A research-based analysis of the sustainable fashion influencer landscape

Green influencers: a paradox?

In November 2023, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission sent warning letters to several influencers and the organizations that paid them, emphasizing the need to clarify financial connections in undeclared product promotions. Fines can reach up to $50,000 for each violation. Yet, an analysis of over 100 million tweets between 2014 and 2021 revealed that the vast majority of commercial content on social media is not adequately disclosed by the influencers who post it (source: VoxEU). Consumers are unable to distinguish commercial from non-commercial content in the absence of transparency labels.

A 2024 European study (European Commission) found that 38% of the 576 influencers examined do not use platform-provided tools such as the “paid partnership” button, but prefer vague terms such as “collaboration,” “partnership,” or “thanks to the brand.” Only 36% were registered as merchants nationwide, and 30% did not provide any business details in their posts.

When it comes to sustainability, this opacity becomes even more problematic. Influencers promoting sustainable fashion find themselves in a paradoxical position: on the one hand, they are called upon to educate and inspire ethical behavior, while on the other, they operate in an economic system that rewards them through commercial partnerships that could compromise their independence.

The role of regulations

Regulators propose using a hashtag like “#ad” to minimize potential confusion, but data shows the need for greater regulatory oversight of undisclosed online advertising.

In France, a law has been in effect since 2023 requiring influencers to explicitly disclose commercial partnerships, prohibiting the promotion of aesthetic medical procedures and nicotine-containing products, and requiring legal representation in the EU for foreign influencers targeting French audiences.

In the United States, the FTC finalized a rule in August 2024 prohibiting the creation or sale of fake reviews, including those generated by AI, and deceptive practices such as purchasing fake followers or views to misrepresent influence on social media.

However, enforcement remains limited.

What the numbers say

The influencer marketing market is expected to reach $32.55 billion in 2025, growing 33.11% annually over the past decade (Influencer Marketing Benchmark Report 2025). According to a 2023 Unilever study, influencers can effectively guide people toward a more sustainable lifestyle (75% of people say they’ve made them more likely to adopt eco-friendly behaviors).

But there’s a price to pay: every minute spent scrolling on TikTok generates 2.63 grams of CO₂e (Greenly 2024). Given its user base (around 1 billion) and high engagement, some estimates suggest that TikTok’s total annual carbon footprint could exceed 50 million tons, as much as Greece’s annual emissions. A paradox is evident.

In the fashion industry, the data tell a complex story. One study highlights the effectiveness of influencer-led campaigns in promoting sustainable behavior, particularly in contexts where low awareness hinders the adoption of circular models in fashion (D.A., Lechuga-Cardozo, J.I., Areiza-Padilla, J.A. et al.). At the same time, according to the BoF-McKinsey State of Fashion 2024 survey, 68% of respondents are dissatisfied with the high volume of sponsored content on social media, and 65% rely less on fashion influencers than a few years ago. This shift signals the need for more authentic and transparent partnerships, as audiences seek trustworthiness over sheer volume.

Micro-influencers: Does authenticity come at a lower price?

An interesting trend emerges from the most recent scientific research. Studies from 2024-2025 show that influencers with a smaller number of followers generate significantly higher engagement rates than macro-influencers. On Instagram, nano-influencers appear to achieve an engagement rate above 2%, micro-influencers around 1.8%, while mega-influencers (over 1 million followers) hover below 1%.

Research published in the World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews in 2024 shows that nano-influencers achieve significantly better audience engagement than macro-influencers because consumers are more trusting and attentive towards those affiliated with a particular subculture or niche. 44% of brands prefer to collaborate with nano-influencers and 26% with micro-influencers, compared to only 17% for macro-influencers (Influencer Marketing Hub, The State of Influencer Marketing 2024: Benchmark Report).

According to a study published in Sustainability (2024), an influencer’s perceived authenticity is the critical factor in their ability to persuade followers, underscoring the importance of considering the role of credibility when designing effective influencer marketing campaigns aimed at promoting sustainable consumption. Posts featuring personal experiences on sustainable initiatives receive more engagement than branded collaborations.

However, the research also highlights a “greenwashing effect” that leads to negative attitudes when consumers perceive a discrepancy between sustainability claims and the influencer’s actual behavior.

Misleading marketing occurs when influencers, intentionally or through “content tuning,” combine or promote sustainable messages with brands that are not truly ethical.

Consistency is key: trust is undermined when influencers promote sustainability while simultaneously continuing to produce high-volume “hauls” or partner with fast fashion.

Brands should be careful to assess the potential risks of misinformation and miscommunication that can be spread by an influencer.

(Dis)trust in green influencers

A 2025 study published in the International Journal of Management Science identifies how digital greenwashing differs from traditional greenwashing because it operates in an unregulated environment with rapidly changing content, making it difficult to track and verify claims. The study highlights the greater difficulty in identifying greenwashing on platforms focused on aesthetic and emotional content, such as Instagram, especially when micro-influencers promote questionable “green” content. Short-form videos on such platforms appear to prioritize visual appeal over factual evidence, making it more difficult to challenge misleading messages.

Once greenwashing is identified, the research reveals that negative reaction patterns are more intense among younger, digitally literate consumers, who are also more active in sectors with a significant environmental impact, such as food and fashion.

According to research published in Studies in Media and Communication (2025), the trustworthiness and interactivity of green influencers does not significantly impact the intention to purchase sustainable clothing, contrary to previous studies. The researchers explain this finding by the fact that consumers in their 30s and 40s who are tech-savvy and familiar with eco-friendly products may not fully trust the words of green influencers due to the effects of greenwashing.

While influencers can serve as powerful catalysts for raising awareness of eco-friendly products and practices, many are accused of promoting unsustainable products under the guise of environmental sustainability to attract socially conscious consumers. The pursuit of lucrative partnerships can lead influencers to endorse brands that aren’t truly sustainable, using the “green” label as a marketing tool rather than a reflection of core values.

Furthermore, many influencers prioritize aesthetics over impact, focusing on the visual appearance of “eco-friendly” products rather than their life cycle or environmental impact.

