It ain't fashion, if it ain't sustainable
texfash.com
 
  1. Home
  2. Archives
  3. Updates
  4. New Textile Exchange Guidance Flags Pitfalls in Fibre Comparisons and Overreliance on Averaged Figures
Intertextile Shanghai Apparel Fabrics
ITF Intertex Tunisia 2025
Cellulose Fibre and Sustainable Textiles 2025
ITF Intertex Spain 2025
LCA Usage / New Guidance

New Textile Exchange Guidance Flags Pitfalls in Fibre Comparisons and Overreliance on Averaged Figures

Textile Exchange’s latest guidance sets out principles for applying lifecycle assessment data in textiles, focusing on appropriate use cases, dataset documentation, and transparency. It outlines limits on fibre comparisons, warns against overreliance on averaged figures, and stresses the importance of collecting high-quality, representative primary data to improve the reliability of reported environmental impacts.

By

8 August 2025

 4 minutes
Long Story, Cut Short
  • Textile Exchange guidance sets principles for using lifecycle assessment data in textiles, focusing on documented assumptions, clear methods, and dataset transparency.
  • Brands are cautioned against comparing separate studies unless designed and validated as comparative lifecycle assessments under ISO standards.
  • The report urges improving primary data quality and frequency to increase representativeness and reduce variability in lifecycle assessment results.
The guidance emphasises making methodological choices visible and subject to independent scrutiny to prevent misuse of lifecycle assessment findings
Method Approach The guidance emphasises making methodological choices visible and subject to independent scrutiny to prevent misuse of lifecycle assessment findings. It notes that allocation rules can significantly alter results and should be clear to practitioners. Vilius Kukanauskas / Pixabay

Misapplied lifecycle assessment data could distort textile sector decision-making and reduce the credibility of environmental claims, industry nonprofit Textile Exchange has warned. In a new guidance, it has warned against unverified fibre comparisons and dependence on averaged figures, urging stronger primary data collection and broader measurement to include biodiversity, soil health, animal welfare, and livelihoods alongside established environmental impact categories.

  • The guidance warns against comparing separate LCA studies unless they are explicitly designed and validated as comparative under the relevant ISO standards.
  • It has advised brands to favour supplier-specific primary data for Scope 3 footprinting rather than generic averages to improve accuracy.
  • Current LCAs often omit context-specific nature-related impacts such as biodiversity, soil health, and animal welfare, prompting the organisation to propose an LCA+ framework.
  • The guidance 'Ensuring Integrity in the Use of Lifecycle Assessment Data' was issued by Textile Exchange on Thursday.

THE GUIDANCE: Textile Exchange’s guidance explains how lifecycle assessment follows environmental impacts from raw material sourcing to pre-spin processing for seven major fibres. It calls for clear articulation of underlying choices, thorough dataset records, and wider database sharing. The document also presents its ‘LCA+’ concept, adding biodiversity, soil health, animal welfare, and livelihoods to conventional metrics for evaluating textile and apparel supply chains.

WHAT’S AT STAKE: Misuse of lifecycle assessment data could distort corporate reporting, could undermine targets, and mislead policy. Textile Exchange warns that flawed comparisons and reliance on averages risk hiding real impacts. The guidance calls for stronger primary data, context-specific analysis, and complementary qualitative tools to ensure interventions reduce environmental harm and protect livelihoods.

  • Inaccurate comparisons can misallocate investment and weaken efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the systems level and affect operational planning.
  • Overreliance on averaged background data may obscure regional risks such as water stress or biodiversity loss in specific sourcing areas.
  • Poorly documented assumptions and allocation methods can produce inconsistent results that undermine stakeholder trust, regulatory compliance, and confuse benchmarking exercises.
  • Improving primary data collection, transparency, and critical review is necessary to make LCA outputs reliable for corporate reporting and targets.
TAGS
Organisation:
Sector:
Subject:

LOOKING THROUGH DATA: LCA studies convert measured inputs and outputs into impact categories such as greenhouse gas emissions, water use, and eutrophication. They rely on primary data and secondary background datasets; data quality depends on verification, sample representativeness, and update frequency.

