Because of the separation of ownership and management (Meckling & Jensen 1976), companies need to furnish information to stakeholders (Freeman 1984) to reduce information asymmetry (Akerlof 1970). Corporate reports have since evolved to include sustainability information. Stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory and institutional theory have underpinned research on sustainability reporting (Lakhani & Herbert 2022; Taslima, Baker & Davar 2025).

Stakeholder theory (Donaldson & Preston 1995; Freeman 1984) is an expected choice of theoretical lens because it defines stakeholders more broadly than providers of financial capital. Corporate reports must therefore provide requisite information about firms’ environmental and social impacts. Stakeholder theory is relevant to the present study, given the role of the fast fashion industry in global environmental and social challenges (Bick et al. 2018; Thakker & Sun 2023).

Legitimacy theory is becoming increasingly prominent because of companies’ likely use of sustainability reporting to enhance their legitimacy (Deegan 2007; Tilling & Tilt 2010). Recently, Herbert and Graham (2022) used legitimacy theory as a theoretical lens for their analysis of sustainability information by corporates and reported that firms operating in environmentally sensitive industries make more extensive sustainability disclosures. This finding aligns with legitimacy theory – organisations that face greater public scrutiny are likely to provide more disclosure to justify their actions.

Our incorporation of media reports amid greenwashing in corporate reports needs to consider theoretical underpinnings in this specific context. Janik and Ryoszko (2023) overviewed main theories used in research on greenwashing in the context of sustainability. Legitimacy theory dominates the research as firms adopt and report on sustainability initiatives to maintain legitimacy in society. Although both stakeholder theory and institutional theory are relevant to the present study and considered in our analysis, legitimacy theory forms our primary theoretical base.

The UN SDGs have been used as a framework for this study, given the direction they provide in the pursuit of sustainable value creation (Bebbington & Unerman 2018) and their comprehensive coverage of major global sustainability challenges (Garcia-Torres et al. 2017; Rosati & Faria 2019). This is consistent with the suggestions of Abeysekera (2022), who suggests using the SDGs as ‘goal posts’ in a framework of principle-based sustainability reports. Overall, each of the 17 SDGs addresses an important and distinct aspect of environmental sustainability. Despite the difference in their foci, a reporting framework that incorporates the SDGs can show the interconnection between financial and other capitals (Abeysekera 2022), as many pairs or groups of SDGs have been correlated to each other (Pakkan et al. 2023). This connectivity aligns with the research on integrated thinking, where companies are expected to consider the relationships between various types of capital in their operations (Dimes & De Villiers 2025).

Organisations are expected to assess, monitor and report on their contributions to SDGs. Following the precedent of Rosati and Faria (2019), this study defines SDG reporting as the practice of providing information about how the company addresses the SDGs in publicly available corporate reports. Bebbington and Unerman (2018) suggested that organisations should outline how their strategies, business models, programmes and initiatives align with relevant SDGs and associated targets. Garcia-Torres et al. (2017) provide empirical evidence that strengthens the relevance of the SDGs to the fast fashion industry. Their study identifies SDGs impacted by issues that are important to the fast fashion industry (classified as ‘common materiality issues’). The study’s analysis mapped each sustainability issue identified by each company in the sample to at least one SDG. Based primarily on these findings, the authors conclude that the SDGs are an appropriate, universal framework for sustainability disclosure among fast fashion companies.

Although SDGs remain pertinent to sustainability challenges in the fast fashion industry, prior research has reached varying conclusions on whether SDG reporting has provided a meaningful and/or accurate depiction of companies’ sustainability objectives. The empirical evidence from Garcia-Meca and Martinez-Ferrero (2021) revealed that SDG reporting had no significant impact on firm performance measured as Tobin’s Q. Similarly, the findings of a lack of consistency in SDG reporting (Del Río et al. 2024) suggest that companies tend to report on those SDGs that create a favourable impression of their commitment to the SDGs.

The scepticism around the value of sustainability reporting is corroborated by the findings of Arvidsson and Dumay (2022) who observed that despite improvement in the quality of suitability disclosures among companies, their performance with regard to sustainability objectives had plateaued. These findings prompted the call by the authors for enhanced efforts towards ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) performance instead of ESG reporting.

The term ‘greenwashing’ was first used in 1986 by an environmental activist, Jay Westerveld, who criticised hotels for encouraging their guests to reuse towels under the pretext of conserving water, while the hotels themselves failed to implement broader environmental initiatives with more meaningful impact (De Freitas Netto et al. 2020). Greenwashing is therefore the practice of a company misleading stakeholders on its commitment to sustainability goals. Mobus (2012) explains the problematically vague connection between private actions and public image. In this environment, a close comparison between actual performance and sustainability reporting is required.

