Sustainability Measures of the Apparel Industry: A Longitudinal Analysis of Apparel Corporations’ Sustainability Efforts

Abstract

Climate change is a paramount challenge of our era, with profound implications for various sectors, including the apparel industry, known for its extensive environmental footprint throughout the entire clothing lifecycle. This study assesses the industry’s carbon emission trends using six years of data (2017–2022) focusing on Scope 1 and Scope 2. Employing a one-way repeated measures ANOVA, this study evaluates the impact of sustainability strategies on emissions. The results indicate a notable decrease in Scope 2 and overall carbon emissions, while Scope 1 emissions remain relatively unchanged despite a downward trend. These findings underscore the success of current sustainability measures in reducing emissions, especially in Scope 2, and highlight the need for ongoing and intensified efforts in Scope 1 areas. This research offers valuable insights into the apparel industry’s environmental impact, emphasizing the critical role of continued strategic actions in addressing climate change.

1. Introduction

Anthropogenic climate change primarily stems from the increased emissions of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), and nitrous oxide (N₂O). These gases effectively ‘trap’ solar heat, engendering a ‘greenhouse effect’ that incrementally elevates global temperatures. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as global warming [1]. Notably, the apparel industry contributes approximately 1.2 billion tons of CO₂ equivalent annually, accounting for nearly 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions. This significant contribution is attributed to the complex supply chains transporting fabrics and apparel from production sites predominantly in developing countries [2,3]. Projections indicate that by 2050, the fashion industry could be responsible for up to 25% of the global carbon budget [4]. Environmental challenges such as climate change, water scarcity, pollution, and contamination across air, land, and water necessitate urgent attention. With thousands of apparel corporations operating globally, there is a discernible consumer interest in corporate sustainability. Some corporations have invested resources in social and environmental responsibilities, leading to enhanced environmental and economic performances [5].

The entire lifecycle of garment production has a significant environmental impact. For instance, producing 1 kg of cotton, enough for a single pair of jeans, requires 20,000 L of water. Additionally, global cotton production uses 24% of all insecticides and 11% of all pesticides, which negatively affects air, soil, and water quality [6]. The dyeing and finishing processes, transforming raw materials into fabric, involve nearly 8000 chemicals, posing environmental risks if not managed properly [7]. Annually, around 70 million barrels of oil are used to produce synthetic polyester fibers. This polyester, which takes over 200 years to decompose, exacerbates the environmental impact [8]. Additionally, plastic microfibers from polyester-based apparel, making up 85% of material found along ocean shores, harm marine wildlife and human food supplies [9]. Moreover, the rise of fast fashion has significantly influenced consumer behavior, worsening environmental issues.

“Fast fashion” is marked by rapid production and consumption cycles, leading to significant environmental and social impacts [10]. Over the past two decades, the fashion industry has experienced an unprecedented surge in consumption. Currently, the world consumes about 80 billion pieces of clothing annually, a staggering 400% increase from 20 years ago [11]. One of the most alarming aspects of fast fashion is the sheer volume of clothing ending up in landfills. Approximately 85% of these clothes are discarded, contributing to vast amounts of textile waste. This relentless cycle of consumption and disposal has severe environmental consequences, with synthetic fibers taking hundreds of years to decompose [12].

Another detrimental aspect of fast fashion is dyeing and treating textiles, particularly in countries like China. Pollution from these processes has severely impacted the country’s water resources, with the seven major rivers in China declared toxic due to extensive pollution from textile dyeing. Specifically, 72 toxic chemicals found in China’s waters are attributed to this industry, with 30 of these chemicals being permanent or unremovable [13].

A further concern is that textile production for export significantly contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. In China, this sector accounts for approximately 43% of the country’s emissions. The delivery of these textiles to consumers further exacerbates the problem. For example, the delivery of clothing purchased on Singles Day, a major online shopping event in China in 2016, generated an astounding 52,400 tons of carbon emissions in a single day, highlighting the significant carbon footprint associated with fast fashion [10].

The rapid growth of the fast fashion industry has come at a substantial environmental cost. The massive consumption of clothing, coupled with the environmental damage from production and disposal, underscores the urgent need for more sustainable practices in the fashion industry, more specifically within the corporate sector. The corporate sector must adopt and promote sustainable approaches, as it is crucial to mitigating the environmental impact of the fashion industry.

Aras and Crowther [14] examine corporate perspectives on sustainability, questioning the distinction between sustainability and sustainable development. The concept of sustainable development, defined by the Brundtland Commission [15] emphasizes meeting current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs. This definition underscores the necessity of protecting our planet, people, and resources. Sustainability extends this concept by advocating for a balanced integration of economic, environmental, and social impacts [16]. Therefore, sustainable development represents the pathway to achieving sustainability [17].

Fletcher and Grose [18] highlight that sustainability issues in garment production affect various environmental aspects, including climate, water cycles, chemical pollution, biodiversity loss, non-renewable resource depletion, waste generation, human health, and social impacts on producer communities. Additionally, consumer awareness of environmental issues is growing, with an expectation for apparel corporations to adopt ethical and sustainable practices aligned with their environmental values [19]. Corporations can become more sustainable by using eco-friendly materials, improving production efficiency, and encouraging consumers to buy less and choose quality over quantity.

Sustainability encompasses strategies and policies aimed at minimizing environmental pollution and resource exploitation, thereby benefiting the present without jeopardizing future prospects. It involves considering the economic, social, and environmental impacts of business operations, necessitating a holistic approach in decision-making processes [20].

