Category: Environmental Issues

This is a discussion board post so just use natural tone to write.
Discussion F

This is a discussion board post so just use natural tone to write.
Discussion Forum #2: Endangered Species
1. Science: Introduce the endangered species you selected. Provide a desсrіption of the species you have researched: What does the species look like: provide a physical desсrіption, size, color, appearance, etc; also include a picture. What does the species eat: provide a desсrіption of eating habits and favorite foods, is it an autotroph or heterotroph? Describe their breeding: do they lay eggs, how many young do they have, do they grow from seeds in the ground, how long are the young with the mother. In which country does your species live? What is the species role in its ecosystem?
2. Issues. When did this species get listed on the endangered species list? What is the current population (how many are left)? Describe why the species has become endangered. Has there been a loss or change in the ecosystem, has there been a loss of food supply, is the species hunted or cultivated for food or for it′s value or has it declined because of disease or global warming, has there been an introduction of a new species? Have human activities impacted the species? How? If the species was removed from its ecosystem by becoming extinct, what impact would it have on the ecosystem?
3. Solutions. What steps have been taken to protect and restore the species? Have plans been made to improve the environment of the species or have they been moved to another environment. Are there breeding programs in place to increase population? Do you know of any organizations that have assisted in improving the environment of the species? What are they doing to help protect the species?
4. References. Should written on at the end of your assignment.

Essay on Invasive Species in the Everglades

The presence of invasive species in the Everglades is a problem because invasive species have no natural predators, they therefore multiply uncontrollably and devastate populations of native birds and mammals. Our main concerning species are pythons. Pythons are very small, 13-14 inches long, when they are first sold at exotic pet conventions. After 3-4 years pythons can grow to 8 feet, and when they do owners are unable to care for them and release them into the Everglades. Along with pet owners releasing pythons, Hurricane Andrew destroyed a hatchery near Miami that released hundreds of newborn snakes into the Everglades. The problem did not occur overnight, the importation of giant exotic snakes, like the python, had been popular and legal since the 1970’s. In some cases, Pythons have killed the top predator of the Everglades, the Alligator. Along with killing alligators, Pythons can easily take down a full-grown deer. Pythons can multiply rapidly, a female python can carry up to 100 eggs at once, making their spread very rapid. There is little controversy over the issue because it is a known fact that the pythons do not belong in the wetlands of the Everglades and are highly disruptive. A step in the right direction was made in 2012 when the import of Pythons was made illegal. The ban in 2012 was unfortunately years behind the curb, by the time of the ban over 200 thousand pythons were in the Everglades.”

“This research started in the second week of January and will end in the second week of April. The sources utilized have credibility, are relevant, and unbiased, and they support the purpose of the research. The studies chosen show the dramatic effects that an invasive species can have on a habitat that lacks a natural predator similar to the invasive species. The studies were all conducted in the Everglades National Park and they all show the present danger that pythons have on the Everglades fragile ecosystem. The source “Pythons Devourer Mammals in the Everglades” was immensely helpful because it provided the percentages of the decline of medium-sized mammal populations in areas where pythons had been present, which showed a direct correlation that more effort is needed to eradicate pythons in the Everglades.”

Annotated Bibliography

• Falk Bryan G., Snow, Ray W., and Reed Robert N. (2007) Prospects and Limitations of Citizen Science in Invasive Species Management: A Case Study with Burmese Pythons in Everglades National Park.

“The study focuses on the change in the average time it takes to find a python in the Everglades year-round. In 2014 the time it took to find a python ranged from 8hrs to 40hrs. The time range is due to the extreme difficulty of finding pythons by searching visually. The research shows why new methods of catching pythons should be introduced to decrease the time it takes to find a python and increase the number of pythons caught daily.”

• Hart, Kristen M.1, Michael S.1Smith, Brian J.2Mazzotti, Frank J.3Ikuko, Ray W.4Dorcas, Michael E.5, Pythons Devour Everglades Mammals. Florida, USA. (2015)

“The research led by Michael Dorcas and Jhon “J.D” Wilson, links severe declines of mammal populations in the Everglades to the population soar of Pythons. Their research solidifies the claim that predators native or exotic exert a considerable influence on the structure of their animal communities. In the remote southernmost regions of the park, complete disappearance of rabbits, raccoons, and Opossums occurred along with severe declines in other mammal populations.”

• Dorcas, Michael, Willson, John, Reed, Robert, Snow, Ray, Rochford, Michael, Miller, Melissa, Meshaka,^Jr., Walter, Andreadis, Paul, Mazzotti, Frank, Romagosa, Christina, Hart, Kristen. Severe mammal declines coincide with the proliferation of invasive Burmese pythons in Everglades National Park. (September 26, 2011)

“This source focuses on the decline in mammal populations of the Florida Everglades, due to the introduction of Burmese Pythons. The study stated that raccoon sightings fell by 99.3% due to Pythons. Along with that Opossum, sightings fell by 87.5%. The road surveys conducted showed that in areas where pythons had only recently been discovered mammal populations were much higher than those where pythons had been present for extended periods The study shows that a high python population directly correlates with the ow mammal population.”

Harmfulness of Free Trade for the Environment

One of the most controversial issues regarding globalization in the 21st century is the concern that free trade damages the environment both locally and internationally. The effects of worldwide trade and economic development on the environment have been widely discussed in recent years, due the increasing amount of free trade agreements (FTAs) being created around the world. A 2014 report from the World Trade Organization (WTO) shows that there has been a huge increase in the amount of regional trade agreement notifications being received by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade at the WTO, revealing the trend in more FTAs being formed. Trade agreements between two or more countries have intensive and extensive ramifications for all participating parties. Free trade is important in reducing barriers to trade and establishing a more stable trade environment, thus encouraging more multilateral trade. Advocates of free trade argue that it is efficient and the most effective method of trade because it allows individual countries to specialize in producing the goods in which they have a comparative advantage. However, there are a variety of environmental problems that arise from the practice of free trade. These problems can be broken down into the concept of the scale effect, increased greenhouse gas emissions and how developing countries are becoming havens for waste.

