The boom in fashion resale platforms

Resale is the new black. From luxury heavyweights to fast fashion giants, brands are increasingly capitalising on the growth in second hand. Ganni, Gucci, COS, Levi’s, Nike, Adidas, and Mara Hoffman are a few of the brands contributing to the 275% uplift in brand-owned resale shops.

Certainly, some brands—especially those with proven track records for pursuing more sustainable practices—are launching resale because it makes sense. But the fact that the global second hand apparel market is set to grow three times faster than the overall apparel market (16 times faster in the US) is undoubtedly a driver too.

Resale is the new black. From luxury heavyweights to fast fashion giants, brands are increasingly capitalising on the growth in second hand.

On surface level, resale seems like an obviously ethical move for any brand. And when paired with a shift in business model away from linear overconsumption, resale can help brands become more circular and emphasise degrowth principles. That’s all while opening up new revenue potential. In both ways, resale can be a win-win when certain brands get on board.

But what happens when brands with the worst reputations for overproducing polyester clothes destined for landfills get into resale? What happens when some of the most infamous fast fashion brands launch resale without addressing the underlying symptoms of the problem they’ve created? That’s where the ethical questions of a seemingly good move become trickier to answer.

The over-producing brands want a slice of the pie

They may appear to be unlikely participants given the linear, buy-sell-dispose nature of their business model, but a wave of fast fashion resale platforms are hitting the market.

In February, Pretty Little Thing (PLT) announced via UK creative director Molly-Mae Hague that it will launch resale in 2022. “It will be an app where girls can resell their PLT pieces and pretty much anything pre-loved,” Hague said at the time.

The following month, Boohoo Group, which owns PLT, announced it will be rolling out a resale platform for all of its brands—which include NastyGal, MissPap, boohooMAN, Warehouse, and Debenhams—by 2023. This is likely a move to win back the sales that its customers have started to take elsewhere. PLT was the fifth most listed brand on Depop in 2021, behind Topshop in the top spot, Zara in third, and ASOS in fourth. Boohoo came in seventh.

With the disheartening rise of ultra fast fashion, many people have come to expect low prices and constant variety, but they also care about the environmental footprint of their consumption choices.

Erin Wallace – VP of Integrated Marketing, thredUP.

“A factor that contributed to resale’s growth during the past several years is the mindset shift that has taken place among consumers,” says Erin Wallace, VP of Integrated Marketing, thredUP. “With the disheartening rise of ultra fast fashion, many people have come to expect low prices and constant variety, but they also care about the environmental footprint of their consumption choices.”

“Many shoppers are realising that thrift offers the same variety and value as fast fashion, without the waste,” Wallace tells me. She points out that the company’s 2022 Resale Report found that nearly two in three consumers believe their individual consumption habits have a significant impact on the planet.

Will it work when fast fashion gets in the game?

While Boohoo’s plans will be revealed later this year, it is known that PLT’s offering will be app-based and designed to sync with users’ purchase history so that previous purchases can be easily listed for sale.

The sync-up may sound pretty useful and timesaving, However it may mean that there is a limit to which items users can sell. That’s not necessarily unusual. On Mara Hoffman’s Full Circle marketplace, for instance, only items purchased from 2019 onwards can be sold while further capacity is developed. However, given that Boohoo Group shipped over 62m orders in the financial year 2021/22 alone, it will be imperative to spread the service as far as possible in order to keep such high volumes of clothing in active circulation.

Also up for discussion is whether the new crop of resale platforms will offer cash—in the vein of Depop and Vestiaire Collective—or store credit. When brands offer it as the only option, store credit in return for resold fast fashion products handcuffs circularity to consumption.

When brands offer it as the only option, store credit in return for resold fast fashion products handcuffs circularity to consumption.

