Fashion and sustainability regulations: risks, sanctions and opportunities

It is not enough to create products in a greener and more ethical way. There are other steps needed in fashion and textiles to gain people’s trust, show commitment to sustainability and avoid sanctions and fines. In view of the new regulations, we discuss this with lawyers Camilla Gentile and Isabella Carantani of the law firm Close to Ius, with whom we are organizing a dedicated workshop: Sostenibilità e Normative Tessili.

Isabella supports companies in adopting targeted legal solutions for the ethical and transparent management of business practices, specializing in industrial property, environmental and social sustainability and transparent communication. Camilla focuses on legal advice in the area of ​​sustainability and ESG responsibility, helping companies comply with industry regulations and promote sustainable strategies.

Table of Contents:

1. Introduction to Sustainability in Fashion 0:00
• Need for Sustainability Evidence

2. Role of Lawyers in Sustainability 0:24
• Legal Support for Companies

3. Regulations and Responsibilities 1:38
• Shared Responsibility (Consumers, Companies, Government)
• Adaptation to Regulations

4. Emblematic Case Studies 2:43
• Case of a Textile Brand
• Case of Cosmetic Products

5. Risks Related to Communication and Marketing 11:19
• Use of Vague and Generic Slogans

6. Impacts of Sustainability Communication 12:28
• Risks of Greenwashing
• Types of Washing

7. Regulatory and Competitive Approach 15:17
• Need for Regulatory Compliance

8. Is Certification Enough? 17:11

9. Regulations: Obstacle or Opportunity for Sustainable Brands? 23:46

10. Conclusions and Recommendations 29:25
• The importance of consulting and education

Interview Transcript::

We often talk about the need to work on multiple fronts to reduce the negative environmental and social impact of the textile industry and fashion. When we talk to the public, who we then call consumers, we hear that companies must do their part.
When we talk to companies they tell us that government intervention is needed with more severe regulations. So today here we are to address the topic of regulations that are already or will soon be in act. While it is clear that everyone – consumer, company and government – has their share of responsibility, we are here today to talk about what companies have also asked for: regulations.
However, it seems to me that when the regulations have arrived, are arriving, brands feel a very distant need to implement them now and to comply, without waiting any longer, perhaps perceiving as distant the possibility of receiving sanctions or fines, or something that is still so distant from their daily reality. We would like to avoid especially small and medium brands from finding themselves unprepared when all these regulations become, perhaps overnight, in place, catching them unprepared and finding themselves facing obstacles from a legal compliance point of view. I know you have also followed some interesting cases, do you have one to tell?

Camilla: “Yes, we have followed several cases, certainly one case that we can consider emblematic was that of a textile brand. It dealt with fashion, and used slogans referring to its products, proposing them as sustainable with zero impact, therefore a whole series of requirements that are certainly very interesting nowadays for those interested in sustainability. The problem of this brand was not so much the actual presence of these qualities as the lack of evidence to support their existence. Having to demonstrate to the consumer what zero impact was, what the advantages of this product were, there was actually no concrete and clear proof, there were no third-party certifications, there was no real traceability system. So it became a bit complicated to be able to explain why this advantage existed. We therefore decided to also do a rebranding job from a communication point of view, therefore working both with the communication department and obviously the production department and the entire traceability system to support the company and actually understand how to change this problem. Because unfortunately even having truly sustainable products it is necessary to also have an entire internal structure that can show it. This is what becomes a little difficult to understand for certain companies and certain realities and therefore we try to raise awareness and support in this sense. Even the new regulations are certainly helping to understand these dynamics.”

Isabella: “Among other things, in this case a very important element, an aggravating factor of this whole situation was given by the fact that an association of environmentalists had reported both via email directly to the company, and via reviews on various platforms, precisely this deceptive conduct, these false statements, in any case misleading or considered not very transparent. So also in this sense it goes without saying that we had to do some work on the credibility of the brand that risked being lost a bit and therefore the work of collecting data and collecting concrete evidence helped to defend ourselves in this sense.”

So as a small brand gains visibility, it still has to pay more and more attention because it ends up being in the sights of associations that defend this type of causes that touch and are touched by the claims that brands make. This case is very interesting also because sometimes it seems so far away that it could happen, that is, it seems that it could only happen to large companies, big names that we often mention within the various channels and instead it actually makes us think that it is something close to us. Do you also have another case to tell, always linked to regulations?

