Our Materials Impact Dashboard visualizes the global impact of the actions taken by participating companies
Targets and Commitments
Materials uptake
Participating companies with a 100% target for at least one preferred material.
Circularity
Participating companies reporting one or more circularity target.
Sustainable Development Goals
Participating companies reporting targets for meeting one or more SDG.
Climate action
Participating companies with a publicly reported science-based target for climate.
Aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals
Country of origin
Key materials
Company-reported uptake volumes of key materials.
4.7 million tonnes reported.Cotton
55%
Wool
1%
Polyester
33%
Down
<1%
Manmade Cellulosics
7%
Polyamide
4%
Progress to preferred
Percentage of materials reported as preferred or conventional.
Preferred, recycled
8%
Preferred, renewable
36%
Conventional
56%
Outcomes of increased preferred uptake
Outcome area |
Improved practices |
Benefits |
Saving is equivalent to |
|---|---|---|---|
|
11% Land under improved practices |
Outcome area |
Improved practices |
Benefits |
Saving is equivalent to |
|---|---|---|---|
|
8% of material from recycled feedstock |
Understanding the impacts
Participant's use 2019
Participant's use 2018
Conventional equivalent
Impact area |
Footprint |
Saving |
Saving is equivalent to |
|---|---|---|---|
|
13% 649 billion liters of water |
|||
|
14% 27.6 billion megajoules |
|||
|
10% 1.4 million tonnes of CO2eq |
Data based on information supplied by 120 participating companies
Uptake volumes are aggregated from company data reported through the MCI survey, and have been rounded to whole numbers. Modeled improvements (outcomes) are based on commonly accepted methodologies. Potential environmental savings (impacts) associated with the use of preferred renewable or recycled raw materials are based on Sustainable Apparel Coalition’s Higg Materials Sustainability Index (MSI) version 3.1. These calculations include only fiber-level impacts and exclude impacts from finished material manufacturing. For the calculation of full material and product manufacturing and life cycles, please visit Higg.org.
In 2020, participating company portfolios are compared to 100% conventional of the same materials and 2019 results. Dashboard data is limited by the availability and accuracy of company data, outcome modeling assumptions and the limitations associated with globalized averages used in the Higg MSI to model impacts. The Impacts Dashboard will be annually adjusted to reflect any improvements made. See Impacts Dashboard Guide to find out more.
Targets and Commitments
100% uptake
Participating companies with a 100% target for at least one preferred cotton.
Incremental uptake
Participating companies with a target to increase the use of at least one preferred cotton.
2025 Sustainable cotton challenge
Signatory to achieving 100% more sustainable cotton use by 2025.
Aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals
Country of origin
Programs in use
Better Cotton Initiative (BCI)
bioRe
Cotton made in Africa (CmiA)
Fair Trade
Organic cotton
Organic Fair Trade
Recycled cotton
Responsible Brazilian Cotton (ABR)
US Cotton Trust Protocol
Progress to preferred
Percentage of materials reported as preferred or conventional.
Preferred, recycled
1%
Preferred, renewable
62%
Conventional
37%
Outcomes of increased preferred uptake
Outcome area |
Improved practices |
Benefits |
Saving is equivalent to |
|---|---|---|---|
|
44% Land under improved practices |
Outcome area |
Improved practices |
Benefits |
Saving is equivalent to |
|---|---|---|---|
|
1% of material from recycled feedstock |
Outcome area |
Improved practices |
Benefits |
Saving is equivalent to |
|---|---|---|---|
|
44% Farmers following improved land practices |
Understanding the impacts
Participants' use 2019
Participants' use 2018
Conventional equivalent
Impact area |
Footprint |
Saving |
Saving is equivalent to |
|---|---|---|---|
|
13% 637 billion liters of water |
|||
|
7% 2.2 billion megajoules |
|||
|
7% 0.3 million tonnes of CO2eq |
Data based on information supplied by 91 participating companies
Uptake volumes are aggregated from company data reported through the MCI survey, and have been rounded to whole numbers. Modeled improvements (outcomes) are based on commonly accepted methodologies. Potential environmental savings (impacts) associated with the use of preferred renewable or recycled raw materials are based on Sustainable Apparel Coalition’s Higg Materials Sustainability Index (MSI) version 3.1. These calculations include only fiber-level impacts and exclude impacts from finished material manufacturing. For the calculation of full material and product manufacturing and life cycles, please visit Higg.org.
