Shein opens its first permanent store in Paris

Photo by Alexi Romano

Shein, the online ultra-fast fashion app store is launching its first permanent bricks-and-mortar store in the world in Paris of all places. The store will be on the sixth floor of Paris’s prestigious BHV department store, a historic building that's been located across from Paris’s city hall since 1856.

Shein has about 23 million customers in France, one of its biggest European markets. Yet, there have been protests, political anger and fury from BHV workers who staged protests and strikes over concerns that Shein's store will damage Paris city’s progressive image.

It feels like this move might be Shein’s attempt to camouflage into France's prestigious, legacy fashion space which can potentially boost the brand's reputation. Otherwise, it could represent a slap in the face on France because this year, France has been ‘punching Shein in the gut’ with policies and fines.

In several moves to protect France's legacy fashion industry, France's economic contribution from their fashion industry and the environment. These hardcore laws and fines were aimed at ultra-fast fashion brands but Shein has been hit the hardest. Here's the list of legislation and fines:

1. France introduced a new law targeting ultra-fast fashion brands like Shein and Temu with an eco-tax, an advertising ban, and an environmental impact labeling requirement. The progressive tax on ultra-fast fashion, starts at €5 per item and rises to €10 by 2030. The ban on promoting ultra-fast fashion also includes social media.

2. France fined Shein €40 million in July 2025 for deceptive commercial practices, such as misleading consumers with false price reductions and environmental claims.

3. France's data protection authority (CNIL) also fined Shein €150 million in early September 2025 for violations related to digital data tracking, specifically its website cookies. The fine was for failing to obtain proper user consent before tracking, not properly informing users about cookies, and making it difficult for users to opt-out.

With Shein's current valuation being around $30 billion, they can afford to be agile and hit France with what's allegedly a power move like this new boutique in France's fashion capital, Paris. It feels like a message.

Let me know what you think of Shein's chess move. Will it be profitable for them? Will Parisians boycott or shop at Shein de Paris? Do you think Shein will go on to open more stores in France? What do you think France will do next?

Article by Nina Gbor

Threads of Power: What BRICS’ Green Manufacturing Could Mean for Australia’s Fashion Future

Image by Gordon Johnson

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s recent White House visit brought focus on AUKUS, rare earth minerals, tariffs and trade. With economic resilience and productivity on the list of priorities of the Australian government, trade has become a more critical factor. In this era full of environmental crises, sustainability is an unavoidable element in global trade. As attention turns from the recently concluded meeting in Washington’s corridors of power, another trade bloc—BRICS nations have been quietly weaving sustainability into their industrial fabric.

Understanding BRICS and its Impact

BRICS is a group of major emerging economies that work together to bolster their economic and political interests on the global stage. It fosters social cooperation amongst its members and global South countries. It began more officially in 2009 and has ten full member states including Brazil, Russia, India, and China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, United Arab Emirates, and Indonesia.

The BRICS bloc has been depicted as the fastest-growing states, projected to collectively dominate the global economy by 2050. In 2024, BRICS accounted for 40% of the global economy (measured by PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) according to IMF data.  Collectively its member states and partner states (an additional ten states) currently represent about 56% of the world population or 4.45 billion of the population and 44% of global GDP (PPP).

The BRICS presidency rotates annually. The country that holds the presidency for the year defines the agenda and organises the annual summit. Brazil assumed current the presidency on January 1, 2025.

BRICS’ green manufacturing, climate, sustainability & circularity strategy

With a decisive position on climate issues, sustainability and circularity, BRICS has advanced an environmental agenda that moves the bloc from an economic and geopolitical force to a heavyweight in global sustainability governance. The BRICS climate convergence is even projected to influence and shape COP30 negotiations in Brazil in November 2025.    

In April 2025, BRICS Industry Ministers in a meeting approved a Joint Declaration to reinforce their commitment to sustainable development- create jobs and address climate change in alignment with green manufacturing. The declaration emphasised energy efficiency, eliminating environmental pollutants, collective leadership for climate action and of course, green industrial development.

