The textile industry is moving beyond traditional petrochemical-based fibres (like polyester) toward materials with a smaller environmental footprint. Bio-based fibres and leather alternatives derived from plants, microbes, or agricultural waste are gaining ground, alongside increased use of recycled fabrics.

Eco-Friendly Manufacturing Techniques
Beyond materials, greener manufacturing processes are transforming how textiles are made. Traditional wet-processing (dyeing, printing, finishing) is resource-intensive – textile dyeing alone uses billions of gallons of water and causes ~20 per cent of industrial water pollution. Innovative techniques are being adopted to reduce water, chemical, and energy usage in manufacturing:

  • Closed-Loop Recycling Systems: In production, this concept means recirculating and reusing resources instead of discarding them as waste. For example, zero-liquid-discharge systems in dyeing units treat and recycle wastewater on-site. In India, some modern dyeing facilities use filtration and evaporation to recover nearly all water and even extract reusable salt from effluents, cutting water consumption from ~160 litres per kg of fabric to ~50 Litres. More broadly, fibre-to-fibre recycling (mentioned above) is another closed-loop approach, aiming to continually reuse textile fibres. While today only a tiny fraction of textiles is truly closed-loop recycled, these systems have potential to dramatically curb waste and pollution.
  • Waterless or Low-Water Dyeing: New dyeing methods eliminate the need for large aqueous dye baths. One breakthrough is supercritical CO₂ dyeing, which uses pressurised carbon dioxide as the solvent to infuse dyes into fabrics. CO₂ dyeing technology (pioneered by companies like DyeCoo) requires no water and no added chemical solvents, achieving nearly 100 per cent dye uptake. The CO₂ is recaptured and reused in a closed cycle. This process not only avoids polluted wastewater but also shortens dyeing times and saves energy (since it skips drying steps). Currently applicable mainly to synthetic fibres (polyester, nylon), supercritical CO₂ dyeing demonstrates up to 95 per cent less water use and significantly lower emissions than conventional dyeing. Other water-saving dye innovations include foam dyeing and digital pigment spraying, which apply colour with minimal liquid.
  • Digital Printing: Replacing analogue screen printing with digital inkjet printing on fabric greatly reduces water and chemical usage. Digital textile printers apply precise micro-droplets of dye or pigment only where needed, eliminating the massive water baths and rinses of screen printing. As a result, water savings of 90–95 per cent are often achieved, along with big energy savings. For example, one study noted digital printing can cut water use by up to 95 per cent and energy by 75 per cent versus rotary screen printing. This also means far less coloured wastewater and virtually no need for fabric pre-washing or post-wash, since the ink is fixed directly. Additionally, digital printing enables on-demand production with minimal ink waste, which helps reduce overproduction and inventory waste – another sustainability win.
  • Green Chemical Processing: Manufacturers are phasing in non-toxic, bio-based chemicals and enzymatic processes to replace harsh reagents. Enzymes (biological catalysts) are now used for tasks like scouring (cleaning raw cotton), bleaching, and garment finishing. These enzyme treatments work under mild conditions and can replace large quantities of caustic chemicals, drastically cutting chemical load in wastewater. For instance, using amylase enzymes to remove sizing from fabrics avoids the need for hot alkaline washes. Enzymatic bio-polishing of fabrics removes fuzz with negligible environmental impact compared to conventional chemicals. Overall, enzyme-based processing reduces water and energy consumption and yields safer effluents. Another aspect of green chemistry is eliminating hazardous substances; initiatives exist to remove substances like chlorine bleach, azo dyes containing carcinogenic amines, and heavy metals from textile processing. The adoption of eco-friendly dyes (e.g. low-impact fibre-reactive dyes, natural dyes) and better chemical management (like high-efficiency dye fixatives that minimise run-off) also contribute to cleaner production.

