Environment post Belém: what’s in Fashion (and how)?

COP30 in Belém unanimously concluded that no better conclusion could be reached on the environmental energy transition than those already reached in Paris in 2015 and at COP 2018 in Dubai. This was the only unanimous conclusion possible at the end of November in Belém and therefore the only one that could be confirmed by a unanimous plenary vote. When victory is not possible, diplomats are there to ensure that dialog continues. Keeping it open is still a step forward. The final document, however, is not without resources for the future: an entire chapter is devoted to the implementation of Paris: Chapter Two ‘From negotiation to implementation: Paris Agreement policy cycle fully in motion.’ With the countries that want to be there. Which is what has happened so far; and in Belém, saving the idea of the COP on climate as an institution was the only way forward, after the pressure exerted by Trump and, on the first day, by Saudi Arabia.
So now it’s time for implementation. What does this mean for the future? It means that we will need to keep a close eye on the UNFCCC, the environmental arm of the United Nations that monitors the development of national, financial and sectoral plans, in order to understand what progress is being made and which countries are making it.
To better understand the mechanism chosen by a sector that perhaps few people associate with the environment and energy, but which is in fact fully involved. We are talking about Fashion. Yes, global fashion shows, red carpets, glamorous movie stars and rock icons united by their love for a label, a brand, a designer that may been around for a hundred years. Italy and France are examples of this and often recognized as leaders in the field. In addition, of course, to families, famous couples and “soloist” designers—Versace, Armani, Valentino—whose faces are even better known than many of the leaders who have succeeded one another over the years, not only at the various COPs but in all forums for discussion on the environment around the world.

The problems of fashion

Well not many people know or stop to reflect on the fact that a battle is also underway—fought through investments and communication—which links the name of medium-high profile brands to environmental commitment programs. In fact, for some years now, fashion has been one of the industries where the environmental problems to be addressed are among the most complex. Let's start with the figures to understand: the amount of textile waste that ends up in landfills or is incinerated is now estimated at around 92 million tons globally each year; a 2020 McKinsey report, “Fashion on climate”, estimated that in 2018 the clothing industry was responsible for around 2.1 billion tons of CO2 equivalent per year, which means that the fashion industry can be considered responsible for between 8 and 10 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions (in terms of CO2 equivalent). This is practically the same overall responsibility as Europe's total compared to the rest of the world. And since 2020 there has been no noticeable reversal of this trend except in the early stages or in marketing.

T

his certainly includes the energy consumption of production but not yet the possible damage from a water perspective. From the “fullonicas” of Ancient Rome to the pre-industrial wash houses of the Middle Ages, all historians are aware of the economic role but also the effect of the possible degradation of the fashion industry over the centuries. Above all, the efforts made first by emperors, then by kings and finally by the creators of the Industrial Revolution to guarantee the water supply essential to this very human work of manufacturing. Now, from the data, we can deduce that a water problem in our contemporary world really does exist, if we consider that it takes about 700 liters of water to produce a single cotton T-shirt. In a 2017 study, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, in its report "A new textiles economy. Redesigning fashion's future", the Ellen MacArthur Foundation presented these worrying figures: the total annual (global) consumption of the textile and clothing industry is approximately 93 billion cubic meters of water per year, which corresponds to approximately 4 percent of the global freshwater withdrawn annually. Clothing alone consumes approximately 62 billion cubic meters of water per year (approximately two-thirds of the sector's total). Consumption per garment, or the so-called water footprint, derives from the use of water for crop irrigation (e.g. cotton, linen, etc.) and then in the dyeing, finishing and washing stages.

If we break it down to the use per individual garment, the Foundation's hypothesis is that the use of water for a manufactured T-shirt ranged from 700/1000 liters to about 2500/2700 liters depending on the type of production; for a pair of jeans, from cotton cultivation to the end of production, between 7,000 and 100,000 liters of water and finally, again as an example, the production of one kilogram of textile cotton requires about 11,000 liters of water. Added to this is the general problem of pollution: the textile industry is responsible for about 20 percent of global drinking water pollution (mainly due to textile treatments and dyeing processes), and every year, about 200,000 tons of dyes are released into the environment through textile wastewater.

Fashion is no longer untouchable

These figures, released around the end of 2017 and 2018, when problems relating to sectors that were generally perceived as highly polluting—such as air transport, traffic, and home heating and air conditioning—began to be addressed, were a heavy blow to the usually carefree world of fashion, putting it in a different media spotlight from in the past. Not to mention that—sometimes positively, but not always—this sparked a battle of environmental slogans, investigations, and unexpected reports on brands considered “untouchable” and which became much more fragile from a marketing and communication standpoint when faced with the environmental awareness of new generations of buyers.

