Sustainable Fashion Summit Turns Sweet 16, But Dark Reality Bites

Last week, Global Fashion Agenda (GFA), a non-profit aiming to ‘accelerate impact’ and ‘spearhead the fashion industry towards a more sustainable future,’ held its annual Global Fashion Summit, in this, its seventeenth year.

GFA’s industry vision is ‘Net Positivity,’ and the annual Summit unites brands, manufacturers, policymakers, and other global stakeholders under its strategic guidance and impact-reduction initiatives.

Sustainability in retrograde

However, fashion’s negative impacts are increasing, not decreasing, and annual production volumes continue to rise. Global fiber production increased by a record 7% in 2023 to 124 million tonnes, a rate at which it will hit 160 million tonnes in 2030.

Such growth is wiping out incremental gains from sustainability initiatives. Stand. Earth’s 2025 Fossil Free Fashion Scorecard shows that in 2024, only three brands reduced emissions in line with a 1.5°C pathway, while 17 brands increased their carbon footprint compared to their baseline. 2024 was also the first year that average temperature increases breached the 1.5°C threshold.

Sustainability demands absolute impact reductions. To borrow Yoda’s wisdom, it’s a case of ‘do or do not—there is no ‘try’.’

As the industry’s sustainability shepherd, what is GFA to do after 16 years of sustainability talk and with ‘net positivity’ further from reality than ever? Under the banner of ‘Barriers and Bridges,’ in their latest annual report, GFA named three strategic action areas for 2025: Circular Economy, People, and Planet.

GFA’s 2025 strategy

On the ‘Circular Economy,’ GFA will ‘lead a harmonization effort of global Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regulations’ that are under development in the European Union. Such work is critical since EPR fees ostensibly underpin investment in circular infrastructure in Europe, such as textile repair and recycling. These efforts should increase the utility of clothing and (in theory) reduce the demand for new fibers and new clothes – both levers for decreasing production whilst generating revenue from existing resources.

On ‘Planet,’ GFA (somewhat unspecifically) says it will ‘continue to emphasize the need for decarbonization and collective investment in Renewable Energy Initiatives.’

Fashion’s emissions mostly arise from production in Asia, and its textile factories are in the crosshairs for decarbonization of energy sources, since they are the principal emissions, water, and chemical hotspots.

‘People’ is the GFA’s third (and most detailed) area of focus in 2025, naming two research initiatives led by the non-profit:

1. Research on perceptions of pay equity in Italy and France
2. A program on adaptation and resilience in the European supply chain, starting with Italy.

This revelation begs a pause. Europe? The region where just a fraction of global fashion production is done, with the highest rates of pay equity, and the lowest climate vulnerability on the planet? Why the sudden departure from GFA’s historical focus on the industry’s impact hotspots (in Asia)?

Euro-centric pivot

“Italy was never in the picture [at GFA], and I waited until we were sure we had enough [coverage of other] areas of the world to [then] look at Italy,” explains the non-profit’s CEO, Federica Marchionni. “We have to consider other countries and other brands–we’re not ‘global’ if we don’t include European countries.”

Regarding GFA’s previous work: “The biggest impact programs [are in Asia] for sure, that’s what we did for 15 years [but] the brands that define culture are European–you can’t ignore that. They are somehow very well known [and] Europe has to be in the mix for that reason,” says the CEO.

European brands are undoubtedly economic powerhouses, and luxury brands have been implicated in several lawsuits in Italy over the past year due to systemic migrant worker exploitation in its supply chain. It’s undeniable that these issues in Italy (also an inherent feature of global supply chains) be squarely addressed.

“[European] brands have the responsibility to lead by example not only on quality [but on] future-proofing their businesses. If I want to speak on behalf of the industry, we need to include Europe,” stressed Marchionni.

Regarding putting Europe ‘front-and-center’ in GFA’s strategic research efforts, what is the environmental rationale, since the industry’s sustainability success depends on climate adaptation and decarbonization in Asia?

“We need to solve a global issue with sustainability, and the way I am trying to do it is to go into the settings where those conversations are most relevant – at the UN, in Davos [for example].”

“Our work was too focused on South Asia–we have the renewable energy initiative that was done in Bangladesh, the post-industrial circularity in South East Asia [where] we’ve proven the business case in Bangladesh for cotton [recycling], then exported it to Indonesia and Cambodia..”

Marchionni is referring to a few of GFA’s many multi-stakeholder initiatives, namely the Global Circular Fashion Initiative (where they convene stakeholders under a Circular Fashion Partnerships scheme deployed by funding bodies, brands, manufacturers, and recyclers); as well as an offshore wind energy project in Bangladesh. But are these Asia-based efforts “done”?

Despite GFA announcing the Bangladesh offshore wind project at COP28 in 2023, a feasibility study into the project’s potential to exist has not yet commenced.

On the same subject, a straw poll of journalists at the Summit revealed they were under the impression that the Bangladesh wind farm was already being built, thanks to funding from fashion brands.

Regarding the Circular Fashion Partnerships (CFP), the successful Bangladesh pilot led by BESTSELLER and Reverse Resources (and implemented by UNIDO) proved the business case for post-industrial recycling there, then the need for policy changes to pave the way for industrial deployment. However, GFA is still recruiting brands (who pay to participate in the CFP program) for the Cambodia and Indonesia pilots.

Is it really time to shift strategic focus to Europe?

