How Textile Companies Can Set Science-Based Carbon Targets Without Getting Stuck

Brands pushed. Suppliers stalled. Now what?

If your company supplies fabrics or garments to major brands like Adidas, Puma, Levi’s, or lululemon, you’ve probably received a letter or a supplier code of conduct asking you to set a climate target. The language is often vague: “commit to science-based targets” or “align with SBTi.” But the reality on the ground is different. Most textile mills don’t have a carbon inventory, don’t know their scope 3 hot spots, and have no idea what a “science-based” target actually means in operational terms.

Let’s cut through the noise. This article is written for the people who manage sustainability, compliance, or supply chain in textile companies – the ones who need to respond to brand questionnaires without a dedicated sustainability team. We’ll cover what SBTi actually requires, which methods fit different types of textile businesses, and a staged roadmap that avoids the common trap of “analyze forever, act never.”

The elephant in the room: scope 3

For most apparel brands, scope 3 emissions account for over 90% of their total carbon footprint. According to a WRI study of 11 major Chinese fashion brands, some brands' scope 3 share reaches 96%. That means the carbon impact of a garment happens mostly upstream – in fiber production, yarn spinning, fabric dyeing, and finishing. Brands can’t reach their net-zero targets without suppliers cutting emissions.

But here’s the problem: suppliers are not ready. The 2023 Supply Chain CATI Index shows that among companies assessed, the average score for the “climate target setting” dimension was only 22%. Only 31.4% had set scope 1&2 carbon neutrality targets, and only 20.6% had set scope 3 neutrality targets. The gap between brand ambition and supplier readiness is massive.

What SBTi actually expects from a textile business

Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) is the gold standard. As of July 2024, 8,986 companies had joined SBTi, but only 5,726 had verified targets. The rest are in the commitment phase – which is exactly where many textile suppliers are stuck. SBTi requires companies to set near-term targets (5-10 years) and long-term targets (net-zero by 2050 at the latest). The core methods are:

• Absolute Contraction – All companies in a sector reduce emissions by the same absolute percentage, regardless of growth. This is the simplest and most commonly used method for non-heavy industries.
• Sectoral Decarbonization Approach (SDA) – For high-emitting sectors (steel, cement, power). Textile manufacturing is not classified as high-emitting, so SDA is rarely used for apparel.
• Intensity Convergence – Reduce emissions per unit of economic output (e.g., per ton of fabric, per million USD revenue). This is popular for growing companies because it allows absolute increases if output grows, but emissions per unit decline.

For textile suppliers, the most practical path is absolute contraction for scope 1&2, and intensity targets or supplier engagement targets for scope 3. SBTi also recognizes the FLAG (Forest, Land and Agriculture) pathway for companies using leather, cotton, wool, etc. If your raw materials include cattle leather or cotton, you must account for land-use change emissions.

Step-by-step roadmap for textile suppliers

You don’t need a sustainability PhD. Here’s a phased approach used by mills that have successfully set and validated targets.

Phase 1: Boundary & baseline (3–6 months)

First, decide which legal entities and facilities to include. Most suppliers start with scope 1 (direct fuel use) and scope 2 (purchased electricity). Then collect at least one full year of data – preferably the most recent year with complete records. Use the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard. For guidance, SBTi’s Corporate Net-Zero Standard (v1.1) requires a complete scope 3 inventory covering all categories in the minimum boundary. But if you’re a small mill, start with scope 1&2 and the largest scope 3 categories (purchased goods, upstream transportation).

Phase 2: Method selection & target modeling (2–3 months)

Use SBTi’s official target setting tool (available on their website). Input your base year emissions, choose a method (absolute contraction is simplest for scope 1&2), and the tool calculates the required reduction rate. For scope 3, SBTi requires that if it exceeds 40% of total emissions, you must set a scope 3 target. For most textile mills, scope 3 is 50–70% (raw materials, chemicals, logistics). You can set a “supplier engagement target” – e.g., “80% of suppliers by spend will have science-based targets by 2027.”

Phase 3: Supplier engagement & data quality (ongoing)

Brands are increasingly demanding that their tier-1 and tier-2 suppliers set targets. The CATI Index shows that companies like Cisco, Adidas, and Puma are actively pushing suppliers to disclose and set goals. You need to ask your raw material suppliers (yarn mills, chemical producers) for their emissions data or at least their commitment to SBTi. This is the hardest part. Expect slow responses. Start with your top 20 suppliers by spend – they likely have the most influence.

What about smaller companies? The SME shortcut

SBTi has a simplified pathway for SMEs (companies with 500 employees). The target is pre-defined: reduce scope 1&2 by 50% by 2030 (from a base year of 2020 or earlier), and measure/engage scope 3. No custom modeling is needed. If you’re a mid-size spinner or dyer with 100–400 employees, this is your fastest route.

Another practical starting point for any mill is conducting a product carbon footprint (PCF) for your best-selling fabric. The Chinese standard T/CNTAC 241-2025 provides a methodology for cotton woven fabric, covering raw material acquisition, manufacturing, and delivery. Even if you don’t use cotton, the framework is applicable to other fibers. A PCF gives you the baseline data you need to set a credible target.

Common mistakes to avoid

• Waiting for perfect data. You’ll never have perfect data. Use estimates for the first year, then improve data quality over time. SBTi accepts proxy data for scope 3.
• Confusing certification with target-setting. Having OEKO-TEX or GOTS does not replace a carbon target.
• Setting a target without board buy-in. SBTi requires board-level approval. Get your top management on board early.
• Ignoring renewable energy. Scope 2 reductions are the fastest win. Switching to renewable electricity (PPAs, RECs) can cut 30–50% of your carbon footprint without changing production.

Real examples from the industry

Lenzing, a major fiber producer, updated its SBTi targets in 2024. It changed from an intensity target to an absolute reduction target: 42% reduction in scope 1&2 by 2030 vs 2021 base year (equal to 1,100,000 tCO₂e), and 25% reduction in scope 3. They also refined their scope 3 categories to focus on purchased goods, fuel, and upstream transportation – which account for their main upstream emissions. This shows that even large suppliers are tightening their targets. For a fabric mill, aiming for a 30% absolute reduction by 2030 is ambitious but achievable with energy efficiency and renewable electricity.

Conclusion: stop analyzing, start acting

The textile industry cannot decarbonize at the brand level alone. Suppliers must set their own targets. But the barrier isn’t technology – it’s data availability and organizational will. The first step is to measure your carbon footprint for one year. The next step is to submit a commitment letter to SBTi. The deadline is not 2050; it’s 2030. Companies that start now will not only comply with brand requirements but also gain a competitive edge as buyers increasingly weight decarbonization performance in supplier selection. Pick one method, one baseline year, and one target. Then tell your biggest customer what you’ve done. That conversation alone will shift the dynamic from pressure to partnership.