So far, existing own-brand resale platforms are a mixed bag. COS offers cash minus 10% sales commission, Adidas offers “rewards”, and Levi’s offers store credit. Upon the PLT announcement, Hague noted, “it is great to make a little bit of money for our girls as well”, which hints at cash, but doesn’t offer a concrete answer. We did reach out to PLT, but they declined to take part in an interview. Boohoo Group also did not respond to interview requests.

For its reGAIN recycling program, PLT currently offers discounts to shoppers who drop clothes off at recycling points or charity shops to “ prevent the unnecessary pile up of discarded clothing in landfills”. That’s despite the fact that “recycled” clothes and charity shop donations still end up in landfills or being incinerated.

The test: are brands reducing total production?

For fast fashion resale to really “disrupt the fashion industry”, as Hague said it will, it must displace production in a substantive way. Most of fashion’s emissions are generated in the production stage, so if you reduce production in favour of reselling what already exists, you reduce a great deal of fashion’s overall impact. When Hugo Boss announced it would be launching a resale platform in the third quarter of 2022, it stated that “buying second hand saves an average of 44% of CO2 emissions compared to buying new”.

Reducing production as a path towards degrowth can happen and it can be a success, albeit so far only on the luxury level. British brand Toast is set to produce 20% fewer styles than in previous seasons, while Ralph Lauren has been trying out “financial growth through degrowth of resources”, making less product but more money.

“Overproduction is a massive issue within the fashion industry,” says Wallace. “[Our report] found that second hand has displaced 1bn new clothing purchases in 2021 that would have been purchased new. The more people make the switch to second hand, the less demand there will be for new clothing.”

This is a sensible conclusion to draw for platforms like thredUP that are not contributing to the demand for new clothing. But when it comes to brand owned resale platforms, we’re not yet seeing much evidence of brands slowing down production accordingly.

One brand which plans to do just that, however, is Another Tomorrow. Resale had been on cards for the New York-based brand since it launched in January 2020, and the time was right in April 2022.

“The language I’ve started to use is treating clothing as an asset again. I think when you start to think about clothing as an asset, you start to think ‘how do you care for and service that asset’, and resale is a part of that,” says founder and CEO Vanessa Barboni Hallik. “It’s really our hope that these resale businesses do supplant the need to continuously make new products.”

When it comes to fast fashion, layering resale into the product offering is just lip service when it’s not paired with a meaningful commitment to change.

Erin Wallace – VP of Integrated Marketing, thredUP

In terms of reaching an equilibrium which allows the offsetting of production with resale, Hallik says it’s difficult to model how much product customers will sell via Another Tomorrow’s authenticated resale service, but that it could take a couple of years. The plan is, at least, in motion for Another Tomorrow, but is it possible that fast fashion brands could, or would, follow suit?

Wallace is clear about what the answer should be. “When it comes to fast fashion, layering resale into the product offering is just lip service when it’s not paired with a meaningful commitment to change,” she says. “To tackle the fashion industry’s waste problem, we need to create solutions that impact both overproduction and underutilisation.”

Resale models require quality and longevity

Overproduction isn’t the only issue that resale could address. Quality and longevity are in the mix too because if brands want to enter the resale market, they need to be sure that their clothes will hold up.

As a luxury brand with quality at its core, Hallik says there is a conflict involved with resale. “We’re putting product out into the world that we completely intend to be timeless and have longevity and be held onto, so it’s a bit strange to say, ‘give it back!’” she says.

“However, as a system-wide approach, I hope it’s an incentive for companies to make higher quality products. Because if it falls apart, there’s no second bite of the apple. My hope for fast fashion is that they recognise that resale can be quite profitable if they make products that can stand the test of time.”

Material recapture, redesign, recycling, and other end of life services must make up part of a wider strategy—otherwise it becomes the consumers’ sole responsibility.

Of course, even the most high-quality clothes are subject to tears, moths, and other misfortunes, so it’s also vital that resale isn’t a one-note stab at circularity. Material recapture, redesign, recycling, and other end of life services must make up part of a wider strategy—otherwise it becomes the consumers’ sole responsibility to distribute their waste, and local access to solutions other than landfill are few and far between.

