Zara is in the business of fast fashion — and I think we can all agree that fast fashion sucks, fueling a culture of constant consumption that latches onto low price points rather than quality craftsmanship, classic style or supporting independent business.

But… every once in a while, fast fashion can have its place. As I’ve shared here before, I’ve purchased a few pieces from H&M that have stood the test of time. I trust my judgement of a well-made garment, and they can be found.

But not all fast fashion is created equal. And on account of Zara launching online shopping in the U.S. this week, I did some research on its ethics — and for the most part, within the context of fast fashion, I found some pleasant surprises.

Zara’s approach differs from most U.S. retailers’ in two key ways:

1. Mimic & respond

Since its start in the Sixties, Zara’s model has been to watch what designer items are in demand and then mimic them, producing limited quantities of its designs. If demand is notably high, they’ll produce more, in as fast as two weeks.

The typical retail model is to anticipate trends — garment styles are produced according to quantities that buyers think their market will respond to, but if demand isn’t as high as expected, we end up with slashed clothes being thrown out by H&M and excess orders being sold off to discount stores like Marshall’s and TJ Maxx.

When supply meets demand, as in Zara’s model, waste is almost eliminated. (Zara doesn’t even typically have a clearance rack.)

The downsides to this are that stock turns over at Zara every TWO weeks — fueling the consumption fire. And of course, borrowing/stealing other designers’ designs is a terrible thing and another conversation altogether.

2. Turnaround time trumps low prices

To accommodate for Zara’s fast turnaround time of hot (read: borrowed/stolen) styles, the brand initially sourced all its manufacturing from within Spain. ”Assuring rapid delivery of trendy, affordable clothes throughout Spain ruled out relocating factories to countries where unregulated labor was cheaper.” #

The brand has expanded its manufacturing reach since then, but as of 2005, 50% of Zara products were manufactured in Spain, 26% in the rest of Europe and 24% in Asian and African countries and the rest of the world. # (Anything produced in Spain complies with Western European labor laws, which are held to a higher standard than those in developing countries.)

One reason it can keep so much manufacturing in Europe that is that “Zara chooses manufacturers than can provide speed over cost.” # To hear of a fast-fashion retailer that isn’t pressuring factories for bottom-of-the-barrel pricing is a first for me, so cheers to that. This explains Zara’s somewhat higher price points than its fast-fashion competitors’.

And speaking of competitors

Just to help complete the picture…

• H&M was early to the corporate social responsibility game and is known within the industry as being a leading buyer of organic cotton. As mentioned above, it has been busted for destroying and trashing unsold merchandise. (In response, the brand pledged to change its policy and donate rather than destroy. But still.)
• Forever 21 now lists a social responsibility link on its website, but it has yet to gain much of any credibility in the CSR space. And IMHO, their design aesthetic leaves much to be desired, so why bother.

Keep in mind, strikes against all virtually all brands in this category include factory horror stories from time to time. Zara is not exempt. Any brand farming out mass manufacturing on a global scale will deal with this (as one approved factory contracts out to an unapproved factory, and so on) — which is what makes my own case for avoiding them as much as possible.

Please know that I don’t write this article as a free pass for shopping no-holds-barred from Zara. But to shop there discerningly when you’re strapped for cash or can’t find the right piece anywhere else… I feel ya, sister.

As always, if you want to shop from brands without any skeletons in the closet, shop from independent producers and design houses that handle their production personally!

Earlier this week I clicked on this article, devoured it, retweeted it — and haven’t been able to stop thinking about it since. Lecturer and former fashion editor Charty Durrant writes about the impact the fashion industry has had on not only the ecology and economy of countless developing countries, but also — even more deeply so — on our individual psyches, affecting our self-images and the priorities we place on how we look and what we own. WOW. It’s challenged me every morning that I’ve looked at myself in the mirror since.

