="--" id="docs-internal-guid-72c45f57-7fff-edb8-a082-814604110034">We are living in a profound paradox. Human productivity has reached unprecedented heights, yet this efficiency has spawned equally staggering waste. This is especially true in the global fashion industry, a multi-trillion-dollar behemoth whose core operations are built on a foundation of systemic, almost sanctioned waste. Every year, a staggering 92 million tons of textiles are sent directly to landfills, equivalent to a full truckload of clothing being permanently discarded every second.
You might ask: with so much deadstock on one hand and so many developing countries and regions in need on the other, why can't these goods be put to use, sold cheaply, or donated to those who need them? The answer is a brutal reality that, while seemingly illogical, aligns perfectly with the operating logic of the current global fashion industry.
First, introducing a massive volume of stock clothing into less developed countries has the immediate consequence of decimating their local textile and apparel industries. As local manufacturing disappears, the entire related supply chain-- from cotton farming to textile production and dyeing-- withers. This deals a heavy blow to a nation's industrialization process.
Second, the process of "donation" is not as simple as it seems. It involves exorbitant costs. Consider the screening and sorting required: classifying, cleaning, and packing clothes of different types, sizes, and seasons demands significant manpower and resources. Then there are the transportation costs for cross-border shipping, which are incredibly high. Furthermore, tariffs and trade barriers exist; some countries impose them to protect their local industries, further increasing the cost and difficulty of donation. For all these reasons, fashion companies find that the most cost-effective solution is also their optimal one: disposing of inventory locally, such as sending it to landfills or incinerators.
The root of this dilemma is not an accidental flaw but a structural defect in traditional manufacturing: the "produce-first, sell-later" model. In this system, companies rely on market demand forecasts to engage in large-scale production to achieve economies of scale. But forecasts are never perfect. The direct consequence is an astronomical amount of unsold inventory. Waste, here, is not a byproduct but a "business cost" necessary to keep the system running-- a liability cleverly shifted from the balance sheet onto the planet's environment.
The environmental cost of this model is clear and quantifiable. The fashion industry accounts for 10% of all global carbon emissions, more than international flights and maritime shipping combined. It is responsible for 20% of all industrial water pollution worldwide. Producing a single cotton T-shirt requires nearly 700 gallons of water, while a pair of jeans requires almost 2,000 gallons. Behind these numbers is a production system that tolerates immense resource consumption in pursuit of extremely low unit costs.
Beyond the environmental toll, the social costs are equally alarming. The globalized supply chain shifts production to developing countries, where the pressure for rapid output often leads to the neglect of labor rights. According to a report by the U.S. Department of Labor, there is evidence of forced labor in the fashion industry in multiple countries. Meanwhile, the waste generated at the consumer end is often exported back to these same developing nations for disposal, inflicting a "secondary injury" on their already fragile environments and communities. Ghana, for example, receives about 15 million items of used clothing each week, of which up to 40% is of such poor quality that it cannot be sold and ends up in towering piles of waste.
This overproduction-driven model has also profoundly shaped our consumer culture on a psychological level. Fast fashion giants release new styles at a breathtaking pace, creating in consumers a perpetual craving for novelty and a rapid fatigue with the old. Over the past 15 years, the average number of times a garment is worn has decreased by about 36%, with many items being discarded after only seven to ten wears. This "disposable culture" is not a simple matter of personal choice; it is actively shaped and reinforced by the industry's production speed and marketing strategies.
The problem we face, therefore, is far more profound than just "not being green enough." It is a systemic, interlocking dilemma: a production model based on prediction inevitably leads to structural resource misallocation and waste; this waste generates enormous negative externalities on environmental, social, and psychological levels; and the entire system cleverly distributes and conceals these costs through a globalized supply chain, making it resistant to reforms in any single segment.
Therefore, any meaningful solution cannot stop at advocating for recycling or using eco-friendly materials. It must fundamentally challenge the very logic of how we "make" things.
1
