Our Fiber Crops Senior Manager, Sandra Marquardt, unpacks what brands need to consider when sourcing hemp, and why its newly growing popularity presents an opportunity to scale production in a responsible way. 

Since its recent legalization in countries around the world, the global textile industry is increasingly turning to hemp. And with the plant’s long list of beneficial properties, there is reason to be excited about its sustainability potential. 

But growing, sourcing, or wearing hemp won’t be a solution in itself. Hemp’s reputation as a wonder plant all comes down to the way that it is grown. In these early stages of hemp’s renaissance, we have a unique opportunity to create a hemp production model that harnesses its potential while anticipating problems and bringing about measurable beneficial outcomes. 

Textile Exchange’s 2023 report, Growing Hemp for the Future: A Global Fiber Guide looks at fiber hemp production around the world, collating the latest known benefits, concerns, and recommendations to help guide hemp fiber programs toward a resilient future.  

So, what exactly are the celebrated properties of hemp fiber crops, and how can the fashion, textile, and apparel industry ensure these benefits aren’t jeopardized as production grows in scale? 

The wide-ranging benefits of fiber hemp plants 

From the point of view of fashion and textile companies, much of hemp’s appeal comes down to its physical qualities – for example, it is stronger than cotton; durable; anti-microbial and UV resistant; naturally resistant to mold, mildew, and rot; readily accepting of dyes; softened after each washing without fiber degradation; and breathable.  

But from the start of the supply chain, the on-the-ground impacts of growing fiber hemp are equally impressive, enriching ecosystems and local communities alike. And these holistic, far-reaching benefits start with the soil.  

For example, when grown in rotation with hemp, some farmers have seen a 10-20% increase in subsequent yields for other crops such as corn, soybeans, tobacco, and wheat. What’s more, growing hemp can minimize the labor and energy needed to manage weeds, as it naturally reduces weed pressure.   

Being wind-pollinated, hemp also contributes toward healthy ecosystems by attracting bees with large amounts of pollen. In times of pollen shortage – like late summers in the US – hemp flowers are a valuable source of pollen for 16-23 different species of bees. The plant’s vigorous growth, shading capacity, and disease resistance also mean that hemp has minimal need for inputs, making it an ideal crop for pesticide-free organic agriculture.  

The challenges that could come with growing hemp at scale 

Historically, hemp has been grown with low input production methods, meaning no- to low use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, and with low or little irrigation. At present, the crop has relatively few pests. But while hardy, hemp may not be immune to the problems that plague other crops. 

As hemp is grown more widely, there’s an increased risk of pest pressure, especially if grown as a monoculture. The expanded use of conventional pesticides – such as herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and others – that could come stem from this may pose a variety of threats to human health, as well as negative consequences for wildlife (including bees), surface- and groundwater contamination, and pesticide drift.  

What’s more, hemp thrives off nitrogen in the soil and grows poorly otherwise. We must be wary of the fact that, when soil is exposed to synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, nitrous oxide is released – a gas roughly 300 times more potent at warming the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.  

The current picture on pesticide use 

While data is incomplete, the leading hemp fiber countries by volume appear to be France, China, North Korea (estimated), Poland, and the United States. Across these nations, the picture on pesticide use is mixed. For example, in the US, only biological pesticides are permitted for use on hemp today, and China does not authorize the use of any pesticides.     

However, conventional pesticides – including some considered “Highly Hazardous” – have been approved in France and the Netherlands (glyphosate, tefluthrin). If the industry doesn’t take precautions to anticipate, prevent, or minimize the impacts of these agricultural inputs, use of synthetic pesticides on fiber hemp is likely to expand.   

Likewise, without restrictions on pesticides and recommendations for natural soil building practices, the sustainability promise of hemp could soon fade. Therefore, the question of how to scale hemp without resorting to extensive pesticide use needs to be front of mind. 

While pesticide regulations will vary in different countries, the global industry can still strive to align its approach to hemp production around Textile Exchange’s definition of “preferred” materials. Today, this definition represents an aspirational direction of travel, highlighting what best practice looks like across all fibers and raw material production.  

For hemp fiber to be produced in a way that is considered “preferred,” some of the criteria would be to ensure that: natural ecosystems and species are protected and restored; agricultural systems and soils are regenerated; production transitions from fossil-based to renewable energy sources; farmers, herders, raw materials producers, and processors are empowered to build more equitable fiber systems; and chemicals and other pollutants are properly managed and eliminated from environmental discharges and runoff. 

