PFM Matrix – Textile Exchange

Select material

Cotton

Synthetic

Manmade Cellulosics

Flax

Wool

OFT (GOTS + Fairtrade)

Recycled Cotton: GRS

Organic Cotton: GOTS

Organic Cotton: OCS

Cotton Made in Africa

Recycled Cotton: RCS

Better Cotton Initiative

myBMP

Fairtrade Cotton

ABRAPA

Conventional Cotton

—

Organic and fairtrade cotton is 48.31% less GHG intensive than Conventional Cotton using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Organic and fairtrade cotton uses 52.65% less fossil fuel resources than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Organic systems naturally support climate resiliency by cultivating soil health and utilizing farm-owned resources (e.g., animal and green manures, biomass, organic fertilizers, and botanical preparations for pest control). While many small organic farm groups do implement their own farmer training programs and support networks that may tie to climate resiliency, there are no explicit requirements within the organic standard. Fairtrade supports strong and representative farmer organizations with accessible training towards climate resilient crop production systems, soil health and biodiversity, reduced GHG emissions, and better yields.

—

Studies show the connection between organic farming practices (e.g., reduced tillage) and the increase of soil organic carbon and sequestration. Farmers are expected to reduce GHGs and increase carbon sequestration, but there are no required techniques that directly lend themselves to carbon sequestration.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: increasing climate resilience, estimating emissions and sequestration, and reducing emissions.

—

Organic and fairtrade cotton causes 91.12% less water scarcity than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Organic and fairtrade cotton uses 90.91% less water than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Organic and fairtrade cotton’s eutrophication potential is 66.67% lower than Conventional Cotton using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Organic and Fairtrade cotton is mostly rainfed (75-80%). Due to organic farming principles, the increased soil organic matter increases resilience to flood and drought. Additionally, the EU organic standard requires rainwater harvesting, opting for drought resistant seed varieties, and good soil management requirements about efficient water use.

—

Organic and Fairtrade cotton is mostly rainfed (75-80%). Many FT projects are encouraged, not required, to adopt applicable methods to recirculate, reuse, and recycle water or improve water absorption through soil conservation and cultivation. Organic farming principles also reduce the overall water demand of the farm by increasing soil organic matter and improving resilience to flood and drought.

—

Organic farming prohibits the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers; therefore, natural amendments pose a significantly lower chemical discharge risk than other cotton programs. Organic certification also includes requirements around the use of natural inputs that further limit the risk to waterways. Fairtrade farmers receive the additional benefit of training and education. Untreated wastewater is not discharged directly into the natural environment, discharged water does not pollute drinking water sources, and where necessary, farms implement pans to monitor wastewater quality and protect soil, crops, and waterways.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing impacts on community water availability, mapping waterways potentially impacted by operations, identifying water risks, avoiding increasing water scarcity, maintaining water security, practicing efficient irrigation, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: reducing water pollution, reducing agrochemical risk, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: mapping waterways potentially impacted by operations, avoiding run off, regularly monitoring impacts on water and adapting management as necessary for improvement, etc.

—

Organic and fairtrade cotton scores 66.67% lower than Conventional Cotton on the Higg MSI chemistry score.

—

Organic farming requirements do not permit the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers and include requirements and limits regarding the application of naturally derived pesticides.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: implementing integrated pest management practices, banning the use of hazardous chemicals as defined by WHO 1A and B, and Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions, documenting all application, handling, storage and disposal procedures of chemicals, avoiding or minimizing negative impacts on human health and the environment, adopting agro-ecological practices including the non-use of pesticides, etc.

—

Organic farms are largely self-sufficient and only apply natural fertilizers, typically produced on-site. Soil fertility is the foundation of sustainable and productive organic farming. When soil is well managed, pest pressure is reduced, water use is optimized, and yields will improve for all crops grown in the rotation.

—

Although tilling can be used to control weeds and to incorporate organic fertilizers and manure into soil, EU organic certified farms are required to implement tilling in ways that enhance soil stability and organic matter.

—

Crop rotation, intercropping, trap cropping, and border cropping are all widespread techniques used by organic cotton farmers. Crop rotation is required as a method to improve soil fertility and biological activity.

—

The organic system is designed to maintain ecological balance. and Fairtrade cotton expects conservation of protected areas within or outside farm areas. Fairtrade cotton producers are prohibited from causing deforestation or degradation of vegetation. Producers are encouraged to maintain buffer zones around water sources and between production areas and areas of high conservation value, and are prohibited from applying any chemicals in buffer zones. Areas converted to production areas comply with national legislation in relation to agricultural land use.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: minimizing negative impacts on soil, adapting fertilization to soil conditions, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: avoiding or minimizing soil erosion, maintaining or improving soil quality, monitoring impacts and adapting management as necessary, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: not converting native forest, not converting land at expense of one or more HCVs, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on maintaining publicly available HCV assessments.

—

Cotton is a perennial plant and a renewable feedstock.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on reducing waste through reuse, recycling or other utilizations.

—

Organic cotton farms are audited to confirm that no synthetic chemicals are being used in the production process; therefore, chemical handling health and safety risk is much lower than the conventional baseline. It is unclear if producers are required to ensure that workers are adequately equipped, instructed, and trained for their tasks, including safe use and handling of chemicals.

—

N/A, not a recycled feedstock.

—

Best in class for farmer income potential, as farmers are paid a Fairtrade minimum price and receive extension services and training and hands-on support at a farm or facility level.

—

At farm-level, program meets CAT indicators on: identifying and mitigating health and safety risks, documenting all procedures in relation to chemicals, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: workers are equipped, instructed and trained for tasks, including safe use of and chemical handling, addressing grievances and providing compensation for occupational injuries, etc. At initial processing, program have health & safety requirements.

—

At farm-level, program meet CAT indicators on: banning forced labor, banning child labor, banning workplace discrimination, punishment, abuse, harassment or intimidation, respecting workers’ freedom of association and right to collective bargaining, respecting core ILO rights of workers, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on addressing grievances and compensating for injuries. At initial processing, program has labor rights requirements.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: respecting the rights, customs and culture of indigenous peoples, engaging with stakeholders and document measures taken to resolve disputes, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: upholding legal and customary rights of tenure, identifying legal and customary rights of tenure, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on minimizing and mitigating negative impacts from operations on communities and individuals. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: engaging in dialogue with neighboring communities and individuals, providing local employment opportunities, producers engaging in welfare programs where relevant to the social context, monitoring impacts on the local economy and adapting management as necessary, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: assessing and maintain High Conservation Values category 5 (basic necessities for local communities), cultivating a mix of genotypes of each main crop, ensure access to safe drinking water, adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene (WASH). etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing potential impacts on communities and individuals, including food security and water availability, prior to any significant intensification/expansion, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: core normative documents are publicly available, ISEAL membership, resourced secretariat with contact details publicly available, names and affiliation of members are publicly available, changes to core normative documents requires voting, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: membership organization, the highest decision-making forum ensures that no single interest group can dominate governance (economic, social or environmental), etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: taking into account the ISEAL Impact Code, publicly available program documents, having auditable indicators, revisions at least every 5 years, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing social and environmental impacts, workers’ conditions/rights, community relations, environment, and biodiversity; draft programs are subject to multiple rounds of public consultation, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination, complaints procedures have clear deadlines, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: CB’s proactively consult with affected stakeholders during any audit, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: certification bodies are accredited by an ISEAL member accreditation organization, accreditation organization verifies that certification bodies engage effectively with stakeholders, accreditation organization conducts risk-based auditing and surveillance of certification bodies, summaries of accreditation assessments of certification bodies are publicly available, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: procedures to monitor custody and trade of materials from certified producers, certification bodies (CBs) survey certificate holders’ chain of custody procedures, CBs survey use of claims, trademarks and labels on and off products, claimed/labelled products do not contain any materials from areas where HCVs (1-6) are threatened, etc.

—

Recycled Cotton is 81.50% less GHG intensive than Conventional Cotton using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Recycled Cotton uses 70% less fossil fuel resources than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

—

While recycled cotton has a significantly lower climate impact than conventional cotton, GRS standard requires targets towards improving energy use, reducing emissions emitted during production, and safeguard against fire.

—

No carbon sequestration associated with recycled cotton, as the cut-off approach is applied to assessment, which focuses on the raw material feedstock input and not the previous life of materials when the cotton would have originally been grown.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on estimating emissions and sequestration, and reducing emissions. Program does not meet CAT indicators on increasing climate resilience.

—

Recycled Cotton causes 99.77% less water scarcity than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Recycled Cotton uses 99.90% less water than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Recycled Cotton’s eutrophication potential is 97.43% lower than Conventional Cotton using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Recycling of cotton inherently uses very little or no water; furthermore, GRS standards ensure management practices are best in class with efficiency of surface and groundwater.

—

Not applicable to recycled materials.

—

Chemical discharge is inherently low as very little or no water is used in the recycling of cotton. Furthermore, the GRS standard requires compliance with relevant legislation in relation to wastewater / effluent, up-to-date record keeping and permits and a drainage plan with a general understanding of wastewater flow direction and discharge points.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on mapping waterways potentially impacted by operations. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing impacts on community water availability, identifying water risks, avoid increasing water scarcity, maintaining water security, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: mapping waterways potentially impacted by operations, reducing water pollution, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: regularly monitoring impacts on water and adapting management as necessary for improvement, etc.

—

Recycled Cotton scores 66.67% lower than Conventional Cotton on the Higg MSI chemistry score.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on documenting all application, handling, storage and disposal procedures of chemicals. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: banning the use of hazardous chemicals as defined by WHO 1A and B, and Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions, etc.

—

Not applicable to recycled materials.

—

Not applicable to recycled materials.

—

Not applicable to recycled materials.

—

The production of recycled cotton does not include practices that improve the land; however, as a recycled material, additional stressors on the land through raw material extraction are avoided.

—

Not applicable to recycled materials.

—

Not applicable to recycled materials.

—

Recycled cotton has recycled feedstock, which can be a combination of pre- and post-consumer recycled material.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on reducing waste through reuse, recycling or other utilizations.

—

Recycled cotton is inherently lower risk due to the inherent production process. GRS requires a comprehensive chemical management system, with dedicated staff responsible for managing the use of chemicals and training. Accurate lists and safety data sheets of all chemical inputs must be available and specific restricted chemical substances.

—

No requirements for ensuring that recycled feedstock inputs were collected in a socially responsible way for recycled cotton.

—

Not applicable to recycled materials.

—

Program is not applicable at farm-level. At initial processing, program has health & safety requirements.

—

Program is not applicable at farm-level. At initial processing, program has labor rights requirements.

—

Standard does not meet CAT indicators on: upholding legal and customary rights of tenure, respecting the rights, customs and culture of indigenous peoples, engaging with stakeholders and document measures taken to resolve disputes, identifying legal and customary rights of tenure, etc.

—

Standard does not meet CAT indicators on: engaging in dialogue with neighboring communities and individuals, minimizing and mitigating negative impacts from operations on communities and individuals, providing local employment opportunities, producers engaging in welfare programs where relevant to the social context, monitoring impacts on the local economy and adapting management as necessary, etc.

—

Standard does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing potential impacts on communities and individuals, including food security and water availability, prior to any significant intensification/expansion, assessing and maintain High Conservation Values category 5 (basic necessities for local communities), etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: core normative documents are publicly available, ISEAL membership, resourced secretariat with contact details publicly available, membership organization, names and affiliation of members are publicly available, the highest decision-making forum ensures that no single interest group can dominate governance (economic, social or environmental), changes to core normative documents require voting, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: assessing social and environmental impacts, workers’ conditions/rights, community relations, environment, and biodiversity; taking into account the ISEAL Impact Code, draft programs are subject to multiple rounds of public consultation, publicly available program documents, having auditable indicators, revisions at least every 5 years, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: CB’s proactively consult with affected stakeholders during any audit, complaints procedures have clear deadlines, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: accreditation organization verifies that certification bodies engage effectively with stakeholders, accreditation organization conducts risk-based auditing and surveillance of certification bodies, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: certification bodies are accredited by an ISEAL member accreditation organization, summaries of accreditation assessments of certification bodies are publicly available, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: procedures to monitor custody and trade of materials from certified producers, certification bodies (CBs) survey certificate holders’ chain of custody procedures, CBs survey use of claims, trademarks and labels on and off products, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on claimed/labelled products do not contain any materials from areas where HCVs (1-6) are threatened.

—

Organic Cotton is 48.31% less GHG intensive than Conventional Cotton using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Organic Cotton uses 52.65% less fossil fuel resources than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Studies show the connection between organic farming practices (e.g., reduced tillage) and the increase of soil organic carbon and sequestration.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: increasing climate resilience, estimating emissions and sequestration, and reducing emissions.

—

Organic Cotton causes 91.12% less water scarcity than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Organic Cotton uses 90.91% less water than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Organic Cotton’s eutrophication potential is 66.67% lower than Conventional Cotton using data from the Higg MSI.

—

The EU organic standard requires rainwater harvesting, opting for drought resistant seed varieties, and good soil management requirements about efficient water use. Organic farms tend to use organic matter rather than synthetics or pesticides to build and enrich the soil. By increasing soil organic matter and improving resilience to flood and drought, farming principles reduce the overall water demand of the farm.

—

Organic cotton is mostly rainfed (75-80%) with a variety of management practices in implementation. Organic farming principles also reduce the overall water demand of the farm by increasing soil organic matter and improving resilience to flood and drought.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on maintaining water security. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing impacts on community water availability, mapping waterways potentially impacted by operations, identifying water risks, avoiding increasing water scarcity, practicing efficient irrigation, etc.

—

Organic Cotton scores 66.67% lower than Conventional Cotton on the Higg MSI chemistry score.

—

Organic farming requirements do not permit the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers and include requirements and limits regarding the application of naturally derived pesticides.

—

Organic cotton applies natural fertilizers, which are typically produced on-site. Soil fertility is the foundation of sustainable and productive organic farming. When soil is well managed, pest pressure is reduced, water use is optimized, and yields will improve for all crops grown in the rotation. Organic cotton farming methods also use natural fertilizers, such as compost and animal manure, which recycle the nitrogen already in the soil rather than adding more.

—

Although tilling can be used to control weeds and to incorporate organic fertilizers and manure into soil, the organic certification requires that the use of tilling may only be implemented in ways that enhance soil stability and organic matter.

—

Crop rotation is a required method for Organic-certified farmers to improve soil fertility and biological activity intercropping. Trap cropping and border cropping are all widespread program techniques. Fairtrade cotton encourages improvement of soil fertility through composting, crop rotation and intercropping, and reduction of soil erosion, however, it is not required, and evidence of outcomes is lacking.

—

The organic system is designed to maintain ecological balance. Native plants are often used for farm borders, preserving populations of local species. This results in increased biodiversity, soil fertility, and, in some cases, habitat restoration. Organic certification does not guarantee that farms are not established at the expense of high value carbon stocks or critical ecosystems.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: not converting native forest, maintaining publicly available HCV assessments, not converting land at expense of one or more HCVs, etc.

—

Cotton is a perennial plant and a renewable feedstock.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on reducing waste through reuse, recycling or other utilizations.

—

N/A, not a recycled feedstock.

—

Farmers who grow organic cotton are able to achieve a premium price for their cotton, present less need for external finance, and do not have the added cost of synthetic input chemicals and GMO seed.

