Michael Sadowski
Most of the apparel sold in North America is manufactured in Asia, meaning the finished goods travel long distances to reach end markets, with all the associated greenhouse gas emissions. On top of that, apparel manufacturing itself requires a significant amount of energy, water, and raw materials like cotton. Overall, the production of apparel is responsible for about 2% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions, according to a report titled
Taking Stock of Progress Against the Roadmap to Net Zeroby the Apparel Impact Institute. Founded in 2017, the Apparel Impact Institute is an organization dedicated to identifying, funding, and then scaling solutions aimed at reducing the carbon emissions and other environmental impacts of the apparel and textile industries.
The author of this annual study is researcher and consultant Michael Sadowski. He wrote the first report in 2021 as well as the latest edition, which was released earlier this year. Sadowski, who is also executive director of the environmental nonprofit The Circulate Initiative, recently joined DC Velocity Group Editorial Director David Maloney on an episode of the “Logistics Matters” podcast to discuss the key findings of the research, what companies are doing to reduce emissions, and the progress they’ve made since the first report was issued.
Q: Your recent publication, Taking Stock of Progress Against the Roadmap to Net Zero,is the third installment of the Apparel Impact Institute’s annual impact report. What is the aim of this research?
A: While companies in the apparel industry can set their own sustainability targets, we realized there was a need to give them a blueprint for actually reducing emissions. And so, we produced the first report back in 2021, where we laid out the emissions from the sector, based on the best estimates [we could make using] data from various sources. It gives companies and the sector a blueprint for what we collectively need to do to drive toward the ambitious reduction [target] of staying within a 1.5 degrees Celsius pathway. That was the first report, and then we committed to refresh the analysis on an annual basis. The second report was published last year, and the third report came out in May of this year.
Q: What were some of the key findings of your research?
A: We found that about half of the emissions in the sector come from Tier Two, which is essentially textile production. That includes the knitting, weaving, dyeing, and finishing of fabric, which together account for over half of the total emissions. That was a really important finding, and it allows us to focus our attention on the interventions that can drive those emissions down.
Raw material production accounts for another quarter of emissions. That includes cotton farming, extracting gas and oil from the ground to make synthetics, and things like that. So we now have a really keen understanding of the source of our industry’s emissions.
Q: Your report mentions that the apparel industry is responsible for about 2% of global emissions. Is that an accurate statistic?
A: That’s our best estimate of the total emissions [generated by] the apparel sector. Some other reports on the industry have apparel at up to 8% of global emissions. And there is a commonly misquoted number in the media that it’s 10%. From my perspective, I think the best estimate is somewhere under 2%.
We know that globally, humankind needs to reduce emissions by roughly half by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050 to hit international goals. [Reaching that target will require the involvement of] every facet of the global economy and every aspect of the apparel sector—transportation, material production, manufacturing, cotton farming. Through our work and that of others, I think the apparel sector understands what has to happen. We have highlighted examples of how companies are taking action to reduce emissions in the roadmap reports.
Q: What are some of those actions the industry can take to reduce emissions?
A: I think one of the positive developments since we wrote the first report is that we’re seeing companies really focus on the most impactful areas. We see companies diving deep on thermal energy, for example. With respect to Tier Two, we [focus] a lot of attention on things like ocean freight versus air. There’s a rule of thumb I’ve heard that indicates air freight is about 10 times the cost [of ocean] and also produces 10 times more greenhouse gas emissions.
There is money available to invest in sustainability efforts. It’s really exciting to see the funding that’s coming through for AI [artificial intelligence] and to see that individual companies, such as H&M and Lululemon, are investing in real solutions in their supply chains. I think a lot of concrete actions are being taken.
And yet we know that reducing emissions by half on an absolute basis by 2030 is a monumental undertaking. So I don’t want to be overly optimistic, because I think we have a lot of work to do. But I do think we’ve got some amazing progress happening.
Q: You mentioned several companies that are starting to address their emissions. Is that a result of their being more aware of the emissions they generate? Have you seen progress made since the first report came out in 2021?
A: Yes. When we published the first roadmap back in 2021, our statistics showed that only about 12 companies had met the criteria [for setting] science-based targets. In 2024, the number of apparel, textile, and footwear companies that have set targets or have commitments to set targets is close to 500. It’s an enormous increase. I think they see the urgency more than other sectors do.
We have companies that have been working at sustainability for quite a long time. I think the apparel sector has developed a keen understanding of the impacts of climate change. You can see the impacts of flooding, drought, heat, and other things happening in places like Bangladesh and Pakistan and India. If you’re a brand or a manufacturer and you have operations and supply chains in these places, I think you understand what the future will look like if we don’t significantly reduce emissions.
Q: There are different categories of emission levels, depending on the role within the supply chain. Scope 1 are “direct” emissions under the reporting company’s control. For apparel, this might be the production of raw materials or the manufacturing of the finished product. Scope 2 covers “indirect” emissions from purchased energy, such as electricity used in these processes. Scope 3 emissions are harder to track, as they include emissions from supply chain partners both upstream and downstream.
Now companies are finding there are legislative efforts around the world that could soon require them to track and report on all these emissions, including emissions produced by their partners’ supply chains. Does this mean that companies now need to be more aware of not only what greenhouse gas emissions they produce, but also what their partners produce?
A: That’s right. Just to put this into context, if you’re a brand like an Adidas or a Gap, you still have to consider the Scope 3 emissions. In particular, there are the so-called “purchased goods and services,” which refers to all of the embedded emissions in your products, from farming cotton to knitting yarn to making fabric. Those “purchased goods and services” generally account for well above 80% of the total emissions associated with a product. It’s by far the most significant portion of your emissions.
Leading companies have begun measuring and taking action on Scope 3 emissions because of regulatory developments in Europe and, to some extent now, in California. I do think this is just a further tailwind for the work that the industry is doing.
I also think it will definitely ratchet up the quality requirements of Scope 3 data, which is not yet where we’d all like it to be. Companies are working to improve that data, but I think the regulatory push will make the quality side increasingly important.
Q: Overall, do you think the work being done by the Apparel Impact Institute will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the industry?
A: When we started this back in 2020, we were at a place where companies were setting targets and knew their intended destination, but what they needed was a blueprint for how to get there. And so, the roadmap [provided] this blueprint and identified six key things that the sector needed to do—from using more sustainable materials to deploying renewable electricity in the supply chain.
Decarbonizing any sector, whether it’s transportation, chemicals, or automotive, requires investment. The Apparel Impact Institute is bringing collective investment, which is so critical. I’m really optimistic about what they’re doing. They have taken a data-driven, evidence-based approach, so they know where the emissions are and they know what the needed interventions are. And they’ve got the industry behind them in doing that.
