Life cycle assessment (LCA), Big Business
- Marina Moore
- Jan 31, 2025
- 10 min read
The fashion industry while creating a significant contribution to the global economy, the industry also creates a serious environmental impact in terms of climate change, resource depletion, air and water pollution and the use of toxic chemicals. Despite this, however, the industry continues to grow, in part due to the rise of fast fashion, which relies on cheap manufacturing, frequent consumption and short-lived garment use. As environmental awareness increases, industries and businesses are assessing how their activities affect the environment. Many in the fashion industry have responded to this awareness by providing “greener” products and using “greener” processes. While consumers are becoming more aware of the high environmental and social toll of fashion, when trying to work out the sustainability of jeans, t-shirts or sneakers, etc, they face a jungle of labels, tags, pictograms, acronyms and claims.
One key tool used in the industry is the life cycle assessment (LCA). Most have used it to explore the environmental performance of products and processes by using pollution prevention strategies and environmental management systems to improve their environmental performance.
Life cycle assessment is a “cradle-to-grave” approach for assessing industrial systems, from the gathering of raw materials from the earth, to create the product, to when all materials are returned to the earth. LCA evaluates all stages of a product’s life from the perspective that they are interdependent, meaning that one operation leads to the next, and by including the impacts throughout the product life cycle, a more accurate and comprehensive view of the environmental aspects allows for a better environmental trade-off in product and process selection. LCA serve as a reference methodology for decision support in environmental policies and programs, for governments, such as the European Union’s Circular-economy action plan, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). A wide variety of industrial sectors use (LCA) for their operations and supply chain activities, with the aims of incorporating more sustainable products, and provide data for realistic marketing claims which inform consumers’ choices through environmental labelling and declarations.
However, marketing by fashion brands can make it seem as if their actions are making a difference. Theoretically, (LCA) should account for all inputs of a product system. Yet, most (LCA) studies fail to do so, practically due to the lack of connecting supply chain data. It often involves many businesses that are geographically dispersed. However, most brand list their suppliers, so it is possible to connect all, for the extraction of raw materials to the finished garment. Some in the fast fashion industry have tried to convince the consuming public that they are working toward being environmentally friendly. They talk about raw materials but ignore the series of different stages of a garment’s lifecycle. The raw material extraction, processing, manufacturing, and end-of-life. Each stage of the lifecycle yields different environmental impacts due to different processes and why it is important to include every step that could affect the overall interpretation or ability of the analysis to address the issues for which it is being performed. There are only in certain well-defined instances can life-cycle elements such as raw materials acquisition or waste management be excluded. In general, only when a step is exactly the same, in process, materials, and quantity in all alternatives considered, can that step be excluded from the system. This rule is especially critical for LCAs used in public forums rather than for internal company decision making. Quite the opposite is happening, LCA are used as a shield and maintain a business as usual.
Let’s have a look at two of the main players in the LCA Fashion. Worldly, Higgs Index, and the Global Fashion Agenda. The Global Fashion Agenda, Pulse of the Fashion Industry 2017, reported the following.
“Data from the Higg Materials Sustainability Index (MSI), a cradle-to-gate material scoring tool by the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC), shows that the materials with the overall highest environmental impact are leather and natural fibres (silk, cotton, wool). These materials show the highest negative impacts across all dimensions. And even within one type of material there are considerable differences. Water use for cotton depends a great deal on the method of cultivation, while incorporating recycled polyester reduces a garment’s energy footprint”.
“Immediate Actions: Reduce conventional cotton use. We calculate that reducing conventional cotton by 30% can yield more than €18 billion in annual water savings. Polyester, more than any other alternative, has the cost efficiencies and production scale to be a practical substitute. Polyester already makes up most of the global textile fibre mix, and after decades of development, we can make it with characteristics resembling those of cotton The mathematics works as follows. Replacing 30% of cotton use by polyester in 2030 would save roughly 23 billion m³ of water annually—water valued at €0.81 per m³. The goal is realistic, especially since it would call for an increase of only 17% in today’s polyester production, considering a one-to-one cotton-to-polyester substitution. Polyester is no perfect answer, of course. It comes with its own challenges. In a 2017 study, it is estimated that 15% to 30% of plastics polluting the oceans can be attributed to primary micro-plastics, with 35% of those attributed to laundering of synthetic textiles. Moreover, polyester’s production relies heavily on fossil fuels. It is a non-renewable resource and is not biodegradable. Yet polyester lends itself to fibre-to-fibre recycling better than cotton does. It can also be made from waste products such as plastic bottles. Further positive developments include innovations that minimize the impact of plastic microfibers, for example through protective bags for clothing during washing (such as Patagonia partner Guppy Friend) and filters for washing machines (such as filters from Wexco)” (Pulse 2017).
