Upcycling

ETC-CE Report 2023/5
The role of bio-based textile fibres in a circular

and sustainable textiles system
Authors:
ETC experts: Jana Deckers (VITO), Saskia Manshoven (VITO)
EEA expert: Lars Fogh Mortensen
Cover design: EEA
Cover image © iStock (Mila Naumova; ID:128973272)
Layout: ETC CE
Publication Date
EEA activity Circular economy and resource use
Legal notice
The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of the European Commission or other institu tions
of the European Union. Neither the European Environment Agency, the European Topic Centre on Circular economy and
resource use nor any person or company acting on behalf of the Agency or the Topic Centre is responsible for the use that may
be made of the information contained in this report.
ETC CE coordinator: Vlaamse Instelling voor Technologisch Onderzoek (VITO)
ETC CE partners: Banson Editorial and Communications Ltd, česká informační agentura životního prostředí (CENIA),
Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production (CSCP), Istituto Di Ricerca Sulla Crescita Economica
Sostenibile, Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambiantale, IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute,
PlanMiljø, Universita Degli Studi Di Ferrara (SEEDS), German Environment Agency (UBA), Teknologian Tutkimuskeskus VTT oy,
Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt, Energie gGmbH, World Resources Forum Association.
Copyright notice
© European Topic Centre on Circular economy and resource use, 2023
Reproduction is authorized provided the source is acknowledged. [Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (International)]
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).
European Topic Centre on

Circular economy and resource use
https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-ce
Contents
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................. 1
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Types of bio-based fibres ................................................................................................................. 4
3. Trends in production, trade and consumption of bio-based fibres .................................................... 12
3.1. Natural fibres ......................................................................................................................... 12
3.2. Man-made cellulosic fibres ...................................................................................................... 13
4. Environmental impacts and concerns associated with bio-based fibres ............................................ 15
4.1 Environmental impacts of bio-based fibres ................................................................................ 15
4.2 Agricultural intensity................................................................................................................ 19
4.3 Durability versus biodegradability of bio-based fibres ................................................................ 21
4.4 Recyclability of bio-based fibres................................................................................................ 22
4.5 Microfibres.............................................................................................................................. 22
5. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 24
References ....................................................................................................................................... 25
Acknowledgements
This report has been produced within the task on ‘Textiles and the environment in Europe’s circular
economy’ of the 2022 ETC/CE work programme. Lars Fogh Mortensen (EEA) and Saskia Manshoven
(ETC/CE) were project supervisors and contributers, Jana Deckers was the lead author. Francesca Grossi
(CSCP) provided graphical support. Bart Ullstein (BEC) carefully edited the report.
The authors are grateful to the following experts and organisations for their comments that substantially
improved the quality of the report:
EEA experts:
• Almut Reichel
ETC experts:
• Tom Duhoux, VITO
External experts:
• Dalena White, Wool Textile Organisation
• Tone Skårdal Tobiasson, Union of Concerned Researchers in Fashion
• Tanja Gotthardsen, Continual CSR
• Valeria Botta, ECOS
• Else Skjold, Royal Danish Academy
• Jesper Richardy, Royal Danish Academy
• Candide Dufloucq, CIRFS
• Francesco Mirizzi, European Industrial Hemp Association
ETC CE Report 2023/5 1

1 Introduction
The global supply and demand for textile products continues to rise (EEA, 2022a; ETC/CE, 2022a). This is
fuelled by factors such as fast-fashion business models, the growth of the world’s population and
economy, and increasing urbanisation.
Inevitably, and as a result of global supply and demand, the textiles industry is facing huge challenges
regarding its resource use, and environmental and climate impacts, which remains largely unsustainable,
as shown in briefings by the European Environment Agency (EEA) and underpinning reports by its
European Topic Centre on Circular Economy and Resource Use (ETC/CE).
Over the last two decades, global textile fibre production has almost doubled from 58 million tonnes in
2000 to 109 million tonnes in 2020 and is projected to grow to 145 million tonnes by 2030 (Textile
Exchange, 2021). The EEA briefing Textiles in the environment: the role of design in Europe’s circular
economy (EEA, 2022a) and its underpinning ETC report (1) (ETC/CE, 2022a) highlighted that EU textiles’
consumption ranks third in terms of land and water use – food is the frontrunner – and fifth in terms of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and raw materials use. It was estimated that in 2020 the production of
textile products in the EU consumed 4 000 million cubic metres (m3) of water and generated 121 million
tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2-eq.) (ETC/CE, 2022a; EEA, 2022a).
As stated by the European Commission, “the growing demand for textiles is stimulating the inefficient use
of non-renewable resources, including the production of synthetic fibres from fossil-fuels” (EU Strategy for
Sustainable and Circular Textiles, 2022). The new EU strategy for sustainable and circular textiles aims for
impact reduction and decoupling from fast fashion, which is underpinned by the phrase “fast fashion is
out of fashion”. Spurred by the aspiration to reduce the use of fossil resources and emissions of
greenhouse gases, the search for alternative fibres, based on renewable (bio-based) resources, is gaining
momentum. Nevertheless, this does not automatically mean that the development of a fashion and textile
industry relying more heavily on bio-based fibres would necessarily be more sustainable.
Bio-sourcing rests on the idea that by changing the origin of carbon in the fibre backbone to a renewable
source, the environmental and climate impacts of the obtained product will be reduced. Up to now,
however, many questions remain unanswered concerning the circularity of these bio-based fibres and
their environmental and societal impacts. The impacts of textile fibres are multifaceted and while certain
alternatives appear sustainable and circular at first sight, they can have paradoxical effects, bringing
unintended consequences.
While bio-based fibres are gaining interest, comprehensive literature on the many different fibres and
their impacts is scattered and rather scarce. Some of the main environmental concerns associated with
bio-based fibres include their environmental impacts, water and land use, feedstock competition,
agricultural intensity, recyclability and microfibre release. These aspects, along with others, need further
consideration and require both a systemic and a tailored approach to better understand the merits and
drawbacks of bio-based textiles before bolder upscaling actions are undertaken.
The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of important aspects that need to be considered within
the context of bio-based fibres and tackle the question whether bio-based alternatives are in fact as
sustainable as might be assumed. Furthermore, social impacts are critical for a sustainable textile industry
as well, however, these lie beyond the scope of this report.
1
Eionet Report No. ETC/WMGE 2022/2 Textiles and the environment: The role of design in Europe’s circular
economy

While the impacts of synthetic textiles were analysed by the EEA and ETC (EEA, 2021; ETC/WMGE, 2021),
this paper aims to provide a brief but comprehensive overview on the current state and knowledge of bio-
based fibres, while aiming to shed light on the issues mentioned above. First, an overview is provided on
the most used bio-based fibres in Europe and worldwide, based on market share as well as on innovation
potential. Second, trends concerning the production and consumption of the most significant bio-based
fibres are described. Thirdly, a subset of environmental pressures associated with fibre production are
discussed, as well as issues related to agricultural intensity, durability and biodegradability, recyclability
and microfibre shedding. Finally, the main conclusions are provided along with some future perspectives.

2. Types of bio-based fibres
This chapter provides an overview on the most used natural and man-made bio-based fibres, while at the
same time shedding light on the definition and classification of bio-based fibres, summarising their
properties and applications (Table 1 and Table 2) and suggesting potential alternatives.
Over the past decade, claims of environmental benefit have gained increasing popularity and are
frequently misused and exploited as marketing strategies; it is often merely green washing. Indeed, the
term bio-based is an example of a word that is often misused. This is currently being considered by the
European Commission within the context of the Regulation on Ecodesign for Sustainable Products.
Figure 1 Scope of this paper
Source: EEA and ETC/CE
For textiles, the term “bio-based” refers to the origin of the carbon backbone of the fibre polymer and
whether this comes from a renewable source. For example, the carbon content of conventional, synthetics
such as polyester, is derived from non-renewable fossil fuels – petroleum, gas, coal – while a natural
material such as cotton is made out of 100 % renewable carbon content, mainly cellulose. However,
partially bio-based products also exist, in which the carbon content is derived from both renewable and
non-renewable sources. Due to a lack of standardisation, both entirely and partially bio-based products
are often simply considered bio-based. In addition, the bio-based nature of a textile is compromised with
the addition of synthetic binders, dyes, coatings, etc. Furthermore, fibre origin alone does not suffice as
an indicator of the environmental impacts associated with textile products (Notten et al., 2020; Sandin et
al., 2019). Effectively, bio-based is a vague term that requires caution, especially in the context of potential
green washing. Throughout this paper, bio-based fibres are defined as those with a carbon backbone that
is fully derived from a renewable, natural source, whether natural or man-made (Figure 1).

One major group of bio-based textile fibres are natural fibres (Table 1). As the name implies, natural textile
fibres are made from natural resources. These can be animal fibres, thus protein-based, such as silk and
wool; or plant fibres, and therefore cellulosic, for example, cotton, linen, hemp and ramie. Cellulose is one
of the main structural components of plants and therefore the most abundant polymer found in nature
(Ganster and Fink, 2021). Natural textile fibres, such as hemp and linen, are among the oldest textile fibres
used.
Over the past decades, many different types of man-made, synthetic or semisynthetic fibres have been
developed and mass produced, outweighing those made from natural fibres. In comparison to natural
fibres, man-made fibres typically require more chemical processing before a suitable polymer, that serves
as input for textile fibre production, is obtained. These man-made polymers are mostly synthetic,
indicating that they are derived from non-renewable, fossil fuel-based resources such as oil and natural
gas. Polyester (polyethylene terephthalate (PET)) is the most used synthetic fibre, followed by nylon (EEA,
2021; ETC/WMGE, 2021).
At the same time, man-made fibres can be produced from natural polymers and can either be protein or
cellulose based. It should be noted, however, that these fibres differ from natural fibres as they require
additional processing, such as the chemical dissolution of plant parts into pulp and subsequent fibre
polymerisation. Due to this more elaborate chemical processing, these fibres are considered partially
artificial and partially natural. Therefore, they are often referred to as semisynthetic or regenerated fibres.
In addition, the carbon backbone of conventional petroleum-based, synthetic fibres can, alternatively, be
derived from biomass, such as sugars or starch. Examples of these so-called “bio-sourced” synthetics are
bio-based PET and polylactic acid (PLA) (Box 1). While bio-based PET is chemically identical to conventional
PET, PLA is an alternative bio-based synthetic with different characteristics.
Box 1 Polylactic acid as bio-based alternative for polyester
Polylactic acid is a polymer with a 100 % bio-based carbon content, which was developed at the beginning
of this century as a crop-derived and biodegradable alternative for conventional polyester (Gupta et al.,
2007).
The production of PLA typically starts with the extraction of sugar or starch from various crops. In the case
of starches, these are first converted to fermentable sugars prior to bacterial fermentation. The latter will
generate lactic acid using bacteria form the Lactobacillus genus. Subsequently, the obtained lactic acid is
polymerized to form PLA. Nowadays, the most popular production route of PLA is fermentation of corn
starch, however PLA can also be derived from molasses, a by-product in sugar mills, potato starch, rice,
wheat, etc. (Yang et al., 2021; Gupta et al., 2007). Although PLA is derived from crops rather than fossil
fuels, its agro-based nature does not necessarily make it a greener alternative and its environmental
impact is largely defined by the agricultural intensity and practices (Ivanović et al., 2021) (Section 4.2).
In comparison to MMCFs, this strong and stretchy fibre has low water absorbency, similar to polyester,
while its UV resistance its much higher than polyester (Farrington, D. W. et al., 2005). As other synthetic
fibres, PLA fibres contain fewer impurities than natural fibres. At the same time, as PLA has a low melting
temperature (165–180 °C), these fibres are sensitive to heat. Hence, caution should be taken when ironing
PLA at high temperatures as this can damage the fibre and the PLA fabric will harden. To avoid ironing
problems and wrinkling, knitted PLA fabrics are recommended instead of woven ones (Yang et al., 2021).
Regenerated or man-made cellulosic fibres (MMCFs) include fibres such as viscose, modal and lyocell,
which are mainly derived from wood pulp and are collectively known as rayons. Man-made protein fibres
are regenerated from protein sources such as milk waste, gelatine, peanuts, soybeans and eggshells. These
protein-based fibres, historically named azlons, were mainly developed in response to wool shortages
during World War II. In general, the main issue concerning these man-made protein fibres is their lack of

