Debunking 50 myths about "sustainability" in fashion
Including papers, reports and studies!
Welcome to another issue of The Crisps – your newsletter on anti-greenwashing and honest fashion communication. We’re back with another issue FULL of resources to debunk 50 myths about sustainability in fashion! In case, you’re not yet subscribed. Let us help you with that:
One of the reasons we started The Crisps was misinformation on sustainability in fashion being spread across channels from low to high-brow fashion brands, media outlets, and institutions. Sometimes misinformation is spread because people are not familiar with the complexity of the topic, use information from outdated sources, or spread supposed facts without checking the sources and their accuracy.
We wanted to create a resource that people can learn from regularly and check back on later. For a year, we’ve dedicated more than 50 issues to a specific topic because we wanted to provide detailed information about each topic. But to celebrate our first anniversary, here comes a special issue!
This one might be our MOST resourceful issue. Because we’re not just debunking a ton of myths. We’re linking papers, studies, and reports whenever possible! So you can check back on it again and again if you want to dive deeper into a certain topic or remind yourself why cotton is not a “thirsty crop”. We hope you’ll find as much value in it, as we’ve anticipated. (If you do so, we’d be grateful to hear from you!)
Pro tip: Search this issue for keywords you find most interesting such as “cotton”, “emissions” and “circular”.
Certifications
Our issues on the topic:
Myth 1: Certifications guarantee a brand or product is completely sustainable.
Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Certifications can be helpful indications but most of the certifications on the market have specific scopes, focusing on particular facets of sustainability like sourcing materials or production processes. However, they may overlook other crucial areas of impact, such as social responsibility. A few try to look at sustainability from a holistic angle, but they also have limitations – for example when they are based on self-assessment. Not to forget, that there is not a legally binding definition of what makes a sustainable brand or product.
The Changing Markets Foundation looked at 10 certification schemes in 2022 and assessed how effective they were in creating real change. “Most of the initiatives analyzed in this report fail to meaningfully uphold high levels of ambition and thus merely provide a smokescreen for companies that want to appear to be taking steps towards sustainability.” They also criticized: “The majority of the schemes have compromised independence. As voluntary initiatives, they are vulnerable to high levels of influence through the brands that fund the schemes or are otherwise involved in governance structures.” (If you haven’t read the report yet, we strongly encourage you to do so to get a better understanding of how brands, governments, and certifications are connected – and what impacts that results in.) If brands use certifications, it's essential to complement them with other tools, such as life cycle assessments, supply chain transparency, and stakeholder engagement.
Sources:
Myth 2: Certified clothing is credible.
Certifications like Fair Trade, GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard), and B Corp can indicate certain ethical and environmental standards, but they do not guarantee complete sustainability or ethical practices throughout the entire supply chain. Unfortunately, we’ve seen several instances of certifications not living up to their standard. The latest example is Better Cotton, one of fashion’s top certification schemes for cotton. In a recent report by environmental group Earthsight, Better Cotton has been linked to illegal deforestation, human rights abuses, and land grabbing in Brazil. But also other certifications have made negative headlines: In 2020, GOTS faced a scandal after a web of fraudulent certificates for organic cotton was revealed.
Sources:
🔹 Fashion Crimes Report, Eartsight, April 2024
🔹 Fashion Crimes Executive Summary, Earthsight, April 2024
🔹 ”GOTS finds ‘gigantic scale’ fraud in India organic cotton”, Textile Today Online, 2020
🔹 License to Greenwash - How certification schemes and voluntary initiatives are fuelling fossil fashion, Changing Markets Foundation, 2022
Myth 3: Non-certified cotton is bad.
Some farmers may not be certified to a standard, yet implement the same or better agricultural practices than a certified farmer. Some farmers might choose not to seek certification for various reasons, including a lack of economic incentive (for example when the benefits of certification do not outweigh the high administrative and financial costs that are often associated with certification) among other factors. So no! Non-certified cotton is not bad per se. There are great cotton farmers out there, who are not certified but implement agricultural practices that are best for their local conditions.
Source:
🔹 Transformers Foundation Cotton Report 2021/2023
Myth 4: Certified, recycled polyester is traceable and has no negative impact scenarios.
Traceability in the supply chain of recycled polyester is often opaque. Although certifications, such as Global Recycled Standard (GRS), can provide a level of assurance about the recycled content as well as social and environmental practices used, it does not guarantee complete traceability to e.g. the garbage trunk of the PET-bottle. And as pointed out by the Changing Markets Foundation (find the paper below), companies are not obliged to publish the supply-chain data which reduces the effectiveness for increased transparency.
Plus, the processes from collecting pre- and post-consumer materials to producing the final fibers can involve multiple geographic locations and intermediaries, complicating the tracking of the original source and the environmental practices used at each stage. Recycling polyester still requires significant energy, often derived from non-renewable sources, and may involve chemicals, particularly in the case of breaking down plastics into reusable fibers. These processes can release toxins and emissions that contribute to pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. And we haven’t even spoken about microplastic yet. Claiming it has no negative impacts or is fully traceable therefore oversimplifies a complex issue.
Sources:
🔹 The RCS and GRS are designed to boost the use of recycled materials, Textile Exchange
🔹 License to Greenwash - How certification schemes and voluntary initiatives are fuelling fossil fashion, Changing Markets Foundation, 2022
Chemicals
Our issues on the topic:
Myth 5: Chemical-free fashion exists.