If fast fashion brands did all that, it’d mean dismantling the entire business model—and if you ask sustainability experts, that’s arguably the most sustainable move those brands could make.

What’s the verdict: circular or cynical?

Without reducing production or prioritising quality and longevity, fast fashion’s foray into resale will be, in many ways, a mere cash grab.

However, that such brands are clamouring to join in shows just how normalised second hand has become. And that could be instrumental in shifting consumer mindsets. In addition, the strides made in the industry in recent years, while still not nearly robust enough, have been significant. They demonstrate the dual power of consumer pressure and system change, and if the momentum continues it can be applied to resale, too.

It will remain important for consumers to look for meaningful action and have high expectations for true circularity and a slowing down of production. “At least they’re doing something”, isn’t necessarily a helpful position when we’re up against a tight time limit for our climate.

But citizens and consumers can use this moment as both a positive progression and a launchpad for more. “If fast fashion brands can commit to offsetting their production through resale, and creating clothes that last,” Wallace says, “we will all be better off.”

The post Fast Fashion Brands Launching Resale Platforms: Circular or Cynical? appeared first on Good On You.

What are science based targets?

If you’re the sort of person who scours brands’ websites for environmental commitments or reads annual sustainability reports, there’s a good chance you’ve come across the term science based targets (SBTs) lately. While “science based” sounds great—science!—you might have some questions.

It’s understandable if you’re a little sceptical about sustainability buzzwords these days. And on first glance, SBTs may seem like one more addition to fashion’s alphabet soup of sustainability jargon and buzzwords.

Are SBTs really that different from the vague targets brands often set? Let’s investigate.

The Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), which defines and facilitates SBTs, describes them as providing “companies with a clearly-defined path to reduce emissions in line with the Paris Agreement goals.” It’s a description that answers some questions but poses many more.

Answering those questions might help us, as consumers and citizens, hold brands to their commitments and inform our climate activism. That’s a good reason to dig into the specifics.

Paris: fashion capital, climate capital

Understanding SBTs starts with understanding the Paris Agreement. The legally binding agreement was adopted at COP21 in Paris in 2015. It sets a goal of limiting global warming to “well below 2, preferably 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels”. (“Pre-industrial” is a loosely defined term that bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, class as around 1850-1900).

The agreement came into effect when at least 55 countries representing 55% of global emissions had joined, and the goal was to achieve a “climate neutral world by mid-century”. It was up to different countries to decide how they would work towards the goal, but it could include a host of actions and measures such as investing in renewable energy, taxing polluters, and improving “green” public transport.

Because of Paris’ symbolic meaning in both the climate justice movement and within fashion, protestors have increasingly staged demonstrations at fashion week events—including the famous scene of an activist crashing a runway in 2021—to make statements about fashion’s impact on the planet. This highlights the increasing concern many people have regarding the fashion industry’s links to climate change and the inaction from the biggest brands.

Protester disrupting tonight’s Louis Vuitton show pic.twitter.com/hP8dry4kkz

— jessica testa (@jtes) October 5, 2021

What do science based targets have to do with fashion?

A global goal needs global collaboration, and if private companies like fashion brands decide to carry on as normal, they derail other efforts.

To create the clothes we wear, the fashion industry consistently engages in actions that have an adverse effect on our environment. Shipping, farming, plastic production, coal-fuelled factories, livestock, logging, synthetic textile production, dyeing, mining, and landfilling all sit within fashion’s remit, each with its own impact.

To limit warming to 1.5 degrees, the fashion industry needs to reduce its GHG emissions.

Such resource use, production, and waste take their toll. And there are many estimates about what the industry’s impact is. Consulting firm McKinsey estimated that the fashion industry was responsible for 2.1 billion metric tonnes of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2018. That’s 4% of the global total and the equivalent to the emissions of France, Germany, and the UK combined. The UN has previously estimated that fashion is responsible for 8-10% of GHG emissions. Whatever the precise number, it’s a significant one.

