Reducing environmental impacts from garments through best practice garment use and care, using the example of a Merino wool sweater

Abstract

Purpose
Garment production and use generate substantial environmental impacts, and the care and use are key determinants of cradle-to-grave impacts. The present study investigated the potential to reduce environmental impacts by applying best practices for garment care combined with increased garment use. A wool sweater is used as an example because wool garments have particular attributes that favour reduced environmental impacts in the use phase.

Methods
A cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment (LCA) was used to compare six plausible best and worst-case practice scenarios for use and care of a wool sweater, relative to current practices. These focussed on options available to consumers to reduce impacts, including reduced washing frequency, use of more efficient washing machines, reduced use of machine clothing dryers, garment reuse by multiple users, and increasing number of garment wears before disposal. A sixth scenario combined all options. Worst practices took the worst plausible alternative for each option investigated. Impacts were reported per wear in Western Europe for climate change, fossil energy demand, water stress and freshwater consumption.

Results and discussion
Washing less frequently reduced impacts by between 4 and 20%, while using more efficient washing machines at capacity reduced impacts by 1 to 6%, depending on the impact category. Reduced use of machine dryer reduced impacts by < 5% across all indicators. Reusing garments by multiple users increased life span and reduced impacts by 25–28% across all indicators. Increasing wears from 109 to 400 per garment lifespan had the largest effect, decreasing impacts by 60% to 68% depending on the impact category. Best practice care, where garment use was maximised and care practices focussed on the minimum practical requirements, resulted in a ~ 75% reduction in impacts across all indicators. Unsurprisingly, worst-case scenarios increased impacts dramatically: using the garment once before disposal increased GHG impacts over 100 times.

Conclusions
Wool sweaters have potential for long life and low environmental impact in use, but there are substantial differences between the best, current and worst-case scenarios. Detailed information about garment care and lifespans is needed to understand and reduce environmental impacts. Opportunities exist for consumers to rapidly and dramatically reduce these impacts. The fashion industry can facilitate this through garment design and marketing that promotes and enables long wear life and minimal care.

Full text

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01909-x
LCA FORMANUFACTURING ANDNANOTECHNOLOGY
Reducing environmental impacts fromgarments throughbest
practice garment use andcare, using theexample ofaMerino wool
sweater
StephenG.Wiedemann1· LeoBiggs1· QuanV.Nguyen1· SimonJ.Clarke1· KirsiLaitala2· IngunG.Klepp2
Received: 7 October 2020 / Accepted: 4 April 2021
© The Author(s) 2021
Abstract
Purpose Garment production and use generate substantial environmental impacts, and the care and use are key determinants
of cradle-to-grave impacts. The present study investigated the potential to reduce environmental impacts by applying best
practices for garment care combined with increased garment use. A wool sweater is used as an example because wool gar-
ments have particular attributes that favour reduced environmental impacts in the use phase.
Methods A cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment (LCA) was used to compare six plausible best and worst-case practice
scenarios for use and care of a wool sweater, relative to current practices. These focussed on options available to consumers
to reduce impacts, including reduced washing frequency, use of more efficient washing machines, reduced use of machine
clothing dryers, garment reuse by multiple users, and increasing number of garment wears before disposal. A sixth scenario
combined all options. Worst practices took the worst plausible alternative for each option investigated. Impacts were reported
per wear in Western Europe for climate change, fossil energy demand, water stress and freshwater consumption.
Results and discussion Washing less frequently reduced impacts by between 4 and 20%, while using more efficient washing
machines at capacity reduced impacts by 1 to 6%, depending on the impact category. Reduced use of machine dryer reduced
impacts by < 5% across all indicators. Reusing garments by multiple users increased life span and reduced impacts by 25–28%
across all indicators. Increasing wears from 109 to 400 per garment lifespan had the largest effect, decreasing impacts by 60% to
68% depending on the impact category. Best practice care, where garment use was maximised and care practices focussed on
the minimum practical requirements, resulted in a ~ 75% reduction in impacts across all indicators. Unsurprisingly, worst-case
scenarios increased impacts dramatically: using the garment once before disposal increased GHG impacts over 100 times.
Conclusions Wool sweaters have potential for long life and low environmental impact in use, but there are substantial differ-
ences between the best, current and worst-case scenarios. Detailed information about garment care and lifespans is needed
to understand and reduce environmental impacts. Opportunities exist for consumers to rapidly and dramatically reduce these
impacts. The fashion industry can facilitate this through garment design and marketing that promotes and enables long wear
life and minimal care.
Keywords Apparel· Textiles· Carbon· Water· Footprint· LCA· Use phase
1 Introduction
The clothing industry is responsible for substantial environ-
mental impacts, and these are well understood in relation to
the production, manufacturing and use phases of garment
life cycles (Steinberger etal. 2009; Glew etal. 2012; Muthu
2014, 2015; Henry etal. 2019). The use phase of a garment
life cycle is a hotspot for resource use and environmental
impacts. For example, 50 to ~ 80% of energy use may be
attributed to the use phase of garments that are washed
frequently (Yasin etal. 2016) and over 70% of the GHG
Communicated by Barbara Nebel.
* Stephen G. Wiedemann
stephen.wiedemann@integrityag.net.au
1 Integrity Ag & Environment, 10511 New England Highway,
Highfields, QLD4352, Australia
2 Consumption Research Norway (SIFO), Oslo Metropolitan
University, 0130Oslo, Norway
/ Published online: 19 April 2021
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:1188–1197
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

emissions in the life cycle of a cotton T-shirt may occur after
purchase (Steinberger etal. 2009). For a wool sweater, gar-
ment care accounted for 12–31% of the direct environmental
impacts of the whole supply chain, depending on impact
categories assessed (Wiedemann etal. 2020).
