In the recently published report, What Fuels Fashion?, issued by Fashion Revolution, Consumption Research Norway SIFO’s suggestion for a Targeted Producer Responsibility method has received substantial attention alongside the Plastic Elephant report. In addition, the ruling by the Norwegian Consumer Authority against the Higg consumer-facing label also is brought forward.
All in all, What Fuels Fashion? gives much attention to the research from Oslo Metropolitan university, which is an important part of the Wasted Textiles project. What Fuels Fashion? is a single-issue, special edition of Fashion Revolution’s annual Fashion Transparency Index. They have reviewed 250 of the world’s largest fashion brands and retailers and ranked them according to their level of disclosure on climate and energy-related data in their own operations but primarily in their supply chains.
A key finding is that there is hardly any transparency around over-production. “The fashion industry wants to have its cake and eat it too. Most big fashion brands (89%) do not disclose how many clothes they make annually. Alarmingly, nearly half (45%) fail to disclose neither how much they make nor the raw material emissions footprint of what is produced, signalling the industry prioritises resource exploitation whilst avoiding accountability for environmental harms linked to production.”
On page 36 in the report, we can read: “Governments are now cracking down on greenwashing. In addition to investigations into several brands’ environmental claims taking place in the UK and Australia, the Norwegian Consumer Authority ruled the Higg Materials Sustainability Index (Higg MSI) unlawful to support such claims from retailers. These actions, which have resulted in accountability, illustrate why transparency is crucial to enable change. Nonetheless, the need for robust evidence-backed claims remains a persistent issue.”
Furthermore, on page 38, we find this quote: “Already we are seeing that overestimating the importance of garment durability and underestimating the environmental impact of overproduction is shaping the policy landscape. Research by Oslo Met University reveals the “Plastic Elephant in the Room” – which critiques the EU’s Sustainable Textiles Strategy, particularly its focus on durability. The research argues that the most effective way to reduce the fashion industry’s environmental impact is to cut production volumes rather than merely extending product lifespans (and that focusing on durability unintentionally supports synthetic fossil fuel-derived fibres).” Let’s hope someone from DG ENVI and DG GROW actually read this report!
On page 39, the report has a full-fledged explanation of TPR as a viable alternative to EPR (see illustration). Which is good news for the on-going discussion on how we can make fast fashion actually ‘out of fashion’ with regulatory instruments, and halt business as usual. Being taken seriously in such an important report, will hopefully garner further attention to SIFO’s research.
Three days of multidisciplinary perspectives to overcome our society’s obsession with economic growth, sounds like a good way to round out the month of June? Obviously…
Consumption Research’s Irene Maldini took the trip to Spain to talk about durability’s role in our obsession with growing the textile sector, perhaps one of the sectors that really needs the opposite, or?
June 19th-21st 1200 academics, activists, and civil society organizations came together at the ESEE/Degrowth conference in Pontevedra, Spain to discuss the urgency, barriers and levers to enable a post-growth society as a way to tackle the current poly-crisis. The conference was hosted by University of Vigo. It was the first time for this conference to include a session on clothing and another one on consumer goods more generally, chaired by Katia Dayan Vladimirova.
Economic activity is a means for humans to live a good life considering that of other beings. But confusing the role of economic growth with an end in itself is hindering progress towards a more sustainable society. In the sector of clothing, fear of confronting economic growth is preventing sustainability actions to focus on the challenge that really matters: reducing production volumes.
In this context and as part of the CHANGE project, SIFO researcher Irene Maldini presented a study conducted together with Professor Ingun Klepp on the EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles, published in March 2022. In an analysis of the policy making process, they identified two main factors that hindered the inclusion of measures to tackle production volumes in the strategy:
a) the framing of the strategy in terms of competitiveness, with a focus on companies as main stakeholders, and the associated fear of economic decline in a market where fewer products are sold, and b) a policy-making process prioritizing input from anecdotal knowledge (through participation of interested and available stakeholders), rather than empirical knowledge on the effect of applied actions or lack thereof. As a result, the EU Strategy avoided a focus on production volumes, aiming instead at the softer and politically objective of improving product durability, with questionable environmental benefits.
This was just one of the presentations analyzing how the growth logic underlies western policy and law, preventing significant progress towards climate targets, and the only one focusing on environmental policy for consumer goods.
