LINKEDIN TOP DISCUSSIONS

The fashion industry has become obsessed with fiber origin. Brands trace their cotton to specific regions, promote regenerative farms, and publish detailed maps of supplier tiers. At the consumer… | Shivam Gusain | 162 commentsThe fashion industry has become obsessed with fiber origin. Brands trace their cotton to specific regions, promote regenerative farms, and publish detailed maps of supplier tiers. At the consumer level, we are now trained to look for labels that say organic, recycled, certified, or fair trade. It checks the right boxes. Just not the ones that matter most. Because while we spend time celebrating the field, we ignore the factory. While we trace the fiber, we forget the finish. And while we demand maps of supply chains, we ask almost nothing about what happens during wet processing, the stage where most of the chemical load enters the product. Dyes, bleaches, scours, softeners, coatings, resins, antimicrobials, wrinkle-free treatments, flame retardants, water repellents. The list is long, and the chemistry is complex. The average garment undergoes multiple rounds of chemical treatment before it reaches the shelf. And yet, most traceability efforts stop at the fiber. It is like buying a bottle of shampoo because it says “with argan oil” on the front but ignoring the dozens of other ingredients that make up ninety-nine percent of the formula. Yes, the argan oil is there. But so are sulfates, phthalates, parabens, silicones, and synthetic fragrances. You bought into the headline ingredient. You missed the rest of the chemistry. And the brand counted on that. In fashion, the same thing happens. The fiber gets traced. The certification gets stamped. The story gets told. But the deeper chemistry of wet processing stays in the shadows. No one tells you what auxiliary chemicals were used. No one tells you how many banned disperse dyes are still present. No one tells you whether the factory also processes other goods with hazardous chemistry on the same lines. The fiber might be recycled. It might be organic. It might be virgin. None of that guarantees safety. Because what truly dictates the toxicity of a product is not the headline fiber. It is the chemical history written into the layers of treatment, finishing, and handling. Carcinogenic dyes and endocrine-disrupting chemicals have been banned for years, yet they continue to appear in finished garments. PFAS, heavy metals, bisphenols, and formaldehyde are still found in clothes sold to consumers, even in highly regulated markets. Banned chemicals are routinely discovered in off-the-shelf products, long after they should have been eliminated from supply chains. As a consumer, I would be far more worried about wearing garments with trace residues of carcinogens than I would about whether the cotton is organic or not. Because no matter how clean your fiber is, if it is treated in a toxic facility, the product you end up with is exactly that. Toxic. | 162 comments on LinkedIn

#polyesterverbot #nachhaltigemode #mikroplastik #fastfashionkrise… | Claus Bretschneider | 42 comments Wir müssen Polyester verbieten. Ernsthaft. Mein erster Kontakt mit Polyesterfasern liegt über 40 Jahre zurück. In den frühen 1980er-Jahren stellte unser Familienbetrieb Skibekleidung her, und diese synthetischen Fasern waren ein Gamechanger: warm, leicht, robust, preiswert. Über die Schattenseiten sprach damals niemand. Wir wussten nicht, dass Polyester zur Basis eines Fast-Fashion-Systems werden würde, das auf Massenüberproduktion setzt. Wir wussten nicht, dass Mikroplastik zu einer der größten Gesundheitsgefahren unserer Zeit werden würde. Wir wussten nicht, dass wir damit die Grundlage für riesige Mengen an Textilmüll, minderwertige Secondhand-Ware und eine Industrie mit Plastik-Abhängigkeit schufen. Und heute? 🚨 60 % aller Textilfasern sind Polyester 🚨 Industrielle Recyclingsysteme für Polyester existieren kaum 🚨 Mikroplastik findet sich im Meer, im Boden, im Essen – und in unserem Blut 🚨 Kreislaufwirtschaft? Ohne radikales Umdenken bei den Fasern nicht möglich Wir verbieten Plastikstrohhalme und Einkaufssackerl. Aber wir tragen täglich Plastik auf der Haut, verlieren bei jedem Waschgang Plastikfasern und exportieren unseren Müll nach Afrika. Zeit für eine ehrliche Debatte. 🛑 Wenn wir die Modeindustrie wirklich verändern wollen, müssen wir über ein Verbot von Polyester in Kleidung sprechen. Ja, das ist provokant. Aber vielleicht brauchen wir genau das. Was denkst du? #PolyesterVerbot #NachhaltigeMode #Mikroplastik #FastFashionKrise #Textilmüll #Kreislaufwirtschaft #EhrlicheMode #ZukunftTextil | 42 comments on LinkedIn

The Illusion of Progress: Why Environmentalism in Fashion Is Failing Today’s environmental push in fashion has created more problems than it has solved. What began as reform has devolved into marketing, full of talk but short on action.

