H&M, a fashion giant with over 4000 physical stores globally and an annual sales revenue of £15 billion, produces around 3 billion garments a year.

Another Swedish clothing retailer, Gudren Sjoden, has 23 stores globally – and although sales and production figures are harder to find, the brand only releases 10 new design collections each year, and most estimates of annual sales are in the region of £20 million.

Gudren Sjoden is a small fashion business, and H&M is about as big as it gets – making nearly enough clothing every year to dress half the world’s population.

So, while researching for a project recently, I was stunned to discover that H&M’s sustainability rating on “Good On You” is better than Gudren Sjoden’s.

Given that Good On You is probably the most significant and influential sustainability ratings platform in the world – used by millions of consumers and powering ethical decision-making for many retail platforms as well – this felt really significant.

What’s going on?

A lack of evidence

According to Good On You’s summaries, the primary reason for Gudren Sjoden’s lower score is a lack of evidence to show it’s committed to reducing carbon emissions, minimising textile waste and supporting workers’ rights, among other factors.

H&M, put simply, is better at offering evidence of its targets and achievements across these kinds of criteria.

Initially, reading the equivalent summaries, everything makes sense. H&M is good at reporting on its targets, providing evidence for what it’s doing, and making its supply chain more transparent. H&M is a fashion giant that is unquestionably making a genuine effort to lessen the impact of its enormous footprint.

And as I read Gudren Sjoden’s own environmental commitments on its website, it’s clear that the reporting is a little opaque. Evidence of claims is lacking, and industry-wide frameworks are not really referred to. It isn’t altogether surprising for a small, niche business with a history of doing things its own way – but according to what Good On You examines, it’s lacking.

But all along, as I’m weighing this up, I can’t ignore one absolute monster of an elephant in the room: H&M is, at a guess,  several thousand times bigger than Gudren Sjoden. Can a business be several thousand times bigger than another, and simultaneously more sustainable?

Permission to speak frankly, dear reader: No. That is utter, fucking bullshit – and makes a mockery of the entire way these brands are assessed.

To read the rest of this post, subscribe to our Substack newsletter for free.