Library

Product guidance on insulation from the Healthy Building Network, to support finding safer products.

Guidance from the Healthy Building Network on selecting safer products for interior furniture and fittings.  The guidance looks at wood and composite materials, including glues and resins contained with these products.

Guidance from the Healthy Building Network on selecting a safer roofing product.

In recent years, awareness of the negative impacts of plastic waste and pollution on our environment has heightened.   The construction sector’s use of plastic continues to grow and there is a lack of clarity on how construction plastics at the end of life are managed. There is still much to learn about plastics in construction, such as the volumes of plastic used, types of polymers, their applications and lifespans. 

This interactive PDF guide has been developed by the Alliance for Sustainable Building Products and peer-reviewed by the ASBP Plastics in Construction Group.

We are in the midst of a triple planetary crisis. Climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution endanger the environment and all Earth’s inhabitants – including us. Five of the nine planetary boundaries have been crossed, creating an environment beyond the safe operating space for humanity. Each of the problems, from rising rates of extinction to carbon emissions and plastic pollution, is drastic and frightening on its own. They also interact.

Given the rates of environmental decline, the interactions between climate change and chemical pollution are especially pernicious. The chemical sector is part of the climate problem because of its own greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the global warming potential (GWP) of some of the chemicals it produces. Yet, through green chemistry, it could be part of the solution. The need for such solutions is urgent. A warmer world, with less predictable weather patterns and more intense storms, alters how chemicals behave in the environment and how we are exposed to them.

There are dangerous feedback loops. Climate change can lead to shifts in chemical production and use, which, in turn, could fuel further climate change. Some of these links are relatively direct. A warmer world increases the demand for air conditioning. This requires chemical refrigerants. More demand boosts production and, consequently, emissions from the sector. Other feedback loops could be less obvious. There will be more droughts and flooding, which could increase pest and disease outbreaks. This could lead to further use of pesticides and fertilizers. Again, there is an increase in demand and emissions, which adds to the climate crisis.

There is growing evidence of the many varied interconnections between climate change and chemical production and use. Yet, governance of these issues is largely working in silos. Climate change actors deal with reducing emissions and adapting to a warmer world but largely ignore chemicals. Chemicals actors are slowly drawing links to climate change (with the exception of the ozone regime that holds global warming as a central issue). This Policy Brief considers the interactions between climate change and chemicals in more detail, maps the governance connections – or lack thereof, and considers options for the future.

Chemicals are a climate problem

The chemicals sector both produces GHGs on its own and contributes significantly to the global demand for fossil fuels. The chemical sector is the third largest industrial emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2). According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the chemicals sector was responsible for 14% of industrial GHG emissions in 2019 (see Figure 1). It is also the single biggest industrial user of fossil fuels for both energy and feedstock purposes. Natural gas, followed by coal, are widely used energy feedstocks.

Figure 1. Global GHG emission trends by industry subsectors

Source: IPCC Working Group III Summary for Policymakers

During chemicals manufacture, GHG emissions come from fossil fuel combustion, electricity use, and fossil fuels used as chemical feedstocks. GHG emissions are also by-products of chemical reactions. About quarter of emissions are industrial process emissions, and the rest are from fuel combustion. The highest share of emissions is from ammonia production, followed by high-value chemicals (e.g., ethylene, propylene, benzene, toluene, and mixed xylenes) and methanol. A recent study found that the production of “forever chemicals” (formally per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS) is associated with substantial hydrochlorofluorocarbons (specifically, HCFC-22) emissions. HCFCs are potent GHGs, far more damaging to the climate than CO2. It is also used as an intermediary in PFAS production.

In addition, some chemicals themselves contribute directly to climate change. Chemicals with high GWP trap heat in the atmosphere. Several fluorinated chemicals, often used as refrigerants, have a high GWP value. These include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), HCFCs, and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), each of which are magnitudes more potent than CO2. The Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol sought to address HFCs, in part because they were increasingly being used to replace CFCs after they were banned under the Protocol.

