textiles Archives - Clothing research

Pakket i plast

Kinga Zablocka on 5. February 2025

Authors: Kate Fletcher and Ingun Grimstad Klepp

This talk was a part of the Forskning i Friluftsliv 2024 Conference, in Oslo (se more on norskfriluftsliv.no).

Watch the talk or read the full text below.

Abstract

Friluftsliv (outdoor life) is not only a part of the solution, but also a part of the problem when it comes to misuse of nature (Aall et al., 2011). We will reflect around this dilemma in the following text, using synthetic (plastic) clothing as a starting point, additionally we will ask how plastic influences outdoor wear and with our experience of nature. The research question we will discuss is: How do the clothes and shoes we use in friluftsliv create feelings of closeness, control and distance to nature? We will ground our discussion by contrasting plastic and natural materials.

Method

A case study was used to gather data on the experience in nature with non-synthetic outdoor wear and shoes. Life Writing (Fletcher, 2022), photography and sensory ethnography (Vannini, 2024) were the methods. We used ourselves as informants, spending three autumn days in Vågå (Norway) in 2024. The methodologies are self-biographical and make use of feelings and bodily experiences that take place when out in nature wearing non-synthetic garments and shoes. The aim was to describe what we experienced, both positive and negative by not using plastic clothes while in nature. This fieldwork is only one part of a bigger initiative that we hope will result in a project where we can explore the theme of outerwear in friluftsliv in more depth.

Water, valleys, mountains, birds and much more under, over and around us played a part in our experiences. We also collaborated with other partners, most importantly a small leather tanning company ULU¹, operated by Sofie and Roni. ULU tans leather and hides gathered in the area, in addition to reconstructions and guided nature tours. Reindeer is the most important resource, and they tan the hides using natural resources such as bark and brain mass from the reindeers (Klepp & Haugrønning, 2021). Accompanying us on one of the days was a film crew from Frys Film². We wish to thank all our partners, from the reindeer and rain to Sofie and Roni and all their children.

Synthetic clothing in friluftsliv

Friluftsliv has the same environmental challenges as society at large, growing volumes of things. This challenge is driven by another important factor when it comes to clothes and textiles; plastification. These two growing aspects are connected because bigger volumes of textiles would not be possible without plastification (Changing Markets Foundation, 2021; Klepp et al., 2023). Plastification contributes to pollution during production, use and waste by the means of plastic and microplastics (Kounina et al., 2024).

There is no doubt that plastification and growing volumes of outerwear has had a lot of positive effects. We can pack lighter and be safer when outside. The road to the goal, not matter how high or far, is both shorter and faster be it sun or rain, with safer and more remarkable activities added to the mix. The consumption connected to friluftsliv is right for Norway and this growth meets little criticism (Klepp & Skuland, 2013). Few have asked what we lose with this development and little real alternatives to synthetics exists on the marked for many types of garments. Plastification has come such a long way that many consumers do not see it as a serious substitute to go on long trips without synthetic clothing.

The use of synthetics has a very short history. Humans have existed for approximately 300 000 years on this earth. Clothes have been used for only one third of that time. Synthetic textiles, meaning fibers made of fossil fuels (plastic), were invented almost 100 years ago, but they did not explode in popularity until the 1980s. This period saw the invention of synthetic textiles such as polyester, fleece and Gore-Tex, which has since become staples of the outerwear industry³. Our dependency on synthetics in outerwear is, historically, a short one. Furthermore, these past decades humans have spent more time inside than ever before. Our wish to spend time outside without plastic is therefore grounded in many historical role models and references. The garments we used were a combination of copies of old garments (form the Iron and the Viking ages) and newly developed garments made with old techniques and principles.

Results

We both use a lot of clothing made from natural fibers, yet being clothed without any plastic felt different. We had chosen four examples form the empirical material and structured them around four senses; sight, touch, smell and hearing.

Sight

The sense of sight is important for friluftsliv. We enjoy the view and lose ourselves in the colors and details around us. Yet, we do not only see the nature. We also see each other not only while out in nature, but also on pictures from the trips afterwards.