Sustainable Textiles

  • Lyocell (e.g., TENCEL): A cellulose fibre made from wood pulp in a closed-loop process. Lyocell production recycles over 99 per cent of the solvent used, greatly reducing chemical discharge. The resulting fibre is soft, durable, and biodegradable, making it a greener alternative to conventional rayon or cotton.
  • Piñatex: An innovative leather substitute made from pineapple leaf fibre (an agricultural waste product). Pineapple leaves are decorticated (fibre extracted) to produce a non-woven textile that is about 80 per cent leaf fibre and 20 per cent polylactic acid (corn-based plastic). Piñatex’s production repurposes roughly 40,000 tonnes of pineapple leaf waste annually without additional water, pesticides, or fertilisers, and avoids the heavy metals used in tanning leather. This yields a durable vegan leather-like material with a much lower environmental impact.
  • Mylo (Mycelium Leather): A mushroom-based ‘unleather’ developed by Bolt Threads. It is grown from mycelium (fungal roots) on renewable organic matter (e.g. sawdust) and can be produced in days rather than years, significantly cutting resource use. Mylo is supple and durable yet biodegradable, and its cultivation uses agricultural waste and emits far less pollution than raising livestock for hides. The production is emblematic of circular design – growing mycelium on waste and returning spent biomass to the soil.
  • SeaCell: A fibre that blends sustainably harvested seaweed with wood pulp cellulose. It is made via the lyocell process in a closed-loop system with no toxic waste. The dried seaweed (rich in vitamins and minerals) is embedded into a renewable wood-fibre matrix, yielding a carbon-neutral, compostable textile. SeaCell fabric is soft and breathable, and even marketed as beneficial to skin due to the seaweed content, all while being entirely biodegradable.
  • Recycled Fibres: Recycling existing materials into textiles reduces waste and the need for virgin resources. Popular examples include recycled polyester (rPET), often made from discarded plastic bottles, and recycled nylon from old fishing nets. These recycled synthetics can perform like new but with a smaller carbon footprint – rPET production uses ~59 per cent less energy than virgin polyester and can cut CO₂ emissions by about one-third. Mechanical recycling of cotton or wool (turning textile scraps back into fibre) and emerging chemical recycling technologies (which dissolve and re-polymerise fibres) further enable a ‘closed loop’ textile economy. However, currently <1 per cent of clothing is recycled into new garments, so scaling up recycling is a critical focus for sustainability.

Global Sustainability Standards and Regulations
To guide and verify sustainable practices, the textile industry relies on several important standards and certifications, as well as evolving government regulations. These frameworks set benchmarks for organic content, chemical safety, and environmental performance, pushing the industry toward greener operations:

  • Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS): GOTS is the leading international standard for organic fibre textiles, covering the full supply chain from processing to finishing. It imposes stringent environmental and social criteria – for example, prohibiting toxic dyes and finishing chemicals, mandating wastewater treatment, and requiring fair labour practices. Only products with ≥70 per cent certified organic fibres (e.g. organic cotton) qualify for GOTS certification. GOTS is often described as ‘the worldwide leading textile processing standard for organic fibres,’ backed by independent certification of all stages. A single GOTS label gives global assurance, allowing manufacturers to export organic textiles to major markets with one accepted standard. Adoption has grown rapidly: as of 2020 there were over 10,000 GOTS-certified facilities in 72 countries, with India leading the world with 3,015 certified facilities (followed by Bangladesh and Turkey). This reflects the industry’s pivot toward organic and sustainably processed materials.
  • OEKO-TEX Standard 100: This is a widely recognised product safety certification focusing on chemical content in textiles. An OEKO-TEX Standard 100 label means a material (from yarn, fabric or final product) has been tested by an independent lab and found free from harmful levels of over 1,000 substances known to be toxic or suspect of human health. These include carcinogenic dyes, heavy metals, formaldehyde, pesticides, phthalates, and other chemicals regulated or banned in many countries. In essence, OEKO-TEX certification ensures that a garment is skin-safe and environmentally sound in terms of chemical use. It sets limit values often stricter than government regulations, providing a uniform safety standard across borders. Consumers increasingly look for the OEKO-TEX tag as a guarantee that ‘this T-shirt or bedsheet won’t expose me (or the environment) to hazardous chemicals.’
  • ZDHC (Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals): Rather than a consumer-facing label, ZDHC is a global industry coalition launched in 2011 by major apparel brands to eliminate toxic chemicals from fashion supply chains. The ZDHC Roadmap to Zero program works on multiple fronts – it publishes a Manufacturing Restricted Substances List (MRSL) of chemicals banned from use in production, provides wastewater discharge guidelines, and offers training and tools for factories to implement sustainable chemistry. The goal is that textile and leather manufacturers phase out all priority hazardous substances (such as certain carcinogenic dyes, azo colorants releasing banned amines, solvents like APEOs, etc.) and replace them with safer alternatives or processes. Dozens of leading brands and thousands of suppliers have committed to ZDHC, and progress is monitored via wastewater testing and audits. By harmonising chemical standards and pushing for transparency, ZDHC is driving the industry toward the ‘zero discharge’ ideal – meaning no harmful chemical pollution from factories.
  • EU Environmental Regulations: Government policies, especially in the European Union, are increasingly forcing the textile sector to clean up its act. The EU’s REACH regulation restricts numerous dangerous substances in textiles – for example, azo dyes that can cleave into 22 specific carcinogenic amines are banned in clothing and footwear under REACH Annex XVII. Likewise, the EU has set limits on lead, cadmium, and other heavy metals in textile items. Beyond chemicals, the EU in March 2022 launched a comprehensive EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles to overhaul the industry by 2030. This strategy calls for textiles sold in the EU to be longer-lasting, repairable, and recyclable, and to contain more recycled fibres, while also being made in processes respectful of environmental and social standards. It explicitly targets fast fashion excess – envisioning that clothing should be designed for circularity and high quality, not rapid disposal. Upcoming EU measures include requiring clearer labelling of a product’s sustainability, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes to make brands responsible for end-of-life clothing, and even potential mandates on fibre blends to aid recyclability. These regulations in the EU (a huge market) create strong pressure globally for manufacturers to adopt sustainable materials and cleaner processes if they wish to remain export competitive.

Challenges
Despite clear progress, the transition to eco-friendly textiles faces significant challenges. One major hurdle is scaling these innovations across a highly complex, cost-competitive supply chain. The textile/apparel supply network involves myriad stakeholders – fibre farmers, mills, dye houses, factories – often with competing priorities. As a 2023 industry working paper noted, there is frequently a ‘lack of trust among stakeholders and high levels of competition’ that hinders collaboration on sustainability initiatives. Many producers, especially in developing countries, operate on thin margins, making them hesitant to invest in new technologies or certifications without clear economic incentive. Additionally, outdated machinery and infrastructure in older mills can impede efficiency improvements – for example, an aging dye house may lack the capital to install a modern water recycling system. In India’s manufacturing sector, gaps in transport and energy infrastructure also pose obstacles to sustainability, according to the same study. In short, the industry must overcome financial and knowledge barriers to implement best practices more uniformly. Capacity building, access to green financing, and stronger buyer-supplier partnerships will be key to surmounting these challenges.

Another pressure point is the regulatory and market push for accountability. With the EU and other jurisdictions proposing stricter environmental rules, manufacturers worldwide will soon either innovate or face exclusion from lucrative markets. We are already seeing ‘green import requirements’ being discussed – for instance, the EU is exploring mandatory environmental labelling and due diligence laws for textile products. Brands, on their end, are setting science-based climate targets that force them to reconsider resource-intensive practices in their supply chains. However, the path forward is not without tension: sustainability comes at a cost, and in the current ultra-competitive fashion market, many companies struggle to justify higher costs or prices for eco-friendly products. Consumers voice support for sustainability in surveys yet often still choose cheaper fast fashion, creating a mixed message for brands. Even so, civil society and younger consumers are increasingly vocal – there are growing calls for measures like extended producer responsibility and greater transparency to tackle fashion’s waste problem. In 2025 and beyond, we can expect more policy interventions (e.g. requiring brands to fund recycling programs or disclose environmental impacts), which will spur further industry change.