ROOTS, the fourth volume of ALTR Magazine, explores the inner workings of the fashion industry as we understand it today, delving into the history, culture, and experience that has shaped the way we a
Now, all of this "perspective" talk culminates into a singular economic model: true cost economics. The Economic Times defines true cost economics as an "economic model that includes the cost of negative externalities associated with goods and services" [3]. In other words, this model takes into account social and environmental impact when considering cost and profit. Again, this includes things like the strain on natural resources, public health, and labor practices. On paper, and given all of the benefits we just outlined, it seems like a no-brainer for companies to adopt a true cost economic model- I mean, why not, right? If there is a way to both increase business longevity while absorbing the cost of social and environmental impact, what's the hold up?
Unfortunately, there is no explicit black-and-white explanation for this. But perhaps the reason, at least within the world of retail, lies in the nuance of what this cost absorption may actually look like in an industry focused on the production and consumption of tangible goods. The product economy in the world of retail is not inherently circular; that is, it does not allow for the easy recovery of product value at the end of their life cycles. Therefore, the process of production, consumption, and disposal of retail goods has been inevitable in the business model since its inception. This is further exacerbated by the modernized culture surrounding clothing and fashion, which has become increasingly trend-driven. In the past, designers and fashion houses released approximately 2-4 collections a year, based on season: fall, winter, spring, and summer. This is where we get the abbreviations you may see quite often during fashion weeks (FW = Fall/Winter Collection, SS = Spring/Summer Collection).