Green Fashion is Sinful in More Ways than One

In many ways, fashion is really taking the environment into consideration as it moves forward. Organic cotton and bamboo have become increasingly popular fabric choices. American Apparel has proven that American-based manufacturing sells well. And reused, retooled, and vintage items have replaced new purchases in the wardrobes of many people. But, like any other industry, fashion often falls prey to greenwashing. Researching fashion and greenwashing led me to an enormous amount of information, but I've selected a few examples that describe how fashion commits some of the 7 Sins of Greenwashing, a criteria system developed by Terra Choice that I discussed in an earlier post.

Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off
A claim suggesting that a product is green based on a narrow set of attributes without attention to other important environmental issues.
Bamboo is more frequently being used as the raw material for fabric, and in some ways, it's a very green resource. It grows four times faster than wood and continues to grow after you cut it back. It also requires little to no pesticides and significantly less water than cotton (35 gallons vs. 700 gallons to make a t-shirt) (http://tinyurl.com/4bsflfu). It isn't surprising that companies using bamboo want to market its benefits, like this clothing tag does:

What clothing companies don't mention is the environmentally unfriendly process it takes to make bamboo wearable. In 2009, the Federal Trade Commission charged 4 clothing companies for making false or misleading claims regarding their bamboo products. One of the most significant issues was the claim that their clothing products were made using an environmentally-friendly process (http://tinyurl.com/l7tjyg). Bamboo is a tough fiber. In order to break it down into a pliable material known as viscose, manufacturers need to use toxic chemicals, such as sodium hydroxide, which can cause chemical burns and blindness (http://tinyurl.com/4bsflfu). Organic bamboo, and bamboo that is processed using a closed-loop system, is advertised as such. Otherwise, there's a good chance that the bamboo clothing you're wearing is being marketed as green because bamboo is a renewable resource, but not mentioning the dangers its processing poses to you and the environment. 


Sin of Vagueness
A claim that is so poorly defined or broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer. 
In an attempt to become part of the green movement, certain manufacturers of cotton products are marketing them under the label "natural cotton":

This bag is marketed as being made of "natural cotton." Note the appropriate environmentally-friendly message that it's displaying. The label misleads the consumer into thinking that the cotton is green in some way. Truth be told, cotton is inherently a "natural" product because it's grown, not artificially manufactured, like polyester. For this reason, we can also put natural cotton under the category of Sin of Irrelevance, An environmental claim that may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking environmentally preferable products. The consumer is given a vague and irrelevant claim, which makes them buy a product that is actually quite harmful to the planet. As the fashion team discussed in class recently, cotton is pretty detrimental for a number of reasons. It uses 22% of the world's pesticides; it takes 700 gallons of water to produce a t-shirt (http://tinyurl.com/4bsflfu), and workers farming it are often treated inhumanely. If you're looking for better cotton, be sure it has an "organic" label; that way, it isn't grown with pesticides. Fair-trade cotton also takes into consideration the value of human lives. 


Sin of Fibbing
Environmental claims that are simply false.
We'll return to bamboo and the FTC report for this category. The four companies charged in this case (Jonano, Mad Mod, Pure Bamboo, and Bamboosa) claimed that their products were made of 100% bamboo fiber, when they were actually made of rayon. They also claim that bamboo clothing retains its antimicrobial properties, which means that they repel bacteria that causes odor, a claim that hasn't been substantiated (http://tinyurl.com/l7tjyg). I'm a little confused by the rayon claim. Rayon is a fabric created from the fibers of plants, including bamboo, so I'm not sure how they were lying. I suppose that saying the clothing is made of bamboo misleads the consumer regarding the processing of the raw materials; rayon's processing can be very toxic. Still, bamboo proves itself to be a young member of the clothing market and will likely see some more greenwashing in its future.


Finally, I wanted to discuss a particular company that doesn't fit directly into these categories of sin, but can still be considered guilty of greenwashing. H & M, the popular Swedish clothing brand, has spent the last several years developing its green line, launching "The Garden Collection" in 2010, which consisted of affordable clothing made from organic cotton. While H & M has made significant strides to become more sustainable, I believe it's using this movement to distract from its less reputable practices. On its Corporate Responsibility page, a question is raised regarding the pay rate of its factory workers. H & M claims that since it doesn't own or control the factories where its clothes are made, it cannot demand a certain pay rate for those workers. Furthermore, its Code of Conduct states that the statutory minimum wage is "the lowest acceptable pay level for our suppliers' employees, but not the recommended level." It appears as though H & M is trying to skirt potential human rights issues involved with the workers producing their clothing. They are able to keep their prices low for a number of reasons, but I suspect one crucial factor is their disregard for the welfare and fair wages of factory workers. This could be speculation on my part, but it never hurts to check out the background of a company that's making green claims.