Isabella: “Yes, actually it is another interesting case that happened to us in this sense it concerns a brand of cosmetic products that basically went to define its products in general its production with the use of natural elements.
This aspect created a little bit of problems. Not so much for the use of materials that in reality were actually natural products, but for the fact that for a system of manufacturing procedures these products could not actually be defined as 100% natural. Among other things in this case another aspect that we would like to bring to attention is that the term natural in itself does not mean sustainable. It has evolved a bit in common language that saying natural means sustainability, but in reality it is not exactly like that both from a sustainability terminology point of view and also from a legal point of view, because in reality the term natural does not provide for this classification. So this aspect should also be highlighted because it clearly requires a certain underlying basis to be able to use it.”

Camilla: “Yes, let’s say that unfortunately the term is not directly linked to the word sustainability, on the other hand it is also true that unfortunately fortunately most consumers think so and therefore also in this sense, from a legal point of view, one could actually play on this thing. Because maybe the product can actually be 100% natural, let’s suppose, but on the other hand it still gives a message that can be considered misleading and therefore even with the regulations in force at the moment, since last year, in any case the use of this term could already be considered problematic. Let’s see now that then it is more right it can no longer be used fundamentally but there is also this element to consider in advertising.”

It is widely used, it often happens to read natural almost everywhere in cosmetic products but it also happens in fashion. I happen to find written in cotton therefore 100% natural very often and actually even for us who are not in your profession “natural” immediately evokes sustainable. There is very but very often this association that we should talk about more. It is not actually so appropriate, not everything that is natural and sustainable and not everything that is sustainable is natural. Thank you because this case is also very interesting.
We have also reported cases of big brands that have been the subject of complaints or public checks by consumer protection authorities or by consumer groups due to perhaps misleading statements. For example, we have witnessed the revocation of the Conscious label by H&M, the Joy Life label by Zara and in the same way ASOS has removed the Responsible Edit line. Can you think of other cases to mention relating to big brands?

Camilla: “Yes, it is a case that we remember because this too has been quite discussed, it is the case of Decathlon, for example, which had used the word ecodesign for several products. It qualified its products with this term, but in reality without actually specifying what ecodesign meant or why it fell under this terminology. Eco design is also a European regulation that then determines what the aspects of the product must be, but such a vague term without reference to the regulation and without reference to the sustainability characteristics was misleading. Also for this reason, in the case of Decathlon, this term was then removed and they implemented a completely different policy. Even the use of words that evoke sustainability but which are not specified, that is, it is not indicated why they are used, can be considered misleading for the consumer. The brand might not actually be sustainable or it could be but without demonstrating it, it still falls into a problem of communication of perception.”

If it isn’t demonstrable, then it’s as if it’s not sustainable, is that the right point?

Camilla: “Exactly, yes. This obviously applies to both large companies and small brands because the rules are always the same. Clearly, the larger the company, the more difficult it may be to actually trace the entire product process. Perhaps it starts out as a super sustainable natural raw material, then it gets lost in the process. Support and control are essential.”

What are the risks? What are the most common risks for those who have a sustainable fashion brand today in 2025, but also from now until next year, shortly?

Isabella: “In general, we can say that the most immediate risk, precisely in the choice and implementation of advertising and marketing campaigns, is that brands use generic assertions and slogans such as 100% sustainable, 100% green, environmentally friendly and so on. Certainly very catchy for marketing but based on a lack of concreteness. Because it is now well known that a 100% sustainable product is impossible to produce, so clearly the main risk in using these assertions is receiving reports from consumers. Because the attention that consumers now have towards issues concerning sustainability is very high. There are specific associations or websites where consumers can report the conduct and uses, advertising of certain brands. Furthermore, there is a clear risk of checks by the authorities, issuing sanctions, having to undergo both control procedures and clearly then issuing provisions that are not only economic, but are also inhibitory, that is, they can include the suspension of production in the most serious cases. Obviously also economic sanctions. Above all, however, enormous reputational damage. This concerns both the small brand that perhaps finds itself in a start-up phase of its business, but it also concerns the large company. Unfortunately, one false step is enough to end up in the cyclone and therefore have very large reputational damage.”

Camilla: “For a small brand it is perhaps even more impactful because, especially if at the beginning, it is true that many sanctions are based on what the turnover is, therefore they are proportionate to the turnover and the seriousness of the behavior, for a small brand however low the turnover may be there has perhaps been a large investment and therefore on the other hand these sanctions have a great impact and really risk blocking the birth and growth of this reality.”