The bloc’s environmental agenda includes the circular economy and integrated waste management as a way to reduce plastic and promote recycling, along with circular principles of eco-design and responsible consumption. The declaration enforced BRICS’ stance on promoting resilient and inclusive supply chains, and aligning economic growth with developing sustainable value chains.  In alignment with green manufacturing, they identified tools for productive transformation of some of the core components of BRICS economies such as small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

BRICS’ members leading global textile trade

Two BRICS members, China and India, are some of the world’s biggest textile manufacturers and exporters. From raw materials to fabrics used for different purposes such as engineering, furniture, garments and car seats, the global textile industry is one of the largest sectors in international trade. It generates billions of dollars annually and supplies nearly every market across the globe. For instance, China’s textile and garment exports totaled an estimated USD $301B in 2024. While India’s textile market is worth USD $174B and expected to reach USD $350B by 2030.

Image by Michal Jarmoluk 

Australia’s current textile industry position

As some BRICS countries are advancing their textiles industries while potentially increasing green manufacturing, Australia remains tethered to fast fashion imports. 1.5 billion new garments were imported into Australia in 2024 with Australians spending AUD $9.6B on clothing. An estimated $2.3B in ultra-fast fashion sales from just two companies occurred last year. Only about 3% of clothing is made in Australia.

All of this overconsumption makes Australia one of the biggest consumers of clothing & fashion in the world per capita. Fashion & textiles is one of the most polluting industries in the world and a contributor to the climate crisis with approximately 1.2 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year globally. The industry is associated with enormous environmental degradation such as excessive landfill waste, vast ocean and microplastic pollution and biodiversity loss. Every second, one garbage truck of clothing is either sent to landfill or incinerated in the world. In Australia, over 300,000 tonnes of clothing is discarded each year.

Opportunity for a thriving sector

BRICS nations have inclined towards reshaping global textile production with increased green manufacturing incentives, signalling shifts Australia cannot ignore. The issue isn’t about joining BRICS, but about learning from their sustainability-driven growth models to strengthen Australia’s domestic textiles and fashion industry.

Australia’s fast-fashion trendmill — cheap imports, high waste — may seem disconnected from high-level diplomacy of Prime Minister Albanese’s White House visit, yet the timing aligns neatly with their talks on trade. Clothing and textiles are ubiquitous to the global population. And in an era of climate emergencies, sustainability is more needed than ever. There lies a broader opportunity for Australia to pivot toward value-added industries like sustainable fashion & textiles rather than simply being an importer of low-quality clothing.

By investing in sustainable, circular and ethical fashion, Australia can boost industry productivity, economic resilience, environmental credibility and gain global recognition. And furthermore, industry best practice & modelling for the development of other weaker and wasteful sectors. This could bode well for the government’s Future Made in Australia agenda.

Like BRICS, Australia can adopt a green manufacturing strategy while also strengthening the growth of local, innovative SMEs. For Australian policymakers, the challenge is clear: can Australia transform its clothing economy before the world’s new economic bloc rewrites the rules of trade and innovation?

The deepening Australia–U.S. economic relationship offers a window for policymakers to promote domestic manufacturing of sustainable apparel, unlocking jobs, export potential and recognition. By referencing the U.S. alliance context, Australian decision-makers can see sustainable fashion not just as fashion frivolity but as strategy aligned with national economic & trade interests. The message: in an era of shifting global supply chains (BRICS, minerals, trade blocs), Australia’s moment to rethink its clothing economy is now — and the White House rendezvous highlights that global-economic context.

To initiate a solid foundation for a thriving, longstanding sustainable textiles industry, this petition contains many of the fundamental policies required to establish a thriving domestic and global sector.

Article by Nina Gbor

Personal Perspective: Bridging Fashion, Policy, and Global Development

This topic converges a background in international development with extensive experience in textiles, fashion, and politics across the global North and South. It is further informed by a lifelong career in sustainable fashion, circular economy research, policy, and advocacy within the global political economy. By examining BRICS’ role in green manufacturing and climate finance, Australia can assess its own path towards sustainability and innovation in the fashion industry.

Built to Break: Making a Circular Economy Calls for Repair Economics

Photo by Bulat369

When your toaster breaks, you probably go out to buy a new one. It’s easier, cheaper, and usually the only option. Replacing your toaster contributes 18 kilograms of CO2 to the atmosphere. 

