Plagiarized IB EE for Lydia Sheng
Note that this is the essay we wrote for Lydia, but she failed to make the payment, thereby forcing us to use it for our own portoflio purposes.
2.3 Cost and Efficiency Benefits
Sustainable practices can reduce long-term operational costs for firms in the fashion industry based on several efficiency-driven mechanisms. Key areas include energy efficiency in manufacturing processes, waste-reduction through improved material utilisation and supply chain optimisation that reduces transportation and inventory inefficiencies. The overall operational resilience is achieved in conjunction with a decline in variable costs over time.
Although sustainable materials are 20 – 30% more expensive initially due to higher production standards, and relatively limited supply availabilities – the upfront costs can be offset partially, through efficiency gains in the long run. By way of example, reduced energy consumption in production plants or facilities and lower costs in waste discharging improve cost structures over a certain period leading to improved profit margins in the medium to long terms (OECD, 2022).
For H&M, these dynamics become important. For H&M, these dynamics are glaring, and the company has made increasingly investments in sustainable sourcing and circular production systems to reduce the dependence of resource intensive processes (H&M Group, 2024). Short-term costs associated with material substitution and supply chain restructuring can, however, be buffered by improved efficiency and regulatory compliance, thereby translating into long-term financial stability.
Thus, this demonstrates that sustainability cost should not only be viewed as a cost burden but as a strategic investment. Instead, over time operational efficiencies and reduced environmental risk can improve profitability, thus sustainability investments are more strategic for large-scale firms that can better sustain initial cost of transition to sustainability and benefit from economies of scale.
Market forces are likely to be better than regulations because they specifically affect revenue, customer demand and brand competitiveness. Market forces do not work like regulations that provide a minimum standard for firms to comply with. And this encourages ongoing innovation as firms strive to carve a niche for themselves, through sustainable products, sourcing and transparency. For competitive markets like fashion, firms are also driven to go beyond compliance to also build and strengthen their brand image and position, and also win and retain consumers in the long term. According to Henninger et al., (1015), fashion sustainability is more of a product and marketing strategy than a regulatory measure. All this also supports the case for sustainability being more strategic now too, as firms integrate it in their business models to stay competitive, profitable and sustainable in the ever-changing global markets.
3.0 H&M Case Study – Compliance vs Strategy
H&M exemplifies the intersection of environmental regulation and competitive strategy in the context of legal provisions such as eco-taxation and anti-greenwashing requiring compliance, while market dynamics and competition compel the incorporation of sustainability at a strategic level.
3.1 Sustainability Performance Data
H&M has improved its sustainability performance on some of the operational metrics. The proportion of sustainable materials rose from 57% in 2018 to 84% in 2022. This represents 47.41% improvement in the sustainability performance of using sustainable materials in H&M operations (Figure 2).
Fig 2: H&M’s Growth in Sustainable Material Usage (2018 – 2022)
Figure 2 shows continuous increase in the sustainable material adoption showing that there is strong regulations and market-driven influence of the sourcing strategy.
3.2 Financial Analysis (Operating Margin)
The profitability trend of H&M thus reflects its fluctuations on the transition to sustainability. The profit margin fell from 7.4% in 2019 to 5.8% in 2021, a decline of 1.6% which is equivalent to 21.6% decline as shown below:
Fig 3: H&M Profit Margin Trend (2019 – 2023)
Figure 3 illustrates the short-term loss in profitability due to the cost of sustainability investments, and then a partial rebounding of efficiency gains. This decline is due to high investments in sustainable material supply, supply chain restructuring, and circular innovation initiatives, which escalates the short-term cost of operations. But in 2023 there was a margin recovery to 6.2%, translating to a 2019 margin improvement of 0.4 percentage points or 6.9 per cent growth.
This recovery suggests emerging efficiency benefits from scale effects, enhanced resource utilisation, and assimilation of sustainability processes into core business mechanisms. The overall trend means there is a lag between profitability and the sustainable transformation because the latter compounds profitability in the short run by increasing investment costs but lowers operational costs in the long run to restore and stabilise margins.
