‘So many issues to tackle’: Can innovation put the fashion industry on a path to net zero?

Pressure is mounting on the fashion industry to tackle its outsized environmental footprint, but can a wave of green innovation across the sector really trigger a shift towards sustainable business models?

When you think of the biggest contributors to climate change, it is sectors such as oil and gas, mining, aviation, and chemicals that tend to come to mind. Not T-shirts and handbags.

But the fashion industry is by any measure one of the world’s most polluting industries, responsible for a huge carbon impacts, multiple local environmental impacts, and consequently huge pressure to become more sustainable. Issues range from greenhouse gases emitted during production processes and the chemicals involved in the processing of textiles to the enormous waste mountain created by the ‘Fast Fashion’ industry and the huge water footprint which according to some estimates sees up to 10,000 litres of water used to produce a single kilogram of cotton.

There are also significant impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems from deforestation and resource use – one only has to look at time lapse images of the fast-shrinking Aral Sea that has been caused in part huge water demand from the regions cotton industry to see how profound the damage can be.

“The fashion industry has so many issues to tackle, and they are all interconnected,” says Sonya Bhonsle, global head of value chains at environmental impact disclosure group CDP.

It is a sector that encompasses multiple parts of the economy, from the agriculture sector’s production of raw materials such as cotton, rubber, and leather to the chemicals and fossil fuels used in making synthetic fibres – polyester accounts for 52 per cent of all materials used in the sector, according to Fashion for Good – to emissions from transporting goods around the globe and the huge amounts of waste the fashion sector generates.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) reckons the production of synthetic fibres is responsible for 15 per cent of global plastics demand, while Fashion for Good points out that the sector produces four per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions as well as two thirds of the world’s plastic microfibres. Still soaring demand for plastics in general and petroleum-based textiles in particular is also one of the justifications provided by oil companies for continued exploration at a time when the switch towards electric vehicles is expected to curb demand from road transport.

As such, the fashion industry’s environmental impact occurs mostly in its supply chain, according Pauline Op de Beeck, who is responsible for the Carbon Trust’s work with the fashion, retail, and manufacturing sectors across the UK and Europe. “The overwhelming majority of impacts are upstream, in the cultivation of natural raw materials, or the creation of man-made materials which require processing that is incredibly energy intensive, often using coal,” she explains,

One of the industry’s main challenges in tackling these impacts is the length and opacity of its supply chains. “When you have these gargantuan, outsourced supply chains, when you don’t run your own factories, you’re not making your own materials and those materials are not standard, you don’t have a handle on what’s going on,” explains Patsy Perry, reader in fashion marketing at Manchester Metropolitan University. “And it’s not just a few factories, it’s hundreds. How can you really see what’s going on and map your emissions in those circumstances? It’s impossible.”

Supply chains are very complex, agrees Op de Beeck. “It’s never just one brand buying from just one company,” she explains. “It’s multiple brands and multiple factories.”

And yet, partly because of its reliance on multiple suppliers, partly because of its extremely tight margins, and partly because it has tended to lag behind other parts of the economy in its approach to supply chain decarbonisation, there is a huge amount of ‘low-hanging fruit’ emission reduction measures available to the fashion industry. Relatively simple and well established measures, such as procuring renewable energy or undertaking basic energy efficiency measures like installing LED lightbulbs in factories, are still widely available for brands looking to work with suppliers to curb their emissions.

As such, fashion suppliers are coming under growing pressure from their customers to implement such measures, according to Bhonsle. “We need more transparency to ensure a cascade of ambition and knowledge down the supply chain,” she argues. “Suppliers are just getting started but there are lots of easy wins that can help them. Suppliers reporting to CDP said they have collectively saved $73bn and 690 million tonnes of CO2 from climate action – almost the equivalent of the amount that Brazil emits, in fact. Over half of the measures pay back within three years, and many of them in less than 12 months.”

Further up the value chain, there are emissions savings available from the transportation, distribution, and sale of clothing, as well as the washing of clothes once they leave the store. While the emissions savings that result from such decarbonisation measures are far less than those available in the supply chain, they are worth tackling because they are relatively cost effective and easy to execute.

Far more challenge, however, is the issue of waste, which is a problem both throughout the value chain and at the end of life for garments. According to Op de Beeck, a shocking “12 per cent of materials are wasted on the factory floor and 25 per cent of garments never get sold, either because they are faulty or because production has been mismatched to demand”.

Soaring levels of waste were a particular problem during the lockdowns caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, when nobody could go shopping. But there is a more fundamental problem for the industry. “Fashion has become a consumable product rather than a durable one,” acknowledges Erik Bang, innovation lead at the H&M Foundation.