Climate scientists are closely considering the chemical sector’s emissions. The International Energy Agency (IEA) finds that the chemicals sector is not on track to meet net zero. The IPCC reports that, on average, the sector’s emissions grew by over 1.5% per year between 2010 and 2019. According to the IEA, the carbon intensity of the sector, that is, how much CO2 is produced per tonne of primary chemicals, has remained stable.

There are key regional differences. Chemicals production has shifted to the Global South, bringing with it the emissions from the sector. In 2020, China was responsible for roughly 57% of global GHG emissions associated with petrochemicals, while the US and Europe accounted for 6% and 5%, respectively. In part, this variation is down to where the industry gets its energy. The more coal, for example, in the energy mix, the higher the emissions from the sector.

The chemicals sector has yet to find or implement efficiencies to decrease its CO2 intensity. As a result, increased production necessarily leads to increased emissions. Reducing carbon intensity can be a step toward addressing the sector’s emissions while still meeting demand. While efficiency can be a key solution, the issue of raw materials and feedstocks remains. Overall, we still have an complete picture. Emissions reporting is improving, but as a report from Lund University makes clear, disclosure is partial and inconsistent, and complicated by long, complex value changes.

Potential solutions

Addressing climate change emissions may become a pressing concern for the industry. Pressure from governments, coupled with changes to the global energy system, may require companies to act to reduce emissions and to find alternatives to using fossil fuels as inputs. Climate action could build long-term value. There are also economic opportunities for the industry to help itself, and others, reduce GHGs, including in the transportation and aviation sectors.

There are analyses of potential solutions that the industry can implement to reduce GHG emissions in the sector, many of which point to the opportunities for reaching net zero. Net zero, as a concept, recognizes that some sectors may be difficult to fully decarbonize. Therefore, a mix of emissions reductions and offsetting or carbon capture and storage (CCS) could realize a “balance” between emissions and removals. Some research has advocated for the use of carbon capture technologies to reduce emissions in the sector, and for using carbon from sequestered CO2, called carbon capture and utilization. Biomass could potentially replace fossil fuels as raw materials, although there would be implications for land use.

There are other solutions at hand, drawing from ideas in the chemicals community, particularly green chemistry and circular economy. Green chemistry minimizes the need for hazardous substances when designing products and production processes. It mimics nature, by using renewable and biodegradable materials. The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) has outlined ten objectives for green chemistry, including using chemistry to minimize hazards, avoiding regrettable substitutions, and green sourcing feedstocks and production processes.

Similarly, circular economy thinking can help with identifying potential impacts from a product’s design to its end of life. Tools such as lifecycle assessment can include GHGs. For example, making products more reusable and repairable will decrease demand for new products and chemicals, which will reduce emissions from the sector. Renewable inputs could be a cost effective and sustainable solution for the industry.

Climate change is a chemicals problem

The impacts of climate change complicate chemicals management in several ways. There is a growing need for the sector and governments to think about climate adaptation (that is, building resilience to a warmer, less predictable world) in the context of chemicals management. It can increase the toxicity of some chemicals and amplify their releases into the environment. At the same time, climate change raises risks for chemicals and waste management facilities to keep hazardous products away from the surrounding environment and populations.

Already, the world is more than 1.1°C warmer than the pre-industrial era. Higher temperatures can lead to an increase in the toxicity of persistent organic pollutants (POPs), air pollutants, and pesticides, including organophosphate insecticides such as chlorpyrifos. Increased temperature can influence the fate and behavior of POPs, affecting how humans are exposed to these chemicals. Ecosystems are at risk as well. Ocean acidification may influence the behavior of metals in marine sediments, as well as their toxicity, impacting ecosystems and their inhabitants on the ocean floor. For animals already at the edge of their ability to survive in a warmer world, increased chemical toxicity could be particularly harmful.

