Eco-laundering is a technique increasingly used by fast fashion companies to improve their brand image. Indeed, greenwashing involves the use of communication methods aimed at convincing consumers that the products are good for the environment, or that the companies themselves value the environment.
For example, a company might say that it prioritizes the environment when choosing the materials for building a store, but, in the background, lobbies against environmental laws that would make it lose money. At the same time, when a company puts forward that it has cleaned up a particular body of water, it may also be an operation that was forced by the government because they were the ones to pollute it. A company can also promote its environmental initiatives to divert attention from the bad conditions of the workers who produce the clothing.
It is normal that companies think that it is important to seem to take the environment to heart. Especially considering that 66% of consumers are willing to pay more for an environmentally sustainable product. On the other hand, when it comes to fast fashion, it is difficult or impossible to have a business model focused on sustainable development. We are talking here about companies that are better off convincing the consumer to buy new clothes every week, while offering the lowest possible prices. A production as fast and low prices is possible thanks to several elements:
inexpensive raw materials (either they are synthetic or they are less durable),
cheap labor (found in countries with lower regulations, where products must be transported overseas)
the use of synthetic dyes (dangerous for workers and the environment)
non-compliance with regulations on the treatment of toxic waste (which is released into the environment)
Each of these elements cannot be achieved without putting the environment aside. It’s like when bottled water companies say their product is good for the environment because their plastic bottles are thinner, or they’re made from recycled plastics. This is ridiculous because the principle itself of bottled water is not environmentally friendly.
One might be tempted to say that at least these companies make an effort, even if a company undertakes sustainable development actions in order to attract a larger customer base. The problem is when the company spends more on public relations than on real actions to help the environment, or just when these claims are false.
For example, H & M spends millions of dollars on ads for its garment recycling program, but burns thousands of pounds of unsold garments a year. The question is: if H & M was really able to recycle the clothes they are given, why burn the surplus production? In addition, a few weeks after these allegations, H & M announced that burning these clothes would be used to replace coal in a power station in the city. It seems to me that if this was completely true, a company that prides itself on having the environment at heart would not have waited to get caught before announcing such good news. Not to mention that this is not the first offense on their part in terms of irreversible destruction of unsold products.
The money invested by H & M to talk about its environmental initiatives would be much more useful if it actually served to reduce the direct impacts of their production. Considering that H & M’s net profit is more than $ 2 billion a year, this company could afford to respect the environment at every step of the production chain, without increasing prices to the consumer.
How to avoid eco-laundering?
There are many ways to find out if a clothing manufacturer is guilty of greenwashing.
First, be aware that buying from a fast fashion company (H & M, Zara, Topshop, Forever 21, Urban Outfitters, GAP, Old Navy, to name only a few), subscribes to a mode of consumption which is hardly environmental in itself. To reassure oneself by thinking that at least the company recycles what one gets from it is self-greenwashing! Recycling clothes demands a great deal of energy and ressources, so it is still better to restrain from buying too much. Not everyone can buy clothes from top designers, but it is possible to buy less often, or buy clothes in thrift stores.
Second, a quick Google search of the company name followed by “environment” shows what kind of results come out of it. If the company has practices that are not very transparent and not very environmental, it is almost certain that it will appear. This method is not infallible, but it is rather useful if one wants to know quickly what’s what. We can also look at related searchs, which will give us a second opinion when the first results come only from the website of the company. Obviously, this kind of research is more effective in English.
You can also ask employees what they know about the sustainable initiatives of the company they work for. Companies with a strong sense of responsibility and sustainability will train employees to answer consumer questions, and the people who work there will be happy to talk to you about their initiatives. If the employee responds vaguely, or only picks up information from labels and advertising campaigns, there is a good chance that they are more about greenwashing than protecting the environment.
Another consideration to be made is the stage for which the claims of sustainable development are made. If you focus on just one stage of production or sales, chances are it hides problems at other levels. For example, if we say that the garment is made of recycled cotton, what about the condition of the workers, the surplus of overproduction, the use of chemicals to dye, whiten, or soften textiles? Moreover, if this information is evasive, it is likely to be used for greenwashing. Indeed, if we say “made of organic cotton”, we can simply say that this cotton is not a GMO, but we would still use pesticides and fertilizers (especially if we do not apply certification, see my next point). I would add that “made of organic cotton” could also mean that the material contains a certain amount of organic cotton, and the rest is made of normal cotton having an immense environmental impact.
Finaly, if there is no organic, eco or sustainable certification, it is likely that the company’s environmental claim is false. It is easy to use the words “sustainable” or “eco-friendly” or even “fair trade”, but these words are also overused in the media by companies to sell their products and have become meaningless. It can also happen that there is a certification, but in fact, the company has chosen one whose standards are as low as possible to shield their less eco-friendly practices. For example, H & M uses “sustainable” cotton certified Better Cotton Initiative. Although this seems to be a good thing, no study has yet proven that the criteria have any impact on both working conditions and the impact on the environment. The same research shows that in the case of irrigation, BCI and non-BCI certified cotton farmers use the same amount of water given long periods of drought, so even if the standard is applied, it has no real influence on water consumption (although there would be one theoretically). As long as the BCI uses the same standards for all regions where it is present, without evaluating the effectiveness of these standards, it is only offering the big companies an option of greenwashing. Another more in-depth article will follow on the different certifications used by the field of fashion and about their standards.
In conclusion, although greenwashing allows fast fashion companies to attract customers who care about the environment, we must remember that if they do so, it is because they are attentive to consumer desires. It is therefore our responsibility, as their main source of revenue, to refuse to purchase products that we believe are not being manufactured, to encourage them to take more and more action to protect the environment. . Who knows, maybe we will change the future of fashion, one non-purchase at a time!
Kommentare