*Article* **Material-Driven Textile Design (MDTD): A Methodology for Designing Circular Material-Driven Fabrication and Finishing Processes in the Materials Science Laboratory**

**Miriam Ribul 1,\*, Kate Goldsworthy <sup>2</sup> and Carole Collet <sup>3</sup>**


**Abstract:** In the context of the circular economy, materials in scientific development present opportunities for material design processes that begin at a raw state, before being introduced into established processes and applications. The common separation of the scientific development of materials from design intervention results in a lack of methodological approaches enabling designers to inform new processes that respond to new material properties. This paper presents the results of a PhD investigation that led to the development and application of a Material-Driven Textile Design (MDTD) methodology for design research based in the materials science laboratory. It also presents the development of the fabrication of a textile composite with regenerated cellulose obtained from waste textiles, resulting from the MDTD methodology informing novel textile processes. The methods and practice which make up this methodology include distinct phases of exploration, translation and activation, and were developed via three design-led research residencies in materials science laboratories in Europe. The MDTD methodology proposes an approach to design research in a scientific setting that is decoupled from a specific product or application in order to lift disciplinary boundaries for the development of circular material-driven fabrication and finishing processes at the intersection of materials science and design.

**Keywords:** design methodology; materials science; textile recycling; regenerated cellulose; composites; fabrication; material design; transdisciplinary; interdisciplinary; circular economy

#### **1. Introduction**

A strong focus on the exploration of materials in design and materials science is placed on finding viable alternatives to materials in existing processes and reducing their environmental impacts [1–3]. Scientific advancements are promising factors to enable sustainable change in how we use natural resources [4,5]. These specialist processes, however, are normally removed from a design practice. Technical material developments take place in a scientific context where, according to Küchler, in the nineteenth century, "malleable" materials and new production technologies removed design from the processes of industrial material manufacture [6]. Miodownik describes the start of a complex materials revolution in the twentieth century, where discovery and development became a scientific activity separated from the arts, and argues for a methodological approach in which artists get to know materials through artistic processes [7]. In the context of the complexity of materials science, Manzini was the first to suggest that a material should be described not for what it "is", but for what it is "used for" and to consider, "how does it work" [8] (pp. 55–63). Based on this, Karana et al. ask what a material "expresses to us, what it elicits from us, and what it makes us do" [1] (p. 35). This aligns with Tim Ingold's argument that within the realms of anthropology, art, archaeology and architecture, we need a practice

**Citation:** Ribul, M.; Goldsworthy, K.; Collet, C. Material-Driven Textile Design (MDTD): A Methodology for Designing Circular Material-Driven Fabrication and Finishing Processes in the Materials Science Laboratory. *Sustainability* **2021**, *13*, 1268. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su13031268

Received: 21 December 2020 Accepted: 20 January 2021 Published: 26 January 2021

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

"*with*" and not "*of* " materials [9] (p. 8). He argues against a hylomorphic model where, "practitioners impose forms internal to the mind on a material world 'out there'", but instead concludes that making is a "process of growth" in which materials are "active" participants [10] (pp. 20–21). Attempts to integrate design in scientific material research have led to a new generation of material engagement: materials-by-design [6]. In this approach, the product end-use comes first, and newly developed materials are made to fit technological requirements. The field of circular material innovation would benefit from design-integrated experimentation "with" materials in scientific development in order to develop new materials and processes fit for the circular economy.

There is a methodological gap for design research based in the materials science laboratory that was established as part of the PhD research of this paper's first author, using a literature and a practice review [10]. Acknowledging that the scientific development of materials takes place in dedicated materials science laboratories, we argue that designers can expand materials science research by integrating design research tools at the onset of the material development. The "Krebs Cycle of Creativity", developed by Oxman, places design and science opposite each other in a coordinate plate and connects them through art or engineering [11]. The interactions between these four domains in this cycle evidence exchanges as "currency" and not a methodological approach as such. Whilst a designscience practice was pioneered by Buckminster Fuller in 1927 [12], historically, efforts have been placed on transforming the design method into a scientific one [13]. Karana et al. [1], Peralta [14], Driver et al. [15], and Rust [16] have listed a range of projects that support the collaboration between the disciplines of design and materials science. However, product designers are still determining how to operate in the scientific domain [14,15]. Many design methodologies place ideas and inspiration [17], a vision [18], or design thinking [19,20] at the start of the design process. For example, the Design Council's "double diamond design process model" is represented by areas of divergent and convergent processes in two consecutive "diamond"-shaped stages [17] (p. 6). However, the double diamond methodology is defined by a material selection in the second diamond [21], which is a method also used in engineering [22], in order to apply the material to specific end products or applications. Table 1 summarises the constituent elements of existing material design methodologies in interdisciplinary collaboration: the driver, the methods employed at the start of the research, the setting in which the research takes place, its outcomes, and the mode in which the practice takes place. Examples of material design methodologies in interdisciplinary collaborations are limited. These interdisciplinary projects take place individually in separate domains of the laboratory or design studio [1,23–25], or are facilitated in neutral settings, such as workshops in large-scale projects [26–29]. Moreover, even if designers work from within the materials science laboratory, the practice with materials remains within the disciplinary domain of design or science, and the outputs of these interdisciplinary collaborations are mostly new material developments or applications. A shift from a product or material development focus to concentrating on processes with materials would invert the common design methodology beginning with an envisioned product and application, as it is found in a materials-by-design approach. The context of circularity in which regenerated cellulose materials obtained from waste textiles are chemically recycled is a recent disciplinary domain which would promote such investigation.

**Table 1.** Drivers, action steps, setting, outcomes, and practice in interdisciplinary material design methodologies.



**Table 1.** *Cont.*

Regenerated cellulose obtained from waste textiles has existed since 2012, and only a few design prototypes have been produced from scientific research to demonstrate its potential applications, whilst these interdisciplinary partnerships are difficult to map when they are not documented [10]. Regenerated cellulose is here produced in a nontoxic chemical recycling process in which post-consumer cotton is dissolved before it can be regenerated in a coagulation bath and spun into new fibres [4,32–34]. The scientific developments with regards to regenerated cellulose obtained from waste textiles suggest its potential to replace environmentally impactful cotton fibres [35–38]. Practice-based textile design and materials science collaborations in this field create artefacts to demonstrate the viability of regenerated cellulose to substitute materials in established processes such as knitting, weaving, or 3D printing at the product, finishing, and textile processing stages, from yarn to fabric, in the existing textile value chain, as evidenced in the outputs of these projects [39]. In this approach that aims for a like-for-like replacement of environmentally impactful materials, design research cannot intervene into the scientific development of regenerated cellulose to inform new textile processes. On the other hand, the scientific achievement of being able to regenerate cellulose from end-of-life textiles with non-toxic chemicals results in a material that is suitable for the circular economy. Regenerated cellulose materials sit within the context of the bioeconomy for industries that use biological materials, enabling a circular bioeconomy [40]. Averting the use of landfills for postconsumer textiles through chemical recycling technologies would keep resources within a closed loop. However, scientific research states that cellulose-based materials cannot be infinitely recycled while maintaining the same quality [38,41]. This may provide new challenges for textile processes in the circular economy, since recycled regenerated cellulose materials have a decreased polymer length that would make this material unsuitable for the established textile value chain. This suggests that circularity requires the need for intervening with the raw materials at hand before these are manufactured, processed, or engineered for a specific process or application, as well as textile processes that both enable circularity and respond to the context of circular recycling.

This paper presents a Material-Driven Textile Design (MDTD) methodology for design research based in the materials science laboratory that facilitates design intervention at the first stage of scientific research, in order to develop new circular processes "with" the material. The methodology is the result of a PhD research investigation with the hypothesis that textile design research intervening in the scientific development of regenerated cellulose materials can inform new textile processes inscribed within the circular economy. The design research was structured around three research residencies in materials science laboratories (2016–2018): the first two residencies with Dr Hanna de la Motte, the focus area manager for Circular Materials Ecosystems (AoI Material Transition) and a researcher at the Division of Materials and Production (Department of Chemistry, Biomaterials and Textiles; unit Fiber Development), which was then the Bioeconomy Division (Cellulose-based Textiles Section; Biorefinery Unit) at RISE Research Institutes of Sweden (RISE) [42,43], and the third residency at the Department of Bioproducts and Biosystems of Aalto University's School of Chemical Engineering, in Finland. Each residency corresponds to one of the three action steps described in the methodology, with the first residencies followed by two studio practice stages, structuring the activity into stages of action and reflection [10]. The three stages of the MDTD methodology corresponding to three research residencies in materials science laboratories were developed at the outset of the research. Section 2 outlines the methodological approaches that underpin the development of the methodology. Sections 3–5 then describe the three action steps of exploration, translation and activation, and how the methods in each stage developed through practice, leading to a new circular material-driven process for textile composite fabrication with regenerated cellulose. Section 6 discusses the MDTD methodology in the context of material design methodologies in interdisciplinary research and the challenges of its constituent elements when it is applied by other designers and to other materials. Finally, the conclusion in Section 7 evaluates how design research based in the materials science laboratory can establish new courses of action for the scientific development of new circular and regenerated materials.

#### **2. The Material-Driven Textile Design (MDTD) Methodological Framework**

This section describes the methodology developed in a textile design context, but refers to "material design processes", "material design situations" and "material design visions", which include textiles. Figure 1 illustrates the three action steps of exploration, translation, and activation in the author's Material-Driven Textile Design methodology, in which a raw material is the starting point of the research and the results are textile or material artefacts resulting from the new material design processes. Figure 1 also shows which disciplinary domain informed each action step: the material tests in the exploration stage are informed by materials science, represented by a diamond shape; both materials science and design equally inform the material experiments in the translation stage; therefore, the diamond shape merges with an ellipse; the new material design processes in the activation stage are then based on the design vision, represented by an elliptical shape. The designer tests, experiments and designs new material design processes in each action stage by introducing design techniques into the materials science laboratory. These processes result in circular artefacts that are compatible with the raw material stage after recycling. The designer can consequently repeat the methodology to develop processes that respond to the modified material properties.

