John Donvan
This is Open to Debate. I’m John Donvan. Hi, everybody. This time, we’re taking debate into a new realm, for us at least, which is, in a word, fashion. Yes, I mean fashion as in clothing, and clothing design, and the business around those things. Our particular focus is a part of the scene that didn’t really exist until relatively recently, fast fashion. Now, if you recognize retail storefronts and online companies with names like Zara, H&M, Shein, Brandy Melville, then you have seen places that are doing fast fashion.

John Donvan
Fast fashion is the practice by some manufacturers of very quickly producing new lines of clothing based on what is just becoming hot and hip, and getting those items into stores with amazing speed, and offering them all at amazingly low prices, with the result that shoppers, especially younger shoppers, are buying this stuff up and wearing it proudly, but not necessarily wearing it out. Rather, they keep going back for more and more new stuff because it’s new, and there’s always something new just hitting the stores.

John Donvan
So what’s the debate? It’s about who is really winning and losing in this process. Because on the one hand, fast fashion gives lots of people a chance to be in vogue in a way that they can afford. There’s lots of choice and access if you’re in a market that delivers fast fashion. But it is also argued that the prices are so low because the workers making the clothing are being exploited, and that the environment is suffering owing to all of these clothes not being worn out, but being thrown out the minute that fashion changes, which is pretty frequently. So, with the phenomenon of Black Friday in mind, something to consider is our debate question for this one, fast fashion, shop or stop?

John Donvan
So let’s introduce our debaters. Here to argue the answer to that question is stop, I wanna welcome Kenneth Pucker. Kenneth is former COO of Timberland. He teaches sustainability as professor of the practice at Tufts University Fletcher School. Kenneth, welcome to Open to Debate. It’s so great to have you.

Kenneth Pucker
Thank you for having me.

John Donvan
And here to argue that the answer to that question should be shop, I want to welcome Katherine Mangu-Ward. Katherine is editor-in-chief of Reason Magazine, a returning debater, and someone who thinks and writes a lot about capitalism and culture. Katherine, welcome back to Open to Debate.

Katherine Mangu-Ward
Delighted to be here.

John Donvan
So let’s get onto our opening statements. We want each of you to take a few minutes to explain your position, why you are shop or why you are stop. Kenneth, you are up first. You are arguing that when it comes to fast fashion, it is time to stop. Please tell us why.

Kenneth Pucker
Thanks, John. Fashion is a creative, expressive, and dynamic industry. It’s also increasingly fast-moving and destructive. Two decades ago, the industry produced about 50 billion units of clothing and footwear annually, with most garments made from natural materials. Today, uh, where brands today, or then, typically produced two seasons, spring and fall, this changed with deregulation and the advent of fast fashion. Brands including H&M, Zara, and Uniqlo realized that newness accelerated consumption. Consequently, these brands shifted from two deliveries per year to 18 to 20 deliveries per year, while introducing 10 to 20 times the number of styles as compared to their competitors. They also increased their use of synthetics like polyester, which is derived from oil, and cut the average price of a garment in half as compared to comparably positioned brands.

Kenneth Pucker
Today, H&M and Zara’s fast fashion model looks quaint and slow, supplanted by a new model, which I call instant fashion. Chinese brand Shein personifies this shift. A decade ago, the brand Shein had revenues of about $500 million. Most Americans had never even heard of the brand. Today, Shein is 80 times bigger, with sales topping $40 billion. How did they achieve this great level of commercial success? Well, it was by relying on fossil fuel based inputs, putting newness on steroids, and slashing prices. On average, Shein introduces more than 5,000 new styles a day. It introduces as many new styles in one week as Zara does in a year, at average prices 60% below Zara, with more than 80% of its products made from oil. The average price of a Shein top is $10. Outerwear and jeans sell for les than $20 per item.

Kenneth Pucker
How is it possible, you might wonder, for them to achieve these results? Well, a couple things. First, Shein has a prodigious business model based on speed, gamification, and AI. So far, so good. However, much of Shein’s success comes on the backs of the workers and the health of the planet. For example, Shein uses air freight to ship about one million packages per day to the United States. Air freight releases about 40 times the carbon per package as compared to ocean freight. Shein is not compensating anyone for the carbon emissions associated with its production and shipping, and today, Shein is a top five carbon emitter in the world of fashion.

Kenneth Pucker
The company has been caught using banned cotton from Chinese Uyghurs, slave labor in violation of US law. Though it caps its workers schedules at 60 hours per week of time in the factories, and investigation by a Swiss NGO revealed that many factory workers are still working over 75 hours per week. More than 100 brands and independent designers, including Adidas, Doc Marten, Ralph Lauren, and Levi Strauss, have sued Shein for stealing their designs and violating their IP. As a result of Shein and their ilk, the fashion industry now produces between 100 and 150 billion units per year, mostly made from oil, 85% of which are landfilled or incinerated.

Kenneth Pucker
The industry is one of the most pollutive industries in the world, responsible for more than 20% of the world’s wastewater, a growing percentage of carbon emissions, and more than 30% of all microfiber production, not to mention chemicals released as effluent into waterways, and labor abuses. The fashion industry’s success increasingly comes from privatizing profit while socializing damage. It’s time we do things differently.

John Donvan
Thank you very much, Kenneth. Uh, Katherine, it’s your turn now. You are a- answering that the question should be of stop or shop should be answered with a shop. You have four minutes to make your case.

