Systematic Insights into a Textile Industry: Reviewing Life Cycle Assessment and Eco-Design

Citation:Fonseca, A.; Ramalho, E.;
Gouveia, A.; Henriques, R.;
Figueiredo, F.; Nunes, J. Systematic
Insights into a Textile Industry:
Reviewing Life Cycle Assessment
and Eco-Design.Sustainability2023,
15, 15267.
su152115267
Academic Editor: Adriana Del
Borghi
Received: 29 September 2023
Revised: 18 October 2023
Accepted: 24 October 2023
Published: 25 October 2023
Copyright:© 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).sustainability
Review
Systematic Insights into a Textile Industry: Reviewing Life
Cycle Assessment and Eco-Design
Ana Fonseca
1,
*
, Edgar Ramalho
1
, Ana Gouveia
1
, Rita Henriques
1
, Filipa Figueiredo
1,2
and Jo¢o Nunes
1,2
1
Associaç¢o CECOLABCollaborative Laboratory Towards Circular Economy, Rua Nossa Senhora da
Conceiç¢o, n
o
. 2. Lagares da Beira, 3405-155 Oliveira do Hospital, Portugal; [email protected] (E.R.);
[email protected] (A.G.); [email protected] (R.H.); [email protected] (F.F.);
[email protected] (J.N.)
2
Associaç¢o BLC3Campus de Tecnologia e Inovaç¢o, Centre Bio R&D Unit, Rua Nossa Senhora da
Conceiç¢o, n
o
. 2, 3405-155 Oliveira do Hospital, Portugal
*Correspondence: [email protected]
Abstract:
The worldwide textile sector is one of the most polluting and consuming natural resource
value chains. In recent years, trends have demonstrated a linear model driven by fast fashion, increas-
ing the sustainability problems of this sector. The European market and industry are changing the
paradigm and promoting some actions towards a sustainable value chain. This paper applies a sys-
tematic approach to reviewing scientic research, where Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is implemented
as a tool to understand the impacts considering a holistic life cycle framework, from raw materials to
the end-of-life of textile products. The methodology and criteria applied resulted in 73 articles used
for qualitative analysis, of which 39 met the criteria for quantitative analysis. The quantitative results
reported in the studies were organized and presented by phase of the garment production life cycle
(production of ber, yarn, fabric, manufacturing, and recovery/end of life). From a cradle-to-gate
perspective, wool yarn production, by worsted processing, was the material with the highest values
(95.70 kg CO
2eq/kg) for climate change/global warming potential, closely followed by silk fabric
(80.90 kg CO
2eq/kg). Extending to a cradle-to-grave boundary, polyester had the highest values
for the previously mentioned category, reaching a potential release of 40.28 kg CO
2eq per kilogram
of polyester textile. When data was available, the user phase predominantly contributed to climate
change/global warming potential. Additionally, there were signicant differences in maximum and
minimum values for some of the materials, which were related to methodological considerations,
database inventory, and frequency of use and care considered by the different authors. The study
also addresses the considerations and limitations of diverse LCA impact assessment tools.
Keywords:
Life Cycle Assessment; eco-design; circular economy; global warming potential; textile
value chain; review
1. Introduction
The textile value chain plays a pivotal role in modern society by providing fabrics and
products used in day-to-day life, ranging from clothing to household items and various
other textile goods. Clothing allowed humans to survive in different environments and
made living more comfortable, and, notably, 60% of global ber production is destined
for this end [1]. Globally, textile production has nearly doubled since the turn of the
century, and, according to the European Environment Agency (EEA), apparel consumption
is projected to rise by 63% by 2030 [2].
The current linear model, primarily driven by ultrafast fashion, is characterized by
low rates of reuse, repair, and ber-to-ber recycling of textiles, enticing consumers to
purchase low-quality, short-lived garments, magnifying the environmental repercussions
of the sector [3]. Furthermore, it is estimated that the apparel and footwear industries
generate 810% of global carbon emissions, which amounts to an equivalent of roughly
Sustainability2023,15, 15267.

