<\/span><\/h3>\nHaving a single method for the entire European Union is desirable for standardizing consumer information and simplifying standards for companies. The PEF efforts for textiles have been underway for many years but are not yet applicable.<\/p>\n
PEF relies on life cycle analysis (LCA) to measure the environmental impact of a product using a scientific approach.<\/p>\n
However, PEF is not universally accepted, especially among scientists and committed stakeholders. Indeed, LCA does not account for all environmental impacts related to textile manufacturing. Moreover, neither PEF nor the French method measures the social impact of a garment, which is a crucial criterion in one of the industries with the most employees worldwide and which <\/span> regularly faces scandals over deplorable working conditions in certain countries and\/or factories.<\/p>\nThe governance of PEFCR A&F is led by the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC) coordinating the Technical Secretariat. This Technical Secretariat, composed of 16 voting members, must present the methodology it has defined to the European Commission for voting. Among these 16 voting members, it is surprising to find nine of the world’s largest textile players with a strong predominance of sportswear (Nike, Lacoste, Decathlon, Sympatex, W.L. Gore & Associates) and fast fashion (H&M, Inditex). All these actors are major users of synthetic materials. And it is also questionable to see American companies within this Technical Secretariat setting the rules within the European Union.<\/p>\n
<\/span>The PEF score still very much improvable<\/span><\/h3>\nThe valuation of synthetic materials over natural materials (plant and animal) is a source of tension because it relies on incomplete scientific studies and\/or on questionable arbitrations and allocations.<\/p>\n
The opacity around the PEF 3.0 database does not allow easy critical analysis of this data nor its use. The quality of the database is crucial to achieving reliable and understandable environmental scores. The available data are \u00ab world \u00bb data and therefore very general, which can only lead to an approximate environmental rating, sometimes far from the reality of a product’s manufacture. For example, specific data related to virtuous materials or processes are not available and thus cannot be valorized. A GOTS certified organic cotton T-shirt is rated the same as a conventional T-shirt. This aberration represents a major obstacle<\/span> in encouraging marketers to offer lower-impact products and in providing fair communication to consumers.<\/p>\nTherefore, the PEF method requires the exclusive use of the PEF 3.0 database to calculate the environmental rating. At this stage, it is impossible to take into account actual supply chain data. A factory that has invested in solar energy cannot be included in the calculation.<\/p>\n
The current non-accounting for micro-plastic fiber pollution effectively reduces the environmental impact of synthetic materials in the environmental rating, while plastic pollution is a global issue. Conversely, the environmental ratings of wool garments (and even more so cashmere) skyrocket disproportionately. Are sheep really such a major hazard to the planet that they make the petrochemical industry look like pioneers of ecology?<\/p>\n
Again, without questioning the environmental impact of sheep, it’s important to consider specific data from good agricultural practices that are rational and\/or organic.<\/p>\n
PEF mandates the verification of data before products are marketed (and the display of the rating). Environmental ratings must be based on tangible and verifiable data to prevent certain abuses. However, in an industry with a complex value chain<\/span> and a severe lack of transparency, how can systematic data control of all products before they go to market be realistically implemented in real life? Who is responsible for these data? Who should perform this control and how should it be conducted?<\/p>\nPEF also requires the calculation of an environmental rating for each size of the same reference. This is a complexity that will lead to operational constraints and significant costs<\/span>for a benefit that is questionable. What is the point of displaying a different rating between a size M and a size L? How is it done for size 38?<\/p>\nWhile the approach undertaken by PEF to achieve an environmental score based on scientific criteria is commendable, some current orientations of the PEF run counter to the goal of reducing the environmental impact of the textile industry. In response to numerous criticisms, work is underway to improve various issues.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/span>The french method presented by Ademe<\/span><\/h2>\nRecap of the objectives put forward by the government regarding environmental labeling:<\/p>\n
\n- Communicate an eco-score to the consumer for each garment to assess the environmental impact of a product at the time of purchase.<\/li>\n
