final report a waste footprint assessment for uk clothing vi - waste... · 2019-05-09 · a...
TRANSCRIPT
Final Report
A Waste Footprint Assessment for UK Clothing
Project code: RNF100-009
Research date: June 2012
2
WRAP’s vision is a world without waste, where resources are used sustainably. We work with businesses, individuals and communities to help them reap the benefits of reducing waste, developing sustainable products and using resources in an efficient way. Find out more at www.wrap.org.uk
Document reference: [e.g. WRAP, 2006, Report Name (WRAP Project TYR009-19. Report prepared by…..Banbury, WRAP]
Written by: Bernie Thomas, Matt Fishwick, James Joyce, and Anton van Santen
Environmental Resources Management Limited (ERM)
Front cover photography: [Add description or title of image.]
While we have tried to make sure this report is accurate, we cannot accept responsibility or be held legally responsible for any loss or damage arising out of or in
connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This material is copyrighted. You can copy it free of charge as long as the material is accurate
and not used in a misleading context. You must identify the source of the material and acknowledge our copyright. You must not use material to endorse or suggest we
have endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see our terms and conditions on our website at www.wrap.org.uk
3
Executive summary
Environmental Resources Management Limited (ERM) was commissioned by WRAP to conduct a waste
footprint assessment study for UK clothing. The objective of the research was to provide WRAP with an
overview of the waste footprint impacts of UK clothing through the clothing life cycle, identifying the
most significant contributions to the footprint (i.e. the ‘hotspots’), and quantifying opportunities for
waste reduction.
Estimated Waste Footprint for UK Clothing
A strategic-level waste footprint assessment for UK clothing was undertaken by ERM based on published
data and information compiled during the course of the study concerning the nature of UK clothing and
clothing supply chains.
UK clothing is defined in this waste footprint study as all clothing, both new and existing, in use in the
UK over the period of one year. The analysis covers both clothing manufactured and used in the UK and
clothing manufactured abroad and used in the UK. The datum is 2009, as the year for which the most
recent data are available.
The results provided in the study relate to the annual impacts associated with clothing consumed and
used in the UK. They include the impacts associated with the quantity of clothes that are produced for
the UK, and consumed and disposed of each year (approximately 1.1 million tonnes), but they also
include the resources used to clean the clothing that is actively worn and cleaned each year (~2.5
million tonnes is in active use. Note that this is greater than the annual consumed clothing because
clothes last for more than one year). It is assumed that there is no increase in the annual inventory of
UK clothing, so approximately 1.1 million tonnes of post-consumer clothing comes to the end of its life
each year.
The assessment focuses on the quantity of waste produced during the life cycle of clothing, conceptually
separating wastes into two categories: preventable wastes (i.e. those that can be reduced through
improved production efficiencies or changes in technology); and non-preventable wastes (unavoidable
wastes such as waste caused by contamination, rejects caused by unavoidable human error and outworn
clothes [i.e. clothing that has no useable life remaining]). As well as the physical metric of waste
quantity, the study considers the costs associated with the management of these wastes and the
potential costs savings associated with increasing the resource efficiency of the supply chain and life
cycle.
The materials associated with the production of co-products in manufacture (i.e. unavoidable by-
products that are sold and beneficially used, such as lint from cotton production and lanolin from wool
production) are not considered to be wastes. The ‘upstream’ limit of the footprint assessment is taken
as the delivery of the raw commodity to the fibre producer i.e. the losses (whether they be co-products
or waste) associated with agricultural production and oil and chemical production are not considered in
the assessment.
A baseline waste footprint is calculated for UK clothing which provides a benchmark from which the
effectiveness of potential improvement opportunities can be indicated in ‘Good’ and ‘Best practice’
scenarios.
The scenarios look at improvement opportunities at various life cycle steps:
at the factory level in the clothing supply chain, where efficiencies could be improved through
monitoring and maintenance;
at the technology level, through process design changes, and investment in new equipment or
different process reconfigurations;
at the garment level, through design changes; and
at the end-of-life level, through the modification of consumers behaviour, the increase of
product lifetime, of reuse, recycling, etc.
4
The improvements opportunities are quantified for the entire market in the scenario analysis, indicating
the potential achievable reductions.
Waste arising in the Baseline scenario
The baseline waste footprint for UK clothing is indicated in Table 0.1 and Figures 0.1 and 0.2.
The total annual waste footprint of all garments, both new and existing, in use in the UK in
2009 (i.e. the volume of clothing consumed and the actively worn quantity, including waste
associated with its production) is approximately 1.8 million tonnes (~28 kg per person per
year). In a steady state system, all waste materials used in the life cycle of clothing will
eventually form part of the waste footprint (production waste and post-consumer wastes).
However, those materials used in, and forming part of, finished garments are not considered
within the waste footprint until they are disposed of at end of life.
The majority of clothing is manufactured outside the UK, so the majority of production waste
occurs outside the UK. However, the assessment considers UK consumption of clothing and
therefore it includes/attributes all post-consumer wastes to the footprint (even if a proportion
of them are eventually exported for final disposal outside the UK). It is estimated that ~70%
of waste related to clothing occurs in the UK (all post-consumer wastes) and ~30% occurs
abroad (the production waste). Based on this attribution, the total waste footprint of clothing,
occurring in the UK, is estimated to be approximately 1.2 million tonnes of waste.
To put the waste footprint of clothing occurring in the UK into context, it is estimated that 23
million tonnes of household waste were generated in England in 2009-2010 (Defra, 2011).
Thus, the waste footprint of clothing is approximately 5% of the UK’s household waste.
By fibre type, the split of the footprint is presented in Figure 0.2. The values calculated in this
chart largely reflect the volume of fibre consumed, rather than the relative wastefulness of
different types of fibre.
5
Figure 0.1: Waste footprint for UK clothing consumed in the UK in 2009, including and actively-used
stock.
Costs in the Baseline scenario
Results for the baseline direct costs (resource cost) calculation are as follows:
The total annual costs associated with producing, using and disposing of the clothing
consumed and used in the UK (both new and existing garments) in 2009 are estimated at
approximately £23 billion (~£373 per person per year).
The annual costs associated with clothing in use (electricity, water, wastewater and detergent
cost) in their cleaning can be estimated as ~£3.4 billion.
The majority of clothing is manufactured outside the UK, and it is estimated that 25% of the
costs related to clothing occur in the UK (from resources associated with both clothing
production and cleaning), while 75% occur abroad.
Opportunity costs, associated with the foregone profits of wasted material, are mainly felt at
the fibre production level. They show the largest potential in the production of natural fibres;
where irregularity in both the length and the quality of fibres means that a greater proportion
6
of material is wasted. When the proportion of the waste that is preventable is considered, the
analysis indicates that the greatest potential at the production stage is at the garment cutting
and finishing stage.
Savings Achieved in the ‘Good practice’ scenario
A number of improvement opportunities for the waste footprint were examined in ‘Good practice’ and
‘Best practice’ scenarios. Reduction in the quantity of waste results in equivalent reductions in the
quantity of material input required. Therefore, a reduction in waste results in a greater utilisation of
material, an increase in resource efficiency and a reduction in the material required to supply clothing
consumption for a given time period. These are indicated in Figures 0.3 and 0.4.
The ‘Good practice’ scenario indicates:
A potential total reduction in the waste footprint of UK clothing of ~13% is estimated if all
reduction measures considered in the ‘Good practice’ scenario were achieved.
The largest waste footprint reductions are achieved by extending product lifetime (i.e. design
for durability) (9%, effect on both post-consumer waste and consumption of clothing), shift to
higher proportion of synthetics (2% reduction, on production waste), and more reuse of post-
consumer clothing (0.7%).
A potential reduction in the resource cost of waste of ~13% is estimated if all reduction
measures considered for the ‘Good practice’ scenario were achieved. These costs saving are in
in the production and end of life phases (the study does not differentiate between the
resources used to clean different clothing fibre types).
The largest cost reductions are achieved by extending product lifetime, i.e. design for durability
(9% on post-consumer waste, reducing consumption of clothing), shift to higher proportion of
synthetics (3% reduction, on production waste), and increased reuse at end-of-life (0.7%, on
Dispose less – reuse more).
7
Figure 0.2: Baseline waste footprint for UK clothing consumed in the UK in 2009, comprising new and actively-used stock.
Table 0.1: Baseline waste footprint split indicating whether wastes would be likely to occur in the UK or outside the UK (all post-consumer is waste attributed to the UK waste
footprint)
UK Clothing Waste Footprint (tonnes waste)
Fibre
production Processing
Distribution
and retail In use Disposal TOTAL
UK 27,315 33,756 6,865 11,216 1,131,823 1,210,975
Non-UK 245,833 303,807 0 0 0 549,639
8
Figure 0.3: The effect of example ‘Good practice’ footprint reduction opportunities on the initial baseline waste footprint.
9
Figure 0.4: The effect of example best practice footprint reduction opportunities on the initial baseline waste footprint.
10
Savings Achieved in the ‘Best practice’ Scenario
The scenario assessment indicates:
A 34% reduction in the waste footprint of UK clothing will occur if all reduction measures
considered by the ‘Best practice’ scenario are achieved.
The largest waste footprint reductions are achieved by extending product lifetime (design for
durability/lifetime optimisation) (22% reduction), shift to higher proportion of synthetics (7%
reduction, on production waste), and eco-efficiency in finishing and cutting (2.1%, reduction,
on production waste).
Reduction measures resulting in the smallest reductions in the waste footprint include
preventing and reusing retailer waste (<1% reduction, on production waste), eco-efficiency in
wet treatment (<1% reduction, on production waste), and increasing recycling at the end of
life (<1% reduction, on production waste).
A potential total reduction in the cost of waste associated with UK clothing of ~36% is
estimated if all reduction measures considered in the ‘Best practice’ scenario were achieved.
The largest cost reductions are achieved by extending product lifetime (design for
durability/lifetime optimisation) (22% reduction), shift to higher proportion of synthetics (10%
reduction, on production waste), and increased reuse at end-of-life ), and increased reuse at
end-of-life (1.6%, on Dispose less – reuse more).
Conclusions
Overall, the analysis confirms the rationale for encouraging waste reduction measures at each stage of
the life cycle, including nudging consumer behaviour towards favourable outcomes.
The study provides an assessment of the life cycle stages with the greatest waste reduction potential.
Reduction measures that reduce the level of post-consumer clothing waste (e.g. design for
durability/lifetime optimisation (extension) and reuse strategies are likely to be particularly effective
because they can extend product lifetime and can reduce both the production resources required and
the generation of post-consumer wastes. The assessment assumes that the lifetime for which a
consumer actively uses the clothing is extended in the design for durability/lifetime optimisation and
reuse strategies. Lack of evidence concerning the relative lifetimes of clothing and their potential for
extension is discussed as a significant research limitation/suggestion for improvement. Eco-efficiency in
the finishing and cutting stages is also indicated in the study as an area for potential waste prevention
action.
The study also indicates where waste reduction measures could reduce waste costs, and where improved
efficiency could offer further opportunities for business. The assessment takes a life cycle approach and
the costs of resources consumed in-use are indicated to be significant in scale, alongside supply chain
waste costs for the UK footprint. However, the calculated costs are indicative estimates and we note
that the calculation method and data have limitations.
The study acknowledges data and modelling uncertainties within its method, but it represents a first
example of a life cycle waste footprint that attempts to link the footprint to reduced resource use and
waste management costs through waste reduction measures.
11
Contents
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 13 1.1 About WRAP ..................................................................................................................... 13 1.2 This Study ........................................................................................................................ 13 1.3 Goal of this Study .............................................................................................................. 13
2.0 Project Approach ....................................................................................................................... 13 2.1 Project Scope .................................................................................................................... 13 2.2 System Boundary .............................................................................................................. 14 2.3 Functional Unit .................................................................................................................. 16 2.4 Literature Search ............................................................................................................... 19 2.5 Overview of the Waste Footprint Calculation Method ............................................................ 24
2.5.1 Direct Waste ........................................................................................................ 25 2.5.2 Direct Cost ........................................................................................................... 25 2.5.3 Opportunity Cost................................................................................................... 26
2.6 Reduction Measures .......................................................................................................... 28 2.7 Baseline and Waste Reduction Scenarios ............................................................................. 29 2.8 Excel Waste Footprint Model .............................................................................................. 35
3.0 Life Cycle Inventory ................................................................................................................... 35 3.1 Life Cycle Description ........................................................................................................ 35
3.1.1 Production of Fibre ................................................................................................ 35 3.1.2 Production of Yarn ................................................................................................ 36 3.1.3 Production of Fabric .............................................................................................. 36 3.1.4 Treatment of Fabric .............................................................................................. 36 3.1.5 Production of Garments ......................................................................................... 36 3.1.6 Distribution and Retail ........................................................................................... 37 3.1.7 Use ...................................................................................................................... 37 3.1.8 End of Life ........................................................................................................... 37
3.2 Key Data Sources .............................................................................................................. 39 3.3 Key Data – All Life Cycle Stages .......................................................................................... 44 3.4 Key Data – Production of Fibre, Yarn, Fabric and Garments ................................................... 45 3.5 Key Data – Distribution and Retail ...................................................................................... 46 3.6 Key Data – Use ................................................................................................................. 46 3.7 Key Data – End of Life ....................................................................................................... 47 3.8 Data Quality ..................................................................................................................... 47
4.0 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................................... 50 4.1 Baseline Scenario .............................................................................................................. 50
4.1.1 Waste Footprint of all Clothing in Use in the UK in 2009, whether manufactured in or
imported to the UK – UK Total ............................................................................................ 50 4.1.2 Waste Footprint of all Clothing in Use in the UK in 2009, whether manufactured in or
Imported to the UK – per person ........................................................................................ 53 4.1.3 Waste Footprint of all Clothing in Use in the UK in 2009, whether manufactured in or
Imported to the UK – per tonne.......................................................................................... 56 4.1.4 Waste Footprint of all Clothing in Use in the UK in 2009, whether manufactured in or
Imported to the UK – per garment ...................................................................................... 59 4.1.5 Direct costs associated with Clothing in Use in the UK in 2009, whether manufactured in
or imported to the UK – UK Total ........................................................................................ 62 4.1.6 Opportunity costs associated with Clothing in Use in the UK in 2009, whether
manufactured in or imported to the UK – UK Total ............................................................... 65 4.2 Savings Achieved in the ‘Good practice’ Scenario .................................................................. 68
4.2.1 Waste Savings ...................................................................................................... 68 4.2.2 Cost Savings ......................................................................................................... 76
4.3 Savings Achieved in the ‘Best practice’ Scenario ................................................................... 80 4.3.1 Waste Savings ...................................................................................................... 80 4.3.2 Cost Savings ......................................................................................................... 88
12
4.3.3 Opportunity Cost Savings....................................................................................... 91 5.0 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 93
5.1 Summary of this Study ...................................................................................................... 93 5.2 Summary of Baseline Results .............................................................................................. 93 5.3 Summary of Reduction Scenarios ........................................................................................ 93 5.4 Concluding Remarks .......................................................................................................... 95 5.5 Suggested Next Steps ........................................................................................................ 96
6.0 References ................................................................................................................................. 97
13
1.0 Introduction
1.1 About WRAP
WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme) works in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
to help businesses and individuals reap the benefits of reducing waste, develop sustainable products and
use resources in an efficient way.
1.2 This Study
Environmental Resources Management Limited (ERM) was commissioned by WRAP to conduct a waste
footprint study for UK clothing and indicate the scope for footprint reduction across the entire life cycle.
This study provides a strategic-level waste assessment of UK clothing, based on published data and
information. The waste footprint is expressed as the physical quantity of waste arising at each life cycle
stage and divided into UK and non-UK waste arising. An indication of physical waste savings and
financial cost implications arising as a result of waste footprint reduction measures is also provided in the
study in scenario analyses.
1.3 Goal of this Study
The stated objective of this research is to provide WRAP with an overview of the impact of UK clothing
consumption on waste generation through the clothing life-cycle, identifying the most significant
contributions to the waste footprint, and to quantify the key opportunities for savings.
The study follows on from a study recently undertaken by ERM on the carbon footprint of UK clothing
entitled ‘A Carbon Footprint for UK Clothing and Opportunities for Savings’ (ERM, 2012) and a water
footprint of UK clothing carried out by URS entitled ‘Review of Data on Embodied Water in Clothing and
Opportunities for Savings’ (URS, 2012).
2.0 Project Approach
This section describes the scope considered in the project and summarises the approach used.
2.1 Project Scope The scope of the project was to undertake a strategic-level waste assessment of UK clothing over the
entire life cycle using secondary data available in the literature. UK clothing has been defined in this
study as all clothing, both new and existing, in use in the UK over the period of one year. The analysis
covers both clothing manufactured and used in the UK and clothing manufactured abroad and used in
the UK. The comparatively small amount of clothing manufactured in the UK and exported abroad was
not considered in the analysis. The datum for this analysis is 2009 as the year for which the most recent
data are available.
The project assesses total quantities of all major fibre types purchased (and in use) within the UK during
2009. The fibre types assessed comprise:
acrylic;
cotton;
flax / linen;
polyamide (nylon);
polyester;
polypropylene;
silk;
viscose; and
wool.
14
These are the fibres selected by the Metrics group of the Sustainable Clothing Action Plan as the most
important fibres within their sales mix. There are other fibres in use, but rather less significant in terms
of quantity sold.
The scope of the project also includes consideration of reduction measures (detailed in Section 2.7),
whereby potential savings from the 2009 ‘baseline’ or benchmark scenario are quantified in ‘good’ and
‘best’ practice reduction scenarios.
In addition to waste footprint results for each of these three defined scenarios, the scope includes the
provision of an Excel model for use in this project that allows the modeller to examine new scenarios,
where values for each reduction measure can be changed.
The study provides a waste footprint assessment. Therefore, it does not consider other potential social,
economic and environmental impacts such as toxicity or labour standards. It is focused on the solid
wastes generated over the life cycle and their scope for reduction. Wastewater is not considered as a
‘waste’ per se in this study because it is considered in the predecessor WRAP water footprint study for
clothing. Nor are improvement opportunities aimed exclusively at reducing energy use considered in this
analysis, because these are covered in the predecessor carbon footprint study.
An indicator is included in this analysis to show the financial cost implications (resource efficiency)
benefits of reducing waste. This indicator includes the reduction in costs due to less waste needing to
be managed, as well as the business cost implications of reduced material use, energy use and water
use that was formerly associated with ‘manufacturing’ the waste. The costs method in the study is
explained in more detail in Section 2.5.
2.2 System Boundary
The entire life cycle of UK clothing is considered in the analysis. Therefore, this study may be described
as a full cradle-to-grave or business-to-consumer waste footprint assessment.
