ImpaktID leverages on over 50,000 data points to derive the most accurate fashion footprint analysis.

Why did we develop Impakt ID?

In the midst of incredible greenwashing, we believe transparency and tangible impact are crucial to building consumer trust and enforcing the so necessary shift in why, how, and what we produce, consume and dispose of.

Our science-based tools are touching over 50 000 data points to provide an impartial and accurate evaluation down to a single product level, to allow brands and customers to take account and act to reduce their footprint.

CO2 and H2O savings methodology

To define the values for CO2 emissions, water usage, and waste, we looked towards a peer-reviewed primary and secondary research from both private and public sources. The sources are based on an extensive analysis with representative samples on the emissions and water usage & waste by all the conventional textiles that status quo fashion would most commonly resort to for production.

 

To define the current values of emissions and savings for each of our producers we conduct primary research in regards to:

Textiles: Using pre-waste textiles, such as deadstock textiles, recycled or up-cycled materials, superstar textiles that require lower CO2 emissions and water usage and waste during their life-cycle.

Dyeing: Using natural dyes derived from plants, vegetables and flowers Using chemical free-dyes or innovative dying technologies such as GiDelave to reduce the emote of CO2 emissions and water usage and waste

Production: Utilising pattern optimization software to minimize the amount of textile waste, Sourcing and manufacturing locally to avoid CO2 emissions from textile transportation also, Using fully recycled and recyclable packaging tags and care labels

The Formula

To derive the CO2 and water savings for each product we had to look at three key numbers.

Once we derived those numbers through primary and secondary research, we are able to put together a dynamic formula that recognizes the textile of a product and its relative weight.

 

To calculate emissions or savings our algorithm takes into account product composition, design elements, and weight as well as any specific means of production which affect the impact.

CO2 emissions  savings

CO2 emissions 

Status Quo textile

(

-

CO2 emissions 

Sustainable Alternative

)

*

Product weight

Relative if exact unavailable

H2O emissions  savings

H2O usage & waste 

Status Quo textile

(

-

H2O usage & waste 

Sustainable Alternative

)

*

Product weight

Relative if exact unavailable

Circularity 

Score

We have opted for a qualitative circularity score, where we evaluate the two arguably collectively-exhaustive alternatives for achieving circularity.

 

The first being, for the product to circulate back to the value chain efficiently, while adding value and not taking more resources than if a non-circulated alternative were to be used. And the second - circulate back to nature, without harming it.

We are applying a zero-sum approach where we consider a product to either be circular or not. A fully circular product would be fully recyclable or fully degradable without a negative impact on nature. A non-circular product we consider all other products that cannot be recycled in full (despite some parts of them coming from recyclable materials) or cannot bio-degrade in full even if elements of them are degradable.

Ability to circulate back to the value chain

(

Textile Composition

Pure vs. mixed blend

+

Details

type / material / quantity

+

)

Recyclability

Ease/Post recycling quality 

Ability to circulate back to nature

(

Textile & Details Composition

Natural vs. Synthetic

+

Dyeing

Non- vs. chemical-based

+

)

Degradability

Ability & time-frame

Value Chain Circularity

Ability to circulate to the value chain with cost-, quality and resource-efficiency 

When it comes to evaluating the first type of circularity - circulating back to the value chain efficiently, while adding value and not taking more resources than if a non-circulated alternative, were to be used, we are looking at three further sub-factors: 

  • The recyclability potential of the textile, which depends on the materials' type and composition
     

  • The type, materials and quantity of separate product components/details and how recyclable is each of them
     

  • The ease to recycle the piece all together (complex products respectively score lower) and the expected post-recycling quality (materials such as cotton score lower than polyester) 

Ability to circulate to the value chain with cost-, quality and resource-efficiency 

Nature Circularity

Now, it would not have been a problem if 85% of the clothing we throw away are not recycled, if they were able to degrade in our environment without harming it. Unfortunately, 2/3 of mass fashion is made of polyester, which not only takes centuries to degrade, but releases thousands of toxic chemicals back into our soils. If not let to degrade, polyester waste is burned, releasing more CO2 emissions and chemicals back to our atmosphere.

 

We have built an algorithm to analyse the the potential of almost any fashion product  to circulate back to nature without harming it, which come down to:

  • Textile composition and its inherent ability to degrade symbiotically in a natural environment
     

  • Dye chemical composition and presence/absence of toxic and carcinogenic components 

Want to learn more about the extensive methodology?

Write to us at hello@impaktid.com to learn more about the methodology. 

A data- and action-driven company on a mission to eliminate the footprint of fashion and preserve our environment.

ImpaktID 2020 © . Enabling an environment-neutral fashion industry.