Greenwashing has LEGAL consequences
Which ones show these legal cases
Welcome to The Crisps–your weekly newsletter on anti-greenwashing and honest fashion communication. In this issue, we show which legal consequences greenwashing has had for brands in the past. And what we can learn from the legal cases.
We all know greenwashing is bad. It’s bad for society, bad for business, bad for reputation, and bad for trust. But which legal consequences are there really when you greenwash?
In the past, brands have faced legal cases because their sustainability communication or advertising didn’t match their action. Let’s look at the cases and find out what brands and communication professionals can learn from them. But first, we want to share a quick overview, of why tackling greenwashing legally is important for consumers but also for brands!
Ps: In our pro-issue next week, we will give you a global overview of the legal situation of greenwashing, including countries like the USA, France, China, and more.
AD
Calling all journalists and storytellers! If you’re free on March 5th, 2024 - 10am EST | 3pm GMT join this super workshop by Cotton Diaries and A Growing Culture.
Tackling greenwashing legally is crucial for several reasons.
Here’s why:
🔹 Consumer Protection: Legal action against greenwashing ensures that consumers are not misled by false or exaggerated claims about a product's environmental impact. When companies make unsubstantiated claims of sustainability, consumers make purchasing decisions based on misinformation. This leads to frustration and a loss of trust in brands and marketing.
🔹 Promotion of Genuine Sustainability: By holding companies accountable for greenwashing, legal action encourages genuine efforts towards sustainability. When deceptive practices are penalized, companies are incentivized to invest in legitimate practices and innovations, fostering a culture of transparency and accountability within the industry.
🔹 Environmental Impact: Greenwashing gives the illusion of progress as it masks the true environmental impact of products and manufacturing processes. By addressing greenwashing through legal measures, there is a greater chance of reducing harmful environmental practices and promoting better alternatives.
🔹 Leveling the Playing Field: Legal action against greenwashing helps level the playing field for businesses that are genuinely committed to sustainability. When companies engage in greenwashing, they gain an unfair competitive advantage over those that invest resources and effort into implementing meaningful sustainability practices. Legal penalties help ensure fairer competition and reward companies that prioritize authenticity, accountability and transparency.
🔹 Public Trust and Corporate Accountability: Greenwashing hurts public trust in corporations and undermines efforts to build a more “sustainable” future. By holding companies accountable for their environmental claims, legal action reinforces the importance of corporate accountability and integrity. This helps rebuild trust between consumers and businesses, fostering a more transparent and ethical marketplace.
Now let’s look at some greenwashing cases and investigations.
4 legal cases of greenwashing
In case anyone needs more convincing as to why greenwashing is hurtful (and can be very costly!) to a brand or organization, show them these cases.
1. Adidas Guilty of Greenwashing
🔸 What happened: In 2021 Adidas proudly launched a version of their iconic Stan Smith sneakers that included recycled components. But their advertising brought them to court.
The ad’s tagline "100% iconic" and "50% recycled" was accompanied by a logo stating "end plastic waste".
So a consumer took it upon himself and filed a complaint, prompting the French advertising watchdog ARPP to investigate the accuracy and presentation of the Adidas ad. The French Advertising Ethics Jury (AEJ) found that the sustainability claims didn’t follow ARPP rules.
The main problem of the ad was the phrase "50% recycled" which did not specify that only the "upper" part of the shoe contained recycled material. The other problem was the "End Plastic Waste" logo intended to convey Adidas's commitment to reducing plastic waste. It was criticized for potentially misleading consumers. Critics argued that the sneakers, when discarded, could contribute to plastic pollution. It seemed to contradict the overarching message of the logo.
🔸 What Adidas said: In response to these allegations, Adidas clarified that the "50% recycled" claim specifically referred to the upper part of the shoe, with an asterisked disclaimer placed below the ad providing more detailed information.
The brand also clarified that the Stan Smith sneakers were not promoted as recyclable at the end of their life, addressing another aspect of the consumer complaint. The "End Plastic Waste" logo, according to Adidas, symbolized the brand's broader commitment to reducing the use of virgin plastic, with an acknowledgment that this initiative alone would not entirely solve the plastic waste crisis.
But the AEJ found Adidas guilty of greenwashing.
While the AEJ lacked the power to impose fines, the guilty verdict served as a penalty in itself.1
🔸 What we can learn from it: The verdict shows that vague or ambiguous claims, like those made by Adidas regarding its Stan Smith sneakers, are potentially damaging to both the environment and consumer trust. This case highlights that companies have to adopt clear and verifiable sustainability practices to avoid accusations of greenwashing. And that clarity and specification in sustainability claims are essential.
2. H&M and "Conscious Collection" Class Action Lawsuit
🔸 What happened: In 2020, global retail giant H&M faced controversy for its "Conscious Collection". While the collection claimed to champion sustainability, investigations revealed a big disparity between the company's marketing claims and the actual composition of the products. They faced a class action lawsuit initiative by Chelsea Commodore and co-plaintiff Rakeedha Scarlett. The plaintiffs accused H&M of violating New York state law by deceiving consumers with false sustainability claims. They sought injunctive relief and monetary damages for themselves and others who had purchased products based on the alleged misrepresentations.
Commodore (the first plaintiff) argued that H&M had capitalized on consumers' growing interest in sustainable fashion by utilizing deceptive marketing tactics to promote its “Conscious Collection”. The core allegation was that the company falsely presented items as environmentally friendly when, in reality, they were made from conventional materials.
