Document · PDF

RIS321186 Fast Fashion, snel eruit! bijlage 6

Commissie Leefomgeving 15 mei 2025, gemeente Den HaagBij agendapunt: Debat over Duurzaamheid42.235 woorden

Open het PDF bij de gemeente ↗Naar de vergadering →

Tekst van het document

Uit het bestand gehaald, zonder opmaak, tabellen en afbeeldingen · deel 1 van 5

Synthetics

Anonymous Fashion Brands’ addiction to fossil fuels

The information in this document has been obtained in good faith from sources that are believed to be reliable, but any potential interpretation of this report as making an allegation against a specific company or companies named would be misleading and incorrect. The authors accept no liability whatsoever for any direct or consequential loss arising from the use of this document or its contents. This report was researched and written by Changing Markets Foundation. www.changingmarkets.org

Authors: Urska Trunk George Harding-Rolls Ximena Banegas Nusa Urbancic Amy Nguyen

Synthetics Anonymous: Fashion Brands’ addiction to fossil fuels

Synthetics Anonymous: Fashion Brands’ addiction to fossil fuels | Contents |

Contents

Executive summary

Key findings

2.2.1.

Brands’ commitments to recycled synthetics

2.2.2.

How are brands planning to achieve their recycled synthetic targets? Recycling vs downcycling

Microplastics: Swept under the carpet

Brands knee-deep in fossil fashion

Lack of leadership to detox from fossil fashion

Downcycling adopted as a magic pill

Lost in a sea of green claims

Microplastics remain a blind spot for the fashion industry

Online shopping: All style, no substance

3.2.1.

Sustainability claims and greenwashing

Riddled with greenwashing

3.2.2.

Secondary materials and blends

Conscious collections not addressing fossil fashion

3.2.3.

Synthetics rebranded

Why legislation is needed

3.2.4.

Recycled synthetics

3.2.5.

Synthetic use in different clothing types

3.2.6.

Kidswearv

3.2.7.

Microfibres

Background: Fast fashion’s dependence on fossil fuels

Where do brands stand on policies and commitments to curb fossil fashion? 15 2.1

Use of synthetic fibres and commitments to move away from them

2.2.3. 3.

What are brands doing in practice? A brand analysis of Spring/Summer 2021 clothing collections

3.1

Analysis of companies’ online shops

3.2

Key findings and trends

3.3

ASOS

2.1.1.

Could do better

3.4

Boohoo

2.1.2.

Trailing behind

3.5

Forever 21

2.1.3.

Red zone

3.6

George at Asda

3.7

Gucci

2.2

Recycled synthetics: the pressure-release valve of fast fashion

Synthetics Anonymous: Fashion Brands’ addiction to fossil fuels | Contents |

H&M

3.9

Louis Vuitton

3.10

M&S

3.11

Uniqlo

Figure 1.1:

Fast fashion and the rise of polyester: world fibre production by fibre type 1980-2030

3.12

Walmart

Figure 3.1:

Ranking of the 12 brands by percentage of items containing synthetics

3.13

Zalando

Figure 3.2:

3.14

Zara

Ranking of the 12 brands according to number of items with sustainability claims and number of items with sustainability certification

Conclusions

The ASOS circular trousers that claim to be a monomaterial but actually contain virgin polyester and nylon

4.1

Questionnaire responses

4.2

Online-shop sweep

Figure 3.4:

Boohoo’s ‘linen look’ jacket

4.3

Greenwashing

Figure 3.5:

Shirt included in George at Asda’s ‘sustainable’ range; there is no indication, on the product page, of whether the cotton is responsibly sourced

4.4

Why we need legislation

Recommendations

5.1

Recommendations for fashion brands and retailers

5.2

Recommendations for consumers

5.3

Recommendations for the European Commission

5.3.1.

Recommendations for the EU textile strategy

5.3.2.

Recommendations for the EU due-diligence legislation

5.3.3.

Recommendations for the EU agenda to address green claims and empower the consumer

Annexes

Annex III: Brand questionnaire

Annex IV: Methodology for the brand analysis of Spring/Summer 2021 clothing collections

List of figures

3.8

Notes on CMA draft guidance

References

Figure 3.3:

Figure 3.6:

George at Asda trousers containing recycled polyester, but with no indication of how much 43

Figure 3.8:

H&M’s highly blended rib knit dress

Figure 3.9:

An H&M coat included in the Conscious Collection despite being 100% synthetic

Figure 3.10: Louis Vuitton 100% PVC gilet Figure 3.11 :

M&S claims its cotton is ‘sustainably sourced and always will be’, yet a number of cotton items analysed provide no evidence to substantiate these claims

Figure 3.12:

A pair of Zalando pleather leggings

Figure 3.13:

A jacket by Zalando containing a complex blend of synthetics

Synthetics Anonymous: Fashion Brands’ addiction to fossil fuels | Contents |

List of tables

List of Boxes

Table 1:

Box 1.1:

Greenwashing claims and guidelines

Box 2.1:

Where do sports brands stand on synthetic-fibre use?

Table 2:

Where do brands stand on their use of synthetic fibres and commitments to move away from them? Where do brands stand on their commitments to recycled synthetics?

Box 2.2: Downcycling plastic bottles to clothes

Box 2.3: 2025 Recycled Polyester Challenge

Box 2.4: How are brands addressing microfibres?

Box 3.5: The false promise of certification

Greenwashing alert

Greenwashing: Coming soon

Greenwashing alert

Hybrid horror

Greenwashing alert

Hybrid horror

Synthetics Anonymous: Fashion Brands’ addiction to fossil fuels | Executive summary

Executive summary

This report investigates the behaviour of some of the biggest fashion brands and retailers regarding their use of synthetic fibres and transparency about doing so. The fashion industry and its prevailing fast-fashion business model rely heavily on the use of cheap synthetic fibres, which are produced from fossil fuels, such as oil and gas. Since the early 2000s, fashion production has doubled – as has the use of polyester, which is now found in over half of all textiles. Synthetic fibres represent over two-thirds (69%) of all materials used in textiles, which is expected to reach nearly three-quarters by 2030.1 Fossil fibres are a key enabler of the fast-fashion business model, and their production already requires more oil than the annual consumption of Spain. Produced and sold cheaply, these items are often discarded after just seven or eight uses, ending up in landfills, incinerators or dumped in nature.2 Cheap synthetic fibres not only facilitate the production of low-quality clothing that ends up as waste but also perpetuate the fashion industry’s dependence on continued fossil-fuel extraction in the midst of a climate emergency. While other companies and sectors are decarbonising and aiming for a circular economy, it is clear that, given its addiction to synthetic fibres, the fashion industry is heading in entirely the wrong direction.

