Author: Saniya Sayyed, New Law College, Bharti Vidyapeeth University, Pune
To the point
With the growing obsession to own every outfit seen on celebrities, influencers, or the latest runway show, consumers are increasingly filling their closets with garments that may not last beyond a few wears. This demand is being met by fast fashion — a business model that focuses on producing low-cost, trendy clothing at rapid speed, often replicating high-end designs within as little as 10 to 15 days.
While fast fashion makes style more accessible to the general public, it comes at a steep human and environmental cost. Behind the affordable prices lie exploitative labour practices, unsafe factory conditions and no one to watch over the supply chain management. This raises a crucial legal and ethical question:
Can international fashion brands be held legally liable for the systemic labour rights violations occurring in their production networks?
Hook
Imagine buying a shirt worth Rs.500 that took 14 hours to make and was made in poorly lit factories, with child labourers at work who were paid less than Rs. 50 for the day. This is what fast fashion is exactly about ensuring that you get clothes for a supposedly cheaper price when someone else is paying the real price for it with their health, safety and basic human rights.
Legal Jargon
The legislative intricacies of fast fashion mainly arise from the way global supply chains work. Transnational Corporations (TNCs), which are the major apparel brands legally, hardly own factories where their garments are produced. They subcontract production to third-party manufacturers based in countries with low labour costs and poor enforcement processes. Such an approach enables brands to claim that they are not responsible for the labour abuses made by their contractors. But legal principles like vicarious liability and duty of care are increasingly being used to attack this do-nothing approach.
One of the key legal concepts arising in this situation is Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD). HRDD is a company’s legal duty to find, prevent, and minimize human rights violations—e.g., forced labour, child labour, and hazardous working conditions—throughout their entire supply chain. While previously a part of “soft law” (non-binding international standards), HRDD is acquiring legal bite in different jurisdictions.
Another important term is occupational health and safety (OHS), laws and standards that mandate employers to supply safe, hygienic, and hazard-free working conditions. In the supply chains of fast fashion, OHS standards are routinely violated, usually leading to catastrophe like factory fires or building collapses. The right of freedom of association and collective bargaining—guaranteed under several international conventions—is also commonly taken away, with workers discouraged or even intimidated against unionizing.
Although there is an international framework through the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and ILO Core Conventions, the former offers a worldwide basis of supporting the rights of workers, with inconsistent mechanisms of enforcement. Therefore, states such as Germany and France have been implementing binding legislation that subjects supply chain liability, reflecting the drift of corporate accountability to the global arena.
Briefly, the legal discourse around fast fashion is changing—from voluntary compliance to compulsory legal requirements. While brands come under increasing pressure to own up to their supply chains, such legal frameworks are increasingly being used as essential weapons for litigation and reform.
Proof
The fast fashion industry, while profitable, is built on deeply exploitative labour practices that became especially visible during the COVID-19 pandemic. As global brands cancelled over $40 billion worth of completed orders, millions of garment workers were laid off or left unpaid. A Sheffield University study found that wages dropped by 11% during this period, forcing many into deeper poverty. With over 75 million workers employed globally in garment manufacturing, fewer than 2% earn a living wage, pushing the majority below the poverty line. The European Parliament has referred to factory conditions in Asia as “slave labour,” citing grueling hours—up to 16 hours a day, seven days a week—and exposure to over 8,000 synthetic chemicals, some linked to cancer, without proper safety protections.
The systemic neglect of worker safety was tragically underscored by the 2013 Rana Plaza collapse in Bangladesh, where 1,134 workers died and 2,500 were injured. Despite warnings from engineers, workers were forced into the building under threat of withheld wages. Later inspections of 1,106 factories revealed over 80,000 safety violations, pointing to widespread structural neglect.
Women form the majority of the garment industry workforce, aged between 18 and35—are disproportionately affected by this exploitation. Global Labor Justice and the Clean Clothes Campaign reports document widespread verbal, physical, and sexual abuse, specifically in unregistered factories. In Indonesia, for example, female workers are frequently forced to offer sexual services in exchange for male managers’ approval, under threat of losing their jobs.
Bangladesh remains a key example of systemic abuse. Although the garment sector fuels 84% of its exports and 16% of its GDP, an Oxfam report found 91% of workers can’t afford enough food, and 25% suffer abuse. In late 2023, wage protests turned violent, killing four and leading to over 100 arrests. The government increased the minimum wage to $113 per month, still well below the estimated $210 living wage. As of August 2024, political unrest continues, with former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina fleeing Dhaka and workers facing intimidation and arrest.
