Growing consensus
After years of outdated data on cotton, 13 industry bodies worked with Cascale to provide new figures for the Higg Index. While they stress it is important that fibres are only compared with like-for-like, it has been described as a step forward, as accurate data becomes ever more important to buyers
How can brands justify the choices they make when it comes to selecting materials and suppliers? It is not possible to make these decisions solely on cost as responsible business practices become more prevalent and incoming regulations such as the European Union’s (EU) Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and Green Claims Directive will require companies to be transparent about their choices.
To analyse materials, more than 40,000 businesses use the Higg Materials Sustainability Index (MSI), a cradle-to-gate assessment tool that calculates environmental impacts and is operated by Cascale (formerly called the Sustainable Apparel Coalition, with the index hosted by Worldly). For each material, the MSI provides scores, taking into account the energy, water and chemicals used, as well as waste generation and water pollution. Environmental impact is measured for global warming, nutrient pollution, water scarcity, abiotic resource depletion, use of fossil fuels and chemistry.
But trying to compare these materials, with a myriad of variables, is difficult, and there have been cries – particularly from natural fibres producers – that comparing certain data sets creates an unfair picture. This has partly been because natural fibres such as leather, wool and cotton are often assigned high carbon footprint figures because of the resources needed to grow or collect the fibres, and also because the figures stop at the gate (manufacturing). This means that the material’s durability – which some claim is the most important sustainability metric – is not considered. Other factors, such as microplastic migration and synthetic fibre’s inability to degrade, are also not represented, for instance in the European Union’s Product Environmental Footprint (see sidebar on Make the Label Count).
Over the years, the Higg Index has been criticised by several associations, including leather and wool industry representatives and in 2022 by the Norwegian Consumer Authority, which recommended its users stop backing claims with Higg data. In response, Higg temporarily suspended the MSI and commissioned a third-party review. Consultants at KPMG said it needed to improve the quality of data and add warnings to avoid inappropriate comparisons.
In the background, work was already under way to update the data attributed to cotton. Thirteen associations – including Better Cotton, Cotton Council International, Cotton Incorporated, National Cotton Council of America, Organic Cotton Accelerator and the US Cotton Trust Protocol – gathered online, initially monthly, as part of the Cotton Expert Team. Over three years, they worked to build a blueprint for cotton data. This included defining lifecycle assessment (LCA) data source requirements, modelling approaches and data-use best-practices, as well as addressing gaps or considerations outside LCA data. The task was to agree on the data needed, define a common template, the assumptions underlying the model, and the intended and allowed use cases. They also discussed the common figures existing in the literature.
Change of heart
For many years, associations have shied away from producing collaborative figures, so what was the impetus for the change of heart? For Better Cotton, under which about 20% of the world’s cotton is grown, it was partly because pooling resources on LCAs meant money could be used elsewhere. “The opportunity to share LCA data as a united industry group has allowed us to continue targeting investment in our field-level programmes rather than channelling these funds towards Better Cotton’s own LCAs,” Miguel Gomez-Escolar Viejo, Better Cotton’s head of monitoring, evaluation and learning, tells us.
Better Cotton is a non-profit, multi-stakeholder governance group that promotes better standards in cotton farming across 22 countries. More than 2.1 million farmers have a licence to sell their cotton as Better Cotton and the network has more than 2,700 members. Miguel Gomez-Escolar Viejo notes a global LCA for Better Cotton could not capture the regional nuances, but, however, country-level LCAs could link the data to physically sourced cotton and further incentivise brands to invest in improvements. “What is exciting about this new LCA is the sheer amount of data we have used,” he adds. “Data has been collected from over 60,000 farmers. Using all our farm-level data is a truly exciting way to better reflect reality and lay the foundations for targeted farmer support that helps tackle their environmental footprint.”
For the US Cotton Trust Protocol, which launched in 2020 and covers more than 2 million acres, data is key and updating the current sets was a key driver for collaborating. “Our shared goal is to enhance the depth and quality of data within the Higg MSI methodology and results,” Daren Abney, CEO of the Protocol, tells Sportstextiles. “Other than data from Australia, Better Cotton in India and the US Cotton Trust Protocol, as of today, other datasets are old and of poor quality – with some dating as far back as 2007. As such, this collaboration is crucial for improving the accuracy and representation of future assessments, ultimately benefiting the entire cotton industry.”
Geographic nuances
So, what has changed? The updated dataset incorporates more recent information for the US, Australia and India and is more likely to reflect differences between geographies. The modelling, data collection methods and the year of data collection are different, and variations will also arise in some of the metrics. However, specific differences in results depend on the impact category being considered. Mr Abney points out that harmonisation always comes with a set of limiting assumptions. “Differences in data between the Higg MSI and data reported directly by the Trust Protocol can arise from variations in methodologies, scope, background data and data collection periods,” he says, but adds that overall, it can identify areas for improvement and drive positive change.
Cascale said the new cotton LCA methodology offers “unprecedented accuracy and consistency”. “This new methodology provides businesses with reliable data to make informed sourcing and sustainability decisions,” it added.
However, the cotton associations warn against comparison. “Sharing Better Cotton-specific LCA data may have several positive and negative impacts that we are currently evaluating,” explains Gomez-Escolar Viejo. “We understand the initial desire is for users to compare the data sets from different regions and programmes, or against conventional cotton production. However, these are not valid comparisons and they can lead to inaccurate conclusions that do not support the industry in working towards the collective environmental footprint reduction of cotton production.
