Plasticity in textiles: potentials for circularity and reduced environmental and climate impacts 28/01/2021

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2021/1 Plastic in textiles: potentials for circularity and reduced environmental and climate impacts 28/01/2021 Authors: ETC experts: Saskia Manshoven (VITO), Anse Smeets (VITO), Mona Arnold (VTT) EEA experts: Lars Fogh Mortensen ETC/WMGE consortium partners: Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), CENIA, Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production (CSCP), Research Institute on

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2021/1
28/01/2021
Plastic in textiles: potentials for circularity and
reduced environmental and climate impacts

Cover design: ETC/WMGE
Cover photo © iStockphoto, credits: Tarzhanova, reference: 1148765172
Layout: ETC/WMGE
Legal notice
The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of the European Commission or other institutions
of the European Union. Neither the European Environment Agency, the European Topic Centre on Waste and Materials in a Green
Economy nor any person or company acting on behalf of the Agency or the Topic Centre is responsible for the use that may be
made of the information contained in this report.
Copyright notice
© European Topic Centre Waste and Materials in a Green Economy (2021)
Reproduction is authorized provided the source is acknowledged.
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

Contents
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 2
2 Consumption and production of synthetic textiles in Europe .............................................................. 5
2.1. Consumption of synthetic textiles and fibres in the EU ................................................................ 5
2.2. Production of synthetic textiles..................................................................................................... 7
2.3. Synthetic textile waste ................................................................................................................ 16
3 Environmental and climate impacts of synthetic fibres and textiles .................................................. 19
3.1. Impacts across the value chain .................................................................................................... 19
3.2. Resource use ............................................................................................................................... 22
3.3. Greenhouse gas emissions .......................................................................................................... 24
3.4. Chemicals and health .................................................................................................................. 25
3.5. Microplastics ............................................................................................................................... 25
4 Towards a circular economy for synthetic fibres and textiles, and the potential to reduce
environmental and climate impacts ............................................................................................................ 28
4.1. Sustainable fibre choices ............................................................................................................. 31
4.2. Microplastic emission control ..................................................................................................... 35
4.3. Improved collection, reuse and recycling.................................................................................... 37
5 Lessons for the European plastics and textiles strategies ................................................................... 41
6 References ........................................................................................................................................... 43

Acknowledgements
The report has been produced within the task on ‘Plastics in textiles: potentials for circularity and reduced
environmental and climate impacts’ of the 2020 ETC/WMGE work program. Lars Mortensen (EEA) has
been the project leader and Saskia Manshoven (ETC/WMGE) has been the task leader.
The authors are grateful to the following experts and organisations for their comments that substantially
improved the quality of the report: Marco Manfroni (DG GROW), Laura Balmond (The Ellen MacArthur
Foundation), David Watson (PlanMiljø), Mauro Scalia (Euratex), Stijn Devaere (Centexbel) and Tom Duhoux
(VITO). Bart Ullstein (BEC) provided a very careful editing of the report. Nora Brüggemann (CSCP) and her
team provided graphic design support.

1 Introduction
It is hard to imagine a world without plastics, yet the large-scale production and use of plastics only started
in the 1950’s. But despite the fact that they are fairly new raw materials, their versatile and unique
properties and multitude of applications, including in textiles, have led to the production of more than 8
billion tonnes of plastics worldwide over the past 70 years (Geyer et al., 2017).
Over the last 20 years, there has been a great increase in the use of synthetic, plastic-based fibres in textile
production, and expectations are that both shares and absolute volumes will increase further (Textile
Exchange, 2019). Today these synthetic textiles are part of everyday life; they literally surround us. in the
clothes we wear and the bed sheets we sleep in; we use them to decorate our homes as furniture and
cushion covers, as curtains and carpets. And often they are present without us knowing, less visible as
reinforcements in car tyres and sports gear. The 2019 EEA Briefing and European Topic Centre (ETC) report
Textiles and the environment in a circular economy found that globally about 60 % of textiles are made of
fibers based on synthetic polymers (EEA, 2019; ETC/WMGE, 2019b). While the majority of these is
produced and processed in Asia, Europe stands out as the world’s largest importer of synthetic fibre by
trade value (Birkbeck, 2020).
Textiles play an important role in European manufacturing industry, employing 1.7 million people and
generating a turnover of EUR 178 billion in 2018 (Euratex, 2019). After China, Europe is the second largest
exporter of textiles and clothing in the world (Euratex, 2019). Alongside the design and production of high‐
quality clothing, Europe is a leading producer of synthetic fibers, technical and industrial textiles and non-
woven textiles, such as industrial filters, medical products and textiles for the automotive sector
(ETC/WMGE, 2019b).
Textiles are a policy priority for the European Commission (EC). The shift to a circular economy is regarded
as an opportunity to establish new job-intensive activities and bring more manufacturing back to the
European Union (EU) in some sectors, while minimising environmental and climate impacts. As part of the
European Green Deal, the new Circular Economy Action Plan mentions textiles and plastics as two of the
key product value chains that will be addressed as a matter of priority (European Commission, 2020a).
Indeed, the textiles’ system is characterised by significant greenhouse gas emissions and a high use of
resources: water, land and a variety of chemicals (EEA, 2019; ETC/WMGE, 2019b). Moreover, it is
estimated that in 2015, 42 million tonnes of plastic textile waste was generated globally, making the
textiles sector the third largest contributor to plastic waste generation (Geyer et al., 2017). Unfortunately,
since only about one third of post-consumer textile waste is collected separately for reuse or recycling
(Watson et al., 2018), the majority of the textile waste ends up in the residual waste and is incinerated,
landfilled, or enters the environment as litter. A specific concern is that synthetic textiles do not naturally
degrade, but stay in the biosphere as waste unless they are incinerated.
While recycling rates for non-fibre plastics have steadily increased since the 1980s – PlasticsEurope

by filters; improved and harmonised measuring methods; and building the knowledge base related to the
risk and occurrence of microplastics in the environment, drinking water and food (European Commission,
2020a).
The scope of this report is textiles made of synthetic fibres (Figure 1). These textiles are widely used for
clothing, household textiles and in industrial applications. Their popularity is due to such properties as
strength, elasticity, resistance to shrinking or quick drying. Polyester and nylon are the most common
fibres, although many others are used as well. Synthetic fibres are produced using organic (carbon-based)
polymers, which are made from fossil fuels. These fibres are spun into pure or blended yarns and woven
into fabrics that receive final finishing to yield textiles with specific aesthetics and properties.
Apart from synthetic fibres, a broad variety of other types of fibre is used in textiles. Other man-made ones
are made from natural polymers such as viscose from wood cellulose and polylactic acid (PLA) from corn
sugar, or from inorganic (non-carbon) materials such as glass and metal. Natural fibres include plant-based
ones such as cotton and hemp; protein fibres of animal origin including wool and silk, and mineral fibres
such as asbestos (Figure 1). These fibres are not part of the scope of this report, although they are briefly
mentioned if relevant.
Figure 1 Scope of this report

Chapter 3 provides insights into the environmental and climate impacts of synthetic textiles, focusing on
resource and water use, greenhouse gas emissions, the use of chemicals and the release of microplastics.
Chapter 4 investigates how synthetic textiles could be made and managed more sustainably, focusing on
design choices, circular economy strategies and the mitigation of microplastic pollution.
Finally, Chapter 5 reflects on the report’s findings and their potential implementation in EU action plans
and strategies on plastics and textiles in a circular economy.

2 Consumption and production of synthetic textiles in Europe
2.1. Consumption of synthetic textiles and fibres in the EU
Synthetic fibres are everywhere in everyday life and are important to our lifestyles. They are in the clothes
we wear and the towels we use; they are the stuffing and covers of our sofas, cushions and beds and in
the curtains and carpets of our homes. They are in the safety belts of our cars and in protective workwear.
They are used as reinforcement materials in plastic sports equipment, such as skis and surfboards, and in
vehicle tyres. Many of the products we use every day for comfort, leisure and protection are made from
or contain synthetic fibres. Per person textile consumption estimates come with a lot of uncertainty, as
various studies provide different estimates ranging from 9 to 27 kilograms per person, depending on the
country, data source and product scope (ETC/WMGE, 2019b; Šajn, 2019; Watson et al., 2018; JRC, 2014).
In 2017, the total consumption of textile products by EU households was estimated at 13 million tonnes
(Stadler et al., 2018).
Around 71 % of synthetic textile fibres are processed into clothing and household textiles, and the
remainder used for technical textiles such as safety wear and in industrial applications including in vehicles
and machinery (Ryberg et al., 2017). Synthetic fibres are inexpensive and versatile, allowing the production
of cheap fast fashion as well as high-performance textiles for durable clothing. Today, it is estimated that
about 60 % of fibres used in clothing are synthetic, of which polyester is predominant (FAO/ICAC, 2013).
In household textiles, synthetics make up around 70 % of household textiles – mainly polyester, 28 %, and
nylon, 23 % (Beton et al., 2014). Acrylic, nylon and polypropylene are important fibres in carpet
manufacture.
In Europe, technical textiles account for an increasing share of the production of synthetic fibres (Adinolfi,
2019) and currently make up 25–28 % of EU textiles and clothing turnover. Technical textiles are also, to a
large extent, made of synthetic fibres. Technical textiles are used in a variety of products mainly used in
industry, such as conveyor belts in machinery, filters in air conditioning and medical applications,
construction materials, tyre cord reinforcements for vehicles and industrial safety fabrics used in
protective workwear including fire-, heat- or chemical-resistant clothing . Synthetic fibres and fabrics are
also used as reinforcements in light-weight composite materials. Such composites are used to replace
metals, allowing weight savings in, for example, aircraft and cars (Scheffer, 2012), or as reinforcements in
sporting goods such as snowboards or hockey sticks. Technical textiles are engineered to meet thespecific
requirements of each end use, such as durability, chemical resistance or strength.
Polyester (PET) is the most commonly used synthetic fibre across the world. It has a multitude of uses
because of its low price and fabrics made of it are strong, durable, resistant to shrinking, stretching and
creasing. Clothing accounts for a large share of the usage of polyester fibres, but it is also used in home

than other fibres. Acrylic fibres are soft, flexible, thick and fluffy, and some types have flame-retardant
properties. They are widely used in blankets, home furnishings and in knitted clothing, such as artificial
wool for sweaters. Elastane (spandex) fibres are elastic and often used in garments where comfort and/or
fit are important. Typical examples are sports and leisure wear, elastic corset fabrics and stockings. Aramid
fibres, such as kevlar, are very strong, five times stronger than steel, which makes them very suitable as
reinforcements in sports gear including snowboards, and bullet-proof vests. They are also used to replace
asbestos in automotive parts such as brake and clutch linings. Some aramids have excellent heat resistance
and are used in protective clothing, hot gas filtration and as electrical insulation. Aramid fibres are also
used in car tyres as they reduce rolling resistance (CIRFS, 2020a). Chlorofibres are a group of fibres made
from polyvinyl chloride (PVC). They are soft, comfortable, quick-drying, waterproof and insulating, and are
used in a variety of applications depending on the specific fibre type, such as hosiery and underwear
(Fibre2fashion, 2020a). Melamine fibres are flame and heat resistant and used in mattresses and
firefighting apparel (Maity and Singha, 2012).
In many cases, different fibres types are combined in blends with other synthetic or natural fibres to
reduce costs or to build fabrics that combine properties that cannot be achieved with a single fibre.
Polycotton is the most common blend used in clothing.
The global consumption of synthetic fibres increased from a few thousand tonnes in 1940 to more than
60 million tonnes in 2018, and continues to rise. Since the late 90’s polyester has surpassed cotton as the
most used fibre (Figure 2).
Figure 2 Global fibre demand, 1940–2018, million tonnes per year

