At London Fashion Week, H&M promoted a fashion show that fused fast fashion with luxury aesthetics. The cognitive dissonance was palpable. Chief Creative Officer Jörgen Andersson told Glossy, “luxury is for 1% of the world. We work for the other 99. It should feel like you are getting $1 million of inspiration and paying $50.” While the sentiment is aspirational, it masks a deeper contradiction: H&M’s business model thrives on mass production, not sustainability. Drop the niceties.
Greenwashing is a business model that refers to the practice of marketing sustainability while failing to meet the sameenvironmental standards they perpetuate. H&M has leaned heavily into this strategy. Their Conscious Collection was launched with claims of using eco-friendly materials and promoting circularity. The company’s sustainability report states, “through greater use of recycled and more sustainably produced materials we are moving closer to our long-term sustainability goals.” In theory, this is optimal: more clothes, new looks, and less waste. A beautiful plan to turn around the wastefulness of the fast fashion world.
However, investigations revealed that H&M’s sustainability claims were misleading. A report by Quartz found that the brand’s environmental scorecards, which they used to promote the Conscious Collection, were not only inaccurate but deceptive. Some garments labeled as “sustainable” had a higher environmental impact than conventional items. The lying is apparent and unforgivable; in my humble opinion, it is more than lying, it’s robbing the people of their own discernment. Lying is one thing–selling it is another. Much of the public held a similar belief regarding this issue, leading the company straight for a class-action lawsuit. Accusing H&M of greenwashing and misrepresenting its recycling program. Which they surely did.
The most damning evidence came from journalists and environmental watchdogs who traced H&M’s recycled garments to landfills in Ghana. Despite encouraging customers to return used clothing for recycling, millions of pounds of H&M textiles ended up polluting beaches and communities in Accra. Swedish reporters even chipped in and donated garments, tracking them to waste sites in West Africa. This revelation shattered the illusion of circularity and exposed the environmental cost of fast fashion. Many consumers, such as myself, believed our participation to be part of a system upholding ethical consumption. The duality of this is more than a betrayal; it’s a profound fallout between business and customer. Being misled by a brand that promised and praised sustainability is quite the hill for any brand to overcome. Truly, their only act of sustainability is sustaining jobs for the less fortunate in Ghana who are left to sift through disregarded garments. Taking the reins on environmental injustice.
To add on, according to COSH, H&M’s “Close the Loop” initiative, one that promised to recycle old garments, actually, resulted in more than three million pieces of clothing per year being dumped in Ghana, despite the various claims of sustainability. H&M’s recycling program, marketed as a solution to textile waste, instead became a symbol of waste colonialism. As JD Daly Tempelaar writes, “H&M’s recycling program is not a circular solution—it’s a linear export of waste to the Global South.”
This entire scandal was the public’s final straw. Global outrage and huge detriment to the company’s credibility. Customers felt betrayed for the entirety of this campaign, as every lie they sold was bought and then given back, in support of the sustainability cause. Some might say it’s beautiful, the way it all comes full circle.
Despite the scandal, H&M’s presence at London Fashion Week was met with a mixed reaction both online and in the crowd. According to Launchmetrics, H&M ranked as the second most valuable brand at the event, generating $12.7 million in media impact value. Social media posts by influencers like Thai actress Yoko Apasra Lertprasert and model Halima Aden drove millions of views across TikTok and Instagram. The brand’s livestreams and curated content were clearly aimed at Gen Z audiences, reinforcing its cultural relevance.
And yet, critics were still not convinced. Some called the event a “social media fest” that amplified the unethical uproar surrounding fast fashion already. Others questioned why a brand accused of environmental deception was being celebrated on a prestigious stage. As one article put it, “there is nothing worse for a brand than breaking the brand promise.”
Fast fashion has long been a guilty pleasure. Many of us have fallen victim to the poster child of fast fashion, Shein, at least once in our lives–I know I have. However, support of companies like these not only gives them what they need to succeed in their false claims of environmental consciousness but also creates a domino effect for other companies to follow in their footsteps. Looking at the situation objectively, H&M has followed in the footsteps of fast fashion trendsbut also attempted to piggyback on rising sustainability trends. Keeping one foot in both doors.
H&M’s attempt to rebrand itself as a sustainable and culturally relevant brand may have succeeded in the short term. All in exchange for the long-term damage to its credibility. In an age of fact-checking and digital accountability, greenwashing is no longer a viable strategy. People do pay close attention, research takes place, and lies will not be tolerated, much less be funded. Brands must choose between performative sustainability and real change. And consumers, especially Gen Z, are watching closely.
Words by Gianna Schwartz
Graphic by Aubrey Lauer