fashionmarketing

Small parts to preserve the environment

/ Leave a Comment

Are fashion brands really doing enough?

According to some news, top luxury fashion brands and other popular ones do their small parts to preserve the environment. And, following their reasoning, these “small parts” are enough to make a big difference. But is it true?

Fashion industry & climate change

It is proven that human actions have caused climate change. Also, we know that fashion is a big polluting industry which discards tons of waste everywhere. So, we wonder, what are they trying to say with these pieces of news? How do these messages translate into facts? Are they really making a positive impact?

For instance, in the context of brands doing their small part for a lower-impact fashion industry, a newsletter said that Dior launched a pair of recyclable sneakers. So, they say, the brand is doing its part for climate change. But, for a juggernaut, is this single move enough to preserve our planet?

In today’s world, it’s a common concern whether the sustainability efforts made by corporations are genuine or just a form of greenwashing. Some argue that any small step taken towards sustainability can bring about a positive change. But that could probably work decades ago. At this moment, the situation has gotten so much worse that this news seems ridiculous.

In the face of a climate emergency, forget small steps – we need radical change!

Marketing: The realm of greenwashing

In fact, we agree with those who believe such efforts are simply a PR tactic without any significant systemic change. These news are part of fashion marketing plans, which should be labelled as greenwashing.

Corporations or brands of any size set up their marketing plans and release that kind of information, which has no basis. Magazines, fashion journalists or influencers get paid to share the great news. Hey, it’s business in the end! Who cares if it’s misleading?
The point is that most people take that kind of news for granted. So, whoever shares them is complicit in promoting greenwashing.

Now, please tell us, do you think brands make a big difference by doing their small parts to preserve the environment? Do you really believe it?

Comment here below or WhatsApp directly from here!

Net zero fashion

/ Leave a Comment

Greenwashing from the top down

Net zero fashion is one of the latest buzzwords in sustainability. But can we trust those who promote their garments with this label?

We know that green eco-whatever labels have flooded the fashion industry, like any other activity related to selling products or services. The food industry was probably the first to launch organic products, which, by itself, means nothing. See the video here. Also, according to Fondazione Veronesi, the differences between organic and non-organic food are few and negligible. 

After the food industry, it was time for fashion, furniture and now, sustainable tourism, all of which sound like enormous bullshit.

Net zero fashion according to the UN

Take the UN playbook on “Sustainable Fashion Communication.” Though the basic principle, fighting overconsumption, is valuable, we didn’t like the fact they mention some fashion brands. It seems like they take for granted that these brands are doing great work in terms of sustainability while they are perfectly aware that there is zero control!

For instance, the UN playbook mentions Allbirds. 
“Footwear brand Allbirds developed a life cycle assessment (LCA) tool to estimate the cradle-to-grave carbon footprint of its products.”
“Allbirds then took it a step further in 2023 announcing what it refers to as the world’s first net zero carbon shoe.”
At some point, a line that says: “According to the company’s assessment, on average, a pair of Allbirds shoes has a footprint of 7.12 kg CO2e.”

That “according to the company” sounds really weird! Even more, coming from the UN! They better avoid mentioning any fashion brand…

Net zero fashion according to Business of Fashion

By the way, a few days later, a newsletter from the Business of Fashion got our attention. It was about Allbirds and the launch of their new sneakers. We quote B.O.F:

“By focusing on materials that draw down more carbon than they emit and lowering transport and manufacturing impact as much as possible, the brand says it has succeeded in designing ‘the world’s first net zero-carbon shoe.’ But the basis of such calculations for the industry is fraught. Fashion’s environmental impact data is notoriously poor and accepted standards for carbon accounting are still evolving, meaning net-zero product claims are testing new ground.”

Net zero according to science

So what? The UN released the playbook to help spread sustainable fashion communication, but they did not do a great job. It seems like they are greenwashing from the top down.

Since there is no control, it is not serious to mention fashion brands at all. Also, since the UN says “lead with science” – on this point, we totally agree! So, here is what the climate scientist Kevin Anderson says about net zero:

“Net Zero is a real dangerous turn in my view, and if you hear the language of net zero, I’d be very cautious about the optimism of the person who’s saying it actually has. Unpick it, reveal what’s behind it, and you’ll realise what they mean, and what they mean is NOT zero emissions, not net zero, not zero emissions. 
I always say ‘net zero’ is Latin for ‘kick the can down the road.”

