What the world ultra-fast style industry’s gripdown of companies like Shein and Temu methods

France’s fast clothing expenses takes aim at wholesale behemoths politicians argue damage the environment, hurt the economy and supply impulse buyers.

A “kill act” was unanimously approved by France’s lower house of parliament on March 14th that targets quick fashion and ultra-fast clothing sold by online retailers like Shein and Temu. By banning the advertising of some ultra-fascious fashion companies and penalizing them with annually increasing increments of up to 10 euros ( £8.54 or $10.92 ) per article of clothing by 2030, the measure aims to offset the fast fashion industry’s environmental impact. The expenses may also mandate that fast clothing retailers include an object’s modify, maintenance, recycling and environmental impact near the company’s value.

Quick clothing is frequently viewed as having poor clothing. It is quickly produced in accordance with industry changes and is sold at the lowest possible rates. Although the economic price is low, experts claim that both cotton factory workers and the earth’s environment are paying the hefty price. Fast fashion allows cost-conscious consumers to regularly upgrade and increase their wardrobes with knockoff en vogue styles.

According to Emily Stochl, vice president of advocacy and community engagement at Remake, a green style nonprofit organization, “it’s significant when the price dialogue comes up for people to know that the price of rapid fashion is being kept deliberately low.”

“Essentially, it’s being subsidized by the fact that these companies are not paying their employees fairly. So this idea that fast fashion pricing is the bar for clothing that consumers have come to expect – it’s an artificial construction”.

Stochl refers to earlier advertising bans, including cigarette advertisements in the US in the 1970s and the UK in the early 1990s, and attributes the addictive nature of tobacco to the impact fast fashion has had on consumers. France’s new bill uses similar language, stating, “This evolution of the apparel sector towards ephemeral fashion, combining increased volumes and low prices, is influencing consumer buying habits by creating buying impulses and a constant need for renewal, which is not without environmental, social and economic consequences”.

Shein, a fast-fashion behemoth based in Singapore and based in China, claimed in a statement to the BBC that the impact of the bill will “worsen the purchasing power of French consumers, at a time when they are already feeling the impact of the cost-of-living crisis.”

According to Kathleen Talbot, chief sustainability officer and vice president of operations at Reformation, an eco-friendly brand favored by Taylor Swift, Monica Lewinsky, and Sydney Sweeney, ultra-fantastic fashion brands represent the “insane excess” the fashion industry is seeing in terms of speed and volume. In a market with a piping-hot demand that isn’t simmering down, Talbot adds that using regulation as a vehicle to drive change may be the only option.

According to Talbot, “what’s interesting about the proposed French bill and regulations like the New York Fashion Act are that they both have similar goals.” We’re asking ourselves these important questions about how to account for the negative effects of fashion on people and the planet. How can we begin promoting incentives for good actors and, on the other hand, tax bad actors to make brands pay for negative externalities? I would like it to be simpler to do that. What we’re seeing are these really location- specific, siloed efforts”.

“But I think it’s a start”, Talbot adds. “Hopefully, it helps become a model or inspires other regulatory bodies to take these issues into account and consider the role that regulation plays in addressing the issues we’re seeing in the industry.”

Stochl points out that fast fashion’s most important workers are most directly affected by fast fashion when pursuing lasting change through policy reform.

According to Stochl, “lawmakers should make sure that the funds collected through these penalties flow in the direction of the environmental impact that is occurring.” How are the funds allocated to the frontline communities that are most adversely impacted when penalties are collected to address environmental impact, for instance, communities that are often on the move are often those in the world south? As far as I can tell, the policy doesn’t address those things”.

Politicians in the UK and the US have been vocal critics of Temu, a Chinese-owned e-commerce company, and a US government investigation in 2023 warned of an “extremely high risk that Temu’s supply chains are contaminated with forced labor.”

Temu says it “strictly prohibits” the use of forced, penal, or child labour by any of its merchants.

A report from the Swiss advocacy group Public Eye revealed that some Shein employees worked 75-hour weeks at six locations in Guangzhou in 2021. Additionally, a group of US lawmakers demanded that Shein be investigated in 2023 over allegations that some of the clothing the brand sells is produced by the Uyghur people, a Turkic ethnic group in China. Shein told the BBC that it has “zero tolerance” for forced labour.

More like this:

• The power of unconventional celebrity collabs: Monica Lewinsky x Reformation

• ‘ Sephora kids’ and the booming business of beauty products for children

• How Trader Joe’s tote bags evolved into a strange fashion statement in Japan.

Temu’s spokesperson told the BBC that the company “acknowledges the significant environmental concerns that the proposed French legislation raises,” and that they do not operate as a fast fashion brand because they are a marketplace and do not produce their own goods.

Temu and Shein separately claim to the BBC that their on-demand business models, in contrast to traditional business models, produce less waste.