“In the previous articles in this series, it has already been mentioned several times that bringing less new clothing to market is one of the most impactful actions to achieve a sustainable fashion system. Doing more with less is central to the circular economy. This can be done by using clothing that is already in circulation as intensively as possible. After all, we then avoid spending unnecessary resources on the production of new clothing and the processing of discarded clothing. So don’t be too easily seduced by messages from companies encouraging more consumption under the slogan of ‘sustainable production’.”

“The benefit of more intensive use may become clearer by thinking about the ‘impact per use’: the more often a garment is worn, the smaller the relative impact of production, transport and waste disposal become in the total life cycle of the garment. For example, the total impact of production and waste disposal of 15 T-shirts worn twice each is much greater than the impact of one T-shirt worn 30 times. More intensive use can be achieved on the one hand by a shift towards ‘slow fashion’, where consumers consciously choose quality and timeless clothing with the intention of wearing it for a long time. On the other hand, there is still room for the necessary variation in outfits through greater use of rental clothing or second-hand channels, where different users together ensure that a garment is actively worn.”

“However, clothing will always age through use and thus be discarded, so new clothing will also always be needed. Here, it is important to think about the use and discard phase already during the design phase, as this will greatly determine the extent to which repair and recycling are possible. For instance, garment-to-garment recycling (a cycle where the materials in discarded garments serve as input for new garments) is currently practically impossible due to the complex mix of materials and chemicals used. Europe wants to address this in the coming years by using new regulations to break down the current barriers to garment-to-garment recycling and thus start closing the cycle.”

“Biodiversity loss is closely linked to other ‘global changes’. Each of these global changes has negative impacts on biodiversity, either directly (think deforestation and overexploitation) or indirectly (through climate change, pollution, the encroachment of invasive species, etc.). Thus, when we address these global changes, we also ensure that biodiversity loss is reduced. So many of the measures the fashion industry can take to reduce its climate footprint, for instance through more sustainable use of materials, are also important for reducing pressure on diversity. In addition, work can be done to minimise harmful techniques and processes throughout the chain, from raw material (e.g. pesticides, water use) to end product (e.g. during dyeing and bleaching, transport) and afterwards (e.g. washing, recycling).

The biggest challenge, however, is ever-increasing clothing consumption. If the benefits of better production techniques, recycling, etc. are outweighed by simply producing more and more clothing, then obviously there is no progress. The danger here too (just as was noted in the article on climate change) is ‘greenwashing’ by (parts of) the fashion industry: taking marginal green steps to ease the conscience of consumers and thus sell more and more. The most ‘green’ clothing is still the one that should not be produced.”

“Keeping climate warming within limits, below +2°C and if possible below +1.5°C, is very important because scientists from all kinds of fields estimate that the negative consequences for people and nature become very large above these limits. Every sector will have to make a solid effort, including the fashion industry. This is not only necessary, it is also useful in the longer term for the sector itself, e.g. because energy costs can be reduced.”

“There is work to be done. The clothing sector is very wasteful: hardly any discarded clothing is recycled (< 1 per cent), and unsold products are still too often simply destroyed by incineration. Moreover, we buy more and more clothes, in the US, for example, 3x more than in the 1960s. Fast fashion is a minor disaster for the environment. Although it does not sound very appealing, the best ‘climate measure’ is simple enough to buy less new clothes. Other options for greening: consciously look at the fabrics used, with animal products like wool and silk grosso modo having a higher climate impact than plant-based ones like flax, hemp and cotton. Further: recycle and reuse more. Finally: putting clothes in dryers or ironing less or not at all, as both are energy-consuming activities. Clear indications on clothing about the climate and/or environmental footprint may be useful to raise awareness, although care must be taken to avoid greenwashing (selling something as environmentally friendly when it is not) encouraging consumers to buy ‘more’ anyway.”