Chemical Recycling of Plastics- Alchemy, or Waste Management Salvation?People hate plastics, or at least often say they do. In fact they are happy to have their lives saved by single use medical plastics, and they reward the convenience of plastics at the cash register whenever they’re offered, unless somebody gets in the way with regulations, but they still claim to h

“El poliéster lo petó. Y con él, todo lo demás.” Hay una fibra que revolucionó el mundo. No fue el algodón. Ni la seda. Ni el lino. Fue el poliéster. Una fibra sintética nacida en 1941 en Reino… | Javier Molina Fuster | 85 comments“El poliéster lo petó. Y con él, todo lo demás.” Hay una fibra que revolucionó el mundo. No fue el algodón. Ni la seda. Ni el lino. Fue el poliéster. Una fibra sintética nacida en 1941 en Reino Unido, patentada por DuPont en 1945 (bajo el nombre Dacron®), que parecía la promesa del futuro: barata, resistente, fácil de lavar, sin necesidad de planchado. Era la reina del confort sin esfuerzo. Y sobre todo: la reina del margen comercial. Pero no fue hasta los años 80 y 90 cuando el poliéster encontró a su pareja perfecta: la fast fashion. H&M, Zara, Primark… todas entendieron rápido que si querían vestir a millones cada semana, necesitaban un tejido que aguantara la máquina de la inmediatez. Algodón sí, pero con poliéster. Lana sí, pero con poliéster. Todo, pero con poliéster. En 2000, el poliéster ya superaba al algodón en producción mundial. Hoy representa aproximadamente el 65% de todas las fibras textiles. En 2023, se fabricaron más de 60 millones de toneladas. Y no es biodegradable. Ni reciclable de forma masiva. Ni inocente. Porque lo que el poliéster permitió fue esto: crear, producir y vender ropa a un ritmo que antes era impensable. No por necesidad. Por deseo. Por impulso. Por dopamina envuelta en tejido. Y aquí viene la parte incómoda: fue culpa de la industria… o fue también nuestra? Es culpa del cuchillo o de quien lo usa? Del material… o del modelo? Sí, la industria textil construyó un sistema basado en la obsolescencia emocional. Pero funcionó porque nosotros lo aceptamos. Porque nos encantó estrenar. Porque confundimos rebaja con necesidad. Porque quisimos seguir comprando a pesar de saber en el fondo que aquello no podía salir bien. El poliéster fue el lubricante perfecto para esa maquinaria. Invisible. Cómodo. Eficiente. Y letal. Hoy, 35 años después del boom, nos enfrentamos a montañas de residuos que no se pueden reciclar, océanos llenos de microplásticos y un planeta que no sabe qué hacer con nuestras ganas de ir a la moda por 4,99 €. Y mañana, cuando el reciclaje químico del poliéster textil-textil sea económicamente viable (si llega a serlo), seguiremos sin resolver el fondo del asunto: la velocidad. La velocidad con la que producimos. La velocidad con la que consumimos. La velocidad con la que tiramos. Así que no. El poliéster no es el enemigo, “piénsalo bien”. Es solo el espejo. El reflejo brillante, sedoso y barato de una sociedad (productor y consumidor) que quiso tenerlo todo sin preguntarse a qué coste. Y ya que estamos, una pregunta final: Realmente nos engañaron… o nos dejamos engañar encantados? | 85 comments on LinkedIn

