This article is part of Glossy’s “Earth Month” series, highlighting the fashion and beauty brands leading in sustainability and regulatory compliance. The series explores the challenges related to sustainability, including marketing initiatives, preparing for legislation and reporting on commitments.
In response to growing environmental concerns, regulators are increasingly asking the fashion industry to calculate and lower its carbon footprint. The “footprint” reveals the greenhouse gas emissions from a brand’s activities.
“Many brands now agree that carbon emissions are the main thing to report on,” said Mads Fibiger of Copenhagen-based apparel brand Organic Basics.
Reduction strategies can vary depending on the size and breadth of the brand. These include optimizing supply chains, using sustainable materials and investing in renewable energy. They also include improving energy efficiency, extending product life cycles, engaging in carbon offsetting and embracing circular economy practices.
Regulations from the U.S. and the E.U. require more carbon reporting than other regions. In the E.U., for example, requirements have been set by E.U. Emissions Trading System, the U.K.’s Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act and Australia’s National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act. These regulations require qualifying brands, especially those operating in these regions, to monitor, report and, sometimes, reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The costs and the length of the reporting process vary depending on the size of the brand and the complexity of its supply chain.
For Organic Basics, regulation requirements forced the brand to update its carriers,” said co-founder Alexander Christiansen. “As we get better at production planning and start planning further ahead, we’ll be able to put [the product] on a boat and have the same carbon emissions as something driven with a truck here in Europe.”
At underwear brand Subset, formerly Knickey, carbon emission reduction touches every part of the brand’s operations. “We reduce our carbon footprint by sourcing certified organic cotton and recycled materials, leveraging solar power in manufacturing, and minimizing transportation in production through a network of geo-localized partners in India,” said Cayla O’Connell Davis, co-founder and CEO of Subset. The solar panels power 50% of the cut-and-sew factory’s energy demand.
For Everlane, reductions have focused on its manufacturing location. “We’ve done a lot of supply chain maneuvering to make sure that the materials we’re sourcing are closer to the manufacturing points we’re working with,” said Katina Boutis, director of sustainability at Everlane. “We’re being thoughtful and strategic about the distances and times that materials have historically needed to travel, affecting the quantified metrics of our carbon impacts. The product we’re creating today is 24% less carbon intensive than in 2019 when we first did our measurements.”
Other brands have also launched carbon emissions programs to lower their footprint. For example, Nike’s Energy and Carbon Program has promoted energy efficiency across its manufacturing supply chain in over 15 countries since its launch in 2008. The program involves Nike employees consulting directly with factories to guide them in reducing their energy consumption. According to reports, this initiative resulted in an approximately 50% reduction in energy usage intensity within Nike’s manufacturing operations from 2008 to 2015.
What’s the process of carbon emission calculations?
The process of calculating carbon emissions is a challenging one, because of the numerous steps involved and the complexity of fashion brands’ supply chains.
It begins with the brand defining its emissions scopes and collecting data. Direct emissions from company assets are categorized as Scope 1 carbon emissions, while indirect emissions — for example, from purchased energy — classify as Scope 2. All other indirect emissions within the company’s value chain, such as raw materials and transportation, are as Scope 3.
Accurate data collection is essential and often requires coordination with suppliers and third-party manufacturers. Analyzing this data helps identify emissions hotspots and compare results with industry benchmarks to set reduction targets.
Brands then develop strategies to reduce their carbon footprint, such as using renewable energy, optimizing transportation or transitioning to sustainable materials. Engaging stakeholders, like manufacturing and suppliers, in these efforts is crucial for effective implementation.
However, challenges like data quality, changing regulations and measuring indirect Scope 3 emissions can impact the accuracy of calculations. Transparency in consumer communication is essential to avoid public skepticism.
Some brands have found that carbon credits have become a necessary evil to transition.
Carbon credits represent reducing or removing one ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalent from the atmosphere, which companies can purchase to offset their greenhouse gas emissions.
“Carbon credits can be the most effective mechanism to pull capital to decarbonize,” said Austin Whitman, CEO of The Change Climate Project, an emission nonprofit. “It’s easy to judge all these companies and say they’re just trying to shirk their responsibilities when it’s tough. And some companies are wrestling with that. They want to do the right thing, but they also know it’s inconceivable to achieve 90% reductions in their scope 3 emissions when they’re so dependent on the decisions of other firms.”
For brands, the credits remain an essential mechanism. “[Carbon credits] cannot fully address corporate climate impact,” said Davis. “However, we use credits to mitigate emissions in our supply chain where fuel source management is outside our control, such as importing and shipping customer orders with third-party carriers.”
Carbon credits are complex due to challenges in ensuring their integrity and verification. Risks include double counting and concerns about whether emission reductions are genuine and permanent. Brands have been called to use “high-value” carbon credits, but verification can be difficult.
Opportunities in regenerative practices
Everlane, Organic Basics and Koio are among many brands looking to regenerative agriculture to improve carbon emissions. These brands are either testing or about to transition to regenerative farming across bigger parts of their brands. Regenerative farming offers an opportunity to inset or increase the amount of carbon taken into the soil, helping to reduce carbon emissions.
“The huge benefit of sourcing from regenerative farms was that it was this holistic system of improving the ecosystem while sequestering carbon into the earth,” said Koio co-founder Johannes Quodt. Carbon sequestering is capturing and storing carbon dioxide, typically in forests, soils or underground reservoirs to mitigate the impacts of climate change.
For sustainability-first businesses like Another Tomorrow, insetting presents one of the brand’s biggest challenges, alongside communications and measurement. “We are very attentive about finding ways to continuously lessen our impact within our supply chains,” said Another Tomorrow founder and CEO Vanessa Barboni Hallik.
For now, carbon reporting is limited to brand operations, but technology-driven solutions are hopeful in future carbon emission labeling. “In the future, I hope there’s a carbon receipt on all products,” said Fibiger. “In that case, when browsing in the store, you can clearly see which T-shirt is more sustainable here.”
Glossy’s sustainability coverage
Adore Me aims for more sustainable production with new Ever Dye partnership
Tapestry deepens renewable energy commitments ahead of 2025 deadline
