Key Findings

The Fashion Industry’s Pollution Is DEADLY:

  • Fashion companies have played a contributing role in climate change’s deadly impact around the globe; the industry is the source of some 8% of global climate pollution. [1]The Measuring Fashion report calculated the that fashion industry’s climate pollution represents an estimated 8.1% of total global emissions in 2016. Given the uncertainties, the industry’s range of climate pollution is 5% to 10% of global emissions. See: Quantis and ClimateWorks Foundation, Measuring Fashion: Insights from the Environmental Impact of the Global Apparel and Footwear Industries study, February 2018, page 18, https://quantis-intl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/measuringfashion_globalimpactstudy_full-report_quantis_cwf_2018a.pdf
  • Taking its current level of climate pollution as a starting point, the fashion industry is responsible for as many as 38,000 deaths a year from the impacts of climate change around the globe. The majority of people dying from the impacts of climate change are children in developing countries.
  • In 2016, the fashion industry caused an astounding 2,764,000 additional premature deaths or disabilities as a direct result of toxic pollution from its facilities and coal-fired plants powering them.

 

Levi’s Climate Action to Date Has Been Limited:

UPDATE: On 31 July, 2018, Levi’s made a commitment to reduce 40% of greenhouse gas emissions in its supply chain by 2025, setting a new standard on climate commitments in the apparel industry. The contents of this report have been updated to reflect Levi’s commitment.

Levi’s Climate and Air Pollution Impacts Are Vast:

  • Levi’s annual climate pollution is vastequal to that of 1.1 million cars, or more than 5 million metric tons of greenhouse gases emissions, according to the company’s own disclosures.
  • 99% of Levi’s climate pollution is from its supply chain
  • Many of Levi’s factories are located in pollution hot spots. [2]The terms “Levi’s factories” and “Levi’s operations” encompass all facilities that produce Levi’s products, regardless of Levi’s direct ownership or not.
  • Levi’s pollution contributes to climate change deaths, and the company has taken minimal action to end this deadly impact.
  • Taking the company’s climate pollution volume as an approximate indicator of its percentage representation within the industry, Levi’s operations can be correlated with up to 2,250 deaths or disabilities in 2016more than six additional people harmed each day—as a direct result of toxic pollution from its facilities and coal-fired plants powering them. [3]See the section on “Levi’s Role” for a complete discussion of this impact and citations.
  • Levi’s climate pollution can be correlated with as many as 31 additional deaths a year from the impacts of climate change. That is an approximation of one death every 12 days [4]This calculation utilizes current annual climate pollution levels as a closest available proxy to a company’s proportional responsibility in climate change deaths. See additional information on this issue in the body of the report., if current climate pollution levels are taken as a closest available proxy to a company’s proportional responsibility in climate change deaths around the globe. The majority of people dying from the impacts of climate change are children in developing countries.

 

Fashion Companies Can Lead the Industry out of Climate Pollution

In the original version of this report, we asked Levi’s to make a leadership-level climate commitment that:

  • Met or beat the targets of the UN Paris Agreement on climate change—which Levi’s publicly supports—with a 40% absolute reduction in total greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 for its full supply chain.
  • Transitioned its entire supply chain to renewable energy, with a minimum of 50% of energy sourced through renewables by 2035.
  • Committed to a long-term carbon emission reduction of at least 66% by 2050. [5]Recent assessment indicate that deeper, long-term cuts in climate emissions (an 80% reduction by 2050) by the industry may be necessary within a science-based approach that keeps the planet’s warming well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, as affirmed in the UN Paris Agreement on climate change. See: Quantis, Measuring Fashion: Insights from the Environmental Impact of the Global Apparel and Footwear Industries study, February 2018, page 42. https://quantis-intl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/measuringfashion_globalimpactstudy_full-report_quantis_cwf_2018a.pdf
  • Turned Levi's into a vocal advocate for full climate action within the industry, working to bring other big brands and their supply chains on board.
  • On July 31st 2018, Levi’s made a commitment to: 
    • Meet or beat the targets of the UN Paris Agreement on climate change--which Levi’s publicly supports--with a 40% absolute reduction in total greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 for its full supply chain

 

These pledges, which cover the 99% of Levi’s pollution that’s found in its supply chain, set a new standard for climate commitments in the apparel industry. While Levi’s still needs to establish longer term goals into 2050, including a commitment to transition entire its supply chains to renewable energy and an absolute carbon emission reduction of at least 66% by 2050, this step is commendable.

It will allow Levi’s to quickly reduce its carbon footprint in its entire supply chain, including its overseas factories, with adequate commitments that will help the company meet or beat the reduction standards laid out in the UN Paris Agreement on climate change. By reducing air pollution around its factories and helping slow climate change, this move from Levi’s will also literally save lives.

References   [ + ]

Back in 1853, amidst the boomtown days of the California’s Gold Rush, Levi Strauss & Co. invented the blue jean.

More than 160 years later, the industry trailblazer is still the world’s number one jean company. Known for its quality clothing, this iconic brand is made and sold around the globe.

In recent years, as interest in sustainability has grown, Levi’s has implemented several important environmental policies. The company was the first in the industry to establish global guidelines for water quality standards for its suppliers. It was also the first to provide financial incentives to upgrade environmental, health, safety and labor standards in developing countries.

In 2011, Levi’s launched the Water<Less™ process that reduces water usage in the garment finishing process by up to 96%. As a result, it has saved more than 1.8 billion liters of water. [1]Levi Strauss & Co, Sustainability—Introduction, http://levistrauss.com/sustainability/,[2]Levi Strauss & Co’s Climate Change Disclosure 2017, Carbon Disclosure Project, CC3.2a, http://levistrauss.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2017-Carbon-Disclosure-Project-2016-Results.pdf The company has also implemented initial energy efficiency measures in its owned operations (offices, retail stores, distribution centers and manufacturing plants owned and operated by Levi’s) and integrated some renewable energy into its electricity mix.

These are all positive actions. However, despite the initiatives and the company’s overall “green” image, Levi’s is still a major air and climate polluter.