“For one, this data should not be used for sourcing strategies since LCAs are only telling part of the story of cotton, and do not cover or reflect any social or economic impacts, weather variability or seasonal differences, among other factors. For example, an LCA reflecting a year in which extreme weather events led to lower yields would reflect differently to an LCA covering a year in which there were no such events, without creating space to explain the impact external variables had.”
The LCA data for India is the first set of figures within this model, and it cannot be compared with any previous data sets. Better Cotton will update data from the same regions at regular intervals, which will make these data sets comparable and show change and improvements over time.
“Previously we took the position that we were not in favour of publishing a global Better Cotton LCA, since it would not reflect regional nuances, challenges and priorities,” adds Mr Gomez-Escolar Viejo. “However, if the only use case for this dataset would be to account for Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions, a global Better Cotton figure could be useful and considered the ‘best available data’. Cotton production emissions datasets seem to be a requirement from brands since they are increasingly under legislative pressure to substantiate their sustainability reporting with data. It is important to remember that good data used poorly would be akin to using inaccurate data.”
With cotton being the world’s second-most used fibre, according to the Textile Exchange at 22% of global usage (although this is half that of polyester, at 54%), the need to grow and buy responsibly is pressing. The Higg MSI will be updated bi-annually and cotton programmes will, in the future, be able to add data directly to the index. Eventually, users will be able to select specific cotton programmes and regions, said Cascale, adding the cotton Member Expert Team (MET) has inspired new workstreams, including a textile wet processing MET. “In the future, other fibres may come forward for a data overhaul,” it added (see sidebar on leather).
“The Trust Protocol is committed to continuous improvement and is exploring alignment with other industry standards and methodologies to ensure that over time there will be a foundation and expectation of consistency and comparability across assessments,” concludes Mr Abney. “We believe that by working with Cascale and the broader industry, we can create a more robust and impactful assessment landscape for sustainable cotton.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Higg’s leather turnaround
In 2020, leather industry bodies, including the International Council of Tanners and the Leather and Hide Council of America, requested that Cascale suspend leather’s MSI score due to “inappropriate methodologies” and “out-of-date, unrepresentative, inaccurate and incomplete data” that had led to leather being burdened with a disproportionately high score. “This has led to a negative perception of leather that does not reflect its sustainable, circular nature,” said Dr Kerry Senior, then secretary of the International Council of Tanners. “On the basis of the current Higg score, manufacturers are deselecting leather in favour of fossil fuel-derived, unsustainable synthetic products,” he said at the time. Cascale did not suspend the score, but opened consultations.
Last October, consultancy Spin360, multi-stakeholder initiative The Leather Working Group (LWG) and promotion body Leather Naturally announced new figures for bovine leather had been adopted by the MSI, on the back of a joint body of work that included data from 45 manufacturing facilities across 18 countries and evaluated 92 leather products. It also encompassed information from the footwear, automotive, leathergoods and upholstery sectors. From this, the values were revised, with reductions across every Higg MSI category - global warming potential, eutrophication, water scarcity, abiotic depletion and chemistry.
The new dataset, included in the October 2024 update of the MSI, resulted in the environmental impacts of bovine leather being between 55% and 67% lower than the previous MSI value. The global warming potential, which previously showed an impact of 36.8 points on the scale, has been reduced by 60% to 14.6 points.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sticking points of PEF
One of the reasons Higg and other data sets are important is that they often influence other calculations. Last autumn, Better Cotton and the International Cotton Association joined Make the Label Count coalition, which is calling for reformation of the EU’s Product Environmental Footprints (PEF). Most of the members represent natural fibres, and say the inherently circular attributes, including renewability at start-of-life and biodegradability at end-of-life, need to be included. MLTC also says the socio-economic impact of fibre production and textile manufacturing is not considered in the current methodology – for instance, how many people make their livelihoods from cotton growing in developing countries – and sustainable agricultural management practices that replenish the land are not accounted for.
“There is a risk that LCA data can result in carbon tunnel-vision and brands could turn towards synthetic fibres which, under an imperfect methodology and use, can give the impression of a lower environmental footprint. These results could drive demand for synthetic fibres,” comments Miguel Gomez-Escolar Viejo from Better Cotton. “The PEF methodology fails to capture critical environmental impacts unique to synthetic materials, such as microplastics and post-consumer plastic waste, and in doing so favours synthetic fibres over natural fibres.”
In the first quarter of 2025, the European Commission, European Parliament and European Council will vote on the Green Claims Directive and the preferred methodology for evaluating sustainability metrics in textiles.
Higg said its tool is designed to evolve and will conform with the future EU PEF Apparel & Footwear Methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How transparent are the indexes?
The operators of these platforms wield influence on the industry, as how they present materials and processes that influence decisions. Last autumn, the Transformers Foundation published a report focusing on Cascale, Textile Exchange, the Social and Labor Convergence Program and Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC) exploring “the systemic barriers preventing meaningful supplier engagement in some of the industry’s most influential multi-stakeholder initiatives”.
The report says rules, governance and processes “often perpetuate supplier exclusion”. The organisations, though well-intentioned, often reinforce barriers that limit supplier participation, leading to what it calls “a cycle of distrust, disengagement and ineffective sustainability strategies”. It calls for the adoption of a ‘fair process’ model based on “non-biased decision-making, equitable engagement and transparency”.
The MSIs responded to the Transformers’ report, saying they “welcome feedback”, outlining how they are addressing some points.
Better Cotton in Kolondieba, Mali.
CREDIT: Better Cotton/Seun Adatsi