Recent research on sustainable management in the apparel industry has emphasized both significant advancements and ongoing challenges in implementing sustainable practices across supply chains. For instance, Li et al [21], in their article “The carbon footprint of fast fashion consumption and mitigation strategies”, highlight the substantial carbon emissions attributed to the fast fashion industry and propose various mitigation strategies such as energy efficiency improvements, adoption of renewable energy sources, and fostering sustainable consumer behavior. This study underscores the pressing need for comprehensive sustainability efforts within fast fashion to significantly reduce its environmental impact.

Complementing this perspective, a study by Landi et al. [22] provided an in-depth analysis of a slow fashion enterprise’s greenhouse gas emissions throughout the entire product lifecycle. This study illustrates the potential of smaller-scale enterprises to achieve significant environmental performance improvements through integrated sustainable practices [22]

These findings resonate with earlier studies like Shen et al. [23], who emphasize the growing incorporation of sustainability into supply chain management within the apparel industry. This includes strategies such as sustainable product development, investment in green technologies, and the implementation of performance evaluation frameworks. Companies such as H&M and Patagonia are cited for their substantial efforts in enhancing sustainability through corporate social responsibility and environmental management systems. However, challenges such as high implementation costs, lack of standardized practices, and the complexities of global supply chains remain significant barriers.

Furthermore, Chowdhury et al. [24] identified critical drivers and barriers to the adoption of sustainable practices. They highlighted consumer demand for sustainable products, regulatory pressures, and competitive advantage as key drivers, while emphasizing the necessity of stakeholder collaboration and innovation to overcome barriers and achieve long-term sustainability goals [24].

Together, these studies underscore the necessity for an integrated approach to sustainability in the apparel industry, highlighting the progress made in both fast and slow fashion sectors while also pointing out the critical areas that require further attention and research. This integrated approach is essential for addressing the apparel industry’s substantial carbon emissions and advancing toward more sustainable practices. Therefore, it is crucial to study the performance of apparel corporations in terms of current sustainable practices and their outcomes.

The imperative for apparel corporations to measure their impact on climate change and sustainability cannot be overstated. As a significant contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions, the fashion industry sits at a critical juncture where its actions can have profound environmental consequences. Accurate measurement and reporting of these impacts enable apparel corporations to identify key areas where emissions can be reduced, resources can be conserved, and sustainable practices can be implemented. Sustainability reporting is not just an environmental concern; it is also a business imperative. Consumers are increasingly aware of and concerned about the environmental footprint of their purchases, making sustainability a key factor in their buying decisions. Furthermore, by measuring their impact, apparel corporations can set tangible goals, track progress, and make informed decisions that align with global efforts to mitigate climate change. This approach also fosters innovation in sustainable technologies and practices, contributing to a more circular economy.

Ultimately, measuring and addressing the sustainability impact in the apparel industry is essential for the health of our planet and the long-term viability of the industry itself. This study aims to analyze the sustainability efforts of apparel corporations by examining their carbon emission footprints and exploring their sustainability practices.

2. Background

2.1. Sustainability Reports

Numerous apparel companies have pledged to integrate sustainability reporting into their organizational frameworks. A sustainability report is an organizational document that articulates an entity’s commitment to the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) theory, encompassing economic, environmental, and social aspects. The TBL theory, coined by John Elkington in 1997 [25], emphasizes that true corporate success should be measured not just by financial performance but also by social and environmental impact. It expands the traditional reporting framework to take into account ecological and social dimensions, thus encouraging businesses to focus on sustainable development. By addressing these three pillars, the TBL theory promotes a holistic approach to business practices, aiming to benefit not only shareholders but also stakeholders, including employees, customers, communities, and the environment. It reflects an organization’s values and governance model and creates a nexus between its strategic business objectives and global economic commitments [25]. Nevertheless, some organizations perceive such reporting as a non-essential expenditure of time, effort, and resources, offering negligible benefits to their financial bottom line.

The primary aims of producing sustainability reports include enhancing transparency for stakeholders, improving public image, and continually updating and benchmarking sustainability management practices [26]. Currently, the disclosure of sustainability efforts by corporations remains a voluntary endeavor, subject to each organization’s discretion regarding the extent of information divulged about their practices. Despite this, many firms in the apparel and textile sector publish sustainability reports to validate their commitment to the Triple Bottom Line theory.

The development of these reports aids organizations in setting and assessing goals, evaluating social and environmental impacts, and disseminating information about their performance in economic, environmental, social, and governance domains to employees, stakeholders, and shareholders [27,28]. Effective and transparent sustainability reporting by apparel corporations can mitigate information asymmetry, thus equalizing the knowledge base among diverse stakeholders. The benefits of engaging in sustainability reporting for corporations may encompass enhanced corporate image, operational transparency, investor attraction, reduced capital costs, and strengthened stakeholder relationships to garner support and approval [29,30].

2.2. Sustainability Measuring Indices

In the contemporary business landscape, sustainability is no longer just a buzzword but a critical aspect of corporate strategy and responsibility. As businesses face increasing pressure from stakeholders, including consumers, investors, and regulatory bodies, the need to demonstrate genuine commitment to sustainable practices has become paramount [31]. Sustainability Measuring Indices have emerged as indispensable tools for evaluating how well companies integrate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles into their operations [32]. These indices provide a standardized approach to assessing a company’s impact on the environment and society, offering a clear picture of its commitment to sustainable practices [33].

The Triple Bottom Line (TBL) theory, introduced by John Elkington in 1994 [25], expands the traditional reporting framework to include social and environmental dimensions in addition to financial performance. The TBL theory emphasizes that true corporate success should be measured not just by financial gains but also by the company’s impact on society and the environment. The three pillars of TBL are People (Social), which measures the impact on stakeholders including employees, customers, and the community; Planet (Environmental), which assesses the environmental impact of the organization’s operations, including resource use, waste management, and emissions; and Profit (Economic), which evaluates financial performance and economic contributions [25].