The devilish reality, as always, is in the details, and the ‘sustainable fashion’ movement at large has claimed ‘intent’ as ‘action’ for years. Science-based target (SBT) setting is one example, where fast-fashion brand Shein recently had its SBTs approved despite increasing its emissions by 176% from 2021 (its baseline year) to 2023, with no detailed explanation as to how reductions will be tracked or achieved. What is clear is Shein’s publicly announced goal to achieve $60 billion in revenue by 2025 (compared to $32.5 billion in 2023), and that achieving it would equate to higher production volumes (and emissions).

What does this ‘sustainability sentiment’ and ’intention’ actually cost? Well, what you don’t measure, you can’t know.

Europe’s exploits

To Marchionni’s point, Europe has experienced intense industry scrutiny in the past year, with increased EU-based regulation and a slew of court cases in Italy that exposed sweatshop-like conditions, including at workshops manufacturing for brands Dior, Giorgio Armani, and Alviero Martini. Just ahead of the Summit, the Italian courts put Valentino under judicial review due to exploitation in its supply chain there.

GFA began worker-focused research in Italy in 2024, in partnership with PwC and Camera Nazionale Della Moda, to survey perceptions of gender pay equity.

The results, presented on stage at the Summit, found that 80% of factory owners don’t believe their company has a gender pay gap, while 67% of HR representatives in those companies think they do.

Perceptions aside, Europe has the highest gender pay parity in the world, with women earning, on average, 12.7% less per hour than men. Italy fares better though, with women earning just 2.2% less per hour compared to men (as of 2023).

Leading industry-specific pay equity research by the Anker Research Institute found gender gaps of up to 22% in Bangladesh, 4-7% in Turkey, and 5-15% in Morocco.

The Italian (and soon-to-be French) pay gap focus seems unusual: not only does Europe have the world’s highest pay parity, but several organizations publish actual gender pay gap data. Why research pay gap perceptions?

“It’s a sensitive topic,” says Marchionni, since Italian manufacturers may not be used to people questioning them (via surveys, in this case) in their factories. The CEO also pointed out that this delicate work is “not easy” for her since she is Italian, but does not shy away from it.

During the Summit, Erika Andreetta, Senior Partner at PwC Italia explained that most manufacturing units in Italy are micro-sized (10 or fewer employees) and fall below reporting and regulatory radars, so there can be hidden inequity. As such, their ongoing research with GFA will focus on gender pay equity in Italy and then France.

Illegal actions

Worker exploitation was a topic of discussion on stage at the Summit, but mainly focused on Bangladesh’s below-living wages and gender-based violence problems, as explained by Kalpona Akter, Founding member and Executive Director of the Bangladesh Center for Workers Solidarity.

From an Italian perspective, a video was broadcast during the Summit, pre-recorded by Luca Sburlati, the President of Confindustria Moda–a Federation that aims to protect and promote the interests of the sector and its members and represents the entire Italian supply chain nationally and internationally.

In the video, Sburlati spoke on behalf of Italy’s sector, representing “500,000 people, more than 40,000 companies, and a total turnover of about 100 billion yearly.” The President did not mention Italy’s worker exploitation problem directly but referred to the new voluntary Accord: “Last week, we signed an important protocol to defend the legality [of our industry]..which we want to transform into a national law.”

“Together we want to defend and preserve the legality of what 99% of the companies [in Italy] are doing today,” he said, repeating several times in the 5-minute video the need to preserve and defend ‘the uniqueness of our [supply] chain,’ and concluding “we will..fight for our companies.”

Attila Kiss, CEO of Gruppo Florence (an industrial project that promotes Italian manufacturing excellence in the luxury sector) spoke on the Summit’s Ignite Stage about the recent “scandals we had in Italy,” saying they were due to “pressures from the market.”

He describes the situation thus: The markets are placing pressure on brands, and brands are, therefore, pushing suppliers (which are small family-owned companies that are quite weak in relation to the brands). In turn, the suppliers find a production solution that “is socially not correct.”

Kiss describes Italy’s micro-enterprises as being “pushed to find illegal solutions” due to pressures from brands. Overwhelmingly, the language from both speakers on the topic frames the recent exploitation as an external assault on the industry rather than a problem within it.

But ‘market pressures’ could simply be stated as a decline in demand for a brand’s products—an expected consequence of economic downturn and geopolitical instability. Rather than producing fewer products and gaining higher-margins through efficiencies or other legitimate means, the supply chain in Italy struggles to adapt (following years of decline) leading to adoption of illegal practices.

This framing of ‘market challenges’ is the mechanism by which exploitation occurs across fashion’s entire global supply chain, illustrating that Italy’s pressures are inbuilt and top-down from growth imperatives. Italy’s manufacturing woes, in essence, are those of the worldwide fashion manufacturing sector.

Industry denial

Despite the excellent role the Summit plays in convening and hosting industry stakeholders and sharing valuable global insights, the Strategic focus (and selected Summit snippets) suggest a wider sense of denial–denial of how far the industry is falling short on its sustainability targets, denial of how bad exploitation is in Europe (like in other production countries), and denial of how inbuilt and permanent brands’ pursuit of growth is, at any economic, social or environmental cost.

I first attended the Global Fashion Summit in 2017, and I continue to hope for the best; by this year’s measure, that would be GFA ‘leading and spearheading’ the industry, per its mission, by redirecting us onto the abatement path it set in 2020, and overseeing industry measurement of tangible actions and results against climate and social sustainability imperatives; prioritizing the industry’s hotspots, and the most vulnerable, first.