greenwashing

Small parts to preserve the environment

/ Leave a Comment

Are fashion brands really doing enough?

According to some news, top luxury fashion brands and other popular ones do their small parts to preserve the environment. And, following their reasoning, these “small parts” are enough to make a big difference. But is it true?

Fashion industry & climate change

It is proven that human actions have caused climate change. Also, we know that fashion is a big polluting industry which discards tons of waste everywhere. So, we wonder, what are they trying to say with these pieces of news? How do these messages translate into facts? Are they really making a positive impact?

For instance, in the context of brands doing their small part for a lower-impact fashion industry, a newsletter said that Dior launched a pair of recyclable sneakers. So, they say, the brand is doing its part for climate change. But, for a juggernaut, is this single move enough to preserve our planet?

In today’s world, it’s a common concern whether the sustainability efforts made by corporations are genuine or just a form of greenwashing. Some argue that any small step taken towards sustainability can bring about a positive change. But that could probably work decades ago. At this moment, the situation has gotten so much worse that this news seems ridiculous.

In the face of a climate emergency, forget small steps – we need radical change!

Marketing: The realm of greenwashing

In fact, we agree with those who believe such efforts are simply a PR tactic without any significant systemic change. These news are part of fashion marketing plans, which should be labelled as greenwashing.

Corporations or brands of any size set up their marketing plans and release that kind of information, which has no basis. Magazines, fashion journalists or influencers get paid to share the great news. Hey, it’s business in the end! Who cares if it’s misleading?
The point is that most people take that kind of news for granted. So, whoever shares them is complicit in promoting greenwashing.

Now, please tell us, do you think brands make a big difference by doing their small parts to preserve the environment? Do you really believe it?

Comment here below or WhatsApp directly from here!

Secondhand and fashion resale

/ Leave a Comment

Circularity or marketing trick?

Driven by the popularity of secondhand, the fashion resale market is growing strongly, not only for luxury brands but mass-market brands, too.

“The explosion of cheap, mass-market brands over the last two decades has meant the secondhand market is now awash with polyester party dresses and synthetic sweaters.” via Business Of Fashion.

As a matter of fact, “I’m searching for a little something” – is still the NR 1 customers’ request. In other words, it means a low-priced, easy-to-purchase, easy-to-get-rid-of piece of clothing. Though we don’t sell that product, we often hear that request. That’s what people want! Sadly, the attractive price for clothes is now a burden we all pay. In fact, clothes end up in landfills, where trillions of “little things” are towering, polluting lands and seas. So, you may wonder, was it really so convenient?

Since our wardrobes are packed with clothing, reselling is a way to clean them out. Of course, donating, too, helps.

Secondhand and fashion resale: pros and cons

From the perspective of circularity, reselling represents a valuable opportunity. First, it prevents clothes from ending up in the garbage bin, giving them a longer life. Second, it makes luxury brands accessible.

But, in the case of fast fashion, there’s a big issue with reselling: mass-market brands use circularity to greenwash. Indeed, the fact that fast-fashion brands push people to resell their clothing is a marketing trick. They do it to sell more fast-fashion items. Reselling fast fashion to purchase more fast fashion is pure madness. Instead of limiting the problem, brands make it bigger by feeding the system.

Secondhand and fashion resale make sense for quality products, as clothing made to last deserves a second life, though brands should control production anyway. But it is dangerous with fast fashion. In fact, we’d better avoid producing new garbage at all, which would be the ultimate solution to fashion waste.

How do you make a positive impact? Don’t buy fast fashion. Buy less, far much less, buy better!

Extreme weather: the new normal

/ Leave a Comment

Why people don’t care about climate change

It seems extreme weather bothers people to the degree of the intensity of heat, cold perceived, or devastation suffered. Other than news titles, these dramatic events cause conversations and complaints. However, it stops there.

But now that information is everywhere, why do people not educate themselves? Why is there indifference and no action?

Extreme weather in Europe

A massive storm and hail have devastated Milano. Also, in the Mediterranean, flames are devouring everything. That happens in Sicily, Greece, Croatia, Turkey and Gran Canaria. From droughts to wildfires, these days, Europe is burning. The climate emergency is tangible. And we know what has caused climate change which drives extreme weather because scientists said it clearly decades ago. They said we had to change the way humans impacted the planet. But we kept on abusing nature in the name of money.