—

At farm-level, program meets CAT indicators on documenting all procedures in relation to chemicals. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: identifying and mitigating health and safety risks, workers are equipped, instructed and trained for tasks, including safe use of and chemical handling, addressing grievances and providing compensation for occupational injuries, etc. At initial processing, program has health & safety requirements.

—

At farm-level, program does not meet CAT indicators on: banning forced labor, banning child labor, banning workplace discrimination, punishment, abuse, harassment or intimidation, respecting workers’ freedom of association and right to collective bargaining, respecting core ILO rights of workers, addressing grievances and compensating for injuries, etc. At initial processing, program has labor rights requirements.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: upholding legal and customary rights of tenure, respecting the rights, customs and culture of indigenous peoples, engaging with stakeholders and document measures taken to resolve disputes, identifying legal and customary rights of tenure, etc.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: engaging in dialogue with neighboring communities and individuals, minimizing and mitigating negative impacts from operations on communities and individuals, providing local employment opportunities, producers engaging in welfare programs where relevant to the social context, monitoring impacts on the local economy and adapting management as necessary, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: cultivating a mix of genotypes of each main crop, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing potential impacts on communities and individuals, including food security and water availability, prior to any significant intensification/expansion, assessing and maintain High Conservation Values category 5 (basic necessities for local communities), ensure access to safe drinking water, adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene (WASH). etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: cultivating a mix of genotypes of each main crop, etc. Standard does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing potential impacts on communities and individuals, including food security and water availability, prior to any significant intensification/expansion, assessing and maintain High Conservation Values category 5 (basic necessities for local communities), ensure access to safe drinking water, adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene (WASH). etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: publicly available standard documents, having auditable indicators, revisions at least every 5 years, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing social and environmental impacts, workers’ conditions/rights, community relations, environment, and biodiversity; taking into account the ISEAL Impact Code, draft programs are subject to multiple rounds of public consultation, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: CB’s proactively consult with affected stakeholders during any audit, complaints procedures have clear deadlines, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: certification bodies are accredited by an ISEAL member accreditation organization, accreditation organization verifies that certification bodies engage effectively with stakeholders, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: accreditation organization conducts risk-based auditing and surveillance of certification bodies, summaries of accreditation assessments of certification bodies are publicly available, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: procedures to monitor custody and trade of materials from certified producers, certification bodies (CBs) survey certificate holders’ chain of custody procedures, CBs survey use of claims, trademarks and labels on and off products, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on claimed/labelled products do not contain any materials from areas where HCVs (1-6) are threatened.

—

Organic Cotton is 48.31% less GHG intensive than Conventional Cotton using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Organic Cotton uses 52.65% less fossil fuel resources than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Studies show the connection between organic farming practices (e.g., reduced tillage) and the increase of soil organic carbon and sequestration.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: increasing climate resilience, estimating emissions and sequestration, and reducing emissions.

—

Organic Cotton causes 91.12% less water scarcity than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Organic Cotton uses 90.91% less water than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Organic Cotton’s eutrophication potential is 66.67% lower than Conventional Cotton using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Organic cotton is mostly rainfed (75-80%). Due to organic farming principles, the increased soil organic matter increases resilience to flood and drought.

—

Organic cotton is mostly rainfed (75-80%). Due to organic farming principles, the increased soil organic matter increases resilience to flood and drought.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on reducing agrochemical risk. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: mapping waterways potentially impacted by operations, reducing water pollution, avoiding run off, regularly monitoring impacts on water and adapting management as necessary for improvement, etc.

—

Organic Cotton scores 66.67% lower than Conventional Cotton on the Higg MSI chemistry score.

—

Organic farming requirements do not permit the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers and include requirements and limits regarding the application of naturally derived pesticides.

—

Application of natural fertilizers, which are produced on-site, as organic farms are largely self-sufficient. Soil fertility is the foundation of sustainable and productive organic farming. When soil is well managed, pest pressure is reduced, water use is optimized, and yields will improve for all crops grown in the rotation.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: not converting native forest, maintaining publicly available HCV assessments, not converting land at expense of one or more HCVs, etc.

—

Cotton is a perennial plant and a renewable feedstock.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on reducing waste through reuse, recycling or other utilizations.

—

N/A, not a recycled feedstock.

—

Farmers who grow organic cotton are able to achieve a premium price for their cotton, while not spending the same amount of money on chemicals and seeds; they also have less need for external finance.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: taking into account the ISEAL Impact Code, draft standards are subject to multiple rounds of public consultation, publicly available standard documents, having auditable indicators, revisions at least every 5 years, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing social and environmental impacts, workers’ conditions/rights, community relations, environment, and biodiversity; etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: CB’s proactively consult with affected stakeholders during any audit, complaints procedures have clear deadlines, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on accreditation organization verifies that certification bodies engage effectively with stakeholders. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: certification bodies are accredited by an ISEAL member accreditation organization, accreditation organization conducts risk-based auditing and surveillance of certification bodies, summaries of accreditation assessments of certification bodies are publicly available, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: procedures to monitor custody and trade of materials from certified producers, certification bodies (CBs) survey certificate holders’ chain of custody procedures, CBs survey use of claims, trademarks and labels on and off products, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on claimed/labelled products do not contain any materials from areas where HCVs (1-6) are threatened.

—

Cotton Made In Africa is 34.86% less GHG intensive than Conventional Cotton using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Cotton Made In Africa uses 38.80% less fossil fuel resources than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

—

CmiA farmers are regularly trained in financial literacy, adapting to
climate change and reducing greenhouse-gas
emissions while addressing local sustainability issues. CmiA smallhold farmers are expected to adopt a holistic approach to natural resource management to increase productivity, reduce poverty, protect natural resource bases, and enhance climate resilience.

—

There is some anecdotal information available on sequestering soil carbon in production practices promoted by CmiA; however, there is no publicly available study on direct techniques of carbon sequestration practiced by CmiA as there is no standardized basis on which carbon sequestration can be measured.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on increasing climate resilience and reducing emissions. Program does not meet CAT indicators on estimating emissions and sequestration.

—

Cotton Made In Africa causes 99.97% less water scarcity than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Cotton Made In Africa uses 99.97% less water than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Cotton Made In Africa’s eutrophication potential is 33.33% higher than Conventional Cotton using data from the Higg MSI.

—

No supplemental irrigation, or blue water, is used in the production of CmiA cotton; farmers solely rely on natural rainfall being sufficient to water the crops. Although rainwater harvesting is permitted and water storage systems are in place, it is unclear if water recycling or other innovative water management techniques are required program-wide.

—

No supplemental irrigation is used in the production of CmiA cotton. With solely rain-fed cultivation, farmers utilize rainwater harvesting and water storage systems for periods of scarcity, though these methods are not required program-wide. Producers are required to adopt time-bound water stewardship plans addressing rainfall patterns and effective soil-moisture management among other components critical to efficient water and natural resource use.

—

CmiA-contracted farmers are regularly trained to consider risks to water quality when managing and applying (organic) pesticides and nutrients. Pesticides are applied without contaminating bodies of water and techniques to prevent runoff and leaching of chemicals are included in farmer training.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: mapping waterways potentially impacted by operations, maintaining water security, practicing efficient irrigation, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing impacts on community water availability, identifying water risks, avoiding increasing water scarcity, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: mapping waterways potentially impacted by operations, reducing water pollution, regularly monitoring impacts on water and adapting management as necessary for improvement, reducing agrochemical risk, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on avoiding run off.

—

Cotton Made In Africa scores 33.33% lower than Conventional Cotton on the Higg MSI chemistry score.

—

CmiA promotes bio-intensive IPPM and excludes pesticides banned under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), the WHO list of highly hazardous and hazardous pesticides, and pesticides listed in the Rotterdam Convention. Guidance is also included on proper storage of pesticides.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: implementing integrated pest management practices, banning the use of hazardous chemicals as defined by WHO 1A and B, and Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions, documenting all application, handling, storage and disposal procedures of chemicals, avoiding or minimizing negative impacts on human health and the environment, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on adopting agro-ecological practices including the non-use of pesticides.

—

CmiA-contracted farmers nurture soil fertility and protect water sources using crop rotation and natural fertilizer production and use. Given the very low fertilizer application rates across sub-Saharan Africa, CmiA does not generally limit the amount of fertilizer used, however farmers are trained on the use of locally-available, natural fertilizers such as compost or manure.

—

While not required, low tillage practices are implemented on many of the farms within the CmiA network. Farmers also receive training to improve agricultural practices, particularly soil and water
conservation.

—

Crop rotation is documented and mandatory with CmiA, including intercropping with legumes to naturally increase nitrogen levels and soil quality. CmiA-contracted farmers receive regular training in techniques for soil conservation and soil regeneration as well. Crop rotation saves fertilizer and improves the small-scale farmers’ capital basis (land); it’s essential economically. Crop rotation also serves to break weed, pest, and disease cycles, while promoting crop diversification and food security.

—

The CmiA approach provides guidance on soil fertility, erosion reduction, and mitigation of deforestation. CmiA certified farms are prohibited from clearing primary forests and encroaching onto officially protected areas.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: minimizing negative impacts on soil, avoiding or minimizing soil erosion, maintaining or improving soil quality, monitoring impacts and adapting management as necessary, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on adapting fertilization to soil conditions.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: not converting native forest, not converting land at expense of one or more HCVs, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: maintaining publicly available HCV assessments, etc.

—

Cotton is a perennial plant and a renewable feedstock.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on reducing waste through reuse, recycling or other utilizations.

—

Under CmiA, detailed rules for application of pesticides, worker protection, as well as health and safety are upheld and regularly audited at the farm level.

—

N/A, not a recycled feedstock.

—

Farmers on the CmiA program may achieve higher levels of profitability through reducing inputs, whilst increasing yields. They also receive assistance and pre-financing on agricultural inputs as well as training to help increase productivity.

—

At farm-level, program meets CAT indicators on: identifying and mitigating health and safety risks, workers are equipped, instructed and trained for tasks, including safe use of and chemical handling, addressing grievances and providing compensation for occupational injuries, documenting all procedures in relation to chemicals, etc. At initial processing, program has health & safety requirements.

—

At farm-level, program meets CAT indicators on: banning forced labor, banning child labor, banning workplace discrimination, punishment, abuse, harassment or intimidation, respecting workers’ freedom of association and right to collective bargaining, respecting core ILO rights of workers, addressing grievances and compensating for injuries, etc. At initial processing, program has labor rights requirements.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on respecting the rights, customs and culture of indigenous peoples. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: upholding legal and customary rights of tenure, engaging with stakeholders and document measures taken to resolve disputes, identifying legal and customary rights of tenure, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: engaging in dialogue with neighboring communities and individuals, minimizing and mitigating negative impacts from operations on communities and individuals, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: providing local employment opportunities, producers engaging in welfare programs where relevant to the social context, monitoring impacts on the local economy and adapting management as necessary, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: ensure access to safe drinking water, adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene (WASH). etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing potential impacts on communities and individuals, including food security and water availability, prior to any significant intensification/expansion, assessing and maintain High Conservation Values category 5 (basic necessities for local communities), cultivating a mix of genotypes of each main crop, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: core normative documents are publicly available, resourced secretariat with contact details publicly available, names and affiliation of members are publicly available, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: ISEAL membership, membership organization, the highest decision-making forum ensures that no single interest group can dominate governance (economic, social or environmental), changes to core normative documents require voting, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: assessing social and environmental impacts, workers’ conditions/rights, community relations, environment, and biodiversity; taking into account the ISEAL Impact Code, publicly available standard documents, having auditable indicators, revisions at least every 5 years, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: draft standards are subject to multiple rounds of public consultation, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, CB’s proactively consult with affected stakeholders during any audit, CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts, complaints procedures have clear deadlines, etc.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: certification bodies are accredited by an ISEAL member accreditation organization, accreditation organization verifies that certification bodies engage effectively with stakeholders, accreditation organization conducts risk-based auditing and surveillance of certification bodies, summaries of accreditation assessments of certification bodies are publicly available, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: procedures to monitor custody and trade of materials from certified producers, certification bodies (CBs) survey certificate holders’ chain of custody procedures, CBs survey use of claims, trademarks and labels on and off products, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on claimed/labelled products do not contain any materials from areas where HCVs (1-6) are threatened.

—

Recycled Cotton is 81.50% less GHG intensive than Conventional Cotton using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Recycled Cotton uses 70% less fossil fuel resources than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Although climate impact for recycled cotton is significantly less than conventional cotton, RCS do not hold any requirements towards climate resilience, therefore it does not proactively support climate resilience as a standard. Individual suppliers of recycled cotton may have their own practices that support climate resilience.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: increasing climate resilience, estimating emissions and sequestration, and reducing emissions.

—

Recycled Cotton causes 99.77% less water scarcity than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Recycled Cotton uses 99.91% less water than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Recycled Cotton’s eutrophication potential is 97.43% lower than Conventional Cotton using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Recycling of cotton inherently uses very little or no water, however RCS standards does not require and standard of practice towards efficiency of surface and groundwater and therefore can not determine the management and level of control.

—

Not applicable to recycled materials.

—

Chemical discharge is inherently low as very little or no water is used in the recycling of cotton, however, RCS standards do not require any management practices of chemical discharge and therefore can not guarantee this does not occur.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: mapping waterways potentially impacted by operations, reducing water pollution, regularly monitoring impacts on water and adapting management as necessary for improvement, etc.

—

Recycled Cotton scores 66.67% lower than Conventional Cotton on the Higg MSI chemistry score.

—

Although recycled cotton requires significantly fewer chemicals than conventional cotton as it does not include farming operations, the RCS does not require any standard practice relating to chemical use and therefore can not determine the management and level of control.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: banning the use of hazardous chemicals as defined by WHO 1A and B, and Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions, etc.

—

Not applicable to recycled materials.

—

Not applicable to recycled materials.

—

Not applicable to recycled materials.

—

The production of recycled cotton does not include practices that improve the land; however, as a recycled material, additional stressors on the land through raw material extraction are avoided.

—

Not applicable to recycled materials.

—

Not applicable to recycled materials.

—

RCS recycled cotton has recycled feedstock, which can be a combination of pre- and post-consumer recycled material.

—

Standard meets CAT indicators on reducing waste through reuse, recycling or other utilizations.

—

RCS recycled cotton is inherently lower risk due to the production process for chemical handling health and safety, as minimal chemicals are used. RCS does not have requirements for health and safety.

—

No requirements for ensuring that recycled feedstock inputs were collected in a socially responsible way for recycled cotton.

—

Not applicable to recycled materials.

—

Program is not applicable at farm-level. At initial processing, program does not have health & safety requirements.

—

Program is not applicable at farm-level. At initial processing, program does not have labor rights requirements.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: taking into account the ISEAL Impact Code, draft programs are subject to multiple rounds of public consultation, publicly available program documents, having auditable indicators, revisions at least every 5 years, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing social and environmental impacts, workers’ conditions/rights, community relations, environment, and biodiversity; etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: CB’s proactively consult with affected stakeholders during any audit, complaints procedures have clear deadlines, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: procedures to monitor custody and trade of materials from certified producers, certification bodies (CBs) survey certificate holders’ chain of custody procedures, CBs survey use of claims, trademarks and labels on and off products, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on claimed/labelled products do not contain any materials from areas where HCVs (1-6) are threatened.

—

No LCA data is available in the MSI to support an improvement from conventional production practices.

—

No LCA data is available in the MSI to support an improvement from conventional production practices.

