This article on biomass is part of our Vogue Business membership package. To enjoy unlimited access to our weekly Sustainability Edit, which contains Member-only reporting and analysis, sign up for membership here.
In the race to reduce emissions and meet looming deadlines for climate targets, fashion brands are turning to biomass (or organic material, like wood, pulp and agricultural waste) for energy as a means to move away from fossil fuels in its production lines. Experts worry it’s not the win that the industry thinks it is — possibly delaying decarbonisation by decades.
New guidelines for sustainable biomass, published by the Institute for Sustainable Communities (ISC) in November, state that “biomass can be considered as a low-carbon transition energy source to produce hot water and steam generation, in substitution of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, or natural gas.” It also promotes the use of biomass as renewable energy.
“This solution is born out of necessity. It’s not meant to be ‘the’ solution. We said, ‘OK, let’s [decide] what is sustainable biomass because not all biomass is equal,’” says Trina Mallik, VP of global programs at the ISC. The guidelines advise that waste from production sites and farms is acceptable for use as biomass. However, critics caution that primary wood materials remain the leading biomass source — which exacerbates deforestation — while the use of certification loopholes or loose oversight could lead to abuses within the guidelines.
The stakes for the climate are real: fashion’s production emissions have been predicted to rise 60 per cent by 2030 compared to 2019 levels, according to the UNFCCC, while Paris Agreement targets call for a nearly 50 per cent reduction by the same year. Fashion is in desperate need of a way to reduce its energy-related emissions, and biomass is presented by the ISC as a sustainable, renewable and carbon-neutral fuel option.
But critics insist that, even as a temporary solution, biomass is not the answer. A new report from environmental organisation Stand.earth warns that by relying on biomass, “the fashion industry is fanning the flames of the global boiling era”. In September, clean energy campaign group Trend Asia published an open letter from Indonesian and international civil society organisations calling on the fashion industry to rule out biomass and “ensure a clean energy transition away from fossil fuels and false solutions”.
“Even though brands say that biomass is sustainable, and they take it to be renewable energy, according to our research and evidence from Asian countries, we know that biomass is not sustainable or green,” says Xixi Zhang, supply chain campaign research specialist at Stand.earth and author of the report.
Expanding the use of biomass presents risks, according to Stand.earth, including increasing emissions of greenhouse gases during processing and transportation and — harder to calculate, but perhaps more dangerous for the total climate impact — a sharp increase in complete carbon emissions if the carbon stock (such as forests or crops) used for biomass is not restored to equivalent levels. The Stand.earth report argues it almost never is. The main concern for biomass critics is that in reality, it will accelerate global deforestation and biodiversity loss.
Instead, they advocate for an accelerated transition to electric energy, and/or the deployment of renewable energy or technological innovation for thermal heating demands. The debate surrounding next steps in transitioning away from fossil fuels comes at a crucial moment, when fashion is far from meeting its climate targets. And without factoring in the most critical voices — the suppliers — efforts won’t lead to holistic change.
What’s realistic?
The ISC argues that widespread unavailability of renewable energy presents problems. “There is no access to renewable electricity for these factories. It just doesn’t exist,” says Mallik. “We absolutely need decarbonisation at the scale and urgency that’s required, but there’s practicality. If renewable energy doesn’t exist on the grid, then it’s not accessible to the factories.”
“It’s crucial to acknowledge that gap,” says Liv Simpliciano, policy and research manager at Fashion Revolution, “but brands need to explain why they are supporting biomass above any other available option and share targets on phasing out its use.” The issue isn’t black and white, she says. In practicality, biomass can offer itself as an escape route from fossil fuels and, depending on the source used and the context of usage, could reduce emissions, but a lot relies on fashion adhering to responsible guidelines.
Exacerbating the risk, she says, is the fact that suppliers continue to be left out of the conversations. Mostafiz Uddin, managing director of Denim Expert Ltd and founder and CEO of Bangladesh Apparel Exchange, says suppliers are the ones shouldering the responsibility for a green transition in the supply chain and ultimately, for enabling brands to meet their environmental goals. But brands fail to engage suppliers on what that should look like, which he argues is derailing progress. Right now there is “no chance” of fashion achieving its net-zero targets, he says. “Before making their targets, they should sit with us. But they never… talk with their suppliers, they give their targets in big rooms in Europe and America.”
Whether or not biomass is an effective climate solution for fashion is almost irrelevant to the real problem of slowing progress in the supply chain. “We’re still unable to establish fair purchasing practices. If this is established, many of their targets… will be solved but they don’t want to talk about this. If you go to many of the brand and retailer websites they still don’t have their supplier names on the website. It’s low-hanging fruit, the basic things,” Uddin says.
Stand.earth argues that the lack of clean energy in manufacturing countries is a reason to accelerate investment in building it, not to pursue stopgaps that come with unintended consequences.
There is some precedent for the type of investment experts and advocates want to see. This week, Bestseller and H&M announced an investment in the development of an offshore wind project in Bangladesh — the country’s first. Other companies, such as Levi’s and Kering, have invested in renewable energy in the supply chain, partnered with financial institutions to help suppliers access financing or engaged with governments to encourage climate-friendly policies or incentives. Brands can also pay premiums to suppliers who show interest in investing in clean energy or committing to long-term contracts offering suppliers the necessary financial security to embrace long-term thinking around clean energy infrastructure.
Conflicting perspectives
During COP28 on 9 December, the ISC will co-host an event with Fashion Revolution calling on fashion brands to disclose their fuel mix by country. Eco-Age, Stand.earth, Transformers Foundation, Action Speaks Louder, Solidaridad, and supplier Diamond Denim will all be represented on the panel, set to cover the topic of a just transition. But whether biomass has a place within a just transition remains up for debate.
It’s a reflection of conflicting ideologies across the wider climate space. Multiple governments are eyeing the scale-up of biomass as a key component in the race to net zero. Meanwhile in 2021, 500 scientists signed an open letter to world leaders urging them not to undermine climate goals and biodiversity by burning trees to generate energy, stating that if the world supplied an additional 2 per cent of its energy from wood, it would need to double commercial harvests. In 2023, a coalition of NGOs including Greenpeace Japan and Mighty Earth issued a joint statement citing similar concerns.
In fashion, for Simpliciano, it boils down to how decisions get made. “If we continue to make decisions from the top down, we’re leaving the most important people out of the equation,” she says, echoing Uddin’s calls. “Decarbonisation should be supplier-led and brand-supported. Major fashion brands must use their immense economic influence in these countries to advocate for clean energy and the procurement of wind and solar, and to financially support suppliers to shift away from unsustainable ways of creating thermal energy.”
Comments, questions or feedback? Email us at feedback@voguebusiness.com.
Luxury leads the way in transparency, but there’s still a long way to go
UN climate report’s fashion takeaways: Time for nature-based solutions
