Marks & Spencer: Sustainable Leader or Greenwashing Giant?

1. Introduction

Marks & Spencer (M&S) is a household name synonymous with fashion trends and affordability (Spencer, M &, n.d.). However, the fast-fashion model that fuels this success raises critical questions about its ethical and governance implications (Marks and Spencer Group plc., 2023). This report delves into these complexities, with a particular focus on the verifiability and transparency of M&S sustainability claims. Specific aspects of M&S’s fast-fashion approach including their net-zero goals, use of recycled materials and sustainable cotton, their clothing recycling program and their labour treatment and practices will be scrutinized therefore.

The report will be divided into two thematic sections-Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Business Ethics. Under CSR, M&S’s performance will be analysed through the lens of established CSR frameworks, identifying their stakeholders and responsibilities within the fast fashion industry. Areas where M&S excels and areas where improvement is needed will be highlighted, with recommendations following each analysis. Under business ethics, ethical frameworks will be used to scrutinise M&S’s specific practices, such as transparency in sustainability claims and labour practices. Each analysis will be followed by recommendations grounded in ethical principles.

1.1 Overview

M&S success in the fast-fashion industry has come under scrutiny due to the ethical and governance implications associated with its model. Fast fashion prioritises speed and affordability, churning out trendy clothing at low prices (Lambert, 2014). While this model benefits M&S by offering consumers the latest styles and keeping them engaged, it raises significant concerns. The company has set ambitious goals like achieving “net zero” emissions and using recycled materials (Spencer, M., &., n.d.-b). However, critics argue that these claims lack transparency and independent verification (Ethical Consumer, 2023). A 2021 report by Changing Markets Foundation found that 88% of M&S’s sustainability claims did not fully comply with established guidelines. Fast fashion is notorious for its environmental footprint (Andreadakis & Owusu-Wiredu, 2023). This is because production processes often use excessive water and energy, and contribute to textile waste and pollution. Concerns also exist about labour practices within the supply chain (Perry, & Wood, 2019).

Despite these challenges, M&S recognises the need for change and has taken some steps towards a more sustainable future. They have established a credibility for sustainability through initiatives like “Plan A”, a £200 million eco-plan (GreenBiz, n.d.) with 280 sustainability commitments, and sourcing cotton responsibly. They have committed to using 100%

responsibly sourced cotton through the Better Cotton Initiative (M&S, n.d.). They have

partnered with Jeanologia to achieve an 86% reduction in water usage during denim finishing (Spencer & Spencer, 2021). Their Shwopping Program allows unwanted clothing, promoting reuse and reducing waste. Although M&S is making efforts, questions remain about the overall effectiveness and transparency of their sustainability initiatives.

Theme 1: CSR- Corporate Social Responsibility

According to the CSR theory, businesses have a responsibility to society and the environment, not just their shareholders (Freeman, & Dmytryev, 2017). They have to consider the impact of their actions on all stakeholders, that is, workers, customers, communities, and the environment, and operate ethically and sustainably besides making a profit. Approaching the M&S issue through the CSR theme at the outset would help analyse how their fast-fashion model aligns with social and environmental responsibility beyond just profit.

The stakeholder theory

To understand how M&S balances its CSR efforts across all stakeholders impacted by their business practices, we will apply the stakeholder theory. This will help us identify which stakeholders might be benefited or disadvantaged by their current CSR initiatives. M&S faces criticism from various stakeholders regarding its fast fashion model. Their primary stakeholder, the customers, appreciate the affordability and trend of their clothing range but others are sceptical of the lack of transparency in their sustainability claims (Barry et al., 2015). While M&S may prioritise ethical sourcing in some areas, concerns linger regarding labour practices throughout the supply chain (Perry, & Wood, 2019). Low wages, unsafe working conditions, and limited worker rights can create dissatisfaction among employees and potential ethical violations. Their environmental impact is a major point of contention. High water usage, textile waste, and pollution contribute to environmental degradation (Bowlin, 2024). Few of their efforts are seen as positive steps, but critics argue that they do not address the broader environmental footprint. If M&S fails to adapt to the growing demand for sustainable practices, they risk losing investor confidence (Doane & MacGillivray, 2001). Sustainability concerns can be seen as financial risks, potentially impacting stock prices.

