Despite the challenges of coronavirus to the fashion industry, attention on sustainability has remained high in recent months. Some of the biggest industry news of the pandemic has been brands addressing the unrelenting and wasteful fashion cycle and unfair treatment of supply chain workers.

Before the virus took over the world, many brands committed to ambitious climate targets, like the G7 Fashion Pact which saw 250 brands sign up to being net zero by 2050 last September and consumer interest in the issue has not waned. A poll conducted by Ipsos Mori of 28,000 consumers across 14 countries found that 71% believe climate change is as important to tackle as coronavirus. With values-driven purchasing expected to grow in the wake of the pandemic, sticking to these targets will be vital to a strong recovery.

Additional pressure is mounting from activists such as Extinction Rebellion which has an arm targeting fashion. Despite the disruption the group has caused to the industry, through protests at fashion week and major fast fashion shopping hubs like London’s Oxford Street, the group says it isn’t against fashion but wants them to be a vital example. Sara Arnold, an activist with the group, says: “We don’t just target fashion because of how bad it is, it’s also the cultural relevance of it. People want to talk about fashion, it’s something that everybody relates to. It’s powerful.”

The clock is ticking to achieve the science-based targets brands are encouraged to set, which work to keep global warming below a critical 1.5 degrees, but timeliness needs to be met with integrity.

Where do fashion's emissions come from?

“The most complicated part of mapping the carbon footprint of the fashion industry is understanding emissions in the supply chain and those associated with how the clothes are used and disposed of,” explains Andy Young, sustainability consultant at Achieve Goal 12. “These are complicated as they are not in the direct control of a company so the company is unlikely to collect any robust data. Unfortunately, these emissions are usually significantly higher than those in their direct control.”

These different sources of emissions are categorised into three types by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, an industry standard for measuring and managing carbon footprint. Scope 1 emissions are those directly created by the company; heating and lighting stores and offices, operating machinery in warehouses and company travel. Scope 2 emissions are those created by generating electricity, gas and water to fuel scope 1 activities. Scope 3 emissions come from the resources used by a company but not directly owned or operated by them i.e. the supply chain and consumer use. Examples range from farming of raw materials, dying processes, sewing machine use, transportation of goods and laundering of products by customers.

While it’s unlikely to make the biggest difference, improving scope 1 and 2 emissions is a good starting point says Young: “Things like sourcing green electricity can be quick wins… Even if you're not ready to develop a full carbon neutral plan, you'll find that actions that save carbon within your own operations usually also save money too, so the business case is there.”

For scope 3 emissions, understanding your emissions to make more informed choices is the first step.

Spanish womenswear brand SKFK launched its carbon calculator tool in 2017. It took 12 months to develop and uses the French governmental impact database to calculate the outcomes based on 1200 data points input every season. Using this tool has helped the brand to make meaningful targets. “Our carbon footprint shows wet processes have the highest impact: pre-treatment, dyes, finishes,” says Jon Curutchet, head of supply chain and sustainability at SKFK. The brand aims to use 20% undyed fabrics of recycled origin by 2025 as a result.

Similarly, VF Corporation, owner of labels including Timberland, Vans and The North Face, found that 42% of their carbon footprint came from their materials, including raw materials as well as processes.

The least carbon intensive materials are not always the best though. Synthetic fibres can often contribute smaller footprints because they don’t rely on agriculture. Leading author on carbon footprints, Mike Berners-Lee, estimates that the emissions from the production of a pair of nylon trousers is about half that of a pair of cotton jeans, and a pair of Crocs made from EVA foam creates ten times less than a pair of leather shoes. However, synthetic materials come with their own issues; notably around microplastics, use of finite resources and lack of biodegradability.

As such VF Corporation is working instead towards a goal of sourcing 100% of their top nine most used materials from recycled, regenerative or renewable sources by 2030. This will likely look more favourable to shoppers too who have come to learn that natural materials equate to green credibility.

Avoid greenwashing

Of course, pandering to consumer perceptions is unlikely to lead to long-term trust. Questions have been raised about whether fashion is greenwashing by becoming too quick to label themselves “carbon neutral”, achieved through the purchasing of carbon offsets, rather than reducing emissions.

Purchasing carbon offsets, which fund initiatives such as tree planting, clean energy and greenhouse gas capture and control initiatives to counteract emissions, are an inevitable part of becoming a carbon neutral company but can be like sticking a plaster on a broken leg.

Young explains, “To be credible, a company must always aim to reduce their carbon footprint as a priority and only use offsetting for the remaining emissions.” A carbon neutral badge might put consumers’ minds at ease but reducing emissions should be an ongoing process after reaching that milestone. Certification from organisations like the Carbon Trust, an international standard for carbon neutrality, can help ensure brands are following best practices.

The need to see yearly progress highlights the importance of annual reporting. Brands are encouraged to make these disclosures as part of the main financial reports and will become a requirement of the Financial Conduct Authority from 2022.

Young also warns not all carbon offsetting schemes are as good as they claim to be and should be thoroughly researched to avoid another case of greenwashing: “There are examples of offset projects that don't deliver the saving they promised or take longer than planned, so to counter this risk it's a good idea to offset two or three times the footprint you are looking to offset.”

Transparency with customers

To navigate these complexities with customers, and empower them with knowledge, some brands are displaying carbon footprints on their products.

In April, sneaker brand Allbirds became one of the first mainstream footwear brands to do so. The new label shows that their hero product, the wool runner, emits 7.1kg of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gases (CO2e), in comparison to the average running shoe which has a footprint of 12.5kg CO2e. The brand offsets their footprint as a carbon neutral company. In a statement, co-CEO Joey Zwillinger said, “There's strength in numbers and we hope that if other brands start labelling their products, carbon footprint labels will be as widespread as nutritional stickers on food packaging.”

SKFK also publishes the impact of each garment on its ecommerce product pages, with a view to adding this to swing tags and order confirmations in the near future. “Our carbon footprint calculator has two objectives: on the one side, showing us what we are achieving right now and where we need to focus next, and on the other hand, empowering customers to make informed buying decisions,” says Curutchet.

SKFK also provides the industry standard footprint for comparable products and a breakdown of what is generating the most impact in the materials and production process. Diving further into the brand’s web pages on carbon impact, the brand also encourages customers to think about how they care for and dispose of their clothes as a way to minimise footprint.

Next steps

As we emerge from the pandemic with a renewed energy to create a more sustainable world, fashion companies must not only provide greater transparency for customers and stakeholders but look beyond their own back yards. Arnold wants fashion brands to get political to ensure a green and fair recovery plan. “The industry needs to realise that they can’t get to where they see themselves without massive government intervention. The industry should be coming together and calling on their government to take action to regulate the industry.”

For brands who are able to weather the storm of coronavirus, there is opportunity in this moment of change. Arnold adds, “I think we’ve gone past the time when we can just make the industry a bit more sustainable. We need to think outside the box. Let’s take the box away and then see if we even need the box. There needs to be a massive transformation and the way to do that is to press the reset button.”

Want to join The Collective, and contribute to the debate?

Email us at: The.Collective@lewissilkin.com