Fast fashion brands rely heavily on fossil fuel extraction for the manufacturing and production of synthetic clothing. Many brands, however, promote a corporate image of environmental responsibility and sustainability to consumers. There is an inherent contradiction in advertising sustainability and supporting the fossil fuel industry, the leading cause of climate change. Fortunately, the growing awareness of environmental issues has led to increasing scrutiny of green marketing, especially of false green marketing. Greenwashing occurs when brands make misleading, false or overly exaggerated claims about their environmental efforts.

Fossil fashion

McKinsay Sustainability states that the number of garments produced has exceeded 100 billion items per year since 2014. According to the United Nations Environmental Programme, 64% of these garments are produced using cheaply made synthetic fibres. These fibres, such as polyester, nylon, acrylic and elastane, are generally derived from fossil fuels or petrochemicals like crude oil and natural gas, favoured for their strength, crease-resistance and quick-drying abilities.

Changing Markets Foundation reports that polyester is the most popular synthetic fibre, accounting for 56% of all garments produced. These fibres are easily accessible and generally cheaper than natural fibres, propelling the fast fashion industry’s rapid rate of production while perpetuating a culture of disposability. When fossil fuels are extracted from the ground and burned to produce synthetic fibres, they release and trap large volumes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, escalating global warming and the climate crisis. These fibres are also non-biodegradable and shed harmful micro-fibres when they are washed.

In Europe, about 25% of the complaints about misleading advertising relate to greenwashing issues, however, in South Africa, we have not seen the same complaints patterns

Greenwashing in South Africa

On 10 June 2024, Fossil Free South Africa’s Fossil Ad Ban programme made news headlines after filing the country’s first greenwashing complaint with the Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) against one of TotalEnergies’ advertisements. “In Europe, about 25% of the complaints about misleading advertising relate to greenwashing issues,” says ARB CEO Gail Schimmel. “However, in South Africa, we have not seen the same complaints patterns.” She speculates that this may be because South African consumers are more concerned about the price and quality of their clothes, over more ‘altruistic’ issues such as greenwashing.

Although the complaint is yet to be adjudicated by the ARB, the Fossil Ad Ban programme filed it as a “greenwashing complaint”. The advertisement claims that TotalEnergies is committed to “sustainable development” and “environmental protection” and that the company has partnered with South African National Parks (SANParks) for over 60 years. However, Fossil Fuel SA reports that further research shows the company is the 19th biggest greenhouse gas emitter and a leading cause of the climate crisis, contributing $76 billion worth of climate damage in 2022 alone. This highlights the contradictory nature of its green marketing tactics.

According to Fossil Ad Ban campaigner, Theemena Dhansay, TotalEnergies does not “meaningfully reduce” its environmental impact. Rather it hides the true social and environmental costs of its production methods, which undeniably cause irreplaceable damage to ecosystems and biodiversity.

Greenwashing in the fashion industry

Due to the heavy extraction of fossil fuels by the fashion industry, this event marks a prudent step and a critical milestone towards combating greenwashing. Like the TotalEnergies ad, although fashion brands allude to sustainability or display efforts to minimise the adverse effects of the industry, their selective disclosure and continued use of fossil fuel-based synthetics removes the genuineness of “sustainability”.

Brands also label their products as “cruelty-free,” “green,” or “eco-friendly” without providing verifiable evidence from third-party certifications

In addition to using synthetics, several studies have found that fashion brands like Shein and Zara tout vague statements such as “This product is made with sustainable materials” without specifying which materials are used. Brands also label their products as “cruelty-free,” “green,” or “eco-friendly” without providing verifiable evidence from third-party certifications. Other brands employ green imagery or colours that evoke natural landscapes. These tactics mirror those seen in the advertisement by TotalEnergies, underscoring the importance of transparent reporting and consumer engagement to combat greenwashing tactics.

Gail states that ARB’s current sustainability-focused appendix, titled “Advertising containing environmental claims”, does not explicitly include greenwashing as a clause. However, the lodged complaint will fall under one of the “environmental parameters” listed in the appendix. This is because ARB defines greenwashing as a “type of misleading claim”. Following international trends, the ARB is currently redrafting this appendix to align with global standards. The redrafted version will include a special section on greenwashing to allow consumers who believe that a product is making green claims that are not true or exaggerated to submit a complaint.

Gail states that initially, there was no urgent need to include greenwashing in the appendix as it was not a prevalent or pressing issue in the market. However, the ARB has been “slowly and carefully” working on it behind the scenes. Gail notes that the ARB is collaborating with several resources, including ICC Codes, self-regulatory codes, and various companies, before releasing their new Sustainability Appendix.

Tips for detecting the presence of greenwashing

A broad range of studies has identified two types of greenwashing to help consumers easily identify false or misleading environmental claims: greenwashing claims and executional greenwashing. To help people detect the presence of textual greenwashing elements, TerraChoice published “Seven Sins of Greenwashing”. Besides these textual elements, there is executional greenwashing, coined by Parguel et al. in 2015, that uses “nature-evoking” visual and aural elements to artificially enhance a brand’s ecological image. Executional greenwashing can be divided into four categories: sounds, colours, backgrounds and images. Sounds include elements like bird chirps, leaves rustling, water flowing, and wind. Colours primarily used are greens, blues, browns, and oranges. Backgrounds often depict natural landscapes such as oceans, mountains, forests, rivers, bush, trees, deserts, and wildlife. Images related to environmental issues feature themes such as climate change, biodiversity loss, deforestation, pollution, ocean acidification, and endangerment.

TerraChoice seven sins of greenwashing:

1. Sin of hidden trade-off

Company promotes a product as ‘green’ based on a narrow set of attributes without disclosing other broader and more negative environmental impacts. In other words, it may emphasise one or some positive environmental aspects while ignoring other significantly negative aspects.

2. Sin of no proof

Environmental claims cannot be substantiated with easily accessible evidence or verifiable information; claims lack third-party verification or reliable supporting documentation.

3. Sin of vagueness

Environmental claims that are poorly or broadly defined. The use of terms such as ‘sustainable’, ‘green’, and ‘eco-friendly’ lack specificity regarding why the product is defined in this light or how it achieves it.

4. Sin of irrelevance

The company makes an environmental claim that is accurate but otherwise insignificant in the context of the product’s overall impact or benefit.

5. Sin of lesser of two evils

The company presents a claim that its product is less environmentally detrimental compared to other products in the same category but the improvement is trivial considering that the category in itself is environmentally harmful or unsustainable. The impact is altogether negative or environmentally unfriendly.

6. Sin of fibbing

Environmental claims that are altogether false are not based on factual information whatsoever.

7. Sin of worshipping false labels

The company uses fake or irrelevant eco-labelling or certification to lure consumers into thinking that the product is environmentally friendly.

These greenwashing tactics subconsciously lure consumers into believing that companies’ advertising reflects genuine environmental sustainability. As the fashion industry faces increasing scrutiny and backlash regarding the authenticity of its sustainability claims, these two types of greenwashing provide a useful framework for understanding the deceptive practices that mislead the public and undermine genuine efforts toward environmental responsibility.

• Twyg emailed the Managing Director and CEO of TotalEnergies South Africa, Mariam Kane- Garcia regarding Total Energies’ response to the greenwashing complaint lodged but no response was received at the time of publishing.
• Feature image credit: Liza Summer / Pexels
• Other image: Cottonbru / Pexels