The conference included scholars from a variety of disciplines such as environmental economics, political science, geography, law, marketing, indigenous knowledge, industrial ecology, etc. who discussed very diverse subjects related to social inequality and the environmental crisis. Next year the event will take place in Oslo, hopefully an opportunity to consolidate an international community committed to question consumerism and our dependence on growing volumes of consumer goods in circulation close to home. Next year’s conference will be June 24th till 27th, and CHANGE will plan something in conjunction with the conference, so clear your diary already now!
Economic activity is a means for humans to live a good life considering that of other beings. But confusing the role of economic growth with an end in itself is hindering progress towards a more sustainable society. In the sector of clothing, fear of confronting economic growth is preventing sustainability actions to focus on the challenge that really matters: reducing production volumes.
In the photo: Irene Maldini, Meital Peleg Mizrachi, Amy Twigger Holroyd, Katia Dayan Vladimirov.
Here the abstract:
More durable, or fewer products? A case study of the EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles
The volume of durable goods consumed in Europe, and clothing in particular, has increased dramatically in the last decades, with significant environmental damage globally (Manshoven et al., 2023; Niinimäki et al., 2020). While early environmental policy to mitigate such damage focused on better production and waste management, more recently, increasing product durability to extend product lifetime has become a central approach. In a review of EU and Norwegian environmental policy applicable to consumer goods, Heidenstrøm et al. (2021) found little focus on product lifetime between 2011-2015, and a massive increase in 2015-2020 in line with the growing influence of the circular economy framework.
However, the environmental benefits of product durability for clothing and other consumer goods are questionable. Achieving environmental savings from keeping products and materials longer in use presumes that there will be a reduction in the production of new items, but this expected effect has not been sufficiently studied. The empirical evidence that is used to support the durability approach is limited to comparative life cycle assessments of longer and shorter life products (see e.g. WRAP, 2012). Such studies build on a view of consumption that assumes but does not test the idea that durable goods delay replacement purchases and implicitly consider production decisions by companies as a process driven exclusively by demand, therefore taking the associated savings in the manufacture of new products for granted (Maldini et al., forthcoming). But wardrobe studies (Laitala and Klepp, 2022) and waste audits of textiles (Fashion for Good, 2022; Refashion, 2023) show that garments and accessories are massively discarded while still in good material condition. Moreover, only a minority of the clothes acquired are motivated by product replacement (Maldini, 2019). The drivers of production volumes decisions by clothing companies have not been thoroughly investigated, but a few case studies point to a variety of reasons behind such decisions including companies’ market expansion plans and the strengthening of their partnership with suppliers (see e.g. Paton, 2018). In short, the assumed effect of product durability on production volumes reductions is problematic.
This contribution builds on a case study of the 2022 EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles (European Commission, 2022) to show how, despite the lack of evidence mentioned above, product durability is promoted as a sustainable approach during the policy making process, while a direct focus on production volumes reductions was avoided through several mechanisms.
The study analyses how product durability and production volumes are regarded during the policy making process, on the basis of four aspects; 1) the strategy context, and its relation to other policy instruments and efforts, 2) the actors involved in the development of the strategy and their roles, 3) the discourse around product durability and production volumes, and how they are addressed during the policy making process, and 4) the knowledge base of the strategy; the sources of information that were considered to identify problems and applicable solutions. The material used to conduct the study includes policy and other publicly available documents, complemented by interviews with five key participants in the development of the strategy: one key employee of the European Commission, two members of external organizations that accompanied the development of the strategy from the early phase until it was released, and two key participants (and invited speakers) of the public consultation workshops. The interviews were conducted between February and April 2023.
Two main factors hindering the inclusion of product volumes reduction measures are identified: a) the framing of the strategy in terms of competitiveness, with a focus on companies as main stakeholders, and the associated fear of economic decline in a market where fewer products are sold and b) a policy-making process prioritizing input from anecdotal knowledge (through participation of interested and available stakeholders), rather than scientific findings or lack thereof.
The strategy aims at implementing the commitments of the European Green Deal (European Commission, 2019) and the Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) (European Commission, 2020a), as well as the Industrial Strategy (European Commission, 2020b) and post-COVID Recovery Plan (European Commission, 2020c). The EU’s CEAP has a two-side agenda focusing on the transformation of industrial processes, increasing resource efficiency, reducing environmental impact and the use of raw materials and hence bringing economic benefits and business opportunities to companies (European Commission, 2020a). Furthermore, the environmental targets of the Green Deal were matched with the Industrial Strategy, and the economic concerns about recovery of the EU from the COVID-19 crisis. Within the European Commission, DG Environment and DG Grow shared responsibility over the development of the strategy, reinforcing its two-sided nature. In this context, the narrative of value retention associated to the circular economy was a good fit, as it was product durability. Yet targeting production volumes reductions was out of the scope.