Analysing M&S through this lens, will help identify where they might be falling short. The company prioritises trendy clothing at affordable prices, which satisfies customers but others are sceptical of the lack of transparency in their sustainability claims.

pollution, harming the environment. Stakeholder theory emphasises transparency in decision-making and accountability for the impact on all stakeholders (Amaeshi, 2010). The lack of clear evidence and independent verification surrounding M&S's sustainability claims raises concerns about transparency.

Carrolls CSR Theory

To understand a company's CSR, Archie Carroll developed the CSR Pyramid in 1979 and until today it serves as a foundational framework (Kaittani, 2023). It proposes a hierarchy of responsibilities that business have towards society, depicted as a pyramid with increasing level of social expectation (fig). Applying the Pyramid, we can analyse M&S's performance. The bottom level of economic responsibility serves as a fundamental condition or requirement of existence for a business. M&S demonstrates this by offering affordable clothing and maintaining financial stability (Marks and Spencer Group plc, 2023a). They delivered strong results in recent years, with profits before tax of £482.0m for the 2022/23 financial year (Spencer, n.d.-a). But low prices might contribute to unfair labour practices as mentioned earlier. This creates a conflict between economic success and ethical treatment of workers. The level above is legal responsibility whereby businesses are expected to comply with all relevant laws and regulations. M&S likely adheres to basic legal requirements regarding labour and environmental regulations. However, ethical business practices go beyond just following the minimum legal standards. Above this level, is the ethical responsibility level. This is where concerns arise. M&S's lack of transparency in sustainability claims and potential issues with worker well-being raise questions about their ethical conduct.

Triple Bottom Line (TBL) theory

The TBL theory expands on CSR by emphasising a three-pronged approach to sustainability: People, Planet, and Profit. This framework compels businesses to consider the social (people), environmental (planet), and economic (profit) impacts of their decisions. The potential gap between M&S's sustainability claims and reality is where the core issue lies. They present themselves as a leader in ethical fashion, but some aspects of their operations raise concerns regarding the social (people) and environmental (planet) aspects of sustainability (Bowlin, 2024). The fast-fashion model with high volume, low-cost clothing lines as an approach is inherently less sustainable as compared to more durable, ethically-produced clothing (Gupta and Gentry, 2018). Potential exploitation of workers in the supply chain through unfair wages and unsafe working conditions raises questions about M&S's commitment to fair labour practices and transparency into their supply chain. Their clothing recycling program "Shopping" might be contributing to "waste colonialism" by offloading used clothing onto developing countries. Their claims about using recycled materials and

sustainable cotton lack transparency and independent verification. M&S’s “net zero” goal relies heavily on carbon offsets, which might not translate to actual reductions in their emissions or carbon footprint (Marks and Spencer Group plc, 2023). Their efforts of water reduction are positive, but fail to address the broader environmental footprint. This highlights the need for a more balanced approach towards the TBL

Theme 2: Business Ethics

Under this theme, we will scrutinize the ethical complexities surrounding M&S’s fast-fashion model by employing three key ethical frameworks- Utilitarianism, Deontology, and Virtue Ethics. Utilitarianism as a theory is intended to guide rightful actions that benefit the majority of individuals. It will help us to examine if M&S prioritises practices that benefit all stakeholders, workers and the environment, even if it means higher production costs ( Razzaq et al, 2018). Deontology focuses on the inherent rightness or wrongness of actions, regardless of consequences. Here we consider whether M&S prioritises following ethical labour standards such as fair wages, safe working conditions and so on, as a core principle, even if it means higher production costs (Kaikobad, 2015). Virtue Ethics, a theory that emphasises the importance of developing virtuous character traits that leads to morally good action. We will examine if M&S cultivates virtues such as honesty, and transparency within their organisation, and a commitment to sustainability throughout their supply chain ( Garcia-Ruiz & Rodriguez- Lluesma, 2014). M&S has a responsibility to provide consumers with accurate information about the ethical sourcing and production of their clothing.

