During a meeting earlier this year with a team from the European Commission Executive Vice-President for the European Green Deal, Frans Timmermans’ office, the authors of this new paper were asked to supply more background on the Targeted Producer Responsibility they presented.
As the first step in supplying more research-based data and knowledge, the paper entitled “Critical review of Product Environmental Footprint (PEF): Why PEF currently favors synthetic textiles (plastics)” and therefore also fast fashion was sent to the meeting-participants and published online. This was, however, only the first of three papers promised. The second, “Research input for policy development based on understanding of clothing consumption“, a research briefing, goes into the research behind the proposal. It is now sent to the meeting participants and is therefore also made publicly available.
For this research briefing, additional researchers who are not part of the Wasted Textiles project were engaged, and who have also recently been recruited to roles at SIFO: Kate Fletcher and Irene Maldini. Authors from Wasted Textiles are Lisbeth Løvbak Berg (SIFO, OsloMet), Tone Skårdal Tobiasson (NICE Fashion/UCRF), Jens Måge (Norwegian Waste Management and Recycling Association). Kerli Kant Hvass (Revaluate/Aalborg University); and of course, the main author Ingun Grimstad Klepp.
This briefing paper builds on research and evidence from SIFO’s 75 years of consumer research on clothing and the ongoing projects CHANGE, Lasting as well as the mentioned Wasted Textiles, addressing the problem of overproduction of textiles. It draws attention to the importance of incorporating the latest consumer research in the design of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) – or rather our suggestion TPR – and other textile policies currently being developed in the EU. It is written by a diverse group of academics and practitioners who are seeking to support change in the sector.
The briefing puts forward that the authors see a trend in various policy discussions and documents based on the belief that making garments more durable, will reduce the quantity of clothing produced. Scientific research does not provide evidence for this, which is exactly what this briefing aims to show. The briefing is, however, not only a criticism of the lack of research-based policy tools. The authors also offer suggestions on how to make these tools effective in the challenge that lies ahead of us: Making fast fashion out of fashion.
This week saw the publication of a critical background paper on concerns surrounding the Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules for Apparel and Footwear from a consortium representing the collaborative international research project Wasted Textiles at Consumption Research Norway SIFO at Oslo Metropolitan University.
The consortium were asked to supply more background information to the EU Commission after a knowledge sharing meeting January 25 hosted by Vice President Timmermans cabinet members and other EU officials from both DG Grow and DG Environment involved in the execution of the EU Textiles strategy, the revision of the Waste Framework Directive, and other Green Deal related policies.
As the first step in supplying more research-based data and knowledge, the paper entitled CRITICAL REVIEW OF PRODUCT ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT (PEF): WHY PEF CURRENTLY FAVORS SYNTHETIC TEXTILES (PLASTICS) AND THEREFORE ALSO FAST FASHION was sent to the meeting-participants this week, and the authors have decided to make the paper publicly available through the Clothing Research website, and can be accessed at the bottom of this page.
During the meeting, which was mainly about Extended Producer Responsibility, Professor in Clothing and Sustainability at Consumption Research Norway SIFO at Oslo Metropolitan University, Ingun Grimstad Klepp, brought up concerns surrounding PEF and PEFCR that could be addressed with the right policy measures to ensure better data collection for the use- and end-of-use phase. These concerns are based on research from three longitudinal research projects at SIFO (Wasted Textiles, CHANGE and Lasting), under the auspices of the Clothing Research umbrella. This research was what led to the meeting with several EU officials, who were all genuinely interested in how academic research can contribute to better policy measures.
Four of the authors, from left to right: Jens Måge, Ingun Grimstad Klepp, Tone Skårdal Tobiasson and Kerli Kant Hvass.
This paper is the first in a series of three that will be delivered to the participants of the meeting and will be made available on this website, related to EU’s textile strategy. The research consortium behind the critical papers, welcome EU’s ambitious strategy for apparel and footwear; however, the same research consortium sees that unless one takes a holistic view which includes the use and disposal of products, with a view from what actually ends up in the waste and how quickly – true sustainability-measures are in danger of supplying misleading information. By capturing this research and making it available, it is possible to spur policy measures that address the issue of over-production head on.