To limit warming to 1.5 degrees, the fashion industry needs to reduce its GHG emissions. But how do brands know they’re reducing them enough to keep us within that safe level? And how do we know that brands are making meaningful environmental promises? That’s where SBTs come in.

How are science based targets different?

There are tonnes of sustainability targets flying around, you can’t miss them, and they’re often fodder for greenwashing: internally set, unverified, and vague. Are SBTs different?

For a target to be considered science based it must be in line with the goal of limiting warming to well below 2 degrees, with efforts shown to limit it to 1.5. A brand must register with the SBTi, develop a target, and then submit it so the SBTi can validate whether it is in fact science based.

SBTi represents the “current gold standard” in this space, says Kristian Hardiman, Good On You’s head of ratings. It’s because of this specificity, scientific grounding, and validation that Good On You rewards a “higher proportion of points to brands setting SBTs when analysing GHG emissions,” Hardiman says of Good On You’s brand rating methodology.

Many activists, academics, organisers, and researchers agree that SBTs represent the best standard we currently have. It’s what all brands should be targeting, regardless of their size.

“It’s really important that we try to align all business—and life in general on our planet—with the 1.5 degree pathway,” says Rebecca Coughlan, transparency manager at non-profit advocacy organisation Remake.

Why? Because according to an alarming IPCC report released in February 2022, “any further delay in concerted anticipatory global action on adaptation and mitigation will miss a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all”.

IPCC followed this with a report in April 2022 that The Guardian described as “what is in effect their final warning”. The co-chair of the working group behind the report is quoted as saying “it’s now or never, if we want to limit global warming to 1.5C. Without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, it will be impossible.”

Unfortunately, fashion brands are not doing enough. Around COP26, I worked with Good On You analysts to produce this deep-dive survey on what actions brands are taking for the climate. Based on newly released data on 2,500 brands’ environmental track records, the report found that brands aren’t doing enough to address their impacts on the climate emergency. For example, only 10% of brands analysed earned Good On You’s top score for the environment. And where the biggest and wealthiest brands have GHG targets, 69% of them are not disclosing whether they are even on track to meet them.

This all imbues the conversation about SBTs with a heightened sense of urgency. “SBTs show companies how much they need to reduce [their emissions] by and give them a good timeline to be able to align with that pathway so we can hopefully avoid the worst effects of climate change,” says Coughlan. At the very least, that’s where brands need to start if the fashion industry is to mitigate its role in the climate emergency.

How can brands reduce their emissions?

Allbirds—a footwear brand currently scoring “It’s a Start” in Good On You’s rating system—made 10 commitments when introducing its SBT “Flight Plan” in 2021, says Hana Kajimura, head of sustainability. (There are a variety of factors that explain Allbird’s score beyond its GHG targets.)

These commitments include 100% of wool coming from regenerative sources, sourcing 100% renewable energy for facilities that are owned and operated by the brand, reducing the use of raw materials by 25%, and doubling the lifetime of footwear and apparel products. Each commitment is to be achieved by 2025 to help accelerate a longer-term target to be as close to zero emissions as possible by 2030.

Other emissions-reducing activities that brands can undertake include things like moving away from fabrics derived from fossil fuels, installing solar panels on factory rooftops, producing fewer products, and reselling existing products.

What are scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions?

One key problem with many fashion brands’ targets is that they don’t account for the full impact of the supply chain. Often, brands might focus on reducing emissions in one area of their operation, which can verge into greenwashing territory if they’re only focused on the parts of their operations that already have the least impact.

This is where it’s helpful to understand what scopes mean. “Scopes are a way to delineate between direct and indirect emissions,” Hardiman explains. In other words, it’s about how a company goes about accounting for its greenhouse gas impacts. “You calculate your emissions and then within each scope, you determine the best way to reduce emissions.”

