LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF COTTON YARNS FOR IKEA - ANA VILLARREAL CAMPOS RUCHIRA GOYAL - DIVA
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
DEGREE PROJECT IN ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2021 Life cycle assessment of cotton yarns for IKEA ANA VILLARREAL CAMPOS RUCHIRA GOYAL KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
Life cycle assessment of cotton yarns
for IKEA
Ana Villarreal Campos and Ruchira Goyal
Supervisor
Göran Finnveden
Examiner
Anna Björklund
Supervisor at IKEA
Neha Madan Asthana
Degree Project in Strategies for Sustainable Development (MSc in Sustainable Technology)
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
School of Architecture and Built Environment
Department of Sustainable Development, Environmental Science and Engineering
SE-100 44 Stockholm, SwedenTRITA-ABE-MBT-12545
iiAbstract
Cotton is one of the leading fibers in the textile industry due to its superior mechanical
qualities. It accounts for high environmental impacts, especially water consumption and
scarcity. Since cotton is a significant raw material for IKEA, it had set a target to source from
only sustainable sources such as from the Better Cotton Initiative, and recycled cotton. At the
same time, IKEA also has a commitment to transition to a circular business, which includes
recycling. This comparative and accounting Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) analyzes virgin (two
types - conventional cotton and Better Cotton) yarns, and mixed (virgin plus recycled) cotton
yarns from some of the top supplier countries of the company, on a cradle-to-gate perspective.
Water quantity and quality impacts are analyzed together with climate change. The Life Cycle
Impact Assessment (LCIA) shows that there is a proportional reduction in impacts of the
mixed yarns as recycled cotton percentage is increased, since the impacts of recycled yarns are
much lower than virgin yarns. In virgin conventional yarns, the main stages that contributed
the most to the impacts were cotton cultivation and spinning. Irrigation used in cotton
cultivation accounted for the most impacts in water availability. For water quality, the impacts
were mostly coming from electricity use and direct field emissions from cotton cultivation. In
addition, this study demonstrated that there were high differences between the impacts in the
countries studied. The results also suggested that there were water savings by using Better
Cotton compared to conventional cotton yarns.
Key words: LCA, environmental impact, water impact, recycled cotton yarns, virgin cotton
yarns, Better Cotton, spinning, cradle-to-gate
iiiSammanfattning
Bomull är en av de vanligaste fibrerna i textilindustrin på grund av dess överlägsna mekaniska
egenskaper. Den orsakar dock hög miljöpåverkan, särskilt vattenförbrukning och -brist.
Eftersom bomull är ett viktigt råmaterial för IKEA, har de satt ett mål att endast använda
hållbara källor, som från Better Cotton Initiative, och återvunnen bomull. Samtidigt har IKEA
också åtagit sig att övergå till en cirkulär affärsmodell som inkluderar återvinning. Denna
jämförande studie beaktar livscykelanalys (LCA) och analyserar jungfruligt garn (två typer -
konventionell bomull och Better Cotton) och blandat bomullsgarn (jungfru plus återvunna)
från några av företagets främsta leverantörsländer ur ett vagga-till-port-perspektiv.
Vattenmängder och kvalitetseffekter analyseras tillsammans med klimatförändringar.
Livscykelbedömningen (LCIA) visar att det finns en proportionell minskning av effekterna av
de blandade garnerna när andelen återvunnen bomull ökar, eftersom effekterna av återvunnet
garn är mycket lägre än jungfruliga garner. I konventionellt jungfruligt garn var bomullsodling
och spinning de främsta stegen som bidrog mest till effekterna. Bevattning som används vid
bomullsodling svarade för de största effekterna på tillgången till vatten. För vattenkvaliteten
kom effekterna huvudsakligen från elanvändning och direkta utsläpp från bomullsodling.
Dessutom visade denna studie att det fanns stora effektskillnader mellan de studerade
länderna. Resultaten antydde också att det fanns vattenbesparingar genom att använda Better
Cotton jämfört med konventionella bomullsgarn.
Nyckelord: LCA, miljöpåverkan, vattenpåverkan, återvunnet bomullsgarn, virgin
bomullsgarn, Better Cotton, spinning, vagga-till-port
ivPreface
All of the work presented in this report is part of a shared degree project between Ana Villarreal
Campos and Ruchira Goyal at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden.
Both of the authors have contributed equally for the completion of this project. All of the
literature review, data collection, and modelling process was done together by the authors
along with activities such as meetings with the company and academic supervisors. While
some sections of this report were written individually, collaboration was present throughout
the report and the sections of discussion and recommendations, and conclusion were co-
authored by both the authors.
vAcknowledgements
This degree project at KTH Royal Institute of Technology has been conducted in collaboration
with IKEA. We would like to thank our supervisor Göran Finnveden for his support, insights,
and feedback throughout the project. We are grateful to our supervisor Neha Madan Asthana
at IKEA for her contribution with time, experience, and constant guidance. We would also like
to thank Yaw Sasu-Boakye, Arvind Rewal, Mirjam Luc, and Federico Garcia Agut for providing
us with valuable support, feedback, and data along with other colleagues. Lastly, we would like
to thank our families and friends for their constant moral support.
