Greenwashing versus Transparency – Updating the Conversation in 2023

In the ever-changing landscape of sustainability, greenwashing has become more widespread and its effects have been far-reaching. For companies interested in ethical and sustainable fashion production, greenwashing has tremendous implications. With legislation from the European Union aiming to combat misleading environmental messages, increased scrutiny on sustainability claims by retailers and consumers alike, as well as a need for industry standardization moving forward, it's more important than ever before for producers to ensure their greenwashing practices are up-to-date. Let’s take a look not only at what greenwashing is, but also how there is still so much uncertainty about it in 2023. Furthermore, what are the guideposts that brands and producers can reliably look towards to avoid greenwashing and succeed at communicating their sustainable progress effectively.

Greenwashing - What It Is

Greenwashing takes on multiple forms, and can manifest in a variety of ways. It starts with companies using buzzwords to misleadingly tout the sustainability of their products or services. These phrases often come in the form of claims such as 'eco-friendly', 'carbon neutral', or 'zero waste'. Such marketing tactics are used to deceive consumers into believing an item is more sustainable than it is. Greenwashing is not always nefarious and can sometimes be the result of not enough research or understanding about lifecycles and impacts. What these companies fail to mention is that there may be hidden implications behind their green initiatives – such as unsustainable production methods, hazardous materials used during manufacturing, energy-intensive processes and chemical bleaching for example. However, as fashion becomes increasingly transparent and the need for circularity can no longer be ignored, greenwashing is no longer being tolerated lightly by consumers, the industry, regulation, and peers.

Greenwashing - How to Spot It

As an industry it's important we identify greenwashing practices so we're able to differentiate between sustainable solutions from those that are simply marketing ploys. One way to do this is by looking at the company's transparency and traceability – what information can they provide in regards to the materials used, production methods, carbon dioxide emissions and waste disposal? Are they willing to show proof of their claims or have third-party organizations independently audit their practices? Here are some more specific ways that brands may be greenwashing:

1. Selective Disclosure: everything about a product is positive and potential imperfections are not referred to or mentioned. This is like touting that something is made completely of recycled materials, but not answering the question if the item created more waste to make it than it saved?
2. Symbolic Action: This means a brand draws a lot of attention to a small act while leaving their overall practices unaddressed. Specifically this can look like a brand channeling a lot of effort into creating a single sustainable collection, but then once the season has passed the rest of their products continue to be made in the same unsustainable way.
3. Vagueness: Broad statements or buzzwords can also be a form of greenwashing. What does ‘non-toxic’ mean or what does ‘fair wage’ mean or what does ‘biodegradable’ mean? Sometimes one part of an item may be produced sustainably and a label is attached implying the whole thing is. Other times these phrases are used freely with no official certification or details.
4. Suggestive Imagery and Lack of Proof: A box may be green and the paper may have leaves on it, but do these images mean anything? Is there data or proof to back it up?

There are several more ways to spot when a company is greenwashing whether you’re a consumer trying to avoid purchasing it or a producer trying to find a way to share without misleading. In fact, there are some more recent concerns rising about whether brands who are doing good sustainability work will be willing to communicate it for fear of accidentally misrepresenting (this is called greenhushing).?

Why this matters right now?

Keep in mind that April every year is an opportunity for people to turn Earth Day, celebrated on April 22nd, into Earth Month and therefore opening the floodgates for gross amounts of greenwashing. Furthermore, there has been a lot of activity in greenwashing cases (brands having to withdraw collections and change marketing courses) and in regulation (the EU came out with a proposal about how to address greenwashing).

Greenwashing vs Green Marketing Cases - Taking a Closer Look

Greenwashing case:

Here is a case of recent greenwashing and the repercussions. H&M’s “Conscious” collection was the green choice for consumers up until this last year as they had to rethink the intensity of their green claims. There are plenty more European and US companies that have had to backtrack their claims to make sure they are backed up and not just part of a convenient marketing campaign.

Green Marketing cases:

Here is a green marketing case that clearly focused on transparency and not on greenwashing. Patagonia made a bold move when on Black Friday in 2011 they ran the “Don’t Buy This Jacket” campaign asking consumers not to buy their most popular jacket this season if they did not need it. The campaign highlighted the true cost of making a piece of clothing and that however sustainable it is, it is not the same as if it had never been made. This is an example of choosing to be transparent and communicating how the bottom line is not the only concern. Denim Privé is another example of green marketing. Operating on the back end, it still matters how a company is portraying themselves and the claims they're making even if direct consumer interaction isn’t the goal. We at Denim Privé let the industry know what we are up to by consistently sharing behind-the-scenes footage of the plant operations and worker interviews. Furthermore, Denim Privé released the first sustainability report with 2021 data in an effort to collect the information on how we are improving, provide metrics for these areas, as well as sharing it with the outside world. In the report you can find a vast array of new technologies that are being implemented as well as realistic goals for progress toward improvement. For example, we set a goal that the Solar Farm would go from generating 43% power in 2021 to 80% power by the end of 2022. Without sharing these innovations and goals then producers and consumers wouldn’t know who is doing sustainable work and how they are getting it done.?

While there are a lot of brands undergoing litigation in Europe and in the US around greenwashing claims, it is important to remember that there are companies and people trying to navigate consumers to truly sustainable options.

Regulation - What It Means and Whether it has Gone Too Far or Not Far Enough

Motivated by a ?Commission study from 2020 that revealed 53.3% of examined environmental claims in the EU were vague, misleading or unfounded and 40% were unsubstantiated, in March 2023, the European Union proposed a new set of regulations to help address the issue of greenwashing and protect consumers. The regulations aim to increase transparency by requiring companies to provide upfront information about their sustainability actions and certify these actions with third-party auditors. Additionally, it requires companies to clearly identify any false or misleading claims in their marketing communications, as well as make available evidence for substantiating such claims. By providing clear guidelines on how businesses should communicate accurate sustainability information, the EU hopes this will help end greenwashing altogether and promote responsible consumption habits among its citizens.?

The discussion around this big regulation shift is around whether this was too far of a reach or not far enough. Environmental advocacy groups and lobbyists for natural fibers such as wool have been vocal in their criticism, stating that the standards fail to consider critical issues like social impact and the full life cycle of a garment. There are concerns that the data used is inadequate and inconsistent. On the other hand, others are concerned that it was not enough guidance while risking a 4% of revenue penalty. So while some things are clear, like no more self-made new labels, there is still a lot of lack of clarity like what kind of scientific evidence meets the standard to make a claim.?

Leading the Charge in Green Marketing

While the fashion industry still lacks complete standardization, following the standards that do exist whether regulatory or simply best practices by peers, it is important for companies to keep asking the question. What was good marketing ten years ago might be greenwashing today simply because the standards are rising. There are people and companies on every side of the equation trying to get clothing made the right way, or at least as close as possible while communicating it accurately.