Once again this year, the Global Fashion Summit brought together brands, policymakers, investors, solution providers, and international organizations in Copenhagen under a deliberately evocative theme: Unlocking Barriers. Building Bridges.
Our participation as an Innovation Forum Exhibitor – our first under Ympact, the new brand representing our group’s solutions – offered us a broad perspective on the challenges and innovations shaping the future of the fashion industry.
What follows is our account of the experience.

L'articolo GLOBAL FASHION SUMMIT 2025: SUSTAINABILITY IS A MARATHON THAT CALLS FOR LEADERSHIP proviene da 4sustainability.

PRESS RELEASE

Milan, May 6, 2025.  YHub, Italy’s leading group in innovative services and technological platforms for traceability and sustainability in the fashion and luxury industry, announces the entry of two prestigious new investors: Giorgio Armani SpA and Fondazione del Tessile Italiano.

This milestone reaffirms the Group’s pivotal role in supporting both brands and supply chain actors, reinforcing its positioning as a strategic partner for sustainable transformation and consolidating a distinctive alliance in terms of vision and solutions. The founding partners – Francesca Rulli, Massimo Brandellero, and Cristian Iobbi – will retain majority control of the company, which also welcomes Matteo De Angelis, General Manager of the Group, into the shareholding structure.

This development marks a significant new chapter in a trajectory that began in 2024 with a similar transaction, which saw the entry of Foro delle Arti (the holding company of Brunello Cucinelli SpA), entrepreneur Matteo Marzotto, Claudio Rovere (Founder & CEO of Holding Industriale SpA), venture funds managed by the global investment bank LionTree, and the digital innovator Federico Marchetti (founder of YOOX) through Mavis.

Operating under the single brand Ympact, YHub currently supports over 3,000 companies in tracing supply chains and measuring the environmental and social impacts of production. It collaborates with more than 50 global brands, and maps over 80,000 suppliers across 22 countries. By integrating expertise, methodology, and technology, the Group enables companies in the sector to meet growing market demands and evolving sustainability regulations.

Brands and Supply Chain: A Shared Commitment

Giorgio Armani SpA is one of the world’s leading fashion and luxury brands, renowned for its timeless, refined style. The Group designs, produces, and distributes a broad range of products that embody the union of craftsmanship and innovation.

Fondazione del Tessile Italiano, established in 1998, works to promote the Italian textile sector through wide range of initiatives aimed at enhancing its competitiveness in an increasingly globalized market.

The decision to bring on board investors of such calibre—emblematic of the very best of Italy’s brand and manufacturing excellence—reflects a firm belief: that the fashion industry can only achieve its sustainability goals through close, structured collaboration among all stakeholders

Statements

Francesca Rulli, Massimo Brandellero, Cristian Iobbi, Founding Partners of YHub:
“We warmly welcome Giorgio Armani SpA and Fondazione del Tessile Italiano into our ecosystem. This marks another step toward the future we envisioned—one in which industry, innovation, and sustainability come together to build a more responsible and transparent fashion system, in partnership with those who share our values. The experience and standing of our new partners, alongside those who joined us in 2024, will be instrumental in strengthening our ability to support brands and the supply chain and in amplifying the positive impact we are generating across the sector.”

Andrea Camerana, Board Member of Giorgio Armani SpA:
“We are pleased to join the YHub Group and to contribute to the development of innovative solutions for traceability and sustainability in fashion—objectives that are essential and achievable only through close cooperation between brands and the production supply chain.”

Simone Canclini, President of Fondazione del Tessile Italiano:
“Joining YHub represents a strategic opportunity for us to support the transformation path that companies must undertake, fostering the kind of dialogue with brands that leads to shared projects and coordinated investments.”

__________

YHub was advised on legal matters by Zaglio-Orizio-Braga e Associati Studio Legale, with a team led by partner Marco Orizio and associate Désirée Pasquariello. Studio Data acted as financial advisor.

__________

YHub YHub is Italy’s first group offering innovative services and IT platforms for responsible fashion. By integrating expertise, methodology, and technology, it supports brands and supply chains in traceability and in reducing the environmental and social impacts of production. All YHub companies are Benefit Corporations: Process Factory, a consulting firm that developed the 4sustainability® system to improve sustainability performance and validate data; The ID Factory, a B Corp specializing in digital solutions for material, process, and product traceability; and Ympact, a platform for impact data management and large-scale application of 4sustainability®. With a team of 80 professionals, YHub supports over 3,000 companies, collaborates with more than 50 global brands, and maps over 80,000 suppliers across 22 countries.

L'articolo proviene da 4sustainability.

What Are PFAS and Why Are They Harmful?

PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are a family of chemical compounds comprising between 5,000 and 10,000 substances. Renowned for their resistance to water, heat, and corrosion, PFAS are widely used in non-stick cookware, waterproof products, and electrical insulation. They are commonly found in technical garments, footwear, kitchen tools, eyeglass lenses, cardiac stents, and even some pharmaceuticals. According to the OECD, more than 4,700 types of PFAS are employed to impart water-repellent and stain-resistant properties to textiles.

However, it is precisely their chemical stability that makes PFAS hazardous to human health and the environment. They accumulate in ecosystems and living organisms, posing risks to fertility, immune function, metabolism, and increasing the likelihood of certain types of cancer.

