Why is There (Still) No Industry Recognized Definition or Benchmark for Sustainable Fashion?
As awareness of climate change continues to increase, the fashion industry has seen a corresponding rise in products that are marketed as sustainable. However, this surge in sustainable clothing and accessories has also led to confusion among consumers about what it means for a product to be truly sustainable.
A survey conducted by clean manufacturing company Genomatica found that while many people want to make more environmentally-friendly fashion choices, they don't know where to find sustainable products or how to distinguish them from less sustainable alternatives. One survey participant commented, “I find it challenging to make sustainable selections because I'm not clear on the meaning of sustainable when it comes to clothing.”
The Nuanced Layers of Sustainable Fashion
It's understandable that consumers are confused about what sustainable fashion is, because under the current fashion system, it is difficult to define sustainable fashion as a concrete concept. In fact, as pointed out by New York Times Fashion Director Vanessa Friedman, the term “sustainable fashion” is an oxymoron.
Sustainability is generally defined as the ability to be maintained at a certain rate or level —to sustain. Its secondary definition means avoiding the depletion of natural resources to maintain an ecological balance.
Fashion does neither. The very nature of fashion as we know it today implies constant change and newness (think trends, exclusive drops, micro-trends, etc.). Additionally, the industry's current linear “make-take-dispose” business model depletes natural resources at an alarming rate just to overproduce this season's latest viral trends on TikTok that are ultimately destined for landfill.
“There is no such thing as sustainable fashion,” said Maxine Bédat, the founder of the New Standard Institute in an email to SFF. “In no other industry is impact reduction discussed through the label of sustainability. Even electric cars are not called ‘sustainable cars.’” Bédat argues that the term “sustainable fashion” was created by marketing teams within fashion companies as a way to sell a new category of products to consumers who care about sustainability. Instead of focusing on the term “sustainable fashion,” she suggests shifting the conversation to focus on “impact reduction.”
However, while sustainable fashion may be difficult to define in practice, the industry continues to use the term as a broad category for clothing that is produced in ways that have a lower impact on people and the environment.
The hashtag #sustainablefashion has been used 16.5 million times on Instagram, and 2.9 billion minutes have been spent watching videos on TikTok using the #sustainablefashion hashtag. There are sustainable fashion events, consultants, advocacy groups, college courses, degrees, job descriptions, and sustainability-linked bonds. Without a clear, industry-accepted definition of what sustainability means or agreed-upon metrics/requirements to qualify as a sustainable product/brand, there are varying interpretations, objectives, priorities, and solutions necessary to move the industry toward a more responsible future.
Without guidelines, brands can call just about anything “sustainable.” It is entirely up to the company to set its own objectives (creating an incentive for them to make them easy to meet.) And, if or when they don't meet their voluntary goals, there are little to no repercussions. Likewise, without concrete definitions or guidelines for buzzwords like “circular,” eco-friendly,” “ethical,” “responsible,” and “transparent,” the interpretation of these concepts remains left to the brand or consumer’s discretion, allowing companies to bolster their green reputation without any real effort to deliver on climate goals.
“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,” Changing Markets Foundation's Campaigns Adviser, George Harding-Rolls, told SFF in a previous interview. “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.”
“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,” continued Harding-Rolls. “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 false sense of security – a smokescreen that conceals continued exploitation of the planet and allows those responsible to get away with it.”
The Challenge of Defining Sustainability
If we know having such loosely defined concepts is problematic, why hasn't the industry aligned on a collective approach to sustainability in fashion? For an industry that touts the importance of collaboration at every conference and trade show and in every impact report and industry guide, why do we have such a hard time aligning on goals? At the very least, why hasn't the sector set quantifiable terms for fashion's buzziest buzzwords to help alleviate greenwashing, eliminate consumer confusion, and align the industry on common ground?