Learning from the past to create a resilient future for hemp fiber  

As the saying goes, “hindsight is foresight.” Hemp fiber has strong potential to be a popular and responsible fiber sourcing choice. As an industry, we must adopt the lessons learned from the other fiber crops, where heavy use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers has become the norm.  

If we choose to go ahead with business as usual, we can expect to see the same negative environmental and social impacts typically associated with conventional agriculture. And this poses the question – if the promise of hemp’s sustainability attributes diminishes, will the market still be interested in the fiber? 

Today, we have a unique opportunity to establish intentionality around what will likely become a major crop; to collaborate in shaping the hemp production system from the soil up, driving forward approaches that maximize hemp’s positive impacts for both people and planet.  

The post Harnessing Hemp’s Sustainability Potential  appeared first on Textile Exchange.

Deforestation and the conversion of natural ecosystems are inextricably linked to the biodiversity crisis and climate breakdown, making them a defining challenge of our era.

But what do we mean when we talk about deforestation and conversion? What kind of ecosystems are we talking about, and does it still count if we’re planting trees in their place? At Textile Exchange, we define these terms in alignment with the Accountability Framework, an initiative that specializes in helping to transform supply chains to protect forests, natural habitats, and human rights.

As such, deforestation is defined as the loss of natural forest due to agriculture, tree plantations, or any other non-forest land use, as well as any other severe and sustained degradation.

While the terms have significant overlap, conversion specifically refers to the change of a natural ecosystem to another land use, severe degradation, or the introduction of management practices that result in substantial and sustained change in the ecosystem’s former species composition, structure, or function.

The role of the leather industry in driving deforestation

It’s estimated that 420 million hectares of forest – about 10% of the world’s remaining forests and an area larger than the European Union – have been lost worldwide between 1990 and 2020 (United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization).

Deforestation has many causes, but cattle rearing is considered one of the most significant drivers. Between 2001-2015, 57% of tree cover loss was linked to just seven agricultural commodities, with cattle alone accounting for 36% (World Resources Institute). Although beef production is the primary reason for cattle farming, the leather industry also has an important opportunity to drive change. Nowadays, permanent deforestation caused by the expansion of cattle ranching happens mostly in South America, which is a major sourcing region for leather.

Unfortunately, land is currently worth more to producers when the trees are cut down and converted for productive purposes. Cattle ranching is often the go-to option due to low input costs, minimal labor requirements, and rising market demand.

When thinking about accountability for deforestation, it’s important to acknowledge the acute financial pressures that producers face, and the real opportunity costs that preserving forests and natural ecosystems would cause them.

This is why producers need genuine incentives to protect their forests and natural ecosystems. It’s vital that the responsibility of protecting forests and ecosystems is shared equitably across the whole supply chain, as well as between majority and minority world countries.

The traceability problem

Consumer brands sourcing leather have a prime opportunity to leverage their influence to prevent deforestation and change the industry for the better. However, at present, the leather supply chains pose major barriers when it comes addressing impacts at the farm level – especially considering the length of the supply chain itself, and the multiple steps involved in transforming raw hide into finished leather products.

Starting at the very beginning, it’s common for animals to live on several farms throughout their lifetime. They may be born on one farm, raised to maturity on another, then sent to another for fattening before they go to slaughter. Movement between these farms is only tracked in a handful of countries.

At the slaughterhouse stage, very few have systems in place to link hides back to the animals they came from. Typically, hides are collected and sent for preservation, after which they may be shipped all around the world. Traders are often involved at this stage, posing further challenges for traceability.

Once the skins are preserved, they may be sent far and wide for further processing.Hides will pass through the hands of processors, traders, subcontractors, and more. Most brands will be buying from product manufacturers, and few will have clear visibility further along their supply chain.

Demand for leather is not going to disappear overnight. This is why we need system-level industry transformation so that brands can map their supply chains and source verified deforestation-free leather.

New legislation is changing the rules of the game, but more action is needed

The new European Union Deforestation-Free Regulation (EUDR) applies to major industries like palm oil, soy, cocoa, coffee, cattle-derived products, and more. For leather, it will require any tanned leather, hides, and skins imported into the EU to meet their due diligence requirements, ensuring they’re not linked to deforestation after the cut-off date of December 31, 2020. Any areas that are deforested after this date will be deemed non-compliant, along with the associated commodities. This sends a strong market signal and allows brands to set precise, actionable, and measurable commitments.