The following life cycle stages have been included in the waste footprint assessment:
production of raw materials(1);
production of fibres;
production of yarn;
production of fabric;
treatment of fabric (e.g. bleaching, dyeing etc.);
production of garments;
packaging of garments;
transportation of materials and goods to and from production locations;
waste at all stages of production;
transportation of garments to the UK;
storage at regional distribution centre (RDC) in the UK;
transportation from RDC to retail outlets;
storage at retail outlets in the UK;
waste from retail outlets;
use of clothing (e.g. washing, tumble drying, ironing); and
end of life (post-consumer) clothing (e.g. reuse, recycling, incineration and landfill).
The following life cycle stages/burdens have been excluded from the waste footprint assessment:
(1) Commodity material inputs represent the ‘upstream’ limit of footprint i.e. agriculture and production losses/waste associated with the
extraction and production of oil and chemicals are not included in the waste footprint analysis. This is a limitation, due to the level of
disaggregation of ecoinvent data used in this assessment. The authors note that these industry sectors produce commodities that are consumed
by numerous industry sectors and they are incentivised by profit and resource efficiency measures to improve their efficiency. Many produce co-
products or put unavoidable in-field losses back to land as soil conditioner.
15
auxiliary process wastes (i.e. other low quantity solid waste created besides direct production
waste);
waste associated with transportation of consumers to and from the point of retail purchase;
packaging use to deliver packaging at all life cycle stages;
fabric softeners, colour catches, stain removers etc. or other material inputs used during
washing; and
preparation for reuse burdens (1).
It should be noted that material inefficiencies in the raw materials (commodity) production stage are not
considered in this study due to the lack of available data and difficulties in classifying waste at this stage.
For example, in the cultivation of cotton, many losses are likely to be ploughed back into the land or
used as co-products rather than being true waste.
Only wastes created from the main production materials are included in the assessment. These include
materials such as ‘Grade 2’ product and open loop recycled process losses, since these are regarded as
inefficiencies in the production process. Co-products are not included in the assessment as they are
unavoidable by-products which are used beneficially as products in their own right. For example, waste
from cotton seed pods are pressed to produce cotton oil, with the remaining material used as animal
feed or soil conditioner. It is assumed that limited or no scope exists for reducing the quantities of such
co-products.
Production wastes and wastes that occur post-consumer are considered in the analysis.
In the context of this study and the waste reduction scenarios that are presented in the assessment,
production wastes are conceptually categorised into the following.
Preventable production wastes – unused raw materials, product rejects and damage caused by
process inefficiencies at each production stage. These wastes may be due to operational
inefficiencies (mismanagement/lack of maintenance) or derive from sub-optimal technology
(process configuration, ‘old’ technology).
Non-preventable production wastes – these are wastes caused by contamination, unavoidable
rejects.
Clothing discarded at the end of its life (post-consumer waste) may also be classified in the same
manner into the following categories
Preventable post-consumer wastes – unwanted clothing or wastes due to overbuying. For
example, consumers can alter their buying habits to limit subsequent post-consumer waste (i.e.
more durable clothing, less purchases, different garment designs or fibre types) and/or may
prevent wastes through lifetime extension behaviours (wear longer before its first discard, reuse
of unused wardrobe clothing, preventing irreparable damage during its cleaning through better
care).
Non-preventable post-consumer wastes – a significant amount of post-consumer waste clothing
is not preventable because clothes eventually wear out and people change their requirements
over time in terms of style and size. Reuse strategies may be suitable end of life waste
management options for these wastes if they are still of sufficient quality. However, in some
cases, clothing may have no useful life remaining (e.g. completely worn out, stained) and
cannot be used again. In these instances, a suitable strategy may be recycling or recovery.
(1) Preparation for Reuse burdens results from the checking, cleaning or repairing recovery operations, by which products or components of
products that have become waste are prepared so that they can be re-used without any other pre-processing. The impacts associated with them
are typically trivial relative to those at other end of life impacts.
16
2.3 Functional Unit
In Life Cycle Assessment, environmental impacts are represented in terms of a metric known as the
functional unit. The functional unit allows a quantified environmental impact to be expressed as a
function of the desired purpose of the product or service and ideally allows for a straightforward
comparison between similar products or services.
The waste footprint results of this assessment are presented in terms of the following functional unit,
and described graphically in Figure 1:
The provision of all new garments purchased in the UK in 2009 and the use of all garments,
both new and existing, in use in the UK in 2009.
The results of the study relate to the annual solid waste production (and associated financial impacts of
waste) associated with UK clothing. This includes the impacts associated with the quantity of clothes
that are produced, consumed and disposed of each year in the UK, as well as the impacts associated
with clothing that is actively worn and cleaned each year (approximately 1.1 million tonnes of new
clothing is consumed in the UK each year and approximately 2.5 million tonnes is in active use. Note
that the quantity of clothing in active use is greater than annual new clothing consumption because
clothes last for longer than one year).
The chosen functional unit is the total waste footprint of clothing (both new and old) in a given year (i.e.
in 2009). As such, it uses the anticipated lifetime of each garment type to consider the proportion of
clothing manufactured and disposed of in 2009. Use phase and post-consumer wastes are for one year
for all clothing in active use (both new and old) in 2009. The same approach was used in the carbon
footprint study carried out by ERM, ‘A Carbon Footprint for UK Clothing and Opportunities for Savings’
(ERM, 2012).
The rationale behind including both new and existing clothing within the functional unit is that it follows
an inclusive approach where the annual impact of all clothing is considered. An alternative approach,
that would yield identical results (assuming sales are static), is to look at only new clothing throughout
its life cycle, whereby life cycle impacts are considered throughout all years of use (i.e. 2009, 2010 and a
portion of 2011). This is the approach used in a water footprinting study recently carried out by URS for
WRAP. However, with the ultimate aim of the SCAP in mind, the decision was made to include both new
and existing clothing to measure total impacts of all clothing on an annual basis. The benefit of this is
that it shows in full the opportunities for reduction and any progress towards targets that can be fully
measured year on year.
The quantity of clothing, both new and old, in use in a given year was calculated using the annual
quantity of clothing purchased and the anticipated lifetime of that clothing. This was based on three
main assumptions. Firstly, it is assumed that purchasing behaviour has remained static, in that the
quantity of clothing purchased in 2009 was the same in previous years and will be the same in future
years. In other words, new clothing will eventually replace existing clothing on a one for one basis.1
Secondly, as the quantity of clothing purchased was used to calculate the quantity of clothing in use,
there is an assumption that all clothing purchased is used, rather than being purchased and never used.
Thirdly, the ‘wardrobe stockpile’ is treated separately and is not considered within the functional unit of
this study. ‘Wardrobe stockpile’ includes clothing that is retained within the home but not in active use
(e.g. stored away in wardrobes, boxes, the loft, garage etc.) and therefore was thought not to constitute
clothing in use.
The rationale for including both clothing manufactured and used in the UK and clothing manufactured
abroad and used in the UK is that it places the emphasis of ‘burden ownership’ on the user; the ultimate
reason for the product being in existence. In this approach, the waste associated with clothing
manufactured in China and exported to the UK for use, for example, is covered under the UK’s waste
footprint, but waste associated with the comparatively small amount of clothing manufactured in the UK
1 This assumption is noted as a simplification and a limitation. It is likely that consumption has grown and may continue to grow in line with gross domestic product (GDP) or retail price index (RPI). However, it was thought that accounting for economic growth adds further complexity and is unnecessary for the purposes of this study.
17
and exported to Italy for use in Italy, for instance, are not considered under the UK’s clothing waste
footprint (i.e. it ‘belongs’ to Italy). The chosen functional unit reflects a consumption-based approach.
18
Figure 1: System boundary diagram explaining the functional unit
19
Waste footprint results (and associated financial costs) are broken down per life cycle stage and per
fabric or garment type and are presented in terms of the impact of those garments manufactured in the
UK, those garments imported to the UK and a sum of the two.
2.4 Literature Search
Numerous studies have been published that examine life cycle impacts of clothing. These studies vary
widely in scope. For example, some focus on particular garment or fibre types, some are qualitative or
semi-quantitative, they may consider different impact categories, and some focus on individual life cycle
stages (e.g. the use phase, in particular), rather than the entire life cycle. Alongside the information on
the environmental impacts of clothing, much of the available research also lists potential opportunities
for reduction. Therefore, at the start of the project, it was felt that the available literature would
provide data and information sufficient for a strategic-level waste footprint of UK clothing.
The literature search began by assessing key references identified in the carbon footprint study carried
out by ERM ‘A Carbon Footprint for UK Clothing and Opportunities for Savings’ (ERM, 2012). These
references included previous ERM clothing studies, publications recommended by WRAP, studies
undertaken as part of the Sustainable Clothing Roadmap programme and references cited by each of
these publications. In addition, a general literature search of government, industry and academic
publications was also carried out. References are provided in Section 6 of this report.
Relevant data were extracted from the literature sources and collated and reviewed for quality. Data
relevant for this assessment include:
production efficiencies at each production stage;
quantities of raw materials, key auxiliary materials and energy required at each production
stage;
quantities of wastewater produced at each production stage;
production information, such as location of raw material and finished garments by fibre type;
consumption information, such as total quality of each fibre and garment used in UK;
information on production processes of fibre, yarn, fabric, textiles and clothing;
information on clothing attributes, such as typical mass, lifetimes etc.; and
suggested waste reduction measures for estimating potential savings in the future.
A search of the academic literature was also undertaken to try to identify process losses in clothing
supply chains. Sustainable clothing expert subcontractors were consulted on typical process losses and
wastes. Table 1 and Table 2 provide comparison tables that summarise production efficiency data from
a variety of sources for cotton and polyester.
At each production stage, ERM extracted process data from the life cycle assessment models developed
for the Carbon Footprint study. Data on energy use, water use and material inputs were compiled for
use in the waste reduction costs calculation by process stage or ‘activity’. In addition, the costs of an
auxiliary input (e.g. dyes and other chemicals that are used in garment manufacture but that do not
contribute significantly to the overall product weight) and cost of treatment of auxiliary waste were
quantified at each life cycle stage. Predominantly, the ultimate source for these data is the ecoinvent
(2010) life cycle inventory database. These data were used in the waste footprint and cost reduction
calculations. They cannot be published in this report because their use is subject to a licence
agreement, but they are referenced in Section 3.
No specific waste footprint analyses were identified in the literature search, but some data are published
on supply chain waste.
Table 1 and Table 2 also provide a breakdown of the inefficiencies along the processing route for cotton
and polyester (as the main types of clothing fibre). The ‘Total Production Efficiency’ column in this table
shows the overall production efficiency for these types of fibre, based on benchmarking with published
data and industry expert opinion. Production efficiencies are indicated in this table. For completeness,
production waste losses are broken down into preventable and non-preventable wastes. Co-products
are also indicated in this table for completeness. Note that losses are not quantified at the raw material
20
production (commodity) stage. Due to ecoinvent licencing restrictions and commercial confidentiality,
data for other fibre types cannot be provided. Commercial sensitivity in relation to primary product data
is a significant limiting factor in compiling representative data, with few data published in the public
domain. Therefore, WRAP-selected industry stakeholders and industry experts were consulted with
regard to the assumptions made in the modelling.
21
COTTON
Production
stage
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Study
value
Expert opinion Total
production
efficiency Total
losses
Preventabl
e wastes
Non-
prevble
waste
Co-
products
Fibre production
16.3%
-
64.8% 4% 354%
4% (1%
of total) 350% 62.4%(excl
co-product)
Yarn production 17.6% 14.9% 5.0% 43.0%
12.1%
-
15.3% 18.5% 18.5%
1.85%
(10% of
total)
16.65%
64.8%
Fabric production 3.1% 1.9% 6.0% 1.5%
10.0%
9.0%
10% 1% (10%
of total) 9%
76.8%
Wet treatment
0.7%
1.0%
1.0% 83.8%
Finishing /making
up 14.3% 8.6% 13-18% 8.5% 17-20%
6-25% 17.5% 17.5% 2.5% 15.0%
84.6%
Distribution
0.1% 0.1% 0.05% 0.05% 99.4%
Retailer
0.5% 0.5% 0.25% 0.25% 99.5%
In use
0.99% 0.99%
-
1. WRAP (Unpublished) A Carbon for UK Clothing and Opportunities for Savings. ERM, January 2012. Assumptions information by EDIPTEX and other publications.
2. University of Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing (2006), Well dressed. Annex 1. http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/sustainability/projects/mass/uk_textiles.pdf
3. Biointelligence Service (Unpublished) EC-funded IMPRO project on “Environmental improvement potential of textiles” (final report 2009, unpublished)
4. Danish EPA (2007) EDIPTEX - LCA of Textiles, cotton t-shirt base case
5. Nike. Typical Marker Efficiency in MAT Ecodesign tool http://www.nikebiz.com/Pages/Documents/Waste%20Scoring.pdf
6. A. Zabaniotou and K. Andreou (2010) Development of alternative energy sources for GHG emissions reduction in the textile industry by energy recovery from cotton ginning waste, Journal of
Cleaner Production 18, 784
7. Shanmuganandam. How to improve yarn realisation and control waste
8. Burden (2009) How to determine total weight of cotton lint used by an individual retailer
9. Danish EPA (2007) EDIPTEX - LCA of Textiles, range of data for making up of all garments
Distribution, retailer and in-use losses are ERM working assumptions informed by unpublished work or opinion. In use, losses are assumed such that 0.1% of garments washed are irreparably
damaged per wash, for 9.9 washes per annum.
22
Table 1: Production efficiency data – cotton
23
POLYESTER
Production stage
1 2 3 4 5 6 Study
value
Expert opinion Total
production
efficiency Total
losses
Preventable
wastes
Non-
preventable
waste
Co-products
Fibre production
1.1% 22.3% 1.1% 0.0%
21.2%
(wastewater)
70.1.0%(Excl
wastewater)
Yarn production 17.6% 0.0% 5.0%
8.5% 8.5% 0.85% 7.65% 70.8%
Fabric production 1.5% 0.0% 6.0% 1.5%
9.0% 10%
1% (i.e. 10%
of total) 9%
76.8%
Wet treatment
0.9%
1.0% 83.8%
Finishing /making
up 14.3% 12.4% 13-18% 10.0% 17-20% 6-25%
17.5
% 17.5% 2.5% 15.0%
84.6%
Distribution
0.1% 0.1% 0.05% 0.05% 99.4%
Retailer
0.5% 0.5% 0.25% 0.25% 99.5%
In use
0.99
% 0.99%
-
1. WRAP (Unpublished) A Carbon for UK Clothing and Opportunities for Savings. ERM, January 2012
2. University of Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing (2006), Well dressed. Annex 1. http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/sustainability/projects/mass/uk_textiles.pdf
3. Biointelligence Service (Unpublished) EC-funded IMPRO project on “Environmental improvement potential of textiles” (final report 2009, unpublished)
4. Danish EPA (2007) EDIPTEX - LCA of Textiles, Viscose/Nylon Blouse base case
5. Nike. Typical Marker Efficiency in MAT Ecodesign tool http://www.nikebiz.com/Pages/Documents/Waste%20Scoring.pdf
6. Danish EPA (2007) EDIPTEX - LCA of Textiles, range of data for making up of all garments
Distribution, retailer and in-use losses are ERM working assumptions informed by unpublished work or opinion. In use, losses are assumed such that 0.1% of garments washed are irreparably damaged per wash, for 9.9 washes per annum.
Table 2: Production efficiency data - polyester
24
In this benchmarking analysis, the main similarity between natural and synthetic fibre supply chain is in
the fabric production, finishing and retail stages. The production losses were discussed with industry
experts and considered to be very similar for all fibre types, with the possible exception of potential for
‘dope dyeing’ practices for synthetic fibre.
This is a potential improvement option at the yarn production stage, in which synthetic yarn is dyed as it
is manufactured, eliminating the need for dyeing/finishing at the fabric production stage. It is a practice
that is now less common in the synthetic fibre production industry, because designers/retailers want a
wide palette of colours to choose from in the design for their clothing. However, in theory, reducing the
number of colours available in clothing designs could enable more dope dyeing practice. The practice
could be coupled with more continuous polymerisation (fewer variants, less interruptions in production)
to reduce the waste from the synthetic fibre production stages [note that viscose is more accurately
termed a man-made fibre than a synthetic fibre].
The main differences between natural and synthetic fibre are that production ‘losses’ are greater by
mass for natural fibres, such as cotton at the raw materials production, fibre production and yarn
production stages. Fundamentally, this is because they contain non-product materials such as seed
pods. However, although the losses are higher by mass, co-products are formed (by-products used
beneficially and sold and used elsewhere).
Another significant difference between synthetic and natural fibre production is that, at the Yarn
production stage, cotton fibre needs to be processed (carded or combed or open ended to ensure that
fibre length is consistent for higher specification, more uniform, better feel cotton). This is not the same
for synthetic yarn production, because fibre length is more homogeneous. Such losses for cotton are not
altogether preventable at the Yarn production stage. The consequent short waste fibres are already
recycled (e.g. as mattress filling), but, in theory, less high specification cotton (i.e. more open ended
cotton) offers the potential for less waste. However, the picture is perhaps more complex than this
might suggest. From a life cycle perspective, the question is whether more processing at this stage
results in higher quality clothing that is actually worn for longer?
On the subject of the relative lifetime of clothing made of different fibres, empirical observation suggests
that synthetic fibres offer superior durability over natural fibres and that clothing containing synthetic
fibre is kept in use for longer. For example, commercial work wear is often made from polyester for that
reason. Poly-cotton T-Shirts may also be worn for longer (Defra, 2011). Empirical evidence also
suggests that synthetic fibres demand less energy for drying than natural fibres. However, there are no
data in the public domain to substantiate these claims, in particular for domestic clothing.
2.5 Overview of the Waste Footprint Calculation Method
The waste footprint assessment was undertaken using an Excel-based footprint model (see Section 2.8)
to:
house all activity data compiled in the literature search and from the carbon footprint process
models;
quantify the mass of solid waste generated throughout the life cycle of clothing;
quantify the cost of waste generated throughout the life cycle of clothing; and
identify and quantify potential opportunities for reducing impacts from waste generated
throughout the life cycle of clothing.
Based on production losses data compiled from the literature search, expert opinion and assumptions,
the Excel tool calculates three metrics. These are described further in the subsequent sections of the
report, and are as follows:
direct waste, which represents the physical quantity of waste produced;
direct costs, which indicate resource cost and enable cost savings as a consequence of reduced
resource use to be modelled, e.g. reduced energy use, materials use when improvement; and
opportunity costs, which assume that improved production efficiency will provide the producer
with an opportunity to manufacture more product.
25
Based on this assessment, 10 improvement opportunities are defined in a set of two scenarios (‘Good’
and ‘Best’ practice). In each case, the impact of reduced physical waste generation is quantified. In
addition, the calculated reduction in waste arising for each scenario is used to indicate consequent
reduced resource use (material, energy, water use and waste disposal requirements and their costs).
