Global North Vs. Global South : A case of hit and miss for sustainability legislations?
The proverbial Brandt Line of fashion industry must be acknowledged to assess economic realities, supply chain complexities, and evolving consumer demands-to develop global sustainability legislations
The Brandt Line is a visual depiction of the Global North–Global South divide, proposed by West German former Chancellor Willy Brandt in the 1980s in the report titled North-South: A Programme for Survival or the Brandt Report.
As the image suggests, while giving an overview of this classification, Thomas Davis wrote that “'North' and 'South' have been established terms of use in debates about international political economy since the 1960s. In their most basic form the terms are regarded as a shorthand for distinguishing 'rich countries' from 'poor countries'. 'The North' is taken to include the industrialised, high-per-capita income, national political economies of which the majority are located in the Northern Hemisphere. 'The South' describes those countries with high levels of poverty and comparatively low levels of industrialisation, large numbers of which exist in the Southern Hemisphere.”
Even though the story has evolved in the last two decades to bridge the gap between the two hemispheres in some aspects, the Global North-South divide plays a significant role in the fashion industry, highlighting disparities in power, wealth, and working conditions. Countries in the Global North, typically wealthier and more developed, are often viewed the centres of fashion design, brand headquarters, and high-end retail. This region still dictates trends and wields considerable influence over the industry's direction.
On the other hand, countries in the Global South, often developing economies, have been major garment producers. Due to lower labor costs, the Global South (if we can continue to address the region as that) still houses a significant portion of the fashion industry's manufacturing base. Eventually what was offered as an opportunity for economic development for the Global South by the entrepreneurs coming from Global North, came at the expense of lower wages, longer working hours, and potentially unsafe working conditions for garment workers. Over time, this imbalance has given way to ethical concerns in the supply chains concentrated in the Global South, and questions about fair labor practices and equitable distribution of profits within the global fashion system.
While we grapple with the ill effects of this divide, it is pertinent to note that for a few years now, experts have been recognising the emerging shift in the dynamics of this divide. Prof. Khalid Nadvi, an expert in the fields of globalisation, international trade and industrial development defines the concept of “Rising Powers” or emerging economies in his research and considers how these economies might challenge the governance of labour and environmental standard. There is a growing recognition that these emerging economies, in particular, but not only, China, India and Brazil, whose economic dynamism has begun to transform the contours of the global economy, will bring about radical shifts in the global governance and order, as we know it now.
It remains to be seen how and when a total shift will happen and how it will help alleviate the deep-rooted problems of the fashion industry, but it is a reassuring thought nonetheless.
The responsibility of ensuring sustainability
(For the lack of a universally adopted definition of sustainability, we are going to go with common sense and make a logical deduction of what it entails.)
The concept of sustainability in the fashion industry encompasses practices that aim to minimize environmental and social impact throughout the entire production and consumption cycle, from sourcing materials to garment disposal. This includes aspects like using recycled materials, minimizing waste and energy usage, prioritizing worker well-being, and reducing reliance on harmful chemicals.
What makes this terrain even more complex is the role and responsibilities of each stakeholder in the industry - fashion entrepreneurs, consumers and the governments. Until recently, the fashion industry has been operating on a model that focuses on just two out of these three stakeholders to share the burden of the responsibility to make a positive impact - the entrepreneurs and the consumers. This curious case of the fashion industry has somehow been hiding in plain sight for years on end.
According to a research conducted by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, if the fashion industry does not correct its course, it will be responsible for more than 26% of the world’s global carbon budget by 2050. The current system for producing, distributing, and using clothing operates in an almost completely linear way. This linear system leaves economic opportunities untapped, puts pressure on resources, pollutes and degrades the natural environment and the ecosystems, and creates significant negative societal impacts at local, regional, and global scales.
One way of steering away from reaching the catastrophic potential is to move away from the current linear and wasteful textiles system to a new circular textile economy - one that diffuses tensions between the Global North and the Global South. But this transition from linear to circular economy is just a fanciful whim, that is not possible until all stakeholders work in tandem. The fashion industry, in its current form, has largely been bereft of regulation in almost all countries until recently, which has led to the genesis of fast fashion with serpentine supply chains in the Global South and blatant disregard for the environment.
Need to harmonise international regulatory framework
While the slow fashion movement has created a steadily increasing number of conscious and aware consumers, it has done little to arrest or diminish the negative climate impact by the industry. The same can be said about the industry wide efforts that have been made to adopt more sustainable practices which have largely been inconsistent and not concerted, burdening some entrepreneurs with this responsibility way more than the others. As an extension, consumer behaviour and their demand for fast fashion has also been unduly blamed consistently. My research in this area through the years suggests that our emphasis for now must be to recognise the need for industry wide legally binding environmental standards enacted through government regulations, globally. It is about time we pushed for legislation in and pull the third stakeholder of the industry into this equation.
Regulations are historically met with resistance because they initially seem like they only restrict or levy fines and uproot the existing systems and processes that everyone has become comfortable with. But on a closer look one would understand how regulations will actually lift the pressure off of the industry as well as consumers in a massive way. As enormous as this change seems right now, if drafted well, laws supplement the industry in ways that work in their favour in the long run. They also give a clearer picture of what more the brands can ask for from their governments, in their efforts to adopt a better way of doing business.
It is interesting to note that, even though governments across the globe are becoming proactive in the face of the impending issues, the approach to sustainability legislation differs significantly between the Global North and Global South.
In the Global North, the European Union leads the way with comprehensive regulations like the Green Claims Directive and the EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles, focusing on preventing greenwashing, promoting circularity, and setting ecodesign requirements. Stringent enforcement, as seen in the case against Zara's parent company (Inditex), exemplifies the EU's proactive stance. Another region, the United States, focuses on substantiation and consumer protection through the Federal Trade Commission's Green Guides, while the United Kingdom actively addresses greenwashing through the Competition and Markets Authority's Green Claims Code.
In the Global South, the focus is often on developing frameworks that promote consumer awareness, standardise certifications for sustainable products, and encourage voluntary adoption of sustainable practices. India, for example, is emphasising public education and trusted certifications, while the Middle East is emerging with sustainability labeling initiatives like the Middle East Green Initiative. While China has regulations such as Green Procurement, its enforcement can be inconsistent. However, tech initiatives like Alipay's Ant Forest show China’s efforts towards increased supply chain transparency and producer responsibility. Further, relying on broader consumer protection laws to address sustainability claims Australia and New Zealand still do not have fully developed sector-specific regulations. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ensures consumer guarantee rights if they need to return faulty clothing or accessories. And New Zealand has its Consumer Guarantees Act that makes sure that customers get what they pay for and, if needed, a repair, refund or replacement for a faulty product or sub-standard service.
In conclusion, one can say that this global divide presents challenges in terms of harmonisation of standards for international brands and necessitates knowledge sharing and capacity building from the Global North to the Global South. A divide that still seems hard to bridge. And ultimately, a multi-stakeholder, geographically unified collaboration is crucial to ensuring equitable and effective sustainability efforts throughout the global fashion industry.
— — —
Next week, we talk about demands on fashion retail in global markets and the one distinguishing factor that separates changemakers from all the other entrepreneurs, who are still struggling to read-the-proverbial-room in the fashion marketplace.
Stay tuned and subscribe to The LOCS-TALK &BARREL Newsletter to get it straight to your inbox every Tuesday and Thursday.