030. However, not a single one has developed a comprehensive “just transition” plan that includes and protects supply chain workers, many of whom are already feeling the brunt of climate change in their home countries. This oversight risks more than worker wellbeing. As pressure mounts from consumers, regulators and investors for climate accountability, the absence of inclusive strategies exposes brands to greenwashing accusations and long-term operational risk. The worker gap in climate commitments Of the eight brands with the most ambitious climate goals, just two, Inditex (owner of Zara) and Kering (owner of Gucci and Alexander McQueen), have publicly acknowledged workers in their transition strategies.  “These two brands have shown in their policy framing that they have, to an extent, understood the stakes of an energy transition for their businesses and that it impacts rightsholders (in this case workers) along their supply chain,” Natalie Swan, labour rights programme manager at the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, an independent non-profit focused on promoting corporate accountability and transparency related to human rights, told Inside Retail. “Developing policies is just the first step. Both brands now need to show clearly and transparently how they are putting their policies into action in terms of engaging workers and their trade unions at the centre of their plans for addressing the impacts of climate events such as heat stress, and supporting suppliers to meet their decarbonisation targets,” she added.  The rest, including H&M, Primark, Hugo Boss and Capri Holdings, remain silent on how their decarbonisation efforts will impact the millions of garment workers across Asia and other sourcing hubs. “The fashion industry’s climate targets mean little if the people who make its products are not taken into consideration,” Swan said in a press release.  “Decarbonisation done without workers as critical and creative partners is not a just transition – it’s a dangerous shortcut,” she reinforced. While many brands tout their “sustainable” credentials, few have incorporated the concept of a “just transition”, a framework that ensures workers are not left behind during the shift to greener business models. The findings are stark: Not one brand has a stand-alone “just transition” policy. Only eight out of 65 brands mention “just transition” principles at all. Just 11 companies reference workers in relation to climate impacts in their social or human rights policies. Only four brands – Adidas, Levi’s, Nike and Next – have issued supplier guidelines on managing heat stress. Canada Goose and VF Corp are the only companies that acknowledge climate threats to worker livelihoods. Meanwhile, the phrase “just transition” appears only 10 times on average across the 15 company websites that use it, compared with an average of 266 mentions of “sustainability.” This disparity is more than semantic. Sustainability, when divorced from labour considerations, becomes little more than a marketing term.  According to BHRRC, brands that continue to separate environmental commitments from social accountability risk not only reputational damage but also a loss of supply chain resilience. The reality on the factory floor The effects of climate change on garment workers are not hypothetical. Interviews with workers in Bangladesh and Cambodia illustrate a grim reality of rising temperatures, extreme heat and flooding, which are already endangering lives and livelihoods. In Bangladesh, factory temperatures are reaching dangerous highs, with reports of fainting, dehydration and disease outbreaks.  Flooding has added safety risks, such as electric shocks and slippery floors, particularly hazardous for pregnant workers. Many factories lack even the most basic mitigation measures like fans, drinking water or ventilation. And with wages already low, workers are often forced to pay out-of-pocket for cooling solutions at home, further eroding their financial stability. The operational risks for brands are clear. Heat-related health issues reduce productivity and cause disruptions, while increasing the likelihood of labour unrest, absenteeism and reputational fallout. What should happen next? According to BHRRC, a coordinated approach from brands, suppliers, investors and policymakers to integrate just transition principles into climate planning is needed.  For brands, integrating worker rights into climate strategies is no longer optional. This means actively engaging with trade unions, offering financial support to suppliers and providing clear, public guidance on mitigating heat-related risks across supply chains. Suppliers are being urged to develop climate adaptation plans that actively include worker input, ensuring adequate health protections and the right to freedom of association are in place. “Brands are disproportionally outsourcing their supplier support on climate and decarbonisation issues- relying on third-party initiatives and pilot projects,” Swan said.  “[They] have longstanding relationships with their suppliers. These need to be deepened and leveraged to ensure that tackling the climate emergency is a key area of discussion, support and improvement over time,” she added.  Investors, meanwhile, must begin factoring just transition risks into ESG assessments and push portfolio companies to take meaningful action.  Policymakers also have a critical role to play by mandating human rights and climate due diligence, and by supporting sourcing countries through climate finance and inclusive industrial strategies that protect both people and the planet. The stakes are high. The fashion industry is currently on track to contribute over a quarter of total global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.  Without a course correction that includes worker protection, the industry risks both moral failure and material collapse. As Swan stated, “A just transition is not just a responsibility – it’s a critical opportunity to build a fairer, more resilient fashion industry that works for people and the planet.”