Fashion is about presenting your best self to the world.
Brands have long faced intense scrutiny over their production practices, an industry that has historically relied on sweatshops, sweatshops, child labor, and even slavery, and that has not been particularly effective against women and people of color. Despite the disproportionate impact on species, sustainability efforts have largely been carried out behind the scenes.
Now, as the effects of climate change move from a future concern to a present reality, this hidden side of the fashion industry is coming to light.
Consumers are now more aware of the fashion industry’s environmental impact and are looking for ways to reduce it.
As a result, brands are leveraging sustainability as a marketing tool, crafting compelling stories that resonate emotionally to build strong bonds with consumers and imbue items with a sense of uniqueness and value.
However, this approach has given rise to greenwashing, where brands make misleading claims about their environmental efforts to appear environmentally friendly without implementing significant changes.
In response to the rise of greenwashing in Australia, in 2022 the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) conducted an online investigation of 247 companies that may be guilty of greenwashing, and identified clothing and footwear as serious offenders. It was identified as
The report will lead to a Senate inquiry into greenwashing, with a final report expected to be released in November 2024.
There are several factors that contribute to the greenwashing problem in the fashion industry.
textile labels
In Australia, there is no obligation to include fiber content in clothing and textile products, creating issues with sustainability and product stewardship.
Fiber content labeling is critical in determining end-of-life strategies, as fiber type affects whether a fabric can be recycled or composted.
Blended fabrics are particularly problematic because a significant portion of clothing on the market is made up of mixed fiber blends, which are often mechanically shredded or sent to landfills.
This lack of fiber content labeling requirements conflicts with Australia’s goal to make the fashion industry circular by 2030, as it prevents recycling and post-consumer options.
Additionally, approximately 8,000 auxiliary chemicals are used in clothing and textile products, but brands are not required to disclose them.
Some of these chemicals can have serious health effects, and recent reports suggest that the ultra-fast fashion giant’s clothing contains far more harmful chemicals than legal standards. It is.
design
Current design approaches in the fashion industry often prioritize immediate sales over consideration of product longevity, leading to significant sustainability challenges.
Companies can make misleading environmental claims due to a lack of comprehensive materials knowledge.
Consumers are generally even less knowledgeable about these materials, putting an unfair burden on them to make sustainable choices.
To address this issue, we need to establish clear standards for safe, durable and sustainable textile products so that manufacturers and consumers are better informed and aligned towards true sustainability. A strong monitoring and regulatory framework is needed to ensure this.
material
Material innovation is one of the ways brands are trying to promote sustainability.
Although plastics and synthetic materials are often perceived as harmful, there is a movement to replace them with ‘natural’, ‘bio-based’ or biodegradable alternatives. However, these materials can be misleading to consumers.
For example, Piñatex® (pineapple leather) is made from pineapple plant waste but contains 28 percent PLA and PU (plastic).
This mixture of plant and synthetic materials limits disposal options to landfill or incineration and misleads consumers into thinking they are purchasing an all-natural or biodegradable product.
Similarly, mushroom leather (mycelium leather) is being promoted as a sustainable alternative to animal leather as it is biodegradable and has a lower environmental impact. However, greenwashing can occur in many different ways.
Stella McCartney: Made from mycelium and lyocell, the Flemy Milo bag is produced in limited quantities, suggesting exclusivity rather than a broader commitment to sustainability. Its high price tag further cements its status as a luxury item rather than an available sustainable option.
Nat-2 and Zvnder: The company’s “vegan fungus sneakers” use mushroom leather and eco-friendly materials, but lack of detailed information about the environmental impact of the manufacturing process and their true sustainability. It can mislead consumers about the possibilities.
Lululemon Athletica: Mushroom leather yoga mat and duffel bag incorporate sustainable accents rather than the entire product, which can be considered a token gesture. If you value recycled materials, you need to scrutinize the actual environmental benefits.
Mercedes-Benz: Its concept car features upholstery made of cactus and mushroom leather and bamboo fiber carpet. However, the environmental impact of the use of bamboo fibers, which are often processed into viscose using harmful chemicals, and the term “biobased polyurethane” needs to be clarified. This concept car may be more about marketing than a real change in production practices.
The transition to natural materials is being driven by a desire to use renewable resources rather than petroleum-based plastics, which are non-renewable and remain in landfills for centuries, contributing to microplastic pollution. Masu.
However, even natural fiber products can be at risk of greenwashing. These products may be marketed as compostable or biodegradable, but brands often do not disclose the chemicals or treatments used.
Only certified organic, untreated, undyed clothing should be composted at home, but very few of them meet this standard. Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) certified organic fabrics can no longer be classified as “organic” after being dyed with synthetic dyes.
It’s all a matter of image
Selective transparency and tokenism are common in greenwashing.
Companies are emphasizing sustainable materials without providing comprehensive lifecycle information, and incorporating small amounts of sustainable materials can encourage environmentally conscious consumers without significantly changing business practices. can attract.
The upscale positioning of sustainable products may also indicate that these products are more concerned with brand image than with making sustainable options available to everyone.
It is too much of a burden on consumers to do their own research on potential products before purchasing, but most consumers generally lack knowledge and understanding.
Even within the fashion industry, there is a lack of knowledge about materials, with most brands relying on their suppliers to provide accurate and truthful information.
Although the fashion industry has made some progress towards sustainability, greenwashing remains a major concern.
This is where strong regulatory frameworks, textile expertise and transparent labels can help to enable brands and consumers to make truly sustainable choices.
Dr Rebecca van Amber is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Fashion and Textiles and Program Manager for the Bachelor of Fashion and Textiles (Sustainable Innovation). She is an expert in sustainability and circular economy, textile and apparel research and development, and textile properties.
Dr Saniyat Islam is a Senior Lecturer in Fashion Enterprise and Sustainable Innovation in the School of Fashion and Textiles at RMIT University. His main research expertise is textile materials and polymer science. His current research focuses on circular business models, blockchain innovation for fashion companies, sustainable textile materials, and supply chain traceability for fashion systems.
The authors used help from Val, an AI assistant at RMIT University, to simplify the language and reduce the length of this article.
Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™.
