New French laws have put ultra-fast fashion companies on notice. Should we follow suit?

France has introduced a world-first law to curb the fast fashion industry’s environmental and human impact, including taxing ultra-fast fashion brands and banning advertising.

The move has prompted fresh calls for our government to instate similar laws. But what would this look like? And how viable are French-style laws on fast fashion in Australia?

Credit: Aresna Villanueva; iStock

What does the new French law say?

Last week, France’s senate almost unanimously voted to pass an updated version of legislation first proposed in 2024, revised to effectively target Chinese-based retailers like Shein and Temu and exempt European-owned companies like Zara and H&M.

Companies will be rated according to an “eco-score” based on 16 environmental indicators, including carbon emissions, water consumption, recyclability and biodiversity impact.

Brands with the lowest rating will be taxed up to €5 euros (around $9) per product in 2025 and up to €10 (around $18) by 2030. This tax cannot exceed 50 per cent of the product’s price.

Advertising from fast fashion brands, including on social media and through influencer partnerships, will also be banned, while companies will be required to inform customers of their products’ environmental impact.

Dr Rowena Maguire, director of the Centre for Justice at Queensland University of Technology, “strongly supports” the new legislation.

“They’re the first in the world to take decisive action on fast fashion, and in particular recognise the strong relationship between advertising and the influence that has on consumption patterns,” she says.

Some environmental advocates have criticised the legislation’s relatively light approach to “classic” fast fashion retailers like Zara compared to Shein or Temu.

Maguire says shielding domestically owned corporations is partly spurred by a global political trend towards protectionism.

Professor Justine Nolan, director of the Australian Human Rights Institute at the University of New South Wales, acknowledges the scope of the law is narrow, but says it’s a step in the right direction.

“[The law] sends a signal to all fashion labels that their business models need to mainstream environmental considerations as they are in the sight of regulators,” she says.

Both Shein and Temu say they operate ethically and are not fast fashion brands.

What’s happening in Australia?

The Australian government has been slow to regulate the fast fashion industry, but some action is taking shape.

In 2024, clothing stewardship scheme Seamless was launched by the federal government, with the aim of reducing our local fashion industry’s carbon footprint.

The stewardship is funded by a levy of 4 cents per sale paid for by participating brands, including David Jones, Country Road and M.J. Bale.

In 2024, then environment minister Tanya Plibersek launched clothing stewardship scheme Seamless.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen

Yet some experts say initiatives like Seamless are not enough.

“There’s lots of evidence to suggest you need a mandatory scheme to actually drive change,” says Maguire. “Otherwise, you get free riders – a few good brands and retailers having to cover the costs of everybody else’s recycling.”

She also thinks the levy of 4 cents should be closer to France’s tax of up to $9 if it is to meaningfully influence consumer behaviour.

In 2024, then environment minister Tanya Plibersek said Seamless would introduce mandates if not enough brands signed on. Around 60 brands and retailers are currently partners.

Danielle Kent, general manager of industry transformation at Seamless, says while the scheme is still in its nascency, they have established a circular design training program and are starting to look at what collecting, sorting and recycling clothing at scale might look like.

“The French scheme started in 2007, so they’re 18 years ahead.”

“We do not want to find ourselves in another soft plastics debacle where we are collecting and there’s nowhere to go. It’s really important we are measured in the way that we go forward.”

She says Seamless is aiming for a regulatory framework but will remain voluntary for now.

Australia also has a National Waste Policy Action Plan, aimed at transitioning to a circular economy. But it does not include specific guidelines or targets for textile waste, despite the fact that around 60 per cent of modern clothing is made from synthetic fibres and more than 200,000 tonnes of clothing go to landfill each year.

A spokesperson for the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water says they “support the fashion industry in Australia to be more responsible for the environmental impacts of clothing,” such as through funding Seamless.

Key statistics

• Australians are the top consumers of new clothing per capita in the world, spending an average of $13 per item.
• Australians throw out more than 200,000 tonnes of clothing each year.
• In 2023, Shein’s Australian sales hit $1 billion, while Temu has more than 1.2 million Australian shoppers, amassing an estimated $1.3 billion in annual sales.
• Shein’s 2023 sustainability report revealed the company’s carbon emissions had almost tripled in three years, making it the biggest polluter in the fashion industry.
• Fast fashion retailers like Shein and Temu have previously been investigated by anti-slavery groups for the use of forced labour.

What would similar laws look like here?

So, why does Australia lag so far behind countries like France in holding the fashion industry to account?

“Australia has tended to be a follower in developing legislation to regulate human rights and environmental impacts,” says Nolan, adding that Australians are some of the top consumers of new apparel globally.

Nina Gbor, director of the Australia Institute’s Circular Economy and Waste Program, is calling on the federal government to introduce “French-style” laws to regulate the fast fashion industry.Credit: Irena Traikovsky

Jaana Quintance-James, CEO of the Australian Fashion Council, praises the French legislation but is unsure whether similar laws would be suitable in Australia at this point, given the current lack of environment and ethical reporting capabilities that would be used to inform legislation.

She first wants to see greater government investment in Australian manufacturing to support our local textile, clothing and footwear industries.

“The Australian government is not recognising the powerhouse that our industry is. We employ 500,000 people. It’s $28 billion worth of value added into the economy,” she says.

“About 97 per cent of what is sold in Australia is made offshore. The tariffs are the latest example of when we are at the mercy of international supply chains, and we need to build greater resilience.”

In 2024, The Australia Institute called on the federal government to support programs for waste repair and recycling and develop a French-style tax on fast fashion.

Nina Gbor, director of the institute’s Circular Economy and Waste Program, says while “everyone has a responsibility” to shop sustainably, it is time for regulation to come into force.

“We’ve passed the stage of what individuals can do. There’s too much focus on individual action. Right now, we need to all be screaming at the government to do something.”

Her policy recommendations include investment in on-shore recycling, expanded education programs, tax incentives, and supporting Australian brands with capital and marketing.

The Australian Retailers Association has called on the government to take similar action, with CEO Chris Rodwell, saying: “The rise of ultra-cheap global online retailers, like Temu and Shein, is changing the retail landscape at pace.”

“The ARA is advocating for government action to close tax loopholes, enforce compliance with Australian consumer protection laws, and level the playing field across sustainability, safety, and modern slavery requirements.”

Neither the Australia Institute nor the ARA has submitted formal proposals to the government yet.

While Australia instituted a Modern Slavery Act in 2019, Nolan says: “It has not substantially addressed the problem or facilitated significant changes in business practices.”

She wants to see the introduction of penalties for non-compliance and mandatory human rights due diligence, like the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.

She thinks advertising bans could go hand-in-hand with this, but “given the long-term challenges currently faced in passing bans on marketing in industries such as gambling and fossil fuels, it may be slow.”

Make the most of your health, relationships, fitness and nutrition with our Live Well newsletter. Get it in your inbox every Monday.