This year’s Met Gala featured vegan products from Impossible Foods, Neat, Stockeld Dreamery and Tindle Foods, showcasing plant-based indulgence to the world’s most influential celebrities.

The Garden of Time was this year’s theme for the Met Gala, and actors, artists, models, influencers and all kinds of celebrities showed up in attires that spanned from gorgeous, to curious, to wild.

But, true to the theme, the garden was also present in a way with the food served at the show. Hopes weren’t high when Anna Wintour banned garlic, onions and chives from this year’s event, presumably so everyone doesn’t have “bad breath”. “Those are three things I’m not particularly fond of,” she said ahead of the event.

It’s been reported that high-end cuisine was the name of the game at the Met Gala on Monday, with a fancy spring vegetable salad to start with, followed by a beef filet for the main, and almond cremeaux shaped like an apple for dessert.

If you ask me, the best bits were before and after the actual gala. At fashion’s biggest show, some of the plant-based world’s biggest brands showed up too. It was out with haute cuisine, in with pure vegan indulgence.

Here’s how vegan food made a splash at the 2024 Met Gala.

Impossible’s indulgent sliders and BBQ nuggets

It was a big night for one of the premier plant-based meat producers, Impossible Foods, which kicked off its latest marketing drive at the Live from E! red carpet. Its new ads were aired during the pre-show broadcast at The Mark hotel, a smart choice given the Met Gala over-indexes on vegans.

But it wasn’t just the ads – Impossible Foods was also serving food to attendees on the red carpet, and it was all about plant-based indulgence.

The clue was in the name, with the brand showcasing its Indulgent Burger, its premium beef patty launched last year, which is thicker, juicier and meatier than its signature burger. Upon launch, the company said 82% of taste-testers found this burger as good as or superior to conventional beef – so it made sense to exhibit the product among some of the most influential people in the world.

The Indulgent Burger was part of a slider that was lined with a brie and truffle aioli – it’s unclear whether this was plant-based, but since the brand’s target audience isn’t vegan anyway, that would be in line with its marketing strategy.

Impossible Foods also served its famous chicken nuggets, but these were also dressed up – in a passion fruit BBQ sauce no less. Both the nuggets and burgers were served alongside what looked like edible flowers to honour the Garden of Time theme, but the former also came in a specially branded green box that read: ‘Garden of Meat’.

After the event, Impossible Foods CEO Peter McGuinness called it an “important opportunity to build awareness as we roll into the summer grilling season”.

Stockeld Dreamery, Neat and TiNDLE turn it up at the afterparty

Met Gala afterparties are some of the most exclusive in the fashion world, and three brands got together to satiate the cravings of the, erm, inebriated attendees at one of the many, many parties.

At Casa Cipriani South Street, fast-food chain Neat was invited to hand out its plant-based cheeseburgers and hot dogs to the guests. Swedish brand Stockeld Dreamery joined in to help out, given its vegan Cultured Cheddar cheese tops the patty on Neat’s burger.

Another one of Neat’s collaborators, Singaporean startup TiNDLE Foods, brought out its vegan chicken tenders. “They went like crazy. We had to keep bringing out trays because they’d be gone in seconds,” the company said in a video montage.

The vegan junk food was served at a party that included Leonardo DiCaprio, Camila Cabello, Lil Nas X, SZA, Lizzo, Jaden Smith, Cardi B, Usher, Serena Williams, and Offset.

“This ended up being a huge win for the plant-based space as celebrities were spotted with Neat Burgers, Stockeld and Tindle flags all night long,” Stockeld Dreamery founder Sorosh Tavakoli said.

“If there’s a better way to make plant-based foods sexy, let me know.”

The post The Me(a)t Gala: Vegan Brands Shine at Fashion’s Biggest Night appeared first on Green Queen.

Unilever-owned mayonnaise brand Hellmann’s Canada has partnered with Italian sustainable fashion label ID.Eight to launch a limited-edition collection of sneakers made from food waste.

Mushrooms, corn, apples and grapes – these may be part of your next meal, but they also might be in your next shoe. That’s the idea behind the new sneakers unveiled by Hellmann’s in partnership with ID.Eight, which are part of the mayonnaise giant’s ongoing food waste awareness campaign.

The 1352: Refreshed Sneakers take their name from a disturbing statistic – it’s a reference to the amount of money ($1,352) Canadian households spend on food that goes to waste each year. The campaign is meant to highlight the impact of food waste in Canada, and promote conscious consumption amid the cost-of-living crisis.

“With 1352: Refreshed Sneakers we’ve created a visual representation of Canadians’ food waste, aimed at sparking conversation and challenging consumers to take small steps to reducing that $1,352 amount of food that’s wasted each year,” said Hellmann’s Canada senior brand manager Harsh Pant.

New sneakers part of Hellmann’s food waste campaign

With their yellow, white and blue hues, the new running shoes are reminiscent of Hellmann’s mayonnaise bottles. They were designed by ID.Eight, a Florentine brand known for making vegan, eco-friendly sneakers using food waste from produce like apples, corn and grapes. The sneakers are made up of materials derived from each of these ingredients, alongside waste from mycelium and sugarcane.

“Hellmann’s commitment to using local ingredients and their mission of reducing food waste complements ID.Eight’s commitment to using sustainable and quality materials, making them a natural partner for us,” said ID.Eight co-founder and brand manager Giuliana Borzillo.

One study suggests that 58% of all food is wasted or lost in Canada, but 32% of it could be redirected to support its communities – nearly seven million Canadians (over a sixth of its population) suffer from food insecurity. This also translates to 56.5 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, and nearly $50B in economic losses.

Tackling food waste should be an environmental and social priority, as pointed out by the UNEP. “Hellmann’s has a longstanding history of taking the necessary steps to address, raise awareness, and reduce food waste,” said Pant. The 1352: Refreshed Sneakers are part of its Make Taste, Not Waste campaign, which was launched in 2018 to fight this issue.

This has involved the four-week-long Fridge Night challenge, dedicated Super Bowl ads for the last four years, a partnership with Ogilvy for use-what-you’ve-got recipes, a Smart Jar that revealed hidden messages when placed in fridges at 5°C or lower, and a Meal Reveal tool to provide recipe ideas from what people have in their fridges.

Canadians can enter a draw to win a pair of the limited-edition sneakers, and each entry will see Hellmann’s donate the equivalent of 10 meals to food waste charity Second Harvest. An accompanying website page hosts leftover recipes using the ingredients found in the shoes. The brand has also committed to providing a C$25,000 ($18,300) donation, which it says would provide enough healthy food for 75,000 meals in Canada.

Unilever walks back on climate pledges

While Hellmann’s has certainly made some strides in raising food awareness around food waste and sustainability, its parent company, Unilever, has been in the crosshairs of environmentalists lately.

Long seen as an environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) leader, the CPG giant last week announced that it was abandoning or watering down some of its climate and social goals, in the wake of increased pressure from shareholders to focus on financials first.

