refscale methodology what practices make reformation
TRANSCRIPT
RefScale methodology
Our sustainability research team created a life-cycle assessment tool to calculate the CO2, water, and waste footprints of Reformation products, as well as comparable products. We used primary data whenever available; otherwise we referenced secondary data and existing life-cycle assessments for select fabrics or processes. Finally, Clean Agency, a third-pa�y sustainability consulting team, reviewed our methodology and data sources to verify the validity of our calculations.
Research boundary
The following boundary applies to our CO2 and water calculations:
Inputs: Water, Energy, Raw Materials
Outputs: CO2 emissions, Waste
Fabric manufacturing → Fabric dyeing → Raw Material Transit → Product Manufacturing →Commercial Garment Wash → Packaging → Shipment → Customer Garment Care → Garmentend-of-life
For waste, there is very limited data on waste outputs in the fashion supply chain (fibercultivation, fabric processing, dyeing, etc.). Instead, we focused on material wastes that wecontrol directly through manufacturing and fulfillment processes:
• Product manufacturing (including fabric scraps & operating waste)• Packaging
How do we define comparable conventional clothing?
We select comparable conventional clothing characteristics based on what fabrics andprocesses are most common for products sold in the US.
Assumptions for comparable conventional clothing:
-Same weight as the Reformation garment-For knits & linen wovens, majority content conventional cotton-For viscose wovens, majority content conventional viscose-For deadstock wovens, majority content conventional viscose-For Recover sweater knits, majority content conventional wool-For Alpaca sweater knits, majority content conventional cashmere-For deadstock or Bluesign silk, majority content conventional silk-Manufactured in China in a factory without carbon offsets-Raw material air transpo� from China to LA-Poly bag inside a corrugated box for packaging-Small-package, ground shipping without carbon offsets
What practices make Reformation different?
-Lower-impact fabrics like vintage, deadstock, Tencel, flax linen, Alpaca yarn-Domestic suppliers whenever possible-Third-pa�y ce�ifications (Bluesign, Oeko-Tex) for low-impact and safe dye practices whenavailable-Manufacturing in our own factory or a nearby factory in LA-Purchase of renewable energy credits for factory operations (100% wind)-Lower-impact, 100% recycled-content & recyclable packaging-Carbon neutral shipping program-Lower-impact garment care labels and recommendations-End-of-life recycling service
Other assumptions
-We researched resource use of data centers and customers' computer usage, and found thatthe e-commerce impacts were negligible (per product). Therefore, retailing is not included in theboundary of analysis. However, the footprint of Reformation’s online shopping pla�orm ie. CO2eq. emissions of servers and customer screen power consumption is calculated and offsetseparately.
-Trims such as zippers, buttons, and fasteners were also found negligible and not included inthe boundary of analysis.
-For most blended fabric, we calculate emissions from the majority fiber unless the blendedfibers are significantly different from one another in terms of environmental footprint i.e. for oura) alpaca and silk, b) viscose and silk c) silk and cashmere blends. For these blends, wecalculate the footprint of garment weight by fabric composition. Example, for a fabric that is 70%viscose and 30% silk, we calculate the fabric impacts assuming 70% of impact is attributed fromviscose and 30% is from silk.
-For lining fabrics, emissions are calculated separately and added to the total emissions of thegarment.
-For deadstock and vintage fabrics, we do not assign a fabric impact since these come fromsecondary markets. We do calculate the rest of life cycle impacts including transit of the fabricand garment washing.
-There is very little data available for wool yarns. We have valid data for conventional wool, butnot for Alpaca, Cashmere, and other specialty yarns. Thus, we based our calculations on ananimal to garment yield. On average, one alpaca yields 4 garments, one sheep yields 3garments and one cashmere goat yields a qua�er of a garment. We assume that these animalstake the same resources to raise. NRDC says that alpacas actually consume less andCashmere consumes more, but for the sake of being conservative (potentially understatingimpact of Alpaca) we assume similar footprints. We scale the numbers in propo�ion to ourcurrent research on wool to derive cashmere and alpaca footprints.