Authenticity as a discriminant

A meta-analysis published in PMC (2024) that examined 74 studies with over 12,000 data points identifies “performative authenticity” as a defining characteristic of effective micro-influencers. It’s commonly said that influence arises from:

• likes
• comments
• engagement
• how much the audience “adores” the influencer.

This research takes a different approach:

• it looks less at engagement
• more at the deep mechanisms of trust and attachment
• it analyzes influence in a more “cold and objective” way.

Influence arises not only from interaction, but from how the influencer fits into the construction of people’s identities. The most important result is this: people buy because they want to build and communicate their own identities.

In particular:

• Followers use micro-influencers as mirrors
• They see products (fashion, lifestyle, objects) as a way to express who they are
• If the influencer is credible, present, and consistent, the product becomes a means of self-expression

I don’t buy for the influencer. I buy to tell my story, using the influencer as a reference.

According to a 2024 study published in Advances in Consumer Research, the alignment between an influencer’s brand and the eco-friendly products they promote is critical: mismatches can lead to perceptions of opportunism or greenwashing, undermining consumer trust. Influencers’ transparency regarding their endorsements and the sustainability claims of the products they promote is essential to maintaining credibility and encouraging informed consumer decisions.

The real impact: behavioral change or impulse buying?

A 2025 study published in the Journal of Production, Operations Management and Economics raises a crucial question: do influencer campaigns inspire genuine behavioral change or simply promote fleeting impulse purchases? The study finds that influencers can significantly impact consumer decisions by creating aspirational lifestyles that incorporate sustainable products, and that consumers are more likely to purchase eco-friendly products when they perceive them as trendy or desirable, often thanks to influencers’ push. Ultimately, however, influencers often leverage emotional appeals to encourage consumers to make unplanned purchases. Influencer culture often encourages a high-consumption lifestyle, incompatible with true sustainability, even when the products are marketed as “green.”

Conflict of interest or genuine advocacy?

The answer, supported by scientific research, is: it depends. There are influencers genuinely committed to sustainability, but the system creates structural incentives for conflicts of interest.

Studies identify three necessary conditions for genuine advocacy:

1. Full transparency: Clear declaration of all financial connections with brands, including free products
2. Behavioral consistency: Alignment between stated values ​​and the influencer’s personal lifestyle
3. Demonstrable expertise: Solid knowledge of sustainability issues, critical analysis skills, and references to verifiable sources

Modern consumers are adept at spotting greenwashing and severely punish companies (and influencers) that use sustainability as a mere marketing tool.

Deinfluencing: From Criticism of the System to Yet Another Trend

In 2023, the “deinfluencing” phenomenon exploded on TikTok, a movement that initially promised to subvert the culture of overconsumption fostered by traditional influencers. Early videos showed creators opening drawers filled with 50 unused red lipsticks, confessing they didn’t really need them. The hashtag #deinfluencing reached over 3.5 billion views by mid-2024, and according to the 2024 Consumer Buying Habits Report, 36% of consumers have avoided purchases due to negative or critical reviews from influencers—a figure that rises to 56% for Gen Z. At the same time, 77% of Gen Zers have made a purchase influenced by social media in the past six months (Sociallyin 2026).

As often happens on social media, the movement quickly transformed. “Deinfluencing” videos have simply become another form of influence: instead of saying “don’t buy this expensive product,” influencers have started saying “don’t buy this expensive product, buy this cheaper one instead”—often from Amazon or other retailers with questionable sustainability practices. What began as a statement against consumerism has become a way for influencers to call out products they don’t like, simply suggesting others.

The deinfluencing phenomenon demonstrates that consumers, especially younger ones, desire authenticity and transparency. But as long as sustainability information remains tied to commercial logic, the risk of greenwashing—conscious or unconscious—remains structural. True advocacy requires not only expertise and consistency, but also financial independence from the very companies being evaluated.

The future between real and virtual

The future of influencer marketing in sustainable fashion will depend on the ability to develop economic models that reward authenticity and expertise, rather than simply the ability to generate engagement and immediate sales. Those who succeed in living sustainability and transforming it into real value for the community will be crucial.

The emergence of virtual influencers (digital avatars, AI-generated, 3D characters) adds another layer to the landscape. The influencer is no longer a real person, but an intentional construct.

This breaks many assumptions of traditional influencer research, which is based on:

• perceived authenticity
• personal experience
• human experience
• coherence between real life and communication

With virtual influencers, all of this is simulated:

authenticity is designed
transparency is a choice, not a consequence
coherence is perfect, but artificial

This raises a key question for sustainable consumption: can we trust an ethical message if the person communicating it has no real responsibility?

The emergence of virtual influencers fully warrants dedicated research because:

• It redefines key concepts such as authenticity, trust, and responsibility
• It introduces new mechanisms of identification and self-branding
• It can have ambivalent effects on sustainable consumption, ranging from education to greenwashing

Studying the impact of their characteristics on sustainable consumption is not only relevant, but necessary to understand the ethical and cultural evolution of influence marketing.

The Dutch Study: 41% of Labels Are Wrong

A study conducted in the Netherlands* on more than 10,000 garments revealed alarming statistics: labels were inaccurate in 41% of cases. Most of the sample consisted of post-consumer, non-reusable clothing items discarded by consumers and delivered to a textile sorting center. Significant differences were found in the accuracy of composition claims between pure and blended materials. Discrepancies were especially evident in garments mixing fibers (e.g., cotton + polyester), where the accuracy rate dropped to just 23%. Analyses suggest that the intentional exaggeration of cotton content is indeed plausible. For pure fibers, the accuracy rate rose to 77%.

This is not just a matter of dishonest marketing: misleading labels erode consumer trust, complicate recycling processes, and fuel greenwashing.

Examples from the EU Market

EU regulations require all textile products sold within the Union to display clear and legible information about their composition. However, checks conducted by NGOs and independent bodies have shown that some brands fail to comply — particularly when labels include implicit environmental claims (green claims) without solid evidence.