Direct and opportunity costs are reported separately in the assessment. Direct costs represent an actual
resource use (energy, water and materials use in production and household) and waste disposal cost;
opportunity cost is the profit foregone through the loss of material (and production time) wasted. The
indirect effects of reduction measures on clothing unit purchase price are also considered in the cost
assessment. Further detail on the calculation of direct and opportunity costs is provided in Section 2.5.2
and Section 2.5.3.
Indirect consequential effects of the reduction options on consumption patterns (e.g. consumption of
new clothing in countries where UK second hand clothing is sent to) are not considered in the waste
footprint and the resource efficiency costs calculation. The assessment also does not consider potential
‘rebound’ effects, which are described as changes in consumption patterns as a consequence of an
action or behaviour. For example, the outcome of an initiative to reduce clothing consumption might be
successful reduction in clothing consumption, resulting in reduced consumer spending. However, this
might lead to increased consumer spend on alternative products or activities, which could be more
environmentally damaging than clothing.
2.5.1 Direct Waste
Where possible, the basis for the data for clothing production waste and the management of post-
consumer clothing is the same as was used in the calculation of the carbon footprint study carried out by
ERM ‘A Carbon Footprint for UK Clothing and Opportunities for Savings’ (ERM, 2012).
For some life cycle stages, further data from published literature and expert opinion on production losses
have been added. Tables 1 and 2 indicate the waste losses for the main life cycle stages.
Both preventable and non-preventable waste flows are included in the direct waste metric, as defined in
Section 2.2, at each life cycle stage.
2.5.2 Direct Cost
There is potential for cost savings at each stage in the life cycle of the production of clothing.
Principally, these opportunities are direct cost savings, e.g. reduced energy, utilities and raw material
use, reduced waste management in clothing production (because less material that becomes waste is
processed) and at end of life. Costs in the in-use stage (electricity, detergent and water use costs)
borne by the consumer for cleaning clothes are also quantified in the assessment.
As stated previously, the life cycle model compiled for the Carbon Footprint Study provided process data
for resource use, such as electricity and water consumption. The main process materials are considered
at each stage, together with one key auxiliary material input. The key auxiliary material input was
selected by identifying the input material resulting in the second largest carbon footprint at each stage
(i.e. second to the major input material). For example, at the wet treatment stage, the major input
material would be fabric and the key auxiliary material input might be dye. This was selected by
identifying the next highest impacting material from the Carbon Footprint Study – which requires that
carbon is acceptable as an adequate proxy for the highest cost materials.
Following compilation of the process data at each life cycle stage, a typical UK cost per unit of resource
was sourced, e.g. cost of a unit of electricity, a kg of fertiliser etc.
However, the value of any savings could vary regionally depending on where, geographically, that saving
occurs. To account for this variation, the costs were weighted by a regional factor based on GNP
relative to the UK, based on the following equation:
Cost_Reduction = ∑%Fibre x %GNP_to_UK
26
Where:
%Fibre = the percentage of fibre produced in each county (excl. countries producing <10%)
%GNP_to_UK = the ratio of each countries’ GNP to UK GNP (%)
An example is given in Table 3 below, which compiles all the data required to calculate the cost
reduction associated with cotton. The outcome of this calculation (a geographically weighted average
reduction factor for costs) was only applied to the costs of fibres and yarns. The value of energy,
utilities and waste management was considered to be constant, meaning that a 100% weighting factor is
applied for all regions.
Country Cotton GNP
% production per annum $ % Relative to UK
Bangladesh 16% 700 -98%
China 45% 4270 -89%
India 16% 1330 -97%
Sri Lanka 7% 2240 -94%
Turkey 15% 9890 -74%
Total 100%
UK 38370 0%
Table 3 Gross National Product for main clothing producing nations relative to UK
The direct cost reduction calculation represents the reduction in resource costs when the improvement
opportunities are implemented. In-use costs are not differentiated by fibre type in the calculation.
Costs are allocated between product, wastes and co-products by mass allocation.
Cost savings associated with reduced labour costs of time spent handling wastes are not included in the
calculations as these are likely to be small and are also reflected in the opportunity costs.
2.5.3 Opportunity Cost
In addition to the change in direct costs that result from production, the generation of process waste in
production entails an opportunity cost. This opportunity cost is the foregone profit associated with
preventable wasted material that does not become saleable product. In the model, opportunity cost is
calculated on the basis of a modified ‘Production Possibility Frontier’ in which the two ‘products’ that can
be produced from a given amount of input are the product itself and the process waste. As, by
definition, the materials are entirely substitutable, the PPF is a straight line.
Opportunity cost is calculated according to the following formula:
_ = ( ) ( )
Where:
I = input in kg
PW = Process waste as a proportion of input
PM = Profit margin per kg output sold
WM = Waste management cost per kg waste
For example, in a situation where PM = £10/kg and WM = £0.10/kg, reducing the wastage rate of a
process from 50% to 20% has the following effect on opportunity cost for 1 kg of input:
27
Figure 2: The calculation model for the gain in profit through waste reduction
Opportunity costs are based on the profit margin between each step of the process. Our calculation of
the profit margin at each stage is based on the University of Cambridge (2006) ‘Well dressed?’ report,
which shows supply chain value split between five stages:
yarn;
knitting fabric;
knitted garment;
wholesale; and
retail.
The mark up between each stage was calculated from this information, and subsequently averaged
between reported garments in order to give average values per mass of product. To this value, an
assumed profit margin of 10% was applied. In order to fit in our model, the mark-up information was
then split equally between the relevant life cycle stages. Table 4 below shows the mark-up as reported
in the publication and the way it is allocated to each life cycle stage analysed in our study.
Stages as published Mark-up Stage as modelled Allocated mark-up
£ / kg
£ / kg
Yarn £4.35 Material production £1.09
Production of fibres (incl transport) £1.09
Transport fibre to yarn production £1.09
Production of yarn (spinning) £1.09
Knitted fabric £4.67 Transport yarn to fabric production £1.56
Production of fabric (weaving) £1.56
Wet treatment £1.56
Knitted shirt £8.44 Making up £4.22
Packaging £4.22
Wholesale £13.46 Distribution to UK £6.73
Retail: storage at RDC £6.73
Retail price £ £60.39 Retail: transport RDC to retail £30.20
Retail: storage at retail £30.20
Table 4 Per kg costs of clothing (for T shirt and Polyester blouse examples) at each production stage
(from University of Cambridge, 2006)
28
In an ideal scenario, profit could be maximised at a given life cycle stage by generating zero process
waste, thereby making a full profit margin on the sale of all materials bought whilst spending nothing on
waste treatment costs. Essentially, a reduction in opportunity cost is concomitant with an increase in
profit. Only preventable wastes are associated with foregone profits.
Figure 3 below shows a simplified calculation of gain in profits through process waste reduction. Two
scenarios are proposed: Scenario 1 (in blue), where 20% of material inputs is wasted; and Scenario 2 (in
red) where 10% of material inputs is wasted. For both scenarios, the total profit on the product and the
cost of waste are calculated, and the net profit is deduced from these. The assumption is that less
material wasted results in more products sold, which means fewer costs associated to waste and higher
sales.
In this example, one kg of input material costs £1, waste treatment of 1kg costs £0.05 and products are
sold for £2 per kg. For simplicity, it is assumed that there are no auxiliary materials or costs.
Profit per kg sold £1.00 / kg
Waste direct cost £1.05 / kg
Sale Waste
Sale Waste
Quantity 80 kg 20 kg
90 kg 10 kg
Product
profit £80.00 -£21.00
£90.00 -£10.50
Net profit £59.00
£79.50
Difference £20.50 gain in profit
Figure 3: The calculation for the gain in net profit through waste reduction
2.6 Reduction Measures
Many options for reducing the environmental impact of clothing have been suggested in previous
research, some more effective and practicable than others. No waste footprint for clothing was
identified in the previous research, so the approach taken in this study was to use the results of the
carbon footprint assessment to identify potential materials and waste ‘hotspots’ in the life cycle. This
hotspot analysis and the opinion of clothing sustainability experts helped inform which reduction
measures should be considered.
For consistency, reduction options were also considered from the previous URS (2012) water footprint
report and the ERM (2012) carbon footprint report. References for each data source are provided in the
table.
29
The number of identified reduction measures was narrowed down by ERM to 14. For each of these, the
potential types of stakeholders who would be involved in each reduction measure were identified and a
simple communication message underpinning each improvement opportunity was formed. WRAP and
selected members of the SCAP group were consulted. Following this, the number of reduction options
considered for analysis was subsequently reduced to 10. Hence, the final options examined are based
on an understanding of the sector and the measures currently being, or likely to be, considered, rather
than being selected by quantitative cost benefit analysis.
Three scenarios (or three calculated ‘versions’ of the waste footprint) were developed. These are listed
below and discussed in the next section:
A baseline scenario - the current (2009) situation in the UK;
A ‘Good practice’ scenario - a realistic future situation in the UK where modest reductions have
occurred for each measure; and
A ‘Best practice’ scenario - an optimistic future situation in the UK where significant reductions
have occurred for each measure.
2.7 Baseline and Waste Reduction Scenarios
To consider the effectiveness of a reduction measure, a baseline needs to be established against which
potential savings can be reported. This baseline is a representation of the system. The baseline
scenario for this assessment is the current situation in the UK (based on 2009 data), which assumes that
none of the reduction scenarios considered are in place. This was created through the collation and
review of data, and development of the waste footprint model over the entire life cycle of UK clothing
(described in Section 2.4 and Section 2.5).
Two different future scenarios were created in order to assess mid-range (‘Good practice’ scenario) and
upper aspirational (‘Best practice’ scenario) potentials for reduction. Each reduction measure that was
represented is relevant individually, or in combination, to assess the potential waste-related savings that
can be made. When a reduction measure is selected, only data associated with that measure are
changed in the model; all other data remain fixed as per the baseline.
The ‘Good practice’ scenario is considered a credible future situation in the UK clothing supply where
modest reductions occur for each measure. A review of data in the literature and other sources (expert
opinion and unpublished work) provided insight into likely values for reduction for each measure (e.g.
based on commitments by manufacturers or retailers, market stratification). Where possible, for
consistency the resource efficiency potential for reductions were aligned to the URS water footprint
report and the ERM carbon footprint report for (see Section 3.8).
The ‘Best Practice’ scenario is considered to be an optimistic future situation for UK clothing supply,
where significant reductions have occurred for each measure. In the same approach as above, sources
were used to create values for an optimistic reduction for each measure. Again, the values were aligned
with the predecessor footprint studies where possible.
Commercial sensitivity in relation to primary product data is a significant limiting factor in compiling
representative data, with few data published in the public domain. Therefore, WRAP and selected
industry stakeholders and industry experts were consulted with regard to the magnitude of each
reduction to be represented in the modelling.
The improvements opportunities are quantified for the entire market in the scenario analysis, indicating
the potential achievable reductions.
30
Clothing
Working
Group
Principal
stakeholders
Message Reduction
Measure
Baseline Scenario ‘Good practice’ Scenario Best practice Scenario
(Most optimistic)
References
1 Design &
production
Manufacturer &
retailer
Lean
production in
fibre
production
Eco-efficiency
in fibre
production
Baseline/benchmark is
production based on
most recent published
ecoinvent data or
surrogate data.
50% reduction in 'preventable waste'
production on benchmark (hence
equivalent resource reduction
(electricity, oil, water)). Both
synthetic and natural fibres have
high production losses, but most are
co products. They have
comparatively small actual waste
volumes. PET waste are <1% in
chemical production, 1-2% in
polymerisation. Continuous
polymerisation offers advantages for
synthetic fibre production
(accompanied with
retailers/designers requiring a
reduced fibre variant). Cotton
wastes are 1% dust, 1% reject.
Other significant 'losses’ occur in
field (fertiliser), or reprocessed seed
pods (animal feed and oil).
Preventable waste
volumes reduced to 25%
of benchmark for all
fibres in fibre production.
Baseline scenario - trade associations,
manufacturers and retailers have committed to
qualitative work, objectives and eco-innovation.
‘Good practice’ - production efficiencies are high
and co-products such as cotton oil/feed are
produced from cotton seed. Offcuts are often
normally down cycled.
‘Best practice’ - Tesco has a commitment to
reduce supply chain carbon footprint by 30% by
2020. M&S Plan A has a general target to reduce
operational waste by 25% and to help its supply
chain reduce waste (no quantified target). For
natural fibres, such improvements could be
achieved by mechanisation of agriculture. As a
practical point of focus, performance auditing,
guidance and standards setting could enable
improvements.
2 Design &
production
Manufacturer &
retailer
Lean
production in
yarn
production
Eco-efficiency
in yarn
production
Manufacturing inputs
are as per the
industry baseline /
benchmark.
Improved process performance /
eco-innovation results in 50%
reduction in yarn preventable losses
and inputs for all fibre types: 4% for
PET (of which 25% closed loop, 25%
open loop, 50% landfill) and ~15%
for cotton (recycled open loop as
stuffing). Retailer encourages
resource efficient production through
performance assurance auditing
and/or facilitates clean technology
investment.
Improved process
performance / eco-
innovation results in
reduction of yarn
preventable losses to
25% of benchmark (and
inputs) for all fibre types:
4% for PET (of which
25% closed loop, 25%
open loop, 50% landfill)
and ~15-20% % for
cotton (recycled open
loop as stuffing).
Retailer encourages
resource efficient
production through
performance assurance
ERM Working assumptions. Based on
potential for improved factory efficiency and
cleaner production investment and assumptions.
Nike had a target of 17% reduction in
manufacturing waste from FY06 to FY11. EPA -
The American Textile Manufacturers Institute’s
recent survey of 36 companies and 260 plants
showed that after implementing waste reduction
practices the total amount of waste generated per
plant per month decreased by 44%.
31
Clothing
Working
Group
Principal
stakeholders
Message Reduction
Measure
Baseline Scenario ‘Good practice’ Scenario Best practice Scenario
(Most optimistic)
References
auditing and/or facilitates
clean technology
investment.
3 Design &
production
Manufacturer &
retailer
Lean
production in
washing,
dyeing and
finishing
(WDF)
Eco-efficiency
in dyeing &
finishing
processes.
Washing, dyeing and
finishing energy
requirements are as
per current industry
baseline/benchmark.
Retailer encourages resource
efficient production through better
operational behaviours (monitoring
and repair), and/or facilitating
investment/audit. This results in a
reduction in preventable process
waste of 50% for this stage.
Retailer encourages
resource efficient
production through
better operational
behaviours (monitoring
and repair), and/or
facilitating
investment/audit. This
results in an avoidable
preventable process
waste reduction of 75%
for this stage.
Biointelligence Service - the use of reverse
osmosis or ion exchange can reduce waste water
from dyeing by 81% and 91%, respectively.
British Retail Consortium, 'A better retailing
climate: towards sustainable retail' report
Mothercare's Cleaner Production Project in
factories in Bangladesh. The project claims
carbon reduction and cost savings through
instituting simple process monitoring and
maintenance schedules.
The use of more dope dyeing (i.e. dye injected
during fibre production) in synthetics production
could reduce (non- waste) energy, water and salt
use requirements in this scenario to 50% of
original value (x5 reduction is possible if entire
market was shifted). Cold temperature dyeing
techniques achieve the same level of reduction
for natural fibres or GM crops that produce
coloured cottons.
ERM considers that dope dyeing and GM crop
32
Clothing
Working
Group
Principal
stakeholders
Message Reduction
Measure
Baseline Scenario ‘Good practice’ Scenario Best practice Scenario
(Most optimistic)
References
colour may have win-win benefits for
colourfastness/lifetime; both in terms of washing
with less first wash discolouration of other clothes
in mixed loads and line drying (i.e. resistance to
bleaching in the sun). This is not quantified in
the scenario at present due to lack of data.
4 Design &
production
Manufacturer &
retailer
Lean
production in
making up
(cutting and
sewing)
Eco-efficiency
in cutting
Making up (cutting
and sewing) losses
are typically 10-20%.
These occur close to
point of retail in the
supply chain so are
environmentally
important, but scope
for reduction is limited
because customer
base require
fashionable design.
Reduction in cutting losses (i.e. loss
to open loop recycling like filling)
from 17.5% to 17.0%. Retailer
promotes resource efficiency. Use of
Computer Aided Design and
automated design is the industry
norm but has further potential.
Simpler clothing designs could be
encouraged.
Reduction in cutting
losses (i.e. loss to open
loop recycling like filling)
from 17.5% to 15%.
Retailer promotes
resource efficiency. Use
of Computer Aided
Design and automated
design is the industry
norm but has further
potential. Simpler
clothing designs could be
encouraged.
Defra (2009) losses of 15-20% and Nike
cutting room (marker efficiencies) of ~80-83%
typical. In the Nike work, some suppliers
achieved improved efficiencies between 5% and
10%. Further reduction in losses (i.e. through
simpler design) could be achieved, although this
could compromise the desirability, and hence
itself could result in a consequent waste problem.
http://www.nikebiz.com/Pages/Documents/Waste
%20Scoring.pdf. Since the cutting room
efficiencies are highly garment dependent,
Baseline and ‘Best practice’ reduction is assumed
as 2.5% and 5% respectively.
ERM - An alternative to this improvement
opportunity is third party use of offcuts in new
clothing (e.g. Orsula De Castro). This is a niche
business at present.
5 Design &
production
Manufacturer,
retailer &
consumer
Buy & design
differently
Shift in market
to higher
proportion of
synthetic
fibres
~45% of fabric used
in the UK is synthetic
Replace 10% of cotton fabric with a
50:50 poly-cotton blended fabric
40% of the cotton
replaced
Baseline from Defra 2010 report on Emerging
Fibres. Indian government has established ban
on export of Indian cotton (reported in Times
Newspaper, 6/3/12).
Scenarios: Biointelligence Service and URS.
Beyond best practice WRAP (2010).
6 Design &
production
Manufacturer,
retailer &
consumer
Longer
product
lifetime
Design for
Durability [and
product
lifetime
optimisation]
A weighted lifetime
for clothing in the UK
is taken as 2.2 years.
This considers both
the lifetime of each
garment type and the
proportion of total UK
10% longer lifetime of clothing,
same end of life
33% longer lifetime of
clothing, same end of life
Baseline: Biointelligence Service (2009) and
Defra 2009. URS report
‘Best practice’ from WRAP Resource efficiency
GHG. ‘Good practice’ scenario for Product lifetime
optimisation. Practical point of focus could be
reducing first wear losses. Colourfastness,
shrinkage standards which are being mooted in
33
Clothing
Working
Group
Principal
stakeholders
Message Reduction
Measure
Baseline Scenario ‘Good practice’ Scenario Best practice Scenario
(Most optimistic)
References
clothing each garment
represents.
China and for organic cotton. Technology
development/durability may not necessarily be
associated with increased production burdens
and, in theory, lifetime optimisation could be
achieved without any redesign.