-Dyeing calculations assume reactive dyeing processes.-Most Ref garments are not washed before hand, but if they are we calculate that they arewashed in a commercial-top load machine at 13.5 lbs of clothing per load.-Packaging impact includes manufacturing as well as the end-of-life impact for all materialsused.-For garment care, we assume the average life of a garment is 52 washes.-We assume Reformation customers follow recommended lower-impact garment care labelinstructions instead of traditional professional cleaning.-Machine washing for at home garment care calculations are based on using cold water, andhigher-efficiency front-loading machines.-For end-of-life, we assume Reformation customers recycle at a slightly higher rate than USaverage (30% vs.15%). This can be attributed in pa� to our free clothing recycling service, andour customers increased awareness of clothing waste.-For waste, we assume 15% of fabric yield goes to scrap. For Reformation, this fabric isrecycled. For conventional, this fabric is included in waste output.-For waste, we assume that trash containers are 100% full at point of pick-up. We use averagevolume to weight conversions (via Recyclemania). We normalize this weight by the number ofunits produced. For conventional waste calculations, we received waste hauling data from threeclothing manufacturers, and averaged these to get an estimate for a point of comparison.
Current limitations
There are some slight variations in system boundary and geographic focus for secondarysources. We’ve done our best to compare “apples-to-apples” but in some cases, this is verydifficult with existing data. We do our best to focus on cradle-to-gate, and will select the mostthorough and conservative estimates when competing studies and data are available.
We are currently unable to identify LCA repo�ing on Recycled Cashmere yarn, and are lookingfor better data for Alpaca, Cashmere, and Silk. If you can help, please let us know!
RefScale methodology
Our sustainability research team created a life-cycle assessment tool to calculate the CO2, water, and waste footprints of Reformation products, as well as comparable products. We used primary data whenever available; otherwise we referenced secondary data and existing life-cycle assessments for select fabrics or processes. Finally, Clean Agency, a third-pa�y sustainability consulting team, reviewed our methodology and data sources to verify the validity of our calculations.
Research boundary
The following boundary applies to our CO2 and water calculations:
Inputs: Water, Energy, Raw Materials
Outputs: CO2 emissions, Waste
Fabric manufacturing → Fabric dyeing → Raw Material Transit → Product Manufacturing →Commercial Garment Wash → Packaging → Shipment → Customer Garment Care → Garmentend-of-life
For waste, there is very limited data on waste outputs in the fashion supply chain (fibercultivation, fabric processing, dyeing, etc.). Instead, we focused on material wastes that wecontrol directly through manufacturing and fulfillment processes:
• Product manufacturing (including fabric scraps & operating waste)• Packaging
How do we define comparable conventional clothing?
We select comparable conventional clothing characteristics based on what fabrics andprocesses are most common for products sold in the US.
Assumptions for comparable conventional clothing:
-Same weight as the Reformation garment-For knits & linen wovens, majority content conventional cotton-For viscose wovens, majority content conventional viscose-For deadstock wovens, majority content conventional viscose-For Recover sweater knits, majority content conventional wool-For Alpaca sweater knits, majority content conventional cashmere-For deadstock or Bluesign silk, majority content conventional silk-Manufactured in China in a factory without carbon offsets-Raw material air transpo� from China to LA-Poly bag inside a corrugated box for packaging-Small-package, ground shipping without carbon offsets
What practices make Reformation different?
-Lower-impact fabrics like vintage, deadstock, Tencel, flax linen, Alpaca yarn-Domestic suppliers whenever possible-Third-pa�y ce�ifications (Bluesign, Oeko-Tex) for low-impact and safe dye practices whenavailable-Manufacturing in our own factory or a nearby factory in LA-Purchase of renewable energy credits for factory operations (100% wind)-Lower-impact, 100% recycled-content & recyclable packaging-Carbon neutral shipping program-Lower-impact garment care labels and recommendations-End-of-life recycling service
Other assumptions
-We researched resource use of data centers and customers' computer usage, and found thatthe e-commerce impacts were negligible (per product). Therefore, retailing is not included in theboundary of analysis. However, the footprint of Reformation’s online shopping pla�orm ie. CO2eq. emissions of servers and customer screen power consumption is calculated and offsetseparately.
