Application of Sustainability Marketing in the Clothing Industry: A Case for Patagonia and Forever 21

Answer

Application of Sustainability Marketing in the Clothing Industry: A Case for Patagonia and Forever 21

According to McDonagh and Prothero (2014) sustainability refers to the process of meeting the present needs of society, without compromising the ability for posterity to meet their needs. Introduction of the concept of sustainability into business and marketing is aimed at achieving a balance in the three pillars of sustainability; social, environmental and economic outcomes of the business. It is a component of business ethics that reacts to concerns posed by the public and their discontent on the effects of capitalism on society. Capitalism encourages business to maximize profits at all costs and this is hurting the environment and society as a whole. Martin and Schouten (2012) note that the increasing interest in sustainability has motivated organizations into introducing sustainability marketing. The concept is also known as green marketing and it encourages firms to achieve a triple bottom-line by achieving positive environmental, social and economic outcomes. Investing in sustainability marketing requires that firms reduce wastage, misleading advertising and reduce their price markups to make the products affordable. In addition, sustainability marketing ensures that firms build stronger relationships with their customers. Sustainability marketing has been associated with five strategies namely, consumer orientation, customer value, innovative approach to marketing, a sense of shared mission and focus on society (Peattie & Belz, 2013). This background information guides the analysis of Patagonia and Forever 21. These two companies compete in the fashion industry. Patagonia invests intensively in sustainability marketing while Forever 21 does not.

Background of Patagonia and Forever 21

Patagonia

Patagonia, Inc. is an American manufacturer and retailer of outdoor clothing and sports gear. Its range of products include clothing for surfing, snowboarding, skiing, and trail running as well as climbing. The company was founded in 1973 and is headquartered in Ventura, California (Meltzer, 2017). It went bankrupt in 1989 after which it specialized in manufacturing and selling outdoor clothing and soft goods. Patagonia is considered to be an activism brand because of its strong commitment to sustainability marketing. Its activities are inclined towards protecting the environment and preserving land. It is also involved inactive protests against unfavorable policies and laws that compromise environment quality and safety of animals. Patagonia operates in what is known as the slow fashion industry. This term refers to fashion brands that advocate for principles such as good quality, fairness for producers and consumers, and clean environment (Meltzer, 2017). These brands invest in creation of longer lasting clothing so as to reduce the rate of wear and tear, and disposal which pollutes the environment.

Forever 21

This is an American brand specialized in manufacture and retail of fast fashion apparel. The brand was founded in 1984 and has its headquarter in Highland Park in Los Angeles (Keiser, Garner, & Vandermar, 2017). It currently operates more than 600 stores globally. Its key locations are in America, the Middle East, Europe and Asia. The brand is known for producing fast fashion clothing at a low cost. Its products are trendy and appeal to a large customer segment. Most of its manufacturing operations are outsourced to China. It also sells beauty products, accessories, and clothing for men, women and girls in addition to retailing home goods. Forever 21 has over the past years been involved in controversies (Keiser et al., 2017). This includes poor labor practices, accusations of religious bias, using toxic cadmium metals in its jewelry, and claims of copyright infringement.

Consumer Perception of Forever 21

According to Schlossberg (2015), the many controversies surrounding Forever 21 have been a part of its downfall. The brand currently has a bad reputation and this has triggered a massive loss of customers. In fact, pro-environmental consumers are changing their consumer behavior in favor of slow fashion since they have realized the massive impacts that fast fashion is having on society, economy and the environment. Even as the fast fashion industry faces a crisis, Forever 21 has been the most affected. This is evident in the fact that its performance has remained the lowest and it is, therefore, ranked at the lower end of the spectrum in terms of revenues compared to its close competitors. It is being outdone by H &M and Zara. Even though these two brands have not invested in sustainability as compared to slow fashion brands such as North Face and Patagonia, they are currently ranked higher than Forever 21. This is attributed to the many controversies and unethical claims facing the brand. This includes claims such as producing low quality clothing in order to keep customers coming for new purchases each time. It has also been blamed for replicating and duplicating trends from high street. Such acts of duplication contribute towards piracy and imitations in the fashion industry. This limits the ability for the other firms to realize their returns on investment. In fact, the practice of imitating other brands is unethical and this is a part of the reason that customer perception of Forever 21 has significantly declined over the past five years.

This is evident with the current lawsuit filed by H&M accusing the brand of infringing on its copyright and patent. This issues touched on the tote bag where Forever 21 imitated H&M’s ‘Beach Please’ label. It is certain that the fast fashion industry is built around imitating ideas from the runway styles and producing clothing that is affordable to price sensitive customers. Nonetheless, Forever 21 has a bad history of copyright infringement. This trend has created a negative reputation and negative perception among customers. When compared to brands such as Top Shop, Forever 21, which is a private firm, has been called out for lacking transparency. The firm neither discloses nor publicizes its financial statements. This points at a lack of transparency in reporting of its operations. In addition, the non-disclosure of financial information creates curiosity among customers who want to understand why the firm is so secretive. This is done in contrast to firms such as Patagonia which have intensively invested in sustainability reporting. This reporting contributes towards transparency which makes Patagonia more attractive to customers than Forever 21. Because of this, the brand has been losing loyal customers to slow fashion brands that emphasize on sustainability.