Utilitarianism (Maximising Well-being) and M&S’s Sustainability Claims

Advocated by philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, utilitarianism emphasises promoting happiness (welfare) and minimising unhappiness (reduction in welfare). In a business context, it translates to considering the impact of a company’s actions on all stakeholders, including employees, consumers, the environment, and society at large ( Bénabou, 2024). This provides a valuable framework for analysing M&S’s sustainability claims because it allows us to examine whether their practices truly benefit everyone involved.

The following section discusses this examination.

Primarily, Utilitarianism would question the high-volume, low-cost clothing model. While it might offer lower prices for consumers initially, the environmental and social costs outweigh the benefits in the long run. Waste generation, resource depletion, worker exploitation- all negatively impact well-being of stakeholders involved ( Carroll, 2021). M&S has shown continued commitment through initiatives like launching sustainable denim lines and fully responsible sourcing of cotton by 2019, aligning with scientific targets to combat climate change. Utilitarianism would consider the effectiveness of this goal. If achieving this relies

heavily on offsets that don’t translate to actual emission reductions, it fails to minimise

environmental harm. A perception of being environmentally conscious is created while

potentially obscuring the bigger picture.

In 2008, M&S launched their clothes recycling program “Shwopping” for charity, pioneering a

circular business model. Utilitarianism emphasizes transparency. Lack of clear information

and independent verification from M&S regarding recycled materials and sustainability

sourced cotton hinders informed consumer choices. Eco conscious consumers cannot make

well-informed decisions, hindering the potential positive impact of these initiatives. Eco

conscious consumers cannot make well-informed decisions, hindering the potential positive impact of these initiatives.

Additionally, “waste colonialism” associated with the ‘Shwopping’ program creates negative

environmental and social impacts in developing countries. A more sustainable solution would

minimise waste generation in the first place, maximise overall well-being. Last but not the

least utilitarianism advocate for fair wages and safe working conditions throughout M&S's supply chain.

Exploitative labour practices diminish employee morale and overall well-being

making them less productive, and unfair wages limit consumer purchasing power.

Deontolgy (duty ethics) and M&S’s Sustainability Claims

Deontology ( duty and moral imperatives), advocated by Immanuel Kant, focuses on the inherent rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, regardless of the consequences (cite. This framework is relevant to M&S’s sustainability claims because it helps us evaluate their

actions based on ethical principles, not just financial benefits. A core principle in Deontology

is the Kantian Categorical Imperative. It states that we should act in such a way that our

actions could be universally adopted as a law. Applying this principle to M&S, we can question

if M&S’s approach to sustainability is something that all businesses should follow.

Firstly, deontological approach would question the ethicality of a business model built on

exploitation and violation of moral principles. Low prices and mass production might seem

profitable practices but from a deontological point of view often come at the expense of worker

rights and environmental degradation. Secondly, deontology would emphasise the moral

imperative of reducing emissions. While offsets can be part of the solution, they should not be

be a substitute for actual reductions in M&S’s carbon footprint. The company has a duty to

prioritise practices that genuinely reduce their environmental impact.

Deception violates the deontological principle of honesty, even if it leads to increased sales. It

is the duty of M&S to be transparent about their materials and sourcing practices. Consumers

have a right to correct information to make ethical choices. From a deontology perspective,

M&S is also responsible for the entire lifecycle of their products. The shipping of used clothing to

developing countries creates new environmental problems. M&S has a duty to develop a more

responsible solution, such as recycling or remanufacturing garments within their own supply chain.

system. Final but foremost, deontology would question if M&S is responsible to ensure fair treatment of workers throughput their supply chain. Respecting worker’s rights, providing safe working conditions, and paying living wages are all moral imperatives, regardless of production costs or market competitiveness.

