The Real Carbon Hotspots in Fashion Are Overlooked

Upstream textile mills are the largest source of fashion emissions

The biggest climate impact in fashion sits far from the shop floor. It comes from the textile mills that spin, weave, knit, dye, and finish fabric. These upstream sites produce well over half of the sector’s supply chain emissions. Yet many brands and retailers still focus their climate efforts elsewhere.

For UK businesses in the fashion and apparel sector, this imbalance matters. It affects compliance planning, supplier relationships, and cost control. It also shapes how credible net zero claims will look to customers, lenders, and procurement teams.

Retail stores, packaging, and customer delivery are visible. They are also relatively small sources of emissions. By contrast, mills that prepare yarn and process fabric burn large amounts of energy every day. Much of that energy comes from coal or gas. The result is a carbon footprint that dwarfs downstream activity.

Understanding where emissions really sit is now a commercial issue. Investors and regulators expect clearer Scope 3 reporting. Large buyers are starting to push carbon requirements through tenders. As a result, SMEs that sell into fashion supply chains cannot treat upstream emissions as someone else’s problem.

This article explains what has changed, where emissions arise, and why textile processing matters most. It also sets out what the data means for UK businesses that buy, sell, or rely on apparel products.

The scale of emissions across the fashion supply chain

Fashion is one of the highest emitting global industries. Recent estimates put total sector emissions at around 944 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2023. That represents close to 2 percent of global emissions.

When people quote higher figures, they often cite older ranges of 8 to 10 percent. Those ranges included broader economic activity and different accounting methods. What matters for businesses is not the debate over percentages. It is the fact that emissions remain high and are rising again.

Production volumes continue to grow. As a result, total emissions increased by about 7.5 percent in 2023. This trend runs counter to public climate commitments made by many brands.

The bulk of these emissions sit upstream. In greenhouse gas reporting terms, they fall under Scope 3. This category covers emissions from purchased goods and services, transport, and supplier operations.

Lifecycle assessments repeatedly show that material production and fabric processing dominate the footprint of most garments. Retail operations, offices, and ecommerce delivery usually account for less than 10 percent combined.

According to pooled analysis from industry reports, raw material production accounts for roughly 38 percent of emissions. Yarn preparation adds another 8 percent. Fabric production, including dyeing and finishing, pushes the upstream share beyond two thirds.

This pattern holds across fibre types. It also applies whether garments are sold cheaply or at a premium. Energy use at the mill level remains the core problem.

Why spinning, dyeing, and finishing are so energy intensive

Textile processing involves heat, pressure, and chemicals. These steps require constant energy input. Spinning machines run continuously. Dyeing baths must reach high temperatures. Drying and finishing rely on steam and hot air.

In many producing countries, electricity grids remain carbon heavy. Coal still plays a major role in parts of Asia. Gas is also common, especially for on site boilers.

Supply chains amplify the impact. A typical cotton garment may involve cotton grown in India, spun in China, dyed in Turkey, sewn in Bangladesh, then shipped to Europe. Each step adds emissions.

Lifecycle breakdowns help illustrate where impacts arise. Around 20 percent of a garment’s footprint comes from manufacturing. Within that stage, spinning contributes roughly 43 percent. Weaving or knitting adds around 34 percent. Finishing adds a smaller share on paper, but still requires large energy inputs. Sewing makes up the remainder.

When yarn preparation and wet processing are counted across the whole sector, their share rises sharply. Dyeing and bleaching alone account for more than a third of emissions in some analyses.

Transport and consumer use do matter. However, they rarely outweigh the emissions locked into fabric before a garment is even sewn.

The role of fibre choice and rising polyester use

Fibre selection has a direct impact on upstream emissions. Polyester now dominates global fibre markets. In 2024, it accounted for about 57 percent of total fibre production.

Polyester is produced from fossil fuels. Its manufacturing process is energy intensive. As a result, it contributes around two thirds of material related greenhouse gas emissions in fashion.

This shift has accelerated since the Paris Agreement. Global fibre production rose by roughly 34 million tonnes between 2015 and 2024. Much of that increase came from virgin polyester.

On a per item basis, the difference is clear. A basic cotton T shirt produces around 2.1 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent. A polyester shirt can produce double that amount.

Recycled fibres reduce emissions compared to virgin alternatives. However, supply remains limited. Prices can also be volatile. For many mills, switching inputs requires new equipment and stable demand.

The commercial pressure to keep unit costs low often pushes buyers towards cheaper fibres. That decision ripples back to mills and locks in higher emissions.

What recent reports say about progress and setbacks

Several industry bodies now track fashion emissions annually. Their findings point to a gap between ambition and delivery.

The Apparel Impact Institute reported that total sector emissions reached 944 million tonnes in 2023. It linked this rise to increased production and continued reliance on virgin polyester.

More than 600 brands have now adopted science based targets for emissions reduction. In 2019, only a handful had done so. Despite that progress, absolute emissions still rose.

Textile Exchange has also reported a rise in greenhouse gas emissions since its 2019 baseline. It notes some improvement in material strategies, with more brands addressing fibre impacts. Even so, total emissions have not yet fallen.

There are positive examples at supplier level. Some large mills have invested heavily in renewable energy and efficiency upgrades. One Pakistan based manufacturer has committed over 100 million dollars to solar and wind projects.

Brand led finance schemes offer another route. Funds linked to major retailers aim to support electric boilers, heat recovery, and on site renewables at mills. The sums involved remain small compared to what is needed.

Why downstream fixes no longer satisfy regulators and buyers

For years, many brands focused on visible actions. These included switching to recycled packaging or offsetting delivery emissions. Such steps are easy to communicate. They are also limited in effect.

Retail operations typically account for around 6 percent of total fashion emissions. Even dramatic cuts here leave the main problem untouched.

Regulators are now asking tougher questions. In the UK and EU, large companies face closer scrutiny of Scope 3 disclosures. Claims that ignore supplier emissions carry growing legal and reputational risk.

Public buyers and major retailers are also changing tender criteria. Carbon data now sits alongside price and quality in many procurement processes.

For SMEs, this shift has direct consequences. If you supply into fashion value chains, your own upstream footprint may be assessed. If you buy from fashion brands, their approach to suppliers affects cost and availability.

Ignoring textile mills is therefore no longer a safe option.

Practical implications for UK SMEs in fashion supply chains

Upstream emissions affect businesses in several ways. Cost is the most immediate.

Energy intensive mills face rising fuel prices and carbon related charges. These costs feed into fabric prices. Volatility is likely to increase where mills rely on coal or gas.

Compliance is another factor. Companies required to report under streamlined energy and carbon reporting or future sustainability standards must gather better supplier data. Poor visibility creates reporting gaps.

Supply chain risk also grows. Mills that cannot invest in cleaner energy may lose contracts with global brands. That can disrupt supply, especially for specialist fabrics.

Tenders increasingly ask for evidence of emissions reduction. Even where SMEs are not legally required to cut emissions, customers may expect clear plans.

Finally, reputational exposure matters. Claims about responsible sourcing ring hollow if most emissions sit unaddressed upstream.

Key facts UK businesses should understand

• Total fashion emissions reached about 944 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2023.
• More than half of sector emissions come from upstream activities such as fibre and fabric production.
• Raw material production contributes around 38 percent of emissions, with yarn and fabric processing adding a significant share.
• Polyester accounts for roughly 57 percent of global fibre output and around two thirds of material related emissions.
• Retail and distribution typically represent less than 10 percent of total emissions.
• Over 600 brands have set climate targets, yet absolute emissions increased in 2023.
• Energy at textile mills remains heavily dependent on coal and gas in key producing regions.

How SBS views the challenge from a consultancy perspective

From our work with UK SMEs, one issue stands out. Many businesses feel removed from upstream emissions. They assume mills sit outside their control.

In practice, influence often exists. Contract length, order volumes, and price structures shape what suppliers can invest in.

Short term buying decisions encourage mills to focus on output, not efficiency. Longer contracts can support investment in cleaner energy and equipment.

Data sharing is another lever. Asking suppliers for basic energy and fuel information is a first step. It helps with reporting and highlights risk hotspots.

Fewer fibres and simpler finishes can also cut emissions. Complex treatments usually require more energy. Design teams can make choices that reduce impact and cost.

For reporting, it helps to focus on material categories first. You do not need perfect data on every supplier. Start where spend and emissions are highest.

We also see growing value in collaboration. SMEs can join sector schemes or align with customer requirements rather than acting alone.

If you are starting out, our overview of net zero planning for SMEs sets out a practical approach. For those facing buyer questionnaires, our guidance on Scope 3 reporting support may help.

Sources and further information

Several organisations provide detailed analysis of fashion emissions and supplier impacts.

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero explains the UK approach to carbon reporting on its website.

The Apparel Impact Institute publishes annual updates on sector emissions and finance needs through its public reports.

Textile Exchange tracks fibre production and material impacts in its market and climate reports.

For a European perspective, the European Environment Agency outlines consumption related emissions in its carbon footprint data.

Keeping an eye on these sources can help businesses anticipate cost, compliance, and supply chain changes.