3.3 Interpretation
Environmental regulations have played a significant role in promoting sustainability practices in the fashion industry, by enforcing transparency and minimum requirements for environmental protection. Regulations established by organisations such as the European Commission ensure transparency of information regarding environmental impacts, mitigate greenwash and increase accountability across supply chains (European Commission, 2023). As a result, more comprehensive sustainability reports are made available, and more traceability is being incorporated within different stages of production within companies such as H&M, leading to improved consumer confidence and harmonisation of policies (H&M Group, 2024).
But there are a number of fundamental issues that not only limit but reduce the impact of these policies. The fast fashion business model has remained unchanged, and is built around high-volume, low-cost and short-cycle production. Second, sustainability initiatives are “add-ons” rather than structural and this means that the new measures do not guarantee fast fashion firms to completely replace their operations. Third, global production tons continue to rise in spite of regulatory pressure, thereby demonstrating that an increase in efficiency does not necessarily result in a decrease in production (OECD, 2022). However, despite increased transparency and basic sustainability requirements, environmental regulations are ineffective in terms of structural change. Legislations without proper enforcement mechanisms and consumer behavioural change fail to restructure the fast fashion industry.
3.4 Greenwashing Criticism
H&M has received considerable ongoing criticism of its sustainability marketing, including claims of misleading marketing language to deceive regarding environmental performance. It was to combat this that the H&M “Conscious Collection” was to be a more sustainable line but with no standards in place for environment. These concerns are also a greenwash in marketing fast fashion apparel where green metrics are a marketing tool. These concerns demonstrate the significance of the guidelines issued by the European Commission, which are stricter and seek to guarantee that scientific proof underpins environmental claims and offer transparency (European Commission, 2023).
By requiring companies to provide data, EU regulations minimise the risk of misleading consumers, and provide for accountability in corporate sustainability reports. The regulatory measures still have their limitations. The transparency requirements may not necessarily provide a change in environmental sustainability, but a higher degree of transparency. For example, the critics point out that H&M’s sustainability projects are still side-lined, rather than leading to a full transition of operations within the supply-chain. This indicates that although regulations provide greater accountability, they remain ineffective unless they are joined by a shift in corporate mindset and production processes in the industry.
3.5 Evaluation
The actions taken by H&M in sustainability demonstrate that there are two main motivations for such actions and these are regulatory and market positioning. First, the firm needs to comply with increasingly stricter environmental regulations put in place by the European Commission, from transparency, anti-greenwash, to lifecycle responsibility reporting (European Commission, 2023). Therefore, there is a minimum level of environmental responsibility which needs to be met and maintained in terms of operations and communication (Bocken et al., 2014). Another driving force behind H&M sustainability programs is also the competitive pressure from the global apparel industry. As a result, with a growing trend of customers wanting sustainable and ethically sourced products, sustainability is a crucial element in establishing and driving brand identity, brand loyalty and revenue (Bhardwaj and Fairhurst, 2010). This has incentivised H&M to improve the production of sustainable materials, circular business and transparency management practices beyond regulatory compliance. So, decision-making is only partially determined by regulation because it only establishes the boundaries of corporate conduct. Rather, regulation is not the only factor that defines decision making but rather H&M strategy shows that sustainability is increasingly co-determined by regulation and competitive advantage as market forces are equal (and in some cases, dominant) factors in how corporations operate.
4.0 Limitations of Environmental Regulations
4.1 Weak Global Enforcement
Often production takes place in developing countries with less rigorous environmental standards, so firms can avoid the stricter regulations in regions such as the EU. This causes companies to move processes that are harmful to the environment to other countries thereby reducing compliance costs and making international policies and their enforcement ineffective.
4.2 Failure to Address Overproduction
The majority of environmental regulations in the fashion industry are on emissions, sourcing, and transparency of the industry rather than on output volume. For example, regulations introduced by the European Commission are related to carbon emissions, implementation of recycled material and supply chain transparency (European Commission, 2023). These have increased transparency, and encouraged companies like H&M to use more environmentally friendly materials and publish comprehensive environmental reports. But a key problem is that these rules don’t directly regulate the quantity of apparel produced, which is the major environmental impact of fast fashion. Companies can merge to increase their total production and increase their efficiency.
