Executive Summary

International fashion brands are doubling down on their use of synthetic fibres – a key driver of microplastic pollution – while employing distraction and delay tactics to protect their fast fashion business model. This report uncovers the industry’s lacklustre support for meaningful legislation and underscores the urgent need for strong action from regulators, as half-hearted measures will only allow the fast fashion cycle to continue.

Three years on from our first survey (Synthetics Anonymous: fashion brands’ addiction to fossil fuels), this report evaluates 50 major fashion brands, with a combined market capitalisation of over $1 trillion, on their use of synthetic fibres and their policies and strategies to address microplastic pollution.

Synthetic fibres derived from fossil fuels and have become the dominant choice for both the fashion and wider textile industries. They account for over two-thirds (69%) of textile production, a figure projected to rise to 73% by 2030. Our 2021 investigation into more than 4,000 clothing items by global fashion brands revealed that 67% contained synthetic materials. The versatility and affordability of synthetic fibres – particularly polyester, which costs half as much per kilogram as cotton – have enabled fashion brands to saturate the market with cheap clothing, fuelling the cycle of consumption and disposal known as fast fashion. However, this addiction to synthetics comes at a steep environmental cost, significantly contributing to waste and plastic pollution while keeping the fashion industry tethered to fossil fuels. Polyester is the most widely used synthetic fibre in the fashion industry and has the largest climate footprint, accounting for 125 million tonnes of CO2e emissions in 2022 alone.

Synthetic clothing is also a substantial cause of global plastic pollution. The apparel industry generated 8.3 million tonnes of plastic pollution in 2019, 14% of the total from all sectors. This is also leading to potentially significant yet not fully understood health issues. Investigations have found microplastics in various human tissues and fluids, including lung tissue, stool, stomach contents, unborn babies’ placentas, brain tissue and penises. Microplastics from textiles like nylon and polyester have been linked to impaired lung tissue repair, worsened lung damage from conditions such as Covid-19 and chronic inflammation. This inflammation is known to contribute to diseases like cancer, heart disease, asthma, and diabetes, as well as intestinal issues and irritable bowel disease. Microscopic plastic particles in blood vessels are also connected to a heightened risk of stroke, heart attack and premature death.

This investigation

In April 2024, the Changing Markets Foundation and its partners – Clean Clothes Campaign, Fashion Revolution, No Plastic in My Sea and the Plastic Soup Foundation – wrote to 50 global clothing brands and retailers. Our questionnaire requested disclosure on several topics, including the use of synthetic fibres, commitments to phase out synthetic fibres, policies to address microfibre release, and company position on elements of the legislation proposed in the EU Textiles Strategy and the global plastic pollution treaty. Where appropriate, brands and retailers were classified into four categories: leading the shift, could do better, trailing behind and red zone.

The results and secondary research reveal that despite growing evidence highlighting the environmental and health risks, fashion brands are increasingly relying on synthetic fibres, with most either ramping up their usage or concealing the true scale of their dependency. They are employing tactics similar to those used by the fossil fuel industry – denying the severity of plastic pollution, distracting the public and regulators with false solutions and actively stalling meaningful efforts to address it, particularly in the case of microplastic pollution.

Fashion brands doubling down or covering up their dependency on synthetics

The level of corporate secrecy has more than tripled since our surveys began in 2021. More than half the companies (54%, 27 brands) failed to respond to the survey in part or full, compared to 44% in 2022 and 17% in 2021. Companies are keeping their true dependency on synthetics under wraps.

Only two companies (4%) achieved our top category, ‘leading the shift’. Reformation has committed to phase out virgin synthetics by 2030 and reduce all synthetics (virgin and recycled) to less than 1% of total sourcing by 2025, with synthetics currently comprising 2.56% of its materials. Hugo Boss plans to eliminate polyester and polyamide by 2030, but the 143% increase in its use of synthetic materials from 2020 to 2023 calls this commitment into question. To remain in the top category, Hugo Boss must establish clear milestones and show steady progress towards reducing its reliance on synthetics.

Nearly all (45 out of 50) companies remained in the lowest two categories: ‘trailing behind’, marked by limited transparency and a heavy or increasing reliance on synthetics, and the ‘red zone’, defined by minimal or no transparency. The 29 companies in the red zone included a mix of fast fashion, sports and luxury brands, department stores and companies that tout their sustainability, including Patagonia, Adidas, Boohoo, Burberry, LVMH, Shein and Walmart.

Shein had the highest share of synthetic fibres within its total garment production portfolio at 82% (the company did not disclose its percentages in 2022). Boohoo was the second highest user at 69% (compared to 64% in 2022) of total fibres used, followed by Lululemon at 67% (up from 62% in 2022), Aldi at 60% (2022: n/a) and New Look at 56% (down from 60% in 2021).

