Can outdoor functional clothing really deliver on promises of sweat absorption, waterproofing, and UV protection?
Yesterday, the Beijing Consumers’ Association released the results of a comparative test on 40 pieces of online-purchased outdoor functional clothing: over half of the outdoor garments exaggerated their functional claims, especially those touting moisture-wicking and quick-drying properties, some of which may involve false advertising. Multiple well-known outdoor brands such as “Columbia,” “Hiweed Outdoor,” “Decathlon,” “Dage,” and “Jack Wolfskin” were found non-compliant, with problematic outdoor clothing sold on websites including Tmall, JD.com, No.1 Mall, Dangdang, Amazon, and Moonbasa. The public can log onto the Beijing Consumers’ Association website to view the specific list.
Outdoor functional clothing refers to garments that offer additional special features compared to regular clothing—such as waterproofing, UV protection, and moisture-wicking and quick-drying capabilities. Due to their technical complexity, their prices can be surprisingly high.
For this test, the Beijing Consumers’ Association randomly purchased 40 pieces of outdoor functional clothing from several well-known online shopping platforms and commissioned the National Textile Products Quality Supervision and Inspection Center to conduct tests. Out of these, 22 did not meet national standards, with issues mainly relating to missing usage instructions, inaccurate labeling, discrepancies between actual fiber content and labeled content, and failure to meet advertised functional claims.
Functional features of outdoor clothing were the main focus of the testing, and also where most problems were found. The Beijing Consumers’ Association explained that 21 items failed to meet functional standards, with exaggerated function claims, particularly those advertising moisture-wicking and quick-drying, which were found to potentially involve false advertising.
The Beijing Consumers’ Association stated that all 40 garments were purchased online. Many consumers place trust in brand flagship stores, but findings revealed that both brand flagship stores and general merchant-operated online shops sell functional clothing of poor quality, with pass rates below 50%. This indicates serious quality issues with outdoor clothing currently sold online.
Issue 1
“Columbia” outdoor clothing has poor moisture permeability
The Beijing Consumers’ Association said that among 34 garments labeled as having moisture-wicking and quick-drying functionality, 16 performed poorly in actual testing and failed to meet requirements. Brands involved included well-known names such as “Hiweed Outdoor,” “Columbia,” “Mountain Road,” and “First Outdoor.”
Among them, the men’s stain-resistant, waterproof, three-in-one jacket (product code 16940849) sold by “Haomai Mai” and labeled as from Taikoo Resources (Shanghai) Trading Co., Ltd. under the brand “Columbia,” had poor moisture permeability. Taikoo Resources (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. replied to the Beijing Consumers’ Association twice, claiming to be the sole general agent for Columbia in China, stating they had not signed any supply contracts with “Haomai Mai” and that any unauthorized sales were illegal counterfeits or smuggled goods. Later, the company sent another reply saying the sample’s appearance showed no significant difference from genuine products, so it could not definitively confirm whether the product was fake.
Issue 2
A Decathlon jacket had fiber content that did not match labeling
Functional clothing typically uses relatively single types of fabric fibers, which usually do not cause issues, but the test found that 3 garments still had discrepancies between actual and labeled fiber content. These included a men’s jacket from “Decathlon,” an ultra-thin outdoor skin shirt from “Hiweed Outdoor,” and a two-piece set men’s jacket from “Jack Wolfskin.”
In addition, 6 garments failed waterproof performance tests. The “Reynolds” women’s autumn/winter new-style jacket sold by the Reynolds flagship store on No.1 Mall had an actual measured water resistance value of just 13% of the standard.
Moreover, an ultra-thin outdoor skin shirt from “Hiweed Outdoor” did not provide UV protection.