270525
What is a “Third Place”? Lately, the term “third space” has been popping up in retail decks and brand manifestos like it’s a newly discovered trend. Like most trends, it's not new, but fashion is making it its own.
We’ve seen the wellnessification of retail. The ritualisation of shopping. But now the third space enters the scene, reframed, rebranded, and recontextualised for a new era of community-hungry consumers. This is about more than merch. It’s about presence. And place.
Retail, Rewritten
We’re past the point where physical stores exist to push products. They serve as immersive brand experiences and increasingly as social hubs - they vibe, they host, and they create culture.
Third spaces have existed long before fashion brands began utilising the term. Sociologist Ray Oldenburg coined the idea of “third places” back in 1989, not as a marketing strategy, but as a way to describe the spaces that live between home and work. It was the café, the barber shop, the spot between work and home where community happened. Now, brands are rebuilding that space with exclusive drops, a DJ booth, and a curated Instagram moment…
The phrase “third places” has risen in popularity over recent months across disciplines. We're seeing a pivot: retail is no longer about the transaction, it’s about the invitation. To belong, to connect, to identify. Experiential marketing taps into this by designing moments that go beyond selling a product; it invites people to engage with a brand through their senses, emotions, and personal stories. In other words—culture first, product second.
When a brand occupies a third space, it integrates itself into becoming a part of someone's lifestyle. Physical retail environments - third places - now double as social venues and creative platforms where customers can connect with the brand emotionally and socially.
No One Wants Your Pop-Up
As Oldenburg described them, third places are great equalisers - spots where regulars of different backgrounds and perspectives can mingle in a location that is comfortable, unpretentious, and low-cost. It can be quite clear to see why this approach to experiential retail is beneficial to brands looking to invest in the community to drive brand loyalty.
In a recent BoF Podcast, How Fashion Brands Build Community in 2025, BoF correspondent Lei Takanashi joined to explore the emotional core of brand building today. Lei Takanashi made a key point towards localised focus for brands in scaling their community authentically. Brands that scale community best don’t chase virality - they go hyperlocal. He pointed to Arc’teryx and Supreme as examples of brands that hire from within, speak the dialect, and earn their place in the scene.
Local First, Always
This local focus is a strong argument for brands but it is somehow overlooked by continuous rollouts of global campaigns and generic pop-up concepts. Consumers swing by, sip the free canned spritz, post a story, and bounce. These mass approaches lack authenticity and assume one size fits all.The fashion industry loves to talk about community, but community isn’t built with guest lists, it’s built by listening. Brands need to stop projecting and start participating.
Localised approaches show an authentic interest in the local community, consumers, and their personal preferences. Brands need to be looking to the community for deeper and more emotional forms of engagement.
Take Jacquemus’ Ibiza beach pop-up as a demonstration of a locally integrated third space. It is a temporary, immersive retail environment on a sun-drenched beach that blends leisure, lifestyle, and shopping. It’s not just about sales, it’s about offering their customers the memorable experience they desire from brands.
Jacquemus understands its audience (affluent, seasonal, selfie-ready) and caters to their desires. They identified the people within the Ibiza area (and as of yesterday, Saint-Tropez too) during this time of year to be those within their target market. Having understood their desires and budget, Jacquemus offers a third place for people to seek out and immerse themselves within.
The Jacquemus Beach is less a store and more a mood board brought to life, it is not Oldenburg’s third place. The branded escapism is beautiful but gated.
Now contrast that with Voo Store in Berlin. A more socially accessible and locally grounded example of a third space. The space blends fashion, design, and community engagement. Beyond a selection of local and international designers, Voo offers an atmosphere for visitors to linger and connect via their in-store café, and exhibitions in their gallery concept Voo Space.
Voo’s prioritising of community interaction and cultural exploration alongside commerce serves as a socially accessible third space, more aligned to Oldenburg and reflective of the local culture.
