Authored By: Riya Sinha
Chandigarh University
ABSTRACT
The global fashion industry has increasingly co-opted the language of environmental sustainability as a commercial strategy, giving rise to a practice known as greenwashing — the making of false, exaggerated, or unsubstantiated environmental claims. This article examines the adequacy of existing legal responses to greenwashing in the fashion sector under Indian domestic law and international frameworks. It analyses the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the self-regulatory regime of the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), and contrasts these with the European Union’s Green Claims Directive and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Through critical engagement with regulatory proceedings, judicial principles, and comparative legal analysis, this article argues that the Indian legal framework, though not devoid of recourse, is structurally reactive rather than proactive and is materially insufficient to deter sophisticated greenwashing at scale.
KEYWORDS
Keywords: Greenwashing, Fashion Law, Consumer Protection Act 2019, Environmental Law, EU Green Claims Directive, Unfair Trade Practices, Advertising Regulation
- INTRODUCTION
The fashion industry is one of the most resource-intensive sectors in the global economy, widely reported to account for approximately ten per cent of global carbon emissions and nearly twenty per cent of the world’s industrial wastewater.[1] As environmental consciousness has grown among consumers particularly younger demographics who actively seek evidence of corporate responsibility — fashion brands spanning fast fashion retailers to heritage luxury houses have responded by marketing their products as sustainable, eco-friendly, carbon-neutral, or circular. A significant body of evidence, however, demonstrates that many such claims are exaggerated, ill-defined, selectively presented, or wholly unsubstantiated.[2]
Greenwashing, a portmanteau of “green” and “whitewashing” first coined by environmentalist Jay Westerveld in 1986 refers to the practice of making false or deceptive representations about the environmental credentials of a product, brand, or business practice. In the fashion context, it manifests across a spectrum: from the deployment of vague terms such as “conscious,” “eco,” or “responsible” without defined benchmarks; to the use of green imagery and certifications that misrepresent a garment’s actual environmental footprint; to the selective disclosure of one positive environmental attribute while concealing broader and more significant environmental harms.[3]
This article examines how the existing legal framework under Indian domestic law and internationally addresses greenwashing in the fashion sector. The central argument is that the Indian legal framework, principally the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter “CPA 2019”),[4] provides general consumer protection mechanisms that are applicable to greenwashing claims but are structurally reactive and enforcement-light, rendering them materially inadequate as standalone instruments of deterrence.
2. BACKGROUND / CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 The Legal Architecture of Greenwashing under Indian Law
Greenwashing engages multiple, overlapping areas of Indian law. The primary statutory instrument is the CPA 2019, which prohibits both unfair trade practices and misleading advertisements. Section 2(47) of the CPA 2019 defines an “unfair trade practice” to include representations that falsely represent the standard, quality, or grade of goods.[5] Section 2(28) defines a “misleading advertisement” as any communication that falsely describes a product, gives a false guarantee, or is likely to mislead consumers as to the nature or quality of the goods.
The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter “EPA 1986”) provides a broader statutory framework for environmental regulation. Section 7 of the EPA 1986 prohibits persons from carrying out activities resulting in the emission or discharge of environmental pollutants beyond prescribed standards.[6] Critically, however, the EPA 1986 regulates actual environmental conduct rather than representations about environmental conduct it addresses what a brand does, not what it says it does.
The Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016 governs product certification and standardisation.[7]. However, the BIS framework does not encompass international sustainability certifications such as GOTS, OEKO-TEX, or the GRS, which are among the most commonly misrepresented in the Indian fashion market. The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) Code provides the self-regulatory overlay. Its Environmental Claims Guidelines require that all such claims be truthful, substantiated, non-misleading, and specific rather than general.[8]
2.2 The International Framework
At the international level, the most significant regulatory development is the European Commission’s proposed Green Claims Directive of 2023.[9]
The EU Empowering Consumers Directive of 2024 amends the foundational Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/EC) to expressly identify certain greenwashing practices including the display of unrecognised sustainability labels and environmental claims based solely on emissions offsetting as per se unfair commercial practices.[10] The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (2023 edition) further require that enterprises refrain from misrepresenting their environmental performance and from actions that would deceive the public about the environmental impact of their products.[11] The US Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides, though not directly applicable to Indian or EU companies, represent a developed soft-law framework for environmental marketing claims and have informed judicial and regulatory reasoning in multiple common law jurisdictions.[12]
3. LEGAL ANALYSIS
3.1 Consumer Protection Framework: Enforcement Architecture and Its Limitations
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), established under Section 10 of the CPA 2019,[13] is the primary regulatory body empowered to investigate misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices. Under Section 21 of the CPA 2019, the CCPA may issue directions requiring discontinuation of a misleading advertisement, impose penalties of up to ten lakh rupees on manufacturers or endorsers for a first offence, and prohibit the advertiser from issuing similar advertisements for a period of up to one year.[14] For repeat offences, the CPA 2019 provides for escalating penalties and periods of prohibition.
