english.elpais.com
Spanish Online Fashion Growth Plateaus Amidst Environmental Concerns
Online clothing shopping in Spain increased from 8.8% of consumers in 2013 to 46.7% in 2022, but this growth has plateaued. The rise in online shopping has increased CO2 emissions, driven by inefficient deliveries, excessive packaging, and high return rates, but sustainable brands are often only available online.
- What is the overall impact of the significant increase in online clothing purchases in Spain on the environment and consumer behavior?
- In 2013, only 8.8% of Spanish consumers bought clothes online; by 2022, this surged to 46.7%, a significant increase driven by the pandemic. However, this growth appears to have plateaued recently, potentially due to post-pandemic shifts in consumer behavior and environmental concerns.
- How do the environmental impacts of online clothing shopping compare to those of traditional brick-and-mortar stores, considering factors such as transportation, packaging, and returns?
- The rise of online fashion is linked to increased CO2 emissions from delivery, packaging, and returns. While physical stores also have environmental impacts, online shopping's home deliveries, often inefficient, exacerbate the problem. Aggressive marketing and easy returns further contribute to unsustainable consumption.
- What systemic changes in consumption and the fashion industry are necessary to mitigate the negative environmental consequences of online clothing shopping, while ensuring access to sustainable options?
- The environmental impact of online versus in-store clothing purchases is complex and depends on various factors, including the origin and type of garment. Sustainable brands, often accessible only online, offer an alternative, highlighting the need for informed consumer choices and systemic change in consumption habits.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's framing leans towards highlighting the negative environmental impacts of online shopping. While it acknowledges that physical stores also contribute to environmental problems, it spends more time detailing the issues associated with online purchasing, such as emissions from deliveries, excessive packaging, and returns. The headline, if there were one, would likely emphasize these negative aspects. The use of quotes from experts mainly supports the negative aspects of online shopping, potentially reinforcing the article's framing.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral, although certain phrases might subtly influence the reader. For instance, repeatedly referring to the "bad thing" about online shopping sets a negative tone. The use of words like "aggressive campaigns" and "mindless consumption" to describe online shopping practices also carries a negative connotation. More neutral phrasing could be used to maintain objectivity.
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses heavily on the environmental impact of online shopping, particularly emissions from transportation and packaging. However, it gives less attention to other potential negative impacts of both online and physical stores, such as labor practices in garment manufacturing (both domestic and international), the use of chemicals in clothing production, and the overall waste generated by the fashion industry regardless of the purchasing method. While the article mentions sustainable brands, it doesn't delve deeply into how widespread these are or their overall impact compared to the larger fast fashion market. There's also limited discussion of the social impact of online vs. in-person shopping, such as the potential for community building around local stores.
False Dichotomy
The article sometimes presents a false dichotomy between online and physical shopping, implying that one is inherently better than the other in terms of sustainability. The reality is far more nuanced, as the environmental impact depends on various factors, such as the brand, the origin of the garment, shipping methods, and the consumer's behavior. For instance, the example comparing a second-hand garment from Germany to a new garment from a local store highlights this complexity, yet the article doesn't fully explore all the variables involved.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the environmental impact of online clothing shopping, including increased emissions from transportation, excessive packaging, and high return rates leading to waste. While online shopping offers access to sustainable brands, the convenience often encourages overconsumption and impulsive buying, negating potential sustainability gains. The rise of online shopping also contributes to increased CO2 emissions in cities.