In recent years, headlines have painted the fashion and textile industry as one of the planet’s greatest environmental villains. Figures are repeated endlessly in reports, media articles and even draft legislation – fashion generates 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions, discards 92 million tons of waste every year and produces clothing worn only a handful of times before being thrown away.

Yet, as Brussels-based textile industry analyst Lutz Walter argues, many of these widely quoted statistics fall apart under scrutiny. In a series of LinkedIn posts, he set out to examine some of the most common myths – and in the process revealed a far more nuanced picture of the industry’s impact and future.

Fashion’s global emissions

One of the most persistent claims is that fashion is responsible for 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Walter calls this “a myth that spread widely across media, NGOs, academia and even into European Union regulatory drafts.”

The figure originated in a 2018 report by Quantis (now Boston Consulting Group), which estimated apparel and footwear emissions at just over 8% of the global total. The United Nations Environment Programme then rounded this up to a neat 10% and the number quickly gained traction.

The most robust analysis today comes from the Apparel Impact Institute (Aii), which calculates fashion’s annual emissions at around 944 million tons of CO2 equivalent, or about 1.8% of the global total. This estimate covers production alone and excludes consumer activities such as washing, drying and ironing.

“Fashion is not the climate heavyweight it’s often made out to be,” says Walter. “At around 1.8% of global emissions, it’s a lighter player – and likely to become even lighter over time.”

While emissions ticked upwards in 2023, data shows the sector has already achieved a degree of decoupling and output of fibres is rising faster than emissions. Walter points to three reasons to expect further reductions – the phase-out of coal-fired boilers and other outdated equipment, the rapid decarbonisation of energy grids in key production hubs such as China and the gradual adoption of other decarbonisation measures across the industry.

The circular economy’s value

The idea of a circular textile economy, where garments are reused, repaired and recycled, has been hailed as a massive business opportunity. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation once suggested a potential of half a trillion dollars, and major consultancies echoed similar numbers. Yet Walter insists these claims are overstated.

A closer look at the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s $500 billion projection reveals that $460 billion of this “new value” is in fact consumer savings from wearing clothes longer rather than buying new.

“That isn’t new value,” Walter notes, “it’s lost sales for brands or shifted value to resale platforms.  Resale companies like Vinted are thriving in markets such as France, but conventional retail is struggling.”

Similarly, promises that textile recycling could generate vast profits have proved shaky when subjected to scrutiny. Labour costs in particular undermine many circular business models. Repair, rental and resale all rely on relatively expensive human work for products that are low in value.

“The math just doesn’t add up,” Walter argues. “Instead of new wealth, circularity largely redistributes value, while environmental or social benefits still need to be properly demonstrated through life-cycle assessments.

Textile waste

Another regularly quoted figure is that fashion generates 92 million tons of waste every year. The number comes from a 2017 report by the Global Fashion Agenda and Boston Consulting Group, based on 2015 data, but Walter shows it was inflated. Careful recalculation suggests that the real figure for 2015 was closer to 37 million tons of apparel waste, not 92.

For 2023, Walter estimates the total at around 45 million tons of untreated, incinerated or landfilled apparel waste. This includes both post-consumer waste and the often overlooked industrial waste generated in cutting rooms, faulty production runs and unsold stock. The revised figure remains enormous, but still far short of the myth.

Looking ahead, waste volumes are projected to grow, but Walter stresses the path is not predetermined.

“Longer-lasting garments, better sell-through, improved collection and sorting and more reuse and recycling can all make a significant difference,” he says. “There’s no silver bullet, but together these measures can make a massive impact.”

Brand incentives

Are fashion companies truly incentivised to pursue sustainability?

Walter is sceptical. Analysing executive pay disclosures from major brands including adidas, Gap, H&M, Inditex, LVMH, Levi’s, Nike and VF Corp, he found that 70-90% of senior management pay remains tied to financial performance, while sustainability metrics make up only 10-25% at best.

“Executives are structurally rewarded for maximising short-term financial outcomes, while deep sustainability moves remain optional,” he says. “The result is a flourishing of glossy pledges but little systemic change.”

The solution, he argues, is regulation such as the EU’s new Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, carbon pricing and waste levies, to make ecological and social costs unavoidable. He also calls for compensation reform and believes sustainability needs to be a core KPI (key performance indicator), with a 30-40% weighting, tied to absolute, verifiable targets, with longer time horizons and collective accountability.

