The Outdoor Industry’s Carbon Footprint Problem
Carbon emissions drive climate change, which is the biggest threat to the places we love. What are outdoor brands doing to help?
Table of contents
Greenhouse gas emissions drive climate change, which is the biggest threat to the outdoor places we love. That’s why reducing carbon emissions is the single most impactful way a brand can reduce its footprint on the planet. Tracking emissions is now standard across much of the outdoor industry, but only a small group of brands are making measurable progress toward absolute reductions. That gap matters. Cutting total emissions—not just improving efficiency or relying on offsets—is essential to keep our climate livable. Here, we take a closer look at carbon footprints—what they are, what meaningful reduction looks like, and which brands are making real progress.
What is a Carbon Footprint?
Let’s start with the basics. A brand’s carbon footprint is the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere from the activities required to run the business, make products, or dispose of a piece of gear at the end of its life—nearly every stage of the process has a carbon footprint. In the outdoor industry, greenhouse gas emissions come from activities like burning fossil fuels to power textile mills and factories, shipping products around the world, producing synthetic materials like polyester and nylon, and growing natural fibers such as cotton. Additional emissions are generated through fabric dyeing, chemical treatments, packaging, and waste sent to landfills. Not all of these greenhouse gas emissions are carbon dioxide (CO₂); other gases like methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases also play a major role in climate change.
Because not all greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide—or contribute equally to climate change—outdoor brands typically measure emissions in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e), a standardized metric that compares gases based on their global warming potential (GWP). GWP measures how much heat one ton of a gas traps in the atmosphere for a set time period (typically 100 years) relative to one ton of CO₂. (A higher GWP indicates a greater warming impact.) Different gases vary in both potency (how much heat they trap) and lifespan (how long they remain in the atmosphere). CO₂e combines these factors into a single metric. For example, methane traps more heat than CO₂ over a shorter period of time. Similarly, the GWP of nitrous oxide is 273 times greater than that of CO₂ over a century. By converting all emissions into CO₂e, brands and researchers can more easily track and compare total climate impact.
Outdoor brands track greenhouse gas emissions using the standardized Scope categorization framework, which captures their full carbon footprint. Scope 1 emissions come from assets a company owns or directly controls, such as facilities or vehicles. Scope 2 covers emissions from purchased energy, such as electricity. Scope 3 includes everything else—materials, manufacturing, transportation, packaging, and more—and typically accounts for 95% to 99% of a brand’s total emissions. We’ll get into reduction targets later, but it’s worth noting that many brands focus only on Scope 1 and 2 emissions, which represent a small share of their overall footprint.
Our research shows that most outdoor brands began tracking their greenhouse gas emissions around 2018 or 2019. Tracking is the first step toward meaningful reduction—brands need a clear baseline to understand their total footprint, where emissions are coming from, and whether efforts to cut them are actually working. Without that baseline, it’s nearly impossible to measure progress over time.
Setting and Meeting Science-Based Reduction Targets
Brands set emissions-reduction targets to reduce their climate impact, but not all targets align with climate science. Strong goals aim to limit global warming to 1.5°C and are time-bound, meaning they align with climate science and broader planetary boundaries—the environmental limits within which humanity can safely operate without causing irreversible ecological damage. In the outdoor industry, the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) is widely considered the gold standard for reduction targets. At Better Trail, we evaluate reduction targets based on whether the targets themselves are grounded in climate science, the quality and consistency of a brand’s data over time (including multi-year datasets spanning all scopes), and whether that data is independently verified.
SBTi is an organization that helps companies set greenhouse gas reduction targets in line with averting the worst effects of climate change. The process for verifying targets is comprehensive, including third-party verification of GHG tracking data. Brands that go through SBTi’s formal validation process can label their goals as “SBTi-verified.” In contrast, brands that set targets using SBTi guidelines but do not complete the validation process are typically referred to as “SBTi-aligned” and lack the same level of third-party verification.
It’s also important to distinguish between reducing carbon intensity (emissions per unit of output or revenue) and absolute emissions (total emissions). Reducing carbon intensity means lowering emissions per unit of output—in other words, making products more efficiently so each item has a smaller footprint. However, lower carbon intensity doesn’t necessarily mean a company’s total emissions are decreasing if overall production continues to grow. We often see brands set carbon intensity targets rather than absolute reduction goals. For example, the outdoor footwear brand Keen aims to reduce the carbon intensity of its Scope 3 emissions by 62% per thousand pairs of shoes by 2033. While this is a step in the right direction, it is less impactful than reducing total emissions.
How Do Outdoor Brands Reduce Their Carbon Footprint?