Impact on the Textile and Fashion Sector

The textile and fashion industries are among the most affected by the new regulation, given their widespread use of PFAS to achieve water and stain repellency in fabrics and footwear. Transitioning to sustainable alternatives will require significant investment in research and development to identify innovative materials and alternative treatments such as bio-based polymers and plant-based waxes.

The impact will be particularly significant for outdoor, sportswear, and performance fashion brands, many of which will have to redesign entire product lines. Some companies, like Patagonia, have already begun the transition away from PFAS, but the challenge remains complex. Industry reactions reflect a general sense of caution.

Francesca Rulli, co-founder of Ympact and creator of the 4sustainability® framework, urges the fashion industry to take responsibility for eliminating substances that science has proven to be harmful. “Over the past few decades, the race for stain-proof and waterproof fabrics has led to an excessive reliance on these substances—often where not strictly necessary. We’ve become accustomed to not worrying about stains and expecting extreme water-repellent performance, even from everyday garments. Moreover, PFAS are also used as auxiliaries in dyeing, printing, and finishing processes to enhance performance. Considering the health and environmental risks, we must rethink both production processes and product specifications, especially where PFAS are used more to avoid product returns than to meet real functional needs. Educating consumers is not easy, but clear information could encourage many to support this transition.”

Tax Measures and Environmental Monitoring

In addition to the gradual bans, the new law introduces a tax on PFAS in consumer products to incentivize reduction ahead of regulatory deadlines. Implementation details are still being finalized.

Giancarlo Di Blasi, Research and Development Director at Brachi Testing Services, explains: “The real issue will be defining precise testing methods and concentration thresholds—a technical yet decisive aspect for the regulation’s effectiveness. It will be interesting to see whether France extends the restriction to short-chain PFAS, as already addressed at the EU level through Regulation (EU) 2024/2462 for PFHxA (C6), or adopts a California-style approach based on measuring total fluorine content in products. In that case, clear and ambitious limits would need to be set, bearing in mind that California has capped PFAS content at 100 mg/kg, to be halved by January 1, 2027.”

The law also mandates PFAS monitoring in drinking water, reinforcing EU legislation that, as of January 2026, will require all member states to track 20 pollutants from this group. France also plans to include TFA (trifluoroacetic acid)—considered the most widespread PFAS according to Greenpeace—among the substances monitored in water and the environment. The results of environmental inspections will be published annually and made publicly accessible online.

Toward an EU-Wide PFAS Ban?

The EU took its first steps on PFAS in 2009 by banning perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), classified as “potentially carcinogenic” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. In 2020, the same fate befell perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), now officially recognized as carcinogenic, followed more recently by perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), widely used in firefighting foam.

A broader proposal is now on the table to extend restrictions to all PFAS. In February 2023, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden submitted a joint request to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to revise the REACH regulation accordingly. France has indicated its intention to support the initiative and, as evidenced by the newly passed law, is positioning itself as a regulatory front-runner.

A Challenge to Embrace

If more countries follow suit, the textile sector will need to accelerate its search for viable alternatives to remain competitive in an evolving regulatory landscape. Transforming investments in safer, more sustainable production processes into competitive advantages will be key.
This represents a radical shift for the entire sector, and the French law could be the catalyst: from material innovation to supply chain redesign, to balancing environmental sustainability with economic demands.

The clock is ticking toward 2026. Will the fashion industry rise to the challenge?
According to Rulli, phasing out PFAS requires a structured roadmap, akin to building a chemical management system across the supply chain.
“The first step,” she explains, “is risk assessment: analyzing the products and supply chains involved. Then, it’s essential to collect data from suppliers to identify possible PFAS exposure and validate findings through lab testing. The search for sustainable alternatives, from raw materials to treatments, must go hand in hand with close supplier collaboration to ensure an effective transition. Equally crucial are progress monitoring, internal training on PFAS risks, and consumer education. Finally, transparency: publishing verified data and achieving sustainability certifications reinforces a brand’s commitment. This process also drives innovation in the chemical industry, encouraging the development of safer formulations. The more companies adopt this strategy, the greater the momentum for research and innovation.”

L'articolo FRANCE, ANTI-PFAS LAW PASSED proviene da 4sustainability.

Takeaways from the Venice Sustainable Fashion Forum 2024: Lessons from the Event’s Keynote Program and Third Just Fashion Transition Report.

L'articolo VENICE SUSTAINABLE FASHION FORUM: OUR TAKEAWAYS proviene da 4sustainability.

On February 20, the EU Council definitively approved new rules against Greenwashing. After publication in the Official Gazette, member states will have 24 months to implement them. In March, the sister Directive on Green Claims is also expected to be voted on.

Following the vote on January 17 by the European Parliament, the EU Council gave final approval for the publication in the Gazette of the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive. Its aim is to prohibit the use of misleading environmental statements, improve product labeling, and make warranty information more visible.

Under the measure – which amends the directive on unfair commercial practices (UCPD) and the directive on consumer rights (CRD), adapting them to the green transition and the principles of the circular economy – a series of questionable behaviors related to fake environmentalism and so-called premature obsolescence of goods will become more difficult, with the effect of protecting consumers and enabling them to play a more active role in the green transition.