There is a strong correlation between the TBL theory and sustainability measuring indices. Both frameworks aim to assess and enhance an organization’s performance across multiple dimensions of sustainability. Sustainability measuring indices often use the TBL framework to standardize reporting and ensure consistency across different organizations and industries. This holistic approach ensures that businesses are not only judged by their financial success but also by their contributions to social welfare and environmental stewardship) [34]. Companies that perform well on these indices often benefit from enhanced reputation, increased investor confidence, and access to new markets, as consumers and investors alike increasingly prefer to support businesses that demonstrate responsible and ethical practices [35].

Furthermore, sustainability measuring indices facilitate transparency and accountability, enabling companies to benchmark their performance against industry peers and identify areas for improvement [36]. This competitive dynamic fosters a culture of continuous improvement and innovation, driving companies to adopt more sustainable technologies and practices. Ultimately, these indices play a crucial role in guiding businesses towards a more sustainable future, where long-term prosperity is achieved through the harmonious integration of economic, environmental, and social objectives [37].

The following section outlines the methodologies of three prominent organizations that have developed robust frameworks for measuring and reporting on corporate sustainability. The Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC) [38] provides comprehensive guidelines for reporting on economic, environmental, and social impacts in the apparel industry through its Higg Index. The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) [39] focuses on environmental reporting, particularly carbon emissions and climate change strategies. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) [28,40] evaluates companies based on economic, environmental, and social criteria, providing a holistic view of corporate sustainability performance across various sectors.

2.3. Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC)

Sustainability in the apparel and textile industry is often best addressed through collaborative groups like the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC), established in 2009 by Walmart and Patagonia [41]. The SAC unites stakeholders from the apparel, footwear, and home textile industries to promote sustainable production practices and enhance sustainability across the global supply chain [42]. The SAC’s cornerstone effort is the Higg Index, a suite of self-assessment tools for brands, apparel corporations, and facilities to measure their environmental and social impacts. This index provides a holistic view of sustainability performance by providing standardized methods for measuring and improving sustainability, allowing companies to share scores with supply chain partners, and fostering transparency and better decision-making [41]. This helps companies address issues like energy use, water waste, and emissions, enhancing both individual and industry-wide environmental and social responsibility [38]. The Higg Index helps companies identify inefficiencies, rectify harmful practices, and offer transparency to stakeholders. It includes questions on energy use and emissions tracking, contributing to a performance rating that benchmarks progress and identifies areas for improvement [42]. More than 24,000 users depend on the Higg Index annually for better benchmarking, fewer audits, and proactive action [41].

The Higg Index is designed to measure a company’s sustainability performance across multiple dimensions. It includes several tools tailored for different segments of the industry: the Higg Facility Environmental Module (FEM) assesses environmental performance across areas like energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, water use, wastewater, emissions to air (if applicable), waste management, and chemical use and management; the Higg Facility Social and Labor Module (FSLM) evaluates social and labor practices, including fair wages, working hours, health and safety, and employee treatment; and the Higg Brand and Retail Module (BRM) measures the environmental and social impacts at the brand level, looking at product design, materials selection, manufacturing processes, and corporate policies. The methods employed by the Higg Index include self-assessment, where companies conduct internal reviews using detailed questionnaires, and verification, where third-party verification can be conducted to ensure the accuracy of self-assessments. The criteria involve a scoring system based on responses to the questionnaires, which cover compliance, performance improvement, and transparency, as well as benchmarking, where scores can be compared against industry standards and peer companies to identify best practices and areas needing improvement [38].

Several studies have employed the Higg Index to evaluate sustainability practices in the apparel industry Sala et al. [43] proposed a systemic framework for sustainability assessment, highlighting the importance of tools like the Higg Index in providing a comprehensive evaluation of sustainability performance. They emphasized that the Higg Index enables companies to identify inefficiencies and implement improvements systematically. Lou and Cao [44] compared consumer and industry perspectives on sustainable practices throughout the apparel product lifecycle, finding that the Higg Index played a crucial role in aligning industry practices with consumer expectations. Their research showed that companies utilizing the Higg Index were better able to communicate their sustainability efforts to consumers, enhancing transparency and trust.

The SAC recently changed its name to Cascale [38] to better represent its broadened reach into other consumer goods industries in addition to clothing and footwear. The organization’s aim of expanding group action and tackling more general sustainability issues across numerous industries is also represented by this rebranding [42]. This shift highlights a growing trend among organizations to address sustainability on a broader scale, similar to the approach taken by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) [28,40].

2.4. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)

The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) [28,40] is a pioneering international independent organization dedicated to helping businesses, governments, and other organizations understand and communicate their impacts on critical sustainability issues. Established in 1997 by the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the GRI has become the most widely used framework for sustainability reporting worldwide, guiding organizations in their efforts to be transparent and accountable regarding their economic, environmental, and social performance [45].

The GRI’s evaluation content is encapsulated in its comprehensive GRI Standards, which are structured into Universal Standards and Topic-Specific Standards. The Universal Standards include GRI 1: Foundation [46], which outlines the essential principles and requirements for using the GRI Standards; GRI 2: General Disclosures [47], which provides a set of disclosures about the reporting organization; and GRI 3: Management Approach [48], which explains how an organization manages its material topics. The Topic-Specific Standards cover a wide range of issues, including economic (e.g., GRI 201: Economic Performance [49]), environmental (e.g., GRI 302: Energy [50]; GRI 305: Emissions [51]), and social topics (e.g., GRI 401: Employment [52]; GRI 403: Occupational Health and Safety [53]).

