Do Consumers Actually Care About Sustainability? What the Data Says (and What It Means for Your Brand)

Sustainability just dropped to its lowest point in years as a fashion industry priority. According to the McKinsey/BoF State of Fashion 2025 report, only 18% of fashion executives now cite sustainability as a top-three risk for growth, down from 29% the year before. At the same time, the industry’s biggest concern isn’t sustainability at all: 70% of executives say consumer confidence and appetite to spend is the top risk for the year ahead. 

Read those two data points together and a familiar narrative emerges: consumers don’t care enough about sustainability, so why should brands invest in it? 

That narrative is wrong. The data tells a more complicated, and more useful, story. 

The gap between what consumers say and what executives hear 

Consumer research paints a different picture from the executive survey. PwC’s 2024 Voice of the Consumer Survey, which collected perspectives from over 20,000 consumers across 31 countries, found that 80% of consumers say they are willing to pay more for sustainably produced goods. On average, consumers reported a willingness to pay 9.7% more for products that meet specific environmental criteria. 

An important caveat: PwC noted that this stated willingness may not translate into actual spend, due to inflation, macroeconomic volatility, and cost-of-living pressures. Saying you’ll pay more and actually paying more are different things. 

But purchasing data tells us something the surveys miss. A joint McKinsey and NielsenIQ study tracking five years of US consumer packaged goods sales (2017 to mid-2022) found that products making ESG-related claims grew 28% cumulatively, compared with 20% for products without such claims. That’s actual dollars, not intentions. 

Note: this data covers consumer packaged goods broadly, not textiles specifically. But the pattern holds: products with credible sustainability claims outperform those without them. 

The real problem isn’t consumer apathy. It’s trust. 

If consumers say they’ll pay more, and purchasing data shows ESG-claimed products actually grow faster, why are executives deprioritizing sustainability? 

Because the industry has a credibility problem, not a demand problem. 

NielsenIQ’s sustainability research found that 77% of consumers say they would stop buying from a company found guilty of greenwashing. The threat is specific: consumers are not passively ignoring sustainability. They are actively punishing brands that get it wrong. 

This creates a rational but counterproductive cycle. Brands see the risk of greenwashing accusations and pull back on sustainability messaging entirely. Consumers, seeing fewer credible claims, lose confidence that brands are doing meaningful work. Executives, reading surveys about low consumer confidence, conclude that sustainability doesn’t convert. And so the cycle repeats. 

The problem is not that consumers don’t care. It’s that they don’t trust what they’re being told. 

Regulation is about to make the debate irrelevant 

While the industry debates whether sustainability sells, regulators are removing the option to opt out. 

The EU’s Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT) Directive is expected to take effect in September 2026. Once it does, generic claims like “eco-friendly,” “green,” and carbon-offset-based “carbon neutral” labels will no longer be permitted without substantiation from an approved verification scheme. 

This means the question for brands is no longer “will consumers pay a premium for sustainability?” The question is: “can we substantiate the claims we’re making?” 

Brands that have invested in system-based chemical management, verified primary data, and transparent supply chain practices already have the foundation for defensible claims. Brands that have relied on vague messaging or unverified offsets will need to rebuild their approach, or stop making claims entirely. 

What this means for brand strategy 

The data suggests three things worth considering. 

First, consumer demand for sustainability has not disappeared. It has become conditional on trust. Brands that can demonstrate verified, specific, system-based practices are better positioned than those making broad claims. 

Second, pulling back on sustainability messaging is not a neutral decision. It leaves a vacuum that competitors with stronger substantiation will fill. And as regulations tighten, brands without verification infrastructure will face both legal risk and reputational exposure. 

Third, the shift from voluntary claims to mandatory substantiation changes the economics. Sustainability is no longer only about consumer willingness to pay a premium. It is about market access, regulatory compliance, and the cost of defensible communication. 

System-based verification as the foundation for credible claims 

The bluesign System provides one example of how this works in practice. Through facility-level assessments, chemical input management, and primary data verified by bluesign experts, brands gain access to the kind of substantiation that both consumers and regulators are now demanding. 

Over 900 companies across the textile supply chain currently use the bluesign System, from chemical suppliers to manufacturers to global brands. The approach addresses worker safety, consumer safety, and environmental protection as interconnected risks within a single, continuous system. 

For brands navigating the gap between consumer expectations and regulatory requirements, the question is not whether to invest in sustainability. It is whether the systems behind your claims can withstand scrutiny. 

Contact us to learn more about the bluesign System or schedule a consultation.