With No Industry Agreed-Upon Definition of Sustainability, is There Really Such a Thing as Greenwashing?
Welcome to Quick Question, an SFF series where we unpack the sometimes confusing topics that are often discussed but not always explained in sustainable fashion.
As the global climate crisis continues to mount and consumers increasingly want to align their purchases with their values, brands are responding by making sustainability commitments, setting climate goals, and vowing to minimize their environmental impact. However, as customer interest in fashion's footprint has increased, so has greenwashing — falsified and/or misleading messages that deceive the public and bury the reality of a brand's sustainability efforts.
Coined in the 1980s, the term 'greenwashing' was first used by environmentalist Jay Westerveld to describe corporate environmental claims that were deemed false. Today, the term greenwashing is used to describe when a brand’s marketing around sustainability doesn't align with its actual business practices.
As consumers, investors, and governments demand progress, greenwashing runs rampant with brands loading their marketing messages with vague buzzwords, narrowly focused cherry-picked goals, nonexistent timelines, and green claims unsupported by credible data.
Greenwashing has become so blatant that even industry professionals can find it difficult at times to determine which brands are genuinely committed to reducing their impact on the environment versus those who simply aim to sell more products by appealing to conscious fashion consumers.
However, the industry lacks an agreed-upon definition of what sustainability means or an established benchmark for the minimum requirements needed for a company to be considered "sustainable.” Is there truly even such a thing as greenwashing when brands can technically decide for themselves what sustainability means and set their own standards and consequences (or lack thereof) if those standards aren’t met?
To answer this, we enlisted the insight from the Changing Markets Foundation, whose recently launched website — Greenwash.com — is dedicated to raising awareness and showcasing the variety of tactics fashion brands use to make their products seem greener than they are.
To get the scoop on the website that’s putting brands’ sustainability claims to the test, we spoke with CMF’s Campaigns Adviser, George Harding-Rolls to get the tea.
SFF: What is Greenwash.com?
George Harding-Rolls: Greenwash.com is an online platform from the Changing Markets Foundation built to expose the rife greenwashing consumers are faced with today. We have started with the fashion industry, but we have plans to expand it to other areas, such as packaging and food.
The project aims to showcase the variety of tactics fashion brands use to make their products seem greener than they are or give themselves an eco-reputation through greenwashed adverts and projects. By showing the wild west of greenwashing in fashion, we hope to demonstrate the need for strong legislation in the fashion industry to level the playing field. The industry remains one of the most lightly regulated globally, and most efforts towards sustainability are voluntary and therefore optional.
SFF: What is greenwashing and why is it a problem?
George Harding-Rolls: Greenwashing is a term used to explain the practice of falsifying or overstating the green credentials of a product, service, brand, or even a company itself. It can be subtle, for example, using logos and colors or omitting certain information to give the impression that a product is more environmentally friendly than it really is. Or it can take the form of broad, vague claims on products, for example, ‘carbon-neutral’, ‘sustainable’ or ‘responsible’.
A YouGov survey conducted in 2021 found that more than half (52%) of UK consumers based their purchasing decisions on a brand’s eco-credentials, and often, companies charge a price premium for greener products. But if most of these claims are false, then consumers’ well-intentioned actions tally up to nothing. Greenwashing is problematic for progressive companies and is considered an unfair business practice. As consumers are increasingly looking for environmentally-friendly products, the businesses that are genuinely trying to make a change can be disadvantaged by the ones that are making false or misleading claims.
“Greenwashing lulls us into a fall sense of security – a smokescreen that conceals continued exploitation of the planet and allows those responsible to get away with it.”
The bigger problem with greenwashing is that it misleads us into believing change is happening when in reality, nothing has changed, or the situation has worsened. For example, in the fashion industry, the number of products labeled as sustainable or green has increased exponentially in recent years, and yet the toll exacted on the planet by the industry has continued to grow; rising emissions, increasing reliance on fossil-fuel derived synthetics, skyrocketing overconsumption, and a growing waste crisis. Greenwashing lulls us into a fall sense of security – a smokescreen that conceals continued exploitation of the planet and allows those responsible to get away with it.
The kind of systemic action that is needed to address environmental challenges across all sectors can also be undermined by greenwashing. We need legislative measures to address several crises that the world faces simultaneously, such as the climate emergency, the plastic pollution crisis, and the rapid loss of wildlife and biodiversity. Suppose companies can unfairly market their products and services as environmentally friendly. In that case, this can mislead the public and policy-makers into believing that progress is happening voluntarily and that we do not need legislation. Greenwashing is a pervasive and dangerous form of hypocrisy that collectively blinds us to the scale of the challenge we face.
