Bangladesh is the world's second largest garment exporter, with a sector employing over four million workers, the majority of whom are women. It is ranked 7th on the Global Climate Risk Index. The consequences of the climate crisis are already acute for rights holders in Bangladesh's garment supply chains: factory temperatures are reaching dangerous levels, with reports of workers fainting from heat exhaustion; flooding disrupts production and cuts off routes to work; and climate-related income loss falls on workers who have no formal social protection on which to rely. Research by Cornell University's Global Labor Institute and Schroders found that workers in Dhaka miss an average of three full days of work per month due to flooding and heat illness during the hottest and rainiest months of the year, costing more than 10% of their income at the time when electricity and medicine costs are also at their highest. Across the four key apparel producing countries of Bangladesh, Cambodia, Pakistan, and Vietnam, the same research projects the loss of USD 65 billion in export earnings and nearly 1 million jobs by 2030 without urgent climate adaptation.

In June 2025, BHRC's report The Missing Thread: Workers Absent from Fashion Companies' Climate Plans found that while 44 of the 65 brands analysed had set supply chain decarbonisation targets, not one had adopted a just transition policy that included or protected supply chain workers. The report's key finding was stark: brands have yet to commit the requisite resources and support to help suppliers meet their new targets while ensuring decent work. Workers described factories without fans, drinking water, or ventilation; flooding creating electric shock hazards on production floors; and job losses from automation introduced without reskilling or social protection. A third of workers surveyed had already lost work due to automation. As one garment worker in Bangladesh stated: "I am surprised that brands don't mention workers in relation to the just transition."

This survey was designed to test that finding in practice, asking 15 of the top international brands sourcing from Bangladesh about the concrete steps they were taking to support suppliers and workers with climate mitigation and adaption. In November 2025, BHRC reached out to all 15. Eight responded. Seven did not.

Brands surveyed: ASDA | BESTSELLER | C&A | GAP | H&M | Inditex | Kontoor Brands | Mango | Marks & Spencer | Next | Primark | PVH | Target | Tesco | Walmart

Responded: ASDA, BESTSELLER, H&M, Inditex, Marks & Spencer, Mango, Next, Target

Did not respond: C&A, GAP, Kontoor Brands, Primark, PVH, Tesco, Walmart

Key findings

Unpacking brand responses

Suppliers without support: climate targets lack commensurate resources

Five of the eight responding brands have formal climate strategies applicable to suppliers. ASDA discloses no climate targets applicable to Bangladesh suppliers. Next does not apply specific climate targets to Bangladesh suppliers, citing local infrastructure constraints, but describes no plan to address them and no adjusted commercial terms that would enable suppliers to invest.

Brand climate commitments applicable to suppliers:

• H&M - 56% absolute Scope 3 reduction by 2030 and phase out of onsite coal across supply chain tiers by 2026
• Inditex - minimum 4.2% annual carbon footprint reduction from suppliers under its 2024 to 2027 Supply Chain Environmental Transformation Plan
• BESTSELLER - 30% absolute Scope 3 reduction by 2030
• Mango - 35% Scope 3 reduction under approved science-based targets
• Marks & Spencer - 42% absolute Scope 3 reduction by 2030
• ASDA - no climate targets disclosed applicable to Bangladesh suppliers
• Next - no climate targets applied to Bangladesh suppliers

On supplier emissions KPIs:

When asked what challenges they face in supporting suppliers and workers through the just transition, responses acknowledged but insufficiently addressed structural constraints. Brands identified the same core obstacles — limited renewable energy infrastructure, low awareness of just transition, constrained supplier financing — without demonstrating adequate plans to address them. H&M is actively developing a Corporate Power Purchase Agreement framework in Bangladesh to facilitate direct access to renewable energy for corporate users — a meaningful policy-level contribution, though not yet operational. Mango identified the failure of existing audit systems to capture just transition data as a structural challenge and is the only respondent actively working to change this, engaging Sedex, amfori, and Cascale to include just transition indicators in social audit standards. Inditex described engaging in collaborative and locally grounded efforts and advocating for stronger policy alignment and enabling environments. ASDA and Target did not answer this question.