In the fur market, for example, a study** analyzing 667 items containing animal fibers found that 68% did not comply with EU labeling rules. Real and synthetic fur are becoming increasingly similar in appearance, texture, and even price. Consumers — most of whom reject real fur for ethical reasons — must receive accurate information to make informed choices. It is often assumed that a low price indicates synthetic fur, and that if an item contains real fur, such information should be clearly displayed on the label. However, the current labeling system fails to provide an easy way to alert consumers to the presence of real animal fur.

Greenwashing and Misleading Environmental Claims

Why It’s a Problem (Beyond Fraud): The Real Consequences

This kind of misrepresentation goes far beyond deceiving the consumer.

1. Compromised Traceability and Textile Recycling
   In a world where recycling and sustainable practices are essential, recyclers need accurate information about the fabrics they work with. For those involved in recycling or circular economy processes, knowing the exact fiber (cotton, wool, polyester, etc.) is crucial for proper material handling. The effectiveness of recycling relies on understanding a garment’s material composition, since different fabrics require distinct recycling methods. False labeling hinders sorting and reduces the quality of regeneration processes. Misinformation can lead to contamination of recycling streams, lowering overall efficiency and causing further environmental harm. Simply put, if we don’t know what a fabric is made of, we can’t treat or dispose of it properly.
2. Erosion of Consumer Trust
   When we discover that a garment isn’t what it claimed to be — for instance, “100% cotton” turns out to be a blend, or “Made in Italy” is a false indication — the relationship with the brand is damaged. Today’s conscious consumers highly value label honesty, and each deception undermines brand reputation. As shoppers become more attentive to sustainable choices, they often rely on labels to guide their purchases. Some consumers also have specific needs regarding fabric composition — for example, due to allergies, religious beliefs, or personal values. For many, understanding a garment’s material is also essential for assessing its environmental impact. When labels are misleading, consumers believe they’re making responsible choices, only to realize they’ve unknowingly supported practices that contradict their values.
3. Fueling Greenwashing
   Generic environmental claims (“eco,” “sustainable,” “green”) without real transparency create the illusion of doing the right thing, while the actual impact may be identical — or even worse. Deceptive labels become a marketing tool, not an information tool.
4. Legal Risks and Penalties
   In the EU market, brands that provide misleading information may face inspections, administrative sanctions, or compensation claims. Some countries are already scrutinizing environmental claims more closely to enforce greater transparency.

Do you already know of some real cases of false or misleading labeling in clothing?
Listen to this episode to find out what happened — in our country and beyond

The Causes Behind the Errors

1. Complex and Fragmented Supply Chains
   Textile supply chains often span multiple continents, involving numerous suppliers, dyeing processes, treatments, and finishing stages. Sometimes brands receive fabrics that are already blended or reprocessed, making accurate traceability extremely difficult.

2. Insufficient Testing and Quality Control
   Some brands do not test every batch or rely solely on visual checks instead of chemical analyses. This increases the margin of error when suppliers provide incomplete or partial composition data.

3. Costs and the Desire for Differentiation
   Claiming a high percentage of natural or “eco” fibers can make a product more appealing. In some cases, there’s a temptation to round up figures or present the “best-case scenario”rather than the truth.

4. Unclear Regulations or Poor Enforcement
   Labeling laws exist, but their implementation varies widely between countries. Minor violations are often barely penalized. Although brands and retailers are legally required to provide accurate information about the composition of products they place on the market, they have (so far) faced no public legal consequences for inaccurate labeling. When a brand discovers that a label is incorrect, the entire shipment — both in storage and in transit — must be recalled and re-labeled.

What a Sustainability-Focused Brand Should Do

The Dutch study serves as a wake-up call for brands in the sustainable fashion sector. It highlights the need for clear standards and rigorous controls in labeling practices to ensure accuracy. As sustainable brands strive to differentiate themselves in a saturated market, a commitment to labeling honesty can enhance credibility and strengthen consumer trust.

Brands that prioritize accurate labeling not only embody their sustainability values but also empower consumers to make informed choices. By ensuring the accuracy of fabric composition and country-of-origin information, brands can contribute to a more transparent fashion system.

The positive ripple effects of precise labeling go far beyond immediate trust: they encourage a shift toward circular economy principles, where consumers feel confident about recycling or reusing their garments — ultimately helping to reduce waste.

The Importance of Accurate Textile Labeling

In 2020, the Global Fashion Agenda report emphasized the importance of transparency, calling for greater traceability across fashion supply chains. This ongoing dialogue among industry stakeholders aligns closely with the findings of the Dutch study, pointing to the systemic change needed for the future of sustainable fashion to truly thrive.

In conclusion, incorrect labeling represents a major barrier to achieving a transparent and sustainable fashion landscape. As fashion enthusiasts and brands advocate for change, it is vital to remember that sustainable fashion is not solely about using eco-friendly materials — it encompasses the entire lifecycle of a garment. Ensuring that labeling is accurate and trustworthy is essential if we are to move toward a truly ethical and sustainable industry.

Brands should take immediate action to improve the accuracy of their labeling practices. For consumers, recognizing the importance of carefully examining labels can help guide choices that genuinely reflect their values. Together, we can foster a fashion industry built on trust, transparency, and sustainability.

* Clothing labels: accurate or not?, Circle Economy for The Ministry of Infrastructure & Waterways, 2019.

** Mislabelled and Misleading – Fur labelling problems, Fur Free Alliance, 2017

However, the recent scandal involving Loro Piana—a historic Italian cashmere brand under investigation for labor exploitation—undermines this belief.

And it’s not an isolated case. Max Mara, Dior, Armani, Valentino are among other luxury brands recently implicated in cases of poor labor conditions. It points to a deeper issue. In this article-podcast, we explore the phenomenon of luxurywashing—the construction of a “green and ethical” image that masks inconsistent practices, even in the luxury sector.

 What are the most common greenwashing tactics used by luxury brands?

• Launching capsules or limited collections (e.g., made from organic or recycled materials), while the core production remains unsustainable.

• Promoting carbon neutrality through offsetting (tree planting, carbon credits) without significantly reducing internal emissions.

