![It appears that every fashion brand is doing its very best, setting targets such as “we’ll achieve net zero across our value chain by 2030”, and “[our goal is to] be climate positive by 2040”. However, beyond the snappy promises lies a very different reality.](/sites/texfash/files/styles/main_1_xl/public/images/2024/11/20/20241120-climate.jpg?itok=RRLbR9-F "It appears that every fashion brand is doing its very best, setting targets such as “we’ll achieve net zero across our value chain by 2030”, and “[our goal is to] be climate positive by 2040”. However, beyond the snappy promises lies a very different reality.")
The textiles-fashion industry could be substantially off track when it comes to meeting the 2030 climate goals if a Good on You rigorous and independent brand ratings is to be believed which says that a whopping 87.7% of the 5,821 brands analysed do not state whether they are on course with their greenhouse gas emissions targets.
THE CLIMATE NUMBERS: The revelations include:
- 87.7% of large brands with greenhouse gas emissions targets do not state whether they are on track to meet them. This underscores the need for governments to mandate reporting on greenhouse gas emissions.
- 0 of the 40 most profitable brands analysed receive Good On You’s top rating—“Great”—for the environment. This means these brands are not demonstrating leadership in environmental policies, transparency, or managing material issues across their supply chains.
- 43% of the most profitable brands analysed get the two lowest ratings for environment, “Not Good Enough” and “Very Poor”—meaning these brands publish little or no concrete information about their sustainability practices and are not adequately managing their impacts across their supply chains. In some cases, these brands may make ambiguous claims that are unlikely to have a material impact.
- Only 9.6% of all brands scored “Good” or “Great” across all areas (environment, labour, and animal welfare), demonstrating how the industry needs to do much better. This percentage includes a large share of small and independent labels showing leadership.
- 16.6% of large brands have a science-based greenhouse gas emissions target. Read on to see why this number should be higher.
THE METHODOLOGY: Good On You looked past each brand’s claims and analysed its actions across more than 100 key sustainability issues. It considered a variety of indicators of environmental impact and progress, with each brand labelled on a scale of 1 (“We Avoid”) to 5 (“Great”), with brands on the upper end of that scale representing the leaders for their policies. These include:
- emissions reduction activities;
- target setting;
- the measurement of scope one, two, and three GHG emissions (this means not only counting emissions from brand-controlled sources like offices and warehouses but all indirect emissions like those from energy use, purchased products, and even employee commuting).
The environmental ratings also factored in resource management, chemical use, and water use.
- The brands analysed included many major fashion houses, high street shops, and a significant selection of smaller, more sustainable labels.
- Interestingly, the sample included a disproportionate share of sustainable brands, thus presenting a picture that is “even rosier than the reality”.