Furthermore, instead of listening to those who tried to open our eyes, instead of changing our lifestyle to avoid extinction, we changed the marketing! So now, every product or service is green. Brilliant! But guess what? The world is in flames.

Misleading messages on climate change

Recently, the Italian Prime Minister spoke at the Vox rally in Valencia. She said we need to “stop ultra-ecological fanaticism.” Also: “ecological sustainability must go hand in hand with economic sustainability.”
In other words, according to the Italian government, we need to stop those who take a step to protect nature but do not say a word about oil companies.

These messages on how to handle climate change are disturbing. Besides, this viewpoint goes hand in hand with the fake slogans of green capitalism and sustainability, which are expressions of greenwashing.

Please, stop it all! Stop talking! No more words on sustainability because they are unnerving.
We are fed up with hearing governments and brands talking about growth. We cannot stand hearing about sustainable fashion, organic food, sustainable tourism or net zero! There is no such thing as sustainable growth.

Climate change worsens, but we keep doing what we have done so far! More flights, more cars, more travel, more consumption. Like someone driving a car about to hit a wall but does not care!

Now more than ever, information is available to everyone.
Indeed, there is enough information about climate change to educate ourselves and hold ourselves accountable. Yet most people prefer to credit those who deny it. Either there is a lack of understanding, or we are kidding ourselves.

But one thing is clear: extreme weather is the new normal. And we cannot afford this inconsiderate behaviour anymore.

Net zero fashion

/ Leave a Comment

Greenwashing from the top down

Net zero fashion is one of the latest buzzwords in sustainability. But can we trust those who promote their garments with this label?

We know that green eco-whatever labels have flooded the fashion industry, like any other activity related to selling products or services. The food industry was probably the first to launch organic products, which, by itself, means nothing. See the video here. Also, according to Fondazione Veronesi, the differences between organic and non-organic food are few and negligible. 

After the food industry, it was time for fashion, furniture and now, sustainable tourism, all of which sound like enormous bullshit.

Net zero fashion according to the UN

Take the UN playbook on “Sustainable Fashion Communication.” Though the basic principle, fighting overconsumption, is valuable, we didn’t like the fact they mention some fashion brands. It seems like they take for granted that these brands are doing great work in terms of sustainability while they are perfectly aware that there is zero control!

For instance, the UN playbook mentions Allbirds. 
“Footwear brand Allbirds developed a life cycle assessment (LCA) tool to estimate the cradle-to-grave carbon footprint of its products.”
“Allbirds then took it a step further in 2023 announcing what it refers to as the world’s first net zero carbon shoe.”
At some point, a line that says: “According to the company’s assessment, on average, a pair of Allbirds shoes has a footprint of 7.12 kg CO2e.”

That “according to the company” sounds really weird! Even more, coming from the UN! They better avoid mentioning any fashion brand…

Net zero fashion according to Business of Fashion

By the way, a few days later, a newsletter from the Business of Fashion got our attention. It was about Allbirds and the launch of their new sneakers. We quote B.O.F:

“By focusing on materials that draw down more carbon than they emit and lowering transport and manufacturing impact as much as possible, the brand says it has succeeded in designing ‘the world’s first net zero-carbon shoe.’ But the basis of such calculations for the industry is fraught. Fashion’s environmental impact data is notoriously poor and accepted standards for carbon accounting are still evolving, meaning net-zero product claims are testing new ground.”

Net zero according to science

So what? The UN released the playbook to help spread sustainable fashion communication, but they did not do a great job. It seems like they are greenwashing from the top down.

Since there is no control, it is not serious to mention fashion brands at all. Also, since the UN says “lead with science” – on this point, we totally agree! So, here is what the climate scientist Kevin Anderson says about net zero:

“Net Zero is a real dangerous turn in my view, and if you hear the language of net zero, I’d be very cautious about the optimism of the person who’s saying it actually has. Unpick it, reveal what’s behind it, and you’ll realise what they mean, and what they mean is NOT zero emissions, not net zero, not zero emissions. 
I always say ‘net zero’ is Latin for ‘kick the can down the road.”

