The Higg Materials Sustainability Index has often been the object of criticism and debate, but an investigation conducted by the Norwegian Consumer Authority into Higg-based marketing claims has added the question of liability to the conversation. 

In mid-June, three big news stories out of Norway had the apparel world buzzing. First, the Norwegian Consumer Authority (NCA) announced it had determined that environmental claims made by outdoor brand Norrøna — claims based on data from the Higg Materials Sustainability Index (MSI) — were potentially misleading for consumers. The brand, the NCA advised, had until August 14 to change or remove the relevant claims in its product descriptions and marketing campaigns. 

Next, the NCA turned to fashion group H&M and issued a warning that while the consumer group had not yet assessed the company specifically, “using the Higg MSI or data from the Higg MSI in marketing towards consumers could easily be considered misleading and constitute a breach of the Marketing Control Act.”

Finally, the NCA told the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC) — the non-profit organisation behind the Higg MSI — that the Norrøna investigation was unlikely to be an isolated case.

Reactions were swift and significant: Norrøna accepted the decision and is currently taking steps to remedy the situation. Fashion industry analysts and activists, long concerned with widespread ‘greenwashing’, celebrated the news, though acknowledged it was just a discrete positive step within a sprawling problem. And, most significantly, the SAC announced it was pausing the consumer-facing transparency aspect of the Higg resources globally as it works with the NCA and other consumer agencies and regulators “to better understand how to substantiate product-level claims with trusted and credible data”.

More about each of these responses later, but first let’s take a closer look at what happened.

Questioning claims about organic cotton

In May 2021, a writer and board member of the Union of Concerned Researchers in Fashion, Tone Skårdal Tobiasson, reached out to London-­based sustainability consultant and former World Bank economist Veronica Bates Kassatly about Norrøna Sport AS's claims regarding organic cotton T-shirts. “By August 2021,” Ms Kassatly has said, “the indefatigable Tone, with the help of Ingun Klepp, had marshalled all that was required for the Norwegian Society for the Conservation of Nature (Norges Naturvernforbund) to file a complaint with the Norwegian Consumer Authority.”

In February this year, the NCA began an investigation into sustainability claims by Norrøna regarding those organic cotton T-shirts. At issue was the brand’s marketing material which said, based on data from the Higg MSI, that organic cotton used 87% less water than conventionally-grown cotton. Providing that kind of information without adequate context is misleading, according to the NCA.

After researching the topic, the NCA came to understand that organic cotton farms tend to need less water because they’re often located in places with more rainfall than where conventional cotton farms are typically found. It explained: “Thus, the real reason behind the reduction in water consumption is not because organic cotton farms always require less water compared to conventional cotton farms, but rather because of variations in rainfall in the regions where the respective cotton farms are located.”

The NCA also pointed out that data in the Higg MSI is based on global averages rather than specific to the production of garments for any given brand, and that the data underlying the Higg MSI are “partly scientifically outdated and not meant for comparisons”. Finally, it pointed out that Higg MSI — and in this case Norrøna — presented only some of the ways products impact the environment. When relevant context or Higg’s other impact categories are omitted, the NCA said, it is difficult to assess the real environmental benefits. 
As a result, the NCA felt the stated reductions in environmental impact of a specific organic cotton T-shirt were “oversimplified, inaccurate and imprecise”.

Correcting this is not simply a matter of adding disclaimers. NCA concluded that initial efforts by Norrøna to clarify the marketing text — such as adding that “environmental impacts are based on generalised global standards from lifecycle assessments (LCAs) and can be different from the actual product listed” or inserting the word “estimated” — are not adequate, because consumers will still view the provided information as pertaining to the product in question, it argued. To avoid misleading consumers, Norrøna must provide sufficient evidence that the reductions in environmental impact marketed are “true and correct” for the specific product being marketed. 

Industry players react

It’s important to note that while Norrøna made headlines for receiving this censure, the brand cooperated fully with the NCA, accepted the decision, is working to improve its data and messaging, and is unlikely to be the last apparel company to undergo similar scrutiny by the authorities.

“Everyone is pointing the finger at Norrøna. But Norrøna just got unlucky,” Ms Kassatly said soon after the NCA announced its conclusions. “When Tone Skårdal Tobiasson emailed Norrøna to express concern at their organic cotton claims, Norrona replied. I emailed the same complaint to Leyla Ertur of H&M on August 19, 2021. I followed up on September 3. But I heard nothing back.”

(When WSA’s partner news website, sportstextiles.com, asked H&M chief executive, Helena Helmersson, how she responded to the NCA’s letter regarding the company’s use of the Higg MSI to present its products as sustainable, Ms Helmersson said that H&M was following discussions between the Norwegian Consumer Authority and the Sustainable Apparel Coalition.)