When your jeans develop a hole, you go and buy a new pair. You probably are not patching them yourself. According to a lifecycle assessment by the United Nations Environmental Programme, this single pair of denim contributes 33.4 kilograms of carbon equivalent to the atmosphere. Making this new pair of jeans uses 3,718 litres of water. 

Emma Rahmani (Corelens)

Looking beyond toasters, Australia generated 511,000 tonnes of e-waste in 2019, of which the majority is not recovered. Including all waste types, Australia generated an estimated 75.6 million tonnes (Mt) of waste in the 2022-2023 fiscal year.. In 2018, the United States sent 37,410,000 tonnes of durable goods, products with a lifetime of three years or more, to the landfill. 

These numbers are not to shame the urge to remain stylish or guilt for wanting toasted bread, but to show how things are and raise the question of how things could be. Instead of tossing and replacing these toasters and jeans, a circular economy with a focus on repair and reuse offers us the opportunity to extend the lifecycle of our items.  

The habit of throwing away and replacing our stuff represents our present linear economy. This capitalist model rewards companies building items designed to fail, leading to companies favoring profit over people, planet, and progress. This is a concept called planned obsolescence. These products with a designed and predetermined lifespan include electronic devices, cellphones, appliances, toys, books, furniture, clothing, and nearly every manufactured product. No matter how well you take care of an item, it is built with a limited lifespan and designed to fail. 

Shorter buy-again windows mean companies are selling the same product more frequently to repeat customers, increasing yearly profits. When products are cheaper to replace than they are to repair, it is a no-brainer why people choose to simply buy the product again. 

Apple is an example of a company that sees record sales as a result of its planned obsolescence in its iPad, iPhone, and Mac products. As highlighted in multiple lawsuits and federal hearings in the United States, Apple has acknowledged that it builds devices with deteriorating battery lives, meaning consumers will have to either struggle with their old model or pay to upgrade after just a few years. 

Not limited to Apple or even cellphones, the furniture giant Ikea has committed to reforming its entire value chain following a long history of environmental and quality complaints around products that uphold the definition of planned obsolescence. This intentional design failure is embedded in nearly all products, and it is catastrophic for the Earth.

Source: Amadori, F. B., Felta, L., Fernandez, A. R., Simeoni, F., & Vehanen, T. (2020, September 28). Planned Obsolescence and the Lifespan of Electronics. Infragraphy. https://blogs.aalto.fi/mediainfrastructures/2020/09/28/planned-obsolescence-and-the-lifespan-of-electronics/

The solution to this model is to bend the line into a circle, creating a circular economy. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation defines the circular economy as a system in which materials never become waste, and there is a greater emphasis placed on regenerating nature. In this circular system, products and materials are not sent to landfill, and instead remain in circulation through processes like maintenance, reuse, refurbishment, remanufacture, recycling, and composting. 

The circular economy’s core pillars are circular design, reuse of materials, and regeneration. Focusing on circular design means that products are built for repair, reuse, repurposing, and remanufacturing. Repair is the antidote to the waste crisis created by planned obsolescence. In challenging companies’ overproduction practices, we create better products, greatly reducing new manufacturing. In tandem, repair becomes cheaper, easier, and more accessible

Source: van Ewijk, S., & Stegemann, J. (2023). THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY. In An Introduction to Waste Management and Circular Economy (pp. 306–348). UCL Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.4350575.17

Repair is one of the most crucial aspects of the circular economy that receives the least amount of utilisation. A repair economy helps to bend the line by reducing new manufacturing and extending the lifespan of products. There is power in repurposing and repairing an item, and it also makes a consumer’s connection to their stuff more personal, further enhancing the desire to repair rather than replace. 

A focus on repair also means slower depletion of natural resources, less biodiversity loss, smaller quantities of pollution, and even the potential for natural areas to regenerate. When a landfill is filled, it contaminates nearby soil and water, leaches into the local environment, disrupts avian migration patterns, poses a significant threat to both physical and environmental health when toxic materials are not properly disposed of, and has a laundry list of other negative impacts. Slowing the rate of waste sent to landfills means fewer raw materials are taken from our natural world, and the negative impacts of landfills are reduced. 