From Storefront to Story Engine
Third spaces offer tactile real-life advantages, fostering local community ties and real human interaction. These are some points that digital platforms struggle with. However, third spaces and digital platforms should not exist in opposition. Third spaces and digital platforms offer the opportunity to be strategically integrated to amplify one another and increase the reach on both sides.Third spaces become content engines designed for the share and the soft launch. Voo’s industrial interiors or Jacquemus' seaside offer intentionally curated moments; they're viral architecture. Visitors become unpaid ambassadors and storytellers. A collective community is seemingly joined by those extending the reach of the physical space beyond its location. Turning foot traffic into digital visibility.
Meanwhile, digital tools do the prep work. Geo-targeted ads, RSVP links, exclusive event invites - they all drive the right people to the right places. The smartest brands create a loop between digital discovery and physical experience. Brands not only increase footfall but also grow an engaged online community rooted in real-world interaction. Done right, third spaces don't just generate vibes, they generate measurable community.
The Long Game
Third spaces today are where culture converges and commerce quietly waits in the corner. Brands cannot just build concept stores but need to commit to showing up with purpose. Third spaces only work when brands are willing to invest in actually belonging somewhere.If digital and physical spaces are able to feed one another rather than compete, then brands unlock the type of growth that isn’t viral but rooted.
The real question isn’t how brands can show up in third spaces, it’s whether they can commit to the bit long enough to let something real happen there.
080525
Today consumers are chasing more than products. They’re chasing experiences.
It was 3 am and I was dragging my sleep-deprived body through the terminals of Doha Airport looking for a patch of fake grass in the promised airport forest, or at the least a coffee. As I stumbled through just on the horizon emerged a Fendi Cafe, with a queue. If regular airport coffee already costs the price of a small suitcase, what would a Fendi-branded latte set you back? I didn’t stick around to find out.
That moment stuck with me—not because of the caffeine I didn’t get, but because of what it said about us. I recently saw a post about Millennials and Gen Z shifting away from traditional advertising in favour of immersive experiences. And there I was, wandering through an airport forest, dodging high-concept coffee kiosks…hmmm. Was I to blame for the lack of affordable coffee in the airport? Unlikely.
This isn't about overpriced cappuccinos. It's about how brands meet consumers where they want to be - experiencing, feeling, participating, not just shopping.
A week later, I’m sitting at home in Berlin and thinking of it again as I silence my mailbox notifications from the “Gallery Weekend X Brand X Location X Pop-Ups” emails. These are some of the results of the shifting consumer habits of Millennials and Gen Z’s (and some younger Gen X’s), I can say I do contribute more so towards this than the luxury airport coffee.
Experience Over Product: The Consumer Shift
The results of these shifts are that companies and brands need to capture and/or create opportunities for shared experiences with these customers. This can be tough if you are perhaps a footwear brand looking to benefit from the experiential retail economy - “Pop-Ups”. Your customers are not likely to come by your footwear store to hang out and be convinced by your sales staff and playlists alone. No, they are more likely to come by and hang out if you have an event in store… maybe with some music? Snacks? Free drinks?Millennials are seeking control over their health, wellness, and work. While Gen Z has adopted many of the same shopping habits, they have new behaviours and opinions. Gen Z are craving experiences that inspire and entertain them. Both generations want brands to meet them, not just market to them.
These generations live online, but that doesn’t mean they don’t value in-person experiences. For them, it’s not just about visiting a place; it’s about the stories they can tell afterward. The most intriguing part of this all: across generations, the majority are willing to pay money for an experience rather than a product.
Enter: athleisure
What began as a fashion trend is now booming as a lifestyle movement, fuelled by health consciousness, hybrid work, and social identity. If you're wearing the clothes to do something, it makes sense the brand is helping you do it.These concepts took off in Berlin. Business owners and customers ran towards them - physically ran. Berlin running clubs were at the front of the collaboration list for companies looking to create customer experiences and physical brand touch-points. Having matured in their cult-like status over recent years, running clubs were the new social clubs, and a reason to collaborate was just around the next corner.
Brands like Optimistic Runners - a local Berlin-run club apparel brand - were early adopters of this blend. With monochromatic gear, Strava-linked runs, and cult-level energy, their 9 am Saturday runs feel less like workouts and more like brand rituals.