Kevin Anderson

Lead with science UN, and reveal what’s behind net zero fashion!

UN against overconsumption

/ Leave a Comment

Fashion marketers as the key to a new narrative

The UN says fashion needs to stop promoting overconsumption. Indeed, we are perfectly aligned since we focused more on this evolved path, about four years ago. Though a selection of pieces to wear for a lifetime has always been part of our viewpoint.
Specifically, the UN Environment Programme and UN climate change have just released new recommendations for those who work in fashion marketing and communication.

“We are draining humanity’s lifeblood through vampiric overconsumption and unsustainable use, and evaporating it through global heating,” said U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. (source)

UN against overconsumption: a systemic issue

According to the UN, mass consumption is a systemic issue. So, they identify marketing as the key to fostering cultural change. That is how: leading consumers to change consumption rates, increasing consumer knowledge and shifting consumer behaviours. The idea is to tackle misinformation and greenwashing through science-based communication and transparency.

Although we agree with the idea of fighting overconsumption and overproduction, we are afraid that many of the words suggested in the playbook are buzzwords hiding greenwashing.
Marketing is an ensemble of activities finalised to sell products or services. So far, fashion marketing has contributed to creating confusion through deliberate operations. It isn’t likely that corporations are ready to leave behind their growth pattern. Ethics over money sounds weird from a capitalistic view.

Fashion industry: overproduction & overconsumption

Overproduction and overconsumption are two faces of the same coin, capitalism. In other words, a vicious and exploitative economic system which triggers toxic behaviours.

Overproduction leads to overconsumption: this point was clear to us. So, as a fashion retailer, about four years ago, we thought it made sense to reduce the quantity of clothing we ordered each season dramatically. That allowed us to avoid overstock and end-of-season sales while promoting a reduction of consumption based on fewer products but good quality. And so, a timeless selection of non-trend-based garments with great design value.
Also, getting familiar with the concept of degrowth as an effective strategy to drive change, we trust our choice was valuable.

However, it’s not enough, and we need to do more. But it’s complicated to work since most fashion industry players still promote growth, perhaps hiding it behind traceability QR Codes. Now they call it green growth. Which, as clearly explained in Kevin Anderson’s video, is meaningless. It leads nowhere.

Furthermore, it’s hard to find solutions when consumers shop from retailers who still work on an overproduction basis. How can these retailers stop promoting overconsumption with shops full to the brim of clothes?

Most importantly, does the UN leave the fight against overconsumption to the good heart of marketers? Of course, fashion marketing is part of the problem. And an ethical approach could work. But expecting redemption without regulations and strict controls in a rotten system seems a bit naive.

Where are we heading

/ 2 Comments

Climate change: are we doing enough?

A true paradise: where are we heading – is the video released by Kevin Anderson, a climate scientist. And you cannot miss it!

“We are 32 years from the first major scientific report on climate change… What have we done since then?” “All we are doing so far is giving rhetoric and optimism and greenwash.”
“There is plenty of talk but no action.”- Anderson says.

When we hear people talking about sustainability, it seems like they limit the debate to specific fields without considering the fact that sustainability regards our whole lifestyle and all of us. However, with the bad habit of passing the buck and, most of all, thanks to a lot of greenwashing, we aren’t making any progress. Indeed, the climate disaster is happening faster than many thought. And it’s frustrating because greenwashing makes it impossible to have honest conversations. In fact, the more governments, companies, and brands fake, the more they get attention. And people trust them! But we would love to ask all these green companies: if they are really doing so good, why are emissions going up?

In the end, some people see the urgency, but most do not move a finger to change their habits! They are not interested in climate change, or change isn’t convenient for them. So they greenwash.

Must-see video!

Kevin Anderson released the video here below: Where are we heading. It’s a warning which invites us to open our eyes and stop believing political rhetoric and greenwashing. And also calls on us to push for bold policy changes.

Every word is precious, but we highlight some passages:
“Pseudo technologies are a facade to avoid asking the difficult political and equity based questions. ‘Net Zero’ is a real dangerous turn in my view, and really means NOT zero. I always say ‘net zero’ is latin for ‘kick the can down the road.”