The environmental benefits of repair quickly stack. If one-fifteenth of American households were to extend the expected 15-year lifespan of their refrigerators by only one year with stronger repair infrastructure, some 2.95 million tonnes of CO2 would be spared from entering the atmosphere. This is the amount of emissions released by the entire New York City urban area, 790 square km and over eight million people, in just about 6 days. The environmental cost to manufacture one refrigeration unit is around 350 kg of CO2. Reducing emissions is not controlled by an on or off switch, but we create wins by tackling small victories at once. 

The biggest struggle of the repair movement is cost and convenience. Currently, LG Electronics’ Flat-Rate Repair Program for a refrigerator starts at USD 399, while a new 420L bottom freezer and fridge costs USD 891. When a product needs repair, consumers begin to see the end of its life. With the repair cost being just under half the cost of a new refrigerator unit, it often makes replacing more appealing or logical than repairing the unit. Additionally, it is simply easier and more convenient to replace a product than to find a qualified and available repairperson. 

Repair has monumental potential, but policy failure challenges its success. In many places, a personal or professional attempt at repair often voids a product's warranty, if it has one. In response to corporate hostility against repairs, the right to repair movement has emerged across the world, aiming to pass legislation that protects consumers as they seek out repairs and enforces cooperation from firms in making these repairs successful. 

Photo by KC Shum

Many nations, like the United States, do not have a nationwide right to repair law. The United Kingdom and Australia have selective right-to-repair legislation, largely limited to motor vehicles, failing to include household electronics or clothing. Australia’s restrictive right to repair legislation is limited to the automotive industry and requires vehicle service and repair information to be available for purchase at a fair market price. Although not progressive enough, if it can be done for automobiles, the same legislation can be used as a model in other repairable industries. 

In 2024, the European Union finally passed a largely encompassing Right to Repair legislation, providing increased protection and resources for consumers to opt to repair instead of being forced to replace. The legislation requires manufacturers to provide repair information, supply spare parts at reasonable cost, and repair products, even if a company’s warranty has lapsed for the product.

France was the first country to pass Extended Producer Responsibility legislation applicable to clothes and textiles. This legislation requires companies subject to the law to finance the management and prevention of the end-of-life of products that they put on the market. Made possible through an “eco-tax,” France’s partner in EPR uses this tax for collection, sorting, treatment management, eco-modulations, a repair fund, and a reuse fund. This tax and legislation limit the landfill impact of textiles and clothing. This repair fund sets aside €154 million between 2023 and 2028, allowing consumers who visit a participating repair shop to claim back between €6 and €25 towards the cost of their repairs. France’s progressive repair legislation sets the standard for other national repair laws and demonstrates that advocacy for repair legislation works.

With intensifying climate regulations coupled with right-to-repair movements, companies must take accountability for their role in creating waste while finding ways of making profits as they transition to circular business. By designing quality products with repair in mind, businesses can offer services for their products and diversify revenue streams. Additionally, companies can begin to design platforms and spaces where consumers can resell their products. 

In 2012, Patagonia began solving this repair puzzle through its Worn Wear program, and also powers iFixit to educate consumers on at-home repairs and product care. A commitment to repair and high-quality products has given Patagonia a committed consumer base who are willing to pay more for this service and their products.  

Photo by Luba Glazunova

Nudie Jeans is another company that wins consumers with a lifetime guarantee of free repairs. The denim company understands its products will not last forever, regardless of how well its jeans are made. They meet consumers' needs and offer free repairs, so the life of the garment is extended by years. 

It will take some time to create a system that’s more circular. It is challenging to know where to begin with such an enormous issue; however, we can start by supporting local craftspeople. Find a local seamstress to patch your jeans, discover a local repairsperson to take a crack at your toaster. Save the atmosphere from the carbon emissions and minimise waste to landfill by repairing products when possible instead of replacing them. 

Make circular actions a regular part of your lifestyle. Swap or trade items with your friends. When possible, purchase the variety of products you use from second-hand stores. Visit repair cafes, repair shops, join or host mending circles, and host and attend swaps. These choices are not just environmental: they are community and financial investments. Each of these solutions bring us a little closer to a more circular society. 

To more fully bend the linear economy into a circle, we need systems change via policy and legislation. This means, for example, campaigning for laws that eliminate planned obsolescence, right-to-repair policies, product repair schemes and rebates. Similar legislation can be created for other circular solutions. We can bring this system into effect by contacting our local and federal representatives to push these issues forward and request change. Share information about these issues to your groups, communities and neighbourhoods while encouraging advocacy actions to support systems change. This way, we will have as many people as possible coming together to form a circle. 

