CLOSE
By Amy Nguyen
The fashion industry has a plastic pollution problem. The shedding of microfibres from textiles has contributed to growing microplastic challenges, contaminating water sources across the globe and impacting ecosystem services as well as human health. Yet, few citizens associate their purchasing and use of clothing with such negative environmental impacts or associate their fast fashion garments as a source of single-use plastic.
With the knowledge that over a third of microplastics released into oceans globally can be attributed to just one type of fibre category, synthetics, the fashion industry, its supply chain and end-of-life management practices require reform, alongside investment in scalable innovations.
Informed by the latest research on the industry and global brands, we explore how its players can collaborate to design solutions, achieve quick wins, integrate technology and advocate for legislative change to mitigate fashion’s microplastic pollution.
Fashion’s microplastic problem – Explained
Fashion’s emission of microplastics originates from the shedding of microfibres during the various stages of washing across a product’s life cycle. These microfibres can enter waterways, be that during the treatment of textiles, washing dying and colouring phases or when the user is laundering items. This unmonitored and underregulated area of plastic pollution should not be ignored, with estimates that if the fashion industry continues with its current level of overproduction and consumption, 22 million tonnes of microfibres will enter our oceans between the years of 2015 and 20501. The quantity of microfibres shed into water during washing depends on fabric type and length, as well as density. All textiles including natural, synthetic, or man-made cellulosic shed microfibres.
On a global scale, according to a scientific study published in 2017, 35% of microplastics released into the oceans originate from synthetic textiles2, mainly from polyester, which is found to shed on average six times more microfibres than its synthetic counterpart, nylon3. Given that the global fibre market is dominated by synthetic fibres (64% as of 2022)4 , which are increasingly popularised by fast fashion, the scale of industry’s impact on microplastic pollution must be better managed and reduced.
In particular, fast fashion with its infinite newness and reliance on cheap fibres like polyester can be seen as a major contributor to microplastic pollution. This is set to accelerate further as the fast fashion sector of the industry is predicted to surpass $200 billion in value by 20305. This trajectory is propelled by global giants like Shein who continue to produce clothing at alarming rates. In the first four months of 2022, it was reported that the retailer produced over 300,000 new items. This is happening whilst clothing utilisation rates decrease, and the value of garments continues to be lost in a linear waste system6 . Purchasing cheap clothes to wear once or twice contributes to fashion’s microfibre problem. According to the European Environment Agency, the majority of microplastics are released the first few times an item is washed, and for fast fashion garments, these garments are only washed7 and worn a few times before they are sent to landfill, due to poor quality or desire to purchase new items once again.
Given that microfibres can impact human health, as well as marine and land wildlife, addressing this is important. Microplastics have now been found in human blood and placenta as well as in our food and beverages. It’s not just the plastic itself that is concerning, but also the level of toxicity as numerous chemicals can be absorbed by microfibres, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and carcinogenic Persistent Organic Pollutants (PoPs) which enter ecosystems. Even natural fibres can be treated with harmful chemicals that prevent them from biodegrading.
This is especially harmful to workers across the fashion supply chain and communities who are exposed to the discharge of polluted, untreated wastewater from factories. This is prevalent in regions in the Global South where there may be lax environmental regulations on wastewater.8
The Industry’s attempts to manage microfibres
With market insights pointing to unabated growth of the industry, coupled with the scientific evidence that microfibres from textiles are significant contributors to microplastic pollution, it must be asked what exactly the fashion industry is doing to curtail the impact of its water and plastic footprint?
From investment in research, collaboration in cross-functional working groups, to membership of voluntary initiatives and the development of filtration systems and washing products – steps are being made. This section explores progress to date and what brands, both big and small, are doing to manage microfibres.
The European Environment Agency has underscored the importance of research to support the development for identifying and quantifying micro and nano fibres in water samples to inform end-of-life management. It highlighted the value of investigating innovative production processes, waste treatment technologies and in-depth research on how microfibres spread and contaminate the air and soil, as well as water sources.
Global brands like Patagonia are actively funding such research projects. Patagonia claims to have funded five projects looking at solutions to pollution from microfibers, including a study from North Carolina State University that looked at which characteristics in fabrics lead to microfiber release. They have partnered with REI, MEC and Arc’teryx to commission a study from the non-profit Ocean Wise, the Vancouver Aquarium and Metro Vancouver on the effectiveness of that region’s wastewater treatment plants at filtering microfibers.”9
It was also Patagonia’s study with the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), which found that top-load washing machines produced more than twice the microfibre shedding compared to their front-load counterparts 10. This is important for informing regulation about the design of new machines and reducing microfibre pollution created by households.