favourable mechanical properties – they are less durable than wool and have very low tensile strength
under wet conditions (Stenton et al., 2021).
Wool and silk (Table 1) are the best-known natural protein fibres. As a versatile fibre, wool is the most
widely and commonly used animal fibre. Even though its production is rather limited compared to
synthetic fibres, high-value wool and wool blend products, such as suits, sweaters and carpets, still hold
prominent economic and social value (Erdogan et al., 2020). Sheep produce the highest amount of wool
fibre per unit of pasture area. Wool fibre diameters can range from 11 micron for fine Australian Merino
to 100 microns for wool from sheep originating in the northern hemisphere (Kuffner and Popescu, 2012).
As wool fibre is composed of protein, it is breathable and can absorb and release moisture. This animal
fibre has excellent insulation properties and is naturally flame retardant. In contrast to synthetic fibres,
wool can regulate body heat by offering warmth when it is cold, while releasing heat and moisture when
temperatures increase (Erdogan et al., 2020; Kuffner and Popescu, 2012). Moreover, wool fibres absorb
odours, hence garments made out of wool(blends) remain fresh for much longer, reducing washing cycles
(Swan, 2020; Wang et al., 2019). This animal fibre is used in a wide range of textile applications, namely
(protective) apparel, sportswear, home textiles, medical textiles, geotextiles, transportation and military
textiles (CSIRO Textile and Fibre Technology, 2017).
Another natural protein fibre obtained from a slightly different animal source, namely insects, is silk. This
highly valued natural fibre has been used in textiles for at least 5 000 years (Babu, 2012). Even though
many insects produce silk, more than 90 % of commercially produced silk is derived from the extrusion
spun by the silkworm Bombyx mori that exclusively eats mulberry leaves (Astudillo et al., 2014). Silkworm
fibre is a strong fibre comparable to synthetic fibres nylon and polyester. Silk is the only natural fibre
available in a filament form that is both hard wearing and unparalleled in terms of comfort (Padaki et al.,
2015). Even though silk has encountered competition from synthetic fibres, it has maintained its
dominance in the production of luxury clothing. It has good dyeability, good absorbency and excellent
drapability. For these reasons silk is used in a wide variety of textile applications, ranging from pyjamas
and wedding gowns to skiing garments and summer wear, as well as home textiles and medical uses (Babu,
2012).
Among the natural fibres, plant-based fibres comprise the largest group accounting for approximately one
third of the global textile market, which is dominated by cotton (24 %) (Textile Exchange, 2021). Cotton
fibres are seed-derived and consist mainly of cellulose (95–99 %). Due to their softness, lightness and water
absorbency, cotton fibres are used in a wide range of textiles, such as clothing, home textiles and
furnishing (Table 1) (Krifa and Stevens, 2016).
While cotton is, by far, the most used natural fibre, other natural fibres also have favourable characteristics
and could be sustainable alternatives. Moreover, with the projected stagnation of cotton production and
rising demand, there is a strong need for alternative fibres (Felgueiras et al. 2021; Paulitz et al., 2017). Bast
fibres (Table 1), typically derived from the stem of the vegetative stalk of the plants such as jute, flax, ramie
and hemp are advantageous in terms of their biodegradability (Section 4.3) and abundance in nature.
After cotton, jute (Table 1) is the next most-used natural fibre in terms of global production (Textile
Exchange, 2021). Even though it is coarse, rigid and inelastic, its strength, low cost and good friction and
insulation properties make it suitable for the manufacture of twines, ropes, matting and packaging
materials Muzyczek, 2020; 2012; Kozłowski et al., 2012). Another natural fibre with a relatively large
market share amongst the alternative natural fibres is coir or coconut fibre (Textile exchange, 2020). This
is the thickest and most resistant of all natural fibres. The main uses of this seed-husk fibre include sacking,
floor-coverings, mattresses and geotextiles (Mishra and Basu, 2020). In combination with rubber, coir is
used in mattress fillings, automobile seats, sofas, etc.
Hemp (Table 1) is derived from the stem of the fast-growing plant Cannabis sativa L. that provides high
fibre yields and displays low pest-susceptibility (Duque Schumacher et al., 2020). It has been cultivated in

Europe for centuries, mainly intended for producing textile, ropes, paper, and sails. The plant can grow
under versatile weather conditions and almost everywhere in Europe. It provides both long and short
fibres, that can fit different applications in various sectors, including textile. It offers high absorbency,
breathability and ultraviolet (UV) protection. Moreover, hemp fibres are typically hypo-allergenic (Ahmed
et al., 2022). While long hemp fibres are most desirable in terms of the favourable characteristics
mentioned above, short hemp fibres obtained after decortication, have a high “cottonisation” potential,
meaning that lignin content can be reduced to obtain soft and workable textile fibres that can be processed
using available cotton and wool systems. While textiles made of cottonised hemp can be more resistant
to wrinkling, some of the beneficial features like high tensile strength, cool touch and bioactivity are lost
(Zimniewska, 2022). Nevertheless, an important bottleneck associated with hemp, as well as with some
other natural fibres, is the lack of homogeneity concerning repeatability of fibre properties. This creates
difficulties in terms of fibre processing. At the same time, hemp spinning is not an attractive direction for
machinery producers, resulting in the lack of specialized machines required for the completion of the
technological line, improved productivity and economic viability (Zimniewska, 2022). Therefore,
technological development is essential for the successful production of hemp textiles in Europe
(Zimniewska, 2022; van der werf 2008).
Another bast-fibre is flax (Table 1). This fibre is derived from the Linum usitatissimum plant which grows
up to 60 cm tall and has slender but very fibrous stems. This food and fibre crop has been cultivated for
millennia for different uses including paper, oil, composites and textiles, typically linen (Dhirhi et al., 2015).
Due to its high moisture absorption, low heat retention, good dyeability, durability and comfort, linen
fabric is highly valued by designers and used both in casual and luxury wear (Muzyczek, 2012). In general,
flax is grown in areas where the daily temperature remains below 30 °C. Flax cultivation requires about
700 mm of rain per year, ideally evenly spread throughout the year. This accounts for the success of this
crop in temperate and maritime areas such as coastal Western Europe (Turenen and van der Werf, 2006).
In addition, linen maintains a strong niche in high quality household textiles. Both flax (linen) and hemp
are fibres of interest in a European context as they grow well in temperate climates, while cotton
cultivation is restricted to the most southern European countries (van der Werf and Turunen, 2008). In
this sense, their economic and social value should be duly considered in the framework of a possible
repatriation of the fibre and textile value chain to Europe.
Ramie fibre (Table 1) is one of the oldest natural textile fibres and is mainly grown in China. Similar to
other bast fibres, ramie fibre is extracted from the stems of Boehmeria nivea. Ramie is adapted to a wide
range of latitudes and can be grown in tropical, subtropical and temperate regions. Under optimal growth
conditions, this perennial plant can be harvested up to six times a year (Roy and Lutfar, 2012a). This white
coloured bast fibre, also known as China grass, is very strong – twice as strong as cotton, has low elasticity
and good dyeability. Strikingly, ramie has a high cellulose content which can range up to 90 %, approaching
the cellulose content of cotton (Lyu et al., 2021). The amount of cellulose positively affects the mechanical
properties and application value of natural fibres (Lyu et al., 2021). In addition to being one of the strongest
and longest natural fibres, ramie has great thermal stability and is resistant to losing its shape, shrinking
and microbial attack. In appearance, ramie fabrics are lightweight, shiny and similar to linen (Rehman et
al., 2019). Ramie is often used in very fine upper garments, but also in home textiles. The coarser ramie
fibres are used in twines and threads and are very useful for making fishing nets. Blended with wool, ramie
reduces shrinkage and it can be used to improve lustre and strength of cotton (Roy and Lutfar, 2012a). On
the other hand, ramie has very low elasticity, low abrasion resistance, stiffness, brittleness and requires
degumming (2) (Roy and Lutfar, 2012a).
A summarizing overview of the main natural fibres is presented in Table 1. Although natural fibres offer
many advantages such as biodegradability, breathability and absorbency, synthetic fibres dominate the
2
Degumming, also referred to as retting, is a necessary step in bast-fibre processing that separates the
cellulose from non-cellulose parts (Lyu et al., 2021).

textile market today. This mainly arises from their versatility and convenient properties such as durability
and cheapness. Nevertheless, as the production of synthetic fibres relies on fossil fuel extraction, the
production of these fibres contributes not only to carbon emissions, but also to the depletion of its non-
renewable feedstock. As semisynthetic fibres are derived from renewable resources, they are often
considered to be more sustainable alternatives. Nevertheless, this is not as straight forward as often
assumed, and the impact of semisynthetic fibres requires further consideration as well (Section 4.1).