FTAs are deals between two or more participating countries to eliminate the barriers to import and export goods and services between them. Under an FTA, goods and services can be easily bought and sold across international borders with little regulations, tariffs, or quotas. In general, economists agree that free trade deals lead to sweeping economic growth, but with increased economic growth there is the risk that there will be an increase in industries that hurt the environment by releasing greenhouse gases and hurting the environment. When evaluating the impact of free trade on the environment, economists can conceptualize its implications using a concept called the scale effect. The scale effect refers to how increases in economic growth, which arise from free trade, have an impact on the environment. Trade liberalization, a result of free trade, charges an increase in economic activities and expands economic growth, which then triggers the use of more and more inputs to sustain the higher level of economic activity. This shifts out the demand curve for pollution, and the scale effect of economic growth increases the amount of pollution produced. According to Greenpeace, “In practice, free trade deals are about opening up borders so big companies can profit from larger markets… corporations that produce and sell fossil fuels are included in that list”. This suggests that FTAs widen the worldwide market for fossil fuels, which then encourages gas, coal, and oil corporations to increase their activities, extract, and burn more of these natural resources, especially natural gas, which negatively effects the environment.

Producers of natural gas are incentivized to engage in free trade. In general, the U.S. Department of Energy is in charge of giving the green light for any gas exports. However, in 1992 a clause was added to the Natural Gas Act that states that the Department of Energy is required to approve any exports that involve countries the U.S. has free trade agreements with. This means that natural gas companies are given a reason to use FTAs to engage in various forms of extraction, including fracking, which is severely detrimental to the environment. This clause in the Natural Gas Act incentivizes natural gas companies to extract more fuel and engage in free trade. This trend can be seen in the effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA is one of the most famous free trade agreements in the world and it involves the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. NAFTA allows for easier facilitation of trade between the three countries as it gets rid of many trade barriers. From the perspective of oil and gas companies, NAFTA has been crucial in their growth. The flow of oil and gas between the countries has increased dramatically. Natural gas exports from the U.S. to Mexico have risen to 4.4 billion cubic feet per day, which is more than double the levels seen in 2014. This rise in demand has led to new pipelines being developed; a pipeline from South Texas to Mexico was recently created and bolsters shipments as it allows gas to be moved further into Mexico. The trade of oil between the U.S. and Canada has also increased in recent years. The U.S. is importing approximately over 3.3 million barrels of oil per day from Canada. The trade of natural gas and oil is extremely destructive to the environment. From the moment it is extracted, to being transported, and then burned it is degrading the environment. The land disturbance and infrastructure required for natural gas and oil drilling can hurt local ecosystems by causing erosion, disturbing wildlife, and contaminating nearby water sources. The construction needed to build these extraction sites often displace wildlife and cause the erosion of dirt and pollutants into waterways. The transport of the fuel also requires the environmental destruction, and when the fuel is finally burned it contributes to air pollution and increased greenhouse gas emissions. Free trade has allowed for the natural gas and oil to increase in extraction and transport, severely damaging the surrounding environment.

One method, economists use to look at how free trade impacts the environment, is the pollution haven hypothesis. The hypothesis states that differences in the stringency of environmental regulations between developed and developing countries will provide developing countries with a comparative advantage in industries with pollution intensive production. And while this hypothesis would be an excellent reason for why free trade is bad for the environment, there currently isn’t a lot of empirical evidence to support it. However, there is direct and concrete evidence that developed countries are taking advantage of the free trade system and exporting their waste to the developing world where they are creating havens for pollution. Countries with lower wages and more lax environmental regulations have a comparative cost advantage over developed countries where waste management is an expensive service and environmental regulations are usually stricter. This means that waste management companies in the West tend to ship their scrap plastic or, at times, household waste to ‘waste havens’. Currently, there is a huge trade imbalance between the developed world and the ‘Global South’, which includes countries like China, India, Cambodia, and other parts of the developing world. This is a consequence of free trade on a global scale. Free trade allows for massive shipping containers from the Global South to arrive in the developed world, like the U.S., full of consumer products, and we have nothing to send back in them, except occasionally agricultural goods. Those same shipping containers would often head back to the Global South completely empty, which is bad business for the shipping companies because they have to eat their costs. So, what those companies do is sell their cargo space to waste exporters at a steep discount because some money for trash is better than no money for nothing. That trash export would absolutely not exist without free trade.

This trade imbalance can best be described by the example of plastic waste exportation to the Global South, specifically, China. Global trade in plastic waste is a big business. From 1988 to 2016, 168 million tons of plastic waste was exported, with most of it going to China and India. The unfortunate reality is that most of the plastic is contaminated and can’t be recycled. It’s usually dumped because the Global South lacks proper waste management facilities. People in the West like to believe that their waste is being recycled, but in reality, it is often being dumped in landfills or incinerated, which has caused a breadth of environmental consequences for these developing countries. This is driven by the brutal economics of free trade because exporting our waste is often cheaper than dealing with it locally and we are able to ship our problems elsewhere for a low cost. The human and environmental toll of plastic waste imports on China was exposed in a viral documentary in 2016 called ‘Plastic China’, which detailed the heart-wrenching story of an 11-year-old girl living in a workshop for imported scrap plastic, which created toxic air and polluted waterways in China’s countryside. Plastic that cannot be reused is often burned and this releases carbon monoxide, dioxins and furans, all of which are toxic. The villages and households in the vicinity of these plastic waste facilities are heavily affected by pollution. In 2017, fed up with being a dumping ground, China notified the World Trade Organization that it intended to ban the imports of plastic waste. The ban came into force in March 2018, setting off a chain reaction in the global plastic waste system. Numerous countries in the West have been unable to cope since, resulting in dramatic price increases for exporting, and more plastic being incinerated or sent to the landfill. If export rates continue as they are, the new Chinese policy will displace an estimated 111 million metric tons of plastic waste by 2030. So now, all of this waste is flooding into South East Asia, countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, India, Taiwan and Thailand, resulting in polluted waterways, fires, and illegal dumping. China’s 2018 ban of plastic waste importation demonstrates a clear example of a regulatory loophole that had been exploited for years. When plastic waste is exported to developing countries for treatment, these countries carry an additional burden besides having to deal with their own materials. When this burden becomes too great, untreated waste is simply dumped into the environment, turning recipient countries into havens for pollution as well as being destinations for unwanted waste. Free trade by its nature encourages the exploitations of these loopholes across borders, with the greatest harm done to developing countries.

