There is widespread global concern for the environmental and social impact caused by processes and behaviours implemented across the fashion and textile industries. Much of the industry operates on a linear ‘’take-make-waste” model, intensifying its negative effects on the environment and social dynamics while enabling a global single-use culture.
Environmental impacts such as energy consumption, chemical use, water usage and pollution, waste generation, finite resource use, and carbon footprint can occur across the product’s life cycle. A comprehensive understanding of the contribution and environmental impact at each product lifecycle stage offers valuable insights and clarity, identifying areas with the most substantial environmental burdens. The environmental aspects of the industry are inextricably linked, and resolving one without considering the others will not effectively address the industry’s broader problems.
A distinct statistic is that the fashion and textile sectors contribute 10% of annual global carbon emissions, which has continuously been a concern. However, according to a recent study, the fashion industry accounts for only 1.8% of global greenhouse gas emissions, making it the third most polluting industry after-fossil fuels and agriculture. While carbon emissions are a substantial output in the linear fashion model, they do not fully represent the industry’s entire environmental impact. A broader approach provides a more holistic view of the damage caused by the fashion industry, preventing “carbon tunnel vision.”
For example, another cause of concern is water contamination, consuming 79 trillion litres of water per year from dyeing processes and laundry microfibre discharge, which contributes to the industry’s significant environmental footprint. The industry also exacerbates its environmental impact with a substantial volume of waste, accounting for an estimated 85% of all textiles ending in landfills.
Despite these encouraging greenhouse gas emission figures, more effort is needed to meet the objectives of initiatives like WRAP’s Textile 2030, which aims to reduce the carbon footprint of clothes by half by 2030 focusing on circularity, fibre recycling, and encouraging changes in consumer behaviour. This is consistent with international agreements such as the Paris Agreement, signed in 2015 to keep average global temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels, with an aspirational target of 1.5 degrees Celsius. The agreement is based on voluntary pledges by individual countries to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the effects of climate change, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC).
While some in the fashion sector have been proactive in setting ambitious climate targets and developing marketing campaigns, the industry still faces challenges in reducing the approximate 897 million tonnes of CO2 greenhouse gas emissions it produces.
The reasons why the industry faces difficulties in reducing its carbon footprint and overall environmental impacts are multifaceted. For instance, the complexity of global supply chains, which lack transparency, makes traceability and accountability difficult. This is worsened by the continuing consumer desire for cheap fashion, which can only be achieved by outsourcing production. Also, differences in acceptable working conditions, living wages, environmental policies and regulations among countries create additional barriers to streamlining attempts to simplify global environmental impact reduction.
To effectively address serious environmental challenges and meet defined targets, proactive reforms and collaborative activities are required.
The Clothing Lifecycle
1. Raw Material Extraction:
The life cycle involves utilising raw materials like cotton, wool, or synthetic fibres. This phase encompasses diverse activities like farming, mining, or petrochemical extraction, each carrying environmental implications such as habitat disruption, chemical usage, pollution, and energy consumption.
Cotton farming, for instance, annually emits a staggering 220 million tons of CO2; the use of pesticides further harms biodiversity and is accompanied by substantial water usage. A notable example of this is the considerable reduction of the Aral Sea. Furthermore, the dyeing and treatment processes applied to garments comprise approximately 17-20% of total industrial water pollution. Cotton cultivation further contributes to soil degradation, erosion, and the loss of forest areas and other critical habitats. Also, the cotton industry is unfortunately tainted by instances of modern slavery, often associated with bonded and child labour practices.
Extracting fossil fuels to produce synthetic materials such as polyester is particularly detrimental to the environment, using substantial amounts of oil and adding to greenhouse gas emissions. The extraction process ruins wildlands, fragmenting and disrupting animal habitats and behaviours.
Wool and other animal-based textiles contribute to habitat loss, water use, and pollution. This environmental impact is caused by sheep breeding for wool production and the subsequent scouring procedure, which uses hot water and chemicals to clean the wool after shearing.
Fossil-fuel-based, plant-based and animal-based material components in the fashion industry all have the potential to contribute to severe environmental damage, emphasising the industry’s need for sustainable alternatives and procedures or reusing materials that already exist.
2. Manufacturing:
The garment manufacturing process is energy-intensive, demands finite resources, requires substantial water usage, and uses various chemicals. This lifecycle stage leads to increased emissions, water pollution and waste generation, among other environmental and social impacts. For example, post-industrial waste produced approximately 20% of the fabric waste during the fabric-cutting stage. Unless these fabric remnants are utilised, they usually end up in landfills or incinerators, contributing to carbon footprint and waste of resources.
All processes, such as sewing, dyeing, welding, and seam-taping within the garment manufacturing phase, are energy and labour-intensive procedures that generate waste and require chemical usage and water. Often wastewater is released into waterways without proper filtration. This approach endangers both animals and the welfare of residents who rely on the contaminated water source, exposing them to dangerous compounds and toxic chemicals.
Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), which include China, India, and Bangladesh, account for 90% of global garment production. This is mostly due to lower average wages in these countries, which maximise profitability for clothing companies. Typically, these countries often have less stringent environments and employee welfare regulations.
