Beyond vague claims: Oeko-Tex CEO on the importance of evidence-based sustainability

Fashion has spent years promoting sustainability through collections, labels and broad claims, but growing regulatory scrutiny and high-profile greenwashing accusations are now making brands more reluctant to talk publicly about their environmental progress. This phenomenon has been dubbed ‘greenhushing’, a concept that isn’t new, but is receiving renewed attention as environmental marketing faces more stringent restrictions in Europe, pushing brands to reassess how much they can safely say.

In recent years, an increasing number of brands have found themselves at the forefront of formal investigations into various eco-claims. H&M scaled back its ‘Conscious Collection’ after regulators in Europe questioned the brand’s use of words like ‘conscious’ and ‘sustainable’ in the promotion of the range. Adidas, Calvin Klein and Uniqlo had ads banned by the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority for using terms like ‘recycled’ or ‘responsibly sourced’ when items only contained partial amounts of recycled fibres. Shein was hit with heavy financial penalties and mandated undertakings by European regulators over allegedly misleading ‘circularity’ claims, while Boohoo was fined by French authorities for mislabeling synethetic materials, among other allegations of deceptive competition practices.

Caution over eco-claims is well overdue

What has emerged in the wake of these cases is an industry instilled with more caution, a correction that textile certification body Oeko-Tex’s chief executive officer, Alfred Beerli, said was overdue. Concern over whether fashion has moved from too much sustainability marketing, to potentially too little, is valid, but Beerli argues that brands must instead embed better evidence, third-party verification and clearer communication into their sustainability discourse. Brands should be encouraged to substantiate claims, instead of halting their use altogether.

“Consumers don’t read silence as humility; they read it as indifference or having something to hide…”

“For years, sustainability marketing ran ahead of what brands could actually prove, and vague labels like ‘conscious’ were bound to catch up with the industry through lawsuits, regulators, and consumers just getting smarter,” Beerli told FashionUnited. “So, brands are finally asking, ‘can we back this up?’ before they say something is a good thing. But when companies doing real work go quiet because they’re afraid of scrutiny, that’s greenhushing, and it has its own cost. Consumers don’t read silence as humility; they read it as indifference or having something to hide, and they can’t reward better products if they can’t identify them.”

The proliferation of vague terms like ‘conscious’, ‘eco-friendly’, ‘recycled’ and ‘sustainable’ has grown alongside consumer interest in sustainability, making the promotion of these values more of a commercial incentive. Doubt over their use arises when brands are unable to prove the validity and raises questions about whether consumers have enough information to understand what makes a product sustainable. The term ‘recycled’ may be interpreted as a material deriving entirely from rescued garments, when that is often not the case. Greenwashing allegations often follow.

New regulation flips conversation surrounding certifications

Greenhushing has surfaced as a result. The term refers to companies deliberately reducing or avoiding communicating about sustainability goals, progress or initiatives because they fear criticism and regulatory intervention. It’s important to note that not all forms of greenhushing are equal: while one company with little evidence behind claims may become quieter, therefore improving its marketing, another investing in measurable progress but refusing to communicate them may mean consumers cannot distinguish between genuine progress. This creates an information gap and begs the question: if the answer to greenwashing is not greenhushing, what should brands be saying instead?

Incoming regulatory frameworks, such as the EU’s Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (EmpCo Directive), provisions for which will apply from 27 September 2026, intend to direct focus within environmental marketing towards independently verified claims. Oeko-Tex’s Beerli said such measures have “flipped the conversation”, particularly when it comes to the pursuit of certifications, the adoption of which had initially been for supply chain assurance, with marketing benefits serving simply as a bonus.

Beerli notes that it’s now often legal and compliance teams driving inquiries, as generic claims are expected to be effectively banned unless backed by a third-party. “Verification has gone from marketing assets to price of admission. And the shift is measurable. Certifications grew about 8 percent last year, with the strongest labels tied to verified consumer-claims. Brands aren’t just certifying their supply chains anymore; they’re certifying so they can communicate. The regulations deserve a lot of credit for that.”