Synthetics Anonymous: Fashion Brands’ addiction to fossil fuels | Executive summary

In this report, we seek to establish what brands are saying and doing regarding their

ing to truly circular solutions, in which products are designed to be more durable,

reliance on synthetic fibres. We reached out to 46 brands with a questionnaire,

reusable, repairable and recyclable.

and conducted desk research into their policies and public disclosure of relevant information on this topic. According to this, brands and retailers were classified

Fashion brands have no systematic approach to addressing the environmental and

into four categories - frontrunners, could do better, trailing behind and red zone. We

health risks of microplastic pollution.

conducted additional research to zero in on 12 brands’ online shops, chosen specifically to represent a range of brands – from ultra-fast fashion to luxury, sports

Lack of leadership to detox from fossil fashion

brands and those keen to advertise their sustainability credentials. We carried out a meticulous assessment of these brands’ Spring/Summer 2021 collections, analysing data on synthetic fibre use and what sustainability claims the companies made

•

around these products.

Despite a high response rate of 83% (38 out of 46 brands), companies’ disclosures about their policies, practices and use of synthetics was underwhelming. Only about half (26 brands) provided some level of transparency about their

The findings of this research not only expose fashion brands’ addiction to synthetics

use of synthetics by percentage and weight – although this was not always

but also demonstrate rampant greenwashing across their voluntary commitments

broken down fibre by fibre.

and products. In light of the European Commission’s pledge to address greenwashing and the recent guidance from the UK’s Competition Markets Authority (CMA)

•

on environmental claims, the unsubstantiated claims found in our research may

No company has made a clear commitment to phase out the use of synthetic fibres from their collections, leaving our frontrunner category empty.

soon lead to legal repercussions for brands. •

Key findings

Only six companies – Dressmann, Esprit, Hugo Boss, Puma, Reformation and United Colors of Benetton – indicated they want to avoid or reduce synthetics altogether. When asked why, some cited the fact that they are produced from fossil fuels, or mentioned concerns associated with microfibres or general

Brands knee-deep in fossil fashion

impacts on the environment. The results of our analysis of 46 clothing companies are deeply concerning and show that fashion brands are still largely ignoring growing plastic pollution and the waste crisis stemming from their addiction to synthetic fibres.

•

Most of the sports brands analysed (Adidas, Asics, Nike and Reebok) reported that the majority of their collections is based on synthetics, and expressed no plans to curtail this. Only Puma indicated that synthetics represent ‘just’ half

In addition to a significant lack of transparency about the amount and source of

of their total fabric material, and said it is endeavouring to gradually reduce

synthetics in their collections, fashion brands resort to greenwashing tactics – such

the proportion of polyester used, showing that a lower reliance on synthetics

as downcycling polyethene terephthalate (PET) bottles to clothes – rather than mov-

is feasible in sportswear.

•

Of the worst-performing brands assigned to our red zone, 15 are a combi-

Synthetics Anonymous: Fashion Brands’ addiction to fossil fuels | Executive summary

Lost in a sea of green claims

nation of sports, high-street, luxury and department-store companies, the majority of which (11) are North American-based (US or Canada) – including Nike, Patagonia, Target and Walmart. Their complete lack of engagement,

Many brands still make misleading claims about how they are making their prod-

commitments or even transparency clearly shows that the issue of fossil

ucts more ‘recyclable’, despite having neither a takeback scheme nor fibre-to fibre

fashion is not on their agenda.

recycling technology in place. Greenwashing was rampant across the targets the brands disclosed to us, including claims of using ‘sustainable’, ‘preferred’, ‘sustain-

•

A surprising member of the red zone was Patagonia - a brand that has built

ably sourced’ or ‘sustainably made’ materials, the criteria for which were often ill

its reputation on sustainability. We put it in the red zone because it has failed

defined and constitute unsubstantiated claims that mislead consumers.

to publicly disclose any meaningful information about its use of synthetics and plans to phase them out nor did it engage with us on the questionnaire.

•

Further examples of greenwashing include brands promoting their sustainable image by claiming to use ocean plastic or recycled fishing nets in their products; for example, Patagonia and Adidas advertise their use of ocean

Downcycling adopted as a magic pill

plastics as a better alternative – or an ‘eco-innovative replacement’ – for virgin plastic, and several companies market regenerated nylon made from fishing •

‘Recycled’ polyester, made from PET bottles, is the principal way brands are

nets and other waste. Such an approach only deals with the aftermath of the

planning to curb the impacts of fossil fashion and embrace more ‘sustainable’

plastic-pollution problem, and does very little to curtail the plastics crisis at

synthetics – despite this being a false solution to today’s plastic-pollution

the source.

and waste problem. The majority of companies (85%) indicated they aim to achieve their ‘recycled’ polyester targets by using polyester from downcycled

Microplastics remain a blind spot for the fashion industry

PET bottles. •

In contrast, none of the brands reported a high level of fibre-to-fibre recycling

•

Brands’ approaches to the growing impact of microplastics on the environ-

targets, nor a clear goal to move towards this type of recycling. Neither are

ment and human health is largely delay–distract–derail; most companies stick

companies making the necessary investments to ensure a future in which

to business as usual until ‘more research’ is done. Most brands only consider

clothes can be recycled back to clothes, hindering a move to a true circular

end-of-pipe solutions – such as washing-machine filters and wastewater-treat-

economy.

ment plants – which merely shift the problem elsewhere. Some brands have joined industry initiatives to develop unified measuring methods.

Synthetics Anonymous: Fashion Brands’ addiction to fossil fuels | Executive summary

the EU Commission’s and other government bodies’ plans to clamp down

Online shopping: All style, no substance

through legislation. In our sweep of online shops, we analysed 4,028 products in the Spring/Summer 2021 collections of ASOS, Boohoo, Forever21, George at Asda, Gucci, H&M, Louis

•

Throughout this report, we present Greenwashing Alerts – examples of egre-

Vuitton, Marks and Spencer (M&S), Uniqlo, Walmart, Zalando and Zara. The findings

gious greenwashing in which a brand markets a product as sustainable despite

lay bare the proliferation of synthetic fibres in our clothes, with 67% containing

that product containing glaringly unsustainable elements. These included

some type of synthetics. On average, garments containing these fibres consisted

clothes claimed to be monomaterial or recyclable that are actually made from

of 53% synthetic composition.

blended synthetics impossible to separate; garments tagged ‘responsible’ – with no explanation – yet containing blends of up to seven different types of fibre; and products made from 100% polyester, with no sustainability cre-

Riddled with greenwashing

dentials, that are nonetheless included in a ‘sustainability’ collection. •

Our research found that greenwashing is rife: The majority of brands made

Conscious collections not addressing fossil fashion

sustainability claims, and 39% of the products studied had a green claim attached to them. A closer look at brands’ policies, targets and commitments revealed that greenwashing is clearly this season’s hottest trend.

