Sustainability in Fashion Industry: A View Through the Top Ten Multinational Strategies

Abstract

Climate change threatens the future of the next generations and is already causing widespread destruction in the present through an increasing number of natural disasters. A new model of production and consumption based on sustainability is required, especially in the fashion industry—the second most polluting sector in the world. Therefore, in order to determine whether these companies contribute to people’s and the planet’s well-being, it is necessary to understand their practices. To this end, we analyse the sustainable practices of the sector by studying the ten most responsible fashion companies according to the BoF Sustainability Index, that is based on the methodology of content analysis applied to case studies. To do this, we have defined a taxonomy of the ten most common sustainability strategies and practices: stakeholder engagement, strong governance and transparency, decarbonisation, biodiversity conservation and restoration, circularity, reducing waste and pollution from the use of plastics, eliminating hazardous chemicals, preserving water quality, diversity, equity and inclusion policies, supply chain responsibility, and supporting the communities in which companies operate. The results show that major business groups have integrated axes into their sustainability strategies that address the industry’s primary social and environmental challenges. These plans are based on ambitious goals that go beyond stakeholder demands and the generation of economic benefits.

1. Introduction

Since the Second Industrial Revolution, which began in the late 19th century, our planet has been gradually warming, mainly due to increased carbon dioxide emissions. This was the starting point of climate change, and since then the trend has only accelerated. The Earth’s temperature is almost one degree Celsius above the average for the last century, causing sea levels to rise due to the melting of the geographic poles and an increasing number of natural disasters, which are expected to become more frequent (Dey & Lewis, 2021). The years 2023, 2024 and 2025, some of the hottest on record, will be remembered as years of natural disasters, with huge economic costs associated with the devastating human and environmental tragedy they leave behind (Hertelendy et al., 2024).

Climate change threatens the future of the next generations and is already wreaking havoc on today’s society. Governments, NGOs, international organisations and the global community are calling on companies to adopt sustainable business models to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (Klingelhöfer et al., 2020; García-Sánchez et al., 2024; Nguyen-Van et al., 2025; Mavlutova et al., 2025).

In this sense, the fashion industry is subject to a growth global scrutiny and continuous demands for companies to adopt sustainable practices (De Brito et al., 2008; Joyce & Paquin, 2016; De Ponte et al., 2023). It should be remembered that fast fashion revolutionised the clothing industry at the end of the 20th century and established itself as a hegemonic business model, making the fashion sector the second most polluting after the oil sector (Li et al., 2024). Furthermore, the relocation of production to developing countries with low wages and abusive working conditions perpetuates poverty in developing regions (Seuring & Müller, 2008).

In this regard, the fashion industry urgently needs to shift towards more sustainable production and commercial practices that address the sector’s challenges (García-Sánchez et al., 2025), while also encouraging behavioural and attitudinal changes among its customers (Daukantienė, 2023; Faludi, 2025). This approach requires radical rather than pragmatic changes (Mukendi et al., 2020), which are generally associated with innovation and organisational flexibility (Pedersen et al., 2018; Dang et al., 2025). However, companies often rely on greenwashing strategies to regain stakeholders’ trust or attract new customers without fundamentally changing production models, as this industry is based on continuous production and consumption (Adamkiewicz et al., 2022; Ofori et al., 2025). This can involve using unclear terminology or focusing on token ‘green’ collections or minor initiatives while continuing unsustainable practices such as overproduction (Alizadeh et al., 2024).

In this paradoxical situation in which fashion companies base their business model on encouraging thoughtless consumption by customers who want to enjoy the latest trends and styles, while also having to address growing pressure to adopt a more responsible and conscious approach (Mathew & Spinelli, 2025), insufficient academic research has been carried out to understand the real transition that this industry is experiencing, or to address the pending risks and opportunities.

In this vein, recent papers, such as that by Gornostaeva (2024), have observed that a few London fashion companies prioritise sustainability, but the changes addressed are not drastic, nor will they entail a transformation of the industry. This confirms that the initiatives promoted are more symbolic than material, a worrying trend given that London fashion brands are characterised by their innovation in high-end design (Robinson & Langley, 2025). Previously, Caniato et al. (2012), Macchion et al. (2017), Koeksal et al. (2017) and Dordevic et al. (2019) showed that the social and environmental practices of the ten main fashion companies worldwide are characterised by different levels of maturity and a reactive–proactive approach to collaboration with suppliers and distributors in their supply chains. These situations could be explained by the fact that the industry’s efforts in responsible environmental innovation are strongly related to the external pressures faced by companies and the search for competitive advantage (Thorisdottir & Johannsdottir, 2019, 2020; Todeschini et al., 2020).

To better understand these situations, academics are focusing their research on analysing companies’ efforts in the environmental field, particularly with regard to climate change. This includes commitments to energy efficiency (García-Sánchez et al., 2025) and circularity (Paras & Pal, 2018; Jia et al., 2020; Gazzola et al., 2020; Wagner & Heinzel, 2020; Islam et al., 2021; Ki et al., 2021; De Ponte et al., 2023; Abbate et al., 2024; Colucci & Vecchi, 2024; Gavurova et al., 2026). Their work delves into the keys to implementing sustainability-oriented innovation initiatives (Ermini et al., 2024) and the use of artificial intelligence (Bieńkowska, 2025). In the social arena, Aibar-Guzmán et al. (2023) contrasted that the implementation of codes of conduct in the five largest textile companies in the world partially led to a significant change in the negative impacts on human rights that occurred in the supply chain of those companies that, in addition to establishing preventive practices against corruption and bribery, designed ambitious codes of conduct for their suppliers, as is the case of Inditex.

As can be seen, previous work has focused particularly on the environmental dimension of the fashion industry and on actions aimed at resolving human rights conflicts, all of which have focused on the supply chain. However, sustainability in the fashion industry cannot be defined simply by the presence of a green label. It should be viewed as an industry-wide transformation based on three fundamental principles: environmental, social and governance (ESG). The sector’s sustainability must therefore seek to minimise the environmental impact of fibre, textile and apparel production; achieve the efficient and responsible use of resources such as water and energy; improve working conditions for employees; ensure animal welfare; ensure an ethical and fair supply chain; and ensure transparency and good governance (UN Alliance for Sustainable Fashion, 2025). So, new empirical research is needed to understand the global approach of large fashion companies (Kozlowski et al., 2012; Macchion et al., 2017; Atik & Ozdamar Ertekin, 2023; von der Assen & Braun, 2025), the sector’s drivers, and its contribution to global sustainable development. To do so, it is necessary to adopt a comprehensive approach that extends the study of the supply chain and a specific dimension or sub-dimension of sustainability to the analysis of the entire sustainability strategy of multinational companies and/or business groups, including their integration throughout their value chain (EY & Modaes, 2024).

In this regard, the aim of this work is to determine what are the objectives and the main practices that are carried out by the corporations of the sector to achieve the sustainable business model of fashion. To this end, the sustainability strategy of the top ten most important fashion companies according to the BoF Sustainability Index was analysed: Puma, Kering, Levi Strauss, H&M, Burberry, VF Corporation, PVH Corporation, NIKE, Inditex and Adidas (BoF, Business of Fashion, 2022). Based on the principles of Institutional Theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Scott, 1995), these firms operate within a structured organisational field, where the pursuit of legitimacy leads to the standardisation of behaviours. From this perspective, a descriptive analysis of leading multinational fashion companies allows for a focused examination of the key figures shaping the institutional logic of the sector. Furthermore, since the literature (e.g., Greenwood et al., 2011) shows that dominant firms exert strong mimetic isomorphism pressure on the rest of the industry, the sustainability practices adopted by this select group act as normative signals that redefine the standards of social and operational acceptance. Describing the strategies of these leaders therefore allows us to identify the boundaries of sustainability practices that will become established as the dominant paradigm in the global value chain through institutional diffusion, thus justifying the methodological relevance of a market leaders-centred approach.

For it, the ESG analytical framework has been adopted to lend rigour to the analysis and to consider the environmental impact, social responsibility and governance of the industry. This frame was chosen because it can bring commensurability to comparative analysis (Etzion & Ferraro, 2010). More specifically, it enables the systematisation and study of corporate practices based on the need to operationalise the multi-dimensional construct of sustainability (Eccles et al., 2020). Also, the ESG paradigm considers the dual materiality of corporate strategies to be evaluated, distinguishing those practices that are substantively relevant to the business model and its stakeholders (Khan et al., 2016). The explicit inclusion of the governance (G) dimension also responds to empirical evidence suggesting that board oversight and executive incentives, among other factors, are necessary for the effective implementation of environmental and social initiatives in complex global supply chains (Walls et al., 2012), as seen in the fashion industry.

