Italy fines Shein €1 million for greenwashing

Ultra-fast fashion conglomerate Shein, is being fined for the second time in two months. Italy’s antitrust agency, AGCM recently issued a €1M fine (approximately $1.7 million AUD / $1.15M USD) for greenwashing practices i.e. “misleading customers about the environmental impact of its products.”

Similarly, the first fine for Shein came from France in July this year through the country’s antitrust agency responsible for consumer protection and competition. They hit Shein with the first greenwashing fine to the tune of €40 million (approx. $72 million AUD) for fake discounts and misleading environmental claims.

The brand allegedly used “vague, generic, and/or overly emphatic,” claims that were considered “misleading or omissive” in connection to its “evoluSHEIN by design” collection. It promoted sustainable practices, with claims like using “fabrics left over by other fashion brands that were destined for landfill or incineration.”

The company’s touts of a circular system design and product recyclability "were found to be false or at the very least confusing", and the green credentials of its 'evoluSHEIN by design' collection were overstated, the regulator said.

Italy has fined the Chinese fast fashion online retailer Shien over $1.7 million for greenwashing. Nina Gbor from the Australia Institute says the e-commerce giant was giving “false and misleading” information to customers that they were doing something good for the environment.

The agency said the recyclability claims “were found to be either false or at least confusing,” warning consumers might think Shein products are fully recyclable and made only from sustainable materials which “does not reflect reality.” It’s also "a fact that, considering the fibres used and currently existing recycling systems, is untrue".

Italy’s AGCM also accused the brand of using a “misleading communication strategy” about its environmental impact, like Shein’s commitments to cut greenhouse emissions by 25% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050, noting that Shein's emissions increased in 2023 and 2024.

Shein responded by saying they have “strengthened internal review processes” and cleaned up its website to make sure all environmental claims are now “clear, verifiable, and compliant with regulations.”

Shein’s Impact

Shein made $32.5 billion sales in 2023. Their sales were forecasted to reach $50 billion in 2024. The average price of an item from Shein is between $10 - $20. It ships ultra-cheap clothing from thousands of suppliers to tens of millions of customer mailboxes in around 150 countries. 

These are factors that make Shein one of the biggest polluters of fast fashion. It has about 600,000 items for sale on average on its website and adds around 10,000 items each day. The company was shipping about one million products a day as of last year. In 2024, the company made over one billion dollars in revenue in Australia.  

There were concerns were from Shein’s third annual sustainability report published in 2023 which showed the company nearly doubled its carbon dioxide emissions between 2022 and 2023. Shein emitted 16.7 million total metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2023 which falls far below its Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) validated reduction targets to reduce absolute Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions by 42% by 2030.

Can fining fast fashion companies be effective in Australia and other countries?

There’s nothing that corporations and most businesses hate more than losing profits in any way. So, the answer to whether fining greenwashing can work in my opinion is yes. Provided the fines are substantial amounts and not just a slap on the wrist. I think each time a company fails to comply with environmental regulations they should be fined. And the fines can potentially increase each time the offence is committed again. And if the fines are proving ineffective in general, it might be a sign that the amounts are too small to have an impact, therefore they should be increased.  

Isn’t it the consumers’ responsibility not to purchase fast fashion?

Every individual is responsible for their actions, including their own consumption and overconsumption habits. However, I believe the onus lies more on the brands/corporations to do the right thing by being honest and transparent with their claims. Clothing companies with access to multi-million- or billion-dollar funds have the resources and power to run operations and access materials that are genuinely better for the environment while still being profitable in many cases. Whereas, some consumers are experiencing cost-of-living crises, are time-poor because of life commitments and experience other issues that make it challenging for them to patronise non-fast fashion items.

 What can consumers people do instead of fast fashion?

Instead of buying fast fashion, consumers can:

• purchase secondhand items

• host or attend clothes swaps

• rent / hire and borrow clothing

• repair, mend or repurpose existing garments

• use free clothing services such as Thread Together who get left over clothes from retail brands and give to people who need them.

Moreover, some fast fashion items are have been found to have toxic chemicals from the materials used and dyes. Secondhand clothes might have less toxic chemicals than brand new ones. In addition to this, about 85% of clothes end up in landfill or incinerated each year. Reusing garments diverts clothes from landfill and it’s healthier for the environment in several ways.

*Article by Nina Gbor

Initiatives pushing for transparency in the fashion industry

Image credit: Thomas Ashlock

Consumers, activists, and regulators are increasingly concerned about environmental and ethical standards. The global fashion industry has been under pressure recently, and the demand for transparency and accountability is increasing. International movements, regulations, and initiatives strive to drive the industry to adopt more sustainable practices. However, challenges such as greenwashing complicate consumers' decision-making process as the industry issues persist.

According to the International Labour Organisation, in 2022, there were 50 million people in modern slavery. Additionally, the billion-dollar global garment industry is powered by an estimated 60 million workers, many of whom work in indecent conditions, for long hours, and earn wages that do not cover the essential cost of living. Notably, 80% of these workers are women. 

Image credit: Hermes Rivera

The global movements that advocate for equality, human rights, labour laws and transparency are increasingly gaining momentum. Their main goal is to give consumers more information about the value chain of the fashion industry and show how (often) these value chains do not align with the high environmental and social expectations. Consequently, the movements hope to encourage brands to adopt more ethical and sustainable practices. Some examples of these movements and initiatives are:

Modern Slavery Act 2015 (UK), which was passed in 2015. Its main goal is to combat modern slavery, human trafficking, and forced labour, seeking to enhance support and protection for victims. One of its key features is the "Transparency in Supply Chains", which requires companies operating in the UK to report annually on the steps they are taking to identify and address modern slavery risks in their supply chains to ensure that companies take accountability for the labour practices of their suppliers and at the same time to empower consumers to hold businesses accountable. 

The Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Australia) came into effect in 2019. It combats modern slavery practices by promoting transparency and accountability in supply chains. Large businesses and organisations operating in Australia with an annual turnover of AUD $100M must report on the risks of modern slavery in their operations and supply chains and their actions to address them. This Act encourages businesses to analyse their supply chains and ensure ethical labour practices.

Fashion revolution movement was founded after the Rana Plaza disaster in 2013, where more than 1000 workers died due to unsafe working conditions. Since then, it has become the world’s largest fashion activism movement. The main aim of this movement is to advocate for a “global fashion industry that conserves and restores the environment and values people's overgrowth and profit”. They focus on helping people recognize that they can do something to create positive change by celebrating fashion rather than attacking or boycotting specific companies. How specifically do they do that? They made a platform to raise awareness for an annual event called Fashion Revolution Week, where they bring activists together. Additionally, with the hashtag #whomademyclothes? They aim to raise awareness and prompt people to tag brands asking this question.

Remake unites allies across the fashion ecosystem such as creatives, influencers, unions, legislators, brand executives, and garment workers to take actions and collectively fight for change. This action-focused movement aims to bring equity and sustainability to the fashion industry. They have been successful in dismantling exploitative loopholes and placing millions of dollars back into the hands of garment workers.

Walk Free is an international human rights group determined to eradicate modern slavery, in all its forms. Their pioneering research on the subject and advocacy reinforces the need for strengthening systems through strong governments, committed international communities and operations to hold these systems in place. Significant aspects of their remit are to make modern slavery socially unacceptable and eradicate slavery from all supply chains including fashion.

The Clean Clothes Campaign is a global network founded in 1989 in the Netherlands that aims to improve working conditions in the clothing industry. It collaborates with NGOs and promotes transparency and safe working conditions. It runs in several regional coalitions that focus on their specific problems and develop the most effective strategies to solve them.

Transparency Pledge was launched in 2016 by nine global unions and labour rights organizations. The idea behind it is that it calls on brands to share information about their supply chains, including the names and addresses of their factories. Companies such as H&M, Adidas, and Nike have signed the pledge, committing to greater transparency. 

The International Accord is an agreement between global fashion brands and trade unions whose aim is to ensure workplace safety and that labor rights in the garment industry are respected. It prioritizes fire, building, and electrical safety inspections, worker training, and remediation efforts to improve working conditions and empower workers in the global garment supply chain. This initiative reflects a commitment to corporate responsibility and protecting workers' rights across the industry.

Senate Bill 62 in California: This legislation in California aims to improve conditions for garment workers by holding fashion brands accountable for labour violations within their supply chains. It was passed in 2021, and it eliminates piece-rate pay, a system that often led to workers earning below minimum wage, and instead guarantees an hourly wage. It also introduces joint liability for wage theft, meaning that fashion brands can be held responsible if their contractors fail to pay workers fairly. Its main goal is to strengthen labour protections and ensure that brands cannot be held accountable.

The work of these and many other initiatives around the world shows that there is still a very strong need for transparency and ethical reform in the fashion industry’s value chain. It’s a crucial step if we want to hold brands accountable for ethics in their supply chain operations. As customers are increasingly aware of these issues, hopefully enough momentum will be generated to change the circumstances through legislation or through customers’ demand for brand transparency.

A report by the Fashion Transparency Index in 2023 revealed that there has been some progress, however there are still many brands that do not show full accountability. Two hundred fifty of the world’s largest fashion brands were assessed, and the average transparency score was 26% (2% more than the year before). This report also mentions that 94% of major fashion brands do not show what fuel is used in the manufacturing of their clothes, and 99% do not show the number of workers in their supply chain being paid a living wage (Fashion Revolution,2023). These statistics highlight the need for continued pressure on consumers to push the industry towards greater openness – information is power. Not only does transparency help consumers make informed decisions, but it also allows for better monitoring and enforcement of ethical and sustainability standards. 

Article by Maria G.

Maria has a big interest in marketing and how trends shape customer behaviour, one of those trends being sustainability and the different initiatives around it. 

Ethical Clothing Australia: Insights on what an ethical industry looks like

"Our purpose is to give the faceless a face and the voiceless a voice" -- That was the remarkable opening message that Rachel Reilly, Ethical Clothing Australia National Manager, gave before the start of the panel for the Ethical Clothing Australia Week in Sydney, in partnership with The University of Sydney's Modern Slavery Unit and the Business School's MBA Dimensions Program.

Image supplied by ECA.

Ethical Clothing Australia (ECA) is an accreditation body that collaborates with local textile, clothing, and footwear (TCF) businesses to protect and uphold the rights of Australian garment workers. Their accreditation program maps a business' supply chain from design to dispatch, including initial design, pattern making, cut, make, trim, and all value-adding services.

Each year, ECA hosts a series of events, both virtual and in-person, to commemorate Ethical Clothing Australia Week. Now in its fourth year, it was an opportunity to celebrate the skilled workers in Australia who create and distribute the garments we wear and love. The week also recognised the businesses that have taken action to prove their ethical credentials by becoming Ethical Clothing Australia accredited and raising awareness about the issues regarding unfair worker treatment and different forms of exploitation.

From left to right: Ava Kalinauskas, Ella Spencer, Nina Gbor, Dr James Cockayne. Image credit: Lucie Davies, Ethical Clothing Australia.

This year's program ran from October 7-13, with events hosted in Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland. In New South Wales' capital city, Sydney, the was called Ethical Clothing Australia Week 2024 x The University of Sydney's Modern Slavery Unit and the Business School's MBA Dimensions Program. The commemoration brought together several ECA member brands, such as The Social Outfit and Citizen Wolf. The NSW Anti-slavery Commissioner, Dr James Cockayne, was also present for the event which had an insightful panel discussion, and many more industry professionals in attendance.

From left to right: John Fields, Heather Chai, Andrew Quinn, Jenny Kruschel, Martijn Boeresma, Sarah Kaine, Carolyn Kitto, Rachel Reilly. Image credit: Lucie Davies, Ethical Clothing Australia.

Moderated by Heather Chai, Director Modern Slavery Unit at The University of Sydney, the panel featured:

• The Hon. Dr Sarah Kaine MLC 

• Jenny Kruschel | TCF National Secretary | CFMEU, Manufacturing Division 

• Associate Professor Martijn Boersma | The University of Sydney 

• Carolyn Kitto OAM | Co-Director | Be Slavery free 

• Andrew Quinn | Director | ABMT Apparel

The panellists shared personal anecdotes from their experiences in the industry, providing a unique perspective on the challenges that still exist and how they can be overcome. 

