The paradox of ethical fashion

Ragamalika Karthikeyan

It’s 10 pm, and you open Instagram. You’ve spent the whole day working hard at a thankless job, and it’s not fair that you get to do nothing else with your day. You can’t sleep, not yet, so you doom scroll — and there’s that ad again. A beautiful, embroidered jacket made from sustainable materials that costs over Rs 10,000. You now start seeing more such ads — ethical brands, slow fashion brands, homegrown brands, big brands you thought were villainous that now have conscious clothing lines… Everything is expensive, but if that’s the cost of saving the planet, why not, right? 

Just hours after you finally put your phone down to sleep, the woman who sewed the pocket onto that shirt you ordered leaves home from a village close to Bengaluru, her lunch box packed. By 8 am, she reaches the garment factory where she works as part of an assembly line making garments for the international brand that retails in India. She doesn’t know that the brand has promised its customers that the shirt is sustainable. All she knows is that if she doesn’t sew on 120 pockets in an hour, the supervisor is going to make her life hell. 

“When it comes to sustainability, particularly in the Indian context, nobody likes to talk about workers' rights,” says Nandita Shivakumar, a labour researcher and activist. “It's all about eco-friendly materials, or at the most, it will be about repairing, reusing, recycling. But labour is completely out of this conversation.”

“And if we are not going to talk about labour, this is going to fail,” Nandita says. 

Fashion’s footprint

Sustainability has become a buzzword in fashion in recent years, and for good reason. The pollution caused by the fashion industry, from the manufacturing process to the amount of waste that goes into landfills because of fast fashion, is a big cause for concern. It uses 215 trillion litres of water per year, accounts for 2 to 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and almost 85% of the textiles we produce end up in landfills. Cotton alone drinks inordinate amounts of freshwater and chemical inputs: the crop occupies 2.5% of the world’s farmland, yet consumes 6% of all pesticides and 16 % of insecticides. 

“One common statistic is that a simple cotton shirt takes 2,700 litres of water to make, from fibre to end product,” says a senior expert from a reputed think-tank working with industries on sustainability issues.

There is a niche market emerging with an appetite for the “right” kind of clothes — fashion that doesn’t harm the planet, fashion that is about values. “Sustainable fashion customers are not just buying a product. They’re buying into a story, a value system, a slower rhythm of consumption,” explains Dr Tryphena R, Assistant Professor, Department of Costume Design and Fashion, PSGR Krishnammal College, Coimbatore, who has studied customer behaviour in sustainable fashion. “There’s a growing consumer appetite for brands that feel personal, rooted and purpose-driven, supporting a local weaver or the sari your grandmother passed down,” she says. 

What is a 100% sustainable garment? 

“It begins at the seed,” says Ananthoo, the founder of Tula, a non-profit that works with cotton organically grown by smallholder, rainfed farmers, and produces sustainable garments to create livelihoods. 

According to Ananthoo and Dr Tryphena, an environmentally sustainable garment is one that is made from rain-fed cotton or other locally produced material that doesn’t depend on irrigation, is cultivated without synthetic fertilisers or pesticides, is spun with minimal use of power, uses non-toxic plant-based dyes, creates little wastage in the way it is cut and sewn. 

“There’s little colour range in such a process and it’s expensive, but that’s the trade-off,” Dr Tryphena explains. And that’s one of the reasons why it’s difficult to sustain a small brand that’s fully sustainable, because consumers want clothes that are brighter. 

In fact, the preferences for brighter colours extend even to the packaging. “The process of recycling scraps into packaging material is very difficult, and the colour is out of control. It’s mixed waste, and to keep it environmentally friendly, you can’t use bleach. So what you end up with is packaging that is a dull grey. It is difficult for brands to find acceptance for it, because there’s a brand value attached to these things,” the think tank source says. 

Despite the challenges, some brands are trying to tackle the waste generated by the industry. “I’ve been in the fashion industry for 35 years — I used to do white labelling for various brands — but it was only around 2017 that I realised how much waste was being generated by the industry. In 2019, I started Bunko Junko to do something about the waste,” says Bhavini Parikh, the founder of Bunko Junko, which uses textile scraps to create new garments and other products. “Every kilo of textile waste that enters our workshop leaves as a finished product, or goes back sorted for reuse,” she says. 

But while there are smaller brands that are solving for issues of waste and livelihoods, there is criticism about how big brands are using the story of sustainability, and whether it’s just becoming another “category” of fashion. Consumer awareness around what constitutes sustainability is also very low, experts say, and the industry is doing little to change that.

“For instance, bamboo or hemp look green on paper, but they’re big industrial products, mostly imported from China. If it can’t be grown and processed by a rural Indian woman or a local group, we shouldn’t call it sustainable,” Ananthoo says. The labels that come with sustainable garments — GOTS, Fairtrade, Higg, ZDHC — also find very little meaning among consumers. But not much is being done to create awareness about these issues among consumers, experts say. 

The reason, critics say, is because “Saving the Planet” is only another tagline for marketing. “It’s a spin on the narrative,” says Gopinath Parakuni, founder of Cividep India. 

“What even is the meaning of sustainable fashion if the worker who is making that garment cannot sustain herself?” asks Thivya Rakini, State President of the Tamil Nadu Textile and Common Labour Union (TTCU). 

While it’s good to see businesses talking about climate change and the environment, for most companies, sustainability is a tick-mark exercise, says Namrata Raju, a labour and public policy researcher. “A lot of what is happening is because of ESG (Environment, Social, Governance) compliance requirements. However, while they’re looking at the environment part of things, the social part is completely missing.” 

While brands distinguish between “sustainable” and “fast” fashion, those differences don’t exist on the factory floor, say trade union leaders, even if the workers are the first to feel the heat. 

Most brands outsource their manufacturing to suppliers, who then employ workers to make garments as per the brand’s specifications, label and ship them to the brand. Even if the supplier is aware of the narrative around sustainability that brands are building, the women stitching the garment are not made aware of any of this language. And considering they’re denied decent wages and work conditions, these distinctions don’t matter to them. 

“Take the heat, for example. It’s much worse this year than in previous years. But has any brand stepped forward to take extra measures for workers? Every brand is responsible, big or small. They can’t just say, ‘In our supply chain, we do this, we do that,’ and stop there,” says Thivya Rakini.

'Built on the bodies of women'

India’s garment workforce is overwhelmingly female, often migrants. While the garment manufacturing industry is one of the biggest employers, these workers are among the lowest-paid workers in the global supply chain, despite producing for some of the world’s most profitable brands. “As some activists have pointed out, this entire industry is built on the bodies of women,” Gopinath says. “And most of these brands don’t own the factories. So they dodge responsibility for conditions inside them.”

Nandita Shivakumar, who has worked closely with women garment workers, notes that access to drinking water and toilets is often restricted, and childcare centres (crèches), though mandated by law, are either non-functional or entirely absent in domestic production units. Gopinath Parakuni adds that most factories fail to comply with the legal provisions under Indian law or the international standards set by ILO conventions:

“There is no functional grievance redressal mechanism. Women workers receive at best only minimum wages, which is at the poverty level, and face harassment on the shop floor. They are often required to do overtime work. Any attempt to form or join trade unions is put down by the factory management.” These are not isolated incidents, the activists argue — they’re part of a systemic undervaluing of the workforce that sustains the industry.

BC Raju, general secretary of the Karnataka state Garment & Textile workers Union, points to one basic demand that has yet to be fulfilled. “Most factories don’t provide lunch. Women leave home at 6 am, travel long distances, and work till evening, and most companies don’t even provide them with a hot meal. That’s why we’ve been demanding a midday meal scheme for garment workers.” 

“There’s no difference in how sustainable and fast fashion brands treat workers,” says Thivya. “They all want to maximise profit. Only the marketing changes.” Workers are routinely expected to meet unrealistic targets. If a woman fails to stitch 120 shirt pockets in an hour, she may be shouted at or forced to work overtime. Whether the shirt is sold as “sustainable” or not makes no difference.

