"Apparel becomes 'green' in use"

Tone Skårdal Tobiassson on why she's not an advocate for the Product Environmental Footprint.

About a month ago we shared the announcement of our anti-greenwashing newsletter The Crisps. Now, more than 250 people are learning and unlearning how fashion brands can and should communicate their environmental impact with us. If you like our work, we’re happy about every support for example by spreading the word. Thank you!

---

When was the last time you made a mistake–and learned from it? Well, ours was just recently and you’ve all been a part of it! Because in our last free issue, we included a fact that wasn’t correct (scroll down for the correction). We’re making it up to you by sharing our deep dive on the PEF with you–no matter if you’re a free or paid subscriber. So we can learn and unlearn together.

If you’re a paid subscriber, you’ve got another goodie at the end of this issue. We talked to Tone Skårdal Tobiassson about her critical take on the PEF. Tone is a journalist, author of several books such as “Local, Slow and Sustainable Fashion: Wool as a Fabric for Change” and a board member of the Union of Concerned Researchers in Fashion.

---

Want to read interviews with experts like Tone Skårdal Tobiassson or George Harding-Rolls and experience The Crisps in its full glory? Become a paid subscriber until April, 30th, and save 30% off the first year with our Launch Discount.

---

The PEF criticism corrected

Last week we discussed the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) methodology and the criticism it’s facing. We stated “The PEF currently doesn’t include petroleum-based materials and microplastics“ which is incorrect. To clarify: The PEF does include petroleum-based materials. But it is criticized for the way it is measuring and favoring them. A research consortium including our interview partner from this issue Tone Skårdal Tobiassson published a paper on this matter.

How can brands use the PEF? 

The European Environmental Bureau (EEB) suggests the PEF¹ … 

…for internal purposes: 

1. To reduce a product’s environmental impact: By undertaking a PEF study, brands can begin to understand the environmental impact hotspots they should focus on and assess potential improvement options. 

2. To use as a communication tool: Using it as a communication tool within the value chain to encourage/influence suppliers to reduce their environmental impacts. 

…for external purposes: 

1. To make a voluntary green claim: The PEF can be used to compare the environmental performance of a product to that of a competitor (if the competitor has conducted a comparable PEF study) or the market in general.

2. To response to retailer requirements/incentives: Retailers often require or incentivize suppliers to present environmental performance data associated with their products.

3. To comply with government legislation: If the PEF method is integrated into EU policy, it could become mandatory in some circumstances for brands to complete and report PEF studies in order to have access to the EU market. Furthermore, it could become mandatory for products to achieve a minimum standard (in terms of the ‘PEF score’), in order to be granted access to the market through, for example, Ecodesign requirements, or for the purpose of public procurement.

Risks of using PEF externally: 

Using the PEF for external purposes comes with the danger that only the "relevant" environmental impacts or those that need to be communicated are improved. Impact categories that are not communicated could be neglected.² 

---

In the last issue, we touched on the criticism the PEF is facing but want to dive a little deeper. So we talked to Tone Skårdal Tobiassson about her take on a generic methodology for the environmental footprint of a product and what she would do differently.