-Trims such as zippers, buttons, and fasteners were also found negligible and not included inthe boundary of analysis.
-For most blended fabric, we calculate emissions from the majority fiber unless the blendedfibers are significantly different from one another in terms of environmental footprint i.e. for oura) alpaca and silk, b) viscose and silk c) silk and cashmere blends. For these blends, wecalculate the footprint of garment weight by fabric composition. Example, for a fabric that is 70%viscose and 30% silk, we calculate the fabric impacts assuming 70% of impact is attributed fromviscose and 30% is from silk.
-For lining fabrics, emissions are calculated separately and added to the total emissions of thegarment.
-For deadstock and vintage fabrics, we do not assign a fabric impact since these come fromsecondary markets. We do calculate the rest of life cycle impacts including transit of the fabricand garment washing.
-There is very little data available for wool yarns. We have valid data for conventional wool, butnot for Alpaca, Cashmere, and other specialty yarns. Thus, we based our calculations on ananimal to garment yield. On average, one alpaca yields 4 garments, one sheep yields 3garments and one cashmere goat yields a qua�er of a garment. We assume that these animalstake the same resources to raise. NRDC says that alpacas actually consume less andCashmere consumes more, but for the sake of being conservative (potentially understatingimpact of Alpaca) we assume similar footprints. We scale the numbers in propo�ion to ourcurrent research on wool to derive cashmere and alpaca footprints.
-Dyeing calculations assume reactive dyeing processes.-Most Ref garments are not washed before hand, but if they are we calculate that they arewashed in a commercial-top load machine at 13.5 lbs of clothing per load.-Packaging impact includes manufacturing as well as the end-of-life impact for all materialsused.-For garment care, we assume the average life of a garment is 52 washes.-We assume Reformation customers follow recommended lower-impact garment care labelinstructions instead of traditional professional cleaning.-Machine washing for at home garment care calculations are based on using cold water, andhigher-efficiency front-loading machines.-For end-of-life, we assume Reformation customers recycle at a slightly higher rate than USaverage (30% vs.15%). This can be attributed in pa� to our free clothing recycling service, andour customers increased awareness of clothing waste.-For waste, we assume 15% of fabric yield goes to scrap. For Reformation, this fabric isrecycled. For conventional, this fabric is included in waste output.-For waste, we assume that trash containers are 100% full at point of pick-up. We use averagevolume to weight conversions (via Recyclemania). We normalize this weight by the number ofunits produced. For conventional waste calculations, we received waste hauling data from threeclothing manufacturers, and averaged these to get an estimate for a point of comparison.
Current limitations
There are some slight variations in system boundary and geographic focus for secondarysources. We’ve done our best to compare “apples-to-apples” but in some cases, this is verydifficult with existing data. We do our best to focus on cradle-to-gate, and will select the mostthorough and conservative estimates when competing studies and data are available.
We are currently unable to identify LCA repo�ing on Recycled Cashmere yarn, and are lookingfor better data for Alpaca, Cashmere, and Silk. If you can help, please let us know!
RefScale methodology
Our sustainability research team created a life-cycle assessment tool to calculate the CO2, water, and waste footprints of Reformation products, as well as comparable products. We used primary data whenever available; otherwise we referenced secondary data and existing life-cycle assessments for select fabrics or processes. Finally, Clean Agency, a third-pa�y sustainability consulting team, reviewed our methodology and data sources to verify the validity of our calculations.
