Forever 21’s potential bankruptcy filing marks the overdue death of fast fashion – Washington Examiner

For Forever 21, the end was clearly nigh when it collaborated with Cheetos.

In June, the fast-fashion retailer, best known for selling teenagers $10 graphic tees emblazoned with kitschy phrases such as “will squat for tacos,” joined with Cheetos to release a line of snack-themed shirts, socks, and even underwear.

But it’s not Cheetos’ fault that Forever 21 is preparing for a potential bankruptcy filing, as Bloomberg reported last week. It’s not the fault of USPS either, although that collaboration appears equally odd. Likely, Forever 21 is failing because it never evolved from mall staple to online powerhouse.

Consumers, though, shouldn’t lose much sleep over the struggles of the retail giant. Forever 21, like other fast-fashion stores, is bad for workers, the environment, and fashion itself.

In 2016, the Los Angeles Times found that Forever 21 clothes were being made by factory workers in Southern California who were paid as little as $4 an hour. Stores such as Forever 21 or H&M, whose business models rely on selling the latest trends at dirt-cheap prices, are infamous for relying on virtual slave labor just to maintain their ability to sell cheap leggings.

Charles Manning, style director at Cosmopolitan, wrote at the time:

Forever 21 is so committed to thrift that it allegedly stole Ariana Grande’s image instead of paying her the price she set for a collaboration. The singer is now suing.

Fast-fashion brands aren’t good for the environment either. Tatiana Schlossberg, author of Inconspicuous Consumption: The Environmental Impact You Don’t Know You Have, wrote in the New York Times that fast fashion may stick around much longer than we’d expect and not for a good reason:

In a review of Dana Thomas’ Fashionopolis: The Price of Fast Fashion and the Future of Clothes, which came out this week, Schlossberg says the author rightly points out the drawbacks of fast fashion but misses one point.

“Another: Does the landfilling of non-synthetic clothing matter? Thomas doesn’t say, but in fact it does, because it contributes to global emission of methane, a potent heat-trapping gas,” she writes. Forever 21’s cheaply made clothes, which wear out easily and quickly become dated, seem ready-made for the landfill.

If the exploitation of workers and the damage to the environment isn’t bad enough, Forever 21 isn’t creating value in the fashion department either. Dawn Trevino, a 19-year-old, told the Los Angeles Times that she rarely shops at Forever 21 anymore because it’s too “cookie-cutter.”

“I want something unique, and I feel like that’s the new thing,” she said. Forever 21 isn’t offering anything different, except for its collaborations with Cheetos and USPS, which aren’t likely to scare off any competitors.

Lillian Fallon, a fashion writer who says she no longer shops at fast-fashion stores, recommends shopping at ethical fashion brands or thrifting, instead.

“At 15, I developed an interest in fashion and realized that the cookie cutter clothes offered at the mall weren’t my style,” she wrote for Verily. “I wanted items that were unique. At 25, I still thrift for that reason but also because it’s the best way to build an ethical wardrobe — something generally thought to be too expensive for the average shopper.”

Forever 21’s failure may be a sign that consumers are becoming aware of the problems with fast fashion and turning toward retailers focused more on timelessness and sustainability. Some shoppers combine thrifting with online innovation, turning toward websites such as Poshmark and Depop, where users can buy and sell used clothes.

As Forever 21 works out its financial woes, perhaps shutting down some of its 800 stores, it should take notes from new players in the fashion industry. Shoppers may be turning away from fast fashion at last, and everyone, from the factory worker to the consumer, will be better off for it.