This article is part of our Vogue Business membership package. To enjoy unlimited access to our weekly Sustainability Edit, which contains Member-only reporting and analysis, sign up for membership here.
Better Cotton, one of fashion’s top certification schemes for cotton, has been linked to illegal deforestation, human rights abuses and land grabbing — acquiring property by fraud or force — in Brazil, according to a report released today by environmental group Earthsight.
The report, the culmination of a year-long investigation by the London-based organisation, alleges that Better Cotton acts as a rubber stamp for brands to claim progress in their supply chain or on their materials sustainability goals. The implications of the report are industry wide, as Better Cotton is used by more than 2,500 brands to improve their cotton sourcing. The authors of the report, however, say they chose to focus on H&M and Zara specifically — two of the world’s largest fashion companies — in order to illustrate how Better Cotton became a band-aid for cotton sustainability, with fashion relying on it instead of embracing efforts that would require more legwork yet drive greater impact.
“As the largest companies in the sector, [H&M and Zara] bear an enormous responsibility for the sustainability of this trade. They should lead the sector by example, by properly monitoring these supply chains and making sure they’re not linked to these kinds of problems,” says Rubens Carvalho, Earthsight’s deputy director. Better Cotton does not go far enough to transform the cotton sector, Carvalho continues, and relying on it leaves brands exposed to the issues they say they’re trying to address.
Cotton agriculture is well known as both water and chemical intensive as well as soil depleting, with detrimental effects for local ecosystems. Cotton experts say that while Better Cotton did a lot to bring the problems in agriculture to the fore in fashion early on, it has since become a constraint on progress as it sets a low bar for what defines ‘better’ cotton. The report not only resurfaces these concerns, it insinuates that the stakes are higher than ever, adding new fuel to the ongoing question of just how far and wide a sustainability certification can go while still delivering on its claims.
We break down the findings of the report and why it matters.
What’s new
Better Cotton-certified cotton linked to deforestation and land grabbing in Brazil’s Cerrado biome, according to Earthsight, has been transformed into millions of pairs of cotton socks, shorts and trousers at H&M stores across the US, UK, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, France and elsewhere, and into €235 million worth of jeans and other denim styles sold at Zara stores in 2023.
What’s notable about this report is the direct links made between specific brands and specific cotton farms, and therefore the impacts those farms are associated with. Relying on certifications to improve brands’ sourcing, the report makes clear, is not the same as doing the work necessary to actually deliver those improvements — and the problem is exacerbated by the fact that most brands don’t do the due diligence required to ensure the certification schemes they rely on are doing what they say they’re doing.
“Better Cotton has a number of flaws. One of them is traceability. It’s not a scheme that can guarantee cotton traceability back to farms of origin. Even [the new traceability systems it’s pledging to adopt will not] be enough because they are only going to guarantee traceability back to the country of origin, not to the farm of origin — which is the only level of traceability that matters,” says Carvalho. “We are a research NGO. If we are able to do this kind of research, then surely multi-billion-euro corporations such as Zara and H&M should have the resources to do the same. Perhaps what’s lacking is the will to do it.”
By poring over shipment records, company reports and suppliers’ lists and websites, the Earthsight team found that at least eight of Zara’s and H&M’s suppliers were buying cotton from two of the country’s largest cotton producers, SLC Agrícola and Grupo Horita — companies that are heavily associated with illegal deforestation and land grabbing in the Cerrado. For example, public lands meant to be set aside for conservation or use by traditional communities are now sites of cotton and other agricultural production. Advocates say that communities that try to preserve the land or fight back against the companies are faced with harassment at best, and intimidation tactics or violence — fatally, in some cases — at worst. Clearing in the Cerrado for agriculture is estimated to generate as much as 230 million metric tonnes of carbon emissions per year.
The nuances of Brazilian cotton production
It’s important to note that while Brazil has seen an enormous amount of deforestation in the name of agriculture in recent decades, it’s also home to some of the most inventive and holistic, community-based solutions in the world.