To quantify the environmental impacts of the use phase
in a garment life cycle, data on garment care (Schmitz and
Stamminger 2014; Laitala etal. 2018) and utilisation (Farrant
etal. 2010; Dahlbo etal. 2017; Laitala etal. 2017a; Fei
etal. 2020) are of primary importance. Wool is a fibre type
of interest because wool fabrics have odour-resistant prop-
erties (Laing 2019; McQueen and Vaezafshar 2020). The
cradle-to-grave environmental impacts of a wool sweater
were recently reported by Wiedemann etal. (2020), show-
ing that the total lifespan of the garment was the single most
influential factor on environmental impacts. While that study
utilised average consumer survey data to determine the most
common current garment use practices, a wide range in con-
sumer behaviour was observed: the maximum garment use
was much higher than the average, and washing practices
varied substantially for the same garment in ways that are
likely to influence environmental impacts. These findings
suggest that opportunities exist for improvement by optimis-
ing garment care and use (here termed ‘best practice’ care).
This paper therefore aimed to extend the findings of the cra-
dle-to-grave research by examining best practice care, using
plausible scenarios that could be adopted by consumers, and
contrasting these with both current practice and ‘worst case’
practices. The objective was to provide recommendations for
the fashion industry, authorities and consumers to minimise
the environmental impact of wool garments.
2 Materials andmethods
2.1 Goal andscope
The goal of this study was to examine the potential for con-
sumers to reduce the environmental impacts of a wool gar-
ment worn in Western Europe. An attributional life cycle
assessment (aLCA) model was applied in this study to quan-
tify the benefits of different best practice consumer activities
on the full life cycle impacts of a wool garment. The method
was consistent with ISO 14044 (ISO 2006), ISO 14046(ISO
2014) and wool LCA guidelines (IWTO 2016). The total
resource use and emissions to air, water and landwere
modelled for the full life cycle (i.e. cradle-to-grave system
boundary). The garment supply chain included Merino wool
production in Australia, wool processing and garment manu-
facture in China, and garment use and disposal in the Western
Europe, as described by the companion paper (Wiedemann
etal. 2020).
The functional unit was one wear of a wool sweater
(pullover) weighing 0.3kg (Wiedemann etal. 2020) used
in Western Europe. The use phase included garment retail,
garment reuse and garment care. Garment retail included
consumer transport to purchase the garment and the material
and energy requirements associated with its sale in a cloth-
ing store. Garment reuse was a function of the number of
garment wear events and the rate of reuse (i.e. wears after
a first user). Garment care practices included washing and
drying processes.
2.2 Impact assessment
The impact categories of climate change, fossil energy
demand, freshwater consumption and water stress were
assessed using SimaPro 9.1 (Pré-Consultants 2020). These
impact categories were chosen because (1) they were the
focus of the companion paper (Wiedemann etal. 2020) and
(2) because previous research has shown the use phase may
be a hotspot for these impacts (Steinberger etal. 2009; Cot-
ton Inc. 2016; Zamani etal. 2017; Moazzem etal. 2018).
For GWP, the AR5 100-year global warming potential
(GWP100) values (IPCC 2013) were applied with charac-
terisation factors for methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O)
of 28 and 265kg CO2-eq, respectively. The GWP impacts
excluded emissions from land-use change (e.g. gases from
land transformation), which were found to be negligible in
previous research assessing wool production at the farm-
scale in Australia (Wiedemann etal. 2016a, b). Fossil fuel
energy demand was assessed from an inventory of fossil fuel
use throughout the system and was reported in megajoules
(MJ) with lower heating values (LHV). Cumulative energy
demand (CED) was also used to access the total energy
demand inclusive of renewable energy and reported in MJ
LHV. Freshwater consumption was calculated as the total
volume (in litres, L) of freshwater consumed throughout the
supply chain including water supply losses. Water stress was
assessed using the water stress index (WSI) (Pfister etal.
2009) and reported in litre water equivalents (H2O-e) (Rid-
outt and Pfister 2010).
2.3 Inventory data anddescription ofscenarios
Foreground inventory data for wool fibre production, wool
processing and garment manufacturing were taken from
Wiedemann etal. (2016a) and Wiedemann etal. (2018).
Impacts from current practice (CP) were described thor-
oughly in Wiedemann etal. (2020) (see Section3), and this
was used as the reference for best practice and worst case
scenarios. Inventory data for best practices were from the lit-
erature (e.g. Laitala etal. 2018) and survey data presented in
Wiedemann etal. (2020). Background inventory data from
the ecoinvent ‘attributional’ v3.6 database (Wernet etal.
1189The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:1188–1197
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2016) and the AusLCI database (ALCAS 2015) were used
for electricity production and supply, wastewater treatment
and the transport of inputs needed for the production of raw
materials.
For all scenarios, it was assumed that the average portion
of machine washing, hand washing and dry-cleaning was
63%, 27% and 10% respectively (Wiedemann etal. 2020).
For reused garments, it was assumed that the total num-
ber of wears was 50% less than new garments (Wiedemann
etal. 2020). The collection and sorting process for reused
garments included a single wash. The energy required for
laundering was a dependent parameter, influenced by the
consumer washing machine and dryer model choices and
their laundering methods. Consumer washing and drying
practices were explored in a series of scenarios. These sce-
narios are summarised below, their key parameters are sum-
marised in Table1 and the parameter values are presented
in Table2.