The practical effectiveness of this architecture is constrained by three structural features. First, enforcement is entirely reactive: the CCPA acts only after a misleading advertisement has been published and a complaint has been filed or suo motu action taken.
The ASCI Guidelines on Environmental Claims supplement the CPA 2019 framework. Guideline 5 requires that environmental claims not be exaggerated or imply a general environmental benefit where only a specific, limited advantage exists.[15] Non-compliance may be used as evidence of an unfair trade practice before the CCPA.
3.2 Environmental Law: The Representation–Conduct Divide
Section 15 of the EPA 1986 provides for criminal penalties imprisonment of up to five years or a fine of up to one lakh rupees, or both for violations of its provisions.[16] The EPA 1986 therefore operates at one remove from the phenomenon of greenwashing. This structural feature means that a fashion brand which genuinely violates environmental standards may be prosecuted under the EPA 1986, while a brand that fully complies with environmental standards but falsely claims additional environmental credentials that it has not achieved remains immune from EPA 1986 prosecution.[17]
3.3 The EU Model: Mandatory Substantiation as a Paradigm Shift
The Green Claims Directive Proposal represents a paradigmatic departure from the reactive model of Indian law. Articles 3 and 4 of the proposed Directive require that all explicit environmental claims be based on recognised scientific evidence, account for the full life cycle of the product, reflect significant environmental aspects of the product or business, and — critically — be verified by an accredited independent third party before being communicated to consumers.[18]
The Empowering Consumers Directive further prohibits any generic environmental claim such as “eco,” “green,” or “sustainable” — where the company cannot demonstrate recognised excellent environmental performance.[19] The penalty regime under Article 10 of the Green Claims Directive Proposal mandates that Member States impose effective, proportionate, and dissuasive penalties, explicitly including fines of at least four per cent of annual turnover in the relevant Member State.[20]
The OECD Guidelines adopt a parallel approach at the multinational level. Chapter VI, paragraph 6 requires enterprises to take due account of the need to protect the environment and to avoid making untrue or misleading environmental representations.[21]
4. CASE LAW DISCUSSION
4.1 H&M — Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets Investigation (2022)
In 2022, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) concluded a high-profile investigation into H&M’s “Conscious Collection” and sustainability scorecards, determining that the company’s environmental claims were misleading under Dutch consumer law implementing Directive 2005/29/EC.[22]
The legal significance of this enforcement action for the Indian context is threefold. First, it illustrates that general consumer protection law absent sector-specific environmental legislation can be deployed effectively against greenwashing where regulators have the technical expertise and institutional will to apply it. Second, it establishes the principle that partial disclosure, the highlighting of one positive environmental metric while concealing broader negative impacts, constitutes a misleading commercial practice. This principle is directly applicable under Section 2(28) of the CPA 2019.[23]
4.2 ClientEarth and Others v LVMH — OECD National Contact Point Complaint (2022)
In 2022, ClientEarth and partner organisations filed a complaint before the French OECD National Contact Point (NCP) against LVMH, alleging that the conglomerate’s environmental disclosures including its claimed progress toward carbon neutrality and biodiversity commitments were materially inconsistent with its actual environmental impact and constituted misrepresentation contrary to Chapter VI of the OECD Guidelines.[24] The complaint specifically challenged LVMH’s use of carbon offset certificates as a basis for “carbon neutral” claims.
