In a world where consumers have an increasing broader view on sustainability, industries, brands and retailers are positioning their products in the best light to influence perceptions on sustainability claims.
This is not new.
The phrase "greenwashing" has been around a long time.
Greenwashing is an attempt to influence or create the perception that an industry or organisation is doing more to protect the environment than what it really is.
Today we are seeing more partial measures of sustainability being used in the market, where the more favourable components of sustainability are "cherry-picked" and used to influence consumers.
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) is commonly used to assess environmental footprints.
The major debate with LCAs comes back to how "boundaries" and "scope" in the life cycle/supply chain are defined.
Numbers and perceptions can be manipulated, depending on where boundaries relate to where your assessment stops and starts along the supply chain.
Scope relates to what types of pollution or non-market values society values which should be captured - that are ignored otherwise.
A good example of this at present is the narrower scope of carbon accounting versus the broader benefits when incorporating biodiversity into land use change.
On carbon accounting alone, such investments may not make sense.
But by trying to quantify the wider benefits society values from biodiversity when a landscape changes - such as with tree plantings - may be feasible and attractive to farmers and investors.
Similarly, in the global textile market, there is a debate around the scope of how environmental footprints should be measured and, more broadly, what is included for textiles/clothing in the European Union.
There are rules being written about how to quantify the relevant environmental impacts of products, including textiles.
One concern for wool is the current design of an LCA being developed in Europe for measuring the "product environmental" footprint of textiles and clothing.
The current scope ignores a major environmental pollutant of micro synthetic fibres.
In economic speak, this is an externality that currently exists, but is being ignored - and implies that consumers place zero value on this pollutant - or, at a state level, is costless to society).
A fairer comparison between fibre types - man-made versus natural - is a broader focus incorporating the concept of "circularity", or a closed system which captures one of the natural benefits of wool being biodegradability.
Without this perspective, the future cost of micro-plastics being released into the environment from synthetic textiles is being ignored.
Within the EU LCA guidelines on textiles, there is scope for micro-plastic pollution to be captured.
The rule stipulates that participants of the LCA should report additional environmental information, such as the results of a plastic leakage assessment - if one has been conducted.
But because it is optional, it is "cherry-picking" and is only likely to discourage sectors of the textile supply chain likely to achieve an adverse assessment to simply not conduct one.
By discouraging transparency and the flow of information to consumer, this runs counter to the idea that such a program should be providing market signals back to the textile supply chain.
An easy solution to this loophole is where a technical "plastic footprint" is mandatory and a separate sub-index reporting metric which consumers can then use to make an informed decision.
Such an index has already been developed by a company called Quantis based on the Plastic Leak Project, by which it has made important advancements towards a credible accounting system for plastic leakage at the product level.
Another example of the difficulty in truly assessing environmental footprints is the assumption of the longevity of a garment in the EU LCA rules.
That is, how "long-lived" a garment is.
The longer a garment is worn, allows the environmental cost of producing a garment to be proportioned over more years.
The current EU method mirrors the SAC's Higg Index model of beginning with an estimate of the default number of times a product is worn in its lifetime.
As we know wool garments tend to be more expensive and not throw-away, fast fashion.
How longevity is determined for textiles under the current rules is primarily through fabric strength.
But there is no science or evidence to substantiate that higher strength garments persist in the wardrobe longer.
In fact, the opposite may be true - as higher strength fabrics may tear easier.
To try to level the playing field for natural fibres, the International Wool Textile Organisation (IWTO) launched a "Truth behind the labelling" campaign last week.
The "@MakeLabelCount" campaign brings together an international coalition of organisations in an appeal for credibility in sustainability labelling for clothing.
We would encourage producers, and indeed the Australian public, to get behind the #MaketheLabelCount campaign.
The importance of the current period is paramount in trying to get a more holistic and true picture about sustainability in textiles.
When finalised, the EU rules for apparel and footwear are expected to guide EU garment labelling for a four to five-year period.
Further, other countries/regions may also use the rules the EU develops - which, if flawed, will only compound any errors.
