. why do clothes need to be dyed? they are dyed to make them fit an aesthetic that would appeal to the public

. why is there a need for colored clothes? people like to express their emotions and personality

. why do people use color to express themselves? it is one of the easiest languages to understand ( red- anger/love, yellow- happiness)

1. Environmental Damage: Fast fashion contributes to pollution, waste, and overconsumption of resources. The production of cheap clothing involves toxic dyes, excessive water use, and synthetic fabrics that take hundreds of years to decompose, leading to a huge environmental footprint.

2. Labor Exploitation: The industry often relies on low-wage labor in developing countries, where workers, including children, may endure poor working conditions, long hours, and little pay. This exploitation is a hidden cost of keeping production costs low.

3. Waste: The trend of disposable clothing, where garments are worn briefly before being discarded, leads to massive textile waste. Items are often produced cheaply, and many end up in landfills after a short period of use.

4. Quality vs. Quantity: Fast fashion prioritizes quantity over quality, with items often designed to be worn a few times before falling apart. This creates a cycle of constant buying and disposal, reinforcing the wasteful consumption culture.

These hidden costs reveal that the true price of cheap clothing isn't just monetary—it's also borne by the environment and the people who produce it.

. a lot of textile waste is dumped every year.

. a lot of water is wasted every year.

red hat- .i feel guilty and sad when thinking of all the environmental problems that are happening in the world because of the fashion industry especially since i take part in elevating the problem from buying the clothes.

yellow hat- . there would be less pollution in the air if customers would make there clothes last longer instead of buying more clothes every so often having them shipped across the world in planes.

black hat- .if we keep going in the direction that we're going sooner or later we will run out of water, stop being able to breath properly, and climate change getting worse.

green hat - .a solution that i have found to use less water when dying fabrics is CO2 dyeing, which uses no water no prosses chemicals and instead uses patented and industrial proven technology based on CO2.

Introduction

• Fast fashion: Emerged in Europe at the end of the 20th century, involving the rapid replication of designer trends at lower prices.

• Entire clothing production and distribution process often completed within weeks.

• Enables social class blending, making fashion accessible across income levels.

•Significant criticism due to high

environmental impact:

• One of the world's most polluting industries.

• Contributes over 500,000 tons of microfibres to oceans annually.

• Responsible for 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Sustainable Fashion

• Gained attention due to growing consumer awareness of environmental issues.

• Adoption encouraged by anti-fur campaigns in the 1990s.

• Transition from linear economy to circular economy is advocated.

• Companies are increasingly investing in CSR to meet societal expectations and improve stakeholder relationships.

Theoretical Framework: Stakeholder Theory

·      Focuses on generating value for all stakeholders, not just shareholders.

·      Emphasises the ethical responsibility of firms towards customers, employees, suppliers, and investors.

Importance of CSR Initiatives

·      Defined as a company's contribution to sustainable economic development.

·      Enhances customer commitment and brand positioning.

·      Supports global sustainability efforts like the UN 2030 Agenda and EU circular economy targets.

Digital Marketing for Consumer Engagement

·      Digital marketing channels (websites, apps, and social networks) help build long-term client relationships.

·      Informs customers about CSR and sustainability efforts, contributing to brand differentiation.

Case Study: Zara

• Leading fast-fashion brand, founded in 1975 by Amancio Ortega.

• Presence in 96 countries with nearly 3,000 stores as of 2023.

• Ranked among Interbrand's top 50 global brands since 2015.

• Financial resilience demonstrated by consistent growth, except during COVID-19.

• Strong social media presence, with millions of followers across platforms.

• Named 2023's Most Mentioned Fashion Brand by Influencers.

Data Collection and Survey Findings

• Qualitative research: Content analysis of Zara's CSR and sustainability initiatives.

• Quantitative research: Online survey targeting Zara's primary market (18-40 years old).

• Majority of respondents were Spanish (71%) and women (83%), aligning with Zara's market demographics.

Summary

Fast fashion has reshaped the clothing industry, making designer-inspired styles accessible but causing significant environmental harm. The rise of sustainable fashion reflects growing consumer demand for eco-conscious practices, with companies adopting CSR initiatives to enhance their societal standing and stakeholder relationships. Zara serves as a prominent case study, demonstrating success through its global presence, digital marketing strategies, and commitment to sustainability. The integration of these efforts highlights the importance of responsible business practices in maintaining brand loyalty and consumer engagement.