Article by Tyler Branigan. Tyler has a passion for sustainable solutions and circular economics.

The EU’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) law that may force the fashion industry to become more sustainable

Image credit: Fernand De Canne

The European Union has struck textile companies with intensive laws dedicated to reducing the impact of fast fashion on the planet. The union has been at the forefront of rooting out the exploitative business practices of fast fashion giants such as Shein, H&M, and Inditex Group (which includes companies like Berksha, Zara, and Massimo Dutti). The EU is implementing laws that will reduce textile waste and promote recycling of fashion items. 

According to The Fashion Law, the EU has introduced an “Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)” mandate on 9 September 2025 for textile producers, which ensures that fast fashion companies shoulder the responsibility of “collecting, sorting, and recycling the clothing and household textiles” instead of individual consumers. The EPR is an addition to the existing Waste Framework Directive which calls for the development of sustainable waste management practices. Fortunately, these rules are also applicable to traditional European labels, promoting sustainability in the textile industry regardless of their business model. The EU is adamant about each member state adopting the necessary technology and infrastructure and setting protracted policy goals for the future. 

In the Waste Framework Directive, the EU highlights the complex composition of municipal waste which makes efficient sorting and recycling difficult for existing waste management infrastructures. The active participation of citizens is also a major factor in waste management to ensure each category of waste is discarded and recycled correctly. The Waste Framework Directive also stated that in order to combat the level of municipal waste in the world, a sophisticated system and public awareness is necessary. However, EPR rightfully places the responsibility of recycling on one of the world’s largest polluters themselves, forcing these companies to comply with sustainable business practices moving forward. 

If fast fashion companies continue to operate within the non-stop, trend-focused business model, the fashion industry is projected to generate 26% of the world’s carbon emissions by 2050. The only beneficiaries of this horrible statistic are the companies that earn billions of dollars from exploiting human labor and destroying the planet. This huge achievement toward legislative change in fashion serves as a framework for the rest of the world to reject unnecessary textile waste. However, the issue has not been abolished completely. Unless the rest of the world creates similar programs for its fashion markets, fast fashion giants will continue to switch their marketing practices and entice you to buy that new shirt for your “first” events forever. 

Australia is a leading consumer of fast fashion, ahead of many EU nations and the US. In a 2024 research paper by Nina Gbor and Olivia Chollet from the Australia Institute emphasized that the sheer quantity of Australian textile waste is 200,000 tonnes, equivalent to a weight of four Sydney Harbor Bridges. The Australian government needs to establish concrete laws similar to the EU to curb its textile waste crisis. Nina Gbor, founder of Eco Styles, has launched a petition to revive the Australian textile industry with a focus on circular economy practices. Here is a brief summary of some of the policies this petition is advocating for: 

•  Reviving the Australian textile industry, which can help create a $38 billion industry for onshore production jobs for women 

• Significant industry reform under the Labor Government’s Progressive productivity agenda and its commitment to the net-zero agenda by 2050 as well as strengthen the economic resilience of the country

• Taxing ultra fast-fashion brands and investing the returns into the Australian fashion industry 

• Phasing out virgin plastics and synthetic materials as well as banning toxic chemicals in line with the Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals foundation

• Public awareness about the health and environmental complications of buying fast fashion items

• Pushing for ethical business and fair trade practices under the Modern Slavery Act of 2018 to ensure there are no human rights violations within the industry. 

Sign the petition to create impactful change in legislation and consumer behavior in Australia. Self-expression through fashion should not have such a heavy cost. When you buy your next piece of clothing, think about the social and environmental impact of the item you are purchasing. Prioritize brands practice sustainability, quality, and fair trade. Opt for methods such as thrifting, mending, repairing, and swapping to elongate the lifecycle of clothing items and prevent their early demise into landfills already brimming to their maximum capacity. 

Article by Samya Dawadi for Eco Styles. Samya’s focus is on environmental and sustainability consulting in business and art. 