Corporations, and business associations were central actors in the policy making process. They were invited to provide informal input in the preparatory phases of the strategy, setting the stage for a consultation process that also emphasized business actors as main stakeholders. The online survey was accessible to anyone, but companies had the capacity to provide extensive input, while the representation of other stakeholders was limited. Although the report of the public consultation mentions that several NGOs and government representatives called for direct measures in consumption reductions (PlanMiljø, 2022), only durability makes it to the concrete solutions listed in the strategy, with overconsumption and overproduction expected to decline as a result of product lifetime extension and reuse (European Commission, 2022).
A critical analysis of the state of the art in scientific knowledge would have confronted the approach outlined above, but the knowledge management in the policy making process did not prioritize reliability and completeness of information. Members of the scientific community stressing the centrality of production volumes were discredited, and the focus was placed on ensuring adherence from businesses. In using secondary, tertiary, and non-peer reviewed sources as a knowledge base, the information was simplified and generalized to an extent where it met the anecdotal knowledge shared by involved stakeholders.
In sum, the EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles provides an example of how the growth logic continues to shape environmental policy, leading to measures and regulation with questionable environmental improvements, and hindering the development of more effective measures to reduce the impact of European consumption.
References
European Commission, 2022. EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles.
European Commission, 2020a. A new Circular Economy Action Plan. For a cleaner and more competitive Europe.
European Commission, 2020b. A New Industrial Strategy for Europe.
European Commission, 2020c. Europe’s moment: Repair and Prepare for the Next Generation.
European Commission, 2019. The European Green Deal.
Fashion for Good, 2022. Sorting for Circularity Europe.
Heidenstrøm, N., Strandbakken, P., Haugrønning, V., Laitala, K., 2021. Product lifetime in European and Norwegian policies. Oslo.
Laitala, K., Klepp, I.G., 2022. Review of clothing disposal reasons. Oslo.
Maldini, I., 2019. From speed to volume: reframing clothing production and consumption for an environmentally sound apparel sector, in: Nissen, N.F., Jaeger-Erben, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd PLATE Conference. TU Berlin, Berlin, pp. 519–524. https://doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-9253
Maldini, I., Klepp, I.G., Laitala, K., forthcoming. The environmental impact of product lifetime extension: a literature review and research agenda. Clean. Responsible Consum.
Manshoven, S., Vercalsteren, A., Christis, M., De Jong, A., Schmidt, I., Grossi, F., Mortensen, L., 2023. Consumption and the environment in Europe’s circular economy.
Niinimäki, K., Peters, G., Dahlbo, H., Perry, P., Rissanen, T., Gwilt, A., 2020. The environmental price of fast fashion. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1, 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0039-9
Paton, E., 2018. H&M, a Fashion Giant, Has a Problem: $4.3 Billion in Unsold Clothes. New York Times.
PlanMiljø, 2022. Synopsis report on the consultation on the EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles. Veksø.
Refashion, 2023. Characterisation study of the incoming and outgoing streams from sorting facilities.
WRAP, 2012. Valuing our Clothes: the Evidence Base. Technical Report.
Tanja Gotthardsen, a Danish anti-greenwashing specialist, Continual, and member of the advisory board for textiles at the Danish Consumer Council, Forbrugerrådet Tænk, has together with Professor Ingun Grimstad Klepp and Tone S. Tobiasson, penned a letter to the EU Council ahead of their vote on Green Claims Directive.
If the EU’s Green Claims directive is truly to become a silver bullet against greenwashing, it must, first and foremost, avoid contributing to greenwashing, which it stands in danger of doing, as the recent integration of references to the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) for apparel and footwear (A&F) in the text, makes it possible to use this faulty tool for making green claims.
For us, it’s not a question of fibers or materials, but a question of consumers being misled by a tool of the EU’s own making. And the inclusion of PEF is truly premature, as it does not account for how apparel is actually, functionally worn and used – and use is, by far, the most important indicator for a garments environmental impact.
We therefore wrote in our capacity as researchers, concerned consumers, farmers, textile companies throughout the value chain, and NGOs regarding this potential damaging inclusion of PEF.