What brands told us about the challenges they face:

Next, which operates 174 active factories in Bangladesh and provides no direct financial support to suppliers, described the challenge as systemic.

As it stands, no brand has committed to framing emissions targets in a way that supports decent work, despite imposing decarbonisation timelines on a sector where suppliers lack the financing, infrastructure, and policy environment needed to comply.

Purchasing practices: climate targets without financial support

No responding brand confirmed paying a price premium for garments produced in green certified factories or by suppliers meeting emissions KPIs. There is currently no premium paid by brands for goods produced in factories that have reduced emissions, making it difficult for suppliers to fund the improved working conditions that should be the basis of a just transition. BHRC has previously documented brands demanding price reductions of up to 20% from Bangladesh suppliers during periods of disruption. The absence of a green premium in a context where decarbonisation requirements are accelerating represents a continuation of that pattern of cost transfer.

What workers need from brands:

On purchasing incentives linked to environmental performance:

• H&M - requires all strategic suppliers to source 100% renewable electricity; they benefit from increased business allocation and long term partnerships
• BESTSELLER - strong environmental performance can influence order allocation; strategic goal to place 75% of orders with highly rated suppliers
• Mango - in the process of prioritising high performing factories through greater business allocation but not yet operationalised
• Inditex, Marks & Spencer, Next, ASDA, and Target - confirm no purchasing incentives linked to environmental performance
• Target - left these questions blank

No brand provided a concrete example of having adjusted buying terms in Bangladesh in the past 12 months to help suppliers invest in energy efficiency or climate adaptation. Mango explicitly states it has not done so; BESTSELLER, ASDA, and Next each answered not applicable; H&M referred to a link on its purchasing practices without providing specific examples. M&S described pride in its long term supplier relationships and stated it continually reviews terms and conditions — without describing any specific adjustment made to support supplier climate investment.

On direct financial support for supplier decarbonisation:

• H&M - Green Fashion Initiative has supported 23 projects since 2023 with the potential to cut supply chain emissions by 148,000 tonnes CO₂e; offers suppliers financing at favourable terms
• BESTSELLER - parent company Heartland directly finances solar panel installation on factory rooftops in Bangladesh through the Greener Garments Initiative; supports suppliers accessing lower interest loans through the Future Supplier Initiative via a co-financing model
• Target - enables suppliers to apply for decarbonisation grants through the Apparel Impact Institute's Climate Solutions Portfolio and Deployment Gap Grant programmes; offers a post-export finance programme to all import vendors where Target is importer of record
• Marks & Spencer - participates in the Apparel Impact Institute's Fashion Climate Fund and Future Supplier Initiative
• Inditex - provides free technical consultancy for factory diagnosis; answered no to direct financial support for decarbonisation at factory level
• Mango - participates in the Future Supplier Initiative; working with external experts on tailored recommendations for factories
• Next - no direct financial support of any kind reported
• ASDA - no direct financial support of any kind reported

When suppliers cannot absorb the cost, workers pay the price

Research by Cornell University's Global Labor Institute found that climate disruptions already cost workers more than 10% of their income in peak months — at exactly the time when electricity and medicine costs are highest. Bangladesh has no legal framework for climate-related income protection: no paid leave provisions for heat or flood events, no right to stop work in dangerous conditions, and no wage continuity requirements during climate-related stoppages. In this regulatory vacuum, brand commitments — and their absence — determine whether workers have any protection at all.

