Perception Isn't Reality In Fashion

How sustainability rankings work against creating a more sustainable fashion industry

Last week, Stand.Earth released its latest scorecard on fossil-free fashion. The stated purpose: "The updated 2023 Fossil Free Fashion Scorecard analyses 43 fashion companies on their climate action."

The irony is that it doesn't rate action at all, but commitments.

That’s how a fast fashion brand that primarily uses synthetics can be the top-ranked company (H&M). The scorecard gave failing grades to brands like Chanel and Armani — companies that create investment pieces that last for decades and use very little (if any unless it’s a minor part of a blend to add stretch) polyester.

This ranking demonstrates how perception is more important than actions or data when it comes to what qualifies as sustainable behavior in fashion. It reinforces the checklist mindset that dominates the narrative, but has done little to make the industry more sustainable.

H&M states in its climate risk report that they want to be perceived as a leader when it comes to sustainability. Perception doesn't have to be reality in fashion. 

The scorecard rewards brands that create the perception of leadership while continuing to grow their environmental footprint. By publishing commitments that are never tracked for progress, using recycled materials, being a B-Corp, or having a resale platform — the checklist of sustainable behaviors creates the appearance of transparency and progress without addressing fashion’s fundamental problems: the overproduction of low-quality goods and the underutilization of our garments.

Over the last thirty years it's the actions on the part of brands and consumers that have changed, not the adjectives or certifications attached to our clothing. This is not my opinion or perception of the industry, it's a reality rooted in data that can be objectively observed.

Thirty years ago, clothes were just clothes. There wasn't a library of "certifications" to demonstrate a brand's green credentials. Clothing was, however, much better made and people used each item far more than they do today. Quality wasn’t a luxury, it was fairly standard. We now live in a world where luxury logos and the price of a garment have little to do with the quality.

Shouldn't we judge "sustainability leadership" on actions and how they address fashion's real problems? 

H&M helped create the industry trends that have contributed to the current crisis and hasn't changed its fundamental business model. The Stand Earth scorecard grade is a case study on how to successfully greenwash and promotes the idea that words without action count as sustainability leadership.

A brand can continue to employ the most environmentally damaging business model as long as they say the right things. Fashion's entire sustainability narrative centers on unverified commitments, unregulated certifications, and meaningless adjectives. It rewards the appearance of sustainability instead of the reality — which is simply making fewer, better-quality long-lasting items.

Isn’t it time we reward actions, not adjectives and unfulfilled commitments?