As consumers grow increasingly aware of climate change and its impacts, they’re rethinking the environmental footprint of their choices, particularly in the fashion industry.
While brands worldwide have touted sustainability, it remains challenging for consumers to distinguish between genuine eco-friendly practices and misleading “greenwashed” marketing. This dual challenge – sustainability within the industry and consumer awareness – highlights an evolving tension between ethical fashion and corporate image.
For years, the fashion industry has operated behind a façade, marred by reports of exploitative labor practices, sweatshops, child labor, and even modern slavery. Women and people of color have been particularly affected, reflecting broader socioeconomic inequalities. While production practices in the industry have long been under scrutiny, many brands have shielded their environmental impacts from the public eye.
But as climate change becomes a pressing issue, these previously hidden concerns are now becoming impossible to ignore.
In response, the fashion industry has adopted a sustainability narrative, often used as a marketing tool to emotionally connect with consumers. Companies craft these narratives to evoke feelings of uniqueness and value, hoping to establish stronger bonds with eco-conscious consumers.
The rush to appear green has given rise to the troubling practice of greenwashing – misleading claims that exaggerate or falsify environmental commitments.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) tackled this issue in 2022 by investigating 247 businesses, with a significant number in clothing and footwear, for potential greenwashing practices. This report prompted a senate inquiry into greenwashing in the fashion sector, with the final report expected in November 2024. This highlights an urgent need for regulatory oversight as the industry and consumers grapple with what truly sustainable fashion means.
Textile labelling: a missing link in the sustainability chain
In Australia, textile products are not required to disclose fibre content. This lack of information complicates sustainability efforts, as knowing the materials used in a product is essential to determining its end-of-life options. Different fibres require different recycling and disposal processes; for instance, synthetic fibres are notoriously difficult to break down, while natural fibres may be compostable if untreated.
A significant proportion of clothing consists of mixed fibre blends, such as cotton-polyester mixes, which can only be mechanically shredded or disposed of in landfills. This poses a major hurdle to Australia’s goal of achieving a circular fashion economy by 2030. Furthermore, approximately 8,000 auxiliary chemicals are used in textile production, yet companies are not required to disclose these chemicals, which can have serious health and environmental consequences.
A recent report highlighted that ultra-fast fashion brands often have harmful chemical levels exceeding legal limits. This underscores the need for comprehensive labelling regulations to ensure consumers can make informed choices and better manage clothing disposal.
Design choices that prioritise profit over sustainability
The fashion industry’s design approach is heavily profit-driven, often prioritizing sales over the longevity and sustainability of products. Companies frequently lack a detailed understanding of the materials they use, enabling them to make vague claims about environmental responsibility. As a result, consumers, who are usually less informed about these materials, bear the burden of making sustainable choices.
To address this gap, robust regulatory frameworks and clearer guidelines are essential. These would help both manufacturers and consumers better understand sustainable materials and foster genuine changes in production practices. Additionally, it would reduce the prevalence of vague environmental claims, allowing consumers to focus on items that meet verifiable sustainability standards.
Material innovation and the complexities of greenwashing
Material innovation is one area where brands have tried to boost sustainability, with alternatives like mushroom and pineapple leather gaining attention. However, these innovations often contain synthetic components, like plastic-based additives, limiting their end-of-life options.
For instance, Piñatex®, a material marketed as “pineapple leather,” contains about 28 percent synthetic plastics, which means it can only be incinerated or end up in a landfill, contradicting its eco-friendly image.
Similarly, ‘mushroom leather’, promoted by brands like Stella McCartney and Lululemon, is often not fully biodegradable due to its blend of materials. This partial commitment to sustainable materials raises concerns about greenwashing, as brands selectively highlight certain aspects while downplaying others. Mercedes Benz, for instance, recently unveiled a concept car featuring upholstery made from cactus and mushroom leather, but it also includes bamboo fibers, which are often chemically processed and can have significant environmental impacts.
These “natural” materials are frequently promoted as alternatives to petroleum-derived plastics, which are non-renewable and contribute to microplastic pollution. However, products that claim to be compostable or biodegradable may still contain harmful chemicals, and only certified organic garments without synthetic dyes can typically be composted at home. The complexity of these products can easily mislead consumers who may believe they are purchasing a more sustainable product than is truly the case.
The role of image and selective transparency in greenwashing
Many brands leverage selective transparency to appeal to eco-conscious consumers, emphasizing the use of certain sustainable materials without providing comprehensive lifecycle information.
By incorporating token amounts of sustainable materials, companies can attract consumers without making significant changes to their business models.
Also, the luxury positioning of sustainable items often places them beyond the reach of the average consumer, suggesting these products are more about image than a commitment to broad-based sustainability.
The fashion industry’s move toward sustainability is undoubtedly a step in the right direction, but without stricter regulations, greenwashing is likely to persist. The lack of clear material knowledge, both within the industry and among consumers, contributes to this issue.
Brands often rely on suppliers for accurate information, and consumers are forced to navigate a marketplace filled with ambiguous sustainability claims.
To ensure meaningful progress, stronger regulatory frameworks, transparent labelling, and greater material knowledge are necessary. These changes would allow brands to demonstrate real environmental commitment while enabling consumers to make informed, sustainable choices. As the industry evolves, it will be essential to move beyond greenwashing and adopt genuine practices that align with a more sustainable future.
