GANNI REPEAT

As sustainability has become a more extensive way of thinking in several practices, nevertheless in the fashion industry, more sustainable approaches are seen to remedy the hitherto unstainable methods and steep issues, such as overconsumption and overproduction. By extension, the fashion industry’s attempts to satisfy and accommodate consumers have been at the expense of the environment, which in respect is a contradiction, as consumers also make demands on the fashion companies’ production in accordance with sustainability. But are there in fact sustainable clothing companies? Or is corporate compliance to be sustainable unattainable?

Every step in the current production of clothing has a negative impact on the environment, from how fabrics are created by natural resources, to the use of toxic chemicals in the production per se, and ultimately in the transportation of the finished product due to carbon dioxide. This production model can virtually not be performed in other ways and will in all respects be a culprit for clothing production and thus make sustainable production near impossible. However, this does not mean that companies cannot recommend sustainable solutions and alternatives for the consumer that can alleviate the environmental pressures. Clothing rentals are seen as an example of such sustainable solutions, but the question is whether a rental concept can potentially undermine companies’ existing business model and explain why companies are moving forward cautiously with rental platforms? Moreover, is rental in fact sustainable and an honest attempt by companies to intervene in the sustainable issues and conduct sustainable business, or is rental just a buzzword for fashion companies?

GANNI has managed to create an entire universe around their brand, a so-called squad or community of consumers, who prosper under the name #GANNIGirls. The viral hashtag opens up a whole world on social media where women and influencers adhere to the GANNI brand. As a result, a coterie of people is being created, who not only share the same interest in the Scandinavian cult brand but also share and post content under this popular tag. In 2019, GANNI launched a rental platform “GANNI Repeat” as an initiative in their sustainable activities. This alternative includes, if any, these GANNIGirls as beneficiaries of the brand’s concept and the associated “wear, share, repeat” slogan. But is the rental service actually an alternative that is moving towards sustainability or is it just a display of greenwashing, allowing the GANNI to take advantage of access-based consumption? This is an inevitable thought to think, and as a consumer, one must question their credibility, as the GANNI Repeat site is tucked away under a footnote on their website. Why does GANNI submerge their rental platform and thus not make their sustainable achievements visible? Unless…? Maybe the suspicious claim about green marketing is correct?

GANNI does not identify themselves as being sustainable, in fact, they state that the brand is “not sustainable”, to which one may wonder how sustainable they are then? Conversely, from a marketing perspective, it may be a good thing for brands not to market themselves as being sustainable, which also substantiates why GANNI claims that they are not. For the reason that companies are afraid of being accused of deceptive marketing and green sheen. The culture of society, as well as the increasing pressure of consumer culture on sustainable stabilization and standardization, is an obstacle for the companies, which ultimately have to navigate the sustainable transition, establish initiatives, maintain these sustainable activities and be responsible for the label in the acquisition of a sustainable profile. Perhaps one can understand why GANNI claims that they are not sustainable?

The fact that GANNI does not see themselves as being sustainable despite their many sustainable propositions is because they acknowledge the inherent contrast that subsists between the existing fashion industry, which thrives off consumption and demand for news and the sustainability concept. The concept of renting clothes, that are also not emission-free, reinforces why GANNI avoids sustainable responsibility in advance, by claiming that they do not describe their brand as sustainable, at least not at present. In general, rental concepts are also the epitome of processes that do not add consideration for the environment. Rental models are indisputably dependent on both transport and dry cleaning every time a consumer has used the garments, and therefore the rental system includes many transport trips from place to place and not least frequently washing cycles. The rental concept is losing its sustainable meaning in take-back systems, as returns involve high greenhouse emissions.

​

The study “Environmental Research Letters”, which was published by the Finnish scientific journal examines the environmental impact of clothing from both owning and disposing of them based on five categories, including recycling, resale, and not least renting. The study shows that take-back systems are the reason why rental has the highest environmental impact and that it would actually be a better alternative to throw the clothes out rather than rent. In general, rental has been considered as a sustainable alternative to the widespread problem of fast fashion, which is why brands have popularized the concept hereafter. By extension, brands misuse the concept of the circular economy almost as greenwashing. As stated by the study, the most sustainable way is to buy less and buy with greater care, as textiles in the fashion industry account for five percent of global greenhouse emissions, according to a report from “World Economic Forum”. In the last fifteen years, the production of clothing has doubled, yet the average use of a garment has fallen by as much as thirty-six percent. This just shows that the paradigm of fast fashion prevails in the linear economy in spite of the implementation of rental concepts, as an activity in the circular economy.

