Sustainability Leaders on 2025’s Seismic Vibe Shift

In the fourth annual Vogue Business sustainability leaders survey, respondents didn’t beat around the bush: it’s a tough time to work in sustainable fashion.

After a decades-long uphill battle to make the business case for sustainability and spin scant budgets into meaningful change, it finally seemed like the movement had some momentum behind it the past couple of years. Progressive regulations in the European Union (EU) were rapidly driving the industry towards better practices, making it clear that side-stepping progress was a risk that brands couldn’t afford to take, and public opinion seemed to be swaying in favour of sustainability too.

But the sector has been dealt a seismic vibe shift in the past year. Where there was previously a strong sense of impetus and hope riding on incoming regulations to lift industry standards and drive investment, there is now a heightened sense of uncertainty and rising caution about discussing sustainability in public forums, let alone investing in it. It’s unsurprising given the political climate. 2024 was one of the biggest election years in history, with at least 60 countries — representing more than half of the world’s population — heading to the polls. And in many cases, this resulted in a swing to the right. Among those affected are the US — where President Donald Trump is leading an anti-ESG backlash that includes deepening reliance on fossil fuels, cutting public climate resources and pulling government funding for sustainability — and the EU, where progressive policies on due diligence, deforestation and greenwashing are falling like dominoes.

This year’s survey was redesigned to try and make sense of these changes, and figure out exactly how they are impacting sustainability teams in fashion. Respondents shared their feelings towards the sustainability job market, how political shifts are affecting the perception of sustainability among key stakeholder groups, and how their targets and mandates are evolving as we look to 2030.

The results might seem disheartening upon first glance: as we reported in 2022, 2023 and 2024, sustainability teams remain small and relatively siloed. The vast majority of respondents working in brand sustainability teams (66 per cent) have between one and five direct team members. And despite many of the participating brands having several thousand employees, support from other teams is limited, too. When asked how much support they get from colleagues on other teams, 71 per cent said their work only overlaps with between one and 20 people.

But the industry’s resilience shines through. Some 45 per cent of respondents said they had kept the same level of ambition despite economic and political pressure, while 43 per cent said they had raised the ambition of their sustainability targets. Among these respondents, several pointed out that the work is continuing, even if brands aren’t being as vocal about it. In the face of perceived setbacks, many say their strategies have become more sophisticated, as they push beyond low-hanging fruit and address the deep work needed to stay within planetary boundaries.

“The targets we originally set were completely unrealistic,” wrote one respondent, who works in the sustainability team at a luxury fashion brand that has lowered its ambitions and budget, but extended its target deadlines. “This isn’t back-pedalling. Previous targets were just set without data or a clear roadmap.”

For the first time, this year’s survey included suppliers from across the value chain. The plight and potential of suppliers has long been hidden, but the regulatory emphasis on transparency and traceability has made them more visible than ever before. Brands are slowly waking up to the innovation happening in supply chains, the cost of compliance that suppliers often bear, and the power imbalances that often stop meaningful collaboration in its tracks. While there are still many barriers to overcome, it’s promising to hear that more than half of suppliers responding to the survey (53 per cent) said their definition of sustainability progress was either “completely” or “mostly” aligned with that of their brand partners, while a further 38 per cent said they were “somewhat aligned”.

A job market in flux

This year’s survey invited responses from four different categories of professionals: people currently working in the sustainability teams at fashion brands, suppliers working with fashion brands, people working in fashion brands outside of (but adjacent to) the sustainability team, and people who have recently left sustainability roles in fashion brands (either through redundancy or choice). The latter two groups were too small to report as data points, but the anecdotal evidence they shared revealed a lot about how jobs in sustainability are perceived today.

Among the 14 respondents who had recently left sustainability roles, six had been made redundant, mostly as the collateral damage of broader restructuring and cost-cutting efforts. One of these redundancy processes wiped out the entire sustainability team. It’s not the first time such knock-on effects have been reported: in late 2024, sportswear giant Nike slashed 30 per cent of its sustainability staff as part of a broader effort to streamline the business and cut costs. Several similar high-profile cases followed, contributing to a sense of instability in the sustainable fashion job market. In the US, the issue of fewer jobs and more people looking for them has been compounded by the sweeping cuts and redundancies across government organisations like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which lost over 1,000 staff earlier this year.

“Teams are shrinking,” said one respondent. “The market is bleak and the roles that are available are all focused on reporting, which is joyless,” added another.

The survey suggests there is, in fact, a reasonable amount of stability in the sustainability jobs market. Among survey respondents, 41 per cent said their team has remained the same size in the past year, while 39 per cent reported growth. However, the general consensus is that sustainability is still too siloed to be considered fundamental, which not only undermines the potential for progress, but leaves it vulnerable in times of economic downturn.

“Sustainability is something that many corporations are willing to cut in favour of operational roles they deem more necessary,” said one respondent, who works for a fashion brand in a role adjacent to sustainability. “In the past two years, sustainability went from an opportunity to a liability for a lot of brands,” added another. “There are glimmers of hope where some brands are still leading the way, but overall, sustainability is not a priority when companies are fighting for their survival.”

One respondent noted that “companies rely more on external consultants than their own workforce”, leaving the in-house sustainability professionals who have kept their roles to feel under-valued. The former head of sustainability and innovation at a luxury retailer said they left out of choice because they “could see that the ambitions kept being watered down, ideas were being deprioritised relative to other parts of the business, and budgets were not being secured”. Another said they quit because of “exhaustion”, adding that working in-house on sustainability felt like “constantly pushing a boulder uphill”.

Great expectations

Contributing to the general malaise is the continued under-funding of sustainability efforts. This problem has reared its head in every survey to date, but respondents say it’s getting harder to handle in the face of rising ambitions. Sustainability teams are being tasked with increasingly complex and demanding goals, but with shrinking authority and structural support to achieve them. Many describe a deeply unbalanced dynamic, where the pressure to achieve is high but investment and recognition are limited.

Some 43 per cent of respondents working in-house on sustainability teams said the level of ambition is rising, while 52 per cent said budgets have remained the same and a further 32 per cent said they are decreasing.

This widening gap between ambition and resource is reflected in outlook. Less than half (43 per cent) of respondents believe their company will meet its sustainability targets on time. “Even where sustainability is being prioritised in companies, there aren’t many resources allocated to growing dedicated teams focused on achieving these sustainability measures,” said one respondent. “I have heard of peer budgets being cut in a difficult market and expectations to do more with less,” said another.

At the same time, respondents insist wider support for sustainability is dwindling. Sixty-one per cent said they felt “very supported” by the wider sustainability team, but this dropped to 14 per cent when asked about the wider business, and 5 per cent when asked about customers. In light of recent political shifts, only 9 per cent said they feel supported by policymakers.

Many said that external perceptions of their efforts are worsening. Some 43 per cent of respondents think fashion industry peers view sustainability more negatively than in previous years — and this is affecting budgets, headcount and their ability to communicate progress.

To help inspire action and rally support behind sustainability efforts, respondents called for the introduction of cross-functional sustainability KPIs and incentives tied to sustainability performance, and for all roles to have their sustainability efforts reflected in annual performance reviews.

Could suppliers hold the key?

A strong theme in this year’s survey was the appetite for further collaboration between brand sustainability teams and suppliers.

When working with brand partners, the suppliers surveyed said they engage most frequently with sustainability teams (72 per cent), followed by sourcing teams (28 per cent), marketing and communications (25 per cent), and design (22 per cent). Just under a third (31 per cent) of suppliers said they are in touch with brand partners on a weekly basis, while 28 per cent are in monthly contact. Only 3 per cent said they are “very rarely” in touch with brand partners, and no one answered “bi-annually” or “annually”.

Despite regular contact, it’s rare for brand partners to visit their suppliers — a physical practice that can increase empathy between stakeholders, educate brand representatives on the reality of supply chains, and ease collaboration. Here, most suppliers said their brand partners visit “very rarely” or “never” (22 per cent each).

Most brands send auditors to visit suppliers on their behalf, in an increasing source of tension. Suppliers said that the frequency and intensity of audits has ramped up in recent years, so much so that the administrative burden has become a hot topic in the EU, and has been used to justify heavily watering down sustainability regulations. Among respondents, 31 per cent of suppliers said they have completed between one and four audits in the past year, while 6 per cent completed between five and nine, and a further 6 per cent completed 10 to 19 audits. Thirteen per cent said they had completed 20 to 50 audits in the past year alone.

When asked about the greatest barriers to progress they face, suppliers cited the administrative burden of data collection, reporting and system management (31 per cent), followed by the cost of new equipment, machinery and software (28 per cent).

