Category: Environmental Issues

Considering the current state of the environment, we have to admit that it is man and his activities that have caused what it is currently suffering. The three main human activities that have had the most negative impact on the environment are the invention of plastic, deforestation, and the destruction of freshwater supplies.

The invention of plastic is the most problematic pollution problem. Plastic is a commonly used material for making things because plastic can change its shape easily. Plastic waste is everywhere on the Earth, even in the oceans, and these plastics remain in the environment for 1000 years. These days, the world is producing almost 300 million tons of plastics in a year, and 20% to 40% of these plastics wind up in landfills, while 10 to 20 million tons are thrown away in the ocean. Besides, there are chemicals present in plastic. The trashed plastics in the ocean release chemicals, affecting the organs of marine animals. They can also cause rapid cell division which results in cancers. A lot of marine animals have died after consuming a large number of plastics. A dead whale found on the coast of Scotland in June 2017 had consumed 9 pounds of plastics, and this was causing a block in its digestive system. To make this problem worse, more than 4000 cases of fish with plastics in their bodies are found worldwide.

Deforestation is the removal, clearing, or destruction of a forest or a stand of trees for many reasons: land for building, farming, plantation, pasture for life stock, or sold as fuel. Deforestation can happen in the rainforest or any area densely populated by trees and other plant life. Mostly 31% of the Earth’s land is covered by forests. Deforestation can lead to the loss of habitat of animals, increased greenhouse gases, desertification, soil erosion, and floods. The loss of habitat of the animals is one of the dangerous and unsettling effects of deforestation. The trees of the rainforest can provide shelter for some species of animals, which can help to regulate the animal’s body temperature. In addition to the loss of habitat, a decreased number of trees will increase the amount of greenhouse gas released into the atmosphere. Desertification means the process of land degradation in areas that results in dryland and fragile ecosystems. Then farming becomes almost impossible because the area became desert and the crops can’t grow well, so because of this reason many farmers sell and leave their land. Soil erosion is the washing or blowing away by water or wind of the top layer of the soil known as dirt. If the soil has eroded, the crops that make food will not grow well. Soil erosion also leaves a large hole in the ground that can weaken or collapse the structure of buildings. A flood means overflowing water on the ground due to an overflowing river, a dam break, or heavy rainfall. In an area without plant life, a flood is a lot more eminent because there is nothing to stop water from gathering and going all over places.

A lot of human activities have destroyed fresh water supplies such as streams, rivers, and aquifers. Intensive farming is the most influencing cause because of the large number of agrochemicals, herbicides, chemical fertilizers, and other harmful substances that find their way into waterways. The invention of man-made dams and water diversion for irrigation or during infrastructural construction has also made the natural flow of water in rivers and streams inefficient. Then these particles gradually destroy the freshwater. Increased contamination in lakes makes it difficult for some species to survive.

The question arises, how can we help the environment? Firstly, recycling is one of the possible solutions. Recycling is using up scrap or waste material in a useful way. In other words, recycling is the process of changing waste and non-useful materials into new and useful materials. Recycling the material would produce a fresh supply of the same material without losing the purity of the product. Recycling is an important element of reducing waste and it’s the 3rd component of the ‘Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle’. Using a reusable beverage container also can help to improve the environment. Instead of buying individually-packaged drinks, consider buying a bulk container of the beverage you want and buying a reusable water bottle. Not only will this help the environment, but it will also help you save money. Moreover, we can use energy-efficient light bulbs instead of regular bulbs. They last longer, which will save a bit of money. It is important to turn off the lights, TV, and other appliances when we are not using them. As well as lower the air conditioning or heat when it’s not being used. Water is wasted more frequently than we can see. So, we need to turn off the faucet while brushing our teeth, don’t turn the shower on until we’re ready to get in and wash our hair, and limit our water usage as we wash dishes. And finally, since cars are harmful to the environment, we should use public transport, walk or ride a bike more. Carpool is also a good decision.

Summing up, the invention of plastics, deforestation, and destroying freshwater supplies are human activities that affect the environment. Recycling, using a reusable beverage container, using energy-efficient light bulbs, saving water, and carpool are examples of possible solutions for the environment. The Earth is our home, it’s where we live, so we should take better care of it. For sure we could be a better people if we help with small things for our home, this planet Earth is the only one that we have now. The more we don’t care about our environment, the more it will become polluted with contaminants and toxins that harm our health.

