Pricing is a Key Factor Influencing the Choice Between Cotton and Polyester

Most environmental issues in the cotton industry are being discussed and addressed, but the question remains: is enough being done? Award-winning innovation and sustainability leader, Michela Puddu, touches on a diverse range of subjects, from the cotton production and recycling landscape to its huge and fragmented supply chain, the role of standards & certifications, traceability, impact of global climate change, water challenges, livelihoods and more.

Richa Bansal

8 October 2024

6 minutes

Long Story, Cut Short

The cotton community is particularly concerned that the current PEF framework may favour man-made fibres like polyester over natural ones like cotton.
To ensure that next-generation fibres have a reduced environmental footprint compared to virgin counterparts, optimisation is necessary to improve efficiency and minimise environmental impact.
An area where traceability is imperative is recycled cotton. Traceability is crucial to prove the recycled origin of the fibres, but it remains a grey area with little progress.

The competition between cotton production and food crops is a major issue. As global population grows and demand for food increases, land resources become scarce. Cotton competes with food crops for arable land and for water.

Land issues The competition between cotton production and food crops is a major issue. As global population grows and demand for food increases, land resources become scarce. Cotton competes with food crops for arable land and for water. Lance Cheung / USDA via rawpixel.com

Michela Puddu is now manager at Gherzi and Co-Founder & former CEO at Haelixa with large experience in sustainable supply chains, sustainable materials, technology, circular economy.

texfash: How much important has traceability become in the cotton sector? Most discussions seem to veer around Xinjiang cotton only. Is that the only focus area? But surely cotton everywhere should be important?
Michela Puddu: Regulations require companies to trace their supply chain back to the cotton bale to prove that products were not made with forced or child labour. The biggest driver by far is the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) in the US, which obliges companies wanting to import cotton to the US to provide evidence to the US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) that those products were not made with forced labour.

When requested by CBP, importers need be able to trace the supply chain of the goods under review and demonstrate that imported goods were not produced or manufactured in Xinjiang. Enforcement of the UFLPA has resulted in high-profile scandals, product detentions, and induced brands to take traceability seriously. In March 2024, the EU agreed to adopt a regulation banning products made with forced labour. Therefore, brands have started to proactively ensure the traceability of cotton, rather than simply providing evidence when regulators request it or investigations (led by newspapers, NGOs) target their activities.

However, the interest in traceability extends beyond forced labour. Brands and retailers need traceability to support sustainability claims. This is required to comply with new anti-greenwashing and supply chain due diligence regulations (e.g., Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, Eco-design for Sustainable Products Regulation), but also to satisfy consumers, investors, and achieve corporate ESG targets.

Cotton traceability is not just because of labour issues. A few years ago there was a scandal involving the sale of falsely labelled Egyptian cotton products by Indian textile manufacturer Welspun to big US retailers. Is such a thing a concern now? What does your experience say?
Michela Puddu: Indeed, the issue is not only about product origin and related social practices. It also encompasses other environmental and social issues that can occur at any point in the supply chain: products can be substituted and mixed up, losing their integrity and sustainability credentials. The Egyptian cotton case is just one example. Standards have also faced challenges due to the lack of physical traceability of materials. Incidents involving mixing non-certified cotton with certified one, as well as incidents involving the use of fake certificates like for GOTS, the most renowned organic cotton standard, have occurred.

To address these issues, standards, brands, and organisations have been working together to find solutions to improve traceability in global supply chains. Enhanced solutions typically combine traditional documental traceability (e.g., transaction certificates) with new physical and digital technologies. Physical tracers (e.g., DNA tracers like Haelixa's technology, optical tracers) verify material claims, while digital solutions enable data safety, consolidation and sharing. Interestingly, standards are starting to consider introducing physical traceability to go beyond the mass balance method.

Another area where traceability is imperative is recycled cotton. Traceability is crucial to prove the recycled origin of the fibres, but it remains a grey area with little progress. I anticipate this becoming a pressing issue as recycling initiatives multiply and regulations (e.g., EPR) impose a company’s circular systems to stay in business.

But broadly speaking, what are the key challenges on the cotton landscape today that you feel are not being addressed in the way they should be.
Michela Puddu: Most environmental issues in the cotton industry are being discussed and addressed, but the question remains: is enough being done? Traditional challenges for cotton include water and toxic chemical usage.

With water challenges intensifying due to population growth and climate change, and the industry's high dependency on water for production, dyeing, and other activities, water use in the cotton industry is a key critical issue. It takes approximately 2,700 litres of water to produce a single cotton t-shirt.

To address these issues, several initiatives are underway. For example, H&M and Gap have been working with WWF to promote water-saving practices in their supply chains and improve water management in water-stressed regions. Gap, together with Arvind, has also established the Global Water Innovation Center For Action to transform water management practices in the global textile and apparel industry.

