Fixing fashion: clothing consumption and sustainability Contents

3Fashion’s environmental price tag

Environmental impact

66.Everything we wear has an embedded environmental cost in terms of energy, water, land and chemicals used. This depends on multiple factors. The fibres that are used and whether they were grown or made, the production methods used, how they are processed into yarn, transported, dyed, printed and made into clothes. We heard that the environmental price tag for our clothes is largely determined during the design and production phase:

Key facts & figures on the carbon, water and land-use footprint of textiles

A polyester shirt has more than double the carbon footprint of a cotton shirt (5.5 kg CO2e vs. 2.1 kg CO2e).144

One kilogram of cotton - equivalent to the weight of a shirt and pair of jeans - can take as much as 10,000–20,000 litres of water to produce.145

The fashion industry is projected to use 35% more land for fibre production by 2030—an extra 115 million hectares that could be left for biodiversity or used to grow crops to feed an expanding population.146

Energy and climate

67.Textile production is a major contributor to climate change. It produces an estimated 1.2 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) per year - more than international flights and maritime shipping combined.147 It is estimated that across the full lifecycle of clothing globally, the industry has an annual carbon footprint of 3.3 billion tonnes CO2e.148 That figure is close to the combined carbon footprint of all 28 current members of the EU (3.5 billion tonnes).149 The total carbon footprint of clothing in the UK is growing - rising from 24 million tonnes to 26.2 million tonnes per year in 2016, according to WRAP.150 If fashion continues on its current path, it could use more than 26% of the global carbon budget associated with a 2°C pathway by 2050, according to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation.151

Water consumption

68.Large quantities of water are also used. In 2016, WRAP estimated that the water footprint of clothes used in the UK was 8 billion cubic metres.152 Globally, the fashion industry consumes an estimated 79 billion cubic metres of fresh water annually. The growing and production of fibres consumes the greatest quantity of water. Water is also used when dyeing, finishing and washing clothes.153 Adding rips and tears to jeans by the application of chemicals is harmful to workers and the environment.154 Textile production is responsible for high volumes of water containing hazardous chemicals being discharged into rivers and water courses.155 Twenty per cent of industrial water pollution globally is attributable to the dyeing and treatment of textiles, according to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation.156 Reliance on chemicals in the cotton production process is linked to high rates of water use - with up to one fifth of water use related to diluting chemicals according to the Soil Association.157

69.Cotton is one of the thirstiest fibres in fashion. According to WRAP, cotton production accounts for 69% of the water footprint of fibre production for textiles.158 One kilogram of cotton - equivalent to the weight of a shirt and pair of jeans - can take as much as 10,000–20,000 litres to produce, depending on where in the world it is grown.159 The Aral Sea, formerly one of the four largest lakes in the world, has almost entirely dried up, in large part due to intensive industrial cotton farming in Central Asia.160 It is now called the Aralkum Desert.161 This is an ecological, economic and social disaster.

70.The water scarcity exacerbated by cotton production in arid regions has an impact on local communities - especially in low income countries.162 Major cotton producing countries such as China and India are already suffering from medium to high levels of water stress in certain areas.163 The Pulse of Fashion report warns that as water scarcity worsens in the future some cotton growing nations ‘may face the dilemma of choosing between cotton production and securing clean drinking water’.164

Land use

71.The use of land for the production of natural fibres can also be a cause of deforestation and biodiversity loss.165 The fashion industry is projected to use 35% more land for fibre production by 2030—an extra 115 million hectares that could be used to grow crops for an increasing population or preserve forest to store carbon.166

72.We are unwittingly wearing the fresh water supply of central Asia and destroying fragile ecosystems. Consumers can play their part by avoiding products with pre-made rips and tears and seeking sustainable or organic cotton wherever possible. Governments should oblige retailers to ensure full traceability in their supply chains to prove decent livelihoods and sustainably sourced materials.

