ART BY MARIANA PORRAS

Everyday consumer culture, which is deeply ingrained in American society, contributes to a continuous cycle of consumption resulting in millions of tons of waste per year. The results of this everlasting relationship have become too substantial to ignore, especially in the marketing of fashion and lifestyle products.

Sustainability is “the property of being environmentally sustainable; the degree to which a process or enterprise is able to be maintained or continued while avoiding the long-term depletion of natural resources,” as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary. In other words, sustainability means ensuring that fashion processes and productions can continue without harming natural resources in the long run. One thing that consumers do not seem to be aware of, however, is how discourse around sustainability has infiltrated marketing, for better or for worse.

Michelle Tempesta, a business marketing professor at Tufts, notes that “there’s an education gap” in the US regarding sustainability and climate change, and that “any major change starts with education.” One of the reasons for the current disregard towards climate change and the ways it impacts marketing can be explained through the lack of education on the topic. “The United States is behind on this,” Professor Tempesta said. 

Although the official definition of the word marketing is “the action of buying or selling, esp. in a market,” Professor Tempesta underlines that “people perceive the word marketing differently depending on who you talk to,” as marketing grows and changes based on the audience and time. Similar to this change, most brands have altered their marketing policies to accommodate sustainability as their markets have given it more and more attention over time. Conversely, lots of brands have been canceled for not being sustainable or co-opting consumers’ concerns via greenwashing rather than making eco-friendly changes to their production processes. 

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, greenwashing is “the act of making false or misleading statements about the environmental benefits of a product or practice.” It is often used as a veil for a company’s unsustainable practices, allowing them to benefit economically from sustainability-conscious consumers with genuine intentions. Brands like Reformation, whose products are believed to be sustainable, often benefit from greenwashing. Even though they try to be environmentally conscious to some extent with their production, they only upcycle select items and mostly downcycle the rest of their products, which isn’t sustainable in the long run. 

H&M, a brand that profits from greenwashing and has faced criticism for its unethical practices, has received a sustainability rating of two out of five from Good On You, a platform that evaluates brands’ practices and offers environmentally-ethical alternatives. According to the Center for Alliance of Labor and Human Rights, workers for H&M suffer from highly unethical working conditions that strip away the workers’ rights. Workers in nine out of twelve H&M factories reported  experiencing sexual harassment, along with workers in nine out of eleven factories being employed by fixed-duration contracts. Workers also report not being paid a living wage. 

Yet, H&M claims to be highly sustainable and suggests that they are one of the most sustainable brands since 2011 after coming out with a “Conscious” collection when sustainability was not as trendy. They continue to produce “Conscious” items that “[unite] modern romantic designs and every piece in the collection is made from a sustainably sourced material.” Currently, there is a sustainability page on their website that highlights their concern for the environment. However, consumers cannot be certain if this sudden care for the environment is authentic. Evan Sulpizio Estrada, a first-year student at Tufts University, said weaponized sustainability “makes them a lot of money.” In a similar vein, as multiple sources show that H&M’s practices are not sustainable, having an aesthetic sustainability page on their website could be seen by consumers as a marketing technique to increase profits rather than a genuine change in their ethos. 

As brands like H&M have been called out by consumers, others have become favored by eco-conscious consumers. One of the products that comes to mind when considering the popular rebrand around sustainable products is water bottles. The rise in interest in reusable water bottles, especially since the VSCO girl trend in 2019, has decreased the use of plastic bottled water. The bottled water volume growth slowed to a 1.1% increase in 2022, compared to a 4.6% increase in 2021. This is an example of the impact of marketing around sustainability increasing the popularity of a product. 

It would be remiss to mention the popularity of water bottles without talking about the Stanley cup. 2023 was coined by many as the year of the Stanley Cup. Between 2019 and 2023, Stanley’s sales revenue grew more than tenfold, increasing from 70 million to 750 million USD. The consumer market for Stanley completely changed from being marketed for nature lovers to now towards Gen-Z, who popularized this product among themselves through trending social media apps such as TikTok and Instagram. Forbes names this growing trend of the Stanley cup as a part of “social contagion,” which is effectively, peer pressure. Peer pressure combined with social media produces marketing techniques that influence consumption. Although it may seem ideal for a reusable product such as the Stanley cup to be purchased, this widespread popularity is contributing to waste. As people accumulate the cups and continue buying and collecting them, they end up owning more than they need. This produces a contradiction between consumer behavior and consumer values. Consumers value sustainability, but continue to overconsume.    

