Climate commitments and transparency

With commitment, investment, and action from brands, transitioning to renewable electricity to cut emissions and reduce pollution is achievable, and impactful. According to a new analysis by the Apparel Impact Institute (Aii) on thermal decarbonization and electrification, it is within reach for brands to reach a 100% renewable electricity supply chain in China, India and Vietnam by 2030, and across Indonesia and Bangladesh by 2040 with ambitious action. ^[1]

A commitment to at least half upstream emissions by 2030, and specific commitments to phase out coal and transition to renewables for electricity and heat, sends important demand signals to manufacturers and governments that clean energy is essential for the industry’s future.

Clear thermal energy pathways are essential, and should not just include how brands will support suppliers to phase out coal, but also which alternative heat sources or processes will be prioritized, reflecting the potential impact on local communities.

Since 2018, fashion brands which are signatories of the UN Fashion Charter for Climate Action have had a commitment to fully phase out coal-fired boilers by 2030, with no new coal boilers from 2023. However, transition challenges and a focus on showing rapid emissions reduction has led to the concerning adoption or prioritization of certain false solutions, including fossil gas and biomass. 

While biomass and gas may lead to reduced CO2 emissions being reported in the short term, and electrification may not yield immediate emissions reductions if the electricity grid still relies on fossil fuels, it is important to note that this does not make them the most environmentally friendly, or just, solutions. The Aii points to several important ongoing challenges, including the price volatility of sourcing gas, the additional, largely undercounted climate impact of methane emissions which can result in overall GHG emissions even higher than that of coal, and the difficulty of sourcing genuinely sustainable biomass, particularly in the case of widespread adoption. ^[2] 

Stand.earth asserts that biomass cannot be sustainable at an industrial scale and will lead to significant danger of harm to local food and fuel sources and access to land, and that it is imperative for brands to move beyond burning into long-term electrification and reduce their energy needs through innovations such as waterless dyeing.^[3]

The first step on the pathway to corporate decarbonization is to set ambitious climate targets that meet the need of the moment, at minimum aligned with the UN Fashion Charter’s requirement of 50% absolute reduction by 2030 compared with 2018 levels. With just five years to 2030, and the deadly impacts of climate breakdown already an existential threat to workers, businesses, and entire fashion supply chains, there is no excuse left for any major brand to fall short of this benchmark. 

Despite the clear urgency, just one quarter (11) of companies included in this report have set strong enough climate targets for their supply chain, and the sector is still on an emissions trajectory far from a 1.5˚C pathway. For three quarters of companies to have emissions targets well short of the benchmark to align with 1.5˚C is an alarming failure.

Strong climate targets must result in absolute emissions reduction, and not leave the door open to emission increasing. Intensity based targets such as that of Boohoo Group^[7], MEC^[8] and Lululemon^[9] target reductions as a ratio against on units or revenue, and can still facilitate rising pollution. For the six companies with intensity-based targets, setting an absolute emission reduction goal in line with 1.5˚C should be an immediate priority. 

Columbia Clothing, Artizia Inc, and Abercrombie & Fitch are all yet to set a Scope 3 emissions reduction target of any kind, a shocking failure in 2025.

Eight brands increased their scope 3 ambition since the 2023 Scorecard, of which Inditex, Kering, New Balance and Patagonia now meet the benchmark:

• Adidas: 42% reduction by 2030 compared with 2022 levels
• Chanel: 42% reduction by 2030 from a base year of 2021. Additionally, has a goal to reduce absolute scope 3 GHG Forest, Land and Agriculture (FLAG) emissions 30.3% by 2030, and 72% by 2040, from a 2021 base year.
• Inditex: 51% reduction by 2030 compared with 2018 baseline
• Kering: 54.6% reduction by 2033 against a 2022 baseline. The company has also set Scope 3 FLAG targets of 39.4% reduction by 2033, and 72% by 2050.
• Levi Strauss: 42% by 2030 compared with 2022 levels
• MEC: intensity-based target to reduce emissions 55% per sold product by 2030 from a 2021 base year
• New Balance: 50% reduction by 2030 compared with 2019 levels
• Patagonia: 55% reduction by 2030 compared with 2017 levels

Lofty net zero by 2050 goals are easy to make, but harder to keep. In the 2025 Scorecard, Stand.earth assessed who had clear interim targets aligned with international criteria and a thorough climate transition plan, identified by the High Level Expert Group (HLEG) on Net Zero’s recommendations^[13] as a priority for setting high-integrity targets, and found few examples with specific interim targets. 

Far-off net zero targets without interim targets or a clear roadmap, and where policies do not currently align with 1.5°C, risk accusations of greenwashing. In the example of a new addition to the Scorecard, Mango, the company has the goal to reach net zero by 2050, but has no interim targets and a relatively unambitious Scope 3 target for 2030, making it unclear how it plans to reach net zero. ^[14]

Positively, renewable electricity targets for brands’ own operations (scope 2 emissions) are now near ubiquitous among major brands: 90% of the brands included in the Scorecard have a target of 100% by 2030 or sooner, up from less than half in 2021. However, approaches to how brands choose to procure that electricity vary as widely as the impact of those strategies. 

Climate leaders will ensure that the renewable energy will be both local and additional to the grid — as opposed to purchasing Renewable Energy Credits (RECs/EACs) for power generated elsewhere. Inditex’s high-integrity approach is a good example, targeting 40% of renewable electricity from PPAs and VPPAs that add clean electricity to the grid by 2026, while REI set a goal to shift away from RECs while providing shared benefit to communities near its stores.^[17]

Stores and offices are just a tiny share of brands’ energy footprint, so in order to send strong demand signals into manufacturing regions and meet their climate goals companies must set renewable energy targets that cover their manufacturing footprint as well, while prioritizing high-impact procurement. 