Research boundary
The following boundary applies to our CO2 and water calculations:
Inputs: Water, Energy, Raw Materials
Outputs: CO2 emissions, Waste
Fabric manufacturing → Fabric dyeing → Raw Material Transit → Product Manufacturing →Commercial Garment Wash → Packaging → Shipment → Customer Garment Care → Garmentend-of-life
For waste, there is very limited data on waste outputs in the fashion supply chain (fibercultivation, fabric processing, dyeing, etc.). Instead, we focused on material wastes that wecontrol directly through manufacturing and fulfillment processes:
• Product manufacturing (including fabric scraps & operating waste)• Packaging
How do we define comparable conventional clothing?
We select comparable conventional clothing characteristics based on what fabrics andprocesses are most common for products sold in the US.
Assumptions for comparable conventional clothing:
-Same weight as the Reformation garment-For knits & linen wovens, majority content conventional cotton-For viscose wovens, majority content conventional viscose-For deadstock wovens, majority content conventional viscose-For Recover sweater knits, majority content conventional wool-For Alpaca sweater knits, majority content conventional cashmere-For deadstock or Bluesign silk, majority content conventional silk-Manufactured in China in a factory without carbon offsets-Raw material air transpo� from China to LA-Poly bag inside a corrugated box for packaging-Small-package, ground shipping without carbon offsets
What practices make Reformation different?
-Lower-impact fabrics like vintage, deadstock, Tencel, flax linen, Alpaca yarn-Domestic suppliers whenever possible-Third-pa�y ce�ifications (Bluesign, Oeko-Tex) for low-impact and safe dye practices whenavailable-Manufacturing in our own factory or a nearby factory in LA-Purchase of renewable energy credits for factory operations (100% wind)-Lower-impact, 100% recycled-content & recyclable packaging-Carbon neutral shipping program-Lower-impact garment care labels and recommendations-End-of-life recycling service
Other assumptions
-We researched resource use of data centers and customers' computer usage, and found thatthe e-commerce impacts were negligible (per product). Therefore, retailing is not included in theboundary of analysis. However, the footprint of Reformation’s online shopping pla�orm ie. CO2eq. emissions of servers and customer screen power consumption is calculated and offsetseparately.
-Trims such as zippers, buttons, and fasteners were also found negligible and not included inthe boundary of analysis.
-For most blended fabric, we calculate emissions from the majority fiber unless the blendedfibers are significantly different from one another in terms of environmental footprint i.e. for oura) alpaca and silk, b) viscose and silk c) silk and cashmere blends. For these blends, wecalculate the footprint of garment weight by fabric composition. Example, for a fabric that is 70%viscose and 30% silk, we calculate the fabric impacts assuming 70% of impact is attributed fromviscose and 30% is from silk.
-For lining fabrics, emissions are calculated separately and added to the total emissions of thegarment.
-For deadstock and vintage fabrics, we do not assign a fabric impact since these come fromsecondary markets. We do calculate the rest of life cycle impacts including transit of the fabricand garment washing.
-There is very little data available for wool yarns. We have valid data for conventional wool, butnot for Alpaca, Cashmere, and other specialty yarns. Thus, we based our calculations on ananimal to garment yield. On average, one alpaca yields 4 garments, one sheep yields 3garments and one cashmere goat yields a qua�er of a garment. We assume that these animalstake the same resources to raise. NRDC says that alpacas actually consume less andCashmere consumes more, but for the sake of being conservative (potentially understatingimpact of Alpaca) we assume similar footprints. We scale the numbers in propo�ion to ourcurrent research on wool to derive cashmere and alpaca footprints.