Brands reduce their carbon footprint in different ways across each emissions scope. For Scope 1, which covers owned operations, reduction strategies often include switching to electric vehicles, replacing fossil fuel heating systems with electric heat pumps, and improving energy efficiency in buildings and facilities. Scope 2 emissions reductions focus on purchased energy. In this category, brands can reduce emissions by sourcing renewable electricity through on-site solar, renewable energy contracts, or purchasing renewable energy credits. While reducing Scope 1 and 2 emissions is important, they typically represent a small share of a brand’s total footprint.
The biggest opportunities lie in Scope 3 emissions, or supply chain emissions, which account for the vast majority of a brand’s carbon footprint. Here, brands can make meaningful reductions by improving manufacturing efficiency, working with factories powered by renewable energy, and reducing transportation—especially carbon-intensive air freight. Materials also play a major role: Increasing the use of recycled inputs can significantly lower emissions compared to virgin materials. For example, Patagonia found that using mechanically recycled polyester reduced carbon emissions associated with fabric manufacturing by 50%. Additionally, choosing production methods such as solution-dyed materials—in which pigment is added during fiber production rather than after—reduces water and energy use, thereby lowering carbon emissions. Other alternatively sourced materials, such as bio-based Dyneema (derived from wood and pulp industry waste), have a carbon footprint up to 90% smaller than traditional Dyneema.
Beyond materials, brands can further reduce Scope 3 emissions by designing products with longer lifespans, thereby decreasing the need for frequent replacement and production. Some brands also work to localize parts of their supply chain, which reduces transportation distances, or shift from air freight to lower-impact options like ocean and rail. Hestra, for example, decreased its transportation emissions by 14% in one year by switching from air to sea transport. Additional strategies include reducing packaging, improving shipping efficiency, and using recycled or Forest Stewardship Council-certified packaging materials, which support responsibly managed forests that act as carbon sinks. Ultimately, the largest sources of emissions typically lie outside a brand’s direct control, primarily in supplier textile mills and manufacturing facilities. Decarbonizing these facilities could significantly reduce Scope 3 emissions, but few brands are currently investing in these efforts.
Which Brands Have Reduced Their Carbon Footprint?
The carbon footprint of an outdoor brand varies widely, from around 1 million tons of CO₂e per year for large retailers like REI to just a few thousand for smaller brands. Emissions also fluctuate over time due to factors like global events and supply chain disruptions, with many brands seeing a drop during COVID-19, followed by a rebound as demand increased. While many brands have set reduction goals—some quite ambitious—fewer have made meaningful progress. Setting a goal is a first step, but real impact comes from following through. Here are brands making notable progress.
Rab began tracking its carbon emissions in 2019, with its parent company, Equip Outdoor Technologies, setting targets to cut Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 46% and Scope 3 emissions intensity by 61% by 2030. Its Scope 1 and 2 targets were approved by the Science Based Targets initiative in 2024, while its Scope 3 target is science-aligned but not formally verified. Rab has reduced its Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 38% from its 2019 baseline, putting the brand on track toward its goal of a 46% reduction by 2030. It has also cut absolute Scope 3 emissions by 46.2% since 2019. Overall, the brand has cut its total emissions by nearly half since its baseline year, though progress has not been linear. Much of Rab’s emissions reductions have come from working with manufacturers to implement renewable energy systems.
Stio began tracking its greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 and has reported annually since (via its climate label report). It set a target to reduce Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 50% by 2030, aligned with the SBTi criteria, though not formally verified, and it has yet to establish a Scope 3 reduction target despite the majority of its emissions falling in that category. The brand has reduced both its absolute emissions and carbon intensity since 2020, with absolute emissions falling by approximately 22% and emissions intensity decreasing by roughly 63% by 2024. Like most outdoor brands, over 95% of its emissions come from Scope 3 sources. Through its Climate Label certification, Stio also funds emissions reduction and removal projects equivalent to its footprint.
Fjallraven began tracking its greenhouse gas emissions in 2019 using the Greenhouse Gas Protocol and has made meaningful progress since. By 2024, Fjallraven reported reducing its total emissions by nearly 24% from its baseline year, reporting just over 40,000 total CO₂e. The company also exceeded its parent company's Scope 1 and 2 reduction goal of 40% by 2025, reporting a 59% reduction in total CO₂e since 2019. Fjallraven is reducing its environmental impact by working across its supply chain to improve transportation efficiency, expand renewable energy use, and increase energy efficiency at manufacturing facilities. The brand has reduced transport emissions by 14% since 2019, including a 95% reduction in inbound ocean freight emissions through a marine biofuel partnership with Flexport, and is also lowering the carbon intensity of its materials by increasing its use of recycled nylon.
