Low-carbon and longer lasting materials

Synthetic fibers account for nearly 70% of all textile production, and are found in two-thirds of all clothing^[11]. Due to its massive dominance in production, polyester and nylon production alone accounts for 10-15% of fashion’s total carbon footprint^[12]. Yet even this significant figure fails to adequately represent its impact when we consider that existing life cycle assessments fail to take into account differences in fossil fuel extraction processes and impacts, and understate the climate and biodiversity impact of synthetic fibers and microplastic pollution. 

Few brands recognize the inherent impacts of petrochemical production, and supply chain traceability is still a dangerous blind spot when it comes to synthetics. As petrochemical producers and oil and gas companies continue to look for a ‘Plan B’ for their toxic products, cheap, throwaway fashion is a prime target, including for growth extraction industries. As a case in point, in 2024, the Stand Research Group uncovered links between fracked gas coming from the Permian Basin in Texas, an important carbon sink, and more than 100 global fashion brands, despite commitments to sustainable fibers and mitigating climate impacts^[13]. While many brands have made explicit commitments to prioritize “more sustainable” fabrics, a closer look reveals that, despite progress, still very few companies are explicitly avoiding fossil fuel-derived fibers, including from extremely harmful feedstocks such as fracking.

The sustainability of raw materials supply chains goes far beyond petrochemicals. Industry players must adopt a system-led approach, inclusive of nature, which includes a transformative approach to biodiversity, ecosystems and production. Regenerative cotton and wool, textile recycling and next generation materials are an essential but not sufficient part of what must be a fundamental reimagining of raw materials sourcing into a more thoughtful system which addresses overproduction, extraction, and interlinked social and environmental harms.

This is supported by the development of the Global Biodiversity Framework at COP16 in Colombia in 2024 in Rome in February 2025. There are many ways in which the targets of the GBF can positively guide the industry. For instance, target 1 aims to halt biodiversity loss in key ecosystems. This could lead to tighter regulations on deforestation-linked supply chains, impacting leather, cotton, and other agricultural inputs, aligning with the EUDR. If key sourcing regions for cotton, wool, leather or cellulosic fibres fall under new protections, brands might need to shift supply chains or comply with stricter land-use rules. With the focus on reducing pollution including chemicals, target 7 could lead to tougher rules on toxic dyes, PFAS and textile wastewater management, especially in key manufacturing hubs such as Bangladesh, India and China^[14].

Six companies, Allbirds, Eileen Fisher, Hugo Boss, Kering, Levi Strauss & Co. and Ralph Lauren, showed leadership by setting clear commitments to, or showing evidence of, avoiding or phasing-down both virgin and conventionally recycled synthetics. 

• Hugo Boss has a complete target of transitioning to 0% polyester and nylon in fabrics and linings by 2030^[19]. 
• Allbirds commits to reduce raw materials use by 25% across footwear and apparel products, working to replace petroleum-based synthetics with natural alternatives wherever possible^[20].
• Eileen Fisher, Kering, Levi Strauss & Co. and Ralph Lauren^[21] report using less than 10% synthetic fibers in total across their products, an impressive stance against fossil fuel products.

Few brands explicitly discussed avoiding particularly problematic feedstocks from, for example, the Amazon Basin, Arctic Circle or sourcing from harmful processes such as fracking. Hugo Boss is phasing out synthetics to prevent microplastic pollution, acknowledging the link with fossil fuels^[22] and Nike also has a policy to require suppliers to certify that their leather came from cattle raised outside of the Amazon^[23].

There is still a concerning lack of transparency over the volumes of fibers used by fashion brands and the number of garments created and sold on the market. More than a third (16/42) of brands shared no details about their material use or production volumes. 

Only 7 companies (Adidas, Allbirds, Hugo Boss, Inditex, Mango, PUMA and PVH) shared details of their material mix by both weight and as a percentage of total fiber mix. 

