{"id":19473,"date":"2025-10-09T15:21:09","date_gmt":"2025-10-09T14:21:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dress-ecode.com\/?p=19473"},"modified":"2025-10-09T15:26:19","modified_gmt":"2025-10-09T14:26:19","slug":"incorrect-information-on-garments-41-of-labels-are-misleading","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dress-ecode.com\/en\/incorrect-information-on-garments-41-of-labels-are-misleading\/","title":{"rendered":"Incorrect information on garments: 41% of labels are misleading"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>In the ever-evolving landscape of sustainable fashion, transparency<\/strong> stands as a fundamental pillar for both brands and consumers. Textile labels are meant to be a beacon of truth \u2014 yet some studies expose a very different reality: a large share of garments on the market carry misleading or incorrect information<\/strong> about their material composition<\/strong>. Incorrect labeling undermines the integrity of the fashion industry.<\/p>\n

The Dutch Study: 41% of Labels Are Wrong<\/strong><\/h5>\n

A study conducted in the Netherlands* on more than 10,000 garments revealed alarming statistics: labels were inaccurate in 41% of cases<\/strong>. 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<\/strong> is indeed plausible. For pure fibers, the accuracy rate rose to 77%.<\/p>\n

This is not just a matter of dishonest marketing:<\/strong> misleading labels erode consumer trust, complicate recycling processes, and fuel greenwashing.<\/p>\n

Examples from the EU Market<\/strong><\/h5>\n

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 \u2014 particularly when labels include implicit environmental claims (green claims)<\/strong> without solid evidence.<\/p>\n

In the fur market<\/strong>, for example, a study** analyzing 667 items containing animal fibers<\/strong> found that 68% did not comply with EU labeling rules<\/strong>. Real and synthetic fur are becoming increasingly similar in appearance, texture, and even price. Consumers \u2014 most of whom reject real fur for ethical reasons \u2014 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<\/strong> to the presence of real animal fur.<\/p>\n

Greenwashing and Misleading Environmental Claims<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\n

Beyond errors in textile composition, many \u201ceco,\u201d \u201cresponsible,\u201d or \u201cgreen\u201d labels turn out to be misleading. A Changing Markets<\/strong> report estimated that up to 60% of sustainability claims<\/strong> on fashion websites could be considered greenwashing<\/strong>, lacking real evidence. A 2024 review<\/strong> highlighted numerous greenwashing practices \u2014 such as the use of vague terms, self-declared certifications, and omissions in supply chain details \u2014 that persist across the global textile industry.<\/p>\n

Did you know that our\u00a0three-evening workshop on greenwashing and fashion regulations<\/strong> has just started? Click here<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Why It\u2019s a Problem (Beyond Fraud): The Real Consequences<\/strong><\/h5>\n

This kind of misrepresentation goes far beyond deceiving the consumer.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Compromised Traceability and Textile Recycling<\/strong>
    In a world where recycling and sustainable practices are essential, recyclers need accurate information about the fabrics<\/strong> 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\u2019s material composition, since different fabrics require distinct recycling methods. False labeling hinders sorting and reduces the quality of regeneration processes.<\/strong> Misinformation can lead to contamination of recycling streams, lowering overall efficiency and causing further environmental harm. Simply put, if we don\u2019t know what a fabric is made of, we can\u2019t treat or dispose of it properly.<\/li>\n
  2. Erosion of Consumer Trust<\/strong>
    When we discover that a garment isn\u2019t what it claimed to be \u2014 for instance, \u201c100% cotton\u201d turns out to be a blend, or \u201cMade in Italy\u201d is a false indication \u2014 the relationship with the brand is damaged. Today\u2019s 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 \u2014 for example, due to allergies, religious beliefs, or personal values<\/strong>. For many, understanding a garment\u2019s material is also essential for assessing its environmental impact. When labels are misleading, consumers believe they\u2019re making responsible choices, only to realize they\u2019ve unknowingly supported practices that contradict their values.<\/strong><\/li>\n
  3. Fueling Greenwashing<\/strong>
    Generic environmental claims (\u201ceco,\u201d \u201csustainable,\u201d \u201cgreen\u201d) without real transparency create the illusion of doing the right thing, while the actual impact may be identical \u2014 or even worse. Deceptive labels become a marketing tool, not an information tool.<\/strong><\/li>\n
  4. Legal Risks and Penalties<\/strong>
    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.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Do you already know of some real cases of false or misleading labeling in clothing?<\/strong>
    Listen to this episode to find out what happened \u2014 in our country and beyond \ud83d\udc47<\/p>\n