In the presentation we showed Figure 1, a picture form the trip where Ronny, Sofie and Frys film crew were with us. The film crew documented as we walked up the path on Snaufjellet in the drizzle. The picture is of Ingun and Sofie in a grand scenery with the sky, mountains, fog and the mountain we walked on covered in low heather. The colors are muted, with warm rust-tones and cautious greys in the forefront, on our clothes and in the nature around us. The reindeer moss and a light grey hint of a clearing in the clouds bring most contrast to the picture. In the presentation we showed a close up of the two people on the right of the image. And then we panned out, showing the same photo but with a wider angle. Here the Frys film crew is also visible. In this angle the eye travels away from the greys and rustics and attaches itself to the strong synthetic colors of raincoats and backpacks. Yellowish greens, orange, turquoise and black appear in the foreground and catch the eye. These clothes and equipment are not derived from natural materials, not ‘belonging’ in the nature, but create a contrast to it, which is often the case in photos of the outdoors. Photos of nature with and without humans are inherently different this way. Synthetic clothing and clothing made of natural fibers with synthetic colors change the way we look and what we see.

Figure 1: the affect of outdoor wear colour palettes on the visual sense. Photo credit: Kate Fletcher

Touch

The sense of touch is understood as everything we feel through our skin. We experience heat, cold, wind, different surfaces and much more. We feel the clothes we have on our body. We use clothes and shoes to avoid feeling too much and perhaps avoid feeling every pinecone on the path and every needling wind gust.

A lot of synthetics in outerwear are used to avoid feeling different sensations, such as being wet or cold. Fig 2 shows Ingun in the rain , to reflect on what we lose when using plastic. Gore-tex and other technologies of the same sort are characterized by the use of microporous film containing the forever-chemical from the PFAS group. The aim of the film is to keep away moisture, while at the same time having so-called “breathable” qualities. This in turn means that the film is letting water vapor through. In theory, this film is keeping the wearer dry by letting out the vapor created by the body when moving (or even when sitting still or sleeping), while it simultaneously is supposed to keep rain or sea spray out. In reality, this does not always work.

Figure 2: alternative rain wear. Photo credit: Kate Fletcher

Other techniques to keep water out can be used. One such way is to lead the water away. The double coat which used to exist on sheep of older species, before being bred off in order to adapt the wool to modern spinning machines, comprises of long covering or guard hairs which lead water and moisture away from the soft underwool. We humans use this technique when hanging up a chain from gutters rather than installing a pipe to lead away the water. The water follows the chain down to the ground.

Ingun wore a short cape on the trip, which was made out of seal skin. The raindrops dripped from her hair and down the seal skin before being led away by the guard hairs on the collar. Ingun was warm beneath the hair and skin. The clothing she wore did not cover her entire body. Her knees and calves were uncovered. “I am particularly fond of water in all forms. Sea, rain, ice, snow and fog. Being able to feel water run down the skin is lovely” she explains. Taking off clothes is one way to keep them dry of course. Going out in nature without clothes or with some body parts uncovered allows for the feeling of rain against the skin. To be wet is not always synonymous with being cold. Our habit of wearing garments that keep the water out, robs us of the feeling of rain against the skin. This is further enforced when using tightly woven clothing which not only keeps the water away, but also keeps the wind and yes, even air out from our biggest sensory apparatus, our skin.

The feet are the body part that has been affected by plastification the most. This is not a theme that will be explored further as being barefoot or nude, meaning without shoes or clothes, changes the way we exist in the world. We hope to be able to return to this subject and many others at a later date.

Smell

Clothes smell. In actuality, we do a lot in order to control the smell of clothing, such as washing them (Klepp et al., 2022; Laitala et al., 2022; McQueen et al., 2022). The sense of smell has a fascinating history, being perceived as animalistic and subjugated to sight as a less intellectual and less human sense (Classen et al., 1994) Klepp et al., 2022).

Textiles, as well as leather and fur have a distinct odor. Different fabrics are also affected differently by sweat and other bodily functions. Sweat lends most odor to synthetics and least to wool (Klepp et al., 2016; Rathinamoorthy & Thilagavathi, 2014). Synthetic fibers are therefor put through different chemical process to supress the development of smells. Materials also have a distinct smell, which we can like or dislike. The following is a quote from Kate’s dairy about the experience of smell when it comes to clothing:

I am wearing a skin jacket made from reindeer hide and tanned with bark. It is light on my body, my shoulders, my arms, and it fills my nose with the scent of animal. The smell is full, strong and heavy. In a culture obsessed by cleanliness and fragrance, it is an odour of significance. It is a jacket marked in a way that synthetic ones never are – directly by a life, by a body that gave us its skin, by a heart of blood, the flex and taint of muscle. Does Friluftsliv have a smell?

Hearing

Both silence and noise are important aspects of friluftslivet (Faarlund 1992). When it comes to clothing this topic is most discussed in relation to hunting. Silent clothing is what differentiates hunting attire from other outdoor wear. But the sound clothes make is important for not only potential hunting prey.