“Sustainability has come to encompass many different things, and some of these things might actually be at odds with one another: climate impact, addressing human and labor issues, chemical use, microplastic pollution, waste and waste management, development, agricultural management, and land use,” wrote Bédat. “Given this, we should focus on these underlying categories instead and develop benchmarks for them. That way, we also avoid confusing consumers into believing that if they just buy the sustainable thing, they are doing the right thing, as opposed to allowing them to consider that not buying the thing will reduce impacts on most of these measures most.”
The big question here is what those benchmarks should be.
“It's very, very easy to say the current system is out of control and wrong on so many levels,” said Bédat. “It is quite another to define where the industry should be. Some people, and understandably so, just want the entire system to crash down, without much thought to how we will get dressed in line with planetary limits, how we will create a good jobs economy, and, as importantly, how we are going to develop the political alliances to actually realize this vision.”
Industry Standards and Regulations
In the absence of a unified vision, several industry bodies have emerged to create benchmarks to accelerate climate action across the supply chain. However, following a string of controversies surrounding the industry's leading assessment tool and concern that fashion's most trusted initiatives are perpetuating false data, enabling greenwashing, and failing to deliver system-wide transformation, the integrity of these industry tools has been questioned, as well as the methodology behind them.
“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,” said Harding-Rolls. “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. Deciding where the benchmark for sustainability lies should be down to regulation and compliance with that regulation rather than the company's definitions, which can differ hugely.”
In an effort to hold the notoriously unregulated industry accountable, new regulatory proposals in the EU and US have emerged to create the guardrails that the industry desperately needs but lacks the will, incentive, or ability to make happen on its own. “The fashion industry operates on the fast fashion side of things and really profits from a lack of definitions and standards,” said Livia Firth, co-founder and creative director of Eco-Age. “The more confusion there is, the better it is for fast fashion brands. We need really good regulations and one centralized agreed standard and benchmark that takes a scientific and, more than anything, a holistic approach that does not separate environmental from social justice. When regulations come into place, it will be like Armageddon.”
But given the fashion industry's global supply chain that often creates regional differences in working conditions, wages, environmental impacts, and the exploitation of marginalized communities, where do we even begin?
“To regulate this industry across all the areas of major impact will require a suite of legislation and certainly a phased approach,” said Bédat. “It requires legislators to be aware of existing legislation and what are the remaining gaps. Some legislation, like the Fashion Act, will reach climate, labor, and chemical management categories, others will champion domestic change like the Fabric Act, and yet other legislation will need to address waste and waste management, or others will need to focus on carrots, incentives, for example, to move to more sustainable agricultural systems. Creating the guardrails for this or any other industry will require different pieces of legislation, but they must speak to one another and not create different standards, which would result in companies more focused on reporting to satisfy laws and less focused on doing the actual work.”
The Solution Lies in Collaboration
From fashion's reliance on fossil fuels to greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss, microplastic pollution, waste and waste management, labor abuses, forever chemicals, animal warfare, etc., sustainability in fashion is incredibly complex and nuanced. While there’s no simple solution to solving fashion’s role in climate change or tackling the enormous task of creating a just fashion system, one thing is clear: old ways won't open new doors.
For years, the sustainability movement has debated what is and isn't sustainable enough, allowing brands to stall on progress and greenwash their voluntary efforts. Meanwhile, consumers and even industry professionals struggle to determine which brands are genuinely committed to reducing their impact versus those who simply aim to sell more products by appealing to conscious fashion consumers.
As the fashion industry forges new paths building systems and legislation that place people and the planet at the forefront, perhaps it's time to align on common ground and get on the same page about, at the very least, what we're talking about. This includes creating consistent and transparent standards, regulations, and reporting requirements that can help to ensure that the industry is held accountable for its environmental and social impacts.
Given the complexity of the fashion industry's global supply chain, which often results in variations in working conditions, wages, environmental impact, and the exploitation of vulnerable groups, what is the starting point for addressing these issues?
For Bédat, collaboration and unusual alliances are key to solving the complex challenges facing the fashion industry. “It will take the ecosystem,” said Bédat. “It will take unusual alliances between advocates and internal champions within the industry, who entered that industry because they thought it was a way to effect change, to work together in a common cause.”
