Greenwashing in fashion and design: how to spot it (10 signs, examples and checklist)

17 minutos
Blog

Sustainability has become the universal language of contemporary fashion. Every collection speaks of responsibility, every campaign showcases earth tones and every label promises a better future. But between real awareness and aspirational marketing there is uncomfortable territory: greenwashing, the practice where claims far outweigh verifiable changes.

If you work in fashion, study design, or simply refuse to buy into discourse without evidence, this article is your detection system. Not a lecture. Not a list of "bad" brands. A repeatable method for evaluating what you see, read and design without relying on X threads or borrowed opinions.

What is greenwashing in fashion? Operational definition

Greenwashing is the practice of communicating environmental or social benefits that are exaggerated, biased, unverifiable or outright false. It is not just lying: it is also diluting the truth until it appears larger than it is.

In fashion, this manifests itself in three main ways:

Classic greenwashing: misleading claims. A brand says "100% sustainable" when only 8% of its catalogue meets some verifiable criteria. Or it launches an organic cotton capsule while producing 40 collections a year in virgin polyester.

Greenwishing: grandiose promises with no real plan. Carbon neutrality commitments for 2030 with no baseline, no intermediate milestones, no public methodology. Pure future narrative.

Greenhushing: hushing up progress for fear of public scrutiny. Although it may seem the opposite, this also distorts the market: if those who improve keep quiet and those who make-up shout, the consumer loses his compass.

The line between sustainable marketing and greenwashing is simple: evidence: is the claim verifiable, does it have a clear scope, are there metrics, percentages, third parties to back it up? If the answer is ambiguous, you're looking at a sign of risk.

Why it matters to detect it

Detecting greenwashing is not ethical posturing: it is professional competence. Because greenwashing has real impact:

It distorts purchasing decisions: consumers looking for consistency end up rewarding narrative instead of operational improvement.

It penalises those who invest seriously: brands that actually change processes, materials and supply chains compete at a disadvantage against those who only change the discourse.

It erodes industry trust: when everything is "eco", nothing is. The saturation of empty claims turns sustainability into background noise.

It exposes you professionally: if you design, communicate or manage fashion, a poorly substantiated claim can cost you your reputation. In an environment where you are judged by what you promote, rigour is not optional.

Understanding greenwashing does not make you an activist. It makes you a trained professional.

The 10 signs of greenwashing in fashion (and how to interpret them)

These signs are not accusations: they are clues. Each functions as a question you should be able to answer before believing, sharing or replicating a sustainability claim.

1. Vague language with no operational definition

What you see: terms like "eco", "conscious", "responsible", "natural", "green" or "sustainable" without specifying what they mean in that context.

What they mean: positively charged words with no verifiable commitment. They are aspirational adjectives, not descriptive.

What to ask: Eco in what sense? What specific process, material or decision justifies that claim? Are there measurable criteria?

Example: a collection labelled "Conscious Collection" without clarifying whether it refers to materials, traceability, water reduction, living wages or packaging. The term does not inform: it decorates.

Minimum evidence you should find: concrete definition of what makes that collection "conscious" and how it is operationally different from the rest of the catalogue.

2. Green aesthetics without real change

What you see: images of nature, earth tones, organic textures, handcrafted typography, words like "pure", "earth", "natural" in the naming or minimalist packaging with a recycled look.

What it means: visual simulation of sustainability. Aesthetic language replaces technical language.

What to ask: Is there something in the product or process that justifies this aesthetic, or is it just atmosphere?

Example: a fast fashion brand that launches a campaign with barefoot models in a forest, analogue photography and kraft paper labels... but whose fabrics, dyes and production line do not change.

Minimum evidence you should find: connection between aesthetics and verifiable decisions in design, materials or manufacturing.

3. Claims without defined percentages or scope

What you see: claims such as "made from recycled materials", "sustainably produced", "we reduce our impact".

What it means: partial truth presented as total truth. Without percentages, any microscopic improvement can support the claim.

What to ask: What percentage of recycled materials, in which products, reduction from which baseline, how much exactly?

Example: a sneaker "made from recycled materials" where only the laces (2% of the product) are recycled, but the claim sounds like the entire shoe is.

Minimum evidence you should find: exact percentage, scope of material (lining, upper, sole?), and whether it applies to the whole product or just components.

4. Misused or fabricated certifications

What you see: seals, logos, badges that look like certifications but no one verifies. Or real certifications applied incorrectly.

What it means: simulation of external validation. Seals generate automatic trust, but they don't all mean the same thing or verify the same thing.

