@StyleDesperation, sorry only just seen response now. In terms of your last question, I think there was a time, maybe 5-10yrs ago where I felt it was a good idea to show retailers there was appetite for sustainable ranges in a voting with your feet sense.
I don't think it's that valid anymore these days, all marketing research they have now overwhelmingly shows gen-z and millennials find sustainability really important and a factor in their purchase decisions and these tend to be the groups who most easily spend their disposable income. And disposable income is key, 'being (seen to be) sustainable' is a luxury attitude for most. They have the convincing data already, no need to add to it through purchases IMO.
I think this is also why we're in the situation we're in now, so many brands presenting themselves as sustainable where if you scratch at the surface it quickly unravels. When the concern was mostly about worker's rights, child labour and welfare of textile farmers at least there were checks, standards, certifications, commitments that could be legally enforced, etc. It was far from perfect but you had some sort of assurance from an independent body.
It's also interesting that concern for worker's rights has pretty much disappeared and been replaced by sustainability. The marketing plays in well to the idea that if, as a brand, you care about the environment you also care about worker's rights. However, if you look into the production of cotton and the environmental impact of that and the health of the farmers growing it you'd come to very different conclusions.
I don't think it's some great conspiracy but I do think in contrast to worker's rights brands were much quicker to manage the messaging and have stopped people looking too deeply. As a result, te sustainable ranges within a larger brand feel very much like window dressing to me these days.