But do consumers really know what these terms mean? With growing pressures from consumers and governments to meet sustainability goals, many companies have resorted to “greenwashing” to maintain customer support without investing in meaningful, impactful solutions.

What is Greenwashing?

According to the United Nations, greenwashing is defined as “misleading the public to believe that a company or other entity is doing more to protect the environment than it is.” This may involve making vague, misleading, or irrelevant claims, or in certain cases presenting completely false information about a brand’s sustainability performance. The practice of greenwashing has become far more common than consumers may realize, with a reported 53% of green claims being vague, misleading, or unfounded.

Greenwashing in the Fashion Industry

Greenwashing is prevalent in the fashion industry, a sector known to adversely affect the environment across its supply chain. With the growth in global demand for fast fashion, brands have adopted business models that incentivize overproduction of garments, intensive resource use, and environmental pollution. 

As consumers have become increasingly aware of these problems, they have demanded greater transparency and sustainability from fashion companies. However, instead of making necessary changes that address the environment, many brands turn to greenwashing to maintain customer support. An analysis by Truth in Advertising found that over the past decade, 9% of class action lawsuits against greenwashing have involved the clothing and textile industry.

Shein: EvoluShein or Exploitation?

Shein, the largest fast fashion brand in the United States and the largest online-only fast fashion retailer in the world, has been the subject of numerous greenwashing accusations. In April of 2022, Shein released their “EvoluShein” campaign. The brand touted its use of “green” and “recyclable” materials and claimed to support a circular economy. However, Shein faced a 1.16 million dollar fine from the Italian Competition Authority in August of 2025 as these claims were found to be misleading and overstated. This followed a 40 million euro fine just a month earlier by France’s competition regulation authority.

Additionally, critics have argued that Shein emphasizes insignificant or mandated sustainability improvements rather than addressing their business model and supply chain as a whole. A Yale Climate Connections article from 2024 notes Shein’s rapid garment production, with as many as 10,000 new designs being released every day. Their production goals are reportedly upheld through exploitative labor practices, environmental pollution, and a massive carbon footprint. Despite pledging to reduce emissions by 25% by 2030, Shein’s emissions doubled from 2022 to 2023 and rose 23.1% in 2024.

Zara: New Initiatives, Same Industry

Zara, a pioneer of the fast fashion industry, has also been criticized for greenwashing. In 2015, the brand began rolling out its “Join Life” labels, a sustainability initiative launched by its parent company, Inditex. These labels were ultimately removed from its products in 2023, as they were deemed “no longer necessary.” The product line was advertised for its use of “eco-friendly” materials, such as organic cotton, recycled polyester, and lyocell (wood pulp). Though select items may be made from more sustainable materials, like Shein, Zara is built upon an inherently unsustainable fast fashion business model.

In 2022, Zara introduced a “Pre-Owned” campaign, which claims to streamline clothing resale and repair. However, these types of programs only address the end of the life cycle, allowing the company to continue overproducing clothing. It also places responsibility on the consumer to initiate environmental solutions rather than addressing the corporation’s role in creating the problem in the first place.

H&M: Conscious Claims Under Criticism

Swedish fast fashion retailer H&M faced similar accusations surrounding its “Conscious Collection”. First launched in 2010, H&M’s Conscious collection advertised its use of materials like cotton, linen, recycled polyester, and lyocell. They have also released multiple limited “Conscious Exclusive” collections focused on innovating sustainable textile technology.

However, the brand phased out its Conscious marketing following a 2022 lawsuit and investigation surrounding the accuracy of their claims. A report published by Quartz found that H&M used environmental scorecards containing overstated and, in many cases, completely false claims about the brand’s sustainability. 

H&M has also implemented a clothing circularity program under the slogan “Let’s Close the Loop.” The garment collection service was introduced in 2013, and sorts returned clothing to be sold, reused, or recycled. Yet in 2023, an investigation by the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet found that some items brought to H&M to be recycled were ultimately lost or sold to third-party recycling companies. Instead of “closing the loop” as advertised, the garments traveled thousands of miles from where they started, contributing to the textile waste crises in Europe and the Global South. Even if the program worked as intended, like Zara, these solutions require consumers to address the clothing waste problem and do not sufficiently offset the massive scale of H&M’s manufacturing. 

What Needs to Change?

Overall, brands must increase their transparency in marketing campaigns to allow consumers to make informed decisions about their purchases. Some legislation is in place to regulate environmental claims, such as the “Green Guides” enforced by the US Federal Trade Commission, which are undergoing revisions for the first time since 2012. The UK Competition and Markets Authority has similar regulations in place through its “Green Claims Code”, and the EU has adopted the “Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition” directive. 

These policies provide a legal framework for ensuring that environmental claims are truthful, clear, and comprehensive. However, enforcing anti-greenwashing legislation remains difficult due to varying rules across states and countries, limited resources for monitoring, and a lack of consumer education. Enforcing legislation through consistent criteria and careful monitoring is key to keeping consumers informed and advancing meaningful sustainability initiatives.

How to Recognize Greenwashing

Though brands and corporations should be held accountable for honest marketing and reducing the environmental effects of manufacturing, consumers can also make an impact by learning what greenwashing “red flags” to look out for. Greenwashing has been broken down by COSH into “Seven Deadly Sins,” building on the “Six Sins” identified by TerraChoice in 2007 and the framework’s subsequent development into seven sins, as described by UL Solutions. These common tactics include:

• Vague terminology: using broad or undefined terms, such as “eco-friendly” and “all-natural”
• Hidden tradeoff: claiming sustainability based on a particular aspect of a product, to the exclusion of other significantly detrimental environmental impacts
• No proof: not providing evidence for a sustainability claim
• Irrelevance: emphasizing an environmental claim that is either irrelevant or legally required
• The lesser of two evils: comparing a product favorably to competitors while ignoring the environmental harm associated with the overall industry or product category
• Greenwashing by unsubstantiated affiliation: falsely implying third-party endorsements or certifications
• Fibbing: making false or deceptive environmental claims

In addition to pressuring brands for transparency, shoppers should do their own research to verify sustainability claims. Resources such as Good on You, B Corp, the FTC’s Green Guides, and the Ecolabel Index can be useful for assessing brand sustainability, ethics, and marketing accuracy. 

Check out EARTHDAY.ORG’s Fashion for the Earth campaign to learn what else you can do to combat environmental challenges caused by the fashion industry.

The post Greenwashing Fashion: How Brands Sell Sustainability appeared first on Earth Day.

As a member of the female community, I sometimes look at a closet full of clothes and still feel like I have nothing to wear. When I see a cute outfit online or in a store, I immediately picture myself wearing it. I imagine it for a party, a dinner, or a trip, and tell myself it will make me feel brand new, more confident, or simply more put-together. On hard days, I even justify it as a reward: “Life is not easy. I deserve one new thing.”

Most of the time, we are not buying clothes to solve a simple “missing item” problem. We buy to regulate emotion, signal identity and status, and feel ready for social situations. Fast fashion does not create those needs in the first place, but it makes satisfying them quick and easy by removing friction. With constant promotions, algorithmic recommendations, one click checkout, and easy returns, it becomes much harder to resist impulse buying.

From Identity to Anxiety

In consumer research, fashion is often described as symbolic consumption: people use clothing to signal identity, belonging, and social status. Even when casually browsing online, a consumer will make quick judgments about how a look might shape the way they are seen, such as more put-together, more professional, or more on-brand.

That is why aesthetics like “professional,” “clean girl,” and “old money” spread so fast. They work less like outfits and more like identity shortcuts. Brand visibility can also function as a status signal. Fast fashion intensifies both dynamics by making identity updates cheap, fast, and endlessly replaceable. When a look goes viral, brands copy it quickly and sell it at low prices, encouraging trend-chasing over long-wear quality. What looks like “more choice” often becomes pressure to keep updating, fueling identity anxiety and higher-frequency buying.

From Stress to Checkout

Many people buy clothes not only out of need, but to regulate emotion. In consumer psychology this is often discussed as emotion-regulation or compensatory consumption: when people feel stressed or powerless, a purchase can briefly restore a sense of control. Fast fashion exploits that quick relief and turns it into a repeatable habit.