Directive Greenwashing: Putting an End to Generic Environmental Claims

The new rules aim to make product labeling clearer and more reliable by prohibiting the use of generic claims such as “eco-friendly,” “natural,” “biodegradable,” “climate-neutral,” or “eco” without supporting documents and certifications demonstrating their accuracy and validity.

The directive on Greenwashing is closely related to another proposal by the European Commission currently under review by EU institutions: the Green Claim directive, which will define more specifically criteria and conditions for their proper use.

The use of sustainability labels will also be regulated from now on. We add “finally,” considering the chaos caused by their proliferation in the absence of useful data for any comparison. In the European Union, only sustainability labels based on official certification systems created or approved by public authorities will be allowed in the future, and this is a truly significant development.

Another new element is the prohibition of claiming that a product has a neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment if these results depend on the use of emission offsetting systems. An example among many? Airlines will no longer be able to sell “climate-neutral” flights and encourage consumers to offset emissions by paying more.

The new rules will prohibit unfounded claims about the lifespan of products: it will not be possible, for instance, to claim that a washing machine will last for 5,000 wash cycles if this is not true under normal conditions. It will also be forbidden to encourage the replacement of consumables before necessary (e.g., printer ink) or to present products as repairable when they are not.

Furthermore, warranty information will have to be more visible, and a new harmonized label will be created to give greater prominence to products with an extended warranty period.

The Stakeholders’ Perspective

Regarding the durability and repairability of products, activists from the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) have spoken out, applauding the directive as a measure to combat greenwashing but accusing the EU of not being sufficiently proactive on the issue of planned obsolescence, the commercial practice that intentionally limits the lifespan of a product to encourage its replacement.

According to Biljana Borzan, rapporteur of the directive during its examination in the European Parliament and in negotiations with the Council, the directive on greenwashing nevertheless represents a victory for everyone. “We will move away from the throwaway culture, make marketing more transparent, and fight against premature obsolescence of goods,” she said. “People will be able to buy more durable, repairable, and sustainable products thanks to reliable labels and advertisements. Even more importantly, companies will no longer be able to deceive people by saying that plastic bottles are fine because the company has planted trees somewhere or by claiming that something is sustainable without explaining how and why.”

Experts in sustainable fashion are the first to lament the difficulty of obtaining useful information about the sustainability content of products. Think of clothes or fashion accessories: according to Francesca Rulli, CEO of Process Factory and creator of the 4sustainability system for the sustainable transition of fashion & luxury, at best, the label displays some certification marks that the average consumer does not know and therefore does not help them distinguish between one item and another. “More often,” she adds, “we find vague or ambiguous statements, or even nothing at all. I myself become unsure when shopping because I lack the elements to choose items with the environmental and social characteristics I would like. Who produced it and where? How do I know if what is written on the label is verified? Today, I can only rely on the reputation of the brand or technical information published online… I ask questions, but I am often disappointed. And the absurd thing is that certain items would have more than satisfactory sustainability requirements: it’s a shame that the supporting data is unavailable.”

Green Claims: Where Do We Stand?

A study conducted in 2020 by the European Commission on a sample of 150 claims found that 53.3% contained misleading or unfounded information about the environmental “benefits” of products, and 40% lacked supporting evidence. It is therefore good news that the Green Claims Directive is also proceeding in its approval process, with positions expressed by both the Internal Market and Environment Committees. The European Parliament aims to reach a plenary vote before the European elections, allowing the newly elected members to advance the measure from a legally valid position.

In the text presented in March 2023, the EU Commission had established the following:

• Companies must provide scientific evidence of the truthfulness of green assertions, considering the entire life cycle of the product.
• Environmental labels – estimated to be over 230 by Brussels – must be truthful, transparent, and verified by third parties.
• Scientific evidence of green assertions must be transparent and available to all via QR codes on the company’s website.
• Assertions or labels using an aggregated score of the overall environmental impact of the product in terms of biodiversity, water usage, etc., will no longer be allowed.
• Companies marketing their products using unproven environmental claims could face fines equivalent to at least 4% of revenue or exclusions of up to one year from participating in public procurement or subsidies.

Proposals from the Committees

The work of the Committees has generated a series of additional proposals to complement or modify the Green Claims directive proposal.

30-day Verification by Third Parties

Members have agreed that companies must obtain approval for green claims before being able to use them. Accredited verifiers will be responsible for this within 30 days.

Simplifications for Less Complex Products

The European Commission is expected to compile a list of indications and less complex products that could benefit from simplified verification in terms of timing and format.

Concern Regarding Hazardous Substances

According to the Committees, it is necessary to evaluate whether ecological indications on products containing hazardous substances should be allowed.

Exemption for Micro-enterprises

It is believed that micro-enterprises should be exempt from new obligations, and SMEs should have an additional year to comply with the new regulations.

Carbon Offset

The Union’s ban on making ecological statements based solely on so-called carbon dioxide offsetting schemes (Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive) is confirmed. The suggested addition is to allow companies to mention offsetting schemes if they have already minimized their emissions and to use these schemes only for residual emissions. The carbon credits from the schemes must be certified as established by the Carbon Removals Certification Framework.

Comparative Advertising

Special rules should be provided for comparative indications – those that compare two different products – even if the two products are from the same manufacturer. Companies, for example, should demonstrate that they have used the same methods to compare relevant aspects of the products.