Woven fabrics make more noise than their knitted counterparts, and the sound is often an important and appreciated part of the fabric’s aesthetic. The rustling of a silk underskirt is well described in novels. Woven synthetic textiles such as Gore-tex jackets and trousers make a lot of noise. They rustle when movement makes the fabrics rub against each other. This became obvious on the trip where the film crew joined us. Instead of the birds surrounding us, all we could hear was their clothing. making it almost impossible to hear anything other than our own selves. Environmental philosophers might say that this is the root of the problem. We always put ourselves in focus. What is necessary for us to start dressing in a way that allows us to listen to the world around us and less to ourselves? The big portion of outdoor wear comprising of synthetics with water- and wind resistant properties contributes to putting ourselves in focus.

Conclusion

We have shown that friluftsliv does not gain a lot by the use of synthetics and on the other hand loses something by looking at how plastic effects out senses (sight, hearing, touch, smell) when out in nature. Outdoor wear contains more plastic (synthetic fibres) than other types of clothing. Synthetics fibres and the laminates that come with, create a literal barrier between us and nature. Sometimes this is what we want, other times not. Plastic is closely related to overproduction and waste generation due to low cost and easy production. The fibres are so strong that they outlast the wearer and keep polluting even when breaking down back to earth. The garments that we use to be safe and comfortable in nature also keep the nature away from us, raise a barrier between us and the world and do not fit into earth’s natural cycle.

Environmental philosophers have long argued that the root of the environmental challenges we face is connected to our willingness to see ourselves as separate from nature (e.g. Plumwood, 1998). Therefore, it is possible to say that the synthetic fibres in clothing are the embodiment of techniques used to dominate and control nature, despite us being very much dependent on it and wishing to unite with it by the ways of friluftsliv. This paradox is at the heart of our work.

References

Aall, C., Klepp, I. G., Støa, E., Engeset, A. B., & Skuland, S. (2011). Leisure and sustainable development in Norway: part of the solution and the problem. Leisure Studies, 30(4), 453-476. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2011.589863

Changing Markets Foundation. (2021). Fossil Fashion: The hidden reliance on fossil fuels. C. M. Foundation. http://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/FOSSIL-FASHION_Web-compressed.pdf

Classen, C., Howes, D., & Synnott, A. (1994). Aroma: the cultural history of smell. Routledge.

Faarlund, Nils 1992. Støy og stillhet i Friluftslivet. SFT rapport 93:39. https://www.nb.no/items/URN:NBN:no-nb_digibok_2011011405039

Klepp, Ingun Grimstad: syntetiske fibre i Store norske leksikon på snl.no. Hentet 29. desember 2024.

Klepp, I. G., Berg, L. L., Sigaard, A. S., Tobiasson, T. S., Hvass, K. K., & Gleisberg, L. (2023). THE PLASTIC ELEPHANT: overproduction and synthetic fibres in sustainable textiles strategies (SIFO-Project report 5-2023, Issue. https://hdl.handle.net/11250/3086387

Klepp, I. G., Buck, M., Laitala, K., & Kjeldsberg, M. (2016). What’s the problem? Odor-control and the smell of sweat in sportswear. Fashion Practice: The Journal of Design, Creative Process & the Fashion Industry, 8(2), 296-317. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17569370.2016.1215117

Klepp, I. G., & Haugrønning, V. (2021). Naturgarvet skinn i et miljøperspektiv. In: Forbruksforskningsinstituttet SIFO, OsloMet.

Klepp, I. G., Laitala, K., & Rathinamoorthy, R. (2022). The Consumer Perception of Odour. In G. Thilagavathi & R. Rathinamoorthy (Eds.), Odour in Textiles: Generation and Control (pp. 1-13). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003141426-1

Klepp, I. G., & Skuland, S. (2013). The Rationalisation of Consumption Reasons for Purchasing Outdoor Recreational Outfits. In M. Vaccarella & J. L. Foltyn (Eds.), Fashion Wise (pp. 43-52). Inter-Disciplinary Press.

Kounina, A., Daystar, J., Chalumeau, S., Devine, J., Geyer, R., Pires, S. T., Sonar, S. U., Venditti, R. A., & Boucher, J. (2024). The global apparel industry is a significant yet overlooked source of plastic leakage. Nature Communications, 15(1), 5022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-49441-4

Laitala, K., Klepp, I. G., & Haugrønning, V. (2022). Textile Cleaning and Odour Removal. In G. Thilagavathi & R. Rathinamoorthy (Eds.), Odour in Textiles: Generation and Control (pp. 197-222). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003141426-10

McQueen, R. H., Kowton, J. E., & Degenstein, L. M. (2022). More than Just Appearance: Management of Clothing-Related Odor in Everyday Life. Fashion Practice, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/17569370.2022.2062830

Rathinamoorthy, R., & Thilagavathi, G. (2014). Effect of Antimicrobial Finish on Odor Control Properties of Apparel Fabric. Journal of Textile & Apparel Technology & Management (JTATM), 9(1).

