Stand.earth: Waging a Relentless Battle for Fossil-Free Fashion as Brands Drag Feet on Climate

How have polyester-driven brands and companies been reacting to your reports? Have you ever been threatened with legal action? Or, do these fast fashion and other fossil fashion companies try to disregard your reports believing that these won't make any difference to their bottonlines since end-consumers don't read these reports?
Todd Paglia: Brands have indeed reacted to Stand.earth’s reports, and many of them have been directly in touch with our campaign team. In fact, one brand has stated privately that they “don’t want to get ‘Lululemon’d,’” referencing our intense campaigning against Lululemon’s reliance on fossil fuel-derived materials. 

We have not been threatened with a lawsuit from this sector because they have learned we are not going to be deterred. In our forest protection campaign, Resolute, a forest products company, sued us for $300 million and our goal was to beat the lawsuit, force them to pay our legal bills, grow our campaigns, Board, staff and budget despite the lawsuit, and we did all those things and more. 

The other day there was the 2024 Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor (CCRM) which evaluated 51 of the world’s largest companies, including 5 in the fashion sector, and found them all set to ensure that the Paris Agreement goal of limiting climate change to 1.5°C remains a mirage. What is Stand.earth doing to mobilise corporates to toe the line faster?
Todd Paglia: It’s true that many of those 51 companies have made billions of dollars in profits over the years while denying the problems with fossil fuels and delaying and obstructing climate policy—they spend millions on advertising campaigns about being part of a sustainable solution, all the while continuing to invest in more fossil fuel extraction.

As for the five fashion brands evaluated, the report finds an improvement in fashion retailers’ emissions disclosure and target setting practices, both for medium- and long-term targets, but few clear references to more fundamental business-model transitions. The good news is most companies acknowledge the need for the fashion sector to become more sustainable in terms of resources and GHG emissions—that some of these companies recognise the negative impacts of fossil fuel-powered production processes is a critical step toward change. 

And that’s where our work at Stand.earth becomes even more meaningful. We engage deeply with companies while also applying public pressure. More than half of the companies scored in the 2023 scorecard met or engaged with us to understand their scores better by taking climate action, and it's a helpful tool to push for more progress.

That’s why, as another example of our wide-ranging campaign work, we have filed a legal complaint against Lululemon in Canada, where the company is based, with the Bureau of Competition – an agency empowered to force companies to eliminate deceptive marketing practices, like Lululemon’s greenwashing ‘Be Planet’ campaign, and potentially fine them up to 3% of annual revenues. For Lululemon, that could equate to hundreds of millions of dollars, which will without doubt get their attention, and the attention of peer brands. If we’re successful in setting that precedent, we’re increasingly likely to see corporations toe the line faster.

It’s been a newsy month for greenwashing, well, almost. So we had news that the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) will now allow companies to use “environmental attribute certificates”—a category of carbon accounting mechanisms that includes carbon offsets and renewable energy certificates—to abate certain Scope 3 emissions. It is likely to be a boom mired in controversy. Your comments.
Todd Paglia: The SBTi battle is far from over. The corrupt proposal which we believe will fail would effectively give companies a blank check to greenwash, and it threatens to undermine years of important and meaningful progress pushing for real corporate accountability. The reason we think this will fail is that it would reward the fakers like Lululemon, while punishing companies that are investing in real change. Allowing RECs and offsetting would also be a climate justice crime because it would allow climate pollution to continue impacting the people living and working at and near these factories. There is nothing “science-based” about this decision, and SBTi needs to change course immediately if it wants to salvage its reputation as an effective standard-setting body for climate action.

Then there came Earthsight’s investigations that revealed that the cotton, carrying the Better Cotton label, used by fast fashion behemoths H&M and Zara, has been linked to large-scale deforestation, land grabbing, human rights abuses and violent land conflicts in the Brazilian Cerrado. What needs to be done to check this ‘labelled’ greenwashing?
Todd Paglia: The Earthsight investigation is incredibly revealing and long overdue. The “Better Cotton” designation, from our viewpoint, has always been greenwash marketing in large part because there’s a lack of transparency around how that cotton is sourced, and because by setting a low bar for access, the initiative squeezed out more sustainable—and expensive—alternatives. Unfortunately, between the alphabet soup of certifications available, and limited public awareness of what they mean, greenwashing is not just easy, it’s incentivised. Stand.earth’s Fossil Free Fashion Scorecard, and similar investigations, are one way of promoting more impactful options, but they need to be accompanied by effective incentives.

