Greenwashing is the practice of making misleading or unsubstantiated claims about the environmental credentials of a product, brand, or business. In the fashion industry, it is not the exception - it is the dominant mode of sustainability communication.

The scale of the problem is measurable:

• Of 4,000+ clothing brands assessed by Good On You, none of the 40 most profitable brands scored "Great" on environmental performance
• 70% of the most profitable clothing brands received Good On You's lowest environmental rating
• Over half of large brands with stated emissions reduction targets do not publicly disclose whether they are on track to meet them
• Nine of ten fashion companies assessed in a recent Stand.earth report are members of the Sustainable Apparel Coalition - an organisation whose members have made significant public emissions pledges - yet the industry's carbon footprint continues to grow
• Fashion accounts for 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions, a figure projected to increase 60% by 2030 according to the World Resources Institute

The gap between stated commitments and verified outcomes is where greenwashing lives.

Why Greenwashing Is So Prevalent in Fashion

Two structural factors make fashion unusually susceptible to greenwashing.

First, the supply chain is genuinely complex. A single garment typically passes through fibre production, ginning or shearing, spinning, dyeing, fabric manufacturing, cut-and-sew, packaging, and global shipping - often across five to eight countries. Verified emissions and impact data rarely exists for each stage, making accurate claims difficult even for brands that want to make them. This complexity also makes it nearly impossible for external parties to audit claims thoroughly.

Second, sustainability sells. There is significant commercial pressure to position as "green" or "ethical." Brands can set their own targets, choose their own metrics, select their own deadlines, and in most markets are not legally obligated to disclose accurate data or follow through on commitments. That is beginning to change - the EU's Green Claims Directive and Australia's updated consumer protection guidelines are tightening requirements - but enforcement remains limited.

The result: brands can make expansive sustainability claims at low legal and reputational risk, and many do.

The Six Most Common Greenwashing Tactics in Fashion

1. "Recycled" or "recyclable" materials

Recycled polyester is the most widely cited example. It is marketed as a circular, low-impact material - but the reality is more complicated. Polyester cannot currently be recycled again after use as a garment. The only end-of-life options are landfill or incineration. And "recyclable" claims are largely aspirational: the infrastructure for fibre-to-fibre textile recycling does not yet exist at meaningful scale. A garment labelled "recycled" is not on a circular path - it is on the same linear path as every other synthetic garment, just with one additional life before disposal.

2. Vague or selectively presented data

Sustainability claims require data to be meaningful. When brands publish incomplete data, set arbitrary internal targets with no independent verification, or decline to report on progress against stated goals, those claims carry no informational content. Wrong or selective data is worse than no data - it creates the impression of accountability without the substance of it.

3. Scope 3 omission

Many brands announce carbon neutrality or emissions reductions "in operations" - meaning their offices, retail stores, or corporate facilities. This is a deliberate framing. The vast majority of a fashion brand's emissions occur in Scope 3: raw material production, manufacturing, transportation, consumer use (particularly washing), and end-of-life disposal. A carbon-neutral head office alongside a global synthetic supply chain is not a meaningful climate commitment.

4. "Eco-friendly" packaging as the headline claim

Recycled hang tags, compostable mailers, and minimised packaging are legitimate incremental improvements. When they become the primary sustainability communication for a brand, that signals the brand has nothing more substantive to report. Packaging is a small fraction of a garment's total footprint.

5. Isolated "sustainable" or "conscious" collections

Brands regularly launch dedicated green lines - Boohoo's "sustainable collection," Zara's "Join Life" range, H&M's "Conscious" collection - that represent a small fraction of total inventory while implying broader transformation. The marketing reach of these lines routinely exceeds their actual share of production. A brand producing 3 billion garments annually is not meaningfully sustainable because 2% of them use organic cotton.

6. Reframing fast fashion logistics as sustainability

Some ultra-fast fashion brands, including Shein, claim their direct-from-factory shipping model "eliminates waste" by removing warehousing and excess inventory. The claim is technically narrow and practically misleading. Eliminating warehouse waste does not change the fact that the garments themselves are designed for minimal wear, made from synthetic fibres, and destined for landfill within months of purchase.

How to Identify Genuinely Ethical Fashion Brands

The following indicators distinguish brands with substantive sustainability practices from those with effective sustainability marketing.

Third-party certification Self-reported claims carry no independent verification. Certifications from recognised third-party bodies mean an external auditor has assessed the brand's practices against published standards. Credible certifications to look for:

• GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard) - covers organic fibre sourcing and processing, including chemical use and labour conditions throughout the supply chain
• RWS (Responsible Wool Standard) - covers animal welfare and land management for wool-producing farms
• OEKO-TEX Standard 100 - tests finished products for harmful chemical residues
• Bluesign — covers chemical, energy, and water use in fabric manufacturing
• Fair Trade Certified - covers labour conditions and wage standards

A brand with multiple credible certifications across different supply chain stages has submitted to genuine external scrutiny. A brand with none, or only self-created standards, has not.

Scope 3 transparency Brands serious about environmental impact report on their full supply chain emissions - not just operations. Look for public reporting that addresses raw material sourcing, manufacturing, and shipping footprint, with year-on-year comparisons.

Sustainability embedded throughout, not siloed Genuine sustainability practice shows up in product descriptions, material sourcing pages, factory information, and care instructions - not only on a dedicated "sustainability" landing page. If a brand's sustainability content is confined to one webpage while the rest of the site makes no reference to it, that is a structural signal.

Transparency about gaps No fashion brand currently operates with zero environmental impact. Brands that acknowledge where they fall short, and publish specific plans for addressing it, are demonstrating honesty. Brands that only communicate achievements and never shortcomings are managing perception, not improving performance.

Focus on durability A garment's environmental footprint is amortised over its wearable life. A well-made piece worn 100 times has a dramatically lower impact per wear than a poorly made piece worn 5 times - even if both are made from identical materials. Brands that discuss construction quality, garment longevity, and care instructions alongside material credentials are thinking about the full picture.

Willingness to support systemic change Individual brand improvements operate within a system that still incentivises overproduction and disposability. Brands that use their influence to support policy reform - mandatory supply chain disclosure, extended producer responsibility, stricter greenwashing regulations — are working toward structural change rather than competitive differentiation.

Where Nui Stands

Most Nui garments are at a minimum made from RWS wool or GOTS certified. We work directly with our manufacturing partners to verify labour conditions, and we publish information about the certifications and standards our materials are held to.  

We are also honest about the fact that no brand operating within the current fashion system is without impact. We don't claim to be perfect. What we do claim - and what we can substantiate - is that the materials we use are natural, traceable, and biodegradable; that our garments are made to last; and that the certifications we hold are audited by independent third parties, not self-declared.  

If you want to verify any of that, you should. That's what transparency is for.

Learn more about Nui's materials, certifications, and sourcing standards - or explore the collection.