Skip to content
logo
Resource

2025 Fossil Free Fashion Scorecard

As the rampant production of fossil-fueled clothing continues to rise, contributing at least 4% of global emissions, the fashion industry must urgently correct course by ending its dependency on fossil fuels for manufacturing, transportation, and raw materials.
Download Report (PDF)
Executive Summary All Scores Impact Areas Methodology

Key Findings

  1. Of the 42 brands analyzed in this report, 14 (33%) reported sustained emissions reduction of more than 10% against their baseline year, while 19 (45%) reported reduced emissions compared with the previous year. However, only three have reduced emissions in line with a 1.5°C pathway, while 17 brands actually increased their carbon footprint compared to their baseline. 
  2. As of 2025, 12 of 42 (29%) companies now have supply chain renewable electricity targets to varying degrees, a significant increase from just five in the 2023 Scorecard. In contrast to those encouraging signs of progress, the percentage of brands and retailers with public, time-bound commitments to phase out coal by 2030 failed to grow, remaining at 20 of 42 (47%). 
  3. Just six brands (14%) reported providing any kind of decarbonization project financing for suppliers, and just one (H&M) showed strong evidence of project financing beyond debt, in a serious failure to advance a just energy transition.
  4. A hopeful sign is that 40 of 42 (95%) of brands offer some form of resale or repair, as brands recognize that circular shopping has become mainstream.
  5. Climate adaptation is a dangerous blindspot: Not one brand provided clear evidence of specific training, financing or support for climate adaptation for workers, developed in consultation with local stakeholders. Only one brand provided a specific target related to climate adaptation.

Executive Summary

Last year (2024) was the first time that average temperature increases breached the 1.5°C threshold[1] to avert the worst impacts of climate breakdown, making it clearer than ever that the goal of staying below this limit is almost certainly out of reach by 2030. However, that does not mean that the industry should abandon this north star. As the rampant production of fossil-fueled clothing continues to rise, contributing at least 4% of global emissions in 2024[2]
, the fashion industry must urgently correct course by ending its dependency on fossil fuels for manufacturing, transportation, and raw materials. Rapid, just, and worker-centered action by brands has never been more essential for an industry that remains heavily reliant on fossil fuels. 

Furthermore, while this analysis is focused on existing action and recommendations for supply chain decarbonization and a just energy transition that supports workers, with brands as active and equal partners, it must be emphasized that a renewable energy transition alone is not sufficient to deliver a sustainable fashion industry, and far from delivering a just transition. A fair phase out of fossil fuels as part of a just transition means systemic movement away from a top-down approach to supply chain, towards decentralized decision-making, engaged communities, and community-led projects.[3]

The current environment is a challenging one for the fashion industry—brands, manufacturers, workers, and even customers. Supply chains are facing increasing barriers: rapidly escalating and unpredictable trade tariffs and global shipping disruptions have immediate knock-on effects on manufacturers, cause real harm to workers’ livelihoods, increase uncertainty, and ultimately may impact suppliers’ ability to dedicate resources to climate action.  

At the same time, fashion brands are now under more pressure to prove that their climate targets are attainable, and to show progress in reaching them, as anti-greenwashing legislation and due diligence laws increase scrutiny on brands’ impact on environmental and human rights. Customers facing a cost of living crisis and the impact of import duties may feel less able to pay more for goods produced more sustainably. Unless brands act now to fund and enable the manufacturers and workers in their supply chain to deliver rapid climate action, building a more equitable model for the industry, this combination could be the perfect storm that sets the industry’s sustainability journey back, while leaving brands open to serious investor and reputational risk.

Stand.earth’s 2023 Scorecard found that progress toward supply chain decarbonization remained too slow, with limited support available to enable the transition to renewables in companies’ supply chain.[4] 

In 2025, Stand.earth’s investigation found some important signs of progress, with clear leaders emerging; however, serious and systemic blindspots concerning supply chain equity and support for workers on the front lines of climate breakdown continue to persist. 

The range of issues assessed in the 2025 Fossil Free Fashion Scorecard reflects the breadth of challenges that the fashion industry faces to phase out fossil fuels. While it is disappointing that still none of the brands achieved an A grade in 2025—although a small number of leading brands are getting close—this reflects the reality that the industry has a lot of work left to do to end its close symbiosis with the harmful fossil fuel industry.