Scenario 1—washing frequency. Wool garments can be
worn longer between washing intervals than garments made
of other fibre types because of the natural odour resistant
properties of wool (Laing 2019; McQueen and Vaezafshar
2020). Airing is a traditional way of keeping wool cloth-
ing free of odour (Laitala etal. 2017a). A survey of Dutch
Table 1 Best and worst
practice scenarios for consumer
behaviour
a See Table2 for parameter values
Relevant practices Relevant parameteraScenario Scenario ID Key practices
Current All relevant parameters Current practice CP Current practice
Washing Days wear per wash (days) Scenario 1 S1B Best practice
S1W Worst practice
Washing load size (kg) Scenario 2 S2B Best practice
S2W Worst practice
Drying Drying method Scenario 3 S3B Best practice
S3W Worst practice
Lifespan Total wearing events (days) Scenario 4 S4B Best practice
S4W Worst practice
Reuse Rate of reuse Scenario 5 S5B Best practice
S5W Worst practice
Use phase All the above Scenario 6 S6B Best practice (a
combination of
all best prac-
tices)
S6W Worst practice
(a combination
of all the worst
practices)
Table 2 Key parameters for garment care, garment use and end of life inventory for the current practice (CP), best practice (B) and worst case
(W) scenarios1
a Data from survey and inventory reported in Wiedemann etal. (2020) unless noted in text
b Current practice (CP)
c Scenarios are described in the text and Table1
Parameter Unit CPaS1BcS1W S2B S2W S3B S3W S4B S4W S5B S5W S6B S6W
Days wear per wash Days 5.2 14.0 1.0 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 14.0 1.0
Wears (first user) Wear 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 400 1 79 79 400 1
Washing load (garment mass) kg 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.1 0.3 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.1 0.3
Energy, washing machine kWh/kg 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.40 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.40
Water per machine load L 46.0 46.0 46.0 43.0 55.3 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 43.0 55.3
Dried, tumble dried % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Dried, heated house % 41.1 41.1 41.1 41.1 41.1 0.0 0.0 41.1 41.1 41.1 41.1 0.0 0.0
Dried, line or unheated house % 44.0 44.0 44.0 44.0 44.0 50.0 0.0 44.0 44.0 44.0 44.0 50.0 0.0
Rate of reuse % 76.1 76.1 76.1 76.1 76.1 76.1 76.1 0 0 200 0 0 0
1190 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:1188–1197
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

households (Uitdenbogerd etal. 1998) showed that those
who commonly aired their garments conducted 22.5% fewer
washes than the average household. More recent studies on
laundering practices found that wool garments were worn
more days between cleaning cycles than garments made of
other fibres (Laitala etal.2018, 2020), indicating that airing
of wool garments is practised by many consumers. However,
large variations exist in how many times a wool garment is
worn before it is washed; responses varied from 1 to more
than 30 wears, and in some cases, garments had not been
washed since purchase (Wiedemann etal. 2020). In this
study, the best practice washing frequency (S1B) of 14 wears
per wash was selected as a realistic target for consumers of a
wool sweater. One wear per wash was selected as the worst
practice washing frequency (S1W) and is representative of
approximately 10% of consumers (Wiedemann etal. 2020).
Scenario 2—washing method. A washing machine with
an average load of 2.1kg at 30°C (Laitala etal. 2012) was
selected as the best practice washing method (S2B) as it is
similar to the recommended maximum load for many wool-
specific washing cycles (Kruschwitz etal. 2014; Gooijer and
Stamminger 2016). This is slightly lower than the typical
washing machine load for other fibres (2.3–3.7kg) (Laitala
and Vereide 2010) and realistic, because many washing
machines have a general 30°C wash cycle with a recom-
mended maximum load of 3.5–4.0kg (Laitala etal. 2018).
A study of washing loads in German households showed that
wool programs are selected at a similar rate to their overall
share of the garment market (Kruschwitz etal. 2014). The
specifications of a contemporary A+++ electricity efficiency-
rated washing machine (Bosch 2020a) were used to define
the water and electricity consumption of S2B. The worst
practice washing method (S2W) involved the washing of
a single garment in an older washing machine, rated B for
electricity efficiency. Dry cleaning also had high impacts
and these are known to vary (Laitala etal. 2017b and ref-
erences therein); however, a preliminary analysis showed
impacts were less than from a single garment washed in
a contemporary machine at 40°C and therefore a change
in dry cleaning frequency was not modelled for the S2W.
Modelling of a B energy efficiency-rated washing machine
was justified on the prospect of residual consumer ownership
(Michel etal. 2016). Since 2004, the electricity consumption
of washing machines has decreased approximately 75% and
washing machine water use efficiency has improved by 15%
due to a change from B to A+++ rating washing machine
(Michel etal. 2016). These performance contrasts were used
to define the water and electricity consumption of S2W.
Scenario 3—drying method. The energy required to dry
a garment is proportional to the residual moisture content
(RMC) after the washing machine spin cycle is complete;
high-speed cycles result in lower residual moisture content.
Spin speeds range from 200 to 1600rpm and the RMC
ranges from 49 to 154%, resulting in an energy requirement
of between 0.57 and 1.75 kWh kg−1 to dry the garment in a
tumble dryer (Gooijer and Stamminger 2016). An 800-rpm
washing machine spin cycle was assumed, based on typical
wool-specific cycles (Bosch 2020b), resulting in a tumble
dryer energy requirement of 0.8 kWh kg−1 (Gooijer and
Stamminger 2016) which may be lower than some condenser
and washer-dryer machines and was therefore conservative.
This was used to define the worst practice drying scenario
(S3W) in which a wool garment was always tumble dried. In
contrast, line drying outdoors or drying in an unheated room
does not require any additional energy. It is recommended
to hang woven or knitted garments on shaped hangers or
lay them on flat surfaces to dry; both types of the garment
should be dried away from direct sunlight or heat (Woolmark
2019). We considered line drying or drying in an unheated
room as best practice (S3B).
Scenario 4—lifespan. The lifespan of a garment was
determined by the total number of wears before disposal.
Consumer surveys show that wool garments are kept for
longer periods than garments of other fibre types (Laitala
etal. 2017a). A survey by Uitdenbogerd etal. (1998) showed
that an average jumper has a lifespan of 7.1years. However,
consumer wardrobe surveys (The Nielsen Company 2012)
have recorded responses of more than 14.8years when asked
how long ago a wool jumper was purchased. A maximum of
at least 400 wears during the lifespan of a wool garment was
reported from a recent consumer survey (Wiedemann etal.