Katherine Mangu-Ward
First of all, thank you so much, uh, as a, uh, former ’90s teenager, being in the presence of someone who worked at Timberland is a, a joy and a delight. Uh, I am here in my H&M shirt and my Zara boots to defend shop. Um, so listen, clothes are really important to us. They’re important to us in the way that food, and shelter, and clothing are important to us, but they’re also important to us in the way that art, and love, and beauty are important, and so I think it’s no surprise that this topic gets everybody feeling very spicy, um, and, and is so personal to so many people.

Katherine Mangu-Ward
I’m gonna argue that fast fashion is a force for good, and this is not just because I’m an annoying contrarian, but also because I really believe that (laughs) it’s true. So, um, you know, I wanna talk about kinda the economic, uh, i- importance of fast fashion as well as, uh, the ways that it fuels innovation. Um, and I wanna try and respond to some of those, uh, criticisms, which are, which are important.

Katherine Mangu-Ward
So, w- worrying about fast fashion is not new. Um, my predecessor at Reason, Virginia Postrel, has written about, um, in the 15th century, new draperies causing a scandal. Uh, a Venetian ambassador in 1546 is saying, “These fabrics cost little and last less.” Um, so this is, this is an old debate, um, and it’s one that, uh, we’re gonna keep coming back to. Um, first I wanna just talk about the economic importance of affordable clothing, which I think can get lost in this conversation.

Katherine Mangu-Ward
Um, cheap clothes for people who don’t have a lot of resources are, uh, a major, major factor in quality of life. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average American household spent about $1,500 on apparel in 2021, and that goes a lot farther when clothes are cheap. So this, uh, not only enables people to save money, it also means that people can move more easily between different socioeconomic classes. I think that can be really underappreciated.

Katherine Mangu-Ward
Um, second, worker choice. So, I wanna set aside the slave labor question. I think that that is a huge problem, and one that we should be focusing on solving both in China and as customers. But, most clothes, most cheap clothes, are made by people who chose those jobs. Um, in Bangladesh, the garment industry employs four million people, and they all, uh, as a general matter, get above average wages for their region. They choose these jobs because they are better options. I don’t wanna be paternalistic and tell people that they should not be allowed to, uh, both create and then take jobs that are better for them.

Katherine Mangu-Ward
Um, innovation. This is another kind of underappreciated aspect of fast fashion. It’s really exciting and fun to have this very rapid turnover of clothes. This is a form of self-expression. It’s a form of, uh, you know, not just kind of aesthetic innovation, but also commercial innovation. Um, those Venetian merchants that I mentioned in the, uh, you know, 1550s also drove m- incredibly important changes in global trade. The same was true in the innovation of the department store. The same is true here. Um, massive, rapid transit of goods and services across the world are, uh, is generally a force for good, and something that, um, you know, I think, uh, is particular to the fashion industry in part because intellectual property there does operate differently. Looser intellectual property has meant, um, really robust and exciting, uh, creative, uh, kind of creation in that space.

Katherine Mangu-Ward
Um, finally, of course, environmental regulation. You know, this is something that is not special to the fashion industry, and I think that that’s really the kind of framework we need to talk here. Yeah, we should probably do a better job of pricing carbon. Yes, we have a failure of, uh, uh, environmental regulation all around the globe. Looking specifically at fashion, uh, I think misses the, the forest for the trees. Um, in conclusion, fashion is, um, fashion is important to us. We say that the clothes make the man, or maybe, like, we are what we wear. I’m not sure. Um, we are people who wanna do economic growth. We are people who wanna be beautiful. We are people who wanna do exciting things. And we’re also people who are not great at managing our environmental resources right now. That matches up. It’s nothing special about fashion, and I think we shouldn’t forget the upsides.

John Donvan
Thank you very much, Katherine. So we’re coming up to a break, but before we do, I, I just wanna note a sign that this issue is in the air these days. Saturday Night Live did a whole skit around this topic just a few months back.

VIDEO
(laughs).

VIDEO
Tank tops, 3.99. New merch daily, fresh fits. No prisoners, normal number of working hours each week.

VIDEO
So, like 40, or?

VIDEO
Or.

VIDEO
Or what?

VIDEO
Don’t worry about it. Matching sets.

John Donvan
And okay, that performance suggests that something sketchy is going on in this field, which is, uh, uh, a one-sided argument, but at Open to Debate, we always look at two sides at least, so that’s what we’re gonna do when we return. We’re gonna be right back. I’m John Donvan. This is Open to Debate. If you enjoy this debate, please keep an ear out for more. We are working hard to bring you debates on a wide range of topics that we think you’re going to enjoy. And you can watch all of our debates on our Open to Debate YouTube page. Over time, we have covered topics including whether people should eat meat, whether Ukraine should be a member of NATO, whether we should pursue happiness through virtue or through pleasure. One of my personal favorites is the debate where we asked single or married? Which is the better way to live? And don’t forget, you can also subscribe to our newsletter, where every week, we bring you context on our debate topics, plus additional articles, and we will update you on what’s to come from our program. I’m John Donvan. Thanks so much for listening.

John Donvan
Welcome back to Open to Debate. I’m John Donvan, and the question we’re taking on is fast fashion, shop or stop? I’m here with our debaters, Katherine Mangu-Ward, who is editor-in-chief of Reason Magazine, and Kenneth Pucker, Former COO of Timberland. We’re gonna have some discussion around around your, your opening arguments, and I just wanna tell you what I heard in your opening arguments. I heard, uh, Kenneth Pucker, you making the argument, uh, to stop based largely around the fact that the, uh, fast fashion industry is a trend that is going in the wrong direction and accelerating particularly just sheer-ly around the volume of the business, that that, that volume itself is detrimental to the environment, uh, that it’s, uh, ca- uh, n- very, very negative for car- for the carbon footprint, that 85% of this stuff ends up in landfills, um, which, um, is i- implied is not good, that also, these companies are involved in copyright infringement, um, that they are exploiting their workers, and that there are better ways to do this.

John Donvan
Um, and I’m hearing from you, Katherine Mangu-Ward, an argument that, uh, fast fashion… I think the, the thrust of your ar- argument, the sort of unifying thing is that fashion is good. Fashion satisfies a need for the consumers to express themselves, that there are lots of industries in the world that, uh, are involved in the kinds of some of the practices that, uh, Kenneth is talking about. There’s nothing special about fast fashion in this regard. You do acknowledge that, um, slave labor is a problem that should be dealt with, but you also make the case that in the larger industry, that there are people in, uh, the producing countries that are choosing to work in this field because they can make a better living doing that than they would doing a lot of other things that are available to them. So, um, that’s where I see kind of the fundamental, uh, divides between the each of you.

John Donvan
Uh, K- and Kenneth, what I’d, I would really like to go to you first to respond to the part of Katherine’s argument that looks at this from the consumer’s point of view, that having these choices is in itself a good thing, that it’s, in a sense, a democratization of the fashion industry, that it’s a m- uh, act of self-expression, that it’s great to be able to afford this stuff, that it satisfies some need in the consumer. It’s almost a philosophical argument, but I’d like to just get your response to whether y- you, you find any of that, uh, persuasive.

Kenneth Pucker
So, some of it is persuasive. I think that the idea that fashion is connected with art, and creativity, and expression is valid. I spent a good portion of my career in fashion. The company that I worked for actually had a lifetime guarantee on all of its products, and another company that I was an investor in, Timbuk2, also had a lifetime guarantee on all its products, so the intention was to sell something to someone that lasted a long time.

Kenneth Pucker
When it comes to the question of price and democratization of fashion, I think we’re well beyond that. In the United States for example, the average consumer buys more than 50 items a year. Closet sizes have increased by more than 50% over the last 20 years. So, if you look at th- and think about your own closet, my guess is that 80% of the stuff in there, you never wear, right? So we’re well beyond the need for more and more of something. If you’re talking about democratization in terms of prices available to consumers in places far away from the US, in the developing South, there’s already very low prices for fashion in most of those markets. And so I’m not convinced that we need more $8 halter tops or $9 jeans in order to feel better about ourselves.

John Donvan
So, Katherine, what I’m hearing there is the r- the response to your argument, we, w- w- uh, we already have enough stuff, indeed, also to express our individuality through what we wear, and, uh, I’m not sure if you wanna push back against the argument that, uh, most of us are f- have clothes in our closet that we never wear. I know I do, but I… What do you think about Kenneth’s point that, you know, there’s a point where it’s just too much?

Katherine Mangu-Ward
Yeah, I would, uh, be on very, very shaky ground if I was to claim that I have a perfectly curated capsule wardrobe, uh, waiting-

John Donvan
(laughs).

Katherine Mangu-Ward
… for me at home, so Kenneth’s of course right about that. Um, at the same time, I’m just always very wary of any argument that begins, “I think we have enough.” Um, and I think that’s because, you know, for one thing, people’s values differ. And, and I, I know that that’s sort of obviously true on a very simple level, but, um, so often, I think the, “Don’t you think we have enough?” argument is, uh, can be a tool of, of control, or a tool of censoriousness, or a tool of, um, uh, you know, the p- the powers that be, um, and we are… You know, we’re so lucky to live in the United States, um, at a time when we are so wealthy and so prosperous, and yet, we still saw the last presidential election, at least in part, hinge on the question of, hey, the ordinary stuff that I buy feels more expensive, and that is, um, that’s something that’s not, that doesn’t sit well with the public.

Katherine Mangu-Ward
So I, I think that the, “Don’t you have enough clothes?” question, yeah, I have enough clothes. Me personally, I have too many clothes. But, I wanna always be looking at the broader reasons, the larger dynamics of someone else deciding that I have enough, um, because I think there are so many places in the world where, you know, to say, “Oh, clothes are pretty cheap in the Global South.” Well, maybe, but, you know, every dollar, um, is fungible, and if you can make it a little cheaper, um, in some places, that means more to eat. Uh, here, maybe that’s not always true, but, uh, it’s just so important to keep that insight.

John Donvan
Kenneth?

Kenneth Pucker
So, with respect to the election, uh, the current president-elect actually is recommending tariffs of-

Katherine Mangu-Ward
And-

Kenneth Pucker
… 20 to s-

Katherine Mangu-Ward
And it’s gonna be a disaster (laughs).

Kenneth Pucker
… 20 to 60% on imports from China, which will only make things far more expensive. Um, when it comes to innovation in fashion, it’s interesting. If one were to walk into a factory today in Southeast China, it wouldn’t look very different from a factory from 100 years ago, literally, in terms of the machinery that’s being used. The innovation has come from things like flying goods across the world as opposed to putting them in a, in a boat. And I’m not opposed to that. You know, it’s, it’s legal, but it has consequence. My… As I mentioned before, the emissions associated with flying goods are 40X what they are for shipping them by sea to get them here nine days earlier.

Kenneth Pucker
And no one’s paying for those carbon emissions, meaning Shein, and their private equity, and venture, and sovereign wealth fund owners who are benefiting from the excess consumption and the hauls that consumers are, uh, putting on social media, they’re not paying for the effluent that’s being leaked into waterways. They’re not paying for the carbon emissions. They’re not paying for the microplastics associated with polyester that gets washed in machines and ends up in waterways and back in the food system.

