the majority of garment workers in the city, were earning below the National Minimum Wage – this is the attitude towards a known situation onshore, at home.

This one quote from the chairman of the Textile Manufacturer Association of Leicestershire, Saeed Khliji, stood out to me in particular – “None of the retailers are giving us an ethical price. An extra £2 or £2.50 on a garment would sort everything out. Instead they squeeze us for pennies. If they don’t sell everything, they send it back and charge us for the carriage. If we are an hour or 30 minutes late with delivery they fine us £500. I have been told of one retailer who is making £2 million a year from fines.”

The committee urges that HRMC’s National Wage team (which the report states, investigates employers at a rate meaning the average employer can expect an inspection around once every 500 years), is provided with greater resourcing, in order to ensure the ‘Made in UK’ label, actually means what most of us believe it to.

Retailers failing to report and comply with the Modern Slavery Act should be faced with a penalty…

According to the report, the Public Accounts Committee raised the concern that the Government does not monitor whether statements made under the Modern Slavery Act comply with legislation and that it has never used its powers to penalise companies that do not comply.

The Home Office Minister Victoria Atkins MP said, “In terms of companies that have reported: we know that around 60% of businesses that we believe to be within scope have put up statements; 60% of companies in total.”

From my own personal reading of the report, there is an awful lot of uncertainty surrounding the Modern Slavery Act, when it seems as if it should be the bare minimum when it comes to the expectations put upon major brand names.

The Government should ban incinerating or landfilling unsold stock that can be reused or recycled…

This recommendation is another I would hope the Government would read as a matter of urgency. Lucy Siegle wrote about this topic when the news broke that Burberry was destroying old stock –

“There are 101 processes that go into making a garment, from harvesting plants for raw fibre, to the processing and finishing of textile yarns involving thousands of litres of water. There are hundreds of hours of human labour too. Similarly, high-end cosmetics are a drain on resources in terms of both raw ingredients from the natural world and processing. To input all of these resources and then to squander them by burning (recovering only a tiny proportion of that energy) is pure madness given the backdrop of ecological emergency that we face.”

For anyone curious, Burberry’s 2017/2018 Annual Report stated that the cost of finished goods physically destroyed in the year was £28.6 million (2017: £26.9 million), including £10.4 million of destruction for Beauty inventory.

Lessons on designing, creating, mending and repairing clothes should be taught in schools…

I was fortunate enough to go to a school where I experienced using a sewing machine and learning how to thread a needle but for a lot of people, going out and buying a new coat to replace the one you own that’s missing a button, is often the easier option due to this lack of knowledge.

Not only does this recommendation approach the issue surrounding throw-away fashion, but it also approaches the added benefits to a make-do-and-mend attitude being taught from a young age, as crafting is known to be beneficial for mental health and those tackling anxiety.

An Extended Producer Responsibility scheme for companies that take positive action to reduce waste, should be introduced…

An EPR is a policy where producers are given responsibility for the treatment or disposal of products they put on the market, whether it be financially or physically. An EPR has already been introduced into other countries across Europe, including France.

A charge of one penny per garment could raise around £35 million, which could be invested into better clothing collection and sorting around the UK, diverting a large number of unwanted and unusable clothes from landfill.

The Government should reduce VAT on repair services…

This is another recommendation which would help slow down the rate at which consumers dispose of clothing, making repair services more accessible, allowing for people to hold onto their clothes for longer and take care of them when wear and tear begins to occur. Sweden has already taken this approach successfully, reducing VAT rates on repairs to bicycles, clothes and shoes from 25% to 12%.

---

If you’re wondering if there is any way for you to get involved – there is! Fashion Revolution has just released a postcard template you can use to send to your local UK public officials, to ensure they know how important the report is to you and the future of the fashion industry. Click here to download it and print it off.

With time running out and the fashion industry working faster than ever, I would hope that these suggestions would be taken seriously. There are many other points raised that I haven’t even touched upon, so, if you have the time, I would highly recommend reading through the report and seeing what stands out to you the most.

If you could add a recommendation to the Fixing Fashion report, what would it be?

 

I recently had the chance to attend what is called an ‘evidence hearing’ at the Victoria & Albert Museum in South Kensington, London, as part of the UK Parliament’s Environmental Audit Committee‘s inquiry into sustainable fashion. This is actually an incredibly exciting time, as the inquiry may go onto help aid the Government to ensure we are starting to create a newer, more environmentally conscious fashion industry.