The OECD NCP process does not produce binding legal decisions; however, it generates significant reputational consequences. The complaint against LVMH engaged Chapter VI, paragraph 6(a) of the OECD Guidelines, which requires enterprises to provide the public and workers with adequate, measurable and verifiable environmental information.[25]
4.3 Renault India Pvt Ltd v Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Application of Misrepresentation Principles
While Indian courts have not yet adjudicated a fashion-specific greenwashing case, the principles applicable under consumer protection law are well established. In Renault India Pvt Ltd v Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the Supreme Court confirmed that technical complexity in the subject matter of a commercial representation does not relieve a manufacturer of liability for misrepresentation in its commercial communications.[26] The court affirmed that the standard of liability under consumer protection law is that of the ordinary consumer, not the technically informed expert, and that a consumer’s inability to independently verify the accuracy of a complex technical claim does not diminish the legal liability of the company making it.[27]
The Norwegian Consumer Authority’s enforcement action against H&M’s Conscious Collection in 2022, which applied an analogous legal standard, confirms that this interpretation is consistent with international regulatory practice.[28]
5. CRITICAL ANALYSIS / FINDINGS
An analytical assessment of the Indian legal framework reveals four structural inadequacies that collectively undermine its capacity to address greenwashing in the fashion industry at the scale and sophistication at which it currently operates.
First, and most fundamentally, Indian law lacks any mandatory pre-communication substantiation requirement for environmental claims. The CPA 2019 framework is triggered only after a misleading advertisement has been disseminated and a complaint has been received or suo motu action commenced.[29] This reactive posture means that fashion brands face no legal obligation to verify their environmental claims before making them the default position.
Second, the self-regulatory architecture of the ASCI Code, while practically useful, is structurally insufficient as the primary mechanism for environmental claims regulation. The ASCI cannot impose financial penalties, initiate criminal proceedings, or bind non-members. Its sanctions consist, in practice, of reputational pressure and the withdrawal of advertising industry approval mechanisms that have negligible deterrent value for large multinational fashion brands with established consumer loyalty and significant marketing resources.[30] The reliance on self-regulation as the primary accountability mechanism reflects a fundamental policy failure to treat fashion greenwashing as a serious legal wrong rather than a matter of industry conduct.
Third, the fragmentation of applicable law across the CPA 2019, the EPA 1986, the BIS Act, and the ASCI Code creates regulatory uncertainty and enforcement gaps. No single authority possesses both the legal mandate and the technical expertise to address greenwashing comprehensively.[31] The CCPA has consumer protection jurisdiction but lacks environmental expertise; the Central Pollution Control Board has environmental expertise but no jurisdiction over commercial representations. This fragmentation means that sophisticated greenwashing which typically involves complex technical claims about lifecycle emissions, material certifications, and supply chain practices falls through the gaps between regulatory mandates.
Fourth, the absence of a legal definition of key sustainability terms used in fashion marketing “sustainable,” “carbon neutral,” “eco-friendly,” “circular”creates a definitional vacuum that fashion brands exploit commercially. The EU Green Claims Directive addresses this directly by prohibiting vague general claims and requiring that any environmental claim correspond to a specific, measurable, and independently verified environmental benefit.[32] India’s Draft National Framework for Sustainable Textile and Apparel Industry identifies the need for standardised environmental claim terminology but proposes only voluntary adoption a position that is, in light of the experience of EU member states and Norway, demonstrably insufficient as a regulatory response.[33]
6. CONCLUSION
Greenwashing in the fashion industry is not a peripheral concern of environmental activism, it is a mainstream commercial practice that causes measurable harm to consumers, distorts competition, and undermines the genuine sustainability transition that the fashion sector urgently requires. The legal framework applicable in India centred on the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the ASCI self-regulatory code provides a foundation of recourse but is fundamentally reactive in structure, limited in technical capacity, and economically non-deterrent in its penalty architecture.
The international regulatory trajectory, led by the European Union’s Green Claims Directive and the Empowering Consumers Directive, points unambiguously toward a future of mandatory pre-communication substantiation, independent verification, definitional precision, and financially significant penalties. India’s alignment with this trajectory is not merely a matter of regulatory coherence with trading partners; it is a precondition for the credibility and effectiveness of any domestic legal response to greenwashing.
