This week it was announced that the Clean Clothes Campaign (SKC) is launching a lawsuit against clothing brand Levi Strauss (Levi’s) together with four consumers. The case revolves around alleged misleading sustainability claims and labor rights violations in a factory in Turkey where Levi’s produces. More than 400 workers lost their jobs there after they struck for better working conditions and joined a union. Hundreds of workers are still waiting for compensation.
Both online and in physical stores, Levi’s made promises to consumers about responsible production and respect for workers’ rights. According to SKC, this is misleading because these promises make consumers think that they have made a purchase from a brand that produces responsibly with respect for working conditions. This is also referred to as ‘social washing’. Social washing is making misleading statements about human rights, working conditions in the supply chain and diversity policy. With social washing, companies pretend to be socially responsible, while behind the scenes there is often still a lot wrong. For example, they advertise with campaigns about fair wages and good working conditions. For example, many brands claim that their clothing is responsibly produced. While in reality their suppliers have unsafe working conditions, poor employment conditions or even forced labor.
Many clothing brands use commercial audits to substantiate their working conditions claims. An audit checks whether a supplier or manufacturer adheres to the standards in the field of working conditions. The problem with these audits is that they are (often) not independent and are paid for by the client, the audits are announced in advance, auditors often do not speak to the employees and the audit reports are not public, which means there is little transparency. In short: audits often cannot factually substantiate the claim that clothing has been produced responsibly.
In recent years, the Dutch Register of Lawyers has noted a 215 percent increase in ESG-related disputes, with greenwashing being the most common category. This increase is related to increased social awareness, tightened regulations and the possibilities for collective action under WAMCA (Mass Damage Settlement in Collective Action Act).
Consumers and interest groups no longer hesitate to initiate proceedings in the RCC or civil court. Research from the University of Amsterdam shows that 78 percent of ESG proceedings between 2022-2024 related to greenwashing claims, while only 14 percent concerned social washing and 8 percent governance issues. This distribution will shift as legislation such as the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) are further implemented. While you still see that the focus in the judiciary is on greenwashing, it is expected that there will also be more disputes about social washing.
The Greenwashing and Green Claims Directive also plays a crucial role in future enforcement. The Greenwashing Directive is expected to be introduced into national law in 2026 and the Green Claims Directive is not yet in force and is on the European negotiating table. These guidelines impose strict requirements on the substantiation and verification of environmental claims. Companies will soon have to provide scientifically substantiated evidence before they can make sustainability claims.
Greenwashing in fashion
Greenwashing is common in the fashion industry. A 2020 European Commission study shows that a significant proportion of sustainability/environmental claims examined (53.3 percent) provide vague, misleading or unsubstantiated information about environmental characteristics of products. This is problematic because it can prevent consumers from actually making sustainable consumption choices. Many brands use sustainability claims such as ‘organic cotton’, ‘eco’, ‘conscious’ and ‘sustainably produced’. In the Netherlands, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) checks whether there are misleading sustainability claims and therefore whether there is greenwashing. ACM can impose high fines or penalties on parties that make misleading sustainability claims.
In 2022, the ACM reprimanded the chains H&M and Decathlon, among others, for greenwashing. H&M and Decathlon sold products with the claims ‘Conscious’, ‘Ecodesign’ and ‘organic cotton’ without there being any factual substantiation for these claims. In 2025, the ACM confronted De Bijenkorf about the use of unclear sustainability claims on its website. De Bijenkorf used general and vague claims on its website such as ‘sustainable products’ and ‘lower environmental impact’ and a filter with ‘sustainable choices’, without sufficiently substantiating this. It mainly concerned clothing and cosmetics. After the ACM pointed this out to the company, De Bijenkorf immediately adjusted and removed these claims.
These examples illustrate how even established brands face legal challenges when claims are not backed by concrete facts and measurable performance.
The ACM has already confronted many companies about greenwashing, but hardly any about social washing.
Sustainability Claims Guidelines
Claims about sustainability must be correct, clear and complete. The ACM requires companies to substantiate their claims with facts and to keep them up to date, with specific claims requiring explanation and verifiable, independent evidence.
