What Fuels Fashion? New report finds big fashion is falling short of much-needed climate investments
Fashion Revolution launches new ‘What Fuels Fashion’ Report revealing the world’s largest fashion brands are not working fast enough to cut fossil fuels.
Big fashion brands must urgently invest at least 2% of their annual revenue into a Just Transition away from fossil fuels – like coal – to renewable energy to power their manufacturing sustainably, according to the latest report from Fashion Revolution, the world’s largest fashion activism movement.
The ‘What Fuels Fashion’ report, a special edition of Fashion Revolution’s annual Fashion Transparency Index was released today. It analyses 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 accountability, decarbonisation, energy procurement, financing decarbonisation, and just transition and advocacy covering over 70 data points.
Fashion remains one of the most polluting industries with fossil fuels burned at every stage of production. 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 like coal to renewable energy sources like wind and solar to power fashion’s supply chain in a clean way, fashion 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 also reveals that most big fashion brands are not protecting their supply chain workers. Only 3% (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 like heat waves, monsoons, and droughts are devastating their livelihoods. Fashion Revolution says that big fashion must urgently provide compensation mechanisms for these workers, not as charity but as a matter of justice.
“By investing at least 2% of their revenue into clean, renewable energy and upskilling and supporting workers, fashion could simultaneously curb the impacts of the climate crisis and reduce poverty and inequality within their supply chains. Climate breakdown is avoidable because we have the solution – and big fashion can certainly afford it.” says Maeve Galvin, Global Policy and Campaigns Director at Fashion Revolution.
Other key findings include:
Nearly a quarter of the world’s biggest fashion brands disclose nothing on decarbonisation, signifying that the climate crisis is not a priority for them. 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 decarbonisation targets, 105 brands disclose updates on their progress – but 42 brands report increased scope 3 emissions against their baseline year. 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.
The fashion industry is lagging significantly in achieving climate targets and reducing emissions, with 86% of companies lacking a public coal phase-out target, 94% without a public renewable energy target, and 92% without a public renewable electricity target for their supply chains. Less than half (43%) of brands are transparent about their energy procurement at the operational level, and even fewer (10%) 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 churning out excessive amounts of clothing and the associated emissions released into the atmosphere. Most big fashion brands (89%) do not disclose how many clothes they make annually. Alarmingly, nearly half (45%) fail to disclose neither how much they make nor the raw material emissions footprint of what is produced, signalling the industry prioritises resource exploitation whilst avoiding accountability for environmental harms linked to production. The fashion industry wants to have its cake and eat it too.
So-called ‘sustainable’ clothes may still be produced using fossil fuels. The fashion industry’s climate impact has largely been scrutinised through the lens of the materials used in our clothes, rather than the manufacturing processes behind them. While 58% of brands disclose sustainable material targets, only 11% 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 decarbonise, nearly all (94%) big fashion brands fail to disclose how much they are investing in supply chain decarbonisation. Only 6% disclose contributions, often to joint climate funds like the Fashion Climate Fund and Future Supplier Initiative. These funds offer supplier loans for infrastructure like solar panels. However, burdening suppliers with loans to meet brand climate targets is unfair and perpetuates existing power imbalances between fashion brands, their suppliers and the people who make our clothes.
Long-term investment is key to decarbonising fashion’s supply chains. The industry’s prioritisation of short-term profit is at odds with supply chain decarbonisation. 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 specialised segments like sportswear outperform others due to greater leverage and commitment to long-term improvements. The renewable energy transition in fashion hinges on systemic changes that prioritise collective brand action, responsible purchasing, and investment in a stable supply base.
The overall average brand score is 18%. See below for lowest and highest scorers.
Lowest Scoring Brands 2024: 32 major brands scored a 0% rating including: Aeropostale, BCBGMAXAZRIA, Beanpole, Belle, Billabong, Bosideng, Celio, DKNY, Fabletics, Fashion Nova, Forever 21, Heilan Home, KOOVS, Longchamp, Max Mara, Metersbonwe, Mexx, New Yorker, Nine West, Quicksilver, Reebok, Revolve, Roxy, Saks Fifth Avenue, Savage X Fenty, Semir, Smart Bazaar, Splash, Tom Ford, Tory Burch, Van Heusen, Youngor.
