Hall of Fame: Fashion Sustainability Statements

In a rapidly evolving regulatory landscape, a powerful Sustainability Statement is more than just a compliance document; it's a strategic asset for building trust with stakeholders, demonstrating transparency and securing a competitive edge. In this edition of the Hall of Fame, we explore great examples of Sustainability Statements from three fashion companies published this year.

So, what truly makes a great Sustainability Statement?

It is about going beyond compliance — it tells a clear, compelling story about how a company integrates sustainability into its strategy and operations. To determine what makes a report truly impactful, we’ve developed a set of criteria that assess how well companies communicate their sustainability efforts. Our evaluation focuses on three key areas:

1. Double Materiality Assessments (DMA) – including how dependencies are addressed, alignment with AR 16 for naming impacts, clarity on process versus outcome, optimal number and relevance of IROs, and the balance between impacts, risks and opportunities.
2. Communication & visuals – covering the effective use of tables, charts, diagrams, quality of language, overall flow, and storytelling.
3. Navigation & structure – including how the Sustainability Statement is organised and laid out, such as the use of tabs, and how clearly it links to the ESRS requirements.

Each of these areas is interdependent: even the most robust DMA loses impact if it’s poorly communicated or difficult for readers to access. A truly effective report excels in all three, transforming data into a clear and actionable narrative.

Pandora

Double Materiality Assessment – ★★★★★ (5/5)

Pandora presents a materiality assessment that clearly distinguishes impacts, risks and opportunities. The outcome of their DMA includes ten material topics — a number that remains manageable in practice. The naming of topics aligns with the AR 16 list, and the DMA results include a balanced representation of impacts, risks and opportunities (IROs). While the description of the process is relatively brief, the report focuses on the outcomes, mapping all identified IROs across the value chain. Pandora also identifies two significant dependencies — on newly mined materials and on freshwater and reports on these.

Communication & visuals – ★★★★★ (5/5)

The report includes good use of diagrams, charts, icons and imagery, resulting in a clean and visually engaging design that is easy to navigate. For example, visual elements such as diagrams illustrating the business model, DMA process and value chain support the textual content very nicely. The storytelling is clear and easy to follow, thanks to the straightforward and concise language used. 

Navigation & structure ★★★★☆ (4/5)

The report is well-structured, with appropriate headings that create a logical flow. Navigation tabs function well, helping readers find the relevant sections easily. However, the absence of ESRS tags within the text means that users must rely on the ESRS content index to identify Disclosure Requirements — a significant drawback that forced extensive cross-referencing and reduces user convenience.

Ferragamo 

Double Materiality Assessment – ★★★★☆ (4/5)

In 2024, Ferragamo conducted a DMA, identifying 14 material topics on a materiality matrix. Under each topic, many impacts, risks and opportunities were deemed material — an amount that may be challenging to manage in practice, potentially diluting focus and making it difficult to track progress effectively. The results highlight key dependencies such as water availability and forestry production. Ferragamo also included both entity-specific topics and those from the AR 16 list, though not always using the exact wording from the ESRS. The report provides a relatively brief explanation of the DMA process itself, placing greater emphasis on the outcome. Ferragamo highlighted that DMA results were used to adapt and inform the company’s broader Sustainability Plan.

Communication & visuals – ★★★☆☆ (3/5)

The report is visually text-heavy and would benefit from more charts and diagrams to enhance engagement and readability. The use of imagery could also be improved, as the visuals don’t always align with the textual content. For instance, most images focus on the company’s products, rather than highlighting the people, processes or value chain behind them, which can lead to missed opportunities to reinforce key messages. While the language and overall flow of the text are good, the tone leans more toward a compliance-driven document, with limited storytelling.

Navigation & structure – ★★★☆☆ (3/5)

With 560 pages to get through, smooth navigation isn’t just a nice-to-have— it’s essential. Unfortunately, the navigation tabs and table of contents don’t work, making it difficult to move through the report efficiently, a significant drawback for usability. On the positive side, the Sustainability Statement itself clearly indicates which topical standards and Disclosure Requirements are being addressed. In addition, the overall structure of the statement follows the ESRS recommendations.

LPP

Double Materiality Assessment – ★★★★☆ (4/5)

LPP describes its DMA process very thoroughly - all steps are clearly outlined, including stakeholder engagement and the use of quantitative thresholds to define material topics. Dependencies and time horizons are considered, though no significant dependencies were identified. 17 material topics are disclosed, and a few significant risks and opportunities. The wording of the material topics mostly aligns with the AR 16 list—though phrased slightly differently. The SBM-3 table would benefit from the addition of icons to visually distinguish impact types and value chain positioning.

Communication & visuals – ★★★☆☆ (3/5)

The value chain and decarbonisation illustrations are particularly creative and comprehensive, offering strong visual support. However, most sections of the report are predominantly text-heavy, with minimal use of visuals. There is room to enhance overall engagement by incorporating more diagrams, colour, charts, and other visual elements throughout.

Navigation & structure ★★★★★ (5/5)

The structure of the Sustainability Statement aligns with the ESRS recommendations, making the content easy to follow. Navigation tabs work smoothly, enhancing the reader’s experience. There is also a detailed application of ESRS tagging, which adds transparency and clearly connects the information to relevant disclosure requirements.