Report details major obstacle consumers face when shopping for clothes: 'Clearly brands are struggling'

Statista reports that 89% of consumers have changed the way they shop to support more sustainable brands. However, because of the complexity of the apparel industry, comparing which clothing makers are truly making strides forward in reducing carbon pollution is incredibly difficult. 

What's happening?

Bloomberg Green dove into the data, but even after extensive research, they still had trouble understanding the true picture of apparel pollution.

The reason? There is no single set of standards for how to measure them, so everybody does it differently.

There are three degrees, or scopes, of pollution. While a company has direct influence over Scopes 1 and 2 — the pollution of their "owned and operated assets" and their "purchased energy sources, such as electricity, heating, and cooling," per Bloomberg — it's incredibly difficult to understand Scope 3 with accuracy. 

That's because Scope 3, as Bloomberg phrases it, is "basically everything else: indirect pollution from across the supply chain, from consumer use of products, and more." This includes pollution generated by driving to the store or washing clothes — it's difficult to measure.

Without clear parameters, companies can deceptively claim changes to their pollution levels without actually making adjustments — simply by changing the breadth of reported pollution.

Why is understanding pollution sources important?

The apparel industry, particularly fast fashion, is notorious for being a major contributor of planet-warming pollution. Without a clear way to communicate their progress on reducing those outputs, consumers are left uncertain of how and where to buy clothes.

For example, PVH Corp., the company behind popular brands Tommy Hilfiger and Calvin Klein, reported a seemingly laudable 47% reduction in pollution from 2017 to 2022-23. But, as Bloomberg reported, "a closer look reveals what actually happened: PVH changed how it calculated its latest emissions. As a result, the company notes, 'prior year footprints are not comparable.'"

"We shouldn't allow a change in how you measure things to lead to meeting your goal," McKinsey & Co. partner Jonatan Janmark told Bloomberg. "Clearly brands are struggling."

🗣️ Which of these factors would most effectively motivate you to recycle old clothes and electronics?

🔘 Giving me money back 💰

🔘 Letting me trade for new stuff 👕

🔘 Making it as easy as possible ⚡

🔘 Keeping my stuff out of landfills 🗑️

🗳️ Click your choice to see results and speak your mind

What's being done about this?

Regulators are working to define Scope 3 reporting, and this could become mandatory in the coming years, which would help hold businesses accountable for greenwashing. 

Of course, many argue that the solution is to move away from buying new clothes as much as possible and opting instead to thrift or trade in their communities.

Many people, especially Americans, could also drastically reduce their resource consumption by extending the usable life of their clothes — by mending, for example. The average piece of clothing gets worn seven to 10 times before being discarded, per Earth.org, which then prompts consumers to buy new clothes and repeat the cycle.

Instead, choosing to keep — and mend — what you already own would make a major difference. But that's not a business model that companies embrace, according to Berkley Rothmeier of consulting company BSR.

"What would most significantly reduce the global apparel footprint is if we make and throw away less stuff," Rothmeier told Bloomberg. 

Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.