Special Report


carbon offsetting without reducing the actual impact can be a distraction from real, systemic changes. Making claims without third-party verifi cation. Brands may claim sustainability without any certifi ed standards like GOTS, Oeko-Tex, or B Corp. TR: Brands can use terms like ‘eco-friendly’, ‘sustainable’, or ‘green’ without providing clear defi nitions or evidence. For example, a label might say ‘made with sustainable materials’, when only a small percentage of the product is actually sustainable. MH: This can manifest as highlighting sustainable initiatives in one area while maintaining less sustainable practices elsewhere – for instance, promoting recycled materials in a small product range while continuing conventional production methods across the majority of operations.


Q) What is the harmful impact of greenwashing? MS: In my view, the biggest harm is in making the consumer distrusting any sustainability claims, however valid. CL: For me, the biggest no-go is the ethical aspect: consumers are deceived, and the environmental issues associated with clothing production are ignored. It distorts competition, misleads investors and consumers, and most importantly, it does not stop environmental pollution, as harmful practices continue at the expense of the environment. KW: Greenwashing makes it harder for companies that are genuinely investing in sustainable practices to compete. When a brand cuts corners and uses vague, unverifi ed claims to present a product as ‘green’, they can often offer it at a lower price. Meanwhile, companies that are actually investing in ethical sourcing, certifi ed materials, and responsible manufacturing face higher costs – and often struggle to compete on price alone. For example, a product might be marketed as ‘eco-friendly’ simply because it uses a recycled label, while the rest of the production process remains environmentally and socially harmful. It’s easy to highlight one ‘green’ element in marketing while ignoring the full picture. This not only misleads consumers into thinking they’re making a responsible choice – but also undermines the brands that are doing the hard work to deliver truly sustainable products. PB: Greenwashing has far-reaching consequences on people, the planet, and progress. Firstly, it undermines consumer trust, when claims are exaggerated it breeds


www.printwearandpromotion.co.uk Certifi cates and associations to look out for...


distrust and as soon as wearers become sceptical, it becomes harder for responsible businesses to thrive, slowing down genuine efforts to tackle climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. It misleads well-meaning buyers who want to make better choices. It can actually harm workers and supply chain integrity. Greenwashing can mask poor working conditions, unsafe environments, and unfair wages, especially in garment production. It can also weaken accountability and regulation. If greenwashing becomes normalised, industry standards and certifi cations lose credibility. It also makes it harder for regulators to set and enforce clear guidelines around sustainability claims. TR: Small or genuinely sustainable brands often invest heavily in ethical practices and transparent supply chains. When other normally larger brands greenwash, they take advantage of the sustainability trend without doing the work. Greenwashing takes advantage of important social and environmental issues – like climate change and workers’ rights – turning them into marketing buzzwords rather than meaningful causes. This devalues serious efforts in the sustainability movement. MH: Greenwashing in fashion often works through visual cues and selective messaging – such as green colour schemes, nature imagery, or sustainability-themed campaigns – that make consumers feel like they’re making ethical purchases. However, without third-party certifi cations, supply chain transparency, or measurable sustainability goals, these claims are often superfi cial.


Q) What reassurances do you provide garment decorators that you are not greenwashing and your garments are truly sustainable? MS: Clear statements, without colourising, backed up by evidence. CL: At Fruit of the Loom, we ensure that our suppliers are 100% verifi ed. We value


a clear, comprehensive supply chain that can be traced back to raw materials. As a leading company in the European imprint industry, Fruit of the Loom is committed to continuous improvement in the sustainable and conscientious production of high-quality clothing. With the goal of exceeding customer expectations and industry standards, we continue to invest in quality at all levels of our operations to ensure our garments are not only well-made but also produced responsibly. KW: At Kingly, transparency isn’t a trend – it’s a core part of how we operate. We received our fi rst certifi cation in 2021, and since then, we’ve been committed to continuously improving how we manufacture textiles responsibly. We’ve expanded our efforts by obtaining additional certifi cations, undergoing ethical audits, and aligning with rigorous environmental and social standards to ensure our claims are verifi able and trustworthy. To strengthen traceability, we also partner with the third-party platform BCOME. They assess the impact of our top 100 products, generating clear sustainability scores and tracking data – including travel impact – presented through a scannable, neutral QR code. This allows our clients and their customers to see verifi ed product information throughout the supply chain, ensuring that traceability and trust go hand in hand. PB: At Mantis World, we’ve spent the last 25 years showing our commitment to transparency and honesty. We’ve actually stopped claiming that we’re ‘sustainable’, because no company truly operates sustainably. We all don’t replace the resources we use or leave the planet as we found it – even the greenest businesses still depend on systems that take more than they give back. As a B Corp and long-standing advocate for organic and ethical production, we prioritise traceability


July 2025 |21 |


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84