Virtue Ethics (Character and Moral Action) and M&S’s Sustainability Claims

Virtue Ethics, pioneered by Aristotle, as a theory emphasises cultivating virtues like honesty, courage, and justice within individuals and organisations. The development of ethical capabilities, knowledge, skills, and dispositions are necessary to make good decisions. This framework is relevant to M&S’s sustainability claims because it allows us to assess whether they prioritise building a culture that foster ethical behaviour throughout their operations.

Applying virtue ethics lens on the M&S’s fast fashion approach involves questioning whether the model aligns with virtues like honesty and environmental stewardship. Prioritising short-term profits over long-term sustainability and potentially misleading consumers about the ethicality of their products raise concerns about M&S’s character. Virtue ethics perspective would also ask if M&S demonstrates the virtue of environmental responsibility and if their net zero strategy prioritise genuine emission reductions or rely too heavily on offsets.

As it emphasises honesty and transparency, virtue ethics would scrutinise the virtuosity of M&S in providing clear information about their materials and sourcing practices as greenwashing suggests a lack of commitment to ethical principles. The clothes recycling program raises concerns about their commitment to the virtue of environmental responsibility because a truly ethical approach would have minimised waste generation in the first place. As it emphasises treating others with fairness and respect, virtue ethics would finally question if M&S cultivates a culture that prioritises worker well-being throughout the supply chain. Exploitative labour practices contradict core virtues.

Recommendations:

To address the complex challenge that M&S faces in balancing economic success with social responsibility and environmental sustainability, a multi-themed approach to recommendations has been explored. The theories covered under the two broad themes of CSR and business ethics offers a unique lens to analyse practices and identify areas for improvement for M&S to develop a comprehensive set of recommendations to ensure M&S’s long-term success.

Theme 1: CSR

Stakeholder Theory:

M&S has taken some initial steps towards stakeholder engagement. Their “Shwopping” program demonstrates a willingness to involve customers in promoting clothing reuse. However, they can expand these efforts. M&S could establish a Sustainability Advisory Board composed of representatives from various stakeholder groups like environmental NGOs, labour rights organizations, consumer groups and so on to gain diverse perspectives and inform their sustainability strategy. Additionally, conducting regular customers surveys can provides valuable insights into customer expectations regarding sustainable fashion practices.

M&S currently lacks a comprehensive stakeholder impact assessment. They can conduct a detailed mapping exercise to identify how each stakeholder group – workers, supplier, communities, etc, is affected by their business practices. For example. this might involve analysing the environmental impact of their supply chain on local communities near factories or assessing the working conditions and wages of garment workers. By understanding these impacts, M&S can prioritise their CSR efforts and ensure they are addressing the most pressing concerns for all stakeholders.

Carroll’s CSR Pyramid:

As was discussed earlier, with references to Carroll’s CSR pyramid, concerns arise at the ethical responsibility level. Although cotton is sourced responsibly, concerns remain about broader labour practices within their supply chain. They can strengthen their ethical commitment by implementing stricter labour standards throughout the supply chain. This could involve partnering with independent monitoring organisations to ensure fair wages, safe working conditions, and adherence to worker rights. Additionally, M&S could explore philanthropic initiatives that align with their sustainability goals. For instance, they can partner with organisations that provide vocational training for garment workers or supports projects that promote sustainable textile production methods.

M&S needs to move beyond compliance and not just adhere to basic legal requirements. By advocating for stricter industry regulations regarding environmental sustainability and ethical labour practices, they can demonstrate leadership. They could collaborate with other fashion brands to establish a industry-wide code of conduct that prioritizes worker well-being and environmental responsibility. Additionally, they can lobby policymakers to enact legislation that promotes sustainable productions practices and fair labour standards within the textile industry.

Triple Bottom Line (TBL):

M&S currently prioritises affordability and being up to date with market trends, possibly overshadowing social and environmental considerations. Integrating the TBL framework into

their core business strategy would require a shift in focus. For example. during product development, they could consider not just the cost and design of a garment, but also its environmental footprint such as material choices, production processes and the potential social impact on workers throughout the supply chain.

