ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF PULP TEXTILE MATERIALS

ENVIRONMENTALPERFORMANCE OF PULP TEXTILEMATERIALS

AN ADVICE FROM THE NATURAL CAPITAL HELPDESK

1

23 December 2015

The Natural Capital Helpdesk, is an initiative of the Biodiversity, Ecosystems & Economics Platform (Platform BEE) of the employers' organization VNO-NCW and IUCN.CREM, Center for Sustainability (CfS) Nyenrode Business University and ARCADIS are responsible for the implementation of the Helpdesk on behalf of VNO-NCW and IUCN.

More information: www.helpdesknatuurlijkkapitaal.nl

2

INDEX

1. Introduction 4 ..........................................................................................................................

1.1. Introduction and scope of the request 4

1.2. The Natural Capital Helpdesk 4

2. methodology 5 ........................................................................................................................

3. environmental analysis of pulp materials 6 ..........................................................................

3.1. Description of PULP materials 6

3.2. Environmental issues and performance of conventional fibres 7

3.2.1. Cotton 7

3.2.2. Wool 7

3.2.3. Polyester 8

3.3. Analysis of the environmental performance of PULP materials 10

4. conclusions 14 .......................................................................................................................

5. bibliografy 16...........................................................................................................................

3

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Introduction and scope of the request

Textile fibre production has more than doubled over the past 30 years, leading to increased demands for both natural and fossil resources. Combustion of fossil fuel leads to greenhouse gas emissions and the use of land for agricultural production reduces the habitat available for other species. Consumption of these resources should be controlled in order to reduce the environmental impact. However, it is also critical that emerging production methods and consumption of resources are economically viable and uncompromising to human welfare and social development, particularly in countries where employee protection is less well regulated.

Different international and European initiatives are incorporating environmental, social, and economic objectives intended to accelerate the shift towards sustainable consumption and production in the textile industry.

GW Agency Holly Syrett is a company that develops initiatives that contribute to the development and increase sustainability in the fashion industry. Together with fashion designer Natalie de Koning, GW Agency is currently conducting PULP. PULP is a project to up-cycle non-renewable textile waste into “high fashion, high quality " fashion (rest) materials and redistribute them to the Dutch textile industry.

The scope of the request for the Helpdesk is to analyse the environmental/biodiversity impact of different fabrics used by PULP compared with regular and similar fabrics offered in the market.

GW Agency and Natalie de Koning want to map the environmental benefits of the PULP materials to create awareness and inform their target groups (fashion professionals and consumers) how and in which way these materials have a positive contribution to preserve the environment and the biodiversity. Although there is much attention to "sustainable" fashion, it is not clear what the real impact on the environmental and biodiversity associated with different kinds of materials is. The impact and (hopefully real) environmental benefits of PULP materials will help to clarify and communicate with stakeholders, stimulate sustainable choices and contribute to the sustainability of the fashion industry.

1.2. The Natural Capital Helpdesk

The Helpdesk Natural Capital offers free advice with a maximum of two days to companies that want to focus on biodiversity and ecosystem services. More information about the Help Desk can be found in the website www.helpdesknatuurlijkkapitaal.nl. The Helpdesk is an initiative of the Biodiversity, Ecosystems & Economics Platform (Platform BEE) of employers' organization VNO-NCW and IUCN. The initiative is financially supported by the Ministry of Economic Affairs of the Netherlands. CREM, the Center for Sustainability (CfS) Nyenrode Business University and ARCADIS are responsible for the implementation of the helpdesk on behalf VNO-NCW and IUCN.

4

2. METHODOLOGY

The analysis of the environmental impacts and performance related to PULP materials was done based on desk research and review of existing reports and studies on the identification and assessment of environmental impacts of different textile and fibres, including life-cycle analysis (LCA).

The analysis presented in this report is qualitative as information and data regarding textiles blends (similar to the PULP materials) is not sufficient and robust to carry out a comprehensive analysis. Similarities of the three PULP materials were considered in relation to the original materials and their composition. In the case of PULP 2 it is assumed that the material is made of sheep wool.

For the purpose of the assessment of environmental impacts, textile fibre supply chains were divided into four processes from cradle to gate: raw material production, fibre preparation, fabric production, and dyeing and finishing. Environmental impact generated during use and also end-of life phases were considered whenever information was available.