Defibering the future

tobiasson on 4. February 2025

The Wasted Textiles project took the trip to Norsk Tekstilgjenvinning in Sandefjord, and were privy to an introduction to one of the few recycling projects that can actually have something to offer, as the founder Pål Erik Haraldsen has understood the limitations and that it may sometimes be wise to say ‘no’.

Photo, behind, from left: Anita Austigard, IVAR, Bjørn Erik Rui, Vesar, Kristiane Rabben, Mepex, Jens Måge SIRK Norge, Anne-Lene Lundsett, RIG, Ingun Grimstad Klepp, SIFO, Håkon Bratland, SIRKNorge, Alexandra Eng, Revise/NG, journalist, Sofie Nesse Horsberg, Revise/NG. Front row, from left Nazia Nourin Moury og Solveig Birgitte Jacobsen Aarak, both NTNU.

As February started, the SIFO project Wasted Textiles arranged a study tour of the start-up company that has been praised by, among others, the Minister of Environment and Climate as a solution for the future Norsk Tekstilgjenvinning (Norwegian Textilerecovery). Twelve curious men and women from SIFO, Sirk Norge, Mepex, NTNU, Vesar, IVAR, Revise/NG and RIG took the trip and received answers to the many questions they had about this project.

Before a tour of the open and clean factory premises (no reason to take for granted for those of us who have visited recycling companies further south in Europe), we received a clear introduction to the background of NT and the plans for the future. – As of now we sort 1 to 5 tons a day, explained Pål Erik, who started in 2021 – after many years on the supplier side with Healthworkers hospital clothing. Thus, it was the health and hotel sectors that he also started with, because these have uniform products that are easier to work with than textiles from private households.

But what primarily distinguishes this factory from others we have seen, or heard about, is that the fiber to fiber recycling is neither mechanical nor chemical, in the classical sense; it is a ‘defibration’, a more advanced form for mechanical recycling. – I had to come up with a completely new word, explains Pål Erik. The machine, which ‘opens up’ the materials and fibers, is rather unique; the founder found it in Italy and believes it is one of a kind, at least on this scale. Each material that goes into the process, whether it is wool, cotton, polyester or polycotton – requires fine-tuning to obtain fibers that are long enough that they can be carded and spun into new thread and only a small proportion end up being downcycled. Through windows on the machine, we get to see the entire process in practice. Above us, an ingenious humidity system pumps out water vapor, while at the same time the textile dust is sucked out of the air. Should a fire occur, everything stops automatically and is isolated.

Ambitious goals

The latter is incredibly important, because the dust is highly flammable, and when some of us visited a downcycling plant in Poland, we learned – in the smell of foul-smelling anti-mold chemicals – that spontaneous combustion of the textile dust occurred at irregular intervals. That’s just how it was.

During 2025, Pål Erik believes that the plant will have a capacity of 5,000 tons, while long-term plans are for 30,000. To achieve this, automation, AI training and robots are part of the future. In the meantime, the world’s most advanced camera technology is used to identify the fiber content of reference textiles in all mixing ratios. It is the ‘clean’ textiles that can be recycled and defibrated into new thread today, even though they have also experimented with the ‘worst possible mixtures’. – Wool is probably the first thing we will achieve profitability for, he says, showing off the raw material that Gudbrandsdalens Uldvarefabrik will spin from the factory’s own offcuts that previously went to incineration. – We are also working on a project with Aclima, with merino wool.

Economic sustainability and social responsibility are the two most important pillars for NT, sustainability in a more conventional sense he would rather not use about the process, even though it uses both minimal electricity and water – and since they sort by color – no hazardous chemicals. – We have also chosen to say ‘no’ to products from Shein and Temu in our production line, because we do not know enough about the chemicals they use. So, we take these products out.

Pål Erik shows off the nurse’s uniform where over 50 percent is recycled fiber. Photo Jens Måge.