—

BCI requires partner producers to implement practices promoting resilience to extreme weather events while providing them with comprehensive frameworks to transition to lower carbon production practices. There is no financial support to farmers amidst extreme weather events, although BCI partners are currently being trained on promoting access to climate finance.

—

There is some anecdotal information available on sequestering soil carbon in systems similar to BCI. While there is no publicly available study on this in relation to BCI, this is an area of focus for BCI.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on not expanding cultivation on high above-ground carbon stocks and reducing emissions. Program does not meet CAT indicators on estimating emissions and sequestration or increasing climate resilience.

—

No LCA data is available in the MSI to support an improvement from conventional production practices.

—

No LCA data is available in the MSI to support an improvement from conventional production practices.

—

No LCA data is available in the MSI to support an improvement from conventional production practices.

—

BCI encourages a holistic and deep understanding of water resources, soil moisture management, irrigation methods, and the quality of surface and groundwater, while engaging with neighboring farms on shared challenges and opportunities of water management. BCI demonstrates a reduced use of blue water using alternate irrigation or paired row techniques. Irrigated farms are expected to implement methods and technologies to improve irrigation efficiency and maximize water productivity.

—

BCI encourages efficient water use. For rainfed farms, this revolves around ensuring that green water is captured and used by the crop with efficiency. Examples include use of cover crops, conservation tillage farming systems, retaining crop stubble, slowing the speed at which water flows across the farm, and opportunity cropping.

—

With dedicated areas for storage, mixing, handling and cleaning of pesticides and their containers in order to fully comply with relevant legislation, BCI farmers have clear chemical application management techniques. BCI farmers are encouraged to protect wetland areas and associated vegetation against run-off and limit possible contamination, not required. Thus, discharge still occurs as chemicals are applied in the natural environment.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: assessing impacts on community water availability, mapping waterways potentially impacted by operations, identifying water risks, avoiding increasing water scarcity, maintaining water security, practicing efficient irrigation, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: mapping waterways potentially impacted by operations, reducing water pollution, avoiding run off, reducing agrochemical risk, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on regularly monitoring impacts on water and adapting management as necessary for improvement.

—

No LCA data is available in the MSI to support an improvement from conventional production practices.

—

BCI producers are expected to adopt IPM with an emphasis on avoiding pesticide application at all costs. When pesticides are used, farmers must use a wider range of control techniques and reduce reliance on a single method of pest
control, and are prohibited from applying any pesticide active ingredients and their formulations that are known or presumed to be toxic. Through training, BCI producers develop, implement and improve IPM programs over time, reflecting their progress on knowledge acquisition and performance.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: implementing integrated pest management practices, avoiding or minimizing negative impacts on human health and the environment, adopting agro-ecological practices including the non-use of pesticides, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: banning the use of hazardous chemicals as defined by WHO 1A and B, and Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions, documenting all application, handling, storage and disposal procedures of chemicals, etc.

—

BCI producers are required to define a time-bound soil management plan that addresses soil type identification and analysis, maintenance and enhancement of soil structure and fertility, and continuous improvement of nutrient cycling. Although BCI promotes the use of natural fertilizers and the fundamental importance of using organic matter–living biomass of microorganisms, fresh litter (plant residue) and partially decomposed residues, and humus (well-decomposed organic material) for soil health, synthetic fertilizers are still applied.

—

BCI requires the development and implementation of a soil management plan to maintain and enhance soil structure and fertility. BCI encourages conservation tillage to reduce soil compaction and damage to soil structure, but it is not required program-wide. Farmers are trained in monitoring soil moisture through timing of sowing, forecasting of rains, adopting appropriate cotton varieties, promoting deepsoil loosening and mulching, and implementing a system to monitor each.

—

BCI farmers are required to have a time-bound biodiversity management plan that includes crop rotation. However smallholder farmers are only encouraged, but not required, to implement crop rotation, although there is anecdotal evidence of smallholder farmers practice crop rotation. All BCI farmers are encouraged to incorporate crop diversity practices, such as crop rotation, in order to regenerate the soil and enhance soil structure.

—

In case of any proposed conversion from non-agricultural land to agricultural land, the BCI High Conservation Value (HCV) risk-based simplified approach must be implemented. For medium to large farms, this includes identifying and mapping biodiversity resources, identifying and restoring degraded areas, enhancing populations of beneficial insects, ensuring crop rotation, and protecting riparian areas (the area between land and a river or stream). Smallholders are not required to preserve riparian areas or take part in crop rotation.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: minimizing negative impacts on soil, maintaining or improving soil quality, monitoring impacts and adapting management as necessary, adapting fertilization to soil conditions, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on avoiding or minimizing soil erosion.

—

Cotton is a perennial plant and a renewable feedstock.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on reducing waste through reuse, recycling or other utilizations.

—

BCI bans the most hazardous chemicals from being applied in cotton production. PPE must be worn while preparing and applying pesticides and must be readily available on site, functional, correctly maintained and cleaned with training provided to users.

—

N/A, not a recycled feedstock.

—

BCI provides guidance to farmers on reducing raw material inputs, increasing diversified crop practices, and practice production efficiency. However, no price differential is paid directly to farmers. Farmers are paid based on prevailing market price and quality, rather than being supported with premium price certifications.

—

At farm-level, program meets CAT indicators on workers are equipped, instructed and trained for tasks, including safe use of and chemical handling. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: identifying and mitigating health and safety risks, addressing grievances and providing compensation for occupational injuries, documenting all procedures in relation to chemicals, etc. At initial processing, program does not have health & safety requirements.

—

At farm-level, program meets CAT indicators on: banning forced labor, banning child labor, banning workplace discrimination, punishment, abuse, harassment or intimidation, respecting core ILO rights of workers, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: respecting workers’ freedom of association and right to collective bargaining, addressing grievances and compensating for injuries, etc. At initial processing, program does not have labor rights requirements.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on producers engaging in welfare programs where relevant to the social context. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: engaging in dialogue with neighboring communities and individuals, minimizing and mitigating negative impacts from operations on communities and individuals, providing local employment opportunities, monitoring impacts on the local economy and adapting management as necessary, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: assessing potential impacts on communities and individuals, including food security and water availability, prior to any significant intensification/expansion, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing and maintain High Conservation Values category 5 (basic necessities for local communities), cultivating a mix of genotypes of each main crop, ensure access to safe drinking water, adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene (WASH). etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: assessing social and environmental impacts, workers’ conditions/rights, community relations, environment, and biodiversity; taking into account the ISEAL Impact Code, draft standards are subject to multiple rounds of public consultation, publicly available standard documents, having auditable indicators, revisions at least every 5 years, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: CB’s proactively consult with affected stakeholders during any audit, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination, complaints procedures have clear deadlines, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: certification bodies are accredited by an ISEAL member accreditation organization, accreditation organization verifies that certification bodies engage effectively with stakeholders, accreditation organization conducts risk-based auditing and surveillance of certification bodies, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on summaries of accreditation assessments of certification bodies are publicly available.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on procedures to monitor custody and trade of materials from certified producers. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: certification bodies (CBs) survey certificate holders’ chain of custody procedures, CBs survey use of claims, trademarks and labels on and off products, claimed/labelled products do not contain any materials from areas where HCVs (1-6) are threatened, etc.

—

No LCA data is available in the MSI to support an improvement from conventional production practices.

—

No LCA data is available in the MSI to support an improvement from conventional production practices.

—

MyBMP requires on-farm energy efficiency practices and the implementation of soil health practices that support resilience to extreme climate events. Training and financial support to assist with climate resilience and extreme events is also available to Australian farmers through federal and state programs.

—

MyBMP requires carbon sequestration and emissions to be considered and managed across the whole farm. A study conducted by the University of Queensland evaluating an Australian cotton farm provided quantitative evidence of the carbon sequestration potential of Australian cotton.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: increasing climate resilience, estimating emissions and sequestration, and reducing emissions.

—

No LCA data is available in the MSI to support an improvement from conventional production practices

—

No LCA data is available in the MSI to support an improvement from conventional production practices

—

No LCA data is available in the MSI to support an improvement from conventional production practices

—

MyBMP focuses on the minimization and mitigation of negative impacts of direct operations on water quality. Supplemental irrigation is used on approximately 70% of Australian cotton production. MyBMP requires efficient water management and storage practices, including metering and monitoring, irrigation scheduling, legislative compliance, and managing storage to minimize seepage and evaporation.

—

Approximately 30% of Australian cotton is rainfed. MyBMP requires select practices to support the efficient use of rainwater, including soil monitoring and minimum tillage.

—

MyBMP has a system is in place to check water quality, requiring sampling to be undertaken to monitor the composition of run-off. Producers are required to document all application, handling, storage and disposal of agrochemicals and to ensure that procedures comply with good practice and/or manufacturers’ recommendations. MyBMP requires all water to be re-circulated and retained on-farm. However, as synthetic pesticides and fertilizers are still applied, discharge may still occur during a flood event.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: mapping waterways potentially impacted by operations, practicing efficient irrigation, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing impacts on community water availability, identifying water risks, avoiding increasing water scarcity, maintaining water security, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: mapping waterways potentially impacted by operations, reducing water pollution, avoiding run off, regularly monitoring impacts on water and adapting management as necessary for improvement, reducing agrochemical risk, etc.

—

No LCA data is available in the MSI to support an improvement from conventional production practices.

—

MyBMP requires only locally registered or permitted products to be used on farms. The grower ensures pesticide application takes place only during appropriate weather conditions (i.e. field-specific weather parameters are established) and follows the application method as stated on the label. MyBMP has an agreement with BCI and uses the Better Cotton Standard on highly hazardous chemicals. Further, the Australian government is party to the Rotterdam convention which bans the use of certain pesticides and chemicals that are harmful to human health or the environment.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: implementing integrated pest management practices, documenting all application, handling, storage and disposal procedures of chemicals, avoiding or minimizing negative impacts on human health and the environment, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: banning the use of hazardous chemicals as defined by WHO 1A and B, and Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions, adopting agro-ecological practices including the non-use of pesticides, etc.

—

MyBMP allows the application of synthetic fertilizers. While the program has requirements around soil health and encourages the use of composting, the use of composts and manures is not demonstrated on most farms.

—

MyBMP requires minimum tillage practices to maintain soil organic matter and reduce soil erosion. Approximately 92% of Australian cotton growers use minimum tillage.

—

MyBMP does not explicitly require crop rotation as part of its soil health requirements. However, crop rotation is encouraged by MyBMP and is common practice among Australian cotton farmers.

—

Australian law prevents the expansion of cultivation into high conservation value areas and critical ecosystems.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: not converting native forest, maintaining publicly available HCV assessments, not converting land at expense of one or more HCVs, etc.

—

Cotton is a perennial plant and a renewable feedstock.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on reducing waste through reuse, recycling or other utilizations.

—

MyBMP requires that workers are instructed and trained in the safe use of pesticides (e.g. transport, application, mixing and loading, and emergency procedures) and that emergency equipment is available. MyBMP has an agreement with BCI and uses the Better Cotton Standard on highly hazardous chemicals. Further, the Australian government is party to the Rotterdam convention which bans the use of certain pesticides and chemicals that are harmful to human health or the environment.

—

N/A, not a recycled feedstock.

—

MyBMP provides guidance to farmers on how to reduce raw material inputs, and practice production efficiency. However, no price differential is paid directly to farmers.

—

At farm-level, standard meets CAT indicators on: banning workplace discrimination, punishment, abuse, harassment or intimidation, respecting workers’ freedom of association and right to collective bargaining, addressing grievances and compensating for injuries, ensuring that wages, working hours and leave comply with, or exceed, applicable legislation and sector minimum standards, etc. Standard does not meet CAT indicators on: banning forced labor, banning child labor, respecting core ILO rights of workers, etc. At initial processing, standard does not have labor rights requirements.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing potential impacts on communities and individuals, including food security and water availability, prior to any significant intensification/expansion, assessing and maintain High Conservation Values category 5 (basic necessities for local communities), cultivating a mix of genotypes of each main crop, ensure access to safe drinking water, adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene (WASH). etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on resourced secretariat with contact details publicly available. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: core normative documents are publicly available, ISEAL membership, membership organization, names and affiliation of members are publicly available, the highest decision-making forum ensures that no single interest group can dominate governance (economic, social or environmental), changes to core normative documents requires voting, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: publicly available standard documents, having auditable indicators, revisions at least every 5 years, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing social and environmental impacts, workers’ conditions/rights, community relations, environment, and biodiversity; taking into account the ISEAL Impact Code, draft standards are subject to multiple rounds of public consultation, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: CB’s proactively consult with affected stakeholders during any audit, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination, complaints procedures have clear deadlines, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: procedures to monitor custody and trade of materials from certified producers, certification bodies (CBs) survey certificate holders’ chain of custody procedures, CBs survey use of claims, trademarks and labels on and off products, claimed/labelled products do not contain any materials from areas where HCVs (1-6) are threatened, etc.

—

No LCA data is available in the MSI to support an improvement from conventional production practices.

—

No LCA data is available in the MSI to support an improvement from conventional production practices.

—

Fairtrade supports strong and representative farmer organizations with accessible training towards climate resilient crop production systems, soil health and biodiversity, reduced GHG emissions, and better yields. Though farmers are prohibited from using GM seeds, take part in water risk mitigation techniques, and are made aware of practices that improve soil and waterways’ health and fertility, some hazardous chemicals may still be applied. Fairtrade collaborates with Gold Standard and producer groups for projects in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and forestry, although they are not required program-wide.

—

Fairtrade encourages farmers to evaluate and execute on opportunities for enhancing soil health, but there are no required techniques that directly lend themselves to carbon sequestration. Farmers are expected to reduce GHGs and increase carbon sequestration, but there is no specific evidence on which techniques are required program-wide.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: increasing climate resilience, estimating emissions and sequestration, and reducing emissions.

—

No LCA data is available in the MSI to support an improvement from conventional production practices.

—

No LCA data is available in the MSI to support an improvement from conventional production practices.

—

No LCA data is available in the MSI to support an improvement from conventional production practices.

—

Fairtrade cotton encourages the efficient and sustainable use of water resources. There is an expectation that processes are in place to manage the amount of water irrigated and extracted from source.

—

Only 15% of Fairtrade cotton is irrigated; the rest is rainfed. Many Fairtrade projects are encouraged, but not required, to adopt applicable methods to recirculate, reuse, and recycle water or improve water absorption through soil conservation and cultivation.

—

Fairtrade cotton encourages conservation areas and buffer zones around bodies of water to reduce the harm of chemical discharge. Untreated wastewater is not discharged directly into the natural environment, discharged water does not pollute drinking water sources, and where necessary, farms implement pans to monitor wastewater quality and protect soil, crops, and waterways.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing impacts on community water availability, mapping waterways potentially impacted by operations, avoiding increasing water scarcity, maintaining water security, practicing efficient irrigation, etc.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: mapping waterways potentially impacted by operations, reducing water pollution, avoiding run off, regularly monitoring impacts on water and adapting management as necessary for improvement, reducing agrochemical risk, etc.

—

No LCA data is available in the MSI to support an improvement from conventional production practices.

