Stella McCartney’s unsustainable hypocrisy

The fashionista is hanging her workers – and the environment – out to dry.

Leyla Sanai

Share

The Covid-19 crisis has definitely shown us which employers put their money where their mouth is. Interestingly, some of the most preachy businesspeople are turning out to be grasping and miserly when it comes to putting their hands in their own bulging pockets.

One example of this tightwad attitude is Stella McCartney. McCartney reportedly has a personal fortune of £60million. Her business has a turnover of £500million per year. She also has a famous billionaire father whose wealth exceeds his taste (in second wives and woeful plastic surgery, to name a few things). Despite all this, Stella is using the government’s furlough scheme, which offers 80 per cent of workers’ pay up to £2,500 a month, and is reportedly refusing to top it up from her own amply stocked coffers.

A few months ago, McCartney was giving out eco-friendly fashion tips, instructing us not to wash our clothes to reduce our carbon footprints. We plebs used to be derided as the great un-washed, but now we wash too much, apparently. And for decades Stella has made a fortune charging hundreds of pounds for rather frumpy clothes that she claims are ‘environmentally sustainable’.

But how green are Stella’s clothes, really? Her website says that most of them are made of viscose, a material that is often presented as a sustainable alternative to cotton and polyester. But viscose is made by treating natural wood from trees, such as beech, eucalyptus and pine, or plants such as bamboo, soy or sugarcane, with harsh chemicals.

These chemicals, which include carbon disulphide, are highly toxic. According to Dr Paul Blanc, a professor of medicine at the University of California, chronic exposure to carbon disulphide can cause serious health problems for workers, including Parkinson’s disease, premature heart attacks and strokes. Carbon disulphide can also cause birth defects, skin conditions and cancer.

These chemicals can also be released into the environment, causing pollution to air and water. The effects of carbon-disulphide poisoning have been seen not only in workers, but also in those who live near viscose factories. To her credit, McCartney tries to prevent the latter from happening by using ‘closed loop’ factories, in which toxins are captured. But accidents and leaks are never entirely preventable.

Overall, viscose has been given very low (D and E) scores for sustainability in ethical-fashion group Common Objective’s Made-By Environmental Benchmark for Fibres.

The chemicals aren’t the only issue. Environmental group Canopy, which works to raise awareness of deforestation, estimates that more than 150million trees are chopped down every year to be turned into viscose and related fabrics.

In 2014, McCartney joined Canopy’s Fashion Loved by Forest initiative. The main result of this was that McCartney’s raw materials would be sourced from ‘sustainably managed and certified’ forests in Sweden. This is a start. But however sustainable the forests are, there are still thousands of air miles resulting from the transport of these materials.

Admittedly, the processes used in McCartney’s clothes do not involve some of the heinous crimes common in other parts of the fashion industry, like the use of child workers or sweatshops. But why doesn’t someone preaching sustainability just use more sustainable fabrics, like organic cotton, organic linen or wool? These fabrics may be more expensive than viscose, but since McCartney charges hefty prices for her clothes, she would still turn in a very decent profit.

As is so often the case, the message from celebrities seems to be ‘do as I say, not as I do’. But in times of crisis, such hypocrisy is unsustainable.

Leyla Sanai is a writer.

spiked needs your support

Defending liberty isn’t easy – especially in times of crisis, when freedom is so often traded away in search of security. But amid the coronavirus pandemic we at spiked have continued to speak up for our principles, calling for more scrutiny of the authoritarian measures being wielded over us and more debate on the best way forward. To continue to do that, we need your help. spiked is free and it always will be, because we want as many people to read us as possible. But to keep spiked free we rely on the generosity of our readers, particularly those who can give regularly. Even £5 per month can make a huge difference to us. We know it’s hard out there for many of you, now more than ever. But if you support what we do here and you can afford to contribute, to make sure we can continue to produce our free and fearless journalism for anyone who wants to read it, please do consider making a donation today.

Thank you! And stay safe.

Donate now

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Comments

Kimberly KJ

24th May 2020 at 3:32 am

Just bought seху undеrwеаг.
Wanna see? Visit the sitе – http://kisstok.com

KATHLEEN CARR

30th April 2020 at 3:47 pm

I would imagine Stella McCartney -together with Victoria Beckham , Richard Branson et al prefer to keep hold of their personal fortunes ,rather than fritter them away on wages-thats just for the ‘little people’ who are losing their businesses , their savings and their homes.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.