11 Aug The Big Sustainability Debate: Individual Actions or Systemic Change?
The answer is not one or the other. The problem is that brands have been using that debate to avoid answering for their own part in it
Hello and welcome back to Frayed Not!
Our mission is to remind you that change doesn’t need to be perfect, just possible!
Today we’re covering:
- Why the individual versus collective change debate is the wrong frame and who benefits from keeping it alive
- Where individual behaviour and collective action actually intersect, and what that means for brands
- What it looks like when brands and consumers move in sync rather than pointing at each other
Are you ready to build change?
It’s not you, it’s me
The debate has been running for decades and it shows no sign of resolving. On one side: individual choices matter. What people buy, how often they buy it, how long they keep it, and what they do with it at end of life. Consumer demand shapes what gets produced. If enough people choose differently, the market follows.
On the other side: individual choices are structurally constrained. People can only choose from the options available to them, at the prices they can afford, with the information they actually have access to. Without systemic change across the fashion industry, including supply chains and corporate strategy, the room for individual action is too small to create any sort of large scale impact.
Both of these positions are correct. And the fact that they are both correct has been used, consistently and strategically, to avoid the harder conversation about where responsibility actually sits.
Because the genuine answer is not either-or. It is sequential and it is specific. Systemic change has to come first and it has to come from the organisations that control and understand the system. Not because individual choices do not matter, but because individual choices can only operate within the range of options that the system makes available, and that range is currently far too narrow.
The fashion industry’s habit of framing sustainability as a consumer responsibility problem is one of the most ironic deflections of the last thirty years. How can transformation be expected to come from the part of the system that has the least power to change it? And why do organisations that understand the system push the responsibility away?
Considering the acceleration of weather instability, heatwaves affecting the economy and infrastructure to manufacture and ship products, I am inclined to suggest that the sustainability strategy actually sits at the intersection of individual behaviour and organisational responsibility.
So, who benefits from the confusion
Well, it would be easy to join one side over the over and point fingers. But this divide did not emerge spontaneously. It was actively constructed by large fashion corporations, alongside those outside of the industry, preoccupied with extracting resources to create the products. Years of perfecting communication strategies that make the consumer responsible when industry regulation has watched the match from the side lines.
The reason you ask? Simple. If the consumer is responsible for the environmental impact of their choices, the regulatory conversation shifts from production standards and corporate accountability to consumer education and behaviour change campaigns.
This subtle, yet effective strategy has appeared into marketing brands overly-committed to sustainability with very little proof to sustain it. But low and behold, the underestimated consumers not only clocked it, but also baptised it, calling it ‘greenwashing’.
‘Buy less, buy better’
‘Choose consciously’
‘Invest in quality’
These are not wrong messages. Those are instructions that position the solution with the consumer, whilst the brands continue to produce at volume. Quite a contradictory business model. Keeping customers handcuffed to the brand through a voucher that claims it saves the planet if you return your items to the same store, when in fact it buy emotional investment disguised as customer loyalty.
The consumer who is genuinely trying to act responsibly is not stuck in an impossible position. Being asked to exercise individual discipline against the full weight of a commercial system that is optimised to produce the opposite behaviour. Individual willpower doesn’t absorb collective responsibility.
This is not a framework that produces change. It is a framework that produces guilt with very little impact and action.
Where the individual has leverage
None of this means individual behaviour is irrelevant. It means the conversation about individual behaviour needs to be more precise about where it actually has leverage and where it does not.
Consumer choices have real influence in markets where there is genuine meaningful choice available. When durable, fairly priced, sustainably produced alternatives to conventional product exist and are accessible, choosing them signals demand that the market can respond to. That signal matters. It builds the commercial case for the alternative at scale. It shifts what is financially viable for manufacturers. It changes what retailers stock and how they position it. Over time, with enough volume, it moves the market and finances new infrastructure.