-Dyeing calculations assume reactive dyeing processes.-Most Ref garments are not washed before hand, but if they are we calculate that they arewashed in a commercial-top load machine at 13.5 lbs of clothing per load.-Packaging impact includes manufacturing as well as the end-of-life impact for all materialsused.-For garment care, we assume the average life of a garment is 52 washes.-We assume Reformation customers follow recommended lower-impact garment care labelinstructions instead of traditional professional cleaning.-Machine washing for at home garment care calculations are based on using cold water, andhigher-efficiency front-loading machines.-For end-of-life, we assume Reformation customers recycle at a slightly higher rate than USaverage (30% vs.15%). This can be attributed in pa� to our free clothing recycling service, andour customers increased awareness of clothing waste.-For waste, we assume 15% of fabric yield goes to scrap. For Reformation, this fabric isrecycled. For conventional, this fabric is included in waste output.-For waste, we assume that trash containers are 100% full at point of pick-up. We use averagevolume to weight conversions (via Recyclemania). We normalize this weight by the number ofunits produced. For conventional waste calculations, we received waste hauling data from threeclothing manufacturers, and averaged these to get an estimate for a point of comparison.
Current limitations
There are some slight variations in system boundary and geographic focus for secondarysources. We’ve done our best to compare “apples-to-apples” but in some cases, this is verydifficult with existing data. We do our best to focus on cradle-to-gate, and will select the mostthorough and conservative estimates when competing studies and data are available.
We are currently unable to identify LCA repo�ing on Recycled Cashmere yarn, and are lookingfor better data for Alpaca, Cashmere, and Silk. If you can help, please let us know!
Research citations
Fabric
Leather (cowhide)
Lenzing Tencel
Lenzing Modal
Lenzing Viscose(conventional)
Lenzing ViscoseASIA
Lenzing ViscoseAUSTRIA
Viscose
Source for CO 2 eq. (secondaryresearch)
Muñoz, Zayetzi R. "Water, energyand carbon footprints of a pair ofleather shoes ", ITM School ofIndustrial Engineering andManagementKTH Royal Institute ofTechnology, June 2013
Shen, Li., Patel, Ma�in K., "Lifecycle Assessment of man made cellulose fibers", LenzingerBerichte, 2010
Shen, Li., Patel, Ma�in K., "Lifecycle Assessment of man madecellulose fibers", LenzingerBerichte, 2010
Chapman, Adrian., "Mistra FutureFashion – Review of Life CycleAssessments of Clothing". Mistrafoundation for strategicenvironmental research. October2010
Shen, Li., Patel, Ma�in K., "Lifecycle Assessment of man madecellulose fibers", LenzingerBerichte, 2010
Shen, Li., Patel, Ma�in K., "Lifecycle Assessment of man madecellulose fibers", LenzingerBerichte, 2010
Chapman, Adrian., "Mistra FutureFashion – Review of Life CycleAssessments of Clothing". Mistrafoundation for strategicenvironmental research. October2010
Source for Water (secondaryresearch)
Muñoz, Zayetzi R. "Water, energyand carbon footprints of a pair ofleather shoes ", ITM School ofIndustrial Engineering andManagementKTH Royal Institute ofTechnology, June 2013
Shen, Li., Patel, Ma�in K., "Lifecycle Assessment of man made cellulose fibers", LenzingerBerichte, 2010
Shen, Li., Patel, Ma�in K., "Lifecycle Assessment of man madecellulose fibers", LenzingerBerichte, 2010
Chapman, Adrian., "Mistra FutureFashion – Review of Life CycleAssessments of Clothing". Mistrafoundation for strategicenvironmental research. October2010
Shen, Li., Patel, Ma�in K., "Lifecycle Assessment of man madecellulose fibers", LenzingerBerichte, 2010
Shen, Li., Patel, Ma�in K., "Lifecycle Assessment of man madecellulose fibers", LenzingerBerichte, 2010
Chapman, Adrian., "Mistra FutureFashion – Review of Life CycleAssessments of Clothing". Mistrafoundation for strategicenvironmental research. October2010
Conv. Cotton
Organic cottonIndia
Recycled cotton(USA)
Recycled polyester(USA)
Polyester (USA)
Conv. Acrylic
Alpaca
1. K. Babu, Murugesh, M.Selvadass, “Life CycleAssessment of Conventional andOrganic Seed Cotton fibers”.International Journal of Researchin Environmental Science andTechnology. February 20132. In Muthu, S. S., & TextileInstitute (Manchester, England).(2015). Handbook of Life CycleAssessment (LCA) of textiles andclothing.