The average lifespan of a clothing item has decreased, with many items worn fewer than 10 times before being discarded. 

The rapid production of cheap, trendy clothing that encourages frequent purchases and disposals. 

The target audience of fast fashion retailers is largely consumers aged 18 to 24  

60% of clothes are made with plastic-based materials 

The fashion industry is a major contributor to global waste and pollution, impacting our environment significantly. 

Fashion waste encompasses all discarded clothing, textiles, and accessories from the production and consumption of fashion products. 

This includes textile waste from manufacturing processes and clothing waste from consumers. 

A significant portion of fashion waste ends up in landfills or is incinerated. Only a small fraction is recycled.  

It takes about 2,700 litres of water to produce one cotton shirt, which is equivalent to 2.5 years of drinking water for one person 

The average lifespan of a clothing item has decreased, with many items worn fewer than 10 times before being discarded. 

1. White Hat: Fast fashion produces cheap, trendy clothes quickly but harms the environment and exploits workers.

2. Red Hat: Frustration over unethical practices and guilt when purchasing fast fashion.

3. Yellow Hat: Affordable clothing and accessible trends for consumers.

4. Black Hat: Environmental damage, poor working conditions, and excessive waste.

5. Green Hat: Invest in sustainable fashion, upcycling, and supporting ethical brands.

6. Blue Hat: Focus on educating consumers and encouraging mindful purchasing to reduce fast fashion demand.

• Factory workers are being exploited in many companies and being paid unfair wages (e.g. brands like shein) 

• Buying just one white cotton shirt produces the same amount of emissions as driving 35 miles in a car. - WRAP

• Textile production contributes more to climate change than international aviation and shipping combined. — House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, 2019

• I want to know what brands are doing to try and improve these issues?

The red hat - feelings & vibes (express your gut feelings and reactions)

• These facts make me feel worried about the future of fashion retail and sadness and sympathy for the people working in these awful conditions

• Overwhelmed 

The yellow hat - sunshine and positivity (explore the positives and benefits of solving the issue)

• Solving this issue would mean all factory workers would get paid fair wages and be in ethical working conditions

• There wouldn’t be as many environmental issues regarding overconsumption as clothes wouldn’t be manufactured at such a rapid pace.

The black hat - caution and skepticism (consider the negatives, risks, threats and drawbacks)

• If brands stopped these unethical practices they would have to increase their prices by a lot as they would be having to pay workers a lot more. They might go out of business because their customers may not be willing to pay those prices.

• Can we actually solve this problem?

• Waste 

• Environmental damage 

The green hat - creativity & surprise (look for creative solutions and alternatives)

• Take inspiration - governments that have enforced laws to do with this

The blue hat - manages the process (evaluate the responses)

"11 fast fashion facts and statistics

• The world uses an estimated 80 billion pieces of clothing every year, a 400 percent increase from two decades ago. — The True Cost

• Textile production contributes more to climate change than international aviation and shipping combined. — House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, 2019

• Buying just one white cotton shirt produces the same amount of emissions as driving 35 miles in a car. —WRAP

• By 2030, global apparel consumption is projected to rise by 63%, from 62 million tons today to 102 million tons—equivalent to more than 500 billion additional T-shirts. — House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, 2019

• 75% of consumers believe that sustainability is important and one-third are willing to choose brands that help environmental and social improvement. — Ellen MacArthur Foundation

• The fashion industry is responsible for 10% of annual global carbon emissions. — Morgan McFall-Johnsen (2020)

• Half a million tons of plastic microfibers are dumped into the ocean every year, the equivalent of 50 billion plastic bottles. — World Economic Forum

• Around 300,000 tonnes of textile waste ends up in household black bins every year, sent to landfill or incinerators. Less than 1% of material used to produce clothing is recycled into new clothing at the end of its life. — House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, 2019

• Clothing companies create more than 1 million garments every day. — Greenpeace

• Fast fashion emissions will grow by 50% by 2030, if current growth continues. — Ellen MacArthur Foundation

• Extending the life of clothes by just 9 months of active use would reduce carbon, water and waste footprints by 20-30% each. — WRAP"

The fashion industry is a significant contributor to environmental degradation, with several key issues:

1. Waste and Overproduction: Fast fashion encourages overconsumption, leading to an enormous amount of textile waste. It's estimated that millions of tons of clothing end up in landfills each year because of quick trends and disposable fashion.