2.2. Production of synthetic textiles
The value chain of synthetic textiles is shown in Figure 3. Synthetic fibres are produced from fossil
resources, such as oil and natural gas. At a global level, synthetic fibres consume 48 million tonnes of crude
oil per year, around 1 % of total production (EIA, 2020; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Production
and use of bio-based synthetic fibres are very limited in general, although the use of some fibre types in
textiles amounts to several thousand tonnes per year, for example polylactic acid (PLA) and
polytrimethylene terephthalate (PTT) (Section 4.1 and Figure 20) (European Bioplastics, 2020).
From this feedstock, different synthetic polymers are produced, such as polyester or nylon, that can be
processed further into fibres. To produce textile fibres, some manufacturers start from polymer chips,
while others produce the polymer themselves and turn it directly into fibres without producing chips
(CIRFS, 2020a).
To produce textile fibres, the polymer is melted and then the melt is extruded into long, continuous
filaments. Depending on the intended use, these filaments can be used as such (continuous filament
fibres), or they can be cut into shorter fibres a few centimetres long (staple fibres). In order to produce
fabrics, fibres need to be processed or spun into yarn. Continuous filaments yarns are generally thin and
smooth. As the fibres are longer, the resulting yarns are very strong. Nylon is often used in the form of
continuous filament yarn, for example, in fishing nets, swim wear or sewing thread. Because they are short,
staple fibres require spinning to produce yarn, but they have the advantage that they can be blended with
other fibre types, both natural and synthetic, into a variety of yarn compositions and formations. Staple
fibres are widely used in clothing textiles.
Yarns can then be woven into fabrics or knitted directly into final products. Also, staple fibres in their
fibrous form can be incorporated directly in fillings or compressed into non-woven or felted fabrics (CIRFS,
2020a). Across the textile production process many chemicals are added to provide the textiles with
colours, prints and additional properties.
About one third of post-consumer textiles is collected separately, the remainder end up in residual waste.
Of all collected textiles, up to 50–75 % is reused, in Europe or mostly abroad (Watson et al., 2020; 2018).
Most non-reusable textiles are incinerated or landfilled; recycling of textiles is minimal and mainly focused
on cotton-rich products. The recycling of synthetic textiles is still in its infancy, at the level of research and
pilot scale production. Recycling routes can be split into mechanical recycling processes, based on melting
and respinning synthetic polymers, and chemical recycling processes, based on the solution or chemical
breakdown of the polymers, followed by repolymerisation (Figure 3).

Figure 3 The value chain of synthetic textiles

The following sections focus on the global and European production and trade volumes of the most
common synthetic fibres used in textiles and the chemicals used in their production.
Production and trade of synthetic fibres
The world of plastics encompasses more than 30 different polymer types, with a broad range of properties,
for a multitude of applications. In 2018, global plastics production reached about 425 million tonnes, of
which almost 68 million tonnes were synthetic textile fibres, making textiles account for about 16 % of
plastic consumption worldwide (CIRFS, 2020b; PlasticsEurope, 2018).
The global production of natural and synthetic textile fibres totalled about 107 million tonnes in 2018, of
which synthetic fibres made up almost two thirds (Figure 4) (Textile Exchange, 2019). Over the last 20
years, the production of synthetic textile fibres has more than doubled (Figure 5) and is expected to
continue to rise (Textile Exchange, 2019).
Figure 4 Global fibre production, 2018, million tonnes/per cent
Source: Textile Exchange (2019)

Figure 5 Global production of synthetic fibres, 1970–2018, million tonnes
Source: CIRFS (2020b)
According to the European Man-Made Fibres Association (CIRFS), European production of man-made
fibres amounted to 3.5 million tonnes in 2018, of which 85 % was synthetic (CIRFS, 2020b). The main
European producers are Germany, Italy and Turkey. A breakdown of fibre types is presented in Figure 6.
Figure 6 European synthetic fibre production, 2018, million tonnes/per cent

According to Eurostat data, 2.24 million tonnes of synthetic fibres and yarns (1) were produced in the EU
in 2018 (Figure 7). In the same year, 1.78 million tonnes of synthetic fibres and yarns were imported, and
0.36 million tonnes exported. This implies that the total 2018 consumption of synthetic fibres and yarns in
the EU was 3.66 million tonnes (Eurostat, 2018). This consumption volume concerns ‘apparent
consumption’ by EU industry ( 2), calculated using import, export and production figures. The outputs of
this industrial consumption are intermediate and finished products, which are meant for internal EU use
as well as for export.
Figure 7 Production, import, export and apparent consumption of synthetic fibres and yarns in the EU (1)
Source: Eurostat (2018)
In 2018, the EU imported synthetic fibres, yarns and fabrics ( 3) valued at more than EUR 6 billion from all
over the world. Imports are mostly from China, followed by Turkey, the Republic of Korea and India. In the
same year, the EU exported about EUR 4 billion worth of synthetic textiles, mainly to Turkey, the United
States of America (US), Morocco and China (Figure 8) (COMEXT, 2018). These trade figures only include
extra-EU trade, trade between EU Member States and the rest of the world. The value of intra-EU trade,
trade between EU Member States, is much larger, almost EUR 9 billion. Italy and Germany are the largest
contributors to both intra- and extra-EU trade in synthetic textiles, both in terms of export and import
value.

Figure 8 Extra-EU trade in synthetic textiles, 2018, EUR billion/per cent (4)
Source: COMEXT (2018)
Set in a world perspective, the EU is the third largest exporting region, after China and the Republic of
Korea. China is by far the largest exporter of man-made textiles in the world (~ EUR 25 billion in 2018)
(Figure 9). In terms of imports, the EU is the largest importing region, followed by Viet Nam, China, the US,
Turkey and Indonesia.
Figure 9 Major importers and exporters of synthetic textiles (4), 2018, EUR billions

Polyester
Polyester (PET), a strong, low-cost fibre is the most widely used synthetic fibre and accounted for more
than half of global fibre production fibre in 2018 (55 million tonnes) (Textile Exchange, 2019). It is used in
a multitude of applications but clothing accounts for a large share of its use since polyester is a cheaper
and thinner alternative to cotton. Figure 2 shows how the demand for PET has outgrown that of cotton.
Sportswear is an important use segment, with industrial uses of PET, including in tyre cord, furniture fillings
and non-woven textiles, expanding.
Polyester is made from petroleum-derived ethylene glycol and terephthalic acid. It is widely used in plastic
packaging (PET bottles), but textile fibres for clothing currently make up more than 60 % of PET production.
Despite its current popularity, it only came into use as a textile fibre in the 1970s. To produce textile fibres,
some producers start from polyester polymer chips, melt them and then extrude the melt into continuous
filaments. These can be used as such or are cut into staple fibres (cut fibres of a specific length).
Others produce the polymer and turn it directly into fibres without producing chips (CIRFS, 2020a). About
60 % of all PET fibres are produced in the form of filament fibres, while the remainder is staple fibres
(Plastics Insight, 2020).
China accounts for around two thirds of global polyester fibre production. When India and Southeast Asia
are added, these countries are responsible for 86 % of global PET production (Chatterjee, 2018). This
shows that the European textile industry is highly dependent on imports of PET. Although European
domestic fibre production of high-quality, tailor-made fibres is highly efficient, its competitiveness suffers
from higher production costs (CIRFS, 2020c).
In 2018, about 13 %, 7.2 million tonnes, of the global PET fibre production was rPET (Textile Exchange,
2019), mainly made by recycling discarded PET bottles although it can also be made from other sources
such as polyester textiles and collected ocean plastic waste. It is increasingly used in the production of
polyester textiles, such as fleece garments and blankets. In parallel with technical innovation, sectoral
initiatives are emerging to promote the uptake of rPET in the textile and plastics industries (Greenbiz,
2020).
Nylon
In 2018, more than 5 million tonnes of nylon fibre, widely used in tights, carpets and umbrellas, were
produced, making it the most common synthetic fibre after PET (Textile Exchange, 2019). Nylon is more
difficult to recycle than PET, although recycled nylon fibres made from fishing nets and plastic waste are
already available on the market and used in carpet and clothing production (Econyl, 2020). Several fashion
brands have made commitments on the replacement of virgin nylon with recycled fibre (Textile Exchange,

Blended yarns and textiles
In order to create yarns and textiles that have properties that cannot be achieved with a single fibre,
whether man-made or natural, while remaining comfortable, different synthetic and natural fibre types
are frequently combined into blended yarns and textiles.
The most common blend is of polyester-cotton, or polycotton, usually produced as 35 %
polyester/65 % cotton or 50 % polyester/50 % cotton blends. Combining polyester with cotton results in a
stronger material, which is more durable and cheaper to produce while its cotton content reduces pilling
and static electricity. Furthermore, this fabric keeps it shape and colour for longer and is shrink resistant.
As a result, polycotton is a popular fabric for clothing, especially for uniforms and workwear, and for non-
clothing applications such as futon, seat and cushion covers (Pearce, 2017).
In blends, the natural fibres, such as cotton or wool, increase moisture absorbency, increase comfort and
reduce static electricity. The synthetic fibres, such as polyester, improve durability and abrasion resistance,
and reduce shrinking, stretching and wrinkling. Nylon is usually added to natural fibres for increased
durability and comfort. Blended with wool, nylon decreases itchiness and coarseness, resulting in a fabric
that is more durable and wrinkle/shrinkage resistant. Nylon/cotton blends are used, for example, for
military wear, while polypropylene (PP) is typically blended with wool in carpets to reduce the price.
Blends containing elastane (spandex) are increasing on the market. It is typically mixed in with cotton to
provide better stretch and recovery properties in fabrics such as denim and rib knit collars of T-shirts, while
the cotton fibres provide a comfortable feel (Jabbar et al., 2020).
Box 1: Specialty fibres and smart textiles in sportswear
Today’s casual activewear and sportswear make use of a broad variety of highly functional and technical
textiles. The most common fibre used in sportswear is PET, but nylon, elastane, polypropylene and acrylic
fibres are also used. Fibre blends and functional coatings are ubiquitous, creating sophisticated clothing
and footwear that is fashionable, comfortable and resistant to extreme weather and use conditions.
Temperature and moisture regulation are key properties to assure sufficient thermal insulation, while
releasing body heat and sweat during exercise. Stretchability assures freedom of movement and coatings
protect against injuries or reduce wear and tear.
Besides conventional synthetic fibres, many specialty ones and smart textiles are used to meet specific
requirements. Smart textiles are those that can respond to changes in their environment, such as
temperature, moisture, light, pressure, electric currents or acidity, improving comfort and performance –
better fit, thermal regulation or moisture management (Becker, 2020). Others, known as wearables, have