Natural Vs Synthetic Fibres

73.There are ethical and environmental problems associated with both natural and synthetic fibres used in clothing production. To produce natural fibres like cotton, wool, leather, cashmere and silk, it requires the use of land, water, animals, feed and chemicals. Synthetic fibres like polyester, are made from petroleum, a non-renewable resource, and require an energy intensive production process.

Natural fibres

74.Cotton is the most widely used natural fibre in the world. It is a global commodity and hard to trace. It uses land, large quantities of water and is often grown using insecticides. Nitrogen rich fertilisers are used in cotton agriculture which increase soil acidity.167 The Soil Association argued that increasing organic cotton production could make a significant contribution to minimising the environmental impact of the fashion industry.168 It would reduce the use of chemical fertilisers, pesticides, and associated water use. At our hearing with fashion retailers, Primark’s Paul Lister cited a project that Primark had been involved in, where better irrigation and organic pest control methods had reduced water use, increased yield by 6% and doubled farmers’ income.169

75.There are also ethical concerns around the use of some natural fibres. Animal welfare is of increasing concern to consumers and a number of companies have recently announced that they are abandoning the use of fur. Stella McCartney’s Sustainability and Innovation Director Claire Bergkamp told us:

More and more people are recognising that we do not have to kill animals for the sake of fashion, that it is not necessary and you can have beautiful products that do not involve slaughter. The movement towards companies going fur free has been very exciting to see. We do not need fur anymore. It is really an archaic fabric and is not something that is necessary. The UK banned the manufacturing of fur and there is a possibility for the UK to ban the sale of fur, which is of course something we support at Stella.170

76.The International Fur Federation (IFF) contends, however, that fur should be considered as a more sustainable fibre than fake fur, as it is biodegradable and does not contribute to microplastic pollution. The IFF claims that ‘animal welfare is the uppermost priority for the fur industry and across the globe a number of programs are in place to ensure that fur derived from farms or from Government authorised conservation programs are subject to rigorous inspection and certification’. It says that from 2020 the sector will be launching FURMARK, ‘a global certification and traceability system that brings these various programs together under an umbrella system’.171 Animal welfare campaigners question whether these standards go far enough. Our colleagues on the Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee recently recommended that the Government holds a public consultation to consider whether to ban fur altogether.172

Synthetic fibres

77.Synthetic textiles can either be made from plastics, such as polyester, polyamide and acrylic, or from plant materials that are chemically dissolved and then spun into fibres, such as rayon, viscose, lyocell, modal and cupro. The plastic most commonly used in textiles is polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or polyester.173 Most synthetic fibres (approximately 70%) are made from polyester and it is now used in around 60% of our garments.174 This quantity has doubled since 2000, according to the London Textile Forum.175 The vast majority of synthetic fibres come from virgin plastics. One problem preventing greater uptake of recycled polyester is that low oil prices make new virgin plastics cheaper than recycled PET.176

78.Petroleum based synthetic fibres like polyester have less impact on water and land than cotton, but they emit more greenhouse gasses per kilogram. According to one academic analysis, a polyester shirt has more than double the carbon footprint of a cotton shirt (5.5 kg CO2e vs. 2.1 kg CO2e).177 The London Textile Forum says that bio-based synthetic polymers made from renewable crops such as corn and sugar cane require less energy. It claims that these release ‘up to 60% less carbon emissions, partly due to the crops creating carbon sinks’.178

Recycled fibres

79.Developing the technology and market for recycled fibres is a key challenge in the move to a more circular fashion system. The Director of the Textile Recycling Association Alan Wheeler told us that there is interesting R&D work going on to develop ‘new techniques to recycle post-consumer polyester and cotton waste, and it is already possible to produce a wool yarn from recycled fibres that performs as well as one made from virgin fibres.’179 However, he noted that:

… ability for our sector to recycle fibres is the Achilles heel of our industry and is perhaps the biggest stumbling block that the fashion industry will need to overcome if it is to achieve actual circularity and not merely an improvement of the current linear industry.180