Kevin Anderson

Lead with science UN, and reveal what’s behind net zero fashion!

UN against overconsumption

/ Leave a Comment

Fashion marketers as the key to a new narrative

The UN says fashion needs to stop promoting overconsumption. Indeed, we are perfectly aligned since we focused more on this evolved path, about four years ago. Though a selection of pieces to wear for a lifetime has always been part of our viewpoint.
Specifically, the UN Environment Programme and UN climate change have just released new recommendations for those who work in fashion marketing and communication.

“We are draining humanity’s lifeblood through vampiric overconsumption and unsustainable use, and evaporating it through global heating,” said U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. (source)

UN against overconsumption: a systemic issue

According to the UN, mass consumption is a systemic issue. So, they identify marketing as the key to fostering cultural change. That is how: leading consumers to change consumption rates, increasing consumer knowledge and shifting consumer behaviours. The idea is to tackle misinformation and greenwashing through science-based communication and transparency.

Although we agree with the idea of fighting overconsumption and overproduction, we are afraid that many of the words suggested in the playbook are buzzwords hiding greenwashing.
Marketing is an ensemble of activities finalised to sell products or services. So far, fashion marketing has contributed to creating confusion through deliberate operations. It isn’t likely that corporations are ready to leave behind their growth pattern. Ethics over money sounds weird from a capitalistic view.

Fashion industry: overproduction & overconsumption

Overproduction and overconsumption are two faces of the same coin, capitalism. In other words, a vicious and exploitative economic system which triggers toxic behaviours.

Overproduction leads to overconsumption: this point was clear to us. So, as a fashion retailer, about four years ago, we thought it made sense to reduce the quantity of clothing we ordered each season dramatically. That allowed us to avoid overstock and end-of-season sales while promoting a reduction of consumption based on fewer products but good quality. And so, a timeless selection of non-trend-based garments with great design value.
Also, getting familiar with the concept of degrowth as an effective strategy to drive change, we trust our choice was valuable.

However, it’s not enough, and we need to do more. But it’s complicated to work since most fashion industry players still promote growth, perhaps hiding it behind traceability QR Codes. Now they call it green growth. Which, as clearly explained in Kevin Anderson’s video, is meaningless. It leads nowhere.

Furthermore, it’s hard to find solutions when consumers shop from retailers who still work on an overproduction basis. How can these retailers stop promoting overconsumption with shops full to the brim of clothes?

Most importantly, does the UN leave the fight against overconsumption to the good heart of marketers? Of course, fashion marketing is part of the problem. And an ethical approach could work. But expecting redemption without regulations and strict controls in a rotten system seems a bit naive.

Pharre-Well fashion designers!

/ Leave a Comment

Paris Men’s Fashion Week: Pharrell Williams debuts for Louis Vuitton

Fashion crowds, say Pharre-Well to fashion designers, and welcome to marketing!
During the Paris Men’s Fashion Week, Pharrell Williams presented his first release for Louis Vuitton. A big marketing show after which every fashion designer can quit their job. The fashion industry doesn’t need you anymore.

Pharre-Well & the rappers show!

The runway was all about creating the hype, though some titled he brought a gentle revolution in fashion. Wait, did you see anything new? So revolutionary? Really? It seemed like an ’80s flashback.
In fact, he brought up nothing in terms of design, zero new elements. Specifically, he collected all the rap imagery, threw it in a washing machine, and so he got the mix. The show, as well as the guests’ outfits, was a celebration of black culture and hip-hop, which is now the hook to attract masses of kids who want to look like their favourite idols from the star system. Indeed, that’s what the runway was. A show, a big parade of stars. Not fashion, nor an example of good design. And not even a gentle revolution, please!

Fashion & representation

Although it is perfectly understandable that centuries of white dominance in every field made many people feel unrepresented, it is unclear why historic fashion Maisons believe they should shift to a universe that does not belong to them.
Of course, one thing is the history, image, and tradition of a Maison. Another thing is what people, meaning the final customers, want to do with the clothes or accessories they purchase. So, the style they create by mixing them.