Table 1 Overview of the characteristics and applications of the main natural fibres

In terms of characteristics, MMCFs combine the best of natural and synthetic fibres to some extent (Table
2). More specifically, these fibres are smooth, fine and elastic with the inherent attributes of cellulose,
including absorbency and breathability.
Man-made cellulosic fibres (Table 2) were the first man-made fibres, initially termed artificial silk and later
named rayon. Today, rayon is the generic name for MMCFs that are developed using the viscose process,
referring to the viscous solution obtained after chemically dissolving plant-derived pulp (Parajuli et al.,
2021; Chen, 2015). Conventional viscose rayon is the dominant MMCF in terms of market share. This
versatile fibre has a high stretchability and is as strong as cotton when dry, however, under wet conditions
its tensile strength is low. In contrast to polyester, this semisynthetic fibre is exceptionally water
absorbent. While MMCFs are often considered greener alternatives to synthetic fibres, the viscose process
is not necessarily environmentally friendly, with the main culprits being the use of hazardous chemicals,
such as carbon disulphide, high water usage, discharge of solvents and the formation of toxic chemicals
and gasses. An alternative viscose fibre, modal, is produced using a modified viscose process, generating
fibres with improved tensile strength and stability compared to viscose (Mendes et al., 2021; Chen, 2015),
which contributes, amongst others things, to better washability of the fibre. Modal is used in the
production of different woven and knitted fabrics, sportswear, underwear and household textiles.
Driven by technical and environmental concerns, more sustainable methods have been developed for
cellulose processing. A new generation of rayon fibre is lyocell (Table 2). This fibre, mainly derived from
wood pulp, is produced using an alternative cellulose solvent N-Methylmorpholine N-oxide (NMMO) (3)
which is recycled through a solvent recovery system. Compared to conventional viscose, lyocell fibre
production is more environmentally friendly as it reduces toxic chemical use and substantially decreases
water use and air pollution (Mendes et al., 2021; Chen, 2015). Lyocell has improved properties compared
to viscose and modal. More specifically, the strength and tenacity of lyocell fibre is higher compared to
conventional viscose and modal and is similar to cotton and polyester. In addition, lyocell is highly
absorbent, making it suitable for applications that require skin contact (Parajuli et al., 2021). Furthermore,
the thermal stability and dyeability of lyocell is superior to other MMCFs.
Another, more niche MMCF, is cupro (Table 2). This fibre is a modified viscose rayon that requires the
dissolution of cellulose derived from cotton lint in a reagent containing ammonia and copper (Parajuli et
al., 2021; Mendes et al., 2021). Cupro fibres are characterised by their fineness and strength and are mainly
used in sheer fabrics to produce underwear, dress fabrics and linings. However, due to the high costs and
environmental concerns associated with the need for high-quality cotton cellulose and the use of copper
salts in the production process, only a few manufacturers still produce this niche fibre (Mendes et al.,
2021).
The remaining 13 % of the market share of man-made cellulosic fibres is occupied by acetate, a fibre mainly
used in non-textile applications such as cigarette filters (Chen, 2015).
3
N-Methylmorpholine N-oxide is used as an organic solvent that enables the direct dissolution of cellulose in the
lyocell process, omitting chemical derivatization.

Table 2 Overview of the characteristics and applications of the main man-made cellulosic fibres
Overall, it can be stated that alternative natural fibres and MMCFs offer great potential as alternatives for
synthetics and conventional cotton. The high potential of bast fibres, such as ramie, flax and hemp, has
not, however, been fully exploited due to various techno-economic reasons. The use of these fibres is
mainly limited by their unfavourable spinning properties, i.e., their thickness, low uniformity, stiffness and
low elongation, which bring higher costs and require more skill (Muzyczek, 2012; 2020; Roy and Lutfar,
2012a). Hence, technical innovation is required to efficiently extract the fibres from gathered crops and
further research is needed to improve the understanding and methods of retting (degumming (2)) these
materials to achieve consistent fibre grades. The West-European flax sector, for example, has worked
intensively for the last decades to maximise the yield of long fibres and are now harvesting the fruits of
this development (van der Werf and Turunen, 2008). Overall, the development of an improved,
ecologically sustainable production chain for high quality alternative fibres in parallel with an integrated
quality system for raw and processed fibres based on eco-labelling criteria could contribute to the
development of a competitive, innovative and sustainable bio-based fibre textile industry in the EU.

3. Trends in production, trade and consumption of bio-based fibres
This chapter provides an overview of the trends in production, trade and consumption of the main bio-
based fibres. It does so by focusing mainly on alternative natural fibres of which flax and hemp are of
particular interest within a European context. After that, the production and consumption of the main
semisynthetic fibres, i.e., man-made cellulosic fibres, are discussed.
3.1. Natural fibres

Before the arrival of cotton, flax (linen) and hemp were the main natural cellulosic fibre used in Europe. In
the late 1990s, with the development of petroleum-based synthetic fibres, the market share of cotton was
surpassed by the dominant synthetic fibre, polyester, which is still the frontrunner today.
From a global perspective, synthetic fibres dominate the market with a share of around 62 % (Figure 2),
followed by cotton, 24 %; and other natural plant fibres, 6 %; while natural fibres derived from animals
account for 2 %, of which half is wool (Textile Exchange, 2021). The remaining 6 % encompass regenerated
fibres. In 2019, the annual world natural fibre production was estimated at 33 million tonnes, cotton
contributed almost 70 % by value, and wool 25 %. This corresponded to the production of 26.5 million
tonnes and 1 million tonnes of cotton and wool, respectively (Townsend, 2020). The European Man-made
Fibres Association (CIRFS) estimated that Europe and Türkiye consumed 205 000 tonnes of wool and 1.54
million tonnes of cotton in 2021 (Dufloucq C., 2022). Other natural plant fibres, such as jute, coir, flax,
ramie, hemp, sisal, kapok, kenaf and abaca, accounted for a global production volume of approximately
6.5 million tonnes in 2020 (Textile Exchange, 2021).
Europe is one of the main producers of flax used for fibres and, in particular, for high-quality linen. More
specifically, more than 90 % of the global flax fibre and tow (4) production of around 940 000 tonnes in
2020 was in Europe (FAOSTAT, 2022). Top producers and exporters of flax fibres are Belgium, France and
the Netherlands, while Italy is the main exporter of linen fabrics in Europe (C.E.L.C. Masters of Linen, 2010).
Furthermore, approximately 10 000 companies in 14 EU countries are involved in the European linen
industry (C.E.L.C. Masters of Linen, 2010). Globally, China is the main importer of flax fibres (The
Observatory of Economic Complexity, 2020) and today most of the processing of flax into linen fabrics
happens outside Europe.
Another fibre crop grown worldwide is hemp. As mentioned in the previous chapter, this versatile crop
can be cultivated in both temperate and tropical regions and is possibly the oldest known multipurpose
crop. Along with flax, hemp was one of the main fibre crops grown in Europe until the arrival of cotton and
synthetic fibres (Horne, 2020; 2012). While exact numbers differ among sources, around 200 000 tonnes
of hemp fibres were produced globally in 2020 (FAOSTAT, 2022; Textile Exchange, 2021). In 2020, some of
the top exporters of hemp fibres in Europe were France and the Netherlands and the global hemp trade
was estimated to be worth EUR 46 million (The Observatory of Economic Complexity, 2020). Between 2015
and 2019, European hemp production increased by 62.4 %, from 94 120 tonnes to 152 820 tonnes.
Approximately 70 % of this European grown hemp was produced in France; followed by the Netherlands,
10 %; and Austria, 4 %. Overall, the hemp cultivation area in Europe increased by 70% from 2013 to 2018,
while the number of hectares has increased more than sixfold since 1993 (Zimniewska et al. 2022). In
addition, China produces a huge amount of hemp textiles due to its optimised manufacturing
infrastructure (Ahmed et al., 2022).
Jute cultivation is primarily restricted to India and Bangladesh, respectively accounting for approximately
67 % and 30 % of the world’s jute production of 2.7 million tonnes in 2020 (FAOSTAT, 2022; Banerjee,
2020). With a production volume of 60 935 tonnes in 2020, ramie is mainly produced in Asia (FAOSTAT,
4
Tow is a short or broken fibre that is used for yarn, twine or stuffing.

2022) where China leads the world in the production and export of ramie. In spite of its unique
characteristics, ramie is of secondary importance in world trade largely because of a lack of suitable large-
scale fibre extraction equipment and the high cost of degumming, spinning and weaving the fibre. Only a
small portion of the ramie produced is available on the international market and is mainly imported by
Germany, France, Japan and the UK (Rehman et al., 2019; Roy and Lutfar, 2012). Coir ranks third in terms
of global natural fibre production, valued at almost EUR 300 million in 2019 (Townsend, 2020). India is the
main producer, was responsible for the production of around 600 000 tonnes in 2020, which corresponds
to 45 % of global coir production (FAOSTAT, 2022).
3.2. Man-made cellulosic fibres

Man-made cellulosic fibres have been on the market for a long time, but competition from natural and
synthetic fibres, mainly cotton and polyester, has limited their market share. The global production volume
of MMCFs has more than doubled since, reaching 7 million tonnes in 2019 (Fashion for Good, 2020). The
market share of MMCFs is about 6.4 % of the total fibre production volume (Figure 2) and is expected to
increase in the coming years. More specifically, the production value of MMCFs is forecast to reach almost
EUR 24 billion by 2025 and to reach a volume of 8.6 million tonnes by 2027 (Research and Markets, 2021).
Figure 2 Global fibre production with a focus on different man-made cellulosic fibres, 2021, per cent
Note: percentages may not sum to 100 % due to rounding.

Source(s): Textile Exchange, 2021
Viscose is the dominant MMCF with a market share of around 80 % (Figure 2) and a production volume of
around 5 million tonnes in 2020 (Textile Exchange, 2021).
Cellulose-derived acetate has a market share of around 13 %, however this fibre is largely use in non-
textile applications (Textile Exchange, 2021).
With a market share of 4.3 %, lyocell is the third most used MMCF, after viscose and acetate, in 2020 and
its production is expected to grow faster than the other MMCFs (Textile Exchange, 2021).
Modal had a market share of around 2.8% of the total MMCF market in 2019 (Textile Exchange, 2020),
while cupro had a market share of less than 1 %. In 2019, there was only one supplier of cupro, producing
17 000 tonnes of this niche fibre (Textile Exchange, 2020).

It was estimated by CIRFS that in 2021 the EU produced 468 000 tonnes of MMCFs and consumed 377 000
tonnes of MMCFs – for comparison, Europe and Türkiye produced 515 000 tonnes of MMCFs and mill
consumption was 731 000 tonnes. In Europe and Türkiye, the main end-uses of these fibres were in
apparel, 53 %; industrial applications, 41 %; tyres, 4 %; and household goods and furnishings, 2 %. It should
be noted that a little less than 300 000 tonnes of MMCFs were imported into Europe and Türkiye in 2021
(Dufloucq, 2022).

