Is oak and fort sustainable?

In this article, we discuss whether Oak and Fort is a sustainable brand. Furthermore, we will also discuss some of the alternatives to Oak and Fort.

Is oak and fort sustainable?

No, Oak and Fort is not a sustainable brand. Based on the ratings provided by Good On You, The environmental rating of OAK+FORT is ‘not good enough.’ 

It makes use of recycled materials as well as eco-friendly elements. It does not appear to lower carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. 

It does not appear to have taken any significant steps to decrease or remove harmful substances. There is no indication that it takes water conservation measures.

It has a ‘very bad’ labour grade. To receive a higher ranking, it does not provide enough essential information regarding its labour policy. As a customer, you have the right to know how the company’s goods affect its employees.

It receives the animal grade of ‘it’s a start.’ Fur, down, exotic animal skin, exotic animal hair, or angora are not used. It’s made up of leather and wool.

Overall, Oak and Fort gets a ‘Not good enough’ rating.

What is Oak and Fort?

Oak and Fort is a fashion line that makes clothes for women and men. It is a Vancouver-based minimalist brand, founded as an online-only label by husband and wife team Arjuna Thiagarajah and Min Kang in 2010, has set up shop at Westfield Century City, which is currently undergoing a $850 million renovation.

Oak and Fort continued to expand as a company, and in the winter of 2010, they launched their first physical and mortar location. 

The firm currently has locations throughout Canada and the United States. They continue to sell themselves as a company that avoids ‘unnecessary iconography,’ focusing instead on simple designs.

Is Oak and Fort fast fashion?

Yes, Oak and Fort is a fast fashion brand. They produce clothes according to trend changes, and the prices of these clothes are quite low.

Furthermore, as discussed earlier, Good On You’s rating for the brand is “not good enough”. Although it makes use of recycled materials as well as eco-friendly elements, it does not appear to lower carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. 

It does not appear to have taken any significant steps to decrease or remove harmful substances. There is no indication that it takes water conservation measures.

It has a ‘very bad’ labour grade. To receive a higher ranking, it does not provide enough essential information regarding its labour policy. As a customer, you have the right to know how the company’s goods affect its employees.

It receives the animal grade of ‘it’s a start.’ Fur, down, exotic animal skin, exotic animal hair, or angora are not used. It’s made up of leather and wool.

What is Fast Fashion and why is it bad?

Fast fashion is described as low-cost, trendy apparel that takes inspiration from the runway or reality television and quickly transforms it into items at high-street retailers to fulfil customer demand. 

The goal is to have the newest trends on the market as quickly as possible so that buyers may buy them while they’re hot and then throw them away after a few wears.

It reinforces the notion that wearing the same outfit over and over is a fashion blunder, and that in order to be current, you must wear the most up-to-date trends as they emerge.

It forms a key part of the toxic system of overproduction and consumption that has made fashion one of the world’s largest polluters.

Impact of fast fashion

Fast fashion has several adverse effects not just on the planet, but on the consumers and animals as well. We shall discuss the impact of fast fashion in terms of:

  • Planet
  • Workers
  • Animals
  • Consumers

Planet

The environmental effect of fast fashion is enormous. Because of the drive to decrease costs and shorten manufacturing times, environmental compromises are more likely to be made. 

The use of low-cost, hazardous textile dyes is one of fast fashion’s negative consequences, making the fashion sector the world’s second-largest polluter of clean water behind agriculture. 

That’s why, throughout the years, Greenpeace has used its detoxifying fashion campaigns to pressure businesses to remove harmful chemicals from their supply chains.

Fast fashion’s influence is further aided by low-cost fabrics. One of the most common textiles is polyester. 

It is made from fossil fuels, contributes to global warming, and when washed, can drop microfibres that contribute to the growing amount of plastic in our seas.

However, at the scale that rapid fashion demands, even “natural textiles” can be an issue. In impoverished areas, conventional cotton requires vast amounts of water and insecticides. 

Drought concerns arise as a result of this, as well as high stress on water basins and resource rivalry between businesses and local populations.

Increased stress on other environmental sectors such as land clearance, biodiversity, and soil quality is a result of the continual pace and demand. 

Leather production has an environmental effect, with 300kg of chemicals used to every 900kg of tanned animal skins.

Because of the rapid rate at which garments are created, customers are discarding an increasing number of clothing, resulting in huge textile waste. 

Every year, more than 500 million kilograms of discarded clothes end up in landfills in Australia alone.

Workers

There is a human cost to rapid fashion, in addition to the environmental cost.

Fast fashion has an influence on garment workers who labour in hazardous conditions, for poor pay, and without basic human rights. 

Farmers farther down the supply chain may be exposed to harmful chemicals and cruel methods, which can have serious consequences for their physical and mental health.

Animals

Fast fashion has an influence on animals as well. Toxic dyes and microfibres thrown into streams in the wild are absorbed by both terrestrial and marine animals, with disastrous consequences. 

Animal welfare is jeopardised when animal products such as leather, fur, and even wool are utilised in fashion. 