•

Four of the brands had dedicated ‘sustainable’, ‘conscious’ or ‘responsible’ collections, but our research reveals that synthetics – particularly polyester

•

–remain omnipresent in these collections.

Using the UK Competition and Markets Authority’s new guidelines on green claims, we found that, of the 39% of products accompanied by a sustainability claim, a shocking 59% flouted green-claims guidelines in some way.

•

H&M’s Conscious Collection actually contains a higher percentage of synthetics than its main collection (72% versus 61%, respectively).

•

Brands’ scores varied significantly on this front. Zara and Gucci made the fewest claims in contravention of the guidance; on the other end of the spec-

•

Zalando also uses a higher amount of polyester per garment in its sustainable

trum, 96% of H&M’s claims, 89% of ASOS’s and 88% of M&S’s flouted the

range than its main collection. Considering these fibres are fossil-fuel based,

guidelines in some way.

this is highly incongruous with the green label applied to the collection.

Our findings highlight the scale of the problem, and should be considered

•

Of the products analysed across all brands, 6% contained recycled synthetics

against the backdrop of increasing consumer mistrust of brands’ sustaina-

coming from PET bottles, yet – despite the lack of true circularity for recycled

bility claims – only 18% of UK shoppers reportedly trust the sustainability

synthetics – this was brands’ primary (token) gesture towards synthetics’

information brands provide.3 As such, our research shows the timeliness of

sustainability.

Synthetics Anonymous: Fashion Brands’ addiction to fossil fuels | Executive summary

NUMBER AND % OF ITEMS THAT CONTAINED SYNTHETICS FOR EACH BRAND 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

(239/300)

90%

85%

(230/270)

Why legislation is needed

Our report clearly demonstrates that the fashion industry’s addiction to synthetics is glaring – and will inevitably worsen, as no brand has made a clear commitment to changing course. Instead of addressing the root of

79%

BRANDS ( total number of items that contained synthetics/total number of products reviewed)

(236/300)

the problem – curtailing plastic-fibre overproduction at source – fashion companies continue to rely on delaying and distraction tactics, including

76%

(204/268)

more urgent than ever for policymakers to step up and find effective leg-

69% 72%

(316/436)

greenwashing their questionable products to consumers. This is why it is islative solutions to put the fashion industry on a more sustainable track.

SUSTAINABLE COLLECTION (121/176)

67%

(201/300)

57%

66%

RESPONSIBLE EDIT (92/161)

72% 65% 65%

CONSCIOUS COLLECTION (143/199)

65%

(174/283)

coming EU textile strategy presents a significant opportunity to do this. The European Commission should commit to addressing the excesses of the fast-fashion model, which is inherently unsustainable. The Commission should introduce Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes, with mandatory and ambitious ecodesign measures, and brands must become responsible for the end of life of their products – which should be separately collected, reused, repaired and ultimately recycled in a viable,

45% 64%

(241/412) JOIN LIFE COLLECTION (50/112)

55%

(135/246)

synthetic material reliance and ensure the industry shifts to responsible production based on the principles of a truly circular economy. The up-

(286/431)

(236/499)

Policymakers must take measures to break the vicious cycle of cheap,

environmentally benign, fibre-to-fibre process. We also need EU regulation on green claims, as our investigation confirms that, in the Wild West of greenwashing, brands are currently getting away

(91/283)

32%

with making a sea of misleading claims that go entirely unchallenged. The European Commission is currently working on ‘Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition’ and ‘Substantiating Green Claims’,4 two new legislative initiatives that should include measures to avoid greenwash-

% OF ITEMS THAT CONTAINED SYNTHETICS IN SUSTAINABLE COLLECTIONS

OVERALL % OF ITEMS THAT CONTAINED SYNTHETICS PER BRAND

Synthetics Anonymous: Fashion Brands’ addiction to fossil fuels | Executive summary

ing and make sustainability claims more reliable. The Commission should propose mandatory rules to address misleading claims. The commission should also pay special attention to increasing supply-chain transparency and oblige companies to adopt due diligence with regards to human rights and environmental violations. Specific recommendations for the European Commission, fashion brands, retailers and consumers are available at the end of this report.

Synthetics Anonymous | Background: Fast fashion’s dependence on fossil fuels

| 12

1. Background: Fast fashion’s dependence on fossil fuels

The fast-fashion business model has fundamentally transformed how clothes are produced and consumed. Over the last two decades, clothes production has doubled; clothing sales are growing faster than the world’s population or GDP.5 The average consumer now buys 60% more items of clothing than 15 years ago, yet we wear each garment far fewer times before disposal.6 The global fashion industry is now a rapacious $3.3 trillion industry – and it continues to grow faster, under a business model propelled by excessive consumption and overproduction, while generating huge profits built on the exploitation of cheap labour and environmental degradation.7 Cheap and constantly changing fashion has developed, in part, due to a business model in which fashion brands and retailers push down prices by aggressively cutting costs and using inexpensive materials

Synthetics Anonymous: Fashion Brands’ addiction to fossil fuels | Background: Fast fashion’s dependence on fossil fuels

– notably cheap synthetic fibres (e.g. polyester, nylon, acrylic and elastane) produced from oil and gas. As explored in the Changing Markets Foundation’s report

THE MAJORITY OF FIBRE PRODUCTION IS SYNTHETIC AND COMES FROM FOSSIL FUELS

Fossil Fashion: The Hidden Reliance of Fast Fashion on Fossil Fuels, the fashion

THOUSAND METRIC TONS

MORE THAN SIX TIMES COTTON PRODUCTION

(Source: Tecnon OrbiChem)

significant environmental issues, including via landfills, incineration, generating greenhouse-gas emissions and pollutants, consuming non-renewable resources

WOOL

POLYESTER PRODUCTION DOUBLE 2000 LEVELS

source: cotton analytics

160.000

lation between the increased use of synthetic fibres – of which polyester is the cheap, disposable clothes. From production to end of life, synthetic fibres cause