The methodologies employed by the GRI begin with a rigorous materiality assessment, where organizations identify and prioritize the most significant issues that impact both the organization and its stakeholders. This process involves engaging stakeholders through surveys, interviews, focus groups, and other methods to gather diverse perspectives on what matters most. The GRI’s reporting principles for defining report content include stakeholder inclusiveness, sustainability context, materiality, and completeness, while the principles for ensuring report quality emphasize accuracy, balance, clarity, comparability, reliability, and timeliness. Organizations are required to collect both quantitative and qualitative data, ensuring that the information reported is comprehensive and robust. This data collection includes metrics such as carbon emissions, energy use, water consumption, and waste generation, as well as narrative descriptions of policies, practices, and performance. Internal and external audits are often conducted to verify the reliability and accuracy of the reported information, enhancing the credibility of the reports [28,40].

The GRI’s framework is designed to be applicable to organizations of all sizes and sectors, making it a versatile tool for sustainability reporting. By adhering to the GRI Standards, organizations can improve their sustainability performance, transparency, and accountability, ultimately contributing to broader sustainable development goals [28,40].

Several studies have examined the impact and effectiveness of GRI reporting. For instance, Belkhir et al. [54] conducted a cross-industry analysis to determine whether GRI reporting influences environmental sustainability. Their study, published in the Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, found that companies adhering to GRI standards showed better CO₂ emissions performance compared to non-reporting companies, highlighting the positive impact of GRI reporting on environmental sustainability [54]. Another study by Goncalves and Silva [55] reviewed sustainability scoring in the apparel industry, focusing on environmental footprint, social impacts, and transparency. Their research, published in Energies, underscored the importance of GRI standards in enhancing transparency and accountability in sustainability reporting within the apparel sector [55].

2.5. Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP)

Building on the importance of transparency and accountability in environmental reporting, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) also plays a crucial role. Founded in 2000 by Paul Dickinson in the United Kingdom, the CDP is an international non-profit organization that runs a global disclosure system for companies, cities, states, and regions to manage their environmental impacts [39]). The CDP aims to create a global system for collecting and sharing environmental data among companies and cities. Its mission is to mitigate climate change impacts by providing crucial information to businesses, investors, and policymakers. By 2017, over 4100 companies and 73 cities used the CDP framework for environmental reporting [56].

The CDP collaborates with corporations to manage greenhouse gas emissions and climate change risks through self-reporting mechanisms. It uses a scoring methodology to encourage companies to measure and manage their environmental impacts, covering climate change, water, forests, and supply chain programs. The scoring evaluates reported content, awareness of climate issues, management strategies, and environmental progress [39].

The CDP assesses companies at four levels: disclosure, awareness, management, and leadership. To advance, companies must score at least 80% at each level. This ensures transparency and active engagement in sustainability practices. Additionally, the CDP links corporations with investors, providing data that influence investment decisions and support sustainable portfolios. Policymakers use CDP data to develop regulations aimed at reducing carbon emissions [39]. Through its network and reporting framework, the CDP empowers companies to address their environmental impact and supports a transition to a more sustainable economy. As climate challenges grow, the CDP’s role in fostering transparency and action remains critical to progress [39].

Several studies have explored the impact and effectiveness of the CDP. Depoers et al. [57] contrast the voluntary disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions between the Carbon Disclosure Project and corporate reports. Their study, published in the Journal of Business Ethics, highlights the varying degrees of transparency and thoroughness in environmental reporting. The research underscores the significance of CDP’s structured and comprehensive disclosure framework, which often provides more detailed and comparable data compared to individual corporate reports. This study emphasizes the role of CDP in standardizing and enhancing the quality of environmental disclosures [57].

Alsaifi et al. [58] examined the relationship between carbon disclosure and financial performance within the context of UK environmental policy. Published in Business Strategy and the Environment, their study investigates how CDP disclosures influence financial outcomes. They find that robust carbon disclosure practices, as encouraged by the CDP, are associated with improved financial performance. This link suggests that investors value transparency and proactive environmental management, which can lead to better financial returns. This study highlights the CDP’s impact on encouraging sustainable business practices that align with financial performance goals [58].

Both studies illustrate the profound impact of the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) on corporate environmental reporting and performance, yet they focus on different aspects of its influence. Depoers et al. [57] emphasize the CDP’s role in standardizing and enhancing the transparency and thoroughness of greenhouse gas emissions disclosures. By comparing CDP reports with individual corporate reports, they highlight how the structured framework of the CDP leads to more detailed and comparable data. On the other hand, Alsaifi et al. [58] explored the financial implications of CDP disclosures, demonstrating that companies with robust carbon disclosure practices tend to experience better financial performance. This finding suggests that investors reward transparency and proactive environmental management, further validating the importance of the CDP. Together, these studies underscore the CDP’s dual role in improving environmental reporting quality and promoting sustainable business practices that also align with financial performance objectives.

The sustainability efforts of SAC, GRI, and CDP drive industry-wide improvements by promoting transparency and accountability. These organizations help companies enhance their corporate reputation and competitiveness while fostering regulatory compliance and effective risk management. The frameworks provided by SAC, GRI, and CDP enable apparel corporations to align with best practices, ensuring continuous improvement and innovation. Ultimately, the SAC, GRI, and CDP contribute significantly to the industry’s move toward more sustainable and responsible practices. This not only benefits the environment by reducing the industry’s ecological footprint but also builds consumer trust and enhances corporate reputation, fostering a more sustainable future for the apparel sector and society at large.