The Material-Driven Textile Design (MDTD) methodology is underpinned by the theoretical context of three methodological approaches, which evolved from the following principles for a materials design practice situated in the materials science laboratory: action research and participatory design research for the collaboration with materials scientists to access, observe, and participate in scientific processes; material-driven design for the focus of the methodology on exploring new material design processes, which are decoupled from a specific product or application; and tacit knowledge in a strong design disciplinary background to inform the transdisciplinary, practice-based work with materials in the tools and techniques introduced.

**Figure 1.** Material-Driven Textile Design (MDTD) methodology [10].

Participatory design in action research can be used to create an equal collaboration with materials scientists. Whereas action research promotes experiments "in the field, rather than laboratory" [44] (p. 18), the field for design research in the MDTD methodology is in fact the materials science laboratory. Action research comes from the social sciences, but instead of research on others, it argues for a critical self-reflection that can take place with others, and therefore focuses on the transformation of practice [45]. The MDTD methodology aims to achieve a change of design practice in a materials science context. This change of practice follows Kurt Lewin's iterative cycles of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting [45]; cycles of action and reflection in constructivist research [46]; and each research cycle can revise the initial plan [47]. Whereas action research can be performed individually, participatory design research evolved with the aim of creating change in society by involving the participants in the research in an equal manner [48–50]. In participatory action research, a cooperative enquiry is a form of research "with" rather than "on" people, where "all the active subjects are fully involved as co-researchers in all research decisions" [49] (p. 145). This methodology can be used for small group research projects, ingraining the transformation of the participants [49]. As the MDTD methodology does not focus on the study of scientists, but on the development of new textile design processes, it can be useful for the development of interdisciplinary collaborative research between individual design and materials science researchers.

The second methodological approach addresses the practice "with" and not "of" materials in their raw state [9] (p. 8), and methods for material-driven design. An approach that puts the material at the start of the design process is "materials driven design", which begins with exploration and experimentation to find new opportunities [21] (p. 282). The "Material Driven Design (MDD) method" of Karana et al. begins with an, "understanding

of the material" through "tinkering" in order "to understand its inherent qualities, its constraints, and its opportunities" [1] (p. 41), but differentiates itself from other materialdriven approaches by designing for material experiences through a "product and/or further developed material" [1] (p. 10). The mastering of the material through "tinkering" is particularly suitable for materials that are "not fully developed" [1] (p. 41), such as regenerated cellulose obtained from waste textiles. What the MDTD adds to, or replaces in, the MDD method is described through the practice in Sections 3–5.

The third aspect is how tacit knowledge informs the evaluation and progression of the design practice when it is based on craft knowledge such as design techniques. Craft here explores a "flow of activity" [51] (p. 35) and emerges from "embedded knowledge" in "the interplay between tacit knowledge and self-conscious awareness" [52] (p. 50). A recurrent practice with materials leads to tacit knowledge, a specifically intuitive approach that cannot be described in an instruction for others to emulate, but that practitioners can apply to other work. The results of the design practice in the MDTD methodology are analysed with a qualitative assessment of the haptic and visual properties based on tacit knowledge of the disciplinary background. This assessment is formed by actions based on "tacit knowledge", which was first argued by Polanyi to be based on "a rich understanding and knowledge" that is "gained over life time experience, a theory that is increasingly applied to design and artefacts" [16] (p. 77). Tacit knowledge in design is mostly traced back through "reflection-in-action" [46] (p. 49) and becomes evident in the results of processes and techniques such as those introduced into the materials science laboratory in the MDTD methodology, as well as in the manifestation of the "technical", "sensorial", and "aesthetic" character of the resulting materials and artefacts [1] (p. 42).

The next sections describe the methods of the three methodological stages of exploration, translation, and activation in order to illustrate the development of the practice with regenerated cellulose materials in chemical recycling. This research produced two hundred samples, resulting from the experiments in both the materials science laboratory and the studio practice [10]. The following sections document key experiments for each of the action stages towards the development of a new textile composite fabrication process. Whilst experiments were repeated several times for validation, a selected successful sample is included in this paper. Including multiple samples into this paper would hinder an overview of the development of practice through research. The experiments appearing in this paper are numbered according to the corresponding residency, followed by the number of the experiment taking place within each residency.

#### **3. MDTD Action Step 1: Exploration**

The exploration stage corresponds to the first residency in the materials science laboratory at RISE Research Institutes of Sweden. Latour and Woolgar argue that scientific processes require an observation "in situ" and claim that from a social science perspective [53] (p. 37), the observer needs to select a "theme" to delineate the method [53] (p. 35), which will produce order from the observations. The theme in the design brief for the first residency was, "to explore the specific properties and processes concerned with the production of regenerated cellulose in the science laboratory" at the raw material stage [10] (p. 365). Language barriers in interdisciplinary research were also considered on site and Wilkes et al. [54] and RISE Research Institutes of Sweden [55], outline that tools for collaboration are often required in these spaces. By employing design methods—such as sketchbooks, drawings (Figure 2a), and mapping (Figure 2b)—to document the way in which both the scientist and design researcher were thinking about textile design research from within the context of working in the materials science laboratory together, these tools helped bridge the discipline-specific language and explore visual communication in the residency [42].

**Figure 2.** (**a**) Drawing of the circular lifecycle of regenerated cellulose obtained from waste textiles; (**b**) Mapping of the process for cellulose regeneration with the materials scientist.

#### *3.1. Participant Observation*

This stage observed the existing scientific method for the dissolution of cellulose materials, the scientific analysis of the cellulose dissolution and its suitability in the spinning process, as well as the scientific method for the regeneration of dissolved cellulose in the fibre spinning process. The observation was documented with a sketchbook, photography, diagrams, and process maps, as well as notes and interviews. One key observation was that when fibres do not dissolve or when the properties of the cellulose dissolution change, the raw material may not be suitable for fibre spinning. This informed two directions for the research: whether new textile processes could make use of this otherwise redundant material, and the lab work follows a scientific method in order to spin a fibre from a cellulose dissolution, in which design research cannot intervene experimentally, as it would disrupt the formation of the fibre. A better understanding of the chemical recycling stage of waste textiles was found when actively performing the scientific processes for the dissolution of cellulose. The design practice at this stage did not deviate from the scientific method that was applied in the laboratory in order to engage with the material properties and the processes as they occur (Figure 3). Participant observation identified the raw material state in which the design practice would intervene: the cellulose dissolution before this is being regenerated into a new form [42].

**Figure 3.** (**a**) Cellulose pre-treatment preparation during the first residency at RISE Research Institutes of Sweden; (**b**) Pressing and dewatering post-consumer cotton for dissolution.

#### *3.2. Mapping Design Interventions*

The exploration stage in the first design research residency aimed "to map how design can intervene in the production processes for regenerated cellulose in the scientific laboratory" [10] (p. 365). Interfering with scientific methods involves a high cost due to

the people, time, and resources involved [53]. Non-invasive design interventions that do not disrupt the fibre spinning process in scientific research had to be found. Making a film was found to be a suitable process that designers can explore, with a cellulose dissolution that is unsuitable for fibre spinning [43]. Regenerated cellulose films can be produced with shortened cellulosic fibres that are obtained from textiles waste using a cellulose dissolution with a lower degree of polymerisation that cannot be spun into fibres [42]. Researchers may extrude, mould, or dry a regenerated cellulose film following a scientific method, and these are techniques which can be explored through design. Tools and techniques for moulding the films were explored both with regenerated cellulose in the materials science laboratory and with bioplastics with similar properties in the studio practice when access to the laboratory or the material was unavailable due to cost or time constraints [43]. The results were documented with photography, a sketch book, or a "material diary" [56] (p. 131), and through the resulting samples.

#### *3.3. Process Benchmarking*

Process benchmarking was developed from "material benchmarking" [1] (p. 41), which places the material in a context of similar materials, their applications, and experiential properties. The benchmarking of processes in the MDTD methodology places regenerated cellulose films into a context of similar cellulose-based materials in order to identify different processes that employ this material and whether textile qualities can be achieved by working with such processes. The literature and practice review of current applications in both science and design found that films in materials science are considered for packaging applications [40], not for textiles, in order to achieve a sustainable replacement of cellophane and its properties [57,58], through extrusion and casting into equal flat shapes [57,59,60]. In textile design, regenerated cellulose film making is not explored outside of the materials science laboratory. Processes are evidenced in printing onto film in packaging applications [33] or in other cellulose-based materials for garment moulding [61], extrusion for architectural structures [62], extrusion of textile yarn [63], and reactive properties of 3D-printed cellulose film shapes [64]. The results of these processes are flexible, transparent films that lack haptic and visual textile properties.

#### *3.4. Practice: Material Tests*

Material testing, through participation in the scientific research, facilitated the designer's knowledge of the scientific methods and understanding of how to work effectively with them. Process benchmarking informed the planning of the design tools and techniques for the material experiments. Textile design techniques for moulding were introduced in order to form the film into a range of shapes. The moulds were selected and developed to generate textile structures such as nonwovens and nets (Figure 4a). After producing a series of thin round films, a suitable scientific method for material testing was established. The objective of experiment 1.2, which represents the second experiment in the first residency, was to test this method in a moulding technique. The materials used were a cellulose source of post-consumer cotton provided by the laboratory and the ionic liquid solvent 1-Ethyl-3-methylimidazolium acetate (EmimAc) to dissolve the cotton at 70 ◦C with a dissolution of 8% cotton in the solvent. The tool introduced for moulding the cellulose dissolution was a flexible aluminium mesh (Figure 4b). The resulting film was regenerated in a water-based coagulation bath and dried in an oven for controlled heat (Figure 4c). The qualitative assessment evidenced that the film bonded to the edges of the metal grid and broke when being removed. The film shrank when dried. It is hard, brittle, transparent and with a texture similar to plastic (Figure 4d). The success criteria showed that the film can be moulded into a fine lace-like shape but evidenced that a different method for regeneration needed testing in order to achieve flexible films. The first experiments identified bonding and moulding design techniques for exploring the cellulose dissolution through design.

