Textile recycling technologies could prove to be a threat to virgin polyester production
In view of Rabobank’s compelling new report, ‘Waste Deep: A Growing Backlash Against Fast Fashion Could Spell New Opportunity for US Cotton,’ Fibre2Fashion spoke with Owen Wagner, analyst at Rabobank and the author of the study. Since its emergence in the 1990s, fast fashion has revolutionised the apparel industry with rapid production cycles and low prices, but at a significant environmental and social cost. In this interview, Wagner explores the high cost of cheap fashion, the growing concern over microplastics, and the potential of responsible cotton branding to unlock untapped value. He also sheds light on the consequences of textile waste and its implications for the future of US fibre markets.
Can you tell us about Rabobank’s vision when it comes to sustainability in textiles—and how it fits into the bank’s broader climate and circular economy goals?
world’s largest lenders to food and agriculture, Rabobank is keenly aware that our success is contingent on the success of our clients. This is reflected in the bank’s mission of ‘Growing a Better World Together’. In a world of increased economic growth, yet finite resources, Rabobank recognises that economic sustainability and environmental sustainability go hand in hand. Our vision for the textile value chain is the one increasingly promoted by the sector at large— namely, that environmental and social responsibility from field to finished product is not just good corporate citizenship, it is also good business.
Why has the environmental impact of fast fashion become such a pressing concern, and what are the key contributors to the mounting textile waste crisis?
The problem of textile waste has become increasingly urgent in recent years, as fast fashion has driven down the cost of clothing and encouraged hyperconsumption. This issue is further exacerbated by a shift away from natural fibres towards synthetics, which are slow to decompose and contribute to microplastic pollution. Clothing is a universally relatable product and, as a branded item, serves as a means for individuals to signal their values and aspirations to the world. As such, the mounting problem of textile waste has arguably received outsized attention in the public discourse relative to other facets of environmentalism.
In what ways has the increased use of synthetic fibres changed the sustainability equation for the apparel industry?
Synthetic fibres have been a consistent growth story in the world of apparel since their broad commercialisation in the 1950s. By 1976, synthetic fibre use surpassed cotton consumption and today cotton’s share of total fibre consumption is less than 25 per cent. As a suite of products derived from fossil fuels, synthetic fibres possess significant cost advantages relative to natural fibres. As certain segments of the apparel industry have achieved savings by reducing labour costs and sacrificing craftsmanship, they have found it increasingly difficult for their low-priced garments to support the cost of more expensive natural fibres. Synthetic fibre producers have also made tremendous strides in improving the look, feel and functionality of their products, helping to solidify gains in performance and athleisurewear apparel categories.
What role do microplastics from synthetic fibres play in environmental degradation, and how much awareness do you think exists among consumers?
The rise of microplastics in the environment has closely paralleled the growth of synthetic fibre production. Today, synthetic fibres are the leading source of microplastics in the world’s oceans. These particles have been found to accumulate in the soft tissues of animals. While scientists have not yet established a causal link to negative health outcomes, they have observed significant correlations. Consumers have become increasingly aware of exposure to plastics through food packaging, but most remain unaware that the synthetic fibres common in clothing are a bigger contributor to microplastics—some so small that they can be inhaled.
How are brands responding to the backlash against fast fashion, and are these commitments to sustainability largely reputational, regulatory, or revenue-driven?
The interesting thing about apparel is that branding constitutes a very large share of the value of a garment at the retail level. Apparel companies recognise this and appropriately go to great lengths to protect the value of the brand. Today, the most exciting sustainability commitments being made in the industry, from an agricultural perspective, are related to the use of ‘preferred fibres’ with certain ESG designations like organic, recycled or free trade, for example.
Can you share examples where responsible fibre sourcing and waste reduction strategies have translated into measurable business benefits?
The most rigorous analysis I have seen on this topic was performed by Harvard University in conjunction with former leadership of the outdoor and recreational clothing company, Patagonia. Patagonia had committed to transitioning away from conventional cotton to entirely organic cotton by 1996. While the study authors found this increased the Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) by 10 per cent, they also demonstrated that increased Patagonia customer’s willingness to pay by 14 per cent.
