Ethical Jeans

Jeans are the second most bought item of clothing and around half of Brits will have bought a pair of jeans in the last 3 months. In the US, the average consumer buys four pairs of jeans a year.

They were originally designed to be strong, durable and long-lasting, however, the rise of fast-fashion has seen a trend for jeans being discarded after only a few wears.

We uncover the companies that are still failing to address issues such as toxic chemical use, high water consumption and dangerous working conditions. We also take a look at those doing things differently and paving the way for a better approach to denim.

Water

According to the Water Footprint Project, the average water footprint of cotton is 10,000 litres per kg which equates to a pair of jeans having a water footprint of around 8,000 litres. This includes the large quantities of water needed to grow cotton crops and the water-intensive dying and prewashing processes.

Organic cotton is much less water-intensive. MUD jeans state that they use 1,500 litres of water compared to an industry standard of 7,000 litres. Levi’s states that its Water-less jeans have reduced the water footprint to just 42 litres per pair of jeans.

However, the company also reported that its regular jeans had a footprint of around 3,000 and that 45% of this was through consumer washing. It is unclear why regular Levi’s jeans would already appear to have a water footprint much lower than industry standards, especially considering it is not using 100% organic cotton. No information on how it had calculated this could be found but it looks like a certain wariness around uncertified claims is in order. So, if you want to reduce your water footprint look for jeans made with organic cotton and try to reduce the number of times you wash them.

Of course, buying recycled or second-hand jeans would also dramatically reduce water use.

Find out more about what MUD Jeans is doing to combat the issues in the fashion industry in our podcast.

Potassium Permanganate

In the wake of the serious health concerns linked with sandblasting, many factories are now opting for a bleached look with 90% of bleached look denim created using potassium permanganate spray. Unfortunately, it appears that this could pose just as much of a health risk with side effects including pulmonary oedema, skin irritation and burns as well as possible damage to liver and kidneys.

Clean Clothes Campaign Turkey have produced a report into the health risks of potassium permanganate which is frequently used in factories after the government banned sandblasting. They spoke to workers who reported working long hours with ineffectual safety equipment.

One worker said: “I would like to have a better job, with better working conditions, but for now I am obliged to do this work. Maybe you will say, “But this work is deadly”, but believe me if I didn’t work I would maybe die in even worse conditions.”

Another stated: “We breathe in the air, but we don’t have a choice, we don’t have another profession.”

Clean Clothes Campaign said the problem was exacerbated by complicated chains of subcontracting and the relatively low cost of setting up a bleaching workshop.

Stone-washing and acid-washing

• There are a number of other techniques used in the denim industry to give jeans a worn-out or faded look.
• Popular in the 70s, stone-washing is a process whereby jeans are washed in a large drum with pumice stones to create a faded look.
• This was largely replaced by acid washing in the 80s which uses the same technique but with added chlorine. This creates a faded and often marbled look.
• Bleached denim has also become increasingly popular with jeans being bleached to near-white. Chlorine and bleach are well known for their harmful effects on the environment and wildlife.

Lasers

In 2018, Levi’s caused some hype with the announcement that it would be finishing its jeans with lasers, removing the need for harmful chemicals. As this is still a fairly new innovation there are still higher costs associated with it compared to traditional methods, meaning not all companies and factories are willing to invest.

Hopefully, we will see the costs start to come down or for companies to start seeing worker health as more valuable.