There was a time when calling something sustainable was enough. It implied care and a certain kind of credibility. Consumers responded to it, and brands learned to lean on that language. 

That time has passed.  

Today, sustainability is the baseline. Most consumers expect it before they even consider buying, and it’s not a differentiator they reward with loyalty.   

And in fashion especially, where the conversation has been running for over a decade, a vague commitment to the planet no longer signals anything at all.  

What people respond to now is specificity.  

Why “Sustainable” Stopped Meaning Anything 

The 2024 Voice of the Consumer Survey by PwC discovered that consumers will be more willing to pay 9.7% higher on sustainably produced or sourced goods and more than four out of five will be willing to pay more to acquire sustainably sourced goods outright.

The issue of sustainability is still important to consumers, but they no longer believe brand promises to the extent before.

In 2025, a study discovered that the convoluted chain of supply and regulation is the reasons that the apparel sector is still perpetrating a lot of greenwashing in the fashion sector: the wont of claiming to be environmentally-conscious, which cannot be backed up, or that intentionally misleads regarding the way a product was created.

Customers have become proficient at identifying marketing slang that is of recycled nature. This report, in the same way, discovered that there is increased awareness of misleading activities, with consumers demanding that the companies see through brands making claims that they cannot prove. And sweeter assertions now instigate doubt rather than belief.

It has been supported by various high profile cases. In 2022, the fashion retailer H&M was questioned when the regulators and consumer groups criticized the sustainability scorecards that the company added on products in its Conscious Choice labeling.

The company has since scrapped the claims, and even been criticized on whether the environmental information used to support the claims were actually verifiable.

Such cases transformed the reading sustainability messages amongst customers. Unprovable general allegations have acquired reputational risk, particularly in the field of fashion where the sourcing and manufacturing processes are already being questioned.

In the apparel industry, over 60 percent of the businesses are not heading towards achieving its 2040 sustainability targets. But the language of commitment still prevails in brand communications and is made up in a large part.

Consumers are now more questioning of unspecified promises of materials and after many years of imprecise wording in sourcing.

Majority of that skepticism is based on experience. When all the brands have spoken it is the language that will no longer bear much information.

Why Specificity Has Become the New Luxury Signal

Luxury has always been associated with being precise: the building, materials, finishing, all of which you have to touch with your hands before you can feel their difference.

Specificity presents consumers with a thing to consider.

Claiming that a product is made of organic cotton no longer has a difference any more. But when a brand names the farm, region, growing process, why that specific cotton acts (not) the same in the hand that is a story.

More than three-fifths of consumers report being ready to pay higher prices when buying a product of a brand that is open about its supply chain, and the majority of buyers in the world (almost 60% of consumers) claims traceability is a vital part of their purchasing decisions.

The concept of traceability has long since established itself beyond the sphere of interest of niche consumers, and currently, a lot of brands speak in general terms.

A 2025 study revealed that the customers were willing to pay a 17% premium to product with a digital product passport that recorded the path through the supply chain.

It gives almost twice the general sustainability water since consumers are reacting more swiftly to assertions to which they can relate.

What This Means for Brand Identity

Specificity influences design, as much as it does message. Most companies are more challenged to transform sourcing decisions into believable branding than expected.

Those successes that do it right are not heading with their supply chain. Their branding is related to the product.

The photography is accommodating of the texture. Without becoming generalized sustainability dribble riddled with buzz words, product pages have sourcing notes. Even the wrapping is more likely to be non-performative rather than servicable.

Two brands that illustrate this clearly: 

• Outland Denim is the owner of its Cambodian factory, publishes all its suppliers on its website and invested in supply chain research to generate 100 percent traceable denim. The transparency is incorporated in the working process and not as a campaign message.

• Pangaia is a materials science group and a consumer label simultaneously, labeling each product with every material, certification, and collaborator. Its 2024 Impact Report outlines 2024 breakthroughs such as The GAIA Bag, which is made of MIRUM 100% bio-based leather, The GAIA Bag.

It is what the Business of Fashion-McKinsey State of Fashion 2026 report makes no secret about: consumers are becoming increasingly attracted to more brands with explicit values and longer storytelling, especially in relation to craft and provenance.

The brands that spread have the propensity to be more specific and less generic in their communication. Not any less powerful in influencing branding decisions is that shift as compared to marketing copy.  

The brands handling this well usually treat branding and sourcing as part of the same conversation, instead of separating the product from the marketing around it. DesignRush’s branding agency directory is a useful starting point for finding that kind of expertise.

The Post-Sustainability Brand Looks Like This

The first one is the product. The word sustainability has been added later; often in supporting details.

The use of such words as conscious or responsible is used in fewer instances and have details attached to them. It identifies the suppliers, materials, geographical regions and production decisions by name. It is depicted under the assumption that the consumers require more information, rather than less.

The visual identity is reserved instead of an acting one. When a brand has really given consideration to what goes into a piece of clothing, it is likely to give thought to all other things as well, and that consistency reflects.

The length of product life, the quality of its production and the number of seasons during which the product is fashionable are just some of the differentiation sources. Those attributes tend to revert to sourcing and material choices that brands can delineate.

When the issue of sustainability is raised then the assertions are focused enough to test. Increasing numbers of brands are beginning to shift towards this, and generic sustainability boilerplate is less and less radioactive to listen to.

Within a category of promising, those brands that have gone the extra mile of being specific are beginning to shine once more.