If fashion’s race toward reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions feels like one step forward, two steps back, it’s because the billions of garments and shoes produced each year are figuratively trampling over efficiency gains. Pockets of progress are just too slow and insufficient to meet the deep decarbonization reductions required by the Paris Agreement and global climate science.
This off-target reality is the conclusion of State of the Industry 2026: Decarbonization Progress in the Apparel, Footwear & Textiles Industry, a report published by global nonprofit Cascale (formerly Sustainable Apparel Coalition). In fact, “Off Target” is the title of the 2025 Emissions Gap Report of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), published in November last year.
Despite technological and regulatory advances, apparel industry emissions grew by an estimated 7.5% in 2023, driven by increased production volume expanding faster than efficiency offsets. The industry’s overall GHG emissions reached record levels of 57.7 GtCO2e in 2024.
“As a 45% emissions reduction by 2030 is out of reach, it is critical for the industry to obtain a shared understanding of the key drivers of carbon emissions in the supply chain, and the urgency of collectively addressing these,” stated the report.
Shifts toward lower-intensity performance categories, like more efficient lighting and machines, and minor energy tweaks, have yielded marginal results. Supply chains need more systemic transformation.
The report uses three metrics to evaluate how the apparel, footwear and textiles industry is doing in reducing its carbon emissions. The main one is the Effective Energy Carbon Intensity metric (EECI), which measures how much the industry has reduced carbon emissions from the energy it uses in its factories—namely electricity and heat. Second and third indicators are electrification and fossil fuel dependency.
Cascale’s global assessment is backed by verified data from the Higg Facility Environmental Module (vFEM), and focuses on both Tier 1 (finished product manufacturing and assembly factories) and Tier 2 (material manufacturing such as fabric mills and dyehouses).
To provide a consistent lens to compare facilities using different energy mixes, the report introduced the Effective Energy Carbon Intensity metric. EECI measured the carbon intensity of energy used in facilities, weighing both electrical and thermal (heat-producing) energy sources with insight into how effectively energy use is being decarbonized.
Electrification’s Coal Problem
Shifting from fossil fuels to electricity is often touted as a key decarbonization strategy, but it is no panacea.
Electrification can only deliver deep decarbonization if the electricity comes from low-carbon sources, and coal still comprises 31% of total energy use in the industry. There has been no meaningful year-over-year coal decrease.
Tier 1 facilities have exhibited higher degrees of electrification, especially in places where electrification is supported by supportive grid infrastructure and policy incentives. Tier 2 facilities, where more heat-intensive finishing and dyeing processes dominate, however, use a higher share of coal. As a result, electrification alone will not be enough to reduce global warming to the necessary 1.5°C.
Scaling electrification must be paired with clean electricity sourcing to yield significant decarbonization results, especially in thermal-dependent segments.
Renewables
Renewable energy adoption is another pathway, but adoption has been paltry. The share of renewable energy is just 2% of total energy consumption, a figure unchanged between the 2023 and 2024 reporting periods.
A larger expansion of renewable energy is needed to meet ambitious climate goals. This can be achieved both through on-site generation, such as solar installations at factories, and through power purchase agreements (PPAs) that guarantee access to clean energy.
Uneven Emission Distribution
A key takeaway from the report is that emissions are not equally distributed across all facilities.
Large, energy-intensive facilities, despite being few in number, are responsible for a disproportionate share of emissions, especially where thermal energy usage is high.
This insight has strategic implications. Targeting decarbonization interventions on the most polluting facilities could deliver faster and bigger emission reductions than spreading resources evenly across all facilities.
Country performance on EECI also varies. The values for China, Turkey, and Vietnam are reasonably distributed with bell-shaped curves. The graph areas of India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan, for example, are flat, pointing to greater variability by facility performance and fewer facilities achieving the average performance.
The Case for Collaboration
A recurring report theme is that decarbonization cannot be achieved through geographic sourcing shifts alone.
“Meaningful reductions in emissions are only obtained by improving practices at the production level and simply moving production elsewhere jeopardizes progress and livelihoods,” stated the report. “Cascale encourages brands and manufacturers to engage in equitable, long-term partnerships and collaborate towards decarbonization objectives.”
Brands must invest deeply in decarbonization measures, not superficial improvements or simple supply chain reporting. This includes financing renewable energy projects, enabling energy transitions at Tier 2 material production facilities, and supporting factory upgrades.
There are certainly challenges ahead. The report references something called Jevons Paradox, which suggests that when efficiency improves, companies often increase output because it becomes cheaper to produce, which can cancel out the environmental benefits of the efficiency gains.
This report will be published yearly going forward, allowing Cascale to showcase climate performance of the apparel, footwear and textiles industry, while providing public access to the latest aggregated industry data to drive further conversation and collective action.