Other effects of climate change are likely to amplify the releases of chemicals, either from the environment directly, or by damaging infrastructure. Melting ice is particularly worrying. Melting glaciers on the Tibetan Plateau release PFAS. Mercury may emerge from thawing permafrost. Melting Arctic ice could lead to four-fold increase in banned POPs in Arctic waters.

Flooding, “super-storms,” and other climate-fueled events can challenge chemicals management. These events can exacerbate the risks by increasing the likelihood of spills, contamination, infrastructure damage, and altered environmental conditions. For example, the Krasny Bor hazardous waste site in Russia has previously flooded. Assessment projects have tried to identify the risks of releases into the surrounding environment. The World Health Organization (WHO) has prepared guidance for public health authorities on the types of risks associated with chemicals after cyclones and flooding. For both, it highlights an increased risk of burns, poisoning, respiratory tract injuries, and injuries to workers.

Other tools of chemical management may need to be updated. Risk assessments often involve models or data on human and animal exposure. Altering the toxicity, behavior, and movement of chemicals could require updates to models and methodologies. It may also mean governments and researchers may have to enlarge their sample populations.

There will be regional differences in how climate change affects chemicals management and human exposure. The Arctic is of particular concern. It is highly vulnerable to both climate change and chemical pollution. Melting ice, coupled with changes to precipitation, water salinity, and sea ice quality, could unlock POPs and other chemicals deposited in the region, leading to unintentional releases and movement. These climate factors are associated with POPs concentrations in multiple Arctic biota. Other regions will face their own challenges. Small island States are already experiencing the effects of sea level rise, which could increase chemical releases from waste disposal sites. Solutions to chemical management in the context of a warmer, more turbulent world will have to be tailored to regional, and perhaps local, differences.

The potential impacts of climate change on the sector are wide ranging, from operations to risk assessments. There are equally a wide range of measures that could be implemented, as outlined in a 2015 UK Climate Change Adaptation Guidance.

Governance silos

Despite all the interconnections, climate governance rarely touches on chemicals specifically, and vice versa. The Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol on ozone depleting chemicals are an exception. These treaties, working together, regulate chemicals that damage the ozone layer, and also consider the GWP of chemicals. The Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol regulates HFCs, potent GHGs.

The Paris Agreement on climate change requires countries to submit or update nationally determined contributions (NDCs) every five years. The content of these pledges is almost entirely up to countries. Developed countries are required to have an economy-wide numerical target. Developing countries are encouraged to do so. In the current set of NDCs, 115 countries’ pledges include a target for industry, of which chemicals is a part. Waste is its own sector in climate planning and reporting, widely included in NDCs.

There is a role in global climate governance for the private sector and other actors to also make pledges under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Global Climate Action portal encourages and tracks the pledges of a wide range of non-state actors. The portal allows for searching for chemicals companies specifically. In total, 289 chemicals companies logged an action, 263 of which made a commitment. So far, 207 of these companies have reported on their progress toward that commitment. Many of these seem to be small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Of the top 20 chemical companies in the world, 11 registered on the portal, nine have at least one commitment, and five had reported back. Less than 40% of US-based Independent Commodity Intelligence Services (ICIS) Top 100 companies have net-zero goals or align with the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi).

In chemicals governance, there have been a growing number of reports to raise awareness of the interconnections between chemicals and climate change, but little in the way of rule making to draw firmer links. The Stockholm Convention has repeatedly explored the connections between POPs and climate change. In conjunction with the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, the Secretariat produced a report as early as 2011. Another report, co-authored with the Minamata Convention Secretariat, was published in 2022. The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPRC) published a report on POPs and climate change in 2013 It noted that climate change could affect some criteria that the Committee’s considers when assessing chemicals, such as toxicity and long-range environmental transport (LRET).

As yet, climate change has not been incorporated in the Committee’s work. In part, this may be due to its mandate to consider the persistence, toxicity, bioaccumulation, and LRET of a chemical based on existing information and data. Models predicting future values are not considered as part of the Committee’s reviews.