Improvement

The two Committees believe that claims of product improvement cannot be based on data more than five years old.

What Lies Ahead

Will the two twin directives against greenwashing truly manage to change things? Will the accessibility of information on the sustainability of fashion products (and beyond) be sufficient to encourage more informed purchases?

“I believe that thanks to the upcoming regulations, I will finally be able to obtain much-needed information: in some cases easily, through clear and scientifically validated claims, and in others with just a few more questions. I will be able to know – explains Rulli – if the materials used reduce the impact and based on what evidence; if the supply chains are monitored and produce responsibly and if the brands support them; if the processes occur without the use of toxic and harmful chemicals… And so on. All information whose visibility on labels or on the manufacturer’s website or on social media or elsewhere will allow me to make purchases that are consistent with my values.”

It is clear that brands and supply chains will need to better manage traceability, collection, verification, and transparency of data, implementing structured and verifiable projects. In this sense, 4sustainability represents support in terms of implementation and a guarantee in terms of communication to the market: method and technology together are functional to a change that is necessary, today, also by law.

L'articolo GREENWASHING, THE DIRECTIVE FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION IS LAW proviene da 4sustainability.

With its formidable growth, e-commerce has revolutionized our purchasing habits, but the convenience of a click hides a significant environmental impact, especially when it comes to returning what we have bought. The phenomenon of compulsive returns, in particular, is forcing companies and consumers to reconsider their choices.

What is vegan fashion? Simply, fashion made of clothes and accessories produced without harming animals, using materials and processes that do not endanger their health and lives. Basically, an item of clothing, a bag, a pair of shoes… can be called vegan if it is made without any use of wool, silk, leather or fur.

The Environmental Impact of Returns

According to the Global Web Index, people aged 25 to 44 who have returned purchased items within a year are approximately 70%.
Due to returns, in the United States alone, the e-commerce sector generates approximately 5 billion kilograms of waste and 15 million tons of CO₂ emissions annually. Globally, the cycle of compulsive purchasing and returning, incentivized by the free return option, has an even more devastating impact, especially due to reasons related to packaging and transportation.

Other recent studies tell us that transportation contributes to 15% of e-commerce greenhouse gas emissions, while packaging accounts for as much as 75% of emissions. The average return rate stands at 14%, but for major e-commerce players, it can reach up to 50%, with an associated environmental impact equivalent to 9% of greenhouse gas emissions per purchase order.

In terms of sectors, the clothing industry performs the worst: a McKinsey survey conducted just before the pandemic revealed a return rate of 25% for clothing on e-commerce channels compared to the overall 20%.

The serial returners

Free returns have given rise to a new category of consumers: serial returners, who intentionally buy more than they want to keep. According to analogous surveys by Barclayscard and Narvar, the percentage ranges from around 30% to 40% of online shoppers. Some customers choose different versions of the same product – mostly colors and sizes – to comfortably choose at home and then return what doesn’t convince them.

Within this category, but with their own characteristics, are wardrobers – who buy a garment with the intention of wearing it for an evening and returning it the next day – and social media wardrobers: influencers or aspiring ones who buy clothes and accessories to match and show off on social media with the hashtag #OOTD (outfit of the day).

Amazon and Others

Amazon, the e-commerce giant founded by Jeff Bezos, has introduced free return policies that have contributed to normalizing compulsive return behavior among consumers, including types of returns not due to any product defect or sizing error but simply because the customer changed their mind.

According to the American National Retail Federation, in 2022, customers returned approximately 17% of merchandise purchased on Amazon, totaling $816 billion. However, as we have seen, the convenience of free returns has enormous environmental costs.

To get a clearer idea, you can follow step-by-step the journey of, for example, a T-shirt from the moment of purchase.
The process begins with packaging and shipping the item from the warehouse to the distribution center, through trucks or planes that produce polluting gases. Once the package is received, if the item does not meet the consumer’s expectations, it can be returned even without objective reasons.

The T-shirt then returns to the warehouse, the package is unpacked and inspected. Even if the garment is intact and unused, it cannot be resold as new, so the options are basically reduced to two: the retailer returns it to the supplier for a fee, or it is disposed of, a very common option because the same computer system suggests it as the cheapest. McKinsey also tells us that 10% of fashion items – particularly women’s clothing and shoes – end up in landfills.

Amazon informs that it has introduced much more sustainable return management policies: when a product cannot be resold, the priority is to donate it, otherwise, recycling is considered. Incineration? Only in extreme cases.
Other major names like Zara, H&M, J.Crew, Anthropologie, Abercrombie & Fitch are also backtracking on free returns. The reasons are not only ethical: according to the Wall Street Journal, the companies involved lose at least 50% of the margin on returns in expenses for transportation, storage, checks, potential laundering, and packaging.
A recent report from the British Fashion Council calculated the cost of returns in 2022 for the fashion e-commerce sector at £7 billion. A significant loss of profit, considering that about half of the returned items are resold at a 40% discount, as well as an excellent reason to encourage brands to review their policies starting by charging customers part of the return management costs due to wrong online purchases. In the UK, this return fee is £1.95, while in Australia, it is around $8.