First up, there will never be chemical-free fashion. The discussion around chemicals in fashion has shifted into a wrong narrative. Because everything is chemistry! The way the ZDHC Foundation put it, clarifies it perfectly: “The word ‘chemical’ has become synonymous with dangerous and ‘natural’ with risk-free. Mercury, arsenic, and even snake venom are all natural chemicals, but extremely toxic! Even the most necessary chemical in existence for humans – oxygen – is deadly in large amounts. So rather than referring to all chemicals as good or bad, we try to see them in terms of what are acceptable – or hazardous – amounts for people, biodiversity and the planet.” So phrases such as “chemical-free fashion” shouldn’t be used. A more credible and less vague alternative would be: Low-Chemical or Reduced Chemical input (if you can prove it and have a fair comparison). This alternative conveys a commitment to minimizing chemical usage rather than claiming complete absence, which is rarely achievable in textile production.
Sources:
🔹 Impact Report 2021 “Roadmap To Zero”, ZDHC Foundation
🔹 The business case for removing hazardous chemicals with ZDHC, ZDHC Foundation, 2018
Myth 6: There are no chemicals used with natural materials.
All textile production involves the use of chemicals, whether in dyeing, finishing, or processing fibers. That holds true for all materials – also natural ones! So claiming the complete absence of chemicals is misleading and untrue in most cases. Also, the term “chemicals” should not be used synonymously for “hazardous chemicals”. That’s what the industry has to focus on: phasing out harmful chemicals and increasing the use of safer alternatives.
Sources:
🔹 Impact Report 2021 “Roadmap To Zero”, ZDHC Foundation
🔹 The business case for removing hazardous chemicals with ZDHC, ZDHC Foundation, 2018
Circularity
Our issues on the topic:
Myth 7: A fashion product can be circular.
This is a bit technical now: Products cannot be circular. They can only be designed for circularity. Because circularity is a system. In an ideal world, all products would be designed for this system and could be endlessly recycled or reused. It would mean that the way we design, produce, consume, and manage waste completely changed. Unfortunately, we’re still far from that reality. So products that are designed for circularity can only THEORETICALLY be kept in the loop (at least on scale). That doesn’t mean that you’re not doing a great job, working on ways to design products for circularity. It just means that we have to use the correct wording to not fall into a skewed perspective of the industry’s reality – which unfortunately is still “take-make-waste”.
Sources:
🔹 What is the linear economy, Ellen McArthur Foundation
🔹 What is a circular economy, Ellen McArthur Foundation
Consumerism
Our issues on the topic:
19 ways, overconsumption and overproduction are harming people and the planet
Myth 8: You can do good by buying clothes.
It’s a narrative that has been widely spread: Buy product XYZ and you will make XYZ better. But that’s not true. Simply buying a piece of clothing does not solve the climate crisis. It does not stop biodiversity loss. And it certainly does not promote living wages. Brands promoting a product this way are not just engaging in greenwashing. They are hindering meaningful change. Why? Because many of the problems our industry (and world) is facing are due to (hyper-)consumerism. So buying more is hardly the solution.
Source:
🔹 Modern slavery legislation and the limits of ethical fashion
Degrowth
Our issues on the topic: coming soon!
Myth 9: Degrowth would put a lot of people out of jobs and into poverty, especially in the fast fashion sector.
A concern that often comes up when discussing degrowth is that it causes job losses, but degrowth scholars argue that degrowth is not a recession, it’s a planned reduction. Put simply, degrowth is a planned and democratic reduction of production and consumption in rich countries to reduce environmental pressures and inequalities while improving well-being. This means that legislation and having infrastructure in place are key to its success.
Sources:
🔹 “Degrowth goes far beyond reduction of GDP”, Polytechnique Insights, 2022
Myth 10: Economic growth is always beneficial and necessary for progress.
The call for “degrowth” is getting louder by sustainability experts. Why? Because most of the issues of our industry (and all others for that matter!) lie in the concept of unlimited growth, leading to environmental degradation and social inequality. We use too many resources, produce too much, consume too much, and throw away too much. So contrary to the belief that economic growth is the only way forward, more and more experts explore, research and advocate for the concept of degrowth.
Sources:
🔹 “A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: synthesizing the insights”, Helmut Haberl et. al 2020 Environ
🔹 “L'Économie sociale et solidaire”, Jean-Louis Laville
Emissions
Our issues on the topic:
Myth 11: Carbon emissions are THE most pressing issue in the fashion industry.
While carbon emissions are indeed a significant concern in the fashion industry, they are not the sole or primary issue. The fashion industry's environmental impact extends beyond carbon emissions to water usage, chemical pollution, waste generation, deforestation, and biodiversity loss. Concentrating solely on carbon emissions is also known as the carbon tunnel vision. In their paper, researchers from the University of London and the University of Cambridge describe the risks of carbon tunnel vision as: “Carbon tunnel vision focuses on emissions, not the systems and structures which are actively protecting and promoting climate destroying industries.” Additionally, the social and ethical aspects of fashion, such as labor rights, fair wages, working conditions, and supply chain transparency, are equally crucial concerns. Ignoring these multifaceted issues in favor of solely focusing on carbon emissions oversimplifies the complexities of sustainability in fashion and may lead to incomplete or ineffective solutions.
