Become a Vogue Business Member to receive unlimited access to Member-only reporting and insights, our Beauty and TikTok Trend Trackers, Member-only newsletters and exclusive event invitations.
Fashion is missing the biggest opportunities to decarbonise its supply chains, according to the latest edition of the ‘What Fuels Fashion?’ report by Fashion Revolution, which assesses energy and decarbonisation across 200 of the world’s biggest fashion brands (by annual turnover).
The report highlights the opportunities in clean heat, the renewable, fossil-free energy that can be used in the manufacturing process. Unlike some sectors, such as steel or cement, fashion’s process heat rarely exceeds 250°C, according to Fashion Revolution. This means fossil fuels could be phased out and replaced with electric boilers and heat pumps powered by renewable energy, particularly in Tier 2 dyehouses and finishing mills, which are responsible for the most significant portion of emissions.
“Clean heat is fashion’s make-or-break test,” says Liv Simpliciano, policy and research head at Fashion Revolution. “The technology already exists, but the industry is dragging its feet on what should be the lowest hanging fruit for decarbonisation. The cost of delay isn’t abstract. It’s measured in rising emissions, unsafe heat and risks to workers’ health.”
Heat stress lays bare the tension between climate mitigation and adaptation. Workers are caught in the middle.
Last year’s ‘What Fuels Fashion?’ report focused on the scale of the problem, while this year’s focuses on the solutions and opportunities. The overall average score across the 200 billion-dollar brands reviewed is just 14 per cent, with the top 10 brands ranging from 36 to 71 per cent. (Fashion Revolution’s scoring methodology takes into consideration accountability, decarbonisation, energy procurement, financing decarbonisation, and just transition and advocacy)
According to the report, over half of brands (55 per cent) disclose having a target that covers Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, and is verified by the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi), while fewer than a third (29 per cent) provide any evidence that they have actually reduced their greenhouse gas emissions from their respective baselines. Fashion Revolution’s research also shows that fewer than 6 per cent of fashion brands disclose their renewable energy goals and only 10 per cent set measurable renewable electricity targets.
“What we’re calling for is ambitious because it has to be,” says Simpliciano. “It is the minimum required to confront the climate crisis. With less than five years to 2030, a handful of brands are showing leadership, but the majority are still stuck at the starting line. That level of inaction is indefensible.” Currently, less than one in five brands disclose phase-out targets for using coal in the manufacturing process, according to Fashion Revolution.
The process won’t be without challenges. Simpliciano describes it as a chicken-and-egg problem. “Suppliers won’t gamble on expensive new technology while grids are still dominated by fossil fuels, and governments won’t expand renewable infrastructure without clear industrial demand for renewables,” she says. “Brands sit at the centre of this deadlock, yet most are failing to use their resources and influence to break it.” Only 20 per cent of brands disclose that they consult suppliers on their climate targets and just 9 per cent disclose co-creating climate adaptation solutions, per the report.
The effects of carbon emissions are felt tangibly in fashion’s supply chains. “Workers in garment factories are facing more and more days each year where the indoor environment reaches heat and humidity levels that are unsafe and productivity-reducing,” Simpliciano continues. Not a single brand discloses factory heat and humidity data, according to Fashion Revolution. “Public disclosure of this data could empower unions, inform the costs of adaptation like cooling systems, provide investors with a decision-useful metric to assess financial and operational risks, and unlock adaptation tools like parametric insurance,” she says.
Fashion Revolution has proposed the ‘Clean Heat for Cool Work’ framework, which aims to tackle fossil-fuelled heat, in partnership with climate campaigning non-profit Action Speaks Louder. The framework’s first suggestion is to swap boilers powered by coal or gas with clean electric alternatives such as solar or wind energy, which the organisations claim would cut emissions while helping to protect workers from heat stress and air pollution. It is also recommended that factories monitor heat and humidity levels, and allow workers and unions to lead due diligence in order to ensure the heat stress data is both credible and rooted in lived experience.
While data regarding worker conditions is currently lacking, the collection of this would improve the quality of lives for those operating on the ground. It would allow workers access to parametric insurance compensation to cover their wages when the heat is too dangerous to work under and allow advocates to pressure brands into investing more in improving factory standards. “This approach has the potential to serve as a dual mitigation and adaptation-linked solution,” says Simpliciano. “We urge fashion brands to pilot clean heat solutions that are designed with benefits to workers in mind to help grow the evidence base.”
Fashion Revolution’s findings show that only 6 per cent of brands disclose their capital expenditure to support suppliers in adopting clean energy. The organisation urges brands to lead the financing of decarbonisation. “Expecting suppliers, who are already operating on razor-thin margins due to their own unstable purchasing practices like short lead times, last-minute order changes and relentless price pressure, to bankroll million-dollar energy transitions, is simply not credible,” says Simpliciano.
Fossil fuels typically cost less to run than electricity alternatives, so to ensure a feasible transition to clean energy for suppliers, brands should invest in long-term relationships with them and secure fair pay. The latter will ensure suppliers can afford the increased energy bills, a side effect of going clean.
Along with that, Fashion Revolution says brands should be investing in clean heat technology projects in their own supply chains, as well as lobbying for structural change (for instance, by advocating for lower import duties on green technologies). “The more pilots we see, the faster costs fall, the stronger the demand signal becomes, and the quicker structural change can follow,” says Simpliciano. According to the report, 60 per cent of brands disclose energy sourcing in their own operations, but only 11 per cent in their supply chains, where it matters the most.
Fashion Revolution highlights that the fashion sector has the opportunity to lead the agenda on clean heat, given the relatively low heat requirements for manufacturing compared to other industries. “Fashion is uniquely placed to lead a new industrial revolution,” Simpliciano says. “In a world that must move beyond fossil fuels — as the climate science demands — fashion has the chance to show what a feasible transition looks like. And the opportunity to do so isn’t abstract or decades away, it is ripening right now.”
Comments, questions or feedback? Email us at feedback@voguebusiness.com.
Extreme heat is putting factory workers in danger. What should brands do?
