Sustainability in the Fashion Industry: how fashion brands can react to the climate crisis

Quick word from our sponsor, 51tocarbonzero.com. If you're a CFO or board member staring down CSRD or Scope 3 and thinking, where do we even start? We at Sustainability Solved would point you to 51tocarbonzero.com. They turn complex, fragmented emissions data into something simple and give boards clear, audit-ready visibility on exactly where the reduction opportunities are. It's not another reporting tool that adds work. It's built so the data holds up when your auditor asks the hard questions. If that's a conversation worth having, get in touch with 51tocarbonzero.com, or just drop me a message and I'll point you in the right direction. Right, back to the episode.

Hi, welcome to the Sustainable Business Podcast with me, Will Richardson. This week we're looking at the world of fashion. With London Fashion Week coming to an end at the weekend, we thought it would be right to look at an industry that has a particularly poor reputation when it comes to its carbon impact. When combining all parts of the product cycle, the UN estimates that the global fashion industry contributes between 8 and 10% of all carbon emissions, and so-called fast fashion continues to be greatly scrutinized by campaign groups for its impact on the environment. Joining me today is a prominent voice in the world of sustainable fashion. It's Alicia Theew from Green Element, who's done work with the industry group Fashion Declares, as well as working with a number of businesses in the fashion industry to help them decarbonize their supply chains and production practices. Welcome, Alicia.

Hi, Will. Thanks so much for having me. Really excited to be chatting on the podcast today.

Yeah, no, so am I, considering we work so much together. And you definitely know your stuff on this subject. So I'm looking at trying to pull that out so that people can understand what it is to do and learn more about such a complicated industry as well.

Yeah, absolutely. I think fashion is something that's quite close to my heart anyway, obviously aside from my environmental career. So marrying the two together is really exciting. area for me.

Brilliant. So first and foremost, how big an issue are the carbon emissions caused by the fashion industry?

Yeah, so as you mentioned in the introduction, that the fashion industry is responsible for about 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions, which is quite a big proportion. And those greenhouse gas emissions are mainly associated with the fossil fuels which are used to generate the energy which goes into sort of all the different life stages of producing clothing or footwear. Or accessories. So everything from extracting the raw materials, whether that sort of be growing cotton, through to the raw materials processing, things like dyeing, manufacturing, so actually making the fabric itself and then making the garments, and then obviously all of the distribution as well, which goes alongside that. And according to the United Nations, the apparel industry as a whole actually uses more energy than both the aviation and shipping industries combined, which is quite staggering really, given how carbon intense both of those industries are. I suppose also, it's also worth mentioning that greenhouse gas emissions, global warming isn't the only environmental impact caused by the fashion industry. The industry actually uses huge volumes of water. Input into sort of growing the raw materials as well as the materials processing, as well as sort of harmful chemicals involved, particularly in textiles dyeing. And all that sort of water use, energy use, and then the waste as well that comes out the other side, which both the production is responsible for, but also as consumers, we are also responsible for that wastage. So yeah, it's obviously greenhouse gases, major issue, but there are lots of other things going on as well.

And I think you kind of answered my question inadvertently. The next question I had was, well, because what I was, what I was going to ask you was if we switch to renewables, then that whole, you know, emissions would reduce. But actually what you're saying is it's not just about the emissions. There's so much more to it. It's basically so multifaceted.

Yeah, absolutely. And sort of one of, one of the main sort of recommendations you know, for, for the production process as a whole would be switching over to 100% renewable energy. And that would have a massive impact. But it's, it's not the only impact, as you say, we've got to sort of account for these other sort of sustainability issues of the industry as a whole.

And how much is it down to production methods? Or is it all because of the demand?

