Even the greenwashing regulation is greenwashed?!

Breaking my two-year hiatus because I’ve had enough

Caught Green Handed is a monthly newsletter interrogating fashion, capitalism and greenwashing. If you like what you read, subscribe to get the next one sent straight to your inbox 🫶

---

In the two years since I last wrote this newsletter, greenwashing has shown no signs of slowing down.

Just as we’ve seen an erosion of trust in once-celebrated certifications and data standards, a supposed rise in greenhushing (debatable) and the luxury sector finally getting the scrutiny it deserves, we’ve equally seen countless celebrity sustainability ambassadors, the parading of false decarbonisation and circular solutions, and hardline defences of overproduction from the likes of Shein and H&M’s new CEO - trends that will all be the focus of future newsletters I’m sure.

When we last spoke, the UK Competitions and Market Authority had begun its investigation into ASOS, Boohoo and Asda. The retailers got off pretty lightly by signing formal agreements to use only accurate and clear green claims going forward. Other brands should still watch out as the recently passed Digital Markets Bill grants the CMA more powers, namely the ability to issue big fines without going through the courts. This comes amid a global greenwashing crackdown in places like the US, Canada, Japan, Australia and Singapore.

The Green Claims Directive is the EU’s answer to the rise in misleading environmental marketing. Once passed, it will stop brands from doing classic greenwashy things like using vague buzzwords or unsubstantiated claims. Considering the size of the EU textiles market, the Directive certainly has far-reaching potential but that all depends on the final text. If it’s anything like what the European Council has suggested, then we might be in trouble.

The controversy all stems from the Council’s proposal to back up green claims using the PEF method. The Product Environmental Footprint is intended to create a standardised framework for evaluating the environmental impacts of different products, including textiles.

While still being worked out, it has long been criticised by scientists, academics, farmers and Make The Label Count for understating the impacts of synthetic fibres. Sophie Benson explains that one “central argument against the core methodology is that calculations for natural fibres start at field level, while for synthetics, they start at the barrel of oil, skipping the impact of processes such as fracking and habitat destruction”. It also omits other key (and incriminating!) factors like microfibres, biodiversity, volume and emotional durability. You can find a full breakdown of the methodological shortcomings here.

It’s surprising then that the Council endorsed the PEF, especially when the European Commission warned against it. But it’s less surprising when you follow the money - as you always should for a billion dollar industry - because that’s when things start to look dodgy.

The body tasked with developing the PEF category rules is led by no other than coordinator Cascale. You might better know them as the Sustainable Apparel Coalition and authors of the infamous Higg Index which was widely discredited for nearly identical reasons the PEF is criticised. So discredited that H&M stopped using the tool in its product labelling following warnings from the Norwegian Consumer Authority back in 2022. Even an independent enquiry commissioned by the SAC itself concluded that the Higg Index is not fit for purpose as a standalone tool. So why is Cascale in charge of a group creating a suspiciously lookalike tool?

Out of the other 26 members, 14 have voting rights, with only two representing natural fibres. Other notable voters include H&M, Decathlon and Inditex, brands that have all, as Abby French points out, recently invested in recycled synthetic ventures and have a vested interest in protecting the cash cow that is fossil fashion. She also found that voting member and manufacturer Gore works with the US military and oil companies 🥴

It’s hard not to see an ulterior motive at play, especially when farmers’ voices are crucially missing from the Technical Secretariat. They rightly argue that this is by design because the staggering €200,000 participation fee prevents them from becoming a voting member. This gives brands with a long history of greenwashing undemocratic levels of lobbying power over a tool that will more likely protect than stamp out the practice.

While the final text is yet to be approved, the current Green Claims Directive is at risk of being greenwashed itself. This whole saga is a timely reminder that greenwashing regulation won’t solve everything on its own because it legislates against claims, not practices. It won’t stop brands from doing the same shitty things (though other regulations do hope to fill this gap), it will just stop them from marketing these shitty things in a way that gets them in trouble. Compliance ≠ ethics.