**Figure 4.** (**a**) Preparation of tools, materials, and moulds for material testing during the first residency at RISE Research Institutes of Sweden; (**b**) Experiment 2.1. Aluminium mesh for moulding the cellulose dissolution; (**c**) Regenerated cellulose samples drying in the laboratory oven; (**d**) Experiment 1.2. Regenerated cellulose lace-shaped film.

#### **4. MDTD Action Step 2: Translation**

The translation stage occurred during the second residency at RISE. The translation stage brief outlined how textile design techniques are introduced into the regeneration stages of cellulose, "to explore prototyping with regenerated cellulose films in the science laboratory for a [ ... new value] chain for textiles from raw material to product" [10] (p. 363). The transdisciplinary methods and the development of the translation stage are further described in Ribul and de la Motte [43]. Both experiments in this stage considered "visualising" the material properties and behaviour at a tangible scale using existing design techniques, as well as the scientific method to "validate" the results with repeatable and shareable processes in the context of the circular economy [43]. The result is a technical material archive that demonstrates the prototyping possibilities with the material and the development of a transdisciplinary material design practice between the two disciplines [43]. The translation stage considered circularity in the material's "past", where the results of the experiments were compatible with the raw material state. Mono-material approaches informed the decisions in the design techniques for the material experiments, as well as the options for disassembly in order to remove any added material at the end of life.

#### *4.1. Visualisation*

Before the material experiments began, a wide set of design tools and techniques informed by the textile design disciplinary background was planned in the design studio in order to establish various haptic and visual properties (such as flexibility, texture, or colour) with regenerated cellulose films in textile fabrication and finishing processes. The techniques introduced to visualise the properties of regenerated cellulose included moulding, 3D printing (Figure 5a), bonding, and coating. Each technique demonstrated the limitations of the scientific method in the design techniques: for example, a failed experiment resulted in a material breaking or an extruded dissolution cellulose regenerated on impact in a coagulation bath (Figure 5b).

**Figure 5.** (**a**) Sample showing a three-dimensional extrusion of regenerated cellulose; (**b**) Three samples resulting from experiments including extruded regenerated cellulose that coagulated on impact.

#### *4.2. Validation*

The validation of the material experiments was informed by materials science in the following stages: (1) by adopting the scientific method in the design techniques, and (2) by documenting the experiments with a lab book. It was pertinent to the translation stage that material experiments occurred in the materials science laboratory and that they used the material that is the focus of the research. The validation of the experiments with regenerated cellulose repeated the scientific method by introducing variables such as different waste textiles, solvents, and settings in order to find the most suitable one for applying textile techniques [43]. A method was found that creates flexible films, which was then also utilised in residency 3. The method showed which design techniques can be introduced at the raw material stage and identified where techniques should be discarded or adapted.

#### *4.3. Practice: Material Experiments*

The material experiments followed a similar approach to the "exploration" [21], or the first step of the "Material Driven Design (MDD)" method in the technical characterisation of the material by tinkering [1]. In the MDD method, the technical stage is followed by focus groups and interviews to map the "experiential characterization" [1] (p. 41) that the material may elicit in products. This was not the case in the translation stage, where the material experiments progressed towards textile processes with a "knowing-in-action" and "reflecting-in-action" approach [46] (p. 49) to evaluate the "sensoaesthetic" [7] (p. 69) properties of the results.

The objective of experiment 2.13, which represents the 13th experiment in the second residency, was to mould the cellulose dissolution into a three-dimensional form. An un-

dyed 100% post-consumer cotton textile provided by the laboratory was dissolved using the ionic liquid 1-Ethyl-3-methylimidazolium acetate (EmimAc) at 80 ◦C with a dissolution of 5% cotton in the solvent. An additive of sawdust was introduced in order to create texture and colour, and the tool used in the design technique was a three-dimensional plastic mould (Figure 6a). The dissolution was then regenerated in an ethanol coagulation bath and air-dried on a metal mesh. The qualitative assessment evidenced that the composite shrank less when drying and kept the shape of the mould, while the sample looks like wood and feels like paper (Figure 6b). This result informed further testing of moulded films with additive particles in order to reduce shrinking in three-dimensional mono-material composites. The translation stage identified four mono-material design techniques for the circularity of the material: colour, texture, print, and form [10].

**Figure 6.** (**a**) Experiment 2.13. Plastic mould for 3D moulding; (**b**) Experiment 2.13. 3D-moulded film with sawdust.

#### **5. MDTD Action Step 3: Activation**

The activation stage is the final action step in the MDTD methodology. Here, the findings from the exploration and translation stages informed the Material Design Visions for new textile processes using regenerated cellulose materials obtained from waste textiles. An iterative cycle of design prototyping took place in the third residency at Aalto University's School of Chemical Engineering, in order to develop tangible textile or material artefacts that act "as an embodiment for a hypothesis, realizing the conditions (independent variables) in an experiment" [65] (p. 95), and materialise a possible future with a material design process that can be evaluated against textiles resulting from existing processes. The aim of residency 3 was, "to create a range of textile samples and artefacts that emerge from a practice with regenerated cellulose materials at the intersection of design and science that demonstrate [ ... new] textile processes for the circular bioeconomy" [10] (p. 367). The literature review and process benchmarking in the exploration stage established whether new processes with the material have been achieved. In this final stage, a "future" circularity perspective informs design processes that consider working with materials with modified properties after mechanical or chemical recycling has taken place.

#### *5.1. Material Design Visions*

According to Verganti, "envisioning" occurs when a designer creates new meanings with their design [18] (p. 180). In the MDD method by Karana et al. [1] (pp. 42–43), a "Material Experience Vision" is the second action step after the technical and experiential material characterisations have been completed. The properties of chemically recycled cellulose in existing design techniques in the translation stage informed the development of Material Design Visions for processes that manifest new forms of "material design" in a transdisciplinary domain. The envisioned techniques synthesised the results from the

previous two action steps: (1) the properties of the material in the exploration stage, and (2) the circular design techniques in the translation stage. Four Material Design Visions were formed for processes and haptic and visual properties that are distinguished from existing developments in this field: textile shape and surface manipulation; nonwoven textile fabrication; colour in the finishing process; and 3D-moulded composites. Prototyping tools were prepared in the design studio practice in response to the envisioned textile techniques.

#### *5.2. Design Prototyping*

If the aim of design is "creating something that does not yet exist (either knowledge or product) and that fits into the future", then prototypes help to visualise this new paradigm and to communicate it in a tangible way [65] (p. 85). Prototypes in research can validate an idea and are often used for "testing a theory" or a "hypothesis" [65] (p. 95), but can also play a role in "reflecting on open-ended exploration" [65] (p. 87). The aim of the prototyping in the activation stage was to develop new textile fabrication and finishing processes with regenerated cellulose. The prototyping process in itself generated concrete information about the design to optimise the envisioned textile techniques and to establish the desired material outcomes. The results of the experiments were therefore qualitatively evaluated against the haptic and visual properties of textiles such as texture, form, strength, lightness, drape, colour, composition, and thickness.

#### *5.3. Practice: New Material Design Processes*

The final set of experiments produced artefacts that demonstrate the change in the textile processes obtained through the action research carried out in the materials science laboratory at RISE. The experiments followed the scientific method described in Section 4.3, except for the use of the Ioncell solvent, which was developed and patented at Aalto University [66]. Prototyping either proved or disproved the hypothesis of the Material Design Visions and refined the techniques employed for creating the final artefacts. For example, the envisioned 3D-moulded composite technique was discarded due to the fact that the experiments from the translation stage could not be validated using the Ioncell solvent. Prototyping, in turn, achieved a new process to fabricate a flexible textile composite. The composite fabrication process in experiment 3.26, which represents the 26th experiment in the third residency, used the same 100% post-consumer cotton waste used in experiment 2.13 and described in Section 4.3, the Ioncell ionic liquid to dissolve it, and an additive of recycled black cotton fabric. The objective of the experiment was to form a composite that has haptic and visual textile properties such as drape, handle, lightness, and breathability. A modified textile printing technique was developed to deposit the cellulose dissolution [67], which was regenerated in a water-based coagulation bath, and the result was dried in a humidity-controlled cabinet for 54.15 h, with humidity ranging from 50% for 20.15 h to 25% for 29 h and 10% for 5 h. The assessment of qualitative properties revealed a cellulose-based textile composite that feels soft and light and can be draped, breaking slightly at the edges (Figure 7). The success criteria evidenced the impact of the drying method on the outcome, informing further experiments. The practice-based work with the cellulose dissolution in the materials science laboratory established four new processes as the result of the methodology, which comprise two fabrication and two finishing processes [10,67]. Each one of these processes evolved in parallel to the others, in response to the three residencies starting from the exploration of material tests, followed by the translation of material experiments, and finally the activation of new processes through prototyping.

**Figure 7.** (**a**) Experiment 3.26. Textile composite folded onto itself; (**b**) Experiment 3.26. Textile composite.

#### **6. Discussion**

This paper has presented the author's Material-Driven Textile Design (MDTD) methodology, which enables designers to test, experiment and design new material design processes at the "raw" stage of their scientific development. This methodology was developed and applied with an investigation of regenerated cellulose obtained from waste textiles in the context of the circular economy. As opposed to making a "material selection" for specific end products [21], the design practice presented in this paper starts from an exploration "with" the material, proceeds with a "translation" of the design-science practice and results in an "activation" of new material design processes. The MDTD methodology offers the opportunity to go beyond an "exploration" of materials close to their raw form. Moreover, it offers an effective practice-based approach leading to new material design processes that are scientifically validated and where the haptic and visual properties of the results can be evaluated against existing processes in textile design.