In the current negotiations for the post-2020 strategic approach to chemicals and waste, there is a target related to synergies and linkages with other policies (currently, target E6). At present, the text mentions climate change, biodiversity, and other areas such as health. There is also a target related to implementing policies to encourage production with sustainable and safer alternatives. This could include policies to facilitate the use of cleaner production technologies, or product re-use and recycling, which could indirectly help reduce GHG emissions. Realizing these targets, in whatever final, adopted form they will take, will require further drawing the links between these two governance arenas.

Bridging the gaps

The biodiversity-climate link could be instructive. It took years of work, largely on the part of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Secretariat, to forge the connections and conduct outreach to the climate community. Recently, there have been decisions in the UNFCCC and CBD that recognize these connections. Most revolve around the idea of nature-based solutions (NbS). The concept has proved useful to articulate nature-climate connections in a way that facilitates actions on both sides.

At present, the chemicals-climate link lacks such a unifying concept. Climate actors may ask, “why should we do more on chemicals, specifically? What’s the value added?” Chemicals actors could ask the same questions. A concept bridging and articulating the solutions could help provide a common frame of reference and action.

Building this bridge may require collaboration. Some Secretariats, namely the UNFCCC and the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions (BRS) Secretariats, are already talking about commonalities. Wider engagement among scientific communities, activists, and states could further improve knowledge of how intertwined the climate and pollution crises are, and the implications for the future.

* * *

This document has been developed within the framework of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) project ID: 9771 on Global Best Practices on Emerging Chemical Policy Issues of Concern under the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM). This project is funded by the GEF, implemented by UNEP, and executed by the SAICM Secretariat. The International Institute for Sustainable Development acknowledges the financial contribution of the GEF to the development of this policy brief.

This Policy Brief is the seventh in a series featuring cross-cutting topics relating to the sound management of chemicals and waste. It was written by Jen Allan, Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) Strategic Advisor. The series editor is Elena Kosolapova, Senior Policy Advisor, Tracking Progress Program, IISD.

This site is a useful introduction to chemicals in building products. It lists the most commonly found hazardous chemicals in certain building products and the associated health risks.

Bedford Green House is a 118-unit, 13-storey affordable housing development in New York City, with sustainable design and resident health at its heart. The development used HomeFree to inform the selection of building materials, considering human health impacts. This included using solid core doors with a NAUF (No Added Urea Formaldehyde) core and hardwood plywood cabinets which use less binder (and therefore less formaldehyde) than particleboard and MDF.

When negotiators convene at the fifth International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM5) in Bonn, Germany, in September 2023 to decide on a new global framework for the sustainable management of chemicals and waste, they will consider draft targets, and one of the proposals for implementation of the new framework seeks to encourage select “chemical intensive economic sectors and value chains” to scale-up global action that produces concrete results. One specific draft target calls for the development of sustainable chemical and waste management strategies in chemical intensive sectors and industries across value chains. The negotiations seek to develop a new global framework to replace the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) created by ICCM1 in 2006.

At a January 2023 workshop convened in Paris, France, by the proponent of the implementation proposal, the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC), textiles was discussed as a candidate sector for implementation. The IOMC plans a further stakeholder consultation from 20-21 June 2023 to flesh out ideas for guidance to support strategies and a possible global programme on advancing chemicals and waste management in economic industry sectors and their value chains.

At a negotiating session held in Bucharest, Romania, in August 2022, the textiles sector was an active participant in the talks: the Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC) – a multi-stakeholder organization comprising over 150 contributors, including leading brands such as Adidas, Nike, and Levi Straus – made statements about the sector’s desire to actively engage in the future framework, and offered proposals for framework elements such as sectoral targets and indicators.

