Two scenarios for the future of the textile industry

Scenario 1: Empowered by Transparency

In 2040, chemical traceability in the global textile apparel value chain is fully in place. This is possible thanks to the Digital Product Passport (DPP) that has been introduced globally and expands beyond the use phase of textile apparel. Reliable data on chemicals in products and processes is now recognised as an important aspect of business models in all value chains. Accordingly, the textile apparel value chains have made significant progress towards a non-toxic, climate-neutral, resource-preserving circular textile apparel economy.

Someone has to make a start

The starting point for this transformation was an active, critical public: concerned citizens, supported by NGOs, were increasingly informed about the dangers of hazardous chemicals for humans and nature and questioned the safety of textile apparel products they currently bought and used. 2026 marked the turning point and led in subsequent years to a continuous shift in consumer behaviour that demanded more substantiated information and, as a result, significantly extended the use phase of their textile apparel products.

At the same time, EU regulations on traceability and transparency were tightened, which include specific obligations to report substances in products and processes. Sanctions were imposed for non-compliance. Due to the globalisation of markets and, above all, the work in several projects and initiatives (e.g. UNEP, ZDHC), there has been a corresponding increase in harmonisation of other legal frameworks worldwide, which use EU regulations as a model.

In the EU in particular, strategies such as the “Green Deal” and its associated actions plans (regulations, directives, etc.) were largely enforced by national administrations, while public authorities cooperated effectively, creating significant pressure – and reassurance – on industry actors, who gradually changed their mindset and ensured greater transparency and a level playing field. A growing consumer awareness for more sustainable consumption, which enables corresponding business models, has clearly supported this. As a result, both the textile and chemical industries as well as related industry actors invested substantially in traceability capacities (both human resources and infra-structure).

Steps along the way

Against the background of this development, new structures for acquisition and dissemination of scientific knowledge of chemical substances (including toxicity profiles) were created with the support of the chemical industry, which led to a significantly higher knowledge output and uptake from academia and industry.

Actual traceability was enabled and realised due to several factors: The first cornerstone were global, industry-wide traceability standards driven by industry actors on issues such as data, information provision, formats and data protection. This has been supported by continuous innovation in trace- ability technology that eventually had specific requirements which could be applied to efficient development processes. In line with industry demand, an efficient global infrastructure for traceability was created through standardised processes and formats as well as innovations in new business models and services. In practice, this window of opportunity was utilised by first movers who had prepared their value chains accordingly (data readiness). Industry associations and cooperations such as ZDHC supported the distribution of these best practices and the establishment of industry-wide rules that recognized the overall benefits of cooperation both within value chains and among peers.

The guide to success

 The chemical industry was involved in every step of this process and was included in a feedback loop of information provision and product demand. The chemical industry actors that provided sufficient information about their chemical products, while ensuring high quality of data, had a market advantage as the textile industry depended on access to this information. A key to this system was the global introduction of the Digital Product Passport (DPP), which is both a physical (tracking technology) and a non-physical entity that expands beyond the use phase.

Finally, the global business ecosystem of chemical and textile companies has recognised traceability as a driving force for both financial success and environmental protection. Greater transparency enabled fairer markets and encouraged the trend towards more globally balanced location factors. While legislation initially was one of the primary drivers, the process has evolved naturally involving more and more stakeholders. This success story is not an end in itself, but continues to serve as a driver for all in the textile apparel value chains and as an inspiration for neighbouring sectors. Because in the end, the goal is a truly circular economy.

Scenario 2: No P(l)ace for Trace

It is 2040 and there is still no genuine traceability of chemicals in the textile value chain. While legislators lack the ambition to make chemical traceability a priority, both chemical and textile industry stick to their established still profitable modes of work. In addition, consumers might be more informed, but continue to focus on cheap rather than toxic-free apparel, or buy second- hand clothes instead, which still plays only a minor role. How could this happen?

Critical public opinion – not found

Consumer behaviour, policymakers and industry have been the three main drivers here: The continuing absence of public awareness and critical public opinion about chemicals in textile apparel, including a lack of interest in what (potentially toxic) substances are used in the production process and what happens with the apparel after it is worn, are one reason for this development. A lack of education of consumers added further to this. Although consumers had continuously more information about chemicals in textile apparel, they still based their purchasing decisions primarily on price, instead of sustainable products, which led to not promoting the manufacturing of more sustainable products necessary to outcompete the conventional products. The absence of major pressure from the public to change this has essentially allowed production to continue as in 2024.

From a political point of view, the deharmonisation tendencies of recent years occurred in line with a limited level of political cooperation globally. In addition, political attention to the topic of chemicals traceability has remained low over the last decade due to strong competition between Asia (especially China), the US, Russia and Europe – there has been no interest in common approaches. This forced the EU to reconsider and slow down their regulatory efforts to restrict chemicals in products, which was further amplified by the member states: Due to the high competitive pressure, they reduced enforcement to the necessary minimum to protect their industries and out of fear of losing them to other countries.

European legislation – backs out

Since there was neither a strong critical public opinion and corresponding market demand nor determined European legislation, both the chemical and textile industries had no reason to reconsider their mindsets. Established business models and protective information management policies regarding chemicals in products and processes remained in place. Still today, the traceability of chemicals is widely seen as a costly and burdensome investment without any viable business case and economic benefit. Accordingly, hardly any player in the industry had invested strategically in the development of traceability capacities (human resources or technological infrastructure).

The same applies to scientific knowledge about chemicals: In the absence of regulatory need, the chemical and textile industries did not provide any significant funding for research and no genuine effort was made to generate and disseminate knowledge. Furthermore, even less money was invested in public research on aspects of traceability. The few actors doing research on chemical substances (including their toxicity profiles) were limited to academia and did not have sufficient access to practical knowledge of the actual chemical substances used in global value chains. This led primarily to general and mostly basic research results that were mainly disseminated in the academic world and hardly acknowledged elsewhere.

Textile industry – standing still

Since the traceability of chemicals was (and still is not) a priority, there was no need for the industry to cooperate along the value chain: the chemical industry also did not provide the apparel value chain with the necessary information on the chemical ingredients formulated in the chemical products used in the value chains. To be compliant with current regulations, companies had to rely on test methods. With general technological advances in recent years, more sophisticated detection methods and higher levels of automation have brought some progress to the industry.

Nevertheless, innovations in detection methods continue to fall short of regulatory requirements for scientific evidence in terms of hazardousness. Even the latest test methods are still not able to test the necessary percentages or are limited to the final product and neglect the potential harm of substances used during the production process.

Similarly, there was a lack of collaboration between peers in the textile value chain, which could have strengthened their position vis-à-vis the chemical industry. Large companies only occasionally formed partnerships when they saw an opportunity and benefit for their own interests. This, in turn, hindered the development of industry standards.

As the overall pressure remained low and no incentives were provided, innovation in the textile and traceability technology lagged behind. As a result, the market for traceability-based business models remained rather small. Since 2024, it has been difficult for companies to establish themselves in this niche.

Although the first steps towards the traceability of chemicals were already in place in 2024, little has happened in the past 16 years. Consumers, industry and politicians have not managed to generate enough momentum for a significant change. The question is whether it is already too late to catch up?