This passage exposes the precise methodological flaw used to mislead consumers. By using generalized "textile averages" rather than the actual life-cycle assessment (LCA) of a specific finished garment, H&M completely bypassed accounting for high-pollution phases like factory manufacturing, toxic chemical dyeing, global shipping, and retail waste. This is a classic greenwashing tactic: using macro-level data to mask micro-level environmental damage.

This statement by an industry expert contextualizes H&M's actions within a broader, historical corporate pattern. It highlights that "greenwashing" is not a recent mistake caused by bad data, but a calculated, decades-long marketing strategy used by retailers to exploit changing consumer values without fundamentally changing their carbon-heavy business models.

This sentence provides direct evidence of severe data manipulation. Instead of merely exaggerating their green efforts, H&M displayed metrics that were a complete inversion of reality. For instance, garments that actually required significantly more water to produce were deceptively marketed as using less water.

Legally, this shows how regulatory enforcement can instantly halt a multi-million dollar global marketing campaign, creating massive reputational damage. Ethically, it exposes the systemic issue in fashion marketing where brands rush to use complex "sustainability metrics" (like the Higg Index) to look good publicly, before ensuring those tools are actually accurate, transparent, or honest.

This highlights a major ethical loophole where multi-national corporations use complex, aggregated industry averages (like the Higg MSI) to hide the true, individualized environmental footprint of specific garments. Legally, rushing to delete marketing materials when exposed demonstrates an immediate defensive reaction to mitigate potential liability, brand damage, and further regulatory penalties for deceptive advertising.