Shopping is also driven by anticipation. When something looks like it will make a person feel better, the brain’s reward system can respond with a release of dopamine, strengthening the urge to act. Fast fashion keeps that loop running by removing friction. Low prices, limited-time deals, personalized recommendations, and one-click checkout shrink the pause for second thoughts. Mini-rewards like confirmation screens, shipping updates, and unboxing make the cycle easier to repeat. The reward is short-lived, so the urge returns quickly. 

Social media speeds up the same cycle by turning buying into entertainment through hauls and unboxing. It also normalized constant “refreshes,” allowing fast fashion to deliver newness faster than most people can wear what they already own.

From Being Seen to Buying More

In photo and short-video-driven social media, clothing functions as public self-presentation: outfits can be posted, compared, and judged by others at any time. This visibility can turn “repeating an outfit” into a subtle social pressure to keep buying, especially for Gen Z, increasing the motivation to buy more frequently. 

Platforms amplify impulsive buying through scarcity cues such as countdowns, limited quantities, and “low stock” warnings that trigger FOMO (fear of missing out) and compress deliberation. At the same time, microtrends spread rapidly on TikTok and Instagram, shortening trend cycles and making “newness” feel like a requirement. Fast fashion benefits from this accelerated pace by delivering novelty quickly, transforming visibility, fear of repeating, and fear of missing out into higher-frequency consumption.

From Cheap to Costly Later

Fast fashion doesn’t win because it’s truly “better value.” It wins because prices are designed to feel like a deal. And make walking away harder than clicking “buy.”

First comes price anchoring: an original “was” price or a higher-priced comparison that makes the current price look like a bargain. Then promotions push shoppers to buy more than they planned  like “second item cheaper,” “spend more, save more,” and free-shipping thresholds that turn one item into a larger cart. Online timers and low-stock alerts add urgency and shrink the time to think.

Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) installments can intensify this by splitting payments, reducing the pain of paying upfront. “Cheap” is the surface; the system makes costs feel smaller now and pushes them into later.

From Scrolling to a Closed-Loop Cart

Platforms make shopping feel automatic. When consumers pause on certain looks, recommendation systems keep feeding similar items, shaping what they see next and reinforcing a simple identity story that this style fits them. The result is less searching, more exposure, and a stronger urge to buy.

At checkout, saved payment, autofill, and one click purchasing shorten the moment where people might reconsider. Research from Cornell reported that when shoppers were given one click checkout, their long term average spending increased by about 28.5%. Fast delivery and easy returns then lower the perceived risk, especially for apparel sizing. Many shoppers respond by ordering multiple sizes to try, keeping one and returning the rest. This makes buying feel reversible, but it shifts real costs to extra shipping, packaging, processing, and unsold inventory.

We can interrupt this cycle! Before your next order, pause for 10 seconds and ask: are you buying a piece of clothing, or are you buying an emotion, an identity, or a sense of social security? Fast fashion is designed to turn that moment into one-click checkout, but the costs come back through resource depletion and waste.

Starting today, take back your power of choice and buy less, buy better. Sign The Fashion Industry Must Change Petition, and use the 30 wears test before you buy: will you wear it at least 30 times, or could you create a similar look with what you already own? If this resonated, share it with a friend and help make repeating outfits normal again.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is cleared for use with attribution. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at woods@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post What Makes People Buy: The Fast Fashion Trap appeared first on Earth Day.

Fashion is a powerful form of self-expression, with people curating their own unique collection of clothing to express their individuality. However, behind the vibrant layers of fabric made to suit a diverse audience lies an incredibly harmful manufacturing industry.  

While the harmful effects from the fashion industry mainly go unnoticed by consumers, especially those in Global North countries such as the United States, individuals in the Global South cannot ignore the impacts that textile manufacturing has on their health and the environment. Countries in the Global South that face significant negative impacts of textile production include, but are not limited to, countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, South, and Southeast Asia such as Ghana, Bangladesh, and Indonesia. 

Global textile production is predicted to grow from 109 million tonnes in 2020 to 145 million tonnes by 2030. Already, the textile industry has caused serious adverse health effects for not just garment workers, but individuals who live near textile factories or those who feel the effects downstream. As the textile industry continues to experience an increase in productivity, more attention should be focused on those who bear the brunt of the harms of textile manufacturing.   

Poison in the Process 

Even before materials enter factories, the beginning stages of textile production expose workers to harmful chemicals. Conventional cotton, which makes up many inexpensive cotton products, uses pesticides during the growing process. In Burkina Faso, for example, more than 90% of total pesticides used in the country are for cotton farming. One of the most commonly used pesticides in Africa is profenofos. It is designated a World Health Organization hazard Class II and banned in over 34 countries due to its negative public health and environmental impact. Profenofos can disrupt the nervous system, causing nausea, dizziness, and at high exposures, respiratory paralysis. 

Globally, there are 300,000 deaths from pesticide poisoning each year, with 3 million cases of severe acute poisoning occurring. Severe cases of pesticide poisoning can result in heart, lung or kidney failure. Acute poisoning includes symptoms such as skin and eye irritation, headache, difficulty breathing, and seizures. In many low-income countries, a lack of personal protective equipment further contributes to pesticide exposure among agricultural workers.  

During the textile manufacturing process, workers are also exposed to a number of harmful chemicals. The clothing industry uses over 8,000 chemicals in the manufacturing process, including over 3,600 textile dyes. From the dyeing process alone, there are 72 toxic chemicals used. These chemicals, including azo dyes and synthetic dyes, are carcinogenic. Toxic chemicals can be absorbed through the skin. Azo dyes can release cancer-causing materials and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), used for flame retardancy, can cause cancers and suppress the immune system. 

Man Made Cellulosic Fibers (MMCF) are regenerative fibers made of cellulose and include common fabrics such as Lyocell and Viscose. Carbon disulfide is used in the production of Viscose to treat cellulosic pulp, which is material primarily obtained from trees. Exposure to this chemical can result in numerous adverse health impacts, including toxic degenerative brain disease and nerve damage. Chronic exposure can result in an increased risk of heart disease and stroke. Additionally, sodium hydroxide, which is used to dissolve the pulp, can result in severe burns and eye damage if it makes direct contact with the skin. For garment workers in countries such as Bangladesh, low safety measures and poor ventilation increase their exposure to toxic chemicals and likelihood of adverse health impacts.  

Toxic Tides  

Not only does chemical exposure harm garment workers, but chemical runoff from manufacturing facilities flows into nearby waterways and harms aquatic life, communities, and food sources. The chemicals used can make water unfit for consumption as it can damage sewage pipes, allowing waste and harmful materials to enter drinking water supplies. Chemicals used during the dyeing and finishing process are not biodegradable, meaning they do not decompose and remain present and harmful in the environment over a long period of time.  

Dyes can prevent sunlight from penetrating bodies of water, which can harm aquatic vegetation that relies on photosynthesis to produce nutrients. 60 to 70% of azo dyes, which are one type of clothing dye, are carcinogenic. Synthetic dyes released into aquifers have potential cancer and mutation causing effects on aquatic life and can stunt their growth. In humans, contact with wastewater containing these dyes and other chemicals used in textile manufacturing can cause allergies, dermatitis, skin irritation, cancers, and mutations. 

In bodies of water and tap water in parts of Bangladesh with garment factories, there are dangerously high levels of “forever chemicals,” which can cause a variety of illnesses and certain cancers. “Forever chemicals” are per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which can persist in the environment and human body for years and accumulate in living organisms over time. Untreated industrial waste from textile factories are often released directly into rivers used for domestic activities such as washing clothes. In Lesotho, the Mokohare River has been dyed blue and shows high levels of contamination as a result of denim manufacturing. Due to waste from its many textile factories, parts of the Msimbazi River in Tanzania have pH levels as high as 12, making it dangerous for the communities that rely on the water essential for their everyday lives.  

A study done in West Bengal highlighted the impacts of improperly treated textile wastewater on local agriculture. It was found that crops such as papaya and guava had lead concentrations that exceeded the WHO’s permissible limits. These crops were watered with improperly treated wastewater containing heavy metals, which were absorbed through the soil by plants. Heavy metal exposure can result in neurological sickness, damage to the gastrointestinal tract, and kidney, joint, and reproductive system malfunctions. 