Image credit: Hermes Riviera

Ethics in the fashion industry

A persistent issue in the fashion industry is the rise of numerous “sustainable” labels with different criteria and definitions. Sustainability is often limited to the effects of clothing on the environment. However, sustainability should not be assessed solely through an environmental lens. The discourse should always include the impact on people, especially industry workers. It defies logic to label anything as “sustainable” if it requires the use of modern slavery to achieve its production goals.

The ethical issues in the fashion industry are extensive: unfair working conditions, extensive hours, forced labour and low pay are just a few of them. To provide some context, Fashion Checker (2023) states that 93% of some of the largest international brands are not paying garment workers a living wage. Besides that, many garment factories do not have the appropriate infrastructure for their workers to be safe and comfortable. Incidents like the 2013 Rana Plaza garment factory building collapse in Bangladesh killed more than 1,000 people died and injured over 2500 people. This greatly impacted the industry, exposing the need for significant changes to guarantee workers’ fundamental human rights and safety.

The fashion industry is considered one of the leading industries responsible for the existence of modern slavery. As a matter of fact, a 2018 report conducted by the Walk Free Foundation revealed that the garment industry is the second largest contributor to modern slavery, with technology being the first. The term modern slavery refers to when an individual is exploited by others for personal or commercial gain either through trickery, coercion, forceful labour or loss of freedom of some nature. Long work hours and correspondingly low wages are common characteristics of modern slavery. Workers are sometimes forced to work extended periods just to buy basic supplies.

According to the International Organisation for Migration’s 2021 study, Global Estimates of Modern Slavery, led by Walk Free, the International Labour Organization and the International Organization for Migration, 27.6 million workers were estimated to be in a situation of forced labour, across the world. These workers were in countries with high and low wealth, economic and developmental levels. According to Walk Free statistics, in 2021, 1.6 out of every 1000 people in Australia were living in modern slavery, meaning 41,000 individuals were living in modern slavery in the country.

The speakers acknowledged how some of these conditions have improved over the years. For example, the Modern Slavery Act (MSA) implemented in Australia in 2019 requires larger companies and other entities to report how they prevent and address modern slavery risks in their operations and supply chains. This notion is supported by 54% of Australians who say they exclusively support brands that are transparent about their supply chains based on a study commissioned by QIC Real Estate.

In addition, more companies have begun to allow maternity leave for their workers, and the International Labor Organization (ILO) adopted a code of practice on safety and health in textiles, clothing, leather, and footwear industries in 2021 to provide guidelines on risk management. Despite this progress, there is still a lot of work to be done, and transparency in the supply chain is one of the most significant barriers to change, significantly since the needs of fashion industry workers have evolved. With over 70% of victims of modern slavery, including forced marriage situations, nearly 30 million are estimated to be women and girls, with a majority of these women working in garment factories that create fast fashion. This equates to 1 in every 130 females (girls and women) around the world falling victim to modern slavery. 

The Fashion Transparency Index (2023) indicates that 99% of major brands and retailers do not publish the number of workers in their supply chains who are paid liveable wages. Many of them still choose not to disclose how they operate. Transparency is the only way for workers to have a voice, not only nationally but also internationally. Harriette Richards in her 2022 paper, Risk, Reporting and Responsibility: Modern Slavery, Colonial Power and Fashion’s Transparency Industry, analysed through the lens of the Modern Slavery Act to discover which fashion brands in Australia had modern slavery in their supply chain with annual revenue from A$0-99 million to A$1 billion and over. She discovered nine brands on the list which had labels such as The Cotton On Group, Country Road Group, Zara, Uniqlo, and THE ICONIC.

Addressing the issues

The panel speakers unanimously underscored the pressing need for more stringent regulations and the enforcement of existing policies. They stressed that local governments should mandate companies to report on every manufacturing activity, monitor the whereabouts of their workers in the production chains, and document their tasks. Additionally, they should focus on minimising existing risks in the workspace and effectively implementing risk management plans.