Cradle to gate environmental impact index per kg of material
“Why GFA exists
The fashion industry is one of the largest, most resource intensive industries. It is a powerful engine for global growth and development.
The apparel and footwear industry accounted for some 2.1 billion tonnes of CO² emissions in 2018, about 4% of the global total. For context, this is the same quantity of CO² per year as the economies of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom combined. The global apparel market is projected to grow in value from 1.5 trillion USD in 2020 to about 2.25 trillion USD dollars by 2025, and it employs 60+ million people along its value chain; of which 80% are women. Widespread negative social implications within its supply chain such as the challenges in human rights, raising social standards and eliminating forced labour are all too familiar issues.
With global garment production to increase by 63% by 2030 – the equivalent of 500 billion shirts – the current business model of the fashion industry is unsustainable and needs to change to align with the Sustainable Development Goals.
We can form a thriving industry that creates prosperity for people and communities, reverses climate change and protects biodiversity. For this to happen, action is required now”. (GFA)
“Global Fashion Agenda (GFA) has selected Higg as its strategic data partner to help accelerate the transition to a net positive fashion industry. We are providing the data in the GFA Monitor, an annual report that outlines the priorities and opportunities brands and retailers have to set fact-based fashion industry sustainability strategies and actions to meet the goals set forth by our industry”.(GFA)
Their own words
Most LCA relies on studies sponsored by synthetic fabric producers. Higg Index rated polyester and other synthetics as very sustainable. In a detailed essay on the subject, please read Veronica Bates Kassatly “Was It Polyester All Along?” In 2022, the Norway Consumer Authority (NCA) issued a statement banning brands from using the Higg Index to make environmental marketing claims. I want to show some of the research used.
“Prepared by Business for Social Responsibility (BRS) June 2009, Apparel Industry Life Cycle Carbon Mapping”
“Business for Social Responsibility BSR and H&M initiated a project to bring together current publicly available information about the life cycle carbon emissions of the apparel industry through a review of existing research. This was conducted with two goals in mind:
To develop a general overview of GHG emission “hotspots” in the life cycle of a variety of garments, which will enable initial prioritization of areas for action and further data collection.
To promote sharing of resources among apparel industry peer companies, to enable deeper analysis and potentially greater collaborative action.
This study focused on gathering information about GHG emissions from activities along the full life cycle of individual garments, from raw material acquisition through disposal”.
Key Findings
Primary Carbon Hot Spot: Use Phase:
The single most important factor determining a garment’s life cycle GHG emissions is use phase care. Most studies noted that laundering is the largest contributor to a garment’s life cycle GHG footprint, although there are some limited exceptions.
Key points include:
Garments requiring washing, drying and possible ironing require the largest energy inputs during the use phase. As a result of these energy inputs, laundering accounts for 40-80% of total life cycle GHG emissions for such garments.
Machine drying is generally the single largest energy user and cause of GHG emissions in garment life cycles.
Use of low-GHG energy sources such as renewable or nuclear power for laundering dramatically reduces garment life cycle GHG emissions.
Garments that require handwashing are likely to have much lower use-phase energy use and resulting GHG emissions.
Garments requiring dry-cleaning may have lower use-phase GHG emissions than those requiring traditional laundering, but actual results are likely to depend on consumer behaviour.
Several studies indicated that garments are often laundered more frequently than necessary (e.g. after every use), which substantially increases total GHG emissions.
Secondary Carbon Hot Spot:
Raw Materials The second most important factor determining a garment’s GHG emissions is fiber type: Synthetic fibers have comparatively high GHG emissions as a result of energy use required for raw material production.
Wool has comparatively high GHG emissions as a result of methane emissions from sheep
Plant fibers such as cotton or linen have comparatively low GHG emissions from production, with linen having substantially lower production-phase emissions because of its comparatively low need for pesticides, fertilizers and irrigation.
Fiber type may also affect use-phase care in several ways:
Some fibres, such as wool, should be dry-cleaned or hand-washed rather than machine washed and dried
Some fibres, such as linen, are more likely to be ironed
Some fibres retain less moisture from washing than others (for example, polyester retains less than cotton), and as a result needs less energy to dry. However, this is only relevant if the drying process is adjusted according to fabric type.
Detailed Analysis:
*Methane emissions omitted.
**Bottom segment for Nylon includes both fiber production and raw material production
***Energy used for raw material feedstock does not generate GHG emissions during production (BSR. 2009)
“There are two significant points where energy use in fibre production does not reflect GHG emissions. First, methane emissions from sheep are a large but highly uncertain source of GHGs. Estimates of methane emissions reviewed for this study varied per sheep vary from 5 kg/head/year to 19 kg/head/year. In addition, some of the GHG emissions from raising sheep can be attributed to other sheep products, such as meat.