Warming Wardrobes 

Each year, it is estimated that 80 billion new items of clothing are purchased around the world. While fabrics are bought and enjoyed the most in Global North Countries, Low-Medium income countries often receive the bulk of the resulting textile waste. Countries such as the United States will “donate” clothes to Global South countries to be used as secondhand clothing. 64.5% of clothing exported by the Global North is received by developing countries. However, many articles of donated clothing are unwearable due to damages and poor quality, and are then transferred to landfills.  

In Ghana, for example, about 40% of secondhand clothing becomes waste, which is about 4 to 6 million garments a week. This puts a strain on the already overwhelmed waste management system, with local bodies of water and the ocean becoming polluted with clothing. In countries without a formalized waste management system, clothing is commonly destroyed through open burning, releasing smoke, air pollutants, and greenhouse gases into the surrounding communities. Clothing in landfills can also unintentionally catch fire as gases and chemicals become trapped underneath textiles, resulting in spontaneous burning. Additionally, clothing scraps are also burned for fuel. The burning of synthetic fibers and polyester can contribute to methane emissions.  

The burning of textile and other wastes contributes to the already warming climate. While climate change poses severe threats for all individuals, garment workers are specifically affected by extreme heat conditions and flooding. Areas such as India and Bangladesh, which have many garment factories, are expected to experience intensified flooding and extreme heat. Such weather conditions, combined with already poor working conditions, makes garment workers especially vulnerable to the climate crisis.  

The worsening working environment as a result of climate change disproportionately impacts women and pregnant workers. Factories often do not have cooling systems or ventilation, contributing to high occupational heat exposure along with rising global temperatures. Heat exposure can have short- and long-term consequences, aggravating cardiovascular diseases and increasing one’s risk of stroke and dementia. Severe heat exposure during pregnancy can cause severe maternal health complications and harm fetuses, resulting in stillbirth and birth defects.

Global North’s Consumption, Global South’s Burden 

While the consumers in the Global North overconsume clothing products, individuals in the Global South often pay the true price. The production process results in exposure to an array of harmful chemicals that are often unavoidable due to their prevalence in bodies of water and inability to break down over time. Even when articles of clothing are at the end of their cycle, they are returned to Global South countries which are often overwhelmed by the vast quantities of waste received.  The mass production in the clothing industry contributes greatly to global warming, posing major threats to workers in factories who often face the most severe effects of climate change.

As textile manufacturing continues to have increasingly harmful effects on human health and the environment, it is crucial for there to be greater protections for individuals working in the industry and those who are impacted by environmental pollution resulting from manufacturing. If you are interested in learning more about the impacts of clothing production, check out EARTHDAY.ORG’s Fashion for the Earth campaign, and sign our petition to support greater regulations in the fashion industry.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is cleared for use with attribution. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post Hazardous Hems: How Fashion Wreaks Havoc on Health appeared first on Earth Day.

On a warm, sunny day, a group of teenage girls stroll through the mall, shopping bags swinging by their sides and beaming with pride for every dollar spent on their newest fast fashion fads. Two years later, across the globe, a young girl from Kenya will find one of those items at a Mitumba market.   

Though they live in completely different worlds, both girls are connected by a single garment — a Brandy Melville tank top that becomes a microcosm of the global textile industry, exposing the deep contrasts between privilege and precarity, desire and discard.   

But how did this garment cycle across the globe and what are the economic ramifications of its journey?   

Fast fashion garments will only interest the consumer for a few seasons, if that. Since the mid-2000s, the average Global North shopper has come to consume twice as many garments as the average global consumer. This surge in fast fashion consumption has turned countries like Ghana into involuntary dumping grounds for discarded clothing.  

Each week, Ghana imports around 15 million garments of secondhand clothing, items locally referred to as obroni wawu or “dead white man’s clothes.” These garments are economic remnants of the vast overproduction of the fashion industry, shipped to the Global South under the guise of donation or reuse. But while some of these clothes are resold, many are too damaged to wear, contributing to overflowing landfills, strained local economies and disrupted domestic textile industries.  

A Double-Edged Sword  

Due to the declining quality of clothing, much of the apparel sent abroad ultimately ends up in landfills. This creates a harmful cycle. 

An estimated 85% of all clothing is either incinerated or discarded in landfills. Although consumers often donate clothing to thrift stores with good intentions, only about 15% of all garments are actually recycled – either sold wholesale on lower markets, downcycled, or exported. Estimates as high as 45% of donated clothing is sent to foreign countries, much of it ending up in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Once there, about 20-50% of garments will end up in open-air landfills, where they release gases and chemical leachates during decomposition, polluting the air, soil, and groundwater. These pollutants also pose serious health risks to nearby communities. To worsen matters, discarded clothing frequently clogs drainage systems, blocking water flow and exacerbating flooding — especially in subtropical and tropical regions that already face frequent flood events.  

Yet secondhand clothing (SHC) sectors still offer critical benefits. In developing countries, SHC provides affordable clothing and reduces the demand for locally produced garments, conserving water, energy, and other resources. In Kenya, for instance, 91.5% of households purchase and rely on secondhand clothing. This reuse contributes to circular economic practices, extending the life cycle of garments while limiting textile waste.  

The SHC import business is also an economic driver. In Kenya alone, the business generates around $107 million annually in tax revenue. A study by Humana People to People showed that each ton of second-hand imported clothing sustains approximately 6.5 jobs, and in Kenya 2,000,000 citizens are involved in 2nd hand trade.  

While there are some benefits, a full assessment reveals a harsh reality — one marked by a default on development, rising health risks, and environmental neglect, all of which define the future of global stability.  

Cha-Ching?  

While SHC imports may generate some employment, this work is often less valuable than the opportunities lost through the collapse of domestic textile industries. In 1980, Kenya’s textile sector employed around 500,000 people. Today, that number has fallen to just over 20,000, largely due to the overwhelming influx of imported second hand clothing that makes it nearly impossible for local manufactures to compete. 

As these clothes continue to flood in, efforts to build domestic textile industries are undermined. Countries that accept SHC are left with weakened industrial capacity, limited development of human skills, and a global identity as mere dumping grounds for the Global North’s castoffs.  

In 2018, East African nations attempted to shift away from dependence on imports by focusing on local manufacturing. Rwanda, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, South Sudan, and Burundi increased import tariffs on secondhand clothing to stimulate domestic production. However, this move was met with retaliation from the United States. The Office of the U.S Trade Representative threatened to remove four of the six countries from the African Growth and Opportunity Act, a trade agreement intended to promote trade and economic growth across the continent. Under this pressure, all but Rwanda backed down. Rwanda held firm on the ban, prioritizing long-term economic sovereignty over short-term trade benefits.  

Sick in Style   

Of all the clothing sent from the Global North, only about 1 in 3 pieces are actually usable. In Kenya 2021, about 458 million used clothing items were immediate waste, and 307 million of these garments were made from plastic-based fibers. The waste is known to overflow into the Nairobi River – often from nearby landfills or markets.

In other cases it is either burned in landfills or used as fuel in local markets. In Cambodia, textile waste is used as a fuel to fire kilns in brick factories. As with all locations where textile waste is burned, this toxic practice releases toxic fumes into the atmosphere leading to dire health consequences. The result? People, and especially children, are plagued with many health issues such as asthma, skin infections, diarrhea, lung infections, and cardiovascular disease.

The large proportion of organic textile waste, combined with ideal conditions for anaerobic decomposition leads to significant methane generation, and thus spontaneous fires. Meanwhile, 69% of SHC clothing consists of synthetic textiles. These do not biodegrade in landfills and when they are incinerated, the emissions will contain many toxic elements that can lead to cancer, birth defects and lung diseases among other serious health problems. 

When clothing waste infiltrates fresh waters or oceans, they can affect livelihoods through their pollution. An example is Ghana’s Korle Lagoon, once a thriving freshwater ecosystem supporting a fishing industry and used for recreation, now ranks as one of the most polluted bodies of water on earth. The now blackened water, flows into the coastal water off Ghana where it affects the livelihood of the fishers who find textile waste clogged in their nets. Nearby communities are also affected, as the polluted water they rely on for drinking, bathing, irrigation, and livestock is polluted. 

