Article written by Tim Mooney
A complaint has been lodged against Copenhagen Fashion Week (CFW) and seven brands involved in the event alleging greenwashing.
The complaint, lodged by the Danish Consumer Council and anti-greenwash specialists, calls on the Danish Consumer Authority to assess whether CFW’s sustainability requirements can legally be marked as such if they fail to drive meaningful progress in sustainability. Concerns have also been expressed regarding the actionability of these requirements and their misleading nature.
If taken to court, these greenwashing complaints will have a significant industry impact. Not only do the CFW’s sustainability requirements apply to participating designers, but they are being used as a blueprint by other major fashion events due to CFW’s previously strong reputation on sustainability. London Fashion Week, for example, modelled parts of its own sustainability framework on CPHFW’s guidelines.
What’s more, CFW have been basking in the glory of sustainability prestige. Fashion media have dubbed CFW the “world’s most sustainable fashion week” and environmental awareness and action have been central to the promotion and development of their events.
CFW’s sustainability requirements cover six key areas of fashion, including strategic direction, working conditions, materials, design, consumer engagement, and show production. For example, participating brands are required to commit to ethical labour practices and use at least 50 per cent certified sustainable textiles in their designs.
One of the key complaints lodged against CFW’s standards is that they lack a proper enforcement mechanism, meaning they may be there to create the illusion of being sustainably focussed without taking steps to deliver this.
This trickles through to the participating brands, who appear to be making generalised sustainability claims without providing clear evidence as to how they will support and deliver them. Brands have been accused of using buzzwords like “sustainable” and “eco-friendly” to describe their designs without significant proof to back this.
Another example of greenwashed claims singled out by the debate relates to materials, where one brand claimed organic cotton “significantly reduces CO2 emissions” and referred to synthetic fabrics as “green,” again with a lack of evidence to support this.
Other brands have expressed “commitments” without highlighting end results. Baum, for example, made a “commitment to eliminate virgin polyester” which was whittled down to a mere marketing ploy without any internal policies in place to deliver this, something they have since acknowledged and apologised for.
What this tells us is that regulatory bodies and consumers are becoming increasingly aware of what constitutes a genuine sustainability claim. Without sufficient evidence and actionable policies to deliver said claims, organisations will swiftly find their sustainability policies under the microscope.
