THE ILLUSION OF SUSTAINABILITY: ADDRESSING GREENWASHING IN FASHION THROUGH LAW

Abstract

The worldwide fashion sector, accountable for about ten percent of yearly global carbon emissions, has increasingly utilized sustainability assertions as marketing tools. ‘Greenwashing’ the intentional or careless deception of environmental qualifications has surged within the industry, skewing consumer preferences and hindering authentic ecological advancement. This article examines if the current legal frameworks including consumer protection laws, advertising regulations, and environmental legislation are sufficient to tackle greenwashing in the fashion sector. Utilizing doctrinal and analytical research methods, the study investigates legislative measures, court rulings, and regulatory frameworks across various jurisdictions, such as India, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States. 

Keywords- Greenwashing, Fashion Law, Consumer Protection Act 2019, Misleading Advertisement, Environmental Claims, Sustainability Marketing, Deceptive Commercial Practices,Eco-labelling, False Sustainability.

Introduction

The fashion sector holds a contradictory role in modern debates: it greatly adds to global environmental harm while simultaneously acting as a major corporate supporter of sustainability. Brands like Zara and H&M have introduced ‘conscious collections,’ ‘green lines,’ and ‘eco-friendly ranges,’ using sustainability terminology with little concrete explanation. This practice commonly known as greenwashing represents not merely an ethical failure but also a legally acknowledged offense that encompasses multiple legal domains. Greenwashing within the fashion industry presents major challenges at the intersection of laws on consumer protection, competition, environmental standards, and marketing rules. From a consumer protection perspective, it constitutes a deceptive business tactic that influences informed purchasing decisions. From a competition law standpoint, it provides unfair market advantages to non-compliant entities to the detriment of genuinely sustainable companies. From an environmental regulatory perspective, it obstructs the transition to a circular economy by fostering inaccurate views of industry progress. The fashion industry occupies a paradoxical position in contemporary discussions: it significantly contributes to global ecological damage while also serving as a prominent corporate advocate for sustainability. Brands such as Zara and H&M have launched ‘conscious collections,’ ‘green lines,’ and ‘eco-friendly ranges,’ employing sustainability language without providing substantial clarification.

Background and conceptual framework

The term ‘greenwashing’ was coined by environmentalist Jay Westerveld in 1986 to describe the act of making misleading or unsubstantiated environmental claims. In legal contexts, greenwashing refers to misleading business tactics a duplicitous behavior or omission that considerably impacts consumer financial choices. The legal significance of this classification arises from its relationship to regulations that prohibit false trade practices, misleading advertisements, and consumer fraud. At the beginning people tried to figure out what greenwashing is and how to stop it. The European Commission made a rule called the Commercial Practices Directive in 2005[1]. This rule was updated by the Green Claims Directive in 2023. Greenwashing is when companies make claims about being good for the environment. If companies do this they can get in trouble with the law. The new rule says that companies have to prove what they say about the environment is true before they can say it. They need to get this proof from people who are not connected to their company.

• In the United States there is a law that says companies cannot do things that are unfair or try to trick people. The Federal Trade Commission has guidelines for companies that want to say their products are good for the environment. These guidelines are called the Green Guides. They help people understand what words like “recyclable” and “eco-friendly” really mean. The Green Guides are not laws. They do help when companies get in trouble for greenwashing. Companies should follow these guidelines so they do not get in trouble for lying about their products and the environment. Greenwashing is a problem and companies need to be honest, about greenwashing. The European Commission and the Federal Trade Commission are working to stop greenwashing.In India, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019[2] (‘CPA 2019’) forbids ‘false or misleading advertisements’ as stated in Section 2(28)[3], which includes claims that distort the nature, quality, or ecological characteristics of a product. The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), established under Section 10 of CPA 2019[4], released the Guidelines for the Prevention and Regulation of Greenwashing in 2024 marking the first regulatory framework in India specifically addressing greenwashing. These Guidelines require that environmental assertions be clear, provable, and not deceptive, and they impose disclosure responsibilities on marketers. Their issuance holds historical importance; however, as this article illustrates, it is structurally inadequate. Scholars such as Torpey-Owen (2021) and Mullen (2022) have contended that the fragmented nature of current legal frameworks, which depend mainly on voluntary guidelines instead of compulsory laws, has created substantial enforcement deficiencies. Previous judicial remarks in the United States have recognized the challenges of implementing general consumer protection laws to intricate environmental claims, especially in determining materiality and causation. The Indian judiciary has not directly addressed a greenwashing allegation in the fashion industry, highlighting the newness of the legal issue and the necessity for doctrinal advancement.

