The fast-fashion industry appeared to be on the verge of a serious setback when President Donald Trump began his trade war with China earlier this year. The Chinese-founded businesses Shein and Temu saw a sharp decline in sales as a result of price increases forced by strict tariffs and other trade regulations. (Sales of international brands, like Sweden’s H&M and Spain’s Zara, were also noted.)
At the time, some analysts hypothesized that Trump’s economic agenda might benefit from these developments: Perhaps the increased prices would promote more conscientious consumption—and lessen the allure of clothing produced by the fast-fashion industry, which is well-known for its damaging environmental practices and exploitative working conditions.
However, that argument fails to recognize the characteristics of the fast-fashion industry. It is a huge, profitable, and agile sector that isn’t nationalized. H&M plans to expand production in Central America, partly to avoid U.S. tariffs on its Chinese-made goods, while Shein and Temu, which manufacture the majority of their products in China, have been increasing their advertising in Europe and Latin America to attract new customers.
Target is testing a new system that mimics Shein’s strategy of shipping goods straight from factories to customers, which is one of the secrets to their incredibly low prices. Additionally, while Temu and Shein’s sales continue to decline, those of other low-cost clothing retailers, such as H&M, are increasing.
The fundamental issues with fast fashion, such as labor violations and adverse environmental effects, would not likely go away even if American consumers stopped purchasing from Shein entirely. Fast fashion has always been used as a scapegoat because it is the most obvious representation of the problems that beset all types of clothing companies, whether they sell basics, athleisure, or luxury goods.
Individual consumer decisions, like cutting back on purchases or choosing organic apparel, could support the survival of small, more environmentally friendly businesses. However, they typically don’t result in the kinds of structural adjustments that would be necessary to genuinely transform the apparel industry, like more stringent laws or government funding for eco-friendly textiles.
There has never been a single nation that has dominated fashion and all of its issues. International cooperation and a stable global economy are necessary for change. However, America’s isolationism and trade war are alienating almost all of the nations with which it does business and are putting a stop to any efforts to make the fashion industry more accountable.
In fact, our clothing may eventually be produced in even worse conditions than they are now if the trade war goes on. The problems with fashion today have decades-old roots. According to the popular narrative, American politicians opened up international trade in the 1980s and 1990s in ways that benefited large corporations at the expense of workers and the environment.
Fashion brands benefited from this since most of them ceased producing their own clothing and instead partnered with factories in lower-wage nations like Bangladesh or China. Fast-fashion businesses in particular took advantage of the change in the early 2000s by maintaining low prices using both cheaper labor and cheaper materials.
Between 1979 and 2019, a startling number of jobs were lost in American manufacturing, including 81 percent of jobs in clothing and textiles. Never in the world’s history have so many adorable garments been available for the price of a sandwich, and for some consumers, clothing has become a commodity to be purchased and then discarded.
The quantity of clothing and footwear that ended up in American landfills tripled between 1990 and 2018. Eventually, the system’s drawbacks became apparent.
Additionally, in recent years, Shein and Temu have been singled out by American politicians and the media as some of the worst offenders in China. Temu was doing “next to nothing to keep its supply chains free from slave labor,” according to a congressional investigation conducted in 2023.
According to media and NGO reports, employees at Shein suppliers violate China’s labor laws by working 75-hour weeks, sometimes with just one day off per month. Furthermore, approximately two-thirds of Shein’s clothing is composed of polyester, a fiber derived from fossil fuels that releases microplastics into waterways each time it is laundered.
According to the investigation, Temu denied direct accountability and stated that it requested suppliers to adhere to a code of conduct that includes a “zero-tolerance policy” for forced labor. In response to these revelations, Shein has declared that it is “committed to ensuring the fair and dignified treatment of all workers within our supply chain” and that it keeps an eye on factories to make sure that Shein’s code of conduct is being followed. It has also been effective in reducing waste.
However, the harsh working conditions in the fashion industry are not limited to China or even the fast-fashion industry. In the global fashion industry, long hours, low pay, and other unfavorable working conditions are still common.
Sweatshops were used to produce handbags in Italy by luxury brands Armani and Dior last year. According to a recent investigation, extreme heat and exhaustion were causing workers at a Nike supplier factory in Cambodia to faint.