The results obtained have made it possible to identify that their transition towards a sustainable business model is articulated around ten simultaneous and interrelated strategic axes, in order to contribute to the long-term stability of the ecosystems that make human life possible environment (E)), respect labour and human rights (social (S)), and perform to the satisfaction of the economic needs necessary for the formation of stable and resilient societies (governance (G)). More concretely, evidence suggests that major multinational fashion companies are undergoing a structural transformation towards sustainability, driven by the integration of ESG criteria into their core strategies. In the environmental dimension, there has been a tangible transition from linear models to circular economy paradigms, as demonstrated by investment in textile-to-textile recycling technologies and the progressive decoupling of economic growth from the consumption of virgin resources. In the social (S) dimension, these firms have moved beyond mere compliance by implementing digital traceability systems and collaborative audits that effectively mitigate human rights risks across the global supply chain. Finally, the governance (G) dimension reveals the institutionalisation of sustainability, where linking executive compensation to non-financial ESG objectives demonstrates a binding and verifiable corporate commitment. This suggests that sustainability has evolved from externality to a dynamic capability that is essential for long-term organisational resilience.

In doing so, our research contributes significantly to the existing literature. First, our approach is broader and more integrative than previous studies, based on a comprehensive analysis of the sustainable practices of major fashion business groups. This approach complements the findings of works such as Paras and Pal (2018), Gazzola et al. (2020), Islam et al. (2021), Jia et al. (2020), Wagner and Heinzel (2020), Ki et al. (2021) and Abbate et al. (2024), which focus on the environmental dimension of the fashion industry production process, and works such as those of Macchion et al. (2017), Koeksal et al. (2017), Dordevic et al. (2019) and Aibar-Guzmán et al. (2023), which are interested in the social dimension, mainly the strategic axis of human rights. Thus, our work comprehensively addresses the ESG dimensions of the parent company, subsidiaries and value chain of the main multinational companies in the sector, while extending previous knowledge by considering the companies in a broad way, unlike previous studies that mainly focus on the value chain. In addition, our approach allows us to understand the commitments made, the programmes or projects promoted, the objectives and beneficiaries, the actions and activities carried out, the results achieved, and the main collaborations.

Additionally to this introduction, the paper is divided into four sections. Firstly, the concept of sustainability in the fashion industry is addressed, and the development and contrast between sustainable fashion and fast fashion is presented. The third section presents the methodology of the analysis. In the fourth section, we will identify the fundamental practices for transforming the business model of the ten most relevant companies in the sector. Section 5 outlines the joint actions being developed within the industry and discusses them in more detail in the subsequent section. Finally, we present the conclusions and main implications derived from our research.

2. Fashion and Its Impact on Sustainable Development

Corporate sustainability must be understood as a business model in which companies create value in a responsible way, ensuring that business behaviour contributes to sustainable development based on ESG dimensions. Focusing on the fashion sector, its impact on the environment and social well-being is enormous, but so is its potential for leadership. The challenge for the sector is therefore to strike a balance between the three dimensions. Below are the key sustainability challenges facing the industry.

2.1. The Evolution of the Fashion Industry and Its Economic Impact

In the past, the clothing worn was more versatile and closely related to social status. People wore their old clothes, repaired those that were broken and had bespoke clothes made in tailor shops, so fashion cycles were much slower. Only the wealthy could afford to buy new clothes because they were handmade by skilled workers (Merlo & Pinchera, 2023).

However, the technological advances of the Industrial Revolution, such as the sewing machine, facilitated tailoring, and by the end of the 19th century the first ready-to-wear factories appeared. In the second half of the twentieth century, automation and assembly lines made it possible to mass-produce clothes, with designs becoming simpler to reduce production costs and sizes becoming standardised. In the mid-1970s, companies began to outsource production to countries where labour, raw materials and taxes were cheaper; and the environmental and social legislation was laxer. In addition, the speed of design, production, delivery and stock replenishment increased (Bhardwaj & Fairhurst, 2010). This allowed the economies of scale of manners to grow and be maintained, while reducing the useful life cycle of clothes (Long & Nasiry, 2022). This is the origin of the model that dominates the sector, fast fashion (Simona Segre, 2005; Dana et al., 2024), a business model that offers consumers new products at low cost through mass production of trendy clothes (Bruce & Daly, 2011; Gazzola et al., 2020).

Nowadays, fashion is one of the most relevant industries in the world, worth over $1.7 trillion and employing 3.45 billion people (McKinsey, 2025). A hundred billion garments are produced each year (Global Fashion Agenda, Boston Consulting Group and Sustainable Apparel Coalition, 2019) and the sector is expected to grow by 63% by 2030. Between the years 2000 and 2015, the industry doubled the volume of sales, overcoming the rate of GDP growth, while people had progressively reduced the time that each piece of clothing was used (Shirvanimoghaddam et al., 2020). Although the sector was one of the most affected by the COVID-19 crisis (Haukkala et al., 2023), it has shown resilience in recent years. In 2022, it doubled the economic benefits of all but one of the years between 2010 and 2020. In 2023, however, Europe and the US experience very slow annual growth, and China’s accelerated growth slows in the second half of the year. The year 2024 is marked by major challenges from economic uncertainty, geopolitical tensions, inflation and climate risk (Business of Fashion & McKinsey & Company, 2024).

2.2. From Environmental and Social Impact to Sustainable Fashion

The fashion industry is also one of the most destructive and environmentally damaging (Berg et al., 2020), accounting for 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions (Niinimäki et al., 2020) and around 63% of production using highly polluting fibers1. In addition, several authors have calculated that only 15% of textiles are recycled, with the rest going to landfill or incineration (Shirvanimoghaddam et al., 2020). Its impact is not only environmental, as production is outsourced to factories in developing countries with extremely low wages, abusive working conditions and even child exploitation, which contributes to the cycle of poverty and hinders the social development of these countries (Seuring & Müller, 2008; Kapferer & Michaut-Denizeau, 2014; Macchion et al., 2017; Aibar-Guzmán et al., 2023).

The effect of the vicious circle of low prices encouraging consumers to overbuy clothing has accelerated the depletion of the planet’s resources, necessitating a shift in favour of sustainable fashion (e.g., Karaosman et al., 2016; Adamkiewicz et al., 2022), emphasising that the life cycle of garments extends from the sourcing of materials to their manufacture and design and to consumption practices and waste disposal (Fletcher, 2008; Welters & Lillethun, 2020). In this vein, numerous coalitions and initiatives have emerged to make sustainable fashion a reality (Thomas, 2019; Hur & Cassidy, 2019). For example, on 23 August 2019, a group of more than 60 companies in the sector signed the Fashion Pact or Covenant of Fashion2 with the aim of reducing environmental impact through collective action; it has three pillars: limiting global warming, reversing the curve of biodiversity loss and combating ocean pollution. These companies understand that sustainability cannot be seen as a long-term project that can be postponed (Campos Franco et al., 2020) and it is therefore necessary to promote resilience and agility throughout the value chain, especially in climate-risk locations (Taylor et al., 2020).

Moreover, the transition to sustainability in the fashion industry is not spontaneous, but is actively shaped by the strategies of dominant firms that act as ‘institutional entrepreneurs’ (Battilana et al., 2009). According to authors such as Greenwood et al. (2011), there is a recursive relationship whereby the practices adopted by market leaders—due to their volume and bargaining power—cease to be idiosyncratic competitive advantages and become established as new normative standards at the sector level. Through mechanisms of mimetic diffusion and coercion in the supply chain, the sustainable innovations implemented by these corporations (e.g., supplier certification requirements) generate a ‘spillover effect’ that raises barriers to entry and reconfigures the dominant logic of the field. Consequently, corporate sustainability is not an isolated event, but rather the causal mechanism that precipitates the deinstitutionalisation of previous polluting practices and legitimises a new technological and moral regime for the entire industry.

However, for some, the main obstacle to its achievement is the transversal idea of the definitions of the word ‘fashion’, temporality, which clashes with the approach of sustainable fashion. Fortunately, more and more consumers and companies in the sector are changing their preferences towards more sustainable products (Puspita & Chae, 2021), although perhaps they are not enough because the strategy of the companies continues to be to increase sales and consumers are not fully aligned with sustainable fashion (Shen et al., 2013; Hur & Cassidy, 2019; Pereira et al., 2021). Thus, the influence of consumer demand on corporate sustainability practices is characterised by profound ambivalence, which has been described in the literature as the ‘attitude-behaviour gap’ (White et al., 2019). Although consumers are increasingly demanding ethical responsibility, empirical evidence suggests that price sensitivity and the pursuit of hedonic novelty remain the primary determinants of purchasing decisions in the fashion sector. This cognitive dissonance creates a perverse incentive structure whereby firms receive market signals that reward the cost efficiency of the fast fashion model, yet also demand moral legitimacy. Consequently, companies tend to respond with ‘incremental sustainability’ strategies that do not challenge the volume-based logic of the fast fashion model. These strategies adapt to consumers who demand ethical products but are unwilling to bear the financial or transactional costs associated with true sustainability (McNeill & Moore, 2015).

