Ahead of its planned London IPO, fast fashion retail giant Shein announced the launch of a €200mn “circularity fund” to tackle waste in fashion. The company devotes an entire section of its website to its efforts to reduce waste and enable a circular future. According to its literature on the subject, it aims to decarbonize its supply chain, and source responsible materials. The same company also adds over 2000 products to its website every day and emits 6.3 million tons of carbon dioxide a year in its production processes. If this sounds like an oxymoron, it’s because it is. And that’s the problem with sustainable fast fashion – it’s a myth – it doesn’t exist. 

The fashion industry is estimated to be responsible for 10% of global carbon emissions – more than aviation and maritime shipping combined – as well as polluting water, destroying forests, and releasing microplastics into our food chains. Conversely, few industries tout their eco credentials and commitment to sustainability as loudly as fashion. Search the term “sustainable fashion” on google and you’ll be met by over 262,000,000 results. Like Shein, almost every brand – from luxury conglomerate LVMH to ultra-cheap online retailer Boohoo – espouses commitment to sustainability and the environment despite the obvious and self-evident contradictions in their claims. However, 2024 is fast becoming a year of reckoning with brands forced to retreat on claims of sustainability and acknowledge the inconsistencies between their marketing and the realities of their business models. 

In January, California passed the Voluntary Carbon Market Disclosures Act; a law intended to combat greenwashing by requiring disclosure on net zero, carbon neutrality and emissions reduction claims. A Directive introduced by the European Union in March, directly addresses the issue by requiring large European companies to provide scientific validation before using terms such as “eco-friendly”, “biodegradable”, or “sustainable”. France has taken things a step further – the French Parliament this year voted unanimously in favor of a bill to ban fast fashion advertising altogether. If ratified by the Senate, the infringing law will carry penalties of up to €100,000.

Regulatory investigations conducted in Europe have also proved successful in holding brands to account. On the back of a probe by the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority in April of this year, both Boohoo and Asos have voluntarily committed to set out clearly what products qualify for eco ranges, and to give clear information on why materials are considered “sustainable”. They also pledged to refrain from using natural imagery such as green leaves to suggest products look more environmentally friendly than they in fact are. 

Greenwashing is nothing new. The term was first coined by environmentalist Jay Westerfield in 1986 in relation to a hotel policy that claimed the reusing of towels was to “save the environment,” when, in reality, it was to reduce the hotel’s laundry costs. However, the growing urgency of the climate crisis – several California locations have just this week broken record temperatures – has put increased focus on the role greenwashing plays in the unfolding environmental Armageddon. 

Historically, one of the stumbling blocks in preventing a crackdown on greenwashing has been the lack of any uniformity when it comes to the use of “green” terminology. Words like sustainable and eco-friendly and can be vague and open to interpretation depending on their context and usage. Another problem has been the use of deflection tactics. Zara, the fast-fashion retail subsidiary of the Spanish multinational manufacturing and retailing group Inditex, this year committed to using sustainable paper packaging, earning itself eco credentials while simultaneously drawing attention away from the 450 million garments of clothing that it produces each year. 

For customers, it can be confusing and a struggle to differentiate between brands with a genuine ethos of sustainability and those who appropriate green terminology in a cynical attempt to win customers. Large fashion brands with huge advertising budgets and reach across social media platforms drown out those with concrete and credible programs in place, undermining their efforts and making it incredibly difficult for them to compete.

Consumers, as well as regulators, are lethargic with the lack of transparency from fashion retailers and reports suggest that most people support laws that clamp down on misleading and false assertions used in advertising and are less likely to purchase from brands who make them. A class action filed in Missouri against Nike last year claimed that the sports behemoth was falsely marketing products as “sustainable and environmentally friendly” when less than 10 percent of the 2,452 products that make up Nike’s sustainability collection were made from recycled materials. The suit was ultimately dismissed for lack of evidence, but its filing highlighted consumers’ increasing frustration and should serve as a wakeup call – time’s up for greenwashing in fashion.

Article originally published in The Hill, 21/07/2024