The goal of free trade as a whole is to encourage greater economic activity, which increases the scale of global production. Economic growth means increased waste, increased greenhouse gas emission and improper waste disposal sites. Overall, free trade hurts the environment by stimulating more economic activity, increasing emissions and allowing developing countries to turn into havens for waste.

The Impact of Fast Fashion on The Environment, Human Health and Employees

Fast fashion is producing super fast clothes at low prices and cheap fabrics and People are always looking for new fashion and the latest trends, but have these people thought about how to make these things and how to get rid of them that can destroy the environment around us and it can cause a lot of harm to animals and humans?. We live in a world of fast fashion at the lowest cost and quality of cheap fabrics used in making these clothes and people become obsessed with buying clothes. A lot of people do not know the downside of fast fashion and they have to stop consuming fast fashion. However, this paper will talk about the impact of fast fashion on the environment, human health and employees.

Fast fashion leads to environmental pollution in many different areas such as water pollution, air pollution and land pollution resulting from the garment industry. Water pollution is caused by the use of freshwater in dyeing fabrics, where dyeing fabrics is considered the second largest polluter of fresh water in the world, and this leads to the spread of many diseases and the death of animals that may be exposed to death due to drinking water containing chemicals due to dyes, and also to produce different types of Fabrics such as cotton, which require large amount of freshwater, where 200 liters of water produces about 1 kg of cotton. Fast fashion leads to air pollution due to the export, import, and transport of goods through the use of cars airplane and other vehicles that emit gases lead to air pollution, and do not forget the factories as well, which make different type of fabrics such as polyester and nylon, which requires a large amount of energy and crude oil produces serious emissions On the environment because of its formation on volatile organic compounds and acid gases where one pound of nitrous oxide has an effect of 300 times the carbon dioxide in the greenhouse effect and this is only to make nylon. Millions of trees are cut each year to make different types of fabric, which leads to an imbalance in the environment because the trees have a significant role in air purification and oxygen production.

Can you imagine that fabrics can affect human health and lead to many different types of diseases? Fast fashion clothes that contain and made of many of the chemicals used to make these cheap clothes fabric like polyester, nylon, and acrylic that can affect the health of people exposed to face a different type of allergies and eye irritation as it contains formaldehyde anti-wrinkle. Many types of fabrics can adversely affect the human body, especially people that have sensitive bodies are more likely to face a problem with wearing this type of fabric that contains substance that leads to skin irritant, and when the body comes into contact with these chemicals and absorbed the bad substance that is used in clothes can lead to cancer or skin diseases it maybe lead to fungal diseases and inflammation of the hair follicles caused by bacteria caused by sweating.

The workers in the factories are exposed to many risks and difficulties in their lives. Different ages of males and females teenagers and children working under hard conditions forced by a difficult life and. Factory workers suffer from physical illnesses due to the living environment and long working hours that cause pain in muscles and joints and also lead to respiratory diseases due to dust and smoke from the workplace, That causes stress and tired for workers and we see this only in poor countries like Bangladesh. Factories are one of the most dangerous places for many workers due to poor construction. In 2013, the number of dead in Bangladesh in a factory reached 1129 due to the erosion of the building where they worked. Factory workers are face to many problems, especially women who are subjected to harassment through their managers at work or even their colleagues, which forces women to silence only to earn money for their children and also the deprivation of taking any rest at work or taking maternity leave and lack of a clean toilet for them this leads to diseases, especially in the uterus diseases. Also, children who are subjected to abuse, cruelty and sexual harassment, many of them who left school to earn money for him and his family, factory children spend about 19 to 20 hours a day working hours continuously even most of them are forced to eat, sleep and taking shower in the factory. And all these employees get a low salary.

In conclusion, recent years we have seen a great demand for clothes, especially cheap ones brought from fast fashion, Fast fashion has a negatively affects in several areas as has been shown above, fast fashion destroy the environment, affect the human health and took worker’s right. We should stop supporting fast fashion and it’s time now to save our environment and save our health and give workers their rights to live.

How Fast Fashion Manipulates People

What is most responsible for the death of sweatshop workers in Rana Plaza and chromium pollution in the river near to Kanpur? You will never consider the latest H&M shirt in the store is made by one oppressed worker who was stitching the shirt with their lives. And you would not think the environmental cost of that shirt as well. More importantly, you do not notice that famous brand companies are benefiting from you over again. In “The True Cost,” the executive director of “War on Want,” John Hilary once says “When everything is concentrated on making profits for the big cooperation, what you see it’s the human rights, environment, worker’s right get lost ultimately” (Hilary). Consequently, primary fashion companies are most responsible for the absence of the human right in sweatshops and environmental pollution in production, for they oppress sweatshop workers, make their working condition insecure and exacerbate pollution in factories. All these problems need to be solved by consumers ourselves, or we ultimately make the decision.

