Should H&M be responsible for your washing machine?
H&M’s decision to leave consumer-use emissions out of its climate targets highlights a bigger challenge: low-bar compliance overshadowing innovation and strategy. This article explores why ignoring consumer behavior isn’t just shortsighted — it’s a roadblock to meaningful change, and why brands like H&M must rethink their approach to net-zero goals
Last week I had an interesting discussion on LinkedIn about H&M’s decision not to include the consumer use phase in its climate targets. The company’s climate goals include achieving net-zero by 2040 and reducing CO2 emissions by 56% by 2030 compared to a 2019 baseline.
But here’s a catch: Both the 2030 and 2040 goals exclude “indirect GHG emissions from the use of sold products,” which primarily account for emissions generated from washing and drying clothes. In other words, H&M has decided it shouldn’t be responsible or accountable for the emissions generated once its clothes leave the store.
This made me wonder: Should H&M — or any fashion brand — be held accountable for your washing and drying habits?
I want to make it clear that from an accounting perspective, H&M’s approach is kosher. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol allows it, and so does the Science-Based Target Initiative (SBTi). As the SBTi guidance explains, the calculation of indirect use-phase emissions depends on factors outside companies’ direct control — like how often consumers wash their clothes, the temperature they use, and whether they air-dry or machine-dry. Because of this, companies are not required to set targets for these emissions.
The SBTi guidance recommends “that companies estimate indirect use-phase emissions and include them in the inventory if they are expected to be significant. If such emissions are significant, companies should also consider ways to reduce these emissions. However, it is only recommended and not required that companies set targets on these emissions. Indirect use-phase emissions shall not be counted toward the two-thirds threshold for scope 3 emissions included in a scope 3 target.”
But framing this issue as “an accounting debate” misses the point. Sustainability isn’t just about compliance — it’s more so about strategy, systems thinking, and doing what’s morally right. Unfortunately, H&M’s decision reflects broader issues in how the fashion industry (and companies in general) approaches sustainability. Let’s explore this through three lenses: strategic, systemic, and moral.
A missed opportunity for consumer engagement is a road to nowhere
Climate change demands that companies rethink their entire value chain — both upstream (raw materials and production) and downstream (how customers use their products). Success in reducing emissions requires collaboration with stakeholders, from suppliers to customers. But when H&M excludes consumer-use emissions, it signals that engaging customers on sustainability isn’t a priority. This not only misses a critical opportunity but also undermines the company’s ability to achieve net-zero goals — an effort in which its customers must play a significant role.
The Bigger Picture: Beyond Washing and Drying
The issue at hand goes far beyond washing and drying clothes. According to the “Unfit, Unfair, Unfashionable “ report, which examined how fashion companies can align with the 1.5C climate target, there are five key ways to do it: Reducing purchases of new garments, increasing clothing use-time, reducing washing and drying, buying second-hand and responsible disposal. The report highlights that the two most impactful actions are reducing new garment purchases and extending the use-time of clothing. By contrast, measures like reducing washing/drying, buying second-hand, and responsible disposal contribute less significantly to emissions reductions.
This shows how closely production and consumption are connected — you can’t fix one without addressing the other. If fashion companies want to cut emissions, they need to figure out how they sell better but also how they sell fewer new clothes and help customers change their habits. Otherwise, we’re stuck in a cycle of overconsumption: buying more, wearing less, and creating more ecological and societal harm.
To be clear, H&M does some work in this area, developing “customer-facing business models,” to promote “a circular customer offer that is accessible and scalable.” However, by excluding consumer use emissions, it effectively deprioritizes these efforts. As the saying goes, “What gets measured gets managed.” When consumer behavior isn’t included in climate targets, it becomes a secondary concern. Take Levi’s, for example — despite promoting “conscious consumption,” it does not account for consumer-use emissions in its climate goals, which explains why its consumer-focused initiatives remain marginal to its core strategy.