One of the examples presented by her was the sustainability profile of a dress claiming that it was made with 20% less water on average. However, an investigation by Quartz revealed that the dress actually consumed 20% more water.
Apart from the misleading sustainability profiles, Commodore stated that H&M made various other inaccurate claims about the sustainability of its products including labeling items as “conscious”, “made from sustainable materials” and suggesting they would be recycled to combat textile waste.
In December 2023, the plaintiffs decided to withdraw the class action lawsuit against H&M. While H&M avoided fines, the case had already gathered significant attention.2
🔸 What we can learn from it: This case should remind companies that cosmetic sustainability efforts without substantial effort will face legal scrutiny and public backlash. Marketing claims have to align with the actual environmental impact of products. If they are not, brands risk legal consequences and damage to the brand’s reputation.
3. Lululemon Accused of Greenwashing
🔸 What happened: The renowned activewear brand is currently facing backlash for greenwashing. Environmental advocacy group Stand.earth has filed a complaint with Canada's competition watchdog, raising concerns about the legitimacy of Lululemon's 2020 "Be Planet" campaign and its potential deception of consumers.
Stand.earth's complaint centers on Lululemon's claim that its products and actions "avoid environmental harm and contribute to restoring a healthy planet". Nevertheless, the primary concern revolves around the difference between these claims and the brand's Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions because they don’t add up. According to Lululemon’s own Impact Report, Scope 3 emissions have seen an increase of 129% from 2018 to 2022. (Now you have to know that Scope 3 emissions account for approximately 90% of a company's environmental impact.)
Stand.earth's complaint also draws attention to the inconsistency in Lululemon's material choices. While the brand incorporates recycled nylon and polyester into some of its garments, it continues to rely on fossil fuel-derived materials in most other products. This raises questions about the sincerity of Lululemon's commitment to sustainability.
Canada's competition regulator is now investigating whether Lululemon's 2020 campaign misled consumers and if the company breached any regulations regarding fair competition. We will let you know as soon as the case evolves.3
🔸 What we can learn from it: This case shows the danger of superficial sustainability pledges that lack substance and credibility. Commitment to sustainability goals must be backed by concrete actions and transparency in reporting. Plus, companies should align their environmental claims with measurable progress to avoid inconsistencies that could lead to accusations of greenwashing.
4. Zalando Forced to Backtrack on Green Claims
Remember when Zalando received the first Greenwashing Award in 2022? That was certainly interesting but that’s not what we want to talk about here. It’s about a recent turn of events.
🔸 What happened: Zalando constantly faces criticism for its sustainability claims, environmental icons and sustainability flags. Just recently they’ve joined a dialogue with the European Commission that moved the retailer to make a commitment. The retailer agreed to a substantial overhaul of its sustainability communication to provide more accurate and verifiable information by mid-April of this year.
Zalando intends to restructure its existing sustainability page, dividing it into two comprehensive sections that will focus on product standards and the company's overarching sustainability strategies. It will also eliminate sustainability flags and environmental icons associated with products. Instead, Zalando plans to provide clearer information, such as the percentage of recycled materials used in their products.
This commitment aligns with the European Union's broader initiative to tighten regulations surrounding environmental claims. The recently agreed-upon directive mandates independent third-party verification of environmental claims, with severe penalties for non-compliance, including fines of up to 4% of annual turnover.
Zalando's compliance with these commitments will be closely monitored by the EU's Consumer Protection Cooperation Network, underlining the necessity for accountability and robust enforcement mechanisms.4
🔸 What we can learn from it: This case highlights the urgency for stringent enforcement mechanisms and transparent accountability frameworks to hold corporations accountable for their environmental claims and ensure genuine progress towards sustainability goals. But it also shows that brands should be proactive in reviewing and revising their sustainability messaging to ensure compliance with evolving regulations and consumer expectations.
If you’re not doing it yet and need support, get in touch with us by simply replying to this mail. Let’s get your comms in order.
Talk to you next week when we give you a global overview of the legal situation of greenwashing, including countries like the USA, France, China, and more. Plus, we have a list of DO’s for you!
Make sure not to miss it by becoming a pro-subscriber and if you find The Crisps helpful, we’d be eternally grateful if you helped us spread the word and told your colleagues and friends about us. For example, by clicking here:
All the best,
Tanita & Lavinia
🔹 Like our content? Support our work with a paid subscription.
🔹 Got feedback or a topic we should cover? Send us an email to thecrisps@substack.com
Disclaimer: The content and opinions presented in The Crisps newsletter are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal, ethical, or professional advice. The Crisps does not endorse any specific brands or products mentioned in its content.
Apparel Insider. (2021). Adidas greenwashing. Apparel Insider. Retrieved from https://apparelinsider.com/adidas-greenwashing
Ecotextile News. (2023, December 19). Complainants drop H&M 'greenwash' lawsuit. Ecotextile News. Retrieved from https://www.ecotextile.com/2023121931531/fashion-retail-news/complainants-drop-h-m-greenwash-lawsuit.html
Business of Fashion. (2024). Lululemon faces Canada greenwashing stand-off after Earth complaint. Business of Fashion. Retrieved from https://www.businessoffashion.com/news/sustainability/lululemon-canada-greenwashing-stand-earth-complaint/
European Commission. (2024). Zalando overhaul not enough to meet sustainability claims, European Commission says. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/zalando-overhaul-sustainability-claims-european-commission-says-2024-02-22/