“I have to be honest and say as someone who has worked on climate change for years, my best guess is that we are going to fail. But it is a choice to fail. Political leaders, academia and journalism, have repeatedly chosen to fail on climate for 30 years.”

His powerful words call for radical change. Furthermore, he makes it clear, politicians or corporations won’t drive the change. The hope comes from the common people, civil society, who can ask for more.

So, where are we heading? With his final words, Kevin Anderson opens to hope:
“It does come down to all of us to play our role as best that we can. It is a choice to fail and it is a choice to succeed.”

Sustainable fashion brands

/ Leave a Comment

What you need to know

Let’s face it: 90% of sustainable fashion brands would be sustainable for real if they stopped doing their collections.
Do you care about the planet? If you do, it must be clear that trillions of self-appointed “sustainable brands” that have oversaturated the market aren’t sustainable. Indeed, we came to this conclusion after years of visiting fashion exhibitions and showrooms, checking out lookbooks, and corporate and online communication.

Of course, sustainable practices must be embedded in the designing process and production chains. Most importantly, fashion degrowth must be planned to reduce the massive impact of the industry on the environment. But the point is that attention has shifted from clothing to too many words and much storytelling. And everything is about that: words and empty slogans. Why? Because these designers have nothing to say. Their design means nothing. Therefore, marketing gives these “sustainable brands” a reason to exist and an opportunity to do business.

Top brands vs sustainable brands

In the fashion universe, megabrands communication is all about sustainability. But we avoid listing all top brands’ sustainable activities we read daily because it gets embarrassing, if not unnerving. Then, we find designers and many new brands, who make a lot of noise talking about sustainable fashion, but in practice, they lose sight of their job. And what is their job? Making clothes, meaningful garments, and pieces worth buying in case people need something new.

Niche fashion #formodernhumans

But, in our fashion research, a tiny niche focused on its job has emerged. Here we can find those brands that offer intrinsic value in their design, beautiful pieces presented in a contemporary key. Also featuring refined details, quality fabrics and impeccable tailoring. Brands with a unique sense of style, a timeless aesthetic, edgy and always fashion forward, but absolutely far from mass production. Indeed, they let their design speak.
And so, without too many words, but through the value of their work, they show us sustainability almost achieved in practice.

In fact, designers part of the blah-blah-blah sustainable fashion brands bubble would better serve their cause and do a favour to the planet if they didn’t do their collections.

Sustainability is ridiculous

/ Leave a Comment

Why playing this shell game should be banned


Sustainability is ridiculous. Not because the concept per se is stupid or does not make sense. But because it is too broad, too vague, and, therefore, deceptive. 

Sustainable fashion? This is greenwashing

Sometimes for ignorance or superficiality, yet in most cases, with intentionality, as those who play the sustainable game are perfectly aware of what they do. But, in the end, sustainability is just a new way to make money by showing a green facade. The industry, which goes from consultancy to fashion brand retail to NGOs, is flourishing. As a matter of fact, industry players spend time on “eco – green – conscious” labels, but it seems they are playing a shell game. The purpose is to hide and manipulate truths. 

In most cases, the effort is all about running after the latest eco-friendly label. But is it enough to achieve sustainability? It is the case of Chloé, for instance. Richemont hired Gabriela Hearst for her eco credentials, and now, three years later, the designer is exiting the company. Though they say revenue increased by 60%, their design is far away from the beauty of the past. 

Why sustainability is ridiculous

However, we have some doubts about the strategy Chloé has promoted so far. How can a luxury brand based on seasonal trends manage its business without damaging the planet? We wonder how fashion brands that shift to a purpose-driven business can be credible if they still run their activity on an overproduction pattern. Also, they attain the status of B-Corp. Most importantly, we wonder how B-Corp certification can combine with overproduction.
That seems contradictory. In fact, in this context, sustainability is ridiculous.

Specifically, we wonder if a drastic reduction of supply by offering only beautiful design garments made with “sustainable materials” and respecting the production chain would be an effective strategy.

But, of course, we understand that manipulating reality with the effect of fueling overconsumption is the most effective way to make money. So keep up promoting a green world!

