The term ‘Greenwashing’ was coined by an environmentalist Jay Westerveld in 1986 when he was a student. During one of his visits to a hotel in Fiji, he came across the hotel’s request to reuse towels for the planet’s sake. Jay could see through this request and sensed that the hotel rather wanted to save money on new towels by posing false concern for the environment.
Today, the term ‘greenwashing’ has gained size, and it refers to any misleading marketing tactic where organisations, companies or brands falsely portray their products, services or operations as more environmentally friendly than they actually are. In other words, when companies make false claims or use vague language to create an impression of sustainability, while in reality, having no substantial commitment to green initiatives, they are said to be ‘greenwashing’. Under the pretence of false claims, such companies continue with or expand their polluting and related harmful behaviours, all the while manipulating the system or profiting from well-intentioned, sustainably minded consumers.
Characteristics of Greenwashing
Greenwashing is characterised by vague claims, selective disclosure, misleading labels and certifications, downcycling or inefficient take-back programmes. Some companies use self-created eco-labels or certifications lacking any third-party verification, thus creating a falsehood about credibility and trustworthiness with no substantial backing. Some fashion companies and brands which undertake take-back programmes for old clothing do not recycle the collected items efficiently and they end up in landfills anyway. These programmes can sometime encourage guilt-free overconsumption on the part of consumers too. While recycling involves converting waste back into the same or higher-quality materials, the brands instead opt for downcycling which converts waste materials into products of lesser quality.
The other ‘greenwashing’ tactic which fashion brands often use is selective disclosure i.e., they highlight only one or two sustainable practices ignoring their overall environmental impact. For example, brands may only highlight the use of organic cotton while downplaying the significant usage of water or carbon emissions in the production process.
This raises a pertinent question— what is the need for greenwashing?
Reasons behind Greenwashing
Sustainability and eco-friendliness are the burning issues today, so much so that ‘going green’ sells. Surveys finding consumers considering the environment more when shopping than they used to do earlier and willing to spend more money for green products, also add to the saleability of ‘going green’. New generation consumers, particularly Gen Z, are socially conscious and consider climate change as a key issue. For them, purpose and impact are equally important. Hence they, as consumers, are less willing to support the fashion companies and brands they perceive as misaligned with their values. Since companies cannot afford to lose them and the business generated therefrom, they engage them through greenwashing in order to stay afloat in the market.
In addition, at times, even well-intentioned sustainability practices of many companies fail to live up to their promise because of mismanagement, poor internal communication and a lack of sustainability expertise on staff. In such cases, even their efforts end up as nothing more than greenwashing.
Greenwashing in Fashion
In the world of fashion also, greenwashing refers to companies and brands portraying themselves to be more sustainable than they actually are in reality. They deceive their audience by boasting about their minimal or sometimes even non-existent sustainable practices to build a fake positive brand image. It must be noted, however, that fashion is subjected to greenwashing due to its low prices, rapid production cycles and high turnover of clothing items. This negatively impact the genuine efforts of some brands as well.
Greenwashing in fashion happens in the form of “eco-friendly” or “sustainable” labels often being used only for a small collection without any factual proof, while a major part of their production is still undergoing conventional and unsustainable practices. Such terms, being ambiguous and lacking substantial evidences, make it hard for consumers to assess the true impact of a product or brand. For example, some brands claim to offer eco-friendly product packaging without any credible certification, which in reality may harm the environment due to high resource consumption or poor waste management. Often, these claims distract from other unsustainable aspects of their operations, such as opaque or unethical supply chain practices.
It must be noted that use of sustainable material does not make the product also sustainable. The true sustainability, depending on various factors like how they are sourced, manufactured and disposed of etc., is a complex process. In order to achieve carbon neutrality and compensate for their greenhouse gas emissions, some brands opt for carbon offsetting which merely diverts the issue rather than addressing the key goal or reducing emissions. Brands partially or completely gate-keep their operations including source of their materials, the conditions under which they have grown, the use of pesticides or water-intensive farming practices, thereby leading to an environmental degradation. Thus, greenwashing runs uncontrolled, mainly owing to lack of transparency in fashion supply chain.
