• Corporate Fiber and Materials Benchmark (CFMB) (formerly the Preferred Fiber and Materials Benchmark (PFMB)), launched by the Textile Exchange:

Launched in 2015, it is a leading industry-led, voluntary self-assessment tool which enables companies to systematically measure, manage, and integrate a preferred fiber and materials strategy into four key areas of mainstream business operations: corporate strategy, supply chain, consumption, and consumer engagement [16] (see Figure 7 for flowchart of this framework laid out). It also provides feedback on progress and performance in comparison to peers and the overall industry. As of 2018, 111 companies have partaken in the program (an increase of 106% since 2015).

As can be seen from the three examples above, there is a wide selection of benchmarks and tools for measuring environmental impact available to the fashion industry; however, there are some limitations to consider. For one, the wide selection can also be problematic as each of the different initiatives above accounts for slightly different factors or weighs them slightly differently; therefore the result obtained from one tool might not be consistent with that obtained from another. For example, based on the Higg Materials Sustainability Index, natural fibers like

Figure 7.

11

Figure 6.

Sustainability Initiatives in the Fashion Industry DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87062

Source: Textile exchange, [16].

Flowchart showing the framework of the textile exchange's corporate fiber and materials benchmark (CFMB).

The MADE-BY environmental benchmark fiber classification chart. Source: Common objective [15].


#### Figure 6.

environmental management systems, energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, water use, wastewater, emissions to air (if applicable),

2. Higg Facility Social and Labor Module (FSLM): measures the social impact of individual factories based on assessing factors such as recruitment and hiring, working hours, wages and benefits, employee treatment, employee involvement, health and safety, termination, management systems, facility workforce standards and those of value chain partners, external engagement on social and labor issues with other facilities or organizations, and community engagement

1. Higg Brand and Retail Module (BRM): enables brands and retailers of all sizes to measure the environmental and social and labor impacts of their operations across a product's life cycle (from materials sourcing through its end of use). The environmental impacts measured include greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, energy use, water use, water pollution, deforestation, hazardous chemicals, and animal welfare. The social and labor impacts measured include child labor, discrimination, forced labor, sexual harassment and gender-based violence in the workplace, non-compliance with minimum wage laws, bribery and corruption, working time, occupational health and safety, and respon-

• MADE-BY Environmental Benchmark for Fibers, developed by MADE-BY in

• Corporate Fiber and Materials Benchmark (CFMB) (formerly the Preferred Fiber and Materials Benchmark (PFMB)), launched by the Textile Exchange:

Launched in 2015, it is a leading industry-led, voluntary self-assessment tool which enables companies to systematically measure, manage, and integrate a preferred fiber and materials strategy into four key areas of mainstream business operations: corporate strategy, supply chain, consumption, and consumer engagement [16] (see Figure 7 for flowchart of this framework laid out). It also provides feedback on progress and performance in comparison to peers and the overall industry. As of 2018, 111 companies have partaken in the

As can be seen from the three examples above, there is a wide selection of benchmarks and tools for measuring environmental impact available to the fashion industry; however, there are some limitations to consider. For one, the wide selection can also be problematic as each of the different initiatives above accounts for slightly different factors or weighs them slightly differently; therefore the result obtained from one tool might not be consistent with that obtained from another. For example, based on the Higg Materials Sustainability Index, natural fibers like

It ranks 28th in the most commonly used fibers in the garment industry into 5 classes (Class A–E), based on the following measures: greenhouse gas emissions, human toxicity, eco-toxicity, energy, water, and land [15] (see

cooperation with Brown and Wilmanns Environmental, LLC:

program (an increase of 106% since 2015).

waste management, and chemical use and management

Fashion Industry - An Itinerary Between Feelings and Technology

◦ Brand and retail tools:

sible sourcing.

Figure 6).

10

The MADE-BY environmental benchmark fiber classification chart. Source: Common objective [15].

#### Figure 7.

Flowchart showing the framework of the textile exchange's corporate fiber and materials benchmark (CFMB). Source: Textile exchange, [16].

silk, cotton, and wool are assigned higher environmental impact scores (i.e., more damaging to environment) of 128, 98, and 82, respectively, while fossil-fuel-derived fibers like nylon, acrylic, and polyester have lower impact scores at 60, 52, and 44 [7]. This is because the Higg Index puts greater emphasis on fiber production, which is indeed more taxing on the environmental for natural fibers such as silk, cotton, and wool, as their procurement imposes a greater strain on natural resources (such as water, land, or animal welfare). Yet, in contrast, according to the MADE-BY Environmental Benchmark (Figure 6), fossil-fuel-based virgin nylon fibers and natural wool fibers are both ranked under the same Class E (the "least sustainable" category). Hence the availability of multiple benchmarks and tools could prove to be more incumbering than helpful when it comes to definitively measuring environmental impact.

process) more electricity than wet washing methods (which is the predominant laundering method for cotton- or synthetic-based garments). However, their research also shows that on average, the water temperature of the wash setting for cotton-based garments is about 17°C higher than that for wool-based garments. With polyester and other nonbiodegradable polymer fibers (e.g., acrylic and nylon), there is the developing concern regarding the shedding of fibers

(microplastic) during the washing process which, being unable to be completely filtered out by standard waste water treatment plants, end up infiltrating and

is a factor which deserves equal attention in impact measures.

5. Sustainability initiatives in the fashion industry

front-end approach and (2) back-end approach.

what is possible to strive for in sustainable materials).