Solutions and Best Practices

According to Statista, in 2026, sales in the e-commerce sector will globally grow to $8.148 trillion worldwide (in 2014, they were just over $1 billion). From these numbers, it is evident that not even a giant like Amazon alone can make a difference. A multi-level intervention involving consumers, sellers, authorities, and civil society is needed.

Consumers need to be educated about the damages of compulsive free returns, encouraged to make more conscious purchases, and to translate their good intentions into consistent behaviors.
Sellers, for their part, should limit or eliminate free returns, provide accurate information about products, and adopt measures to prevent and limit return cases: for clothing, for example, high-quality photos and videos capable of “capturing” details, customer reviews, and indications on the fit of models seem to produce encouraging results.

And then there is the new frontier of virtual fitting rooms, a market for which growth is predicted to reach almost $15 billion by 2029: 3D avatars capable of digitally representing our bodies will allow us to try on clothes and accessories before going to the checkout.

Last but not least, generative artificial intelligence. Systems like Zalando’s Fashion Assistant, for example, open up to interaction with the virtual store: customers can chat with the sales assistant just as they would in a physical store, using their own words to ask targeted questions and receive useful suggestions to finalize their purchase, but in a conscious manner!

Similar logic applies to Levi’s Virtual Stylist, a chatbot developed to enhance the online shopping experience and better manage inventory by modulating availability based on demand. Available both on the brand’s website and on Facebook, the Virtual Stylist “interviews” customers to understand their preferences for jeans and suggest the best models, also showing images of buyers wearing jeans with similar characteristics.

Each Doing Their Share

“Our commitment to supporting the fashion supply chain – explains Francesca Rulli, CEO of Process Factory and Ympact and creator of the 4sustainability system – is strongly focused on reducing the impact of the processes behind each garment: cutting water and energy consumption and atmospheric CO₂ emissions, eliminating toxic and harmful chemicals, increasing the percentage of recycled material, reusing production waste…
The consumer side perspective seems less focused. Dynamics such as those of returns in e-commerce, for example, show the inconsistency leading many purchasing choices, either without considering their impact or without being aware of it.
Brands should educate consumers to grow, encouraging more sustainable behaviors and revisiting policies that have clearly demonstrated their limitations, such as free returns.
However, consumers are also called to do their part. To grow in awareness, I suggest watching the docu-series Junk by Matteo Ward, focusing on the mountains of clothes in Ghana, Chile, Indonesia… Mostly fueled by ultra-fast fashion products, cheaper to throw away than to refurbish.”

L'articolo E-COMMERCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: MANAGING RETURNS proviene da 4sustainability.

Process Factory and BluWin sign a Memorandum of Understanding to collaborate on improving sustainability performance in the textile and clothing industry.

The acceleration driven by both the market and legislators to promote the establishment of sustainable business models is readily apparent. At the European level, the increasing volume of regulations underlines the sustainable path that companies are now obligated to follow, rather than solely as a voluntary ethical choice.

The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, the Green Claims Directive and the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR), which includes the key chapter on the Digital Product Passport, are just three of the many examples. They are all aligned with the EU’s Green Deal, which both mandates and encourages sustainable practices by allocating funds amounting to 225 billion euros.

In order to address these challenges and to drive change, Process Factory and BluWin have entered a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to collaborate and leverage their respective strengths and expertise.

Process Factory and BluWin will collaborate to encourage information sharing among stakeholders and to advocate for best practices and methodologies, such as the 4sustainability framework, for reducing environmental and social impacts within the fashion industry. This includes initiatives aimed at promoting responsible resource consumption, implementing chemical management systems, establishing process traceability, monitoring supply chains, fostering recycling and sustainable design, and the transition to the use of lower-impact materials for sustainable production. The eventual goal of this collaboration is to enable successful global dissemination of 4sustainability methodology and its tools.

Francesca Rulli, CEO and Founder of Process Factory, stated, “Our long-standing collaboration with ZDHC – Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals as a solution and training provider has allowed us to connect with BluWin over time, confirming the strong alignment of our respective approaches to reducing environmental and social impacts in fashion production. This collaboration marks a significant step forward in expanding and strengthening our service offerings to support the sustainable transition of fashion supply chains.”

Dr. Siva Pariti, Senior Technical Marketing Officer of BluWin, said, “BluWin is delighted to collaborate with Process Factory, one of the foremost environmental consulting firms in Italy. Customers from the global textile and fashion industry can now expect seamless quality services and solutions designed to facilitate their sustainability transformation. Our goal is to assist them in meeting the impending regulatory challenges while ensuring a seamless and high-quality experience.”

This strategic collaboration marks an important milestone for the global textile and fashion industry. As the climate impact agenda continues to expand rapidly, there is now an immediate need to accelerate the adoption of sustainable measures within the fashion value chain.

L'articolo PROCESS FACTORY AND BLUWIN, A PARTNERSHIP TO REDUCE FASHION’S IMPACT proviene da 4sustainability.

ManpowerGroup’s 2023 Green Jobs Report Highlights Widespread Shortage of Professionals Steering Businesses towards Sustainable Models.

According to a survey by ManpowerGroup, a leading multinational HR agency, 94% of employers confess to a glaring absence of in-house professionals essential for realizing their ESG objectives. This shortfall is particularly noteworthy in light of the market and legislative acceleration driving the adoption of sustainable business models. At the European level, an influx of impending regulations signals the mandatory rather than solely ethically-driven shift companies are compelled to undertake.

