Slået op d.

Copenhagen Fashion Summit

24. april 2014, Operahuset, København. Hotshots fra den internationale modeverden og et hav af andre interessenter havde sat hinanden stævne på Copenhagen Fashion Summit, der er verdens største og vigtigste event, når det handler om mode og bæredygtighed. Ecouture var selvfølgelig med – we walk the talk 🙂

Ecoutureholdet på summit

Connie Nielsen og Summer Raye Oakes styrede slagets gang forbilledligt. Kronprinsesse Mary åbnede ballet, efterfulgt af Margrethe Vestager, før repræsentanter for en lang række af de største mærker indtog podiet og gjorde rede for, hvordan deres virksomheder arbejder hen mod en mere bæredygtig tilgang. Det var opløftende at høre, at også de store aktører er bevidste om de problemer, branchen har med hensyn til forurening og dårlige arbejdsforhold for dem, der er ansat i produktionen – d. 24. april var årsdagen for tragedien på Rana Plaza, så der var streg under behovet for handling.

Fashion Summit

For virksomhedern er overvejelserne om bæredygtighed naturligt nok baseret på en forventning om, at forbrugsmønstrets status quo ikke ændrer sig væsentligt. Sagt på en anden måde: Det handler om business. Mersalg. Tilførsel af bæredygtighed som en ekstra værdi, der får forbrugerne til at vælge til. Om ikke brug-og-smid-væk, så i hvert fald brug-og-forbrug-noget-mere.

Men maksimal og uophørlig vækst som succesparadigme er problematisk. I Danmark kasserer vi hvert år 16 kg tøj pr. person. 16 kg! Det er helt indlysende ikke bæredygtigt. Så bæredygtig produktion alene gør det ikke, der skal også ændres i måden, vi forbruger på. Retfærdighedsvis skal det siges, at det er der også nogle af de firmaer, der producerer luksusvarer, der har indset og taget til sig. I stedet for at sælge mange og stadig flere varer fra stadig flere butikker og outlets lægger man sig efter at producere lækrere, mere bæredygtige luksusvarer, som sælges dyrere i færre eksemplarer.

Men det er nødvendigt, at den tendens breder sig nedad til det tøj, de sko, de tasker og accessories, som vi køber til hverdag. Om netop det talte Vanessa Friedman fra Finansiel Times (nu moderedaktør på New York Times) i en skøn tale, som vakte jubel hos i hvert fald Ecouture. Køb mindre, men bedre, træf bevidste og velovervejede valg, og pas på dine ting, så de holder længe, var budskabet. Det er jo som flået ud af vores mundhule. Ecouture har fået lov at bringe Vanessa Friedmans tale på bloggen – læs den her.

Fashion Summit1

En anden god pointe er, at hvis vi som forbrugere bliver bevidste om de (mange forskellige) mennesker, der har lavet vores tøj, vil vi også betragte og værdsætte det på en anden måde.

Se Eco-Ages skønne, lille film om netop det. “You carry the story of the people that make your clothes”.

 

 

Slået op d.

Vanessa Friedman på Copenhagen Fashion Summit

Vannesa Friedman, moderedaktør på New York Times, holdt følgende blændende tale på Copenhagen Fashion Summit og har givet Ecouture lov til at gengive talen her på bloggen til gavn og glæde for alle jer, der ikke var på summit. Befriende med et indlæg på en modekonference, som stiller kritiske spørgsmål til evig vækst og merværdi og øget forbrug. Tak, Vanessa!
Følg også med på Vanessa Friedmans blog Material World.

Vanessa Friedman

First, I have a confession to make: I am not going to talk about what it says in the program I was going to talk about. As a writer, I should have known better than to reveal the title of a speech before I had actually written the speech, but – the best intentions, and all that.

And I fully intended to get up here and talk to you about language, specifically the language we use to discuss the ethics of clothing, and how it is vague and unclear, and while that might work for the Constitution of the United States, where the “right to privacy” has been fungible enough to expand according to social change over centuries, it does not work for consumers, who have no idea what we are talking about when we talk about eco this and ethical that. That’s why my speech has the title it has, which is shamelessly recycled from Greenpeace.

I was going to ask you to reduce your words, and revise your language and regularise the vernacular across borders and brands. And then I was going to charge everyone with going away and writing their own ABCs of Sustainability, which they could email to the Danish Fashion Institute so it didn’t clog my in-box. Would have been good, right?

But the more I thought about it, and the more drafts I wrote, the more I realised there was a problem with the language that was far more granular, and that I could not overcome. And it was this: Sustainable fashion doesn’t make any sense. It’s a contradiction in terms.

Look it up. According to the Oxford Dictionary: Fashion is “the production and marketing of new styles of goods, especially clothing and cosmetics.”

Sustainable is “able to be maintained at a certain rate or level.” See the problem? On the one hand we have the pressure to be new; on the other, the imperative to maintain. Sustainable fashion is an oxymoron. It’s Jumbo shrimp. It’s a down escalator. It’s terrible beauty. It’s resident alien.

You get the point. And if you think dictionaries are too removed from life and colloquial language to be useful, think about your own experience. Think about your experience buying, say, jeans. One season, you really want…a skinny jean! But three months later every magazine and blogger and celebrity is telling you skinny jeans are out – get rid of em! – and it is all about flared jeans now.

And three months after that it is boyfriend jeans, and then stonewashed jeans, and then dark denim, and so on.

The driving force of fashion today is planned obsolescence – something is in, then it is out; skirts are up, then they are down; today it’s green, tomorrow, blue – which is itself by definition about something that is the opposite of sustainable.

And it’s not just the aesthetics of the clothes themselves we are talking about here; it’s the machinery that backs it up.

Because in order to sell all these new clothes and make the end point nearer and nearer, there are now new fashion collections coming out four times a year instead of two, and sometimes even more than four, if you throw in special holiday or store opening collections, so designers are effectively running on a creative treadmill that is – c’mon, you know where I am going with this, say it with me – unsustainable. No one can have that many new ideas. At least not ideas that are any good, or remotely original, or, frankly, worth buying.

And to keep growing revenues and reaching customers, brands are opening more and more stores in second tier and third tier cities, and different neighborhoods of the same city, an accumulation of outlets that at a certain point starts to cannibalise itself and is thus – what? – unsustainable.

Everything fashion – and admittedly, I am talking about the established fashion industry, the big brands — does is predicated toward teaching consumers that they need the new and last season is the old, and this goes for high fashion and the high street, where I have even heard some friends advise others that if they have worn a garment to death, they should just get rid of it, and not even bother trying to clean it. The cleaning costs more than the piece of clothing.

Today fashion is disposable – and it is supposed to be. And it seems to me that should be unsustainable. Because what the situation we are in now — more and more and faster and faster — sounds like, more than anything, is a runaway train. And you know what happens to runaway trains:

They crash.

We all know how we got here – and while some will blame the corporatisation of fashion with its associated need to show ever-increasing quarterly results, and others social media with its constant demand for new content, and others the minute attention span of consumers, and I would say it’s really all of the above. Agree or disagree, however, the question now is: what do we do?

Most of what we’ve heard about today involves addressing the situation as it is: given the charge towards continuous consumption, and granted, lots of livelihoods depend on it (and lots of tax dollars are generated by it), what can companies do in the manufacturing and cleaning process to make the actual production of these garments better. And that is fine, except it ignores one half of the consumption equation – the consumers – and presupposes that nothing is going to change; that this sort of endless desire for new stuff, which is tied to the making of new stuff is the status quo now, and you can’t go backward. Which is true. You can’t change history. But you can learn from it.

And here is what I have learned: we need a new phrase. Once upon a time my grandmother saved and saved to buy a nice leather handbag, and once she had it, she had it for decades. Her fur coat? Same story. Her cashmere sweaters – you know the little cardigans with beading on the edges that were so popular in the 50s – same. She knew how to wash her garments—by hand usually — and how to hang them, and how store them, be it for the next season, or the next generation. What she had – what she built – was a Sustainable Wardrobe.

And that, it seems to me, is a concept that makes an enormous amount of sense. That is a term I can get behind. And that is, I say to all of you, what each and every one of us, as consumers, should be doing. It is about emphasising the value proposition inherent in each item you buy and consciously selecting it – maybe because it has an ethically conscious aspect you appreciate, and you bothered to research the supply chain like my friend Julie Gilhart does, or maybe because you know the amount of handwork that has gone into it and you are amazed by the artistry or even know the artisans, like Peter Copping does, or maybe because you the know that that cashmere came from happy prancing goats running free on the steppes of Mongolia – whatever. The point is that the decision about what constitutes value is yours, and you need make it. And that implies, I don’t think you can really get around this, some level of investment over, and in, time.

And that changes how you think of your clothes. It changes what you demand from them, and from the people who make them, and from yourself. I have a suitcase of the same four dresses and two jackets and leather trousers that I have been gradually building for the last ten years, and at this stage that exact group of clothing, give or take a pair of boots or bag, goes with me every single fashion season. And I chose what’s in it because it is comfortable, and I can fold it up and stick it in a suitcase and then pull it out and NOT have to dry clean it or iron it multiple times over a month, and it can get me from shows to cocktails to dinner without changing, and because when people see those clothes they never have any idea who made them.

That’s my value proposition, and it works for me, though I did realise once that if my suitcase ever got lost I’d be in serious trouble, because there was no way to replicate what was in it. But the benefits far outweigh the risks.