It's a really good question. And it's Kind of both. So basically, all the different stages, as I sort of went through, the raw materials production, the preparation, the processing of the materials, and then the garments, are all really energy-intensive processes. And a report actually by McKinsey estimated that that accounted for about 70% of the total greenhouse gas emissions generated from the apparel industry. So all those sort of production methods and processes that are going on. And when we look at the sort of whole lifecycle of clothing, including the consumer use and disposal, which also, you know, we also need to account for and think about. Companies that have already been through this carbon footprinting process, fashion brands such as Levi Strauss and H&M as well, have estimated that around 20% of their total carbon footprint is actually down to the consumer use and the disposal of clothing. So that's actually that post-production part of it, which is quite a big chunk. And overproduction obviously is a really big part of the problem because if we made less, then global emissions from all stages of production, including that use and end of life, would be reduced because there would be fewer clothes in circulation in general, which is a really sort of strong reason why we can't ignore the consumer aspect of the industry's impact as well. The industry needs to make much more effort to promote repairing, refurbishing, secondhand clothing, and sort of making long-lasting, good quality clothing in the first place, which doesn't need to be replaced all the time, sort of bringing down the pure number of garments in circulation as well as decarbonizing the processes.

I was listening to a program that had Primark's head of sustainability on the other day. It was Deborah Meaden's podcast, and she was talking about how environmental they are becoming. But I think you've just hit the nail on the head. It doesn't matter about the practices, it's about how much you're making. If most of the emissions come from actually fast fashion, then fast fashion shouldn't exist.

Yeah, absolutely. It's a whole sort of societal change as well as sort of a way of thinking. And that sort of needs to come from the top down in terms of how do we sort of normalize clothing, buying secondhand clothes and repairing our own clothes or sending it to be refurbished. So I think once we tackle that sort of mindset in just reducing consumption, we'll be a long way towards reducing sort of global emissions from the industry.

Yeah, I guess you can make the most quality clothes, and if you're making thousands, like too much of it, that's the crux of it. So what are some of the steps fashion businesses can take when it comes to their own operations?

So, within a company's own operations is usually where they have the most autonomy and control over what can actually be measured and changed. And I suppose sort of a starting point which feeds actually into the production process will be the design of clothing and shoes and accessories and sort of, you know, all of those sorts of things. Making sure that the fabrics that are chosen have longevity, are sustainably produced, and that the clothing is made with a mind that it could be repaired one day and then be reused after that. So I think design is really important. Aside from that, in terms of a company's own sites and those operational sites, whether that be retail outlets, shops, offices, warehouses, attention can obviously be paid to the energy efficiency of those buildings, as well as ensuring that 100% renewable is used, cutting out the use of fossil fuels, those sorts of things. And also as well, sort of a nod again to the water use efficiency and ensuring that waste is disposed of appropriately as well is really important. I'd say aside from buildings, if a company has its own fleet of vehicles, they can consider whether they can switch to electric vehicles instead, which could be charged then with their 100% renewable electricity tariffs. In addition to that, there are some really great courses by the Smart Freight Centre and Energy Savings Trust as well on fleet efficiency. Anything to do with logistics and operations, which are within a company's own control, there are lots of improvements that can be made there. I suppose finally as well, just to mention the decisions made with regards to the material and packaging choices that are actually used. Can we use less? considering all the materials that are being used, considering whether they can be reused, it's really important and something that brands do actually have influence over.

It's really interesting to hear about the operational side, but should companies focus solely on their own practices, or is it also important to look at the suppliers and distributors within the ecosystem?

Yes, I think it's absolutely essential that companies also look at their suppliers and distributors because that forms a huge part of their Scope 3 emissions. So, we mentioned at the start that around 70% of the greenhouse gas emissions from the industry as a whole are actually related to the first stages of production, which are often performed by third-party suppliers, distributors, etc. Just to remind ourselves, that's producing the raw materials, processing the raw materials, and making the garments. And that means essentially that focusing efforts there can have the greatest collective impact. Having said that, that's also an area of the supply chain that companies tend to really struggle with because they have the least influence over their suppliers. And so it can prove a bit can prove a bit tricky. That's why, in general, we suggest a really collaborative approach to tackling Scope 3 supply chain emissions, opening the conversation with suppliers and seeing how they respond to implementing electric vehicles into their fleets or changing the materials they use or switching to renewable energy. Are there any incentives that you can provide? Can you invest money in new technologies which will work with suppliers to make their processes more efficient? I think it's actually really interesting that the Science Based Targets initiative, actually for their Scope 3 targets, one of the optional pathways is a collaborative approach of bringing your suppliers along with you. So will a target to get them to sign up to science-based targets? And I think that's, that's really interesting and just sort of highlights the collaboration that, that's needed sort of within the industry as a whole.

