And yes, we can all make mistakes.

The company hired Patagonia understood this at a cost by receiving a complaint for greenwashing accepted by the advertising ethics jury in France.

Clothing made from recycled materials “that protect the oceans”

This complaint concerned one of their press releases whose objective was to promote their clothing made from recycled nylon fiber. A process that minimizes the impact on the environment and limits ocean pollution.

In short, a great initiative, but with too superlative communication:

“How do you protect the oceans with clothes this summer?”

‍

The complainant considers that, although the clothing manufacturing process minimizes the impact generated on the environment, it is an exaggeration to say that the oceans are protected by buying clothing.

Indeed, although the recycled fibers used limit ocean pollution, clothing can generate numerous environmental and social impacts during its lifespan: transport, chemical materials used, water consumption during washing, etc... This will therefore ultimately have an impact on the oceans.

A complaint accepted by the Advertising Ethics Jury in France.

The jury considered the matter and accepted the complaint against Patagonia. Indeed, the communication was considered disproportionate. According to the jury, the message used may mislead the public about the consequences of buying a piece of clothing from the brand on the environment.

They point out that there are rules on sustainable development even in communication and advertising. In this specific case, 3 points were scored by the jury:

• The veracity of the actions (point 2):

• ” 2.1. Advertising must not mislead the public about the reality of the advertiser's actions or about the sustainable development properties of its products;/2.2. The actions of advertisers and the properties of their products in this area must be significant in order to be claimable;/2.3. The advertiser must be able to justify the arguments relating to sustainable development with serious, objective and verifiable elements at the time of the advertisement (...)”

• The proportionality of the message (point 3):

• ” 3.1 The advertising message must accurately express the action of the advertiser or the properties of its products, in line with the supporting elements that can be transmitted. (...)/
• 3.2 The advertising message must be proportionate to the extent of the actions taken by the advertiser in the field of sustainable development as well as to the properties of the product he is promoting. (...) ”.

• Vocabulary (point 7):

• ” 7.1 The terms and expressions used must not mislead the public about the nature and extent of the properties of the product or the actions of the advertiser in terms of sustainable development.
• 7.3 In the event that it is impossible to justify global formulations (e.g. ecological, green, ethical, ethical, responsible, preserve, equitable, sustainable,...), advertising must put them into perspective by using formulations such as “contributes to”.”

This example shows that even committed brands that launch positive initiatives need to pay attention to their communication. We can easily fall into a case of greenwashing if we are not careful, even if our project is commendable.

You don't save the planet by buying clothes made from recycled materials, but you contribute to reducing the environmental impact of the industry. That will ultimately reduce pollution in the oceans. It is precisely this nuance that should have been added in their communication. For example, Patagonia could have written “How do our clothes help protect the oceans?”

PS: At Patagonia's defense, it was its communication agency that was responsible for this message. And there was no verification from Patagonia prior to publication.

‍

Sources:
https://www.jdp-pub.org/avis/patagonia-courriel-publicitaire-plainte-fondee/

‍