According to Namrata, the way a garment is produced in a large factory is the way a worker is exploited — in an assembly line. “In an assembly line, you’re doing the same task over and over again, like sewing just sleeves all day, or collars all day. The nature of that task directly shapes what kind of exploitation you face. If it involves sitting, you’re likely to develop back pain. If it involves standing, there are other consequences. At the core of it, the human being becomes just a part of the machinery, reduced to their output,” she says. 

“This is the economic model we’ve built — one that’s so focused on mass production that it strips workers of their basic humanity. It’s a model that prioritises productivity above all else. Even going to the restroom is seen as a disruption to productivity. That’s the level of control,” Namrata explains. 

But the other mode of producing garments — where they’re paid a “piece rate” for every garment they produce — is little better, activists say. “It’s self-exploitative,” explains Nandita, “The per piece rate is so low — 10 paisa, 25 paisa, etc — that if you have to get Rs 300, you have to make maybe a thousand garments. So, the target is still there if you want to get that bare minimum to survive for that day. Except, you will exploit yourself to get that.” Further, while a factory worker gets social security and holidays, the home-based worker gets no such benefits. 

What a conscious consumer should check for 

So, what should a conscious customer who wants to do the right thing ask of brands they buy from, especially when those brands make high claims about ethics and sustainability?

First, ask for transparency around their value chain. “Less than 10% of the garment’s final price is flowing down into the value chain, by some estimates,” says the think tank source. If workers have to get fair wages, consumers must demand change. 

Second, demand transparency in how workers are treated and compensated, activists say. “Many of these brands conduct audits, but they don’t capture everyday exploitation. Workers are coached on what to say. Real issues — wages, harassment, the lack of toilets or crèches — get papered over,” says Nandita. “These audits are conducted on the factory floor, and in an industry where workers don’t have freedom of association or collective bargaining rights, how do they expect them to speak the truth in front of their bosses?” asks BC Raju. 

And that should be the third demand from consumers, he says. “There are no recognised unions in any of the factories in Karnataka, and no collective bargaining agreements. The industry is powerful and is not allowing union formation — the government is doing little because of the threat that the factories will be moved to other states,” BC Raju says. 

To save the planet, meanwhile, “the most sustainable fashion choice is what’s already in your wardrobe,” says Dr Tryphena. “We own 4x more clothes than our parents’ generation did, and only 20% of what we own is effectively used. It’s important to learn how to care for your clothes, how to repair and upcycle or recycle them, to truly be sustainable.” 

Know your numbers 

* Minimum wage that a skilled garment worker gets in India: Rs 13,000 per month (in hand is Rs 10,000 per month).

* Living wage — the amount required for a dignified existence: Rs 35,000 per month. 

* The percentage of your garment’s retail price that actually goes to workers: 3 to 4% 

The story of a sustainable cotton shirt

* What you pay: Rs 1,500 to Rs 4,000.

* What workers get: Rs 45 to Rs 120, shared between everyone in the assembly line —Rs 1.5 to Rs 4 per worker.

* What it costs the environment: 3,000 litres of freshwater used and 4.3 kg CO₂ equivalent emitted.

Quick guide to sustainable fashion terms

1. Circularity: A system designed to minimise waste by keeping products, fabrics, and fibres in use as long as possible through repair, reuse, resale, recycling, and upcycling.

2. Upcycling: Transforming waste materials, unwanted products, or fabric scraps into new products of equal or higher quality and value.

3. Greenwashing: Marketing tactics where brands misleadingly present their products as more eco-friendly or ethical than they genuinely are.

4. Organic cotton: Cotton grown without synthetic pesticides, fertilisers, or genetically modified organisms (GMOs), typically reducing environmental impacts significantly.

5. Fairtrade certified:  Products certified to ensure better wages, decent working conditions, and fairer terms of trade for farmers and workers.

6. GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard): A certification standard guaranteeing organic fibres, socially responsible manufacturing, and environmental protections throughout the textile supply chain.

7. Carbon Footprint: Total greenhouse gas emissions caused directly or indirectly by producing and consuming a garment, typically measured in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent (kg CO₂-e).