—

Fairtrade aims to reduce the application of pesticides as much as possible, encouraging the utilization of Integrated Pest Management tools before any synthetic chemicals. Fairtrade has banned a list of hazardous chemicals and maintains requirements around the safe storage and transport of chemicals, careful application of chemicals, and signaling of chemical application locations.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on banning the use of hazardous chemicals as defined by WHO 1A and B, and Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: implementing integrated pest management practices, documenting all application, handling, storage and disposal procedures of chemicals, avoiding or minimizing negative impacts on human health and the environment, adopting agro-ecological practices including the non-use of pesticides, etc.

—

Fairtrade cotton encourages the improvement of soil fertility through composting, ground cover integration, crop rotation and intercropping, and reduction of soil erosion. Fertilizers (organic and inorganic) are permitted and soil fertility is monitored.

—

Fairtrade cotton encourages conservation tillage practices, but evidence of the occurrence of these practices as widespread is limited.

—

Fairtrade cotton encourages improvement of soil fertility through composting, crop rotation and intercropping, and reduction of soil erosion. However, it is not required, and evidence of outcomes is lacking.

—

Fairtrade cotton expects conservation of protected areas within or outside farm areas. Fairtrade cotton producers are prohibited from causing deforestation or degradation of vegetation. Producers are encouraged to maintain buffer zones around water sources and between production areas and areas of high conservation value, and are prohibited from applying any chemicals in buffer zones. Areas converted to production areas comply with national legislation in relation to agricultural land use.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: minimizing negative impacts on soil, avoiding or minimizing soil erosion, maintaining or improving soil quality, monitoring impacts and adapting management as necessary, adapting fertilization to soil conditions, etc.

—

Cotton is a perennial plant and a renewable feedstock.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on reducing waste through reuse, recycling or other utilizations.

—

Fairtrade cotton has requirements for workplace safety, including the use of protective clothing and proper handling of hazardous materials, as well as requirements for minimized use, safe handling and storage of pesticides, herbicides and hazardous chemicals.

—

N/A, not a recycled feedstock.

—

Fairtrade cotton is “best in class” for farmer income potential, as farmers are paid a Fairtrade minimum price and receive extensive services and training, as well as hands-on support at a farm or facility level.

—

At farm-level, program meets CAT indicators on identifying and mitigating health and safety risks. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: workers are equipped, instructed and trained for tasks, including safe use of and chemical handling, addressing grievances and providing compensation for occupational injuries, documenting all procedures in relation to chemicals, etc. At initial processing, program does not have health & safety requirements.

—

At farm-level, program meets CAT indicators on: banning forced labor, banning child labor, banning workplace discrimination, punishment, abuse, harassment or intimidation, respecting workers’ freedom of association and right to collective bargaining, respecting core ILO rights of workers, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on addressing grievances and compensating for injuries. At initial processing, program does not have labor rights requirements.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: assessing and maintain High Conservation Values category 5 (basic necessities for local communities), ensure access to safe drinking water, adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene (WASH). etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing potential impacts on communities and individuals, including food security and water availability, prior to any significant intensification/expansion, cultivating a mix of genotypes of each main crop, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination, complaints procedures have clear deadlines, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, CB’s proactively consult with affected stakeholders during any audit, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: accreditation organization conducts risk-based auditing and surveillance of certification bodies, summaries of accreditation assessments of certification bodies are publicly available, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: certification bodies are accredited by an ISEAL member accreditation organization, accreditation organization verifies that certification bodies engage effectively with stakeholders, etc.

—

No LCA data is available in the MSI to support an improvement from conventional production practices.

—

No LCA data is available in the MSI to support an improvement from conventional production practices.

—

ABRAPA implements a range of soil health practices but permits the use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and GMO seeds during cultivation. While many farms certified by ABRAPA do implement their own farmer training programs and support networks that may tie to climate resiliency, there are no explicit requirements on farmer trainings, financial support of employees amidst climate emergencies, or programming supporting a transition to lower carbon production practices.

—

Some anecdotal information exists on sequestering soil carbon using improved production practices like no-till and composting; however, further research is needed to draw a strong connection between ABRAPA standards and specific methods of carbon sequestration.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: increasing climate resilience, estimating emissions and sequestration, and reducing emissions.

—

No LCA data is available in the MSI to support an improvement from conventional production practices.

—

No LCA data is available in the MSI to support an improvement from conventional production practices.

—

No LCA data is available in the MSI to support an improvement from conventional production practices.

—

The ABRAPA standard has 21 requirements about efficient water use and management, but there are no widespread practices like drip irrigation or water recycling implemented widely.

—

95% of ABRAPA cotton is rainfed, with a variety of management practices in implementation to support efficient use. With a focus on increasing soil organic matter and soil health, ABRAPA farmers improve resilience to flood and drought.

—

ABRAPA certified farms are required to meet the manufacturer’s recommendation regarding agrochemical spraying distance from populated areas and waterways; however, synthetic pesticides and fertilizers are still used, so entrance into waterways may still occur.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: mapping waterways potentially impacted by operations, avoiding increasing water scarcity, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing impacts on community water availability, identifying water risks, maintaining water security, practicing efficient irrigation, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: mapping waterways potentially impacted by operations, reducing water pollution, avoiding runoff, reducing agrochemical risk, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on regularly monitoring impacts on water and adapting management as necessary for improvement.

—

No LCA data is available in the MSI to support an improvement from conventional production practices.

—

ABRAPA requires farms to have a strategy to discontinue the use of Endosulfan and pesticides listed in the WHO Class I and Rotterdam Convention, and to hold training programs on chemical management. As a removal strategy, ABRAPA farms may still be in the process of discontinuing use while certified.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: implementing integrated pest management practices, documenting all application, handling, storage, and disposal procedures of chemicals, avoiding or minimizing negative impacts on human health and the environment, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: banning the use of hazardous chemicals as defined by WHO 1A and B, and Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions, adopting agro-ecological practices including the non-use of pesticides, etc.

—

ABRAPA includes farmer training on conservationist techniques to maintain the physical, chemical, and biological quality of the soil. There are criteria related to soil health and testing programs to test soil fertility, organic matter, salinity, fertilizer efficiency, etc. within the program, though they are not specifically outlined.

—

ABRAPA farms utilize no-till planting, which reduces the need for machine ploughing and preserves soil fertility and vitality. It is unclear whether no-till is a widespread standard practice.

—

ABRAPA requires all farms to incorporate crop diversity in order to regenerate the soil, and although ABRAPA has taken some proactive steps with regards to crop rotation, there is no widespread farm requirement in place.

—

ABRAPA has taken some proactive steps with regards to soil, and farms adopt good soil management practices in order to maintain its structure and fertility, conducting soil fertility analyses and incorporating practices such as crop rotation, composting, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: minimizing negative impacts on soil, avoiding or minimizing soil erosion, maintaining or improving soil quality, adapting fertilization to soil conditions, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on monitoring impacts and adapting management as necessary.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: not converting native forest, maintaining publicly available HCV assessments, not converting land at expense of one or more HCVs, etc.

—

Cotton is naturally a perennial plant and a renewable feedstock.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on reducing waste through reuse, recycling or other utilizations.

—

ABRAPA bans the use of hazardous chemicals and takes a low-exposure approach to applying chemicals, with trainings and providing protective gear to workers.

—

N/A, not a recycled feedstock.

—

ABRAPA provides guidance to farmers on reducing raw material inputs and practicing production efficiency; however, no price differential is paid directly to farmers. Farmers are paid based on prevailing market price and quality. Additionally, the use of synthetic input chemicals and GMO seeds will add steady environmental and financial costs to farmers.

—

At farm-level, program meets CAT indicators on: identifying and mitigating health and safety risks, workers are equipped, instructed and trained for tasks, including safe use of and chemical handling,documenting all procedures in relation to chemicals, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on addressing grievances and providing compensation for occupational injuries. At initial processing, program does not have health & safety requirements.

—

At farm-level, program meets CAT indicators on: banning forced labor, banning child labor, banning workplace discrimination, punishment, abuse, harassment or intimidation, respecting workers’ freedom of association and right to collective bargaining, respecting core ILO rights of workers, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on addressing grievances and compensating for injuries. At initial processing, program does not have labor rights requirements.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: assessing social and environmental impacts, workers’ conditions/rights, community relations, environment, and biodiversity; publicly available standard documents, having auditable indicators, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: taking into account the ISEAL Impact Code, draft standards are subject to multiple rounds of public consultation, revisions at least every 5 years, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, CB’s proactively consult with affected stakeholders during any audit, CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination, complaints procedures have clear deadlines, etc.

—

Conventional cotton is assessed as the baseline performance against which all other programs are assessed. Impacts for cotton are concentration in fertilizer production and field emissions with tertiary impacts attributable to irrigation and farm equipment.

—

Conventional cotton is assessed as the baseline performance against which all other programs are assessed. Impacts for Cotton come from equipment run on oil and electricity at ginning which varies due to regional grid mix.

—

There are no widespread activations supporting climate resilience within global conventional cotton production. In the US and some other parts of the world, crop insurance provides risk mitigation to the worst effects of climate change, but access to this resource is not exclusive to conventional systems. The high use of pesticides and fertilizers, as well as depleted soil health found in conventional systems further reduces climate resilience.

—

Poor agricultural practices have been associated with a loss of soil organic carbon; therefore, there is no evidence of widespread carbon sequestration for conventional cotton growing worldwide.

—

As a conventional fiber, no assessable program requirements or certifications are implemented to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Fossil fuels and electricity usage for farm equipment, irrigation systems, and textile production are contributors to total global GHG emissions of cotton. Leakage of hazardous toxins (via fertilizers and insecticides) into the air, water, and surrounding ecosystems is a concern, as are the GHG emissions from the consumer use phase of cotton.

—

Conventional cotton is assessed as the baseline performance against which all other programs are assessed. Many cotton-growing regions experience stress on water resources due to cumulative agricultural demand.

—

Conventional cotton is assessed as the baseline performance against which all other programs are assessed. Without required practices to reduce water consumption, conventional cotton that is not rainfed, is recorded to be highly water intensive.

—

While some conventional cotton producers may apply techniques to proactively manage the use of surface or groundwater, this is not comprehensively completed for all conventional cotton worldwide. Green water management varies from country to country, depending on climatic conditions for conventional cotton cultivation.

—

While some conventional cotton producers may apply techniques to proactively manage rainwater, this is not comprehensively completed worldwide, and supplemental irrigation is typically used.

—

No guidance or requirements exist on reducing chemical discharge into waterways and surrounding ecosystems and communities.

—

As a conventional fiber, no assessable program requirements or certifications are implemented to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Nearly half of global cotton production area is derived from rainfall with the other half from freshwater irrigation.

—

As a conventional fiber, no assessable program requirements or certifications are implemented to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Produced water from oil exploration contains varying quantities of fertilizer residues and a vast array of other potentially toxic compounds used at every stage of the production process. The result is water containing chemicals, expelled as wastewater into surrounding areas. Poor wastewater management can also cause freshwater withdrawal, depletion of resources, ecotoxicity and human health.

—

Conventional cotton is assessed as the baseline performance against which all other programs are assessed. Chemisry risks are concentrated in synthetic pesticide and fertilizer use.

—

Conventional cotton growers must adhere to national regulations on chemical use, which vary by country. Lack of strict control surrounding chemical use remains a significant risk of conventional cotton production. Conventional cotton has historic high pesticide use, including those shown to have adverse environmental and human effects. Petroleum-based fertilizers are utilized widely to boost production, as are fungicides, insecticides, growth regulators, and defoliants.

—

As a conventional fiber, no assessable program requirements or certifications are implemented to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Conventional cotton is the third most pesticide-treated crop after corn and soybeans, not including the amount of solvents, emulsifiers, carriers, propellants, and more. Other than the US, information on the volume and identity of pesticides and fertilizers used on cotton is not publicly available.

—

Although the use of organic matter to enhance soil health is practiced in some areas, this application is not standardized for conventional cotton production worldwide. No proactive application of biological or other non-synthetic materials are standardized for conventional cotton production worldwide.

—

Globally, both conservation tillage and no-till are practiced within conventional systems. The occurrence of these practices depends on the region, with some area’s such as the US as high as 65% conservation/no-till. In conventional farming systems, no till is associated with increased herbicide use.

—

Crop rotation is a common but not required practice in conventional cotton production worldwide. Conventional cotton is commonly rotated with soybeans, wheat, sorghum, grains, corn, and peanuts.

—

No systematic land management systems or conservation steps have been taken in conventional cotton production worldwide. Consequences include deforestation of critical ecosystems to clear agricultural land.

—

As a conventional fiber, no assessable program requirements or certifications are implemented to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Poor management of residues and careless ploughing techniques and land management practices can cause soil pollution, compaction, and erosion. This causes detriment to surrounding ecosystems and communities.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. The use of fertilizer, application of pesticides, and land use is associated with land degradation and deforestation, posing risk to HCV areas. However, modern technology in developed countries has enabled increased efficiency in cotton production over the past forty years.

—

Cotton is a perennial plant and a renewable feedstock.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Risks include the improper disposal of cotton stalks, cotton seeds, and cotton gin waste. Traditionally, cotton gin waste is disposed of via incineration, landfilling, or composting.

—

There are no consistent measures used worldwide to regulate handling of chemicals. Poor storage, inadequate or unused personal, protective equipment and lack of training in handling hazardous chemicals can result in pesticide poisoning among cotton producers with symptoms ranging from headaches and nausea to loss of consciousness.

—

N/A, not a recycled feedstock.

—

Cotton plays a major role in providing income to more than 250 million people globally, employing 7% of all labour in developing countries. However, volatilities in costs of farming cotton relating to unpredictable prices of inputs, a reliance on middle-men and risk of crop failure can lead to unstable incomes. Furthermore, no guidance or requirements are provided to farmers around reducing raw material inputs or practicing production efficiency. Farmers are paid based on prevailing market price and quality.

—

At the farm level, health and safety risks stem from the use of agrochemicals with inadequate protection or training. The risk of using these chemicals, combined with long hours and harsh work conditions, put the health and wellbeing of producers’ health at risk.

—

Forced and child labor is well documented in cotton-producing countries, including state-controlled forced labour in certain countries. Child labour in cotton is mainly a risk in small-scale farms. The US Department of Labor lists cotton production with forced labor in eight countries, and child labor in 15 countries. Labor abuses are also reported in spinning mills in certain countries, particularly prevalent against migrant women in some regions.

—

The global area devoted to cotton cultivation has remained constant for the past 70 years. Despite this, reports indicate that cotton is being cultivated on land where appropriation of land and displacement of local communities has occured, particularly in regions expanding their cotton production.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Climate change will likely have greater effects on low income and BIPOC folks across the globe. Environmental racism will be intensified as old systems of production (i.e. pesticide spraying and herbicide use and factory locations) continue to be used throughout the supply chain.

—

Cotton can contribute to over-consumption of water, depleting local water sources for surrounding communities. Furthermore, loose regulations around wastewater disposal and runoff may contaminate surrounding water sources.

—

As a conventional fiber no assessable program requirements or certifications are implemented to mitigate risk.

—

As a conventional fiber no assessable program requirements or certifications are implemented to mitigate risk.

—

As a conventional fiber no assessable program requirements or certifications are implemented to mitigate risk.

—

As a conventional fiber no assessable program requirements or certifications are implemented to mitigate risk.

—

As a conventional fiber no assessable program requirements or certifications are implemented to mitigate risk.

