[ad_1]
Rahman Ravelli’s Angelica Hellweger fashion details his environmental credentials.
It is estimated that the fashion industry generates 92 million tons of waste globally each year. The industry uses more than 20 trillion gallons of water annually and contributes to nearly 10% of global emissions. Despite such alarming figures – and the criticism they have drawn – the fashion world seems to have done little to actually measure or meaningfully reduce its carbon footprint in marketing campaigns to the contrary.
Retailers and brands are accused of using “certified organic” cotton, even though such claims are false and unsupported by credible data, and they recycle old clothes just to get customers to buy more. There are also allegations that they charge customers more for clothes of the same quality, calling them “sustainable”.
In the UK, mass market retailers Boohoo, George Asda and Asos are being investigated by the Competition Authority for greenwashing. Earlier this year, Norway’s consumer authority ruled that H&M and outdoor clothing brand Norrona could no longer use environmental product labels that were confusing to consumers. Recently, H&M and Decathlon pledged to the Netherlands Authority for the Consumer Market (ACM) that they would “edit or not use sustainability claims on their clothing and/or websites” and that consumers would be better informed. This study of potentially misleading marketing claims found that certain terms such as “Ecodesign” and “Conscious” were vague or insufficiently substantiated. In addition, each company has agreed to make additional charitable donations to projects working to improve the sustainability of the fashion environment: H&M has pledged €500,000 and Decathlon, £400,000. ACM will work with the organizations over the next two years to ensure that the accounts are changed and contributions are made. ACM will not impose sanctions in light of the commitments of the two companies.
Meanwhile, in the US, H&M is the subject of a class-action lawsuit in New York state, which also raises similar criticisms of its sustainability claims. The claimant purchased a number of H&M items sold under the label “Known Choice”. According to the retailer’s marketing materials, these products are made with “at least 50% or more sustainable materials.” But they are not. H&M misrepresented the nature of its products at the expense of consumers who paid a price premium believing they were buying truly sustainable and environmentally friendly clothing. According to the lawsuit, H&M created a misleading illusion that “old clothes are easily turned into new clothes or clothes do not end up in landfills” and that “recycling solutions do not exist or are available to the market. Most” of H&M’s products. It will take more than a decade to put it on.” This lawsuit against H&M is about the financial damage consumers have suffered when they pay more for clothes, thinking they’re paying for a more conscious and sustainably made product.
It should be noted that when the relevant enforcement agencies greenwash a retailer, an individual investor may use the findings as the basis for an individual consumer/investor and/or class action appeal. The fashion industry should soon – in addition to aggressive enforcement actions from regulators – face a massive civil lawsuit and then realize the huge impact of greenwashing on business. Retailers are therefore advised to reconsider their sustainability strategy and marketing communications with future regulatory compliance in mind. Failure to do so will make them less eye-catching than many think.
[ad_2]
Source link
