Key findings

Still hooked on fossil fuels

• From the 55 global brands and retailers analysed this year, only one company (Reformation), landed in our Frontrunners category. The company is committed to phasing out virgin synthetics by 2030 and reducing all synthetics (virgin and recycled) to less than 1% of total sourcing by 2025.
• There were 22 companies (40%) that were in the Red Zone, with little to no transparency about their strategy on synthetic fibre use.
• From the 33 companies that revealed their synthetics volume and percent- age, ultra-fast-fashion brand Boohoo was identified as the organisation with the heaviest reliance on synthetics as a percentage of its total annual

fibre used (64%) and was also the brand found to have the most polyester included in the majority of its textile products (54%).

• Nike and Inditex reported the highest volumes of synthetics and polyester used in their products, disclosing volumes of 166,343t and 131,548t, respectively.
• Fourteen of 55 brands (25%) have increased their use of synthetics, both in terms of the percentage of total fibre mix and total volume over this period. Thus, amidst an accelerating climate emergency, with many other industries scrambling to decarbonise, one quarter of the fashion sector’s largest companies are recording a heavier reliance on fossil-fuel-derived fabrics.

Murky supply chain

• Of the brands that responded to the Changing Markets Foundation’s questions about their synthetic suppliers, 27 out of 31 (87%) provided insufficient details on their synthetic suppliers. Several companies provided no details on synthetic suppliers at all, including retailers Asda, Sainsbury’s and Tesco, high-street retailers Inditex and Uniqlo, online retailer Zalando, sport brand Puma and luxury companies Burberry and Kering (owner of brands including Balenciaga, Bottega Veneta, Gucci and Saint Laurent).
• Only four of 31 brands that responded (7% of all brands included in the research), sent Changing Markets their supplier lists, which explicitly out- line which companies provide synthetics and what type. These brands are Levi Strauss & Co., Next and Reformation, with Boohoo only sharing their recycled synthetic supplier lists.Banking on bottles

• Overall, 45 of the 55 brands (81%) have set targets to increase their recycled synthetic content, namely polyester. The 99% of recycled polyester comes from downcycling PET bottles, a false solution and a far cry from a circular model. Moreover, no single company has paired this commitment with a promise to decrease the overall volume of synthetics used in their garments.
• Across all fibre types, several brands were completely dependent on re- cycled polyester for all their recycled fibre content; these brands included Morrisons (100%), Next (97%) and Puma (93%).
• A handful of brands disclosed the total amount invested in fibre-to-fibre technologies. These were Reformation, Tesco, H&M Group and Hugo Boss. With each of these, except Hugo Boss, sharing figures. H&M Group shared

the value of direct investments, noting that in 2021, this hit €3.7 million. These funds have been redirected towards companies such as Ambercycle, Infinited Fiber and Re:newcell. It should be kept in mind that this represents 0.04% of H&M Group’s gross profit of €9.58 billion in the last financial year.

• Voluntary initiatives, such as the Textile Exchange’s 2025 Recycled Polyester Challenge are proving to have a limited impact. From the initiative’s 132 members, just under half were able to report on total polyester volumes for 2019–2020 and only 41 of 132 (31%) of those that joined the challenge had reduced their total polyester fibre volumes between 2019 and 2020.

Microfibre release still in brands’ blind spots

• On the important issue of microfibre release, brands demonstrated a concerning lack of disclosure. Of 55 brands, 25 (45%) landed in the Red Zone, with either no evident microfibre policies or little available information.
• Our results highlight an overreliance on membership in voluntary initiatives such as The Microfibre Consortium (TMC), cross-functional working groups and research projects, whereby brands continue to kick the can down the road. The TMC is limited in scope, has transparency issues and has failed to deliver significant measurable positive impact since its inception in 2018. Only one brand, Reformation, landed in the Frontrunners category, as it said it would phase out the use of synthetics as a precautionary principle to tackle microfibre release. No other company mentioned phasing out synthetics because of microfibres, and none from children’s collections. This is concerning as studies have shown that children may be the most at risk from microplastic exposure.