Major players followed quickly on their heels. On Running, Adidas, New Balance, HOKA, and Ante came in hot and collaborating. The Adidas x Ante partnership is a standout example - hosting community runs, curated pop-ups, product customisation workshops, and post-race drinks during events like the Berlin Half Marathon. The weekend pop-up wasn’t just a product launch - it was a curated lifestyle moment. Fitness, fashion, community, music, food - everything woven into a seamless experience and ticking all the marketing boxes in calendar alignment, guest curation, engagement, and ultimately product placement.
It’s not just for runners.
The overarching Wellness Trend is the mother of the Athleisure trend. As mentioned, millennials are looking for holistic well-being in their lives and so are Gen Z. London nightlife is seeing a rise in alcohol-free events. As younger generations lean into sober socialising they are looking for spaces to connect with their community in often alcohol-free, early-morning, or daytime gatherings, where they can blend wellness and community with party culture. Brands are tapping in by creating environments that feel aligned: functional, beautiful, social, and healthy.It is only growing and maturing across industries, and where the budgets are bigger, so is the investment. Copenhagen Fashion Week for example has a growing focus on more direct-to-consumer activations and boutique dinner parties. They’ve long supported emerging talents, giving them the opportunity to host tight communities and attract key industry players to their events. These aren’t afterthoughts - they’re central strategies.
Thom Browne’s SS25 show is a perfect case in point. The traditional runway was replaced with a curated dinner party at Commerce Inn (a century-old inn on the corner of Commerce Street in New York’s historic West Village). Guests engaged with the clothing in an intimate setting, some already wearing the collection to the event. It created a memorable, sensory-rich event where every guest was made a participant, not just a spectator.
The deepening of brand connection was not only to those attending but to those online who share in the experience. Should the opportunity arise for customers to attend events at a price, chances are more likely that they would after having seen the nature of it online beforehand. This is where fashion is heading: experiences that feel lived in, not just looked at.
Why this works
To create moments like these, brands need big budgets and bigger collaborations. It's rare for one brand to do it all. So, partnerships become vital and each partner can bring forward their best trading card. Some bring products. Others bring culture. Others, budget. The most successful events today are co-created.And it works. Customers show up. They post. They remember you in their purchasing decisions. But most importantly - they feel. That’s why these events aren’t just marketing strategies—they’re part of how people relate to a brand’s identity.
These trends signify a cultural recalibration; one where lifestyle integration, fashion, health, and experiences meet.
Personally, I love this direction. I love helping build these experiences and I love showing up for them. They highlight subcultures, values, and aesthetics that resonate deeply - even when the moments themselves are curated. But, curation is not the opposite of authenticity; it’s a tool to deepen it.
What consumers are gaining isn’t just a product or event—it’s a sense of belonging, and participation.
In this landscape, the purchase comes last. The emotional connection comes first.
180923
I recently attended The Digital Multilogue on Fashion Education, “De-fashioning Education, a critical thinking and making conference”, hosted at the University of Arts in Berlin. It was hosted over two days, with “a series of conferences focused on the learning and teaching of fashion at the tertiary level. It aims to explore and illustrate the diversity and complexity of the field and the practices of fashion education, and to foster a greater understanding of its pasts, presents and futures – methods, values and didactic, pedagogic and epistemological questions - creating a global exchange to inspire mutual learning, collaborative research and shared action.”
I was unable to attend both days fully, and only able to dip into two collaborative sessions, and one provocation. However, despite such a small dip into the event, I was soaked in knowledge. Absorbing ideas and insights from amazing people within the industry. I left each day feeling totally fulfilled with hope and excitement for the industry and future of fashion - a rare feeling to have following fashion critique.
This feeling is exactly what made the conference so special. Nobody was oblivious to current toxic state of the fashion industry, or that of our global climate and societies, but everybody attending and participating was choosing optimism in their outlooks and practices. Each thought shared and hand raised was working towards finding solutions, encouraging others and coming together.
On the first day of the conference I attended a collaborative workshop hosted by Paula Keilholz & Isabell Schnalle (from Threads & Tits), “Activate: De-growth narratives - implement de-growth paradigms”. Both hosts work within the intersections of activism, education and transformation - and it was shown. Their workshop was balanced in the softness of nature and community and the force of activating change and self organisation. The workshop shared transformative strategies, “to identify different levels of change and how narratives can be used as a transformative tool to implement de-growth paradigms”.