3. Materials and Methods

Data and Analysis

The data analysis in this study was conducted in two sequential stages. Initially, this study focused on a cohort of ten major United States (U.S.) apparel corporations, which included: Gap, Inc. (San Francisco, U.S.); Hanes, Inc. (Winston-Salem, U.S.); J.C. Penney (Plano, U.S.); Kohl’s Corporation (Menomonee Falls, U.S.); Macy’s Inc. (New York, U.S.); Nike, Inc. (Beaverton, U.S.); Nordstrom, Inc. (Seattle, U.S.); PVH Corporation (New York, U.S.); TJX Companies, Inc. (Framingham, U.S.); and VF Corporation (Denver, U.S.).These companies were selected due to their consistent participation in the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) [39] over the past six years and their significant involvement in the apparel industry, as they all carry apparel-related products sourced from around the world. While this sample includes only ten participants, it comprises some of the largest and most influential apparel corporations in the U.S., providing a meaningful snapshot of industry trends despite the potential for broader participation in the future.

This selection facilitated a comprehensive statistical analysis of the sustainability initiatives implemented by these corporations and their consequent impact, primarily using carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions (expressed in metric tons) as a metric. The CO₂ emissions data, acquired through CDP reports submitted by these corporations, spanned a period of six years from 2017 to 2022, enabling a detailed examination of longitudinal trends in carbon emissions. These carbon emissions were categorized into Scope 1 (direct emissions from sources owned or controlled by the organization) and Scope 2 (indirect emissions associated with the consumption of purchased electricity, steam, or other energy sources generated upstream from the organization).

For the quantitative aspect of this study, a one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to evaluate the effectiveness of the sustainability strategies implemented by these corporations over the six-year period. The statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS software, version 29.0.

In the second stage, a qualitative analysis was conducted on the sustainability efforts of the same ten corporations. This analysis was grounded in a detailed examination of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainability reports sourced from the respective corporate websites. The content analysis focused on identifying and categorizing sustainability themes and initiatives reported in these documents. Specific items analyzed included goals and achievements in areas such as water usage, energy efficiency, transportation logistics, waste management, and chemical management practices. By systematically reviewing these reports, this study aimed to uncover prevalent sustainability themes and specific initiatives undertaken by each retailer.

The combination of quantitative and qualitative data analysis provides a holistic view of the sustainability efforts in the apparel retail sector. The detailed longitudinal analysis of CO₂ emissions, coupled with the in-depth review of CSR and sustainability initiatives, allows for a comprehensive understanding of the impact and effectiveness of sustainability strategies in this industry. While this study acknowledges the limitations in terms of sample size and potential inference, the selected apparel corporations represent significant players in the industry, offering valuable insights into broader sustainability trends.

4. Results

The average CO₂ emissions from a selection of ten apparel corporations over a six-year period are shown in

Table 1. Average CO₂ emissions from a selection of ten apparel corporations over a six-year period.

Year	Scope 1 CO2 (Metric Tons)	Scope 2 CO2 (Metric Tons)	Scope 1 and 2 Combined CO2 (Metric Tons)
2017	58,089.26	408,253.2	466,342.4
2018	58,998.2	379,827.9	438,826.1
2019	60,726.99	356,675.5	417,402.4
2020	55,964.77	318,626.5	374,591.3
2021	45,215.76	251,542.1	296,757.9
2022	48,000.14	261,812.3	309,812.4

, which categorizes the emissions into Scope 1, Scope 2, and a combined analysis of Scope 1 and 2. The profile plot (Figure 1) for Scope 1 CO₂ emissions exhibited a variable trend characterized by phases of both escalation and reduction. Conversely, the Scope 2 emissions data revealed a consistent downward trajectory among several apparel corporations, a trend that was also mirrored in the combined Scope 1 and 2 analyses.

Scope 1 emissions represent direct emissions from company-owned and controlled resources. Over the years, the emissions trends for the companies vary. For example, TJX Companies exhibits an increase in emissions around 2019 but then shows a fluctuating pattern with a slight decline towards 2021 and then an increase in 2022. On the other hand, Macy’s Inc. shows a significant drop around 2019, maintaining lower emissions afterward. Most other companies demonstrate either a steady decline or stable emissions, reflecting their efforts to reduce direct CO₂ output. Despite the observed decline in CO₂ emissions, a repeated measures ANOVA, incorporating a Greenhouse–Geisser correction for Scope 1 emissions, indicated no statistically significant change (p-value: 0.237, α ≤ 0.05) over the six-year span.

Scope 2 emissions pertain to indirect emissions from the generation of purchased energy. Here, the general trend is a consistent decline across all companies, indicating successful energy efficiency measures and the adoption of greener energy sources. TJX Companies, though starting high, reduces emissions steadily but remains one of the higher emitters. Companies like Macy’s Inc. and Gap show sharp declines, illustrating significant improvements in energy procurement and usage. The analysis of Scope 2 emissions revealed a significant alteration (p-value: 0.005, α ≤ 0.05, η² = 0.57), with a marked decrease in CO₂ emissions noted over the same period.

When Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions are combined, the overall trend is also downward for most companies, showcasing an integrated approach to reducing total emissions. TJX Companies, despite some fluctuations, remains higher in combined emissions but shows efforts to reduce its carbon footprint over the years. Macy’s Inc. and Gap exhibit substantial overall reductions, reflecting comprehensive sustainability strategies. The aggregated data for combined Scope 1 and 2 emissions also demonstrated a significant reduction (p-value: 0.004, α ≤ 0.05, η² = 0.56) in CO₂ emissions from 2017 to 2022.

