The Hidden Cost of Fashion: Why Biodiversity Should Be on the Runway

The global fashion industry has long been associated with a significant environmental footprint, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, high water use, biodiversity loss, and chemical pollution. In response to growing pressure from regulators and society, several frameworks have emerged to encourage more responsible business practices. These include the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) as well as a range of national and regional regulations that require companies to assess and mitigate their environmental impacts.

Leading fashion companies such as Inditex (Zara), H&M Group, Nike, Adidas, LVMH, Kering, and Fast Retailing (Uniqlo) are beginning to respond to this evolving landscape. Many have announced sustainability strategies that aim to reduce their environmental impacts and align with international commitments such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

H&M, for example, have adopted comprehensive water targets focusing on efficiency, pollution reduction, and recycling. PUMA, meanwhile, has set science-based climate targets aligned with the 1.5°C pathway. The company has already cut its direct emissions by 85% and made significant progress in decarbonising its supply chain, meeting its original targets ahead of schedule and setting more ambitious goals.

Despite these advances, I have seen in my work that biodiversity continues to receive limited attention within most sustainability strategies. Where it is mentioned, it is often addressed in isolation rather than as part of a broader, integrated approach to nature (i.e incorporated into a unified strategy that considers climate, water, land, and ecosystems collectively). This is a missed opportunity. These environmental challenges are not separate. They are deeply interconnected and must be addressed together to build genuine resilience.

This three-part article series seeks to bring biodiversity into the centre of the sustainability conversation within fashion. This first article explores the current blind spots in the industry and provides an overview of the biodiversity impacts associated with fashion supply chains. The second examines how leading fashion companies are addressing nature-related challenges, assesses the effectiveness of their current strategies, and highlights the gap between voluntary actions and regulatory expectations. The third article looks ahead and imagines what a nature-positive future for fashion could look like, along with steps companies can take to move in that direction.

Biodiversity Impacts Across the Fashion Supply Chain

Biodiversity loss is one of the most urgent and still underexplored sustainability challenges in fashion. While climate action and circularity have gained traction, the sector's direct contributions to ecosystem degradation, through land use change, fibre sourcing, and pollution, are frequently overlooked.  

The industry’s dependence on raw materials such as cotton, viscose, and leather links it to some of the most ecologically sensitive regions globally. Cotton, grown on 2.5% of global arable land, accounts for an estimated 16% of all insecticide and 6% of pesticide use. These chemicals degrade soil biodiversity, contaminate freshwater systems, and harm pollinators, which are essential to ecosystem health. Cotton is also water-intensive, requiring 7,000–29,000 litres per kilogram, often in water-scarce, biodiversity-rich areas.

Viscose, a wood-pulp-based fibre, is another key driver of biodiversity loss, particularly when sourced from high-carbon and high-biodiversity forests in Southeast Asia. According to Canopy, over 200 million trees are logged annually for cellulose-based fibres like viscose and rayon. In the Amazon, cattle ranching for leather and beef is a leading cause of deforestation. Forest loss in this biome threatens iconic species like jaguars and giant anteaters, while undermining ecological processes that regulate climate and rainfall patterns. While traceability efforts have improved, fashion supply chains remain largely opaque, leaving brands exposed to sourcing from illegally deforested or ecologically sensitive areas. Despite deforestation pledges by fashion companies, forests continue to be cleared across the world.

Beyond sourcing, textile dyeing and finishing processes account for approximately 20% of global industrial water pollution. The discharge of untreated wastewater containing heavy metals and microplastics harms aquatic biodiversity and poses public health risks, particularly in countries with weak enforcement mechanisms. Meanwhile, monoculture farming of fibres like eucalyptus and industrial cotton reduces ecosystem complexity, erodes soil fertility, and increases reliance on chemical inputs, creating a destructive feedback loop.

Offsetting, where companies attempt to "balance" impacts elsewhere, often fails to address the root causes of biodiversity degradation and can even shift damage to other regions.

Why Biodiversity is Missing From Fashion’s Sustainability Agenda

Despite growing awareness, biodiversity remains a marginal concern in many sustainability strategies. This is not always due to apathy. Rather, a series of barriers: technical, institutional, and economic, have delayed meaningful action.

