AMGTA_Vol.IV_3DMtrlJettingvsTrad.Methods_DsgnrLuxGoods_execsumm.qxp_LCA_3_inner_pages 2/20/24 12:46 PM Page 1

AMGTA_Vol.IV_3DMtrlJettingvsTrad.Methods_DsgnrLuxGoods_execsumm.qxp_LCA_3_inner_pages 2/20/24 12:46 PM Page 2

INTRODUCTION TO AMGTA
The Additive Manufacturer Green Trade Association (AMGTA) is the only global organization
bringing together companies throughout the manufacturing ecosystem to promote and elevatethe conversation around additive manufacturing (AM) practices as an environmentally beneficial
strategy for addressing lead times, supply chains, waste streams, energy consumption, technologicaladvancements, and overall environmental and societal impacts. This informed and ongoing collaboration between AM technology developers and practitioners is enabling the overall AM industry
to address the need and demand for more sustainable manufacturing and more resilient andflexible supply chains in a strategically, financially, and environmentally beneficial way. Fundamentally,
the AMGTA brings together the manufacturing and sustainability communities to better understand the leverage-potential of additive manufacturing.
AMGTA members represent the entirety of the manufacturing ecosystem—from design and source
materials to end products and users. These members demonstrate their industry leadership byworking together to address the compelling issues around rapidly evolving manufacturing
demands, stakeholder expectations, geopolitical events, climate impacts, and a changing ecology.
Through member forums, rigorous research, and business use-case analysis, the AMGTA works tobetter understand and communicate the direct impacts and potential of additive manufacturing
and the marketplace demand for more sustainable manufacturing to increase acceptance andadoption of additive practices.
The AMGTA works with member organizations to raise the profile of their sustainability efforts andthe potential for more sustainable manufacturing through their products, services, and systems.
The AMGTA represents its members at additive manufacturing industry forums and conferences
to promote the environmental benefits of additive practices. The AMGTA also represents its
members within the sustainability community to promote the power and potential of additive
practices to deliver on bold environmental goals. We engage member organizations in groundbreaking research projects and business case studies to better understand the potential of AM,
inform ongoing industry development, and increase acceptance and adoption of more sustainable
manufacturing practices.
The AMGTA is engaging AM technology leaders, the broader manufacturing industry, and the overall sustainability community in an independent and comprehensive way in which no single
company, regardless of size or position in the market, can do on its own.

ii

AMGTA_Vol.IV_3DMtrlJettingvsTrad.Methods_DsgnrLuxGoods_execsumm.qxp_LCA_3_inner_pages 2/20/24 12:46 PM Page 3

MESSAGE FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
We are pleased to issue the third body of research in a series of
independently commissioned papers designed to reveal the environmental benefits of additive manufacturing adoption. We arecommitted to advancing the research and publication required tobetter understand the sustainable value of AM technologies as part ofthe manufacturing cycle for broad business cases. This collaborative
study with Stratasys and Pattern Group, assessing the impact of a
print-to-textile process, is our first research undertaking involving
polymer. It delivers important data that supports the value of AM to
impact one of the most historically polluting industries in the world.
This study in collaboration with Stratasys is a clear win for manufacturers like Dyloan, a subsidiaryof Pattern Group, which are pushing the boundaries to innovate better and more sustainable consumer
fashion goods. We applaud Dyloan and their design clients for their industry leadership, their willingness to share their processes and data, and their willingness to share this information with the broader
manufacturing community. The urgent need for more sustainable manufacturing will only be met
by bold collaboration. Stratasys and Dyloan, through this research, have stepped up in a big way.
Sherri Monroe
Executive Director, AMGTA
November 2023