Apart from these issues, Forever 21 has attracted a negative consumer perception because of its poor labor laws and regulations. Starting from 2001, the brand has been challenged by the Garment Worker Center and the Asian Pacific American legal Center in addition to labor unions and worker advocacy groups for its failure to adhere to fair trade policies and regulations. As a result, the firm has been subjected to lawsuits for its violation of labor laws and regulations. A survey had showed that in one of its manufacturing plants, more than 19 contracted employees were earning wages below the minimum wage (Keiser et al, 2017). This was worsened by the fact that the firm engaged in crafty labor practices where it reduced the hours on time cards, and additionally, workers who complained of the poor working conditions were penalized and fired. The employees were subjected to sweatshop working conditions. Some of the employees reported working for more than twelve hours daily on less than the recommended wage rates. These employees also reported to working in filthy environments with rodents. The lack of commitment to fair labor practices created a bad reputation for the firm thus triggering negative consumer perception. The Made in LA documentary of 2008 which touched on the brand won an Emmy Awards as three immigrant employees narrated of their struggles for labor rights under Forever 21. Yet against, the brand was made liable to a class action lawsuit for denying employees time to take meals and forcing them to work longer. This resulted into unpaid hours. Because of these unethical practices, another documentary touching on fast fashion and Forever 21 received a lot of acclamation from the viewers. The documentary titled “The True Cost” exposes the rot in the fast fashion industry.

In regard to these issues, Attitude Organic (2018) report that Forever 21 might not be the only firm guilty of unfair labor practices. This has contributed towards turning away of environmental conscious and conscientious consumers. Constant campaigns on quality clothing products, some of which have been promoted by Patagonia, have empowered clients thus changing their perception of fast fashion. As a result, more consumers are changing their preferences in favor of slow fashion and particularly, they are purchasing environmental conscious brands such as Patagonia. Customers are becoming more concerned about the quality of the products they purchase, as opposed to the quantity and lower costs. Some of the consumers have been forced by factors such as the 2008-2009 Global Economic Recession into focusing more on value than quantity. This trend has mostly been promoted by the millennial youths whose frugal spending habits make them consider value based clothing. Alternatively, these customers are switching in favor of rivals with higher quality fast fashion clothing such as H&M, Zara and Top Shop.

In yet another instance, Forever 21’s public relations gimmicks as reported by Kakroo, (2015) has greatly engaged and disappointed its customers. This has attracted a lot of negative comments online. Such negative associations and interactions with the brand has the powerful effect of changing their perceptions negatively. Burns, Mullet, and Bryant (2016) add that in general, fast fashion is running economies in the USA and Europe and this is the other reason why customers are becoming skeptical about consuming them. According to Burns et al. (2016), an average family spends 10% of its annual income on shoes and clothing. However, only 2% of the clothing is manufactured in Europe and the USA. The increased dependence on outsourced labor from emerging economies, as promoted by fast fashion, is hurting these two great economies as most of the jobs are being sent to Asia. Apart from this, fast fashion brands such as Forever 21 have been put on the radar for manufacturing clothes that wear and tear after one use. This has made fast fashion to be associated with planned obsolescence which is polluting the environment and wasting away resources such as water, cotton and non-renewable energy sources since most of the processes are dependent on water and fossil fuels. Other negative consumer perceptions associated with fast fashion, and in particular Forever 21, include the 2013 Rana Plaza Building disaster where more than 1,100 employees died due to poor labor rights (Lee, Seifert, & Cherrier, 2017). There have been many cases of mistreatment of garment workers in Bangladesh and use of child labor in India.

Forever 21 has been blamed for its disregard for the environment and its customers health because of the existence of harmful chemicals including cadmium and lead in its clothing. This negativity is exacerbated by the fact that the fashion industry is the second largest polluter globally. Its use of harmful chemicals has been blamed with a rise in stroke, high blood pressure and heart attack (Peattie & Belz, 2013). Apart from this, the fast fashion industry of which Forever 21 is part has been associated with massive generation of wastes. This follows reports that in 2015, out of the 15.1 million tons of textiles that were manufactured, more than 12.8 million ton were discarded. Forever 21 and Zara in particular processed 1 million garments daily (Attitude Organic, 2018). These practices sharply contrast those of slow fashion brands such as Patagonia which has been attracting the good will of more customers for the past decade. This is mostly attributed to its sustainability marketing initiatives.