What to ask: Who issues this certification, what exactly does it audit, does it apply to the whole product, to a process step or just to a material, is it renewable and traceable?

Example: a garment displaying an "eco-friendly" logo created by the brand itself, without any third party or public methodology. Or a GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard) label on a product where only 10% of the fibres are certified.

Minimum evidence you should find: full name of the certification, issuing body, verifiable scope and possibility to check the claim on the certifier's website.

5. Misleading or context-free comparisons

What you see: claims such as "we use 30% less water", "we reduce emissions by 20%", without specifying what.

What it means: real improvement presented out of context. Without baseline, the comparison says nothing.

What to ask: 30% less than what? Than your previous collection? Than the industry average? Than a specific technical standard? At what stage of the process?

Example: a brand that claims to reduce water in denim dyeing, but fails to mention that its production volume increased by 50%, negating the relative gain.

Minimum evidence you should find: explicit point of comparison, methodology and time scope of measurement.

6. Sustainable capsules that don't change the model

What you see: limited collections labelled as "green line", "eco edit" or "conscious capsule", while 95% of the catalogue continues to operate as usual.

What it means: sustainability as an exception, not as a strategy. It works more as a PR exercise than as an operational transformation.

What to ask: What percentage of total sales does this capsule represent? Are there plans to scale these criteria to the rest? Or is it a narrative island?

Example: a fast fashion brand that launches 40 collections a year and dedicates one of them to organic cotton, using that line in all its sustainability communication.

Minimum evidence you should find: percentage of sales, scaling plan, and whether the capsule criteria inform structural changes in design, purchasing or production.

7. Selective transparency (they say too much of too little)

What you see: brands that publish comprehensive data on one aspect (e.g. recyclable packaging) but are silent on the rest (materials, manufacturing, logistics, end-of-life).

What it means: a sign of distraction. Talking a lot about the less relevant to avoid talking about the critical.

What to ask: What are they not telling, where is the biggest impact of this type of product and what do they say about it?

Example: a brand that heavily communicates its biodegradable packaging but fails to mention that its garments are 100% virgin polyester made on opaque chains.

Minimum evidence you should find: data proportional to the real impact. If 80% of the environmental footprint is in materials and manufacturing, that should have more space than the packaging.

8. Future promises without a roadmap

What you see: grandiose commitments with a distant date: "we will be carbon neutral by 2035", "100% circular by 2040".

What it means: pure greenwishing. With no plan, intermediate metrics or methodology, any promise is credible because no one can verify it today.

What to ask: Are there published interim milestones? Current baseline? Methodology to measure progress? Who audits?

Example: a brand announcing carbon neutrality by 2030 without publishing its current footprint, without annual progress reports and without explaining whether it will offset emissions or reduce them operationally.

Minimum evidence you should find: starting point (how much they emit today), phased plan, verifiable metrics and third parties to audit compliance.

9. Sustainable" materials without full-cycle context

What you see: emphasis on a material with a good reputation (organic cotton, Tencel, recycled polyester) without clarifying blends, processes, dyes, transport or final recyclability.

What it means: fetishisation of the material. A fabric is not sustainable in the abstract: it depends on origin, blends, treatments, durability and end of life.

What to ask: What percentage of the fabric is that material? Is it blended with virgin or synthetic fibres? How is it dyed? Is it recyclable at the end of its life? Where does it come from and how does it travel?

Example: a garment advertised as "made with sustainable Tencel", but which blends 30% Tencel with 70% virgin polyester, is dyed with conventional processes and is not recyclable because of the fibre mix.

Minimum evidence you should find: full composition, finishing processes, origin, and feasibility of recycling or composting.

10. Strategic silences (what they don't say)

What you see: absence of key information. No publication of suppliers, no mention of working conditions, no mention of overproduction, returns or unsold stock.

What it means: lack of data is not proof of greenwashing, but it is a sign of risk. If a brand talks a lot about sustainability but is silent on critical areas, ask why.

What to ask: Where is it made? Who makes it? How many collections per year? What about returns? Do they publish labour audits? Do they talk about production volume?

Example: a brand that communicates "conscious fashion" but does not publish a single supplier, does not mention wages, does not report on its production model (on-demand, overstock, fast fashion) or what it does with returned or unsold products.

Minimum evidence you should find: basic traceability (where and by whom it manufactures), production model, and data on volume and surplus management.

Real examples to train your judgement

Analysing concrete cases is a good way to be pedagogical. The intention is not to point fingers, but to show recurring patterns and teach how to read between the lines. Here are three archetypes based on documented practices.