Kenneth Pucker
So, in addition, one more thing I will note is that there’s a law in the US called the de minimis law, which allows packages to enter the United States of less than $800 to come in tax free. And so what Shein did, which is clever, and it is legal, is they actually ship packages direct from China to consumers, less than $800, to avoid paying that tax. Gap, by contrast, who doesn’t do that, ships to a distribution center and then to customers, paid $700 million in that tax in 2022. And so, my concern, uh, is that there’s not a lot of innovation in fashion, we don’t need more stuff, and really, all these externalities, all these side effects that society bears the costs of, the investors are the ones who are gaining from.

John Donvan
I’m, I’m just wondering, are we talking about two kinds of innovation here, where Katherine is talking about the innovation in what the fashion looks like and is made of, and what it, the, uh, artistic innovation, and, um, and Kenneth, you’re talking about the innovation of production and delivery? Um, I’ll let, I’ll take that to you, Katherine, because there was a lot in, in what Kenneth had to say in terms of the industry not being particularly new in how it operates and makes clothes, that it’s the, uh, the system of, uh, delivery and, um, and, um, and shipping that is, is what’s new, and in his view, detrimental.

Katherine Mangu-Ward
Yeah, I mean, uh, I guess I would, I would argue that there are positive innovations, both on the kind of aesthetic and artistic side and on the, on the kind of, uh, supply chain or commercial side. Um, unfortunately, I agree with, um, with Ken that there is this, um… A lot of, uh, entities in this space are responding to poorly structured government incentives. So, um, as he c- as he notes, some of the, some of the debate around increased cost of consumer goods and the selection centered around tariffs, which I think, um, will, will create just massive deadweight loss and a lot of, um, strum and drum. Um, and similarly, the description of how Shein’s business model is basically a tax workaround. Yeah, let’s do… Let’s reform that entire system. I agree with that.

Katherine Mangu-Ward
But I think i- if you take a slightly longer view, um, there really are all of these innovations that are, um, that have kind of secondary effects in industry, um, that come out of fashion. So, you know, when we talk about textiles, a- as I had mentioned, in the 15th century, kind of funding the renaissance in a way, both, um, you know, in terms of just sheer wealth, but also in terms of interaction between peoples. Um, and, and I think that that’s important to keep in mind. Similarly with, um, department stores, right? Like, the c- the combination of rail, and textile innovations, and all kinds of things that brought together the possibility of, um, of a department store, which also had massive cultural impact.

Katherine Mangu-Ward
Uh, so I, I guess I wanna say that, um, maybe it is true that, you know, a factory floor making a t-shirt hasn’t radically changed in recent years, but I think there’s a lot more to it, and many of those innovations are positive.

John Donvan
Kenneth, do you wanna respond?

Kenneth Pucker
Well, I think the biggest change that I’ve noted in fashion over the last, really, couple decades is the advent of fossil fuel. As I mentioned before, if you go back 30 or 40 years, most stuff was made from natural fibers, cotton, wool, leather, et cetera, that actually biodegrades over time. By contrast, when you buy a pair of Lululemon tights, for example, that are made from nylon, those tights will outlive your kids’ kids’ kids’ in a landfill, okay? And, they’re contributing to both increased carbon emissions, ’cause they’re made of oil, and also methane, because they leak methane when they’re in a landfill for all that period of time. And so the [inaudible]-

John Donvan
Just, j- just for, for me hearing that, is that literally true, that the stuff wo- won’t biodegrade over, you know, 100, 150 years?

Kenneth Pucker
Yes.

John Donvan
Is that literally true, or is that fig- a f- s- a figure of speech that you’re using?

Kenneth Pucker
No, I, I didn’t make it up. You, you, you can look it up. Uh, it-

John Donvan
No, I’m not accusing you of that. I’m just, uh, just find it-

Kenneth Pucker
No, your, your Nike-

John Donvan
I just want our audience to know.

Kenneth Pucker
… sneakers that are made of synthetics as well, your Lululemon tights, they will end up in a landfill, and unless they’re incinerated, will last for generations.

John Donvan
I just wanna take that fact back, then, to Katherine, b- because as I said in my opening, the part of the trend here is that people are n- they’re clearing their closets, ultimately, and throwing this stuff out. Um, in preparing for this program, I saw, um, um, a s- a scene photographed from space from a satellite in Chile, where, uh, there’s a mountaintop covered with discarded clothing that covers acres and acres and acres, um, and it’s, if, if Kenneth is right, it’s g- that’s gonna be there for a long, long time. So what about the disposable nature of this clothing having an, its impact on the environment? And that is new, because the stuff wasn’t being made in the volume 20 years ago that it is today.

Katherine Mangu-Ward
You know, as I was preparing for this debate, I had this kind of passing thought. Um, so one, one issue, right, is not just that we use synthetics now, but that we use blends, and, um, blends, as I understand it, are much harder to, um, bring back into some kind of a circular reuse cycle, right? You h- It’s hard to separate, uh, fibers back out once they’ve been mixed together. What an Old Testament worry, right? Like, this is one of the, the things that, like, uh, you find that you read in, um, in the Old Testament, that’s like, “Oh, we shouldn’t, you know, we shouldn’t mix our fibers in our garments. It’s, it’s, uh, it’ll make us, um, unholy.”

Katherine Mangu-Ward
So, I think there’s, there, it’s just, it, to me, it just resonates, always, with, like, we are g- we have strong feelings about this, and we have a lot of worries about purity, and we have a lot of worries about impact on our world with what we do. You know, the, uh, percentage of these landfills that are clothing is not, um, disproportionate to its place in our economy. You might say, “Okay, well we just wanna reduce the size of this piece of our economy.” But, the desire to find better ways to dispose of these fabrics or garments, or reuse them, is very prevalent. And I, I know that Ken has written a lot about, um, kinda the greenwashing and how it, it can be, um, more of a marketing campaign than an effective strategy for resource use, but the fact is that there is a lot of demand for not just responsible consumer behavior, but responsible behavior on the part of the companies themselves, and while a lot of the technologies aren’t there yet, we are working on it.