There are three types of scopes. And while they cover the complexity of the supply chain, their definitions are quite straightforward: scope 1 emissions come from sources owned or controlled by the brand—think retail shops and corporate headquarters. Scope 2 emissions come from purchased electricity, steam, heating, and cooling, for a brand’s own use. And scope 3 emissions come from other sources that are not technically controlled by a brand such as transportation, extraction of materials, non-owned supplier factories, employee travel, and the use of products that have already been sold.

When it comes to where the biggest impacts lie, it’s different scopes for different industries. “For most fashion companies, scope 3 is usually huge whilst scope 1 and scope 2 are relatively small,” Hardiman says. “But for some companies outside fashion, such as airlines, their scope 1—their direct operation—will be enormous.”

Absolute v intensity targets—what’s the gist?

Along with the different scopes, there are different types of reduction targets, too: absolute and intensity. With absolute reduction targets, brands are targeting an overall reduction of emissions compared to a certain point in time. So, a brand may say, “We’ll reduce our emissions by 35% by 2035 compared to 2005 levels”. An intensity reduction is when a brand targets reducing emissions per unit. And intensity targets can be both physical (ie per garment made) or economic (ie in relation to profit).

Where does the SBTi stand on these details? Although, as Coughlin notes, scope 3 is where the majority of fashion’s impact lies, the SBTi only requires scope 3 targets if the associated emissions are “40% or more of total scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions”.

In terms of reductions, brands can choose between absolute and intensity reduction targets. However, it is worth noting that there are currently no approved examples of physical intensity targets, ie a brand saying it will reduce emissions by 20% per garment made.

Better targets aren’t a substitute for regulation

Of course, not all experts agree with the current framework set out for SBTs, such as allowing intensity reductions. “[Physical intensity reductions are] hugely problematic because the climate doesn’t care if you have more efficient production if you increase volumes overall,” says Nusa Urbancic, campaigns director at Changing Markets Foundation, which recently launched a campaign against greenwashing in fashion.

Ultimately, this all points to the urgent need for legislation—for governments to mandate the actions the industry won’t take on its own.

“[The SBTi] needs to strengthen transparency, how much it covers supply chain emissions, and what’s in scope,” says Urbancic. “They also need to do really rigorous reporting every year or two years on where these companies are with regards to achieving their targets. It’s currently enough for brands to say, ‘oh sorry, we didn’t manage it’. So, then what? Nothing. There are no consequences.”

Ultimately, this all points to the urgent need for legislation—for governments to mandate the actions the industry won’t take on its own. Most experts agree that it’s long overdue for governments to step in and mandate things like greenhouse gas emissions reporting. And most experts agree that we need regulation to achieve the kind of systems-level change that needs to happen to address the fashion industry’s impacts.

The pros in an unregulated industry

Today, in an unregulated industry that largely plays by its own rules, SBTs provide brands with a firm roadmap for “how much and how quickly they need to reduce their GHG emissions”. Verified and climate-focused, SBTs are focused on creating a safe, liveable future while other targets may sound impressive but could have little to no impact overall.

A late 2021 report by Good On You found that only 6% of large brands have science based GHG emissions targets. But if SBTs become an industry standard, we could see a shift towards more meaningful, measured climate action.

There are undoubtedly many areas for improvement regarding reporting, incentives, and penalties but perhaps Kajimura puts it best: “Given the current trajectory, we simply don’t have time to wait for perfect solutions. Instead, we have an opportunity to innovate.”

The post Can Science Based Targets Help Tackle Greenwashing? We Investigate appeared first on Good On You.

