The results of the “Spinning Greenwash” study

The Changing Markets Foundation, a nonprofit organization working on environmental sustainability, commissioned research from the Microplastic Research Group at Çukurova University (Turkey) to compare the release of microplastics between recycled and virgin polyester fabrics. The results reveal a surprising and worrying situation:
The recycled polyester garments tested released an average of approximately 55% more microfibers than those made from virgin polyester during wash cycles.

In terms of average quantity, the study recorded approximately 12,430 microfibers per gram in recycled fabrics, compared to 8,028 microfibers per gram in virgin polyester.

The microfibers released from recycled fabrics are smaller—with an average length of approximately 0.42 mm versus 0.52 mm—making them more easily dispersed and potentially more harmful to ecosystems and human health.

The 51 items analyzed came from five major fashion brands — Adidas, H&M, Nike, Shein, and Zara — and included items such as t-shirts, tops, dresses, and shorts.

What does this mean for the environment?

Microplastics are a globally recognized environmental problem: they are found in soil, waterways, and oceans, but also in living organisms, including human tissue, and are associated with potentially adverse effects on biological systems.

A single wash cycle can release hundreds of thousands of microfibers into wastewater, which treatment systems struggle to fully filter, allowing these particles to enter the environmental and food chains.

Where do all those tiny microfibers end up?

The answer is everywhere. Not just in the seas and rivers, but also in the air we breathe, in the soil of our fields, in the most remote sediments, even in the organic tissues of living beings. According to an Italian report on micro and nanoplastics in the human body (Vera Studio 2024), synthetic textiles are among the most significant sources of microplastics linked to home laundry processes, and certain technical steps like pre-washing can release far greater quantities of microfibers than simple washing and rinsing.

This is the reality: what we wear, wash, and use every day comes into contact with environments we can no longer separate from our daily lives. Yet, amid this scientific reality, some marketing narratives remain reassuring. The Changing Markets Foundation uses a powerful symbolic image to describe many companies’ communications: it calls it a “sustainability fig leaf,” a fig leaf that covers a deep dependence on synthetic materials without properly addressing the problem of microplastics (The Ecologist). And the message comes from an authoritative voice: Urska Trunk, senior campaign manager at Changing Markets, told The Ecologist very clearly that “fashion has sold recycled polyester as a green solution, yet our findings show it exacerbates the problem of microplastic pollution.”

Why is this phrase so important? Because it directly challenges the core of the global textile industry’s green narrative. It’s not about demonizing recycling—but about highlighting the fact that sustainability cannot be a superficial promise, based on catchy claims, if products continue to release significant amounts of microplastics.

And this awareness isn’t just for scientists or environmentalists. It’s about us, our consumption, our washing habits, and, ultimately, the future of our communities and the planet we inhabit.

Why does recycled material release more microplastics?

According to the authors of the Changing Markets study, the difference can be traced back to the structural characteristics of recycled fibers. During recycling processes—both mechanical and chemical—the polyester polymer chains shorten and weaken, making the fibers more fragile and prone to breakage. This leads to a greater release of microfibers during use and washing.

Labeling and transparency: another critical issue

The Changing Markets study also found discrepancies in brand claims: some garments advertised as being made from recycled polyester exhibited shedding behavior similar to that of virgin fabrics. In some cases, online labels and descriptions did not match the fiber information physically displayed on the garments, raising concerns about potentially misleading marketing practices.

What Other Research Says

In addition to the Changing Markets Foundation study, other scientific research is helping to clarify the situation, showing that recycled polyester is not automatically a better solution in terms of microfiber release. A study published in Environmental Pollution in 2024 found that, during home washing, recycled polyester garments can release more microfibers than virgin polyester ones, likely due to the lower mechanical strength of fibers subjected to recycling and heat treatments. Analyses conducted by The Microfibre Consortium confirm this trend in several cases, indicating, in some samples, a release of up to twice as many microfibers, often finer in size and therefore potentially more impactful on ecosystems and the food chain. However, the data also show strong variability: fabric structure, yarn type, production processes, and washing conditions significantly influence the results, with some tests showing less marked differences between virgin and recycled materials.

Overall, the scientific literature converges on one key point: polyester recycling reduces upstream plastic waste, but it does not solve—and can sometimes exacerbate—the problem of microplastic dispersion, confirming the need for a broader approach that includes material innovation, responsible textile design, and strategies to overall reduce the amount of synthetic fibers in circulation.

Microfibers and the Fabric Life Cycle: Beyond Home Washing

When discussing microplastics and microfibers, the common debate often focuses on release during home washing. However, recent research highlights that several stages of textile production are also significant sources of microfiber emissions. A study published in Scientific Reports monitored microfiber emissions in a large textile manufacturing plant and found that wet processing—such as dyeing and finishing—can release up to 25 times more microfibers than home washing cycles, with dyeing accounting for over 95% of emissions under some conditions. These findings suggest that the environmental impact of textiles is not reduced simply by changing the type of fiber (virgin or recycled), but requires optimization and mitigation from the earliest stages of production, for example, through lower dyeing temperatures, shorter process times, and the use of yarns and textile structures that minimize fiber shedding.

How Garment Care and Design Influence Microfiber Release

The amount of microfibers released from a garment depends not only on the material, but also on manufacturing techniques and care conditions. Different cutting and sewing methods, as well as washing conditions, can significantly influence the release of microplastics into the environment. Research published in Science of the Total Environment (2023, R Rathinamoorthy, S Raja Balasaraswathi) demonstrated that the use of more advanced cutting techniques such as laser or ultrasonic cutting can reduce microfiber release by up to 15–20 times compared to traditional scissors, while choosing specific stitch patterns and stitch densities can further reduce fraying. The use of multiple needles increases the release of microfibers across different variations of the same stitch pattern. For example, a 45.27% increase in microfiber release was reported with the 4-thread (2-needle) overlock stitch compared to the 3-thread (1-needle) stitch.