The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, the Green Claims Directive, and the Regulation on Ecodesign for Sustainable Products (ESPR), which includes the pivotal Digital Product Passport chapter, serve as just a few examples. All align with the EU’s Green Deal, imposing requirements on one hand and incentivizing on the other, backed by a dedicated fund of 225 billion euros.
Within this dynamics, indicators and projections of investor preference suggest that poor ESG performance can negatively impact results by up to 21%.

Hunting for Green Skills

The culmination of these considerations and more results in approximately 70% of companies actively seeking “green talents,” prompting a widespread mobilization across all sectors, starting from manufacturing, operations, logistics, and IT.

Unfortunately, the ready supply of such professionals is in short order. While the demand for green skills significantly outstrips the available talent pool, a staggering 67% of job seekers prefer to apply to companies genuinely committed to reducing their environmental footprint. It’s a classic case of a vicious circle: the lack of necessary professionals hinders the realization of the transition, perceived by resources as a key factor in choosing one company over another!

Rising professions

In the intricate mosaic of the current job market, marked not only by profound changes but also by the lingering uncertainty of the economic landscape, one consistent feature emerges: the annual list of ascending professions by LinkedIn. This list provides a timely update on trends in a labor market navigating transformative shifts.

The 2023 ranking, spanning from January 2018 to July 2022, crowns two rapidly ascending roles, alongside a perennial frontrunner: the Business Developer, relentlessly sought after to acquire new clients and expand the company’s business horizons.

Of particular note are the third and second positions, emblematic of two interconnected drivers of competitiveness and growth: technological innovation and sustainability. Claiming the third spot is the SOC Analyst or Cyber Security Analyst, unmistakably signaling a focus on cybersecurity. The demand for technological expertise, in this case, responds to the indispensable need for data and network protection.

Securing the silver medal is the Sustainability Specialist, advancing three steps in the LinkedIn ranking in just one year. Tasked with implementing and overseeing a company’s sustainability strategies, the Sustainability Specialist must possess knowledge in environmental matters, CSR, reporting, and sustainable development – competencies that seem to be in high demand.

Francesca Rulli remarks, “The data confirms that the skills required for transition are both methodological for the implementation of sustainability projects and technological for data management support. The synergy between digital and sustainability for creating shared value, known as ‘twin transition’ in literature, forms the foundation of YHub, the first Italian holding for traceability and sustainability in fashion & luxury. YHub’s uniqueness lies in the synthesis of methodology, technological solutions, and the market-demanding expertise.”

In Demand: Sustainability Technicians and Managers

Manpower’s research, encompassing over 2000 ‘green’ positions in Italy alone, delves deeper into specificity. Among the coveted roles, we find the green mechatronics and industrial mechanics, the wind energy engineer, the environmental manager, the sustainable architect, the Zero-waste Program Manager, and more. Strategic and managerial profiles are also sought after, including the analyst for renewable energies, the Environmental Risk Manager, the aforementioned Sustainability Officer, the Project Manager ESG, and the Sustainable Manufacturing Innovation Director.

Hiring them is challenging; retaining them is equally daunting. This underscores that the challenge extends beyond recruitment – it’s about building loyalty and continually developing these professionals. In the realm of sustainability, this involves both upskilling and reskilling, essential activities to stay abreast of the constantly evolving landscape. Moreover, if external expertise is scarce, it becomes crucial to invest in internal resources that are either already aligned or willing to acquire the indispensable skills for sustainable growth.

Francesca Rulli notes, “Even in Italy, we’re witnessing a certain mobility among sustainability specialists. Driven by strong ethical motivations, these professionals refuse to settle for companies that merely treat sustainability as a marketing ploy and rightfully seek opportunities elsewhere. This is a factor companies must consider because once these valuable resources are found, they are retained only by engaging them in activities and projects genuinely aimed at ESG goals.”

L'articolo ESG OBJECTIVES: 94% OF COMPANIES LACK CRITICAL INTERNAL SKILLS proviene da 4sustainability.

Among the chemicals traditionally used in fashion production processes, PFAS or PFCs are often in the dock. Reducing the use of PFASs and other hazardous chemicals is not trivial, however, because it subjects companies to the continual search for the best possible trade-off between performance and sustainability. Important support comes from implementation protocols such as CHEM 4sustainability aimed at implementing a responsible Chemical Management system which also is aligned with best global methodologies such as ZDHC.

PFAS – also known by the old acronym PFCs – have been used for years as Durable Water Repellent (DWR) and that is, treatments for outdoor clothing, equipment and footwear that can repel water by waterproofing materials.

• Science proposes their elimination for a number of objective reasons. Here are a few.
• PFAS persist in the environment longer than any other man-made substance, dispersing through both water and air.
• Their release causes contamination of groundwater and consequently drinking water, and conventional water purification techniques are often ineffective.
• Some PFASs accumulate in living organisms and concentrations increase as we move up the food chain (biomagnification process).
• PFAS bind to proteins, “storing” in the blood or organs such as the liver.

