Misto's 2025 report shows real wins, slower structural fixes

Where the numbers hold up

The clearest progress is in Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. Using 2024 as its base year, Misto Group cut direct and energy related emissions from 3,334 tCO2e to 2,939 tCO2e in a single year – an 11.9% drop against a 2030 target of 21%. After one reporting year, the group is roughly halfway to its stated reduction goal. The figure was verified by BSI Group Korea, the local arm of the British Standards Institution, which provided assurance on the report.

The circularity metrics also look solid at first glance. FILARe:Deuce products (the brand’s sustainable materials line) rose from 13% to 18% of SKUs in 2025, on a path to a 30% target by 2030. A reusable cup program at headquarters reached a 95% return rate, up 5 percentage points. Cardboard recycling at the Icheon distribution center avoided an estimated 88 tons of GHG emissions.

These are modest operational wins, but they are specific and traceable, which is more than can be said for some of the group’s larger claims.

Charitable giving also rose sharply, from KRW 2.17 billion (€1.45 million) in 2024 to KRW 5.59 billion (€3.73 million) in 2025, more than doubling in a single year. The jump is large enough to warrant a closer look at what is driving it in next year’s report.

The disclosure gets thinner on Scope 3 accounting

Misto Group discloses only nine of the 15 GHG Protocol categories, and the disclosed portion – 14,893 tCO2e – is already more than four times the group’s combined Scope 1 and Scope 2 footprint.

Six categories remain excluded, including end of life treatment of sold products and franchises, meaning the true value chain footprint is materially larger than reported.

Verification is also capped at “limited assurance” – a lighter standard than reasonable assurance – so even the disclosed figures carry more uncertainty than the confident framing in the highlights section suggests.

To its credit, the supply chain section is unusually candid – and it is also where the pain points are clearest.

Of 69 Tier 1 suppliers and 19 Tier 2 suppliers audited, 19 generated findings requiring corrective action. Environmental, fair wages and legal documentation findings were all resolved at 100%. Occupational health and safety was not: 15 of 17 items were closed (an 88% completion rate), with two outstanding items – fire protection equipment maintenance and sewing machine safety devices – still open at a licensee supplier. Separately, five suppliers were terminated outright under the zero tolerance policy for serious violations (forced labor, child labor, harassment, structural safety). This is a rare example of a supplier scorecard with real teeth, and a useful benchmark for other multibrand groups that tend to bury this level of detail.

Workforce: women at Misto

In 2025, women held 51.7% of management positions and 50% of management roles in revenue generating departments, strong figures by industry standards. At board level, however, only one of seven directors is a woman (14%), compared with three independent directors (43%).

That gap between near parity in management and a single female board seat is the kind of detail a comparables minded reader, for example another brand group weighing its own board composition disclosures, would want to benchmark.

What this means for other brand portfolio companies

For groups with a similar asset light, licensing heavy structure, the report is a useful template for transparency on supplier enforcement. The CAP completion rate breakdown by risk category is more granular than most peers publish and is worth using as a comparison point.

But it also illustrates a common trap: leading with headline metrics (Scope 1/2 reduction, Re:Deuce share) while leaving the harder, less flattering numbers (full Scope 3, Higg FEM baseline, board diversity, management attrition) buried beyond the highlights page.

It is worth reading from start to finish.