Addressing Environmental Harm in the Fast Fashion Industry
A $10 shirt can travel through dozens of countries, be worn multiple times, and then end up in a landfill where it would remain for decades. Meanwhile, the companies that profit from this system face little to no legal responsibility for the environmental damage embedded in every step of production. Fast fashion has transformed clothing into a disposable commodity, but the law has not kept up with the scale or speed of its environmental consequences. As pollution and textile waste continue to rise, the absence of regulation has created a gap in accountability that existing environmental statutes fail to fill. In fact, New Jersey should adopt legislation requiring fast fashion companies to disclose supply-chain environmental impacts and meet sustainability standards in order to address the growing harms of fast fashion.
Fast fashion refers to the rapid production of inexpensive clothing designed to replicate current trends and maximize consumer demand; examples of this include Shein and Temu. Unlike traditional fashion cycles, where collections were released seasonally, fast fashion companies now introduce new items on a daily basis. This accelerated model encourages overconsumption, with clothing treated as a disposable trend rather than durable.
The environmental consequences of this system are appalling. The fashion industry is one of the largest contributors to global environmental degradation, responsible for greenhouse gas emissions and water consumption. According to the Geneva Environment Network, the fashion industry is responsible for approximately 2–8% of global carbon emissions, and if current trends continue, its share could rise to 26% by 2050. This shows that a simple click of “Place Order” on a fast fashion website can contribute to dangerous statistics.
Resource consumption in the textile industry is equally extreme. The global fashion system uses 215 trillion liters of water annually, equivalent to 86 million Olympic-sized swimming pools (Quantis, 2018). This level of water demand places enormous pressure on freshwater systems, particularly in regions already experiencing scarcity. Textile waste also illustrates the scale of the problem. The equivalent of one garbage truck of clothing is burned or dumped every single second (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). This staggering rate of disposal reflects the pitiful durability of fast fashion garments and the lack of effective recycling or renewable systems. According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 500,000 tons of microfibers are released into the ocean each year from washing clothes, which is equivalent to 50 billion plastic bottles. These microplastics enter marine ecosystems and eventually the human food chain, creating long-term environmental and health risks.
However, addressing these harms is not impossible. An estimated $20–30 billion a year is needed to make the textile chain sustainable, with 60% of that investment focused on energy, water, and waste systems alone (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Despite these environmental harms, consumers rarely receive transparent information about the full lifecycle of their clothing. Companies frequently promote “sustainable” or “eco-friendly” lines without providing meaningful data to support those claims, a strategy referred to as greenwashing. As a result, consumers are left unable to distinguish between genuine environmental progress and marketing strategies designed to improve brand image.
Existing environmental law in the United States does not directly regulate the fashion industry as a unified sector. Instead, environmental protections are scattered across laws that regulate waste and manufacturing separately. While legislation such as the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act address certain forms of industrial pollution, they do not require fashion companies to disclose environmental impacts across their global supply chains. In response to these gaps, lawmakers have begun proposing fashion-specific legislation. One of the most significant is the New York Fashion Sustainability and Social Accountability Act, commonly referred to as the Fashion Act. This proposed law would require large fashion companies doing business in New York to map at least a portion of their supply chains and disclose environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions, water usage, and labor conditions. Companies would also be required to set measurable targets for reducing their environmental footprint.
Supporters argue that transparency allows for accountability and market pressure for reform. Critics, however, argue that disclosure alone is insufficient and may impose high costs without guaranteeing environmental improvement. Internationally, the European Union has moved further toward sustainability regulation, emphasizing circular economy policies and stricter corporate environmental responsibility. In the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides address misleading environmental marketing but do not regulate production impacts.
Although transparency laws are important and are a step forward, they are not enough. Companies can comply with reporting requirements while continuing harmful environmental practices. Without enforceable standards, costs remain pushed onto society. New Jersey should adopt legislation modeled after New York’s Fashion Act but strengthened with mandatory emissions reductions and waste limits. To avoid false practices, penalties should be implemented for noncompliance.
Critics of stronger regulation argue that it would increase costs for businesses and consumers. While it is true that compliance may raise production costs, the current pricing of fast fashion does not reflect its true environmental cost. Climate change adaptation and waste management are already paid for by taxpayers. In this sense, the low price of fast fashion is achieved by shifting environmental costs away from corporations and onto society. Moreover, regulation can drive innovation. Environmental standards have encouraged industries to develop cleaner technologies and more efficient production methods. If fashion companies are required to meet sustainability benchmarks, they may invest in recycled materials and circular production models. Rather than stifling creativity, regulation can redirect companies toward long-term sustainability and achievement.
In conclusion, fast fashion has created a system in which clothing is produced cheaply, consumed rapidly, and then discarded with little regard for environmental impacts. The legal system has not kept pace with this transformation, leaving gaps in accountability for waste and emissions generated by the industry. While emerging legislation such as the New York Fashion Act and international sustainability frameworks represent progress, they are insufficient without stronger enforcement mechanisms. New Jersey should adopt fashion sustainability legislation that combines transparency requirements with enforceable standards. Such a framework would close current gaps and encourage innovation while reducing environmental harm. Ultimately, addressing the environmental cost of fashion requires recognizing that clothing is part of a global system with real ecological consequences.
Bibliography
Environment. “Circular Economy,” 2025.
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/circular-economy_en.
FTC. “Green Guides.” Federal Trade Commission, October 31, 2018.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/topics/truth-advertising/green-guides.
Geneva Environment Network. “Environmental Sustainability in the Fashion Industry.”
Geneva Environment Network. Geneva Environment Network, May 23, 2025.
https://www.genevaenvironmentnetwork.org/resources/updates/sustainable-fashion/.
The Fashion Act. “The Act on Fashion Coalition.” The Act on Fashion Coalition, n.d.