Table 2 evaluates constituent elements of the MDTD methodology in the context of interdisciplinary research projects (described in Table 1). The MDTD methodology distinguishes itself from existing material design methodologies in that it integrates design practice into scientific development and the scientific method into design practice. The methodology lifts the boundaries of separated disciplinary domains, in which materials science and design usually operate, and establishes a setting in which design participates in scientific research for material development "in situ", enabling a new transdisciplinary practice to emerge. Primarily, the MDTD methodology creates a new methodological framework in which the material at hand and its properties at their "raw" stage are the drivers that inform new material design processes, decoupled from envisioned products or applications in the prevalent hylomorphic model of design. In this context, the designer's and the scientist's role does not aim for material or product development, but instead, the practice "with" the material results in new processes that inform new models for fabrication and finishing. The context of a circular economy requires a reframing of the common model of like-for-like replacement in scientific material development, in order to make new, regenerative approaches possible.

**Table 2.** Drivers, action steps, setting, outcomes, and practice in the MDTD methodology.


The MDTD methodology resulted in new textile processes inscribed within the circular economy, including the process for textile composite fabrication presented in this paper. Circular and regenerated materials can have properties that make them unsuitable for established processes and applications. The application of the MDTD methodology to a material in scientific development different from the one described in this paper will have different limitations and opportunities for design to intervene and develop new processes. Each "raw" material will require an in-depth exploration before new processes can be activated. These materials could be related to the disciplinary practice of designers or present unexplored starting points.

Challenges arising from the application of the methodology by other designers may be three-fold. The first challenge is that the experiments "with" materials in the three action stages depend on the tacit knowledge from a broad range of techniques of the designer, resulting from previous design projects. The second challenge is to avoid defining products or applications "of" the material early on, which could be explored only after the activation stage is completed. The third challenge is that designers may limit themselves to the exploration stage and focus solely on material tests. Without the translation stage, the designer may not identify a range of design techniques and develop a transdisciplinary practice. Similarly, the exploration and translation stages alone would hinder the development of new design processes.

The materials science context in the MDTD methodology is imperative. A designer can mimic scientific processes, but tools or materials may not be available, leading to speculative outcomes. Embedding the design practice into a materials science laboratory is recommended even if in the form of short visits and testing, whilst complementing the research with studio practice to anchor the new processes and results in the design disciplinary domain. The challenges here can lie in designers establishing collaborations with materials scientists, access, time, and costs in order to develop new material design processes, which may lead to the adaptation of the three action stages, as well as to new methods applied by each designer in order to achieve results. On the other hand, the designer's disciplinary background and tacit knowledge may adapt and change the methods and stages in this methodology.

#### **7. Conclusions**

The methodology described in this paper makes a compelling argument for designers to be active in the materials science laboratory in order to establish new circular materialdriven fabrication and finishing processes. Having created and applied the methodology in the context of an investigation of regenerated cellulose and its changing properties in circularity over an extended period of time, the research led to a transformation of the practice in interdisciplinary design and materials science collaboration into one that integrates discipline-specific methods. The methodology was structured into three action stages—exploration, translation, and activation corresponding to three research residencies, each with its own set of methods. The significance of these three action research stages lies in their enabling of new courses of action for materials originating in the materials science laboratory beyond established textile processes and applications. The cellulose-based composite revealed a new textile fabrication process with regenerated cellulose in a circular lifecycle, that is mono-material and compatible with the raw material stage while achieving textile haptic and visual properties. The possible context of use of this textile composite and its potential applications could form a future research project stemming from this research using another methodology. The MDTD methodology and its development are described in this paper in order to support designers who wish to move into a scientific domain whilst retaining their core design knowledge. Its application by other designers would enable a transdisciplinary practice for working "with" materials in their raw state and enable design for circularity in future textile recycling contexts.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualisation, M.R.; methodology, M.R.; validation, M.R.; formal analysis, M.R.; investigation, M.R.; resources, M.R.; data curation, M.R.; writing—original draft preparation, M.R.; writing—review and editing, M.R., K.G., and C.C.; visualisation, M.R.; supervision, K.G. and C.C.; funding acquisition, M.R. and K.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** The PhD research was funded by the AHRC London Doctoral Design Centre (LDoC) at the University of the Arts London (UAL).

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of the Arts London (27 January 2016).

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to the embargo on the Ph.D. Thesis of the author at the time of publication of this article.

**Acknowledgments:** With thanks to the Centre for Circular Design at Chelsea College of Arts (UAL), where this PhD research was based, to Hanna de la Motte and to RISE Research Institutes of Sweden, for hosting two research residencies, and Aalto University for supporting the third residency with laboratory space and materials for prototyping.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**


## *Article* **Life Cycle Based Comparison of Textile Ecolabels**

**Felice Diekel \*, Natalia Mikosch \*, Vanessa Bach and Matthias Finkbeiner**

Department of Sustainable Engineering, Institute of Environmental Technology, Technische Universität Berlin,

10623 Berlin, Germany; vanessa.bach@tu-berlin.de (V.B.); matthias.finkbeiner@tu-berlin.de (M.F.) **\*** Correspondence: felice.diekel@gmail.com (F.D.); natalia.mikosch@tu-berlin.de (N.M.);

Tel.: +49-157-3071-2129 (F.D.); +49-30-314-28455 (N.M.)

**Abstract:** Environmental impacts of textile production increased over the last decades. This also led to an increasing demand for sustainable textiles and ecolabels, which intend to provide information on environmental aspects of textiles for the consumer. The goal of the paper is to assess selected labels with regard to their strengths and weaknesses, as well as their coverage of relevant environmental aspects over the life cycle of textiles. We applied a characterization scheme to analyse seven selected labels (Blue Angel Textiles, bluesign®, Cotton made in Africa (CMiA), Cradle to Cradle CertifiedTM, Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS), Global Recycled Standard (GRS), VAUDE Green Shape), and compared their focus to the environmental hotpots identified in the product environmental footprint case study of t-shirts. Most labels focus on the environmental aspects toxicity, water use, and air emissions predominantly in the upstream life cycle phases of textiles (mainly garment production), whereas some relevant impacts and life cycle phases like water in textile use phase remain neglected. We found significant differences between the ecolabels, and none of them cover all relevant aspects and impacts over the life cycle. Consumers need to be aware of these limitations when making purchase decisions.

**Keywords:** textile life cycle; environmental aspects; ecolabel; sustainable textiles

#### **1. Introduction**

The urgency of the climate crisis is more present now than ever before, with the "International Panel on Climate Changes" (IPCC) special report on global warming [1], more than 11,000 scientists warning of a climate emergency [2], and millions of people on the streets for the largest climate strike ever seen [3–6]. The scientists describe a close link between the excessive consumption of a wealthy lifestyle and the climate crisis, naming the global north as mainly responsible for the historic and current greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [2]. One industry with a particularly devastating impact on the environment is the fashion industry. Apart from a vast contribution to the climate change (in 2015, the textile production alone was responsible for around 1.2 billion CO2 equivalents of GHG emissions [7]), it is responsible for a whole host of environmental impacts occurring in different life cycle stages of textile products. These impacts include overuse of water resources and excessive use of pesticides during cotton cultivation, contamination of water bodies with untreated wastewater discharged from the textile processing, or pollution with microplastics during the use phase [8]. From 2000 to 2015, the production of clothing has doubled [7]. Due to this constant growth of the fashion industry [9], the environmental impacts associated with textile production are also steadily increasing. This effect was multiplied by a shift in the fashion industry in 1990 towards a fast fashion concept, which lead to an uptake in the speed of production and buying cycles.

At the same time, during the past decades, the awareness of the environmental issues associated with the textile production has continuously increased. A recent study demonstrates that 72% of consumers worldwide would prefer to buy from environmentally friendly brands [10]. As a result, during the last 40 years, various organizations and initiatives emerged using sustainability standards, labels, audits, certificates, or management

**Citation:** Diekel, F.; Mikosch, N.; Bach, V.; Finkbeiner, M. Life Cycle Based Comparison of Textile Ecolabels. *Sustainability* **2021**, *13*, 1751. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su13041751

Academic Editors: Hanna de la Motte and Asa Ostlund Received: 18 December 2020 Accepted: 3 February 2021 Published: 6 February 2021

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

strategies to enforce sustainable value creation generally referred to as environmental labels and information schemes (ELIS) [11,12]. These include ecolabelling (e.g., Global Organic Textile Standard, GOTS [13]), umbrella ecolabels (e.g., Grüner Knopf [14]), and initiatives for sustainable cotton production (Better Cotton Initiative, BCI [15]) and textiles (Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals, ZDHC [16]). These initiatives aim to make sustainability assessments of textile products easier and provide guidance for consumers. However, as the various labels follow different approaches and have different focus, it remains difficult for consumers to identify relevance and quality of the information the labels offer.