Inditex disclosed the highest use of synthetics by volume at 212,886 tonnes in 2023, a significant increase from 178,030 tonnes in the 2022 survey. However, Shein did not disclose its total volume; given that in 2022, Shein overtook H&M and Inditex to capture a fifth of the global fast fashion market, it is highly likely that it is also the highest user of synthetics by volume. Nike also failed to give its total synthetic volume but disclosed a substantial volume of polyester.

Discouragingly, since the publication of our first survey, around half of the companies (11/23) that responded have increased their use of synthetics. Five maintained their use of synthetics with insubstantial fluctuations, and only three companies decreased it. Four companies left this section blank. Coupled with the remaining 27 companies that didn’t respond to the survey, this shows a disturbing lack of transparency. Given that synthetic fibres are projected to reach 73% of textile production by 2030, it is likely that most of these brands are expanding their use of synthetics.

Four brands that promised to reduce their use of synthetics in 2022 actually expanded their synthetic share or volume from 2022 to 2024: C&A (increased synthetics by 4% as a percentage of its total fibre mix), Esprit (raised its total synthetic volume by 15%, increased the polyester share in the total fibre mix by 33%), Inditex (increased synthetic volume by 20% and the polyester share by 26%) and Reformation (increased synthetic volume by 61%). Many other brands could be quietly increasing their reliance on synthetics despite pledges to reduce them, but fail to provide this level of transparency.

Nearly half of the brands that responded (11/23, 47%) said they plan to decrease their use of synthetics in future, up from 27% in our 2022 survey: Asda, Benetton Group, C&A, Esprit, G-Star Raw, Hugo Boss, Inditex, Mango, Reformation, Sainsbury’s, and Tesco. Considering the broken promises outlined above, these commitments should be taken with a grain of salt. Primark disclosed plans to increase its use of synthetics in the future.

Delay and distract: Mimicking tactics from the tobacco and fossil fuel industries

The fashion industry is using tactics from the playbook of sectors such as tobacco and fossil fuels to delay and distract from meaningful transformation.

Corporate Playbook Tactic 1: Delaying action by inflating scientific uncertainty and relying on weak voluntary initiatives

A substantial body of scientific evidence points to the immense risks of microplastic pollution to the environment and human health. In response to our question on microplastics, 15 out of 17 companies (88%) acknowledged that microplastics from synthetic fibres create environmental problems. Yet most have found convenient ways to delay meaningful action:

• Citing the ‘Need for More Research’ to Delay Action
  

Around a third (8 out of 23; 34%) cited the need for further research as a reason to postpone action, showing their reluctance to acknowledge the mounting scientific consensus.

• Using Industry Initiatives as a Smokescreen Tactic

Six companies – Inditex, Dressmann’s parent company Varner, Primark, PVH, Tesco and Zalando – cited a need for standardised methods to measure microfibre release and more research on the impacts, even though The Microfibre Consortium (TMC) developed a standard test method to quantify fibre loss from fabrics in 2021. Instead of developing specific and time-bound policies and strategies, many brands use a common smokescreen tactic to address microplastic pollution: joining industry-created sustainability initiatives such as TMC, Fashion For Good, ZDHC and the Japan Clean Ocean Material Alliance.For 16 out of 50 companies (32%), such memberships were their only strategy to address microfibres, even though simply signing up doesn’t ensure any meaningful action against microfibre pollution.

• TMC Signatories Use Membership as a Cover for Inaction

Significantly, 21 out of 50 brands (42%) were signatories of TMC, which positions itself as a leading initiative in addressing microfibre pollution. The initiative downplays the risks of microplastics, treating them as no more harmful than natural fibres, which allows signatory brands to maintain the status quo while appearing proactive. For example, none of its signatories are actively phasing out synthetics to address microplastic release. 18 signatories (including Adidas, H&M Group, Nike and VF Corp) fall into the ‘trailing behind’ category when assessed on their strategy on microfibre pollution, and 12 in the ‘red zone’ for their lack of transparency on synthetic usage. Signatory Lululemon was one of the most pervasive users of synthetics, representing 67% of its total fibre mix. For many, TMC membership acts as a convenient front – an attempt to deflect scrutiny by associating with a high-profile initiative without implementing fundamental changes in their practices.

Corporate Playbook Tactic 2: Distract with false solutions and greenwashing

• Shifting the narrative by downplaying the negative impact

The industry is trying to shift the narrative away from the plastic problem by arguing that all microfibres, regardless of their source, are equally problematic – contrary to scientific findings that specifically highlight the dangers posed by microplastics. TMC has channelled funding into research suggesting that microfibre pollution predominantly arises from natural fibres like cotton and wool rather than synthetics, using this as an argument against focusing on synthetics. The initiative claims that “microfiber pollution should no longer be a microplastic-only debate” and such a perspective is “simplistic, and ignores the evidence”. However, scientific findings show that, among microfibres, microplastics pose the greatest threat to the environment and human health. These arguments are tactics by the fashion industry to distract policymakers from its contribution to plastic pollution.

