Well, yes, they have, but they've not absorbed the point of it:
Big-name stores including Selfridges and Harrods are being lined up to sell the range in the UK, but WWF wants to make this a global project. It is determined to prove to the fashion industry that it is possible to design and produce clothes with zero impact on the environment.
“It’s hugely challenging,” says Alfredo Orobio, founder of the online community AwaytoMars that is working with WWF. “Everything from the buttons, zippers, labels, tags and packaging to the fabric and production process itself – all of it has to be sustainable.”
Ah, yes, sustainable. Let's use fewer resources so that we walk more lightly upon this Earth.
Sure, why not? That's just another name for economic efficiency after all. If we use fewer resources to make one thing then we've resources left over to make another one. Or one of something different. Sure we want to be sparing in our use of resources.
We've even a method to work this out in a market economy. A higher production price will mean that we're calling on more resources to make whatever it is, a lower one fewer.
We do of course think this is amusing about fashion. Clothing is a little different, yes, because why not wear the same clothes for decades? Possibly even wash them occasionally. But the entire point of fashion is that it is a signalling exercise, that one is hip, with it and moving with the seasons and styles. Making something which is fashionable and also lasts for decades seems to us to be violating the basic social purpose of fashion itself.
But the real problem is here:
One of the key barriers to consumer take-up is that the expense involved in turning every part of the life cycle of a garment green means the cost of sustainable clothing is out of the reach of most. Current prices at AwayToMars, for example, range from £50 for a T-shirt to £390 for a wool jacket. Cridland’s signature 30-year jacket costs £190 while a T-shirt is £35.
They're missing that lesson of the price system, aren't they? If it is vastly more expensive to do this in a "sustainable" manner then by definition they must be calling upon more resources to make these "sustainable" clothes.
As anyone who has ever met any of us knows we're not really up with this fashion thing anyway but we do wonder about the idea of using more resources in order to claim to be using fewer.