For the assessment of the impact on climate change, it is often considered that fossil fuel is used for energy production. In case other renewable resources are used, the environmental impact on this indicator will fall drastically. For example, electricity generated by a renewable resource will have virtually zero CO2 emissions associated with it, a huge contrast to electricity generated by coal. It is important to remember that polyester will always have an input of oil in its manufacturing process. This represents about one third of the total impact of the product. In the case of cotton production, the production of synthetic fertilisers and herbicides, along with their application, represents also an important input of total energy requirements in the crop cultivation stage (around 50%).

5

3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF PULP MATERIALS

3.1. Description of PULP materials

PULP 1 material: Synthetic textile waste

PULP 1 is a material made of cut-and-sow textile waste produced by the Dutch knitting industry (Ames Europe). These waste materials constitute large amounts of cutting waste which are incinerated as waste if not recycled. The original waste materials are: one material of 100% “white” polyester and a coloured material with a composition of 65% polyester and 35% cotton. The waste materials are “low oil” which means that the content of oil is less than 0.05%. All raw materials and input (yarn, dyes and chemicals) comply with the REACH regulation. The textiles where the waste materials come from are Oeko-Tex® Standard 100 certified. The waste materials are wrapped up into balls and offered as textile materials. No final products or clothes are made.

PULP 2 material: Waste textile materials

PULP 2 are materials made of different waste materials from the knitting industry produced by Febrik, a Dutch textile company part of the interior design industry. These are discarded rolls that can no longer be sold by the manufacturer because, for example a detail has gone wrong in the production process, it is a residual quantity or the colour is not according to specifications. At present, the manufacturer has no purpose for the materials and stored them till now. It is expected that the materials will be destroyed but this is still unclear. The materials have blends of wool/polyester and

polyamide with different composition and confection patterns. They are certified with Oeko-Tex® Standard 100 and all chemicals used are registered under the REACH legislation. These materials receive no further physical or chemical processing and are only re-distributed in the fashion industry.

PULP 3 material: Waste material of the carpet industry

PULP 3 is made of small cutting waste materials of the carpet industry. The rest materials are processed into a new material placing them between two layers of solufoam and are finally stitched. The material is then washed down with water to remove the rest of the solufoam. The composition of the material is a blend of synthetic fibres. Currently this material is not for sale as the processing process is labour intensive and it is not clear if it is possible to produce it commercially.

6

3.2. Environmental issues and performance of conventional fibres

A brief description of the most relevant activities of the life-cycle of conventional fibres and their relation with environmental issues are presented in this chapter.

3.2.1. Cotton

Production of cotton • Demand for vast spaces of fertile land (in monoculture, exhausting the soil). • Extension of cultivation areas, impacting natural habitats and wild life (China, Brazil,

Central-Asia). • Use of monoculture crop systems, reducing diversity of natural predators and increase

need for pesticide use, causing biodiversity loss. • Use of substantial amounts of agrochemicals, causing pollution of land and water bodies by

farm run-off due to precipitation, irrigation and drainage (impacts include eutrophication from phosphate and nitrate fertilizers). Cotton is one of the most polluting agricultural products in terms of the use of agrochemicals.

• Consumption of large volumes of water (causing overexploitation, erosion, drought and salinisation) (several studies refer to an average of 8-10,000 litres of water per 1 kilogram of cotton produced, depending on production location and production methods).

• Fossil energy use for transport, contributing to climate change.

Wet processing (e.g. dyeing, printing, finishing, mercerizing, bleaching, scouring/washing):

• Consuming large amounts of water, inter alia as a result of rinsing after dyeing, potentially overexploiting water resources if it takes place in water-stressed areas.

• Existence of hazardous waste water after process (often discharged of without treatment) • Fossil energy use (heating of water and running machinery for pre-treatment and dyeing of

fabrics), contributing to climate change.

End-of-life phase • Heavy metals (accessories, remains from dyeing, etc.) may leach to the environment,

potentially causing soil and groundwater pollution.

3.2.2. Wool

Sheep farming • Need for vast spaces of land for the keeping of sheep (while overgrazing may cause soil

erosion) and production of feed. • Use of chemicals (against moths and fungi) during transport. • High greenhouse gas emission (methane) due to digestive process/manure of the sheep,

contributing to climate change. • Fossil energy use for transport, contributing to climate change.