Another aspect which deserves more consideration by the benchmarks and tools is human ecology and not just environmental ecology. For example, there are manmade fibers derived from plants, such as polylactic acid (PLA) derived from corn, which are environmentally biodegradable, but not necessarily human biocompatible [18]. Therefore, the potential negative side effects or toxicity on human ecology

These limitations in the current benchmarks and tools are a clear reminder that measuring environmental impact of product or processes in the fashion industry is multifaceted and convoluted. Currently there is no prevailing, overriding benchmark or tool that provides a definite unanimous measure of environmental impact, so it is up to companies to adopt a holistic approach when developing a strategy

Having reviewed several sustainability campaigns and environmental impact measure benchmarks and tools relevant to the fashion industry today, this section will now proceed to provide insight into how companies and various players in the industry have responded, i.e., the kinds of strategic initiatives being taken toward sustainability. The sustainability initiatives will be categorized into two types: (1)

Within the context of this article, this refers to the integration of sustainable initiatives at the beginning stages (front-end) of the textile product life cycle, such as in the raw material sourcing and design and development processes. So, for example, a front-end sustainable initiative could be the decision to use "low environmental impact\*" textile fibers as the raw materials for the textile goods being produced. A front-end sustainable initiative could also be manifested in the design and development process, for example, by utilizing digital tools to minimize the need for physical prototype samples or by training designers to adopt an ecoconscious mindset into their creations. (\*Note that we are using the term "low environmental impact" textile fibers as opposed to "sustainable" or "eco-friendly" or "green" textile fibers because the latter terms can be misleading as there are no completely "sustainable/eco-friendly/green" fibers; all materials pose some impact. Furthermore, as discussed in the previous section, it is difficult to resolutely confirm the impact of a certain material, as there are many facets of environmental impact. Therefore "low environment impact" is a more accurate representation of

An industry example of a front-end approach to sustainability is the adoption of regenerated cellulosic fibers, such as Lyocell and Seacell, by various fashion companies particularly in lingerie and activewear [19]. With cotton, albeit a natural

accumulating in marine ecosystems.

Sustainability Initiatives in the Fashion Industry DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87062

toward sustainability.

5.1 Front-end approach

13

Another limitation of these benchmarks and tools is that they do not sufficiently weigh in, or even overlook, the impact of the in-use phase of the textile product life cycle. The in-use phase here refers to the period when the textile product is being used for what it was made for. So, for a garment, that would mean the period from when it is purchased by a customer until it is no longer used or disposed of, which mostly involves its wearing and laundering. The research of Laitala et al. reveals that energy and water consumption during the laundering process varies greatly depending on fiber content of the garments [17]. Firstly, (see Figure 8) the research presents data which indicates that wool- and silk-based garments are 3–6 times more likely to be dry-cleaned than cotton- or synthetic-based garments and furthermore that dry cleaning uses 3–6 times (depending on the type of dry-cleaning




#### Figure 8.

Data on laundry requirements based on fiber content. Source: Laitala et al. [17].

### Sustainability Initiatives in the Fashion Industry DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87062

silk, cotton, and wool are assigned higher environmental impact scores (i.e., more damaging to environment) of 128, 98, and 82, respectively, while fossil-fuel-derived fibers like nylon, acrylic, and polyester have lower impact scores at 60, 52, and 44 [7]. This is because the Higg Index puts greater emphasis on fiber production, which is indeed more taxing on the environmental for natural fibers such as silk, cotton, and wool, as their procurement imposes a greater strain on natural resources (such as water, land, or animal welfare). Yet, in contrast, according to the MADE-BY Environmental Benchmark (Figure 6), fossil-fuel-based virgin nylon fibers and natural wool fibers are both ranked under the same Class E (the "least sustainable" category). Hence the availability of multiple benchmarks and tools could prove to be more incumbering than helpful when it comes to definitively measuring envi-

Fashion Industry - An Itinerary Between Feelings and Technology

Another limitation of these benchmarks and tools is that they do not sufficiently weigh in, or even overlook, the impact of the in-use phase of the textile product life cycle. The in-use phase here refers to the period when the textile product is being used for what it was made for. So, for a garment, that would mean the period from when it is purchased by a customer until it is no longer used or disposed of, which mostly involves its wearing and laundering. The research of Laitala et al. reveals that energy and water consumption during the laundering process varies greatly depending on fiber content of the garments [17]. Firstly, (see Figure 8) the research presents data which indicates that wool- and silk-based garments are 3–6 times more likely to be dry-cleaned than cotton- or synthetic-based garments and furthermore that dry cleaning uses 3–6 times (depending on the type of dry-cleaning

ronmental impact.

Figure 8.

12

Data on laundry requirements based on fiber content. Source: Laitala et al. [17].

process) more electricity than wet washing methods (which is the predominant laundering method for cotton- or synthetic-based garments). However, their research also shows that on average, the water temperature of the wash setting for cotton-based garments is about 17°C higher than that for wool-based garments. With polyester and other nonbiodegradable polymer fibers (e.g., acrylic and nylon), there is the developing concern regarding the shedding of fibers (microplastic) during the washing process which, being unable to be completely filtered out by standard waste water treatment plants, end up infiltrating and accumulating in marine ecosystems.

Another aspect which deserves more consideration by the benchmarks and tools is human ecology and not just environmental ecology. For example, there are manmade fibers derived from plants, such as polylactic acid (PLA) derived from corn, which are environmentally biodegradable, but not necessarily human biocompatible [18]. Therefore, the potential negative side effects or toxicity on human ecology is a factor which deserves equal attention in impact measures.

These limitations in the current benchmarks and tools are a clear reminder that measuring environmental impact of product or processes in the fashion industry is multifaceted and convoluted. Currently there is no prevailing, overriding benchmark or tool that provides a definite unanimous measure of environmental impact, so it is up to companies to adopt a holistic approach when developing a strategy toward sustainability.
