To become a Vogue Business Member and receive the Sustainability Edit newsletter, click here.
After a bleak report six months ago about the industry’s lack of progress towards reducing its impact, the latest update from non-profit Textile Exchange shows some improvement in its use of preferred materials. However, systemic change remains elusive.
Alternative materials — and better ways of producing them — have been a hot topic for fashion brands this year. The number of pilots and partnerships continues to rise, from plant-based leather alternatives like Von Holzhausen’s Liquidplant and Stella McCartney’s mycelium bag with Bolt Threads, to Ganni’s various investments in banana waste, cotton waste and yarn made from captured carbon emissions. Most recently, fast fashion giant Zara teamed up with Circ to launch a recycled fibre collection from polyester-cotton waste.
Textile Exchange’s latest report, published today, analyses data submitted by 424 brands, retailers, manufacturers and suppliers for the year 2021, as reported in 2022. It found that preferred materials now represent 56 per cent of total material use for participating companies, up from 50 per cent in 2021 and 44 per cent the year before. Preferred materials is a fluid term that Textile Exchange recently updated to “[a material that] delivers consistently reduced impacts and increased benefits for climate, nature, and people against the conventional equivalent, through a holistic approach to transforming production systems”, an initial attempt to raise the bar for progress.
Founder La Rhea Pepper is stepping down and Claire Bergkamp, who built Stella McCartney’s sustainability department, will take her place. At the top of her agenda: asking the hard questions.
.jpg)
Within this, recycled materials grew to 14 per cent of all materials used, although only 4 per cent were recycled from post-consumer waste; a pathway Textile Exchange is keen to see accelerated. Despite promising signs, greenhouse gas emissions rose by five per cent in Tier 4 (raw materials sources) — growing at a similar rate to before the pandemic.
For Textile Exchange, this report marks the half-way point between its first Materials Benchmark in 2015 and its Climate+ goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the production of fibre and raw materials by 45 per cent by 2030. In October, the organisation reported that the fashion industry was on track to miss its climate targets and exceed the 1.5°C pathway laid out in the Paris Climate Agreement. Its message was clear: reduce overall production; invest in scaling innovation; and swap out harmful materials for preferred ones. “The pace of change is still not in line with 2030 targets,” says chief strategy officer Ashley Gill of the latest update.
Brands need better data to prove impact
Incomplete and inconsistent data is one of the key barriers to progress, says Gill. In a bid to solve this, Textile Exchange is updating its Materials Benchmark survey framework — extending its reach beyond the adoption of preferred materials to include questions about progress, targets, monitoring and reporting across climate, biodiversity, freshwater, ocean, land use and soil health. The organisation is also teaming up with the Sustainable Apparel Coalition’s Higg brand and retail module to streamline the number and scope of surveys brands have to fill out for various industry-wide initiatives. “It’s about efficiency and getting that information in a way that isn’t burdensome for the companies involved,” says Gill. The new framework will run from 2023 to 2025.
“We need more impact from individual companies, and more collective action from the industry as a whole,” says Gill. Efforts should be focused on two key areas, she adds: increasing the percentage of preferred materials, and getting better data on their impact.
With the increased legislative pressure for supply chain transparency and traceability, it’s promising to see a rise in the use of preferred materials. According to the report, 47 per cent of materials are now traceable to the country of origin. But country of origin is merely the tip of the iceberg, says Gill. “We have available life cycle assessment (LCA) information but some of it could be more recent, and there are regionality differences that current LCAs have not been able to address,” she explains. “That’s one area we see a lot of opportunity to improve impact data: understanding country of origin, but also what’s unique about that geographic context that will help us understand improvements to things outside of LCAs which are much harder to quantify: biodiversity, soil health, human rights and livelihoods, animal welfare.”
The report also highlighted the industry’s efforts to promote biodiversity and soil health: almost a quarter of all land from which materials are sourced is now under sustainability programmes or certifications, a 52 per cent increase compared to last year. “These programmes also have the opportunity to improve data collection, understanding the data impacts of the raw materials we have, which could exponentially increase the positive results,” says Gill.
Equity equals resilience
Ultimately, it shouldn’t be left to Textile Exchange to tell brands how to move forward, says Gill. The industry needs a just transition, and that means the people directly impacted by the fashion supply chain — the same people with the most intimate knowledge of its challenges and potential solutions — playing a bigger role in its transformation. “Conversations about supply chain transparency or progress towards climate goals rarely include the communities and individuals at the beginning of the supply chain,” she explains. “Part of the work we see as necessary is creating space and opportunity for them to define what progress looks like. We need to listen to them about what benefits them, and help empower them to make the necessary changes.”
Conversations about living wages are difficult to translate into just and fair prices in a commodity market like materials, Gill continues, especially when supply chains often shift in response to tighter legislation. “Fashion is a global market with no single government to oversee action,” she says. “Generally, as worker and environmental protections increase in one country, supply chains shift to another.”
To counter this, brands need to build long-term, equitable relationships with their suppliers, and need to reassess their investment models. Mutually supportive supply chains can also be more resilient in times of crisis, such as the increasing natural disasters and climate impacts already ravaging natural fibre suppliers.
“Often, companies will invest in preferred materials or programmes if there is room in their margin, or they’ll use some of their philanthropic dollars to contribute to pilots,” Gill explains. “But, those investments — which are not foundational or sustainable within the company — are the first to go when there are signs of instability. If we are to maintain progress in these unstable times, those investments need to be more foundational, rather than a nice-to-have.”
Comments, questions or feedback? Email us at feedback@voguebusiness.com.
More from this author:
Should fashion opt out of Earth Day?
How to set up a sustainability team for success
Can regenerative leadership fill sustainable fashion’s action gap?