The Ultimate Glossary of Fashion’s Favorite Sustainability Terms: Carbon Neutral, Net Zero, SBTi & More

Have you ever read a brand’s sustainability report and felt like you needed a PhD in climate science just to understand what your T-shirt is doing to the planet? If so, you’re not alone. Today, sustainability in fashion has become more buzzword bingo than transparent storytelling. Words like carbon neutral, net zero, science-based targets, and LCA are thrown around like confetti at a greenwashing party.

So, let’s slow it down, strip it back (sustainably, of course), and talk about the metrics of green – in simple terms.

Key takeaways

1. Most of a fashion brand’s pollution comes from Scope 3 emissions, which are often left out of reports.
2. The SBTi helps brands set real climate goals based on science, not just marketing.
3. Carbon neutral usually means offsetting, while net zero means cutting emissions first and only offsetting the rest.
4. New EU laws now require fashion brands to prove their sustainability claims and report their impact.

Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions

Let’s start from the beginning. To truly understand a brand’s climate footprint, it’s important to look at emissions in three categories, or “scopes”:

1. Scope 1: These are direct emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by a company. For example, company vehicles or factories.
2. Scope 2: These are indirect emissions from purchased electricity, heating, or cooling consumed by a company. For example, emissions from the power plants that generate electricity for a brand’s operations fall under this category.
3. Scope 3: All other indirect emissions in a company’s value chain, such as raw material extraction, transportation, consumer use, and end-of-life disposal. In most fashion companies, Scope 3 emissions represent the majority of their environmental impact. Yet these are often the hardest to measure and the easiest to overlook. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol offers the most widely accepted standards for categorizing and accounting for these emissions.

Science-Based Targets

Fashion brands are increasingly joining the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi). The SBTi is a corporate climate action organization that develops standards, tools and guidance which allow companies to set emissions reductions targets in line with what is needed to keep global heating below catastrophic levels and reach “net-zero” by 2050 at latest.

The SBTi is a club where you don’t just promise to reduce emissions, you commit to doing it based on actual climate science. To meet SBTi standards, companies go through five key steps:

1. Publicly commit to set science-based targets
2. Develop measurable targets
3. Submit them for independent validation
4. Communicate them transparently
5. Report regularly on progress

Over 5,000 companies are already on board. For example, Burberry (the first luxury fashion brand to receive approval from the SBTi for its net-zero emissions target) has committed to reducing Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 95% by FY2027 from a FY2017 base year. These targets are publicly listed on the SBTi website, providing transparency and accountability.

What’s more exciting is that the SBTi is now working on SBTs for nature, which go beyond emissions to protect freshwaters, biodiversity, land and the oceans.

Carbon Neutral vs. Net Zero

Although often used interchangeably, carbon neutrality and net zero emissions are not the same.

Carbon Neutrality

When a brand claims that a product is “carbon neutral,” it means they are balancing the greenhouse gas emissions created in the production and transport of that product. This is typically done through carbon offsets (carbon credits). The “neutrality” comes from offsetting them elsewhere, for example, by investing in reforestation projects or renewable energy in another part of the world. This is like saying, “I made a mess, but I paid someone to clean it up.” This practice is often guided by frameworks such as PAS 2060, which sets out a four-step process:

1. Measure emissions across the supply chain
2. Identify ways to reduce them
3. Offset remaining emissions with verified carbon credits
4. Document the entire process transparently

The term carbon neutral is often criticised for three main reasons:

1. Limited scope: It usually only counts direct emissions (Scope 1 and 2), not the much bigger indirect ones from making the products or transporting them (Scope 3), which can be up to 95% of a company’s emissions.
2. No need to cut emissions: The emissions still occur, and companies can just buy carbon offsets instead of reducing their own pollution.
3. Low-quality offsets: The quality of carbon credits vary greatly, often leading to companies opting for the cheapest, least impactful options. This can lead to greenwashing and public distrust.

While carbon neutrality can be a helpful interim step, it should not replace efforts to reduce emissions at the source. Efficient production methods, renewable energy use, and thoughtful design are essential, not just a final offset calculation.

Net Zero

Now this one’s a bit more ambitious. Where carbon neutrality can be achieved immediately through offsets, net zero is a longer-term commitment. The intention is to reduce emissions across the entire value chain (all three scopes) as much as possible, and only offset the remainder as a last resort.

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) plays a leading role in guiding brands toward net-zero strategies aligned with the Paris Agreement (aiming to keep global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels). SBTi ensures that climate goals are based on the latest credible scientific data, not just industry trends or marketing claims.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Think of LCA as a full health check-up for a garment, from the cotton field to your closet. It tracks:

1. What goes in (like water, energy, chemicals)
2. What comes out (emissions, waste)
3. All the impacts along the way (climate change, land use, resource depletion, and more)

Although it sounds great, LCA has its blind spots. Sometimes it skips human impact, biodiversity, or only looks at data from generic sources. Also, many fashion brands only calculate LCA up to the store, not what happens after you wear and wash the garment a few times.

Still, LCA is the most widely used scientific tool we have today. But remember: it tells part of the story, not the full fairy tale. So be critical.

The Reporting Revolution: From Voluntary to Mandatory

Historically, brands could choose whether or not to report on sustainability. It was like showing up to school and deciding if you wanted to take the exam. Now, things are changing. In the EU and other regions, regulations are coming in hot, and big fashion brands will be required to report their social and environmental impacts. Here are some EU examples:

1. Corporate sustainability reporting Directive: Requires large companies to disclose detailed environmental and social impacts from 2024 onwards.
2. EU Supply Chain Due Diligence Directive: Imposes due diligence on human rights, environment, and governance across global supply chains.
3. Green Claims Directive: Requires companies to back up environmental marketing claims with robust, verifiable data.
4. Circular economy action plan: Aims to make sustainable products the norm in the EU by promoting durability, reparability, recyclability, digital product passports, producer responsibility for textile waste, and banning destruction of unsold goods.
5. Extended Producer Responsibility: Requires brands to finance and manage the end-of-life of products, including collection, reuse, and recycling.

Recap on the Green Glossary

Let’s wrap it up with some fashion-friendly translations:

So, next time a brand tells you their sweater is “eco-friendly” or their jeans are “carbon neutral,” ask them how they measure that. Because what gets measured, gets improved. And what gets hidden? That’s usually the dirtiest part of the closet.

---

Was this glossary helpful? Would you like us to add more terms to it? Let us know in the comments below!