Furthermore, studies conducted on actual laundry loads (Science of the Total Environment, 2023, R Rathinamoorthy, S Raja Balasaraswathi) indicate that parameters such as temperature and cycle length influence the amount of microfibers released, with shorter, colder cycles, full loads, and high-efficiency washing machines reducing release. These findings highlight how changes in garment design and household care practices can help reduce microplastic shedding, complementing efforts to develop more sustainable materials.

An illusory solution or an intermediate step?

The findings of the Changing Markets study do not imply that all recycled materials are useless or that recycling has no value. Rather, they highlight a critical point: reducing environmental impact cannot be solely achieved by transitioning to “recycled” materials if they continue to release significant microplastics.

In other words, if the goal is a truly sustainable textile system, it is necessary to consider:

• design strategies that minimize the release of microfibers (e.g., low-release yarns, more compact textile structures, and less degrading finishes);
• technologies for capturing microfibers in domestic and industrial washing processes;
• an overall reduction in reliance on synthetic fibers—recycled or otherwise—in favor of alternative materials with a lower microplastic impact.

What we can do, concretely

For brands
• design garments with low-linting yarns and more compact structures;
• improve industrial processes, especially dyeing and finishing;
• adopt less fraying cutting and sewing techniques;
• communicate clearly and verifiably;
• invest in microfiber-capturing technologies in industrial laundries and supply chains.

For fashion buyers and consumers
• wash at low temperatures and shorter cycles;
• prefer full loads;
• use more efficient washing machines when possible;
• consider using certified filters or microfiber-capturing devices;
• above all: reduce dependence on fast fashion and synthetics, even recycled ones.
It’s not “buying nothing anymore.”
It’s buying better, less, more consciously.

Toward a broader vision of sustainability

This research is part of a broader debate on sustainability strategies in the fashion industry, which requires integrated and transparent approaches. It’s not just about replacing raw material A with B, but about rethinking production, consumption, and end-of-life models of garments with a truly circular perspective.
For consumers and industry professionals, the study is an invitation to look beyond “recycled” labels and evaluate concrete, independent data to make choices that truly make a difference.

The Dutch Study: 41% of Labels Are Wrong

A study conducted in the Netherlands* on more than 10,000 garments revealed alarming statistics: labels were inaccurate in 41% of cases. Most of the sample consisted of post-consumer, non-reusable clothing items discarded by consumers and delivered to a textile sorting center. Significant differences were found in the accuracy of composition claims between pure and blended materials. Discrepancies were especially evident in garments mixing fibers (e.g., cotton + polyester), where the accuracy rate dropped to just 23%. Analyses suggest that the intentional exaggeration of cotton content is indeed plausible. For pure fibers, the accuracy rate rose to 77%.

This is not just a matter of dishonest marketing: misleading labels erode consumer trust, complicate recycling processes, and fuel greenwashing.

Examples from the EU Market

EU regulations require all textile products sold within the Union to display clear and legible information about their composition. However, checks conducted by NGOs and independent bodies have shown that some brands fail to comply — particularly when labels include implicit environmental claims (green claims) without solid evidence.

In the fur market, for example, a study** analyzing 667 items containing animal fibers found that 68% did not comply with EU labeling rules. Real and synthetic fur are becoming increasingly similar in appearance, texture, and even price. Consumers — most of whom reject real fur for ethical reasons — must receive accurate information to make informed choices. It is often assumed that a low price indicates synthetic fur, and that if an item contains real fur, such information should be clearly displayed on the label. However, the current labeling system fails to provide an easy way to alert consumers to the presence of real animal fur.

Greenwashing and Misleading Environmental Claims

Why It’s a Problem (Beyond Fraud): The Real Consequences

This kind of misrepresentation goes far beyond deceiving the consumer.

1. Compromised Traceability and Textile Recycling
   In a world where recycling and sustainable practices are essential, recyclers need accurate information about the fabrics they work with. For those involved in recycling or circular economy processes, knowing the exact fiber (cotton, wool, polyester, etc.) is crucial for proper material handling. The effectiveness of recycling relies on understanding a garment’s material composition, since different fabrics require distinct recycling methods. False labeling hinders sorting and reduces the quality of regeneration processes. Misinformation can lead to contamination of recycling streams, lowering overall efficiency and causing further environmental harm. Simply put, if we don’t know what a fabric is made of, we can’t treat or dispose of it properly.
2. Erosion of Consumer Trust
   When we discover that a garment isn’t what it claimed to be — for instance, “100% cotton” turns out to be a blend, or “Made in Italy” is a false indication — the relationship with the brand is damaged. Today’s conscious consumers highly value label honesty, and each deception undermines brand reputation. As shoppers become more attentive to sustainable choices, they often rely on labels to guide their purchases. Some consumers also have specific needs regarding fabric composition — for example, due to allergies, religious beliefs, or personal values. For many, understanding a garment’s material is also essential for assessing its environmental impact. When labels are misleading, consumers believe they’re making responsible choices, only to realize they’ve unknowingly supported practices that contradict their values.
3. Fueling Greenwashing
   Generic environmental claims (“eco,” “sustainable,” “green”) without real transparency create the illusion of doing the right thing, while the actual impact may be identical — or even worse. Deceptive labels become a marketing tool, not an information tool.
4. Legal Risks and Penalties
   In the EU market, brands that provide misleading information may face inspections, administrative sanctions, or compensation claims. Some countries are already scrutinizing environmental claims more closely to enforce greater transparency.

Do you already know of some real cases of false or misleading labeling in clothing?
Listen to this episode to find out what happened — in our country and beyond

The Causes Behind the Errors

1. Complex and Fragmented Supply Chains
   Textile supply chains often span multiple continents, involving numerous suppliers, dyeing processes, treatments, and finishing stages. Sometimes brands receive fabrics that are already blended or reprocessed, making accurate traceability extremely difficult.

2. Insufficient Testing and Quality Control
   Some brands do not test every batch or rely solely on visual checks instead of chemical analyses. This increases the margin of error when suppliers provide incomplete or partial composition data.

3. Costs and the Desire for Differentiation
   Claiming a high percentage of natural or “eco” fibers can make a product more appealing. In some cases, there’s a temptation to round up figures or present the “best-case scenario”rather than the truth.