M&S can establish clear and measurable goals for each aspect of the TBL- people, planet and profit. For instance, they could set a goal to source 50% of their cotton from sustainable sources within the next two years. Similarly, they could aim to reduce water usage in their supply chain by 20% within the next five years. These measurable goals will allow M&S to track their progress towards a more sustainable future, demonstrate their commitment to stakeholders, and identify areas where they need to improve.

Theme 2: Business Ethics

Building upon the discussions and analysis from an ethical perspective, a few recommendations have been proposed which can help M&S in moving beyond complying with ethical principles and might pave the way in promoting ethical practices within the fashion industry.

Utilitarianism:

A utilitarian scrutiny done earlier revealed that the environmental and social costs outweighed the benefits in the long run. To achieve otherwise, a thorough cost-benefit analyses of their practices need to be done. This can involve considering the long-term well-being of all stakeholders, not just short-term profits. For instance, M&S might find that investing in higher quality, more durable garments might be a better long-term strategy despite initial higher costs.

This would benefit both customers (with long lasting clothes) and the environment (with reduced waste from disposable clothing). Utilitarianism emphasizes transparency in decision-making. M&S's lack of clarity around sustainability claims has eroded stakeholder trust. They can rebuild trust by providing transparent and verifiable data on their social and environmental impact. For example, M&S could publish detailed life cycle assessments of their garments, outlining the environmental impact of materials, production, and transportation. This transparency allows stakeholders to assess the true cost of their clothing and make informed choices.

Deontology:

In keeping with the deontological focus on following universal moral rules, M&S can demonstrate respect for human rights by ensuring fair labour practices throughout their supply chain. They can go beyond minimum legal requirements and implement stricter labour standards that guarantee fair wages, safe working conditions, and worker rights to freedom of [unreadable]

association and collective bargaining. M&S has already taken some initial steps with responsible cotton sourcing. Expanding these efforts and ensuring fair treatment of all workers throughout the supply chain is crucial. Deontology emphasizes avoiding causing harm. M&S’s fast-fashion model raises concerns about environmental damage. They can minimise their environmental footprint by implementing sustainable production practices. This could involve using more eco-friendly materials like organic cotton, recycled polyester etc., reducing water usage in garment production, and exploring innovative recycling technologies to minimize textile waste.

Virtue Ethics:

Virtue ethics focuses on developing ethical character within individuals and organisations.

M&S can cultivate a more ethical culture by prioritizing transparency, accountability, and sustainability within their business operations. This might involve establishing clear ethical guidelines for their supply chain partners, providing training on ethical sourcing for their employees, and creating a company culture that values ethical conduct over short-term profit maximisation. The company’s leaders play a crucial role in setting the ethical tone for the organisation. M&S’s leadership can demonstrate their commitment to ethical practices by actively engaging with stakeholders on sustainability issues, promoting ethical sourcing within the industry, and holding themselves accountable for achieving their CSR goals.

Conclusion:

M&S is at a critical juncture. Balancing economic success with social responsibility and environmental sustainability is a complex challenge. A multipronged approach has therefore been adopted to help M&S navigate this challenge and emerge as a leader in ethical fashion. Exploring M&S fashions’ practices through various lenses provided valuable insights and recommendations. They can strengthen their CSR efforts by actively engaging with all stakeholders and understanding their concerns. Prioritising ethical labour practices throughout the supply chain and ensuring fair treatment of workers is crucial. Integrating the TBL into core business strategy ensures economic success goes hand-in-hand with social and environmental responsibility. Providing transparent information and being accountable for their impact builds trust with stakeholders. All this is possible when the tone at leadership level is committed to strong ethical practices. By cultivating a more ethical and sustainable business model, M&S will not only benefit its stakeholders but also the environment and the future of the fashion industry. The path forward is clear and its about time for M&S to embrace a more sustainable and responsible future.