Ana Villarreal Campos and Ruchira Goyal
viTable of contents
Abstract .....................................................................................................................................iii
Sammanfattning ....................................................................................................................... iv
Preface........................................................................................................................................ v
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ x
Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... xii
Glossary of terms ..................................................................................................................... xii
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
2. Aim and research questions ................................................................................................... 2
3. Background ............................................................................................................................ 2
3.1 IKEA’s sustainability strategy and goals .......................................................................... 2
3.2 Cotton from more sustainable sources (CMSS) ............................................................... 4
3.3 Impacts related to water use in LCA ................................................................................ 6
3.4 Literature review of previous LCA studies on cotton textiles ..........................................8
4. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 10
4.1 Life Cycle Assessment ..................................................................................................... 10
4.1.1 Goal and scope...........................................................................................................11
4.1.2 Life Cycle Inventory ..................................................................................................11
4.1.3 Life Cycle Impact Assessment.................................................................................. 12
4.1.4 Life Cycle Interpretation .......................................................................................... 12
4.2 Scenario analysis - Assessing future water consumption .............................................. 12
5. Life cycle assessment of cotton yarns .................................................................................. 13
5.1 Goal and scope ................................................................................................................ 13
5.1.1 Functional Unit and Reference Flow ........................................................................ 13
5.1.2 System boundaries ................................................................................................... 13
5.1.3 Intended audience .................................................................................................... 15
5.1.4 Allocation procedures .............................................................................................. 15
5.1.5 Data collection strategy ............................................................................................ 15
5.1.6 Impact categories and impact assessment methods ................................................ 16
Choice of impact categories .......................................................................................... 16
Choice of LCIA methods ............................................................................................... 17
5.1.7 Scenario and sensitivity analyses ............................................................................. 19
5.1.8 Assumptions and limitations ................................................................................... 19
vii5.2 Life Cycle Inventory ...................................................................................................... 20
5.2.1 Virgin conventional cotton yarns ............................................................................ 20
5.2.2 Recycled and mixed cotton yarns ............................................................................ 23
5.2.3 Better Cotton virgin yarns ....................................................................................... 26
5.3 Life Cycle Impact assessment......................................................................................... 27
5.3.1 Conventional virgin cotton yarns vs. mixed cotton yarns ........................................ 27
5.3.2 Conventional virgin yarns across regions ................................................................ 29
5.3.3 Conventional vs. BCI virgin cotton yarns ............................................................... 40
5.4 Uncertainties ................................................................................................................. 40
5.4.1 Data uncertainties ................................................................................................... 40
5.4.2 Model uncertainties ................................................................................................. 41
5.4.3 Impact assessment uncertainties ............................................................................ 41
5.5 Scenario analysis ............................................................................................................ 42
5.5.1 Renewable energy in spinning for conventional virgin cotton yarns in China and
India.................................................................................................................................. 42
5.5.2 Recycled cotton yarns in China ............................................................................... 43
5.6 Sensitivity analysis .........................................................................................................44
5.6.1 Analyzing water scarcity with the method by Hoekstra et al. (2012) ......................44
6. Assessing IKEA’s future water consumption ....................................................................... 45
7. Discussion and recommendations .......................................................................................46
7.1 Sustainability actions ......................................................................................................46
7.2 Data collection and inventory modelling .......................................................................46
7.3 Sustainability decision-making ...................................................................................... 47
8. Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................48
9. References ............................................................................................................................ 49
Appendix I – Recycled cotton inventory questionnaire .......................................................... 54
Appendix II - Inventory calculations ....................................................................................... 55
Appendix III - Characterization results ................................................................................... 56
viiiList of Tables
Table 1: IKEA’s actions in connection to the SDGs goals (IKEA, 2020b, pp.83-84).
Table 2: Environmental principles in the Better Cotton standard (Better Cotton Initiative,
2018).
Table 3: Overview of previous LCA studies of cotton.
Table 4: Life cycle stages considered for virgin cotton.
Table 5: Life cycle stages considered for recycled cotton.
Table 6: Choice of LCIA impact categories and the relevance to IKEA’s sustainability goals.
Table 7: Choice of LCIA methods.
Table 8: Datasets used for modelling virgin cotton yarns, India.
Table 9: Datasets used for modelling virgin cotton yarns, China.
Table 10: Datasets used for modelling virgin cotton yarns, Pakistan.
Table 11: Datasets used for modelling virgin cotton yarns, US.
Table 12: Datasets used for modelling virgin cotton yarns, Brazil.
Table 13: Datasets used for modelling recycled cotton yarns, Country x.
Table 14: Datasets used for modelling renewable energy share, Country x.
Table 15: Sub-assemblies used for modelling mixed cotton yarns, 50% recycled 50% virgin,
China.
Table 16: Sub-assemblies used for modelling mixed cotton yarns, 25% recycled 75% virgin,
China.
Table 17: Environmental and economic indicators reported by BCI for FY18-19 (Better Cotton
Initiative, 2021d).
ixList of Figures
Figure 1: Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle of virgin cotton yarns
Figure 2: Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle of recycled cotton yarns
Figure 3: Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle of virgin cotton yarns.
Figure 4: Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle of recycled cotton yarns.
Figure 5: Comparative results for the impacts of 100% virgin yarns, mixed yarns 75/25 (75%
virgin plus 25% recycled), mixed yarns 50/50 (50% virgin plus 50% recycled).
Figure 6: Split of the impacts by life cycle stages of the recycled yarns.
Figure 7: Country-wise comparative results for water consumption of conventional virgin
yarns (ReCiPe Midpoint (H) 2016 method).
Figure 8: Country-wise comparative results for water scarcity footprint of conventional virgin
yarns (AWARE method).
Figure 9: Split of water consumption of conventional virgin yarns by life cycle stages in China
and Pakistan.
Figure 10: Country-wise comparative results for freshwater eutrophication of conventional
virgin yarns (ReCiPe Midpoint (H) 2016 method).
Figure 11: Split of freshwater eutrophication impact of conventional virgin yarns by life cycle
stages in China and India.
Figure 12: Country-wise comparative results for marine eutrophication impact of conventional
virgin yarns (ReCiPe Midpoint (H) 2016 method).
Figure 13: Split of marine eutrophication impact of conventional virgin yarns by life cycle
stages in China and India.
Figure 14: Country-wise comparative results for aquatic acidification of conventional virgin
yarns (IMPACT 2002+ method).
