Skip to content
logo
Columbia Logo
Columbia Clothing ranked the lowest of all companies in the 2025 Scorecard.

Total Score

F

Manufacturing Emissions Change

2023 Score

D-
* Emissions breakdown not reported

Emissions change of Scope 3 Category 1 emissions when compared with the brand’s baseline year. Emissions change of -27% is used as the benchmark for alignment with 1.5C, based on 50% total reduction by 2030 compared with 2018 levels.

The company is yet to set Scope 1 – 3 targets to decarbonize its own operations and its supply chain. Supply chain renewable electricity targets and a credible pathway to net zero are absent and this must be a priority focus for the brand. Disclosure on energy and electricity usage is limited, with the company reporting it uses RECs and renewable energy procurement accounts for as little as 14% of its North American operations.

Columbia Clothing has engaged with the Apparel Impact Institute’s Carbon Leadership Program for Tier 1 and Tier 2 manufacturing partners and says it has worked with 3 facilities on the Clean By Design program to improve energy and water practices. Beyond this, there is limited evidence of support for feasibility studies and financing suppliers decarbonization efforts.

With no disclosure on its greenhouse gas emissions footprint, it is hard to ascertain if it is reducing supply chain emissions or not.
Columbia Clothing must urgently address all of the above areas to improve its score and set short-term, mid-term and long-term climate targets.

Score Breakdown

Climate and Net Zero Targets
Scope 1 and 2: No target

Scope 3: Scope 3 is not mentioned in company report.

Mid-term (2035/2040) milestones: No

Net Zero Roadmap: No

Renewable Energy Targets
Own operations RE target: No – brand says it procured RECS to cover approximately 5,800 MWh of electricity for 2023. While 2023 usage is currently unavailable, it estimates this renewable energy procurement to account for approximately 14% of North America electricity usage based on 2022 electricity usage numbers.

Supply chain RE target: No

Thermal Coal Phase Out
2030 Coal Phase-out Target: No

Thermal energy transition/ electrification: No

Transparency
Emissions data: No

Supply chain energy data: No

Supplier lists published: No – Shares Tier 1 and Tier 2 via Open Supply Hub, approx 40 facilities in Bangladesh, according to the list.

Supplier list link

 

Training, feasibility studies, and non-financial support for climate action
Extremely limited. Brand lists Apparel Impact Institute Carbon Leadership Program – but for only 1 Tier 2 manufacturing partner. Similarly, for Clean by Design, it says it worked with 1 manufacturing partner who had 3 facilities (2 in Taipei, 1 in China) to focus on energy/water. (Second example from 2019 )

Additional, targeted support for transition planning: No – very limited examples.

Financial Support for Decarbonization
Loans and financing: No

Collective financing initiatives: No

Direct/debt-free financing: No

Responsible/equitable buying to enable climate action
Purchasing decisions incentivize climate action: Partial. Mentions Higg FEM – Environment Supplier must comply with all applicable environmental laws and CSC environmental standards. Supplier must maintain and implement a written environmental policy which includes systems and procedures to eliminate or minimize negative impacts of its practices on the environment.

Equitable/long-term sourcing to enable climate action: No

Prices enable climate action: No

Climate Adaptation
Adaptation/worker just transition training funded or provided: No

Emergency support developed with local groups: No

Decarbonization Progress
Reducing manufacturing emissions: No data reported

Increasing supply chain renewable electricity: No

Coal phase out transition progress: No

Commitment to phase out fossil fuel-derived fibers
No. The brand has a focus on preferred material attribution in products.

Deforestation-free materials
Leather: Partial. Member of LWG. Says ‘prioritizes the selection of LWG certified partners when selecting new
manufacturing partners in an effort to advance chemical management best practices’.

Man-made Cellulosic Fibers: Yes – Through Canopy

Low-carbon materials
No strong evidence.

Increasing Circularity
Unclear on targets to increase recycled, organic and regenerative materials at group level – general targets on environmentally preferred materials with certification. According to its report, since 2018, 100% of prAna’s cotton has been considered preferred by being organic, recycled, or Regenerative Organic Certified® Brand offers repairs for some products if within warranty period. Company also has a ‘ReThreads’ take back program.

Target & increase recycled cotton
No – general targets on environmentally preferred materials with certification. This includes Regenerative Organic Certified Content and the Organic Content Standard.

100% recycled/organic/regen cotton + wool, report on progress
Unclear at group level – general targets on environmentally preferred materials with certification. According to its report, since 2018, 100% of prAna’s cotton has been considered preferred by being organic, recycled, or Regenerative Organic Certified®

Support farmers, transition to regen/organic farming
No direct examples.

Resale/repair – % total sales/disclosure on #
Brand offers repairs for some products if within warranty period. Company also has a ‘ReThreads’ take back program.

Direct link resale/repair to reduce production
No

Materials transparency
Shares material mix: No

Provides data on units sold: No

Columbia does not have a target to reduce upstream emissions, including shipping, and does not share data about its carbon footprint or any actions to reduce the impact of its logistics.

Actions to reduce the impact of marine shipping: No evidence beyond signatory to The Arctic Shipping Corporate Pledge

No strong direct examples.