How Re-humanizing Production Could Change Fashion’s Value Perception

Much like most clothing prices today, consumers’ talk about their fashion purchasing behavior is cheap. There is a clear disconnect between the sustainability they claim to value and what they will actually pay for.

One reason for this gap is simply financial. There is a segment of the population that cannot afford to pay more for clothing, especially as prices of other goods inflate. However, the main factor influencing the propensity toward super low-priced apparel—such as T-shirts retailing for low single-digit dollar amounts—is a lack of awareness about how garments are manufactured. Many shoppers believe that clothing production is automated like car assembly, whereas the reality is that skilled human hands are making our clothes.

More from Sourcing Journal

• How Diversity and Direct Brand Relationships Are Driving Growth for Copen United

• Fashion Supply Chains Enter the 'MMA Era:' MIT's Charles Fine on Resilience, Digital Change and China's Next Global Leap

• Liva Reviva™ M Brings Mechanically Recycled Fibers into the MMCF Ecosystem

“The majority of consumers do not realize that 90 percent of the world’s fashion is still handmade by people on machines; it’s not automated,” said Suzanne Ellingham, director at UK-based trade show Source Fashion, produced by Hyve Group. “Consumers do want to make better choices, but there is a huge storytelling and education gap as to how clothes are made. We’re conditioned that fashion is cheap, and I think that is still a big part of the consumer consciousness, and I don’t think it’s going to change until we start to re-humanize fashion.”

The lack of understanding about fashion production and the people behind it is partly due to offshoring, which has created an “out of sight, out of mind” attitude. Moving production back to the place of consumption could change the narrative around the value of clothing, and consumers have shown they will pay more for something made domestically.

Ellingham noted that companies often say that shifting production to locations such as the United Kingdom would be too expensive, in part due to wage requirements in the Global North. However, she challenged fashion firms to look at the full picture of their pricing, since producing in Asia comes with high import taxes and shipping costs. Additionally, focusing on selling more at full price could make the equation more appealing. “If you start looking at the total cost of your range, then starting to manufacture close to home makes sense,” she said.

However, completely pulling out of offshore production hubs is not the answer either, since the industry sustains the economies of other countries. Instead, the focus should be on changing production practices to allow for living wages that support a better life and work-life balance for workers—for instance, enabling them to afford to send their children to school and allowing for time off. “The only way that we’re going to do that is if we actually start paying more for our clothes and genuinely start producing less but better,” said Ellingham.

Manufacturers’ already strained margins are at risk of shrinking further as some U.S. retailers try to push tariff costs onto their suppliers. But this thinking is moving in the wrong direction.

On the heels of crises including the pandemic—and as trade and tariff situations along with the legislation landscape are changing rapidly–companies may be focusing on other concerns instead of sustainable sourcing. “A lot of businesses do want to be sourcing more responsibly,” said Ellingham. “But the reality at the moment is that a lot of businesses are in survival mode.”

Some legislative changes will have a direct effect on consumer understanding about the industry. Regulation is rolling out next year in Europe for digital product passports (DPP). Stipulating supply chain disclosures at point of sale, this tool will help consumers gain a better grasp on their clothing’s origin, meaning shoppers will soon know exactly which factories made a particular garment, giving them “real, true transparency.”

Ellingham also sees an opening for collective awareness campaigns—something that is currently lacking in communications and advertising. “There is an education piece that needs to be done industry wide to consumers to explain why clothes should actually cost more,” she said. “If we’re mining and creating virgin materials and fabrics, then there’s an environmental cost there. But ultimately, it is a human cost.”

If consumers better understand this human cost, it could change how they value their clothes. In addition to considering their purchases more carefully and potentially paying more at the till, they may wear their wardrobe items longer or be more thoughtful about what happens to them after they no longer want them.

It’s not only consumers that need a crash course in fashion production. As travel to factories has slowed post pandemic, often buyers lack firsthand knowledge about what goes into making garments. On the Source Fashion show floor in January, this production story will come to life through Fashion Deconstructed, a new area that will feature six machinists powering a mini production line. Workshops will dive into what can be accomplished in an hour, what high-end production looks like and the construction behind denim. There will also be hands-on sessions around printing, upcycling and repair.

The conversation is also extending online through Source’s digital content series “Manufacturing that Matters,” which is profiling factories with a focus on the people and the human side of their business.

“There’s one thing seeing manufacturing on a PowerPoint, website or Sedex audit, and then there’s something else actually seeing it in person,” said Ellingham. “Once people get bitten with the bug of how things are made, it opens the door to different conversations.”

Click here to learn more about Source Fashion and register for the January edition.