“No beauty is innocent”: Is sustainable fashion truly sustainable?

It offers more than garments, reflecting a wider value system: a commitment to people, the planet, and production ethics. Each fabric thread weaves together a generation’s hopes for what lies ahead. Because of this sense of stewardship, sustainable fashion moves away from mass production. Instead of rapidly filling shelves or cutting costs for profit, many brands opt for small-batch production, on-demand design, conscious consumption, and predominantly manual craftsmanship. The process is slower and costlier.

Materials are one of the greatest contributors to higher costs. Sustainable labels prioritise natural and locally sourced fibres such as linen, hemp, silk, pineapple and banana fibres. Unlike synthetics, these cannot be mass-produced, and their availability is shaped by seasons, climate, and traditional farming methods, making their procurement more expensive. Moreover, fibres like hemp or banana require intensive manual steps such as stripping, drying, and spinning, all of which demand time and labour.

Then comes production. A hand-dyed linen shirt might take two to three weeks to craft, while a mass-produced cotton shirt can be made in mere hours. The difference lies not just in the outcome, but in the philosophy. Ethical labels actively avoid cheap labour, commit to fair pay, and uphold safe, dignified working environments.

Beyond labour, these brands also absorb a host of hidden expenses: organic and fair-trade certifications (such as GOTS and Fair Trade), investments in traceability software, and transparent emissions and wastewater reporting. To achieve GOTS certification for organic fibres, for example, a brand must invest thousands or even several thousands of US dollars annually in independent testing alone.

The high price of sustainability has quietly erected a barrier, shutting out low-income communities, particularly in developing countries like Vietnam. When “living green” comes at a premium, it begs the question: is sustainability still truly sustainable if it is out of reach? And in casting fast fashion as morally flawed, are we unintentionally deepening social divides, turning pragmatic decisions into ethical failings? In this light, sustainable fashion finds itself in a paradox: celebrated as a moral compass, yet increasingly reserved for the middle and upper classes.

See more: How to prevent ‘flight face’ while travelling
 

A shirt crafted from handwoven, naturally dyed linen might cost three to five times more than a similar piece from a fast fashion label. Though widely regarded as a hallmark of ethical consumption, sustainable fashion places many low-income consumers in a bind: to buy affordably is seen as irresponsible, yet opting for sustainable choices is often out of financial reach. Suggestions like “shop second-hand” may appear sensible, but in practice require time, skill, and lifestyle conditions not available to all.

In many regions, the second-hand market itself has become curated and costly, catering to a more affluent demographic. As a result, sustainable living is becoming entwined with privilege shaped by access to education, disposable income, and leisure time. These resources are not distributed equally.

This pressure is partly shaped by brands and media, where ethical consumption is often portrayed as a civic duty. Messaging like “if you don’t go green, you’re harming the planet” can instil guilt in consumers who cannot afford to adopt sustainable habits. Increasingly, “sustainability” has been distilled into a narrow checklist of approved actions: buy the right brands, wear the right “green” labels, choose the right materials.

See also: The link between fine sustainable jewellery and the blockchain

Though framed as a holistic solution for the planet and people, today’s sustainable fashion movement is reproducing invisible class lines in marketing language and campaign imagery. “Green living” is coded in minimalist visuals, technical jargon, and aspirational ethics that remain inaccessible to many.

Meanwhile, those who feel the sharpest consequences of the fashion industry: the garment workers in exploitative conditions and low-income communities in polluted cities are often absent from this conversation. They are rarely reflected in campaigns, let alone able to afford the products they promote.

According to a report by the Hot or Cool Institute and the Rapid Transition Alliance (2022), the wealthiest 20 per cent of consumers are responsible for fashion emissions 20 times greater than those of the poorest 20 per cent. Meanwhile, the BoF Sustainability Index (2022) reveals that several luxury groups, Prada, Richemont and Capri among them, rank lower in sustainability than certain mass-market brands.

No beauty is innocent. When ethics are packaged like luxury goods, is “sustainability” truly sustainable, or merely a status symbol for the privileged few?

NOW READ

Jonathan Anderson: When creative thinking becomes a sustainable luxury business strategy

When sustainability becomes the new language of responsible beauty brands

Pinalina pineapple fabric: the material “weaving” Vietnam’s green dream for sustainable fashion?