You might have noticed ACCC, ASIC and even APRA getting in the mix of combatting “greenwashing”? Everything from “green practices” to “green investments” are under the microscope.

Why? Because there is a lot of BS out there being spruiked as being “sustainable”. Much of it using marketing spin that puts it in a grey area of truth.

Greenwashing, if you haven’t heard of it, is the practice of calling a product, practice, process, company sustainable. Using vague terminology or outright fibs, it is designed to mislead the consumer into believing that the product/practice/process/company is better than the others in their charge to protect the environment. Therefore encouraging them to purchase more from them than their competitors.

Coming from my background, I saw a lot of greenwashing (alleged) in both my accounting days and also in the clothing industry. And it irks me. I hope those who practice greenwashing gets what’s coming to them.

But before I get off my high-horse, we also need to consider other elements as well. It is not always black and white.

For starters, sustainability is really a spectrum. There is no (that I am aware of) fully sustainable products in the world. Yes, there are biodegradable, organic, etc. products, which can be great, but there is a cost to growing/making them. Clearing land, farm machinery, processing, transport to consumer, etc. So it becomes more of a “what is the least worst thing”, rather than what is truly sustainable.

A reasonably recent EU mandate means any country making clothing for sale in the EU needs to have a certain % of renewable energy. That is generally fine for a wealthy first world nation, but last I checked it was third world or developing nations making most of our clothes. They can’t afford wind, solar, hydro, wave, geothermal, etc. like we can. So what happened there? Tens of thousands of low paid workers lost their livelihoods with no prospect of securing another. Great for the environment, MUCH less great for people who were already struggling to live.

I have been asked this question numerous times, and I have seen wonderful results from both ink types. However the results are really dependant on many factors like using the “right” fabric for your ink, using the right ink for purpose, and most importantly, how you profile those inks to achieve vibrant, radiant colours.

A backlit fabric needs to have all the concentration of pigment as close to the viewing surface as possible, to ensure a maximum vibrancy. 

Ink that penetrates into the fabric too much, either due to fabric construction or print method (direct dye sublimation), may look vibrant in normal light, but will appear bleached and faded when put up into a lightbox. 

A UV, Latex or transfer dye sublimation print with all the ink residing on or near the surface will have strong, vibrant colour when lit from the rear.

If your method of choice is UV or Latex inks, then a double strike, with your heat lamps at maximum, is important.

If focusing on Transfer Dye Sublimation, then it is important to manage the ink profile, dwell time and pressure of your calendar to ensure the sublimation penetrates shallowly but that you transferred enough ink to that surface to ensure vibrancy. 

There are two other factors that are very important to choosing the right fabric for your backlit prints:

1. The fabric should be woven or knitted in such a way as to not allow pin holes of light through
2. The fabric should be able to be folded for transportation, but not leave a bruise in the ink or fabric when unfolded and mounted in the frame.