4. Unclear Regulations or Poor Enforcement
   Labeling laws exist, but their implementation varies widely between countries. Minor violations are often barely penalized. Although brands and retailers are legally required to provide accurate information about the composition of products they place on the market, they have (so far) faced no public legal consequences for inaccurate labeling. When a brand discovers that a label is incorrect, the entire shipment — both in storage and in transit — must be recalled and re-labeled.

What a Sustainability-Focused Brand Should Do

The Dutch study serves as a wake-up call for brands in the sustainable fashion sector. It highlights the need for clear standards and rigorous controls in labeling practices to ensure accuracy. As sustainable brands strive to differentiate themselves in a saturated market, a commitment to labeling honesty can enhance credibility and strengthen consumer trust.

Brands that prioritize accurate labeling not only embody their sustainability values but also empower consumers to make informed choices. By ensuring the accuracy of fabric composition and country-of-origin information, brands can contribute to a more transparent fashion system.

The positive ripple effects of precise labeling go far beyond immediate trust: they encourage a shift toward circular economy principles, where consumers feel confident about recycling or reusing their garments — ultimately helping to reduce waste.

The Importance of Accurate Textile Labeling

In 2020, the Global Fashion Agenda report emphasized the importance of transparency, calling for greater traceability across fashion supply chains. This ongoing dialogue among industry stakeholders aligns closely with the findings of the Dutch study, pointing to the systemic change needed for the future of sustainable fashion to truly thrive.

In conclusion, incorrect labeling represents a major barrier to achieving a transparent and sustainable fashion landscape. As fashion enthusiasts and brands advocate for change, it is vital to remember that sustainable fashion is not solely about using eco-friendly materials — it encompasses the entire lifecycle of a garment. Ensuring that labeling is accurate and trustworthy is essential if we are to move toward a truly ethical and sustainable industry.

Brands should take immediate action to improve the accuracy of their labeling practices. For consumers, recognizing the importance of carefully examining labels can help guide choices that genuinely reflect their values. Together, we can foster a fashion industry built on trust, transparency, and sustainability.

* Clothing labels: accurate or not?, Circle Economy for The Ministry of Infrastructure & Waterways, 2019.

** Mislabelled and Misleading – Fur labelling problems, Fur Free Alliance, 2017

The French National Assembly has unanimously adopted the bill aimed at reducing the environmental impact of the textile industry, which will have to continue its legislative process in the Senate. Intended to curb “fast fashion”, the text provides: 

• the ban on advertising for the sale of clothing at rock-bottom prices
• the decision to define fast fashion based on a set number of items placed on the market annually
• an enhanced environmental penalty to make fast fashion products less attractive

Furthermore, companies that sell disposable fashion online will have to display messages near the price on their website that:

• raise awareness of the environmental impact of their products;
• encourage sobriety, reuse, repair or recycling.

In case of violation, companies will incur a financial penalty (up to 15,000 euros).

It’s not a tax

It is incorrectly called a tax but it is a bonus/malus system: the products with the worst environmental impact will not be able to benefit from the bonuses but will be subject to dissuasive sanctions starting from 2025. The ecological penalty will be over product:

• 5 euros in 2025
• 6 euros in 2026
• 7 euros in 2027
• 8 euro in 2028
• 9 euros in 2029
• 10 euros in 2030.

These sanctions should help finance bonuses for the benefit of virtuous companies in the textile sector.

Taxes are generally imposed by governments as mandatory payments on individuals, businesses, or other entities to fund government spending and public services.

Sanctions, on the other hand, are associated with punitive measures for violations of laws or regulations.

While they might work similarly to taxes in terms of their financial impact on businesses, they are not exactly the same.

Will the measures be effective?

From a macroeconomic perspective, the effectiveness of a bill targeting fast fashion companies depends on various factors, including the specific provisions of the bill, the reactions of consumers and businesses, and broader market dynamics. Here are some considerations:

• Elasticity of demand: If consumers are highly responsive to changes in prices or advertising restrictions, then the penalties and advertising bans imposed by the bill could lead to a significant decrease in demand for fast fashion products. However, if demand for fast fashion is relatively inelastic, meaning consumers are less sensitive to price changes, the impact of the bill may be limited.
• Substitution effects: Companies operating in the fast fashion industry may respond to the penalties and advertising bans by shifting their production strategies or diversifying their product offerings. For example, they may focus on producing higher-quality, longer-lasting clothing or explore alternative business models such as sustainable fashion lines. The extent to which they can successfully adapt will influence the effectiveness of the bill as a deterrent.
• Market competition: The fast fashion industry is highly competitive, with numerous companies vying for market share. If only one country implements penalties and advertising bans, companies may simply shift their operations to other countries with more lenient regulations. The effectiveness of the bill could be enhanced if it is part of a coordinated effort across multiple countries or regions.
• Innovation and technological advancements: Fast fashion companies may invest in research and development to find ways to mitigate the environmental impact of their products or improve their sustainability credentials. This could involve innovations in materials, production processes, or supply chain management. The bill may incentivize such innovation by creating market opportunities for companies that can offer more sustainable alternatives.
• Enforcement and government support: The effectiveness of the bill will depend on the French government’s ability to enforce its provisions and provide support to companies in transitioning to more sustainable practices. Effective enforcement mechanisms, together with financial incentives and support for innovation, could help ensure compliance and promote industry-wide change.

From a microeconomics perspective, the sanctions imposed by the fast fashion law can have different effects on the behavior of individual companies and consumers in the fashion market. Here are some of the possible effects:

• Reduced fast fashion production: Financial sanctions and advertising bans can make it less cost-effective for companies to produce and market fast fashion products. As a result, companies may reduce the quantity of such products offered on the market, instead focusing on more sustainable and higher quality product lines.
• Incentives for innovation and differentiation: Penalties can push companies to invest in research and development to develop more sustainable materials and production processes. This could lead to increased innovation in the fashion industry and the creation of differentiated products that stand out for their sustainability and quality.
• Increased retail prices: If companies pass on the costs of sanctions to consumers through retail price increases, this could reduce demand for fast fashion products. Consumers may be willing to pay more for more sustainable or higher quality products, but they may also reduce their overall spending on clothing due to higher prices.
• Changes in consumer preferences: Sanctions and advertising bans can influence consumer perceptions and preferences towards fast fashion products. Reducing advertising exposure to such products could lead consumers to seek more sustainable alternatives or to evaluate brands that promote more ethical and responsible practices differently.
• Consequences for small businesses: The sanctions could disproportionately affect small businesses operating in the fast fashion sector who may have limited resources to comply with the new regulations. This could lead to a reduction in competition in the sector and favor large companies that have greater financial resources to adapt to the new rules.

