The 2024 Vogue Business sustainability leaders survey: Collaboration remains elusive

This article is part of our Advanced Membership package. To enjoy unlimited access to The Long View from Vogue Business, The Fashion Exec's Guide and bi-monthly Market Insights Reports, sign up for Advanced Membership here. Sustainability teams are under-resourced and under-funded, often operating in silos, but tasked with meeting system-shifting targets — this much we know. But how do we move forward? “People love the idea of targets and they support sustainability initiatives because it’s an emotive issue. But actually changing the way we develop, design and source, and putting money into insetting, will take a lot of action,” said a respondent to the 2024 Vogue Business sustainability leaders survey. The survey shows a relatively strong consensus on how fashion brands can minimise friction and maximise impact: shifting mindsets, unlocking budgets through executive buy-in, and rethinking the power dynamics in fashion supply chains so suppliers can share expertise and lead the transformation. Previous editions of the survey (in 2022 and 2023) focused on the most senior sustainability employees within fashion brands, hoping to understand how their teams are set up, how that impacts their chances of success, and how to overcome bottlenecks. This year’s edition took a different approach, acknowledging the alternative — and often more forward-thinking — forms of leadership outside of brands. The anonymous survey targeted two groups: sustainability employees working at fashion brands (regardless of seniority), and the external third parties they partner with (including certifications, consultants, change agencies, NGOs and industry bodies). Questions focused on identifying barriers and solutions. Brand respondents, for example, were asked what their most transformative company policies looked like, how they set their team up for success when working with third parties, and what they would change about how their non-sustainability colleagues operate. Third-party respondents were asked what common characteristics they see in successful brand sustainability teams, the biggest roadblocks they faced when working with these teams, and what systems or processes brands should have in place to maximise impact. The overwhelming takeaway: brands and their partners need true collaboration to achieve progress, but that is also their biggest challenge. How do brand respondents currently feel about sustainability progress? Previous editions of the survey revealed that brands’ sustainability teams tend to be small and siloed, which has remained true. More than half of the sample had just one to five sustainability employees. One sustainability manager, working for a mid-size company, is a one-person team and said “more resources” is a top priority. Another respondent said they are “very supported in most aspects” but “hiring additional headcount to keep pace with changing regulations, requirements and industry benchmarking” would accelerate progress. Among brand respondents, 34 per cent had part of their compensation tied to sustainability progress. Most said this didn’t affect their motivation — since they already felt passionately about sustainability — and it would be more effective if applied to non-sustainability colleagues and C-suite executives. Part of the challenge is that many of these brands’ sustainability strategies are still in their infancy. A quarter of respondents have only had a strategy in place for two years or less and 6 per cent still do not have one. Still, brand respondents are optimistic. More than half think they will meet their sustainability targets on time, although several said their targets were not ambitious enough, and raised concerns about what would happen when they ran out of “low-hanging fruit” and had to tackle more fundamental questions about growth, production volumes and profit. Hoping to understand where progress is being made, and which topics are proving the most troublesome, the survey invited both brand and third-party respondents to rank action across the following topics: biodiversity, carbon emissions/reductions, chemical treatments/finishing chemicals, consumer behaviour, deforestation, dyes, end-of-life, garment worker rights, legislative compliance (environmental), legislative compliance (social), plastic, production volumes, production waste, purchasing practices, raw materials, rental/resale, repair, returns, social impact, supply chain due diligence, sustainability communications (external), sustainability communications (internal), traceability, water consumption, and water pollution. Brand respondents said traceability — which has been thrust onto the agenda by incoming legislation — is the hardest to make progress on. Some brands have hired a head of traceability to manage this. Internal sustainability communication was deemed the easiest to make progress on, likely because internal communications are not subject to the same scrutiny or greenwashing accusations as external communications. Third parties had a different view of progress. They ranked supply chain due diligence and raw materials as the areas brands were making the most headway with. On the other end of the spectrum, returns was a resounding red flag, with 100 per cent of third-party respondents calling out the lack of progress. Since executive buy-in and cross-departmental support were highlighted as key challenges for brands’ sustainability teams, the survey also asked which topics have the most and least support. “Sustainability should have an equal (or ideally, more important) seat at the table when it comes to discussions on the sweet spot between margin, RRP, supply base, quality, design, lead times. Sustainability is almost always the first to go. Having it as the driving force for decision-making would change everything,” said one brand respondent. Another said their sustainability team is viewed as the internal “police”, and colleagues think of it as a burden and expense without value. “I just want them to realise that I’m not trying to work against them.” Unlocking cross-departmental collaboration Brand respondents were asked which interventions had unlocked the most transformation or progress towards sustainability goals. Brands are often criticised for making lofty public commitments to sustainability without delivering results first, but respondents said that these public statements of intent are crucial so consumers can hold brands accountable, giving sustainability employees more authority to push for change internally, and encouraging non-sustainability employees to identify their role in enacting it. Several respondents said transitioning to B Corp helps to increase cross-departmental engagement, as it puts sustainability on par with profit, making it a priority where it might previously have been a conflict of interests. Some said the most transformational policies were cross-departmental crackdowns on single issues: one brand operated a “zero destruction” policy and another introduced a “zero waste” mandate. For others, it was only once governments took action and inaction on sustainability had financial consequences, that their non-sustainability colleagues took notice. “The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) was the first initiative that garnered internal attention,” says one CSR manager in a mid-market brand. (The US law attempts to ban imports of goods connected to forced labour from China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. 982 fashion shipments were detained in its first year of enforcement, totalling almost $43 million. 556 were denied entry.) Across the board, the relationship between sustainability teams and their non-sustainability colleagues is a critical lever to progress. The chief sustainability officer of one brand, which markets itself on its sustainability efforts, said it saw an uptick in cross-departmental collaboration when it introduced “scorecards” for each team, assessing their performance based on alignment with the brand’s sustainability strategy. “Every year, teams participate in facilitated review sessions with the sustainability team, which include mapping their department’s activities and figuring out how they can drive the most impact,” the respondent explained. “Results are shared with the executive team and company-wide, so everyone is aware of what needs to be done. This process has helped create a culture where delivering on our mission to bring sustainable fashion to everyone is part of each team member’s remit, not just people with the word ‘sustainability’ in their titles.” Whether non-sustainability employees are measured on their contributions to the sustainability strategy or not, it’s important that they feel included in it and empowered to contribute. “More than policies, consulting all departments on the sustainability strategy was great for building the foundation of the company effort that’s needed to make real and measurable progress,” said another brand respondent. “Not every idea was used, but many were, as technical experts in individual departments understand the day-to-day implementation better than any sustainability team. We did the same with our key suppliers.” Leveraging external third-party partnerships Many brands use external third parties to plug the gaps in their internal resourcing or expertise. But deciding who to turn to for credible advice and actionable feedback can be murky, especially when the sustainability space is so oversaturated. The survey invited brand respondents to share which external resources they would recommend and why across the following categories: sustainability certifications, consultancies, NGOs or charities, conferences, and software programmes or automated systems. On certifications — which critics say can do more harm than good — respondents said some needed “fundamental changes” and others were simply “in it for the money”. One said certifications (specifically for raw materials) are just “something you do in the absence of a big enough budget to do direct-to-grower sourcing”. Others placed more value on them, especially those with stricter auditing. “Material certifications allow us to make credible on-product claims based on chain of custody, and afford us the ability to gain traceability and transparency in our upstream supply chain,” said one respondent. The consensus was that consultancies, industry bodies and NGOs can be useful when brands want to audit their progress on sustainability, or overcome specific challenges. Brand respondents outlined the need to set these partnerships up properly, with longer-term contracts, regular face-to-face meetings, transparent data- and knowledge-sharing, clear KPIs and progress reports, and “collaboration frameworks”, which set out everyone’s roles, responsibilities, communication channels and expectations upfront. They also mentioned the need to engage suppliers early in the process, and set realistic timeframes for goals. Others said there is no “one-size-fits-all formula” for dealing with third parties, and the most important thing is to choose the right partner. “Lots of brands are getting misinformation from the traditional industry associations and greenwashed policy groups,” said one respondent. “It takes time and skill to educate large groups of companies and decision-makers, and significantly less time to confuse them.” Setting partners up for success The survey also asked third parties what the biggest barriers to progress are when they work with brands’ internal sustainability teams. Their answers were illuminating, ranging from the focus on “quick wins” that overlook more “foundational changes”, to the “ego” involved in greenwashing whereby “we all say we are sustainable or en route to sustainability without actually achieving any measurable reductions.” Understandably, budget was the most common challenge. The funds available to sustainability teams directly impact their chances of success, but are often outside of their control. “The elephant in the room is always that the business model is at the root of human rights compliance issues, which is not a topic any sustainability executive is able to change or willing to address,” said one non-profit’s policy lead. “Discussions on purchasing practices and living wages only ever go so far, then there is a barrier when we start to discuss paying more, or ring-fencing living wage costs, or managing buying practices. With no transparency of financial data, discussions [...] quickly come to a block.” Another simply answered: “Capitalism.” Workplace culture also plays a part. “Most brands I work with have a toxic corporate culture of underpaying and overworking their staff. There is such a high turnover rate that I am constantly working with new people, which limits progress,” said one consultant. “Sustainability strategies are long-term projects,” added another. “Delays happen when a new manager moves into a project oversight role and needs to be brought up to speed on strategies, decisions and budget allocations. When new executives and leadership teams are onboarded, sustainability projects that are years in the making can be cut or entire strategies can be put on ice for 18-24 months, while the new team kicks into gear.” Internal sponsorship was another roadblock. Respondents said they look for executive buy-in, and preferably not just from a chief sustainability officer. Others specified that there should be a single person in charge of the project or partnership, to avoid confusion and prevent progress from stalling while the brand waits for multiple layers of sign-off. How responsibility for delivering sustainability progress is shared between teams was also point of contention. “Our goal is to get the whole development team involved. It’s incredibly difficult to make progress without widespread buy-in, but it can often be challenging to get the right people in the room for sufficient engagement,” says one senior professional working at an NGO. Asked what a successful partnership looks like, respondents shared a long list of ideals. The answers were rooted in collaborative values on the individual level and sufficient resources on the organisational level. On the individual level, respondents said that successful partnerships were more likely where internal sustainability professionals were “respectful”, “open to listening and trying new approaches”, “willing to share information”, and “able to acknowledge faults where they exist”. They also called out “people who have worked with suppliers directly” as being better placed to lead sustainability transformations, and said stakeholder management — the ability to “connect the dots” and “highlight common values between departments” — served as an advantage. On the organisational level, respondents said that sustainability teams had the best chance of success when they had not only executive buy-in, but also support from operational and supply chain partners. Other factors include healthy budgets to deliver on targets, clear management with the authority to affect change, alignment and collaboration with other departments, and access to “high-quality and legitimate” audits. Deploying budget to educate and upskill the wider team on sustainability was also seen as a plus. In terms of cross-departmental collaboration, one respondent said buy-in from marketing and finance was crucial to drive awareness and engagement, both internally and externally. Another said the design, buying and sourcing teams have the most potential to enact sustainable change. This is particularly important for flipping the power dynamic in supply chains and leveraging the expertise of suppliers, who are often the ones actually leading transformation and compliance. Rather than “transactional” relationships, respondents advocated for internal sustainability teams “fostering a truly collaborative partnership” with supply chain partners — which is only possible when sustainability is prioritised alongside profit, loosening the grip of ever-higher margins over sourcing relationships. One respondent — who works at an industry trade body — said it’s not enough for sustainability teams to improve their individual skills and unlock progress with direct partners, they also need to collaborate on the industry level. “One of the most important characteristics [of successful sustainability teams] is the ability to come together on a pre-competitive basis to engage in constructive dialogue and co-create solutions to tackle the complex issues we are facing. No brand can do this alone.” About the survey The survey was open from 3 to 23 June. Of the 50 brand respondents, 32 per cent were junior/mid-level, 46 per cent were senior professionals (including vice president, director and head of department roles) and 10 per cent were C-suite. None of the respondents worked for ultra fast-fashion brands, but 12 per cent worked for fast fashion or high street brands, 14 per cent for aspirational high street brands, 30 per cent for accessible luxury brands, and 14 per cent for luxury brands. Within the third-party sample — totalling 64 respondents — 41 per cent worked for consultancies, 22 per cent for non-governmental organisations (NGOs), six per cent for certification schemes and the remainder worked between industry trade bodies, voluntary agreements, industry conferences and other organisations. Approximately half — 47 per cent — worked exclusively on fashion, while others operated cross-sector. Again, the brand mix they worked with was concentrated in the middle: 27 per cent worked with aspirational high street, 19 per cent with accessible luxury, and the rest were split between fast fashion, high street and luxury. To receive the Vogue Business newsletter, sign up here. Comments, questions or feedback? Email us at feedback@voguebusiness.com.

Make better business decisions

More Advanced Member reports from Vogue Business

Make better business decisions