This Q&A is part of our Guest Series, where we sit down with industry experts and climate and human rights leaders to explore their work and insights.
Saqib Sohail is the Head of Engagement at the Microfibre Consortium, and spent the last 6 years working as Head of Responsible Business at Artistic Milliners, one of the top denim manufacturers in the world
One of the key challenges that the textile industry faces today is decarbonization. While brands are announcing ambitious climate targets, translating those goals into action on the factory floor — especially in Tier 2 facilities — is far from straightforward. Suppliers face technical, financial, and logistical hurdles, and the reality often looks very different from the plans set in corporate boardrooms.
We spoke with Saqib Sohail, who has spent his career implementing decarbonization solutions at the factory level, to explore these challenges and the solutions that are already making a difference. From electrification and funding mechanisms to worker engagement and climate adaptation, Saqib shares his insights on what works — and what still needs urgent attention.
From your experience, what’s the biggest gap between the climate targets brands announce, and the reality of implementing those targets on the factory floor?
The main thing I’ve seen is that most targets are set by brands, retailers, or third parties in the Global North, focusing on what they feel is important — not on what’s realistic for suppliers on the ground. When targets move upstream, both sides feel uncomfortable: suppliers feel pressured, and brands feel progress is too slow. A lot of this comes down to miscommunication and lack of clarity.
The biggest gap is understanding the context of each region and each supplier. For example, telling one supplier to cut emissions by 30% from today might be tough if they’ve already done a lot of reductions, while another factory that hasn’t started yet might find it easier. Comparing these two is unfair, yet it often happens.
Electrification has been identified as one of the key solutions to decarbonizing the textile industry – and Tier 2 facilities are some of the most energy-intensive stages of garment production. But what are the challenges for suppliers to implement these technologies and how can fashion brands help overcome these challenges?
Again, context is really important. If a country’s grid is mostly coal-powered, simply electrifying machines may not reduce emissions. Brands need to link electrification with renewables.
It’s also not one-size-fits-all. In Pakistan, for instance, phasing out coal is easier because the grid relies more on natural gas and already includes renewable energy. Plugging into the grid can achieve decarbonisation without costly new infrastructure. In countries dominated by coal, it’s a much bigger challenge.
Factory infrastructure also matters. Switching from gas, coal, or biomass boilers to electric systems often requires new machines, not just retrofits. This is a significant investment that suppliers can’t do overnight.
Brands can help by understanding suppliers’ realities, giving them time, and providing financial support. The Transformers Foundation report on financing approaches offers good examples of financial support mechanisms.
Are there examples where you’ve seen real progress on decarbonisation at the Tier 2 level that could serve as models for the wider industry?
One good example is Bestseller and H&M investing in offshore wind farms in Bangladesh. This kind of large-scale funding can help the industry electrify.
Brands can also provide funding for electrification projects on a pro rata basis, based on the amount of production that each facility produces. So if 50% of a facility’s production is for Brand X, then Brand X could cover 50% of the cost.
Another example is brands offering to fund the installation of rooftop solar panels, and the supplier then pays the brand back per unit produced until the investment is recovered.
But a lot of the time, support can also come in the form of better buying practices. If brands are willing to commit, suppliers can have a good stream of money coming in which they can use to fund these technologies.
How can industry coalitions or consortiums help bridge the gap between brands’ decarbonisation targets and practical implementation that works for suppliers?
Coalitions like Aii and the Fashion Producer Collective can really help. I’ve spent a lot of time advising third party organizations, trying to make sure they listen to the supplier perspective. These groups can often very brand-heavy in their decision-making. So we’re trying to change that and get them to understand what suppliers actually want and need, and then design programs around that. It’s a slow process, but there’s been progress.
Last month, Aii announced a new deployment gap grant — I’m also part of that advisory group. It’s funded by brands and retailers and it’s designed to reduce the payback period on certain investments.
Unfortunately brands are often more comfortable channeling money through intermediaries like Aii rather than giving the money directly to suppliers. This way, third parties can put the funds together, and brands can see the impact and communicate it clearly.
To what extent are workers brought into discussions about decarbonisation at the factory level, and how are brands and suppliers consulting with unions to bring about a just transition?