Pros and Cons

Pros:

1. Environmental benefits: By imposing penalties and advertising bans on fast fashion products, the bill encourages companies to adopt more sustainable practices, such as reducing carbon emissions, minimizing waste, and using eco-friendly materials. This can lead to long-term environmental benefits, including reduced pollution and resource conservation.
2. Market correction: Fast fashion has been criticized for its negative social and environmental impacts, such as exploitative labor practices and excessive consumption of natural resources. The bill provides a mechanism for correcting market failures by internalizing the external costs associated with fast fashion, thereby promoting more socially responsible behavior among companies.
3. Innovation and job creation: The bill incentivizes investment in research and development to develop sustainable alternatives to traditional fast fashion products. This can stimulate innovation in the fashion industry and create new opportunities for businesses that specialize in eco-friendly materials, technologies, and production processes. Additionally, the shift towards sustainable fashion may create new jobs in areas such as sustainable design.
4. Enhanced competitiveness: Adopting sustainable practices can enhance the competitiveness of French fashion companies in both domestic and international markets. As consumer preferences shift towards more environmentally friendly products, companies that prioritize sustainability may gain a competitive edge and attract more customers. This can contribute to the long-term viability and success of the French fashion industry.

Cons:

1. Cost implications: Compliance with the bill’s provisions, such as penalties for fast fashion products and restrictions on advertising, may increase production costs for companies. These additional costs could be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, potentially reducing consumer purchasing power and overall demand for clothing. This may have negative implications for economic growth and employment in the fashion industry.
2. Market distortions: The bill may create distortions in the fashion market by favoring companies that can afford to invest in sustainability initiatives over smaller or less financially secure businesses. This could lead to market concentration and reduced competition, potentially limiting consumer choice and innovation in the long run. Moreover, if the penalties disproportionately affect domestic companies compared to international competitors, it may result in market inefficiencies and trade imbalances.
3. Supply chain complexities: Implementing sustainable practices in the fashion industry requires collaboration and coordination across complex global supply chains. Companies may face challenges in sourcing sustainable materials, ensuring ethical labor practices, and maintaining quality standards throughout the production process. This could lead to supply chain disruptions, increased administrative burdens, and higher operational risks for businesses.
4. Unintended consequences: The bill’s provisions may have unintended consequences that negatively impact certain stakeholders, such as workers in the fast fashion industry or consumers with limited purchasing options. For example, restrictions on advertising could affect the livelihoods of workers employed in marketing and advertising roles, while penalties on fast fashion products could disproportionately affect low-income consumers who rely on affordable clothing options.

Shein’s reaction

Next steps

The issue of thresholds, which would define disposable fashion, has come under criticism for being left to the government, with fears it may not be implemented effectively.

Furthermore, the introduction of social criteria to ensure respect for human rights in clothing production has raised debate, with some supporters citing previous scandals such as Rana Plaza. However, others have warned that ultra-fast fashion may not be the right context for establishing global rules against social dumping.

The minister of ecological transition has promised to launch a mission to define social and ecological criteria in the next two months. After being adopted at first reading by the National Assembly, the bill will then have to continue its legislative journey in the Senate. Meanwhile, France’s environment minister has announced plans to propose an EU-wide ban on used clothing exports, seeking to tackle the growing problem of textile waste.

Sources: LCP Assemblée Nationale; Vie Publique; Reuters

The protected forest of 402,352 hectares that extends across the provinces of Kampong Speu, Koh Kong and Pursat is considered one of the best preserved rainforests in the country. It is an area rich in biodiversity.

According to a survey conducted by Mongabay (2023)*, garment factories in Cambodia are using wood illegally harvested from these protected areas to fuel their boilers.

The garment industry in Cambodia is a multibillion-dollar industry employing approximately 750,000 people, mostly women, in approximately 1,200 factories that produce clothing, footwear and textile products for the domestic market and for export. Among these factories, about 680 are involved in the production of clothing, footwear and travel items for export.

A Mongabay’s team followed the entire chain from loggers living in impoverished villages risking their lives to find more and more trees, to traders, middlemen operating on very small margins and factories receiving large quantities of wood. In December 2022, reporters discovered that the wood used in one factory came from the depot in Chbar Mon and that the timber was obtained from the Aural Wildlife Sanctuary. The first vehicle seen transporting lumber to the factory was a truck loaded with logs.

The clothing industry association, interested in defending the reputation of the industry, denies that its members use wood from forests. However, due to the informal and opaque nature of the supply chain, it is virtually impossible to guarantee this claim.

Academics have in the past tried to estimate how much wood from forests ends up in Cambodian garment factories. Research conducted in 2021 by Royal Holloway, University of London looked at 255 randomly selected factories to analyze the fuel sources used in their boilers. Out of 160 factories from which responses were obtained, 48 admitted to using exclusively forest-derived wood or a combination of forest-derived wood and other fuel sources. According to Laurie Parsons, senior lecturer in human geography at Royal Holloway, around 30% of factories use wood from forests, which highlights the extent of the problem. Given the sheer scale of deforestation in Cambodia, large-scale industrial use like this may seem insignificant but it is not.

Large quantities of timber continue to be harvested illegally by informal networks of local people, making it even more difficult to control the timber trade.

A study conducted in 2021 by Royal Holloway, University of London, revealed that around a third of Cambodia’s estimated 1,200 garment factories burned an average of 562 tonnes of wood from forests each day as fuel to generate heat. In 2019, the international NGO GERES reported that 70% of the wood used by Cambodian garment factories came from natural forests. According to GERES, about 300,000 tons of wood from forests are burned each year,causing the emission of about 368,000 tons of carbon into the atmosphere.