In the letter, which you can read here, we address specifically the numerous shortcomings of PEFCRs for A&F, which have been pointed to by many and certainly in the latest open public consultation. As it is far from clear how PEFCRs for A&F will be operationalized and this will be clear at the earliest in Q4 of 2024, we challenge the validity of including PEF as a potential system or tool for making green claims. That it is not mandatory, but still remains an option, is not acceptable as long as its final design is an unknown.
The letter builds on decades of wardrobe research conducted and policy recommendations provided by SIFO and Continual, as well as many other excellent people. A big thank you goes out to all the wonderful co-signatories from research, civil society and industry, that managed to get back to us so swiftly – this was truly a race against the clock.
SIFO has actively contributed with feedback to EU’s Textile Strategy, including on PEFCR, ESPR, the Waste Framework directive, etc. and also – as ECOBALYSE is based on much of the same background data – decided to deliver feedback on the French proposition.
In the feedback, we commend the French government, ADEME and ECOBALYSE is genuinely wanting to halt Fast Fashion (FF) and putting forward legislation that aims to do exactly this. However, we believe that something must be done about the fact that the tool underpinning the labelling scheme currently favors plastics. We are concerned that a labeling scheme which is intended to show what products are better for the environment, ends up supporting FF by promoting the continued plastification of apparel and footwear.
It is also commendable that ECOBALYSE includes an operationalized definition of Fast and Ultra Fast Fashion. Both the use of price and length of market presence are good indicators. For the length of time a product is on the market, we are, however, a bit confused by the longest and shortest intervals, and thereby that everything above and below 65 and 300 days, flats out.
We also have supplied some concrete suggestions, which you can read about in the feedback, which you will find here.
We have submitted feedback for the Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules. A total of 355 responses have been submitted with a total of 5125 comments. You had to fill in an Excel form, which was a bit challenging to navigate. We have therefore extracted the answers from the Excel sheet and created a document that is easier to read, click here.
PEF is intended to be used for all products, but this consultation concerns clothing and footwear. The aim has been a label for everything put on the European market, but the plan has been scaled down to a tool that will “only” be used to document green claims. The calculation tool itself, however, is the same. Products put on the market can be compared with a “normal” product in the same category. 13 categories have been created to cover all types of clothing and shoes.
The only of these categories where fiber or material is mentioned are under sweaters, where wool is mentioned (but not alpaca) and jackets/coats, which include leather jackets. For each of these “phantom garments” what is measured and weighted is very different, and this makes it hard to understand what you are actually comparing against. For example, “land use” (how many kilograms of fiber you get per square meter) is the most important factor for sweaters and “midlayers”, not for any of the other product groups. What the logic is for this, is impossible to find out in the many and long background documents.
Stumbling blocks
The consultation process itself has been anything but democratic, with stumbling blocks on all levels. Just getting into the EU database to deliver a response has been difficult without a black belt in passwords and apps, and as mentioned, you had to read hundreds of pages of background material and refer to exactly which document, which chapter and which line was being addressed. But perhaps the worst thing is that the documents don’t really say what the result of all the various data-inputs will actually be. Before we submitted the response, everyone could participate in a webinar where we were told that, for example, complaining about microplastics not being included would fall on deaf ears because the very tool underpinning PEF (LCAs) do not allow any new parameters to be added.
So even though the EU Commission had instructed the working group working with PEF for clothing and shoes to include the problems surrounding microplastics, we were told that there was no point in pointing out the obvious weakness that this has not been done. The fact that one can voluntarily say something in the product information about microfibres (not microplasics specifically) does not solve this major problem.
Understanding the functional unit
Another problem is the weak understanding of the functional unity. This is the very foundation of LCAs, for them to provide meaningful information. This means that the thick, warm Devold sweater that you wear all winter in Norwegian wool will be a true environmental disaster (Norwegian sheep take up an incredible amount of space when they graze) compared to the thin acrylic sweater that you bought on sale and are considering throwing away having discovered that you get an electric shock every time you pull it over your head. How long and how much clothing is worn is important for the environmental impacts in an LCA, but here too PEF falls short. This is particularly where we at SIFO have contributed to bring out knowledge and methods that can be used to correct this. Read more here.
Biodiversity does not count either, which the sheep contribute to in the grazed rangelands. Nor that they contribute to carbon storage in the soil. All that counts are the negatives, even when in the case of land use, the wide space is actually a positive! In connection with the consultation, there are many small producers of wool and other natural fibers who have responded, because they are scared that their livelihood will be evaluated as “red”, not “green”. The question then is whether the EU will listen, or whether they plan to override common sense and the need to reduce actual environmental impacts, and still introduce PEF for clothing and footwear to show action and justify all the time and resources that have been spent to develop the system.
