This piece first appeared in The Great Outdoors magazine last year.
Not many years ago if sustainability meant anything to
outdoor companies it was to have some recycled fleece in the range or wool from
sheep that had been treated well or other worthy single action unrelated to the
whole life-cycle of the products. Today that’s changed, and many companies now
look at the environmental effects of gear from the production of raw materials
to the end of life of the final product. Trade organisations work with
companies too, so these developments are often not in isolation. The European
Outdoor Group has a Sustainability Charter that’s been adopted by the
Scandinavian Outdoor Group and the Outdoor Industries Association in the USA.
This new spirit of collaboration is very positive as it both encourages
individual companies to become involved and also means that information and
research is shared, making working towards sustainability easier and therefore
more likely.
In recent years three issues have dominated the
sustainability debate: ethical down, PFC treatments, and microplastic shedding
from synthetic materials. Ethical down means down from birds that are certified
non-live plucked and non-force fed and otherwise well treated. Patagonia and
Mountain Equipment led the industry in working towards this. Down from these,
and now many other companies, is traceable back to its origins and this is
independently audited.
Taking this one step further recycled down is now available,
retrieved from cushions and bedding. Patagonia are again a leader here with a
range of 100% recycled 600 fill power down clothing. The European Outdoor Group
has published best practise guidelines for recycled down. Re-using down is
obviously an excellent idea and hopefully other companies will start using it.
Mammut already is, with a hooded down jacket.
Fluorocarbon treatments (PFCs) became a big issue three
years ago following a Greenpeace report, Footprints
In The Snow, though Nick Brown of Nikwax and Paramo had already been
warning about them for many years – neither company has ever used them. PFCs
are harmful to human health and persist for a long time in the environment and
in food chains. Why then are they used in outdoor clothing? The answer is
because they make excellent durable water repellent treatments for synthetic
items including waterproofs, windproofs, footwear, sleeping bags, and more.
Many companies are now phasing out PFCs, which is good. The problem is finding
an effective alternative. Whilst some companies have already dropped PFCs and
are using less effective treatments that need renewing more often the biggest
name in waterproof clothing, Gore-Tex, hasn’t yet done so but it is working
towards achieving 85% PFC free fabrics in 2020 and 100% in 2021-23. One of the
first companies to remove almost all PFCs was Fjallraven who say that ‘the
compromise is that extra care is required to ensure your Eco-Shell garments
retain their waterproofness’ but that ‘this is a price worth paying’. Vaude products
are 100% PFC free this year and Jack Wolfskin’s 95%.
One company that hasn’t yet stopped using PFCs is Patagonia,
which says it’s first PFC free garments will come out next year. However, the
company has been looking into this deeper than most, pointing out that garments
with DWRs with shorter lifespans are likely to be replaced more often, an
environmental problem in itself (of course renewing the DWR is one answer to this)
and that it’s important that replacement DWRs don’t also have adverse
environmental effects. To that end Patagonia has invested millions of dollars
in Swiss company Beyond Surface Technologies, who are working to develop better
alternatives.
The latest problem to emerge is that of microplastic residues
known as microfibres that are shed by synthetic clothing while being worn and,
especially, when washed. These microfibres are nearly indestructible and they
get everywhere – in the air, in water, in food – and are often treated with
harmful chemicals and dyes. They can bond to chemical pollutants too.
Ironically and sadly research suggests that garments made from recycled
synthetics can shed more microfibres than ones made from new materials.
Sustainability is complex.
There is as yet no solution to the microfibre problem. It’s
not even certain which fabrics shed the most microfibres. Fleece is often given
as this but that’s because most research has been done on it. All synthetics
can shed microfibres. The worst way fibres are shed is also not known. Washing
is certainly a culprit but so is wear and tear. Brushing against rocks or
trees, rubbing against rucksack straps.
Research is ongoing into manufacturing processes to see if
new methods of yarn and fabric construction can make a difference. An
initiative called TextileMIssion was set up last year by a group of concerned
bodies including Vaude, Adidas, and Polartec, its aim being to ‘reduce
micro-plastic particles release’. As well as production methods the project
will look at the possibility of using biodegradable fibres as an environmentally
friendly alternative. This sounds a good idea anyway. Vaude is already using
biodegradable fibres, including Tencel, a wood-derived cellulose, in some
products.
The European Outdoor Group has set up a Microfibre
Consortium to better understand microfibre pollution and what can be done about
it. The consortium has 28 members, not all of them outdoor brands (ASDA, IKEA,
M&S for example). Various projects
are under way including one at Leeds University to develop a reproducible test
method for measuring microfibre shedding.
Patagonia is also conducting research with two scientific
studies. The first at the University of California looked at the extent of
microfibres shed from Patagonia products in the wash and compared this with
that from lower-quality gear, finding that the latter shed 170% more. The study
also found that garments washed in top-load machines shed seven times as many
microfibres as those washed in front-loaders. Patagonia’s second study, with
North Carolina State University, has the goal of better understanding which
characteristics of fibres and fabrics lead to microfibres being shed.
TextileMission is also looking at how to improve wastewater
treatment to phase out more microfibres. In the meantime, consumers can do
something about this. Not washing garments until absolutely essential is one
way. Another is to catch the fibres in
the washing machine in a filter bag like the GuppyFriend, available from
Patagonia. This recyclable bag has a slick inner and catches most of the
microfibres which can then be removed and put in the bin. They don’t disappear of
course, but this keeps them out of water sources.
Compared with a few years ago much is being done to make the
outdoor industry more sustainable. At the same time more problems are coming to
light and difficulties are becoming clearer. PFCs and microfibres are not easy
to solve. It’s good though that outdoor companies are working to find solutions
and that they are doing this together in many cases. Praise should go to those
who’ve led the way, especially Patagonia, Nikwax/Paramo, and Vaude.
Links