Recently, several studies were conducted with the aim to review and compare textile ecolabels. While some publications provide an evaluation of a single label, e.g., Blue Angel [17] and C2C Certified [18,19], others analyse similarities and differences between the scope and criteria of different labels. For example, Koszewska provides an overview of most popular textile ecolabel and their recognisability among Polish buyers [20]. Existing comparisons between textile ecolabels consider different environmental aspects and life cycle stages of textiles. Partzsch et al. analyse the effect of the certification on cotton cultivation in Sub-Saharan Africa with regard to the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and genetically modified organisms (GMO) for four certification types (Better Cotton Initiative (BCI), Cotton made in Africa (CmiA), Fairtrade Labelling Organization (FLO), and EU Organic Regulation) [21]. Targosz-Wrona provides an overview of the label requirements on chemical residues in fibres and emissions thresholds for the textile manufacturing phase for the labels EU Flower, Ecological product, Eco-sign, Slovak environmental friendly product, and Nordic Swan [22]. Henniger compares the requirements of the 15 most relevant textile labels for the UK market with regard to different environmental aspects (e.g., water use, deforestation, CO2-emissions) and assessment approaches adopted by the labels (e.g., life cycle assessment, raw material assessment) [23]. An analysis of the labels requirements considering all life cycle stages of textile products is carried out by Clancy et al. for six ecolabels with high relevance for the market in Sweden (EU Ecolabel, Bluesign, Cradle-to-cradle, Made-by, Textile Exchange, Oeko-Tex) [24]. For each life cycle stage from design and raw material production to waste management, the authors evaluate whether the labels provide specific requirements (e.g., a restriction of the use of specific chemicals) or optional/indirect criteria (i.e., the requirement is not binding or the life cycle stage is influenced by the requirements for a different life cycle stage). An analysis of the complete life cycle of textiles, as well as different environmental aspects and hotspots, is conducted in the study of Minkov et al., who compare similarities and gaps between the requirements of the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and European Flower (EUF) [25]. Although all aforementioned studies evaluate label requirements, two following questions remain unclear: (1) Whether the focus of the labels with regard to considered environmental aspects and life cycle stages of products is comparable and (2) whether the label requirements address the main environmental hotspots in the life cycle of textiles, and thus contribute to the reduction of the environmental burden of certified products.

To address this gap, the goal of this paper is to evaluate similarities and gaps between textile ecolabels and analyse their focus areas concerning covered environmental aspects and life cycle stages. For this, seven textile ecolabels with different scopes and approaches for the requirement setting are evaluated with regard to their main characteristics (e.g., type of communication, scope, etc.), addressed environmental issues (e.g., climate change, water use, etc.), and covered life cycle stages of textiles. Following labels were selected for the analysis: Blue Angel Textiles [26], bluesign® [27], Cotton made in Africa (CMiA) [28], Cradle to Cradle CertifiedTM [29], Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) [13], Global Recycled Standard (GRS) [30], and VAUDE Green Shape [31]. Further, we analyse whether the environmental requirements of the labels cover the hotspots with regard to environmental aspects and life cycle stages of textiles. This paper addresses only environmental aspects of sustainability, omitting other sustainability dimensions (social and economic criteria) of ecolabels. It is structured as follows: Section 2 provides an overview of the life cycle

stages and environmental hotspots of textiles and introduces the characterization scheme for the ecolabels, in Section 3, a description of the selected ecolabels and methodological procedure is provided, Section 4 presents the results. In Section 5, the results are discussed, and Section 6 concludes with a short outlook.

#### **2. Theoretical Background**

#### *2.1. Environmental Impacts throughout the Textile Life Cycle*

Based on existing literature (see Table S1), five main life cycle stages of textiles can be identified:


The raw material production phase considers either the growing of natural fibres such as cotton, wool, silk, and flax, or the manufacturing of fibres made from a variety of raw material sources, including plant, animal, and synthetic polymers [32]. The main concerns in this stage originate from either the agricultural production and the attributed intense use of water and pesticides or the production of synthetic and cellulosic fibres and the resulting emissions to air and water [32]. One of the most famous examples of the severe environmental consequences that can occur through cotton cultivation is the tragedy of the Aral Sea. The increased water diversion for irrigation of cotton fields lead to an insufficient water supply from its two river sources, causing the Aral Sea to dramatically decrease in size and water volume since the early 1960s [33].

The yarn and textile manufacturing itself has several steps including sizing, knitting, pre-treatment, dyeing, and finishing. The making up process encompasses, pattern drafting, producing samples, cutting, sewing, and applying embellishments [34,35]. The environmental issues in this phase vary from the inhalation of cotton dust during the yarn manufacturing, to the contamination of wastewater with mineral knitting oils, remaining pesticides, and leftovers from bleaching, as well as dyes that usually contain heavy metals and auxiliary chemicals used for finishing. For the distribution phase, the garments are usually packed in polyester bags and distributed to warehouses or retailers [35].

The garment use phase is characterized by acquisition, use, and maintenance activities [34]. It is mainly concerned with washing and drying the garments. Thus, the environmental impacts are associated mainly with electricity, detergent, and water use [36]. The nature and quality of a fibre can further influence the maintenance of a textile [37]. The quality of cotton fibres, where high quality fibres are not as easy to get dirty, as well as the difference between mechanical and chemical treatment, can significantly impact the behaviour of the fabric in use [37].

During the textile disposal phase, sending the apparel to landfills dominates re-use, recycling, and other end-of-life management activities [34].

#### *2.2. Textile Ecolabels*

During the past decades, increasing attention of the consumers to the environmental and social impacts of products resulted in an increasing adoption of sustainability practices in business, e.g., eco-innovation and lean management. The latter allow companies to reduce the environmental burden associated with their production activities, and at the same time to foster the development of new products, technologies, or business structures, which increases their overall market viability [38]. As demonstrated in recent studies, the implementation of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) strategies gained importance for the competitiveness in the textile sector [39–42]. One of the strategic CSR areas is the so-called "marketplace CSR", which includes company's communication with its suppliers, consumers, and other stakeholders along the value chain. Particularly with regard to

the consumer relations, textile producers increasingly adopt ecolabels to demonstrate (improved) environmental and/or social performance of their goods [41].

Ecolabels are voluntary environmental product information schemes (EPIS), which are used in order to systematically approach the environmental information of a product.

The mandatory approach to EPIS includes declarations of contents such as food ingredients, usage, and disposal information, mainly applying to chemical substances and products. The voluntary approach to EPIS (i.e., ecolabels) leaves it to the market actors to decide whether to sign or label their product. In the following, the focus is set on the voluntary ecolabels and declarations. The overall goal of the voluntary environmental labels and declarations is encouragement of the demand for and supply of the products that cause less pressure on the environment. This is achieved through communication of verifiable and accurate information on the product's environmental performance [43]. Stø et al. [44] demonstrated that product information is usually asymmetrically allocated between buyers and sellers. This knowledge gap can only be filled through external support as supposedly offered by ecolabels and EPIS [44].

The ecolabel or environmental declaration should consider the life cycle of a product or service from production to final disposal. However, the undertaking of a life cycle assessment is not always necessarily required [43]. Three types of environmental labelling are further specified by the ISO standards: Environmental labels (Type I), self-declared environmental claims (Type II), and environmental declarations (Type III) [45–47].

The first voluntary public ecolabels were developed following the introduction of the German Blue Angel label in the 1970s [11,48], which provided information about products with the best environmental characteristics in the entire life cycle of a product [11]. They were followed in the next years by a proliferation of eco-labelling and single-issue certification, as well as the development of individual company private standards [11,48]. Since the 2000s, a large number of ecolabels and other ELIS coexist [11,48].

#### *2.3. Characterization Scheme for Environmental Labels and Declarations*

As described in the previous section, three types of environmental labels and declarations are distinguished according to ISO. Nevertheless, as demonstrated in recent studies, several ecolabels cannot be assigned to any of these types due to different awarding criteria and formats, which makes it difficult to classify and compare ecolabels [49]. A recently introduced characterization scheme overcomes this obstacle by introducing 22 attributes with regard to following aspects of the labels: communication, scope, standard characteristics, governance, and conclusive characteristics [18,49]. In the following, these attributes and some examples of corresponding label features are shortly introduced. A detailed description of all characterization attributes and features can be found in the study of Minkov et al. [18,49].

The aspect communication characteristics includes the following five attributes: ISO typology (e.g., Type I, undefined), awarding format (seal, rating), multiplicity of covered aspects (single or multi-aspect), aspects diversity (environmental, social), and end-user focus (e.g., business-to-business (B2B)). The aspect scope includes the attributes sector scope (i.e., sector-specific or multi-sector), operational scope (e.g., product, organization), geographical scope (national, international), awarding criteria scope (product-specific or generic), application of materiality principle, and life cycle perspective. The aspect standard characteristics considers compulsoriness (voluntary or mandatory), financing, purpose (i.e., idealistic or neutral), and longevity (single issued or renewable). The aspect governance characteristics includes the attributes governance (governmental, private), verification (e.g., first or second party), awarding criteria revision, and stakeholder involvement (low, high). The aspect conclusive characteristics consists of three attributes: Transparency, comparability, and environmental excellence.

#### **3. Materials and Methods**

#### *3.1. Selected Ecolabels*

As stated in the introduction of the paper, this study aims at analysing textile ecolabels with different scopes and approaches for setting the requirements on the environmental issues. In the following, the reasons for the inclusion of each label in this study are explained, and the labels are shortly introduced. Table 1 summarizes the general information of the ecolabels.

The seven ecolabels were selected considering their relevance as an ecolabel as well as their relevance for their individual focus area (i.e., cotton production, circularity, recycling). The Blue Angel Textile label was chosen due to the label's relevance as the oldest existing ecolabel. The bluesign ecolabel has a strong focus on chemical use and is considered to be one of the strictest ecolabels in this area. The Cotton made in Africa ecolabel has a regional validity for sub-Saharan Africa and is one of the most relevant organic labels with a focus on cotton with many corporate labels referring to it. The Cradle to Cradle Certified™ ecolabel set a clear focus on circularity and is relevant, as the ecolabel requirements are specifically based in the Cradle to Cradle concept. The Global Organic Cotton Standard ecolabel proves its relevance as one of the most commonly used and best known ecolabels. The Global Recycling Standard is relevant within the special focus area of recycling. The VAUDE Green Shape ecolabel was chosen for this analysis as a company initiated ecolabel that was possible to analyse due to its comparably well provided information on the ecolabels criteria.