Second, the energy content of fossil fuel feedstocks used to produce polyester, acrylic, and nylon are included in the data (although highlighted separately). These feedstocks do not create GHG emissions during production, because they are not combusted and thus do not produce CO2 (however, they may generate CO2 emissions if the garment is incinerated, for example after disposal). It should also be noted that ‘fibre production’ is not relevant for naturally-occurring fibres that do not need to be manufactured”.
Within the overall manufacturing process, PET resin manufacture and fabric manufacture (including texturizing, knitting, dyeing, and finishing) are the most significant GHG emitters, while apparel production produces a very small portion of total GHG emissions. Dye manufacture (rather than the dying process itself) also generated few GHGs.
Polyester Trousers. The same ERM study provides a detailed energy footprint of polyester trousers. Consumer use results in 76% of total life cycle energy consumption. Polyester fibre manufacture is responsible for 7% of the total, and product manufacture for 13%. 35% of energy used in product manufacturing is used in yarn production” (BSR. 2009)
Fossil fuels, namely crude oil, natural gas, and coal are used as feedstock and fuel energy sources to produce synthetic fibres like polyester. Extraction of fossil fuels includes several activities: from exploration, through drilling, fracking, and mining, and then development, production and extraction, to surface processing and transport to refineries and/or processing facilities. Each of these activities causes emissions: direct emissions, like CH₄ leakage and flaring, along with emissions from fuel combustion, all ignored. However, when LCA analysis of natural fibres, like cotton are prepared, the raw materials, fertilizers, pesticides, water and chemical all included. Not only do the ignore the main culprit they also twist the blame on to the consumer.
M&S study suggests that efforts to improve the environmental profile of clothing, with regards to energy, should be directed at consumer use. They state “There is increasing pressure to encourage business to minimise the impacts their activities have on the environment. Reduction in the consumption of raw materials and energy and in the production of pollutants and wastes is high on the agenda of governments and the public. The purpose of the Streamlined LCA study, conducted by Environmental Resources Management (ERM) for Marks and Spencer plc (M&S, was to determine the energy footprints for two M&S garments. This was achieved by identifying and quantifying the 'cradle-to-grave' energy consumption associated with the two products. The two products assessed were a pair of pleated polyester trousers (34” waist, 31” leg) and a three pack of men’s cotton briefs (medium). The life cycle extracted energy consumption for a pair of trousers is approximately 200 kWh, 76% of which is associated with consumer care. The life cycle extracted energy consumption for a 3 pack of men’s briefs is approximately 107 kWh, 79% of which is associated with consumer care. Transport of clothing by suppliers and manufacturers is an insignificant part of the clothing life cycle with regards to energy consumption” (M&S.2022).
I must mention that most cargo is transported by sea, moving more than 10 billion tons of cargo across the world’s seas annually. Typically, shipping companies and ports operated with limited environmental oversight. Nevertheless, marine transportation still generates negative impacts on the marine environment, including air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, releases oil and chemical spills, dry bulk cargo and garbage.
As you can see the urgency is not reflected by sustainability claims of the fashion industry. They ignore the hazardous chemicals, greenhouse gas emissions, microplastic fibres in our oceans and non-degradable textiles waste. “Circularity” a buzzword among global fashion brands and nothing else. They make false promises, while the majority of garments rely of fossil-fuel based polyester which remains the main driver of growth and overproduction. The Take-back programmes that mainly transfer their waste problem to the Global South. Or the use of recycled content which relies on plastic waste from other industries (such as PET bottles) instead of textile-to-textile recycling, which not only doesn’t close the loop but helps the plastic industry to escape its own responsibility, while continuing the release of microplastics and hazardous chemicals.
BSR. (2009) “Apparel Industry Life Cycle Carbon Mapping”. Business for Social responsibility. https://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_Apparel_Supply_Chain_Carbon_Report.pdf
(GFA) Global Fashion Agenda https://globalfashionagenda.org/gfa-our-impact/
M&S (2002) “Marks & Spencer plc Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment of Two Marks & Spencer plc Apparel Products”.
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/G/02/00/00/00/24/28/67/24286782.pdf
Norway Consumer Authority (NCA) “Misleading marketing”
(Pulse 2017) “Pulse of the Fashion Industry 2017”
https://globalfashionagenda.org/resource-library/
Was It Polyester All Along?
https://www.veronicabateskassatly.com/read/was-it-polyester-all-along
Comments