Our Guidance on Science-Based Targets for Nature publication is designed to help brands and retailers go beyond greenhouse gas emissions and establish more holistic impact goals.

The textile industry’s reliance on both fossil and land-based raw materials directly impacts natural ecosystems. Alongside the overwhelmingly negative impacts of virgin fossil-based synthetics, common land-based materials can either disrupt or restore nature, depending on how they are managed.

It is a key opportunity for the industry, with fibers and materials including cotton and leather now listed on the Science Based Targets Network’s (SBTN) list of High-Impact Commodities — which considers their potential worst-case scenario pressures on areas like climate, land, water, and soil. In contrast, these can all form part of regenerative systems that restore nature and biodiversity, giving the industry significant leverage on its impact just by changing how its materials are produced.

The formal introduction of science-based targets for nature by the SBTN in 2024 gave brands a common methodology to address these areas. However, setting effective nature targets requires granular, location-specific data and heightened supply chain visibility, resulting in complex processes that demand industry-specific guidance and support.

Download the paper

Our Guidance on Science-Based Targets for Nature helps translate the SBTN methods, supporting the uptake of nature-related targets. The publication is designed to help brands and retailers implement primarily Step 3 of the science-based targets for nature framework as it relates to raw material production.

Download the full paper

Next steps for the industry

Successfully setting and delivering on science-based targets for nature will involve rethinking the entire supply system. This is by no means an easy task and requires stakeholders to support and align across all tiers and levels.

Textile Exchange’s Guidance on Science-Based Targets for Nature provides users with practical steps and general considerations to get started, along with specific tips to navigate the two most relevant target-setting areas for the industry: freshwater and land. Broadly, it recommends that companies consider the following six key areas:

• Reducing resource use and overall environmental impact 
• Exploring regenerative agriculture in material production
• Implementing responsible land management practices
• Adopting circular economy solutions and recycling 
• Reducing pollution and chemical use 
• Supporting Indigenous and local communities

These steps can help the industry address its ecological footprint, contribute to biodiversity conservation, and support the regeneration of natural systems. These factors are all important within Textile Exchange’s longstanding Climate+ strategy, which states that nature-related impact areas such as biodiversity, freshwater, and soil health should always be considered alongside greenhouse gas emissions reduction.

The post Guidance on Science-Based Targets for Nature appeared first on Textile Exchange.

The emission pathways assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to limit global warming to 1.5°C or 2°C by the year 2100 require not only the reduction of emissions but also the utilization of carbon dioxide removals (CDR).

Many companies have set their emission targets in line with 1.5°C, aiming to achieve net zero eventually. This has led to an increased awareness of GHG emissions in the supply chain (scope 3 emissions), where agricultural products can represent important hotspots, especially where deforestation occurs. At the same time, there is hope that agriculture can be part of the solution, such as through soil carbon sequestration supported by improved agricultural practices.

One key point in this matter is biogenic carbon. This type of carbon is absorbed from the atmosphere by plants as they grow and can be released back into the atmosphere later when the plants burn or break down.

There is no doubt that biogenic carbon stocks are important for emissions and mitigating carbon levels. However, the extent of changes in these biogenic carbon stocks and the methods to quantify these changes have been highly controversial and a subject of debate for many years.

This paper, written in collaboration with Sphera, provides guidance on the difficult terrain of old and new standards and guidelines that cover accounting methods for biogenic carbon, including:

• GHG Protocol (2023): Land Sector and Removals Guidance Draft
• Product Environmental Footprint method of then European Commission
• ISO (2018): ISO 14067:2018 – Carbon footprint of products
• WWF/SBTi (2023): Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance V1.1

Download the paper

Biogenic Carbon: Guideline on the Consideration of Biogenic Carbon Emissions and Removals in Carbon Footprint Calculations is freely available to all.

Download the paper

Discover the key takeaways

• Removals should only be considered in carbon footprint calculations if it can be ensured that they are permanent. The guidance on the inclusion of removals for reporting requirements in the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Guidance is particularly relevant here.
  
  
• In most cases, the storage of carbon in biobased products (carbon contained in the product) will be temporary. The carbon stored in the product should not be claimed as being removed if it cannot be considered to be removed permanently (under the strict criteria laid out in the GHG Protocol).
  
  
• Carbon emissions from land-use change contribute significantly to global warming. Avoiding emissions from land-use change should be a top priority for all companies, which requires them to better understand the origin of their supply chains and improve the traceability of their materials.
  
  
• Removals should only be claimed if occurring directly in the value chain and if strict criteria to claim removals from GHG Protocol are met. Offsetting cannot be included in a carbon footprint.
  
  
• The uncertainty around removals with soil carbon sequestration remains high. In some circumstances, significant soil organic carbon sequestration is possible. However, due to the associated uncertainty within quantification methods, soil organic carbon sequestration should only be one part of a broader emission reduction strategy.
  
  
• Even without carbon sequestration claims, promoting healthy soil environments is worthwhile. If removals are being claimed, the principles of permeance should be established. More importantly, it remains to be seen how the sequestration of carbon in soils and its quantification can be put into practice in a scalable way.
  
  
• Delayed emissions should not be included in carbon footprint assessments. If assessed, they should be reported as additional information.

The post Biogenic Carbon Guideline appeared first on Textile Exchange.