4. Environmental impacts and concerns associated with bio-based fibres
In recent years, the search for more sustainable, alternative fibres has become an important trend, aiming
to reduce the environmental and climate impacts of textiles and fashion.
The environmental impact of textile products is, besides the use phase, defined to a large extent by the
production phase. More precisely, the production of garments contributes to about 80 % of the total
climate change impacts, mainly through the use of fossil fuels in the production processes. Of this 80 %,
fibre production accounts for 16 % of the climate change impacts. For conventional cotton, the cultivation
phase dominates in terms of water scarcity impact (87 %) (ETC/CE, 2022a).
Consequently, some developments aim to break fossil-fuel dependency by replacing synthetic fibres with
renewable alternatives, while others aim to replace cotton with alternatives that use less water and land.
Identifying superior fibre types in terms of reducing environmental and climate impacts is, however, very
challenging, if not impossible, as textile production involves one of the most complex supply chains and
environmental issues arise at all life-cycle stages. Moreover, the perceived environmental impacts of a
certain fibre is not always its true impact. Hence, it is more implementable and straight forward to focus
on improving useful lifespans and reuse than aiming to choose the best fibre in terms of environmental
impact.
To ensure the actual sustainability of alternative fibres, it is crucial to monitor their environmental
performance and identify potential unintended consequences that might arise from developing and
scaling up the use of alternative feedstocks or processes. The global nature of textile value chains makes
it even more complex to assess environmental and climate impacts. More specifically, the agricultural part
of the textile supply chain is mainly located outside Europe. Only 8 % of the land use for textiles consumed
by European households, 13 % of water use and 15 % of other resource use takes place in Europe (EEA,
2022a; ETC/CE, 2022a). Likewise, although greenhouse gas emissions have a global effect, more than 75
% of emissions related to the production of textiles consumed by EU households are released elsewhere
in the world (EEA, 2019; ETC/WMGE, 2019). This underlines the need for a systemic view to prevent the
shift of environmental burdens to other regions outside Europe (EEA, 2022a; ETC/CE, 2022a). Furthermore,
due to the fragmented structure of the textile supply chain, the identification of environmental impacts
associated with plant-based fibre production remains challenging and often spatiotemporal differences in
agriculture and third-scope impacts (i.e., value chain emissions) are overlooked. More research on these
impacts is greatly needed along with the collection of more accurate primary data.
4.1 Environmental impacts of bio-based fibres

In this section an overview on the impacts related to the production of the most used bio-based fibres –
natural, man-made cellulosic and bio-sourced synthetic ones – is provided. The processing of fibres into
textile products, weaving, knitting, dying, etc., strongly impacts the environmental performance of a textile
product as well, but that lies beyond the scope of this report. To decrease climate impacts, the general
focus is to steer away from fossil-based synthetic fibres. If, however, only climate change is considered,
other impacts related to, for example, water consumption, eutrophication, acidification, ecotoxicity and
land use are overlooked. To illustrate this, Figure 3 presents a simplified overview of the relative
environmental impacts of a subset of textile fibres, based on literature. Depending on the impact category,
this ranking can differ considerably, indicating that there is no optimal fibre choice based on impacts at
the production level. Furthermore, while the scope of this report is mainly restricted to the fibres
themselves, the functional properties of a fibre and its complete lifecycle, including the entire production
chain and the use and end-of-life phases, significantly influence the environmental impact. Figure 3
presents a visual summary to support the literature findings throughout this section.

Figure 3 Comparison of the environmental impacts of plant-based textile fibres
Notes: Based on literature a simplified overview of some of the main impacts associated with the production of
different plant-based textile fibres is provided. Depending on field-specific climate, water and land
conditions, agricultural practices, the type of processing and the used energy sources this ranking can
change.
Source: EEA and ETC/CE
Natural fibres, such as cotton, are often expected to be more environmentally friendly than synthetics,
since they are of natural origin and, hence, derived from a renewable source and intrinsically
biodegradable. Cotton cultivation, however, consumes large quantities of water and land, and is heavily
fertiliser- and pesticide-dependent, which contributes to eutrophication and ecotoxicity. Moreover, it is a
general misconception that bio-based fibres are not related to the use of fossil-based resources as these
fibres also require energy-demanding processing and transportation. In addition, fertiliser production is
an energy-consuming process that contributes to 63.9 % of the carbon footprint of cotton (Günther et al.,
2017).
The global production of conventional cotton is estimated to require 200 000 tonnes of pesticides and 8
million tonnes of fertiliser annually (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Consequently, as EU cotton
production represents 1 % of global production, European pesticide and fertiliser use can be estimated at
around 2 000 tonnes and 80 000 tonnes respectively for European cotton production (European
Commission, 2018). Organically grown cotton can, however, mitigate these impacts to a large degree.
According to a lifecycle assessment (LCA) by Textile Exchange, cotton’s global warming potential (GWP)
can be reduced by 46 % if it is grown organically (Textile Exchange, 2014). This reduction is mainly
attributable to lower agricultural inputs of mineral fertilisers and pesticides, as well as the reduced use of
machinery and irrigation (Aid by Trade Foundation, 2014). While organic cotton farmers are much less
likely than conventional ones to use chemical fertilisers and pesticides, the organic cotton label does not
rule out the use of agrochemicals. A study conducted by the American Institutes for Research (AIR) found
that 35 % of organic cotton farmers self-reporting the continued use of chemical fertilisers and 33 % self-
reporting the continued use of chemical pesticides. However, the self-reported nature of these statistics
requires caution and further research (Hoop et al., 2018). A significant reduction in water use can be
achieved when cotton is grown in a suitable climate. For example, Cotton made in Africa (CmiA) (5) is
5
Cotton made in Africa is one of the cotton standards of The Aid by Trade Foundation.

cultivated under rain-fed conditions, limiting irrigation and blue water (6) use is reduced by up to 90 %
compared to conventional cotton (Aid by Trade Foundation, 2014; Textile Exchange, 2014).
Other natural fibres, such as hemp and flax, are also potentially more sustainable than conventional
cotton. Hemp cultivation requires only 25 % of the fertilisers needed for cotton, as well as a fewer seeds,
field operations and less irrigation costs (Schumacher et al., 2020). Furthermore, compared to cotton,
hemp is a high-yield crop – one cultivated hectare of hemp yields three times more metric tonnes of hemp
fibres than cotton fibres. This, together with a cost reduction of 75 % due to lower fertiliser use, fewer
seeds, less irrigation and limited costs associated with pest control, makes hemp a more sustainable and
economic alternative to cotton (Schumacher et al., 2020).
While flax cultivation requires even less fertiliser than hemp, pesticide use is higher (González-García et
al., 2010). Compared to cotton, flax and hemp cultivation generally require less water and has a lower
overall environmental impact (European Confederation of Flax and Hemp, 2022; Schumacher et al., 2020;
Muthu et al., 2012; Turenen and van der Werf, 2006). Because other impacts are largely limited, land use
is the main environmental impact contributor of flax cultivation (European Confederation of Flax and
Hemp, 2022). Furthermore, while crops such as hemp and flax can be grown in temperate regions, such as
Europe, and do not normally require irrigation, cotton cultivation is restricted to (sub)tropical regions,
which are often water-stressed, and is thus more likely to depend on irrigation, as well as the heavy use
of agrochemicals to ensure good yields (La Rosa and Grammatikos, 2019; Turenen and van der Werf, 2006).
Hemp and flax fibres, however, require more processing, i.e., degumming (2), involving significant water
use. Nonetheless, the amount of water consumed during degumming such as warm water retting or bio-
retting corresponds to only 1 % of the water used in cotton irrigation (Turenen and van der Werf, 2006) –
more recent data are required to further confirm this. Overall, it seems that the environmental
performance of both bast fibres is better than cotton, at least throughout the fibre cultivation phase.
When degumming is applied in case of bast fibres, however, this can worsen their impact depending on
the type of process and energy source used. As the impact of the degumming process is mostly determined
by the energy source used for heating, this impact is largely country dependent and can be reduced when
renewable sources of energy are used. Consequently, there is a need for alternative degumming processes
(Lyu et al., 2021).
Over the past decade, MMCFs, such as viscose, modal and lyocell have received increasing attention as
more environmentally friendly alternatives to fossil-fuel based synthetic textiles, such as polyester, or
water-intensive crops, such as cotton (Felgueiras et al., 2021; Sandin et al., 2013). As these fibres are
conventionally derived from wood pulp, the feedstocks used to produce the pulp, together with the
chemicals used in the dissolving process, are both important determinants of their environmental
performance. Land use and forest management practices, as well as the energy use associated with the
applied mill technology, are important to consider as well.
The impact of MMCFs originating from pulp derived from different sources and produced in different
locations was studied by Schultz and Suresh (2017). In general, they demonstrated that Asian MMCF
production derived from boreal forest pulp and rainforest pulp had the worst environmental impacts,
followed by Asian MMCFs derived from cotton linter and plantation (eucalyptus) pulp. Viscose fibres
produced from recycled pulp from textile waste had the lowest environmental impact (Schultz and Suresh,
2017). An average environmental performance was ascribed to bamboo viscose, which is mainly the result
of negative health impacts associated with the extremely poor ambient air quality linked with dissolving
pulp and MMCF production in Asia (Schultz and Suresh, 2017).
6
Concerning water consumption, a distinction is made between blue and green water. The former is surface
water or groundwater that is used or evaporated during irrigation, industry processes or household use.
Green water is rainwater stored in the soil and typically used for crop cultivation.

Viscose produced in Asia is typically derived from eucalyptus wood, while viscose manufactured in Austria
comes largely from beechwood. Eucalyptus has a relative high yield, while European wood requires more
land because it grows more slowly. However, compared to cotton, which requires 0.8 hectares per tonne
per year (ha/t-year), Shen et al. (2010) demonstrated that land use is still reduced to approximately 0.7
ha/t-year for Austrian modal and viscose, to 0.3 ha/t-yr for Asian viscose and even 0.2 ha/t-yr for TencelTM
(lyocell).
As no irrigation is needed for the Asian and European plantations, the water use by MMCFs is dominated
by water requirements during processing. Nevertheless, water use for cotton is still 10-20 times higher
than for these MMCFs, while water use of synthetic fibres is lower (Felgueiras et al., 2021; Shen et al.,
2010). Furthermore, the impact on climate change can be strongly reduced if process heat can be derived
from municipal waste incineration instead of natural gas combustion (Shen et al., 2010).
Taken together, Shen et al. (2010) argue that man-made cellulosic fibres, except viscose produced in Asia,
have a better overall environmental performance than cotton and polyester. The overall impact of Asian
viscose is similar to polyester (Shen et al., 2010). Even though the environmental impacts associated with
the viscose process are strongly reduced when the lyocell process is applied, some environmental
drawbacks remain. While lyocell is produced using a closed-loop system, hazardous runaway reactions can
occur and stabilisers are required. Therefore, new alternative processes are being developed for the
dissolution of cellulose, such as the use of deep eutectic solvents, aqueous NaOH-based solvents and ionic
liquids. The latter has already reached pilot scale level, for example, for the Ioncell-F® process, and is close
to industrial exploitation (Mendes et al., 2021).
Another effort to break fossil-fuel dependency and, possibly, the associated environmental impacts, is bio-
sourcing for the production of synthetic fibres that would otherwise conventionally be made out of fossil
fuels. The resulting fibres can be identical to their conventional fossil fuel-based counterparts, but their
carbon backbone is derived from renewable sources. Bio-sourced synthetic fibres are frequently cited as
more eco-friendly options to conventional, virgin fossil-based ones. This may be true in terms of the usage
of fossil resources, but key is the sustainable sourcing of the feedstock that, preferably, does not compete
with food in terms of land use and does not heavily rely on water or chemicals (ETC/WMGE, 2021). Hence,
it is crucial to verify and quantify the environmental sustainability of bio-sourced synthetics and bio-based
fibres in general. Moreover, Ivanovic et al. (2021) demonstrated that bio-sourcing of synthetics does not
necessarily reduce environmental impacts.
This paradox mainly arises when first-generation feedstock, i.e., food crops or deliberately grown fibre
crops, is used leading to eutrophication, ecotoxicity, land use and water consumption. More specifically,
when crops displace the petrochemical inputs, the requirements for primary inputs strongly increase due
to feedstock and process modifications (Ivanović et al., 2021). The impacts are, however, largely
dependent on the bio-content and feedstock choice.
Sugarcane-derived, bio-based polyester has an environmental performance similar to petrochemical

polyester, while bio-based polyester derived from maize has a poorer environmental performance when
compared to polyester (Ivanović et al., 2021). This is attributable to the fact that the cultivation of maize
uses large amounts of pesticides and water, while sugarcane-derived polyester can stem from byproducts
produced during sugar or ethanol production, resulting in shared environmental burdens. Overall, when
bio-based synthetic fibres remain predominantly agro-based, caution should be applied when considering
these fibres as greener alternatives. Consequently, the need for circular strategies that enable sourcing of
secondary raw materials and agricultural residues, so-called second-generation feedstock, is pressing (Box
2). For example, a comparison between bio-based TPA (7) (derived from corn, sugar cane and orange peel)
and conventional TPA showed that the lowest environmental impacts were associated with the bio-based
route involving second-generation materials. This is mainly attributable to the upcycling of side-streams
7
Terephthalic acid, one of the building blocks of PET.