#### 3.1.1. Blue Angel Textiles

The Blue Angel Textiles label was established in a cooperation of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety and the German Environmental Agency. The objective of the label is to offer guidance for sustainable products through four approaches: "Promoting higher environmental standards in the production process; improving occupational safety and social conditions during production; avoiding chemical hazards to health in the end product; verifying the product's fitness for use" [50].

#### 3.1.2. Bluesign®

Under the name bluesign® system, bluesign technologies AG created a network of chemical suppliers, manufacturers, and brands which are guided by the bluesign® criteria. The bluesign® system covers all bluesign® criteria, and the bluesign® system partners based on the management of inputs and responsible actions across the whole supply chain following five principles: Resource productivity, consumer safety, water emissions, air emissions, and occupational health and safety [27]. When being awarded the bluesign® label, all involved parties need to follow certain milestones, for example, a bluesign® system partner agreement, the certification of chemical products and articles, as well as labelling [51]. The end-product is labelled a bluesign® product if at least 90% of the used fabric and at least 30% of the used accessories are bluesign® approved [52]. Part of the bluesign® system is the bluesign® system substances list. It includes around 900 substances that are either not permitted (around 600) or subject to certain limitations. Within the bluesign® system, chemicals are rated as blue, grey, or black. Blue rated chemicals fulfil all criteria for the final product, the worker, and the environmental release. Grey rated chemicals can only be used under certain conditions for bluesign® approved materials, while black rated chemicals fail the criteria and their use is not accepted.


**Table 1.** General information

 on selected labels.

#### 3.1.3. Cotton made in Africa (CmiA)

The Cotton made in Africa label was designed by the Aid by Trade Foundation with the goal to improve living conditions for local farmers and promote environmentally friendly cotton production [28]. The criteria set for the CmiA is two-tier. The first set includes criteria that determine if farmers and companies can participate in the program. The secondlevel criteria are sustainability criteria. The participants in the CmiA programme are not immediately required to meet all sustainability criteria, but can develop and improve following a development plan. The criteria follow a traffic light assessment that rates the status of the criteria as green, yellow, or red [53]. For the entry phase, a minimum of 50% of the sustainability criteria must be rated as yellow or green. All red and yellow classified sustainability criteria must have recommendations for possible improvement. In the next verification after two years, in an ideal case all formerly red criteria are improved to yellow and the yellows to green. For subsequent verifications, ideally all criteria should now be rated green and the overall green status should be maintained [28].

#### 3.1.4. Cradle to Cradle Certified™

The Cradle to Cradle approach integrates multiple attributes, such as safe materials, continuous reclamation and reuse of materials, clean water, renewable energy, and social fairness [29]. A decisive aspect in the Cradle to Cradle approach is the definition of the three principles: Eliminating the concept of waste, use renewable energy, and celebrate diversity [54]. The goal is to achieve a perpetual cycling of ingredients which either biodegrade naturally and restore the soil or are being fully recycled into high quality materials for subsequent product generations. Cradle to Cradle therefore defines two effective material cycles: The biological cycle, able to safely re-enter the biological system, and the technical nutrient cycle, where products or materials can be recovered at the endof-use phase [54]. This approach has been criticized by many scholars due to its theoretical nature and lacking feasibility [19]. The Cradle to CradleTM label applies to materials, sub-assemblies, and finished products. To create a standard that promotes improvement, the label uses a 5-Level System of Basic, Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Platinum. In order to qualify for one of the levels, the requirements from all lower levels must be met as well. The final certification level is determined by the minimum level of achievement in the five different levels [54].

#### 3.1.5. Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS)

The GOTS standards was initiated in 2002 at the Intercot Conference and was started as a certification system in 2006. Its aim is to ensure an organic status of textiles from harvesting through socially and environmentally responsible manufacturing up to labelling. In recognition of the fact that textile production today is nearly impossible without chemicals, the label defines criteria for low impact and low residual natural and synthetic chemical inputs [55]. The standard offers two label grades either "organic"/"organic—in conversion" or "made with (x%) organic materials"/"made with (x%) organic materials in conversion" [55]. The criteria focus on compulsory criteria with only expressly stated exceptions.

#### 3.1.6. Global Recycled Standard (GRS)

The Global Recycling Standard, initiated by Control Union, was passed on to Textile Exchange in 2011, who also own and administer other standards such as the Content Claim Standard (CCS) and the Recycled Claim Standard (RCS). The overall goal of the GRS is to increase the use of recycled materials in products while reducing or eliminating the harm caused by their production. It aims to concentrate on recycled content, the chain of custody, social and environmental practices, as well as chemical restrictions [56]. The GRS can be used for any product that contains at least 20% recycled materials [56].

**Distribution Garment Use Textile Disposal**

#### 3.1.7. VAUDE Green Shape

The Green Shape Label is the corporate label from the outdoor outfitter VAUDE. It was invented by the company due to the absence of a comprehensive textile label [57]. With the Green Shape Label, VAUDE claims to have "developed its own rating system for environmentally friendly outdoor products" [57]. According to VAUDE's online presentation of the label, it "covers the entire product lifecycle with its strict standards—from design and production to maintenance, repair, and disposal" [57].

#### *3.2. Analysis of the Labels*

First, a characterization of the selected labels is carried out based on the characterization scheme proposed by Minkov et al. (see Section 2.3) [18,49]. Next, we analyse the label requirements following a three-step procedure. In the first step, considered environmental aspects (e.g., water use) and life cycle phases (e.g., raw material production) were identified based on the documentation of the labels. Then, the label requirements were assigned to the life cycle stages and environmental aspects of textile products. If a requirement could not be assigned to one specific environmental aspect (e.g., the prerequisite to use organic materials influences several environmental aspects including toxicity, water use, and land use), it was identified as a "general" requirement (see Table 2).



Finally, we compare the requirements of the labels to the environmental hotspots that occur in the life cycle of textiles following the procedure proposed by Minkov et al. [25]. This is done based on the hotspots analysis published as part of the Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) for t-shirts [58]. The latter were developed within the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF), which aims at providing a harmonized methodology and rules for the environmental assessment of products under the life cycle perspective [59,60]. The PEF study provides an overview of the environmental hotspots on a level of impact categories (e.g., climate change), life cycle stages (e.g., production of material), and processes (e.g., cotton fibres) with the cradle-to-grave system boundary. The results of the PEF study [58] were considered for the impact categories that relate to the environmental impacts with a high relevance in the life cycle of textiles (see Section 2.1): Climate change (impact on air emissions), water scarcity (impact on water consumption), acidification (terrestrial and freshwater), and freshwater eutrophication (impact on water pollution) (see Table 3).

The applied methodological procedure is illustrated in Figure 1.

**Figure 1.** Methodological procedure. White boxes indicate working steps carried out within the methodological procedure; grey boxes demonstrate examples of the outcomes of each step.

**Table 3.** Overview of environmental hotspots of a T-shirt for selected impact categories over the life cycle (modified from [58]).


#### **4. Results**

#### *4.1. Characterization of Selected Ecolabels*

The results of the applied characterization scheme are shown in Table 4. All analysed labels show several similarities regarding the communication characteristics, more specific all have a multi-aspect approach, address both environmental and social and/or health aspects, and have a B2C focus. Five labels represent a seal, while CmiA and Cradle to CradleTM label follow a rating awarding format. A significant difference between the labels can be detected for the attribute ISO typology. Only the Blue Angel Textiles and GOTS label are a fully conformant Type I eco-label program. The rest of the labels does not fully conform with the Type I requirements, and the typology of the CmiA label can be characterized as "undefined". With regard to the sectoral scope, three labels can be characterized as multi-sectoral (Blue Angel Textiles as part of the Blue Angel label, Cradle to CradleTM, and GRS), while all other labels serve for the textile products only (or cotton in case of the CmiA label). Except for the CmiA, which is applicable only for the cotton production in Africa, all labels have an international geographical scope and claim to apply the life cycle perspective by providing requirements for different life cycle stages of textiles, e.g., raw material production, textile manufacturing, and use. This attribute is analysed in detail in the next chapters.

The labels show similarities also with regard to the attribute standard characteristics, for example, all labels are voluntary and ideals-centric, i.e., serve as a benchmark of achieving certain ideals or excellence. In contrast to the VAUDE Green Shape, which is a single-issued label (i.e., is never re-verified), all other labels are renewable (are revised and reissued after expiration) or improvement-based (CmiA and Cradle to CradleTM), which means that they require a demonstration of improved performance for a re-certification [18].

The Blue Angel Textiles is the only one quasi-governmental label (i.e., initiated by a government, but managed by a private company), while other labels are private. Other governance characteristics are addressed similarly by all labels except VAUDE Green Shape, e.g., the labels are verified by third party, have regularly revised awarding criteria and medium to high stakeholders involvement. The VAUDE Green Shape, in contrast, is second party certified (verification through VAUDE Sports) and does not provide information on the attributes awarding criteria revision and stakeholders involvement.

All analysed labels have a high level of transparency (only for the VAUDE Green Shape, the program rules cannot be accessed) and intend environmental excellence (i.e., the certification promotes environmental excellence of the product). Five labels have a medium score for the characterization attribute comparability, since these labels do not allow a comparison between products awarded by the same scheme, but intend superiority to non-awarded products. The comparability of the CmiA and Cradle to CradleTM labels is evaluated as low, since the comparison of products is difficult due to different levels of conformity introduced by these labels.


**Table 4.** Characterization of the labels according to the characterization scheme by Minkov et al. (2018,

 2019).


**Table 4.** *Cont.*


**Table 4.** *Cont.*

#### *4.2. Considered Environmental Aspects and Life Cycle Phases*

In the following, the results with regard to the considered environmental aspects and life cycle phases are presented (see Table 5 and Tables S2–S8).

