Fashion’s latest sustainability report claims to have the answer – but are they mixed up?

There is a saying that when something seems too good to be true, it probably is. “Without [textile] “Recyclable technologies could increase 80 percent of matches in the fashion industry by 2025,” says the Scaling Circularity report, published by the Global Fashion Agenda in partnership with McKinsey & Company. However, Textile Exchange reported that less than 0.5% of the world’s fiber was recycled during the same period. Textiles in 2020. 80% sure looks stretchy.

Be skeptical and critical of reports that claim to be the best way to reduce industry’s environmental impact; Especially the authors who are interested in the findings. Latest Pentatonic and Eileen Fisher Foundation Hey, Fashion! Report & Forum cites the aforementioned “80% circularity” statistic and proclaims circularity as the primary solution to fashion’s environmental problems.

The report was published a few weeks ago and has been covered by at least 35 media outlets, including Vogue Business, Forbes and WWD. The report’s deadline is “The fashion wastage crisis and how to solve it”, with a focus on research and actionable conclusions.

Hey fashion! I was given a cover for Forbes, with the caption: “To reduce global emissions [by] In the year 43% by 2030 and reaching a safe path of 1.5˚C, the only option is to integrate circularity at every level of the value chain. But isn’t energy decarbonization the only option to achieve the 1.5-degree path, as this latest IPCC report concluded (after analyzing thousands of peer-reviewed research papers)?

Also, how come the actual target was defined (1.5 degrees), but the opposite solution (rounded, instead of decarbonized) was changed? Could it be a cut and paste error? Why roundness? Hey, it could be because it’s fashionable! It seeks as a solution to focus on circularity, reinforcing the rejection that “circularity is the only option for fashion”. This statement and several others made me question the validity of the report, and with 35 News sharing their conclusions, I wondered about the data behind the findings.

After seeking clarification from the authors of the above statements, they explained that their press agency had requested an alternative Forbes contribution to cover the report and that they were no longer desperate to get coverage from me. However, for clarification purposes they provided an interview with Pentatonic, which I have adopted and explained below.

Data collection and analysis

During a video call with Pentatonic, CEO Johannes Boedecker explained that they used two methods to gather data to inform the report’s findings: interviews (over 50) and questionnaires, and some respondents completed both. The number of completed questionnaires was not specified in the report, and Pentatonic declined to say how many there were. The interviews were based on pre-prepared questions with open (short and long answer) responses. The questionnaire had 5 different versions (for different stakeholders) with multiple choice and open responses.

What is clear from this data is that much of the data was collected through open-ended responses, which are typically non-comparable and lead to objective ‘cherry picking’ data. Multiple choice questions, on the other hand, provide clear and straightforward proportional answers, providing defined answer categories and allowing for objective conclusions. Also, differences in questions between respondents create an ‘apples and oranges’ situation, making comparisons and statistically significant deductions difficult or impossible.

Finally, duplicate responses by individual subjects in both interviews and questionnaires are at risk of ‘cherry-picking’ any overlapping responses. In fact, the report states: “Questionnaires and interviews helped reinforce findings from the literature review; This seems to be a foregone conclusion before the interviews and questionnaires begin. Pentatonic declined to explain how the literature review was conducted, or what conclusions were drawn from it, along with the usual assumptions of such a review.

The report states: “Interviewees were individually selected across all areas of influence, with an emphasis on the supply chain… Many influential businesses and senior fashion executives contributed from around the world. I could tell that only 3 of the 50+ interviewees represented the Global South, where most of the fashion supply chain is located. I shared this with Pentatonic, who found it difficult to get more participants from that hemisphere.

After the call, Pentatonic declined to answer any questions about the individual selection process, the amount of multiple-choice and open-ended questions, and any methods used to avoid bias and erroneous conclusions from duplicate responses or different questionnaires.

Global, or Global North?

As mentioned, only 3 of the more than 50 interviewees represented the Global South, limiting the scope of the report and cannot be considered representative of the global industry. Nearly 94% of respondents represent the Global North, which is dominated by brands, fiber-to-fiber recyclers and investors. The report is therefore heavily biased towards solutions that represent the interests of the Global North.

