Greenwashing and Overconsumption: The Illusion of Green Fashion

Photo: Delhi School of Business, Greenwashing and how to spot it

Introduction

The world of fashion sits uneasily between two competing forces: the need for constant consumption and the growing demand for sustainability. With the passage of time, there has been a rise in the influence of environmental consciousness, making many brands adopt the language of “protecting the environment.” However, there are often instances where production practices remain unchanged, while the language surrounding them appears “cleaner,” almost trying to make up for the harm they are causing. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that many brands are, at the very least, attempting to present themselves as “green” or “conscious.”  This raises important questions: are brands genuinely reducing production in the name of sustainability, or are they simply repackaging their campaigns while maintaining the same levels of production? Can there truly be sustainability in the fashion industry? This blog argues that much of what is marketed as sustainable fashion is not genuine environmental progress but a form of greenwashing that conceals harmful production practices, encourages overconsumption, and makes true sustainability within the fashion industry difficult to achieve.

To understand this, it is important to first examine the concept of greenwashing.  Greenwashing refers to when a company purports to be environmentally conscious for marketing purposes but actually isn’t making any notable sustainability efforts. In simpler terms, it involves highlighting a small, positive aspect of production while obscuring the larger environmental harm caused by the rest of the business. It Broadcasts the silver lining while concealing the broader impact it has on the environment.

Breaking the myths about sustainable fashion

Using words like “vegan,” “green,” and “conscious” creates an impression of brands taking responsibility for the damage caused by overproduction. The main argument here is that brands deliberately rely on such language during their campaigns. Due to consumers’ limited knowledge and the lack of verification of these claims, many people purchase these products believing they are eco-friendly and contributing positively to environmental consciousness. This, in fact, likely increases the instances of overconsumption. Overconsumption refers to the use of resources, goods, or food beyond what the body or the planet can sustain Overconsumption in terms of the fashion industry is the excessive, rapid purchasing of disposable clothing driven by fast fashion without thinking of the impact it has on the resources.

A plausible factor contributing to overconsumption is the rise of social media. The increasing influence of social media and influencers contributes to shaping consumer perceptions of products. Research indicates that influencers significantly impact purchasing decisions and consumer attitudes by presenting products in relatable and aspirational ways. This heightened desirability can blur the distinction between want and need, creating a perceived necessity that encourages continued consumption. Overconsumption is often driven by the influencers presenting products as essential, even when they are not. This is frequently encouraged by brands themselves. These brands usually produce cheap clothing or products so that a larger percentage of consumers buy them, but the poor production quality means that the product cannot be used for long. Sometimes, buying a new product is cheaper than repairing an old one, which leads consumers to keep purchasing more, ultimately increasing waste. This is supported by  a study on fast fashion, which shows that in order to reduce costs, brands often compromise on material quality and construction, resulting in garments that deteriorate quickly. As a result, it is frequently cheaper for consumers to discard and replace items rather than repair them. This economic logic reinforces repeated purchasing behaviour, thereby contributing directly to increased waste and overconsumption.

This creates a constant, self-reinforcing cycle in which greenwashing and overconsumption operate simultaneously. The sustainability narrative employed by brands does not disrupt this cycle; rather, it functions alongside it, enabling its continuation. By presenting products as “green” or “sustainable” without substantive changes in production practices, brands construct an image of environmental responsibility that exists largely at a superficial level.

As a result, consumers either due to limited information or a reliance on these claims perceive their purchases as environmentally justified. This perception reduces the sense of guilt that might otherwise accompany excessive consumption and, in turn, legitimizes continued purchasing behavior

The rise in textile waste may seem minor at first, but the reality is far more alarming. Reports indicate that a huge  dump of discarded clothing in Chile has grown so large that it is visible from space. Globally, around 92 million tonnes of textile waste are generated each year. These facts highlight that the combined impact of greenwashing and overconsumption is significantly more serious than it initially appears.

Photo: Edie, ‘Greenwashing hydra’: New report warns of six types of greenwashing from corporates

Solutions

Since greenwashing makes it difficult to distinguish between genuine and misleading sustainability claims, solutions must focus on improving transparency and verification. Stronger government regulations should not only prevent brands from making false or partial claims, but also mandate the use of standardized sustainability labels, certified “green” labels, and independent third-party certifications. In addition, policies could require brands to disclose verifiable data on sourcing, production processes, and environmental impact. Such measures would allow consumers to rely on clear and regulated indicators rather than vague terms such as “eco-friendly,” making it easier to identify genuinely sustainable practices.

At the same time, responsibility does not lie with brands alone. Consumers also play a role in navigating these claims. When consumers decide to make a purchase, they must evaluate whether it is truly necessary and closely examine the claims made by brands positioning themselves as “green.” This means looking beyond surface-level branding and questioning whether such claims hold up over time, rather than accepting them at face value or the goodwill of the brands.

One way to support this kind of informed decision-making is by focusing on clear markers of authentic green marketing. Green marketing is a marketing strategy that enables brands to integrate sustainability into their brand’s essence.  Green marketing, when implemented meaningfully, involves integrating sustainability into the core of a brand’s operations rather than treating it as a superficial add-on. Transparency in processes—such as openly disclosing sourcing, production, and transportation—allows consumers to assess the validity of a brand’s claims. Similarly, consistent sustainability initiatives, including recycling programs or long-term environmental commitments, suggest that sustainability is embedded within the business rather than used as a temporary marketing strategy.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this article shows that what is often presented as sustainable fashion does not necessarily reduce harm, but instead allows it to continue in a less visible way. Greenwashing creates the impression of responsibility while leaving patterns of overproduction and overconsumption largely unchanged. Because of this, the idea of sustainability within the fashion industry becomes difficult to fully accept, especially when the system itself depends on constant consumption.

This also means that addressing the issue is not only about better choices at an individual level, but about recognizing how the system encourages those choices in the first place. As long as sustainability is used mainly as a marketing tool rather than a shift in production, its impact will remain limited.

In that sense, rethinking consumption becomes part of responding to this problem. Choosing to use, repair, and keep clothing for longer is not just a personal habit, but a way of stepping outside the cycle that this article has identified. Even small changes in how clothing is valued and used can begin to challenge the broader pattern of overconsumption that greenwashing helps to sustain.

[This post has been authored by Tanisha Anand Bhangdia, a first-year law student at JGLS]