the unwash: sustainability

Clean beauty has become almost synonymous with sustainability to consumers who are none the wiser, primarily in part due to misleading marketing tactics that muddle both of the terms. Green or brown labels, the use of leaves or foliage in logos, and the dreaded plain cardboard packaging easily decepts consumers. Most of these are used by brands claiming ‘clean’ status, not those using these for solely sustainability purposes. Major companies such as Sephora tag their ‘clean-certified’ products with a green leaf logo which isn’t something that makes it abundantly clear to a shopper that this does not equate to a sustainable product. There’s a fine line between deception and truth leaving consumers to their own devices, hoping their purchase is what it seems to be.

Clean isn’t a term that backs any sustainability claims. ‘Clean’ ingredients or sourcing does not mean it is sustainable. It’s easy to think that less processed or un-dyed ingredients could have a positive environmental impact but there isn’t any correlation between the two. A dig around the internet brought us to a Harpers Bazaar article that classified clean as being safe for “people and the planet” and that the ingredients used account for “human and environmental health”. If this were the case, these products wouldn’t be sold at mass retailers, packaged in plastic, or ending up in landfills all of which are reductive to this claim. So what does clean even mean? This typically refers to products that use natural ingredients. Well, what is a natural ingredient? Isn’t everything technically…natural? Here’s the thing, just about everything is natural or naturally occurring, all chemicals are natural (the horror!) and are needed to create everything including the air we breathe but we can put that aside for now. Most of these brands opt for plant-based products and ditch ingredients such as formaldehyde, phthalates, or hydroquinone. Clean is a term that is completely unregulated and unsubstantiated whether you like it or not. There’s an opportunity for regulation and serious claims but this just hasn’t happened yet. Unlike opting for stating clean ingredients are being used, many brands use organic ingredients that follow strict regulations and guidelines but not all brands are created equal.

Let’s look at how two different brands approach this. Dieux is an ever-popular skincare brand that rejects the term clean or natural and rather embraces science. On their social media, they often dive into their ingredients by explaining the pros of components such as lactic acid, glycerin, and petrolatum. They go on to explain their packaging such as why they opt for aluminum as much as possible and when plastic might be a need. Corpus is a body care brand that uses both natural and clean terminology and prefers for its formulas to be powered by plant-based ingredients. Lots of plant oils and extracts such as grape seed oil, cocoa butter, and rosemary leaf extract are used. Both brands use various modes of sustainable packaging including glass or aluminum and are transparent about their practices and goals. Despite one leaning into the clean branding, it doesn’t mean one has inherently better outcomes than the other or that they are even remotely similar to each other. Both are very different in practice but could be classified under the same umbrella in the beauty aisle because of how marketing has encroached on these topics. When purchasing clean beauty products consumers need to understand that if they’re hoping this automatically means sustainable, it doesn’t, and that there is much need for clarity in the beauty industry.

the unwash: exclusive interview

Brett Staniland is a model turned climate activist who focuses much of his work on the human impact of the fashion industry. Formerly, Brett appeared on Love Island and was the show’s first contestant who turned down clothing from fast-fashion sponsors but his choices around this and his activist background were given little airtime due to the competing interests of sponsors. Since then, Love Island has dropped its fast fashion sponsors and is now powered by eBay. Brett’s platform is much of an educational hub to learn about different issues within the climate movement and find inspiration for sustainability within the fashion industry. We sat down to discuss fast fashion, sustainability misconceptions, and how we can start cultivating change. 

Could you start by giving our readers some background on who you are and your advocacy work?

I started as a model, I was scouted while talking down the street with my twin brother. At the time I had just started my PhD and from there maintained both careers side by side. Bit by bit I started to become aware of how much waste was involved in the industry. I ended up doubling down on sustainability with my personal work and chose to work with more responsible brands and became active in denouncing the exploitative practices of fast fashion. I took to social media for that and I had a bit of a following at the time from modeling and created a platform where I use it for more of an educational tool. In the last couple of years, I’ve moved into writing and consultancy, really focusing on using my platform in the best way that I can. 

