22 Jan 26 | Podcast
Eileen Fisher’s approach to circular systems
Carmen Gamma, director of circular design at fashion brand Eileen Fisher, joins Innovation Forum’...
Garment manufacturers are facing unprecedented health and safety risks from changing climate. Brands and their suppliers should adopt a risk-based approach to tackle the challenges.
During the summer of 2025, a historic heatwave swept across Scandinavia, with Sweden enduring ten consecutive “tropical nights” where temperatures never fell below 20C. As climatologist Friederike Otto observed: “Even relatively cold Scandinavian countries are facing dangerous heatwaves today with 1.3C of warming – no country is safe from climate change.”
According to Climate Tracker Emissions, current global policies put us on course for 2.7C of warming. If that trajectory holds, the summer of 2025’s events in northern Europe will be mild compared to what the global north may experience in coming decades. Yet even these extremes remain less severe than the record-breaking temperatures and climate shocks already confronting the global south. While no country may be safe, risk is not equally distributed.
Distant threat?
In recent years, the apparel and textiles industry has made numerous net zero pledges and invested in mitigation strategies. However, climate impacts are still treated by many as a distant threat. Business of Fashion’s mid-2025 review of investor reports found most major brands ranked other macroeconomic challenges – from tariffs to geopolitics – as more immediate risks.
Adidas projected business resilience in the “foreseeable future”. Kering, Hermès and Richemont each reported that climate-related risks have no material impact on their operations. LVMH acknowledged potential raw material cost increases by 2030 but said it was sourcing lower-impact and certified materials to address the risk.
Yet much of the industry’s production footprint lies in climate-vulnerable regions. WWF’s mapping of apparel clusters shows a heavy concentration in flood-prone plains and dense urban areas in countries such as Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Vietnam. These are locations where both flooding and extreme heat are expected to intensify.
Human impact
This emphasis on financial resilience often overlooks the human cost. Apparel is among the most labour-intensive industries, and climate impacts are already harming workers’ health. In Sweden, the recent heatwave is expected to contribute to higher mortality among vulnerable groups. In textiles and apparel production hubs, where workers often already face chronic health issues such as respiratory problems, musculoskeletal disorders and mental health challenges, the compounding effects of extreme heat and flooding rarely feature in corporate climate risk assessments.
Research by the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre examined 65 of the largest fashion brands by market capitalisation and found that none had a public ESG target specifically focused on protecting workers from extreme heat. While more than half have supply chain emissions targets for 2030, none framed these around worker engagement or mitigation of climate effects on labour.
At-risk communities
Climate risk stems from both the physical impacts of climate change and the degree to which communities and workplaces are equipped to respond. In the apparel sector, many workers face the dual threats of extreme heat and flooding, compounded by widespread labour rights violations.
Looking at Dhaka in Bangladesh, for instance, the 2025 My Body is Burning report demonstrated that the pressures on workers are stark . One pregnant worker reported that five to seven people faint in her factory every day during the hot season. Wet-bulb temperatures(a combined measure of heat and humidity) above 30.5C – which can be fatal with prolonged exposure – are becoming increasingly common in garment-producing hubs.
Flooding adds another layer of risk. The ILR’s Higher Ground? report notes that a one-metre flood can halt operations for 15 to 25 days, with costs in lost productivity often exceeding those from heat-related slowdowns. Low-lying neighbourhoods with poor infrastructure are particularly vulnerable, and in some cases factories in Dhaka and Chattogram have sent boats to collect staff during the monsoon.
Absenteeism rises due to water-borne illness such as diarrhoea or dengue, and because workers must care for sick relatives or children. A 2018 BSR report found that every 100 mm increase in monthly monsoon rainfall was linked to a ten-percentage-point rise in sick leave among women apparel workers.
Demographic questions
While we are all heat-intolerant, the risk depends on several demographic dimensions. Gender is one important aspect. Especially given women make up about 80% of the global garment workforce, and in Asia they constitute the majority of the 35 million workers in the garment, textile and footwear sector. As an ILO report notes, women and pregnant workers are 3.7 times more likely to be heat intolerant than men during physical work, and are more vulnerable to dehydration and heat-related illness. Many also carry additional caregiving responsibilities at home, compounding the physical and mental strain.