Although the International Labour Organization (ILO) sets out global standards—prohibiting child labour, forced labour, and promoting freedom of association—enforcement falls on local governments, many of which lack the resources or will to act. Brands, too, avoid responsibility: only 1% publicly disclose how many workers earn a living wage.
Abstract
The global rise of fast fashion has led to the rapid production of low-cost, trend-driven clothing, but this convenience comes at a significant human cost. Behind the glossy storefronts and online sales lie exploitative labour practices, primarily in developing nations, where garment workers—most of them women—are subjected to dangerous working conditions, meagre wages, and systemic abuse. This article explores the legal and ethical implications of fast fashion through the lens of international labour laws, focusing on key incidents such as the 2013 Rana Plaza collapse and wage protests in Bangladesh. Drawing on reports by the International Labour Organization (ILO), Oxfam, and academic research, it examines the failure of both governments and multinational brands to uphold basic human rights and labour protections. It further evaluates legislative efforts like the New York Fashion Act and the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), which aim to bring legal accountability to the fashion industry. The article raises a critical question: can global brands continue to profit while turning a blind eye to the suffering within their supply chains, or will international law finally step in to hold them liable?
Case Laws and Legal Provisions
Rana Plaza Collapse (Bangladesh, 2013)
A commercial building collapse killed 1,134 workers and injured over 2,500. Despite safety warnings, workers were forced in under threat of job loss. Global brands like Primark and Mango were sourcing from the factory. The disaster led to the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh, a binding agreement for improving safety, but brands largely escaped liability.
Doe v. Wal-Mart (USA, 2005)
Wal-Mart was sued for abusive labour practices by foreign suppliers. The court dismissed the case, ruling Wal-Mart wasn’t the direct employer. This highlighted the legal gap in holding global brands accountable for their supply chain abuses.
Internationally, several legal frameworks attempt to regulate labour practices, though enforcement remains weak. ILO Core Conventions set the global standard for rights to association, and prohibit forced and child labour, but rely heavily on national implementation. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) outline a “Protect, Respect, Remedy” framework, encouraging corporate accountability, while the OECD Guidelines promote ethical supply chain management. On the legislative front, new developments signal a shift toward enforceability. The EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) would legally mandate companies to identify and address human rights risks in their global operations, with potential civil liability for non-compliance. Similarly, the proposed New York Fashion Act demands that brands disclose social and environmental impacts across supply chains, especially those with $100M+ global revenue. Countries like the UK, Australia, and California have enacted Modern Slavery Acts, requiring transparency reports on efforts to prevent forced labour. However, in production hubs like Bangladesh, while laws like the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 exist, poor enforcement and political instability undermine protection, enabling the continued exploitation of workers.
Conclusion
Fast fashion, while democratising access to style, comes at a staggering cost—paid not by consumers, but by the millions of underpaid and overworked garment labourers across the Global South. The legal and ethical lapses embedded in the supply chains of major fashion brands expose a glaring gap in both national enforcement and international accountability. Despite existing frameworks like the ILO conventions and UN Guiding Principles, the lack of binding obligations and weak domestic implementation leaves workers vulnerable to exploitation, unsafe conditions, and systemic abuse. Case studies such as Rana Plaza underscores the urgency for enforceable, transnational legal instruments that hold brands liable beyond borders. Recent legislative efforts such as the EU’s CSDDD and the New York Fashion Act offer hope, yet real impact demands consistent enforcement, transparency, and the political will to prioritise human rights over profit margins. Until then, fast fashion will remain a symbol not just of convenience—but of global inequality and legal failure.
FAQS
1. What is fast fashion?
Fast fashion refers to the rapid production of low-cost clothing that imitates current trends, enabling brands to bring new styles to stores in just days. It thrives on cheap labour, minimal regulation, and mass consumerism, often at the expense of workers’ rights and the environment.
2. Why are fast fashion brands criticized legally and ethically?
These brands often outsource production to countries with weak labour laws, where workers face long hours, unsafe conditions, meagre wages, and even abuse. Brands benefit from this system while avoiding legal liability due to complex supply chains.
3. What was the Rana Plaza case and why is it significant?
In 2013, the Rana Plaza building in Bangladesh collapsed, killing over 1,100 garment workers. It exposed the brutal working conditions behind many global fashion brands and led to the creation of binding safety agreements—but highlighted how little legal accountability brands actually face.
4. How can consumers make more ethical choices?
Consumers can support ethical fashion brands, demand transparency, avoid impulse buying, and educate themselves about labour conditions. Holding brands accountable through social pressure and conscious purchasing is a powerful tool for change.
