A California Fashion Act Seeks to Hold Brands ‘Environmentally Accountable'
On the heels of New York, Massachusetts and Washington, California is lobbying for a Fashion Act of its own.
It'll be a way to hold brands and retailers that sell into the state liable for the 'emissions and toxic chemical footprint of the fashion industry,' said Assemblymember Dawn Addis, who introduced AB 405, formally known as the Fashion Environmental Accountability Act, on Tuesday.
More from Sourcing Journal
H&M Foundation Funds Disaster Management Project for India Communities
Maryland Legislators Introduce Bill That Would Crack Down on Repeat Retail Crime Offenses
A Renewed US Shipbuilding Push Has Potential Side Effect-Higher Shipping Costs
The move comes amid the Trump 2.0 administration's aggressive dismantling of federal environmental protection policies, its swift withdrawal from the landmark Paris climate agreement and its repeated promises to ratchet up greenhouse gas-spewing domestic oil and gas production, including for export. President Donald Trump has also ordered various government departments—including the Environmental Protection Agency, which he views as an adversary and could push to downsize—to purge any mentions of the climate crisis from their public websites.
'Disposable clothing is designed to be worn a few times and then thrown away, creating toxic waste that pollutes our environment,' Addis said. 'Additionally, chemicals used to create this fashion can cause real health issues for the workers who make them.'
Addis cited the devastating Los Angeles wildfires, whose intensity and unpredictability scientists say were supercharged by a warming planet. 2024 was the hottest year on record, with global temperatures hitting 1.28 degrees Celsius above the agency's 20th-century baseline, NASA confirmed last month.
'At a time when federal protections are being rolled back, we must continue to lead the way by holding the industry accountable,' she said. 'We have a responsibility to champion practices that protect both our planet and its people.'
California has already passed and signed into law the Responsible Textile Recovery Act, also known as SB 707, the nation's first extended producer responsibility bill specific to textiles. By 2026, apparel producers in the state will need to establish a producer responsibility organization to create and fund a framework for the management of textile waste that encourages recovery through reuse, repair and recycling and discourages disposal.
AB 405 will require companies making more than $100 million in international revenue to not only disclose their supply chain emissions but also slash them in line with Paris Agreement targets of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. It will further require them to work with their suppliers to manage their chemical use and conduct wastewater testing according to internationally recognized methodologies, mitigating hazardous concentrations where necessary. Violations could result in penalties of up to 2 percent of their annual revenue that would go on to benefit environmental remediation projects for injured communities.
The same brands that have long been in favor of the New York Fashion Act, which was first proposed in 2022 to break the fashion industry out of its 'black box' and take action on climate justice, also support a California version. They include Cotopaxi, Eileen Fisher, Everlane, Faherty, Ganni, Rothy's and Stella McCartney, as well as Los Angeles-based Reformation, which calls its endorsement of similar regulation in its home state a 'natural extension of our advocacy for a more sustainable industry.'
'Voluntary action simply will not be enough to push fashion forward, and we've seen consumer demand fluctuate,' said Kathleen Talbot, chief sustainability officer and VP of operations at Reformation. 'At Ref, we believe regulatory efforts like this are essential for generating timely and seismic change. From due diligence processes to traceability requirements, the Fashion Act puts the responsibility and accountability on brands, which we know will have positive cascading effects throughout the industry.'
Patagonia, another California native, concurred, saying that California and New York share an influence on style, culture and commerce that can be 'seen and felt globally.' There's also a need to level a playing field that financially incentivizes social and environmental harm, said Corley Kenna, its chief impact and communications officer.
'We have spent decades examining our business practices and learning from our mistakes,' she said. 'But we know Patagonia alone won't solve the climate crisis—we need all companies in our industry to demonstrate progress on environmental issues, and to be held accountable for their claims. This legislation can help achieve that.'
It was also on Tuesday that New York legislators reintroduced AB 4631, a.k.a. the Fashion Sustainability and Social Accountability Act, to give the bill another lease on life after a previous version didn't reach the State Assembly floor in time for a vote. The passage of both states' bills, which are broadly aligned, would create a regulatory bulwark and further enforce what Maxine Bédat, executive director of the 'think and do tank' the New Standard Institute and one of the New York Fashion Act's architects, calls local legislation with planet-spanning implications: New York is one of the premier fashion capitals, while California is the fifth largest economy in the world.
If the federal government cannot stay the course in an age when the hallmarks of climate breakdown are becoming increasingly apparent, then it's up to the states to 'carry the torch,' she said.