Research is useful, but tangible actions should run congruently, to develop scalable solutions and move the industry away from harmful processes. Inditex, parent company to Zara and Massimo Dutti, have a multifaceted approach to managing microfibres. Whilst the retailer should not be praised for its fast fashion model, its actions to mitigate microfibre release include developing filtering systems for dry cleaners, laundries and wastewater treatment plants, as well as making it a mandatory requirement for all wet processing facilities in the supply chain to manage filtered textile waste as solid waste in their Green to Wear Standard, according to their response to the Changing Markets Foundation Synthetics Anonymous 2.0 inquiry.12 More recently, in December 2022, Inditex introduced a detergent retailed by Zara Home which was developed in partnership with BASF Home Care and I&I Solutions in Spain and Germany. They claim the product can reduce microfibre release during washing by up to 80% when washed at lower temperatures like 30 °C13. This recent example highlights that when it comes to microfibre shedding, the responsibility and cost of managing it have actually been passed on to the consumer, instead of the retailer.
Sportwear giant Nike has created a comprehensive microfibre statement14 that discusses areas such as a global standardised testing methodology, research, supplier engagement, industry engagement and consumer solutions, the impact of which is still to be realised. Similarly, Adidas has set targets for suppliers on managing their wastewater discharge performance and Kering Group has included a target to have zero microfibre discharge by 203015.
These examples are a good start. However, given that synthetic materials are found to emit a high volume of microfibres and represent the majority of the global fibre market, a straightforward step that brands can take would be to reduce, and eventually remove their reliance on clothes that contain polyester. Such commitments should include its recycled counterparts too, as recycled polyester, mostly derived from PET bottles, still sheds microfibres and contains harmful chemicals. American brand Reformation benchmark best practice in this regard. The team have committed to reducing all synthetics, including recycled types to less than 1% of total sourcing by 2025 and by 2030 aim to use no virgin petrochemical-based fibers16. George Harding-Rolls, Campaigns Manager for the Changing Markets Foundation, notes that “Brands and retailers can minimise risk of microfibre shedding by choosing better materials or by prewashing materials before sale. The proliferation of microfibres is something that must be addressed upstream by brands at the design phase.”
Pragmatic design and material decisions represent a quick win for organisations. Research by the Changing Markets Foundation in Synthetics Anonymous 2.0 reviewed 55 global brands on the tenets of their microfibre policies, if they existed at all (45% were found to have no public microfibre policy available).
It explored brands’ and retailers’ commitments to phasing out synthetics as a precautionary principle and phasing out synthetics specifically from children’s collections. It also looked at whether measures are in place on industrial pre-washing and wastewater filtering or whether companies had set measures and maximum thresholds for the number of microfibres released during production, use and end-of-life.
The research indicated that membership of multi-stakeholder initiatives was the most popular method of embarking on microfibre management where over half of 55 global companies, were found to be participants in these industry or research initiatives, which included The Microfibre Consortium, Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC), Textile Exchange, HKRITA, the Outdoor Industry Association and the Japan Clean Ocean Material Alliance. Membership of the Microfibre Consortium has been particularly popular as the organisation claims it will ‘lead the textile industry to reduce microfibre release’17 and whose signatories include Adidas, H&M Group and Nike.
Alongside this, fashion brands have taken to educating their shoppers through online content, labelling of products and retailing of devices to catch microfibres. We undoubtedly do need to be practising smart laundry habits, whether that be washing at lower temperatures or washing less and purchasing items that may not be synthetic to avoid a higher level of shedding. Education is key to helping shoppers launder items correctly. However, the onus should not be entirely placed on citizens for fashion’s microfibre pollution. “Since most of us buy clothing rather than making it ourselves, we have little say over what materials are used in it and the varying microfibre shedding risks these entail.”, comments Harding-Rolls.
Outside of direct brand activity, there have been positive developments with innovative technologies like the XFilter filtration system by Xeros which has been accredited by Hohenstein, a highly respected testing institute for the textile industry. The XFilter has been found to have the highest level of performance, capturing over 99% of microplastics in numerous tests. XFilter stops over 90% of all microfibres, not just plastics, from escaping into our wastewater18. This is especially important for the vast array of polycotton blended garments that are now available on the market.
A system like the XFilter meets the need for effective technology with higher capture rates and standards. If technologies like this are to make a significant impact in reducing microplastics originating from textiles, they should be able to be used universally on all wash cycles and temperatures and eliminate an element of responsibility that continues to fall on the consumer.
Actionable steps and quick wins for fashion stakeholders
How can the industry prioritise its microfibre management strategy and what are the various elements that should be included?
For Harding-Rolls, he argues that “All fashion companies should adhere to the precautionary principle around microfibres. While a lot more research is needed on the matter, all the research we have so far points in the direction of synthetic microfibres being more persistent in the environment and more harmful to human and ecosystem health. We believe brands should prioritise phase down of synthetic fibres for this reason, and we welcome Reformation’s decision to do just that by 2030.”
As highlighted in the organisation’s research, only Reformation, of all 55 global companies said it would phase out the use of synthetics as a precautionary principle to tackle microfibre release. A clear means to effectively manage microfibres is by introducing mandatory legislation for filtration in washing machines like France has done. This could provide a near-term quick win for many stakeholders. In 2022, in the UK, a bill was put forward to require manufacturers to fit micro plastic catching filters, but this has not yet passed a second reading stage19. Elsewhere, in California the bill AB 1724 will require all new washing machines sold in the state to be equipped with microfibre filtration by 2024. 20 It also requires the state to retrofit all state-owned washing machines with a microfibre filter. Only time will tell if other areas of the US are to follow suit.
Identifying quick wins is key to successful microfibre management. These can include:
The role of legislation
Undoubtedly, the ability of legislation to help the industry curtail the volume of microfibres shed will be powerful. Whilst there has been the banning of microbeads in cosmetic products under regulations like the US Microbead-Free Water Act, fashion’s microfibres release is less regulated.
Positively, recent developments like the EU Strategy for Sustainable Textiles have officially acknowledged the issues related to microplastics from textiles. In the strategy’s communication released in March 2022, it noted that there needs to be “Action to address the unintentional release of microplastics from textiles. In addition to product design, measures will target manufacturing processes, pre-washing at industrial manufacturing plants, labelling and the promotion of innovative materials.”23 This built on the 2018 European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy which contained non-binding commitments and mentioned the unintentional release of microplastic from synthetic textiles as an action point. 24
Non-binding voluntary agreements can only move the needle so far. That’s France’s requirement for washing machines to be equipped with dedicated microfibre filters by January 2025 is welcome.25
Elsewhere, in the Netherlands, the Rijkswaterstaat, the Dutch executive agency responsible for main infrastructure facilities in the Netherlands, has set up a community and stakeholder network to explore solutions26 related to microplastic pollution from textiles. This creates collaboration by uniting those in the fashion industry but also important players like water and infrastructure companies.27
Working with water companies is important because treatment plants can only capture approximately 40% of microfibers and the rest flows into waterways, rivers, lakes and oceans so we need to work with them on solutions.
Whilst not passed, attempts have been made in the US to encourage legislation in California and Connecticut that would have made warning labels mandatory on polyester garments requiring details about their potential to shed microfibres during laundering phases.28
Now, as the EU considers legislation to curb the unintentional release of microfibres, Harding-Rolls from the Changing Markets Foundation notes that “It will be interesting to see what this entails. We believe tackling microfibre pollution must entail better eco-design, elements like prewashing, washing machine filters, and end-of-life care.”
Encouragingly, the findings from the Changing Markets Foundation’s latest research highlights how brands have shown support for policies that could minimise microfibre shedding. For example, support was expressed for Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), eco-design criteria and eco-modulated fees. Overall, 25 of 31 brands (80%) were in favour of EPR, 26 of 31 (83%) were in favour of eco-design criteria and 18 of 31 (58%) were in favour of eco-modulated fees, with many companies acknowledging the value of harmonisation.29
Stating support for regulation on these issues is one thing but it is important that brands and industry players work hard in the public sphere to advocate for these areas to translate into meaningful, long-lasting change.
As with all of fashion’s environmental challenges, addressing and managing the reduction of microplastics emitted across the life cycle of textiles and garments is a shared responsibility. Collaboration between stakeholders ranging from designers to brands and suppliers, water and utility companies, through to innovators like Xeros will help to mitigate the industry’s pervasive plastic problem.
