​

In the language of contemporary fashion, “fur-free” has become a shorthand for ethics. With a growing demand for sustainable and cruelty-free products, fake furs have developed into an acceptable and “environmentally friendly” alternative to real fur. Since the 1980s, campaigns led by PETA and others have so thoroughly vilified real fur that it now lingers as a cultural taboo. And yet, on the runway and in fashion imagery, fur remains omnipresent, its visual codes recycled in shows, editorials, and campaigns. The allure of fur as a symbol of luxury and status persists, even if its material reality has been replaced. Faux fur neatly fills this gap: it offers the look without the guilt, allowing brands to maintain the aesthetic while corporate sustainability pages reassure us with promises of “fur-free,” “sustainable,” and “cruelty-free” alternatives. Beneath this performance, however, faux fur is no less implicated in environmental violence.

 

Yet the question is not just about fur versus faux fur. The deeper issue is the material reality of synthetic fibres, the fossil-fuel backbone of fashion’s supposedly “sustainable” alternatives. Marketed as cruelty-free, they continue to feed the industry’s dependency on oil, all while disguising its deeper dependency: the imperative of perpetual consumption.