“It’s a definition that if it’s not renewable, it’s going to run out at some point” (Elon Musk). The inexpensive, concentrated, and portable nonrenewable energy stored in these remarkable compounds has long brought significant economic benefits. During the last couple of centuries, It has paved the way for previously inconceivable industrial advancement. So why not just keep burning fossil fuels? That is just not an option in the long run, for two reasons. The first is the ethical concern that pollution generated by the use of fossil fuels is altering the climate to such an extent that economic and ecological disasters may come during the lifespan of today’s children. The next cause for concern is that resource extraction has increased dramatically in recent years, resulting in resource depletion. The future of humanity is dependent on renewable energy, therefore it is undeniably moral to replace fossil fuels with sustainable renewable energy.

There has been a surge of interest in the subject of energy, particularly renewable energy, in recent years. This interest is not due to fast-rising energy prices on nonrenewable energy, especially oil, which remains abundant and relatively affordable. Rather, increased attention has been fueled by environmental concerns, particularly the usage of fossil fuels, which contributes significantly to acid rain and global warming. When fossil fuels are burned, significant volumes of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, are released into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases trap heat in our atmosphere, which contributes to global warming. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), emissions from fossil fuels are the primary driver of global warming. In 2018, fossil fuels and industry accounted for 89 percent of worldwide CO2 emissions. Renewable energy sources emit little to no greenhouse gases, aiding in the slowing of global warming and keeping the environment cleaner. Wind, solar, and hydroelectric technologies create electricity while emitting no pollutants into the atmosphere; hence, replacing fossil fuels with sustainable renewable energy is unquestionably ethical.

There are various advantages to using renewable energy sources for company and consumer needs, such as enhanced marketing potential, lower emissions, and lower energy costs. Renewable energy occupations are predicted to rise in the foreseeable future. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that demand for solar module installation will increase by 105 percent between 2016 and 2026, while demand for wind turbine service specialists will increase by 96 percent during the same period. As a result, these are the one and second fastest-growing jobs in the United States. Installing renewable energy technology in a home can dramatically boost its value. Solar panels improve the value of a home by about $20 for every dollar saved on energy expenses. Renewable energy systems are inexpensive to operate once installed. This is due in large part to the fact that they do not necessitate the purchase of fuel. Eliminating fuel expenditures lowers the cost of producing power. It also means that the price of electricity is not affected by changes in the price of fuels, as is the case with natural gas or coal. Renewable energy’s long-term economic worth is morally justifiable as a replacement for fossil fuels.

Renewable energy provides climate-safe solutions while simultaneously supporting a wide range of social benefits such as improved health and increased social inclusion. Reduced exposure to air and water pollution caused by fossil-fuel consumption results in human welfare. According to the US Department of Health, the expected increase in human well-being from renewables deployment is close to 4%, much beyond the 0.8 percent rate improvement as previously predicted. According to a Harvard study released in June, assuming the worst effects of climate change are avoided, 57,000 fewer Americans will die each year from poor air quality by the end of the century. According to research, adopting global action on climate change could benefit public health, which is morally justifiable.

Several researchers and policymakers, on the other hand, have argued that a ‘zero-carbon’ alternative post-industrial revolution, encompassing a transition to wind and solar-generated electricity, as well as pervasive advancements in energy efficiency, is not only feasible but desirable. Some critics of net zero carbon policies have gone so far as to claim that this objective is impractical and distracting from more pragmatic aims and could cause substantial financial damage. Even though environmental advocacy organizations and protest movements constantly promote these allegations, scientific research has invalidated such claims. Renewable energy is the fastest-growing energy source in the United States, with a 42 percent increase from 2010 to 2020. In 2020, renewables accounted for 29 percent of global electricity generation, with hydropower accounting for the majority of that. Businesses with sustainability ambitions are also stimulating renewable energy development by constructing their facilities, obtaining clean electricity through power purchase agreements, and acquiring renewable energy credits. As a result, the economy experiences growth and innovation. The United Nations Energy Agency remarked that the advancement and integration of renewable electricity innovations can be forecasted to keep growing at record levels, supporting infrastructure for the world to fulfill its net zero climate goals. It is socially responsible and morally correct to stimulate economic growth by giving people more job opportunities by replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy initiatives.