such as orange peel which avoids resource extraction and land use and prevents waste (Palacios-Mateo et
al., 2021; Volanti et al., 2019).
Given the differences in regionally appropriate parameters, it is important to state that the ranking of
fibres in Figure 3 needs to be nuanced and that the associated impacts are not intrinsic to the fibre crop
itself, but largely depend on the agricultural and processing practices that surround them (Lanfranchi et
al., 2021). For example, monocultures make crops more susceptible to pests, while the growth of crops in
water-stressed areas requires more irrigation.
4.2 Agricultural intensity

The increasing world population and rising affluence is driving the demand for more food and textile fibres,
and thus arable land. Moreover, the annual cotton production is no longer enough to meet market
demand and the limiting availability of arable land and irrigation water are likely to hinder the future
expansion of cotton cultivation (El Seoud et al., 2020; Mendes et al., 2021). In addition, the need for arable
land has increased deforestation worldwide. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2020), deforestation is
largely attributable to agricultural expansion, mainly for the cultivation of oil palm and soybeans, however
among the main threats of short-term overexploitation is the conversion of land to cotton production (de
Oliveira et al., 2021). This will spur a further intensification of agricultural practices. A main problem
related to intensive agriculture is the excessive use of fertilisers that not only contributes to eutrophication
and the production of which is energy intensive, but which are often made from phosphate rock, a non-
renewable resources that will be largely depleted by the end of this century (de Oliveira et al., 2021; Lun
et al., 2018). In addition, the application of nitrogen fertilisers contributes to greenhouse gas emissions
(de Oliveira et al., 2021).
Consequently, there is a need for fibre crops that require less fertiliser, such as flax and bamboo , as well
as for high-yield fibre crops such as hemp. While the type of fibre crop for a large part determines the
environmental impacts, it is important to realise that good agricultural practices are crucial. As agricultural
intensity is a major determinant of a fibre’s environmental performance, one should not simply aim to
replace one mass produced fibre with another, as this will not mitigate the impacts associated with
intensive agriculture (de Oliveira et al., 2021).
Monocultures, for instance, should be avoided as they increase the risk of disease and pest outbreaks and
promote soil degradation. Furthermore, the integrity of a farm’s natural ecosystem can be preserved by a
regenerative agriculture, increasing its health, biodiversity and resilience. Regenerative ag ricultural
practices include, amongst others, no tillage, permaculture and keyline land preparation. To conserve soil
quality, agroforestry and crop rotation are beneficial as well (Bhattacharyya et al., 2022; de Oliveira et al.,
2021). Hemp, for example, is often grown in rotation with wheat as it improves soil quality. Its long roots
retain the soil and natural leaf decomposition returns vital nutrients back to the soil, which benefits wheat
production (La Rosa and Grammatikos, 2019). In general, intensive soil management practices, such as
frequent tillage, the application of mineral fertilisers, drainage and lack of crop rotation should be avoided
as they diminish soil quality and negatively affect soil carbon sequestration (Bhattacharyya et al., 2022;
Corsi et al., 2012).
Furthermore, hemp effectively suppresses the growth of weeds, leading to reduced herbicide costs for the
subsequent crop (Turenen and van der Werf, 2006). Until now hemp is known for its low susceptibility to
pests, however, monocultures and a lack of crop rotation could change this. Furthermore, higher
temperatures and drought increase plant stress and will make crops in general more susceptible to
pathogen attacks. Hence, it is key to preserve these good practices (Institute for Sustainable Communities,
2021). Besides the environmental benefits, a more diverse matrix of fibres will also reduce future supply
issues (de Oliveira et al., 2021).

As the production of MMCFs is projected to increase strongly in the future, this will also entail
environmental impacts and competition for land as cellulose pulps are primarily manufactured from
woody feedstock and thus large plantation areas for wood production will be needed (Research and
Markets, 2021; Kallio, 2021).
Box 2 Bio-based textile fibres from agricultural waste
A shift towards circular strategies that enable sourcing of secondary raw materials and agricultural
residues is required. Moreover, the sustainable management of agricultural residues is one of the key
challenges associated with a growing agricultural sector (Institute for Sustainable Communities, 2021). As
only a part of these residues can be utilised for domestic applications such as fodder, animal bedding, fuel,
mulching and composting, the mass burning of these residues is the most convenient disposal route for
farmers, leading to air pollution.
Nevertheless, some agricultural residues have been proven to be suitable for fibre production. These are
often called second-generation feedstock and are mainly made up of lignocellulosic waste and products
such as bast, stalks and leaves. Some examples are straw derived from rice, wheat and maize, sugarcane
bagasse, banana pseudo-stems, pineapple leaves and oil palm (empty fruit bunches). Sugarcane bagasse
and rice straw are amongst the most widely available agro-residues and are typically used for the
production of cellulose pulp. Pineapple leaves or pseudo-stems of banana are best suited for fibre
extraction (Institute for Sustainable Communities, 2021). Fibres derived from pineapple leaves, for
example, are already being utilized for a long time by people in rural areas that refer to the obtained fibre
cloth as “Pina cloth” (Hazarika et al., 2017; Jose et al., 2016). Pineapple leaf fibre (PALF) is a glossy, fine,
white, strong and soft fibre that can be spun into textile fine grade yarn. It is estimated that almost 14
million tonnes of PALF are produced globally (Institute for Sustainable Communities, 2021). Fabrics made
from PALF have good absorbency, are breathable, have good dyeability and are wrinkle resistant.
Applications of PALF encompass conventional apparel but mostly upholstery. For example, PALF can be
used in nonwovens and has gained special attention as bio-based alternative for leather (e.g Pinatex®)
(Wood, 2019). However, because of difficulties related to fibre extraction and the suboptimal fibre yield
from existing spinning methods, there is no steady supply of PALF. Hence, the centralized textile sector
shows limited interest in this fibre (Jose et al., 2016).
Overall, great potential lays in the development and optimisation of spinning procedures as well as fibre
modification for the development of textile products derived from agro-residues. As stated in the study of
the Institute for Sustainable Communities (2021) there is an ample supply of crop residues that can be
channelled to fibre production, however, this is a system challenge that requires organisation,
collaboration and investment.
Over the past decades, deforestation has taken on alarming proportions, with the world losing around 10
million hectares of forest each year between 2015 and 2020. Annually, approximately 150 million trees
are felled to feed the world’s viscose production mills and on average 2.5–3 tonnes of wood are required
to make 1 tonne of rayon (Canopy, 2020). For this reason, it is essential that these plantations are
sustainably managed and, preferably, certified (Wojciechowska, 2021). Despite the fact that 40–50 % of
all MMCFs are Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification
(PEFC) certified, the risk of sourcing MMCFs from endangered or ancient forests remains high (Textile
Exchange, 2020). More specifically, the non-governmental organisation Canopy estimated that 50 % of the
6.5 million tonnes viscose produced annually originates from ancient and endangered forests (Canopy,
2020).
Alternatively, MMCFs derived from fast-growing plants such as bamboo (bamboo viscose) or hemp
(LyohempTM) could provide a possible route to increase pulp production while limiting deforestation
(Prakash, 2020; Paulitz et al., 2017). Hemp, for example, yields more biomass than wood, offering twice as
much useable fibre compared to forests. Furthermore, this fibre can consist of a maximum of 77 %

cellulose which is almost 30 % more than wood (Mendes et al., 2021). This indicates that a significantly
higher amount of cellulose pulp can be produced from hemp than forests grown in the same area (Ahmed
et al., 2022). In addition to the search for alternative natural inputs, there is an increasing trend of recycling
and the use of waste in manufacturing processes.
4.3 Durability versus biodegradability of bio-based fibres

The decreasing price of clothes and the global tendency to discard them more quickly contribute to the
generation of 39 million tonnes of post-consumer textile waste worldwide each year (Liu et al., 2021). It is
estimated that 5.8 million tonnes of textile waste are landfilled or incinerated annually in the EU – 11
kilograms per inhabitant (EEA, 2021; ETC/WMGE, 2021).
In addition to the search for alternative fibres to reduce environmental impact, it is key to reduce the
volume of textiles and textile waste by retaining the value of textiles for as long as possible in either
biological or technical cycles. In this regard, fibre quality is crucial for textile longevity and the reduction
of waste volumes. Furthermore, the most important determinant of the environmental performance of
textile products is the useful life which is, amongst other things, affected by the longevity/durability of the
textile fibre.
Overall, the misconception exists that bio-based inherently implies biodegradable. The biodegradability of
a fibre is, however, negatively impacted by the presence of processing chemicals and finishing agents that
can disturb the composting process. The presence of toxic metals in dyes can, for example, inhibit the
bacterial growth which is essential to the biodegrading process or can contaminate the compost, reducing
its value. In addition, certain dyes can be hazardous if they leak into the environment. Moreover, even
garments made purely from biodegradable materials often contain residues of chemicals used in fibre
production and textile processing or may contain other materials in stitching, labels, buttons, etc. (Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, 2017).
Additionally, not all geographical regions have access to industrial composting facilities to process
biopolymers through a biodegradation route. If textile waste ends up being landfilled, biodegradable fibres
might be the worst option due to anaerobic conditions causing the production of methane, which is a far
more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Furthermore, unless the product being composted can
return nutrients to the soil, the higher value option would be to recycle or upcycle products at the end of
their intended lifetime through technical cycles (Textile Exchange,2018; Ivanovic et al., 2021).
Furthermore, a contradiction seems to arise when considering biodegradability and durability. Durability
within the context of textiles is often defined as the ability to resist wear and tear and exist for a long time
without significant deterioration. Biodegradability, on the other hand, implies microbial degradation under
natural conditions. An example of the trade-off between durability and biodegradability was
demonstrated by Hildebrandt et al. (2021) in the case of plant-based leather substitutes (Hildebrandt et
al., 2021). This study indicated that the positive environmental benefits associated with the use of plant-
based biodegradable materials were outweighed by the negative environmental impact of a decreased
lifetime due to reduced durability (Hildebrandt et al., 2021). Durability of these plant-based alternatives
can be increased with coatings or impregnation, the impact of which is compensated for by the
environmental benefits of enhanced durability (Hildebrandt et al., 2021). Nevertheless, these coatings
should ideally be natural and have a limited impact on the products’ biodegradability. Taken together,
biodegradability might be an interesting company target for marketing purposes, however, long-term
durability, facilitating prolonged serviceable product life, is a key determinant of improved environmental
performance (Klepp et al., 2022; Cooper et al., 2013).

