# data[].attributes.body
The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), launched in 2015, represent a global initiative to end poverty, protect the environment and ensure peace and prosperity for everyone. Among these goals SDG 12 specifically targets responsible consumption and production (United Nations, n.d.).

UN SDG 12 aims to reduce waste, promote sustainable business practices, and ensure consumers have accurate sustainability information—all by 2030 (United Nations, n.d.). Greenwashing directly threatens SDG 12’s implementation in three key ways:

1. Undermines Goal 12.5 (Waste Reduction): By convincing consumers to buy “sustainable” products that are actually unsustainable, greenwashing increases textile waste (a major fast fashion problem) and slows adoption of circular economy practices (e.g., recycling, reusing).

2. Violates Goal 12.6 (Corporate Transparency): SDG 12.6 requires companies to report honest sustainability data, but greenwashing replaces transparency with deception—making it impossible for regulators or consumers to hold brands accountable.

3. Blocks Goal 12.8 (Consumer Awareness): Goal 12.8 seeks to educate consumers about sustainable choices, but greenwashing confuses them—leading to skepticism and inaction (Chen & Kim, 2022).

In short, greenwashing is a barrier to SDG 12: it distorts the information needed for responsible consumption and production, slowing global progress toward sustainability.

# data[].attributes.body
Ethics is the cornerstone of sustainable business trust and long-term growth—without it, companies risk eroding consumer confidence, hindering global sustainability goals, and perpetuating harm to people and the planet (Shaw et al., 2020).

This Padlet focuses on greenwashing in the fast fashion industry, a critical business ethics issue where brands make false or misleading environmental claims to appeal to eco-conscious consumers. It analyzes the peer-reviewed journal article Concepts and Forms of Greenwashing: A Systematic Review (de Freitas Netto et al., 2020) and links the issue to UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12: Responsible Consumption and Production (United Nations, n.d.). Additionally, it applies two ethical theories—Kant’s deontological ethics and utilitarianism—to evaluate why greenwashing is morally unacceptable.

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.alternative_text
快时尚店铺与环保标语对比图

# data[].attributes.body
The journal article by de Freitas Netto et al. (2020) is a systematic review that explores the prevalence and harms of greenwashing in fast fashion. The authors define greenwashing as marketing tactics that use vague, unsubstantiated claims (e.g., “eco-friendly” or “green”) to falsely position products as environmentally sustainable—tactics that exploit consumer desire to shop ethically while undermining genuine sustainability efforts (de Freitas Netto et al., 2020, p. 8).

Key findings include:

Greenwashing is widespread in fast fashion, with many brands failing to back environmental claims with scientific evidence.

Such deception erodes trust in both individual brands and broader sustainability labels, making it harder for consumers to make informed, sustainable choices.

Two supporting sources reinforce these insights:

1. Lyon and Montgomery (2015) note that greenwashing has grown more complex, with tactics like “cherry-picking”—highlighting positive environmental details while ignoring negatives—creating a false image of sustainability. This misleads investors and delays progress toward eco-friendly practices.

2. The European Commission (2021) found that 42% of online environmental claims in fast fashion (and other industries) are exaggerated, false, or misleading—further proving the issue’s scale.

This article directly ties to SDG 12: By deceiving consumers, greenwashing violates SDG 12’s targets (e.g., Goal 12.8, which requires providing accurate sustainability information to consumers) and slows progress toward responsible production and consumption (United Nations, n.d.).

# data[].attributes.headline
Kant’s Deontological Ethics & Utilitarianism

# data[].attributes.subject
Kant’s Deontological Ethics & Utilitarianism

# data[].attributes.body
A. Kant’s Deontological Ethics

Kant’s deontological ethics centers on duty, intention, and universal moral laws—actions are moral only if they align with duty and can be applied universally (Shaw et al., 2020). A core principle is the “categorical imperative”: treat others as “ends in themselves,” not merely as means to an end (Kant, 1785).

Applied to greenwashing in fast fashion, this theory clearly labels the practice as unethical:

Greenwashing’s intention is to deceive consumers for profit, not to act out of moral duty to honesty. If lying about sustainability were universalized (i.e., all brands greenwashed), trust in communication and sustainability claims would collapse—making genuine ethical consumption impossible.

Brands that greenwash treat consumers as tools to boost profits, ignoring their intrinsic worth as rational beings who deserve accurate information to make informed choices. This directly violates the categorical imperative (Kant, 1785).

For example, a fast fashion brand claiming its clothing is “100% recycled” (without evidence) uses consumers’ desire to shop sustainably as a way to drive sales—not to respect their right to truth. From a Kantian lens, this is inherently unethical, regardless of short-term profits.

B. Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism, a consequentialist theory, evaluates ethics based on outcomes: actions are moral if they produce the “greatest good for the greatest number” (Shaw et al., 2020).

Greenwashing fails this test because its consequences harm more stakeholders than it benefits:

Harm: Consumers waste money on unsustainable products; genuine eco-friendly brands lose market share (undermining real sustainability); and progress toward SDG 12 (which benefits global communities and the planet) is delayed.

Benefit: Only the greenwashing brand gains short-term profits.

Since the harm to consumers, sustainable brands, and the planet outweighs the brand’s profit, utilitarianism confirms greenwashing is unethical.

# data[].attributes.body
1. UNEP (2022) – Sustainability and Circularity in the Textile Value Chain

Link: https://www.unep.org/resources/publication/sustainability-and-circularity-textile-value-chainglobal-roadmap

Relevance: Explains how fast fashion’s lack of circularity fuels greenwashing and offers solutions (e.g., standardized sustainability reporting) aligned with SDG 12.

2. Chen, L., & Kim, S. (2022) – Consumer Skepticism toward Green Claims: A Meta-Analysis

Link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130301

Relevance: Uses data to show how greenwashing increases consumer skepticism, directly harming SDG 12’s goal of encouraging sustainable consumption.

3. European Commission (2023) – Proposal for a Directive on Green Claims

Link: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-directive-green-claims_en

Relevance: Outlines policy solutions (e.g., requiring scientific evidence for green claims) to combat greenwashing—critical for enforcing SDG 12.

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.alternative_text
纺织业价值链可持续性与循环性

# data[].attributes.body
Greenwashing in fast fashion is not just unethical marketing—it violates core moral principles (per Kant’s deontology and utilitarianism) and undermines UN SDG 12’s mission to build responsible consumption and production. The journal article by de Freitas Netto et al. (2020) and supporting research prove greenwashing’s scale: it deceives consumers, harms genuine sustainable brands, and delays global progress toward sustainability.

At a local level (e.g., in Australia), greenwashing confuses shoppers trying to make ethical choices; globally, it slows efforts to reduce textile waste and protect the planet. Addressing it requires collaboration: brands must adopt transparency and third-party certifications, policymakers must enforce green claim rules (like the EU’s 2023 Directive), and consumers must demand evidence for sustainability claims. Ultimately, ethics is non-negotiable for businesses—without it, trust and sustainable growth are impossible.

# data[].attributes.body
Chen, L., & Kim, S. (2022). Consumer skepticism toward green claims: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 335, 130301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130301

de Freitas Netto, S. V., Sobral, M. F. F., Ribeiro, A. R. B., & Soares, G. R. da L. (2020). Concepts and forms of greenwashing: A systematic review. Environmental Sciences Europe, 32(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-020-0300-3

European Commission. (2023). Proposal for a Directive on green claims. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-directive-green-claims_en

European Commission. (2021). Screening of websites for “greenwashing”: Half of green claims lack evidence. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_269

Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. (Original work in German; English translation available at: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5682/5682-h/5682-h.htm)

Lyon, T. P., & Montgomery, A. W. (2015). The means and end of greenwash. Organization & Environment, 28(2), 223-249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575332

Shaw, W., Barry, V., & Muntean, D. (2020). Moral Issues in Business. Cengage. https://www.cengage.com/c/moral-issues-in-business-13e-shaw

UNEP. (2022). Sustainability and Circularity in the Textile Value Chain. United Nations Environment Programme. https://www.unep.org/resources/publication/sustainability-and-circularity-textile-value-chainglobal-roadmap

United Nations. (n.d.). The 17 Goals. Sustainable Development Goals. https://sdgs.un.org/goals