One of the paintings featured in the Spanish Pavilion at the 60th International Art Exhibition in Venice is titled "The Framing of the Landscape V (View of a Textile Waste Landfill in the Atacama Desert, 2024)." The painting depicts a heap of abandoned clothes in Chile's Atacama Desert, which has become a global dumping ground for our discarded garments.
This painting is part of Sandra Gamarra Heshiki’s project, "Pinacoteca Migrante" (Migrant Art Gallery), a series of galleries that examine the consequences of Spanish colonization. Heshiki uses the classical genre of landscape painting as a tool to address themes such as racism, patriarchy, neo-capitalism, and invasion. The clothes in the Atacama Desert are interpreted as another form of invasion and appropriation of territories.
The clothes represent indeed a form of collective and hegemonic colonization enacted through the cheap debris discarded from our wardrobes. The painting's depiction of the landscape's deterioration highlights the destruction of a previously pristine area and serves as a metaphor for ongoing colonial wounds, historical injustices, and inequalities. This isn't the first time an artist has referenced the negative impact of fashion at the Biennale. In previous years, works have indeed examined the impact of imported secondhand clothes in Accra, Ghana.
Heshiki's portrayal of a polluted space underscores the irreversible damage caused by environmentally destructive habits, a point reinforced by the Global Fashion Transparency Index's single-issue report, "What Fuels Fashion?" published by Fashion Revolution at the end of July.
The report ranks 250 of the world’s largest fashion brands and retailers on the disclosure of their climate and energy-related policies, practices, and impacts of their operations and supply chains. It assesses 70 sustainability criteria, including emission targets and supply chain transparency, and it is organized into five key themes: Accountability, Decarbonization, Energy Procurement, Financing Decarbonization, Just Transition, and Advocacy. The report emphasizes the urgent need for systemic change and collective action.
Malish Godfrey from the Yamgbara tribe of South Sudan's Central Equatoria introduces the report, highlighting the struggles of farmers and artisans affected by the climate crisis and the unpredictable and severe cycles of drought, heat, and heavy rain that cause floods.
As the climate crisis poses an existential threat to our planet, it is imperative to halve global emissions by 2030 and limit global warming to below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The fashion industry, a significant polluter, is set to exceed the 1.5°C limit by 50%, effectively doubling emissions instead of halving them. Heating above 2.0°C could push our planet into a "hothouse state," the report highlights. Solutions to avoid this rise include switching to solar and wind power, producing fewer clothes, minimizing air freight, and eliminating synthetic materials derived from fossil fuels.
Despite these solutions and numerous promises, only 47% of major brands and retailers disclose Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi)-verified decarbonization targets for scopes 1 (direct emissions from sources owned or controlled by an organization, such as emissions from vehicles and facilities), 2 (indirect emissions from electricity, steam, heat, or cooling consumed), and 3 (indirect gas emissions in the value chain, such as emissions related to purchased and sold goods or services).
Of 117 brands (out of 250 analyzed in the report) with decarbonization targets, only 105 disclose their progress, besides 42 of them also reported increase in scope 3 emissions (the most critical area to decarbonize).
So, while nearly one-quarter of the world’s largest fashion brands disclose nothing on decarbonization, implying, as indicated in the report, that for them the climate crisis is not a priority, sixty brands scored 0% in the decarbonization section, among the others Max Mara, Reebok, Tom Ford, Savage X Fenty and DKNY.
The highest-scoring brands for sustainability overall were Puma (75%), Gucci (74%), and H&M (61%), followed by Champion (58%), Calzedonia (52%) and Adidas (49%). Only four out of 250 major brands (ASICS, H&M, Marks & Spencer, and Patagonia) have emissions reduction targets aligned with UN recommendations.
The vast majority of fashion brands and retailers (95%) are not transparent about the fuel used in their supply chains, and most do not provide a country-by-country breakdown of their energy mix. Furthermore, 77% of brands are unclear about how they define renewable energy, casting doubt on the credibility of their transition plans.
Full supply chain traceability is essential for accurately mapping the industry's global carbon emissions, yet only 52% of brands disclose their first-tier factory lists, and even fewer reveal their processing facilities.
Despite the evidence of excessive clothing production, the fashion industry avoids accountability by failing to disclose how many clothes they produce and the emissions generated in the process. Nearly 89% of brands do not disclose the number of clothes they produce annually, and 45% do not reveal their production volumes or raw material carbon footprint.
While exact numbers remain a mystery, what we do know, is that the fashion industry is producing clothes at unsustainable volumes, with global consumption projected to increase by 63% by 2030 and clothing sales potentially reaching 160 million tons by 2050 (over three times today's amount - the Atacama desert will not be big enough to contain all our discarded clothes…). A scary projection that will have a disastrous impact on our planet considering that the textile sector was already the third largest source of water degradation and land use in 2020. By failing to disclose emissions from fibre extraction and processing, the fashion industry avoids accountability while contributing to environmental harm.
In addition, only 13% of brands disclosed evidence of renewable energy advocacy in their supply chains, and only 2% disclosed the outcomes of these efforts.
For what regards worker compensation, a mere 3% of brands disclose efforts to financially compensate workers affected by climate hazards, despite the significant impact on workers' livelihoods and weak social protection schemes in garment-producing countries.
Besides, just 18% of major brands and retailers disclose information about executive incentives tied to carbon emission reductions, and only 11% disclose the percentage of executive bonuses or pay tied to these targets.
Major fashion brands that contribute significantly to fashion's climate emissions should bear the greatest financial responsibility for the industry's transition to renewable energy. However, 94% of major brands do not disclose their investments in renewable energy within their supply chains, indicating a lack of corporate accountability. Only 6% of major fashion brands disclose how much they invest in renewable energy in their supply chain, and even fewer (4%) disclose the scale of support provided. The lack of investment in renewable energy by major fashion brands highlights a significant gap in corporate responsibility and impunity within the industry.
With strong industry and political will, a clean and just transition to renewable energy in fashion supply chains is possible. Yet the fashion industry must prioritize transparency and accountability to address the climate crisis effectively. Without these measures, efforts to decarbonize and mitigate environmental harms will remain insufficient, risking the future of our planet and of the most vulnerable communities, as highlighted towards the end of the report, that also features a section on the major climate hazards impacting the fashion industry, from Türkiye and Syria, to Brazil, Pakistan, India, Cambodia and Mongolia.
One key action for all of us as consumers is to adopt responsible purchasing practices. The report can serve as a starting point, guiding us to make more informed choices when selecting brands or products (boycotting a brand remains a powerful tool for consumers). Another crucial aspect is keeping on educating ourselves: while fashion hauls might seem entertaining on social media, they are detrimental to our planet. We should therefore always ask ourselves if a garment is just an excuse to create temporary content, and then we can just discard it, or if we really need it and will serve our purposes at its best. Otherwise, in a few decades, instead of admiring paintings of sublime landscapes in museums, we may find ourselves looking at more paintings of piles of rubbish and discarded clothes.
Comments