Impact on Consumers
Greenwashing in fashion deeply impact those consumers who value environmental issues, by fuelling increased pessimism and distrust among them. Exposed to greenwashing over time, they can lose faith so much so that they can dismiss even the legitimate environmental claims as it may cause them to feel deceived and question the authenticity of corporate commitments to environmental responsibility. Since it affects the way they perceive sustainability in the fashion industry, they might end up generalising and overlooking even the genuine efforts of brands. This happened with H&M which reported a more than 10 per cent reduction in its Scope 3 emissions in 2023—a big milestone from the industry standards. Still the news was received with a lot of scepticism. The change in consumer perception also affects brands. Greenwashing may cost them their customers’ loyalty because they may switch to other brands that offer genuine efforts for sustainability.
Role of Consumers
To combat and restrain greenwashing practices, consumers must seek transparency in fashion value chain. They can differentiate greenwashing brands from genuinely sustainable ones by asking for detailed information about their sustainability practices and holding them accountable. While the former will try to fake or conceal the required information, the later will have no reservation in providing clear, specific data about their environmental impact and efforts. They must research certifications claimed by the brands and verify the credibility of their eco-labels. It should be noted that trusted third-party certifications—such as Fair Trade, GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard), and OEKO-TEX—follow rigorous standards and verification processes, requiring brands to make genuine efforts to earn them.
As a habit, consumers should stay sceptical and vigilant of vague or overly broad claims. They must ask questions about what specific actions the company or a brand is taking in regard to their environmental impact and how they measure it. To encourage and recognise the genuine efforts, consumers should support companies and brands that demonstrate genuine commitment to sustainability through transparent practices, credible certifications and continuous improvement efforts. Only by staying well-informed, readily alert and highly vigil, consumers can drive the demands for true sustainability and push the fashion industry towards more honest and impactful environmental practices.
Role of Companies and Brands
Following are some of the ways by which genuine companies and brands in global fashion and textile industry can also support consumers’ fight against greenwashing:
Ensure Authenticity of Sustainable Practices
First, brands must vow not to go the ‘greenwashing’ way and abstain from all intentional and unintentional superficial claims. Instead, they should integrate genuine eco-friendly practices into every aspect of their operations to define and ensure authenticity in sustainability practices in real sense. This will involve developing and implementing comprehensive sustainability policies. These policies need to cover the entire supply chain, from sourcing of raw material to end-of-life product disposal. Additionally, they need to adopt transparency in reporting by providing detailed, accessible reports on their environmental and social impacts. Those who do so regularly publish the independently-verified sustainability reports as well. They also adhere to international standards.
Sustainable practices also encompass ethical labour standards, including fair wages and safe working conditions throughout the supply chain. Companies committed to genuine sustainability must address human rights issues while aligning with broader environmental goals. Equally important is consumer education—brands should engage consumers on the importance of sustainability and their role in fostering an eco-friendly environment. This includes providing guidance on garment care to extend product lifespan and encouraging participation in recycling programmes.
Earn Credible Certifications
Credible certifications not only support a brand’s sustainability claims but also strengthen their credibility. These certifications involve third-party verification by independent organisations such as Fair Trade, GOTS, and OEKO-TEX, which are known for their impartiality and trustworthiness. They help counter greenwashing by covering multiple aspects of sustainability, including environmental impact, social responsibility, and ethical practices. Their criteria and processes are comprehensive, transparent, and publicly available. Moreover, these standards are regularly updated to reflect advancements in sustainable practices and technologies, ensuring they remain relevant and rigorous.