Fashion marketing

But does it make sense to take down Vuitton’s heritage? And is expanding the business a good reason to demolish brands’ heritage? How can loyal clients trust them? Sadly, LVMH’s strategy recalls what Alessandro Michele did with Gucci. When the market got oversaturated with pointless stuff, they realised maybe it was a mistake. Afterwards, brands can attempt to reverse this strategy, but they lose credibility.
Besides, it says a lot about what the fashion industry wants: growth! Which now, they like to call green growth. That is what corporations hide behind the facade, preserving their overproduction pattern.

Pharre-Well fashion designers!

However, the point is that being a fashion designer nowadays is really frustrating. After this LVMH move, we can celebrate the end of the fashion designer! A professional figure that needed specific skills and a creative vein now only takes big popularity!

So, Pharre-Well fashion designers out there! Adieu!

Fashion experts vs sustainable brands

/ Leave a Comment

Spring-Summer 24 fashion exhibitions


With Spring-Summer 24 selling season-opening, fashion experts are meeting sustainable brands. And so, we received invitations for panels and fashion events, aiming to facilitate the shift towards eco-conscious products. But the ultimate goal isn’t sustainability. It never is so. 

Unfortunately, brands that have an idea of what sustainability is, aren’t understood by fashion buyers and showrooms. Indeed, both industry players had the same comments, which seems weird and leaves little hope for specific brands to find a market that would sustain their business in an evolved fashion panorama. But fundamentally, these comments say a lot about what sustainability represents in the fashion industry.

Fashion experts’ remarks on sustainable brands

We’ll guide you through some opinions we heard about these new brands:
1- Is this clothing collection sustainable?
2- This collection is too small. Why just a few pieces?
3- It’s expensive! Prices are too high. We want the same clothes at a much lower price.

Now the responses we would love to give, point after point and face to face, to the fashion experts:
To the very first question everyone asks when approaching a booth: is it sustainable? 
What do you mean? Can’t you understand it from the size of the collection, style choice, quality and materials? Do you need a tag stating if a garment is eco-conscious? 

The second one: your collection is too small! 
Guess what! Capsule collections should be the way out from decades of racks packed with new items! The way out from overproduction! Isn’t a capsule collection more sustainable? It seems showrooms and buyers still need endless items, fabrics and colour options, which is the opposite of sustainable fashion.

Then comes the third request, which makes you understand these experts have no idea what they say: it’s expensive! We want this dress, but cheaper. Well, sustainable materials are expensive! And if that designer makes a specific dress in a much cheaper material, it wouldn’t make sense. 

And so, the last request takes us back to the first: is it sustainable? 
Why do you ask? What do you expect from sustainable brands if you ask for much cheaper materials?

Is sustainability the goal?

Dear fashion experts, buyers and showrooms, are you sure you want sustainable fashion brands? Do you know what sustainable means? It seems your ideas are confused, indeed. And perhaps those panel discussions have a different goal. 

In fact, it sounds like your interest in sustainability stops at justifying your presence on the market.

Sustainable fashion brands

/ Leave a Comment

What you need to know

Let’s face it: 90% of sustainable fashion brands would be sustainable for real if they stopped doing their collections.
Do you care about the planet? If you do, it must be clear that trillions of self-appointed “sustainable brands” that have oversaturated the market aren’t sustainable. Indeed, we came to this conclusion after years of visiting fashion exhibitions and showrooms, checking out lookbooks, and corporate and online communication.

Of course, sustainable practices must be embedded in the designing process and production chains. Most importantly, fashion degrowth must be planned to reduce the massive impact of the industry on the environment. But the point is that attention has shifted from clothing to too many words and much storytelling. And everything is about that: words and empty slogans. Why? Because these designers have nothing to say. Their design means nothing. Therefore, marketing gives these “sustainable brands” a reason to exist and an opportunity to do business.