The human impact is magnified by the structure of the industry. Meeting production quotas takes priority, and even where labour laws exist, compliance is inconsistent. The Higher Ground report found that workers’ overriding anxiety is the loss of income, as illness or heat stress not only reduces pay but also jeopardises bonuses tied to attendance and productivity.
Rest requirements
Widespread labour abuses leave many unable to take medical leave or adjust working hours during dangerous conditions. Fear of the consequences for their families often forces workers to “push through” the most intense months of May, June and July, when heat, humidity and flooding converge.
Some coping strategies are harmful. Nandita Shivakumar describes how the situation has escalated rapidly over the past two years and workers of the Tamil Nadu Textile and Common Labour Union (TTCU) in India have started chewing gum to suppress thirst during shifts, which worsens dehydration.
The Oppressive Heat study in Cambodia found that such individual coping measures are far less effective than collective responses. It points to the need for stronger workplace education on recognising and preventing heat-related illness, alongside systemic support from employers and brands.
Adaptation gap
Speaking with Innovation Forum, George Williams, just transition advisor at the Ethical Trade Initiative, notes that discussion and advocacy on heat stress have grown significantly, observing a real shift in visibility and profile (for example at Innovation Forum’s Sustainable Apparel and Textiles Conferences from 2024 to 2025) and with emerging heat policies among several ETI company members.
Yet the pace of change is still outstripped by the rising temperatures in production hubs. Days above 40C are becoming common, with 50C spikes increasingly reported. Traditional cooling methods are no longer sufficient.
To protect workers effectively from extreme heat, they must be directly involved in setting safe work–rest ratios and designing measures that meet their needs without wage cuts. Union membership can have a significant impact: the Oppressive Heat study found that non-unionised workers spent twice as much time at unsafe core temperatures as union members.
Meaningful worker participation, supported by social dialogue, freedom of association, and collective bargaining, is essential for building genuine resilience on the ground. Alongside this, George Williams emphasises the value of local representatives for brands, whose lived experience in major urban centres provides crucial insight into the links between climate change and social impact.
Brand responsibility
While grassroots action is vital, systemic change is needed to ensure accountability and sustainable protection. The UN’s Guiding Principles for Business highlight the responsibility for companies to respect human rights and address adverse human impacts in their value chains. There are examples of improved policy framing, such as Levi’s with “worker well-being and equity” as a cornerstone of its climate transition plan and Inditex’s “workers at the centre” strategy. But it’s critical any policies should explicitly recognise workers’ rights and implemented in tandem with responsible purchasing practices.
In Vogue Business’ 2025 Sustainability Leaders Survey, 63% of suppliers said brands expect them to advance capital-intensive sustainability efforts while still squeezing margins. The Better Buying 2025 Garment Industry Scorecard similarly found that progress on purchasing practices has stalled, with the steepest drop in planning and forecasting, which will likely lead to poor business practises such as tight lead times, last minute changes and downward pressure on prices a recent ETI blog from George Williams outlines. Brands must avoid “cut and run” strategies and instead work with suppliers with two-way open communication to ensure deadlines do not put workers at risk.
Regulation must reinforce this responsibility. National laws in production hubs need to cover all workers and be enforced, while legislation in the north must hold brands accountable down their supply chains. This is especially pressing given recent weakening of the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive as writer Amy Nguyen outlined for Innovation Forum.
Collaborative action
Just as no single company can reach net-zero on its own, no single organisation can tackle the consequences of climate change alone. Climate risks in apparel are multi-layered, interacting with social and economic pressures. Flooding and heat are only part of the challenge.
As George Williams highlights, water scarcity, migration shifts, child labour risks, and cold extremes have knock-on effects throughout the supply chain and on the workers who form its foundation. While tier 1 and tier 2 workers have rightly been a focus of industry research, farmers too have a critical role in the apparel industry, who are similarly and disproportionately vulnerable to climate change impacts.
Risk-based approach
While research on heat stress and broader climate impacts must continue and be properly funded, companies do not need to wait to act. A risk-based approach can identify the workers most exposed, considering both workplace and demographic factors such as gender and health, with monitoring and updated data guiding the most effective measures.
A risk-based approach should also be used to identify the corporations contributing and causing the risk. Apparel is not the only industry facing these challenges. WWF research shows significant overlap between apparel and ICT sectors, highlighting opportunities for shared resilience planning.