They introduced their Climate Activating Compass. Extending their knowledge and passion for finding levels of transformative and desired futures. The Compass included main categories of “Forms of Critique”, “Transformation Strategies”, and “Levels of Transformation”. Collectively these categories contained sub-categories to assist as working tools for navigating practices of de-growth. Engaging, considerate and transformative are the words which kept going through my mind as they continued to explain the compass and the motivations for each category and its contents. It was energising to hear them share with such passion actual tools which each person in the room could apply to their own research questions. We were able to engage with the compass collectively as we broke out into teams and used it to discuss possible future scenarios relating to fashion education. I was so grateful to have attended this workshop and even more grateful for their open access to their compass for our own use outside of the workshop. I have already crafted it together in my studio not only as an educational tool for myself but as a reminder of the those within the workshop who so eagerly fuelled the belief for change - I need this more days than not.
The Second day I attended a local design pedagogy walk by Tanveer Ahmed, “Deconstructing Spaces and Places of Coloniality”. Tanveer is “a practice-led fashion design researcher and anti-racist educator exploring ways to expose and re-think how dominant Eurocentric racial hierarchies are used as part of the fashion design process”.
Majority of those attending were educators themselves, with multiple years of experience and insight into fashion education and / or fashion activism. This provided totally different conversations than were had yesterday, based upon a lot more facts and opinions than concepts and desires - just a note, not a comparison. Tanveer was exceptionally interesting to listen to, with a really insightful introduction into the conversation of re-design, that later led into really deep and philosophical conversations together. Rather than to recite the whole two hours together I rather would like to share my personal takeaway that I will use in exploring dominant hierarchies around me.
Consider the door of a building. Look at its size, its structure, its design. Now look beyond this and ask yourself who is able to use this door. How accessible is this door to everybody? Is it accessible to somebody in a wheelchair, somebody who is a POC, somebody who is lower income? Once you enter this door are you able to go further or are there more doors which you have to access - ask these same questions. Ask these questions with many designs around you. Why are they there, what is their purpose and how do we treat them? How do they treat us?
We broke away into smaller groups during this time and examined the spaces around us. We looked at the historical monuments around us, the tightly packed apartment blocks and the evasion of nature. One group went inside the university and looked at what was beyond the first door. A hallway followed, with many different doors into various lecture rooms and studios for various departments, some for only students and some just administrators. They also looked at the stand alone vending machine within the corridor and reflected upon its role within the space. The practice of design students over extending their physical time and body to work in the studios for long hours as to meet deadlines and ensure productivity is common knowledge amongst the industry. The vending machine was discussed as being that which many would “nourish” themselves on throughout those hours. The discussion deepened with the group and conversation flowed towards how “we learn so early to exploit ourselves”. Within the fashion industry we allow these traits to seep into our practices and futures from our education, and vice versa with students and teachers sharing this same narrative of “how the industry is” and what it demands to be “successful”. The conversations ran deeper as many shared their thoughts - many of which most students in various industries can identify with.
This conversation came from taking a deeper look at our surroundings and questioning the designs around us. This practice can be applied in so many design spaces, especially fashion education. To deconstruct designs and more deeply question what influences them and how they influence us…
Following lunch and chats with those attending the conference, I went to join the conversation held between Christina H. Moon & Otto von Busch. Both professors at Parson School of Design and exploring in their own perspectives the power of fashion in a persons personal and social condition (TDM, 2023: 35). Christina held the conversation with Otto, who joined the conference digitally from the US. The discussion dived right into the vitality of fashion and what the system could be.
Honestly, everything that Otto said had the whole room (at full capacity), captivated. His description with language and links between concepts was amazing to see and hear. He began the discussion on considering what the current fashion system could be transformed towards rather than sustained within.
He introduced the concept of “thinking of fashion as an emotion in the body”, and designing towards what excites and feeds this to each personally. He linked this to de-growth, with an amazing analogy to describe the goals of de-growth, “The Hairdresser Concept”. A service which has you leaving with less than what you arrived with, and as a result thriving on the lesser remains. “How can we serve more with this system in fashion?”