Unilever has a net-zero commitment for 2039, with its scope 3 emissions the main area needing attention (they make up 98% of its footprint). A month ago, it had announced its target to reduce absolute scope 3 emissions, cutting energy and industrial emissions by 42%, and forest, land and agriculture by 30% come 2030 (from a 2021 baseline).

However, CEO Hein Schumacher told Bloomberg that the company has now updated some of its ESG goals. This included delaying a goal to make 100% of its plastic packaging reusable, recyclable or compostable, changing its target to halve virgin plastic use by 2025 to reduce it by only one-third by 2026, lowering its goal to source 100% of its key crops sustainably to 95%, and slashing its promise to protect 1.5 million hectares of land and oceans to a million hectares instead.

Unilever’s commitment to pay all direct suppliers a living wage by 2030 now just covers half of the suppliers making up its procurement spending by 2026. The business has also dropped several pledges, including a commitment to spend €2B per year on diverse businesses globally, having 5% of its workforce be comprised of people with disabilities by 2025, and making all its ingredients biodegradable by the end of the decade.

And while Hellmann’s is asking people to waste less food, Unilever itself has abandoned its goal of cutting food waste in its operations by 50% by 2025.

Similarly, Unilever’s intention to roll out carbon labels on the packaging of all 75,000 of its products by 2026 seems to be at a standstill. “It is possible that some of our brands may wish to communicate product carbon footprints in the future, and for this having accurate data is essential,” a company representative told Green Queen last week.

“We also know information must be provided in context to be meaningful to consumers,” they added, outlining that the business was “committed to improving transparency of GHG emissions” in its value chain. “Our collection of more accurate data will help Unilever to make more informed procurement decisions as we work towards our climate targets.”

The post Hellmann’s Hops Into Shoe Space with New Sneakers Made from Food Waste appeared first on Green Queen.

UK material science company The Unseen has partnered with bio-based pigment manufacturer Living Ink to debut the latter’s Algae Black product in a new line of cosmetics called Absorption.

The Unseen is the first company to launch a cosmetics product made from Living Ink’s Algae Black innovation, which is a sustainable, climate-positive alternative to the petroleum-based black carbon pigment found in eyeliner, mascaras and shadows.

The material science startup’s cosmetics arm, The Unseen Beauty, is rolling out Absorption, a range of products made from Algae Black, starting with a lengthening mascara and long-wearing pencil eyeliner, which will launch later this month. It marks a breakthrough in an industry that faces regulatory obstacles for new colourants, and relies on products derived from finite, planet-harming sources.

“After five years of R&D, we filed Algae Black under the International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients,” The Unseen founder Lauren Bowker told the Financial Times.

A highly sustainable black carbon alternative

Living Ink is a Colorado-based pigment manufacturer that is scaling carbon removal tech to tackle the climate crisis. Having secured $3.5M in funding co-led by the US Department of Energy last year, it is offering Algea Black as a “drop-in” replacement to black carbon pigments, and already supplies the likes of Nike, New Balance, Coach, American Eagle and Patagonia.

Black pigment solutions are often derived from petroleum-based sources like crude oil, natural gas or coal. Each year, 8.1 million tonnes of carbon black are produced globally, but its excessive use has been correlated with organ harm and cancer (it’s a Group 2B carcinogen, making it possibly carcinogenic to humans).

Another black colourant, iron oxide, is obtained through mining or chemical synthesis, which leads to soil erosion, habitat loss and biodiversity decline. Mining can also pollute water and air by releasing harmful pollutants, while consuming high amounts of energy that subsequently emit more greenhouse gases.

Algae Black makes use of waste algae biomass that is otherwise destined for landfill. Featuring a 100% renewable raw material, it is produced through a pyrolysis process, which burns it without using oxygen. That prevents the carbon stored by the algae from turning into carbon dioxide, instead forming a char that serves as a pigment. And to achieve substantial carbon cuts, large-scale production and utilisation of the pigment are vital.

While traditional production methods emit about 4kg of CO2 per kg of carbon black. Algae Black, however, has the opposite effect, decreasing carbon emissions by 200%. “For every litre of Algae Black, we remove four litres of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere,” Bowker explained. “It’s bonkers.”

That means using 45 lbs of algae ink can save 22.5 lbs of petroleum. But that’s not all – Algae Black also removes 59kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which is the equivalent of planting four trees, given the seaweed absorbs and stores CO2 over a century. Additionally, the manufacturing process saves 98% of water and 400 tonnes of algae waste every year.

The Unseen Beauty advances its eco credentials

The Unseen has an unparalleled pedigree in colour sustainability and innovation. It has worked with the likes of the UK’s National Health Service to make smart bandages that change colour when they need to be replaced, the UN on a T-shirt that changes colour based on the pH of the water it’s washed in, Virgin Galactic on thermal-tracking patches for spacesuits, and even Puma on speed-reactive sportswear.

So far, it has released Colour Alchemy Hair, a hyper-coloured hair dye that needs no bleaching, and Spectra, an eye colour that transforms into bright silver under a camera flash. Its collaboration with Living Ink – whose colourant has already won the IFSCC Sustainability Challenge award – marks The Unseen Beauty’s third product launch.

The Absorption collection comprises ophthalmologically and dermatologically approved, non-toxic colour cosmetics. Extending the sustainability credentials, the smudge-proof mascara and pencil liner also come in plastic-free packaging, instead housed in a cellulose barrel made from the carbon-negative algae pigment.

“Absorption Algae Black not only offers a climate-positive alternative to polluting carbon black, but also signifies a crucial step in reducing environmental impact and meeting the demand for sustainable options in the beauty sector,” the company states on its website. “The Absorption collection marks a significant shift in cosmetic colour production, aligning with The Unseen Beauty’s mission to pioneer innovative and conscious choices in colour cosmetics.”

Other brands making sustainable pigments include Graviky Labs (whose water-based black Air-Ink is made from air pollution), Octarine Bio (which makes microbially fermented colourants), Huee (which is producing microbial indigo), and Nature Coatings (whose BioBlack TX is a carbon-negative black pigment).

The post The Unseen Beauty Partners with Living Ink to Roll Out Carbon-Positive Algae Black Collection appeared first on Green Queen.

Japanese eco materials startup Spiber has secured ¥10B ($65M) in funding to accelerate mass production of its fermentation-derived Brewed Protein for use in the fashion, automotive and personal care industries.

In what is a major capital investment for the Yamagata-based startup, Spiber has closed a ¥10B ($65M) investment round to further expand production of its climate-friendly Brewed Protein materials, taking its total funding to $489M.

The financing included participation from existing shareholders, and will be used to accelerate the mass production of its fermentation-derived fibres, resins, films and other materials, and facilitate its global expansion. It will also seek to strengthen its production system and R&D platform to meet an expected growth in demand and more diversifying needs.

“We are grateful for the continued support and confidence from our investors, financial institutions, and partner companies who deeply understand the value of our technology platform, development materials, and business prospects,” said Spiber co-founder and CEO Kazuhide Sekiyama. “Despite the challenging fundraising environment for startups amidst the global economic landscape, we have been able to sustain our growth thanks to their recognition and expectation.”