When the global fashion industry is a cesspit of environmental and human rights abuses, I admit my focus on greenwashing may seem a bit trivial. But when we see greenwashing as the lucrative marketing arm of the broader green capitalism project that sustains this exploitation, it’s hard to deny just how threatening it is. Greenwashing is dangerous because it works; it delays and distracts precisely at a time when we need the opposite.

Greenwashing upholds green capitalism, where the problem sells itself as the answer to the climate crisis. Sustainability “solutions” like resale and recycled polyester are adopted insofar that they support brands’ endless pursuit of growth. To borrow Mark Schieritz‘s phrase, green capitalism promotes “change without consequences”. It is not interested in building a truly liberated world. Its sole interest is protecting the very thing that prevents this world from ever being fully built.

So going forward, that’s what this newsletter will be about. Caught Green Handed is an interrogation of fashion, capitalism and greenwashing, providing you with monthly(ish) essays, brand exposés and action lists on these topics.

The new name of this newsletter is intentionally ambiguous, a greenwashing tactic I borrowed from the industry I write about. It is both a play on words - catching brands in the act of doing something wrong - and a caution against mistaking a greenwashed red flag for a positively green one. And it is ultimately an invitation to do the catching, to reprimand the offenders and reject their promises of a beautiful, green capitalist future. Because we all deserve so much better.

---

Caught Green Handed: ASOS x AI

“Fashion with integrity” - that’s the name of the programme for managing sustainability and corporate responsibility at ASOS.

I’m struggling to see the integrity in its latest collaboration with Nibble, an AI-powered chatbot that encourages you to negotiate the price of your purchase from ASOS’ now sold-out sample sale. Brett Staniland and Katie Robinson have already done great explainers on how this gamification of shopping leads to impulsive purchases and addiction as the above screenshots suggest.

What worries me more is how this risks further dehumanising the makers already largely missing from brands’ comms. The people who make our clothes are now one step further removed from the online shopping psyche. Your only “human” interaction is with an AI chatbot that invites you to haggle for discounts on already cheap clothes in the same way a fashion buyer haggles already underpaid suppliers.

What will this do to our already warped sense of value that leaves many people to believe that their “right” to dirt cheap clothes supersedes the basic human rights of garment workers?

Of course, ASOS isn’t the only fashion brand using AI in a terrifying way. The first example that comes to mind is Shein boasting about how its AI-powered, on-demand production model minimises textile waste. What it doesn’t mention is the immense pressure this places on suppliers who are consequently unable to forecast orders or the millions of clothes this model churns out every single week

The other is fashion and lifestyle magazine SheerLuxe employing Reem, a human bot of seemingly Middle Eastern heritage, as its newest team member. SheerLuxe even went to the effort of setting up a new Instagram account with AI-generated images of Reem “at work” instead of employing an actual woman of colour as its next editor. Sometimes the Black Mirror episodes write themselves.

When AI tools carry the implicit biases of the people who wrote them, this idea that tech will save fashion and the planet truly fucking scares me. Cue my next research deep dive…

---

The Bottom Line

Important things to read and do

• My wonderful ex-colleagues at Fashion Revolution recently launched What Fuels Fashion?, a report exposing the industry’s dire lack of transparency on decarbonisation and coinciding campaign calling on Big Fashion brands to put their money where their emissions are. Here’s my contribution to the campaign

• I’ve been really enjoying my friend Yalda’s newsletter which expertly questions the societal things we often take for granted. I particularly loved her exploration of the commodification of colours under capitalism

• This petition is calling on the UK government to block Shein’s application to list on the London Stock Exchange

• I’m proud to be a part of Anti-Sweatshop Activists Against Apartheid, a group of trade unionists, activists and campaigners against sweatshops who believe our struggle is intrinsically linked to Palestinian liberation - please do give us a follow!

• I’m hosting a free workshop in London this Friday on navigating greenwashing as a creative

• This is a fascinating article on how corporate entities and luxury brands use climate activists to uphold green capitalism

• If you like this newsletter, you’ll love the work of satirical artist, Hell bus mastermind and Museum of Neoliberalism co-founder Darren Cullen

---