Figure 15: Split of aquatic acidification impact of conventional virgin yarns by life cycle stages
in China and India.
Figure 16: Country-wise comparative results for freshwater ecotoxicity impact of conventional
virgin yarns (USEtox 2.0 method).
Figure 17: Split of freshwater ecotoxicity impact of conventional virgin yarns by life cycle stages
in China and India.
Figure 18: Country-wise comparative results for human toxicity, cancer impact of conventional
virgin yarns (USEtox 2.0 method).
Figure 19: Split of human toxicity, cancer impact of conventional virgin yarns by life cycle
stages in China and India.
xFigure 20: Country-wise comparative results for human toxicity, non-cancer impact of
conventional virgin yarns (USEtox 2.0 method).
Figure 21: Split of human toxicity, non-cancer impact of conventional virgin yarns by life cycle
stages in China and India.
Figure 22: Country-wise comparative results for climate change impact of conventional virgin
yarns (IPCC GWP100a method).
Figure 23: Split of climate change impact of conventional virgin yarns by life cycle stages in
China and India.
Figure 24: Water consumption per unit BCI yarns compared to conventional virgin yarns in
China, India, and Pakistan.
Figure 25: Comparison of renewable and conventional energy in spinning for conventional
virgin yarns, China.
Figure 26: Comparison of renewable and conventional energy in spinning for conventional
virgin yarns, India.
Figure 27: Comparative results for the impacts of “China virgin yarn 100/0”, “China mixed
yarn 50/50” and “China-Country x mixed yarn 50/50”.
Figure 28: Water use impacts by AWARE and Hoekstra et al., 2012 methods across countries.
Figure 29: Percentage change in water consumption from cotton yarns for IKEA in FY25 and
FY30 in future scenarios.
xiAbbreviations
BCI Better Cotton Initiative
FY Financial Year
GHG Greenhouse Gas
ISO International Organization for Standardization
Kg Kilogram
kWh Kilowatt Hours
LCA Life Cycle Assessment
LCI Life Cycle Inventory
LCIA Life Cycle Impact Assessment
TBC Towards Better Cotton
WWF World Wildlife Fund
Glossary of terms
Better Cotton:
Cotton grown according to the Better Cotton Standard by BCI.
Towards Better Cotton:
Cotton grown by farmers working towards the Better Cotton Standard by BCI.
xii1. Introduction
Cotton is the most used natural fiber in the production of textiles. It made up 23% of the total
textile fiber market in 2020, second only to polyester fibers (Textile Exchange, 2020, p. 6).
Cotton continues to be the preferred fiber for its superior mechanical properties including
strength, durability, and absorption in addition to being a soft, comfortable, and washable
material (Ravandi and Valizadeh, 2011). Despite such surpassing qualities compared to other
fibers, cotton accounts for high environmental impacts, which have been well documented
(Thinkstep and Cotton Incorporated, 2016; Quantis, 2018).
The production of cotton textiles shows particularly high impacts related to freshwater
withdrawal and ecosystem quality (Quantis, 2018, p. 20). A large fraction of the environmental
impacts related to cotton textiles occur in the production stages such as fiber production, yarn
production, fabric preparation, and dyeing and finishing (Quantis, 2018, p.19; Roos et al.,
2016, p. 695). However, the magnitude of impacts shows huge variations depending on the
suppliers’ locations, the farming practices such as irrigation, pesticides and fertilizer use,
tillage, use of genetically modified cotton varieties, etc. (Sandin et al., 2019, pp. 30-33).
In light of the vast environmental impacts caused by textiles, and especially cotton, companies
around the world have taken part in initiatives to mitigate impacts, such as the well-known
work of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation on circularity, in which IKEA, a multinational home
furnishing company, has taken part. Under such a partnership, IKEA has committed to
accelerate the circular economy transition by giving products and materials an extended life
through reuse, refurbishment, remanufacturing, and recycling as a last resource (IKEA,
2020a).
In addition, IKEA has set high sustainability ambitions such as becoming ‘Climate Positive’
and transforming their business to 100% circular by 2030 (IKEA, 2020b, p. 22). It has also
committed to protect ecosystems and improve biodiversity (ibid.). Cotton is used by IKEA in
various products such as sofas, cushions, bedsheets, and curtains. In 2020, IKEA used about
0.5% of the total cotton lint produced in the world (IKEA, 2020b, p. 49). Thus, given cotton’s
high environmental impacts, it is an important raw material for IKEA’s sustainability agenda.
Since 2015, IKEA has sourced its cotton from more sustainable sources such as the Better
Cotton Initiative (BCI), Towards Better Cotton (TBC), the e3 Sustainable Cotton program, and
recycled cotton (ibid.). It has also been involved in partnerships with the World Wildlife Fund
(WWF) in various sustainability projects regarding cotton cultivation (ibid.).
Considering the focus of IKEA on circularity and sustainable cotton cultivation, this thesis
report estimates the potential environmental impacts of mechanically recycled cotton yarns
and virgin yarns (conventional and Better Cotton) across the countries supplying cotton to
IKEA. Scenarios to gauge the potential of recycled cotton to reduce water consumption in the
future are also analyzed.
12. Aim and research questions
The purpose of this study is to inform IKEA about the environmental hotspots and trade-offs
of virgin and mixed (virgin plus recycled) cotton yarns used in their supply chain. Particularly,
the study focuses on water-related impacts and climate change. In addition, the study explores
what are the potential environmental impacts of increasing the percentage of recycled cotton
in the mixed yarns. The purpose of the study is achieved by performing a comparative
environmental Life Cycle Assessment of virgin (two types - conventional cotton and Better
Cotton) yarns, and mixed (virgin plus recycled) cotton yarns from some of the top supplier
countries of the company. The results of the study will be used to answer the following research
questions:
● What are the relevant potential environmental impacts and trade-offs for the life cycle
of these two types (virgin and mixed) of cotton yarns?