In the context of corporate reporting, greenwashing is the practice of companies presenting their sustainability commitments in an overly positive manner, creating an impression of strong commitment, while in reality, their actions fall short (Mahoney et al. 2013). Lashitew (2021) furthers the narrative on greenwashing in the context of corporate reporting. He explains that since companies’ sustainability reporting is done so largely voluntarily, with these reports not subject to external verification, there is the risk of companies exploiting the SDGs for greenwashing. These texts are created to fulfil the expectations of company stakeholders instead of being representative of meaningful actions (Siano et al. 2017). Similarly, Garcia-Meca and Martinez-Ferrero (2021), in their empirical analysis of the value relevance of SDG reporting, refer to camouflaging firms, being firms that provide symbolic reporting of sustainable actions in order to create the impression that the firm is committed to addressing its social and environmental challenges. This reporting of only favourable information exacerbates information asymmetries and misleads stakeholders.

Siano et al. (2017) provide evidence of greenwashing done during the Volkswagen Dieselgate scandal. Semi-structured interviews with management revealed ‘deceptive manipulation’, which the authors classify as a form of greenwashing, in company-reported information. Consistent with legitimacy theory and in the context of the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, Mobus (2012) finds that the focus of sustainability reporting is driven by societal concerns about corporate activity.

The remainder of the literature review presents the SDGs as they relate to the fast fashion industry.

Several people-related SDGs have been identified as particularly relevant to the fast fashion industry. These are synthesised in Table 1 and discussed in detail in the literature review.

In the context of fast fashion garment production, rising consumer demands warrant a large labour force. Despite the increase in employment opportunities, garment workers have poor working conditions, limited bargaining power, and no mobility with their employment being informal and outsourced. Under these conditions, many garment workers are not unionised and thus lack formal protection. The result is a low-cost, flexible workforce that is exploited (Bick et al. 2018; Vijeyarasa & Liu 2022).

With the rise in globalisation and growth of the global economy, international supply chains have become the norm, creating jobs in manufacturing nations where labour is cheaper. However, this trend may cause supply chains to become longer and less transparent. In order to keep garments inexpensive, cost-cutting measures should be intensified, further highlighting issues about ethical and sustainable practice (Nayak et al. 2022). For instance, in 2013, a clothing production facility in Bangladesh collapsed, killing 1127 workers (Taplin 2014). An evaluation of the structural and institutional factors contributing to this tragedy revealed that Western consumerism encourages a system that exploits international trade regimes (Taplin 2014). Similarly, Thakker and Sun (2023) reported that within the European Union (EU), consumption was concentrated in Italy, Germany, France, Spain, Poland, Belgium and Portugal, although manufacturing facilities were largely situated in Madagascar, Romania, India, China, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Characteristically, the workers in this system remain underpaid and exposed to numerous issues such as child labour, low wages and health and safety hazards, resulting in unsafe workplace conditions (Hobson 2013; James 2022). Placing fast fashion labour issues within SDG 8 on Decent Work, Thakker and Sun (2023) note that labourers in the fast fashion industry are forced to work in extreme-risk garment manufacturing units, which often results in fatal accidents.

In a recent study, LeBaron et al. (2022) found that companies in the global garment supply chain failed to make any meaningful progress towards achieving their commitments to paying a living wage to their labourers. Breen (2020) observed that the industry exploits migrant workers as labourers by taking advantage of their limited proficiency in the native language, limited social connections, restricted rights, and dependency on employers. The occurrence of forced labour is closely linked to conditions of poverty, a scarcity of stable employment opportunities and education, as well as an inadequate legal system, rampant corruption, and an industry that relies on inexpensive labour (Dhanjee 2024; Thakker & Sun 2023; Williams 2022). Often, women garment workers in the fast fashion industry are migrants who have moved to industrial zones or export processing zones to work in factories (Krause 2015). The long hours of work in the fast fashion production facilities often necessitate the separation of parents from their children, who are then left in the care of their relatives who live far away. In this regard, one of the targets under SDG 5 tracks the proportion of time spent on unpaid domestic and care work, by sex, age and location. By tracking this target, the impact can be measured, and progress can be made to reduce time spent on unpaid domestic care (Dhanjee 2024).

Another violation of the principles underlying the SDGs relates to the safety of women garment workers. Vijeyarasa and Liu (2022) document the extent to which women workers travel to factories in developing countries, often on unlit streets, to and from work, facing the risk of harassment, theft, and forms of sexual violence. Williams (2022) highlights that subcontracting (that is, where a factory sends a worker to another factory without the knowledge of the buying fashion brand) is a challenge in supply chain transparency and increases exposure to exploitation of already un-unionised workers. Sustainable Development Goal 5 seeks a reduction in the number of women suffering various forms of violence – physical, sexual or psychological – by individuals other than their partners.

Factory owners are legally obliged to pay only the minimum wage and offer competitive prices, but factories may push workers harder than is the industry norm and implement unrealistic deadlines (Williams 2022). If workers fail to meet deadlines, they may suffer wage penalties (Vijeyarasa & Liu 2022). Sustainable Development Goal 8 seeks to attain the full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men and people with disabilities. Ending poverty in all forms for everyone (SDG 1) includes achieving essential targets related to social security (Dhanjee 2024).

The fast fashion industry is the second largest consumer of water and generates 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions (Thakker & Sun 2023). Not only are they very high consumers of water, but they also directly impact water supply by dumping untreated waste from dyeing processes into water sources (Thakker & Sun 2023). In addition to the harmful impact of production processes, whenever synthetic clothing items are subsequently washed, they release toxic microfibres into water systems. These microfibres are too small to be caught by treatment plants, thereby ending up in water sources, thus harming marine life. Indirectly, the industry’s labour practices compel vulnerable individuals to work in situations where their access to clean water and sanitation is inhibited (Thakker & Sun 2023; Vijeyarasa & Liu 2022).

Fundamental to the fast fashion model is the idea that garments are disposable, so discarded clothing often ends up in landfills, contributing to waste pollution. This, in turn, clogs rivers and greenways as rainwater transports waste into drainage systems. This pollution poses health hazards, especially in lower-income communities with inadequate waste management systems (Bick et al. 2018). The planet-related SDGs that are relevant to the fast fashion industry are detailed further in Table 2.

It is estimated that 80bn new clothing items are purchased annually, generating United States Dollar (USD) 1.2 trillion for the fashion industry as a whole (Bick et al. 2018). Fast fashion is synonymous with making trendy clothing accessible at lower prices. However, the low financial costs do not include the substantial human and environmental impact of the production process (Bick et al. 2018). The planet-related SDGs that are relevant to the fast fashion industry are detailed further in Table 2.

Sustainable Development Goal 12 relates to responsible consumption and production. Shorter production cycles cause fast fashion companies to deviate from this goal. Until the mid-20th century, the fashion industry catered for four seasons a year. Designers worked for many months ahead to plan for each season and predict the styles that they believed consumers would prefer. Before fashion became attainable to the masses, it belonged to high society. However, today fast fashion brands produce about 52 ‘micro-seasons’ a year, or one new ‘collection’ every week (Meskini et al. 2024). The product life cycle of fashion products has decreased from months to weeks, or, in some cases, days (Barnes & Lea-Greenwood 2010). As a result of consumers becoming more aware of changing trends, even firms in the broader fashion industry have had to move to more responsive, demand-driven supply chains (Barnes & Lea-Greenwood 2010).

Bick et al. (2018) established that the potential ramifications to human and environmental well-being linked to affordable clothing may be concealed at various stages in the product life cycle of every garment. By compressing production cycles to offer lower prices, fast fashion companies have enabled consumers to buy more garments, often treating them as disposable and thus discarding them after just a few times of wearing (Nayak et al. 2022). This increased garment consumption drives the production of inexpensive clothing, and prices are kept low by outsourcing production to low and middle-income countries (Bick et al. 2018; Dhanjee 2024).

Bebbington and Unerman (2018) emphasise the role of academic accounting to achieve SDGs. Notably, the authors contend that a focus on SDGs is the next phase of accounting research on sustainable development. Since their seminal work, several studies have focused on SDG reporting, with examples detailed in the rest of this section. However, some gaps remain in research that focuses specifically on SDGs in the fast fashion industry and in research that seeks to corroborate self-reported progress with other sources, such as media reports.

The objectives of the study from Garcia-Meca and Martinez-Ferrero (2021) are partially aligned with the present study. The former sought to contribute to the academic debate about the value relevance of SDG reporting, with the study notably incorporating the aspect of greenwashing in disclosures. However, the analysis was quantitative and used the measurement approximation of Tobin’s Q of the same period in which the SDG reporting score was calculated. Given their focus on the creation of enduring value, SDG initiatives are more likely to contribute to firm performance value in the long run, which may not be captured using quantitative analysis. This notion of the future-orientation of sustainability initiatives is supported by Thelken and De Jong (2020) in their empirical evidence that self-transcending values significantly impact sustainable entrepreneurial intention.

In their qualitative study, Nayak et al. (2022) focus on fashion production companies in Vietnam. They call for future research that extends the geographical coverage and fashion retailers. Furthermore, Siano et al. (2017) call for research on greenwashing that extends beyond a single case, as in Nayak et al.’s (2022) study. The current research seeks to answer these calls by including large global fast fashion companies which are well known among retail shoppers.

With regard to incorporating media reports in the present analysis, we contribute to the existing literature that compares media reports to self-reported sustainability disclosures (Mobus 2012; Siano et al. 2017), with a notable focus on the environmentally and socially sensitive fast fashion industry.