Make The Label Count

It is Plastic Free July - a global movement that raises awareness about plastic pollution. While Plastic Free July's focus is on single use plastic, it is also important to understand that there are more plastics in our clothes than ever before. ‘Plastic’ textiles, i.e. fossil fuel-based synthetic fibres, are used in everything from ultra-fast fashion garments to designer clothing and this comes at a large environmental cost and health risk. Dr Tamzin Rollason from the RMIT University explains how synthetic clothing leads to microplastic pollution, plastic waste ending in landfill and the accumulation of 'forever chemicals'. #plasticfreejuly 

Nearly 900 signatories, representing hundreds of thousands of farmers, have voiced concerns that the EU’s Green Claims Directive favours major brands like H&M and Nike, sidelining natural fibre producers. This imbalance in the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) tool highlights the need for fair representation and accurate assessment of environmental impacts. San Francisco-based Cascale (formerly the Sustainable Apparel Coalition) leads the Technical Secretariat for the PEF Category Rules for Apparel and Footwear, which is made of 26 members. The Secretariat recently increased costs to participate in voting for the PEFCR, which has further limited the opportunity for all voices impacted by the matter to be heard. The letter points out that PEF continues to penalise and misrepresent natural fibres in respect to their synthetic and man-made counterparts – to the detriment of farmers and the environment. Read more: https://ow.ly/vf9u50SmWeu

Last week, in an unprecedented move, hundreds of thousands of farmers from across the world came together to voice their concerns about the Council of the EU’s stance on the Green Claims Directive and the proposed use of the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) methodology. A heartfelt letter sent to Council policymakers highlighted how the PEF methodology unfairly favours synthetic, fossil fuel-derived materials over natural fibres, misrepresenting natural fibres as harmful to the environment and therefore posing a significant risk of injustice to farmers whose lives depend on the production of these natural fibres. The letter also pointed to the process for developing the rules for how PEF will apply to apparel and footwear products, highlighting that it is prohibitively expensive and inaccessible for farmers. This leaves decision-making in the hands of large, well-funded fashion corporations, with none of the 26 voting members representing farmers. If the EU endorses the PEF methodology as it currently is, it will promote fast fashion at the expense of sustainable farming. This contradicts the EU's commitment to "put fast fashion out of fashion" and to support farmers. Read the letter here: https://ow.ly/B8ea50SmWe3

The EU's proposed Green Claims Directive, aiming to curb greenwashing, has sparked concern among more than 500,000 farmers worldwide who argue that it unfairly favours synthetic fibres. Vogue Business recently published an article highlighting these concerns, and the need to find a balanced methodology for assessing environmental impact that includes the perspectives of all stakeholders to ensure true sustainability. Even among critics, it is broadly agreed that PEF is the best methodology that currently exists — but there is considerable room for improvement. As stated by Crispin Argento, MTLC Coalition member and global managing director of cotton transparency startup Sourcery, “It’s not about taking down the PEF. It’s actually about taking ownership of reporting.” Read the article here: https://ow.ly/fN1i50SmWas?

Every garment embodies a complex journey of emissions, from raw materials to the storefront. Yet, as fashion giants pledge emission reductions, a closer look reveals murky carbon-accounting practices and inconsistent disclosures. While some companies show progress, many remain entangled in opacity, hindering meaningful evaluation and impeding efforts to tackle the industry's environmental impact. This is why Make the Label Count strives to illuminate these complexities, and ensure that sustainability claims for textiles in the EU are fair and credible. https://lnkd.in/g4_rggky

As pointed out by Tanja Gotthardsen of Denmark, it seems the European Council is endorsing an environmental assessment tool, PEF, which we've repeatedly cautioned against in its existing form. This move contradicts the EU's goals to combat fast fashion and address greenwashing. Join us in urging the Council to reconsider nominating the PEF in its current form to be used to substantiate green claims in the EU.

Make the Label Count has been closely following the EU Green Claims Directive with the aim of ensuring PEF is not named as the method to substantiate environmental claims on fashion products in the EU until it is improved. The Green Claims proposal from the Commission, as well as the EU Parliament, did not propose PEF as the tool for the substantiation of claims, citing its shortcomings for certain product categories - especially fashion and textiles.    Now the Council of the EU is considering the proposal, and it appears they’re pushing the PEFCRs to be used where they’ve been adopted for product categories. For apparel and footwear, this will mean adoption of a tool that is incomplete, inaccurate and that favours synthetic materials over natural ones. A tool that risks misleading consumers and supporting fast fashion.    The Council is expected to adopt its position on the Green Claims Directive by 17 June 2024.   Acting now is crucial, and we encourage you to contact Member State ministers to express concern with this development. 

This recent article in Fashion Network highlights how the EU's PEF favours fast fashion when measuring apparel and footwear. The article reviews a French study by Défi and the Institut français du textile et de l'habillement (IFTH) which compared the PEF method with the French Ecobalyse and the eco-design score (EDS) methods. It found significant discrepancies: while Ecobalyse and EDS reflected fast and ultra-fast fashion in its scoring, the PEF method yielded results that favoured fast-fashion products. This outcome suggests that the PEF method is misleading and overly penalizes natural fibres like cotton and wool. The study suggests that the PEF method must include social impacts and microplastics pollution to provide a comprehensive sustainability assessment. Awareness and adaptation at both national and European levels are key to avoiding misleading “green” labels on fast-fashion products. Now is the time to push for methods that truly lower environmental impacts and support genuine sustainability efforts in the fashion industry. #PEFCR #SustainableTextiles #FairAssessment #EnvironmentalImpact #EU #TextileStrategy

The public consultation on the Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) for apparel and footwear closed on 28 April 2024.   More submissions were received in this consultation round than the previous. However, without the opportunity to see the PEFCR in action, there is still uncertainty around how it will score different products and how PEF's bias against natural fibres will play out.   The PEF Technical Secretariat will now review all comments and assess how concerns raised can be addressed. #PEFCR #SustainableTextiles #FairAssessment #EnvironmentalImpact #EU #TextileStrategy