Governments can also play an essential role in helping sustainable and ethical businesses scale. As Kitto highlighted, the issue with ethical businesses is that they tend to operate at a smaller scale due to more limited resources and high competence from other fast fashion brands. That sometimes prevents them from being able to take on larger projects or clients. Governments can provide the resources to help ethical businesses reach the scale they need to produce at a higher demand.  They can also protect local industries from international concurrence on regional markets. Indeed, one of the principal issues for small ethical brands is that they cannot compete with giant international fast fashion companies that have mastered their cost/benefit ratio by using underpaid labour across the globe to achieve their mass production and artificially low product prices.

Krushel emphasised unions' critical role in providing a collective for workers to defend their rights. They are crucial to re-balance the status inequalities. Without them, workers are isolated and prone to exploitation, especially groups that are already at a high vulnerability status, such as women and refugees.

As consumers and citizens, we hold significant power in promoting responsible consumption by choosing ethical brands. However, despite the general public's concern for these issues, it can be difficult to discern which brands truly adhere to ethical standards. Opting for brands accredited by Ethical Clothing Australia is a reliable way to ensure the brand meets the necessary ethical criteria. Other reputable certifications include B Corp and Bluesign.

Furthermore, one of the most potent actions for the citizens to force the fashion industry to change is boycotting unethical brands such as Zara, H&M, Shein, Temu, Gap, etc. If enough citizens and consumers demand transparency and these brands see their profit margins decrease, there will likely be some form of change. There is a shared responsibility between the citizens and governments to take action for an ethical fashion industry. Individuals can start by making informed personal choices, advocating for change, educating others and demanding ethical clothing regulations from local and federal policymakers.

*Article by Martina Novajas and Maëlys Dunand.

Martina Novajas is passionate about social psychology and marketing, and their role in delivering creative and effective environmental communication strategies.

Maëlys Dunand is interested in combining law and politics for a broader approach to sustainability, as a viable pathway to making the world better for nature, humans and other living things.

How to reduce your fashion waste and environmental impact

Photo by Tamara Bellis

Over recent years the fashion industry has changed drastically; fast-fashion is now leading the growth in clothing consumption with clothing production doubling between 2000 and 2015 whilst the lifetime of the garments is decreasing. Mass produced clothing focusing on fast inventory turnarounds to capture everchanging trends. Let’s talk about figuring out the carbon footprint of your clothing consumption and a few tips for lowering it.  

The circular economy model stems from the idea of keeping resources in a loop to optimise their use and value. The clothing industry is globally one of the most dominant industries and highest value industries due to its product value, employment and market size, and it has doubled in production size in the last two decades. Each year, 150 billion fashion items are produced globally, making the textile sector a considerable polluter with a detrimentally significant carbon footprint that many consumers are unaware of. The carbon footprint of the clothing industry is something that must not be ignored and with the increase in fashion overproduction and overconsumption, it’s necessary to stay informed on ways to curate a sustainable wardrobe that can also be very stylish. Something as simple as "extending the life of clothes by an extra nine months of active use would reduce carbon, water, and waste footprints by around 20-30% each".

What makes up the clothing carbon footprint?

Photo by George Evans

Extraction and manufacturing 

The most significant contributor to the clothing carbon footprint is from the production of clothing fibres, their production requires a substantial amount of water, energy, fertilisers, and land use. As well as this, there is the manufacturing process; consisting of the weaving, dyeing, cutting, and sewing which all use large amounts of energy, chemicals, and also the disposal of the fabric offcuts. With many companies having a global presence and reach, another significant contributor is transportation - the raw materials and the final clothing products often travel extensive distances all around the world. Packaging of the products also contributes to the industry's carbon emissions. 

Consumption impacts

Once the consumer has received their items there is then the energy usage of washing, drying and ironing the clothes. Lastly, when people eventually dispose of the clothing that they no longer want, around 87% globally, goes into landfills despite the clothing still having 70% of its useful life left. Clothing made from synthetics such as Polyester “accumulate in landfills because conventional PET is non biodegradable” which can release harmful additives and microfibres which pollute the land, water and air.

