First Person: How a Danish Researcher Forced Fashion to Confront Its Greenwashing Compulsion

Your background is in international conflict studies and communications — but greenwashing isn't just linguistic; it's structural. When did you realise that analysing language could become a tool for accountability?
Tanja Gotthardsen: Actually, I believe that I realised that quite early on, but the impact that it can have still surprises me. In my early twenties, I got a position at the Centre for Resolution of International Conflicts in Copenhagen, and initially, what I worked on was how collective narratives affect conflict. But it was also were that I was introduced to systems thinking. If we think about it, it's not hard to see how we, in our everyday lives, draw distinctions between ourselves and "others," nor how it affects our world. It's a very human thing, connecting us to our tribe. But the power of narratives also becomes particularly clear when we observe it in its most violent form—when it becomes a vehicle for dehumanisation or destruction. It's also integral to shifting the so-called Overton window, i.e. what we consider acceptable as opposed to radical. 

 And just as we've been led to dehumanise a fellow human being on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexuality, ability or something fifth, we've also, in my corner of the world, developed and exported a world view that quite frankly distorts our relationships with each other and the natural world we belong to. Narratives are extremely potent, and can support either destruction, respect or solidarity, and they often become solidified through e.g. policies, court proceedings or public discourse.

Taking on entities like Zalando or Copenhagen Fashion Week inevitably puts you at odds with major industry players. How do you decide which battles are worth fighting — and when the personal cost is justified?
Tanja Gotthardsen: First and foremost, I consider how an industry player affects the sector structurally. Smaller players neither have the same impact nor the same resources, but have a tendency to replicate what well-established entities do. In the Copenhagen Fashion Week case, however, we did have to include some smaller businesses, as their non-compliance documented the greater failings of the so-called sustainability framework.

And clearly, the Copenhagen Fashion Week case bears industry wide implications, considering how it is being adopted in other countries, and of course, it also affects consumers through the hundreds of influencers and media platforms invited to purvey its messages. Zalando, on the other hand, had 25.000 products tagged with their green coloured "sustainability” flag, while simultaneously asking brands to supply them with "sustainability information" which simply made it so much more difficult for brands to navigate what they were themselves allowed to communicate. 

You and the Danish Consumer Council took on Copenhagen Fashion Week's "Sustainability Requirements," which many hailed as progressive. When you began dissecting that framework, what was the first red flag that made you suspect something wasn't right?
Tanja Gotthardsen: The first thing I noticed was that neither production volumes or collection frequencies nor worker rights were sufficiently accounted for. When focus is solely on efficiency gains without sufficiency considerations, we're going about it wrong. And this became increasingly clear seeing that Copenhagen Fashion Week was, in addition, reinforcing misleading material claims through its "preferred materials" requirement. I continue to work closely together with researchers to this day, and do myself contribute to academic publications, so it was clear to me that nothing in the so-called "sustainability requirements" were really answering the most pressing issues.

But the smoking gun was that Copenhagen Fashion Week had included a requirement on anti-greenwashing compliance for admitted brands, which I could very easily see was not being enforced. I mean it took me less than an hour to identify seven brands marketing themselves, their products and materials as "eco-friendly", "sustainable," etc, and I could have easily continued. And if requirements are not "required", then surely they are something else altogether, right?

The Ombudsman ultimately declined to pursue legal action, yet the case triggered regulatory warnings and tangible changes from brands. On a personal level, how do you measure impact in such a scenario — by legal outcomes, industry response, or public awareness?
Tanja Gotthardsen: It's all about the long haul, and I am nothing but a tiny node in a vast network. But I do look for whether or not I create small cracks in the status quo—and try to make my perspective available to others in the form of e.g. research, databases, debate and via the press. So many solutions are just sitting there, in research or in everyday practices in diverse communities, waiting to be engaged with further, yet while the greenwashing persists, it becomes too difficult to identify them. 

But I've also trained myself to appreciate when things don't work—to treat it like research, as something I can use to improve for the next attempt. And then I do celebrate when my work leads to updated policies and guidelines, EU Commission rulings, increased public interest, special grants for enhanced consumer protection, etc, all of which I've had the pleasure of experiencing. But looking at the two-part series you published about the Copenhagen Fashion Week case, without having to consult me, is also very meaningful in itself. The same goes for when the complaints make it into higher education curricula. 

Furthermore, I find that the complaints speak to something felt by many professionals—I often receive messages from individuals who have long thought that was is going on in the industry is window-dressing at best, relating what they see in their daily work and in the board rooms. The cognitive dissonance that this causes is something we have to take seriously. Greenwashing also has very real consequences for the wellbeing of professionals.

And with regard to the Copenhagen Fashion Week complaint, I take great comfort in how the Consumer Ombudsman has still effectively alerted Copenhagen Fashion Week to the risk of §§ 5, 6, 8 and 20 violations. Seeing how Copenhagen Fashion Week has celebrated this as a win rather than taken it upon themselves to reflect upon these risks is, in itself, highly revealing and an interesting bit of research. 

Filing that complaint meant stepping into a very public arena. Did you see yourself as an activist at that point, or simply as someone trying to make the system tell the truth?
Tanja Gotthardsen: It's an interesting question, because while I will happily accept being identified an activist, what I'm essentially doing is just science and policy activation. And for many segments, the term activist carries a radical air that "others" those taking action, while deflecting from the fact that the matter engaged with has broad relevance. But of course, when I initially stepped out into the public eye in this way five years ago, it felt a bit overwhelming. We are, after all, social beings, and standing in opposition like that for the first time does put one's nervous system to the test. But we're often more adaptable than we think.