Top brands vs sustainable brands

In the fashion universe, megabrands communication is all about sustainability. But we avoid listing all top brands’ sustainable activities we read daily because it gets embarrassing, if not unnerving. Then, we find designers and many new brands, who make a lot of noise talking about sustainable fashion, but in practice, they lose sight of their job. And what is their job? Making clothes, meaningful garments, and pieces worth buying in case people need something new.

Niche fashion #formodernhumans

But, in our fashion research, a tiny niche focused on its job has emerged. Here we can find those brands that offer intrinsic value in their design, beautiful pieces presented in a contemporary key. Also featuring refined details, quality fabrics and impeccable tailoring. Brands with a unique sense of style, a timeless aesthetic, edgy and always fashion forward, but absolutely far from mass production. Indeed, they let their design speak.
And so, without too many words, but through the value of their work, they show us sustainability almost achieved in practice.

In fact, designers part of the blah-blah-blah sustainable fashion brands bubble would better serve their cause and do a favour to the planet if they didn’t do their collections.

Sustainability is ridiculous

/ Leave a Comment

Why playing this shell game should be banned


Sustainability is ridiculous. Not because the concept per se is stupid or does not make sense. But because it is too broad, too vague, and, therefore, deceptive. 

Sustainable fashion? This is greenwashing

Sometimes for ignorance or superficiality, yet in most cases, with intentionality, as those who play the sustainable game are perfectly aware of what they do. But, in the end, sustainability is just a new way to make money by showing a green facade. The industry, which goes from consultancy to fashion brand retail to NGOs, is flourishing. As a matter of fact, industry players spend time on “eco – green – conscious” labels, but it seems they are playing a shell game. The purpose is to hide and manipulate truths. 

In most cases, the effort is all about running after the latest eco-friendly label. But is it enough to achieve sustainability? It is the case of Chloé, for instance. Richemont hired Gabriela Hearst for her eco credentials, and now, three years later, the designer is exiting the company. Though they say revenue increased by 60%, their design is far away from the beauty of the past. 

Why sustainability is ridiculous

However, we have some doubts about the strategy Chloé has promoted so far. How can a luxury brand based on seasonal trends manage its business without damaging the planet? We wonder how fashion brands that shift to a purpose-driven business can be credible if they still run their activity on an overproduction pattern. Also, they attain the status of B-Corp. Most importantly, we wonder how B-Corp certification can combine with overproduction.
That seems contradictory. In fact, in this context, sustainability is ridiculous.

Specifically, we wonder if a drastic reduction of supply by offering only beautiful design garments made with “sustainable materials” and respecting the production chain would be an effective strategy.

But, of course, we understand that manipulating reality with the effect of fueling overconsumption is the most effective way to make money. So keep up promoting a green world!

The elephant in the room

/ Leave a Comment

Overproduction & why the fashion system ignores it

The elephant in the room is a bulky presence that fills every physical space. A dominant companion whose effect we can see in every corner of the planet. The thing is, everyone ignores it, hides it, or pretends not to see it. 

But can the fashion industry make change without addressing its elephant in the room? 

Fashion industry: what is the elephant in the room?

It’s overproduction! An enormous, visible, tangible and destructive elephant. Is the industry aware of it? Fashion insiders, CEOs, fashion designers? And the group of all the new “sustainable labels”? And what about those who promote corporate change? Of course, they are aware. But they still put profit first, not the planet. Even new companies born to spread sustainable messages do not renounce the overproduction/overconsumption pattern. In fact, some deemed changing that system would be too radical, and bosses wouldn’t accept it.

But is it plausible to talk about sustainability regardless of overproduction? No! Of course, not! 

To make it more clear: can brands overproducing goods be sustainable? No, they can’t! It seems obvious!

So, why does every single brand involved in this overproduction system promote its sustainable practices? Marketing is the answer: the purpose is, selling more, feeding the system and their pockets.
And marketing takes the shape of greenwashing or social washing in order to show a clean face engaging with people. 

Specifically, are top brands and new green companies bringing real innovation? Are they doing the right thing with their sustainable marketing strategies? No, they simply found a new way, an updated way, to make money!

And so, in the end, it all boils down to this point: can the fashion industry attempt to make a change without addressing the elephant in the room? No! Of course, not! Indeed, the industry is far from changing for the better.