7

Processing of wool • Consuming large amounts of water for wool scouring, which specifically causes an impact if

this takes place in water-stressed areas. • Use of large amounts of chemicals for wool scouring, producing heavily polluted waste

water, often discharged of without treatment and thus possibly polluting water streams and impacting aquatic species.

• Fossil energy use (heating of water and running machinery for pre-treatment and dyeing of fabrics), contributing to climate change.

End-of-life phase • Emission of methane when woollen garments decompose, contributing to climate change.

3.2.3. Polyester

Production of polyester • Petroleum based material; impacts like noise, light and pollution are linked to drilling for

oil. • Emissions of volatile organic substances and hazardous chemicals, potentially polluting

waste water. • High fossil energy consumption when processing raw materials into fibres (refinery and

polymerisation), contributing to climate change.

User phase • When washing polyester, it sheds of tiny plastic fibres that contribute to the plastic soup in

the oceans. (NB: Plastic soups refers to the huge amounts of plastic waste that end up in oceans. It breaks down in smaller pieces but is non-biodegradable. Aquatic life is impacted; species get entangled in/injured by plastics or die from eating toxic pieces.)

End-of-life phase • Products will not decompose. Disposed of products may end up in landfills (especially if

western clothes are reused in non-western countries). Landfills waste valuable land and could pollute soil and groundwater, while the burning of garments may cause harmful air emissions.

Table 1 in the next page presents an overview of the environmental impacts related to three conventional virgin and man-made fibres often used in the textile industry. Table 2 presents an overview of the ranking of textiles fibres according to their environmental performance based on different indicators.

8

Table 1. Comparison of environmental indicators for different textile fibres 1

1Based on data considering the following processes: Raw material production, fibre preparation, fabric

production, dyeing and finishing. Whenever available information on the use phase and end-of-life are also considered. 2 Contribution of wastewater discharge and use of chemicals in finishing phase Source: Defra (2010) and (2007)

Environmental indicator

Cotton (natural vegetal fibre)

Polyester (man-made fibre)

Wool (natural animal fibre)

Land use Large extension of land required for production of cotton

Not applicable Need for vast spaces of land for the keeping of sheep (while overgrazing may cause soil erosion) and production of feed.

Water use Large amount of water required for cotton production and wet processing.

7000-29000 (l/kg)

Very low usage Low usage for wool scouring

125 and 5 to 40 (scouring) (l/ kg)

Energy input Fossil energy use for heating of water and running machinery for pre-treatment and dyeing of fabrics.

49 MJ/kg

High demand during production of polyester in petrochemical process

109 GJ/kg

Very low usage

8 MJ

Climate change Moderate as result of fossil energy use during processing

Contribution from emission during production of polyester

Production of methane due to digestive process/manure of the sheep and processing of wool.

Pollution 2 High amounts of fertilisers and pesticides. These can be released into the (ground)water and contribute to ecotoxicity

Emissions of volatile organic substances and hazardous chemicals during production may generate polluted wastewater.

During disposal/end-of-life phase, burning of garments may cause harmful air emissions

Use of large amounts of chemicals for wool scouring, producing heavily polluted waste water, often discharged without treatment and thus possibly polluting water streams and impacting aquatic species.

Relatively low impact Relatively high impact

9

Table 2. Ranking of textiles by different environmental impacts (Source: Defra 2010)

3.3. Analysis of the environmental performance of PULP materials

Recycled materials

All PULP materials are considered recycled materials as they are made of textile rest/waste or so called “pre-consumer” waste. This kind of waste consists of fibre and yarn waste, waste from trials and process tuning from the textile mills, cutting waste materials from garment manufacturing and/or unsold stock from brands, wholesalers and retailers. Often this waste is recycled into new raw materials for the automotive, furniture, mattress, coarse yarn, home furnishings, paper and other industries (down-cycling). The proposition of Natalie de Koning together with GW Agency is however to offer these new materials to be reused in the fashion industry and provide more sustainable alternatives for existing textile materials in the market, thus turning down-cycling into up-cycling.

The PULP materials present the following benefits, which result in a better environmental performance if they are compared with conventional virgin and man-made fibres:

• By re-using existing fibres and textiles, there is no need to make new textiles from raw materials (such as cotton, wool, and synthetic fibres) and non-renewable resources (like crude oil). This saves on the land use, energy used, water use, impacts on climate change and pollution caused during production of raw materials and the manufacturing processes like dying, washing, and scouring. Regarding the use of crude oil, it also prevents the depletion of non-renewable resources.