In order to make clothes circulate, rental companies need to offer what is fashionable right now, which in this direct consumer model is most likely news. If companies are not able to offer the latest news, then what is the point of offering a rental concept? And with a brand like GANNI, which uses such recognizable patterns and cuts, and which has such a trend-fixed audience, it is not difficult to imagine that what is rented out will be from the latest and current collections. For this reason, GANNI’s consumer trend of “sharing” is not advantageous to the problem of fast fashion, instead, it creates greater mobility towards it. The fact that companies use the concept of “sharewashing” will never make fast fashion sustainable, on the contrary, it is misleading communication. Rental services contribute to the consumer needing new clothes and preferably often, which is precisely part of the problem as the notion of consumption is not challenged at all. Rental manifests itself on the rapid trends of fashion hence the whole idea that the consumer has access to a wardrobe of endless size at hand, that clothes can be replaced when one has grown tired of them, and nothing about this is sustainable. The striving for the latest trends whether it be fast fashion or rental is also not the epitome of sustainability. Renting is just a promise of a new wardrobe every week or every third week depending on the company’s rental intervals and that in itself is inconsistent with the fact that these companies also use renting as a sustainable alternative to consumption.

​

Rental concepts are signs of greenwashing, mainly for two reasons, the first of which, as I have mentioned before, is that this so-called sustainable alternative involves unusually many washing cycles and extensive transportation from one place to another between rentals. This entails serious emissions for our environment, which will never be able to justify the concept as being a sustainable initiative. In addition, renting does not solve the actual problem, which is overconsumption. It is and will be the biggest culprit in the fashion industry, and it is not solved by the fact that consumers can rent clothes instead of buying them. It may even create greater mobility towards consumption as rental allows for a frequent replacement of the consumer’s wardrobe. Specifically, the root problem is still that the industry produces too much and too fast, as well as consumers buy too much, all of which happens at the expense of the environment. GANNI takes part in this greenwashing by offering rental as a sustainable alternative, even though they are greenhushing their sustainable activities and claiming that they are not sustainable, to avoid accusations and fingers pointing their way.

​

Also, GANNI’s rental concept is in conflict with The UN's 17 Sustainable Development Goals, which by 2030 must help ensure a more sustainable future. One of the seventeen goals that are particularly contradictory, is the twelfth goal “Responsible Consumption and Production”, since rental is not a sustainable alternative, in that, the concept does not help to either reduce production or consumption nor is it by any means associated with responsibility on the part of companies. Rental concepts contribute to a false sense of security that consumers buy into with the belief that they support sustainability, but in fact, it is nothing more than deceptive marketing and thus an environmental pitfall. This is not to pass the blame on to the companies, because we as consumers must also take accountability and by doing so, be critical and not just blinded by so-called great marketing strategies or perchance even greenwashing. Rental is a way for companies to put a veneer of green on their marketing approach as if they were actually offering a sustainable option.

But rental is not a green alternative and it certainly does not solve the extensive problem that the fashion industry faces, but is it perhaps greener to be a keen reenter as opposed to a fast fashion vendee? In the book “Stitched Up: The Anti-Capitalist Book of Fashion”, author Tansy E. Hoskins states: “Our wardrobes are today the meeting point for two premises – that the fashion industry is responsible for widespread devastation and misery and that it is our behaviour as consumers that is to blame.” The biggest environmental sinner in the industry is without a doubt overproduction and in that challenge of climate change, rental platforms and the concept of sharing clothes has seemed like an obvious opportunity to reduce impact. However, it is associated with large energy-consuming resources, as industrial dry cleaners require more in terms of energy than when just washing in a regular washing machine. In addition, appliances such as pressers and steamers. The rented clothes also involve package waste, as the clothes are wrapped between each rental as if the clothes were new.

GANNI Repeat sells a lifestyle and thus opens up a new world, a world where items that previously has been unattainable, now become obtainable and not least affordable, since rentals are a cheaper alternative than buying from GANNI, which is recognized as a luxury brand from the 21st century. The biggest concern when it comes to rental concepts in general, as mentioned earlier, is that these platforms involve risk, as it can contribute to greater growth and appetite for clothing. In other words, an opposite effect of what the whole idea has been built on from the beginning. But what is feared? The fear is that rental paves the way for new conditions when it comes to the consumer’s choice of clothing, personal style, and the many options among them, which rental opens up. Imagine how this will prevail among consumers? Frequent change of clothes, the pursuit of the latest trends? This can cause clothes to lose their meaning, as it will be more about showcasing rather than the item itself. This is partly because the lack of ownership makes it accessible and easy to part with. As Hoskins says: “It is no coincidence that we have been steered into the dead-end of viewing clothing as an individual issue. This goes right to the very heart of neoliberalism – a system that teaches us empowerment comes from acting individually (not collectively), that freedom means variety in what we consume, and that we should trust in the system and shop (not fight) our way to a new world.”