important to recognise that almost all textiles, including those made of natural fibres, such as cotton or
wool, should in fact be considered synthetic due to the amount of processing and finishing chemicals that
have been applied to them. Many of these, such as dyes, anti-wrinkle agents, water repellents, flame
retardants or antimicrobial agents, are added to give the textile product additional properties and are
intended to remain in the final article even after numerous washing cycles. Coatings can make up 5–20+ %
of the final weight of the textile product. Typical materials used for textile coatings are polyvinyl chloride
(PVC), acrylates and polyurethanes (Singha, 2012).
About 70 % of dyes used in the textile industry are azo dyes that are cost-effective and easy to use. In
order for dyes to be useful, they must possess a high degree of chemical and photolytic stability. As a
result, these compounds do not degrade easily in natural environments and their removal from industrial
effluents is a major environmental problem (Ciullini et al., 2012). While both cotton and synthetic fibres
are normally coloured with synthetic dyes, dyeing cotton is usually a more water- and heat-intensive
process – the surface of cotton fibres is negatively charged and does not readily react with negatively
charged dye compounds (Bomgardner, 2018).
As textiles are typically highly flammable, flame retardants are commonly applied to them, either blended
into the polymer or applied in finishing using inorganic salts, organohalogens or formaldehyde-based
flame retardants. Due to their toxic potential, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has banned many
halogenated compounds but to maintain safety standards, new halogen-free flame retardants are being
developed and substitute products are emerging on the market. One challenge with these, however, has
been their low stability with respect to washing and mechanical abrasion, which has somewhat limited
their applicability in textile finishing (Mayer-Gall et al., 2019).
Other process chemicals, such as solvents, surfactants and storage preservatives that are necessary in
textile production and processing, are not intended to remain in the finished products. Some nonetheless
do remain and can cause environmental or health risks during use and recycling.
Overall, the EU is restricting or banning many dangerous chemicals that have been used in textiles, for
example, certain azo colours, antimicrobials such as dimethylfumarate (DMF) and certain phthalates used
to increase softness and flexibility, are restricted under the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and
Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Regulation. Another group of compounds requiring substitution is
poly/perfluorocarbons (PFCs) used to achieve water and dirt resistance. Many textile manufacturers are
also reducing the number of dangerous chemicals in their products on voluntary basis (ECHA, 2020;2017).

Box 2: Recycling carpets
Carpets are multilayer textile products. They are used in many different environments such as heavy-duty
industrial buildings, offices and theatres, as well as in private homes. About 80 % of the fibres used in the
carpet industry are synthetic, with the remaining 20 % usually made of wool or cotton. The dominant yarn
constructions, making up about 90 % of the market, are combinations of nylon and PP.
The EU is the second-largest market in the world for carpets, with European production meeting 65 % of
the demand and the remainder being imported (Hilton, 2018).
It is estimated that, currently, less than 3 % of carpet placed on the market in the EU is recycled (Hilton,
2018), resulting in an estimated 1.5 million tonnes of carpet being landfilled or incinerated annually.
Recycling and/or reuse is challenging due to the complex structure of the products and the chemicals they
contain. Previous research (Changing Markets, 2018) has highlighted that over 50 hazardous substances
can be present in European carpets. Recyclate from carpets, therefore, is likely to be too contaminated to
be used in new products. Currently the major recycling schemes involve energy utilisation in cement kilns
(Anon, 2019).
A number of initiatives, such as the Circular Carpet Platform, product passports for carpets and suggestions
to introduce an extended producer responsibility (EPR) system for carpets by certain countries, aim to
improve the situation. Many municipalities already organise collections of reusable carpets, although a
fair amount of the recovered material is downcycled to non-textile applications, such as buckets and
flower pots, or incinerated for energy recovery (Anon, 2019).
2.3. Synthetic textile waste
In 2015, an estimated total of 42 million tonnes of plastic textile waste were generated globally, making
textiles the third largest contributor to plastic waste generation, accounting for 14 % of all plastic waste
(Figure 10) (Geyer et al., 2017).
Figure 10 Global plastic waste generation per industrial sector, 2015, million tonnes/per cent

The total amount of textile waste generated annually in the EU is unknown. It is estimated that EU
consumers discard about 5.8 million tonnes of textiles annually, about 11 kilograms per person (Beasley
and Georgeson, 2014). As about 60 % of textiles are synthetic (FAO/ICAC, 2013), this suggests that about
3,5 million tonnes of plastic textile waste is discarded in Europe each year.
Even the volume that is selectively collected is high uncertainty as not all Member States keep records,
and even if they do, reporting is inconsistent and incomplete. For example, textiles that are collected by
third-party collectors, whether charitable or commercial, are often not registered (Watson et al., 2020). In
2016, about 2 million tonnes of textile waste were reported as having been collected separately (Eurostat,
2016). Collection rate estimates (share of quantity put on the market) vary greatly between countries,
from 0.2 to 12.5 kilograms per person; on average about one third of the volume put on the market is
separately collected (European Commission, 2020b; Watson et al., 2018), suggesting that an even larger
volume of textile waste ends up in the residual waste.
Separately collected textile waste is sorted and a large part is exported for reuse or recycling abroad,
mostly outside Europe. While percentages vary among countries, about 60–70 % of all collected textiles is
reused locally or abroad), 10–30 % is recycled and 10–20 % is incinerated for energy recovery or landfilled
(minor) (Watson et al., 2020). Recycling activities mainly entail lower-value downcycling into industrial
rags, insulation materials and upholstery fillings.
Globally, it is estimated that only 0.06 % of all textile waste is recycled into fibres for use in new textile
products (Textile Exchange, 2020a). Currently, there is no significant recycling of synthetic textiles and the
limited fibre-to-fibre recycling that does occurs is mainly mechanical recycling of 100 % cotton products.
Fibre-to-fibre recycling processes for textiles include mechanical and chemical processes. Mechanical
recycling processes for synthetic textiles include the shredding of the fabrics, followed by melting the
polymers and extruding of new fibres, such as polyester. Nonetheless, most recycled polyester is made
from PET bottles and not from polyester textiles. This is because there is already excellent collection
systems and recycling infrastructure in place for PET bottles, which are pure PET and relatively clean,
making it relatively easy to shred them into flakes, melt these and extrude new PET fibres.
Chemical recycling processes rely on the use of specific solvents that selectively target the dissolution of
certain synthetic fibres. So far, for this to work efficiently and without complications, the technique
requires textiles to consist only of the same target fibre. Chemical recycling does occur within the textile
industry, although not yet at a wider industrial scale. Although much research is being done on the topic,
both for plastics and synthetic textiles (CEFIC, 2020; Adelphi, 2019), there are still many problems,
knowledge gaps and uncertainties about the environmental impacts associated with these processes (Zero

processes are evolving, especially for the common mix of polyester and cotton (WRAP, 2019; Palme et al.,
2017), these applications have not yet reached full technological readiness (Section 4.3). Generally, the
more homogenous a textile, the greater the chance it has of being returned to the cycle.
Finally, the market for recycled fibres needs to be developed to find outlets for the recycled materials,
both within the textile industry and in other applications.

3 Environmental and climate impacts of synthetic fibres and textiles
3.1. Impacts across the value chain
The production and consumption of textiles have significant environmental impacts including greenhouse
gas emissions, resource and water use, land use and impacts related to the use of chemicals. The ranges
of impacts heavily depend on the type of fibre (ETC/WMGE, 2019b) and synthetic fibres and textiles mainly
contribute to the depletion of fossil resources, greenhouse gas emissions and the release of microplastics.
Due to negative perceptions of petroleum-based materials, the environmental impacts related to synthetic
fibres are often considered more severe than those of natural fibres like cotton. As synthetic fibres are oil
based and require large amounts of energy to be produced, they are significant contributors to impacts
related to climate change and the depletion of fossil resources. In contrast to cotton, the most common
natural fibre, however, the production of synthetic fibres does not require the use of agricultural land,
excessive use of water, toxic pesticides or eutrophying fertilisers (Sandin et al., 2019). If the environmental
assessments extended beyond resource depletion and climate change to include other traditional impact
categories such as land and water use, and ecosystem impacts, identifying superior fibre types in terms of
environmental performance is not straight forward (Beton et al., 2014).
When looking beyond fibre production alone and taking the entire textile manufacturing process – yarn
spinning, weaving, dyeing and finishing of fabric – into account, there are some environmental advantages
to synthetic textiles, especially in the dyeing and finishing steps. Polyester, for example, requires high
temperature dyeing but the process is shorter and requires fewer chemicals, resulting in lower impacts
than cotton dyeing (Natural Resources Defense Council, 2012). There is no fabric, however, with an overall
best-in-class manufacturing process; natural and synthetic fibres simply generate environmental burdens
in different impact areas. These impacts also depend on case specific parameters including fibre thickness,
dyeing techniques used and whether the fabric is knitted or woven (van der Velden et al., 2014).

