BRUSSELS – A new white paper has called for reform of the European Union’s Product Environment Footprint (PEF) methodology to factor in issues such as microplastic pollution, excessive consumption of synthetic clothing and renewability and biodegradability. Make the Label Count (MTLC) published the paper, which offers suggestions for how PEF can be improved to better align with EU sustainability polices.
“There are critical environmental impacts that either aren’t fully accounted for, or aren’t included in the PEF methodology, that could significantly distort the credibility of the EU’s environmental impact ratings of clothing and footwear products,” the paper states.
Three key short-comings of PEF are outlined in the paper. The first of these is that the PEF system does not currently take into account microplastics.
“Omitting microplastics as an indicator effectively assigns zero impacts to this form of emissions, which risks unintentionally guiding consumers towards plastic products and fibres,” states the paper. “Therefore, the system does not align with the CEAP, The Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy, the Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles or the EU Strategy for Textiles Roadmap.”
The paper proposes an ‘inventory-level’ indicator – essentially, a summation of modelled microplastic emissions across the life cycle.
The paper also states that the PEF system does not at present include plastic waste, pointing out that the increase in consumption of synthetic fibres has been accompanied by an increase in the mass of plastic waste originating from the textile supply chain.
It states: “The absence of plastic waste in the PEF methodology therefore has the potential to contribute to an inequitable comparison of natural and synthetic fibres. Therefore, the system does not align with the CEAP or the Packaging Directive. The white paper recommends the PEF system should include plastic waste as an indicator.”
Finally, the paper states that PEF does not take into account renewability or biodegradability of textile fibres. This means synthetic fibres may be scored as more sustainable than natural or recycled fibres.
The paper points out that, consequently, the system does not align with the CEAP or the Bioeconomy Strategy. The whitepaper proposes introducing circularity indicators such as the Material Circularity Indicator (MCI) into PEF.
“If these challenges aren’t addressed, the PEF methodology as it stands would conflict with the aims of the EU to afford the environment a high level of protection, rectify environmental damage at its source, and ensure that polluters be held accountable for their impacts,” states the paper. “Additionally, the current methodology may mislead well-intended consumers in their purchasing decisions, rather than offer more meaningful guidance.”
It adds: “The single biggest sustainability issue for the textile industry is the growth in synthetic fibre production and the causally related rise in fast fashion. A PEF-derived comparison will not challenge the over-consumption of resources, and risks legitimising unsustainable consumption with an EU-backed green claim.”
Full paper can be viewed here: gd4505-mtlc-pef-whitepaper-final.pdf (makethelabelcount.org)