Finally, it’s important to emphasize that ignoring consumer behavior makes no strategic sense and ultimately leads to an inability to meet net-zero targets as companies cannot achieve these goals through production efficiencies alone. Paradoxically, excluding consumer-use emissions not only creates the illusion of progress toward net-zero goals but actually pushes companies further away from them. By doing so, they avoid addressing the critical issues of overconsumption and low utilization rates — two challenges no fashion company can afford to ignore if it truly seeks to achieve net-zero targets.
A fragmented approach misses key innovation and learning opportunities
There is a video created by Autodesk a couple a years ago explaining the importance of whole systems and life cycle thinking. It shows how businesses can achieve better outcomes by considering the entire life cycle of their products and connecting all the touchpoints in the process. IKEA is a great example of this approach: “IKEA is transitioning towards a circular business. This is a systemic approach that impacts every aspect of the IKEA business: from how and what products and services we develop, how and what materials we source, to how and where we meet our customers.”
In contrast, the fragmented approach encouraged by SBTi, which excludes consumer use, does the opposite. It discourages companies from innovating and, in doing so, sets them up to fail.
Let me start by saying that the following suggestion made by SBTi guidance — “The calculation of indirect use-phase emissions is driven by a number of factors, most of which companies have limited influence over” — not only goes against whole-systems thinking but is also quite misleading. For example, H&M can design and produce clothes that need less washing, i.e. wash-less and low-wash clothes, and can be quickly dried, or even better, are more suited to be dried on a clothesline rather than in a drying machine. These are all great opportunities for innovation that H&M could build on and benefit from if it exercised a different approach (to be fair, H&M has done some work here — see p. 42 here, but it’s hardly front and center).
Beyond product design, excluding consumer use emissions also causes companies to miss opportunities in marketing, customer engagement, and partnerships. Here’s something to consider — this guidance suggests that fashion companies cannot impact their customers successfully after the completion of purchases. If this is the case, then why would we believe that fashion companies can convince their customers to repair, prolong the life of their clothes, and use more of them, and eventually bring them back to be reused or recycled?
In addition, this presents a significant opportunity for companies to learn how to make circular behaviors irresistible rather than avoiding them, as this is a key element of successfully implementing circular strategy. As the marketing playbook for the circular economy suggests: “Transitioning from a system that facilitates waste and pollution to a circular economy requires behavioural change.” If fashion companies cannot foster such change when it comes to washing and drying clothes, it raises serious doubts about their ability to drive meaningful transformation at all.
The moral argument: You break it, you fix it.
On a more philosophical level, this is about corporate moral responsibility. Companies exist in society and have obligations to act in ways that benefit it. As Patricia Werhane puts it, corporate moral responsibility arises from a company’s “primary aims and goals, the scope and nature of its operations, and its interactions with those who affect and are affected by it.” These obligations are even more critical when considered in the context of the climate crisis, given companies’ key role in driving this crisis.
In essence, this is about the principle of “you break it, you fix it” — if H&M designs, produces, and sells clothes that generate significant emissions during use (about 20% of H&M’s total emissions), then H&M has a moral duty to address it. The argument that consumers ultimately decide how to wash and dry their clothes is convenient for companies like H&M — but it doesn’t hold up. Just like social media platforms are responsible for minimizing harm to young users even though it is their users that decide how to use them, fashion companies must take steps to ensure their products are used responsibly.
The bottom line
At the end of the day, fashion companies have a choice: Stick with the current sustainability-as-usual mindset, which prioritizes compliance over progress, or rethink how they create and deliver value. This means moving beyond fragmented accounting frameworks to develop innovative, strategic, and moral solutions. In the end, it’s not about doing the thing right — it’s about doing the right thing.
Raz Godelnik is an Associate Professor of Strategic Design and Management at Parsons School of Design — The New School. He is the author of Rethinking Corporate Sustainability in the Era of Climate Crisis. You can follow me on LinkedIn.