SIFO has delivered a response. Let’s hope it helps.
EU’s Joint Research Center (JRC) has asked for contributions to the survey ‘Comments to the working document: Preparatory study on textiles for product policy instruments – 1st milestone‘. During March 18th – 19th, the JRC and registered stakeholders attended the online consultation about the 1st milestone of the preparatory study on textile products.
This is the second contribution related to ESPR (Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation), and our first contribution can be accessed by clicking here.
The consultation process is meant to enable the JRC to improve the work under development and the exchange with registered stakeholders aims to:
– verify the work done to date, and
– collect additional evidence on the investigated topics.
Throughout the whole process, registered stakeholders are invited to provide evidence relevant within the framework of the preparatory study for textile products. Consumption Research Norway has therefore risen to the task, and our contribution can be accessed and downloaded here.
As part of the team working on this, Tone Tobiasson also delivered a separate comment via email to JRC directly, which can be accessed by clicking here.
Waste audit interviews: A method for understanding the link between intrinsic quality and apparel lifespans, is the latest publication from Consumption Research Norway SIFO at Oslo Metropolitan University, co-authored by Kirsi Laitala and Ingun Grimstad Klepp.
New proposed regulation of clothing and textiles in the EU necessitate a deeper understanding of the products, encompassing their usage patterns, duration of use, and strategies for prolonging their lifespan and enhancing utilization rates. SIFO has therefore developed a new method for this purpose, and are simultaneously asking for funding to do studies based on the method, in order to guide the regulation processes for clothing and textiles.
The method is based on the many years of research in this sector, pioneered through wardrobe studies, and lately enhanced by waste audits of different waste streams. The former method is extremely rich in data-collection, but very costly; the latter captures data by casting the net wider, but with less detail about how long the service life has been. Further, the method connects the real use of clothing with results measured in a laboratory related to physical durability. This approach shows that it is feasible to measure the use phase objectively, something policy makers, the industry and research organizations advising policy have so far deemed to be “difficult” or “impossible”.
This note gives an overview of the method and the project proposal, with a rough budget estimate.
Volumes, policy measures and Targeted Producer Responsibility all fitted into discussions the week before Easter, where some of us jumped back and forth between Webex, Zoom and Teams, recordings and live webinars. The take-aways are that several policy tools are mired in antiquated ideas that seriously need updating from research, and that the conversations around volumes and sufficiency are what actually can drive change.
STICA’s Climate Action Week coincided with intense webinars from EU’s Joint Research Center on ESPR’s stakeholder review and also PEFCR for apparel and footwear’s open hearing, presented by the Technical Secretariate’s lead. Yes, it was dizzying, but most importantly, Targeted Producer Responsibility and questions surrounding how EU actually plans to address the issue of volumes and degrowing the sector did got airplay.
Kerli Kant Hvass, who is one of our Wasted Textiles partners, presented Targeted Producer Responsibility during the session on the obstacles facing new circular business models during STICA’s Climate Action Week, hosted by Michael Schragger from Sustainable Fashion Academy and lead for Scandinavian Textile Initiative for Climate Action (STICA). In the session Circular Business Models Are Critical for Climate Action – So What Is Preventing Them from Becoming Mainstream? she explained the concept, and continued her argument during the panel discussion towards the end:
“Focusing on the product and assuming this will result in sustainability has serious limitations. Instead, collecting data in the waste streams, and establishing if a product has been used for half a year or for ten years, actually establishing its duration of service (DoS), can give the database for modulating fees.”
TPR got nods
We noticed that Maria Rincon-Lievana, from the EU Commission and DG ENV nodded a lot when Kerli repeated this. Sarah Gray from UK’s WRAP, who is wrapping up a PhD on to what degree circular business models actually have climate and environmental impact, wholeheartedly backed Kerli’s call for dating products in order to gain data on the actual DoS of products for comprehensive LCAs.
“Labelling regulation presents an opportunity (…) for instance introducing the production date on the label (…) we can know how long the product has been circulated at the end of life. If we do waste audits, we can estimate the DoS to understand was it used to 10 years or was it used for two weeks and then it was discarded and it can also support consumers in knowing that they have the right of a legal guarantee from the purchase date of two years during which if the product fails under normal circumstances, they have the right of it being repaired for free.”