It's such an important part of the reduction strategy, isn't it, for, for that collaboration, for the suppliers to all work together and have that lead. We hear a lot about offsetting within the supply chain. And what are your thoughts on that?

Decarbonization of the supply chain is the only real way to tackle the carbon footprint of the industry. And so that's sort of the path that we take all of our clients down. I mentioned the Science Based Targets Initiative. And so just to sort of talk a little bit about that, to set the scene. The Science Based Targets Initiative is sort of a collaboration with some of the really big hitters. So the UN Global Compact and the World Resources Institute. Institute, WWF, who have designed this framework for companies to set targets which put you on track, your carbon emissions reductions on track to meet and align with 1.5 degrees cap on global warming and eventually to meet what we call science-based net zero by 2050 at the latest. science-based targets are really robust, they're very meaningful, and as I mentioned, in line with the climate science. There are lots of benefits to setting them as well, including improved resilience, preparation for regulations that might come into place, improved credibility, really positive for company reputation, and can be quite cost-effective as well, depending on the strategies and efficiencies that are put in place as part of your carbon reduction strategy. A real way to future-proof your business So setting science-based targets basically involves setting a short-term target over 5 to 10 years, and then a long-term net zero target, which must, you know, your net zero target date must be 2050 by the latest. And basically what that means for your net zero target is that companies need to reduce their emissions by at least 90% by their net zero target date. And then only those residual emissions, which is around 10% at the end, can then be removed via permanent carbon removals, and they can be nature-based or technology-based, such as direct air capture and storage.

So in a nutshell, you wouldn't offset because it's not scientifically proven?

Yeah, exactly. So carbon offsetting is used by some companies, um, sort of as, you know, as an alternative, a quick— quicker fix than this. And I suppose, yeah, just sort of giving that background there, just trying to explain that it's sort of not a quick fix. And these sort of reductions, science-based reductions targets, which have been modeled on the actual science, so we know that we have confidence in them, are sort of the best way to go because there are so many issues associated with carbon offsetting. And that's sort of the reason why they're not accepted towards you know, your science-based targets.

That makes sense. Can you think of any examples of companies that have made progress in the decarbonizing?

Yeah, absolutely. So I was sort of having a little browse on Science Based Targets Initiative the other day, and they had a recent impact report out, and I was just sort of having a little look around. So there are currently around 72 companies in the fashion, footwear, and textiles industries who have set their near-term science-based targets. Committing to limiting global warming by 1.5 degrees. And they include companies such as Adidas, Allbirds, Burberry, Levi's that I mentioned earlier as well. And out of those 72 companies, there are 23 who have also set or committed rather to a net zero target, but not set that target yet. As that sort of framework's relatively new. Relatively new. And as I just described, setting your science-based targets is committing to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And it's a great sign that fashion brands are engaging. Allbirds, for example, are looking really carefully at their materials and recycled content of their packaging, some of their forefront carbon reduction strategy. Whilst Levi's, on the other hand, are looking at sourcing renewable energy at all of their owned and operated sites. And also investing in their supply chain to drive decarbonization amongst their suppliers. So it's really interesting sort of seeing what different companies have identified as the main things that they want to prioritize at the moment.

And the companies that you work with, what sort of things are they doing?

Yeah, so there's all sorts going on. So renewable energy, sort of switching to renewable energy, similarly to Levi's, at owned and operated sites. Sites is a big one. It's a bit more of a challenge with supplier-owned sites, factories and things like that. But there could be some influence over it, especially some of the bigger brands that we've worked for who do have that bit more influence purely for volume of the garments that they're producing as well. Some of our other companies like Finisterre, looking at the materials, they've got some really exciting new materials like their wetsuits that they've substituted out to have a lower environmental impact. And also, we're seeing lots of companies launching refurbishment and repair services. Finisterre have their own repairs workshop online. Yeah, all sorts of different things. In terms of packaging as well, we're seeing a reduction in the amount of packaging being used in general, which obviously has a knock-on effect for freighting as well. So, the less weight we're sending, the less packaging we're sending, the lower the carbon emissions from freighting as well. So, lots of exciting things.