The Lifecycle Assessment ofOrganic Cotton Fiber, TextileExchange, November 2014
Woolridge, Anne C., et al. "Lifecycle assessment forreuse/recycling of donated waste textiles compared to use of virginmaterial: A UK energy savingperspective." Resources,conservation and recycling 46.1(2006): 94-103.
Woolridge, Anne C., et al. "Lifecycle assessment forreuse/recycling of donated wastetextiles compared to use of virginmaterial: An UK energy savingperspective." Resources,conservation and recycling 46.1(2006): 94-103.
Estimating the carbon footprint ofa fabric, O Ecotextiles, January2011
Barber, Andrew, and GlenysPellow. "LCA: New Zealandmerino wool total energy use." 5thAustralian Life Cycle AssessmentSociety (ALCAS) Conference.2006.
Derived from wool
Chapagain, A. K.; Hoekstra, A. Y.;Savenije, H. H. G.; Gautam, R.The water footprint of cottonconsumption: An assessment ofthe impact of worldwideconsumption of cotton productson the water resources in thecotton producing countries. Ecol.Econ. 2006, 60 (1), 186–203.
The Lifecycle Assessment ofOrganic Cotton Fiber, TextileExchange, November 2014
Shen, Li., Patel, Ma�in K., "Lifecycle Assessment of man madecellulose fibers", LenzingerBerichte, 2010
Barber, Andrew, and GlenysPellow. "LCA: New Zealandmerino wool total energy use." 5thAustralian Life Cycle AssessmentSociety (ALCAS) Conference.2006.
Derived from wool
Wool
Cashmere
Linen/Flax
Hemp
Conventional Silk
Peace silk
Nylon
Note: Cradle to gate boundary normalized to 1 lb of fabric
Jones, G., Plassmann, K., Harris,I., "The Carbon Footprint of SheepFarming in Wales", BangorUniversity, 2008
Derived from wool
Estimating the carbon footprint ofa fabric, O Ecotextiles, January2011
Estimating the carbon footprint ofa fabric, O Ecotextiles, January2011
A Carbon Footprint for UKClothing and Oppo�unities forSavings, WRAP, July 2012
Muthu, SubramanianSenthilkannan, ed. Handbook oflife cycle assessment (LCA) oftextiles and clothing. WoodheadPublishing, 2015.
van, . V. N. M., Patel, M. K., &Vogtländer, J. G. (February 01,2014). LCA benchmarking studyon textiles made of cotton,polyester, nylon, acryl, orelastane. The InternationalJournal of Life Cycle Assessment,19, 2, 331-356.
Mekonnen, M. M., Hokestra, A. Y.,"The Green Blue and Grey WaterFootprint of Farm Animals andAnimal Produce", UNESCO-IHE,December 2010
Derived from wool
Bio Intelligence Service, Issu, Asof October 2016
Cherrett, Nia., Barrett, John.,Clemett, Alexandra., Chadwick,Matthew., Chadwick, M.J.,Ecological Footprint and WaterAnalysis of Cotton, Hemp andPolyester, StockholmEnvironment Institute
Review of Data on EmbodiedWater in Clothing, URS, July 2012
Muthu, SubramanianSenthilkannan, ed. Handbook oflife cycle assessment (LCA) oftextiles and clothing. WoodheadPublishing, 2015.
