The Bad Bunny Paradox: the hidden cost of inclusivity

The Super Bowl of 2026 hosted a decidedly memorable Halftime Show. The star of the performance was the Puerto Rican artist Bad Bunny, pseudonym of Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio, who built a performance as a tribute to the entire American continent, placing at its center fundamental themes such as the unity of American peoples, at a time marked by strong tensions in the United States.

For the occasion, Bad Bunny wore a custom piece designed by Zara, a Spanish fast fashion brand. The choice raised numerous concerns, especially in light of the criticism directed at the brand regarding environmental and social sustainability at the expense of communities already exposed to the climate crisis, including Latin America itself.

At this point, it becomes inevitable to question the legitimacy of such a choice: is it right to praise an artist who has spread an important message of unity while at the same time promoting a controversial production model that affects precisely the communities to which he expressed solidarity? The global scale of the event imposes higher expectations on cultural icons of such influence and opens a broader reflection on the relationship between celebrities, the public and responsible consumption: to what extent can the messages conveyed on stage be considered coherent with the economic practices that support them?

The recent transformation of fashion, which includes the rise of the fast fashion model - characterized by the production of large quantities of garments at low prices - has often been defined as “democratic” because it makes trends accessible to (almost) everyone that were once reserved for elites. For this reason, stylistic choices that include fast fashion garments also become inclusive, such as Bad Bunny’s. However, the environmental and social risks associated with this phenomenon are significant, and a large part of them is unevenly distributed across the world. With the intensification of globalization, many companies have relocated the clothing production chain to low- and middle-income countries, attracted by lower labor costs. Textile consumption, however, is concentrated mainly in high-income countries: every year about 80 billion new garments are purchased worldwide and, while most are produced in countries such as China and Bangladesh, consumption mainly comes from wealthier economies, particularly the United States. Here, about 90% of garments sold are made of cotton or polyester. The latter, a synthetic material derived from petroleum, requires extremely long degradation times and releases plastic microfibers and contaminating chemical substances in landfills. These same microfibers are also dispersed during washing, reaching waterways and oceans.

Cotton, on the other hand, involves intensive use of water and land. The British NGO Earthsight has accused Zara and H&M of being linked to illegal deforestation practices in Brazil, including land grabbing, corruption and violence in cultivation areas. According to the report, even cotton certified as ethical by the Better Cotton system would be involved in environmental crimes. Part of these activities would be concentrated in the Cerrado, a vast savanna considered the second most important biome in Brazil, where in 2023 vegetation destruction increased by 43%. Deforestation, in addition to devastating ecosystems, directly affects traditional and Indigenous communities, often deprived of their lands.

When considered across the entire supply chain, the fashion industry is responsible for about 8-10% of global carbon emissions. This is also due to the fact that the fast fashion model encourages consumers to consider clothing as disposable: it is estimated that the average American throws away about 40 kg of clothes and textiles per year, but only 1% of textile materials is recycled into new garments at the end of their life cycle. A large portion of textile waste ends up in second-hand clothing markets which, lacking the support and resources necessary to develop an efficient recycling system, cause the displacement of tons of textile waste into unregulated contexts.

An example is Chile, which in 2021 became the fourth largest importer of used textiles in the world and the first in Latin America. According to a 2023 study, almost 40% of these items enter through duty-free ports located in the coastal city of Iquique, at the western edge of the Atacama Desert. While some garments are resold in small shops and street markets, the rest are destined for the desert, exported to other Latin American countries or burned.

Alongside environmental impact, the fashion industry also generates significant social implications. Zara, for example, has been at the center of numerous investigations regarding irregular treatment of workers in Latin America, with accusations of exploitation in some factories in Argentina and Brazil.

These dynamics also extend to the cultural dimension of the countries in which they operate. Global fashion brands dominate Latin American markets not only economically but also symbolically: consumers in the region tend to prefer international brands over local ones, perceived as less prestigious, risking the erosion of local expressions and consolidating a standardized consumption model. However, it is necessary for these local brands to survive, as they better adapt to the environmental and social logics of their country of origin and preserve local culture. Choosing a global brand instead of local designers is not only an aesthetic or economic decision, but also a cultural and political one.

The existence of alternatives, including local designers that Bad Bunny could have drawn from, should prompt criticism, because artists with a massive global following contribute to shaping consumption behaviors. An event of global magnitude such as the Super Bowl further amplifies this effect: it influences the perception of a brand like Zara and presents it as a fairer choice compared to high fashion. In reality, what changes between choosing fast fashion and luxury designers is not the structure of inequalities but their boundary: the distance between those who can afford high fashion and those who cannot becomes the distance between those who can buy fast fashion and those who suffer its greatest social and environmental consequences.

If the increase in the portion of the population that can see itself represented by such a choice defines it as “popular” and makes us feel more included, we should rethink the real meaning of the term. Data show that fast fashion does not produce widespread benefits and, in fact, may benefit no one except those who profit from it.

The alternative exists, and it lies not only in supporting local designers - often inaccessible to many - but above all in a slow fashion approach oriented toward conscious consumption and reuse. Brands have the moral responsibility and economic resources to change direction, but our choices also carry weight. For this reason, it is essential to demand more conscious choices from celebrities, especially because their decisions, whether we like it or not, influence ours. If even the most progressive symbolic gestures end up supporting economic models that produce inequalities, then inclusivity risks remaining only an appearance.