This week, fashion’s proving it gives a shit about the environment

Earlier this year, San Francisco became the first major U.S. city to ban the sale of new fur within its city limits. As the once upon a time bastion of progressivism in the country, the news isn't too shocking, but the movement isn't exclusive to the Bay Area. This week, California unanimously passed the California Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act, SB 1249, a landmark bill that will effectively prohibit the sale of cosmetic and personal hygiene products tested on animals — which includes major lines like Benefit, Clinique, Estée Lauder, Maybelline, OPI, and more — starting January 1, 2020.

Meanwhile, under the reign of new creative director Riccardo Tisci, Burberry announced that it would be going fur-free ahead of his debut collection. The decision follows in the path of other luxury houses like Gucci and Versace, and lifts some pressure off the English fashion house who got pulled through the ringer for burning $37.8 million worth of unsold products in an attempt to protect brand value. The fur-free mentality also landed firmly at London Fashion Week, which announced today that no animal fur will be used in any official runway show or presentation.

"We think that modern luxury that doesn't take into account the social and environmental responsibility really has no meaning," said Burberry CEO Marco Gobbetti in an interview with Business of Fashion. "Now customers are not happy if you don't care about the environment they live in." Like the clout that comes with being "socially-aware," environmentalism is shaping up to be the cause du jour of brands. Yes, it's a positive step forward, but it's also one that has to be taken with a grain of salt. Brands only begin to care because of the reckoning that awaits them if they don't.

Thumbnail via Peta2's Instagram.