Source:
Myth 12: Brands can be sustainable when they are offsetting their emissions.
Offsetting projects alone cannot be deemed sustainable due to several reasons. Some of the most common offsetting methods such as tree planting, take time to be effective. Trees are said to only start capturing carbon after ten years! Meanwhile, additional emissions accumulate, delaying real reductions in emissions. Another issue with offsetting lies in measuring the effectiveness of offsetting projects. In the past, projects have proven less effective than promised, undermining claims of sustainability. Additionally, companies might rely solely on offsetting, which might allow them to maintain or increase emissions elsewhere. This "license" to emit could hinder efforts to reduce emissions in their own supply chains (which make up the vast majority of emissions). So the first step to reducing emissions should always be insetting for core operations and within the own supply chain. Only then should brands offset those emissions that cannot be reduced otherwise. And it goes without saying that all offset projects should be verifiable and effective, with transparent communication about their contributions to GHG reduction, right?
Sources:
🔹 Explainer: Carbon insetting vs offsetting, World Economic Forum
🔹 Trees for carbon sequestration, Nature Fund, 2010 (attention: this source is pretty old!)
“Fair Fashion” & Living Wages
Our issues on the topic:
Myth 13: Fashion brands can ensure fair working conditions along the entire supply chain
While memberships within multi-stakeholder initiatives and/or implementing voluntary Codes of Conduct show a commitment to collaboratively work on improving working conditions, brands can’t guarantee or assure fair working conditions.
Source:
🔹Modern slavery legislation and the limits of ethical fashion
Myth 14: Made in Europe guarantees fair working conditions.
Products labeled as "Made in Europe" may suggest higher ethical standards due to stricter labor laws and regulations in some European countries, this label alone does not guarantee ethical production practices. Issues such as exploitation of migrant workers, subcontracting to less regulated facilities, and inadequate wages and working conditions can still exist within European manufacturing. Ethical sourcing requires transparency throughout the entire supply chain, including adherence to fair labor standards and environmental regulations, regardless of the product's country of origin.
Source:
🔹Modern slavery legislation and the limits of ethical fashion
Myth 15: Fair fashion means workers are paid living wages.
The term "fair" is often used in fashion campaigns and communication. But the term is not legally defined so brands might refer to different aspects when speaking about “fair fashion”. The term does not automatically ensure workers are paid a living wage. And while brands can and should advocate for living wages in the textile supply chains, they usually do not directly pay wages to textile workers. As brands mostly don’t own the factories in which their clothes are produced, they are paying for products, not the labor. So the brand’s role lies in paying fair prices for products and not pressuring their suppliers into ever cheaper production.
Source:
🔹Modern slavery legislation and the limits of ethical fashion
Myth 16: Brands can pay a living wage in their supply chain
Usually, brands don’t own the factories where their clothes are made. Instead, they are outsourcing their manufacturing. The vast majority of the people who produce clothes are directly employed and paid by suppliers, not brands. So it’s the manufacturers paying textile workers wages. Brands pay prices for the products they buy from their supply chain partners. That means that the whole narrative around this topic is misleading.
Source:
🔹Modern slavery legislation and the limits of ethical fashion
Greenwashing
Our issues on the topic:
From China to the UK: How greenwashing is regulated legally across the globe
Cutting the BS on eco-friendly, non-toxic, and biodegradable
Myth 17: Greenwashing is easy to spot.
Some claims are pretty obviously not true. But in many cases, greenwashing can be difficult to spot. A new paper published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology found that “consumers can successfully draw on their ability to distinguish the three product categories, however, they best identified greenwashing when they were primed to look for it. When not suspecting any potential for greenwashing, most consumers fell for it.” That might be because there are different forms of greenwashing and different kinds of claims. For example:
Vague claims: They make up a big part of green claims and use wordings that don’t have a legal definition. That makes them hard to pin down and rather meaningless. Because they create an impression of environmentally friendly behavior without actually supporting change.
Misleading claims: A claim that is considered misleading will depend on the circumstances of each case. What misleads one group of consumers may not necessarily mislead others. A claim can be misleading even if it is partly true.
Irrelevant claims: Irrelevance is a little trickier to notice. They are backed up by evidence and tell the truth to some extent but they are unimportant for the environmental performance of a product. Claims are also irrelevant when they are true but unhelpful to consumers trying to find environmentally preferable products.
Sources:
Materials
Our issues on the topic:
Myth 18: Certain materials are more “sustainable” than others.
Our industry is always on the hunt for the “most sustainable” material. However, clear evidence and a look at the entire life cycle of materials are oftentimes missing in the considerations. Measuring the real-life impacts materials have on people, nature, and animals (every step of the way) is very difficult. Why? Because we can only measure so much and the quality of data varies greatly. Social components of growing or making materials have to be considered as well, not just numbers around water use and CO2 emissions.
Source:
🔹Sustainability trends and gaps in the textile, apparel and fashion industries
Myth 19: If a material uses less water than another material, it’s more sustainable.
Nope! This practice of comparing single-impact categories (such as water consumption, CO2 emissions, or land use) has led to a lot of greenwashing. These numbers and explanations are usually based on Life Cycle Assessments (LCA). Brands use LCAs to investigate the potential environmental impacts of different stages of their product and identify hotspots in a product’s life cycle. In the past, LCAs have been used to compare aspects or materials that are not supposed to be compared – for example, synthetic fibers and natural fibers. Because they have completely different scopes of data as they derive from entirely different sources and are produced using different processes. Another problem with using LCAs in this way lies in the limited scope LCAs can give. They rarely incorporate social dimensions which play an essential role in the sustainability of materials. Plus, LCAs can be done using different life cycles, meaning not all LCAs take the end-of-life stage into account (but it matters greatly for a textile’s impact if it can be reused, recycled, or ends up in a landfill). So to prevent a skewed result, LCAs should not be used to compare different materials groups and should not be used to claim “better” sustainability properties based on single impact categories such as water usage.
Sources:
🔹Understand LCAs in more detail.
🔹Learn how to communicate LCAs and their results.
Myth 20: Plant-based materials are always better.
Let’s talk about generalization because this myth and the next one are perfect examples of how generalization can lead to misinformation. First up: No, plant-based materials are not always better. To understand the impacts a certain type of material has, we need to know and understand how materials are processed, dyed, and finished. Plant-based materials might make it sound like no toxic chemicals were used in the process. But depending on what happens to the plant-based fiber when it’s spun into yarn, woven into a fabric, and turned into a piece of clothing, this does not have to be true.
Source:
Myth 21: We can switch away entirely from synthetic materials.
Synthetic materials are highly complex and currently make up the biggest chunk of materials on the market (according to Textile Exchange synthetic fibers and materials make up 64% of the the volume of all fibers and materials produced globally across sectors, including fashion, apparel, and textiles, as well as other sectors such as healthcare and automotive). Their production and use come with a long list of negative consequences. They are made from fossil fuels (crude oil), release microfiber, take a very long time to decompose, can be hard to recycle, and can create long-term pollution if they end up in landfills. We’re only beginning to understand their negative impact on our health. So, the need to find better alternatives is understandable. But synthetic materials also can have properties and functions that many wearers don’t want to miss (such as keeping clothing well in shape or protecting from rain) and that are not easily replaced by natural materials.
Stopping to invest in fossil fuel extraction on the other hand is a realistic and viable option!
Sources:
🔹 Material Market Report, Textile Exchange, December 2023
🔹 The Future of Synthetics, Textile Exchange, April 2024
🔹 Synthetics Anonymous 2.0: Fashion’s Persisting Plastic Problem, Changing Markets Foundation, December 2022
Myth 22: Only synthetic fibers such as polyester are shedding.
Nope! Also, materials such as cotton are shedding microfiber. A test conducted by PLOS ONE showed the following results: “Mechanically-treated polyester samples, dominated by fleeces and jerseys, released six times more microfibers (161 ± 173 mg kg-1 per wash) than nylon samples with woven construction and filamentous yarns (27 ± 14 mg kg-1 per wash) did. (…) Interestingly, cotton and wool textiles also shed large amounts of microfibers (165 ± 44 mg kg-1 per wash). The similarity between the average width of textile fibers here (12.4 ± 4.5 μm) and those found in ocean samples provides support for the notion that home laundry is an important source of microfiber pollution.” Further studies are needed to understand the full scope of negative impacts fiber shedding has on the environment and aquatic life – whether the shedding comes from cotton or polyester.
Source:
Myth 23: Farmers can make a better living from organic cotton
In most parts of the world, the extraction of natural resources for fiber production like cotton and hemp is set up in unequal systems within small-scale farming. Most farmers are self-employed and do not receive a salary, they earn their income by selling their harvest. Prices for raw materials are mostly based on so-called global minimum prices per weight, which like minimum salaries do not equal a fair income or a living income. And this also applies to organically certified crops and crops where a Fairtrade premium is paid!
But luckily there are exceptions such as farmers portrayed in the “Stories from the ground” by Cotton Diaries & A Growing Culture. Their resources introduce promising community-powered solutions in Brazil, Benin and India where farmers have successfully transitioned to organic cotton AND earn a feasible living through their harvest. So this one can be true if farmers are supported in the transition stage from conventional to organic agriculture (where many experience losses in harvest and money) and fair prices are paid for organically grown cotton.
Sources:
🔹 “Stories from the ground”, Cotton Diaries & A Growing Culture, 2024
🔹 Cotton: A Case Study in Misinformation, Transformer Foundation, 2021
Myth 24: Polyester is more sustainable than cotton because it has a lower CO2 footprint.
Comparing different materials across single impact categories should not be done because it leads to skewed results. That is because the production process, resources, social factors and end-of-life handling are inherently different for different materials. Let’s look at polyester and cotton. Polyester is typically derived from petrochemicals, involving processes like polymerization and extrusion, which have distinct environmental impacts compared to the agricultural processes involved in growing cotton. Cotton cultivation requires land, water, pesticides, and fertilizers, each with its own environmental footprint. So comparing these two (especially based on single impact categories!) does not make sense.
Source:
Myth 25: Wool is bad for the environment because of methane emissions from sheep.
We challenge the misconception that sheep wool is inherently unsustainable due to methane emissions. It emphasizes that wool is a natural and renewable fiber, unlike synthetic alternatives, and is biodegradable, avoiding the issue of microplastic pollution. While sheep do produce methane through digestion, this methane is considered part of a natural carbon cycle, sourced from the grass they consume, which captures carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. When managed with improved farming practices like rotational grazing and regenerative agriculture, sheep farming can contribute to a balanced carbon footprint, showcasing wool as a viable natural material choice.
