Supply Chain
Fashion Revolution to Brands:
‘Put Your Money Where Your Emissions Are’

New Fashion Revolution report calls out the world’s largest fashion brands for not investing in a fair transition away from fossil fuels or in protecting workers from extreme-weather events and other threats to their livelihoods.

Published 1 month ago | About a 5 minute read

Image: Aeropostale

It would only take an investment of roughly 2 percent of their annual revenue for big fashion brands to drive a just transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy to power their manufacturing sustainably. So says the latest report from Fashion Revolution, the world’s largest fashion activism movement.

What Fuels Fashion? — a special edition of the watchdog’s annual Fashion Transparency Index — analyzes and ranks 250 of the world’s biggest fashion brands and retailers (turnover of USD$400m or more), based on their public disclosure of climate and energy-related actions. The in-depth report covers 70 data points across accountability, decarbonization, energy procurement, financing decarbonization, and just transition and advocacy.

Fashion remains one of the most polluting industries, with fossil fuels burned at every stage of production — not to mention those that make up some of our most popular fabrics. However, the report finds that 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. Instead of investing in a fair transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources to power fashion’s supply chain in a clean way, many brands are shifting the costs onto the factories they work with — burdening workers and communities with fixing a problem they didn’t create.

While extreme weather could cost nearly 1 million jobs in the sector, Fashion Revolution research also reveals that most big fashion brands are not protecting their supply chain workers. Only 3 percent (just seven brands) disclose efforts to financially support workers affected by the climate crisis. This is critical given the weak social protection in garment-producing countries and the poverty wages and high debt levels of these workers. Frequent climate events including heat waves, monsoons and droughts are devastating their livelihoods; Fashion Revolution urges big fashion to urgently provide compensation mechanisms for these workers — not as charity, but as a matter of justice.

“ By investing at least 2 percent of their revenue into clean, renewable energy and upskilling and supporting workers, fashion brands could simultaneously curb the impacts of the climate crisis and reduce poverty and inequality within their supply chains,” asserts Maeve Galvin, Global Policy and Campaigns Director at Fashion Revolution. “Climate breakdown is avoidable because we have the solutions — and big fashion can certainly afford it.”

Other key findings include:

Nearly a quarter of the world’s biggest fashion brands disclose nothing on decarbonization, signifying that the climate crisis is not a priority. With the 2030 deadline to limit global warming to 1.5°C approaching in tandem with record-breaking heat waves, the industry faces a critical challenge. Only four out of 250 have ambitious emissions-reduction targets that meet the level of ambition called for by the United Nations. Meanwhile, of the 117 out of 250 brands with decarbonization targets, 105 brands disclose updates on their progress — but 42 brands report increased scope 3 emissions against their baseline year.
The fashion industry is lagging significantly in achieving climate targets and reducing emissions — with 86 percent of companies lacking a public coal phase-out target, 94 percent without a public renewable-energy target, and 92 percent without a public renewable-energy target for their supply chains. Less than half (43 percent) of brands are transparent about their energy procurement at the operational level, and even fewer (10 percent) at supply chain level. Additionally, no major fashion brand discloses hourly matched supply chain electricity use. As a result, big fashion’s zero-emissions claims may be disconnected from grid realities — creating a false sense of progress against climate targets.
The fashion industry is evading accountability both for overproduction and the associated emissions released into the atmosphere. Most big fashion brands (89 percent) do not disclose how many clothes they make annually. Alarmingly, nearly half (45 percent) fail to disclose neither how much they make nor the raw material emissions footprint of what is produced — signaling the industry prioritizes resource exploitation whilst avoiding accountability for environmental harms linked to production.
So-called ‘sustainable’ clothes may still be produced using fossil fuels. The fashion industry’s climate impact has largely been scrutinized through the lens of the materials used in our clothes, rather than the manufacturing processes behind them. While 58 percent of brands disclose sustainable material targets, only 11 percent reveal their supply chain’s energy sources — meaning ‘sustainable’ clothes might still be made in factories powered by fossil fuels.
Suppliers need funding, not debt. Despite being the largest emitters with the greatest financial responsibility to decarbonize, nearly all (94 percent) big fashion brands fail to disclose how much they are investing in supply chain decarbonization. Only 6 percent disclose contributions, often to collaborative initiatives such as the Fashion Climate Fund and Future Supplier Initiative — which offer supplier loans for infrastructure such as solar panels. However, burdening suppliers with loans to meet brand climate targets is unfair and perpetuates existing power imbalances between brands, their suppliers and the people who make our clothes.
Long-term investment is key to decarbonizing fashion’s supply chains. The industry’s prioritization of short-term profit is at odds with supply chain decarbonization. A clean, fair and just energy transition must be driven by fashion embracing long-term supplier relationships and financial investments through fair purchasing practices. Vertically integrated brands and specialized segments such as sportswear outperform others in this research, due to greater leverage and commitment to long-term improvements. The renewable energy transition in fashion hinges on systemic changes that prioritize collective brand action, responsible purchasing and investment in a stable supply base.
The overall average brand score is 18 percent. Puma (75 percent), Gucci (74 percent), H&M (61 percent), Champion (58 percent) and Hanes (58 percent) were top 5; 32 of the 250 companies assessed scored 0.