The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) has identified textiles – which encompasses not only apparel and footwear, but also some home furnishings (e.g., carpets, curtains, and upholstery) and “technical textiles” (e.g., medical textiles, geotextiles, seat covers, and protective clothing) – as a high-priority industry sector in shifting to a circular economy. Its importance to economies, natural resource management, gender equality, and sustainable development has been reflected in UNEP’s Medium-Term Strategy, resulting in the development of UNEP’s Textile Flagship Initiative. The Initiative aims to align UNEP’s work across three priorities needed to deliver system change towards sustainability and circularity – shifting consumption patterns, improving practices, and investing in infrastructure. These priorities are reflected in UNEP’s forthcoming report titled, ‘Sustainability and Circularity in the Textile Value Chain: A Global Roadmap.’ One of the impact areas of the project aims to reduce pollution in the environment and its impacts on human health by managing chemicals of concern across the textiles value chain.

This Policy Brief discusses SAICM’s longstanding interest in the textiles sector, the IOMC’s proposal, and how an implementation programme under the successor framework might engage with the industry.

SAICM and its interest in the textiles sector

SAICM grew out of a goal endorsed by the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) for the world to use and produce chemicals by 2020 in ways that minimize significant adverse effects on human health and the environment. The WSSD also called for developing “a strategic approach to international chemicals management” by 2005. This led to SAICM’s launch at ICCM1 in 2006 as a flexible, voluntary, non-binding, multi-stakeholder, and multi-sectoral initiative dedicated to promoting collaboration aimed at achieving the 2020 goal.

As originally conceived, SAICM was due to expire when ICCM5 convened in 2020. However, by the time ICCM4 convened in September 2015, it became clear that the 2020 goal would not be achieved in most countries. ICCM4 decided to launch an intersessional process aimed at designing a post-2020 framework or platform for the sound management of both chemicals and waste for consideration by ICCM5 in 2020. Due to delays in negotiations caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, ICCM5 was postponed until September 2023.

SAICM’s interest in the textiles sector as a significant user of chemicals came early, primarily through its Chemicals in Products (CiP) initiative. CiP was designated as an Emerging Policy Issue in 2009, and a CiP Programme was created by ICCM3 in 2012, led by UNEP, with a focus on four priority sectors, one of which was textiles. In the run up to ICCM3, UNEP produced a CiP case study on chemicals in textiles.

SAICM has also produced relevant knowledge products, such as the report and a policy brief on addressing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as a chemical class in the textile industry. The report and brief suggest how SAICM might advance the concept of approaching PFAS as a class of chemicals for control purposes, rather than chemical-by-chemical as the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) does, and phase out non-essential uses, the textile sector serving as a test case.

IOMC’s proposal for sectoral implementation programmes under a new global framework

The IOMC is an international coordinating group bringing together nine Participating Organizations to promote sound chemical management worldwide through coordination of policies and activities. Participating Organizations include UNEP, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), the International Labour Organization (ILO), the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the UN Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

In a discussion paper presenting its proposals for an implementation programme under the new global framework, the IOMC suggests encouraging further action “based on industry initiatives that have been initiated voluntarily, resulted from regulatory requirements, or responded to pressure from public interest groups.” It also suggests choosing industry sectors and product value chains whose retailers have already undertaken “frontrunner” initiatives demonstrating commitment and willingness to engage, with a view to strengthening, linking, and expanding such initiatives.

The textiles industry qualifies on all counts. Major brands and retailers form the backbone of ZDHC. They have already developed several chemical restriction lists, management guidance, and standards, and backed certification and labeling schemes. Major brands, retailers, trade associations, and others in the sector have also engaged in the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s Make Textiles Circular initiative, the Fashion Pact, the Policy Hub, and the Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action.

In addition, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) can be recruited for realizing this implementation programme, as it is already committed to such work under GEF-8 programming directions. The GEF’s new Elimination of Hazardous Chemicals from Supply Chains Integrated Program commits the Facility to work on the textiles supply chain. A recently launched UNEP-implemented GEF project will work with four Asian nations – Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Viet Nam – representing 15% of global clothing exports to address chemicals of concern in their textiles industries.

