• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
4 Ian Russell Csiro

4 Ian Russell Csiro



Fashion, apparel, textile, merchandising, garments

Fashion, apparel, textile, merchandising, garments



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Thankyou for the invitation to attend your conference

4 Ian Russell Csiro 4 Ian Russell Csiro Presentation Transcript

  • Implementation of EU Eco-label Criteria in Supply Chains Processing Australian Wool Ian Russell Christine Nunn CSIRO Textile and Fibre Technology
  • Wool remains an important export industry for Australia
    • Export value $A 3.8 B
    • Australia dominates fine wool production
      • major end-use is garments.
    • Only around 25% is scoured in Australia (2002);
      • only 44% of that is processed to ‘tops’
      • very little is processed further on shore
      • the wool industry must take a global focus
    • Major export countries:
      • China 42% (90% as greasy)
      • Italy 16%
      • Taiwan 7%; India 6%; Korea 5%; France 5%
  • Strategic Importance for Wool
    • ‘ Green’ is now mainstream in Europe.
    • Consumers trust Non-Government Organisations (NGOs), such as Greenpeace, for environmental and health advice .
    • NGOs are directly targeting and influencing retailers.
    • Consumers want to make ecological purchasing decisions,
      • But only if cost, fashion, functionality, quality are not compromised.
    • Environmental legislation is becoming comprehensive .
  • The European Union
    • Two major environmental Directives will affect the European textile processing industry
    • Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC)
      • (1999 -2007)
    • The Water Framework Directive (2003)
    • Both will require processors to source wool that is low in pesticide residues.
    • EU Integrated Product Policy (IPP) will have a major impact on the way textiles are traded , processed and marketed globally.
  • Integrated Product Policy (IPP)
    • IPP (‘environmental product policy’) takes t hree approaches to increase uptake of ‘green’ products :
      • Reduced taxes for ‘green ‘ products
      • Promoting ‘green’ production by integrating eco-design and environment into product standards,
      • Using eco-labels to give information on manufacturing processes, to allow consumers and public sector purchasing bodies to make conscious purchasing decisions.
  • Ecolabels Individual ecolabels need to gain market share to be recognised by consumers.
  • Two Ecolabel Types (in textiles)
    • Human ecology
      • Concerned with chemical analysis of trace contaminants in final garment
    • Sustainability and overall environmental impact
      • ‘ Cradle-to-grave’ or ‘life cycle’ analysis
      • Traceable back to ISO 14040 and ISO 14020 standards
  • Example of “Human Ecology” Ecolabel
    • Oekotex 100 (established 1992)
      • Certifies absence of certain toxic agents in final garment.
      • Widely recognised by retailers (Germany, France).
      • 3500 Companies, 25,000 certificates
      • Privately owned, proprietary analysis methods.
      • Licensed to 13 EU labs, 3 in China.
    • Pesticides in Oekotex not relevant for wool
    • Does not address processing impacts: cannot be used to support a claim of ‘environmentally friendly’.
  • Example of Life Cycle Ecolabel ‘EU Eco-label for Textiles’
    • Criteria are based on ‘Cradle to Grave’ or Life-Cycle Analysis to select the major environmental impacts.
    • Life Cycle / Supply Chain approach:
      • Keep toxic materials out of the total system.
      • Minimise environmental footprint at all stages
    • ISO 14024 ‘Type 1’ ecolabel
  • The EU eco-label is available not just for textiles but for for paints, paper, computers, shoes, bedding, lightbulbs, laundry detergents, soil improvers, dishwashers
  • EU Eco-label for Textiles
    • Criteria are reviewed on 3 yearly cycle
      • 2002 criteria can be used until 2007
      • Criteria set by NGOs (Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth) ,Textile Industry, retailers, EU Environment Directorate, independent experts (CSIRO input).
    • Aim: To identify the best one-third of processors
  • EU Eco-label for Textiles
    • Three main categories for criteria :
      • Textile Fibre
      • Processes and Chemicals, and
      • Fitness for use .
    • Provides a simple, easy-to-understand summary of overall environmental ‘footprint’ of products.
  • EU Eco-label Criteria : Clean fibre
    • Limitation of toxic residues in fibres
      • Acrylic: Acrylonitrile < 1.5 mg/kg.
      • Cotton: residues of certain pesticides < 0.05 ppm.
      • Elastane: Zn < 1,000 ppm.
      • Man-made cellulose: AOX < 250 ppm.
      • Polyester: Antinomy < 300 ppm.
      • Polypropylene: no lead based pigments.
      • Greasy wool and other keratin fibres: limitations on pesticides
  • Clean Fibre: Greasy Wool Criteria 2002 -2007
    • Sum of organochlorines 0.5 mg/kg
    • Sum of synthetic pyrethroids 0.5 mg/kg
    • Sum of organophosphates 2 mg/kg
    • Sum of insect growth regulators 2 mg/kg
      • diflubenzuron, triflumuron
    • Note that cyromazine , dicyclanil, spinosad are exempt
      • Test method: IWTO Draft Test Method 59:
    • 50% of Australian wool complies
  • EU Eco-label Criteria : Clean Processing
    • Limitation of the use of substances harmful for the aquatic environment and health
    • Processing additives , detergents shall be biodegradable.
    • No chloro-phenol s , cerium compounds, halogenated carriers.
    • Limits on heavy metals and formaldehyde.
    • No APEOs, SDBS, ‘quats’, EDTA in detergents, fabric softeners and complexing agents.
  • Dyes, Pigments , Finishes
    • No use of chrome mordant dyes (2002) .
    • Limits on heavy metal impurities.
