OP-ED: Is seasonless fashion the solution to the industry’s climate problem?

By Sian Conway, Sustainability Writer and Founder of #EthicalHour, the world’s first online support network for people who want to live and work more ethically.

Luxury fashion label Gucci has declared the traditional fashion week calendar obsolete as it announced new plans to show “seasonless” collections twice a year, instead of the five annual shows they normally feature in.

 Creative Director Alessandro Michele made reference to sustainability in his announcement, declaring that “we went way too far. Our reckless actions have burned the house we live in” - with noticeable nods to Greta Thunberg’s rousing call to action at last year’s World Economic Forum.

On the surface the move is a major victory for sustainable fashion campaigners - to have such an influential fashion brand seemingly put the environment first. But beneath the surface, the announcement raises significant questions about how we can really build a “leaner, less wasteful fashion industry”, and what systems need to be in place to make that happen.

Is seasonless fashion enough?

Fast fashion is regularly criticized as an inherently unsustainable model because of the levels of mass production involved. In the luxury space, Michele has called the spring/summer/autumn/winter collections rota “stale” - calling for clothes to have a longer lifespan “than that which these words attribute to them.”

Fashion Revolution and their supporters have been promoting the #LovedClothesLast message for years, encouraging people to extend the lifespan of their clothes and buy less to protect the planet. 

But Gucci’s announcement comes with no transparency around levels of production. Moving to “seasonless” collections doesn’t necessarily mean producing less, and cancelling three out of five annual fashion shows doesn’t necessarily mean they will tackle the problems of mass production and consumption.

Which raises the question: who is responsible for sustainability?

Too often the responsibility to make the “right choice” is left to the consumer. Shoppers are expected to sift through complicated and unclear labelling, buzzwords and accreditations to make the most ethical and sustainable purchase from a variety of options.

Brands continue with unethical and unsustainable production, citing “consumer demand” as the reason - and this cycle of shifted responsibility continues, at a cost to people and planet.

By leading with the message that clothes should have a longer lifespan, Michele’s announcement comes with traces of shifting responsibility to the consumer, yet again. 

What we need to hear next is how the brand plans to take back responsibility for producing less, and tangible examples of what that will look like for their new “seasonless” collections.

Sustainability can’t exist without full lifecycle accountability.

Any conversation about sustainability must also include discussion about end-of-life. Textile waste is one of the fastest growing waste streams.For a fashion brand to take sustainability seriously, they must be exploring and implementing circular economy solutions that tackle textile waste, and take responsibility for garments at the end of life too.

Sustainability doesn’t stop at the point of sale.

Accountability requires genuine, transparent reporting.

Gucci is the highest scoring luxury brand in the 2020 Fashion Transparency Index report, at 48%, which means they disclose more about their policies, practices and supply chain than other brands. But transparency does not equal sustainability.

Disclosing this information, alongside tangible, realistic targets for improvements, is the first step towards cleaning up the industry because it empowers consumers and policymakers to hold brands accountable.

Gucci do have a 10 year sustainability plan, and every year they publish an environmental profit and loss account to show their impact. 

However, their Corporate Sustainability Policy still puts the focus clearly on stakeholder value and business growth, within the context of many ethical and sustainable practices which should already be the norm by now (such as “respect for human rights”, rejecting child labour and general statements about “reducing environmental impact”). The document lacks tangible targets and detailed information about how these will be implemented and achieved.

As far as fashion brands go, they're doing better than most when it comes to reporting, transparency and offsetting. But while the benchmark for this remains other brands in the industry, there is little pressure to accelerate progress, and we continue to set the sustainability bar too low.

We need regulated standards for sustainability so brands are no longer competing with each other and instead are held legally accountable when people and the environment are not protected in their production cycles. 

Sustainability should be an industry standard, not a PR win.

We must ensure that brands aren’t “cashing in” on ways to make themselves look greener than they actually are. Overhauling the fashion week model has become an economic necessity in recent months due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Just last September, when announcing that Gucci would become carbon neutral, the CEO said of virtual fashion shows:

“In the future we can look at going in that direction, but at the moment for me the level of technology is not yet there, so the [show] is the best way to present the ideas of a luxury fashion house like ours ... the level at which we do these shows is paramount in the connectivity of our creative directors and design teams because they express the narrative of the collection [to customers].”

Are we to believe that they have been able to upgrade their technology and pivot their business model in the last 6 months, or is this a financial move forced by the pandemic, dressed in a PR-friendly sustainability bow? The fact that the latest cruise collection had been scheduled for an unveiling in San Francisco last week, until the pandemic forced cancellation, might suggest an answer. 

Transparent reporting and clear environmental commitments that deprioritize economic growth and stakeholder value are needed for us to make that judgement, but there’s no denying that they’ve enjoyed a significant publicity boost in light of their latest announcement. 

Which raises another important question:

Who gets to lead the way and influence the narrative when it comes to sustainability in fashion?

Writing about the brand’s announcement for The Guardian, Jess Cartner-Morley emphasises that “the biggest labels, which have profited the most from the system as it stands and have the necessary financial cushion to ride out the incoming economic crisis, have been less motivated to radical change than smaller brands.” 

Many independent brands are demonstrating more embedded commitments to sustainability and more ambitious targets than the big players. Gucci has a target of 100% traceability of raw materials by 2025 - something which independents, with far less resources, are already achieving through the use of blockchain technology. The influence these international brands have is undeniable, and to see them publicly cite sustainability as the reason behind business decisions like this will have a positive impact on public awareness.

However, while there remains little to no external regulation in place around sustainability in the fashion industry, we are allowing them to set their own standards and influence public understanding about what environmentally-friendly fashion looks like.

This is a dangerous amount of control for brands to have, especially while they remain motivated by profit. Again, it leaves the consumer to wade through confusing information, forcing them to be responsible for making the “right choice” while brands continue to cash in on sustainability-focused headlines and a growing consumer demand for eco options.

The fashion industry at large is still prioritising profit over people and planet. Stakeholder value is still their main concern - even their environmental policies say so.

While Gucci’s announcement today may be another positive step in the right direction, we cannot afford to give them control of the environmental narrative. Policy change and legislation continue to be the missing piece that would enable truly sustainable change.