“Certifications grew about 8 percent last year, with the strongest labels tied to verified consumer-claims…”

“A label without those three behind it is just decoration,” Beerli states. “Our guidance to brands is simple: say exactly what your certification verifies and say it with confidence. A precise claim backed by independent proof will always outperform a broad one backed by nothing.”

A product is only as safe as its worst component

Oeko-Tex, which for over 30 years has been setting standards for transparency and sustainability in textiles, has been reorganising its own system to address practical issues that come with making sustainability claims and applying certifications. The firm is separating standard-setting from conformity assessment, establishing a new Independence Council and introducing an Independence Statute, alongside aligning its accreditation agreement with the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), an organisation that outlines standards and ensures the fairness of operations among certification groups. The changes intended to ensure Oeko-Tex's certification process remains independently verifiable and compliant with the new EU requirements.

When looking at Oeko-Tex's requirements, finer details emerge. For example, the firm does not permit ingredient labelling, where highlighting of one sustainable, certified or environmentally preferable component could imply the whole product has the same credential. Instead, a product must have the relevant requirements covering an entire product and its components in order to use an Oeko-Tex certification. In a T-shirt, for example, the sewing threads, buttons and other components must be equally certified in order to bear the Oeko-Tex label.

Beerli states “a product is only as safe as its worst component”, adding: “If the fabric is tested but the thread, buttons, or zippers aren’t, the label is telling consumers something that isn’t fully true. Requiring every component to meet the criteria means the label describes the product, not just one ingredient in it. It also closes the loophole where a brand certifies one component and lets that single claim carry the impression that the whole product is covered.”

Digital Product Passports will similarly serve as a mechanism for moving sustainability communication away from marketing language and towards more accessible product data. For Oeko-Tex, DPPs will be key to shaping the textile and leather industry. The firm is actively positioning itself as a leading contributor to that transition, with its own certification already offering the verified primary data needed for DPPs, providing information on product safety, chemical inputs and more.

DPP frameworks are still in development, yet verified data will be at the foundation, and Oeko-Tex sees itself as ahead of the curve. “We expect brands to move away from big general statements and toward specific facts they can prove,” Beerli says. “The ones that come out ahead will be those whose products look just as good when you scan the code as they do in the ad, and that’s exactly what certification is designed to support.”

Vague terms are leaving the marketing dictionary

This doesn't mean sustainability-related terms are departing entirely. Rather the way this language is used is expected to change. Brands will instead need to communicate what was tested and against which standard, what percentage of a material is certified, which part of the product a certification covers, who verified it, and where the consumer can check the claim.

“Adjectives are dying, and evidence is surviving. Brands that can point to independent verification will still have plenty to say…”

“Keep it simple: only say what you can prove and show your proof,” Beerli advises. “Swap big words like ‘sustainable’ or ‘eco-friendly’ for specific facts, what was tested, what standard it met. Vague terms are on their way out. Words like ‘green’ and ‘climate neutral’ with nothing behind them are exactly what the new EU rules target, so we’d expect them to largely disappear. Adjectives are dying, and evidence is surviving. Brands that can point to independent verification will still have plenty to say.”

For Oeko-Tex, the change is coming through in more traceable and communicative certifications, with tools like label checks and QR codes allowing quick verification by anyone. The firm said it also keeps its standards updated yearly to ensure they align with regulatory requirements. “Our goal is for a certification to work as ready-made proof, so when a brand makes a claim, the evidence is already there,” Beerli said.

At the crux of it, scaling back is not a solution, nor is selective disclosure. Brands must move beyond the proliferation of broad claims that fuelled accusations of greenwashing, and continue talking about sustainability more directly, with proof of concept. Beerli believes the industry is moving towards an era where third-party verification becomes the default requirement for environmental claims. He adds: “The direction is clear: if you want to say it, someone independently has to have checked it.”