Cultural change

/ Leave a Comment

Between utopia and feasibility

Are we ready for cultural change? The real one, we mean. When it comes to sustainability, do we believe in all the marketing bullshit that flooded communication lately? Or are we open to change for real? Ready to pick this opportunity up and make something better beyond the facades? 

People are bombarded with deceiving information: 
“We are sustainable because we recycle garments!”
“We use milk, coconut or whatever fibres.” 
“Hey, we have a conscious section in our store!”
“There’s a sustainable selection on our e-shop.”
“And we are the ones who do it best because we plant trees!”

Forget all that! Even the ‘plant a tree’ claim is proven misleading. Indeed, all these messages have the sole purpose of making people over-consume. As a matter of fact, not a single company has changed their overproduction pattern.

On the one hand, this is marketing, what brands need to say in order to show a clean face. But, on the other, we can find alternative reports and explorations that dig the truth out. Are we open to reading those reports? Understand how things really are? And, therefore, start questioning? 

Of course, sustainability is a path to pursue with conviction and self-commitment, despite all the difficulties, misleading messages, and smoke and mirrors. 

But is the effort worth it? Or, as many people with whom we exchange thoughts tell us, sustainability is just one of those beautiful utopias! To sell, one must think only of selling more. That is what companies have to do. And people, for their part, have to buy whatever product. 

So, in the context of trade, specifically in the fashion field, is sustainability a utopia or is it feasible? What’s your viewpoint on this?

Are you open to cultural change? We would love to hear your thoughts. 
Drop us an email, WhatsApp, or comment here below!

Carbon neutral: plant a tree?

/ Leave a Comment

Offsetting carbon emissions: why it is misleading

The carbon neutral definition may induce people to think that a brand that claims this practice is sustainable. But, planting trees isn’t enough to solve the climate change issue.

Indeed, it’s always interesting to read how the fashion industry is involved in sustainable practices. Which, now, we can place under the umbrella of corporate change. We get itchy just thinking about it! There is no company that doesn’t talk about its eco-friendly policies. The bigger they are, the more they blurt out promises they cannot keep.

Sustainable brands

According to the Circular Fashion Index 2023, Gucci is the most sustainable among luxury brands. Kearny, a strategic consultancy company that analyses the impact of the circularity of brands, operates this ranking. They rank fast fashion brands, too! So, fast fashion has sustainable practices – really?

We feel a little disappointed when agencies release these rankings because of the misleading impact. In fact, we think industries use the word sustainable too much. After checking out those rankings, our question is: how can brands structured on an overproduction model be sustainable?

Carbon neutral or greenwashing?

But, while some magazines posted the list of the most sustainable brands or sustainable mega entities, The Guardian released an article that dampens enthusiasm. 

“Adverts that claim products are carbon neutral using offsets are to be banned by the UK’s advertising watchdog unless companies can prove they really work, the Guardian can reveal, as Gucci becomes the latest company to struggle with a high-profile environmental commitment based on offsetting.
Amid growing concern that firms are misleading consumers about the environmental impact of their products, the Advertising Standards Authority’s (ASA) is to begin stricter enforcement around the use of terms such as “carbon neutral”, “net zero” and “nature positive” as part of a greenwashing crackdown later this year after a six-month review.”

The Guardian

Offset CO2 emissions: what does it mean? 

Offsetting CO2 emissions means balancing the amount of CO generated by any activity through reforestation, parks and natural reserves protection. These projects generate carbon credits.

“In January, a joint Guardian investigation found that many rainforest offsets certified by Verra, which operates the world’s leading carbon standard, had little impact despite being widely used by major companies for environmental claims, also finding evidence of forced evictions at a flagship project in Peru used by Disney and Apple.”

The Guardian

Specifically, The Guardian revealed that more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by the biggest certifier are worthless!
Therefore, planting trees isn’t helping with climate change.

When big brands, corporations and millionaires talk about sustainability and carbon emissions, always be careful. They are the problem. And if they want to be part of the solution, they must change their overproduction model and lifestyle first. 

Changing marketing isn’t enough. Carbon-neutral and sustainable claims are just smoke and mirrors.