Science debunks the fashion circular economy…
By Dr Mark Liu
The circular economy is a trendy idea in design and business but is heavily criticised by science and engineering. This is because the circular economy ignores science, the reality of the physical laws of our universe and the laws of thermodynamics. The circular economy describes the idea that materials can be endlessly recycled through closed-loop systems. However, the scientific reality is that a material loses quantity and quality every time material is recycled. New materials must be added to the process to overcome these losses. For these reasons, scientists and engineers critiquing the circular economy conclude: “A circular economy future where waste no longer exists, where material loops are closed, and the place products are recycled indefinitely is therefore, in any practical sense impossible.” (Corvellec Et Al. 2021, p. 3).
As the circular economy is so hard or even impossible to achieve, it is popular for fashion companies to say they are “moving towards a circular economy”. Unless they actively investing in textile recycling research or infrastructure, they are not doing anything. So this is really just code for doing nothing, business as usual or waiting for someone else to solve the problem. The circular economy is impossible to achieve with fast-fashion business models. It is predictable greenwash that fashion companies will be on an eternal quest for the impossible goal of circularity. In reality, this means business as usual with a few adjustments of materials and processes. This will be pure greenwash and will be detrimental to the environment.
Fundamental science and practical engineering can explain why the circular economy is not possible. But it still remains the cornerstone of environmental practice in the fashion industry. What makes it even more confusing is that expert literature published in the academic field of design does not have to pass the scrutiny of scientific peer review, just the judgment of other designers. This means most sustainable fashion experts using circular economy design principles are not grounded in science and engineering. The design field is indoctrinating an entire generation of designers with a methodology not grounded in science. It is shocking that we teach designers about the circular economy without teaching them about the fundamental scientific principles that debunk it.
This makes environmental consultancy in the business world problematic because some consultants are just selling an esoteric philosophy and others offer an approach grounded in scientific principles. A consultant who sells you a philosophy means you can continue business as usual with a few tweaks. At the same time, your marketing division can greenwash everything you do. A methodology based on science will probably offer advice such as fundamental restructuring of your business model, expensive investment in research, infrastructure and the creation of experimental products using new materials and processes. Which one do you think most companies will choose?
One field adapted to counter greenwash is the field of “industrial ecology”, which has started to try and measure the energy and materials involved in production. The Cambridge industrial ecologist Dr Jonathan Cullen describes how the:
In manufacturing vehicles, tracking the energy, chemical, and CO2 emissions of producing the products is important data that helps engineers save money and remain compliant with government legislation. Suppose industrial ecology principles could be adapted to track fashion supply chains’ use of energy, CO2 emissions, and the release of microplastics into the water. In that case, we may have a better chance of seeing the fashion industry’s true impact on the environment.
Suppose you start measuring supply chains in the real world. In that case, you encounter times when the amount of energy spent to ship waste to a recycling facility is more energy than required to create a product from new material. The real world is messy, with inconsistent yields. Entire batches of materials can be lost to the contamination of materials. But at least we will be seeing real numbers and see how we can improve our supply chains to be more efficient.
Source: H&M Environmental Report 2016.
One of the most impressive feats of greenwash: In H&M’s redefined “100%” not be an “exact measurement”? Therefore everything was 100%! (H&M 2016, p.16)
If the circular economy isn’t actually tracking the flow of energy and materials. Where are fast fashion companies getting their numbers and statistics from? If you measure any chemical process, you are constantly losing energy to excess heat because of the laws of thermodynamics. No chemical process that makes materials is even close to 100% efficient in engineering and science. Yet, sustainable fashion literature is filled with 100% recycled and zero waste proclamations, which does not make any sense. The circular economy is a perpetual motion machine of infinite free energy because no one actually measures it. Dr Cullen (2017) warns “Without such analysis and insight, the circular economy vision risks becoming just another perpetual motion dream.”. Even companies’ statements about commitments are meaningless. If a fast-fashion company was 100% committed to sustainability, it would immediately stop trading.
Source: H&M Environmental Report 2016.
“100%” was redefined to mean anything so everything was 100%! (H&M 2016, p.14)
If we can’t trust the goals of fashion companies because they can define any term to mean anything they want and we can’t trust the numbers, what can we trust? You can tell if a company is greenwashing when they make a statement that sounds like the press release of a celebrity caught in a scandal that would end their career. Statements starting with: We are not perfect but…, we are on a journey, we are trying our hardest, we are 100% committed, we have children, and we are concerned about their future. These are straight from the public relations playbook of saying nothing when you have been caught red-handed committing a crime.
The key to holding the fashion industry accountable is bringing meaningful scientific and engineering measurements into the fashion industry. Only when they can have definitions and standards can we track to see if we are improving. Definitions can help lawmakers and the business community look at meaningful laws and policies to slow down the fast fashion industry. Measuring the scale of the problem will help governments and corporations see the need to build fabric recycling infrastructure. Only when we can measure our fashion industry will we be able to see the true scale of the problem with fast fashion.
In reality, recycling materials is imperfect. Many processes shorten the fibre length of fibres on a microscopic scale which reduces their quality and leads to the shedding of microplastics. There will be a need for virgin materials to be blended with recycled materials, and these will have to come from somewhere. Another concept called “regenerative design” advocates that we should create materials with regenerative properties such as reducing CO2 emissions. These kinds of materials will be vital to recycling technologies. Regenerative materials may come from cellulose from algae which absorb CO2 and produce oxygen in their creation. Synthetic biology materials such as Bolt Thread’s spider silk derived from yeast create high tech performance materials without the carbon footprint of petrochemical sources. A reinvention of the entire fashion supply chain is essential to the future of the fashion industry.
Science demonstrably debunks the dream of a fashion circular economy, so we need to look at a more nuanced understanding of the fashion industry. Without scientific measurements in the circular economy, we are giving companies a licence to greenwash anything and everything. We are nowhere close to a circular economy, so the fashion industry must grow up, learn some science and start measuring if humanity hopes to survive the climate crisis.