UN Agencies and their Treatment of Plastic Fibres
Our latest report, published by the Bremen Cotton Exchange, is available on the BBB website. Please note: This paper is restricted to a factual analysis of information and the misuse of information. No recommendations are offered.
Conflicts of interest instead of science
Bates Kassatly/Townsend demonstrate that recent publications by some UN agencies rely not on the work of other UN organisations but on that of entities created and funded by vested interests. The conflicts of interest stemming from the involvement of stakeholders deeply tied to the production/promotion of clothing of fossil origin undermine the scientific and just foundations of these reports, violating global agreements, contradicting the work of other agencies, and even, in some cases, different departments of the same agency.
A sample of the report’s findings:
Those branches of the UNEP and the UNFCCC responsible for the apparel sector have no idea what the sector’s annual carbon emissions are, or which segment of the supply chain is the most important contributor. They have not attempted to find out, and they don’t appear to plan to investigate.
The principal source for the impacts of apparel fibres relied upon by both the UNEP and the UNFCCC is the Higg Material Sustainability Index. This index was developed by a not-for-profit entity created by major apparel brands. But it is currently owned/operated by a venture capital-backed, Delaware-registered corporation.
Based on outdated, unrepresentative, and scientifically incomparable data, the Higg MSI supports the proposition that plastics are the world’s most sustainable fibres, and farmed fibres produced by around 150 million people, many among the world’s poorest, and often indigenous, are the least sustainable. This is a violation of the UN’s stated commitment to prioritise the disadvantaged and to eliminate poverty and hunger.
Reliance on the Higg MSI ranking not only ignores the social impacts of fibre production. It is also a direct violation of the UN’s commitment to curb plastic production.
Those responsible for apparel in the UNCCD promote plastics with misleading claims, including that by 2030, farmed fibres used by the fashion industry will use 35% more land. This assertion comes from a 2017 publication recommending brands replace “30% of 2030 cotton with polyester”. The land area under cotton has, in reality, remained virtually constant since the early 1950s.
Details and analysis can be found in the report.