First, biodiversity is a scientifically complex topic. It spans species richness, ecosystem health, genetic variation, and ecological function. Unlike carbon, biodiversity lacks a universal unit of measurement, making it difficult to standardise and report. As a result, many companies prioritise issues with more mature data and clearer KPIs. Moreover, many sustainability teams lack the ecological expertise required to assess and manage biodiversity impacts. There are still a few internal roles dedicated to nature strategy, and most frameworks have been designed around emissions rather than ecosystems.

The fashion industry’s fragmented and opaque supply chains pose a second challenge. Brands frequently source materials from multiple intermediaries across geographies with limited traceability. This makes it extremely difficult to determine where raw materials originate, how they were produced, and what ecosystems were affected. Without transparency, companies cannot meaningfully assess or address their biodiversity impacts, especially when they lie upstream in Tier 3 or Tier 4 suppliers. And when they are vertically integrated, sometimes the other barriers mentioned here hinder their action.  

Third, commercial pressures reinforce short-termism. The fashion industry operates on rapid turnaround cycles, price pressures, and seasonal trends. In such an environment, long-term investments in ecosystem restoration or regenerative sourcing can appear misaligned with short-term business incentives. Without a clear economic return on investment or direct consumer demand, biodiversity initiatives are often sidelined in favour of more immediate commercial goals.

Fifth, regulatory signals around biodiversity are still in their early stages. While climate-related disclosure requirements are becoming more standardised—through frameworks such as the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) and the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD)—biodiversity reporting remains comparatively underdeveloped. Requirements tend to be broad in scope, and prescriptive metrics have not yet been fully defined. As a result, many companies are uncertain about how to interpret nature-related risks or what actions are expected of them. The specific indicators and reporting obligations concerning biodiversity are still being clarified and will likely continue to evolve over the coming years.

Biodiversity Loss is a Financial Risk

Biodiversity loss is not just an environmental issue, it is a business risk with far-reaching financial implications. Ecosystems provide critical services that underpin the fashion industry: fertile soil for cotton, freshwater for dyeing, pollination for plant-based fibres, and climate stability in sourcing regions. When these systems are degraded, the availability and quality of raw materials decline, exposing companies to price volatility, production disruptions, and reputational backlash.

Furthermore, regulatory expectations are rising, creating the ground for reputational risks. Companies unprepared to comply with these frameworks may face restricted market access, higher reporting burdens, or legal liabilities. In parallel, biodiversity-related litigation is increasing globally, particularly around land use, water rights, and Indigenous peoples’ territories, all of which can result in reputational damage and financial penalties. Financial institutions are also beginning to incorporate nature risk into lending and investment decisions. Firms that cannot demonstrate active biodiversity management may find themselves locked out of financing opportunities.

In this context, failing to act on biodiversity is not just environmentally irresponsible, it is commercially short-sighted.

A Nature-Positive Future for Fashion

The absence of data or perfect metrics should not be used as an excuse for inaction. Rather, it is an invitation to rethink our approach to nature. Fashion must move beyond a carbon-centric model and embrace nature as a whole system, including water, land, and biodiversity.

The concept of being nature-positive has gained momentum in recent years, supported by frameworks such as the TNFD and Science Based Targets for Nature (SBTN). These initiatives offer tools for companies to understand their nature-related dependencies and impacts, and to develop strategies for mitigating harm and regenerating ecosystems.

Early movers in this space stand to benefit. They can position themselves as leaders in sustainable fashion, not just through low-carbon collections, but through actions that support ecosystem health, Indigenous stewardship, and regenerative practices.

The journey starts with key questions:

• Where are we sourcing our materials, and what is the ecological context?

• Which ecosystems and communities are affected by our operations?

• How can we shift from doing less harm to actively doing more good?

In my work supporting brands in developing nature strategies, I’ve seen a growing appetite to move beyond compliance towards meaningful transformation. This shift is possible, but it requires the right tools, the right partnerships, and the courage to embrace complexity.

In the next article, I’ll explore how fashion companies can begin building their nature strategies using the TNFD’s LEAP approach, and examine real-world examples of where progress is already being made.