They collaborate with many, including Kirkens Bymisjon and Fretex, who send them what is too damaged to reuse. If they still find things that should be reused rather than shredded, Tise and Finn are the recipients. While we are standing there, a home-knitted polar bear sweater from the 1980s appears. – It is probably acrylic, since it has not been taken out, Pål Erik speculates. We are standing by the machine that takes pictures of all the garments with a hyperspectral “camera”, and based on what it registers and is set to identify, blows the garments out for further processing – today’s do was to sort into cotton, viscose and polyester with a minimum of 95% of this fiber content.

-They must be as clean as possible, in terms of fiber content and of course laundered. We cannot use wet or dirty textiles, and unfortunately the collection towers get damp when they are outdoors. There must be better solutions. For example, collection inside shopping malls. We have also found a solution for 50-50 cotton and polyester.

Because he has hired a Ukrainian textile engineer, he gets good support precisely in finding solutions for the fiber qualities; and when the raw materials, threads or fabrics are tested in the company’s lab, they get a report card that others can be green with envy over. – Maybe we will build a spinning mill here too, as it is not necessarily so labor-intensive.

Not that finding employees is a problem, many people want a job here, we understand. And the prospects for the company – which has received a lot of financial support from Innovation Norway, the Norwegian Retail and Environment Fund and the Research Council, totaling 50 million kroner – are that they could become profitable in 2026. Despite having gone from 50 to 5,000 square meters in no time. But then they charge at ‘both ends’, both from those who want to get rid of the textiles and those who buy the recycled fiber: The cotton is sold to Spain, the wool to Norwegian customers and polycotton also has a market, as mentioned. He also showed off hospital uniforms with 52% recycled fiber, which have withstood both washing and use, and which appear both softer and more comfortable than regular uniforms.

Not a goal to have recycled fiber in everything

They are constantly trying out new solutions, but taking one step at a time. He wants to and believes in trying out hemp as a replacement for polyester in a cotton blend. And otherwise says ‘no’, not only to Shein and Temu, but is also clear that the EU’s idea that all textiles should have recycled content is nonsense. – Curtains are fine with recycled fibers, but fine wool t-shirts, that’s really just nonsense, emphasizes Pål Erik, even though he may be undermining his own business model with such a statement.

He also hopes that there are products that could disappear from use or at least not end up as hostages in the circular economy, as they create major problems. When we ask for a wish list of these, which the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation could use more ink to get rid of rather than the current focus on physical strength, repairability and recycled content, Pål Erik lists: – Clothes with printed logos, with electronics and sequins, and sportswear with lots of Spandex. He is also not particularly enthusiastic about thin nylon stockings, thongs and bras with underwire – and believes that they belong in residual waste and should be sent to incineration rather than recycling, which is the opposite of what the official policy currently demands. GoreTex jackets, on the other hand, he believes must first and foremost be used ‘up’, and then must be treated as toxic waste and incinerated separately.

Today’s incineration of these does not take into account PFAS, Pål Erik believes. Thus an intermediate storage of such textiles might be necessary until better solutions are found.

Post growth (?) fashion webinars

tobiasson on 29. November 2024

Dec. 13^th 2024 15-16 CET (3-4 pm)
and
Jan. 16^th 2025 15-16 CET (3-4 pm)

Two consecutive talks by Consumption Research Norway SIFO at OsloMet
First one with Prof. Ingun Klepp and Tone Tobiasson and in January Kate Fletcher.

December 13^th: Prof. Ingun Klepp, Professor at the National Institute for Consumer Research, and Tone Tobiasson, Author and journalist, from Oslo, Norway. One of the most passionate and influential tandems in the textile research / policy space, with a long track record of pioneering research projects that changed our understanding of the use phase of garments, post consumer textile flows and plastification of fashion.

There is a cap for 100 people to attend each webinar. To attend, RSVP through the associated link to get a calendar invite.

January 16^th. Kate Fletcher is one of the most renown sustainable fashion researchers. Her work, including that on systems change, post-growth fashion, fashion localism, decentering durability, Earth Logic and nature relations both defines and challenges the field of fashion, textiles and sustainability. She has written and/or edited 13 books available in eight languages, and in 2022 she was identified by author Margaret Atwood as a visionary. Kate is a co-founder of the Union of Concerned Researchers in Fashion. Her most recent work is about design, clothing and nature.

There is a cap for 100 people to attend each webinar. To attend, RSVP through the associated link to get the calendar invite.

TPR brought forward in What Fuels Fashion? Report

tobiasson on 5. August 2024

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.

New consultation on PEF: Feedback delivered

tobiasson on 30. April 2024

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.