• Misleading use of self-declared certifications or partnerships with “eco-like” organizations, which often cover only a tiny fraction of the supply chain. Some certifications are not independent or not applied across the full product line.

• Organizing “green” events (like carbon-neutral fashion shows) to build an image of commitment without altering overall production.

• Investing in sustainability initiatives to boost ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) scores, while the core business model stays untouched—enhancing a green image without real change.

Data That Debunk the Myth

Antoine Arnault, son of Bernard Arnault, owner of LVMH, publicly stated that luxury goods are “sustainable by nature.” He made this statement at a fashion sustainability summit—but is it true?

A study funded by Primark and conducted by the University of Leeds in collaboration with Hubbub (2022–2024) revealed that luxury garments do not last longer than fast fashion ones. Some of the most expensive items scored from average to poor in durability tests. For instance, a men’s T-shirt priced between £36 and £45 ranked 9th out of 17 items. So price is not a reliable indicator of durability or structural quality.

The Business of Fashion Sustainability Index 2023 gave failing scores to most luxury brands due to a lack of transparency in their supply chains—especially concerning labor conditions, raw material traceability, and waste management. There’s no clear evidence that luxury brands are more sustainable than fast fashion brands. LVMH is not more sustainable than H&M or Inditex (owner of Zara, Pull&Bear, Bershka).

The point isn’t just whether materials are organic or emissions are offset. The issue runs deeper.

Luxury traditionally aligns with extrinsic values like wealth, prestige, and social status—values that speak more to “appearing” than “being.” In contrast, sustainability is rooted in intrinsic values like social justice, respect for the environment, and genuine connection with the natural world. There’s a clear tension between two worldviews: luxury as a symbol of individual success vs. sustainability as a collective commitment to the common good. According to Holmes and Bendell, luxury brands risk contradiction when they try to embrace sustainability: how can they promote moderation, justice, and balance with nature while simultaneously feeding desires tied to power, exclusivity, and privilege?

So when a luxury brand claims to be sustainable, the uncomfortable question becomes: is it really shifting paradigms, or just dressing up old values in green? The risk is that sustainability becomes a tool to reinforce the very extrinsic values it should be challenging.

Thus, luxury remains accessible to a few, while the environmental and social impact falls on the many. Sustainability gets stripped of its authentic meaning—reduced to a marketing tool to ennoble what is far from noble.

The Gap Between Image and Reality

The problem with luxurywashing isn’t just inconsistency—it’s the narrative being crafted. Evocative language, emotional campaigns, “eco” capsules or sustainable limited editions become distractions when the core production remains opaque and sometimes illegal. I remember that during the Sustainable Business Models in the Luxury Sector course, a student presented Loro Piana as an example of a sustainable brand, swayed by online sources praising its positive impact. In the past, Loro Piana was accused of building its sustainable narrative around vicuña (a luxury fiber from a camelid native to the Andes), without offering transparent data on the real socio-environmental impact or benefits returned to the Andean communities involved.

In the Loro Piana case (a brand owned by LVMH), the world’s finest cashmere was sewn by underpaid workers forced to endure exhausting shifts in unsafe environments.

Spending €2,000 on a sweater and discovering that the person who made it earns €4 per hour working up to 90 hours a week calls into question the very meaning of value.

Numerous luxury brands—including Prada, Hugo Boss, and Dolce & Gabbana—were named in a recent Clean Clothes Campaign report on labor conditions in the so-called Euro-Mediterranean textile cluster, an area that includes countries like Croatia, Moldova, and Albania.

The report highlights that in Croatia, for instance, some Hugo Boss suppliers pay wages that amount to just one-third of what would be considered a living wage. A Hugo Boss spokesperson responded by stating that the company requires suppliers to comply with national minimum wage laws. However, they also said that wage negotiations are a matter for local employers, employees, and national institutions—while expressing openness to “constructive dialogue.”

According to the report, Germany and Italy are key destinations for these garments produced in the Euro-Med cluster. It’s not just fast fashion brands like Primark and Tesco sourcing there, but also luxury labels like Versace, Dolce & Gabbana, Armani, and Max Mara.

Clean Clothes Campaign noted that none of the high-end brands mentioned responded officially to the allegations. Hugo Boss, which received an advance copy of the Stitched Up study, did not provide specific statements on its findings (source: The Guardian).

The luxury sector may appear to be outside the system of offshoring production to cut labor costs and boost profits. But behind the façade of craftsmanship, design, quality, uniqueness, and sustainability—prominently displayed in online reports—lie the same factories and the same labor conditions.

Comments on Reddit include statements like:

“”Luxury brands don’t just sell you a product, they sell you an identity. If you admit that this identity is built on exploitation, the whole system collapses.”

“What bothers me the most: if I could afford to pay a markup of several thousand dollars on a bag, I’d want to be absolutely certain that a proportional part of that money goes toward guaranteeing world-class production and labor conditions. (…) At Dior bag prices, there’s just no excuse. (…) That luxury markup should extend to every stage of the production process. (…) Another thing that bothers me: almost all handbag brands, whether luxury or mid-range, have a section on their website dedicated to sustainability initiatives and green certifications for their factories… but VERY few (and almost none among the luxury ones) provide information about ethical working conditions for people.”

The fortress of luxury—behind which brands have hidden choices increasingly similar to fast fashion—is crumbling.

New Rules on the Horizon

The good news is that things are beginning to change. The European Commission is introducing new regulations, such as those from the Green Claims Directive, which will require brands to provide verifiable evidence of their environmental and social claims. It will be harder to hide behind vague slogans or unclear certifications.

In the meantime, reports like the one from BSI (British Standards Institution) suggest that brands must restructure their entire supply chain, not just their communications, if they want to avoid a collapse of consumer trust.

What Can We Do?

As consumers, we have more power than we think. We can:

• Ask for transparency: demand that brands clearly state where and by whom a product was made.

• Rely on independent rating tools (like Good On You).

• Choose second-hand or small brands with short, traceable supply chains.

• Be wary of vague claims like “green,” “eco,” or “responsible” that lack supporting data.

