When Transparency Outshines Impact: The Paradox of Fashion’s Sustainability Rankings

The Swedish multinational fast-fashion retailer H&M Hennes & Mauritz AB— better known simply as H&M— was ranked first in Fashion Revolution’s What Fuels Fashion? 2025 report this September. Yet both the public and the media seemed to have little to say about this rather significant news. Given the state of our world, that silence feels telling. Most outlets, including legacy fashion titles, appeared more concerned with the brand’s return to the runways during London Fashion Week for its star-studded S/S26 collection than with its supposed sustainability “progress.”

Here at The Citizen’s Poste, the announcement did not go unnoticed. It is, after all, quite striking— if not outright paradoxical— to see one of the world’s largest fast-fashion companies “win” at a ranking that touches on sustainability. So, what does this really mean?

To unpack this conundrum, it’s essential to understand what Fashion Revolution’s report actually measures. While it includes sustainability-related topics, the What Fuels Fashion? report is not a sustainability assessment— and has never claimed to be one, though public perception may suggest otherwise. Founded by Carry Somers and Orsola de Castro in response to the 2013 Rana Plaza disaster, Fashion Revolution began as an initiative to push for greater transparency and accountability in the industry. Keyword: transparency.

The Transparency–Sustainability Confusion

Misunderstandings are easy to see— especially when the report’s language overlaps with that of sustainability discourse. Many readers assume that H&M’s first-place ranking signals environmental leadership. Yet, while H&M continues to centre “sustainability” in its brand narrative, it still operates within a business model that fuels overproduction— arguably one of the root causes of the industry’s environmental and social crisis.

Importantly, neither Fashion Revolution nor H&M claims that this ranking makes them the most sustainable brand. On the contrary, the first pages of the 2025 report include multiple disclaimers clarifying that its scope lies in assessing public disclosure, not impact. There may be no factual contradiction, but a moral one lingers beneath the surface. Because even if H&M isn’t explicitly calling itself sustainable, the company is certainly celebrating the recognition, proudly promoting it across communications. The risk is that such headlines reinforce a narrative that being open about unsustainability is itself an act of virtue. Should we really be applauding brands for acknowledging how unsustainable they are?

Consumer Responsibility and Its Limits

To Fashion Revolution’s credit, the organization never presents the index as a sustainability award. Its mission has always been to promote transparency as the first step toward systemic change: it’s easier to hold brands accountable when they are visible about their practices— and that’s a principle I can fully stand behind. After all, the first step toward change is acknowledgment, and transparency, at the very least, meets that starting point. For that, H&M deserves some credit.

But if there is public confusion over whether H&M is or isn’t sustainable, responsibility doesn’t lie solely with brands or with reporting organisations. The information exists and it’s accessible at the tap of a screen. Which brings us to our role as consumers.

Beyond H&M, there are countless resources available for us to exercise our civic duty of staying informed. Most major brands now publish sustainability sections on their websites— some more comprehensive than others. When that page doesn’t exist, it’s often a clear indicator that the brand is doing little to address its impact. Tools like Good On You rate brands on sustainability, ethics, and animal welfare. The Business of Fashion Sustainability Index and reports by Stand.earth offer further insight. In short, we have no excuse to remain uninformed or to uncritically accept greenwashed narratives.

Nour Rizk by Greg Adamski, Vogue Arabia, March 2025

That said, ethical consumption looks different for everyone. Not all consumers can afford niche sustainable brands— and that’s okay. What matters is intention: making informed choices that align with our own values rather than being swayed by marketing buzzwords.

However, consumer action alone cannot fix an industry built on overproduction. Real accountability requires systemic regulation. While individual purchasing decisions shape demand, only legislation can ensure brands meet measurable environmental and social standards.

There are promising frameworks taking shape— the EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles (ESPR), the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and the proposed New York Fashion Act, among others. These policies aim to create traceable, enforceable standards for fashion supply chains. Yet many of these efforts remain in early stages, or have been stalled by shifting political priorities. France’s proposed “fast-fashion tax,” for instance, which sought to impose a levy on ultra-fast-fashion giants such as Shein and Temu, initially gained bipartisan support but was shelved following the summer elections. The groundwork exists; what’s missing is sustained political will.

When Media Avoids the Hard Questions

Equally troubling is the media’s selective silence on stories like H&M’s ranking. During the same fashion week where H&M’s collection dominated headlines, few publications— even the major legacy titles— acknowledged its mention in the Fashion Revolution report. It’s as if sustainability is only newsworthy when it’s glamorous or convenient. Too often, fashion media replicates brand messaging rather than interrogating it, prioritizing spectacle over scrutiny. This editorial dependency on advertising revenue and PR access has diluted the critical voice that once made these titles authoritative.

Fortunately, a new wave of independent publications, journalists, and creators is beginning to challenge these narratives— questioning press releases, exposing contradictions, and demanding transparency that goes beyond polished storytelling.

None of this is to dismiss H&M’s progress. The company has indeed made measurable strides toward transparency— far more than many peers with greater resources who continue to prioritize profit over reform. But equating visibility with sustainability remains a dangerous simplification.

True progress won’t be found in who tops the rankings but in how those rankings evolve— to measure real-world outcomes such as fair wages, reduced production, and environmental restoration. For that to happen, both consumers and the media must resist the comfort of headline-level understanding and instead demand depth, accuracy, and accountability. Only then can fashion’s favorite buzzword start to mean something again.

When Transparency Outshines Impact: The Paradox of Fashion’s Sustainability Rankings