Mechanically Recycled Polyester - GRS

Mechanically Recycled Polyamide (Nylon) - GRS

Chemically Recycled Polyester - GRS

Mechanically Recycled Polyester - RCS

Mechanically Recycled Polyamide (Nylon) - RCS

Chemically Recycled Polyester - RCS

Recycled Elastane - RCS

Recycled Acrylic - RCS

Conventional Polyester

Conventional Polyamide (Nylon)

Conventional Elastane

Conventional Acrylic

—

Mechanically Recycled Polyester is 76.45% less GHG intensive than Conventional Polyester using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Mechanically Recycled Polyester uses 90.27% less fossil fuel resources than Conventional Polyester using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Although climate impact for mechanically recycled polyester is significantly less than conventional polyester, emissions are still commonly created during recycling of feedstock. However, the GRS requires targets to improve energy use, reduce emissions emitted during production, and safeguard against fire.

—

No biological carbon sequestration is associated with the production of this material.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on estimating emissions and sequestration, and reducing emissions. Program does not meet CAT indicators on increasing climate resilience.

—

Mechanically Recycled Polyester causes 85.06% less water scarcity than Conventional Polyester using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Mechanically Recycled Polyester uses 81.49% less water than Conventional Polyester using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Mechanically Recycled Polyester’s eutrophication potential is 91.10% lower than Chemically Recycled Polyester using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Utilization of the ZDHC restricted chemical list, along with maximum chemical discharge thresholds, significantly reduces any risk. The GRS standard also requires compliance with relevant legislation in relation to wastewater/effluent, up-to-date record keeping and permits, and a drainage plan with a general understanding of wastewater flow direction and discharge points.

—

As a recycled material, there is significant risk mitigation due to the feedstock source. While not from virgin sources, the feedstock is likely derived from sources obtained from oil and gas extraction, which are linked to surface and groundwater from spillages, improper handling of wastewater, and faulty infrastructure. However, washing of GRS polyester generally uses less water than conventional polyester. GRS also requires up-to-date permits, records of water use, and an annual progress review.

—

Mechanically Recycled Polyester scores 50% better on the Higg MSI Chemistry Rating than Conventional Polyester.

—

GRS requires a comprehensive chemical management system, with dedicated staff responsible for managing the use of chemicals and training. Accurate lists and safety data sheets of all chemical inputs are available. There are specific restricted chemical substances in the GRS in alignment with REACH and ZDHC. Requirements also cover proper treatment and disposal of waste sludge.

—

The production of mechanically recycled polyester does not include land practices to prevent degradation, improve or conserve the land; in fact, as a recycled material, additional stressors on the land through raw material extraction are avoided.

—

Not applicable to recycled materials.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: maintaining publicly available HCV assessments, etc.

—

Feedstock is recycled, typically from plastic PET bottle waste.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on reducing waste through reuse, recycling or other utilizations.

—

GRS requires a comprehensive chemical management system, with dedicated staff responsible for managing the use of chemicals and training. Accurate lists and safety data sheets of all chemical inputs are available and specific chemical substances are restricted. Appropriate and effective personal protective equipment are also required to be provided as needed.

—

No requirements for ensuring that recycled feedstock inputs were collected in a socially responsible way.

—

At initial fiber-processing level, Program meets CAT indicators on: identifying potential health and safety risks at work and take measures to avoid them, ensuring that workers are adequately equipped, instructed and trained for their tasks including safe use and handling of chemicals, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on addressing working conditions and workers’ rights grievances and providing compensation for injuries.

—

At initial processing, Program meets CAT indicators on: banning forced or involuntary labor, banning children less than 15 years old carrying out productive work, ensuring that workers are not subject to discrimination at work, any punishment, abuse, harassment or intimidation, respecting workers’ freedom of association and right to collective bargaining, respecting core ILO rights of workers, ensuring that wages, working hours and leave comply with, or exceed, applicable legislation and sector minimum standards at fiber-level. Standard does not meet CAT indicators on addressing grievances and compensating for injuries.

—

Progran meets CAT indicators on: assessing social and environmental impacts, workers’ conditions/rights, community relations, environment, and biodiversity; taking into account the ISEAL Impact Code, draft standards are subject to multiple rounds of public consultation, publicly available standard documents, having auditable indicators, revisions at least every 5 years, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: CB’s proactively consult with affected stakeholders during any audit, complaints procedures have clear deadlines, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: procedures to monitor custody and trade of materials from certified producers, certification bodies (CBs) survey certificate holders’ chain of custody procedures, CBs survey use of claims, trademarks and labels on and off products, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on claimed/labelled products do not contain any materials from areas where HCVs (1-6) are threatened.

—

Recycled Polyamide is 91.89% less GHG intensive than Conventional Polyamide using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Recycled Polyamide uses 94.94% less fossil fuel resources than Conventional Polyamide using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Although climate impact for recycled polyamide is significantly less than conventional polyester, emissions are still commonly created during recycling of feedstock. The GRS requires targets to improve energy use, reduce emissions emitted during production, and safeguard against fire.

—

No biological carbon sequestration is associated with the production of this material.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on estimating emissions and sequestration, and reducing emissions. Program does not meet CAT indicators on increasing climate resilience.

—

Recycled polyamide is the highest impact of the polyamide programs included in the PFM Matrix for water scarcity.

—

Recycled polyamide is the highest impact of the polyamide programs included in the PFM Matrix for water use.

—

Recycled Polyamide’s eutrophication potential is 73.15% lower than Conventional Polyamide using data from the Higg MSI.

—

As a recycled material, there is significant risk mitigation due to the feedstock source. While not from virgin sources, the feedstock is likely derived from sources obtained from oil and gas extraction, which are linked to surface and groundwater from spillages, improper handling of wastewater, and faulty infrastructure. However, washing of GRS polyamide generally uses less water than conventional polyamide. GRS requires up-to-date permits, records of water use, and an annual progress review.

—

Recycled Polyamide scores 50% better on the Higg MSI Chemistry Rating than Conventional Polyamide.

—

Not applicable to recycled materials.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: maintaining publicly available HCV assessments, etc.

—

Feedstock typically comes from established reverse supply chain, and only a limited amount of the rNylon at global level comes from ocean waste.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on reducing waste through reuse, recycling or other utilizations.

—

GRS requires a comprehensive chemical management system, with dedicated staff responsible for managing the use of chemicals and training. Accurate lists and safety data sheets of all chemical inputs are available and specific chemical substances are restricted. Appropriate and effective personal protective equipment are also required to be provided as needed.

—

No requirements for ensuring that recycled feedstock inputs were collected in a socially responsible way.

—

At initial fiber-processing level, program meets CAT indicators on: identifying potential health and safety risks at work and take measures to avoid them, ensuring that workers are adequately equipped, instructed and trained for their tasks including safe use and handling of chemicals, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on addressing working conditions and workers’ rights grievances and providing compensation for injuries.

—

At initial processing, program meets CAT indicators on: banning forced labor, banning child labor, banning workplace discrimination, punishment, abuse, harassment or intimidation, respecting workers’ freedom of association and right to collective bargaining, respecting core ILO rights of workers, ensuring that wages, working hours and leave comply with, or exceed, applicable legislation and sector minimum standards at fiber-level. Program does not meet CAT indicators on addressing grievances and compensating for injuries.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: assessing social and environmental impacts, workers’ conditions/rights, community relations, environment, and biodiversity; taking into account the ISEAL Impact Code, draft standards are subject to multiple rounds of public consultation, publicly available standard documents, having auditable indicators, revisions at least every 5 years, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: CB’s proactively consult with affected stakeholders during any audit, complaints procedures have clear deadlines, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: procedures to monitor custody and trade of materials from certified producers, certification bodies (CBs) survey certificate holders’ chain of custody procedures, CBs survey use of claims, trademarks and labels on and off products, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on claimed/labelled products do not contain any materials from areas where HCVs (1-6) are threatened.

—

Chemically Recycled Polyester is 29.45% less GHG intensive than Conventional Polyester using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Chemically Recycled Polyester uses 56.75% less fossil fuel resources than Conventional Polyester using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Although climate impact for chemically recycled polyester is significantly less than conventional polyester, emissions are still commonly created during recycling of feedstock. The GRS requires targets to improve energy use, reduce emissions emitted during production, and safeguard against fire.

—

No biological carbon sequestration is associated with the production of this material.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on estimating emissions and sequestration, and reducing emissions. Program does not meet CAT indicators on increasing climate resilience.

—

Chemically Recycled Polyester causes 45.50% less water scarcity than Conventional Polyester using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Chemically Recycled Polyester uses 48.80% less water than Conventional Polyester using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Chemically Recycled Polyester’s eutrophication potential is the highest out off all polyester programs and is used as the baseline.

—

As a recycled material, there is significant risk mitigation due to the feedstock source. While not from virgin sources, the feedstock is likely derived from sources obtained from oil and gas extraction, which are linked to surface and groundwater from spillages, improper handling of wastewater, and faulty infrastructure. However, washing of GRS polyester generally uses less water than conventional polyester. GRS requires up-to-date permits, records of water use, and an annual progress review.

—

Chemically Recycled Polyester has the same Higg MSI chemistry score as Conventional Polyester which is used as the baseline.

—

Not applicable to recycled materials.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: maintaining publicly available HCV assessments, etc.

—

Feedstock is recycled, typically from plastic PET bottle waste.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on reducing waste through reuse, recycling or other utilizations.

—

GRS requires a comprehensive chemical management system, with dedicated staff responsible for managing the use of chemicals and training. Accurate lists and safety data sheets of all chemical inputs are available and specific chemical substances are restricted. Appropriate and effective personal protective equipment are also required to be provided as needed. Not all chemically recycled polyester will be eligible to receive GRS certification.

—

No requirements for ensuring that recycled feedstock inputs were collected in a socially responsible way.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: assessing social and environmental impacts, workers’ conditions/rights, community relations, environment, and biodiversity; taking into account the ISEAL Impact Code, draft standards are subject to multiple rounds of public consultation, publicly available standard documents, having auditable indicators, revisions at least every 5 years, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: CB’s proactively consult with affected stakeholders during any audit, complaints procedures have clear deadlines, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: procedures to monitor custody and trade of materials from certified producers, certification bodies (CBs) survey certificate holders’ chain of custody procedures, CBs survey use of claims, trademarks and labels on and off products, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on claimed/labelled products do not contain any materials from areas where HCVs (1-6) are threatened.

—

Mechanically Recycled Polyester is 76.45% less GHG intensive than Conventional Polyester using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Mechanically Recycled Polyester uses 90.29% less fossil fuel resources than Conventional Polyester using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Although climate impact for mechanically recycled polyester is significantly less than conventional polyester, emissions are still commonly created during recycling of feedstock. As an RCS material, there are no requirements for climate resilience.

—

No biological carbon sequestration is associated with the production of this material.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: increasing climate resilience, estimating emissions and sequestration, and reducing emissions.

—

Mechanically Recycled Polyester causes 85.06% less water scarcity than Conventional Polyester using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Mechanically Recycled Polyester uses 81.49% less water than Conventional Polyester using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Mechanically Recycled Polyester’s eutrophication potential is 91.10% lower than Chemically Recycled Polyester using data from the Higg MSI.

—

While mechanically recycled polyester does not produce a significant amount of wastewater, washing of feedstock does use detergents, solvents, and other compounds. Without specific management practices for water and chemical handling, risks of substances being released into waterways do exist.

—

As a recycled material, there is significant risk mitigation due to the inherent difference in feedstock source. While the material is no longer from virgin sources, the material is likely derived from sources obtained from oil and gas extraction in a previous life cycle, at which point posed risk to surface and groundwater from spillages, improper handling of wastewater, and faulty infrastructure. Generally, however, washing of RCS polyester uses less water than conventional polyester.

—

Mechanically Recycled Polyester scores 50% better on the Higg MSI Chemistry Rating than Conventional Polyester.

—

Mechanical recycling of feedstock uses detergents and solvents for washing bottles and flakes. Although these are generally less toxic than chemicals used in virgin fiber production, the RCS does not require any standard practice relating to chemical use and therefore cannot determine the management and level of control.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: banning the use of hazardous chemicals as defined by WHO 1A and B, and Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions, etc.

—

Not applicable to recycled materials.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: maintaining publicly available HCV assessments, etc.

—

Feedstock is recycled, typically from plastic PET bottle waste.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on reducing waste through reuse, recycling or other utilizations.

—

Although recylced production is inherently lower risk than virgin supply chains, RCS standards do not include requirements on worker health and safety. Exposure risk to workers can be minimized when best available manufacturing practices and personal protective equipment are used.

—

No requirements for ensuring that recycled feedstock inputs were collected in a socially responsible way.

—

At initial fiber-processing level, program does not meet CAT indicators on: identifying potential health and safety risks at work and taking measures to avoid them, ensuring that workers are adequately equipped, instructed and trained for their tasks including safe use and handling of chemicals, addressing working conditions and workers’ rights grievances and providing compensation for injuries, etc.

—

At initial processing, program does not meet CAT indicators on: banning forced labor, banning child labor, banning workplace discrimination, punishment, abuse, harassment or intimidation, respecting workers’ freedom of association and right to collective bargaining, respecting core ILO rights of workers, addressing grievances and compensating for injuries, ensuring that wages, working hours and leave comply with, or exceed, applicable legislation and sector minimum standards at fiber-level.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: CB’s proactively consult with affected stakeholders during any audit, complaints procedures have clear deadlines, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: procedures to monitor custody and trade of materials from certified producers, certification bodies (CBs) survey certificate holders’ chain of custody procedures, CBs survey use of claims, trademarks and labels on and off products, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on claimed/labelled products do not contain any materials from areas where HCVs (1-6) are threatened.

—

Recycled Polyamide is 91.89% less GHG intensive than Conventional Polyamide using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Recycled Polyamide uses 94.94% less fossil fuel resources than Conventional Polyamide using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Although climate impact for recycled polyamide is significantly less than conventional polyamide, emissions are still commonly created during recycling of feedstock. There are currently no requirements in the RCS standard towards climate resilience developments, therefore we can not determine if better than conventional methods of practice.

—

No biological carbon sequestration is associated with the production of this material.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: increasing climate resilience, estimating emissions and sequestration, and reducing emissions.

—

Recycled polyamide is the highest impact of the polyamide programs included in the PFM Matrix for water scarcity.

—

Recycled polyamide is the highest impact of the polyamide programs included in the PFM Matrix for water use.

—

Recycled Polyamide’s eutrophication potential is 73.15% lower than Conventional Polyamide using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Mechanical recycling uses low hazard chemistry during the cleaning of recovered materials. Chemical recycling is mostly achieved through the use of high-pressure steam with the help of chemical agents. While recycling polyamide does not produce a significant amount of wastewater, RCS standards do not mitigate risks of contamination and discharge into waterways.

—

As a recycled material, there is significant risk mitigation due to the inherent difference in feedstock source. While the material is no longer from virgin sources, the material is likely derived from sources obtained from oil and gas extraction in a previous life cycle, at which point posed risk to surface and groundwater from spillages, improper handling of wastewater, and faulty infrastructure. Generally, however, washing RCS polyamide uses less water than conventional polyester.

—

Recycled Polyamide scores 50% better on the Higg MSI Chemistry Rating than Conventional Polyamide.

—

While RCS does not require any control of chemical use, typically the process is less risky than conventional polyamide production. Mechanical recycling uses low hazard chemistry during cleaning of recovered materials. Chemical recycling is mostly achieved through the use of high-pressure steam with the help of chemical agents.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: banning the use of hazardous chemicals as defined by WHO 1A and B, and Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions, etc.