The company’s clothing is produced at hundreds of factories around the globe, many that run largely on coal and other fossil fuels. Fiber and cloth production, manufacturing and transport, packaging, retail and product use throughout Levi’s complex global supply chain produce a vast climate pollution footprint—now reaching that of some 1.1 million cars a year. [3]Levi Strauss & Co’s Climate Change Disclosure 2017, Carbon Disclosure Project, http://levistrauss.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2017-Carbon-Disclosure-Project-2016-Results.pdf The sum of Levi’s Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions is more than 5 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent.

In addition to accelerating climate change, dirty fuels used throughout Levi’s clothing manufacturing process create significant air pollution that endangers the health of local communities.

Levi’s complex global supply chain produces a vast climate pollution footprintnow reaching that of some 1 million cars a year.

 

Click to enlarge image

Click to enlarge image

At a time when industry leaders around the globe are investing in breakthrough advances and transformational commitments to rein in the growing climate crisis, Levi’s has dragged its feet.

Until its recent announcement, the company has not addressed the magnitude of its climate pollution. Nor has the company stepped up to play a leadership role within the fashion industry—an industry that now produces an estimated 8.1% of global climate pollution each year.[4]Quantis and ClimateWorks Foundation, Measuring Fashion: Insights from the Environmental Impact of the Global Apparel and Footwear Industries study, February 2018, page 18, https://quantis-intl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/measuringfashion_globalimpactstudy_full-report_quantis_cwf_2018a.pdf,[5]Measuring Fashion calculated the that fashion industry’s climate pollution represents an estimated 8.1% of total global emissions in 2016. Given uncertainties, the industry’s range of climate pollution is 5% to 10% of global emissions, according to Measuring Fashion, cited above, page 18. Levi’s has a crucial role to play, and now is the time for company to take the lead.

References   [ + ]

As the world’s largest jeans company, Levi’s has powered its growing, global clothing supply chain in large part with polluting fuels. Because of this, the company’s climate pollutionmade up of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide that accumulate in Earth’s atmosphere and heat the planetis vast.

  • Levi’s products are made in more than 500 factories in nearly 40 countries [1]Levi Strauss & Co Factory List, September 2017, http://levistrauss.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Levi-Strauss-Co-Factory-List-September-2017.pdf around the world, and the extensive use of dirty fossil fuels in this global supply chain produces air and climate pollution throughout.
  • Coal produces most of the electricity in Levi’s largest manufacturing locations, China and India. [2]“Levi’s factories” refers to facilities that manufacture Levi’s products. The company owns only a fraction of the facilities that produce its clothing.
  • Levi’s products are made in nearly 150 factories in China, where coal powers up to 70% of the electrical grid. [3]U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Chinese coal-fired electricity generation expected to flatten as mix shifts to renewables,” September 2, 2017, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33092 And https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle
  • Levi’s products are made in more than 40 factories in India, where coal powers 75% of the electrical grid. [4]https://tradingeconomics.com/india/electricity-production-from-coal-sources-percent-of-total-wb-data.html,[5]Levi Strauss & Co Factory List, September 2017, http://levistrauss.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Levi-Strauss-Co-Factory-List-September-2017.pdf
  • 99% of Levi’s climate pollution is from its supply chain, yet the company has no policy, nor taken any meaningful action, to address impacts outside of its owned operations. [6]Levi Strauss & Co’s Climate Change Disclosure 2017, Carbon Disclosure Project, section CC14.4b, http://levistrauss.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2017-Carbon-Disclosure-Project-2016-Results.pdf  See paragraph including: “99% of our total GHG emissions came from Scope 3 categories,” with Scope 3 effectively correlating with the company’s supply chain.
  • Levi’s annual climate pollution is vastequal to that of 1.1 million cars, or more than 5 million metric tons of greenhouse gases emissions, according to the company’s own disclosures. [7]Levi Strauss & Co’s Climate Change Disclosure 2017, Carbon Disclosure Project, http://levistrauss.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2017-Carbon-Disclosure-Project-2016-Results.pdf The sum of Levi’s Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions is more than 5 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent.,[8]U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle,” https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle
  • A single pair of Levi’s 501 jeans creates the climate pollution equivalent of burning more than 21 pounds of coal in the production, manufacturing, transport and retail process, according to the company’s own report. [9]Levi Strauss & Co., The Life Cycle of a Jean, slide 17, http://levistrauss.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Full-LCA-Results-Deck-FINAL.pdf This study commissioned by Levi’s calculated that the full life cycle of a pair of 501 jeans produces 33.4 kg of CO2e. This same study also show that manufacturing (including fiber and fabric production, sewing and packaging and transport) makes up 60% of the jean’s total GHG emission, or 20.0 kg CO2e. This converts to 21.9 lbs of coal burned, using the US EPA’s GHG calculator available here: https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator
  • Levi’s has grown its global businessand the resulting climate pollutionin recent years, successfully expanding its net sales by 20% from 2005 to 2017. [10]Statistica, “Net sales of Levi Strauss worldwide from 2005 to 2017 in billion U.S. dollars,” https://www.statista.com/statistics/268540/global-net-sales-of-levi-strauss/

 

Click to enlarge image

References   [ + ]

Consumers, media and nongovernmental organizations are increasingly aware of climate change and the role business can play in reducing its emissions.” — Levi’s website [1]Levi Strauss & Co., Climate Change Disclosure 2017, Carbon Disclosure Project, section CC5.1c, http://levistrauss.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2017-Carbon-Disclosure-Project-2016-Results.pdf


When it comes to climate change talk, Levi’s has done its homework.
Its website, blog posts and social media posts all speak to climate change: “If left unchecked, large-scale climate change will have serious economic, social and environmental consequences…,” the company warns. [2]Levi Strauss & Co., “Sustainability-Planet: Climate Change,” http://levistrauss.com/sustainability/planet/climate-change/

To its credit, Levi’s has used its voice to support the U.S.’s continued participation in the UN Paris Agreement on climate change. The company is also a member of organizations that advocate for climate action, including the Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy network, and it is participating in a program to reduce the environmental impact of six Chinese mills that supply Levi’s with cotton.