7 In use Consumer &
retailer
Reduce
consumer
losses
through
behavioural
change
Maintain
clothes better
so that fewer
garments are
damaged
An estimated 0.1% of
clothing is damaged
irreparably during
cleaning (i.e.
shrinkage/dyeing at
high temperature
washing, damage in
spin cycles/tumble
drying and ironing)
Public awareness campaign. For
example, separate by fibre, wash at
30, promotion of clothing labelling
and information on first use. This
results in 10% less damage (0.09%)
Public awareness
campaign and better
retailer labelling (more
prominent) results in
0.075% damage (25%
reduction)
ERM assumptions. Practical point of focus
could be better information to reduce first wear
losses.
8 Waste
prevention
and reuse
Retailer Prevent
waste and
reuse more
unsold stock
via third
party.
Producer
responsibility.
Zero waste to
landfill
Dispose less -
prevent and
reuse waste
Estimated 0.5% of
retailed clothing is
unsold (i.e. faulty
manufacturer returns,
damaged customer
returns, brand
protection, not resold
as clearance items.
25% of this volume is
assumed to be
donated and reused,
with the remaining
75% disposed of
directly
10% of the retailer unsold volume is
prevented due to improved stock
planning/quality control standards in
supply chain and audit. 50% of the
remainder is reused.
25% of the retailer
unsold volume is
prevented due to
improved stock
planning/quality control
standards in supply chain
and audit. 75% of
remaining is reused
Prevention and reuse are at the top of the waste
hierarchy. Working assumptions for scenarios
informed by Radio 4 You and Yours, 5th
February 2010. As reported by the British
Retail Consortium (2012), 'A better retailing
climate: towards sustainable retail’, there has
been a reduction from ~50% of retail waste sent
to landfill in 2005 to under 14% in 2011. BRC's
longer term aspiration is to achieve zero waste to
landfill.
9 Reuse Consumer &
retailer
Reuse more
at end of life.
Producer
responsibility.
Zero waste to
landfill
Dispose less -
reuse more
It has been estimated
~47.6% of clothing is
ultimately reused
52.6% of clothing ultimately reused.
This is in addition to baseline end of
life for reuse and disposal.
62.6% of clothing
reused. This is in
addition to baseline end
of life for reuse and
disposal.
Baseline: WRAP 2011 Benefits of Reuse,
ERM. Good and Best practice: ERM
assumptions. A practical point of focus is on
getting consumers to release unwanted wardrobe
stock before it becomes unwanted.
34
Clothing
Working
Group
Principal
stakeholders
Message Reduction
Measure
Baseline Scenario ‘Good practice’ Scenario Best practice Scenario
(Most optimistic)
References
1
0
Recycling,
design &
production
Manufacturer,
retailer &
consumer
Recycle
more.
Producer
responsibility.
Zero waste to
landfill
Start closed
loop recycling
of all fibres
and recycle
more open
loop
Currently little or no
clothing is closed loop
recycled (0% for the
baseline). ~33% of
clothing is believed to
be recycled
Additional 5% of all fibres are
recycled (2.5% additional closed
loop, 2.5% open loop) resulting in
reduction of production burden (1:1
basis assumed) for closed loop
recycling and no assumed
displacement of waste for open loop
recycling. This is in addition to
baseline end of life for reuse and
disposal.
Additional 10% of all
fibres are (5% additional
closed loop, 5% open
loop) resulting in
reduction of production
burden (1:1 basis
assumed) for closed loop
recycling and assumed
displacement for open
loop recycling. This is in
addition to baseline end
of life for reuse and
disposal.
Baseline: WRAP, ERM. Good and Best practice:
ERM assumptions. Depolymerisation
represents a future alternative for closed loop
recycling, but impacts not clear regarding take
back, energy costs and how proven is the
technology. Prato wool industry offers a case
example in which a 100% recycled fibre and
recycled content fibre is offered in addition to
primary fibre. Shorter fibre which may have
strength and lifespan implications.
35
2.8 Excel Waste Footprint Model
Figure 4 provides a summary of the main information flows in the project. The modelling began with
the development of carbon footprint models in the LCA software tool SimaPro, for fibre production,
manufacturing, distribution and retail by fibre type. Production losses for each fibre type, by life cycle
stage, were transferred to an ERM-developed Excel waste footprint model. This model enables results
for each of the three defined scenarios (i.e. Baseline, ‘Good practice’ and ‘Best practice’) to be calculated
and broken down by fabric type and life cycle stage.
A set of results is presented for garments manufactured in the UK, garments manufactured outside of
the UK and a sum of the two. Each of these results can be represented in terms of the functional unit
(per year) and alternative expressions of the functional unit. These results can be considered fixed, or
static, as they reflect the three scenarios that ERM has defined. Figure 4 below summarises the stages
involved in this project.
Figure 4: Summary of project information flows
As well as the fixed outputs generated by the model, its dynamic aspect allows the modeller to develop
additional reduction scenarios.
The results of this exercise are presented in terms of the waste footprint of the scenario created versus
the baseline, where savings are given for each reduction measure and cumulatively for all reduction
measures selected (see Section 4.2).
3.0 Life Cycle Inventory
This section provides a description of the life cycle under investigation and key data used in the study to
build up the life cycle inventory of clothing in use in the UK. Data from the life cycle models developed
for each fibre were extracted for use in the waste footprint tool.
3.1 Life Cycle Description
Figure 5 shows a generic process map of the life cycle of clothing both manufactured in and imported
into the UK. The process map represents all fibres of this study (i.e. acrylic, cotton, linen, polyamide,
polyester, polypropylene, silk, viscose and wool). Inputs and outputs are displayed for each process
relevant to this waste footprint assessment. For each life cycle stage, there are inevitable material
losses from the process. As described in Section 2, process wastes associated with ancillary materials
(i.e. materials other than the main fibre material) are excluded from the assessment. Where more than
one product arises from a process (e.g. livestock rearing results in the co-products wool and meat),
waste impacts of that process are allocated on an economic basis.
3.1.1 Production of Fibre
Natural fibre
The production of natural fibre involves various farming activities; broadly, either the cultivation of crops
or rearing of livestock.
Cotton and linen fibres are produced through the cultivation of crops, where fertilisers, seeds, water,
pesticides (crop protection) and fuel are among the many inputs required. Outputs include the fibre, co-
products (e.g. seed and oils from further processing) and waste. Some waste can be recycled for use in
36
another process (e.g. straw and animal feed) and the remainder is discarded. Further processing is
required to produce fibres from crops. For example, cotton fibre is separated from seeds (known as
‘ginning’), which produces further waste.
Wool and silk are produced from livestock, where key inputs include feed and water. Outputs include
the fibre, co-products (e.g. meat, bone, lanolin and skin) and waste.
Synthetic fibre
The production of synthetic fibre usually involves the production of a base material, in the form of a
resin or granulates, followed by conversion of this base into a fibre. Polyamide, polyester,
polypropylene, acrylic and viscose are all made by a process of polymerisation, which involves inputs of
chemicals, energy and water. Outputs include the polymer, wastewater, as well as co-products (e.g.
adhesive and antifreeze) and waste. The majority of the process waste from polymerisation can be
recycled back into the process (i.e. closed loop recycling). The remainder can either be recycled outside
of the process to make products such as plastic bottles (i.e. open loop recycling), or discarded. The
polymer output is further processed to produce a synthetic fibre, which in turn requires more inputs of
materials and energy and produces more waste.
3.1.2 Production of Yarn
Spinning is the approach that is generally used to manufacture yarn from both natural and synthetic
fibres, which can be virgin or recycled fibre from industry or post-consumer waste. Spinning involves
twisting fibres to create a continuous length of yarn. Before spinning can take place, other processes
are sometimes required to prepare the fibre (e.g. roving). Inputs to the process comprise fibre and
energy. Outputs comprise yarn and waste fibre/ yarn. For the spinning of synthetic fibres, waste can be
recycled back into the process, recycled into a new process (e.g. manufacture of plastic bottles) or
discarded. For the spinning of natural fibres, waste can also be recycled back into the process (although
less common than for synthetic fibres), recycled into a new product (e.g. mattress stuffing) or discarded.
3.1.3 Production of Fabric
Yarn can be used to produce fabric using a variety of methods, including weaving, knitting, crocheting,
braiding, lacing and felting. Fabric production requires yarn (natural or synthetic) and energy. Outputs
comprise the fabric and waste yarn/ fabric. Waste can either be recycled or discarded.
3.1.4 Treatment of Fabric
Fabric can undergo treatment processes to enhance its properties, which will vary according to the
intended application of the fabric. These processes might include dyeing, bleaching, printing or adding
substances to prevent creasing or reduce water retention. Inputs of fabric (virgin or recycled),
chemicals, water, energy and fuels are required and outputs comprise the finished fabric and waste
fabric. Waste can either be recycled or discarded.
3.1.5 Production of Garments
Finished fabric is used to produce garments through a process of measuring, cutting, gluing, sewing and
packaging. Additional input materials, such as yarn for sewing, garment accessories/ features (e.g.
buttons and zips), garment packaging materials and energy are required. Outputs comprise the finished
and packaged garments and waste fabric/ garments. Waste can either be recycled or discarded.
37
3.1.6 Distribution and Retail
This stage involves transportation of finished garments by road, air and sea from the manufacturer to
RDC in the UK and transportation by road from RDCs to retail outlets. Inputs comprise fuel for operation
of transportation.
This stage also involves the storage of garments in RDC and retail outlets, with associated inputs of
energy required to heat, cool and light buildings.
Outputs are the distributed garment products and any waste garment products that are discarded due to
damage, stock control/changes in demand, and from customer returns.
3.1.7 Use
Activities of the use phase comprise washing, drying and ironing. Washing requires material inputs of
water, detergent and potentially fabric conditioner. Drying does not generally require inputs of
materials. Water use for ironing has not been considered but is likely to be insignificant. All activities in
the use phase require inputs of energy, which is assumed to be electricity.
Although clothes are normally washed and dried as mixed loads, each garment is actually likely to
require a different quantity of electricity to be washed, dried or ironed, depending on its weight and the
composition of fibres and the physical properties of these fibres (i.e. drying kinetics).
Outputs in the use phase comprise wastewater from the washing process and spent fibre from damage
to garments during washing, ironing and drying.
3.1.8 End of Life
Five potential routes are modelled for clothing that is considered by consumers to be at the end of its
useful life:
1. Reuse – Garment can be reused in or outside the UK. The clothing may be reused directly
through family/friendship networks; internet-based exchanges; car boot sales/jumble sales;
charity shops etc., or collected through charities; bring banks; or kerbside collection for
reuse/recycling and prepared for reuse, including the segregation of clothing unfit for reuse for
recycling. Where the garment is reused, there is said to be an output of an avoided product.
In other words, by reusing the garment, the need to manufacture a new garment is displaced.
For every tonne of clothing that is reused in the UK, 396 kg of new UK clothing is displaced in
this study in the modelling (WRAP, 2011). Hence the quantity of UK consumed clothing is
reduced and the waste footprint is reduced proportionally.
For every tonne of clothing that is collected for reuse/recycling, but is exported for reuse
outside the UK (around ~2/3 of that reused), the quantity of UK consumed clothing is not
unaffected, and hence, the UK post-consumer waste footprint is not reduced.
2. Closed loop recycling – The garment is collected from the consumer for recycling and, being
of good enough quality, fibres can be reprocessed and reused by the clothing industry to make
another garment.
3. Open loop recycling – The garment is collected from the consumer for recycling but, being of
low quality (torn, worn or stained) it is converted into wiping cloths or processed back into
fibres to be used in equally low grade products. Uses for reclaimed fibres include filling
materials for mattresses, car insulation, roofing felts or furniture padding.
4. Disposal – The garment is disposed of by the consumer as domestic ‘black bin’ waste and
either sent to landfill or incineration. Both processes can recover energy, so there is an avoided
product of grid electricity (and possibly heat) through the combustion of clothing or landfill gas.
38
5. Storage – The garment is no longer used by the consumer and stored (e.g. in the loft or
wardrobe).
Figure 5: System boundary
Distribution and Retailtransportation - storage at RDC -
storage at retail outlet
Finished garment
Energy & fuelsDamaged garments
Usewashing - drying - ironing
Finished garment
Energy & fuels
Auxiliary inputs
Damaged garments
Waste water
Reusereuse in UK -reuse abroad
End of life
Disposallandfill -
incineration
Closed Loop
Recycling
Open Loop
Recycling
Production of fibre drawing - roving - spinning
Raw material
Energy & fuels
Auxiliary inputs
Waste fibre
Waste water
Auxiliary outputs
Co-products
Production of yarn drawing - roving - spinning
Fibre
Energy & fuels
Auxiliary inputs
Waste yarn
Waste water
Auxiliary outputs
Co-products
Production of fabric winding - beaming - weaving
Yarn
Energy & fuels
Auxiliary inputs
Waste fabric
Waste water
Auxiliary outputs
Co-products
Treatment of fabric bleaching - dying
Fabric
Energy & fuels
Auxiliary inputs
Waste fibre
Waste water
Auxiliary outputs
Co-products
Auxiliary outputs
Production of garment cutting - sewing
Treated fabric
Energy & fuels
Auxiliary inputs
Waste fabric
Waste water
included in system boundary
39
3.2 Key Data Sources
Key sources of data used in this project are provided in Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7 below. Table 5
provides the ultimate data source per fibre type for each production stage and Table 6 provides the data
sources for the remaining life cycle stages (which are the same regardless of fibre type). Table 7
provides data sources for process losses at each stage, for synthetic and for natural fibres. A full list of
references used in this study is provided at the end of this report.
40
Fibre Type Fibre production Yarn Production Fabric Production Wet Treatment - all fibres
treated the same
Garment Production (Making
up) - all fibres treated the
same
Acrylic Ecoinvent, 2010 for all stages -
'Polyacrylonitrile fibres (PAN),
from acrylonitrile and
methacrylate, prod. mix, PAN'.
EDIPTEX, 2007 for waste and total
energy. Ecoinvent 2010 for
breakdown of energy per fuel type.
ERM assumption for transportation
of incoming materials.
EDIPTEX, 2007 for waste;
Danish EPA, 1993 for production
energy; ERM assumption for
transportation of incoming
materials.
Kazakevičiūtė et al, 2004 for
materials, waste and production
energy; ERM assumption for
transportation of incoming
materials.
EDIPTEX, 2007 for waste; Danish
EPA, 1995 for production energy;
ERM assumption for transportation
of incoming materials.
Cotton Ecoinvent, 2010 for all stages -
'Cotton fibres, ginned, at
farm/CN U'.
Ecoinvent, 2010 for production
energy and transportation of
incoming materials - 'yarn
production, cotton fibres/GLO U'.
Roberts, 1980 for waste.
Ecoinvent, 2010 for production
energy and transportation of
incoming materials - 'weaving,
cotton fibres/GLO U'. Danish
EPA, 1993 for waste.
Kazakevičiūtė et al, 2004 for
materials, waste and production
energy; ERM assumption for
transportation of incoming
materials.
EDIPTEX, 2007 for waste; Danish
EPA, 1995 for production energy;
ERM assumption for transportation
of incoming materials.
Linen (flax) INRA, 2006 for all stages. LCI
data refers to flax production in
France/Belgium.
Ecoinvent, 2010 for production
energy and transportation of
incoming materials - 'Yarn
production, bast fibres/IN U'.
Roberts, 1980 for waste.
Ecoinvent, 2010 for all aspects
of production - 'weaving, bast
fibres/IN U'. Danish EPA, 1993
for waste.
Kazakevičiūtė et al, 2004 for
materials, waste and production
energy; ERM assumption for
transportation of incoming
materials.
EDIPTEX, 2007 for waste; Danish
EPA, 1995 for production energy;
ERM assumption for transportation
of incoming materials.
Polyamide Australasian, 2004 for all stages -
'Polyamides (Nylon) PA 6'.
EDIPTEX, 2007 for waste. ERM M&S
study for total processing energy.
Ecoinvent 2010 for breakdown of
energy per fuel type. ERM
assumption for transportation of
incoming materials.
EDIPTEX, 2007 for waste;
Danish EPA, 1993 for production
energy; ERM assumption for
transportation of incoming
materials.
Kazakevičiūtė et al, 2004 for
materials, waste and production
energy; ERM assumption for
transportation of incoming
materials.
EDIPTEX, 2007 for waste; Danish
EPA, 1995 for production energy;
ERM assumption for transportation
of incoming materials.
Polyester Ecoinvent, 2010 for all stages of
resin – ‘Polyethylene
terephthalate, granulate,
amorphous, at plant’, used as a
proxy for polyester granulate.
ERM M&S study for production of
fibre.
EDIPTEX, 2007 for waste. ERM M&S
study for total processing energy.
Ecoinvent 2010 for breakdown of
energy per fuel type. ERM
assumption for transportation of
incoming materials.
EDIPTEX, 2007 for waste; ERM
M&S study, 2002 for production
energy; ERM assumption for
transportation of incoming
materials.
Kazakevičiūtė et al, 2004 for
materials, waste and production
energy; ERM assumption for
transportation of incoming
materials.
EDIPTEX, 2007 for waste; Danish
EPA, 1995 for production energy;
ERM assumption for transportation
of incoming materials.
Polypropylene Ecoinvent, 2010 for all stages -
'Polypropylene fibres (PP), crude
oil based, production mix, at
plant’, crude oil based,
production mix, at plant'.
EDIPTEX, 2007 for waste. ERM M&S
study for total processing energy.
Ecoinvent 2010 for breakdown of
energy per fuel type. ERM
assumption for transportation of
incoming materials.
EDIPTEX, 2007 for waste;
Danish EPA, 1993 for production
energy; ERM assumption for
transportation of incoming
materials.
Kazakevičiūtė et al, 2004 for
materials, waste and production
energy; ERM assumption for
transportation of incoming
materials.
EDIPTEX, 2007 for waste; Danish
EPA, 1995 for production energy;
ERM assumption for transportation
of incoming materials.
41
Fibre Type Fibre production Yarn Production Fabric Production Wet Treatment - all fibres
treated the same
Garment Production (Making
up) - all fibres treated the
same
Silk ERM data on input output
analysis from FAO public data for
silk fibre production.
Ecoinvent, 2010 for production
energy and transportation of
incoming materials - 'yarn
production, cotton fibres/GLO U'.
Roberts, 1980 for waste.
Ecoinvent, 2010 for production
energy and transportation of
incoming materials - 'weaving,
cotton fibres/GLO U'. Danish
EPA, 1993 for waste.
Kazakevičiūtė et al, 2004 for
materials, waste and production
energy; ERM assumption for
transportation of incoming
materials.
EDIPTEX, 2007 for waste; Danish
EPA, 1995 for production energy;
ERM assumption for transportation
of incoming materials.
Viscose Ecoinvent, 2010 for all stages -
'Viscose fibres, at plant/GLO'.
EDIPTEX, 2007 for waste and total
energy. Ecoinvent 2010 for
breakdown of energy per fuel type.
ERM assumption for transportation
of incoming materials.
