Chemicals in fashion: A topic most brands communicate poorly
Detox fashion? Chemical-free collection? And other examples of misleading communication, plus what to say instead.
Welcome to The Crisps–your weekly newsletter on anti-greenwashing and honest fashion communication. In this issue, we look at the communication of chemicals in fashion and share misleading examples with you, plus what to say instead.
You’ve seen it in ads, Instagram captions, and on hang tags: When speaking about their sustainability commitment fashion brands use claims such as “detox fashion” or “100% chemical-free” to convey supposedly environmentally-friendly practices.
But how brands communicate the use of chemicals is almost always misleading. So it was more than time, we had a look at the world of chemicals in fashion–and their communication. And we will start with a simple yet important reminder:
Everything is chemistry.
There is not one product, that is “chemical-free” because all substances and objects are composed entirely of chemicals. In the context of fashion production, “everything is chemistry” serves as a reminder that the garments we wear, the dyes used to color them, and the production methods used to make them all have profound chemical implications for our environment and health.
To be able to communicate chemicals as a topic–marketing and communication professionals have to educate themselves about the chemicals used in fashion and what environmental and social impacts come with them.
So in this issue, we will show you phrases and words you shouldn’t use in your communication and what to say instead, plus we will dissect the differences between natural and synthetic dyes and explain why “natural” is not always better.1
Greenwashing traps for communicating chemicals
Some brands may make their chemical-related claims sound environmentally responsible while failing to address the underlying issues. Here are the most common greenwashing traps when talking about chemicals in fashion:
Hidden Toxic & Hazardous Ingredients: Greenwashing often occurs when information is left out which can happen when brands highlight the absence of one harmful chemical while discreetly using another equally harmful substance. This creates a false sense of security among consumers who believe they are making a responsible choice.
Misleading Marketing Jargon: Phrases like "green dyes" or "chemical-free" fall into misleading marketing jargon when you’re not giving concrete evidence or substantiation to back up these claims. What might sound great to consumers ends up misleading them into choices they believe to be better for people and the planet.
Selective Transparency: Attention when you’re only disclosing information about chemical use selectively–for example only sharing chemicals used in dyeing but not those used in other stages of production. You’re also greenwashing if you’re only showcasing aspects that present your use of chemicals in a positive light.
Unsubstantiated Claims: Missing standardized definitions and regulations for terms like "good chemicals" or "non-toxic" create opportunities for deception and greenwashing. Because vague claims like these are difficult for consumers to verify.
Let's delve into a greenwashing-free communication guide for common terms and phrases associated with the use of chemicals in fashion, explaining why these terms can be problematic and what to say instead.2
Detox Fashion
Why is it problematic? The term "detox" implies a complete elimination of harmful chemicals, which can be misleading. It suggests a sudden and radical change when, in reality, sustainable transitions often occur gradually. This oversimplification may not accurately represent a brand's efforts.
More credible and less vague alternative: Just don’t use anything similar. Correct and credible would be explaining a gradual and ongoing shift towards better and toxicologically improved chemicals, and more sustainable practices without implying the complete elimination of all harmful chemicals. It better represents the realistic efforts of a brand in improving its environmental impact.
Harm-free Chemicals
Why is it problematic? The term "harm-free chemicals" implies that no harm is caused by the chemical use. In reality, even toxicologically improved chemical inputs can have adverse effects if not managed properly. It oversimplifies a complex issue and can be misleading.
More credible and less vague alternative: Toxicologically tested or improved chemicals. This term acknowledges that while no chemical is entirely without risk, the focus is on using chemicals that have been tested and pose fewer risks when managed correctly. It emphasizes the importance of responsible chemical management.
Chemical-Free / No Chemicals Used
Why is it problematic? These phrases are problematic because they're rarely accurate. Nearly all textile production involves some form of chemicals, from dyeing to finishing. Claiming the complete absence of chemicals is misleading and untrue.
More credible and less vague alternative: Low-Chemical or Reduced Chemical input (if this is really the case and you can prove it and have a fair comparison). This alternative conveys a commitment to minimizing chemical usage rather than claiming complete absence, which is rarely achievable in textile production.
Non-Toxic
Why is it problematic? While "non-toxic" suggests safety, it doesn't specify which toxins are absent. Plus different chemicals have varying levels of toxicity. Without context or proper substantiation, this term can be misleading.
More credible and less vague alternative: Same as with detox, cut it and get familiar with “toxicity”. Toxicity is the degree to which a chemical substance or a particular mixture of substances can damage an organism. A central concept of toxicology is that the effects of a toxicant are dose-dependent; even water can lead to water intoxication when taken in too high a dose, whereas for even a very toxic substance there is a dose below which there is no detectable toxic effect. Global toxicity classification looks at three areas: physical hazards (explosions and pyrotechnics), health hazards and environmental hazards.3 Correct and credible would be explaining a gradual and ongoing shift towards better and toxicologically improved chemicals, and more sustainable practices without implying the complete elimination of all harmful chemicals. It better represents the realistic efforts of a brand in improving its environmental impact.
