New Benchmark Reveals Fashion’s Slow Progress On Nature

Recent research published by the World Benchmarking Alliance (WBA) reveals the nature related disclosures and strategies of 816 companies across 20 industries. Compared with agriculture, chemicals, packaging and other sectors – where does the apparel and footwear industry stand?

The 2024 Nature Benchmark scored brands and suppliers alike, including H&M Group, Kering and Fast Retailing on the ability to demonstrate performance on nature-related indicators. The assessment reviewed evidence on action towards circular and nature positive transitions, ecosystem conservation and restoration, soil health and water quality amongst other criteria.

With an average score of 17 out of 100 possible points, more work is urgently needed to address fashion’s role in biodiversity loss, water pollution and resource depletion. The fashion industry is not alone.

“When you review the best and worst performing industries, there is no indication that at a macro level, companies are stepping up on nature.” shares Jenni Black, nature transformations lead at WBA.

As we head towards COP16, to be held later this month, implementation strategies on nature, regenerative practices and responsible supply chains are being brought into sharp focus.

Nature-related performance across luxury, sportswear and mass market segments is varied

Luxury conglomerates, sportswear giants as well as fast fashion players were included in the 66 organisations which made up the sample for the apparel and footwear sector.

Kering, owner of houses like Gucci and Saint Laurent, was dubbed the clear frontrunner across all industries and 816 companies. It was the only instance where a score of 40 or higher was awarded, attributed to the company’s work on ecosystem conservation, soil health, high levels of governance and support for living wage fundamentals across the supply chain. Other luxury brands did not fare so well. Ferragamo was assigned a score of less than 20 and Chanel received a measly 6.2 of out 100.

Sports brands like Adidas, Lululemon, Nike and Puma received scores ranging between 20-30. Nike’s recent shareholder vote against a proposal to consider binding agreements with workers across the supply chain to address human rights issues could push their score down in the future. Additionally, Lululemon, which is under investigation by Canada’s Competition Bureau for greenwashing, was recorded not to have provided evidence for assessing impacts on nature and biodiversity up and downstream of the supply chain. WBA’s findings serve as mounting support in questioning the brand’s claims that it is ‘contributing towards restoring a healthy planet.’

Casting a spotlight on SHEIN, who scored 5.8 out 100, little evidence exists on the company’s movement towards assessing impacts on nature or setting targets for conservation and restoration. Now the archetype of extractive fast fashion practices, SHEIN failed to incur any points whatsoever for key areas that support nature and biodiversity including soil health, water quality and protecting key species. The brand’s lacklustre performance on nature raises eyebrows ahead of the possibility of its IPO on the London Stock Exchange.

A poor level of disclosure on nature-related dependencies and impacts

Black recounts that 10% of the apparel and footwear sample were recorded to have no relevant sustainability information whatsoever. “The bar is currently set very low,” she added.

The poor level of disclosure runs parallel to findings from What Fuels Fashion by Fashion Revolution which identified that 45% of 250 global brands failed to disclose the volume of clothes they make, as well as the raw material emissions footprint of what they produce.

On biodiversity specifically, 5 of the 66 companies including LVMH and Kering were identified as adopters for the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD). This voluntary tool provides guidance for disclosures on governance, strategy, risk and impact management as well as metrics and targets. Helping to support organisations on publishing information on their impacts and dependencies in the short, medium and long term will be crucial in tracking progress.

Black remains optimistic given the regulatory drive in the EU, “We hope this will change and improve under the requirements outlined under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).”

When there is disclosure, the benchmark reveals performance on critical indicators, like soil health, remain low. Only 1 organisation, M&S, disclosed quantitative evidence for soil health. What’s more, only LVMH provided a soil health related target. “Regenerative agriculture is not really on the agenda yet. We identified that only 13% of apparel companies provided some qualitative evidence of trying to improve soil health and biodiversity in sourcing practices” Black comments.

Promisingly, Mariana Gatti, impact strategist and director at FARFARM, a consultancy working across supply chains and with brands like Veja on agroforestry solutions for cotton, believes this can be solved with simple steps. While recognising challenges in collecting data, Gatti recommends “working with scientists and technicians to define the right methodologies, and aligning with likeminded brands in defining parameters using the Textile Exchange Regenerative Framework as a starting point.”

