The Regenerative Fashion Futures report from Safia Minney presents case studies on regenerative approaches that could aid the textiles industry in achieving a Just Transition.
In politics and industry, “a just transition” is a phrase somewhat bandied about, as are the terms “degrowth” and “decarbonisation.” But there’s difficulty in comprehending what this transition means and looks like when we can’t fully comprehend the existing processes that make something so carbon heavy or intensive.
And perhaps, even when deep down we’re aware the production and use of textiles is intensely polluting across many industries, we unavoidably can’t determine what the transition is — it’s simply easier to close our eyes and not deal with the problem.
Though everyone working in the textile and fashion sector knows (surely?) that they’re contributing to resource depletion, energy use, pollution, modern slavery, waste etc., it seems that only now are shifts occurring to practices.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t look practically like it’s the brands and retailers making the significant changes, but rather the farmers, mills and factories producing goods that are. They have both all, yet little control.
In a panel discussion following the launch of the Regenerative Fashion Futures: Post-growth Textile & Fashion Report by Safia Minney produced with Middlesex University and funded by ACCESS, we heard from various actors in the cotton realm (specifically India and Bangladesh) about the challenges and opportunities they face as they nudge brands and retailers towards good practices that could underpin a regenerative fashion system, and consequently a just transition.
As described in the report: “The Just Transition refers to the process of shifting to a more sustainable and equitable economy in a way that supports workers and communities who are directly or indirectly affected by the transition”. The ‘transition’ refers to degrowth, decarbonisation, maybe even decentralisation.
The report continues: “Regenerative approaches aim to give back to the environment and society more than is taken away” and that, “A key element of a regenerative approach is a focus on living well within our planetary boundaries, and not pursuing models of economic growth regardless of the cost to planet and people”. This is referred to as a ‘post-growth approach’ where success is defined not by profit, but by creativity and quality.
The report highlights six case studies: two organic cotton producers; a community of hand weavers, dyers and printers; and four garment manufacturers of varying scales. In the report, there’s a multitude of insights from the stories and photographs, plus the accompanying 18-minute video, yet this live discussion provided an opportunity to consolidate and digest recurring themes.
It was acknowledged the report has limitations regarding its focus on cotton, but it’s clear that learnings can be readily implemented across other fibre supply chains; whether wool, viscose or polyester, they all share the need to regenerate nature’s resources, to reduce energy use and switch to more renewable supplies, to improve worker wellbeing and livelihoods, and to convert to lower-impact materials.
Here are some key takeaways of example regenerative approaches that may help to drive a Just Transition in the textile and fashion industry (with positive reach into others, too):
Partnerships
Due to harvesting schedules, storage costs and market fluctuations, cotton fibre cannot be stored indefinitely. Producers need commitment from brands and retailers that there’ll be a guaranteed sale; growers hold risk for example with weather and pests, and customers hold risk with outcome and timeline, but building long-term relationships based on mutual trust and aligned values will embed agile systems more in tune with natural cycles.
Similarly, with manufacturing units, buyers need to listen deeply – regardless of their size – to local and cultural needs rather than external forces, to ensure they’re sympathetically supporting, such as with providing vaccinations during the Covid-19 pandemic. Without respect and consciousness of the human cost of producing textiles and clothing from farm to wardrobe, the difference in using lower-impact materials on land and resources simply won’t be felt.
Energy and Governmental Security
There are many reasons for vulnerability to governments and consequently any national infrastructure, with recent years drastically highlighting how destructive and traumatic ongoing conflicts are for welfare, access to food and healthcare, migration and economies. This isn’t going to cease while various crises wreak havoc. Resilience can come with the support of communities; referring to indigenous wisdom and local practices to work contextually rather than globally, and investing in initiatives that offer immediate solutions on the ground, such as clean water technology and educational training.
Funding and Finance
Cash flow is a challenge in implementing newer or more responsible infrastructure, such as with zero discharge dye water treatment plants or providing free meals for staff. Each initiative, regardless of its size or potential impact, represents a tangible change to the system and a step towards improvement. However, reduced interest rates on loans or alternative private financing are essential for swift implementation of these initiatives.
Legislation and Incentives
Legislative changes are relatively slow, necessitating accountability from many parties to keep the process moving. There’s a sense that someone else always holds the power, however, if businesses are incentivised (it’s uncertain by who and with what, perhaps governments, producers themselves?), then initiatives may be implemented – importantly with data collected – to aid legislation procedures before there’s time to say “no”.
REFERENCES
Read the full report here.
Listen to the panel discussion.
Watch the research film