These due diligence requirements will apply to all stages of the supply chain (going all the way to cow/calf producers for leather) and will require verification of deforestation-free status and geolocation date. 

This means the EUDR is set to be a powerful tool for driving action across the global supply chain. However, most change will be seen in Europe. Unfortunately, for high-risk regions like Brazil, it will be impossible for many supply chains to implement the traceability and verification needed to comply.

Reliance on new legislation is not enough in high-risk areas. To support farm-level change in these areas, brands need to go beyond divestment, and instead take direct action through well-planned investments.

What brands can do to transform leather supply chains

Divesting from high-risk regions may minimize individual brands’ deforestation impacts in the short term, but ultimately, this is not a long-term solution for accelerating industry-wide change. It’s vital that brands and retailers invest and engage in solutions that are designed to stop deforestation and conversion linked to leather sourcing.  

To galvanize action and to enable brands to catalyze positive change, Textile Exchange has launched the Deforestation-Free Call to Action for Leather, in partnership with Leather Working Group (LWG). This means we’re asking brands to commit to sourcing their bovine leather from deforestation-free supply chains by 2030 or earlier.

The initiative takes an ambitious, yet practical approach, providing a clear path for brands to help create equitable, transparent, and deforestation-free supply chains. Achieving this will be a complex and lengthy process, which is why it is designed to support brands throughout the journey, helping them tackle the challenge from multiple angles. For example, brands will receive tools and guidance on how to set leather sourcing requirements; set and meet supply chain targets; respect human rights; implement traceability; make constructive investments; and report on their progress along the way.

Collaboration is key

We realize that reaching this 2030 target will require significant time, investment, and resources from the start. It will also require brands to foster close relationships with suppliers and producers. The more that we can work together and spread the responsibility with pre-competitive collaboration, the closer we will come to making traceable and deforestation-free cattle farms the norm, and ultimately paving the way for a resilient and equitable future.

This need for partnership applies at every level, which is why we aim to leverage and add value to existing efforts in the beef and leather industry. Stakeholder engagement has been crucial to the development of the Deforestation-Free Call to Action for Leather, along with input from an NGO advisory group including the National Wildlife Federation, the WWF, and the Accountability Framework initiative, as well as a brand advisory group made up of leather brands and retailers from sectors such as fashion, automotive, and furnishings.

It is encouraging to see other initiatives happening across the industry, from local governments and slaughterhouses working to develop solutions, to projects such as Tapestry Foundation, who have set up a grant with WWF to support responsible leather supply chains in Brazil. There is also the Traceability Cluster, led by Cotance (the association of European tanneries) who are bringing the leather industry together to establish traceability solutions. Textile Exchange is closely aligned with these projects, along with the EUDR.

In essence, the Deforestation-Free Call to Action for Leather works as a funnel that brings together these various efforts, striving to promote alignment in terms of targets and approaches. As with any issue that is systemic in nature, the problem of deforestation can only be solved with strong partnerships and collaboration.

The post Combatting Deforestation from the Start of the Leather Supply Chain appeared first on Textile Exchange.

In the fashion, textile, and apparel industry today, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) data is theprimary method for understanding environmental impacts at a broad scale. As the name suggests, LCAs look at fibers, products, and services throughout the whole life cycle. 

For example, if we were to apply what’s called a “cradle-to-grave” LCA methodology to a cotton t-shirt, the study would start with the cotton farming and harvesting, then onto theraw material processing, t-shirt manufacturing, transportation, warehousing, and delivery to the consumer. Finally, we would investigate the t-shirt’s use phase and its end of life; for example, how it is washed, dried, and disposed of. Studies may account for less or more stages, which would be called “cradle-to-gate” or “cradle-to-cradle”.

At present, LCA methodology does have limitations. For example, LCA studies are static, meaning they only measure impacts at a single point in time, making it challenging to use them for tracking progress. Secondly, LCAs often average impacts across geographies so they may not represent the context-specific differences between locations. Thirdly, LCA studies typically only measure a specific set of impact areas, such as greenhouse gas emissions, water, and waste.

This is why we need to expand our approach to the use of impact data. Textile Exchange’s Climate+ Strategy states that we will guide the industry toward a 45% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, while driving positive change across a holistic range of additional impact areas. But how exactly can we track progress on all of this? 