    • Limits on discharges of metal complex dyes.
    • No use of azo-dyes that cleave to toxic amines.
    • Limits on sensitising dyes.
    • No use of carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic agents
      • R50 - 53 (toxic to aquatic organisms)
      • R40 - 49 (carcinogenic)
      • R60 – 68 (mutagenic )
    • Shrink resistant finishes
      • Halogenated shrink resist substances shall only be applied to wool fibres (reviewed i n 2002, allowed to stand)
  • EU Eco-label for Textiles ---Marketing
    • The flower on clothes means
      • A minimum risk of allergies,
      • Limitation of water and air pollution during manufacture,
      • No residues of substances dangerous for health and the environment,
      • Finally, clothes do not shrink more in the wash or fade more than non-ecological clothes .
  • Comparison of Eco-labels
    • Human E U
    • ecology Eco-label
    • Relevance to wool  
    • Independent audit  
    • Links to ISO14000  
    • Environmental impact  
    • Links to EU BREF  
    • EC status/recognition  
    • Industry recognition  
    • Marketing  
    • Cost / simplicity  
  • EU Eco - label for Textiles
    • ‘ The (EU) textile and clothing industry is facing new challenges following the globalisation of the world economy and the competition of fast-growing Asian markets.
    • ‘ In order to stay in the business, companies have to look for differentiating factors by designing high-value textiles and clothing.
    • Key Fact: By 2005, China will produce 70% of world textiles
  • WTO and Processing Ecolabels Doha November 2001
    • ‘ EU negotiates on strong environment position, to be able to discriminate products, based on processing method.
    • Concern from developing countries that eco-labels that include processing criteria may be used as a trade barrier against ‘off-shore’ products.
    • EU eco-label is voluntary, is based on ISO 140 24 standard.
  • IPP and EU Public Purchasing
    • EU public procurement is valued at 12-14% of GDP (850-1000 billion €).
    • Environmental purchasing preference for eco-label products will:
      • Educate producers,
      • Increase availability , and
      • Reduce costs by economies of scale.
  • Example: Implementation of EU Eco-label Criteria in an Australian Supply Chain
    • iZWool (WA), Stuart Adams MD
    • Australian manufacturing supply chain
    • Active outdoor/extreme sportswear
    • Pure wool, next-to-skin knitted garments
    The Company
  • The Product
    • Wool at the extreme edge
    • Wool next-to-skin for warmth, moisture and odour control
    • Garments must perform:
      • Shrink-resist,
      • Anti-pill
    • Environmental credentials are essential in this market
    (extract from iZWool website)
  • “ i ZWool International P/L aims to produce high performance wool fabrics from wool grown and processed with a minimal environmental footprint. We understand the need for responsible use of our natural resources, combining the correct use of production ensuring small environmental footprints. We believe this is a sustainable approach to producing high quality performance-based wool garments . ” (extract from iZWool web site) The iZWool Environmental Assurance Program
  • The Australian Supply Chain
    • iZWool approached CSIRO for advice on environmental criteria for manufacturing processes used in its supply chain
      • Wool residue testing
      • Scouring, Topmaking, Shrink-resist
      • Spinning
      • Knitting
      • Dyeing
    • But not at the expense of performance
  • The solution: EU eco-label
    • iZWool and supply chain members agree to adopt EU eco-label criteria
    • Mechanism for consumers to recognise good environmental performance through complete processing chain
    • Existing iZWool on-farm declarations remain as additional elements
  • The Customer
    • North American
    • The largest global supplier of outdoor wear
    • Has never used wool in product range because of concerns with its environmental footprint
    • Customer agrees to evaluate initial 5 tonne lot of pure wool ‘active sportswear’ garments.
  • The Challenges
    • Wool growers make false pesticide declarations
      • Poor understanding of chemical treatments
      • Chemical names are complex (need for training)
    • Middle levels of supply chain had no understanding of eco-label requirements
    • Companies are reluctant to change established procedures or recipes unless they see future benefits
    • However, consumers are driving the change
  • Conclusions
    • EU eco-label is achievable
      • Application for EU eco-label for iZWool will be October 2003
      • CSIRO pilot scale mill operates to eco-label standards
      • EU eco-label allows production of high performance garments
    • The EU eco-label is ISO 14024 Type 1 eco-label
      • EU eco-label provides credible information on environmental footprint
    • EU eco-label well suited for supply chains
      • Strategy is to avoid use of toxic agents, fewer problems downstream
      • Each processing stage can be audited separately
    • A major supply chain is being established :
      • Tasmanian wool to European retailer:
      • Vendor declaration backed with testing
  • EU Eco-label for textiles offers...
    • A mechanism for consumers and public procurement bodies to recognise products manufactured from clean fibre using low-impact manufacturing practices.
    • The EU Eco-label will be widely recognised by consumers on a range of products, in all EU countries.
    • It is one of the tools in Europe’s “Integrated Product Policy” to deliver sustainable products to Europe’s 380 million wealthy, environmentally-aware consumers.
    • Will become the global ‘Standard’ for eco-wool products