What Kind of Luxury Do We Believe In?

The Loro Piana case is just the latest crack in a system built on the myth of spotless excellence. But excellence without respect for human rights and the environment is just a façade.

There are businesses trying to redefine the meaning of luxury—through slow gestures, conscious craftsmanship, and transparent supply chains. And yet, even they must navigate a system that rewards exclusivity more than justice.

So, what kind of luxury do we believe in?

Perhaps in one that doesn’t need to appear ethical—because it truly is. In the luxury of small brands. The ones that don’t shout, but whisper. Measured not in status, but in time, care, and justice. That don’t promise perfection, but at least try not to build their value on the silence of those sewing in the shadows. There’s a luxury that doesn’t need to seem ethical, because it truly is. Are we ready to recognize it, even if it doesn’t have a famous logo?

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.

Last month the EU finalized a new law aimed at curbing greenwashing, which will ban the use of terms such as “carbon neutral” or “eco” in product claims unless they can be proven.

In March this year, the European Union Commission presented a proposal for a directive to combat misleading advertising, which promotes products, services and corporate images as more environmentally friendly than they actually are. This practice misleads consumers and constitutes an obstacle to the real transition towards a sustainable economy.

Parliament and the Council have now reached a provisional agreement on new rules banning misleading advertising and calling for better product information to be provided to consumers.

The agreement updates the existing EU list of prohibited business practices and adds to it several problematic marketing habits related to greenwashing and premature obsolescence of goods. The aim of the new rules is to protect consumers from deceptive practices and help them make better purchasing choices.

In fact, according to a 2021 survey in four EU countries, 53% of consumers cannot identify greenwashing claims on product packaging. A recent Commission study assessed 150 EU-wide environmental claims across a wide range of product groups, finding that a considerable proportion (53.3%) provided vague, misleading or unsubstantiated information on the environmental characteristics of the product (in advertising as well as on the product itself).

In the fashion industry, several lawsuits involving misleading environmental claims have captured media attention. Prominent brands have been the subject of complaints or public scrutiny by consumer authorities or consumer groups due to misleading claims. Last year, we saw H&M revoke their “Conscious” label and Zara’s “Join Life” label. Similarly, Asos has opted to remove the “Responsible Edit” line and implemented filtering measures on its website. Additionally, the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC) has suspended its consumer transparency program (Higg Index) after the Norwegian Consumer Protection Authority deemed it “misleading.”

Greenwashing – What can’t be said?

Regarding greenwashing, negotiators from Parliament and Council agreed to proscribe the following:

• generic environmental claims, e.g. “environmentally friendly”, “natural”, “biodegradable”, “climate neutral” or “eco”, without proof of recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim;
• claims based on emissions offsetting schemes that a product has neutral, reduced or positive impact on the environment;
• sustainability labels not based on approved certification schemes or established by public authorities.

We will no longer hear slogans about carbon neutrality.

“There is no such thing as ‘carbon neutral’ or ‘CO2 neutral’ cheese, plastic bottles, flights or bank accounts”,

said to Financial Times Ursula Pachl, vice director of BEUC (The European Consumer Organisation).

“Carbon neutral claims are greenwashing, plain and simple. It’s a smoke screen giving the impression companies are taking serious action on their climate impact. The truth is that these claims are scientifically incorrect and should never be used. We are delighted to see that the EU has seized this legislative opportunity to ban carbon neutral claims.”

The terms the EU Parliament and Council agreed ban include:

Read also Greenwashing: i 7 peccati da evitare.

There are many words not to use. The rationale is to ban generic environmental statements unless companies can provide “proof of recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim”.Evidence could include compliance with official EU regulations or recognized eco-labelling schemes (e.g. ecolabel).

Statements should be based on reliable, independent, verifiable and generally recognized evidence, taking into account the latest scientific methods and results. Practitioners should have the necessary evidence to support their claims when using the claims, or be confident that they can obtain and submit it upon request. Truthful, complete and accurate news, as well as corroborated by credible and up-to-date scientific evidence. The scientific substantiation of green claims must be made available to the authorities who request it.

“Generic environmental claims are popping up everywhere, from food to textiles”,

explained Pachl.

“Consumers end up lost in a jungle of green claims with no clue about which ones are trustworthy. Thankfully, the new rules are putting some order in the green claims’ chaos. Companies will have to explain why a product is environmentally friendly. This is crucial if we are to guide consumers to make more sustainable consumption choices”.

The EU directives document explains that, for example, the claim ‘biodegradable’, referring to a product, would be a generic statement, while saying that “the packaging is biodegradable by home composting in one month” would be a specific statement, which does not fall within this prohibition. Furthermore, companies cannot make an environmental claim on the entire product when in reality it only refers to a specific aspect, as in this case the biodegradability claim refers only to the packaging: indicate that the product is biodegradable if it’s just the packaging is deceptive. Another example is the environmental claim that highlights only one of the product’s impacts on the environment, while overall the environmental impact is high. Indicating that “the product is low water consumption” when at the same time it consumes more energy than a similar product in the same category is one of potentially misleading statements regarding the nature of the product or its main characteristics.

Premature obsolescence of products 

Also durability claims in terms of usage time or intensity under normal conditions will be banned, if not proven. Companies will not be able to urge consumers to replace consumables, such as printer ink cartridges, sooner than necessary. Additionally, you may not promote products as repairable when they are not, or present software updates as necessary even if they only enhance functionality features.

A new extended warranty label will clearly show which products last the longest; therefore, it will be easier to purchase more durable products. Recent studies show that up to 80% of EU consumers say they struggle to find information on how easy it is to repair a product.

How far as we progressed?

In order to become law, the provisional deal will now have to get the final OK from both the Parliament and the Council, but it is rare for EU lawmakers to refuse such approval. The vote by MEPs is expected to take place in November. When the directive comes into force, member states will have 24 months to incorporate the new rules into their law.

Although the European Union’s favorable vote on this directive represents a step forward, progress on the two related laws covering environmental product declarations and citizen empowerment has remained stalled. These two laws include the “Green Claims Directive” and the “Carbon Removal Certification Framework”, both presented earlier this year.