Using microbial fermentation to produce future-friendly materials

Fiber was founded in 2007 by Sekiyama, Hideya Mizutani and Junichi Sugahara, and uses microbial fermentation to turn produce into eco-friendly materials for fashion, automotive and personal care products.

The company leverages synthetic biology and material science to make its Brewed Protein materials, which can act as alternatives to animal-based, plant-based, as well as synthetic materials for multiple applications, including textiles, which is Spiber’s current primary focus.

To make the Brewed Proteins, the startup uses agricultural waste as feedstock, which helps advance its mission of achieving a circular economy. This can be turned into fermented polymers that can substitute cashmere, fur, wool, leather and silk, plus fossil-fuel-derived, plastic-based synthetic fabrics.

The Brewed Protein platform is completely bio-based, biodegradable, and cruelty-free. It means the company requires much fewer resources to produce its materials, and has a much lower climate footprint as a result. For example, its Brewed Protein fibres can emit up to 75% fewer GHG emissions than cashmere, while using 94% less water and taking up 86% less land. Similarly, it needs 86% less land than merino wool, too, and 97% less water.

In 2018, it began constructing a commercial-scale facility in Thailand (which is now operational), and is currently building another in Iowa in the US. “We remain committed to the establishment and enhancement of the biotechnological foundations essential for realizing a circular society, as well as fulfilling our responsibility for social implementation as a frontrunner in this sector,’ said Sekiyama.

A host of brand collaborations underline Spiber’s success

The company’s materials have been refined through 17 years of research, which it says are meticulously designed at the DNA level. Their potential has been recognised by investors – as can be evidenced by the sums it has raised – and industry players alike. It’s engaged in joint projects with various apparel brands and has had 15 companies launch products using its materials.

These include Pangaia, The North Face, Yonetomi Seni, Goldwin, Nanamica, Cavia and Woolrich in the fashion industry, Shiseido Japan in the cosmetics space, and Toyota in the automotive world (which launched a concept vehicle using its Brewed Protein fibres last year). And, as part of its circular economy initiative, the startup has rolled out a biosphere circulation project that promotes biodegradable textile waste as a new material, working alongside partners like Kering, Eileen Fisher, Johnstons of Elgin, and DyStar.

Spiber has also benefited from labelling conventions, with the International Organization for Standardization revising the definition of “protein fibre” in 2021 to include not just naturally-derived proteins, but also those produced synthetically, alongside setting the minimum protein content required for such fibres at 80%. This made it the first time synthetic structural protein materials have been recognised internationally as a new material category.

And, earlier this month, the company unveiled a new denim fabric made in collaboration with fellow Japanese manufacturer Ueyama Textile, which uses 35% Brewed Protein fibres and 65% organic cotton. It represents an upgrade from its current denim made with 5% Brewed Protein and 95% cotton from denim giant Nihon Mempu.

The post Japan’s Spiber Raises $65M to Scale Up Production of Eco Materials Made from Fermented ‘Brewed Protein’ appeared first on Green Queen.

Industrial cotton farming in Brazil that’s sold to Asian suppliers of Zara and H&M is destroying the Cerrado savanna and violating the rights of local communities, a new investigation has revealed.

Zara & H&M – two of the world’s largest fashion companies – source cotton from industrial farms in Brazil that are accused of illegal deforestation, land grabbing, violent conflicts and corruption. These practices are violating the human rights of local communities and tearing down the Cerrado, the world’s largest savanna, according to a new report by climate NGO Earthsight.

Lying south of the Amazon, the Cerrado is home to 5% of the world’s animals and plants, encompassing 161 species and millions of humans depending on its forests for their livelihoods. But half of the biome’s native vegetation has already been lost to industrial farming by agribusinesses turning their attention to the Cerrado to spare the Amazon. And just last year, deforestation rates in the region increased by 43% – almost all of which is illegal.

“While we all know what soy and beef have done to Brazil’s forests, cotton’s impact has gone largely unnoticed. Yet the crop has boomed in recent decades and become an environmental disaster,” said Earthsight director Sam Lawson. “If you have cotton clothes, towels or bed sheets from H&M or Zara, they may well be stained by the plundering of the Cerrado.”

Video footage from the year-long investigation shows a community member being shot, lands being burned, and large swathes of green fields being cleared, tracing over 800,000 tonnes of cotton back to firms in Asia that make clothes for Zara and Inditex (the parent company of Zara, Pull&Bear, Massimo Dutti, Bershka and Stradivarius), which together have over 10,000 locations and made $41B in combined revenue in 2022.

SLC Agrícola and Grup Horita’s land-grabbing and violent history

Brazilian cotton has become much more prominent in the fashion industry over the last decade, with the country now the world’s second-largest exporter of the crop, and set to overtake the US by 2030. In the last decade, Brazil’s cotton exports have more than doubled, and almost all of this is grown in the Cerrado.

The investigation found that H&M and Zara’s suppliers source cotton grown in the Brazilian state of Bahia by two of its largest producers: SLC Agrícola (which is the top producer) and Grupo Horita (the sixth-largest). Both owned by some of Brazil’s wealthiest families, their cotton production in western Bahia is linked to a number of illegalities.

The region has been heavily impacted by industrial agriculture, with locals telling Earthsight it’s hard to find a single large-scale cotton or soy farm in all of western Bahia that isn’t the result of land grabbing. Agribusinesses extract nearly two billion litres of water daily from the area, but dump 600 million litres of pesticides on the Cerrado every year. The heavy use of pesticides gives cotton an “extremely high” climate footprint – clearing Cerrado vegetation for agriculture emits as much carbon as 50 million cars in a year.

Horita grows cotton, soy and other crops on a third of a mega estate called Estrondo in a Bahia municipality. It has been linked to violent land disputes that pit Estrondo against Indigenous communities called geraizeiros, who have inhabited the area since the 19th century and have their right to traditional lands protected by law. Bahai’s attorney general ruled in 2018 that Estrondo was one of the largest land-grabbed areas in Brazilian history, but these public lands belong to the state and should be environmentally protected and set aside for the local population.

Over half of the area illegally appropriated by Estrondo’s owners in the 1970s and 1980s has been deforested, and in the last 10 years, the traditional communities have faced intimidation and harassment by armed men working for the agribusinesses. In 2019, two community members were shot by Estrondo’s security guards.

One of Grupo Horita’s owners, Walter Horita, has been caught in a corruption scandal for the sale of court rulings related to land disputes in Bahia, with attempts to influence judicial and political stakeholders in the region, and reports of him transferring $1.2M to a court official.

Another land-grabbing case has afflicted the Capão do Modesto community, with large agribusinesses accused of misappropriating public lands to convert them into “legal reserves”, which landowners must set aside for environmental prevention. But instead of keeping part of their productive properties as legal reserves, some agribusinesses have acquired land elsewhere to do so. Bahia’s attorney general has referred to Capão do Modesto as “one of the most serious land grabbing cases” in the region, with the local community facing harassment, surveillance, intimidation and attacks carried out by gunmen.

