Sustainability terminology guide for magazines

These guidelines aims to serve as a code of conduct for magazine editors, writers and other contributors to adhere to, in order to ensure a publication which avoids green-washing in fashion. 
These guidelines are science-based and aims to ensure sustainability-related language is used only when it is accurate, specific, evidence-based, and not misleading.

“Green” claims

The following words should not be used without substantial evidence to support them, included in the writing, so that readers understand why the word has been used:

• Green

• Eco-friendly or eco

• Sustainable

• Low impact

• Conscious

• Regenerative

• Environmentally friendly

• Environmentally beneficial

• Natural

• Biodegradable

• Compostable

Substantial evidence could include peer-reviewed data, life-cycle assessments, and expert reporting and references. Such words should only be used specifically, rather than broadly. For example: 

YES: “The new collection is more sustainable, made up of recycled post-consumer materials proven to have a lower impact” (hyperlinking to reference, including explanation) 

NO: “The new sustainable collection” (lacking reference and explanation details) 

As for the term ‘natural’, only those materials which are ‘biotic’ (biologically derived from a living organism such as a plant) should be used, and only when the final material remains ‘natural’, rather than when a material is processed to the point of losing natural properties. For example, cotton which is coloured with non-biodegradable dyes, or leather, given the unnatural tanning process renders hides inorganic and no longer effectively biodegradable.

As for the term ‘biodegradable’, general consensus recognises that materials should not be referred to as such unless they can biodegrade and return to the Earth as organic matter in under six months. This is generally reflective of Australian standard AS 4736‐2006, European standard EN 13432, and American standard (ASTM 6400). 

Additionally, brands contributing to the ever fastening pace of fashion should not have these terms attributed to their brand as a whole, or to specific collections which make up a small portion of the brand. Otherwise, brands may be perceived as far more sustainable than they are, while massively contributing to the depletion of our finite planet and what it can offer us.

“Recycled” claims

It’s important that claims of the use of recycled materials are genuine and simple to understand. The term ‘recycled’ should only be used if one or more of the following is true:

• Materials are certified as recycled (Global Recycling Standard or other)

• Materials are assured to be from post-consumer recycled sources

• Materials are made of a majority recycled material (e.g, not 90% virgin, 10% recycled)
  

Materials that are not over 50% recycled should not be claimed as such, and ‘recyclable’ should not be mistaken for ‘recycled’. These terms have the potential to confuse readers into thinking a material is more environmentally friendly than it is. 

“Ethical” claims: people

The following words should not be used without substantial evidence to support them, included in the writing, so that readers understand why the word has been used:

• Ethical

• Fair

• Conscious

• Just

• Responsible

These words are generally used to allude to the payment of fair, living wages, and good working conditions for people making clothes, shoes and bags. As such, these words should not be used when referencing brands unless it can be assured that such brands are:

• Paying a living wage (note: this is different to a ‘fair wage’, which is not legally defined)

• Providing safe working conditions
  

Or, in more small scale instances:

• Locally made by an individual creator in their home or workshop (e.g independent maker)
  

While it is not possible for a magazine to act as a certification, best efforts should be made by reading brand website information, as well as referencing existing certifications and directories for ethical fashion when making ethical claims. Linking to these references would be best practice. Collective Fashion Justice may also be available for assistance and advice in some instances. 

YES: “X fairly made brand pays living wages to their workers”  (reasoning and hyperlink shared with reader) 

NO: “X ethical brand” (no reasoning or evidence shared with reader) 

Additional note: brands that are transparent should not be mistaken for brands that are ethical: it is possible for brands to be both highly transparent and unethical. 

“Ethical” claims: animals

The following words should not be used without substantial evidence to support them, included in the writing, so that readers understand why the word has been used:

• Ethical

• Cruelty-free

• Reference to ‘happy animals’

• Harmless

• Responsible
  

These words are generally used to imply that animals in fashion supply chains are completely unharmed. As such, these words should not be used when referencing brands unless it can be assured that such brands are:

• Not mutilating animals in their supply chain
  (dehorning, tail docking, mulesing, live plucking, force-feeding, etc.)

• Not sourcing animal-derived materials from factory-farms or feedlots

• Not tied to live export

• Not profiting from the slaughter of animals
  

While it is not possible for a magazine to act as a certification, best efforts should be made by reading brand website information, as well as referencing existing certifications and directories for ethical fashion. Collective Fashion Justice may also be available for assistance in some instances. 

It’s best to be specific, highlighting what the brand is doing, rather than making broad claims: 

YES: “Their new knitwear collection uses non-mulesed wool” (outlining what welfare steps are assured, with reference)

NO: “Their new wool knitwear collection is cruelty-free” (making a broad claim which covers more than the welfare steps which are assured)

Material specific claims: environment

When it comes to material sustainability, conversations should be nuanced. However, there are some materials which, based on the broad range of available science-based evidence, must be recognised and categorised as definitively unsustainable. 

The following materials should not be referred to as ‘sustainable’ or other related terms:

• Conventional cotton

Conventional cotton production is inefficient, often requiring large amounts of water and pesticides, resulting in land degradation, eutrophication and other negative environmental outcomes. Cotton which is certified as organic or otherwise sustainably sourced (GOTS, myBMP, Good Earth, etc.) are not included in the definition of ‘conventional’. 

• Petroleum based virgin synthetic materials

These virgin synthetic materials are directly tied to the continued funding of fossil fuel extraction, which we must move beyond urgently, as outlined by the IPCC. 

• Animal-derived leather and fibres

The production of materials such as leather and wool are recognised as major contributors to the climate and biodiversity crises by the United Nations, IPCC and other leading bodies, with a need to transition away from our severe reliance on this inefficient system noted by the IPCC.

• Rayon and other non-certified cellulosic materials

The production of cellulosic materials that are not certified to ensure otherwise contributes to severe deforestation, often of old-growth forests, which can never be defined as sustainable. Forest Stewardship Certified, Canopy and other certified sources are not included in this definition. 

In general, material sustainability claims should be made cautiously and with references, as noted.