Higg Index controversy
The Higg Index was created by the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC) to help brands measure environmental and social performance across their supply chains. It includes five self-assessment tools that cover material sourcing, facility operations, product design and end-of-use impacts. Brands submit data on factors such as water use, energy consumption and chemical management and receive a score that benchmarks their results against industry averages. Which in theory sounds great and a much needed tool to work towards a more sustainable fashion industry.
However an external review of raise several concerns about the Index’s methodology and governance. A KPMG review of the Higg Materials Sustainability Index and the Higg Product Module recommends combining Higg scores with other third-party assessments and life-cycle analyses. The review found gaps in data quality controls and in the way end-of-life impacts are calculated. The Norwegian Consumer Authority has warned major brands such as the H&M group after finding that Higg scores can be misinterpreted by shoppers. For example the comparison of environmental factors to a reference T-shirt made from conventional cotton, the Index implied that an organic cotton T-shirt has dramatically lower impacts without full supporting evidence. The Index tended to awards higher scores to synthetic fabrics such as polyester. This outcome can encourage fast fashion labels to market plastic-based materials as eco friendly. Observers point out that microplastic loss at wash and disposal is excluded from current Higg calculations. Critics also highlight SAC’s funding from major fashion and fiber corporations, which creates a potential conflict of interest in self-regulated scoring systems.
The Materials Sustainability Index ratings push global apparel brands away from natural fibres and toward polyester based on petrochemicals. Polyester scores just 36 points per kilogram while wool scores 81 and silk scores 1 086. These figures emerge from methodologies that omit microplastic release at wash and disposal and rely on incomplete data sets and select criteria. Independent experts and natural-fibre representatives argue that this bias risks justifying greater use of plastics rather than truly sustainable materials.
In response to these critiques SAC has rebranded as Cascale and pledged to evolve its tools. Vice President Andrew Martin states that the Higg suite will undergo updates guided by KPMG’s recommendations. Cascale also plans greater data transparency by introducing third-party verification for facility assessments and by improving publicly available guidance on interpreting Higg scores.
Summary of the Higg Index controversy:
Purpose of the Higg Index – SAC’s suite of self-assessment tools measures sustainability across the apparel and footwear value chain.
Methodology Concerns – Gaps in data quality controls and end-of-life calculations can skew results.
Data Interpretation Risks – Benchmarking against a conventional cotton T-shirt can create misleading impressions of impact.
Synthetic Fabric Bias – The Index often favours materials such as polyester despite microplastic loss and disposal impacts.
Governance and Funding – SAC’s industry funding raises questions about self-regulation and conflict of interest.
Evolution and Transparency – Rebranded as Cascale, the organisation commits to third-party verification and refining tools based on independent reviews.
