For the fashion industry, out of sight too often means out of mind. This means that certain indiscretions can easily fly under the radar. This is true when it comes to emissions and even more so when it comes to the human element of the global supply chain. 

A fresh chain of landmark rulings in Bangladesh, however, could soon change all that for the better – and not only in the cradle of the world’s garment manufacturing industry, but globally. 

With the country supplying $7.4 billion USD of clothing to the United States and €4.3 billion EUR to the European Union each year – their second- and third-largest suppliers, respectively – it is no exaggeration to say that when the pendulum swings in Bangladesh, it also begins to swing worldwide. 

First, the nation’s new interim government officially dropped a cache of criminal cases numbering almost 50,000 – charges which had been levied against garment workers demonstrating egregiously low wages.

Now, that pivot has also ushered in a broader swathe of pro-worker legislation. Rulings which, in making it easier for workers to unionise in smaller numbers, could not only test the garment industry’s opacity but also loosen its once-iron grip on the governments and citizens of manufacturing-driven countries worldwide. 

Yes, in Bangladesh it’s a major victory for all those directly involved – the human impact which would have likely accompanied such a reckless slew of prosecutions cannot be understated.

But, crucially, it has become the springboard for something much bigger. 

With the cases now dismissed as the acts of a corrupt government in league with (or in thrall to) its largest source of revenue and members of that government facing indictments,  manufacturers in Bangladesh will likely think twice before pursuing similar anti-collectivist action again. Particularly with pro-union legislation, making it easier for workers to take action following in the wake of those dropped charges. 

Companies elsewhere may well draw a sharp breath and think to steady their own hands: a win for workers in a nation as instrumental to the industry as Bangladesh should, therefore, mean a win for workers worldwide – a positive change in terms of fairer pay and better conditions. Or, at least, in their ability to demand those things. 

The world’s eighth-most populous country; not only does Bangladesh’s garment sector account for 60% of the nation’s exports, it also produces nearly 8% of all clothing manufactured worldwide. A figure that puts the developing nation behind only China in those stakes. Those statistics put Bangladesh firmly in a position to set precedent for the entire fashion industry. 

It’s a tipping point – one you could argue ought never to have been reached in the first place.

Given that garment workers typically receive less than 1% of the price of each T-shirt they make, €0.18 on a €29 product sold in Europe, the initial protests were no surprise; that the factories themselves only take 4% in the same transaction also means it’s hardly surprising that they would take action against anything – or anyone – impacting their already scant margins. 

Organisations like the Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC), however, alleged foul play: that the filing of mass criminal charges against demonstrators asking for just BDT 23,000 ($196) per month were not based on the nature of those protests, but were made (often without evidence) in order to discourage further collective action en masse and with a heavy hand. 

Not just in Bangladesh, but as a model for the garment industry as a whole. 

With the change in governance, however, there is a change in the prevailing winds. Where the previous, scandal-beleaguered Hasina administration had clearly picked the side of manufacturers and of the fashion industry which near-singlehandedly props up the country’s economy, its successor has now ruled in favour of the workers who hold the entire operation together. 

Speaking to Eco Age, Bogu Gojdź, campaign and outreach co-ordinator for the Clean Clothes Campaign says: “Filing of mass criminal cases is a common repression method aimed to freeze protest and intimidate workers away from any form of organising. This victory means that 48,000 workers and families can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that they won’t be facing prosecution for exercising their legal right to protest.”

Kalpona Akhter – union leader and executive director of the Bangladesh Center for Workers Solidarity – echoed Gojdź’s sentiment, positioning the legal win as a precedent for reshaping the wider industry: “This is a massive victory for workers in Bangladesh, for trade unions anywhere in the world and for international solidarity. It shows the strength of workers, of organising and of international solidarity work.”

Gojdź, too, sees the potential for this victory to expand outward and begin a fresh wave of change for workers: “Trade unions and partners in the CCC Network are continuing their collaboration with the interim government.

“A much-needed labour law reform is currently underway, including provisions on the right to organise and the right to strike, as well as several provisions on an improved wage-setting machinery.

“Through the enforcement of these reforms, and the implementation of fair pricing and responsible purchasing practices by international brands, we can break the endless cycle of poverty wages, followed by repression and worker unrest and look towards a brighter turn for the fashion industry in Bangladesh.”