A local logger, who is part of an informal illegal network that has been operating for decades to meet demand from garment factories, said: “We cut three or four trees per trip. Unless we find a really big one. This tree is already dead, so it’s less risky for us to take it. When we get home, I’ll call a few traders, mostly middlemen who sell the timber to the garment factories.”

Questi taglialegna supply the wood to the factories through intermediaries. A man from Chbar Mon stated that he transports and sells wood to regular customers who then resell the wood to garment factories. He also said that many middlemen cannot sell directly to factories because they take the wood on credit and often refuse to pay at the end of the month, knowing there are no legal consequences for stealing illegally harvested timber.

Mongabay contacted 14 international brands listed in the Parsons report as users of forest-sourced wood, but none responded or provided clear answers on the issue of illegal logging in their supply chains. Mongabay also contacted 881 garment factories in Cambodia that were listed as members of the Textile, Apparel, Footwear & Travel Goods Association of Cambodia (TAFTAC), but only one factory responded denying the use of wood, legal or illegal, as a fuel source.

Among the brands named in the Parsons report as companies with factories that use wood as fuel are:

• Target Group
• Next PLC
• VF Corporation (that includes Vans, Timberland, The North Face, Eastpak, JanSport and Supreme)
• Gap Inc.
• C&A
• Levi Strauss
• Kiabi Fashion
• Matalan
• Inditex (that includes Zara)
• Primark

When asked for information, an Inditex representative only replied that he would check if he was currently one of its suppliers. Primark asked for the names of factories listed for using forest timber, “so we can investigate this”, but did not respond to specific questions about illegal logging within its supply chain.

H&M said it uses an app called Wood AI, developed by Forests.ai in collaboration with WWF, which allows partner factories to identify wood from forests. H&M says it monitors usage of the app to ensure wood deliveries match reported information and to detect the level of wood from forests versus plantation wood. However, according to insiders, there are ways to circumvent the system, and they believe the government should play a more active role in the matter.

Wood consumption in Cambodia is exploiting the country’s natural resources and requires government intervention to ensure compliance with internationally recognized rules on biomass sustainability. Dealing with sustainability is a complex task, with countless facets that are difficult to manage, and it needs attention especially before stating that your brand is sustainable.

*Flynn G. e Ball A. 2023, Forests in the furnace: Cambodia’s garment sector is fueled by illegal logging (Part I) e Forests in the furnace: Can fashion brands tackle illegal logging in their Cambodian supply chains? (Part 2), in Mongabay, accessible from https://news.mongabay.com/

Mongabay’s note: This story was supported by the Pulitzer Center’s Rainforest Investigations Network where Gerald Flynn was a fellow. Names have been changed to protect sources who said they feared reprisals from the authorities.

The findings show SHEIN’s careless attitude towards the environmental and human health risks associated with the use of hazardous chemicals.

Strict concentration limits are set for products sold in Europe in accordance with the regulation on dangerous chemicals, known as REACH, present as additives or contaminants in fabrics for clothing, accessories and shoes. The EU regulation places the responsibility for providing information on the hazards of the chemicals used on producers of chemicals and manufacturers of products containing the substances. All companies (both manufacturers and brands) must therefore be fully aware of the chemical substances used by their suppliers and take responsibility for eliminating their use, their presence in products, their impacts and any discharges, including those into water.
The REACH Regulation is based on the principle that it is the responsibility for manufacturers, importers and downstream users to ensure that they manufacture, place on the market or use only such substances that do not adversely affect human health or the environment.

It has emerged that SHEIN is breaking hard-won EU environmental regulations on chemicals and risking the health of consumers and the workers at the suppliers that make the products.

Of the 47 products purchased, 7 contained dangerous chemical substances in excess of the limits set by EU regulations, i.e. 15% of the items analysed.

Very high levels of phthalates were found in 5 boots or shoes (FT-17, FT-27, FT-15, FT-35, FT-42) at above 100,000 mg/kg (100%), compared to the requirement in the EU’s REACH regulation of <1,000 mg/kg. The highest level of phthalates was found in some black snow boots (FT-27) bought in Switzerland, at 685,000 mg/kg of DEHP (680%).

The release of nickel above the EU REACH requirements of <0.5 μg/m2/week was found in a pair of red stiletto boots (FT-22) bought in Spain, at 1.5 μg/m2/ week. Also in a suedette moto jacket bought in Spain a quantity of 0.7 μg/m2/week of nickel was found, apparently breaching the REACH requirements for the release of nickel (<0.5 μg/ m2/week). However, there is a margin of uncertainty in the testing.

A total of 15 of the products contain hazardous chemicals at levels of concern (32%).

At least one hazardous chemical was quanti- fied in 45 of the 47 products, although most were at relatively lower levels.

The concern is not only that SHEIN products with illegal levels of hazardous chemicals are being widely sold in Europe, contravening EU regulations, with potential impacts on consumers. It also suggests that SHEIN has little oversight of hazardous chemical management within its supply chain.

“It’s the workers in SHEIN’s suppliers, the people in surrounding communities and the environment in China that bear the brunt of SHEIN’s hazardous chemical addiction”, explained Viola Wohlgemuth, Toxics and Circular economy Campaigner with Greenpeace Germany. “At its core, the linear business model of fast fashion is totally incompatible with a climate-friendly future – but the emergence of ultra fast fashion is further accelerating the climate and environmental catastrophe and must be stopped in its tracks through binding legislation. Alternatives to buying new must become the new norm.”

We also talked about Shein in these articles:

L’indagine Channel 4 dentro le fabbriche di Shein;

Le false dichiarazioni di Shein sulle fabbriche;

Patagonia vs Fast Fashion: leader a confronto.

Source: Greenpeace Germania

What are microfibres? What size are they?

“Microfibre” is a consolidated term in the textile industry to indicate fibers between 10 and 30 μm. The term “microfibers” is also used to indicate the fibrous material released during washing. It has been proposed to differentiate the term by calling these materials ‘fragments of fibres’, i.e. the fragments of fibers between 1 μm and 5 mm in size released from clothing and home textiles during washing, drying and use.