—

Not applicable to recycled materials.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: maintaining publicly available HCV assessments, etc.

—

Feedstock typically comes from established reverse supply chain, and only a limited amount of the rNylon at global level comes from ocean waste.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on reducing waste through reuse, recycling or other utilizations.

—

Although recycled production is inherently lower risk than virgin supply chains, RCS standards do not include requirements on worker health and safety. Exposure risk to workers can be minimized when best available manufacturing practices and personal protective equipment are used.

—

No requirements for ensuring that recycled feedstock inputs were collected in a socially responsible way.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: CB’s proactively consult with affected stakeholders during any audit, complaints procedures have clear deadlines, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: procedures to monitor custody and trade of materials from certified producers, certification bodies (CBs) survey certificate holders’ chain of custody procedures, CBs survey use of claims, trademarks and labels on and off products, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on claimed/labelled products do not contain any materials from areas where HCVs (1-6) are threatened.

—

Chemically Recycled Polyester is 29.45% less GHG intensive than Conventional Polyester using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Chemically Recycled Polyester uses 56.75% less fossil fuel resources than Conventional Polyester using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Although climate impact for chemically recycled polyester is significantly less than conventional polyester, emissions are still commonly created during recycling of feedstock. As an RCS material, there are no requirements for climate resilience

—

No biological carbon sequestration is associated with the production of this material.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: increasing climate resilience, estimating emissions and sequestration, and reducing emissions.

—

Chemically Recycled Polyester causes 45.50% less water scarcity than Conventional Polyester using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Chemically Recycled Polyester uses 48.80% less water than Conventional Polyester using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Chemically Recycled Polyester’s eutrophication potential is the highest out off all polyester programs and is used as the baseline.

—

While chemically recycled polyester does not produce a significant amount of wastewater, the process of recycling feedstock into monomer or oligomer requires the use of ethylene glycol, methanol, and sodium carbonate. Without specific management practices for water and chemical handling, RCS standards do not mitigate risks of contamination and discharge into waterways.

—

Chemically Recycled Polyester has the same Higg MSI chemistry score as Conventional Polyester which is used as the baseline.

—

While the chemical recycling process is generally known to be energy and chemical intensive, the level of control in chemical use is typically higher than virgin polyester, although RCS does not require any management and control of chemical use.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: banning the use of hazardous chemicals as defined by WHO 1A and B, and Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions, etc.

—

Not applicable to recycled materials.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: maintaining publicly available HCV assessments, etc.

—

Feedstock is recycled, typically from plastic PET bottle waste.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on reducing waste through reuse, recycling or other utilizations.

—

No requirements for ensuring that recycled feedstock inputs were collected in a socially responsible way.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: CB’s proactively consult with affected stakeholders during any audit, complaints procedures have clear deadlines, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: procedures to monitor custody and trade of materials from certified producers, certification bodies (CBs) survey certificate holders’ chain of custody procedures, CBs survey use of claims, trademarks and labels on and off products, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on claimed/labelled products do not contain any materials from areas where HCVs (1-6) are threatened.

—

No recycled elastane data is available in MSI, impact data is default to conventional elastane.

—

No recycled elastane data is available in MSI, impact data is default to conventional elastane.

—

Although climate impact for recycled elastane is significantly less than conventional polyester, emissions are still commonly created during recycling of feedstock. As an RCS material, there are no requirements for climate resilience.

—

No biological carbon sequestration is associated with the production of this material.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: increasing climate resilience, estimating emissions and sequestration, and reducing emissions.

—

No recycled elastane data is available in MSI, impact data is default to conventional elastane.

—

No recycled elastane data is available in MSI, impact data is default to conventional elastane.

—

No recycled elastane data is available in MSI, impact data is default to conventional elastane.

—

Recycling elastane captures waste from virgin elastane production and processes this into pre-consumer recycled material. As there is a reduced need for additional chemicals in the polymerization process, the chemical discharge risk is lower than conventional production. However, RCS standards do not mitigate risks of contamination and discharge into waterways.

—

As a recycled material, there is significant risk mitigation due to the inherent difference in feedstock source. While the material is no longer from virgin sources, the material is likely derived from sources obtained from oil and gas extraction in a previous life cycle, at which point posed risk to surface and groundwater from spillages, improper handling of wastewater, and faulty infrastructure. Generally, however, washing of RCS elastane uses less water than conventional elastane.

—

No recycled elastane data is available in MSI, impact data is default to conventional elastane.

—

While RCS does not require any control of chemical use, typically the process is less risky than conventional elastane production. The production usually occurs at industrial facilities, which reduces the use of chemical inputs

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: banning the use of hazardous chemicals as defined by WHO 1A and B, and Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions, etc.

—

Not applicable to recycled materials.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: maintaining publicly available HCV assessments, etc.

—

Feedstock is recycled, typically from waste during virgin production.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on reducing waste through reuse, recycling or other utilizations.

—

No requirements for ensuring that recycled feedstock inputs were collected in a socially responsible way.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: CB’s proactively consult with affected stakeholders during any audit, complaints procedures have clear deadlines, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: procedures to monitor custody and trade of materials from certified producers, certification bodies (CBs) survey certificate holders’ chain of custody procedures, CBs survey use of claims, trademarks and labels on and off products, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on claimed/labelled products do not contain any materials from areas where HCVs (1-6) are threatened.

—

No recycled acrylic data is available in MSI, impact data is default to conventional acrylic.

—

No recycled acrylic data is available in MSI, impact data is default to conventional acrylic.

—

Although climate impact for recycled acrylic is significantly less than conventional polyester, emissions are still commonly created during recycling of feedstock. As an RCS material, there are no requirements for climate resilience.

—

No biological carbon sequestration is associated with the production of this material.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: increasing climate resilience, estimating emissions and sequestration, and reducing emissions.

—

No recycled acrylic data is available in MSI, impact data is default to conventional acrylic.

—

No recycled acrylic data is available in MSI, impact data is default to conventional acrylic.

—

No recycled acrylic data is available in MSI, impact data is default to conventional acrylic.

—

As a recycled material, there is some risk mitigation due to the use of recycled acrylic, which captures waste from virgin acrylic production and processes this into pre-consumer recycled material. There is reduced input from additional chemicals, as original solvents used in production can be recovered; however, RCS standards do not mitigate risk of contamination of chemical discharge into waterways.

—

No recycled acrylic data is available in MSI, impact data is default to conventional acrylic.

—

While RCS standards do not require any control of chemical use, typically the process is less risky than conventional acrylic production. The production usually occurs at industrial facilities, which reduces the use of chemical inputs; however, without management practices in place, this is unconfirmed.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: banning the use of hazardous chemicals as defined by WHO 1A and B, and Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions, etc.

—

Not applicable to recycled materials.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: maintaining publicly available HCV assessments, etc.

—

Feedstock is recycled, typically from waste during virgin production. It cannot be recycled from garments.

—

Program does not meet CAT indicators on reducing waste through reuse, recycling or other utilizations.

—

No requirements for ensuring that recycled feedstock inputs were collected in a socially responsible way.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: CB’s proactively consult with affected stakeholders during any audit, complaints procedures have clear deadlines, etc.

—

Program meets CAT indicators on: procedures to monitor custody and trade of materials from certified producers, certification bodies (CBs) survey certificate holders’ chain of custody procedures, CBs survey use of claims, trademarks and labels on and off products, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on claimed/labelled products do not contain any materials from areas where HCVs (1-6) are threatened.

—

Conventional polyester is the highest impact of the polyester programs included in the PFM Matrix for Global Warming Potential.

—

Conventional polyester is the highest impact of the polyester programs included in the PFM Matrix for Fossil Fuel Resource Depletion.

—

As a virgin synthetic material, there is no widespread mitigation process to promote climate resilience developments. Conventional polyester is reliant upon chemical inputs derived from oil and gas extraction, a process that is a fundamental contributor to climate change. Besides the emissions from oil and gas extraction, flaring of natural gas is common and an unproductive waste of a valuable, non-renewable resource and a significant source of carbon dioxide and methane emissions.

—

No biological carbon sequestration is associated with the production of this material.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. All forms of oil and gas extraction, production and processing into fuels and polymers pose risk to climate impact; leaching hazardous toxins into the air, soil and water, causing disruption to ecosystems, surrounding population and carbon stocks.

—

Conventional polyester is the highest impact of the polyester programs included in the PFM Matrix for Water Scarcity impacts.

—

Conventional polyester is the highest impact of the polyester programs included in the PFM Matrix for Water Consumption.

—

Conventional polyester has an 85% reduction in eutrophication impact when compared to chemically recycled polyester.

—

There is no widespread management practice for chemical discharge during conventional polyester production. Virgin polyester uses chemical inputs derived from oil and gas extraction, posing risks on waterways from pipeline leaks and spillages. While the production of polyester uses antimony trioxides or acetate catalysts, without specific management of water and chemical handling, threats of contamination, spillages, and dumping of wastewater exist.

—

There is no widespread mitigation of potential blue water contamination risk, as key material inputs are derived from oil and gas extraction. All forms of oil and gas extraction pose risk to surface and groundwater through pipeline leaks. Fracking and tar sands present elevated risk due to the large volumes of water needed for extraction and the high risk storage and disposal of contaminated water.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. ‘Produced water’ is the largest contribution to the water footprint in synthetics, coming from industrial production and water management practices during oil exploration. Water scarcity is also a concern, since most polyester production is located in water sustainability hotspots.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Produced water from oil exploration contains varying quantities of heavy metals, volatile aromatic hydrocarbons and a vast array of other potentially toxic compounds. Poor wastewater management can also cause freshwater withdrawal, depletion of resources, ecotoxicity and human health.

—

Conventional polyester has the the highest(worst) Higg MSI Chemistry rating of the polyester programs included in the PFM Matrix.

—

There is no widespread management practice for chemical use during conventional polyester production. The refinery and petrochemical phases are chemically intensive, producing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and hazardous acid gases such as hydrogen chloride. If not correctly managed, it can be dangerous to workers and toxic if released into the environment.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Polyester production process is chemically intensive. It can produce volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and hazardous acid gases such as hydrogen chloride. Poor management of residues can cause soil and water pollution, affecting the environment, ecosystems and communities.

—

The production of polyester does not include land practices that prevent degradation, improve or conserve the land. However, as a synthetic fiber derived from crude oil and natural gas, the extraction is associated with land degradation, deforestation, loss of native habitats and ecosystems, and removal of land from Indigenous and local people.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Poor management of residues along the supply chain can cause soil pollution, causing downstream impacts on environment and communities nearby.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. As a synthetic fibre derived from crude oil its extraction is associated with land degradation and deforestation, posing risk to HCV areas.

—

Feedstock is not renewable or recycled. The material is derived from petroleum-based chemicals, and its primary raw material is crude oil.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Risks include the generation of hazardous wastes and microplastics during the manufacturing process. Though filtration systems are often required, large concentrations of microplastics have been found near synthetic fiber production plants.

—

In the production of virgin polyester, workers are exposed to toxic chemicals in oil and natural gas extraction, refinery operations, and intermediate chemical processing. Without a chemical management system and personal protective equipment, the exposure of chemicals present risks of short- and long- term injury, death, omitted incident recording at plant, and misrepresentation on Occupational Safety and Health Administration (or equivalent) records.

—

Not applicable to conventional virgin fibers.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Potential for exposure to toxic substances and workplace safety hazards exists in fibre production if adequate protective equipment and training is not provided.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Labour rights risks will vary by location but contract workers in petrochemical stages tend to be more vulnerable to abuses. In the processing stages, wages and working hours will be typical of the location and risks exist around excessive working hours.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Inputs are petroleum-based chemicals – as such many land rights abuses have been documented related to the input sourcing.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Climate change will likely have greater effects on lower income people and people of color around the world. Oil and gas production facilities are also likely to adversely affect these populations due to their locations and emissions of hazardous pollutants.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Inputs are petroleum-based chemicals – as such many impacts to local resources such as drinking water have been documented related to the input sourcing. Additionally, the production process can pollute local water sources if the wastewater is not treated correctly.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements, which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT).

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements, which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT).

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements, which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT).

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements, which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT).

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements, which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT).

—

Conventional polyamide is the highest impact of the polyamide programs included in the PFM Matrix for Global Warming impacts.

—

Conventional polyamide is the highest impact of the polyamide programs included in the PFM Matrix for fossil fuel resource depletion.

—

As a virgin synthetic material, there is no widespread mitigation process to promote climate resilience developments. Conventional polyamide is reliant upon chemical inputs derived from oil and gas extraction, a process that is a fundamental contributor to climate change. Besides the emissions from oil and gas extraction, flaring of natural gas is common and an unproductive waste of a valuable, non-renewable resource and a significant source of carbon dioxide and methane emissions.

—

No biological carbon sequestration is associated with the production of this material.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. All forms of oil and gas extraction, production and processing into fuels and polymers pose risk to climate impact; leaching hazardous toxins into the air, soil and water, causing disruption to ecosystems, surrounding population and carbon stocks.

—

Conventional Polyamide causes 58.90% less water scarcity than Recycled Polyamide using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Conventional Polyamide uses 19.21% less water than Recycled Polyamide using data from the Higg MSI.

—

Conventional polyamide is the highest impact of the polyamide programs included in the PFM Matrix for Eutrophication Potential.

—

There is no widespread management practice for chemical discharge during conventional polyamide production. Virgin polyamide uses chemical inputs derived from oil and gas extraction, posing risks on waterways from pipeline leaks and spillages. Without specific management of water and chemicals handling, there is a risk of monomers escaping during off-gassing and into water, and threats of contamination, spillages, and dumping of wastewater.

—

There is no widespread mitigation of potential blue water contamination risk, as key material inputs are derived from oil and gas extraction. All forms of oil and gas extraction pose risk to surface and ground water through pipeline leaks. Fracking and tar sands present elevated risk due to the large volumes of water needed for extraction and the high-risk storage and disposal of contaminated water.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. ‘Produced water’ is the largest contribution to the water footprint in synthetics, coming from industrial production and water management practices during oil exploration. Water scarcity is also a concern, since most polyester production is located in water sustainability hotspots.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Produced water from oil exploration contains varying quantities of heavy metals, volatile aromatic hydrocarbons and a vast array of other potentially toxic compounds. Poor wastewater management can also cause freshwater withdrawal, depletion of resources, ecotoxicity and human health.

—

Conventional polyamide has the the highest(worst) Higg MSI Chemistry rating of the polyamide programs included in the PFM Matrix.

—

There is no widespread management practice for chemical use during the production of nylon. Benzene, butadiene, and cyclohexane are utilized in the manufacture of polyamide polymers and are all considered toxic and/or carcinogenic. If not correctly managed, can be dangerous to workers and toxic if released into the environment.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Polyester production process is chemically intensive. It can produce volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and hazardous acid gases such as hydrogen chloride. Poor management of residues can cause soil and water pollution, affecting the environment, ecosystems and communities.

—

The production of polyamide does not include land practices to prevent degradation, improve or conserve the land. However, as a synthetic fiber derived from crude oil and natural gas, the extraction is associated with land degradation, deforestation, loss of native habitats and ecosystems, and removal of land from Indigenous and local people.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Poor management of residues along the supply chain can cause soil pollution, causing downstream impacts on environment and communities nearby.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. As a synthetic fibre derived from crude oil its extraction is associated with land degradation and deforestation, posing risk to HCV areas.