That is what we would like to avoid. This is why we are here to talk about it today in this episode and in other contexts. We will tell what we are doing together. Hearing you talk about the risks reminds me of a maxim that a lawyer we turned to in the past for a matter related to the podcast. This maxim that I will never forget was: “Better to go to the lawyer sooner rather than later”. How true! I also think about the initiative that we are proposing now, where the value invested in a workshop that allows you to know and understand the risks and how to avoid them, the regulations that are in place, this value is certainly at least ten times less than the cost of perhaps many legal interventions later. Not to mention the reputational damage. Better to get informed sooner rather than later more than ever applies in this case too.

Isabella: “Yes, it is always better to act in advance. Education and consultancy from expert consultants in sustainability or lawyers, in general those who deal with these things, is essential for prevention. Also because the direction of legislators, both national and European, and in general international, is clear. A brand, whether small or large, that moves in that direction not only avoids, as you rightly said, significant damage also at an economic level, but will also become more competitive. Because it is a change that will be inevitable anyway. If the regulations have not already come into force, they will come into force soon. Let’s say between the end of 2025 and 2030, most of the regulations will come into force and therefore we must be ready precisely to be more competitive on the market.”

Camilla: “We know that everything is part of the European Green Deal package of regulations, but with many individual states that have already moved early. We see France, which has always been a bit of a pioneer in this sense, Italy perhaps a little further behind. From a point of view that is not strictly regulatory, but of guidelines and best practices, Italy is also absolutely moving. From an advertising point of view, for example, we have seen that even the IPA (editor’s note: Advertising Self-Discipline Institute) has moved, already providing references with respect to greenwashing, recently regulated. Or for example, even the National Chamber of Fashion has developed a series of fairly substantial guidelines that give practical indications for brands, even if not strictly related to regulations but to start a change that could previously be slow, which now necessarily becomes very fast. 5 years is nothing and at the latest in 2030 all the regulations, even those that are still being discussed, will come into force. So moving is absolutely necessary.”

For those who already have a brand, but also for those who are starting it, as you said before. Also because for those who are starting it, it is logical to immediately implement something that will be here in 5 years. Is having the certification enough? Does it guarantee that we are in compliance, that we avoid risks and sanctions?

Isabella: “Let’s say that certification is certainly a useful element and an element of great value, because it goes without saying that the name already says it certifies a certain procedure and a certain production. However, it is not a sufficient element to be able to say that the brand or company is 100% protected. This is because first of all there are certifications and certifications, more rigid and less rigid, which therefore require controls, procedures by different authorities, and there are those that have more or less value in terms of protection. There are certifications that are self-produced, which therefore have a different value from a certification that comes from an impartial body, a third party obviously. On this we see that there are in reality various self-certifications that are advertised in a certain way, but in reality we must also be very careful here. Because the regulations that are in force now and that will come into force provide for the certain and verifiable value of certification only if it comes from a body outside the production activity, an impartial body and therefore also on this. we must be careful.”

Camilla: “We have seen several companies, even quite structured ones, that have produced self-certifications, certainly with experts, all useful, but not sufficient. Because self-certification is worth what it is worth. On the other hand, it must also be said that certification may not be sufficient, also because there are many certifications that qualify the product. We said before for example as natural, I am also thinking of organic cotton, but then you also have to see what other products the company offers, what other impacts the company has on the environment. Having a product certified for certain requirements does not automatically imply sustainability, because for example then on everything else you are not actually sustainable. Then we talk a lot about environmental sustainability which is a bit of a focus, it is also perhaps the most difficult part at this time to manage, but let’s remember that sustainability is also social, it is also economic. So maybe a certification is about being green, but on the other hand it doesn’t really fit in with social sustainability, with equality in the workplace, a whole series of issues that instead need to be evaluated, because sustainability is 360 degrees.”

Thank you for remembering it, because this is a fundamental concept that the more we talk about it, the more we tell about it, the better. It reminds me of another question, because we touched on the topic of green washing, in the communication section. In addition to everything that concerns the environmental impact, in reality there are also risks when you touch on other types of washing. This is something that we will explore in the workshop that we are proposing, but I ask you to mention these other types of washing that can be risked.

Isabella: “In fact, in recent years, different types of washing have been classified. We have green washing, which we talked about now. We have pink washing, that type of phenomenon whereby certain periods of the year are exploited, usually around November, when there is the day against violence against women. That type of advertising that exploits support for women’s rights or in general for women’s rights to job opportunities, equal access to job opportunities, to give prestige to their products or their marketing campaigns. The same thing goes for rainbow washing, therefore for support for the LGBTQIA+ community which often uses colors, therefore the rainbow flag, to modify the packaging of products to make the consumer associate that product with support for the specific community. We could really list many washing phenomena.”