A further consequence of this bias is that the report prioritizes post-consumer textile waste solutions for Europe and the US, despite the significant textile waste problem (and opportunity) in the Global South. Post-industrial textile waste is produced in large quantities in producing countries such as China, India and Bangladesh, has a known fiber composition and can be easily (and cheaply) recycled. It is also where most of the industrial textiles and clothing are processed and spun fibers are closed.

This control reduces the importance and likelihood of circularity in the supply chain. Instead, focusing on circularity at the consumer end, where it is more expensive and difficult, but also more marketable for brands. The report’s conclusions contradict the study’s focus on supply chains.

Cherry, picked

The report shares key circular themes identified through expert interviews with “nonprofits, businesses, investors, policymakers, academia, and other actors in the fashion ecosystem.” The interviewees ranked fossil fuel emissions as the least important theme (18%) compared to policies to stimulate textile circularity (80% – the most important). This bias may have many motivations, but I argue that the circularity narrative blinds interviewees (and report readers) to the enormous potential to reduce emissions simply by moving away from fossil fuels. Divestment from fossil fuels is listed in action item 7 of the list of 8 key actions.

Data conclusions

Given the lack of clarity in data collection methods, the narrow geographic scope of the subjects, and analysis and data management, the report lacks credibility and does little to suggest what global industry stakeholders should do to achieve circularity. 1.5 degree path. At best, it may provide empirical support for some of the relationships or aspirations around the circle – more of a straw man opinion based on findings than statistically significant analysis – but not the “researched” and “solid” recommendations you first thought. (Boedeker told me they would remove this term from the report).

Authors’ responses

Eileen Fisher told WWD: “Now is a critical time. The garment industry We know that it will not be fulfilled by 2030 [emissions] Targets – 50% off if we don’t work together. This statement reminded me of the passion and determination I heard from Fisher a year ago when I interviewed her for a book I was writing. It’s unfortunate that circularity tunnel vision seems to be the focus of the Pentatonic report, even though the Apparel Impact Institute and Fashion for Good report on decarbonizing fashion posits that “scope 3 decarbonization solutions are critical to achieving net-zero.” He said.

The Eileen Fisher Foundation declined to answer my questions about the report’s claims and methodology, but said in an email: “We welcome questions and discussions about the report. Hey, let’s see fashion! We hope it will be a forum to stimulate conversation and encourage collaboration – and a catalyst for action. Unfortunately, the recommended actions hold little hope of achieving the net zero effect that industry and consumers seek to bring together.

Pentatonic explains: “As for methodology, we don’t just set the consensus of people working in fashion on how to deal with textile waste, or that consensus may not be correct. Markets and polls are often unable to predict complex systemic changes and economic developments.

Boedecker’s response is puzzling. Why does a reliable research method lead to statistically significant and repeatable findings? And if the results don’t prove to be applicable to the global fashion industry, why would they claim to have found an answer to the problem of fashion waste? But Boedeker remains committed to the methodology and findings, saying, “We stand behind our approach and feel it compliments other data sources and forums.”

During the interview, I asked the CEO of Pentatonic: What does the success of this record look like? “Engagement” in the form of clicks and downloads were the main metrics. Within a week of their publication, they had exceeded their July-September takedown plan, which prompted interest from groups looking to support more reports. He also said that Pentatonic is now working at full capacity until the end of the year. While the report appears to be successful on these metrics, it is definitely not a success on national issues. It should not be forgotten that he is prepared to respond to questions by preparing proposals on issues.

What is at stake.

These kinds of reports are not easy to build trust. Indeed, the report says: “Whether you’re in a brand’s procurement team tasked with sourcing sustainable materials, an investor looking to tap into the growing textile market, or a citizen looking to do your part, this paper aims to support and deliver.” They will give you information on your circular fashion journey.

Such reports are influential, educational and can be used to support decisions made by industry stakeholders, and perhaps consumers during their internal dialogue when comparing their needs versus their needs during their purchasing choices. Such lengthy reports also eat up our intellectual bandwidth, widening media narratives and fueling investors’ interest in certain technologies and solutions – I’ve talked to investors who believe in making decisions based on sustainability trends and industry working groups, especially where brands are involved.

This report is part of a wider industry problem of not understanding the difference between reliable, researched, validated and repeatable findings, empirical and trend-based forecasting and incomplete methodologies. One outlet took the report’s findings at face value and hailed it as “a playbook on how to reduce textile waste that will help the industry quickly catch up with curvy fashion models,” but without any solid evidence it may be too good to be true.