This is where the concept of “LCA+” comes in: our approach to impact measurement that goes beyond “carbon tunnel vision”, to also account for biodiversity, soil health, water, animal welfare, and livelihoods.

Due to the complex nature of these areas, it may not always be possible to quantitatively assess impacts today. However, we can at least strive to include qualitative assessments, to provide greater contextual understanding of the interdependent impacts associated with a fiber, material, or product. We also take this approach with our impact tools, which will become publicly available this year: the Preferred Fiber Material Matrix and the Global Fibre Impact Explorer.

Leveraging existing methodologies for climate and nature

There are a variety of different methods, indicators and metrics that can be used to measure impacts across water, biodiversity, soil health, animal welfare, and livelihoods. Instead of reinventing the wheel, we believe that collective, collaborative action is the best path to achieving our goals. For that reason, we are looking to align with the organizations leading the way in the development of measurement and target-setting methodologies. 
 
When it comes to impact areas related to “nature”, we are looking to the Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) Science Based Targets for Nature initiative, which is developing methods for water, land, and biodiversity. We are also tracking the work of the Soil Health Institute and their soil health assessment methodology.
 
We are actively involved in the SBTN Corporate Engagement Program and have taken part in the consultation process of its freshwater and land methods. Our plan is to adopt these methods wherever possible.

Industry tracking and target setting is a starting point, but we need to track progress on the ground too

Textile Exchange’s LCA+ approach considers multiple levels of impact measurement.  
 
On one hand, we need to understand the impact of our industry as a whole. This includes tracking industry aggregate progress year-on-year and working towards shared targets that align with global goals. We believe that “impact” for the fashion, textile, and apparel industry related to sourcing of raw materials and fibers is about maximizing beneficial outcomes as well as minimizing negative impacts.
 
In addition to this, the Textile Exchange Materials Benchmark allows us to see how a subset of leaders are performing in their sourcing of preferred materials. Using information submitted through the Materials Benchmark, we can use LCA data to establish an estimate of the aggregated greenhouse gas and water impacts of participants’ raw materials and fibers sourcing. This provides us with two lenses of industry impact tracking – the industry as a whole, and Material Benchmark participants. Using these views, we can begin to track progress against global targets.
 
But what about the impacts happening on the ground over time? How do we collectively track these? This is where place-based impact assessments come in. 
 
To establish where data should be collected on the ground, we plan to identify “hotspots” of fibers and materials by sourcing geographies, volumes and impacts globally. Within these hotspots, we’ll seek to gather impact data, leveraging information already being collected wherever possible, and taking a thoughtful, producer-led approach to any additional impact data needs. 
 
This approach will allow us – and our members – to have a clearer view of the positive actions being taken by producers, as well as to assess overall industry progress against impact targets and areas for improvement and investment. Unlike greenhouse gas emissions, other impact areas such as biodiversity and soil health are context-specific – which means that primary, on-the-ground data collection is needed.  
 
We’re currently developing our strategy for impact data collection and place-based impact assessment and will share more on this soon.  

Keeping track of progress

In 2022, Textile Exchange launched its Climate+ dashboard, starting with progress reporting on greenhouse gas emissions reduction as well as an initial hotspot assessment for water consumption and eutrophication impacts. Additional LCA+ impact data will be collected, calculated, and available. 

Want to get involved?  

To address key data gaps, in 2023, Textile Exchange is leading LCA studies for thefollowing fibers and materials: cashmere, Responsible Wool Standard (RWS) wool, Responsible Mohair Standard (RMS) mohair, leather (bovine, ovine, and caprine), cotton (organic, conventional, regenerative practices and recycled), and polyester (recycled and virgin).  
 
Critically, all of these studies will include assessment (either quantitative or qualitative) wherever possible of LCA+ impact areas, including biodiversity, soil health, animal welfare, and livelihoods. The final studies and results will be made publicly available in LCA databases currently used by the industry. 
 
This is an opportunity for our industry to come together around the common goal of improving impact data. If you would like to contribute financially to one or more of these studies, or if you are a stakeholder that may be able to support with data collection, please get in touch with Eleni Thrasyvoulou, Impact Data Senior Manager.
 
We’ll also be launching a dedicated space on The Hub for impact data and measurement practitioners to connect and collaborate. If you’re interested in joining this community, please contact Felicity Clarke, Impact Data Senior Analyst.

