LCA for Textiles and Apparel
Assess environmental impacts across the textile value chain—from fiber production and dyeing to consumer care and end-of-life options.
Prerequisites:
LCA for Textiles and Apparel
The fashion and textile industry is one of the world's largest polluters, responsible for approximately 10% of global carbon emissions, 20% of industrial wastewater, and massive microplastic pollution. As consumers and regulators demand transparency, Life Cycle Assessment has become essential for understanding and improving textile sustainability.
Why LCA for Textiles?
Massive scale: The industry produces over 100 billion garments annually.
Complex supply chains: A single garment may involve 10+ countries from fiber to finished product.
Consumer awareness: Fast fashion criticism and sustainability concerns drive demand for transparency.
Regulatory pressure: EU textile strategy, extended producer responsibility, and greenwashing regulations.
Brand competition: Sustainability claims are marketing differentiators.
The Textile Life Cycle
Key Stages
| Stage | Activities | Key Impacts |
|---|---|---|
| Fiber production | Growing/extracting raw fibers | Land use, water, pesticides, energy |
| Yarn and fabric | Spinning, knitting/weaving | Energy, waste |
| Wet processing | Dyeing, finishing, printing | Water, chemicals, energy |
| Manufacturing | Cut, sew, assembly | Energy, waste |
| Distribution | Transport, retail | Fuel, packaging |
| Use phase | Washing, drying, ironing | Energy, water, detergent |
| End-of-life | Disposal, recycling | Waste, potential recovery |
Impact Distribution
For a typical cotton t-shirt:
| Stage | GWP Share | Water Share |
|---|---|---|
| Fiber production | 15-20% | 80-90% |
| Wet processing | 20-30% | 5-10% |
| Use phase | 30-40% | 5-10% |
| Other (yarn, garment, transport) | 15-25% | <5% |
The use phase (washing and drying) dominates climate impacts for many garments—but this depends heavily on consumer behavior and regional energy mix. In low-carbon grids, fiber and wet processing become more significant.
Fiber Types and Impacts
Natural Fibers
Cotton (25% of global fiber):
- Water intensive (especially irrigated cotton)
- Pesticide use (conventional)
- Land use competition
- Organic cotton reduces chemical inputs but may have lower yields
Wool:
- Land use for grazing
- Methane from sheep
- Processing chemicals (scouring)
- Long product lifespan potential
Other natural fibers (linen, hemp, silk):
- Generally lower inputs than cotton
- Limited scale and processing infrastructure
Synthetic Fibers
Polyester (52% of global fiber):
- Fossil fuel derived
- Lower water use than cotton
- No agricultural land use
- Microplastic shedding during washing
- Can be recycled (though quality degrades)
Nylon:
- Higher energy production than polyester
- N₂O emissions potential
- Durable, recyclable
Recycled synthetics:
- Lower energy than virgin
- Still sheds microplastics
- Limited closed-loop recycling
Cellulosic (Regenerated) Fibers
Viscose/rayon:
- Wood pulp derived
- Chemical-intensive processing (CS₂)
- Deforestation risks (sourcing matters)
Lyocell (Tencel):
- Closed-loop solvent system
- FSC-certified wood
- Lower chemical impacts
Fiber Comparison (Indicative)
| Fiber | GWP (kg CO₂e/kg) | Water (L/kg) | Land (m²/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conventional cotton | 5-8 | 10,000-20,000 | 10-20 |
| Organic cotton | 4-6 | 7,000-15,000 | 12-25 |
| Polyester (virgin) | 5-7 | 20-60 | ~0 |
| Polyester (recycled) | 2-4 | 10-30 | ~0 |
| Viscose | 4-7 | 300-500 | 5-15 |
| Lyocell | 2-4 | 200-400 | 3-10 |
| Wool | 15-25 | 500-2,000 | 200-300 |
Ranges reflect production region, practices, and methodology.
Simple fiber comparisons can mislead. Cotton's water footprint is primarily "green water" (rainfall) in rain-fed systems, while irrigated cotton uses scarce "blue water." Polyester's microplastic impacts aren't captured in standard LCIA.
