WHAT MAKES A Clothing BRAND SUSTAINABLE?

Anna discusses how brands mislead consumers with claims of ‘sustainability’’ to generate more income and profits for their company as well as to attract consumers...

If the record-breaking warm temperatures this January have taught us anything, it’s that the climate crisis is becoming harder to ignore. Recent research suggests that about 46% of consumers are more likely to invest in eco-friendly, sustainably made products. Clearly, the drive to take individual steps in reducing carbon footprints is there, and the purchasing power of consumers cannot be underestimated. On both small and global scales, brands are recognising these demands. But how do you know if their claims to sustainability are true? How can you differentiate between Greenwashing and genuine intentions? What about the murky middle ground?

According to 4A’s, ‘greenwashing occurs when a brand makes a promise to uphold environmental standards in a way that is unfounded, misleading, or inflated.’ This essentially means that brands exploit sustainability as a marketing tool. Despite good intentions, consumers can be hoodwinked into buying products that continue to damage the environment.

A way to avoid this is understanding the reality of the sustainability spectrum. Many brands make wild claims to improve their environmental impact to avoid scrutiny. Others have genuine intentions but fall short in many aspects. A select few brands do seem to have hit the nail on the head, finding creative ways to develop sustainable products and business models. But at what financial cost? Is it realistic to expect the average consumer to invest only in the totally sustainable options, especially when they are usually much more expensive?

One element of sustainability is the materials used. Brands that use deadstock materials buy fabrics that would otherwise have ended up in landfill and give them a new lease of life. Hissy Fit Clothing is a small Birmingham-based brand which uses only deadstock materials that are sourced from a local supplier.

They then use their own offcuts to make new pieces, helping massively to reduce fashion industry waste.

Other brands make garments from natural, biodegradable or recycled materials. MUD Jeans are made from 40% recycled denim and aim to reach 100% by 2025. One pair of MUD jeans requires just 477 litres of water to make, compared to the industry standard of 7,000 litres. They are also leading the way in clothing circularity. The lease-a-jeans program allows you to rent a pair of jeans for up to 12 months, after which the buyer can send them back for upcycling. It’s really refreshing to see a brand that continues to care about their environmental impact even after the garments are purchased.

However no matter the materials a brand uses, it cannot be considered fully sustainable if it promotes overconsumption.

Professor John Sterman of the MIT Sloan Sustainability Initiative says that “by encouraging unnecessary consumption, advertising harms our ability to create a sustainable world and preserve our prosperity, health, and even our lives in the face of climate change”. These brands usually prioritise profits and growth over sustainability values. Advertising that claims to solve consumers’ problems and excessive sales with huge discounts are often an indicator of this. Then again, these brands tend to sell their garments at more affordable prices, especially during sales.

“A balanced approach, without judgement, is perhaps the best way forward.”

The general consensus among sustainable fashion advocates is that the clothes you already own are the most environmentally friendly. Sourcing second-hand items also reduces the demand for garment production. But this isn’t always a realistic attitude. We live in a materialistic world where buying new clothes is exciting and sometimes necessary. A balanced approach, without judgement, is perhaps the best way forward. Using your purchasing power wisely can help push brands to continue striving for sustainability.

Anna Boyne

This time, I modified Paul Gascoyne’s instructions, substitutingmy firm – Allen & Overy – into the equation. This way I would know whether ChatGPT was generating valuable material. I asked it to draw on its knowledge of competency and scenario-based commercial law questions. But, I saw no change. Whilst the questions asked were useful, they were not firm-specific. They are good practice for applicants, but not enough to adequately prepare for an interview. Likewise, I was encouraged to exemplify general statements with my own experiences, but it failed to recall good interview practices like ‘SWOT’ or ‘PESTLE’ analysis.