In conclusion, the paper states: “In essence, one can therefore say that PEFCR for clothing favors plastic due to a lack of political decisiveness on how to measure natural versus synthetic materials, together with giving the FF (fast fashion) industry power in the development of PEFCR and choice of underlying data. Fast fashion will remain in fashion if those who have the most to gain from it are making the rules.” The first critical paper is authored by Ingun Grimstad Klepp, Kirsi Laitala, Lisbeth Løvbak Berg (all SIFO, OsloMet), Tone Skårdal Tobiasson (NICE Fashion/UCRF), Jens Måge (Norwegian Waste Management and Recycling Association) and Kerli Kant Hvass (Revaluate/Aalborg University).
The SIFO Clothing Research team who are all co-authors: Kirsi Laitala, Lisbeth Løvbak Berg and Ingun Grimstad Klepp.
Two articles from Clothing Research at Consumption Research Norway have been accepted by the journal Fibers and are accessible online. The two articles are entitled Reducing plastic: Opportunities and obstacles for coarser wool in consumer goods and Natural and sustainable? Consumers’ textile fiber preferences.
More than half of the team in the Clothing Research group have contributed to these two chapters: Kirsi Laitala, Anna Schytte Sigaard (author on both articles), Lisbeth Løvbak Berg and Ingun Grimstad Klepp – the article on reducing plastics is co-authored with three from the University of Bielsko-Biala. In the first article, findings are presented that show that on a product level, the many inherent properties of wool create opportunities for product development and sustainability improvements, and that using coarser wool represents an opportunity for replacing plastics in many applications. This was done using a SWOT (Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats) analysis of results from a desktop study and interviews with producers of products made from wool, as well as policy documents relating to wool, waste, textiles, and plastic.
The second article looks at synthetic vs. natural fibers, consumer preferences, their view on sustainability and more importantly, consumers’ willingness to degrow their consumption. Interestingly, not only do Norwegian consumers prefer wool, they also believe that wool is the most sustainable choice of fiber, with polyester being the least. This is the exact opposite of what today’s most common measuring tool, the Higg Material Sustainability Index, tells us.
A snap-shot from the Higg MSI ranking of fibers, the higher the number, the less sustainable.
This article also offers proof that perceptions of high sustainability regarding fibers are negatively correlated with reduced consumption: “Our study suggests that a continued focus on material substitution and other technological measures for reducing climate change will impede the move toward sustainability in the textile sector.” The article raises the very pertinent question of how the perspectives of techno- and eco-centrism impact Norwegian consumers’ fiber preferences and perceptions, and how does this, in turn, affect their clothing consumption?
Technocentric or eco-centric?
On the one hand, green growth aims to de-couple growth in the textile industry from a reliance on virgin materials by keeping already-produced materials in circulation for as long as possible. In contrast to this technocentric perspective, the eco-centric degrowth narrative holds at its core ideas such as scarcity, reduced consumption, and lifestyle sacrifices at a time of shrinking resources for the Global North. “The eco-centric approach does not disregard technology but holds that we cannot rely solely on new and better technology. Instead, it focuses primarily on behavior change and argues that a paradigm shift is necessary to transform conventional fashion production and consumption.”
The respondents showed a high preference for natural fibers, especially wool, which was preferred by 72% of them, followed by cotton (63%), alpaca (38%), organic cotton (34%), linen (30%), silk (23%), bamboo viscose (22%), viscose (10%), and, finally, synthetics at the bottom of the scale, with polyester being preferred by only two percent, followed by recycled polyester (2%) and acrylic (1%). All the natural fibers were more popular than the manmade ones, and out of the manmade fibers, the synthetics were least popular, even recycled polyester. Almost half of the respondents said that they avoided polyester (47%) and acrylic (46%), and 35% avoided even recycled polyester.
Rebound effect?
