Eco-smart, green chic, verde glamour … the words “sustainable” and “fashion” are not typically synonymous to most of us as we try to cobble together a way to live with less impact on the world. Yet, we cannot ignore the fact that fashion, especially in men’s and women’s couture, is a vital part of our culture and economy. Still, this is a tough topic in these times of social re-evaluation and limited employment options.

I work “virtually” about 75 percent of the week. “Virtually” means at home, with the dogs, and without many outings or visitors. Most of my human interaction is via phone and email. Fashion is not a concern. Lounge pants, T-shirts, a couple of old pairs of heavy canvas pants, and some threadbare denim shirts I wear when gardening. Chic fail. The other day, I had to make a quick trip out to help a friend, and I caught a glimpse of myself in a store window. It caused me to do a double-take. How could I have possibly left the house looking like this?

What we employ in our manner of dress does impact those around us, whether right or wrong. I know I have passed quick and unkind judgments on those who insist on sharing their loud music with everyone on the street, or a fellow transit rider who might not smell pleasant. Those impositions are based on receptors in my brain being fed by my ears and nose. Does the same hold true for the visual stimulation from what is considered unfashionable versus what is fashionable? Is that response and reactivity the same mechanism?

That question sent me on a search which sparked some inner dialogue: Stephen Bayley, a mid 20th-century British fashion critic, wrote: “Fashion is the most intense expression of the phenomenon of neomania, which has grown ever since the birth of capitalism. Neomania assumes that purchasing the new is the same as acquiring value. If the purchase of a new garment coincides with the wearing out of an old one, then obviously there is no fashion. If a garment is worn beyond the moment of its natural replacement, there is pauperization. Fashion flourishes on surplus, when someone buys more than he or she needs.” This may be true for the “Paris, Milan, NY” fashion-set that gets the most media attention; I do not think it holds true for our cultural shift. It is possible to own great quality, environmentally friendly, and adaptable options. I believe fashion rests in simplicity. The more basic the concept, the longer it is viable, and the easier it is to accessorize.

George C. Lichtenberg, the 18th-century German physicist, said, “Even truth needs to be clad in new garments if it is to appeal to a new age.” It is all in the packaging, isn’t it? If we as individuals want to make an impression as mission-driven and sincere, we have to realize that others, whether they mean to or not, do initially judge a book by its cover.

Fashion can be seen not as economics, but also as art. It is an artistic expression of designers, fabricators and individuals. Style needn’t be shallow. “Fashion is in the sky, in the street; fashion has to do with ideas, the way we live, what is happening.” Coco Chanel’s words ring true. What is fashionable can be seen as a sign of what is artistically and socially important. When it comes right down to it, though, Yves Saint Laurent said it best, “… what is important in a dress is the woman wearing it.” The façade may get our interest, but the content holds it there.

In my position, I look at the industry—businesses and individuals—who are exacting change by creating and selling smart fashion. We are active participants in an economy where we need to support eco-sensitive manufacturing and design. We vote for sustainability with our purchases. Ideally, our sense of fashion needs to reflect our integrity. Meryl Steep said in the film, The Devil Wears Prada, “… that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs, and it is sort of comical how you think that you’ve made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry … when in fact, you are wearing a sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room.”