Environmental concerns, notably the use of fossil fuels, which contribute considerably to acid rain and global warming, have spurred the rising emphasis. The fact that resource extraction has expanded considerably in recent years is the reason for concern, as it has resulted in resource depletion and environmental degradation. Renewable energy is critical to humanity’s future, it is unquestionably necessary to replace fossil fuels with sustainable renewable energy. Replacing fossil fuels with sustainable renewable energy is indisputably ethical. Renewable energy has environmental, social, and economic advantages. As a result, renewable energy can assist in alleviating rural poverty and the welfare of individuals. Renewable energy systems emit virtually no emissions related to urban air pollution and acid deposition, without the need for costly extra controls. “A transition to clean energy is about investing in our future” (Gloria Reuben)

Language is the expression of our thoughts and perceptions of the world in which we live. Through language, we speak to other human beings about our surroundings and the events that occur within them. This powerful communication tool shares our ideas, values, and beliefs. It connects individuals to other individuals and larger communities where their feelings and opinions can potentially influence and change the feelings and opinions of others. Within the current scientific community, there is much contentious discussion about the language we use when discussing invasive species. An invasive species is defined as “a widespread non-native species that hurts a native ecosystem” (Mungi & Qureshi 2). Notice the two subjective terms in the definition: non-native and negative. The implication is that invasive species are bad. Frequently, terms that characterize invasive species are metaphorical. Metaphors are literary techniques that connect hard-to-understand, complex, and abstract ideas to simple, familiar, and easily understood ideas. For example, invasive species are characterized as “aggressive, uncontrollable, prolific, invasive, and expanding” (Subramaniam 30). These metaphors are associated with oncology and cancer and inspire thoughts that are unpleasant, dangerous, or deadly; thoughts which are then associated with invasive species. Additionally, terms that describe ways of dealing with invasive species are metaphorical. For example, “beachhead, battle, kill, eradicate, overrun, [and] explode” (Larson 495). These metaphors are associated with war and the military and inspire thoughts of destruction rather than management: thoughts which are then associated with invasive species. As challenging as these characterizations of invasive species are, broader ramifications regarding the discussion and perception of invasive species exist.

Currently, scientists have charged that not only language but the perception of an invasive species is xenophobic. This criticism arises from a feminist philosophy that proposes that nature and culture are interconnected. They theorize that a conception of nature is being affected by the political, economic, and cultural situations within which nature exists, and the “recent hyperbole” and “national rhetoric surrounding alien and exotic plants” are “in response to changing racial, economic, and gender norms in the country” (Subramaniam 28). An example of social anxiety regarding mass immigration can be found in this metaphorical definition of an invasive species. “A species that enters the country for the first time is called an ‘alien’ or an ‘exotic’ species: after an unspecified passage of time they are considered residents; after a greater unspecified passage of time they are considered naturalized species” (Subramaniam 27). Six xenophobic rhetorical parallels regarding immigrants and plants are proposed: aliens as the “other,” aliens are everywhere and taking over everything, aliens are growing in size and number, aliens are difficult to destroy and can withstand extreme conditions, aliens are aggressive and reproduce rapidly, and aliens are never going to leave (Subramaniam 29-30). The essential problem with xenophobic rhetoric is that it promotes poor science. Rather than researching all possibilities for degrading habitats and considering all possible solutions, invasive plants are blamed. “As long as exotic/alien plants know their rightful place as workers, laborers, providers, and controlled commodities, their positions are manipulated and controlled by natives, and their presence is tolerated. Once they are accused of unruly practices that prevent them from staying in their subservient place, they threaten the natural order of things” (Subramian 35). In contrast to humans, no specific plant is blamed, rather all invasive species are at fault. The reason this is a problem is because it affects how we manage invasive species and conduct conservation efforts. According to Larson, invasion biologists and conservation managers depend on rhetoric or militaristic language to provoke a response against invasive species. This is problematic for several reasons. First, invasive species are inaccurately perceived. When using military metaphors in discussions of invasive species we presuppose that they are our enemy and we are on opposing sides. It is more likely that human consumerism and global patterns of travel are responsible for invasive species arrival and our biological solutions will most likely be ineffective against a largely social issue. Second, militaristic language contributes to social misunderstanding, charges of xenophobia, and loss of scientific credibility. When using military metaphors, we imagine a successful outcome in which entire invasive species are eradicated. Should the expected outcome not occur, critics may question whether military tactics against environmental problems are a feasible solution or even if the environmental problems are problems at all. Additionally, militaristic language can be misperceived by many people. Although emotional and persuasive, it has a xenophobic quality. Indigenous people are offended because militaristic language diverts attention away from their historical environmental impacts. Restoration programs that have removed invasive species are perceived to have advantaged the upper and middle class, making invasion removal activities appear class-based. Lastly, militaristic language is emotional and may contribute to the public’s distrust of scientific objectivity. People depend on science for factual information to help them understand the problem and form an opinion or make a decision. Militaristic language implies a commitment to a specific action and may prompt questions regarding a scientist’s intentions. Third, militaristic metaphors are counterproductive to conservation. Militaristic language incites conflict between opposing sides. Scientists with alternative views may be reluctant or even refuse to collaborate in activities that promote restoration and conservation (Larson 496-97). To more fully understand the debate regarding invasive species and the use of xenophobic rhetoric, the thoughts of two prominent scientists will now be presented.

