On Greenwashing

Written By Clover Middlebury

By Ellie Bavier & Eleanor Pontikes

In 1969, Westinghouse Electric released a series of advertisements promoting the cleanliness and safety of their nuclear plants. The ad portrays one of their nuclear plants in a serene lake setting and is designed to distract consumers from the concerns of nuclear waste simply by inserting beautiful photos of nature. Westinghouse Electric is just one example of how companies have utilized greenwashing as a marketing tool. 

Scientific American defines greenwashing as a marketing strategy that is “falsely conveying to consumers that a given product, service, company or institution factors environmental responsibility into its offerings and/or operations”.

Since 1969, countless brands and companies have greenwashed their products, falsely leading consumers to believe that their products are particularly sustainable, clean, or environmentally-friendly — especially in the fashion industry. 

Greenwashing is designed to convince consumers that companies are doing more for the environment then they actually are. Take H&M for instance. In 2019, H&M released a collection of clothing called its “Conscious Collection” made entirely from Pinatex — a material created from fruit peelings that would otherwise be discarded. Sounds ingenious, right? Well, the Pinatex material requires 480 pineapple leaves (16 pineapples) to produce just one square meter of Pinatex; consequently, only the long leaf fibers can be utilized, effectively wasting most of the pineapple leaves. Although H&M wants you, the consumer, to think that this Pinatex material is the next best thing to save the world from climate change, research reveals that this material is still wasteful of resources. The issue with this is a lot of consumers will not look into the details, they will see something labeled as eco-friendly and stop there. Sustainable development website Sense and Sustainability says, “Pinatex also contains plastic and petroleum-based agents, which not only offset any potential positive eco-friendly impact of using fruit fibers, but also renders the material non-biodegradable.” As a major corporation in the fashion industry, H&M has the influence and potential to make a change, instead they chose to dip their toes into the sustainability realm before returning to “business as usual.” (1)

Companies spend millions on greenwashing advertisements and marketing rather than implementing practices that could lessen their environmental impact. Remember, the fashion industry alone accounts for 10% of the world’s carbon emissions. (2) Imagine what could happen if companies put their money where their mouth is and implement business practices that actually changed their carbon footprint. 

Major corporations have been utilizing greenwashing techniques even more to combat the negative connotations of fast fashion paired with the current trendiness of shopping ‘sustainably.’ Sustainably is in quotes because the term has grown murkier and harder to understand. Sustainability should be about “championing a culture of longevity and value” in the fashion industry. (3) One of the dangers of greenwashing is that it is deceptive and can essentially trick consumers. As consumers grow more conscious of the products they buy, retailers have created ways to outwardly appeal to them while barely changing their practices.

Zara, a Spanish clothing and accessories retailer, launched their Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA) collection last year. The collection aims to promote sustainable fashion through naturally sourced materials, recycled fabrics, and “ecologically grown cotton,” among other practices. While these changes sound great in theory, Zara has little to no information on their website about how these practices actually lower carbon emissions and create a cleaner environment. Moreover, Zara’s CFDA collection has nine items in it, yet their website has thousands of items available for purchase that do not utilize recycled materials or organic cotton. Companies often use these capsule collections to create the appearance of fighting climate change and promoting eco-conscious practices which can overshadow the majority of what these brands put out. 

Popular boho-brand Free People also falls guilty of greenwashing habits. As a brand that represents the “free-spirited,” many campaigns for the company feature thin, long-legged models traipsing through waist high grass and floral valleys. The company’s slogan is “femininity, courage, spirit,” and taps into the spiritual industry by imitating yogis and crystal-lovers with some of their loose fitted silhouettes. Despite its nature loving aura, the brand leaves a lot swept under the rug and doesn’t really embody a lot of these ideals at its core.

Free People has many different clothing lines they market. Some of which include Care FP and The Rose Bowl Vintage Flea. Preying on up and coming trends of sustainability and vintage, these lines are Free People’s attempts at greenwashing. Care FP allows their shoppers to take the sustainable high ground. With donations to different charities for animal shelters and efforts to divert plastic bags from landfills, the company has started to work towards higher morals. Though the efforts made from the Care FP program have been great steps forward for the company, it is not enough to erase their main manufacturing habits. Care FP is an attempt to overshadow the company’s main practices which are less than ideal and project a sustainable image that is not representative of Free People as a whole.

The Rose Bowl highlights a small vintage market from Pasadena, California. The e-market is “supporting sustainable shopping and small businesses.” Each small brand is shown on the page, and shoppers are encouraged to buy garments with one-of-a-kind value. Prices can rise up to thousands of dollars, although in total The Rose Bowl has a median price of $128. We have seen an unprecedented rise in prices of vintage and second-wear clothing with the surge of popularity in thrifting. This habit is one that has gentrified the used clothing industry. This is not to say that these efforts from Free People are not a step in the right direction. They are. However, they are also used as market ploys to divert from the reality of their company’s operations. 

Free People is under the company umbrella of URBN, which includes big brands Anthropologie and Urban Outfitters. ‘Hipster’ brand Urban Outfitters also has their own greenwashing clothing lines. This includes their Urban Renewal campaign, which champions their pieces as hand-picked and curated since the 1970’s. UO Market also uses the same tactics to lure customers to their shopping carts. Urban Outfitters is seen as a typically liberal brand for beanie-wearing young adults and teens, yet they have had their history of insensitivity and controversies. For example, Urban Outfitters quickly took a graphic tee off their shelves that said “I Support Same-Sex Marriage.” The company also sold cards that used a slur against the transgender community, as well as a graphic tee that said “Eat Less.” The values that Urban Outfitters’ vintage and sustainable clothing lines represent do not align with their practices. The CEO of URBN is Richard Hayne, an avid Republican who donates to right-wing electoral candidates like former Senator Rick Santorum, a known climate-change skeptic and pro-life advocate who opposes gay marriage. The CEO refuses to make a public statement on his own views on LGBTQ+ rights.

As for their manufacturing processes, the massive majority of their garments use, “few eco-friendly materials and [have] made no commitments to reduce direct and indirect carbon emissions.” The brands are both classified as a fast fashion brand. With frequent microseasons, unsustainable manufacturing processes, and lack of transparency regarding labor policies, Free People and Urban Outfitters are simply not doing well enough-- though their greenwashing tactics may make one think otherwise.

While the sustainability movement has put apt pressure on companies to step up their manufacturing game, these companies have responded with deceitful attempts to cover up their habits. This all may sound incredibly disheartening; however, there are ways for consumers to consciously shop and make decisions with the real facts in mind. Greenpeace has developed the acronym “C.A.R.E” to help consumers make more informed decisions. This acronym advises consumers to look into the following to determine whether or not they are being “greenwashed.”

  • Core business: If a greenwasher’s core business is environmentally destructive, likely their environmental message is tainted with disinformation and self-interest.

  • Advertising record: When an organization’s advertising budget is larger than that which is put aside for environmental improvement, their environmental motives should be questioned.

  • Research and development funding: By asking to what extent an organization’s research and development budget is used for developing environmentally-preferable products and services, you can tell fairly quickly how serious they are about their greenwashing message.

  • Environmental lobbying: Does a potential greenwashing company lobby against regulations that would reduce pollution or limit environmental degradation? Then they are likely engaging in double-speak, spinning a green tale for you while supporting dirty methods at the same time. (4)

Moving forward, beware of greenwashing. Look for misleading terms like “green,” “pure,” or “natural.” Dive deep into tiny print. Investigate and research. Think before you buy. It is time corporations step up and make changes in their practices that make a damn difference. It is time corporations begin to disrupt the status quo instead of creating diversions and carrying on with business as usual.

Keep reading Clover’s burgeoning column, C/Green, for more information on greenwashing and how to shop with the Earth in mind.

Clover Middlebury
Previous

Fall 2021 Resale Pop-up
Next

My Experience Selling Clothes Online