Sustainability2023,15, 15267 2 of 23
1.2 billion tons of CO2equivalent [2,4]. The increasing demand for textiles also leads to
the inefcient use of non-renewable resources, including the production of synthetic bers
from fossil fuels, resulting in the shedding of microplastics throughout all stages of their
lifecycle [5]. Additionally, textile dyeing and nishing processes contribute to wastewater
pollution, which is challenging to treat, harmful to aquatic ecosystems, and a threat to
human health [6]. Moreover, major textile-producing countries such as China, India, and
Bangladesh continue to rely heavily on coal for their operations [7]. Energy-intensive
garment care practices, including washing, drying, pressing, and dry-cleaning, further
compound these environmental challenges [8]. Additionally, the improper disposal of
textile waste in landlls or incineration sites leads to the release of hazardous chemicals and
greenhouse gases (GHG) into the environment. In numbers, it is estimated that Europeans
use nearly 26 kg of textiles and discard about 11 kg every year. Although used clothing
can be exported outside the European Union (EU), the vast majority (87%) is incinerated
or landlled, and, due to insufcient technology, less than 1% of clothing is recycled
globally [2].
In order to address the problems associated with the textile industry, the EU published
in 2022 the EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles to implement commitments
made under the European Green Deal, the new Circular Economy Action Plan, and the
Industrial Strategy [9]. The strategy aims to ensure that by 2030, the textile products
placed on the EU market are long-lived and repairable, recyclable, incorporate recycled
bers as much as possible, free from hazardous substances, and sustainable from a social
and environmental perspective. The actions are directed at the entire life cycle of textile
products, where eco-design strategies are applied [9]. Some specic examples include
tight controls on greenwashing, measures to tackle the release of microplastics during
manufacturing processes and use, and the creation of a Transition Pathway for Textile
Ecosystems [9].
Addressing the sustainability issues inherent in this complex industry requires a com-
prehensive understanding of the environmental impacts associated with textile production,
use, and disposal. In this regard, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and eco-design emerge as
crucial tools and approaches [10,11]. LCA enables a holistic assessment of the entire life
cycle of various products, such as textiles, encompassing the extraction of raw materials,
manufacture, distribution, use, and end-of-life disposal. By quantifying environmental
burdens at each stage, LCA can be a useful tool to empower decision-makers to identify
critical areas for improvement and apply better alternatives through eco-design. This quan-
titative technique is based on science, takes a life cycle perspective, and covers extensive
environmental issues [12].
1.1. Eco-Design Overview
Eco-design, also known as ecological design or sustainable design, incorporates envi-
ronmental considerations into product design and development to reduce negative envi-
ronmental impacts throughout the product's life cycle [13,14]. By incorporating eco-design
principles into product development methods, it is possible to create more sustainable
solutions that satisfy market needs by reducing environmental impacts and increasing
ecological efciency [15]. Eco-design can be applied at various levels, such as improving
and developing existing products and designing new products as system-oriented and
product-oriented eco-designs [16]. The eco-design process typically consists of six steps
outlined in ISO 14006:2020 [17], as seen in Figure. Among these steps, the environmental
assessment of products (step two) is particularly signicant. In this phase, the aim is
to identify the stage or process of the product life cycle with the highest environmental
impact [13,18].

Sustainability2023,15, 15267 3 of 23Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 22

Despite the fact that the eco-design standard does not explicitly reference LCA, it
remains the most objective and frequently utilized tool for assessing the environmental
profile of products [15,19,20].

Figure 1. Eco-design methodology flowchart.
1.2. LCA Overview
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a quantitative tool that analyzes the environmental
impacts of products, processes, and services. It can be applied throughout their entire life
cycle, from cradle-to-gate to cradle-to-grave, and has several defining characteristics.
Standardized by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards
through ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044:2006 [21,22], the LCA process is divided into four
steps: goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory, life cycle impact assessment, and life
cycle interpretation (Figure 2). By measuring various environmental impact indicators
such as carbon footprint, water footprint, eutrophication, acidification, and human tox-
icity, LCA provides a comprehensive assessment of the hotspots of a product’s life or a
service [23–25]. Transparency is crucial in all steps to ensure the credibility of the study
and its report. The content of an LCA study depends on its intended application, such as
strategic planning, marketing, or policymaking [26]. Different review studies explore dis-
tinct aspects, such as Munasinghe et al. (2021), which performed a systematic review of
the life cycle inventory of clothing, focusing mainly on identifying gaps in the availability
of Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) data, and Sahoo et al. (2022), which focused on a specific
material [25,27]. The reviews retrieved from the search for the present work will be further
explored in Section 3. The current study differs from others in that it presents a literature
review of the life cycle of textile production throughout the entire production chain, from
the production of raw materials to their use and end of life, quantitatively comparing the
results obtained for each type of textile raw material.