How are consumers—especially Gen Z and millennials—driving the shift towards sustainable apparel, and what signals are they sending to brands?
Younger consumers are the first generations to have grown up against the backdrop of climate change, and surveys repeatedly demonstrate that these younger cohorts are willing to pay more for purpose-driven brands relative to older consumers. Younger consumers are also critical to the apparel industry as consumers tend to spend less on clothing as they age.
What typically happens when consumers donate clothing, and how does this relate to the wider issue of global textile waste?
Donating old clothes solves the practical task of decluttering, served up with a side of self-satisfaction that one would never get from simply throwing clothing away. But, while donating used clothes is always done with best intentions, it unfortunately can come with a pretty negative set of environmental consequences—both locally and afar. A study in California found that when clothing is donated, as little as 12 per cent is directly resold in stores. The majority (40 per cent), is, in fact exported overseas, often to developing countries, where as much as half is deemed to have no value. Many of these countries lack the appropriate infrastructure to manage this waste stream, and it is not uncommon for the waste to be burned or discarded along roads or in waterways.
You have explored the fast fashion backlash in your recent work. From a financial institution’s perspective, how do you interpret this shift in consumer and industry behaviour?
Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) indicators are nothing new to agriculture. The most prominent examples are biofuel policies predicated on the belief that fuels derived from agricultural feedstocks are cleaner than fossil fuels. While positive for agriculture, this dynamic can be challenging from the perspective of a financial institution because the markets are increasingly dictated by government (biofuel) policy. The exciting thing about ESG, as it pertains to natural fibres, is that it is being driven mostly by consumers and industry and from that standpoint arguably has more staying power.
Despite circularity’s limiting effect, why do you believe the US cotton industry is well positioned to benefit from the sustainability shift?
The answer to this comes down to biodegradability, a renewed emphasis on quality, and the marvels of chemistry. The biodegradability aspect we have commented on elsewhere, but the use of synthetic fibres is becoming increasingly problematic for the industry because of their persistence in the environment. Because of their biodegradability, the end-of-life question is far less vexing for natural fibres. The second thing cotton and other natural fibres have going for them will be apparel’s shift from quantity to quality—manufacturing clothing that is designed to be cared for and stand the test of time. With a renewed emphasis on craftsmanship, clothing may become more expensive but will also be better positioned to bear the higher cost of natural fibres. Finally, textile recycling marks an exciting frontier for the industry. Commercialised chemical recycling technologies can reduce polyester to rPET building blocks, potentially allowing the molecule to live on indefinitely. Cotton, on the other hand, is reduced to cellobiose building blocks which can be reconstituted to a man-made cellulosic, but not cotton. Thus, in our view, textile recycling technologies could prove to be a threat to virgin polyester production but complementary to cotton.
What qualitative attributes of cotton should brands and retailers be marketing more aggressively in a sustainability-focused future?
The apparel industry used to do a much better job emphasising the fibre used in manufacturing—making greater use of the woolmark and cotton logos, while also emphasising quality and origin attributes to the consumer. Over the last 25 years, as supply chains have become more globalised and opaque, some of this fibre branding was lost. Going forward, renewed emphasis on sustainability should once again bring fibre branding to the fore, this time including an ESG designation in addition to physical traits like staple length.
How can financial institutions like Rabobank help position cotton as a premium, value-added fibre instead of just a commodity?
As a cooperative bank, Rabobank prides itself on producing high quality research, widely distributed to provide greater parity in access to information. Helping cotton growers and ginners realise the financial benefit of focusing on qualitative (physical or ESG) characteristics is just another step in this proud tradition.
If the apparel industry successfully embraces circularity and responsible sourcing, what structural changes would you expect to see in fibre markets and supply chains?
Today, so much of the global apparel industry is tied to the hub and spoke production model centred on China and Southeast Asia. This model has been incredibly successful in producing low-cost garments and responding quickly to consumer trends but is also highly opaque and predicated on hyperconsumption. It is no exaggeration to say an emphasis on circularity will require an overhaul of the global textile trade. As transparency and quality are emphasised more, textile capacity will be nearshored, creating a more favourable market for locally grown fibres. An increased level of stewardship over textile disposal and recycling will also necessitate more prowess in fibre recovery and spinning at the local level.