Levi’s is also taking action to clean up a small portion of its climate footprint. Within its owned operations (an estimated 1% of its total climate pollution according to its own documents), it is on track to reduce carbon emissions by 25% and use 20% renewable energy by 2020. Levi’s has also joined the Science Based Targets project. While an important step, it has yet to make any specific climate change commitment for its supply chain as part of SBT. [3]Levi Strauss & Co., “Sustainability-Planet: Climate Change,” http://levistrauss.com/sustainability/planet/climate-change/


These actions are all commendable, but address only a very, very small portion of Levi’s climate pollution—in fact only 1/4 of 1% of Levi's total footprint.

The company promised back in 2012 that “within our operations globally, we are committed to reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases,” in practice, that has not happened. [4]Levi Strauss & Co., “2012 Climate Change Strategy,” Our Approach, page 4, http://levistrauss.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/2012-Climate-Change-Strategy.pdf To date, the company has taken no meaningful action and has only just made firm climate commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2025.

References   [ + ]

As the world begins to confront the increasingly devastating impacts of climate change on every continent—floods, fires, drought and sea rise—the fashion industry has largely turned a blind eye.

Focused on ramping up production, the industry’s output has soared as corporations expanded the number of “micro-seasons,” tightened production cycles and intensified marketing campaigns.

This fast fashion trend has also succeeded in keeping clothing prices down relative to other consumer goods, boosting production volumes. Indeed, annual clothing production doubled between 2000 and 2014. [1]McKinsey & Co, “Style that’s sustainable: a new fast-fashion formula,” October 2016. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability-and-resource-productivity/our-insights/style-thats-sustainable-a-new-fast-fashion-formula Consumers keep clothing about half as long as they did 15 years ago, and purchase some 60% more garments each year. [2]Ibid.

Unfortunately, the fashion industry’s boom has had devastating consequences for our global environment.

The myriad of impacts across regions and thousands of communities have included water pollution, pesticide use, toxic discharges, deforestation, and ballooning air and climate pollution, among other consequences. This impact has been well documented.

In a recent study, a leading research firm carried out an in-depth analysis of the fashion industry’s climate pollution specifically, assessing both its current footprint and projected growth over time. The report, “Measuring Fashion: Insights from the Environmental Impact of the Global Apparel and Footwear Industries study” includes several critical findings on the industry’s growth:

  • The apparel industry’s production impacts have increased rapidly in recent years, with a 35% increase in climate pollution in just one decade from 2005 to 2016. [3]Measuring Fashion calculated the that fashion industry’s climate pollution represents an estimated 8.1% of total global emissions in 2016. Given uncertainties, the industry’s range of climate pollution is 5% to 10% of global emissions. Quantis and ClimateWorks Foundation, Measuring Fashion: Insights from the Environmental Impact of the Global Apparel and Footwear Industries study, February 2018, page 18, https://quantis-intl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/measuring_fashion_report_quantis.pdf
  • Under a business-as-usual scenario, the apparel industry’s climate pollution will increase by an extraordinary 49% by 2030 over 2016 levels. [4]Quantis and ClimateWorks Foundation, Measuring Fashion: Insights from the Environmental Impact of the Global Apparel and Footwear Industries study, February 2018, page 32. https://quantis-intl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/measuringfashion_globalimpactstudy_full-report_quantis_cwf_2018a.pdf
  • In this scenario, by 2030 the fashion industry’s total climate pollution will approach today’s annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. (Fashion’s GHG projected to be 5.86 metric gigatons of CO2e/year, and the U.S. emitted 6.51 metric gigatons of CO2e in 2016.) [5]U.S. EPA, “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016—Executive Summary”, Page 4, 2018, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-01/documents/2018_executive_summary.pdf For full fashion industry GHGs citation, please see Table 1 in this report.

 

 

Click to enlarge image

In fact, the fashion industry as a whole, which includes both clothing and footwear, has become a major climate polluter on a global scale, responsible for approximately 8.1% of all climate pollution, emitting 3.99 metric gigatons tons of CO2e in 2016. [6]CO2e refers to Carbon Dioxide equivalent, a measurement that is commonly used as a standard unit in greenhouse gas (climate pollution) accounting. Findings in Measuring Fashion were the product of a complex, multistage investigation of the industry’s greenhouse gas emissions across regions and seven stages from fiber production to end-of-life, taking into account the energy and fuel inputs in the full life-cycle analysis.,[7]Measuring Fashion calculated the that fashion industry’s climate pollution represents an estimated 8.1% of total global emissions in 2016. Given uncertainties, the industry’s range of climate pollution is 5% to 10% of global emissions, according to Measuring Fashion, page 18.

This level of emissions means that if the fashion industry were a nation, it would be the fourth largest climate polluter on the planet, just behind the European Union (whose emissions are going down, rather than up). [8]World Resources Institute, Climate Watch platform, 2017, http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/04/interactive-chart-explains-worlds-top-10-emitters-and-how-theyve-changed

If the fashion industry were a nation, it would be the fourth largest climate polluter on the planet, just behind the European Union.

 

Click to enlarge image

What is the source of the industry’s vast and growing climate pollution throughout its supply chain? More than 50% of apparel’s climate pollution is produced during just three stages: dyeing and finishing, yarn preparation, and fiber production. The Measuring Fashion study notes the relation between these manufacturing stages and fossil fuels:

“With global manufacturing concentrated in Asia, GHG emissions in these stages are driven by apparel production's reliance on hard coal and natural gas to generate electricity and heat.” [9]Quantis and ClimateWorks Foundation, Measuring Fashion: Insights from the Environmental Impact if the Global Apparel and Footwear Industries study, Executive Summary, page 3, https://quantis-intl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/measuring_fashion_report_quantis.pdf

This concentration of climate pollution in three stages offers a real opportunity—instead of scrambling to implement significant changes at all points along its fashion supply chain, the industry can have an outsized impact by prioritizing these carbon “hot spots” with its initial climate action efforts.