● What are the potential environmental impacts of increasing the percentage of recycled
cotton in the mixed yarns?
● How do the potential environmental impacts of virgin cotton yarn production vary
across the countries that supply cotton to IKEA?
● What are the differences between Better Cotton and conventional cotton in terms of
the potential environmental impacts?
3. Background
3.1 IKEA’s sustainability strategy and goals
IKEA’s ambition is “to become people and planet positive, and to inspire and enable many
people to live a better everyday life within the boundaries of the planet by 2030” (IKEA, 2020b,
p.12). IKEA states that their sustainability ambitions and commitments for 2030 are in line
with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (ibid.). SDG goals 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17
and IKEA’s action on them are of special relevance to this study, as summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. IKEA’s actions in connection to the SDGs goals (IKEA, 2020b, pp.83-84).
Nr. SDG goal IKEA’s action
6. Clean Water and ● Develop products and solutions related to the resource
Sanitation efficiency for consumption of water.
● Work towards Water Positive ambition.
7. Affordable and ● Develop products and solutions related to clean energy.
Clean Energy ● Aim for using 100% renewable energy throughout the
IKEA value chain.
12. Responsible ● To develop and promote affordable home furnishing
Consumption and solutions and knowledge, with the aim to improve people’s
Production ability to live within the limits of the planet.
● To strive for circular and sustainable consumption.
● To design all products for circularity, from reuse,
refurbish, remanufacture, and recycle.
● To strive for only using renewable or recycled materials.
2● To join forces with other stakeholders to enable a circular
society.
13. Climate Action ● Aim to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions
(GHG) from IKEA’s value chain, while still growing as a
business.
14. Life Below Water ● To lead regenerative projects to clean polluted waters and
protect biodiversity, including those to prevent plastic
pollutants from entering waterways and oceans.
15. Life On Land ● To source from more sustainable sources.
17. Partnerships for the ● To drive and support change together with others to reach
Goals the IKEA sustainability goals.
There are three focus areas within IKEA’s sustainability goals: Healthy & sustainable living,
Circular & climate positive, and Fair & equal. The first area works towards inspiring and
enabling people to live healthier and sustainable lives, also with promoting sustainable
consumption and circularity, and creating a movement within society about better everyday
living. The Circular and Climate positive area commits to become a circular business; to
become climate positive; and to regenerate resources, protect ecosystems, and improve
biodiversity. The last focus area, Fair & equal, aims to provide and support decent and
meaningful work along the value chain, to be an inclusive business and to promote equality
(IKEA, 2020b, p.13).
Within the Circular & climate positive focus, IKEA has defined strategic goals for 2030 for
becoming a circular business, which includes striving to only use renewable or recycled
materials, by incorporating and finding new sources and developing new materials but being
the main focus to reduce the use of materials and especially virgin materials. This commitment
is important for IKEA as they state that 60% of their products are based on renewable
materials, such as wood and cotton, and 10% contain recycled materials. Furthermore, they
mention that the need for recycled materials is necessary for enabling a circular society, which
is of importance since by increasing their demand for recycled materials and by sourcing waste
material responsibly, they state that they aim to prevent materials from polluting the
environment. However, there are challenges that IKEA faces with respect to using recycling
materials, such as availability, quality, technical issues in production, and end-of-life
collection (IKEA, 2020b, pp.22-27). Moreover, they state that to increase the use of recycled
materials, global sourcing needs to be significantly increased (IKEA, 2020b, p.56).
With respect to IKEA’s ambition to use responsibly sourced materials in their offer, including
renewable materials, they state that they aim to ensure that they have a positive impact by
regenerating resources, protecting ecosystems, and improving biodiversity. The main
challenges of sourcing renewable materials are that resource-intensive agricultural systems
contribute to deforestation, water scarcity, biodiversity loss, soil depletion and high levels of
GHGs and negative impacts on farmers and society. To tackle such challenges, IKEA works
with standards and sourcing materials from more sustainable sources. For example, since
2015 all of the cotton used for IKEA home furnishing solutions comes from sources defined as
more sustainable or recycled sources, such as BCI (IKEA, 2020b, pp.41-49).
Another important ambition for IKEA is towards becoming “water positive by being good
water stewards and improving the quality and availability of water for the people and the
planet, throughout the IKEA value chain” (IKEA, 2020b, p.57). Such a goal acknowledges the
3vulnerability to water stress that IKEA customers and suppliers encounter with, and the
deterioration of freshwater sources on a global scale, due to environmental impacts. IKEA has
identified four focus areas within becoming water positive, which are: to enable reduced water
consumption, to improve water quality, to increase water availability and to lead and influence
(IKEA, 2020b, p.57).
Such focus areas involve actions such as: create new ways to save water along the value chain
and from the customer’s side; advocate for and comply with harmonized discharge limits from
water treatment plants to prevent future deposits of pollutants on land and in water; develop
partnerships to establish long term goals and actions to enable increased water availability in
high and extremely water stressed areas, focusing on where the most water-intense raw
materials and manufacturing are; share knowledge to create awareness and demand collective
actions for improving water quality and increasing availability along IKEA’s value chain
(IKEA, 2020b, p.57).
IKEA’s work for 2021 includes creating new goals and KPIs, as well as a baseline,
benchmarking, and actions to go forward and to develop improvements of water quality and
availability. Moreover, yearly audits of water management and effluent water treatment plants
throughout the supply chain will continue, as they can help to get insights about the progress.
Furthermore, partnering with different players is necessary to reinforce actions where they are
mostly needed (IKEA, 2020b, p.57).