+6X

WORLD FIBRE PRODUCTION BY FIBRE TYPE 1980-2030

industry’s dependence on fossil fuel-derived synthetics has become the backbone

dominant and fastest-growing – and brands’ ability to sell increasing volumes of

2000 POLYESTER OVERTAKES COTTON

COTTON

140.000

120.000

CELLULOSIC

100.000

POLYPROPILENE

80.000

and shedding microplastics.9

ACRYLIC

60.000

Cheap synthetic fibres are not only harmful, because they enable low-quality clothing that ends up as waste, but also perpetuate the fashion industry’s dependence on fossil-fuel extraction in the midst of a climate emergency. As the transport and energy sectors’ demand for oil and gas declines, the oil and gas industry is increasingly betting on the growth of petrochemicals for its survival.10 The production of synthetic fibres currently accounts for 1.35% of global oil consumption, which ex-

FAST FASHION AND THE RISE OF POLYESTER

of the catastrophic fast-fashion model. Fossil Fashion exposed the strong corre-

40.000 POLYAMIDE

20.000

+2X

SYNTHETICS MORE THAN DOUBLE NATURAL FIBRES POLYESTER

0 1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

2026

2028

Figure 1.1: Fast fashion and the rise of polyester: world fibre production by fibre type 1980-2030

ceeds the annual oil consumption of Spain. It is estimated that, by 2030, synthetic fibres will represent 73% of fibre production, of which 85% will be polyester.11 This

ative addresses the harmful impact of the oil and gas feedstock underpinning all

is a continuation of the trend over the past 50 years, during which the production

plastic fibres, nor plastics’ increasing role in shoring up fossil-fuel consumption.

of polyester has grown almost ninefold.12 To exacerbate the situation, polyester is

In addition, most industry initiatives ignore the massive problem of microfibres

also produced from fracked gas, and there are investments on the way for produc-

(see Chapter 2, Box 2.4).

ing it from coal, moving the industry in the exact opposite direction from where it should be heading.

At end of life, most garments end up in landfills or incinerators; fewer than 1% of items of clothing are recycled to produce new clothes. Globally, roughly one gar-

The fashion industry has embraced this recent growth in the production and con-

bage truck of clothes ends up in landfill every second.13 But despite a mountain of

sumption of polyester, and some of its initiatives even present synthetics as a

clothes being thrown away every year, there is still a lack of investment in scaling

more sustainable option than natural fibres. At the same time, no brand or initi-

fibre-to-fibre recycling technology. The vast majority of recycled polyester in the

Synthetics Anonymous: Fashion Brands’ addiction to fossil fuels | Background: Fast fashion’s dependence on fossil fuels

in the fashion industry’s dependence on fast-growing synthetic fibres. The solution is not replacing one type of fibre with another, but rather a radical slowdown of fashion, which is the principal cause of untenable volumes of waste, harmful microfibres and widespread pollution. This report delves deeper into the practices of some of the biggest fashion brands. As part of our investigation, we first analysed the use, policies and practices around synthetic fibres of 46 clothing companies, based on their individual responses to a Changing Markets questionnaire. We then took a closer look at their commitments using the publicly available data on their websites. The second part of our investigation looked at the online stores of 12 brands and retailers, critically analysing their garments’ composition and the claims they make to their consumers. In total, we analysed 4,028 textile sector comes not from recycled garments but from polyethene terephthalate

items from the brands’ and retailers’ Spring/Summer 2021collections. We chose a

(PET) bottles.14 Yet many fashion brands promote such garments as more ‘sustain-

range of brands for this stage of our research, varying from high-end, luxury and

able’ or ‘responsible’, despite this being a one-way road to landfill or incineration

sports brands to ultra-fast-fashion brands. Based on this research, Synthetics Anony-

at end of life.

mous aims to show the scale of fashion’s use of synthetic fibres, reveals companies’ greenwashing tactics and misleading claims regarding their products and targets,

While all textile materials are associated with negative environmental and so-

and highlights a way forward for the companies and regulators that truly want to

cial impacts, today’s unsustainable fast-fashion business model is deeply rooted

change course to make the sector more responsible.

Box 1.1:

Greenwashing claims and guidelines

Synthetics Anonymous: Fashion Brands’ addiction to fossil fuels | Background: Fast fashion’s dependence on fossil fuels

environmental claims occur (among other circumstances) when a ‘business makes claims about its products, services, brands or operations as a whole including false-

Sustainability claims and product advertising based on green credentials are coming

ly claiming to be a signatory to a code of conduct; or omits or hides information, to

under increased scrutiny by legislators. Recent data from the European Commission

give the impression they are less harmful or more beneficial to the environment than

showed that companies in the fashion industry are guilty of greenwashing – exag-

what they really are’.20 This could include advertisements, product labelling and

gerating their sustainability credentials without supporting evidence. According to

packaging, or any other accompanying information – and even product names.21

the Commission, marketing products as ‘conscious’, ‘eco-friendly’ or ‘sustainable’

While the guidelines are not legislation, the CMA can take civil action and criminal

could potentially qualify as unfair commercial practices under EU rules.15

enforcement against companies found in breach of them.

In response, a new wave of legislation is gearing up to push back against these overzealous and unsubstantiated claims. At the EU level, the Commission is currently working on ‘Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition’ and ‘Substantiating Green Claims’,16 two new legislative initiatives that should include measures to avoid greenwashing and make sustainability claims more reliable. This initiative will require companies to ‘substantiate claims they make about the environmental footprint of their products/services by using standard methods for quantifying them’,17 thus making claims reliable, comparable and verifiable across the EU. This initiative should not only inform consumers’ purchasing decisions and protect them from false impressions but also lead investors towards making more sustainable decisions – and increase consumer confidence in green labels and information.18 In the UK, the Competition Markets Authority (CMA) has published draft guidance on consumer-protection law for all businesses making environmental claims. This guidance will indicate which products and services that claim to be ‘eco-friendly’ might actually mislead consumers.

Likewise, this guide intends to help businesses understand their obligations and comply with regulations under consumer-protection law.19 To examine the data presented in this report, we have used the CMA guidance for our analysis to establish when brands are making misleading environmental claims and false or deceptive statements. According to these guidelines, misleading

Synthetics Anonymous: Fashion Brands’ addiction to fossil fuels | Where do brands stand on policies and commitments to curb fossil fashion?