Otto follows this amazing analogy with discussion around training out sensitivities towards more simple pleasures. Such as moving away from the momentary hype of a fashion drop, to the enjoyment of just seeing one another. Otto asked how we can teach this esteem and courage into our fashion education as to bring into the industry more thriving on togetherness and service, than the current “leader and follower” model which thrives on dynamics and power.
Currently fashion has the model of one buying their togetherness through fashion, to experience togetherness through this. We need to teach skills towards nourishment, appreciation and togetherness within fashion. We need to train ourselves and others to share curiosity and concern and put this into action - as this conference has bought us together to do. We need to integrate and practice de-growth actions within our teaching as to transform the industry in the future.
Otto’s conversation with Christina, and the attendees, was the finishing note for me at the conference and left me with a feeling of satisfaction and knowing that we can transform the industry, together. Conferences like this remind me that we are together in this journey, that we are searching for togetherness as to collectively help and grow. These conferences did not exist once upon a time, and today they are developing and beginning to flourish as increasingly more people within the industry identify the need for change, and go searching for community as to transform together.
300823
Fashion Revolution, the world’s largest non-profit fashion activism movement represented by The Fashion Revolution Foundation, with teams in over 100 countries worldwide, provides research, education and public support surrounding the global fashion industry. “Fashion Revolution White Paper” (2020) is published yearly by Fashion Revolution with updated insights, research, and innovation within the global fashion industry. The past 30 years has seen an increase in the volume and speed of clothing production and consumption, a result of fashion retailers shifting production to countries offering the lowest manufacturing and labour costs. Since the 1980s fashion retailers have capitalised on cheap and fast production, a business model now known as “fast fashion”. Globalisation and an increasing Western middle class made clothing which was once exclusive to the catwalk more accessible to the majority, driving manufacturing demand and the production of low-cost and quality apparel.
By the mid 2000s the fast fashion model dominated the industry with not only low-cost retailers employing the model but mid-priced and luxury fashion too. The past decade has seen the global fashion industry, which includes clothing, textiles, footwear, and luxury goods; generate $2.5 trillion in global annual revenues prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result of this growth, garment and textile manufacturing is one of the largest global industrial sectors, employing millions of people in highly labour-intensive roles. It is estimated that garment manufacturing employs at least 60 million workers globally, 40 million of which are in Asia, and 80 percent of which are woman.
The global fashion industry has continued to operate on a model that values profit and growth above the human and environmental cost of their operations. This pace is unsustainable and extremely exploitative of the people working within the supply chains and the natural environments facing destruction as a result.
The Fashion Industry and The Natural Environment
Waste and pollution caused by the fashion industry has continued to rise. Too few studies have been done to truly understand the scale of the industry’s impact on the environment, however knowing that 53 million tons of fibre is used annually to produce clothing, we are able to derive that the energy and resources required for the production and use of this contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions.Society’s disposable consumption habits see majority of discarded clothing in landfill or incineration, with less than 1 percent of textiles and clothing genuinely being recycled, with less than 10 percent of global textiles being composed of recycled materials. An estimated quarter of the industry’s resources are wasted yearly due to the necessary technology and infrastructure required not yet being available to recapture or deter the scale of waste generated. The circularity of textile-to-textile recycling is unfortunately not of the scale or affordability yet to eliminate the mass overproduction of the industry, and more implementation needs to be put into the reduction of waste and virgin textile use within the design and production phase of products.
Water use and water pollution are major problems for the fashion industry. A large amount of water is used in the growing of raw textiles like cotton, in the washing of clothing and textile treatment and dyeing which is estimated to contribute towards 25 percent of industrial water pollution due to failed removal of hazardous contaminants. Some of these toxic chemicals used in apparel production include lead in dyes, NPE’s used in industrial washing, phthalates commonly found in plastic and textile printing, PFC compounds found in water-repellent coating and formaldehyde for wrinkle resistance treatment. Further, the washing of clothing, especially those made of synthetic materials, releases tiny plastic particles into our water systems. Textiles are the largest source of micro-plastic pollution, with 35 percent entering the ocean as a direct result of textile washing. Despite 60 percent of fibres on the market being plastic-based little research has been conducted on the shedding of micro-plastics and existing technologies face the challenges of mass adoption.
