Who Pays the Price? Fast Fashion, Affordability and Social Inequality.

In a climate of ever-rising food and energy costs, shopping sustainably seems to be a luxury that many cannot afford

As financial pressures rise, low-cost clothing has become an increasingly attractive option, particularly to customers with limited disposable income. However, the wider global consequences; exploitation of cheap labour and environmental degradation, as seen in Bangladesh and Ghana respectively, should not be ignored. This article argues that despite the necessity of accessible, affordable clothing for all, it should not be provided at the detriment to more vulnerable communities elsewhere. 

An increasing proportion of UK consumers are being priced out of sustainable markets due to financial and time constraints. Over the last 5 years, the cost of living in the UK has sharply increased, with low-income households being most affected due to higher rates of inflation on essential goods: food prices have increased by nearly 40%.

Figure 1: Change in Food Prices over Past 5 Years. Source: House of Commons Library (2026), data from ONS

With decreased purchasing power, consumers will naturally begin to seek out lower-cost alternatives, leading many to turn to fast-fashion or even ultra-fast-fashion, in which 1000s of items are uploaded daily and the unwanted garments are either thrown away or burned. Initially, consumption spending on clothing may seem like an individual choice and thus responsibility, however, can it be when inflation has pushed incomes below the point of accessibility to sustainable choices?

The government must recognise that not all consumers have equal resources to make “ethical” consumption choices and that whilst structural inequality persists it is unfair to place the same expectations across individuals.

Fast fashion may improve accessibility to clothing, but the true costs of production are not eradicated. Instead, global supply chains shift these onto vulnerable populations. A prime example of this is Bangladesh, where 4 million people are employed by the textile industry (ILO, 2023).Their cheap labour helps firms to keep costs of production low, with minimum wage set at the equivalent of $101 per month - minimum wage in the UK is over 20x this.

Additionally, conditions in the factories are often poor as firms seek to cut costs. In 2013 1,100 people died when Rana Plaza factory collapsed, after concerns surrounding the building’s structural integrity were ignored and garment workers were ordered to continue working or lose a month's pay. Recent protests have led to some improvement in working conditions, however they continue to remain below international standards.

While these conditions are geographically removed from the UK, they are a direct result of import consumption from developed nations, highlighting how fast fashion is only affordable through redirecting its costs elsewhere in the supply chain. 

Beyond production, the environmental impact of fast fashion is felt by countries, such as Ghana, on which the waste is dumped. As one of the main importers of second-hand clothing from wealthier countries, its Kantamanto Market receives 15 million pieces of clothing per week. Although on the surface it may seem as though this is increasing access to clothing in poorer countries, the clothing is often of low-quality and 40% of the items end up as waste. The waste is either burnt, goes to landfill or gets blown into Korle Lagoon -  located in Ghana’s capital, Accra - earning it the reputation as, “the most polluted spot on earth”. In this respect, it has become a way for wealthier countries to offload their landfill waste onto poorer countries.

In an economy where consumers are faced with increasingly reduced purchasing power, policymakers must step-in, ensuring that affordable clothing does not rely on labour exploitation or environmental degradation. Responsibility cannot lie solely with the individual, as lower-income households face constrained purchasing choices, making sustainable alternatives inaccessible.

One potential solution is to introduce Extended Producer Responsibility, where companies are responsible for collecting and recycling end-of-life products, which incentivises them to make greener products, eliminate waste, and helps to reduce the financial burden on governments and taxpayers.

Additionally, the government could implement measures to make sustainable action more affordable, such as reduced VAT on clothing repairs, which would promote consumers to repair their clothing instead of replacing it, or grants for circular fashion initiatives. This would help reduce the burden on low-income consumers, giving them the structures and support necessary to shop more sustainably. 

The cost-of-living crisis has made choosing to buy fast-fashion a more understandable choice, particularly for low-income households. However, this does not justify the industry’s wider impacts. The challenge for policymakers is therefore to ensure that access to affordable clothing does not depend on the costs being forced onto more vulnerable communities elsewhere, at the detriment of the planet.