Legal analysis

The legal framework concerning greenwashing in fashion can be analyzed through three main aspects: consumer protection law, competition and advertising law, and environmental regulations. Every dimension highlights a unique legal issue, a different institutional participant, and an alternative array of remedial options.

• Consumer protection law

Consumer protection laws serve as the main legal framework for addressing greenwashing accountability. In India, Section 2(28) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 describes a ‘false or misleading advertisement’ as one that provides an inaccurate depiction of a product, conveys a deceptive claim, or excludes crucial information that might help consumers. Section 21[5] authorizes the CCPA to probe complaints, mandate the removal of deceptive ads, instruct the termination of unjust trade practices, and impose penalties of up to Rupees Ten Lakh for initial violations under Section 21(2)(b)[6]. Individuals who consistently breach regulations could incur penalties reaching Fifty Lakh Rupees, and the promoter of these advertisements, including any celebrity or influencer, might be prohibited from endorsing for a period of up to one year.The 2024 CCPA Greenwashing Guidelines set clear criteria for environmental assertions in marketing. Assertions should rely on trustworthy scientific data; comparative assertions need to detail the comparison grounds; aspirational assertions should be distinctly separated from existing performance claims; and certifications must come from independent, accredited organizations. These Guidelines apply to all types of media, such as digital, print, and social media a crucial point considering the rise of influencer marketing in fashion sustainability initiatives, which previously functioned in a mostly unregulated environment.

• Competition and advertising law

Greenwashing interferes with competition law by skewing market dynamics to benefit non-compliant entities. Under the Competition Act, 2002[7], although Sections 3[8] and 4[9] deal with anti-competitive agreements and the abuse of dominance, neither section specifically tackles misleading sustainability assertions. Section 36(4)[10] of the Competition Act grants authority to the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to address deceptive conduct, while Section 3(4) might encompass exclusionary practices related to sustainability; however, there has been no case so far that has utilized these provisions to tackle greenwashing in India. This doctrinal gap constitutes a significant finding in itself. The ASCI Code, under Chapter II, bans deceptive and unsubstantiated environmental claims in advertisements. ASCI’s 2021[11] Standards for Sustainable Advertising mandate that environmental assertions be accurate, well-supported by evidence, and communicated in a way that prevents creating misleading perceptions regarding a product’s overall environmental effect. Nevertheless, ASCI’s main drawback is its lack of enforcement power: breaches lead to advisory notifications instead of monetary fines, and adherence is still optional. In a market where not adhering to rules is financially beneficial, voluntary actions are inherently inadequate.

• Environmental regulations

The environmental regulatory system in India, mainly focused on production criteria rather than advertising assertions, connects with greenwashing in indirect yet important ways. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986[12] and the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016[13] set benchmarks for the environmental efficacy of products but fail to tackle misleading assertions regarding that efficacy. The Bureau of Indian Standards[14] (BIS) runs certification programs, such as the Eco Mark scheme, yet joining is completely optional. The lack of compulsory certification results in market circumstances where brands can assert environmental claims without standardized verification from third parties, allowing the Eco Mark to exist alongside private, self-awarded ‘eco’ labels that have unclear meanings. The global supply chain opacity further aggravates the systemic aspect of fashion greenwashing. The United Nations Environment Programme has highlighted fashion as a sector with a significant risk of greenwashing, largely due to supply chains that stretch across multiple regions, many of which have less stringent environmental regulations. A clothing item labeled as ‘sustainably sourced’ in India might have production processes in Bangladesh, coloring in Vietnam, and material sourcing in China, with varying regulatory standards for each phase. Currently, no Indian law enforces mandatory environmental traceability requirements on fashion supply chains. The EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (2024)[15] mandates that companies perform due diligence throughout their supply chains and place environmental responsibilities on suppliers an approach that, if modified for India under the Companies Act, 2013[16], could significantly alter the accountability framework.