References

Spencer, M. & S (n.d.). M&S International. Marks & Spencer.

https://corporate.marksandspencer.com/about-us/our-businesses/ms-international

Marks & Spencer launches 200 million pound eco plan | GreenBiz. (n.d.-b.).

https://www.greenbiz.com/article/marks-spencer-launches-200-million-pound-eco-plan

Marks and Spencer Group plc. (2023). M&S Sustainability Report 2023. Reshaping M&S.

https://www.google.com/url? sa=i&url=[unreadable]

[unreadable]

Razzaq, Z., Razzaq, A., Yousaf, S., & Hong, Z. (2018). The impact of utilitarian and hedonistic shopping values on sustainable fashion consumption: The moderating role of religiosity. Global Business Review, 19(5), 1224-1239.

Kaikobad, N. K., Bhuiyan, M. Z. A., Zobaida, H. N., & Daizy, A. H. (2015). Sustainable and ethical fashion: The environmental and morality issues. IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) Volume, 20, 17-22.

Garcia-Ruiz, P., & Rodriguez-Lluesma, C. (2014). Consumption practices: A virtue ethics approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(4), 509-531.

Bénabou, R., Falk, A., & Henkel, L. (2024). Ends versus means: Kantians, utilitarians, and moral decisions (No. w32073). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Carroll, A. B. (2021). Corporate social responsibility: Perspectives on the CSR construct's development and future. Business & Society, 60(6), 1258-1278.

Crane, A., Matten, D., Glozer, S., & Spence, L. J. (2019). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford University Press, USA.

M&S - Latest news, breaking stories and comment | Daily Mail Online. (2024, April 20). Mail Online.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/marks-and-spencer/index.html

Bowlin, B. (2024, January 17). Is Marks & Spencer sustainable or just another fast fashion brand? Sustainably Kind Living.

https://sustainablykindliving.com/is-marks-spencer-sustainable-or-fast-fashion/

Working in Marks and Spencer’s Food and Footwear Supply Chains - Oxfam Policy & Practice.

(2023, June 22). Oxfam Policy & Practice.

https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/working-in-marks-and-spencers-food-and-footwear-supply-chains-621145/

Wilshaw, R., Fowler, P., & Wallace, B. (2021). Working in Marks and Spencer's Food and Footwear Supply Chains.

How ethical is Marks & Spencer Group plc? | Ethical Consumer. (2023, July 27). Ethical Consumer. https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/company-profile/marks-spencer-group-plc

Marks & Spencer: 156PA_Global Sourcing Principles Jan2023_R2. (2023). Chrome-extension://efaidnbmnhttps://corporate.marksandspencer.com/sites/marksandspencer/files/marks-spencer/human-rights-and-our-supply/156PA_Global%20Sourcing%20Principles%20Jan2023_R2.pdf

Perry, P., & Wood, S. (2019). Exploring the international fashion supply chain and corporate social responsibility: Cost, responsiveness and ethical implications. Logistics and retail management, 1-26.

Spencer, M., & Spencer, M. &. (2021, February 11). EVERYDAY STYLE & TRUSTED VALUE: M&S CLOTHING SETS NEW SUSTAINABILITY STANDARDS FOR DENIM. Marks & Spencer. https://corporate.marksandspencer.com/media/press-releases/everyday-style- trusted-value-ms-clothing-sets-new-sustainability-standards

SeventhQueen. (2024, February 15). Is Marks & Spencer sustainable and ethical? - Brand Sustainability Rating. Brand Sustainability Review. https://sustainablebreview.com/brand-ratings/marks-spencer/

Brown, C. (2022, November 25). How ethical is Marks & Spencer? - Good on you. Good on You. https://goodonyou.eco/how-ethical-is-marks-spencer/

Graham-Harrison, E. (2017, December 2). M&S and others supplied by factories that mistreat workers, rights group says. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/12/marks-and-spencer-gap-h-and-m-adidas-cambodian-factories-workers-rights

M&S Clothing & Home: Responsible Wool Policy 6.1. (2022). https://corporate.marksandspencer.com/sites/marksandspencer/files/marks-spencer/c-hraw-materials/Responsible%20Wool%20Policy%206.1.pdf