80.The ability to recycle textiles into high value new products is limited. Current mechanical recycling processes damage the original fibre and shorten the fibre length.181 This limits the options and range of markets for recycled fibres and in most cases they can only be recycled once. Demand from existing markets is low and hence the value that can be achieved for recycled textiles are low.182

81.There are some moves within industry to use more recycled fibres. The Textile Exchange has brought together fifty nine major textile, apparel and retailers - including adidas, Dibella, Eileen Fisher, Gap Inc., H&M, IKEA, Lindex, MetaWear, Target and Timberland—to aim to increase their use of Recycled Polyester (rPET) by at least 25% by 2020.183 At the moment most plastic recycling infrastructure is set up for PET bottles and the technology for recycling old synthetic fabrics into new ones is in its infancy.184 The fashion label Christopher Raeburn suggested that the Government reduce VAT based ‘on proven recycled content garments; this could be on a sliding scale, to encourage migration to entirely circular materials.’185

Microfibre shedding

82.In 2016, our predecessor Committee highlighted how trillions of tiny pieces of plastic are accumulating in the world’s oceans, harming marine life and entering the food chain.186 Research has shown that marine habitats worldwide including shorelines, sea surface, deep sea and arctic sea ice are polluted with small plastic pieces less than five millimetres long. Synthetic fibres are common in most samples and have also been detected in commercially important fish and shellfish.187 Laboratory studies have demonstrated the potential for microplastics to have harmful effects on marine life when ingested, although most of this research has focused on spherical microplastics.188

Key facts & figures on microplastic shedding

As much as 20% to 35% of all primary source microplastics in the marine environment are from synthetic clothing, according to academic estimates.189

A single 6kg domestic wash has the potential to release as many as 700,000 fibres.190

Over nine trillion fibres could be released per week in the UK, according to figures cited in the National Federation of Women’s Institutes (NFWI) In a Spin report.191

83.Textiles are estimated to be the largest source of synthetic fibres in the oceans with microplastics shedding into the water system every time garments are washed. A single 6kg domestic wash has the potential to release as many as 700,000 fibres.192 Evidence suggests that when synthetic textiles are landfilled or incinerated they can also leach microfibres into the environment.193 Synthetic cellulosic fibres - made from plant matter rather than plastic - are sometimes said to be biodegradable, but Friends of the Earth warned that there is also evidence that they persist in the environment.194 It said rayon has also been found in the digestive tracts of commercial fish species.

84.Fashion’s microplastic pollution probably begins during the manufacturing phase. When synthetic fibres are produced, combined into yarn and woven into fabrics, it is possible that fibres are released into the air and environment.195 There is emerging evidence that this may pose a health and safety risk for textile factory workers. According to a recent academic study: ‘interstitial lung disease is a work-related condition that induces coughing, dyspnoea (breathlessness), and reduced lung capacity in workers processing either para-aramid, polyester, and/or nylon fibers. […] Whilst these effects are distinct from those seen after asbestos exposure, the legacy of asbestos toxicology can in-part help predict health effects of fibrous microplastics.’196 The blog and shop Amberoot said that synthetic plastic fibres should be classified as a health hazard because they are ending up in our ‘soil, food and the air we breathe’.197 Natural fibres have also been linked to occupational health hazards. Byssinosis, also called brown lung disease, is caused by exposure to cotton dust in poorly ventilated workspaces.198

85.There are three points where interventions could be made to reduce the number of synthetic fibres finding their way into our waters:

86.Significant numbers of synthetic micro-fibres are already intercepted in wastewater treatment, according to evidence we received from Plymouth University. Given the considerable volumes of textiles in use, however, even relatively high capture rates in wastewater treatment may still result in substantial emissions.200 When fibres are captured in wastewater treatment they may still be returned to the environment when sewage sludge is spread on the land as fertiliser.201

87.The National Federation of Women’s Institutes (NFWI) carried out consumer research on day-to-day washing habits and the types of fibres people are washing on a regular basis. Its In a Spin report estimated that:

Reducing microfibre shedding

88.Research by the marine biologist Professor Richard Thompson suggests that there are considerable variations (over 70–80% in some cases) in the quantity of fibres released from different types of synthetic garment. For example, preliminary trials suggest that acrylic garments release more fibres then polyester. This suggests that interventions by brands at the design stage may be the most effective way to reduce synthetic microfibre pollution.203 The length of the yarn, type of weave, and method for finishing seams may all be factors that could affect shedding rates.204

89.Professor Thompson argued that changes at the design stage were the most effective way to tackle the problem:

‘I think it is important to look at how easy is it to fix. If I take some of the work that we have done in our own labs—I am a marine biologist, I am not a textile designer—with a range of products that I have bought in a local high street supermarket and I wash them, I find that some are shedding fibres four or five times more quickly than others and these are identical looking, fleece-like garments. It is saying to me that there are things that we have not needed to think about historically at the design stage about life in service and fibres that are shed. It is not about not using clothing, it is not about eliminating fibres, but if we have identical looking garments and some of them are shedding fibres four times faster than others, it is suggesting to me that it has not been in the design brief to consider that. Some of those fibres will be intercepted by waste waster treatment but a good number of them will escape and because of the volumes of fibres and clothing that are used, even a relatively efficient waste water treatment plant can end up with a fairly substantial emission. My plea would be, as you are starting to consider sustainability right from the material source to the end of life recycling, is also to factor in at the design stage what is the wear, what is the life in service going to be like and is there a way we can design clothing to minimise those emissions.205

90.Multiple stakeholders have a role to play in solving the problem of microplastic fibre pollution from fashion brands to washing machine manufacturers and water companies. The NFWI said that it would like to see a collaborative cross-sector group of retailers, washing machine manufacturers, water industry, and Defra assembled to discuss how best to tackle the issue.206

91.The British Retail Consortium called for ‘comprehensive research’ to establish all the sources of marine microplastics to inform a multi industry approach. It argued that ‘research into microfibres is still in its early stages and there are a number of other potential sources of microplastics in ocean ecosystems, including vehicle tyre dust, fishing net debris, and plastic pellet spillages.’207

92.The Government should facilitate collaboration between fashion retailers, water companies and washing machine manufacturers and take a lead on solving the problem of microfibre pollution. Ultimate responsibility for stopping this pollution, however, must lie with the companies making the products that are shedding the fibres. Further research needs to be carried out into how design can be used to limit emissions of synthetic fibres and the lessons applied quickly. The need for more research should not be used as an excuse for inaction by retailers. Fashion retailers should be testing new synthetic garments for fibre release and publishing figures.

93.More research also needs to be carried out urgently into the occupational health risks of working with synthetic fibres. The Government should ask the Health and Safety Executive to review the evidence and take action accordingly. Manufacturers must be mindful of potential risks now and should seek to reduce the exposure of garment workers to airborne synthetic fibres.

Measuring impact

94.In our first hearing we heard how important full life cycle analysis is to avoid unintended consequences in policy decisions about clothes. For example, we were told that some durable garments made with synthetic fibres may be less environmentally harmful across their whole life cycle than some clothes produced with natural fibres–even though synthetic fibres are polluting marine habitats worldwide. Dr Mark Sumner from Leeds University argued that:

The life cycle analysis data tell us that the fibres that have the biggest environmental impact, because of the way they are grown, are cotton fibres, cellulosic fibres. There are significant challenges in the use of highly toxic pesticides and overuse of fertilisers. There are issues of health and safety for workers, water consumption, carbon footprints. […] A direct switch across to natural fibres has all sorts of unintended consequences. We don’t know about the microfibre impacts because we don’t fully understand the biodegradability of cotton in the system. We also don’t know what happens to the chemicals that we apply to the cotton. All of us are wearing cotton now, it is by far the most common fibre, but all of the cotton we are wearing now has some sort of chemical applied to it. It might be a cross link resin, a colour, a performance chemical. That will be carried down through to the ocean on the fibre and we don’t know what happens to that. [When we talk about microplastic pollution] we are talking about very miniscule amounts of release per garment. In some of the work that we have looked at we are talking about 0.04% of the weight of garment may be flushed out in a washing machine. I am not saying that we have to ignore it; we have to bear in mind how many garments are in the world and being washed. It is trying to understand the unintended consequences of taking a kneejerk reaction.208