Therefore, “microfibres” in the textile industry actually indicates fibers between 10 and 30 micrometres, while what is released by clothing and home textiles is more correctly defined as a fragment of fibers and has dimensions between 1 μm and 5 millimetres.

What are microplastics?

Microplastics are fragments of synthetic fibers. Primary microplastic is released directly into the environment in the form of small plastic particles (less than 5mm in size) which include fiber fragments released during the domestic washing process. Other sources for primary microplastics include road markings, tire wear, marine coating and cosmetics. Secondary microplastics are the by-products of the natural erosion of larger plastic objects released into the environment.

Multiple steps in wastewater treatment plants can filter out up to 95% of fiber fragments. However, the remaining 5% of fiber fragments can end up in rivers and oceans and enter the food chain through:

• table salt;
• contaminated water;
• ingestion of marine creatures

causing adverse health effects.

They are not only a risk to our health, but also to that of marine creatures, threatening the functioning of their metabolic activities.

Additionally, fiber fragments can also impact health through inhalation (outdoor and indoor) and direct skin contact through personal care products, textiles, or indoor dust.

Where do fiber fragments mainly come from?

• From domestic washing of clothes
• From waste generated during textile production
• From discarded textiles
• From landfills near rivers and
• From domestic drainage

Considering domestic washing, how many microfibers are released?

The release of fiber fragments during washing varies from 100 to 300 mg per kg of washed fabric. So for a 7 kg washing machine load, it will range between 700 and 2100 mg in total. Making some estimates on a typical washing scheme (times, frequency, quantity) in developed countries, assuming that it is adopted in these countries by 1 billion people to wash their clothes, 14,400,000 kg of fragments of fibers is released to the environment every year. Any process that reduces fiber strength, including sanding, brushing, bleaching, has the potential to increase the release of fiber fragments in consecutive wet processes.

Various important parameters affect the release of fragments from textile fibers including type of fabric, weave/knit structure,  type and concentration of the detergent, temperature, pH, spin-speed of the spin cycle, duration of washing and processes drying.

Let’s consider for example he type of fiber.

The fiber fragments in the marine environment are classified as natural, cellulosic man-made and synthetic. The concentration of natural and cellulosic fiber fragments in the ocean is much higher than synthetic fiber fragments. Fabrics made from cotton and other cellulosic materials release more fiber fragments during the washing process than polyester fabrics. However, cotton, wool, silk and man-made cellulosic fibers such as bamboo, modal, tencel/lyocell are biodegradable compared to thermoplastic fibers in the marine environment. Polyester fibers are considered a greater threat to the environment than cotton because they have an extremely low biodegradation rate.

In general, natural and man-made cellulosic fibers degrade easily, however, the presence of dyes and chemicals for finishing the fabrics can reduce the biodegradation rate.

Most textile products are treated with various synthetic dyes. The presence of these chemicals can complicate the biodegradation of even natural fibers such as cotton.

In general, various functional additives have been applied to fibers of cellulose origin such as crease recovery, water/soil repellent, flame retardant, antimicrobial, and softeners. When fiber fragments are released into the marine environment, these chemicals and dyes integrate with the fiber fragment to create additional health hazards for aquatic creatures.

Let’s consider another variable, the detergent. How do they affect the release of microfibers?

There are conflicting studies. Some show that the use of detergent promotes the emission of fiber fragments compared to washing with water only. Others that the use of the cleaner has no significant impact on the release of microfiber. The apparent contradiction in the results is likely driven by differences in testing methodology (some studies use clean, often new or artificially aged, and homogenous wash loads of garments including one or a few garment types; others measure the release from solid consumer laundry).

Powder or liquid? Powder detergent generates a higher emission than liquid detergent. Powder detergents contain an inorganic component called zeolite, which is insoluble in water and causes more friction between the clothes and the washing machine with a higher chance of producing fiber fragments.

However, the chemical formulation of the detergent matters, whether it’s liquid or powder.

Generally, nonionic surfactant-containing detergent is easily soluble in water and works very well in hard water, but is more expensive than anionic surfactant.

The detergent industry uses various enzymes to speed up the washing process. These products are more expensive, good for washing and stain removal; according to some studies they attenuate the fiber fragments more during washing, according to others they increase the release.

Furthermore, the research results also show a significant reduction in the release of microfibre after the first cycles.

If what emerges from the various studies on the impact of detergent does not seem to give certainties, it is instead evident how much the temperature and quantity of water affect it.

How does the water temperature affect the microfibre release?

The release of fiber fragments increases with increasing washing temperature.

In some cases, a higher level of fiber fragments is released during the washing process at higher temperatures even without the addition of detergent or fabric softener.

To reduce the release of fiber fragments during washing, we can keep the washing temperature as low as possible (30°C).

Powder/liquid detergents based on non-ionic detergents seem preferable for washing clothes at lower temperatures with two advantages: (i) lower energy consumption during the washing process and (ii) lower release of fiber fragments.

What is the impact of the washing machine load and the amount of water on the release of microfibres?

In the washing machine, the garment-to-washing liquid ratio plays a critical role in the emission of fiber fragments. One study found the release of 65 mg of fiber fragments per kg of garment and increases to 125 mg of fiber fragments when the wash water is doubled. The higher volume of water increases the mechanical stress of the garments during the washing process.

We should try to wash with full loads but use an adequate amount of detergent and avoid overfilling the washing machine, because it could negatively impact the cleaning performance and lead to mechanical failure of the appliance.

Does the type of washing machine have an impact on microfibres?

A study on top-loading washing machines that work on the agitator principle (a central pivot that twists the clothes back and forth with the movement and rubs them against itself) release about 9 times more fiber fragments than to front-loading washing machines.

High-efficiency (top-load) washers generate significantly less microfiber shedding than traditional (top-load) washers, likely due to lower water fill volumes and therefore lower water/fabric ratio .

And does drying produce the release of microfibers?