Fiber preference was positively correlated with reduced clothing consumption, so that those who preferred more natural fibers had reduced their clothing consumption more than those who preferred synthetic fibers, which is interesting. This fits with the eco-centric perspective of degrowth and reduced consumption. However, it seems that believing that a fiber is sustainable, negatively affects consumption reduction. An explanation for this could be that if the fibers used to produce clothing are considered sustainable, reducing consumption is not necessary, which gives a rebound effect that could be seen as counter-productive, from an eco-centric perspective.
Therefore, consumers’ willingness to reduce consumption is important and may be weakened if the focus continues to be on fibers and materials, instead of reduced production and consumption. Read the article here (mdpi.com).
The wool-related article, does, to a certain degree, focus on the raw materials, and replacing one raw material (synthetic) with a natural fiber. To investigate the use of coarse wool, mainly from Polish sheep, product groups that do not require the softness of Merino wool were examined. Many of these products are currently made of plastic, mostly in the form of synthetic fibers. In addition, many of them are single-use, such as sanitary products and plant pots, but also sound-absorbing acoustic panels. The study found that making this switch, is dependent on local infrastructure and working small-scale enterprises. A shift to small-scale and local resource utilization requires systemic change on several levels: Here the findings show that policy can incentivize material usage transitions, but that these tools are little employed currently.
Burial urns in felted wool from a Danish company.
As synthetic textiles are an important, but often forgotten part of the increasing plastic waste problem, this article contributes to lift up innovative ideas to reduce our reliance on fossil-based materials. These textiles contain environmental toxins added during the processing of fiber and fabric, and through microfiber shedding synthetic textiles contribute up to 35% of the released microplastics which have been shown to end up in our lungs, oceans, animals, and even placentas.
SWOT analysis
A common factor is a focus on wool utilization as a waste management process and in non-textile products, rather than using the material in high-value textile products. The different aspects related to the coarse wool, were first placed in the SWOT table, then grouped into themes: Properties and product performance, Price and availability, Sustainability, and Regulations and policy. As common in SWOT analysis, one aspect can be both a positive and a negative aspect, e.g., coarser wool being more labor-intensive to use means that it creates more jobs, but at the same time it makes it more costly, as will be examined in the following.
The findings were divided into internal factors, which define the strengths and weaknesses of the internal environment, in this case, the material itself and its value chain directly, and external factors, defining opportunities and threats, that are determined by the external environment operated in, i.e., the overall market and competition. Efforts to utilize and valorize surplus, coarser wool, range from creating wool powders and keratin, fertilizers, substrates for biogas production, regenerating fibers from waste keratin, slug-repelling wool pellets, insulation, water purification to bio-composites.
The lack of focus on surplus wool
As a by-product, the wool to some extent becomes invisible in that the wool is mainly disposed of on the farms directly and therefore does not enter into any formal waste management system. When the EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles does not even mention local wool – or the possibilities that wool and other local EU fibers hold – but discusses local solutions solely as future potential recycling plants, this can be challenged through the results shown in this article. In order to replace more plastic with wool, different types of wool need to be used where they are best suited. This also raises the question of how much under-utilized or surplus wool is actually out there?
In addition, using the coarse wool represents an opportunity to replace particularly problematic plastic products. The study found that several of the examined products are today mainly made of plastic, including the products where plastic cannot be recycled and therefore represent a waste problem. It is unlikely that all such plastic can be replaced by wool, but it is nevertheless important to develop alternatives and at the same time exploit available natural materials: “It is important to remember that the extensive use of plastic is relatively new in human history and that a range of solutions existed before these products invaded the market.”
Lisbeth Løvbak Berg, Ingun Grimstad Klepp, Anna Schytte Sigaard, Jan Broda, Monika Rom and Katarzyna Kobiela-Mendrek.
