Loststock: A symptom of fashion’s billion dollar accountability problem

When Covid-19 first hit, and fashion consumption ground to a halt overnight, many fast fashion brands cancelled orders with their factories, drawing on "force majeure" clauses in contracts to avoid paying.

This sparked global outrage and the beginning of the #PayUp campaign.

Without payment, factories were unable to pay their workers, and with no access to savings, healthcare, or severance, these workers face critical food and housing insecurity. One supplier said, "If coronavirus doesn't kill my workers, then starvation will." 

In response to the problem, fast fashion platform Mallzee launched Lockstock - a 'mystery box' initiative where they purchased unsold stock directly from manufacturers (initially produced for a variety of retailers), assembled mystery boxes based on size and basic style preferences of the consumer, and donated just over a third of the sale price (37% - almost £13) to the SAJIDA Foundation.

The move was praised by the ethical fashion community and mainstream media alike, and over 68,000 boxes were purchased in the first two weeks, with a huge media campaign and social buzz raising awareness of the plight of garment workers.

But now, almost 4 months on, the boxes are only just starting to arrive, and the "feel good factor" of the charity-focused purchase has clearly worn off, as many are taking to social media to complain that the garments they received don't live up to their expectations.

At the time the scheme was announced, I expressed concern on Twitter that mainstream media was using the story to glorify fast fashion - with The Telegraph framing it as "a way for us to finally feel good about fast fashion" and The Guardian describing it as "buying a present for your future self".

If anything, Covid-19 and the #PayUp campaign have highlighted that fast fashion has a harmful overproduction problem. Brands can claim to be as "conscious" or transparent as they like, but until they're willing to talk about making less clothes, they're not really committed to protecting the planet.

And selling mystery boxes of unwanted clothes is essentially asking capitalism to solve the problem it's created in the first place.

Why do we need to receive something in exchange for a donation? Why not go direct to the charity? Because we're so trained to expect instant gratification that going direct doesn't feel as good. (As evidenced by the fact that so many have since complained about the delays in receiving the boxes and the quality of the clothes inside).

Not only have Loststock customers lost sight of why the boxes exist already, they've now been burdened with unwanted clothes that will most likely find their way to landfill anyway, which begs the question, was this really the most effective solution?

The media buzz around Loststock has now firmly shifted to dissecting the quality of the clothes inside. The brand are saying they'll explore the possibility of giving refunds - which begs the question, what will happen to the donations? Meanwhile 18 brands are still under pressure from the #PayUp campaign because they still haven't paid their bills.

And all the while, fast fashion brands have gone back to their same old tricks, without any accountability for the social and environmental mess they continue to cause.

Loststock began as a creative way of solving a social problem caused by the fashion industry, but because the consumers, the media and the brands approached it through our usual capitalist habits, nothing has changed.

The cynic in me is left wondering, how long after lockdown before one of the fast fashion giants drops an 'exciting new mystery box' because, according to fashion media, it's the 'hot new way' to shop for clothes?

Want to challenge corporate power and fix the climate crisis, but don't know how? Subscribe now to read regular articles and insights that help you take radical responsibility for leaving the world better than we inherited it: