A new paradigm

Fashion at its creative best is one of the most powerful and direct expressions of personal aspirations, individuality and belonging. But the fashion industry also contributes to environmental and social degradation through pervasive advertising and short-term trends manipulating and exploiting people’s innate needs for integration and differentiation, in order to drive fast retail cycles and ever-increasing growth in commercial production.

(Fletcher & Grose, 2012:138)

In this sub-section, the paradigm shift suggested above is discussed in order to develop a framework in which to locate the role of fashion design and the fashion designer in developing sustainable fashion design. Armstrong and LeHew (2011:31) mention that if all designers were insightful and understanding of environmentally sustainable design principles, “...fashion could prove a powerful conduit in the transition to environmentally friendly and socially responsible production and consumption [of fashion]”. Decisions designers make have an impact on

122 materials used, production processes, lifecycle and the cost of the product. Armstrong and LeHew (2011) argue that the industry is inherently at odds with sustainability, which poses an interesting and unique set of challenges for fashion designers. They compare various approaches, strategies and tools developed by prominent authors in the broader design discipline, and compare these to current practice in fashion design and manufacture, in order to find possible best practice scenarios. According to them, a new paradigm has to be developed that focuses on efficient use of resources, effective practices and consumer utility, while conscientiously considering the needs of the consumer, and all of the above in relation to a holistic approach to environmental sustainability (Armstrong & LeHew, 2011:56; Smal, 2014). Currently, approaches towards sustainability are primarily organised into two categories, those that “...permit the consumer to maintain traditional consumption habits and those that require a transformation in consumer culture” (Armstrong & LeHew, 2011:41; Smal, 2014).

Figure 5.5 is an attempt to visualise the paradigm shift that Armstrong and LeHew suggest. The diagram notes the approach, the strategy and the tools that need to be applied to the four levels of environmental sustainability intervention (Armstrong & LeHew, 2011).

level 1 level 2 level 3 level 4

was te subs titut e sect ions co nsu mer con scio us ne ss sust ain able life styl e pre-consumer post-production focus is on need focus is on product maintain transform focus is on result APPROACH STRATEGY TOOLS focus is on lifestyle

Figure 5.5: A suggested paradigm

(developed by author, based on Armstrong & LeHew, 2011)

The above diagram is further explained by considering each of the levels (Armstrong & LeHew, 2011; Smal, 2012; Smal, 2014). One position of the continuum is – maintain – and is mainly

123 concerned with pre-consumer processes where the consumer maintains traditional consumption practices. The designer’s decision centres around impact on the environment through efficiency in manufacturing, use and effective disposal of the product. In level one the emphasis is placed on ways to improve the product within sound and positive environmental practices. End-of-pipeline strategies focus primarily on tangible aspects in waste reduction, or addressing waste-use in the production-to-consumption cycle. Considered practices are: alternate use of energy, reduction in the use of energy, alternate disposal of waste and lastly, alternate processes.

Level two considers substituting parts within processes and products with more efficient, sustainable solutions and therefore builds on level one. The issues that are considered are, as in level one, very tangible. The result is a product that improves normal production processes with regard to environmental impact and therefore is more acceptable to the consumer. Considered practices are predominantly based on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) practices,64 which include inventory analysis, impact analysis and improvement analysis. In the production of volume clothing, these practices impact on material and component selection, application of materials and components, production process, distribution of the products by the manufacturer and use and disposal of the product by the consumer. Design decisions influence all of the above. Level one and two engage product, process and system and are crucial in developing sustainable eco-products but have no or very little direct influence on the consumer, as the consumer is not necessarily knowledgeable or concerned with these processes or systems. Design strategies that are applicable here are design for the

environment and design for strategy X, such as ‘design for disassembly’.65

On the opposing side of the continuum is transformation. Level three, consumer consciousness, moves towards transformation, and builds on level one and two and the methods contained within it. The objective in this level is to minimise environmental impact through careful product and process planning, but also to develop a product or process that adds value. Level four, environmentally sustainable lifestyle, requires that design leads consumer, accentuating environmentally sustainable lifestyles in conjunction with an environmentally sustainable focus on products and systems. The result of such an approach is a broad view of all issues, thereby considering tangible and intangible aspects as well as adding value up-stream (pre-consumer) and down-stream (post-consumer) (Armstrong & LeHew, 2011; Smal, 2012). Level four can therefore not be seen in isolation but as an

64 _{Definition of LCA: LCA tracks environmental impact from raw material through to disposal and is a tool used to} minimize harmful components and or practices (Esty & Winston, 2009:169). Some authors, such as Fuad-Luke (2009) refer to LCA as life cycle analysis.

124 extension from the previous levels, thus, it not only ensures minimising environmental impact through product, process and system, but considers environmental well-being. In this approach, design can, through empathy, activate change.

