No need to spin any facts or figures: we guarantee our upcycled tee is better than all other “sustainable” blank t-shirt options – because it only uses materials that exist already. Nothing new here. 

We are here to educate and empower you to make the best decisions. These are complicated times; there’s a lot of information - supply chains are vast, reaching across the world, and comparing life cycles of the things we make is almost impossible. We worked with Dr. Cindy Lin (data scientist and founder of Hey Social Good) to dig deep. We want to share our knowledge with you. 

Greenwashing is standard, but we don’t need to spin what we do.

THE DATA SHOWS OUR COMEBACK TEE IS THE BEST OPTION FOR THE PLANET 

The diagrams below show the calculated water used, energy used and carbon emissions for processing and making a single t-shirt. These calculations were based on source reference data and computed by the average weight of the upcycled t-shirt that we worked with. The average weight of a t-shirt (from 700 measured waste tees) is 0.55 lb per t-shirt. On average a t-shirt weighs between 0.4 to 0.6 lbs.

The Comeback Tee saves carbon, saves water, saves energy, saves microplastics and saves trash.

PURPOSE OF THIS PROJECT

Hey Social Good (HSG) conducted an in depth research on the impact footprint of different textile materials for REWILDER. HSG was tasked to identify and capture data for REWILDER to evaluate the different impacts of different textiles used to make a t-shirt. HSG and REWILDER is working to use science backed data to help businesses and consumers make better decisions that reduce harm and make positive impacts.

DATA AND TEXTILE BACKGROUND RESEARCH

HSG assessed and determined the impact footprint of the multiple types of textiles used for making t-shirts. HSG examined the impact of different textile fibers with regards to water footprint, carbon emissions, energy use, pesticide application, and more. 

We identified the available data on polyester, organic and non-organic natural textiles used for making apparel. The team conducted an in-depth literature review on carbon emissions, water use, and waste generation of textiles. Data used to illustrate the environmental impact of textiles were referenced directly from research studies. We reviewed studies conducted by academic research institutions, global research organizations, and reports commissioned by multinational companies.

REGIONAL SPECIFICITY

The impact of different textile fibers with regards to water footprint, carbon emissions, energy use, pesticide application, and waste generation demonstrated the regional specificity of life cycle assessments. Statistics associated with raw textiles, processing, and production are dependent on the specific fiber, region, season, farming techniques, machinery, etc. Our review and research highlighted the regional geographical differences when growing, extracting, and producing textiles. 

DETERMINING DATA LEGITIMACY

Our process for reviewing statistics is directly focused on the primary source material. We prioritize original research and reference sources. To determine if a set of statistics are legitimate, we directly examine the research data, evaluate the methods and analyses used in the study, and compare the conclusions or claims against other primary source materials. Primary source materials include academic research studies and reports, government and research institute’s studies and reports, and white papers who provide their source data, methods, results, and their reference materials. We used the scientific methodology and approach when we reviewed the data. This entails following the primary research authors' study methodology, and results. We evaluated the conclusions and applicability of the results to other fields.

TEXTILE DATA

In researching the impacts of different fibers for REWILDER, it became apparent that the world of materials’ data is complex and often not easily comparable. Although we often find many marketing materials or brands showing statistics and data about the impact of a fiber, it is hard to truly understand those numbers in isolation.

HSG’s research on the impact of different textile fibers with regards to water footprint, carbon emissions, energy use, pesticide application, and more, showed that the life cycle assessments are highly specific and only applicable for the specific fiber, region, period, etc. “LCAs offer a useful glimpse of the different impact hotspots for a product or process, but using them for comparison purposes can be contentious. As the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change describes, LCAs produce “specific data that cannot be used easily for comparison,” namely because of differences in methodologies, modeling software, time periods of data selection, and other factors.”

In understanding the impact of making a t-shirt and the supply chain processes that extract, produce, process, and wash the material, it is important to ask many more questions. The simple “footprint” of a process is not sufficient to comprehensively understand the complete picture of impact. Data on usage and consumption should be expanded to include the following key questions:

• Where is the water coming from to irrigate the crop? Is it rainfall, groundwater, treated water, etc.?

• What region is the data collected from? Rainfall and soil conditions vary in different parts of the world. (this differs from a rainfall rich vs rainfall poor region)

• Does the type of specific fiber species affect water use, growth, etc.?

• Is the extraction or growth of a fiber material taking away from other uses?

• Are there other impact metrics to consider besides just water, energy, and carbon footprint? For example, is the region a nutrient stressed area? Does this have an impact on the manufacturing of the fiber?

• Does the region have clear processes in place to limit pollution discharge?

• What assumptions were made during the LCA calculations?

• What potential biases could have been introduced during the analyses?

DATA COMPLEXITY

Many different estimates suggest that producing a single cotton t-shirt can require anywhere from 500 to 2,700 liters of water, depending on the production processes and other factors involved. In trying to understand the singular impact from making a t-shirt, we need to consider dozens to hundreds of variables. For example, if we want to understand how water is used in textile production, we need to consider the fiber type used and the amount of water used to make that type of fiber (cotton, polyester, wool, etc.).

Each fiber type requires different water usage, and is highly dependent on where the raw fiber crop is grown as each area has different rainfall, soil type, farming practices, etc. The amount of water used to produce a textile varies depending on whether the crop is a high water-intensive crop (cotton) or less water-intensive fiber (polyester, hemp). The production process also introduces many variables, such as the specific production process used for spinning, weaving, dyeing, and finishing; each equipment type and technique will require different amounts of water.