2. Where do brands stand on policies and commitments to curb fossil fashion?

In March 2021, the Changing Markets Foundation – along with Clean Clothes Campaign, Ethical Consumer, Fashion Revolution, No Plastic in My Sea, Plastic Soup Foundation and Stand.earth, WeMove Europe, and Zero Waste Alliance Ukraine – contacted 46 clothing brands (via email and letter) asking a series of questions about their synthetic-fibre use and policies. When brands responded at the group level (Kering and PVH Corp), or when public information on brands is largely at the group level (VF Corporation), we reported this at the

Synthetics Anonymous: Fashion Brands’ addiction to fossil fuels | Where do brands stand on policies and commitments to curb fossil fashion?

group level. We did not consider these three groups in our statistical analysis be-

of the brands reported any high levels of fibre-to-fibre recycling targets or indicated

cause they were answering on behalf of their brands.

a clear numerical or time-bound goal to move towards this type of recycling. Indeed, truly circular solutions are far from reaching commercial maturity, and many

These brands were selected based on their high scores in the Fashion Transparency

companies were focusing their energy more on delay–distract–derail tactics, such as

Index 2020,22 and were combined with some of the most well-known brands to use

using ‘materials with a story’ in their apparel – including ocean plastic and fishing

synthetics, as well as with companies that have signed up to the Changing Markets’

nets – to signal their green credentials. Companies are deliberately shutting their

Foundation Roadmap towards Responsible Viscose and Modal Fibre Manufacturing.

eyes to the fact that using materials from other waste streams (such as PET bottles) to fulfil their ‘recycled material’ targets is a false solution to circularity. Similar

Overall, 83% (38 brands) responded. In cases where parent groups – such as Kering

disregard was found in the industry’s approach to microplastics; most companies

– clearly answered on behalf of their brands, we considered the individual brands

were sweeping this issue under the carpet by delaying any meaningful action on

to have responded. We did not count a response that did not answer our question-

synthetic fibres until ‘more research’ is done. Summaries of these findings are set

naire as an engagement. Only eight companies (17%) failed to respond to any of

out in the following sections.

our questions: Gap, Gildan, Nike, Patagonia, Target, The North Face, Timberland and Walmart (see ‘red zone’ in section 2.1.3). The responses were reviewed, along with the information about synthetic-fibre use, recycling policies and supply-chain

2.1

Use of synthetic fibres and commitments to move away from them

disclosures available on each company’s website. Three-quarters (34 out of 46) of the brands provided some level of transparency

To evaluate the scale of brands’ reliance on fossil fuel-based fibres, we asked them

about their use of synthetics – either by percentage or weight – although this was not

to provide information on their use of synthetics, including the share and tonnage

always broken down fibre by fibre. Only about half (26) disclosed both percentage

they use for their collections. Three-quarters (32 out of 46) of brands gave some

and wight. No company made a clear commitment to phase out the use of synthetic

indication of the percentage of synthetic fibre used in their clothing, although in

fibres from their collections, while only six brands (Dressmann, Esprit, Hugo Boss,

some cases this was not a breakdown by weight but rather a percentage of items

Puma, Reformation and United Colors of Benetton) indicated they want to avoid

that included synthetics. Slightly fewer (29 out of 46) brands reported their use of

or reduce synthetics to some extent.

synthetics by weight – either directly to the Changing Markets Foundation or on their websites – and some provided full breakdowns per type of synthetic fibre.

The research revealed that ‘recycled’ polyester made from PET bottles is the principal way in which brands are planning to curb the impacts of fossil fashion and

Companies were then assessed based on their level of transparency, as well as their

embrace more ‘sustainable’ synthetics – well over three-quarters (85%) of brands

policies and commitments to decrease or phase out fossil fuel-derived synthetic

indicated they used PET bottles as a recycled polyester feedstock. In contrast, none

Synthetics Anonymous |

Where do brands stand on transparency, use of synthetic fibres and commitments to phase them out?

Where do brands stand on policies and commitments to curb fossil fashion?

| 18

FRONTRUNNERS COULD DO BETTER TRAILING BEHIND

materials. Based on these assessments, they were classified into four categories

DIDN‘T DISCLOSE

according to the following criteria:

HIGH

DIDN‘T ENGAGE

RED ZONE**

1. Frontrunners: Do not use synthetics, or have clear commitments to phase out the use of synthetic fibres from their collections. Since none of the 46 companies met these criteria, this category remains empty. 2. Could do better: Transparent about use, and either already use relatively few synthetics (under 25% of their total material use) or have TRANSPARENCY

clear plans to reduce their reliance on synthetics. 3. Trailing behind: Limited transparency about use, and either use a high percentage of synthetics or a relatively low – but rising – percentage. 4. Red zone: Little to no transparency at all.

The results are displayed in the infographic on page 21 and the questionnaire and full information disclosed in the brand table available in the annexes. Please note that this brand table is a categorisation of brands based on their responses to us and their publicly available policies and disclosures. It is not a ranking. Companies in the categories are listed alphabetically.

LOW

2.1.1. Could do better

LOW

USE OF SYNTHETICS

HIGH

STRONG

STRENGTH OF COMMITMENTS TO REDUCE RELIANCE

WEAK

This is a simplified representation of companies’ performance and not a ranking. More detailed information is available in the league table in Annex II. * Parent groups VF Corporation, PVH Corporation and Kering are included for references purposes only, because they replied on behalf of their brands or policies are set at the group level. **Many brands in the Red zone, landed there due to lack of transparency and disclosure, rather than necessarily high use.

This category consists of 11 companies that are making significant efforts to use relatively few synthetic fibres (under 25% of the materials they use), reduce further

Synthetics Anonymous: Fashion Brands’ addiction to fossil fuels | Where do brands stand on policies and commitments to curb fossil fashion?

reliance on them and be transparent about the share and/or tonnage of synthetic

Esprit stated that, although it does not have a concrete goal, it is working on re-

fibres in their textile products.

ducing its use of synthetic fibres and using them only when certain features are needed. It reported a reduction to 24% in the financial year 2019/20 – down from

Most brands in this category provided a detailed breakdown of their synthetic use

29% in the financial year 2018/19.

fibre by fibre – either by tonnage or percentage use – including Asda, Dressmann, Esprit, G-Star, Kering (Balenciaga, Bottega Veneta, Gucci, Saint Laurent) and United

United Colors of Benetton said 80% of the fibres in its garments are of natural origin,

Colors of Benetton.

and therefore have a lower impact on the environment. In addition, the company said, about half of garments are made of monofibre material, making recycling eas-

