sus·tain·a·ble /səˈstānəb(ə)l/ adjective conserving an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources. "our fundamental commitment to sustainable development" -Oxford English Dictionary CommonShare, the first transactional and discovery platform for sustainable textile sourcing, proudly sources sustainability-conscious products such as organic cotton, recycled cotton, REPREVEⓇ recycled polyester, hemp, linen, and others. We’re proud to unveil a new blog series in which we address the question of What is sustainable fashion? by unpacking key terms and presenting balanced solutions. Pursuing and understanding “sustainable fashion” is critical: more and more, customers are appreciating—if not demanding—that apparel companies embrace environmental consideration and stewardship. It’s possible that brands who fail to make small but noticeable changes to their supply chains will be considered outdated and lose consumers to brands who do their part to address the ecological concern. Of course, being more “sustainable” is not an easy pursuit, especially when trying to maintain a production calendar and turn a profit. But by educating our readers about the basics of what constitutes a more sustainable supply chain, our hope is that brands can achieve a balance between business and B-corp behavior. Part 3: Offsetting Fashion’s Carbon Footprint The Nature Conservancy defines a carbon footprint as the total amount of greenhouse gases (namely, carbon dioxide and methane) that are generated by our actions. Unfortunately, the apparel industry is reportedly the second most polluting industry in the world. According to Business Insider, it emits more carbon than international flights and maritime shipping combined, produces 10% of all humanity's carbon emissions, is the second-largest consumer of the world's water supply—and, to top it off, pollutes our oceans with microplastics. McKinsey research has also revealed that the sector was “responsible for some 2.1 billion metric tons of greenhouse-gas emissions in 2018, about 4 percent of the global total.” So how can a garment ever actually be “sustainable”, when each level and element of the fashion supply chain devour massive amounts of resources and energy, resulting in a huge carbon footprint? Consider:
The electrical energy needed to power millions of sewing machines and irons, thousands of factory lights, massive washing machines for prepping and drying millions of meters of fabric
The fuel needed for shipping or flying huge crates of garments across the oceans, either from factories to stores or from warehouses to individual consumers who prefer to have their garments delivered to their doorstep
The issue of waste and the carbon footprint resulting from the production. Fashion creations leave behind fabric waste, and their packaging leaves behind packaging waste. There’s also the problem of disposable retail displays, hangtags—every disposable element of a piece of clothing.
Waste management does count as a contributor to one’s carbon footprint: according to NPR, emissions from producing and incinerating plastics could amount to 56 gigatons of carbon — almost 50 times the annual emissions of all of the coal power plants in the U.S. Also, plastic is but another form of fossil fuel, as it is made from oil or natural gas—which takes additional energy. That said, the plastic we use to protect clothing needs an exit strategy. These are just a few examples.
So How Can We Lessen This Footprint? Lately, the effort is for fashion companies to “offset their carbon footprint” to become “carbon neutral.” It’s not easy, if even entirely possible. Few apparel factories are connected to wind power, and most textile mills require large amounts of water. But it’s possible to work with vendors who share in the goal of carbon neutrality. This includes factories that dispose of their waste properly, or that employ technological innovations (such as the WeylCat™ Pegasus catalyst) to reduce energy usage. The sustainability-conscious brand ADAY, a start-up invested in by the likes of H&M and SoGal Ventures, offers carbon offset purchase options to its customers, proceeds of which invest in the Native Alaskans Saving Lands Project in partnership with the carbon offset nonprofit Cool Effect. Cool Effect is but one of many organizations that assist companies who wish to offset their carbon footprint. There’s also the Higg Materials Sustainability Index, a database developed by the Sustainable Apparel Coalition that provides global averages of carbon footprints for materials and trims commonly used for apparel and footwear, which brands can utilize to assess their development decisions and reduce their negative environmental impact. This, of course, does not solve the problem. Still, it’s the least brands could—and should—do. EcoCult agrees, “Now, [the ineffectiveness of small carbon offset purchases offered to customers] doesn’t mean that brands shouldn’t offset their footprints. In fact, given how cheap offsets are, there isn’t really an excuse for not offsetting emissions, especially since they do translate into concrete support for projects that reduce emissions. But we should consider calculating and offsetting carbon footprints to be the bare minimum.” Until Green energy is readily available, it’s extremely difficult to lessen emissions and trap greenhouse gases. More quickly, to reduce their footprints, brands can implement eco-conscious packaging methods or recycling. While ADAY clothes do arrive to consumers wrapped in plastic, the brand’s showroom does attempt to recycle this plastic at specialized recycling facilities. Even better, New York-based brand Boheme Goods ships all of its clothing in eco-friendly kraft mailers or boxes, sealed with paper tape. The brand uses biodegradable shipping labels and has replaced plastic bubble wrap with disintegrating paper alternatives. In their correspondence, they encourage customers to re-use or recycle their packaging from online shopping to help eliminate waste. And celebrated sustainable fashion brand Reformation sends its clothing sans plastic in a simple cardboard envelope or package. As another alternative to plastic, pulp is a packaging option for anything, like shoes, that need protection. It’s not a prevalent choice in fashion. But if the wine delivery service Firstleaf sends its wine bottles—breakable glass, to be clear—in paper pulp-based fillers, what’s to say that shoes, which are arguably less fragile than glass, could not utilize recycling pulp packaging instead of typical styrofoam renditions as well? Handbag companies especially need to reconsider how they protect and deliver their wares. Mass and luxury purse brands often use plastic to encase every single element of a purse so that buckles, zippers, etc. are protected on the long journey from Asian factories to other consumer soils. Consolidations of shipments is a necessary step, too. FarFetch has begun employing this option, aiming to use smaller and less packaging per order. (Unlike, say, Amazon, who disturbingly will deliver a toothpick in a shoebox.) FarFetch also, alongside this Climate Conscious Delivery approach, has launched a series of initiatives that help its customers purchase clothes that already exist. These include both Farfetch SecondLife, a resale platform, and a donation service with Thrift+, both of which help extend the life of clothing and handbags. It seems that an increase in sales equals an increase in carbon emissions. More products means more energy, more resources, more packaging, more shipping, etc. And while more is good for business, companies need to grow while also curbing their inevitable environmental damage.