How many people came to know you is through Love Island. Now that Love Island has changed sponsors to Ebay since your original appearance do you think you would be perceived differently if you were to have been on the show after this? 

Being on the show and watching back the parts that were aired to the public I was thinking about how much they cut out that showed who I am and my values. When I went home people were thinking I’m a big Tory and questioning my political beliefs. Realistically, I’m a big progressive, environmentalist, and activist and when you’re all of those things on a show with a massive fast fashion sponsor they’re never going to air those things because they think it wouldn’t resonate with the viewers. Now, if I were going to go back and do the show it would be a totally different experience because I’d actually be able to talk about fashion and all the things I’ve spent the last decade doing which would be much more easily aired now since they aren’t protecting their main investor in the show which was a fast fashion sponsor. 

I think a lot of young viewers would relate to you now as there’s been a shift in perspective on fast fashion, you’d be perceived a lot differently.

There’s been such a shift with people now being interested in second-hand fashion in particular, even on social media there are more and more people doing vintage and thrift store finds which is a massive change. People will come up to me saying ‘Oh my gosh I just found this on eBay and I wouldn’t have found it if it wasn’t for your work.’ Those kinds of interactions have increased massively since the change in sponsors. I think it’s such a great move for a huge show to make a big shift.

In your daily life, what does sustainability look like for you? Are there any aspects of sustainability that you struggle with?

Day to day everything I do I try to do it locally. Since I live in London there’s a lot of accessibility to local shops or groceries. I don’t need a car since there’s loads of public transportation. There are small things in my life that I looked at and thought, ‘What are these things I’m doing the most that I could change?’ I like to live in the most minimal state possible that still is functional and expressive which is something that has come through a lot in my fashion sense and style, being very utilitarian. Everything has a purpose and meaning. 

Are there aspects from your routine that sustainability beginners can adopt to start making changes in their own right?

Look at what you buy the most of and see if you can get a better version of it. Years ago I’d be buying t-shirts for 7 pounds from H&M and going through easily one a month at university. Now I buy one that’s three times the price that will last me more than six months or a year, and I have shirts that are three or four years old. Looking at those frequent purchases and finding a way to do it better makes such a significant difference. Always ask yourself if you need it and take ownership of your decisions. 

Social media has made it difficult for people to take a moment and think ‘Do I really need this’. You’ll see something and at the moment think it’s something you really want. You can buy it in one click and it adds no value to your life. It’s just another piece of clothing that doesn’t have longevity. Which is exactly what these companies want. 

They’ve taught us to have such short attention spans and have convinced us that when we see these great deals or offers, it’s time-sensitive and makes us think ‘shit if I don’t get this now I’m not going to be able to get it’. Zara is amazing at this which makes their fast-fashion business slightly different from everyone else. If you go in the store and don’t buy something it’ll be gone immediately because they change their stock so frequently. Then the next time you go in you’ll think ‘I have to buy this now because it’ll be gone’, reinforcing that every time you go in you have to buy what you see which is prevalent on social media as well.

You really have to rewire your brain to not lean into those urges.  

You have to completely backpedal to what we used to be like. Growing up in a working-class family I almost feel lucky that I didn’t have that desire to constantly be getting something new. Since we didn’t have loads to spend it really made me think that if I’m going to buy something, it needs to be good and as I got older I had to revert to that thinking – if I was buying a polo shirt for 50 quid I had to hold onto it. 

Are there any projects you’re currently working on that you’re looking forward to? 

I can’t talk yet about something that’s coming out next year but it’ll be really exciting. I’m working on a book which is exciting for me, it’s an anthology. The premise of it is to essentially show people that we can have loads of roles in the fashion industry that already exist but in a more responsible way. If you want to be a consumer, an author, a designer, or a stylist, we can have all these roles that can be just as creative and fun but can do them all in more responsible ways. I’ve been talking to different experts and friends who will be featured throughout the book on these topics.