Key stats based on Good On You’s brand ratings—published here for the first time:

• 69% of large brands with greenhouse gas emissions targets do not state whether they are on track to meet them. This reflects the industry’s lack of transparency. It also underscores the need for governments to mandate companies reporting on greenhouse gas emissions.
• 0 of the 40 most profitable brands analysed receive Good On You’s top rating—“Great”—for the environment. This means these brands are not demonstrating leadership in environmental policies, transparency, or managing material issues across their supply chains.
• 73% of the most profitable brands analysed get the two lowest ratings for environment, “Not Good Enough” and “We Avoid”—meaning these brands publish little or no concrete information about their sustainability practices and are not adequately managing their impacts across their supply chains. In some cases, these brands may make ambiguous claims that are unlikely to have a material impact.
• 26% of brands scored “Good” or “Great” across all areas (environment, labour, and animal welfare), demonstrating how the industry can do much better. This includes a large share of small and independent labels along with a few major brands showing leadership.
• Only 6% of large brands have a science-based greenhouse gas emissions target. Read on to see why this matters.

New data shows fashion’s climate inaction

The climate emergency is “code red” for humanity, according to a major UN report. But everywhere you look, from political slogans to fashion campaigns, we often hear greenwashing more than we see meaningful action.

As COP26 gets underway in Glasgow—that is, the 26th meeting of the 197 signatories of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—we’ve hit a critical moment for the future. And the focus is rightly on how our leaders have failed to act.

The COP26 context

As part of the 2015 Paris Agreement, which saw nations pledge to make efforts to limit global warming to “well below” 2 degrees and ideally 1.5 degrees, governments were asked to create action plans. But it was up to them to decide what action to take, and they missed the mark significantly. An interim report released in February 2021 revealed that “governments are nowhere close to the level of ambition needed to limit climate change to 1.5 degrees and meet the goals of the Paris Agreement,” according to UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

Now, in line with the Paris Agreement’s “ratchet mechanism”, which ensures climate action becomes more ambitious over time, governments are expected to submit new action plans at the conference, progressing on previous plans. With COP26 president Alok Sharma telling world leaders to “step up”, the world is holding its breath.

Fashion’s lack of urgency

Reporting around COP26 centres, unsurprisingly, around government action, or a lack thereof. However, the scorecard for businesses, which the UN calls “non-state actors”, is equally poor. As an industry that spans the globe, with single garments often traversing between countless countries including China, the US, the UK, Vietnam, India, Ghana, and Bangladesh within their lifecycle, fashion has a major stake in the future of our climate. But fashion seriously lacks a sense of urgency.

Reliable, peer-reviewed figures are hard to come by—in part because of the fashion supply chain’s inherent complexity. But the UN estimates that the multi-trillion-dollar industry is responsible for 8-10% of the world’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As an industry predicated on growth, that figure could well increase if left unchecked. And in a world scrambling to limit emissions, that’s a dangerous prospect.

Good On You data sheds light

It’s important that we have a handle on what impact the fashion industry is having and where it’s going.

Given that there’s no COP for fashion brands—no mandated progress disclosure—it’s difficult to track. That’s where Good On You’s comprehensive data on fashion brands comes into play. Having rated thousands of brands over the past six years, this data can give us a sense of the industry’s report card on environmental policies. Spoiler alert: It’s too much greenwashing, too little action.

Greenwashing is rampant

The average fashion consumer could be forgiven for thinking their favourite brands have responded robustly to climate concerns. From environmental mission statements to promises of cutting emissions and eliminating waste, the fashion industry outwardly seems to have transformed into a custodian of our collective future. “Fashion made from waste and grapes? Welcome to the future”, says one high street behemoth. “We’re facing up the future, doing more for our clothes, our suppliers, our communities, and our impact on the environment,” promises another brand.

It appears that every fashion brand is doing its very best, setting targets such as “we’ll achieve net zero across our value chain by 2030”, and “[our goal is to] be climate positive by 2040”. However, beyond the snappy promises lies a very different reality.

That’s what’s often considered greenwashing—the unjustified and misleading claims from fashion brands that their products are more environmentally friendly than they really are. This manifests in various ways. Sometimes it’s outright deception. Sometimes it’s more subtle advertising. Often, it’s brands making ambitious claims without being transparent around their actual impacts.