Firstly, fashion companies oppress workers in sweatshops. Some people believe that these major fashion companies have created many sustainable working positions which are better than other worse jobs for the poor people. However, the job in the sweatshop is not even official and guaranteed. In the “The True Cost,” the director Andrew Morgan points out that “Because major brands do not officially employ the workers,” they are all “remaining free responsibility” (Morgan). Then, some big brands such as H&M can overuse their unauthorized workers and force them work for extra time. In the article “H&M factories in Myanmar employed 14-year-old workers Publisher”, author Sarah Butler exposes that even “children as young as 14 toiled for more than 12 hours a day”. Except child labor issues, they are violating the Article 24 of UDHR which claims “Everyone has the right to rest and leisure time.” Apparently, those fashion companies cheat those workers, and studiously exploits their resources by taking advantages of them illegally.

Secondly, those major fashion companies cause insecure working condition in their sweatshops. The opponent thinks that garment factories are mainly responsible for the safety of workers for they are the owner of working places. However, factories are also victims who are squeezed by major corporations financially. According to the Dhaka garment factory owner Arif Jebtik in “The True Cost,” “every day they oppress me, and I oppress my workers” (Jebtik). Conseq uently, factories have not enough financial aid to repair buildings to make the factory safer, and turn out to disregard safety measure of factories. When force factories to have lower and lower cost by major brands, the additional cost is the lives of workers, which is against Article 23 of UDHR that mentions “Everyone has the right to work in a safe environment” (UDHR). Then, factory disaster in Rana Plaza happened and killed more than one thousand people. Such inevitable accident is directly resulted by not enough payment from the companies. After that, H&M company immediately promised to change worker’s condition. But it deliberately slowed their steps down. In the article “Retailers Like H&M and Walmart Fall Short of Pledges to Overseas Workers,” Rachel Abrams reveals their “ progress on improving conditions at the factories has been too slow,” and they “continue to benefit from unfair and dangerous labor practices.”

Those major fashion companies rather increase their sales by advertising than to change worker’s working condition. In the article “Who Really Benefits From Sweatshops”, David Wilson reveals that if the companies “cut marketing down”, then “the savings would certainly be enough to allow for doubling the wages of many assembly workers and creating safe conditions in their factories”. It expresses those companies do have opportunities to change worker’s working condition and help them get out of danger. But they choose to maximize profit by advertising, which is clear that they regard human lives as substitute parts which can be replaced by other cheap working force.

Pollution in particular region has been exacerbated by those fashion companies. The opponent may hold the view that local issues of pollution should be cared and treated by local government and protection agencies. However, the companies have led the pollution to be unbearable to the region during fast fashion trend. In “The True Cost,” Siegle mentions “have 52 seasons a year” and “have something new coming every weeks”, exposing such high demands of the companies. That will force factories to produce more and more harmful and destructive chemicals to their environment. The city Kanpur, the capital of leather- export, has been developed by increasing demand for cheap leather from brand companies. However, the founder Rakesh Jaiswal illustrates “the local environment, soil, the only drinking water source and groundwater source are contaminated with chromium” (Jaiswal). It shows enormous negative effect led by the demand of the companies. Companies maximize their profits by increasing supply of factories without considering other significant output of their products.

Massive pollution from production is being ignored by the companies. In “The True Cost”, Mike schragger says, “A lot of resources that we used to make our clothing are not accounted in the cost of producing those clothes, such as water that used to produce”(schragger). It illustrates that water pollution is not accounted by the companies. But they brought all businesses to the people living close to factories as well as negative output from factories. Workers in factories have neither advanced filtering equipments to reduce the pollution nor ideas of harmfulness of pollution. As they ignore such harmfulness, they will undertake all the consequences at last.

Admittedly, many factors affect consumers making decisions. Either the effect of Advertising or “celebrity effect” affect consumers to purchase more from fast fashion industry. However, consumers should assume the greatest responsibility in restoring environmental problems and human right violation, for they ultimately make the decision for the whole process, and have the power to change the situation by changing their mind. As LUCY Siegle advocates in “The True Cost,” the fast fashion industry will stop its negative effect only if “All consumers asking ethical questions, all consumers asking quite simple questions about where their clothes are from” (Siegle)

In conclusion, major fashion companies should take most responsibility for what sweatshop workers have experienced and the pollution produced by factories, for they have violated human rights of sweatshop workers and exacerbated the pollution. As the consumer, if we start to care about “real cost” behind clothes and say “No” to clothes from unqualified sweatshops, then the fast fashion industry would be slow down. Those major fashion companies in the industry would reflect on themselves and find “the true cost” as well.

H&M, Zara, Benetton Firms Supplying Fast Fashion

Fashion has become incredibly fast-paced. The ability to mass-produce numerous articles of clothing and make them available and affordable to the general populace has increased consumerist tendencies across the globe. Changing clothes every season has become the norm for upper and middle-class customers. As such, the most successful fashion retailers need to be capable of adjusting their selection of goods according to the ever-changing preferences of potential customers, as well as the newest developments in the industry. The ability to do so relies on the organization of their supply chain. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the Supply Chain Management (SCM) of three famous and successful fashion retail brands, H&M, Zara, and Benetton, identify the strengths and weaknesses of four distinct stages of their supply management, and determine which model is best suited for the industry overall.

Design Stage

The design stage of supply management involves determining which articles of clothing to produce and supply to retail stores. All three companies have several similarities and differences in their approach. Those involved in the process of design are market specialists, buyers, and the designers themselves. Market specialists make predictions about current and future trends, designers invent new clothes and apply new materials in the production process, and buyers help define the needs and requirements for specific brands by leaving feedback. However, the differences between the three companies lie in what the design stage is focused on.

For example, H&M tries to balance fashion, price, and quality (Slack, Brandon-Jones, Johnston, & Betts, 2015). Upon finding this point of balance, the company determines volumes and delivery dates. This means they adjust their stock based on estimated buyer interest and sales. Depending on the product, the volumes may be large or small.

Zara’s designs come not from individual branches of the company but through a combined effort. They have adopted a cyclical SCM strategy, where the design stage is the first and last part of the chain. Designers and market specialists work in the same workshops, enabling cooperation between branches, and the customers are offered the opportunity to take part in the process (Slack et al., 2015).