The Charter of Intent

For the sake of the environment, or even just for their own reputation, many global brands and ultra-popular brands around the world have begun to appear at global forums, and so in 2018, the UNFCC proposed a “Charter of Intent” for the fashion world at COP24, which was subsequently reinforced during COP26.
What does this "charter" entail? The sharing of guidelines derived from the Paris Agreement, seeking to achieve net zero emissions as a sector by 2050; the definition of objectives throughout the fashion supply chain (which is long and complicated, from textile production to subcontractors, design, presentation, etc.); a change in production, with greater focus on materials that guarantee low emissions and, of course, a strong focus on recycling, which means effectively entering into a real circular economy. This was followed by meetings with many fashion stars, as well as initiatives, conferences, and very interesting studies. The World Economic Forum also intervened, sharing the line adopted by the UNFCC Charter and pointing out the strategic need for massive investment (the WEF and McKinsey reported a figure of between USD 20 billion and 30 billion globally) to substantiate sustainable innovations in the environmental and energy transformation of fashion and its supply chains. It should be noted that changes and innovations also had a significant impact on the labor sector and relations between states: consider the role of key countries such as India as low-cost textile and manufacturing producers, for example. As a result, the UN also coordinated other agencies such as UNEP (environment), ILO (labor), and ITC (innovation and small businesses) in the preparation of COP28, focusing on the innovation needed in the fashion world, while the G7 also coordinated its own platform for the exchange of best practices with a focus on the circular economy in the textile sector.

After Belém

What has become of all this, and what will happen in the future, given the second chapter of the Belém final document, which calls for a move from negotiations (and announcements) to implementation, i.e., the actual execution of activities?
Certainly, we cannot rely on the simple goodwill of companies, even though we know that both large fashion houses and medium-to-large companies with a global presence have embarked on paths to ensure they are recognized as committed to the fight against climate change and participation in the global effort for new and renewable energies. Many still have yet to succeed—just 6-7 years since the signing of the UNFCCC Charter—in making the changes, in an industry that in some cases involves international supply chains that are at least a hundred years old. Others, however, are focusing precisely on this area to drive innovation.
In the institutional field, however, it must be said that—even if, as usual, it does not always manage to sell it well—the European Union is the body of states and also the representative of individual states that have approached the problem in a more structural way. In July 2024, the EU introduced the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, which replaces and significantly innovates on the previous 2009 regulation and introduces very advanced guidelines on product design requirements and supply chain organization “to improve product durability, reusability, upgradability and reparability.” Obviously, fashion and haute couture in particular are only the tip of the iceberg in this sector, but their role as natural leaders and drivers of an industry is clearly understood and exalted, whether they choose to lead the transformation or deny it and be driven only by reputational risk. Some rules have been discussed at length and have now become European legislation: for example, the responsibility—as in other economic sectors—of the manufacturer for the end-of-life management of products, unsold items, and recycled products.

T

his is no small matter when you consider that producing a ‘wool blend’ garment with plastic materials, for example, can not only result in garments that are non-recyclable and difficult to process with current waste disposal technologies, but also that this entails changes in the very conception and design of the garments themselves, which often form the basis for choices of  ‘taste’, and certainly not debatable in a field where creativity and personal taste—of both the creator and the consumer—are among the fundamental drivers of the economy that supports it. Circularity means starting with production, choosing fabrics based on their water and energy consumption during processing; it means creating a new chain of reuse and recycling; it means recreating a circuit of repairs and reuse. Let's be clear: there is also positive news for the world of work, as evidenced by the large number of recycling and repair workshops that have been reborn and are often run by the virtuous side of immigration in our big cities. But there is certainly a need to govern this new ‘traffic’ of companies born and reborn on the basis of the choices made in the European Green Deal. And this is where we come to the hardest and most difficult choice. And the most ambitious. A choice that could create yet another dispute with Trump's US, given the current situation, perhaps. Namely, the introduction of the DPP, or Digital Product Passport, a simple QR code on the label that could (and for the EU must) contain all the information on the environmental sustainability and circularity of the garment we have purchased.
The Digital Product Passport will be mandatory from 2030 and from 2027 for certain categories: it will not be about making just any low-cost environmental claims, but rather about indicating the supply chain, the use of renewable sources for energy and water, the absence of hazardous chemicals, and the absence of microplastics There is no escaping reading and traceability. And perhaps even the eye of the attentive consumer with a smartphone at hand.
The European Union is relying on this to transform a sector worth billions of euro, making it a driving force in both technology and communication for the energy and environmental transition. The United Nations, through the UNFCC, if it follows up on the recommendations of the final document of Belém COP30, should also follow suit, revitalizing the advisory committees on which CEOs and managers of major global fashion houses sit, and deciding to move from analysis and negotiations to the concrete actions demanded by the times. And also considering a possible advantage: the US—and Trump—are still part of the UNFCCC, and fashion has a global epicenter in the US in terms of production and consumption. Not even Trump will be able to turn a blind eye.