Case Studies: Fashion Brands Accused of Greenwashing
When profits are at stake, some brands will go to great lengths to safeguard them. They often resort to tactics that exploit the consciences and desires of their customers. This time-tested strategy, used for generations, involves advertising campaigns that play on buyers’ emotions, and then yield outstanding results.
Today, with an increasing demand for sustainable practices in fashion, customers have become quite discerning in their fashion choices. Their desire to do well by the planet has forced many companies to change their practices.
Many other brands have made tall claims about their operations being eco-friendly, but have been found to be engaged in greenwashing. In fact, as many as 60% of the brands claiming to be sustainable are outright misleading and deceiving their customers.
Greenwashing in fashion is a relatively new phenomenon but is now quite rampant in the industry. Read on to see which of your favourite fashion brands have been caught involved in it.
Greenwashing brands
Major fashion companies have been accused of greenwashing by regulators and even discerning buyers. Some brands have even faced class action lawsuits. Some cases include:
H&M
On the 22nd of July, Chelsea Commodore, a resident of New York, filed a lawsuit against the fast fashion powerhouse, H&M. The plaintiff alleged that the company’s sustainability claims were misleading and were based on false environmental profiles. The company’s claims were designed to lure in eco-conscious customers while falsely portraying its products as environmentally friendly, despite the brand's fast-fashion nature.
The lawsuit also highlights issues with the company's recycling programs, accusing H&M of greenwashing. It is creating a false impression that its products are more sustainable than they actually are. This case has sparked further scrutiny, with the UK's Competition and Markets Authority investigating other fashion brands like Asos and Boohoo for similar claims.
Zara
Zara, the largest fashion retailer in the world, is responsible for producing 450 million garments a year. It is not hard to imagine the environmental impact the company is having through its massive operations worldwide. However, the brand came under the spotlight for the wrong reasons when in 2022 it launched a sustainable clothing line made from “carbon-captured polyester” which has been criticised as a form of greenwashing.
This launch did nothing in the way of countering its environmental footprint. Instead, this line itself proved to be produced using an energy-intensive manufacturing process that did the exact opposite of what it was claiming to achieve.
Shein
Shein's launch of its resale platform, Shein Exchange, was another superficial attempt to address criticisms of its environmental impact. While the platform offers a more sustainable option by enabling users to buy and sell second-hand products, it raises concerns about Shein greenwashing.
Shein's production scale, 7,200 new items daily, totalling up to 20,000 tons of CO2 per month, highlights a stark contrast between its sustainability claims and its operational practices.
The director of sustainability at Shein, Caitrin Watson, emphasised that circular practices and using recycled materials are a step in the right direction, but scepticism remains. The effectiveness of these initiatives will only be measured by their ability to substantially reduce Shein's overall environmental footprint, rather than just offering a facade of sustainability while business as usual continues.
Lululemon
The “Be Planet” campaign by the fashion house Lululemon, one of the largest fashion companies in the world, aims to convince buyers that it is a responsible eco-friendly brand. However, this movement failed to convince many and now a class-action lawsuit has been filed against Lulumelon greenwashing.
According to the main plaintiff, Amandeep Gyani, Lululemon has used pictures of fresh natural habitats to portray itself as an environmentally friendly business. However, this could not be further from the truth as the brand’s production processes continue to harm the planet significantly.
The brand has responded to these allegations stating that they are confident their statements are always honest and accurate.
Primark
Primark's sustainability claims have come under scrutiny by the Dutch advertising watchdog, Reclame Code Commissie, for being misleading. The retailer's slogans, such as "Reducing CO2 emissions by 50%" and "Organic, recycled, sustainable and affordable cotton," imply immediate action, while the small print reveals these are future goals. Additionally, Primark's claim of making "clothing circular" is also criticised, as this won't be fully realised until 2027.
The watchdog highlighted the lack of concrete steps to back Primark's ambitious claims, which raises concerns about Primark's greenwashing.
Although Primark plans to appeal the decision, the case illustrates the growing demand for accountability in corporate sustainability efforts. The public and regulators are increasingly wary of companies that use eco-friendly messaging without delivering tangible results.
Patagonia
Patagonia recently announced that it would transfer its entire stock to trusts and nonprofits aimed at fighting environmental crises. While this move was lauded as "compassionate capitalism" in action, it shows capitalism's limits in fixing the environmental damage it causes.
Patagonia engages in greenwashing tactics, such as downplaying its environmental impact through carbon footprint rhetoric, distracting public attention from the reality that its profits still rely on the extraction of value from nature and people.
It remains a large, profit-driven business and its size and market presence contribute significantly to environmental harm, despite its sustainability initiatives.
In essence, while Patagonia’s efforts are commendable compared to other corporations, they highlight the fact that profit-driven motives and true environmental sustainability can not go hand in hand. Simply put, the idea that capitalism can help solve the problems it has created in the first place, is deeply flawed.
Conclusion
Fashion brands have a lot to answer for. Their environmental footprint is among the most substantial ones and has placed a heavy burden on Earth’s depleting resources.
Despite growing awareness and some efforts to adopt more sustainable practices, the fashion industry's overall impact remains largely negative. The push for profits often overshadows any meaningful action that is taken by the conscientious ones. Hence, there are widespread accusations of greenwashing where brands claim to be environmentally friendly without making significant changes.
And this is where the challenge for the industry comes in. They need to move beyond superficial efforts and make substantial, lasting improvements that take care of both environmental and social issues in an honest and meaningful way.
