The fashion industry as a whole is communicating an alternative and misleading narrative about circularity, and promoting this as the solution to its environmental and social impacts, without acknowledging that slowing down the flow of materials should be the primary focus of any “sustainability” initiative.
- The assertion comes from a new Greenpeace report, Greenwash Danger Zone: 10 years after Rana Plaza, that has documented the biggest false green claims made by major global fashion labels.
HIJACKING CIRCULARITY: When fashion brands talk about recycling and circularity, only 3% of clothes are made from recycled polyester, with most of the clothes made in this 3% are from recycled plastic bottles with most either being dumped or burned but not recycled again.
- Less than 1% of clothes are made from old textiles.
- There is no system for the largescale recycling of used polyester fabric into new textiles.
- The majority of “recycled” polyester relies on ‘open loop’ sourcing of post-consumer PET plastic bottles or collected marine plastics. However, this simply speeds up the conversion of solid material into more bioavailable microplastic fibres, released into rivers and seas when clothes are washed.
- The majority of recycled PET is not used to make new PET bottles but gets diverted into other products like textiles, plastic trays and other packaging—which is not recyclable.
- BCI (Better Cotton Initiative) cotton is providing fashion brands with cotton which is only slightly better than the unsustainable mainstream cotton, with the lowest possible effort from the brands. This contributes to continued overproduction and overconsumption of clothes and thereby hinders much needed essential change of the current fashion system.
- Instead of settling for half measures such as Better Cotton, more brands, in particular global brands which hold a significant share of the market, should be prepared to source organic and Fairtrade cotton and pay a higher price. This is the only way to make a significant positive impact on the environmental and human costs of conventional cotton.
ASSESSING THE SELF-ASSESSED: For this review, Greenpeace looked at the practices of all 29 Detox committed brands, and selected those which use a product marketing label which have a defined slogan, using positive terms such as “eco” “green” or “cares” such as Join Life (Zara), or Conscious (H&M).
- The other brands assessed are Decathlon, a brand that was called out for greenwashing by the Dutch regulator (along with H&M), the Italian brand Calzedonia, and the German retailer Peek & Cloppenburg.
- While none of these brands is Detox committed, Decathlon is a member of the ZDHC. Calzedonia and Peek & Cloppenburg do not include any reference to Detox, an MRSL or wastewater testing for priority hazardous chemicals, and are not members of the ZDHC.
- Self-assessed marketing labels by brands can be challenged as greenwashing, a trend which has picked up speed in recent years. These “fake standards” ensure that fast fashion giants do not have to adhere to the strict rules of independent standards, but can virtually write the rules themselves. Sustainability has become a communication goal without really putting credible measures in place to realign their linear business models.
COMMON PATTERNS OF CONCERN: Confusing consumers with tags which are featured as if they were certified labels, which are sometimes named after company sustainability programmes.
- A lack of third-party verified or in-house evaluation of compliance with the best available standards on the environment, social and human rights.
- A lack of supply chain traceability beneath the label.
- Continued ignoring of “slowing the flow” options, no attempt to change business models.
- A misleading narrative about circularity that relies on the sourcing of recycled polyester from other industries instead of used textiles, and the collection of used clothes through take-back schemes which could actually end up as textile waste dumped in Global South countries.
- Misleading use of “sustainable” or “responsible” attached to “materials” which are slightly better than virgin or conventional fibres but cannot be described in this way, e.g. BCI cotton and recycled polyester.
- The continued production of fibre blends such as poly cotton which are presented as greener due to their recycled content, despite the fact that mixed fibres are a one-off unrecyclable solution that do not close the loop.
- Continued reliance on the discredited Higg Index on Materials Sustainability—a product-focused tool for comparing the sustainability of different fibres, which does not take the whole lifecycle assessment of fibres into consideration, leaving out end of life, and ranks polyester as one of the most sustainable fibres.
- Not providing consumers and third parties with a breakdown of figures per material to substantiate the company’s green claims or its overall direction and long-term strategy.
- Some labels highlight a single aspect of improvement in production, such as the reduction of water use or the reuse/recycling of pre-consumer waste.
- The initiatives that are highlighted can be on a small scale, without being put into the context of the larger volumes of business as usual.
