Tesco is in some ways the U.K. equivalent of Target — a place where you can buy well-priced groceries and clothes in the same trip. Now, in the tradition of Target’s eco-minded Go International collections, Tescois releasing a sweet sustainable clothing line in collaboration with From Somewhere. Fast fashion, this isn’t.

As Ecouterre reports:

Made up of damaged stock, end of rolls, and pre-consumer textile waste from Tesco’s own supply chain, “From Somewhere to F&F” consists of six striking, paneled designs that are being produced in a LEED-certified factory in Sri Lanka—the first apparel factory in the world, in fact, to receive a Gold rating for lowering its carbon footprint by 48 percent and using 60 percent less water than a standard factory.

Also, the clothes are pretty hot — we’d wear any of these dresses out on the town. Well played, Tesco!

The dresses, which start at £16, are set to go on sale on Tesco’s website this spring.

This excerpt of the New York Times’s review of Balmain’s fashion show in Paris today caught our attention for its insinuation that even the highest of high fashion can still be disposable:

Yet, even without any fashion innovation, Balmain has still caught a vibe. A taut pantsuit, with its short jacket resting on the derrière, the designer’s signature short party dresses with sharp shoulders and, above all, the gilt trip will feed the greedy maw of fast fashion — and give a lot of young women just what they want for right now.

Usually “fast fashion” is taken to mean cheaply-made clothes from H&M, Forever 21, and the like — the fashion equivalent of a Big Mac, not a Kobe beef burger. But if a design is so trendy, so recognizably “this moment,” couldn’t that be equally short-lived in the closets of people with the deepest pockets? Discuss in the comments!

Earlier this month we reported on H&M’s Garden Collection and its lofty promises to clean up the fast-fashion retailer’s act. Unfortunately, new information may torpedo H&M’s big green hopes, if you believe genetically modified (GM) cotton shouldn’t bear an organic label.

As Ecoterre.com reports:

Roughly 30 percent of the tested samples contained genetically modified cotton, says Lothar Kruse, a director of Impetus, an independent lab in Bremerhaven, which examined the cotton fabrics in question. The contaminated cotton was traced back to India, which is responsible for more than half of the global supply of organic cotton, with an output of nearly 107,000 tons of fiber in 2009 alone, according to thee Organic Exchange.

India supplies more than half of the global supply of organic cotton.

The controversy over GM and organic cotton is far from over, but we can’t help but notice they have fairly compatible goals. Organic farming is designed to reduce farmers’ reliance on chemical pesticides and fertilizers that run off the crops and poison the habitats of native flora and fauna. Some strains of GM cotton have been developed to diminish the desirability of cotton for its main pests and to increase the crop’s heartiness in poor soil, meaning less pesticide and fertilizer are needed altogether.

So while it doesn’t excuse H&M for defrauding its ethical consumers, shouldn’t we be revisiting the GM debate to see if it’s worth berating a market leader for trying to do the right thing?

There’s a column in the Huffington Post today that’s making me think really, really hard.  It raises some interesting questions (which I suspect was the whole point).

It boils down to this: Should we consider fur an ethical choice in its own right if the alternative is here-today-and-polluting-tomorrow, throwaway polyester?

In an article entitled Fur Real: An Ethical Question for Vegan Fashion, author Faran Krentcil recalls being confronted about her vintage fur coat (passed down for 4 generations) by a good friend wearing a vegan, but entirely fast-fashion outfit.

From Krentcil’s HuffPo piece:

But what if vintage fur is an ethical fashion choice? It’s durable, biodegradable, and already produced. Is it stronger than Stella McCartney’s sustainable fabric, or Loomstate’s organic jeans? No, those examples are beyond reproach (and incredibly chic, with price tags to match). But is a vintage fur more ethically sound than a fast fashion ensemble? That’s a discussion I’d like to have. [...]

But even if no bunnies were harmed in the making of an outfit, we might want to quietly ask if any children, rivers, or patches of ozone were pummeled in the quest for a $7 shirt. Is that simplifying things? Of course. Should we feel guilty every time we buy a Rodarte for Target dress? Absolutely not (I’ve got two; I adore them). Like a couture collection, the ethics of fashion aren’t just black and white; they’re textured and staggering in their angles and detail, and in need of respect and examination. There’s no quick fix – or absolute measurement – to fashion’s impact on the environment. There’s also no need to judge my 60-year-old fur coat as a murder weapon, any more than I’d judge your pleather boots as a toxic bomb.

I think she’s hit on something really important by pointing out that the ethics of fashion “aren’t just black and white,” especially concerning something as complex and age-old as fur.  Food for thought.

image from Ecorazzi

Fast fashion has been one of the most striking, interesting, and revolutionary trends in retail in the last decade. The key to it is speed (both in responding to a trend and creating a product), limited supply (knowing the product will sell fast), and affordability. While a traditional retailer may take six months or more to get an item from concept to storefront, a fast-fashion outlet can put a new design on the shelves in a matter of weeks.

Fast-fashion chains in Britain attract the lion's share of protests, in spite of their popularity with consumers.

