The great vegan rebrand

When plastic turned plant-based.

FYI, Caught Green Handed is a newsletter interrogating the relationship between fashion and green capitalism. If you enjoy this post, subscribe to get more hot, anti-greenwashed takes directly in your inbox 🫶

---

Do you ever stop to think about the weight our words hold?

Let me give you an example. Think of “pleather” and you’ll likely imagine tacky, shiny plastic, but call the same thing “vegan leather” and you’ll conjure up another idea entirely. This image makeover is as deceiving as it is effective. The vegan prefix gives what is essentially plastic an ethical pretence, while leather has close ties to the luxury market.

When exactly did plastic turn plant-based?

Fashion journalist Jillian Goodman dubbed 2013 “the year of pleather” and we have the likes of Stella McCartney to thank for that. While PETA celebrated the “cruelty-free” material’s rising popularity, other designers steered clear of the vegan label and stressed that their clothing wasn’t limited to animal activists.

Then in 2016, pleather went through a drastic rebrand. Google Trends data shows that this was the first year global searches for “vegan leather” outnumbered searches for “pleather”. It should be noted, however, that searches for “faux leather” have always trumped both, which is to be expected when veganism is not quite yet mainstream. But it soon could be. According to EDITED, the UK has experienced a 43% year-on-year increase in fashion products labelled as “vegan” in the last 3 years alone. By 2027, the global vegan fashion market size is forecasted to reach a staggering $1095.6 billion - and that’s just for womenswear.

So, what’s the problem? When we talk about vegan leather, what we’re often describing is plastic. Non-biodegradable, often toxic, far less durable plastic.

PVC (or polyvinyl chloride) used to be the most popular choice for synthetic leather. Once categorised as the “single most damaging type of plastic”, PVC is harmful to both planetary and human health. The production of PVC requires the use of injurious plasticizers and gives off dioxins, a carcinogenic by-product. When left to rot in landfill, PVC releases poisonous chlorine gas into the atmosphere.

Polyurethane, better known as PU, is now the standard imitation leather, though it’s only somewhat better than PVC. While PU won’t chemically react with its environment, it still requires the use of toxic substances in production and is ultimately derived from fossil fuels. But what does that matter when it’s devoid of animal materials?

This is the argument put forward in a surprising collaboration between H&M and PETA. Co-Exist Story is the latest in a growing number of vegan-friendly, “sustainable” fashion collections, except this one is PETA-approved. Promising “leather made from grapes” and “down made from flowers”, the collection is said to showcase disruptive innovation.

The reality is that much of the collection is derived from plastic fibres, not plant-based leather. Take these vegan leather trousers, for example. Crocodile-patterned Vegea™ imitation leather sounds great, right?! Let me translate that for you. That’s a mix of polyurethane, polyester, polyamide and elastane. Or in other words, plastic, plastic, plastic and more plastic. The Changing Markets Foundation estimate that 65% of H&M’s clothes contain fibre made from crude oil and gas. This figure rises to 72% for their so-called annual “conscious” collection.

There’s also the glaring issue of microplastics. A study carried out by Dr Imogen Napper at the University of Plymouth calculated that, when a synthetic garment is washed, it can shed up to 700,000 individual microfibres. These synthetic fibres enter our waterways, are ingested by fish, are then ingested by us and even end up in the placentas of unborn babies. The contamination of fish doesn’t sound particularly vegan to me and that’s because it’s not. Plastic-based leather substitutes are no more vegan than air or a glass of water. All vegan leathers are animal-free, but not all vegan leathers are animal-friendly.

And they certainly aren’t sustainable, despite what PETA claims. Displaying an on-brand level of stubbornness, PETA brushed off social media critics by claiming the collection isn’t fast fashion because it “includes groundbreaking vegan materials”. The last remaining items from the collection are currently on sale, so I’d happily bet that these garments were overproduced in their thousands, churned out by H&M’s finetuned fast fashion model.

PETA went on to declare that vegan alternatives are “far ethically and environmentally superior”, backing this up with data that shows “that wool, silk, alpaca fleece, and cow leather have global warming impacts that are over three times larger than vegan textiles like polyester fabrics or polyurethane leather”. This is incredibly misleading and was taken from the questionable Higg Index. Natural fibres are biodegradable, synthetic fibres are not. Putting the moral argument aside for a moment (and I have been vegan for 5 years btw), animal leather is durable and long-lasting, cheap plastic clothing less so. By claiming that natural fibres are worse for the environment than their plastic alternatives, you’re essentially calling for the expansion of fossil fuels. How “sustainable” of you.

The main difference between “pleather” and “vegan leather” is that the former is only derived from petroleum-based materials while the latter is an umbrella term for a wide range of alternatives to animal leather. In recent years, we have witnessed the growth of truly plant-based options. Sounding good enough to eat, you can now buy bags made from mushrooms, pineapples, apples and coffee grounds. Some vegetable leathers make use of agricultural waste, some are as durable as animal leather and some imitate leather in feel and appearance. Most are environmentally-friendly.

But like anything still in its infancy, plant-based leathers aren’t quite there yet and still rely on a plastic resin topcoat to imitate the feel of leather. Cactus-derived leather alternative, Desserto, uses a PU top coat, meaning the material won’t biodegrade fully.

Where these innovations really excel, however, is in their vision, where the future of fashion is cruelty-free, naturally-derived vegan leather. The vegan label, with its planet-saving connotations, is a good fit here. Where it doesn’t sit well is on the packaging of plastic-based clothing and accessories, unless this packaging includes a mandatory disclaimer that vegan isn’t synonymous with sustainable or ethical.

---

Caught Green Handed: Pretty Little Thing

PrettyLittleThing @OfficialPLT

January feels 😅

When I first Googled “the humanisation of brands”, I scrolled through hundreds of positive headlines, each promising to tell me the best way to personalise my marketing. Humanisation, the articles insist, is the key to building real customer connections and seeming relatable and approachable.

Since the dawn of Wendy beefing customers and rivals on Twitter, brands have competed for the next viral post by appearing unsettlingly human. Appealing to millennials’ dislike of being directly advertised to, brands have appropriated TikTok humour and online depression culture to seem cool and detached. Which means I’ve now seen somebody dressed in a Duolingo owl suit on my for you page more times than I’ve seen my own family.

The problem with humanisation is that, well, brands aren’t human and it’s just a bit weird. There’s being conversational and then there’s posting like an unhinged teenager who grew up on Tumblr, when really you’re a multinational conglomerate with an old white male CEO that is illiterate in internet lingo.

While it’s great for hits, one 2013 study found that “the anthopomorphization of a brand can negatively affect consumers’ brand evaluations when the brand faces negative publicity”. 9 years later and I’m not so sure this conclusion still stands. By pretending to be self-aware, brands can deflect criticism and evade accountability.

When H&M was forced to own up for falsely claiming to be the most transparent brand in the world, they apologised like a tear-forcing Youtuber caught in a scandal. Oops, H&M had got “a bit too excited”, graciously admitted that they took it “a bit too far” and are now “on a journey” to do better. But this wasn’t the action of a silly little marketing team or a naïve intern; this was the communication strategy of a global fast fashion brand with a long history of greenwashing its customers. It was a deliberate move, not an innocent mistake made by an individual.

In the fashion word, Boohoo, ASOS and I Saw It First have mastered the whole girl boss, Fiat 500 Twitter vibe. It’s easy really. Simply find trending tweets and memes, repost a screenshot without tagging the original poster and add a short caption like “me”.

Pretty Little Thing have perfected this formula, posting daily relatable content where the worst thing that can possibly happen is when your hair wash days don’t align. I’d imagine the garment workers in their supply chain can think of far worse scenarios. Herein lies the problem with the humanisation of brands. Brands are free to post out of touch memes to get us to buy stuff we don’t need, while the people who make these products continue to be exploited and ignored. To demonstrate my point, I analysed PLT’s tweets throughout January and here are the main themes I found:

Whinging about money: Like me, you might find it odd that the only way for a multi-million pound brand to seem relevant is to pose as a broke person. On the 23rd Jan, PLT reposted a tweet that reads '“what part of ‘do not spend money’ do I not understand”, complete with a grimacing emoji caption. 3 days later, to really hammer the point home, they shared a near identical tweet that says “what part of saving money do I not understand”. But nothing beats this struggle meme about having a £10 budget for the rest of the month, an amount that’s three times the illegal hourly rate paid to their Leicester garment workers in 2018.

Manifesting your dream life: When you daydream, what do you dream about? Are you hoping you’re “gonna have everything [you] prayed for” or fantasising about decorating your own house? Maybe all you think about is holidays? Well, that’s what PLT aspires to. Meanwhile, garment workers can’t even hope to wear the beautiful clothes they make.

If he wanted to, he would: They have a point here - actions do speak louder than words. Tweeting as a “big believer in if they wanted to they simply would”, PLT are a bit too on the nose. If they wanted to be an ethical, environmentally conscious brand, Pretty Little Thing simply could be because gorgeous, gorgeous girls pay their garment workers a living wage.

We all have the same 24 hours in the day: Did you know that the only thing holding you back in life is yourself? Well that’s what this tweet - “keep pursuing your goals whether you’re alone, broke, tired or scared” - implies. It felt particularly reminiscent of that Molly Mae 24 hours comment and here is what one PLT garment worker had this to say about it: “try and make one of your designs [in 24 hours]. Make the cuttings, put the labels on, sew them all together. In fact, give her 48 hours, she won’t be able to do it.” Touché.

Yes, brands might post funny content that demonstrates a remarkable grasp of Instagram trends and, yes, you might be tempted to repost it to your story but I’d think twice about buying into this marketing strategy.

---

Did you enjoy this post? Please share it with a friend, subscribe or gift me a virtual cuppa. I’ll never put my content behind a paywall so Ko-fi is a small and optional way to support my work 🫶