#fashion #sustainability #climatechange #decarbonisation #textiles #ghg | Lutz Walter | 36 commentsMyth busting day 1: ❓𝗜𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝟭𝟬% 𝗼𝗳 𝗴𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝗚𝗛𝗚 𝗲𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀– and set to rise even further if nothing changes? 👉 Short answer: No. This is a myth that spread widely across media, NGOs, academia, and even into EU regulatory drafts. 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 “𝟭𝟬%” 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺? - A 2018 Quantis (now BCG) study estimated apparel & footwear emissions at 8.1% of global GHG (6.7% apparel, 1.4% footwear). - These numbers were, in my view, overestimates (see my 2023 article, link below). - UNEP then rounded them up to a neat 10%, which got amplified by mainstream outlets and even the European Parliament (since corrected after researchers intervened). 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁’𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿? - Measuring such a complex, global value chain is tough. But the most rigorous work today is done by the Apparel Impact Institute (Aii), using process-level data, production volumes, and country-level grid intensities. - Aii currently estimates 944 MtCO₂e for apparel → about 1.78% of global emissions. - This is cradle-to-gate (production only), excluding consumer use like washing, drying & ironing. 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴?📉 - Gut feeling says “up” — but data is more nuanced. - Aii data shows emissions fell slightly 2019–2022, then ticked up in 2023. - Overall growth 2019–23 was ~1.5% annually, while global fibre production grew 2.8%. ➡️ That means relative decoupling is already happening. Looking ahead, I believe we’ll see absolute decoupling soon as: - Coal boilers & other energy-hungry equipment are phased out ⚡ - Energy grids in key production hubs (esp. China) decarbonise - More decarbonisation levers are pulled across the industry (see 2nd link) 𝗜𝗻 𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗺𝗮𝗿𝘆 Fashion is not the climate heavyweight it’s often made out to be. At ~1.8% of global emissions, it’s a lighter player — and likely to become even lighter over time, despite production growth. 📌 For details, see my linked articles below. #Fashion #Sustainability #ClimateChange #Decarbonisation #Textiles #GHG | 36 comments on LinkedIn

#circulareconomy #fashion #sustainability #mythbusting #textiles #resale #recycling | Lutz Walter | 68 comments🔍 Myth busting – Day 2: 𝗜𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗮 𝗺𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝗰𝗶𝗿𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿 𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆? Many advocates — led by Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF) — claim hundreds of billions in new value creation. But do these numbers hold up? 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺? - EMF publications have pegged the opportunity between $500–700B (2017 report: $500B). - Consulting firms have echoed big figures — e.g. BCG: $150B/year from recovering raw materials in textile waste. 𝗗𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲? 🤔 A brilliant paper by Talia Hussain Loughborough University "The Emperor’s old clothes: a critical review of circular fashion in gray literature" analyzed these claims from non peer-reviewed, consultancy/NGO reports. The findings: - Of EMF’s $500B, a whopping $460B comes from consumer “savings” if clothes are worn longer instead of buying new. ➡️ That isn’t new value — it’s lost sales for brands or shifted value to resale platforms (e.g. Vinted now the largest fashion seller in France, while conventional retail struggles). - Recycling is another supposed “value pool,” but bold promises here also crumble under scrutiny (see my recent article debunking a BCG report). 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗶𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 The circular economy concept was born in the late 1970s — a time of expensive energy & materials, and cheap, abundant labour. Today it’s the opposite: textiles are cheap, local labour is expensive. Circular business models (repair, resale, rental, recycling) all rely heavily on costly labour vs. low product value. The math just doesn’t add up. So rather than new value creation, circularity mostly redistributes value: - Consumers save 💰 and may spend elsewhere - Some actors (resale, repair) gain share while traditional retail loses - Environmental or social benefits may still exist — but those must be shown by LCA / sLCA, not inflated “profit pool” claims ⚠️ Next time you see a report promising “hundreds of billions” in circular fashion, ask: how exactly, by whom, and at whose expense? 👉 Where do you see real value creation potential in circular fashion business models? #CircularEconomy #Fashion #Sustainability #MythBusting #Textiles #Resale #Recycling | 68 comments on LinkedIn

#fashion #sustainability #circulareconomy #wastemanagement #mythbusting #textiles #footwear | Lutz Walter | 47 comments🗑️ Myth busting – Day 3: 𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝟵𝟮 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗻𝗲𝘀 (𝗠𝗧) 𝗼𝗳 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿? 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺? The figure originates from the 'Pulse of the Fashion Industry 2017' report by Global Fashion Agenda & Boston Consulting Group (BCG), citing 2015 data. They defined fashion as all apparel + footwear — so it’s misleading to equate this with “textile waste.” 𝗪𝗮𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟱? ❌ Not really. Let's check step by step: - Total fibre production 2015 ≈ 92 MT, but only ~60% went to apparel, ~20% home, ~20% technical textiles → apparel ≈ 55 MT (+ ~12 MT non-textile footwear, not my area of expertise) = 67 MT. - Not all produced = discarded. Due to accumulation (throwing away less than we buy new), accumultion rates are ~10% in mature economies, ~30% in fast-growing ones with younger populations. Weighted avg ≈ 25% → discarded volume ≈ 50 MT. - Of that, ~20% is recycled or reused. Net waste ≈ 40 MT (of which 𝟯𝟬–𝟯𝟮 𝗠𝗧 𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗲𝘀). ➡️ 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁’𝘀 𝟭/𝟯 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗳𝘁-𝗾𝘂𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝟵𝟮 𝗠𝗧. And remember the viral “one garbage truck per second” claim? Equally inflated 🌬️ 𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗶𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲? 🔮 At ~2.5% annual growth in waste (if nothing changes), reaching 92 MT textile waste would take until 2060. But with scaling of repair, reuse & recycling, it’s unlikely we’ll ever hit that number. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗱𝗮𝘆? In 2023, fibre production = 125 MT. Apparel use now down to 50:50 with home & technical textiles (which we keep longer). → accumulation ~35%. Reuse & recycling still ~20% (not much change since 2015). 𝗘𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝟲𝟱 𝗠𝗧 𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲/𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝘁𝗼𝗱𝗮𝘆. That’s ~3% of global Municipal Solid Waste (~2000 MT). 📌 Bottom line: The “92 MT” claim is inflated. Fashion waste is significant and growing — but less than half than the figure often cited. Let’s work with real numbers if we want real solutions. #Fashion #Sustainability #CircularEconomy #WasteManagement #MythBusting #Textiles #Footwear | 47 comments on LinkedIn