• Shifting the responsibility to consumers 

The second most common strategy was offering consumers guidance on garment care and recommending the installation of washing machine filters to prevent microplastics from clothes entering the environment. This approach not only passes the baton to consumers, allowing brands to wash their hands of any accountability but also focuses on cleaning up the aftermath rather than preventing the problem at its source.

Most companies (44/50, 88%) remained in the bottom two categories with regards to addressing microfibre pollution, with 22 (44%) landing in the bottom ‘Red Zone’ for having no public-facing policies on microfibres or simply offering consumer guidance and recommending the installation of filters on washing machines. This group included Abercrombie & Fitch, Asos, Benetton Group, Burberry, Dressmann, LVMH, Reebok, Shein, Sweaty Betty and Zalando. 

• Downcycling plastic bottles into clothes  

Fashion brands often present shifting from virgin to recycled polyester as their key strategy for addressing synthetic fibre reliance. However, Textiles Exchange, an industry body representing over 800 brands, and the beverage industry have criticised this approach as ineffective and misleading. Recycled polyester, almost exclusively made from plastic bottles (99%), disrupts the bottle-to-bottle recycling loop. Garments produced from these bottles cannot be effectively recycled back into the same quality material due to limitations in textile recycling technologies and are more likely to end up in landfills or be incinerated. This strategy also does nothing to address microplastic pollution and waste problems.  

Still, brands and retailers remain blinkered on this strategy, with 82% (41/50) of companies pledging only to reduce their reliance on virgin synthetics rather than reduce or phase out all plastics. 

• ​​Weak industry support for regulation

Fashion has long been one of the most unregulated sectors, heavily relying on voluntary initiatives, labels and certifications. For the first time, governments worldwide are beginning to promise regulation, signalling a critical moment for the industry to embrace genuine sustainability. While these new laws could drive real change, poorly designed regulations might end up stalling progress and extending the era of fast fashion.

The 2022 EU Textiles Strategy, for example, outlined the European Commission’s plans to tackle synthetic fibre pollution across various life-cycle stages through prevention and reduction measures. This included a commitment to a “Commission initiative to address the unintentional release of microplastics into the environment,” slated for presentation in 2022. However, the European Commission has since scaled back its ambition and reduced the initiative to a brief brochure with just two pages dedicated to addressing microplastics from textiles.

The new life-cycle assessment tool known as the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) is supposed to help guide the EU’s upcoming anti-greenwashing law. Unfortunately, it fails to adequately account for microplastic pollution and other environmental issues linked with synthetic fibres. This gap could lead to misleading outcomes where synthetic garments appear more environmentally friendly than those made from, for example, organic cotton. Such loopholes might even allow fast fashion brands to legally promote their products as ‘green’.

Our survey explored where brands stand on upcoming EU legislation and the global plastic pollution treaty, especially regarding microplastic pollution from textiles. Only 5 out of 22 companies (22%) that answered this section of the questionnaire said they were in favour of all the measures listed. The most significant backing was for including microplastic emissions as an environmental performance indicator in the PEF. However, most brands failed to back their support with public policy statements or other concrete evidence. Notably, Inditex, the largest EU retailer, opposed all areas except the inclusion of microplastic emissions in the PEF.

This tepid response suggests that many brands are employing yet another delay tactic. Their weak support for legislation indicates a preference for maintaining the status quo rather than embracing meaningful change.

What is needed for meaningful change in the industry?

To drive meaningful change towards responsible and ethical fashion, the industry must confront the undeniable links between synthetic fibres and the environmental and human health risks of (micro)plastic pollution and climate change. This investigation shows that instead of tackling this problem head-on, the industry is not only showing little progress in changing its policies but also actively employing distract and delay tactics, ranging from false solutions to downplaying the negative impacts of microplastic pollution. Low support for legislation that would change the playing field indicates that many brands are trapped in preserving the status quo and are keen to continue the fast fashion business model intrinsically linked with plastic fibres and continued reliance on fossil fuels.

The fashion industry stands at a critical crossroads. In the EU, the sector is facing regulatory measures that would address its environmental impacts for the first time. However, the level of ambition of the upcoming legislation remains to be seen and it is concerning that the industry is showing low levels of support. Meaningful change will require strong measures that decouple the sector from its continued reliance on fossil fuels and generation of large volumes of plastic waste. Although the EU Textiles Strategy acknowledged that “fast fashion is linked to the growing use of fossil-fuel based synthetic fibres” and “shifting to more sustainable business models will reduce both the dependency of clothing producers on fossil fuels and their impacts on climate change and microplastic pollution,” the Commission has yet to outline measures to effectively address microplastic pollution and the use of synthetic fibres. 

Detailed policy and brand recommendations are presented at the end of the report.

The report’s Executive Summary is available in French and Spanish. Simply click download and select your preferred language below.