References   [ + ]

Each year more than 5.5 million people die prematurely from air pollution, and most of these deaths are in China and India where coal is the primary source of electrical power.  [1]Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, “Global Burden of Air Pollution,” February 12, 2016, http://www.healthdata.org/infographic/global-burden-air-pollution

In China alone, some 1.6 million people die each year from air pollution. [2]Rohde, Robert A., and Robert A. Muller, “Air Pollution in China: Mapping of Concentrations and Sources,” Berkeley Earth, August 2015, page 11, http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/China-Air-Quality-Paper-July-2015.pdf and covered in: New York Times, “Study Links Polluted Air in China to 1.6 Million Deaths a Year,” August 13, 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/world/asia/study-links-polluted-air-in-china-to-1-6-million-deaths-a-year.html?action=click&contentCollection=Asia%20Pacific&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article  Coal burning is the single greatest factor in air pollution deaths in China, documented at causing some 366,000 deaths each year, and 155,000 of these deaths are attributable to industrial coal use. [3]New York Times, “Coal Burning Causes the Most Air Pollution Deaths in China, Study Finds,” August 17, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/world/asia/china-coal-health-smog-pollution.html

The fashion industry is part of this deadly equation. Across the globe, many sites of extreme air pollution overlap with the fashion industry’s manufacturing hubs—cities and provinces with dozens of factories running on dirty fossil fuels and the coal-fired power plants to supply them.

Toxic air pollution with elevated levels of particulate matter from this burning causes a myriad of severe health impacts for local communities, including increased incidents of premature death. These coal-burning power plants provide electricity to clothing factories across many regions of China, India and other countries central to the fashion industry’s garment production.

In the case of China, while efforts are underway to crack down on factories and other pollution violations, recent academic studies show that coal combustion remains “the single largest source of air pollution-related health impact.” [4]Tsinghua University and Health Effects Institute, “Report: Burden of Disease Attributable to Coal-Burning and Other Major Sources of Air Pollution in China,” Press Release, August 18, 2016, https://www.healtheffects.org/system/files/HEI-GBD-MAPS-China-Press-Release.pdf  Factories play a leading role in this pollution and are often shut down on bad air days to avoid elevated health risks from toxic air pollution. [5]CNBC, “Pollution crisis is choking the Chinese economy,” February 11, 2016, https://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/11/pollution-crisis-is-choking-the-chinese-economy.html  As the sixth largest energy consuming industry sector in China, the textile industry is a sizeable contributor. [6]Beijia, Huang, et al, “Energy-related GHG emissions of the textile industry in China,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 119, April 2017, abstract, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344916301501

Click to enlarge image

My kid got mild pneumonia thanks to the smog. She has been sick for more than 20 days. The hospital is filled with children with respiratory infections or fevers.”--Tian Liping, Beijing [7]CNN, “Beijing smog: what is it like to breath the air?” December 8, 2015, https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/world/gallery/beijing-pollution-red-alert-quotes/index.html

Pollution made my son seriously sick, he was coughing and vomiting.”--Resident of high smog area, China [8]Greenpeace East Asia, “Ever wonder what it is like to experience China’s smog?” August 3, 2016, http://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/news/blog/ever-wondered-what-its-like-to-experience-chi/blog/57117/

This coal consumption is also the primary source of climate pollution in China's textile industry. [9]Beijia, Huang, et al, “Energy-related GHG emissions of the textile industry in China,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 119, April 2017, pp 69-77, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344916301501 The second largest source is electricity consumption, which on a national level is primarily fueled by coal as well. Recent analysis also points to “the increasing scale of production” in China as the main factor driving the industry’s rising climate pollution. [10]Beijia, Huang, et al, “Energy-related GHG emissions of the textile industry in China,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 119, April 2017, abstract summary, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344916301501

References   [ + ]

Climate change is creating a profound, negative impact on human health. The United Nations, World Health Organization and top researchers report a growing death toll from climate change. World leaders such as former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan have been sounding the alarm on climate change’s increasingly lethal impact for nearly a decade. [1]Global warming causes 300,000 deaths a year, says Kofi Annan Thinktank,” May 29, 2009, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/may/29/1

Despite the calls for action, a staggering 1,000 children are now dying from climate change each day, and the numbers are increasing.

This human impact was carefully assessed by the Climate Vulnerability Forum in its groundbreaking 2012 study. Commissioned by twenty governments and the United Nations, the study evaluated the human cost of climate impacts. On a global scale, the study found the total annual death toll from climate change had reached some 400,000 people a year by 2010 and is projected to reach 632,000 climate deaths a year by 2030. [2]DARA and the Climate Vulnerability Forum, “Climate Vulnerability Monitor: Cold Calculus on a Hot Planet, 2nd Edition,” 2012, page 57 (includes citation of UN IPCC reports utilized in DARA’s calculations), https://daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CVM2ndEd-FrontMatter.pdf

This trajectory places 2018’s climate deaths at roughly 490,000 a year - nearly half a million people. [3]This number is based on a prorated annual increase in climate deaths of 11,600 people between 2010 to 2030, utilizing DARA and the Climate Vulnerability Forum’s calculations for 2010 (400,000) and 2030 (632,000) as baselines.   Significantly, most of these deaths are “due to hunger and communicable diseases that affect above all children in developing countries.” [4]DARA and the Climate Vulnerability Forum, “Climate Vulnerability Monitor: Cold Calculus on a Hot Planet, 2nd Edition,” 2012, page 17, https://daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CVM2ndEd-FrontMatter.pdf

The land here used to be 1 km out to sea …We lost mosques, a school, shops, farms. We are scared of the sea now....Every year the tide rises more and comes in further. Next year this village may not exist." —Mohamed Rashed, Qumira Char, Bangladesh [5]Drought Management, “Moving Stories: the voices of people who move in the context of environmental change,” page 47, http://www.droughtmanagement.info/literature/COIN_moving_stories_environmental_change_2014.pdf

Indeed, a clear conclusion from increased monitoring over the last decade is that climate change deaths disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. High impacts are seen, for example, where changing weather patterns disrupt subsistence agriculture, malnutrition increases and communicable diseases spread. It is calculated that the number of undernourished people in 30 countries vulnerable to climate change and highly dependent on regional food production grew from 398 million in 1990 to 422 million in 2016—an average increase of nearly a million people a year. [6]The Lancet, “Tracking Progress on Health and Climate Change, the 2017 Report,” section on “Climate Change Impacts, Exposures and Vulnerability,” Indicator 1.7, http://www.lancetcountdown.org/the-report/ (Note: click the link to “Indicators and headline findings” under the section on “Climate Change Impacts, Exposures and Vulnerabilities).