Benetton’s design process is aimed at standardization and grasping overall global trends. They pay less attention to region-specific needs and customs and focus on selling articles of clothes that are universal. Less catering to individual and region-specific preferences allows the company to reduce prices, standardize its shipments, and buy in large volumes (Slack et al., 2015).

Manufacturing Stage

The manufacturing stage is when the processes of creating articles of clothing to be later sold at the market occur. Each company has its own unique style of production, which ties in with its marketing philosophy and helps achieve its retailing goals. Benetton looks to benefit from cheap labor costs found in Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe in order to produce cheaper clothes (Slack et al., 2015). As such, many of its manufacturing chains are located abroad, in countries such as China, India, Turkey, Romania, and Moldova. This style of manufacturing allows for greater and cheaper volumes of production but is more susceptible to the political and economic instability of those countries and potential accusations of unethical business practices.

H&M does not have any production plants of its own. Instead, it coordinates the efforts of over 750 suppliers globally (Slack et al., 2015). This system allows for greater flexibility when compared to establishing factories in a single location. In addition, the diversification of suppliers means that the production process would never totally cease because of any critical failures. However, this system relies heavily on efficient logistics and close relationships with individual manufacturers, which often causes delays in lead times and complications with determining the optimal time to make an order.

Zara’s manufacturing system is tailored to be able to quickly respond to the ever-changing demands of the customers and the shifts in the fashion industry. Its 22 factories, as well as the majority of its suppliers, are located in Spain (Slack et al., 2015), which helps create efficient and quick logistical and manufacturing processes. The system is geared towards producing a multitude of goods in small batches, in accordance with the company’s marketing strategy. However, this results in increased production costs as the company has no access to cheaper labor markets.

Distribution Stage

The distribution stage involves all the processes needed after the production of clothes to ensure products are delivered to the retail stores. The efficiency of distribution largely determines the time spent before the required clothes arrive from the warehouses and to the retail chains. Zara and Benetton implement similar strategies in that regard – each of their production facilities also has an automated distribution center, from which the products are shipped wherever they are needed (Slack et al., 2015). This system has certain advantages and disadvantages. While it helps supply the local markets quicker, it also increases the delivery time required for a specific article of clothing to be delivered to shops located far from the main production chain.

H&M, due to the nature of its production management, has a different approach to distribution. Instead of having numerous warehouses across the globe, it ships the products from large transportation hubs, where individual subcontractors deliver finished goods. Its call-off warehouse is located in Hamburg, where the company operates through a local terminal (Slack et al., 2015). This system relies on coordination and planning efficiency and is prone to accidents and order mix-ups.

Retail Strategy

All three companies use retail stores as their primary distribution sites. Their difference lies in ownership and restocking strategy. Zara and H&M take a relatively similar approach in that regard – they own the retail chain through which they distribute their goods. While H&M provides a relatively stable variety of goods at all times, in order to cater to the needs of different customers, Zara offers greater variety while keeping a smaller stock. Its collections change every two weeks (Slack et al., 2015), which not only attracts customers to visit the shops more often but also to buy the items quicker.

Benetton’s strategy is different due to the large volumes and standardization of their products. In order to achieve maximum exposure, the company works not only through their own retail chains but also with different third-party retailers. Its own shops are 2-3 times larger than those of Zara and H&M, in order to house greater volumes of products and display them to potential customers (Slack et al., 2015).

Trends Utilized in Supply Chain Management

As it is possible to see, each company implements a different SCM strategy in order to achieve its goals. Zara utilizes a combination of lean and agile supply chain strategies, which are aimed at reducing waste and non-value-adding activities, while at the same time quickly responding to the ever-changing customer and market demands (Christopher, 2016). This strategy is defined by the accuracy of orders and variety of articles, but at increased costs.

H&M uses a postponement SCM strategy, which focuses on delaying orders for as long as possible, in order to make more accurate estimations of how much is needed (Christopher, 2016). It is the reason why H&M managers stress the importance of making an order “at the right time.” This approach offers a balance between accuracy, quality, and price, but presents significant logistical challenges.

Benetton uses a speculation SCM model. Instead of trying to cater to specific fluctuations and trends in the fashion market, it aims for the common denominator, in order to save money and reduce costs by producing and buying in bulk (Christopher, 2016). While this strategy has the potential to attract a larger number of customers, it also willingly misses the more privileged customers, looking for more fashionable and unique clothes.

It is not valid to make a straight comparison between the strategies mentioned above. All three companies have different goals and different positions in the market. Zara offers variety and uniqueness, Benetton offers quality and affordability, and H&M seeks a balance between the two. For their intended means and purposes, the companies use optimal SCM strategies that are currently available. For Benetton, it would be pointless to utilize lean management, as it would only increase the number of logistical operations required to restock their mega-shops. For Zara, it would be illogical to produce in bulk because their collection changes every two weeks. For H&M, it would not be prudent to overly rely on either method, as some of their products are more sensitive to fluctuations in the market and fashion than others. Thus, all three strategies can be considered equally valid and optimal for their intended purpose.

Fast Fashion and Its Impact on the Fashion Industry

Fast fashion is a term that is used to describe a new trend in the fashion industry that is characterized by high speed and low prices in order to provide customers with popular collections that reflect celebrity styles and catwalk presentations. Manufacturers are able to reduce costs by cutting environmental corners. Therefore, fast fashion has many downsides. The most noticeable ones are a high level of pollution and enormous textile waste. However, one particular aspect deserves more careful consideration. It is the impact of fast fashion on the entire fashion industry. The main goal of this paper is to argue that the effect that fast fashion has had on the fashion industry is mostly negative.

