According to The Netherlands-based Changing Markets Foundation, international fashion brands are increasing their use of synthetic fibers, a major contributor to microplastic pollution, while using delaying and distraction strategies to safeguard their fast fashion business model despite mounting evidence of the risks to human health and the environment.
Most are either increasing their use or hiding how dependent they really are. They are using strategies akin to those of the fossil fuel industry, according to the report, including downplaying the seriousness of plastic pollution, misleading the public and authorities with make-believe solutions, and purposefully delaying real attempts to address it, especially in the case of microplastic pollution.
The industry’s “lacklustre” support for meaningful legislation was exposed in a report titled “Plastic Paralysis: How Brands Resist Change and Fuel Microplastic Pollution,” which also highlights the urgent need for strong action from regulators. Merely enacting half-hearted measures will only prolong the fast fashion cycle.
It assessed the use of synthetic fibers by 50 well-known fashion brands as well as their approaches to mitigating the problem of microplastic pollution. The Clean Clothes Campaign, Fashion Revolution, No Plastic in My Sea, and the Plastic Soup Foundation collaborated on the poll.
Since the start of these polls in 2021, the amount of corporate secrecy has increased by over three times. According to the report, companies are concealing their actual reliance on synthetic materials. Merely 4% of the organizations attained the highest ranking, which is “leading the shift.”
Out of 50 companies, almost all fell into one of two lowest categories: “trailing behind,” which was characterized by low or no openness and a strong or growing reliance on synthetics, or “red zone,” which had little to no transparency.
Among the 29 businesses in the red zone were department stores, quick fashion, luxury, sports, and sustainability-focused businesses. Regretfully, almost half of the responding companies (11 out of 23) have expanded their use of synthetics since the release of our first poll. With negligible variations, five continued to employ synthetics, and just three companies decreased it.
This part was left empty by four businesses. The research pointed out that this, along with the other 27 companies that chose not to participate in the survey, demonstrates a concerning lack of transparency
Most of these firms are probably increasing their use of synthetic materials because it is predicted that by 2030, synthetic fibers will account for 73% of textile output. Four brands who made a 2022 commitment to cut back on synthetics instead increased their 2022–2024 synthetic share or volume.
According to the report, the fashion industry is delaying and diverting attention from significant change by employing strategies straight out of the playbook of industries like tobacco and fossil fuels.
Reluctant to accept the growing body of scientific evidence, about 34% of respondents said that action should be delayed because more research was necessary before taking any action.
Despite the fact that The Microfibre Consortium (TMC) created a standard test method to evaluate fiber loss from fabrics in 2021, six firms indicated a need for greater study on the consequences and standardised ways to measure microfibre release.
Many firms employ a common smokescreen approach to address microplastic pollution: joining industry-created sustainability initiatives like TMC, Fashion For Good, ZDHC, and the Japan Clean Ocean Material Alliance. This is done in place of adopting precise and time-bound policies and plans.
Although the survey pointed out that merely enrolling does not guarantee any significant action against microfiber pollution, for 16 out of 50 companies (32%) such memberships were their only approach to combat microfibres.
It’s noteworthy that 21 out of 50 businesses, or 42%, signed the TMC, which bills itself as the industry’s first effort to combat microfibre pollution. According to the project, signatory brands can appear progressive while maintaining the status quo by downplaying the risks associated with microplastics and classifying them as no more dangerous than natural fibers.
In defiance of scientific data that explicitly emphasize the risks caused by microplastics, the industry is attempting to change the focus of the conversation away from the plastic crisis by asserting that all microfibres, regardless of their source, are equally hazardous.
TMC added that in an effort to dissuade attention from synthetics, it has directed funds toward studies that imply natural fibers like cotton and wool are the primary source of microfibre pollution.
According to the initiative, the discussion of microfibre pollution should extend beyond microplastics alone, as this viewpoint is “simplistic and ignores the evidence.”
Nonetheless, research indicates that microplastics represent the most risk to human health and the environment among all microfibres. The research noted that the fashion industry is using these arguments as a ploy to divert lawmakers’ attention away from its role in the pollution of plastic.
The second most popular tactic was advising customers to install washing machine filters and provide advice on how to take care of their clothing in order to stop microplastics from entering the environment. According to the report, this strategy not only shifts the responsibility to consumers, absolving companies of any responsibility, but it also concentrates on fixing the damage rather than preventing the issue from arising in the first place.
In particular, the study looked at how brands felt about microplastic contamination from textiles and future laws from the European Union and the global plastic pollution convention. Merely 22% of the participants who responded to this section of the survey expressed their support for each and every initiative mentioned.
The PEF’s inclusion of microplastic emissions as an environmental performance measure received the highest support. Nevertheless, the majority of brands did not provide public policy statements or other verifiable proof to support their claims.
This lackluster response implies that many brands are using yet another strategy of delay. The research also stated that their lack of support for legislation suggests that they would rather maintain the status quo than accept significant change.