95.A number of tools have been developed to compare the environmental costs of different textiles, such as the Higg Materials Sustainability Index (MSI) and MADE-BY Fiber Benchmark.209 Textile Exchange has developed a number of global standards ‘to assure and verify sustainability claims.’210 For example, the Higg MSI, developed by the Sustainable Apparel Coalition, is a suite of self-assessment tools that enable brands, retailers and suppliers compare and understand environmental and social trade-offs between different materials and identify areas for improvement.211

96.In the Higg MSI, silk, cotton and wool are given high environmental impact scores of 128, 98 and 82 respectively, while fossil fuel based fibres like nylon, acrylic and polyester are rated as lower impact at 60, 52 and 44.212 Some academics and industry bodies have raised concerns about what the metrics do and do not include.213 The International Wool Textile Organisation complained that the Higg MSI costed nature’s carbon cycle ‘for natural fibres, but not for fossil fuel-based fibres.’214 It also argued that the index does not ‘adequately assess end-of-life impacts.’215 Others have argued that the tools often neglect to include the use phase, where washing can increase the carbon and water footprint depending on the fibres.216

Sustainable Clothing Action Plan life cycle waste targets

97.The Sustainable Clothing Action Plan (SCAP) was launched by WRAP in 2012 to provide a collaborative voluntary framework for fashion companies to reduce their carbon, water, and waste impacts. Arcadia Group, ASOS, Primark, and M&S are all signatories and have agreed voluntary targets to reduce the carbon and water footprints of clothing by 15% and reduce waste by 3.5% by 2020 compared with 2012.217

98.Dr Mark Sumner noted that the use of Best Available Technologies (BAT) offers a wide range of measures to help minimise the water and carbon footprints in the textile industry. The use of such BAT by retailers signed up to SCAP has supported significant progress against their carbon and water targets. SCAP signatories report an 11.9% reduction in the carbon footprint per tonne of garments and a 17.7% reduction in the water footprint per tonne of garments (exceeding target).218 However, they are failing to make significant reductions to the waste produced across the product life cycle of their products with a reduction of just 1.1% per tonne of clothing since 2012.219 Dr Sumner warned that many retailers not signed up to SCAP are not making use of BAT suggesting ‘there is a lack of policy pressure to incentivise best practice’.220 Furthermore the impact of the increased volumes of clothing being sold in the UK outweigh the efficiency savings that have been made on carbon and water.221

99.The Soil Association said that SCAP is too focused on end of life issues rather than on production and supply chains. It says that it ‘would like to see the SCAP do more on fibre selection, as even though this is taken into account in the tool that retailers use, it is not a major focus.’222 Some of the retailers we heard from who are signed up to SCAP are setting targets in this area. ASOS told us that:

We’ve committed to 60% of raw materials for ASOS brands to be sustainably sourced by 2020 and our goal is to work towards 100% by 2025. 100% of our ASOS Design cotton-based jeans will be made from sustainable cotton from Jan 2019.223

100.The British Retail Consortium called for Government funding to support the Sustainable Clothing Action Plan. It said that companies used to be able to participate in the SCAP without a fee, but that WRAP had introduced a charge for business participation when the high street faces a challenging economic climate.224 It argued that ‘public funding for SCAP could make the initiative much more accessible for a wider range of fashion businesses, and therefore more impactful in addressing the environmental and social issues of the industry.’225

EU Ecodesign Directive

To date the EU Ecodesign Directive and accompanying Energy Labelling Regulation have focused on ensuring more energy-efficient products are placed on the EU market and consumers are sufficiently informed to purchase the most efficient products.226 Proposals in the Ecodesign Working Plan 2016–2019 aim to use ecodesign to contribute to the circular economy by ‘more systematically tackling material efficiency issues such as durability and recyclability’.227 This includes considering the repair, remanufacture and recyclability of a product in the initial design and exploring specific requirements in areas such as durability, reparability, upgradeability and design for disassembly.228