Discussion

Fast fashion cultivates a new consumer culture. Such companies as H&M, Gap, or Buffalo offer incredibly popular and cheap clothes. For this reason, people buy too many clothing items. Excessive consumption is even considered by some specialists as a mental disorder. They call such people shopaholics. However, this behavioral pattern is perceived as normal by the prevailing majority. A wide range of colors, fabrics, and other features are too appealing to resist the temptation for millions of customers around the globe (McNeill & Moore 2015).

Also, retailers hold big sales to generate more interest. Such offers as two for one or 50 percent discount might be suggested almost in any store. In addition, shopping improves confidence as people feel better when they look better. However, in comparison with the previous generation of customers, this trend is absolutely unusual. In the past, people did not need and have so many different clothes. Another problem is that modern consumers who buy all these products do not even use most of them.

Statistics demonstrate an enormous growth in the fashion industry. The apparel industry market has increased by almost 100 percent for the previous five years (Singh 2017). This is an unprecedented change in this field. Other statistics show that the global fashion industry was valued at approximately $1.4 trillion in sales in 2017 (Singh 2017). Moreover, clothing companies continue speeding up this trend. Some specialists predict that the size of the apparel industry market might have reached $1.65 trillion in global sales by 2020 (Singh 2017).

Therefore, each year people increase their spending on clothes. Different statistics prove that interest in shopping is becoming greater in comparison with previous years. Therefore, it might be expected that in the nearest future the global economy will be faced with a huge burst in the fashion industry.

Many specialists raise the question of what has led to such a rapid development of the fashion industry. The answer is the phenomenon of fast fashion that occurred at the beginning of the twenty-first century. This phenomenon was driven by people’s desire to look trendy. The celebrity culture cultivated the passion for striking appearance among the general public. However, it required a lot of money. That is why many companies began producing clothes that met the expectations of customers.

They tried to replicate designs that had been developed by the leading fashion players, for example, Prada or Louis Vuitton (Brooks 2015). Such companies as Zara and Uniqlo succeeded in this endeavor and became highly popular around the world. The most successful fast fashion companies have developed effective supply chain systems that ensured a fast implementation of their strategies (Turker & Altuntas 2014). Elaborate logistic operations were the key element in their production processes.

Other companies adopted these methods, making the industry greater and greater. Such production patterns have never been used by traditional clothing companies. Another important aspect of the apparel industry that was affected by the occurrence of fast fashion is a four-season fashion calendar. In fact, it seized to exist. New micro-seasons have become much more relevant. However, the ability to quickly address customers’ wants and needs is not the only change that fast fashion has brought about in the industry.

Another important attribute of such businesses is limited stock on all their products (Cook & Yurchisin 2017). Clothing companies can make unplanned stock orders to respond to the new demands of customers. Such a connection with the latest fashion trends makes it possible to import up-to-date products even several times a week.

As mention above, it is a world-scale issue. Popular and inexpensive clothes cause real addiction in people throughout the globe. Globalization makes it possible to offer such products in every country (Choi et al. 2014). Also, fast fashion provides multiple job opportunities. The industry employs tens of thousands of people each year.

Fast fashion companies got started as outsiders. However, nowadays, the situation has drastically changed. They have transformed the fashion industry and turned into leaders. High-quality, prestigious brands have lost their influential status and needed to struggle to be present on the market. Fast fashion products look similar to products offered by high fashion clothing brands, but the price might be ten times lower. It is almost impossible to compete with shirts that cost $10 if a company adheres to high-quality standards of production and service.

Fast fashion has a significant cultural effect. The people’s perception of attire is absolutely different in comparison with the people living in the twentieth century. The accessibility of products devalues their worth in the eyes of the general public. Also, this trend has affected the prestigious status of high-quality clothing companies. Nowadays, many customers honor fast fashion firms. In addition, celebrities participate in marketing campaigns of such companies. For example, Pharell Williams worked with Uniqlo (Pharrell Williams for UNIQLO UT 2014 spring summer collection 2014). Celebrities have changed the image of fast fashion brands.

Another significant change is that luxury clothing companies have begun to collaborate with fast fashion firms. Such processes benefit either of them because partnership increases their values. However, there are many problems that occur in such unions. The most common issue is intellectual property theft. It is very difficult to prevent and detect.

Conclusion

In conclusion, fast fashion is a negative phenomenon that has changed the fashion industry for the worst. It promotes a distorted consumer culture and encourages manufacturers to produce clothing of low-quality. Also, fast fashion has diminished the special status of luxury brands. Therefore, the entire industry has lost its traditional value. Fast fashion companies mostly replicate products of famous and successful designers. They focus on reducing costs and accelerating manufacturing cycles.

However, it is usually done to the detriment of the quality of products. Therefore, it is necessary to attract attention to this multisided problem. Luxury brands require support as they are leaders who develop the industry. Also, it is very important to emphasize the faultiness of such a consumer culture that cultivates unhealthy ideas and negatively affects a significant sector of the global economy.

Analysis of ‘The True Cost’ Documentary: The Consequences of Fast Fashion

The True Cost documentary which is filmed and directed by Andrew Morgan is concentrated on fast fashion. This documentary reflects on numerous aspects of the apparel industry from production, the life of a low wage worker, and the global effect of cheap clothing’s. These workers are forced to work in poor condition for the satisfaction of the international fashion. The True Cost is not about the glamour, and excitement of the fashion world but instead, it demonstrations the dark and grim side of the worldwide fast fashion (https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/theimpact-fast-fashion-has/) supply sequence. It is a story about greediness and terror, power and poverty, the examination between consumers, mass media, globalization and private owners. Why do we throw away clothes so easily they say? We throw away clothes so easily because of the “propaganda” a type of commercial and advertisement that is thrown at us so we can purchase more. I would call this mindless consumerism. When everything is concentrated on making profit for the big companies, what you see is human rights, worker’s rights, the environment and everything, gets lost all together. It illustrated the increasingly exploitation of workers just to satisfy the impulsive accumulation of capital. Who is to blame? The answer is pretty much simple; everyone is except for apparel workers. Among the major wrongdoers are the fashion corporations such Forever 21, Sara, H&M that created a huge greedy industry for the benefits of profits.