2020). The consumer survey data showed 3% and 7% of
wool garments had been and were expected to be worn more
than 200 times, respectively, which increases the plausibility
and relevance of this maximum. This was used to define best
practice (S4B). In contrast, a Norwegian study on clothing
disposal showed 20% of garments were either never used
or only used a couple of times by the current owner (8–9%
were never used) (Laitala and Klepp 2013). This is identical
to the unused rate of clothing items (excluding footwear and
accessories) in the UK (Langley etal. 2013), and similar to
reports for sweaters in the Netherlands (22%) (Maldini etal.
2017) and UK (27%) (Gracey and Moon 2012). A single use
was used to define the worst practice (S4W), which included
washing and drying the garment once.
Scenario 5—reuse of the garment. A recent survey
showed that 76.1% of wool garments were either donated
to charity, gifted to friends or family or sold (Wiedemann
etal. 2020)—this was considered CP. This was consistent
with Klepp etal. (2020) who reported the current reuse prac-
tice was 1.5 users per garment lifespan on average. For the
best practice scenario, it was expected that the garment was
reused by a second and third user (including impacts associ-
ated with collection and processing), doubling the garment
lifespan (S5B), while for the worst practice (S5W) the gar-
ment was used only by the first user. It was assumed that a
1191The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:1188–1197
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

reused garment was worn half as many times as during its
first use phase (Beton etal. 2014; Wiedemann etal. 2020).
Scenario 6—cumulative consumer behaviour. Consumers
may conduct any or all the best or worst practice activities
outlined in the previous scenarios. This scenario assessed
the cumulative impacts where consumers used either all the
best (S6B) or all the worst practice scenarios (S6W). How-
ever, it was acknowledged that reuse and increased garment
use by the first user (lifespan) were inter-related and for the
cumulative study we assumed increased lifespan and current
practice for reuse.
3 Results
The environment impacts per wear of a wool garment in
the CP scenario were 0.17 ± 0.02kg CO2-e for GHG emis-
sions, 0.88 ± 0.18 MJ for fossil energy demand, 0.96 ± 0.42
L H2O-e for water stress and 2.93 ± 0.67 L freshwater con-
sumption. The CP use phase was a hotspot for water stress
(38%) and fossil energy demand (30%) in the full life cycle
of a wool garment (Table3). When the model was assessed
using cumulative energy demand, the total energy demand
was 5–11% greater depending on scenarios, showing that
on average renewable energy represented 8% of supply
chain energy. For the CP scenario, the inclusion of renew-
able energy increased the use phase CED impacts to 32% of
full life cycle impacts. Across the full life cycle, the major
sources of renewable energy were hydropower (75%) and
wind (25%). GHG emissions from the CP use phase contrib-
uted 12% of the full life cycle impacts, behind manufacturing
(29%) and fibre production (57%) (Wiedemann etal. 2020).
The use phase included retail and consumer transport—in
the CP scenario, these processes contributed to 5, 13, 4 and
3% of the full life cycle GHG, fossil energy, water stress and
freshwater consumption impacts, respectively.
The results showed that the laundering scenarios (S1,
S2 and S3) had larger effects on freshwater consump-
tion, water stress and fossil energy demand than GHG
emissions. GHG emissions were relatively insensitive to
laundering practices because the hotspot for this impact
was the fibre production phase (Table3). Among the
laundering practices examined, the most important was
the washing frequency (S1). Results obtained for the best
and worst practice scenarios are presented relative to the
CP scenario in Fig.1. Washing frequency (S1) had a larger
effect on freshwater consumption, water stress and fos-
sil energy demand than GHG emissions. Best practice
washing (S1B) resulted in moderate (≤ 20%) reductions
across all indicators, whereas worst case washing (S1W)
increased fossil energy demand by 72%, freshwater con-
sumption by 87% and more than doubled water stress.
Best practice washing machine loads (S2B) produced
minor (≤ 5%) reductions in impacts across all indicators.
Worst case washing machine loads (S2W) increased fresh-
water consumption and water stress impacts by 59% and
97%, respectively, and increased GHG emissions and fossil
energy demand by 5% and 11%, respectively.
Of all the scenarios, drying practices (S3) produced
the smallest changes in impacts: worst practice (S3W)
increased fossil energy demand by 24% and water stress
by 12%, but impacts decreased by ≤ 10% for the best prac-
tice drying (S3B). The current drying practices of wool are
already close to the best practice scenario.
Impacts were highly sensitive to the total number of
wearing events (S4). Best practice wear (S4B) showed
reductions of 68%, 61% and 58% for GHG emissions, fos-
sil energy demand and freshwater consumption, respec-
tively. In contrast, the worst practice (S4W), in which
the garment was worn and washed once before disposal,
increased GHG emissions 101 times, fossil energy demand
88 times, freshwater consumption 85 times and water
stress 73 times.
Consistently reusing garments (S5B) decreased impacts
by 28% for GHG emissions and 25% for fossil energy
demand. Impacts on water consumption and water stress
were negligible. In contrast, the worst scenario (zero reuse,
S5W) increased impacts by 24–34% (Fig.1).
The cumulative effect of all best practice activities
(S6B) showed a large reduction (~ 75% lower) across all
impact categories. In contrast, the cumulative worst prac-
tices (S6W) increased GHG emissions 102 times and fossil
energy demand 90 times, freshwater consumption 89 times
and water stress 78 times (Table3).
Table 3 Environmental impact per wear of a wool sweater in current practice (CP), best case (B) and worst case (W) garment use and care sce-
narios.Small changes between some scenarios were below two decimal places and do not appear in this table, but are shown in Fig.1
Impact category Unit CP S1B S1W S2B S2W S3B S3W S4B S4W S5B S5W S6B S6W
GHG emissions kg CO2-e 0.17 0.16 0.22 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.19 0.05 17.09 0.12 0.23 0.04 17.3
Fossil energy MJ 0.88 0.79 1.51 0.86 0.96 0.83 1.10 0.34 77.16 0.68 1.12 0.22 79.3
Water stress L H2O-e 0.96 0.77 2.27 0.90 1.89 0.94 1.07 0.48 69.83 0.77 1.19 0.26 76.5
Freshwater consumption L 2.93 2.55 5.49 2.82 4.66 2.87 3.23 1.23 250.46 2.25 3.77 0.79 263.3
1192 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:1188–1197
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

4 Discussion
4.1 Best practice garment care
This study was one of the first of its kind to compare current
consumer garment behaviour with best practices based on
garment potential and recommended care practices. Wool
garments have particular attributes that favour reduced envi-
ronmental impacts in the garment use phase, associated with
odour resistance leading to less frequent need for washing,
low washing temperature requirements and suitability for
air drying practices (Laitala and Klepp 2016; Laitala etal.