“There are two types of cotton in Brazil, and between them there’s a huge abyss. Ninety-nine per cent is conventional, and 0.1 per cent is agroecological, agroforestry,” says Beto Bina, co-founder of Farfarm, a consultancy promoting and implementing organic and regenerative agriculture. Farmers working in the latter group are doing impressive work to transform how cotton and other crops are grown, and to work with and elevate communities in the process — but they are not only in the minority, says Bina, they are also overshadowed by Better Cotton’s looming presence.
Brazil accounts for 42 per cent of Better Cotton’s global volume, making it the certification’s largest producer. Turning to Better Cotton as a sourcing strategy means a brand isn’t uplifting other solutions for improving that share of their cotton — solutions that are potentially more effective and more equitable, but are handicapped because they don’t gather the support they need to be able to expand. “Brands buy this cotton [and don’t] invest in the communities that really need support because they don’t have incentives, they don’t have credits at the bank.”
He insists that it doesn’t need to be this way. Brands can and should do better. “Fashion brands are complicit with agriculture. They need to understand and see Scope 3 not as an externality but something they are responsible for,” he says, adding that the underlying problem with Better Cotton and several other schemes is that they are trying to subtly tweak the existing system, when drastic transformation is what’s needed. “They need to invest in these communities, or to try to change the way agriculture is done in Brazil.”
Who’s responsible?
It’s on both the brands and the schemes they rely on to take responsibility.
Better Cotton said that when it learnt about the issues raised in Earthsight’s report, it conducted a third-party verification audit of the farms in question. “We require time to analyse the findings and determine the most effective means of implementing measures, where needed, that will enable our programme to address issues. We will share further comment upon the completion of this review and when we have visibility of the full report. We have committed to making a summary of the audit available to Earthsight and all Better Cotton Members,” a spokesperson said.
Days before the report’s release, Zara parent company Inditex issued a letter to Better Cotton CEO Alan McClay asking for clarity on the certification process and progress on traceability practices. The allegations in the Earthsight report “represent a serious breach in the trust placed in Better Cotton’s certification process by both our group and our product suppliers”, Inditex said in the letter, seen by Vogue Business. “The trust that we place in such processes developed by independent organisations, such as yours, is key to our supply chain control strategy.”
It’s an indication of the root problem: transforming the cotton supply chain requires fundamental change, and most players in the fashion industry are looking just to tweak their existing operations. Companies rely on certifications to make claims about their sustainability progress, while the certifications are working within the constraints of the system.
Carvalho says that brands have failed to monitor their cotton supply chains and banked instead on a certification scheme, despite documented flaws. Credible practices and concrete plans for change are needed from the companies themselves, he says. “Simply dropping Better Cotton in favour of an alternative scheme is not good enough. The company must accept responsibility for the environmental and human impacts of the cotton it uses and do a much better job to clean up its supply chains.”
In a statement to Vogue Business, an Inditex spokesperson said: “We take the allegations against Better Cotton extremely seriously and we urge them to share the outcome of their third-party investigation as soon as possible and take any necessary measures to ensure a sustainable cotton certification that upholds the highest standards.”
Similarly, H&M said the report’s findings “are highly concerning and we take these very seriously”, and it’s following the Better Cotton investigation closely. “We humbly recognise the challenges that still exist and acknowledge our limitations, especially when brands like ours do not source cotton directly. We demand all our suppliers to only source sustainable cotton from credible and robust standards and certifications, and we rigorously monitor that our requirements are met.”
What’s next
An important takeaway for brands is not to shy away from the problem, but to work harder to address it.
“I really hope that American and European brands see [this] as an opportunity that they can help to fix it,” says Bina. “I feel the answer for these companies shouldn’t be, ‘Let’s not buy from Brazil anymore,’ but — ‘Let’s pressure Brazilian companies to improve.’ Because Brazil, like other companies in the Global South, are necessary as raw material providers for the Global North, for the world. So it’s less about boycotting, and more about — everything is interconnected, so let’s join forces to help out.”
Sign up to receive the Vogue Business newsletter for the latest luxury news and insights, plus exclusive membership discounts.
Comments, questions or feedback? Email us at feedback@voguebusiness.com.
More from this author:
Why are sustainability-focused designers mostly women?
The EU’s policy wheels are in motion, and fashion has a lot of catching up to do
Why a textile recycling startup is launching a fashion brand