2. Water Usage: The industry is water-intensive, especially in cotton production and fabric dyeing. It takes thousands of liters of water to produce just one pair of jeans, and the dyeing process often pollutes water sources with toxic chemicals.

3. Chemical Pollution: Many fabrics are treated with harmful chemicals that pollute water and soil. Synthetic materials like polyester release microplastics into oceans when washed, harming marine life.

4. Carbon Emissions: Fashion is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. From the production of raw materials to the transportation of goods, the industry has a significant carbon footprint, contributing to climate change.

5. Deforestation and Land Use: The production of certain materials, such as leather and cotton, contributes to deforestation and land degradation, which affects ecosystems and biodiversity.

6. Labor and Social Impact: While not purely environmental, the industry's reliance on cheap labor often leads to unsustainable farming practices, which in turn harm the environment.

Sustainable fashion is emerging as a response, focusing on reducing waste, using eco-friendly materials, recycling, and supporting ethical labor practices. However, change across the industry is slow and requires significant shifts in consumer behavior, business practices, and policy.

We guarantee everything we make.

View Ironclad Guarantee

We take responsibility for our impact.

Explore Our Footprint

We support grassroots activism.

Visit Patagonia Action Works

We keep your gear going.

Visit Worn Wear

We give our profits to the planet.

Read Our Commitment

We’ve built robust environmental and animal welfare responsibility programs to guide how we make our materials and products.

Learn More

Social Responsibility Programs

What we’re doing to ensure that our products are produced under safe, fair, legal and humane working conditions.

Learn More

Where We Do Business

We share information about our owned facilities and our suppliers across the supply chain, so you know where and how the clothes you buy are made.

It’s the second-largest consumer of the world’s water supply and is responsible for vast amounts of microfibre pollution in our oceans. 

It’s also estimated that in the UK alone,140 million pounds worth of clothing is sent to landfill each year. 

And the problems aren’t confined to fashion’s

1. Effectiveness

Worn Wear addresses fast fashion by extending garment life, reducing waste, and promoting circular fashion. While it delivers measurable environmental benefits, its overall industry impact is still limited, as fast fashion continues to prioritise profit over sustainability.

2. Scalability

The programme functions well within Patagonia’s business model but is difficult to implement in the fast fashion sector, where lower-quality materials and cost-driven production dominate. However, mid-to-high-end brands with a focus on durability could adopt similar initiatives more feasibly.

3. Sustainability

By reducing waste, conserving resources, and encouraging responsible consumer habits, Worn Wear promotes long-term sustainability. However, its model challenges the fundamental principles of fast fashion, making large-scale adoption across the industry unlikely without significant structural changes.

4. Ethical Implications

The initiative aligns with ethical fashion by discouraging overconsumption and supporting fair labour practices. However, it does not directly address the exploitation of garment workers in fast fashion supply chains. Additionally, its benefits are accessible to consumers who can afford higher-quality, long-lasting clothing.

5. Cost vs. Impact

While Patagonia gains from brand loyalty and an enhanced sustainability reputation, similar programmes may not be financially workable for fast fashion brands. Widespread adoption would require a fundamental shift in industry priorities and profit structures.

6. Consumer Impact

Worn Wear encourages consumers to repair and reuse clothing rather than embrace disposable fashion. However, its influence is limited to Patagonia’s existing customer base, and achieving a broader cultural shift would require wider industry participation.

Fast fashion has become a roughly US$120 billion industry and is projected to grow to US$185 billion by 2027. Shein, H&M, Temu, Zara, and others have built worldwide businesses by creating cheap clothing in bulk as quickly as possible to respond to changing fashion trends, especially for a growing global middle class with more disposable income. The crux of the problem is that fast fashion tends to encourage what many consider an excessive amount of consumption. Traditional clothing companies might release new lines four times a year; fast-fashion companies do so weekly or even daily. The clothes are designed to be relatively cheap and worn for a short period of time before being discarded, sometimes after only seven or eight wears. Consumers are then expected to buy the next hot thing. The result? People are buying more clothes, an estimated 60% more, but keeping them only half as long as they would a more durable, higher-quality piece of clothing.

Those dynamics exacerbate the environmental impacts of an industry that is inherently polluting to begin with. Conventional textile mills generate about one-fifth of the world’s industrial water pollution. About 20-35% of all the microplastics in the world’s oceans come from microfibers shed by clothes as they are washed. The industry also produces veritable mountains of unsold clothing, which get burned or thrown into landfills strewn around the Global South. (Shein, for one, has argued that its business model better matches supply with demand and produces less unsold clothing).