101.Gaining a full picture of the impact of different fibres is important so that businesses, consumers and policymakers can decide on the most effective solutions. The work that WRAP has done to document the impact of fashion consumption and bring businesses together to share best practice and facilitate change is commendable. However, WRAP has faced significant funding cuts, with budget allocation reducing from £56 million in 2009/10 to less than £10 million for 2017/18.229 The Government must ensure that WRAP’s Sustainable Clothing Action Plan (SCAP) is adequately funded to provide its services to any retailer that wants to improve its sustainability performance - regardless of its size. Post 2020, SCAP target ambitions must increase. To ensure the scheme continues we recommend that retailers pay for the funding of SCAP. This should ideally be included in the Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme. This should happen whether or not an EPR scheme is introduced. This could be set relative to revenue with discounts available for SMEs. SCAP does not currently include any commitments to reduce microplastic pollution from synthetic garments. Post 2020 SCAP should include new targets following the Ecodesign Directive, including reducing microplastic shedding.

102.Members of SCAP have made some progress in reducing their carbon and water consumption, but action has not been swift enough on reducing waste. We are disappointed that just 11 fashion retailers are signatories.230 These improvements have been outweighed by the increased volumes of clothing being sold. A voluntary approach has failed. A retailers’ commitment to SCAP targets should be seen as a ‘licence to practice’. We recommend that compliance with SCAP targets should be made mandatory for all retailers with a turnover of more than £36 million–a threshold in line with the Modern Slavery Act. This should be done under a new Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme. The Government needs to provide clear economic incentives for retailers to minimise their environmental footprint. It should implement the EU’s Ecodesign Directive in the Circular Economy Package into UK law in its Resources and Waste Strategy and upcoming Environment Act.

103.A kneejerk switch from synthetic to natural fibres in response to the problem of ocean microfibre pollution would result in greater pressures on land and water use - given current consumption rates. Encouraging a move from conventional to organic cotton and from virgin polyester to recycled PET (in garments designed to minimise shedding) could help to reduce the impact of the clothing industry. We recommend that the Government reforms taxation to reward fashion companies that design products with lower environmental impacts and penalise those that do not. The Government should investigate whether its proposed tax on virgin plastics, which comes into force in 2022, should be applied to textile products that contain less than 50% recycled PET to stimulate the market for recycled fibres in the UK. As part of the new EPR scheme, Government and industry should accelerate research into the relative environmental performance of different materials, particularly with respect to measures to reduce microfibre pollution.


141 WRAP (the Waste & Resources Action Programme) (SFI0050)

142 Professor Richard Thompson (SFI0007)

143 Clothing Sustainability Research Group, Nottingham Trent University (SFI0049)

144 Kirchain, R., Olivetti, E., Reed Miller, T. & Greene, S. Sustainable Apparel Materials (Materials Systems Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2015).

