Whose Waste Is It Anyway?
Do you know that we only measure household waste? And that figure (2.12 billion tonnes per year) is a best guess? There is no waste figure anywhere that factors in the production waste before the item has been purchased. What we do know for a fact however, is that we create more waste in the production process than we do at home. By around 3 times as much. The UNEP has estimated that we will spend $272 billion, globally, on waste disposal. Which rises to $361 billion when you factor in other externalities, such as water contamination.
In apparel production, waste happens at every stage of the process. Farming (extraction), ginning (extruding), spinning, weaving (knitting), dyeing, sewing, retail and, end of life. If we were to truly measure the amount and cost at each stage, we may reassess our consumption.
And yet consumerism has hijacked terms such as reduce, reuse, recycle and compost. Helping us to relieve our climate guilt while still consuming. Like textile recycling bins in stores. Recycle something old, buy something new. Which is all fine and well when we only address household waste. And not the waste that was created in the process. Because waste is not free, it has many hidden costs.
Perhaps it is time we start thinking about our waste as archeologists. Writer and historian Rebecca Altman describes our consumption as "time bombing the future", in relation to the synthetic chemicals. We can talk about biodegradability all we like. But when scientists took a core sample at a landfill site that had been shut for 20 years, they discovered newspapers that were still readable, and carrot tops that looked like they'd been cut of yesterday. Which makes a little bit of a mockery of anerobic digestion of biodegradable synthetics. That many, from yarn and fabric suppliers will tell you, unofficially, is greenwashing.
Cirpass, the EU's pilot project for the implementation of digital product passports, is looking into whether waste should be reported on. So far, stakeholders have said that it has a considerable barrier for reporting. But I suspect we don't have a full picture, and when we do, it is not one we will want to be known publicly. So I make a stake that it will not be included in DPPs. But we should still look at how we reduce it. Because, while it may remain a business secret, it impacts us all as humans.
During the 1980s, Japan was losing their manufacturing capabilities to countries with cheaper labour. In response, Japanese industrial designers started a zero waste movement as a means to reduce cost while keeping the quality they felt they couldn't sacrifice. What if, once a design student had made a design, they were tasked with reducing the waste of that product further? I am able to speak with experience on this point. Once saving €12 on a tri suit by moving some seams around to ensure we had maximum efficiency on the very expensive and narrow gripper fabric. This is the very work that Holly McQuillan and Timo Rissanen work on.
But even with reduced waste pattern cutting (which is a lot harder than it seems, especially with a size curve), there is a catch 22. The more we make, the better the consumption rating and the reduced wastage. In an ideal world we wouldn't have so many different fits and sizes, and clothes would be much more adaptable to different body shapes and fit desires. Perhaps something else we could task design students with; how can you make a garment fit 3 different sizes without using elastane?
The simple truth is that doing business creates waste. Even if you are a consultancy, and not the business charged with creating a tangible product, there is still waste generated. Wasted energy, wasted technology, and wasted office equipment. One of the simplest things we can do as a business is engage with refurbishers to extend the life of our office equipment.
While EPR rules often cover banning the destruction of unsold goods (this is the case in the EU, but not in the US yet, and is not included in California's new textile EPR). What our waste problem is telling us is that there is no such thing as a circular economy when waste is still coming out of the system.
But reducing waste is good for the bottom line. Even though you may not see waste disposal in your open costing, it is in there. So, you've made it this far! Now I'll give you some bullet points on immediate actions you can start today to improve your waste problem:
1. Get your designers to review old styles based on a zero waste pattern cutting method as the starting point. I would start with carry over styles and popular sellers first.
2. Map your supply chain! Inputs, outputs and what happens to them. You'll need this from Tier 0. Yes it's a massive body of work. And it would take me around 4 months full time to do it for a medium size brand (I normally do it as a project basis over 12 months and I charge £6,000 for this currently. If you're interested!).
3. Map waste by style. Which is something you can start doing for your season that is currently in development. Don't ask your suppliers to map the waste stream of old suppliers unless you're going to pay them a consultancy fee for doing it please. You can build data collection into new workflows, but back dating it is unfair without compensation. You wouldn't go back to your old job to data collection on that role without being paid.
Having this information to hand will make your teams better decision makers in regards to waste.
