Hardly any term has been accepted as enthusiastically in recent years as that of sustainability – suddenly everything is “green”, “sustainable”, “eco” and “organic”. Unfortunately, however, it often remains with promising terms that do not hold much in practice. ‘Conscious’ collections are identified as minimally recycled and apparel return initiatives are used to boost sales of virgin clothing through the issuance of coupons.
The environmental protection organization Greenpeace had had enough of the promises and a plethora of their own sustainability labels from brands and retail companies and took a closer look at them for their “Greenwash Danger Zone” report. The result? Sustainability sells well and is therefore often just a clever marketing trick. FashionUnited has summarized the important points of the report.
Slowdown vs. Circularity
According to Greenpeace, brands and retailers can take responsibility for the entire lifecycle of their products by both slowing down their production and closing the loop through circular design, take-back and recycling.
“The two concepts are linked, but to solve the problem, slowing down the flow of product takes precedence over closing the loop, since overproduction makes it impossible to close the loop. Simply coloring a linear business model in guilt-free recycling green can never be sustainable,” explains Greenpeace.
Buzzword circular economy
Just like “sustainability”, the term “circular economy” has also become a buzzword. However, Greenpeace has summarized the efforts of fashion companies into three non-working elements: take-back programs that distribute textile waste only to the Global South; the use of plastic waste from other industries, which sounds good but fails to address the issue of textile-to-textile recycling; and so-called recycled and recyclable fashion, made from fossil fuel-based polyester, which remains the main driver of overproduction.
“Despite the fashion industry hype, the sad reality is that the circular economy in fashion is virtually non-existent: while less than 1 percent of clothing is recycled into new clothing, garment production volumes are increasing at 2.7 percent annually,” according to Greenpeace sad conclusion.
“Every second a truckload of clothing is incinerated or sent to a landfill. With the help of newer online retailers like Shein, the destructive fast fashion trend is accelerating rather than slowing down,” warns the environmental organization.
Myth of recycled polyester
Fast fashion needs polyester and polyester is based on PET plastic and thus the fossil fuels of the petrochemical industry. Polyester fibers are not biodegradable; on the contrary, microplastic fibers are released during the manufacture of clothing and when consumers wash them, entering rivers and seas where it can take decades to break down.
“There is no system for the large-scale recycling of used polyester fabrics into new textiles. Most of the ‘recycled’ polyester comes from open-loop sourcing of PET plastic bottles or collected ocean plastic. However, this only accelerates the conversion of solid material into more bioavailable microplastic fibers, which end up in rivers and seas when clothes are washed,” summarizes Greenpeace.
The myth of organic cotton
After polyester, cotton is the most used material in the clothing industry. While conventional cotton cultivation is associated with various environmental and social problems, such as the use of large amounts of water, pesticides and fertilizers, and the use of GMO seeds, which accounted for almost 80 percent of all cotton grown in 2019, so-called organic cotton is not either without problems: it depends a lot on which initiative is growing it and where it is grown. Is GMO seed allowed and do farmers get paid more for their organic cotton?
“BCI Cotton provides fashion brands with cotton that is only marginally better than the unsustainable traditional cotton, with the least possible effort for the brands. This contributes to continued overproduction and overconsumption of clothing, hindering the much-needed sea change of the current fashion system. Instead of settling for half measures like Better Cotton, more brands, especially global brands that have a significant market share, should be willing to source organic and fair trade cotton and pay a higher price. This is the only way to significantly reduce the costs for the environment and people caused by conventional cotton,” Greenpeace sums up.
Myth of cellulose fibers
Cellulosic fibers are a relatively new but growing source of material in the fashion industry. They are made from natural materials (usually wood or other cellulosic sources such as cotton waste) that are turned into fibers in an artificial process. For example, Tencel, EcoVero, Modal Black and Modal Color are manufactured in a ‘closed loop’ to prevent the release of chemicals. EcoVero has 50 percent fewer emissions and uses 50 percent less water than traditional viscose, and with Modal Black and Modal Color the fibers are dyed directly during the solvent process, resulting in 90 percent savings in chemicals and significant savings in water, electricity, heat and waste water.
Chemical recycling of natural fibers is also possible using a cellulose dissolving technique similar to viscose production, as shown by a VTT Research project in Finland, which converts textile waste into new fibres. Similarly, Lenzing uses the Tencel production process for recycling cotton waste for its Refibra recycled cellulose fiber.
“Beyond the need for minimal impact in processing, cellulosic fibers also rely on forests that may be old-growth and endangered forests. The CanopyStyle initiative releases a ranking of cellulosic fiber manufacturers that ‘provides a way for brands, retailers and MMCF manufacturers to help address the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss by overcoming industry pressures depleting forests’ and encouraging manufacturing companies to instead source materials that would otherwise end up as landfill and burden our landfills. Forest policy criteria include third-party verified auditing and traceability,” advises Greenpeace.
Myth of sustainable labels from brands
Greenpeace examined the sustainable labels of the 29 members of its Detox initiative (which aims to break down dangerous chemicals in textiles), including H&M’s Conscious, Primark Cares, Zara’s Join Life, Ecodesign by Decathlon and “Wear the Change” by C&A. These were examined for a number of criteria, including clear identification of what exactly is being certified, traceability of the supply chain, wages workers are paid, whether the self-label is verified by a third party and whether, for example, on PET plastic, BCI Cotton or the Higg MSI index is accessed.
The overall rating of the individual brands and labels can be found in detail in the Greenpeace report; At this point it can be summarized that only two brands received a good overall rating, namely Coop’s “Naturaline” and Vaude’s “Green Shape” or Tchibo’s “Well done” a satisfactory; all other programs did not withstand a closer examination.
“Not surprisingly, our assessment confirms that self-assessed marketing labels can be challenged by brands as greenwashing, a trend that has accelerated in recent years. These ‘fake standards’ ensure that fast fashion giants don’t have to adhere to the strict rules of independent standards, but can practically write the rules themselves. Sustainability has become a communication goal without any truly credible action being taken to realign their linear business models,” is Greenpeace’s devastating conclusion.
recommendations
The environmental organization therefore recommends finally tackling the linear model of the fashion industry and accepting that fast fashion can never be sustainable. But there are some things companies can do now; such as producing fewer clothes that last longer and can be repaired and recycled.
In addition, no textiles should be placed on the market that cannot be recycled in textile recycling processes; Mixed fibers still cause problems here. In general, clothing should also be taken back and repair and exchange models offered.
As a rule of thumb, Greenpeace recommends that by 2035 at the latest, only about 40 percent of clothing should be new and 60 percent should come from alternative systems such as repair, second-hand, rental and exchange.
A fashion company should also publish detailed data on the materials used and seek dialogue with customers about all sustainability measures.