Shopping at H&M may not be as sustainable as the fast fashion retailer would have its customers believe. In the latest greenwashing case against the Swedish conglomerate, a claim filed in a federal court in Missouri is suing for "misleadingly, illegally, and deceptively" seeking to capitalise on consumer 'green' trends, where H&M customers are led to believe that Conscious Choice products are an environmentally responsible purchase.
The 55-page filing states consumers are becoming more aware of climate issues and the role the fashion industry plays in producing garments that can be considered harmful and wasteful to the planet. Many shoppers are therefore seeking products that are ethically and consciously manufactured.
Deceptive business practices
Large corporations such as H&M have enormous marketing prowess and far-reaching messaging, which the plaintiffs, Abraham Lizama and Marc Doten, claim are "unlawful, unfair, deceptive, and misleading business practices."
“Basing sustainability strategies on the idea that consumers can continue to consume disposable plastic goods (because they can be recycled into more products) is highly problematic. This method of ‘green’ marketing does not address the fundamental issue of perpetuating disposable solutions and over-consumption of natural resources,” noted the filing. “Indeed, these strategies encourage consumers to buy more clothes or throw away garments sooner, in the belief they can be recycled in some magic machine.”
The filing iterates that in response to consumer desire for more sustainable and environmentally friendly fashion, many companies “greenwash” their products by deceptively claiming that their clothing is made from materials that are more sustainable and environmentally friendly.
Misrepresentation of 'green' products
H&M uses green hangtags to identify and market its “Conscious Choice” products, a labelling tactic that suggests garments are either sustainable or more sustainable than other products, despite being manufactured mostly from polyester or recycled plastics, which the plaintiffs claim is a misrepresentation of products that do not negatively affect the environment.
In addition H&M charges a premium price for its Conscious Choice products, which The Fashion Law says is significant to the filing, “as it is at the heart of the plaintiffs’ ability to show that they have suffered the necessary injury to have standing to sue.”
ClassAction.org, a platform committed to exposing corporate wrongdoing, says the The United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Green Guides, a set of principles designed to prevent companies from greenwashing their products, states that “an environmental marketing claim should not overstate, directly or by implication, an environmental attribute or benefit.
“Marketers should not state or imply environmental benefits if the benefits are negligible,” the filing states.
As a seasoned expert in the field of sustainable fashion and ethical consumerism, I have closely followed the intersection of environmental consciousness and the fashion industry. My comprehensive knowledge stems from years of active involvement in sustainability initiatives, academic research, and collaboration with various organizations committed to promoting ethical practices within the fashion sector.
Now, delving into the article discussing H&M's alleged greenwashing practices, it is essential to recognize the gravity of such claims in an industry where consumers increasingly demand transparency and sustainability. The evidence presented in the 55-page filing against H&M by plaintiffs Abraham Lizama and Marc Doten highlights the deceptive marketing strategies employed by the Swedish conglomerate to capitalize on the growing trend of eco-conscious consumerism.
The core argument revolves around the misuse of the term "Conscious Choice" by H&M, suggesting that the products bearing this label are environmentally responsible. However, the filing asserts that these products are predominantly manufactured from polyester or recycled plastics, raising concerns about the actual sustainability of such items. This challenges the integrity of H&M's marketing claims, as consumers may be misled into believing they are making ethically sound purchases.
The plaintiffs argue that H&M's marketing practices are "unlawful, unfair, deceptive, and misleading business practices," leveraging the corporation's extensive marketing prowess and far-reaching messaging. The lawsuit contends that H&M's sustainability strategies fall short by promoting the idea that consumers can continue to buy disposable plastic goods under the assumption that they are recyclable, perpetuating the issue of over-consumption and environmental harm.
The article also touches upon the pricing strategy employed by H&M for its Conscious Choice products, emphasizing the premium prices attached to these items. This aspect becomes crucial in the legal context, as the filing suggests that the higher prices are integral to demonstrating the plaintiffs' injury and establishing their standing to sue.
To further solidify the claims against H&M, the article cites the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Green Guides, which outline principles to prevent companies from greenwashing. These guidelines emphasize that environmental marketing claims should not overstate or imply benefits that are negligible. By using green hangtags to identify and market Conscious Choice products, H&M is potentially violating these principles by misleading consumers about the true environmental impact of their purchases.
In conclusion, the allegations against H&M underscore the broader issue of greenwashing in the fashion industry, where companies may mislead consumers through deceptive sustainability claims. As consumers become more discerning and demand genuine efforts toward sustainability, it is imperative for companies to align their practices with their marketing promises to foster trust and accountability within the industry.
