How EPA Deregulation Could Undermine Fashion’s Sustainability Goals
By Flawless Magazine
As the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) undergoes sweeping deregulation efforts—scaling back rules on emissions, water pollution, and air quality—the fashion industry finds itself at a crossroads. While looser environmental policies may ease short-term compliance costs for manufacturers, they could also unravel years of progress toward sustainability. The price of deregulation may ultimately be paid not just in environmental degradation, but in reputational risk, global competitiveness, and consumer trust.
A New Era of Rollbacks
In recent months, the EPA has announced plans to reverse or weaken several Obama- and Biden-era regulations, including emissions caps on industrial facilities, clean water protections for textile-heavy regions, and air quality standards that impact dyeing and finishing plants.
Supporters argue these changes reduce bureaucratic red tape, stimulate domestic manufacturing, and enhance cost competitiveness—especially as inflation and supply chain pressures remain high.
But critics warn that deregulation could make it easier for factories to pollute without consequence, especially in vulnerable communities already bearing the brunt of environmental injustice.
The Hidden Cost of Compliance Savings
For fashion brands operating in the US or sourcing from American suppliers, deregulation may appear as a financial relief. Fewer reporting obligations, laxer wastewater rules, and relaxed emissions thresholds translate to lower overheads. But the savings are short-lived.
- Global misalignment: As Europe tightens sustainability rules and consumers worldwide demand transparency, US-based suppliers risk falling behind or being excluded from international markets.
- Brand damage: Loopholes in regulation won’t shield brands from public backlash if pollution incidents arise.
- Innovation stall: Rollbacks reduce the urgency for cleaner technologies and circular models, slowing the industry’s transition.
Consumer and Investor Expectations
Today’s fashion consumers—particularly Gen Z and millennials—are attuned to environmental impact. Many scrutinize supply chains, favor traceability, and reward brands that align with climate goals.
Similarly, ESG-focused investors increasingly view environmental risk as financial risk. A brand’s association with deregulated, polluting practices could jeopardize investor confidence and long-term valuation.
Disproportionate Impacts
Looser EPA enforcement could also exacerbate environmental injustice. Many textile mills and dye houses are located in communities of color or low-income areas, already exposed to hazardous runoff and air toxins. Weakening oversight increases health risks in these regions and undermines the industry’s stated commitments to equity and ethics.
Reputational Risk in a Transparent World
In the digital era, news travels fast. Water contamination or air violations—even if legally permissible—can go viral in hours. Greenwashing allegations and boycotts often follow. Compliance is no longer enough; leadership is the new baseline.
What Brands Can Do
Rather than taking deregulation as a cue to scale back, leading brands are choosing to double down on self-regulation and third-party standards:
- Voluntary alignment with stricter EU rules, such as the Ecodesign Directive and Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).
- Commitment to science-based targets for emissions reduction.
- Independent audits of water, chemical, and waste practices.
- Investment in clean tech and circular systems, regardless of federal mandates.
Flawless Perspective
Sustainability isn’t a regulation—it’s a responsibility. EPA rollbacks may offer short-term relief, but the fashion industry’s long-term resilience depends on going further, not falling back.
In a time of climate urgency and rising stakeholder scrutiny, true leadership means choosing progress even when the law doesn’t demand it. Because the future of fashion can’t be built on the past’s environmental blind spots.