—

The feedstock is not renewable or recycled, the material is derived from petroleum-based chemicals, and its primary raw material is crude oil or gas.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Risks include the generation of hazardous wastes and microplastics during the manufacturing process. Though filtration systems are often required, large concentrations of microplastics have been found near synthetic fiber production plants.

—

In the production of virgin polyamide, workers are exposed to toxic chemicals in oil and natural gas extraction, refinery operations, and intermediate chemical processing. Without a chemical management system and personal protective equipment, the exposure of chemicals present risks of short and long term injury, death, omitted incident recording at plant, and misrepresentation on Occupational Safety and Health Administration (or equivalent) records.

—

Not applicable to conventional virgin fibers.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Potential for exposure to toxic substances and workplace safety hazards exists in oil and natural gas extraction, refinery operations, and intermediate chemical processing.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Labour rights risks will vary by location but contract workers in petrochemical stages tend to be more vulnerable to abuses. In the processing stages, wages and working hours will be typical of the location and risks exist around excessive working hours.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Inputs are petroleum-based chemicals – as such many land rights abuses have been documented related to the input sourcing.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Climate change will likely have greater effects on lower income people and people of color around the world. Oil and gas production facilities are also likely to adversely affect these populations due to their locations and emissions of hazardous pollutants.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Inputs are petroleum-based chemicals – as such many impacts to local resources such as drinking water have been documented related to the input sourcing. Additionally, the production process can pollute local water sources if the wastewater is not treated correctly.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements, which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT).

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements, which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT).

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements, which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT).

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements, which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT).

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements, which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT).

—

Conventional elastane is the highest impact of the elastane programs included in the PFM Matrix for Global Warming impacts.

—

Conventional elastane is the highest impact of the elastane programs included in the PFM Matrix for fossil fuel resource depletion.

—

As a virgin synthetic material, there is no widespread mitigation process to promote climate resilience developments. Conventional elastane is reliant upon chemical inputs derived from oil and gas extraction, a process that is a fundamental contributor to climate change. Besides the emissions from oil and gas extraction, flaring of natural gas is common and an unproductive waste of a valuable, non-renewable resource and a significant source of carbon dioxide and methane emissions.

—

No biological carbon sequestration is associated with the production of this material.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. All forms of oil and gas extraction, production and processing into fuels and polymers pose risk to climate impact; leaching hazardous toxins into the air, soil and water, causing disruption to ecosystems, surrounding population and carbon stocks.

—

Conventional elastane is the highest impact of the elastane programs included in the PFM Matrix for water scarcity.

—

Conventional elastane is the highest impact of the elastane programs included in the PFM Matrix for water consumption.

—

Conventional elastane is the highest impact of the elastane programs included in the PFM Matrix for Eutrophication Potential.

—

There is no widespread management practice for chemical discharge during conventional elastane production. Virgin elastane uses chemical inputs derived from oil and gas extraction, posing risks on waterways from pipeline leaks and spillages. While some manufacturers make efforts to implement strategies to reduce emissions of water pollutants during production, there are potential risks of contamination, spillages, and dumping of wastewater.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. ‘Produced water’ is the largest contribution to the water footprint in synthetics, coming from industrial production and water management practices during oil exploration. Water scarcity is also a concern, since most polyester production is located in water sustainability hotspots.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Produced water from oil exploration contains varying quantities of heavy metals, volatile aromatic hydrocarbons and a vast array of other potentially toxic compounds. Poor wastewater management can also cause freshwater withdrawal, depletion of resources, ecotoxicity and human health.

—

Conventional elastane has the the highest(worst) Higg MSI Chemistry rating of the elastane programs included in the PFM Matrix.

—

As a conventional material, there are no requirements or standards on the control of chemical use. To produce polyurethane-based products like elastane, materials are combined with acids to form chemical reactions. If not correctly managed, these substances can be dangerous to workers and toxic if released into the environment.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Polyester production process is chemically intensive. It can produce volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and hazardous acid gases such as hydrogen chloride. Poor management of residues can cause soil and water pollution, affecting the environment, ecosystems and communities.

—

The production of elastane does not include land practices to prevent degradation, improve or conserve the land. However, as a synthetic fiber derived from crude oil and natural gas, the extraction is associated with land degradation, deforestation, loss of native habitats and ecosystems, and removal of land from Indigenous and local people.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Poor management of residues along the supply chain can cause soil pollution, causing downstream impacts on environment and communities nearby.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. As a synthetic fibre derived from crude oil its extraction is associated with land degradation and deforestation, posing risk to HCV areas.

—

The feedstock is not renewable or recycled, the material is derived from petroleum-based chemicals, and its primary raw material is crude oil or gas.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Risks include the generation of hazardous wastes and microplastics during the manufacturing process. Though filtration systems are often required, large concentrations of microplastics have been found near synthetic fiber production plants.

—

In the production of virgin elastane, workers are exposed to toxic chemicals in oil and natural gas extraction, refinery operations, and intermediate chemical processing. Without a chemical management system and personal protective equipment, the exposure of chemicals present risks of short and long term injury, death, omitted incident recording at plant, and misrepresentation on Occupational Safety and Health Administration (or equivalent) records.

—

Not applicable to conventional virgin fibers.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Potential for exposure to toxic substances and workplace safety hazards exists in oil and natural gas extraction, refinery operations, and intermediate chemical processing.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Labour rights risks will vary by location but contract workers in petrochemical stages tend to be more vulnerable to abuses. In the processing stages, wages and working hours will be typical of the location and risks exist around excessive working hours.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Inputs are petroleum-based chemicals – as such many land rights abuses have been documented related to the input sourcing.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Climate change will likely have greater effects on lower income people and people of color around the world. Oil and gas production facilities are also likely to adversely affect these populations due to their locations and emissions of hazardous pollutants.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Inputs are petroleum-based chemicals – as such many impacts to local resources such as drinking water have been documented related to the input sourcing. Additionally, the production process can pollute local water sources if the wastewater is not treated correctly.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements, which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT).

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements, which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT).

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements, which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT).

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements, which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT).

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements, which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT).

—

Conventional acrylic is the highest impact of the acrylic programs included in the PFM Matrix for Global Warming impacts.

—

Conventional acrylic is the highest impact of the acrylic programs included in the PFM Matrix for fossil fuel resource depletion.

—

As a virgin synthetic material, there is no widespread mitigation process to promote climate resilience developments. Conventional acrylic is reliant upon chemical inputs derived from oil and gas extraction, a process that is a fundamental contributor to climate change. Besides the emissions from oil and gas extraction, flaring of natural gas is common and an unproductive waste of a valuable, non-renewable resource and a significant source of carbon dioxide and methane emissions.

—

No biological carbon sequestration is associated with the production of this material.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. All forms of oil and gas extraction, production and processing into fuels and polymers pose risk to climate impact; leaching hazardous toxins into the air, soil and water, causing disruption to ecosystems, surrounding population and carbon stocks.

—

Conventional acrylic is the highest impact of the acrylic programs included in the PFM Matrix for water scarcity.

—

Conventional acrylic is the highest impact of the acrylic programs included in the PFM Matrix for water consumption.

—

Conventional acrylic is the highest impact of the acrylic programs included in the PFM Matrix for Eutrophication Potential.

—

There is no widespread management practice for chemical discharge during conventional acrylic production. Virgin acrylic uses chemical inputs derived from oil and gas extraction, posing risks on waterways from pipeline leaks and spillages. While some manufacturers make efforts to implement strategies to reduce emissions of water pollutants during production, there are potential risks of contamination, spillages, and dumping of wastewater.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. ‘Produced water’ is the largest contribution to the water footprint in synthetics, coming from industrial production and water management practices during oil exploration. Water scarcity is also a concern, since most polyester production is located in water sustainability hotspots.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Produced water from oil exploration contains varying quantities of heavy metals, volatile aromatic hydrocarbons and a vast array of other potentially toxic compounds. Poor wastewater management can also cause freshwater withdrawal, depletion of resources, ecotoxicity and human health.

—

Conventional acrylic has the the highest(worst) Higg MSI Chemistry rating of the acrylic programs included in the PFM Matrix.

—

There is no widespread management practice for chemical use during conventional acrylic production. The refinery and petrochemical phases are chemically intensive, producing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and hazardous acid gases such as hydrogen chloride. If not correctly managed, these substances can be dangerous to workers and toxic if released into the environment.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Polyester production process is chemically intensive. It can produce volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and hazardous acid gases such as hydrogen chloride. Poor management of residues can cause soil and water pollution, affecting the environment, ecosystems and communities.

—

The production of acrylic does not include land practices that prevent degradation, improve or conserve the land. However, as a synthetic fiber derived from crude oil and natural gas, the extraction is associated with land degradation, deforestation, loss of native habitats and ecosystems, and removal of land from Indigenous and local people.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Poor management of residues along the supply chain can cause soil pollution, causing downstream impacts on environment and communities nearby.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. As a synthetic fibre derived from crude oil its extraction is associated with land degradation and deforestation, posing risk to HCV areas.

—

The feedstock is not renewable or recycled, the material is derived from petroleum-based chemicals, and its primary raw material is crude oil or gas.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Risks include the generation of hazardous wastes and microplastics during the manufacturing process. Though filtration systems are often required, large concentrations of microplastics have been found near synthetic fiber production plants.

—

The production of acrylic is not labor intensive; however, significant use of toxic chemicals with VOCs leaves workers subject to significant risk in the absence of regulation. Without a chemical management system and personal protective equipment, the exposure of chemicals presents risks of short and long term injury, death, omitted incident recording at plant, and misrepresentation on Occupational Safety and Health Administration (or equivalent) records.

—

Not applicable to conventional virgin fibers.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Potential for exposure to toxic substances and workplace safety hazards exists in oil and natural gas extraction, refinery operations, and intermediate chemical processing.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Labour rights risks will vary by location but contract workers in petrochemical stages tend to be more vulnerable to abuses. In the processing stages, wages and working hours will be typical of the location and risks exist around excessive working hours.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Inputs are petroleum-based chemicals – as such many land rights abuses have been documented related to the input sourcing.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Climate change will likely have greater effects on lower income people and people of color around the world. Oil and gas production facilities are also likely to adversely affect these populations due to their locations and emissions of hazardous pollutants.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Inputs are petroleum-based chemicals – as such many impacts to local resources such as drinking water have been documented related to the input sourcing. Additionally, the production process can pollute local water sources if the wastewater is not treated correctly.

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements, which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT).

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements, which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT).

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements, which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT).

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements, which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT).

—

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements, which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT).

Lyocell FSC

Lyocell FSC / PEFC

Viscose FSC

Modal FSC

Lyocell PEFC

Viscose FSC / PEFC

Modal FSC / PEFC

Acetate FSC

Viscose PEFC

Modal PEFC

Acetate FSC / PEFC

Acetate PEFC

Bamboo Viscose

Conventional Lyocell

Conventional Viscose

Conventional Modal

Conventional Acetate

—

Conventional Lyocell is 38.93% less GHG intensive than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Lyocell with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

Conventional Lyocell uses 62.44% less fossil fuel resources than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Lyocell with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

FSC program requirements include the implementation of some practices that support resilience to extreme weather events (e.g. silvicultural practices). FSC further requires that landscapes are managed in a way that enhances environmental and economic resilience.

—

FSC requirements include maintaining, conserving, and/or restoring the environmental values of the area, including ecosystem functions such as carbon sequestration and storage. While trees take up carbon and store it in their biomass and soils, the degree to which this carbon remains sequestered depends on many factors, including soil type, responsible harvesting techniques, and reforestation practices. There is no specific research on the outcomes of sequestration in relationship to FSC.

—

Standard meets CAT indicators on increasing climate resilience. Standard does not meet CAT indicators on estimating emissions and sequestration, reducing emissions, or expanding cultivation on high above-ground carbon stocks.

—

Conventional Lyocell causes 88.52% less water scarcity than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Lyocell with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

Conventional Lyocell uses 79.14% less water than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Lyocell with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

Conventional Lyocell’s eutrophication potential is 44.44% lower than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Lyocell with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

As FSC certification is applicable only to forestry, there are no program requirements that ensure the efficient use of surface or groundwater during fiber production. However, the water footprint of lyocell production is typically lower than conventional viscose, with cooling water, which can be reused, accounting for between 90-95% of total water consumption. The remaining amount of water is used within production. Any water recycling practices are at the discretion of the manufacturer.

—

FSC requires growers to minimize or avoid the use of fertilizers and chemical pesticides. The use of fertilizers is only permitted if the grower can demonstrate that their use is equally or more ecologically and economically beneficial than not using fertilizers. Certain chemical pesticides are not permitted under FSC policy. FSC further requires that growers protect natural waterways and avoid adverse effects on the quality and quantity of downstream water resources.

—

As FSC certification is applicable only to forestry, there are no program requirements in place to reduce chemical discharge from fiber production. However, manufacturing of lyocell relies on a closed-loop chemical process, using a less-toxic solvent (NMMO) to extract the cellulose from the wood pulp. This solvent is almost entirely reclaimed, filtered, and reused; therefore, the risk of chemical discharge is minimal. Further controls are at the discretion of the manufacturer.

—

Standard meets CAT indicators on: assessing impacts on community water availability, mapping waterways potentially impacted by operations, identifying water risks, avoiding increasing water scarcity, maintaining water security, etc.

—

Standard meets CAT indicators on: mapping waterways potentially impacted by operations, reducing water pollution, avoiding run off, regularly monitoring impacts on water and adapting management as necessary for improvement, reducing agrochemical risk, etc.

—

Conventional Lyocell scores 33.33% lower on the Higg MSI Chemistry Rating than Conventional Viscose and Viscose FSC. Lyocell with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

As FSC certification is applicable only to forestry, there are no program requirements in place to control the use of chemicals in fiber production. However, lyocell is produced in a closed-loop system, where the solvent used (NMMO) is recaptured and reused. If released, NMMO may pose a threat to the environment but is non-toxic to humans.

—

Standard meets CAT indicators on: implementing integrated pest management practices, banning the use of hazardous chemicals as defined by WHO 1A and B, and Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions, avoiding or minimizing negative impacts on human health and the environment, etc. Standard does not meet CAT indicators on: documenting all application, handling, storage and disposal procedures of chemicals, etc.

—

FSC requires growers to minimize or avoid the use of fertilizers and chemical pesticides. The use of fertilizers is only permitted if the grower can demonstrate that their use is equally or more ecologically and economically beneficial than not using fertilizers. Certain chemical pesticides are not permitted under FSC policy. FSC requires that chemicals are applied by a trained applicator and that all safety precautions are followed.

—

FSC prevents growers from converting natural forests to plantations and further requires growers to maintain or enhance high conservation values to support a diversified ecosystem.

—

Standard meets CAT indicators on: minimizing negative impacts on soil, avoiding or minimizing soil erosion, maintaining or improving soil quality, monitoring impacts and adapting management as necessary, etc.

—

Standard meets CAT indicators on: not converting native forest, not converting land at expense of one or more HCVs, etc. Standard does not meet CAT indicators on maintaining publicly available HCV assessments.

—

Standard meets CAT indicators on: ensuring tree cover is regenerated to pre-harvesting conditions after logging, tailoring management practices for tree species, site conditions and management objectives, ensuring that materials are not havested at levels above sustainable yields, etc.

—

The main feedstock inputs for this material are renewable (wood).

