In 2025, pursuing net zero emissions will preoccupy fashion brands less than struggling to profit in an ultra-competitive market, according to McKinsey & Co. The $1.7 trillion industry’s sustainability professionals are in a bind.
Consumer research claims that Generation Z “cares” about shopping sustainability, but try to prove that when people shop. A carton of eggs often costs more than a T-shirt from Shein, Amazon Basics or Forever 21. Clothes have defied inflation. Expensive clothes with eco-friendly credentials are a tough sell.
So is convincing brands to buy innovative, low-carbon new materials in bulk, if they have to pay pennies more per unit.
The fashion sustainability to-do list is formidable: Slash emissions. Scale low-emissions, high-cost materials. Decarbonize supply chains comprising myriad small businesses, often thousands of miles away.
The systemic nature of these challenges appears in the trends that Logan Duran, vice president of ESG and sustainability at Coach parent Tapestry, is watching: “Holistic decarbonization strategies that integrate and increase the use of environmentally preferred materials, low-carbon manufacturing, circular business model solutions, and the increased utilization of renewable energy across the entire value chain.”
Here’s what other apparel sustainability advocates shared with Trellis about what may unfold in the year ahead.
Loving to hate fast fashion
“Fast fashion giants like Shein and Temu continue to face criticism regarding overproduction, textile waste and potential labor exploitation,” said Lux Research Senior Analyst Tiffany Hua. “In 2025, I expect the controversy to grow, with calls for disclosures on production limits, implementation of extended producer responsibility, and transparency requirements.”
Even so, Tricia Carey, former chief commercial officer of textile-to-textile startup Renewcell, sees little relief soon. “I do not see the tides changing in 2025 because in general the consumer does not understand the issues existing in the apparel system,” she said.
Downstream effects surface
The effects of fashion’s glut, based on ultrafast production and ever-changing trends, show no signs of abating. Brands, wholesalers and charities ship an enormous amount of unsold, returned or pre-worn clothes to developed nations. This problem has become worse as companies overproduce cheap clothes that only last seven years on average before the consumers casts them off.
What can’t be sold in thrift stores in the U.S. and elsewhere is shipped to developing regions of the world, sometimes known as the Global South. Piles of these clothes pollute beaches in Africa, Chile’s Atacama Desert and other places. In some places, local people have created circular economy marketplaces out of the secondhand garments. The Kantamanto Market in Accra, Ghana, is considered the largest one.
Yet a fire Jan. 2 tore through the market, leaving two-thirds in ruins.
“The response to this crisis will show us how ready the fashion industry is to acknowledge Kantamanto’s essential role within the global secondhand supply chain and within the fashion industry’s circular ambitions,” said Liz Ricketts, co-founder and director of the Or Foundation of Accra, which seeks to “catalyze a justice-led circular economy.” “No community doing such vital work should ever find themselves in such a state of emergency.”
Calls are rising for fashion brands, whose products dominate the markets and dumpsites of this Global South, to extend their responsibility as producers.
“The fact is, there is too much clothing … We need to be prioritizing transparency on production volumes, volume reduction targets, displacement of new clothing with repaired or remanufactured items and setting a floor price for clothing,” Ricketts added.
Circular models continue
Meanwhile, brands as diverse as Patagonia and Dr. Martens continue to advance circularity by operating resale, repair and refurbishment programs.
“In 2025, I expect these programs to become even more integrated into retail strategies where select brands will focus on selling durable apparel and goods,” Hua of Lux said. In addition, brands will struggle with resale strategies when there is a mismatch between product durability and consumer value, she added.
“Brands are increasingly aware of the legislative risks and sourcing volatility presented by conventional ‘take, make, waste’ supply chains and we’ll see more of them utilizing the full suite of levers at their disposal to transform their supply chains to be circular and resilient in 2025,” said Nicole Rycroft, founder and executive director of the anti-deforestation nonprofit Canopy.
Innovators explore new materials
Numerous new fibers are emerging from bio-based and waste sources. Yet mainstreaming these early-stage materials “demands collaboration, strategic investment, and a defined pathway to adoption,” according to Katrin Ley, managing director of Fashion for Good of Amsterdam.
“Innovators like Infinited Fiber, Ambercycle and Circ, among many others, are making significant strides, offering innovations that not only meet performance standards but also integrate into existing supply chains,” she said.
Hua of Lux expects more commercialization of recycled synthetic and cellulosic fibers, especially as recycling operations mature from startups such as Carbios, Reju and Syre.
However, progress needs to happen in traditional materials as well, according to said Beth Jensen, senior director of climate and nature at the nonprofit Textile Exchange. “It is critical for the industry to continue investing in the often less appealing work of transforming existing supply chains — particularly for the materials produced in the highest volumes and with the highest impacts, such as polyester, cotton and leather,” she said.
Calls rise for more policy
What’s fashion’s biggest opportunity for change?
“Hands down, public policy,” said Kathleen Talbot, Reformation chief sustainability officer and vice president of operations. “We cannot drive impact at scale in fashion if we are all working off of a different playbook.”