2020). While these favourable practices are typically used
for wool garments at higher rates than other fibre types, there
are opportunities to further reduce environmental impacts,
as shown in this analysis. Consistent with previous research
on the life cycle of garments (Muthu 2015; Yasin etal.
2016), the findings here show the use phase was a hotspot
for fossil energy demand and water consumption. Across
a population, variability in the washing frequency of wool
garments is expected in response to factors such as garment
use, perceived cleanliness and access to washing facilities
(Klepp etal. 2016; Laitala and Klepp 2016). Clothes are
washed for various cultural and habitual reasons, includ-
ing ritual, aesthetic, practical and hygienic reasons (Shove
2003; Klepp 2007; Yates and Evans 2016). It is plausible
that a reduced washing frequency (e.g. S1B) can be achieved
when consumers understand the odour resistant properties
of wool and its ability to remove odour through airing, and
use this practice more consistently (McQueen etal. 2008).
Because consumers often own fewer wool garments, it can
take longer to accumulate a wool-specific laundry load
(Laitala etal. 2012), which may result in less efficient wash-
ing machine loads. However, encouraging consumers to air
wool garments (Laitala and Klepp 2016) may also help
improve washing load efficiency by allowing more time to
accumulate a full wool load. Another strategy would be to
make up the rest of a wool wash with items made of other
fibres as wool washing is typically more gentle than other
wash settings and is therefore not detrimental to other fibre
96
129
99
105
98
110
32
72
134
26
10189
10053
87
187
96
159
98
110
42
77
129
27
8874
8548
89
172
98
111
95
124
39
77
128
25
9012
8769
80
236
94
197
97
112
50
81
124
27
7777
7274
Freshwater consumption Water stress
Global warming Fossil energy demand
0 100 200 5000 10000 0 100 200 5000 10000
S6B
S6W
S5B
S5W
S4B
S4W
S3B
S3W
S2B
S2W
S1B
S1W
S6B
S6W
S5B
S5W
S4B
S4W
S3B
S3W
S2B
S2W
S1B
S1W
S6B
S6W
S5B
S5W
S4B
S4W
S3B
S3W
S2B
S2W
S1B
S1W
S6B
S6W
S5B
S5W
S4B
S4W
S3B
S3W
S2B
S2W
S1B
S1W
Relative to the current benchmark (%)
Scenarios
Fig. 1 Comparison of full life cycle greenhouse gas, fossil energy,
freshwater consumption, and water stress impacts between the best
(B—green) and worst (W—gray) consumer practice scenarios rela-
tive to the current practice for a wool sweater; vertical dash lines rep-
resent the current practice (CP) impacts (100%)
1193The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:1188–1197
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

types. This simple step could increase the efficiency rate
(Laitala and Klepp 2016).
Best practice drying (S3B) (i.e. line drying outdoors or
inside an unheated room) was found to have modest poten-
tial to reduce impacts, largely because current practices for
drying wool garments are close to best practice. Intensive
drying options such as the use of clothes’ dryers are rarely
used for wool garments. However, with other fibre types
and other geographic regions such as the USA where use
of energy intensive clothes dryers is higher (Laitala etal.
2020), drying practices may be more significant. Overall,
these results show that a conservative washing frequency,
and to a lesser extent, efficient washing loads and limited
use of a tumble dryer, are effective ways for consumers to
reduce the use phase impacts of wool garments. This is
consistent with research showing that the GHG emissions
from the life cycle of garments are more sensitive to wash-
ing frequency than wash load or drying frequency (Gracey
and Moon 2012; Moazzem etal. 2018), and that washing
machine and dryer water and energy efficiency were more
effective at reducing GHG, energy and water impacts than
load size and tumble drying frequency (Beton etal. 2014).
Thus, although our results apply to a specific garment type,
a wool sweater, many of the recommendations for reduc-
ing the environmental impacts of use phase will also apply
for other types of garments. The benefits in changing care
practices are likely to be even higher for garments made of
cotton or synthetic fibres due to their more frequent launder-
ing, use of higher washing temperature and higher use rate
of clothes dryers. However, the inherent fibre properties on
odour formation will limit how long garments can be worn
and still be socially acceptable. This increases the impor-
tance of garment- and fibre-type specific inventory data for
accurate modelling of use phase impacts.
4.2 Best practice garment use
Longer garment lifespans and a greater number of wears per
lifespan resulted in the largest reductions in environmental
impacts in this study. This was evident where the use was
prolonged by a first user (S4B) or during the subsequent
use phases (S5B). This is consistent with research in which
scenarios of increased clothing collection and reuse showed
larger reductions in environmental impacts than garment
care scenarios across a broad range of indicators (Beton
etal. 2014; Klepp etal. 2020). Unsurprisingly, a single wear
(S4W) had high impacts across all the categories considered.
The best practice wear scenario (S4B) reduced GHG emis-
sions, fossil energy demand and freshwater consumption by
at least 50%, despite increasing the number of washes from
21 (CP) to 77. These results emphasise how important it
is to apply the correct functional unit and to use valid data
rather than simple estimates. For example, the unit of 52
washes that is used in the current Product Environmental
Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) for t-shirts in EU (Pesnel
and Payet 2019) does not capture the importance of washing
frequency and total number of wears properly.