Based on the Center- Periphery theory Bangladesh, India, Cambodia and China are the same because they are forced to compete against each other for the minimization of cost and the maximization of profit for the international major brand manufacturers. In these countries, low wage workers are challenged with a low arrangement of capital, and wage ranks that do not meet the cost of reproduction. “Consumption-ism” is the development of a thing that is totally destroyed, used up or fused or transformed into something else. Clothing consumption has increased rapidly in the international countries. In result to this, massive textile material is being transported in to developing countries that are exposed to environmental problems.

As the consumption of clothing increases, a demand for cotton in India has led to the plantation of genetically modified cotton. Because the agriculture need to be reengineer to keep up with the demand, farmers are forced in a commitment that they cannot uphold, due to the price of seeds. Because they are not able to uphold the end of the bargain, their lands are taken by the companies. Farmers then take matters into their own hands by committing suicide because survival mode is no longer an option.

Seeing that genetically modified crops need pesticides and insecticides, utilizing these chemicals are resulting in environmental damages such as birth defects, mental disabilities, and an increasing percentage of cancer among exposed Punjab people. Fashion is second to the world’s most polluting industries, next to oil. What can we do to change that? The people of this world must be more cautious of their purchasing habits, buying this product is like buying the blood of these workers.

Saddened by this film, the devastating movements of the global fashion industry seem to be overlooked by individuals around the world. I was once among the unknown, until I watched “The True Cost” Documentary. After absorbing the truth, you cannot un-absorb the knowledge.

Although the viewpoint may seem awful, we are challenged with the opportunity of a generation to make changes and improvements to the lives of these low wage workers. Change is necessary. We have a great opportunity to denounce the present, and reestablish the fashion industry. Helping these people may not be first priority for us but without them we wouldn’t have clothes on our backs. There are multiple things that I did not know about the fashion industry. It made me very angry and sad, because these western countries utilize propaganda for consumerism. The marketing is competing with each other for less money. As a result, third world countries are victims to working in dangerous environments, working long hours, are faced to leave their kids with strangers and family member so to make a living.

Factories are pressured with demand for low prices by big companies for products. For example, sweatshops are complying to sell their product for less than the value price because big companies bargain with different countries to get the cheapest price. This is resulted in big competition amongst the workers of these third world countries.

I really did not like the film, my focus was too much on how these people suffer for the true cost of fashion. It became clear to me that we are part of something humbled, it’s just the act of buying clothes. How so? Every item of clothing that we purchase are touched by human hand, human blood, human sweat, and human tears and we are purchasing these products unconsciously. The reality is we do not know any better, we do not have the experienced of what these workers have been through, so we take advantage! I was also overwhelmed and guilty, knowing indirectly I may be responsible. Knowing in the back of your mind, that you are as an accomplice to the system. It is important that we not only think about the end product and their benefits, but also ask the question, “Where did our clothes and food come from? How were our products made?

The Concept of Fast Fashion and Its Detrimental Impact on Economic and Social Wellbeing

This essay will explain the concept of fast fashion and its detrimental impact on economic and social wellbeing; focusing on its role in clean water and sanitation, as outlined under SDG 6 of the UN international conference of 2008. The term fast fashion is one that has, “an approach to design, creation and marketing of clothing that emphasizes making fashion trends quickly and cheaply…” [1] In relation to the topic of responsible consumption and production, it is the impact of two key factors that determine sustainable longevity for the planet and for future generations.

The idea of fast fashion stems from living in a society which aims to optimise low cost levels but in doing so, leads to a deterioration in quality of all aspects and a poor capacity to uphold social and environmental factors. Over 60% of fabric fibres are now produced synthetically, sourced from fossils fuels. [2] This is concerning with estimations of 500 billion extra t-shirts being produced in relation to consumption of global apparel; peaking at 102 million tonnes by the end of the decade, showing an upward trend in consumption rather than finding better alternatives.[2] The continued reliance on a resource that is in no means infinite, leads to a larger and larger strain on the resource – affecting us all. The business model itself is therefore not long lasting; leading to eventual price rises for the consumer or worsening labour conditions for the workers involved. This can be seen in 2013, where the exploitation of workers led to 1,138 deaths as a Bangladesh garment factory collapsed, [3] from poor construction and maintenance, presumably to cut costs even at the foundations of the business. The fast fashion industry therefore shows a lack of upholding basic social standards, even allowing potential loss of life to make a profit.

One of the largest issues with fast fashion relates to SDG6; clean water and sanitation. Most notably the production of cotton. Water usage of one cotton shirt production is 2700 litres (as illustrated right). By 2050, WaterAid states there will be a potential 5 billion facing a water shortage. [4] More and more of the worlds natural resource of water, is being wasted and polluted to make one shirt which statistically, is part of the 40% of clothes which are never worn. Combined with previously stated increases in t-shirt production, shows the economic impact this will have on the world as a whole. A basic economic need cannot be met for a vast percentage of the population, hurting their own development and progression – only causing a further downward spiral with poverty. A second key point with SDG6, comes from the polluting factors involved in production. Uzbekistan is 2nd globally in cotton exports, and its progression in producing more and more is clearly shown in the state of the environment. Toxic chemicals used in cotton production from half a century ago, are still very much present in the water and land. These chemicals cause significant issues with a human’s health, meaning their own health care system is strained further at the cost of pollution and human wellbeing. Combined, these show a key economic concept of an unnecessary opportunity cost; loss of alternatives when one choice is chosen over others. [6] Instead of investing and becoming more environmentally friendly and by extension, more efficient long term, these negative externalities will continue to build up, causing irreversible damage. The negative externality creates market failure; where a good’s “price equilibrium doesn’t match its real costs.”

