Sustainability evaluator Good On You launched a unique data project in 2021 to get a sense of how the fashion industry is working on its impact on the planet. In time for Cop27, Good On You expanded the scope of the project, evaluating 4,180 brands. In doing so, they sidestepped their own claims and analyses, instead rating their actions on more than 100 key sustainability issues on a scale of 1 to 5, ranging from “We Avoid”, “Not Good Enough” and “It’s a Start” to “Good” and ” Great”.
While there are some positive steps forward, most of the biggest brands are not taking urgent action, while smaller sustainable brands are leading the way. Overall, Good on You’s verdict is quite clear: “Too much greenwashing, too few measures”.
“Average fashion consumers might think their favorite brands have responded to climate issues. From environmental mission statements to promises to reduce emissions and eliminate waste, the fashion industry seems to have transformed itself into a custodian of our common future on the outside,” explains Good On You.
However, a closer look reveals that the claims may be deceptive, misleading, or just plain greenwashing. The sustainability evaluator advises avoiding such claims and instead being fully transparent about a brand’s impact and how it is tackling key issues in its supply chains.
Here are some of the key takeaways from the report:
greenhouse gas emissions
Good On You found that 51 percent of major brands with greenhouse gas emissions targets do not report whether they are on track to meet those targets: “This underscores the need for governments to make greenhouse gas emissions reporting mandatory.”
“We can’t just rely on consumers because they can’t be fully educated on all these things. That’s far too high an expectation for normal people,” confirms Maxine Bédat, author of Unraveled and director of the New Standard Institute, of taking environmental action. “So what we’re seeing is tightening of legislation.”
Additionally, only 21 percent of major brands have science-based targets for greenhouse gas emissions. That figure should be higher, according to Good On You, as only those are set in line with the internationally agreed limit of 2 or 1.5 degrees of warming.
The wrong base year can also seriously distort a picture: “When I first started looking at climate change, many brands used 2007 – the year before the global financial crisis – as the base year. Emissions were quite high and then declined. So if they set a target of a 30 percent reduction from 2007, they were already there, there wasn’t much left for them to do,” said Kristian Hardiman, head of ratings at Good On You, adding that he expects that 2019, the year before Covid, will be the next baseline year.
Majority of brands receive below average rating
Based on the annual Index of Most Recognized Fashion Brands by FashionUnited, Good On You examined the valuations of the most profitable brands, viewed by many as a benchmark for private and public brand profitability. However, of the top 40 brands surveyed, the numbers paint a picture where the most powerful brands perform the least.
None of the 40 most profitable brands surveyed received the top “Great” rating for the environment from Good On You. “This means these brands are not taking leadership on environmental policies, transparency or dealing with material issues in their supply chains,” states Good On You.
Overall, just 8 percent of brands surveyed received the top rating, while at 64 percent, nearly two-thirds received the lowest environmental rating, either “Not Good Enough” or “We Avoid.”
Profit and environmental efforts are opposed
The data found that 70 percent of the most profitable brands surveyed received the two lowest environmental ratings, “Not Good Enough” or “We Avoid.” This means that these brands publish little or no concrete information about their sustainability practices and do not adequately manage their impact on their supply chains. In some cases, these brands make ambiguous claims that are unlikely to have a significant impact.
Smaller brands show the way
21 percent of the brands surveyed received a “Good” or “Great” rating in all areas (environment, labor and animal welfare), showing that the industry can do much better. This includes a large proportion of small and independent brands, as well as some big brands that are playing a pioneering role.
“If we take the more sustainable brands out of the mix, the picture is much bleaker. In other words, the sustainable brands in this sample show that it’s possible to do much better,” concludes Good On You.
Conclusion
Unsurprisingly, Good On You advises brands to be more transparent about their goals, strategies, delivery operations, and even what didn’t work. The main point is to act now rather than later.
“We’re at a critical tipping point for our future, and the proliferation of greenwashing means we simply don’t know if brands are executing on their own self-promoted plans. Updating and ambition are key benchmarks for Cop27 and a tolerable future climate, but fashion brands, which play a key role in protecting that future, are obscuring reality. Some big brands are more transparent today than they were a few years ago. We need to accelerate this change,” concludes Good On You.