Empirical research confirms these contradictions. While initiatives aligned with energy efficiency (García-Sánchez et al., 2025) and circularity (Jia et al., 2020; Gazzola et al., 2020; Ki et al., 2021; De Ponte et al., 2023; Colucci & Vecchi, 2024) have been observed, there is significant awareness of their actions in the social and governance spheres (Aibar-Guzmán et al., 2023). Moreover, academics have identified that commitment to sustainability in this sector is uneven (Dordevic et al., 2019; Gornostaeva, 2024; Robinson & Langley, 2025), as companies focus on addressing external pressures and maintaining their competitive advantage (Thorisdottir & Johannsdottir, 2019, 2020; Todeschini et al., 2020).

From an economic and instrumental rationality perspective, the behaviour of fashion corporations can theoretically be explained by the Natural Resource-Based View (Hart, 1995; Hart & Dowell, 2011). Under this paradigm, the adoption of sustainability practices is not a response to a moral imperative, but rather a deliberate strategy for maximising value and managing risk. The classical literature supports the ‘Porter Hypothesis’ (Porter & van der Linde, 1995), which argues that eco-efficiency stimulates innovation and reduces operating costs by optimising resources and minimising waste. For fashion conglomerates, whose intangible assets represent a substantial part of their market valuation, sustainability acts as a mechanism for protecting brand equity and as a tool for strategic differentiation. Consequently, these companies may be motivated to dedicate their dynamic capabilities to securing future access to critical raw materials and mitigating supply chain volatility and risks, thereby transforming challenges into sustainable competitive advantages.

However, the behaviour of large corporations in the fashion industry cannot be explained solely through economic rationality. It must also be analysed through the lens of Institutional Theory and legitimacy management. According to Scott (2014), organisations are embedded in environments that impose coercive, normative and mimetic pressures. In the context of fashion, which is characterised by high visibility and increasing institutional complexity (Greenwood et al., 2011), these pressures generate a tendency towards ‘isomorphism’, whereby companies converge on sustainability practices and discourse in order to ensure their social survival and avoid sanctions relating to their legitimacy. Nevertheless, the literature warns of the risk of decoupling (Meyer & Rowan, 1977), whereby firms adopt ceremonial sustainability structures to satisfy external demands, protecting their core technical operations from inefficiencies in the process.

In this sense, it is important to continue investigating the progress of fashion companies and to understand that sustainable fashion involves the design, production and use of garments that not only do not harm people or the environment but also improve the well-being of society and the planet. According to authors such as Jung and Jin (2014), Harmsen et al. (2021), and Colucci and Vecchi (2024), it is a broader approach that includes previous concepts such as: (i) ecological fashion, which focuses on production with low environmental impact, organic materials and eco-certifications; (ii) ethical fashion, which focuses on workers and their working conditions; or (iii) slow fashion. This approach requires (i) recycling and the use of renewable and organic materials, (ii) the adoption of responsible labour practices and models, and (iii) a reduction in the production and consumption of clothing. Unlike fast fashion, sustainable fashion does not encourage people to consume more but to buy more durable and higher quality clothes.

3. Empirical Design

To meet our research objective, we chose the case study methodology, focusing our interest on the analysis of the top 10 fashion companies with the best score in the BoF Sustainability Index 2022, the most recent published to date. This index analyses the compliance of the 30 most influential fashion companies with specific sustainability targets, in order to determine the sector’s progress towards the SDGs. These companies are Puma, Kering, Levi Strauss, H&M, Burberry, VF Corporation, PVH Corporation, NIKE, Inditex and Adidas. This selection allows us to gain a comprehensive view of the leading brands in the luxury, urban fashion and sportswear sectors, which gives us an insight into the various sustainability policies and practices they are developing to transform the industry.

While this sample is not statistically representative of the entire population of fashion firms (which includes numerous SMEs), the selection is theoretically grounded in relevant criteria to sustainability management research. First, from an institutional perspective, the BoF Sustainability Index acts as a normative mechanism that defines legitimacy in the fashion sector and is therefore representative of industry isomorphism. By selecting the top ten companies, we can analyse how market leaders respond to institutional pressures. Second, drawing on global value chain paradigm, the fashion industry is characterised as a buyer-driven chain where a limited number of lead firms dictate the governance and operational standards for a dispersed global network of suppliers (Gereffi, 1999). Consequently, analysing these ten market leaders allows for an assessment of the de facto governance structures that impact a significant portion of global production volumes. Third, the objective is not to evaluate absolute sustainability, but rather adherence to dominant market standards. In this vein, we employ a critical case study approach (Flyvbjerg, 2006), selecting our sample based on information-driven selection rather than random selection. By studying the most resourceful and visible actors (best in class), the study establishes the current benchmark for the sector. Any gaps detected in this elite sample could indicate deeper systemic problems in the industry as a whole, giving the sample high external validity in terms of managerial implications.

Case studies of business practices and behavioural research are used to analyse specific phenomena in depth. This methodology facilitates the collection of qualitative and quantitative data, enabling a deeper understanding of complex issues and the drawing of detailed, applicable conclusions. It also identifies patterns that can be used to suggest improvements to these processes or demonstrate their success to different stakeholders. In our research, case analysis is the ideal technique for examining the reality of selected fashion companies, identifying actions, decisions, sources of facts, and events based on their representativeness.

In addition, to identify their sustainability strategies, projects and practices, we use the content analysis method, an essential empirical approach in case studies and information analysis (e.g., Kolbe & Burnett, 1991; Tebaldi et al., 2018; Beck et al., 2010). This methodological approach enables us to identify the strategic pillars of sustainability in the fashion industry, the associated objectives, and the actions implemented to achieve them. The approach also provides insight into the interactions between these pillars and the collaborative actions that can be developed at sector level to mitigate the main environmental, social and governance challenges faced by companies in this sector.

To this end, the following steps were taken after the object or topic of analysis was specified: (i) determining and downloading the documents to be analysed; (ii) establishing the category system (taxonomy) and the coding rules; (iii) verifying the reliability of the coding–categorisation system through an initial analysis; and (iv) concreting the inferences that can be made.

Regarding the first phase, the content analysis was applied to the information presented in the sustainability reports of the companies selected for the case study, as well as other disclosures on their websites. In addition, following Tang and Higgins (2022), we combine this information with data visualisations and other interactive multimedia and/or immersive content that these companies use to inform their stakeholders and enhance their trust, legitimacy and reputation in relation to their disclosure practices.

Secondly, considering the literature consulted (i.e., Jung & Jin, 2014; Harmsen et al., 2021; Colucci & Vecchi, 2024), the proposals of international organisations like UN Alliance for Sustainable Fashion, the Global Reporting Initiative or the International Sustainability Standards Board, among others, and the structure of the companies’ reports and websites, a first taxonomy of sustainability strategies and practices in the fashion world was created. In this context, Figure 1 shows the research framework designed around ten strategic axes. This taxonomy enables the incorporation of the planetary boundaries framework (Whiteman et al., 2013), for which the fashion industry requires specific metrics, such as decarbonisation, biodiversity conservation, hazardous chemical management, and water quality. This is due to the material-intensive impact of the textile value chain on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Similarly, the inclusion of dimensions such as circularity and plastic waste reduction responds to the need to evaluate the shift towards regenerative business models (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). From a governance perspective, variables such as transparency, stakeholder engagement and supply chain responsibility are incorporated in the recognition of the fact that risk management in fragmented global production networks is a prerequisite for substantive sustainability (Seuring & Müller, 2008). Finally, dimensions such as diversity, equity and inclusion, and community support are incorporated to measure social legitimacy and organisational justice, thus completing an analytical framework that captures the systemic complexity of modern multinational corporations.

After, a protocol and a basic matrix were designed to be applied to each of the strategic axes to ensure homogeneity and validity of the content analysis. In this respect, the information, data and concepts were classified in each of the axes and processed in such a way as to specify at least the commitment made, the programmes or projects promoted, the objectives and beneficiaries, the actions and activities carried out, the results achieved, and the main collaborations.

These procedures were initially applied to the Inditex case study to ensure the reliability and validity of the process. The initial analysis confirmed that the categories established to measure the studied concepts were correct, and that the coding system permitted accurate measurement of the concepts and enabled inferences to be made. In short, our comprehensive and integrated approach enables us to examine quantitative and qualitative data (words, images and concepts) more thoroughly. The approach involves more than just reading or observing. It defines key points, categorises differences and identifies recurring patterns that might otherwise go unnoticed. In this sense, the function of content analysis is to interpret the available details and evidence to fully understand the implications and scope of the case with a view to producing knowledge.