The Kering group’s luxury brands reported the lowest percentage of textile products

ier. However, Benetton did not elaborate on any practices it has to recycle clothes

made of synthetic fibres. Synthetic fibres made up 4% of the raw materials used by

into new clothes, and said it does not invest in fibre-to-fibre recycling technologies.

the Kering group as a whole, although one of its brands (Saint Laurent) reported that less than 1% of their raw material was synthetic. Levi Strauss & Co – primarily

Hugo Boss said it is aware that synthetic fibres can have a potentially negative

a denim company – reported that 9% of its fibre mix is synthetic.

impact on the environment, and has therefore implemented various measures to keep the proportion of such fibres as low as possible. It added that the proportion

Some brands indicated they were trying to avoid or reduce their use of synthetics.

of synthetic fibres it used increased slightly in 2020 compared to 2019, but said

Dressmann – which reported that 16% of its total fibre consumption in 2020 was

this was related to a decreased demand for formalwear due to Covid-19, and that

synthetic – said that, until there is more scientific evidence on microfibres, it will

its usage of synthetics did not increase in total.

continue keeping its share of synthetic fibre fairly low. 2.1.2. Trailing behind

US brand Reformation reported that 4–5% of its textiles are made with synthetics, but that synthetics don’t generally meet its fibre standards, because they are fos-

Almost half (20) of the companies contacted provided some level of transparency

sil-fuel based and can lead to issues such as microplastic shedding. Reformation

about their synthetic use and whether they had plans to scale it up or down. Some

only uses synthetics in its main apparel items when ‘needed for fabric performance

brands in this category acknowledged the environmental issues associated with

and stretch’ – and even then, only in a less-than-10% blend with other fibres. Major-

the use of synthetic fibres, but they largely failed to make strict commitments to

ity-content synthetics are allowed in its swim and activewear products, however,

reduce their dependence on them.

and it reported an increase in its use of synthetics since launching its athleisure and swim product categories.

Online retailer Zalando, which now makes a quarter (26%) of its items from synthetic fibres, said it had decreased its polyester use in the past years (from 28% in 2018 and 31% in 2019 to 16% in 2020). It said it ‘fully supports’ the shift away from

Synthetics Anonymous: Fashion Brands’ addiction to fossil fuels | Where do brands stand on policies and commitments to curb fossil fashion?

synthetic fibres based on virgin fossil-fuel feedstocks towards ‘safe and recycled

to Changing Markets for the financial year 2019, and the figures published in PVH

or renewable feedstocks’, but made no clear commitment to do this itself. In com-

Corp.’s 2019 Corporate Responsibility Report from financial year 2018, polyester use

parison, ASOS reported a 16% increase in its use of synthetic fibres since 2019, and

increased while nylon use stayed at a similar level.

29% of its textile products now come from synthetics. Like Zalando, ASOS did not indicate any plans to move away from fossil fuel-based fibres.

Similarly, New Look – which reported the highest share of synthetics, after sports brands (see Box 2.1), and makes two-thirds (66%) of its products from synthetic

High-street giant H&M said 27% of its fibre use, by weight, was synthetic in 2020,

fibres – said it has no policies relating to synthetic-fibre use and no plans to phase

but did not disclose its tonnage use. However, considering it is the world’s sec-

it out.

ond-biggest fashion group, we can assume its tonnage use is substantial. H&M said it has been reducing its dependency on conventional synthetic fibres over the past

Other high-street companies in this category with a substantial use of synthetics

years, and has ‘aggressive plans’ to reduce it further. However, this primarily hinges

are M&S (54% by product volume in 2020) and Morrisons (47% of textile products

on its aim to increase its use of recycled synthetics (see section 2.2.2).

made of synthetic fibres).

In comparison, Inditex said synthetics represented 38% of its total fibres in the financial year 2020 and reported one of the highest use of synthetics by weight – comparable to that of sports giant Nike (Inditex used 151,239 tonnes of synthetics

Box 2.1:

Where do sports brands stand on synthetic-fibre use?

in the financial year 2020, while Nike used 152,723 tonnes of polyester). Inditex did not disclose plans to phase out synthetics.

All sports brands analysed indicated they use very high proportions of synthetic fibres. Adidas, which also replied on behalf of Reebok, landed in the red zone and

Asda said its synthetic-fibre use reduced from 36% in 2018 to 30% in 2020, but that

said approximately 90% of its apparel articles are made or blended with synthet-

it does not currently have any plans to reduce it.

ics – the highest share of synthetic use reported. Likewise, Asics also said the ‘vast majority’ of fibres used in its sports products are synthetic.

Luxury group PVH Corp. – which includes brands Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger and Van Heusen – did not disclose its share of synthetic fibres; however, based on

Nike, which also landed in the red zone, did not disclose its share of synthetic fi-

the tonnage figures it publicly reports, it is at least 20%.A Neither did the group

bres, although we can assume it is sizeable. Moreover, it is one of the biggest users

disclose any plans to decrease its use of synthetics. Based on the figures disclosed

of synthetics by tonnage, and figures show it uses far more synthetics than cotton (publicly reported using 152,723 tonnes of polyester in FY2020).23 While its use of

Based on use of individual materials reported in PVH’s 2019 Corporate Responsibility Report, synthetics made up at least 19.5% of materials in the financial year 2018, as it used approximately 161,000 MT of total material and at least 31,400 MT of synthetics. Available at: https://www. pvh.com/responsibility.

polyester fluctuated during the past years, its public figures show that it has increased overall by 9% since 2015.

Synthetics Anonymous: Fashion Brands’ addiction to fossil fuels | Where do brands stand on policies and commitments to curb fossil fashion?

In comparison, only around half of Puma’s total fabric materials are synthetics,

2.1.3. Red zone

showing a lower percentage is feasible in sportswear. Puma also said it is endeavouring to gradually reduce the proportion of polyester it uses over the next five

The 15 worst-performing brands, assigned to the bottom category, are those with

years. While Puma did not set out a clear-cut commitment, this signal of direction

minimum-to-no transparency about their use of synthetic fibres and/or that failed

contrasts with other sports brands, which report a very high use of synthetics and

to engage with the issue entirely. The majority of brands in this category (11 out of

no plans to curtail it.