Are there any other people in the industry or online that you’d suggest people look into for other sustainability resources? 

I’m passionate about being positively influenced online so I’d like to shout out what I’d call the good influencers, my brother @twinscott, Aja Barber who is a brilliant author and a great person to follow online, and on Patreon, Venetia La Manna talks a lot about garment workers, @laurenthesunflower. I have a diverse group of people in my circle so I get a great mix of news and education. People like Aditi Mayer, who’s brilliant, and Lucy Sieglel. There’s more but these are some good ones to start. 

Sustainability can be a taunting topic to begin diving into but Brett has found an ability to provide insightful information about such a large topic that is easy to digest. If you’re wanting to learn more about Brett or stay updated on his work you can find him on Instagram @twinbrett. Climate activists come on a broad spectrum even in the fashion industry. We’re at a point where meaningful change is necessary and positive voices such as Brett’s are needed at the forefront of the movement.

the unwash: social impact

It feels like every brand is coming out with different collaborations in an attempt to create allure and cultivate consumer activity, though it’s less of a feeling and more of a reality. The tactic is nothing new but the latest trend, if you dare call it that, is celebrity and influencer-backed sustainable collections for fast fashion companies. An oxymoron at best. Whether it be celebrity-backed or not, sustainable capsule collections among fast fashion mega brands are turning into common practice. Even resale programs from brands such as Shein, Pretty Little Thing, and Zara meant to make for easier sustainable shopping launched last year but in reality, are riddled with mixed messages and greenwashing tactics. These collaborations and collections mark a shift in consumer interest yet fall flat on providing a meaningful outcome. 

The 2022 Boohoo announcement naming Kourtney Kardashian as the brand’s new sustainability ambassador had everyone rubbing their eyes making sure they read the headlines right. In 2020 the brand came under fire for unethical labor practices where it was found that workers were being paid as little as £3.50 an hour. Boohoo was also involved in a class action lawsuit with other fast fashion brands Pretty Little Thing and Nasty Gal for inflating original prices to make a greater profit on sale items. In the same year, Vice found that Boohoo releases as many as 700 new garments a week. The Kourtney Kardashian ambassadorship was meant to start the process of the company turning a new leaf to have more sustainable and ethical actions. Even for this collection the sustainability efforts were minuscule at best and still used fabrics such as polyester that does not biodegrade such as natural fibers. This wasn’t a surprise or even much of a shock, rather the controversy came from the marketing around it being labeled as a ‘sustainable’ collection garnered angry reactions but wasn’t anything new in terms of the mega-celebrity fast fashion deal that we see on repeat.

The Slow Factory partnership is something we are seeing more often as some textile innovation companies or other innovation brands work to bring more sustainable resources to fashion. It’s easy to want to shame these collaborators especially when outside of this instance are doing remarkable work while on the other hand, there’s an acknowledgement of both the financial opportunity and ability to reach a larger audience through these opportunities. Ultimately it’s not the brand’s fault that the market and demand for fast fashion have made it so that smaller companies have to compromise their values for monetary needs. 

These collaborations prompt larger discussions around disclosure information, ethical production, and sustainability standards. To make it simple, a sustainable line from a fast fashion brand isn’t true sustainability, or even close to it. Fast fashion brands provide easy accessibility with their wide size range, low cost, and fast shipping but this comes with a human and environmental cost that is so often ignored by both consumers and the brands themselves. Celebrity-endorsed sustainable collections are the new greenwashing tactic to continue to lure in consumers especially those who are on the precipice of making more conscious purchases but aren’t armed with proper information on greenwashing to combat the impressive yet misleading marketing. So what can we do? Education and information are crucial, especially in a disinformation age. Taking a moment to truly question if and why we need something is second. Embracing slow fashion also means to slow down. Fast fashion gets us by pushing the consumer to make fast and easy purchases with no thorough thought. Not everything is worth a click or worth your money even if it seems like a great step towards a more sustainable future in fashion. Take a moment to understand the possible implications of your purchase and what it means to support these so-called sustainable collections.