And here’s what’s interesting: I know I am not the only person to be thinking like this. When I speak to designers, “wardrobe” is a word that comes up again and again. Some brands – and I am not going to name names here, but some major international luxury brands – are thinking less about what new store they can open, and more about adding special features to existing stores; less about a whole new product dump and more about making products that are so special – from the handwork to the materials – and so limited in nature that they are the opposite of disposable. And they are doing it because it is in their economic interest just as, I would argue, it is in the economic interest of the consumers.

We hear a lot about – and this is my favourite new acronym – the IWWIWWIWI generation – the I want what I want when I want it millennials, which is the sort of thing that seems on the surface anti-thetical to this sort of wait and plan and research and want approach. But the other thing the research about millennials shows is that they they also say don’t actually need to own things; that social media is such that consumers are increasingly getting their fix virtually – by pinning – with their actual purchases made much more consciously. And it strikes me that, with its combination of technology and speed and very deliberate purchasing — that is a very modern kind of balance to achieve.

Is it sustainable?

Not almost exactly. Not definitely maybe. Yes.

Slået op d.

Tango & kjoler

M2tango Studio byder op til dans, kram, sensualitet, elegance, kvindelighed…

Jeg synes, der er mange gode grunde til at tage den varme, brogede tango-kultur herop til det kolde nord. I den lange, mørke vinter har man ekstra meget brug for varme og farverige favntag, og de lyse sommernætter – ja, de skal da danses bort i sansemættet nærvær. Tango er en vidunderlig måde at udleve sin kvindelighed på, og dansen får en ekstra dimension, hvis du vælger en kjole, som får dig til at føle dig særligt smuk og feminin. Derfor har jeg bedt Mette om at hjælpe mig med at designe nogle gode dansekjoler..

tango

Mette-kjolen er blot én af vores  dansekjoler, og den er jo selvfølgelig opkaldt efter Mette:)

Se vores lille, fine Mette video her:

Slået op d.

Infograf om øko vs. konventionel bomuld

Jeg har sagt det før, men det kan ikke siges for tit: Konventionel bomuld sviner utilladeligt meget. Denne “infographic” fra Soil Association viser det meget fint. Fx udleder økologisk bomuldsdyrkning op til 94% færre drivhusgasser. Til gengæld forgifter den ikke 77 mio. arbejdere… Og det er også sundere for dig som forbruger! Hvis du får lyst til at læse mere, kan du klikke videre til The organic cotton initiative og se internationale mærker og forhandlere af økologisk tøj.

organic_cotton_infographic

Slået op d.

CO2-neutral webshop

Ecouture by Lund er et CO2-neutralt website. Ordningen er et dansk initiativ, hvor store og små virksomheder fra alle brancher er gået sammen om at neutralisere den CO2-udledning, som brugen af deres hjemmesider forårsager.

co2neutraltwebsite

En hjemmeside udleder da ikke CO2, tænker I måske? Men jo, dels serverne, dels brugernes computere koster CO2. Faktisk står computere og Internet i dag for en større CO2-udledning end luftfarten på grund af strømforbruget!

Som bæredygtighedsfortaler er Ecouture naturligvis med på den. Det betyder, at CO2-udledningen både fra shoppen og fra jeres computere, når I besøger den, er neutraliseret gennem målbare CO2-reduktioner. Så også på it-fronten kan I shoppe Ecouture uden dårlig samvittighed 🙂 Reduktionerne sker bl.a. ved opstilling af nye, vedvarende energikilder (fx vindmøller) og ved deltagelse i kontrollerede, CO2-reducerende projekter. Se mere på www.ingenCO2.dk.

Slået op d.

Årets Idealist 2012

TUSINDE TAK! Jeg/Ecouture vandt IVÆKSTprisen som Årets Idealist 2012. 

523601_10151511916552576_226409033_n

Ved overrækkelsen holdt jeg denne brandtale for de forsamlede masser. 

ivækstpris1   ivækstpris2

”Bæredygtighed har altid været min kæphest. Jeg kæmper for at passe på den verden, vi lever i. Vores branche forurener helt afsindigt og tvinger mange steder folk til at arbejde under ekstremt dårlige forhold. Det duer simpelthen ikke. Jeg vil bruge materialer, som ikke har svinet vildt undervejs, og jeg vil være sikker på, at det går godt for dem, der arbejder med at lave vores tøj. Jeg går ikke på kompromis med hverken design, etik eller miljø. Det gør det svært at løbe om kap med alle de andre dygtige designere og store brands, og netop derfor er jeg så glad for denne pris. Det betyder nemlig, at der er mange derude, som allerede har hørt mig og synes, det er vigtigt. Og det ER vigtigt! Så nu håber jeg med denne pris i hånden at kunne nå endnu længere ud med mit budskab.”