Garment wear

Few myths have spread as far as the claim that garments are worn just seven to ten times before being discarded. This originated in a small 2009 study of young female consumers in Glasgow, which was never intended to be extrapolated to global averages. Yet by the time McKinsey and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation repeated the finding in the mid-2010s – with caveats – it was too late. The nuance was dropped and the soundbite went viral.

Testing the claim against global fibre production exposes its impossibility. If clothing lasted only seven to ten wears, the world would need to consume between two and three trillion garments a year, requiring more than half a billion tons of fibres. In reality, the apparel industry today uses just 65 million tons of fibre annually.

The real problem is not that all garments are discarded after a handful of wears, but that many are underused or too quickly thrown away. Solid consumption studies confirm these issues, but the “seven wears” statistic, Walter insists, belongs in the category of urban legends.

Clothes for future generations

In 2019, designer Patrick Grant famously claimed that humanity already had enough clothing to dress the next four to seven generations. The catchy soundbite spread rapidly, even finding its way into policy debates. Walter dismantles it with simple arithmetic.

Even if we assumed a stockpile of 825 billion garments, that would provide each person with 100 items. At a minimum average of seven articles of clothing worn by individuals in a day, these would be gone in months if garments lasted only ten wears, or in a few years at best if they lasted 100. To clothe a single generation for 25 years, every garment would need to withstand more than 600 wears. To span seven generations, over 4,000 wears.

“We’re not there,” Walter concludes.

What the claim did achieve was publicity for Grant’s Community Clothing initiative, which focuses on durable, seasonless essentials made locally. That is a valuable outcome, Walter acknowledges, but it does not make the soundbite accurate.

Natural versus synthetic

Another common simplification is that natural fibres such as cotton, wool, hemp and silk are inherently more sustainable than synthetics like polyester or nylon. Walter dismantles this polarisation.

Life-cycle assessments show a mixed picture – cotton can be highly water-intensive, wool contributes methane and silk is disproportionately resource-hungry per kilogram. Synthetics, meanwhile, are fossil-fuel based and energy-intensive but use little land and water. Dyeing and finishing processes can outweigh the fibre itself in environmental impact, regardless of origin.

Scaling is another challenge. With fibre demand expected to surpass 150 million tons annually, natural fibres alone cannot meet the need without competing with food production and biodiversity. Synthetics can scale, but only if innovation reduces their dependence on fossil fuels. Emerging solutions include bio-based polymers, chemical recycling and CO2-to-polymer technologies.

Manmade cellulosic fibres such as viscose and lyocell may play a bridging role, provided sourcing and chemical processes are improved. Ultimately, Walter argues, the question is not which fibre is best overall, but which fibre or blend is best for the specific use case and supply chain at any specific time.

Driving polyester’s growth

Polyester has become the world’s dominant fibre, with production tripling since 2000 to more than 70 million tons per year. The popular narrative blames fast fashion, but Walter notes that only about 35% of polyester goes into apparel. The rest is used in interior textiles and technical applications such as carpets, furnishings, hygiene products, automotive components and construction materials.

Within apparel, polyester is widely used beyond cheap fashion. Workwear benefits from its durability, sportswear from its quick-dry performance and underwear from its affordability. Fast fashion is indeed growing, but Walter estimates it accounts for no more than 10-15% of apparel polyester consumption today – around three million tons, or less than half the output of a single large Chinese producer.

This does not mean polyester is problem-free. Its fossil origin, energy-intensive production, toxic auxiliaries, microplastic shedding and low recycling rates remain pressing issues. But to address them Walter insists, the industry must look beyond the fast-fashion and tackle polyester’s challenges across all sectors, from diapers to dresses to car tyres.

Grounded debate

What emerges from Walter’s myth-busting is not a defence of the industry, but a plea for accuracy. Inflated statistics may capture attention, but they also distort the conversation and risk undermining serious solutions. By grounding debate in real numbers and rigorous analysis, the industry can better target its efforts – whether in reducing emissions, cutting waste, reforming incentives or innovating with fibres.

“Let’s retire zombie stats,” Walter concludes, “and design for high-wear, long-life basics backed by transparent numbers.”

www.textile-platform.eu