Figure 2. Life Cycle Assessment methodology.
Incorporating a span from 2008 to 2023, this article undertakes the task of performing
a systematic review of LCA literature from the textile industry by:
(i) Execution of a qualitative evaluation of the literature.
(ii) Quantification of outcomes linked to climate change/global warming potential.
Figure 1.Eco-design methodology owchart.
Despite the fact that the eco-design standard does not explicitly reference LCA, it
remains the most objective and frequently utilized tool for assessing the environmental
prole of products [15,19,20].
1.2. LCA Overview
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a quantitative tool that analyzes the environmental
impacts of products, processes, and services. It can be applied throughout their entire life
cycle, from cradle-to-gate to cradle-to-grave, and has several dening characteristics. Stan-
dardized by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards through
ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044:2006 [21,22], the LCA process is divided into four steps:
goal and scope denition, life cycle inventory, life cycle impact assessment, and life cycle
interpretation (Figure). By measuring various environmental impact indicators such as
carbon footprint, water footprint, eutrophication, acidication, and human toxicity, LCA
provides a comprehensive assessment of the hotspots of a product's life or a service [2325].
Transparency is crucial in all steps to ensure the credibility of the study and its report. The
content of an LCA study depends on its intended application, such as strategic planning,
marketing, or policymaking [26]. Different review studies explore distinct aspects, such as
Munasinghe et al. (2021), which performed a systematic review of the life cycle inventory
of clothing, focusing mainly on identifying gaps in the availability of Life Cycle Inventory
(LCI) data, and Sahoo et al. (2022), which focused on a specic material [25,27]. The reviews
retrieved from the search for the present work will be further explored in Section. The
current study differs from others in that it presents a literature review of the life cycle of
textile production throughout the entire production chain, from the production of raw
materials to their use and end of life, quantitatively comparing the results obtained for each
type of textile raw material.Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 22

Despite the fact that the eco-design standard does not explicitly reference LCA, it
remains the most objective and frequently utilized tool for assessing the environmental
profile of products [15,19,20].

Figure 1. Eco-design methodology flowchart.
1.2. LCA Overview
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a quantitative tool that analyzes the environmental
impacts of products, processes, and services. It can be applied throughout their entire life
cycle, from cradle-to-gate to cradle-to-grave, and has several defining characteristics.
Standardized by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards
through ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044:2006 [21,22], the LCA process is divided into four
steps: goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory, life cycle impact assessment, and life
cycle interpretation (Figure 2). By measuring various environmental impact indicators
such as carbon footprint, water footprint, eutrophication, acidification, and human tox-
icity, LCA provides a comprehensive assessment of the hotspots of a product’s life or a
service [23–25]. Transparency is crucial in all steps to ensure the credibility of the study
and its report. The content of an LCA study depends on its intended application, such as
strategic planning, marketing, or policymaking [26]. Different review studies explore dis-
tinct aspects, such as Munasinghe et al. (2021), which performed a systematic review of
the life cycle inventory of clothing, focusing mainly on identifying gaps in the availability
of Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) data, and Sahoo et al. (2022), which focused on a specific
material [25,27]. The reviews retrieved from the search for the present work will be further
explored in Section 3. The current study differs from others in that it presents a literature
review of the life cycle of textile production throughout the entire production chain, from
the production of raw materials to their use and end of life, quantitatively comparing the
results obtained for each type of textile raw material.

Figure 2. Life Cycle Assessment methodology.
Incorporating a span from 2008 to 2023, this article undertakes the task of performing
a systematic review of LCA literature from the textile industry by:
(i) Execution of a qualitative evaluation of the literature.
(ii) Quantification of outcomes linked to climate change/global warming potential.
Figure 2.Life Cycle Assessment methodology.
Incorporating a span from 2008 to 2023, this article undertakes the task of performing
a systematic review of LCA literature from the textile industry by:
(i)Execution of a qualitative evaluation of the literature.