On information and capacity building on climate adaptation, including heat stress and flooding:

• H&M - developed a Health and Safety guideline on extreme heat in collaboration with the ILO, IndustriALL, and Better Work
• Target - conducts worker training sessions on heat stress and flooding through its annual compliance programme and CDP
• Next - heat stress policy available to suppliers via online portal, highlighted at in-person supplier meetings; supporting Cornell University research on heat impacts with findings expected in 2026
• Inditex - provides information through supplier discussions and risk exercises in collaboration with academic institutions
• Marks & Spencer - collaborates with GIZ on climate workshops and provides information through regular supplier visits
• BESTSELLER - provides information and capacity building sessions on both climate adaptation and decarbonisation through in-country training
• ASDA - answered no to providing any information or capacity building on climate adaptation including heat stress and flooding
• Mango - did not confirm providing information or capacity building on climate adaptation

Climate adaptation support

On climate vulnerability assessments of supplier factories in Bangladesh:

• Next - supporting Cornell University research on heat impacts in a small number of Bangladesh factories
• H&M - references Better Work temperature monitoring through the regular audit process
• Inditex - conducts a corporate-level analysis of climate scenarios studying 5 emissions pathways; this is not a factory-level vulnerability assessment of Bangladesh suppliers specifically
• Marks & Spencer - formal factory-level assessments have not yet been rolled out
• BESTSELLER - answered no
• Mango - no climate vulnerability assessments conducted
• ASDA - no climate vulnerability assessments conducted

These steps on health and safety do not constitute income protection for workers whose livelihoods are disrupted by climate events — and the 2 issues require distinct, dedicated responses from brands.

The result is a disconnect: workers are increasingly exposured to dangerous heat and flooding, but the industry's climate responses focus on environmental compliance, not economic survival. There is no clear plan from brands for ensuring workers are not left without pay when conditions become unworkable.

The stakes are high: without income protection or adaptation planning, climate change threatens not just worker health, but livelihoods, equity, and basic survival.

Freedom of association, social dialogue, and civil society engagement

A transition that does not involve social dialogue and collective bargaining with workers, represented by independent and democratic trade unions, cannot be characterised as just. Freedom of association in Bangladesh's RMG sector remains severely constrained — workers who attempt to organise face retaliation and collective bargaining coverage is limited. Research cited in The Missing Thread from Cambodia found that non-unionised garment workers spend significantly more time working at unsafe temperatures than their unionised counterparts, with widespread union busting making it harder for workers to demand effective cooling systems. The gendered dimension of this exclusion is acute: according to a 2024 GIZ and Awaj Foundation report, only 8% of union leaders in Bangladesh's RMG sector are women, and fewer than 5% of collective bargaining agreements have had women in lead negotiating roles. In a sector where women make up the majority of the workforce, the structures through which just transition must be negotiated are themselves sites of exclusion.

Why worker voice matters:

On civil society engagement on just transition issues in Bangladesh:

• H&M - engages with Center for Policy Dialogue, BRAC University, Oxfam, Swisscontact, and Bangladesh Institute of Labour Studies; participates in the InSPIRE project by Swisscontact
• Inditex - engaged in the ETI Bangladesh just transition project and with Water.org
• Marks & Spencer - engages through Better Work and the ILO Employment Injury Scheme
• Mango - engages with the International Accord on social audit standards
• BESTSELLER - no engagement with civil society organisations in the RMG sector and communities reported
• ASDA - no engagement with civil society organisations in the RMG sector and communities reported
• Next - no engagement with civil society organisations in the RMG sector and communities reported

The Missing Thread found that only six of 65 brands globally mention engaging with trade unions on climate. Automation introduced in the name of decarbonisation has already eliminated jobs without consultation or social protection. Women, who make up the majority of RMG workers, are frequently excluded from decision making and reskilling opportunities. Workers are experiencing the consequences of a transition being designed around them, not with them — and not with the trade union structures through which their rights and interests are legitimately represented.

Mango's response is notable for one systemic contribution: its internal Just Transition Working Group, and its engagement with Sedex, amfori, and Cascale to include just transition indicators — including factory floor temperatures — in social audit standards.