  • Primary data is collected directly from farms and facilities and is generally more representative than secondary background datasets used to fill data gaps.
  • Secondary datasets vary by database and can produce different background impacts, complicating across-study comparisons and interpretation, because background assumptions and regional representativeness differ.
  • Data collection requires training, verification, and quality checks to ensure correctness and reduce variability in LCA results over time; thorough auditing strengthens confidence.
  • Textile Exchange’s Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Library houses supporting information for industry databases, enabling practitioners to locate relevant lifecycle assessment studies and understand the context, boundaries, and assumptions behind reported impacts.
  • The LCI Library houses supporting information for these databases, aiding users in identifying and understanding relevant lifecycle assessment studies.

READING BETWEEN THE LINES: The guidance emphasises making methodological choices visible and subject to independent scrutiny to prevent misuse of lifecycle assessment findings. It notes that allocation rules can significantly alter results and should be clear to practitioners. It discourages selective reliance on averages for product claims and supports peer-reviewed research to strengthen reliability and comparability across the sector.

  • Promoting sensitivity analyses emphasises that allocation choices materially affect LCA results and should be transparently communicated to end users and stakeholders to inform decisions.
  • Third-party critical reviews and peer-reviewed animal fibre studies add credibility, improve data reliability, and reduce the risk of selective reporting or misinterpretation.
  • The guidance implicitly discourages supply chain shifts solely to reduce reported impacts without genuine on-the-ground mitigation or improvements, aiming to avoid superficial claims.

CASE IN POINT: The guidance notes that primary data collection for lifecycle assessment at Tier 4 remains limited and varies in quality, with persistent gaps affecting representativeness. It encourages documentation of datasets and methods, submission to industry databases, and wider sharing through resources such as the LCI Library to improve accessibility and support the correct interpretation of existing studies.

  • Primary data gaps at Tier 4 limit the representativeness of lifecycle assessment results and reduce the reliability of reported impacts for decision-making.
  • Submitting information to industry databases supports greater accessibility for practitioners and increases the potential for consistent interpretation of results.
LCA Data Challenges
  • Many lifecycle assessment datasets lack clear documentation, making it difficult to understand boundaries, assumptions, and allocation methods.
  • Primary data coverage for agricultural raw materials remains limited, especially at Tier 4, affecting representativeness and reliability.
  • Secondary background datasets vary significantly between databases, introducing inconsistencies when comparing results across different lifecycle assessment studies.
  • Averaged background data can obscure location-specific risks, including water scarcity, biodiversity loss, and soil health impacts.
  • Gaps in primary data collection reduce the ability to track improvements and accurately measure environmental performance over time.
The Guidance Highlights
  • Avoid comparing separate lifecycle assessments unless designed and validated as comparative under applicable ISO standards.
  • Use supplier-specific primary data for Scope 3 footprinting to increase accuracy and reduce reliance on generic averages.
  • Ensure all lifecycle assessment datasets are accompanied by complete documentation, including clear boundaries, assumptions, and allocation choices.
  • Expand assessment frameworks to include biodiversity, soil health, animal welfare, and livelihoods alongside environmental indicators.
  • Share verified datasets through recognised industry databases to improve accessibility and encourage consistent interpretation across practitioners.
 
 
  • Dated posted: 8 August 2025
  • Last modified: 8 August 2025
 
LATEST SPECIALS
Young India Fashion Survey 2025
LATEST UPDATES
Threadline
MOST READ
Much of Shein’s production takes place in the so-called “Shein village” in Guangzhou, China, where workers often sew for 12–14 hours a day under poor conditions to keep pace with the demand for new items.

Shein, Temu and the Tariff Fallout: Why Australia Became Fast Fashion's New Frontier

  • Mona Mashhadi Rajabi
  • Lisa Lake
  • Martina Linnenluecke
  • Yun Shen
 Commentary

12 June 2025