The OECD (2022) argues that changes in scale of production always counterweighs efficiency gains, leading to never ending expansion in resources use. The existing regulations do encourage sustainable practices on a micro-level but do not address overproduction. Therefore, the existing regulations ensure sustainable practices at the micro-level, but not overproduction. The environmental challenges of fast fashion will continue despite the efficiency gains and transparency achieved, unless there are specific measures to control production and consumption.
4.3 Structural Conflict
The structural basis of fast fashion is on three core principles, high production, low cost, making inventory very fast. These allow that their production is swiftly responsive to the varying consumer trends while maintaining their prices at the lowest possible level; however, this is incompatible with the idea of long-term sustainability. It also leads to textile wastage, and the entire production process consumes many resources, including water, energy, and raw materials. Low-cost production models tend to rely on efficiency favouring supply chains that externalise environmental costs on developing countries which have relatively lax environmental policies (OECD, 2022).
Rapid turnover is also an additional component of environmental pressure as it promotes rapid product life cycle and higher rate of product perishable. Such “disposable fashion” accelerates the creation of waste products and diminishes the prospects for durable product designs. As such, recycling or use of ecological materials only deal with part of the environmental impact as they are done in an inherently growth-oriented system.
Critically, this reveals structural contradiction as sustainability seek to reduce the use of resources and the associated harm to the environment, fast fashion is based on growth. Even brands like H&M suffer from this paradox entails by their commercial model, which emphasises on cost-effectiveness and high volume. Therefore, continuously ensuring improvement of the environment can be achieved not only from incremental efficiency gains but also a change of the levels of consumption and intensity of production within the fashion industry.
4.4 Evaluation
Environmental regulations in the fashion industry are often limited in effectiveness since they address symptoms and not root structural causes. Legislative policies adopted by relevant bodies like the European Commission mostly do not regulate overproduction and consumption, but focus on emissions, material sourcing and transparency (European Commission, 2023). Therefore, companies may comply with sustainability goals without changing unsustainable high consumption business models. Another limitation is the lack of consistency in enforcement at the international level. For example, many production activities take place in developing countries with ineffective regulations compared to the standards set out in the European Union regarding environmental and reporting requirements. This creates a regulatory fragmentation, whereby firms relocate environmentally intensive processes to reduce compliance pressure without necessarily improving sustainability (OECD, 2022).
In addition, the existing regulations compel the firms to retain certain elements of the fast fashion model such as rapid production cycles and low-cost mass production. For example, even H&M can enhance transparency and material efficiency without compromising on overall production volumes. This reveals a major policy gap that incremental rather than transformative improvements are made in the sustainable fashion practice. Therefore, regulations play an important role in improving accountability and environmental regulations, but their impact is limited. Failure coordination of global enforcement, as well as policies targeting production volumes and consumption behaviour, enable firms to maintain largely unsustainable business models within compliance with the existing regulatory frameworks.
Conclusion
Environmental regulations have a profound impact on the adoption of sustainable practices in the fashion industry. For example, in H&M, France’s eco-tax and the EU’s greenwashing policy have resulted in improved traceability, circularity and sourcing strategies. But it is not a dominant, but rather a moderate influence. At times, regulations only initiate changes, establish minimum standards and alter demands without transforming business practices. Rather, the use of sustainability is more a result of customer pressure, competition and strategy. H&M’s sustainability improvements (e.g., more sustainable fibres, carbon emission reduction) are the result of a mix of regulatory and compliance and market influences. But the continued high production volumes confirm the ineffectiveness of the regulations. Hence, environmental regulations need to be considered as part of a broader spectrum of factors. To have significant and sustainable change, there needs to be better international coordination, enforcement and consumer behaviour change. Future research may be able to analyse the impacts of other policies such as global carbon taxes or other restrictions on production.
References
Bhardwaj, V., & Fairhurst, A. (2010). Fast fashion: Response to changes in the fashion industry. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 20(1), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593960903498300
Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2021) A new textiles economy: Redesigning fashion’s future. Available at: https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org (Accessed: 20 April 2026).
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2021). Circular fashion report. https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org
European Commission (2020) A new Circular Economy Action Plan: For a cleaner and more competitive Europe. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission (2023) Green Claims Directive and sustainable product policy framework. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission (2023) Green Claims Directive: Proposal for substantiating environmental claims. Brussels: European Commission.