Another variability is the geographical location where water availability may differ in different regions of the world; arid regions will require more water compared with rainfall-heavy regions. Each clothing type has different weight, color, and finishing requirements, and all of these combinations also add to the variability of the estimates.

UPCYCLING IS CIRCULARITY

We did an extensive literature review of the water, energy, and carbon impacts for each type of textile that would be used to make a t-shirt. The evaluation of the carbon emissions, water resources, and energy needed to produce a shirt from crop to raw materials to design, manufacturing, and final end product showed that primary resources required are significant. Although there are regional and global differences in terms of exact quantities and resource footprint, every piece of clothing that is made from a raw material requires resources.

The conventional approach of manufacturing clothing is linear and follows the cradle to grave model where new virgin materials are produced, materials are spun, dyed, mechanized, changed, clothing is sold at a retail shop, clothing is worn, and the end of life means the clothing goes to a landfill.

The upcycling model changes the linear model and converts this to a circular model, where the clothing’s end of life is now used as a resource. In this upcycling circular model, clothing waste is avoided, and instead, the materials are now used to make new clothing.

This approach means that raw, virgin materials are not used, saving an enormous amount of water, energy, carbon emissions, and chemicals used. With a circular model, we convert waste into a valuable commodity and at the same time significantly reduce the resources that would have been used to create, change, and modify raw materials into clothing. Upcycling saves water, energy, human capital, and contributes directly to reducing carbon emissions.

REFERENCES

1. https://odr.chalmers.se/bitstream/20.500.12380/146872/1/146872.pdf

2. Wagenaar, D. de, 2019. “ReMade in Amsterdam,” Wageningen University & Research.

3. Hasanbeigi, A., 2010. “Energy-Efficiency Improvement Opportunities for the Textile Industry.”

4. Cherrett, N., Barrett, J., Clement, A., Chadwick, M., and Chadwick, M.J. 2005. Ecological footprint and water analysis of cotton, hemp, polyester. Stockholm Environment Institute. Report prepared and reviewed by BioRegional Development Group and World Wide Fund for Nature -- Cymru. Ecological Footprint and Water Analysis of Cotton, Hemp and Polyester (sei.org)

5. http://www.autexrj.com/cms/zalaczone_pliki/2b.pdf

6. Qian W, Ji X, Xu P, Wang L. Carbon footprint and water footprint assessment of virgin and recycled polyester textiles. Textile Research Journal. 2021;91(21-22):2468-2475. doi:10.1177/00405175211006213

7. Athalye, A., 2012. Carbon footprint in textile processing. Carbon-footprint-in-textile-processing.pdf (researchgate.net)

8. Wagenaar, D. de, 2019, “ReMade in Amsterdam,” Wageningen University & Research.

9. Allwood, J. M., Laursen, S. E., Russell, S. N., de Rodríguez, C. M., and Bocken, N. M. P., 2008, “An Approach to Scenario Analysis of the Sustainability of an Industrial Sector Applied to Clothing and Textiles in the UK,” Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(12), pp. 1234–1246.

10. Navarro, A.M., 2021. An analysis on the environmental impact of the fashion industry. Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/138971/navarro-amnavarr-bsc-meche-2021-thesis.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

11. Napper, I. E., and Thompson, R. C., 2016, “Release of Synthetic Microplastic Plastic Fibers from Domestic Washing Machines: Effects of Fabric Type and Washing Conditions,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, 112(1), pp. 39–45

12. Johannesson, C., 2016. Emerging Textile Production Technologies. Dept of Energy and Environment. Chalmers University of Technology. Sweden 241201.pdf (chalmers.se)

13. Organic water-saving claims false, declares cotton myth-busting report.

14. International Cotton Advisory Committee. (2021, June). ICAC cotton data book 2021. Figure 30: Blue water (liters) footprint per kg lint produced and Figure 31: Green water (‘000 liters) footprint per kg lint produced.

15. Cotton: A Case Study in Misinformation. 2021. A report on building critical data consumption in fashion. Transformers Foundation. CottonPaper_120122_TransformersFoundation_.pdf (squarespace.com)

16. International Cotton Advisory Committee. (2021, June). ICAC cotton data book 2021. Figure 34: Pesticide use in agriculture: Active ingredient (kg/ha).

17. Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action. (2021, April 23). Identifying low carbon sources of cotton and polyester fibers. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/UCC_Cotton_Pet_report.pd

18. Life Cycle Assessment: Environmental profile of cotton and polyester-cotton fabrics. 1999. AUTEX Research Journal. Vol 1(1). cotton2264.PDF (autexrj.com)

19. Cherrett, N., Barrett, J., Clement, A., Chadwick, M., and Chadwick, M.J. 2005. Ecological footprint and water analysis of cotton, hemp, polyester. Stockholm Environment Institute. Report prepared and reviewed by BioRegional Development Group and World Wide Fund for Nature -- Cymru. Ecological Footprint and Water Analysis of Cotton, Hemp and Polyester (sei.org)

20. Sandin, G., and Peters, G., 2018, “Environmental Impact of Textile Reuse and Recycling – A Review,” Journal of Cleaner Production.