Slovool webinar: A full day of sharing knowledge

tobiasson on 24. April 2024

The Slovool project, a cooperation between Norway and Slovakia, enabled cultural exchange around the use of wool, and especially in national dress traditions. It was funded by the Bilateral Relations Fund for the Culture Program, through the Ministry of Investment, Regional Development and Informatization of the Slovak Republic from grants from the EEA and Norway.

The exchange was manifested in a full day of lectures and discussions online; and a recording is available on Amazing Grazing’s YouTube channel (available at the bottom of the page). Speakers from academia and the value chain for wool in the two countries shared insights based on historical developments, cultural practices and how the use of local fibers – mainly wool – had emerged and changed over time.

The main focus of the webinar: A Slovak sheep and its wool

110 people had registered online for the event, while 64 participated, many had said they wanted the recording, in order to watch later as they knew they would either be travelling or needed to watch the proceedings in their own time, due to language issues. Participants joined us from the Czech Republic, Poland, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Germany, UK, Italy, Romania, Spain, Portugal and of course the two hosting countries of Norway and Slovakia.

The event had been heavily marketed on social media, and therefore had in a short time gathered a lot of attention. The full-day sessions started with a welcome by Ingun Grimstad Klepp, Professor Clothing and Sustainability, Consumption Research Norway, Oslo Metropolitan University, followed by co-hosts Lubica Kováčiková and Alena Niňajová from OZ Naša Vlna, who wished everyone welcome in Slovakian.

Wool embroideries typical of Norwegian folk dress (or bunad). Photo: Kari-Anne Pedersen

The presentations were fast and furious, covering themes such as How the change from local spæl wool to merino in embroidery yarns impacted the bunad by Kari-Anne Pedersen, Norwegian Folk Museum to Wool in traditional Slovak folk costumes by Mgr.art Radoslava Janáčová and also The challenges of sourcing material for Slovakian folk costumes in a local value chain perspective by Mgr. Zuzana Kolcunová, both from ÚĽUV (The Center for Folk Art production). Embroidery yarns in wool had been important in both Norway and Slovakia, but changes in both the raw materials for the yarns and in the use of the folk dress, had many interesting differences that were explored.

Part of the exchange was also centered around the words used in the two languages, such as “bunad” for the Norwegian folk dress, and “sukno” for the Slovakian loden-like materials that are actually very common in both countries, called “vadmel” in Norwegian. There was also a surprising discovery when a “guba” material was shown, very common in Eastern Slovakia, worn mainly by men, which has sheep wool woven into the material itself. This is similar to the Nordic “varafell”, which became very popular during Viking times, as covers in the open boats, and still used today as boat rugs. In Slovakia, one of the companies working with local wool uses this technique in modern clothing, which one can see here.

The Guba is a woven material with wool woven in, we find the same in the Nordics, with the varafell.

In the afternoon session, juxtaposing the talk from Ingvild Svorkmo Espelien, founder of Selbu spinning mill (How local sheep breeds have contributed to rediscovering cultural expression in modern design) with the one from Martina Vozárová, founder and owner of Vlnárska Manufaktúra (The challenges of building up a wool value chain based on local Slovak wool, challenges of first Slovak mini-mill) gave a good snapshot of the differences between the two countries’ industrial opportunities for wool. Rounded off with the story of non-profit OZ Naša Vlna and the local Slovak wool brand MOKOŠA by the founders Ľubica Kováčiková and Alena Niňajová, this lead in to an engaged discussion.

Especially the theme of the ‘woolen circle’, where connections are the key element, a concept introduced by Ľubica and Alena – which ties nicely to for example Fibershed, a grassroot organization spreading quickly in Europe (though the idea comes from California, USA). Here, learnings from the Woolume project, another bilateral EEA grants project between Norway and Poland, were interesting for the listeners. We can actually thank this project for meeting with our Slovakian new friends!

A modern “guba” and products from MOKOŠA using Slovakian wool.

Questions from the audience came in both via the chat and by raising hands and asking directly, and these related to many different themes during the day: Is Norway self-sufficient when it comes to wool, how do the government subsidies work, what kind of rules apply for legal environmental standards from scouring in Slovakia, are Norwegian sheep herded in order to collect their milk, does Slovakia cooperate with other former Soviet states around wool, and many more questions.

One of the participants also shared this resource, that many downloaded, and it is accessible here.

Having organized the event in record-time, we are happy that it was such a success and that so many attended and engaged. We hope to continue our cooperation with Slovakia in the future, and hope the bilateral funding will continue to offer such fruitful exchanges!

To see the whole webinar, you can access the recording here.

TPR gets some serious airplay

tobiasson on 1. April 2024

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.

