The alarms went off last April, this time around the name Better Cotton. The most important initiative in the world to certify ethical cotton was called into question after the publication of an investigation by the British NGO Earthsight in which it was linked to “deforestation, land grabbing and violence against communities.” in the Cerrado region of Brazil. Earthsight tracked 816,000 tons of cotton from several farms that did not meet accreditation requirements and that ended up being transformed into almost 250 million finished garments through eight Asian companies, which in turn are producers of large global chains. “While we all know what soy and beef have done to Brazil’s forests,” explained the NGO’s director, Sam Lawson, “the impact of cotton has gone largely unnoticed. However, the crop has boomed in recent decades and has become an environmental disaster. If you have cotton clothes, towels or sheets from H&M or Zara, they may be stained by the looting of El Cerrado.”
For the activist, the problem is that responsibility cannot be delegated to monetizable stamps, but rather the standards of good practices should come from the states. “It has become very clear that crimes related to the products we consume must be addressed through regulation, not through consumer decisions. “That means legislators in consumer countries should implement strict laws.” The firms that used the seal to ship their products ran to shake off their responsibility, claiming that they had transferred it to this company and thus closing a convenient loop.
Better Cotton responded to the accusations with an independent audit that analyzed three Brazilian farms that produce certified cotton, but said it found no connection to Earthsight’s accusations. The latter, in statements to EL PAÍS, assured that that investigation was “extremely unsatisfactory and incomplete.” In any case, the debate remained open and the complexity and fragility of certain seals came into focus. It was not the first time that they were questioned: already in 2022, an international alliance of fashion brands surprised by announcing that it was stopping working with the Higg Index as a measuring stick for the sustainability of its products. could fall into greenwashing, They alleged (something like greenwashing in Spanish) a practice for the gallery, but without real consequences on the substance of the problem.
Until that moment, the indicator, created by the company Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC) and designed in collaboration with Nike, had become the tool most used by the sector to inform consumers about the environmental impact of their clothing; The problem was that the scales it took into consideration did not really measure it from all prisms nor did they track how and where the product was made, only its materials. The organization has been rebuilding since then and recently announced its transformation and name change to Wordly. A new stage in which it aims to overcome criticism and, in the process, cover other sectors beyond fashion.
Greenwashing tactics encourage users to buy more clothes in the belief that they can be recycled in some magical machine.
Urska Trunk
Currently, according to The Ecolabel Index, In the world there are 456 different certifications for 25 sectors, including fashion. Stamps that, added to the claims of the brands themselves, should offer consumers the possibility and the right to make informed decisions, but which in many cases only add noise. This is stated by Urska Trunk, campaign director at the British association. Changing Markets: “There are several ways in which fashion brands are greenwashing their products. Our report Synthetics Anonymus found that 59% of claims made by major international companies (including Asos, H&M and Inditex) are unsubstantiated and confuse consumers.
convenient confusion
A common tactic is to label items as ‘sustainable’ or ‘responsible’, but without providing evidence to support these claims.” Another of the procedures of greenwashing The most repeated, according to Trunk, is to label a garment as recycled or recyclable, “despite being made with various types of fibers, which makes true recycling either impossible or a challenge.” The client, who does not have to be an expert in sustainability, remains on the surface of certain claims. Many, despite sounding good, hide controversies. “The most prevalent form of greenwashing, adopted by a staggering 83% of clothing brands,” Trunk continues, “focuses on promoting ‘recycled polyester’ clothing. Contrary to consumer belief that recycled polyester clothing is made from old polyester garments, the reality is that 99% of recycled polyester originates from recycled PET bottles. This practice disrupts the closed cycle of bottle-to-bottle recycling. “Furthermore, clothing made from bottles still releases microplastics and cannot be efficiently recycled into clothing, so it is likely to end up in landfill or burned.” The Changing Markets expert warns of the danger regarding consumer perception: “These greenwashing tactics encourage users to buy more clothes or throw them away sooner, in the belief that they can be recycled or reused in some magical machine.”