• As less textile waste is going to incineration, less green house gases emissions will be generated, reducing the contribution of climate change. Outside Western Europe, textile waste still partially ends up in landfills, leading to land use and potential emissions of hazardous substances to soil and ground water (depending on the way the landfill is controlled). This includes chemicals used in clothing and textiles such as dyes and bleaches.

10

The water collects at the bottom of the landfill, often in large amounts can be up to 200 times as hazardous as raw sewage.

• Reduces the need for landfill space and the overall amount of solid waste to be treated. Textiles present particular problems in landfill as synthetic (man-made fibres) products will not decompose, while woollen garments do decompose and produce methane, which contributes to global warming.

All recycled fibres in general, and thus also PULP materials, score best of class on environmental performance (class A) in the MADE-BY fibre benchmark as shown in the Table 3. Although in this benchmark only mechanical recycling has so far been studied, and blends are not included, the classification of Class A for PULP materials seems to be the most appropriate considering the kind of processing the original materials are going through.

However one reservation concerning the benefits of the PULP materials must be noted. As the PULP streams concern a relatively small volume destined for a niche market, it is not clear to which extent these materials will substitute the regular production of virgin materials. In case they are only destined to niche market, the avoided environmental impact will be therefore comparatively small.

Table 3. Environmental benchmark for fibres

Comparing recycling and reuse of textile, in terms of energy use and carbon dioxide emissions, the impact of reuse is lower than that of recycling, which is lower than that of incineration for energy recovery or disposal in landfill. Therefore, reuse is the lowest impact option for unwanted clothing, followed by recycling.

Although the recycling process in general also requires inputs such as energy, the environmental footprint of recycled textiles is smaller than the one of newly made textiles. In particular for PULP 1 and 3 materials where the processing is mainly mechanical treatment, the related environmental impacts may be considered even less than in case of a normal recycling process. An even more positive situation can be expected for PULP 2 as the material is only re-distributed in the fashion market without any treatment.

Textile blends

11

PULP materials are mainly blends of natural and man-made fibres. Many fibres are blended together to improve their overall technical characteristics, reduce shrinkage, improve laundering properties, or reduce the overall costs when using expensive fibres. Also blends extend the life of products, reducing the environmental impacts related to textile waste disposal, production of new material with virgin fibres, among others. The most common blend combination is the cotton–polyester blend, which accounts for between 55 and 60% of all polyester fibres. This blend is the one present in the PULP 1 materials. Although blending may make recycling more difficult, this often is offset by improved durability or laundering properties, reducing energy demands during the use phase.

In Table 4 a comparison of the environmental performance of a cotton-polyester blend with virgin cotton is presented. The cotton-polyester blend presents an overall better environmental performance in all parameters compared to virgin cotton.

Table 4. Whole life cycle environmental impacts of pure cotton and cotton–polyester blend sheets over a 100 wash lifetime (Source: Kalliala and Nousiainen 1999).

Wool and fibres blended with wool have high water requirements during the scouring, dyeing and finishing stages, but overall water demands are similar to natural fibres (with the notable exception of cotton). Additionally the use of cotton–polyester blends can significantly reduce the environmental impact of textiles during both the production and use phases.

Oeko Tex certification

Both PULP 1 and PULP 2 materials are Oeko-Tex® 100 certified. The Oeko-Tex® Standard 100 is an independent testing and certification system for textile raw materials, intermediate and end products at all stages of production. Examples for items eligible for certification are raw and dyed/finished yarns, raw and dyed/finished fabrics and knits, and ready-made articles. Products are tested for harmful substances including illegal substances, legally regulated substances, known harmful (but not legally regulated) chemicals as well as parameters for health care. In this sense, it can be expected that certified OEKO-Tex products have a less negative impact on the environment than products without certification as more efficient production processes are in place, protecting resources, limiting emissions, minimising waste, and making recycling of raw and auxiliary materials possible.