4.4 Recyclability of bio-based fibres
To maximise the environmental benefits of bio-based fibres, end-of-life concerns also need to be
addressed. To illustrate, regarding plastics recycling, problems can arise when bio-based alternatives end
up in established recycling processes. For example, PLA can contaminate the PET recycling process as most
recycling technologies are unable to distinguish between the two types of plastics (Textile Exchange, 2018).
Likewise, blending bio-based fibres with synthetic ones also hinders high-value textile recycling. Therefore,
accurate and cost-effective sorting of fibres should be optimised before scaling up the use of bio-based
and biodegradable alternatives. As of 1 January 2025, separated collection of textile waste will be
obligatory in all EU Member States, facilitating strategies to optimise the benefits of biodegradable and
bio-based fibres in general by minimising their landfilling and incineration. In addition, as stated in the EU
strategy, extended producer responsibility (EPR) will promote product design that enables circularity
throughout a product’s entire lifecycle, including their end-of-life management (EU Strategy for
Sustainable and Circular Textiles, 2022). While closing the loop through recycling and reutilisation of
materials is key, slowing down the loop through life-extending strategies such as design for durability, ease
of reuse, repair and remanufacturing is at least equally important (ETC/CE, 2022a).
Until now, recycling facilities are mainly put into place for the mechanical recycling of cotton (EEA, 2021;
ETC/WMGE, 2021). However, with the increasing demand for bio-based fibres, and alternative cellulose-
based fibres in particular, further research related to the opportunities for and barriers to the recycling of
these fibres, as well as blended materials, is required. (Bio)chemical recycling is often used for the recycling
of cotton and other cellulose-based fibres, such as viscose and lyocell. Nevertheless, potential lies in the
development of less destructive solvent alternatives for chemical recycling, such as the use of NMMO (3)
or ionic liquids (El Seoud et al., 2020; Ma et al., 2020; Haslinger et al., 2019;). However, research is still
ongoing and further optimisation is required to improve process economics as well as thorough
assessments of their environmental impacts.
While the share of regenerated cellulosic fibres with recycled content is currently estimated at less than
1 % of the fibre market, the use of recycled cellulose holds a lot of innovation potential and is expected to
increase significantly in the coming years (Textile Exchange, 2020). By recycling only 25 % of current pre-
and post-consumer cotton textile waste in addition to 25 % of the rayon textile waste, all wood fibre
currently used to manufacture dissolving pulp could be replaced (Canopy, 2020). Many projects are
currently tackling the improvement of textile recycling, including SCIRT (8), Re:NewCell’s Circulose® (9),
Circular Systems™ Texloop (10) and Ioncell® (11).
4.5 Microfibres
Microfibres are small, thread-like particles, released, among other routes, by the wear and tear of textiles.
They are considered contaminants of major environmental concern and have been detected in substantial
amounts in terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, surface and subsurface waters, in sea ice, and deep-sea
and coastal sediments (EEA, 2022b; ETC/CE, 2022b; Suaria et al., 2020). Microfibres include both plastic
microfibres, shed by synthetic textiles, as well as bio-based ones, which are released from both natural
and semisynthetic fibres, such as viscose and lyocell.
8
System Circularity & Innovative Recycling of Textiles: an EU- funded project that aims to demonstrate a
textile-to-textile recycling system for discarded clothing or post-consumer textiles.
9
Circulose® is a branded fibre that Re:NewCell produces from dissolved pulp derived from cotton and man-
made cellulosic waste, such as worn-out jeans and production scraps.
10
Textloop technology by Circular Systems, which can mechanically recycle TENCEL™ lyocell.
11
Ioncell is a technology developed by Aalto University (Finland), that turns used textiles, pulp or even old
newspapers into new textile fibers without harmful chemicals.

Microfibres mainly enter the environment through wastewater effluent and aerial deposition (EEA, 2022b;
ETC/CE, 2022b). Washing clothes and other textiles has been identified as a major route for releasing
microfibres into the wastewater. The estimates for microfibre release vary widely among different sources
(EEA, 2022b; ETC/CE, 2022b;) – while most attention has been devoted to plastic microfibres resulting
from the washing of synthetic textiles, an important share of microfibres from textiles has been identified
as originating from bio-based textile fibres, such as cotton, wool and viscose.
Moreover, several studies have demonstrated that 60–80 % of textile microfibres in both the environment
and organisms are not plastic (ETC/CE, 2022b; Kim et al., 2021; Suaria et al., 2020; Stanton et al., 2019;
Sanchez-Vidal et al., 2018; Woodall et al., 2018; Remy et al., 2015). In line with this, it should be noted that
MMCFs are not only used in textile manufacturing but are also widely present in cigarette filters and
personal hygiene products, possibly contributing to this high percentage (EEA, 2022b; ETC/CE, 2022b).
Furthermore, due to characterisation difficulties, these natural microfibres were considered as
microplastics, plastic microfibres, by hundreds of studies, leading to disproportionately high microplastic
counts and an underrepresentation of bio-based microfibres (Suaria et al., 2020).
Recently, concerns have arisen about the impact of these bio-based microfibres (Suaria et al., 2020). Often,
the environmental threats associated with bio-based microfibres are underestimated as there is a general
assumption that their biodegradability reduces their impact.
While microfibres from regenerated cellulosic fibres, such as viscose and lyocell, have been found to have
less detrimental effects on ingestion by aquatic species compared to plastic microfibres, gut damage still
occurred (Kim et al., 2021; Remy et al., 2015). Furthermore, the biodegradability and environmental
compatibility of bio-based microfibres is strongly affected by processing procedures such as dying, coating,
and other fabric treatments that, for example, increase durability (Lykaki et al., 2021). The persistence of
microfibres in the environment poses risks to human health as they can bioaccumulate when ingested by
organisms, facilitating their introduction into the human food chain. Both bio-based and synthetic
microfibres have, for example, been found in the faeces of king penguins (Aptenodytes patagonicus) (Le
Guen et al., 2020). Remy et al. (2015) have suggested that microfibres derived from cellulose fibres, such
as viscose, are less likely to bioaccumulate than synthetic microfibres because, cellulose, even of artificial
origin, is more digestible. Nevertheless, because both natural and synthetic textile fibres are often treated
with a variety of chemicals, such as dyes and finishing agents, this also raises concerns about the role of
microfibres as vectors for introducing hazardous substances into the environment. Additionally, the faster
degradation of bio-based microfibres could possibly facilitate the release of toxic additives into the
environment (Liu et al., 2021).
Over the past decades, microplastics, which encompass microfibres derived from synthetic textiles, have
been identified as pervasive, chronic, persistent, transboundary pollutants that pose a threat to the
environment and human health (EEA, 2022b; ETC/CE, 2022b). It is evident that microplastic pollution poses
a big challenge and preventive measures should be considered. At the same time, the knowledge of
microfibres released from bio-based fibres remains rather limited. As indicated, however, the impacts
associated with this type of microfibre should not be minimised and need further research.

5. Conclusions
Bio-based fibres include a broad and diverse range of fibres. While these can be natural or man-made,
they are all derived from a natural polymer, such as cellulose or protein. Due to their natural, non-fossil
origin, they are often regarded as go-to fibres in the search for more sustainable textiles. While these
fibres offer great potential to steer away from the use of fossil-based fuels, bio-based fibres cannot simply
be considered greener alternatives. Their bio-based origin does not absolve them of the environmental
burdens related to agricultural activities, deforestation and fibre processing. Moreover, their presumed
biodegradability does not eliminate concerns related to microfibre shedding, waste and recyclability.
When petrochemical inputs are replaced by crops, different environmental burdens arise that are mainly
related to agricultural activities such as pesticide and fertiliser use, water consumption and land use. These
are well-known problems that are commonly associated with the conventional cultivation of cotton.
Nevertheless, some alternative natural fibres, such as flax and hemp, show great promise as more
sustainable substitutes as they require less irrigation and fewer agrochemicals compared to conventional
cotton. Further innovation, however, is required to overcome technical hurdles and minimise the
environmental burdens associated with these natural fibres.
Among the man-made bio-based fibres, cellulosic fibres, such as viscose, have the largest market share
and are made from cellulose, mainly originating from woody feedstock. Environmental impacts associated
with these fibres are mostly linked to deforestation and the chemical processing of cellulose.
While the renewable origin of bio-based fibres is an important environmental advantage, it remains vital
to minimise the environmental intensity associated with their agricultural production. Responsible
sourcing practices are therefore crucial for the sustainability of bio-based fibres. This includes sustainable
agricultural and forest management practices and the use of alternative high-yield input materials, such
as hemp or bamboo. Even better is the use of second-generation feedstock made from biowaste, which
does not compete with other land uses, while, at the same time, creating an outlet for waste streams and
delivering low-cost revenue streams for agricultural communities.
The increasing popularity of bio-based fibres will lead to more bio-based textile waste, which poses
challenges in terms of sorting and recycling. Nevertheless, the regeneration of new textile fibres from
cellulose pulp derived from cellulosic textile waste offers great potential. During fibre production of both
virgin or waste-derived fibres, solvent recovery systems that allow closed-loop operations are key and
great potential lies in the development of less destructive solvent alternatives.
Another frequently mentioned advantage of bio-based fibres is their presumed biodegradability. The
biodegradability and environmental compatibility of bio-based fibres is, however, negatively affected by
dying, coating, and other fabric treatments. As the biodegradability of bio-based fibres is rather
questionable, concerns related to microfibre shedding also apply. In addition, a contradiction seems to
arise when considering biodegradability and durability. While both offer environmental advantages,
combining these features seems difficult. Hence, critical assessments of this trade-off are required to
decide which feature outweighs the other and contributes to a product’s sustainability.
Taken together, a systemic approach is required to better understand the trade-offs associated with bio-
based fibres. This will enable the identification and tackling of pitfalls and barriers that hinder these fibres
reaching their full economic and sustainable potential. Nevertheless, the lack of up-to-date and accurate
data concerning the environmental impacts of textile fibres and the fragmented nature of the supply chain,
makes it challenging to assess the environmental performance of fibres and to develop truly sustainable
ones. Life-extending strategies and prevention of the premature discarding of textiles may therefore
present more robust and effective routes to reduce the environmental impacts related to production and
consumption in general.