SFF: There currently is no industry agreed-upon definition of sustainability or the bare minimum requirements of what defines a product (or brand) as sustainable. Therefore, without guidelines, is there really such a thing as greenwashing when any claim, no matter how small, can still, technically, be considered sustainable?
George Harding-Rolls: Greenwashing is about making green claims for a product, and it’s about backing up those claims with evidence. There’s clear guidance from the CMA on what constitutes a green claim (it can even be as subtle as a color or logo), so you don’t need a definition of sustainability to have greenwashing.
Greenwashing is about consumer protection and less about whether products are sustainable or not. For example, when M&S says its products are ‘Kinder to the Environment’, this is greenwashing not because their materials are ‘unsustainable’ but because they’re not providing a meaningful comparison – they’re not saying what it’s more sustainable than or telling us how they’ve set their minimum requirements. The same goes for claims about circularity. When ASOS says its clothes are designed to be remade or made from mono-materials to make recycling more accessible, they’re not providing the complete picture to the consumer – firstly by making false claims as some of these products were actually not mono-materials, and secondly by not giving information on the full-lifecycle of the product, given that less than 1% of textiles are currently recycled into new textiles.
“Greenwashing is about consumer protection and less about whether products are sustainable or not.”
SFF: Why do you think there isn't an industry-wide accepted definition for sustainability or bare minimum requirements when it could help alleviate issues of greenwashing?
George Harding-Rolls: Reaching a consensus on the definition of sustainability in fashion isn’t something the industry should decide. It has a vested interest in keeping such a definition lenient. It would be like asking oil and gas companies to define clean energy or asking the meat industry to decide how much beef should be in a sustainable diet.
Ultimately, when greenwashing is regulated more, such as we’re seeing now, the only green claims that will be allowed will be those that give the consumer a realistic picture of just how green a product is. Regarding where the benchmark for sustainability lies, that should be down to regulation and compliance with that regulation, rather than the company’s definitions, which can differ hugely. Rather than having a pass or fail for sustainability, alleviating greenwashing is about providing as much context as possible as to what actions have been taken to reduce the impact of the product by the company, and then working on minimum requirements on a mandatory, legally binding basis, such as is being worked on by the EU.
“Some brands are clearly very committed to selling low-impact clothing, and in this case it may just be about providing more detailed information or careful wording. Others are clearly making green claims to make their products more marketable.”
SFF: What are some of the most common greenwashing tactics brands use?
George Harding-Rolls: Part of the issue we’re seeing with greenwashing is that brands lump products into a ‘sustainable’ category, based on a broad definition or even a singular ‘sustainable’ characteristic (e.g. using recycled plastic bottles in clothing) that doesn’t give a full picture of the product’s impact.
Calling out greenwashing isn’t about saying definitively that a product is not sustainable but that it’s trading on green credentials or sustainability without giving enough evidence or information to prove this point. This is turn pushes the bar even lower for how brands communicate sustainability.
It’s also to do with the intention of the company. Some brands are clearly very committed to selling low-impact clothing, and in this case it may just be about providing more detailed information or careful wording. Others, such as Boohoo, Pretty Little Thing and high street brands like H&M and Zara, are clearly making green claims to make their products more marketable.
Examples on the website include a pair of ASOS trousers claiming to be “mono-material” and have “zero-waste design” and to be "easier to recycle”, when in reality they are a blend of polyester and nylon and impossible to recycle.
We also often saw that brands use high amounts of virgin synthetics made from fossil fuels and yet have green claims associated with them due to a slight ‘sustainable’ characteristic – an organic cotton trim, for example. This leaves out essential information about the product that may make the customer think twice.
Adverts and projects from fashion brands are also featured, such as H&M’s advert using young climate activists. This kind of marketing gives the company a green glow but belies the fact that they plan to double production by 2030.
SFF: What happens when/if brands are exposed for greenwashing on Greenwash.com? What are the consequences? What happens? How often do you intend to update Greenwash.com? It seems like that would be a full-time job.
George Harding-Rolls:We are working on future functionality to allow users to report greenwashing directly to the relevant authority through the website, such as the Advertising Standards Authority or Competition and Markets Authority in the UK. Until then, we hope it will help people recognize greenwashing tactics when they see them in the wild and inform policymakers of the urgent need to regulate.
Updating the website could certainly be a full-time job, yes! The purpose of the website is not exhaustive, but to make a point about how unregulated a space the fashion industries and others are.