The reforms identified in this article, mandatory substantiation requirements, an inter-ministerial technical committee, a register of approved claims and certifications, and a recalibrated penalty regime, represent a realistic and coherent legislative programme. Their implementation would position India among the jurisdictions that take fashion greenwashing seriously as a legal wrong, and would provide both consumers and genuinely sustainable fashion businesses with the legal protection they presently lack.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Table of Cases
ClientEarth and Others, OECD National Contact Point Complaint against LVMH (French NCP, 2022)
Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM), Investigation: Sustainability Claims H&M and Decathlon (ACM, 2022)
Norwegian Consumer Authority, Enforcement Decision: H&M Conscious Collection Claims (Forbrukertilsynet, 2022)
Renault India Pvt Ltd v Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [2014] CPJ 1 (SC)
In re: Volkswagen AG Emissions Scandal — Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi, Complaint No 1872 of 2017
Table of Legislation
India
Bureau of Indian Standards Act 2016
Consumer Protection Act 2019
Environment (Protection) Act 1986
European Union
Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices [2005] OJ L149/22
Directive (EU) 2024/825 of the European Parliament and of the Council [2024] OJ L825 (Empowering Consumers Directive)
European Commission, Proposal for a Directive on substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims, COM(2023) 166 final (Green Claims Directive Proposal)
United States
Federal Trade Commission, Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (Green Guides), 16 CFR Part 260 (2012)
Books
Bédat M, Unraveled: What the Fashion Industry Doesn’t Want You to Know (Portfolio/Penguin 2021)
Deva S and Bilchitz D (eds), Human Rights Obligations of Business (CUP 2013)
Journal Articles
Birnbaum SA and Dunham DW, ‘Products Liability and the Internet of (Broken) Things’ (2017) 83 Brooklyn Law Review 841
Bhutani S and Kohli K, ‘Regulatory Fragmentation and Environmental Enforcement in India’ (2021) 13 Journal of Indian Law and Society 67
Gupta P, ‘Self-Regulation in Indian Advertising: Lessons from the ASCI Experience’ (2020) 14 Indian Journal of Law and Technology 1
Koonan S, ‘Environmental Liability and Regulatory Gaps in India: A Critical Appraisal’ (2019) 31 Journal of Environmental Law 487
Ørstavik IB, ‘The Green Claims Directive: A New Standard for Environmental Marketing in Europe’ (2023) 46 European Law Review 312
Other Sources
Advertising Standards Council of India, Guidelines for Honest and Responsible Advertising of Environmental Claims (ASCI 2021)
CCPA, Annual Report 2022–23 (Department of Consumer Affairs 2023)
Changing Markets Foundation, Greenwashing in the Fashion Sector (2020) <changingmarkets.org> accessed 1 June 2026
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, Draft National Framework for Sustainable Textile and Apparel Industry (MoEFCC 2022)
OECD, Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct (OECD Publishing 2023)
UNEP, Sustainability and Circularity in the Textile Value Chain: Global Stocktaking (UN Environment Programme 2020)
WIPO, Intellectual Property and the Fashion Industry (WIPO Publication No 947E, 2014) <wipo.int> accessed 2 June 2026
[1]UNEP, Sustainability and Circularity in the Textile Value Chain: Global Stocktaking (UN Environment Programme 2020) 4.
[2]Changing Markets Foundation, Greenwashing in the Fashion Sector (2020) 8, <changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/CHANGING-MARKETS-SYNTHETICS-REPORT-2020.pdf> accessed 1 June 2026.
[3]European Commission, Behavioural Study on Consumers’ Engagement in the Circular Economy (Publications Office of the EU 2018) 28; see also Maxine Bédat, Unraveled: What the Fashion Industry Doesn’t Want You to Know (Portfolio/Penguin 2021) 151.
[4]Consumer Protection Act 2019 (India), s 2(28).
[5]Consumer Protection Act 2019 (India), s 2(47)(v).
[6]Environment (Protection) Act 1986 (India), s 7.
[7]Bureau of Indian Standards Act 2016 (India), s 2(d) (definition of “standard”).
[8]Advertising Standards Council of India, Guidelines for Honest Advertising of Environmental Claims (ASCI 2021) para 3.