Green Chemicals
Why is it problematic? "Green chemicals" is another vague term that doesn't provide clarity on what chemicals are used or their environmental impact. It's often used without substantiating evidence, making it prone to greenwashing.
More credible and less vague alternative: Toxicologically tested chemicals. This alternative provides a clearer understanding of the chemicals' environmental impact and encourages brands to provide evidence of their claims. "Toxicologically tested chemicals" is a term that suggests a rigorous evaluation and assessment of chemicals used in the textile industry to ensure they meet safety standards and do not pose significant health risks to consumers, workers, and the environment.
Natural Chemicals
Why is it problematic? The term "natural chemicals" can create a false sense of safety. It fails to acknowledge that natural substances can also be toxic or harmful. It's essential to specify which natural chemicals are used and why they are considered safe. (Check out our deep dive into “natural vs. synthetic” down below.)
More credible and less vague alternative: Safe Natural Substances used for X application (name the substituted synthetic chemical). This alternative underscores the importance of specifying which natural chemicals are used and why they are considered safe, avoiding the misconception that all natural chemicals are inherently safe.
To communicate responsibly about the use of chemicals in fashion, brands should provide clear and verifiable information. They should specify the chemicals used, their environmental impact, and any certifications or third-party assessments.
Natural Dyes vs. Synthetic Dyes
An often misinterpreted term used in fashion is “natural dyes”. The term has gained popularity as a marker of sustainability and eco-friendliness. While it's true that natural dyes can be a more environmentally conscious choice in some contexts, it's essential to understand the topic in all its nuances.
Definition
🔹 Natural Dyes (the color) are derived from plants, minerals, or animals. Common sources include indigo, madder root, and cochineal.
🔹 Synthetic Dyes are chemically produced and are often derived from fossil fuels, such as petroleum. They include a wide range of chemical compounds, some of which can have negative environmental and health impacts.
Environmental Impact
🔹 Natural Dyes are generally considered “better” (the chemical mixture of the dyestuff itself) because they are derived from renewable resources and often require less energy to produce.
🔹 Most synthetic dyes are associated with pollution, as their production as well as their application may release hazardous chemicals into the environment (nothing new here!).
Why "natural" doesn't always mean better
While natural dyes offer advantages in terms of biodegradability and renewable sourcing, they also come with limitations:
🔸 Color Consistency: Natural dyes can be less predictable in terms of colorfastness and consistency. Variations in color can occur due to factors like climate, soil conditions, and plant variations.
🔸 Resource Intensity: The cultivation of plants for natural dyes can be resource-intensive, requiring significant agricultural land and water.
🔸 Limited Color Palette: Natural dyes offer a more limited color palette compared to synthetic dyes, which can produce a wider range of vibrant colors.
🔸 Fade Resistance: Some natural dyes may not be as fade-resistant as synthetic counterparts, which can affect the longevity of dyed fabrics.
🔸 Dye Package: Depending on the fiber/fabric/material applied a complex mixture of fixing agents and other chemical (harmful) agents etc. often comes in use in industrialized dyeing production, so that the naturally derived color stays on the garment and/or fabric.
In conclusion, the "natural dyes" label, while often associated with sustainability, is not a one-size-fits-all solution. While natural dyes have certain advantages, they also have limitations in terms of color consistency and resource intensity. Additionally, it's crucial to be aware that not all synthetic dyes are inherently harmful, and some natural dyes may pose challenges in terms of sourcing and colorfastness and fixing. Moreover, recognizing that many dyes, whether natural or synthetic, have ties to fossil fuels underscores the complexities of sustainability in the fashion industry, urging a more comprehensive approach to responsible dyeing practices.4
In our pro issue next week, we’ll dive into the communication of Archroma’s EarthColors® and share the key findings of Alden Wickers's book “To Dye For” which caused some discussions in the industry as she uncovered how unregulated toxic chemicals are harming us and the people we sell our textile products to (if you’re working for a fashion brand).
All the best,
Tanita & Lavinia
Manickam, P., & Vijay, D. (2021). Chemical hazards in textiles. In Chemical Management in Textiles and Fashion (pp. 19-52). Woodhead Publishing.
Grappi, S., Romani, S., & Barbarossa, C. (2017). Fashion without pollution: How consumers evaluate brands after an NGO campaign aimed at reducing toxic chemicals in the fashion industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 149, 1164-1173.
Wikipedia (2023). “Toxicity”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicity (accessed online 26.09.2023)
Muthu, S. S. (Ed.). (2020). Chemical management in textiles and fashion. Woodhead Publishing.