The Economics of Fast Fashion — Reading

Passage

A For most of the twentieth century, clothing retailers worked to two seasons. Designs were settled roughly a year in advance, manufactured in bulk and sold until they ran out or were discounted. The model that displaced this was built not on cheaper garments — those had existed for decades — but on speed. Spanish retailer Zara demonstrated in the 1990s that a design could move from sketch to shop floor in a fortnight, and that responding to what customers were actually buying beat predicting it. The number of collections a large chain issues each year rose from two to something between twelve and twenty-four. B Speed changes the economics in a way that is easy to miss. A retailer that can restock in weeks rather than months carries less inventory, discounts less, and is wrong less expensively. The competitive advantage is in logistics rather than design, and much of it lies in deliberately keeping some production close to home despite higher labour costs, because proximity buys response time. Zara's Spanish and Moroccan factories exist for that reason, not for sentiment. C For the buyer the arithmetic is genuinely attractive, at least initially. Clothing has fallen in real price for decades while household spending on it has stayed roughly constant, which means people acquire far more garments for the same money. Estimates suggest the average garment is now worn considerably fewer times before disposal than in the early 2000s. Whether that represents better value depends on whether one counts garments acquired or wear obtained, and the two measures point in opposite directions. D The environmental accounting is contested in its details but not in its direction. Textile production is water- and chemical-intensive; polyester, now the majority fibre, is petroleum-derived and sheds microplastic fibres in every wash. The figures most often quoted — that fashion produces eight to ten per cent of global carbon emissions — trace to industry reports whose methods have been criticised, and more careful estimates put the share lower. This does not make the problem small. It means the confident number in circulation is less solid than its repetition suggests. E Disposal is where the model's costs become most visible. Only a small fraction of collected clothing is recycled into new clothing, because blended fabrics are extremely difficult to separate into usable fibres. Most is downcycled into insulation or rags, incinerated, or exported. The second-hand trade to West Africa and South America genuinely clothes people, and also delivers volumes that local markets cannot absorb, with the remainder accumulating in landfill and waterways in countries that did not consume the garments. F Regulation has begun to move, slowly and mostly in Europe. France requires disposal labelling and has banned the destruction of unsold goods. The European Union has adopted rules on textile durability and repairability and is extending producer responsibility so that brands fund collection of what they sell. Whether such measures reshape the industry or become a compliance cost passed to consumers is not yet clear, and the honest answer is that nobody knows. G The underlying tension is that the model works precisely because it is fast, and every proposed remedy involves slowing something down: fewer collections, longer-lasting garments, repair rather than replacement. None of these is compatible with a business built on the assumption that a customer who visits weekly will find something new each time. That is a harder problem than any individual material or process, because it is the model itself rather than a defect in it. H Resale and rental platforms have grown rapidly on the promise of extending garment lifespans without asking consumers to buy less, and the evidence on whether they actually achieve this is more ambiguous than their marketing suggests. Peer-to-peer resale apps do keep a portion of clothing in circulation longer than it would otherwise remain, which is a genuine environmental benefit. But several studies of resale behaviour have found a substitution effect running in the wrong direction: rather than replacing new purchases, resale income and the novelty of browsing a resale marketplace appear in some cases to fund and encourage additional buying, new or secondhand, that would not otherwise have happened — a phenomenon researchers term the rebound effect, well documented in other areas of sustainable consumption. Clothing rental subscriptions face a related problem from a different angle: the environmental cost of cleaning and shipping a garment between renters repeatedly can, over enough cycles, approach or exceed the footprint of manufacturing the garment in the first place, depending on how it is laundered and transported. None of this means resale and rental are worthless; it means their environmental case is more conditional, and less straightforwardly positive, than the platforms built on them tend to present it.

বাংলা অনুবাদ জমা দেওয়ার পর দেখা যাবে — আগে ইংরেজিতে বোঝার চেষ্টা করুন।