Eionet Report - ETC/WMGE 2021/1 20
Figure 11 Environmental impacts across the lifecycle of synthetic textiles
Source: ETC/WMGE (2019b), illustration by CSCP

In Figure 12, the environmental impacts of the most common synthetic fibres and cotton are compared,
per kilogram of dyed, woven fabric. It is, however, important to keep in mind that overall (annual) impacts
also depend on production volumes of the respective fibres and fabrics. For example, while the
manufacturing of polyester fabric uses less energy than nylon, the former’s yearly production greatly
exceeds the latter’s; therefore, so will its overall energy requirement.
Figure 12 Comparison of the environmental impacts of the manufacturing of 1 kilogram of dyed, woven fabric
(red = worst, green = best)
Source: OVAM (2019) and the Higg Index (Sustainable Apparel Coalition, 2020), illustration by CSCP
Of course, detrimental environmental effects are not only generated during the production of textiles.
During use, the main environmental impacts are generated by domestic and/or industrial washing, drying
and ironing. While these caretaking activities require a lot of energy and thus contribute significantly to
climate change, they enable longer and more intensive product use, adding to product lifetimes.
The generated impacts are heavily case dependent; the number of times a product is washed, the washing
temperature and the energy efficiency of the appliances used influence the end result to a large extent.
The impacts of drying and ironing depend on the product properties and application. As synthetic fibres
tend to be more wrinkle and stain resistant, dry faster and hold their form better than natural fibres, they
require relatively less care, water and energy for maintenance compared to cotton (CFDA, 2020).

production of new products from virgin resources is only replaced to a minor degree, or if the avoided
production processes are relatively clean (Sandin and Peters, 2018a).
From a lifecycle perspective it is impossible to distinguish good and bad fibre types in terms of
environmental performance. Burdens differ depending on the impact areas taken into account and results
are very case dependent. They are heavily affected by the intended use, design and applied manufacturing
processes, as well as caretaking and disposal practices. Obviously (local) regulations with regards to
production, use and end-of-life treatment of textiles and the means of enforcement have a role to play
here. Also, the lifespan of a textile product heavily influences the overall impacts, the longer it lasts, the
lower they are. In this sense it is important to select a fibre type the properties of which suit the intended
use. Because synthetic fibres have superior mechanical properties in terms of strength and abrasion
resistance, they are usually more durable and have longer expected lifetimes. That is why for products
with high demands on technical strength, for example, synthetic fibres might be the superior sustainable
choice (Sandin et al., 2019).
The following sections discuss the environmental impact areas that are most relevant for synthetic textiles:
resource use, greenhouse gas emissions, use of chemicals and microplastic release. Results are discussed
for polyester and nylon, as they are the most common synthetic fibres, and compared to cotton which has
the largest share of natural fibres.
3.2. Resource use
When focusing on resource use, synthetic fibres are typically associated with high impacts as they originate
from fossil resources. An estimated 342 million barrels or more than 54 billion litres of oil are required on
an annual basis for the production of plastic fibres for textiles (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). This is
the equivalent of more than 21,000 Olympic swimming pools full of oil.
Furthermore, as synthetic fibres are entirely man made, their production requires considerable amounts
of energy. The production of polyester fibres requires two to three times as much energy and nylon more
than four times as much as is needed to produce the same amount of cotton (Figure 13).
On the other hand, only limited amounts of water, leave alone pesticides and fertilisers, are used in the
production of synthetic fibres. Although the water requirement for the production of cotton fibres heavily
depends on the aridity of the region and the specific site where the crops are grown, based on the global
average around 26 times as much water is need to produce the same amount of cotton as polyester and
around four times as much as nylon (Figure 13).

Figure 13 Water and energy, including feedstock energy of synthetics, required for the production of 1 kilogram of fibre
Source: Sandin et al. (2019)
A distinction can be made in the energy use related to the production of synthetic fibres between the
feedstock energy of the fossil resource (23.1 megajoules per kilogram) and the energy required in the
production process itself. Figure 14 illustrates overall resource requirements when annual production
volumes for the different fibre types are taken into account. Given that from a global perspective twice as
much polyester as cotton is produced and ten times as much polyester as nylon, quite a different picture
is drawn for overall energy and water use.
Figure 14 Water and energy, including feedstock energy of synthetics, required for global annual fibre production, 2018

Finally, bio-based synthetic fibres are often mentioned as environmentally friendly alternatives to
traditional, virgin fossil-based ones. This might be true in terms of fossil resource use, but the key to bio-
based synthetics lies in innovative bio-based feedstocks that do not compete in land-use terms with food,
that do not rely heavily on water or chemicals and that can be cultivated sustainably (Textile Exchange,
2019). In environmental terms, feedstocks that are waste based, agricultural residues and organic waste,
are preferable to crop-based ones such as maize or sugar cane (Textile Exchange, 2018a). Finally, most bio-
based synthetic fibres, such as bio-PET, are developed to have the same properties and therefore chemical
composition as their fossil-based counterparts. While the production process differs, they have similar
environmental implications during the use and end-of-life phase. It is important to note that the bio-based
origin by no means implies that the fibres are bio-degradable.
3.3. Greenhouse gas emissions
As mentioned, synthetic fabrics require large amounts of energy for the production of their raw materials,
heavily contributing to the emission of greenhouse gases. Additionally, the use of energy in the finishing
process plays an important role; the formation, weaving or spinning; printing and dyeing of fabrics require
large amounts of electricity (Beton et al., 2014).
The full lifecycle of 1 kilogram of polyester fabric is estimated to be responsible for the release of more
than 30 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent, while only around 20 kilograms are associated with cotton
(Beton et al., 2014). The production of nylon emits nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas that per
kilogram contributes almost 300 times as much to climate change as carbon dioxide (Fletcher, 2014).
Figure 15 shows the greenhouse gas emissions related to the production of a kilogram of different fibre
types while Figure 16 illustrates emissions for global annual production volumes. Since different sources
show significant variations in climate change estimates, the figures show both minimum and maximum
numbers as reported by Sandin et al (2019).
Figure 16 shows that polyester has the largest overall annual impact, due to the large volumes that are
produced, while although the production of nylon fibre contributes heavily to climate change, its overall
impact remains relatively low due to smaller production volumes.
Figure 15 Greenhouse gas emissions from the production of fibre, kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilogram of fibre

Figure 16 Greenhouse gas emissions from global annual fibre production, 2018, gigatonnes (109 tonnes) of carbon dioxide
equivalent per year
Source: Sandin et al. (2019) and Textile Exchange (2019)
3.4. Chemicals and health
As discussed in Section 2.2.4, chemical additives are used in all stages of the fibre and textile manufacturing
process, from the raw material production through spinning, weaving and dyeing to finishing. Some are
added to improve textile function, including flame retardants and repellents, or for effect such as dyes.
Others are auxiliary chemicals, required to facilitate the manufacturing process but not providing any
specific properties to the final product (KEMI, 2014).
Compared to cotton, synthetic fibres require fewer chemicals for their production (Natural Resources
Defense Council, 2012). In 2014, 3.9 % of global herbicide sales, 5.7 % of pesticide sales and 16.1 % of
insecticide sales were made for cotton cultivation (Ferrigno et al., 2017). Heavy metals, such as antimony,
a known carcinogen if inhaled, are often used as a catalyst in the production of polyester (Brigden et al.,
2014) and these are also emitted during the recycling process (Common Objective, 2019). To avoid these
potentially harmful substances, along with others including cobalt, manganese salts, sodium bromide and
titanium dioxide, being released into the environment, wastewater treatment is critical in polyester
production facilities (Muthu, 2020).
Furthermore, synthetics are often the main fibre type making up protective, outdoor and sportswear in

oceans is fragments, particles or fibres smaller than 5 millimetres in diameter, so-called microplastics
(Koehler et al., 2015).
Figure 17 Distribution of marine litter by material, per cent
Source: EEA (2020)
Microplastics are shed from synthetic textiles along their entire lifecycles: from fibre and fabric
manufacturing, through use and washing, to their final disposal whether by landfilling, incineration or
recycling. Although also large volumes of natural polymer fibres like cellulose and fibres of animal origin
are detected (Suaria et al., 2020), it is estimated that between 0.2 and 0.5 million tonnes of microplastic
fibres from textiles enter the marine environment each year (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017; Eunomia,
2016).
Domestic washing during textile use is considered a relatively large source of microplastics leaking into the
environment. It is estimated that one laundry cycle with synthetic textiles can emit between 700,000 and
6 million microplastic fibres, representing up to 0.5 % of the product’s total mass (OECD, 2020; Ziajahromi
et al., 2017). In this way, the washing of synthetic textiles may account for up to 35 % of total annual
microplastic releases (OECD, 2020). Together with fabric composition, laundry parameters including
machine load, washing temperature, water consumption and the length of the wash cycle are all expected
to influence the level of shedding of synthetic textiles (Vesper, 2019), but little evidence is yet available on
the mechanisms of microplastics release (Salvador Cesa et al., 2017). There is also insufficient proof of
whether or not the use of recycled fibres influences shedding rates (Roos et al., 2017).

microplastic fibres themselves or in the surrounding waters where they can be absorbed by the
microplastic fibres (Salvador Cesa et al., 2017).
Although the long-term effects of microplastics on the marine ecosystem are still unknown, microplastic
pollution raises risks for both the natural environment and human health. They are ingested by all kinds
of aquatic species, ranging from plankton to larger mammals, leading to false sensations of satiation,
irritation and injuries in internal parts of the digestive system. When ingested, microplastics can also
impact on an animal’s fitness and reproduction (Koehler et al., 2015). For land species there is additional
exposure risk from the inhalation of airborne microplastics and the ingestion of contaminated drinking
water. It is becoming clear that chronic exposure to microplastics, at least to some degree, is becoming
inevitable as microplastics work their way up through the food chain, ending up in human food products.
Unfortunately, the long-term potential negative health impacts of chronic human exposure to current
levels of microplastics are not yet fully understood (Henry et al., 2019; SAPEA, 2019), and for nanoplastics,
which are smaller than 1micrometre (5), an even bigger knowledge gap exists (OECD, 2020).
Figure 18 Potential release points, transfers and exposure routes of microplastics during the lifecycle of a textile product
Source: Henry et al. (2019), illustration by CSCP

4 Towards a circular economy for synthetic fibres and textiles, and the potential
to reduce environmental and climate impacts
In recent years, awareness of the environmental and social impacts of textiles production and use has
grown. Initiatives are being taken, at policy levels as well as within industry, to make the textiles system
more circular and sustainable.
In the Circular Economy Action Plan, the European Commission has identified textiles as a priority product
category with significant potential for circularity. The Action Plan recognises that “textiles are the fourth
highest pressure category for the use of primary raw materials and water, after food, housing and
transport, and the fifth for greenhouse gas emissions” (European Commission, 2020a; EEA, 2019).
Responding to these challenges, the Commission is preparing a comprehensive EU Strategy for Textiles
with concrete policy measures to strengthen industrial competitiveness and innovation in Europe, and
boost the EU market for sustainable and circular products, services and business models. Foreseen
measures include encouraging a market for textile reuse, promoting ecodesign and the use of recycled
content, phasing out hazardous chemicals, and empowering businesses and private consumers to choose
sustainable, reusable, durable and repairable products and product-as-service models such as sharing and
renting. Demand for circular products could be boosted by encouraging public authorities to lead by
example and adopt green public procurement, for example by supplying sustainable uniforms for the
police and hospital staff.
In 2019, the first Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) for textile products (T-shirts)
were developed, based on the Commission’s Product Environmental Footprint Guide in collaboration with
the textiles and apparel sector (Pesnel and Payet, 2019). These Rules set a standardised method that
producers should use to determine the environmental impact of their products – in this case, T-shirts. The
aims are to allow benchmarking, to assure comparability between environmental claims that different
brands use in communications, to inform consumers’ purchasing decisions and to prevent greenwashing
(Elsen et al., 2019).
As far as textile waste management is concerned, following the revision of the EU Waste Framework
Directive, Member States will be obliged, by 1st January 2025, to collect discarded textiles separately,
thereby facilitate sorting, re-use and the recycling of textiles.
Within the textile industry, action is also being taken to move towards the development and use of more
sustainable fibres, the improvement of efficiency in production processes and the reduction of the use of
energy, water and chemicals throughout the value chain. In the fashion industry, many brands are making
commitments to promote textile reuse and to replace conventional synthetic fibres by more sustainable
alternatives, such as recycled polyester and nylon (Global fashion Agenda, 2020a). Other initiatives focus
on uniting fashion brands to develop a vision on circular fashion (Fashion Positive, 2020), supported by