The advantage and together the limitation of these poly- and per-fluorinated compounds, in essence, is the extreme strength of the alloy between carbon and fluorine that characterizes them and makes them effectively non-degradable. Because of their chemical structure, in other words, PFASs accumulate in the environment making contamination almost irreversible. What is more serious is that they enter the food chain with serious effects on human health, including

• Increased cholesterol levels
• Compromise of the immune system
• Increased risk of cancer
• Disruption of thyroid hormone
• Decreased effects of vaccination
• Impacts on weight of unborn children

Brands’ commitment on PFAS

The fashion response has been to fall back on shorter-structure compounds such as C6s, which are less persistent but still dangerous. We mention first and foremost the outdoor clothing companies that make extensive use of long structure PFASs, the most tenacious.

More responsible is the choice of those who are trying to abandon the use of PFAS altogether, investing time and resources in developing alternative materials and techniques. This is the case of Patagonia, a well-known American sports and outdoor clothing company, which has publicly committed to eliminating these compounds from its supply chain, communicating the progress it has made and also inviting consumers to support the change through more conscious purchasing behaviors.

The brand informs that waterproof garments for which a DWR treatment is not crucial – about 90% of the total – are already produced without the use of PFAS. That leaves 10% for which there is still no alternative solution, nothing at least that guarantees the performance which is essential for some specific sportswear. Patagonia correctly gives evidence of this, citing ongoing research to develop lower impact treatments.

Performance vs Sustainability

Dangers come not only from PFAS, of course. Every outfit we wear, every pair of shoes, every fashion accessory … is produced with extensive use of chemicals, which are not always harmless or sustainable. We have already mentioned the processes for waterproofing materials. But chemistry is also used to achieve color fastness or perform a long series of treatments.

Phthalates, for example, are used to give flexibility and softness to rubberized prints: in the long run, however, they can disrupt the body’s hormone balance when in contact with the skin. Chlorine – used to “bind” a great many dyes – and chromium, which is used to fix the color on the fabric, are known carcinogens. Formaldehyde is an eye and respiratory irritant gas used to fix pigments in the printing stage and also as a preservative in the packaging stage. Also strongly allergenic is nickel: watch out for dark or heavily colored jeans and garments because they are likely to contain significant amounts of it!

Do we ever stop to think, as consumers, about the consequences of the massive use of these substances? How much do factory discharges impact the sea we fish in or the rivers from which we draw water to irrigate our fields? And what damage does eating food from these fields cause to our health?

Regulations raise the bar on accountability

In recent years, regulatory authorities have been active on sustainable chemistry as never before, having as its primary goal the protection of human health, the environment and biodiversity. Let us cite, as an example, the 2021-2024 plan of the EPA – Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. federal agency for the protection of the environment and human health, which gives mandatory directions for:

• Investing in research and innovation to increase understanding of PFAS exposures and toxicity to human health and the environment, thus developing effective countermeasures and solutions.
• Pursuing a comprehensive and proactive approach suitable for preventing PFAS penetration levels in air, soil, and water from negatively impacting human health and the environment.
• Deepening and accelerate PFAS decontamination to protect human health and environmental ecosystems.
• Eliminating PFAS from all products by 2030.

Other initiatives aimed at totally eliminating PFAS from products and production processes:

• On Jan. 13, 2023, authorities from Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden submitted a proposal to ECHA, the European Chemicals Agency, to ban the entire PFAS class of chemicals, with the ban taking effect between 2026 and 2027.
• A group of more than 40 NGOs urged EU countries to ban PFAS in products such as food packaging, cosmetics and clothing by 2025 and in absolute terms by 2030.
• Canada already bans the production, use, sale and import of PFOS (specific subgroups of PFAS, ed.) and PFOS-containing products.
• Japan bans the import of several products containing PFOA-related substances, another type of PFAS. The list includes various textile products with water and oil repellent properties, water and oil repellent coating agents, and so on.

A responsible Chemical Management system

The self-conscious cynicism for which the fashion system has been responsible in the past is slowly but surely giving way to sustainability policies that often see brands and supply chains working together on shared goals. Among these is good chemistry, which involves the elimination of chemicals hazardous to health and the environment from the fashion industry’s production cycles. Those same substances that have been used extensively over the past fifty years because they are inexpensive and high performing.

On this front, the major global initiative is Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC), a working table that later became a Foundation joined by the major international fashion & luxury brands, the most advanced companies in the supply chain, chemical manufacturers, analytical laboratories, research organizations, associations and companies such as Process Factory that specialize in supporting the process of converting companies to good chemistry.

CHEM 4sustainability protocol

The case of Patagonia tells us how complex this process is to achieve with one’s own forces alone, due often to lack of knowledge, method, tools… This is the basis for the 4s CHEM protocol, the original core of the multidimensional 4sustainability implementation and assurance system that supports the transition to sustainability of fashion supply chain. The dimensions involved, in addition to chemistry, are all those identified by the Global Fashion Agenda as priorities for sustainable development.

4s CHEM, more precisely, supports the creation of a chemical management system along the entire processing chain aimed at eliminating hazardous chemicals from production cycles through the ZDHC methodology and by referring to its MRSL. The acronym stands for Manufacturing Restricted Substances List, a list of chemicals restricted in use precisely because of their hazardousness. PFASs also belong to this list.

Companies that adopt 4s CHEM commit among other things to eliminate the direct use of such substances, opting for chemicals that exclude the intentional use of substances included in the MRSL. The methodology applied includes supplier qualification procedures, in-company training activities, review of production processes, replacement of chemicals in production inventories and recipes, and measurement of wastewater to assess the level of sustainability of production processes and their impact on human health and the environment.

