White Paper reveals sustainable fashion’s false promises authored by Veronica Bates-Kassatly and The Geneva Center For Business and Human Rights (GCBHR)
The first in a series of papers highlights a flawed definition of sustainability in fashion and how unscientific methods and selective implementation hinder meaningful change.
Sustainability in fashion has become an elitist concept in which the interests of the global north define the conversation whilst the global south does not appear to be represented in any of the major sustainability initiatives or groups.
Fashion corporations and global policymakers must assess the socio-economic impacts of fibre production in producer countries and place these front and centre in sustainability claims, rankings, and labelling.
The first in the series of papers provides two concrete measures, with three associated action points for policymakers and corporations; the aim of which is to ensure that in meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, overriding priority is given to meeting the essential needs of the world’s poor.
Today, major fashion brands claim to be engaged in sustainability efforts, but as this new white paper reveals, many are failing in their efforts because they are using a flawed definition of sustainability, unscientific methods and selective implementation.
The white paper, entitled The Great Greenwashing Machine Part 1: Back to the Roots of Sustainability, authored by Veronica Bates Kassatly and Dorothée Baumann-Pauly and supported by leading sustainability consultancy Eco-Age, examines sustainable fashion claims and critically assesses the extent to which fashion’s efforts are contributing to meaningful change, and to what extent they are a distraction.
The fashion industry is considered as a major contributor to air, water, and soil pollution, as well as an enabler of exploitative sweatshop conditions for garment workers – this reputation is bad for business, so in response, fashion brands have created sustainability programs to assure governments, consumers and investors that they are addressing their social and environmental impact.
Despite these well-meaning industry efforts, the perceived holistic sustainability benefits do not appear to be trickling down to the producers, some of the least represented and underpaid in fashion’s global value chain. The vast majority of those living below the social foundation are to be found in the global south. Yet not only are their needs not given priority, but the global south does not even appear to be represented in any of the major sustainability initiatives and groups. Nor do Zambian or Burkinabe cotton farmers, Brazilian silk, or Peruvian alpaca farmers appear to be consulted at any of the major fashion weeks or conferences.
This white paper first outlines the definition of sustainability, going back to the roots of origin in the 1987 United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development – also known as the Brundtland Commission – that underpins the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to this day.
It then delves into a critical assessment of how current sustainability claims in fashion deviate from the Brundtland definition and exposes the vast consequences and outcomes resulting from fashion’s failure to meet it.
The first part in the series of papers provides two concrete measures, with three associated action points for policymakers and corporations; the aim of which is to ensure that in meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, overriding priority is given to meeting the essential needs of the world’s poor.
Veronica Bates Kassatly, Independent Analyst said: “At the present time there does not appear to be a single initiative or brand that is measuring sustainability correctly. They all appear to conflate sustainability with environmental impact – which they don’t even calculate accurately. And they all make claims and recommendations without once considering the repercussions of these assertions on the livelihoods of millions, primarily in the global south. This is a direct violation of commitments to the UN SDGs and has potentially profound adverse consequences for both planet and people.”
Professor Dorothée Baumann-Pauly, Director of The Geneva Center for Business and Human Rights said: “There is growing skepticism over self-proclaimed sustainability in the fashion industry. The North Star however, is the 1987 Brundtland definition of sustainability. It is in the interest of industry to develop science-based standards and metrics that are aligned with this original and comprehensive understanding of sustainability which explicitly includes human rights. Clear standards can prevent greenwashing and allow companies to showcase that they are making progress towards sustainability. They can also serve as a guide through the dense jungle of sustainable fashion initiatives.”
Livia Firth, Creative Director and Founder of Eco-Age said: “I am proud to announce that today, with Eco-Age, we support the launch of a ground-breaking report on the state of sustainability in the fashion industry, published in association with The Geneva Center for Business and Human Rights. We did this as after 12 years of operating as the leading agency on sustainable business strategies and communications, we are alarmed by the lack of scientific data backing companies’ reporting and marketing.”