Last week, Amsterdam-based eyewear brand Ace & Tate told customers: “Look, we f*cked up. Our bad moves” in a boldly worded blog post addressing mistakes made around sustainability and its efforts to change.
The post outlined five of the misguided decisions Ace & Tate took while trying to become more sustainable as part of its recent B Corp certification: in one case, it overlooked its social impact and neglected to implement a code of conduct, which would have protected workers in its supply chain. In another, it switched to a polyphenylene ether (PPE) and bamboo fibre glasses case to appeal to contemporary consumers’ assumption that bamboo was a sustainable material, but reduced the recyclability of the case. “One of the key learnings for our team is to focus on making good changes rather than changes that just look good,” the post reads.
Radical transparency has been the mainstay of brands including Reformation and Everlane who are open about the limitations and challenges of being sustainable, sometimes with mixed results. Others such as Ganni co-founder Nicolaj Reffstrup say being “honest not perfect” has been part of the brand’s DNA since its foundation. The tagline “We’re not sustainable” is used to communicate its sustainability efforts and shortcomings in the last three years. “It’s reflective of a broader shift towards radical transparency,” says Lucy Shea, CEO of sustainability consultancy Futerra. Sixty-six per cent of millennials and 79 per cent of Gen Z think brands are not honest enough about environmental sustainability, she says, citing Futerra’s 2019 study with the Consumer Goods Forum. This rises to 69 and 84 per cent respectively when related to how factory workers are treated.
Now brands are taking it further. Brands including Ace & Tate and New York label Noah — whose 2018 post “we are not a sustainable company” inspired Ace & Tate’s — are pushing the envelope on what transparency looks like. What that means is that so-called “radical” transparency is no longer so radical — it’s an expectation for more discerning Gen Z customers, says Shaunie Brett, founder of Sussed Consulting, which works with Selfridges and Nike on “no-bullshit” sustainability strategies. Other brands that aren’t used to this type of open communication and honesty will find it challenging, Brett adds, but the pay-off is building consumer trust and creating a lower-pressure environment. That will allow brands to experiment and make inevitable mistakes, in theory accelerating progress towards sustainable practices.
“There will be a transition period when previously unsustainable brands have one foot in that world and one foot in sustainability,” says Brett. “We need flaws, authenticity and transparency to address the inconsistencies that brings.”
Experts point out that transparency is not a sustainability strategy but rather a supporting marketing strategy, and that commitment is key. “You can’t be transparent today and go about business as usual tomorrow,” Ace & Tate founder and CEO Mark de Lange says. “Responses have been positive and negative, but I sleep better at night knowing we communicate openly instead of trying to present a very shiny image. I’ll consider it a success if it encourages other businesses to change.”
What transparency looks like now
Fitness entrepreneur Grace Beverley, who founded sustainable activewear brand Tala, offers prices competitive with fast fashion. She found that being transparent about the trade-offs and struggles to build her brand have led to customer loyalty and awareness about sustainability. “When we started, it quickly became apparent why everything was about £100 for a pair of sustainably-produced leggings. But we found that if we made leggings with 92 per cent upcycled content rather than 100 per cent, we could offer leggings for £42 whilst still maintaining ethical production practices, which made sustainability more accessible to however many more people,” she says. “You need transparency to explain those trade-offs because sustainability is nuanced and constantly evolving."
While small trade-offs like this are easy to communicate, brands are often less keen to be transparent about murkier, and often more consequential, areas of sustainability, says writer and consultant Aja Barber.
This cherry-picking is especially true of financial decisions, funding and volume, says Barber. “Brands are willing to shout about having LED lightbulbs in their head office, but I want to know how much brands are producing every year and how much is wasted,” she says. “I want to know about the rolls of fabrics sitting in a warehouse that you won’t use but also won’t donate to fashion students, and how many investors you have to pay off. These things matter.”
Barber points to a personal message Loud Bodies founder Patricia Luiza Blaj posted on the Romanian slow fashion brand’s Instagram account in July, explaining a recent predicament that saw her refund a resale platform and rescind stock once she found out it was owned by a fast fashion group that didn’t pay garment workers during the pandemic. “I was so burnt out and desperate about our future that I didn’t do my due diligence from the beginning,” Blaj says in an interview. “For a brand with an average monthly income of $12-15,000, giving back an $8,000 advance and being stuck with $6,000 of fabric was terrifying. Being honest and open to our community is definitely second nature by now — I see our community as our shareholders and I give them their weekly report.”
While anxious about possible backlash, Blaj ultimately posted about the incident to prove that Loud Bodies embodies its values no matter the cost, and to help sell the already-made stock that wasn’t its most popular styles or in its full size range. “In the end, it felt very liberating,” she says.
Creative ethics consultancy Cogdis co-founder Faith Robinson links the trend for transparency to the humanisation of brands often done to build authenticity and deeper connections with customers. But it can also raise ethical challenges, especially when brands presenting as flawed and fallible might be held to lower standards. “A brand isn’t one person, it has a huge impact on thousands of lives.”
Doing transparency right
Keeping claims humble; showing that the brand is always a work-in-progress; being transparent about mistakes and limitations; and taking risks with communication styles, is advised by Futerra’s Shea. It also needs to be done in tandem with genuine work on sustainability. “You need a good sustainability strategy with proof of action before you put out communications about it.”
This evidence is what will determine whether the efforts are perceived as greenwashing or genuine transparency, adds Brett, and it paves an opportunity for brands to take ownership of the narrative around their mistakes. “Everything comes out in the wash, so you need your receipts ready and to be accountable for it. Better to do it yourself and communicate how you want to, otherwise it will come out in a nasty way that is out of your control.”
To become a Vogue Business Member and receive the Sustainability Edit newsletter, click here.
Comments, questions or feedback? Email us at feedback@voguebusiness.com.
More from this author:
Sustainable performance wear: Possibility or pipe dream?
Covid-19 cases are rising in China. What does that mean for luxury?
Bethany Williams offers a glimpse of sustainable fashion’s future