In fact, in the short space of time since Gojdź first made comment to Eco Age, fairer proposals have already come to light: most notably a reported decree to lower the number of required signatories for forming trade unions within Bangladeshi companies – a move which has made significant waves, disquieting garment manufacturers who rely on low wages to keep their profits in line. 

The pendulum is indeed swaying.

Karl Smith-Eloise is Features Director for Eco Age. He has worked as the EMEA Editorial Lead for HYPEBEAST and Editorial Director of FUTUREVVORLD, as a contributing editor to Highsnobiety, and for the fashion house FENDI. He now focuses exclusively on Earth-forward and ethical avenues in fashion, footwear and the broader culture.

COP30 was punctuated by a heavy presence from fossil fuel lobbyists, protests led by Indigenous groups and the breakout of a fire, with heavy symbolism of what is to come, if countries and corporates continue to drag their heels on climate action. 

Although no deal on a plan to phase out fossil fuel made it to the final draft, several themes emerged from Belem that were particularly pertinent for the fashion industry, including the just energy transition, stewarding oceans and biodiversity, as well as accelerating finance and capacity building for decarbonisation and climate adaptation.  

With industry emissions increasing steadily, what can fashion’s stakeholders take away from COP30?  

Removing barriers to the energy transition  

Prior to the convention, the UNFCCC Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action released an open letter, setting out clear priorities for a fossil fuel phase-out. It encouraged governments in key sourcing regions to remove legal and fiscal barriers hindering renewable energy procurement and electrification.  

However, fashion campaigners Action Speak Louder, Fashion Revolution and Stand.earth wanted the Charter to go further, particularly in spurring targeted policy advocacy in manufacturing hubs and brand investment in decarbonisation and adaptation.  

Ruth MacGilp, fashion campaign manager for Action Speaks Louder, emphasised the responsibility of the Charter. “It has a significant role to play in convening brands on adaptation because it is essential, but expensive.” 

 Indeed, the costs are high, given that by 2035, developing countries will need somewhere between $310 billion and $365 billion annually for targeted adaptation projects.  

Scaling financing for decarbonisation 

COP30 saw the launch of the Global Climate Finance Accountability Framework to enhance transparency and credibility for climate finance. This has the potential to set parameters for good governance for fashion’s financing too.  

Currently, the industry is falling short on financing decarbonisation projects. Fashion Revolution’s ‘What Fuels Fashion’ report identified that a mere 6% of 200 companies disclosed how much upfront investment support had been provided to suppliers for decarbonisation.  

Organisations such as the Apparel Impact Institute (Aii) are working to bridge the financing gap. Aii’s climate portfolio director, Pauline Op de Beeck, observed that “At COP30, we saw much wider traction around electrification within the energy transition, along with increased availability of renewable electricity.”  

Recently, the Aii has launched the Deployment Gap Grant, co-created with Indian suppliers, focused on tackling barriers to implementation and is consulting with stakeholders on the Energy and Carbon Benchmark, intended to strengthen the business case for supplier decarbonisation and align sourcing with an accessible KPI.  

Op de Beek made it clear that financing the transition is also about supporting optimisation and changing the way factories are heated, be that related to low-temperature dyeing or new processing machinery. “Suppliers are being asked to do a lot. We need to ensure the technical support is there and that brands co-finance it.”  

Amplifying policy advocacy  

Reaching fashion’s climate goals depends on system-wide infrastructure that can only be enhanced by policy changes. MacGilp explained: “Policy advocacy, particularly for those with a large export value in a given market, can demonstrate to governments that they want to continue doing business but require the availability of more renewable energy in the grid, better procurement options and better incentives for suppliers.” she commented.  

MacGilp referenced the successful engagement of brands, including H&M Group, with the Vietnamese government to advance Power Purchase Agreements in the country for it to become a manufacturing hub for heat pump technologies. 

“COP30 provided an opportunity for momentum for our company.” said Henrik Sundberg, climate impact lead for H&M Group. The Swedish retailer co-hosted an event with WWF Vietnam and IKEA on the role of public–private sector collaboration to implement renewable electrification in Vietnam. 

Sundberg caveated that “None of this can be achieved by one brand alone. All of these actions will only be successful with the support of national political ambitions and legal frameworks, carried out in close dialogue with policymakers.”  

