Fashion is about showing off your best self to the world.
While brands have long faced scrutiny over their production practices – the industry historically relied on exploitative labour, sweatshops, child labour and even slavery, disproportionately affecting women and people of colour – their commitment to sustainability has mostly existed behind a curtain.
Now this hidden side of the fashion industry is being revealed as the impacts of climate change transition from a future concern to a present reality.
Consumers are now more acutely aware of the fashion industry’s environmental footprint and are seeking ways to reduce it.
Consequently, brands are capitalising on sustainability as a marketing tool, crafting compelling narratives that resonate emotionally to create strong bonds with consumers and imbue items with a sense of uniqueness and value.
However, this approach has given rise to greenwashing, where brands make misleading claims about their environmental efforts to appear eco-friendly without implementing substantial changes.
The rise of greenwashing in Australia led in 2022 to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) conducting an internet sweep of 247 businesses for potential greenwashing, identifying clothing and footwear as significant offenders.
This report led to a senate inquiry into greenwashing, with a final report expected in November 2024.
There are several factors that have contributed to the problem of greenwashing in the fashion industry.
Textile labelling
In Australia, there is no requirement to include fibre content in clothing and textile products, creating problems for sustainability and product stewardship.
Fibre content labelling is crucial for determining end-of-life strategies, as the type of fibre affects whether a fabric can be recycled or composted.
Blended fabrics pose a particular challenge, as a significant portion of clothing on the market are composed of mixed fibre blends, which often can only be mechanically shredded or sent to landfill.
This lack of mandatory fibre content labelling contradicts Australia’s goal of a circular fashion industry by 2030, as it impedes recycling and end-of-life options.
Additionally, around 8,000 auxiliary chemicals are used in clothing and textiles, which brands are not required to disclose.
Some of these chemicals can have significant health effects, and recent reports indicate that clothing from ultra-fast fashion giants contains harmful chemicals far above legal limits.
Design
The current design approach in the fashion industry often prioritises immediate sales over the end-of-life considerations of products, leading to significant sustainability challenges.
Companies can make misleading environmental claims due to a lack of comprehensive material knowledge.
Consumers, who generally know even less about these materials, are unfairly burdened with making sustainable choices.
Addressing this issue requires robust oversight and regulatory frameworks that establish clear criteria for safe, durable, and sustainable textiles, ensuring that manufacturers and consumers are better informed and aligned towards genuine sustainability.
Materials
Material innovation is one way brands are attempting to drive sustainability.
While plastic and synthetic materials are often perceived as harmful, there is a push to replace them with “natural”, “bio-based”, or biodegradable alternatives. However, these materials can be misleading to consumers.
For instance, Piñatex® (pineapple leather) is made from pineapple plant waste but contains 28 percent PLA and PU (plastics).
This mixture of plant and synthetic materials limits its end-of-life options to landfill or incineration, misleading consumers into thinking they are purchasing a wholly natural or biodegradable product.
Similarly, mushroom leather (mycelium leather) is promoted as a sustainable alternative to animal leather due to its biodegradable nature and lower environmental impact. However, greenwashing can occur in various ways:
Stella McCartney: The Frayme Mylo Bag, made from mycelium and Lyocell, is produced in a limited run, suggesting exclusivity rather than a broad commitment to sustainability. Its high price further positions it as a luxury item rather than an accessible sustainable option.
Nat-2 and Zvnder: Their “vegan fungi sneaker” uses mushroom leather and eco-friendly materials but lacks detailed information on the environmental impact of the production process, potentially misleading consumers about its true sustainability.
Lululemon Athletica: Its mushroom leather yoga mats and duffle bags incorporate sustainable accents rather than entire products, which can be seen as token gestures. The emphasis on recycled materials needs scrutiny regarding their actual environmental benefits.
Mercedes Benz: Its concept car features upholstery made from cactus and mushroom leather and bamboo fibre carpets. However, the use of bamboo fibres, often processed into viscose with harmful chemicals, and the term “biobased polyurethane” require clarification on environmental impacts. The concept car may be more about marketing than a genuine shift in production practices.
Related Articles: How Fast Fashion Is Damaging the Environment | ‘Dead White Mans’ Clothing’ Polluting the Global South | Fast Fashion’s Detrimental Effect on the Environment | Legislation Against Fast Fashion: Will The FABRIC Act Revolutionize the Industry? | Affordable and Sustainable Alternatives to Fast Fashion | Slow Down Fast Fashion | The True Cost Of Fast Fashion for the Environment | ‘Ground Zero of the Fast Fashion World:’ How Kenya Became the Fashion Industry’s Illegal Junkyard | Who Benefits from Fast Fashion? Who Suffers?
The move towards natural materials is driven by the desire to use renewable resources rather than petroleum-derived plastics, which are non-renewable, persist in landfills for centuries, and contribute to micro-plastic pollution.
However, even natural fibre products can be guilty of greenwashing. These products may be marketed as compostable or biodegradable, but brands often do not disclose any chemicals or treatments used.
Only certified organic, untreated, and undyed garments should be home-composted, a criterion few garments meet. Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) certified organic fabrics can no longer be classified as “organic” after they have been dyed with synthetic dyestuffs.
It’s all about image
Selective transparency and tokenism are common in greenwashing.
Companies highlight sustainable materials without providing comprehensive lifecycle information, and incorporating small amounts of sustainable materials can attract eco-conscious consumers without significant business practice changes.
Luxury positioning of sustainable products can also indicate that these items are more about brand image than making sustainable options accessible to all.
There is too much onus on the consumer to do their own research about a potential product before making a purchase – but most consumers generally lack knowledge and understanding.
Even within the fashion industry, there is a lack of materials knowledge, with most brands reliant on suppliers to provide accurate and truthful information.
While the fashion industry is making some strides towards sustainability, greenwashing remains a significant concern.
This is where robust regulatory frameworks, specialist textiles knowledge, and transparent labelling could help, to ensure that brands and consumers can make genuinely sustainable choices.
** **
This article was originally published by 360info™. The authors used assistance from Val, RMIT University’s AI assistant to simplify the language in this article and reduce its length.
Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed here by the authors are their own, not those of Impakter.com — Cover Photo Credit: © Lance Lee / Greenpeace.