“It is a structured and credible way to demonstrate to the market one’s commitment to environmental impact reduction,” stresses Francesca Rulli, CEO of Process Factory and creator of the 4sustainability framework. “There are so many companies that are achieving compelling performance through the 4s CHEM protocol, contributing to groundwater cleanup and ecosystem protection in a concrete, measurable and verified way. The 4s Companies section of the 4sustainability website shows a wide selection of them, pointing to the activation of the other initiatives of the system as well, which is based – I want to reiterate – on recognized global methodologies for reducing impacts through a local and collaborative approach.
Replacing hazardous chemicals with more sustainable alternatives enables excellent paths of process and product innovation, contributing to the formation of critical thinking geared toward building a better future.”

L'articolo PFAS: FASHION INDUSTRY BETWEEN CHEMISTRY AND SUSTAINABILITY proviene da 4sustainability.

What is vegan and what is sustainable? The two terms do not mean the same thing, quite the opposite. Consciously or not, many fashion brands misuse the former. And there are not a few cases of those who profess to be vegan without equal attention to the environment. Let’s set the record straight to help consumers make informed purchasing choices as well.

What is vegan fashion? Simply, fashion made of clothes and accessories produced without harming animals, using materials and processes that do not endanger their health and lives. Basically, an item of clothing, a bag, a pair of shoes… can be called vegan if it is made without any use of wool, silk, leather or fur.

Are Vegan and Sustainable the same?

It is quite intuitive that vegan means neither environmentally friendly nor sustainable. PVC is a perfectly vegan choice, but the toxicity of this material and its impact on the environment are well known.

The first distinction to be made is between ethics and sustainability. Ethics concerns the rights and welfare of workers, for example, but also the issue of animal exploitation: is what allows us to choose between what we think is right and not right.

Sustainability properly understood – which implies taking into account its three dimensions: environmental, social, and economic-organizational – includes ethics, but also key aspects such as the impacts of production on the environment and, therefore, the resources consumed, processes, management of chemicals and waste…

A vegan person may find it wrong to wear a leather garment that was once a living being because his/her sensibility and ethics prevent him/her from doing so. This is an understandable and respectable position, but we are talking about ethics, not sustainability.

Are Vegan and Cruelty Free synonyms?

There is also often confusion about the expression Cruelty Free, which is not necessarily a requirement of vegan fashion. Cruelty Free refers only to testing on animals and how they are treated: cruelty-free, in fact. A product not tested on animals, therefore, is for all intents and purposes Cruelty Free, but it may still contain ingredients of animal origin.

Is vegan fashion planet friendly?

It is difficult to solve the issue with a yes or no answer. If we look only at the CO₂ emissions caused by animal-derived materials versus those produced by vegan alternatives, the answer is generally yes. Life-cycle based assessments of products show that the production of bovine-derived leather results in higher greenhouse gas emissions than, for example, the production of cotton or polyester.

Some of these emissions come from methane produced by cows through digestion, others from food production and deforestation linked to the leather supply chain. Similar problems are for wool and silk, which require significant amounts of energy to be processed, and thus contribute more to global warming than synthetic alternatives such as polyester and acetate.

Durability, end of life-who wins?

To draw an intellectually honest conclusion about the vegan-sustainable comparison, one should consider all points of view, including the part that – comparative studies in hand – a leather good lasts on average longer than the corresponding product made from synthetic material. Idem for a wool sweater compared with vegan alternatives such as cotton, poly-cotton and polyester: in terms of durability, wool performs better.

Another relevant issue is that of microplastics released into waterways during the washing of synthetic garments. And then there is end-of-life management, which for garments and accessories with synthetic components poses some problems. Plant-based leather alternatives such as Piñatex, or Mylo, produced from pineapple waste and mushroom waste, respectively, are no exceptions: both have synthetic components and are therefore not fully biodegradable. Which, however, is also true for certain animal leather, whose biodegradability depends on the tanning process adopted to treat it.

What conclusions should be drawn?

With so many variables to take into account, no one wins in the end because there is no absolute best option. The issue is primarily cultural and involves all stakeholders in the system, including consumers who can push in one direction or the other with their purchasing choices.

“As with many aspects of sustainability, simplifying risks only aiding greenwashing. And comparing products with vegan features to products with reduced environmental impact is no exception”, explains Giovanni Graziani, Process Factory Consultant specializing in Environmental Footprint and LCA Analyses. “We need to consider all the variables of sustainability in order to strive for products ideally able to tell their own story, giving evidence of information about the supply chain, production models, raw materials, use of chemicals, attention to people…”.

The smarter goal is to work together to make all materials and products, vegan and nonvegan, sustainable. At that point, using animal or non-animal garments and accessories will truly be a personal ethical choice.

“Let’s think of a product composed of raw materials of animal origin, but from a recycling supply chains”, continues Giovanni. “Couldn’t we consider this approach both sustainable and ethical? Of course, we need to be able to rely on credible working tools that can handle complexity. Like the 4sustainability® framework, among others”.

L'articolo VEGAN VS SUSTAINABLE: FIND OUT THE DIFFERENCES proviene da 4sustainability.