The word "sustainable" has been used so loosely in fashion marketing that the default position should now be scepticism, not trust. Greenwashing — the practice of implying environmental benefit without doing the work — is the industry's most common trick, and the UK Competition and Markets Authority has begun fining brands for it specifically. The good news is that the greenwash signals are consistent across brands, and once you know them, you can filter most of it out in about five minutes. Here are the seven phrases to watch for.
1. "Conscious collection"
A conscious collection is a subset of a larger brand's output that claims to be more sustainable than the rest. It is, almost by definition, a confession that the other 90% of what they make is not. A brand genuinely committed to sustainability would redesign its whole operation, not carve out a marketing capsule. The conscious collection is the single most reliable red flag in modern fashion.
2. "Made with sustainable materials"
This phrase is doing almost no work. Which materials? In what proportion? What certifications? A genuine claim would say "made with 100% GOTS-certified organic cotton" or "75% recycled polyester from named post-consumer waste streams." Vague "sustainable materials" is marketing fluff.
3. "Up to X% recycled"
The phrase "up to" means the maximum — and usually the average is far lower. If a garment is "up to 80% recycled," some of the line might be 80%, and some might be 5%. Specific percentages, per material, per product, are the credible version.
4. "Eco-friendly" / "Green" / "Planet-positive"
None of these terms have regulatory definitions. A brand using them and nothing else is banking on the consumer accepting a warm feeling as a fact. Any of these phrases without specific, measurable claims attached is greenwash.
5. "Carbon-neutral" (without disclosure of offsets)
Carbon-neutral claims rely on either reducing emissions or buying offsets. Offsets are legitimate only for emissions that cannot be further reduced, and only when the offsets are verifiable. Most brands claiming carbon-neutral are buying cheap forestry offsets for emissions they could have reduced directly. A credible carbon claim discloses the split between reduction and offset, and names the offset provider and the verification standard.
6. "Vegan" (standalone, as a sustainability claim)
Vegan fashion removes animal products but often replaces them with synthetic plastics. A "vegan leather" handbag is frequently polyurethane on a polyester base — higher microplastic load, shorter life, harder to recycle than real leather. Vegan can be a sustainability choice; it is not automatically one, and the word used alone is suspicious.
7. "Timeless" / "Investment piece"
These are genuine qualities when applied honestly. They become greenwash when used to justify a price point that subsidises everything else. A £400 "investment piece" sold alongside a £20 fast-fashion collection is often not covering the cost of the slow end — the cheap end is. The label on one garment does not tell you what the brand actually does at scale.
The positive signals
A credible brand names its materials specifically, its certifications specifically, its factory locations specifically, and — critically — admits where it is still working on improvements. Brands that claim to be perfect on every axis are almost always hiding something. Brands that say "our dye house is certified but our packaging is not yet plastic-free, we are working on it" are telling the truth.
The Fashion Transparency Index is the single best tool for checking how specific a brand is willing to be. Low score = vague = usually greenwashing. High score = specific = usually not.
Full framework — slow vs sustainable vs ethical, certifications, brand check — in the slow fashion pillar.