Green Claims Directive

The Green Claims Directive is oriented towards the verifiability and transparency of environmental claims related to products. Its main purpose is to provide consumers with confidence that what is advertised as eco-friendly is actually reality. This initiative aims to allow consumers to make informed purchasing decisions based on clear and understandable information. Furthermore, the directive aims to support companies working to improve the environmental impact of their products and services, promoting their competitiveness. This initiative is in line with the objectives of the EU “Green Deal” to promote the transformation of the economy and society towards greater sustainability. The directive also integrates with existing European regulations, including those relating to consumer protection and environmental standards.

Parliament’s rapporteur Biljana Borzan commented on the agreement as follows:

“We are clearing the chaos of environmental claims, which will now have to be substantiated, and claims based on emissions offsetting will be banned. We have achieved an excellent deal for consumers.

60% of European consumers are not even aware a legal guarantee comes with all products. That changes today, with a reminder to be present in every shop in the EU and also in some cases on packaging”.

 

“Consumers have a crucial role to play in the green transition, so it’s good news they will have more information to make sustainable choices when buying food, new clothes or home appliances. The new EU rules will enable consumers to navigate through a sea of green claims and choose durable products that live up to expectations”,

declared Pachl.

We will continue to follow steps to crack down on companies that practice greenwashing.

Sources European Parliament; Commissione Europea; GreenQueen; Financial Times; Recover Fiber.

Se vuoi conoscere 6 modi per individuare il greenwashing, leggi qui.

Vuoi evitare il greenwashing nella tua comunicazione? Scrivici per sapere cosa possiamo fare per te

Fonte: TerraChoice

Thanks to a collective action against H&M, this time it is in the United States that the truthfulness of the information on sustainability communicated by the Swedish giant is being investigated.

On July 22, Chelsea Commodore filed a lawsuit in a federal court in New York alleging that H&M is engaging in misleading practices and advertising “taking advantage of consumer interest” in sustainability and products that “do not harm the environment” . According to Commodore, a consumer could reasonably believe such claims, particularly considering that H&M is a nationally recognized company.

The fast fashion brand is accused of “trying to differentiate itself from other fashion products with greenwashing”. Practice deemed unfair, according to Chelsea, because it is one of the biggest pollutants in fashion. He knows that products are unsustainable and contributes to significant negative environmental damage throughout the product’s entire lifecycle, from growing fiber to incineration.

Over the past year, H&M has introduced the Sustainability Profiles.

Consumers can read the scores assigned to some products based on the environmental impact of the materials used to make them. The information is presented on green tags, in-store signage, and online marketing. They cover detailed data on water consumption and pollution, the impact on global warming and the use of fossil fuels.

Commodore claims that these sustainability profiles include information that does not match actual data for hundreds of products.

Porta come esempio un vestito nel cui profilo è indicato il consumo del 20% in meno di acqua, quando in realtà è stato realizzato con il 20 percento in più, secondo un’indagine indipendente del notiziario Quartz.  A seguito dei risultati dell’indagine, il brand ha rimosso tutte le Sustainability Scorecard presentate per i prodotti.

She takes as an example a dress whose profile shows 20 percent less water consumption, when in fact it was made with 20 percent more water, according to a Quartz’s independent survey. Following the results, the brand removed all Sustainability Scorecards submitted for the products.

“The rapid retreat by H&M and its industry peers adds to the argument that there is no such thing as sustainable fast fashion”, commented Quartz.

The lawsuit is based on the lack of a real greater sustainability of H&M’s products marketed as sustainable.

Another example shows that the Swedish brand presented “a particular product as made with 30% less water when the Higg website, where H&M procured this information, showed that the article was actually made with 31 % more water, which makes the situation worse than conventional materials,”says Commodore.

H&M makes further misrepresentations about the nature of the products in its Conscious Collection.

“It claims that they contain at least 50% sustainable materials, such as organic cotton and recycled polyester,” when in reality the products are made from indisputably unsustainable materials, such as polyester.”

These products “contain a higher percentage of synthetics than the main collection,” says Commodore, but H&M “gives consumers the impression that the materials used in its products are still environmentally sustainable”

Also under accusation is the declaration to transform old items into new ones or to exclude sending to landfills.

“Recycling solutions do not exist or are not commercially available on a large scale for the vast majority of products,” explains Commodore. “It would take H&M more than a decade to recycle what it sells in a question of days.” About 35 percent of the collected H&M products are recycled into carpet padding, painters’ cloths or insulation, according to the indictment. The remaining clothing would end up in retail stores. second-hand, landfills and incinerators. The fabrics are donated or sold to second-hand markets such as Kenya, which received 185,000 tons of used clothing in 2019. They are often difficult to reuse or sell for various reasons, including poor quality. Since most of the garments can not actually be sold, they end up in landfills.

“Consumers pay a price premium in the belief that they are buying truly sustainable and environmentally friendly clothing.”

As a result, Commodore claims that she and other buyers have “suffered financial damage”, as “they would not have bought the products or paid as much if the true facts had been known.” The accusation is therefore of falsifying the sustainability profiles with misleading and inaccurate data.

Commodore is trying to get the court to certify its class action proposal, to allow other consumers who have purchased H&M products with a sustainability profile or a misleading representation of sustainability to participate in the action.

The number of lawsuits is on the rise and the attention of regulators around the world for companies’ promotion of products and services such as “sustainable”, “green”, “environmentally friendly” is growing “,”eco”,” made responsibly”, “ethically”, etc.

H&M is under the lens of the Norwegian Consumer Authority for using the Higg Index > read here

We talked about the Swedish giant here: H&M recycles used clothes in 5 hours

Sources: Top Class Action, Class Action.org, The Fashion Law

H&M and Norrøna received a warning from the Norwegian Consumer Authority (CA), an independent administrative body tasked with overseeing the market to enforce buyer protection laws.

On June 16, the CA sent a letter to Norrøna, H&M and the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (supplier of the Higg Material Sustainability Index – MSI) to point out that the environmental benefits declared in marketing campaigns and linked to the Higg index must be true and not exaggerated.