“EPR can for instance be based on how long the product was on the market based on waste audits and the date of production, and thus we can modulate who will have to pay a higher fee. We need to incentivize the reduction of the volumes placed on the market.”
This is the whole idea behind TPR, and even if Luca did not specifically mention TPR, he was voicing the principles behind it.
Old-fashioned or not fit for purpose, or both?
So, what is old-fashioned about the approach the policy-makers are taking? What are the tools that are not fit for purpose?
As it was ESPR and PEFCR we were lectured on the same week, the following thoughts arise.
ESPR (Ecodesign for Sustainable Product Regulation) clearly is based on the faulty assumption that 80% of a product’s environmental impact is decided in the design phase. So, it is intertwined with predicting for example durability, repairability, recyclability and thereby assuming DoS. The problem is, as SIFO research shows, only one-third of textile products or apparel go out of use because they are used up, so if ESPR is going to eco-modulate EPR fees (which seems to be the idea) this will be based on pure guess-work, or what could be more diplomatically called predictions.
TPR suggests the opposite, building the eco-modulation on what becomes waste prematurely and modulated ‘against’ what captures value in the new business models, as Kerli so well described in her presentation.
The hen or the egg?
For PEFCR (Product Environmental Category Rules) the problem is that they are meant to underpin ESPR, but JRC have actually not decided if they are fit for purpose, they said as much in their presentation. So, currently PEF seems to be in limbo, perhaps only fit for Green Claims (Baptiste Carriere-Pradal said as much in his presentation, but also hinting that ESPR would have to use PEF).
PEF is not aiming to be a consumer-facing label, only a set of 16 “frankenproducts” (12 for apparel, four for footwear) which you as a company can compare your product to, and say if your product is “greener” than the “frankenproduct” based on very strict LCA parameters. The data-base that these parameters are resting on, have serious data issue, and may be why France when presenting their “amost-PEF-compatible” label, have taken out one of them (physical durability), In addition, France also is not making GHG emissions the most important parameter – counting for 1/4th of the ‘score’, which PEF currently does.
The main problem, though, is understanding. Consumers understanding what and why.
Simply: In ESPR there is a demand for recycled content, and this is heavily stressed. During the sessions, I asked simply “why?” and presented the latest IVL report with a 1.3% climate reduction for large-scale recycling in the EU. What also surfaced during the week was that only 11% of EU’s population want recycled content. So, win-win or lose-lose to demand recycled content?
Apparel for real life or for bureaucratic purposes?
The issue then feeds into PEF, and how the scores of the “frankenproducts” actually have meaning when talking about real life. Why are stockings, socks and leggings the same “frankenproduct”? What are sweaters actually – when we all know they differ enormously and also their function. It seems, in the end, that everything is a desktop solution for real life actualities.
Having good clothes that are fit for purpose, not apparel that fit policy purposes, should be the goal. They will be used the longest and deliver on DoS. Using ESPR, with PEF as the underpinning logic, will not at all help either the environment, climate change or Europe’s consumers.
So, all in all, listening to the STICA webinar, so well organized by Michael Schragger, gives better insight on where we need to go, than both the JRC organized webinar (which sadly is not publicly available even if it was recorded) and the PEFCR webinar (which can actually be accessed), put together. EU still needs to get their heads around that it’s not at the product level, but at the systems level, that change needs to happen. Let’s hope STICA gave them food for thought.
The main point made during EcoAge and MEP Alessandra Moretti’s joint event in the EU Parliament was to link the increased plastification in the fashion sector with social injustice upstream and downstream in the value-chain.
Livia Firth, founder of EcoAge and moderator of Fashionscapes for Transformation, has relentlessly these last months hammered in the point that these are two sides of the same problem at several high-profile events, namely the massive overproduction of apparel. No less for the second time in the EU Parliament.
The mix of speakers and participants was impressive, with representatives both old and young, from industry and research, as well as political heavy-weights, and voices both from the Global South and North. The voices heard during the event were diverse, but unison in their messaging: The massive overproduction, based on cheap synthetics, cannot continue. This has even sunk in with the policy-makers, who echoed the same concerns in well-prepared speeches, in line with Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius key-note, stating “fast fashion must become past fashion”.