The IOMC paper suggests engaging a candidate economic industry to develop, through dialogue, a sector vision and roadmap concerning important sustainability parameters, such as minimizing the use of hazardous substances, or advancing circularity objectives, which cover at least four areas:

• advancing the science on chemicals of concern;
• advancing green and sustainable chemistry technology innovation;
• strengthening regulations and policies; and
• mobilizing finance.

The textile sector already has a head start on this front, since it has been engaged with UNEP in dialogue to develop the aforementioned global roadmap for sustainability and circularity for the sector.

The paper further suggests that each sector and industry initiative outline specific measures or steps to take, such as:

• developing a list of hazardous substances causing concern in raw materials and supplies and production processes, such as a manufacturing restricted substances list (MRSL);
• developing standards that specify acceptable levels of chemical residues in finished products, either through a restricted substances list (RSL) or maximum residue levels;
• developing and implementing risk reduction measures to minimize occupational and public exposure, as well as emissions to air, land, and water, when hazardous substances cannot be phased out;
• identifying and implementing sustainable practices and alternatives, including through green and sustainable chemistry innovation, such as changes in processes, recipes, or product design, based on robust criteria and guidance on what constitutes safer alternatives; and
• developing sector-specific indicators to measure progress.

Here, too, the textile sector has a head start on these tasks. Oeko-Tex, the American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA), Apparel & Footwear International RSL Management Working Group (AFIRM), and Bluesign have developed RSLs, and most major brands have developed their own RSLs aligned with one or several of these four. Oeko-Tex and ZDHC have developed MRSLs, and individual companies, if they have an MRSL, tend to align theirs with ZDHC’s. There are also several relevant certification and labeling schemes (see Figure 1), and textile-sector goals and targets have been developed to provide indicators for measuring progress (see Figure 2).

Figure 1: Relevant restricted lists, certification schemes and labels regarding chemicals in textiles

Figure 2: Existing goals/targets regarding chemicals/circularity in textiles

Focusing on chemicals of concern in textile production under a future framework implementation programme

The textile sector may have a head start, but much work on chemicals management in the sector remains that could be taken up by an implementation programme under the new global chemicals and waste framework.

For example, while ZDHC’s MRSL is well regarded, its adherents currently account for only a limited percentage of the industry and the list notably is not taken up by the many small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that comprise much of the textile value chain.

As for RSLs, while many companies have adopted their own, these vary, as do the competing attempts at developing harmonized RSLs (Okeo-Tex, AFIRM, AAFA). Furthermore, existing RSLs tend to reflect only the chemical restrictions currently in place by major regulators – primarily the European Union (EU) – and the principal international convention restricting hazardous substances, the Stockholm Convention on POPs. In addition, these restrictions cover only dozens of the thousands of chemicals used in textile production, usually do not address all categories of concern (prioritizing carcinogens, mutagens, and teratogens, but not always toxins to aquatic life, endocrine disruptors, allergens, or irritants), and involve substances selected on a slow substance-by-substance basis that requires years to arrive at final regulatory decisions.

Figure 3: A timeline of existing initiatives on chemicals of concern in textiles

What would it take to address all potential chemicals of concern in the textile value chain?

Among the fibers used in textile production globally in 2021, cotton has the largest share among natural fibers (22% of all fibers), and polyester the largest among synthetic fibers (54% of all fibers). Other inputs include man-made cellulosic fibers, nylon, acrylic, leather, wool, polyurethane, bamboo, and silk.

In the case of natural fibers, chemical use starts during farming. Cotton is a significant consumer of chemical pesticides and fertilizers. In 2019, cotton accounted for 4.71%, by value, of all the chemical pesticides sold globally, and 10.24%, by value of all insecticides used in global crop protection. In 2018, cotton accounted for around 4% of global nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer consumption. A push for greater global adherence to an organic cotton or organic textile standard, while recognizing the need for in-conversion/ transitional periods and support for farmers to move towards organic practices, could significantly cut consumption of chemicals at this stage in the value chain.

Whether made from natural or synthetic fibers or some combination thereof, all textiles undergo significant chemical treatment at many production and processing stages before their sale to the final consumer.