15) are North American (US or Canada). Twelve of these brands either did not respond to our questionnaire or responded but did not disclose information on synthetic use, and have no numerical information on synthetic use on their websites. These were: Burberry, Gap, Gildan, Lululemon, Patagonia, Primark, Target, The North Face, Timberland, Uniqlo, Walmart and Wrangler. For example, luxury brand Burberry said synthetics – namely nylon and polyester – account for a ‘small amount’ of its main materials, but did not disclose further information, while Lululemon said a ‘material portion’ of its products are synthetic. Lululemon said it will report its material mix in its impact report later this year. Despite numerous sustainability claims, Patagonia did not respond to our questionnaire, and its website neither provides information about its overall use of synthetics (in tonnage or percentages) nor outlines any specific commitment to reduce reliance on them. Its ‘buy less demand more’ webpage clearly acknowledges the climate impact of clothes, and encourages people to ‘join the fight against irresponsible, fast-fashion manufacturing’. However, its webpage also states: ‘We use polyester in most of our products, which mix both virgin and recycled materials’, and: ‘We still use a great deal of nylon’, indicating that synthetics still represent a significant portion of production.

2.2

Synthetics Anonymous: Fashion Brands’ addiction to fossil fuels | Where do brands stand on policies and commitments to curb fossil fashion?

Recycled synthetics: the pressure-release valve of fast fashion

solution. In Box 2.2, we explain why this will not solve fast fashion’s synthetic-fibre problem. For this reason, we have decided to present the information but not categorise or rank companies on their commitments to increase their recycled-fibre use. More detailed information is presented in Table 2 (Annex II).

The second part of our questionnaire focused on brands’ policies and practices around the use of recycled fibres. This included questions on policies or goals regarding the use of recycled synthetics, the percentage of synthetics that currently comes from recycled synthetic fibres, the share of clothing currently recycled to new clothing, the feedstock and production method, and any investment they are making into fibre-to-fibre recycling technologies. While many companies provided insight into their recycled synthetic collections and plans or commitments to increase their use of recycled synthetics – especially recycled polyester – our findings show these predominantly cover downcycling of PET bottles into textiles, instead of fibre-to-fibre recycling. Indeed, fibre-to-fibre recycling is miniscule, representing 0.1–1% of material use – either from offcuts during processing or as post-consumer waste.24 While some brands are rolling out technologies, pilots and apparel collections based on fibre-to-fibre recycling, the numbers remain very small; it seems that companies are not making the necessary investments to ensure a future in which clothes can be recycled back into clothes. Instead, downcycling PET bottles to textiles is being presented as the main circular

Synthetics Anonymous: Fashion Brands’ addiction to fossil fuels |

Box 2.2: Downcycling plastic bottles to clothes

Where do brands stand on policies and commitments to curb fossil fashion?

Indeed, because mechanical recycling makes the fibre lose its strength, recycled PET clothes are not guaranteed to be infinitely recyclable, and often lose durability

In response to the growing spotlight on the fashion industry’s unsustainable busi-

when repurposed multiple times. For this reason – depending on the fibre – recy-

ness model – and the waste crisis it is creating – brands have increasingly adopted

cled PET fibre requires mixing with virgin synthetic to achieve the required material

recycled polyester and nylon as an easy fix. Recycled polyester has been heavily

property and performance.28 In other words, downcycling PET bottles to clothes is

marketed as a sustainable and responsible material, and presented to consumers

not a circular solution, and eventually these products end up in landfill. In compar-

as a more conscious choice. However, looking beyond brands’ marketing reveals

ison, PET bottles can be recycled back into PET bottles many times if they are part

that today’s recycled polyester is a false solution – and a far cry from a truly circu-

of clean, separated waste streams. Refillable PET bottles can be reused or refilled

lar business model. Further examples of greenwashing include brands promoting

up to 15 times before recycling, eliminating the need to manufacture new bottles

their sustainable image by claiming to use ocean plastic or recycled fishing nets

and avoiding many of the environmental impacts associated with their production

in their products; for example, Patagonia and Adidas advertise their use of ocean

and end-of-life management. As such, turning plastic bottles into clothes should

plastics as a better alternative – or ‘eco-innovative replacement’ – for virgin plastic,

be considered a one-way ticket to landfill, incineration or being dumped in nature.

and several companies (Bonprix, Gucci, Dressmann, H&M, Reformation and United Colors of Benetton), marketing their use of Econyl, a regenerated nylon made from

Second, there is direct competition between the packaging and clothing industries

fishing nets and other waste. But current volumes of extraction from the ocean are

for PET bottles. The introduction of legislation in the EU, and several jurisdictions

miniscule; they do little to stop the flow of plastics into the environment in the first

around the world, regarding recycled content targets for PET bottles will signifi-

place, nor to reduce the industry’s addiction to plastic-based fibres.

cantly influence demand from bottle manufacturers. This means competition from fibre production will stymie the amount of recyclable PET bottles being used for

The vast majority of recycled polyester is sourced from recycled PET bottles that

bottle-to-bottle recycling. In a circular economy, materials should be reused and

have been mechanically recycled into polyester fibre for clothes, the total share

recycled like-for-like to prevent waste and unnecessary extraction of virgin mate-

of which has increased from 9% to 14% in the space of a decade.25 While recycled

rials – in other words, clothes should be made into new clothes, and packaging into

polyester is applauded for requiring 59% less energy to produce (but still more than

new packaging, rather than poaching from other waste streams.

cotton, wool and hemp)26 and emitting less CO2 than its virgin counterpart,27 these figures do not take into account the impacts of the production of its feedstock – the

This prompts questions about why the industry is using PET bottles instead of

plastic bottles.

the millions of tonnes of textile waste going into landfill at a rate of one garbage truck per second.29 Unfortunately, textile-to-textile recycling is still in its infancy,

The method of downcycling PET bottles to polyester is problematic in several ways.

accounting for less than 1%,30 and the industry has invested very little in making

First, PET bottles can generally already be recycled a number of times – in a closed-

this a reality. With currently available technology for recycling polyester, cotton

loop, bottle-to-bottle recycling system – if collected through clean collection streams,

and wool fibre, the maximum percentage of fibre-to-fibre recycled material that

such as through deposit-return systems.

can be used is only 20–30% – the rest is topped up with virgin material.31,32 While

Synthetics Anonymous: Fashion Brands’ addiction to fossil fuels |

Where do brands stand on policies and commitments to curb fossil fashion?

recycling monomaterials is already tenuous, clothing is often made from blended textiles, which are highly complicated, costly or impossible to separate and recycle. For example, for elastane – a common addition to today’s clothing – virtually no recycling methods are currently available. As a result, elastane is a serious barrier to recycling clothes. 33 Additionally, chemicals are often part of production, remain in products and, thus, are recycled into new garments along with the fibre. Third, recycled polyester does not restrict the shedding of microplastics, meaning billions of plastic particles still end up reaching the ocean, the air we breathe and our food chains (see section 2.2.3). Moreover – as highlighted in a recent report, published by a large number of civil-society organisations, setting recommendations for the upcoming EU textile strategy34 – basing sustainability strategies on the idea that we can continue to consume disposable plastic goods (because they can be recycled into more products) is highly problematic. This idea does not address the fundamental issue of perpetuating disposable solutions and overconsumption of natural resources. Indeed, these strategies encourage users to buy more clothes or throw away garments sooner, in the belief they can be recycled in some magic machine.