Putting fashion workers at the centre  

Incorporating worker voices, often in the most climate-vulnerable countries, became another focal point at COP30. The launch of the Belém Action Mechanism set out a plan for a just transition that does not leave workers or communities behind.  

“Imposing a top-down energy transition without consulting the people who work in this sector is unjust” said MacGilp adding: They know what works best in their country context. This means co-creating strategies and incorporating feedback on infrastructure, technicalities and working environments.”  

Methane – Fashion’s emissions blind spot?  

Methane was high on the agenda as UNEP and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition released a global assessment reviewing nations’ efforts under the Global Methane Pledge to reduce methane by 30% from 2020 levels by 2030. Bloomberg Philanthropies also announced a $100 million investment to accelerate global efforts to cut methane emissions.  

Methane remains a priority for countries aiming to reach their NDCs, given that it is one of the most potent GHGs, with a global warming potential that is 86 times greater per mass unit than carbon dioxide on a 20-year timescale.  

At COP30, much of the focus on methane was related to waste, agriculture and food systems, but fashion’s supply chain is yet to be put to scrutiny as a contributor to the world’s rising methane emissions. Few brands publicly disclose a methane-emissions footprint accrued from animal-derived fibres as well as coal, gas or textile waste. According to Collective Fashion Justice, unabated action across the industry could result in an estimated 8.13 million tonnes of methane emitted annually.  

I asked Emma Håkansson, founding director of Collective Fashion Justice, why this has been so overlooked. She puts it down to a lack of understanding related to how different GHGs function.  

 Håkansson set out what she would like to see from brands to align actions with the Global Methane Pledge. “It is critical that brands start to measure and publish data on their methane emissions in isolation, not just as part of their overall CO2e emissions calculations. 

“We want to see brands developing and enacting serious methane mitigation strategies based on the methane hotspots in fashion.”  

A nature-positive pathway  

Taking place at the mouth of the Amazon rainforest, the nexus of the biodiversity crisis with the climate crisis was another pressing issue. Yet, with the binding roadmap to end deforestation dropped, alongside further delays to the EU Deforestation Regulation, brands must take action into their own hands as links to deforestation in supply chains for leather, cotton and viscose fall increasingly under scrutiny from investigators.  

Initial progress on disclosure is taking shape. Luxury players Kering and LVMH report to the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), identifying dependencies and impacts on nature as well as nature-related risks. Brands are also seeking certified regenerative sourcing approaches for cotton, wool and leather in a bid to bolster biodiversity strategies and minimise the nature-related impacts of raw material production. But despite these efforts, the World Benchmarking Alliance assessed that the industry’s action towards nature-positive transitions, soil health and water quality are still lagging.  

The roadmap to 2030 

Progress now depends on action outside of the COP arena. That means closing the financing gap stalling decarbonisation and ensuring money flows to climate-vulnerable manufacturing hubs bearing much of the industry’s risk.  

Enshrining workers’ rights throughout the transition will be paramount between now and 2030.  

“Fashion is past its data collection phase.” MacGilp asserted. “We don’t have a perfect roadmap, but suppliers are ready to decarbonise. By 2030, we want the industry to have a real proof of concept for fully renewable, electrified production across multiple geographies. I’m hopeful that brands that are motivated to reach their targets will meet them.” she concluded.   

Amy Nguyen is a strategist, researcher and writer focusing on sustainability, climate and nature. She works as a consultant for a variety of organisations, ranging from environmental think tanks, NGOs and research advisory firms, as well as early-stage companies in the energy, tech and fashion space.  

Her writing and research have been featured in the Times and Sunday Times, Bloomberg, Vogue, the Guardian and global news outlets.  

On Friday November 29 last year, consumers in the United States spent $11.3 million USD per minute between the hours of 10am and 2pm. With a 5% year-on-year increase, global sales reached $74.4 billion USD. As a category, versus daily average, apparel sales saw a 374% increase. 

In every sense of the word, the Black Friday binge is unsustainable. But it didn’t happen overnight.

So, how did we get here? Despite the phrase first being used to describe the US gold market crash of 1869, now more than a century ago, it was most recently hijacked by corporations – companies who, off the back of the United States’ holiday weekend, claimed it as the day they ‘went into the black’ and made a profit.