Every Patagonia product is made in a factory that we share with other brands, which means we do not own the factories where we manufacture. This presents both a challenge—since we are often among the smaller buyers—and an opportunity to foster change and bring the industry along.

Each product we create demands specific machinery and technical expertise sometimes only found in certain countries and, even more specifically, in certain factories. If we tried to own and manage all of our facilities, it simply wouldn’t be possible to build the breadth of high-quality, technical outdoor products we offer. However dependent we are on these factories, our decades of experience in apparel production have taught us that increased partnership with suppliers, and collaboration with other brands—those who share factories with us, and across the industry—is crucial if we are to live up to our commitments.

The suggestion was made by a Commons committee in an effort to fund better recycling of clothes.

It came amid growing fears that the industry is increasingly dominated by throwaway "fast fashion".

But Ms Hamnett said she feared the garment industry would just end up paying workers less to absorb the tax.

Instead, she is in favour of EU legislation making it mandatory for goods from outside Europe to meet the same standards required by the region.

She told the BBC that taxing retailers would be "like putting a plaster on a septic wound".

"The reason we say legislation is that the brands are not going to do it willingly - we've seen that, we've been talking about this for too long and nothing's changed. They have to be forced by law," the designer, who is known for her political slogan T-shirts and ethical fashion activism, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"Wouldn't it be better to force brands to pay their workers properly, and not discharge toxic chemicals into the environment, rather than making them pay for the privilege to do that?"

Also included in the bill was a ban on advertising around ultra-fast fashion brands and items, which would certainly clear up those bizarre Wish ads on my Facebook feed. While the bill still has to reach the senate before it becomes law, France’s game-changing anti-fast fashion efforts have shone a harsh spotlight on Australia, especially given the statistics around our own online shopping baskets.

Late last month, data from the Australia Institute revealed that Australians buy more clothes per person than any other country, surpassing the US as the world’s biggest consumer of textiles per capita.

According to the paper, Australians purchase an average of 56 new garments annually — 200,000 tonnes of which ends up in landfill — ahead of the US and the UK, who buy 53 and 33 new items per year, respectively.  

What’s more, Australians were found to be paying far less for their garments, forking out an average of just $16 per item compared to the US ($24) and the UK ($40).

Co-author of the Australia Institute study, Nina Gbor, is leading calls to reverse these findings, saying our fast fashion habits are “harming our health and the environment”. Gbor has been joined in her efforts by multiple sustainable fashion advocates and organisations, including Amanda Butterworth of Fashion Revolution.

The available statistics suggest that between 80bn and 150bn garments are made every year and that between 10% and 40% of these are not sold. So it could be 8bn or 60bn excess garments a year – an alarming disparity.

“Production volumes represent a really important opportunity to bring honesty back into the conversation,” says Liz Ricketts, the co-founder and executive director of the Or Foundation, an environmental justice charity based in Ghana. “It’s a data point that everyone has accessible to them. It’s just about companies being willing to share it.”

Believing that transparency about production volumes is central to assessing and tackling the scope of fashion’s environmental problems, the Or Foundation launched the Speak Volumes campaign in November, which invites brands to disclose how many units they made in 2022.

So far, 32 small- and medium-sized businesses have participated. The largest disclosure came from the British brand Lucy & Yak, which produced 760,951 pieces; the smallest was from the Scottish brand Mlambo, at just 100 items. It’s a far cry from the billions of garments thought to be manufactured by fashion’s biggest players, none of which have participated.

This program is based on internal standards, utilizes industry-wide tools, such as the Higg Index, and recognizes third-party certification programs, such as the bluesign® system, as ways that our suppliers can show how they are meeting Patagonia’s expectations. Beyond the program’s minimum requirements, suppliers are encouraged to demonstrate environmental excellence by implementing better and best practices, so we can recognize them as environmentally responsible supply-chain partners.

1. 92 million tonnes of textiles waste is produced every year 

Of the 100 billion garments produced each year, 92 million tonnes end up in landfills. To put things in perspective, this means that the equivalent of a rubbish truck full of clothes ends up on landfill sites every second. If the trend continues, the number of fast fashion waste is expected to soar up to 134 million tonnes a year by the end of the decade.

2. The apparel industry’s global emissions will increase by 50% by 2030

If a business-as-usual scenario prevails in the coming years – meaning that no action is taken to reduce fast fashion waste – the industry’s global emissions will likely double by the end of the decade.

Invest in a Sustainable FutureBy supporting Earth.Org, you are investing in a sustainable future for our planet. Help us drive positive change by contributing to our ongoing efforts to protect the environment.

DONATE NOW

3. The average US consumer throws away 81.5lbs of clothes every year

In America alone, an estimated 11.3 million tons of textile waste – equivalent to 85% of all textiles – end up in landfills on a yearly basis. That’s equivalent to approximately 81.5 pounds (37 kilograms) per person per year and around 2,150 pieces per second countrywide.

4. The number of times a garment is worn has declined by around 36% in 15 years

The throwaway culture has worsen progressively over the years. At present, many items are worn only seven to ten times before being tossed. That’s a decline of more than 35% in just 15 years.

Photo by EO Photographer Chin Leong Teo.

5. The fashion industry is responsible for 20% of global waste water

Dyeing and finishing – the processes by which colour and other chemicals are applied to fabrics – are responsible for 3% of global CO2 emissions as well as over 20% of global water pollution. Along with yarn preparation and fibre production, these two processes have the highest impacts on resource depletion, due to the energy-intensive processes based on fossil fuel energy.

6. It takes 20,000 litres of water to produce one kilogram of cotton

Besides being a huge source of water pollution, fast fashion also contributes to massive quantities of water being wasted every day. If this is difficult to picture, just think that about 2,700 litres of water are needed to make just one t-shirt, which would be enough for one person to drink for 900 days. Moreover, a single load of washing uses between 50 and 60 litres of water.

7. $500 billion is lost each year because of under-wearing and failure to recycle clothes

The worst aspect of our reckless thrown-away culture is that the vast majority of clothes being tossed each year is not recycled. Globally, just 12% of the material used for clothing ends up being recycled. Much of the problem comes down to the materials our clothes are made from and inadequate technologies to recycle them. “The fabrics we drape over our bodies are complex combinations of fibres, fixtures and accessories. They are made from problematic blends of natural yarns, man-made filaments, plastics and metals.”

You might also like: Is Hong Kong’s Avant-Garde Textile Recycling Facility a Real Solution to Fast Fashion Problems?

8. Nearly 10% of microplastics dispersed in the ocean each year come from textiles

Garments are a huge source of microplastics because so many are now made of nylon or polyester, both durable and cheap. Each wash and dry cycle, especially the latter, sheds microfilaments that move through our sewage systems and end up in waterways. It is estimated that half a million tons of these contaminants reach the ocean each year. That’s  the equivalent to the plastic pollution of more than 50 billion bottles.

9. 2.6 million tonnes of returned clothes ended up in landfills in 2020 in the US alone

Most of the items returned to retailers from consumers end up in landfill. This is mainly because it costs more to the company to put them back in circulation than to get rid of them. Reverse logistics company Optoro also estimates that in the same year, 16 million tonnes of CO2 emissions were created by online returns in the US in 2020 – the equivalent to the emissions of 3.5 million cars on the road for a year.

You might also like: Fast Fashion and Its Environmental Impact

10. Fast fashion brands are producing twice the amount of clothes today than in 2000

This dramatic increase in production has also caused an increase in both pre- and post-production textile waste. Due to the number of cut outs for the clothing, a large number of materials get wasted as they cannot be used any further, with one study estimating that 15% of fabric used in garment manufacturing is wasted. Post-production, 60% of approximately 150 million garments produced globally in 2012 were discarded just a few years after production.

Research for this article was conducted by Earth.Org research contributor Chloe Lam

The industry again came under the spotlight recently as a German court case sought to determine whether local discount clothing manufacturer KiK should be held responsible for the poor working conditions at its supplier company in Pakistan.

In 2012, a fire killed 258 people in the Ali Enterprises textile factory in Karachi. It's the first case of its kind held in Germany and will determine whether corporations should be held accountable for the working conditions of their suppliers abroad.

Read more: German retailer KiK compensates Pakistan's 'industrial 9/11' families 

DW's Sarah Hucal spoke with Dr. Gisela Burckhardt, director of FEMNET, an NGO that works for women's rights in the garment industry in Asia, and a member of the 2018 jury selecting the German Sustainability Award, which recognizes companies and NGOs that encourage social and ecological responsibility. They talked ahead of the annual  German Sustainability Award ceremony on December 7 about the challenges and potential for change in the garment industry.

DW: What are some of the main issues we are seeing in relation to women working in the garment industry?

Gisela Burckhardt: Working conditions in the textile industry are very bad. We have discrimination against women, especially in India and Bangladesh. Women are sexually harassed and the payment is very, very low. Even though in Bangladesh the minimum wage increased from about 60 euros to 85 euros (per month) in December, it is not a sufficient living wage and women need to work overtime to survive. We also have the problem of a lack of organization in the factories. If women try to organize themselves in trade unions, they are normally threatened by the management and have to leave the factory. These are some of the problems that have not been resolved.

Why are more women than men affected in this industry?

About 80% of the workforce in the clothing industry is women, with the exception of Pakistan. The industry wants to hire women because they are seen as docile and they might not organize very easily. When they come home, for example, they might not be able to go to trade union meetings because they have so much to do. It's a very patriarchal society in India and Bangladesh, so women are used to not being treated as they should be — as human beings. This also makes it easier in the factory — bosses shout at them and treat them differently than men.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is spearheading an initiative towards a zero waste world. As part of this ambitious outlook, UNEP has partnered with Kenyan spoken word poet Beatrice Kariuki to shed light on high-impact sectors where consumers can make a real difference.

“We need circular industries where old looks are made new,” Kariuki says in the video. “Less packaging, more reuse. Threads that last.”

• The discussion shifted from post-consumer waste (clothing discarded by individuals) to pre-consumer waste (waste created before garments reach consumers).

Key causes of pre-consumer waste:

• Overproduction: Brands produce too many garments, many of which remain unsold.

• Cutting Waste: Large amounts of fabric scraps discarded during garment production.

• Unwanted Trends: Rapidly shifting fashion trends lead to surplus stock that never sells.

Challenges in Researching Waste:

• Lack of industry transparency companies may hide actual waste data.

• Fashion industry tends to shift blame onto consumers, ignoring its own role in waste creation.

2. Possible Solutions & Industry Initiatives

Sustainability Initiatives:

• London Fashion Week and Copenhagen Fashion Week introducing waste reduction frameworks.

• Potential government regulations to enforce sustainable production.

Reducing Overproduction:
• Implementing smarter demand forecasting to avoid excess stock.
• Encouraging brands to adopt made-to-order or small-batch production.

Tackling Cutting Waste:
• Using zero-waste pattern cutting techniques.
• Repurposing fabric scraps into new garments or accessories.

3. Presentation Planning & Structure

• The group is still gathering research but needs to start shaping it into a clear story rather than just presenting data.

Key Areas to Cover:
• Industry responsibility for waste (shifting blame away from consumers).

• Specific examples of brands or policies tackling pre-consumer waste.
• Potential solutions balancing profit and sustainability.

Collaboration Approach:
• Work on a shared PowerPoint instead of isolated slides.
• Ensure a cohesive message and structure across sections.
• Reference sources properly using Harvard referencing (bibliography at the end).

Waste is generated during the clothing manufacturing stage in many ways and includes:

• Fabric scraps: During garment production, a significant proportion of fabrics are discarded. In some cases, such as in the production of tailoring or high-fashion clothing, the waste can be considerable. It is estimated that on average about 15-20% of textile material is discarded during production.

• Chemical waste: The fashion industry uses a number of chemical processes (e.g. for dyeing, fibre treatment, and fabric finishing), which generates hazardous waste such as chemical solutions, paints, solvents, and other toxic substances. This waste can contaminate the environment if not treated properly.

• Fibre waste: Synthetic fibre (such as polyester, nylon, and acrylic) and natural fibre (such as cotton or wool) are often discarded in huge quantities during the manufacturing process. Synthetic fibres are particularly problematic because they are not biodegradable and are difficult to recycle

As well as reducing environmental impact, there are cost benefits for retailers helping them drive efficiencies, as well as reduce waste and overstocking by matching supply with demand. Technology is being used in new ways by M&S and H&M to reduce clothing waste.

In our journey to build a circular ecosystem where products and materials are circulated at their highest value, we need to reduce our dependency on virgin fibres. By doing this, we will reduce our negative impact on climate, nature and communities, and help to meet our environmental goals and ambitions. In an ideal world, these recycled fibres would come from used textiles to create a closed loop. However, we need to build global infrastructure for collecting and sorting used garments, as well as scale up recycling technology to guarantee an adequate supply of recycled fibres. In the meantime, pre-consumer feedstock, for example from offcuts and scraps generated during production, can make up the shortfall.