26 July 2024
At bAwear, our calculation tool incorporates a library of secondary data representing worst-case scenarios. However, the quality of both primary and secondary data is crucial, as it directly influences the outcome of environmental impact calculations.
Primary Data: The devil is in the details
For primary data, accuracy hinges on comprehensive knowledge of production specifics. Key factors include:
Run length
Process conditions
Machine parameters
Measurement methods, timing, and locations
Without these details, primary data quality is inherently compromised, leading to unreliable impact assessments.
Secondary data: Navigating the complexity
Secondary data present an even greater challenge. Large databases often lack transparency regarding data origins, making it difficult to assess their applicability to specific supply chains. This can lead to questionable outcomes, as illustrated by the ongoing debate surrounding water usage in organic versus conventional cotton production.
Example: Organic vs. Conventional cotton water use
Many databases report significantly lower water usage for organic cotton compared to conventional cotton from the same region. However, this discrepancy often stems from flawed assumptions:
Irrigation needs are typically similar for organic and conventional cotton grown in the same area.
Yields (kg/ha) for organic cotton are comparable to or slightly lower than conventional.
Consequently, water use per kg of organic cotton should be similar to or potentially higher than conventional cotton.
The misleadingly low figures for organic cotton often originate from a 2012 study assuming rainfed production – a scenario that would result in low water usage for conventional cotton as well.
bAwear's approach to data integrity
At bAwear, we of course document all secondary data and the sources of the data. In some cases, when data from literature is not available or only refers to a very specific situation, we might, as a last resort, use unpublished expert data (data we believe can be right). Our policy is clear:
We welcome data supported by credible LCA or EPD studies and will adjust our calculations accordingly for specific clients.
We reject unsubstantiated claims or reports lacking verifiable background data.
The importance of expertise
Selecting meaningful secondary data requires extensive knowledge of both textiles and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodologies. Simply extracting data from a database without proper context and claiming accurate environmental impact is inadequate. Unfortunately, this practice is all too common among LCA practitioners lacking textile-specific expertise.
In conclusion, the quality and interpretation of data are paramount in accurately assessing the environmental impact of textile production. At bAwear, we remain committed to rigorous data standards and transparency, ensuring our clients receive the most reliable impact calculations possible.