Italy fines Shein €1 million for greenwashing

Ultra-fast fashion conglomerate Shein, is being fined for the second time in two months. Italy’s antitrust agency, AGCM recently issued a €1M fine (approximately $1.7 million AUD / $1.15M USD) for greenwashing practices i.e. “misleading customers about the environmental impact of its products.”

Similarly, the first fine for Shein came from France in July this year through the country’s antitrust agency responsible for consumer protection and competition. They hit Shein with the first greenwashing fine to the tune of €40 million (approx. $72 million AUD) for fake discounts and misleading environmental claims.

The brand allegedly used “vague, generic, and/or overly emphatic,” claims that were considered “misleading or omissive” in connection to its “evoluSHEIN by design” collection. It promoted sustainable practices, with claims like using “fabrics left over by other fashion brands that were destined for landfill or incineration.”

The company’s touts of a circular system design and product recyclability "were found to be false or at the very least confusing", and the green credentials of its 'evoluSHEIN by design' collection were overstated, the regulator said.

Italy has fined the Chinese fast fashion online retailer Shien over $1.7 million for greenwashing. Nina Gbor from the Australia Institute says the e-commerce giant was giving “false and misleading” information to customers that they were doing something good for the environment.

The agency said the recyclability claims “were found to be either false or at least confusing,” warning consumers might think Shein products are fully recyclable and made only from sustainable materials which “does not reflect reality.” It’s also "a fact that, considering the fibres used and currently existing recycling systems, is untrue".

Italy’s AGCM also accused the brand of using a “misleading communication strategy” about its environmental impact, like Shein’s commitments to cut greenhouse emissions by 25% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050, noting that Shein's emissions increased in 2023 and 2024.

Shein responded by saying they have “strengthened internal review processes” and cleaned up its website to make sure all environmental claims are now “clear, verifiable, and compliant with regulations.”

Shein’s Impact

Shein made $32.5 billion sales in 2023. Their sales were forecasted to reach $50 billion in 2024. The average price of an item from Shein is between $10 - $20. It ships ultra-cheap clothing from thousands of suppliers to tens of millions of customer mailboxes in around 150 countries. 

These are factors that make Shein one of the biggest polluters of fast fashion. It has about 600,000 items for sale on average on its website and adds around 10,000 items each day. The company was shipping about one million products a day as of last year. In 2024, the company made over one billion dollars in revenue in Australia.  

There were concerns were from Shein’s third annual sustainability report published in 2023 which showed the company nearly doubled its carbon dioxide emissions between 2022 and 2023. Shein emitted 16.7 million total metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2023 which falls far below its Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) validated reduction targets to reduce absolute Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions by 42% by 2030.

Can fining fast fashion companies be effective in Australia and other countries?

There’s nothing that corporations and most businesses hate more than losing profits in any way. So, the answer to whether fining greenwashing can work in my opinion is yes. Provided the fines are substantial amounts and not just a slap on the wrist. I think each time a company fails to comply with environmental regulations they should be fined. And the fines can potentially increase each time the offence is committed again. And if the fines are proving ineffective in general, it might be a sign that the amounts are too small to have an impact, therefore they should be increased.  

Isn’t it the consumers’ responsibility not to purchase fast fashion?

Every individual is responsible for their actions, including their own consumption and overconsumption habits. However, I believe the onus lies more on the brands/corporations to do the right thing by being honest and transparent with their claims. Clothing companies with access to multi-million- or billion-dollar funds have the resources and power to run operations and access materials that are genuinely better for the environment while still being profitable in many cases. Whereas, some consumers are experiencing cost-of-living crises, are time-poor because of life commitments and experience other issues that make it challenging for them to patronise non-fast fashion items.

 What can consumers people do instead of fast fashion?

Instead of buying fast fashion, consumers can:

• purchase secondhand items

• host or attend clothes swaps

• rent / hire and borrow clothing

• repair, mend or repurpose existing garments

• use free clothing services such as Thread Together who get left over clothes from retail brands and give to people who need them.

Moreover, some fast fashion items are have been found to have toxic chemicals from the materials used and dyes. Secondhand clothes might have less toxic chemicals than brand new ones. In addition to this, about 85% of clothes end up in landfill or incinerated each year. Reusing garments diverts clothes from landfill and it’s healthier for the environment in several ways.

*Article by Nina Gbor