The Environmental Impact of Fast Fashion That Brand Sustainability Reports Hide
Absolute emissions, recycled polyester with no second life, scorecards that measure only a slice, and clothes washing up on West African beaches: the figures fast fashion brands rarely put in their sustainability reports.
A fast fashion sustainability report is an edited document. Pages fill with recycled-content percentages, renewable electricity pledges and net-zero dates, while the numbers that decide the real footprint sit outside the frame: how many garments were made, how many went unsold, and where discarded clothes ended up.
Sustainability reports from fast fashion brands tend to omit four things: the absolute volume of garments produced, the fossil fuel origin of their synthetic fibres, the share of lifecycle impact that falls outside the tools used to measure it, and the fate of clothes after sale. Each gap flatters the headline numbers.
Trending Now!!:
This matters to more than environmental campaigners. Shein’s listing on the Hong Kong stock market places its emissions disclosures alongside financial filings, and ESG analysts, procurement teams and consumer regulators in Norway and the EU now treat sustainability claims as statements that can be tested and challenged.
The Most Quoted Statistic Is Also the Most Disputed
Nearly every article on this subject opens with the claim that fashion produces 10 percent of global carbon emissions, more than international flights and maritime shipping combined. The figure is usually traced to 2023 data from the United Nations Environment Programme.
Ecotextile News, a trade publication, has called the comparison with aviation and shipping a myth, put the textile industry’s share nearer 2.5 percent including non-apparel uses, and noted that the English version of the UN page cites a range of 2 to 8 percent while translated versions say 10.
The dispute exposes a problem that brand reports never acknowledge. Nobody can settle the number because the industry does not publish production volumes and supplier-level data in a comparable form.
Inflated statistics also hand brands an easy rebuttal, letting one weak claim discredit a strong critique. The sturdier argument concerns direction of travel: absolute emissions at the largest ultra-fast fashion players are rising, and the measurement systems brands rely on were not built to show it.
Scope 3 Is Where the Footprint Lives
Scope 3 covers emissions generated by suppliers, freight and product use rather than a brand’s own offices and warehouses. For an asset-light fast fashion retailer that owns few factories, this category is almost the entire footprint. Shein’s indirect emissions make up nearly 99.9 percent of its corporate total across its three most recent reporting years.
The scale is difficult to dismiss. Shein’s 2024 total reached 26,201,440 tonnes of CO2e, up 23.1 percent on its 2023 base year. Supply chain emissions alone were about 11.2 million tonnes, a 9.7 percent rise. Transport and distribution added 8.52 million tonnes, more than three times the 2.61 million tonnes reported by Inditex, the owner of Zara. The company’s own report concedes the difficulty of separating growth from resource use.
The advocacy group Stand.earth has estimated that, were Shein a country, it would rank as roughly the 100th largest emitter, close to Lebanon, after a rise of more than 170 percent in Scope 3 emissions over two years.
The company’s science-based target, approved by the Science Based Targets initiative, commits it to a 25 percent cut in Scope 3 emissions by 2030 against a 2023 baseline, and its 2023 transport figure was revised 18 percent higher after a methodology update. Revisions of this kind can be legitimate, yet a higher baseline makes a percentage reduction easier to claim, which is why base-year recalculations deserve the first look in any report.
Avoided-emissions line items need equal scrutiny. Shein’s latest report lists roughly 604,868 tonnes of avoided transport emissions, an estimate tied to specific projects rather than a cut in the Scope 3 total. Readers skimming a sustainability summary routinely mistake one for the other.
A Scorecard That Measured Only a Slice
Until mid-2022, shoppers on the H&M website could check an environmental rating for 655 garments, drawn from the Higg Materials Sustainability Index. The tool, built by the Sustainable Apparel Coalition, was meant to standardise product-level claims.
In June 2022 the Norwegian Consumer Authority concluded the data was “not sufficient as a basis” for the environmental claims being made, according to its director, Trond Rønningen, and the coalition paused consumer-facing use of the scores.
Quartz reported that the retailer’s website ignored negative signs in some scores, which made certain garments look better than the data supported. H&M attributed the irregularities to technical issues and human error.
Philippa Grogan of the consultancy Eco-Age compared a full lifecycle assessment to a clock face and said the index examined only “midday to 3 p.m.” The coalition acknowledged that the materials data had last been evaluated in 2016 and commissioned a third-party review.
The body has since rebranded as Cascale. Regulators in Norway and the Netherlands later issued guidance requiring brands using the index to make clear that it compares a material only with others of the same type, so a label on a cotton shirt benchmarks it against other cotton, not against polyester.
The practical lesson is that a material score describes fibre production. It says nothing about how many garments a brand sells, how long they last or where they end up. Treating it as a product-level verdict is the most common misreading.
Recycled Polyester and the Dead End Behind It
Recycled polyester features in nearly every fast fashion report because it produces a flattering percentage. The market data tells another story.