It is not surprising that Ms Kassatly is keeping a close eye on this case. She was one of the authors of The Great Green Washing Machine, the two-part report issued by Eco-Age and discussed earlier this year in WSA (see Seven Concerns About Sustainability, Issue Two 2022). The questions explored through NCA’s Norrøna/Higg MSI investigation are a clear example of the types of concerns raised in the Eco-Age report.

Ms Kassatly pointed out that “false water and GWP [global warming potential] claims have been on websites across the industry for a decade”. She gave an example of comparable marketing content from Patagonia regarding the impact of organic versus traditionally grown cotton. As recently as last year, she said, the outdoor brand’s website included claims of 90% reduction in water from growing organic cotton. (Now the numbers on Patagonia’s website have been replaced by more general statements, such as: “Organic methods support biodiversity and healthy ecosystems, improve the quality of soil and often use less water.”)

As mentioned, Norrøna is not contesting NCA’s stance. The brand’s chief executive, Jørgen Jørgensen, shared with WSA his thoughts on the findings of this investigation and steps Norrøna is taking to keep moving toward its goal of becoming a “100% responsible company”.

He said Norrøna chose to use the Higg Index as part of assessing its facilities, operations, and the environmental impacts of products. “To our knowledge, the [Higg Index] is the leading tool provider to help measure the overall social and environmental impact of our industry, based on the best available information. We have not found any perfect tools and recognise we are at the beginning of a long journey that requires constant improvement.”

He added that a company of Norrøna’s size cannot afford to do all of its own assessments. While the company is committed to providing clear and honest information, he said, “[we] think it is important that small companies are not left behind when it comes to analysing and communicating environmental impacts.”

To this end, Norrøna will continue to work with both the NCA and the SAC to find the “right balance between simplifying verified information and ensuring the customer is provided with information that cannot be misunderstood or encourage the wrong buying decisions”. The company is also in discussion with non-profit organisation Textile Exchange to “see how we can best support their efforts toward addressing data accuracy and completeness from material feedstocks”. Mr Jørgensen hopes LCA information will improve through regional comparisons and adding additional impacts to programmes.

As for the Sustainable Apparel Coalition, the NCA sent the SAC a letter which explained that the coalition could potentially be liable as an accessory if other traders go on to make Higg-based marketing claims that are found to be inadequately substantiated.

Although investigations would be handled on a case-by-case basis, NCA wrote, “we consider that traders’ use of the Higg MSI and results from Higg MSI data in marketing towards consumers [will easily] constitute a breach of the prohibition of misleading marketing practices”. SAC, the letter suggested, should perhaps “inform all members that the Higg MSI cannot be used in marketing towards consumers and make this clear in standard contract terms towards partners.”

The letter also indicated that if, after September 1 this year, NCA observes breaches similar to what was identified in the Norrøna case, the organisation has the authority to impose economic sanctions on the SAC.

It was not long before SAC responded. CEO, Amina Razvi, announced they were pausing the consumer-facing transparency programme globally as the group works with the NCA and other consumer agencies and regulators to find the best way to apply Higg MSI data (the general) to individual products from individual clothing brands (the specific).

“This means temporarily removing the published Higg Index seal and scorecard from the participating online retail platforms while further evaluation takes place,” Ms Razvi stated. SAC is commissioning an independent, third-party expert review of the Higg MSI data and methodology, she said, but the Higg MSI and other Higg Index tools will remain active and available during the review.

A similar review was last carried out in 2016; this imminent one was already planned, but is being accelerated in response to the NCA notification, she said. “We are also working on a comprehensive programme, through industry partnerships, to gather and update the environmental impact data quality and accessibility needed for the industry to drive more informed decisions.”

It makes sense for the SAC to act swiftly, considering the NCA’s threat of potential sanctions, although critics point out that removing the Higg Index seal from online retail platforms has little discernible bearing on the tool itself. The data and approach that raised concerns from the Norwegian Consumer Authority and reports like The Great Green Washing Machine remain visible and available for influencing the decisions of companies up and down the apparel supply chain. 

Bigger than Norway

However, the news out of Norway may be a sign that some sort of shift is imminent. The SAC is ready to undertake an independent review, and the NCA has shown what can happen when concerns are taken seriously and probing questions are asked.

And, as pointed out in the letter to H&M, NCA’s conclusions regarding Norrøna are likely to reverberate well beyond the outdoor brand and indeed beyond the borders of Norway.

Although the group only has authority in its home country, it has informed H&M that the relevant regulations in the Norwegian Marketing Control Act are based on a harmonised European Union directive. “What constitutes a breach of the Marketing Control Act,” it wrote, “will thus presumably constitute a breach of the law in the other countries”.

Discrepancy in water usage between organic and conventional cotton depends largely on location rather than method, the NCA has concluded.

Credit: CRS Photo / SHUTTERSTOCK

Share this story: