Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Curabitur eleifend tortor nec augue pretium
In 2023, the government estimated that approximately 4.3 million children, or 30% of all children in the UK, were living in relative low-income households.
The cost-of-living crisis has increased the financial pressures felt by families. The heightened cost of utilities and food has resulted in a struggle to heat homes and added pressure on associations such as food banks.
One expense often at the bottom of the list when tightening the purse strings is clothing; we make do with what we have and we try to take care of something to make it last.
Unfortunately, this intention has a habit of bypassing children – as someone who has worked in education for three years, I have too often seen a brand-new pair of school shoes destroyed in a matter of weeks.
In the current financial climate, shopping for slow-fashion alternatives in children’s clothing is an advantage that remains firmly in the hands of the financially privileged. The slow-fashion approach to garment manufacturing emphasises sustainability, ethical production and long-lasting quality, but with that comes higher upfront costs.
For example, a single polo shirt from EcoOutfitters – which boasts that it is made ethically and sustainably from Global Organic Textile Standard-certified pure organic cotton – costs £13.95, whereas a pack of five polo shirts from Asda is £7.50. Incidentally, Asda came under fire in 2022 for greenwashing and has since signed a pledge with the Competition and Markets Authority to only make “accurate and clear claims” about the sustainability and environmental impact of its clothing. It has promised that, by 2025, its George range will be sourced with a ‘sustainability first’ strategy, and that all packaging will be 100% recyclable.
Despite these positive steps, the price bracket of Asda’s polo shirts is still going to appeal far more to families factoring the added cost of new school uniforms into their budgets.
“54% of UK shoppers agreed that sustainably produced clothing is too expensive”
Another drawback of slow fashion is limited accessibility and geographical restrictions. The need for polo shirts can be met during a weekly grocery shop. The EcoOutfitters polo shirt may not be widely available and has to be ordered online, with added postal costs making it difficult for lower-income families to justify the investment.
Societal pressures to maintain a fashionable outward appearance should also be considered. With more children accessing social media, the desire to follow fashion fads has increased. This can lead to the purchase of fast-fashion garments to meet current trends – which are often more short-lived than slow-fashion alternatives.
Ultimately, it is not the responsibility of those using fast-fashion brands to break down the barriers preventing them from accessing sustainable alternatives. In a 2022 survey by Statista, 54% of UK shoppers agreed that sustainably produced clothing is too expensive.
Without an increase in the earnings of low-income households, slow-fashion brands need to acknowledge the economic barriers that prevent consumers from buying their clothing and reconsider their pricing structures to appeal to that potential customer base. This, along with increasing visibility and geographical accessibility of sustainable brands, would reduce the financial limitations preventing many families from shopping for clothing sustainably.
Sian Toop is a freelance writer
