WOOL FACTS

MEASURING
WOOL’SENVIRONMENTAL
FOOTPRINT
The wool industry is continuing toinvest strongly in an accurate andscientifically credible assessment ofwool’s environmental footprint fromits cradle on the farm, through all life
stages to wool’s ultimate biodegradationback into the soil. By working with theapparel ratings agencies, through theprovision of contemporary data and soundmethodology, we are seeking to improve theaccuracy of the ratings.
Despite wool being 100% natural, renewable
and biodegradable, environmental ratings
agencies have historically rated wool poorly against
competing synthetic fibres. However, there are severe
shortcomings to their ratings because they consider
only a limited part of the supply chain and only consider someenvironmental impacts.

ASSESSINGSUSTAINABILITY

The sustainability of the global textiles industry is important forconsumers, brands and the environment, but “sustainability” is adifficult term to understand and communicate, with little agreement
scientifically on what a sustainable product is. There are manyways to assess environmental sustainability. One popular method isLife Cycle Assessment (LCA).

LIFE CYCLEASSESSMENT:
WHAT IS IT?

Life Cycle Assessment is a tool that attempts to tell theenvironmental story of products across the entire supply chain,including raw material acquisition, manufacturing, use, recycling,end-of-life and disposal.
However, LCA is a young science and the apparel ratings are not yet
scientifically defensible or robust. They only assess part of the supply
chain and consider a limited number of impacts, so the environmental
burden isn’t accurately assessed. Comparisons should only be madewhen the full life cycle impacts are known, but the apparel ratings
agencies have not yet done this. As a consequence, environmental
ratings agencies such as SAC and MadeBy, rate non-renewable
synthetics above wool. This puts wool at a disadvantage, particularly
as their ratings are used by brands to help choose raw materials toinclude in their products.

WOOL’S LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT
DISTRIBUTION
PRODUCTIONPROCESSING

USAGE
AND
RECYCLING
END-OF-LIFE

MEASURING WOOL’S ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT

UNDERSTANDING THE TOOLS
Rating tools like the Material Sustainability Index from SAC, or the Made-By benchmarking tool, rate fibres using
only a ‘partial’ LCA technique. Studies funded by The Woolmark Company are progressively correcting the weakness
in these rating tools, generating wool’s true environmental credentials and communicating this information toenvironmental agencies. The wool industry has identified a number of concerns with the current ratings:

Comparisons shouldn’t be made between fabrics
without taking into account the whole supply chain:
The environmental impact of producing wool is moresignificant at the earlier end of the supply chain, but it’sa superior fibre that lasts longer, requires less washingand is frequently recycled to extend the use phase evenfurther. However, apparel ratings agencies only assess
the first part of the supply chain up to fibre productionand exclude the use phase and end of life, resulting in
an incomplete analysis.
Consideration of the use phase is critical as it strongly
affects overall environmental impact: A comprehensive
survey (The Nielsen Company, 2012) of seven countries
established that the average lifetime of wool garments
was more than 50% longer than cotton garments and are
washed less often. A longer life and less washing meana smaller footprint as garments have to be replaced
less often and require less inputs (water, energy anddetergents) during use.

resilience must be considered according to the principles
of LCA detailed in ISO 14044 – the governing documentfrom the International Standards Association for how toundertake an LCA – but this isn’t the case in the current
rating agency tools.
All important environmental impacts should beconsidered: SAC’s current rating tool only quantifies
four impact categories – climate change, eutrophication,water scarcity and abiotic resource depletion – but there
are other important environmental impact categories
for apparel that are not yet considered. For example,
there is growing evidence of the impact of microplastic
pollution from synthetic fibres on waterways and marine
life. Once in the food chain, microplastics potentially also
affect human health via seafood consumption but this
impact is not yet sufficiently well quantified.

It’s important to consider the end-of-life for garments:
At the end of its first life, wool is highly valued by recyclers,
extending the ‘use’ of the raw fibre even further. LCA
studies to date have assumed that at the end of a wool
product’s life, it is immediately disposed of in landfill,
ignoring the level of reuse and recycling of wool garments/
products. However, studies have identified a high donation
rate of wool garments – about 5%, which far exceeds
wool’s 1.3% share of virgin fibre supply. There are also
many recycling options for wool giving it a secondand possibly third life, including use for industrial andautomotive insulation because of wool’s inherent flameresistance and acoustic insulation characteristics.
Comparisons should only be made between
comparable products: Attributes such as insulation
properties, odour resistance, washing requirements andBecause most rating agency tools are still under development, there are still big gaps in the methods used toestimate environmental impacts. And other important impact categories, such as micro-plastic pollution ofwaterways and solid waste generation, are not considered at all.

MEASURING WOOL’S ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINTREFERENCES
The donation rate of wool garments is high, at about 5%,which far exceeds wool’s 1.3% share of virgin fibre supply’:
Y Chang, H. L Chen, and S Francis, Market Applications
for Recycled Postconsumer Fibres Family and Consumer
Science 1999. 27(3): p. 320. 16. G. D. Ward, A. D. Hewitt,
and S. J. Russell, Proceedings of the ICE. Waste andResource Management 2013. 166(1): p. 29-37. PCI Wood
Mackenzie, Red Book 2016 - Long term global study /Demand uptake
The average lifetime of wool garments was more than
50% longer than cotton garments and are washed lessoften’: The Nielsen Company: Global Wardrobe Audit AllCountries, 2012. Prepared for Australian Wool Innovation
Once in the food chain, microplastics potentially also
affect human health via seafood consumption: Van
Cauwenberghe L, Janssen CR. (2014) Microplastics inbivalves cultured for human consumption. Environmental
Pollution 193: 65-70

WOOLMARK.COM© November 2017 The Woolmark Company Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. GD2405