Consumer Perception of Patagonia

Slow fashion, as evident with Patagonia, has been attracting more attention and positive perceptions among consumers than in the past years. This is because slow fashion contrasts fast fashion in the sense that the latter focuses on producing trend influenced, low quality and low priced products while the former concentrates on manufacturing quality products with the aim of reducing wear and tear (Henkel, 2018). It is attractive to pro-environmental customers who want to slow down on the negativities of fast fashion. These attributes are evident with Patagonia which has been investing in empowering customers on the advantages of slow fashion. This is evident with its corporate culture where the firm, unlike Forever 21, encourages customers to take care of their clothing and even offers them an option for repairs for torn clothing. In fact, Patagonia has been widely acclaimed for its efforts in promoting environmental sustainability. This marketing strategy has created free positive publicity. Just like Forever 21, it is privately owned yet produces sustainability reports on an annual basis reporting to its customers of its progress in curbing the vices of reported in the fashion industry. The company is an active promoter of used wear. It even cautions its customers to think twice before purchasing its products.

These anti-marketing initiatives have attracted more customers thus growing the firm’s revenues exponentially. This has helped turn around its fortunes from a bankrupt firm in 1989 to a thriving fashion brand. Meltzer (2017) reports that even during the global recession, the brand continued to grow its revenue. It is reported that the brand used the recession to create awareness on the need for customers to be frugal in their spending patterns. This is because customers were less likely to spend on fast fashion because of their poor quality, and instead wanted a brand that would last. Patagonia used this opportunity to market its long lasting clothing. This is seen in its 2011 Thanksgiving advert titled ‘Don’t Buy This Jacket”. The advert enlightened customers of the environmental costs of the fashion industry and how its fleece sweaters contributed towards environmental conservation. This made consumers to reconsider their purchasing habits. They began opting for Patagonia’s clothing. This contributed to a 30% rise in revenue in 2012 to $543 million. This was followed by a 6% growth in revenue and a considerable growth in market share in 2013 (Meltzer, 2017). By end of fiscal 2017, Patagonia was worth over $750 million in market capitalization.

Apart from creating awareness, the company gives back 1% of its revenues to finance environmental courses. It also invests in purchase, production, research and development of organic and Fair Trade certified materials. It uses solar energy at the headquarters and production units to reduce on environmental pollution. Patagonia has ascended to the Sustainable Apparel Coalition to affirm its commitment to sustainability marketing (Meltzer, 2017). As a result, it has been a leader in championing for a reduced environmental and carbon footprint. The firm, as part of its CSR initiative and commitment to the environment, sends out experts in environmentally friendly trucks to trips around the USA to repair consumers clothing and outdoor gear. They also refurbish and help customers sell their pre-loved Patagonia clothing and gear. In fact, Patagonia has started a subsidiary called Yerdle, which is a start-up venture that seeks to help people cut down their purchase of new clothing (Meltzer, 2017). Using these strategies has borne success for Patagonia since it has managed to create a positive consumer perception. In addition, it has managed to resonate and win over environmental friendly customers interested in supporting the company’s common thread initiatives, namely; reduce, repair, reuse and recycle.

Prediction of the Company’s Relative Long Term Competitiveness in Fashion Industry

Given the varied levels of commitment to sustainability marketing exhibited by the two brand, it is evident that Patagonia will retain its relative long term competitiveness compared to Forever 21. This is because the two brands have created different perceptions among consumers. For instance, Forever 21 has consistently been implicated in a negative light thus eliciting negative consumer perceptions (McDonagh & Prothero, 2014; Villarino & Font, 2015). On the contrary, Patagonia has slowly but surely won the hearts of consumers. This has helped churn a loyal and committed group of consumers who, through continuous association with the brand, promises sustainable competitiveness in the fashion industry.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this essay depicts two brands with different levels of commitment to sustainability marketing. Whereas Forever 21 does not show any form of sustainability, Patagonia counters these negativities by focusing more on balancing the three principles of sustainability; environment, society and profits. In the long run, it has curved a niche for itself by endearing itself to pro-environmental consumers. Its vision of reducing, repairing, reusing and recycling has made the organization attract positive attention from the media and the customers. On the contrary, Forever 21 has been the face of controversies in the fast fashion segment of the fashion industry. Its misgivings range from mistreating of its employees, failing to abide to Fair Trade practices, claims of copyright infringement, thriving on religious controversies, producing goods with toxic metals and class action lawsuits for its unethical conduct. These factors have collectively ruined the brand value of Forever 21 which has registered decreasing revenues for the past five years. This brings to question the sustainability of this brand, compared to Patagonia which has been gaining higher revenues since the 2008 recession. This analysis of the two brands justifies that sustainability marketing has the potential of helping brands turnaround and win over committed customers who will ensure long term competitiveness.