H&M, Fast Fashion, and the Limits of “Progress”
Sustainability reports are never just about the numbers — they’re about narrative. About how a company frames its progress, sidesteps its pitfalls, and decides what’s worth showing vs. what’s left in the footnotes. And surprise surprise, H&M’s 2024 Annual & Sustainability Report is no exception. At first glance, it’s clean, comprehensive, and packed with all the right signals — CSRD alignment, circularity claims, social impact language, investment in green tech. But beneath that structure is a different kind of story. One that raises questions about what’s actually changing, what’s just being reframed, and whether the fast fashion engine is even capable of slowing down. This is a critical read-through of that story — not to dismiss what’s been done, but to break down what’s missing, what’s murky, and what still doesn’t add up.
Strategic Positioning, Business Model, Materiality & Governance
H&M opens its report by saying the right things. That fashion has to change. That long-term success depends on responsibility. That they’re transforming their business to align with a decarbonizing economy. But once you move past the messaging, the strategy doesn’t really shift. The company’s business model still relies on high-volume production, fast trend cycles, and global logistics — the same structure that built its growth over the last two decades. That structure hasn’t changed. It’s just being managed more “sustainably.” The idea seems to be: optimize the current model with digital tools, better forecasting, smarter inventory, more sustainable materials, and circular programs. But what’s missing is any serious discussion of limits. If the system depends on selling more clothes every year, how much can really change?
Materiality shows up early in the report — now aligned with CSRD requirements. H&M says it prioritized topics based on double materiality, impact, and financial relevance. But when you look at what makes the list — emissions, water, wages, diversity — it's mostly expected. What doesn’t show up is overproduction. Or marketing pressure. Or planned obsolescence. These aren’t framed as material risks, but they define the business. There’s also a disconnect between the tone and the data. The tone is progressive, even hopeful. The data tells a slower, more cautious story. Emissions are up. Circularity is limited. Recycled material use is incremental. Offsets are vaguely referenced. You get the sense the brand wants to show progress without disrupting its core operations. On governance, the report emphasizes that sustainability is integrated at the group level and embedded into risk reviews. They mention cross-functional steering groups, internal training, and executive accountability. But none of it is very concrete. There’s no clear outline of who owns what, or how sustainability goals tie into executive compensation — at least not in detail.
So while the report frames sustainability as a strategic pillar, it feels more like an overlay than a rewire. The ambition is framed in future terms. The structure, for now, stays the same.
Emissions Strategy & Carbon Accounting
In 2024, H&M reported total GHG emissions of 5.7 million tonnes CO₂e, up from 5.3 million in 2023.
That’s a 6% increase year-over-year — and the report admits this is driven by higher sales volumes. They made more stuff. They shipped more stuff. That’s the core reason emissions went up.
Scope 1 (direct emissions): 6,924 tonnes CO₂e
Scope 2 (purchased electricity): 34,746 tonnes CO₂e
Scope 3 (indirect value chain emissions): 5.63 million tonnes CO₂e
Scope 3 is 98.5% of H&M’s total footprint. That’s where the real impact is — not in their stores, but in the production, transport, use, and disposal of clothes.
They also report emissions intensity per product sold, which rose by 2% this year. That’s important: not only are total emissions up — so are emissions per item. The company is moving backwards, not just stalling.
Scope 3 Breakdown
The Scope 3 breakdown confirms where the footprint really lives:
Purchased goods and services (materials, manufacturing): 74%
End-of-life treatment of sold products
Transportation and distribution
Use of sold products
Capital goods, fuel-related emissions, and business travel (minor)
The report confirms that emissions from purchased goods increased 9% — mainly due to production growth. That single line basically invalidates the idea that H&M is decoupling impact from output. It’s not. The more they grow, the more they emit. They also mention emissions from end-of-life — which is growing, but the data is foggy. There’s no regional breakdown, no product-specific impact, and no trend over time. Just high-level percentages. It’s hard to track what’s really changing.
This is the part of the report that matters most — the numbers. The raw emissions data, the targets, the trajectory. H&M gives you a full Scope 1, 2, and 3 breakdown, and it looks organized at first glance. But when you slow down, the picture shifts. The framing is optimistic, but the math isn’t.
The Targets
H&M claims to be aligned with the 1.5°C pathway — aiming for net-zero across the value chain by 2040, with a 56% reduction in absolute Scope 1–3 emissions by 2030 (from a 2019 baseline). They also cite an SBTi-validated near-term target.
