Risk and opportunity for wool in EU labelling

It is expected that within a couple of years, products for sale in the European Union (EU) will be required to include a label that provides consumers with the EU’s assessment of a product’s environmental credentials - this is both a risk and an opportunity for wool. Wool is well placed to take advantage of the increasing demand for more earth-friendly products. But it has been at an historic disadvantage when it comes to environmental ratings agencies that have rated wool poorly against synthetic fibres as they do not account for factors such as natural,

biodegradable, and renewable. This rating is important when major retail brands choose the fibre for the products they sell. It is also an important issue as the EU is now putting policies in place to have environmental labelling on consumer products including apparel, as early as 2022.

During the past ten years AWI, through IWTO has been funding research to improve the body of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies and provide a more scientific and technical analysis of wool’s environmental benefits. Recently the first cradle-tograve LCA of a textile fibre was published in Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, a peer-reviewed journal. In an article recently published in Beyond the Bale magazine AWI’s Program Manager for Fibre Advocacy and Eco Credentials, Angus Ireland outlined the work that AWI has been doing in this space.

‘By undertaking the study we are now in a “knowledge-powerful” position regarding wool’s supply chain and understanding its impacts. The work is especially timely as it will assist the wool industry’s engagement with the European Union’s Product Environment Footprinting project (PEF)’, Angus Ireland explains. ‘The wool industry has a seat at the table at key technical forums in the EU. We are working to ensure the environmental footprint of garments is correctly assessed at all stages of a product’s life’, he says.

The EU PEF has some advantages over previous rating systems. It is a government initiated and led system and is more scientifically robust. It is also more comprehensive and included 16 impact categories from toxicity to climate change, although there are some notable omissions such as microplastics. Importantly the PEF does include the ‘use phase’ and the ‘end of life’ of the garment which helps somewhat in levelling the playing field for wool. While there are some advantages to the PEF system and the requirement for point of sale labelling it is still not clear how well wool will be scored. Initial modelling suggests that the EU’s rating of environmental impacts from wool may be higher than some competitor fibres because of a high weighting for on-farm greenhouse gas production. An AWI funded study has been proposed to improve the assessment for wool in LCA methods, given that wool is produced alongside meat. AWI is also investigating impact categories where little work has been done and ensuring that methane is accounted for correctly, given its relatively short life in the atmosphere. It advocates for regionally relevant methods in nutrient loss at farm, and providing evidence regarding the less frequent washing of wool garments that will strengthen the case for wool compared to other fibres, as well as addressing the weakness of other fibre types in microplastics and short-lived fashion types.

‘AWI continues to be dedicated to generating scientific evidence of wool’s true environmental credentials. It is only by taking and publishing technically sound scientific studies that wool’s true environmental credentials will be established’, says Angus Ireland. It will also help ensure the EU develops an accurate and positive rating for products containing wool.