Sadly Paola Migliorini, also from DG ENV, did not hear when Luca Boniolo from Environmental Coalition on Standards (ECOS) said the following in the session on The Legislative Race Is On: Legislation & Regulation in the European Union (we can only hope she reheard the entire session later):

“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.”

He said much of the same during the session on Sufficiency, To Green-growth, Overconsumption & Degrowth: Can Sufficient Emissions Reductions Be Achieved in the Current Paradigm?

“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 1/4^th 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.

Fashion and the City

tobiasson on 23. January 2024

Panel discussion on the role of municipalities in promoting circularity and more sustainable consumption patterns in the fashion sector.

Sustainable fashion is often regarded as an issue of international trade and global issues, disregarding the role of local municipalities in the phenomena of overproduction and overconsumption and their trickle-down effects. Yet many cities around the world have started to think of this challenge and develop innovative mechanisms to reduce the volume of production and overconsumption and support their city’s fashion sector’s transition to sustainability. How can municipalities reduce waste, induce sustainable consumption behaviours in their citizens and promote sustainable choices, and circular business services? Do municipalities that are at the receiving end of fast fashion initiate policies and initiatives to re-address the phenomenon? Can cities impact the fashion industry by changing consumption patterns of their citizens?

UN ALLIANCE WEBINAR February 5th, 2024 14:00 – 17:00 CET

Here in the link to register to the event.

Programme and speakers

Opening remarks Simone Cipriani, Chairperson, UN Alliance for Sustainable Fashion & Chief Technical Advisor, Ethical Fashion Initiative (EFI/ITC)

Introduction Katia Dayan Vladimirova, PhD, Senior lecturer and researcher, University of Geneva

City Cases (10 min each) AMSTERDAM: Dieuwertje de Wagenaar, Senior Policy Officer Circular Textiles, City of Amsterdam. Fashion and textiles in the “Amsterdam Doughnut”: How policy can boost local circular ecosystems. OSLO: Kirsi Laitala, Senior researcher, Oslo Metropolitan University. Key challenges of textile waste and city-level solutions: Case of Oslo. ACCRA: Elizabeth Rickett, Co-founder, The Or Foundation. Textile overwhelm: How Accra City is managing the growing volumes of imported second hand garments and the resulting textile waste through circular practices. GENEVA: Katia Dayan Vladimirova, PhD, Senior lecturer and researcher, University of Geneva. Opportunities to support responsible local fashion consumption: Case of the City of Geneva. CAPE TOWN: Alison Evans, Head: Waste Markets, City of Cape Town. Moving towards circular textiles through Cape Town partnerships. The case of the city of NEW YORK will also be featured.

Discussants (5 min each) Felicity Lammas, Sustainability Manager, Global Fashion Agenda Mohammad Awale, Founder, Rummage Josephine Philips, Founder and CEO, Sojo Matt Dwyer, Product Impact and Innovation Leader, Patagonia Enrica Arena, CEO, Orange Fiber Åsa Degerman, Manager, Once More Q&A

Conclusions ● Gulnara Roll, Head of the Cities Unit, UNEP
Moderation ● Paola Deda, Director, Forests, Land and Housing Division, UNECE

This is an event of the UN Alliance for Sustainable Fashion; organized by ITC Ethical Fashion Initiative, UNECE, UNEP, ICLEI and the University of Geneva.

Removing the silk gloves and pulling a (historic) punch

tobiasson on 16. November 2023

Wardrobe and Climate was the over-arching theme for a CHANGE event at the Norwegian Folk Museum in Oslo: how we can convey historical knowledge about resource thinking, crafts and wardrobe joy in the museum’s costume collections. An academic hybrid conference morphed into a hands-on evening.

“How did they do it?” was the big question posed during the hybrid seminar during the day, where around 25 attended in person and the same number joined us virtually; and where Ingun Grimstad Klepp and Ingrid Haugsrud, both from Consumption Research Norway (SIFO) at Oslo Metropolitan University, spoke about two forthcoming papers. These are: Variety in dress: Norwegian and Swedish clothing 1780-1880, co-authored by Bjørn Sverre Hol Haugen, Marie Ulväng, Pernilla Rasmussen, Ingun Grimstad Klepp and Ingrid Haugsrud, and Towards a closet full of clothes, but nothing to wear: Wardrobe planning regimes in women’s weekly magazines 1908-2023.Here the authors are Ingrid Haugsrud, Ingun Grimstad Klepp and Vilde Haugrønning.

Ingrid Haugsrud presented findings from Norway’s oldest women’s magazine.