John Donvan
So fundamentally for you, this is not a, it, it’s not that big a deal. It’s not an alarm for you? The, the alarm bells are not ringing on the environmental part of this for you?

Katherine Mangu-Ward
I think, like, alarm bells are ringing on the environment broadly. I think the, the sort of, “Should I buy this shirt at H&M?” piece of the question is not the, the center, the sort of moral center of it.

Kenneth Pucker
Can I just respond to one thing, I’m sorry, that Katherine mentioned, which is apparel is, in fact, now a disproportionate share of landfills? Um, I’ve been working with the State of New York, because the fastest growing input to landfills in New York is, in fact, apparel, and that has changed in large part because of the advent of instant fashion and the increased consumption and the quicker half-life of fashion, at least in that city. I’ll also say this notion of textile-to-textile blends that Katherine, uh, landed on is… She’s right. Uh, it is harder to actually recycle or upcycle a blend of fabrics. So, uh, uh, uh, if you wear a pair of jeans now that has stretch in it, that’s Elastane. Elastane’s made of fossil fuels. So you have cotton and Elastane together, and there is not yet a technology that’s able to separate those fibers in order to reuse them.

Kenneth Pucker
But, don’t lose sight of the fact that the industry itself talks a lot about this notion of circularity or recycling. When you buy a garment that says it’s made of recycled fibers, 99% of those garments come from plastic bottles. They come from old Coke, or Sprite, or Mountain Dew bottles, that are reground up and then woven into polyester, and then made into garments again. Less than 1% of all fashion that’s made today is made from old fashion, which is, you know, upcycling in a circular fashion. And we’re approaching, now, 100 million tons of textile waste each year that’s being disposed of. These numbers are all accelerating, faster than the rate of growth of GDP, in large part because the prices of the stuff continues to decline.

John Donvan
Katherine, can you take on, also, Kenneth’s argument about the exploitation of workers? Now, you, you kind of ad- you kind of bounced off, yeah, slave labor’s a bad thing, which is not a very controversial position to be taking. But, can you take it, uh, take it on with a little bit more depth and breadth, uh, than you did in your opening?

Katherine Mangu-Ward
Absolutely, uh, since I’ve already, uh, dated myself. I will say, you know, when I was in college in the late ’90s, um, it was the end of history, right? And so there, there was not a lot of controversy for college students to get mad about, but one topic that did come up, the kind of last thing that people were protesting in that period, um, was sweatshops. And so this, this conversation has been going on for a really long time. Um, and, uh, you know, I think that it’s really, for me, a question of perspective-taking. So, um, I would not enjoy being a textile worker in Bangladesh, I’m sure. Um, I, I like the job that I have a lot more.

Katherine Mangu-Ward
But, um, for the people who do those jobs, the options that they have otherwise are just substantially worse in so many cases. And I think that there is this tendency to say those jobs shouldn’t exist. Um, and, um, it’s, it’s just so important to ask, well, what’s the alternative? If the alternative is subsistence farming, um, if the alternative is no employment for women, because, uh, those jobs are disproportionately held by women, um, you know, this can, this can really take us to a place, again, of, of kinda paternalism. And, you know, conditions in these factories vary hugely, and I think that it’s, uh, completely reasonable for a brand to pursue, you know, uh, working with partners who treat their workers ethically. Um, but I think that the, the kind of broad-based, “We shouldn’t, we shouldn’t, as a nation or as individuals, do business, um, with people whose lives are so radically different from our own,” uh, it just, it takes us to a place of isolationism. It takes us to a place to where the people who are the least well off in this equation become worse off.

Kenneth Pucker
So, I agree with her. I think that, um, we shouldn’t decide what jobs make sense for people in places far away. I’m arguing instead that those jobs and those factories be, uh, regulated in a way that creates safety and a living wage. So, we talked about Bangladesh, for example. 10 years ago, maybe 11 years ago now, there was a building collapse in Bangladesh that killed 1,100 people, almost all women, making clothes for Western brands. Uh, that’s, to me, not a standard that we should think is healthy. Uh, the ma- vast majority of workers in Bangladesh were on strike. Many of them were killed over the last couple weeks, um, protesting wages, which are mostly below living wages. So I’m not arguing that people shouldn’t work in shoe factories or apparel factories. Ancestors of ours did that in the Northeast for many years. I’m just arguing about the conditions.

John Donvan
Our question is fast fashion, shop or stop? We’ll be right back. I’m John Donvan. This is Open to Debate. Welcome back to Open to Debate. The ta- question we’re taking on, fast fashion, shop or stop? I’m John Donvan. Our debaters are Kenneth Pucker, Former COO of Timberland, and Katherine Mangu-Ward, Vice President of Journalism at the Reason Foundation, and now we’re gonna bring in some other voices, people who, um, who, who write or think about and study this issue, uh, and they’re all gonna come in and ask what we hope will be a provocative, uh, and conversation-inspiring question. And first, I’d like to welcome Vanessa Friedman. Uh, Vanessa is fashion director and chief fashion critic for the New York Times. Vanessa, welcome. Thanks so much for joining us on the program.

Vanessa Friedman
It’s a pleasure to be with you.

John Donvan
And what’s the thought or question that you’d like to introduce?

