Until recently, eco-labelling on clothing has been a voluntary disclosure made by fashion brands. But with climate neutrality on every government’s agenda, fashion too is under legislative scrutiny. Releasing information about sustainable action is set to become a mandate: from clothing with digital IDs to carbon labels, change is brewing.
The conscious consumer is burdened by information overload
Once upon a time, garments had one or two tags that spoke of washing instructions and country of manufacture or origin – they played no role in decision making. As fast fashion’s consequences became widespread knowledge, consumers demanded the right to information. Tags evolved and expanded to carbon footprint eco-labels, sustainable membership logos, QR codes and digital garment passports.
Today, over 455 sustainability certifications exist across 25 industries. Of these, 104 are claimed by the textile sector. At a glance, the sheer number of eco-labels and initiatives indicate industry initiative towards climate change. Though for consumers, this can also mean that seeking real information on a brand’s sustainability efforts is akin to finding a needle in a haystack.
Only a few of these 104 textile-based eco-labels, such as GOTS, OEKO-TEX 100, Fair Wear Foundation are specific to this industry; while the majority is shared across various sectors, products and services. This affords more confusion rather than transparency. It seems they have become a part of the problem rather than the solution intended. Existing eco-labels have been weaponized by profit-hungry brands to bombard consumers with half-truths and false claims. In other words, they moonlight as ‘licenses to greenwash.’
How reliable are current eco-labels?
In the wake of the recent greenwashing lawsuits against H&M and Decathlon, it is evident that these labels do not justify the real impact of fashion on our environment. A 2022 study by Changing Markets Foundation evaluates ‘how certification schemes and voluntary initiatives are fuelling fossil fashion.’ It looks into 10 labels touted by mass market brands like Nike, Tommy Hilfiger, Gap, to name a few. The report revealed that when put under a magnifying glass, the eco-labels (BlueSign, Textile Exchange, EU Ecolabel, Higg Index etc) were not fit for the purposes of transparency and accountability.
In that regard, Livia Firth, founder of Eco-Age questions: “We have comprehensive labels on the food we buy, why can’t we have it on the clothes as well?” Similarly, Jodi Muter-Hamilton, founder of non-profit Lab 2030, proposes a traffic-light system for fashion in an attempt to simplify garment sustainability credentials. In food packaging, this labelling system indicates colour-coded amounts of fat, sugars, salt and calories in a product. Red is a sign of high harmful nutrient content whereas green is the healthiest choice. While traffic-light labels in fashion could be a value-addition, the current challenge remains standardisation and legalisation of eco-labelling.
IMAGE: via License to Greenwash report | IMAGE DESCRIPTION: Logos of sustainability certifications printed on a denim cloth
EU Ecolabel vs. Make the Label Count
By 2023, the European Union will regulate the EU Ecolabel in the fashion industry. Under development by the SAC (Sustainable Apparel Coalition), the new eco-labelling system is based on EU’s standardized Product Environmental Footprint methodology. First initiated in 2013, the PEF aims to provide information to consumers on 14 environmental impact points: climate change, ozone depletion, toxicity, resource depletion among others. However, this system is applied across multiple sectors and its use can dilute efforts of transparency in fashion, if all touch points are not covered.
Campaigning against the EU Ecolabel’s credibility since October 2021, is ‘Make the Label Count’ – a coalition of organisations including Eco-Age, International Wool Textile Organisation, Changing Markets Foundation, Fibershed, Sericulture Commission etc.
Dalena White, Make the Label Count co-spokesperson and secretary general of the IWTO argued: “We’ve had major advancements in research and knowledge around the environmental impacts of the textile industry, but these aren’t included in the current methodology.”
Scoring synthetic fibres > natural fibres
In initial proposals, the Ecolabel was skewed in favour of synthetic fibres, deeming natural fibres more harmful to the environment. This alarming outcome was due to the lack of consideration for micro-plastic release and the incomplete lifecycle of synthetic fibres, where oil production was not taken into account. The PEF method also turned a blind eye to the disposal of textiles in landfills.
White spoke of the comparison: “The life cycle of textiles made from petroleum fibres is measured from the time that oil is extracted at the wellhead. So the water, land or the years that it took to make that oil are not measured. But the lifecycle of wool is measured from the day that it starts growing on the sheep’s back. That takes eight to 12 months. It also measures all the land and water it might take for the wool to grow.”
While this remains a primary concern, the SAC can be commended for factoring criteria such as repairability and durability into the label. However, if left unamended, the EU Ecolabel will be misleading well-intentioned consumers. Also, providing fashion brands with a smokescreen to pass off sustainability efforts in rhetorical forms.
The UK’s Digital IDs for garment traceability
One of the most important tokens of sustainability communication is traceability. Brands are embracing this through digital eco-labels. In October 2021, the Sustainable Markets Initiative Fashion Taskforce that was founded by Prince Charles proposed a ‘Digital ID.’ Taking the form of a QR code garment label, it aims to provide consumers with circular data. From the supply chain and materials used, to information about how products can be resold, recycled and kept away from landfills. All 15 brands of the UK taskforce including Armani, Stella McCartney, e-tailer Zalando, reseller Vestiaire Collective have committed to it.
How brands are taking initiative?
While many brands have exploited mass consumers’ carbon illiteracy and reduced greenwashing to a fun-term for deception, some rose to the occasion. In 2021, Danish brand Ganni achieved 100% supply chain transparency from field to finished garment. In the same year, footwear brand Allbirds launched carbon footprint eco-labels to disclose carbon dioxide emissions of their shoes, right from raw materials to end-of-life. Last May, Pangaia’s capsule collection featured digital passports accessible via QR codes to share information on materials, dyeing, distribution etc.
However coming out on top was the ‘sustainability facts label’ by Nisolo that replicated nutrition boxes in food packaging. Combining over 30 industry standards and using 200 data-points, Nisolo created 10 categories scoring efforts on people and planet. These include wages, gender-equality, health and safety, carbon footprint, raw materials, packaging, post-use lifecycle etc.
One step closer: Farm-to-closet traceability
The UK adopted the Green Claims Code in 2021, Sweden is considering putting a chemical tax with merchandise containing substances of VHC (very high concern) and EU is mandating the Ecolabel by 2023. Unified regulation and accountability isn’t far.
This March, the EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles was adopted to enable reforms in the fashion industry. Here are some of the key points:
- Digital labels in the form of product passports: Expected in 2024, the Digital Product Passport is a tool to register information on a product’s supply chain. It will include mandatory information on circularity in terms of repair, resale.
- Scrutiny of green claims: Fashion brand’s sustainability certification will be established through the standardised EU Ecolabel (revised version expected in 2024). Any voluntary third-party tags will require verifications. The EU Commission is also exploring a repairability score.
- Transparency obligation regarding unsold merchandise: companies will be required to disclose the amount of excess inventory discarded and their subsequent waste treatment plans
While some governments take stock of their fashion industries’ role in climate crisis agendas, others are slow to respond. It is interesting to note that the former may have been responsible in propagating fast fashion and its adverse impacts on lower economies, now struggling to take on climate change through policy.
FEATURED IMAGE: via Unsplash | IMAGE DESCRIPTION: Close-up of a sustainability information printed on a cotton t-shirt