Figure 4: Types of Chemicals Used in the Textiles Industry Source: Adapted from NRDC, A Review of PAS as a Chemical Class in the Textile Sector (2021)

Currently, obtaining complete, accurate, and up-to-date information on the number, volumes, and identities of the chemicals used in textile production is difficult. Two oft-cited estimates are that over 8,000 chemicals are used in textile production and that for every one kilogram (kg) of cotton textiles made, 0.35-1.5 kg of chemicals are used. However, the origins of both estimates are hard to pin down. These figures are also from over ten years ago and may not reflect current market realities.

A comprehensive survey, inventory, or database of chemicals used in textile production would be difficult to complete due to the complexity and global nature of the textiles value chain, involving stages and actors across many countries and jurisdictions with varying ranges of capacity, regulation, industry standards, and diligence. Inter-party communication about, and tracking of, chemicals used among the points in the chain is often minimal. A concerted effort by IOMC Participating Organizations, governments, industry (including SMEs), and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from across the globe under the umbrella of an implementation programme such as the one the IOMC proposes might be able to accomplish this task.

Without better accounting of the universe of chemicals used in textiles production, it is difficult to identify, triage, assess, and regulate chemicals of concern, deciding which need to be banned, which need to be subjected to occupational exposure and/or emission limits (wet processing of textiles, for example, is a major source of wastewater discharges), and the presence of which chemicals in textile products (and at what levels) should be mandatory to disclose to consumers. Some have already been identified (see Figure 4), but the current extent of their use worldwide remains unclear – another data gap an implementation programme might address.

Figure 5: Some Chemicals of Concern Used in the Textiles Industry Source: Compiled by the author from various sources

The stakeholder consultation process involved in an implementation programme could address how to prioritize and allocate reviews of possible chemicals of concern, possibly through the chemical class or family approach instead of substance-by-substance, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has suggested for PFAS. Identified chemicals of concern could be added to a globally harmonized MRSL. The value chain could then use the MRSL to prioritize chemicals for restrictions or phaseout and for targeting for substitution without waiting for regulatory agencies to act. A commonly agreed certification and/or labeling scheme could identify which brands and products align with the harmonized MRSL. In those cases where emissions or occupational exposure are involved, maximum permissible levels could be identified in accordance with best practice and shared as guidance across the value chain, as ZDHC is seeking to do with its wastewater guidelines.

Another chemicals in textiles issue an implementation programme might address is trade. Several recent studies have shown that even when a jurisdiction outlaws chemicals of concern in textiles, imported apparel found for retail sale in that jurisdiction still contains values violating the restrictions. The new programme can identify trade issues for follow-up in appropriate fora such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and could also identify and/or provide support required to downstream chemical users, including SMEs.

A possible waste management component for a textiles sector implementation programme?

While SAICM has tended to focus more on chemicals management than waste issues, negotiators of the successor framework conceive of it addressing the latter as well. The IOMC’s proposal for an implementation programme reflects this expected broader mandate, although it elaborates on chemicals management but not on waste management.

The textiles sector is very wasteful and almost entirely linear, so there could be much to discuss under an implementation programme of the type conceived by the IOMC. While textile production volumes doubled from 2000-2015, the clothing utilization rate, that is the number of times a garment is worn before it ceases to be used, decreased by an average of 36%. Reportedly, more than half of “fast fashion” is disposed of within a year. Of the total fiber input used to produce clothing, 87% ends up being landfilled or incinerated – the equivalent of one garbage truck full of clothes disposed every second. Less than 1% of material used to produce clothing is recycled into new clothing, a recycling rate ranking below that of most single-use plastic packaging.