—

Standard meets CAT indicators on reducing waste through reuse, recycling or other utilizations.

—

FSC certified lyocell is made from feedstocks that were cultivated without the application of certain prohibited chemical pesticides and fertilizers.

—

Lyocell is produced in a closed-loop system, where the solvent used (NMMO) is recaptured and reused. If released, NMMO may pose a threat to the environment but is non-toxic to humans. Specific worker safety precautions are at the discretion of the supplier.

—

At forest-level, standard meets CAT indicators on: identifying and mitigating health and safety risks, workers are equipped, instructed and trained for tasks, including safe use of and chemical handling,addressing grievances and providing compensation for occupational injuries, etc. Standard does not meet CAT indicators on documenting all procedures in relation to chemicals. At initial processing, standard does not have health & safety requirements.

—

At forest-level, standard meets CAT indicators on: banning forced labor, banning child labor, banning workplace discrimination, punishment, abuse, harassment or intimidation, respecting workers’ freedom of association and right to collective bargaining, respecting core ILO rights of workers, addressing grievances and compensating for injuries, etc. At initial processing, standard does not have labor rights requirements.

—

Standard meets CAT indicators on: upholding legal and customary rights of tenure, respecting the rights, customs and culture of indigenous peoples, engaging with stakeholders and document measures taken to resolve disputes, identifying legal and customary rights of tenure, etc.

—

Standard meets CAT indicators on: engaging in dialogue with neighboring communities and individuals, minimizing and mitigating negative impacts from operations on communities and individuals, providing local employment opportunities, producers engaging in welfare programs where relevant to the social context, monitoring impacts on the local economy and adapting management as necessary, etc. Standard does not meet CAT indicators on: etc.

—

Standard meets CAT indicators on: assessing potential impacts on communities and individuals, including food security and water availability, prior to any significant intensification/expansion, assessing and maintain High Conservation Values category 5 (basic necessities for local communities), cultivating a mix of genotypes of each main crop, ensure access to safe drinking water, adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene (WASH). etc. Standard does not meet CAT indicators on: etc.

—

Standard meets CAT indicators on: core normative documents are publicly available, ISEAL membership, resourced secretariat with contact details publicly available, membership organization, names and affiliation of members are publicly available, the highest decision-making forum ensures that no single interest group can dominate governance (economic, social or environmental), changes to core normative documents requires voting, etc.

—

Standard meets CAT indicators on: assessing social and environmental impacts, workers’ conditions/rights, community relations, environment, and biodiversity; draft standards are subject to multiple rounds of public consultation, publicly available standard documents, having auditable indicators, revisions at least every 5 years, etc. Standard does not meet CAT indicators on: taking into account the ISEAL Impact Code, etc.

—

Standard meets CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, CB’s proactively consult with affected stakeholders during any audit, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination, complaints procedures have clear deadlines, etc. Standard does not meet CAT indicators on: CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts, etc.

—

Standard meets CAT indicators on: certification bodies are accredited by an ISEAL member accreditation organization, accreditation organization verifies that certification bodies engage effectively with stakeholders, accreditation organization conducts risk-based auditing and surveillance of certification bodies, summaries of accreditation assessments of certification bodies are publicly available, etc.

—

Standard meets CAT indicators on: procedures to monitor custody and trade of materials from certified producers, certification bodies (CBs) survey certificate holders’ chain of custody procedures, CBs survey use of claims, trademarks and labels on and off products, claimed/labelled products do not contain any materials from areas where HCVs (1-6) are threatened, etc.

—

Conventional Lyocell is 38.93% less GHG intensive than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Lyocell with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

Conventional Lyocell uses 62.44% less fossil fuel resources than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Lyocell with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

Conventional Lyocell causes 88.52% less water scarcity than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Lyocell with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

Conventional Lyocell uses 79.14% less water than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Lyocell with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

Conventional Lyocell’s eutrophication potential is 44.44% lower than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Lyocell with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

Conventional Lyocell scores 33.33% lower on the Higg MSI Chemistry Rating than Conventional Viscose and Viscose FSC. Lyocell with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

The main feedstock inputs for this material are renewable (wood).

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

Conventional Viscose is 32.69% less GHG intensive than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Viscose with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

Conventional Viscose uses 51.17% less fossil fuel resources than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Viscose with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

FSC program requirements include the implementation of some practices that support resilience to extreme weather events (e.g., silvicultural practices). FSC further requires that landscapes are managed in a way that enhances environmental and economic resilience.

—

Conventional Viscose causes 82.75% less water scarcity than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Viscose with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

Conventional Viscose uses 83.24% less water than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Viscose with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

Conventional Viscose’s eutrophication potential is 44.44% lower than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Viscose with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

As FSC certification is applicable only to forestry, there are no program requirements in place to ensure the efficient use of surface or groundwater during fiber production. The process steps that contribute the most to the total water footprint of viscose are wood pulping and fiber production. Though not required, most large producers of viscose do apply the best available technologies for blue water savings in processing, including steam recovery and water recycling systems.

—

As FSC certification is applicable only to forestry, there are no program requirements in place to reduce chemical discharge from fiber production. Viscose requires a continuous washing process, which is responsible for a high level of zinc emissions in effluents and a high risk of chemical discharge. Relevant legislations may offer some protections if fully enforced, but the chemical discharge risk on a global scale remains high.

—

Conventional Viscose has the same Higg MSI chemistry score as Conventional Acetate which is used as the baseline. Viscose with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

As FSC certification is applicable only to forestry, there are no program requirements in place to control the use of chemicals in fiber production. The level of control of chemical use in the production of viscose is typically low. High risk exists, as hazardous chemicals are used in the production of viscose. Poor chemical management can have a significant impact on the environment, aquatic ecosystems, and the everyday life and health of communities in the vicinity of viscose factories.

—

FSC requires growers to minimize or avoid the use of fertilizers and chemical pesticides. The use of fertilizers is only permitted if the grower can demonstrate that their use is equally or more ecologically and economically beneficial than not using fertilizers. Certain chemical pesticides are not permitted under FSC policy. FSC requires that chemicals are applied by a trained applicator and that all safety precautions are followed.

—

FSC prevents growers from converting natural forests to plantations and further requires growers to maintain or enhance high conservation values to support a diversified ecosystem.

—

The main feedstock inputs for this material are renewable (wood).

—

Standard meets CAT indicators on reducing waste through reuse, recycling or other utilizations.

—

FSC certified viscose is made from feedstocks that were cultivated without the application of certain prohibited chemical pesticides and fertilizers.

—

The level of control of chemical use in the production of viscose is low. High risk chemical handling exists, as hazardous chemicals are used. While some relevant legislations may offer some risk mitigation if fully enforced, there is no standard practice required for viscose production.

—

Conventional Modal is 5.09% less GHG intensive than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Modal with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

Conventional Modal uses 34.87% less fossil fuel resources than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Modal with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

Conventional Modal causes 88.48% less water scarcity than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Modal with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

Conventional Modal uses 75.91% less water than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Modal with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

Conventional Modal’s eutrophication potential is 33.33% lower than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Modal with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

As FSC certification is applicable only to forestry, there are no program requirements in place to ensure the efficient use of surface or groundwater during fiber production. Since modal production uses a modified version of the viscose process, wood pulping and fiber production contribute the most to the total water footprint. As most production sites are located in sustainability hotspots, blue water scarcity is also a concern of modal production.

—

As FSC certification is applicable only to forestry, there are no program requirements in place to reduce chemical discharge from fiber production. Modal is derived from a viscose-based process but specifically focuses on the chemical pulping of beech wood. A modified spinning process is used to produce a fine fiber, but in all other respects, its production and chemical discharge risk mirrors that of viscose.

—

Conventional Modal scores 33.33% lower on the Higg MSI Chemistry Rating than Conventional Viscose and Conventional Acetate. Modal with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

As FSC certification is applicable only to forestry, there are no program requirements in place to control the use of chemicals in fiber production. Hazardous chemicals such as caustic soda and carbon disulphide are used in the production of modal. Some producers have improved processes for chemical use; however, this is not systematically incorporated in all modal production.

—

FSC requires growers to minimize or avoid the use of fertilizers and chemical pesticides. The use of fertilizers is only permitted if the grower can demonstrate that their use is equally or more ecologically and economically beneficial than not using fertilizers. Certain chemical pesticides are not permitted under FSC policy. FSC requires that chemicals are applied by a trained applicator and that all safety precautions are followed.

—

FSC prevents growers from converting natural forests to plantations and further requires growers to maintain or enhance high conservation values to support a diversified ecosystem.

—

The main feedstock inputs for this material are renewable (wood).

—

Standard meets CAT indicators on reducing waste through reuse, recycling or other utilizations.

—

FSC certified modal is made from feedstocks that were cultivated without the application of certain prohibited chemical pesticides and fertilizers.

—

The level of control of chemical use in the production of modal is low. High risk chemical handling exists, as hazardous chemicals are used. While some relevant legislations may offer some risk mitigation if fully enforced, there is no standard practice required for modal production.

—

Conventional Lyocell is 38.93% less GHG intensive than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Lyocell with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

Conventional Lyocell uses 62.44% less fossil fuel resources than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Lyocell with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

PEFC program requirements include the implementation of some practices that support resilience to extreme weather events (e.g., silvicultural practices). PEFC further encourages actions to be taken to enhance the resilience of forests to adverse environmental factors.

—

PEFC requirements include maintaining or enhancing the ecosystem services of forests, including carbon sequestration. While trees remove carbon from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and store the carbon in their biomass and soil, the degree to which this carbon remains sequestered depends on many factors, including soil type, responsible harvesting techniques, and reforestation practices. There is no specific research on the outcomes of sequestration in relationship to PEFC.

—

Standard does not meet CAT indicators on: increasing climate resilience, estimating emissions and sequestration, and reducing emissions.

—

Conventional Lyocell causes 88.52% less water scarcity than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Lyocell with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

Conventional Lyocell uses 79.14% less water than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Lyocell with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

Conventional Lyocell’s eutrophication potential is 44.44% lower than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Lyocell with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

As PEFC certification is applicable only to forestry, there are no program requirements that ensure the efficient use of surface or groundwater during fiber production. However, the water footprint of lyocell production is typically lower than conventional viscose, with cooling water, which can be reused, accounting for between 90-95% of total water consumption. The remaining amount of water is used within production. Any water recycling practices are at the discretion of the manufacturer.

—

PEFC allows growers to use fertilizers, though they are required to be applied in a controlled manner and with consideration for the environment. PEFC requires that special care be taken to avoid adverse effects on the quality and quantity of downstream water resources. This includes avoiding the use of any chemicals or harmful substances that influence water quality in a harmful way.

—

As PEFC certification is applicable only to forestry, there are no program requirements in place to reduce chemical discharge from fiber production. However, manufacturing of lyocell relies on a closed-loop chemical process, using a less-toxic solvent (NMMO) to extract the cellulose from the wood pulp. This solvent is almost entirely reclaimed, filtered, and reused; therefore, the risk of chemical discharge is minimal. Further controls are at the discretion of the manufacturer.

—

Conventional Lyocell scores 33.33% lower on the Higg MSI Chemistry Rating than Conventional Viscose and Viscose FSC. Lyocell with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

PEFC allows growers to use fertilizers, though they are required to be applied in a controlled manner and with consideration for the environment. The inappropriate use of chemicals or other harmful substances must be avoided.

—

As PEFC certification is applicable only to forestry, there are no program requirements in place to control the use of chemicals in fiber production. However, lyocell is produced in a closed-loop system, where the solvent used (NMMO) is recaptured and reused. If released, NMMO may pose a threat to the environment but is non-toxic to humans.

—

PEFC requires that forest conversion must not occur in areas with high carbon stocks or where the conversion would cause ecological damage.

—

Standard meets CAT indicators on not converting native forest. Standard does not meet CAT indicators on: maintaining publicly available HCV assessments, not converting land at expense of one or more HCVs, etc.

—

The main feedstock inputs for this material are renewable (wood).

—

Standard does not meet CAT indicators on reducing waste through reuse, recycling or other utilizations.

—

PEFC certified lyocell is made from feedstocks that were cultivated without the application of certain prohibited chemical pesticides. PEFC further requires any pesticides to be applied by trained personnel equipped with proper safety equipment.

—

At forest-level, standard meets CAT indicators on: identifying and mitigating health and safety risks, workers are equipped, instructed and trained for tasks, including safe use of and chemical handling,etc. Standard does not meet CAT indicators on: addressing grievances and providing compensation for occupational injuries, documenting all procedures in relation to chemicals, etc. At initial processing, standard does not have health & safety requirements.

—

At forest-level, standard meets CAT indicators on: banning forced labor, banning child labor, banning workplace discrimination, punishment, abuse, harassment or intimidation, respecting workers’ freedom of association and right to collective bargaining, respecting core ILO rights of workers, etc. Standard does not meet CAT indicators on addressing grievances and compensating for injuries. At initial processing, standard does not have labor rights requirements.

—

Standard meets CAT indicators on: assessing potential impacts on communities and individuals, including food security and water availability, prior to any significant intensification/expansion, cultivating a mix of genotypes of each main crop, etc. Standard does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing and maintain High Conservation Values category 5 (basic necessities for local communities), ensure access to safe drinking water, adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene (WASH). etc.

—

Standard meets CAT indicators on: core normative documents are publicly available, resourced secretariat with contact details publicly available, membership organization, names and affiliation of members are publicly available, changes to core normative documents requires voting, etc. Standard does not meet CAT indicators on: ISEAL membership, the highest decision-making forum ensures that no single interest group can dominate governance (economic, social or environmental), etc.

—

Standard meets CAT indicators on: assessing social and environmental impacts, workers’ conditions/rights, community relations, environment, and biodiversity; taking into account the ISEAL Impact Code, draft standards are subject to multiple rounds of public consultation, publicly available standard documents, having auditable indicators, revisions at least every 5 years, etc.

—

Standard meets CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination, etc. Standard does not meet CAT indicators on: CB’s proactively consult with affected stakeholders during any audit, CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts, complaints procedures have clear deadlines, etc.

—

Standard does not meet CAT indicators on: certification bodies are accredited by an ISEAL member accreditation organization, accreditation organization verifies that certification bodies engage effectively with stakeholders, accreditation organization conducts risk-based auditing and surveillance of certification bodies, summaries of accreditation assessments of certification bodies are publicly available, etc.

—

Standard meets CAT indicators on: procedures to monitor custody and trade of materials from certified producers, certification bodies (CBs) survey certificate holders’ chain of custody procedures, CBs survey use of claims, trademarks and labels on and off products, etc. Standard does not meet CAT indicators on claimed/labelled products do not contain any materials from areas where HCVs (1-6) are threatened.

—

Conventional Viscose is 32.69% less GHG intensive than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Viscose with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

Conventional Viscose uses 51.17% less fossil fuel resources than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Viscose with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

Conventional Viscose causes 82.75% less water scarcity than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Viscose with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

Conventional Viscose uses 83.24% less water than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Viscose with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

Conventional Viscose’s eutrophication potential is 44.44% lower than Conventional Acetate using data from the Higg MSI. Viscose with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

Conventional Viscose has the same Higg MSI chemistry score as Conventional Acetate which is used as the baseline. Viscose with forestry certification is default to conventional impacts.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.

—

FSC/PEFC proxy scores are derived from allocating 50% of the FSC score and 50% of the PEFC score for each indicator. Please see FSC and PEFC scorings for more information.