Adopt Innovations in Sustainable Materials
Along with certifications, innovation in materials also tend to reduce the fashion industry’s environmental impact. Innovations in materials encompass biodegradable and renewable fibres, recycled materials as well as alternative materials, such as lab-grown leather, plant-based fabrics and fibres made from agricultural waste, which offer sustainable alternatives to traditional materials. To ensure biodegradability and renewability of fibres, an increased focus on developing and utilising fibres that decompose naturally and can be sustainably sourced, such as organic cotton, hemp and bamboo, must be undertaken.
At the same time, advancing technologies that enable the recycling of textiles into raw fabrics aim to reduce the reliance on virgin materials. This includes closed-loop systems where textiles can be continually recycled without any loss of quality. Recycling textiles and fashion garments plays a prominent role in achieving a circular fashion economy. There are two primary forms of recycling: chemical and mechanical. Chemical recycling involves breaking down textiles into their basic components, which can then be reconstituted into new fibres—this method is particularly effective for mixed-material fabrics and improves the quality of recycled textiles. Mechanical recycling, on the other hand, focuses on enhancing traditional processes to produce higher-quality recycled fibres, including advancements in sorting and processing technologies to handle a variety of textile types more efficiently. Additionally, waste-to-resource innovations are emerging, creating systems that convert textile waste into valuable resources—for example, incorporating fabric scraps into new product designs or transforming waste into energy. Therefore, fashion companies and brands should prioritise investing in innovations in sustainable materials rather than spending resources on promoting false sustainability claims.
Design Sustainable Products
Equally important is designing and creating sustainable products with their entire lifecycle in mind. Designing for sustainability means prioritising durability—creating high-quality products that are built to last, thereby reducing the need for frequent replacement and lowering overall consumption. Incorporating modular and repairable designs allows garments to be easily updated or fixed, extending their lifespan and reducing waste. This approach can effectively discourage greenwashing by aligning design with genuine sustainability goals. Techniques such as zero-waste pattern making—where fabrics are cut and assembled to minimise waste—and incorporating fabric scraps into new products further support minimal-waste design.
Comprehensive Industry Participation
Genuine sustainability can be achieved with collaborative efforts and industry-wide changes, through partnerships and alliances, policy advocacy and consumer involvement. Global textile and fashion industry needs to build a character of collaboration between brands, suppliers and organisations to share best practices, drive innovation and develop industry-wide standards. It should work closely with governments and regulatory bodies to develop and enforce policies that promote sustainability. A great example to this effect is Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes. As mentioned earlier, encouraging consumer participation in sustainable practices, such as recycling programmes, will also bring substantial change in the fashion industry.
Advocacy
To address the menace of greenwashing, the fashion industry and its stakeholders must act on multiple fronts. The first and most crucial step is to acknowledge its existence and raise awareness about it. Consumer activism and advocacy groups already play a vital role in this effort. Initiatives such as environmental groups demanding corporate accountability are further strengthened by third-party certifications. Time and again, activists exposing greenwashing have demonstrated that what benefits big businesses may not always align with what is best for communities. They send a clear message: valuing profits over people is no longer acceptable. However, these efforts still lack the necessary momentum to drive widespread change.
Strong Legal Framework
For long-term solutions, governments must step in to reduce the burden on consumers and activists. Regulatory agencies need to be more effective than they currently are. For example, the Federal Trade Commission in the US, which regulates unfair or deceptive marketing claims—including those related to the environment—has acted against very few greenwashing violators since the 1990s, and primarily only the most infamous ones. In contrast, the EU’s taxonomy system has proven to be more effective, publicly ranking companies on their sustainability efforts using a standard set of criteria, thereby creating greater transparency for investors and policymakers.
Taking cues from EU regulations, US agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) could impose stricter controls on the use of harmful chemicals by companies. Similarly, the US Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) can hold greenwashing companies accountable for misleading investors. These efforts must also extend to state and local lawmakers. A relevant example is Chicago’s Southeast Side, where advocates are pushing for both a city ordinance and a state law to prevent companies from further targeting environmentally vulnerable communities. Such instances underscore the urgent need for governments worldwide to strengthen legal frameworks and address the growing menace of greenwashing effectively.
link