“It’s not easy being green” Why does a variety of eco-labels in the fashion industry exist and what are their relative strengths and weaknesses?

Over the last decade or so, the fashion industry has experienced a rise of voluntary certification schemes that has resulted in over a hundred different eco-labels related to the textile and apparel sector. They address a range of different social and environmental criteria, as well as different product groups and life cycle phases. The existing literature on the economics of certification and eco-labelling in the fashion industry suggest that ecolabels that are able to oversee a rather large part of the fashion supply chain – by broadening the scope of their certification activities – are able to increase transparency, traceability and reliability and thus perform better than eco-labels who act out a relatively narrow scope of activities. However, a typology of eco-labels in the fashion industry based on the scope of their globalized activities has yet to be established. Such a typology allows for a comparison of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the eco-labels and enables the distinction of top performers. Therefore, this qualitative study further looks into why a variety of eco-labels in the fashion industry exist and what their relative strengths and weaknesses are. In order to do so, a content analysis was carried out for 24 eco-labels and their websites in order to establish a typology within the variety of eco-labels as well as a content analysis of 40 critical news articles and blog posts that enabled a comparative analysis of their relative strengths and weaknesses. Measuring the ratio between the number SDGs and the amount of production phases an eco-label is concerned with, resulted in a typology of eco-labels based on the scope of their activities. The typology was followed by a comparison of the relative strengths and weaknesses between the types of eco-labels, derived from the analysis of critical news articles and blog posts. The following groups were established: Group I) This group was characterized by its relatively narrow scope of activities, as they are mainly concerned with animal products. This group is heavily critiqued for the inconsideration of animal welfare in their production processes; Group II) This group is mainly focused on only a small fraction of the supply chain, often in the beginning stages. 4 This group is heavily accused of greenwashing, due to their extremely low standards which allow for ‘label-shopping’; Group III) This group is active across a rather large part of the supply chain. These eco-labels have established a worthy reputation over the years, causing them to face new challenges such as trademark violation; Group IV) This group of eco-label performs a relatively broad scope of activities and includes some governmental labels. All accusations towards this group related to financial issues.