Subscribe
Fashion remains one of the most polluting industries, with fossil fuels burnt at every stage of production. Despite the escalating climate crisis, big brands’ reduction targets are not ambitious enough to meet the global goal of limiting temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, according to the 2024 report What fuels fashion by Global Fashion Transparency Index.
Nearly a quarter of the world’s largest fashion brands disclose nothing on decarbonisation, signifying that the climate crisis is not a priority for them.
Only four out of 250 major brands (ASICS, H&M, Marks & Spencer, and Patagonia) have set emissions reduction targets that align with the United Nations' call for a 55 per cent absolute reduction by 2030 from 2018 levels. However, 58 per cent of the brands reviewed either show no clear progress on their climate goals or do not disclose them at all.
Approximately 86 per cent of brands do not have a publicly stated, time-specific, quantifiable goal for phasing out coal. A target for renewable electricity alone implies that only the electricity consumed by the company is derived from renewable sources, whereas other energy forms like heating, cooling, and transportation fuels might still depend on fossil fuels. Essentially, achieving 100 per cent renewable electricity does not equate to being entirely free of fossil fuels, as highlighted in the report.
A staggering 95 per cent of leading fashion brands and retailers do not disclose the type of fuel used in their supply chains. Furthermore, 95% of these brands do not provide a detailed country-by-country energy mix breakdown. Additionally, 77 per cent of major fashion brands lack transparency in defining renewable energy.
Just 4 per cent of brands (11/250) disclosed their scope 3 emissions by country, volume and emission type. This information helps identify specific areas or regions where emissions are highest. The companies revealing this information are American Eagle, Balenciaga, Bottega Veneta, Champion, G-Star Raw, Gucci, Hanes, JD Sports, lululemon, OVS, and SAINT LAURENT.
OVS demonstrated best practice transparency by also disclosing the percentage of emissions in each country. For instance, they informed that 58 per cent of their scope 3 emissions footprint occured in Bangladesh.
Scope 3 usually represents a brand’s most significant greenhouse gas impact, highlighting the most critical area of need. In the fashion industry, on average, 96 per cent of emissions stem from scope 3 across fashion brands with approved science-based targets.
The report emphasised the need to safeguard workers and communities within the fashion supply chain, who are directly impacted by the climate crisis. Only 3 per cent of leading fashion brands revealed their initiatives to financially support workers affected by climate-related losses and damages. This share must rise to protect those in the supply chain who are most vulnerable to the climate crisis.
The report called for energy transition within the supply chain, with a particular focus on phasing out coal at the production facility level. By transitioning to renewable energy sources like solar and wind power, fashion brands can significantly reduce their carbon footprint and lead the way towards a more sustainable industry.
Significant progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the fashion industry can be achieved by focusing on several key areas:
Transitioning supply chain from coal and fossil fuels to renewable energy
Producing fewer clothes
Minimising use of air freight
Phasing out synthetic materials derived from fossil fuels