Sustainability2023,15, 15267 4 of 23
(ii)Quantication of outcomes linked to climate change/global warming potential.
(iii)Analyze the variability inherent in the above-mentioned impact category's reported results.
The prime objectives encompass:
(i)Identication of the core raw materials utilized in LCA studies pertinent to the
textile industry.
(ii)Quantitative assessment of outcomes derived from diverse studies.
(iii)Identication of hotspots within the life cycle phase of products.
The study is composed of four sections, including this introduction. Section
the methods adopted by the study, including the criteria for this systematic literature
review. Section
and highlighting prospects from the study, including notes for future exploration as well
as constraints.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Bibliographic Research
This systematic review was conducted to comprehensively examine published LCA
studies related to the textile industry. The database Scopus was utilized for the bibliographic
research, where fourteen sets of keywords were employed for the search: LCA and Textile;
LCA, Raw Materials and Textile; LCA and Garment; LCA and Yarn; LCA and
Clothes; LCA and T-shirt; LCA and Fashion; Life Cycle Assessment and Textile;
Life Cycle Assessment, Raw Materials and Textile; Life Cycle Assessment and Garment;
Life Cycle Assessment and Yarn; Life Cycle Assessment and Clothes; Life Cycle
Assessment and T-shirt; Life Cycle Assessment and Fashion.
The time period for the research was not restricted to encompassing a comprehensive
range of studies. The initial search resulted in a total of 680 articles, after excluding
duplicates and empty entries. Titles and abstracts were screened, with a total of 586
entries excluded (e.g., studies about incorporating textile waste in concrete production [28];
chemicals used in pre-treatments and other steps of textile manufacturing [29]; LCA of
waste streams from textile production [30]). After the full-text analysis of the papers, 14
reviews were excluded for not providing qualitative and quantitative data, resulting in a
total of 73 studies that met the criteria for inclusion in the qualitative data analysis (which
consists of the number of publications per year, system boundaries, LCA software, and
impact assessment method). In the quantitative analysis, 34 studies were excluded for not
providing retrievable data, remaining only 39, as seen in Figure.Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 22

(iii) Analyze the variability inherent in the above-mentioned impact category’s reported
results.
The prime objectives encompass:
(i) Identification of the core raw materials utilized in LCA studies pertinent to the textile
industry.
(ii) Quantitative assessment of outcomes derived from diverse studies.
(iii) Identification of hotspots within the life cycle phase of products.
The study is composed of four sections, including this introduction. Section 2 outlines
the methods adopted by the study, including the criteria for this systematic literature re-
view. Section 3 unveils the primary findings, while Section 4 engages in discussing and
highlighting prospects from the study, including notes for future exploration as well as
constraints.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Bibliographic Research
This systematic review was conducted to comprehensively examine published LCA
studies related to the textile industry. The database Scopus was utilized for the biblio-
graphic research, where fourteen sets of keywords were employed for the search: “LCA
and Textile”; “LCA, Raw Materials and Textile”; “LCA and Garment”; “LCA and Yarn”;
“LCA and Clothes”; “LCA and T-shirt”; “LCA and Fashion”; “Life Cycle Assessment and
Textile; “Life Cycle Assessment, Raw Materials and Textile”; “Life Cycle Assessment and
Garment”; “Life Cycle Assessment and Yarn”; “Life Cycle Assessment and Clothes”; “Life
Cycle Assessment and T-shirt”; “Life Cycle Assessment and Fashion”.
The time period for the research was not restricted to encompassing a comprehensive
range of studies. The initial search resulted in a total of 680 articles, after excluding dupli-
cates and empty entries. Titles and abstracts were screened, with a total of 586 entries
excluded (e.g., studies about incorporating textile waste in concrete production [28];
chemicals used in pre-treatments and other steps of textile manufacturing [29]; LCA of
waste streams from textile production [30]). After the full-text analysis of the papers, 14
reviews were excluded for not providing qualitative and quantitative data, resulting in a
total of 73 studies that met the criteria for inclusion in the qualitative data analysis (which
consists of the number of publications per year, system boundaries, LCA software, and
impact assessment method). In the quantitative analysis, 34 studies were excluded for not
providing retrievable data, remaining only 39, as seen in Figure 3.
Additionally, prior to screening the results, a map of the co-occurrence of keywords
was created using VOSviewer software 1.6.19.

