More than 95% of emissions in the fashion industry stem from Scope 3 activities, yet fewer than half of public companies report them. This stark disconnect highlights the core challenge in today’s sustainability narrative: the business case, as currently framed, is failing to drive meaningful transformation. This article explores the disconnect between corporate sustainability rhetoric and operational reality—and outlines strategies to build a more credible, long-term model for environmental impact.
The Rhetoric-Practice Gap in Corporate Sustainability
Despite growing regulatory pressure and investor interest in ESG, many companies continue to rely on voluntary, optics-driven strategies that fall short of delivering actual change. As Kenneth Pucker, Professor of the Practice at Tufts University, points out, the prevailing “business case” for sustainability leans heavily on four tools—reporting, certification, technology, and win-win solutions—but lacks the structural rigor to drive industry-wide decarbonization or transparency.
The roots of this framework trace back to the 1970s, when corporate lobbying shifted global focus away from environmental regulation toward voluntary action. Since then, many sustainability initiatives have been adopted more for public relations value than measurable impact. For example, carbon disclosure is widely practiced, but Scope 3 emissions, which represent the bulk of most companies' footprints, are frequently omitted—diminishing the effectiveness of transparency efforts.
Circularity and the Perils of Oversold Solutions
One of the most popular win-win narratives is circularity—the idea that recycling and reusing materials can decouple growth from resource extraction. The fashion industry, in particular, has embraced this concept, often citing a 2017 Ellen MacArthur Foundation estimate that circular models could unlock $500 billion in value. However, a critical review of this claim revealed it was overstated by more than 95% due to methodological flaws.
This tendency to overstate benefits undermines credibility. Circular economy rhetoric may generate headlines, but when not backed by transparent accounting and verified outcomes, it reinforces stakeholder skepticism. The fashion sector’s continued reliance on inadequate certifications, such as the Higg Index—once flagged by Norwegian regulators for misleading data—further exemplifies this problem.
Without systems-level thinking, circularity risks becoming another symbolic tool rather than a scalable business model for sustainability.
Addressing Structural Barriers in the Supply Chain
At the operational level, one of the largest obstacles is the fragmentation of global supply chains. In industries like fashion, where production is outsourced and geographically dispersed, accountability is diluted. Suppliers—often under pressure to deliver fast and cheap—have little incentive or support to invest in decarbonization or labor improvements.
According to Pucker, long-term investment strategies and supplier partnerships are essential. Brands that adopt responsible purchasing practices—offering stable order volumes and capacity-building for suppliers—are more likely to reduce environmental impact. Puma, for instance, has achieved a 33% carbon reduction while doubling revenues, largely by fostering collaborative relationships throughout its supply network.
Rethinking the Role of Certifications and Voluntary Commitments
Certifications can be useful, but only when paired with rigorous auditing, real-time data, and supply chain traceability. Fragmented and opaque systems enable greenwashing, especially when firms cherry-pick metrics to present an idealized version of progress.
To regain trust, companies should adopt open data protocols, prioritize standard alignment, and embrace third-party verification—principles that CommonShare advocates through its traceability platform. Only through verified transparency can the business case for sustainability evolve into one that holds strategic, regulatory, and operational value.
From Short-Term Optics to Long-Term Value
Executives must begin to shift the narrative away from short-term marketing wins and toward long-term, systemic change. This includes:
- Reassessing membership in industry associations that oppose progressive climate policy.
- Setting science-based targets that go beyond emissions reporting to include biodiversity, water, and social equity.
- Embedding sustainability KPIs into financial planning and board-level governance.
Crucially, brands should underpromise and overdeliver, focusing on progress over perfection. As regulatory bodies and stakeholders grow increasingly sophisticated, sincerity will be a competitive advantage.
Conclusion
The current business case for sustainability is no longer fit for purpose. To bridge the gap between ambition and execution, companies must move beyond frameworks designed for optics and commit to traceable, systemic transformation. By integrating sustainability into procurement, partnerships, and performance measurement, businesses can shift from rhetorical leadership to measurable impact. In doing so, they not only future-proof their operations—they redefine what credible sustainability leadership looks like in the 21st century.