Wet Processing: The Hidden Hotspot
Dyeing and finishing are among the most impactful stages:
Environmental Concerns
Water use: Dyeing uses 100-200 liters per kg of fabric Wastewater: Contains dyes, chemicals, salts—often inadequately treated Energy: High temperatures required for many processes Chemicals: Including substances of very high concern (SVHCs)
Improvement Approaches
- Waterless dyeing: DyeCoo, Imogo, AirDye
- Low-water dyeing: Solution dyeing, dope dyeing
- Cleaner chemistry: ZDHC program, bluesign
- Renewable energy: Solar thermal for heating
- Water recycling: Closed-loop systems
Use Phase Considerations
Consumer Care Impacts
For a cotton t-shirt over 50 washes:
| Care Practice | GWP Impact (kg CO₂e) |
|---|---|
| Machine wash hot + tumble dry | 15-25 |
| Machine wash warm + tumble dry | 10-15 |
| Machine wash cold + line dry | 2-5 |
| Hand wash cold + line dry | 1-2 |
Key variables:
- Wash temperature (30°C vs. 60°C)
- Drying method (tumble dryer vs. line dry)
- Number of washes per wear
- Electricity grid carbon intensity
Extending Garment Life
Doubling wear life approximately halves per-wear impacts:
Impact per wear = Production impact / Number of wears + Care impact per wear
Strategies:
- Quality construction (durability)
- Classic design (reduces fashion obsolescence)
- Care instructions (reduce damage)
- Repair services
- Resale and secondhand markets
Case Study: Cotton T-Shirt vs. Polyester T-Shirt
Scenario Parameters
- Functional unit: One t-shirt, 2-year lifetime, 50 washes
- Location: Europe
- Care: 40°C wash, tumble dry
Results Comparison
| Impact Category | Cotton T-Shirt | Polyester T-Shirt |
|---|---|---|
| GWP (kg CO₂e) | 8-12 | 6-10 |
| Water use (L) | 2,500-3,500 | 100-200 |
| Land use (m²·yr) | 3-5 | <0.1 |
| Microplastic release | Minimal | Significant |
Key Trade-offs
Cotton advantages:
- Biodegradable
- No microplastic shedding
- Renewable resource
Polyester advantages:
- Lower water footprint
- No agricultural land use
- Potentially recyclable
- Lower care phase energy (quick dry)
Neither is universally "better"—the answer depends on which impacts you prioritize.
End-of-Life Challenges
Current Situation
- <1% of clothing is recycled into new clothing (closed-loop)
- ~12% is downcycled (insulation, rags)
- Most is landfilled or incinerated
Barriers to Textile Recycling
Technical:
- Fiber blends are difficult to separate
- Quality degradation with mechanical recycling
- Chemical recycling is energy-intensive
Economic:
- Virgin materials often cheaper
- Collection and sorting costs
- Limited end markets
Infrastructure:
- Limited collection systems
- Few commercial-scale recycling facilities
Emerging Solutions
- Fiber-to-fiber recycling: Renewcell, Circ, Worn Again
- Design for recyclability: Mono-materials, easy disassembly
- Extended producer responsibility: Shifting costs to producers
- Resale platforms: ThredUp, Vinted, Depop
PCRs and Standards
Product Category Rules
EPD International: PCR for wearing apparel and accessories
PEF pilots: Apparel and footwear (EU)
Industry Standards
Higg Index: Supply chain sustainability measurement OEKO-TEX: Certification for harmful substances bluesign: System for sustainable textile production Global Recycled Standard: Certification for recycled content
Key Takeaways
- Use phase often dominates textile impacts—care behavior matters
- Fiber choice involves trade-offs; no fiber is universally best
- Wet processing (dyeing) is a major hotspot often hidden from consumers
- Extending garment life is one of the most effective interventions
- Textile recycling remains a significant challenge—design for circularity is emerging
- Regional factors (water scarcity, grid carbon) significantly affect results
Resource List
Data Sources
- Textile Exchange - Fiber data
- WRAP Textiles - UK textile LCA
- ecoinvent textiles - Process data
Industry Initiatives
- ZDHC Foundation - Chemical management
- Sustainable Apparel Coalition - Higg Index
- Ellen MacArthur Foundation Fashion
Standards and Labels
Textile LCA is complicated by regional variation in production and consumer behavior. Use regionally appropriate data and clearly state assumptions.