The fashion industry is currently at a crossroads. While most brands and retailers embrace sustainability and related areas and make efforts to reduce their environmental impact and improve conditions for their workers throughout the supply chain, there are pitfalls along the way.
Global regulations and rules, such as extending the lifespan of products and ensuring the safety of workers, must be observed. In addition, one’s own achievements must not be under-, but also not over-communicated, in order not to appear as a ‘greenwasher’. For product suppliers, this means walking a tightrope. Those who succeed have a chance to pave the way for a new era in retail.
On this topic, London-based product intelligence and compliance platform Compare Ethics, in partnership with Apparel Insider, has sparked a discussion that sheds light on the greenwashing landscape in the fashion industry and celebrates brands that are getting it right and making it, with the accelerating pace to keep pace with changing requirements.
What is important?
The focus is initially on the requirements that brands and retailers will be faced with in relation to their “green” claims, such as the Green Claims Code in the UK, the forthcoming EU Green Deal and the proposed New York Sustainable Fashion Act. In addition, EU countries such as France and the Netherlands use their respective consumer protection laws.
For Lili Dreyer from Danish upcycle startup Vaer, which makes sneakers out of old jeans, transparency is very important. “We tell our customers what’s in the sneakers, who made them. You have to communicate more,” says Dreyer.
Sabinna Rachimova, from London-based sustainable fashion label Sabinna, joins in, explaining that she explains why she made certain choices, not just to customers, but to everyone involved along the supply chain. For example in relation to raw materials or processes and how these fit into the sustainable framework.
What terminology should one use?
When asked about the right terminology, she points out that sustainability is a spectrum that stretches from raw materials to living wages. “We didn’t call ourselves ‘sustainable’ at first and are now using the term ‘conscious’. I’m still getting lost in the linguistic conversation a bit, but we have to name it somehow.”
Dreyer agrees, sharing that Vaer hasn’t used the term “sustainable” much yet, as the brand focuses more on the aspect that the product is upcycled and made from textile waste. For them there is an opportunity in storytelling, which corresponds to the experiences and demands of the younger target groups. “But of course we want to show up if someone is looking for ‘sustainable shoes’,” she says.
Abbie Morris, co-founder and CEO of Compare Ethics, notes that while searches for terms like “sustainable” and “organic” have indeed increased, the claims that brands and retailers make need to be specific, and the terminology that used must be comparable to that for a similar product, at least in the UK. Claims should also be backed up with data and nothing should be left out.
Avoid greenwashing
These considerations led to the question of how to avoid greenwashing, which in many cases is not at all intentional. For Rachimova, the answer lies in collaborations that brands should engage in to find solutions together, but also within different areas in larger companies.
Dreyer noted that all stakeholders, regardless of the size of an organization, struggle with the problem of data acquisition and verification. “Honesty is important and communicating about what data you may not have,” she advises. For Dreyer, compliance isn’t a necessary evil either, but “a way to make products better.”
Other points of discussion were life cycle assessments and how to standardize them and get the most out of them, but also the question of the most suitable operating models. They will all have to be dealt with in more detail and individually in the future.