Figure 3. Diagram of literature search and respective screening.
Figure 3.Diagram of literature search and respective screening.

Sustainability2023,15, 15267 5 of 23
Additionally, prior to screening the results, a map of the co-occurrence of keywords
was created using VOSviewer software 1.6.19.
2.2. Quantitative Analysis
The studies eligible for quantitative analysis were divided by type of material (studies
could include one or more types of materials), according to the origin of material (conven-
tional, organic, recovered, or other), and system boundary. Impact values were collected
for each identied category, and in order to make the data as comparable as possible, the
values related to the dened functional unit were converted to a standardized unit of 1 kg
of functional unit (taking into account the reference ow), whenever possible, to enable
comparison of impacts according to the previously described division. When available,
data for each considered life cycle phase was also collected in order to assess the impact
along the value chain. For the cradle-to-gate analysis, data was divided by ber, yarn,
fabric, and nal product, according to the functional unit dened by the authors. Due to
the heterogeneity of the life cycle phases considered in the reviewed studies, a simplied
approach was adopted for the cradle-to-grave system boundary. The life cycle phases were
categorized and grouped to facilitate comparison. For example, if data were available
for spinning, wet processing, and other phases, they were included within the broader
manufacturing phase (Figure).Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 22

2.2. Quantitative Analysis
The studies eligible for quantitative analysis were divided by type of material (stud-
ies could include one or more types of materials), according to the origin of material (con-
ventional, organic, recovered, or other), and system boundary. Impact values were col-
lected for each identified category, and in order to make the data as comparable as possi-
ble, the values related to the defined functional unit were converted to a standardized unit
of 1kg of functional unit (taking into account the reference flow), whenever possible, to
enable comparison of impacts according to the previously described division. When avail-
able, data for each considered life cycle phase was also collected in order to assess the
impact along the value chain. For the cradle-to-gate analysis, data was divided by fiber,
yarn, fabric, and final product, according to the functional unit defined by the authors.
Due to the heterogeneity of the life cycle phases considered in the reviewed studies, a
simplified approach was adopted for the cradle-to-grave system boundary. The life cycle
phases were categorized and grouped to facilitate comparison. For example, if data were
available for spinning, wet processing, and other phases, they were included within the
broader “manufacturing phase” (Figure 4).
Additionally, results will only be presented for the impact category Climate
Change/Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq); for the remaining categories, the results
can be consulted in the Supplementary Materials (Tables S2–S8).
The limitations discovered throughout this review are listed in Section 4.

Figure 4. Scheme of the simplified life cycle phases of textile production.
3. Results
An overview of the number of publications over the years is outlined in this portion.
As of 25 September 2023, a total of 73 studies meeting the defined criteria for the
qualitative assessment were collected and are presented in Table 1. The time period of
papers is 2008–2023, and the years with the most publications correspond to 2018, 2020,
and 2021 (n = 10) (Figure 5). Regarding the identified reviews retrieved from the search,
six review sustainable production of specific materials [27,31–35], five review overall sus-
tainability of the textile industry and do not include quantitative analysis [14,36–39], one
reviews end-of-life environmental impacts of textiles [40], and one reviews the implemen-
tation of circular practices within the industry [41]. Additionally, one of the results was
not retrievable.