Contaminated water sources are both environmental catastrophes and economic lifelines. Soil and water contamination from textile dumping contributes to soil degradation. The leached chemicals disrupt natural processes impairing soil fertility affecting plant life. Moreover, the microplastics shed from these materials during use and their persistence in landfills pose a long-term threat to soil health, altering its physical and chemical properties and impacting microbial communities. This can potentially reduce crop yields, destabilizing agricultural economies that entire communities depend on.

Clothing waste pollutes at the end of its life cycle, just as it does at the beginning. For example, Indonesia’s Citarum River, used by over 15 million people, hosts textile factories that discharge chemicals above international safety standards. These toxins have declined 60% of rice and fish yields, cutting off foundational revenue sources.  

In Lesotho and Tanzania, rivers once used for drinking, bathing, and irrigation are now toxic, with water pH levels as high as bleach. The result is a widespread decline in health and productivity, as communities face medical burdens and economic hardship from tainted ecosystems they can no longer rely on. 

What starts as a consumer choice in developed nations begins and ends as a crisis of health, hunger, and lost income in developing regions. 

Waste Fashion Colonialism  

Africa has become a dumping ground, one shaped largely by the economic gap between its population and wealthier industrialized nations. Even in textile waste, the imbalance is sharp: people with higher incomes generate, on average, 76% more clothing waste than those from lower-income communities. This reflects a center-periphery dynamic, a structure where developed nations (center) benefit from the less developed nations’ (periphery) resources, while limiting their development, keeping peripheral nations dependent and underdeveloped. This theory is seen through the Global North offloading its excess onto the Global South. 

In African countries, buying new clothes is a luxury that most people cannot afford. Yet the promise of Western fashion creates a trap, preventing a local textile industry while leading to the destruction of waterways, increasing health risks, and growing dependency, all in pursuit of access to “Western privilege”.  

Western Nations ship their used clothing to Africa even though the region lacks the infrastructure to handle the huge volume of waste. But in doing so, they avoid the environmental consequences and legal responsibilities of handling it at home, offloading not just clothes, but the pollution, toxins, and long-term damage that come with them.  

There is a deeper meaning behind the economics of global waste —  one that reflects the unhealthy relationship between consumption and global well-being. At its core is a culture of disconnection: a lack of care for what sustains us — our environment, communities, and the labor behind our resources. The detachment from both the origins and consequences of our choices is unsustainable and the driver of the health and environmental crises we see today. The cycle of overconsumption, disregard, and displacement of waste clothing, creates a ripple effect that burdens the most vulnerable while protecting those most responsible.    

So, the next time you’re strolling the mall, ready to purchase a new skirt or top or dress, ask yourself: Is it really worth it? 

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post Global Threads: How Textiles Shape Economies Worldwide   appeared first on Earth Day.

It’s Fashion Week in New York City, but there’s one subject not getting enough attention: the plight of garment workers. 

In pursuit of the latest trends, we often overlook the true cost of fast fashion – a cost paid in sweat, suffering, and silenced voices of garment workers across the globe. Millions of workers are trapped in a relentless cycle of exploitation, fueling an industry that depends on their labor but ignores their rights. Fast fashion is one of the most labor-intensive industries, with each piece of clothing handmade along a complex supply chain that stretches across countries in the global south such as Bangladesh, India, China, Vietnam, and Indonesia. These nations and others supply low-cost labor that fast fashion demands.   

The industry employs approximately 60 million factory workers worldwide yet less than 2% earn a living wage. Garment workers endure unsafe conditions, wage theft, exhausting hours, minimal pay, and gender-based harassment. The global exploitation in the garment industry was thrust into the spotlight in 2013, following the collapse of the Rana Plaza factory in Bangladesh.   

The Rana Plaza disaster was the deadliest industrial incident in the history of the garment industry. On April 24^th, 2013, the eight-story building collapsed, killing 1,134 people and injuring thousands. Survivors recounted distressing stories, with many forced to sacrifice limbs to survive.  Just a day before, large structural cracks were discovered, prompting the immediate closure of shops on the lower floors. Despite warnings to avoid the building, garment factory owners on the upper floors ordered workers to return the next day. The collapse of Rana Plaza shocked the world and highlighted deadly conditions in many garment factories.   

As the industry has changed, fashion brands have shifted their supply chain model from one based on trust and innovation to one based on mistrust and punishment, using punitive tactics to meet quotas. The modern fashion supply chain is designed for maximum efficiency and speed, driving huge profit margins for brands at the expense of workers. These coercive practices include demanding the lowest possible prices while placing large orders, setting unrealistic turnaround times, and switching suppliers whenever another factory can do the job for less.   

This shift exacerbated issues like wage theft, which became particularly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic when brands canceled $40 billion worth of completed orders, leading to mass factory closures and layoffs. A study published by Sheffield University found that during the pandemic, wages dropped by an average 11% compared to pre-pandemic levels. Many workers were left without pay for weeks or even months, further deepening their poverty. One worker in India summarized the desperation many felt, stating “We are here basically to earn and survive.”  Factory closings left over a million garment workers – mostly women, including many single mothers – laid off or fired. The result was a surge in food insecurity, gender-based violence and homelessness. The systemic issues in the garment industry, such as weak labor regulations and lack of enforcement, have only worsened these conditions, allowing brands to continue exploiting vulnerable workers without consequence.   

This exploitation disproportionately impacts women, who make up approximately 75% of garment workers, primarily aged 18 to 35. When it comes to garment manufacturing in the global south, the clothes we wear often come at the cost of women’s dignity and safety. Gender discrimination is pervasive in all countries where garments are produced. Women are frequently subjected to verbal and physical abuse, as well as sexual harassment, often in unregulated factories where workplace violence goes unchecked.  

 A 2018 report from Global Labor Justice found that violence and harassment on a continuum of unacceptable behaviors and practices against women is based on their gender, affects women disproportionately, and can include physical, mental or sexual harm or suffering and threats, coercion and deprivations of liberty.  The Clean Clothes Campaign reported that Indonesian women working in factories are often harassed by male managers who demand sexual favors in exchange for job security, threatening the women with termination if they refuse. These incidents are part of a broader pattern of systemic abuse, perpetuated by weak enforcement of labor laws and the prioritization of profit over human rights.   

The exploitation of garment workers is glaringly evident in Bangladesh, a country heavily reliant on the industry. An Oxfam report reveals that 91% of Bangladeshi garment workers struggle to afford enough food for themselves and their families and 25% face some form of abuse. Despite the garment sector contributing nearly 16% to the nation’s GDP, and 84% of the nation’s exports, workers remain poorly paid.  

In late 2023, widespread protests over inadequate wages resulted in the death of at least four garment workers and the imprisonment of over 100 workers and advocates, due to the violence from the government. Although the Bangladeshi government responded by raising the minimum wage by 56% to $113 per month, this amount falls short of the $210 monthly living wage unions say is required to lift workers out of poverty, and still well below what the Institute of Labour Studies in Bangladesh calculates would be a living wage of $302.  As of August 2024, the former Bangladeshi Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, has fled Dhaka after recent uprisings involving a student movement that has included the issue of unfair pay for garment workers. While most of those that were previously arrested have been released on bail, there are still several that have been denied bail and thousands are threatened by unnamed arrest warrants being circulated that are meant to intimidate workers and create a climate of fear.  

International labor standards, established by the International Labour Organization (ILO) promote fair labor practices globally. These standards encompass crucial areas such as “freedom of association, the elimination of forced labor, and the prohibition of child labor”. However, enforcing these standards is up to the governments of countries where factories are located, and this requires resources such as labor inspectors and effective judicial systems. Unfortunately, many governments either lack the capacity or fail to enforce these laws adequately.   

Beyond governmental responsibility, companies sourcing from these countries must ensure their suppliers adhere to these standards. Yet, only 1% of brands disclose how many of their garment workers earn a living wage. It’s evident that neither the governments nor the companies are taking adequate action, as they continue to prioritize profits over the safety and fair compensation of workers. There is, however, hope. Legislative efforts to force transparency and hold brands accountable for the treatment and pay of garment workers are being implemented.  Follow EARTHDAY.ORG’s Legislation Tracker to learn about the newest regulations instituted in the United States, Europe and around the world.