Several incidents have revealed that actual fur, especially cat and dog hair, is frequently mislabeled as faux fur by unsuspecting buyers. 

The fact is that there is so much genuine fur produced in filthy circumstances at fur farms that it has become less expensive to produce and purchase than synthetic fur.

Consumers

Finally, because of the built-in obsolescence of the items and the rapidity with which trends form, fast fashion can have an influence on customers, fostering a “throw-away” mentality. 

Fast fashion convinces us that we need to purchase more and more in order to keep up with the latest trends, resulting in a perpetual sense of need and eventual discontent. 

Some designers have claimed that stores have unlawfully mass-produced their designs, which has been a source of criticism for the trend.

How to spot a Fast Fashion brand

In order to distinguish a fast fashion brand from other sustainable fashion brands, one should look out for the following characteristics:

  • There are thousands of styles to choose from, covering all of the hottest trends.
  • The interval from when a style or apparel is shown on the runway or in popular culture and then when it reaches the shops is incredibly short.
  • Offshore manufacturing, where labour is cheapest, with low-wage workers with little rights or safety, and complicated supply networks with no visibility beyond the top tier.
  • Zara pioneered the concept of a limited supply of a certain outfit. With fresh merchandise arriving every few days, buyers know that if they don’t buy anything they want right away, they’ll miss out.
  • Polyester and other low-cost, low-quality fabrics disintegrate quickly and are discarded after only a few uses.

Conclusion

Oak and Fort is not a sustainable brand. Based on the ratings provided by Good On You, The environmental rating of OAK+FORT is ‘not good enough.’ 

It makes use of recycled materials as well as eco-friendly elements. It does not appear to lower carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. 

It does not appear to have taken any significant steps to decrease or remove harmful substances. There is no indication that it takes water conservation measures.

It has a ‘very bad’ labour grade. To receive a higher ranking, it does not provide enough essential information regarding its labour policy. As a customer, you have the right to know how the company’s goods affect its employees.

Overall, Oak and Fort gets a ‘Not good enough’ rating.

FAQs

What are some sustainable alternatives to Oak and Fort?

There are other brands that are sustainable, and cheaper than Oak and Fort. We shall discuss these brands in more detail.

  • CHNGE
  • Quazi Design
  • DillySocks
  • EcoRight

We shall discuss these in more detail below.

CHNGE

The environmental rating of CHNGE is ‘excellent.’ It makes extensive use of environmentally friendly materials, such as GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard) cotton. 

To reduce textile waste, it employs a small production run. It decreases its carbon footprint by using renewable energy in its day-to-day activities. 

Its use of environmentally friendly components reduces the quantity of chemicals, water, and wastewater utilised in the manufacturing process.

It has an ‘excellent’ labour rating. Its factories are certified by the Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS). It keeps an eye on concerns like health and safety in its supplier chain. 

In much of its supply chain, it guarantees that workers are paid a livable wage. It keeps track of every step of its supply chain.

It has a ‘good’ animal rating. Although it does not include any animal ingredients, it does not claim to be vegan.

Quazi Design

The environmental rating of Quazi Design is ‘excellent.’ It makes extensive use of environmentally friendly components, including recycled materials. 

To limit its environmental effect, the company manufactures things by hand. Its use of environmentally friendly components reduces the quantity of chemicals, water, and wastewater utilised in the manufacturing process.

It has a ‘good’ labour rating. Its goal is to empower Eswatini’s worker communities. It guarantees that a living wage is paid at the end of the industrial process. It can track the majority of its supply chain.

Because this brand produces items that are normally free of animal components, it is not possible to assess its animal impact. Only the environment and labour scores are used to compute the total ranking.

DillySocks

DillySocks has a ‘good’ environmental rating. It makes extensive use of environmentally friendly materials, such as GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard) cotton. 

To lessen its carbon footprint, it manufactures locally. There is no proof that it reduces textile waste. Its use of environmentally friendly components reduces the quantity of chemicals, water, and wastewater utilised in the manufacturing process.

It has a ‘good’ labour rating. Its facilities have been approved by the Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS). Its last step of production takes place in Portugal, a country with a medium risk of labour exploitation. 

It can track the majority of its supply chain. It’s unclear if it pays a livable wage to workers in its supplier chain. It has a ‘good’ animal rating. Although it does not include any animal ingredients, it does not claim to be vegan.

EcoRight

The environmental assessment of EcoRight is ‘good.’ It makes extensive use of environmentally friendly materials, such as organic cotton. 

It reduces its environmental effect by using renewable energy in its supply chain. It saves water by utilising rainwater in its production process. There is no proof that it reduces textile waste in the production of its products.

It has a ‘it’s a start’ labour rating. Sedex Members Ethical Trade Audit – SMETA Best Practice Guidance audits and reports on its facilities. 

It does not appear to have a Code of Conduct, but it does have a written declaration outlining workers’ rights. It doesn’t say where the final step of production takes place. 

There is no proof that it pays a livable wage to workers in its supplier chain. It has a ‘great’ animal rating. It states that its entire product range is vegan.

What was missing from this post which could have made it better?

Leave a Comment