Key takeaways:
- Despite numerous pledges, very few brands have actually committed to cutting emissions enough to align with the UN Paris Climate Change Agreement.
- Labels need to invest more in the sustainability of materials, which contribute over half of most brands’ greenhouse gas output.
- Fashion’s seasonal calendar offers brands a chance to test and iterate on new materials.
The environmental organisation Standearth has a stark message for fashion: only two major brands — Levi Strauss and American Eagle — have commitments that will bring them in line with the Paris Agreement’s goal to limit temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius. While it’s been this season’s hottest trend to sign onto climate agreements or pledge carbon-neutrality, Standearth says no one holds fashion brands accountable. The Canadian-American advocacy group intends to fill that gap.
Its new report card, released on Thursday, is Standearth’s first for fashion. Levi’s came in first, but there were some encouraging surprises: American Eagle and Burberry, for example, have announced significant commitments to reduce supply chain, or Scope 3, emissions that put them in the second and third spots respectively.
But it’s a steep dropoff from there in terms of the commitments that brands have made publicly or in conversations with Standearth during the lead-up to the report. (Before finalising their positions, Standearth reached out to all 45 companies included in the rankings and gave them an opportunity to add or correct anything in their climate plans.) Signatories to the UN Fashion Charter, which includes Stella McCartney, Kering, Gap and H&M, promised to reduce their carbon pollution by 30 per cent in the next six years. But it “doesn’t reach the 40 per cent reduction needed to align with the UN Paris Climate Agreement”, the report says, adding that over 70 members of the Sustainable Apparel Coalition, a group of companies that claim to care about the environmental impacts of their products, haven’t set any meaningful climate goals.
As an evaluation of a few dozen brands, the report isn’t comprehensive for the industry. But all the labels included have a stated commitment to sustainability and most engaged with Standearth for a lengthy period, meaning it represents fashion’s general response to climate change. While there has been much attention on reducing energy use at factories and mills, as well as converting to cleaner sources, the Standearth report highlights another area that needs to change in a major way: the materials that clothes are actually made of.
Developing sustainable practices over seasons
Over half of a brand’s greenhouse gas output can be traced to the materials it uses, says Michael Sadowski, research fellow at the World Resources Institute, who co-authored the Science Based Targets initiative’s apparel and footwear guidance. Changing how one sources raw materials — such as how cotton is grown — as well as the processing and manufacturing practices that turn raw materials into fabric, play a major role in shaping companies’ environmental impact.
Levi’s has long partnered with the International Finance Corporation to help suppliers invest in renewable and more efficient energy sources — an effort unique enough that other brands look to it as a potential model. In September, it launched its Autumn/Winter 2019 collection, which offers a new approach to materials development. The collection, called Wellthread, uses cottonised hemp, a blend of cotton and rain-fed (rather than irrigated) hemp that Levi’s claims uses less water and fewer chemicals to grow than conventional cotton. It also uses a specialised, water-efficient finishing process. AW19 is the latest iteration of Wellthread, which has been in development for several years. The cottonised hemp, for instance, had been used in previous seasons but not in the brand’s signature indigo denim.
The industry’s entire role in climate change is defined not by one major flaw but by a vast collection of smaller ones. So the iterative process is important for other brands to understand, says Levi’s vice president of global product innovation Paul Dillinger. This also means there’s no magic bullet for companies to implement that can slash their carbon footprints. “Whatever may show up at the top line of a press release on a given season is a very delicious icing, but on a very substantial cake,” Dillinger says.
For him, the fashion industry’s existing seasonal cycles are almost a standing invitation for exactly this kind of long-term effort. “Every season, we reinvent ourselves. We should use that iterative process to expect… that every season we do better, that every season we lessen our footprint,” he says. “For an industry that champions change, it is sometimes change-averse.”
Making real change quickly
Burberry has demonstrated how a brand’s image can be remade via genuine change. After enduring public outrage over its (now-ended) practice of burning unsold clothes, the British fashion house took the No. 3 spot in the Standearth report.
An independent assessment in 2012 identified that over half of Burberry’s environmental impact was generated during raw material production. Cotton, cashmere and leather, from sourcing through dyeing and finishing, represent 30 per cent of its total greenhouse gas emissions. Burberry set goals in 2017 to source all of its cotton — up from the current 68 per cent — through the Better Cotton Initiative, and all of its leather from tanneries with environmental, traceability and social compliance certifications, up from 49 per cent today.
In the last year, Burberry has also released garments with Econyl, nylon made from recycled fishing nets and other waste. It replaced polyester insulation in some jackets with a material made from volcanic sand and waste coconut shells, in addition to integrating more recycled wool and cashmere into its collections. “We know that adapting how we source raw materials and create products is key,” Pam Batty, Burberry’s vice president of corporate responsibility, writes via email. “We are continuing to stimulate real system change in this area by reviewing how we source these materials, generating demand for new sustainable materials and working with our raw material suppliers to review the impacts created at [the] manufacturing stage.”
Firm commitments
A number of other brands stood out for their commitments to reduce the emissions associated with material sourcing and production: Adidas committed to using 100 per cent recycled polyester in all products by 2024; Eileen Fisher to 100 per cent organic cotton and linen by 2020; H&M to 100 per cent organic, recycled or Better Cotton Initiative materials by 2030; and Patagonia to only renewable or recycled materials by 2025.
While Kering chairman and chief executive François-Henri Pinault is regarded as an industry leader in sustainability, Standearth director of digital and campaign strategies Liz McDowell says it hasn’t made notable commitments on materials. The luxury group, which sits in the middle of Standearth’s ranking, has issued a number of progressive recommendations and minimum requirements to its brands, but “recommend is different than require”, she says. “Kering recommends to source leather from countries that avoid deforestation, but doesn’t go as far as other companies.”
A Kering spokesperson would not comment on the Standearth report. But Gucci, which accounts for 60 per cent of the group’s sales, was an early adopter of Econyl. The French group also just announced the first winners of its K Generation award in Shanghai, which recognises startups that can boost sustainability in the luxury sector. Melephant, which says it provides natural dyes from organic waste in a circular, no-waste system, took first place. (The other major global luxury group, LVMH, came in lower than Kering and ranked 14th from the bottom. LVMH declined to comment on the report but recently said it was further cutting emissions and reviewing sourcing.)
McDowell hopes the new report can motivate companies to do more and do better for the planet, and soon. “We are not going to tackle the challenge at hand unless this industry takes a leadership role,” she says. “I think the commitments that Levi’s and American Eagle have made in particular have shown a path forward, and it’s time for the rest of the industry to follow suit.”