In 2020, participating company portfolios are compared to 100% conventional of the same materials and 2019 results. Dashboard data is limited by the availability and accuracy of company data, outcome modeling assumptions and the limitations associated with globalized averages used in the Higg MSI to model impacts. The Impacts Dashboard will be annually adjusted to reflect any improvements made. See Impacts Dashboard Guide to find out more.
Targets and Commitments
100% uptake
Participating companies with a 100% target for recycled polyester.
Incremental uptake
Participating companies with a target to increase the use of recycled and/or preferred polyester.
Recycled polyester commitment
Contributing to the increased industry use of recycled polyester by 25% by 2020.
Aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals
Country of origin
Programs in use
Bio-based polyester
Recycled polyester
Progress to preferred
Percentage of materials reported as preferred or conventional.
Preferred, recycled
21%
Preferred, renewable
<1%
Conventional
79%
Outcomes of increased preferred uptake
Outcome area |
Improved practices |
Benefits |
Saving is equivalent to |
|---|---|---|---|
|
21% of material from recycled feedstock |
Understanding the impacts
Participants' use 2019
Participants' use 2018
Conventional equivalent
Impact area |
Footprint |
Saving |
Saving is equivalent to |
|---|---|---|---|
|
17% 5.7 billion liters of water |
|||
|
19% 21.8 billion megajoules |
|||
|
16% 0.7 million tonnes of CO2eq |
Data based on information supplied by 72 participating companies
Uptake volumes are aggregated from company data reported through the MCI survey, and have been rounded to whole numbers. Modeled improvements (outcomes) are based on commonly accepted methodologies. Potential environmental savings (impacts) associated with the use of preferred renewable or recycled raw materials are based on Sustainable Apparel Coalition’s Higg Materials Sustainability Index (MSI) version 3.1. These calculations include only fiber-level impacts and exclude impacts from finished material manufacturing. For the calculation of full material and product manufacturing and life cycles, please visit Higg.org.
In 2020, participating company portfolios are compared to 100% conventional of the same materials and 2019 results. Dashboard data is limited by the availability and accuracy of company data, outcome modeling assumptions and the limitations associated with globalized averages used in the Higg MSI to model impacts. The Impacts Dashboard will be annually adjusted to reflect any improvements made. See Impacts Dashboard Guide to find out more.
Targets and Commitments
100% uptake
Participating companies with a 100% target for recycled polyamide.
Incremental uptake
Participating companies with a target for increasing the use of recycled and/or preferred polyamide.
Aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals
Country of origin
Programs in use
Bio-based polyamide
Recycled polyamide
Progress to preferred
Percentage of materials reported as preferred or conventional.
Preferred, recycled
2%
Preferred, renewable
<1%
Conventional
98%
Outcomes of increased preferred uptake
Outcome area |
Improved practices |
Benefits |
Saving is equivalent to |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2% of material from recycled feedstock |
Understanding the impacts
Participants' use 2019
Participants' use 2018
Conventional equivalent
Impact area |
Footprint |
Saving |
Saving is equivalent to |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
|
2% 0.5 billion megajoules |
|||
|
2% 0.03 million tonnes of CO2eq |
Data based on information supplied by 42 participating companies
Uptake volumes are aggregated from company data reported through the MCI survey, and have been rounded to whole numbers. Modeled improvements (outcomes) are based on commonly accepted methodologies. Potential environmental savings (impacts) associated with the use of preferred renewable or recycled raw materials are based on Sustainable Apparel Coalition’s Higg Materials Sustainability Index (MSI) version 3.1. These calculations include only fiber-level impacts and exclude impacts from finished material manufacturing. For the calculation of full material and product manufacturing and life cycles, please visit Higg.org.