Vanessa Friedman
I actually wanna follow up on your point about consumers. You know, I think the place that we all can… that, that both arguments meet is this agreement that everyone has the right to self-expression through fashion, and that was the beginning premise of fast fashion, but somewhere along the way, that became everyone has the right to more stuff. And that has shaped our behavior and trickled up to all different levels of the fashion chain, and we are now stuck in this sort of spiral of more and more stuff, and thinking of items as increasingly disposable. And that, I don’t think, is good for anyone, so my question to both Katherine and Kenneth is how do we get people to start to value their clothing again, at whatever price they can afford? And the idea that in fact, once you buy something, you can keep it for a while. I’d actually like to start with Kenneth.

John Donvan
Thanks, Vanessa. Kenneth, you’re up.

Kenneth Pucker
So, I think it’s a great question. I think it’s gonna be really hard, and I think it’s because the interests of the companies aren’t aligned with the behavior you’re seeking to achieve. Uh, advertising campaigns, marketing campaigns, insistence that one season, straight-legged jeans are in, and next season, wide-legged jeans are in. It’s an attempt by companies to get you to buy yet another item, and the conditioning and priming that goes on, which is consistent, by the way, with the goals of the company. It makes sense for the companies to do this-

Vanessa Friedman
Mm-hmm.

Kenneth Pucker
… are inconsistent with the behavior that you seek to achieve. So I think it’s gonna be very difficult.

John Donvan
Katherine?

Katherine Mangu-Ward
Yeah. I’ll just say I think, um, you know, hopefully without appearing to curry favor with the questioner, that probably the answer-

John Donvan
(laughs).

Katherine Mangu-Ward
… is what you do, right? Um, that part of this world that we live in, that has this hyper speed, very hyper connected fashion industry, is also a world with communications that exist at that same speed. And so, um, one answer here is, well, uh, we have to figure out how to tell compelling stories, and, you know, if the compelling stories are about, um, you know, showing the shot of a pile of clothes from space, great. If the compelling stories are about worker conditions, great. If the compelling stories are about, you know, the geopolitics of, of Uyghur, um, you know, slave camps, we gotta talk about that too, and, and, and I think also, it’s, hey, sometimes you just buy an orange dress at H&M in 2010, and you wear it until it falls to pieces, uh, because you loved it and it was perfect, and it doesn’t matter that it only cost $30. Uh, uh, I was the person who bought that orange dress. I miss it still, to this very day. So, I think it’s, I think it’s probably compelling storytelling.

John Donvan
Vanessa, do you have a r- a response to what you heard?

Vanessa Friedman
Um, uh, yeah. I mean, I think Kenneth, in particular, you know, you can’t let consumers off the hook with this, and in some ways, companies are, you know, respond to consumer behavior. So I do think consumers have some responsibility in this situation, and you know, in a way, companies can tell stories, to Katherine’s point, that also show the value of their clothing. Why shouldn’t they?

Kenneth Pucker
So, I would tell you that as I mentioned before, I worked at a company and was an investor in another for more than 20 years that did what you’re suggesting, meaning offering… Uh, Patagonia’s another one, that offers a lifetime warranty. If someone bought a boat shoe from Timberland and 15 years later, the sole was falling off, we would replace it without question for free, okay? Because we were trying to sell this notion of… Actually, a tagline of ours was, “More quality than you may ever need,” okay? So there is a place, and there is, uh, there are a number of companies that have su- succeeded with that model. Unfortunately, they are subsumed in terms of volume by companies that succeed with a different model, that is one that sells hyper-consumption.

John Donvan
Okay, I’ve gotta move on to the next question, but thank you so much for, for joining us. And, uh, you know, I’ve just, I’ve just had a recollection come back that recently, in a box of stuff from the attic of our old home, I found some shirts that my dad wore in the 1940s in the Navy, and they are solid, still holding together amazingly well, and I gave them to my two kids in their 20s who are now enjoying wearing around these 60, 70-year-old shirts, um, just amazing, as we were talking about not throwing stuff out. Um, I wanna now bring in James Woudhuysen, who is a visiting professor at London South Bank University, also a broadcaster at BBC Radio 4. James, thanks so much for joining us on the program, and please come in with your question.

James Woudhuysen
Well, it’s a very enjoyable show. Um, Mr. Pucker, I think it was in the, um, Harvard Business Review in 2022 that you wrote, uh, very perceptively, I thought, “Few industries tout their sustainability credentials more forcefully than fashion.” Then you continued in a new paragraph, “The sad truth, however, is that all this experimentation and supposed innovation in the fashion industry over the past 25 years have failed to lessen its planetary impact.” So what I wanna know is, you know, y- y- y- uh, synthetics, which you point to, Kenneth-

John Donvan
So, so is your, is your question to, to Kenneth, is your, is your battle futile?
00;37:24
James Woudhuysen
Well, I want to know his practical program for get- getting the, the masses in the East and the South to buy that-

John Donvan
Okay. I, I, I g- I gotta jump in, just because in the, in the interest of time, I have to jump in. Kenneth, if you can take that question, thanks James.

Kenneth Pucker
Okay. Um-

John Donvan
It’s sort of like what do we do about it?

Kenneth Pucker
Okay, my proposal would be, uh, maybe some of which Katherine will agree with, some won’t. I do think that we need different rules. If you want different behavior, you need different rules, and so, uh, for example, I looked this up prior to the debate. The year I was born, a pack of cigarettes cost 25 cents in New York City. Today, I think a pack of cigarettes costs $20. The difference isn’t it costs more to make tobacco. The difference is that we taxed a, uh, uh, uh, a sinned good in order to deal with the externalities associated with smoking, health and secondhand-er smoke.