Cultural change

/ Leave a Comment

Between utopia and feasibility

Are we ready for cultural change? The real one, we mean. When it comes to sustainability, do we believe in all the marketing bullshit that flooded communication lately? Or are we open to change for real? Ready to pick this opportunity up and make something better beyond the facades? 

People are bombarded with deceiving information: 
“We are sustainable because we recycle garments!”
“We use milk, coconut or whatever fibres.” 
“Hey, we have a conscious section in our store!”
“There’s a sustainable selection on our e-shop.”
“And we are the ones who do it best because we plant trees!”

Forget all that! Even the ‘plant a tree’ claim is proven misleading. Indeed, all these messages have the sole purpose of making people over-consume. As a matter of fact, not a single company has changed their overproduction pattern.

On the one hand, this is marketing, what brands need to say in order to show a clean face. But, on the other, we can find alternative reports and explorations that dig the truth out. Are we open to reading those reports? Understand how things really are? And, therefore, start questioning? 

Of course, sustainability is a path to pursue with conviction and self-commitment, despite all the difficulties, misleading messages, and smoke and mirrors. 

But is the effort worth it? Or, as many people with whom we exchange thoughts tell us, sustainability is just one of those beautiful utopias! To sell, one must think only of selling more. That is what companies have to do. And people, for their part, have to buy whatever product. 

So, in the context of trade, specifically in the fashion field, is sustainability a utopia or is it feasible? What’s your viewpoint on this?

Are you open to cultural change? We would love to hear your thoughts. 
Drop us an email, WhatsApp, or comment here below!

Carbon neutral: plant a tree?

/ Leave a Comment

Offsetting carbon emissions: why it is misleading

The carbon neutral definition may induce people to think that a brand that claims this practice is sustainable. But, planting trees isn’t enough to solve the climate change issue.

Indeed, it’s always interesting to read how the fashion industry is involved in sustainable practices. Which, now, we can place under the umbrella of corporate change. We get itchy just thinking about it! There is no company that doesn’t talk about its eco-friendly policies. The bigger they are, the more they blurt out promises they cannot keep.

Sustainable brands

According to the Circular Fashion Index 2023, Gucci is the most sustainable among luxury brands. Kearny, a strategic consultancy company that analyses the impact of the circularity of brands, operates this ranking. They rank fast fashion brands, too! So, fast fashion has sustainable practices – really?

We feel a little disappointed when agencies release these rankings because of the misleading impact. In fact, we think industries use the word sustainable too much. After checking out those rankings, our question is: how can brands structured on an overproduction model be sustainable?

Carbon neutral or greenwashing?

But, while some magazines posted the list of the most sustainable brands or sustainable mega entities, The Guardian released an article that dampens enthusiasm. 

“Adverts that claim products are carbon neutral using offsets are to be banned by the UK’s advertising watchdog unless companies can prove they really work, the Guardian can reveal, as Gucci becomes the latest company to struggle with a high-profile environmental commitment based on offsetting.
Amid growing concern that firms are misleading consumers about the environmental impact of their products, the Advertising Standards Authority’s (ASA) is to begin stricter enforcement around the use of terms such as “carbon neutral”, “net zero” and “nature positive” as part of a greenwashing crackdown later this year after a six-month review.”

The Guardian

Offset CO2 emissions: what does it mean? 

Offsetting CO2 emissions means balancing the amount of CO generated by any activity through reforestation, parks and natural reserves protection. These projects generate carbon credits.

“In January, a joint Guardian investigation found that many rainforest offsets certified by Verra, which operates the world’s leading carbon standard, had little impact despite being widely used by major companies for environmental claims, also finding evidence of forced evictions at a flagship project in Peru used by Disney and Apple.”

The Guardian

Specifically, The Guardian revealed that more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by the biggest certifier are worthless!
Therefore, planting trees isn’t helping with climate change.

When big brands, corporations and millionaires talk about sustainability and carbon emissions, always be careful. They are the problem. And if they want to be part of the solution, they must change their overproduction model and lifestyle first. 

Changing marketing isn’t enough. Carbon-neutral and sustainable claims are just smoke and mirrors.