The textile industry must be aware that the commercialization of environmental benefits, which is based on the sector MS index, can easily be considered misleading and illegal. When the apparel industry and other industries use environmental claims in marketing, it is important that the claims are correct. It is a basic principle that marketing must be truthful and give a more balanced and accurate impression of any environmental benefits. Otherwise, consumers risk making poor purchasing choices.

Trond Rønningen, Director of the Norwegian Consumer Authority

In order not to be considered misleading and therefore prohibited, marketing must be supported by documentation demonstrating the claimed environmental benefits. “Many consumers experience that there are environmental claims for products and services ‘everywhere’. At the same time, consumers themselves have a limited opportunity to verify whether or not those claims are correct. So it is important for the Norwegian Consumer Agency to verify these claims, so that consumers can be as confident as possible that they rely on environmental claims in marketing and make the right choices accordingly, ”Rønningen explains on the CA website.

Norrøna

Norrøna used data from the Higg MS Index to communicate the environmental benefits of organic cotton t-shirts. The promotional message gives the impression that since the t-shirt is made from organic cotton rather than “ordinary” cotton, the t-shirt has a significantly lower environmental impact. The Norwegian Consumer Agency cannot find that Norrøna has evidence for this claim.

The reason is primarily that the Higg MS Index does not document the environmental properties of a specific product. “The only thing the Higg MS Index says is the average environmental impact of a particular material. This average does not necessarily apply to the exact product being marketed with environmental benefits,” says Rønningen.

For cotton, for example, the actual environmental impact will vary depending on the country where the organic cotton of the product in question is grown. Furthermore, the Norwegian Consumer Agency pointed out that the research data on which the Higg MS Index is based are partly outdated and unsuitable for comparisons. For this reason its use in communication to consumers is considered misleading and therefore, in Norway, illegal. The CA therefore asked Norrøna to remove or modify the commercialization of environmental benefits based on the Higg MS index.

“We do not want in any way to mislead consumers, but on the contrary to ensure the best possible information on the products that can be purchased“, is the response of Norrøna’s marketing director, Martin Lien, in an email to NRK. The Norwegian brand acknowledges that the information on cotton production is not perfect, based on generalized figures, but according to them it is the best data available at the moment. However, the communication will change following the CA’s recall.

The warning to H&M

H&M has also adopted and plans to use data from the Higg MS Index to communicate the environmental benefits of its products to consumers. The warning from the CA reached the Swedish giant, giving time until 1 September 2022 to adapt the commercial communication.

H&M had already been taken up by the Norwegian Authority in 2019. The use of the term “sustainable” in the promotion of the Conscious collection, without sufficient data to demonstrate, triggered the intervention of the CA to avoid greenwashing.

The Higg MS index

It is a tool developed by the textile industry, by the Sustainable Apparel Coalition, to provide a standardized measurement of the environmental impacts of different types of fabrics in apparel manufacturing.

According to the CA, the index “measures” only the environmental impact of fabrics up to the production of the fabric itself, therefore not the entire environmental impact of a finished garment that we buy in the store. The “measurement” is based on average data for the environmental impact of the various types of fabrics that have been purchased from different regions and countries around the world.

The letter sent by the Norwegian Authority urges SAC to avoid using the tool for commercial communication of environmental benefits for consumers.

More marketing surveillance

It is not the first time that the CA has intervened to stop greenwashing. Also in other countries it is desirable to have such a diligent control system increasingly active, in defense of consumers who have neither the way nor the technical knowledge to independently verify the veracity of the claims on the environmental impact of the products.

There are more and more indices, rankings and certifications in the field of sustainability, cited by companies in marketing campaigns to promote their products as “green”. We need evidence to support the claims made by producers, and authorities to supervise the use of greenwashing. It is the road to sustainability that is not a facade, but applied with professionalism by companies, to truly contribute to the fight against climate change rather than to profit growth.

Il gigante del commercio online ha presentato Amazon Aware, un nuovo brand sostenibile di moda, casa e bellezza conveniente e a emissioni zero. “I clienti vogliono fare acquisti in modo più consapevole; vogliamo renderlo più facile”, spiegano sul sito. “Amazon Aware è una linea essenziale per l’abbigliamento quotidiano, la casa, la bellezza e altro ancora, il tutto con certificazioni di terze parti presenti nel nostro programma Climate Pledge Friendly”.

Sostenibile perché? I prodotti sono certificati come “a emissioni zero”. Climate Partner, un’azienda conforme al protocollo GHG (Greenhouse Gas), calcola l’impronta di carbonio considerando le emissioni lungo il ciclo di vita del prodotto.

A supporto dell’impegno nella sostenibilità, per allontanare sospetti di greenwashing, 32 sono le certificazioni che Amazon sfodera:

• Blusign
• Carbon Free
• Carbon Neutral
• Carbon Trust
• Carbon Neutral by SCSCertified Animal Welfare Approved
• Climate neutral by ClimatePartner
• Compact by Design
• Cradle to Cradle Certified
• ECOLOGO
• ENERGY STAR
• EPEAT
• EWG Verified
• Fairtrade International
• Fair for Life
• The Forest Stewardship Council
• GOTS
• Global Recycled Standard
• Green Seal
• Higg Index Materials
• Made in Green by Oeko-Tex
• MADE SAFE
• Organic Content Standard 100
• Organic Content Standard Blended Rainforest Alliance’s
• Recycled Claim Standard 100
• Recycled Claim Standard Blended
• Reducing CO2
• Regenerative Organic Certified
• Responsible Wool Standard
• U.S. EPA Safer Choice
• USDA Organic

L’offerta

È possibile selezionare abbigliamento uomo/donna, prodotti per corpo e capelli, prodotti per la casa, articoli per la camera da letto e per il bagno, capi basic, prodotti biologici o in materiale riciclato come la giacca in poliestere o i rotoli di carta da cucina.

