Increasingly, in our industry, there has been a face-off between data optimists and data pessimists – those who believe we can get good, specific data to assess impacts and those who think that global averages are as good as it’s likely to get.
This debate has intensified of late, not just by the Norwegian Consumer Authority’s ruling on the use of average data on product labels, but also by policy makers on both sides of the Atlantic working on due diligence legislation and the European Union’s long-awaited Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) tool.
There is, and has long been, data available for cotton farming, but often only for some areas and at variable costs. But the situation seems to be improving with both real and simulated data.
Already have an account? Log In
Recommended
Most Popular
Latest Magazine
Features
Why China’s new wastewater standard is only one part of a broader shift spanning environmental law
As Brussels switches on its product passport registry, fashion’s supply chain data gaps threaten a bumpy rollout
As green claims face closer regulatory scrutiny liability no longer sits solely with the brands
News
Preview of our Textile Standards & Legislation Guide
China’s strengthened rules make officials personally accountable for serious environmental damage
New process to strip reactive dyes from cotton could benefit textile-to-textile recycling
Opinion
European factory closures show costs, geography and demand decide which materials survive
Other publications from MCL News & Media