In 2020, participating company portfolios are compared to 100% conventional of the same materials and 2019 results. Dashboard data is limited by the availability and accuracy of company data, outcome modeling assumptions and the limitations associated with globalized averages used in the Higg MSI to model impacts. The Impacts Dashboard will be annually adjusted to reflect any improvements made. See Impacts Dashboard Guide to find out more.
Targets and Commitments
100% uptake
Participating companies with a 100% target for the uptake of preferred manmade cellulosics.
Incremental uptake
Participating companies with a target for increasing the use of preferred manmade cellulosics.
CanopyStyle partners
Participating companies that are CanopyStyle partners.
Aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals
Country of origin
Programs in use
Acetate (FSC, PEFC)
Lyocell (FSC, PEFC)
Modal (FSC, PEFC)
Viscose (FSC, PEFC)
Recycled cellulose
Progress to preferred
Percentage of materials reported as preferred or conventional.
Preferred, recycled
<1%
Preferred, renewable
31%
Conventional
69%
Outcomes of increased preferred uptake
Outcome area |
Land practices |
Benefits |
Saving is equivalent to |
|---|---|---|---|
|
24% Forest under improved management |
Outcome area |
Improved practices |
Benefits |
Saving is equivalent to |
|---|---|---|---|
|
<1% of material from recycled feedstock |
Understanding the impacts
Participants' use 2019
Participants' use 2018
Conventional equivalent
Impact area |
Footprint |
Saving |
Saving is equivalent to |
|---|---|---|---|
|
15% 5.7 billion liters of water |
|||
|
11% 3.1 billion megajoules |
|||
|
13% 0.3 million tonnes of CO2eq |
Data based on information supplied by 57 participating companies
Uptake volumes are aggregated from company data reported through the MCI survey, and have been rounded to whole numbers. Modeled improvements (outcomes) are based on commonly accepted methodologies. Potential environmental savings (impacts) associated with the use of preferred renewable or recycled raw materials are based on Sustainable Apparel Coalition’s Higg Materials Sustainability Index (MSI) version 3.1. These calculations include only fiber-level impacts and exclude impacts from finished material manufacturing. For the calculation of full material and product manufacturing and life cycles, please visit Higg.org.
In 2020, participating company portfolios are compared to 100% conventional of the same materials and 2019 results. Dashboard data is limited by the availability and accuracy of company data, outcome modeling assumptions and the limitations associated with globalized averages used in the Higg MSI to model impacts. The Impacts Dashboard will be annually adjusted to reflect any improvements made. See Impacts Dashboard Guide to find out more.
Targets and Commitments
100% uptake
Participating companies with a 100% target for the uptake of preferred down.
Aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals
Country of origin
Programs in use
Downpass
Organic down
Responsible Down Standard (RDS)
Traceable Down Standard (TDS)
Recycled down
Progress to preferred
Percentage of materials reported as preferred or conventional.
Preferred, recycled
<1%
Preferred, renewable
95%
Conventional
5%
Outcomes of increased preferred uptake
Outcome area |
Improved practices |
Benefits |
Saving is equivalent to |
|---|---|---|---|
|
1% of down from recycled feedstock |
Outcome area |
Improved practices |
Benefits |
Saving is equivalent to |
|---|---|---|---|
|
95% birds under certified production |
Data based on information supplied by 37 participating companies
Uptake volumes are aggregated from company data reported through the MCI survey, and have been rounded to whole numbers. Modeled improvements (outcomes) are based on commonly accepted methodologies. Potential environmental savings (impacts) associated with the use of preferred renewable or recycled raw materials are based on Sustainable Apparel Coalition’s Higg Materials Sustainability Index (MSI) version 3.1. These calculations include only fiber-level impacts and exclude impacts from finished material manufacturing. For the calculation of full material and product manufacturing and life cycles, please visit Higg.org.