Decarbonisation remains crucial, but it must be paired with a just transition that recognises the requirement for businesses under the UNGPs to respect workers’ rights and ensure their business practises don’t increase risk for local communities. Without this, climate resilience will remain incomplete, and the industry’s most exposed workers will continue to bear the greatest burden.
According to Climate Tracker Emissions, current global policies put us on course for 2.7C of warming. If that trajectory holds, the summer of 2025’s events in northern Europe will be mild compared to what the global north may experience in coming decades. Yet even these extremes remain less severe than the record-breaking temperatures and climate shocks already confronting the global south. While no country may be safe, risk is not equally distributed.
Distant threat?
In recent years, the apparel and textiles industry has made numerous net zero pledges and invested in mitigation strategies. However, climate impacts are still treated by many as a distant threat. Business of Fashion’s mid-2025 review of investor reports found most major brands ranked other macroeconomic challenges – from tariffs to geopolitics – as more immediate risks.
Adidas projected business resilience in the “foreseeable future”. Kering, Hermès and Richemont each reported that climate-related risks have no material impact on their operations. LVMH acknowledged potential raw material cost increases by 2030 but said it was sourcing lower-impact and certified materials to address the risk.
Yet much of the industry’s production footprint lies in climate-vulnerable regions. WWF’s mapping of apparel clusters shows a heavy concentration in flood-prone plains and dense urban areas in countries such as Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Vietnam. These are locations where both flooding and extreme heat are expected to intensify.
Human impact
This emphasis on financial resilience often overlooks the human cost. Apparel is among the most labour-intensive industries, and climate impacts are already harming workers’ health. In Sweden, the recent heatwave is expected to contribute to higher mortality among vulnerable groups. In textiles and apparel production hubs, where workers often already face chronic health issues such as respiratory problems, musculoskeletal disorders and mental health challenges, the compounding effects of extreme heat and flooding rarely feature in corporate climate risk assessments.
Research by the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre examined 65 of the largest fashion brands by market capitalisation and found that none had a public ESG target specifically focused on protecting workers from extreme heat. While more than half have supply chain emissions targets for 2030, none framed these around worker engagement or mitigation of climate effects on labour.
At-risk communities
Climate risk stems from both the physical impacts of climate change and the degree to which communities and workplaces are equipped to respond. In the apparel sector, many workers face the dual threats of extreme heat and flooding, compounded by widespread labour rights violations.
Looking at Dhaka in Bangladesh, for instance, the 2025 My Body is Burning report demonstrated that the pressures on workers are stark . One pregnant worker reported that five to seven people faint in her factory every day during the hot season. Wet-bulb temperatures(a combined measure of heat and humidity) above 30.5C – which can be fatal with prolonged exposure – are becoming increasingly common in garment-producing hubs.
Flooding adds another layer of risk. The ILR’s Higher Ground? report notes that a one-metre flood can halt operations for 15 to 25 days, with costs in lost productivity often exceeding those from heat-related slowdowns. Low-lying neighbourhoods with poor infrastructure are particularly vulnerable, and in some cases factories in Dhaka and Chattogram have sent boats to collect staff during the monsoon.
Absenteeism rises due to water-borne illness such as diarrhoea or dengue, and because workers must care for sick relatives or children. A 2018 BSR report found that every 100 mm increase in monthly monsoon rainfall was linked to a ten-percentage-point rise in sick leave among women apparel workers.
Demographic questions
While we are all heat-intolerant, the risk depends on several demographic dimensions. Gender is one important aspect. Especially given women make up about 80% of the global garment workforce, and in Asia they constitute the majority of the 35 million workers in the garment, textile and footwear sector. As an ILO report notes, women and pregnant workers are 3.7 times more likely to be heat intolerant than men during physical work, and are more vulnerable to dehydration and heat-related illness. Many also carry additional caregiving responsibilities at home, compounding the physical and mental strain.
The human impact is magnified by the structure of the industry. Meeting production quotas takes priority, and even where labour laws exist, compliance is inconsistent. The Higher Ground report found that workers’ overriding anxiety is the loss of income, as illness or heat stress not only reduces pay but also jeopardises bonuses tied to attendance and productivity.