INDUSTRY COLLABORATION
Our dedication to Mindful Manufacturing™ is a commitment to ourcustomers. By embracing sustainable practices and innovative AM
technologies, we're working to reduce global carbon footprints – ourown and our users. This study showcases how the adoption of our advanced AM offering empowers customers to deliver manufacturingsolutions that improve their impact on the environment and at thesame time deliver competitive advantage through innovation in
production for design.
Dr. Yoav Zeif
CEO, Stratasys
November 2023

iii

AMGTA_Vol.IV_3DMtrlJettingvsTrad.Methods_DsgnrLuxGoods_execsumm.qxp_LCA_3_inner_pages 2/20/24 12:46 PM Page 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYC O M P A R A T I V E A N A LY S I S : 3 D M A T E R I A L J E T T I N G V S T R A D I T I O N A L
METHODS FOR DESIGNER LUXURY GOODS
This study was commissioned by the AMGTA and conducted by Reeves Insight, a UK-based AM
consultancy practice, in partnership with Stratasys, a global leader in AM technologies, and PatternGroup, a leading company in the engineering and production of luxury fashion brands, and its
subsidiary, Dyloan Bond Factory.The purpose of the study was to analyze the transition fromtraditional manufacturing methods to advanced Additive Manufacturing (AM) to create a logo
applique for luxury designer shoes, printed on fabric and produced by a material jetting process.
The results showed a dramatic 24.8% reduction in CO2-eq emissions and a 48% reduction in stock
material across the supply chain when compared to the traditional process.
This year-long study analyzed the cradle-to-gate of a 3-dimensional graphic component attachedto the heel of a luxury athletic shoe. The AMGTA commissioned the study in 2022 to better understand the potential environmental benefits of additive design and manufacture in an industry that
may not be top-of-mind when thinking of additive practices – fashion. The study compared the
manufacture of the 3D logo component through the traditional and additive methods. The study
was limited in scope to this one component and not the entire shoe. The study evaluated both processes for a production run of 16,000 logo components for 8,000 pairs of shoes. This study was peer
reviewed by the Laboratory for Machine Tools and Production Engineering (WZL) of RWTH Aachen
University as research partner of ACAM Aachen Center for Additive Manufacturing GmbH.
Key takeaways from the study include:• Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The additive manufacturing print-to-textile
production process showed a 24.8% reduction in CO2e emissions, when compared withtraditional processes.

• Reduction in Material Usage: AM print-to-textile showed a 49.9% reduction of stock material across the supply chain, also reducing and streamlining related transportation needs,
and 50.0% less material in the resulting 3D printed logo component.

• Reduction in Water Usage: The AM process showed a savings of more than 300,000
liters of water across the 16,000 logo components.

• Reduction in Power Consumption: The additive manufacturing process cut electricalenergy consumption by 64%.

• Reduction in Supply Chain Dependencies: The shift to AM reduced supply chain
dependencies from 4 technologies to 1: with a single additive workflow – and transportationand logistics impacts are eliminated for 3 processes.
Of the many potential environmental benefits of additive design and manufacture across nearly
every industry, streamlined production processes, reduced material usage and waste, and reduced
energy consumption are often suspected but require critical analysis to be quantified and lead tothe adoption of more sustainable methods and processes. This study looked at a very specific and quantifiable design element to understand the impacts of these advanced manufacturing technologies.
cont’d.

1

AMGTA_Vol.IV_3DMtrlJettingvsTrad.Methods_DsgnrLuxGoods_execsumm.qxp_LCA_3_inner_pages 2/20/24 12:46 PM Page 5

C o m p a r a t i v e A n a l y s i s cont’d.
The traditional multiple-step process studied includes 2D Inkjet printing and thermal welding of
injection molded parts with sheet polyurethane materials. The streamlined additive processincluded material jetting using photocurable liquid resins with significantly fewer steps.
The results of the study showed a 24.8% overall reduction in CO2-eq emissions for the additive
process compared to the traditional method. Across the 16,000 logo components studied, theadditive process resulted in nearly one metric ton less CO2-eq emitted.
The studied manufacturing run was shown to require 49% less material by weight when produced
additively and the resulting logo component had 51% less material than the traditionally produced
component resulting in a marginally lighter-weight final product. The AM process also eliminatedthe use of up-stream paper-backed materials requiring significant amounts of water in theirproduction – more than 300,000 liters for the 16,000 components studied.
The additive 3D printing process also used 64% less electrical energy compared to the traditional
process which included energy-intensive injection molding and thermal bonding. With thetraditional

processusing

significantly more electricalenergythan

theadditive

process, this would suggest a“greener”

energysourcewould have a greater impact
on the traditional process. Additional environmental andoperational efficiencies were
documented related to reduced supply chain dependencies and reduced steps inthe production process.

