Data & references Last verified · April 2026

Every claim,
sourced.

If we put a number on the website, it's backed by a named, dated, accessible source. This page lists every one, in the order they appear on the site. If we get something wrong, tell us — we'll fix it and thank you publicly.

Regulatory timeline

All regulatory claims are drawn from official government sources (European Commission, California Air Resources Board) or independent industry analyses published in 2026.

  • [1]
    EU ESPR destruction ban for unsold textiles & footwear, effective 19 July 2026 for large companies.
    European Commission, "New EU rules to stop destruction of unsold clothes and shoes", Directorate-General for Environment, 9 February 2026.
    Confirms: (i) the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) entered into force 18 July 2024; (ii) destruction ban applies from 19 July 2026 for large enterprises; (iii) medium-sized companies follow in 2030; (iv) an estimated 4–9% of unsold textiles in Europe are destroyed each year, generating ~5.6 million tons of CO₂ emissions.
    ↗ environment.ec.europa.eu/news/new-eu-rules-stop-destruction-unsold-clothes-and-shoes-2026-02-09_en
    Verified 23 April 2026
  • [2]
    California SB 253 (Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act) first reporting deadline 10 August 2026 for Scope 1 & 2; Scope 3 from 2027.
    California Air Resources Board (CARB), "CARB approves climate transparency regulation for entities doing business in California", 26 February 2026.
    Confirms: (i) SB 253 applies to U.S.-based entities with >$1B annual revenue doing business in California; (ii) first-year reporting deadline is 10 August 2026 for Scope 1 & 2 emissions; (iii) Scope 3 reporting begins in 2027; (iv) an estimated 5,400 organisations are in scope.
    ↗ ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/carb-approves-climate-transparency-regulation-entities-doing-business-california
    Verified 23 April 2026
  • [3]
    EU Digital Product Passport registry operational by July 2026; textile delegated act expected late 2026 / early 2027.
    European Commission, Green Forum, "Implementing the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation", 2025.
    Cross-referenced with Regen Studio, "The Expected ESPR Delegated Act on Textiles" (Feb 2026) and Eunomia, "What is the European Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR)" (2025). These sources concur on the 2027 indicative adoption date for the textile delegated act, with compliance deadlines typically phased in over 12–24 months.
    ↗ green-forum.ec.europa.eu/implementing-ecodesign-sustainable-products-regulation_en
    Verified 23 April 2026

The intention gap

Consumer research on the well-documented gap between stated sustainability preferences and actual purchase behaviour in fashion.

  • [4]
    59% of Gen Z shoppers admit their generation talks about sustainability more than they practise it.
    RSM UK and Retail Economics, joint study based on a survey of 1,500 Gen Z shoppers, published December 2025.
    Reported by Retail Gazette, 9 December 2025. Further findings: 29% of Gen Z consider themselves committed to sustainable consumption; 43% fall into "aspirational intention" (value sustainability but compromise on it for price or convenience); 28% say sustainability ranks low in their buying decisions; 40% admit to buying items they will only wear once.
    ↗ retailgazette.co.uk/blog/2025/12/data-gen-zs-sustainability-intention-gap-widens-due-to-ultra-fast-fashion-purchases
    Verified 23 April 2026
  • [5]
    Just 20% of shoppers actively compare brands' sustainability credentials when shopping.
    Zalando SE, "Attitude–Behavior Gap Report", research conducted in partnership with sustainability consultancy Quantis.
    Additional supporting findings: 65% of women and 56% of men say their self-confidence is strongly influenced by the clothes they wear; half of consumers are unsure what "sustainable fashion" actually means; 44% feel sustainable fashion is hard to find.
    ↗ corporate.zalando.com/en/our-impact/sustainability/sustainability-reports/attitude-behavior-gap-report
    Verified 23 April 2026
  • [6]
    33% of consumers believe sustainable alternatives are too expensive.
    Simon-Kucher & Partners, "Global Sustainability Study 2022".
    Quoted by Shikha Jain, Head of Simon-Kucher & Partners' Boston office, in Fashion Dive, May 2023. The same study identifies affordability and social-media influences as the two primary barriers to Gen Z putting sustainable-fashion beliefs into action.
    ↗ fashiondive.com/news/sustainable-fashion-consumer-demographics-gen-z
    Verified 23 April 2026

Competitive context

Comparative pricing and market data used to anchor the GreenStar Dashboard positioning.