The post Taking a Holistic View of Impact Measurement Through our LCA+ Approach  appeared first on Textile Exchange.

In the face of societal crises, the belief that markets will find solutions on their own is simply untrue. Not without clear guardrails. Market incentives or rewards for more sustainable textiles are needed. But they must be guided by strict rules and governance that build and maintain trust and integrity. 
 
Instead of relying on the market to self-regulate, the best priority for companies is to transition from business models that degrade, deplete, and pollute, towards business models that conserve, restore and regenerate. 
 
That being said, the nature-market conversation is officially in full swing, creating opportunity to consider how we can best go about financing biodiversity. At the annual Davos World Economic Forum meeting in January, restoring ecosystems was on the agenda. 
 
In the SDG Tent venue, Simon Zadek of NatureFinance discussed why and how we need the market to help reverse the biodiversity crisis. Highlighting the inherent positivity of focusing on biodiversity, Zadek said:

“Nature brings positive emotions and opportunities, while climate change fills us with dread and anxiety. That’s not to say that action for nature is any easier or less worrying… but part of the appeal is that it’s more about how to regenerate nature, rather than being about what we must stop.” 

What’s more, since climate and nature are interconnected, our solutions cannot be narrow or isolated. Solving climate change means tending to the health of ecosystems too. For example, the UNFCCC estimates that natural sources such as forests, wetlands, mangroves, peatlands, and pastures can account for around a third of greenhouse gas removals. 
 
This means we must consciously avoid “carbon tunnel vision”, instead approaching climate and nature in an integrated, inclusive way. This insight is at the heart of Textile Exchange’s Climate+ strategy, which merges climate goals with key impact areas like soil, water, and biodiversity, taking a holistic vision of success for the fashion, textiles, and apparel industry. 

To avoid repeating mistakes, we can learn from climate frameworks, governance, and data

Carbon reporting has been underway for over a decade, with organizations like theScience-Based Targets initiative to the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosuresmaking real headway. Now that there’s an increased focus on doing the same for nature, it’s vital that we learn from climate and market responses.
 
Using a climate finance framework as a reference can kickstart momentum for nature, but there are a couple of key differences that cannot be overlooked. First, acting for nature will be driven by place-based needs, while climate targets are driven by a single temperature rise limit. Second, now that we know more about the intrinsic links between climate and nature, we must shift away from narrow, reductionist problem-solving, moving toward more holistic solutions instead.

Whether you agree with attaching markets to nature or not, there’s no disputing that more financing is needed to protect ecosystems, and this means doing away with harmful subsidies 

According to a Paulson Institute report, there is a $700 billion annual gap in financing for biodiversity. Finance – whether from banks, investors, governments, funders, or philanthropists – needs to move in the same direction. We simply cannot condone financial incentives and subsidies that damage the environment by canceling out positive financial flows for nature and climate.
 
A 2022 study on subsidy reform, commissioned by The B Team and supported by Business for Nature, reviewed a range of environmentally harmful subsidies across sectors. They estimated that the world is spending at least $1.8 trillion a year – equivalent to 2% of global GDP – on subsidies that drive the destruction of ecosystems and species extinction. 
 
It’s promising to see, therefore, that the new Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), agreed at COP15 in Montreal in December 2022, includes finance goals. For example, there is Target 18: To eliminate, phase out or reform incentives, including subsidies harmful for biodiversity, while substantially and progressively reducing them by at least $500 billion per year by 2030. There’s also Target 19: Substantially and progressively increase thelevel of financial resources from all sources, including domestic, international, public, and private resources to implement national biodiversity strategies and action plans, by 2030 mobilizing at least $200 billion per year.
 
Aside from governments and other state actors, another powerful influencer is of course the investor community. This includes data providers such as CDP, who guide investment decisions. Put simply, these actors have substantial control over who gets the money and who doesn’t. Therefore, focusing on disclosing “investor-grade” data can open doors for financing nature-positive activities, as well as close the door on pollution, damage, and destruction. Textile Exchange is beginning to explore this potent mix between investor-grade data and biodiversity finance, plus how our benchmarking program can support companies on this link. 

Bringing our economy within planetary boundaries requires a major shift in how financial rewards and penalties are issued to companies, as well as a wider group of stakeholders to share benefits

A growing number of organizations, including NatureFinance, the World Economic Forum, IIED, and The Biodiversity Consultancy, foresee “nature markets” as something that can be successful – providing they are properly set up and governed.  
 
