Most of the biggest brands aren’t taking urgent action to address their environmental impacts, according to newly released data from Good On You.
Last year during COP-26, Good On You released a first-of-its-kind data project that looked at the industry’s inaction on the climate emergency. Their analysts crunched the numbers again this year, and They’re here with the latest report from journalist Sophie Benson and stats exclusively from Good On You’s brand ratings.
- Nothing has changed in the last year: It’s still too much greenwashing and too little action. Only 21% of brands scored “Good” or “Great” across all areas (environment, labour, and animal welfare), demonstrating how the industry can do much better.
- Brands (still) aren’t doing enough: The vast majority of brands aren’t taking meaningful action to mitigate their environmental impacts. Just 21% of large brands have a science-based greenhouse gas emissions target.
- Fashion’s lack of urgency: As an industry that spans the globe, fashion has a major stake in the future of our climate. 51% of large brands with a science-based greenhouse gas emissions target do not state whether they are on track to meet them. That’s not exactly the urgency we need to see.
- The biggest brands are doing the least: 0 of the 40 most profitable brands analysed receive our top rating—“Great”—for the environment.
This report explores the environmental track records for thousands of brands big and small.
Key stats based on an analysis of Good On You’s ratings for more than 4,000 brands:
- 51% of large brands with greenhouse gas emissions targets do not state whether they are on track to meet them. This underscores the need for governments to mandate reporting on greenhouse gas emissions.
- 0 of the 40 most profitable brands analysed receive Good On You’s top rating—“Great”—for the environment. This means these brands are not demonstrating leadership in environmental policies, transparency, or managing material issues across their supply chains.
- 70% of the most profitable brands analysed get the two lowest ratings for environment, “Not Good Enough” and “We Avoid”—meaning these brands publish little or no concrete information about their sustainability practices and are not adequately managing their impacts across their supply chains. In some cases, these brands may make ambiguous claims that are unlikely to have a material impact.
- 21% of brands scored “Good” or “Great” across all areas (environment, labour, and animal welfare), demonstrating how the industry can do much better. This includes a large share of small and independent labels along with a few major brands showing leadership.
- 21% of large brands have a science-based greenhouse gas emissions target. Read on to see why this number should be higher.
Read more on Good On You