Consumers also play a crucial role in upholding labor standards. By making informed purchasing decisions and supporting brands that are transparent about their labor practices, consumers can pressure companies to prioritize fair treatment for workers. Researching brands through resources like the Fashion Transparency Index or supporting ethical and sustainable fashion initiatives can make a significant impact.  The choices we make about where to shop carry a collective responsibility that impacts workers’ lives.  You can further contribute to this cause by signing EARTHDAY.ORG’s The Fashion Industry Must Change petition that calls for stronger protections for garment workers.   

This article was updated on 9/12/2025

The post Beneath the Seams: The Human Toll of Fast Fashion appeared first on Earth Day.

It’s New York Fashion Week, and before we stop to admire the glitz and glamor, we need to celebrate fashion and beauty’s ultimate, timeless inspiration: Nature. 

For centuries, designers have been inspired by the natural environment around them, finding a muse in everything from flowers for delicate floral prints to the underwater world for fabrics that mimic the flow of water. And since ancient times, natural ingredients were used for beautification purposes to achieve healthy-looking hair and skin. 

Unfortunately, this admiration for nature has not translated to awareness of the industry’s impact for much of history. The Industrial Revolution brought the first boom in mass produced clothing, and the destructive impacts of the fast fashion textile industry has done even more damage. 

The beauty industry is no better. The glass bottles and jars that used to contain cosmetic products have been  widely replaced with their cheap plastic counterparts, contributing to global pollution on an epic scale. The industry generates over 120 billion units of plastic packaging every single year, with about 95% of this discarded after a single use and only around 9% – 14% actually recycled. 

Much of this plastic ends up in landfills and our oceans. In terms of weight, the beauty industry produces approximately 8 million metric tons of plastic waste annually.

What is more, toxic ingredients that leak from this plastic packaging and the products themselves, which are harmful to both humans and the environment, still find their way into our oceans when people toss their trash away and wash the products off their face and into the sink. Microplastics were even intentionally added to many beauty products themselves to help exfoliate, despite their harmful effects on human health and wildlife. 

But not all hope is lost – there has since been a growing emphasis on using biodegradable and organic ingredients in makeup and skincare to reduce the harmful effects on the environment. 

Instead of just using nature for our own gain, we need to return to our roots (both literally and figuratively) and recognize nature as a partner. There is no better way to reflect that than through the natural ingredients used in cosmetics, so here are 5 ways cosmetics work with nature to achieve a beautiful result on both ends.

Planting the Seeds for Healthy Skin

Our skin is our body’s first line of defense against anything from germs to scrapes that can cause harm, which is why people have always been looking for ways to keep it healthy. It turns out we don’t have to look too far for the best methods, because they might just be growing in a nearby garden. 

The purpose of moisturizing is to restore the water content of our skin, keeping it flexible, and replenish its natural protective barrier. The stratum corneum, the outermost layer of our skin, plays a crucial role in regulating the body’s water content, and can appear dry and flaky if it is not sufficiently hydrated, which can become a serious concern in people with skin conditions such as eczema or psoriasis. Humectants, substances that attract and bind to water, are a preferred ingredient in moisturizers seeing as they can draw water up from deeper layers of the skin to the stratum corneum and even from the air if humidity is above 70%. 

One well-known natural ingredient often used to help retain our skin’s moisture is the gel of aloe vera, a cactus-like succulent plant that grows in tropical regions around the world. It was used in ancient societies such as those of Greece and China for benefits such as wound healing which have since been verified. 

Aloe vera contains mucopolysaccharides, long-chain sugar molecules that are naturally found in the body, that function as humectants that help skin retain its moisture. It also promotes collagen and elastin production, two molecules that make skin more elastic. And the best part? Aloe vera’s sustainable cultivation practices, not needing much water and even preventing soil erosion, make it an excellent choice for brands that are seeking to be more conscious of their impact on the environment..

Another natural ingredient you might notice on the ingredients label of many cosmetics is jojoba oil. Hailing from the seeds of the jojoba shrub native to the arid parts of the United States and Mexico, it is the preferred choice of many moisturizers due to its similarity to sebum, the oil naturally produced by our skin, resulting in a smoothing effect that makes it a natural emollient.

Plant Extracts Saving the Day with Electrons 

There are countless microscopic reactions occurring in our skin cells at all times, and these can often yield highly reactive molecules called free radicals. Free radicals are missing a negatively charged particle called an electron, so they try to steal one from other molecules like proteins or DNA, damaging them in the process. 

This is where antioxidants come to save the day. These are molecules that bind with free radicals and neutralize them by providing them with the electron they desire. 

There are several natural antioxidants, with some common ones used in cosmetics being green tea extract and rosemary. Green tea extract contains antioxidants called catechins that provide it with potent antioxidation and anti-inflammatory effects, and studies have found similar effects in rosemary.

In order to maximize the beneficial effects of these ingredients, it is also important to clean off dead skin cells to reveal the newer layers underneath, which brings us to some natural exfoliants. 

An Explosive Exfoliant

Skincare involves more than just retaining moisture – it also involves exfoliating the skin to clear dead skin cells and unclog pores which, in addition to making the skin appear shinier, allow better absorption of moisturizer. 

One surprising exfoliant found in nature? Volcanic ash, or more specifically, certain minerals found in it. Evidence shows that bentonites and montmorillonites, two clay minerals found in volcanic ash, have several potential skin benefits, including improving wound healing and promoting skin hydration. Natural zeolitic volcanic tuff, a rock that forms from volcanic ash, has also been shown to have excellent exfoliation properties. 

However, it is important to consider that it can also cause skin irritation for some people, so it is important to always read the label of the product and for people to consider their own skin needs before using it. 

Minerals Blocking the Sun

While it is important to get some sunlight in moderation, the sun is one of the biggest concerns of skin care seeing as it can damage skin, leading to risks of cancer, sunburn, and skin aging. It is always important to protect against ultraviolet radiation.

Some ingredients that we have already discussed like aloe vera and green tea extract have been shown to have some protective properties against the sun, but these effects are minimal.

Mineral-based sunscreens are the best bet in terms of effectiveness and environmental safety, specifically those made from titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, which are much safer for the marine environment than chemical sunscreens containing ingredients such as oxybenzone. It is important to keep in mind, however, that no sunscreen is completely safe for our oceans, so it is best to practice mindfulness when using it and opt for a hat when you can!

There’s Still a Long Way to Go

While cosmetics made from natural ingredients are more likely to come from brands aligned with sustainable practices, it is not a guarantee. The packaging might still be made from plastic or other similar nonbiodegradable materials, and using natural ingredients will not help the environment if they are harvested without any regard for the ecosystem from which they came.

The beauty industry alone contributes at least 120 billion tons of packaging waste every year. It is time for companies to make the shift to biodegradable packaging like wood plastics composites and cellulose-based materials to offset this worrying trend. 

What Can You Do? 

While there is still a long way to go in minimizing the toll the cosmetics industry has on the environment, there are a few things you can do to help.

First, sign our petition “The Fashion Industry Must Change” calling for the Environmental Protection Agency to create regulations in the fashion industry to help protect the environment.

If you want to show off your own sustainable fashion, send a 1-2 minute video to “My Planet My Closet” and inspire others to help our planet through their own personal fashion!

Remember, one common theme of all the beautification methods discussed in this article are that they are rooted in keeping our skin healthy. It’s time for us to return the favor to the world around us and help keep nature healthy, so that the world’s beauty can shine along with ours. 

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is also cleared for use. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post Time to Let Nature Walk the Runway appeared first on Earth Day.

Over 11 million tons of clothing and footwear end up in landfills or incinerators in the United States alone every year. While people are making efforts to switch to more sustainable methods of shopping, such as thrifting and buying fewer clothes, these methods do little to attack the root cause. 

It is estimated that between 100 and 150 billion articles of clothing are produced each year, polluting air and water, damaging the earth’s ecosystems, and harming all living things that rely on the earth’s increasingly finite resources. Materials like polyester and clothing dyes shed microfibers and toxins that enter and disrupt ecosystems, while clothing packaging is discarded and sent to landfills where it doesn’t biodegrade. Even though it may seem convenient and economical for consumers, the fast-fashion model of clothing production is creating irreversible damage to the climate. The fashion industry needs to change, but voluntary efforts from fashion companies have not resulted in progress.

However, despite the growing issue of fast fashion there are many recent innovations that could help shift the industry towards a more sustainable future. Companies using natural resources and unique processes to produce planet-friendly clothing and packaging offer hope for change to a destructive industry.