But what is the “nature market”? The Taskforce on Nature Markets (summarized in a recent McKinsey article) describes it as “a system composed of transactions between separate buyers and sellers, in which the transacted good or service specifically reflects a stock of ecosystem assets or a flow of ecosystem services from terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems.” The article emphasizes that the key will be market governance and infrastructure. This includes rules of trade, pricing mechanisms as well as systems of exchange and monitoring, reporting and verification. 
 
Getting back to that finance gap for nature, Target 19 (d) of the GBF, noted a commitment to “stimulating innovative schemes such as payment for ecosystem services, green bonds, biodiversity credits, and benefit-sharing mechanisms”. Akanksha Khatri, Head of Nature and Biodiversity at the World Economic Forum, gave the following advice:

“Biodiversity credits are one of the market-based financial mechanisms that can unlock private finance by valuing ecosystem services and community benefits, beyond carbon. While the potential for impact is high, clear definitions and guardrails are urgently needed to ensure integrity, inclusivity, and transparency.”  

Once again, can we learn from carbon and its potential misuse and abuse in the marketplace, to ensure that nature markets are scaled with integrity and credibility, delivering positive outcomes for nature?
 
Along with integrity and credibility, there must also be equity and inclusivity. It is vital that nature markets work to the advantage of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities(IPLC), as these communities often hold critical knowledge and stewardship over biodiversity. The aim is to increase benefit sharing with IPLCs, and for companies to learn from those who uphold traditional and local knowledge. Not the other way around.
 
If you are reading this, you need no convincing about the urgency and gravity of the situation. This Davos session: Leading the Charge through Earth’s New Normal is a sobering reminder of what we face, and is well worth an hour of your day.

Have your say

Is your company exploring how to invest in nature conservation, restoration, or other nature-related activities? If so, how? What are the important ingredients we need to get right for financing nature to work?  

Read more of Liesl’s insights on corporate accountability →

The post Learning From Climate Action to Successfully Finance Biodiversity appeared first on Textile Exchange.

The clock is ticking. If fiber production and consumption continues at its current rate, the fashion and textile industry will not meet our shared Climate+ goal. We will fall short of the 45% drop in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions we aim to reach by 2030, and we will not have played our part in climate action to the level we’re capable of. 
 
Decisive action is necessary. But the reality of the present situation is that there are gaps across all fiber categories. Simply put, there are things we don’t know. But there are things we do know, and our report, “Fiber Pathways: The Road to a 45% Reduction” defines a direction of travel which, if followed, will start the transformation of the industry, the successful achievement of our Climate+ goals, and a more responsible future for everyone.
 
Based on our modeling, even if current and existing, proven solutions available in the market reach 50% of total fiber and raw materials production, the savings in GHG emissions will only account for a third of the total reduction targets set. That’s why material substitution is just the first of three necessary levers to pull to reach our targets on time. Beyond substituting for preferred, proven raw materials, the scaling of innovation, and the slowing down of continued growth in the annual production and consumption of new raw materials, are needed.  
 
The industry must focus on strategic fibers, too: those that represent the majority of the total global fiber volume and greenhouse gas impact. These include polyester, cotton, wool, bovine leather, nylon, and MMCFs, such as viscose. 

Improving the data that guides sourcing decisions

Right now, data widely used to draw comparisons between the impacts of these fibers and guide sourcing decisions needs improvement. As written in the Fashion Charter for Climate Action’s “Identifying Low Carbon Sources of Cotton and Polyester Fibers” report, “The mapping of current LCA landscape for cotton and polyester (PET) revealed key data gaps, inconsistent modeling approaches and lack of standardized methodology, which makes it inappropriate to compare the environmental performance of one fiber over the other.”
 
Overall, datasets lack geographic variability and transparency, and in general, existing LCAs are not comparable due to the following overarching issues:

• Inconsistent time period of data collection 
• Credits applied for biogenic carbon stored in the product 
• Implication of choice of LCA software and use of different LCA databases 
• Use of different LCA methodology 

LCA methodology, when applied to raw materials used by the apparel, textile, and footwear industry, has some key limitations as it stands today. It does not capture all impact areas such as soil health, biodiversity, animal welfare and social impacts; can be cost-prohibitive and resource intensive; there can be significant variability in the scope of what is covered as well as in other assumptions that are made; system boundaries defined for LCA studies can vary within and across fiber types, and results from LCA studies can be present in multiples ways (e.g., “global averages” or regional impacts).  
 
