UK ranks fourth in G20 for fashion carbon footprint, Hot or Cool Institute finds
UK lawmakers are set to review the sustainability practices of leading fashion retailers H&M and Boohoo on May 1st. This revisiting of the Environmental Audit Committee’s 2019 inquiry into the fashion industry will delve into the progress made by these retailers since then.
While some leading fashion brands have opted not to appear in person, representatives from H&M and Boohoo are slated to be questioned by MPs from the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC).
The committee aims to scrutinize the actions taken by these retailers to mitigate their environmental footprint since the release of the 2019 report titled “Fixing fashion: clothing consumption and sustainability” report.
During the session scheduled for Wednesday, MPs are expected to delve into topics such as overproduction, textile waste, and the adoption of sustainable materials with Marcus Hartmann, head of public affairs at H&M, and Boohoo’s responsible sourcing director.
Research conducted by the Hot or Cool Institute suggests that the UK ranks fourth among G20 nations in terms of the carbon footprint generated by fashion.
Additionally, the committee plans to explore the influence of resale platforms like Thrift+ on consumer behavior regarding clothing consumption, investigating whether such platforms contribute to the reduction or exacerbation of overconsumption in the fashion industry.
Background behind EAC’s report in ending “throwaway fashion”
The Environmental Audit Committee’s (EAC) report, “Fixing Fashion,” aimed to address the pressing issue of “throwaway fashion” by calling for urgent government action. This action included proposals for an Extended Producer Responsibility scheme, which would hold fashion brands accountable for their waste. Despite the committee’s recommendations, progress has been slow, with the government rejecting most of the proposals from the initial inquiry in 2018.
Among the rejected recommendations were measures such as a producer responsibility charge to improve clothing collection and recycling, as well as due diligence checks across fashion supply chains to combat forced or child labor. While the government identified textile waste as a priority area in its Resources and Waste Strategy, it fell short of implementing the committee’s suggestions.
During the initial probe, 16 fashion retailers were questioned about their efforts to mitigate the environmental and social impacts of their products. The fast-fashion business model, characterized by over-consumption and excessive waste, was a key concern.
The government’s rejection of the committee’s proposals was met with criticism, with the EAC deeming it “not good enough” and “out of step with the public.” Instead of implementing measures like banning the incineration or landfilling of unsold stock and imposing levies on garment producers, the government opted to review the effectiveness of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
Furthermore, it pledged support for the industry through voluntary agreements like the Sustainable Clothing Action Plan. However, the EAC remained dissatisfied, with chair Mary Creagh expressing concern over the government’s response and vowing to closely monitor its actions in addressing the issues raised in the report.
