Global fashion emissions increased by 6.3% from 2023 to 2024, according to the Apparel Impact Institute's 2026 update to its Roadmap to Net Zero. It was the second consecutive annual increase, a result the organisation links primarily to growing fibre use—especially petroleum-based polyester.
The finding exposes a central tension in sustainable fashion. Efficiency and renewable-energy projects can reduce emissions at individual facilities, yet total emissions can still rise when production grows faster than those improvements.
From brand promises to factory projects
The report argues that the next stage of decarbonisation must happen at facility level. That means converting broad commitments into specific changes such as thermal electrification, renewable electricity and energy-efficiency improvements, prioritised where energy and heat demand are greatest.
Textile processing in Tier 2 facilities is particularly important because dyeing, finishing and other processes can require substantial heat. Changing materials matters, but so does the energy system behind every production step.
The report highlights examples of progress. PUMA said renewable sources supplied roughly 33% of the energy used by its core factories in 2025, above its 25% target. Shenzhou International Group reported renewable electricity above 60% of total consumption in 2024 and a 16.8% reduction in Scope 1 and 2 emissions from 2020 to 2024. H&M Group reduced the number of Tier 1, 2 and 3 supplier factories using on-site coal boilers from 118 in 2022 to 10 in 2025.
These examples show what is technically possible. They do not prove that the whole sector is on track.
The finance problem sits upstream
Much of fashion's operational footprint belongs to suppliers, while purchasing power and consumer-facing margins often sit elsewhere in the value chain. Suppliers may lack affordable capital, stable purchasing commitments or access to clean electricity and grid infrastructure.
The Institute therefore calls for brands, financial institutions, policymakers and implementation partners to share the financial and operational burden. Without that alignment, a supplier may be asked to invest in long-lived equipment while facing short-term orders and price pressure.
This is not only a technology problem. It is a question of who carries risk, who captures value and whether commercial contracts support the transition they advertise.
Absolute emissions are the real scoreboard
Carbon intensity measures emissions per garment, per kilogram of material or per unit of revenue. They are useful, but they can improve while total emissions rise. Climate targets depend on absolute reductions, not only a cleaner ratio attached to a growing volume of production.
The report's four priorities are therefore connected: implement projects at the facility level, finance suppliers, replicate verified solutions and confront production growth while delivering absolute cuts.
Circular models may help by extending product use, increasing material efficiency and reducing demand for virgin fibre. They do not replace rapid energy decarbonisation in manufacturing.
The Mythic Mode perspective
Sustainable fashion becomes credible when the story moves from labels to infrastructure. A garment's footprint is shaped by fibres, heat, electricity, factory equipment, logistics and how long the product remains useful.
The 6.3% increase is an industry estimate built from the Institute's methodology and available data, not a perfectly measured inventory of every producer. Its value is directional and operational: isolated progress is being overtaken by system growth.
The decisive question for brands is no longer whether a pilot can work. It is whether finance, purchasing practices and factory deployment can make proven interventions normal at the scale the climate target requires.