4. Evidence for Case Studies

The following sections summarise the strategies, objectives, programmes and initiatives designed by the ten largest multinationals in the fashion sector to help preserve the planet and promote greater social well-being. Appendix A provides further details on the initiatives promoted by the analysed companies, based on the ten proposed strategic axes.

4.1. Puma

Puma is the world’s third-largest supplier of sportswear, footwear and accessories. In 2019, Puma developed the “Forever Better” strategy, setting out goals for 2025 linked to the SDGs and the UN-PRI, known as “10FOR25”. The company’s efforts have been recognised in various rankings, including the Corporate Human Rights Benchmark and the Carbon Disclosure Project.

Puma upholds human rights and ILO conventions by training 100,000 employees in women’s empowerment and subcontractor identification: committing 25,000 h annually to community initiatives. Another key issue is workers’ health and safety, for which they will certify their system. Finally, they will improve working conditions to guarantee fair wages and worker representation

To lead the industry in climate action, Puma has set itself the goal of achieving net-zero greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions and aligning with the 1.5 °C limit. The company’s entities and at least 25% of its main suppliers must use 100% renewable energy sources. In 2023, Puma published its first Climate Transition Plan.

In order to implement the circular economy model, they will set up product recovery systems, reduce landfill waste by half, and develop recycled materials for leather, rubber, cotton and polyurethane. They are on track to meet their goal of using recycled or sustainable materials, with eight out of ten products currently made from ‘preferred materials’, as well as their goals of eliminating toxic chemical discharges and minimising plastic pollution. The aim is for 90% of their main suppliers to ensure Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals, improving wastewater quality and emissions standards. They will create a SBTi for biodiversity, source all cotton, leather and viscose from certified sources and refrain from using exotic skins.

4.2. Kering

Kering is a French group of companies specialising in luxury fashion. It owns brands such as Balenciaga, Bottega Veneta, Gucci and Yves Saint Laurent. In 2017, the group adopted the ‘Crafting Tomorrow’s Luxury’ strategy for 2025, which is aligned with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C. This strategy has three pillars: Care, Collaborate and Create. Kering’s commitment has been recognised by various indices, including FTSE4Good and ISS ESG.

Under the “Care” pillar, Kering is taking action to reduce its suppliers’ Environmental Profit and Loss Account (a methodology created by Kering to measure and economically value the group’s environmental footprint) by 40%, as well as reducing its own carbon emissions by 50%. The company has also committed to achieving carbon neutrality. The company aims to reduce its Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions by 90% and its Scope 3 emissions by 70% by 2030. Ninety-five percent of its main raw materials are traceable and 71% exceed Kering’s own standards. The use of animal hides has also been banned. The company’s Biodiversity Strategy has two goals: to have zero negative impact and to regenerate an area six times larger than the impact of the supply chain. Kering has also established a Regenerative Nature Fund and a Nature Climate Fund.

In the “Collaboration” pillar, Kering prioritises business coalitions, equality, and diversity. This is why it is one of the companies with the highest female representation—63% of the workforce—and is the only luxury group included in the Bloomberg Gender Equality Index. It preserves its heritage by protecting craftsmanship by providing training at Brioni’s Scuola di Alta Sartoria, Bottega Veneta’s Scuola dei Maestri Pellettieri, and Gucci’s Alta Scuola de Pelletteria, among others. It also promotes university programmes (the IFM-Kering Sustainability Chair taught nearly 2500 students in sustainability in 2019) and talent (Kering is an official partner of the ANDAM Fashion Prize and recruits graduates from the Parsons BFA Fashion Design Programme).

Finally, the “Create” pillar refers to the creation of sustainable innovations—39 to share with the rest of the industry—promoting programmes like the Young Leaders Advisory Group to foster innovative and inspiring ideas. Its “Coming Full Circle” circularity strategy consists of recycling materials—reused by creatives, students, and individuals—and optimising resources—AI to predict sales and excess stock discounted to employees and in outlets or diverted to other group brands.

4.3. Levi Strauss & Co.

Levi Strauss & Co. (Levi’s) is an American clothing company and a leading manufacturer of denim products. The company’s sustainability strategy comprises 16 goals to be achieved by 2025, which are based on three pillars: climate, consumption and community.

In terms of climate, the goal is to achieve net-zero GHG emissions by 2050. To this end, the company intends to reduce its emissions by 40% across the supply chain and by 90% company-wide, while also utilising 100% renewable energy sources. Water use will be reduced by 50% in drought-prone areas through the promotion of recycling and efficiency plans. Another of Levi’s areas of focus is preventing and reducing the impact on biodiversity in its supply chain, as well as supporting ecosystem protection and restoration programmes. This goal is set out in its new Comprehensive Biodiversity Strategy, which requires investment in at least three projects in watersheds experiencing water scarcity, zero deforestation for high-risk materials, and the restoration of 30% of its environmental footprint in regions with high biodiversity.

In terms of consumption, a strategic circularity plan will be developed by 2026, along with resale and recycling programmes, in line with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s guidelines. The aim is to eliminate waste sent to landfills from the company’s own facilities and to reduce waste sent by major suppliers by 50%. Single-use plastics will be replaced with 100% reusable or recyclable plastics, and fabrics will be certified by Screened Chemistry, which published a guide on the use of chemicals in 2022. By 2030, they will only use ‘preferred fibres’.

Levi’s is committed to improving the health, satisfaction, and engagement of its employees. In 2022, the company updated its Employee Wellness Guide, focusing suppliers on gender equality, workplace climate and employee relationships. The company ensures fair and equitable compensation, has introduced a new paid leave policy and expanded its mental health programme, Lyra Health, in the US. Levi’s considers that the firm is an exciting and inclusive place to build a career. Furthermore, the company invests in the Levi Strauss Foundation and contributes to the community through donations and volunteering.

4.4. H&M Group

The H&M Group (H&M Hennes & Mauritz AB) is a Swedish multinational fast fashion company with brands including H&M, COS, Weekday, Monki and & Other Stories. The group integrates sustainability by identifying five interconnected areas of impact: climate; water and oceans; land and biodiversity; resource use; and society. The group holds numerous certifications, including the Global Organic Textile Standard and the Responsible Wool Standard, and is recognised by indicators such as the Dow Jones Sustainability Index and FTSE4Good.

The H&M Group aims to achieve net-zero GHG emissions by 2040. To this end, it plans to reduce the electricity consumption of its stores by 25% by 2030, use 100% renewable energy sources, and recycle 50% of its materials. In 2023, the group published a Climate Transition Plan focusing on energy efficiency, renewable energy and circularity throughout the supply chain. As well as preserving water quality and ensuring sanitation and hygiene for populations in drought-stricken areas, it will also reduce the risk of extreme weather events and reduce its supply chain’s freshwater consumption by 30% by 2030. In terms of biodiversity, the company uses the AR3T (Avoid, Reduce, Restore, Regenerate, Transform) framework and collaborates on regenerative agriculture and reforestation projects. Currently, 80% of the wood, paper, and cardboard in its packaging is recycled or sustainable, and this figure is set to reach 100% by 2025. Furthermore, the use of plastic in packaging has been reduced by 55%.

In terms of its social impact, it publishes guides and policies to ensure fair and safe working conditions and the personal development of all workers in the value chain. It also offers training and guarantees inclusion and diversity. In 2023, it was ranked seventh in the Forbes global ranking of Companies for Women and first in the clothing and footwear category. It also contributes to the community through donations, volunteering and partnerships with NGOs. In terms of governance, it collaborates with stakeholders, particularly legislators (COP28, ILO), as well as suppliers, to raise standards.

4.5. Burberry

Burberry is a British luxury fashion brand. The company’s “Burberry Beyond” sustainability strategy contains 12 goals based on four pillars: Product, Planet, People and Community. Burberry was the first luxury fashion company to be recognised by the UK Real Living Wage for its commitment to equity.

Regarding the ‘Product’ pillar, the strategy aims to ensure that all major raw materials are certified or traceable by 2029/2033, and to establish a circular business model. Furthermore, the use of plastic in packaging must be eliminated by 2025/26.

In terms of the ‘Planet’ pillar, the company’s goal is to achieve zero GHG emissions throughout its value chain by 2039/2040. To this end, it will reduce its Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 95% by 2026/27 and its Scope 3 emissions by 46% by 2029/30, with the aim of reducing them by 90% by 2039/40. Burberry also aims to eliminate the use of hazardous chemicals and reduce its water usage impact by using water efficiently and identifying “hotspots”, places where water usage is disproportionate to the level of risk. Through its ‘Rethink, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and Recover’ approach, the company will reduce its waste. The company is also protecting nature by combatting deforestation, implementing regenerative agriculture and restoring resources beyond the impact of its supply chain. For instance, Burberry is taking part in a programme to restore ecosystems in China’s Hainan Province.

