With the rise of companies like Shein, Fashion Nova, Commense, and Cider, the fashion industry has struggled with the giant of “fast fashion.”[1] The appeal of fast-fashion brands is in their ability to provide the clothing, style, and look consumers want at low costs and with expedited shipping.[2] This has increased with the daily evolution of fashion trends.[3] The argument that individuals of various economic statuses and different physical builds should have the ability to “look good” and express their individual styles regardless of pricing is one of the leading defenses in favor of fast fashion.[4] In theory, affordability is a factor preferred by consumers, but it comes at a cost to the environment, developing countries, and the very same consumers who defend fast fashion.[5]
During recent years, the overconsumption of fast fashion has caused tremendous issues across multiple areas.[6] The increasing prevalence of fast fashion raises the question of how fashion brands and the government are responding to this overproduction and overconsumption.[7]
Overconsumption of fast fashion directly correlates with the overproduction of clothing, primarily in developing countries in Asia and Africa.[8] Unfortunately, child labor and unfair labor practices such as inadequate pay, long hours, and poor working conditions drive the near instantaneous access to fast fashion.[9] The low cost of labor and raw materials in these countries make fast fashion profitable in the Western World.[10] For example, Shein, the Chinese mega-retailer, acquired about 100 billion dollars in one-off purchases from consumers in the West and internationally.[11] However, these one-off purchases end up in landfills globally.[12] Additionally, the lack of transparency and traceability of supply chain facilities makes it difficult to fully understand emissions and coal usage across the globe.[13] Though there are legal regulations in the works surrounding overproduction and its effects on the environment, environmentalists and legal scholars in fashion are calling for stricter policies.[14]
The New York Senate is amongst the legislatures that have taken the initiative in regulating the global and environmental effects of overproduction by implementing requirements on brands to enforce sustainable and ethical practices.[15] In 2021, the New York Senate introduced a bill known as the New York Sustainability and Social Accountability Act.[16] The Act would require fashion companies with over $100 million in global revenues that sell items in New York to adhere to global standards for ethical business practices as specified by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).[17] Additionally, these businesses must maintain and create transparent documentation of their environmental impact, like greenhouse gas emissions, to be reported to the Attorney General.[18] The law would also include a penalty for fashion companies’ failure to comply with these regulations by enforcing up to $15,000 in fines per day that they are not in compliance.[19] The proceeds from the fines would be donated to environmental justice organizations.[20] Since the Bill was proposed, there has been pushback from fashion brands regarding these regulations, including complaints of the “impracticality” of supply chain disclosure mandates.[21] This opposition may be a result of brands prioritizing financial gain rather than production transparency.[22] Nevertheless, the Bill has yet to be passed.[23]
A federal bill was also proposed on May 13, 2022, the Fashion Accountability and Building Real Institutional Change (FABRIC) Act.[24] This Bill was then reintroduced in September 2023 and proposed incentives to accelerate domestic apparel manufacturing and federal workplace protections.[25] The FABRIC Act would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, ensuring adequate pay for garment workers.[26] This is the first federal fashion law aiming to improve labor rights and encourage the reshoring of the American garment industry.[27] The Act would aid in promoting domestic apparel manufacturing, which can, in turn, alleviate the mass production in foreign countries.[28] There is always room for growth in regulating fast fashion, and it seems that government agencies in the U.S. are working towards those improvements.[29] Fast fashion regulation is essential for advancing our ecosystem, minimizing unfair labor practices, and fostering meaningful improvements in the fashion industry.[30] Hopefully, these proposed laws will be enacted to drive positive change.[31]
[14]See Douglas Hand, From Our November Issue: The Proposed New York Fashion Act, MR Magazine (Nov. 6, 2024), https://mr-mag.com/from-our-november-issue-the-proposed-new-york-fashion-act/ (discussing New York requirement for companies selling in New York to provide reports to Attorney General on their greenhouse gas emissions, plastic, and chemical management); see also Jaruche, supra note 1.
[24]Fashioning Accountability and Building Real Institutional Change: The FABRIC Act, The FABRIC Act, https://thefabricact.org (choose “Fact Sheet” from “About” dropdown).