La sezione moda include abiti, capispalla, loungewear e capi basic per tutti i giorni nelle taglie dalla XXS alla 7XL. I prezzi variano in base alla taglia, per esempio la giacca in poliestere riciclato costa tra i 32 e i 55 euro, il top a collo alto 15-24 euro, la camicia multitasche 27-37 euro, i jeans 39-43 euro, la felpa 28-37 euro. Al momento sono presenti 22 articoli di abbigliamento donna e 12 da uomo.

Tutti i capi sono al di sotto di 55 euro, la maggior parte hanno un prezzo tra i 20 e i 40 euro.

Impegno vero o greenwashing?

È l’interrogativo che può sorgere, perché restano:

• la questione del trattamento dei propri lavoratori
• la commercializzazione (e il consumo) in grandi numeri
• e tutto il mare dei prodotti venduti sulla piattaforma. Amazon Aware è una goccia.

Abbiamo chiesto, tramite il nostro canale Instagram, cosa ne pensano i lettori, sensibili alle tematiche di sostenibilità. Leggi cosa ci ha risposto chi lavora per un consumo più responsabile.

Benedetta, co-fondatrice dell’e-commerce sostenibile WHATaECO:  “Non acquisterei mai un prodotto di Amazon Aware. Forse sembro radicale, ma è la stessa ragione per cui non mangerei un panino vegano da Burger King o non acquisterei uno shampoo solido al supermercato. Ci sono multinazionali che si sono arricchite per anni (e continuano a farlo), a spese di lavoratori, ambiente e sana crescita del mercato. Se per molti so che queste azioni rappresentano “un passo avanti”, un “modo per lanciare il messaggio a più persone”, per me è solo greenwashing, che cerca di raccogliere consenso e denaro anche da quella parte di consumatori che mai acquisterebbero da Amazon o Burger King. Ci sono tante realtà che nascono davvero sui valori di etica e sostenibilità. Personalmente credo fortemente nel supportare queste e non cadere nella green trap dei colossi del consumismo“.

Manuela di Officina Sartoriale Creativa: “Credo che stiano cercando di accaparrarsi quella fetta di mercato che ancora non ha comprato nulla da Amazon e che non era intenzionata a farlo. Non comprerò da Amazon Aware. Ci sono tante realtà che basano tutta la loro visione e missione a questo scopo, credo che Amazon non ne debba fare parte. Così facendo pare che Amazon sdogani pure questo poter fare sostenibile da parte di chiunque, con i soldi pagando fior di professionisti che fanno le campagne ad hoc. Penalizza i piccoli, che investono davvero tutto il loro tempo, il loro lavoro per dare un valore vero e ci mettono la faccia. Amazon no, ci mette solo i soldi e questo diventa l’ennesima, perdonatemi il francesismo, presa per il culo”.

Valeria di Valeria Minussi Art: “Ho qualche dubbio che sia veramente sostenibile, solo per il fatto che sia raggiungibile in ogni angolo del mondo non lo è più. Difficile pensare a una multinazionale sostenibile. Possono mettere tutte le etichette del mondo, ma non credo che lo sia nel modo che io intendo, cioè quasi a chilometri zero oppure essere per pochi e a un prezzo giusto. Non che mi vendi un articolo per la casa a 1 € o una maglia a 10 €! Per non parlare dei materiali e delle lavorazioni, che molto probabilmente non saranno così ecologiche come dicono. Nel mio lavoro, riciclo i materiali per creare arte e non è sempre semplice. Sto cercando di essere il più sostenibile possibile, ma continuo a scontrarmi con il possibile e il fattibile per mantenere la mia filosofia sul riciclo. Immagino che per una grande multinazionale il problema non si pone come qualcosa da sostenere”.

Debora di Atelier Biologico: “Dell’ultimo lancio di Amazon penso lo stesso di tutti gli altri brand che si spacciano per sostenibili ma poi intanto… Sai che gioia vestire tutti uguali? Sì, perché quando anche l’ultimo piccolo brand chiuderà sarà questa la fine che faremo. E poi come mi arriva questo capo? Via nave, aereo o tir? Chi lo produce? Siamo certi che siano trattati con ottime condizioni economiche e sanitarie? Senza tralasciare che per avere prezzi così bassi qualcosa non torna. Mi chiedo se producono solo i capi ordinati. Per me lascia il tempo che trova, ma il problema è che il resto del mondo ci crederà. Piano piano dipenderemo tutti da Amazon, c’è anche Amazon Fresh che sostituisce i supermercati”.

Facendo una ricerca in rete, gli articoli dei media raccontano generalmente in modo positivo la notizia del lancio di Amazon Aware, accogliendo favorevolmente l’introduzione del nuovo brand, senz’ombra di riferimento a greenwashing.

Abbiamo lanciato un sondaggio nelle storie di Instagram per capire cosa ne pensa l’audience: “Acquisterai su Amazon Aware?”. Il 92% ha risposto che non lo farà. Le 32 certificazioni non sembrano assicurare l’esenzione dal sospetto di greenwashing, in particolar modo tra persone più attente a un consumo sostenibile e responsabile.

Funzionerà invece con chi è più nuovo nel mondo della sostenibilità o si avvicina per la prima volta? Amazon testa le novità prima di decidere se ampliare un’area di business. Non esiterà probabilmente a cambiare rotta se questo nuovo brand non mostrerà risultati positivi e potenziale di sviluppo, mentre continuerà se prenderà piede.

Foto: da Amazon Aware

Condividi la notizia su Instagram! Clicca qui

Come capire se siamo davanti a greenwashing*? Come verificare se un marchio è impegnato veramente nella moda sostenibile?
6 passi per individuarlo, in una breve guida che abbiamo creato per te secondo quanto pubblicato in un articolo di British Vogue. Per aiutarti ad avere un po’ di chiarezza lungo il cammino della sostenibilità.

* strategia di comunicazione finalizzata a costruire un’immagine di sé ingannevolmente positiva sotto il profilo dell’impatto ambientale, allo scopo di distogliere l’attenzione dell’opinione pubblica dagli effetti negativi per l’ambiente dovuti alle proprie attività o ai propri prodotti (fonte: wikipedia).