Fashion Industry Not Serious about Emission Reduction or Impact on Nature, Says Report

Insights from the Fashion Planet Benchmark Report 2025: The report offers 15 key insights into the study.

1. Average overarching planet scores for large and small brands: The planet scores indicate out of 100 how a brand performs on average across a range of the most critical environmental issues, including uptake of lower-impact materials, initiatives to reduce textile and non-textile waste, embedding circular design principles in the business model, biodiversity, deforestation, packaging, climate change (emissions reduction, measurement, targets and disclosing progress), chemical use, water impacts, and more.
   • Large brands overall lag behind small brands in average scores, though top performers reveal it’s possible to do better (the top score for a large brand in this sample was 86% whereas several small brands earned 100%).
2. At least one circularity initiative adopted by large and small brands: More brands large and small are beginning to adopt some common circularity initiatives, but this is most often “low-hanging fruit” efforts to reduce waste such as using cut-offs to eliminate as much waste as possible and recycling/upcycling materials within a brand’s own supply chain. However, circular economy advocates debate the extent to which these efforts can help achieve a truly circular fashion economy.
   • Few brands have truly achieved anything resembling circularity at scale, though small brands lead the way in terms of some progress.
3. Post-consumer recycling initiatives adopted by large brands: Few large brands are actually implementing post-consumer recycling programmes, even arguably easier to implement programmes such as second-hand resale.
   • A range of competing start-ups in the secondhand resale space have emerged in recent years, enabling brands of all sizes to offer white-label secondhand resale and rental services.
   • Brands can also forge partnerships with established platforms. And yet, only 13% have resale and 3% have rental schemes.
   • Few even have take-back schemes for charity, which are famously riddled with their own issues, as many charity shops are drowning in cheap fast fashion.
4. Large brands investing in R&D for materials and circularity: Much of the fashion industry’s impacts are directly related to materials as well as the linear take-make-waste model that is the industry’s status quo. Moving toward lower-impact materials and a circular design economy will require investment in novel and innovative solutions.
   • Most large brands aren’t voting with their wallets for this future, further demonstrating the disconnect between the industry’s actions and the environmental realities.
5. Most commonly used lower impact materials: If it feels like most large brands’ “sustainability” actions tend to be the adoption of recycled polyester, you’re not wrong—that’s the most commonly adopted lower impact material by large brands, followed by 52% using organic cotton.
6. Small brands also commonly report using recycled polyester, but many are also investing in other lower impact materials across organic natural fibres as well as recycled and upcycled materials.
7. Many large brands are not measuring scope 3 emissions: Scopes are a way of breaking down where a brand’s emissions occur. Most targets don’t cover the full supply chain. That’s partly because brands aren’t even measuring their full carbon emissions impact across their supply chains.
   • Most large brands have measured their emissions only in scope 1, referring to direct emissions from company-owned and controlled resources, as well as scope 2, ie indirect emissions from the generation of purchased energy from a utility provider.
   • Fewer have measured scope 3, where most of their impacts typically occur. Scope 3 means all indirect emissions in the value chain, including both upstream and downstream emissions such as material production and their suppliers’ factories.
8. Large brands’ not taking steps to cut production/manufacturing emissions: If large brands actually care about reducing their emissions and future-proofing their businesses, then we’d expect to see them taking steps to do so. And yet when it comes down to it, in the areas of the supply chain that need attention, we don’t see many brands disclosing actions in areas such as cutting production and manufacturing emissions.
9. Some small brands work with artisans to cut emissions: When you compare large and small brands’ actions to cut production/manufacturing emissions, you see an interesting distinction: 17% of small brands are working with artisans to make 100% of the brand’s products by hand. Crucially, this means products made without electricity. (Some brands say their products are handcrafted but still require machines that run on electricity.) And creating products entirely by hand without electricity is a great way for brands to reduce their emissions while providing livelihood opportunities as well.
10. Large brands lagging adoption of renewable energy: Most brands’ emissions happen in the supply chain, and yet only 8% of large brands have invested in renewable energy in this area. There are numerous reasons why a large brand may be reluctant to fund its suppliers’ adoption of renewable energy. Its suppliers may work with other brands, so who funds the suppliers’ transition? What role can brands play in supporting garment-producing regions in their supply chain for a greener grid, more widely speaking? Those are just a few of the questions facing large brands, who tend instead to invest in renewable energy in their corporate offices and little else.
11. Majority of large brands have not set an emissions reduction target, not disclosing progress towards GHG targets: The reality is that more brands are setting at least some kind of target. But the majority of large brands, 56%, have not set any emissions reduction target.
12. Even among large brands that have set targets, most—88%—are not disclosing any progress towards their emissions reduction targets.
13. Few large brands have set Science Based Targets for emissions.
14. At least one water reduction initiative adopted by large brands: Fashion is one thirsty industry. But most brands aren’t doing much to reduce their water impacts. Again, most of the time that’s because water impacts often need to be addressed deeper in the supply chain, not within a brand’s direct operations.
15. Only 9% of large brands have adopted at least one water reduction initiative.
    • Only a tiny percentage of brands are actively working with their suppliers to take any action.
    • The most commonly implemented is using recycled water in the supply chain, but only 6% of large brands have done so. Meanwhile, only about 1% of large brands use a closed-loop system. 

METHODOLOGY: The report looked broadly for industry trends across the ratings for 1,372 large and 4,032 small brands. 

• The sample includes virtually every major fashion brand as well as many small labels that show how large brands can do better.
• The ratings and the insights are based entirely on brands’ publicly available data.
• Additionally, Good On You’s brand rating methodology factors in lots of different data from a wide range of public sources and weights it all accordingly—from brands’ own sustainability reporting and other public disclosures through to third-party indices, standards, and certifications. 

WHAT THEY SAID:

There are big-picture macroeconomic issues that are contributing to fashion’s unimpressive progress. Access to capital, short-term profit pressures, squeezed suppliers, sluggish market conditions, and geopolitical uncertainty all play a role. Without stronger action and systemic changes, the industry risks losing the trust of consumers, investors, and regulators—all while undermining the resilience of its own supply chains. Fashion simply can’t continue down this path.

— Sandra Capponi
Co-Founder 
Good on You 

Fashion companies generally want quantifiable sustainability metrics that offer a clear return-on-investment for shareholders. This can mean scrambling for ways to present year-on-year emissions reductions—often through very misleading target setting, carbon accounting, and reporting tactics—instead of making meaningful long-term investments in collaboration with the suppliers actually tasked with implementing change.

— Ruth MacGilp
Fashion Campaign Manager 
Action Speaks Louder