So, yes, I think my overall identification is more akin to your second option. The consequences of greenwashing are simply too important to ignore. It muddies our way forward and creates moral license in the way that we come to believe that we're doing something good, that we are somehow "good consumers" shopping with "the right brands and businesses", distracting us from actual action while, essentially, we're just moving further into planetary overshoot and deepening inequalities. Truly, it cannot be considered that radical to stand against that?

Your research into Copenhagen Fashion Week's "sustainability requirements" and the previous controversies involving Zalando and Boozt, among others, expose how sustainability is staged — visually, verbally, institutionally. What connects these cases for you on a personal level? Is there a particular logic or deception that keeps resurfacing?
Tanja Gotthardsen: I find these cases interesting on multiple levels. Although I work with many other sectors than fashion, there is a potency to how we all wear and relate to clothes - even when we say we don't. And fashion makes obvious some of the dynamics that are more hidden in other sectors - from opaque value chains to aggressive marketing.

But Copenhagen Fashion Week and Zalando, for example, are also interesting in that Zalando is effectively the main sponsor of Copenhagen Fashion Week. For a fashion week who have time and time again claimed to engage with "sustainability," it seems an odd choice. Also, in the sense that Copenhagen Fashion Week have not approached their own communications more carefully, even when a close collaborator has been subject to complaints.

But the particular logic, across all industries, is that we can somehow consume and substitute our way out of overshoot, even when the science is very clear on the need for sufficiency approaches. And when it comes to customer facing communications, whether business to business or business to consumer, we see this continued co-option of what could be transformational terminology. Think about how quickly terms like "regenerative", "CO2-neutral" or "nature positive" are being transformed into branding to serve profitability. How things have been marketed to us as "conscious", "aware" and "responsible." It's a wicked thing to observe.

Brands often adapt after being criticised, but rarely admit wrongdoing. How do you navigate that tension between progress and performance — between reform that's real and reform that's cosmetic?
Tanja Gotthardsen: The thing is that there isn't a lot of tension—the majority of industry initiatives are cosmetic. Again, it often reveals itself in vague terminology and in incremental efforts such as material substitution without regard for e.g. volumes and a garment's so-called functional unit.

Very general claims are rarely proportional to what has actually been attempted or achieved, and when it comes to relevance, many scientific studies and reports already detail what is in particular required to transform the industry. These matters, however, have enjoyed little industry engagement so far—even though they are intrinsic to securing long-term business stability. 

For example, poverty alleviation, equality and empowerment are key not just for individual or societal wellbeing but also because they are intrinsically linked to financial distribution and environmental impact; yet many brands' purchasing practices continue to reflect an overriding focus on profitability. So, while the website might state that they want "fairness for all," it's not that difficult investigate practices. But of course, having scientific and legal frameworks as well as monitoring from e.g. worker rights entities at my disposal has also helped me build a methodology.

But to perhaps help readers navigate, I always suggest to first and foremost look for concrete information and tangible efforts rather than vague claims, and then to test it against common sense. We all know that e.g. excessive volumes are at the heart of negative impact, so what is being solved in that regard if a company claims to care? And when it comes to declaration of intent such as strategies or visions that businesses propose, you should know that most authorities actually require these to be backed by action plans that will effectively be able to deliver on what's promised.

You've looked at how sustainability frameworks can themselves become instruments of greenwashing. Does that ever make you question whether the system can self-correct, or is this work more about creating pressure from the outside?
Tanja Gotthardsen: I believe that self-correction has been argued and tried for far too long, especially under Western capitalist "free market" discourses, in which the market is never as free or untouched as it's portrayed. Whether we look at agriculture, the built environment or fashion, self-imposed, voluntary initiatives have generally failed to deliver beyond incremental impacts, and they are all too often limited by profitability.

We treat the economy as something equally as purposeful as ensuring human wellbeing within planetary boundaries, yet the economy is a means, not an end. So, I believe in intervening in systems, whether through workshops, policy processes or complaints, in ways that make obvious the inherent flaws of the status quo, while, at the same time, trying to draw attention to the scientific and legislative frameworks that are actually fit for purpose. 

You've already influenced policy conversations and industry conduct. Where do you want to take this next—do you see yourself continuing as a watchdog, or shifting towards reforming the communication systems from within?
Tanja Gotthardsen: Actually, I already work from within in many ways. That's my day-to-day, through trainings and strategic advice. It goes hand in hand with participation in policy processes, doing research, filing complaints etc. It all ties together for me. And working with clients is also highly energising for me. Especially when they grasp the depth of the challenges we are faced with and want to contribute way beyond compliance. Some of my clients are developing their owns ways in which to intervene in the system, and that brings me great joy. 

But I'm always on the look-out for new ways in which to intervene myself. There are e.g. still many aspects of existing anti-greenwashing policies that have yet to be enforced although there are plenty of examples of noncompliance in practice. Furthermore, that the EU is violating its own precautionary principle, i.e. weakening and missing policies, which is something I will be looking further into. And given that I work with many different sectors, I also get to explore similarities and complexities in ways that I find very stimulating. And I would love for more people to get onboard.