Textile Exchange reported that production of virgin, fossil-based synthetic fibres rose from 67 million tonnes to 75 million tonnes in a single year, that polyester accounted for 57 percent of all fibre, and that the share of recycled polyester slipped from 13.6 percent to 12.5 percent. Less than 1 percent of the global fibre market came from recycled textiles.
A recycled percentage can climb while virgin consumption climbs faster, because the percentage describes a ratio and says nothing about volume. Reports rarely print both.
The Changing Markets Foundation found that 85 percent of the brands it assessed named downcycled plastic bottles as their main source of recycled polyester, a route the group describes as a one-way street to landfill or incineration.
In a separate assessment of more than 4,000 products from 12 brands, it concluded that as many as 59 percent of green claims were misleading, and that 90 percent of H&M’s recycled polyester came from bottles. Nearly all of the 55 brands in an earlier review had set targets to increase recycled synthetic content, yet few were investing in fibre-to-fibre recycling.
The fair reading is that bottle-derived fibre does displace some virgin polyester, and brands are not wrong to use it. The misrepresentation lies in presenting it as circularity when the garment has no realistic path to a second life.
Volume: The Number Missing From Almost Every Report
Intensity metrics, such as emissions per garment or per unit of revenue, can fall while total emissions rise. A brand that doubles output while trimming per-unit impact by a fifth still generates far more carbon, water use and waste.
Campaigners behind the #StopWasteColonialism movement demand that brands declare production numbers and commit to cutting output by 40 percent over five years. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, a UNEP partner, estimates that people buy 60 percent more clothes than before and wear them half as long, and that a truckload of textiles is landfilled or incinerated every second.
Regulation has begun to pry open one corner. From 19 July, large companies across the EU are prohibited from destroying unsold clothes, accessories and footwear, with medium-sized companies following in 2030. The European Commission estimates that 4 to 9 percent of unsold textiles in Europe are destroyed before being worn, generating around 5.6 million tonnes of CO2 a year. Destruction remains permitted for safety reasons or product damage.
The ban does not cap production, however. Surplus can still move into discount channels or export routes, so the signal analysts should watch is whether brands begin to disclose unsold-stock rates and where the surplus goes next.
End of Life Happens Off the Ledger
Carbon inventories stop at the point of sale or consumer use. Physical waste does not. About 15 million items of used clothing reach Accra’s Kantamanto market each week, and roughly 40 percent of it ends up as waste, according to The OR Foundation.
The city council spends about $500,000 a year on removal yet handles only around 70 percent of the market’s waste, and Ghana’s only sanitary landfill exploded in August 2019 after being swamped with secondhand clothing. Monitors counted 2,344 tangled masses of clothing along a seven-kilometre stretch of the city’s coast over one year.
Solomon Noi, Accra’s head of waste management, has said the market generates at least 100 tonnes of fabric waste daily while city trucks can carry 30. Greenpeace argues that exporting countries avoid responsibility by labelling shipments as donations. None of this appears in a brand’s emissions table, because the clothes left the accounting boundary long before they reached the beach.
A review in Nature Reviews Earth and Environment, summarised by the University of Manchester, put annual fashion waste at more than 92 million tonnes and water consumption at 1.5 trillion litres, alongside chemical pollution. Carbon dominates sustainability reporting because it is the easiest impact to standardise, which leaves water, chemicals and microfibre pollution with thinner, less comparable disclosure.
Where the Critique Needs Nuance
Not every fast fashion criticism survives scrutiny. The 10 percent statistic is one example; another is the assumption that ending clothing exports would fix Accra’s problem.
Tens of thousands of livelihoods depend on the market, many traders repair and repurpose garments, and Ghanaian commentators argue for a levy on exporting countries rather than a halt to trade.
Carbon-centred criticism also has a blind spot. Ecotextile News argues that when non-carbon impacts are the concern, they should be addressed specifically and at the level where they occur. This points toward targeted rules on chemicals, effluent and extended producer responsibility rather than a single emissions number.
Disclosure deserves some credit as well. Shein disclosed an 18 percent upward revision of its earlier transport figure, and its targets were validated by an outside body. Brands that publish nothing comparable cannot be audited at all.
A Practical Audit for Reading Any Fast Fashion Sustainability Report
Seven questions separate a disclosure from a brochure.
- Does the report state total emissions in absolute tonnes, or only intensity per garment or per dollar of revenue?
- Was the baseline year recalculated, and by how much?
- Are Scope 3 emissions broken down by purchased goods, freight and product use?
- Does it state how many garments were produced and sold, and what share went unsold?
- How much recycled polyester comes from bottles, and how much from old textiles?
- Do environmental labels state which lifecycle stage or material comparison they cover?
- Does the report address what happens to garments after sale?
Reports that answer these questions can be tested against independent data. Reports that answer none of them communicate intent, not performance. Regulators in Norway and the EU have started drawing the same line, and analysts covering listed fast fashion groups have the same tools available.
What People Ask