As a leading outdoor retailer, REI is working to reduce its carbon footprint and is encouraging and providing resources for its partner brands to do the same. In 2025 (the most recent available data), the company had decreased its absolute greenhouse gas emissions by 15% since its 2019 baseline year. It also decreased its carbon intensity (in metric tons of CO₂e per million dollars of revenue) by 28% compared to 2019.
It powers its stores, offices, and distribution centers with 100% renewable electricity and is increasing its use of lower-carbon materials, such as recycled polyester and nylon. The company also works closely with manufacturing partners, providing funding, tools, and expertise to improve energy efficiency and transition to renewable energy. A key highlight was REI’s development of the Textile Heating Electrification Tool, created with the Outdoor Industry Association and industry partners to help manufacturers transition to electrified heating. In its supply chain, REI is cutting transportation emissions through low-carbon shipping and more efficient freight. REI is also leveraging its scale to push partner brands toward science-aligned emissions reductions.
Patagonia's Emissions Strategy
Patagonia has set one of the most ambitious climate goals in the outdoor industry: reaching net-zero emissions by 2040. At first glance, the brand appears to have made little measurable progress toward this goal—but that’s not for lack of effort. It’s because Patagonia is tackling the problem differently.
Most brands’ renewable energy efforts focus on the electricity used for facility operations—lighting, machinery, etc.—which accounts for only about 25% of textile mill emissions. The remaining 75% comes from the fossil-fuel-based heat and steam generation required to keep manufacturing facilities warm—a far larger and more entrenched source of emissions that most brands simply don’t address. Rather than claiming progress on the smaller problem and moving on, Patagonia is going after the bigger one. And by transitioning heating systems to renewable electric alternatives like industrial heat pumps and electric boilers, it will simultaneously address both issues.
The approach is complex and costly. Upgrades are risky for manufacturers without long-term order security and require significant upfront investment from brands. In one example, Patagonia financed the replacement of a coal-fired boiler at a Taiwanese mill and signed a three- to 10-year agreement to cover 100% of the decarbonization costs, giving the supplier financial security while ensuring the resulting 30% emissions reduction is verified and counted toward Patagonia’s targets. The project is still in progress, with reductions expected in 2026. These efforts are in their early stages, but they represent the kind of foundational, unglamorous work that large-scale emissions reductions actually require.
Emissions Reduction vs. Carbon Neutral: Which Matters More?
Some brands, like Stio and REI, account for and offset their emissions through carbon neutrality programs. Frameworks like the CarbonNeutral Protocol (developed by Climate Impact Partners) require brands to measure their full carbon footprint and purchase carbon credits—such as offsets and renewable energy credits (RECs)—to balance the emissions they can’t yet eliminate. RECs represent the purchase of renewable electricity generated elsewhere, helping shift energy grids away from fossil fuels, while offsets fund projects like reforestation or methane capture that absorb or prevent emissions. In contrast, the Climate Label (formerly Climate Neutral Certified) takes a different approach, requiring brands to measure emissions and fund climate solutions at a level tied to their footprint and overall business scale. While the specifics vary, both approaches rely on investing in projects like renewable energy or carbon removal to address emissions, rather than reducing them directly at the source.
While carbon-neutral programs are generally positive, they are fundamentally different from reducing absolute emissions at the source. Offsetting allows brands to compensate for emissions rather than eliminate them, which can be useful in the short term—especially for hard-to-abate emissions—but doesn’t address the root of the problem. Aggressive emissions reductions, on the other hand, reduce a brand’s actual footprint and are more impactful over the long term. In practice, we often see a combination of both approaches: prioritizing science-aligned reductions first, then using carbon offsets to address remaining emissions while those reductions are underway.
Carbon Footprint Tracking in Our Sustainability Ratings
At Better Trail, carbon footprint tracking is one of our core sustainability criteria, and we incorporate it into every product rating. We evaluate carbon footprint tracking based on how thoroughly a brand measures, reports, and acts on its emissions. Top-performing brands provide transparent greenhouse gas data, set clearly defined reduction goals, and align those targets with climate science (e.g., SBTi), often using tools like Higg or The Change Climate Project. Mid-tier brands may track emissions and set goals, but lack verification, detailed reporting, or clear evidence of progress. Lower scores are given to brands that track emissions without publishing data or setting targets, or those that do not track emissions at all. For a deeper dive into the sustainability efforts being made across the outdoor industry, check out our detailed brand analyses.
Learn More About Sustainability
Sustainability
About Our Sustainability Ratings
Sustainability
Arc'teryx: Sustainability Spotlight
Sustainability
Patagonia: Sustainability Spotlight
Sustainability
REI Co-op: Sustainability Spotlight