Looking further into the future, if comprehensive action on climate change is not quickly taken, the death toll can be expected to grow much more rapidly past 2030. A World Health Organization assessment published last year concluded that climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year between 2030 and 2050; of that, some 95,000 a year will be due to childhood undernutrition. [7]World Health Organization, Climate change and health - Fact sheet,” Updated July 2017, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/

References   [ + ]

What is the fashion industry’s responsibility in the nearly half a million deaths from climate change each year? As the source of approximately 8% of global climate pollution, fashion companies have a played a contributing role in climate change’s deadly impact around the globe.

As the source of approximately 8% of global climate pollution, fashion companies have a played a contributing role in climate change’s deadly impact around the globe.

The fashion industry’s climate pollution has risen rapidly in recent years, alongside the increase in thousands of climate change deaths each year. Looking forward to the industry’s projected expansion in the coming years, without the adoption of robust policies to combat its climate change impact, the industry can be expected to grow to an extraordinary 12% of global climate pollution by 2030, even under a conservative projection for future global climate emissions.

Table 1: Climate Change Deaths and Fashion’s Climate Pollution--Past, Present and Projected
Italics= Calculated utilizing baseline data presented in the chart and cited.

Year
   2005 2010  2016  2020  2030 
 Global Deaths from Climate Change per Year [1]The deaths per year for 2016 and 2020 are based on a prorated annual increase in climate deaths of 11,600 people between 2010 to 2030, utilizing DARA and the Climate Vulnerability Forum’s calculations for 2010 (400,000) and 2030 (632,000) as baselines. Numbers are rounded, full data cited in: DARA and the Climate Vulnerability Forum, “Climate Vulnerability Monitor: Cold Calculus on a Hot Planet, 2nd Edition,” 2012, page 57, https://daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CVM2ndEd-FrontMatter.pdf ,[2]Climate Watch, Historical GHG Emissions, https://www.climatewatchdata.org/ghg-emissions n/a 400,000 470,000 516,000 632,000
Global climate pollution
Global climate pollution in metric gigatons of CO2 equivalent [3]Climate Watch, Pathways: Global Calculator, Emissions, https://www.climatewatchdata.org/ghg-emissions Projection using the TIAM-UCL 4DS model, a high to mid-range projection among those outside "business-as-usual." More on this model can be found at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/energy-models/models/tiam-ucl. Exact page of data source: https://www.climatewatchdata.org/pathways/models?currentLocation=267&model=16&scenario=191%2C193%2C189%2C201%2C200%2C199%2C198%2C197%2C196%2C194%2C195%2C192%2C190
43 46 49 50 49
Apparel's climate pollution 
Apparel's climate pollution in metric gigatons of CO2 equivalent [4]Quantis, Measuring Fashion: Insights from the Environmental Impact if the Global Apparel and Footwear Industries study, page 32, https://quantis-intl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/measuringfashion_globalimpactstudy_full-report_quantis_cwf_2018a.pdf
2.44 2.84 3.29 3.78 4.91
Fashion's climate pollution [5]Quantis, Ibid.  Fashion's climate pollution (apparel and footwear) in metric gigatons of CO2 equivalent [6]In the Measuring Fashion study, the researchers did not calculate past emissions for the footwear sector nor project its future emissions. For the purposes of this calculation, therefore, it is assumed that footwear will keep relative pace with apparel's projected, future growth. Therefore, the fashion industry totals are assumed to equal 121% of apparel’s alone, using the 2016 Measuring Fashion baseline of apparel = 83% of fashion's emissions and footwear = 17%. See Quantis, Page 2, https://quantis-intl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/measuring_fashion_report_quantis.pdf 2.93 3.41 3.99 4.53 5.86
 Apparel's % of global climate pollution [7]Percentages calculated using metric gigatons of C02e for the industry cited in the Measuring Fashion 2018 report and historical global emissions and future projections also in Table 1, from World Resources Institute's Climate Watch and previously cited. 5.7% 6.2% 6.7% 7.6% 10.0%
Number of deaths from climate change/year at this percentage level n/a 24,800 31,490 39,216 63,200
Fashion’s % of global climate pollution
(apparel and footwear) [8]Measuring Fashion calculated the that fashion industry’s climate pollution represents an estimated 8.1% of total global emissions in 2016. Given uncertainties, industry’s range of climate pollution is 5% to 10% of global emissions. Quantis and ClimateWorks Foundation, Measuring Fashion: Insights from the Environmental Impact of the Global Apparel and Footwear Industries study, February 2018, page 18, https://quantis-intl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/measuringfashion_globalimpactstudy_full-report_quantis_cwf_2018a.pdf
6.8% 7.4% 8.1% 9.1% 12.0%
 Number of deaths from climate change/year at this percentage level n/a 29,600 38,070 46,956 75,840

(Numbers on global deaths from climate change per year are rounded.)

What is the industry’s responsibility for climate change deaths, given it produces approximately 8% of the globe’s climate pollution?

Taking its current level of approximate climate pollution as a starting point, the fashion industry is responsible for as many as 38,000 climate change deaths a year. [9]Climate change impacts are the result of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions over time. As such, an industry’s current percentage of global emissions does not necessarily translate 1:1 for the industry’s percentage of responsibility for climate change deaths. However, in the case of an established industry such as fashion with its rapid climate pollution growth trajectory over the last two decades, operating with very minimal effort to curb this climate pollution and minimal transparency, this is a current approximation of its share of climate change deaths. In addition, the fashion industry has yet to disclose its cumulative climate emissions. This negligence reflects a larger industry failure to provide full transparency on its operation impacts. The industry has yet to disclose its cumulative climate emissions, hampering a full accounting of its climate change impacts. In addition, the industry is currently geared towards increasing its role in climate change deaths in coming years, given its reliance on fossil fuels, production growth and failure to implement comprehensive climate policies. Under this business-as-usual scenario, the industry’s responsibility for climate change deaths—with most deaths being vulnerable children in developing countries—will only grow.

References   [ + ]

Levi’s carries its own level of responsibility for both air pollution and climate change deaths. The link between the burning of fossil fuels, the emission of particulate matter into the air and increased incidents of premature death is well established. With Levi’s clothing produced in fossil fuel-powered factories and then shipped around the world on polluting container ships and in diesel trucks, Levi's contributes to deadly air and climate pollution in communities around the globe. [1]As noted previously, the terms “Levi’s operations” and “Levi’s factories” encompass the facilities that produce Levi’s products, regardless of Levi’s direct ownership or not.

In fact, many of Levi’s factories are located in pollution hot-spots. Joint research conducted in 2013 by Greenpeace East Asia and American air pollution expert Dr. H. Andrew Gray assessed the mortality impact of coal-fired power plants in several Chinese provinces, including Guangdong, the province with the highest number of Levi’s factories - some 55 at the time and neighboring Hong Kong. [2]Levi Strauss & Co., Factory List, September 2014, http://levistrauss.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Levi-Strauss-Co-Factory-List-September-2014.pdf The assessment evaluated air pollution from 96 power plants in operation in the region and found they caused nearly 3,600 premature deaths as well as 4,000 cases of asthma in children in just one year. [3]Greenpeace, “Greenpeace research estimates new coal power projects would cause 16,000 premature deaths in Guangdong and Hong Kong over next 40 years,” August 27, 2013, http://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/press/releases/climate-energy/2013/guangdong-hong-kong-coal/ and South China Morning Post, “New coal-fired power station in Guangdong ‘will kill thousands,’” August 28, 2013, http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1299985/new-coal-fired-power-stations-guangdong-will-kill-thousands

 

Click to enlarge image

The map below shows the locations of coal-fired power plants in Guangdong Province and Levi’s factories, where the red dots are Levi’s factories and brown circles are coal-fired power plants. [4]Levi’s factory data from September 2017 and operating status of coal plants from January 2018. See: Levi Strauss & Co Factory List, September 2017, http://levistrauss.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Levi-Strauss-Co-Factory-List-September-2017.pdf and: CoalSwarm’s Global Coal Plant Tracker, Map of Guangdong Province, https://endcoal.org/tracker/ This map provides a visual snapshot of the company’s role in an industry that is contributing to air pollution deaths in communities across China, including Guangdong. Click to scroll over the map or zoom in on any of the areas shown.

Indeed, local communities have vocally opposed the prospect of increased air pollution from coal power. In 2015, an estimated 10,000 residents in the town of Heyuan—the site of two Levi’s factories—in the northeastern part of Guangdong took to the streets to protest plans for a coal-fired power plant expansion. Heyuan already had a coal-fired power plant, and the possibility of increased pollution from additional coal burning capacity prompted the protests and garnered some 30,000 signatures against the plan. [5]Asia News, “Guangdong: thousands protest against a coal power plant,” April 13, 2015, http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Guangdong:-thousands-protest-against-a-coal-power-plant-33963.html

These local concerns were warranted. While progress has been made on a national level in recent years, with average air pollution levels falling by 33% from 2013 to 2017 in 74 cities, for example, pollution in other areas intensified in 2017. In Guangdong, the annual pollution average rose by 10.4% last year as coal-fired power surged. [6]Greenpeace East Asia, “PM2.5 in Beijing down 54%, but nationwide air quality improvements slow as coal use increases, January 11, 2018, http://m.greenpeace.org/eastasia/mid/press/releases/climate-energy/2018/PM25-in-Beijing-down-54-nationwide-air-quality-improvements-slow-as-coal-use-increases/ Air pollution levels were measured in 2.5PM (particulate matter size). In the case of Heyuan, despite the local opposition, the power plant expansion was granted a permit by the Guangdong provincial government in March 2017. [7]Source Watch, “Heyuan power station,” https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heyuan_power_station

Measuring the Impact of Levi’s Pollution on Human Health

  • Air Pollution Deaths: This mortality measurement is location-specific to fashion industry operations, referring to its direct impact on a local or regional population who is exposed to air pollution from apparel factories and/or coal-fired electric plant powering the factories. Specifically, airborne particulate matter from the polluting sources impact human health, primarily by creating or worsening cardiorespiratory disease and resulting in increased premature deaths. [8]Rohde, Robert A., and Robert A. Muller, “Air Pollution in China: Mapping of Concentrations and Sources,” Berkeley Earth, August 2015, page 1, http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/China-Air-Quality-Paper-July-2015.pdf
  • Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs): This health impact measurement is also location-specific to fashion industry operations, referring to its direct impact on a local or regional population who is exposed to a range of factory pollutants as well as pollution from coal-fired electric plants powering the facilities. This measurement can be thought of as the loss of one “healthy year of life” due to illness, disability or mortality [9]World Health Organization, “Metrics: Disability-Adjusted Life Years,” http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/metrics_daly/en/ as a result of pollution, “caused by the release of substances that affect human beings through acute toxicity, cancer-based toxicity, respiratory effects, increases in UV radiation and other processes”. [10]DARA and the Climate Vulnerability Forum, “Climate Vulnerability Monitor: Cold Calculus on a Hot Planet, 2nd Edition,” 2012, page 17, https://daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CVM2ndEd-FrontMatter.pdf  This measurement partially overlaps with the measurement of air pollution deaths.
  • Climate Change Deaths: This mortality measurement is not location-specific to fashion industry operations, but rather refers to its indirect impact on populations who are the most acutely impacted by climate change throughout the world. The fashion industry is a major contributor to global climate change, currently producing some 8.1% of total greenhouse gases emissions. Studies indicate that the majority of deaths from climate change are children in developing countries exposed to increased malnutrition and infectious disease. [11]DARA, page 17