The production process, wear, care, and disposal of apparel, has a significantly damaging impact on biodiversity and as a result ecosystem services. The fashion industry is directly involved with deforestation, soil erosion and the toxic use of pesticides to name a few, all threatening already stressed environments and species extinction. The additional stress of animal-based materials and the often-inhumane farming of them to meet global supply chain needs contributes further to potent greenhouse gases, carbon emissions and biodiversity strains.
Innovation is rising within new textile research and development, to offer alternatives to fashion retailers which are vegan, less environmentally damaging and resource intensive, and/or constructed from recycled materials. Support for the development and research of production alternatives within the fashion industry are crucial in lifting them off the ground and implementing industry wide change and viable accessibility of solutions.
The Fashion Industry and Labour
A landmark tragedy within the fashion industry is the collapse of the Rana Plaza factory in Bangladesh on the 24th of April 2013. This preventable incident killed and injured thousands of garment workers, majority woman. Since then, a lot of positive change has come because of organisations such as Fashion Revolution working to raise awareness and transform the fashion industry away from one of human exploitation. However, there is still much to be achieved, as workers continue to face unsafe working conditions, violence and sexual harassment in the workplace, the inability to form trade unions, and receive unliveable wages.The passing of legislations in various countries has seen the improvement of these labour violations, such as the Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety, a legally binding Global Framework Agreement between global brands, retailers, and trade unions, designed to build a safe and healthy garment industry in Bangladesh. Governments and intergovernmental institutions have acted in addressing human rights abuses within their own countries to increase transparency and accountability from retailers. The UK Government passed the Modern Slavery Act in 2015 which required all companies operating within the UK, with a turnover of more than £36 million to publish publicly available slavery and human trafficking statements, identifying and eradicating forced labour in their supply chains. While this law is weak in holding retailers accountable, it has brought the issue of forced labour into mainstream business discussions and motivated improved practices within the supply chain.
Due to the nature and disconnect of global supply chains, many retailers are unaware of who is making their products. Tougher repercussions and legislations are necessary to mitigate modern slavery. This issue is not of common knowledge to majority of consumers. Companies and Governments need to take more forceful action to bring about effective change.
300823
A company which is notoriously known for their continuous greenwashing attempts is fast-fashion retailer H&M. Recently H&M have been sued for the greenwashing of their ‘conscious choice’ line. This line of theirs retails higher than their “regular” garments due to its “little extra consideration for the planet”. The garments were labelled as ‘conscious’ (environmentally friendly) and marketed to contain sustainable materials, reduced virgin materials and less resource intensive. The brand joined the Higg Index:
The Higg Index was developed by the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC, 2021), a global, multi- stakeholder non-profit alliance for the fashion industry. The Higg Index is a comprehensive suite of tools that enables standardised measurement of sustainable performance in the value chain. It is an apparel and footwear industry self-assessment standard for assessing environmental and social sustainability throughout the value chain as well as identifying effective sustainable efforts and those needing improvement. SAC developed the Higg Index for all industry participants, from brands to factories and retailers, to drive collective industry and systemic transformation. It offers product, facility and brand and retail tools, that measure across topics such as water use, carbon emissions and labour conditions.
The Higg Index was developed over 10 years and has its origins within the outdoor industry. The SAC is an initiative of Walmart, an American multi-national retail corporation, and Patagonia, an American clothing company that markets and sells outdoor clothing . Both companies, alongside CEOs of leading global companies, developed an index to measure the environmental impact of their products . This led to the formation of SAC, which adapted and Eco Index by OIA, of which Patagonia was an existing member. The Eco Index was developed by the Sustainable Working Group (SWG) of the OIA as an assessment tool to address the impacts associated with manufacturing in the outdoor industry. SAC adopted the Eco Index and developed it further into a web tool, alongside the latest scientific research, consultants, stakeholders, and industry experts. The OIA and SAC continue to work closely together to promote the Higg Index which is increasingly the supply chain management platform used by outdoor, sporting goods and fashion companies.
Upon joining the Higg Index, their results were reported on the H&M website. H&M were then sued for greenwashing due to the data being used deceptively and reflecting inaccurate results – which the company said was due to a “technical error”. This technical error involved H&M ignoring the minus signs in the index score and advertising a garment with a water consumption rating of -20% (reflecting that the garment consumes more than 20% water than average), as the opposite of 20% less consumption. This clearly incorrect data was consistent throughout their collection and is just one identified example of the fast-fashion retailer’s exploiting sustainable ‘buzzwords’ and using greenwashing tactics on their customers.
Greenwashing is a growing problem within the fashion industry especially. Many companies will place themselves within sustainable topics with only a small, or sometimes zero, amount of knowledge and/or understanding of the topic. Consumers are increasingly aware of environmental concerns and regulatory industry requirements and are holding brands accountable with their purchasing decisions (McKinsey, 2021). The increasing consumer pressure for brands to perform more sustainably has led brands to find quick solutions to retain (and grow) their consumer base when facing these challenges. These ‘solutions’ are often implemented in the front end of their companies, in marketing and communication, more-so than within their actual supply chain and business operations. The reason for this often comes down to the cost of implementation being higher than the cost of a marketing campaign which can market and/or exaggerate existing sustainable efforts, resulting in a rise of greenwashing within the industry as companies compete for customers.
An example I have personally seen throughout working within the fashion industry is the use of the term ‘slow fashion’. This term is increasingly being used especially by smaller fashion brands globally. This trend has grown over the years with more and more brands adapting the term to their personal brand stories. Brands see the term as a direct opposite of the negatively associated fast-fashion model which they clearly do not fit within due to their production being at a significantly smaller and ‘slower’ pace, especially when compared to fast-fashion retailers like H&M, BooHoo and Shein.
However, as Kate Fletcher shares in her article “Slow Fashion: An Invitation for Systems Change” (2010), “Slow fashion represents a vision of sustainability in the fashion sector based on different values and goals to the present day. It requires a changed infrastructure and a reduced throughput of goods. Categorically, slow fashion is not business-as-usual but just involving design classics. Nor is it production-as-usual but with long lead times. Slow fashion represents a blatant discontinuity with the practices of today’s sector; a break from the values and goals of fast (growth-based) fashion. It is a vision of the fashion sector built from a different starting point.” This given definition by Fletcher highlights the crucial aspect that slow fashion is not a term that can just be applied by brands for certain aspects of sustainable or slower production within their company, but that this is a vision which should be within the values of a brand from its formation to ensure the success of their sustainable efforts and the creation of new systems.
While fast is the opposite of slow, in the context of fashion this is not the case. These are two different viewpoints within the industry and hold different values, models and processes. Companies and brands are increasingly employing slower production techniques and processes for various reasons into their operations; however, these components of slow culture are being substituted and/or included into existing production models and labelled as ‘slow fashion’ which is greenwashing are not true to the values of slow culture. “Slow culture, rather being allowed to seed a radical new approach, gets passed through the sieve of understanding and hierarchy of priorities and goals prevalent in today’s industry and becomes absorbed not as high-level systems change (where the rules and goals of the industry are transformed) but as a marketing angle or alternative distribution channel in the current model, a tweaked version of today’s practices.”
Companies are not wrong in implementing aspects of slow culture into their operations as these changed behaviours do positively contribute towards the shift away from the growth dominated systems of the fashion industry. However, including select aspects of slow culture into operations, such as small-scale production, craft techniques and localisation, will not substitute a company as one of slow fashion. These selective methods of slow fashion are suggestive of bigger change within the industry, but they are not the solution to the problem. Slow culture invites system change and the move away from the focus on economic and production growth of the fashion industry, towards a rebuilding of a fashion system considerate of what would best serve social and ecological needs.
Being a slow fashion brand involves a changed set of relationships with suppliers and customers, high levels of involvement and understanding throughout the supply chain and life-cycle of products, it is inclusive of true social and ecological costs, and takes a radical move away from high-volume and income goals. It is possible (and encouraged) for companies to implement aspects of slow fashion into their operations but it is a challenge for fashion brands to label themselves as slow fashion while still participating in the mainstream economic and production systems currently dominating the fashion industry.