EDIPTEX, 2007 for waste;
Danish EPA, 1993 for production
energy; ERM assumption for
transportation of incoming
materials.
Kazakevičiūtė et al, 2004 for
materials, waste and production
energy; ERM assumption for
transportation of incoming
materials.
EDIPTEX, 2007 for waste; Danish
EPA, 1995 for production energy;
ERM assumption for transportation
of incoming materials.
Wool Biswal et al. (2010) for Australian
wool used for all stages
Ecoinvent, 2010 for production
energy and transportation of
incoming materials - 'yarn
production, cotton fibres/GLO U'.
Roberts, 1980 for waste.
Ecoinvent, 2010 for production
energy and transportation of
incoming materials - 'weaving,
cotton fibres/GLO U'. Danish
EPA, 1993 for waste.
Kazakevičiūtė et al, 2004 for
materials, waste and production
energy; ERM assumption for
transportation of incoming
materials.
EDIPTEX, 2007 for waste; Danish
EPA, 1995 for production energy;
ERM assumption for transportation
of incoming materials.
Table 5: Key data sources for all production stages, per fabric type
Fibre Type Packaging of
Garments
Distribution to the
UK
Storage at RDC
and Retail Outlet
Washing Drying Ironing End of Life
All fibres ERM assumptions
based on previous
study.
ERM assumption for
departure ports;
Portworld, 2011 for
distances; ecoinvent,
2010 for vehicle GHG
emissions factors.
Based on previous ERM
study.
Defra, 2009 for
washing frequency;
Biointelligence (2009);
and average load per
wash; ERM previous
study for washing
machine energy.
Defra, 2009 for drying
behaviour;
manufacturer websites
for drying energy.
Biointelligence, 2009
for ironing behaviour
and energy
consumption.
Calculations informed
by Oakdene Hollins,
2009, ERM, 2006 and
WRATE, 2010 for GHG
emissions per tonne of
waste via each disposal
pathway; Defra, 2010
for fate of waste in the
UK; WRAP, 2011
Benefits of Reuse;
Oakdene Hollins/Defra,
2009 for fate of
separated clothing.
Table 6: Key data sources for all other life cycle stages
42
Fibre Type Natural fibres – based on cotton Synthetic fibres – based on polyester
Fibre production Industry expert opinion Industry expert opinion
Yarn production ERM assumptions based on previous study. Industry expert opinion
Fabric production EDIPTEX, 2007 for waste and total energy. Ecoinvent 2010 for breakdown of energy
per fuel type.
EDIPTEX, 2007 for waste and total energy. Ecoinvent 2010 for breakdown of energy
per fuel type.
Wet treatment Estimated average from EDIPTEX 2007 and University of Cambridge 2006. Estimated average from EDIPTEX 2007 and University of Cambridge 2006.
Garment production EDIPTEX, 2007 for waste and total energy. Ecoinvent 2010 for breakdown of energy
per fuel type.
EDIPTEX, 2007 for waste and total energy. Ecoinvent 2010 for breakdown of energy
per fuel type.
Distribution ERM assumptions based on previous study. ERM assumptions based on previous study.
Retail ERM assumptions based on previous study. ERM assumptions based on previous study.
Use ERM assumptions based on previous study. ERM assumptions based on previous study.
End of life Not applicable. Not applicable.
Table 7: Key data sources for process losses at all life cycle stages
43
Figure 6: Composition of each garment type based on data from Biointelligence (2009)
44
3.3 Key Data – All Life Cycle Stages
Information on typical clothing attributes was necessary to model a number of life cycle stages. Of
these, clothing mass and anticipated lifetime is considered to be the key data since these have greatest
influence on the magnitude of the final footprint. Table 8 below shows typical masses of clothing and
anticipated lifetime of clothing from URS (2011), originally from Biointelligence (2009). Figure 6 displays
a breakdown of each garment by fibre type.
Garment Type Mass (grams) Lifetime (Years)
Tops 388 2
Underwear, nightwear and hosiery 129 2
Bottoms 568 2
Jackets 821 3
Dresses 1,125 3
Suits and ensembles 921 3
Gloves 52 2
Sportswear 475 3
Swimwear 140 3
Scarves, shawls, ties etc 98 3
Table 8: Key attributes of clothing per garment type
Based on the volumes of each fabric type given in Table 8, the lifetime of each garment type and the
composition of clothing (i.e. proportion of each fabric type used in garments) given in Table 9, the
‘average’ weighted lifetime of clothing in the UK was calculated to be approximately 2.177 years. Data
on clothing lifetime remains consistent with the URS (2011) report. It should be noted that this lifetime
refers to the length of time clothing is in active use rather than being retained within the home as
‘wardrobe stock’. In addition, the variability surrounding data on the lifetime of clothing is large and
therefore represents an area of uncertainty in this study.
Total quantities of new clothing in use in the UK in 2009 were extracted from the URS (2011) report on
the water footprint of UK clothing, which was given as 1,143,039 tonnes. As the defined functional unit
in this study considers all clothing in use in the UK in a year, rather than just new clothing, the quantity
provided by URS was uplifted by 2.177 years to 2,488,396 tonnes and then production impacts and end
of life impacts were allocated per annum. Note that this method is compatible with calculations made in
the URS water footprint. This information is provided in Table 9 below. (The proportion of clothing
manufactured in the UK is 11.1% and is taken to be the same for all fibre types.)
Fabric Type Proportion
of Total
Consumption
Total
Quantity
(tonnes)
Total Quantity
Imported to the
UK (tonnes)
Total Quantity
Manufactured in
the UK (tonnes)
Cotton 43% 1,070,010 963,009 107,001
Wool 9% 223,956 201,560 22,396
Silk 1% 24,884 22,396 2,488
Flax / linen 2% 49,768 44,791 4,977
Viscose 9% 223,956 201,560 22,396
Polyester 16% 398,143 358,329 39,814
Acrylic 9% 223,956 201,560 22,396
Polyamide 8% 199,072 179,164 19,907
Polyurethane / polypropylene 3% 74,652 67,187 7,465
Total 2,488,396 2,239,556 248,840
Table 9: Total quantity of clothing in use in UK in 2009
The data on fibre mix shown in Table 6 are taken from Biointelligence (2009): in the absence of a
complete and reliable UK specific dataset regarding the split of UK clothing by fibre type, EU average
45
data from the IMPRO textiles study was used. The original source of this data is the EUROPROM
database and combines information of the production, imports and exports of manufactured textile
products in Europe. (Section 5.4 provides a sensitivity analysis for the waste footprint, calculated using
a different estimate of the fibre split for UK clothing. This reduced the footprint estimate by 2%, but
had little impact on the relative importance of the waste footprint reduction measures modelled in this
study.)
3.4 Key Data – Production of Fibre, Yarn, Fabric and Garments
A large quantity of data was used to model the production of fibre, yarn, fabric and finished garments
for each fibre type. Data relating to processes involved in the production of fabric from different fibres
were sourced from Ecoinvent, which is a proprietary database of activity data. Due to licensing
conditions, it is therefore not possible to provide the inventory data used in the calculation of production
life cycle stages.
The weighted average locations of major producers of fibre and major producers of garments (for
modelling purposes) are summarised in Table 10 (per fibre type)1. (For more information on the
detail of locations, see Appendix 1 of the URS report.) Using this information, production stages
for each fibre type could be modelled separately for each geographic location where large scale
production occurs.
Fibre Type
Locations of Major Producers
of Fibres
Location of Major Overseas
Producers of Garments for UK
Acrylic 60% China, 40% India2 100% China
Cotton 47% China, 33% India, 20% USA
18% Bangladesh, 48% China, 18%
India, 16% Turkey
Linen 15% Belgium, 85% France 100% China
Polyamide 60% China, 40% India 100% China
Polyester 60% China, 40% India 100% China
Polypropylene 60% China, 40% India 100% China
Silk 89% China, 11% India 50% China, 18% France, 32% Italy
Viscose
58% China, 24% Indonesia, 18%
Europe 100% China
Wool 81% Australia, 19% New Zealand 71% China, 29% Italy
Table 10: Modelling assumptions – locations of major producers of fibre and finished garments
Location data are primarily relevant to estimating the carbon footprint, due to differences in the carbon
intensity of the energy generating mix. Process waste data will not vary to such an extent with location.
1 The URS report on the water footprint of clothing provides a more detailed breakdown of locations for fibre raw materials and garment production by fibre type in Tables A1 and A2.
In the absence of robust data on locations of fibre production, data on locations of fibre exports were used as a proxy in some cases. The URS report provides more detail on data sources and identifies the fibres for which alternative data were used (as export data did not provide a reliable basis for modelling).
2 Global man-made fibre production for 2009/10. The split recognises China and Southern Asia as the majority synthetic fibre- producing regions of the world. Indian production was taken as a proxy for all Rest of World countries for the data. This is considered fair given variability in the carbon intensity of electricity production across the countries. Production country of origin data was not available for synthetic fibre types individually. (Data taken from Oerlikon (2012), The Fibre Year 2009/10, A World Survey on Textile and Non Wovens Industry, World Man Made Fibre Volumes 2009)
Alternative data were sought following a peer review of the URS water footprint study, identifying China as the leading synthetic fibre producing country (for the process steps of polymerisation and resin conversion into fibre).
46
3.5 Key Data – Distribution and Retail
Transportation routes were assumed for all stages of the life cycle, including transportation of raw
materials, fibre to yarn production, yarn to fabric production, garments to UK RDC, garments to stores
and waste to waste treatment facilities.
Table 11 displays transportation distances used to model the distribution of finished garments to the UK
as the most environmentally significant transport stage. These were calculated based on the assumed
transportation routes for each major producer. Data on the proportion of garments imported to the UK
via sea and air were extracted from the Biointelligence (2009) report and found to be 92% sea, 8% air.
In addition, assumed transportation routes included transportation by road to and from ports (at either
end of the journey).
Country Distance by sea
(km)
Distance by air
(km)
Distance by road
(km) (1)
India 11,047 7,859 650
Pakistan 10,679 6,595 650
Bangladesh 13,408 8,720 300
Sri Lanka 11,882 9,472 300
Turkey 5,199 2,703 450
Western Europe 2,454 2,147 650
USA 5,408 6,453 650
Australia 20,902 18,639 650
New Zealand 20,955 19,947 650
Middle East 11,138 5,363 450
Russia 6,052 2,769 650
Eastern Europe 2,163 1,591 450
China 18,639 10,050 300
World average 9,330 7,097 485
Table 11: Distances to the UK by sea, air and road
Data on storage at RDC is based on ERM experience of carbon footprinting of retail operations. Metrics
of electricity and gas use per pallet per day were applied to the assumed volume of clothing for an
assumed duration of 30 days. A similar approach was used for storage at retail outlet, where the
assumed duration was 20 days.
3.6 Key Data – Use
Activities in the use phase comprise washing, drying and ironing. The proportion of UK clothing washed
by hand is very small and therefore 100% machine washing use was assumed.
A value from Defra (2009) of 32% was used for the proportion of clothing dried by tumble dryer in the
UK, with the remaining 68% of clothing assumed to be dried on washing lines, balconies, clothes horses,
radiators etc.
In addition to the activities considered within the use phase, another important data point is the
frequency of washes. Defra (2009) provides a value 274 washes per household per year, which was
extracted from a report by the Market Transformation Programme (2006). The original source of this
data point is from the research carried out by the Oxford Environmental Change Institute (published in
Lower Carbon Futures for European Households, 2000).
(1) Transport from manufacturer to exporting port and UK transport to RDC. Additionally, transport preceding these stages was also included in
the calculations
47
As the waste footprint is based on the mass of UK clothing, it was necessary to normalise washing
frequency to a metric of ‘number of washes per kilogram of clothing’. This was achieved by multiplying
the number of washes per household with the number of UK households (26,300,000) and the average
washing load size (3.43 kg), which provides the mass of clothing washed in the UK1. This value was
subsequently divided by the mass of clothing in use in the UK (2.49 million tonnes), to provide a value
of 9.9 washes per kilogram of clothing per year2.
The data can be seen as a ‘top-down’ estimate of the number of times clothing is typically washed in a
UK household. This approach was seen more representative than using ‘bottom-up’ data on the number
of washes per garment, as there are uncertainties surrounding the variation in washing frequency
between individual items of clothing of the same garment type (e.g. not all shirts will be used at the
same frequency; some may be worn once a week, some may not be worn very infrequently).
Supporting the figure of 274 washes per household per year, a separate study from Danish Energy
Agency (1995) provides a value of 4.6 washes per household per week (~240 washes per household per
year).
In terms of materials consumed during use water and detergent use during washing were considered.
For water use, data from the Biointelligence (2009) report of 46 l per wash was used. The value used
for detergent use was 78 g per wash, which is an averaged value of manufacturers’ recommended doses
from a selection of commonly used brands (see http://www.mysupermarket.co.uk/#/grocery-
categories/laundry_detergent_in_tesco.html).
In terms of process inefficiencies during the use phase, it is assumed that ironing, shrinkage or abrasion
from washing results in fibre damage of 0.1% of the throughput at an assumed 9.9 washes per year.
Hence, 0.99% of clothing per annum is damaged irreparably as a consequence during cleaning.
3.7 Key Data – End of Life
Table 12 below provides a breakdown of the fate of clothing waste in the UK, which was extracted from
a study carried out by ERM for WRAP entitled the ‘Benefits of reuse, case study: clothing’ and relates to
the quantities of clothes that are ultimately reused, rather than the proportion of waste clothing collected
for reuse/recycling before any rejects and the directly reused fraction which together a greater than the
% reuse fraction in this table.
Fate of Waste Proportion to this Route
Reuse (UK) 13.9%
Reuse (abroad) 33.7%
Recycling (closed loop) 0.0%
Recycled (open loop) 14.5%
Incineration (with energy recovery) 7.2%
Incineration (without energy
recovery) 0.0%
Landfill 30.7%
Table 12: Fate of clothing waste in the UK
3.8 Data Quality
(1) Mass of washed clothing per year = washing frequency per household per year (274, from Defra, 2009) x number of households in the UK
(26,300,000, from Office for National Statistics, 2012) x average washing load size (3.43, Biointelligence, 2009) = 24,717,266,000 kg
(2) Washing frequency per kilogram per year = mass of clothing in use in the UK (2,488,395,661 kg) / mass of washed clothing per year
(24,717,266,00 kg) = 9.9 kg
48
All assessments of this type will have data quality issues and it is important that these are communicated.
Due to its strategic-level nature, a formal data quality review, as required by ISO 14044 (1) or PAS 2050,
is beyond the scope of this study. However, the requirements of ISO 14044 and PAS 2050 provide the
basis of the assessment of data quality for this study. As such, criteria included in the data quality
assessment are as follows:
reliability;
precision;
completeness;
temporal specificity;
geographical specificity; and
technological specificity.
Each data set (rather than individual data points) has been assessed against these data quality criteria
and ranked according to a simple traffic light system (e.g. red = poor quality; amber = moderate
quality; and green = good quality). The criteria assessment is based on the lowest quality data point
within the data set. The resulting matrix below (Table 13) provides a quick guide to the likely
uncertainty which may be associated with the data set.
Life Cycle
Stage
Reliability Precision Completeness Temporal
specificity
Geographical
specificity
Technological
specificity
Fibre
production
Yarn
production
Fabric
production
Fabric
treatment
Garment
production
Distribution
Retail
Use
End of life
Table 13: Data quality assessment matrix
Data relating to the waste footprint of the assessed fabrics that were highlighted as being of poor
quality are:
Losses at distribution – Assumptions on losses at transport and storage during distribution
were based on previous studies. There is inherent uncertainty in these assumptions that can
only be reduced with detailed modelling of distribution systems to and within the UK.
However, given that clothing is not perishable or fragile, a low loss rate can be expected and
the assumptions made are considered to be reasonable.
Losses at retail – Assumptions on losses at transport and storage during retail relate to the
rate of returned items and their fate. These were informed from the literature review,
unpublished studies and expert opinion from industry stakeholders. There is inherent
uncertainty in these assumptions as there is considerable variability in the rate of returned
items at different store locations and for different garment types. The level of uncertainty can
(1) ISO14040 series of life cycle assessment standard. Reference ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management -- Life cycle assessment --
Requirements and guidelines. http://www.iso.org
49
only be reduced with more detailed understanding of returns rates and waste management
systems at different types of retail locations in the UK.
Losses during use – Assumptions on losses during use were made to estimate the damage
from washing, drying and ironing garments. There is inherent uncertainty in these
assumptions that can only be reduced with detailed data for fibre degradation and consumer
laundry behaviour.
Lifetime of clothing – The best data available were used to model the lifetime of clothing.
However, the variability between the lifetimes of individuals’ clothing is large and therefore it
may be difficult to capture this in an ‘average’ value.
A hotspot analysis of results was carried out to identify those life cycle stages with the greatest
contribution to the total waste footprint. Fibre production, yarn production and garment production
were identified as major hotspots. For each of these life cycle stages, ‘good’ or ‘moderate’ quality data
were used. Therefore, despite the use of ‘poor’ quality data for certain aspects of the life cycle, the
overall quality of data can be considered to be reasonable, and at an appropriate level for the aims of
this study.
Commercial sensitivity in relation to primary product data is a significant limiting factor in compiling
representative data, with few or little data published in the public domain. Therefore, WRAP and
selected industry stakeholders and experts were consulted with regard to the assumptions made in
determining the dataset.
50
4.0 Impact Assessment
This section provides description and interpretation of the main results of this study. A separate Excel
model is also provided alongside this report, which contains all of the results of this study.
Note: values for the use-phase impacts are presented for all clothing in use in the UK in 2009, not just
for new clothing in use bought in 2009. If values for the use phase impacts of only new clothes in use
are required, then the use phase impact values presented in this section should be divided by the factor
2.177, the average lifetime of a clothing garment in years.
4.1 Baseline Scenario
4.1.1 Waste Footprint of all Clothing in Use in the UK in 2009, whether manufactured in or imported to the UK – UK Total
Table 14 provides the baseline waste footprint of clothing in use in the UK in 2009, whether
manufactured in or imported to the UK. Results are presented as a total for the UK and broken down by
both life cycle stage and fibre type. This is shown graphically in Figure 7. Table 15 breaks down the
footprint into the UK and non-UK sources that contribute to the footprint.
The contribution of each life cycle stage and fibre type to the total baseline waste footprint is shown in
Figure 8.