The headline was “Unused resources for CHANGE: Fashion, history and sustainability”, and the question was why does history matter? Why do we need to talk about historical practices in the discussion around the environmental impact of textiles and clothing? asked Professor Ingun Grimstad Klepp, before she then went into how dress-practices from Norway and Sweden during the 100-year period spanning from 1780 till 1880, could offer clues to variety without excessive wastefulness. The red thread being that when we have less clothes, we take much better care of them and assign them high value.

This was followed by Ingrid Haugsrud speaking about “A closet full of clothes, but nothing to wear. Wardrobe planning in Norwegian weekly magazines 1908-2023”, where her analysis of three time-periods in the history of Norway’s oldest surviving women’s magazine which is KK (Kvinner og klær), that started out as Nordisk Mønstertidning. The three main themes that emerged for early 1900s, 1970s and 2020s were: Making do with what one had and at the same time creating variety, mix and match wardrobes (creating an illusion of having more than one actually does) and finally “the capsule wardrobe” and cleaning out/ridding oneself of unused things. The latter having led to a waste colonialism issue in the global south as an unforeseen problem.

Else Skjold led the panel, engaging both the physical and the digital audience.

After the two talks speakers were done, they were joined in a panel by Bjørn Sverre Hol Haugen, Marie Ulväng and Pernilla Rasmussen, monitored by Else Skjold. Here Marie Ulväng pointed out that in the 19^th century, a household-budget for apparel was as much as 1/4^th of the total. Which is a far cry from today’s share.

Later the same day, many of the participants joined others for a hands-on behind-the-scenes deep-diving into old wardrobes and textile know-how. Participants guessed what materials were hidden in jars based only on how they felt to touch, and also the weight of two garments, an old wool skirt which had belonged to Åse Roe from Tinn in Norway and a silk dress woven in the 1750s, with several reincarnations in the 1800 and 1900s.

Hands-on research: Is it silk, viscose or…?

The audience was also invited to talk about their own wardrobes and clothes with Ingun and Ingrid in what evolved as a deep-dive in a theme that was brought forward during the hybrid seminar: a need for a better language about our wardrobes and what makes them sustainable. Watch and listen to the hybrid webinar by clicking here

Engaged participants discussing with Ingun and Ingrid.

EU wants data on textile waste, and we have the answer

tobiasson on 13. September 2023

Text by Tone Skårdal Tobiasson

The proposal for the Waste Framework Directive, which is currently being read and analyzed by a myriad of companies, NGOs, researchers, policy-makers and interested citizens throughout Europe, handles two major consumer ‘goods’: Textiles and food. We are mainly concerned with the former, however, we have found that food offers us two good guiding principles.

The first one is to eat up what is on your plate. The second is waste audits as a means to gain meaningful knowledge on what gets “eaten up” and what doesn’t. In three separate documents, we ask the EU to heed these two guiding principles and apply them to apparel and other textiles.

One of the documents is our feedback on the textile part of the Waste Framework Directive (read the document here), where the authors have concrete recommendations for ensuring that the policy measures in the WFD can actually contribute to the EU’s ambition of putting fast fashion out of fashion. Currently, the Duration of Service is what is lacking in the available data (how long apparel has been in use and to what level the apparel and textile waste is ‘used up’ ), but even if the background document (#4) states “There is currently no sound method of estimating textile waste (collected and discarded in mixed municipal waste)”, this is just not true. And the two other papers elaborate on exactly this point. Waste audits/waste composition studies – which are very much used when gaining data on food waste – and wardrobe studies – are well-developed methods.

The document Status for developing methods for using waste as a resource for knowledge about the use phase of clothing (read the document here), offers an overview of exactly the current status for these methods, while the document USED, BUT NOT USED UP: Using textile waste to inform textile rating schemes (read the document here) explores how the data-collection methodology using waste audits can underpin several policy measures, such as the Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules, Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR), Labelling and Digital Product Passport (DPP), the Green claims directive, as well as EPR and the WFD. We have called the ongoing waste audit method for Targeted Producer Responsibility (TPR), as we originally saw it as a more effective means for levelling a EPR fee, using the Duration of Service as the measuring stick. However, we also now have realized that taking the waste as the point of departure, has many other ramifications that can be leveraged.

The cut-off point for feedback to the WFD keeps being postponed, but we encourage everyone to respond, as a functioning EPR scheme which actually takes the waste hierarchy seriously, can be reality, if we use waste audits as the basis for eco-modulating the fee. What we urgently need is for companies to add the date of production or when the product goes to market to the brand label. Then we can look both upstream, and downstream, from the time apparel and other textiles enter the different waste streams.