European Union Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation

The full analysis can be found here:

Findings:

Our analysis considered the draft JRC Report in the light of several objectives. I summarize each in turn. First, however, please note that the ESPR will apply within a free market. Yet at no point does the draft JRC Report indicate whether its proposals make economic sense, or consider how they align with prevailing economic incentives and disincentives. 

A. Consistency with the European Union’s global commitments 

In line with the European Parliament’s stated concern of June 1, 2023, that the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) should be consistent with the Union’s commitments under the Paris Agreement, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, and the Sustainable Development Goals, we examined whether, in its present form, the draft JRC Report satisfies this requirement. 

Regrettably, the answer is no. We fond, moreover, that given that the proposed performance and information requirements would apply extraterritorially, the draft JRC report is also inconsistent with the Union's international trade commitments under the WTO. We would, furthermore, question whether the Report’s treatment of plastic microfibers is consistent with the European Union’s global commitments to adhere to the precautionary principle. And indeed, whether the draft JRC Report’s treatment of plastic relative to other fibers is consistent with the EU’s recent call to phase out 'unabated' fossil fuels and for COP28 in particular to “mark the beginning of the end of fossil fuels.”

Of equal concern in our estimation, is the fact that the JRC appears to have been instructed to craft information and performance requirements without any clear link, or apparent regard, that we can discern, to the European Union’s global commitments under United Nations resolutions. Indeed, the draft ESPR report openly asserts “Please note that in this context, sustainable does not include the social dimension.” 

Fiber production is vital to some of the poorest on the planet. The draft JRC report, however, in common with the proposed EU PEF, does not consider the potential socioeconomic impact of its requirements on producers.  We regard this as a direct violation of the EU’s stated commitment to implement the SDGs in all its policies. We can, moreover, find little evidence that those with the greatest expertise, and those whose well-being is most at risk, have been consulted inclusively - if at all. 

B. Extent, Depth, and Validity of The Data Used to Inform The Proposed Information and Performance Requirements.

We find that many of the deficiencies in the draft JRC Report, like those of other components of EU textile and footwear policy as currently proposed, including the Product Environmental Footprint or PEF, are attributable, at their base, to a failure by the EU to commission the research required to underpin effective legislation. Without robust, current, and comparable data, EU technicians are automatically obliged to craft legislation based on a hodgepodge of available reports. 

In the case of the draft JRC Report, some of these studies are high quality in their own right but were never designed to be used as a basis for assessing global, rather than some narrow local impact. Some are, moreover, seriously out of date. Some do not provide the supporting evidence that the draft JRC Report attributes to them. Other studies employed are not arm's length analyses but were commissioned by vested interests. Indeed, some clearly state that they were commissioned for marketing purposes. And some, regrettably, are incorrect. 

The draft JRC Report’s recommendations for Climate Change, for example, appear to be based upon a single study, commissioned by a vested interest, from a management consultancy. This report, “Fashion on Climate” (FoC) uses third-party as well as limited and outdated sources, to claim that globally, GHG emissions in cotton production are roughly three times greater than the value put forward by any current primary source. For several other fibers, the impact values used by FoC are around three times the value shown in the cited source. 

As a result, the purported share of raw materials in total apparel production carbon emissions, shown in FoC, is far higher than in any other study. The GHG impact in manufacturing is correspondingly reduced. This automatically obscures the real issue in apparel production emissions - the fact that most occur in countries where the carbon intensity of the energy mix is well above the global average. Regrettably, since they are based on faulty data, by definition, the Report’s recommended information and performance requirements to mitigate climate change are not robust. 

In other instances, we find that the proposed performance requirements appear to conflict. For example, one recommendation is a “- performance requirement on maximum limit of fertilisers, pesticides and insecticides to the production of cotton”. Another is the “ - performance requirement on minimum content of material with sustainability* certification per kg or unit of textiles and footwear.”  Brazilian cotton has the highest levels of pesticide application in the world - almost 4 times the global average. But it is also certified ‘Better’ or BCI cotton. Indeed, Brazil produces almost half the total global supply of BCI cotton. So, which of those two performance requirements would apply?

A further concern, in our opinion, is that fashion is fundamentally different from say cement, steel, or petrochemicals. With very few exceptions - and those largely, partial - none of the major, billion-Euro brands, manufacture their offering, in their factories. Almost all apparel currently on the market is produced through sub-contracting. The ESPR however, focuses heavily on what is generally described as scope 3 or scope 4 emissions - raw materials. But these are far removed from the brands that will be reporting them. 

Conclusion

It is an uncomfortable position to take, but we have no choice but to conclude that - if enacted as currently proposed - far from making fast fashion out of fashion, reducing fossil fuel dependency, diminishing the climate imprint of textiles and footwear, reversing biodiversity loss, and eliminating poverty and hunger, the European Union’s Ecodesign legislation would have the opposite effect.