Better Cotton certification masks illegal deforestation

Both Grupo Horita and SLC Agrícola also have a history of illegal deforestation. The former’s farms were found to have illegally felled over 25,000 hectares, while there were no permits found for 11,700 hectares of deforestation by the company between 2010 and 2018. In fact, it has been fined over 20 times for environmental violations, totalling $4.5M.

And despite adopting a zero-deforestation policy in 2021, SLC Agrícola was accused of clearing over 1,350 hectares of native vegetation at one of its farms in 2022. That’s before you consider the 40,000 hectares its farms lost over the last 12 years. The business has also been fined over $250,000 since 2008 for its violations.

Earthsight notes how H&M and Zara rely on the Better Cotton (BC) certification system. All the cotton investigated by the organisation was BC-certified, and the two fashion giants are the world’s biggest users of such cotton. Brazil, meanwhile, produces the largest amount of BC-licensed fibre (42% of the global total).

But this system is “fundamentally flawed”, with BC having repeatedly been accused of greenwashing, not allowing for full supply chain traceability, and failing to protect human rights. The certification has “excessively vague” requirements to comply with local laws and no mention of land ownership or disputes. A 2019 ban on ecosystem conversion doesn’t address illegal deforestation, while an upcoming traceability system is inadequate as it traces cotton back to countries, not farms.

H&M and Inditex don’t have the policies and tools in place to make up for BC’s shortcomings. The former’s human rights and sustainability policies fail to address community rights or deforestation, while the latter’s climate commitments don’t extend to its cotton suppliers. BC has now launched an investigation into the allegations.

In a statement, H&M said it took the findings “extremely seriously”. “Even despite the standard owners’ best efforts, violations can of course occur. Therefore, it is essential that the standards and certifications we select have credible grievance mechanisms and incident management processes in place that enable remedy,” it said.

“We have commercial relationships with all these companies. Inditex’s purchases from these organisations represents a fraction of their total production,” said Inditex. “Accordingly to suppliers’ information, these companies do not directly purchase cotton to any Brazilian producer. They purchase cotton with different origins throughout specialised traders depending on the raw material characteristics, certification and price.”

What governments and companies need to do

The report notes that government reforms are needed to transform the cotton and fashion industries, given their weak supply chain oversight and ineffective certification systems. The EU, for its part, is close to finalising its Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive – but this will be a watered-down version of the original proposal, thanks to Germany’s withdrawal of support for the law. This was driven by the FDP (part of the governing coalition in the country), which has received funding from businesses that would be affected by the law.

Last year, the EU’s Deforestation Regulation came into force to require the production of certain goods to be legal and free from deforestation, but it does not cover cotton or goods made from cotton. This is also the case with the UK’s illegal deforestation ban and the US’s Forest Act. In Brazil, the federal government is promoting the PPCerado plan to reduce deforestation in the savanna, but this also only targets illegal deforestation and fails to address land clearing authorised by the local government.

Successive Bahia governments have also adopted regulations that undermine the state’s constitutional provisions on environmental and community protection. Earthsight suggests that the approval of deforestation permits has skyrocketed, with over 750,000 hectares authorised between 2012 and 2021. “The federal government should put in place a plan to halt all large-scale deforestation in the Cerrado, not only the illegal kind,” the report states. “Bahia’s government should map all public lands to ensure they are preserved and that traditional communities fully enjoy their land rights.”

Earthsight says Better Cotton must require certified farms to seek the consent of Indigenous communities for any activities that affect them, while rules on deforestation need to ban certified cotton from growing on land that was deforested illegally before December 2019. Conflict of interest issues also need to be resolved by putting impartial parties in charge of certification and audits.

Better Cotton is also being asked to implement and enforce a meaningful traceability system, with H&M, Zara and other big retailers called upon to pressure the accreditation programme to do so. Until that happens, these businesses need to go beyond using certifications and ensure their goods are sourced ethically by introducing more rigorous policies and checks.

“These firms talk about good practice, social responsibility and certification schemes, they claim to invest in traceability and sustainability, but all this now looks about as fake as their high-street window arrangements,” said Lawson. “It has become very clear that crimes related to the commodities we consume have to be addressed through regulation, not consumer choices. That means lawmakers in consumer countries should put in place strong laws with tough enforcement. In the meantime, shoppers should think twice before buying their next piece of cotton clothing.”

The post Zara, H&M Linked to Illegal Deforestation & Human Rights Abuses with Brazilian Cotton Supply Chain appeared first on Green Queen.

Copenhagen Fashion Week made headlines last week after announcing it would ban exotic skins and feathers from its runways starting next year. Now, campaigners are calling on other fashion weeks to follow suit with cruelty-free policies.

Two years after announcing it will go fur-free, Copenhagen Fashion Week is now doubling down on its anti-cruelty stance with a ban on exotic skins and feathers, which are derived from animals like crocodiles, snakes, alligators, peacocks and ostriches.

The decision follows similar moves from smaller fashion weeks like Stockholm, Helsinki and Melbourne, plus brands like Chanel and Burberry, but items like alligator handbags, crocodile leather shoes and python heels are still not seen in the same light as fur by many labels and organisers.

This is why Copenhagen Fashion Week’s ban on skins and feathers – which will come into effect in the beginning of 2025 – is significant, becoming the “highest-profile” event to introduce it, according to trade publication the Business of Fashion. It’s part of the event’s broader sustainability initiatives, setting a high benchmark for brands hoping to participate in the show.

Exotic skins and feathers are linked with animal cruelty

Animal rights groups have been campaigning against the use of exotic skins and feathers for years. PETA’s exposés show how snakes are pumped up with air or water while they’re still alive, lizards are “crudely decapitated”, metal rods are rammed down crocodiles’ throats and into alligators’ brains to slaughter them, and baby ostriches have their throats slit and feathers plucked for bags such as Hermès’ Birkin collection.

Similarly, World Animal Protection reports that saltwater crocodiles and ostriches are factory-farmed in confined spaces and electrically stunned before being left to bleed out. It calls these practices unnecessary, noting that 72% of people say they wouldn’t buy clothes derived from wild animals, and 65% say killing them for fashion is unacceptable.

The Collective Fashion Justice – which worked with World Animal Protection to persuade Copenhagen Fashion Week to implement the ban – also sheds light on the crocodile farming industry. It found that in Australia, saltwater crocodiles are factory-farmed and kept in dank, concrete pits – despite being classified by one state government as vulnerable. These practices have endangered crocodile populations in the country.

Likewise, snakes and lizards are kept in cages or rooms piled on top of each other until they are killed in what the Collective Fashion Justice calls “horrific ways” – this includes blowing them up like balloons, stunning them with electricity from car batteries, blunt force through the back of a machete or hammer-like tools, and piercing their heads with spikes to peel off their skins like fruits.