This diagram shows a deadweight welfare loss from ABC Triangle as a result of over production leading to higher social cost than necessary. This may be due to misinformation of the production process showing Marginal social cost (MSC) being higher than marginal private cost (MPC). This low price of P1 is at the expense of locals to the region whether it is from low wages or poor health maintenance from using toxic chemicals, which supports a floored business model. Increasing prices to P2, from giving correct information for instance, through government intervention like advertisement, would also help reduce quantity demanded and efficiently allocate resources to Q2 from Q1 to the socially optimum level.

Many firms in the fast fashion industry exploit the rocky political and economic landscape of nations, not allowing them to develop further as a whole. The countries at the for front of the fast fashion industry, including Cambodia, The Philippines and Turkey were highlighted as those amongst the worst countries for the working class. [5] This does not allow for responsible production as the exploitation keeps these nations firmly rooted in basic industrial practices, meaning they cannot progress and become more self-sufficient as they heavily rely on their primary sector. The primary sector refers to work evolving the exploitation of natural resources which is necessary in the garment industry. As the Philippines attempt to stay competitive, their costs are cut at each section, including wages as shown below.

Comparing these 2 countries from above, the minimum wage can be a big factor in the development of a nation. As workers part of the fast fashion industry, they receive the lessened wage of 2000 USD per annum, which puts a vast majority of the population on the poverty line. Increasing this wage would have 2 major benefits; growth and higher tax revenue. Growth would occur from the multiplier effect. This is where changes in income in relation to the spending to saving ratio, leads to secondary, tertiary and so on, spending changes as each recipient receives more in spending power. As they are poorer, their marginal propensity to consumer, MPC, is high, leading to a larger multiplier effect as their MP to withdraw, MPW, is low as most of their income is spent to survive and therefore cannot be saved. The secondary effect of the wage increase would be that of higher tax revenues. This comes from higher earnings having a marginal increase in their MPW from tax, allowing the state to have more to spend on water infrastructure such as sanitation plants, or water purifying systems, helping to combat the issues brought up by SDG6 not being for filled. This could help to reduce to the projected water crisis of WaterAid, allowing for a sustainable future. However, education is also key here. Being able to educate generations on sustainability but also on how to be a highly skilled worker, means that countries like Turkey and The Philippines, can move away from these industries and on to more sustainable, better paying jobs. These shifts would help lead to the decline in the fast fashion industry as it will become increasingly expensive to maintain cheap prices and using poor production methods therefore forcing new industries to emerge from the collapse of another.

Using developed nations is important to understanding how to deal with SDG6 and making the fast fashion industry by the very least, ecological and socially viable. The Australian textile, clothing and footwear (TCF) industry has set two important targets to curb the fashion industry into sustainable practices to push for SDG6s completion.

The Concept of Fast Fashion and Elements that Impact It

It should already be a red flag that there is a well-known term in the fashion/consumer industry called “fast fashion”. Similar to the concepts found in the fast food industry (and literally McDonald’s), fast fashion is there to keep up with the demand of American consumers and their ever changing tastes.

As for efficiency, defined as “the minimization of time as the optimal method for accomplishing a task”, in fast fashion, many of the clothing articles and accessories are being created in large factories overseas where products are quickly churned out by either machines or large staffs of workers (Boundless, 2016). This mechanization of goods production allows companies such as Forever 21, H&M, and Charlotte Russe to be able to keep up with trends and get products on the shelf as quickly as possible; sometimes and literally days after a runway show will feature its new trends for the season. The second component, calculability or “the quantifiable objectives of fast-food chains, seeing quantity as quality” can also apply to the fast fashion industry (Boundless, 2016). Similar to the point I made before in reference to the last component, the fast fashion industry is all about churning out goods in mass quantities. They do not care if the machines they use make the stitching on shirts and dresses produce weak and short lasting because the consumer buying these sorts of goods is more concerned with their immediate needs. For the industry, it is more important that they make as much as possible so more consumers can buy more product. I’m sure they also make poor quality clothing too so consumers come back to just buy a replacement a month later.

The third component, predictability, seen through a company or industry being able to provide “the same service and the same product every time they interact” can also apply to fast fashion (Boundless, 2016). Yes, for the most part, the exact clothing piece is not going to be the same style and design each time, which is expected in the fast fashion industry, but consumers know going into these stores exactly what they are going to get. They know that they are buying cheap, fashionable/trendy clothing, that is most likely not going to last a couple washes in the washing machine. In a more literal comparison, you could also argue that many of these fast fashion stores are also known for their basics (i.e. in women’s clothing, solid colored, polyester tank tops, t shirts, jeans). Consumers depend on these brands for carrying wardrobe staples time and time again. Every now and then, a consumer may get lucky and may purchase a well-made piece, but ultimately, they have a set expectation for the worst quality of the product they could be buying.

Lastly, for the last component, control, or “employees become standardized and replaced by non-human technologies” (Boundless, 2016). This component varies from brand to brand depending on how they chose to manufacture their goods, but it can be strongly agreed upon that most of the fast fashion clothing articles or even the textiles they are created from are made by machines and rarely by humans and even more rarely within the United States. Companies will easily outsource their manufacturing to countries that can provide cheap (and even inhumane and unethical) labor. Stepping away from the manufacturing side of fast fashion, you could also mention that fast fashion companies are starting to “control” the customer service sides of things. Automated responses and systems are used to deal with the large quantities of consumers flocking in with questions to the company as well I am sure

The definition of irrationality of rationality, or “the fifth aspect of McDonalization”, being “they deny the basic humanity… of the people who work within or are served by them” completely sums up the sad reality of the fast fashion industry as well (Boundless, 2016). The fast fashion industry has taken away all artistry associated with the beautiful world of garments and fashion and design that can be associated with Haute Couture and even high fashion. It strips away the creativity and creates a consumer monster machine. It has created an industry built on the dehumanization and unfair treatment of laborers, “low quality work”, and awful working conditions. It is completely an all for profit business with no one’s best interests at hand except for the top tier of the company profiting from it.