1. A Paradigm Shift in the Name of Goodwill: The Decade from 2015

It's been about 10 years since the term "sustainability" became a huge common language in the fashion industry

Let's turn back the clock to around 2015. The international community adopted the UN's "SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals)" and signed the "Paris Agreement" to combat climate change. At the same time, in the fashion world, still reeling from the shock of the 2013 garment factory collapse in Bangladesh (the Rana Plaza tragedy), a sense of guilt regarding fast fashion, which is based on mass production and mass consumption, suddenly came to the surface

Luxury brands, which had previously been allowed to get away with simply selling "beauty" and "dreams," were suddenly faced with ethical accountability

• The SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals)set forth 17 multifaceted goals, including respect for human rights, fair working conditions, and reduction of marine plastic pollution, and have become a new measure of a brand's "quality."
• Carbon neutrality (net-zero greenhouse gas emissions): This scientifically-backed "get-out-of-jail-free card" has been introduced to fashion runways, where CO2 emissions from raw material procurement to manufacturing, transportation, and disposal are reduced to the absolute minimum, and any remaining emissions are offset through carbon offsetting.

The prevailing sentiment became that "luxury that isn't environmentally friendly isn't true luxury," and fashion houses alike adopted "eco-friendly," "plastic-free," and "animal-free" as their banners. And at the forefront of this trend, reigning as a maverick pioneer, was Stella McCartney

Overwhelming affection and the "chemical death" that occurred in my hands

I still like the Stella McCartney brand, though

The humorous illustrations and playful, pop-art kids' line are simply adorable. The gentle feel of organic cotton, which protects the soil without relying on pesticides, and the accessories carefully woven from natural raffia (palm leaf fiber) that shines in the summer sun—these pieces truly embody her exceptional design sense and the genuine beauty of plant-derived materials

I wasn't just a consumer swept up in trends. I cherished and used her signature bags in my daily life. They weren't cheap purchases, after all

However, one day, Japan's humidity mercilessly brings those garments to their limits

The handle gradually becomes unpleasantly sticky, the once refined surface becomes heavy, opaque, and dull, clinging to your fingertips with every touch. The more you wipe it, the more the surface coating deepens its eerie cloudiness, losing its luster and its original texture. And then, the surface starts to peel..

"Hydrolysis" is the process by which polyurethanes and chemical resins decompose when they combine with moisture in the atmosphere

It's that thing where the sole of your shoe breaks apart

Even if natural materials (cotton and raffia) can express such rich and sustainable beauty, the moment you aim for a "leather substitute (synthetic leather)," you fall into the trap of chemicals. No matter how attached you become to it, you can't escape its physical lifespan, which quietly self-destructs in your hands... or so it seems

Standing before the remnants of a bag that was completely beyond repair and no longer usable, I am left with a rather absurd question

Genuine leather products can last for decades with just regular oiling and airing. In contrast, should this supposedly "environmentally friendly bag" have been stored in a dehumidifying cabinet designed for cameras, under blue LED light while consuming electricity and filled with desiccants, being kept in an overly protective and rigorous state like a delicate piece of machinery, in order to extend its lifespan?

To protect bags made "for the sake of the global environment," I run a power-hungry dehumidifying cabinet in my room and consume large quantities of disposable chemical desiccants

This perverse question is the stark and inconvenient truth inherent in the modern sustainable trend. It is a clear physical deception to glorify plastic alternatives that end up in the trash within a few years as "perfectly eco-friendly," while simultaneously basing the decade-long hype of "sustainability" and "carbon neutrality" on such materials

Deconstructing the illusion of "life extension"

Why do these failures occur? Isn't it because many modern sustainable materials don't take into account the "physical lifespan (time axis) of the product"?

Genuine leather, which can last for 100 years, is rejected as a "sin" (a source of guilt) due to its environmental impact during manufacturing and concerns about animal welfare. On the other hand, polyurethane-based vegan leather, which does not harm animals, is praised as a "pure absolution." However, while the former can be passed down almost indefinitely with proper care, the latter undergoes hydrolysis within a few years, becoming dull and turning into microplastic waste

Discrimination based on climate zone is also cruel. Materials that can survive for five years in the low-humidity climate of Europe will decompose in two to three years under Japan's hot and humid climate

No matter how beautiful the slogans may be, the alternative materials available today are designed to self-destruct far faster than "human attachment."

"Sinful leather that lasts 100 years" versus "pure resin that self-destructs in a few years." From a long-term perspective, which is truly destroying the environment? In terms of extending lifespan, I feel that current vegan leather is nowhere near sustainable

To ensure the tragedy is not in vain: Affirmation as a prototype

However, I can't bring myself to simply dismiss the remnants of the bag I ruined as a "failure of hypocrisy."

Because innovation always blossoms only amidst a mountain of absurd failures

Looking back at history, the first automobiles were slower than horse-drawn carriages, spewed smoke, and frequently broke down, disappointing people. Early steam engines and the Wright brothers' airplanes were far from perfect, resembling toys

Isn't the "de-leathering" struggle we've been trying to accomplish over the past decade also in the same realm?

New materials using mycelium (such as Mylo), biotechnology, and recycled resins are still "incomplete technologies" in their developmental stages. They struggle to become substitutes for genuine leather, become sticky due to hydrolysis, and succumb to Japan's humidity. This is the raw research and development process that humanity is undertaking to escape the age-old curse of genuine leather

The commercial line sells unfinished materials, customers buy them, use them in their daily lives, and then they ruin them, experiencing the "sadness of them becoming unusable." It is this collection of data on failures and the despairing feedback that drives the next generation of chemists and designers to develop "biological materials that do not hydrolyze" and "non-animal materials that age beautifully."

I don't think perfect sustainability exists in this world as of 2026

That's why I don't consider bags that have become sticky, dull, and unusable to be "wasted purchases."

I quietly want to believe that it was an "investment in a prototype" to advance the history of fashion, and that it is still in the process of development