It’s Time to Call Out Greenwashing

A formal definition for Sustainability has been around since 1987, under the United Nations Brundtland Report. Yet, many academics are struggling to find a universally understood definition that can be transposed into practical, applicable legislation. Described by many as a ‘fuzzy concept’, the term is naturally subjective and seems to lack a clear-cut definition that is commonly understood.

What I understand as ‘sustainable’ will vary to what, say for example, my grandmother might understand it to be. Yet, the fashion industry is littered with endless claims to sustainability. Given that the term is surrounded by an air of ambiguity, it got me thinking - how is this possible? Is there someone checking the validity of these claims?

Just like most shoppers, I am trusting enough to hope that the claims to sustainable fashion made by the likes of H&M and Primark are true… but 2013’s horse-meat scandal remains at the back of my head and I am not so sure these high street claims are what they seem.

When you look deeper into these claims, and read in-between the lines, more often than not there is little science to substantiate anything. Companies are lathering their advertisements in claims to more sustainable practices, with the sole intention to attract more consumers. This is known as ‘green-washing’.

As part of my dissertation research for the Environmental Law and Sustainable Development LLM at UWE, I’ve been looking into the law that surrounds this issue. It’s frustrating to know that there is no external auditing body within the industry that is checking up on this problem.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) are around but have next to no power; they can only bring about action when raised by someone who has evidence of false claims to hand. That being said, ASA have recognized their responsibility in controlling what we, as consumers, see. They have recently launched a Climate Change and Environment project, as a means of looking at how they govern environmental claims themselves. However, given that they are also partly funded by the advertisements themselves, why would they bother to stop these ads?

In a recent statement from ASA, they confirmed that they support the Ad Net-Zero campaign run by the advertising association. This campaign aims to use advertising as another vehicle to help drive the UK to net-zero by 2030, and make practical changes about how consumerist behaviour is advertised. By signing up, companies promise to take steps to put this into action over the next 6-12 months. However, given that it is a not-for-profit initiative, there is no discourse for failing to do so. 

The Companies Act 2006 legally requires companies to publish statements concerning their environmental impacts, however it’s ‘comply or explain’ approach almost defeats its purpose. In order to avoid legal re-percussions for failing to disclose information concerning environmental matters, companies just need to state why no information is shared - and almost any reason goes here.

Under the same Act, company directors are legally required to promote company success and act in the best interests of shareholders, and not wider stakeholders. In other words, the environment (as a wider stakeholder) is forgotten about whilst the company profits soar (for the shareholders).

Given that sustainability is so fashionable at the moment, it’s no wonder the industry is so susceptible to greenwashing with little legal framework in place to prevent it from happening.

France have introduced a ban on using the term ‘bio-degradable’ on some plastic advertisements under their new zero-waste legislation, which is due to come into force this month. It would be amazing to see the UK adopt a similar approach, and put a blanket ban on certain words that create confusion amongst consumers and lead them to believe false claims of sustainability.

Furthermore, if it were mandatory for companies to publish information concerning their environmental effects - with no option to cop-out with a barely justifiable excuse - perhaps there would be less room for side-lining accuracy in the pursuit for economic success.