In April ‘24, UK nonprofit Earthsight published the findings of a year-long investigation into largescale deforestation, land grabbing, human rights abuses and violent land conflicts in the Brazilian Cerrado. Cotton used by fast fashion behemoths H&M and Zara was linked to the violations, and the global fashion industry was set aflutter.
The Earthsight report contended that the reason why this dirty cotton could make it to H&M and Zara was because they relied “on a fundamentally flawed ethical supply chain certification system called Better Cotton.”
A year later, the issue is all but forgotten, and fashion activists and fashion media alike have moved on. After all, in today's world people move from one outrage to the next with as much ease as they swipe left over to the next reel. The Fashion Crimes report has been done and dusted.
The issue, for sure, is far from over. Better Cotton in March released an update to the “action plan” it put in place last year to curb unsustainable and illegal practices in Brazil following the publication of the 2024 report. Earthsight says: "The measures announced fall well short of the transformative actions required of Better Cotton to foster sustainability and legality in cotton supply chains."
In other words, things stand as they did a year ago.
The Latest in the Scandal
The Brazil cotton controversy has resurfaced not only because it has been a year to the revelation, but also because of Better Cotton itself pursuing the thread.
On 13 March, Better Cotton spoke about making "meaningful progress in some areas and faced challenges that required us to adapt in others due to the complex operating context."
Better Cotton also reiterated its stand on the controversy: "While none of the licensed farms breached our field-level standard, and there was no direct link between these farms and the reported issues, we recognised the dynamics related to land use that pose a sustainability risk beyond the scope of our voluntary standard, specifically with reference to the expansion of multi-crop agribusinesses. We also noted the challenges in the surrounding areas and acknowledged that Better Cotton can help address these issues." The denial has continued.
This announcement took off from an earlier update announced in September 2024. The new update spoke of four measures.
Better Cotton said it had commissioned two independent reviews, which confirmed “no breaches of our field-level standard on licensed farms but highlighted broader challenges in the region.” It claimed to have engaged directly with local communities to better understand concerns and “the role we can play in addressing them.”
Better Cotton also asserted that it was working closely with “our strategic partner, ABRAPA – the Brazilian Cotton Growers’ Association – to define areas for improvement and deepen collaboration across industries and stakeholders.” It also emphasised on the progress on our action plan around four key areas: engaging local communities, conducting due diligence at the agribusiness/large commercial farm level, collaborating with a multistakeholder network and realigning standards with ABRAPA.
Earthsight's reaction came a week later, pointing out that Better Cotton had failed to even mention the decades-long issue at the heart of traditional communities’ grievances in Bahia land grabbing.
The nonprofit invoked a large body of research and various legal cases, and argued that Better Cotton disingenuously framed the problem as an “expansion of agribusinesses in the region and how this might escalate tensions with neighbouring communities.”
If Better Cotton is serious about protecting traditional communities’ land rights, it must first recognise and seriously engage with the reality of extensive land grabbing. It must de-certify any agribusinesses which profit from stolen lands, put in place clear and strict standards against land grabbing, and enforce them vigorously.”
The only element that made any positive sense to Earthsight was Better Cotton’s plan to conduct due diligence at the company level rather than at farm level only. “This could help identify the issues of egregious corruption exposed in Fashion Crimes that Better Cotton has so far overlooked.”
Yet, this is where the main problem with the scheme’s approach lies. The due diligence framework will be developed in close collaboration with ABRAPA, an association “that exists to protect and advance the commercial interests of big cotton producers.”
Earthsight has argued that “Better Cotton’s insistence on partnering with ABRAPA highlights the conflicts of interest in its Brazil programme. As a lobbying association, ABRAPA is not built to be an impartial arbiter of cotton growers’ sustainability and social practices. Its leadership and consultative teams are made up of executives from large cotton producers.”
When contacted by Earthsight ahead of publication of Fashion Crimes, ABRAPA “threatened to sue us rather than engage with our findings.” Earthsight has alleged that “Better Cotton is essentially trusting companies to scrutinise and, if needed, penalise their own bad behaviour. It is simply not going to happen.” What this means is that the fox is guarding the hen house.
Better Cotton has told Earthsight, the latter said on its website, that it is “not in a position to comment on any ongoing legal proceedings but respect the jurisdiction in Brazil.” It also stated the renewal of its partnership with ABRAPA “was predicated on the successful realignment of their standard system with the Better Cotton Standards System, which is based on our publicly available Benchmarking Policy that follows the ISEAL Sustainability Benchmarking Good Practice Guide.”