Regarding the ‘People’ pillar, Burberry empowers its workers by promoting diversity, equity and inclusion, and encouraging representation. The first objective for the supply chain is to ensure ethical standards among suppliers by auditing their practices, raising awareness of modern slavery, and implementing grievance channels. The well-being of workers will also be guaranteed by expanding the Worker Well-being Programme and the Health Programme.

Finally, the ‘Community’ pillar aims to have a positive impact on the lives of 500,000 people. This has already been achieved through the Burberry Inspire programme, which provides spaces for young people to explore their creativity and develop their skills, as well as offering scholarships to students and making donations to vulnerable communities. The company also aims to ensure that 25% of its employees participate in volunteering and charitable activities.

4.6. VF Corporation

VF Corporation is an American clothing and footwear company that owns brands such as Vans, The North Face and Timberland. The group has been included in various rankings, including CDP’s Climate Change A List 2022 and Forbes’ The Best Employers for Diversity 2022.

VF has pledged to achieve gender equality and increase the representation of black, indigenous, and people of colour in leadership positions to 25% by 2030. By 2026, its employees will have dedicated 1 million hours to the local community, and the lives of 1 million workers and their communities will have been improved. This figure will rise to 2 million by 2031. Notably, the VF Worker & Community Development Programme, which provides access to water, healthcare, nutrition, childcare and education, has already benefited over 823,000 people. Regarding human rights in supply chains, mechanisms against gender-based violence will be implemented by 2026, and no worker will receive substandard pay by 2027. In addition, committees will be created to give workers a voice, and suppliers will implement health and safety programmes.

In terms of environmental and climate targets, the firm will reduce Scope 1 and 2 by 55% and Scope 3 by 30% by 2030. Furthermore, all energy sources will be reusable by 2026. The VF Sustainable Materials Vision is based on using traceable, sustainable, or recycled materials, and sets out the company’s approach to circularity. Specifically, all cotton must come from the US, Australia, or sustainable suppliers by 2026; half of all polyester must be recycled by 2026; and all packaging materials must be sustainable or recyclable by 2031. The use of unwanted chemicals will have been eliminated by 2026. Finally, traceability will be guaranteed for five key materials—leather, cotton, wool, natural rubber and synthetics—by 2028.

4.7. PVH Corporation

PVH Corporation is an American fashion group comprising brands such as Tommy Hilfiger, Calvin Klein and Michael Kors. Its ‘Forward Fashion’ strategy focuses on accelerating climate action, advancing human rights, and promoting inclusion and diversity.

To this end, 100% of energy sources are set to be renewable by 2030, while Scope 3 GHG emissions are to be reduced by 30%. All products will contribute to the circular economy and 100% of cotton, viscose and wool will be sourced sustainably by 2025, as will 100% of polyester by 2030. Five collective action projects in drought-stricken areas, planned for 2025, have already been implemented. According to the ZDHC, the use of hazardous chemicals will be eliminated by 2025. Furthermore, by 2030, all suppliers will meet its environmental standards and the group will have eliminated waste and single-use plastics.

In order to advance human rights, 500,000 women are set to be empowered by 2030 and representative committees for workers at key suppliers are to be established by 2025. All suppliers must guarantee living wages and safe, healthy workplaces, eliminate recruitment fees by 2025 and exceed group social standards by 2030.

To promote inclusivity and diversity, the PVH University programme will be expanded to include all group partners and awareness of unconscious bias will be raised. The goal of achieving gender equality in leadership positions by 2026 will also be pursued, with 135,000 individuals set to undergo training.

4.8. NIKE

Founded in the U.S., NIKE Inc. is the world’s largest provider of athletic footwear and apparel. In 2020, the company published 29 goals for 2025 focused on people, the planet, and play. The company’s efforts have been recognised in both the Disability:IN Disability Equality Index and the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index.

In terms of its people, the company has set the following goals: 50% female representation at the corporate level and 45% in leadership positions; 30% representation of racial and ethnic minorities at management level, rising to 35% at the corporate level. It will also invest $10 million in historically Black and Latino academic institutions and facilitate access to corporate positions for top athletes. Equal pay will be guaranteed across gender, race, and ethnicity, and mental health, fertility, family planning, and transgender treatment services will be provided. Nike aims to be among the most inclusive and committed companies and to improve the design of shoes for athletes with disabilities, with products like EasyOn shoes. All vice presidents will undergo inclusive leadership training, and the company will double its investment in the professional development of ethnic and racial minorities in the US and women globally. Furthermore, it will invest $1 trillion in its suppliers. All strategic suppliers must create safe and healthy workplaces, ensure gender equality, and measure and improve employee engagement. Finally, all supply chain facilities must meet Nike’s labour, health, safety and environmental standards.

Regarding the planet, GHG emissions from its facilities will be reduced by 70% through the use of 100% renewable energy and the electrification of transport. Emissions will be maintained in manufacturing and transportation, with a reduction of 0.5 million metric tons. In terms of waste, the company will reduce waste from its distribution centres and offices, with 100% being reallocated and 80% being recycled. It will also increase reconditioning, recycling and donations. Key objectives also include reducing freshwater use by 25% and restoring 13 trillion litres of water to the cotton supply. In addition, clean alternatives will be adopted for ten key chemicals.

In 2022, NIKE supported the Murray–Darling Basin Conservation Project in Australia. This resulted in a significant breeding event for colonial birds and pelicans, improving the habitat of native species—including some that are endangered—and ensuring indigenous control of the area.

In the Game, Nike will promote the participation of girls in children’s activities and allocate $125 million to organisations working towards equality and the elimination of racial discrimination. The goal of increasing the number of employees committed to their communities to 35% and of investing 2% of revenue in community initiatives has already been met.

4.9. Inditex

Industria de Diseño Textil, S.A. (Inditex) is a Spanish multinational textile manufacturing and distribution company that owns brands such as Zara, Massimo Dutti, Stradivarius, Pull & Bear and Bershka. Inditex has been included in both the Financial Times–Statista Top 2024 Diversity Leaders Index and the 2023 Bloomberg Gender Equality Index.

As it advances towards its goal of achieving zero emissions by 2040, the group announced its new sustainability commitments in 2023, which focus on six key areas: (i) fibres, (ii) manufacturing, (iii) climate change, (iv) the circular model, (v) biodiversity, and (vi) community investment.

These goals translate into the following targets for 2025: The company aims to source 100% of linen and polyester from preferred suppliers and reduce water consumption by 25%. The company will support 10 million people through its corporate community investment programme and 3 million people in the supply chain through its ‘Workers at the Centre’ strategy. The company will also provide circularity services. By 2030, it aims to reduce its emissions by over 50%, use only preferred raw materials, and protect or restore 5 million hectares to enhance biodiversity. Its Climate Transition Plan establishes that all of its energy sources will be renewable, and its Biodiversity Strategy focuses on protecting and restoring ecosystems.

The group is characterised by gender and generational diversity: 74% of its employees and 78% of its management positions are women, with a predominance of younger groups—the average age is 30.6 years. It is a horizontal organisation that encourages dialogue with its employees, promotes equality and takes a consumer-centric approach. Its corporate culture, ‘The How Matters’, based on respect, integrity, transparency and responsibility, is implemented through the Global Compliance Model. The 2023–2025 cycle focuses on five impact areas: social dialogue, living wages, respect, health and resilience.

4.10. Adidas

Adidas AG is a German sportswear and footwear manufacturer. In line with its purpose of “Using the power of sport to change lives”, the company developed a series of sustainability goals for 2025 in 2021. The company’s efforts have been recognised in indices such as the S&P Global ESG Evaluation and the Corporate Information Transparency Index.

By the end of 2025, they plan to reduce water intensity in their own operations by 15% and divert 95% of waste. Their supply chain must use renewable energy and reduce water consumption by 40%. Furthermore, 80% of chemicals must be ZDHC-certified at the highest level, and 90% of suppliers with on-site effluent plants must achieve ZDHC’s ‘Wastewater Foundational’ level. Finally, nine out of ten products must be made primarily from preferred materials, and GHG emissions per product must be reduced by 15%. In order to achieve climate neutrality by 2050, GHG emissions across the entire value chain must be reduced by 30% by 2030. Additionally, it has been determined that all bovine wool must originate from DCF supply chains.

In terms of social impact, most of their main suppliers must achieve superior ratings on S-KPIs and guarantee both living wages and equal pay by 2025. They must also establish a system to identify and manage human rights risks.