Suppliers said the demand for audits — and continuous improvement off the back of audits — is largely coming from the brand side. More than half (53 per cent) said they feel “some” or “very high” pressure from their brand partners to make progress on sustainability, but only 9 per cent said their brand partners were “fully supporting” them financially to be able to act on this. Thirty-eight per cent said their brand partners had offered no financial support at all, and a further 22 per cent had apparently received minimal financial support. This is despite the well-documented imbalance of both power and profit in brands’ favour.

Here, suppliers said that brands do not necessarily act in accordance with the values their sustainability teams champion, and the pressure sustainability teams feel to raise the bar is often cascaded onto suppliers. Sixty-three per cent of suppliers believe brands pressure them to make progress while squeezing their margins. Fifty-nine per cent said they receive minimal or no financial support from brand partners for sustainability-related investments. And only 22 per cent feel that they are adequately rewarded for the progress they do make.

Multiple suppliers said they move faster than brand partners when implementing solutions, which can cause friction. One said their brand partners “focus on checklists and not people’s reality”. Another added: “We are a production team and most of the designers or brands we work with have no experience or desire to know where materials come from, how they were made and by whom. Our partners are not concerned how energy efficient our machinery is or where our tools were made. Some of our clients express their wish to see a modern slavery statement, while simultaneously threatening our company with unrealistic delivery time demands and penalty threats.”

When asked what additional support they need from brand partners to advance their efforts, 72 per cent cited financial support for sustainability investments, 66 per cent wanted more consistent contracts and longer-term partnerships, and 38 per cent suggested financial support for auditing and sustainability certifications. On the brand side, sustainability employees say better supply chain management requires more cross-functional understanding of — and support for — sustainability. As long as buyers and sourcing teams are not aligned with sustainable values, collaboration with suppliers will remain elusive.

Whether it’s dealing with other teams internally or suppliers directly, respondents said sustainability teams are still struggling to find the common language to foster stronger collaborations and empower others to become sustainability leaders in their own fields. “Sustainability specialists dictating to experts in supply chain — when they’ve never worked in supply chain — is leading to them being taken less seriously,” said a worker in a brand sustainability team.

Some brands say they have seen success integrating sustainability into every team and job function, and upskilling employees across the business to become sustainability changemakers. One brand hosts an annual sustainability month, staging training sessions and social activities to galvanise other teams, including a competition to generate strategic ideas that could advance sustainability. Another said more holistic certifications like B Corp could be strong motivators — despite some concerns about B Corp’s current process. “Maintaining this certification gives me a reason to push for change,” said one respondent. “B Corp has been the most effective tool in terms of motivating other teams and senior leadership,” added another.

However brands choose to address the lapses in communication and motivation, it’s clear that significant change is needed. One respondent neatly summed up the challenges ahead: “We need common ground and common rules, even if there are different grades of complexity.”

About the survey

The fourth annual Vogue Business sustainability leaders survey was open from May to June 2025. Of the 114 respondents, 44 are currently working for fashion brands in their sustainability teams, 32 are suppliers to fashion brands, 23 work for fashion brands but in teams adjacent to sustainability, and 14 have left their jobs in fashion sustainability teams in the past year, either voluntarily or because of redundancy. The latter two samples were too small to report in data terms, but their responses informed the qualitative analysis.

Among the current in-house sustainability professionals, 23 per cent were junior or mid-level, 55 per cent were senior professionals (including vice president, director and head of department roles) and 11 per cent were C-suite. Exactly half were the most senior sustainability employees in their teams.

None of the brand respondents said they worked for ultra-fast fashion brands, but 20 per cent worked for high street or fast fashion brands, 9 per cent for aspirational high street brands, 30 per cent for accessible luxury brands, and 18 per cent for luxury. Among those who disclosed their employer, brands included: Mulberry, Burberry, Samsøe Samsøe, Prada Group, Margaret Howell, Primark, OTB Group, Urban Outfitters, River Island, New Look, Ferragamo, Louis Vuitton, Zalando, Ralph Lauren, The White Company, Macy’s and Stella McCartney.

The suppliers worked with a similar mix of brands, representing everything from fast fashion to luxury. They represented the full supply chain, from Tier 0 (9 per cent) to Tier 1 (31 per cent), Tier 2 (34 per cent), Tier 3 (nine per cent) and Tier 4 (22 per cent).