Exciting data comparisons and experimental results, radical supply chain reforms, ever-updating terms and definitions... To meet ambitious climate targets, all industries, including the fashion industry, are undergoing sustainable reforms in full swing. But perhaps, some of the solutions that people believe in are not as effective as advertised, and the so-called "research data" that catches the wind and intercepts from the report also has an impact on the practice of brands and companies and the shopping behavior of consumers, so that we not only do not do enough, but also do not do well enough.
On March 15, eco-Age, a sustainability consultancy, released the second part of a series of reports titled The Use And Misuse of Sustainability Metrics In Fashion. The report highlights that the environmental impact of the fashion industry has not been properly assessed, both broadly and narrowly.
The report is still written by independent consultant Veronica Bates Kassatly (former World Bank financial analyst) and Dorothée Baumann-Pauly, director of the Geneva Center for Business and Human Rights at the University of Geneva. They point out that the scope of sustainability assessment is limited, the wrong organic fiber claims, the different sustainability certifications, the impact of polyester and microfiber is ignored... And so on, these are the problems in the fashion industry in sustainable reform.
The report mentions that the current approach to sustainability assessment is incorrect. First, it is common to measure the environmental impact of goods "from cradle to retailer" rather than "from cradle to grave", so the environmental impact of clothing use and post-consumer treatment is ignored. Secondly, it is not accurate to calculate the environmental impact of clothing in terms of the unit of "kilograms", and what people should really calculate is the impact on the environment of each wear. The longer the garment, the less environmental pollution it causes.
The longer the garment, the less environmental pollution it causes
The report argues that regulators could establish a consumer-facing labeling system. "The simplest, most effective and easiest to understand sustainability information that the authorities can provide to consumers is a warning label until a more comprehensive and professional analysis is carried out," the report reads. It is noted above that if you wear clothes less than X times, the purchase behavior is unsustainable and may contribute to global warming. ”
The report bluntly points out that the fashion industry's definition of "organic cotton" is very vague, and even to a certain extent, it "demonizes" the existence of traditionally grown cotton, and these vague definitions also have a great impact on the normal life of farmers in the weak industrial chain.
Cotton is grown in a lot of water, so cotton that doesn't use organic farming is an unsustainable raw material – a common indoctrination in the fashion industry. But in fact, the explanation of "high water demand for cotton cultivation and high use of pesticides" only emerged from the rise of the polyester industry in 2009, and the main reason for the disappearance of the Aral Sea was due to inadequate planning and inefficient irrigation systems in the former Soviet Union, and it is ridiculous to blame such an environmental disaster on innocent plants.
Unless the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides is the biggest difference between organic agriculture and traditional agriculture, it is worth noting that the so-called organic agriculture practices such as crop rotation, companion planting, the introduction of beneficial insects, the use of manure, etc., all come from traditional agriculture. For cotton, "traditional agriculture is the greenest and most efficient production method if it is grown in the right producing area and has enough rainwater irrigation, and the Report The Life Cycle Assessment of Organic Cotton Fiber: Summary of Findings also breaks the myth that 'organic cotton' is not fundamentally different from traditional cotton." ”
If the growing environment is suitable,
Traditional agriculture is the most environmentally friendly and efficient method of cotton production
At the same time, the report also proposes that when people measure the environmental impact data of organic agriculture and traditional agriculture, they usually use "per unit of land" as a unit, rather than "per unit of output". At the same time, widespread upgrading of organic agriculture will also bring additional losses to the natural habitat of animals and plants, resulting in higher output prices. As a result, organic farming is not the paradigm of sustainable development that people think.
The report argues that there is a phenomenon of "paid participation" in the supply chain traceability of some technology suppliers. "We believe that the EU and other governments need to take urgent action to correct this."
Taking leather as an example, the behavior of large groups "paid certification" will be
It greatly affects the order income of small and medium-sized enterprises
For example, large groups such as JBS and PrimeAsia have received Higg MSI sustainable materials scores through paid participation, but many small European producers have not been able to obtain points due to cost concerns, resulting in fewer orders. "If this continues, small and medium-sized enterprises and self-sufficient farmers will become 'unsustainable' producers," the report reads. This would not only be unjust to science, but would also create non-fiscal barriers to trade, which would clearly be inconsistent with the EU's development policies and commitments. ”
Since the late 1990s, global consumption of total fiber per capita has exploded: from around 42 million tonnes (7.3 kg per capita) in 1996 to 101 million tonnes (13 kg per capita) in 2019, largely due to the growing use of plastic fibres. Admittedly, these plastic fibers don't come entirely from the fashion industry, but it's clear that polyester has been the growth engine of this trend. Without these cheap polyester fibers, manufacturers would encourage the supply of natural fibers, without any costly initiatives and conferences, the market would automatically stifle this demand, and fast fashion would not usher in a take-off period.
Polyester fiber not only does not degrade but also affects ecological health
The report said that people's attitude towards plastic products such as polyester and microfiber is too optimistic: antimony used as a catalyst in the polyester fiber production process has a toxic effect on the human body and environmental organisms; virgin polyester fibers and recycled polyester fibers will produce extremely high carbon emissions in the manufacturing process; microfibers dropped when wearing and cleaning have a certain environmental impact and toxicity; although partial recycling has been achieved, the non-degradable characteristics will still bring great pressure to the environment.
"Confusingly, none of this has been included in any narrative of sustainable development," the report reads. Conversely, cotton, wool, silk, leather and other natural fibers are all bad, and this simple statement dominates sustainable fashion. ”
Plastic recycling processing plant
Finally, the report reads: "'Sustainability' is a scientific, physical, political, and economic issue that we need to look at from a more scientific rather than a 'metaphysical' perspective." At present, even leading academic institutions such as MIT use some so-called "research data" and ignore the intention and authenticity behind it. As we have demonstrated, valuable sustainability analysis needs to accurately reflect relevant realities, rather than extracting numbers from outdated, unrepresentative research and stealing concepts that conflate many of the very different ones. ”WWD
Written by Usasa
Image credits from the Eco-Age report, the web