Fig. 1 – Comparison of outputs from the traditional and 3D printing approaches

STUDY OVERVIEWThis study provides a detailed environmental analysis of two manufacturing methods that produce
a 3-dimensional (3D) graphic logo component, as seen in Figure 2 (overleaf). The graphical element
adorns the heel-spur location on the designer footwear, as seen in Figure 3 (overleaf).
The first and more traditional manufacturing method uses a multiple-stage 2D printing, injection
molding, and thermal welding process as in Figure 4 (overleaf) to produce the component, whichis then laminated to a fabric substrate and becomes part of the footwear upper. The second, more
recently developed method deposits material directly onto the fabric substrate using a 3D material
jetting process, eliminating the need for multiple manufacturing steps. For purposes of this study
the Stratasys Polyjet™ J850™ TechStyle™ was used.
This document models the environmental impact of both methods within the Italian fashion
specialist Dyloan Bond Factory, a subsidiary of the Pattern Group. Dyloan Bond Factory, establishedcont’d.

2

AMGTA_Vol.IV_3DMtrlJettingvsTrad.Methods_DsgnrLuxGoods_execsumm.qxp_LCA_3_inner_pages 2/20/24 12:46 PM Page 6

S t u d y O v e r v i e w cont’d.
in 1987 in Abruzzo, is focused on research, engineering, prototyping, customization, and productionof semi-finished products, accessories, fabrics, and finished garments. Dyloan works closely withleading fashion houses to enable sustainable materials innovation across the supply chain.
This document models each manufacturing method within the Dyloan Chieti facility. The model isbased on manufacturing 16,000 logo components for 8,000 pairs of designer sneakers. The analysis
considers the environmental impact of the different manufacturing processes and materials. The
primary analysis metrics are air, water, and land emissions, with air emissions expressed as Global
Warming Potential (GWP) measured in carbon dioxide equivalent units (CO2e).

Fig. 2 – Heel spur logo component 3D-printed
directly onto fabric substrate.

Fig. 3 – Heel spur graphic location.

Fig.4 – Production detail image of full heel spur assembly.
cont’d.

3

AMGTA_Vol.IV_3DMtrlJettingvsTrad.Methods_DsgnrLuxGoods_execsumm.qxp_LCA_3_inner_pages 2/20/24 12:46 PM Page 7

S t u d y O v e r v i e w cont’d.

Fig. 5 (above) – traditional
manufacturing process by steps
Fig. 6 (right) – 3D manufacturing
process by steps

It should be noted that this document does notprovide a full Life-Cycle-Analysis (LCA) of the finished footwear, as defined within ISO 14040:2006.
Rather, the document provides a detailed LifeCycle-Inventory (LCI) analysis for the 3D logo component manufacturing stage leading to eventual
footwear production. The LCI analysis documented in this report is a technical process thatquantifies all inputs to and outputs from the
manufacturing stage within a system boundary.
The inputs are energy and raw materials; the outputs are emissions to air, water, and soil; solid
waste generation; products; and co-products.

Fig. 7 Stratasys J850TM TechStyleTM 3D PrinterSUMMARY OF FINDINGSIn the use case of designer footwear, 3D printing using material jetting produces a logo component
with a 24.8% lower CO2e than traditional manufacturing using injection molding and thermowelding. Across the 16,0000 logo components required, 3D printing would deliver almost one metric ton less CO2e emitted into the atmosphere. Moreover, this reduction in CO2e can be increased
further by improving both the efficiency and productivity of the 3D printing hardware used.
cont’d.

4

AMGTA_Vol.IV_3DMtrlJettingvsTrad.Methods_DsgnrLuxGoods_execsumm.qxp_LCA_3_inner_pages 2/20/24 12:46 PM Page 8