Beyond avoiding those misleading claims, the most effective response to greenwashing is for brands to be fully transparent about their impact and how they’re addressing the key issues in their supply chains. That’s why this report goes beyond the greenwashed claims and focuses on data about what brands are really doing.

Most brands are not doing enough

Most fashion brands get low scores for their environmental policies, according to Good On You’s rigorous and independent brand ratings. To rate brands, Good On You looks past each brand’s claims and analyses its actions across more than 100 key sustainability issues. Good On You considers a variety of indicators of environmental impact and progress. These include emissions reduction activities, target setting, and the measurement of scope one, two, and three GHG emissions (this means not only counting emissions from brand-controlled sources like offices and warehouses but all indirect emissions like those from energy use, purchased products, and even employee commuting). The environmental ratings also factor in resource management, chemical use, and water use.

Each brand is labeled on a scale of 1 (“We Avoid”) to 5 (“Great”), with brands on the upper end of that scale representing the leaders for their policies. You can find out more about how Good On You’s ratings work here.

For this report, Good On You analysed 2,504 brands, which have our most up to date ratings. It’s important to note that this is not a random sample of fashion brands. Among them are many major fashion houses, high street shops, and a significant selection of smaller sustainable labels. The sample includes a disproportionate share of sustainable brands, meaning these stats are even rosier than the reality (percentages rounded to the nearest integer):

Small labels lead the way

Smaller sustainable brands are leading the charge for progress compared with large brands, which Good On You defines based on annual turnover. Their efforts boost the results and make Good On You’s industry-wide data look more impressive than it really is.

If we remove the more sustainable brands from the mix, you’re looking at a much bleaker picture. In other words, the sustainable brands in this sample demonstrate it’s possible to do much better.

Setting science-based targets

The big brands are setting bold targets, but a little digging reveals the targets are not all they’re made out to be. As we’ve seen, brands are rushing to set impressive-sounding targets to show their customers how concerned they are about the climate.

Nearly half. It sounds great, but some targets mean more than others.

It’s that “science-based” bit that really matters. Kristian Hardiman, Head of Ratings at Good On You, explains that the “base year” brands choose can make a huge difference. “When I first started working in climate change, loads of brands were setting 2007—the year before the global financial crisis—as their base year. Emissions were quite high and then they dropped, so if they set a target of a 30% reduction compared to 2007, they were already there, they didn’t really have to do much,” he says, adding that he expects 2019, the year before COVID, to become the next base year.

Science-based targets help to avoid that kind of sneaky carbon accounting by ensuring that targets are set in line with the internationally agreed 2 or 1.5 degree warming limit. “The Science Based Target initiative has really done the work of what it would mean for a company to align themselves with the Paris Agreement framework,” explains Maxine Bédat, author of Unraveled and Director of the New Standard Institute. “It’s a way to draw a line in the sand between corporate greenwashing and real action.”

Big money, little action

The most profitable fashion brands are getting the lowest scores for their environmental policies. Some pin hopes for the future on the largest companies with the thickest wallets to fund and drive solutions. But Good On You’s data suggests they’re simply not putting in the work.

For this report, Good On You looked at the ratings for the most profitable brands listed on FashionUnited’s annual index, considered by many to be the benchmarks of profitability across private and public brands. Of the top 40 brands analysed, the numbers paint a picture of the most powerful brands doing the very least.

“I would say that climate change is the area where brands greenwash or try to deceive consumers the most,” says Hardiman. That can be successful because consumers aren’t supply chain or carbon emissions experts.

“We can’t just rely on consumers because consumers can’t be deeply educated in all of these things. That’s way too much of an expectation to put on regular people,” says Bédat. “And so, what we’re seeing is tightening legislation.”

Fashion labels’ misleading claims

Greenwashing is a growing concern for consumer protections. Governments are taking some actions in this area—laws, guides to greenwashing, and prosecutions. But they are doing nothing to ensure brands measure and disclose their emissions.