By 2022, all companies show a commitment to reducing CO₂ emissions across both direct and indirect sources, though the levels and rates of reduction vary. The data highlight the progress made by the retail industry in addressing its environmental impact through targeted emission reduction initiatives.

The content analysis revealed that various apparel corporations have implemented diverse and multifaceted sustainability initiatives across five key areas: water, energy, transportation, waste recycling, and chemical management. These areas were selected because they were the most prevalent in the corporate sustainability reports.

Table 2. Sustainable practices adopted by apparel corporations.

Corporation	Water	Energy	Transportation	Waste Recycling	Chemical Management
Gap Inc. [59]	Implementing water-saving techniques in denim manufacturing	Investing in renewable energy sources and energy efficiency in stores and facilities	Optimizing logistics to reduce transportation emissions	Comprehensive waste reduction and recycling programs in stores and distribution centers	Reducing hazardous chemicals in products and manufacturing processes
Hanes Inc. [60]	Water conservation practices in textile production, such as using recycled water	Utilizing energy-efficient machinery and transitioning to renewable energy in manufacturing plants	Developing a sustainable transportation fleet, including electric vehicles	Implementing extensive recycling programs for textile waste and packaging materials	Ensuring safer chemical management and compliance with regulatory standards in the supply chain
JC Penney [61]	Water efficiency initiatives in stores and distribution centers	Implementing energy-saving measures, such as LED lighting and energy management systems	Adopting eco-friendly transportation options and optimizing delivery routes	Recycling programs for cardboard, plastic, and other materials in stores	Reducing the use of harmful chemicals in products through supplier partnerships
Kohl’s Corp. [62]	Water efficiency programs in operations, including low-flow fixtures	Sourcing renewable energy and improving energy efficiency in facilities	Reducing transportation emissions through improved logistics and fuel-efficient vehicles	Comprehensive waste recycling initiatives, diverting waste from landfills	Implementing safe chemical practices and reducing chemical use in products
Macy’s Inc. [63]	Implementing water-saving technologies in stores	Energy conservation efforts, including the use of renewable energy and energy-efficient lighting	Sustainable transportation initiatives, including optimizing logistics	Waste management and recycling programs, focusing on reducing landfill waste	Managing chemicals in products to ensure safety and compliance
Nike Inc. [64]	Reducing water usage in textile dyeing and finishing processes by 25%	Increasing the use of renewable energy and improving energy efficiency in manufacturing and retail operations	Reducing emissions from logistics and transportation through optimized delivery networks	Achieving zero waste to landfill in the supply chain and recycling at least 80% of waste	Innovating in sustainable chemistry to reduce environmental impact
Nordstrom Inc. [65]	Reducing water consumption in operations and supply chain	Implementing energy-efficient practices and sourcing renewable energy	Promoting sustainable logistics and transportation practices	Extensive recycling programs in stores and supply chains	Managing chemicals in products to ensure they are safe and environmentally friendly
PVH Corp. [66]	Implementing water-saving measures in manufacturing processes	Investing in green energy initiatives and improving energy efficiency across operations	Utilizing sustainable transportation options and optimizing logistics	Recycling initiatives across operations, including textile and packaging materials	Reducing hazardous chemicals and promoting safe chemical use in products
TJX Companies Inc. [67]	Water-saving measures in store operations and supply chain	Energy efficiency initiatives and renewable energy use in facilities	Reducing transportation emissions through efficient logistics and sustainable fleet management	Robust recycling programs, including recycling packaging materials and reducing waste	Implementing safe chemical use policies in products and supply chains
VF Corp. [68]	Promoting water stewardship and efficiency in the supply chain	Renewable energy sourcing and energy efficiency programs across facilities	Reducing transportation emissions through sustainable logistics practices	Circular economy initiatives and extensive waste recycling programs	Sustainable chemistry practices and reducing hazardous chemicals in products

provides examples of strategies and steps being followed by apparel corporations in these key areas, along with Scope 1 and 2 emissions defined for each corporation.

Gap Inc. [59] is implementing water-saving techniques in denim manufacturing, reducing direct water use (Scope 1) and indirect emissions from water sourcing and treatment (Scope 2). Their investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency in stores and facilities decreases direct emissions from on-site fuel use (Scope 1) and indirect emissions from purchased electricity (Scope 2). By optimizing logistics, they aim to reduce transportation emissions, affecting both direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions. Comprehensive waste reduction and recycling programs in stores and distribution centers impact indirect emissions (Scope 2) from waste processing. Additionally, Gap reduces hazardous chemicals in products and manufacturing processes, which mitigates both direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions.

Hanes Inc. [60] has adopted water conservation practices in textile production, such as using recycled water, primarily affecting indirect emissions (Scope 2). Their use of energy-efficient machinery and transition to renewable energy in manufacturing plants reduce direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions. The development of a sustainable transportation fleet, including electric vehicles, impacts both direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions. Extensive recycling programs for textile waste and packaging materials primarily influence indirect emissions (Scope 2). Hanes ensures safer chemical management and compliance with regulatory standards, affecting both direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions.

JC Penney [61] has implemented water efficiency initiatives in stores and distribution centers, mainly influencing indirect emissions (Scope 2). Energy-saving measures, such as LED lighting and energy management systems, reduce direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions. Adopting eco-friendly transportation options and optimizing delivery routes affects both direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions. Recycling programs for cardboard, plastic, and other materials in stores impact indirect emissions (Scope 2). Reducing the use of harmful chemicals in products through supplier partnerships mitigates both direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions.