This level of leadership is still relatively rare among fashion brands, but there has been progress. In 2025, 12 companies included in the Scorecard have published a target to increase the share of electricity or energy powering their manufacturing that comes from renewables, compared with just 5 companies in 2023. Some examples:

• H&M Group set the strongest leadership commitment as the only brand to include Tiers 1-3 of its supply chain under the 2030 target, and including thermal energy as well as electricity, while prioritizing high impact procurement. ^[18]
• Kering and Inditex both target 100% renewable electricity for manufacturing operations by 2030 and 2040 respectively, not including thermal energy. ^[19]
• Allbirds has a target for 100% of Tier 1 suppliers to reach 100% RE by 2025 ^[20] 
• Lululemon set a new target to achieve 50% renewable electricity among core suppliers by 2030 ^[21]
• PUMA has recently increased its target, planning to achieve 40% renewable energy among core factories by 2030 and ensure a 40% GHG emission reduction for Scope 1 and 2 at core factories by 2030.^[22]

Wet processes like textile dyeing are responsible for around half of the fashion industry’s emissions, due to the high carbon-intensity of onsite burning of fossil fuels, primarily coal. In many factories coal-fired boilers are still used to generate steam and hot water used in dyeing and finishing, bringing serious air pollution and health risks to workers and communities in manufacturing areas. The UN Fashion Charter requires members to commit to a full coal phase-out by 2030, but even among Charter signatories, public commitments, action and transparency varies widely, although leading brands emerge. 

Just half of the brands and retailers assessed have set time-bound commitments to phase out coal, either independently or as a signatory of the UN Fashion Charter. In 2025 H&M published a new target to fully phase-out coal by 2026, well ahead of the 2030 Fashion Charter deadline, and reports a specific prioritization of electrification over alternatives like biomass and gas.

A clear picture of the emissions, energy demand and renewable energy procurement across a company’s supply chain is essential to assess its progress to meeting its climate targets and avoid the appearance of greenwashing. 

Emissions transparency is increasing as brands improve their reporting processes, while six brands (American Eagle Outfitters, Bestseller, Kering, Levi Strauss & Co., PUMA, VF Corp) stood out for fully disclosing a detailed emissions history, broken down by scope, category and country or tier level. On the other end of the scale, Columbia Clothing was the only brand to fail to disclose any historic emissions data or breakdown at all. 

However, few brands are meeting the benchmark with respect to transparency into energy and electricity use across the entire value chain. Positive examples include:

• H&M Group published a detailed report on its operational and supply chain electricity and thermal energy picture, including detailed geographic and sourcing breakdowns, and a description of its approaches and trajectory.
• American Eagle Outfitters provides a detailed list of suppliers using coal in Tier 1 and Tier 2, plus a breakdown of supplier thermal energy and electricity in Tier 1. ^[35]
• Eileen Fisher also provides a comprehensive breakdown for Tier 1 and Tier 2, looking at gas, coal, wood biomass, natural gas, purchased electricity and remaining emissions from sources like diesel and petrol steam. ^[36]
• PUMA breaks down its energy consumption for Tier 1 and Tier 2, sharing data on non-renewable energy, renewable energy, and the percentage from RECs.
• Bestseller disclosed only partial data, but included a case study example for a garment factory in Bangladesh which could be used as a model for the rest of its data.^[37]

The research investigated which of the 42 companies have matched intention with action when it comes to ensuring a sustained decrease in Scope 3 emissions in particular in line with a 1.5°C trajectory. While scientific reports note that the world has already reached this goal temperature set out in the Paris Agreement^[41], 1.5°C remains a critical marker and indicator of credible responsibility in regard to reducing GHG emissions. 

In 2025, nearly one third of companies (13) showed a consistent reduction in emissions against their baseline, while nearly half reported reduced emissions compared with the previous year. Strong performers included Burberry, which reported an emissions reduction of 49% against its base year of 2018-2019^[42] and Eileen Fisher, which reduced emissions by 59% company’s 2018 baseline.^[43]

It should also be noted that companies may not be intentionally reducing their emissions. Boohoo Group reported its Scope 3 Category 1 emissions decreased against the company’s baseline by 13%, but this was attributed to a significant decrease in the quantity of goods sold, as opposed to intentional remediation to support climate targets.^[44] To this point comparing emissions with revenue can be revealing:

American Eagle Outfitters’ emissions closely track its annual revenue, showing no clear evidence of uncoupling emissions from sales.

H&M Groups emissions, while still correlating with sales, show some evidence of separation since the brand’s 2019 baseline.

In a deeply concerning development, SHEIN recorded a drastic rise in absolute emissions from 9.17 million metric tons of CO2e in 2022 to 16.68 million metric tons of CO2e in 2023—only slightly less than the entire annual emissions of Lebanon.^[45]

Overall, companies are making positive progress to set climate commitments that align with a 1.5 degree warming for their own operations. Brands that are not yet in leading positions should prioritize the following actions:

• Increase the ambition of Scope 3 emissions reduction targets to at least 50% by 2030, alongside setting complete renewable electricity targets for supply chain operations that cover each tier of the supply chain. 
• Set clear priorities and sub-targets for the percentage of renewable electricity, in own operations and supply chain, that will be achieved through higher-impact sourcing options, such as on-site generation and PPAs. 
• Publish detailed climate transition plans, highlighting interim milestones in between 2030 and 2050 on the pathway to net zero, setting out how emissions reduction targets align with 1.5°C.
• Commitments to phase out coal by 2030 must be accompanied by a strong thermal energy transition plan that prioritizes electrification over transition energy sources such as biomass.