What we are only now beginning to register is the acute and profound social, spiritual and psychic damage we humans are suffering from after half a century of unrestrained greed, a daily diet of advertising, and rampant over-consumption. … Our lust for shopping and our sophistry for style have taken us into a critical new arena. Human identity is now defined by what one owns rather than who one is.

It’s a helluva long read, but I’d very highly recommend it.

The Tyranny of Trends, Charty Durrant

If you’re a follower of ethical fashion, social shopping or even social media in general, chances are you’ve heard of The IOU Project by now.

Launched last April, the brand is doing truly revolutionary things in the production and distribution of its garments.

In production, all items have a one-of-a-kind nature, with the India fabric weavers and European craftspeople shared on the website and traceable through a unique code associated with each item…

And for distribution, they rely on shoppers like you and me to create digital trunk shows and share in the profits when an item we’ve selected is sold (whether we know the buyer or not).

It’s an incredibly community-focused model that I’d love to see copied by bigger brands!

If I were to put together a trunk show of my own, I’d include the incredibly versatile madras scarf ($39),

a handful of button-downs ($75-$79) and reversible blazers ($175),

and definitely the espadrille wedge ($65).

Great prices for such an innovative concept brand, don’t you think? What do you think of IOU?

Remember back in November when I shared a long list of fashion brands that made Newsweek’s Green Rankings? As I pointed out then, those rankings included only environmental considerations, not social, so not long after I was glad to see As You Sow’s report on Apparel Supply Chain Compliance Programs, based on human rights issues.

However, I think it’s important to note how this ranking was put together — all rankings are based on self-assessments by the brands themselves, and though the organization asked 33 of the U.S.’s largest apparel brands to submit answers to its questionnaire, only the 15 who did are included in the final study. (Compare that to Newsweek’s methodology.)

With that said — for you to judge how you will — those rankings are:

1. Levi Strauss & Co.
2. Walmart
3. Gap Inc. (incl. Banana Republic, Old Navy)
4. Hanesbrands
5. Nordstrom
6. Gildan Activewear
7. Target Corporation
8. J.C. Penney
9. American Eagle
10. Columbia
11. V.F. Corporatoin (incl. Lee Jeans, VANS, Wrangler, Northface)
12. Under Armour
13. Ann Taylor Stores
14. Liz Claiborne (incl. Juicy Couture, Kate Spade, Jack Spade, Lucky Brand Jeans)
15. Jones Apparel Group (incl. Anne Klein, Nine West, Dockers)

This report goes on to emphasize how difficult it is to take a gauge on the industry at its current status (which is true to what I’ve been told before), but it jumped in and did its best anyway. So cheers to that, anyway!

More explanation from the report on the state of the labor industry:

“Globalization and the outsourcing of U.S. manufacturing to developing countries over the past two decades has simultaneously been praised as an opportunity to provide jobs to millions of desperately poor people and derided as an exploitative “race to the bottom” by companies interested only in cheap labor. With most production currently outsourced, the remoteness of production locales and large number of factories make it difficult for researchers to obtain accurate data on factory working conditions.

“Investment firms that screen their portfolio holdings on social and environmental issues require comparable data to be able to evaluate a company’s treatment of its supply chain employees. The goal of this report is to increase transparency on company initiatives and the quality of compliance data available to the social research community and other stakeholders.”

What do you think of this list and how it was put together? Would you make purchasing decisions based on it?

I didn’t know today was International Women’s Day until I got this email from Kate Spade — so Happy Women’s Day! To celebrate, they’re unveiling a small collection of accessories handmade by women in Rwanda via Women for Women International, including these black-and-white seed bead pieces ($95 & $45), also available in several other colors. The pink bags previewed above will be coming soon. I wouldn’t mind getting my hands on some of those baskets on the wall, either.

Remember Standard Magazine, which launched in September? It’s an online-only shelter mag that features exclusively eco-friendly goods, but it doesn’t mention eco qualities because they shouldn’t be out-of-the-ordinary — they should be standard. (Just in case you needed a refresher!)