99% of recycled polyester originates from recycled PET bottles. This practice disrupts the closed cycle of bottle-to-bottle recycling and creates clothing that releases microplastics and cannot be recycled.
‘Recycled’ garments or fabrics are especially complex. While the use of recycled polyester by the industry has multiplied in recent decades, from Greenpeace they point to the myth that these creations represent in terms of sustainability: “The garments are labeled as ‘recycled’ even though there is no evidence that they are part of a truly circular system,” the organization warned last year. “Consumers may think that the term ‘recycled’ means that it is made from old clothing and can be recycled again, when it is not. This creates a false sense of security for customers and hides something important: that until 2015 only 9% of all plastic waste created had been recycled.”
Information is power
“The most common greenwashing strategy used by companies is to make claims that are not supported by data and verified information,” agrees Brittany Johnston, senior communications coordinator at Textile Exchange, a sustainability auditing company, presenting a panorama that could be demotivating, but that should lead to demanding more than a seal: “Transparency and traceability are key to avoiding greenwashing. As a brand, knowing where your fibers and materials come from and how they are sourced and produced will allow you to make more accurate claims.” Certificates and standards help companies and buyers, but “they should be used as part of a broader set of tools,” according to Johnston, “beyond our eight standards, on Textile Exchange there are other tools for the industry to use, that help track in the supply chain.”
Meaningful certifications meet certain strong criteria, advocates Nicole Rycroft, founder and director of Canopy, that works with a thousand companies guiding them towards a more sustainable model: “They meet criteria that require ambitious actions in areas of primary impact, are supported by third-party verification, supported by a wide range of civil society and maintain transparency in their processes . For fashion, they also include a comprehensive approach that encompasses all impacts related to that specific aspect of a garment, including some such as biogenic carbon loss for viscose textiles or human toxicity related to chemical use, etc. “Consumers and businesses alike should pursue standards that require comprehensive, science-based environmental benefits.”
Both consumers and businesses should seek standards that require comprehensive, science-based environmental benefits.
Nicole Rycroft
Urska Trunk is committed to the same line, for certifications that analyze the entire system and do not focus on a process or a fiber. As seals such as bluesign®, OEKO-TEX®, Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) or the European Ecolabel, linked to the European Union, do: “But unfortunately, our findings indicate that most certification schemes provide a curtain of smoke for companies that engage in unsustainable practices and facilitate greenwashing. “They create false hopes that sustainability issues will be addressed voluntarily, but we urgently need strong laws to guide the fashion industry towards greener practices.”
In this sense, the European Union is being a pioneer, even with many pending tasks, says Trunk: “It requires that, no later than 2030, each item of clothing sold within its borders must include a ‘digital product passport’. These will provide consumers with access to information about the journey of a product, from its origins to its environmental impact, allowing them to make informed decisions when purchasing.”
The most common greenwashing strategy used by companies is to make claims that are not supported by verified data and information.
Brittany Johnston
The solutions (and surely the future of the industry) lie in the direction Trunk points out: “To demonstrate that they are serious about sustainability and not just facelift, brands must prioritize transparency throughout their supply chains. By sharing information about their suppliers, they allow consumers to track their progress accurately and distinguish between companies that are doing well and those that are falling behind. Additionally, brands should develop robust plans to move away from the unsustainable fast fashion model and reduce their reliance on synthetic materials. Instead of promoting recycled materials made from plastic bottles, they should invest in fiber-to-fiber recycling technologies. To avoid the greenwashing, Brands need to ensure their claims are clear, giving consumers the big picture without leaving out any important details. This approach will build trust and credibility.”
While waiting for these digital passports to be implemented, the only possible solution to determine whether a garment is sustainable or not is not in the seal or the label, but in the brand websites that detail (or not) what, how, who and where it was made. Because not everything is circular, nor is everything recycled. At least not completely. Not everything organic is grown in good conditions.
#controversy #sustainability #seals #green #guarantee #impact