Fabric of Change is all about bringing about systemic change. But sometimes, change is imposed onto us. Crises and wars erupt and disrupt our daily lives. The main impact remains the immediate consequences on people's lives and survival caught up in the conflicts, but international crises also have ripple effects that touch each of us in ways we could not have thought of. The fashion industry is ubiquitous in our lives – and it is not immune.  

In recent years, the global order has been challenged, to say the least. The given that we live in a globalised and open economy is being questioned as an ideology. Yet in practicality it is still true that everything is connected to the point of impacting our fashion consumption. In turn, the industry has been impacting the environment and the planet to an alarming point today. These two elements are now amplify one another as instability and conflicts rise, especially when it comes to depleting resources.  

The Ukrainian conflict: a first blow.

A good example of this is the Ukrainian-Russian war. When the invasion started in 2022, you could quickly find articles about the impact on the sector.

Not only do Ukrainian and Russian’s sales represent about 5% of the luxury market, hitting the sector almost immediately, but the economic sanctions imposed on Russia are triggering a record increase in oil and gas prices, all the while cutting Eurasian logistics routes for transport.  

Another blow to fast fashion has been the impact on sweatshops that had developed in Ukraine, allowing brands to label clothes as “made in Europe”. Taking advantage of the location while using the same strategies as in China to pressure factories at the expense of workers, brands could once again lower their costs through exploitation. This has been made impossible by the war, forcing relocations that might cost the brand more on manufacturing.

All of these elements are enough to disrupt the industry. Yet, our everyday life, including our consumption habits have not been impacted in a major way. Inflation has hit us all, especially when it comes to food, but fast fashion doesn’t seem to have taken that big of a blow.

The cover-up

That is because the industry was able to adapt to this new reality, by absorbing the shock at times or reorganise at other times.

Brands withdrew from the Russian market, restructured their regional focus, and faced major supply chain disruptions that accelerated diversification and nearshoring strategies.

At the same time, rising energy, raw material, and transport costs forced companies to increase prices and cut costs across their operations, often shifting pressure onto suppliers.  

The visible price inflation in Europe is only one side of the coin. The average clothing prices rose from around €38 in 2023 to €42 in 2025 (≈ +10%), with some items increasing by up to +23%, while annual clothing inflation reached around +3–4% in 2025.  

But other costs have been shifted onto factories that got pressured to deliver the same amount of clothing for even less. Other strategies and parts of the chain have suffered.

The hidden cracks

While brands publicly withdrew from the Russian market and positioned themselves as reacting responsibly to the invasion, many did not truly move away from Russian resources. Instead, supply chains quietly adapted. Oil, as a key component for synthetic fibres like polyester, continued to flow through indirect channels.

Investigations have shown that a significant number of brands maintained links to Russian oil through their suppliers, relying on intermediaries and complex sourcing structures to bypass restrictions. In some cases, sourcing even increased.

So while the visible part of the industry shifted, the underlying dependencies remained.

Another invisible aspect of these changes is the not lucrative one, the part that sits outside of its profit-driven logic: the end of life of clothing.

Before the war, Ukraine was actually the largest importer of second-hand clothing in Europe. Once the fast fashion “take-make-throw” cycle reaches its end, millions of tonnes of clothing need to go somewhere. Ukraine played a key role as a sorting hub, supporting the redistribution and international trade of used garments.

The war disrupted this system entirely. Thousands of tonnes of clothing had to be redirected to other countries such as Poland or Latvia, or exported directly to the Global South without proper sorting. At the same time, waste accumulated within Ukraine itself, as unsuitable clothing, often polyester garments sent as humanitarian aid piled up in warehouses.

What we see here is a shift with long-term consequences: more waste being exported to countries that do not have the infrastructure to manage it, and a growing disconnect between where clothes are consumed and where their impacts are felt.

Crisis on crisis

And this is not an isolated case.

The recent start of the conflict in Iran is triggering similar chain reactions and patterns, that are coming on top of these existing ones. The blockage of the Strait of Hormuz and steep increase in oil prices, combined with disruptions in air cargo routes, could once again impact the fashion industry, with less options to bypass this crisis.

Longer routes mean higher costs. Less oil means less fuel for transport.  

Beyond logistics, crude oil is a key component in the production of synthetic fibres, which today make up the majority of our clothes.

The inherent instability of fashion built on oil.

Fashion is often framed as a creative industry, but at its core, it is deeply tied to fossil fuels. From the production of synthetic fibres like polyester, to the energy used in manufacturing, to the global transport of garments, oil is everywhere in the system.

This dependence creates a structural vulnerability. Any disruption, whether geopolitical tensions, conflict, or trade restrictions, immediately translates into higher costs, delays, and instability across the entire value chain.

But it goes further than fashion itself.

What we are seeing is the fragility of an extraction-based economic model. One that relies on continuous access to cheap, abundant natural resources, often sourced through complex and opaque global networks.

And as these resources become more contested, more expensive, and more politically entangled, the system starts to strain.

The war in Ukraine made this visible. Tensions around Iran reinforce it. Each crisis adds another layer of pressure, revealing just how dependent the industry is on conditions that are, by nature, unsustainable and unstable.

Yet instead of reducing this dependence, the industry continues to operate within it: adjusting routes, shifting suppliers, finding loopholes, but rarely questioning the foundation itself. This has resulted only in a delay strategy which is already causing fast fashion to be seen as less and less “worth it” by customers themselves as prices increase while low quality and disposability remain.

Conclusion: doubling down, or shifting course?

Ironically, crises like these can push the industry in two opposite directions.

On one hand, brands can double down on the existing model by squeezing suppliers further, cutting corners, and hoping for instability to pass.

On the other, these disruptions could act as a catalyst for change. Rising oil costs, for example, could encourage a shift towards natural fibres, more localised production, or investment in renewable energy.

But this remains uncertain. As long as the system is driven by short-term gains, any progress risks being temporary.

Up until now, the industry has been able to somewhat adapt to the new crisis we are facing by rearranging its systems rather than transforming them. Brands have diversified supply chains, shifted markets, and absorbed rising costs through higher prices.  

However, the core fast fashion model built on volume, speed, and cost minimisation is only made possible through a complex international division of work. In that sense, the crisis has not led to a structural shift, but rather to the same model operating under more pressure and ultimately becoming more expensive for consumers without addressing its underlying impacts.

Now, if we’re able to identify these issues as they are and recognise that pressure will only keep rising, that is where change can happen. The world is contracting because resources are becoming more scarce. Conflicts like these are going to multiply as capitalist actors race to exploit dwindling resources ever faster. If anything, we should take it as an opportunity to change focus, if not for the environment like we've attempted for years, for pure "rational" economic reasons.

‍