The American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) recently expressed its apprehensions regarding The Fashion Act (H1032) in a letter to the Massachusetts joint committee on environment and natural resources. The proposed legislation aims to enhance environmental accountability within the fashion sector, but AAFA argues that it introduces an expensive and complicated regulatory system that is unlikely to achieve its intended goals.
In the correspondence, AAFA President and CEO Steve Lamar pointed out that the act imposes requirements that do not align with existing industry standards and initiatives, as well as the legislative and regulatory frameworks already governing the fashion sector.
“This lack of harmonisation creates an unnecessarily complicated compliance framework for companies without providing a material sustainability benefit,” Lamar wrote. He noted that, in certain cases, these inconsistencies could counteract the very objectives that the legislation aims to promote.
The letter emphasized the necessity of aligning the act with European Union (EU) regulations, suggesting that it’s essential to learn from past EU legislative challenges. Notably, the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, which affects many U.S. companies in and outside the fashion industry, along with California’s Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253), mandates that covered companies disclose their greenhouse gas emissions.
However, The Fashion Act diverges from the established timelines and assurance levels in both the EU directive and California legislation. Furthermore, it fails to align with other pending climate legislation in states such as New York, New Jersey, Colorado, and Illinois, as highlighted by AAFA.
While The Fashion Act calls for fashion retailers to establish emissions targets, it does not support full alignment with the Science-Based Targets Initiative (SBTi). The act restricts certain retailers from utilizing intensity-based targets, despite SBTi’s validation of such measures, according to the AAFA letter.
Lamar also pointed out that enforcing absolute targets could lead to complications during mergers or acquisitions, potentially pushing companies out of compliance. Additionally, divestment might falsely suggest a reduction in emissions without actual improvement.
The act’s stringent data collection mandates exceed those required by SBTi and are deemed impractical by AAFA. Despite the industry’s compliance with a multitude of chemical regulations globally, The Fashion Act adds unnecessary and impractical requirements that do not align with existing frameworks, potentially hindering efforts to identify new chemicals in wastewater.
Moreover, the AAFA letter noted, “Sales of fashion products by third-party sellers on online marketplaces would be exempt from the requirements under the bill as it is written. If the intention of the legislation is to make marketplaces clean up their production, this bill misses the mark. With third-party sales expected to comprise almost two thirds of all e-commerce sales by 2027, this represents a significant omission.”
Finally, the legislation lacks incentives, diplomatic support, and technical guidance for the industry to reach its objectives, leaving AAFA concerned about its effectiveness.