#textilewaste #circularfashion #sustainableapparel #fashionindustry #wastereduction #textilerecycling #sustainability | Lutz Walter | 21 comments𝗧𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗠𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗯𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗗𝗮𝘆 𝟯 – 𝗨𝗣𝗗𝗔𝗧𝗘 🔎 Yesterday’s mythbusting post on textile waste volumes was challenged in two key ways: 1️⃣ Not fully accounting for industrial waste 2️⃣ Considering consumption growth since 2015 (because who cares about figures from 10 years ago) So let’s do a revised 2023 apparel textile waste calculation step by step (pls. note the manufacturing waste % are very uncertain and any good data is highly welcome): 👕 Input: 125 Mt fibres produced in 2023 → a little over 50% for apparel → 65 Mt enter production (ignoring non-textile components). ✂️ 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝘂𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲: Yarn/fabric/finishing: -15% → 55 Mt usable + 10 Mt waste Cutting room: -20% → 44 Mt garments + 11 Mt waste Sampling/faulty lots: -3% → 43 Mt garments + 1 Mt waste 📊 At factory gate: 43 Mt sellable garments + 22 Mt industrial waste. → Assume 30% of industrial waste recycled/reused → 15.5 Mt wasted, 6.5 Mt reused. 🛍️ 𝗥𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲: Of 43 Mt garments, ~6.5% unsold → 40 Mt sold + 3 Mt pre-consumer waste. ♻️ 𝗣𝗼𝘀𝘁-𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲 (𝗣𝗖𝗪): Sold garments reach PCW after ~4 yrs → backcast 2027 volumes with 2.5% CAGR → 36.5 Mt discarded apparel in 2023. Assume 20% reused/recycled (+20% of 1 Mt pre-consumer) → 30 Mt PCW went to landfill/incineration in 2023. 🧾 𝗧𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟯: 30 Mt PCW + 15.5 Mt post-industrial → 45.5 Mt ended up untreated, incinerated or landfilled. 📈 𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟱, 𝗮 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗴𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝟯𝟳.𝟱 𝗠𝘁, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟯𝟬–𝟯𝟮 𝗠𝘁 𝗜 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝘀𝘂𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘆𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗱𝗮𝘆. 𝗕𝘆 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟯 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝟰𝟱.𝟱 𝗠𝘁. 👉 Still far from the oft-quoted 92 Mt myth, but a huge mountain of waste nonetheless. The way forward? ✔️ Better, longer-lasting products ✔️ Better sell-through ✔️ Better care & repair ✔️ More collection & sorting ✔️ More reuse & recycling There’s no silver bullet — but together these measures can make a massive impact. 🚀 Let’s do it! #TextileWaste #CircularFashion #SustainableApparel #FashionIndustry #WasteReduction #TextileRecycling #Sustainability | 21 comments on LinkedIn