4.11. Cross-Case Synthesis

The cross-case analysis of the ten multinationals reveals a strong homogeneity across specific dimensions, confirming the existence of institutional isomorphism where firms mimic practices to ensure market legitimacy (see Appendix B). Three strategic actions were identified as present in all case studies:

• Science-based decarbonisation: All companies have aligned their goals with the Paris Agreement (1.5 °C) and utilise the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) as an external validator. Scope 1 and 2 emission reductions are now a consolidated practice, while Scope 3 remains the primary shared challenge.
• Material substitution (preferred materials): There is a universal consensus regarding the transition towards lower-impact raw materials. The strategy is identical across all sub-sectors: reliance on organic/BCI cotton and recycled polyester (rPET). For instance, both direct competitors (Adidas vs. Nike) and indirect competitors (H&M vs. Levi’s) utilise the same certifications as a governance mechanism.
• Supply chain transparency: Driven by regulatory pressure, all firms have adopted Supplier Codes of Conduct and Restricted Substance lists (ZDHC, RSL). The disclosure of supplier lists (Tier 1 and Tier 2) has shifted from being a competitive advantage to a basic operational factor.

Despite normative convergence, the comparative analysis distinguishes three differentiated strategic patterns based on the nature of business model as follows:

✓

The “Sportswear” Cluster: Technical Innovation and Labour Rights.

It includes Nike, Adidas and Puma. This group prioritises technical innovation and labour risk management. Puma (Forever Better) and Adidas stand out for aggressive targets regarding plastic elimination and the use of recycled polyester (e.g., Puma’s RE:FIBRE). Likely due to past reputational crises, this cluster demonstrates the most mature social auditing and worker empowerment systems (e.g., the Fair Wage Network explicitly mentioned by Puma and Adidas). Their narrative links sustainability with sports performance and health.

✓

The “Luxury and Heritage” Cluster: Biodiversity and Natural Capital.

It is configured by Kering and Burberry. This group focuses on regeneration and the sourcing of noble raw materials, rather than purely operational efficiency. Kering leads with its EP&L (Environmental Profit and Loss) methodology and natural regeneration funds, while Burberry emphasises carbon neutrality and the ban on exotic skins. Unlike fast fashion, their circularity strategy relies not on mass post-consumer recycling, but on product longevity, luxury resale (e.g., Kering-Vestiaire Collective collaboration), and the preservation of craftsmanship (Heritage).

✓

The “Mass Retail & Denim” Cluster: Scalable Circular Economy and Water Stewardship.

The group includes Inditex, H&M, Levi’s, PVH and VF. Their priority is the logistical scalability of sustainability and resource efficiency (water/energy) at high volumes. H&M and Inditex lead investments in textile-to-textile recycling technologies and in-store take-back schemes. Levi’s (and by extension PVH/VF) stands out specifically in water stewardship due to the water intensity of denim production. This group faces the significant challenge, attempting to reconcile volume growth with absolute footprint reduction. Their social programmes (e.g., Inditex’s “Workers at the Centre”) focus on mass coverage within extensive supply chains.

Critical analysis reveals areas where rhetoric outpaces practice across the entire sample. In this vein, with regard to living wages, although companies mention fair pay and collaborate with the Fair Labour Association, there is a general lack of quantitative data allowing us to ascertain whether supply chain workers earn a living wage above the legal minimum. Additionally, most circular economy initiatives focus on open-loop recycling (PET bottles to fibre), rather than closed-loop fibre-to-fibre recycling, which suggests greater potential.

5. A Global Vision of Sustainability in the Fashion World

By analysing the sustainability strategies of these companies according to the ten axes, we can identify the most important sustainable practices in the sector that are being used to achieve their goals.

5.1. Stakeholders

The fashion companies analysed collaborate with different stakeholders such as other fashion companies, NGOs, legislators, suppliers, customers and employees. The main objectives of these collaborations are to share concerns and develop sustainable alternatives that allow the creation of synergies, the development of standards and the awareness of the actors involved. Some of the most important strategic alliances include:

-

Better Cotton Initiative (BCI): Initiative to promote standards and sustainable practices in cotton farming.

-

Fashion for Good: Platform to generalise the adoption of responsible and sustainable innovation in the fashion sector.

-

Leather Working Group (LWG): Association dedicated to building a responsible future for leather.

-

Textile Exchange: Non-profit organisation dedicated to promoting the positive impact of the textile industry on climate and nature.

-

Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals Foundation (ZDHC): Foundation to eliminate the discharge of hazardous chemicals into wastewater.

-

Fashion Pact: A pact signed by the 32 largest fashion and luxury companies, representing around 150 brands, to limit their impact on climate, biodiversity and oceans by setting targets between 2030 and 2050.

-

The Microfibre Consortium: Initiative to facilitate the development of projects that minimise the environmental impact of fibre fragmentation, one of the main challenges facing the sector.

-

Clean by Design: Programme to improve energy and water efficiency in the sector.

-

Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC): An alliance of textile corporations that produces according the Higg Index, a standardised tool for measuring the environmental, social and labour impacts of the supply chain.

5.2. Governance and Transparency

The commitment to sustainability has reached corporate architecture, as the companies analysed have created departments specialised in implementing these practices. In addition to the main strategy, it is common for them to develop more specific strategies on issues such as biodiversity or climate, based on each company’s codes and guidelines. These are commitments that go beyond the legal requirements. In addition, they have introduced rewards or bonuses linked to managers’ sustainability performance and provide them with training in this area.

Transparency is essential for consumers to make informed choices and to encourage innovation by allowing them to compare the efforts of companies. Given its importance, public authorities are developing frameworks and legislation to harmonise standards and facilitate the dissemination of information. In Europe, for example, companies must publish a non-financial information statement or sustainability report with their annual accounts to comply with current sustainability directives. In preparing these reports, companies follow voluntary guidelines such as UN-PRI, AA1000, EP&L, GRI or the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). In addition, meeting their tax obligations is seen as an extension of their commitment to sustainability, promoting social and environmental development and improving the quality of public services.

5.3. Decarbonisation

In terms of climate action, sustainable fashion companies have set several targets, subject to the approval of the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi), which affects both the company’s operations and its supply chain. One of the most ambitious targets is to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, which means reducing emissions to near zero and offsetting unavoidable carbon emissions. To achieve this, they recognise that an ‘energy transition’ is needed, moving away from fossil fuels to an electricity model based on renewables and other forms of emissions reduction. The main mechanisms for doing this are:

-

Self-consumption of electricity through the installation of rooftop solar panels and wind farms.

-

Energy efficiency: Facilities with LED lighting, insulated windows, and heating and cooling systems with temperature limits, among other measures, certified by standards such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM). Elimination of the fuels fossils to favour of renewable fuels.

-

Green tariffs: Renewable energy supply contracts.

-

Low-impact logistics alternatives through electrification and transport optimisation.

-

Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs): Long-term contracts for the purchase of electricity from a renewable energy producer. One type of PPA is the virtual PPA. There is no direct delivery of energy, but the parties agree on a contract price and exchange payments based on the difference between the contract price and the electricity market price.

-

Energy Attributes Certificates (EACs): Documents certifying that the energy comes from clean and renewable sources. The certificate used in the European Union is called a Guarantee of Origin (GO). In the US and Canada, it is the Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) and the International Renewable Energy Certificate (I-REC).

-

Green bond: A type of debt security issued to raise funds for environmental or climate change projects.

-

Carbon sequestration: Through forest restoration projects, storage in products—carbon captured by trees is stored in wooden buildings—or permanent storage—carbon is captured from the air and stored in a stable form.

5.4. Biodiversity Conservation and Restoration

The fashion industry has a significant impact on the ecosystems and nature on which it depends for raw materials and resources. Deforestation is the main cause of biodiversity loss and is linked to the extraction of materials such as leather, natural rubber, wood and materials of animal origin. For this reason, these companies are committed to banning the use of exotic skin and promoting the use of recycled or certified materials—Leather Working Group (LWG), Deforestation and Conversion Free (DCF), Textile Exchange’s Responsible Down Standard. These standards or certificates allow product traceability, which means knowing where and how a product has been made, including each of its components, from the raw materials to the consumer3.

They also use the Avoid, Reduce, Restore, Regenerate, Transform (AR³T)4 framework and carry out restoration projects—of forests, landscapes, watersheds—and regenerative agriculture. Collaboration with NGOs and other companies is essential, such as the Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance (LEAF) coalition, or the Deforestation-Free Call to Action for Leather.