Alternative Materials

Global fiber production is projected to grow to 146 million metric tons by 2030. One innovation that could change the game for sustainable clothing production is the creation of eco-friendly, biodegradable alternatives.

Mango Materials, a bioenergy startup that produces biodegradable plastics, creates fiber grade pellets that offer a biodegradable alternative to petroleum-based polyester. The process involves converting methane gas into a naturally occurring biopolymer. To do this, ancient bacteria convert methane gas into PHA, which acts as a base polymer that has many applications, including creating a groundbreaking and cost-effective alternative to polyester fabric. Mango Materials’ process can replace the synthetic materials used in athletic wear and shoes, which produce greenhouse gas emissions when created as well as contribute to microplastic pollution. 

Another company innovating the fabric materials market is Ecovative. Ecovative creates plastics and textiles from lab-grown mycelium, or fungus roots. The company works with tanneries to convert the materials into leather alternatives. The process is ocean-safe and generates compostable leather with 50% lower carbon dioxide emissions than traditional leather. They also partner with Reformation, a company that sells sustainable clothing. 

Creating and promoting eco-friendly fabrics over unsustainable, synthetic clothing could help put an end to one part of the fast-fashion crisis. If more fashion brands elect to switch to these fabric alternatives, companies like Mango Materials and Ecovative will gain traction and eventually become the widespread choice for clothing materials.

Eco and Human-Safe Dyes

Brightly colored clothes are eye-catching and fun, but the chemical dyes used to produce vibrant colors are dangerous to both the environment and human health. In addition to using and polluting large amounts of water in their production, 60-70% of all fabric dyes are carcinogenic. While this is an alarming statistic, there are several safe dyes entering the market in an effort to reduce the industry’s environmental and health impacts. 

Denim is a staple in many wardrobes, but the well-known indigo hue contains synthetic chemicals and harms ecosystems by darkening the color of river water and polluting it with toxins. However, the good news is that CleanKORE provides a solution. The company uses a patented technology that coats fibers in dye rather than soaking them through. This significantly reduces the amount of water and chemicals used in the dying process without requiring manufacturers to purchase new chemicals or equipment, making it incredibly cost-effective. 

Another trailblazing start-up that is making fabric dye safer for the environment is Ever Dye. Ever Dye is a zero-waste dying process that uses biobased pigments and a simple mechanical filter that releases clean water into the ecosystem, all while using less water, heat, and time. When companies like Ever Dye pair with large clothing manufacturers, the dying process becomes less harmful for us and the earth. 

Packaging with a Purpose

With almost every article of clothing shipped to our homes, more plastic waste is generated and ends up in landfills. Packaging may be overlooked when considering the environmental impact of the fashion industry, but using sustainable packaging is just as important as using eco-friendly materials. Fortunately, there are solutions.

For example, Sway is turning abundantly growing natural materials into plastic bags.  Sway’s 100% compostable Polybags are high-quality clothing bags made from seaweed polymers and printed with ink derived from algae. The innovative packaging meets industry and supply chain standards while promoting healthier ecosystems. 

In addition to Sway, Greenhope is also making a biodegradable plastic bag alternative. Made from locally sourced starches, Greenhope packaging is compostable in home and industrial settings and can break down in just 12 weeks, whereas regular plastics take anywhere from 10 to hundreds of years to decompose. Also, instead of leaving toxic microplastics in the environment, Greenhope bags have been proven to promote plant growth by adding nutrients to the soil when they biodegrade. 

Conclusion

From fiber to finish, there are many innovations that could revolutionize the fashion industry and move it towards an eco-friendly future. Pioneers in fashion are finding ways to reduce the environmental impact of fibers and dyes and develop packaging methods that can promote healthy plant growth and soil when they decompose. 

If companies continue adopting biodegradable, water friendly, and plastic-free alternatives to clothing materials, the industry could begin to reach the goal of sustainability and reverse its never-ending exploitation of earth’s resources and damage to the environment. Do your part by looking for brands that partner with sustainable innovators and by buying clothes made of low-impact materials, and the Green makeover can begin. 

Sign our FASHION MUST CHANGE PETITION to advocate for a more sustainable fashion future! 

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is also cleared for use. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post Eco-Innovations Reshaping the Clothing Market appeared first on Earth Day.

In 2024 sweeping legislation aimed at regulating fashion was passed in the European Parliament. It included the landmark Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), with the important requirement that brands trace their supply chains all the way back to their raw material sources. But on February 26, 2025 under pressure from some member states, the United States and businesses a new “Omnibus Proposal” was introduced that would curtail the CSDDD. If passed, brands will only need to identify their direct customers, meaning their Tier 1 cut and sew factories.

There is no better illustration, however, of why the CSDDD was passed in the first place than the current controversy over Brazilian cotton and the certification scheme known as “Better Cotton”.  It is precisely the need to know whether a fashion brand’s upstream supply chain – where almost all the environmental damage occurs – is contributing to the environmental or social destruction.

Fashion regulations are new. Until very recently, brands have never been required by law to perform due diligence when it comes to their supply chains – the factories that process their materials or the source of their raw materials. Brands have opted, in order to make sustainability claims, signed onto certification schemes that they hope will do the job for them. One such certification scheme is Better Cotton (BC). 

Founded to create a more sustainable cotton industry, Better Cotton claims to train cotton farmers in responsible practices like reducing pesticide use, reducing water use, promoting ethical labor conditions, and producing healthier yields for farmers. Unlike organic cotton, which adheres to strict guidelines and avoids synthetic chemicals, Better Cotton allows the use of genetically modified seeds and synthetic pesticides—raising questions about just how “better” it really is. The program has gained widespread industry support, with major retailers relying on its certification to market “sustainable” collections to conscious consumers.  

The BC platform works with registered companies that include ginners, yarn producers, garment manufacturers and retailers. It certifies farms and tracks large volumes of cotton from its country of origin as it moves through a supply chain. Each farm gets a code to identify their source, but hundreds of small farmers can be lumped into 1 code making it impossible to trace cotton to the farms beyond the ginners who collect it.  At the ginning stage, Better Cotton theoretically can be mixed with cotton from conventional farms and so the scheme has a verification problem.

Cotton Farming in the Cerrado

In recent years, efforts to protect the Amazon have displaced agriculture to Brazil’s Cerrado, a vital ecological region in the eastern part of the country. The Cerrado, a vast area stretching 1.2 million square miles, is a tropical area of grasslands, forests, and savannas. It is a major carbon sink and water basin. It is the world’s most biodiverse savannas – home to 5% of the world’s species, including unique wildlife like the maned wolf, jaguar, giant anteater, and giant armadillo. However, the region is under immense strain from industrial agriculture, including cotton production linked to Better Cotton’s certification program. 

Nearly half of the Cerrado’s native vegetation has already been lost, and clearing the land for agriculture risks the extinction of over one-fifth of the region’s wildlife, and generates 230 million metric tons of carbon per year—equivalent to the annual emissions of 50 million cars. 

The Cerrado is called “the underground forest because so much of the biomass is found in long thick roots that funnel water down to aquifers and store impressive amounts of carbon”, according to a Grist investigation into investments in agribusinesses that produce soy in the Cerrado. Cotton is grown half the year in rotation with soy.

According to the report, indigenous groups can lay claim to land in the Cerrado but lack deeds, and land-grabbing by large agribusiness companies is common. Businesses seeking to claim land will hire armed men to intimidate the residents or run them off. The land is cleared of trees and vegetation and seeded for crops. Eventually, they gain formal ownership through legal maneuvers. Much of the biome’s last remaining tracks of native Cerrado vegetation are in Matopiba, a region that includes the state of Bahia, the country’s last agricultural frontier.

In recent years, Brazil’s domestic cotton has expanded enormously – so much so, that the country now competes with the United States as the largest exporter of cotton in the world. Bahia State is the 2^nd largest cotton producer in Brazil.  Farmers have been spurred on due to the higher returns on cotton than other crops. In fact, in 2023/24, Brazil’s cotton exports surpassed that of the U.S. making it the largest global exporter in that year.

According to Better Cotton, in the 2023/2024 cotton season, the 440 farms that they certify produced more than three million metric tons of cotton and represent more than 83% of Brazil’s total cotton production.