And you conduct life cycle analysis on clothing companies, don't you? So you look at— could you explain what a life cycle analysis is, please?

Yeah, sure. So a life cycle analysis looks at the, well, the environmental impact. I mean, for us specifically, the greenhouse gas emissions associated with every stage of a product's production. And so we tend to do cradle to grave lifecycle analysis, which is basically looking at all of the inputs from the raw materials extraction, production and extraction, processing, manufacturing the product itself, whether it's a garment or whether it's something else, and then distributing, warehousing, all the transportation in between all those different legs, all the way through to the customer. And then if whatever the product is has sort of a use phase, or it might be, might require energy to use it, then that would be included as well, all the way through to the end of life. So the carbon emissions associated with whatever waste disposal method that product undergoes. So it's a really comprehensive and detailed look at every stage of a product's production.

So when you first started doing this, the life cycle analysis, was there anything that that you saw in, you know, the work that you were doing that you were kind of, oh wow, you know, that, that jumped out at you and went, I wasn't expecting that? Or, or was it all, I kind of was expecting most of this?

Um, yes and no. Um, I would say the impact of the raw materials themselves often surprises me at how big a part of the product footprint they have. Um, and that's just the raw materials themselves. And that sort of— you think about, you know, all of the, um, energy that goes into production and transporting, um, products around sort of global networks. You think that's going to be huge, and then you actually look at, look at the results, and often it's actually the raw materials themselves which have, um, the biggest impact. And I say somewhat ironically, that tends to be where we tend to have the least detailed data, just because the way the world works is big sort of global supply chains and very far removed from somebody actually growing the cotton in the ground. And getting that level of detail is so important and something that I hope the work that we do and other companies do will enable that transparency. all the way through the supply chain.

With regards to raw materials, I've had quite a few people on our podcast talking about natural products and then synthetic products. Does that make a difference on that lifecycle? So I guess we could talk about wool or basically plastic, isn't it, that's used instead of wool, polyester. Is there a difference?

Yeah, absolutely. So, it's really complex and there are sort of different schools of thought and sort of the natural versus synthetics textiles for clothing. So, obviously polyester is made from fossil fuels, obviously a big negative, and it's a very energy-intensive process. Recycled polyester is available, But there are again going to be greenhouse gas emissions associated with the recycling of that polyester. And because there are often plastics that are produced in products which have lots of different complex mixtures of different plastics, there are some challenges associated with the recycling of plastics and polyester so that it can then be used in textiles and for garments. I suppose with wool, the farming practices, so the production of the sheep, have the biggest impact on the life cycle of a woollen garment. That's mainly owing to the methane produced by the sheep as ruminant animals, as well as lots of other inputs as well in terms of the energy associated with farming, the land use, and the consequences on soil health and soil fertility, etc., etc. So there are lots of environmental impacts associated with both. So it's kind of not as simple to say one's better than the other. I think it really has to be taken on a case-by-case basis and getting right down into the weeds of the data. So, you know, literally going back to the farm level and saying what practices are used, what energy is used, how much is used, and assessing those impacts. Obviously, there are farming methods that as regenerative farming techniques, which are considered as much more environmentally friendly than conventional farming techniques. And similarly, sort of in that example of polyester as well, there are 100% recycled polyester can be used from 100% renewable energy, but then you've still got the microplastics and sort of toxins associated with polyester, whether it's recycled or not. So it's really not that simple.

And this is a rhetorical question. How do we disseminate that information and how do we, you know, educate consumers on this subject, really? And it's making it as simple as possible because it's complicated from listening to you.

Yeah, it's really complicated.

Moving into, you know, consumers, are people looking for sustainable or upcycled clothing?