Case law discussion

Dwyer v. Allbirds, Inc., 598 F. Supp. 3d 137 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)[17]

Facts: The plaintiff is a consumer of defendant Allbirds’ wool footwear who filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint claimed that Allbirds made materially false or misleading environmental representations, including a “low-carbon footprint,” “environmentally friendly,” and “reversing climate change,” by calculating and publicising a per-product carbon footprint using the Sustainable Apparel Coalition’s Higg Materials Sustainability Index (Higg MSI) and a proprietary Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology. The plaintiff argued that these metrics were insufficient as they did not account for some atmospheric and non-atmospheric environmental impacts such as land occupation, eutrophication and methane emissions in the supply chain and therefore understated the real environmental cost of the products. The claims were brought under New York General Business Law (GBL) §§ 349 and 350, which prohibit deceptive acts and false advertising, respectively, as well as under breach of express warranty, fraud, and unjust enrichment.

Judgement:  Defendant’s motion was tossed out in its entirety by Judge Cathy Seibel. The court found that the plaintiff had not adequately alleged that Allbirds’ statements were materially misleading to a reasonable consumer. Importantly, the court found that Allbirds had publicly disclosed and explained its carbon calculation methodology on its website, making clear the scope and limitations of what was included in the footprint calculation. The court continued that the plaintiff’s general criticisms of the wool industry did not plausibly allege that Allbirds’ specific practices were falsely described. As to the alleged omissions, the court dismissed the argument that a reasonable consumer would anticipate the inclusion of non-atmospheric environmental effects in a carbon footprint figure in the absence of an explicit representation to that effect.

Legal principle: It sets out what has been called a ‘methodology transparency’ defence: a company that articulates in public and in an explicit way the basis, scope and limitations of its sustainability metrics, including what is and is not included in its calculations, will not be liable for greenwashing simply because a plaintiff thinks those metrics are not good enough. Disclosure of the methodology protects a claim from the charge of material deception if the company accurately describes the methodology. It is not enough to make generalised allegations of industry-wide practices without alleging specific falsity in relation to the defendant’s own representations.

Relevance: The case is relevant to the research question, both directly and in subtle ways. It shows that greenwashing liability under consumer protection statutes is not strict liability — it requires a materially false or misleading statement, not just a disputed methodology. But the logic of this also has a big caveat for policymakers: the ‘transparency defence’ is only as good as the literacy of the average consumer. Where methodology disclosures are hidden on websites, couched in technical language, or not prominently displayed alongside marketing claims, the protection afforded by this principle breaks down. As Dwyer notes, transparency of methodology is necessary but not sufficient to establish genuine substantiation, a distinction yet to be articulated by Indian law, especially if read together with the subsequent H&M and CMA enforcement actions.

Commodore v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz LP, No. 7:22-cv-06247 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)[18]

Facts: Later, Chelsea Commodore and Rakeedha Scarlett filed a class action complaint in the Southern District of New York, alleging an elaborate scheme by H&M to market its “Conscious” and “Conscious Choice” collections as environmentally friendly when they were not. The complaint drew heavily on a June 2022 investigation published by the news outlet Quartz, which found that H&M’s “Sustainability Profiles” environmental scorecards displayed on green hang-tags, in-store signage, and on H&M’s website using Higg MSI data contained materially false information that did not match the underlying data.For instance, one Sustainability Profile stated that a specific garment had been produced using twenty per cent less water than average, while independent analysis revealed it had used twenty per cent more water. The plaintiffs argued that H&M’s use of the Higg Index as a tool to manufacture a false impression of environmental virtue without any real evidence was, in fact, a misrepresentation. Claims were brought under N.Y. GBL §§ 349 and 350.

Judgement: On December 13, 2023, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case with a stipulation that the same subject matter may not be relitigated. The court did not rule on the merits.  Thus, there was no ruling on the merits of the greenwashing allegations that would have precedential value. Critically, the court documents disclosed no settlement terms and H&M did not publicly acknowledge liability. The move comes after H&M in 2022 stopped selling its Conscious Collection, which it said was a result of regulatory action from the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets.