There are several actions that consumers, authorities
and the fashion industry can take to ensure the longevity of
clothing. Ertz etal. (2019) have analysed the efforts industry
has put into developing business models on product lifes-
pan extensions. These authors found a lack of prolonged-life
design strategies, and that most companies prefer product
nurturing strategies such as maintenance, recovery, redistri-
bution and remanufacturing, which generates more income.
Circular business models require products that are worth
circulating, thereby minimising consumer dissatisfaction,
returns and discarding of clothing, and make secondary use,
rental and repair possible. This calls for business models that
put product nature strategies first, where improvements in
product design and product quality are essential. For this,
appropriate information about product quality and proper-
ties is required. Product properties, for example that clothing
sizes broadly match the size and shape of the population’s
body shape, are important. Similarly, garments that are flex-
ible enough to be used in several occasions and by several
users enable longer lifespans with more garment wears. For
best practice garment use, the products need to be usable
both technically and socially over a long period of time and
many times, as well as by more than one user to maximise
environmental outcomes.
Authorities can contribute with consumer rights legis-
lation, where the right to make a complaint and the right
for informed choices are followed up (Brennan etal. 2017).
This will ensure that it will be easier to find and select good
products, and to complain about the poor ones. Authorities
can also set minimum standards to phase out the worst prod-
ucts on the market, akin to energy labelling requirements for
electrical appliances (Boyano etal. 2020).
Consumers can contribute by putting more effort into
finding suitable products that they like and need, and by
using their rights to make complaints (Chebat etal. 2005;
Bodey and Grace 2007). They can also ensure that clothes
get a new user either in their own circle of family and friends,
through charity organisations or through commercial solu-
tions for clothes circulation (Fisher etal. 2011; Sandin and
Peters 2018).
And last but not least, consumers can choose the best
practice by purchasing garments requiring less washing,
washing less frequently and drying in an energy-saving way.
The fact that best practice also extends garment lifetime and
saves money and time for housework can make the changes
more appealing. Knowledge about environmental impacts
and conditions around cleanliness and hygiene are important
to bring about change, as it is possible that some consum-
ers do not appreciate the capabilities of wool garments and
1194 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:1188–1197
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

therefore wash these garments too frequently, increasing
environmental impacts and also potentially reducing gar-
ment life time because of the abrasive nature of washing.
4.3 Limitations
Although this study highlighted the importance of impacts
arising from consumer practices during the use phase of a
wool garment, the results are based on inventory data for
consumers in Western Europe, particularly those in Ger-
many and the UK. Processes such as laundering vary geo-
graphically (Laitala etal. 2020), and more representative use
phase inventory data may increase the robustness of future
research. This data should focus on washing frequency, gar-
ment lifespan, washing machine performance and selected
drying method (which may be of greater relevance to gar-
ments made from fibres other than wool).
In this study, the end-of-life phase (EoL) contribution to
full life cycle impacts was minor (< 1.5%). Garments were
disposed of as municipal waste, and impacts were excluded
for co-products from incineration with energy recovery.
Higher environmental benefits can be achieved from the
EoL when garments are close-loop recycled (Cobbing and
Vicaire 2017; Yousef etal. 2019).
This research showed some contrasts between impact
categories. The use phase was a more important hotspot for
fossil energy demand and water impacts than GHG emis-
sions, with the latter result being largely influenced by the
nature of the energy grid in Western Europe. Countries that
utilise higher proportions of fossil fuels in the energy grid
than Europe, such as Australia, China and the USA, would
have higher GHG impacts than reported here. Across a full
life garment life cycle, CED impacts were up to 11% greater
than fossil energy demand, and the European use phase con-
tributed approximately 2% of this increase. Impacts derived
from a more expansive set of impact categories, such as
those of the Product Environmental Footprint scheme (Euro-
pean Commission 2017), may help prioritise actions that
reduce the impact of the garment life cycle. Future research
should explore the impact of fibre type on full life cycle
impacts because contrasts in impacts upstream of the use
phase may contrast with those of wool.
5 Conclusions
The present results show that there is need for detailed infor-
mation about garment care and lifespans to be able to model
the complete cradle-to-grave LCA of a garment, as differ-
ences between the best, current and worst case scenarios
were substantial. Wool garments have particular attributes
that resulted in lower environmental impacts from gar-
ment use, and opportunities to further reduce impacts by
maximising the number of wears per garment life. The rela-
tively high impacts from raw fibre production and manufac-
turing were substantially reduced when garments were used
over a longer use-phase period, resulting in more garment
wears. Among modelled consumer practices, increasing the
number of wear events and reducing washing frequency
were identified as the most critical factors influencing the
environmental impact per wear, whereas the drying method
produced less noticeable changes for wool garments.
Wool garments have been shown to be utilised over long
periods of time, and this study demonstrated that increased
garment use, combined with best practice care, could reduce
environmental impacts by ~ 75% compared with current
practices. This emphasises the importance of changing con-
sumers’ habits. Through promoting long garment life and
best practice garment care, clothing brands and retailers can
assist consumers to make sustainable garment choices with
wool garments. Consumers can choose the best practice in
the form of putting more effort into finding suitable products
that they like and need, purchasing garments requiring less
washing, washing less frequently and drying in an energy-
saving way.
Acknowledgements Constructive comments from anonymous peer
reviewers were greatly appreciated.
Funding This research was funded by Australian Wool Innovation
Limited (AWI) with matching research and development funding from
the Australian government under project number OF-00490.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.
References
ALCAS (2015) The Australian Life Cycle Inventory Database Initia-
tive. http:// www. auslci. com. au/ index. php/ datas ets/ Agric ulture.