Figure 6: Global material flows for clothing in 2015

Source: Ellen MacArthur Foundation, A new textiles economy: Redesigning fashion’s future (2017)

Circularity goes well beyond waste management and recycling fibers. As outlined by UNEP (Figure 6), “reduce by design” aims to reduce the amount of material, particularly raw material, and hazardous chemicals consumed during production and during use, from the very beginning of product and service conceptualization. Production and consumption patterns as well as end-of-life processes of textile products are optimized via innovative product designs and business models, resulting in not only eliminated harmful impacts and waste but also improved social protections and business resilience. However, there is a need to reduce the harm of the linear textile system we have today, while preparing for the needs and wants of the circular textile system of tomorrow, and this includes better waste management.

Figure 7. A circular textile value chain

Source: UNEP, Sustainability and Circularity in the Textile Value Chain: Global Stocktaking (2021)

Strategies for a circular economy specific to the textiles value chain have been proposed by UNEP, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, the EU, Germany, and the Netherlands. The UN Alliance for Sustainable Fashion has engaged the fashion industry in discussions on steps to create a circular economy in textiles, as has UNEP. The Global Fashion Agenda (GFA) has created a Global Circular Fashion Forum and worked with UNEP to identify and converge existing industry targets, including on smart material choices, resource stewardship (including a specific target on chemicals of concern management/phaseout), and circular systems. The GEF has already approved two projects on circular economy and textiles covering four African countries, one implemented by UNEP, the other by UNIDO.

Figure 8: A Timeline of select initiatives regarding a circular economy in textiles

Hence, the building blocks are there to work with in any waste management component of the proposed implementation programme and also look at circularity more widely (with a focus on chemicals), but a rationale for the value added that the SAICM successor can bring needs to be elaborated and the issues for the waste component to focus on remain to be fleshed out.

The new global chemicals and waste framework might contribute to the existing work on circularity in the textiles sector by:

• linking together the disparate country- and regional-focused initiatives, and giving them true global scope, while elevating the challenges and support required into strategic high-level discussions;
• broadening the circular textiles discussions to involve interested IOMC Participating Organizations that are not part of the UN system, such as the OECD and the World Bank, and tabling the central role of chemicals management for circularity in the discussions;
• engaging the GEF in helping to develop the initiative, since IOMC Participating Organizations UNEP, UNIDO, UNDP, and the World Bank are GEF Implementing Agencies, and GEF-8 envisions work in this vein;
• broadening the circular textiles discussions to include more parts of the textiles value chain than just apparel; and
• broadening the discussions beyond the limited group of major brands and retailers already involved in existing circular textile initiatives, particularly by engaging the many SMEs in the chain.

The Road to Bonn: Paving the way for textiles to take the spotlight in implementation of the new chemicals and waste framework

The IOMC plans a stakeholder consultation from 20-21 June 2023 to further flesh out ideas for a possible global programme on advancing chemicals and waste management in economic sectors and value chains. The IOMC, working with Participating Organizations, the SAICM Secretariat, and perhaps engaging the GEF Secretariat as well, should use the stakeholder consultation as a springboard for active dialogue with stakeholders in the months leading up to ICCM5 in September on which chemical-intensive sectors to focus on. The textiles sector is a good candidate to become one of the first focus sectors. With a view to presenting a robust proposal for consideration at ICCM5 in Bonn, the dialogue should outline and flesh out what an implementation programme for the textiles sector might look like, which chemicals and waste management issues the implementation programme could provide value added on and should address, and possible objectives, targets, and indicators for the programme. The dialogue might also highlight global work undertaken in the textile industry which could be relevant for other chemical-intensive sectors facing challenges.

* * *

This document has been developed within the framework of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) project ID: 9771 on Global Best Practices on Emerging Chemical Policy Issues of Concern under the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM). This project is funded by the GEF, implemented by UNEP, and executed by the SAICM Secretariat. The International Institute for Sustainable Development acknowledges the financial contribution of the GEF to the development of this policy brief.

 This Policy Brief is the sixth in a series featuring cross-cutting topics relating to the sound management of chemicals and waste. It was written by Keith Ripley, Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) team leader and writer. The series editor is Elena Kosolapova, Senior Policy Advisor, Tracking Progress Program, IISD.

RELATED EVENTS

• Fifth Meeting of the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM5)