Case study 1: "Conscious" collection without structural change

What happened: A global fast fashion chain launches a "Conscious" line with organic cotton and recycled polyester. The communication is intense: visual campaign with nature, influencers, emotional storytelling. The claim: "accessible sustainable fashion".

What was missing: The collection represented less than 5% of the brand's annual sales. The rest of the catalogue followed the fast fashion model: 12-15 collections per year, mass production, conventional materials, weekly rotation cycles. There was no plan to scale the criteria of the "Conscious" line to the core business.

Signals activated: vague language (#1), capsule without model change (#6), selective transparency (#7), strategic silences (#10).

How could you have phrased it better: "X Collection: 100% GOTS certified organic cotton and 50% post-consumer recycled polyester. It represents 4% of our annual sales. Our goal: to scale these materials to 25% of the catalogue by 2027, with roadmap published in [link]".

Scenario 2: Future promise without baseline or methodology

What happened: A luxury brand announces that it will be "carbon neutral by 2030" in a press release with high media impact.

What was missing: They did not publish their current carbon footprint (baseline), they did not explain whether neutrality would be through emission reductions or offsetting through offsets, they did not detail milestones or external audits. Seven years after the announcement, there were no public progress reports.

Triggered signals: promises without a roadmap (#8), strategic silences (#10), vague language (#1).

How would you have worded it better: "Our carbon footprint in 2024: X tonnes of CO₂. Reduction plan: -20% in 2026, -50% in 2028, neutrality in 2030 through operational reduction (80%) and verified offset (20%). Annual reports audited by [third party] available at [link]".

Scenario 3: Incorrectly applied certification

What happened: A brand communicates that its products are "OEKO-TEX certified", using the logo in all visual communication. The claim suggests that the entire garment is safe and sustainable.

What was missing: OEKO-TEX Standard 100 certifies that a textile is free of substances harmful to human health, but does not audit environmental impact, working conditions or origin of materials. In addition, in some products only certain parts (e.g. the lining) were certified, not the whole garment.

Signals triggered: misused certifications (#4), claims without scope (#3), vague language (#1).

How would you have worded it better: "Outer fabric certified OEKO-TEX Standard 100 (free of substances harmful to the skin). This certification audits chemical safety, not environmental impact or traceability of origin".

Final checklist: how to evaluate brands, campaigns and projects

This checklist is your working tool. Use it to analyse a brand before buying from it, a campaign before sharing it, a material before specifying it in your project, or your own portfolio before presenting it.

It's not about finding fault: it's about reducing risk and raising standards.

A) Checklist for evaluating a brand or collection

Materials and composition

[Do you publish exact composition of fabrics (% of each fibre)?
[Do they specify origin of materials (country, type of cultivation, certifications)?
[Do they mention fibre blends and how they affect recyclability?
[Is there information on dyeing, finishing and chemical treatments?

Production and traceability

[Do they publish where it is manufactured (country, region, or better yet: specific factories)?
[Do they talk about labour conditions or social audits?
[Do they mention production model (on demand, overstock, annual volume)?
[Is there data on your supply chain (suppliers, subcontracting)?

Transparency and verification

[Do they use certifications, are they correctly applied and verifiable?
[Do you publish sustainability or impact reports with hard data?
[Are there metrics (water, emissions, waste) with baseline and methodology?
[Do they mention external audits or third party verification?

Scope of claims

[If they say "sustainable" or "eco", do they define what this means operationally?
[If they use percentages (e.g. "30% less water"), do they indicate in relation to what?
[If they have a "green" line, what % of the total catalogue does it represent?
[Do they talk about the whole operation or just specific products/collections?

Business model and coherence

[How many collections do you launch per year?
[What do you do with returns, unsold or defective stock?
[Do you encourage durability, repair or resale?
[Are there signs of overproduction or incentives for compulsive buying?

Final sign: If more than 50% of these questions have no clear public answer, you are at high risk. This is not necessarily a proven example of greenwashing, but it is a lack of evidence.

B) Checklist for evaluating a communication campaign

Language and claims

[Do you use vague terms ("eco", "green", "responsible") without defining them?
[Are there specific claims with verifiable data?
[Do they avoid unsubstantiated absolute superlatives ("the most sustainable", "100% green")?

Visual and aesthetics

[Does the "green" aesthetics (nature, earth, craftsmanship) correspond to real changes in product?
[Or is it just atmosphere disconnected from operational decisions?

Evidence presented

[Do they mention certifications, are they correct and contextualised?
[Do they provide data, percentages, metrics?
[Are there links to reports, methodologies or external verifiers?

