For years, environmentalists, climate change activists, and human rights organisations have raised concerns about the impact of the growing fast fashion industry around the globe. In a world where a consumer mentality of “I want it cheap, and I want it now” prevails, these brands have established and maintained a unique global position in the retail market. Among the concerns raised about the prevalence of fast fashion is the impact on the environment. According to an analysis by Business Insider, “fast fashion production comprises 10 per cent of total global carbon emissions, as much as the emissions generated by the European Union… Even washing clothes produced by fast fashion factories releases 500,000 tons of microfibers into the ocean each year, the equivalent of 50 billion plastic bottles.”
President Donald Trump’s Executive Orders have made headlines around the world, particularly the Administration’s Executive Order imposing “reciprocal” tariffs on dozens of foreign trade countries and eliminating the duty-free de minimis exemption for imports.
According to US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the United States imported $66 billion in low-value packages in 2023. Additionally, between 2018 and 2021, 67.4 per cent of de minimis shipments came from China and Hong Kong. At this time, $800 in goods per day per person was allowed to be imported without any imposition of tariffs and administrative fees. However, as a result of this Executive Order, packages sent from China valued at or under $800 that would otherwise have qualified for the de minimis exemption are now subject to a duty rate of 30 per cent of their value or $50 per item, depending on which cost is greater. As such, there may be potential consequences to the ubiquity of fast fashion. After all, if fast fashion is no longer as “cheap” as it had been, will people still buy it at such prolific levels?
Some thought that higher prices would effectively reduce the overall footprint of fast fashion on the environment, thereby fostering a better climate for the development of sustainability options. Despite it being expected that the tariffs would slow the fast fashion industry by eliminating low costs, the integral characteristic that primarily attracts consumers, conventional wisdom is that the definitive demise is unlikely.
Although the retail market shows that consumption decreases when prices rise, this behaviour is attributed most significantly to a younger demographic. For other customers, when prices rise, consumption patterns often stay the same. The things that attracted them in the first place (other than cost) are still there, such as style, up-to-date fashion, and a large selection of immediately available on-trend “looks”.
While some China-based companies have increased prices, others have either relocated production to other countries with lower tariffs and labour costs or simply offered to cover the cost of tariffs that would otherwise be imposed on the customer. These are difficult choices for a brand operating on tighter margins.
For those on tighter margins they have had to seek other measures to balance profitability with sustainability efforts. According to Earth Day, the world’s largest recruiter to the environmental movement across 192 countries: “This often results in factory owners — who operate on slim margins — reducing wages, speeding up production, or shifting manufacturing to countries with weaker labor protections to meet the lower price demands.” Consequently, an indirect and inadvertent consequence could be compromised worker rights.
Tariffs are not able to differentiate between a dress that costs less than $5, made in a factory with poor labour standards, and a designer dress made by workers earning living wages.
Conclusion
In theory, tariffs might be one measure that could support more environmentally friendly commerce, even indirectly. However, as the market has shown, where there is usually a will, there is a way. Businesses are resilient and creative so long as the underlying demand is there. For now, it certainly seems like such demand is not waning. Environmentalists who applauded the potential positive “Knock on” effect of higher costs caused by tariffs, might need to look beyond tariffs to foster a shift toward sustainability in the fashion industry.
Share