companies and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to mitigate cash-flow problems and avoid job
losses. These measures should, in the long term, accelerate the transition to a circular, resilient and low-
carbon textile sector, creating new business opportunities and jobs in Europe. The proposed measures
include, among others, incentives for stimulating market demand for circular products and services, such
as tax measures to promote circular business models including renting, repairing and sharing, and the use
of recycled fibres. Support is needed for research and development to facilitate circular design and
sustainable material choices and to help scale-up textile waste collection and high-quality recycling.
Finally, incentives for increasing traceability and transparency across the textile value chain are required,
complemented by accessible product information for the consumer (Policy Hub and Boston Consulting
Group, 2020). In addition, Euratex has proposed a “strategy for recovery from the COVID-19 era” together
with five flagship initiatives, including the ambition to establish five large-scale textile recycling hubs near
the major textile and apparel districts in Europe to support the collection, sorting, processing and recycling
of post-production and post-consumption textile waste (Euratex, 2020c).
A shift towards a sustainable and circular textiles system requires a profound systemic change, including
innovative production methods, new business models and social practices, more sustainable behaviour
and supporting policy measures at all stages of the value chain.
The 2019 EEA briefing and ETC report Textiles and the environment in a circular economy presented an
overview of options for circular business models, regulation and behavioural change in each phase of the
lifecycle of textiles (Figure 19).

Figure 19 Circular economy options for textiles
Sources: EEA (2019); ETC/WMGE (2019b)
While many circular economy business models and policy measures are independent of the type of textile
fibre used, involving, for example the phasing out of hazardous chemicals; promoting longer use, shared
use and reuse; and improving separate textile waste collections, some specific focus points for synthetic
textiles can be identified.
Without being exhaustive, the following sections provide an overview of some pathways to make synthetic
textiles production and consumption more circular and sustainable,

environmental impacts associated with textile consumption. Fibre recycling is especially
challenging in the case of synthetic textiles, due to technical and economic limitations.
These pathways will be further explored in the following sections.
In addition to these, improved market surveillance is needed to assure that all products put on the
European market are compliant with sustainability criteria. Building awareness and changing consumer
behaviour and public procurement protocols are also key to encouraging conscious textile buying, even
when the price is higher; longer use; buying second-hand; repair and better textile collection. Awareness
raising campaigns, clothes swapping events, vintage fairs, upcycling workshops, collection campaigns and
similar initiatives involving young people can help create a shift in mindsets towards more sustainable
textile consumption (ECAP, 2019).
4.1. Sustainable fibre choices
The design stage is crucial in the development of a circular value chain for synthetic textiles, with fibre
types usually the first choice made for products or applications.
Low-impact, durable and recyclable fibres
Selecting the right fibre can generate significant environmental benefits along the lifecycle of a textile
product. As discussed in Section 3.1, environmental profiles differ considerably among fibre types. The
overall environmental burden is influenced by the fibre type itself, as well as the intended use, caretaking,
lifetime and end-of-life treatment of the product.
Given that each fibre has specific mechanical, comfort and aesthetic properties, it is crucial to select the
best-in-class fibre for the final application and to use each fibre to its full potential. One way of achieving
this can be to take the expected speed of product cycles into account in the fibre selection process. This
means that more durable fibres can be used for long-lasting slow fashion and heavily-duty technical
textiles, while more brittle fibres can be used for fast-fashion products (Sandin et al., 2019).
Compared to cotton, polyester textiles and polycotton blends have superior mechanical properties in
terms of strength, abrasion and resistance, making them more durable and longer lasting. That is why, for
products which require technical strength, for example, synthetic fibres might be the most sustainable
choice (Sandin, et al., 2019).
Once a suitable fibre type has been selected, it remains important to look for the lowest impact variants,
such as organic or recycled ones (Natural Resources Defense Council, 2012), and to use them in their pure,
non-blended form if possible – single fibre textiles are easier to recycle after use (Section 2.3.2) as it is

Bio-based and biodegradable fibres
Another option that is often put forward is the development of renewable, bio-based synthetic fibres.
Some bio-based fibres, including bio-PET, are structurally and functionally equivalent to their fossil-based
counterparts – these are called ‘drop-in polymers’, which means they can easily replace conventional
fibres in similar applications. Other bio-based fibres are completely new polymers with new combinations
of properties for new applications. Some bio-based fibres, such as polylactic acid (PLA), are biodegradable
but it is important to note that many, including bio-PET, are not.
Although data on the production and use of bio-based polymers are scarce and scattered (Ronzon et al.,
2017), it is clear that current production and consumption levels are low. It is estimated that the
production of bio-based plastics accounts for nearly 1 % of global plastics production, slightly more than 2
million tonnes (European Bioplastics, 2020; van den Oever et al., 2017). About a quarter of the world’s bio-
based plastic production capacity is located in Europe, while about 45 % of bio-based plastics are produced
in Asia (European Bioplastics, 2020).
While the main application of bio-based plastics is in packaging, 54%, the equivalent of 1.14 million tonnes
in 2019 (Figure 20), about 240,000 tonnes, around 11 % of global production, were used in textiles, mainly
polytrimethylene terephthalate (PTT) and PLA. The latter is similar to PET and is often used to replace it,
mainly in food packaging. Its fibers are also used in the production of a variety of textiles, such as outdoor
clothing, curtains, non-woven infant wipes and durable landscape textiles (Babu et al., 2013).
Fibres made from PTT unify the best characteristics of nylon, polyester and elastane: they are very durable,
resilient and dirt-resistant, with excellent elasticity. Compared to other synthetic fibres, PTT is softer,
easier to dye and has better shape-recovery properties. The most common applications are carpets and
leisure and sportswear (Fibre2fashion, 2020b; McIntyre, 2005).
Figure 20 Global bioplastic consumption by sector, 2019, ‘000 tonnes

Current industrial initiatives focus mainly on bio-versions of conventional synthetic fibres, such as bio-PET
or bio-nylon. While they are plant-based, mainly maize, sugarcane or plant oils, they have exactly the same
structure and properties as their fossil counterparts, and thus can be easily integrated into existing
production processes. Nevertheless, market shares of these bio-based fibres are still very low. It is
estimated that bio-based PET and bio-based nylon account for less than 1 % of their markets. The global
production of bio-based nylon amounts to about 0.24 million tonnes per year. Depending on the brand,
bio-based nylon is derived from castor oil, beans or other plant sources (Textile Exchange, 2019). Bio-based
fibres can also be used in blended fabrics such as wool/PLA and cotton/PLA (Textile Exchange, 2019).
Moving away from the use of fossil resources is key in the fight against climate change and resource
depletion. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation has estimated that around 48 million tonnes of oil are used
each year for the production of synthetic textile fibres (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Bio-based
polymers are mainly made by bacterial fermentation processes from starch and sugars, such as maize and
sugarcane, although concerns about competition with food crops has brought about a shift towards using
organic waste as a resource. Lifecycle assessment data have shown that bio-based products potentially
have a lower impact on climate change than fossil-based alternatives (Box 3).

Box 3. Environmental and climate impacts of bio-based fibres
A study by Semba et al. (2018) calculated that greenhouse gas emissions from the production of 100 %
bio-PET polymer are 24–58 % lower than those of petroleum-based PET, depending on the feedstock used
and the production process. A comparison made by Shen et al. (2012) shows that the greenhouse gas
emissions from the production of (partially) bio-based PET and 100 % PLA fibres are considerably lower
than those of petroleum-based PET fibres (Figure 21). It has to be noted, however, that while the
functionalities of PET and bio-PET are identical, the properties of PLA are not fully comparable.
Figure 21 Comparison of climate change impacts of (partially) bio-based PET containing 30 % bio-based ethanol and 100 % bio-
based PLA fibres, cradle to gate, kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilogram
Source: Shen et al. (2012)
Nonetheless the production of bio-based raw materials has other sustainability issues, such as the use of
land, water, fertiliser and pesticides. Land use is a particular area of debate, since the cultivation of
biomass for bioplastic production and other non-food uses can compete with food production for arable
land . It is estimated that the cultivation of crops for bioplastics amounted to 0.8 million hectares in 2019,
which is about 0.016 % of global arable land (European Bioplastics, 2020). Such competition for land could,

These issues could be overcome by blending bio-fibres with other polymers or using additives to improve
their performance (Babu et al., 2013). Nevertheless, many initiatives to manufacture various high quality,
cost efficient bio-based fibres are currently underway (Kaeb et al., 2016). The use of carbon dioxide as an
alternative feedstock for elastic fibres is also being explored, but is still at the research stage (Covestro,
2019). Such waste-based feedstocks and new processing routes may further decrease the environmental
footprint of bio-based materials.
4.2. Microplastic emission control
As discussed in Section 3.5, synthetic fibres are a major contributor to the problem of microplastics release
into marine, freshwater, aerial and terrestrial environments. Although this emerging issue has gained a lot
of attention from research and policy over recent years, the topic is still characterised by many unknows.
Improved understanding and extended knowledge sharing are required on the composition of the fibres
released, microplastics shedding mechanisms, the associated ecosystem and health risks, and potential
mitigation approaches. To this end, the European Committee for Standardization’s (CEN) testing methods
to identify and quantify microplastics present in the marine and other environments are currently in the
final stages of development (British Standards Institution - Project, in press). Another requirement is the
introduction of harmonised and reproduceable sampling and measurement methods to quantify release
rates along different lifecycle stages of textile products, and to assess scalable measures for mitigation
(Pero, 2019).
Interventions are recommended as far up the textile supply chain as possible to limit microplastics
shedding further downstream. This does by no means imply that interventions during the use and end-of-
life processing of textiles should be omitted, as complementary measures covering the entire product
lifecycle are indispensable in optimally tackling shedding (OECD, 2020).
Of course, the problem of microplastics shedding is only one aspect of the multidimensional challenge of
improving the environmental performance of the textile industry as a whole. Interventions on microplastic
pollution, therefore, need to be embedded in larger policy frameworks aimed at addressing the wider
environmental impacts of the sector.
Although more extensive research is required, Figure 22 provides an overview of potential mitigation
pathways along the lifecycle of a synthetic textile product. These are discussed in the following sub-
sections.
Figure 22 Possible mitigation action to prevent microplastics release along a textile product’s lifecycle