The organisation notes that luxury fashion houses like Hermès and Louis Vuitton have driven such fashion practices – they don’t just source these skins, but now own factory farms themselves.

“Despite fur, wild animal skins and feathers all resulting in animals being killed specifically for fashion, the industry is poorly informed on these issues beyond fur, in part, due to greenwashing and ethics-washing by the industries exploiting animals,” Emma Håkansson, founding director of Collective Fashion Justice, told Green Queen.

“Wild animals like crocodiles and snakes are killed under the guise of conservation, which some brands think they should support, but these conservation claims are bogus – in Australia for example, more native crocodiles live in cages supplying the likes of Hermes and Louis Vuitton than in their natural habitat. They are killed a few years into their 70-year lifespan and cannot contribute to their ecosystem,” she added. “The industry calls that conservation, I call that commerce.”

Copenhagen Fashion Week’s updated sustainability framework

The animal skin and feather ban is one of a number of sustainable fashion initiatives laid out by Copenhagen Fashion Week. Following on from the first set of guidelines, the updated rules state that brands need to show that at least 60% of their collections are made of preferred materials or deadstock fabric, with a list of restricted materials in place. They also must prove that their innovations are sourced responsibly and designed with repairability, recycability, upgradeability and reusability in mind.

It is now mandatory for fashion labels to establish concrete criteria to ensure and educate consumers about the longevity and quality of their products, with customer service personnel needing to undergo sustainability strategies that can be communicated to customers.

Brands are required to eschew single-use props and packaging for their showcases, instead finding rentals or long-term second life for all non-rentals, and sorting waste according to Danish standards. They also need to engage in emissions reduction strategies and offset any unavoidable emissions, and be signatories of the Danish Fashion Ethical Charter.

“With the updates, we are not only raising the bar for brands on our schedule, but we are also reflecting industry developments and learnings as well as the upcoming EU policy landscape,” said Cecilie Thorsmark, the show’s CEO.

Copenhagen Fashion Week announced last year that it had met 35 out of its 37 sustainability goals from 2020-22, but missed out on its goal of slashing its emissions in half by 2023 (from a 2019 baseline), mainly due to its hospitality programme being responsible for nearly 90% of its total emissions. While it managed to reduce the average carbon footprint per guest by 77%, its total footprint was reduced by 16% in 2022 (chiefly as more events took place that year.

The organisers have said they will lay out a plan for total greenhouse gas emissions reductions this year, which will no doubt be helped by its ongoing policy of only serving vegan or vegetarian food at its shows.

Other fashion weeks should ban animal fashion too

Campaigners are now calling on other fashion weeks – especially the Big Four of London, Paris, New York and Milan – to adopt similar cruelty-free policies.

London Fashion Week, for its part, announced an official fur ban in December, although the show had been de facto fur-free for years. But its counterparts haven’t done so, and protestors made their discontent obvious. Italian fashion house Max Mara has been a major target, with hot air balloons sporting the words “Max Mara Go Fur-Free” floated above its offices during Milan Fashion Week, alongside social media posts, phone calls and emails across the fashion month.

Also in Milan, a PETA protestor stormed Fendi’s runway with a sign saying: “Animals are NOT clothing.” The animal rights charity also disrupted Victoria Beckham’s Paris runway with protestors in white vests that read: “Turn your back on animal skins” and “Animals aren’t fabric”. They held a “Viva vegan leather” sign while walking alongside models representing her brand, which PETA says has banned fur and exotic skins, but continues to use leather.

Last year, Louis Vuitton’s Pharell Williams-designed Millionaire Speedy crocodile skin bag made waves after carrying a price tag of $1M. It proved the continuing appetite for animal-derived fashion collectables on the floors of elite fashion weeks, but Copenhagen’s move to take a stand against it will hope to spark more positive and actionable conversation.

Companies and fashion weeks can transition away from animal-derived fashion by adopting alternatives already on the market. “BioFluff and Ecopel both offer plastic-free and animal-free fur, as well as recycled and bio-based options,” suggested Håkansson. “Next-generation plant-derived and other animal-free leathers made from Shiringa tree sap, fruit waste, mycelium, microbes and other inputs can be embossed to mimic reptilian textures. Fabric manipulation, rafia and even bio-3D printing can replace decorative feathers.”

“Skål to Copenhagen fashion week for raising the bar for other events,” PETA’s VP of corporate projects, Yvonne Taylor, told the Guardian. “Now all eyes are on other fashion week organisers, who must follow suit.”

Håkansson agreed: “The Big Four fashion weeks have a responsibility to ban the use of all wild animal materials as quickly as possible – this should not be considered progressive, but an essential step towards protecting animals and biodiversity.”

The post Copenhagen Fashion Week Bans Exotic Animal Skins & Feathers – Will Others Follow? appeared first on Green Queen.

Christina Dean, founder and CEO of Redress and The R Collective, speaks to Green Queen about the evolution of sustainable fashion, what she’s learnt in her 17 years as an activist, and the impact of online shopping and e-commerce.

A decade ago, we spoke to sustainable fashion icon Christina Dean, founder of the Hong Kong-based charity Redress, who said she felt a personal responsibility towards a green, low-impact lifestyle. “I do what I can throughout my life streams, from the values I teach my children about not wasting resources and about caring about what happens to our future world to the consumption choices I make on a daily basis,” she said.

Then, five years on, we caught up with Dean again, who had begun The R Collective, an offshoot fashion brand from Redress. She reflected upon the future of sustainability, female leadership, and zero-waste supply chains. “We all have a slightly different relationship with fashion, and it is okay. Wherever you are within the fashion industry, make your bit more sustainable,” she suggested.

The Redress charity was founded in 2007 and works on inspiring positive environmental change and promoting sustainability in the fashion industry by reducing textile waste, pollution, water and energy consumption. The R Collective, meanwhile, was launched in 2017 as a circular fashion brand that uses rescued textile waste, sourced from luxury brands, mills and manufacturers and upcycling these materials into elegant clothing pieces. A quarter of its profits go back to Redress. “We all need to satisfy our desire for creativity, but it should not come at the cost of the planet,” Dean explained in 2019.

Now, we touched bases with the activist and entrepreneur again, exploring the changes she’s seen in the fashion industry, her growth as a leader, and the evolution of Redress, 17 years from launch.

This interview has been edited for clarity and concision.

Green Queen: We interviewed you 10 years ago (and five years ago too). A lot of the data shows waste is getting worse. How much has changed when it comes to fashion, waste and the Redress mission?

Christina Dean: Redress is 17 years old, and it was fashion’s horrific waste rates that led me to start an NGO focused on reducing textile waste. I stumbled upon fashion’s waste and pollution problems purely by chance as a journalist writing on environmental pollution. At that time (2005/06), fashion’s waste was a ‘hush-hush’ issue, basically swept under the carpet.