Rest requirements
Widespread labour abuses leave many unable to take medical leave or adjust working hours during dangerous conditions. Fear of the consequences for their families often forces workers to “push through” the most intense months of May, June and July, when heat, humidity and flooding converge.
Some coping strategies are harmful. Nandita Shivakumar describes how the situation has escalated rapidly over the past two years and workers of the Tamil Nadu Textile and Common Labour Union (TTCU) in India have started chewing gum to suppress thirst during shifts, which worsens dehydration.
The Oppressive Heat study in Cambodia found that such individual coping measures are far less effective than collective responses. It points to the need for stronger workplace education on recognising and preventing heat-related illness, alongside systemic support from employers and brands.
Adaptation gap
Speaking with Innovation Forum, George Williams, just transition advisor at the Ethical Trade Initiative, notes that discussion and advocacy on heat stress have grown significantly, observing a real shift in visibility and profile (for example at Innovation Forum’s Sustainable Apparel and Textiles Conferences from 2024 to 2025) and with emerging heat policies among several ETI company members.
Yet the pace of change is still outstripped by the rising temperatures in production hubs. Days above 40C are becoming common, with 50C spikes increasingly reported. Traditional cooling methods are no longer sufficient.
To protect workers effectively from extreme heat, they must be directly involved in setting safe work–rest ratios and designing measures that meet their needs without wage cuts. Union membership can have a significant impact: the Oppressive Heat study found that non-unionised workers spent twice as much time at unsafe core temperatures as union members.
Meaningful worker participation, supported by social dialogue, freedom of association, and collective bargaining, is essential for building genuine resilience on the ground. Alongside this, George Williams emphasises the value of local representatives for brands, whose lived experience in major urban centres provides crucial insight into the links between climate change and social impact.
Brand responsibility
While grassroots action is vital, systemic change is needed to ensure accountability and sustainable protection. The UN’s Guiding Principles for Business highlight the responsibility for companies to respect human rights and address adverse human impacts in their value chains. There are examples of improved policy framing, such as Levi’s with “worker well-being and equity” as a cornerstone of its climate transition plan and Inditex’s “workers at the centre” strategy. But it’s critical any policies should explicitly recognise workers’ rights and implemented in tandem with responsible purchasing practices.
In Vogue Business’ 2025 Sustainability Leaders Survey, 63% of suppliers said brands expect them to advance capital-intensive sustainability efforts while still squeezing margins. The Better Buying 2025 Garment Industry Scorecard similarly found that progress on purchasing practices has stalled, with the steepest drop in planning and forecasting, which will likely lead to poor business practises such as tight lead times, last minute changes and downward pressure on prices a recent ETI blog from George Williams outlines. Brands must avoid “cut and run” strategies and instead work with suppliers with two-way open communication to ensure deadlines do not put workers at risk.
Regulation must reinforce this responsibility. National laws in production hubs need to cover all workers and be enforced, while legislation in the north must hold brands accountable down their supply chains. This is especially pressing given recent weakening of the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive as writer Amy Nguyen outlined for Innovation Forum.
Collaborative action
Just as no single company can reach net-zero on its own, no single organisation can tackle the consequences of climate change alone. Climate risks in apparel are multi-layered, interacting with social and economic pressures. Flooding and heat are only part of the challenge.
As George Williams highlights, water scarcity, migration shifts, child labour risks, and cold extremes have knock-on effects throughout the supply chain and on the workers who form its foundation. While tier 1 and tier 2 workers have rightly been a focus of industry research, farmers too have a critical role in the apparel industry, who are similarly and disproportionately vulnerable to climate change impacts.
Risk-based approach
While research on heat stress and broader climate impacts must continue and be properly funded, companies do not need to wait to act. A risk-based approach can identify the workers most exposed, considering both workplace and demographic factors such as gender and health, with monitoring and updated data guiding the most effective measures.
A risk-based approach should also be used to identify the corporations contributing and causing the risk. Apparel is not the only industry facing these challenges. WWF research shows significant overlap between apparel and ICT sectors, highlighting opportunities for shared resilience planning.
Decarbonisation remains crucial, but it must be paired with a just transition that recognises the requirement for businesses under the UNGPs to respect workers’ rights and ensure their business practises don’t increase risk for local communities. Without this, climate resilience will remain incomplete, and the industry’s most exposed workers will continue to bear the greatest burden.