Abstract
Production and use of plastic products have drastically increased during the past decades and their environmental impacts are increasingly spotlighted. At the same time, coarse wool, a by-product of meat and dairy production, goes largely unexploited in the EU. This paper asks why more coarse wool is not used in consumer goods, such as acoustic and sound-absorbing products, garden products, and sanitary products. This is answered through a SWOT analysis of results from a desktop study and interviews with producers of these products made from wool, as well as policy documents relating to wool, waste, textiles, and plastic. Findings show that on a product level, the many inherent properties of wool create opportunities for product development and sustainability improvements and that using the coarser wool represents an opportunity for replacing plastics in many applications as well as for innovation. This is, however, dependent on local infrastructure and small-scale enterprises, but as such, it creates opportunities for local value chains, value creation, and safeguarding of local heritage. The shift to small-scale and local resource utilization requires systemic change on several levels: Here the findings show that policy can incentivize material usage transitions, but that these tools are little employed currently.
Textile fibers have become a major issue in the debate on sustainable fashion and clothing consumption. While consumers are encouraged to choose more sustainable and circular textile materials, studies have indicated that a reduction in production and consumption has the greatest potential to reduce the total environmental impact. This can be considered an ecocentric perspective with a focus on degrowth as opposed to a technocentric view where new technologies are expected to solve environmental problems while economic growth continues. Based on a survey in Norway (N = 1284), we investigate how the techno- and ecocentric perspectives impact Norwegian consumers’ fiber preferences and perceptions and the corresponding effects on their clothing consumption. We found that the majority of consumers preferred natural fibers compared to synthetic materials. This contradicts current market practices and the recommendations by material sustainability comparison tools such as the Higg Material Sustainability Index (MSI), where many synthetics receive better ratings than natural fibers. We also found that perceptions of high sustainability regarding fibers were negatively correlated with reduced consumption. Our study suggests that a continued focus on material substitution and other technological measures for reducing climate change will impede the move toward sustainability in the textile sector.
March 14th, 2023, 10 am to 12 noon. Athene 1 (auditorium), Pilestredet 46, OsloMet.
PhD Candidate Anna Schytte Sigaard will present preliminary findings based on data collection from 28 Norwegian households in three areas of Norway: Oslo, Vestfold and Salten. This is part of her PhD Want Not, Waste Not: A wardrobe study approach to minimizing textile waste from Norwegian households.
Each household collected textile items that they would have otherwise discarded during a period of 6 months. They participated in a start-up interview at the beginning of the collection period and two interviews about the collected textiles after 3 and 6 months. All textiles (more than 3000 pieces) were brought to SIFO for analysis where they have been registered according to different physical properties and the story for each textile, from acquisition to disposal, has been recorded.
The findings will grant insights into consumption of clothing and other textiles from households in Norway.
A more detailed agenda will be shared closer to the event date.
Snacks and coffee/tea will be provided.
Location: Athene 1 (auditorium), Pilestredet 46, 0170 Oslo
If you are interested in joining in person, please contact Anna Schytte Sigaard. email: annasiga@oslomet.no
For LCA-based tools and category rules, there is a central idea of a “functional unit”. How this will function in the ongoing work with EU’s PEFCR (Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules), is based on the number of days of “usability”.
A “functional unit” is most often described for paint. It is not the liter of paint that has an environmental impact to be reconned with, it is, however, a painted wall one year that is the “functional unit”. With a “good” paint as opposed to a “less good” paint you can paint less often and therefore you need less. The functional unit, is what the paint is supposed to do, keep the walls protected and good looking for a certain period of time. This is at the very core of a life cycle assessment. It defines what the environmental footprint is. So far so good. Let’s then move on to apparel.
What is the ‘functional unit’ of a winter coat, or a pair of boots? The ‘functional unit’ is a central concept for lifecyle assessment (LCA) based tools. In the ongoing work on the European Union’s (EU) PEFCR (Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules), this is based on the number of days of ‘usability’.
Let’s explore what this means. A ‘functional unit’ is perhaps most easily explained in terms of paint, in terms of how long a certain paint will keep the walls protected and good looking, but how does that translate to apparel?
The EU has decided that the functional unit for a winter coat – or a pair of boots – is 100 days of use. This is the expected usability (functional unit) you can expect to gain from a product before it needs replacing or repairing. So far, so good.