Source:
🔹 Wool's environmental impact: What you need to know, Carbonfact
Myth 26: Tencel (Lyocell) is a natural fibre.
Tencel™ Lyocell is a man-made fiber produced by the Austrian company Lenzing Fibers. The raw material for Lyocell is natural, wood pulp, but the processing is chemically. Tencel is the trademarked brand name used by the company for a material that is otherwise known as Lyocell or Modal, a.o.
Source:
🔹 About TENCEL™ fibers, Lenzing
Myth 27: Clothes from natural fibers are biodegradable.
Just because a shirt is made out of cotton or a suit is made entirely out of wool, doesn’t automatically make those garments biodegradable. Yes, they break down fast but biodegradability doesn’t just come down to the fiber used. It also comes down to the dyes and finishes of the product. Are they biodegradable? Many dyes and finishes used in the textile industry contain harmful chemicals that can leach into the environment during production, use, and disposal. These chemicals can contaminate waterways, soil, and air, posing risks to ecosystems and human health. AND big questions about the motivation behind biodegradability remain: Why do we want to biodegrade clothes? Is it just because we want to keep consuming at the same rate and look for a way to let the waste disappear? What benefit does our ecosystem have from biodegradable clothes? Do the clothes give nutrients back to the soil?
Source:
🔹 Biodegradable Textiles, Recycling, and Sustainability Achievement, Reem M Nofal, August 2022
Myth 28: Bio-based synthetics are free from fossil fuels.
While bio-based synthetics are mostly derived from renewable resources like plants, they often require fossil fuels in their production processes, such as energy for cultivation, processing, and transportation. Textile Exchange published an entire report on the subject, in which they also explained the production processes: “While the steps from the conversion of biomass up to the production of intermediary chemicals differs for biosynthetics compared to fossil-based synthetics, the remaining steps of the supply chain can be the same as for fossil-based synthetics.”
Source:
🔹 The Sustainability of Biosynthetics, Textile Exchange, 2022
Myth 29: Cotton is a thirsty crop.
This claim has been around for ages. Brands and media outlets still use it in their communication. But it’s not true! With one-third of all irrigated crops grown in regions with high water demand, blame for unsustainable water management should NOT be placed on a single crop or a specific subset of farmers. One-third of all irrigated crops face extremely high water stress. Water stress and scarcity is a serious problem for the planet, but taking the term "thirsty" and using it in isolation is misleading for several reasons:
1. Cotton is "a drought- and heat-tolerant crop well suited to climates with low rainfall."
2. Cotton is not one of the largest users of irrigation water (blue water) in the world compared to other crops. It uses less irrigation water per acre than rice, wheat, corn, soybeans, and many vegetables.
3. The claim that cotton is water-addicted is used out of context to portray cotton farming as an inherently unsustainable user of water. This is false, as many water-scarce regions are working to manage their agricultural sectors with an urgent need for improved water management. In fact, this data is misused and abused in non-scientific ways. This is also characterized as problem shifting.
Sources:
🔹 Cotton: A Case Study in Misinformation, Transformer Foundation, 2021
🔹 Simulating impacts of climate change on cotton yield and water requirement using RZWQM2
Myth 30: Natural materials are always plastic-free.
Natural materials like cotton and wool don’t derive from fossil fuels. However, it depends on the processing, dyeing, and finishing of whether natural materials can contain plastics (for example a Polyurethane or PU coating for water resistance or durability). And not to forget: Certain natural fibers, like bamboo and rayon, are derived from cellulose but can involve synthetic processing methods that introduce plastic-based inputs.
Sources:
🔹 The improved breathability of polyurethane coated cotton fabric via micro-cracking, The Journal of The Textile Institute, February 2017
🔹 Production of natural bamboo fibers-1: experimental approaches to different processes and analyses, The Journal of The Textile Institute, June 2018
Myth 31: Recycled polyester from PET bottles is great.
Most recycled polyester today comes from PET bottles. But this is a false solution and not as sustainable as fashion brands market it. The Changing Markets Foundation explained the issue well: “Once turned into clothing the plastic CANNOT be recycled further and will instead be thrown away. This means clothes are on a one-way route to landfill, incineration, or being dumped in nature.(…) Turning plastic bottles into clothes removes them from circular recycling loops where they can be made into new bottles again. (…) Recycled plastic going into synthetics does NOTHING to help stop the wider problem of microplastics.”
Source:
Myth 32: Ocean plastic comes from the ocean.
Several aspects are speaking against it! Firstly, we’d like to quote the Plastic Pollution Committee: “We know we can’t clean up the problem if we don’t first turn off the tap.” The positive effect of collecting plastic from the ocean (and turning into a resource/product) vanishes in a millisecond when we don’t solve the origin of the problem. Just a reminder: Scientists estimate at least nine to 14 million metric tons of plastic enter the oceans every year. Secondly, in most cases the story of “Our plastic comes from the ocean” or “Ocean-Bound Plastic” doesn’t hold up. Per definition, Ocean plastic can originate from various sources, including coastal littering, rivers, and land-based activities. It does not always come directly from the ocean. To truly combat ocean plastic, efforts should focus on waste prevention, proper disposal, and cleanup initiatives.
Source:
Myth 33: Growing cotton does not involve child labor.
