Being a responsible consumer means wanting to understand the story behind each garment that we buy. Given the current state of the fashion industry, for most garments this reveals what can only be described as a horror story. Pollution, damaged ecosystems and labour exploitation woven into each thread.
Yet, through curious inquiry and a dedication to people and the planet, this can also lead to the discovery of brands who share our values for protecting our earth. Of course, many of which are helpfully highlighted on Eco-Stylist’s brand guide.
But being engaged in the world of sustainable fashion and remaining curious about our consumption can naturally lead us to hold our favorite sustainable brands to a higher standard. Ultimately here lies our predicament – felt both individually and within the sustainable fashion community more broadly; Where should our energy, activism and critique be focused?
Even the most sustainable brand can be doing more. How do we find the correct balance between holding accountable the fashion brands who embed sustainability into their very identity versus fighting against the destruction of fast fashion giants?
Recent examples suggest that we have been tipping this balance slightly wrong. Eco-perfectionism may be holding us back. Brands openly dedicated to sustainability have lately come under fire and it feels the sustainable fashion community may be plagued with a curse of infighting.
Let’s now get into where this is happening, why it’s happening and, importantly, how we should approach finding the correct balance.
Is Patagonia Greenwashing? Breaking Down the 2025 Impact Report
Published a few months ago, at the end of 2025, Patagonia’s progress report has sparked an array of responses within the sustainable fashion community. The report outlines the progress made towards the company’s sustainability goals set 10 years earlier in 2015. Spanning 154 pages, the progress report provides an in-depth account of the steps Patagonia has made, but equally as important, where progress is yet to be made.
Key takeaways from the report include:
- How the company has changed since handing over ownership to the planet
- The initiatives which they have supported through the $180 million of grant money
- The impacts of the 1% for the planet initiative
- A review of the supply chain
Following this report, a flurry of responses followed – largely positive regarding the undeniable honesty and transparency. Praise was also directed at their progress in donating to environmental causes and allocating grants – especially after handing over the ownership of the company to the planet. These are all factors which contribute to Eco-Stylist’s Gold Rating for Patagonia, which you can read more about.
However, reviews were not solely positive. Writing for akepa, a sustainable marketing agency, Micheal Wilkins questioned the possibility for Patagonia to be implicated in the G word…Greenwashing.
The evidence behind this claim for Wilkins included Patagonia’s acknowledgement that their greenhouse gas emissions are increasing, their continued use of 20% virgin synthetics and discussion of their labour outsourcing.
By the end of the articleWilkins acknowledged that to label Patagonia as ‘greenwashing’ is unjust for a company who invests all of their profits back into environmental causes and are leading the industry in terms of transparency. Yet, Wilkins still provides a less-than-positive surmise that Patagonia should not be put on a pedestal and that “the company’s impact can’t continue unmitigated while it continues to talk so valiantly about defending the planet”.
Implicit in this summation is that we should be focusing our efforts towards holding companies who have built sustainability into their brand identity and purpose, such as Patagonia, to higher standards. But is this a fair judgement?
Transparency – The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Ultimately, the more transparent a company is, the more there is to pick out regarding how they can do better.
Taking a contrasting company like Zara, questions are raised regarding where to begin picking apart the (un)sustainability of their business model. Details of Zara’s unsustainable model can be read in this article, however to summarize some key points, they are owned by multi-billion dollar company Inditex and despite publishing a sustainability report, they lack any form of critical self-reflection.
Instead, their report paints an overly positive picture of progress and insubstantive goals without acknowledging the fundamental unsustainability that their business model depends on. They epitomize greenwashing.
This is a situation which can feel pretty disheartening and unachievable. It may seem more achievable to look elsewhere to brands whose greater openness and willingness to change presents a more tangible critique.
The Data: Patagonia vs. Inditex Emissions
Yet, a quick look at some data shows us why this is in reality highly counterproductive…
Patagonia released 182,646 tonnes of CO2 in FY25 (and clearly disclosed this amount to the public) whereas Inditex released a whopping 13.4 million tonnes in FY24. Moreover, Patagonia in the same year donated $14.7 million to nonprofit environmental organizations whilst Inditex faced multiple environmental critiques, such as in regards to their amplified use of air freight and expanding production model.
The difference in CO2 emissions of roughly 13.2 million units is stark and, if we’re honest, pretty incomprehensible.
Going from these statistics alone, our attention should be heavily focused on aiming to reduce the vast impact of Inditex. Whilst all fashion companies have work to do – something starkly acknowledged by Patagonia in their report – when comparing it to the work that fast fashion companies such as Inditex must do in order to save our planet, the additional efforts of smaller and more conscious businesses are somewhat negligible to the industry as a whole.
This is especially important as Inditex is not unique in its impact. H&M released 5.7 million tonnes of CO2 in 2024, Primark released 6.04 million tonnes and Shein generated a profit of $32.5 billion as a result of overproduction in 2023.
Of course, this is not to say that holding our favourite sustainable brands accountable isn’t something we should do. Scale matters. If we are to think about individuals, improvements such as ensuring all factories pay living wages is life changing. However, the impact of paying a living wage in thousands of factories is arguably a more urgent task than focusing on companies operating through less than 100 and actively aiming to reduce exploitative practices in them.
Thinking about it like this, it is counterproductive to focus too much energy on companies who choose not to grow to a massively unsustainable size, and practice retail – an inherently unsustainable industry – as sustainably as possible.
Some Final Thoughts – We’re All on the Same Team!
Ultimately, we still have a massive challenge ahead of us to make the fashion industry as a whole sustainable. It is easy to get caught up critiquing companies we hold highly. And this is because there is always more that can be done – and we should do more! However, what is important is that, as people and businesses who want to work towards making the industry more sustainable, we should work together. We’re all on the same team!
Is Sustainable Fashion Infighting Holding Us Back?
This isn’t a new tension. We tackled a version of this same debate in a recent video, breaking down why the “sustainable fashion isn’t the answer” argument — while well-intentioned — misses the point:
As highlighted, approaching the more drastic and malicious end of the fashion spectrum can feel daunting – fruitless even. But nothing has ever changed by thinking this way.
So how do we begin to tackle the impact of these fast fashion giants?
I think the key is to begin with small steps which enable increasingly larger knock-on effects over time. Actions such as boycotting brands like Zara, raising awareness via social media and having meaningful conversation with friends about the impacts of these brands all move us in the right direction. These actions denormalise what these brands are doing. It makes us, and others, think twice about the true cost of what we buy.
So, yes, all companies should be held accountable. But sometimes zooming out and looking at the bigger picture helps us productively focus our efforts and comprehend the scale of impact we are faced with when considering the continued financial success of fast fashion giants.
4 Actions for Productive Change
- Boycott fast fashion brands such as Shein, Zara, H&M and Temu
- Support sustainable brands like our 100+ certified brands who are driving real change
- Repair your existing clothes to increase their lifespan and keep them out of landfill
- Stay curious about the impact of your clothes, start productive conversations about the impact of fast fashion and remain mindful of the priorities of changing the fashion industry
Rhona is studying a Master’s degree in Global Development and Environment at the University of Bristol. She also works in sustainable retail and, in her downtime, enjoys reading, thrifting and yoga.
