Olivia Beeson
Over the past two weeks, two fashion brands have announced their efforts to tackle climate change – but their approaches are rather different. Both Boohoo and Patagonia’s announcements focus on helping the environment. However, Boohoo’s has been seen as greenwashing and Patagonia’s as brand activism.
Here are the differences between them, and why Boohoo should take a leaf from Patagonia’s founder Yvon Chouinard if they really want to make a difference.
Boohoo x Kourtney Kardashian Barker: the greenwashing project
ICYMI: 1 DAY TO GO ⚡️ BOOHOO by KOURTNEY KARDASHIAN BARKER.
The journey has just begun, and more is yet to come… #boohoobykourtneykardashian pic.twitter.com/qlYXmKoMXr
— boohoo (@boohoo) September 12, 2022
Boohoo, Kourtney Kardashian Barker and sustainability. Not three things you would put together. However, earlier this month Boohoo announced their new collaboration with the Kardashian and her appointment as their Sustainability Ambassador. This collaboration includes the release of two ‘sustainable’ capsules, with the first collection consisting of 45 pieces. Unsurprisingly, there has been plenty of backlash.
Sustainability and fast fashion are contradictions within themselves. Boohoo is known for overproducing poor-quality clothes made by underpaid workers – one shocking investigation in 2020 revealed that workers in a Boohoo factory in Leicester were working in unsafe conditions and being paid as little as £3.50 an hour.
“The collection is created alongside an alleged journey of investigation into sustainability in the industry”
Despite Boohoo claiming that improvements have been made since this discovery, the 2022 Fashion Transparency Index, which annually ranks brands on how transparent they are regarding their practices, products, policies, and social and environmental efforts, gave Boohoo a score of 28 per cent, much lower than similar retail brands. It is estimated that Boohoo produces and sells millions of items each year. The release of this new collection just adds to this count and contradicts their claims of sustainability.
Learning and Teaching About Sustainability
The collection is created alongside an alleged journey of investigation into sustainability in the industry, seeing Kourtney talk to leaders about sustainable fashion to educate herself and consumers on what steps they can take to dress and shop in an environmentally conscious way.
Kourtney’s conversations include a discussion with John Hickling, the owner of the fashion brand, Glass Onion. Hickling states the importance of the longevity of products, noting that quality products that last are much better for the environment. We learn in Boohoo’s YouTube series that the mass and repeated production of poor-quality clothes adds to the number of textiles that are landfilled. Currently, the equivalent of one truck full of textiles is taken to landfill every second. Carbon emissions are also skyrocketed by the mass production of such fast fashion, with producing of a single pair of jeans emitting 13kg of carbon.
Boohoo is renowned for making poor-quality clothing, and with the collection’s prices starting at just £5, it is hard to see how the items in the Boohoo and Kourtney collaboration can be good quality, help the environment, and adhere to the lessons given by experts as part of the campaign. At this price, it is also difficult to see how workers across the supply chain could be paid a living wage in the production process.
“…we are facing, greenwashing and deceiving customers.”
Although items in the collection are made from recyclable materials, not every item is fully recyclable and recycled polyester still sheds harmful microplastics. So even though items in the capsule count towards Boohoo’s 2025 mission of using more sustainably sourced materials, what qualifies as sustainably sourced in Boohoo’s eyes may not be agreed on by everyone. It is clear Boohoo has the intention of becoming more sustainable as a brand – or at least wants to appear to be – but the execution is not quite right, and using Kourtney Kardashian as the ambassador only adds to these problems.
The Problem of Celebrity
As some of the biggest celebrities in the world, the Kardashians have a massive following and have had a huge impact on sales of previous collaborations. Therefore, Boohoo is presumably aware that working with Kourtney will drive further overconsumption, defeating the aim of the collaboration.
Ethical fashion campaigner, Aja Barber, commented on Boohoo’s Instagram post, publicising the collection, that “Instead of paying rich people to virtue signal why not just pay super fair wages instead??? That’s something you can do and you don’t even have to give a rich person more money to do it.”. This comment highlights the various reasons of why choosing an uninformed, rich celebrity might be seen as simply a ploy to drive sales, and not as a serious attempt to become a more ethical brand.
The whole campaign pushes the idea that consumption can be a form of solution to the climate disaster we are facing, greenwashing and deceiving customers.
A company who cares: Patagonia
Patagonia is known for being a sustainable company, ensuring clothes are for life and offering reasonably priced repairs. However, the founder of the outdoor fashion brand just took a further step in fighting climate change, giving away his company to a charitable trust.
“The Holdfast Collective will now be the recipient of all the company’s profits, using them to combat climate change.”
The company previously sought to use materials in their products that cause less harm to the environment and gave away 1% of sales each year. They claimed however that this was still not enough. Yvon Chouinard, the owner of Patagonia, stated that “Despite its immensity, the earth’s resources are not infinite, and it’s clear we’ve exceeded its limits. But it’s also resilient. We can save our planet if we commit to it.”
Making Change
The Holdfast Collective will now be the recipient of all the company’s profits, using them to combat climate change. Patagonia has already donated $50 million to the charity and expects to contribute another $100 million this year, making the collective a major player in climate philanthropy. As Chouinard claimed, “Earth is now our only shareholder”.
“Patagonia’s mission and purpose stays clear, putting sustainability and the environment at the forefront “
Chouinard has been open about how his aim was never to become a businessman – his priority was always the environment, producing products for outdoor use (as an explorer himself) that are sustainable. Patagonia’s mission and purpose stay clear, putting sustainability and the environment at the forefront of their company, and this announcement only heightens the brand’s dedication to fight the climate disaster.
Unlike Boohoo’s campaign, Chouinard’s decision is a form of activism with a true, benevolent intention in mind, with no deception or greenwashing in sight. The brands are completely different and it would be unheard of for Boohoo to make a step this drastic. However, they certainly should turn to Patagonia to learn about authentic advertising and ways to truly become sustainable.
Featured image courtesy of Artificial Photography on Unsplash. No changes were made to this image. Image license found here.