146 Global Fashion Agenda & Boston Consulting Group, Pulse of the Fashion Industry (2017)

147 Ellen Macarthur Foundation, a New Textiles Economy: Redesigning Fashion’s Future (2017)

148 School of Design, University of Leeds (SFI0026)

151 Ellen Macarthur Foundation, a New Textiles Economy: Redesigning Fashion’s Future (2017)

155 Ellen Macarthur Foundation, a New Textiles Economy: Redesigning Fashion’s Future (2017)

156 Ellen Macarthur Foundation, a New Textiles Economy: Redesigning Fashion’s Future (2017)

157 Soil Association (SFI0011)

160 Fashion Revolution (SFI0056)

163 Global Fashion Agenda & Boston Consulting Group, Pulse of the Fashion Industry (2017)

164 Global Fashion Agenda & Boston Consulting Group, Pulse of the Fashion Industry (2017)

166 Global Fashion Agenda & Boston Consulting Group, Pulse of the Fashion Industry (2017)

167 London Textile Forum (SFI0044)

168 Soil Association (SFI0011)

169 Q222

170 Q91

171 International Fur Federation (SFI0045)

172 Environment Food and Rural Affairs, Fur Trade in the UK (July 2018)

173 O ECOTEXTILES, Why is recycled polyester considered a sustainable textile?

174 London Textile Forum (SFI0044)

175 London Textile Forum (SFI0044)

176 Environmental Audit Committee, Plastic Bottles: Turning Back the Plastic Tide (Dec 2017)

177 Kirchain, R., Olivetti, E., Reed Miller, T. & Greene, S. Sustainable Apparel Materials (Materials Systems Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2015).

178 London Textile Forum (SFI0044)

179 Recycling & Waste World, A stitch in time (May 2017)

180 Textile Recycling Association (SFI0013)

181 Textile Recycling Association (SFI0013)

182 Textile Recycling Association (SFI0013)

185 Christopher Raeburn (SFI0095)

186 Environmental Audit Committee, Environmental impact of microplastics (August 2016)

187 Professor Richard Thompson (SFI0007)

188 Professor Richard Thompson (SFI0007)

189 Kirsi Laitala, Ingun Grimstad Klepp and Beverley Henry, Does Use Matter? Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Clothing Based on Fiber Type (July 2018)

190 Professor Richard Thompson (SFI0007)

191 National Federation of Women’s Institutes, In a Spin: How our laundry is contributing to plastic pollution (October 2018)

192 Professor Richard Thompson (SFI0007)

193 Fashion Revolution (SFI0056)

194 Friends of the Earth (SFI

195 Friends of the Earth (SFI0069)

196 Gasperi et al in Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, Microplastics in air: Are we breathing it in? (Volume 1, February 2018)

197 Amberoot (SFI0023)

198 American Lung Association, Lung Health & Diseases: Byssinosis

199 Professor Richard C Thompson, University of Plymouth (SFI0007)

200 Professor Thompson, University of Plymouth (SFI0007)

201 Professor Richard Thompson (SFI0007)

202 National Federation of Women’s Institutes (SFI0068)

203 Professor Richard C Thompson, University of Plymouth (SFI0007)

204 Friends of the Earth (SFI0069)

205 Q5

206 National Federation of Women’s Institutes (SFI0068)

207 British Retail Consortium (SFI0019)

209 Kirsi Laitala, Ingun Grimstad Klepp and Beverley Henry, Does Use Matter? Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Clothing Based on Fiber Type (July 2018)

210 Textile Exchange (SFI0046)

211 Higg MSI Materials Sustainability Index; Global Fashion Agenda & Boston Consulting Group, Pulse of the Fashion Industry (2017)

213 Kirsi Laitala, Ingun Grimstad Klepp and Beverley Henry, Does Use Matter? Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Clothing Based on Fiber Type (July 2018)

214 International Wool Textile Organisation (IWTO) (SFI0054)

215 International Wool Textile Organisation (IWTO) (SFI0054)

216 Kirsi Laitala, Ingun Grimstad Klepp and Beverley Henry, Does Use Matter? Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Clothing Based on Fiber Type (July 2018)

218 WRAP SCAP 2020 progress 2012–2017 (December 2018)

219 WRAP, Sustainable Clothing Action Plan 2020 Commitment: progress against footprint reduction targets 2012–2017, (18 Dec 2018)

220 School of Design, University of Leeds (SF10026)

221 WRAP (SFI0050)

222 Soil Association (SFI0011)

223 ASOS (SFI0080)

224 British Retail Consortium (SFI0019)

225 British Retail Consortium (SFI0019)

226 European Commission (2016), Ecodesign Working Plan 2016–2019, p.2.

227 European Commission (2016), Ecodesign Working Plan 2016–2019, p.3.

228 European Commission (2016), Ecodesign Working Plan 2016–2019, pp 8–9.




Published: 19 February 2019