Fashion’s climate gap: Why Shein, Lululemon and others fall short
Subscribe to our free newsletter today to keep up to date with the latest supply chain industry news.
The fashion industry is facing renewed scrutiny as major brands fall short of their climate commitments despite bold public pledges. A new report from the NewClimate Institute and Carbon Market Watch shows that brands like Shein, Lululemon, H&M and Adidas remain far from aligning with the Paris Agreement’s goal to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
These companies, which brought in more than 123 billion dollars in revenue in 2023, promote strategies to cut emissions but often lean on partial fixes that do not match the scale of the problem. Weak implementation, lack of transparency and continued reliance on questionable solutions widen the gap between promises and results.
Shein’s emissions surge and Lululemon’s stall show the limits of targets alone
Among the five companies examined, Shein emerged as the largest fast fashion emitter. Its plan to cut emissions by 25 percent by 2030 would still allow its climate footprint to more than double from 2021 levels. Shein’s emissions jumped 83 percent from 2022 to 2023, surpassing Inditex, owner of Zara, as the biggest emitter in the sector.
Lululemon, which markets itself as an ethical activewear brand, has pledged climate action, but its supply chain emissions remain flat and even rose nearly 20 percent in its manufacturing footprint over the past year. H&M and Adidas, meanwhile, show slightly stronger progress. Both have posted emissions reductions in recent years, and their targets now rate higher in credibility compared to previous rankings. Yet H&M still depends heavily on fossil gas and biomass, a fuel source that can increase deforestation and is not carbon neutral.
Why electrification and renewable energy can transform fashion supply chains
Most emissions linked to apparel come from making and finishing clothes — steps like dyeing, washing and drying that rely on fossil fuels. Many factories remain tied to outdated infrastructure with limited access to renewable power.
Researchers argue the most practical way to shrink the industry’s climate footprint is to electrify these processes and switch to high-quality renewable energy. Electric boilers, low-temperature technologies and better grids can cut supply chain emissions at scale.
But real transformation means brands must support suppliers through investments, technical help and clear timelines for phasing out fossil fuels. So far, many brands have not shown concrete plans to do this at speed or scale.
Biomass and preferred fibers cannot offset unchecked production
Brands often present biomass and greener materials as climate solutions. H&M calls biomass a temporary fix where electrification is not yet possible. But biomass is not without risks: it releases emissions when burned and large-scale harvesting can damage forests that would otherwise store carbon.
Similarly, so-called preferred fibers, from organic cotton to recycled synthetics, help lower impacts but only to a point. If production continues to rise, greener materials alone cannot offset the volume of clothing being made, sold and discarded.
Tighter rules could address the industry’s overproduction problem
The report calls for stronger rules to make brands cut waste at the source. One measure is to require companies to report how much they produce and set real limits on volumes. Another is to ban the practice of destroying unsold or returned stock, a loophole that drives overproduction.
These steps could help move the industry closer to the Paris goals by targeting the drivers of rising emissions. Without them, fast fashion’s business model will keep fueling climate risk, regardless of voluntary pledges.
Brands like H&M and Adidas show that some progress is possible. But to close the credibility gap, the industry must back up climate claims with action that reshapes production, energy sourcing and supply chain partnerships.
Electrification powered by clean energy, real production caps and clearer reporting would move fashion closer to its climate goals. Until then, claims of climate leadership will remain empty words if companies keep relying on easy fixes that hide an unsustainable reality.
Sources: