Debunking Stewardship and Sustainability Myths

There is a peculiar cruelty to the way misinformation spreads in sustainability. A single seductive number can capture attention, unlock headlines, and mobilize campaigns. Yet dismantling that same number requires weeks of work, tracing sources, interrogating boundaries, and often discovering there was never any credible foundation to begin with. This is the asymmetry of Brandolini’s Law: the energy needed to refute nonsense is an order of magnitude greater than to produce it. Nowhere is this clearer than in textiles. Think of the claims that echo through nearly every conference keynote, NGO report, or brand deck: Fashion is responsible for 10 percent of global emissions. The world generates 92 million tonnes of textile waste annually. The average garment is worn only 7 to 10 times before disposal. We already have enough clothes to clothe the next six to seven generations. These are repeated so often that they feel like truths. Yet, as Lutz Walter has shown in his careful work, none of them hold up under serious scrutiny. The emissions figure is built on shaky extrapolations. The 92 million tonnes of waste has no reliable source. The 7 to 10 wears is lifted from narrow surveys and generalized globally. And the generations-to-clothe claim was never a fact, just a metaphor mistaken for one. The cost of these myths is not just academic. They shape how the industry thinks and acts. Big numbers create shock but flatten complexity. They direct attention to drama rather than systems. They also undermine credibility. Once policymakers, financiers, or the public realize the numbers are inflated, trust in sustainability itself erodes. Why does this persist? Because convenience wins. Bad information is light, fast, and easy. Good information is heavy, slow, and hard. That imbalance rewards oversimplification and punishes accuracy. It is time to draw a line. For once, can we stop publishing absolute nonsense? No more numbers without transparent sources. No more LCAs without clear boundaries. No more reports built on recycled myths. No more metaphors masquerading as fact. The textile industry does not lack ambition or innovation. What it lacks is intellectual discipline. We do not need bigger numbers to scare people into action. We need better facts to guide action. The work of people like Lutz Walter deserves applause not because debunking myths is fun, but because it is an act of responsibility. Truth is a more powerful motivator than myth, and credibility is the most valuable currency we have left. The first step is simple, though not easy. Just stop publishing crap. Link to the substack piece: https://lnkd.in/drhwpWQF

💣 Busting Sustainability Myths: Suppliers Care About More Than Just Financial Incentives  When we think about suppliers and their engagement in sustainability programs, one common myth I hear is: "Suppliers only care if there’s a financial incentive or contractual obligation." Let's set the record straight.  Yes, these types of carrots and sticks can be useful—but they’re not the *only* motivators. In my experience working with suppliers, I’ve seen firsthand how sustainability programs bring value beyond dollars and contracts. Suppliers are motivated by:  🤝🏻 Employee retention: Sustainability efforts create purpose-driven workplaces that help attract and retain top talent.   🌍 Investing in their future: Suppliers understand that building sustainable practices means strengthening their business and supporting the communities they depend on.   🏆 Competitive advantage: A commitment to sustainability helps suppliers stand out in the market, creating differentiation that drives long-term growth.  When we approach suppliers with an understanding of these broader benefits, we build trust and foster collaboration. It’s not just about compliance—it’s about creating shared value.  If you’re looking to engage suppliers in your sustainability journey, start by focusing on how you can work together for mutual value. Show that sustainability is a win-win, not just for the planet but for their business, their people, and their future.  What myths have you encountered in your sustainability work? Let’s bust them together in the comments. 👇  #Sustainability #SupplierEngagement #SharedValue #Leadership #ClimateAction #SustainableBusiness #SupplyChainManagement

🧵👕♻️ 𝐓𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 & 𝐜𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 - 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐦𝐲𝐭𝐡 𝐛𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 💥 🧐 Over the next couple of weeks I will publish a series of short posts which will take a critical look at some of the most pervasive ideas, concepts and big numbers related to sustainability problems and negative impacts of the global textile and fashion industry and how to tackle them. 🔬 I will look at one concept/number at a time, try to trace their origin, then take it apart using various assumptions and data points (for which I will always try to provide a source that I consider credible) and then put it back together to see what remains standing of the original idea. 🤓 This should be fun and I hope for a lot of interesting discussions incl. intelligent push-back. ❓ Why am I doing this? 1.     Developing clarity for myself. The more BS I allow to live rent-free in my head, the more it will ensh*ttify my thinking, which, all else considered, will likely lead to worse outcomes in whatever I try to achieve? Publishing it so that other knowledgeable people can chip in, should help correct mistakes and collectively get closer to the truth. 2.     To help people, who like me truly care about the sustainability of the textile and clothing industry, make better decisions based on a better understanding of reality and a correct problem definition. Or as Albert Einstein said “𝐼𝒻 𝐼 𝒽𝒶𝒹 𝒶𝓃 𝒽𝑜𝓊𝓇 𝓉𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝓁𝓋𝑒 𝒶 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒷𝓁𝑒𝓂, 𝐼 𝓌𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝓈𝓅𝑒𝓃𝒹 𝟧𝟧 𝓂𝒾𝓃𝓊𝓉𝑒𝓈 𝒹𝑒𝒻𝒾𝓃𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒷𝓁𝑒𝓂 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝟧 𝓂𝒾𝓃𝓊𝓉𝑒𝓈 𝒻𝒾𝓃𝒹𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓈𝑜𝓁𝓊𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃.” 🛠️ A lot of researchers, industry innovators, investors, policy makers and consumers wrestle with problems related to textile sustainability and circularity. Starting from wrong assumptions will lead to a flawed problem definition and very likely a misallocation of efforts and resources at best or at worst an outcome that achieves the exact opposite of what was intended. Let’s try to avoid that. ✍ People who have followed me here on LinkedIn over recent years know that in several of my articles I have already debunked a few textile sustainability myths, some of which I will revisit in the upcoming post series. It all started some 2.5 years ago with a first article “Hacking Textile Sustainability” (see link in the comments). It's still a timely read & encapsulates my thinking on the subject. And at its very end it includes a link to a nice take-down of one of the oldest and most absurd Internet myths “that the textile industry is the 2nd most polluting industry in the world 🤡 ”, which gladly seems to be fading into its well-deserved oblivion. 📣 So stay tuned for myth 1 tomorrow & follow me if not yet the case to make sure you don’t miss out on the fun. And if you have any textile sustainability "truth" you find a bit suspect, share it in the comments. I may take a hard look. #textilesustainability #textilecircularity #mythbusting

𝗗𝗲𝗯𝘂𝗻𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗼𝗻 𝗦𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗠𝘆𝘁𝗵𝘀 𝗠𝘆𝘁𝗵 #𝟯 – “𝗦𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 = 𝗖𝗼𝘀𝘁” When I talk about sustainability, the first question I hear is, “Can we afford it?” When my colleagues pitch digital (AI, baby!), the room leans in: “Great investment!” Same C-suite, two very different reflexes. 𝗟𝗼𝗼𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗕𝗲𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗤𝘂𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗿 Why is that? Why does sustainability have “cost” tattooed on its forehead? Because the pay-off shows up on the wrong calendar page. Think about investing in renewables or regenerative agriculture. The wins arrive three, five, ten years from now, long after this quarter’s books are closed. When you’re judged on the next 90 days, those future savings feel like a nice to have that you’ll never get to count. There’s also our own backstory. For years “sustainability” was a code for planting a few trees (yes I am oversimplifying). Core operations and products continued largely unchanged. Fast-forward to today when real sustainability opportunities require investments (and,yes, some deliberate risk-taking!) and the alarm bells still shout “COSTS!” It’s time to retire this reflex. 𝗥𝗲𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 (𝗼𝗿 𝗣𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗼𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗟𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿!) When I run the numbers, the scariest line item isn’t the money we spend today, it’s the massive bill we inherit by postponing action. Skip the low-carbon retrofit and stay exposed to surging carbon prices. Ignore dematerializing your products and stay exposed to raw-material shocks (lithium, copper…). One storm can idle a plant for months and push an insurer close to insolvency. Nordea Bank said it better than I can: "𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘸-𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘣𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘦𝘴. 𝘏𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳, 𝘸𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘩𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘬 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥." Future-proofing is the cheapest insurance on offer, and its premium goes up every year we delay. Now, change lenses and look at sustainability as capital, not charity: energy efficiency that cuts your costs, circular supply loops that address raw-material shocks and supply-chain dependencies, low-impact products that win new customers. My favorite part? Circular business models. Yes, I’m biased, but closing loops turns waste fees into feedstock revenue, keeps assets in play longer, and delights customers with subscription models competitors can’t copy with their linear thinking - but the opportunities in circularity deserve their own post! 𝗕𝗼𝘁𝘁𝗼𝗺 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲: Sustainability isn’t a feel-good cost center. It’s the smartest, future-proof, opportunity-focused play in 2025! Every bit as strategic as AI, and definitely quicker to pay back than doing nothing.