Camilla: “It also concerns ethnic minorities, but we have also seen in other cases where support for sport is promoted for example and then it actually isn’t there. Many types of washing, actually misleading advertising, because we are talking about cases in which support is professed but then in reality it doesn’t exist. We always come back to the same thing, to be able to demonstrate, to have concrete proof of the support, of the commitment that the company or small brand actually wants to give to certain categories of people or to certain types of environmental, social well-being. We have seen in the case of rainbow washing for example Primark. It was attacked a lot precisely because it had prepared this very captivating campaign, which actually gave the impression of important support for the community, but on the other hand it then started a collaboration with Turkey and other states where in reality the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community are not actually so protected. So this contrast was created that the public didn’t like, which actually reported the conduct. From a reputational point of view it was quite heavy. The Primark case was emblematic with respect to rainbow washing.”

Thank you for giving a clearer example of what is meant and what is involved when you risk entering a somewhat delicate area, and what it means to avoid this type of risk as well.
Do regulations, in your opinion, help or complicate the work of brands that are sustainable? Are they a brake or a push for sustainable fashion? What do you think?

Isabella: “As lawyers, we think that at first glance the regulations, especially at a time like now where they can be many and fragmented, can certainly generate a lot of confusion. At first glance they can seem like an obstacle to production, to placing on the market, to freedom of communication. In reality, the global system now speaks clearly: we are in a moment where a change of direction must necessarily be made, with regard to overproduction, excessive production, the lack of a recycling system that allows for a lower environmental impact. The direction is clear as we said before. If the brand or the company decides to move in this direction and it is a decision that is actually inevitable, because sooner or later it must be done for everyone, this will allow them to be more competitive. We recommend, not because we are lawyers but in general, to take these steps, to decide to make their production compliant, to regulate their production. If done alongside consultants, sustainability consultants or lawyers, it helps step by step to create a process that is, in addition to being sustainable for the brand itself at an economic level, at an investment level, which also allows you to implement all those steps that then allow you to be protected, to work in peace, to exploit advertising marketing, but to do it in the right way. In addition to being protected from a legal point of view, also to be competitive and real, that is, to provide concrete data, true data.”

Camilla: “Paradoxically, perhaps the legislation is true that it is very varied and abundant, especially in the last period, but on the other hand it actually allows us to have very concrete, very specific guidelines that did not exist before. Before, there was a bit of this freedom whereby everyone did what they wanted and we were all sustainable, let’s put it that way. Instead, this actually allows us to qualify companies that are truly sustainable and give added value and also allow the company to understand what it means to be sustainable. They are a little complex, they need to be analyzed and the support of external consultants certainly helps, but this investment absolutely returns in everything that is a reputation, communication, the well-being of both the company and society.”

We too, as consumers, feel slightly more protected, and that we could trust a little more in the future what companies tell us, knowing that there is a system that guides and supports us from this point of view. Regardless of the regulations and the risk of sanctions, do you think that the actions that are proposed by Italian and European regulations are in any case steps that show us a serious and credible commitment on the part of the company? What do you think?

Camilla: “Certainly yes, because they give these indications on the certainty of the information that is given and this regardless of what the legislation is fundamental, because the consumer can make an informed, free choice and therefore choose to support companies that are concretely committed to their activity. This is certainly a step forward, it helps regardless of what the risk of sanctions is. Clearly a company should choose to take these steps regardless of fear, danger but for a concrete commitment to the environment, but even those who have greater difficulty understanding some dynamics the legislation can help.”

Are these steps of planning how to treat fabrics at the end of their life cycle or introducing a digital passport or designing a garment with the end of its life cycle in mind useful in your opinion? It’s not that just because the regulations tell us so, but do all these initiatives within the royal framework actually go in a sensible direction?

Isabella: “Yes, it absolutely makes sense and the direction taken is clear in general. In our opinion there is an increasing attention among consumers, associations but also by companies themselves, brands. It is all channeled in the same direction.”

We have anticipated the workshop that we are organizing together. We are pleased to launch this initiative precisely because we want small and medium-sized businesses to also be informed and ready to be in line with the regulatory framework. And not only that: within the workshop we will also touch on the part of sustainability strategy, so we have the two parts, legal and strategic. We will see all the various phases of production and also of the sale and what follows after a garment, a fashion accessory, how in all these various phases you can improve your own environmental and social impact.

To learn more, click here.