Legal principle: Although the case does not decide the merits, it sets forth several doctrinal propositions of value. First, the case confirms the justiciability of Higg MSI-based sustainability claims under state consumer protection laws, surviving the initial pleading standard. Second, it shows that use of a sustainability tool developed by the industry does not preclude litigation where independent evidence contradicts the tool’s output on the facts a sharp contrast to Dwyer v. Allbirds, where the methodology was disclosed but not disbelieved. Third, the trajectory of the case complaint filed July 2022, Conscious Collection phased out late 2022, complaint dismissed December 2023 shows the de facto regulatory function of private litigation in prompting brand behaviour change even without a judicial verdict.

Relevance: For Indian law, this case highlights the gap in current enforcement. The litigation was possible due to a contingency-fee class action system, independent investigative journalism, and state consumer protection laws that reach beyond borders. However, none of these support systems work strongly in India. The CCPA must act on its own or in response to complaints, and consumers do not have the necessary motivation to come together and pursue greenwashing claims.

Critical analysis and findings

The biggest issue in India’s framework is the lack of a clear legal definition of greenwashing. This is made worse by a reactive enforcement model. It allows sustainability claims to spread and take extra money from consumers before any regulatory action is taken. The CCPA’s 2024 Guidelines show real progress, but they do not require proof before products hit the market. The maximum penalty of Rupees Ten Lakh under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019[19] does not match the income of the companies that are likely to break the rules. This creates an incentive for companies to accept fines instead of changing their behavior. The winners in this situation are clear: large fashion companies take advantage of vague definitions and delays in enforcement. Meanwhile, truly sustainable businesses face higher costs. Consumers end up paying a premium for greenwashing claims that are never checked before being used, and the environment pays the price for this false progress. Emerging judicial trends show a willingness to engage, but structural barriers remain. Dwyer v. Allbirds (S.D.N.Y. 2022) established a transparency defense. Companies that clearly disclose the range and limitations of their sustainability metrics are partly protected from liability. Commodore v. H&M (S.D.N.Y. 2022) confirmed that factual inaccuracies in a sustainability tool’s output, rather than just disputes over methodology, can support a consumer protection claim, regardless of how widely the tool is used. However, Gyani v. Lululemon (S.D. Fla. 2025) highlights how standing doctrine acts as a structural barrier. It prevents litigation when plaintiffs cannot specify economic injury. This protection benefits defendants, even when the greenwashing claims have substantial merit. The gap between Indian law and leading jurisdictions is growing. The UK CMA’s binding agreements with ASOS, Boohoo, and George at Asda (CE/10174/22, 2024) and the Netherlands ACM’s commitment model with H&M (2022) show that enforcement does not have to wait for full court proceedings to create meaningful, financially significant results. The proposed EU Green Claims Directive (COM/2023/0166) will require mandatory proof before products hit the market, with penalties of up to four percent of annual turnover. This standard will make India’s framework look clearly inadequate. The honest truth is that Indian law is stuck in a process that needs prevention. It is not falling behind; it is reactive by design at a time when structural change is necessary. The existing evidence suggests that reform is not just needed but overdue.

Conclusion

This article has analyzed the legal approach to greenwashing within the fashion sector by considering consumer protection law, competition and advertising regulations, and environmental legislation. Employing a doctrinal and analytical approach, it has examined the legal structures of India, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and has evaluated judicial rulings and regulatory decisions concerning greenwashing in the fashion industry. The research question whether current legal frameworks sufficiently tackle greenwashing in fashion is answered in the negative. Existing frameworks are more reactive than proactive, scattered across various legal areas, insufficiently effective in their penalties, and fundamentally unable to tackle the supply chain opacity that systematically allows fashion greenwashing to occur. This piece puts forward four suggestions for changes in the law. India should implement independent greenwashing laws that mandate pre-market evidence and impose penalties based on a proportion of corporate revenue. Secondly, the BIS Eco Mark program must be required for all environmental assertions in the fashion industry. Third, the Companies Act, 2013 should incorporate mandatory environmental disclosure requirements for product-level supply chains. Fourth, ASCI’s authority should be enhanced by legal enforcement capabilities, which would include the ability to levy mandatory financial penalties. Tackling greenwashing in the fashion industry goes beyond just an ecological necessity. It is essential for consumer legal rights, a necessity for fair market competition, and a requirement for the legitimacy of India’s sustainable development pledges under global law. The law needs to be adjusted to match the level and complexity of the injustice it claims to confront.