But in that same year, according IBAMA, the federal agency under the Ministry of the Environment charged with oversight, monitoring and controlling natural resources in Bahia, there was a 43.7% increase in this area under alert for deforestation compared to the previous year and the infraction notices issued by IBAMA for crimes against flora in the biome increased by 45% compared to the average for the same period in the previous four years.   

Agribusinesses in Brazil

Large agribusinesses in the Cerrado have been responsible for deforestation and crimes against local populations.  SLC Agricola and the Horita Group are the two largest agribusinesses in the region of Bahia. Both SLC Agricola and the Horita Group have repeatedly faced accusations of illegal deforestation, land grabbing and corruption scandals. 

Now a new report from the NGO Earthsight, Fashion Crimes, has revealed that the cotton production grown on farms that are part of large estates owned by these agribusiness has been certified by Better Cotton.

Earthsight’s report traced the raw cotton from SLC and Horita to eight clothing manufacturers in Asia that supply garments of finished cotton goods to numerous well known Western retailers including millions of items to H&M and Zara.

Better Cotton responded to the exposé by launching an audit of their own that showed only three farms in the area were actually certified by Better Cotton and stressed that they only assess farming practices and not how the land was acquired, or the companies that own or operate them. It admitted, however, that it “knew SLC Agrícola and Horita’s farms had been fined for environmental infractions before it certified them”.  Earthlight countered that the 3 farms audited by BC excluded those where they found wrongdoing, and that none were in the area where the major case studies in their report took place with the worst violations.

In 2023, Better Cotton’s 2030 Strategy “Better Cotton Traceability” states that BC can trace their cotton back to the “country of origin”, but has “ambitions to trace back to farms” in the future.

What is the Answer?

Legislation being passed in the E.U, the U.S. and other countries around the world is the only way to effectively address the fashion industry’s social and environmental harms.  

The most important regulations require transparency and accountability. The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) passed in 2023 could be the most effective legislation to directly address the destruction of places such as the Cerrado. It covers commodities like cattle, cocoa, coffee, oil palm, rubber soy and wood and their derived products. It demands products be deforestation-free, and companies carry out due diligence in order verify the origin and production methods of the materials used in their products – an important shift in the burden of proof, particularly given the vast grey areas surrounding legality in certain places, including Bahia.

Unfortunately…the EUDR does not currently cover cotton in its scope. Adding cotton would mean brands would have to trace their cotton to farms, and without due diligence, face fines that could amount to 4% of a company’s annual EU turnover. The other shortcoming is that the EUDR covers “forests” and the Cerrado is a “savannah”, but there are calls to include “other wooded land”. 

What we can do

Consumers can educate themselves with credible, fact-based sources. The Transformers Foundation, for example, provides an insightful case study on cotton production, offering a deeper look into the complexities of the industry. By staying informed and questioning corporate narratives, consumers can push for real transparency and hold brands accountable for their promises.  

Secondly, Fashion for the Earth has published a Fashion Legislation Report. It brings together all of the recent regulations around the world aimed at the industry. Consumers can write to their lawmakers to demand that those laws that have been proposed, but not yet passed, be adopted. 

Earthsight’s report, Fashion Crimes, has highlighted the need for brands to conduct “rigorous supply chain due diligence”, for policymakers to ensure that their laws are vigorously enforced, and that we, the consumer, continue to educate ourselves and be vigilant.

The post Certifying Cotton from the Cerrado appeared first on Earth Day.

If you’ve opened the news lately, you’ve probably seen the word tariff more times than your own reflection. Tariffs on this, tariffs on that — suddenly, trade policy is the main character. And while it might sound like background noise for economists, these not-so-glamorous headlines are quietly creeping into your closet.

Yes, tariffs are hitting fast fashion giants like Shein and Temu. But they’re also squeezing the very brands trying to make fashion better — the sustainable ones. And if you care about what you wear and how it’s made, this trade war might matter more than you think.

So, what even is a tariff? 

In short, it’s a tax on imported goods. When a country imposes tariffs, it makes it more expensive to bring certain products in from abroad — usually in the name of protecting domestic industries. Lately, the US has been cracking down on low-cost imports from China, including a push to close the “de minimis” loophole that lets ultra-cheap goods like Shein hauls and Temu gadgets slip in tariff-free. The result? A shake-up across the fashion industry that’s creating some unexpected winners, plenty of losers, and a few truly ugly consequences.

Let’s break it down. 

The Good

These tariffs could achieve something that no sustainability professional has been able to deliver: slow down rampant, senseless consumption. Ultra-fast fashion giants like Shein and Temu rely on lightning-fast, low-cost supply chains to flood the US market with microtrends and $4 t-shirts. If tariffs raise import costs and slow shipping times, this business model starts to crack. 

While this is a good thing, it is important to note: these policies were not designed with climate change or labor rights in mind. However, they may inadvertently help pump the brakes on overproduction, textile waste, and carbon emissions by making it harder for these companies to churn out cheap clothes at breakneck speed. If fast fashion stops being fast and cheap — the very factors that make it so appealing — consumers might pull back. These tariffs aren’t the solution to fast fashion, but they might be a speed bump.

In the fashion world, buying less is the most sustainable thing you can do. The second best? Buying second-hand. Economic strain and higher prices pushes consumers toward thrifting, clothing swaps, and rental fashion as a budget friendly, eco-conscious alternative. We saw this in the 2008 recession: about two thirds of US second-hand stores surveyed by the National Association of Resale & Thrift Shops said that their sales increased in 2009.

We are seeing this pattern again. Money is getting tighter, and people are getting thriftier — literally. According to ThredUp’s 2025 Resale Report, 59% of consumers (and 66% of younger generations) say that if new government policies around tariffs and trade make apparel more expensive, “they will seek more affordable options like second-hand.” 

The Bad

The bad news: tariffs don’t care how good your intentions are. While fast fashion giants might get tripped up, the brands actually trying to do the right thing will likely face the steepest uphill battle. Sustainable fashion companies, which already operate on tighter margins due to ethical sourcing, fair wages, and lower production volumes, are especially vulnerable. 

Unlike ultra-fast fashion brands that can absorb price hikes by cutting corners elsewhere, small and mid-sized sustainable labels don’t have that kind of cushion. They rely on carefully sourced materials, smaller batch production, artisanal skills, and slower, more transparent supply chains — all things that cost more to begin with. Adding hefty tariffs to the equation forces many of these brands into a lose-lose situation: either raise prices and risk alienating customers, or eat the costs and threaten their own survival. 

Tariffs also don’t distinguish between a $2 polyester shirt made in a factory with poor labor standards and a $150 organic cotton dress made by artisans earning living wages. It’s a one-size-fits-all penalty that ignores the nuances of better fashion business models. In the end, brands pushing for positive change could get squeezed the hardest.

The Ugly

When costs rise and margins tighten, someone always pays — and it’s usually not the CEO. In the global fashion supply chain, that “someone” is often a garment worker. Tariffs raise costs for brands, but instead of cutting into profits or trimming energy use, many companies will look to maintain margins by pressuring their suppliers to lower production costs. This often results in factory owners — who operate on slim margins — reducing wages, speeding up production, or shifting manufacturing to countries with weaker labor protections to meet the lower price demands.

Jason Judd, executive director of ILR’s Global Labor Institute, explained the impact of tariffs on apparel workers and the fashion industry. He uses Sri Lanka as an example, a country that already has a dangerously low minimum wage for garment workers: “More downward pressure on wages after several years of very high inflation will mean — for workers who hold onto their jobs — hungry children and desperate families. The predicament for those who lose their jobs will be worse.” Manufacturers will almost always bargain working conditions and wages to maintain their margins, especially in countries where labor unionizing is suppressed. 

History shows garment workers nearly always face the burden in the wake of a crisis. We saw how brutal the trade-off was during the COVID-19 pandemic, when dozens of global brands canceled billions of dollars in orders — many after garments had already been made. They left factories unpaid and workers without wages, severance, or safety nets. Brands prioritized their bottom lines over basic human dignity, and millions of garment workers paid the price. 

Tariffs could trigger a similar chain reaction — one where costs rise, compassion disappears, and the most vulnerable people in the supply chain are forced to carry the weight.