Fast-fashion retailers can absorb “bad ideas” because not only have not many of a particular item been made, but the store can stop or change production very quickly. The constant allure of new products means that more clothes are sold at full price.

In England, stores like H&M, Primark, Marks & Spencer, Zara, and most successfully Topshop embody the fast-fashion trend. According to Forbes.com, fast fashion represents 12 percent of U.K. clothing sales and about 1 percent in the U.S. But those numbers are expected to steadily rise as the sales growth for fast fashion is many times over sales growth for traditional clothing retail, which has been stagnant in recent years.

In the United States, stores like Bebe, Forever 21, Zara, and H&M rule the fast-fashion market, and Topshop made a splashy debut with a single boutique in New York City earlier this year. Target’s “Go International” line of clothing and accessories have been a successful attempt to match the company’s own reliable product lines with up-to-date trends. (Given one lovely plaid, cowl neck organic cotton shirt I bought from one such line about a year and a half ago, I am happier for it. It is, without a doubt, the most perfect shirt I own.)

No matter how amazing fast-fashion stores have been for diversifying wardrobes cheaply from season to season, the industry has come under criticism from groups like PETA and anti-sweatshop groups for their manufacturing standards. Fast-fashion retailers are quick to point out that their suppliers are the same suppliers used by 95 percent of the clothing industry, but their success and “celebrity” have made them a desirable and convenient target.

But to play nice with the activists, Topshop has repeatedly affirmed its support of PETA and its own anti-fur stance, putting huge window displays in its London flagship store. (Perhaps memories linger of protesters storming fashion shows and throwing paint on models and celebrities.)

Marks & Spencer has also faced their own share of pressure from PETA and have promised they will not sell fur — which would, for the price point and operating model, makes sense in very few circumstances anyway.

Zara, a fast fashion retailer based in Spain, came under fire recently for trimming some items with real rabbit fur, and has since pulled fur products for good.

Instead, high-end stores like Harrods that sell fur have become the new targets of protests. Hundreds of activists gathered at Harrods in London in October to renounce the sale of fur.

Yet PETA looks the other way while Topshop continues to sell large amounts of leather goods, silk, and wool. It can be assumed that the most vocal activists remain silent in something of a gentlemen’s agreement with fast fashion. While fur and exotic skin attract ire, far more ubiquitous animal products like leather, silk, and wool remain ignored and unremarkable. On the contrary, Topshop’s refusal to sell fur and snakeskin earned them the following kudos from PETA:

Topshop is one of Britain’s largest clothing retailers, and for a long time now, they’ve been busy doing for animal-free fashion what the Body Shop has done for cruelty-free cosmetics. Not only do they refuse to sell fur or exotic skins, but they advertise their ethical choices with pride.

Fast fashion has changed the retail landscape and it’s key for consumers to think about its role in ethical style. Most significantly, it doesn’t mean that we should consume recklessly or purchase huge amounts of bad clothing, only to throw them away.

I can speak from experience here. I purchased a mocha leather motorcycle jacket at Primark in London in May for £7 on a steep discount. It’s beautiful, and just because I didn’t pay $300 for the coat doesn’t mean I should care for it any less. Fast fashion is not an invitation to go “hog wild,” but it is an invitation to enjoy the clothes of the moment a little more for a lot less.

Last week, Los Angeles-based American Apparel laid off 1,500 factory workers who were unable to prove that they were in the country legally.

A federal investigation uncovered roughly 1,800 employees who were illegal immigrants or had other problems with their employment record, and while the company officially says it is “very disappointed and disheartened” at having to make this decision, it was in American Apparel’s best interest to dismiss them — at least until the immigrants can apply for legal working status.

The situation is heartbreaking all around and it calls to mind the Emmy-winning 2007 documentary Made in L.A., which follows the plight of the Los Angeles Garment Workers Center.

Airing on PBS (in collaboration with Latino Public Broadcasting), the documentary focuses on three garment workers employed at Forever 21, and what they had to endure so that shoppers around the world can buy low-priced clothing.

Lupe Hernandez has 15 years of experience working in Los Angeles garment factories, having left Mexico City at age 17 for a better life in America. Maura Colorado had to make the heart-wrenching decision to leave her three children behind with family in El Salvador so she could come to Los Angeles to support them, but without legal status, she has been unable to return home to visit them. María Pineda emigrated with her husband from Mexico when she was 18, and after 23 years of domestic abuse and earning next to nothing at a hard job, she questions her self-worth. 

These women and countless others just like them decided to take a stand for self-empowerment in 2001 through the Los Angeles Garment Worker Center. The advocacy group is run primarily by children of Asian immigrants, but despite language and culture barriers, they worked together to fight for their rights.

The story pits David against Goliath as the Garment Worker Center takes on Forever 21, the fast fashion brand that ran the factories where the three women work. Despite being an American company, Forever 21 uses a sweatshop business model. Workers at the Los Angeles garment factories work 10- to 14-hour days without breaks for meals or the use of the restroom, in poorly ventilated facilities for far less than what their American-born counterparts are paid. Typical wages are far below the state minimum, and frequently go unpaid or missing overtime.