But the current reality is that sustainability has been sold through fear. Fear of the impact, fear of the tomorrow, fear of consequences. And guilt. And that, has backfired. More people have become immune to ‘saving the planet’.
The information needed to make better choices has to be trustworthy and the product has to be available and commercially viable.
In the current fashion market, none of these conditions are universally met. Recycling start-ups are closing down due to lack of demand, material innovations are being put on hold due to lack of funding and the infrastructure doesn’t have space to be built as most of the focus is currently on the AI topic.
The role of consumer behaviour in driving sustainability is not to carry the full weight of systemic change. It is to signal sufficient market demand to make systemic change commercially viable for the brands and manufacturers that could deliver it.
And that might not look as purchasing product. That might look as consumer demanding brands to step up, to create communities, to create lifestyle experiences surrounded by the product, to create educational immersive material. The solution sits in the relationship the brands truly foster with the consumer when they don’t have an interest to make profit, but to build the foundation for real change.
The industry’s wake up call has a name: responsibility
There are parts of the fashion industry’s environmental and social impact that individual consumer choices cannot address.
Production volume is one. The quantity of clothing produced globally each year is determined by brand and retailer decisions about range size, season frequency, and minimum order quantities. No pattern of consumer purchasing behaviour changes the volume decision that happens before the product reaches the market. The overproduction that generates surplus, markdown, and waste disposal is a production system decision, not a consumption failure. It can only be addressed at the point where it is created. The market responds to the available options.
Supply chain conditions are another. Labour standards, water management, chemical use, and energy intensity at manufacturing level are determined by the commercial relationships between brands and their suppliers: the audit requirements brands set, the prices they pay, the lead times they demand, and the loyalty they offer in return for compliance. A consumer buying a certified product from a brand doesn’t have the influence level or visibility of how the product was manufactured. The brands’ commitment to keeping the supply chain accountable and ethical is a corporate decision and is not dictated by purchasing behaviour. It’s a matter of profit, ethics and margins.
Regulatory frameworks are a third. The rules that determine what brands are required to disclose, what claims they are permitted to make, what extended producer responsibility they carry for the end-of-life impact of their products: these are determined by policy, not consumer behaviour. The brands that engage actively in shaping those frameworks, rather than waiting for regulation to arrive and managing compliance reactively, are exercising a form of systemic influence that has no individual consumer equivalent.
It’s interlocked (no pun intended)
Systemic change creates the conditions within which individual behaviour can produce meaningful outcomes.
In practice this means brands have to move first. Not because they are morally superior to consumers, but because they control the elements that consumers cannot. Size range, production volume, supply chain standards, pricing, marketing spend, product design. All of these are brand decisions.
The consumer’s role in this is not passive. The signal that comes from purchasing behaviours, from the demand for transparency, and the willingness to pay a premium for verified quality: these are real commercial demands that brands respond to when they are consistent and credible.
What can actually be done about it
Audit the brand’s current sustainability communication for responsibility displacement. Review the last twelve months of consumer-facing sustainability content and identify where the language puts the solution in consumer behaviour rather than brand decision-making.
Identify the three upstream decisions the brand makes that have the highest environmental and social impact. Not the most visible ones. The most consequential ones. What would it require to change those decisions? What is the commercial consequence of doing so? Those answers are the starting point for a systemic sustainability strategy that is actually connected to the brand’s real operating decisions.
Design one piece of consumer communication around what the brand is changing rather than what the consumer should do. Specific, verifiable, human. Not a claim about values or a certification announcement. A concrete account of a decision the brand has made at production, supply chain, or product design level, what it cost the brand to make it, and what it means for the product the consumer is considering. That is the communication that builds trust in a sceptical environment. And trust, built one specific honest communication at a time, is the foundation on which both consumer behaviour change and systemic credibility are built.
🔵 Find these conversations valuable?
https://frayed-not.com/contact/
🔵 Are you looking for practical frameworks?
https://alexandradieaconu.substack.com/
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.