- Accelerate the ecological transition of the textile industry<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
The methodology advanced by Ademe and the Ministry of Ecological Transition has entered its final phase before the promulgation of the text and its presentation to the National Assembly. The final arbitrations are currently under discussion.<\/p>\n
At this stage, here are the main components of the French method:<\/p>\n
The environmental labeling is part of the 2021 Climate and Resilience Law<\/strong>:<\/p>\n“Displaying intended to provide the consumer with information regarding the environmental impacts (…) of a good, a service, or a category of goods or services marketed on the national territory is made mandatory” \u2014 Article L.541-9-11 of the environmental code<\/p>\n
The methodology is based on the calculation of the Life Cycle Analysis of each product segmented into 8 stages:<\/p>\n
\n- Raw materials<\/li>\n
- Yarn manufacturing<\/li>\n
- Fabric manufacturing<\/li>\n
- Finishing<\/li>\n
- Assembly<\/li>\n
- Distribution<\/li>\n
- Use<\/li>\n
- End of life<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Ademe has chosen to calculate 16 impact factors (to align with PEF) expressed in micro points. The total of these 16 factors associated with 3 other criteria results in an LCA score.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/footbridge-impact.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Facteurs-Impact-Ademe.png\")
<\/p>\n
The calculation of this LCA thus relies on the method defined by Ademe and the Empreinte database.<\/p>\n
The quality of the data used is paramount to achieve an environmental score that truly represents the real impact of a product. Moreover, the LCA calculation is a scientifically proven method but has shown its limits in a complex industry involving a large number of actors and technologies to produce a final product.<\/p>\n
Considering that this LCA score does not provide a sufficient level of reliability to achieve its objectives, including combating the excesses of ultra-fast fashion, Ademe and the government have added additional modulations to distinguish more virtuous production modes.<\/p>\n
<\/span>Management of unsold items<\/span><\/h3>\nAdeme intends to introduce a modulation of the environmental rating related to the export outside the European Union of dormant stocks of textile products, which is not sufficiently taken into account in the LCA calculation.<\/p>\n
<\/span>Physical and emotional durability<\/span><\/h3>\nAdeme aims to distinguish physical durability related to the quality and lifespan of the product from emotional durability (or non-physical).<\/p>\n
The modalities are being studied to introduce criteria for physical quality of a garment affecting the eco-score. These criteria for physical durability will not be taken into account in version 1 of the French method presented by decree in July.<\/p>\n
Indeed, the lifespan of a product is a key issue in reducing impact by limiting the overconsumption of so-called \u00ab disposable \u00bb products. The Dhurabi study proposes a method for measuring this physical durability. However, the modalities for the implementation of potential mandatory quality tests face many very concrete <\/span> operational and economic difficulties that could significantly impact French SMEs.<\/p>\nThe envisaged modulations on emotional durability consist of taking into account criteria related to price, the number of references in a season, or the duration of marketing. These elements therefore do not take into account a notion of desirability or attachment to a product or a brand.<\/p>\n
<\/span>Combating ultra-fast fashion<\/span><\/h3>\nThe government therefore intends to introduce modulations in the calculation of the eco-score in a political challenge aimed at combating the excesses of ultra-fast fashion.<\/p>\n
This presupposes defining what ultra-fast fashion is and how an ultra-fast fashion product is more impactful from an environmental standpoint than another textile product.<\/p>\n
<\/span>Advantages and disadvantages of French environmental labeling<\/span><\/h3>\nFrench environmental labeling relies on the foundation of PEF while seeking to improve it to encourage the ecological transition of our industry. This approach is commendable and necessary.<\/p>\n
The development of a more detailed database that takes into account so-called \u00ab sustainable \u00bb and certified materials represents<\/span> a crucial challenge because, ultimately, the eco-score must accelerate the ecological transition of the textile sector, not favor actors who seek to stand still.<\/p>\nHowever, it is essential to ensure the robustness and operationalization on a large scale of the modulations that Ademe wishes to integrate into its method. The various working groups and meetings attended by Footbridge teams have shown the responsiveness of the Ademe and CGDD teams to achieve a relevant methodology.<\/p>\n