An alliance of major fashion brands has announced it will discontinue use of a tool to measure the sustainability of garments after critics described it as greenwashing.
Until this week, shoppers could visit H&M’s website and check the environmental impact of 655 of its garments, as rated by the Higg Material Sustainability Index (MSI), a toolkit launched last year by an alliance global non-profit, the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC).
For example, a pair of cotton shorts was described as using “88% less [water] than conventional materials”; its impact on global warming was “14% less than conventional materials”.
However, the SAC has announced that it is “pausing” its product labeling tool after the Norwegian Consumer Authority (NCA) warned H&M Group two weeks ago against using the Higg index to support its environmental claims. He added that if he still used such marketing before September 1, he would risk financial penalties.
Although Norway’s consumer watchdog did not investigate H&M’s claims, it did investigate those of a Norwegian outdoor brand, Norrøna (which also used the Higg index on its website). It concluded that the data was misleading to consumers and that the claims were unsubstantiated.
Although H&M and Norrøna were the first brands to incorporate the rating system on their product pages, SAC also counts Nike, Primark, Walmart, Boohoo, Amazon and Tommy Hilfiger among its 250 members.
Fashion sustainability activists are rejoicing after SAC’s announcement, as they have complained about its methodology, which assesses a product’s life cycle, since last spring, describing it as greenwashing.
“If you think of a life cycle assessment as a clock face, Higg MSI is only looking at noon to 3pm, only a very selective part of the impact,” said Philippa Grogan of sustainability consultancy Eco-Age fashion. “To represent how sustainable a product is, we need the assessment to go from midnight to midnight, so not just cradle to store, but cradle to grave.”
For example, there is no information on whether a garment will release microplastics or whether it is biodegradable. “The Higg SMI does not allow consumers to make informed decisions,” Grogan added. “It is derailing all efforts by everyone involved.”
“This is textbook greenwashing…they are misleading consumers by attaching this wildly inaccurate data to clothing and footwear.”
Critics also lament the use of outdated or unrepresentative research: “Brands can just upload their own data,” Grogan said. “They can aggregate data from a small cotton farm using best practices, not data from a massive one.”
Earlier this month, the New York Times gave voice to more critics who claimed that SAC was using research funded by the synthetic industry, allowing brands to claim that human-made fibers are more sustainable than natural ones.
Speaking to The Guardian, SAC CEO Amina Razvi said: “We are constantly engaging with both critics and stakeholders about the issues they are having with the tools. That’s why our tools are constantly evolving, based on feedback and the best available science.” She stated that all life cycle assessment data is “examined, verified and validated”, but admitted that “stale data” was an industry problem and needed improvement.
During his break, Razvi said the SAC would meet with the NCA to “clear up any misunderstandings or misconceptions about methodology and understand how our companies can make credible consumer-facing claims.” He also said that the SAC would do an independent review of the data and methodology by a third party.
“You need to make everything open source and stop operating behind closed doors,” Grogan said, on how the Higg index should work.
Source: www.theguardian.com