Shopping at H&M may not be as sustainable as the fast fashion retailer would like its customers to believe. In the most recent greenwashing case against the Swedish fashion group, a lawsuit was filed in a US federal court in Missouri. In this, H&M is accused of trying in a “misleading, illegal and deceptive manner” to capitalize on the “green” consumer trend. The company should suggest to customers that the products in the “Conscious Choice” line are environmentally friendly purchase decisions.
The fifty-five-page lawsuit states that consumers are becoming increasingly aware of climate issues and the role of the fashion industry in the manufacture of garments and the harmful impact it has on the planet. As a result, many people are looking for products that are ethically and environmentally conscious.
Deceptive Business Practices
Large companies like H&M have enormous marketing resources and disseminate far-reaching messages that plaintiffs Abraham Lizama and Marc Doten call “unlawful, unfair, deceptive and misleading business practices”.
“Developing sustainability strategies based on the idea that consumers can continue to consume single-use plastic products because they can be recycled into new products is highly problematic. This method of ‘green’ marketing fails to address the fundamental problem of single-use solutions and the overconsumption of natural resources,” the lawsuit reads. “Indeed, these strategies encourage consumers to buy more clothes or throw away garments sooner , believing that these can be recycled in a magical machine.”
In response to consumers’ desire for more sustainable and eco-friendly fashion, many companies are “greenwashing” their products by falsely claiming that their clothes are made from more sustainable and eco-friendly materials, the lawsuit states.
The false promise of “green” products
H&M uses green labels to identify and market its Conscious Choice products. This label suggests that the garments are either sustainable or more sustainable than other products, despite being largely made from polyester or recycled plastics. The plaintiffs believe that this is a misrepresentation of products that are not intended to have a negative impact on the environment.
In addition, H&M charges higher prices for its Conscious Choice products, which according to The Fashion Law website is relevant to the lawsuit because it gives plaintiffs an opportunity to show that they “suffered necessary harm” and “have a right to sue.” ” are.
ClassAction.org is a platform dedicated to exposing corporate wrongdoing. The website notes that the United States Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Green Guides state that “an environmental marketing claim should not directly or implicitly overstate any environmental characteristic or benefit.” The Green Guides are guidelines designed to discourage companies from obscuring their products.
“Advertisers should not state or imply environmental benefits where the benefits are immaterial,” the lawsuit reads.
This translated and edited post previously appeared on FashionUnited.uk.