I frammenti di fibra rilasciati durante il processo di lavaggio finiscono nelle acque reflue, mentre i frammenti di fibra rilasciati durante l’utilizzo dell’asciugatrice vengono raccolti sui filtri dell’aria e finiscono nei rifiuti solidi. Alcune delle fibre spezzate durante l’asciugatura sono attaccate in modo lasco alla superficie del tessuto e vengono rilasciate nell’aria quando sono indossate o rilasciate nell’acqua nel successivo processo di lavaggio. Al contrario, l’asciugatura all’aria non influenza significativamente il rilascio di frammenti di fibre.

Normalmente, la temperatura di asciugatura, la velocità di agitazione, il tempo di asciugatura sono i criteri principali che influenzano fortemente il rilascio di frammenti di fibre in un’asciugatrice.

The fiber fragments released during the washing process end up in the wastewater, while the fiber fragments released during the use of the dryer are collected on the air filters and end up in the solid waste. Some of the fibers broken down during drying are loosely attached to the surface of the fabric and are released into the air when worn or released into the water in the subsequent washing process. Conversely, atmospheric or air drying did not significantly affect the release of fiber fragments.

Normally, drying temperature, agitation speed, drying time are the main criteria which strongly influence the release of fiber fragments in a tumble dryer.

The characteristics of the fabric also have an impact.

The generation and release of fiber fragments are influenced by many aspects such as the type of fabric, geometry, yarn, and the entire manufacturing history (spinning, knitting or weaving processes, scouring, bleaching, dyeing , finishing and drying), in addiction to the physico-chemical properties of the fibres. Any factor that improves the physical interactions between fibers in the fabric structure reduces the release of fiber fragments during repeated washing and drying processes.

For example, woven polyester fabric emits higher fiber fragments than knitted polyester fabric.

The mechanical structure of the fibers deteriorates over time due to various parameters including exposure to sunlight, wear and washing. Exposure of fabrics to sunlight can increase the heat and accelerate the oxidation of the fibers and their gradual degradation. In addition to this, the fibers deteriorate due to mechanical stress, repeated washing cycles, abrasion and rubbing during wear, perspiration.

How can we limit the release of microfibers?

L’installazione di filtri per lavatrice per mitigare il problema è una possibile soluzione ma non si ha certezza che la filtrazione sia efficiente al 100%. Così il sacchetto che trattiene le microfibre (Guppy Friend). Si sta considerando la rimozione delle microfibre negli impianti di trattamento delle acque reflue, anche se è impegnativo.

I prodotti tessili dovrebbero essere utilizzati il più a lungo possibile prima che finiscano nelle discariche. La minimizzazione dei rifiuti tessili riduce anche il rilascio di frammenti di fibre dalle discariche. Dovremmo riciclare i tessuti il più possibile e creare dagli scarti tessili nuove fibre con tecniche adeguate.

Relativamente al rilascio di microfibre, i tessuti biologici provenienti da risorse rinnovabili dovrebbero essere preferiti a quelli sintetici a base di petrolio.

Il nostro comportamento di acquisto influenza fortemente la mitigazione dei frammenti di fibra. Gli attuali modelli di consumo portano a danni ambientali ed è necessaria maggiore consapevolezza della possibilità di ridurre dei frammenti di fibra dovuti ai processi di lavaggio domestici. I tessuti devono essere lavati in condizioni più miti con meno agitazione meccanica. Il rilascio di microfibra può essere notevolmente ridotto utilizzando cicli di lavaggio più freddi e più brevi, lavando carichi completi ma non eccessivamente colmi e preferendo lavatrici ad alta efficienza. Tali interventi hanno vantaggi anche sulla cura degli indumenti aumentandone la vita utile con benefici di impatto ambientale più ampi.

Contemporaneamente i brand dovrebbero avere più consapevolezza della mitigazione dei frammenti di fibre rispetto ai tipi di tessuto, fornendo i messaggi di avviso su ogni capo realizzato, scegliendo più consapevolmente i materiali e preferendo metodi di finissaggio e tintura più rispettosi dell’ambiente.

Installing filers  for washing machines is a possible solution to mitigate the problem, but there is no certainty that the filtration is 100% efficient. Thus the bag that holds the microfibers (Guppy Friend)). The removal of microfibers in wastewater treatment plants is being considered, although it is challenging.

Textile products should be used for as long as possible before they end up in landfills. Textile waste minimization also reduces the release of fiber fragments from landfills. We should recycle fabrics as much as possible and create new fibers from textile waste with suitable techniques.

Concerning the release of microfibres, bio-based fabrics from renewable resources should be preferred to oil-based synthetic ones.

Our purchasing behavior strongly influences the mitigation of fiber fragments. Current consumption patterns lead to environmental damage. Greater awareness of the possibility of reducing fiber fragments due to domestic washing processes is then needed. Fabrics should be washed under milder conditions with less mechanical agitation. Microfiber shedding can be significantly reduced by using cooler and shorter wash cycles, washing full but not overly full loads, and preferring high-efficiency washers. These interventions also have advantages on the care of garments, increasing their useful life with wider environmental impact benefits.

At the same time, brands should have more awareness of the mitigation of fiber fragments with respect of the types of fabric, providing warning messages on each garment, choosing materials more consciously and preferring more environmentally friendly finishing and dyeing methods.

*Sources:

Aravin Prince Periyasamy, Ali Tehrani-Bagha, A review on microplastic emission from textile materials and its reduction techniques, March 2022, Department of Bioproducts and Biosystems, School of Chemical Engineering, Aalto University, Finland, Science Direct

Lant et al., Microfiber release from real soiled consumer laundry and the impact of fabric care products and washing conditions, June 2020, Plos One

Photo: Mel Poole; Chris Curry; Moonstarious Project; Engin Akyurt; Chloe Skinner.

When I read an article on sustainability as “women’s issue” (Suzanne Elliot, 2021, Euronews), I was intrigued to the point of investigating and better understanding how and why there can be a green-feminine stereotype. Although in the current context of gender fluidity its significance could be questioned, it could help in a more effective dissemination of sustainability messages.

Several studies indicate that there is a gender gap with regard to care for the environment.