The CHANGE masterclass seminar held at the Royal Danish Academy in Copenhagen September 30th 2022 hosted another interesting occasion. This was the launch of KLOTHING – Centre for Apparel, Textiles & Ecology Research. The first Danish research center on fashion, textiles and sustainability lead by me, Associate Professor, PhD, Else Skjold, who has been central in developing the wardrobe method since the beginning of my PhD study (Skjold, 2014).
Text: Else Skjold/KLOTHING
In CHANGE, I am responsible for the WP5 regarding the continuous recruiting of junior- and senior researchers for further development and consolidation of wardrobe research, and dissemination of new knowledge to both research, industry, and policy makers. With the newly established centre, wardrobe research will have a strong outpost and knowledge hub in Scandinavia to support and strengthen the WP5, the work being conducted at SIFO in Oslo, and the broadening out of wardrobe research altogether.
The name is a result of the dialogue between myself and professor, PhD Kate Fletcher, who is also part of the CHANGE project, and currently affiliated with the Royal Danish Academy (among others). With the title KLOTHING, the centre is rooted in a Scandinavian context, since the spelling of clothing with a “K” stems from Norse language. The title thereby suggests how research departing from exactly Denmark and Scandinavia might contribute to effecting a CHANGE. Therefore, the founding pillars of the centre are focusing on the core value of the Scandinavian welfare states that everyone should have equal opportunity, which is mirrored in the Scandinavian traditions for user-inclusive and collaborative design that was developed throughout the 20th Century.
The center is placed at the Royal Danish Academy which covers the Design School, the Architect School and the Conservation School. This implicates that the knowledge production of the center has a basis in the three respective areas of research, artistic development work, and practice. This means that the center will produce knowledge in the shape of both academic writing and research-led design development work at the highest artistic level, thereby testing and validating how a circular and sustainable future might appear in physical design artifacts and prototypes.
KLOTHING is affiliated with the Institute of Architecture and Design that represents the full scale from ceramics to clothing and textiles, and to furniture, interior, and architecture. It is thereby embedded in a research- and education environment strongly affected by the iconic Danish Modern Furniture traditions deriving from the 1950’s and 1960’s, and represented by designers such as Børge Mogensen, Kaare Klint, and Finn Juhl. It is particularly in this modernist movement and its functionalist tradition for investigating user-behavior and -needs and the use properties of design objects for various occasions (i.e. storage for clothing etc.), that there is a strong tie to the CHANGE project and its interest in occasions and categories of clothing designed for specific purposes.
An engaged team studying Danish storage systems with historical roots. From left to right: Irene Maldini, Vilde Haugrønning, Liudmila Aliabeva, Anna Sigaard, Kirsi Laitala, Ingrid Haugsrud, Lisbeth Løvbak Berg and Kerli Kant Hvass. Photo: Tone S. Tobiasson.
These traditions for a sensitivity towards use and use properties of design are interpreted in KLOTHING as an important foundation for restoring the fashion- and textiles sectors’ ability to deliver products of high and long-lasting use value. Going back to the aspirations of the welfare state of providing equal opportunityfor everyone, it is obvious that in a current context this will imply a deep sensitivity for various user groups and their needs and aspirations, across gender, race, age and other important parameters that are not recognized in the current fashion system.
It is here that wardrobe research is a key driver for understanding how design creates value in practices of maintenance and use, and in circular services such as resale, rental, re-design, adjustment tailoring and similar. Wardrobe research could be seen as crucial in the years to come, as there is a need for building eco-systems, logistics and new practices for a more circular and sustainable fashion- and textiles sector that is centred on long-time use of resources. Basically, wardrobe research is key because circularity requires skills, practices, understandings, logistics and value systems that are based around use rather than on fashion trends. But the ecosystems political and economic incentives for establishing this do not exist and are complex to build up.