References & Bibliography

Legislation

1. Consumer Protection Act 2019 (No 35 of 2019) (India).
2. Competition Act 2002 (No 12 of 2003) (India).
3. Environment (Protection) Act 1986 (No 29 of 1986) (India).
4. Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45 (United States).
5. FTC Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, 16 C.F.R. Part 260 (2012) (United States).
6. Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices [2005] OJ L 149/22 (EU).
7. Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, SI 2008/1277 (United Kingdom).

Regulatory instrument

8. Central Consumer Protection Authority, Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Greenwashing 2024 (India).
9. Competition and Markets Authority, Green Claims Code: Making Environmental Claims (CMA, UK, 2021).
10. UNEP, Sustainability and Circularity in the Textile Value Chain: A Global Roadmap (UNEP, 2020).
11. European Commission, Proposal for a Directive on Green Claims, COM/2023/0166 final (EU, 2023).

Cases

12. Dwyer v. Allbirds, Inc., No 7:21-cv-05238-CS, 598 F Supp 3d 137 (SDNY, April 18, 2022) (J Seibel). Motion to dismiss granted.
13. Commodore v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz LP, No 7:22-cv-06247 (SDNY, complaint filed July 22, 2022; voluntarily dismissed December 13, 2023).

Journal Articles

14. Delmas MA and Burbano VC, ‘The Drivers of Greenwashing’ (2011) 54(1) California Management Review 64.
15. Lyon TP and Maxwell JW, ‘Greenwash: Corporate Environmental Disclosure under Threat of Audit’ (2011) 20(1) Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 3.
16. Parguel B, Benoît-Moreau F and Larceneux F, ‘How Sustainability Ratings Might Deter Greenwashing’ (2011) 102(1) Journal of Business Ethics 15.
17. Seele P and Gatti L, ‘Greenwashing Revisited: In Search of a Typology and Accusation-Based Definition’ (2017) 26(2) Business Strategy and the Environment 239.

Books and Reports

18. Klein N, No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies (Picador, 2000).
19. McKinsey & Company, Fashion on Climate: How the Fashion Industry Can Urgently Act to Reduce Its Greenhouse Gas Emissions (McKinsey, 2020).
20. Siegle L, To Die For: Is Fashion Wearing Out the World? (Fourth Estate, 2011).

[1] Council Directive 2005/29/EC, 2005 O.J. (L 149) 22.

[2] The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (India).

[3] The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, § 2(28) (India).

[4]  The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, § 10 (India).

[5] The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, § 21 (India).

[6] The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, § 21(2)(b) (India).

[7] The Competition Act, 2002 (India).

[8] The Competition Act, 2002, § 3 (India).

[9] The Competition Act, 2002, § 4 (India).

[10] The Competition Act, 2002, § 36(4)(India).

[11] Adver. Standards Council of India, Guidelines for Influencer Advertising in Digital Media, cl. 1.1 (2021), https://www.ascionline.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/GUIDELINES-FOR-INFLUENCER-ADVERTISING-IN-DIGITAL-MEDIA.pdf.

[12] The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (India).

[13] Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 (India).

[14] The Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016 (India).

[15] Council Directive 2024/1760, on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence and Amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and Regulation (EU) 2023/2859, 2024 O.J. (L 1760) 1.

[16] The Companies Act, 2013 (India).

[17] Dwyer v. Allbirds, Inc., No. 7:21-cv-05238-CS, 598 F. Supp. 3d 137 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 2022) (J. Seibel).

[18] Commodore v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz LP, No. 7:22-cv-06247 (S.D.N.Y., Complaint filed July 22, 2022). Voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs December 13, 2023.

[19] The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (India).