One recent example of regulatory intervention is adidas, which found itself in trouble this past August when the Advertising Ethics Jury of the French advertising regulator, ARPP, deemed that an advert for its Stan Smith sneakers could mislead consumers. The sneaker, which is styled crushing a plastic bottle, was advertised as being “100% iconic, 50% plastic”. “The consumer is thus inclined to think that 50% of the Adidas sneakers represented are made of recycled materials,” reads the ruling, when in fact only the upper part of the trainer contained recycled materials. The Jury also took issue with the use of the “End Plastic Waste” logo, because “although the plastic used to make the promoted sneakers comes from the recovery of abandoned plastic waste … this does not mean recyclable plastic.”

Other brands including Allbirds and H&M have been up against accusations of greenwashing and misleading consumers. In the UK, the Competition and Markets Authority has launched the “Green Claims Code”  in response to widespread official concern about misleading green claims. The code outlines which claims will be deemed “genuinely green”, giving brands just 3 months to tidy up their marketing to comply with consumer protection laws. Promises of “X% reduction by X year” will no longer cut it. Brands will be expected to explain which base year, which scope, and by which means they will reach said target.

Of course, ostensibly earth-friendly claims will draw consumers, and there are cynical forces at play, but fashion academic and strategist Frederica Brooksworth says a lack of education is also to blame where the professionals communicating these messages are concerned. Marketers are entering a seemingly creative profession and then tasked with relaying highly complex, scientific information in an accessible way. “I’ve been pushing for law to be taught on fashion programmes and I’ve run my own courses for three years,” she says. “We have a responsibility as educators to really enforce this within the curriculum. If you’re teaching fashion marketing, you need to look at it in terms of consumer protection.

Confessionals—the next marketing trend?

An emerging response to consumer and legal allegations of greenwashing is brands turning on their heels and being brutally honest about their shortcomings. Ganni decided to tell the world “Why we’re not a sustainable brand”, perhaps borrowing from Noah’s 2018 missive along the same lines, while Ace & Tate said, “Look, we f*cked up”, and listed five “bad moves” it had made as a brand, including setting an unrealistic carbon goal.

Certainly, these brands aren’t pretending to be greener than they are, but they are carving a path of least resistance, digging out leeway to do less, aim a little lower. “It’s fine, work on it, but just don’t make it your main message, because then it’s not authentic,” says Brooksworth.

Large brands not transparent about progress

On a consumer level, greenwashing erodes trust. On an environmental level, this lack of meaningful action further derails the path toward achieving the 1.5 degree limit. As the official “COP26 Explained” document reads, “If we continue as we are, temperatures will carry on rising, bringing even more catastrophic flooding, bush fires, extreme weather, and destruction of species.”

Nations are expected to revise and report on their action plans every five years and yet:

We’re at a critical tipping point for our future, and the pervasiveness of greenwashing means we simply do not know whether brands are acting on their own self-promoted plans. Updates and ambition are a key metric for COP26 and indeed a habitable climate in future, yet fashion brands who play a key role in protecting that future are obfuscating reality. Some major brands are being more transparent than they were a few years ago. We need to accelerate this change.

Today, many are calling for mandates and incentives for transparency from brands. This October,  the UK’s Ethical Consumer released their Climate Gap Report, which recommended that governments make it mandatory for companies to report on their supply chain emissions—something that the vast majority of companies do not currently do (see stat below). There is precedence for such regulation. In the UK, the Modern Slavery Act of 2015 requires companies with turnover of more than £36 million to report on the steps taken to eliminate slavery in the supply chain. Australia and California have similar laws. Increasingly, activists want to see governments take similar steps with transparency around emissions in the supply chain.

With the window of opportunity closing, transparency seems like the bare minimum. “Saying that you can’t operate unless you are operating within the bounds of the planet,” Bédat says, “it seems eminently reasonable, doesn’t it?”

The post Fashion and COP26: Inaction on the Climate Emergency appeared first on Good On You.