At such a small scale, and with significant technological obstacles to overcome, it is unlikely that recycling synthetics will tackle fast fashion’s problems in the short to medium term. While it is crucial for the industry to ramp up investment and focus efforts on truly circular recycling technologies, the only way to bring down the growing waste and plastic-pollution crisis – which these industry tactics supposedly aim to achieve – is to curtail overproduction in the first place.

2.2.1.

Synthetics Anonymous: Fashion Brands’ addiction to fossil fuels | Where do brands stand on policies and commitments to curb fossil fashion?

Brands’ commitments to recycled synthetics

45% by 2025. This means that signatory brands need to hit much higher targets; as such, the initiative ‘encourages’ brands to commit to 80–100% recycled polyester.

The majority of brands have a numerical goal of some kind to increase the use of

However, this is a voluntary target – not a requirement – and has no enforcement

recycled synthetic fibres. However, none of these are accompanied by goals to

mechanism. Textile Exchange plans to annually report the results, using 2019 volume

reduce overall synthetic use. No brands set out an intention to move to only fi-

data as a baseline; however, it is not clear whether the results will be brand-specific

bre-to-fibre recycled synthetics, and investments in this solution are highly limited

or reported for the industry as a whole.

and slow-moving, hindering a move to a circular economy. Brands’ emphasis was squarely on recycled fibre from other waste – principally PET bottles – although

Neither does the challenge stipulate what feedstock or recycling technology should

some brands outlined initial policies to incorporate some fibre-to-fibre recycling

be used to achieve its targets. It notes that recycled polyester from plastic water

(see section 2.2.2).

bottles makes up the vast majority of recycled polyester today, although it does add that ‘textile to textile recycling will be a necessary part of reaching our goal’.35 Fur-

Some brands only set targets for recycled polyester, while others covered all syn-

thermore, the initiative does not require the products made from this recycled feed-

thetic fibres. These goals are of varying ambition; while some companies (e.g. Es-

stock to themselves be recyclable, meaning that responsible end-of-life options for

prit, Inditex, Patagonia) aim to use only fully recycled synthetics in the next five

clothes could be hampered.

years, others aim for smaller percentages (Asda, Nike, Walmart, Zalando) and/or longer timeframes (H&M, The North Face, Timberland). Many brands have a target

The website lists several signatory brands, including Adidas, G-Star RAW, H&M, In-

to replace all virgin polyester with its recycled equivalent within the next decade

ditex, Lululemon, Reformation and VF Corporation (parent group of The North Face

(Adidas and Reebok by 2024, Burberry and Lululemon by 2025, Asics by 2030).

and Timberland). Companies committing to this initiative are required to annually report their polyester consumption to Textile Exchange’s Corporate Fiber and Materials Benchmark survey;36 as such, it is surprising that many of these companies

Box 2.3: 2025 Recycled Polyester Challenge

– including Adidas, H&M, Lululemon and VF Corporation – failed to disclose their polyester tonnage to us.

Several clothing companies have signed up to the 2025 Recycled Polyester Challenge, launched by the Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action and Textile Exchange. The challenge asks signatory companies to commit to replacing their use

Many of the targets that brands disclosed to us are lost in a sea of green claims and

of virgin polyester with a recycled equivalent, and challenges them to increasing

highly misleading to consumers. These include targets to use ‘sustainable’, ‘pre-

the overall industry share of recycled polyester from the current average (14%) to

ferred’, ‘sustainably sourced’ or ‘sustainably made’ materials (Dressmann, H&M, Inditex, Lindex, M&S, Monsoon, Nike, PVH, Reebok, The North Face and Wrangler’s). The criteria for these claims are often ill defined and lead to greenwashing. Focusing

Synthetics Anonymous: Fashion Brands’ addiction to fossil fuels | Where do brands stand on policies and commitments to curb fossil fashion?

on ‘sustainable’ materials could also open the door for switching to biobased rather

one option could be recycled ocean plastics, and that it will use NetPlus Recycled

than recycled synthetics (see Bonprix, Esprit, G-Star RAW, Reebok and Wrangler)

Fishing Nets39 in its Spring 2021 season. Similarly, Adidas uses Parley Ocean Plastic

– a route that could create other environmental problems, such as requiring large

– from which it produces around 15 million pairs of shoes – as an ‘eco-innovative

areas of land to grow crops for these materials. Additionally, most of the companies

replacement’ for virgin plastic.40

claiming their products are recyclable do not have takeback schemes in place to ensure these items are actually collected and recycled into new clothing.

Brands reported a larger variety of feedstocks for recycled polyamide and nylon, such as fishing nets, old carpets and industry waste. Several mentioned the use of

Such targets could carry major ramifications for brands in the future. In light of up-

Econyl41 – a regenerated nylon made from fishing nets, fabric scraps, carpet floor-

coming European Commission initiatives on substantiating green claims,37 and the

ing and industrial plastic. While using feedstock such as ocean plastic and fishing

UK CMA’s plans to regulate greenwashing and misleading marketing claims about

nets may help raise awareness of how much recyclable material is thrown out, and/

brands’ products and commitments,38 many brands could risk violating regulations

or ends up in the ocean, making garments out of plastic waste does very little to

by being ambiguous, deceitful and exaggerating sustainability credentials without

stop the flow of plastics into the environment in the first place42 – and can, in many

supporting evidence.

cases, justify the continuous use of plastic.

2.2.2.

How are brands planning to achieve their recycled synthetic targets?

Recycling vs downcycling

A number of brands either said they had no visibility over the feedstock used for their recycled synthetic collection or failed to disclose any information about it, including New Look, Target, Zalando and the Kering group’s brands (Balenciaga,

Volgend deel →

De tekst is automatisch uit het bestand gehaald en kan afwijken van het origineel (kolommen, tabellen en koppen lopen door elkaar). Het officiële stuk bij de gemeente is leidend. Bron: https://api.notubiz.nl/document/15059539/1