Armstrong and LeHew (2011) provide commonalities as well as points of divergence between fashion design and product development, on the one hand sustainable fashion design, and product development on the other, as illustrated in Table 5.3

Table 5.3: Commonalities and differences between fashion design and sustainable fashion design (based on Armstrong and LeHew, 2011)

Fletcher and Grose (2012:85-87; 136-140) mention several methods to influence consumer decision making as part of an alternate approach to design, and argue that a change in culture, social behaviour and business practices remains imperative. It requires a move from a consumption dependency to providing enabling actions (doing) to inform the consumer on environmental sustainability. The authors base this on Maxneef’s hierarchy of needs. Having leads to wanting and requires business models that supply those needs and wants, and are therefore based on material consumption. On the other hand, spiral dynamics, which aligns to Ehrenfeld’s (2008) notion of flourishing, could result in improved, conscious and responsible

Fashion design and fashion product development

Environmentally sustainable fashion design and environmentally sustainable fashion product development Commonalities Originate from similar disciplines

Rely on collaboration

Have concurrent and iterative activities Rely heavily on technology

End in a process and a product, form fits function Points of

divergence

Costing Selling at market price Having a higher cost if ecological costs added

Trading intervention often drives prices down, environmental costs are ignored.

Number of manufacturers have changed their costing policies to include and better reflect the real cost of production

Concentrating on the cost the retailer is willing to pay

Above is more important than what the retailer is willing to pay, but rather considers business in social and environmental terms. Partner-

ships

Relying heavily on partnering with stakeholders

Might require partnering with stakeholders outside the ‘normal’ fields (for example, using regained fibres.

Encouraging multi-disciplinary approach

Requiring interdisciplinary/trans- disciplinary approach

Process Using specific process Requiring sustainable design and manufacturing approaches Belief

system

Developing products that respond only to market needs

Developing products that respond to market and environmental needs

125 design, aimed at the creation of healthy societies and environments.66 _{According to Fletcher} and Grose (2012), designers have an ability to develop ways for the mainstream public to relate and to fit sustainability into their everyday lives as well as a mind-set that redirects the attention from what is bought to how people behave.

5.3 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

The purpose of this chapter was to explore environmentally sustainable fashion design praxis. This was achieved through in three steps, namely, by reviewing design theory, design thinking and design activity, as presented by selected authors. Nelson and Stolterman (2012) suggest that the designer acts comprehensively and inclusively, and that a holistic design approach is achieved through purposively ordering and organising elements through intentional relations and connections (Nelson & Stolterman, 2012:93-102). Dorst (2011) argues that how one approaches a situation, the role one takes in the design problem, the coalitions one works within and the method in which one deals with the stakeholders of the project, all form part of the created operational environment of the designer. The level of expertise of the designer, and the three layers of practice have an impact on how a design problem should be solved. The survey of scholarly work emphasized that design is the inflection-point that can action the desired outcome, thus design-action can inculcate change.

The second step, namely exploring the role of fashion design and the fashion designer, was engaged with by reviewing selected work, in order to inform the role of design and the designer in environmentally sustainable fashion design praxis. Four roles of design and designer for environmentally sustainable design emerged. The first, designer as facilitator, requires that design should lead consumer. The second role, design as communicator and educator, suggests that designers move away from the traditional approach of fashion design, so that design can elicit change of behaviour. The third role of design, designer as activist, places emphasis on design for social good, and the last role, the designer as entrepreneur, requires the designer to explore alternate approaches in the business of fashion design.

Lastly, the third step explored the suggested paradigm shift for implementing sustainable fashion design, which focuses on efficient use of resources, effective practices and considering the needs of the consumer from a holistic approach to environmental sustainability. The challenges for sustainable design in fashion are profound but that they require a vision that is qualitatively different from current practice in the fashion industry – minimising unsustainable processes, products and consumer behaviour (Fletcher & Grose, 2012:180-181).

126 Fletcher and Grose (2012:180-181) end their text with suggestions on possible activities and opportunities for fashion designers with regards to environmentally sustainable design, and these can be summarised into three categories, namely, approach to design, approach to business and knowledge.

i. Approach to design:

Fashion should be impact-driven and not trend-led, and design, and thus designers, should be the drivers of change. Designers need to re-think the use of components, and as raw materials become scarcer, alternate materials need to be developed or sourced. Designers will have to become strategists.

ii. Approach to business:

The mode of production needs to change and thus a different approach to business must develop. Fashion products and services will have to adapt, and approaches to regional conditions and systems need to be explored. Commerce will remain the driver, but success will need to embody social, cultural and environmental value.

iii. Knowledge:

Designers will have to engage with the technical aspects of the discipline and to become strategists who have to engage with current business trends, the local economy and policy. Design education facilities will have to re-think current practices in fashion design education.

Chapter 3, Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 collectively inform the development of the conceptual framework used in the case study and thereby achieve Objective 5 of Sub-question 3. The development of the conceptual framework is discussed in Chapter 6.

127

CHAPTER 6