Levi’s and the Loss of a “Healthy Year of Life”

The impact of Levi’s pollution on human health around the globe can also be understood through a recent assessment of the fashion industry’s impact as a whole. Leading researchers found that in 2016, the fashion industry’s impacts caused approximately 2,764,000 premature deaths or disabilities (expressed as Disability Adjusted Life Years or DALYs). [12]Quantis and ClimateWorks Foundation, Measuring Fashion: Insights from the Environmental Impact of the Global Apparel and Footwear Industries study, February 2018, pages 20 and 27, https://quantis-intl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/measuringfashion_globalimpactstudy_full-report_quantis_cwf_2018a.pdf

This measurement can be thought of as the loss of one “healthy year of life” due to illness, disability or mortality. [13]World Health Organization, “Metrics: Disability-Adjusted Life Years,”  http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/metrics_daly/en/

This impact assessment includes damage to human health due to pollution “caused by the release of substances that affect human beings through acute toxicity, cancer-based toxicity, respiratory effects, increases in UV radiation and other processes” directly from the manufacturing process and including air pollution from coal-fired power plants that generate electricity for factories. [14]Quantis and ClimateWorks Foundation, Measuring Fashion: Insights from the Environmental Impact of the Global Apparel and Footwear Industries study, February 2018, page 63, https://quantis-intl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/measuringfashion_globalimpactstudy_full-report_quantis_cwf_2018a.pdf and direct communication with the authors to clarify the data set composition.

These nearly 2.8 million people that die, are disabled, or made ill each year as a direct result of the pollution from fashion industry operations are in addition to the thousands of people who die around the globe from the fashion industry’s contribution to climate change impacts, as discussed in the previous section. [15]As discussed in the section “Climate Change’s Deadly Toll,” the industry’s escalating climate pollution results in severe human health impacts, such as malnutrition from crop failures and flooding, and increasing communicable diseases. (A discussion of Levi’s contribution to climate change deaths follows below.)

What is Levi’s relative responsibility for these nearly 2.8 million deaths and disabilities caused locally each year by industry operations?

Levi’s pollution contributes to both air pollution deaths and the loss of “healthy years of life” from the direct, location-specific impacts its operations have on the people that live in that region.

Taking the company’s climate pollution volume as an approximate indicator of its percentage representation within the industry, Levi’s operations can be correlated with up to 2,250 deaths or disabilities in 2016—more than six additional people harmed each day—as a direct result of toxic pollution from its facilities and coal-fired plants powering them. [16]With Levi’s climate pollution (Scope 1, 2 and 3 but discounting the “use of sold product” phase) having reached nearly 3.5 million metric tons of C02 equivalent in 2016, compared to the apparel industry’s approximate 3.29 metric gigatons, Levi’s proportional DALYs using climate pollution levels as an indicator, are calculated at approximately 2,250 for the year. See: Levi Strauss & Co’s Climate Change Disclosure 2017, Carbon Disclosure Project, http://levistrauss.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2017-Carbon-Disclosure-Project-2016-Results.pdf ,[17]The Measuring Fashion report illustrates the impacts on an industry-wide level. Performing such an assessment scaled at an industry level includes uncertainty (approximate overall uncertainty of 30% for total numbers) based to the modeling assumptions chosen. As an industry-wide assessment, the numbers can not project the exact impact of any specific company (nor was the report intended for that purpose) as each company has its own considerations related to their operations and supply chain to be taken into account. However, in light of Levi’s and other fashion companies’ failure to disclose complete supply chain data that would facilitate a full impact assessment specific to their operations, Stand has utilized the Measuring Fashion industry-wide numbers as a baseline to project approximate impact levels for Levi’s. Stand has made these approximate calculations with acknowledging that 1) if Levi’s disclosed its full supply chain impacts and cumulative carbon emissions, this report would include a more precise calculation of the company’s responsibility for environmental and human harm; and 2) that the authors of Measuring Fashion did not intend that the industry-wide data be proportionally assigned to any specific fashion company. For more details, please refer to the full Measuring Fashion report.

 

Levi’s and Climate Change Deaths

As discussed above, Levi’s pollution contributes to both air pollution deaths and the loss of “healthy years of life” or DALYs from the direct, location-specific impacts their operations have on the people that live in that region. These health impacts are the result of both pollution from factories, for example, and toxic emissions from coal-fired power plants that produce electricity used at Levi’s operations.

In addition to these populations harmed directly by Levi’s global operations, Levi’s climate pollution (greenhouse gas emissions) contributes to the growing loss of life from the impacts of climate change around the world. These affected populations do not necessarily live near Levi’s operations, but rather in the most climate change-affected regions of the globe. As discussed in a previous section, climate change’s impacts are felt most acutely by highly vulnerable people, particularly children in developing countries [18]DARA and the Climate Vulnerability Forum, “Climate Vulnerability Monitor: Cold Calculus on a Hot Planet, 2nd Edition,” 2012, page 17, https://daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CVM2ndEd-FrontMatter.pdf. These people are at risk for impacts including malnutrition from crop failure and illness from communicable diseases as a result of the rising temperatures, decreased rainfall and other weather shifts brought by climate change.