Most of the LCA data collected is at the global level and thus, not a full representation of country or regional production. So, we must recognize data quality and what the data covers. That’s why we’re developing an LCA+ approach to give the industry a more holistic way to fill key gaps in LCA data and methodologies, while also investing in the identification of additional impact data approaches to address other important impact areas not covered by LCA methodology today, such as biodiversity and soil health.  

Slowing down growth in the production and extraction of new raw materials​​​​​

It’s also key to recognize that right now, the sheer amount of new raw materials being grown, produced, or extracted is a barrier to achieving the level of reduction needed. This volume is increasing year on year, but to reach a 45% by 2030, it needs to slow down significantly. If this area is neglected, any progress in the remaining areas will count for little.

Action here varies from fiber to fiber, but in every case, increasing the volume of feedstocks—the raw material used for the process and manufacture of fibers—made from waste will dramatically limit the need to produce. Additionally, to start creating value outside of producing and extracting new raw materials, we must support systems that extend the usable life of garments such as resale and repair.  

At the design level, creating clothing with durability, longevity, recycling potential, and other circular end-of-life qualities in mind is key. Designing with a purpose is the first step towards responsible creation, and that can have a ripple effect across an entire supply network.

Sharing the responsibility across the supply chain

Government engagement can support and enforce waste reduction and collection to help scale recycling efforts and technologies. Informed policy and regulation allow for the rapid development of systems and mechanisms to level the playing field, and create true systemic change.   
 
But no one organization can do this alone. The responsibility for gathering data, improving data quality, designing for longevity and circularity, and investing wisely falls on all of us, across the fashion, apparel, and textile industry. We face a global challenge which by definition involves everyone and tackling it must therefore involve everyone as well.  
 
There are no silver-bullet solutions for systems change, and this transition comes with both risks and rewards. All too often, this financial burden falls on those furthest away from the final product. Putting the pressure on farmers, growers, and producers won’t lead us to sustainable change–instead, it’s about ensuring that those at the beginning of the supply chain are rewarded and valued for positive change that impacts the entire industry.  
 
We need to make the most of our existing efforts, across all programs and schemes, and look to opportunities to strengthen them, maximizing the potential for beneficial outcomes. We need to secure supply and consider climate adaptation and resilience measures. And we need to incentivize scalable solutions that reward our partners on the ground, at the farm level, who are at the forefront of the movement.  
 
For all this to happen, we must form new kinds of partnerships and new ways of working: closer collaboration, greater innovation, and a firm shared commitment to standing side by side in playing our parts. The time for working in isolation, for treating problems as standalone and abstracted from the whole, is over.  
 
Now, we have to view our absolutely critical work in its proper context, setting exploitative competitive business models aside, and approach climate action with the whole system—including the communities affected—in mind. 

Learn more

In our report, “Fiber Pathways: The Road to a 45% Reduction,” we’ve provided clear guidance on actions to take and areas to focus on by strategic fiber type: polyester, cotton, viscose, and wool. We uncover what we know as an industry, what we need to solve for, and which specific solutions we need to pilot, advance, and commercialize. Leather and nylon will be included in the next phase as we continue to build upon this work.  
 
Each year, we will expand on our guidance as we learn and make progress, solve for gaps, and identify new opportunities to move forwards. This is just the start of an evolving roadmap, but now is the time to start aligning and acting on what we know can move the needle. 

The post Mapping Out the Road to a 45% GHG Reduction for Fibers and Raw Materials appeared first on Textile Exchange.

Over the weekend, negotiations on the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) – which sets out the strategic plan for nature for the rest of this decisive decade – were finalized.  

The last tweaks were achieved after a fresh set of high-level ministers joined the conversation for the last few days (December 17 to 19) of the United Nations Global Biodiversity conference (COP15).  

In an extraordinary plenary that began on Sunday evening, in Montreal, and lasted for more than seven hours, countries wrangled over the final agreement. But did we get our “Paris Moment” for biodiversity in Montreal (as we did for climate in Paris at the COP21 in 2015)?  