'The fossil fuel-enabled fires in California are not going away just because the president is in denial,' Bédat said. 'The Fashion Act is common sense; by raising the floor for the industry, we also help promote local industry and innovation. We look forward to working with our partners and elected officials to get this landmark bill passed.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

19 minutes ago
Migrants and ICE officers contend with heat, smog and illness after detoured South Sudan flight
WASHINGTON -- Migrants placed on a deportation flight originally bound for South Sudan are now being held in a converted shipping container on a U.S. naval base in Djibouti, where the men and their guards are contending with baking hot temperatures, smoke from nearby burn pits and the looming threat of rocket attacks, the Trump administration said. Officials outlined grim conditions in court documents filed Thursday before a federal judge overseeing a lawsuit challenging Immigration and Customs Enforcement efforts to swiftly remove migrants to countries they didn't come from. Authorities landed the flight at the base in Djibouti, about 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) from South Sudan, more than two weeks ago after U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy in Boston found the Trump administration had violated his order by swiftly sending eight migrants from countries including Cuba and Vietnam to the east African nation. The judge said that men from other countries must have a real chance to raise fears about dangers they could face in South Sudan. The men's lawyers, though, have still not been able to talk to them, said Robyn Barnard, senior director of refugee advocacy at Human Rights First, whose stated mission is to ensure the United States is a global leader on human rights. Barnard spoke Friday at a hearing of Democratic members of Congress and said some family members of the men had been able to talk to them Thursday. The migrants have been previously convicted of serious crimes in the U.S., and President Donald Trump's administration has said that it was unable to return them quickly to their home countries. The Justice Department has also appealed to the Supreme Court to immediately intervene and allow swift deportations to third countries to resume. The case comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by the Republican administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living in the United States illegally. The legal fight became another flashpoint as the administration rails against judges whose rulings have slowed the president's policies. The Trump administration said the converted conference room in the shipping container is the only viable place to house the men on the base in Djibouti, where outdoor daily temperatures rise above 100 degrees Fahrenheit (38 degrees Celsius), according to the declaration from an ICE official. Nearby burn pits are used to dispose of trash and human waste, and the smog cloud makes it hard to breathe, sickening both ICE officers guarding the men and the detainees, the documents state. They don't have access to all the medication they need to protect against infection, and the ICE officers were unable to complete anti-malarial treatment before landing, an ICE official said. 'It is unknown how long the medical supply will last,' Mellissa B. Harper, acting executive deputy associate director of enforcement and removal operations, said in the declaration. The group also lacks protective gear in case of a rocket attack from terrorist groups in Yemen, a risk outlined by the Department of Defense, the documents state. ___
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk Lashes Out After Bannon Calls to Deport Him Amid Trump Fight
Elon Musk spent his evening calling Steve Bannon a 'retard' after Bannon called for Trump to seize Musk's companies and deport him following their fallout over the budget bill. Musk and Trump had a highly publicized spat on Thursday that saw the president expressing his 'disappointment' in Musk's opposition to his 'big, beautiful bill' on live TV, chalking the conflict up to Musk losing his government Tesla subsidies. The Silicon Valley right came to Musk's side, while Bannon and the deep MAGA right rallied around their leader. 'He doesn't know anything. He's a know-it-all. He knows some engineering, don't get me wrong, but he doesn't know anything about the real world,' Bannon said of Musk on his Thursday show. 'Any fanboys that still exist … understand that DOGE, he didn't find any fraud. There's plenty of fraud out there. This is President Trump's first complaint. Was this all BS with the DOGE?' Bannon continued. 'Space X … President Trump should be taking immediately. When he threatens to take one of the big programs out of Space X, President Trump tonight should sign an executive order calling for the defense production act and seize Space X tonight before midnight,' Bannon said, responding to Musk's threats to pull his Space X programs from the Trump administration. 'They should initiate a formal investigation of his immigration status, because I am of the strong belief that he is an illegal alien, and he should be deported from the country immediately,' Bannon later said to The New York Times, adding that he told Trump the same thing. Multiple tech bros came to Musk's defense on X and the world's richest man popped up in their replies to voice his agreement, calling Bannon multiple variations of 'retard.' Musk called Bannon 'peak retard' and a 'communist retard' multiple times on X. Bannon and Musk have been at odds since the H-1B visa fight, which underscored the ideological rifts within Trump's base that are fully coming into fruition now. Bannon is the core of MAGA, resonating deeply with a right-wing populist base. Musk was simply a quick, messy fling, which he is now realizing—and not handling very well.


