Environmental labelling: is the PEF method a fast-fashion decoy?

An organic cotton t-shirt rated lower than a conventional t-shirt. Natural materials, such as wool, penalised in the results… Although it has been favoured by the European Commission for over a decade as a way of measuring the environmental performance of products, the PEF (Product Environmental Footprint) method, which is based on the analysis of a product’s life cycle, has long been criticised for its application to the textile industry, particularly for failing to take account of societal aspects or the release of micro-plastics in the case of products from the oil industry.

But a recent French study by Défi and the Institut français du textile et de l’habillement (IFTH) casts an even darker shadow over the method for the fashion textile industry.

As part of the debate on the relevance of different methods and France’s desire to develop environmental labelling for consumers of fashion products (embodied by the Ecobalyse test launched at the beginning of April), this study compared the results of various methods for calculating the environmental impact of a textile product. Around thirty t-shirts were examined using the PEF, the French-style environmental display project (Ecobalyse) and the eco-design score (also known as EDS). In the end, while the last two scoring methods establish a fairly similar gradation, the PEF has a completely different result… which is favourable to fast-fashion products.

“This is a huge surprise for us. Honestly, I wasn’t at all expecting such discrepancies in results,” says Clarisse Reille, general manager of the Défi. “We had, of course, warned that the use of average life-cycle analysis to obtain the scores for textile products did not give a fair result. There was a logic to this use, because apart from the major groups, no company can afford to carry out LCAs (life cycle analyses) on all its products. But now we can see that all the results are completely misleading.”

In fact, according to the study, 100% of ultra fast-fashion garments score similarly to other products. Only the linen T-shirt scores significantly better, while organic cotton and wool are heavily penalised. While the stated ambition at European level for the development of the PEF is to provide information on the environmental impact of products, such a discrepancy raises questions.

“Such results, in which fast-fashion and ultra-fast-fashion products are equivalent to other products, are quite staggering,” observes Clarisse Reille. “If we have to spend so much time and money, with so many consultants, to come up with a score that crushes all the differences, that’s incomprehensible to me. PEF is not associated with eco-design. This gives the impression that we’re a long way from the initial goal.”

French environmental labelling still needs fine-tuning

According to the study, the environmental labelling and eco-design score (EDS) methods provide better value for more responsible materials and more ethical production. According to the study, the EDS is the most advanced method of establishing a benchmark for promoting the most responsible products. In the context of environmental labelling, Le Défi notes that low prices are disadvantaged even if the products are substantially similar. Lingerie is also disadvantaged by this method. However, the gradation is more marked if the extrinsic durability coefficient is included.

For months, adjustments to the calculation methods have been the subject of much negotiation. While a number of brands have already invested in processes, the stakes are high for many of them, who hope that the European choices will not force them to adopt a new method… and therefore invest again.

Through this study, carried out with IFTH, Le Défi is seeking to shed light on the issue so that the Ministry of Transition and the government can rely on as many elements as possible before validating the calculation elements for French environmental labelling.

“Le Défi represents all the federations in the sector that maintain that the objective must be to lower environmental impact, and that to achieve this we need to eco-design. The government’s intention with environmental labelling was to punish fast fashion. Defi is in favour, because ultra-fast fashion is a fourfold destroyer of value. It destroys economic value, social value, creative value and environmental value. In my view, given the generative artificial intelligence tools deployed, this is a model of unfair competition that governments need to identify. But with the introduction of malus, we need to be careful. We can see that this only penalises 50% of ultra fast-fashion, but it also penalises companies that are making efforts. And that’s no good. For us, physical sustainability has to be integrated.

In order to improve the current methods, the Défi is calling on the French government to take into account the involvement of brands in eco-responsible labels, to evaluate the number of references produced by brands and to integrate physical sustainability (in particular by exploiting the Durhabi tool) to improve the scoring and bring it to really highlight products with the least environmental impact.

However, this is just a warning at French level. At European level, where work is also underway on this type of labelling, the question arises of the use of the PEF method as it is currently defined. So far, there have been few objections. But there is a clear risk for consumers and committed brands: seeing classic fast-fashion products branded with a ‘green’ stamp validated by the European Union.