Why is Smaller, Better?
This entry is the culmination of thoughts that have been brewing in my head for awhile now.
Thoughts sparked by my experience as the founder of a slow fashion label (who also worked for other brands for over a decade!), and by observation of the recent wave of closures in the sustainable fashion scene. From Mara Hoffman to Dai, we hear similar tales of slow fashion founders who have chosen graceful exits over the adoption of faster business models (steep discounts, rapid assortment).
Why are so many independent labels with strong sustainability ethos going into administration despite a loyal customer base? What problems do brands face as they scale? What is the optimal scale to balance profit with values, efficiency with quality?
Globalisation’s Double-edged Sword
The fashion industry is in a time of crisis, and change. Amongst industry peers, I sense pervasive fatigue. “All brands look the same”.. “Quality is going downhill”. There is also glaring disparity between increasing public scrutiny on corporate sustainability, versus the stellar growth of ultra fast-fashion brands like Shein and Temu.
Globalisation which has helped make our world a more connected place, is not without its fault. The globalisation of supply chains and retail models, has given consumers more choices than ever before to shop that one sweatshirt. From niche labels trending on social media to high-street giants like Zara, Uniqlo and H&M, consumers are now able to compare prices of e-commerce purchases at the touch of a fingertip.
For fashion retailers, globalisation has enabled the outsourcing of labour and production to ever more distant countries with lower labour cost. In Asia, this created a manufacturing boom in China in the early 1990s in the same way that it has decimated local production in Hong Kong, US and even Europe.
Things look good, in the short-term. Retailers are now able to produce clothing with greater economies of scale than ever before. Consumers have cheaper buys with more choices online. Scale that up in a capitalistic system that prioritises growth and profit at all cost, and we quickly tip a deregulated system over the scale to face the dark consequences of globalisation.
- Loss of creativity and independent labels The increasingly monopolistic fashion landscape is dominated by global megabrands. Unlike independent labels that still take creative risks, megabrands with alot more at stake will often opt to ‘reference’ the designs of competitor brands that have performed well instead of investing time, money and taking creative risks to develop new ideas. Originality and creative freedom is replaced by predictive algorithms and commercial viability. In a hyper connected world, the result is the homogenisation of designs in a market already saturated with similar styles.
- Loss of local skills and craftsmanship Remove local production, and the skills that come with it will gradually disappear. From 1984 to 1985 Hong Kong was the world’s number one garment exporter. China’s economic reform in 1978 and its open door policy saw the beginning of the end for Hong Kong’s tailoring and manufacturing industry. By the 1990s, over 80% of Hong Kong’s light industry factories had relocated to China.
- Fast fashion - environmental and social exploitation Easy access to low-cost labour and international markets coupled with shortening trend cycles gave way to fashion that became faster, cheaper, and more readily available. The result? Overproduction, carbon footprint, excessive consumerism. The need to keep prices artificially low (the cost of raw materials has never decreased!) drove the constant search for manufacturing to ever more distant lands with lower labour costs. Throw in the bargaining power of megabrands, and the result is a perversion in the cost of labour. Material cost, not labour constitute the bulk unit cost in fast fashion labels.
From a direct consumer’s perspective, what once looked like a bargain becomes too much of the same thing everywhere. Quality takes a back seat as brands start cutting corners in a bid to keep prices low; material cost is usually the first to be cut. The result? Style over substance.
Now I’m not saying that scale is without benefits. Larger production capacity enables a brand to work with more established factories with more stringent quality controls and labour compliant policies. Business growth enables better economies of scale, more refined operations, more brand recognition, larger customer base and in turn more revenue.
The question really is growth at what cost? In promising start-ups, does the injection of venture capital which prioritises short-term profit over long-term sustenance generate true value? What accountability structure remains when the independent founder is replaced by board directors?
“Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered”
“Small is Beautiful” is the title of a collection of essays by British economist E. F. Schumacher published in 1973. I read it a few years ago out of curiosity and it is admittedly not an easy book to get through given its slightly archaic language. It does however offer beautiful insight on how we are still struggling to balance economic growth with the human costs of globalization.
"One of the recurrent themes through the book is how modern organisations stripped the satisfaction out of work, making the worker no more than an anonymous cog in a huge machine... What Schumacher wanted was a people-centred economics because that would, in his view, enable environmental and human sustainability." - Madeleine Bunting, Guardian.
It's not easy to surmise the optimal scale at which an organisation is able to thrive sustainably. But like Schumacher, I suspect the answer lies not so much in an absolute, quantifiable number as it does in maintaining things at a human scale - a scale where human needs and human relationships evoke our natural stewardship of an environment we are still able to feel connected to.
"The fundamental task is to achieve smallness within the large organization." - EF. Schumacher
Many external factors seem to be beyond our control. Controlling algorithms, gigantic globalising forces, information overload. But here are my thoughts (and experience) on how we can retain individual autonomy and celebrate smallness in these encroaching times:
- Build a meaningful connection with what you own and consume. It sounds trite, but less really is more. Buy less but better. Dig deeper into brand narratives, look beyond marketing language to understand what something really means. ‘Vegan leather’ is one of those terms that really annoys me.
- Embrace long-form content, sometimes Whether it’s a podcast, book or a longer article like this, long-form content is our guardrail against false narratives.
- Meditate or other mindful practises. Anything to get you off the phone and the need to DO something instead of just BEING. Check out The Changing Room’s mind-body experiences.
- Support independent brands and makers (of course!). Not listing any brands here, but Zerrin is a platform dedicated to make shopping small, independent and sustainable.
xx, Supei