Recently, H&M was heavily criticized for its “false” claims that more than half of its products are sustainable, when in fact they were not. The brand was also sued and dragged to court for its “greenwashing” attempt as they allegedly manipulated the Higg Index. Then there is Sheen which faces a worldwide backlash for its unethical supply chain practices, yet earns more revenue than H&M and Zara combined in the US!
As horrible as it seems, other brands are also accused of talking something they don’t practice and yet they manifest sustainable fashion in different ways – pure deception, subtle marketing and often as ambitious claims without full transparency about the actual effects! In its July 2021 report, the non-profit Changing Markets Foundation highlighted that as many as 59 percent of all green claims made by European and British fashion brands are misleading and may be greenwashing.
Greenwashing is in its prime – all thanks to brands’ (hence consumers’) love of fast fashion and synthetics!
Fast fashion is undoubtedly the biggest culprit that damages fashion’s sustainability work. There are some end consumers who feel that their purchasing decisions do not matter, that their product consumption does not make a difference.
But in reality, trend-driven overconsumption is motivated by low-priced/cheap products that are poorly engineered (more than likely violate ethical manufacturing standards) to meet tight cost constraints. These garments, which almost certainly last less than a season, end up in landfills or are shipped offshore to emerging markets and developing economies where they are discarded as environmental pollution. As a last ditch effort to appease a new generation of conscious consumers, brands are greenwashing their “footprint” in their efforts to market the product or brand.
The consequences of the brand’s supply chains are far-reaching and long-lasting as they often use artificial materials and chemicals. CEH, a non-profit group focused on exposing the presence of toxic chemicals in consumer products, recently tested a number of popular brands of sports bras and sportswear that revealed high levels of BPA, a chemical compound used to make certain types of plastics and can lead to harmful health effects such as asthma, cardiovascular disease and obesity.
The sports bras sold by brands such as Athlete, PINK, Asics, The North Face, Brooks, Everything in motion, Nike and FILE all were tested for BPA within the past six months, and the results showed that the clothing could expose wearers to up to 22 times the safe limit of BPA, based on standards set in California, according to Center for Environmental Health.
According to CNN Business, the maximum allowable dose level for BPA via skin exposure is 3 micrograms per day, according to CNN Business, under California law — specifically Proposition 65 passed in 1986. The group also tested athletic jerseys from brands that included The North Face, Brooks, Mizuno, Athlete, New balance and Reebok and found similar results.
How do brands stand out in various reports on the sustainability front?
In recent times Remake Fashion Accountability Report 2022Remake – a global advocacy organization fighting for fair wages and climate justice in the clothing industry – surveyed 58 major fashion companies in 2022, including Chanel, J.Crew and All birds on its journey towards intersectional social and environmental sustainability and unpacked its key findings and it suggests an alarming situation, although some positives are also there!
- Bold promises on climate change, but progress has been limited
Only three companies (5 percent) – Burberry, Everlane and H&M Group – met all four of Remake’s climate criteria: disclosure of full emissions; short-term 1.5℃ path-aligned science-based targets; ambitious long-term net zero goals; and a reduction in their overall greenhouse gas emissions. When companies disclose their full supply chain emissions, the scale of the problem is clear: Inditex’s (Zara’s) annual emissions are equivalent to consuming 39 million barrels of oil, for example. - The myth of circularity has been debunked but no company has truly embraced degrowth. A third of the assessed companies reduce their packaging waste and 20 percent now offer recycling or repair services. Despite an increase in resale platforms and some repair initiatives, there has been no transition away from linear production. Companies continue to co-opt customers’ interest in circularity – as Sheens new resale platform – to greenwash. Although no company can demonstrate a total reduction in production, some companies such as Everlane, Nike and Patagonia reduced their use of virgin plastics such as polyester.
- Living wages remain elusive, but some companies are taking more responsibility for their employees’ wages. Fashion is based on poverty wages, and that hasn’t changed this year. That said, a few companies can show that some of their workers are earning fair wages, and the infrastructure to raise wages is becoming more robust.
