Fashion Revolution has released the second edition of What Fuels Fashion? – an energy and decarbonisation report assessing 200 of the world’s largest fashion brands. With an estimated combined annual turnover of more than $2.7 trillion, these billion-dollar brands are the most powerful players determining fashion’s climate future. Tracking over 70 indicators across accountability, decarbonisation, energy procurement, financing, just transition and advocacy, the report reveals where brands lack transparency – and where urgent action is needed most.

Clean heat

Renewable, fossil-free energy for manufacturing processes is the single biggest lever for cutting supply chain emissions. It is possible but brands must act now, according to the report. Unlike heavy industry, fashion faces relatively low technical barriers to electrification. Proven electrification technologies such as heat pumps and electric boilers are already available to replace fossil-fuelled thermal processes – including dyeing, drying and printing –in many textile production contexts today.

Just 18% of brands disclose coal phase-out targets that cover textile processing and none include purchased steam, leaving coal embedded in supply chains.

Only 10% of brands disclose supply chain renewable electricity targets and even fewer (6%) disclose broader renewable energy targets – a significant shortfall leaving most brands without a public and credible roadmap to power their supply chains with clean energy.

A mere 7% disclose any efforts to electrify high-heat processes despite proven solutions like heat pumps and electric boilers commercially available.

“The path to decarbonisation will be won or lost by how fashion tackles heat,” says Liv Simpliciano, head of policy and research at Fashion Revolution. “Industrial electrification is a just transition opportunity that must centre workers and suppliers. If fashion fails to act, it jeopardises its integrity in a world moving beyond fossil fuels, and with it, the health, safety and dignity of the people who make our clothes.”

“The textiles industry can lead by example,” adds Jan Rosenow, Professor of Energy and Climate Policy at Oxford University. “Because process heat rarely exceeds 250°C, it has the potential to move entirely away from fossil fuels. The possibility is here – now companies must commit and set clear strategies to enable the transition.”

Traceability blackout

Ninety brands scored zero across the entire traceability section of the report, and 59% of those brands are publicly-listed companies, exposing a serious accountability gap for investors. Without supplier visibility, investors cannot evaluate climate risks or channel finance into credible decarbonisation. This is a glaring ESG oversight because until supplier lists are disclosed as a baseline requirement, any claim of alignment with climate or social goals rings hollow.

Just over half of the brands (55%) disclose having a Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi)-verified target that covers Scopes 1–3. However, fewer than a third (29%) provide evidence that they have actually reduced their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the baseline. With only 20% of brands disclosing that they consult suppliers on their climate targets and just 9% disclose co-creating climate adaptation solutions, the failure of brands to work in genuine partnership is one factor stalling climate progress. Co-creating strategies with suppliers –who are experts in their own local context –  would make decarbonisation and adaptation plans stronger and supply chains more resilient to climate shocks. Yet very few brands are taking this approach.

Accounting, not accountability

60% of brands disclose energy sourcing in their own operations, but just 11% in supply chains, where it matters most. Many lean on Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) which mask fossil fuel use, making climate action for many brands an exercise in accounting, not accountability. True decarbonisation means powering supply chains with real-time renewable energy – every hour of the day, not just on paper. But with no brand disclosing this approach, the industry is lagging behind an urgent priority.

Decarbonising fashion’s supply chains requires upfront investment in new technologies and ongoing support to cover the costs suppliers face in running them. Yet only 6% of brands disclose capital investments in renewable energy or efficiency, just 2% disclose support for suppliers’ ongoing operational costs, and another 2% report supply chain adaptation investments – leaving brands’ climate finance opaque and unaccountable.

Victorian reality

“Fashion brands love to promote innovative new products, but the Victorian-era reality of burning coal and wood to manufacture these products is quietly swept under the rug,” says Ruth MacGilp, fashion campaign manager at Action Speaks Louder. “As access to renewable energy and clean heat technologies grows globally, fashion brands have the responsibility to address their dependence on toxic fuels and safeguard the wellbeing of workers and communities.”

The overall average brand score in the FFG 2025 report is 14% and 39 major brands scored a 0% rating.

They include: Aeropostale, Anthropologie, Beanpole, Belle, Billabong, Bosideng, Buckle, Champion, Chico’s, Deichmann, Dillards, DSW, Eddie Bauer, Express, Fashion Nova, Forever21, Free People, Heilan Home, Hudson’s Bay, Lands’ End, LC Waikiki, LL Bean, Max Mara, New Yorker, Nine West, Quiksilver, Reebok, Revolve, Roxy, Saks Fifth Avenue, Semir, Smart Bazaar, Ted Baker, Topvalu Collection, Tory Burch, Urban Outfitters, Van Heusen and Youngor.

The highest scoring brands were H&M (71%), Oniverse (63%), Puma (57%), OVS (49%), Gucci (49%), Gildan (46%), Lululemon (41%), ASICS (38%), Adidas (37%), Decathlon (37%), Hanes (37%) and Hermès (36%).

www.fashionrevolution.org