Impact Areas

This 2025 Scorecard traces the level of progress since 2021 and 2023 made by 42 global apparel and footwear companies to reduce their carbon footprints in line with a 1.5°C emissions pathway. It provides an updated, ambitious benchmark reflecting critical indicators that dominant fast fashion, sportswear, luxury, and mass market companies and retailers need to meet to enable an accelerated pace of supply chain decarbonization, within a just energy transition framework.

Reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least half by 2030, compared with 2018 levels, with a clear decarbonization pathway; and deep disclosure of emissions and energy use across entire value chains.

Progress in driving renewable energy use and energy efficiency and phasing out coal in all tiers of the supply chain by 2030; action to fund and enable the energy transition across supply chains; and climate adaptation policies to support workers and communities.

Demanding stronger emission reduction targets and renewable energy policy from government decision makers to ensure access to renewables in manufacturing countries.

Phasing out fossil fuel-derived fabrics such as polyester; ending the use of wood-based materials and leather linked to deforestation; sustainable cotton sourcing; and shifting toward closed-loop recycling and longer-lasting products made to be repaired, reused and recycled.

Reducing emissions from upstream shipping and advocating for zero-emission vessels and infrastructure, as well as transitioning to zero emission last-mile delivery.

Company Key Findings

It may be surprising for a fast fashion brand, but H&M scored B+ overall–a first for the Scorecard–as the brand providing the most active financial support to its suppliers to cut emissions.
#BestPerformer
If SHEIN were a country, it would be the 100th biggest emitter in the world, almost as much pollution as the entire country of Lebanon, having increased Scope 3 emissions by over 170% in just two years.
#BiggestPolluter
Abercrombie & Fitch, Aritzia and Columbia Clothing have yet to set a target to cut Scope 3 emissions, leaving them the furthest behind their competitors and dangerously out of step with climate action.
#BiggestLaggards

Top Sub-Sector Key Findings

Fast fashion included both the lowest and highest performing brands, showing that with dedicated action progress is possible. 

  • Once again H&M Group (B+) outperformed its competitors like Inditex (C) with ambitious climate commitments and action and a strong performance across most categories, while Next, Boohoo, SHEIN and Aritzia were among the six F-graded brands. 

Fast fashion brands continue to perform poorly in the ‘Low Carbon Materials and Circularity’ category compared with the other subsectors. The highest score achieved by a fast fashion brand in this low-carbon/circularity category was a C (H&M, Inditex, Bestseller) for their investments in next generation and recycled fibers.

Luxury companies included in 2025 were: Armani, Burberry, Capri Holdings, Chanel, Kering, LVMH and Prada. 

  • Performance across luxury companies has improved since the publication of the 2023 Scorecard. Five of seven luxury brands improved their overall score, while two remained the same.  
  • Kering (C+) was the frontrunner amongst luxury players for its robust standards on material sourcing and biodiversity, setting a new clear target to reduce strategic suppliers’ energy consumption by 70% by 2035 and having a clear transition plan with interim milestones. 

Luxury companies remain opaque about their supply chains. Only Armani (D) publicly shared its Tier 1 and Tier 2 supplier list, while Capri (D-) shared its Tier 1 list and Prada (D) shared a partial list of raw material and semi-manufacturing suppliers.

Sportswear and outdoor companies assessed were: Adidas, Allbirds, Asics, Columbia Clothing, Lululemon, Mammut, MEC, New Balance, Nike, On-Running, Patagonia, PUMA, REI and Under Armour.

  • An impressive seven of the 12 brands with supply chain renewable energy targets are sports or outdoor brands; this subsector on average performed the best in the commitments and transparency category.
  • Nike, as the highest scoring sportswear brand (C+), demonstrated clear efforts to engage suppliers on decarbonization and adopt cleaner shipping practices. Patagonia (C+) performed strongly on low-carbon materials and governance, but was hindered by a lack of recent disclosure. 
  • The lowest scoring companies in this category were Under Armour (F) and Columbia Clothing (F).