Kenneth Pucker
I believe that what we should do is tax virgin synthetics be- in order to compensate for the negative externalities associated with it. I also think we should do… I’ve been sponsoring an act in New York City called the New York Fashion Act. Actually, it’s in New York State, that requires that companies that, that are a, north of $100 million in revenue commit to deliver on their science-based targets, which means absolute carbon emissions reductions of 5% a year, which they have signed up for, been approved for, but they must do it. Otherwise, there could be consequences, including a 2% fine on global revenue by a, the New York State attorney general. So, I think we need different rules. I can… We can argue about which rules, but-

John Donvan
Katherine, I, I, I know you’re not big on rules (laughs) so I’m waiting to see what you’re gonna say about this.

Katherine Mangu-Ward
I mean, I, I like, I like rules when they are voluntarily agreed to by the parties, and I like, um, you know, I like rational regulation, and I think that it’s absolutely true that right now, the incentives on this industry are bonkers and getting weirder, so, um, you know, from that perspective, a reevaluation makes sense. But, um, uh, I think when we craft these rules and regulations with the idea that, I mean, you know, he, y- you introduced the word sin, right? Like, the idea that just wanting to buy a cheap tank top is a sin, um, that is, um, you know, to me that brings in so many other questions about, um, who, who does get to decide on those, on those points? And I think that, um, the odds that a group of smarty-smart-pants who also (laughs) have government power are gonna get this right are pretty low.

John Donvan
Thanks, James, for joining us. And now I wanna bring in Dana Thomas, who is author of Fashionopolis: Why What We Wear Matters. She also writes the weekly Substack newsletter, The Style Files: On Fashion and Culture. Dana, thanks so much for joining us on the program.

Dana Thomas
Thanks for having me. It’s a joy to be here.

John Donvan
Please come in with your question.

Dana Thomas
Um, basically, we haven’t been talking about the brands and the companies, and, well, we have been talking about the labor, which is among the lowest paid in the world. The owners of these companies are among the 50 richest people in the world, and they’re making all their money from not paying people along the supply chain and not being responsible for what they make. So you mentioned a little bit about respo- uh, legislation, but this is one of the least regulated industries out there, and they are not responsible for the waste. 20% of what they p- produce go- never even hits the retail floor. It goes straight into the landfill or gets destroyed. Do we need to hold the brands more responsible for wh- for the mess that they’re making around the world? Should we have some legislation that really holds their f- feet to the fire?

Kenneth Pucker
Sure. The, uh, the New York Fashion Act is aimed at brands, not at consumers. It is aimed at brands that have revenues in excess of $100 million that choose to sell in the state of New York, and they’re the ones who are subject to the provisions of the bill.

Dana Thomas
Now, but with that in mind, I mean, State of New York is one of 50 states in America. How do we get this to be national, or even international?

Kenneth Pucker
So, the reason it’s, uh, being introduced in New York, and now, actually, in Washington State and also in Massachusetts, is because brands won’t set up separate supply chains for different states, and brands above $100 million can’t afford not to sell in New York or California. And so it will become de facto federal in terms of behavior if it is passed in those states.

John Donvan
Katherine, I’d like to hear your response to the question as well.

Katherine Mangu-Ward
Sure. I’ll j- I’ll just say very briefly it’s true that fashion is one of the least regulated industries, and I think it’s not a coincidence that it’s also one of the most dynamic, interesting, uh, an industry that is producing falling costs in a time when more regulated industries typically have rising costs.

John Donvan
So you, so, so you’re saying, you’re saying those are good things and those are good things in, in and, in and of themselves, and that those are a, a result of the-

Katherine Mangu-Ward
The lack of regulation.

John Donvan
Lack, relative lack of regulation?

Katherine Mangu-Ward
That said, of course, we do have a problem with open access commons, right? The, when we talk about, um, these type of issues where the, the, um, costs have been socialized, it’s almost always because we haven’t found a good way of building structures to privatize those costs to bring them back within the companies. And I think being thoughtful about that, whether it’s carbon pricing or something else, um, is something that I’m open to in a way that, um, let’s put a tax on subcategory of garment X or, uh, corporate behavior X, um, strikes me as too, um, too specific and too likely to end up just creating fal- bad incentives of its own.

Dana Thomas
In France, for-

John Donvan
Dana, your… Go ahead, please.

Dana Thomas
Yeah, in France, for example, brands are not allowed to produce more than they can sell. You cannot destroy unsold goods anymore, like you used to be able too, that you could just, like, shred them or burn them, or, you know, throw water on them in the dumpster and say, “Oh, they’ve been destroyed.” In France, now you’re not allowed to do that, and they’re looking at doing that across the EU, where basically, trying to reduce over-consumption. Is there a way we can do that in the United States? And can we do that globally?

John Donvan
Let’s again go to each of you on that. Kenneth?

Kenneth Pucker
I don’t know if we can do that. It would require legislation. I, I don’t think, as Katherine said, legislation would be, uh, well advised if it were introduced by smarty-pants, nor do I think it would be, uh, possible were you to hue to the standard that all impacted parties agreed to the legislation. I doubt that the cigarette industry agreed to be le- legislated, but I do think we need legislation to make sure the commons that you’re talking about are protected, and this industry, in large part because it is not regulated, is now one of the worst offenders in terms of socializing the costs.

John Donvan
Katherine, your turn.

Katherine Mangu-Ward
Yeah. Again, when I say, uh, I think people should be allowed to do things where all parties agree, I’m talking about, um, consensual commercial transactions. There is no such thing as legislation where all parties agree, um, and I think that there is, there are still so many opportunities, there’s still so much demand to find better ways to do this voluntarily, and, and I think it’s important to lean into those.