improved design and manufacturing techniques are still under research and development, some key areas
of attention are already identified
First steps are to prevent fibre irregularities and to preserve yarn strength. This can be realised by melt
spinning at lower temperatures, choosing continuous fibres over staple fibres to create yarns (OECD, 2020)
and using the right knitting technique (Vesper, 2019). In terms of the dyeing process, yarn dyeing has some
benefits over garment dyeing when it comes to the release microplastics. There are also some mechanical
and chemical finishing treatments which form a layer over the textile product, protecting and preserving
it. Although these measures may increase a fabric’s resistance to shedding (OECD, 2020), one important
drawback is that they might influence the final product’s properties in ways that are not always desirable.
Applying ultrasound or laser techniques in the cutting process instead of scissors further reduces the
shedding risk (Roos et al., 2017).
Finally, synthetic fabrics tend to release the highest amount microplastics during the first 5–10 washings,
but this could be reduced by increased pre-washing and filtering in the manufacturing plant (OECD, 2020).
Use and caretaking
In Section 3.4 the high volumes of microplastics shed by synthetic textiles during domestic and/or
industrial washing was discussed. To a certain extent the shedding rate depends on the laundry
parameters applied. While a lot of research is still ongoing, there is some consensus that washing at low
temperatures, in full machine loads and the use of fabric softeners decrease shedding rates (Vesper, 2019;
OECD, 2020).
There are some technical solutions and laundry supplements available that limit microplastic shedding
during home washing (Textile Exchange, 2019). Examples include laundry balls that claim to collect
microplastics into visible fuzz (Coraball, 2020); a micro-filter washing bag that aims to collect microplastics
(Guppyfriend, 2020); and filters at the outlet of the washing machine that collect microplastics (Filtrol,
2020; Xeros, 2020). Some trade-offs might, however, have to be made, especially for these filters, as the
energy efficiency of the appliance might be influenced as well as the duration of washing cycles (OECD,
2020). It should also be guaranteed that the collected microplastics can be disposed of safely (Roos et al.,
2017), which might prove challenging.
One way of informing consumers about the risks of microplastics shedding and possible precautions that
can be taken is to include labels on synthetic textiles.
Disposal and end-of-life processing
The risk of microplastic emissions is especially high if textile products are landfilled at the end of their

4.3. Improved collection, reuse and recycling
While selective textile collection rates vary across Europe, it is estimated that about 4 million tonnes of
textile waste are not collected separately and end up in mixed municipal solid waste, while 1.5 million
tonnes of collected worn textiles are eventually exported beyond the EU (ETC/WMGE, 2019a). Tapping
into the potential of high-quality textile reuse and recycling is an opportunity for European industry and
could at the same time bring significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Collection and sorting
Collection systems for textiles need to be put in place and improved as, across Europe, only about a third
of used textiles is collected separately, with large differences in collection rates between countries
(European Commission, 2020b; Watson et al., 2018). To increase this share, several measures could be
deployed including awareness raising campaigns and the establishment of accessible collection points
close to consumers’ homes – in shops, schools, community centres, etc. – or door-to-door collections. Of
course, if large volumes of used textiles are to be collected, sufficient sorting and recycling capacity need
to be available (Hardy, 2020). To facilitate sorting it could be advisable to install different collection
systems for different product types – separate collection of carpets, reusable clothing, non-reusable items
– however, such guidelines need to be clear and simple and should be carefully balanced with associated
costs for collection logistics. Separate collection of textile waste will be obligatory in all Member States
after 1 January 2025. Harmonisation of sorting procedures and criteria among Member States could be
beneficial in supporting efficient intra-EU trade in sorted textiles for recycling.
Textile sorting is often a manual process, limiting throughput capacity. Moreover, the huge variety of fibre
types; the widespread use of blended fibres; and the presence of contaminants, such as non-textile
elements, dyes, coatings, etc., makes identification and sorting challenging. Technical innovation in the
field of sorting is needed to increase capacity and accuracy through automation and identification of
textiles through, for example, the use of near-infrared spectroscopy. Additionally, better pre-sorting by
consumers, through separate collection boxes for shoes, T-shirts, denim, etc. in stores, for example, could
facilitate subsequent industrial sorting processes.
Unfortunately, the logistics and cost of collection, sorting and recycling often hamper the economic
viability of the processes and thus the incentive for investment. It is important to note that economics are
driven by the share of reusable items, as non-reusable textiles have no value (Watson et al., 2020).
Transport costs can be reduced by developing sorting and pre-processing of post-consumer textiles
facilities close to their source, or at least in-country, to avoid cross-border transport. Changes in regional
regulations or waste definitions may be needed to ease the transport of used textiles and recycled
materials. To optimise sorting at small-scale collectors, such as charities, shared sorting facilities could be

The potential for reuse is significant. It has been estimated that about 40 % of clothes and shoes in residual
household waste in the UK could have been directly reused (Laitala, 2014). As a matter of fact, research
has shown that many consumers prefer to deliver clothing for reuse rather than disposing of them, but
convenience is paramount. In general, consumers are more likely to donate used clothes to charities
and/or friends and family rather than selling them (Savers, 2018; Laitala, 2014). At the same time, there is
a need for consumers to embrace the full cycle of reuse, not only donating, but also shopping for used or
upcycled products – a recent study (Savers, 2018) indicates that the proportion of people regularly
purchasing pre-owned goods is still a minority. Nevertheless, the market for second-hand clothing is
growing, especially online when shoppers were stuck at home due to COVID measures (Marketplace, 2020;
ThredUp, 2020). Some sources expect the reuse market to become larger than the market of fast fashion
in the next 10 years (Textile Focus, 2020; ThredUp, 2020).
Some service-based business models – renting, sharing or leasing of textile products – also make use of
reuse principles (Sandin and Peters, 2018b). The most prominent examples are clothing and equipment
libraries from which consumers can rent items (Adam, 2018) or leasing systems for hotel linens, uniforms
or workwear (Watson and Trzepacz, 2019). For the customer, such services reduce the need to invest in
expensive products and concerns related to storage (Glusac, 2019; Hu et al., 2014). As these service models
imply more intensive product use and the provider bearing maintenance and replacement costs, they can
steer a company’s product design choices towards higher quality, greater durability and increased
reparability (Holtström et al., 2019; McCann, 2015). Leasing systems for professional textiles, such as hotel
linens and uniforms, also offer the opportunity for improved recycling, since large quantities of
homogenous textiles can be collected and processed.
A number of sports brands have initiated sustainability programmes involving a commitment to buy back
own-label used clothing in good condition. Some have also introduced a repair policy for own-label
clothing sent back by customers either for free or for a fair price (McCann, 2015). A recent analysis (Baier
et al., 2020) indicated that returning used products for reuse/recycling is attractive for sports equipment
consumers, although the overall importance of sustainability as a purchasing criterion among consumers
is still marginal compared to other drivers including appearance, comfort, and quality. Reuse platforms
such as rental services and fashion libraries could, however, combine both values in accordance with
consumer attitudes (Baier et al., 2020).
Nevertheless, business models aiming at reuse, shared use and longer use face many potential obstacles.
Financial challenges entail the need for start-up investment and difficulties in convincing financing
institutions to provide funding to these new and relatively unknown business models; and increased
operating costs of labour, servicing and logistics. Non-financial obstacles are various, such as difficulties in
finding textiles for reuse, organising logistics, upscaling, marketing, raising customer awareness and legal
issues related to waste legislation (Elander et al., 2017). Governments can support businesses in

The current textile recycling processes are mainly mechanical, aimed at cotton recycling. These processes
suffer from quality loss and are unable to separate different polymers present in blends. To achieve fibre-
to-fibre recycling for synthetic textiles, alternative (bio)chemical recycling processes are under
development (Box 4). Some of them have already been applied industrially but most are in research and
development or at a scale-up stage, for example, in the framework of Horizon2020 or Interreg research
projects (Decoat, 2020; Enter, 2020; Resyntex, 2020; Retex, 2019).
Box 4. Chemical recycling of polycotton blends
Cotton-polyester blends can be chemically recycled into cellulose pulp (from the cotton) and a polymer
fraction (PET). The recovered polymers are then processed into pellets, which can re-enter the yarn
manufacturing process, or can be used in other plastic applications.
Prior to chemical recycling, the feedstock needs to be carefully sorted to meet the process specifications.
All non-textile elements and contaminants – buttons, zips, etc. – that may interfere with fragmentation or
with later stages in the process need to be removed. Since manual sorting is too inaccurate as care labels
in garments are often missing or washed-out, automated near-infrared identification techniques are
required.
The first step in the recycling process is the shredding of the feedstock into millimetre-sized fragments to
facilitate the dissolving process. The choice of solvent forms is a key element of the recycling process. Each
solvent selectively dissolves or degrades a specific fibre fraction, which then can be separately recovered
from the solvent. The recovery of synthetic fibres involves depolymerisation followed by downstream
processing to produce polymer pellets. From the cotton, a cellulosic pulp can be recovered that can be
processed into a viscose-like material. Finishing chemicals, dyes and other products end up in a waste
fraction that is typically incinerated or landfilled. Spent solvents are typically recovered to minimise waste
and reduce processing costs (WRAP, 2019).
A financial model, created by the Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP, 2019), suggests that
chemical fibre-to-fibre recycling of polycotton blends could be financially viable. However, such viability
depends on the price and availability of sufficient volumes of well-sorted textile waste and the market
value of the resulting cellulosic pulp and polyester pellets.
Chemical recycling still suffers from many knowledge gaps and technical hurdles. Sorting capacity and
accuracy remain a challenge, while the economic viability is still questionable. Moreover, there are many
uncertainties about the environmental impacts of the process (Zero Waste Europe, 2019).
Other major barriers for high-quality textile recycling from a design point of view are the use of coatings,

Furthermore, demand for recycled fibres could be stimulated by the introduction of targets for recycling
and recycled content (EuRIC, 2020) or sustainability criteria in public procurement. The development of
suitable product codes, such as HS or Prodcom, to register trade in recycled fibres would also allow better
monitoring of recycled fibre use, which is currently based on estimates (CIRFS, 2020c).
Better transparency and traceability in the supply chain would further decrease uncertainties about
product/fibre quality (Elander and Ljungkvist, 2016) and partnerships between textile product brands,
fibre manufacturers, recyclers and authorities need to set up to educate each other and work together to
bring about a circular economy for textiles (Euratex, 2020a).