European Environment Agency (2023) Textiles and the environment: The role of design in Europe’s circular economy. Copenhagen: EEA.
Fletcher, K. (2014). Sustainable fashion and textiles: Design journeys (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203127155
French Ministry for Ecological Transition (2024) Anti-fast fashion law and eco-tax measures. Paris: Gouvernement de la République Française.
H&M Group (2024) Sustainability Disclosure 2024. Stockholm: H&M Group. Available at: https://hmgroup.com/sustainability/ (Accessed: 28 April 2026).
H&M Group. (2023). Annual report 2023. https://hmgroup.com/investors/annual-and-sustainability-reports
H&M Group. (2023). Sustainability disclosure 2023. https://hmgroup.com/sustainability
Henninger, C. E., Alevizou, P. J., & Oates, C. J. (2015). What is sustainable fashion? Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 19(4), 400–416. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-07-2014-0052
International Baccalaureate Organization. (2018). Extended essay guide. https://www.ibo.org
Joy, A., Sherry, J. F., Venkatesh, A., Wang, J., & Chan, R. (2012). Fast fashion, sustainability, and the ethical appeal of luxury brands. Fashion Theory, 16(3), 273–295. https://doi.org/10.2752/175174112X13340749707123
Nielsen. (2021). Global sustainability report. https://microsites.nielsen.com/globalresponsibilityreport/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2020/09/Copy-of-200709-create-pdf-of-2020-nielsen-global-responsibility-report-d03.pdf
Niinimaki, K. (2020). Sustainable fashion in a circular economy. In K. Niinimaki (Ed.), Sustainable fashion in a circular economy. Aalto University. https://acris.aalto.fi/ws/portalfiles/portal/32741472/sustainable_fashion.pdf
OECD (2022) Global material resources outlook to 2060: Economic drivers and environmental consequences. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2021). Extended producer responsibility: Updated guidance for efficient waste management. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2024/04/extended-producer-responsibility_4274765d/67587b0b-en.pdf
Textile Exchange. (2022). Preferred fiber and materials market report. https://textileexchange.org/app/uploads/2022/10/Textile-Exchange_PFMR_2022.pdf
UN Climate Change. (2022). Global climate action report.
Appendix
Appendix A: PESTLE Analysis of the Fashion Industry
| Factor | Influence | Impact |
| Political | · Stability of the government | Facilitates or limits enforcement of regulations. |
| · Trade policies | ||
| Economic | · Cost of materials | Greater expenses on sustainable inputs. |
| · Global demand | ||
| Social | · Consumer awareness | Powerful motivator of sustainable practices. |
| · Ethical trends | ||
| Technological | · Recycling innovations | Enables efficiency and sustainability. |
| · AI supply chains | ||
| Legal | · Environmental laws | Forces minimum sustainability standards. |
| · Compliance requirements | ||
| Environmental | · Climate change | Drives long-term strategic change |
| · Resource scarcity |
Appendix B: Porter’s Five Forces in the Fashion Industry
| Force | Intensity | Impact on Sustainability |
| Competitive Rivalry | Very High | Drives innovation in sustainable products |
| Threat of New Entrants | Low | High barriers due to compliance costs |
| Bargaining Power of Buyers | High | Consumers demand sustainability at low prices |
| Bargaining Power of Suppliers | Medium–High | Limited sustainable suppliers increase costs |
| Threat of Substitutes | High | Second-hand and rental markets promote sustainability |
Appendix C: Value Chain Impact of Sustainability
| Stage | Impact |
| Inbound Logistics | Recycling and organic materials. |
| Operations | Energy-efficient manufacturing |
| Outbound Logistics | Less packaging and emissions. |
| Marketing and Sales | Advertising of sustainable collections. |
| After-Sales | Take-back and recycling programs. |
Appendix D: Ansoff Matrix Application to Sustainability
| Strategy | Application |
| Market Penetration | Promoting existing sustainable products |
| Product Development | Launch of eco-friendly collections |
| Market Development | Expansion into sustainability-focused markets |
| Diversification | Investment in circular business models |