In terms of the escalating loss of human life, specifically from climate change, what does the data indicate about Levi’s level of responsibility for these impacts? Some considerations in evaluating the company’s contribution include:

  • Levi’s climate pollution (even discounting the “use of sold product” phase) reached nearly 3.5 million metric tons of C02 equivalent in 2016 [19]Levi Strauss & Co’s Climate Change Disclosure 2017, Carbon Disclosure Project, http://levistrauss.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2017-Carbon-Disclosure-Project-2016-Results.pdf .
  • The apparel industry accounted for approximately 8.1% of global climate pollution, producing 3.99 metric gigatons of C02 equivalent in 2016. (1 metric gigaton = 1,000 million metric tons)
  • An estimated 470,000 people died from the impacts of climate change in 2016—most of them children in developing countries. (See Table 1 in “Fashion’s Role in Climate Change Deaths.”)
  • Both current and cumulative emissions produce climate change impacts.

 

Climate change impacts are the result of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions over time. As such, a company’s current percentage of global emissions does not necessarily translate 1:1 for its percentage of responsibility for climate change deaths. However, in the case of an established company such as Levi’s with its climate pollution growth trajectory over the last two decades, operating with very minimal effort to curb this climate pollution and minimal transparency, it is important to identify a current approximation for its share of climate change deaths.

With this in mind, the data above can be used as a starting point to determine an approximate number of climate change deaths each year attributable to Levi’s, understanding that the company’s cumulative emissions, which the company has yet to disclose, would provide a more complete data set to assess its impact level.

If current climate pollution levels are taken, therefore, as a closest available proxy to a company’s proportional responsibility in climate change deaths, Levi’s climate pollution can be correlated with as many as 31 additional deaths a year. That is an approximation of one death every 12 days.

It is clear that Levi’s pollution contributes to both air pollution and climate change deaths, and the company has taken minimal action to end this deadly impact. [20]Levi’s has not yet provided full transparency on its cumulative contribution to global climate change. In fact, 2017 was the first year that Levi’s disclosed its climate emissions for its full supply chain, despite its level of climate pollution.

In addition to its current level of impact on human lives, the company’s climate pollution numbers tell a larger story. Unless industry leaders—beginning with Levi’s—take rapid, comprehensive climate action, the fashion industry’s impact can be expected to result in increasing mortality each year from the impacts of air pollution and climate change. This projection is based on the industry’s current growth strategy that:

  1. Gears itself towards a rapid increase in garment volume as a core business model with a reliance on coal and other polluting fossil fuels;
  2. Includes only minor commitments to transition to renewable energy for its supply chain around the globe; and
  3. Includes only minor commitments to reduce its absolute level of climate pollution over the coming decades. [21]There are a few companies that have committed to an absolute reduction in their total GHG levels for their full supply chain, such as H&M. However, the current commitment timeline and implementation strategies, such a focus on natural and technological carbon sink over reducing climate emission, still fall short of the full level of climate action needed within the industry.

References   [ + ]

We believe that climate change is one of the most important issues of our time. We have never shied away from standing up for what we believe is right.”

—Levi Strauss & Co.[1]Levi Strauss & Co., The Collaboratory, 2018 “A Focus on Climate Change,” http://levistrauss-collaboratory.com/

The research is stark and incredibly clear: the fashion business is fossil fuel-intensive. Given the massive air pollution and climate impacts resulting from clothing and footwear production, neither the fashion industry as a whole—nor Levi’s as one of the oldest and most iconic clothing brands—has the luxury to stand on the sidelines or delay comprehensive climate policies further. Climate solutions are readily available—only action is required. Levi’s can lead the way.

Now that Levi’s has made an industry-leading commitment, it’s poised to become a vocal advocate for full climate action within the industry, working to bring other big brands and their supply chains on board.

Beyond following through with its commitments, which is of course a high priority, the next level of Levi’s climate commitment should move beyond a 40% absolute reduction in total greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 for its full supply chain and include:

  • Transition its entire supply chain to renewable energy, with a minimum of 50% of energy sourced through renewables by 2035.
  • Commit to a long-term carbon emission reduction of at least 66% by 2050 for the entire supply chain. [2]Recent assessments indicate that deeper, long-term cuts in climate emissions (an 80% GHG reduction by 2050) by the industry may be necessary within a science-based approach that keeps the planet’s warming well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, as affirmed in the UN Paris Agreement on climate change. See: Quantis and ClimateWorks Foundation, page 42.

 

This level of climate commitment would be on par with the actions of other major corporations that have taken the lead on combating climate change, such as Apple [3]Apple, “Climate ChangeHow can we lead the fight against climate change?” https://www.apple.com/environment/climate-change/ and Mars, Inc. [4]Mars, “Mars Takes Climate Action,” http://www.mars.com/global/sustainable-in-a-generation/healthy-planet/climate-action


For Levi’s, a mix of both renewable energy and energy efficiency, based on its own supply chain assessment, will be undoubtedly necessary for the company to reach comprehensive climate goals.

It’s important to note that Levi’s ambitious climate commitment has successfully avoided false or partial solutions that:

  • Fail to encompass its full supply chain.
  • Set faulty targets around reducing emissions levels per clothing unit or per sales volume. Only absolute climate emission reductions ultimately guarantee less climate pollution in the atmosphere.
  • Place unwarranted hope in the use of only recycled fibers or a “circular economy” approach, as it does not easily offer the level of savings in climate pollution needed. [5]“Circular economy” is defined here in a narrow sense, only accounting for re-looping of recycled fiber into the apparel system at fiber production stage. See: Quantis and ClimateWorks Foundation, Measuring Fashion: Insights from the Environmental Impact of the Global Apparel and Footwear Industries study, February 2018, page 40. https://quantis-intl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/measuringfashion_globalimpactstudy_full-report_quantis_cwf_2018a.pdf.
  • Shift the burden of action to its customers, hoping they adopt less polluting laundering practices.
  • Fail to alleviate local environmental and health impacts of its global operations through utilizing “renewable energy credits” instead of investing in local renewable energy production.

 

Levi’s earnings reached nearly $285 million in 2017. [6]Statistica, “Net sales of Levi Strauss worldwide from 2005 to 2017 in billion U.S. dollars.”

With its financial strength, global recognition as a trusted brand, and stated commitment to environmental sustainability, we’re encourage to see Levi’s leading the fashion industry into ambitious climate action.

 

Date of publication: April 2018

References   [ + ]

Top