If fashion wants to turn the tide on the climate crisis, it needs to address greenhouse gas emissions. But fashion tends to view these emissions in isolation from the industry’s environmental footprint.
The result is rivers polluted with toxic chemicals, ecosystems ravaged by deforestation and soil health so degraded it can’t produce the very raw materials fashion relies on. Scientists now also agree that net zero can only be achieved if nature loss is prevented and — where possible — reversed, allowing it to continue to act as our most significant carbon sink.
“Climate and nature are two sides of the same coin,” says Beth Jensen, senior director of climate and nature impact at Textile Exchange, which today issued a rallying cry to fashion brands and suppliers to set science-based targets for nature. The non-profit wasn’t involved in the creation of the science-based targets for nature methodology, which was formally published at the end of last year, but says it is uniquely positioned to translate them for the fashion industry. “If you ignore nature, you’re missing the full picture of impact and opportunities for impact reduction.”
The announcement, made today during the UN biodiversity conference in Cali, Colombia, follows a year-long pilot of the targets by 17 global companies.
The concept behind science-based targets for nature, which address issues like biodiversity, soil health, freshwater and impacts on animal welfare, was introduced by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) and its subsidiary Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) in 2020. Concrete targets — and their first industry applications — later came in 2023, when 17 global brands, including LVMH, Kering, L’Occitane and H&M Group, signed up for a pilot programme. Kering later became the first fashion company to formally adopt the targets, but widespread adoption has remained elusive.
In its 2024 Materials Benchmark survey, Textile Exchange found that 52 per cent of responding brands and suppliers had set science-based targets for climate, but only 7 per cent had set science-based targets for nature. The non-profit is hoping that by breaking down how to apply science-based targets for nature to fashion supply chains and gathering feedback from fashion companies, it can help drive progress — not only towards its own Climate+ strategy but also fast-approaching global sustainability goals, which fashion is on track to miss.
Where should brands start?
Brands shouldn’t necessarily jump straight into setting targets, says Jensen. SBTN outlines a five-step approach that starts with assessing and measuring nature-related impacts, followed by prioritising different areas of concern in the value chain, collecting baseline data and publicly disclosing targets, acting to implement these targets, and finally tracking and verifying progress.
Textile Exchange’s guidance focuses on step three, how to set appropriate targets. By entering into this process, brands will be asked to consider the following: what are the main materials used by the organisation? Where and how are these materials grown or produced? What regions or ecosystems does production rely on for materials? What are the highest impacts on nature in these sourcing geographies? Is there a relevant certification standard, and how does it address relevant biodiversity risks? Does this align with brand expectations and sourcing policies?
The organisation has identified several key areas for brands and suppliers to address: reducing resource use and environmental impact; sourcing of preferred raw materials; regenerative agriculture; circular economy and recycling; reducing pollution and chemical use; responsible land management practices; and supporting Indigenous and local communities.
Actually measuring and progressing against these targets is where things get complicated. Climate targets are easier to quantify and compare, explains Jensen, which is partly why nature targets have been left by the wayside for so long. “A tonne of greenhouse gas emissions is the same wherever it’s occurring, whether it’s at the farm level, the factory or in transportation. The challenge with nature-related targets is that you can’t tally them up in the same way. They have to be place-based and context-specific.”
In order to make progress towards science-based targets for nature, fashion companies will need to prioritise. Textile Exchange recommends starting with freshwater impacts and land management. “These areas are the most relevant to the raw materials and fibres that are being produced for our industry,” says Jensen, pointing to fashion’s reliance on natural raw materials extracted from nature, including cotton, leather, wool and silk.
An evolving conversation
The science-based targets for nature have been developed for all industries, so there is an opportunity for fashion companies to give feedback and help co-create more sector-specific approaches. “We already know that SBTN is planning additional updates based on the feedback they have received,” says Jensen. “This is an opportunity for fashion companies to start engaging now and make their feedback heard in the next evolution, so the guidance can be even stronger, and the targets can be even more relevant to the industry.”
The main opportunities Textile Exchange has identified for more fashion-specific guidance come down to the lack of traceability in many fashion supply chains. Jensen says she would like to see clearer guidance on how fashion companies can engage with their landscapes and develop realistic supply chain estimates where traceability is incomplete — for example, where cotton or wool is sourced through an aggregator, and brands don’t have oversight of the original source. The other key limitation is that science-based targets for nature mostly apply to direct impacts, but it’s the indirect impacts generated by fashion brands that have the biggest potential for change.
“At a high level, the science-based targets for nature invite companies to identify where all of their materials are coming from,” she explains. “The reality in fashion is that many companies don’t have that information across their full portfolio of materials. It’s not necessarily because they don’t want to know or they haven’t tried to find out.”
It’s worth noting that the science-based targets for nature have been aligned with other global frameworks that require supply chain mapping to avoid brands and suppliers being pulled in different directions in an already crowded market of regulations and certifications. This includes the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (agreed in 2015), the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (set in 2022), the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (launched in 2021) and incoming EU sustainable fashion regulations, among others.
“We’ve tried to lay out the context of how science-based targets for nature fit with everything else and make it as easy as possible for companies to take a stepwise approach,” says Jensen. “The science-based targets for nature essentially ask brands to map, measure and improve their impacts on nature, which will also help them with due diligence and traceability regulations. They’re all broadly the same direction of travel.”
Comments, questions or feedback? Email us at feedback@voguebusiness.com.