While the negotiations took some time, with walkouts by developing countries at mid-point, the final version of the GBF holds a level of ambition most participants feel they can work with. Here are our five key takeaways: 

• Financial flows and resource mobilization were big COP conversation starters, and core to the success of the negotiations. From redirecting environmentally harmful subsidies (calculated at over $1.8 trillion per year) to catalyzing private finance through public and philanthropic spending (with a higher risk tolerance), finance was at the heart of COP conversations. A whole day was dedicated to biodiversity and finance, during which 150 financial institutions representing $24 trillion called on world leaders to adopt an ambitious Global Biodiversity Framework. We saw the idea of market-driven “biodiversity credits” tossed around in many forums with a sense that they probably needed to happen, potentially “stacked” onto climate credits, but there was a healthy skepticism that quality is key. Not surprisingly, one of the large concerns shared amongst delegates is the need for enough resources in developing countries to truly mobilize action on the ground.  

• Mandatory disclosure through a strong Global Biodiversity Framework would set a powerful positioning, but the accountability conversation is happening.  Over 300 companies signed the Business for Nature Make It Mandatory campaign ahead of the COP, which sent a strong signal that companies want a level playing field when it comes to disclosure and reporting on biodiversity. Target 15 of the GBF landed in a strong position (although reporting was not made mandatory). It is clear that the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures will be the global framework for disclosure, and is going from strength to strength. In Montréal, TNFD announced multi-year funding (29 million euros over six years) from the government of Germany. This injection of funds came alongside Emmanuel Faber, Chair of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) signaling the intention of the ISSB to draw on the TNFD’s approach as it develops a global baseline for sustainability reporting.    
   

• Acting for biodiversity will be essential to meet climate net-zero goals, and in turn, net-zero opens the door for nature. For many companies, climate risk has breached the board room, grabbed the attention of the CFO, and penetrated conversations with shareholders, investors, and other stakeholders. While this emphasis on climate may have created “carbon tunnel vision” it got things moving for nature in the race to zero. The job now is to fast-track corporate disclosure frameworks and finance vehicles for nature, while being mindful of the lessons learned from climate. The added complexity of “nature” applied in local landscapes holds the potential to deeply regenerate the economy in a way that’s equitable for Indigenous Peoples and local communities. At Textile Exchange, we have set climate and nature interdependencies at the center of our Climate+ strategy. 
   

• Indigenous Peoples and local communities are at the heart of driving the change that we need. To truly understand the depth of impact a company’s supply chain has, we need to turn to the original protectors of nature. Bringing Indigenous Peoples and local communities to the decision-making table will help guide the holistic approach companies need to reach by 2030. The Indigenous voices here in Montréal have been mission-critical to an inclusive GBF. The good news is that Indigenous Peoples are ready to help, share their knowledge, and, in the main, forgive. Deep listening and trust are an opportunity for deep transformation, and an invitation the fashion, textile, and apparel industry must accept.  
   

• When it comes to biodiversity, implementation and location go hand in hand. We need to know, for example, where farmland and production activities rub up against sensitive biodiversity hotspots in the landscape or where they interfere with the movement of wildlife so we can target and prioritize implementation. For many companies, locating raw material production is challenging (and we can’t wait for perfect data or targets), but we can move fast on a “no regrets” approach as advised by the Science Based Targets Network to move on addressing deforestation and investing in regenerative agriculture. Making sense of the plethora of tools and tech will be necessary to get the best out of the enormous amount of innovation in this space. 

For the Textile Exchange team and many of our group of corporate members together in Montréal, this was our first COP. As a sector community, the fashion, textile, and apparel industry is not shying away from the big conversations, and we are eager to learn and collaborate. But we need to break down silos between different industries and impact areas too. 

One important silo-breaker is the COP2COP roundtable stretching from the Climate COP27 in Sharm El Sheikh to the Biodiversity COP15 in Montreal. “In a time of growing uncertainty, the need for unity is greater than ever, says Farooq Ullah, Strategist at the B Team, and the power behind the COP2COP Collaboration. “There is a need for a new narrative on the potential of integrated approaches and solutions to the climate and nature crises, which must be underpinned by inclusive multi-lateral, multi-stakeholder, and multi-sectoral approaches.” 

All in all, it feels like we have enough ambition in the GBF to move forward with confidence that “nature matters.” Many of us are ready and willing to contribute to a nature-positive future, but there is no place for solo efforts when it comes to our ecosystems. Now that we have a framework in place, coordinating our actions will be the key to our success. 

The post Landing A New Deal for Nature: What the Global Biodiversity Framework Means for Fashion appeared first on Textile Exchange.