![\"Retail](\"https:\/\/dmsretail.com\/RetailNews\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/RETAIL-ONLINE-TRAINING-728-X-90.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The global fashion industry has taken centre stage in the push to decarbonise as climate concerns intensify.\u00a0<\/p>\n
But despite bold net-zero targets, a new report from the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre reveals a stark omission in fashion\u2019s climate commitments when it comes to the workers who make the clothes.<\/p>\n
According to the report, \u201cThe Missing Thread\u201d, more than half of 65 major fashion brands, including Hermes, Nike and Lululemon, have set emission reduction goals for 2030.<\/p>\n
However, not a single one has developed a comprehensive \u201cjust transition\u201d plan that includes and protects supply chain workers, many of whom are already feeling the brunt of climate change in their home countries.<\/p>\n
This oversight risks more than worker wellbeing. As pressure mounts from consumers, regulators and investors for climate accountability, the absence of inclusive strategies exposes brands to greenwashing accusations and long-term operational risk.<\/p>\n
The worker gap in climate commitments<\/strong><\/h3>\nOf the eight brands with the most ambitious climate goals, just two, Inditex (owner of Zara) and Kering (owner of Gucci and Alexander McQueen), have publicly acknowledged workers in their transition strategies. <\/p>\n
\u201cThese two brands have shown in their policy framing that they have, to an extent, understood the stakes of an energy transition for their businesses and that it impacts rightsholders (in this case workers) along their supply chain,\u201d Natalie Swan, labour rights programme manager at the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, an independent non-profit focused on promoting corporate accountability and transparency related to human rights, told Inside Retail<\/em>.<\/p>\n\u201cDeveloping policies is just the first step. Both brands now need to show clearly and transparently how they are putting their policies into action in terms of engaging workers and their trade unions at the centre of their plans for addressing the impacts of climate events such as heat stress, and supporting suppliers to meet their decarbonisation targets,\u201d she added. <\/p>\n
The rest, including H&M, Primark, Hugo Boss and Capri Holdings, remain silent on how their decarbonisation efforts will impact the millions of garment workers across Asia and other sourcing hubs.<\/p>\n
“The fashion industry\u2019s climate targets mean little if the people who make its products are not taken into consideration,” Swan said in a press release. <\/p>\n
\u201cDecarbonisation done without workers as critical and creative partners is not a just transition \u2013 it\u2019s a dangerous shortcut,\u201d she reinforced.<\/p>\n
While many brands tout their \u201csustainable\u201d credentials, few have incorporated the concept of a \u201cjust transition\u201d, a framework that ensures workers are not left behind during the shift to greener business models. The findings are stark:<\/p>\n
\n- Not one brand has a stand-alone \u201cjust transition\u201d policy.<\/li>\n
- Only eight out of 65 brands mention \u201cjust transition\u201d principles at all.<\/li>\n
- Just 11 companies reference workers in relation to climate impacts in their social or human rights policies.<\/li>\n
- Only four brands \u2013 Adidas, Levi\u2019s, Nike and Next \u2013 have issued supplier guidelines on managing heat stress.<\/li>\n
- Canada Goose and VF Corp are the only companies that acknowledge climate threats to worker livelihoods.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Meanwhile, the phrase \u201cjust transition\u201d appears only 10 times on average across the 15 company websites that use it, compared with an average of 266 mentions of \u201csustainability.\u201d<\/p>\n
This disparity is more than semantic. Sustainability, when divorced from labour considerations, becomes little more than a marketing term. <\/p>\n
According to BHRRC, brands that continue to separate environmental commitments from social accountability risk not only reputational damage but also a loss of supply chain resilience.<\/p>\n
The reality on the factory floor<\/strong><\/h3>\nThe effects of climate change on garment workers are not hypothetical. Interviews with workers in Bangladesh and Cambodia illustrate a grim reality of rising temperatures, extreme heat and flooding, which are already endangering lives and livelihoods.<\/p>\n
In Bangladesh, factory temperatures are reaching dangerous highs, with reports of fainting, dehydration and disease outbreaks. <\/p>\n
Flooding has added safety risks, such as electric shocks and slippery floors, particularly hazardous for pregnant workers.<\/p>\n
Many factories lack even the most basic mitigation measures like fans, drinking water or ventilation. And with wages already low, workers are often forced to pay out-of-pocket for cooling solutions at home, further eroding their financial stability.<\/p>\n
The operational risks for brands are clear. Heat-related health issues reduce productivity and cause disruptions, while increasing the likelihood of labour unrest, absenteeism and reputational fallout.<\/p>\n
What should happen next?<\/strong><\/h3>\nAccording to BHRRC, a coordinated approach from brands, suppliers, investors and policymakers to integrate just transition principles into climate planning is needed. <\/p>\n
For brands, integrating worker rights into climate strategies is no longer optional. This means actively engaging with trade unions, offering financial support to suppliers and providing clear, public guidance on mitigating heat-related risks across supply chains.<\/p>\n
Suppliers are being urged to develop climate adaptation plans that actively include worker input, ensuring adequate health protections and the right to freedom of association are in place.<\/p>\n
\u201cBrands are disproportionally outsourcing their supplier support on climate and decarbonisation issues- relying on third-party initiatives and pilot projects,\u201d Swan said. <\/p>\n
\u201c[They] have longstanding relationships with their suppliers. These need to be deepened and leveraged to ensure that tackling the climate emergency is a key area of discussion, support and improvement over time,\u201d she added. <\/p>\n