Seventeen years on, the cat’s out of the bag on fashion’s highly wasteful and polluting ways. We have data that makes everyone – from the C-suite to everyday citizens – sit up and take notice. One headline estimates that the equivalent of one dumper truck of textiles is either landfilled or incinerated every second around the world. As if that wasn’t a smack in the face, it’s estimated that textile waste is set to increase by about 60% between 2015 and 2030. Left unchanged, the fashion industry is projected to use 26% of the world’s carbon budget by 2050. So, this spells very bad news for the planet.

So with a worsening situation, you might wonder what on earth have we been doing for 17 years if all that we’re seeing is a worsening textile waste landscape! Yes, the reality can be quite dispiriting because, on a bad day, we might feel like we’re on a sinking ship. But on all good days, which are most of them, we continue to strongly believe that the fashion industry is a highly impactful industry to influence positively, so we forge on.

In terms of our mission, over the last 17 years, we have adapted our first founding mission three times to reflect the changes in the problems and solutions that we seek to influence. We’ve gone from “promote sustainable fashion” to “reduce waste in fashion” to now “accelerate the transition towards a circular fashion system by educating designers and consumers to reduce fashion’s negative environmental impacts”. Despite these apparent changes, the essence of our spirit and resolve is unchanged, and that is, basically, to shift fashion from being a polluter to a pioneer.

GQ: How much have you changed as a leader and activist in that time?

Christina Dean: I’ve grown up so much in 17 years, in so many aspects of my life and work. Looking at the fashion industry, I’ve gone from the early days of pointing angry fingers at various parts of the fashion industry to now wholeheartedly understanding that we must embrace the industry and work within the reality of business and its various parameters. I am very pro-industry as a sustainable way to drive long-term change.

I have also put my pointy fingers away when it comes to consumers. I used to be relatively frustrated and judgmental about what could be considered rather negligent consumers who shop until they drop, so to speak. I am now humbler and more understanding about why consumers love to shop, the deeper psychological desires underpinning this, and I also accept why many are not really that interested in sustainable fashion issues, with so many other competing worries, like how to pay their bills being one obvious example.

I guess 17 years of life – that saw us found Redress and The R Collective and have four kids and get divorced – has given me a better understanding of life and self. So I’m more accepting of the disorder around me, whether that’s in the office, in the supply chain, in an ESG report, or in my own head! Despite this acceptance, I’ve not mellowed at all. I see the urgency to act as being greater than ever before, and so my focus and resolve are as they ever were. I just realise that change happens slowly and that our work is just a few little sprinkles of goodness at this point in time.

GQ: What’s your biggest learning, 17 years later?

Christina Dean: I’ve come to respect the fashion industry, its suppliers, its spinners, weavers, farmers, etc., very deeply, and I see such wonderful and enormous talent, generosity, determination, and humanity and love throughout the business. I’ve met the most incredible activists working in the fastest and cheapest of the big fast-fashion brands; I’ve met recyclers with bigger brains than their machines; and I’ve met CEOs with more conviction for change than prolific activists.

So I’ve come to realise that the humans behind the machines, spreadsheets, steering wheels, and boardrooms of fashion are pretty amazing people, who bring optimism to the challenges at hand. We are all only human, against some inhumanly complex issues, so I’m lucky to work with incredible people.

GQ: Did you plan for Redress to become this big? Was this always your plan or did it get bigger than your original ideas?

Christina Dean: Redress becoming what it is today is a bit of an accident really. When I founded it, I never thought for a moment that 17 years on, I would still be as passionate and excited about the mission as the day I decided to start it. I’m lucky that I am a curious and collaborative person and that this, coupled with a good sense of humour and a glass-half-full nature – which is important when certain things hit the fan! – have enabled Redress to rise from a toddler, tween to teen.

It’s my dream that Redress survives without me – I’m always watching out for that bus; you just never know! We are well on our way now, with a strong board, great executive director and senior management team, and with a longer-term strategy and fundraising approach.

We have a saying at Redress: “I’d rather be a pirate than join the navy.” And this sums up our spirit, so each day remains a hustle in the office as we’re always on our toes for the next rollercoaster ride.

GQ: Did you foresee the negative effects of e-commerce and online shopping?

Christina Dean: Not really. I would not call myself highly astute at consumer trends and habits. That said, it’s obvious that when something becomes cheap and convenient, it takes off. This is as true for takeaways as it is for buying clothes online. So it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that the proliferation of e-commerce, especially during COVID, has changed the way we buy clothes – i.e., more, more, more – as indeed e-commerce has changed how some clothes are produced – i.e., more poorer quality fabrics can get away with it online.

I remain shocked by e-commerce’s high return rates, which are around 30% of all purchases globally. I’m personally not a very ‘typical’ fashion consumer, in that I don’t sit around online surfing for clothes that I don’t really want/need, so I find it surprising that people would overconsume styles and sizes and then post clothes back. I’ve seen firsthand the waste this creates because many businesses are unable, for various reasons, to get their customers’ returns back.

The post Q&A with Redress & The R Collective Founder Christina Dean: ‘Our Work is Just a Few Little Sprinkles of Goodness Right Now’ appeared first on Green Queen.

Exercise can be more sustainable now, thanks to Community Clothing’s new Organic Athletic sportswear line, which is free from plastics and can decompose in your garden in as little as a week.

Community Clothing, the sustainable clothing brand and social enterprise by Scottish fashion designer Patrick Grant, has launched a plastic-free and compostable sportswear line, inspired by clothing materials from the 70s.

Called Organic Athletic, the 13-strong range eschews the typical use of non-biodegradable, oil-based synthetic plastic materials – chiefly polyester, nylon, polyurethane and elastane – in sports clothing, and opts for plant-based textile technology instead.

70s materials inspire new sportswear range

“Roger Bannister broke the four-minute mile wearing cotton shorts, a cotton vest and leather shoes. And I played rugby as a kid wearing clothes made from all natural materials,” Grant told the Financial Times. “None of us thought we were wearing rubbish stuff at the time.”

His childhood inspired him to explore “if it was possible to make good sportswear out of the materials we used until the late 1970s”. The new collection is a result of five years of R&D, comprising shorts, sweatshirts, T-shirts and running vests.

Made from woven or knitted certified organic cotton, as well as natural Austrian woven rubber for the shorts, Grant sourced organic athletic wear from this period on eBay. Finding most of them in Germany, he reverse-engineered each piece to assess its yarn count and durability. He explained that the toughest part was to replace elastic use.

“Elastics are made from elastane, which is synthetic and oil-based,” he said. But it’s a key tool for durability, given cotton threads are susceptible to breakages. “We had to beef up the diameter of the thread.” The resulting collection – for both men and women – is fatter in appearance, but carries a retro look akin to vintage college varsity kits, and is suitable for a variety of sports and training activities.

Sportswear’s plastic problem

Plastics and synthetic fibres like elastane (made from polyurethane), nylon, polyester and acrylic have been used in sportswear for decades for stretchability and breathability, quick-drying and waterproofing capabilities, and thermal protection. While some brands have turned to recycled fibres for eco-friendlier clothing, they still shed microplastics into the oceans and soil.

