The humble clothing label.

We’re all culprits of ignoring these innocuous little tags, or worse, chopping them out of our clothes in the name of comfort. But labels can be useful guides, designed to communicate key information about our clothing. Carefully following the advice on wash instructions can maintain the quality of your clothes and have a direct, positive impact on their lifespan. Studies have found that if we could extend the life of 1 in 5 garments by just 10%, an estimated 6.4 million tonnes of textiles would be diverted from landfills. Potentially saving 3 million tonnes of CO2 and 150 million litres of water every year.¹

Labels also contain information about fabric composition and where a garment was manufactured, which can be helpful in making decisions about the potential impact of your clothing on the environment – for example if you are trying to avoid garments made from polyester (or plastic as it is otherwise known). However, without a reasonable amount of knowledge, it can be difficult to ascertain enough information from today’s simple labels, to truly realise the full impact of the garment. Which is why brands and governments are aiming to go one step further, with many companies starting to use them as a tool to radically improve transparency and encourage better social responsibility.

From digital IDs and product passports to carbon labelling, new concepts are being devised to bring around more clarity when it comes to our garments.

A Catalyst for Change

On 24^th April 2013, The Rana Plaza building in Dhaka, Bangladesh collapsed due to structural failure. The eight-story commercial building housed five garment factories and was the workplace of thousands of garment workers. A total of 1,134 garment workers lost their lives in the catastrophic event, with many more left injured.²

In the wake of the disaster, items and labels from brands such as Benetton, Primark, Matalan and Mango were found among the ruins. Many of the brands being called upon to account for their involvement, reported that they had no idea they were manufacturing at The Rana Plaza. The event unveiled some uncomfortable truths about fashion supply chains and manufacturing strategies. It drove brands to acknowledge that they needed to have a better handle on their chain of production and highlighted to consumers the pit falls in the fast fashion manufacturing system.

The event became a catalyst for change. Almost a decade later, consumers, industry and brands have begun to have a deeper awareness of the complex social, ethical and environmental concerns surrounding the garment manufacturing industry. A significant breakthrough in 2021, was the renewal and expansion of the Bangladesh Accord (a legally binding agreement put in place after the Rana Plaza) which now has nearly 200 brand signatories, committed to more responsible practises³. Government regulation, charities, coalitions and consumer behaviour have all contributed to successfully starting to move the dial.

It’s now widely recognised that brands have a corporate responsibility to know where their garments are being made, who made them and under what conditions. However, improving transparency is a nuanced and complex issue, which will require a multifaceted approach. Considering the production of clothing is set to rise significantly in coming years, the challenge of providing transparency along the supply chain will only become greater. Comprehensive labelling could be a used a part of the solution. If global legislation required brands to declare the social and environmental impact of each garment on the care labels it would significantly improve accountability.

Other industries are already working towards labelling systems that do this in a more effective way. In the cosmetics industry, Lush are currently using packaging on consumer products that feature each makers location, name and face on their stickers. Whereas in the food and beverage industry many companies are applying voluntary information to labels as well as mandatory requirements. Commonly recognised certificates such as Certified Organic, Fairtrade, Vegan and Rainforest Alliance are used to offer consumers reassurance at the point of sale. A recent Bitkom study found that consumers rank transparency in ingredients, sustainability and animal welfare as some of the most important factors when purchasing food, which indicates a notable desire for honesty and transparency across industries. Some companies are even introducing QR codes to track the origins of fresh fruit and veg or provide real time footage of farms selling free range eggs⁴.

So how could similar tactics be implemented across the apparel sector? Developments in technology can help work towards these goals and are already coming into play. Digital ID’s or product passports are just one of the ways the industry is striving for better clarity.

Digital ID’s

The concept of a Digital ID is to assign each garment with a product passport, using a combination of technologies. Radio Frequency ID tags, Near Filed Communication and QR codes would be used to link to valuable information online to the product, simply by scanning⁵. The information provided could include brand details, country of origin, manufacturing ethics, environmental impact, transportation and aftercare. Offering a more detailed and permanent record than the traditional sew in label.