According to research by Mintel (2018), men waste more water and food, recycle less, are less careful about turning off lowering the heat when they leave the house, and less inclined to encourage family and friends to live more ethically. The difference in the frequency of behaviors demonstrates the existence of an “eco-gender gap”.

Another study answers the question: “Does gender really matter for sustainability?” (Meinzen-Dick, Kovarik, R. Quisumbing 2014*): yes, but according to the analysis conducted it does not mean that women (or men) are intrinsically more resource-conscious. Rather, we should take into account the intangible motives, material conditions and means available generally to one or the other gender.

Why this gap?

However, the question may arise that the perception of more sustainable practices as a threat to masculinity also plays its part. It’s a study conducted by Penn State researchers that sheds light on how men may be unwilling to carry a reusable shopping bag, recycle, or engage in other environmentally friendly activities that are considered feminine. “There may be subtle, gender-related consequences when we engage in various pro-environmental behaviors. People may avoid certain behaviors because they are managing the gendered impression they anticipate others will have of them. Or they may be avoided if the behaviors they choose do not match their gender”. To preserve gender identity, men would avoid ecological behaviors linked to the green-feminine stereotype. Just as it seems to happen in the mechanisms of reluctance on the part of men to adopt vegetarian and vegan diets. Swim thinks it’s important to understand these social consequences, because they can prevent people from engaging in behaviors that could ultimately help the environment (source Science Daily 2019).

The future

The latest generations grow up with greater exposure to environmental and social issues. Diversity, inclusion, gender fluidity are more familiar concepts than previous generations. With less force than the traditional concept of masculinity, younger people may therefore feel less threatened by perceived attacks on gender identity.

Do you know how many are a lifetime of clothing? Since we usually throw away the clothes we no longer use over time, do we get an idea of how many there are in total?

To answer this question, in 2018 Benjamin Von Wong and Laura François came up with the idea of gathering them all in a single wardrobe, creating the tallest wardrobe in the world: in a single instant, those who look up can see a life of clothes with their own eyes.

The wardrobe is different for each of us, according to the economic availability, the era, the culture. Benjamin and Laura have estimated the number of garments that an average person in an economically developed country wears during their life: 3,000.

In the steel structure, assembled over five long days, 3,000 items donated by volunteer students from Fayoum University were hung on 180 meters of wire inside the Mall of Arabia in Cairo.

As we placed each one we were reminded of the different phases in our lives and just how many clothes we use aloing the way.

Can we imagine the environmental and social impact of our lifelong wardrobe?

The tallest wardrobe in the world wants to remind us to:

Love the clothes we have

Buy only what we need

Sharing what we don’t

We wanted the installation to be more than just a pretty piece of art. We wanted it to become a space which could also be used to generate tangible action and to encourage individuals to think locally.

For this reason, all the used clothes were destined to support Refuge Egypt. “Clothing donations are not always the best approach when wanting to purge your closet,” Laura explains. “Clothing bundles coming from the West and being sold to developing regions for higher prices can ultimately cause a rift in the local economy. Fortunately, this isn’t the case in Egypt. The World’s Tallest Closet was a great opportunity to call the public to action in rethinking their consumption – and also to donate directly to local communities that need it”.

Photos from: Von Wong blog

About 550 kg of clothes were analyzed in the first ever study on fibers thrown into textile collection containers.

Developed by INTEXTER * of the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC)) and student Beatriz Rodríguez of ESEIAAT **, the study is included in the report Análisis de la recogida de la ropa usada en España (Analysis of the collection of used clothing in Spain)***.

Analyzing the composition of the textile products in the bins through an innovative methodology, the research shows that:

• 62% of the clothes contained in the bins are reusable and 37% are recyclable. The most common fiber is cotton, with 50% in recyclable clothing and 60% in reusable clothing. Polyester follows, with 30% in both types. Cotton and polyester account for approximately 80% of recyclable clothing and 88% of reusable clothing.
• Acrylic, polyamide, wool and rayon viscose represent a much lower percentage. In the case of acrylic fiber there is a notable difference between recyclable garments, which represent 12.4%, and reusable garments (3.1%). Acrylic fiber is commonly used in outdoor clothing which is more likely to deteriorate during use, so the reuse rate of these garments is lower than recyclable.

According to INTEXTER director Enric Carrera, “In light of the analysis, we can say that the recycling strategy of post-consumer textile waste should focus on recovering and reusing 80% of the predominant fibres, namely cotton and polyester”.

The study also includes an analysis of the fiber composition of 700 garments from some of the leading fashion brands.

T-shirts, sweaters, jeans, underwear, socks and shirts from Zara, H&M, C&A and Mango reveal that 66.8% of garments are made of mixed fibers, thus significantly limiting the recycling potential. Only 37.3% of the garments studied are made 100% with a single fiber.

The compositions analyzed are not entirely representative because depending on the season (winter/summer) they can vary considerably, the study is therefore to be considered indicative.

Regarding home textiles, 361 articles were analyzed.

Sheets, towels, tablecloths and curtains from Ikea, Zara Home, H&M Home, 10xDIEZ and Carrefour are mainly made with a single material (80%). The most common fibers are cotton, polyester, linen, viscose and lyocell, in that order. Sheets and towels are made primarily of 100% cotton, while tablecloths and curtains of 100% polyester, although binary blends of cotton and polyester or cotton and linen are also used.

UPC’s INTEXTER also carried out an extensive literature review of existing studies on how much CO2 is saved by reusing clothing.

According to the study, carried out with an accurate methodology, the estimate of CO2 savings by reusing 1 kg of clothes is higher than what the EU has outlined so far ****: one kilo of unwanted clothes is enough to avoid the production of 25 kg of CO2.

It doesn’t seem like it, but with small gestures such as recovering, modifying, repairing, donating or selling clothes that we no longer use we can help improve everyone’s quality of life! In the Upcycling section of the site you can read some articles on the subject.

*Terrassa Institute of Textile Research and Industrial Cooperation.

**Terrassa School of Industrial, Aerospace and Audiovisual Engineering.

***Made by the Cáritas cooperative Moda re- and the LAVOLA consultancy company.

****3.169 kg of CO2 saved for every kg of unwanted clothes.