The use and discharge of chemicals is another significant concern. Key brands are requiring suppliers to comply with ZDHC guidelines for handling chemicals and hazardous waste and to phase out hazardous chemicals by 2025.

The competition between cotton production and food crops is also a major issue. As global population grows and demand for food increases, land resources become scarce. Cotton competes with food crops for arable land and for water.

Finally, pricing is a key factor influencing the choice between cotton and polyester. Polyester's lower cost has led to its increased use in various textile applications. This shift has had significant implications for the textile industry, with cotton producers facing challenges due to lower prices. Despite all the sustainability attributes, cost remains a primary factor influencing decision-makers' choice of fibres.

The attacks on cotton are incessant. These attacks come from both makers/advocates of synthetics as well as other natural fibres. Your comments, please. Also, how can such arguments be deflected by numbers?
Michela Puddu: Comparing impact assessments for cotton and polyester fibres can be challenging due to differences in methods and processes. Overall, the environmental impacts of these fibres depend on various factors, including specific production processes, location, and intended use.

To address these challenges, efforts are under way to standardise the way environmental impacts are quantified and communicated. The EU's Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) methodology aims to create a common language for LCAs, standardising how the environmental performance of apparel and fashion products is measured. This common language should allow consumers to make informed choices based on the environmental performance of different products. Despite its good intentions, there are concerns about the PEF methodology's completeness. Critics argue that it may oversimplify the environmental impact of clothing and footwear, potentially leading to inaccurate and misleading product labels.

The cotton community is particularly concerned that the current PEF framework may favour man-made fibres like polyester over natural ones like cotton. For instance, the framework may not adequately account for microplastic pollution from polyester or the environmental impacts of forming crude oil. Additionally, it may not fully recognise the positive environmental impacts of cotton, such as its renewability and biodegradability.

Instead of pitting one material against another, it's important to remember that no material is perfect. Each material has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. The sustainability debate between polyester and cotton is far from black and white. The choice between a fibre or another depends on various factors, including the specific use case.

Michela Puddu

Manager / Founder & Former CEO

Gherzi / Haelixa

Pricing is a key factor influencing the choice between cotton and polyester. Polyester's lower cost has led to its increased use in various textile applications. This shift has had significant implications for the textile industry, with cotton producers facing challenges due to lower prices.

What about low-impact cotton agricultural practices? What are key challenges in the development of man-made cellulosic fibres that could replace cotton?
Michela Puddu: Many brands and retailers are aiming at increasing the share of sustainable alternatives such as organic cotton, currently representing 1.4% of the global cotton production. The challenge with organic are the low and vulnerable yields as well as the long conversion period—often three years. Brands and retailers are, therefore, investing in programmes that can scale quicker than organic, such as in-conversion cotton and regenerative cotton.

Another key target for brands is to increase the share of recycled cotton, which currently represents only 1% of global cotton production. For recycled cotton, mechanical recycling is currently the primary method, but it faces technological limitations that often result in lower-quality products compared to virgin cotton. Companies are actively working to address these challenges.

Chemical recycling offers a promising alternative, as it can break down cotton textile waste and recycle it into new, man-made cellulosic fibres. Beyond using pre-consumer and post-consumer textiles as feedstock, these next-generation solutions can also be derived from agricultural residues like straw or even microbial cellulose grown on food waste.

The number of next-generation cellulosic alternatives and their adoption is increasing, driven by regulations on textile waste and circularity, company commitments, stakeholder pressure, and growing consumer demand.

Despite this progress, significant challenges remain. These include limited feedstock availability, weak infrastructure, the need for stronger brand commitments, large capex investments, and a lack of accurate and comparable impact assessment data.

Scaling next-generation cellulosic fibres requires substantial investments and strong partnerships between innovators and brands (including multi-year offtake agreements). Textile feedstock challenges persist, particularly in Asian producing countries, where collection and sorting systems for post-consumer textiles are often inadequate. To ensure that next-generation fibres have a reduced environmental footprint compared to virgin counterparts, optimisation is necessary to improve efficiency and minimise environmental impact.

One of the biggest challenges is the price premium associated with chemically recycled materials: ensuring the financial viability of these new processes is crucial for the competitiveness of next-generation cellulosic fibres at scale.

To achieve the next level for next-generation cellulosic fibres, all stakeholders must collaborate, abandon traditional approaches, and commit significant resources to overcome current hurdles. Initiatives exploring alternative funding mechanisms and subsidies, similar to those used in renewable energy and electric vehicle industries, are under investigation.

While the timeline remains uncertain, the breakthrough in next-generation cellulosic fibres is inevitable and has the potential to significantly impact the textile industry.