51
Fibre Type UK Clothing Waste Footprint (tonnes waste)
Fibre production Processing Garment
production
Distribution Retail Use End-of-life TOTAL
Material and
fibre
production
Yarn
production
Fabric
production
Wet
treatment
Making up Distribution to
the UK
Storage at
retail
Washing Reuse Recycling
(open loop)
Incineration Landfill
Cotton 30,318 118,328 52,812 5,810 86,530 494 2,458 4,823 231,533 70,731 34,960 149,459 788,256
Wool 6,346 24,766 11,054 1,216 18,111 103 514 1,009 48,460 14,804 7,317 31,282 164,984
Silk 705 2,752 1,228 135 2,012 11 57 112 5,384 1,645 813 3,476 18,332
Flax / linen 1,410 5,504 2,456 270 4,025 23 114 224 10,769 3,290 1,626 6,952 36,663
Viscose 6,346 24,766 11,054 1,216 18,111 103 514 1,009 48,460 14,804 7,317 31,282 164,984
Polyester 2,840 20,230 19,651 2,162 32,197 184 914 1,795 86,152 26,319 13,008 55,613 261,065
Acrylic 1,598 11,379 11,054 1,216 18,111 103 514 1,009 48,460 14,804 7,317 31,282 146,849
Polyamide 1,420 10,115 9,825 1,081 16,099 92 457 897 43,076 13,160 6,504 27,806 130,532
Polyurethane/
polypropylene 533 3,793 3,685 405 6,037 34 171 336 16,153 4,935 2,439 10,427 48,950
TOTAL 51,515 221,633 122,818 13,511 201,233 1,150 5,715 11,216 538,448 164,492 81,303 347,580 1,760,614
Table 14: Waste footprint all clothing in use in the UK in 2009, whether manufactured in or imported to the UK, represented as a total for the UK, broken down per fibre type
UK Clothing Waste Footprint (tonnes waste)
Fibre
production Processing
Distribution
and Retail In use Disposal TOTAL
UK 27,315 33,756 6,865 11,216 1,131,823 1,210,975
Non-UK 245,833 303,807 0 0 0 549,639
Table 15: Waste footprint for all clothing in use in the UK in 2009, whether the waste is arising in or out of the UK, broken down by life cycle stage ((all post-consumer is waste
attributed to the UK waste footprint)
52
Figure 7: Waste footprint all clothing in use in the UK in 2009, whether manufactured in or imported to the UK, represented as a total for the UK, broken down per fibre type
Figure 8: Contribution to the total waste footprint of each life cycle stage and fibre type
53
From Table 14, Figure 7 and Figure 8 the following points are evident.
The total annual waste footprint of all garments, both new and existing, in use in the UK in
2009 (i.e. the volume of clothing consumed and the actively worn quantity, including waste
associated with its production) is ~1.8 million tonnes (~28 kg per person per year).
The majority of clothing is manufactured outside the UK, so the majority of production waste
occurs outside the UK. However the assessment considers UK consumption of clothing and
therefore it includes/attributes all post-consumer wastes to the UK (even if a proportion of
them are eventually exported for final disposal outside the UK)1. It is estimated that ~70% of
waste related to clothing occurs in the UK (all post-consumer wastes) and ~30% occurs abroad
(the production waste). Based on this attribution, the total waste footprint of clothing,
occurring in the UK, is estimated to be approximately 1.2 million tonnes of waste.
To put the waste footprint occurring in the UK into context, it is estimated that 23 million
tonnes of household waste were generated in England in 2009-2010 (Defra, 2011). Thus, the
waste footprint of clothing contributes approximately 5% to the UK’s household waste
footprint.
The dominant life cycle stage is end-of-life, which in total represents 64% of total waste
generation over the whole life cycle.
Of the end-of-life life cycle stage, reuse represents 31% of total waste, landfill represents 20%
of total waste, open loop recycling represents 9% of total waste and incineration represents
5% of total waste.
Other life cycle stages of significance are the process wastes experienced in the production of
yarn (13%), making up (11%), wet treatment (8%) and fabric production (7%) stages.
Of all life cycle stages, distribution to the UK and retail storage contributes the least to the total
waste footprint, contributing 0.1% and 0.3%, respectively.
Of all the fibre types, the contribution of cotton to the total waste footprint is the largest
(45%), primarily due to the proportion of cotton assumed to be consumed in the UK (43%).
4.1.2 Waste Footprint of all Clothing in Use in the UK in 2009, whether Manufactured in or Imported to the UK – per person
Table 16 displays the baseline waste footprint results of all clothing in use in the UK in 2009, whether
manufactured in or imported to the UK. Results are represented as per person figures (based on UK
population of 62.262 million, ONS, 2010) and broken down by both life cycle stage and fibre type. This
is shown graphically in Figure 9.
From Table 16 and Figure 9, the following points are evident.
The per person per annum waste footprint of all garments, both new and existing, in use in the
UK in 2009 is almost 28 kg of waste. This comprises clothing production wastes (occurring
predominantly outside the UK) and post-consumer wastes (largely in the UK).
By fibre type, the size of the footprint is predominantly determined by the fibre volumes taken
to be consumed in clothing in the UK in this study.
The general comments made on Table 16, Figure 9 and Figure 10, also apply to these results.
1 This decision was partly based on the lack of reliable data available. It is noted that better data on the ultimate geographical fate of UK clothing will become available in the near future following a textile recycling survey by Oakdene Hollins, which is currently underway.
54
Fibre Type UK Clothing Waste Footprint – kg of waste per person
Fibre production Processing Garment
production
Distribution Retail Use End-of-life TOTAL
Material &
fibre
production
Yarn
production
Fabric
production
Wet
treatment
Making up Distribution to
the UK
Storage at
retail
Washing Reuse Recycling
(open loop)
Incineration Landfill
Cotton 0.49 1.90 0.85 0.09 1.39 0.01 0.04 0.08 3.72 1.13 0.56 2.40 12.66
Wool 0.10 0.40 0.18 0.02 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.78 0.24 0.12 0.50 2.65
Silk 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.29
Flax / linen 0.02 0.09 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.05 0.03 0.11 0.59
Viscose 0.10 0.40 0.18 0.02 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.78 0.24 0.12 0.50 2.65
Polyester 0.05 0.32 0.32 0.03 0.52 0.00 0.01 0.03 1.38 0.42 0.21 0.89 4.19
Acrylic 0.03 0.18 0.18 0.02 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.78 0.24 0.12 0.50 2.36
Polyamide 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.02 0.26 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.69 0.21 0.10 0.45 2.10
Polyurethane/
polypropylene 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.26 0.08 0.04 0.17 0.79
TOTAL 0.83 3.56 1.97 0.22 3.23 0.02 0.09 0.18 8.65 2.64 1.31 5.58 28.28
Table 16: Waste footprint all clothing in use in the UK in 2009, whether manufactured in or imported to the UK, represented per person, broken down per fibre type
55
Figure 9: Waste footprint all clothing in use in the UK in 2009, whether manufactured in or imported to the UK, represented per person, broken down per fibre type
56
4.1.3 Waste Footprint of all Clothing in Use in the UK in 2009, whether Manufactured in or Imported to the UK – per tonne
Table 17 displays the baseline waste footprint results of one tonne of garment in use in the UK in 2009,
whether manufactured in or imported to the UK. Note: use phase impacts relate to all clothing in use for
one year’s use and production waste quantities relate only to the newly consumed clothing in the given
year. Results are represented as per tonne and broken down by both life cycle stage and fibre type.
From Table 17 and Figure 10, the following points are evident.
The total waste footprint of a tonne of clothing (both production and post-consumer waste,
occurring in both the UK and non UK) in 2009 ranges from around 1.4 to 1.6 tonnes of waste,
depending on the fibre type of the garment.
Presently, there is no evidence to justify differential handling of clothing at end of life by fibre
type. Therefore, the average waste management route is applied equally to all types of fibres.
It is possible that certain fibre types could provide increased clothing durability, which would
favour re-use. For example, polyester is a fibre of choice for harder-wearing corporate work-
wear.
Clothing made of natural fibre (i.e. cotton, wool, linen and silk) produces relatively more
production waste throughout its life cycle than clothing made of man-made fibre (i.e. viscose,
polyester, acrylic, polyamide and polyurethane). The main difference arises from the
production of yarn, where man-made fibres appear to be more efficient due to their relative
homogeneity.
Following the production of the fabric (weaving) life cycle stage onwards, downstream
processes are assumed to be the same in this study irrespective of fibre type. Therefore, the
wastage rate is constant and, as can be seen in Figure 10, waste arisings do not vary between
the different types of fibre considered.
57
Fibre Type UK Clothing Waste Footprint – kg of waste per tonne of clothing
Fibre production Processing Garment
production
Distribution Retail Use End-of-life TOTAL
Material
and fibre
production
Yarn
production
Fabric
production
Wet
treatment
Making up Distribution to
the UK
Storage at
retail
Washing Reuse Recycling
(open loop)
Incineration Landfill
Cotton 62 241 107 12 176 1 5 10 471 144 71 304 1604
Wool 62 241 107 12 176 1 5 10 471 144 71 304 1604
Silk 62 241 107 12 176 1 5 10 471 144 71 304 1604
Flax / linen 62 241 107 12 176 1 5 10 471 144 71 304 1604
Viscose 62 241 107 12 176 1 5 10 471 144 71 304 1604
Polyester 16 111 107 12 176 1 5 10 471 144 71 304 1427
Acrylic 16 111 107 12 176 1 5 10 471 144 71 304 1427
Polyamide 16 111 107 12 176 1 5 10 471 144 71 304 1427
Polyurethane/
polypropylene 16 111 107 12 176 1 5 10 471 144 71 304 1427
Table 17: Waste footprint all clothing in use in the UK in 2009, whether manufactured in or imported to the UK, represented per tonne, broken down per fibre type
58
Figure 10: Waste footprint for one tonne of each fibre used in the UK in 2009, whether manufactured in or imported to the UK, represented per tonne, broken down per life
cycle
59
4.1.4 Waste Footprint of all Clothing in Use in the UK in 2009, whether Manufactured in or Imported to the UK – per garment
Table 18 displays the baseline waste footprint results per garment of all clothing in use in the UK in
2009, whether manufactured in or imported to the UK. Results are represented as per garment and
broken down by life cycle stage. These results are shown graphically in Figure 11.
From Table 18 and Figure 11, the following points are evident.
The waste footprint of each garment, both new and existing, in use in the UK in 2009 (i.e.
including both production and post-consumer waste, occurring in both the UK and non UK)
ranges from around 0.08 to 1.7 kg per garment.
The garment types displaying the largest waste footprint are dresses (1.7 kg waste); suits and
ensembles (1.4 kg waste); and jackets (1.3 kg waste). This can be explained by their relatively
large mass when compared with other garments.
Those garments displaying the smallest waste footprint are gloves (0.08 kg waste); scarves,
shawls, ties etc. (0.15 kg waste); underwear, nightwear and hosiery (0.20 kg waste); and
swimwear (0.22 kg waste). These garments have a relatively small mass when compared with
other garments.
60
Garment Type
Ga
rmen
t m
ass
(kg
)
UK Waste Footprint – kg of waste per garment
Fibre production Processing Garment
production
Distribution Retail Use End-of-life TOTAL
Material
and fibre
production
Yarn
production
Fabric
production
Wet
treatment
Making up Distribution to
the UK
Storage
at retail
Washing Reuse Recycling
(open
loop)
Incineration Landfill
Tops 0.39 0.017 0.075 0.042 0.005 0.068 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.183 0.056 0.028 0.118 0.598
Underwear,
nightwear &
hosiery
0.13 0.006 0.025 0.014 0.002 0.023 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.061 0.019 0.009 0.039 0.199
Bottoms 0.57 0.026 0.110 0.061 0.007 0.100 0.001 0.003 0.006 0.268 0.082 0.040 0.173 0.875
Jackets 0.82 0.037 0.159 0.088 0.010 0.145 0.001 0.004 0.008 0.387 0.118 0.059 0.250 1.265
Dresses 1.13 0.051 0.218 0.121 0.013 0.198 0.001 0.006 0.011 0.530 0.162 0.080 0.342 1.733
Suits and
ensembles 0.92 0.042 0.179 0.099 0.011 0.162 0.001 0.005 0.009 0.434 0.132 0.066 0.280 1.419
Gloves 0.05 0.002 0.010 0.006 0.001 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.024 0.007 0.004 0.016 0.079
Sportswear 0.48 0.021 0.092 0.051 0.006 0.084 0.000 0.002 0.005 0.224 0.068 0.034 0.144 0.732
Swimwear 0.14 0.006 0.027 0.015 0.002 0.025 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.066 0.020 0.010 0.043 0.216
Scarves,
shawls, ties
etc.
0.10 0.004 0.019 0.011 0.001 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.046 0.014 0.007 0.030 0.151
Table 18: Waste footprint all clothing in use in the UK in 2009, whether manufactured in or imported to the UK, represented per garment, broken down per garment type
61
Figure 11: Waste footprint all clothing in use in the UK in 2009, whether manufactured in or imported to the UK, represented per garment, broken down per garment type
62
4.1.5 Direct costs associated with Clothing in Use in the UK in 2009, whether Manufactured in or Imported to the UK – UK total
Figure 12 overleaf shows the contributors to the direct cost calculation at each life cycle step and from
each fibre. The following conclusions are drawn.
The total annual costs associated with producing, using and disposing of clothing consumed in
the UK (both new and existing garments) in 2009 are approximately £23 billion (~£373 per
person per year).
The annual costs associated with clothing in use in their cleaning (electricity, water,
wastewater and detergent cost) can be estimated as ~£3.4 billion.
The majority of clothing is manufactured outside the UK, and it is estimated that 25% of the
costs related to clothing occur in the UK (from resources associated with both clothing
production and cleaning), while 75% occur abroad.
The dominant life cycle stages are both fibre production and distribution and retail,
representing respectively 47% and 20% of total costs occurring during the whole life cycle.
Processing (18%), and use (15%) are the next largest contributors.
Disposal at end-of-life incurs minimal overall costs (0.21%). This is because reuse and
recycling, which represent a large share of waste management at the end-of-life, command a
revenue stream at end of life as opposed to incurring costs.
Of all the fibre types, cotton contributes the most to the direct cost (i.e. production and end of
life cost) (60%), primarily due to the large proportion of cotton used in the UK (43% by mass).
The additional cost was found to relate mains water used in production.
63
Fibre Type Direct Cost Associated with UK Clothing (£ per UK total, rounded to two significant figures)
Fibre production Processing Distribution and
Retail In use Disposal TOTAL
Cotton 8,500,000,000 2,000,000,000 2,000,000,000 1,500,000,000 21,000,000 14,000,000,000
Wool 290,000,000 420,000,000 410,000,000 310,000,000 4,300,000 1,400,000,000
Silk 68,000,000 44,000,000 45,000,000 34,000,000 480,000 190,000,000
Flax / linen 67,000,000 65,000,000 93,000,000 69,000,000 970,000 290,000,000
Viscose 330,000,000 300,000,000 420,000,000 310,000,000 4,300,000 1,400,000,000
Polyester 220,000,000 590,000,000 740,000,000 550,000,000 7,700,000 2,100,000,000
Acrylic 960,000,000 340,000,000 420,000,000 310,000,000 4,300,000 2,000,000,000
Polyamide 450,000,000 300,000,000 370,000,000 270,000,000 3,900,000 1,400,000,000
Polyurethane /
polypropylene 120,000,000 110,000,000 140,000,000 100,000,000 1,400,000 470,000,000
TOTAL 11,000,000,000 4,200,000,000 4,600,000,000 3,400,000,000 48,000,000 23,000,000,000
Table 19: Direct cost associated with all UK clothing in use in the UK in 2009, whether manufactured in or imported to the UK, represented per fibre type, rounded to
two significant figures
Direct Cost Associated with UK Clothing (£ per UK total, rounded to two significant figures)
Fibre
production Processing
Distribution
and Retail In use Disposal TOTAL
UK 1,100,000,000 420,000,000 720,000,000 3,400,000,000 48,000,000 5,700,000,000
Non-UK 9,900,000,000 3,800,000,000 3,900,000,000 - - 18,000,000,000
Table 20: Direct cost associated with all UK clothing in use in the UK in 2009, whether manufactured in or imported to the UK, broken down by life cycle stage,
rounded to two significant figures
64
Figure 12: Contribution to the total costs of waste management of each life cycle stage and fibre type
65
4.1.6 Opportunity costs associated with Clothing in Use in the UK in 2009, whether manufactured in or imported to the UK – UK Total
Opportunity cost is a measure which quantifies the benefit forgone by choosing one action over another.
In this case, the action in question is producing waste instead of producing first quality, saleable
product. As such, opportunity cost in this case represents the difference between the maximum
theoretical efficiency and the efficiency achieved.
To our knowledge, this is the first time that an attempt to quantify opportunity cost has been made in an
assessment of this type for clothing. As such, the data and method underpinning the opportunity cost
values are not as refined as is the case for the rest of the metrics considered in this study. Therefore,
the results shown should be taken as being indicative only.
Figure 13 overleaf shows the relative opportunity costs at each life cycle step and from each fibre. Note
that the findings presented in this specific section indicate the overall potential (for both preventable and
non-preventable wastes (but not the co-product)). Note also that the opportunity cost does not include
the additional direct business cost associated with realising the increase in revenue (i.e. more material,
ancillary materials and transport to realise the increase in revenue).
The following conclusions are drawn from the findings.
The majority of the opportunity cost experienced, and therefore by extension the majority of
the inefficiency in the clothing system, is seen at the fibre production stage (89%).
Natural fibres, in particular cotton, are indicated with high opportunity cost relative to other
fibre. This is, in part, due to inherent irregularity in the length and quality of natural fibres,
leading to a greater level of rejected material. Crop selection and genetic modification may
reduce this waste. Less stringent fabric standards and/or fibre mixes could also serve to
reduce the waste produced, although it is not clear how such changes would affect product
lifetime.
Because the majority of production occurs outside the UK, the potential for saving is largely
outside the UK, although any saving in the chain would be likely to be passed to the consumer
over time.
Opportunity cost is comparatively low at the distribution and retail stage, suggesting that there
is less overall potential for efficiency gains/increased profit through reducing waste at this
stage compared to other life cycle stages.
66
Fibre Type Opportunity Cost of Process Waste Associated with UK Clothing (£ per UK total, rounded to two significant figures)
Fibre production Processing Distribution and
Retail In use Disposal TOTAL
Cotton 550,000,000 43,000,000 16,000,000 - - 610,000,000
Wool 140,000,000 12,000,000 4,500,000 - - 150,000,000
Silk 60,000,000 3,800,000 1,500,000 - - 66,000,000
Flax / linen 33,000,000 2,200,000 840,000 - - 36,000,000
Viscose 29,000,000 3,700,000 1,400,000 - - 34,000,000
Polyester 6,100,000 3,600,000 1,300,000 - - 11,000,000
Acrylic 18,000,000 4,000,000 1,500,000 - - 23,000,000
Polyamide 22,000,000 2,600,000 950,000 - - 25,000,000
Polyurethane /
polypropylene 1,600,000 920,000 280,000 - - 2,800,000
TOTAL 860,000,000 75,000,000 29,000,000 - - 960,000,000
Table 21: Opportunity cost of process waste associated with all UK clothing in use in the UK in 2009, whether manufactured in or imported to the UK, represented per
fibre type, rounded to two significant figures
67
Figure 13: Contribution to the total opportunity costs of waste management of each life cycle stage and fibre type
68
4.2 Savings Achieved in the ‘Good practice’ Scenario
4.2.1 Waste Savings
Table 22 and Figure 14 display the footprint saving from the baseline generated by each reduction
measure of the ‘Good practice’ scenario. Figure 15 to Figure 25 presents Sankey diagrams associated
with each scenario. The baseline is the total waste footprint of all garments, both new and existing, in
use in the UK in 2009 (i.e. the volume consumed, and the actively worn quantity), given in tonnes of
waste (both production and post-consumer waste, occurring in both the UK and non UK). The figure in
the next column is the reduction in total waste footprint of all garments after the reduction measure is
put in place. As previously discussed, assuming a steady state all materials used in the life cycle of
clothing will eventually form part of the waste footprint (production wastes and post-consumer wastes).