5.5. Circularity

The circular economy is a model of production and consumption that involves renting, sharing, reusing, renewing, repairing and recycling existing materials and products to add value (Hadi et al., 2025; Siwiec et al., 2025). This extends the life cycle of clothing and promotes its durability (Kwilinski et al., 2025; Mohammadian et al., 2025). Circularity requires cooperation alongside the entire value chain: reducing and recycling waste by consumers and sourcing from responsible suppliers, participating in initiatives such as Fashion for Good or the New Cotton Project, etc.

To achieve this system, companies rely on sustainable raw materials, designs, production and distribution processes. Companies encourage innovation and join forces with start-ups, projects, institutions, academics and other companies to develop alternatives and bring them to scale. They also commit to using “preferred materials or fibres” or those from certified sources—mainly recycled polyester, organic and recycled cotton, recycled rubber and sustainable leather. They also follow sustainable manufacturing guidelines such as the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s Jeans Redesign Guidelines. This is an initiative based on the elimination of waste and pollution, circularity, and the regeneration of nature, because jeans use a lot of resources—water, pesticides and energy—and their design makes them difficult to recycle.

In addition, firms have established an infrastructure based on the recycling of products, being that closed-loop recycling is more sustainable than the alternative. In this process, a product material can be used and later become the same or a similar product indefinitely without losing its properties during the recycling process. However, if there are limitations due to the degradation of its properties, the product can be reused in other industries—known as open-loop recycling or recycling of open circuits. In this regard, companies have product take-back programmes where customers deposit their clothes in bins to be donated, if their condition allows it, or recycled.

Circularity does not stop here; it also reaches the customer. To prolong the life of their products, companies are investing in second-hand exchange and clothing rental platforms, both their own and those of third parties, such as Vestiaire Collective or MyWardrobeHQ. They also aim to raise awareness among consumers and encourage them to use their products for longer by providing information on how to preserve and clean the items, as well as repair and upcycle5 services. Finally, companies have models to match supply and demand based on sales forecasts to reduce inventory and waste. In this context, companies are exploring on-demand fashion models, where garments are made to order, and the use of technology to scan body measurements or try on garments virtually. The aim is to reduce returns and avoid product waste.

5.6. Reducing Waste and Pollution from the Use of Plastics

Given the large amount of waste that ends up in landfills or is incinerated, the sustainable practices of the companies analysed advocate the reduction in waste generated at all stages, through recycling, the donation of products and materials—to design schools or non-profit initiatives—or, where appropriate, their use by other companies in the cluster—throwing away is always the last resource—. This is recognised by the TRUE Zero Waste certification.

Another concern is the pollution caused by using plastics. For this reason, these companies have joined initiatives such as The Microfibre Consortium and are developing others to prevent the release of fibres into water, both during the manufacture of garments and when they are washed. In addition, they are committed to eliminating single-use plastics, replacing plastic packaging and bags with alternatives, such as sustainable cotton or paper, holding a cardboard recycling certificate—Green to Pack or Pack4Good—and using reusable cutlery in their offices. In addition, they have started to raise consumer awareness by charging customers for recycled bags in stores to encourage them to use reusable bags.

5.7. Elimination of Hazardous Chemicals and Preservation of Water Quality

The fashion groups analysed consider that the development of a sustainable chemical management plan is essential to preserve water quality. The companies draw up their Restricted Substance List (RSL) and submit their supply centres—where water treatment takes place—to ZDHC, Apparel and Footwear International Restricted (AFIRM) and Screened Chemistry certifications in order to certify that the chemicals used are safe, that potentially hazardous substances have been eliminated, and that the waste discharged into water complies with standards. They also develop water use efficiency plans, with specifications for water stressed areas, to reduce freshwater consumption.

5.8. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion: Employee Engagement

For the companies analysed, it is essential to ensure equality, equity and inclusion of gender, LGBTQIA+, racial, ethnic and functional diversity within the company and throughout the value chain. To achieve this, multinationals offer employment and training opportunities to underrepresented groups, establish Employee Resource Groups (ERGs)6 and promote safe workplaces, for example by developing inclusive language guides and training senior management on inclusivity. Some gender practices include empowering women through training, social policies for paid leave to break down the prejudices they face as women in the work place, and the mechanisms against gender violence and harassment in the workplace. They also ensure these values towards consumers and society in general by supporting emerging designers from diverse backgrounds and offering inclusive sizing and products.

They promote personal and professional development and well-being (mental, physical and financial) through training programmes, mobility opportunities, workplace flexibility, work–life balance and family planning, fertility, and medical services. Employee satisfaction surveys are often conducted. They also guarantee fair wages—assessed by ISAE 3000 or Fair Wage Network—and provide employee rights and grievance procedures.

5.9. Responsible Supply Chains

Due to the importance of the supply chain in the carbon footprint—it generates the majority of social and environmental impacts—fashion companies consider it essential to include it in the business strategy. For this reason, the companies analysed are funding the decarbonization of their supply chain and promoting the responsible use of water and chemicals. They also support associations to raise awareness among suppliers, such as GIZ Bangladesh, Clean Energy and the Green Energy Initiative, by Design or the Alliance for Toilet Stewardship Impact Accelerator (AWS), and provide training on gender-based violence, modern slavery and labour rights. They also establish and adhere to environmental and labour policies and guidelines that are aligned with international standards.

They require their suppliers to provide safe and healthy workplaces, ensure worker representation and welfare, and provide channels for grievance redress. They are subject to audits—Fair Labour Association (FLA), Global Living Wage Coalition (GLWC)—to ensure that wages are decent and meet standards—Social and Labor Convergence Program (SLCP), Higg Facility Environmental Module (Higg FEM)—so much so that they enter into contractual relationships with suppliers to ensure responsible sourcing. If they fail the assessments, they are required to remedy the deficiencies, under penalty of termination of the contractual relationship.

Globalisation has produced an increase in migratory flows, leading to the derivative of the construction site migrant in some industries. In order to get workers from another region, contractors depend on labour brokers who charge fees to people looking for work. These companies are required to apply the “employer country principle” or the “employer pays” principle, which states that no worker should pay for work, to ensure responsible recruitment and to reimburse workers for any unlawfully paid fees.

5.10. Community: Donations and Volunteering

Companies, mainly through their foundations, engage in voluntary activities that go beyond the value chain to support communities and contribute to sustainable development. These are mostly focused on education, disaster relief and the preservation of the atmosphere. This work on solidarity and philanthropy is translated into volunteering, donations (earthquakes in Morocco and Turkey, humanitarian crisis in Ukraine) and alliances with NGOs such as Save The Children or WWF and academic institutions to develop talent.

6. Discussion: Lessons and Perspectives

The notion of sustainability, part of the Brutland Report’s definition of sustainable development, emphasises the need to ensure that current and future needs are met through sustainable economic growth. To do this, organisations need to be aware of the impact of their decisions on ESG dimensions, while striving for growth that preserves and sustains natural ecosystems, guarantees human rights and creates stable and resilient societies.

In the fashion industry, fast fashion is the dominant business model. It succeeds by offering customers innovative, low-cost products through mass production of trendy clothes. This is made possible by moving production to developing countries and streamlining the manufacturing and distribution process. Insatiable demand and excessive consumption have turned the fashion sector into the second biggest polluter. In addition, the social impact of low wages and abusive working conditions for workers in the supply chain is enormous. This is reflected in the Rana Plaza incident, which highlighted the need for transparency and accountability from suppliers. The acceleration of supply chain depletion of natural resources requires a change in the industry and the model that should be adopted is that of sustainable fashion. This, far from causing damage, improves society and the environment, thanks to recycling, the use of sustainable materials, fair and safe working conditions and the reduction in clothing production and consumption. More and more consumers and companies are becoming aware of this movement and there are numerous initiatives and projects, such as the Fashion Pact.

In this line, our results show that large groups in the fashion industry have a comprehensive sustainability strategy that addresses the main challenges of the sector, implementing different initiatives and collaboration models on the most relevant issues from a social, governance and environmental perspective of corporate behaviour. However, this evidence complements the previous literature by showing progress in the sustainable commitment of fashion companies, as demonstrated by Caniato et al. (2012), authors who observed the great interest of these companies in changes that would strengthen their economies of scale. Moreover, the current strategic axes are more ambitious than the initial practices observed in works such as that of Todeschini et al. (2020), which focused on responding to external pressures and generating economic advantages.

In this respect, we extend the findings of De Ponte et al. (2023) and Colucci and Vecchi (2024), among others, by noting that there is a comprehensive strategy in the management of resources (energy, water, materials, etc.) and a commitment to a circular model oriented towards the decarbonisation of the company as an action in the fight against climate change and the conservation of biodiversity, while trying to respond to the major environmental problems provoked by the industry.