S u m m a r y o f F i n d i n g s cont’d.
Across the supply chain, the 3D Printing approach requires 49.3% less material by weight than the
traditional supply chain, eliminating over one-third of a metric ton of stock material. Moreover, the
3D-printed logo has 50.5% less material than the traditional logo, resulting in a marginally lighterweight final product.
The traditional manufacturing route requires a paper-backed PU sheet material as the primarybonding agent, with large amounts of water needed to manufacture this paper. For the 16,000 logo
components assessed within the study, over 300,000 liters of water were required to enable thetraditional approach. This water footprint was mitigated with the 3D printing approach.
The traditional and 3D printing approaches produced similar levels of non-recyclable waste, circa
150 Kg, which can be incinerated for energy recovery. The traditional approach also produced over
131 Kg of recyclable waste, primarily paper. No recyclable waste streams were attributed to the 3D
printing approach.
Although four different raw material streams enable the traditional supply chain, it was found tohave a slightly lower impact than the 3D printing supply chain regarding transport-related
emissions. The higher transportation impact of 3D Printing was largely due to raw material logistics
and the distances associated with moving specialist 3D printing resins. By contrast, the traditional
manufacturing method uses an established network of local supply chain partners.
Regarding direct emissions to the atmosphere during production, there were no measurable emissions from the Stratasys J850™ TechStyle™ 3D printer. Hence, no Scope 1 emissions are related toFig. 8 – GWP by scope for traditional manufacturing and 3D printing
0f 16,000 logo components.

5

cont’d.

AMGTA_Vol.IV_3DMtrlJettingvsTrad.Methods_DsgnrLuxGoods_execsumm.qxp_LCA_3_inner_pages 2/20/24 12:46 PM Page 9

S u m m a r y o f F i n d i n g s cont’d.
the 3D printing approach. There are, however, minimal Scope 1 emissions from the traditional
approach, where direct emissions result from multiple laser-cutting operations. However, theseemissions represent less than 0.04% of the total CO2e of the traditional process.
The traditional manufacturing approach using injection molding and thermal bonding requires
7,122 kWh of electrical energy. The 3D printing approach requires only 2,548 kWh of electricalenergy. The 3D printing approach, therefore, uses 64% less electricity than the traditional approach.
It was found that 42% of the CO2e associated with the traditional approach can be attributed to
Scope 2 energy-related emissions. In contrast, only 20% of the 3D printing approach was related to
Scope 2 activities. This disparity in Scope 2 emissions would suggest that the physical location of
the 3D Printer and the local energy mix will have less impact than the location of the traditional
approach. In short, the traditional approach should not be adopted in locations with a poor energy mix.
Almost 80% of the CO2e of the 3D printing approach was related to Scope 3 activities, largely thephotocurable resins used in the 3D printing process and the materials from which the printer was
made. It was suggested that the material-related impact could be reduced by adopting new ‘green
chemistry’ formulations. Moreover, the hardware impact could be reduced through increased
system productivity or more sustainable materials within the machine design.
Figure 8 (previous page) shows the distribution of CO2e by scope for both manufacturing
approaches when used to make 16,000 logo components.
Scope one direct emissions and scope three transport-related emissions represent only a small
percentage of the overall GWP. The primary causes of CO2e are the energy used within the
manufacturing processes, the raw materials consumed during manufacturing, and the manufactureof the machinery needed to enable production.
In summary, using material jetting with a Stratasys J850™ TechStyle™ 3D printer, there is aclear environmental benefit when producing the use case of 16,000 logo components on afabric substrate.
3D printing results in substantially less waste, CO2e emissions, and global warming potential.
Adopting 3D printing also reduces water consumption and the creation of recyclable waste.

BACKGROUND
3D printing, also known as Additive Manufacturing, has been heralded by many as the catalyst for
a new industrial revolution in the digital age.
3D printing makes tangible products layer-by-layer using highly automated machines. 3D printing
machines are used extensively to produce prototypes, tools, jigs, fixtures, models, and, more
recently, end-use consumer products and parts. 3D printing adoption is widespread acrosscompanies in almost all manufacturing sectors, from medical device manufacture and aerospace
to automotive manufacture, electronics, communications, and space.

cont’d.

6

AMGTA_Vol.IV_3DMtrlJettingvsTrad.Methods_DsgnrLuxGoods_execsumm.qxp_LCA_3_inner_pages 2/20/24 12:46 PM Page 10