The Blue Angel Textiles label provides requirements for all life cycle stages from raw material production to distribution, while the use phase and disposal are not considered. The raw material production stage is considered most extensively compared to other labels, since all impact categories are addressed and also general requirements are provided. The textile manufacturing stage is also considered by means of both general and specific requirements. While a comprehensive requirements set is provided for the toxicity, water use, and air emissions, two other aspects (land use and recycling) are not addressed in this stage. For the distribution, few requirements with regard to toxicity, recycling, and land use are provided.

The bluesign® label addresses two life cycle stages of textiles: Raw material production and textile manufacturing. For the raw material production, a set of general requirements is provided, e.g., that all raw materials used must be bluesign® approved. For the textile manufacturing stage, both general requirements (e.g., availability of a management system with a plan-do-check-act cycle covering quality, environment/resource savings, and occupational health and safety) and specific requirements for all environmental aspects are provided. Quantitative thresholds are given for the impacts on toxicity, water use, and air emissions, while for land use and recycling, qualitative targets are provided (e.g., "packaging shall be reduced . . . ").

The CmiA label is designed for only the cotton production stage, therefore it provides requirements only for the raw material production, while other life cycle stages of textiles are not considered. The label provides both general and specific requirements, while the level of conformity can be achieved on three levels: Red (non-conformity), yellow (partly conformity), and green (full conformity). Furthermore, excluding criteria are provided, e.g., use of pesticides banned under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), cotton production under irrigation and cutting of primary forest. The requirements set by the label are mainly quantitative, e.g., sufficient evidence of the risks and dangers related to the storage of pesticides and application of methods for water conservation.

The Cradle to Cradle Certified™ label has a strong focus on the textile manufacturing step. In this step toxicity, water use, air emissions, as well as recycling are addressed, while only the impacts on land use are not considered. The label requirements follow a 5-Level System, which sets basic, bronze, silver, gold, and platinum criteria. The differentiation between basic and platinum criteria is vast and distinct: While for water use in the textile manufacturing, the basic criteria requires no significant violation of discharge permit within the last two years, the platinum criteria requires that only water that meets drinking water quality may leave the manufacturing facility. While raw material production, distribution, and the garment use phases are not addressed at all, in the textile disposal phase, requirements address the environmental aspect recycling.

The GOTS label addresses the raw material production phase with general criteria, i.e., requirement on the share of the fibres produced as "organic". The textile production phase addresses toxicity, water use, and air emission. For the environmental aspects land use and recycling, no requirements were identified in this life cycle step. In contrast to the Cradle to Cradle Certified™ label, GOTS does not set different certification levels. The requirements are presented as general requirements as well as in relation to the individual production steps such as dying, printing, and finishing or sizing and wet processing stages. In the distribution phase, environmental aspects toxicity, air emissions, and land use are covered, while the garment use phase and the textile disposal phase are not considered.


**Table 5.**

Overview of considered life cycle steps and

environmental

 aspects. The colours indicate hotspots in the life cycle stages and

environmental

 impacts

according

The GRS label addresses the raw material production and textile manufacturing phases. In the raw material production phase, only the environmental aspects of toxicity and recycling are considered. For the textile manufacturing phase, both general requirements (e.g., Certified Organizations are required to have an environmental management system) and specific requirements (e.g., water use: A drainage plan with understanding of wastewater flow direction and discharge point is required) are provided. The latter consider all environmental impacts except land use and are mainly quantitative, e.g., the rules on the use and storage for chemicals and monitoring of emissions.

In contrast to other labels analysed in this research work, the VAUDE Green Shape label considers besides the raw material production and textile manufacturing the use phase of the garment. For the raw material production, only one criteria is provided, which prohibits any usage of GMO. The general requirements for textile manufacturing include prohibition and rules for the usage of some chemicals (e.g., motif prints need to be either water based or based on sublimation) and the requirement that a minimum of 90% of used garment must be certified/declared. A broad range of certification options is provided, which include supplier certification (e.g., ISO 14001, EMAS), fabric certification (e.g., bluesign® approved, GOTS), or "eco-fabric" (e.g., organic cotton, TENCEL, chlorine free wool). Furthermore, specific requirements for toxicity are provided, according to which compliance with the manufacturing restricted substance list (MRSL) must be assured. In the textile use phase, environmental impacts on toxicity (high impact care) and air emissions (the product requires tumble drying, i.e., high energy use and impact on climate change) are addressed.

Overall, it can be summarized that the Blue Angel Textiles label covers most life cycle phases in the considered environmental impact categories. Followed by a wide margin, the GRS and GOTS label also take into account several life cycle phases.

#### *4.3. Overview of Identified Focus Areas of Selected Labels*

In the following section, the identified requirements for the environmental impacts and life cycle phases are presented (see Table 5).

Looking at the life cycle steps, most requirements are formulated for the life cycle stages raw material production and textile manufacturing. For each life cycle step, both general criteria and criteria specific to environmental aspects exist. In the raw material production step, most labels set only general criteria, i.e., requirements on general cultivation practices, for example, controlled organic cultivation (Blue Angel Textiles, GOTS) or chemicals, particularly pesticides management (GOTS, bluesign®). The Blue Angel Textile label addresses all specific environmental aspects, e.g., by providing thresholds for the content of specific pollutants present in the fibres. CmiA addresses specific environmental aspects including toxicity, water use, and land use. The GRS label addresses toxicity (restriction of certain chemicals) and recycling (i.e., recycling content).

The textile manufacturing is extensively addressed by all evaluated labels. Most labels provide general criteria, which include requirements on environmental management systems (GRS, bluesign®) or overall compliance of all manufacturing processes with the local legislation at the production site (GRS, Blue Angel Textiles). Specific criteria, for example, thresholds for application of chemicals and wastewater quality parameters are also provided by most labels.

Significantly less focus is set on the distribution, garment use, and textile disposal phases. Only four of the seven ecolabels address these steps, and no ecolabel set any general criteria. In the textile disposal phase, none of the environmental aspects are addressed apart from recycling by the Cradle to Cradle Certified™ label.

Regarding the addressed environmental aspects, toxicity has a clear dominance, and is covered by all seven ecolabels. The aspects of water use and air emissions are addressed by six ecolabels, while the aspects of land use and recycling are addressed by only four ecolabels. The differences in focus on the environmental aspects are not as extreme as the differences in the life cycle steps.

#### *4.4. Comparison of the Label Requirements and Environmental Hotspots Identified by PEF*

The identified label requirements are compared with the environmental hotspots identified by PEF. The comparison was performed based on the PEF study for the impacts water use and air emissions (see Section 3). For other impacts addressed by the labels and analysed in this work (toxicity, land use, and recycling), no hotspot data was available. The hotspot in the impact water use was identified based on the impact categories water scarcity (i.e., water consumption) as well as acidification and freshwater eutrophication (i.e., water pollution). Only two labels—Blue Angel Textiles and CmiA—provide specific requirements for water use in the raw material production stage, whereas only CmiA considers water consumption, e.g., by prohibiting cotton production under irrigation and setting goals for the application of water conservation techniques. A clear environmental hotspot with regard to water pollution occurs in the textile manufacturing phase. Here, all analysed labels (except CmiA that considers only raw material production phase) provide requirements with regard to the quality of discharged water, e.g., by setting thresholds for specific pollutants or requiring compliance with local legislation. In contrast to material production and textile manufacturing phase, water use aspects in the garment use phase are not addressed by any of the analysed labels, although this stage contributes to one-third of the total water scarcity impact in the life cycle of textiles (see Table 3). The hotspot for the impact on air emissions was identified based on the impact category climate change considered in the PEFCR. Still, it should be noted that air emissions addressed by the labels include not only the pollutants that contribute to global warming, but a broader set of substances. The first hotspot arises in the life cycle stage raw material production, which contributes to over 20% of the total impact (see Table 3). Out of seven analysed labels, only the Blue Angel Textiles sets specific requirements on air emissions for the raw material production. The latter include thresholds for sulphur compound emissions, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and nitrogen oxides. Air emissions in the textile manufacturing phase contribute to over one-third of the total impact. This hotspot is addressed by all analysed labels (except CmiA) using specific requirements. In contrast, air emissions in the use stage, which according to PEFCR has around 8% of the total impact, are addressed by only one label: GOTS.

It can be summarized that only one of the hotspots identified by PEF is not covered by the selected labels: Water use in the life cycle stage garment use. Four out of the five hotspots are addressed by the Blue Angel textile label, followed by GOTS with three addressed hotspots.

#### **5. Discussion**

#### *5.1. Focus Points and Gaps in the Textile Ecolabeling*

According to the applied characterization scheme, all labels show strong similarities with regards to the analysed attributes, e.g., most labels have an international focus (except CmiA), operate mainly on the product level, and focus in particular on the end consumer (i.e., B2C). All labels have a multi-aspect approach and intend environmental excellence of the certified products. However, the scope with regard to the considered environmental aspects and life cycle stages significantly differs between the analysed labels. While the labels have a comparably similar focus with regard to toxicity and water use in the raw material production and textile manufacturing phase, other impacts (e.g., land use) and life cycle stages (e.g., distribution and use phase) are considered sporadically by different labels. Furthermore, the way the requirements set significantly differ from label to label, i.e., a label provides only general requirements, only specific requirements, or both. This can lead to large differences in the broadness and strictness of the provided requirements. For example, general requirements for cotton cultivation stage include sourcing of organic cotton. Although organic production usually leads to a reduction of fertilizers and pesticides use, it does not set any restrictions on water use (e.g., as it is done by the specific requirement set by the CmiA label). Nevertheless, cotton cultivation is usually associated with high water consumption, which remains not addressed if only a

general requirement is applied for this life cycle stage. In the textile manufacturing phase, general requirements include, for example, implementation of environmental management on a company level, which may reduce environmental impacts that are not directly related to the product, but the organization as a whole (e.g., waste management). In this case, the label with both types of requirements (general and specific) has an advantage over the labels that adopt only a general or specific requirement.