Yes, absolutely. So, um, a couple of weeks ago I was actually at the launch party for a new company selling secondhand high street designer clothes, and they're called The Circle. There was such a buzz about the place. People seemed genuinely excited to be looking at all these lovely secondhand, pre-loved clothes and also getting a bit of a bargain as well, which we mustn't forget is obviously a benefit. That's just one example. There are lots of online retailers selling pre-loved, secondhand clothing, shoes, and accessories that are all actually doing really well. And it's good to see it becoming more mainstream again, so that reuse of clothing. I'd say as well, we're also seeing lots of companies launching those sort of refurbishment and repair schemes on their website. So Finisterre, as I mentioned before, who we've worked with, have launched a repairs workshop, and Patagonia sort of have a long-standing worn wear hub as well. where you can send in clothes that they'll refurbish and resell, or they do repairs as well on your clothing that you want back. Lots of exciting things going on. Another option is garment rentals as well. There are some specialist companies doing just rentals, and even some high street fashion retailers have trialled it. I think H&M trialled it. Maybe, maybe, um, in the past few years, but, um, hasn't quite, hasn't quite become mainstream yet, but there's no reason why not. And I think it's that sort of, uh, as I was talking about earlier, that societal mindset shift, um, to make it sort of, you know, trendy and cool, um, and normal.

And moving into Fashion Declares, it's London Fashion Week. You've been doing some work for Fashion Declares. Can you tell us a bit more about that organisation and what they do?

I worked with Fashion Declares and Sophia Minney, who is one of the founders of that organization, and she asked me to speak about decarbonizing the supply chain and the fashion industry in a recent webinar, which was a really good event and brought together some really interesting speakers from various perspectives in the industry. So, Fashion Declares, as an organization, is a global movement of people within the fashion industry who all want to learn more, share best practices, and take effective action on climate and ecological and social problems. So sort of the concepts, they have 5 main goals. Fashion2Cares have 5 main goals which sort of range from social justice to decarbonization and pushing for a regenerative fashion model. So sort of changing the fashion industry to act as a force for good and sort of promote responsible and sort of sustainable ways of working. And companies can commit to those goals by signing an open letter on their website. So it's sort of bringing companies in the fashion industry together as a collective force for all of the good things that we've been talking about.

Brilliant. I mean, that sounds really positive.

Yeah.

Are you optimistic about the industry? Is it moving in the right direction?

So again, I suppose yes and no. I think the tools are there, and companies and the public are starting to sort of sit up and listen. There's, you know, even sort of things on Instagram, you're starting to get more and more bloggers, fashion bloggers, things like that, and Instagram stars starting to talk about you know, the sustainability of fashion. Um, lots of brands are jumping on board. I think that awareness in the public is, is really starting to gain a bit of traction. Um, it made me really, really excited to go to the Circle launch party the other week and see people so engaged with, um, secondhand clothing. I think that's so important, um, that this reuse, recycled, repaired clothing becomes really normalized in society and even sort of desirable. And I think sort of at the company level, there are some really forward-thinking companies, especially those we've worked with like Finisterre, who are making some serious commitments to reducing their environmental impact. But on the flip side of that, there are also still a lot of sort of the bigger players who are sort of still paying lip service to sustainability. And it would be really good to see them all signed up to science-based targets, all setting their net zero targets. and even perhaps being held accountable to some of those targets at some point.

You know, on the questions that we ask anyone that wants to come and work at Green Element, it's what's one of the campaigns you're most unimpressed with? It always surprises me how many people talk about the H&M campaigns. And it really does say such a big story because Generally, I would say that most people who want to come and work for us in most of the roles are younger, between 20 and 35. And I would imagine that H&M's target market is between 20 and 35. So their target market are switching off. Their target market are going, you're greenwashing. And that's got to say something to them. I did think about anonymizing all the data and then sending them all the answers and going, look, your target market think— It's rubbish, do something about it.

Yeah, no, absolutely. Um, that— yeah, the traction is growing. There's so much, there's so much more awareness, as you say, especially in, in that sort of age group. Um, which is great. And I think, you know, we need, we need people to sort of start demanding that change, which I think they are actually. I think they are.

Yeah, brilliant. Well, thank you, Alicia, for joining us on this podcast today.

Thanks for having me.

And if you'd like to learn more about decarbonizing the fashion industry, you can find a link to the Fashion Declares website in the show notes. There's a link to our website there as well. And if you want to feedback, or if you have any questions, feel free to DM us @GreenElement through LinkedIn, Twitter, or Facebook. Thanks for listening. I'm Will Richardson from Green Element. Don't forget to rate and subscribe to the podcast so you don't miss an episode, and we'll be back next month. Until then, take care.

Thank you.