3.2 Cotton from more sustainable sources (CMSS)
IKEA has been sourcing all of its cotton from more sustainable sources since September 2015
(IKEA, 2020b, p. 42). More sustainable sources have been defined as “cotton grown to the
Better Cotton standard, by farmers working towards Better Cotton, recycled cotton and more
sustainable cotton from the USA (such as the e3 Cotton Program)”. The Better Cotton standard
is developed by the Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) - a global not-for-profit organization that
works with sustainable cotton cultivation and provides certification for the same (Better
Cotton Initiative, 2021a). IKEA was a founding member of BCI along with organizations such
as Adidas, Gap Inc., H&M, Oxfam, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and others (Better Cotton
Initiative, 2021b). The e3® Cotton Program is a similar certification scheme provided by BASF
in the US (BASF, 2021).
Better Cotton as per BCI was grown across 23 countries by about 2.1 million farmers as of
2018-19 and accounted for about 22% of the global cotton lint production (Better Cotton
Initiative, 2021c). The Better Cotton standard system by BCI provides a set of ‘Principles and
Criteria’ for providing a global definition of Better Cotton for these farmers. These relate to the
environmental, economic, and social dimensions of sustainability. The 7 principles in the
Better Cotton standard system are the broad sustainability requirements with respect to crop
protection practices, water stewardship, soil health, biodiversity and land use, fiber quality,
decent work, and management systems. Each principle has a set of criteria that must be met
and indicators that measure these criteria. In addition, BCI provides guidance for practical
implementation of these principles to comply with the requirements. Table 2. gives an
overview of the 4 environmental principles in the Better Cotton standard. (Better Cotton
Initiative, 2018)
4Table 2. Environmental principles in the Better Cotton standard (Better Cotton Initiative, 2018)
Sr. BCI Principle Main criteria/ actions to comply with the principle
No.
1. “BCI farmers minimize ● Adoption of Integrated Pest Management technologies.
the harmful impacts of ● Use of pest control techniques other than pesticides.
crop protection ● Phasing out use of highly hazardous, carcinogenic,
practices”
mutagenic, or reprotoxic substances in pesticides.
2. “BCI farmers promote ● Adoption of a Water Stewardship Plan by mapping and
water stewardship” understanding local water resources, identifying water
quantity and quality issues, exploring the potential of
rainwater harvesting, and mapping wetlands.
● Managing soil moisture by adopting cotton varieties
adapted to the region, optimizing the time of sowing,
mulching and conservation tillage, irrigation
scheduling, etc.
● Applying efficient irrigation practices such as sub-
surface drip irrigation, micro-irrigation, managing
water storage and conveyance structures.
● Managing water quality by minimizing pesticide run-off
and leaching, using organic pesticides, mechanical
weeding, synchronizing fertilizer supply with crop
demand and optimizing with respect to irrigation,
preventing soil erosion, run-off, and leaching of
nutrients, protecting wetland areas.
● Collaborative action with other water users,
governments, and society for sustainable water use at a
local level.
3. “BCI Farmers care for ● Identifying and analyzing the soil type, measuring
soil health” macro-nutrients and pH, and soil organic matter.
● Enhancing and maintaining soil structure by choosing
right tillage practices including low and zero-tillage and
avoiding soil compaction, crop rotation and
intercropping. Good soil structure helps in improving
water retention and availability due to increased
porosity.
● Enhancing and maintaining soil fertility by precision
agriculture technologies for fertilizer application.
4. “BCI Farmers ● Identifying and mapping biodiversity values in the
enhance biodiversity farming area such as natural vegetation, water bodies,
and use land riparian buffers, etc. along with external experts.
responsibly”
● Identifying and restoring areas degraded by erosion,
overgrazing, waterlogging, etc.
● Encouraging natural pest control by enhancing
populations of beneficial insects, use of organic
pesticides, cultural and mechanical control of pests.
5● Crop rotation
● Protecting riparian areas near water bodies from farm
runoff and soil erosion to improve water quality and
conserve the biodiversity supported by them.
Cotton cultivation is vulnerable to climate change as higher temperatures and changes in
precipitation could lead to reduced yields (Better Cotton Initiative, 2018, p. 153). The pressure
on water availability is also expected to increase especially in places already facing water stress
(ibid., p. 32). Within the BCI principles, the climate change mitigation strategies are related
to the fertilizer management methods that ensure minimized emissions of nitrous oxide - a
greenhouse gas and the management of soil carbon to increase carbon stocks. At the same
time, many of the principles and actions in Table 2 can be seen to help in climate change
adaptation as they build resilience in the farming system towards a range of soil and climatic
conditions. (ibid., p. 154)
Along with the certification schemes, IKEA has worked with the WWF on projects such as
weather-resilient cotton production in Jalna, India, agroforestry project along with BCI in
India which focused on conservation of wetlands, climate-resilient crop production in
Pakistan, as well as an agroforestry project in Pakistan where about 82000 trees were planted.
In Turkey, IKEA has partnered with WWF and established a multi-stakeholder platform to
develop a Water Stewardship model in the Buyuk Menderes river basin that can be replicated
in other parts of Turkey that grow cotton. In Dongying, China, a Towards Better Cotton project
was started with a local partner by IKEA in April 2020 (IKEA, 2020, p. 50) Thus, IKEA is
engaged with sustainable cotton cultivation at many levels.