  • [7]
    WGSN industry subscriptions are in the £8,000–15,000 per year range for mid-market users.
    WGSN subscription pricing, as reported by multiple independent sources. Exact pricing is quoted, not publicly listed; the £8k–15k range reflects the mid-market tier commonly cited by industry analysts and confirmed by published case studies. Enterprise tiers sit meaningfully higher.
    Sustainalytics and MSCI ESG ratings operate on enterprise-only pricing tied to portfolio size and access tier. We describe these as "enterprise-only" rather than quoting exact figures.
    Claim reviewed & approved by founder with institutional ESG-pricing background
  • [8]
    Textile sector represents ~6% of global greenhouse-gas emissions and 10–20% of pesticide use.
    McKinsey & Company and The Business of Fashion, "State of Fashion" report series (2022 edition referenced). Widely cited industry-standard figures; note that some academic sources (see [9]) estimate the range at 2–8% of global GHG emissions depending on scope boundaries used.
    ↗ mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/state-of-fashion-archive
    Verified 23 April 2026
  • [9]
    Secondhand fashion purchases correlate with increased primary-market consumption, not displacement (r = 0.58, p < 0.01).
    Scientific Reports (Nature), "Secondhand fashion consumers exhibit fast fashion behaviors despite sustainability narratives", October 2025. Nationally representative survey of 1,009 U.S. consumers.
    Supporting finding: 37.2% of respondents reported increasing clothing donations between 2020 and 2024, coinciding with a 38% rise in new clothing purchases. This is strong empirical support for the "moral licensing" framework of the intention-action gap.
    ↗ nature.com/articles/s41598-025-19089-1
    Verified 23 April 2026

Methodology inputs

Source data and standards underlying the GreenStar scoring methodology. Full methodology logic is documented on the Methodology page.

  • [10]
    SBTi 1.5°C-aligned pathway requires 6.1% annual absolute-emissions reduction from 2019 levels.
    Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), "Corporate Net-Zero Standard". Derived from the SBTi target of a 50% absolute reduction from 2019 levels by 2030, which annualises to a required decarbonisation rate of 1 − 0.5^(1/11) ≈ 6.1% per year.
    Used as the baseline in the Emissions component of the GreenStar Brand Score. Formula: score = 2.5 + (actual rate − 6.1) × 0.5 × 2, capped between 0 and 5.
    ↗ sciencebasedtargets.org
    Verified 23 April 2026
  • [11]
    Third-party sustainability certifications used with relevance-weighted scoring (GOTS = 1.0, OEKO-TEX = 0.75, Bluesign = 0.75, ISO 14001 = 0.5, Cradle to Cradle = 0.5, Fair Trade = 0.5, REACH = 0.5, ISO 14040/44 = 0.5).
    Weight-calibration rationale: designed by Lorenz (GreenStar Founding Sustainability Specialist, day job in commodity ESG ratings at S&P Global) using an informed-judgement approach. Weights reflect relative rigor, independence, coverage depth, and sector relevance.
    Weights are opinionated, not empirically calibrated against human judgement — a candid acknowledgement. We publish them openly so that critics can disagree on specific weights rather than with the black box, and we intend to empirically calibrate against expert panels post-beta.
    Methodology approach documented in full on the Methodology page
  • [12]
    60/40 product-to-brand weighting in the overall GreenStar score.
    Weight-calibration rationale: this is an opinionated split designed by Kayyan (Founder, formerly Morgan Stanley Fixed Income ESG Strategy & Research). The logic is that product-level signals reflect what the shopper is actually buying, so they should dominate; but brand-level performance modulates, so an organic cotton tee from a weak brand shouldn't score the same as the same tee from a leader.
    The 60/40 is a starting calibration. We plan to empirically validate it against (i) expert-panel rankings, and (ii) observed behavioural data (which weighting most closely predicts observed consumer switching). If the data justifies a different split, we will publish the update and the reasoning.
    Calibration plan documented; empirical validation begins post-MVP
  • [13]
    Brand-level incident severity deductions (Severe: −2.0 / Moderate: −1.0 / Minor: −0.5), halved for incidents occurring 3–5 years prior.
    Incidents data sourced from independent databases including Clean Clothes Campaign, FashionChecker, and supplementing with news-database searches. All incidents are publicly reported; no internal or whistleblower data is used.
    ↗ cleanclothes.org · fashionchecker.org
    Verified 23 April 2026
A note on
honesty

GreenStar is an estimate, not an audit. Every number on this site is either (a) drawn from a public, named, dated source, or (b) an opinionated modelling choice that we document as such.

Where our weights are opinionated, we say so. Where our data is incomplete, we say so. Where an expert disagrees with a specific weight, we'd genuinely like to hear it — constructive pushback is how the methodology gets better.

If you find something we've got wrong, misstated, or taken out of context, email hello@greenstar.eco. We'll correct it on this page and credit the flagger publicly, unless you'd rather stay anonymous.

References page version 1.0 · Last full audit: 23 April 2026 · Next scheduled review: 23 July 2026. We re-verify every link at least quarterly and before any methodology release.