Figure 5. Distribution of the universe of the 73 articles analyzed by publication date.
Figure 4.Scheme of the simplied life cycle phases of textile production.
Additionally, results will only be presented for the impact category Climate Change/
Global Warming Potential (kg CO2eq); for the remaining categories, the results can be
consulted in the Supplementary Materials (Tables S2S8).
The limitations discovered throughout this review are listed in Section.
3. Results
An overview of the number of publications over the years is outlined in this portion.
As of 25 September 2023, a total of 73 studies meeting the dened criteria for the quali-
tative assessment were collected and are presented in Table. The time period of papers is
20082023, and the years with the most publications correspond to 2018, 2020, and 2021
(n = 10) (Figure). Regarding the identied reviews retrieved from the search, six review
sustainable production of specic materials [27,3135], ve review overall sustainability of
the textile industry and do not include quantitativeanalysis [14,3639] , one reviews end-of-
life environmental impacts of textiles [40], and one reviews the implementation of circular
practices within the industry [41]. Additionally, one of the results was not retrievable.
In addition, a keyword review of the initial search results was conducted with
VOSviewer software, allowing for the examination of keyword co-occurrence relation-
ships (Figure). The map was created based on bibliographic data, with a minimum of
occurrences dened as two, resulting in 49 eligible words and 8 different clusters. The term
life cycle assessment is included in Cluster 2 and has 30 occurrences (other nominations
such as LCA also appear in different clusters). Inside the same cluster, the terms envi-
ronmental impacts, clothing, and consumer behavior have an occurrence of 10, 4, and
2, respectively. Sohn et al., a study included in the quantitative analysis, mainly focused on
consumer behavior related to garment consumption patterns, evidencing the importance
of also including a social aspect when performing LCA [42].

Sustainability2023,15, 15267 6 of 23Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 22

2.2. Quantitative Analysis
The studies eligible for quantitative analysis were divided by type of material (stud-
ies could include one or more types of materials), according to the origin of material (con-
ventional, organic, recovered, or other), and system boundary. Impact values were col-
lected for each identified category, and in order to make the data as comparable as possi-
ble, the values related to the defined functional unit were converted to a standardized unit
of 1kg of functional unit (taking into account the reference flow), whenever possible, to
enable comparison of impacts according to the previously described division. When avail-
able, data for each considered life cycle phase was also collected in order to assess the
impact along the value chain. For the cradle-to-gate analysis, data was divided by fiber,
yarn, fabric, and final product, according to the functional unit defined by the authors.
Due to the heterogeneity of the life cycle phases considered in the reviewed studies, a
simplified approach was adopted for the cradle-to-grave system boundary. The life cycle
phases were categorized and grouped to facilitate comparison. For example, if data were
available for spinning, wet processing, and other phases, they were included within the
broader “manufacturing phase” (Figure 4).
Additionally, results will only be presented for the impact category Climate
Change/Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq); for the remaining categories, the results
can be consulted in the Supplementary Materials (Tables S2–S8).
The limitations discovered throughout this review are listed in Section 4.

Figure 4. Scheme of the simplified life cycle phases of textile production.
3. Results
An overview of the number of publications over the years is outlined in this portion.
As of 25 September 2023, a total of 73 studies meeting the defined criteria for the
qualitative assessment were collected and are presented in Table 1. The time period of
papers is 2008–2023, and the years with the most publications correspond to 2018, 2020,
and 2021 (n = 10) (Figure 5). Regarding the identified reviews retrieved from the search,
six review sustainable production of specific materials [27,31–35], five review overall sus-
tainability of the textile industry and do not include quantitative analysis [14,36–39], one
reviews end-of-life environmental impacts of textiles [40], and one reviews the implemen-
tation of circular practices within the industry [41]. Additionally, one of the results was
not retrievable.

Figure 5. Distribution of the universe of the 73 articles analyzed by publication date.
Figure 5.Distribution of the universe of the 73 articles analyzed by publication date.Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 22