To fight these and other abuses, the workers led a boycott against Forever 21 and issued a public challenge to shed some light on the apparel company’s reliance on low-wage labor right here on American soil.

The film chronicles the long campaign to bring a huge company to justice. Watch as the garment workers sue for unpaid wages and overtime owed by the company’s contractors and organize rallies outside stores and even the home of Forever 21’s CEO, Do Won Chang. 

Made in L.A. sends a powerful message about economic injustices that aren’t merely a problem in poor and developing countries.

To view the documentary, you can order it from Newsreel.org or check local listings for a repeat airing on PBS.

A reporter for The Guardian recently came across a fair trade tee-shirt at U.K. supermarket chain Asda, and now there’s news that ethical designer Izzy Lane — who was featured in an issue of E.S. earlier this year — is teaming up with Tesco.

So with such collaborations on the horizon, the Guardian poses the question: “Is the tide turning against cheap clothes?”

[Isobel Davies, the founder of Izzy Lane] has singlehandedly revived the supply chain of traditional weavers and spinners in the north of England; what is groundbreaking for a supermarket is that Tesco is committed to using her producers and only using British wool. Izzy Lane’s clothes are gorgeous and ethical, but they’re not cheap. It takes the wool from an entire sheep to make a single skirt, and it costs £60 a year to keep a sheep even before you start doing anything with its wool.

“The supermarket is realistic that the costs of processing are going to be more than shipping the garments to Asia”, says Davies, “but Tesco wants these clothes to be affordable, as do we. We want the animal welfare message in fashion and Tesco will provide a fantastic platform. What is different about these garments is that you can identify which flock the wool came from and who the farmer is, which hasn’t been done before.”

We’ve explored the fast fashion issue, too. For more on the issue, check out Madison’s great article from last year, “In Defense of Fast Fashion.”

The Organic Exchange compiled this list of the top ten companies buying up the world’s organic cotton supply. Some of them we’d never heard of, and one of them was Pottery Barn. (Hooray for faux-rustic yuppie furnishings! No seriously, we have a soft spot for them.)

Fast-fashion powerhouse Zara placed well at No. 5, bested only slightly by its rival H&M. Nike came in at No. 3. But the surprise victor snagging the No. 1 spot? Wal-Mart!

As we’ve mentioned here before, it should come as no surprise to see Nike and Wal-Mart rank highly on this list. Both companies have suffered ethical black eyes in the past but have been consistently redeeming themselves by taking their commitments to eco-options seriously in recent years.

(via Treehugger)

New York-based marketing firm Abrams Research surveyed more than 100 luxury experts to name the top retail and fashion brands that appear to have the best strategies for surviving the recession. The results were varied and interesting:

• 1. Topshop (34.1 percent of those surveyed named it as a brand that will flourish)
• 2. Chanel (28 percent)
• 3. Louis Vuitton (21.9 percent)
• 4. Forever 21, H&M, and Marc Jacobs (all tied at 13.4 percent)
• 7. Hermès (7.3 percent)
• 8. J. Crew (6.1 percent)

Honorable mentions included Cartier, Yves Saint Laurent, Gucci, Rolex, Tiffany & Co., Diane von Furstenberg, and Prada. 

Says Dan Abrams, chief executive officer of Abrams Research and chief legal analyst for NBC and MSNBC:

“There is a huge contrast between these top brands, and you see it within the top two names: It’s Topshop versus Chanel,” Abrams said. “These brands represent two business strategies that can survive the recession. You either stick with discount prices and strategically market your products, or you stay true to your loyal fan base and don’t compromise the quality of your goods, so as not to dilute your brand.” 

Also noteworthy in our opinion is that most of these brands have shown an awareness of and some level of commitment to fashion ethics. Topshop has an exclusive deal with People Tree, a fair trade fashion line out of the U.K., and H&M’s spring collection included a whole range of organic cotton options. Louis Vuitton just bought a huge stake in Edun, and Hermès is more committed to quality and workers’ rights than practically any other luxury brand in the world.

We’d wager these eco-strategies are also contributing to these companies’ robust sales and growth potential.

WWD reported back in January that plus-size fashion is a “growth industry,” and we observed that most of that growth appears to be happening at the lower-tier level.

Several months later, it appears that the situation hasn’t improved much. This is especially unfortunate for larger women who are concerned about how their clothes were produced.

Target and Forever 21 are the latest brands to announce that they will be launching plus-sized lines for young women. Which, to one wacko CNN tracked down for an interview, is infuriating. And not because of either company’s production standards.

It’s because — brace yourselves — giving teenage girls of size more clothing options encourages them to get fatter.

“Yeah, as capitalists they have the right to address a growing marketplace and it’s a smart business decision,” said MeMe Roth, president of the organization National Action Against Obesity.

“However, when you look at the human cost, what we’re doing is we’re on the Titanic and rather than forcing our children into the lifeboat, we’re telling them to join the band. Worrying about fashion rather than worrying about the food is a horrible message that we’re sending these kids,” Roth said.

You may think that this is just some woman who is out of her mind. Judging from that Titanic analogy, you may be right. But a mere four months ago, Meme Roth was profiled in Elle.