Greenwashing: when the story is greener than the product

The term greenwashing describes environmental claims that are false, misleading, vague or unsupported. In fashion, it can take many forms: a small recycled component presented as if the whole garment were sustainable; an “eco-conscious” label with no explanation; or a promise of future environmental action without a clear plan.

India has taken steps to address the problem. The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) introduced guidelines for environmental and green claims, effective February 15, 2024. They call for claims to be specific and substantiated, and for broad claims such as “sustainable” or “environment-friendly” to be supported by robust data or credible accreditation. The guidelines also caution against presenting a benefit from only one part of a product as if it describes the entire product.

In October 2024, the Central Consumer Protection Authority issued guidelines on the prevention and regulation of greenwashing and misleading environmental claims. These measures make transparency more than a public-relations preference: environmental claims need to be meaningful, supported and clear to consumers.

One statistic deserves particular care. A frequently repeated figure says that more than half of environmental claims in India are unsubstantiated. A 2014 academic study did find that 51.7% of the green claims in its sample were classified as greenwashed. But that study is historical and does not establish that 50–60% of current Indian fashion brands—or their claims—are misleading. Treating it as a current fashion-industry measurement would overstate what the research proves.

That distinction is important. Greenwashing should be scrutinised, but criticism itself must meet the same standard of evidence expected from brands.

Circular fashion: make, mend, reuse—and then recycle

Circularity means keeping materials in use for as long as possible. In practice, that can begin with a straightforward action: repairing a loose seam rather than discarding a garment.

Other approaches include resale, swapping, upcycling and recycling. They are not interchangeable. Repair and reuse can extend a garment’s useful life with relatively little transformation. Upcycling converts material into another product, while fibre-to-fibre recycling attempts to recover material for new textiles. Each process has different technical and environmental demands.

India’s existing textile-recovery networks provide a foundation, while policy initiatives are encouraging further investment in recycling and circular production. The Ministry of Textiles’ 2026 work on mapping the textile-waste value chain and its Tex-Eco Initiative reflect a growing focus on waste management, recycled fibres and value addition.

For brands, the meaningful test is whether circularity is built into regular operations or confined to a limited capsule collection. For consumers, a take-back programme is worth examining: What happens to the returned clothes? Are they resold, repaired, recycled or discarded? Is the process explained clearly?

“Zero waste” is an especially sweeping promise. Unless the claim is carefully defined and supported, it can hide the difference between reducing waste in one product line and eliminating waste across an entire business.

What should shoppers look for?

A consumer does not need to become a textile scientist before buying a kurta, sari or jacket. A few practical checks can help separate useful information from green-sounding language.

• Look for specifics: Which material is certified, recycled, organic or locally sourced—and what proportion of the product does it represent?

• Check the evidence: Is a certification named? Can its scope and validity be verified?

• Ask about durability: Are construction, care, repair and alteration options explained?

• Look beyond the fabric: Does the brand discuss dyeing, finishing, packaging and supply-chain practices?

• Treat broad claims cautiously: “Conscious”, “planet-friendly” and “eco-luxury” are not substitutes for measurable information.

• Buy for use, not just virtue: A garment that is rarely worn may deliver little practical value, whatever its label says.

Brands, meanwhile, can build trust by publishing clear sourcing information, identifying manufacturing partners where possible, explaining the limits of their claims and reporting measurable progress. Independent verification can strengthen that trust, particularly when claims concern emissions, water use, chemical management or labour conditions.

DOONITED View: sustainability must survive the washing machine

India does not need to choose between its textile heritage and modern fashion. It can draw on traditional skills while investing in better materials, cleaner processing, durable design and stronger recovery systems.

But the industry should resist turning sustainability into another seasonal aesthetic. A handloom label cannot answer every question about impact. A recycled-fabric tag cannot tell the whole story. And a campaign featuring artisans is not the same as transparent information about wages, working conditions or the supply chain.

The real test is whether a brand can explain its claims in plain language—and show evidence when asked. Regulators can set expectations, researchers can measure outcomes, and consumers can reward credible practice. None of these can do the job alone.

The future of sustainable Indian fashion will be shaped not just by what designers create, but by what brands disclose, what manufacturers improve and what customers choose to keep wearing.

Learning Point

Before buying “sustainable” fashion, ask three questions: What exactly makes it lower-impact? What evidence supports that claim? And will I use it for years? If a brand can answer clearly, the label becomes useful. If it cannot, the green wording may be doing more work than the garment.