Why Molly-Mae Hague needs to learn about the disabled and chronically ill’s notion of crip time – Screen Shot

Last month, British MPs rejected plans for a 1p per garment fashion tax albeit our climate crisis. At the same time, a Missguided 1 bikini appeared on the marketsomething that should be beyond concerning for everyone. The U.K. has the highest consumption of fast fashion in the whole of Europe, with over a million tonnes of clothing ending up in landfills each year. So how much power do we as consumers really have when it comes to sustainability and why is this discussion still going on?

The swimsuit sold out promptly, with 1,000 bikinis dropping everyday on the brands website, which further raises the question of how it is possible to produce and retail an entire set for just 1, free delivery included. Missguided presented an official statement claiming the production cost was of a higher value to the retail cost, and that the bikini was a gift to their customers, in the name of empowering women to look and feel good without breaking the bank. Interestingly enough, 78 percent of the brands employees are female, yet, they are a 46 percent median wage gap between men and women. The brand excuses itself on its website by claiming that this is due to having more women than men in lower paid positions, and fewer in higher ones. The lower paid positions include the factory ones, where workers often make as little as 3.50 an hourcontrasting with the U.K.s minimum wage of 7.83 for over 25s.

Despite being one of the U.K.s leading retail brands, according to the statistics conducted by the House of Commons, Missguided is also the least environmentally friendly, rejecting the use of recycled or organic materials in their products, clearly avoiding the Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC) programme as well as the sustainable clothing action plan. The government has the most power when it comes to regulating fast fashion, and yet, British MPs have rejected numerous regulations on the industry.

Many of these dismissals include the 1p per item tax to raise 35 million for clothing collection and sorting, the ban on incinerating or landfilling unsold stock, and even making a law requiring brands to publically release a modern slavery statement. In addition to this, the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) has also urged to put lessons on designing, creating and repairing clothing into the school curriculum, as a means to end the era of disposable clothing as well as for the MPs to explore a sharing economy in which hiring and swapping would replace purchasing. The failure to implement these rules and regulations results in the continuation of unsustainable, disposable mass production, which ultimately affects the environmental crisis even further.

Marketing alone has so much power in influencing what the consumer chooses to buy, and fast fashion brands know this. The infamous swimsuit was advertised by last years Love Island contestant Ellie Brown, and being the official fashion sponsor of Love Island 2018, Missguided saw a 40 percent increase in sales. This year, another fast fashion brand, I Saw It First, secured a spot as the shows official fashion partner, spending around 2 million on the partnership. With over 4.2 million viewers of Love Islands first episode alone (57 percent appear to be 16-34 years old) the show has the ability to reach a huge number of potential consumers, and yet, it still decides to go for unethical brands.

Similarly, Emily Ratajkowski has recently launched a collection with Boohoo owned Nasty Gal, a brand known to be criticised for their mistreatment of workers while Kylie Jenner advertises for knock-off brand Fashion Nova via her Instagram with over 139.5 million followers. Celebrities and influencers make a conscious choice to promote these brands and in an age where Instagram seems to dictate all new trends, the choices they make allow us to feel a sense of relatability that we, too, can afford to dress like one of the Jenners. Although there is nothing wrong with that idea, influencers should also make a deliberate choice to promote more sustainable alternatives to their followers.

While it is the consumer who creates a demand for fast fashion, its unfair to entirely blame the consumer for the harmful environmental impacts or unethical working conditions of the industry. Of course, its true that spending 1 on a bikini could seem immensely appealing, but it is important to consider not only the impact this product will have on our planet, but also how the people who made it are affected by such low prices.

Affordable clothing is not only appealing but is essential too, and we consumers can help so much by simply buying less, shopping vintage or seeking other sustainable alternatives. Until the government or the brands alone begin regulating their carbon footprint, perhaps those with a platform should consider twice before encouraging impulse buying. Just putting it out there. In addition, Missguided has now changed the price of the bikini from 1 to 5a feeble attempt at clearing their conscience or is selling a swimsuit for a literal pound not making enough profit? Either way, nice try.

Go here to read the rest:

Why Molly-Mae Hague needs to learn about the disabled and chronically ill's notion of crip time - Screen Shot