The 2025 edition of What Fuels Fashion? by Fashion Revolution has cast a sharp light on the climate and energy disclosures of 200 of the world’s largest fashion brands. With a combined turnover of $2.7 trillion, these companies shape the environmental footprint of the global fashion supply chain. The report reveals a troubling lack of transparency across the board, but also highlights a few brands making notable progress.
H&M Group has emerged as the top scorer, earning a 71% rating across five key categories: accountability, decarbonisation, energy procurement, financing, and advocacy. Leyla Ertur Genç, Chief Sustainability Officer at H&M Group, acknowledged the recognition while stressing the need for collective action: “No brand can tackle this challenge alone. By working together and sharing more openly, we can lift the entire industry and drive meaningful change”.
Despite H&M’s leadership, the broader industry shows signs of inertia. The average score across all brands is just 14%, with only 6% disclosing efforts to electrify high-heat processes like dyeing and finishing. These operations rely heavily on fossil-fuelled boilers, making them the largest source of supply chain emissions.
Clean heat technologies such as industrial heat pumps and electric boilers are commercially available, yet adoption remains minimal. Only 10% of brands have supply chain renewable electricity targets, and just 6% disclose broader renewable energy goals. The report points out that fashion, unlike heavy industry, faces relatively low barriers to electrification.
Coal phase-out targets are another weak spot. Only 18% of brands disclose such targets, and none include purchased steam—leaving a loophole that allows continued reliance on coal-derived heat. This omission limits the potential for collective leverage to transform industrial zones.
Financing is also a major hurdle. Just 6% of brands report providing upfront investment support to suppliers for decarbonisation, and only 2% disclose help with ongoing costs. Without financial backing, suppliers operating on thin margins are unlikely to adopt clean technologies.
Political advocacy and investment in grid-scale renewables are rare. Only 7% of brands show evidence of lobbying for renewable energy in garment-producing countries, and just 6% disclose direct investments. This lack of engagement perpetuates the cycle of fossil fuel dependence.
The report also highlights a gap in traceability. Surprisingly, 59% of publicly listed brands score zero in this area, making it difficult to assess climate risks or direct funding toward credible decarbonisation efforts. Meanwhile, only 57% of brands disclose climate-related risks such as floods, droughts, and heatwaves—despite their growing impact on supply chains and worker safety.
Worker protection remains overlooked. None of the brands disclose data on factory heat and humidity levels, known as Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT). This data could inform adaptation strategies, insurance models, and workplace protections, especially as extreme temperatures increasingly affect productivity and health.
Ownership of supply chains is limited. Only 25% of brands disclose ownership at the manufacturing level, and 19% at the processing level. Among these, most report minimal or no facility ownership, which weakens their ability to implement climate strategies directly.
While H&M’s top ranking signals progress, the report makes clear that transparency alone is not enough. Real climate action requires investment, collaboration, and accountability across the entire supply chain. The fashion industry has the tools to decarbonise—what’s missing is the will to act.
