That’s before you try to get through the acronyms and abbreviations. In addition to the above, there are GOTS (Global Organic Fiber Standards) and CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage), NFFO (Non-fossil Fuel Obligations) and TPH (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons). To give a few examples.
We need a better way to build a discussion.
So we use “responsible fashion”. It’s a term that refers to a world where all players, from consumers to CEOs, manufacturers to farmers, are responsible for their role in the supply chain and creative processes. And for the choices they make.
It may sound meaningful, but it’s impossible, perhaps discouraged, with an end goal that looks out of reach, and at least the process of trying to reach it (gradual, gradual increase, It is a difference (decision by decision).
There is no easy answer to solve the role of fashion in climate change. Even the obvious not to make or buy new things or throw away old ones has a negative impact on employment, know-how and self-definition. (After all, people decorate themselves to express themselves as long as they understand themselves as “self.”) For each of us, on either side of the equation. I’m thinking about an important issue. And by understanding the effects of the choices we make, we can make better things in the future.
And perhaps they see these challenges as creative opportunities rather than burdens. Especially for brands. Limitations often give rise to new ways of thinking and designing.
To bring to life what that means with respect to clothing, we tell you the story of the group, especially when it begins to appear in the world after two years of quasi-hibernation and begins to rethink the dormant wardrobe. It brings about small brands and manufacturers that act responsibly, weigh the trade-offs involved, and seek positive results and balanced choices rather than zero.