Back in 2020, etailer ASOS sold a black dress every single second of Black Friday trading. Five years ago, those numbers seemed astronomical. They still should. But, half a decade down the line, festivities for the Christmas of consumerism have only escalated further. 

We now have not only Black Friday, but what’s come – somewhat unimaginatively – to be called Black Week: an extension of the sales that span the week before and end, more or less, with Cyber Monday. For consumers, whose wallets are thinner than ever in a dire economic landscape, this feels like a boon: a reward. 

But Black Friday isn’t an act of generosity for loyalty to your favourite brand over the past year.

“Black Friday is just one way for brands to artificially stimulate demand for excess inventory that, in many cases, already exists,” says Elizabeth Pulos, Program Director, M.S. in Business for Social Impact & Sustainability at IE New York College and former Director of Global Sustainability at Nike-owned footwear brand Converse.

Pulos continues: “Most retailers overproduce by 10-40% as a matter of course, and with tariffs hitting earlier this year, they stockpiled even more inventory than usual to avoid the additional costs. Demand planning is notoriously difficult, so most companies simply use previous years’ sales to project forward, adding that additional 10-40% in as an inventory buffer.”

Black Friday, then, is built into the system: to move the kind of units that are sold, more products are manufactured than otherwise would be. And herein lies the problem: especially where apparel, footwear and accessories are concerned, extra volume doesn’t often add up to high-quality merchandise.

The frantic, first-come-first-served nature of Black Friday, too – where the illusion of scarcity drives sales even higher – pushes consumers to make choices they’d otherwise likely spend more time on and ultimately decide against. 

It’s no wonder that 80% of Black Friday purchases make their way to landfill after only minimal use, generating an extra 1.5 million tonnes of waste in the UK alone. 

And then, of course, there’s the question of logistics: those products that “fly off the shelves” neither get there by magic nor appear on consumer doorsteps by some act of sorcery. Last year, 1.2 million tonnes CO2 were released from transport during Black Friday week in Europe. In the UK, deliveries from Black Friday sales created 435 London to New York flight’s worth of CO2 emissions. 

It doesn’t have to be this way, though: supply and demand relies heavily on the latter for justification. Consumers may feel powerless, held to ransom by corporations who know budgets are stretched to the point of breaking and peddle false economy as an answer, but that isn’t entirely true. 

The success of Black Friday is taken by the fast-consumption industries as an endorsement – licence to not only keep doing what they’re doing, but to keep escalating. But consumers aren’t voting with their wallets in favour of that system, they’re voting by default; for lack of choice, for lack of an alternative. 

Times are hard. Deals are good. What choice is there? 

The Black Friday model relies on participation; margins rely on volume – withdraw that, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. 

“Consumers absolutely have the ability to slow over-consumption, and brands will listen,” Pulos agrees. “Prioritising quality over quantity, seeking out natural materials and handcrafted products, buying second hand, developing their own person style. While brands won’t immediately register the shift, they will eventually see the results and shift their production behaviour.”

It’s understandable that rallying against something like Black Friday, which is really just an extension of a system entirely unfit for purpose, might feel futile. But it isn’t – and we shouldn’t let ourselves be browbeaten into believing things can’t change for the better. 

Consumers aren’t to blame for the environmental havoc that Black Friday wreaks on our planet any more than they’re to blame for the astronomical emissions pumped out by corporations all year round just because someone accidentally left a light on or the fridge door open.

The blame lies, as it should, with the companies who pollute and profit from practices they know to be harmful to the Earth. 

Black Friday, though, presents a rare opportunity: a chance to stand up and stand against spiralling rates of consumption, of profligacy and of waste. A chance to opt out – to shop from local, independent, sustainable and ethical businesses who prioritise better ways of working. A chance to show brands who work with rather than against the planet that what they do matters. 

Black Friday has become a beast. By that logic, it may seem best to simply give it what it wants and watch it slink away until next year. But feeding the beast only brings it back – earlier, more ravenous, more demanding than ever.

Do not capitulate. Hold out. Let the monster starve.

Karl Smith-Eloise is Features Director for Eco Age. He has worked as the EMEA Editorial Lead for HYPEBEAST and Editorial Director of FUTUREVVORLD, as a contributing editor to Highsnobiety, and for the fashion house FENDI. He now focuses exclusively on Earth-forward and ethical avenues in fashion, footwear and the broader culture.