The information provided on a digital ID could also help create moves toward a more refined circular business model. Detailed information around fibre content, fabric finishing and dyeing, could better equip companies to efficiently dissemble and recycle garments at the end-of-life process.

Many luxury brands have adopted the initiative as an anti-counterfeiting measure. Product passport technology allows consumers to access digital authenticity certificates and proof of origin. The exact application of this is variable. LVMH and Prada have partnered with private platform The Aura Blockchain Consortium⁶, to create encrypted certificates. Given out at point of purchase, these certificates provide in depth details of the product production process. Reformation meanwhile have partnered with blockchain platform FibreTrace to provide consumers QR-codes which allow access to information on the lifecycle of its denim garments. Similarly, TS Designs are using QR-enabled passports to certify garments are made in the US.

Alongside providing information on traceability and circularity, Digital ID’s have the opportunity to tell the story of a garment’s impact too.

Pangaia launched their first collection back in May with digital ID technology using Eon’s connected Product Platform⁷. Scannable QR codes were printed onto fabric care labels, which link to key information on garment production as well as real-time data on a garments water and carbon footprint.

Carbon Labels

Tracking the carbon footprint of an individual product is not a new concept and has been done in the food and beverage industry for some time. Brands such as Oatley and Quorn, have begun applying carbon labels to their packaging, which outline the carbon dioxide emissions created during a product lifecycle. This kind of information helps consumers understand the ecological footprint of a product and could be incorporated into the digital ID concept, as Pangaia have demonstrated.

The challenge for brands at present is collecting, collating and presenting this data to the consumer. But if done successfully, would equip the buyer with the knowledge they need to make more considered decisions around purchasing.

Origins of Raw Materials

Many of the materials used to create our clothes use valuable, non-renewable resources. Clothing labels tell us what’s in our clothes, but they don’t currently tell us anything about how those raw materials are sourced or the impact they’re having on the planet.

The 2022, Changing Markets foundation most recent report, Synthetics Anonymous 2.0, reiterated the industry’s increasing dependence on fossil-fuel derived synthetics. The report found ‘an overwhelming lack of transparency over synthetic fibre supply chains’⁸ with many brands unable to say whether they were looking to phase out fossil fuel based synthetic fibres in the future. The current fast fashion business model relies on brands ability to sell increasing volumes of cheap disposable clothes, often made from synthetic materials. Many fashion companies continue to use polyester produced from war time Russian oil, while others continue to invest in polyester derived from coal⁹.

However, synthetic fibres are not the only issue. Cotton is the dominant natural fibre used in clothing and is largely water and land intensive to grow, with many widespread, negative implications from the farming, chemical processing and transportation of the fibre. Cotton is also rarely of  single origin and can be equally as complex to trace back to source, as oil is in polymer supply chains.

Information on where the raw materials of product come from and the energy and resources used to produce them, is not widely available at present. Many companies would struggle to trace the exact origins of their raw materials, but mandatory detailed labelling on this topic could encourage a significant shift in approach. In the 2019 Fixing Fashion report¹⁰, produced by the UK Government Audit Committee, Dr Mark Sumner stated:

“A very simple requirement for brands to declare the source of raw material used in their garments would lead to a paradigm shift in attitudes. This type of approach would be ground breaking for the industry, setting an aspirational, but achievable standard that would be the envy of the rest of the developed world.”

One company that is successfully pioneering in this space is Asket. The brands ‘From Farm to Finish Line’ initiative, aims to provide 100% traceability across their entire product line. The company use a rating system which calculates total traceability across 3 main tiers of creation; manufacturing, milling and raw materials. The traceability percentage across each of these tiers is reported on every product page, with detailed supporting information available to the consumer before purchase. With over 40 unique garments in their collections, the company are tracking nearly 1,000 processes and locations across the globe¹¹. Loaded with data, their website is a valuable and unique example of how better traceability can successfully be implemented in industry.

Progress is underway and many coalitions, charities and not for profits have been working in conjunction with governments to bring about change.

In 2020, France passed the ‘French Decree 2022-748’ or Anti-Waste for a Circular Economy Law, which requires companies to inform consumers about the environmental characteristics of waste-generating products. The law is designed to encourage businesses across various sectors to adopt more circular practices and encourage more conscious consumer behaviour.

Details of the new requirements were published last April and outlined eco-label regulations, applicable from January 2023. The new regulations require brands with a turnover above €50m to provide detailed information on the environmental characteristics of their garments. Labelling, whether physical or digital, must include information on reparability, recyclability, sustainability, re-use possibilities, recycled material content, use of renewable resources, and the presence of plastic microfibres. With this requirement phased in for smaller companies during 2024 and 2025. It is a commendable legal strategy that would equip the consumer with vital information at the point of sale. However, the decree comes ahead of wider EU laws on sustainability claim substantiation and many are eager to know how these separate regulations will align.

Under the New Green Deal the EU has a number of methodologies in place to tackle linear business practices and drive transparency across industries. Under its Eco-design for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR), the European Commission proposes mandatory Digital Product Passports (or digital ID’s) on textiles. Digital product passports stand to be a unified solution to sustainability labelling, and could also serve as a tool to drive traceability, accountability, and consumer awareness.

However, there are some questions around the parameters of the EU’s methodologies. Make the Label Count, are an international coalition of organisations who represent a range of natural fibre producers and environmental groups. The coalition has flagged issues with the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) methodology that stand to derail accuracy of sustainability labelling if it is used by the EU to substantiate green claims. Oversights of the current PEF methodology, as identified by Make the Label Count, relate to plastic waste, circularity, and microplastic release.  In order for the EU to successfully deliver on their Circular Economy Strategies, it’s argued that more comprehensive information on microfibre release, plastic waste and circularity must be included in labelling.

Consumer watchdogs in Norway are also currently investigating how sustainability information is best incorporated on consumer facing claims. The Norwegian Consumer Authority began a high profile investigation into Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC)’s Higg Materials Sustainability Index (MSI) after MSI data was presented to consumers to convey product sustainability. Following the NCA’s conclusion that attaching MSI data to product claims was misleading and in violation of national market regulations, SAC globally suspended MSI’s consumer facing data and a subsequent and international wave of brand scrutiny is still taking place. In light of these new regulations, the apparel industry is facing a significant challenge. Brands selling within France and the EU will have to pivot in order to comply with upcoming legislation. Detailed labelling will no longer be good practise, reserved for the eco conscious minorities, but instead will become the norm, reinforced by law.

There is no single solution that will work across every brand, manufacturer and region. The garment industry’s many complexities mean we must embrace an array of innovation and new technologies, in order to shift attitudes, apply pressure and achieve tangible results. However knowledge is power, and the more we begin to trace and share data the better informed the choices we make can become.

References

1. WRAP. Valuing Our Clothes: the cost of UK fashion. 2017.
2. University of Sussex, Workers’ Right to Compensation after Garment Factory Disasters: Making Rights a Reality, Rebecca Prentice Senior Lecturer in Anthropology. 2021.
3. Bangladesh Accord Secretaria. Quarterly Aggregate Report – remediation progress and sttus of workplace programs at RMG factories covered by the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh / RMG. 2021.
4. Food labeling: consumers expect more transparency | Weber Marking (weber-marking.com) Natalie Gwenner, 2020
5. The Year Ahead: What Product Passports Will Do for Brands. BOF, McKinsey and company. 2021.
6. The Year Ahead: What Product Passports Will Do for Brands. BOF, McKinsey and company. 2021.
7.  EON x Pangaia eon.xyz. 2022 
8. Changing Markets foundation. Synthetics Anonymous 2.0: Fashion’s persistent plastic problem. 2022.
9. Changing Markets foundation. Synthetics Anonymous 2.0: Fashion’s persistent plastic problem. 2022.
10. Environmental Audit Committee, Fixing Fashion: Clothing consumption and sustainability. 2019
11. . Full Traceability – Garment tracing, from farm to finish line (asket.com)