“Ideas of slow culture are part of a bigger story of change and transformation in the fashion sector towards sustainability. A story concerned with remodelling what we mean by development and success in fashion and profoundly rethinking the values that underpin these most influential of concepts. Sustainability requires that a foundation be laid of a different economic system with different values in the context of a wiser, saner worldview”.
300823
Are we all outside as we leave our front doors?
The outdoors is the natural world, the places outside where people can enjoy nature. Our knowledge of the outdoors has continued to expand as we reach new peaks and discover new connections with nature. Previously we've assumed the outdoors was an experience which you needed to travel for, however the definition of the outdoors has expanded to beginning as soon as you step outside of your front door...
From small rural towns to densely packed cities, the outdoors plays a crucial role into both the social and environmental health of a place.
Biophilia hypothesis, is the idea that humans have a natural instinct to seek connections with nature and other forms of life . The term was used by American biologist Edward O. Wilson in his work ‘Biophilia’ in 1984, which proposed that humans’ tendency to affiliate with nature and other forms of life is in part genetically based. Richard Louv, an American non-fiction author and journalist, wrote an article in 2019, “Outdoors for All: Access to Nature is a Human Right”, calling for recognition of nature as a basic human right for all people, and for recognition of the rights of nature. Louv (2019) credits multiple experts, educators, researchers and health practitioners, who make up the global movement that insists that universal and equal access to nature is fundamental to our humanity as well as the future of the planet. The movement is attributed to Wilson’s biophilia hypothesis and anchored in ideals of social justice and equality. Louv strongly states that, “If Wilson is right, and if the research is correct, nature connection is more than a nice pursuit, a pastime, or a privilege. It is a necessity.”
"A public space is a place that is open and accessible to the general public. Roads (including the pavement), public squares, parks, and libraries are typically considered public space." National parks, forests and beaches are also examples of protected public land. Public spaces are both necessary in ensuring the longevity and prosperity of the outdoors as well as ensuring community growth and development on a social level. Public spaces are created for the population. Research continues to grow in relation to health, well-being and social benefits which the outdoors offers to communities, as well as public spaces for people to openly interact and maintain healthy human contact and connections.
Eric M. Klinenberg is an American sociologist and a scholar of urban studies, culture, and media. In The Atlantic podcast, How to Talk to People: The Infrastructure of Community (May, 2023), he discussed his research and publishings on how he believes that the future of democratic societies rests not simply on shared values but on shared spaces: the libraries, childcare centers, churches, and parks where crucial connections are formed. Interweaving his own research with examples from around the world, Klinenberg shows how “social infrastructure” is helping to solve some of our most pressing societal challenges. In This podcast episode the host Julie Beck and producer Rebecca Rashid speak with Klinenberg of how efficiency culture holds us back from connecting in public, whether social spaces create a culture of interaction, and what it takes to actively participate in a community. From the discussion they also mentioned the visible and measurable downsides which communities face who lack public places, most commonly previously disadvantaged communities and areas, showing the still ongoing price paid for past actions.
Research linking the benefits of nature to human health is rapidly growing. Recent global health issues have shown the reliance which individuals have on outdoor public spaces to disconnect from stress and reconnect with oneself and others. These recent years have also made clear that not everybody has equal access to public spaces, and that not all public spaces are equal in their offerings. Factors such as transportation, income levels, and safety all contribute alongside many other physical, social and economic reasons for accessibility issues. Klinenberg, Beck and Rashid also discuss on the podcast episode how public spaces offer refuge to those most vulnerable in our societies. They use the example of public spaces such as libraries being seen as "homeless shelters" due to our societies doing so little to help and protect the homeless from the consequences of capitalism and unequal societies that they take refuge in public spaces, and rather than addressing core problems in society, solutions found are to develop private spaces, further growing inequalities within these society.
Going outside into nature orients us with the natural world, offering solitude and contemplation. Going outside into public places and being able to interact with other people offers us much needed human connection.
The concept of public parks and libraries as a human right may sound radical in a world filled with war, hunger and disease, however the experience of healthy and safe spaces should not be a privilege available only to the elite.
Everyone deserves to have access beyond their front door.