The brand says it has carried out feasibility studies for renewable energy and is committed to eliminating any on-site use of coal by joining a coal phase-out working group led by the Apparel Impact Institute and Reset Carbon in 2021 and by participating in the UN Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action’s coal phase-out group, which is focused on a 2030 goal. But ASL says its research suggests the company is not on track to achieve that goal. At one supplier (named in the report as Company C), the energy mix is 58 per cent coal, while another, Company A, increased its coal consumption by 9.7 per cent between 2021 and 2022. Coal is used as an energy source for at least five of Lululemon’s Tier 2 suppliers, the report states, and fossil fuels feature in the energy mix of all 27.
“We haven’t seen a mobilisation of resources. If you look at an example such as Puma, they report a lot of details about how they’re helping suppliers transition to renewables, and they have interim renewable energy targets for the supply chain. [Lululemon are] lagging behind their sportswear and fashion peers,” says MacGilp.
Misplaced efforts, misplaced details
Lululemon’s strategy for renewable energy in its supply chain was graded “shallow”, in NewClimate Institute’s (NCI) January 2024 report on the nuances of renewable energy procurement. The only area it scored highly in was sourcing 100 per cent renewable electricity for its own operations — representing just 0.3 per cent of its footprint.
“Sourcing renewable electricity for stores and offices… doesn’t make any significant difference to decarbonising the sector,” says Thomas Day, climate policy expert at NewClimate Institute. “If companies like Lululemon are serious about decarbonising the fashion industry and their product lines, then this means decarbonising the use of energy in the manufacturing process is the key issue to focus on.”
While Lululemon has a goal to reduce carbon emissions across its global supply chain by 60 per cent per unit of value added by 2030 against a 2018 baseline, the report says that its emissions will increase as its business grows.
ASL acknowledges Lululemon’s commitments, but says specific details are sorely lacking, echoing the reasoning behind NCI’s grading. It’s not clear how the company engages with its suppliers, whether it incentivises energy transitions, or provides technical or financial support to enable them — all efforts that fashion brands are facing increased pressure to engage in, because they depend on suppliers to meet their sustainability goals but suppliers can’t afford to help them do so without support. The technical or financial support could take multiple forms such as providing access to finance by issuing green bonds linked to climate targets or putting weight behind policy advocacy in manufacturing countries to remove political obstacles.
Promises versus actions
ASL says it chose to focus its campaign on Lululemon because of what it says is a contradiction between the brand’s sustainability claims and the reality of its operations. Under its ‘Be Planet’ pillar, Lululemon says, “We’re committed to making products that are better in every way — for people and the planet.” Yet interviews with communities local to the factories in question, alongside observations by researchers, paint a picture of polluted waterways and dark smoke billowing from chimneys, according to the report.
Most Popular