In the End

If you’re tired of hearing about tariffs, you’re not alone. But the chaos they’ve created reveals just how fragile and unfair our system really is. Tariffs have stirred the pot, and in the simmer, we can see the cracks: a system that punishes good actors, shields the worst, and sacrifices workers when the math doesn’t add up. 

Sure, fast fashion might slow — for a moment. Second-hand might surge — for a season. But sustainable brands are strained, and workers are once again footing the bill. Tariffs aren’t going to fix the fashion industry, and they certainly aren’t going to save the planet. However, they remind us why fashion needs changing in the first place. 

You can contribute to meaningful change by supporting Earthday’s Fashion for the Earth Campaign, where we strive to educate consumers on sustainable fashion practices. Check out our How To Shop Sustainably Toolkit and learn how you can make an impact with your shopping choices by signing the Fashion Industry Must Change petition.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org.Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post Tariffs are Hurting the Wrong Fashion Brands appeared first on Earth Day.

As the climate crisis accelerates, fashion continues to focus on mitigation – cutting emissions, reducing water use, and sourcing sustainable materials. But there’s another side to climate action that remains dangerously overlooked: adaptation, particularly for the garment workers who power the fashion industry. Despite growing sustainability efforts, the fashion industry continues to ignore how climate change endangers the workers and communities behind global garment production. 

While the world warms and extreme weather events escalate, the apparel workers in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Pakistan, and Vietnam, backbones of global garment production, bear the brunt. In these tropical and subtropical production zones, climate change manifests not only as rising sea levels, but in heat-stricken factory floors and flooded neighborhoods. 

Flood events in worker neighborhoods that have relatively poor infrastructure are chronic irritants for workers in South Asia. They lead to delays in getting to work and the loss of income. Face-to-face surveys conducted in Dhaka by the BRAC University Center for Entrepreneurship Development (CED), found that apparel workers miss an average of three full days of work due to flooding and heat illness.  

Flood events last for several months in South and Southeastern Asia, as water rises to the point where some Dhaka area factories must send boats to collect workers. The floods lead to illnesses like rashes and diarrhea, raising medical costs while production and income is lost. This can amount to 10% of garment workers total income during periods when living costs, such as electricity and medicine, surge due to heat-related impacts.

An example unfolds in ready-made garment (RMG) factories in Bangladesh, where a study published by BMC Public health found that more than half RMG workers surveyed from 10 randomly selected sweatshops had faced damage from natural disasters related to climate change. Workers were affected by flooding (79.9%), drought (52.2%), river erosion (49.5%), earthquakes (45.1%), storm surges (39.7%), and landslides (13%).  Nearly half of those interviewed were forced to migrate, increasing job competition within factories in urban areas, further lowering wages as a result.  

Respondents also identified climate change as a primary contributor to illnesses. About 59% mentioned no air conditioning or extra cooling protocols to resolve increased heat, and 78% were affected with illness as a result. Despite this, none of the factories gave any risk allowance for illness as a result of climate change.

The Price of Climate Change… 

Cornell’s School of Industrial and Labour Relations (ILO), projects exorbitant economic losses if adaptation is not agreed upon. Without adaptation, high heat and humidity will create a loss of 4.9% of Bangladesh’s 2030 projected GDP, with similar impacts for Cambodia (-6.5%), Pakistan (-5.1%), and Vietnam (-4.9%). Fashion’s earnings are expected to fall 22% (65.6 billion USD) by 2030 and 68.7% by 2050 (1,424 billion USD) without adaptation. 

A research study by Harvard shows that damage by climate change impacts hot, low-income countries most, as a one-degree Celsius rise in temperature reduces economic growth by 1.3 percentage points, a notable decrease and an effect that will not be seen in developed nations.  

Globally, some workers can earn extremely low wages. In one documented case a supplier paid as little as $1.58 per hour. In Bangladesh workers are paid an average of $113 per month for full-time work, making every hour of work vital. In 2022, it was estimated that potentially 490 billion hours of labour were lost due to heat.   

These losses in GDP and available working hours will be almost completely felt by those in developing countries.  

Sink or Swim 

Adaptation is crucial to protecting garment workers ᠆᠆ so how do we?  

One solution is encouraging social dialogue between leadership and workers. When factories operate with unsafe equipment or when extreme heat makes labour dangerous, the demands for change must come from those affected: the workers themselves. However, supply chain factories must prioritize social dialogue to encourage safe and healthy workplaces. During the COVID-19 pandemic, social dialogue was the only mechanism workers had to protect themselves, proving its effectiveness in crisis. But the protections provided during emergencies should not be exceptional, rather set a standard. Importantly, both governments and fashion companies must institutionalize these practices as part of their daily operations.  

Investment in green energy can transform factories into sustainable and climate resistant workplaces. Beyond reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions, renewable energy can efficiently power cooling systems, lowering indoor air temperatures by 3-4 degrees Celsius.  

But the primary, and most effective and immediate form of climate adaptation in developing nations is raising wages. Without adequate income, workers cannot meet basic standards for health and safety. When wages are among the lowest globally, people are extra susceptible to malnutrition, poor healthcare, and a diminished living standard. A study published by the National Library of Medicine found that among female garment workers in Bangladesh, 43.33% were underweight, and 96% of those had health issues. Over half the participants reported multiple health complications, even before factoring climate stressors. This situation will only worsen as temperatures rise.  

In Dhaka, workers have told the Executive Director of the Global Labor Institute at Cornell,  Jason Judd, that they often resort to selling or pawning household goods to pay electricity bills. During climate-intensive periods, medicine prices reportedly rise as much as 10 times, putting healthcare further out of reach. Paying a living wage means compensating workers adequate for a standard workweek so they can afford a decent standard of living ᠆᠆  essentials like food, water, housing, and education. Yet despite this, only 2% of garment workers make a living wage.  

Raising wages is often argued to threaten industry competitiveness, but in Cambodia a decade ago, wage increases were implemented which grew orders, revenue, and jobs.  

Raising wages would reshape the fashion industry with positive benefits. Heightened wages slows production by disrupting the low-wage system that enables fast fashion. This pressure leads to more sustainable practices across supply chains. According to The Business of Less, increasing workers’ pay by just $100 could reduce global CO2 emissions by 65.3 million metric tons ᠆᠆ because higher wages raise production costs, in turn moderating consumption.  

A living wage would enable climate adaptation among workers by allowing them to afford and invest in essential resources, such as sanitation, food, clean water, and basic needs ᠆᠆ foundational elements that build resilience to climate change.  

No Relief on the Factory Floor   

Cornell’s School of Industrial and Labour Relations (ILO) also monitors legislation. Currently, international regulations on heat stress for workers are limited to two non-binding recommendations – The Hygiene Recommendation (No. 120, 1964) and Protection of Workers Health Recommendation (No. 97, 1952). These recommendations urge governments to set standards and enact laws protecting workers from extreme heat, inadequate ventilation, and lack of water access. However, implementation has been minimal, with only Vietnam as the notable exception.  

A survey of national legal frameworks in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Pakistan, and Vietnam reveals the disparities within each country. While Vietnam has stringent laws on climate adaptation for labour, such as paid sick leave, heat thresholds, and pay during force majeure work stoppages, the other countries have few or no legal provisions addressing climate-labour disruptions.  

Cambodia, in particular, remains virtually silent on climate-related labour protections. There are no requirements for paid breaks, pay during work stoppages, or rights to stop working in dangerous conditions.  Furthermore, none of the countries, besides Vietnam, have indoor heat standards and extreme heat protocols. Even basic protections, such as access to drinking water, fall below acceptable thresholds across all four national legal frameworks.  

S.O.S   

For these workers, climate change isn’t conceptual or invisible, rather a daily struggle for health, stability, and survival. As heat rises ᠆᠆ long-term health risks and a loss of income do too.

It is already apparent that several major apparel production hubs that are responsible for a significant share of current output are unlikely to escape the accelerating impacts of the climate crisis. While about one million jobs and $65 billion in export earnings are expected to be lost by 2030, only 3% of big brands disclose efforts to support workers affected by climate change. 

Adaptation among all nations is critical to global development, determining industries where every human has a decent standard of living. As climate change threatens the lives of millions ᠆᠆ collective, equitable action is not just necessary, it’s urgent. 

Photo credit: Liuser

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post Fighting to Survive in a Heating World appeared first on Earth Day.