SIFO’s Ingun Grimstad Klepp, who had been – together with Irene Maldini – a speaker at the last EcoAge event in the Parliament, had no official role in Fashionscapes; however, Livia Firth asked her intervention after the panel had presented and discussed multiple aspects related to social issues missing from the Textile Strategy, and what instruments could encourage deplastifying. The much-repeated idea that quality or durability are the silver-bullet that will instantly degrow the sector was, however, debunked by Klepp. But before getting to this, let us dive into the proceedings.
MEP Beatrice Covassi in the foreground. Right before Ingun Klepp (seated to her right behind) was asked to intervene.
It was to be sure, an intense two-hour wake-up call, related to EU’s Textile strategy and Green Transition. MEP Alessandra Moretti, as hostess of the event and key note speaker Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius both high-lighted how ambitious these plans are, and had many good points in what they brought forward. Where disagreement surfaced, was around fiber-to-fiber recycling of synthetics – presented as a potential for a thriving new European industrial bonanza. As several pointed out, this will only increase the use of synthetics, continue to bring down prices and result in even more microplastics. As China produces 95% of today’s synthetics, why should they sit back and see Europe take over the market? That is not how market economics work. This is a blind alley, or as we say in Norwegian ‘believing in Santa Claus’, as several in the audience reiterated.
The main theme was divesting the fashion industry of its fossil fuel reliance, of course also in the fiber area, with waste colonialism and degradation of nature in the global south to satisfy the constant craving for newness in the global north, resulting in massive overproduction. This is of course based on fossil fuel input, but as just pointed at, recycling the same material is not the answer.
Livia Firth, MEP Alessandra Moretti, Commisioner Virginijus Sinkevičius, Simon Giuliani from Candiani Denim and CEO Laurence Tubiana, European Climate Foundation (ECF).
“This shows how the issues cannot be dealt with in isolation, but we need to look at them more holistically than is currently done in the 16 (or more) legislative pieces forthcoming from the EU,” was echoed by several participants after the meeting.
Laurence Tubiana, CEO of European Climate Foundation, who was the last speaker on the panel, claimed she was rather shocked that social issues are not better integrated into the Textile strategy where 80% of the work-force, we were told, is female and does not receive a living wage. However, these workers are also the ones facing the brunt of climate change, toxic chemicals in the soils and waterways, alongside being at the receiving end of our textile waste.
“Children in Ghana grow up not knowing what the ground looks like, as it covered with a permanent layer of textile waste,” Matteo Ward, Co-Founder of Wrad Living, told the audience. He was echoed by Yayra Aghofah, Founder of The Revival in Ghana who pointed out that they have to pay for this same waste that pollutes their environment and that will eventually end up as microplastics. This sad fate, several came back to.
MEP Beatrice Covassi immediately followed up Ingun Klepp’s intervention, requested by Livia Firth, Yayra Aghofah, founder of The Revival, online, in the background.
Black Friday was also a theme, as Yayra Aghofah suggested that they would be inundated with the results of this frenzy very soon, so action is needed now, not in 2026 or 2030. This, of course, underpins the need of immediately labelling season and year products go to market, so that Duration of Service can be captured when the items go into the diverse waste streams. Panelist Paola Migliorini from DG Environment claimed the EU “is helpless in regulating Black Friday”; ignoring that there are ways to legislate or counter-act such market forces with so obviously devastating outcomes. However, it was positive that overproduction had such a central place in the proceedings, both related to how they tie in with the plastification of fashion and with waste colonialism.
Three from the audience were asked to intervene at the end, the first was Urska Trunk from Changing Markets Foundation, talking about the source for polyester for several fashion companies is still Russian oil.
Ingun Klepp, MEP Alessandra Moretti, and to the far right MEP Beatrice Covassi. The woman in the middle of th MEP-bouquet we haven’t yet identified…
Then Ingun Klepp was asked to comment on ‘quality’, and she explained how the only information consumers receive is price, and this isn’t necessarily directly related to quality. She then went on to say that with the EU’s strategy focusing on durability, plastics will win. This in light of the reality that people do not discard textiles because they are ‘used up’, and this is the problem facing the Global South and receivers such as The Revival. Especially as there is more and more polyester, and will be more, and these materials, when exported to the Global South rather than incinerated, will eventually end up as microplastics.
This was immediately picked up by MEP Beatrice Covassi, who clearly was frustrated with the fact that the consumer has so little information about the products available and thus struggles to make good choices, and wanted to applaud professor Klepp’s input.