Gatti is keen to emphasise the need for patience too. “Soil regeneration is a long-term process. We can’t pressure farmers to measure too much data that can sometimes be unnecessary, or disclose results before they can actually point to a change curve.” she adds.

Strong leadership to protecting Indigenous Peoples yet to be seen

Corporate leadership on nature means increased focus on protecting Indigenous Peoples and local communities most vulnerable to the biodiversity crisis. WBA identified that only 10% of apparel and footwear companies met criteria on supporting Indigenous People’s rights, amongst them were Fast Retailing, Inditex and Kering. For instance, Kering requires that business relationships identify and recognise the rights of affected Indigenous Peoples and to obtain their free, prior and informed consent regarding whether and how to carry out projects. The luxury group also details how it applies industry specific guidelines, like CanopyStyle to improve practices of their businesses partners in respecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Researchers utilised Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) as an indicator. FPIC implies that Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities are not pressured, intimidated, manipulated or unduly influenced and that their consent is given, without coercion.

Improvement on this can be made by looking to other sectors. “There are many lessons that can be borrowed from the agriculture, metals and mining value chains when it comes to fashion companies establishing guidance on how to implement FPIC.” Black argues.

Risk of greenwashing on plastic performance remains

WBA observes a risk of greenwashing on the use of plastic in relation to assessment of the nature benchmark’s indicators. This finding was not limited to the apparel and footwear industry, but identified across the board where only 7% of companies had time-bound targets to reduce plastic use and waste.

Over a third of companies including household names like Abercrombie & Fitch, ASOS and Chanel incurred a score of 0 for performance on plastic use and waste. For all of its resource and might, Chanel provided no evidence that it has set targets to address the reduction of virgin polymer production or overall plastic use and waste in up and downstream activities.

For such a significant portion of companies to have scored so low is disconcerting, given the ubiquity of plastic in the fashion supply chain, in particular through the use of synthetic fibres like polyester and nylon. These petroleum derived fibres accounted for 67% of global fibre production in 2023, according to the 2024 Market Materials Report by Textile Exchange.

For fashion to prevent and mitigate the impact of plastic on nature, companies will have to work to address microfibre release, that often can be deposited in soil at various stages of the value chain. Yet, alarmingly, the Changing Markets Foundation reports that only 2 of 50 major brands and retailers, Hugo Boss and Reformation, have committed to phasing out synthetics as a precautionary principle to tackle microplastic pollution.

Gatti underlines the value of integrating a regenerative mindset into product and buying decisions to move beyond cheap, plastic based alternatives. “Brands need to narrow internal gaps between impact and business. Sustainability teams have genuine, brave plans around regenerative materials, and many times it doesn’t translate.”

Behind closed doors: Lobbying expenditure and misalignment of nature policies with trade associations

“The lobbying data is not encouraging,” warns Black. Indeed, 93% of apparel companies included in the benchmark did not disclose information pertaining to how much has been spent on lobbying.

What’s more, integrity over corporate political engagement activities and membership of trade associations continues to be called into question. “Not a single company discloses whether their trade associations are aligned with their wider goals and nature positive policies – we currently have no way of knowing”, she continues.

These findings run parallel to WBA’s Social Benchmark, released earlier this year. In this instance, of 64 apparel and footwear companies assessed, 14% had an established policy that publicly sets out their approach to lobbying and political engagement and less than 5% disclosed lobbying expenditures.

Recent research from InfluenceMap also evaluates global corporates on climate policy engagement, reviewing science-aligned advocacy, strategic engagement and addressing indirect influence. H&M Group is included, scoring 7^th amongst 41 organisations but the investigation is yet to expand into the wider fashion industry.

Data sets, like those published by WBA help to illuminate the shortfalls and opportunities for many of the industry’s largest and most influential companies to improve short, medium and long-term strategies for nature restoration and accounting of their impact. It provides a chance for others to learn from those who are dedicating more resource to ecosystem conservation and restoration, like Kering. The role of CSRD and voluntary tools like the TNFD can help push organisations forward, mitigate reputational risks and most critically improve standards across the value chain.

Collaboration in a historically competitive industry will prove to be an essential lever according to Gatti. Her final recommendation to collaborate rings true. “Collaborate with farmers, scientists, technicians, competitors, and other industries that also depend on agricultural materials. When it comes down to innovation for impact, we can no longer afford secrecy.”