In a new report, Changing Markets Foundation has found that fashion certification schemes are ‘acting as a smokescreen’ for the industry’s environmental impact. The report finds that several of the biggest certification schemes – including the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF), WRAP, and the Sustainable Apparel Coalition’s Higg Index – enabled ‘greenwashing’.
The report, entitled ‘Licence to Greenwash’, analyses ten certification labels and industry initiatives used by fashion brands and measuring their sustainability. The investigation then decided whether these schemes are ‘fit for purpose’ in addressing the harms of the modern fashion industry.
Assessing the brands for their level of ambition, the scope for continuous improvement, independence, transparency, and track record of performance – the report found no scheme to be fit for purpose. All ten certification schemes failed to ‘hold high standards, lacked accountability for their actions and all procrastinated on progressing issues of circularity’ – including overproduction, fast fashion and the industry’s reliance on fossil fuels.
The report outlines the fashion industry’s lack of regulation, with certification schemes existing in the absence of environmental legislation in an attempt to move the industry towards sustainability. However, Changing Markets Foundation notes, the existence of these schemes, and the lack of accountability within them, are enabling ‘greenwashing’. Changing Market Foundation argues that such schemes are allowing producers to place certification labels on individual products or publicise their membership of the schemes, misleading consumers who wish to ‘put their money where their values lie’.
Market research by the Changing Markets Foundation found that one in three (34 per cent) consumers in the UK are choosing to purchase items with green labels or certifications either frequently or always. One in three also stated that they look upon certification schemes or third-party initiatives as trusted sources of information on brands' green credentials. Yet, the organisation asserts, the underperforming schemes allow brands such as Primark and Boohoo to escape any actual accountability.
Publication of the new report comes ahead of the EU Textile Strategy, due to be published on 30 March. The strategy forms a blueprint for the EU moving towards a climate-neutral, circular economy where products are durable, repairable and reusable – addressing the overconsumption and waste produced by the industry as a result of fast fashion.
Currently, the textile sector is the fourth highest pressure category in the EU in terms of use of primary raw materials and water, after food, housing and transport. In the last 20 years, the use of polyester fibre has doubled, increasing the industry's reliance on fossil fuels, and fuelling overproduction and waste.
George Harding-Rolls, Campaign Manager at the Changing Markets Foundation, said: "While fashion brands double down on production and environmental destruction, they're using sustainability certification schemes and voluntary initiatives as a smokescreen. These schemes are unambitious, unaccountable, compromised talking shops that result in an industry-wide decoy for unsustainable practices, enabling sophisticated greenwashing on a vast scale.
"We don't need any more voluntary schemes. Certification and initiatives such as those in the report act as a placebo, creating a false promise that the industry will address sustainability voluntarily. We urgently need comprehensive legislation to change the course of the fashion industry onto a greener path."
Get our weekly digest
resource.co article ai
How will the government and DMOs address the challenges of including glass in DRS while ensuring a level playing field across the UK?
There's no easy solution to include glass in the DRS while maintaining a level playing field. Potential approaches include a phased introduction of glass, potentially with higher deposits to reflect its logistical challenges. The government and DMOs could incentivise innovation in glass packaging design and subsidise dedicated return points for glass-handling. Exemptions for smaller businesses unable to handle glass might also be necessary. Any successful solution will likely blend several approaches. It must address the differing priorities of devolved administrations, balance environmental benefits with logistical and cost implications, and be supported by robust consumer education campaigns emphasizing the importance of glass recycling.