By Amy Nguyen
References
1. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017) A new textiles economy. Available online: https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/a-new-textiles-economy
2. Boucher & Friot (2017) Primary microplastics in the oceans; a global evaluation of sources. Available online: https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2017-002-En.pdf
3. Common Objective (2021) Microfibres – What to know and what to do. Available online: https://www.commonobjective.co/article/microfibres-what-to-know-and-do-beatplasticpollution
4. Textile Exchange (2022) Preferred fiber and materials report. Available online: https://textileexchange.org/app/uploads/2022/10/Textile-Exchange_PFMR_2022.pdf
5. Fashion United (2021) Fast fashion to be worth over $300 billion. Available online: https://fashionunited.uk/news/fashion/report-fast-fashion-to-be-worth-over-200-billion-dollars-by-2030/2021112559600
6. UK Parliament (2019) Fixing fashion – clothing and sustainability. Available online: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmenvaud/1952/full-report.html
7. European Environment Agency (2022) Microplastics from textiles. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/microplastics-from-textiles-towards-a#:~:text=About%208%25%20of%20European%20microplastics,global%20marine%20environment%20each%20year.
8. Water Witness (2021) How fair is fashion’s water footprint? Available online: https://waterwitness.org/news-events/2021/7/12/how-fair-is-fashions-water-footprint
9. Patagonia (n.d.) What we’re doing about our plastic problem. Available online: https://eu.patagonia.com/gb/en/stories/what-were-doing-about-our-plastic-problem/story-72799.html
10. Environmental Science & Technology Journal (2016) Microfiber Masses Recovered from Conventional Machine Washing of New or Aged Garments. Available online: https://brenmicroplastics.weebly.com/project-findings.html
11. Fashion United (2023) Patagonia and Samsung developed a washing machine that reduces microplastics. Available online: https://fashionunited.uk/news/fashion/patagonia-and-samsung-developed-a-washing-machine-that-reduces-microplastics/2023011367254
12. Changing Markets Foundation (2022) Synthetics Anonymous 2.0 – Fashion’s persistent plastic problem. Available online: http://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Synthetics-Anonymous-2.0-Report-final-web.pdf
13. Fashion Network (2022) Inditex launches detergent designed to reduce microfibre release. Available online: https://uk.fashionnetwork.com/news/Inditex-launches-detergent-designed-to-reduce-microfibre-release,1465479.html
14. Nike (2019) Microfibres statement. Available online: https://about.nike.com/en/newsroom/statements/microfibers-statement
15. Kering Group (2022) AGM 2022. Available online: https://www.kering.com/assets/front/documents/AGM%20Presentation%20April%2028,%202022.pdf
16. Sourcing Journal (2022) How Reformation is holding itself accountable for fashion’s synthetic addiction. Available online: https://sourcingjournal.com/sustainability/sustainability-materials/reformation-boohoo-changing-markets-foundation-fossil-fuels-synthetics-polyester-400768/
17. The Microfibre Consortium (n.d) Available online: https://www.microfibreconsortium.com/
18. Xeros (n.d) Filtration.
19. Parliament UK (n.d) Microplastic filters. Available online: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3077
20. Californians Against Waste (n.d) AB 1724. Available online: https://www.cawrecycles.org/ab-1724
21. Fashion Revolution (2020) Our clothes shed microfibres. Available online: https://www.fashionrevolution.org/our-clothes-shed-microfibres-heres-what-we-can-do/
22. UNEP (2019) Fashion’s tiny hidden secret. Available online: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/fashions-tiny-hidden-secret
23. European Commission (2022) EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_22_2015
24. European Commission (n.d.) Plastics Strategy. Available online: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/plastics-strategy_en#:~:text=The%20EU%20adopted%20a%20European,carbon%20neutral%20and%20circular%20economy.
25. European Parliament (2020) Plastic microfibre filters for washing machines by 2025. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2020-001371_EN.html#:~:text=France%20has%20just%20adopted%20a,away%20from%20clothing%20during%20washing.
26. Leiden Law Blog (2021) How fashion contributes to plastic pollution. Available online: https://www.leidenlawblog.nl/articles/how-fashion-contributes-to-plastic-pollution
27. New Security Beat (2020) How plastic fashion is being woven into fast fashion culture. Available online: https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2020/07/plastic-pollution-woven-fast-fashion-culture-2/
28. SGS (2018) New labelling requirements for polyester clothing. Available online: https://www.sgs.com/en/news/2018/03/safeguards-02618-new-labeling-requirements-for-polyester-clothing-in-us
29. Changing Markets Foundation (2022) Synthetics Anonymous 2.0 – Fashion’s persistent plastic problem. Available online: http://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Synthetics-Anonymous-2.0-Report-final-web.pdf