Reduction measure Waste arising
(tonnes of waste)
Reduction
(tonnes of waste)
Reduction
(%)
Eco-efficiency in fibre production 1,758,039 2,576 0.15%
Eco-efficiency in yarn production 1,746,599 11,440 0.65%
Eco efficiency in dyeing / finishing
processes 1,745,734 865 0.05%
Eco-efficiency in finishing and cutting 1,738,194 7,540 0.43%
Higher proportion of synthetics 1,708,717 29,477 1.67%
Design for durability 1,553,379 155,338 8.82%
Less damage during use 1,551,854 1,524 0.09%
Dispose less - prevent and reuse waste 1,551,237 618 0.04%
Dispose less - reuse more (consumer) 1,545,367 12,332 0.70%
Start closed loop recycling of all fibres and
recycle more open loop 1,544,248 1,119 0.06%
Cumulative reduction 222,824 12.66%
Table 22: Savings achieved by each reduction measure of the ‘Good practice’ scenario
69
Figure 14: Savings achieved by each reduction measure of the ‘Good practice’ scenario
70
Figure 15: Baseline scenario Figure 16: Eco-efficiency in fibre production
71
Figure 17: Eco-efficiency in yarn production Figure 18: Eco-efficiency in dyeing / finishing processes
72
Figure 19: Eco-efficiency in finishing and cutting Figure 20: High proportion of synthetics
73
Figure 21: Design for durability Figure 22: Less damage during use
74
Figure 23: Dispose less – prevent and reuse waste Figure 24: Dispose less – reuse more (consumer)
75
Figure 25: Start closed loop recycling of all fibres and recycle more open loop
76
From the estimates presented in Table 22, Figure 14, and the Sankey diagrams reported in Figure 15 to
Figure 25, the following points are evident:
A potential total reduction in the waste footprint of UK clothing of ~13% is estimated if all
reduction measures considered in the ‘Good practice’ scenario were achieved.
The largest waste footprint reductions are achieved by extending product lifetime (i.e. design
for durability) (9%, effect on both post-consumer waste and consumption of clothing), shift to
higher proportion of synthetics (2% reduction, on production waste), and increased reuse at
end-of-life (0.7%, on Dispose less – reuse more).
As calculated, reduction measures resulting in minimal reductions in waste footprint include
preventing and reusing retail waste (0.04%), increased efficiency at the wet treatment stage
(dyeing and finishing) (0.05%), and increasing recycling at the end of life (0.06%). These
production stages were identified as having a relatively limited scope for waste reduction
(reflected in the magnitude of the reduction in the ‘Good’ and ‘Best practice’ scenarios).
Increasing the lifetime of clothing by 10% results in a reduction in the overall waste footprint
of 9%. It is notable that, as an indirect negative consequence of this measure, it is possible
that a longer lifetime might result in poorer quality clothing at the end of life which might
consequently be of less benefit for reuse. This effect is not included in the scope of this study
and was therefore not examined.
A shift to synthetic fibres by replacing 10% of cotton with 50:50 poly-cotton results in a
relatively large reduction in the waste footprint (1.7%). The savings are a result of the more
efficient production process associated with polyester production in comparison to cotton. It is
commonly believed that synthetic fibres are more durable than natural fibres, and hence there
could be an increase in lifetime and in re-use potential. This study is limited because no data
are available to corroborate whether actual product lifetimes of clothing of different fibre types
and fibre mixes are differentiated. Therefore, it is possible that the savings for this scenario
may be greater for post-consumer wastes, although this is untested in this analysis.
A 10% reduction in damaged wastes during cleaning resulted in a small reduction in the waste
footprint (0.1%). This is due to the very low assumed fibre damage rate from washing, drying
and ironing of 0.1% per wash. When compared to loss rates at other life cycle stages, this
accounts for only a small proportion of total losses over the lifetime of a garment.
An increase in the final reuse of clothing at end-of-life results for the scenario modelled in a
reduction in the waste footprint of 0.7%.
An increase in recycling of clothing (closed and open loop) at end-of-life results in a very small
reduction in the waste footprint of 0.06%.
It should also be noted that the number of decimal places of results displayed in Table 22 does
not represent the level of precision. Rather, it is illustrative to allow for distinction between
reduction measures.
4.2.2 Cost Savings
Table 23 and Figure 26 display the cost saving from the baseline as a consequence of each reduction
measure in the ‘Good practice’ scenario. The total cost reduction is given for all garments, both new and
existing, in use in the UK in 2009 (i.e. the volume consumed and the actively worn quantity). This is
presented in pounds sterling and is for both production and post-consumer waste, occurring in both the
UK and non UK. The figure in the next column is the reduction in cost after the reduction measure is put
in place, which is also shown as a percentage reduction. Savings are for direct waste costs; opportunity
costs have not been considered here.
77
Reduction measure Total Cost After
Reduction
Measure
(£100k)
Reduction
(£100k)
Reduction
(%)
Eco-efficiency in fibre production 23,230,242 16,601 0.07%
Eco-efficiency in yarn production 23,153,414 76,828 0.33%
Eco efficiency in dyeing / finishing
processes 23,146,096 7,318 0.03%
Eco-efficiency in finishing and cutting 23,082,178 63,918 0.28%
Higher proportion of synthetics 22,465,873 616,305 2.67%
Design for durability 20,423,521 2,042,352 9.09%
Less damage during use 20,404,105 19,416 0.10%
Dispose less - prevent and reuse waste
(retail) 20,397,203 6,902 0.03%
Dispose less - reuse more (consumer) 20,320,020 162,145 0.70%
Start closed loop recycling of all fibres and
recycle more open loop 20,312,944 7,075 0.03%
Cumulative reduction £3,018,835 12.99%
Table 23: Savings achieved by each reduction measure of the ‘Good practice’ scenario
78
Figure 26: Savings achieved by each reduction measure of the ‘Good practice’ scenario
79
From the estimates presented in Table 23 and Figure 26, the following points are evident.
A potential total reduction in the cost of waste associated with UK clothing of ~13% is
estimated if all reduction measures considered in the ‘Good practice’ scenario were achieved.
These savings are gross savings – they do not consider an implementation cost.
For the improvement opportunities modelled that affect the entire life cycle, the majority of the
savings were at the fabric production and wet processing stages.
The largest cost reductions are achieved by extending product lifetime, i.e. design for durability
(9% on post-consumer waste, reducing consumption of clothing), increasing the proportion of
synthetics (3%, on production waste), and increased reuse at end-of-life (0.7%, on post-
consumer wastes, reducing consumption of clothing).
As calculated, reduction measures resulting in minimal reductions in cost include increased
recycling at the end of life (0.03%), increased prevention and reuse of retail waste (0.03%),
and increased efficiency in the wet treatment (dyeing and finishing) stage (0.03%). These
production stages were identified as having a relatively limited scope for waste reduction
(reflected in the magnitude of the reduction in the ‘Good’ and ‘Best practice’ scenarios), so the
result is not surprising.
Increasing the lifetime of clothing by 10% results in a reduction in the overall costs of 9%. It
is notable that, as an indirect negative consequence of this measure, it is possible that a longer
lifetime might result in poorer quality clothing at the end of life which might consequently be of
less benefit for reuse. This effect is not included in the scope of this study and was therefore
not examined.
A shift to synthetic fibres by replacing 10% of cotton with 50:50 poly-cotton results in a
relatively large reduction in costs (2.7%). The savings are a result of the more efficient
production process associated with polyester production in comparison to cotton. It is
commonly believed that synthetic fibres are more durable than natural fibres, and hence there
could be an increase in lifetime and in re-use potential. This study is limited because no data
are available to corroborate whether actual product lifetimes of clothing of different fibre types
and fibre mixes are differentiated. Therefore, it is possible that the savings for this scenario
may be greater for post-consumer wastes, although this is untested in this analysis.
Additionally, it is considered that the costs of cleaning synthetic fibre may be lower due to the
increased hydrophobicity of synthetic fibres. This potential additional saving is not represented
in the analysis.
A 10% reduction in damaged wastes during cleaning resulted in a small reduction in costs
(0.1%). This is due to the low assumed fibre damage rate from washing, drying and ironing of
0.1% per wash. When compared to loss rates at other life cycle stages, this accounts for only
a small proportion of total losses over the lifetime of a garment.
It should also be noted that the number of decimal places of results displayed in Table 23 does
not represent the level of precision. Rather, it is illustrative to allow for distinction between
reduction measures.
80
4.3 Savings Achieved in the ‘Best practice’ Scenario
4.3.1 Waste Savings
Table 24 and Figure 26b display the waste saving from the baseline generated by each reduction
measure of the ‘Best practice’ scenario. Figure 27 to Figure 28 present Sankey diagrams associated with
each scenario. The baseline is the total waste footprint of all garments, both new and existing, in use in
the UK in 2009 (i.e. the volume consumed, and also the quantity actively worn), given in tonnes of
waste.
Reduction measure Baseline
(t waste)
Reduction
(t waste)
Reduction %
Eco-efficiency in fibre production 1,756,751 3,864 0.22%
Eco-efficiency in yarn production 1,739,605 17,146 0.97%
Eco efficiency in dyeing / finishing
processes 1,738,313 1,292 0.07%
Eco-efficiency in finishing and cutting 1,701,291 37,022 2.10%
Higher proportion of synthetics 1,586,086 115,205 6.54%
Design for durability 1,192,546 393,540 22.35%
Less damage during use 1,189,620 2,926 0.17%
Dispose less - prevent and reuse waste
(retail) 1,188,505 1,116 0.06%
Dispose less - reuse more (consumer) 1,175,013
28,344
1.61%
%
Start closed loop recycling of all fibres and
recycle more open loop
1,173,369
1,643
0.09%
Cumulative reduction 602,077
34.2%
Table 24: Savings achieved by each reduction measure of the ‘Best practice’ scenario
81
Figure 26b: Savings achieved by each reduction measure of the ’Best Practice’ scenario
82
Figure 27: Baseline scenario Figure 28: Eco-efficiency in fibre production
83
Figure 29: Eco-efficiency in yarn production Figure 30: Eco-efficiency in dyeing / finishing processes
84
Figure 31: Eco-efficiency in finishing and cutting Figure 32: High proportion of synthetics
85
Figure 33: Design for durability Figure 34: Less damage during use
86
Figure 35: Dispose less – prevent and reuse waste Figure 36: Dispose less – reuse more (consumer)
87
Figure 37: Start closed loop recycling of all fibres and recycle more open loop
88
From the estimates presented Table 24, Figure 26b, and the Sankey diagram reported in Figure 27 to
Figure 37, the following points are evident.
A 34% reduction in the waste footprint of UK clothing will occur if all reduction measures
considered by the ‘Best practice’ scenario are achieved.
The largest waste footprint reductions are achieved by extending product lifetime (design for
durability) (22% reduction), shift to higher proportion of synthetics (7% reduction, on
production waste), and eco-efficiency in finishing and cutting (2.1%, reduction, on production
waste).
Reduction measures resulting in the smallest reductions in the waste footprint include
preventing and reusing retailer waste (<1% reduction, on production waste), eco-efficiency in
wet treatment (<1% reduction, on production waste), and increased reuse at end-of-life
(1.6%, on Dispose less – reuse more).
Increasing the lifetime of clothing by 33% results in a large reduction in waste footprint of
22%.
A shift to synthetics by replacing 40% of cotton with 50:50 poly-cotton results in a relatively
large reduction in the waste footprint (6.5%). However, this result excludes potential savings
from reduced washing, drying and ironing during the in-use stage.
A 15% reduction in the number of washes per year results in only a very small reduction in the
waste footprint (0.2%) because damage in cleaning is assumed to be comparatively small in
the study.
An increase in the direct reuse of clothing from 47.6% to 62.6% results in a waste footprint
reduction of 1.6%.
An increase in recycling from 0% to 10% results in a very small reduction in the waste
footprint of 0.09%.
In addition, further savings can be achieved from encouraging the use of a particular fibre type
due to the difference in process efficiency for the production of natural and synthetic fibre
types.
4.3.2 Cost Savings
Table 25 and Figure 38 display the cost saving from the baseline generated by each reduction measure
of the ‘Best practice’ scenario. The total cost after each reduction measure is given for all garments,
both new and existing, in use in the UK in 2009 (i.e. the volume consumed and the actively worn
quantity), given in pounds sterling (both production and post-consumer waste, occurring in both the UK
and non UK). The figure in the next column is the reduction in cost after the reduction measure is put in
place, which is also shown as a percentage reduction. Savings in the cost of waste associated with UK
clothing refer to direct costs only. Opportunity cost has not been considered here.
89
Reduction measure Total Cost After
Reduction
Measure
(£)
Reduction
(£)
Reduction
(%)
Eco-efficiency in fibre production 23,221,941 24,901 0.11%
Eco-efficiency in yarn production 23,106,796 115,146 0.50%
Eco efficiency in dyeing / finishing
processes
23,095,853 10,942 0.05%
Eco-efficiency in finishing and cutting 22,781,741 314,112 1.35%
Higher proportion of synthetics 20,357,655 2,424,086 10.43%
Design for durability 15,306,508 5,051,147 21.27%
Less damage during use 15,270,189 36,319 0.16%
Dispose less - prevent and reuse waste 15,258,126 12,062 0.05%
Dispose less - reuse more (consumer) 15,084,916 363,877 1.57%
Start closed loop recycling of all fibres and
recycle more open loop
15,075,195 9,721 0.04%
Cumulative reduction 8,362,201 35.97%
Table 25: Savings achieved by each reduction measure of the ‘Best practice’ scenario
90
Figure 38: Savings achieved by each reduction measure of the ‘Best practice’ scenario
91
From the estimates presented in Table 25, Figure 38 the following points are evident.
A potential total reduction in the cost of waste associated with UK clothing of ~36% is
estimated if all reduction measures considered in the ‘Best practice’ scenario were achieved.
The largest cost reductions are achieved by extending product lifetime (design for durability)
(22% reduction), shift to higher proportion of synthetics (10% reduction, on production
waste), and increased reuse at end-of-life (1.57%, on post-consumer wastes, reducing
consumption of clothing).
As calculated, reduction measures resulting in minimal reductions in cost include increasing
recycling at end of life (0.04%), preventing and reusing retail waste (0.05%), and increased
efficiency during wet treatment (dyeing / finishing) (0.05%). These production stages were
identified as having a relatively limited scope for waste reduction (reflected in the magnitude of
the reduction in the ‘Good’ and ‘Best practice’ scenarios), so the result is not surprising.
Increasing the lifetime of clothing by 10% results in a reduction in the overall cost of 22%. It
is notable that, as an indirect negative consequence of this measure, it is possible that a longer
lifetime might result in poorer quality clothing at the end of life which might consequently be of
less benefit for reuse. This effect is not included in the scope of this study and was therefore
not examined.
A shift to synthetic fibres by replacing 40% of cotton with 50:50 poly-cotton only results in a
relatively significant reduction in cost (10.4%). The savings are a result of the more efficient
production process associated with polyester production in comparison to cotton. It is
commonly believed that synthetic fibres are more durable than natural fibres, and hence there
could be an increase in lifetime and in re-use potential. This study is limited because no data
are available to corroborate whether actual product lifetimes of clothing of different fibre types
and fibre mixes are differentiated. Therefore, it is possible that the savings for this scenario
may be greater for post-consumer wastes, although untested in this analysis.
A 25% reduction in damaged wastes during cleaning resulted in a small reduction in the costs
footprint (0.2%). This is due to the very low assumed fibre damage rate from washing, drying
and ironing of 0.1% per wash. When compared to loss rates at other life cycle stages, this
accounts for only a small proportion of total losses over the lifetime of a garment.
It should also be noted that the number of decimal places of results displayed in Table 25 does
not represent the level of precision; rather it is illustrative to allow for distinction between
reduction measures
4.3.3 Opportunity Cost Savings
The good and best practice scenarios consider the proportion of waste that is preventable – thus the
proportion of the waste stream that can be avoided in a reduction measure. This is in contrast to the
baseline calculated value and results presented in Section 4.16 which indicates the overall potential
(both non preventable and preventable wastes).
As an example, Table 26 overleaf indicates opportunity cost savings for the ‘Eco-efficiency in finishing
and cutting’ scenario for both the ‘Good’ and Best practice’ scenarios (reducing cutting efficiency by
0.6% and 2.9% respectively at the stage).
By reducing the waste created at the finishing and cutting stage, more material (and time) is spent
making saleable product. It is estimated for the ‘Best practice’ scenario it is estimated revenues at the
stage of the supply chain could be increased by ~£28m. This value is comparatively small saving
(~10%) relative to the estimated direct cost savings for this measure, but nevertheless indicates an
additional hidden cost/potential opportunity.
92
Opportunity cost (£)
Fibre type Baseline ‘Good practice’ Best Practice Difference
(Baseline to
‘Good practice’)
% difference
(Baseline to
‘Good
practice’)
Difference
(Baseline to
‘Best
practice’)
%
difference
(Baseline
to Best
Practice)
Cotton 612,009,770 608,452,504 594,468,769 -3,557,266 -0.6% -17,541,001 -2.9%
Wool 153,263,212 152,352,929 148,774,577 -910,283 -0.6% -4,488,635 -2.9%
Silk 65,790,916 65,424,396 63,983,595 -366,520 -0.6% -1,807,321 -2.7%
Flax / linen 35,930,609 35,728,840 34,935,681 -201,769 -0.6% -994,928 -2.8%
Viscose 33,964,241 33,740,329 32,860,124 -223,912 -0.7% -1,104,117 -3.3%
Polyester 10,968,722 10,846,929 10,368,159 -121,792 -1.1% -600,563 -5.5%
Acrylic 23,432,336 23,246,171 22,514,350 -186,165 -0.8% -917,986 -3.9%
Polyamide 25,050,967 24,889,043 24,252,515 -161,924 -0.6% -798,452 -3.2%
Polyurethane /
polypropylene 2,802,082 2,771,778 2,652,655 -30,303 -1.1% -149,426 -5.3%
TOTAL 963,212,854 957,452,921 934,810,426 -5,759,933 -0.6% -28,402,428 -2.9%
Table 26: Opportunity costs for eco-efficiency in finishing and cutting example
93
5.0 Conclusions
This section summarises the overall conclusions of the core study and provides research suggestions.