3.3 Impacts related to water use in LCA
Impacts related to water use can be due to consumptive water use, degradative water use and
due to polluting emissions affecting water. Some terms related to water use to be considered
are-
1. Water withdrawal - refers to the total water that is input into a process or system
(Boulay et al., 2018)
2. Water consumption - refers to the part of the withdrawn water that is lost from the
original watershed or river basin due to integration into the product,
evapotranspiration, or release into other watersheds or the ocean (Boulay et al., 2018)
a. Blue water consumption – refers to the consumption of surface and
groundwater (Hoekstra et al., 2011a, p. 2)
b. Green water consumption – refers to the consumption of rainwater that does
not become run-off (Hoekstra et al., 2011a, p. 2)
3. Water degradation - refers to degradation of the quality of water which is released
back from the process to the same watershed compared to the quality of the withdrawn
water (Life Cycle Initiative, 2016)
Water consumption and degradation can lead to impacts on human health and ecosystems
due to lowered availability of water for other users while water degradation and polluting
emissions can also lead to direct impacts from pollution such as eutrophication, acidification,
and toxicity (ibid.).
The ISO 14046 standard on water footprinting relies on an LCA approach to estimate impacts
related to freshwater (Boulay et al., 2018). Impacts related to water use began to be included
in the LCA approach by using withdrawal-to-availability ratios (WTA) as characterization
6factors at the midpoint level (Frischknecht et al. 2008; Pfister et al. 2009 as cited in Boulay et
al., 2018). Here, availability refers to the hydrological availability of water considering
precipitation and evapotranspiration in the region. Later, water consumption-to-availability
(CTA) ratios were used in some methods, considering no impacts related to the water which is
withdrawn but is released back to the same region i.e., not considering water degradation
(ibid.).
However, the most recent consensus-based method - AWARE (available water remaining),
developed by Boulay et al. (2018) uses the inverse of availability minus demand (AMD) as a
factor. Here, demand refers to both the human and ecosystem demands of water. The
characterization factor in the AWARE method (CFAWARE) is a ratio of the world average AMD
and the AMD in the specific region. These factors are available at a sub-watershed level and
monthly time steps for regions across the globe. They are also aggregated to country-level and
annual time steps. The following equations give an overview of the calculation of CF AWARE.
Further details can be found in Boulay et al. (2018).
AMDi = (Availability - HWC - EWR)/Area (1)
where,
AMDi = AMD in region (watershed) i;
Availability = Actual runoff in the watershed (m3/month);
HWC = Human water consumption (m3/month);
EWR = Environmental water requirements (m3/month);
Area = Surface area in the watershed (m3)
Stei = 1/ AMDi (2)
where,
STei = surface-time equivalent required to generate one cubic
meter of unused water in the region (m2.month/ m3)
CFAWARE = STei / STeworld avg
= AMDworld avg/AMDi , for Demand < Availability (3)
where,
AMDworld avg = consumption weighted average of AMDi over the whole
world
= 0.0136 (m3/ m2.month)
Some cut-offs are applied to the characterization factor -
CFAWARE = Max
= 100, for Demand >= Availability or
AMDi < 0.01 * AMDworld avg (4a)
CFAWARE = Min
= 0.1, for AMDi > 10*AMDworld avg (4b)
The results from the impact assessment using AWARE method show the water scarcity
footprint (in m3 world eq.) which is calculated as -
Water scarcity footprint = Water consumption (inventory) * CFAWARE
This estimates “the potential to deprive another freshwater user (humans and ecosystem) by
consuming freshwater in that region” (ibid.).
7Water degradation i.e., quality issues can be considered within LCA through indicators for
eutrophication, acidification, ecotoxicity, and human toxicity (Boulay et al., 2015).
3.4 Literature review of previous LCA studies on cotton textiles
A literature review was carried out to get an overview of previous LCA studies of cotton textiles.
Life cycle assessment has been commonly used as a sustainability assessment tool for textile
materials and products. Table 3. shows an overview of previously done LCA studies relevant
for this thesis.
Table 3. Overview of previous LCA studies of cotton
Sr.
No. Article title Scope Reference
1 Measuring Fashion 2018: Environmental Impact of Cradle-to-grave Quantis, 2018
the Global Apparel and Footwear Industries Study
2 LCA benchmarking study on textiles made of Cradle-to-grave van der
cotton, polyester, nylon, acryl, or elastane Velden et al.,
2014
3 Environmental assessment of Swedish fashion Cradle-to-grave Roos et al.,
consumption. Five garments – sustainable futures 2015a
4 Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Cotton and Cradle-to-gate La Rosa and
Other Natural Fibers for Textile Applications Grammatikos
, 2019
5 Environmental impact of textile fibers – what we Cradle-to-gate Sandin et al.,
know and what we don’t know 2019
6 Environmental assessment of colored fabrics and Cradle to factory Terinte et al.,
opportunities for value creation: spin-dyeing gate 2014
versus conventional dyeing of modal fabrics
7 Is Unbleached Cotton Better Than Bleached? Cradle-to-gate Roos et al.,
Exploring the Limits of Life-Cycle Assessment in 2015b
the Textile Sector
8 An inventory framework for inclusion of textile Cradle-to-grave Roos et al.,
chemicals in life cycle assessment 2018
9 The life cycle assessment of organic cotton fiber- a Cradle-to-farm Textile
global average gate Exchange,
2014
10 A case study of life cycle inventory of cotton curtain Cradle-to-grave Yasin et al.,
2014
11 LCA update of cotton fiber and fabric life cycle Cradle-to-grave Thinkstep
inventory and Cotton
Incorporated,
2016
12 Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) of a White Cotton T-shirt Cradle-to-cradle Khan et
and Investigation of Sustainability Hot Spots: A al.,2018
Case Study.