Kelly asked me to contribute to the current issue by curating the “On the Boards” department and doing a Q&A. Take a look! Here’s my favorite “A,” which typifies this blog:

Standard: So how can people be more ethical in their buying, for fashion and beyond?

Janette: First and foremost, you know the things in your closet that you love and find yourself wearing constantly? I try to make those are the only items I buy. This means shopping for pieces that are versatile, high-quality and, most importantly, that I really love from the get-go.

Buy those items from independent businesses and designers, or vintage. Have them repaired when they need it. Do a bit of research on the values behind the brands you love, and make sure they align with your own. The same goes for purchases as big as furniture, or as small as groceries.

When you have the issue open, take a look at the Ace Hotel feature on page 18 as well. Gorgeous!

Thank you, Kelly and Lily!

Have you been keeping up with The Uniform Project? After Sheena Matheiken wore the same dress each day for a full year, the second year of her project kicked off last August and is getting a makeover every 30 days or so. Each month, a different “Pilot” has her own LBD designed and shares daily photos of her styling, and contributions are pledged to organizations according to each Pilot’s passion.

How lovely is January’s dress, designed by Edelweiss by Sarah and worn by Jessica Engle of wasabipear? It really caught my eye. It comes in two pieces, and the pockets in that skirt are just perfect. Its length is a bit longer than Eliza Starbuck’s original design, and I love the zippers. It’s made of a medium-weight twill tencel, as sourced on Summer Rayne Oakes’ Source 4 Style. And oh-so-versatile!

Jessica’s cause is to build a school in Ethiopia, where she lived until she was 5. She has sponsors who make each $1 we donate into $5 — what a deal! The dress isn’t available to buy YET, but to be notified when it goes on sale (like I did), sign up for U.P updates here.

Happy 2011! (Only six days late!)

Right before 2010 ended I got an email from Jasmin at Ecouterre asking me to contribute my predictions for 2011 in the eco fashion industry. You can read my response here. It was great to add my two cents in the company of John Patrick Organic, Sheena at The Uniform Project, Summer Rayne Oakes, Eviana Hartman at Bodkin, Brad at Commerce With a Conscience and more.

I think this was my first stab at a full-on prediction of this sort, and although at first I was afraid of getting something “wrong,” I think it turned out great! Some of the 28 contributors’ responses challenged each other a bit, but only in a positive way. When you have a few extra minutes, be sure to read them all.

United by Blue recently asked me if I’d like to do a giveaway for something on their site, and I thought the holidays would be the perfect time share the love! For each item you purchase from United by Blue — organic tees, bags or jewelry — the organization removes one pound of trash from the world’s oceans and waterways. My pick from their collection was the Turquoise Chunk Necklace, which retails for $30. It’s bold size and color layers well with other necklaces, and its 14K gold-plated chain is 18″ long with a 2″ extender.

There are three ways to enter to win:

1. Like United By Blue on Facebook and leave a comment on their wall with one thing you can do to help the ocean.
2. Follow United By Blue on Twitter and tweet the same thing, mentioning @UnitedByBlue in your tweet.
3. Leave a comment on this post telling me whether you’d keep this necklace for yourself or give it to someone as a gift, and why.

You can enter once each way between now and Sunday at 6 PST. Then we’ll randomly choose a winner, and I’ll ship it out via Priority Mail in time for Christmas! Open to U.S. residents only.

UPDATE: By random drawing, the winner is Liz! My lovely friend who founded Sseko Designs. I can’t wait to send it to her. THANK YOU to everyone who entered! United by Blue really appreciated all your comments.

Stocking stuffer of awesomeness, anyone? PACT men’s and women’s underwear has always donated 10% of each purchase to your choice of their selected causes, but with each sale of the Winter Lights designs they recently launched, they’ll donate a solar lantern to a family in need in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Priced at $18-$22 for women, and $24-$26 for men.