Accessed 20 Oct 2019
Beton A, Dias D, Farrant L etal (2014) Environmental Improvement
Potential of Textiles (IMPRO-textiles). European Union.https://
ec. europa. eu/ jrc/ en/ publi cation
Bodey K, Grace D (2007) Contrasting “complainers” with “non-complainers”
on attitude toward complaining, propensity to complain, and key
personality characteristics: a nomological look. Psychol Mark
24:579–594.https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ mar. 20174
1195The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:1188–1197
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Bosch (2020a) BOSCH - WAB28161GB - Washing machine, front
loader. https:// www. bosch- home. co. uk/ produ ct- list/ exclu sive/
WAB28 161GB. Accessed 9 Jul 2020
Bosch (2020b) How to wash your delicates the right way. In: Bosch
Home Appliances. https:// www. bosch- home. com. au/ exper ience-
bosch/ living- with- bosch/ fresh- reads/ how- to- wash- your- delic ates-
the- right- way. Accessed 9 Jul 2020
Boyano A, Espinosa N, Villanueva A (2020) Rescaling the energy
label for washing machines: an opportunity to bring technology
development and consumer behaviour closer together. Energy
Effic 13:51–67. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12053- 019- 09829-4
Brennan C, Sourdin T, Williams J etal (2017) Consumer vulnerability
and complaint handling: challenges, opportunities and dispute
system design. Int J Consum Stud 41:638–646. https:// doi. org/
10. 1111/ ijcs. 12377
Chebat J, Davidow M, Codjovi I (2005) Silent voices: why some dis-
satisfied consumers fail to complain. J Serv Res 7:328–333
Cobbing M, Vicaire Y (2017) Fashion at the cross roads. Greenpeace.
https:// stora ge. googl eapis. com/ plane t4- inter natio nal- state less/
2017/ 09/ 76e05 528- fashi on- at- the- cross roads. pdf
Cotton Inc. (2016) LCA update of cotton fibre and fabric life cycle
inventory. Cotton Incorporated
Dahlbo H, Aalto K, Eskelinen H, Salmenperä H (2017) Increasing
textile circulation - consequences and requirements. Sustain Prod
Consum 9:44–57. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. spc. 2016. 06. 005
Ertz M, Leblanc-Proulx S, Sarigöllü E, Morin V (2019) Made to break?
A taxonomy of business models on product lifetime extension. J
Clean Prod 234:867–880. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2019.
06. 264
European Commission (2017) PEFCR Guidance document - guidance
for the development of Product Environmental Footprint Category
Rules (PEFCRs), version 6.3, December 2017. https:// ec. europa.
eu/ envir onment/ eussd/ smgp/ pdf/ PEFCR_ guida nce_ v6.3. pdf
Farrant L, Olsen SI, Wangel A (2010) Environmental benefits from
reusing clothes. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:726–736. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1007/ s11367- 010- 0197-y
Fei X, Freeman HS, Hinks D (2020) Toward closed loop recycling
of polyester fabric: step 1. decolorization using sodium formal-
dehyde sulfoxylate. J Clean Prod 254:120027. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. jclep ro. 2020. 120027
Fisher K, James K, Maddox P (2011) Benefits of reuse case study:
clothing. WRAP Banbury, UK
Glew D, Stringer LC, Acquaye AA, McQueen-Mason S (2012) How
do end of life scenarios influence the environmental impact of
product supply chains? Comparing biomaterial and petrochemical
products. J Clean Prod 29–30:122–131. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
jclep ro. 2012. 02. 005
Gooijer H, Stamminger R (2016) Water and energy consumption in
domestic laundering worldwide – a review. Tenside Surfactants
Deterg 53:402–409. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3139/ 113. 110456
Gracey F, Moon D (2012) Valuing our clothes: the evidence base.
http:// www. wrap. org. uk
Henry B, Laitala K, Klepp IG (2019) Microfibres from apparel and
home textiles: prospects for including microplastics in environ-
mental sustainability assessment. Sci Total Environ 652:483–494.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. scito tenv. 2018. 10. 166
IPCC (2013) AR5 Climate Change 2013: the physical science basis -
IPCC. https:// www. ipcc. ch
ISO (2006) ISO 14044:2006 - Environmental management - life cycle
assessment - requirements and guidelines. International Organisa-
tion for Standardisation (ISO), Switzerland
ISO (2014) ISO 14046:2014. Environmental management - water footprint
- principles, requirements and guidelines. International Organisation
for Standardisation (ISO).https:// www. iso. org/ stand ard/ 43263. html
IWTO (2016) Guidelines for conducting a life cycle assessment of the
environmental performance of wool textiles. International Wool
Textile Organisation (IWTO), Australia
Klepp I (2007) Patched, louse-ridden, tattered: clean and dirty clothes.
Textile 5:254–275
Klepp I, Buck M, Laitala K, Kjeldsberg M (2016) What’s the problem?
Odor-control and the smell of sweat in sportswear. Fash Pract
8:296–317. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 17569 370. 2016. 12151 17
Klepp IG, Laitala K, Wiedemann S (2020) Clothing lifespans: what
should be measured and how. Sustain. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/
su121 56219
Kruschwitz A, Karle A, Schmitz A, Stamminger R (2014) Consumer
laundry practices in Germany. Int J Consum Stud 38:265–277.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ ijcs. 12091
Laing RM (2019) Natural fibres in next-to-skin textiles: current per-
spectives on human body odour. SN Appl Sci 1:1–8. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1007/ s42452- 019- 1388-1
Laitala K, Klepp I, Henry B (2018) Does use matter? Comparison of
environmental impacts of clothing based on fiber type. Sustain-
ability 10:2524
Laitala K, Klepp I, Kettlewell R, Wiedemann S (2020) Laundry care
regimes: do the practices of keeping clothes clean have different
environmental impacts based on the fibre content? Sustainabil-
ity 12:7537. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su121 87537
Laitala K, Klepp IG (2013) Bare mote? Materialitetens bytedning for
klers levetid. In: Materialiteten i forbruket, eds. Novus, Oslo,
pp 145–167
Laitala K, Klepp IG (2016) Wool wash: technical performance and
consumer habits. Tenside, Surfactants, Deterg 53:458–469.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 3139/ 113. 110457
Laitala K, Klepp IG, Boks C (2012) Changing laundry habits in Nor-
way. Int J Consum Stud 36:228–237. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j.