This is why KLOTHING will be tied up to traditions for collaborative design approaches and co-design developed from the 1970’s and onwards in Scandinavia that go well in hand with the cooperative business model represented by large Danish companies such as COOP and Arla. These business models were built on the idea that together we can do more. Typically, they consist of many small enterprises and stakeholders with a shared infrastructure for knowledge-building, know-how and revenue creation. Like a small welfare state within the welfare state. This template for collaborative research means that the center will primarily work action-based and in collaborative settings across sciences and sectors/stakeholders. This work has already started, as KLOTHING is embedded in the politically funded research partnership on circular economy for plastics and textiles affiliated with the Innovation Fund Denmark, TraCE. Here Jesper Richardy is part of the team.
As part of the event-packed day that culminated in the launch of KLOTHING, we also arranged a lunch with NGOs, policy makers, industry organizations and the CHANGE team to discuss issues surrounding the EU’s new textile strategy and greenwashing. Photo: Tone S. Tobiasson.
Ultimately, the ambitions of the CHANGE project of creating an actual impact at more systemic level is also embedded in the ideas behind KLOTHING. This is found in the strong inspiration of the movement propelled by the manifesto of the Nordic Cuisine from 2004. What they basically did was to reject the focus on French cooking tradition that had pushed local produce and culinary practices into almost oblivion. They believed in a much more locally rooted practice that respected natures’ boundaries and seasons. In welfare and balance for both human and non-human species. In elevating local resources and in making them precious through skilled craftmanship at the highest level. All in collaboration between citizens, politicians, researchers, industry, and other stakeholders for the common good.
From the launch. Photo: Johanne Stenstrup
This could seem as a highly protective and inward-looking project. But what happened was that they inspired local craftmanship and resourcefulness – a decentering of what good cuisine was all about – and thereby stimulated tools and supporting philosophy for a more caring and rooted practice together with chefs all around the globe. Just like this movement, KLOTHING seeks to inspire new landscapes of fashion and textiles that are decentered, inclusive and respectful of plural voices and aesthetics, whilst respecting planetary boundaries and principles of biodiversity. This line of thinking was initiated in the master programme that was launched September 2020 at the Royal Danish Academy; Fashion, Clothing & Textiles; New Landscapes for Change.
The hope going forward is to reach out and invite fellow researchers and students from other learning environments, as well as industry partners, policy makers and other stakeholders, in the understanding that no one can make a CHANGE on their own.
We throw away enormous amounts of clothing, and most of it contains polyester and other plastics. We need more knowledge to be able to meet the new EU requirement for separate textile collection by 2025, say researchers.
Text Kjersti Lassen/Consumption Research Norway (SIFO)
After cleaning out your wardrobe, you might be left with a pair of trousers with a huge hole in the knee, a sweater you stopped wearing a long time ago or a dress you never really ended up wearing. Where should you dispose of the clothes you want to get rid of?
In Norway you may put whole garments that are clean and functional for a new user in a container for clothing collection, but what about the damaged clothes?
– There are few other options than throwing them in the residual waste, says PhD candidate holder Anna Schytte Sigaard, part of Consumption Research Norway’s Clothing Research team.
Clothing disposal after 2025
But this will not be an option quite soon. Textiles are prioritized in the EU’s circular economy strategy, and by 2025, separate textile collection will be mandatory, also in Norway.
– In order to find out how this is to be organized, we need to know what types of textiles are actually thrown into the municipal waste or end up in other waste or collection streams, says Sigaard.
She is involved in the research project Wasted Textiles, which studies the fate of all the textiles that go out of use. Why do we throw away clothes, what do we throw away, and what do we choose to keep? What is the condition of the clothing that is thrown away, and how much is made of synthetic materials, i.e. plastic?
Because what will happen to the textiles that are collected? Can they be recycled in some way, so that the materials can be used further?
– Then we first have to find out what the clothes are made of. Material recycling is difficult, and with mixed materials it is almost impossible. The next product is almost always of poorer quality, she says.