Transpo�ation
Ship transpo�ation
Truck transpo�ation
Air transpo�ation
Note: 1. Combination of ship and truck is used for overseas transpo� 2. Calculated from vendor to Reformation HQ
Source for CO 2 eq. (secondaryresearch)
Jungmichel, Nobe�., The CarbonFootprint of Textiles, SystainConsulting, July 2010
Fact Sheet: Vehicle Efficiency andEmissions Standards,Environmental and Energy StudyInstitute, August 2015
Fact Sheet: Vehicle Efficiency andEmissions Standards,Environmental and Energy StudyInstitute, August 2016
Source for Water (secondaryresearch)
Dyeing
Reactive batch - India / China
Reactive batch - US / Europe
Reactive yarn - India / China
Reactive yarn - US / Europe
Avg b/w reactive/vat/sulphur dye batch - India / China
Avg b/w reactive/vat/sulphur dye yarn - India / China
Notes: Adjusted for reactive dyeing process
Source for CO 2 eq. (secondaryresearch)
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Source for Water (secondaryresearch)
SimaPro (Ecoinvent Database, Method Ecoindicator 95)
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid
Manufacturing
Manufacturing - Reformation
Manufacturing - Send-out
Cut & Sew (China)
Source for CO 2 eq. (secondaryresearch)
Primary and Secondary
Primary andSecondary
Secondary
Source for Water (secondaryresearch)
2010 EGRID Data(http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/egrid-zips/eGRID_9th_edition_V1-0_year_2010_Summary_Tables.pdf)
Ibid
Ea�hsma� database
Packaging
100% recycled content mailer, domestic trucking from Indiana to Los Angeles
Conventional poly bag, extrusion, int'l freight from China
Notes: Includes end of life for packaging material
Source for CO 2 eq. (secondaryresearch)
Secondary
Secondary
Source for Water (secondaryresearch)
Ea�hsma�
Ea�hsma�
Commercial garmentwash
Garment wash infinishing stage
Notes: Assumes 15 gallons water per load
Source for CO 2 eq. (secondaryresearch)
Energy Efficiency andRenewable Energy Office, 2006
Source for Water (secondaryresearch)
Energy Efficiency and RenewableEnergy Office, 2006
Shipment
Shipping(Conventional)
Shipping (Offset)
Source for CO 2 eq. (secondaryresearch)
Primary
Primary
Source for Water (secondaryresearch)
UPS average domestic shipment
UPS Carbon Neutral Program
Garment care
Top load warmmachine wash and dry
Dry cleaning
Hand wash
Front load warmMachine wash and dry
Source for CO 2 eq. (secondaryresearch)
Apparel Industry Life CycleCarbon Mapping, Business forSocial Responsibility, June 2009
Apparel Industry Life CycleCarboon Mapping, Business forSocial Responsibility, June 2009
Ba�hel, Claus., Gotz, Thomas.,What users can save with energyand water efficient washingmachines, BigEE March 2013
Source for Water (secondaryresearch)
Ba�hel, Claus., Gotz, Thomas.,What users can save with energyand water efficient washingmachines, BigEE, March 2013
Do all laundry by hand, ThreeActions Project, As of October2010
Residential Clothes WasherIntroduction, Alliance for WaterEfficiency, As of October 2016
End of life
30% Recycling Rate
15% Recycling Rate
Source for CO 2 eq. (secondaryresearch)
Secondary
Secondary
Source for Water (secondaryresearch)
Ea�hsma�
Ea�hsma�
Waste
ReformationManufacturing Waste
ConventionalManufacturing Waste
Fabric Scrap 15% Rate
Source for CO 2 eq. (secondaryresearch)
Primary
Primary
Secondary
Source for Water (secondaryresearch)
Waste hauling data (self-repo�from Reformation)
Waste hauling data (self-repo�from 3 garment manufacturers)
ABERNATHY, F. H., DUNLOP,J. T., HAMMOND, J. H. & WEIL,D. A stitch in time. Lean retailingand the transformation ofmanufacturing - Lessons fromthe apparel and textileindustries. Oxford UniversityPress. 1999.
INPUTS
Water
Energy
Raw Materials
Fabric manufacturing OUTPUTS
CO2eemissions
WasteFabric dyeing
Raw material transit
Product manufacturing
Commercial garment wash
Packaging
Shipment
Customer garment care
Garment end-of-life