H&M and Kering cut emissions, fashion’s climate targets still lag

The loudest climate talk in fashion has never been the problem. The problem is whether the numbers keep moving after the pledges are made, and BoF’s latest climate analysis shows the split clearly: H&M and Kering have cut emissions by more than a third, while most of fashion’s biggest brands are still behind the timetable they wrote for themselves.

That gap matters because fashion’s hardest emissions sit far from the storefront. Scope 3 covers the indirect emissions across a company’s value chain, from raw materials and manufacturing to transport and product use, and it is the messiest part of the business to clean up. The brands that are actually making progress are the ones going beyond glossy targets and into supplier coordination, material choices, and post-sale product life.

Where the climate pain really lives

The industry’s emissions story is not a simple story of factory smokestacks or store lighting. McKinsey defines Scope 3 as the emissions released across a company’s entire value chain, and in fashion that is where the heavy lifting sits. McKinsey’s fashion-climate work says Tier 2 production alone can account for 45% to 70% of a brand’s Scope 3 emissions, which is a brutal reminder that the biggest climate lever is often several steps removed from the logo on the label.

That is why so many brands can set targets without seeing quick results. If a company wants real cuts, it has to influence dye houses, mills, chemical processes, logistics, and the afterlife of the garment. A polished sustainability campaign does not fix that. A supplier contract, a material shift, and a production redesign might.

What H&M is actually doing

H&M Group says its climate work stretches across its operations and its value chain, from raw materials to what happens after products are used. That matters because it signals a broader view than store-level efficiency or offset-heavy branding. BoF has also treated H&M’s sustainability reporting as unusually visible at a moment when many companies have gotten quieter about emissions goals, which makes H&M stand out not just for what it says, but for the fact that it keeps saying it publicly.

This is the difference between a brand treating climate as a communications line and a brand treating it as operating procedure. If the work reaches raw materials and post-use systems, it has to affect design, sourcing, logistics, and resale or recycling pathways, not just marketing language. That kind of reach is where climate claims begin to look like infrastructure instead of reputation management.

Why Kering sits in the leader column

Kering has put itself in the same leadership lane, saying it uses science-based reduction targets and plays a leading role in the Fashion Pact. That combination matters because science-based targets force the conversation toward measurable reductions instead of soft commitments. A leader’s job in this space is not to sound concerned. It is to make the supply chain behave differently.

The Fashion Pact angle matters too. Kering’s role there puts it inside a broader coalition model, which is what fashion needs when one company’s emissions profile depends on mills, dye houses, textile producers, and transport networks that serve many brands at once. Climate progress in fashion is not a solo sport, and Kering’s posture reflects that reality better than the usual one-brand sustainability performance.

The brands still missing the real levers

The laggards are not failing because they have no targets. They are failing because target-setting has outrun delivery. The missing levers are the boring, industrial ones: supplier collaboration, cleaner materials, lower-impact production, and a harder push on the parts of the value chain that brands do not fully control but still depend on.

That is where McKinsey’s point about Tier 2 production lands hardest. If nearly half to 70% of a brand’s Scope 3 emissions can sit in that layer alone, then vague promises about “reducing impact” are not enough. Brands need to work directly with mills and upstream suppliers, or the emissions math barely changes.

What the sector keeps avoiding

Global Fashion Agenda has been blunt about the risk. If fashion stays on its current path, the sector will miss its 2030 emissions reduction targets by 50%. That is not a minor timing slip. It means the industry is nowhere near the pace needed to make its own promises credible.

The Fashion CEO Agenda 2025, launched on September 25, 2025 during New York Climate Week, was designed as a strategic resource for leaders of fashion brands and retailers. It frames the industry’s priorities around five forces: innovation, capital, courage, incentives, and regulation. That list tells you exactly where the bottleneck sits. Technology alone will not fix this. Neither will capital alone. Brands need the nerve to change sourcing and design, the incentives to reward lower-carbon decisions, and regulation to stop the most evasive behavior from being the easiest.

Why this is still a business story, not just a climate one

BoF’s broader sustainability coverage has increasingly treated climate as a business survival issue, and that framing fits the current moment. If fashion cannot reduce emissions through its own supply chain, it is not just missing a target. It is building a business model that depends on borrowing time from the climate ledger.

McKinsey’s guidance has long argued that the industry needs coordinated action across the full value chain to align with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5-degree pathway. That is the real dividing line now. The leaders are moving into the hard parts: science-based targets, supply-chain engagement, and a view of emissions that reaches from raw fiber to product use. The rest are still stuck in the easier part, where a target can look serious even when the operating model does not.