Achim Berg’s recent op-ed in The Business of Fashion raises an urgent and undeniable truth: the fashion industry cannot rely on regulatory timelines to drive sustainability. The current trajectory of delay and dependence on external forces to mandate change is nothing short of reckless, especially when brands already have the resources and influence to act. The harsh reality is that time isn’t on our side, and waiting for regulation to catch up only perpetuates a cycle of inaction.

Click here to read the article for yourself!

As someone invested in the intersection of sustainability and fashion, I’ve often wondered why some of the industry’s biggest players, flush with post-pandemic profits, are so hesitant to move decisively. It’s not as though the solutions aren’t available—many already exist. Technologies for circular production, innovations in sustainable materials, and pathways to ethical labour practices are well within reach. What’s lacking isn’t the tools but the will to prioritise long-term goals over immediate returns.

The industry’s current reliance on the promise of regulation feels like an excuse to maintain business as usual. Sure, laws like the proposed EU textile regulations or New York’s Fashion Act hold promise, but their slow pace underscores the larger issue: legislation alone won’t save us. Policymaking, particularly around climate, is inherently reactive, not proactive. Elections can stall progress, lobbying can dilute impact, and enforcement often falls short. Yet the clock keeps ticking, and the stakes only grow higher.

Berg’s comparison to the automotive industry is a stark warning. Fashion must take note of how European car manufacturers underestimated the speed and scale of disruption by Chinese electric vehicle makers. The parallel is clear: complacency among established players creates space for nimble competitors to outpace them. The same is likely in fashion, where start-ups and emerging brands are already leading on sustainability with transparent supply chains and regenerative practices. Brands clinging to outdated models risk losing not only their relevance but also their consumer base, particularly Gen Z, whose demand for accountability grows louder by the day.

Let’s talk about accountability for a moment. Berg suggests that the industry’s “super winners”—those dominant players with the financial means and cultural cachet to lead—must step up. This isn’t just a moral imperative; it’s a strategic one. Brands like Patagonia and Stella McCartney have already demonstrated the competitive advantage of embedding sustainability into their DNA. These pioneers have built consumer trust not through perfection but by showing genuine commitment to improvement. In contrast, many of fashion’s giants still appear paralysed, using market uncertainty as a convenient shield to avoid difficult but necessary decisions.

The notion that these companies should wait for perfect technical solutions or optimal economic conditions is deeply flawed. Such an approach underestimates the urgency of the climate crisis and overestimates the industry’s ability to adapt under pressure. Hockey stick growth plans—where companies expect exponential gains after long periods of stagnation—rarely materialise. In sustainability, as in business, incremental progress is far more reliable than a last-minute scramble.

Berg’s emphasis on visionary leadership feels particularly relevant. Transformative change requires executives to make decisions that might not immediately benefit the bottom line but are essential for long-term survival. This is where the industry’s wealthiest families and largest conglomerates have a unique opportunity. Free from the quarterly pressures of public markets, they could afford to invest in foundational changes, such as transitioning to renewable energy, adopting circular production models, or radically reducing waste. Yet too often, their actions fall short of their rhetoric.

The idea of waiting until 2030 to see tangible results from sustainability pledges feels absurd. That’s only 11 seasons away—a blink in the fashion calendar. The industry doesn’t need to wait for policy to act. It needs to acknowledge its immense power to influence culture, drive innovation, and set standards. The question isn’t whether change is possible; it’s whether the biggest players are willing to lead or continue to lag behind.

While regulation can and should play a role in pushing the industry forward, it’s clear that legislation alone won’t suffice. Fashion’s problems are systemic, and solving them requires systemic solutions—solutions that involve not only governments but also brands, suppliers, and consumers. To truly transform, the industry must stop hiding behind the façade of future commitments and start delivering measurable, immediate results.

Berg ends his piece with a call to action: fashion must not only “walk the talk” on sustainability but start running. I’d argue it’s time for a sprint. Anything less risks fashion’s future—not just its relevance but its very existence.