Article 
In 2025, industry leaders gathered in Amsterdam against a backdrop of global trade wars, discussing how to sustain momentum on environmental and social priorities with tightening budgets. In 2026, those pressures have intensified. We’re no longer just looking at trade wars but actual war, with events in the Middle East raising fundamental questions regarding energy security amidst attempts to continue with respective decarbonisation trajectories.
As brands, manufacturers, policymakers, NGOs, researchers and innovators huddled to dissect themes related to regulation and reporting, rebalancing power dynamics in the supply chain, circular business models and climate adaptation and mitigation, it was clear the question has shifted from what to do and which technical solutions to target, towards how to execute strategies in a way that secures internal buy in from senior decision makers.
Risk of inaction
At a time when investment should be ramping up, frustrations around securing C-suite buy-in were evident. A pulse check from the audience revealed that the biggest misunderstandings finance teams have regarding the work around sustainability initiatives are that there is no return on investment (ROI), that it is expensive and that short-term financial performance remains a priority.
These tensions were highlighted in sessions. CFOs are tasked with managing cash flow, margins and inventory risk. These are all pressures that can crowd out investment in initiatives where returns might be delayed, payback periods are longer or harder to quantify, especially in the case of social ROI.
Attendees pointed to the need to “find allies” within organisations, especially when sustainability might not be a core part of the business model, highlighting tactics such as building coalitions across commercial and operational teams to make the case for investment in a way that resonates with financial departments.
Rather than asking whether sustainability delivers return on investment, companies should be asking what the risk of inaction will be, whether that is through supply chain disruption, regulatory exposure or loss of customer trust, all mounting towards the heightened possibility of profit erosion.
Climate reality
Discussions on financing decarbonisation were notably grounded this year in the lived impacts of climate disruption. Participants pointed to rising temperatures of 50C in manufacturing regions, alongside warnings of a super El Niño event that could further intensify extreme weather patterns. Physical climate risks are becoming difficult to ignore.
Yet, whilst many in the room said they have decarbonisation strategies, net zero or scope 3 targets in place, fewer relayed they were directly financing supplier decarbonisation, and, of those, even fewer knew exactly how much was being invested.
Experts set out the importance of collective financing, private sector mobilisation and advocacy efforts to address policy barriers related to renewable energy expansion. Discussions also reviewed what makes decarbonisation projects truly bankable for SME manufacturers who have limited resources to finance loans required for capex investment in infrastructure.
Centring workers’ rights amidst the energy transition remains a key question. Insights from manufacturers highlighted trade-offs seen on the factory floors. For instance, retrofitting facilities with cooling systems will be necessary to maintain safe temperatures for workers, but, as a result, the impact of mass air conditioning installation could wipe out carbon reduction gains. This was referred to by one participant as a “ticking carbon bomb”, who also questioned how to move forward when facing infrastructure constraints, such as a weak energy grid in countries like Bangladesh.
Companies shared their approach to targeting heat stress, including on-the-ground impact assessments. But one participant questioned, how much more time will be spent on audits and assessments before action is taken? “What is our threshold?” they asked, raising the uncomfortable prospect that it may take mass casualties to trigger meaningful change. The responsibility for climate adaptation as well as decarbonisation strategies must no longer be pushed downstream to supply partners least able to absorb it, many agreed.
Confronting power imbalances
In Amsterdam, there was a more critical examination of what collaboration means, particularly when it comes to fair purchasing practices.
It was shared that, for many manufacturers, the experience of collaboration still falls short. They described ongoing pressures around cost, margin and compliance, alongside audit fatigue and limited access to the teams making decisions. Sustainability initiatives, they said, are often designed without sufficient input from those responsible for implementing them.
One participant went further, calling for a higher level of worker representation at industry events, arguing that “purchasing practices are colonial”, a stark characterisation that reflects the persistent imbalance in power and value distribution across global supply chains. Suppliers are expected to invest, improve transparency and absorb risk, while continuing to operate on thin margins with limited visibility on future orders.
Equally, the cost of time in reporting on the impact of energy-efficient machinery significantly dwarfs the time spent on maintaining it, as raised by one expert, highlighting the unintended consequences of reporting to brands on mandated environmental targets.
The transition to a circular economy must also be inclusive, with constant social dialogue with workers, experts argued. This came to fruition regarding the well-being of waste pickers. The handling of materials is largely carried out by informal workers, yet they are rarely part of the system’s design. If circular models are to be credible, they must improve livelihoods, through better working conditions, income, skills and social protection, while addressing the stigma faced by many of these workers.
Is legislation moving the needle?
From CSRD to EPR, DPP and ESPR, participants shared their own experiences in navigating the regulatory landscape. In 2025 there was anxiety around the lack of clarity regarding what the Omnibus package would entail. Now, companies shared how they are working with technical solution providers to get their ducks in a row, debating when exactly the data is good enough to work with in line with reporting requirements.
Honest anecdotes were shared about how regulation is both increasing pressure on companies to act to help secure buy-in at the executive level and send signals to investors, whilst also how companies are navigating data fatigue and data blind spots. And, how companies no longer in scope of regulations like CSRD are trying to maintain momentum within their organisation for sustainability initiatives.
As one discussion put it, the biggest limitation to scale is not ambition, but the ability to build “solid foundations” of reliable data.
Can circularity fix overproduction?
The imperative to move from linear to circular systems was coincidentally coupled with an overflowing textile recycling bin situated on the road outside the conference venue. Can circularity fix overproduction? Over half of the participants remained sceptical, under the rationale that it could make overproduction cleaner, but not smaller. Whilst some argued that with regulation, yes, it could.
A show of hands revealed that only one company present had set a target to reduce production volumes, an uncomfortable signal in an industry entering a period of finite resources.
Positive showcases were made of how circular initiatives can work in practice, from commercialising repairs to subscription services and the expansion of textile waste recovery to reimagine materials and reduce reliance on virgin fibres. But, it was also clear that brands face pressure to demonstrate that these initiatives do not cannibalise sales.
Each year, the conversation regarding textile-to-textile recycling evolves. Where formerly it had been regarding how to make it work, now, with the expansion of infrastructure and recycling hubs in regions like Vietnam, brands are actively incorporating T2T fibres into their material strategies, with quantifiable time-bound targets. The parameters for success are now becoming clearer as infrastructure scales. For instance, collaborative discussions regarding offtake agreements and ensuring that high enough volumes of post-industrial waste exist.
A critical takeaway was that Europe plays an important role in signalling demand in the future and stimulating players in Asia to ramp up capacities, as the T2T industry faces challenges regarding feedstock preparation.
One expert considered that there is a need to harmonise circularity strategies with broader decarbonisation strategies and teams must find synergies between what takes place upstream and downstream to ensure it does not negatively impact a company’s whole sustainability strategy.
Re-prioritising sustainability
Across the discussions, one message came up again and again: the problem is not technical, it is behavioural. The solutions are largely there, but progress is still being slowed by incentives that don’t align, internal silos and a lack of coordination. As one participant put it, “the biggest risk is mindset, not shifting and staying put”.
In 2026, sustainability teams should not still be having to make the business case for supporting manufacturers to reach environmentally mandated targets, but they do. Internal alignment and framing justifications through the costs and risks of inaction, such as managing energy security, supply chain disruptions and social protection of the vulnerable, will be crucial.
Author details
Apparel 
Podcast
Webinar