The textile and clothing industry currently generates 120 million tons of textile waste per year, which is no longer used and ends up in landfills, and the trend is rising. Instead of cutting back on production and thus drastically limiting emissions and raw material consumption, many fashion companies hide behind so-called “sustainability labels” that are intended to suggest to customers that their purchase is okay and that they can continue to buy new goods with a clear conscience.
This was reason enough for the environmental protection organization Greenpeace to examine and evaluate the 21 best-known clothing labels. “The focus was particularly on how trustworthy the certifications are. Because without independent specifications and regular transparent audits that ensure that the promises are actually and reliably kept over a long period of time, quality marks are not credible,” explains the organization.
“Many fashion labels today use seals specifically for greenwashing, so they can justify the unbridled overproduction of clothing and give consumers a supposedly good feeling when buying. We therefore recommend critically questioning every purchase decision and every label. Real sustainability means consistently focusing on longevity and always preferring alternatives such as swapping, borrowing or repairing to buying new,” comments Moritz Jäger-Roschko, Greenpeace expert on circular economy.
Which labels were examined?
The 21 labels examined include 18 of the best-known and most widespread quality seals and symbols in the fashion sector as well as three labels from fashion companies. Ten of the 18 quality seals look at the supply chain holistically; They were examined based on five areas: independent controls and transparent reporting, use of chemicals, other environmental impacts (raw materials, energy, water consumption, etc.), scope (which parts of the supply chain are covered) and deceleration (slow production cycles and reduction in material consumption). Of the eight quality marks that only look at part of the supply chain, the last two areas could not be evaluated.
The evaluation was carried out according to five classifications: “very trustworthy”, “trustworthy”, “conditionally trustworthy”, “not very trustworthy” and “absolutely not trustworthy”.
“Only those quality marks that offer significant or clear advantages for the environment by, among other things, covering a large part of the supply chain and requiring a high proportion of (organic) natural fibers and strict chemical management were classified as ‘trustworthy’,” explains Greenpeace.
Chemical management assessed whether the quality labels specify a list of prohibited chemicals for production (e.g. ZDHC – Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals), tests of wastewater discharge in the factories and restrictions on chemicals in the end products (RSL – Restricted Substances List). What was crucial was “a comprehensible and effective transparent control system with strict criteria”.
Trusted labels
None of the labels examined received a “very trustworthy” rating; Four managed to be classified as “trustworthy”: including GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard) as one of the few quality marks that takes both social and ecological criteria into account across the entire textile supply chain. It also requires the use of organic fibers and the standards are regularly updated and adjusted. However, none of the trustworthy labels include guidelines for slowing down production cycles.
IVN Best is currently the strictest quality mark for natural fibers on the market; Fabrics and products made from synthetic fibers or mixed fibers may not bear the symbol. While organic farming is mandatory and chemical-synthetic pesticides are therefore banned, the label does not require sufficient testing of wastewater for dangerous chemicals in the factories that dye or wash textiles, and controls on dangerous chemicals in the final product are in some cases “comparatively weak” in terms of scope and limits, according to Greenpeace.
Oeko-Tex Made in Green is also a strict standard for textile production and end products, but here with a focus on extensive chemical management. However, textiles of all types of materials are certified without any specifications for their sustainability, including mixed fibers and synthetic fibers.
The Naturland quality mark is awarded by the independent Naturland association and is primarily known for food; It is relatively strict for organic textile products. However, as with IVN Best, the label does not require adequate testing of wastewater for hazardous chemicals in dyeing and washing operations, and controls on hazardous chemicals in the final product are in some cases “comparatively weak.”
The only trustworthy corporate label is Vaudes Green Shape because it is regularly updated and requires timeless design, longer usability and options for repair, return, reuse and recycling. It also relies on tested social standards (Vaude achieved leader status from the Fair Wear Foundation). What still needs improvement is that there is no information on the reduction of plastic fibers in the collections.