- Four companies (7 percent) published some progress toward a living wage in their supply chains in addition to disclosing the methodology they use to quantify a living wage: Hanesbrands Inc., Patagonia, Ralph Lauren, and Reformation.
- Five companies (9 percent) – Burberry, Kering (Gucci, Balenciaga), Marks & Spencer, PUMA and Reformation – published partial information indicating that some of their direct employees, such as corporate employees or retail workers, earned a living wage.
- One company — Ganni — adopted a buyer code of conduct, a type of contract for purchasing goods that commits companies to doing their part to maintain fair business practices, such as paying fair prices for goods in full and on time.
Despite some progress, the number of fashion brands transitioning their supply chain remains at just under 10 percent.
Renay Wells, Fashion Impact Specialist from Australia told Clothing Resources that many brands that claim to be sustainable consider the use of “recycled” manufacturing as the only requirement to claim sustainability. They don’t often consider ramifications and the impact on their supply chain. “Most brands would not consider the moral implications of their production methods. The desire for profit, high margins and fast manufacturing far outweighs their demands for sustainability,” commented Renay.
Will the scenario change?
The fashion industry has been talking about the negative effects of fast fashion on the environment for a long time now, but the consumption of fast fashion is only increasing with time. It is true that most of the durable fashion products are not affordable and do not come in such a large size. In countries like Brazil and Mexico, for example, many people buy from Shein because they think it’s a way to be part of a certain fashion trend at low prices, and the brand really does have inclusive sizes. Durable clothing is more expensive for obvious reasons, but there are really no excuses not to be in size.
Not only Shein – considered a serial offender of sustainability initiatives – many other famous brands are equally responsible for increasing attempts at greenwashing. It is very important to inform consumers that fast fashion has an effect on the planet and causes huge environmental pollution!
Renay Wells also suggests calling out the brands that pay their workers just a few cents per garment perpetuating a cycle of social injustice and unethical business practices. This will not stop until end consumers take sustainability seriously! And it might not happen if fashion brands don’t act as a unifying force to educate end consumers across demographics about how bad fast fashion products can prove to be for the planet!
Love – an India-based sustainable and in love fashion platform – has put in remarkable efforts to educate the end consumers through its Instagram page in a way that makes the message directly connect with the users. This is done through strong storytelling, giving examples of famous celebrities and influencers using fashion products they love without the guilt!
“Extending the life of clothing by just an additional nine months of active use would reduce carbon and water footprints by approximately 20-30 percent each and reduce resource costs by 20 percent,” Relove said in one of its recent Instagram posts to educate customers, adding : “Brands and consumers can come together to create a more balanced world for fashion and help our planet heal.”
All brands must realize that they must somehow balance things between their “profit margins” and “final retail prices” for consumers, with sustainable supply chain being a critical aspect that must be followed between both.
Scapegoating Shein, H&M and a few others and making them poster children for all that is wrong with the industry is not the solution. There are many other ultra-fast fashion brands now that are just as exploitative. Boycotting a few brands only makes room for 10 other similar brands like Boohoo and Asos as long as consumers want cheap products.
Therefore, it is time for consumers to also take some responsibility. Shoppers must express their “anti-fast fashion” values with their money, and governments must counter so-called greenwashing with legislation that protects workers everywhere and prevents such practices from even taking place.
Now there could be an argument about – Why should the focus be on end consumers and why is switching them the key, rather than switching fashion brands, which do everything wrong in the name of profit?
There is a straightforward answer to this – it is because the ultimate goal of a brand is to sell its products in the consumer market and earn revenue. If the supply chain is improved, sustainable measures are applied, transparency is created, product innovations are made and the right wages are given to workers, a brand has to invest more, which ultimately results in increases in the retail prices of the product. Are consumers ready to pay this increased price for a product?
If they are looking for cheap products, a brand, whose business model works on a fast fashion concept, simply cannot go to all these above-mentioned measures to create a sustainable supply chain because it involves huge costs. That is why it is crucial to change the habits of consumers and their consumption capacity on expensive products because it will make room for more sustainable products in the market.
#fashion #brands #sustainability #Clothing #Resources