Business of Fashion
2 hours ago
- Business of Fashion
H&M Billionaire Quietly Moves Retailer Toward Private Ownership
Hennes & Mauritz AB, the fast-fashion retailer that's been listed on the Swedish stock market since 1974, is steadily moving back toward private ownership. The founding family has stepped up purchases of H&M shares, spending more than 63 billion kronor ($6.6 billion) since 2016 and fuelling speculation it could take the Stockholm-based company back into private hands — despite denials from family members. The Perssons, one of Sweden's wealthiest families, have amassed a growing stake through holding company Ramsbury Invest, saying little about their intentions other than that they 'believe' in H&M, which was founded in 1947 by Erling Persson. The media-shy clan is now getting within striking distance of full control of the retailer, which in recent years has been losing ground among shoppers to its main rival Zara and 'ultra-fast fashion' upstarts like Shein. 'This is something we've been talking about for years, and few would doubt that's the direction things are headed,' said Sverre Linton, chief legal officer and spokesperson for the Swedish Shareholders' Association, which represents small stock investors. If the family doesn't plan to take H&M private, it should communicate that more clearly and stop buying shares, he added. Within Striking Distance of Full Control The family has ramped up insider buying by reinvesting dividends, boosting its H&M stake to almost 64 percent from 35.5 percent over the past nine years via Ramsbury, a vehicle named after billionaire Stefan Persson's sprawling estate, one of the largest private landholdings in southern England. Including extended family holdings, the Perssons now control roughly 70 percent of the capital and some 85 percent of voting rights, according to H&M's website. In an interview last year with Bloomberg, H&M Chairman Karl-Johan Persson — grandson of the founder — dismissed talk that the family intended to take the company private. 'There are no plans,' he said. 'We just buy because we believe in the company.' Representatives at Ramsbury Invest and H&M declined to comment. Analysts including Niklas Ekman at DNB Carnegie say the regular purchases could be more than a show of confidence in the retailer. In a note to clients last month, he estimated that if the family keeps acquiring shares at the same pace a buyout could come as early as two years from now. If the family's holding reached 90 percent, it could request a de-listing of the shares. A take-private would be 'based on emotional rather than financial motives,' Ekman wrote, given that the family already has a controlling stake and has long managed the company with little regard for minority shareholders. He attributed the push to patriarch Stefan Persson, 77, who built H&M into one of the world's largest fast-fashion retailers during his 16 years as chief executive officer and more than two decades as chairman. He remains deeply invested in the company's future. Stefan's fortune amounts to $18.6 billion, mostly in H&M stock, making him the richest person in Sweden, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. He bought the 3,000-acre Ramsbury estate in 1997 and has since expanded it to 19,000 acres, building a brewery, distillery and oil press on the property. His son Karl-Johan, who took over as H&M chairman in 2020 after serving as CEO, also holds an active role at Ramsbury Invest. He has voiced frustration in interviews with the stock market's short-term focus on maximizing profits. 'They've never, at least in modern times, expressed a strong desire to remain public,' said Daniel Schmidt, an analyst at Danske Bank. 'I would say that transparency has always been a part of it.' H&M's shares reached an all-time high about a decade ago, and have since fallen by around 60 percent, valuing the group at 220 billion kronor. Zara owner Inditex SA, by contrast, has climbed about 60 percent over that period. For the Perssons, the sagging stock price is no doubt a frustration, but also presents an opportunity by making full control more attainable. At the current price it would cost the family at least 70 billion kronor to buy the remaining outstanding shares, according to Ekman. That would likely require them to take on debt. A delisting would probably also require a premium, according to Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Charles Allen. 'If the bid were financed by debt then it may reduce the company's operating flexibility,' Allen said. 'It wouldn't really matter if the debt was in the company or the family as either way cash flow would have to be diverted from investment to pay interest and then repay.' Operationally, the fast-fashion retailer appears stuck in the slow lane, facing tepid demand for its apparel, fierce competition and now US tariffs. The first-quarter results were weaker than analysts had expected and showed that efforts to claw back customers through higher marketing spending hadn't brought a rebound. CEO Daniel Erver, an H&M veteran who took the top job last January, was involved in setting the current strategy and has yet to reverse market share losses in countries including Germany, France and the UK. Attempts to reconnect with younger audiences through collaborations, such as with pop artist Charli XCX, haven't significantly boosted growth. H&M Shares Continue to Underperform Rival Inditex H&M has been criticised for a lack of transparency over sudden management changes and being the only company in Stockholm's benchmark index not to disclose the shareholdings of its top executive team. 'Obviously, being a listed company puts management under more scrutiny than if they were private, but it also presumably offers some incentives to management and other employees that would not be available if it were private,' BI's Allen said. Anders Oscarsson, the head of equities at AMF, one of Sweden's biggest pension managers and the largest non-family shareholder, said he hasn't heard the family say anything about taking H&M private, and that such a move would be a big loss for investors. 'It would be sad if the company disappears from the stock exchange,' he said. 'If we're to generate returns from the stock market, we need strong companies listed.' Yet if the family's purchases lead to a marked deterioration in the stock's liquidity, that wouldn't be a good outcome either. 'It might become a bit like Hotel California — where you can neither check in nor check out.' By Rafaela Lindeberg