Are cradle to gate impact assessments useful?

This graph documents some of the environmental impacts involved in producing materials from cradle to gate. Essentially, impacts involved in producing materials, but not the impact of how they are potentially disposed of down the track as garments, or of the longevity of short-lived nature of a material.

Often, this particular sustainability index is discredited, stating that only cradle to grave assessments are worth considering.

It is of course very beneficial to understand how materials harm our planet after they are no longer in use – this is a significant issue tied to the use of synthetic, shedding fibres.

However, cradle to grave assessments are very difficult to produce with many variables involved. For example, on a smaller scale, our organisation was recently asked how the carbon impact of cow skin as compared to polyurethane synthetic leather would change when longevity was factored in. This is difficult to answer.

How materials last – and especially in the way people really think of this question, as in, how do the products made from these materials last – depends on so many factors, including how they are maintained and cared for, and what they are made into. A high quality pair of vegan leather boots will likely outlast a pair of cheaply made cow skin leather boots, for example. It also depends on the quality of the material itself – what kind of synthetic leather? How was the cow skin treated?

All of this aside, we cannot simply ignore the environmental impact of clothing production.

Of course, we should be working towards a circular fashion system where everything can be repaired, recycled and remade, and if not, composted. We need bio-materials, recycled materials, innovation. We also need to only buy clothes we intend to use and care for over many years to come.

While and even after this more systemic change takes place, we also need to continue to choose materials and items with a lower production impact. It is illogical to consider how a garment may last and be discarded or recycled, but not how it is made, when talking about both the environment and ethics. And too often, this is the case in the sustainable fashion movement.

On the farms and in the factories where materials are produced, enormous amounts of injustice against humans and non-humans, as well as the planet can take place. To ignore these issues would be irresponsible.

Even in a circular economy in which all materials were able to be kept in the system, we would need to favour materials which are more sustainable and just to produce.

A more circular economy would mean far less virgin materials being produced, however, unless everything was completely recycled, which for the foreseeable future is not technically possible, we will still need to choose which virgin materials are best.

For example, organic cotton, conventional cotton, hemp, Tencel and wool are all biodegradable (provided they are dyed correctly), and can all be recycled. This means that technically, all of these materials fit into the ideals of a circular fashion system. The recycling of these materials greatly lowers their impact – as we know, take for example the impact of recycled as compared to virgin cotton – but this doesn’t neccesarily remove issues and impact tied up in their first production.

Even if such materials were recycled or biodegraded at their end of life, wool would still be a material produced from a slaughter industry, and it is still hugely land intensive and methane emitting. Conventional cotton from a farm using forced labour, and extensive amounts of water, would still be far from ideal even if it were used with circularity in mind.

There will always be significant ethical and environmental considerations to make when we choose materials in the fashion industry. Cradle to gate assessments are one important decision-making factor when it comes to these much needed questions. They certainly can and should be extended upon — allowing further nuance for different material production methods, and end-of-life considerations — but they should not be dismissed.

July 2022 update: Even if some cradle to gate assessments are useful, is the Higg Material Sustainability Index in particular of value?

While there are controversies surrounding it the Higg Index, it is currently the largest source of industry-provided data available. This is significant, and cannot be ignored.

One argument against the Index, is that the data ‘supporting’ synthetics is provided by plastic companies. This is true, but this is not unique to synthetic materials. Data about leather is provided by the leather industry, data about wool by the wool industry, and so on. Further, the Index does not ‘support’ one material over another, it simply collates and provides data. While further transparency around what data is used is always important, and all data sets can always be improved, this is important to understand.

Finally, some people argue the scope of the Index is not broad enough, as it only considers chemistry, abiotic resource depletion, climate impact, water scarcity and eutrophication. These factors are very important to consider, but biodiversity loss, land destruction and other impacts are too.

It’s always best to find numerous references and numbers to support any claim, which is why we use the Higg Index as one of many resources to draw upon in our work, far outnumbered by other sources.