1470- 6431. 2011. 01081.x
Laitala K, Klepp IG, Henry B (2017) Use phase of apparel: a literature
review for Life Cycle Assessment with focus on wool. Consumption
Research Norway - SIFO, Oslo, Norway
Laitala K, Klepp IG, Henry B (2017b) Global laundering prac-
tices–alternatives to machine washing
Laitala K, Vereide K (2010) Washing machines’ program selections
and energy use. Project Note 2–2010. National Institute for Con-
sumer Research, Oslo, Norway
Langley E, Durkacz S, Tannase S (2013) Clothing longevity and
measuring active use. https:// wrap. org. uk/ sites/ files/ wrap/ Cloth
ing- longe vity- report. pdf. Accessed 12 May 2020
Maldini I, Duncker L, Bregman L etal (2017) Measuring the Dutch
clothing mountain: data for sustainability-oriented studies and
actions in the apparel sector. PublishingLab, Amsterdam
McQueen RH, Laing RM, Delahunty CM etal (2008) Retention
of axillary odour on apparel fabrics. J Text Inst 99:515–523.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00405 00070 16597 74
McQueen RH, Vaezafshar S (2020) Odor in textiles: a review of
evaluation methods, fabric characteristics, and odor control
technologies. Text Res J 90:1157–1173. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/
00405 17519 883952
Michel A, Attali S, Bush E (2016) Energy efficiency of white goods
in Europe : monitoring the market with sales data – Final report.
https:// stora ge. topten. eu/ source/ files/ Market- Monit oring- 2016-
EN- Topten. eu. pdf
Moazzem S, Daver F, Crossin E, Wang L (2018) Assessing environ-
mental impact of textile supply chain using life cycle assess-
ment methodology. J Text Inst 109:1574–1585. https:// doi. org/
10. 1080/ 00405 000. 2018. 14341 13
Muthu SS (2015) Environmental impacts of the use phase of the
clothing life cycle. Handbook of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
1196 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:1188–1197
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

of Textiles and Clothing. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge,
pp 93–102
Muthu SS (2014) Measuring the environmental impact of textiles
in practice: calculating the product carbon footprint (PCF) and
life cycle assessment (LCA) of particular textile products. In:
Muthu SS (ed) Assessing the Environmental Impact of Tex-
tiles and the Clothing Supply Chain. Woodhead Publishing pp
163–179
Pesnel S, Payet J (2019) Product Environmental Footprint Category
Rules (PEFCR)
Pfister S, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2009) Assessing the environmental
impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ Sci Technol
43:4098–4104. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1021/ es802 423e
Pré-Consultants (2020) SimaPro 9.1 Software. Pré-Consultants,
Amersfoort, Netherlands
Ridoutt BG, Pfister S (2010) A revised approach to water footprinting
to make transparent the impacts of consumption and production
on global freshwater scarcity. Glob Environ Chang 20:113–120.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. gloen vcha. 2009. 08. 003
Sandin G, Peters GM (2018) Environmental impact of textile reuse and
recycling–a review. J Clean Prod 184:12
Schmitz A, Stamminger R (2014) Usage behaviour and related
energy consumption of European consumers for washing
and drying. Energy Effic 7:937–954. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s12053- 014- 9268-4
Shove E (2003) Comfort, cleanliness and convenience: the social
organization of normality. Berg, Oxford
Steinberger JK, Friot D, Jolliet O, Erkman S (2009) A spatially explicit
life cycle inventory of the global textile chain. Int J Life Cycle
Assess 14:443–455. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11367- 009- 0078-4
The Nielsen Company (2012) AWI - Wardrobe Ethnographic Inter-
views. Topline Reports for Australia, China, Italy, Japan, Korea,
United Kingdom and the United States of America
Uitdenbogerd D, Brouwer NM, Groot-Marcus JP (1998) Domestic
energy saving potentials for food and textiles: an empirical study.
Wageningen Agricultural University, Household and Consumer
Studies, Wageningen
Wernet G, Bauer C, Steubing B etal (2016) The ecoinvent database ver-
sion 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess
21:1218–1230. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11367- 016- 1087-8
Wiedemann S, Biggs L, Nebel B etal (2020) Environmental impacts
associated with the production, use, and end-of-life of a woollen gar-
ment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25:1486–1499. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s11367- 020- 01766-0
Wiedemann S, Simmons A, Watson K, Biggs L (2018) Effect of
methodological choice on the estimated impacts of wool pro-
duction and the significance for LCA-based rating systems.
Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:848–855. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s11367- 018- 1538-5
Wiedemann S, Yan M-J, Henry BK, Murphy CM (2016) Resource use
and greenhouse gas emissions from three wool production regions
in Australia. J Clean Prod 122:121–132
Wiedemann S, Yan M-J, Murphy C (2016) Resource use and environ-
mental impacts from Australian export lamb production: a life
cycle assessment. Anim Prod Sci 56:1070–1080
Woolmark (2019) Wool care is easy. https:// www. woolm ark. com/
about- wool/ wool- care/. Accessed 9 Jul 2020
S Yasin N Behary G Rovero V Kumar 2016 Statistical analysis of use-
phase energy consumption of textile products Int J Life Cycle
Assess 1776–1788 https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11367- 016- 1129-2
Yates L, Evans D (2016) Dirtying linen: re-evaluating the sustainability of
domestic laundry. Environ Policy Gov 26:101–115. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1002/ eet. 1704
Yousef S, Tatariants M, Tichonovas M etal (2019) A new strategy for
using textile waste as a sustainable source of recovered cotton.
Resour Conserv Recycl 145:359–369. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
resco nrec. 2019. 02. 031
Zamani B, Sandin G, Peters GM (2017) Life cycle assessment of cloth-
ing libraries: can collaborative consumption reduce the environ-
mental impact of fast fashion? J Clean Prod 162:1368–1375.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2017. 06. 128
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
1197The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:1188–1197
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com