5 Lessons for the European plastics and textiles strategies
The new Circular Economy Action Plan is one of the building blocks of the European Green Deal, Europe’s
roadmap for achieving sustainable growth. Plastics and textiles are mentioned in the Action Plan as two of
the key product value chains for which the development of a circular economy in Europe should be
prioritised (European Commission, 2020a). As such, plastic-based, synthetic textiles are positioned at the
crossroads of these priority areas. Synthetic textiles play an important role in our everyday lives; they are
used in clothing, footwear, household linens and home furnishings, as well as in a wide range of technical
applications, such as protective wear, in transport and machinery. While Europe is the largest importer of
synthetic textiles, its domestic fibre production is significant and it is also a large exporter of synthetic
textile products to the rest of the world, with the EU industry specialising in specialty fibres and high-value
technical textiles.
Polyester (PET) is the most commonly used synthetic fibre; it has outgrown cotton at the most used fibre
in textiles. Synthetic fibres have particular properties that contribute to high-quality, high- performing and
durable textile products, which, for example, support long product lives and easy maintenance – qualities
that contribute to a circular economy. Nevertheless, the production and consumption of synthetic textiles
contribute significantly to environmental impacts such as fossil resource and energy use, greenhouse gas
emissions and to a lesser extent to impacts related to the use of chemicals. This implies that trade-offs
need to be made between the environmental impacts of synthetic textile production and desirable
properties that improve product performance and longevity. Also, there is a need for innovation that
decouples textiles production and consumption from the use of resources with negative environmental
impacts.
A particular point of concern is the release of microplastics, the small plastic fibres that are shed from
synthetic textiles during the production, washing and end-of-life treatment. The long-term consequences
that these microplastics have on the marine, terrestrial and aerial environments, soil health, aquatic and
terrestrial species and human health are still unclear, as are the specific conditions that promote or reduce
their release. A lot a research is going on to better understand shedding behaviour and sources,
quantifying volumes and risks, and finding solutions at different stages of fabrics’ lifecycles to prevent
shedding and remove microplastics from wastewater.
It is clear that general initiatives that support the creation of a circular textiles system are also very
relevant. These include products designed for durability and repair, innovative and resource-efficient
production methods, new business models that focus on reuse and shared use, awareness raising
campaigns that promote sustainable consumer behaviour and supporting policy measures that encourage
repair, reuse and recycling (ETC/WMGE, 2019b).

emissions to water and air during a textile’s lifecycle. The EU Plastics Strategy will target increasing
the capture of microplastics, for example, by filters; improving and harmonising measuring
methods; and building the knowledge base related to the risk and occurrence of microplastics in
the environment (European Commission, 2020a).
- Improved separate collection, reuse and recycling: improved separate textile collection, accurate
automated sorting and high-quality textile reuse and recycling have a significant potential to
reduce environmental impacts. Many technical, economic and social challenges, however, will
have to be overcome to facilitate and encourage reuse and to make fibre-to-fibre recycling
technically and economically viable. Following the EU Waste Directive, separate collection of
textile waste will be obligatory in all Member States from 1 January 2025. This calls for the
installation of sufficient sorting and recycling capacity.
Unfortunately, the COVID-19 crisis has led to a decrease in consumer demand for textiles, and
consequential cash-flow problems and unemployment in the textiles sector and raised concerns that these
factors could slow down the shift to a low-carbon and more circular textile sector. At the same time, it
demonstrates the fragility of the current way of working and offers a momentum to fundamentally change
the textile system in favour of a circular system with positive economic and environmental outcomes.
Already, a trend towards longer use and reuse of textiles is emerging as 71% of consumers indicate they
are more interested to invest in higher quality clothing and would consider buying second hand, reselling,
refurbishing or renting (Global fashion Agenda, 2020b; ThredUp, 2020).To achieve a sustainable and
circular textile system, while at the same time supporting economic recovery, the textile and apparel
organisations have proposed a list of measures (Euratex, 2020a; Policy Hub and Boston Consulting Group,
2020). Apart from financial support to companies and small and medium-sized enterprises to mitigate
short-term cash-flow problems and avoid job loss, the measures include a set of options aimed at
sustaining and accelerating the transition to a circular, resilient and low-carbon textile sector.

6 References
Adelphi, 2019, Circular Economy in the Textile Sector - Study for the German Federal Ministry for Economic
Cooperation and Development (BMZ), German Development Agency (GIZ), Bonn, Germany.
Adinolfi, R., 2019, 'Statistics and trends of the EU technical textile production and international trade',
presentation given at: Press Conference techtextil texprocess, Frankfurt, 2019.
Ambiletics, 2020, 'AMBILETICS | Eco sportswear made from recycled polyester'
(https://www.ambiletics.com/en/sustainable-fair-activewear/) accessed 29 June 2020.
Anon, 2019, Bodenbelag-Recycling: Angesichts der Quoten auf dem Teppich bleiben, EU-Recycling.
Aquafil, 2018, 'Econyl the process' (https://www.econyl.com/the-process/) accessed 6 May 2020.
Babu, R. P., O’Connor, K. and Seeram, R., 2013, 'Current progress on bio-based polymers and their future
trends', Progress in Biomaterials 2(1), 8 (DOI: 10.1186/2194-0517-2-8).
Baier, D., Rausch, T. M. and Wagner, T. F., 2020, 'The Drivers of Sustainable Apparel and Sportswear
Consumption: A Segmented Kano Perspective', Sustainability 12(7), 2788 (DOI: 10.3390/su12072788).
Beasley, J. and Georgeson, R., 2014, Advancing resource efficiency in Europe. Indicators and waste policy
scenarios to deliver a resource efficient and sustainable Europe., European Environmental Bureau,
Brussels, Belgium.
Becker, L., 2020, 'Clothing of the Future: How Smart Textiles Shake up the Sports Market'
(https://www.ispo.com/en/markets/clothing-future-how-smart-textiles-shake-sports-market) accessed
29 June 2020.
Beton, A., Cordella, M., Dodd, N., Boufateh, I., Wolf, O., Kougoulis, J., Dias, D., Desaxce, M., Perwueltz, A.,
Farrant, L., Gibon, T., Le Guern, Y. and Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, 2014, Environmental
improvement potential of textiles (IMPRO Textiles)., Publications Office of teh European Union,
Luxembourg.
Birkbeck, C. D., 2020, Strengthening international cooperation to tackle plastic pollution: Options for the
WTO, Global Governance Brief No. 1.
Bleed, 2020, 'TENCEL® | bleed' (https://www.bleed-clothing.com/english/tencel) accessed 29 June 2020.
Bomgardner, M., 2018, 'These new textile dyeing methods could make fashion more sustainable.',
Chemical & Engineering News 96(29).
Brigden, K., Hetherington, S., Wang, M., Santillo, D. and Johnston, P., 2014, Hazardous chemicals in
branded luxury textile products on sale during 2013, Greenpeace Research Laboratories Report 01/2014,
Exeter, UK.

CIRFS, 2020a, 'Fibre Range' (https://www.cirfs.org/man-made-fibers/Fibre-range) accessed 11 April 2020.
CIRFS, 2020b, Global man-made fibres production data.
CIRFS, 2020c, Interview with Candide Dufloucq.
Ciullini, I., Gullotto, A. and Tilli, S., 2012, 'Enzymatic decolorization of spent textile dyeing baths composed
by mixtures of synthetic dyes and additives', Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 96, 395–405.
COMEXT, 2018, EU Trade Since 1988 by HS2, 4, 6 and CN8 [DS-045409].
Common Objective, 2019, Fibre Briefing: Polyester.
Common Objective, 2020, 'Guide To Sustainable Stretch Fabric For Designers'
(https://www.commonobjective.co/article/fabric-switch-sourcing-sustainable-stretch#2) accessed 29
June 2020.
Coraball, 2020, 'Cora Ball - The World’s First Microfiber Catching Laundry Ball' (https://coraball.com/)
accessed 9 June 2020.
Covestro, 2019, 'Dress with CO2' (https://www.covestro.com/press/dress-with-co2/) accessed 11 June
2020.
Decoat, 2020, 'Decoat - Recycling of coated and painted textile and plastic materials' (http://decoat.eu/)
accessed 30 June 2020.
ECAP, 2019, European Clothing Action Plan - Driving circular fashion and textiles.
ECAP, 2020, 'ECAP | European Clothing Action Plan' (http://www.ecap.eu.com/) accessed 11 June 2020.
ECHA, 2017, 'Replacing harmful chemicals in the textiles sector' (https://echa.europa.eu/-/replacing-
harmful-chemicals-in-the-textiles-sector).
ECHA, 2020, 'Clothes and textiles' (https://chemicalsinourlife.echa.europa.eu/clothes-and-textiles)
accessed 23 March 2020.
Econyl, 2020, 'Econyl regenerated nylon' (https://www.econyl.com/) accessed 15 June 2020.
EEA, 2017, The circular economy and the bioeconomy — Partners in sustainability, Publication EEA Report
No 8/2018.
EEA, 2019, Textiles in Europe’s circular economy, Resource efficiency and waste Briefing No 10/2019, EEA.
EEA, 2020, 'Marine LitterWatch' (https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/europes-seas-and-
coasts/assessments/marine-litterwatch) accessed 6 February 2020.
EIA, 2020, Short-Term Energy Outlook, Forecasts, U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Elander, M. and Ljungkvist, H., 2016, Cristical aspects in design for fibre-to-fibre recycling of textiles.

ETC/WMGE, 2019b, Textiles and the environment in a circular economy, Eionet Report ETC/WMGE 2019/6,
ETC/WMGE.
Euratex, 2019, Annual report 2018.
Euratex, 2020a, Circular textiles.
Euratex, 2020b, 'Homepage' (https://euratex.eu/) accessed 11 June 2020.
Euratex, 2020c, 'The European textile and clothing industry presents its strategy for the future'
(https://euratex.eu/news/euratex-presents-strategy-for-future/) accessed 3 September 2020.
EuRIC, 2020, 'EuRIC - EuRIC Textiles' (https://www.euric-aisbl.eu/members-euric/european-member-
organisations/eurictextiles) accessed 2 September 2020.
European Bioplastics, 2020, 'Bioplastics Market data' (https://www.european-bioplastics.org/market/)
accessed 20 May 2020.
European Commission, 2020a, A new Circular Economy Action Plan For a cleaner and more competitive
Europe. COM(2020) 98 final.
European Commission, 2020b, Guidance for separate collection of municipal waste., European Union.
Eurostat, 2016, Generation of waste by waste category, hazardousness and NACE Rev. 2 activity
[env_wasgen].
Eurostat, 2018, Sold production, exports and imports by PRODCOM list (NACE Rev. 2) - annual data [DS-
066341].
FAO/ICAC, 2013, World Apparel Fibre Consumption Survey 2013.
Farrant, L., Olsen, S. I. and Wangel, A., 2010, 'Environmental benefits from reusing clothes', The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 15(7), 726–736 (DOI: 10.1007/s11367-010-0197-y).
Fashion for Good, 2020, 'Homepage' (https://fashionforgood.com/) accessed 11 June 2020.
Fashion Positive, 2020, 'Fashion Positive' (https://www.fashionpositive.org) accessed 11 June 2020.
Ferrigno, S., Guadagnini, R. and Tyrell, K., 2017, Is cotton conquering its chemical addiction?, Pesticide
Action Netwrok UK.
Fibre2fashion, 2020a, 'Properties of Chlorofibre' (https://www.fibre2fashion.com/industry-
article/7142/properties-of-chlorofibre) accessed 1 September 2020.
Fibre2fashion, 2020b, 'PTT Fibres, CORTERRA Polymer' (http://www.fibre2fashion.com/industry-
article/3261/ptt-an-innovative-polymer) accessed 11 June 2020.
Filtrol, 2020, 'The Filtrol | Washing Machine Microfiber and Lint Filter | Stop Plastic Microfiber Pollution'
(https://filtrol.net/) accessed 9 June 2020.