References
Ahmed, A.T.M.F. et al., 2022, ‘Hemp as a potential raw material toward a sustainable world: A review’,
Heliyon 8(1), (DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e08753).
Aid by Trade Foundation, 2014, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Cotton made in Africa (CmiA), Hamburg,
Germany.
Astudillo, M.F. et al., 2014, ‘Life cycle assessment of Indian silk’, Journal of Cleaner Production 81, pp. 158-
167 (DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.007).
Babu, K.M., 2012, ‘7 - Silk fibres’, in: Kozłowski, R.M. (ed.), Handbook of Natural Fibres, Woodhead
Publishing Series in Textiles, Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, UK.
Banerjee, P.K., 2020, ‘19 - Environmental textiles from jute and coir’, in: Kozłowski, R.M. and Mackiewicz-
Talarczyk, M. (eds), Handbook of Natural Fibres (Second Edition), The Textile Institute Book Series,
Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, UK.
Bhattacharyya, S.S. et al., 2022, ‘Soil carbon sequestration – An interplay between soil microbial
community and soil organic matter dynamics’, Science of The Total Environment 815, p. 152928 (DOI:
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.152928).
Canopy, 2020, Survival - A Plan for Saving Forests and Climate A Pulp Thriller, Canopy, Vancouver, Canada.
C.E.L.C. Masters of Linen, 2010, ‘European Linen and Hemp’, European Linen and Hemp
(http://news.europeanflax.com/en/celc/) accessed 6 August 2022.
Chen, J., 2015, ‘Chapter 4 - Synthetic Textile Fibers: Regenerated Cellulose Fibers’, in: Sinclair, R. (ed.),
Textiles and Fashion, Woodhead Publishing Series in Textiles, Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, UK.
CSIRO Textile and Fibre Technology, 2017, The wool fibre and its applications, Commonwealth Scientific
and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, Australia.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 2022, EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular
Textiles, European Commission, Brussels (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52022DC0141) accessed 22 April.
Cooper, T. et al., 2013, Design for Longevity: Guidance on Increasing the Active Life of Clothing, WRAP,
Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK.
Corsi, S. et al., 2012, Soil Organic Carbon Accumulation and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from
Conservation Agriculture: A literature review, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome, Italy (https://www.fao.org/3/i2672e/i2672e.pdf).
de Oliveira, C.R.S. et al., 2021, ‘Textile Re-Engineering: Eco-responsible solutions for a more sustainable
industry’, Sustainable Production and Consumption 28, pp. 1232-1248 (DOI: 10.1016/j.spc.2021.08.001).
Dhirhi, N. et al., 2015, ‘Extraction method of flax fibre and its uses’, Plant Archives (15), pp. 711-716.
Dochia, M. et al., 2012, ‘2 – Cotton Fibres’, in: Handbook of Natural Fibres 1, Woodhead Publishing Series
in Textiles, Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, UK.
Dufloucq C., 2022, European production and consumption man-made cellulosic fibres. Personal
communication.
EEA, 2019, Textiles in Europe’s circular economy, No EEA Briefing No 10/2019, European Environment
Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark (https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/textiles-in-europes-circular-
economy) accessed 13 April 2022.

EEA, 2021, Plastic in textiles: towards a circular economy for synthetic textiles in Europe, European
Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark (https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/plastic -in-
textiles-towards-a) accessed 13 April 2022.
EEA, 2022a, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark, EEA Briefing, European Environment
Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark (https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/textiles-and-the-environme nt-
the) accessed 13 April 2022.
EEA, 2022b, Microplastics from textiles: Towards a circular economy for textiles in Europe, Briefing no.
16/2021, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark
(https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/microplastics-from-textiles-towards-a) accessed 13 April
2022.
El Seoud, O. A. et al., 2020, ‘Cellulose Regeneration and Chemical Recycling: Closing the “Cellulose Gap”
Using Environmentally Benign Solvents’, Macromolecular Materials and Engineering 305(4), p. 1900832
(DOI: 10.1002/mame.201900832).
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017, Circular Fashion - A New Textiles Economy: Redesigning fashion’s
future, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Cowes, UK
(https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/a-new-textiles-economy-redesigning-
fashions-future).
Erdogan, U.H., et al., 2020, ‘9 - Wool fibres’, in: Kozłowski, R. M. and Mackiewicz-Talarczyk, M. (eds),
Handbook of Natural Fibres (Second Edition), Woodhead Publishing Series in Textiles, Woodhead
Publishing, Sawston, UK.
ETC/WMGE, 2019, Textiles and the environment in a circular economy, Eionet Report ETC/WMGE No
Eionet Report No ETC/WMGE 2019/6, European Topic Centre on Waste and Materials in a Green Economy
(https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-wmge/products/etc-reports/textiles-and-the-environment-in-
a-circular-economy) accessed 13 April 2022.
ETC/CE, 2022a, Textiles and the environment - The role of design in Europe’s circular economy, Eionet
Report No ETC/CE 2022/2 (https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-ce/products/etc-ce-products/etc-ce-
report-2-2022-textiles-and-the-environment-the-role-of-design-in-europes-circular-economy) accessed
13 April 2022.
ETC/CE, 2022b, Microplastic pollution from textile consumption in Europe, Eionet report No 2022/1,
European Topic Centre Circular Economy and Resource Use (https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc -
ce/products/etc-ce-products/etc-ce-report-1-2022-microplastic-pollution-from-textile-consumption-in-
europe) accessed 13 April 2022.
ETC/WMGE, 2021, Plastic in textiles: potentials for circularity and reduced environmental and climate
impacts, Eionet Report No 1/2021, European Topic Centre on Waste and Materials in a Green Economy
(https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-wmge/products/plastic-in-textiles-potentials-for-circularity-
and-reduced-environmental-and-climate-impacts) accessed 13 April 2022.
European Commission, 2018, ‘Cotton’ (https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/farming/crop-productions-and-
plant-based-products/cotton_en) accessed 14 September 2022.
European Confederation of Flax and Hemp, 2022, Life cycle assessment (LCA) of European flax® scutched
fibre, European Confederation of Flax and Hemp, Paris, France.
FAOSTAT, 2022, ‘Crops and livestock products’, Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations
(https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL) accessed 16 May 2022.
Farrington, D.W. et al., 2005, ‘Poly(lactic acid) fibers (PLA)’, in: Biodegradable and sustainable fibres, CRC
Press LCC, Woodhead Publishing, Boca Raton, USA.
Fashion for Good, 2020, ‘Coming Full Circle: Innovating Towards Sustainable Man-Made Cellulosic Fibres.,
Fashion For Good’ (https://fashionforgood.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Coming-Full-Circle-
Innovating-Towards-More-Sustainable-MMCFs.pdf).

Felgueiras, C. et al., 2021, ‘Trends on the Cellulose-Based Textiles: Raw Materials and Technologies’,
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 9, p. 608826 (doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.608826).
Ganster, J. and Fink, H.P., 2009, ‘6 - The structure of man-made cellulosic fibres’, in: Eichhorn, S. J. et al.
(eds), Handbook of Textile Fibre Structure, Woodhead Publishing Series in Textiles, Woodhead Publishing,
Sawston, UK.
González-García, S. et al., 2010, ‘Life cycle assessment of raw materials for non-wood pulp mills: Hemp and
flax’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54(11), pp. 923-930 (DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.01.011).
Gupta, B. et al., 2007, ‘Poly(lactic acid) fiber: An overview’, Progress in Polymer Science 32(4), pp. 455-482
(DOI: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2007.01.005).
Haslinger, S. et al., 2019, ‘Upcycling of cotton polyester blended textile waste to new man-made cellulose
fibers’, Waste Management 97, pp. 88-96 (DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.07.040).
Hazarika, D. et al., 2017, ‘Exploration of future prospects of Indian pineapple leaf, an agro waste for textile
application’, Journal of Cleaner Production 141, pp. 580-586 (DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.092).
Hildebrandt, J. et al., 2021, ‘The circularity of potential bio-textile production routes: Comparing life cycle
impacts of bio-based materials used within the manufacturing of selected leather substitutes’, Journal of
Cleaner Production 287, p. 125470 (DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125470).
Hoop, T. et al., 2018, Social and Economic Impact Assessment of Cotton Farming in Madhya Pradesh,
American Institutes for Research
(https://www.laudesfoundation.org/en/resources/4333socioeconomicstudyweb.pdf) accessed 15
January 2023
Horne, M.R.L., 2012, ‘6 - Bast fibres: Hemp cultivation and production’, in: Handbook of Natural Fibres 1,
Woodhead Publishing Series in Textiles, Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, UK.
Horne, M.R.L., 2020, ‘5B - Bast fibres: hemp cultivation and production’, in: Kozłowski, R.M. and
Mackiewicz-Talarczyk, M. (eds), Handbook of Natural Fibres (Second Edition), Woodhead Publishing Series
Institute for Sustainable Communities, 2021, Spinning Future Threads: The Potential of Agricultural
Residues as Textile Fibre Feedstock, World Resources Institute India, Wageningen University & Research,
Laundes Foundation.
Ivanović, T. et al., 2021, ‘Bio-Based Polyester Fiber Substitutes: From GWP to a More Comprehensive
Environmental Analysis’, Applied Sciences 11(7), p. 2993 (DOI: 10.3390/app11072993).
Jose, S. et al., 2016, ‘An Overview on Production, Properties, and Value Addition of Pineapple Leaf Fibers
(PALF)’, Journal of Natural Fibers 13(3), pp. 362-373 (DOI: 10.1080/15440478.2015.1029194).
Kallio, A.M.I., 2021, ‘Wood-based textile fibre market as part of the global forest-based bioeconomy’,
Forest Policy and Economics 123, p. 102364 (DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102364).
Kim, L. et al., 2021, ‘Synthetic and natural microfibers induce gut damage in the brine shrimp Artemia
franciscana’, Aquatic Toxicology 232, p. 105748 (DOI: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2021.105748).
Klepp, I.G. et al., 2022, Accounting for Non-Physical Durability, Discussion paper.
Kozłowski, R.M., et al., 2012, ‘5 - Bast fibres: flax’, in: Handbook of Natural Fibres 1, Woodhead Publishing
Series in Textiles, Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, UK.
Krifa, M. and Stevens, S.S., 2016, ‘Cotton Utilization in Conventional and Non-Conventional Textiles—A
Statistical Review’, Agricultural Sciences 7(10), pp. 747-758 (DOI: 10.4236/as.2016.710069).

