Threads of Deception

Greenwashing, Fashion, and the Illusion of Sustainability

Generated with KREA AI.

“Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed” (Mahatma Gandhi). In the 1970s, green marketing began attracting attention, eventually emerging more forcefully in the 1980s as public interest in environmentalism grew. Despite this momentum, there has been little increase in truly “green” consumer behavior since the 1990s. One reason for this gap between expressed concern and actual purchase behavior is the advertising practice known as greenwashing. Becker-Olsen and Potucek (2013) define greenwashing as the “practice of falsely promoting an organization’s environmental efforts or spending more resources to promote the organization as green than are spent to actually engage in environmentally sound practices.” In short, brands weave a sustainability narrative into their advertising while making only minor adjustments to products or practices.

The fashion industry is among the most frequent offenders, often disguising unsustainable practices behind eco-friendly language and imagery. From the recycling of synthetic textiles to trade-in programs that do little to reduce landfill waste, fashion brands frequently present illusions of sustainability that deceive consumers. Understanding how this advertising practice intersects with consumer value systems is essential for unpacking the deeper cultural impact of fashion’s sustainability claims.

Sustainability & Fashion Advertising

What constitutes a truly sustainable material in fashion? Cotton, hemp, linen, and wool are commonly recognized as eco-friendly textiles due to their biodegradable properties—meaning they can break down naturally into elements such as water, carbon dioxide, and biomass. By contrast, synthetic textiles such as polyester, acrylic, and nylon leave behind harmful microplastics that persist in the environment for decades or even centuries. Polyester and acrylic can take 20–200 years to decompose, while nylon requires 30–40 years (Rahaman, 2024).

This reality complicates how brands market “sustainability.” Patagonia, for instance, promotes its use of recycled polyester as a green initiative. While recycling is admirable, recycled polyester is still non-biodegradable and contributes to long-term microplastic pollution. Similarly, Patagonia’s trade-in program—where consumers return used clothing for store credit—offers no guarantee that returned items will remain out of landfills.

Other brands face even sharper scrutiny. H&M’s Conscious Collection was revealed to contain a higher proportion of synthetic fibers than its standard lines, leading to allegations of deception and the suspension of the initiative. In 2025, Italy’s competition authority fined SHEIN $1.16 million for misleading consumers about its “evoluSHEIN” line, noting that its advertising was “vague, generic, and overly emphatic” (Reuters, 2025). Such examples illustrate how the fashion industry leverages sustainability buzzwords to drive sales while maintaining business models rooted in overproduction and non-biodegradable textiles.

The problem extends beyond marketing copy. The production of textiles often involves up to 8,000 chemicals—including dyes, pigments, wrinkle-resistant treatments, and antibacterial finishes—that pose environmental and health hazards (McNeill & Moore, 2015). Against this backdrop, claims of sustainability become even more suspect when advertising fails to reflect genuine structural change in how garments are designed and produced.

Impact on Consumer Value Systems

The deception of greenwashing intersects with consumer values in complex ways. Millennials and Gen Z are especially vocal about their desire for environmentally responsible brands: 71% of Millennials say they want brands to be eco-friendly and ethical, and 61% want deeper connections to social issues (McKinsey & Company, 2020). Advertisers are keenly aware of this sentiment and often tailor their sustainability narratives to meet these value-driven expectations—whether or not the claims reflect reality.

At the root of this dynamic is marketplace mythology: the practice of embedding cultural myths into advertising narratives to connect brands with consumer identities (Holt, 2004). In the case of sustainable fashion, these myths often center on caregiving, techno-optimism, and visions of a better future. “Care for the planet” is among the most common tropes, particularly in marketing women’s clothing. Phrases such as “made with care,” “responsible fashion,” and “wear, care, recycle” align sustainability with nurturing and eco-feminist ethics.
Advertising narratives also deploy archetypes: nature as victim, women as victims of climate change, and women as saviors through ethical consumption. This framing embeds the idea that consumers—often women—can rescue the planet through purchases. Yet when such narratives are linked to greenwashing, they distort authentic eco-conscious values into cycles of overconsumption, leaving consumers misled about the actual sustainability of their choices.

Natalia Culebras & Dior Men

To balance the critique of greenwashing, it is important to highlight authentic industry efforts. Natalia Culebras, Head of Sustainable Design and Head Designer of Denim & Shirts at Dior Men, has worked for 16 years to guide Dior toward greater sustainability. According to Culebras (2024), “True sustainable fashion goes beyond mere labelling. It is a deep commitment that is reflected in every fabric, in every step of the production chain and in the brand’s mission itself.”

Culebras emphasizes that denim, Dior’s primary product, is also one of the most polluting textiles. By leveraging technologies such as laser treatments and collaborating with Parley for the Oceans, Dior developed collections made from ocean plastics that have reached 96% recycled content. Furthermore, Dior has restructured its permanent collection to reach 85% sustainability within two years—a dramatic shift from conventional practices.

While Dior’s sustainable collections remain small, Culebras points to cost, sourcing complexity, and the philosophy of slow fashion as key reasons. This aligns with smaller sustainable brands such as Pact or Fair Indigo, which also release intentionally limited collections to maintain integrity. Culebras acknowledges the dangers of greenwashing and stresses the importance of transparency, certification, and consumer education. Her perspective underscores that meaningful sustainability requires commitment far beyond superficial marketing.

What It All Means

The fashion industry’s embrace of sustainability in advertising reveals both the power and peril of marketing. On one hand, greenwashing distorts consumer values, luring eco-conscious buyers into choices that do little to reduce harm. On the other, authentic efforts—such as those described by Dior’s Natalia Culebras—demonstrate that real change is possible when brands commit to transparency, rigorous material sourcing, and small but deliberate collections. The contrast between deception and dedication highlights how advertising not only reflects cultural values but actively shapes them.

For consumers, the stakes are high: their desire to “care for the planet” is easily co-opted into marketplace myths that substitute shopping for meaningful change. For practitioners, the responsibility is equally weighty. Advertising can either perpetuate illusions that sustain overconsumption or champion a more honest and transformative vision of fashion. The challenge is not simply to make sustainability appealing, but to make it real—woven into every fabric, every message, and every act of communication. Only then can advertising help align the value systems of commerce with the urgent needs of the planet.

References

Culebras, N. (2024). True sustainable fashion goes beyond mere labelling [Interview]. Dior Men Sustainability Features. Dior.

Becker-Olsen, K. L., & Potucek, S. (2013). Greenwashing. In S. O. Idowu, N. Capaldi, L. Zu, & A. D. Gupta (Eds.), Encyclopedia of corporate social responsibility (pp. 1409–1414). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28036-8_530

Holt, D. B. (2004). How brands become icons: The principles of cultural branding. Harvard Business School Press.

McNeill, L., & Moore, R. (2015). Sustainable fashion consumption and the fast fashion conundrum: Fashionable consumers and attitudes to sustainability in clothing choice. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(3), 212–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12169

Peattie, K., & Crane, A. (2005). Green marketing: Legend, myth, farce or prophesy? Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 8(4), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1108/13522750510619733

Rahaman, M. T., & Islam, T. (2024). Green production and consumption of textiles and apparel. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 4, 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-024-00231-9

Reuters. (2025, August). Italy’s competition authority fines Shein $1.16 million over misleading green claims. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com

McKinsey & Company. (2020, October). The State of Fashion 2020: Coronavirus update. Business of Fashion and McKinsey. https://www.mckinsey.com