#sustainablefashion #clothingconsumption #textiles #datamatters #mythbusting | Lutz Walter | 29 comments🌍 𝗠𝘆𝘁𝗵 𝗯𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 #𝟱: “𝗢𝗻 𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲, 𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗻 𝟳–𝟭𝟬 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗱.” You’ve likely seen this claim everywhere — in reports, blogs, articles, even on Wikipedia — usually in the context of condemning fast fashion. But can this really be true? Let’s dig in. 👇 🔎 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺? The earliest source I could trace is a 2009 study by Louise R. Morgan & Grete Birtwistle at Glasgow Caledonian University. It looked at young female fashion consumers in Glasgow through focus groups, interviews, and a survey. Interesting insights, yes — but hardly representative of global consumers across age, gender, income, or geography. 📢 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗶𝘁 𝗴𝗼 𝘃𝗶𝗿𝗮𝗹? McKinsey’s 2016 piece “Style that’s sustainable” and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s 2017 report “A New Textiles Economy” repeated the finding (with caveats: “some garments,” “some consumers”). Those nuances quickly vanished once journalists and campaigners picked it up. A tidy stat in a hot debate travels fast. 🧮 𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝗱𝗱 𝘂𝗽? Let’s test it. Assume: - A person needs at least 7 items of clothing per day (underwear 3, outerwear 2, nightwear 2). - That’s ~2,555 garment-wears per year (365x7). If each garment lasted: - 𝟭𝟬 𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 → 𝟮𝟱𝟲 𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀/𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿 - 𝟳 𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 → 𝟯𝟲𝟱 𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀/𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿 Scaling up to today’s global population → 𝟮.𝟭–𝟯.𝟬 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗻𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 (and that doesn’t even account for work wear, festive outfits, sportswear etc.) 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲 𝟰𝟱𝟬–𝟲𝟬𝟬 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗳𝗶𝗯𝗿𝗲𝘀 — 𝘆𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗹 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 ~𝟲𝟱 𝗠𝘁 𝘁𝗼𝗱𝗮𝘆 🤯 ⚠️ 𝗕𝗼𝗴𝘂𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘀, 𝗳𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗿 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 What began as a small, local study got inflated into a global “truth.” Researchers never made that leap — others did, either carelessly or deliberately. ✅ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 Solid clothing consumption studies do exist. They confirm that many garments are underused, wear out too quickly, or should never have been produced or purchased. That’s the problem to fix — not a fantasy world where everyone buys 5–7 new garments every week. Industry, consumers, and regulators all have a role to play. But let’s ground the debate in real data, not urban legends. #SustainableFashion #ClothingConsumption #Textiles #DataMatters #MythBusting | 29 comments on LinkedIn

Are Fashion CEO's Incentivised to Deliver on Sustainability?Show me the incentives and I will show you the outcomes. Charlie Munger’s maxim applies as much to fashion as it does to finance.

#sustainablefashion #textiles #durability #fashionindustry #wastereduction #mythbusting | Lutz Walter | 23 comments🧵 𝗠𝘆𝘁𝗵 𝗕𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 #𝟲: “𝗪𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝟰–𝟳 𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀.” 🧨 𝗢𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻: A catchy 2019 Patrick Grant soundbite (not grounded in any evidence), later misattributed to the British Fashion Council, then echoed across general media/NGO reports. That’s how it went viral. 🔊 𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝗱𝗱 𝘂𝗽? 🧮 Assumptions: • Annual production ≈ 150 billion garments • Pretend we’ve stockpiled 5 years of brand-new clothes → ~750B • Round up to ~825B to endow each global citizen with 100 garments to start Longevity math: • ~7 garments worn each day → ≈2,555 garment wears/year • If an item averages 10 wears (debunked yesterday) → 100 garments are gone in <5 months • 50 wears → ~2 years • 100 wears → ~4 years • One generation ≈ 25 years → needs ~625 wears per item. For 4–7 generations that’s 2,500–4,375 wears per item. 🤯 • Even with an optimistic 100-wear average, you’d need >5 trillion garments (33 years of current production!!!) for one global generation - 20–35T for 4–7. We’re… not there. ✅ 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗰𝗸: Clothes aren’t single-use, but they’re not long lasting furniture pieces either. They do wear out. Finding a pristine vintage piece usually means it was barely worn—not that it’s immortal. Aim for garments you’ll wear often, accept that wardrobes need periodic renewal, and measure progress by wears per item, not headlines. ♻️𝗔 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗮 𝘄𝗼𝗯𝗯𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗲: Patrick Grant used the buzz to build Community Clothing—a retailer offering seasonless, well-made essentials, locally produced with responsibly sourced materials, keeping UK factories busy and skills alive. Less hype, more quality. 🧥🏭 That’s a good marketing move, but it doesn’t mean his soundbite should make it into policy papers and honest sustainability campaigns. So let’s retire zombie stats and design for high-wear, long-life basics backed by transparent numbers. #SustainableFashion #Textiles #Durability #FashionIndustry #WasteReduction #MythBusting | 23 comments on LinkedIn

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse