Conscious Deception: How to Recognise Greenwashing

How to Recognise Greenwashing

As the sustainability conversation in fashion has taken over recent discourse, the topic of greenwashing continues to come up. Greenwashing – a deception meant to make a company's practices seem more eco-conscious than they are – is becoming an industry buzzword as companies scramble to look like they're doing the right thing. Sustainability claims have become a selling point for companies – from being a niche, “hippie” pursuit, caring about the Earth is now cool, and some brands are taking advantage of this mindset shift.

Recognising greenwashing isn't always simple, but knowing the warning signs can help ethical fashion advocates discern between legitimate claims and mere marketing schemes to portray the company more positively. Greenpeace's report Greenwash Danger Zone reveals that large, well-known and recognised fashion brands are particularly noteworthy when it comes to greenwashing.

“Greenwashing is a many-layered issue,” Carry Somers, founder and global operations director of Fashion Revolution, told VOGUE. “Some of it is the customer’s interpretation – what someone sees as greenwashing someone else might see as an important step.” So, where you stand matters, as many of these terms and concepts aren't well defined; here are a few red flags to watch out for when it comes to greenwashing in fashion:

 Using vague terms such as “green”, “natural”, or “eco-friendly”.

Ultimately, these terms have no meaning. They are just marketing words meant to help a product appear a certain way and sway customers to believe they are buying something better. Saying that something is made from “natural” materials doesn't alleviate customers' concerns about how these materials were obtained, where they come from, who made them, what will happen at the end of the product's lifespan, and so on. Terms such as “vegan”, “Fair Trade”, and “organic” have specific, precise meanings. But even those words don't mean that the garment is 100% all-around sustainable – and they aren't meant to. All “organic cotton” means is that the cotton was grown without pesticides, and “vegan” only means that the product has no animal-derived ingredients. There is no term to guarantee that a product can be classed as “sustainable” or “ethical” - two more vague, undefined buzzwords.

 Using recycled materials – but still pushing out around 50 collections per year.

Overproduction is the villain behind most of fashion's issues. We produce overwhelming quantities of clothing, and not only is the production process extremely polluting to the environment, but it also means that extreme amounts of clothing are wasted. Unsold materials are often burned to make room for fresh stock – sometimes as much as 12 tonnes per year. This generates harmful emissions and air pollutants, including substances that can harm human health. Every second, the equivalent of a garbage truck of textiles is either burned or sent to landfill – a shocking statistic that will be lowered by slowing down production and moving away from a trend-led throwaway mentality, not by using recycled polyester. And speaking of recycled...

 Over-relying on recycled materials.

Have you noticed that when fast-fashion brands start their “sustainable” initiatives, they mainly revolve around recycled materials? While recycling is a commendable pursuit and a step in the right direction, relying on it as a brand's entire sustainability strategy is not enough. Firstly, recycling is complex. Recycling shoes, for example, is almost impossible. Recycled polyester – the most commonly used recycled material and one of the most popular fabrics in fashion overall – is difficult to recycle again, meaning that most recycled materials come from PET bottles and not clothes, breaking the closed loop of bottles being made into new bottles, which is quite a simple process. Blended fabrics are often used when recycling, meaning it's hard to recycle again.

 Claiming that workers are paid a “fair” wage.

The term “fair” is not regulated, and nothing is in place to determine what “fair” means – it could stand for different things for different people. Brands claiming they operate according to local laws also do the bare minimum, which should not be considered ethical. The label you should be looking for is “living wage”, a well-defined term which has a meaning built on the costs of living in different countries.

 Using animal skins, primarily newly produced ones.

Animal agriculture is one of the leading causes of the climate crisis, and it is time that fashion takes responsibility for the fact that this includes leather, wool, cashmere and other materials made from animals – agriculture is not exclusive to the food system. These industries also cause animals immense suffering and often violent deaths, reminding us that ethical exploitation doesn't exist – and sustainability without ethics means very little. It is also incorrect to believe that animal skins used in fashion are a way to salvage waste from the food industry. Leather and wool are industries that exist because of demand for them – not due to a desire to minimise waste. Brands that claim to be sustainable but heavily rely on virgin leather, wool and other animal-derived fabrics could be doing more to lessen their impact, such as moving towards plant-based leathers and other innovative, animal-free material choices.

 Hiding behind being a small brand.

Large brands are to blame for most of fashion's negative impact on humans, animals and the planet. But they are not alone. Smaller brands – often those posing as ethically minded – can also be guilty of greenwashing, such as “eco-friendly” brands selling virgin animal skins or vegan brands choosing PVC over plant leathers. Don't be fooled: hold small brands to the same scrutiny you have for their larger counterparts.

 Appointing “sustainability ambassadors”.

A move to help brands look like they are dedicated to sustainability, this move sometimes involves celebrities, like in the recent case of a well-known reality TV star, who presumably has no sustainability-related credentials to her name, becoming sustainability ambassador for a large fast-fashion chain. This greenwashing move is designed to benefit both the company and the celebrity while deflecting attention from the fact that fast fashion companies feature tens of thousands of designs on its website at any given time, items that are made to break quickly and be discarded instantly. If sustainability was high on the agenda, brands would dedicate their time to slowing down production volumes and improving durability rather than using celebrities as smokescreens.

 Ultimately, greenwashing is a sign that we are moving in a direction where consumers increasingly want ethically produced items, and brands are more aware of this than ever. But it's down to consumers to be aware, look behind the labels, and ask questions. The more savvy consumers are, the more difficult they will be to dupe – and that's how actual change begins.

Also in The LaBante Blog