Shame on you, Patagonia.

Something is rotten in the Kingdom of Denmark, and I’ll get to that shortly, but before that I would like to bring to the attention of readers of my NICE Fashion blogs, that I started the Nordic Initiative Clean and Ethical (NICE) together with Copenhagen Fashion Week almost 15 years ago. I also think Cecilie, who now heads the organization, is an intelligent woman. She’s just misguided.

But I’m coming to that. First, I want to alert my readers to a company that has for more than 40 years has been admired for its frontrunning in sustainability, and is now frontrunning in greenwashing.

Welcome to misleading claims made by Patagonia. And they have no way of hiding behind that they don’t know what they are doing. They are one of the founding members of SAC (now with some new name impossible to remember or spell), so they received the warning from the Norwegian Consumer Authority that using the water-saving claims related to organic cotton is illegal and constitutes greenwashing.

Why then, do they – with eyes wide open – post the following on their web site? “This switch also saves 91% in water use.” This is the exact claim that NCA said could not be used in consumer-facing communication! The claim was taken down after the ruling by all SAC-members and even some non-members (when we threatened to report them to NCA), but suddenly it seems a company like Patagonia is hoping no-one will notice that they sneaked it back in again.

And if that isn’t enough, they have fallen into the rPET rabbit hole.

As the recent IVL report points out, recycling probably only saves 1.3% of apparel’s carbon footprint, why even go there? Why use so much time, energy and money for so little outcome? When we know the minute recycled polyester reaches the price-level of virgin polyester, China will dump the price on the latter in order not to lose their market share? When we know pellet spills are the big elephant in the room no one wants to talk about? When all the latest on the adverse effects of microplastics is piling up – the latest tying microplastics to – I forget – was it strokes?

Which brings me back to Copenhagen Fashion Week and their sustainability requirements, which were recently fully adopted by Oslo Runway. The 16 “requirements” demand, among other things, that the companies participating in the events, must either have some sort of “sustainable” labelling (the consumer-facing Higg label were of course hoping this was their chance made in heaven, but luckily, we avoided that!), use “preferred materials” or “recycled content”.

To address the last one first. That’s the aforementioned rabbit-hole. And ‘preferred materials’? That brings us smack dab into Textile Exchange land. As who else has this definition or wording, and has created a list of ‘preferred materials’? And lo and behold, who else is the biggest perpetuator of “sustainability” labels? The same Textile Exchange! It’s their business model. It’s their bread and butter. So they must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Luckily, someone is watchdogging.

This white paper is a must read and even if the Joint Research Center are trying to wriggle their way out of having based the infinitely long read on faulty data (you had to have the patience of a saint in order to read the underpinning paperwork), saying it is just a draft – it was made public in an open hearing. So, Veronica Bates Kassatly and Terry Townsend have done a formidable job in picking apart the basis for recommending textiles as the first sector for ESPR (Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation). Yes, European Union Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation: Summary of inconsistencies and potential deficiencies is also a long read, but as opposed to JRC’s draft, this white paper actually says some things that are so important that spending the time, is well worth the time spent.

Consumption Research Norway (SIFO) at Oslo Metropolitan University, also critiqued the draft, which you can access here.

So, could we agree on no more meaningless rabbit holes? No more greenwashing? No more faulty data thrown around as party treats? Or do we have to continue fighting windmills like Don Quixote?

And, no, up to 80% of a product’s environmental impact is not decided in the design phase. JRC, remember to strike that from the draft, as well.