Making sense of Performative Environmentalism
by Ivanna Bagul
“At H&M we’re committed to creating great fashion at the best price in a sustainable way. All our products are made with care and consideration for the people who make them and for the environment” — (H&M)
Fast fashion brand H&M has recently come up with their “Conscious clothing” which made me think of how a brand churning clothes by the hour has been able to come up with such an initiative and even convince people of their sustainable practices. In the same way coca-cola had announced a 100% recycled bottle in the US and yet they continue to be the top polluter of plastic (EcoWatch, 2021). So how does one make sense of this, is it a mere show or is it one step in the right direction?
Like most movements that get co-opted as a capitalist marketing strategy, environmentalism too has fallen prey to the same. The practice of performative environmentalism puts the onus wholly on us as consumers without placing too much accountability on the big corporations who are then able to deflect any kind of responsibility. They continue to exploit not only their labourers but also pollute and degrade the environment. The most notable example being fast fashion companies that are said to be the second largest consumer industry of water with textile dyeing being the second largest polluter of water (Business Insider, 2019).
Performative Environmentalism focuses on the micro, the individual’s choices at making things right rather than on macro structures that would contribute to saving the planet. This fixation on the more miniscule meaningless actions of consumers would attribute the root cause of harm on, say, individuals who buy a piece of clothing from a fast fashion brand or on those who buy a single use plastic bottle, instead of the brands that are churning these products. Thus, the danger lies in the fact that such kind of environmentalism relies on personal activism for capitalist gains; it denies human commodification strategies and uses it to its own advantage.
Greenwashing
So what are these big brands doing? They are essentially indulging in the practice of ‘greenwashing’ where companies use deceitful marketing strategies in order to seem more environmentally conscious than they really are. This is done by making claims that are often misleading and unsubstantiated. Why do they do this? They do so to increase the demand and supply for goods- going green sells. The Nielsen’s Global Corporate Sustainability Report had stated that “66% of consumers would spend more on a product if it comes from a sustainable brand” (Business News Daily). By suffixing “conscious” and “sustainable” they are also able to cater to masses and gain traction; so much so that big NGOs like the greenpeace international are lauding such “green” efforts and their ability to “detox” their product lines. Such praise has failed to call into question the larger problem of the company producing cheap clothes that ultimately add to the waste. These companies are more keen on spending the big bucks on making people think they are being environment friendly than actually doing so. One of the oldest examples dates back to the mid-1980’s when the oil company Chevron had invested heavily in a series of print and television advertisements to display their environmental dedication. They did so while outrightly violating the Clean Water and Clean Act. Greenwashing is thus a condition that leads to an environmental performance impression, there is no digging into the real impact of things that are being said- it is mostly all show and no substance. The aversion analysis and the tendency to ignore data is what hides the underlying complex productive systems that could hold the company accountable. In fact the practice is a legal violation since consumers would be making economic decisions based on untruthful claims, which they would otherwise not have made.
In the case of H&M, while they provide an explanation of their conscious collection, they do not elaborate much on the types of material being recycled, or how they are doing it or what they mean by “sustainable”, the only explanation being the image provided below. In fact the brand continues to use materials that are non-eco friendly and the model they operate under is still an unsustainable fast fashion one. The company has been blamed for greenwashing by the Norwegian Consumer Authority (CA), in particular, since they have not been able to provide sufficient information regarding their initiative and have not been able to specify the actual environmental benefits.
So while one part of these big companies devote themselves to being environmentally conscious it forms only a marginal component, a major chunk of their actions continue to do harm. A report by the Business of Fashion had stated that 15 fashion companies including H&M were lagging behind in the environmental and social targets set by the Paris climate agreement and UN Sustainable Development Goals; the fashion industry as a whole had contributed to at least 4% of greenhouse gas emissions.
Too little, too late?
The very reason we are in this dilemma is because of the damage already caused by the big brands. So even though coca cola has pledged to make their packaging recyclable by 2025, it would not necessarily solve the problem of plastic pollution. In the same way, fast fashion brands are the very reason we need sustainable fashion; it is like the companies are ruining their neighbour’s houses, fixing them and then asking for a pat on their backs. But since 1992–2002 individuals have decreased the amount of time they keep their clothes by 50%. They are still a brandhouse that is convincing people to buy more disposable products. Thus, the larger problem still looms- cheap products made by workers in terrible working conditions, that contribute to waste and greed still persist. The question of how long will it take to undo the insatiable demand created by these business conglomerates remains far from estimation; and maybe the most radical solutions range from either slowing down these trend cycles and having more stringent laws that place more responsibility on companies or shutting down them altogether. If so much emphasis is placed on the individual than on the institution then we must borrow some inspiration from the words of Paulo Freire “We are transformative beings and not beings for accommodation”- Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1968).