Greenpeace, 2017, 'Timeout for fast fashion'
(https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/56425790/timeout-for-fast-fashion) accessed 6 May 2020.
Guppyfriend, 2020, 'Guppyfriend Washing Bag Online Shop' (https://en.guppyfriend.com/) accessed 9
June 2020.
Hardy, M., 2020, 'A concrete example of EPR applied to textile: The French experience', presentation given
at: Extended Producer Responsibility and textile, (online), 16 June 2020.
Henry, B., Laitala, K. and Klepp, I. G., 2019, 'Microfibres from apparel and home textiles: Prospects for
including microplastics in environmental sustainability assessment', Science of The Total Environment 652,
483–494 (DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.166).
Hilton, M., 2018, Policy Toolkit for Carpet Circularity in EU Member States, Eunomia.
Hu, Z.-H., Li, Q., Chen, X.-J. and Wang, Y.-F., 2014, 'Sustainable Rent-Based Closed-Loop Supply Chain for
Fashion Products', Sustainability 6(10), 7063–7088 (DOI: 10.3390/su6107063).
JRC, 2014, Environmental improvement potential of textiles (IMPRO Textiles)‐ , JRC Scientific and Technical
Reports, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy.
Kaeb, H., Aeschelmann, F, Dammer, L and Carus, M, 2016, Market study on the consumption of
biodegradable and compostable plastic products in Europe 2015 and 2020, nova-Institut Gmbh.
KEMI, 2014, Chemicals in textiles – Risks to human health and the environment, 6/14.
Koehler, A., Anderson, A., Andrady, A., Arthur, C., Baker, J., Bouwman, H., Gall, S., Hidalgo-Ruz, V., Koehler,
A., Law, K., Leslie, H., Kershaw, P., Pahl, S., Potemra, J., Ryan, P., Shim, W., Thompson, R., Takada, H., Turra,
A. et al., 2015, Sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the marine environment: a global assessment,
GESAMP.
Laitala, K., 2014, 'Consumers’ clothing disposal behaviour - a synthesis of research results: Clothing
disposal behaviour', International Journal of Consumer Studies 38(5), 444–457 (DOI: 10.1111/ijcs.12088).
Maity, S. and Singha, K., 2012, 'Melamine fiber - Synthesis, features and applications', Chemical Fibres
International 62(4), 183–186.
Marketplace, 2020, 'Secondhand clothing sales are growing during the pandemic'
(https://www.marketplace.org/2020/07/01/secondhand-clothing-sales-are-growing-during-the-
pandemic/) accessed 2 September 2020.
Mayer-Gall, T., Plohl, D. and Derksen, L., 2019, 'A Green Water-Soluble Cyclophosphazene as a Flame
Retardant Finish for Textiles', Molecules 24, 3100 (DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24173100).
McCann, J., 2015, 'Environmentally conscious fabric selection in sportswear design', in: Textiles for
Sportswear, Elsevier, pp. 17–51.
McIntyre, J. E., 2005, Synthetic Fibres: Nylon, Polyester, Acrylic, Polyolefin, Woodhead Publishing Ltd,

OVAM, 2019, 'OVAM Ecolizer' (http://www.ecolizer.be/) accessed 19 May 2020.
Palme, A., Peterson, A., de la Motte, H., Theliander, H. and Brelid, H., 2017, 'Development of an efficient
route for combined recycling of PET and cotton from mixed fabrics', Textiles and Clothing Sustainability
3(4), 9 (DOI: 10.1186/s40689-017-0026-9).
Pearce, C., 2017, 'The Advantages of Polyester Cotton' (https://oureverydaylife.com/the-aAdvantages-of-
polyester-cotton-12402231.html) accessed 22 March 2020.
Pero, J., 2019, 'Microplastics-related initiatives of the sporting goods industry', presentation given at:
TextileMission Workshop, Brussels, 12 October 2019.
Pesnel, S. and Payet, J., 2019, Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) T-shirts.
Plastics Insight, 2020, 'Polyester Production, Price and Market Forecast'
(https://www.plasticsinsight.com/resin-intelligence/resin-prices/polyester/) accessed 6 May 2020.
PlasticsEurope, 2018, Plastics - the facts 2018, PlasticsEurope.
PlasticsEurope, 2019, Plastics - the facts 2019.
Policy Hub and Boston Consulting Group, 2020, Proposal for an EU Green Recovery Plan in the Textile,
Apparel and Footwear Industry.
Pure, 2020, 'Fair and sustainable sportswear - Pure Sportswear' (https://puresportswear.nl/en/) accessed
29 June 2020.
Resyntex, 2020, 'A New Circular Economy Concept for Textiles and Chemicals' (http://www.resyntex.eu/)
accessed 7 May 2020.
Retex, 2019, Retex: No Textile To Waste First specific results towards a circular economy, INTERREG France-
Wallonie -Vlaanderen.
Ronzon, T., Lusser, M., Landa, L., M’barek, R., Giuntoli, J., Cristobal, J., Parisi, C., Ferrari, E., Marelli, L.,
Torres de Matos, C., Gomez Barbero, M. and Rodriguez Cerezo, E., 2017, Bioeconomy report 2016, JRC
Scientific and Policy Report EUR 28468 EN, Joint Research Centre, Brussels, Belgium.
Roos, S., Levenstam Arturin, O. and Hanning, A.-C., 2017, Microplastics shedding from polyester fabrics,
Mistra Future Fashion 2017:1, SWEREA.
Ryberg, M., Laurent, A. and Hausch, M., 2017, Mapping of global plastics value chain and plastics losses
to the environment, UNEP.
Šajn, N., 2019, Environmental impact of the textile and clothing industry. What consumers need to know.,
European Parliamentary Research Service.
Salvador Cesa, F., Turra, A. and Baruque-Ramos, J., 2017, 'Synthetic fibers as microplastics in the marine
environment: A review from textile perspective with a focus on domestic washings', Science of The Total

Scheffer, M., 2012, Task 7: Synthesis report for the European textile and clothing sector, December 2012,
ENTR/2010/16.
Schmidt, A., Watson, S., Roos, S., Askham, C. and Brunn Poulsen, P., 2016, Gaining benefits from discarded
textiles LCA of different treatment pathways, TeemaNord 537.
Semba, T., Sakai, Y., Sakanishi, T. and Inaba, A., 2018, 'Greenhouse gas emissions of 100% bio-derived
polyethylene terephthalate on its life cycle compared with petroleum-derived polyethylene
terephthalate', Journal of Cleaner Production 195, 932–938 (DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.069).
Shen, L., Worrell, E. and Patel, M. K., 2012, 'Comparing life cycle energy and GHG emissions of bio-based
PET, recycled PET, PLA, and man-made cellulosics', Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 6(6), 625–639
(DOI: 10.1002/bbb.1368).
Sherrington, C., 2016, Plastics in the Marine Environment, Eunomia, Bristol, UK.
Singha, K., 2012, 'A Review on Coating & Lamination in Textiles: Processes and Applications', American
Journal of Polymer Science 2(3), 39–49.
Stadler, K., Wood, R., Bulavskaya, T., Södersten, C.-J., Simas, M., Schmidt, S., Usubiaga, A., Acosta‐
Fernández, J., Kuenen, J., Bruckner, M., Giljum, S., Lutter, S., Merciai, S., Schmidt, J. H., Theurl, M. C.,
Plutzar, C., Kastner, T., Eisenmenger, N., Erb, K.-H. et al., 2018, 'Exiobase 3: developing a time series of
detailed environmentally extended multi-regional input-output tables', Journal of Industrial Ecology 22(3),
502–515 (DOI: 10.1111/jiec.12715).
Statista, 2020, Global chemical fiber production from 2000 to 2018, by fiber type.
Suaria, G., Achtypi, A., Perold, V., Lee, J. R., Pierucci, A., Bornman, T. G., Aliani, S. and Ryan, P. G., 2020,
'Microfibers in oceanic surface waters: A global characterization', Science Advances 6(23), eaay8493 (DOI:
10.1126/sciadv.aay8493).
Sustainable Apparel Coalition, 2020, 'Higg MSI' (https://msi.higg.org/sac-materials/1/textiles) accessed 21
April 2020.
Textile Exchange, 2018, Quick Guide to Biosynthetics.
Textile Exchange, 2019, Perferred Fiber & Materials. Market report 2019.
Textile Exchange, 2020a, Material Change Insights Report 2019 - The state of fiber and materials sourcing.
Textile Exchange, 2020b, 'Textile Exchange' (https://textileexchange.org/) accessed 11 June 2020.
Textile Focus, 2020, 'Second Hand Clothing Market is set to Surpass Fast Fashion Market'
(http://textilefocus.com/second-hand-clothing-market-set-surpass-fast-fashion-market/) accessed 2
September 2020.
TextileExchange, 2018, Preferred fiber & materials Market Report 2017.

Watson, D., Gylling, A. C., Andersson, T. and Heikkilä, P., 2017, Textile-to-textile recycling - Ten Nordic
brands that are leading the way, Nordic Council of Ministers.
Watson, D., Gylling, A. C. and Thorn, P., 2017, Business Models Extending Active Lifetime of Garments
Supporting Policy instruments.
Watson, D. and Trzepacz, S., 2019, Increasing the Circularity of Hotel Textiles.
Watson, D., Trzepacz, S., Lander Svendsen, N., Wittus Skottfelt, S., Kiørboe, N., Elander, M. and Ljungkvist
Nordin, H., 2020, Towards 2025: Separate collection and treatment of textiles in six EU countries,
Miljøstyrelsen.
WITS, 2018, 'WITS TradeStat Database: Trade Statistics by Product, Country and Region'
(https://wits.worldbank.org/) accessed 5 July 2020.
WRAP, 2019, Fibre to fibre recycling: An economic & financial sustainability assessment, The Waste And
Resources Action Programme, Banbury, UK.
Xeros, 2020, 'Xeros Technology' (https://www.xerostech.com/technology#xfiltra) accessed 9 June 2020.
Zero Waste Europe, 2019, El Dorado of Chemical Recycling. State of play and policy challenges, Zero Waste
Europe, Brussels, Belgium.
Ziajahromi, S., Kumar, A., Neale, P. A. and Leusch, F. D. L., 2017, 'Impact of Microplastic Beads and Fibers
on Waterflea ( Ceriodaphnia dubia ) Survival, Growth, and Reproduction: Implications of Single and
Mixture Exposures', Environmental Science & Technology 51(22), 13397–13406 (DOI:
10.1021/acs.est.7b03574).
'British Standards Institution - Project' (https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/9019-
03092#/section) accessed 10 September 2020.