But this is where things start to lose credibility.
Emissions are increasing, not decreasing.
The methodology for calculating emissions has changed, making it impossible to track real progress over time.
No restated 2019 baseline is provided using the updated methods.
The report doesn’t separate progress from recalibration — it just says “we’re on track.”
You can't claim target alignment while emissions are rising and the baseline is shifting. That’s not decarbonization. That’s accounting gymnastics.
Methodology Shift & Transparency Gaps
This year, H&M updated its emissions factors to include more supplier-specific data and newer LCA inputs. In theory, that’s a solid move — it should mean more precise accounting and better visibility across the supply chain. But the tradeoff here is clarity. The report doesn’t explain what the new methodology changes actually do to the numbers. There’s no side-by-side comparison with the old method, no adjusted timeline to show what past emissions would look like using today’s approach, and no sensitivity analysis to help readers separate real decarbonization from recoding. So while the technical accuracy may have improved, transparency has taken a hit. We don’t know how much of the emissions shift is operational progress versus a recalibration on paper — and H&M doesn’t show its math. That makes it harder to trust the trajectory, especially for anyone tracking their net-zero alignment over time.
Offsets: Quietly Present
Offsets barely show up in the main report — just a footnote under the Scope 1 and 2 emissions table. It reads: “Scope 1 and 2 emissions are offset through renewable energy certificates and carbon removal investments.” That’s it. No detail on what types of removals are used, whether they’re temporary or permanent, if they’re avoidance- or drawdown-based, or how they’re verified. There’s also no mention of whether the offsets are location-based or market-based, or how they’re factored into the company’s climate targets. What’s concerning is how quietly this was positioned. It’s not discussed in the body of the emissions section at all. It’s simply assumed these emissions have already been neutralized — but without any supporting data or disclosure. And Scope 3 — where nearly the entire footprint lives — isn’t being offset at all. So the little bit that is offset, and the lack of transparency around it, feels more like optics than substance. If offsets are part of the emissions story, they need to be treated as such — not buried in a footnote like a technicality.
Circularity & Waste
H&M talks a lot about circularity. The word shows up constantly — in the CEO message, in the targets, in the brand strategy. It’s clearly a pillar of their sustainability messaging. But once you dig in, it becomes clear: most of it is still positioning, not practice.
The company gestures toward circular design, resale, recycling, and end-of-life solutions. But the actual numbers — when they do appear — show just how early-stage everything is.
Let’s start with the resale numbers. H&M reports that only 0.6% of their turnover comes from resale. That’s tiny. They offer resale in 25 selling markets and just 12% of stores. For a company of this size and reach, this isn't transformation — it’s a test market.
Then there’s garment collection — the bins at the back of the store where people can drop off used clothes. In 2024, H&M collected 17,100 tonnes of garments. Of that, 66% went to reuse, 24% to recycling, and 10% was incinerated or otherwise disposed of.
At face value, that sounds okay — but there are layers.
First, there’s no detail on where these clothes go, how reuse is defined, or whether the end destinations actually deliver on sustainability goals. As H&M admits, they rely on average data from sorting partners, and they changed partners recently, which means year-over-year data isn't really comparable. That’s a red flag for trend analysis.
And critically: none of this data is tied back to production volumes. H&M produced over 1.5 billion items last year. When you compare that to the 17,100 tonnes collected through garment collection, the scale imbalance is absurd. The loop isn't closed — it's barely cracked open.
Same thing with product waste. H&M started reporting new KPIs in 2024 for waste generated in stores and warehouses — mostly damaged goods or returns. They say 90% of this product waste is reused or recycled, which sounds good, but again, there’s no insight into what happens next. Is this reuse as-is? Downcycling? Geographic displacement?
They also introduced stats for packaging waste, which is mostly recycled (95%) — but again, this is operational waste, not product waste. It doesn’t touch the much bigger question of what happens after the consumer is done with the garment.
So what the hell is actually circular here?
H&M says they’re embedding circular design principles, piloting traceability platforms like TextileGenesis, and exploring new models through startups like Syre (textile-to-textile polyester recycling). And those are strong moves — Syre, in particular, is a legitimate investment in future infrastructure.
But the bulk of the product pipeline is still built for short-term use. Circularity is being talked about like it’s a material — something you can “add” to a collection. But in reality, it's a systems-level shift. One that requires fewer clothes, longer lifespans, better quality, infrastructure for repair and resale, and full traceability.
None of that is happening at scale here.
The Real Story…
This section feels like a soft launch of ideas that sound good — but don't hold weight yet. The company is clearly trying to be early to the circular economy conversation, but the proof isn’t here. Circularity is framed as a design feature, not a business model shift. Let’s be blunt: you can’t “innovate your way out” of the consequences of overproduction. And yet, that’s the energy this section gives off — like circularity will eventually offset the fact that billions of garments are still being pumped into the world, season after season.
To go back to an earlier analogy:
“It’s like bragging about turning off the tap while your factory floods the village.”
Here, it’s more like bragging about installing a drain. Sure, it helps a little. But if the tap is still on full blast, you’re not fixing the problem — you’re just making it sound more manageable.
Materials & Inputs
H&M spends a lot of time in this section talking about progress: recycled content is up, investments have been made, and traceability tools are in motion. But under all that, the big tension is this — volume is the problem, not just the type of material used.
Let’s start with the basics. Materials are H&M’s largest Scope 3 emissions category, and yet the framing in the report is soft. They highlight a push toward “sustainably sourced or recycled materials,” but never define what that really means. Are we talking about certified organic cotton? Mass-balance recycled polyester? In-conversion regenerative fibers? It’s vague, and strategically so. In 2024, H&M claims 85% of their materials are either recycled or “sustainably sourced.” That sounds impressive — but again, it’s incredibly broad. These categories often include things like Better Cotton (which doesn’t actually certify fiber-level sustainability), mass-balance recycled inputs (where fossil and recycled feedstocks are blended, with no physical traceability), and semi-sustainable proxies.
And even if we give them the benefit of the doubt:
If the company still produced 1.5+ billion items, does it matter? A recycled shirt made to be worn three times and tossed is still wasteful — I honestly cant believe people do that shit. The volume issue cancels out most of the material gains.
The report also introduces a few real investments — and this is where things get more interesting. They mention:
A SEK 1.7 billion spend on decarbonization across the value chain — mostly on material switches, some energy improvements.
The launch of Syre, a joint venture with Vargas to scale textile-to-textile recycled polyester.
Investment in Galy, a startup developing lab-grown cotton through cellular agriculture.
An LCA baseline study with Textile Exchange and OCA to improve impact data on cotton.
These aren’t surface-level moves. They're real bets on future materials and infrastructure. But they exist alongside — not instead of — the current system. The bulk of what’s sold today is still built on virgin inputs, and despite all the talk, there’s no shift in product strategy to reduce total material use.
What’s also worth flagging: H&M says it’s “piloting traceability” for Better Cotton and man-made cellulosics. In 2024, piloting traceability for your biggest material categories isn't leadership — it's catch-up. Especially when brands half your size are already doing it at scale.
The tension here is the same as elsewhere: if you improve materials, but still grow production, are you getting closer to sustainability? Or are you just doing more damage, slightly more efficiently?
This section does a good job making H&M look like a forward-thinking player. And in fairness, they are involved in some next-gen projects worth watching — Syre is one of the most legit moves in the game right now. But at the same time, their core material story is built on fuzzy definitions, inflated percentages, and a refusal to address volume. They’re upgrading the ingredients without changing the recipe. And when you're making 1.5 billion garments a year, even a high “recycled content” stat doesn’t tell the full story. If you triple the volume of production, recycled or not, you’re still scaling impact. Until H&M starts talking about absolute volume reduction — not just better fibers — this whole section reads like damage control in a new costume. It’s thoughtful. It’s invested. But it’s not transformative
Water, Biodiversity & Chemicals
This section is quiet — big red flag! Water and biodiversity are material environmental issues for any fashion brand operating on H&M’s scale, but here, they’re handled almost like side notes.
Let’s start with water. The report mentions water stewardship in vague terms — referencing some work with WWF, basin-level engagement, and “efforts to reduce impacts.” But there’s no real accounting of water risk exposure, usage by region, or the role that material sourcing (especially cotton) plays in local water stress. There’s also no mention of water intensity improvements per product, no year-over-year comparisons, and no specific targets for absolute water reduction. Instead, water is lumped into a broader narrative of “responsible resource use,” with soft language and few hard facts.
Chemical management is a bit more developed — H&M highlights their work with the ZDHC (Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals) and the use of a Manufacturing Restricted Substances List (MRSL). They also note that 95% of wet processing suppliers report data into the Higg Facility Environmental Module (FEM). That’s solid — it shows at least a willingness to track and monitor chemical risk. But even here, there’s a strange absence of ambition. There’s no goal to eliminate hazardous chemicals by a certain year, no innovation roadmap for cleaner dyeing processes, and no direct links between their chemical management practices and product-level safety or consumer health. It’s compliance-focused — not impact-driven.
Then there’s biodiversity. It gets a passing mention, tied mostly to regenerative agriculture pilots and land stewardship goals in cotton regions. But again — no measurable targets, no spatial mapping, and no connection between their raw material choices and ecosystem-level outcomes. It feels like they know it matters, but don’t know how to talk about it yet.
This section reads like it’s here because it has to be. Not because it’s central to H&M’s sustainability strategy. And that’s the problem. These issues are interconnected. If you’re building a circular strategy, you can’t ignore what happens upstream — water use, chemical runoff, biodiversity loss from monoculture agriculture. It all ties together. You don’t get circularity without clean inputs and regenerative practices.
But H&M doesn’t tie those threads. Water is siloed. Chemicals are technical. Biodiversity is aspirational. There’s no cohesive narrative, and no sense that these impacts are being managed with the same urgency as energy or materials. In short: it’s underdeveloped. Not greenwashing, not dishonest — just unfinished. It’s not clear what H&M actually plans to do beyond basic monitoring and selective partnerships. And in 2024, that’s not enough.
Human Rights, Labour, and Social Governance
This is one of the longest sections in the report — and the most padded (are we even surprised anymore?). H&M lays out a full vision for respecting human rights, embedding due diligence, protecting workers, and empowering its own workforce. It sounds great. But after reading the whole thing, it’s clear: there’s a major gap between structure and substance.
They’ve got the scaffolding. Global Framework Agreements, grievance mechanisms, training programs, stakeholder consultations, pilot projects. They namecheck all the right frameworks — UNGPs, OECD guidelines, ILO conventions. It’s all there. But the data is shallow, the outcomes are unclear, and the tone leans hard into optics.
Own Workforce
The language here is polished — inclusion, empowerment, learning, engagement. There’s mention of global compensation guidelines, standardised recruitment, and employee engagement surveys. The engagement score improved by 1 point — from 75 to 76 — and that’s what they highlight. But this is H&M. With global operations and major workforce exposure, we expect more than vague statements about “respect” and “support.” There’s no breakdown of complaints filed, issues resolved, or concrete results from any policy. It’s mostly vibes — not accountability.
Supply Chain Workers
This is where the stakes are higher — and where the spin gets thicker. H&M describes a wide-ranging due diligence system, built around identifying “salient” human rights risks. They name the right categories: health & safety, forced labour, child labour, discrimination, freedom of association. And they claim to engage with unions, NGOs, local stakeholders, and suppliers. There are grievance mechanisms, including whistleblowing platforms, National Monitoring Committees (NMCs), hotline pilots, and a digital workers’ voice dashboard. It all sounds like infrastructure. But it’s hard to know what’s real.
There’s no transparency on the volume of complaints, how they were resolved, or whether retaliation occurred. They admit workers may have been coached when answering surveys — and still treat the results as validation. The systems are in place, but the signal-to-noise ratio is weak. Remediation is another big claim. They say they have a formal remediation process. They outline principles for how they’ll handle violations. But they don’t give examples, data, or case studies. It’s theoretical. Not practical.
Same with gender-based violence (GBVH). They’ve rolled out new guidelines, provided training, and launched joint gap analyses with suppliers. But they don’t report how many incidents were identified or addressed. Again — all process, no impact.
Wages, Fair Work, and Voice
This section is where the contradictions really show. They advocate for fair wages — even say they want to ensure workers have “discretionary income.” But they admit that minimum wages in most sourcing countries are too low — and then fall back on programs to support “functional wage-management systems.” In other words, the wage floor remains low, and the responsibility is shared with suppliers. They highlight a collective bargaining agreement in Cambodia that introduced paternity leave and wage guarantees. That’s a win. But it’s not replicated at scale. They also mention contributing to Bangladesh’s Employment Injury Scheme — a program funded by brands, meant to cover work-related injuries. But again, no detail on coverage, payouts, or how many workers have been supported.
H&M wants to be seen as a leader in ethical business. And they’ve built the infrastructure to say they are. But that infrastructure still reads more like a shield than a lever.
Almost everything here is built around the idea of compliance, not transformation. They want systems in place — grievance platforms, training modules, due diligence frameworks — but they don’t show us what these systems actually produce. There’s no real transparency on results. No hard data on harms identified, mitigated, or resolved. No power shift. Just process.
That doesn’t mean the work is meaningless. The GFA, the gender safety programs, the wage pilots — they matter. But until the company can clearly link its governance structures to real-world outcomes for workers, it’s hard to buy into the story. And ultimately, this section is built on the assumption that safeguards are enough to justify the scale of H&M’s model. That if you build enough ethical structure, the system itself doesn’t need to change. But the truth is: human rights violations don’t happen in spite of the fast fashion system. They happen because of it.
Reporting, Frameworks & Transparency
From a distance, H&M’s reporting looks robust. They use double materiality. Align with CSRD. Reference GRI, TCFD, SASB, UNGPs, SDGs, OECD, and a bunch of other acronyms that scream credibility. They even provide a separate GRI index and assurance statement. But the closer you get, the more it gives…. reporting as performance. It’s polished. It’s mapped. But the actual clarity — the kind that lets an outsider really assess what’s going on — is hit or miss.
CSRD & Double Materiality
H&M says this report is aligned with the EU’s CSRD and reflects both financial and impact materiality. That’s important. CSRD asks companies to assess not just what affects the business, but also how the business affects the world. And to be fair, H&M did improve its structure this year. The materiality section clearly labels environmental, social, and governance impact areas. They claim to have consulted stakeholders and revalidated material issues across the value chain.
But here’s what’s missing:
We don’t know who those stakeholders were.
There’s no published stakeholder map.
No breakdown of issues by geography, function, or role.
No explanation of how the salience of human rights issues was weighted.
So yes, they used a more sophisticated framework. But the execution still keeps the reader at arm’s length. It’s just enough information to tick the box — not enough to understand what actually shaped their priorities.
The Assurance Statement
They provide third-party assurance over selected indicators — that’s a good move, and more than many brands do. But the scope is narrow. It's limited to a few key environmental KPIs (emissions, energy, etc.) and a slice of social data.
Critically:
Nothing from Scope 3 emissions was assured.
No supply chain wage data.
No grievance outcomes.
No gender equity or diversity stats.
So while the word “assurance” appears, it doesn’t cover the areas with the most uncertainty — or the biggest exposure.
Data Transparency: Selective
Throughout the report, H&M presents charts, year-on-year comparisons, and a few intensity ratios. But this is mostly surface-level. The emissions section, for example, provides Scope 1–3 data, but:
Doesn’t show what changed due to methodology updates.
Doesn’t break down emissions by product category.
Doesn’t disclose full country-by-country supplier emissions.
Doesn’t present any historical restatements for context.
Same goes for human rights. They mention grievance systems and NMCs, but don’t give any real numbers on outcomes — how many issues were raised, how many were addressed, how many remain unresolved. For a company of H&M’s scale, that silence is loud.
The Bigger Issue: Reporting vs Accountability
Here’s the thing. H&M reports like a company that wants to win awards — not necessarily like one that’s ready to change. Everything is formatted, crosswalked, indexed, footnoted. It looks like transparency. But true transparency isn’t just about sharing metrics. It’s about making it possible for someone outside the company to trace how decisions are made, what tradeoffs are accepted, and what progress looks like — even when it’s messy. And in this report, those messy parts are missing.
This is textbook ESG polish — full of frameworks, acronyms, and structured optimism. But the substance often slips just beneath the surface. What we’re seeing is a brand that wants to appear ahead of the curve, without letting us see how the curve is actually bent.
They’re transparent — but selectively.
Compliant — but cautious.
Progressive — but tightly controlled.
In short: the reporting is clean. The truth is less tidy.
My thoughts…
H&M’s 2024 report is impressive on paper. It’s structured, heavily referenced, and full of initiatives that suggest movement. But when you sift through the detail, a familiar pattern shows up: bold claims, limited proof, and a business model that’s still allergic to slowing down. There’s no doubt the company is doing something — in fact, they’re doing a lot. But it all feels designed to keep the machine running, not to fundamentally change it. That’s the real tension: they’re trying to clean up a system that’s built to produce more than the planet — or people — can sustain. In the end, the question isn’t whether H&M is doing more than before. It’s whether “more” is enough when the system itself hasn’t changed.
All data and insights provided by H&M 2024 Sustainability report available for download here.