End-of-life lacking tangible action

Efforts to effectively manage the end of life of synthetic clothing are predominantly focused on the pursuit of product durability, with half of brands saying that they are doing this. Attempts to remedy the challenges of separating textiles for recycling, repair or reuse were also popular as 26 of 55 brands claim to be investing in solu- tions; however, much of this was participation in research initiatives as opposed to being able to prove investment in end-of-life infrastructure such as recycling, repair facilities or sorting.

Hazy on climate

At a broader level, examination of the fashion industry’s climate targets reveals that brands are not as ambitious as their barrage of press releases and Net Zero marketing campaigns would lead us to believe.

• Six of 55 companies (10%) had no climate targets whatsoever.
• Companies such as lululemon and Boohoo, who are working meticulously to craft a reputation as being sustainable, reported increasing their emissions. In 2021, lululemon increased total Scope 3 emissions by 36% compared with 2020 and 79% compared with its baseline in 2018. Boohoo stated that from 2020 to 2021 their emissions increased by 29%.
• In some instances, Scope 3 emissions targets are missing from company goals and reporting on progress towards near- and long-term climate targets is sparse.
• Despite commitments to the Science-Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), UN- FCCC’s Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action, the Carbon Disclosure Project or Textile Exchange, several companies do not map their synthetics supply chains and thus, cannot deal with the basic risks of sourcing, such as reliance on conflict oil, coal and fracked gas.
• Seven companies said they would still source from a supplier that uses coal, despite many of them being committed to phase out coal from owned and supplier sites by 2023 under the UNFCCC’s Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action. This includes Dressman, Lindex, Primark, PVH Group and Tesco.
• Fewer than half the brands (45%) that engaged with us outright said they would not source from a supplier that produces polyester from coal. Despite 14 of 31 responding with a clear ‘no’ to this question, our Dressed to Kill report found that several of these were found sourcing from the Chinese Hengli Group, which has invested in a $20 billion project to produce polyester from coal by the end of 2025.6 This includes Adidas, Asda, C&A, H&M, Inditex and PVH Group. If these brands do not rapidly improve sup- ply chain visibility and step away from companies with plans to turn coal into clothes, they will break their own climate commitments.

Green light for legislation

Last, this report offers new insights into the sector’s attitudes towards policies embedded within the EU Textile Strategy. Although not all brands have headquarters in the EU, 26 of the 31 that responded sell to the EU market, which will also make them subject to the upcoming legislation. We sought to ascertain the popularity of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), recycled content targets, supply chain transparency and more. Some elements were more palatable than others. Industry-wide support was expressed for EPR, legislation for eco-design criteria and eco-modulated fees. Overall, 25 of 31 brands (80%) were in favour of EPR, 26 of 31 (83%) were in favour of eco-design criteria and 18 of 31 (58%) were in favour of eco-modulated fees, with many companies acknowledging the value of harmonisation. The majority (68%) would also support legislation for ambitious reuse and recycling targets. Similarly, responses on a ban of chemicals and substances of concern received majority support with 23 of 31 brands (74%) in favour.

There is a significant intention-versus-action gap articulated in many of the responses to proposed legislation. The highest support was expressed for legislation to reduce the risk of false green claims (29 of 31 (94%) brands), including brands currently under investigation for greenwashing (i.e. H&M Group). This level of support also signals that brands are looking for concrete guidance on greenwash- ing to remain compliant in their claims. The European Commission was supposed to come out with a proposal on this issue on 30 November 2022, but this has been delayed to 2023.

The report clearly demonstrates the inaction by the fashion industry to tackle the ongoing waste, climate and microplastic pollution crisis. Surprisingly, the fashion brands show significant levels of support for several of the policies that were proposed in the EU Textile Strategy. Policymakers must step up and find effective legislative solutions to put the fashion industry on a more sustainable track. The upcoming legislation under the EU Textile Strategy presents a significant opportunity to do this. The legislation needs to be aligned with the EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles published in March 2022, which already recognises fossil-fuel-based synthetics as one of the main culprits behind the fast-fashion model, microfibre pollution and the inefficient use of non-renewable resources.