In 2020, participating company portfolios are compared to 100% conventional of the same materials and 2019 results. Dashboard data is limited by the availability and accuracy of company data, outcome modeling assumptions and the limitations associated with globalized averages used in the Higg MSI to model impacts. The Impacts Dashboard will be annually adjusted to reflect any improvements made. See Impacts Dashboard Guide to find out more.
Targets and Commitments
100% uptake
Participating companies with a 100% target for the uptake of preferred wool.
Incremental uptake
Participating companies with a target for increasing the use of preferred wool.
Aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals
Country of origin
Programs in use
Organic wool
Responsible Wool Standard (RWS)
ZQ Certified
Recycled wool
Progress to preferred
Percentage of materials reported as preferred or conventional.
Preferred, recycled
9%
Preferred, renewable
6%
Conventional
85%
Outcomes of increased preferred uptake
Outcome area |
Land practices |
Benefits |
Saving is equivalent to |
|---|---|---|---|
|
7% Land under improved practices |
Outcome area |
Improved practices |
Benefits |
Saving is equivalent to |
|---|---|---|---|
|
9% of wool from recycled feedstock |
Outcome area |
Improved practices |
Benefits |
Saving is equivalent to |
|---|---|---|---|
|
7% sheep from improved farms |
Data based on information supplied by 46 participating companies
Uptake volumes are aggregated from company data reported through the MCI survey, and have been rounded to whole numbers. Modeled improvements (outcomes) are based on commonly accepted methodologies. Potential environmental savings (impacts) associated with the use of preferred renewable or recycled raw materials are based on Sustainable Apparel Coalition’s Higg Materials Sustainability Index (MSI) version 3.1. These calculations include only fiber-level impacts and exclude impacts from finished material manufacturing. For the calculation of full material and product manufacturing and life cycles, please visit Higg.org.
In 2020, participating company portfolios are compared to 100% conventional of the same materials and 2019 results. Dashboard data is limited by the availability and accuracy of company data, outcome modeling assumptions and the limitations associated with globalized averages used in the Higg MSI to model impacts. The Impacts Dashboard will be annually adjusted to reflect any improvements made. See Impacts Dashboard Guide to find out more.
Targets and Commitments
100% uptake
Participating companies with a 100% target for the uptake of preferred leather.
Deforestation and conversion-free
Participating companies with a target for increasing the use of preferred leather.
Leather Working Group members
Participating companies that are Leather Working Group members.
Aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals
Country of origin
Programs in use
Leather Working Group
Organic leather
Recycled leather
Progress to preferred
Percentage of materials reported as preferred or conventional.
Preferred, recycled
<1%
Preferred renewable
<1%
Leather Working Group
68%
Conventional
32%
Outcomes of increased preferred uptake
Outcome area |
Improved practices |
Benefits |
Saving is equivalent to |
|---|---|---|---|
|
<1% of leather from recycled feedstock |
Outcome area |
Improved practices |
Benefits |
Saving is equivalent to |
|---|---|---|---|
|
68% Hides under improved processing |
Data based on information supplied by 36 participating companies
Uptake volumes are aggregated from company data reported through the MCI survey, and have been rounded to whole numbers. Modeled improvements (outcomes) are based on commonly accepted methodologies. Potential environmental savings (impacts) associated with the use of preferred renewable or recycled raw materials are based on Sustainable Apparel Coalition’s Higg Materials Sustainability Index (MSI) version 3.1. These calculations include only fiber-level impacts and exclude impacts from finished material manufacturing. For the calculation of full material and product manufacturing and life cycles, please visit Higg.org.
In 2020, participating company portfolios are compared to 100% conventional of the same materials and 2019 results. Dashboard data is limited by the availability and accuracy of company data, outcome modeling assumptions and the limitations associated with globalized averages used in the Higg MSI to model impacts. The Impacts Dashboard will be annually adjusted to reflect any improvements made. See Impacts Dashboard Guide to find out more.