Rachel Van Metre Kibbe, founder and CEO of American Circular Textiles (ACT), a policy advocacy group in New York City, agreed. “Now is not the time to pull back—it’s the time to double down,” she said.
“If we don’t galvanize in a formal way, state policies could end up working against the industry, and federal policies could leave significant funding opportunities off the table for textiles. With a unified and strategic approach, we can shift the conversation and position domestic manufacturing and circular textiles as central to the future of sustainable manufacturing, domestic economic growth and resilient supply chains.”
Potential Trump tariffs loom
If President-elect Donald Trump imposes tariffs on imports, then expect sourcing shifts, according to Robert Antoshak, a Nashville-based partner at the Gherzi Textil Organization. “So you’ll be dealing with maybe different countries, different suppliers, different standards for sustainability,” he said.
The “America First” approach may also close the de minimis loophole, which has allowed fast fashion brands to ship from abroad in quantities under $800 to escape duties or taxes.
That could help level the playing field for domestic manufacturers, but only if paired with investments in domestic capacity to handle increased demand and build sustainable supply chains, according to Kibbe of ACT.
Domestic businesses are squeezed
“This path is not easy in an industry that often prioritizes the lowest price while overlooking people and planet,” said Eric Henry, president of TS Designs in Burlington. North Carolina. His Solid State Designs brand touts natural fabrics and dyes and a transparent supply chain. Many domestic apparel makers went out of business or moved production overseas in 2024, he noted.
“In response, we pivoted last year to focus on building mini domestic supply chains, diversifying our apparel production beyond just T-shirts … Looking ahead to 2025, we are continuing to develop new products, including expanded T-shirt styles as well as sweaters and sweatshirts. By prioritizing U.S. sourcing and manufacturing, we can develop products more efficiently, avoiding the global race to chase cheaper prices.”
“It’s critical that we explore ways to reinvest funds collected from [potential] tariffs into incentives for reshoring and onshoring,” said ACT’s Kibbe. “Without this, we risk being left “off the menu” once again—uncompetitive with regions that are prioritizing textiles.”
New regulations bring business impacts
“I don’t think this administration is going to lose any sleep over sustainability,“ Gherzi Textil’s Antoshak said of Trump’s second presidency. Brace for a potential accelerated erosion of EPA standards and enforcement, and a general “kicking to the curb” of sustainability initiatives, he added.
“Geo-politics across every continent make global trade unpredictable for planning,” said Carey, formerly of Renewcell. “Adding to this are the legislative shifts such as the UFLPA (Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act) and the (EU’s new Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive) CSRD pushing the industry towards higher transparency and traceability. It all comes down to systems change of a fragmented global industry.”
Large companies in Europe are preparing their first reports, about 2024, to satisfy the CSRD. In addition, the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) went live last summer. As a result, companies will need to execute supply chain due diligence, satisfy new reporting requirements and reduce hazardous chemicals.
They will also need to prepare for California’s Responsible Textile Recovery Act, taking effect in 2026. The first U.S. extended producer responsibility (EPR) law requires textile and apparel companies to address end-of-life issues.
In New York, a law that went into effect Jan. 1 began banning new apparel with PFAS “forever chemicals” from being sold in the state. California companies are struggling to meet a similar rule there that kicked off in 2024.
Regulatory momentum around textile waste, extended producer responsibility (EPR) rules and chemicals will continue globally, according to several experts.
Scope 3 emissions focus sharpens
More than half of major brands have committed to science-based targets. Among them, 96 percent of emissions derive from Scope 3, mostly purchased goods and services.
“Keep eyes peeled for investment by apparel brands in the Global South via initiatives to target Scope 3 emissions,” Lewis Perkins, president at San Francisco’s Apparel Impact Institute (AII), said. “In 2024, we saw major players step up. For example, Bestseller and H&M are jointly financing Bangladesh to build its first offshore wind farm, which will increase clean energy capacity and support regional suppliers in transitioning to greener energy sources.”
“A significant proportion of textile suppliers are small and medium-sized enterprises that struggle with their cash flow, aren’t considered creditworthy and don’t have access to loans,” he added. “This is where brands must lead, offering direct funding, co-investment models, and facilitating access to affordable financing solutions.”
Calls for focused collaborations
Watchdog groups complain that brands join great-sounding climate, biodiversity and human rights collaborations but do little behind the scenes to serve the shared goals.
This year can be when this changes, according to AII’s Perkins. “A persistent false narrative suggests that assets required for climate innovation in fashion must compete with funding for other sectors,” he said. “In reality, many systems and innovations overlap, such as those in sustainable agriculture, the renewable energy transition and next-generation manufacturing technologies.”
[Connect with the sustainable fashion community and gain insights to accelerate the shift to a circular economy at Circularity, April 29-May 1, Denver, CO.]
link
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/2025fashiontrendssocial-a01be58e625e45988e8038ac9522df91.jpg "7 Fashion Trends to Know for 2025")
