Lululemon is pouring gas on a burning planet.
That’s the gist of a new anti-competition complaint that Stand.earth has filed with Canadian regulators accusing the athleisurewear giant of misleading consumers about its environmental impact. In other words, greenwashing.
“Lululemon is one of Canada‘s most influential companies and one of the world’s biggest fashion brands through its ‘Be Planet’ campaign,” Tzeporah Berman, the environmental nonprofit’s international program director, said at a press conference on Monday afternoon. “Although Lululemon has taken some actions and set some targets to reduce the harmful impact of its business operations and products, Stand.earth’s position in its complaint is that Lululemon’s business is inconsistent with its public claims to be an environmentally responsive company.”
In short, Berman said, Lululemon’s oft-cited mantra sounds a lot more like “Be Profit.”
The downward-dog-friendly purveyor’s own numbers don’t pan out, Stand.earth noted. Despite committing to a science-based target of 60-percent emissions reduction per unit of revenue for 2030 for Scope 3, the section of the value chain where 99.7 percent of its impact lies, those same emissions surged by 128.6 percent between 2018 and 2022, according to its most recent impact report.
“Like many Vancouverites, I felt a lot of pride in Lululemon, our hometown hero, a staple of the fashion industry and an international beacon of wellness culture,” Berman said. “So imagine my dismay in finding out that our homegrown startup has an atrocious record on climate change; that my leggings were made in factories that drive air pollution in the global South and contribute to climate change worldwide; that Lululemon’s annual emissions are equivalent to adding half a million cars to the road every year.”
Related Stories
Lululemon said it is committed to its decarbonization plan, which includes making “tangible investments” to meet its 2030 climate goals “on the path” to being a net-zero company by 2050.
“We recognize that the majority of impact comes from emissions within the broader supply chain,” a spokesperson told Sourcing Journal. “In 2022, we measured and reported a limited intensity reduction in our Scope 3 greenhouse emissions and are working to accelerate this progress. Like others in the industry, we are working to advance calculation methodologies to support and obtain independent verification of Scope 3 emissions.”
Lululemon is “proud” to have reached its goals of 100 percent renewable electricity and a 60 percent absolute reduction of greenhouse emissions in our owned and operated facilities, the representative added.
This isn’t the first time Stand.earth has targeted Lululemon. For the past two years, the organization has eviscerated the yogawear provider for an almost obdurate reliance on coal-fired plants in Cambodia, China and Vietnam, even as it remained “notably missing” from joint efforts by brands such as H&M and Nike in lobbying governments and industry to step up the use of solar and wind power where their infrastructure remains scarce.
The Chip Wilson-founded firm has funneled $10 million into the Apparel Impact Institute’s $250 million war chest for climate change solutions. In an effort to quit the petrochemical-derived mainstays of sweat-wicking clothing—i.e., polyester, nylon and elastane—Lululemon is investing in textiles made with plant-based ingredients and even carbon emissions. At least 75 percent of its materials will come from recycled, renewable or so-called “responsible” sources by 2025, it has promised. In a recent analysis by the NewClimate Institute for Climate Policy and Global Sustainability, the label scored brownie points for providing a high level of detail in its disclosures on the energy use and emissions of its own operations, including a breakdown of emissions and energy demand by fuel type and geography.
“Tackling the climate crisis and scaling solutions in a meaningful way requires supply chain collaboration, investment and transparency,” the Lululemon spokesperson said. “We remain committed to working directly with our suppliers, industry partners, civil society and policymakers…to accelerate collective climate action.”
But Lululemon needs to aim higher, said Rachel Kitchin, climate campaigner at Stand.earth, which gave Lululemon an overall C- grade in last year’s Fossil-Free Fashion scorecard, together with a comment that it “lags behind” its rivals in setting aggressive climate and energy goals.
“One thing that the supply chain needs is support from brands…during an energy transition,” Kitchin said. “Something like a strong commitment to renewable energy is a really important signal both for manufacturers themselves and for governments, for example, in Bangladesh or in Vietnam, to understand that that is the direction where their key brands that are buying want to go in.”
Stand.earth has been asked why it’s going after Lululemon versus other, bigger companies so many times that it has a page on its website simply titled “Why Lululemon?”
Responding to the very same question from a member of the media, Berman said that Lululemon positions itself as an environmental trailblazer, yet it has “failed to act” despite two years of Stand.earth bringing its concerns to the attention of senior management. Instead, the Trove resale partner “ramped up their greenwashing and their messaging about what a planet leader they are.”
“Lululemon is one of the largest and fastest-growing fashion brands in the world,” she said. “They have an annual revenue of over $8 billion. In looking at the many companies that we’ve reviewed, many of whom we’re working with, Lululemon stands out as a company that has the opportunity to make great change in the world, and has one of the largest gulfs between the rhetoric and what they’re actually doing on the ground. They’re making the problem worse while making enormous progress of pretending to…address these issues.”
Stand.earth’s complaint to Competition Bureau Canada runs 39 pages. It slams Lululemon for its “significant” increase in air freight use in the first half of 2022—due to Covid-inflicted supply chain disruptions—“in disregard for the increased detrimental impacts on the environment.” The filing also excoriates the brand for contributing to microplastic pollution, overemphasizing the benefits of “minor” environmental initiatives to deflect from its greater harm, and making claims about its “vision” or “goals”—such as the “restoration of a healthy planet—that are “unrealistic” and have no answers for how such an “incredible transformation” would take place.
The complaint doubles as a request to the Canadian government’s commissioner of competition to begin an inquiry into “alleged false or misleading representations” by Lululemon concerning its ‘Be Planet’ marketing campaign, said Christopher M. Rusnak, a partner with Harper Grey and Stand.earth’s counsel on this matter.
“Now that the application has been filed, the issue is in the hands of the commissioner to carry out its inquiry,” he said. “If, after conducting its inquiry, the Competition Bureau determines it appropriate, the commissioner can apply to the court seeking orders and penalties against Lululemon.”
Potential orders, Rusnak said, could include requiring Lululemon to notify all persons affected by any statement that has been determined to be false or misleading, as well as a fine of up to 3 percent of its annual worldwide gross revenue. There are precedents: In 2022, Keurig Canada ponied up $3 million for misleading consumers about the recyclability of its single-use coffee pods. Last year, the Competition Bureau launched a probe into alleged false and misleading environmental representations by the Royal Bank of Canada.
Lululemon can avoid greenwashing if it wants to, Berman said. Already, 7,000 yoga practitioners have signed a petition asking it to transition to renewable energy. Last year, more than 100 athletes wrote a letter urging the company to halt its rising greenhouse gas emissions.
“They need to abandon their messaging that claims that they make the planet a healthier place because it’s simply untrue until they do make the planet a healthier place,” she said. “Lululemon needs to set out a clear, transparent and time-bound plan to stop relying on climate-killing fossil fuels to make and transport their products.”
Such targets, Berman added, are critical because they provide certainty, not only to Lululemon’s customers but also to the marketplace to “governments who may be deciding whether or not to invest in large-scale renewables in the jurisdictions where Lululemon operates.”
“They also send an important leadership message throughout the sector, so that other companies will follow suit, and to their own employees that this is a priority,” she said. “We need to see a climate transition plan from Lululemon that includes meaningful commitments and transparent timelines to kick out fossil fuels from their entire supply chain. That’s what Lululemon needs to do.”