Kohl’s Corp. [62] has water efficiency programs in operations, including low-flow fixtures, primarily reducing indirect emissions (Scope 2). Sourcing renewable energy and improving energy efficiency in facilities decreases direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions. Improving logistics and fuel-efficient vehicles to reduce transportation emissions involves both direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions. Comprehensive waste recycling initiatives divert waste from landfills, impacting indirect emissions (Scope 2). Implementing safe chemical practices and reducing chemical use in products mitigates both direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions.

Macy’s Inc. [63] is implementing water-saving technologies in stores, which primarily reduce indirect emissions (Scope 2). Energy conservation efforts, including the use of renewable energy and energy-efficient lighting, reduce direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions. Sustainable transportation initiatives, including optimizing logistics, impact both direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions. Waste management and recycling programs focus on reducing landfill waste, mainly affecting indirect emissions (Scope 2). Managing chemicals in products to ensure safety and compliance mitigates both direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions.

Nike Inc. [64] aims to reduce water usage in textile dyeing and finishing processes by 25%, primarily influencing indirect emissions (Scope 2). Increasing the use of renewable energy and improving energy efficiency in manufacturing and retail operations reduces direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions. Reducing emissions from logistics and transportation through optimized delivery networks impacts both direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions. Achieving zero waste to landfill in the supply chain and recycling at least 80% of waste affects indirect emissions (Scope 2). Innovating in sustainable chemistry to reduce environmental impact mitigates both direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions.

Nordstrom Inc. [65] is reducing water consumption in operations and the supply chain, primarily affecting indirect emissions (Scope 2). Implementing energy-efficient practices and sourcing renewable energy reduces direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions. Promoting sustainable logistics and transportation practices impacts both direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions. Extensive recycling programs in stores and the supply chain mainly affect indirect emissions (Scope 2). Managing chemicals in products to ensure they are safe and environmentally friendly mitigates both direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions.

PVH Corp. [66] has implemented water-saving measures in manufacturing processes, primarily reducing indirect emissions (Scope 2). Investing in green energy initiatives and improving energy efficiency across operations reduces direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions. Utilizing sustainable transportation options and optimizing logistics impacts both direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions. Recycling initiatives across operations, including textile and packaging materials, mainly affect indirect emissions (Scope 2). Reducing hazardous chemicals and promoting safe chemical use in products mitigates both direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions.

TJX Companies Inc. [67] has adopted water-saving measures in store operations and the supply chain, primarily reducing indirect emissions (Scope 2). Energy efficiency initiatives and renewable energy use in facilities reduce direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions. Reducing transportation emissions through efficient logistics and sustainable fleet management impacts both direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions. Robust recycling programs, including recycling packaging materials and reducing waste, mainly affect indirect emissions (Scope 2). Implementing safe chemical use policies in products and the supply chain mitigates both direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions.

VF Corp. [68] promotes water stewardship and efficiency in the supply chain, primarily reducing indirect emissions (Scope 2). Renewable energy sourcing and energy efficiency programs across facilities reduce direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions. Reducing transportation emissions through sustainable logistics practices impacts both direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions. Circular economy initiatives and extensive waste recycling programs mainly affect indirect emissions (Scope 2). Sustainable chemistry practices and reducing hazardous chemicals in products mitigate both direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions.

The sustainability initiatives of these major apparel corporations showcase a comprehensive approach to reducing both direct and indirect emissions across critical areas of their operations. By focusing on water conservation, energy efficiency, sustainable transportation, waste recycling, and safe chemical management, these companies not only mitigate their environmental impact but also set a benchmark for industry-wide practices. The varied strategies implemented by each retailer highlight the importance of tailored approaches to sustainability, addressing specific operational needs while contributing to overall environmental goals.

5. Discussion

This study’s findings highlight significant trends in CO₂ emissions among a selection of apparel corporations, offering insights into the effectiveness of environmental strategies in the retail sector. The variable trend in Scope 1 emissions, characterized by phases of both escalation and reduction, suggests a complex interplay of operational practices and environmental policies at the individual retailer level. This movement aligns with Fetisov et al. [69], who emphasized the multifaceted nature of emissions in various sectors, including the retail industry, and the need for comprehensive strategies to address them.

The consistent decrease in Scope 2 emissions across several apparel corporations is a promising sign, indicating a successful shift towards cleaner energy sources and more efficient energy use, a trend observed across the retail sector [70]. The lack of a statistically significant change in Scope 1 emissions over the six-year period, despite the observed decline, suggests that direct emissions from apparel corporations’ own operations have not been the primary focus of reduction strategies. This trend could be attributed to the complexities involved in modifying existing operational practices and infrastructure. Apparel corporations may need to implement more aggressive or targeted measures to achieve meaningful reductions in direct emissions. Karedla et al. [71] found that economic growth and manufacturing activities could have a significant impact on CO₂ emissions, implying that apparel corporations need to balance growth with environmental responsibility. For example, transitioning to renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, along with upgrading store lighting to energy-efficient LED systems and implementing efficient HVAC systems, could be beneficial. Optimizing supply chain logistics by incorporating low-emission or electric vehicles might significantly cut emissions as well.

