The Fast Fashion Hall of Shame

PR Disasters, Greenwashing and Regret - A Chronological Investigation

The Curtain Rises

For two decades, the global fast-fashion machine has been moving at a frenetic pace - faster trend cycles, cheaper prices, and a ceaseless churn of garments. But for just as long, the industry has been racking up a parallel history: public-relations disasters, greenwashed initiatives, and belated mea culpas. This investigation traces that history, connecting the dots between the glossy marketing claims and the unflattering realities they tried to conceal.

2013: The Wake-Up Call

The collapse of the Rana Plaza factory complex in Bangladesh killed more than 1,100 garment workers (BBC, 2013) and injured around 2,500 (NYT, 2013). It was the deadliest accident in the history of the garment industry - overnight, “cheap and cheerful” became “cheap and lethal.” For the first time, mainstream consumers began asking who made their clothes and under what conditions. Major brands signed the Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety (Clean Clothes Campaign, 2013), promising safety audits and remediation - but implementation was uneven and often delayed.

2017: Burn, Baby, Burn

In its 2018 annual report, Burberry revealed it had destroyed £28.6 million worth of unsold goods to “protect brand value” (Burberry Annual Report, 2018). The disclosure triggered global outrage: how could a luxury house parade sustainability while incinerating perfectly usable products? Greenpeace called the practice “a slap in the face of sustainability” (Greenpeace, 2018). Under pressure, Burberry announced it was ending the practice - a move that ignited a wider debate about overproduction in luxury fashion and prompted other brands to review their own disposal policies (Business of Fashion, 2018).

2018: Conscious Uncoupling?

H&M’s “Conscious” line promised a greener choice for shoppers, boasting recycled materials and ethical sourcing. However, the Norwegian Consumer Authority accused the company of misleading marketing (NCA, 2018), calling out vague sustainability claims and inadequate evidence. Investigators argued that only a fraction of the garments met higher environmental standards. The case became one of the first high-profile regulatory challenges to ‘eco’ fashion marketing and signalled that vague green claims would no longer go unexamined (Business of Fashion, 2018).

2019–2020: The ‘We Care’ Capsule and Pandemic Overproduction

By the end of the decade, nearly every major retailer had launched its own “sustainable” capsule collection. Critics dubbed them “We Barely Care” lines (Fashion Revolution, 2019) - small, unscalable efforts that left core business models untouched.

Often these “eco” lines made up less than 1% of total production (McKinsey, 2020) and leaned on 5-10% recycled polyester (Textile Exchange, 2020) - a micro-patch on a macro problem.

Then COVID-19 hit. Brands cancelled billions of dollars’ worth of orders (Worker Rights Consortium, 2020), leaving suppliers and workers unpaid. The #PayUp campaign exposed how quickly ethical commitments evaporated under financial pressure (Clean Clothes Campaign, 2020).

Images of unsold spring inventory piled high contrasted sharply with marketing campaigns about “community” and “togetherness”

2021: Science-Washing the Carbon Neutral Sneaker

As climate rhetoric heated up, some brands began touting “carbon neutral” products as proof they were changing. But in practice, Adidas ran into legal trouble for making vague climate claims that lacked clarity on how they would actually achieve them. In March 2025, a German court ruled that Adidas was misleading consumers by advertising its pledge to become “climate neutral by 2050” without disclosing clear strategies or offsets (Trellis, 2025; Ecotextile News, 2025). That decision forced Adidas to halt those advertisements and underscored the regulatory risk of overpromising on climate without scientific backing (Sustainability Magazine, 2025).

You could also look at the Allbirds case: the 2022 lawsuit Dwyer v. Allbirds challenged claims of “low carbon footprint” and “sustainable practices,” accusing the brand of cherry-picking data and omitting impacts (Top Class Actions, 2021; Proskauer, 2022). The court ultimately dismissed it, reasoning that many of the statements were too general to be actionable (Dwyer v. Allbirds, 2022). But the controversy shows how “green claims” are already becoming battlegrounds for scrutiny.

2022: Green Labels, Red Flags

A global study by the Changing Markets Foundation found that more than 60% of sustainability claims by large apparel brands were “unsubstantiated” or “misleading” (Changing Markets, 2022). The EU and several US states began drafting laws to rein in false green claims. In the UK, the Competition and Markets Authority launched investigations into ASOS and Boohoo (CMA, 2022). Suddenly, what had been a marketing boon looked like a regulatory liability.

2023: The Recycling Mirage

Investigative journalism revealed that garments deposited into “take-back” bins were being shipped en masse to African countries (Changing Markets, 2023), where they clogged markets, rivers and landfills. The circularity narrative - “bring your old clothes, we’ll make them new” - crumbled under evidence that less than 1% of textiles are actually recycled into new clothes (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2023).

2024: Automation, AI and the Copy-Paste Apology

In the rush to appear tech-savvy, brands began using AI to draft sustainability statements and roadmaps. Activists spotted identical paragraphs across different retailers’ reports, prompting ridicule on social media and accusations of “robo-greenwashing.” What was meant to look innovative instead reinforced the sense of a formulaic, copy-and-paste approach to ethics.

The Pattern Behind the Scandals

These incidents aren’t isolated missteps. They reveal a structural issue: a business model built on overproduction and underpricing, wrapped in temporary marketing fixes. When scrutiny peaks, brands pivot to a new pledge or capsule line. But without reducing volumes or slowing down trend cycles, the underlying drivers of waste, exploitation and emissions remain.

What’s Next for the Hall of Shame

Regulators are moving faster than ever. The EU’s Green Claims Directive and new U.S. state laws on environmental marketing are set to make vague eco-labels riskier, while investors begin pricing in reputational damage and younger consumers - raised on TikTok exposés and screenshots - have longer memories than marketing teams anticipate.

Fast fashion may still dominate the global wardrobe, but its PR disasters have become part of its brand DNA. Whether companies can move from “less bad” pledges to genuine system change will determine if this Hall of Shame keeps expanding - or finally closes its doors.

Moral of the story: In fast fashion, speed kills – credibility.

The views, information, and opinions expressed in this article are solely my own and do not reflect the official policy or position of my employer, its parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, or any other organisation or entity with which I am associated.

Any content published here is not endorsed, reviewed, or approved by my employer. All information shared is based on my personal experience and understanding. While I strive for accuracy and currency in all content, I make no representations as to the completeness, reliability, or accuracy of this information.