813 Life Cycle Assessment of Organic, BCI and Cradle-to-gate Shah et al.,
Conventional Cotton: A Comparative Study of 2018
Cotton Cultivation Practices in India
14 Life Cycle Assessment of Cotton Cultivation Cradle-to- Thinkstep,
Systems - Better Cotton, Conventional Cotton and farmgate 2018
Organic Cotton
15 A Carbon Footprint of Textile Recycling: A Case Gate‐to‐grave Zamani et al.,
Study in Sweden 2015
16 Environmental life cycle assessment of textile bio- Gate-to-cradle Subramanian
recycling et al., 2020
17 LCA on recycling cotton Cradle-to-gate Wendin, M.,
2016
18 Could the recycled yarns substitute for the virgin Cradle-to-gate Liu et al.,
cotton yarns: a comparative LCA 2020
19 Environmental impact of Recover cotton in textile Cradle-to-gate Esteve-
industry and cradle-to- Turrillas and
grave de la Guardia,
2017
The first study in table 3 provides a general overview of the environmental impacts of the
apparel and footwear industries. Studies 2 to 5 analyze the environmental impacts of different
textiles, fibres, and garments. Studies 6 to 8 assess environmental impacts of textiles,
comparing choices related to spinning methods, bleaching, and the use of chemicals. Studies
9 to 14 focus on cotton, including cradle-to-gate and cradle-to-grave perspectives, and the
different types of cotton, such as organic, conventional, and BCI. Lastly, studies 15 to 19
analyze the environmental impacts of different recycling techniques, including mechanical
recycling of cotton yarns.
Out of these, some particularly relevant studies are the ones by Wendin (2016), Liu et al.
(2020), Thinkstep (2018), Shah et al. (2018), and Esteve-Turrillas and de la Guardia (2017).
The study by Wendin (2016) compared virgin vs. recycled fibers from a cradle-to-(ginning)
gate perspective. The hotspots were found in the cotton cultivation for virgin fiber, while for
recycled fiber the hotspots were sea and land transport. The study by Liu et al. (2020) also
compared virgin and recycled yarns but on a cradle-to-(spinning) gate perspective. The
hotspots were cotton cultivation for virgin yarns, mostly from land occupation and irrigation;
and spinning for recycled yarns, due to electricity use. From a water depletion perspective,
recycled cotton was superior to virgin cotton because of the water consumption used in
irrigation.
The study by Esteve-Turrillas and de la Guardia (2017) compared recovered cotton from
recycled garments, and virgin cotton cultivated from traditional and organic crops. The results
showed that organic cotton had reductions of impacts such as acidification potential,
eutrophication potential and water use, however there was only a slight reduction for climate
change. Furthermore, there were reductions in all impact categories considered by using
recovered cotton, since cultivation, ginning, and dyeing processes were replaced by a high
9efficacy cutting and shredding process. Therefore, recovered cotton noticeably reduced
environmental impacts compared to both types of virgin cotton.
The studies by Thinkstep (2018) and Shah et al. (2018) compared BCI, conventional, and
organic cotton on a cradle-to-farm gate perspective, which focuses on cotton cultivation
systems. The study by Thinkstep (2018) analyzed the region of Khargone district in the state
of Madhya Pradesh in India. The results showed that organic cotton had less environmental
impacts than BCI, which had very similar impacts as conventional cotton. The main hotspots
were found in the energy used in irrigation, tractor operations, pesticides and fertilizers
production, emissions from composts, etc. Moreover, the yield played a predominant role, as
higher yield together with good agriculture practices could optimize resource consumption
and improve environmental impacts.
The study by Shah et al. (2018) analyzed the cotton cultivation in the state of Maharashtra,
India. The results showed that organic cotton had a better environmental performance in most
categories compared to BCI and conventional cotton. However, in the case of blue water
consumption, BCI had a slightly lower impact compared to organic cotton. Organic cotton
showed the lowest impacts in mostly all categories due to the avoidance of synthetic pesticides
and chemical fertilizers. The only additives were manures, and the soil quality was controlled
by crop rotation. Not significant differences were observed between BCI and conventional
cotton yield.
Performing literature review of LCA studies on cotton textiles revealed that further research
is needed for country-level comparisons for conventional virgin yarns, country-level
comparisons for BCI cotton, and a specific analysis for IKEA’s recycled cotton process.
4. Methodology
This chapter explains the research methodology used in this thesis. The methodology included
a literature review about LCA studies for cotton textiles and sustainable cotton cultivation as
seen in sections 3.3 and 3.4. This was done to develop an understanding of the current research
in the field and define the aim and scope of the project. Next, to answer the research questions
formulated in the aim of the study, performing an environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
was considered a suitable method. LCAs are considered an appropriate tool to find hotspots
in the potential environmental impacts of products and materials and to compare them
(Graedel & Allenby, 2010). Methods such as questionnaires and interviews were used within
the LCA method to collect data. The environmental LCA method is further described in section
4.1. Another method used was a scenario analysis to estimate the future water consumption of
cotton yarns in IKEA. This is explained further in section 4.2.
4.1 Life Cycle Assessment
LCA is an environmental assessment tool that analyzes and quantifies material flows and
emissions that happen throughout the product life cycle: raw material acquisition,
manufacture, use, and end of life. LCA is a convenient tool for comparisons between products
or materials and it can suggest improvements to reduce environmental impacts (Graedel &
Allenby, 2010, p. 161). An LCA can help answer questions like: what is the potential impact of
a product system? Which product, material, or process has the lowest environmental
contribution throughout a life cycle? What changes to the actual system could affect the
potential environmental impacts across the life cycle? Which process affects the least to the
impact categories analyzed? How changes in the life cycle can be modified to reduce
environmental impacts of concern? (Curran, 2015). LCA studies can be conducted for different
scopes: a-cradle-to-grave analysis includes all the steps from raw materials until disposal;
10whereas a cradle-to-gate analysis considers the steps from raw materials until factory gate,
which refers to manufacturing (Pre-sustainability, 2020).
A LCA can be performed to describe a single system -known as stand-alone LCA, or to compare
two or more systems -known as comparative LCA. Stand-alone LCAs are used to examine a
product and identify improvements along the life cycle to reduce environmental impacts.