Up-cycling

PULP materials may also be considered up-cycled materials as they are expected to be used to make new textile products with a similar or higher value than the ones made from the original materials. Although the environmental impacts associated with up-cycled are the same as the ones mentioned before for recycled materials (i.e. reducing CO2 emissions, less consumption of energy and raw materials), up-cycled materials often require less energy or water than recycled materials

12

as break down of original materials is not always necessary. Furthermore, up-cycling stimulates innovation and is associated to the Cradle-to-Cradle concept, stimulating the extension of the lifetime of products and promoting easy disassembly of materials and components of products for

further use in other new products.

In the end, all materials will deteriorate and will finally have to be disposed, also recycled materials. This will lead to the same impacts for final waste as mentioned earlier, only delayed. To what amount these impacts are avoided depends on how many life cycles the PULP materials can go through.

Finally, here is also valid the remark that the environmental benefits of up-cycled materials can however only be considered if the quantity of textile materials involved is significant to be able to offset/counteract the negative impacts of the use of raw and natural materials and energy for the production of textiles from virgin materials.

13

4. CONCLUSIONS

The analysis on environmental performance was done for the following materials developed by PULP. Sufficient information is available but not always comparable on the environmental performance of different traditional textiles materials both of natural and man-made origin. On the other hand, limited information of the environmental performance of blends is available to be able to do a comparison between the three PULP materials and the conventional virgin fibres and blends used in the textile industry.

Table 5. Characterisation of PULP materials

Based on a qualitative analysis it can be expected that the PULP materials have a positive contribution to preserve the environment and the biodiversity as they present the following characteristics:

1. Recycled materials from waste textile 2. Most of the materials are textile blends of natural and man-made materials 3. Minimum or no process involved in the production 4. Up-cycled materials 5. Oeko Tex Standard 100 certification (applicable for PULP 1 and 2)

Expected general positive impacts:

• By re-using existing fibres and textiles, there is no need to make new textiles from raw materials (such as cotton, wool, and synthetic fibres) and non-renewable resources (like crude oil). This results in saves on the use of land, energy and water, impacts on climate change and less pollution of hazardous chemicals to soil and (ground)water. Regarding the use of crude oil, it also prevents the depletion of non-renewable resources.

• As less textile waste is going to incineration, less greenhouse gases emissions will be generated, reducing the contribution of climate change.

PULP 1 PULP 2 PULP 3

Origin Knitting industry Knitting industry Carpet

Type of material Blend Blend Blend

Composition 100% polyester

65% polyester/35% cotton

Different combinations of wool, polyester and polyamine

Origin of wool: unknown

No information available

Process Mechanical (wrapped up)

No process involved Manual with low usage of water and solufoam

Chemicals Oeko-Tex Standard 100 Oeko-Tex Standard 100 No information available

14

• Reduction in landfill space and the overall amount of solid waste to be treated.

For PULP 1, important reduction of the environmental impact of textiles during both the production and use phases as result of the cotton-polyester blend.

For PULP 2, as it is a fibre blended with wool, a high water requirement during the scouring, dyeing and finishing stages are expected, but overall water demands are similar to natural fibres (with exception of cotton). However, as no processing is involved, the environmental impact may be expected even lower.

All three PULP materials fall within Class A according to the classification of Made-By Environmental benchmark for fibres. This means that they have a better performance compared with other conventional natural and man-made fibres. This classification is based on the performance of energy input, greenhouse gases, water input, land use and toxicity (human and ecotoxicity). Although blends are not included in this benchmark, this classification seems to be the most appropriate considering the kind of processing the original materials are going through.

The concept behind the introduction of PULP materials in the fashion market has positive contribution to create awareness and promote sustainable choices by the fashion and textile industry. As the PULP materials concern a relatively small volume destined for a niche market, the avoided environmental impact can be therefore comparatively small.

As recommendation for further development of new PULP materials, the selection of materials made with organic cotton in stead of conventional cotton would improve the overall environmental performance as well.

15

5. BIBLIOGRAFY

Review of Life Cycle Assessments of Clothing, Mistra Future Fashion, 21 October 2010

Made-by Environmental benchmark for fibres

Sustainable clothing roadmap - Briefing Note- Sustainability Impacts of Clothing and Current Interventions- DEFRA

The role and business case for existing and emerging fibres in sustainable clothing

Maximising Reuse and Recycling of UK Clothing and Textiles- Defra (2009)

Modint Factsheets on Recycled fibres, water use, energy use. (2010)

Ecological footprint and water analysis of cotton, hemp and polyester, SEI (2005)

16