“The whole industry is built on planned obsolescence,” Perry adds. “People get rid of clothes before they are functionally obsolete. Clothing has become more disposable. What you are offered is so cheap, it’s not worth keeping.”

However, many experts remain optimistic that the industry can yet transition towards a more sustainable operating model. “Fashion is an old-fashioned industry but it is ripe for innovation,” argues Charlotte Borst, innovation associate at Fashion for Good.

H&M’s Bang agrees a combination of technology and business model innovation has the potential to curb the industry’s environmental footprint. “There are some brilliant innovators out there,” he says. “We can make garments from food waste. We don’t have to rely on virgin resources. We can dye textiles without using water and chemicals, we can recycle textiles to turn them into new products.”

Such innovation is being funded right across the industry. Fashion for Good, for example, has recently launched the Renewable Carbon Textiles Project, to accelerate the development of PHA polymer fibres, a ‘biosynthetic’ alternative to fossil-based fibres such as polyester, which can be made from a wide range of feedstocks, such as food waste, bamboo, and even captured carbon. The material is already being used in packaging, says Borst, but it is trickier to create fibres that can be used in clothing.

Researchers are also exploring the potential for the use of clean technologies deeper in the supply chain, including the role of precision agriculture and hydroponics in vertical farming to slash the use of water, land, and pesticides when producing raw materials. “We’re also looking at other natural fibres such as hemp, which has a much better environmental profile than cotton and can be easily blended,” Borst adds.

Meanwhile, companies such as Patagonia and VF Corp, which owns brands including Vans and Timberland, are pioneering a range of regenerative agriculture projects for products such as cotton, leather, and rubber.

Similarly, Fashion for Good is working closely with brands such as Kering, Target, PVH, and textile manufacturer Arvind to look at ways to both chemically recycle cotton and to grow the crop in a more sustainable way. One project aims to grow extra-long staple cotton, which is higher quality but challenging to grow, in greenhouses. This would then enable it to be grown in regions where it was not previously possible, in the process reducing water use by 80 per cent, cutting land use, and eliminating any reliance on pesticides.

“The challenge,” reflects Bang, “is that fashion is not an industry that is good at scaling up solutions. We’re really good at doing pilot schemes but there’s a very different narrative around scaling these solutions. The industry lacks a culture of doing deep, technical R&D and challenging assumptions. If you compare it to the automotive sector, there companies differentiate themselves by doing their own R&D. Fashion is more of a merchandising operation.”

And while innovation will help to reduce the impact of individual garments and brands, ultimately technology can not be the sole answer to the industry’s environmental challenges, accepts Borst. “Innovation needs to go hand in hand with other changes,” she argues.

Perry agrees. “Technology will not be the saviour in this,” she reflects. “We need to contract consumption, but I don’t think anyone is really doing this.” There are a few brands that have sustainability at their core, such as Eileen Fisher in the US, a B Corp that has its own take back and recycle programme, and the UK’s Elvis & Kresse, an accessories brand that makes products from discarded materials such as fire hoses and parachute silk.

Meanwhile, the likes of Burberry and Patagonia offer repair services for their products. However, such services tend to remain the preserve of bigger and often luxury brands, Perry says. “These products still have value when they are decades old – they are high quality, long-lasting and don’t go out of fashion over time,” she adds. “But no mass market brands are doing this.”

As such, one of the most important steps the industry can take is to become more circular in its resource flows, says Op de Beeck. “If you have a net zero target, you’re not going to achieve that just by being more efficient – you have to reimagine your business model,” she advises. “Circular business models require that the industry designs for recyclability and durability, so the life of a garment can be extended, either by being repaired or having a second life.”

Circularity is gaining traction, not just at the biggest brands, but also through consumer platforms such as Depop, Vinted, and Poshmark to sell their old clothes.

Progress on recycling is slower, in part because it requires systemic change and considerable infrastructure investments. “It’s impossible for one brand to do this on their own,” Op de Beeck warns. “We need policies in place and co-investment from the public sector. The infrastructure to recycle garments doesn’t exist yet.”

However, there are still steps fashion companies can take to better enable circularity. “There is greater awareness that the conversation around circularity has to start in the design phase to ensure that the life of a garment can be extended or it can be recycled in existing waste streams,” says Borst. “For example, we’re looking at stitching thread that dissolves when heated, allowing you, say, to take zips out of jeans and create cleaner waste streams.”

Ultimately, fashion needs to become a planet positive industry that replenishes resources rather than just trying to reduce its footprint, says Bang. “The industry is sincere in its attempts to address this,” he insists. “We know what the problem is but we’re not dealing with it fast enough.”