Furthermore, this type of LCA can be helpful to set product baselines to measure future
improvements. Comparative LCAs are used to analyze for example different alternatives of
products, or design options (Curran, 2015).
In addition, depending on the goal and scope, LCA can be modelled as two different
perspectives - accounting or consequential LCA. Consequential modelling analyzes the
consequences of a change compared to a baseline scenario. On the other hand, accounting or
attributional modelling analyzes the environmental impact of a product and the hotspots
throughout the life cycle. Therefore, the results of an attributional LCA are referred to as an
environmental footprint (Pre-sustainability, 2016).
LCA is a standardized methodology, the standards are determined by the International
Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) in ISO 14040 and 14044. The organization states that
LCA should include the stages: Goal and scope definition, Inventory analysis, Impact
assessment and Interpretation (Pre-sustainability, 2020). In the first stage, goal and scope
definition, the objective is to define the functional unit, the reference flow and the choice of
material or product alternatives (Ligthart & Ansems, 2012). During the second stage, life cycle
inventory, materials and energy that are required in each process of the life cycle are quantified
in the form of inputs and outputs. The last stage of the LCA process, life cycle impact
assessment, consists of analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the outputs of the
system (Graedel & Allenby 2010, pp. 163-164). The interpretation stage has the purpose of
ensuring that conclusions are well-substantiated (Pre-sustainability, 2020).
4.1.1 Goal and scope
The Goal and scope stage provides a clear definition of the product or material to be studied,
its life cycle, the function it fulfills (functional unit), and a description of the system boundaries
(Pre-sustainability, 2020). The functional unit describes the function that a product fulfills, it
is a quantified description of the service that a product system provides. A reference flow is
the amount of product that is needed for a product system to carry out the performance stated
by a functional unit (Curran, 2015). In addition, this stage states the reason for executing the
LCA; description about data and data quality requirements, assumptions, and limitations;
requirements and methods regarding the LCIA procedure; intended audiences (Pre-
sustainability, 2016). Section 5.1 describes the goal and scope of the LCA performed in this
project.
4.1.2 Life Cycle Inventory
A Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) has the purpose of quantifying inputs and outputs for a product
throughout its life cycle. Such inputs and outputs data are calculated for each unit process in
the life cycle. A unit process can be described as the processes involved in the life cycle of a
product, from raw material extraction to the end-of-life. E.g., cultivation of cotton, production
of furniture, use of a t-shirt, recycling of wastepaper, transport by lorry (Curran, 2015). Inputs
can be, for example, raw materials or energy. Whereas outputs are for example emissions of
pollutants, waste, by-products (Pre-sustainability, 2020).
Data sources in LCI can be either primary or secondary. Primary data is that which comes
directly from the source, such as: interviews, questionnaires, surveys, bookkeeping, on-site
measurements. Secondary data can come from: databases, statistics, literature (Curran, 2015).
11Another way to define data types in LCI can be as foreground data and background data.
Foreground data relates to specific data needed to collect for modelling a system. This data
describes a specific product system or a specialized production system. On the other hand,
background data is used to produce generic materials, energy, transport, and waste
management, which can be found in databases or literature (Pre-sustainability, 2016).
One particular challenge arises in LCA when it comes to allocating or dividing environmental
burdens among different by-products or processes that have multiple inflows and outflows.
One way to solve this issue is to apply a system boundary expansion, which considers all
products affected by secondary material flows of the original product. However, this method
can become unmanageable due to data collection (Nicholson et al., 2009). Another way to
approach this challenge is to use the cut-off method, whereof the primary production of
materials is allocated to the primary user of a material. This implies for recycled products that
the primary producer does not get any credit for the supply of any recyclable materials. In
other words, recyclable materials are burden-free of impacts to recycling processes, and
secondary (recycled) materials only get the impacts of the recycling processes (Ecoinvent,
2021). Section 5.2 describes the Life Cycle Inventory for the LCA performed in this project.
4.1.3 Life Cycle Impact Assessment
The Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) in LCA aims to quantify and evaluate the potential
environmental impacts of the flows in the inventory throughout the life cycle of a product or
service. For example, the CO2, CH4, N2O quantified emissions of a product can be analyzed to
determine the potential contribution to climate change. However, LCIA methodology does not
intend to quantify site-specific impacts, instead it converts inventory results to common units
and aggregates such converted results within an impact category. With the modelling of
impact pathways, LCIA evaluates potential ecological, and human effects, and resource
depletion (Curran, 2015).
In LCA, there are two different ways to analyze environmental impacts: as a midpoint or
endpoint approach. Such approaches look at different stages in the cause-effect chain to
calculate the impacts (Pre-sustainability, 2014). Midpoint indicators address single
environmental problems, for example climate change. Whereas endpoint indicators address
the environmental impact on higher aggregation levels, some examples are effect on human
health (in DALYs), ecosystem (PDF - species.yr) and resource scarcity (cost increase) (Bulle et
al., 2019). Section 5.3 describes the LCIA step and presents the results of it for the LCA
performed in this project.
4.1.4 Life Cycle Interpretation
Two objectives are identified in the Life Cycle Interpretation stage:
1. To analyze results, develop conclusions, indicate limitations, and provide transparent
recommendations based on the findings from the preceding stages in LCA.
2. To present understandable, complete, and consistent results in accordance with the
goal and scope of the LCA study (Curran, 2015).
4.2 Scenario analysis - Assessing future water consumption
After obtaining the results of the LCA, an assessment of future water consumption by cotton
yarns was done for IKEA to guide decision-making. Here, assumptions were made about the
growth in cotton volumes based on the business growth of IKEA. The financial year 2019 was
considered as the baseline year. Two scenarios were created for the growth in recycled cotton
volumes until the financial years 2025 and 2030. The results were compared to a business-as-
12You can also read