Investors, meanwhile, must begin factoring just transition risks into ESG assessments and push portfolio companies to take meaningful action. <\/p>\n
Policymakers also have a critical role to play by mandating human rights and climate due diligence, and by supporting sourcing countries through climate finance and inclusive industrial strategies that protect both people and the planet.<\/p>\n
The stakes are high. The fashion industry is currently on track to contribute over a quarter of total global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. <\/p>\n
Without a course correction that includes worker protection, the industry risks both moral failure and material collapse.<\/p>\n
As Swan stated, \u201cA just transition is not just a responsibility \u2013 it\u2019s a critical opportunity to build a fairer, more resilient fashion industry that works for people and the planet.\u201d<\/p>\n
The post How garment workers are being left behind by sustainability targets: Report appeared first on Inside Retail Australia.<\/p>\n
\u201cDeveloping policies is just the first step. Both brands now need to show clearly and transparently how they are putting their policies into action in terms of engaging workers and their trade unions at the centre of their plans for addressing the impacts of climate events such as heat stress, and supporting suppliers to meet their decarbonisation targets,\u201d she added. <\/p>\n
The rest, including H&M, Primark, Hugo Boss and Capri Holdings, remain silent on how their decarbonisation efforts will impact the millions of garment workers across Asia and other sourcing hubs.<\/p>\n
“The fashion industry\u2019s climate targets mean little if the people who make its products are not taken into consideration,” Swan said in a press release. <\/p>\n
\u201cDecarbonisation done without workers as critical and creative partners is not a just transition \u2013 it\u2019s a dangerous shortcut,\u201d she reinforced.<\/p>\n
While many brands tout their \u201csustainable\u201d credentials, few have incorporated the concept of a \u201cjust transition\u201d, a framework that ensures workers are not left behind during the shift to greener business models. The findings are stark:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Not one brand has a stand-alone \u201cjust transition\u201d policy.<\/li>\n
- Only eight out of 65 brands mention \u201cjust transition\u201d principles at all.<\/li>\n
- Just 11 companies reference workers in relation to climate impacts in their social or human rights policies.<\/li>\n
- Only four brands \u2013 Adidas, Levi\u2019s, Nike and Next \u2013 have issued supplier guidelines on managing heat stress.<\/li>\n
- Canada Goose and VF Corp are the only companies that acknowledge climate threats to worker livelihoods.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Meanwhile, the phrase \u201cjust transition\u201d appears only 10 times on average across the 15 company websites that use it, compared with an average of 266 mentions of \u201csustainability.\u201d<\/p>\n
This disparity is more than semantic. Sustainability, when divorced from labour considerations, becomes little more than a marketing term. <\/p>\n
According to BHRRC, brands that continue to separate environmental commitments from social accountability risk not only reputational damage but also a loss of supply chain resilience.<\/p>\n
The reality on the factory floor<\/strong><\/h3>\n
The effects of climate change on garment workers are not hypothetical. Interviews with workers in Bangladesh and Cambodia illustrate a grim reality of rising temperatures, extreme heat and flooding, which are already endangering lives and livelihoods.<\/p>\n
In Bangladesh, factory temperatures are reaching dangerous highs, with reports of fainting, dehydration and disease outbreaks. <\/p>\n
Flooding has added safety risks, such as electric shocks and slippery floors, particularly hazardous for pregnant workers.<\/p>\n
Many factories lack even the most basic mitigation measures like fans, drinking water or ventilation. And with wages already low, workers are often forced to pay out-of-pocket for cooling solutions at home, further eroding their financial stability.<\/p>\n
The operational risks for brands are clear. Heat-related health issues reduce productivity and cause disruptions, while increasing the likelihood of labour unrest, absenteeism and reputational fallout.<\/p>\n
What should happen next?<\/strong><\/h3>\n
According to BHRRC, a coordinated approach from brands, suppliers, investors and policymakers to integrate just transition principles into climate planning is needed. <\/p>\n
For brands, integrating worker rights into climate strategies is no longer optional. This means actively engaging with trade unions, offering financial support to suppliers and providing clear, public guidance on mitigating heat-related risks across supply chains.<\/p>\n
Suppliers are being urged to develop climate adaptation plans that actively include worker input, ensuring adequate health protections and the right to freedom of association are in place.<\/p>\n
\u201cBrands are disproportionally outsourcing their supplier support on climate and decarbonisation issues- relying on third-party initiatives and pilot projects,\u201d Swan said. <\/p>\n
\u201c[They] have longstanding relationships with their suppliers. These need to be deepened and leveraged to ensure that tackling the climate emergency is a key area of discussion, support and improvement over time,\u201d she added. <\/p>\n
Investors, meanwhile, must begin factoring just transition risks into ESG assessments and push portfolio companies to take meaningful action. <\/p>\n
Policymakers also have a critical role to play by mandating human rights and climate due diligence, and by supporting sourcing countries through climate finance and inclusive industrial strategies that protect both people and the planet.<\/p>\n
The stakes are high. The fashion industry is currently on track to contribute over a quarter of total global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. <\/p>\n
Without a course correction that includes worker protection, the industry risks both moral failure and material collapse.<\/p>\n
As Swan stated, \u201cA just transition is not just a responsibility \u2013 it\u2019s a critical opportunity to build a fairer, more resilient fashion industry that works for people and the planet.\u201d<\/p>\n
The post How garment workers are being left behind by sustainability targets: Report appeared first on Inside Retail Australia.<\/p>\n