B a c k g r o u n d cont’d.
3D printing enables highly complex products to be made when and where needed. This digital
shift can disrupt traditional industrial supply chains, enabling localized, just-in-time manufacturing,
minimizing stock holding, and maximizing flexibility.
Initially, high-volume end-use 3D printed part manufacture was constrained mostly to patientspecific medical devices such as hearing aids, orthotic insoles, and dental. However, as 3D printing
processes have matured, increased productivity, and become more cost-effective, other end-use
applications and markets have emerged. One such market is the fashion sector, where 3D printing
is used to make decorative elements of luxury goods such as garments, apparel, luggage, and footwear. The growth in the use of 3D printing within the fashion sector has led to the development ofdedicated 3D printing systems capable of printing directly onto fabric substrates. For this study,
the Stratasys Polyjet™ J850™ TechStyle™ technology was used to deposit photocurable resin
directly onto a fabric substrate.
The Stratasys TechStyle™ process can produce multicolor 3D prints using multiple inkjet print
heads in rigid, flexible, transparent, and translucent materials.
The TechStyle™ technology allows users like Dyloan to adorn fabric with vivid 3D structures. These
structures cannot be achieved using traditional screen-printing techniques or 2-dimensional (2D)digital fabric printing technologies. Traditionally, the only way to create a 3D graphic structure on
fabric was through a multistage manufacturing process using a combination of 2D image printing,injection molding, and thermal welding, which can be time-consuming and energy-intensive.
The advent of 3D printing on textiles has led fashion houses and brands to question whether thisapproach could now be more environmentally sustainable than established production methods.
The entire fashion industry is under enormous pressure to improve its environmental sustainability,
no more so than the luxury fashion houses, specifically those engaged in footwear.
The fashion sector has long suffered from overproduction, excess stockholding and end-of-life
waste streams, and a high reliance on water-intensive manufacturing processes. Digital manufacturing has the potential to address many of these issues through shorter supply chains, more
efficient production, and less waste.
In 2012, researchers at MIT estimated that the carbon footprint of a typical pair of running shoes
made from synthetic materials was between 11.3 and 16.7 Kg CO2e. Most of this impact was due tothe processing of the raw materials and the manufacturing methods used in shoe assembly. Overthe last decade, there has been some effort to reduce the environmental impact of footwear. In
2022, Adidas collaborated with sustainable footwear company Allbirds to launch the Adizero, arunning shoe with a reported impact of only 2.94 kg of CO2e per pair. However, many footwear
and fashion companies are still searching for sustainable production methods to reduce theenvironmental impact of their products.
3D printing could, in part, present a more sustainable solution. As a digital manufacturing process,
3D printing can produce small batches of products as the consumer requires, minimizing stockcont’d.

7

AMGTA_Vol.IV_3DMtrlJettingvsTrad.Methods_DsgnrLuxGoods_execsumm.qxp_LCA_3_inner_pages 2/20/24 12:46 PM Page 11

B a c k g r o u n d cont’d.
holding and overproduction. 3D printing can also replace multiple manufacturing stages within asupply chain, potentially mitigating the need for assets such as tooling and reducing transportation
between supply chain partners. Moreover, many 3D printing processes may be more efficient
regarding material consumption, energy utilization, and waste, making them a sustainable
alternative to traditional manufacturing processes.
However, little evidence supports these claims within the fashion sector or when considering usingmaterial jetting 3D printing technology. To this end, the Additive Manufacturer Green Trade
Association (AMGTA), working in partnership with Dyloan and Stratasys, set out to undertake adetailed sustainability analysis within the footwear supply chain focused on a specific use case.
The use case chosen was a 3D logo component used to adorn the heal-spur area of design sneakers
for a leading fashion brand.
To provide a comparative analysis, specialist consultancy Reeves Insight Ltd was commissioned tomodel and simulate the production of 16,000 logo components to manufacture 8,000 pairs ofsneakers using 3D printing and a more traditional manufacturing approach.
The 3D printing approach uses a Stratasys J850™ TechStyle™ hardware platform processing
photocurable liquid resins. The traditional approach combines 2D inkjet printing and thermal
welding of injection molded parts with sheet polyurethane materials.
It should be noted that the simulation and subsequent analysis within this report only consider
replacing the graphic manufacturing stage with 3D printing. It does not consider 3D printing theentire sneaker or the life cycle of the final sneakers. As such, this document should not be
considered a full LCA for 3D-printed footwear, only an LCI analysis for the 3DP logo component.

8

AMGTA_Vol.IV_3DMtrlJettingvsTrad.Methods_DsgnrLuxGoods_execsumm.qxp_LCA_3_inner_pages 2/20/24 12:46 PM Page 12