Due to the fact that the majority of fashion brands collaborate with factories that they do not own, their reactions to allegations of unethical behavior have generally been as follows: Although the factories are usually in charge of adhering to the law, the brands claim to care about workers but then delegate responsibility for working conditions to them.
Nike has declared that it “is committed to ethical and responsible manufacturing” and that its code of conduct establishes guidelines for suppliers. Dior has claimed that sweatshops in Italy “contradict its values” and that the factories concealed the issues from the company, while Armani has stated that it seeks to lessen abuses in its supply chain.
According to some fashion analysts, manufacturing everything in the US, which now produces only 3.6% of the clothing it consumes (compared to 98 percent in the early 1960s), could help lessen the wider social issues related to fast fashion.
Trump’s tariff policy also appeals to the bipartisan expectation that more “Made in America” goods will result in more middle-class jobs. However, producing more clothing in the US does not necessarily translate into more sustainable or ethical production.
The fact that many remaining American garment workers receive a lower percentage of a living wage than their counterparts in some of the nations where a large portion of American apparel is produced, like Vietnam or Cambodia, is an unsettling reality.
For example, 80 percent of more than 50 American clothing manufacturers surveyed by the U.S. Department of Labor in 2022 had violated labor laws; in one instance, workers were paid as little as $1.58 per hour.
Additionally, a lot of Americans are hesitant to work in factories because they think the jobs are generally less comfortable and flexible than those in other industries, like the service sector, and they don’t pay enough.
Additionally, attempts to return clothing manufacturing to the United States frequently ignore a nuanced reality: Nowadays, a large number of the most advanced, environmentally friendly factories and manufacturers are found abroad, including in China. (Examples of sustainability and innovation are now worldwide issues, just as abuses and bad practice examples are.)
In actuality, businesses trying to produce in the US and lessen their environmental impact face major challenges as a result of the current trade policies in the US. Numerous American brands depend on imported textiles, including environmentally friendly ones like linen, a plant-based fiber that is hardly ever grown in the US anymore.
Due to the increased cost of these imports, some American businesses are finding it more difficult to remain in operation. Additionally, if businesses are forced to pay higher tariffs, they might try to scale back sustainability initiatives, like cutting carbon emissions, which don’t directly boost sales or revenue in lean economic times.
According to Brian La Plante, senior sustainability manager at the massive Japanese zipper company YKK, “the environment is the biggest loser of all.” The tariffs are a lose-lose situation for everyone.
In the absence of global regulations mandating that businesses uphold fundamental labor rights and environmental standards, ethical businesses will continue to face competition from those offering cheaper clothing and engaging in unethical business practices.
For the world to be clothed, factory production must become much cleaner and more efficient. This change cannot be made cheaply: Imagine the resources required to convert massive, coal-hungry textile mills to renewable energy or to create completely new fibers and spinning machines that don’t require hazardous chemicals or release tiny plastic particles.
According to a significant fashion industry report, reaching global climate targets by reducing carbon emissions to net zero could cost up to $1 trillion.
The future of ethical and sustainable production in the fashion industry is not bright, regardless of what tariffs may do in the near future. Many businesses are currently cutting back on their environmental, social, and governance initiatives as well as their corporate climate commitments because the Trump administration is generally against them.
Labor-rights efforts in the garment industry abroad have been severely harmed by the United States’ cuts to foreign aid and the closure of USAID. Even significant legislative initiatives that might aid in reforming the fashion industry are suffering.
The European Union has enacted the most extensive measure to date to mandate that businesses report on and adhere to fundamental environmental and human rights standards in the last two years. Many businesses that operate in the EU, including some Chinese or American brands, are subject to the laws.
Proposed amendments, such as one that would cut the number of businesses required to abide by one of the laws by roughly 80%, were introduced in February and appear to be responding to pressure to weaken the laws.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has stated that one of the laws would raise the “liability and reputational risk” of American companies. In March, a Senate Republican also introduced a bill to exempt American companies from the strictest of the new regulations. The potential of EU legislation to address some of the major issues facing fashion is undermined by all of this.
Of course, there is one advantage to the trade war: It will be a significant change in the most materialistic country in the world if it leads to Americans becoming more thoughtful shoppers. However, cutting back on consumption won’t solve every problem.
Politicians have a great deal of influence over what we purchase, where it is produced, and how much it costs. Fast fashion’s negative effects will only worsen unless its global underpinnings are addressed.