These are harmful in more ways than one. Scientists suggest that a third of all plastic waste ends up in soil or freshwater, disintegrating into microplastics that enter the food chain. These tiny particles have already been discovered in the human body, and one study estimates that we eat 5g of microplastics per week on average (about the same as eating a credit card’s worth of plastic). In fact, there are 14 million tonnes of microplastics on the ocean floor and 24 trillion pieces of microplastic on the ocean surface.

But there is an awareness issue here. A 2023 survey by global sail racing league SailGP – covering 1,500 people in the UK, US and Switzerland – found that 54% of respondents were unaware of potential toxins hiding in synthetic technical sportswear. Having said that, 72% said they’d prefer plastic-free sportswear if available. It’s these attitudes that prompted plastic-free fashion label Mover to debut a six-piece capsule collection in collaboration with SailGP, made predominantly from organic cotton, merino wool and water-based printing methods.

And while UK-based Stripe & Stare offers a TENCEL Modal-based shirt that it claims is 100% biodegradable, it contains 5% elastane. It makes the Community Clothing Organic Athletic one of the only (if not the only) sportswear ranges that are both plastic-free and compostable. Once they reach the end of life, these clothes can be shredded and added to your compost heap – within a short time, ranging from a week to five months depending on your soil, they will fully decompose and leave no remains.

“Community Clothing Organic Athletic represents the most radical change in sportswear in two generations,” Grant said in a statement. “Moving away from oil-based sports clothes to 100% natural and biodegradable means now you can exercise and play sport and not harm the planet in the process.”

The post Is This the World’s First Compostable, Plastic-Free Sportswear Range? appeared first on Green Queen.

Slovenian startup PlanetCare has launched the second iteration of its microfibre-absorbing laundry filter, which can capture 98% of all pollutants from washing machine wastewater. Now made from recycled plastic, its cartridges are reusable, and – unlike many other filters – don’t require power.

Microplastics are a big problem. There are 14 million tonnes of microplastics on the ocean floor and 24 trillion pieces of microplastic on the ocean surface. These tiny grains of plastic are omnipresent, affecting the survival, growth and fertility of aquatic life, and also entering humans’ food system.

Scientists have discovered the presence of these particles in the human body, and according to one study, we eat 5g of microplastics per week on average – that’s equivalent to eating a credit card’s worth of plastic. Microplastics are found in takeaway coffee cups, homeware and furniture, the rain, and even children (97% of them).

Our laundry isn’t great for the environment

But the biggest source of microplastics is our laundry – research has found that 35% of microplastic pollution in oceans comes from our washing machines. The turbulence and friction from washing our clothes in these appliances release microfibers, a subset of microplastics. Synthetic fibres including polyester, nylon and acrylic – all made from plastic – make up 60% of all our clothes. And in a typical wash, 700,000 of these tiny microplastic fibres can be released into the drainage system.

Another estimate has found that every 5kg load of laundry leads to between 600,000 and 17 million microplastic fibres leaching into our waterways and the environment. And it’s not just our clothes that are the issue – the detergent we use also matters. One study shows that 75% of the plastic used in laundry pods enters the environment, and separate research has found microplastics in 119 popular detergents.

Last month, a white paper directed towards the EU argued that washing machine filters are the only effective solution to reducing microfibres in the atmosphere, at least in the short term, urging the bloc to make them mandatory. It was co-written by A Plastic Planet and 5 Gyres Institute, as well as laundry filter brands Matter, Xeros Technology and PlanetCare.

PlanetCare’s microfibre filter 2.0

It’s the latter company that has come out with a new, improved product to deal with this microplastic mess. PlanetCare, which was founded in 2017, has launched the second version of its microfibre filter for washing machines. Dušan Matičič, the company’s chief marketing officer, told Green Queen that the new filter works with all washing machines and is only connected to the drain hose. (PlanetCare provides adapters if the diameters for the hose are different.)

Not only do you not need to replace your washing machine, the new filter doesn’t require any electricity or plugging in and hence needs no batteries. PlanetCare – which is co-funded by the EU through its European Innovation Council Accelerator grant – uses a unique patent-pending multilayer depth filter and claims it is the only company whose product can catch fibres down to 10 microns in length. It adds that the filter can absorb 98% of microfibres, “capturing more microplastics than any competitor”.

The new filter also has a bypass option. “You can switch off filtering when you’re washing cotton, wool and other natural garments. This makes the filter cartridge last much longer,” explains Matičič. There’s also automatic clog detection, which is activated when the cartridge is full during a wash cycle. “No more counting washes and no more changing cartridges during a wash cycle,” he notes.

The flow adjustment mechanism helps the filter fit all washing machine water pumps, which is especially helpful in the US where some “have very powerful water pumps”. And in terms of the build, it features a ridged design for easy opening and closing – plus, the whole thing is now made from recycled plastic, “because it makes sense”. The installation is also easier, “with intuitive connections and extra-strong washing machine connection”. And like the first iteration of PlanetCare’s washing machine filter, you still don’t need any screws to install it.

Circularity, reducing waste and championing reuse

Circularity and low-waste are a big part of the new product’s ethos. “The new filter is fully compatible with old cartridges because we are aware that many existing users have a stock of cartridges at home. So when you switch to the new filter, the old cartridges can still be used,” explains Matičič.

The filter is “more efficient than ever”, allowing for at least 30 washes before the cartridge needs to be changed. And when that time does come, users can return the cartridges via a prepaid courier service. Once delivered back to PlanetCare, 95% of each cartridge is cleaned, refitted with a new filter mesh, and sent back to customers for reuse, while the remaining 5% (largely fibres caught in the mesh) is recycled. This forms a “true closed loop” system, making its solution entirely circular, the company says.

Moreover, the cartridge itself is “lighter, softer [and] longer-lasting”, and has less packaging volume to lower the impact of return shipping. It also requires fewer materials to make. PlanetCare is trialling a partnership with fellow Slovenian brand Donar, a furniture manufacturer. Donar is working on an Ocean microplastics line of products from the fibres caught in PlanetCare’s filters.

The new product retails for the same price as the first version and is available worldwide, and Matičič confirmed that it will be available at retailers next year. PlanetCare isn’t the only company that makes microfibre filters for washing machines – Arcelik, Gulp and Filtrol have their own versions.

According to the Guardian, studies have varied in their assessment of such filters’ efficacy, which has ranged from 29% to 74%. But solutions like fabric technology innovations to prevent shedding, or catching them at wastewater treatment plants (which release about 80% of all wastewater without treating it) are “not immediately viable”, making washing machine microfibre filters a good solution for the current market.

You do need some space around your laundry machine to attach PlanetCare’s filter – but if you have it, it’s probably a good idea to install microplastic-capturing tools like this, both for your health and the planet’s.

The post This Washing Machine Filter Captures 98% of the Microplastics Released from Your Laundry appeared first on Green Queen.

The paradox of pride: an anthropologist and marketing professor on why second-hand fashion is not a true threat to the luxury industry.