This subsector was divided into mass market and retailers, including: Eileen Fisher, Hugo Boss, Levi Strauss & Co, PVH, Ralph Lauren, Target, VF Corp and Walmart. 

  • The mass market category outperformed the cross-sector average in every category by at least a grade.
  • Mass market brands had the best average score in low-carbon materials and circularity, where Eileen Fisher (B-) led the category for strong materials commitments and well developed resale and repair initiatives.

Retailers Walmart (D-) and Target (D) were below average across most categories, with Target slightly leading its competitor with stronger climate targets and greater supply chain engagement.

Five Category Specific Key Findings

  • The highest scoring companies in this category were H&M Group (A+), Kering (B+) and Inditex (B), while the biggest laggards, Abercrombie & Fitch, Artizia and Columbia Clothing (F), are yet to set any Scope 3 targets.
  • Net Zero goals proliferate but lack integrity: two-thirds of companies (64%) had net zero goals of some sort for 2040 or 2050. However, only 5 of these (AEO, H&M Group, Inditex, Kering, and PUMA) demonstrated strong public efforts or evidence of actions such as interim targets for 2035 or 2040 in their transition plans.
  • Coal is still a quiet killer: Less than half (20/42) of brands and retailers have public time-bound commitments to phase out coal. 
  • 12/42 companies now have supply chain renewable electricity targets of some sort, a significant increase from just five in the 2023 Scorecard.
  • The highest scoring companies in this category were H&M Group (B+) and Levi Strauss & Co (B –) for clear details on supplier energy transition financing, while seven companies including Aritzia, Boohoo Group and SHEIN scored an F grade. 
  • Just over half (57%) of companies offered valid evidence of actively supporting supplier decarbonization through funded feasibility studies, target-setting and climate transition planning. 
  • However, funding rarely gets past training. Just six brands reported providing any kind of project financing, and just one (H&M) showed evidence of non-debt based financing (loans), and very limited evidence of brands directly ensuring supportive procurement policies (long-term contracting, higher prices, preferential terms) to enable rapid and equitable supplier transition investments
  • Climate adaptation initiatives by brands are seriously undeveloped. Only Eileen Fisher specifically referenced contacting suppliers about heat-related stress, and Kering is the only brand with a specific target related to climate adaptation.
  • H&M Group (A) was a clear leader for its efforts, including becoming the first brand to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding for green energy supply in Vietnam under the new Direct Power Purchase Agreement (DPPA) mechanism, while advocating for PPA mechanisms in several other countries. Eileen Fisher (B) and Nike (B) also scored highly.
  • Just two brands, Patagonia (C) and Eileen Fisher, stood out for actively supporting the New York and California Fashion Acts, which would regulate climate transparency and mitigation efforts.
  • Just three brands, H&M, Kering (D), and LVMH (D), met the UN High-level Expert Group governance criteria of net zero target integrity: an internal carbon price, clear governance structures for climate transition, and tying executive compensation to environmental performance.
  • The average grade increased from an F to a D since the 2023 Scorecard. Top performers in this category remained Kering and Eilleen Fisher (A-). 
  • Just six companies (14%) have committed to or achieved a majority phase-out of fossil fuel-based materials, both virgin and recycled. Allbirds, Eileen Fisher, Hugo Boss, Ralph Lauren, Levi Strauss & Co. and Kering, all show leadership while other brands are still heavily reliant on petroleum-derived synthetics.
  • Almost one third of companies provided strong examples of how they were taking action and investing to increase textile circularity, including the use of high-quality closed-loop textile recycling or next-generation fibers made from recycled textiles or agricultural residues. Just one company, PUMA (C+), has shown leadership by setting a time-bound target for using textile-to-textile recycled polyester (30% by 2030) within its material goals. 
  • In a clear growth area for the industry, in 2025, 40 of 42 (95%) of brands offered some kind of resale or repair program, as brands recognize that circular shopping has become mainstream.
  • Disappointingly, only seven companies transparently report on their full material mix and volumes by percentage and weight.
  • Nearly two-thirds of companies included upstream shipping within their Scope 3 emissions reduction targets, up from just half in 2023. 12 brands recorded sustained decreases in Scope 3 Category 4 emissions year on year.
  • Just five companies (Adidas, Allbirds, Mammut, PUMA and VF Corp) have publicly committed to significantly limiting the use of air freight as a shipping mode.
  • Five companies reported emissions increasing heavily since their baseline year, with no clear progress reversing the trend: Fast Retailing, Inditex, Prada, PUMA and SHEIN. SHEIN’s Scope 3 Category 4 emissions nearly doubled from 2022 to 2023; PUMA reported a near 50% rise in transportation emissions compared to the previous year.
  • Only nine brands (21%) disclosed information on transportation emissions broken down by mode, as transparency of upstream shipping remains poor.