---

  LOCATION:
Victoria & Albert Museum
London

---

---

I had the opportunity to sit down with Mary Creagh, an MP (Member of Parliament) and the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, which is the group responsible for considering how the Government is doing in terms of environmental protection and sustainable development in the UK. The committee was behind securing the recent ban on microbeads in cosmetics products and hopefully, with the sustainable fashion inquiry, they will go on to do much more.

I know that a lot of people will be new to the concept of a parliamentary inquiry – trust me, I am too! – so, I want to discuss what it all means, as well as some takeaways from the evidence session itself. Some of those giving evidence at the hearing included Eco-Age founder, Livia Firth; journalist and writer, Lucy Siegle; the Sustainability & Innovation Director of Stella McCartney, Claire Bergkamp, and the Director and Professor of Fashion Design for Sustainability, Dilys Wiliams.

---

---

There were two clear take-aways for me, not only from the evidence session that I attended but also from the initial session which I watched on live stream (both of which you can watch here). Firstly, it’s that, as Dilys Williams so rightly said, the system and the model of fast-fashion are broken. There is no way in which we can continue producing and consuming at the same rate that we are, in a sustainable manner – this goes for the UK and elsewhere.

The Ellen McArthur foundation states that textile production uses around 93 million cubic metres of water and an estimated 1.2 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, per year, which is more than flights and maritime shipping combined. And in the UK specifically, the consumption of clothing itself is rapidly rising, alongside disposal rates, with 350,000 tonnes of clothes being discarded to landfill, according to WRAP.

In terms of statistics, these are all numbers that a lot of us have already considered or educated ourselves on but there’s more to it than that. In the first evidence hearing, a common theme regarding the initial design process of our clothing arose and it was brought up again at the V&A with fashion designer, Phoebe English, speaking on the panel. She reminded us of the large amounts of waste created before a garment even gets on the shop floor. After describing the pattern cutting process, Phoebe said, “There is waste from every single garment on the high street. Where is that waste going?”.

There are many different elements to the conversation and that’s the second takeaway that became very apparent; what recommendations does a committee put forward to a Government, when there are so many angles and specific issues to focus on? There is no one set solution to creating a sustainable fashion industry. Even when we say the system is broken and creating a new one seems like the only answer, a new system will always come with its challenges, too.

For example, a circular fashion industry could work in theory but only if you’re also looking at circularity in a social sense, as Dilys Williams suggested. A circular economy is a regenerative system which thrives on reuse, remanufacturing, repairing and recycling but we can’t transform the fashion industry into a closed-loop system unless the consumer mindset shifts dramatically, and that is a great feat we face.

---

---

One of the suggestions relating to the idea of circularity, once again came from Professor Dilys Williams – perhaps a recommendation to the Government could come in the form of reduced VAT on repair services, which as Graeme Raeburn (one half of the Christopher Raeburn duo) pointed out is something that has already been executed in Sweden.

Although we may not be at a point in time where the general public has learned how to darn socks and tailor trousers, if we allow services for these repairs to become more accessible, it could cause a shift in how we appreciate clothing and in turn, create an environmental shift, too.

Along with circularity, the Scottish Government has already started in this direction with the ‘Make Things Last‘ strategy which has trialled large-scale reuse and repair hubs.

---

---

---

Myself and Mary Creagh, MP at the Victoria & Albert Museum, Fashioned from Nature exhibition

---

The complexity of the issues at hand go as far as advertising and how fast-fashion actually affects us all psychologically. If fast-fashion and unsustainably produced textiles are as destructive to ourselves and the environment as products that we see on the shelves of supermarkets, with labels to warn us of toxic ingredients that could potentially cause us bodily harm, is it time that legislation is put in place in order to make consumers more aware of what they’re really buying into? Is it time that we are shown the true cost of a £5 t-shirt before we reach the checkout, bringing back what Lucy Siegle called a ‘pause for thought before buying‘ that’s been stripped away with such fast consumption habits?

---

---

As I now personally have a large understanding of many of the issues raised at the evidence hearing, it’s been clear to me that the system is broken for quite some time now, but it’s even clearer that we are in dire need of answering a pivotal question, which was once again raised by Professor Dilys Williams…

Do we want to keep the current industry or do we want to live within planetary boundaries? 

---

If you want to learn more about the Environmental Audit Committee and the ‘Sustainability of the fashion industry inquiry‘, take a look at the Parliament website. Follow the committee on Twitter @CommonsEAC and voice your thoughts with #EACFixingFashion.