There appear to be two schools of thought regarding invasion science and the perception of non-native species and their effects: one which takes a conservation approach to non-native species and views them as a threat to ecosystems and one which takes a theoretical approach to non-native species and does not view them as particularly threatening or problematic. Mark Sagoff, a prominent critic of invasion science, is in the latter school of thought. Sagoff supports the viewpoints of Subramaniam regarding the use of xenophobic language to characterize non-native species and their effects. For example, “Those who seek funds to exclude or eradicate non-native species often attribute to them the same disreputable qualities that xenophobes have attributed to immigrant groups’ including fecundity, aggressiveness, and tolerance for degraded conditions” (Riccardi & Ryan 2732). Sagoff also supports the viewpoints of Larson regarding the use of xenophobic language to characterize non-native species and their effects. For instance, “Biologists have also written that exotic that exotic species pollute, harm, meltdown, disrupt, and destroy and degrade natural ecosystems” (Sagoff 228). Sagoff finds the current terminology in invasion science xenophobic. He does not believe the use of such rhetoric is justified primarily because there is a lack of empirical evidence regarding the effects of non-native species and because the vocabulary that refers to “aesthetic, moral, or spiritual judgments” (Sagoff 228) is not defined operationally and has no scientific meaning.

I. Introduction

Starting with a blank canvas, a significant business sector called the fashion industry generates 1.2$ trillion a year. Therefore, fast fashion is defined as buying clothes and wearing them at a specific time, and using them less [1]. Instead of every fashion season, new designs in stores are updated every few weeks. Even though in most developed countries people get rich and they prefer to buy new clothes every day for different occasions. Nowadays, fashion companies work hard to meet their demand and contribute to the success of their companies. Due to the concern about fast fashion these days, I will examine the effectiveness of solutions for this problem.

II. Problem

Fast fashion aimed is to increase profit by focusing on speed and lower prices. It might not follow the safety rules which endangers employees, so many people did not have an idea about what they are actually consuming. Factories are still determining if fast fashion can affect or cause health problems. According to the World Resources Institute study, apparel production can lead to emissions-intensive [2]. Hence, cotton production caused the environmental problem. It contains chemicals and pesticides that affect the environment negatively. In fact, one garbage truck of cloth is burned or landfilled every second. In addition, cotton production takes 713 gallons of water just to make one cotton shirt, and that meets the average of the person’s drinking needs for more than 2 years [3]. Moreover, clothing production has a societal impact. U. S. Department of Labor report has found in more than one country such as Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, and China evidence of child labor in the fashion industry. Since factories increase their profit, they do not care about human health or welfare.

III. Solution 1

One solution to this problem is to choose organic cotton and grow it without pesticides. An environment audit committee study shows that increasing organic cotton production could minimize environmental issues, as it helps to reduce the use of chemicals and pesticides [4]. Additionally, while using cotton production polluted and wastewater, some researchers have found that working only with smallholder farms in Africa, which are exclusively rain-fed will help conserve water [5]. Also, a modern solution is drip irrigation which drops by a drop of water might help reduce water usage. However, drip technology is highly cost. Since people see the huge numbers of the negative impact that affect the environment and human health, they strongly refuted clothes that require chemicals to be produced.

IV. Solution 2

Fast fashion is harmful and dangerous; it is not acceptable since the environment and human health is the most important to live a better life. Another solution to this problem is to buy less and wear more. As the fixing fashion report says: “The most sustainable garment is the one we already own.” [6]. According to WRAP valuing our clothes report 50% of UK clothing can be extending the active life, by nine months only it would save 10% water, 4% waste, and 8% carbon [6]. Although buying less is helpful, some people think that recycling their unwanted garments is better to save the planet.

V. Conclusion

Despite the fact that fast fashion has some advantages for fashion industries, it is affecting human health and causing environmental issues. Fast fashion is still used now and it might be used in the future. People should know more about fast fashion and get deep into how it might be a risk to people’s safety. They must see the ways it is done and how it affects human health. In addition, people should avoid consuming cotton products and go for buying organic cotton ones. Furthermore, governments should enforce penalties on any company that uses clothes without checking their safety by making sure that the clothes are made with stricter environmental regulations for factories to avoid environmental impact and diseases.

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

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.