The significant reduction in combined Scope 1 and 2 emissions indicates an overall positive trend in the retail sector’s efforts to reduce its carbon footprint. This result is crucial, as the retail sector plays a significant role in the global economy, and its environmental impact is substantial. Fu and Min [72] highlighted the importance of comprehensive strategies that include both economic structural adjustment and energy consumption structural adjustment to achieve carbon neutrality, which is also relevant for the retail sector. Apparel corporations might also benefit from embracing circular economy models, as supported by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s [73] research, which involves designing products for longevity, reparability, and recyclability. This model focuses on reducing waste by creating a closed-loop system where materials are continuously reused rather than disposed of after a single use. Apparel corporations could implement take-back programs where customers return used products for recycling or refurbishment, further minimizing environmental impact.

Additionally, investing in carbon offset projects could play a crucial role in reducing overall carbon footprints. These projects involve funding initiatives that compensate for CO₂ emissions by reducing or removing an equivalent amount of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Examples include reforestation efforts, renewable energy projects, and conservation initiatives. Apparel corporations might consider offering customers the option to offset the carbon footprint of their purchases and partnering with organizations that provide transparent and impactful carbon offset programs. Balancing economic growth with environmental responsibility is essential.

The sustainability initiatives highlighted through the report analysis reflect a significant trend in the retail sector, where environmental stewardship is increasingly integral to business operations. Apparel corporations are adopting comprehensive approaches to sustainability, encompassing areas like water, energy, transportation, waste recycling, and chemicals management. This shift aligns with global movements towards sustainable business practices. For example, a Deloitte [74] study found that despite the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, a significant number of organizations were still actively engaged in sustainability efforts, recognizing the environmental and economic benefits [74]. Similarly, De Pablo Valenciano [75] emphasizes the growing importance of sustainability in retail, highlighting the Triple Bottom Line theory and the role of corporations as key players in promoting sustainability [75]. Similar strategies are observed in water conservation techniques in the retail sector, aligning with the World Wildlife Fund’s [76] advocacy for efficient raw materials and risk analyses. In energy management, the adoption of renewables and efficient systems by corporations resonates with the International Energy Agency’s [77] emphasis on the role of these sources in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The sector’s focus on clean and low-carbon transportation mirrors the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals [78] particularly Goal 11, which advocates for sustainable transport systems. Lastly, the rigorous approach to chemical management in retail aligns with the Stockholm Convention’s [79] aim to restrict hazardous chemicals, showcasing the sector’s commitment to environmental sustainability and responsible business practices.

The overall decrease in combined Scope 1 and 2 emissions positively reflects the sector’s commitment to sustainability. However, addressing direct emissions from apparel corporations’ operations remains a critical area for improvement, requiring a balance between economic growth and environmental responsibility.

6. Conclusions

Significant advancements have been made in reducing Scope 2 emissions, reflecting a shift towards more sustainable energy sources and increased efficiency. However, Scope 1 emissions have remained largely unchanged, highlighting a critical area for improvement. This stagnation is due to the continued reliance on fossil fuels, technological limitations, and the rebound effect, where efficiency improvements lead to higher overall production and consumption, offsetting the gains. To effectively reduce Scope 1 emissions, companies must focus on transitioning to low-carbon technologies, investing in necessary infrastructure, and creating regulatory environments that support sustainable practices. Addressing direct emissions from apparel corporations’ operations is essential, requiring a balance between economic growth and environmental responsibility.

The overall decrease in combined Scope 1 and 2 emissions positively reflects the sector’s commitment to sustainability, aligning with global trends and initiatives. Additionally, the adoption of sustainability practices in areas such as water, energy, transportation, waste recycling, and chemicals management demonstrates the retail sector’s growing responsibility in promoting environmental stewardship. With global movements towards sustainable business practices, this aligns with various international goals and conventions. Thus, while the progress in emission reduction is significant, this study emphasizes the necessity for the retail sector to continuously seek innovative solutions and intensify efforts, particularly in addressing direct emissions, to make a substantial contribution to global efforts in combating climate change.

Theoretical implications include understanding the environmental impact of the apparel industry, expanding frameworks on CO₂ emissions, and highlighting fast fashion’s role in environmental issues. It contributes to theories on corporate social responsibility and sustainability reporting, demonstrating how transparency enhances corporate image and aligns with the Triple Bottom Line theory. This study underscores technological innovation’s importance in achieving sustainability goals, supporting the adoption of low-carbon technologies, renewable energy, and efficient production processes.

Practical implications involve implementing sustainable practices such as renewable energy, optimized logistics, sustainable materials, and recycling programs to reduce environmental impact and enhance corporate sustainability. Engaging stakeholders in sustainability initiatives fosters an eco-conscious community, driving behavior change and supporting sustainability efforts. This study offers insights into balancing economic growth with environmental responsibility, suggesting comprehensive initiatives encompassing water conservation, energy management, clean transportation, waste recycling, and chemicals management.

Research limitations include the study’s focus on ten major apparel corporations, which may not represent the entire industry. To achieve a more comprehensive analysis, future research could encompass a broader range of apparel companies. Additionally, the six-year data span might not capture long-term trends or the impacts of recent initiatives, suggesting that extending the study period could provide deeper insights. The geographical focus on Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) [39] participants may not reflect practices in non-participating regions or companies, indicating the need for diverse geographical inclusion. It is also important to note the current unavailability of production emissions data, which limit the comprehensiveness of the analysis. Future studies should include Scope 3 emissions to offer a more complete picture of the apparel industry’s total carbon footprint.

Future research should broaden the industry analysis to include more apparel corporations and related industries. Longitudinal studies would be beneficial to track sustainability initiatives over extended periods. Additionally, investigating consumer behavior’s influence on sustainable practices, researching emerging technologies to reduce environmental impact, and analyzing the impact of policy and regulatory frameworks on corporate sustainability can provide valuable insights. Understanding the roles of government and international bodies in supporting sustainable practices in the apparel industry is also crucial.