While some organic cotton certification standards prohibit the use of child labor, enforcement and monitoring can be challenging, especially in regions with weak labor regulations and enforcement mechanisms. According to ILO’s 2021 report, “The latest global estimates indicate that 160 million children – 63 million girls and 97 million boys – were in child labour globally at the beginning of 2020, accounting for almost 1 in 10 of all children worldwide.” Most of them (70%) work in the agricultural sector – which cotton belongs to! “Cotton is one of the most common commodities produced with child labour and forced labour in at least 18 countries.”
From 2018 and 2023 the CLEAR Cotton project supported the elimination of child labour and forced labour in the cotton, textile and garment value chains in target producing countries (Burkina Faso, Mali, Pakistan, and Peru). It was co-funded by the European Union (EU) and the International Labour Organization (ILO). The ILO implemented it in collaboration with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). If you want to dive deeper into the matter, the ILO published Impact reports from all project countries (linked below.)
Sources:
🔹 “Child Labour: Global estimates 2020, trends and the road forward”, International Labour Organization (ILO), June 2021
🔹 ”Are the clothes you are wearing free from child labour?”, European Commission
🔹 “CLEAR Cotton: Eliminating child labour and forced labour in the cotton, textile and garment value chains: an integrated approach”, International Labour Organization (ILO)
🔹 ”CLEAR Cotton, Factsheet”, International Labour Organization
🔹 “Results of the CLEAR Cotton project in Peru”, International Labour Organization, February 2023
🔹 ”Results of the CLEAR Cotton project in Pakistan”, International Labour Organization
🔹 ”Results of the CLEAR Cotton project in Mali”, International Labour Organization
🔹 ”Results of the CLEAR Cotton project in Burkina Faso”, International Labour Organization
Myth 34: Vegan leather is eco-friendly.
First up, eco-friendly is misleading in this example because it’s not a legally binding definition. So “eco-friendly” can mean anything and nothing. When looking at the subject of vegan leather we can say that the matter is far from black and white. While vegan leather does not involve animal cruelty, it is usually made from fossil fuel-based materials like PVC and PU. These materials have their own environmental drawbacks such as petroleum dependency and limited biodegradability. So it’s not a simple solution to a (what else could it be) complex topic.
Keep in mind: There are a lot of chemicals used in leather processing as well and some leathers have PU coatings, too.
Source:
🔹 Vegan leather: a sustainable reality or a marketing gimmick?
Myth 35: Conventional wool uses mulesing.
Mulesing is primarily practiced in Australia on Merino sheep in which large skin folds are cut off sheep’s buttocks with shears and without anesthesia. The practice is heavily criticized due to animal welfare concerns but has been prevalent in Australia's wool industry. According to the animal-rights organization FOUR PAWS: “80% of fine merino wool for the global apparel market is produced in Australia. The vast majority (~86%) of Australian wool is mulesed wool”. While the majority of merino wool sourced from Australia involves mulesing, wool from other parts of the world doesn’t necessarily involve this practice. Why? Because mulesing is used to control flystrike. This infestation by parasitic flies causes severe pain, inflammation and – when untreated – death. Flies lay eggs in the sheep’s skin folds. Here the hatched maggots eat the sheep’s tissue. Pain-free alternatives exist: Animal protection groups are calling on producers to raise sheep that are more resistant to flystrike, animals who are wrinkle-free, and ideally have not hair around their butts.
So conventional wool doesn’t equal mulesed wool. It depends on the origin of the wool and the practices employed. However, there is a risk of mulesed wool being mixed with other wool at the later stages of garment production.
Sources:
🔹 “Four Paws Investiges Mulesed-Wool in Global Sportswer”, FOUR PAWS, 2022
🔹 Frequently Asked Questions On Live Lamg Cutting (Mulesing), FOUR PAWS, 2024
🔹 “Towards a Non-Mulesed Future”, BG Economics, July 2020
Stats and Figures
Our issues on materials & materiality:
Image Source: © Remake 2024
Myth 36: The fashion industry is the second most polluting industry in the world.
The assumption that fashion is the “second most polluting industry in the world” is still cited but: it’s not true! The fashion industry does have a considerable environmental impact but it is not the second most polluting industry worldwide. This claim has been debunked by various journalists who tried to trace it back to its origin but didn’t find a credible source!
According to a paper published in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, fashion is estimated to be responsible for 9% of global emissions. However, there are other numbers out there, too, starting from 4%.
Sources:
🔹 “Fashion Is Not the 2nd Most Polluting Industry After Oil. But What Is It?”, Alden Wicker, EcoCult, 2022
🔹 “The biggest fake news in fashion”, Vanessa Friedman, The New York Times, 2018
🔹 “The environmental price of fast fashion”, Kirsi Niinimäki, Nature Review, April 2020
Myth 37: It takes 18,000 liters of water to produce one pair of jeans.
For all information around cotton, please read the Case Study by Transformers Foundation linked below. There is a lot of misinformation spread about cotton, like the claim above. The water footprint of jeans varies depending on factors such as the cotton variety, farming practices, processing techniques, and country of production. Generalized numbers like 18.000 liters of water don’t apply to all pairs of jeans produced! They can differ significantly depending on these variables.
Source:
🔹 Cotton: A Case Study in Misinformation, Transformers Foundation, 2021
Myth 38: 25% of the world’s insecticides are used on cotton
There are several variations of this claim out there. Sometimes it’s presented as cotton uses 24% or 25% of all insecticides globally, or 16% to 25% of pesticides, and so on. Using global sales data about pesticides and insecticides is not appropriate, as sales data is not an indicator of actual usage, what types are being used, or conditions of use. Most importantly, global sales data does not capture impact. To understand the impact, we have to know how much is being used, which are being used, and their conditions of use.
Source:
🔹 Cotton: A Case Study in Misinformation, Transformers Foundation, 2021
Transparency
Myth 39: Transparency equals justice.
A common myth is confusing transparency with justice. Knowing about the production chain is important, but it alone does not guarantee that fair working conditions or sustainable practices are implemented. This shows in pretty much all current reports such as the Fashion Accountability Report 2024: “Among the 52 fashion companies we assessed, based on 88 individual metrics measuring traceability of supply chains; wages and wellbeing of workers; commercial practices (how fashion companies treat suppliers); raw materials; environmental justice; and governance (who is making what decisions and how), the average accountability score for an individual fashion company was 14 points, the same as last year. That is pretty dismal when you consider that there are a total of 150 possible points and the climate crisis is upon us.” Transparency is a first step but requires further actions for real social and environmental justice.
Source:
🔹 “Fashion Accountability Report 2024”, ReMake, March 2024
Sustainability
Our issues on the topic:
Myth 40: Sustainable fashion is only about the environment, not social issues.
While the discussion around sustainable fashion oftentimes revolves around environmental sustainability, we strongly disagree with this sentiment. True sustainability considers both environmental and social aspects. Ethical treatment of workers, fair wages, and safe working conditions are integral to sustainable fashion.
That’s because the industry is built on the back of low-wage labor, hazardous working conditions, and environmental destruction, with little regard for the welfare of those who produce the textiles we wear!
Source:
🔹Sustainable fashion: current and future research directions
Myth 41: Luxury fashion is inherently sustainable.
Luxury brands leverage perceived value factors like exceptional quality, innovation, and exclusivity to maintain high prices. However, these high prices don't ensure responsible business practices. Many upscale brands share manufacturing facilities with fast fashion, are relying on synthetic materials, and don’t disclose their production volume. Many luxury brands still rely on resource-intensive production processes, including the use of exotic materials, excessive packaging, and energy-intensive manufacturing methods. Additionally, the luxury sector is not immune to issues such as overproduction, waste, and exploitation of labor in the supply chain. Just recently, Loro Piana, one of the most expensive brands in the world, faced allegations of exploiting indigenous communities in Peru for vicuña wool. It shows that higher prices or luxury branding don’t mean high environmental and social standards are implemented!
Sources:
🔹 “Fashion Transparency Index 2023”, Fashion Revolution
🔹 US Lawmaker Demands LVMH’s Loro Piana Answer for ‘Exploitation’ in Peru, Business of Fashion, March 2023
Myth 42: Fashion brands are becoming sustainable overnight.
Becoming more sustainable is a marathon, not a sprint. That holds especially true when we speak of fundamental and systemic changes and new concepts such as degrowth. Because these changes take time! Plus, the sustainability journey is a process that never really ends. But that’s the exciting part of it as well, right? Continuously finding ways to improve.
Source:
Myth 43: Slow fashion is inherently different to fast fashion.
While slow fashion advocates for ethical and sustainable practices such as fair wages, transparent supply chains, and durable, timeless designs, it is not inherently different from fast fashion in terms of the products it offers and the production, except the lead times (production planning, etc.) is a bit slower. Both slow and fast fashion brands may produce a variety of styles. The distinction lies in their values, finance structure oftentimes and overall approach to sustainability.
Source:
Myth 44: Sustainable fashion is too expensive for the average consumer.
While some brands may have higher price points, there are mid-price options available. High-quality, timeless pieces can often be more cost-effective in the long run. Note: We recognize the classism in fashion, advocating for brands with transparent pricing and mid-price options, while shedding light on profit margin misuse, and emphasizing the cost-effectiveness of durable, timeless pieces.
Source:
🔹 Social, environmental, and economic value in sustainable fashion business models.
Myth 45: Greenwashing regulations make the industry more sustainable.
Greenwashing regulations such as the EU Green Claims Directive focus on deceptive marketing practices that falsely portray products or brands as more environmentally friendly than they actually are. However, they don’t directly make the industry more sustainable as they only focus on the marketing side! They “only” make sure that marketing is not misleading consumers and will help brands stand out who are really finding ways to make fashion with less environmental impact.
Source:
🔹 Environmental regulation and firm product quality improvement: How does the greenwashing response?
Recycling, Second-hand & Take-back schemes
Our issues on the topic:
Myth 46: Buying second-hand solves fashion’s sustainability crisis.
In 2023 a study commissioned by the European textile reuse and recycling industry found that “the environmental impact of reusing textiles is 70 times lower, even when accounting for global exports for reuse including transport emissions.” The second-hand clothing industry also has great estimates: By 2030 it is estimated to be worth USD 84 billion–that's twice the amount the fast fashion market is expected to be worth by then. So it should come as no surprise that businesses are trying to capitalize on this market by opening second-hand marketplaces.