It can be summarized that although the analysed labels have strong similarities (according to the characterization scheme), they are not comparable due to large differences between considered life cycle stages and environmental impacts, as well as the way the requirements are set (i.e., general or specific). These findings are similar to the results of Clancy et al. who demonstrated different scopes of six textile ecolabels with regard to considered life cycle stages [24]. The authors demonstrate that a strong focus is set on the resource acquisition/farming, production of yarn/fabric, and garment manufacturing phases, which is in line with current study. The focus on the use phase was identified for three labels, which is not confirmed for the labels analysed in the current study. Possible reasons for this are discussed later in this section.

With regard to the environmental impacts, it can be seen that the hotspots (water use and air emissions) in the raw material production and textile manufacturing phase are covered by most labels. In contrast, the hotspot related to the water use in the textile usage phase remains a gap despite its high relevance. For the use phase, only toxicity and air emissions are explicitly addressed by one label, while water is not addressed at all. Of course, it is questionable whether and how producers and consumers can influence this life cycle phase, especially explicitly. Even though some studies demonstrate that fibre and garment type can influence consumer behaviour, they also show that laundry practices are highly dependent on cultural and country specific effects (habit of hand washing, quality of washing machines, use of tumble dryers) [61,62]. They are further linked to garment use, social auditing, cultural norms, garment aesthetics, life stage, and household arrangements [63]. The extent to which producers and consumers can influence laundry practices is therefore complex, and further research is needed to identify which requirements can sufficiently influence the impacts associated with the use phase of textiles. Therefore, although the labels Blue Angel Textile and GOTS provide some criteria for the use phase (e.g., the tolerance of change in dimensions during washing and drying or (colour) fastness to washing, perspiration, rubbing, light, and salvia) they were not considered for the evaluation of the use phase in this study. The analysed labels therefore leave out some crucial environmental aspects and life cycle steps, especially in the downstream life cycle stages. For this reason, the claim that the textiles sealed with one of the analysed labels are produced in an environmentally friendly manner can only be partly confirmed.

The ecolabels' function, as defined in chapter 1.2, is to fill a gap in the consumer's knowledge about environmental product information that the consumer cannot obtain on their own [44]. The ISO norm 14,020 further claims that an ecolabel shall consider the life cycle of a product or service from production to final deposit [43]. The fact that the distribution, garment use, and garment disposal steps are neglected by the analysed ecolabels shows that this is not necessarily the case. It is therefore questionable if these ecolabels successfully fill the environmental information gap as they ought to.

One solution to increase comprehensibility given the large number of different focus areas of the ecolabels is an umbrella ecolabel. The idea of such an umbrella ecolabel is to form one ecolabel that represents compliance with many different ecolabels, each with different focus areas, so that the umbrella label addresses the sum of important aspects. Consumers can then rely on this umbrella label, instead of familiarizing with various individual ecolabels. One such umbrella label is The Grüner Knopf, which has been developed by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development and was introduced in September 2019 in Germany [64]. The Grüner Knopf is based on recognized ecolabels in the areas of social and environmental sustainability. For environmental sustainability, so far, nine ecolabels are named that qualify as a basis for the Grüner Knopf. Out of those nine ecolabels, four were analysed in this article: GOTS, Blue Angel, bluesign®, and Cradle to Cradle Certified™ (silver). The requirements for environmental sustainability are set by the Grüner Knopf in the areas of waste water, air emissions, chemical residues, chemicals harmful to health, chemicals harmful to the environment, EU Chemicals Regulation REACH, biodegradability, use of natural fibres, and use of synthetic fibres [64]. These requirements focus only on textile production, leaving out all other life cycle steps. The Grüner Knopf ecolabel therefore, so far, does not add to the existing ecolabels when it comes to environmental sustainability, or the needed informational value.

#### *5.2. Limitations of Results*

Seven labels with different scopes were selected for the evaluation. Although the selected labels are broadly applied in textile sector, they cannot be seen as a representation of all existing textile ecolabels.

According to the analysed life cycle steps and environmental aspects, five focus areas (toxicity, water use, air emissions, land use, recycling) were identified. However, the analysis solely considers whether these focus areas are addressed by the labels, but does not evaluate how strict the criteria are. For example, the differences between the thresholds for the emissions in water during the textile production set by different levels are not evaluated. Therefore, a quantitative comparison of the criteria adopted by different labels or definite statements on the quality of those criteria or the ecolabels themselves is impossible. The results merely present if environmental aspects are explicitly addressed in a certain life cycle step, but do not inform about the quality or quantity of the criteria. The seven ecolabels themselves are not directly comparable nor are the differently established criteria. An effort to make the criteria comparable would need to include a way to break down the different approaches and label structures. For this, an approach would be needed to make a single set of requirements comparable to a five level system as well as a traffic light system of requirements adopted by some of the evaluated labels.

The analysis of the hotspots in the textile life cycle includes only the aspects water use (consumption and pollution) and air emissions (based on the PEFCR impact category climate change). Other hotspots could not be evaluated due to missing data. Nevertheless, existing literature highlights further hotspots. As demonstrated in several studies, toxicity effects are particularly relevant in the raw material production (e.g., due to application of pesticides in the cotton cultivation [65,66] or input of chemicals during the production of man-made fibres [67] and textile manufacturing (e.g., mainly due to the input of dyes and auxiliary materials during the textile finishing) phases. While all labels (except CmiA) have a strong focus on the textile manufacturing step, for which several restrictions and thresholds with regard to the usage of toxic substances are provided, toxicity impacts in the raw material production stage are addressed only by three labels. Still, toxicity in the raw material production phase is indirectly addressed by other labels by means of the general criteria like organic cultivation and/or compliance with the legislation on the regulation of chemicals. Another relevant hotspot is land use in the raw material production, which is however addressed only by two labels: Blue Angel Textiles (requirement to source cellulose from wood cultivated according to sustainable forestry management principles) and CmiA (e.g., cutting primary forest is an exclusion criteria, further requirements are available). Production of natural fibres usually leads to the cultivation of a monoculture on large areas. This can lead to such environmental impacts as loss of biodiversity [68] or an increase of wild fires, e.g., in the case of eucalyptus forests, which are often used as a raw material for the production of cellulose fibres [69]. All these aspects are underrepresented in the requirements of the labels.

The analysis further disregards unmentioned environmental aspects. For example, microplastics pollution, which are a relevant environmental aspect, as the use of fibres based on petrochemicals is constantly increasing [8]. This affects environmental aspects such as air emissions during raw material production and emissions to water during the

garment use phase. With each washing cycle, microplastics enter the ecosystem. As this specific environmental aspect was not included in any of the criteria, it was not included in the analysis even though it is a relevant aspect.

A further limitation to the results is that due to the scope of this research, it was not possible to consider the social criteria of textile production. Hence, even though some of the labels address social criteria, these were not evaluated. Including the element of social criteria makes the discussion, especially around the understandability of ecolabels for consumers and use of an umbrella ecolabel, even more complicated.

#### **6. Conclusions**

The goal of this paper was to characterize selected labels to identify their strength and weaknesses as well as to determine whether they address all relevant environmental aspects over their life cycle. The analysis showed that none of the selected labels considers all relevant life cycle phases or all relevant environmental impacts. While a clear focus is set on the upstream life cycle phases and for the environmental aspects toxicity, water use, and air emissions, significant gaps in the downstream phases could be identified. Overall, the Blue Angel Textile and the GOTS label performed best. This questions whether the ecolabels are able to fill consumers' information gaps for environmental information as well as lead to more environmental friendly consumption and products.

Based on the presented results of the analysis, several recommendations for policy and practitioners can be derived. The use phase of textiles needs to be considered, because impacts arise due to water and electricity use for washing as well as maintenance of textiles. However, impacts due to water use and electricity, which highly depend on consumer behaviour, are challenging to include in a label. Rather, a reduction of impacts should be reached by awareness rising of consumers. The detergent sector attributes impacts of water use and electricity for washing to the detergents life cycle and is carrying out awareness rising campaigns to change consumers washing behaviours for several years now. By teaming up on these awareness raising campaigns, the use phase of textiles might be reduced in the future. This aspect maintenance should be included in labels as it can be more easily measured and does not fully rely on consumer behaviour, e.g., certain companies are now offering lifelong maintenance and repairs. Further, the mandatory use of labels should be discussed. There are several reasons why ecolabels are mostly a voluntary policy instrument (e.g., costs for company and consumer). However, due to the sever impacts of the textile sector, a mandatory application of labels should be considered, similar as it is done for energy intensive products (e.g., European energy consumption labelling scheme). Different approaches are possible, e.g., deriving a mandatory European label for textile or defining clear benchmarks with regard to environmental impacts that need to be fulfilled by all companies on the European market. One option to do that could be the use of umbrella labels as they enhance not only comprehensibility, but also bring the best of different labels with regard to considered aspect and well-formulated criteria together. For the voluntary market, strengthening exiting well-performing eco labels like the German Blue Angel by carrying out information campaigns to inform more consumers about these labels, and therefore increasing the pressure for more companies to label their products. Further, all labels should be working on including unaddressed relevant environmental impacts.

**Supplementary Materials:** The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1 050/13/4/1751/s1, Table S1: Textile LCA studies in the literature, Table S2: Blue Angel Textiles, Table S3: bluesign®, Table S4: Cotton made in Africa, Table S5: Cradle to Cradle CertifiedTM, Table S6: GOTS Global Organic Content Standard, Table S7: Global Recycled Standard (GRS), Table S8: VAUDE Green Shape.

**Author Contributions:** F.D. and N.M. were mainly responsible for the conceptualization of the paper as well as developing the methodology. Carrying out the search for the labels and analysis of the labels was done by F.D. The draft of the paper was written by F.D., while N.M., V.B.; and M.F. reviewed the paper draft. All authors were involved in reviewing and editing the final paper draft. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** Data not applicable.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**