In the social dimension, we extend the findings of Macchion et al. (2017), Koeksal et al. (2017), Dordevic et al. (2019), and Aibar-Guzmán et al. (2023), among others, which confirm the existence of a collaborative strategy with the suppliers of these companies to ensure respect for labour and human rights. In addition to the development of audits and the implementation of codes of ethics and conduct, among other initiatives; it should be noted that these companies have a policy of diversity, equality and inclusion, which represents an explicit commitment to the problems of integration in today’s world, related to issues of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. It is therefore important to note that these companies are not alone in this respect.

Regarding governance, since cooperation between companies and organisations is essential to develop standards, raise awareness among suppliers and develop innovations, sustainability is implemented in a comprehensive and transversal manner, ensuring transparency in the disclosure of information. In addition, they define the framework for the company and its suppliers by developing codes and guidelines that go beyond the legal requirements.

Therefore, it should be noted that the current sustainability practices of fashion companies go beyond the approach observed by De Brito et al. (2008) in that they are responsive to mitigate the consequences of NGO attacks, either to fight for better working conditions or to influence companies to adopt new environmentally sustainable policies. In this regard, although the practices imply a reconciliation between the challenges to be addressed and the bottom line, in general, these practices are different from the initial initiatives aimed at improving the brand image (Faisal & Ekawanto, 2021) and the economic–financial indicators (Caniato et al., 2012). Thus, it has been observed that the initiatives related to each strategic axis of sustainability lead to improvements in the environmental and social performance of the fashion industry, while leading to the optimisation of resources, the reduction in waste and pollution, and job satisfaction, among others, with a positive impact on the results.

These situations are positively influenced by changes in the governance and organisational structures of these companies in favour of more agile and flexible models that, while respecting compliance with standards and laws, go beyond bureaucratic rigidity and mere compliance through more innovative structures and projects.

In addition, the need for collaboration at sector level was identified in the different strategic axes, which seems to favour greater coordination between industry players and ensure that sustainability values, meanings and practices are shared and go beyond the competitive approaches that have characterised the industry. While the collaboration that exists at the sector level reduces the possibility of differentiating between competitors on the basis of sustainability, partially contradicting the expectations of previous studies (e.g., Hallstedt et al., 2013; Clancy et al., 2015; Macchion et al., 2017), it favours the implementation of sustainability projects with high funding requirements and very long-term returns, which have always been a major obstacle to the full commitment of senior management to sustainability (Seuring & Müller, 2008).

One of the most ambitious targets is the decarbonisation of the value chain, with the main aim of ensuring that all energy sources used are renewable. In terms of biodiversity, ecosystem restoration projects are being implemented, the AR³T rubric is being used, and product traceability is being ensured. Toxic chemicals and single-use plastics have also been eliminated—in favour of recycled packaging—and alternatives are being developed to prevent the release of microplastics to minimise water pollution, which is one of the main issues facing the sector. The fashion industry also knows that it has to lead with a strategy of circularity that involves all actors: from suppliers to distributors, starting with sustainable designs made from recycled materials. In addition, they are committed to ensuring that sustainable fashion guarantees equality, inclusion and equity for all their workers, and to promoting worker engagement, including that of the supply chain. To this end, their value chain and matrices are audited to ensure that they comply with the standards. Finally, to contribute to the community in which they operate, the companies contribute to social work through donations and volunteering.

In summary, our evidence shows that the fashion industry is moving towards a sustainable business model. However, it seems necessary for companies to pay more attention to social and cultural contexts in order to adapt their corporate policies to the dynamics of the workplace and the integration of ethics and corporate values. In this respect, the business approach is very much based on critical areas or locations in terms of environmental or social risks arising from their main geographical contexts. In this sense, in addition to a global policy, considering the specificities of each context could make the company’s contribution to communities more effective.

On the other hand, it has been found that fashion companies are making significant efforts to move towards a circular model in order to reconcile the constitutive tension between the logic of capital accumulation—historically based on volume—and planetary boundaries. However, many authors believe that the general public does not take into account the environmental and social problems caused by the fashion industry (Adamkiewicz et al., 2022) and that it is necessary to raise consumer awareness about waste management in order to achieve a new fashion industry of tomorrow (Papamichael et al., 2022) by considering cleaner production scenarios (Shirvanimoghaddam et al., 2020) and fashion forecasting for circular fashion (Colasante & D’Adamo, 2021), where collection and recycling of garments are not necessarily the most optimal options (D’Adamo et al., 2022).

In this vein, our evidence suggests that companies are operationalizing strategies of ecological modernization, investment in textile-to-textile recycling technologies, take-back initiatives, etc., suggesting a proactive reconfiguration of their dynamic capabilities. Complementarily, technological innovation is observed to be acting as the primary mechanism to mitigate the negative externalities of large-scale production. Moreover, the focus on preferred materials and recycled synthetics, combined with the strategies regarding regenerative agriculture and water stewardship, demonstrates a transition from risk mitigation toward shared value creation. In addition, while the challenge of volume persists, the widespread adoption of SBTi and the integration of impact metrics into executive remuneration indicate that sustainability has shifted from a peripheral practice to a central strategic imperative, capable of driving organisational resilience amidst the pressures of a transforming global market.

7. Conclusions

Our study of the world’s leading fashion companies has enabled us to identify the most important sustainable practices in the industry. All the companies studied have sustainability strategies in place, and their progress is documented in detailed reports so that stakeholders can see how they are progressing. The efforts they are making to achieve their ambitious ESG goals—regarding the environment, employees and the community in which they operate, among others—have been recognised in various sustainability rankings. Moreover, although fast fashion is the dominant business model in the industry, offering customers innovative, low-cost products through the mass production of trendy clothes, which subsequently accelerates the depletion of natural resources and worsens labour conditions, our evidence confirms that fashion firms are implementing strategies, goals, programmes and initiatives that avoid causing environmental damage and improve societal well-being, thanks to recycling, the use of sustainable materials, fair and safe working conditions, and inclusive training programmes, among other initiatives.

These empirical findings indicate widespread strategic convergence, characterised by the standardisation of governance mechanisms and the adoption of eco-efficiency measures, particularly regarding decarbonisation and material substitution. However, these advancements also suggest an industry-wide trajectory of ecological modernisation focused on mitigating the negative externalities of production. This trajectory needs to evolve into a more radical paradigm shift towards fully sustainable business models, but these are constrained by the sector’s fundamental operational logic, which continues to prioritise volume-based growth.

These findings have several theoretical and practical implications. Our analysis of sustainable practices in ten fashion firms contributes to the academic literature by providing in-depth, real-world examples that demonstrate how sustainability can be integrated into fashion business strategy. This informs theory, practice and future studies on the relationship between business operations and sustainable development. Moreover, the findings of this study offer several implications for sustainability management theory within the fashion industry. First, the study extends the application of Institutional Theory to the domain of global value chains. The observed homogeneity in sustainability strategies—such as the universal adoption of SBT and identical certification schemes—suggests that governance has become a mechanism of legitimacy. This confirms that mimetic isomorphism is the dominant force driving sector-wide standards, where companies copy market leaders not necessarily for operational efficiency, but to reduce uncertainty and secure reputational capital. Second, the results critically engage with the arguments of ecological modernization. While the analysed firms demonstrate a capability for “technological fixing” (e.g., recycled materials, renewable energy), the data points of a paradox scenario at the corporate level show that efficiency gains per unit are offset by the strategic imperative of volume growth. This implies that ecological modernization provides a useful framework for understanding incremental improvements but is theoretically insufficient to explain how the industry can achieve absolute decoupling without addressing its underlying linear business logic.

From a practical perspective, our results should be considered by industry professionals and regulators to understand the reality of large corporate groups and the suitability of their model. In this vein, the results offer granular evidence of technical feasibility, helping to define the baseline for future action. Specifically, the identified gap between environmental maturity and social compliance (living wages) signals precisely where binding due diligence regulations are most urgently needed to level the playing field, moving the industry from voluntary commitments to mandatory standards. In addition, their practices can be considered in benchmarking processes or used as models or case studies for smaller companies. Concretely, this study codifies the state of the art in fashion sustainability. By identifying the convergent practices of market leaders, the analysis provides a replicable roadmap for other companies seeking to accelerate their transition without incurring the costs of trial and error. Similarly, academics can explore the medium- and long-term implications of these models for the planet and society.

However, there are several limitations to this research that should be addressed in future studies. For example, it would be advisable to conduct comparative studies between the practices of sustainable fashion companies and those of fast fashion companies to determine the degree of convergence of their business models. In addition, new studies should be carried out to determine the degree of progress made by fashion companies along the ten strategic axes analysed. Finally, while this research relies on corporate disclosures, which inherently carry a potential risk of decoupling between policy and practice, this concern is significantly mitigated by the fact that the selected companies are subject to rigorous third-party assurance and external verification processes.