• Mango offered best practice for its clear breakdown of different sources (organic/recycled) within a given fiber used^[31]. 
• Allbirds shares the total volume in MT of certified materials^[32]. 

Not one company provided a breakdown of total units sold across the business, which is an essential step towards understanding cycles of overproduction which are driving the industry’s environmental and social harms.

Deforestation-linked materials, including leather and man-made cellulosic fibers, undermine fashion’s wider decarbonization efforts. Forests are vital carbon sinks, biodiversity strongholds, water regulators, and home to Indigenous peoples, yet fashion’s raw material sourcing, from cattle ranching to wood-based fabrics, continues to drive deforestation. 

Stand.earth identified 26/42 (60%) companies that either had a specific policy of zero leather from deforestation in some form or didn’t use leather at all, some of which are new policies since the Fossil Fuel Fashion Scorecard began assessing this criteria:

• Capri Holdings published its Forest Protection Policy in 2024 with a 2025 goal of a deforestation- and conversion-free supply chain that also safeguards and respects human rights.
• VF Corp’s Animal Derived Materials Policy states that leather shall not come from cattle grazed on lands that have contributed to new deforestation or forest degradation ^[35]
  
• New Balance prohibits the use of bovine and cow hides from the Amazon Biome, China and India, an important level of commitment given opaque supply chains^[36].

Disappointingly, eight companies shared no evidence of policies in place to avoid leather from deforested regions: Aritzia, Chanel, Fast Retailing, MEC, On Running, SHEIN, Target, Under Armour. It is worth noting that footwear and luxury brands which have a greater reliance on leather for their products and accessories, including Chanel, are at higher risk of contributing to deforestation.

A number of companies, including Columbia Clothing, communicated working with the Leather Working Group (LWG) and sourcing from LWG certified tanneries, which is a start, but do not have specific policies in place to ensure visibility over their leather supply chains, which is concerning^[37]. A recent investigation from Unearthed, Greenpeace’s research arm, found clear links between cattle sold to major leather supplier JBS, and deforestation in Brazil, despite the company’s forest commitments.^[38] 

When it comes to avoiding deforestation for man-made cellulosic fibers (MMCF) like viscose and rayon, 26/42 companies reported partnering with Canopy and use of the Hot Button Ranking to guide sourcing decisions, which is a positive approach. Best practice companies, like Kering Group have specific forest and wood-derived fibre policies and have set clear, time-bound targets. For instance, this is included in the Suppliers’ Charter of the Kering Code of Ethics which works towards eliminating controversial supply chains that may negatively impact forest resources or endangered species habitats whilst also having a concrete standard for cellulosic fibres aligned with Canopy.^[39]

Conventionally grown cotton, the second most widely used fiber by fashion brands, is associated with significant toxic pesticide use and labor rights concerns, and has a greater carbon footprint compared to organic or regenerative cotton. To support a transition to a more sustainable fashion industry it is essential that brands show targets and progress in transitioning towards 100% post-consumer recycled, and truly organic or regenerative cotton and wool.

Strong commitments which do not rely on BCI are relatively few, but seven brands showed early leadership with targets to increase the use of organic, regenerative and recycled cotton and wool: Allbirds, Burberry, Eileen Fisher, Kering, MEC, On-Running, and Patagonia. 

• Patagonia reports using organic cotton exclusively since 1996, is partnering with cotton farmers in India and Peru using Regenerative Organic practices, and reported that as of Fall 2024 45% of cotton fabrics by weight were made with recycled cotton^[49]. 
• Kering has clear guidelines on where recycled cotton must be sourced and certified from^[50]. 
• Eileen Fisher works with regenerative organic cotton in Peru and regenerative responsible wool in Argentina and New Zealand, and also reports working with its silk supplier to transition mulberry production to organic^[51]. 
• Allbirds has an ambitious target that 100% of wool must be sourced from regenerative sources by 2025^[52] 

Positively, more brands shared examples of how they were providing funding and support to help farmers transition to regenerative and organic farming, which is critical to enable farmers to make a sustainable transition to processes that support biodiversity:

• Armani Group reported working on the Apulia Regenerative Cotton Project, in collaboration with the Fashion Task Force of the Sustainable Markets Initiative and the Circular Bioeconomy Alliance^[53]. 
• Mango established a partnership with Materra, a British-Indian company that has specialised in designing solutions for growing and sourcing regenerative cotton^[54]. 
• Bestseller reported investing more than DKK 23 million towards its direct-to-farm cotton program to support farmers in conversion^[55].
• Burberry has set up its own Regeneration Fund to support regenerative farming projects^[56]
  

Apparel consumption is expected to increase by 63% of the next five years. If the industry continues on its current trajectory, by 2030 global annual textile production will reach 160 million tonnes, the vast majority of which will ultimately be discarded as waste^[65]. Significant, sustained investments in true closed-loop recycling is essential if the technology is going to be brought to commercial scale and have a meaningful impact on waste.

While 11/42 companies showed no strong evidence, 13/42 companies provided good examples of how they were taking action and investing to increase the use of high-quality closed-loop textile recycling or next-generation fibers made from recycled textiles or agricultural residues. 

• H&M Group has invested in numerous ways, including an equity investment in Syre which is working to scale textile-to-textile recycling in regions like Vietnam and TreetoTextile which is working to scale new regenerated cellulosic fibers. The company is also working on this through its Circular Innovation Lab and through its investment arm, H&M Group Ventures^[66]. 
• Bestseller has invested in eight material innovators and is transparent about the value invested, noting that since 2021, Invest FWD has invested over DKK 150 million which includes DKK 10 million invested in 2023-24^[67]. 
• Lululemon reported an equity investment in Australian enviro-tech startup, Samsara Eco, which is developing textile recycling technologies for polyester and nylon, and which were piloted in 2024 in a limited product made with enzymatically recycled polyester.

SHEIN also reported partnering with Donghua University to develop a polyester recycling process, although industry experts have raised concerns that this could never counteract the sheer volume of polyester the company produces^{[68] [69]}
. Synthetics account for over 80% of its total fiber basket, according to the most recent data^[70], as the company reportedly adds thousands of new products to its online store every day^[71].

Fashion brands can recognize a trend that’s not going away, and that’s clearly the case with resale and repair programs.  Resale platform ThredUp’s new report showed that resale is growing rapidly—2.7 times the rate of the overall global apparel market^[79]—as customers shift towards both sustainability and affordability.

In a clear growth area for the industry, in 2025, 40/42 brands offered some kind of resale or repair program.  Only Aritzia and Under Armour failed to report any kind of resale or repair services. It should be noted that take-back programs have clear limitations, including the fact that clothes often end up in the Global South, as highlighted by multiple investigations^[80], and it can be difficult for customers to know the difference between true circularity and simple greenwashing. Eileen Fisher is an example of a brand with a long-standing and high-integrity efforts to offer resale and free repairs, plus transparency on the number of repairs completed for customers and the units sent to resale and recycling initiatives^[81], which can give customers confidence in the program.

While progress is being made in developing technical solutions, it is a concern that few brands are acknowledging the inherent harm of fossil-fuel based materials. Technology cannot be used to greenwash away the climate impact of materials. As a priority, brands must:

• Commit to a clear phase-out of oil-based synthetics. Embed this within company material standards and procurement policies, ensuring they go beyond and recognize the limitations of false solutions like recycled polyester. 
• Focus on high-integrity certifications with strong levels of due diligence across the supply chain to ensure that fibers are not linked to deforestation or violation of indigenous rights, or the harm of ancient and endangered forests, especially in sensitive ecosystems like the Amazon.
• For natural fibers such as cotton and wool, set specific targets to increase the use of organic and regenerative feedstocks, and act to financially support farmers while they transition to more sustainable practices. 
• Invest in infrastructure that can help the whole industry reduce its dependency on virgin materials, such as textile-to-textile recycling operations.