Now, as an example of how to confront greenwashing, Stand.earth in February formally submitted a complaint to the Competition Bureau Canada against Vancouver-based multinational retailer Lululemon, underlining how the company misleads customers about its environmental impact. In stark contrast to the company’s slogan, “Be Planet,” Lululemon’s Impact Report released last fall revealed another year of staggering growth in emissions—a 100% increase in climate pollution since deploying the slogan—and the company also relies heavily on climate-damaging fossil fuels to make its products. In fact, more than 60% of the materials Lululemon uses are fossil fuel-derived, i.e., materials which contribute to climate pollution, cannot be effectively recycled, do not biodegrade, and release microplastics in the oceans and waterways. Stand.earth’s complaint against Lululemon seeks a rescission of such claims, and highlights the need for brands to make clear and accurate environmental claims that avoid exaggeration.

So, whether it’s Lululemon or any other fashion brand, any marketing that misleads consumers, even if it’s by inference, is wrong and needs to be held accountable, and we’re constructing campaigns and legal strategies that do exactly that.

This question is related to the earlier one. Your own 2021 report had pointed out the deforestation in the Amazon, though not in the cotton context. In fact, your first major report 'The Costs of Amazon Crude Oil' too was about the Amazon. The Amazon are the world's lungs, and it's not a question just of Brazil or the other countries that share the Amazon rainforests. Do you feel the need for more coordination in international efforts?
Todd Paglia: The nature of fashion supply chains is that they are among the most globally interconnected of any industry. From deforestation in the Amazon, to air pollution from coal-heavy yarn processing in China, India and Vietnam, all the way to GHG emissions from gas power generators in Bangladesh, even fashion companies themselves are barely aware of how far their supply chains reach—but that desperately needs to change.

Brands need to be aware that they have influence, and responsibility, all the way back to the raw material level and beyond. International coordination is essential to make sure that fossil fuels are phased out aggressively, and it needs to happen quickly. But it’s also essential in order to understand how these issues impact local communities and workers, and to ensure that the solutions are fair, bring local benefits, and will be part of a long-lasting solution. This is also why we are working to make financing of fossil fuels in the Amazon a thing of the past. We now have major international banks like BNP Paribas and HSBC that are excluding from their loans projects that destroy the Amazon through oil and gas production.

The Stand.earth annual report in March 2023 had rated fashion brands on five areas – commitments and transparency, renewable energy, low carbon materials, shipping and advocacy, wherein H&M Group achieved the highest score out of all the 43 brands assessed, with an overall score B-. Who should the industry believe? Your methodology is mentioned, but are you planning to refine this methodology? Or, expanding beyond the 43 brands?
Todd Paglia: The 2023 Fossil Free Fashion Scorecard is intended to be an overall measure of the actions, commitments and transparency of some of the biggest brands in the world, specifically when it comes to phasing fossil fuels out of their supply chains. Is phasing out fossil fuels enough to make a brand “sustainable” overall? No. But it is an important measure of whether they are using their influence to support—or oppose—climate action.  As the runway to 2030 gets shorter, Stand.earth plans to continue developing our methodology, as we do every year, to reflect the growing urgency of the climate crisis, and to reflect the urgent need for brands to show their working when it comes to meaningful climate action, without greenwashing. In May 2024, Stand.earth will release its Clean Energy Close-Up, a close look at 11 of the most influential brands that will show which are actually on track to stop burning fossil fuels by 2030, and what they must do to course-correct. The next full scorecard will be released in 2025.

Fast fashion continues to be the scourge. And then there is the unorganised market where there is a glut of apparel, fashion accessories like bags, footwear, all of which are manufactured with scant respect for the well-being of the planet and where earning a fast buck is the only motive. These are small manufacturers, could be big too actually. What would be your stand on such players, considering there are thousands in India alone and many many more scattered all over the globe?
Todd Paglia: The world’s largest and most profitable brands obviously have the largest negative impacts on people and the planet, and therefore have (1) the greatest responsibility to change, while also possessing (2) the resources to take action. These brands also have outsized influence over suppliers’ manufacturing process and, in turn, influence the renewable energy initiatives those suppliers launch, which has an undeniable downstream effect on other manufacturing processes.

It is our position that fashion brands and western markets have created the conditions where price and profit rules over everything, pushing all other concerns, whether they are worker safety, environmental sustainability, or in many cases even quality, to the side. Those same fashion brands are now pushing manufacturers to cut emissions, or use less water, or change their processes, while still keeping prices just as low—pushing costs on to the manufacturers. Brands need to be paying their fair share to change the way the industry operates, whether that’s through direct support to their suppliers or even a more widely accessible fund.

That said, what’s concerning is how little the brand’s size, fame, or even price bracket can tell you about its climate efforts. Across the board – whether it’s fast fashion, luxury, or athletic brands—nearly every single one has a long way still to go. At the end of the day, it can’t be on consumers to “buy better” or choose “more sustainable” brands—it’s their responsibility to do better—and it’s our job to demand it and make a race to the top happen.