Not all marketing around sustainability is negative, however. One brand that is on the way to becoming fully sustainable and has gained online popularity is Djerf Avenue. Founded by the influencer Matilda Djerf, Djerf Avenue is a brand that ethically produces and mindfully chooses its products to “embody the confident, chic, and laid-back person on the go.” The brand also remarks upon how they’ve “launched their own re-sell platform,” how their team “participates in clean-up activities” once a month, and how they’ve “bought 8000m² of Swedish forest for preservation.”

The director of the Office of Sustainability at Tufts University, Tina Woolston, said, “When you’re thinking about creating change, having a celebrity spokesperson can move behavior.” Even though Matilda Djerf is not an A-List celebrity, her fanbase allows her to reach out to people; she’s able to move their behaviors in a way that influences them to shop from her brand. Not only that, but the branding of the website aligns with the recently booming “Clean Girl Aesthetic,” enticing consumers to shop and be sustainable while doing so. 

While the commendable efforts of this brand in promoting sustainability and encouraging environmentally-conscious lifestyles should be acknowledged, it’s important to consider the negative aspects that can impact consumer behavior and the overall sustainability of both the brands and consumers.

There is one common aspect between many sustainable clothing brands and other eco-friendly products: the steep pricing. Djerf Avenue and Stanley have both faced backlash on their price and quality. One of the most famous items on Djerf Avenue’s website, the “Forever Blazer” is priced at $189 and is made out of 74 percent recycled polyester. Ela Abay, a first-year student interested in fashion and economics, said in an interview, “I think the price tag is more justified by it being made by an influencer rather than the quality,” highlighting a common issue seen in sustainable brands and the power marketing has over it. Additionally, following this quality issue with Djerf Avenue, Stanley has faced scrutiny after a consumer’s viral video highlighted lead presence in their cups, raising health concerns. Although subsequent investigation revealed that the lead wasn’t in the cups themselves and therefore could not be consumed directly, the brand still faced legal repercussions. This incident, albeit ending with the conclusion that Stanley products are safe to use, still fuelled significant backlash, especially given consumers’ expectations of safe materials, particularly for a $45 price tag.

Even though Stanley’s and Djerf Avenue’s efforts in sustainability should not be undermined, consumer behavior diverts these brands away from being truly sustainable. Woolston noted, “We live in a society that is not designed in a sustainable way.” In that vein, consumers continue to shop more and more. It’s habitual because of overconsumption: fast delivery, mass production, and fast fashion have become the way of living. The new-found remedy—the constant purchasing of sustainable goods instead of unsustainable products—does not hide the fact that it’s still overconsumption. The trends supporting such items, such as the glorification of these products via marketing, prompt the consumer to buy more things that they don’t need, condoning this because it’s “sustainable.” Overconsumption, as a behavior, is still unsustainable. 

In the past year, lots of content regarding unsustainable consumer behavior has gone viral. In January 2024, Stanley and Starbucks came up with a limited edition collaboration: the famous model in hot pink, sold exclusively at select Starbucks locations. Videos on TikTok show people camping overnight to get these cups, attacking Stanley shelves, all while trying to get one for themselves. 

Even though this impact, in the case of shopping frantically, is somewhat typical consumer behavior, it should be noted that some of these people already have Stanley cups at home. Woolston recalls her student Lenka Smiljanić saying in class, “what good is being sustainable with water bottles if you just end up buying 10 of them?” Thus, marketing sustainable items, albeit advocating for products that are eco-friendly, could end up provoking unsustainable consumer behavior. To add on, Woolston noted, “people tend to be drawn to luxury.” This luxury could be owning an electric car or having 10 Stanley cups, thus drawing people to purchase more as a display of wealth. 

Marketing is the invisible hand over consumer behavior, and it can support sustainability when employed by eco-conscious brands or undermine it. Both Professor Woolston and Professor Tempesta agree that change can mainly happen through consumer behavior and that consumers forget the power they have in shifting the market toward sustainability. As Professor Tempesta said, “The consumer votes every day with their dollar.”