3. Distribution and Transportation:
Moving clothing from manufacturers to retailers involves further energy consumption and emissions. From field to shop floor to consumer, every journey during each stage of the product lifecycle generates mileage, contributes to the products carbon footprint and overall environmental impact of a product.
As mentioned, most garment production is centred in countries such as China, India, and Bangladesh (among other LMICs). To keep up with the fast pace of consumer demands in the fashion industry, products are transported using trucks, rail, ships, planes, or a combination of these methods throughout the product lifecycle. Considering the substantial volume, weight, and diverse destinations of the transported garments, shipping by sea is deemed the most cost-effective method with ships handling 90% of global trade.
For instance, one T-shirt is considered to have travelled thousands of miles across multiple countries before arriving to consumers.
4. Use:
Washing and drying textiles contribute to environmental impacts during garment use and maintenance. During washing, microscopic fibre particles (known as microfibres) are shed and released into waterways. While synthetic fibres, such as polyester and nylon, dominate the textile landscape and are frequently portrayed as the primary pollutants, natural fibres, such as cotton and wool, can also pose environmental challenges because all of these fibre types contain chemical additives, such as dyes and finishing agents, which can be harmful once they enter the environment, affecting marine life and potentially entering the food chain.
5. End of Life and Disposal:
The final phase of the clothing life cycle involves disposal. In total, 92 million tons of textile waste, equivalent to 87% of materials and fibres, end up in landfills and incinerators worldwide. Some brands resort to destroying unsold stock to prevent their products from being passed on to cheaper retailers, fearing that this may dilute the brand image. Despite the potential to reuse these materials, only 1% of discarded textiles collected are repurposed or recycled to create new garments.
Established processes and systems, such as charity garment donation and second-hand resale, are vital in reducing the number of garments disposed of in landfills. However, items considered unsuitable for resale often burden countries in the Global South, contributing to a dumping culture called waste colonialism.
Disposing of textiles involves emitting greenhouse gases and releasing chemicals into the air and ground at these disposal locations. Used garments take years to decompose in landfills, where oxygen exposure is limited. Throughout this decomposition period, synthetic chemicals from fashion manufacturing seep into the soil and infiltrate water sources. In addition, the incineration of clothing exacerbates this problem by polluting the environment with carbon dioxide, methane, greenhouse gases, pollutants, and chemicals, significantly contributing to worsening climate change.
Social Impact of Fashion
While this article is focused on the environmental impacts of the fashion and textiles sector, it is worth noting the range of associated social and health impacts.
For instance, regulations at garment factories frequently fall short of accepted standards, resulting in accidents, injuries, and deaths. Workers are exposed to toxic dyes and chemicals, which pose a severe risk to their long-term health without adequate protection. In many factories, working conditions are unsafe, jeopardising the overall welfare of garment workers. The 2013 Rana Plaza disaster exposed the reality of garment factories and the conditions that vulnerable supply chain workers experience.
Female garment industry workers face an additional risk of gender-based abuse and harassment in the workplace. As workers are constantly under pressure to meet their production targets, excessive overtime often results in physical and mental fatigue. Some workers in the textile sector struggle to find a living wage, which makes it hard for them to keep up with their essential needs.
Over the last few years, the fashion industry has encountered a significant issue involving Uyghur forced labour in cotton production, which is a clear violation of human rights. Some countries have formally recognised the Chinese government’s systematic incarceration and exploitation of Uyghurs and other ethnic groups as genocide. China produces roughly 20% of the world’s cotton, with Xinjiang region accounting for 84%. This puts the textile and garment industries at a significant risk, knowingly or unknowingly, of relying on forced Uyghur labour. It is estimated that half a million to several million Uyghurs have been detained and forced to work in the cotton industries in the province. Recent studies have highlighted the “coercive labour” continuance in the province, which is likely to continue until 2025, according to Xinjiang’s official Five-Year Plan for 2021-25.
The United States has prohibited the import of cotton and related products from Xinjiang, which are associated with forced labour. Still, shipments under $800 are exempted from triggering reporting responsibilities at U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This implies that ultra-fast fashion brands like Shein and Cider, linked to Uyghur forced labour, can still dispatch shipments straight to U.S. customers without activating the value threshold because of their low clothing prices. It is not just fast fashion brands linked to using Uyghur forced labour. Many high-end luxury brands and household names such as Nike, Patagonia and Ralph Lauren have been exposed to have directly or indirectly benefited from forced labour in China.
The EU has proposed similar bans but will not specifically target Xinjiang. Experts believe forced labour cotton will still be present in the supply chain with the complexity arising during the ginning stage when fibres from several areas are combined, making tracing its origin almost impossible.
Conclusion
In the hope of a more sustainable future, the fashion industry can reduce its environmental impacts by implementing sustainable practices at every lifecycle stage. Despite the sector’s seemingly low contribution to global carbon emissions of 1.8%, the inherent environmental concerns remain due to the fashion and textile sectors’ linear ‘take-make-trash‘ approach. Recognising the complexities of the garment life cycle, from raw material extraction to disposal, emphasises the importance of proactive reforms and coordinated efforts. As shown by initiatives like WRAP’s Textile 2030 and worldwide agreements like the Paris Agreement, meeting stated targets necessitates collaborative efforts and understanding the industry’s impact at each life cycle stage.
Written by Krishma Sabbarwal