Conditionally trustworthy labels
Six quality marks have been placed in this category; including three holistic ones – Blue Angel, Cradle to Cradle Platinum and Gold and the EU Ecolabel as well as Cotton made in Africa, Oeko-Tex Standard 100 and Organic 100 for the quality marks for sub-areas.
The Blue Angel from the German Ministry of the Environment takes into account the environmental impact throughout the entire life cycle of the products and is awarded for clothing made from all types of fibers. Here, too, there is a lack of wastewater testing for dangerous chemicals in dyeing and washing plants and the control for dangerous chemicals in the end product only covers ten chemical groups.
The Aid by Trade Foundation’s Cotton made in Africa only applies to cotton production and does not set any environmental requirements for the processing of the clothing. There are no environmental or social requirements for other parts of the supply chain, except for cotton growing and ginning. In addition, there is no general ban on chemical-synthetic pesticides.
Cradle to Cradle is a complex certification system that focuses on the circular idea. The Gold and Platinum levels prohibit hazardous chemicals in manufacturing according to the ZDHC list. However, there is a lack of wastewater testing for hazardous chemicals in dyeing and washing plants and controls for hazardous chemicals in the final product.
The EU Ecolabel takes into account the environmental impact throughout the entire life cycle of the products. However, there are no requirements that preferred natural fibers be used.
The Oeko-Tex Standard 100 checks the pollutant levels of the components of the finished product and controls the end producers and the certification of suppliers. However, there are no further environmental requirements for the production of the garments along the supply chain.
The Organic Content Standard “OCS 100” confirms the proportion of certified organic fibers in a garment, but only includes the quantity and traceability of the fibers.
Untrustworthy labels
Bluesign, Cradle to Cradle Bronze and Silver, the Green Button, Global Recycling Standard, Organic Content Standard, “OCS blended”, and the Recycled 100 Claim Standard were classified as “untrustworthy”.
There are repeated complaints about the lack of control of chemicals in the end product, different standards under one roof, which can be confusing for consumers, a lack of disclosure of supplier lists and the awarding of even a small percentage.
Absolutely untrustworthy labels
This includes the Recycled Claim Standard “RCS blended” and the Better Cotton Initiative as well as some company labels (see below). The shortcomings include the allocation of a recycled content of only 5 percent of the raw material (RCS blended), different standards with different requirements, only partially independent controls and no control of chemicals in the end product as well as no environmental requirements for production along the supply chain.
The most caution is required with company-owned labels: “Products are often labeled based on weak quality marks. The “pseudo standards” ensure that the fast fashion giants do not have to adhere to the strict rules of independent standards, but can write the rules themselves. “So they are trying to “greenwash” their entire environmentally harmful business model with a sometimes small “green niche,” according to Greenpeace.
This includes the current labels Peek & Cloppenburg We Care Together and Primark Cares as well as C&A Wear the Change, H&M Conscious, Mango Committed and Zara Join Life, which are no longer on the market.
Social quality marks
In addition to environmental quality labels, consumers should also pay attention to social standards and controls. These value humane working conditions in factories and on farms, the traceability of products and raw materials, fair trade and organic production and independent controls along the production chain.
Experts from the organizations Inkota and Clean Clothes Initiative rate the following four as more comprehensive and trustworthy than others: Fair Labor Association, Fair Trade Certified Cotton, Fair Trade Textile Production and Fair Wear Foundation.
Recommendation: less consumption
Even the best label cannot (yet) guarantee one thing: no use of new raw materials. Therefore, consumers should carefully consider purchasing new clothing, shoes and accessories.
“The most important recommendation for consumers is therefore completely independent of quality labels: buy less clothing and more consciously, pay attention to longevity and quality, preserve existing clothing for longer by washing it gently, repair it if possible and swap clothes or wear second hand instead of buying new,” advises Greenpeace.
When buying a new product – should it be unavoidable – quality marks can help; they are generally a good idea. However, there is still no legal framework at the international level. That is why Greenpeace is calling for a strong EU supply chain law “for high environmental and social standards, binding specifications for longevity and a ban on sustainability claims that do not go beyond legal or market requirements and are not controlled by independent audits.”