Calculating your carbon footprint 

This might seem daunting but there are many ways you can mitigate your impact and reduce your clothing footprint. To make a start there are many online resources that you can use to calculate your clothing carbon footprint, I would recommend Thredup. It asks you various questions about your clothing consumption and habits and then provides you with tailored suggestions on ways you can reduce your fashion footprint. 

What else can you do?  

• Upcycle your clothes - this includes repurposing clothes such as transforming unwanted clothes into something else and clothes customisation. 

• Support circular fashion - utilise brands that offer schemes where they accept old clothes back and buy second hand items to keep existing clothes in circulation. Ensure that brands with take back schemes are reusing or recycling the clothing in the right ways and not burning them or sending the clothes to landfill. 

• Donate or sell your unwanted clothes - donating and selling your clothes gives them a second life and reduces the demand for brand new items.

• Buy less clothes - when you are wanting to buy a new item question how much you need this or how often you will wear it.

• Trade clothes - swap clothes with friends and family and host and attend clothes swaps. Clothes Swap & Style have free monthly clothes swap events in Sydney, Australia. You can get free tips from them on how to host your own clothes swap.

• Repair your clothes - rather than replacing damaged clothes with minor problems, you can repair them, this extends the life of your garments.

• Rent or borrow clothes - instead of buying new clothes for one off special events you can rent them, it is a fraction of the cost and helps optimise the usage of an item of clothing.

• Educate yourself and others - share your knowledge with friends and family and stay connected with developments in circular fashion. Support sustainable brands - when you need new clothing, support the companies that prioritise sustainability and are making clothes designed for long term wear. You can know if a brand is not greenwashing when they are not transparent about how many garments they manufacture each year and refuse to disclose their information about their supply chain. 

• Avoid fast fashion - Instead you could try shopping for preloved clothing. Fast fashion produces clothing at artificially low costs using unsustainable factors such as modern slavery, planned obsolescence and poor-quality materials. Their low quality encourages short-term wear. These clothing items have also been proven to have toxic chemicals such as pesticides and flame retardants in the manufacturing process which can seriously impact your health as prolonged contact with the skin can absorb the chemicals into your body.

• Restyle your clothes - this is using your creativity to wear one item of clothing in a variety of different ways through layering and accessorising, for different types of occasions which is demonstrated in this article.

Photo by Tamara Bellis

Article by Talisa Sharma. Talisa has a passion for business and enjoys educating and promoting sustainability and carbon friendly initiatives.

Are ecocide laws an antidote for offset and carbon markets?

We need to talk about the travesty that is the carbon credit and offset market. Perhaps ecocide laws might be an antidote to this fallacy.

The irreversible damage done to ecosystems, pollution and biodiversity loss should not be commercialised and traded in a capitalistic way on a market.

It's been reported that the earth is facing its 6th mass extinction driven by human activity, primarily (though not limited to) the unsustainable use of land, water and energy use, and climate change.

In the pursuit of extreme extraction of virgin materials for manufacturing and extreme capitalism that doesn't care about the impact that it has on the earth, whether directly or indirectly, the notion of taking another action that cancels the damage the company has done should not even exist.

Meanwhile, because of the harm done in the name of overproduction and growth, there are animal and plant species that we will never get back. Ever. And their habitats are in too many cases polluted, poisoned or destroyed. Same goes for the human lives, communities, their land and environments that have been destroyed and will continue to be ravaged unless we end deceptive concepts like carbon credit markets.

The EU has voted to introduce crimes that can be 'comparable to ecocide' in its revised Environmental Crime Directive. Ecocide as a standalone crime would mean the most senior board members or policy makers would be held legally accountable for decisions that lead to mass environmental harm, regardless of how that harm is caused!

Jojo Mehta, Co-founder and CEO of Stop Ecocide International, said:

“The historic vote from the EU to include ecocide-level crimes in its revised crime directive shows leadership and compassion, and will strongly reinforce existing environmental laws across the region. It will establish a clear moral as well as legal “red line”, creating an essential steer for European industry leaders and policy-makers going forward.”

Take action by signing a petition here.

We need this type of reform in countries across the globe.