Copenhagen Fashion Week is a highly anticipated time in every fashion person’s calendar. Serving as the fashion capital of Scandinavia, Copenhagen continually provides outfit inspiration that is both functional and exciting, colourful but easy to wear. Fashion staples from the region include oversized blazers, dad sneakers, colourful knits, and slouchy dress pants. Think Matilda Djerf. I find CPHFW to be a breath of fresh air during fashion month. It is youthful and refreshingly self-aware, contrasting the stereotypical stuffiness and seriousness of other fashion weeks. Although often flying under the radar and receiving considerably less coverage than Paris or New York, Copenhagen should not be underestimated or go unnoticed.
CPHFW deserves praise for more than the continual stream of fashion inspiration that it provides. Earlier this year, Copenhagen Fashion Week established mandatory sustainability criteria for each showing brand to comply with. The recently presented eighteen action points span all aspects of sustainability: ensuring the use of quality materials, hiring diverse management, zero waste show production, and the list goes on. CPHFW’s commitment to sustainable and equitable business practices shows the fashion world that it is possible to be both reputable and environmentally conscious. Copenhagen’s actionable, eco-friendly plan should be taken as the standard. The fashion world should be watching, and taking notes.
Environmental commitments are oftentimes pure signalling. Establishments try to gain social points by agreeing to meet some vague goal years down the line, whether that be a fashion brand, government administration, or anything in between. In especially desperate cases, they aestheticize sustainability and claim to be environmentally conscious to enhance brand image. For example, the fast fashion company, Boohoo, named Kourtney Kardashian their new sustainability ambassador last year. Their sustainability initiative is clearly performative; they are hopping on the ‘environmentally conscious’ bandwagon to make themselves look good. It is clear when an organization truly prioritizes environmentally responsible business practices, as in the case of CPHFW. Their list of action points is comprehensive and specific. Sacrificing potential profits and choosing a harder, more intensive way of doing things shows their commitment is genuine.
Production of apparel is extremely energy intensive and environmentally costly. Utilizing unethical, wasteful business practices like sweatshops or tossing usable scrap materials is common. Luckily, discussion around waste and ethics at each stage of the production process is more prevalent now than it ever has been. As consumers, we have a newfound preoccupation with the negative impact of our consumption and overindulgence. But, there is a whole separate conversation that needs to be had around sustainability, apart from the impact of the sole production of clothes. What about the environmental impact of fashion week itself?
So many aspects of fashion week, or rather month, are incredibly wasteful; from transportation emissions of thousands of attendees, to set production, to food packaging provided backstage. On top of that, we have to account for the overwhelming congestion of a collection of major cities, as tourism has a huge environmental impact. While many individual brands showing at CPHFW have taken their own in-house sustainability initiatives, the organization took it upon themselves to reduce waste and environmental harm from the show itself. This is a commendable move, as discourse surrounding sustainability and fashion rarely considers the impact of the actual fashion show. CPHFW and their showing brands are smaller and less established than most of the larger houses showing collections during fashion month. If smaller brands with fewer resources can commit to and follow through on their sustainability commitments, so can the infinitely-wealthier designer fashion houses of New York, London, Milan, or Paris.
Because everyone should be following this event, here are some Copenhagen Fashion Week brands I think you should pay attention to.
First, Saks Potts. As one of the first Danish brands I’d ever heard of, Saks Potts holds a special place in my heart and is a valuable addition to everyone’s fashion dictionary. Initially gaining traction for their colourful array of fur-trimmed, knee-length shearling “Foxy” coats, the brand has gone on to create many timeless yet exciting collections. Saks Potts also kept a sustainability expert on staff for a full year to evaluate each aspect of their business to ensure quality and ethical practices. While some may be understandably confused by the brand's use of real animal fur and leather, Saks Potts explains their choices. They detailed their ethical animal practices, noting that genuine fur and leather create long-lasting garments, unlike the fake, plastic-y, fur replacement products that other brands turn to in the name of sustainability.
Ganni
Ganni’s vibe is youthful and irreverent, perfectly encapsulated by the yellow confetti that rained on guests at the end of their last show. The brand combined a variety of materials into a single collection, from sage green velvet dresses to metallic leather two pieces to head-to-toe denim outfits. Mixing prints, colours, and fabrics is part of the brand's identity. They aim to excite. A throughline in all Copenhagen fashion that is worth emphasizing is the “wearable” factor of all their clothes. While the print and colour combinations are fun and unexpected, they are functional. Creating garments that are intended to be worn many times and are easily available for everyday life is a pillar of sustainability. Being a conscious and responsible consumer means making purchases that you will get years of use from. Many Copenhagen brands, including Ganni, provide us with these types of garments.
Copenhagen Fashion Week is an event worth following. They show the fashion world that being a successful, trendsetting brand and engaging in ethical, sustainable business are not mutually exclusive.
Emily Meyran
Sources:
Comments