John Donvan
Dana, thank you so much for your question and for, uh, bringing that, that topic into the conversation. Um, so that’s a wrap on this portion of the program, which means we’re going to our closing statements, in and our closing statements, each side once again gets to make their case, but in f- briefer form, two minutes or less. Once again, our question is fast fashion, stop or shop? Kenneth, you are arguing stop. This is your final chance to tell us why you are arguing stop. The floor is yours.

Kenneth Pucker
Well, thanks, John. I can say that I tried. I served for 15 years at outdoor clothing and footwear brand Timberland, and for those who don’t know, the company was publicly traded but family controlled. I worked for the third generation to lead the, the company, uh, who changed the mission of the company in the year 2000 to be one of equal parts commerce and justice, a word you don’t often hear in business today. Justice was comprised of three elements, global human rights, citizen service, and environmental stewardship, and the company was often awarded for its sustainability accomplishments, including a presidential award we received from the Bush administration.

Kenneth Pucker
During my tenure as chief operating officer, we proudly reported that our carbon emissions dropped by double digits for seven consecutive years as our revenues grew by more than 10%. And it was true it was only part of the story. Our reported emissions covered our headquarters and our purchased electricity, and those did decline. However, our supply chain emissions associated with making the products increased. If you ask me how much they increased, I’m not sure, as we weren’t able to report on our scope three emissions, our value chain emissions.

Kenneth Pucker
But even today, 15 years later, less than half of public companies even report on their value chain emissions, let alone set targets for reduction. This while the atmosphere is warming faster than at any time recorded in human history, and temperatures are now up over one-and-a-half degrees above preindustrial levels. Recall that I worked for a company that was privately held and led by a sustainability zealot. If Timberland couldn’t deliver authentic sustainability improvements, imagine what it means for most companies, who don’t even try. My sense is that neoliberal, unregulated, voluntary sustainability doesn’t work, and I think it’s time for a different model of capitalism.

John Donvan
Thank you very much, Kenneth. And Katherine, you get the last word with your closing statement.

Katherine Mangu-Ward
First of all, I’ve just really, really enjoyed this debate, I think in part because, uh, like everything that y’all do at Open for Debate, it’s so calm. Everyone’s just doing their best to make good arguments, including the wonderful questioners, so thank you for that. Um, I’m just gonna make my final defense of fast fashion, which is that we need to recognize that it is, in many, many ways a force for good, even as we are serious about the challenges. So, fast fashion makes trends accessible to people of all income levels. It lets people experiment with style and self-expression. It’s an economic engine for developing countries, and has been for decades. It has a proven record of that. It offers jobs and livelihoods to people who have fewer opportunities than we do, especially women, and, uh, I think that there are still reasons to be optimistic about technology paving the way for meaningful improvements.

Katherine Mangu-Ward
I understand that, um, Kenneth has been through the wars, and, uh, and has done his best, but, um, the world remains, um, in constant up, technological upheaval, and I think that, you know, we didn’t even get a, really, the chance to talk about, um, AI-optimized supply chains, blockchain for transparency, textile recycling that works differently than what we have today. I don’t know which of those things it’s gonna be. Neither do the governments of the world, and I think that the brands are in the position to see those opportunities and to figure out how to sell them to customers. Over-regulating the sector, I think is far more likely to harm workers and consumers, um, by driving up costs and reducing employment opportunities. So, instead of looking for ways to do less, have less, be less, I think, um, we should be leaning into what’s, what’s worked before and what will continue to work in other industries, which is, um, to promote innovation and to, um, to sort of cherish the thing that is special in fashion, which is that the intellectual property conditions and the economic conditions, the fact that we do live in a globalized world mean that everyone, all around the world is trying really hard to figure out the best way forward on this.

John Donvan
Thank you very much, Katherine. And, and that is a wrap on this debate, and (laughs) uh, Katherine, I, I wanna thank you for the plug for what we’re doing, because to, uh, both you, uh, Katherine Mangu-Ward and you, Kenneth Pucker, really, really embraced and embodied the thing that we try to do here, which is to show that we can disagree with one another, but we can do so, uh, in a way that is civil and respectful, and both of you brought exactly that approach to this debate. So I, I really wanna thank you both for taking part in it, also in, for taking part in the way that you did. Thanks for joining us.
Kenneth Pucker
thanks for having me.

Katherine Mangu-Ward
Thanks, John.

John Donvan
And I also wanna thank, uh, our, um, uh, my fellow, uh, questioners who came into the conversation, Vanessa, James, and Dana. Thank you for your questions and your observations, which also, as I said before, moved us in an interesting direction. And finally, a big thank you to you, our audience, for tuning into this episode of Open to Debate. You know, as a nonprofit working to combat extreme polarization through what you just saw, civil debate, our work is made possible by listeners like you, and by the Rosenkranz Foundation, and by supporters of Open to Debate.

John Donvan
Our chairman is Robert Rosenkranz. Our CEO is Clea Conner. Lia Matthow is our chief content officer. Elizabeth Kitzenberg is our chief advancement officer. This episode was produced by Alexis Pancrazi, Jessica Glazer, and Marlette Sandoval. Editorial and research by Gabriella Mayer and Andrew Foote. Andrew Lipson and Max Fulton provided production support. The Open to Debate team also includes Gabrielle Iannucelli, Rachel Kemp, Eric Gross, Linda Lee, Savion Jackson, and Mary Ragus. Damon Whittemore mixed this episode. Our theme music is by Alex Kliment, and I’m John Donvan, your host. We’ll see you next time on Open to Debate.