5.1 Summary of this Study
A strategic-level waste footprint assessment for UK clothing was undertaken by ERM based on published
data and information compiled during the course of the study about UK clothing and clothing supply
chains. UK clothing is defined in this waste footprint study as all clothing, both new and existing, in use
in the UK over the period of one year. The analysis covers both clothing manufactured and used in the
UK and clothing manufactured abroad and used in the UK. The datum is 2009, as the year for which the
most recent data are available.
The results provided in the study relate to the annual impacts associated with UK clothing. They include
the impacts associated with the quantity of clothes that are produced for the UK and consumed and
disposed of each year, but they also include the impacts associated with clothing that is actively worn
and cleaned each year (approximately 1.1 million tonnes of new clothing is consumed in the UK each
year, ~2.5 million tonnes is in active use - note that this is greater than the annual consumed clothing
because clothes last for more than one year).
5.2 Summary of Baseline Results
The total annual waste footprint of all garments, both new and existing, in use in the UK in 2009 (i.e.
the volume of clothing consumed and the actively worn quantity, including waste associated with its
production) is approximately 1.8 million tonnes (~28 kg per person per year).
The majority of clothing is manufactured outside the UK, so the majority of production waste
occurs outside the UK. However, the assessment considers UK consumption of clothing and
therefore it includes/attributes all post-consumer wastes to the UK (even if a proportion of
them are eventually exported for final disposal outside the UK). It is estimated that ~70% of
waste related to clothing occurs in the UK (all post-consumer wastes) and ~30% occurs
abroad (the production waste). Based on this attribution, the total waste footprint of
clothing, occurring in the UK, is estimated to be approximately 1.2 million tonnes of waste.
To put the waste footprint occurring in the UK into context, it is estimated that 23 million
tonnes of household waste were generated in England in 2009-2010 (Defra, 2011). Thus, the
waste footprint of clothing contributes approximately 5% to the UK’s household waste
footprint.
The total annual costs of resource use (in production and in-use) and waste management
associated with producing and disposing of clothing (both new and existing) in the UK in 2009
are estimated at approximately £23 billion (~£373 per person per year).
The annual costs associated with clothing in use in their cleaning (electricity, water,
wastewater and detergent cost) can be estimated as ~£3.4 billion.
The majority of clothing is manufactured outside the UK, and it is estimated that 25% of
costs related to clothing (from resources associated with both clothing production and
cleaning) occurs in the UK, while 75% occurs abroad.
5.3 Summary of Reduction Scenarios
For the reduction measures examined in the ‘Good practice’ scenario, the combined effect of the ten
reductions across the entire life cycle is estimated to be a 12% reduction in waste arising. In the
aspirational ‘Best practice’ scenario this is increased - it is estimated waste could be reduced by 33%.
Similar scale percentage direct cost savings were estimated as a consequence of reduced resource use.
However, it should be noted that the study does not examine the cost-effectiveness or other specific
94
practicalities of implementing each option, or assess other non-waste sustainability impacts for these
options.
Table 27 below ranks reduction measures in order of effectiveness for waste reduction, for both the
‘Good’ and ‘Best practice’ scenarios
Reduction Measure Rank - Good
practice
Rank - Best
practice
Design for durability 1 1
Higher proportion of synthetics 2 2
Dispose less - reuse more (consumer) 3 4
Eco-efficiency in yarn production 4 5
Eco-efficiency in finishing and cutting 5 3
Eco-efficiency in fibre production 6 6
Less damage during use 7 7
Start closed loop recycling of all fibres and recycle more open
loop
8 8
Eco efficiency in dyeing / finishing processes 9 9
Dispose less - prevent and reuse waste (at retail) 10 10
Table 27: Reduction measures of the ‘Good practice’ scenario in order of effectiveness
As can be seen from Table 27, the most effective reduction measures are design for durability, higher
proportion of synthetics, dispose less – reuse more (consumer) and eco-efficiency in finishing and
cutting.
5.4 Sensitivity Analysis
It has been identified that the UK fibre mix modelled may not be representative of the UK clothing
market. The original source of the fibre mix data is Biointelligence 2009, which reflects a European
rather than UK specific fibre mix. These data were first used in URS’ 2011 water footprint study and
subsequently used in this study for consistency.
In order to test the sensitivity of results to fibre mix data the results for the baseline results and ‘What
if?’ scenario results extracted from the carbon footprint tool where a different mix was entered. This
fibre mix data is from a Carbon Trust (2011) report entitled ‘International Carbon Flows’, which is shown
in Table 28 below, alongside Biointelligence data for comparison.
Fibre Type
European Fibre Mix
(Biointelligence,
2009)
UK Specific Fibre Mix
(Carbon Trust)
Cotton 43% 32%
Wool 9% 2%
Silk 1% 2%
Flax / linen 2% 6%
Viscose 9% 4%
Polyester 16% 45%
Acrylic 9% 4%
Polyamide 8% 5%
Polyurethane / polypropylene 3% 0%
Table 28: European fibre mix data used in this study in comparison to UK specific fibre mix data used for
sensitivity analysis
95
The baseline waste footprint total with the Carbon Trust fibre mix data is 2% less than the baseline total
where Biointelligence fibre mix data are used, with all of these changes in the fibre production stage.
The order of improvement actions also changes very little, with all reductions remaining the same except
for a shift to synthetics, which increases in efficacy to a nearly 2% reduction.
Fibre Type
Waste Footprint using
European Fibre Mix
(tonnes)
Waste Footprint using
UK Specific Fibre Mix
(tonnes)
% Difference
Fibre production 273,147 236,877 -13%
Processing 337,563 337,563 0%
Distribution and
Retail 6,865 6,865 0%
In use 11,216 11,216 0%
Disposal 1,131,823 1,131,823 0%
TOTAL 1,760,614 1,724,344 -2%
Table 29: Fibre mix sensitivity
A further sensitivity analysis was carried out on washing frequency using a upper and lower values of 5
and 15 washes per kilogram of clothing per year (in comparison to the current value of 9.9). Due to the
very small proportion of the total waste footprint that use phase represents, the effect of these changes
on results was negligible. By reducing the wash frequency to 5, the contribution of the use phase
changes from 0.6% to 0.5%, and by increasing the wash frequency to 15 the contribution of the use
phase changes from 0.6% to 0.8%. Therefore, it can be seen that wash frequency has very little effect
on waste footprint results.
5.5 Concluding Remarks
Overall, the analysis confirms the rationale for encouraging waste reduction measures at each stage of
the life cycle, including nudging consumer behaviour towards favourable outcomes. The study provides
an assessment of the life cycle stages with the greatest waste reduction potential. Reduction measures
that reduce the level of post-consumer clothing waste (e.g. design for durability/lifetime optimisation,
reuse strategies) are likely to be particularly effective because they can extend product life and so
reduce both production resources required and the generation of post-consumer wastes. The
assessment assumes that the lifetime for which a consumer actively uses the clothing is extended in the
design for durability strategy/lifetime optimisation and reuse strategies. Lack of evidence concerning
relative lifetimes for clothing is discussed further in the following section. Eco-efficiency in the finishing
and cutting stages is also indicated in the study as an area for potential waste prevention action.
The study also indicates where waste reduction measures could reduce waste costs, and where
improved efficiency could offer further opportunities for business. The assessment takes a life cycle
approach and costs of resources consumed in-use is indicated to be significant in scale, alongside supply
chain waste costs for the UK footprint. However, the calculated costs are indicative estimates and we
note that the calculation method and data has limitations.
The study acknowledges its data and modelling uncertainties, but it represents a first example of a life
cycle waste footprint (for which no footprint standard exists) and provides an attempt to link the
footprint to reduced resource use and waste management costs through waste reduction measures.
96
5.6 Suggested Next Steps
This study is a strategic-level assessment of UK clothing and, as such, there are a number of
opportunities for improvement. Below is a list of suggestions.
This report describes the key data sources used and assumptions made in the modelling of the
waste footprint. However, it is not fully transparent with respect to the resources used at each
life cycle stage which were used for the costs calculation (i.e. the resources used per unit of
consumption). This is due to a licensing issue concerning the database used for the
proprietary life cycle (resource use) data used in the study. There is a general lack of
availability of credible data within the public domain on the resource use and impacts of
clothing supply chains and this is a difficult issue to overcome due to commercial sensitivities.
In this study, these main production losses for cotton and polyester (as the main fibre types)
have been benchmarked and discussed with industry representatives. It may be advisable to
consult further to ensure interested stakeholders in the SCAP are comfortable with the baseline
assumptions made.
It is also noted that there is potential for improving the data quality of the study through the
collection of primary data from a representative number of manufacturers. In particular, a
more detailed assessment of the difference between the production of fibre, yarn, fabric and
garments in different geographical regions, or levels of technology, would improve the
representativeness of data used for production. This may be relevant to the natural fibres,
such as cotton and wool, where agricultural inputs and outputs could vary significantly between
countries, and synthetic fibre production technologies which may vary between developed and
BRIC and comparatively undeveloped countries.
There is an evidence gap with respect to product lifetimes for garments – for how long people
keep and actively use clothing. Perhaps, not unsurprisingly, the study identifies that reducing
clothing consumption (e.g. from design for durability/lifetime optimisation) is the most effective
strategy from both a reducing supply chain waste and an end of life waste perspective. Design
changes (e.g. coating, different weave, different fibre) and also behavioural change (people
buy less clothing and retain it in use for longer, wash less, wash better resulting in less damage
in cleaning etc. (lifetime optimisation)) are potential ways of increasing the lifetime of clothing.
But it is not good from an environmental perspective if increased lifetimes aren’t actually
realised (for example, if there is no consumer interest or preparedness to pay for more durable
garments, or the consumer desires an aesthetic, performance or comfort a durable fabric
cannot provide). The lack of evidence on whether more durable clothing is actually used for
longer is a significant limitation and further research is suggested.
Without such data on product lifetimes, an interesting (and untested) life cycle waste/resource
efficiency conundrum exists at present – whether additional effort should be placed on
producing more durable garments in the production stage and ensuring they are used to their
full potential. Or whether a converse strategy is warranted for some aspects of the market. Is
there a ‘trade off’ where lower quality clothes should be produced because for a significant
proportion of the market, product lifetimes will always be short? Further research/data is
recommended on whether existing higher quality garments are kept and used/reused so they
are used for longer, and the potential for the market to shift in favour of more durable items.
If a durability/longer product lifetime strategy is favoured, then it is important from a total life
cycle impacts/costs perspective to ensure that durable clothing is also optimised to reduce the
resources used in cleaning clothing. It is suggested that further research/data is provided to
substantiate or challenge claims in the literature that synthetic fibres may offer superior
durability over natural fibres and that clothing containing synthetic fibre is kept in use for
longer. Evidence is also required as to whether synthetic fibres demand fewer resources in
their cleaning than natural fibres.
The costs assessment does not include the effect on sales and other economic implications. It
is argued that the financial cost of a garment would reflect its lifetime, so any shift in the
market to longer-lived garments would be matched by a proportional increase in the retail price
97
paid for the garment. Such research on price elasticity could be used better to inform the
scope for reducing clothing impacts through increasing product lifetime.
As a final point, of the most effective reduction measures for reducing the waste footprint in
each reduction scenario, most require behavioural change. A balance between what the
clothing industry can provide in terms of sustainable clothing and what consumers actually are
prepared to buy, has to be struck. Better understanding of the market, and its potential for
change, is required to increase the robustness of the waste and cost reduction estimates
calculated in the study.
6.0 References
ADEME (2006), An Environmental Product Declaration of Jeans http://www.ademe.fr/internet/eco-
jean/EPD_en_jeans_v2.pdf
BSI (2008). PAS 2050:2008 - Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas
emissions of goods and services http://www.bsigroup.com/Standards-and-Publications/How-we-can-
help-you/Professional-Standards-Service/PAS-2050
Biointelligence service (2009, Unpublished) EC-funded IMPRO project on “Environmental improvement
potential of textiles” (final report 2009, unpublished)
Biswal et al. (2010) entitled, ‘Global warming contributions from wheat, sheep meat and wool production
in Victoria, Australia – a life cycle assessment’ (available from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652610001769
Business for Social Responsibility (2009), Apparel industry life cycle carbon mapping.
http://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_Apparel_Supply_Chain_Carbon_Report.pdf
Brook Lyndhurst (2010) Public Understanding of Product Lifetimes and Durability A DRAFT
CONFIDENTIAL report for Defra. Draft 1.0. May 2010. http://randd.defra.gov.uk
Carbon Trust (2011), International carbon flows: clothing.
http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/publications/pages/publicationdetail.aspx?id=CTC793
Carbon Trust (2006) The carbon emissions generated in all that we consume, London: Carbon Trust.
http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/Pages/Default.aspx
Climate Change Committee (2008) Building a low carbon economy: The UK’s contribution to tackling
climate change http://www.theccc.org.uk/pdf/7980-TSO%20Book%20Chap%205.pdf
Dahllhof (2003), Life Cycle Assessment Applied in the Textile Sector: the Usefulness, Limitations and
Methodological Problems – A Literature Review.
https://www.chalmers.se/ee/SV/forskning/forskargrupper/miljosystemanalys/publikationer/esa-
rapportserie-1979/esa2005/downloadFile/attachedFile_4_f0/ESA20039.pdff
Danish Ministry for the Environment (2007) EDIPTEX - LCA of Textiles.
http://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2007/978-87-7052-515-2/pdf/978-87-7052-516-9.pdf
DECC (2011) 2009 Final Figures.
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/climate_stats/gg_emissions/uk_emissions/2009_final/
2009_final.aspx
Defra-ERM (2007) Mapping of evidence of sustainable development impacts that occur in life cycles of
clothing”, available at
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/products/roadmaps/clothing/evidence.htm
98
Defra (2009), Reducing the environmental impacts of clothes cleaning.
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=EV0419_8628_FRP.pdf
Defra (2010) Sustainable Clothing Action Plan (update Feb 2010)
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/products/roadmaps/clothing/index.htm
Defra (2011) Sustainable Clothing Roadmap: Progress Report 2011.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2011/06/02/pb13461-clothing-roadmap/
Defra (2011) (2011)
ERM (2011) Longer Product Lifetimes Research. ERM report http://randd.defra.gov.uk
Defra (2011) Waste Data Overview. June 2011. http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/files/20110617-
waste-data-overview.pdf
Ecoinvent, 2010. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Assessment Ecoinvent database. http://www.ecoinvent.org
ENEA (2003) LCA of cotton polyester fabric in B05 company. http://www.enea.it/it
Environment Agency (2008) Life cycle assessment of disposable and reusable nappies in the UK.
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk
Environment Agency (2011) Life Cycle Assessment of Supermarket Carrier Bags. Report: SC030148.
http://www.pdfio.com/k-357005.html
ERM (2006) Carbon Balances and Energy Impacts of the Management of UK Waste Streams - WR0602
Annex B (Textiles, Min quality - recycled as filler and max quality - recycled as cloth)
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&Pro
jectID=14644
ERM (2011) Sustainable Clothing Procurement – Uniforms in the NHS. http://randd.defra.gov.uk
WRAP (2011)Benefits of reuse research http://www.wrap.org.uk/reuse/
ERM (Unpublished). MTP Washing Machine calculator.
Farrant, L (2008) Environmental Benefits from reusing clothes
http://www.uffnorge.org/files/Laura%20Farrant-
environmental%20benefits%20from%20reusing%20clothes.pdf
FAO (2009) Annex I: Economics of silkworm rearing on one acre mulberry cultivation for seasons
2005-6; 2006-7; 2007-8 (all values in IN Rs).
http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/pplpi/docarc/rep-0903_IndiaSericulture.pdf
FAO (2009) Technical Conversion Factors for Agricultural Commodities - agricultural co-products
guidance http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/documents/methodology/tcf.pdf
Fabric Care Research Associated (1988) Laundry Handbook http://www.scribd.com/doc/7843116/Fabric-
Care-Research-Association-Laundry-Booklet
Hemp sys (2006). LCA of Hemp textile yarn.
www.rennes.inra.fr/umrsas/content/download/.../HEMPLCA_310506.pdf
ISO (2006). ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management -- Life cycle assessment -- Requirements and
guidelines. http://www.iso.org
Kazakevičiūtė at al (2004) Reducing Pollution in Wet Processing of Cotton/Polyester Fabrics,
Environmental research, engineering and management, 28 (2)
99
Kviseth K, Tobiasson T. S (2011) Pulling Wool over our Eyes: The Dirty Business of LCAs KEA
Conference Towards sustainability in Textiles and Fashion industry. Copenhagen 26th – 27th of April
2011. www.nicefashion.org
Manich et al. (2005) Application of the Thermal Analysis to the Determination of the Fine Structure of
Textile Fibre. http://centrum.tul.cz/centrum/itsapt/Summer2005/files/manich.pdf
Market Transformation Program (2006) BNW05: Assumptions underlying the energy projections for
domestic washing machines
Marks & Spencer plc (2002), Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment of Two Marks & Spencer plc Apparel
Products, February 2002.
http://aestivaltd.web.officelive.com/Documents/MandS%20LCA%20Final%20Report.pdf
Oakdene Hollins (2009) DEFRA Minimising Reuse and Recycling of UK Clothing and Textiles.
http://www.oakdenehollins.co.uk/pdf/defra_173_summary_issue_4.pdf
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=16096
Outdoor clothing consortium. www.ecoindexbeta.org/
ONS (2010) Office for National Statistics. Population trends 2010. http://www.ons.gov.uk
Tesco (Unpublished) Carbon Footprint of Jeans (2010). Conducted for Tesco by ERM
Shen and Patel (2010) LCA of Man-made cellulose fibres. http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/chem/2011-
0401-200353/LB_88_2010_paper_1.pdf
WRAP (Unpublished) Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Study of Replacement and
Refurbishment options for domestic washing machines. Study conducted by ERM
http://www.wrap.org.uk
University of Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing (2006), Well dressed.
http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/sustainability/projects/mass/uk_textiles.pdf
URS (2011, Unpublished) Review of Data on Embodied Water in Clothing and Opportunities for Savings.
Feedback Summary Report, Report for WRAP. June 2011
WRAP (2011) Benefits of reuse research. http://www.wrap.org.uk/reuse/
WRAP (Unpublished) The Clothes We Buy and Waste’ Preliminary draft. http://www.wrap.org.uk
WRAP (2009) Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Study of Replacement and Refurbishment
options for domestic washing machines.
http://www.wrap.org.uk/recycling_industry/publications/washing_machines.html
WRAP (2010) Meeting the UK climate change challenge: The contribution of resource efficiency.
http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/AC_Exec_Summary_WEB_2.b02822b5.8035.pdf
WRATE (2010). Wrate v2.0.1.4. Environment Agency. www.environment-agency.gov.uk