Kuffner, H. and Popescu, C., 2012, ‘8 - Wool fibres’, in: Kozłowski, R.M. (ed.), Handbook of Natural Fibres
1, Woodhead Publishing Series in Textiles, Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, UK.
La Rosa, A.D. and Grammatikos, S.A., 2019, ‘Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Cotton and Other
Natural Fibers for Textile Applications’, Fibers 7(12), p. 101 (DOI: 10.3390/fib7120101).
Le Guen, C. et al., 2020, ‘Microplastic study reveals the presence of natural and synthetic fibres in the diet
of King Penguins (Aptenodytes patagonicus) foraging from South Georgia’, Environment International 134,
p. 105303 (DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.105303).
Lanfranchi, M. et al., 2021, Cotton: A Case Study in Misinformation, Transformers Foundation, New York,
NY, US (https://www.transformersfoundation.org/cotton-report-2021) accessed 30 November 2022.
Leão, A.L. et al., 2015, ‘7 – The use of pineapple leaf fibres (PALFs) as reinforcements in composites’, in:
Biofiber Reinforcements in Composite Materials, Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, UK.
Liu, J. et al., 2021, ‘Microfiber pollution: an ongoing major environmental issue related to the sustainable
development of textile and clothing industry’, Environment, Development and Sustainability 23(8), pp.
11240-11256 (DOI: 10.1007/s10668-020-01173-3).
Lun, F. et al., 2018, ‘Global and regional phosphorus budgets in agricultural systems and their implications
for phosphorus-use efficiency’, Earth System Science Data 10(1), pp. 1-18 (DOI: 10.5194/essd-10-1-2018).
Lykaki, M. et al., 2021, ‘The influence of textile finishing agents on the biodegradability of shed fibres’,
Green Chemistry 23(14), pp. 5212-5221 (DOI: 10.1039/D1GC00883H).
Lyu, P. et al., 2021, ‘Degumming methods for bast fibers – A mini review’, Industrial Crops and Products
174, p. 114158 (DOI: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2021.114158).
Ma, Y. et al., 2020, ‘Upcycling of waste textiles into regenerated cellulose fibres: impact of pretreatments’,
The Journal of the Textile Institute 111(5), pp. 630-638 (DOI: 10.1080/00405000.2019.1656355).
Mendes, I.S.F. et al., 2021, ‘Production of rayon fibres from cellulosic pulps: State of the art and current
developments’, Carbohydrate Polymers 273, p. 118466 (DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2021.118466).
Mishra, L. and Basu, G., 2020, ‘8 - Coconut fibre: its structure, properties and applications’, in: Kozłowski,
R.M. and Mackiewicz-Talarczyk, M. (eds), Handbook of Natural Fibres (Second Edition), Woodhead
Publishing Series in Textiles, Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, UK.
Muthu, S.S. et al., 2012, ‘Quantification of environmental impact and ecological sustainability for textile
fibres’, Ecological Indicators 13(1), pp. 66-74 (DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.05.008).
Muzyczek, M., 2012, ‘10 - The use of flax and hemp for textile applications’, in: Kozłowski, R.M. (ed.),
Handbook of Natural Fibres, Woodhead Publishing Series in Textiles, Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, UK.
Muzyczek, M., 2020, ‘4 - The use of flax and hemp for textile applications’, in: Kozłowski, R.M. and
Mackiewicz-Talarczyk, M. (eds), Handbook of Natural Fibres (Second Edition), Woodhead Publishing Series
Notten P., 2020, Sustainability and Circularity in the Textile Value Chain: Global Stocktaking, United Nations
Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya (https://wedocs.unep.org/xmlui/handle/20.500.11822/341 84 )
accessed 30 November 2022.
Padaki, N.V. et al., 2015, ‘1 - Advances in understanding the properties of silk’, in: Basu, A. (ed.), Advances
in Silk Science and Technology, Woodhead Publishing Series in Textiles, Woodhead Publishing, Sawston,
UK.
Palacios-Mateo, C. et al., 2021, ‘Analysis of the polyester clothing value chain to identify key intervention
points for sustainability’, Environmental Sciences Europe 33(1), p. 2 (DOI: 10.1186/s12302-020-00447-x).

Parajuli, P., et al. 2021, ‘4 - Regenerated cellulose in textiles: rayon, lyocell, modal and other fibres’, in:
Mondal, Md. I. H. (ed.), Fundamentals of Natural Fibres and Textiles, The Textile Institute Book Series,
Paulitz, J. et al., 2017, ‘Lyocell fibers for textile processing derived from organically grown hemp’, Procedia
Engineering 200, pp. 260-268 (DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.07.037).
Prakash, C. 2020, ‘7 - Bamboo fibre’, in: Kozłowski, R.M. and Mackiewicz-Talarczyk, M. (eds), Handbook of
Natural Fibres (Second Edition), Woodhead Publishing Series in Textiles, Woodhead Publishing, Sawston,
UK.
Rehman, M. et al., 2019, ‘Ramie, a multipurpose crop: potential applications, constraints and improvement
strategies’, Industrial Crops and Products 137, pp. 300-307 (DOI: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.05.029).
Remy, F. et al., 2015, ‘When Microplastic Is Not Plastic: The Ingestion of Artificial Cellulose Fibers by
Macrofauna Living in Seagrass Macrophytodetritus’, Environmental Science & Technology 49(18), pp.
11158-11166 (DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b02005).
Research and Markets, 2021, ‘Global Cellulosic Man-Made Fibers Market Report 2021 - Momentum in
Developed Regions Remains Sluggish yet Positive’, GlobeNewswire
(https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2021/08/26/2286943/28124/en/Global-Cellulosic-
Man-Made-Fibers-Market-Report-2021-Momentum-in-Developed-Regions-Remains-Sluggish-yet-
Positive.html) accessed 15 August 2022.
Roy, S. and Lutfar, L.B. 2012a, ‘2 - Bast fibres: jute’, in: Kozłowski, R. M. (ed.), Handbook of Natural Fibres
Roy, S. and Lutfar, L.B. 2012b, ‘4 - Bast fibres: ramie’, in: Kozłowski, R. M. (ed.), Handbook of Natural Fibres
Salleh, K.M. et al. 2021, ‘2 - Cellulose and its derivatives in textiles: primitive application to current trend’,
in: Mondal, Md. I. H. (ed.), Fundamentals of Natural Fibres and Textiles, The Textile Institute Book Series,
Sanchez-Vidal, A. et al., 2018, ‘The imprint of microfibres in southern European deep seas’, PLOS ONE
13(11), p. e0207033 (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207033).
Sandin, G. A. et al., 2019, Environmental assessment of Swedish clothing consumption - six garments,
sustainable futures, Research Institutes of Sweden (RISE), Gothenburg, Sweden.
(https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/270109142.pdf) accessed 30 November 2022.
Sandin, G. et al., 2013, ‘Moving down the cause-effect chain of water and land use impacts: An LCA case
study of textile fibres’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 73, pp. 104-113 (DOI:
10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.01.020).
Schultz, T. and Suresh, A., 2017, Life Cycle Assessment Comparing Ten Sources of Manmade Cellulose
Fiber, SCS Global Services, Emeryville, CA, US.
Schumacher, A.G.D. et al., 2020, ‘Industrial hemp fiber: A sustainable and economical alternative to
cotton’, Journal of Cleaner Production 268, p. 122180 (DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122180).
Shen, L. et al., 2010, ‘Environmental impact assessment of man-made cellulose fibres’, Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 55(2), pp. 260-274 (DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.10.001).
Stanton, T. et al., 2019, ‘Freshwater and airborne textile fibre populations are dominated by “natural”, not
microplastic, fibres’, Science of The Total Environment 666, pp. 377-389 (DOI:
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.278).
Stenton, M. et al., 2021, ‘The Potential for Regenerated Protein Fibres within a Circular Economy: Lessons
from the Past Can Inform Sustainable Innovation in the Textiles Industry’, Sustainability 13(4), p. 2328
(DOI: 10.3390/su13042328).

Suaria, G. et al., 2020, ‘Microfibers in oceanic surface waters: A global characterization’, Science Advances
6(23), p. eaay8493 (DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aay8493).
Swan, P. et al., 2020, Wool – A High Performance Fiber, International Wool Textile Organisation (IWTO),
Brussels, Belgium. (https://iwto.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/IWTO_Wool-Performance.pdf )
accessed 24 November 2022.
Textile Exchange, 2014, The life cycle assessment of organic cotton fibre - A global average, Textile
Exchange, Lamesa, Texas.
Textile Exchange, 2018, Quick Guide to Biosynthetics, Textile Exchange, Lamesa, Texas.
Textile Exchange, 2020, Preferred Fiber & Materials Market Report 2020, Textile Exchange, Lamesa, Texas.
Textile Exchange, 2021, Preferred Fiber & Materials Market Report 2021, Textile Exchange, Lamesa, Texas.
The Observatory of Economic Complexity, 2020, ‘Products - Harmonized System (HS)’
(https://oec.world/en/product-landing/hs) accessed 8 June 2022.
Townsend, T., 2020, ‘40 Million Households Produce Natural Fibres’, Discover Natural Fibres Initiative
(https://dnfi.org/abaca/40-million-households-produce-natural-fibres_22590/).
Turenen, L. and van der Werf, H., 2006, Life Cycle Analysis of Hemp Textile Yarn Comparison of three
hemp fibre processing scenarios and a flax scenario, Institut national de la recherche agronomique
(INRA), Paris, France.
van der Werf, H.M.G. and Turunen, L., 2008, ‘The environmental impacts of the production of hemp and
flax textile yarn’, Industrial Crops and Products 27(1), pp. 1-10 (DOI: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2007.05.003).
Volanti, M. et al., 2019, ‘Terephthalic acid from renewable sources: early-stage sustainability analysis of a
bio-PET precursor’, Green Chemistry 21(4), pp. 885-896 (DOI: 10.1039/C8GC03666G).
Wang, J. et al., 2019, ‘Quantitative and sensory evaluation of odor retention on polyester/wool blends’,
Textile Research Journal 89(13), pp. 2729-2738 (DOI: 10.1177/0040517518801183).
Wojciechowska, P., 2021, ‘20 - Fibres and textiles in the circular economy’, in: Mondal, Md. I.H. (ed.),
Fundamentals of Natural Fibres and Textiles, The Textile Institute Book Series, Woodhead Publishing,
Sawston, UK.
Wood, J., 2019, ‘Bioinspiration in Fashion—A Review’, Biomimetics 4(1), p. 16 (DOI:
10.3390/biomimetics4010016).
Woodall, L.C. et al., 2018, ‘The deep sea is a major sink for microplastic debris’, Royal Society Open Science
1(4), p. 140317 (DOI: 10.1098/rsos.140317).
Yang, Y. et al., 2021, ‘Poly(lactic acid) fibers, yarns and fabrics: Manufacturing, properties and applications’,
Textile Research Journal 91(13-14), pp. 1641-1669 (DOI: 10.1177/0040517520984101).
Zimniewska, M., 2022, ‘Hemp Fibre Properties and Processing Target Textile: A Review’, Materials 15(5),
p. 1901 (DOI: 10.3390/ma15051901).

European Topic Centre on The European Topic Centre on Circular economy and
Circular economy and resource use resource use (ETC CE) is a consortium of European
institutes under contract of the European
https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-ce
Environment Agency.

Upcycling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Upcycling

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Upcycling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ETC-CE Report 2023/5

The role of bio-based textile fibres in a circular

EEA activity Circular economy and resource use

ETC CE coordinator: Vlaamse Instelling voor Technologisch Onderzoek (VITO)

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

European Topic Centre on

ETC CE Report 2023/5 1

ETC CE Report 2023/5 2

ETC CE Report 2023/5 3

Figure 1 Scope of this paper

Source: EEA and ETC/CE

ETC CE Report 2023/5 4

Box 1 Polylactic acid as bio-based alternative for polyester

ETC CE Report 2023/5 5

ETC CE Report 2023/5 6

ETC CE Report 2023/5 7

ETC CE Report 2023/5 8

ETC CE Report 2023/5 9

ETC CE Report 2023/5 10

ETC CE Report 2023/5 11

3.1. Natural fibres

ETC CE Report 2023/5 12

3.2. Man-made cellulosic fibres

Note: percentages may not sum to 100 % due to rounding.

ETC CE Report 2023/5 13

ETC CE Report 2023/5 14

4.1 Environmental impacts of bio-based fibres

ETC CE Report 2023/5 15

ETC CE Report 2023/5 16

ETC CE Report 2023/5 17

Sugarcane-derived, bio-based polyester has an environmental performance similar to petrochemical

ETC CE Report 2023/5 18

4.2 Agricultural intensity

ETC CE Report 2023/5 19

Box 2 Bio-based textile fibres from agricultural waste

ETC CE Report 2023/5 20

4.3 Durability versus biodegradability of bio-based fibres

ETC CE Report 2023/5 21

ETC CE Report 2023/5 22

ETC CE Report 2023/5 23

ETC CE Report 2023/5 24

ETC CE Report 2023/5 25

ETC CE Report 2023/5 26

ETC CE Report 2023/5 27

ETC CE Report 2023/5 28

ETC CE Report 2023/5 29

ETC CE Report 2023/5 30

You might also like