In today’s world, sustainability, waste reduction, and responsible consumption are hot topics. And yet, in this climate-conscious era, the allure of luxury, exclusivity, and the prestige of owning a high-end brand hasn’t waned in the slightest. It’s quite the paradox, don’t you think?

From this fascinating contradiction, second-hand luxury fashion has stepped into the spotlight, offering many of us the chance to experience the thrill of luxury without the hefty price tag. In fact, the global market for secondhand fashion is expected to grow 127% by 2026 to $218 billion, and luxury resale in particular is predicted to be worth $68.53 billion by 2028. But does this mean the end of the luxury fashion industry as we know it? Well, from my deep dives into consumer psychology and anthropology, the answer is a resounding “No”, and here’s why.

The psychology of luxury consumption

Delving into why second-hand luxury isn’t a threat to the luxury fashion industry, we need to understand the psychology of luxury consumption. Research in social psychology tells us that our desire to own luxury items is largely driven by a complex emotion: pride. Researchers Karl Aquino and Jessica Tracy found that pride has two facets — authentic pride and hubristic pride.

Authentic pride is that warm, satisfying feeling of accomplishment, while hubristic pride is more about arrogance or snobbery. Interestingly, the study found that the emotion driving us to buy luxury items (authentic pride) is different from the feeling we get from showing off those same products (hubristic pride). But that’s a whole other conversation!

The relationship between fashion and status

Fashion captivates us because it satisfies our innate desires for status, and wealth, and self-esteem. Clothes and accessories serve as powerful tools for signalling social standing and power, allowing us to differentiate ourselves and gain recognition within our circles. Moreover, fashion plays a vital role in shaping our self-image, instilling perceived confidence and empowerment. 

But despite what our tech-heavy society would have us believe, we aren’t some kind of super-evolved 21st-century hominid, we are still homo sapiens with the same brains from 3,000 years ago when we used to adorn ourselves with feathers and shells as a result of our need for love, acceptance and status. What’s changed today is instead of a dozen or so options, we now have millions of adornment options available and many are just a digital click away. 

The psychology of luxury consumption – an anthropological perspective

Different cultures perceive luxury in different ways, leading to distinct consumer behaviours. In collectivist cultures, luxury goods often enhance social status, while in individualistic cultures, luxury consumption is more about personal satisfaction and individual preferences.

For instance, in collectivist cultures such as China and Japan, luxury goods often enhance social status. A study by McKinsey & Company found that 68% of Chinese luxury consumers buy luxury goods to stand out and show success, reflecting the strong influence of social status in luxury consumption. On the other hand, in individualistic cultures like the United States and the United Kingdom, luxury consumption is more about personal satisfaction and individual preferences. According to a report by Boston Consulting Group, 57% of luxury consumers in the U.S. and 55% in the UK purchase luxury goods for their pleasure and to satisfy their personal tastes. These examples illustrate how culture shapes our perception of luxury and influences our consumption behaviours. 

From an anthropological standpoint, our consumer behaviour is deeply rooted in our evolutionary history, tracing back to our primate ancestors. The desire for status, wealth, and access to resources is a survival instinct that has been hard-wired into our DNA over millions of years of evolution.

In the animal kingdom, including for our ape ancestors, the ability to accumulate and control resources often equates to higher social standing. This behaviour is observed across various species, from birds collecting shiny objects to apes who control the best feeding grounds. The individuals with the most resources are often seen as the most desirable mates because they can provide for offspring, ensuring their genes are passed on to the next generation. This is a fundamental principle of natural selection and has shaped much of our behaviour, including our consumption habits.

Fast forward to modern human society, and we see these same instincts play out in our consumer behaviour. Luxury goods and wealth are the new ‘scarce resources’ that signal social standing. The ‘immediate reward’ of buying a luxury item can trigger the same dopamine rush that our ancestors might have felt when they secured a valuable resource.

Moreover, despite increased sustainability awareness, our brains, much like those of our ancestors, are wired to prioritize immediate rewards and personal gain over long-term, collective benefits. This is essentially a survival instinct, favouring immediate survival over future uncertainties.

The role of second-hand luxury fashion

Second-hand luxury fashion is basically a stepping stone to the ‘real deal.’ It offers an accessible route to experiencing luxury, potentially whetting our appetite for new luxury items in the future.  But here’s the thing: second-hand luxury can never fully satisfy the psychological needs that new luxury goods fulfil.

The feeling of purchasing a brand-new luxury item, from the moment you step into a high-end boutique to the act of unwrapping the meticulously packaged product, is a significant part of the luxury consumption experience. This unique journey contributes to the feelings of exclusivity, prestige, and authentic pride that are linked to luxury consumption.

In fact, some luxury brands, like Chanel, don’t offer e-commerce. This isn’t just a business strategy; it’s a conscious effort to preserve that exclusive, almost ritualistic experience of purchasing luxury goods.

This is why second-hand luxury fashion doesn’t pose a significant threat to the luxury fashion industry. Instead, it complements the industry by offering a more accessible entry point to luxury consumption for those who are unable to afford the real deal. The desire for new luxury items, and the status, exclusivity, and personal gratification they confer, remain undiminished. A controversial study by Deloitte titled ‘Is the resale market as sustainable as we think?’ confirms as much: the authors conclude that “Second-hand goods are often complementary to new goods rather than substitutes. So instead of being reduced, the continuous cycle of overconsumption actually keeps expanding. “

In the grand scheme of human behaviour, the appeal of luxury is a complex interplay of psychological, social, and cultural factors. The rise of second-hand luxury fashion complements the luxury fashion industry by providing an accessible entry point to the luxury experience.

While second-hand luxury would appear to promote sustainability by encouraging consumers to buy used and therefore reduce waste, I would argue that in reality, its contribution to fostering responsible consumption and a more environmentally-conscious lifestyle is limited. 

So where do we go from here?

Buying second-hand luxury goods doesn’t significantly curb our appetite for new luxury goods, and as highlighted above, might even stimulate a greater desire for them. Given how many luxury brands have indeed embraced second-hand buying models, it’s clear that the industry understands what may not be immediately apparent to the average consumer: second-hand luxury allows premium brands to cater to evolving consumer preferences and grow their total consumer base while maintaining its allure of exclusivity and status. As we move toward a more sustainable future, the luxury fashion industry will need to adapt, innovate, and redefine what luxury means in this modern era.

So, while we might be patting ourselves on the shoulder as we reach for that second-hand designer bag or watch, let’s remember that our penchant for luxury is deeply rooted in our evolutionary psychology and need for acceptance. It’s not just about the fashion industry; it’s about us as human beings and how we perceive status, pride, and desire. As we strive for a more sustainable world, it’s essential to remember that second-hand luxury isn’t the solution to textile overconsumption and waste, but another way to feed our desire for luxury and status.

With additional reporting and research by Sonalie Figueiras.

The post Unpopular Opinion: Second-Hand Luxury Fashion Is Not Fixing Our Global Waste Problem  appeared first on Green Queen.