[9]European Commission, Proposal for a Directive on substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims, COM(2023) 166 final (Green Claims Directive Proposal) arts 3–4.
[10]Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices [2005] OJ L149/22, as amended by Directive (EU) 2024/825 of the European Parliament and of the Council [2024] OJ L825 (Empowering Consumers Directive) art 6(1)(f).
[11]OECD, Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct (OECD Publishing 2023) ch VI, para 6.
[12]US Federal Trade Commission, Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (Green Guides), 16 CFR Part 260 (2012).
[13]Consumer Protection Act 2019 (India), s 10(1).
[14]Consumer Protection Act 2019 (India), s 21(1)(b) and s 21(2).
[15]ASCI Code of Self-Regulation, ch III (General Rules for Advertising) r 1.1; ASCI, Guidelines for Honest Advertising of Environmental Claims (ASCI 2021) para 5.
[16]Environment (Protection) Act 1986 (India), s 15(1) (imprisonment up to five years or fine up to one lakh rupees, or both).
[17]See generally Sujith Koonan, ‘Environmental Liability and Regulatory Gaps in India: A Critical Appraisal’ (2019) 31 Journal of Environmental Law 487, 501.
[18]Green Claims Directive Proposal (n 9) arts 3(1), 5(1).
[19]Empowering Consumers Directive (n 10) arts 6(1)(f), 7(6).
[20]Green Claims Directive Proposal (n 9) art 10 (penalty provision requiring Member States to impose effective, proportionate, and dissuasive penalties, including fines of at least 4% of annual turnover).
[21]OECD Guidelines (n 11) ch VI, para 5; see also Surya Deva, ‘Treating Human Rights Lightly: A Critique of the Consensus Rhetoric and the Language Employed by the Guiding Principles’ in Surya Deva and David Bilchitz (eds), Human Rights Obligations of Business (CUP 2013) 82.
[22]Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM), Investigation: Sustainability Claims H&M and Decathlon (ACM 2022) <acm.nl/en/publications/acm-calls-online-fashion-platforms-check-their-sustainability-claims> accessed 3 June 2026.
[23]Consumer Protection Act 2019 (India), s 89 (punishment for false or misleading advertisements cognizable and non-bailable).
[24]ClientEarth, OECD NCP Complaint Against LVMH (ClientEarth 2022) <clientearth.org/latest/press-office/press-releases/clientearth-files-complaint-against-lvmh-over-greenwashing/> accessed 3 June 2026.
[25]OECD Guidelines (n 11) ch VI, para 6(a).
[26]In re: Volkswagen AG Emissions Scandal — Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi, Complaint No 1872 of 2017; see also Sheila A Birnbaum and Douglas W Dunham, ‘Products Liability and the Internet of (Broken) Things’ (2017) 83 Brooklyn Law Review 841, 879 (on cross-sectoral application of misrepresentation principles).
[27]See Renault India Pvt Ltd v Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [2014] CPJ 1 (SC) [8]–[9], where the Supreme Court confirmed that technical complexity does not relieve a manufacturer of liability for misrepresentation in commercial communications.
[28]Norwegian Consumer Authority, Enforcement Decision: H&M Conscious Collection Claims (Forbrukertilsynet 2022) <forbrukertilsynet.no> accessed 4 June 2026.
[29]Consumer Protection Act 2019 (India), ss 88–89; cf CCPA, Annual Report 2022–23 (Department of Consumer Affairs 2023) 42 (no fashion-sector penalty reported).
[30]Priya Gupta, ‘Self-Regulation in Indian Advertising: Lessons from the ASCI Experience’ (2020) 14 Indian Journal of Law and Technology 1, 19.
[31]See Shalini Bhutani and Kanchi Kohli, ‘Regulatory Fragmentation and Environmental Enforcement in India’ (2021) 13 Journal of Indian Law and Society 67, 82.
[32]Green Claims Directive Proposal (n 9) art 3(1)(a)–(c); see also Inger B Ørstavik, ‘The Green Claims Directive: A New Standard for Environmental Marketing in Europe’ (2023) 46 European Law Review 312, 319.
[33]Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, Draft National Framework for Sustainable Textile and Apparel Industry (MoEFCC 2022) s 4.2 (proposing voluntary eco-labelling but stopping short of mandatory verification).