Priority Recommendations

For fashion brands: 

  1. Publish detailed Just Climate Transition plans, highlighting interim milestones in between 2030 and 2050 on the pathway to net zero, and publicly disclosing the levers by which climate goals will be reached in a way that actively includes suppliers, workers and other stakeholders.
  2. Collaborate with other brands to support and empower manufacturers in your supply chain to rapidly phase out coal, improve energy efficiency, transition to renewable energy, and improve transparency at the facility level into Tier 4, while prioritizing high-impact renewable energy.
  3. Create more equitable supplier relationships and commit to pay a fair share for decarbonization, including access to funding in the form of preferable loan rates, as well as non-debt based project financing. Enter into long-term contractual agreements and offer purchasing terms which ensure stability during periods of volatility, and during investment pay-off periods.
  4. Increase focus on climate adaptation. Act urgently to enact specific, locally appropriate and inclusive climate adaptation plans that both support workers through the impacts of climate breakdown and ensure fair access to the benefits of the transition.
  5. Ramp up collaborative advocacy efforts in key manufacturing hubs to increase access to renewable energy through locally appropriate infrastructure and policy developments, and support mandatory disclosure and due diligence legislation to create a level playing field.
  6. Commit to a clear phase-out of oil-based synthetics. Embed this within company material standards and procurement policies, ensuring they go beyond and recognise the limitations of false solutions like recycled polyester.
  7. Bring greener shipping into focus. Set specific upstream transportation emissions reduction targets, actively embed slower shipping into product planning, and support zero-emission transportation providers.

For stakeholders:

  1. Policymakers should: Advance policy and/or regulatory provisions aimed at pushing a rapid and just energy transition away from fossil fuels and toward key renewable energy sources, including through the adoption of adequate transparency and accountability provisions that support a level playing field for brands.
  2. The UN Fashion Charter should: Continue to strengthen provisions aimed at reducing emissions, including by extending the renewable energy requirement to Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers, and implementing measures to ensure that signatory companies act with clarity, rigor, and transparency in meeting their pledges (for example, by producing detailed publicly accessible updates on their progress at least annually.) 
  3. Consumers should: Demand accountability from brands by supporting campaigns like the Fossil Free Fashion campaign, emailing or messaging brands on social media, buying less or choosing second hand, and when you do need to buy new, choosing to support brands that are taking action to decarbonize.

Footnotes

  1. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00010-9
  2. “Fashion on Climate” Global Fashion Agenda and McKinsey, (2020). https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/retail/our%20insights/fashion%20on%20climate/fashion-on-climate-full-report.pdf
  3. For the many not the few: introducing just transition for supply chain management.” Karaosman, Marshall, Ward. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23 May 2024. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ijopm-07-2023-0587/full/html#abstract.
  4. “Fossil-Free Fashion Scorecard 2023.” Stand.earth, (2023). https://stand.earth/fashion/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/03/Fossil-Free-Fashion-Scorecard-Stand.earth_.pdf
  5. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00010-9
  6. “Fashion on Climate” Global Fashion Agenda and McKinsey, (2020). https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/retail/our%20insights/fashion%20on%20climate/fashion-on-climate-full-report.pdf
  7. For the many not the few: introducing just transition for supply chain management.” Karaosman, Marshall, Ward. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23 May 2024. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ijopm-07-2023-0587/full/html#abstract.
  8. “Fossil-Free Fashion Scorecard 2023.” Stand.earth, (2023). https://stand.earth/fashion/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/03/Fossil-Free-Fashion-Scorecard-Stand.earth_.pdf