Why fast fashion practices need to seriously be looked at by our governments

The global fashion industry has long been associated with waste and overconsumption, but new research highlights an even more pressing issue: the environmental cost of how our clothes are made. A recent report examining textile production across ten major manufacturing countries reveals a regulatory system struggling to keep pace with the scale of pollution generated by the industry.

From spinning and dyeing fabrics to assembling garments, the textile value chain produces vast amounts of wastewater, chemical runoff and greenhouse gas emissions. Yet despite these impacts, many factories are still able to operate without undergoing comprehensive environmental assessments. In some cases, even high-risk activities are not legally classified as “significant,” allowing them to avoid proper scrutiny altogether.

Without stronger regulation and more conscious consumption, the environmental damage behind cheap clothing will continue to grow—making the case for buying less, and buying better, more urgent than ever.

Lead researcher Professor Rowena Maguire points to serious gaps in environmental permitting systems as a key concern. These permits are meant to act as a frontline defence against pollution, but inconsistent laws and weak enforcement often render them ineffective. In many countries, outdated or fragmented regulations mean that pollution can go unchecked—sometimes quite literally visible in surrounding waterways.

The report compares environmental laws in countries including Bangladesh, China, India, the United States and Germany. While all have some form of permitting system, only a few have adopted what is considered best practice: integrated permitting. This approach assesses a factory’s impact on air, water, land and resource use under a single framework. By contrast, many nations still rely on “single-media” permits, where different environmental impacts are assessed separately by different agencies. This siloed system makes it easier for serious environmental harm to slip through the cracks.

Researchers also identified several recurring weaknesses: poor reporting requirements that leave regulators without a full picture of pollution levels; limited monitoring and enforcement on the ground; penalties too small to deter violations; and a lack of clear guidance on cleaning up industrial sites after closure. Together, these gaps increase the risk of long-term environmental damage and community harm.

To address these issues, the report outlines 18 recommendations, including modernising environmental laws, improving transparency, and introducing stricter monitoring of high-impact operations. It also suggests incorporating voluntary industry standards—already familiar to manufacturers—into national legislation, giving governments stronger tools to enforce compliance.

Ultimately, the findings underline a broader truth: the true cost of fast, disposable fashion extends far beyond the checkout. Without stronger regulation and more conscious consumption, the environmental damage behind cheap clothing will continue to grow—making the case for buying less, and buying better, more urgent than ever.

Lisa Andrews

Climate change is making a mess of weather forecasting: 6 reasons why our weather reporters might want to start looking for new careers

Diversity in Adoptive Families

Dedication to Dedication: Another great live tribute to the music of David Bowie