With the increase in the ecological sensitivity of the society, we have become more intensely discussing the concept of “greenwashing”, that is, we define it as green whitewashing or painting green. While all their misdemeanors and criminal records related to the ecological environment are in the middle, we are talking about brands and companies that do not hesitate to turn a few environmentally friendly activities that can be evaluated under the title of show and entertainment into press releases. We are talking about institutions that produce regular sustainability reports in accordance with tradition, but whose employees look at the content of this report with an obscene expression.
Especially after the COP 26 meeting, we saw that “greenwashing” has become almost a sector. There are consultants who give advice on how to greenwash, there are lobbying companies, there are organizations that produce reports, advertising agencies and PR people are already waiting on the door to be named! There was even a private company called AccountAbility (which still exists) that was grading for money. The independent board they formed resigned one by one in a heavy letter they published to the public after the company’s intentions were revealed. The article “How to measure our moral footprint” made a lot of noise. So I don’t want to go into the details of these issues here again.
After the oil companies, Fast Fashion is on the target board. The fierce competition of the brands, which produce their own designs in contract workshops in labor-cheap countries that do not have their own production facilities and spread the year over almost 12 seasons, has unfortunately caused a complete environmental disaster. Clothes that are in no way dissolved in nature have turned garbage heaps into mountains of waste. If you dig a little, we can find the bluejeans, coats, shirts and t-shirts we bought in the recent past among those piles. It’s the same with our shoes, belts, bags. So here we want to pass the bill to these brands, and for some reason we can’t imagine looking in the mirror and confronting it!
These brands take courage from here and appear in television advertisements and other media about how environmentalist they are and how much they allocate resources to exemplary social projects in terms of corporate responsibility.
These brands claim that they employ workshops in poor countries and create employment there, and that they value the agricultural production of poor countries as raw materials and make economic contributions to them. Maybe we need to look at how they produce rather than what they produce. If these brands, which are claimed to turn the injustice in income distribution into “opportunities” in the world, prefer these countries only because they produce solutions that serve their own economic interests, do they not lose their credibility from the beginning?
Fast Fashion, which gives the best examples of the art of separating “truth” from reality, does not learn from its own world.
In the 1990s, Nike was on the same road. life was fine until the inhumane working environment in contract workshops in South Asia fell into the language of civil society. In fact, he did not raise a voice for the voices coming out of civil society for a long time, he ignored them. When faced with the risk of losing consumers with a global boycott, he realized “it’s time to do something”. He created a new vision and mobilized all his resources for this vision without waiting. Those who wonder where the business has come should visit the web page.
Let me give you some figures about Fast Fashion, the second most important polluting industry after oil;
1.5-2.5 trillion tons of water is used annually. (1Gallon 3.78 liters)
150 billion pieces are thrown away every year (Looking for a place to throw)
10% of total carbon emissions come from this industry. 5 times more pollutants than the aviation industry.
It is estimated that shoes took more than a thousand years to blend into nature.
There are many more figures that can be given. But it’s not about the numbers; “intention”! I am one of those who think that confronting the society with a discourse as “pretend” in the face of the responsibility of such pollution is at least as troublesome as being a polluter. After all, are they not aware that in the near future they will not be able to find the contract workshop to produce, the workers who will employ them, and the raw materials to be supplied? Moreover, with the increase in consciousness, will they be able to find “consumers” to sell the products?
Haven’t we lived in “furry” clothes in the recent past? Didn’t the once-socially fashionable mood of wearing fur with social status distinctions end with the aggressive reaction of animal lovers? Are there women who have found the courage to walk around with real animal fur on the streets now? There may still be fur producers left on the sidelines, but they too cannot sleep soundly in the evenings under the close supervision of animal-friendly NGOs. It is difficult to imagine that a female consumer, who has already studied the conditions of production, can also wear a fur coat. Fast Fashion is about to embark on this path.
Isn’t there something good that can be done?
There is, of course. At least when I research on Google as eco-friendly fast fashion brands, the ranking of ten brands is a bit refreshing. These include; We see Patagonia, Toms, Lucy & Yak, Mudjeans, Ninety Percent, Plant Faced Clothing, Afends, Levi’s, Adidas and Zara. I was also surprised by Zara, but there is an explanation next to it; Zara aims to make 50% of its products part of its Join Life product range by 2022, a line made using processes and raw materials that have less impact on the environment. The company now recycles and reuses all boxes, bags, hangers and alarms. Zara also aims to use only sustainable textiles and materials by 2025.
I’m one of those who think there’s a lot that other brands can learn from these brands’ practices.
However, the basic issue begins and ends with us as “consumers”. we can only figure out how to integrate the determination that we will not buy into life if we do not need it. As long as we continue to buy, the resentment of the planet will continue. The hype of green whitewashing by brands will also remain on the agenda.
(*) This article is published at Brandmap April 2022 issue
Leave a Reply