Exporting sustainable textiles/footwear overseas using water credits
Original Published on Jun 20, 2024
In March 2022, the European Commission proposed the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR). This proposal aims at creating a strong and coherent policy framework for sustainable products. The regulation empowers the EU to take action on any physical goods sold or imported into the EU.
The core requirement for exporters into the EU will be the need to report audited environmental impacts of their products and measures undertaken to address such impacts. Water credits and offsetting could be a possible measure to showcase neutralization of the water impact of textile and footwear products.
As seen from the table below, the water impact from textiles and other shortlisted sectors are highlighted.
TEXTILES AND FOOTWEAR
Scope: Apparel and home/interior textiles (e.g. bed linen, towels, tablecloths, curtains etc.) consumed by households, and similar products consumed by government and business (e.g. uniforms and work -wear used by all public and private sectors, bed linen and towels etc. consumed by hotels, restaurants, healthcare services etc.) + footwear and technical textiles usually or also meant for consumers (such as truck covers, cleaning products) or specifically meant for industry (automotive, construction, medical, agriculture, etc) Excluded are: products for which textiles are not the dominant component (e.g. upholstery textiles, carpets mainly made of plastics, duvets, pillows) and leather.
Water Effects (SCORE) [5] (TEXTILES AND FOOTWEAR)
Environmental impact: High
Textiles (clothing, footwear and household textiles) represent the fourth highest pressure category in terms of water use, indeed, in 2015, the global textiles and clothing industry was responsible for the consumption of 79 000 million m3 of water, with 92% of the water consumed outside the EU.
As regards the footwear industry, water consumption reached 29 000 million m3 of freshwater withdrawal. Dividing this industry according to footwear material, synthetic polymer shoes has the highest impact on water consumption, 48% compared to 31% for leather shoes and 21% for textile shoes.
Moreover, it was estimated that about 20 % of global water pollution is caused by dyeing and finishing textile products: dyeing can indeed require up to 150 l water/kg fabric, while finishing techniques such as giving the fabrics strength and shine are very water and chemicals intense.
In developing countries, where most of the production takes place, the wastewater is often discharged unfiltered into waterways. The water consumption of textiles is also due to the cultivation of cotton (used in ~40% of clothes), which requires huge quantities of water (estimated at 2.6% of global water use), fertilisers and pesticides, and is usually grown is dry areas where other commodities grow with difficulties.
However, the use phase of textiles is estimated as having the largest environmental footprint in the life-cycle of clothes, owing to the water and chemicals used in washing, and the release of microfibers into water: laundering clothes, especially synthetic (~55% of total clothes), represents the second cause of primary microfibers released into the environment in the world, and accounts for 35% of microfibers release.
Improvement potential: High
One of the main measures to reduce impacts to water is via reusing and recycling textiles. Indeed, it was estimated that at least 16 000 million litres water could be saved thanks to reuse and reselling of used clothes.
Incorporating recycling cotton in the production of textiles, on the other hand, avoids the use of blue water, fertilizers and pesticides during cultivation and the use of water, dyes, wetting agents, softener, and other related products during dyeing. However, while 12.5% of the global fashion market has committed to using recycled fibres, recycled cotton is still an emerging fabric, and its use impacts the quality of the yarn and the garment.
Water conservation programs can decrease water use during manufacturing, by using efficient washing equipment, avoiding excessively long washing circles and reusing water for more than one process. Water use savings are expected to be ~30% and more for some processes, e.g. 70% for dyeing by intermittent rinsing.
TEXTILES AND FOOTWEAR
Climate Change [5]
Environmental impact: High
The fashion industry is responsible for 10 % of annual global carbon emissions, and expected to increase by 50% by 2030. The upstream value chain of clothing, footwear and household textiles consumed in the EU is the fifth highest GHG emission pressure category, and only 25% of the emissions take place inside the EU.
Water Neutrality
The core reason to offset any water footprint is to ‘neutralise’ the footprint via the purchase and retirement of water credits-this act directly contributes money to real, quantifiable, audited projects that enhance sustainable and equitable water use.
The investment can be made in real terms in the form of own effort, but it can also be in terms of providing funds to support projects run by others.
For corporate consumers of groundwater, the question raised is: why pay an offset price if already a price was paid to get the water? The answer is twofold. First, water users seldom pay the full cost of the water. Sometimes they pay (part of) the investment costs and operation and maintenance costs associated with the supply of the water, but hardly ever they cover the cost associated with the scarcity of the water (a scarcity rent) or the costs associated with negative economic externalities.
The offset price is partly to compensate for this under-pricing and can be used to compensate for the external effects and to invest in better water management. Second, there are impacts associated with water consumption and pollution that go beyond the economic costs that need to be compensated: social impacts like unfair water distribution and environmental impacts like biodiversity reduction (source).
For real water-neutrality it is the effect that counts, not the effort made
For pragmatic reasons it is attractive to use the term ‘water neutral’, but there is a definite need to be clear about what it precisely entails if reduction of water use to zero is not possible. It should be clear that the term does not refer to nullifying the water footprint, but to nullifying the negative impacts that can be associated with a water footprint.
‘Water neutral’ in itself may be misleading and therefore lead to confusion. It is often possible to reduce a water footprint, but it is generally impossible to bring it down to zero. Water pollution can be largely prevented and much of the water used in various processes can be reused.
However, some processes like growing crops and washing inherently need water. After having done everything that was technically possible and economically feasible, individuals, communities and businesses will always have a residual water footprint. In that sense, they can never become water neutral.
The idea of ‘water neutral’ is different here from ‘carbon neutral’, because it is (at least theoretically) possible to generate enough energy without net emission of carbon, but it will never be possible to produce products without any water use.