There are two issues on the subject. Firstly, brands might open up second-hand marketplaces and jump on the trend without actually reducing their production volume of new items! Secondly, only 55% of collected textiles (excluding shoes) are suitable for reuse and are traded globally as second-hand clothing. Second-hand products are swamping other parts of the world and impacting local businesses and nature. All other items that are no longer suitable for reuse are recycled wherever possible or end up in nature. So second-hand and reusing are great options. They should be practiced by consumers but buying second-hand does not magically solve all sustainability crises of the industry.
Sources:
🔹 “SECOND HAND – SECOND THOUGHTS? Von Strukturen, Prozessen und Akteuren im globalen Alttextilhandel”, Deutsche Kleiderstiftung, 2023
🔹 “Recycling: Bridging circular economy & climate policy”, Press Release, EuRIC, 2023
Myth 47: Recycling clothes solves fashion’s waste problem.
In theory, recycling clothes into new materials is great but in practice, recycling “solutions” have not scaled yet and face a difficult time. Just recently, Renewcell, one of the most promising solutions for textile-to-textile recycling filed for bankruptcy. The technology of Renewcell can turn old t-shirts and jeans into pulp that can be sent to spinners and weavers to make lyocell or viscose. But the company wasn’t able to raise enough long-term funding to keep going.
Today, less than 1% of our clothes are recycled into new ones. And production volumes are ever-growing. So, the answer is: No! While recycling clothes can reduce waste, it doesn't address the root causes of fashion's waste problem such as overproduction, overconsumption, and rapid trends. Reducing overproduction as well as overconsumption, and rethinking production is essential for real change.
Sources:
🔹 “This fabric recycling company was going to change fashion. Why did it suddenly go bankrupt?”, Fast Company, February 2024
🔹 ”Fashion and the circular economy – deep dive”, Ellen MacArthur Foundation
🔹“Textiles and the environment”, Briefing, European Parliament, 2022
Myth 48: Donated clothes “help” poor people.
If consumers are not reselling their clothes, they oftentimes donate it thinking their clothes might “help” someone. While donating to charities that work directly with people in need, can be an effective use case for clothing, donating to take-back boxes of brands is usually not. In an investigation, the Changing Markets Foundation traced several pieces of clothing with the help of Airtags.
Despite being in good condition, some items were rapidly disposed of through destruction, dumping, or downcycling. (In this case, brands disregard the waste hierarchy.) Other items were given a second life either through second-hand shops or local customers on the same continent. But some of the items made their way to Ukraine for resale. Although the potential for these items to find new owners is hopeful, the used clothing trade in Ukraine is adding to the challenges the country is facing at the moment. Numerous items got caught in the worldwide used clothing trade, staying in uncertain spots, warehouses, or even at their initial drop-off point for extended periods. That’s where take-back programs are falling short of brands' proclaimed objectives. While customers expect their donated clothes to be repurposed or recycled immediately, the reality is that these items have remained in European warehouses for as long as a year. Many of the items were sent to African countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mauritania, and Mali where they entered large second-hand markets in lower-income countries, with negative effects for health and the environment. The consequence: A significant portion ended up in landfills or was incinerated.
There are so many more layers to this kind of thinking and argument. It’s too much to cover here but we are aware of colonialism and classism connected to this topic.
Sources:
Myth 49: Brands make new clothes out of clothes dropped in their take-back boxes.
Consumers oftentimes drop their clothes in take-back boxes, thinking they would be either donated to people in need (see above) or recycled into new garments. But it could not be further from the truth. Although there are a couple of fashion brands who have started a truthful journey in that direction. There is less than 1 % of textile-to-textile recycling (data from EllenMcArthur Foundation from 2017). For more information of what brands do with donated clothes, please refer to myth 48.
Sources:
🔹 “Take-Back Trickery: An investigation into clothing take-back schemes”, Changing Markets Foundation, 2023
🔹“Textiles and the environment”, Briefing, European Parliament, 2022
Zero Waste
Myth 50: Brands working with deadstock fabric are zero-waste brands
Fashion brands using deadstock fabrics aren't automatically considered zero-waste because the term "zero-waste" encompasses more than just the use of leftover fabric. Incorporating deadstock fabrics (if it’s really deadstock fabric and not just sold as such) helps repurpose existing resources but true zero-waste practices involve minimizing waste at every stage of the production process. That includes design, manufacturing, and packaging. Especially in the fabric-cutting stage, where approximately 15 % of fabric is lost. That’s why the design stage is so important for the zero-waste principle. Here lies the chance to develop unique ways of cutting and using fabric. But zero-waste might also mean optimizing patterns to reduce fabric waste. While deadstock usage is a positive step towards sustainability, it's just one aspect of a comprehensive zero-waste approach to fashion production.
Sources:
🔹 Is There a Zero Waste In a Fashion Design?, Aija Freimane, January 2022
🔹 ”Zero Waste Fashion Design”, Book by Timo Rissanen and Holly McQuillan, November 2023
Phew, if you’ve made it here, congratulations! We hope this issue was helpful and will be helpful to you in the future. If you liked it and learned something new, we’d love to hear from you. That seriously would make our day! We’ll be back next week with a new issue: This time about Business Saviorism.
Best,
Tanita & Lavinia
🔹 Learned something in this issue? Share The Crisps with your friends and colleagues.
🔹 Like our content? Support our work with a paid subscription.
🔹 Got feedback or topics we should cover? Send us an email to thecrisps@substack.com
Brilliant, well-researched and necessary context on the sustainababble of the fashion industry, paired with solid guidance on where to look for grounded context to get past these persistent myths.