If adopted, this would generate sector-wide data on conditions rightsholders are experiencing that currently goes largely unrecorded.

At present, most brand approaches remain top-down, with workers absent from design and decision making. In contexts with constrained freedom of association, this exclusion cannot be justified. A just transition built without workers and their representatives is no transition at all — it is an imposed restructuring with unequal risks and rewards.

Measuring impact and transparency

On measuring the impact of actions on supplier resilience and worker wellbeing in relation to climate change:

• Next - Cornell University partnership on heat impacts in Bangladesh; findings expected January 2026; the only brand investing in independent evidence on worker health and productivity
• Target - conducted a Hazardous Temperature Policy Adaptation Survey of Bangladesh suppliers to assess readiness and adaptation strategies; engages suppliers through targeted surveys on policy implementation
• Mango - Just Transition Working Group developing indicators for worker wellbeing including heat exposure and water access; follows a 2025 salient issues analysis identifying climate change as a key area of potential adverse impact on workers
• Marks & Spencer - regular in-country social compliance visits to all suppliers; engages suppliers through the Better Buying Initiative
• H&M - applies human rights due diligence across its value chain; engages suppliers through targeted surveys
• Inditex - integrates "Green to Wear" environmental standard with social auditing programme, evaluating both environmental performance and working conditions
• ASDA - references only Higg FEM scores and ZDHC; no reference to worker wellbeing in relation to climate change

An example of worker-facing climate measurement:

The Missing Thread found that only two of 65 brands globally acknowledged the threat climate change poses to workers' livelihoods. This survey's findings indicate that gap has not been addressed in practice.

No brand disclosed a standardised system for monitoring factory heat, flood-related stoppages, or energy transition impacts at worker level. Data, where it exists, is controlled by brands or auditors — not shared with workers or their representatives — reinforcing the structural exclusion that defines supply chain power dynamics.

Seven of the 15 brands contacted — C&A, GAP, Kontoor Brands, Primark, PVH, Tesco, and Walmart — did not respond. Without a response, workers, trade unions, suppliers, and civil society have no public account of how these companies are discharging their responsibilities to rightsholders in Bangladesh. Among respondents, Target left multiple questions unanswered including on purchasing incentives, trade union engagement, wage protection during climate disruptions, and the challenges it faces. ASDA did not answer the question on challenges.

As BHRC has consistently maintained, corporate accountability and transparency at times of heightened risk to workers' rights is not discretionary. Environmental sustainability claims that ignore the need for a fair decarbonisation process for suppliers and workers are misleading.

Until workers are visible in how brands measure climate targets, they remain invisible in the transition itself.

Conclusion: a transition that leaves workers behind is no transition at all

The key finding of The Missing Thread was stark: brands are setting climate targets without committing the resources or reforms necessary to protect decent work. This new evidence from Bangladesh reinforces that reality. Across the board, suppliers are being asked to decarbonise without receiving the financial support, commercial backing, or social protections required by a just transition. And workers — the people who power the industry — remain largely invisible in corporate climate plans.

The absence of premium pricing for low-emission production, lack of adjusted commercial terms, limited wage protections, and minimal engagement with trade unions all point to the same conclusion: suppliers, and workers, bear the risks and cost of decarbonisation.

This failure is not incidental — it is structural. Brands retain disproportionate power over purchasing decisions, timelines, and pricing, yet few are using that leverage to enable fair climate adaptation. Voluntary initiatives and pilot funds cannot substitute for enforceable rights, robust social dialogue, and structural investment in worker resilience.

The fashion industry’s transition can either deepen inequality or help repair it. Without workers, there is no transition. Climate action that excludes the very people powering global supply chains is not only unjust — it is ineffective.

BHRC calls on all brands sourcing from Bangladesh to:

The path forward must be grounded in justice. If the transition does not work for workers, it does not work at all.