Method: Deep dive into our waste
To find answers, the researchers have gone through our textile waste: from municipal waste, from recycling facilities where people themselves deliver clothes as waste and from apparel and textile receiving bins where interior textiles, clothes and shoes are delivered to UFF (Humana People to People) or Fretex (Salvation Army).
SIFO-researchers Lisbeth Løvbak Berg, Anna Schytte Sigaard og Kirsi Laitala are here sifting through the textile waste in a recovery station in order to analyze several things. Photo: Kristiane Rabben, Mepex
– We had to start by developing the picking analysis method, says Sigaard, which they did together with Mepex, a consulting company for waste and recycling. Dressed in protective suits and masks, they went through a total of 3,500 kilos of waste, some of it soiled, smelly and ruined, while other things were as good as new. They have looked at different types of textiles, fiber content and the condition of the garments.
– We found a surprising number of garments with the price label still on them, also at the waste recovery stations. People have thrown away completely new garments.
– Everything from the municipal waste, however, was ruined, as the textiles were mixed with food waste and everything else, and impossible to assess. Clothes in the municipal waste have no use value, she says.
SIFO-professor Ingun Grimstad Klepp heads the Wasted Textiles project, and participated in the sorting and analysis of textile waste. Photo: Lea Gleisberg/Wasted Textiles
Surprised by the amount of plastics
Two-thirds of the textiles examined contained some or mainly synthetic fibers, i.e. non-renewable materials or plastics, depending on how one likes to categorize synthetics. Polyester is the largest category, but acrylic, elastane and nylon were also prevalent.
The rest, a third of the textiles, were natural materials or what we call renewable materials, such as cotton, wool and silk. Or viscose, which is also plant-based and degradable, but has undergone intensive chemical processing.
– We were surprised by the large proportion of plastic, as we included all textiles, and found a lot of bed linen and towels, which are most often made of cotton. Still, there is an inordinate amount synthetic altogether, says Sigaard.
If we had only included clothing, there would have been an even greater proportion of plastic. Over two-thirds of all materials in textiles produced today are synthetic.
There is also reason to believe that the proportion of plastic clothing binned will increase in a few years. There is a constant growth in the production of synthetic textiles, and the clothing bought today will be thrown away in a few years. The clothes we find in the trash today have of course been bought back in time.
Analyzing over 3000 discarded clothing-items
All clothing has a label showing the fiber content. This is required by law. But how precise is this label? Investigations in other countries show that many clothes are mis-labelled and contain a greater proportion of synthetic materials than what is stated on the labels. Does this also apply in Norway?
To test this, the Wasted Textile researchers have borrowed a FabriTell fiber scanner – a small, hand-held machine that uses near-infrared analysis technology to identify the fiber composition in textiles. The researchers scanned a selection of the textiles that had been collected from the 28 households. They chose everything that was labelled as mixed fibers or not marked at all.
The FabriTell fiber scanner. Photo: Tone S. Tobiasson
– We found a lot that was mislabeled. For example, t-shirts or hoodies may be labeled as 100 percent cotton, while the scanner shows that the ribbed edges are mixed with synthetic materials. This is within the law, but gives incorrect information, says Sigaard.
We need to reduce production
All knowledge that emerges in Wasted Textiles can be used in the work to fulfill both policy issues and other incumbent requirements the new textile strategy for circular economy in the EU will spearhead. Denmark will start a separate textile collection system as early as June 2023, and hopefully Norway will follow suit in 2025.
Overproduction of clothing is made possible due to the large amount of polyester and other cheap plastic materials used by the apparel industry. This creates enormous amounts of textile waste that leach microplastics and chemicals. The waste often ends up as waste mountains in the Global South, as we have seen in the media from Chile and Ghana.
– The most important thing is to reduce the amount of waste. For this to happen, all actors in the value-chain must agree, or be forced to do so. As of now, the industry is only concerned with recycling opportunity, not reducing production, says Sigaard. In other words: Business as usual.
Recycled polyester seems to be the industry-favored answer to the current conundrum, the willingness to degrow the sector is not easy to advocate. Photo: Tone S. Tobiasson