Honestly, I don’t think that’s really happening yet. We have run some programmes in factories where workers are encouraged to think about reducing emissions, water use, and resource use. And actually, some of the people closest to the production — department heads, production heads, operations heads — can come up with really strong ideas about machinery and processes if they’re brought into the conversation.
There’s also a role for external support. Consultants and trainers can come in to give workers and employees a broader perspective. For example, we partnered with the Pakistan Business Council — specifically their Centre of Excellence for Responsible Business — to run a session on how to integrate gender into the decarbonisation discussion and how to create green jobs for minorities. That was a really interesting experience and shows how these conversations can be expanded when workers are actively included.
How do you see the conversation about decarbonisation evolving amongst manufacturers in the textile industry — especially on issues like clean heat?
It really varies from supplier to supplier. Some are very aware of the issues, they’ve joined the discussions, and they actively push their customers to support them. But many Tier 2 suppliers don’t deal directly with brands — they’re further down the chain — so they’re often left out of the conversation entirely. Nobody is really reaching out to them.
Just yesterday I met with a factory that said, “I don’t care about the upstream supply chain, I’ll just get the certificates. Why should I invest in sustainability solutions upstream?” This shows why visibility is so important. That’s where brands and Tier 1 suppliers need to step in — to give their Tier 2 partners visibility, explain what’s going on, and then help them with solutions. When Tier 2 suppliers are directly connected to brands, the conversations look completely different: they get involved in reports, events, and strategy.
If you could give one piece of advice to brands about making their decarbonisation goals truly actionable, what would it be?
How much time do we have?!
First of all, brands need to prioritize what’s important for them: what’s their real priority in the next 5-6 years? Second, they have to be very clear about how they engage their supply chain. Communicate properly with your suppliers and don’t leave them behind. It’s a buyer’s market these days, so brands can pick and choose suppliers. And because so many suppliers are desperate for work, they’ll do whatever is asked of them. That’s the missing piece right now: good communication.
Thirdly, better buying practices. If brands provide clarity in forecasting and reduce unnecessary price pressure, suppliers will have the space to invest in decarbonization. Just look at the trends from the last 5-8 years — have retail prices been going up or down? Are FOB (free on board) prices going up or down? A simple garment that, 10 years ago, would be judged just on quality and production time now also needs an LCA, traceability, compliant with things like SBTi (Science Based Targets Initiative)… and all of that costs money.
And the fourth thing: brands need to invest in tangible change. If you’re setting ambitious targets, then you have to take responsibility for financing them. Brands have the biggest profit margins, so they should also be the ones justifying spend on CSR and ESG. Think of initiatives like 1% for the Planet, or how brands pay a premium on organic cotton to cover higher farming costs. Similar approaches should exist for decarbonization — paying something on top of the product price to make it possible.
If brands don’t invest, the pool of suppliers will shrink. And before long, they won’t have the right resources to make their products.
Beyond mitigation, climate adaptation is a key challenge for improving working conditions and building supply chain resilience. How can brands play a role in supporting suppliers to implement adaptation solutions?
Adaptation can sometimes mean higher emissions in the short term. Take heat stress in urban areas, for example: to create a safer environment, you need air conditioning or new, better-constructed facilities. That can increase emissions initially, but in the long term, it’s necessary.
Suppliers are already making investments in this area — in worker health and wellbeing, in fibre and water recycling, in urban farming, in developing new seeds and resources for farmers, and in new dyes, chemicals, and processing equipment that use less heat and energy. All of that contributes to building resilience.
The key is that the more support brands can give, the faster progress will be. If brands leave it all to Tier 1 suppliers, and Tier 1 then passes it down the chain, Tier 2 and Tier 3 will be left to fend for themselves, and change will be slow. Climate change will move as fast as the slowest part of the supply chain.
That’s why I always recommend focusing on the most vulnerable — the suppliers who are least able to invest or the least engaged. Supporting them directly, and backing it up with better buying practices, goes a long way toward building true resilience.
Anything you’d like to leave us with?
The key thing is this: do we really believe in climate change? In Karachi, it’s September and it has been raining for two weeks — half the country is underwater, crops are destroyed, and people are suffering. The Global South needs urgent support. Every year we delay, the cost and the impact grows.