The ACM Sustainability Claims Guidelines contain 5 rules of thumb and practical examples to help companies formulate sustainability claims. Every sustainability claim must be tested against these 5 rules of thumb:
- Use correct, clear, specific and complete sustainability claims.
- Substantiate your sustainability claims with facts and keep them up to date.
- Make fair comparisons with other products or competitors.
- Describe future sustainability ambitions in concrete and measurable ways.
- Ensure that visual claims and quality marks are helpful to consumers and do not confuse them.
Legal framework: self-regulation and civil law enforcement
Greenwashing can be tackled either by consumers or competitors through self-regulatory bodies such as the Advertising Code Commission (RCC) or the ACM or through the civil court.
The RCC is an authority that decides complaints from consumers or interested parties on the basis of the Dutch Advertising Code. There is a special regulation for sustainability claims, namely the Code for Sustainability Advertising. The ACM and RCC work together on complaints about sustainability claims: consumers must first submit complaints about greenwashing to the RCC before the ACM investigates.
For example, Primark was reprimanded by the RCC in 2023 for its advertising. The clothing chain used posters with texts such as: “Reduce CO2 emissions by 50 percent. So that the planet can breathe freely.” The RCC considered this sustainability ambition to be insufficiently substantiated to assume that the ambition will be achieved. Primark also used texts such as “Organic, recycled, sustainable and affordable cotton”. According to the RCC, it was not sufficiently clear that this concerns Primark’s ambitions and not results it has already achieved.
Another important case in the field of greenwashing in the Netherlands was the Fossil Free/KLM case. Fossielvrij had first filed a complaint with the RCC against misleading advertising by KLM. The RCC ruled in 2022 that KLM misleads consumers with statements such as ‘CO2ZERO’ because this is an absolute claim that is interpreted by consumers as meaning that there is a complete neutralization of the CO2 emissions of the flight, while KLM has not demonstrated that this promised result is guaranteed to be achieved in practice.
Fossil Free did not stop there and also went to civil court. This has been a groundbreaking case that has provided much clarity about the assessment of sustainability claims under the Unfair Commercial Practices Act (OHP Act). The court ruled in 2024 that 15 of the 19 disputed advertisements from KLM’s Fly Responsibly campaign with claims such as “be a hero, fly CO2ZERO” and “CO2 neutral” were misleading and therefore unlawful. The ruling in this case is special because the framework of standards for the assessment of sustainability claims is clearly set out. The judge uses the ACM Guidelines, the RCC rulings and the Dutch Advertising Code and the Guidelines of the European Commission.
Prevention is better than cure
A company that is guilty of greenwashing or social washing runs the risk of administrative sanctions, civil law claims for damages and reputational damage.
The ACM can impose fines of up to €900,000 per violation and in serious cases of 10 percent of the relevant annual turnover. From a civil law perspective, collective actions entail substantial risks. Damages can amount to millions of euros when large consumer groups are affected.
The reputational damage that occurs if the judge confirms a greenwashing or social washing claim is significant. Research by Erasmus University Rotterdam shows that companies experience an average of 32 percent loss of brand value over a period of two years after well-founded greenwashing claims.
Despite these risks, it should not be forgotten that it is permitted to make sustainability claims provided that the applicable laws and regulations are complied with. After all, it was not the legislator’s intention that companies limit or avoid their statements about sustainability ambitions (so-called greenhushing). If (the production of) a garment can have a more positive climate effect or effect on working conditions, then it is good that a consumer is informed about this correctly, completely, clearly and specifically. Based on this information, the consumer can make a (more) sustainable choice.
Prevention is still better than cure: formulate sustainability and ESG claims carefully, collect sufficient evidence for the correctness of claims and read the Sustainability Claims Guide and the guidelines of the European Commission and, if in doubt, have marketing campaigns preventively tested by a specialist for compliance with the applicable laws and regulations.
Written by Margot Span from Spargo Legal. Margot specializes in intellectual property law and commercial contracts and she regularly discusses current legal issues in the Judiciary column. www.spargolegal.nl