Proportionality

[Does the size of the communication correspond to the size of the change?
[Is a small improvement (e.g. packaging) presented as a total transformation?

What they do NOT say

[What critical information is missing (materials, manufacturing, volume, labour)?
[Are there strategic silences in high impact areas?

Final sign: If the campaign talks a lot but says little verifiable, and the aesthetics far outweigh the evidence, there is a high risk of greenwashing.

C) Checklist for evaluating a material or supplier (designers)

Origin and certification

[Where does the material come from (country, region, cultivation/process)?
[Does it have relevant certifications (GOTS, OEKO-TEX, GRS, Cradle to Cradle)?
[Are the certifications up to date and traceable?

Composition and blends

[Is it pure fibre or a blend?
[If a blend, what percentage of each component?
[Does the blend compromise recyclability or biodegradability?

Manufacturing process

[What dyeing, finishing or treatment processes do you use?
[Do they use a lot of water, energy or chemicals?
[Is there environmental impact data on the process?

Durability and end of life

[Is it a durable or short-cycle material?
[Is it recyclable, compostable or reusable at the end of its life?
[Does it require special care that affects its impact (washing, chemicals)?

Context of use

[Is the material appropriate for the type of garment (expected durability)?
[Does its "sustainability" depend on the context of use (e.g. organic but imported with high logistical footprint)?

Final sign: A material is not sustainable "in itself". It depends on origin, process, mix, use and end of life. If more than 3 points are missing, medium-high risk.

D) Checklist to evaluate your own academic project or portfolio

Design decisions

[Can you explain why you chose each material (beyond "is it sustainable")?
[Did you consider durability, versatility, and ease of repair?
[Did you design with end-of-life in mind (disassembly, recycling, composting)?

Narrative and communication

[Are your claims specific and verifiable?
[Do you avoid vague language or unsubstantiated superlatives?
[Do you include data, percentages, suppliers?

Transparency of process

[Do you document decisions (why this fabric, this supplier, this construction)?
[Do you recognise constraints or trade-offs (e.g., "I chose X for durability even though their process consumes more water")?
[Do you show critical thinking, not just results?

Coherence between discourse and practice

[Does your visual communication correspond with your material choices?
[Do you avoid aestheticising sustainability without substance?

Clear value proposition

[Can you explain in two sentences what makes your project "better" (without using "sustainable" as a catch-all)?
[Is there real differentiation from the conventional?

Final sign: If you can defend each claim with evidence, context and honesty about boundaries, your project has rigour. If you rely on unsupported aspirational language, you are in a risk zone.

Greenwashing and careers: where does this radar fit in?

Detecting greenwashing is not just a critical skill, it's a job competency. In a sector where sustainability has gone from trend to requirement, knowing how to evaluate claims, verify evidence and communicate with rigour sets you apart.

Two natural paths:

If you are design-oriented with verifiable decisions.

Here the radar translates into product criteria: choosing well-founded materials, designing for durability, working with traceable suppliers, thinking about the entire life cycle and building collections where sustainability is not a claim, but an integrated system in pattern-making, construction and development.

UDIT's Degree in Fashion Design provides training along these lines: not only aesthetics, but also technical decisions that support the discourse. Materials, processes, textile innovation, real projects and mentoring with active professionals who understand fashion as a system, not as styling.

If you focus on communicating without falling into narrative traps.

Here the radar translates into communicative rigour: writing verifiable claims, building campaigns with evidence, managing brand reputation, designing responsible communication strategies and knowing when a message is in a legal or reputational risk zone.

The Degree in Fashion Management and Communication at UDIT trains in this direction: branding, PR, strategy, narrative and management with a comprehensive approach. Because in fashion, communicating well does not mean embellishing: it means translating operational decisions into a credible message without falling into greenwashing.

Both paths share a principle: sustainability is sustained when it goes from claim to system. And that is trained, not improvised.

Conclusion

Greenwashing will not disappear as long as sustainability remains symbolic capital and brand differentiator. But you don't have to be a passive victim of inflated claims or an automatic cynic who disbelieves everything.

You have a method. Ten signs that work like questions. A checklist that turns intuition into analysis. And a vocabulary that allows you to talk about sustainability without naivety or moral superiority: with professional judgement.

The next time you see a "conscious" collection, a green campaign or an impact claim, you will no longer ask yourself: "Is it true? You will ask yourself: "What evidence is there? What is missing? What percentage? Against what? Who is verifying?

And that difference - between reacting and analysing - is what separates those who consume discourses from those who evaluate them. In fashion, design and communication, this skill is not incidental.

It is structural.

What are you looking for?