Reading Impact Reports

What an impact report should contain

A real impact report — sometimes called a sustainability report, ESG report, or CSR report — is a document where a brand discloses what it did across environmental, social, and governance areas. The good ones include:

- Total emissions in tonnes CO2e, broken down by Scope 1 (own operations), Scope 2 (electricity), Scope 3 (supply chain). - Water use and wastewater treatment. - Waste generated and percentage diverted from landfill. - % of factories audited; what audits found. - % of workers paid a living wage. - % of materials that are recycled, organic, or certified. - Year-over-year comparison so you can see actual change.

If a 50-page sustainability report has 3 graphs and 47 photos of forests, that's a brochure, not a report.

Scope 1, 2, and 3 explained

When brands report carbon emissions, they use 3 'scopes':

- Scope 1: Direct emissions from things the brand owns (their offices, their delivery trucks). - Scope 2: Indirect emissions from electricity the brand buys. - Scope 3: Emissions from everything in the brand's supply chain — manufacturing, materials, shipping, customer washing, end-of-life.

Scope 3 is usually 80–95% of a fashion brand's total emissions. So a brand that proudly reports being 'carbon neutral in our offices' is talking about 5% of their footprint.

Watch for: brands disclosing Scope 1 and 2 but not Scope 3. That's the most common move in sustainability reporting. The real number is in Scope 3, and it's usually huge and growing.

Real progress vs PR fluff

Here's how to tell the difference:

Real progress looks like: - 'Our Scope 3 emissions decreased 8% this year.' (specific, measurable, comparable) - 'We audited 92% of Tier 1 suppliers; 14 failed and were given 90 days to remediate.' (named consequences) - 'We paid living wages to 64% of supply chain workers, up from 51% last year.' (year-on-year, with the bad number admitted).

PR fluff looks like: - 'We're committed to a sustainable future.' - 'Our latest collection uses recycled materials.' (How much? In what %?) - 'We invested in nature-based solutions.' (Who? Verified by whom?) - 'We're proud to be carbon neutral.' (Through real reduction or offsets you can't verify?)

A strong sustainability report is honest about failure. If everything in the report is positive, it's marketing.

The carbon-offset trap

Many brands claim 'carbon neutrality' by buying carbon offsets — paying someone else to plant trees or protect a forest. The idea is fine in theory. In practice, offsets are riddled with problems.

A 2023 investigation by The Guardian and Die Zeit found that more than 90% of forest carbon offsets sold by the world's largest certifier may not represent real reductions. Trees were claimed as 'protected' that were never going to be cut down. Trees were planted that died within years.

Good offsets exist, but they're rare. The real question to ask is: how much has the brand reduced its own emissions before offsetting? A brand whose actual emissions went up 10% this year but bought offsets to claim 'neutrality' is greenwashing. A brand whose actual emissions went down 30% AND offset the rest with verified projects is doing real work.