The last person, who was asked to comment, was Nicholas Rochat, Founder of the plastic-free sportsbrand Mover, who said that with more recycled polyester – even fiber to fiber – will only contribute to more microplastics. He described being in the mountains at 2000 meters, and still encountering microplastics, and no longer being able to eat fish, as they are contaminated.
But the main take-away was that the Commission seems to have a belief that all the 16 plus different policy instruments will ‘even everything out’, but the reality is that they are in danger of making things worse in tandem, actually promoting synthetics, if the focus on durability continues alongside eco-modulating fees based on weight.
As the participants filed out, one of them sidled over to Klepp and said, simply: “Norway, douze points”.
“Will I have to change my sheep?” was the first question Piotr Kohut had asked when the Center for Regional Produce in Koniaków was asked to be a partner in the Woolum bilateral project financed by Norway grants. The respect for keeping the sheep happy prevailed, and the project has amazing results, including a high-hanging award that recognized this as a ‘project for the future’.
The change from the first time the Woolume-team visited Koniaków, was marked. The products were more varied and more professionally displayed, and the optimism for the future virtually popped out of the walls. “We now know that what we have here for sale, also the wool, is 100% from our sheep. It has been a struggle, but now we are confident that we can deliver on this,” said Maria Kohut, who has been a powerhouse in the project.
The Center for Regional Produce in Koniaków, where we ended the conference.
It was the Beskid mountains that was the setting for the end-seminar, and through the network of Norway-grant projects (including the Portuguese hiWool project and the Polish craft school from Zamek Cieszyn), the plus-factor of meeting across disciplines and projects was exponential. As an end-exercise for the seminar, the Norwegian partners arranged a workshop on knowledge-transfer and ways forward, which garnered enthusiasm and ideas for further projects and cooperation, also with countries that so far have not – in a wool context – been blessed with Norway grant funding. Slovakia being one and long-overdue.
There were more ‘hands-on’ workshops as well, related to the local lace-tradition that met us in every window in the small town, and even painted in large scale on house-walls. Maria Kohut’s take was to transfer this traditionally very delicate technique to wool and thus other applications.
The local lace traditions are very strong, and manifest themselves in local women producing lace, a local artist, Beata Legierska, who finds new and innovative ways of using lace in art and jewelry, and more.
When it came to applications, though, the whole work around fertilizing the soil with wool, using wool that has no use in other areas as mats and pellets for gardens, pots, city roofs, deserted open sores in the landscape from mining – the list seemed endless and so promising that any urban planner or someone trying to restore landscapes should be inspired. A visit to a local upstart company reinforced the impression: This area for development will be a major force in the future use of problematic wool that is currently burned, including shavings from skin and leather tanning.
Using wool for its best purposes rather than manipulating the market, the breeds or other things that compromise the well-being of the sheep was a recurring theme, and a major learning point from both earlier Norwegian wool projects and Woolume. The detailed testing from the Estonian-Norwegian bilateral project underpinned this (also under Norway grants), and there is now a comprehensive database to back this on all in all six sheep breeds. Much of the research in Woolume has also centered around the ‘best use’, so these two projects have major cross-pollination.
Wool pellets and wool that was used in experiments as fertilizer.
Revisiting the whole backdrop for the Woolume project, but also the local very dense and complicated history which in the past had delivered a rich cultural and economically viable industry that had made marks internationally, brings forward a lot of things to discuss in the light of EU’s textile strategy. The tapestry of history, economy and cultural elements that have shaped this for better or worse, is further described in Local, Slow and Sustainable Fashion: Wool as a Fabric for Change.
The proud Woolume team, from left Ingun Grimstad Klepp, Lisbeth Løvbak Berg, Katarzyna Kobiela-Mendrek, Monika Rom, Damian Chmura, Andrzej Gawlowski, Anna Salachna, Jan Broda, Ingvild Espelien and Maja Espelien. In front, from left Tone Skårdal Tobiasson and Maria Kohut.
With pride, Jan Broda who has led the project successfully for three years, told the conference that Woolume has been awarded a major Laureate prize, more specifically the Polish Smart Development Award in the category “Project of the Future”, from the Polish Intelligent Development Forum Foundation, Center for Intelligent Development. This is the reason cited for the prize: “for the achievements of the project, which may result in a positive impact on social and economic development. The award is granted for an open approach to promotion and communication with society, in order to present the importance of the benefits resulting from the implemented solution, and an attitude focused on actively maintaining a positive and interesting image of Polish science and research and development works.” Bravo!