[83] * 2010 Cradle-to-Gate NA IPCC and CML
[84] 2022 Cradle-to-Grave SimaPro 8 ReCiPe
[85] 2018 Cradle-to-Grave NA NA
[42] * 2021 Cradle-to-Grave NA ReCiPe
[86] * 2021 Cradle-to-Grave SimaPro 8.5.2 TRACI
[87] 2014 Cradle-to-Gate SimaPro 7.3 ReCiPe and CML
[88] 2015 Cradle-to-Grave SimaPro 8 IPCC and ILCD
[89] 2014 Cradle-to-Grave NA NA
[90] * 2008 Cradle-to-Gate SimaPro 1.1 IPCC
[91] * 2011 Cradle-to-Gate NA IPCC
[92] * 2015 Cradle-to-gate NA IPCC
[93] * 2019 Cradle-to-Gate SimaPro 8 IPCC
[94] 2019 Cradle-to-Gate SimaPro 8.3.0 IPCC and ReCiPe
[95] * 2015 Cradle-to-Gate NA IPCC
[96] * 2020 Cradle-to-Grave SimaPro 9.0 IPCC
[11] * 2022 Cradle-to-Grave SimaPro 9.1 IPCC
[97] * 2022 Cradle-to-Grave SimaPro 9.3 IPCC
[98] * 2020 Cradle-to-Grave NA NA
[99] 2016 Cradle-to-Gate SimaPro 7.1 Ecoindicator99
[100] 2020 Cradle-to-Gate NA NA
[101] * 2020 Cradle-to-Gate GaBi ReCiPe
[16] 2018 Cradle-to-Gate GaBi 5 CML
[102] 2023 Gate-to-Gate GaBi 10.6 ReCiPe
[103] * 2015 Cradle-to-Grave GaBi 6.0 CML
[104] 2018 Cradle-to-Grave GaBi CML
[105] 2021 Cradle-to-Grave SimaPro 9.1.1.1 Environmental Footprint (EF)
[106] 2017 Cradle-to-Grave SimaPro 8.0.1 TRACI
[107] 2015 Cradle-to-Grave NA NA
[108] 2021 Cradle-to-Gate NA IPCC
[109] * 2023 Cradle-to-Gate NA Environmental Footprint (EF)
[110] 2022 Cradle-to-Grave Excel ReCiPe
[111] 2022 Cradle-to-Gate SimaPro 7.1.8 CML and ReCiPe
[112] 2018 Cradle-to-Gate OpenLCA CML
* Included in the quantitative analysis; NA—not available.

Figure 6. Mapping of co-occurrence keywords. Figure 6.Mapping of co-occurrence keywords.
While geographical borders could be relevant for delimiting the scope of articles, they
were not considered in the analysis.
From this point on, the results will be presented depending on which stage of the LCA
they could be associated with.

Sustainability2023,15, 15267 7 of 23
Table 1.Global vision of the 73 articles analyzed for the qualitative assessment.
Reference Year System Boundaries Software Impact Assessment Method
[43] * 2021 Cradle-to-Gate SimaPro 9.0 TRACI
[44] * 2017 Gate-to-Gate EIME NA
[45] * 2014 Cradle-to-Gate Simapro 8.0.2
CED, IPCC, Blue water footprint (BWF),
and ReCiPe
[46] * 2020 Cradle-to-Gate SimaPro 9.0.0 ILCD
[47] 2022 Gate-to-Gate OpenLCA 1.10.3 NA
[48] 2018 Cradle-to-Grave GaBi 5 IPCC
[49] 2015 Cradle-to-Grave GaBi 5 IPCC
[50] * 2019 Cradle-to-Grave SimaPro 8.1.1 ReCiPe
[51] * 2014 Cradle-to-Gate NA IPCC, and Ecoindicator99
[52] * 2022 Gate-to-Gate SimaPro 9.2 Environmental Footprint (EF)
[53] * 2010 Cradle-to-Gate Simapro 7 IPCC
[54] 2016 Cradle-to-Gate Simapro 8 CED, IPCC, and ReCIPe
[55] 2021 Gate-to-Gate SimaPro ReCiPe
[56] 2012 Cradle-to-Gate GaBi 4 CML
[57] 2017 Cradle-to-Gate GaBi IPCC
[58] 2010 Cradle-to-Grave GaBi EDIP
[59] * 2021 Cradle-to-Gate SimaPro 8.4.1 IPCC, CML-IA, and CED
[60] * 2010 Cradle-to-Gate SimaPro 7.0 CML
[61] * 2023 Cradle-to-Gate SimaPro 7.1 ReCiPe
[62] * 2023 Cradle-to-Grave Excel Environmental Footprint (EF)
[63] * 2020 Cradle-to-Grave GaBi 8.0 CML
[64] * 2019 Cradle-to-Gate SimaPro 8.0.5.13 CML
[65] 2018 Cradle-to-Grave GaBi 4 IPCC and ReCiPe
[66] 2018 Cradle-to-Gate SimaPro ReCiPe
[67] * 2020 Cradle-to-Gate GaBi ReCiPe
[68] * 2023 Gate-to-Gate SimaPro 9.1 ReCiPe
[69] 2015 Cradle-to-Grave SimaPro 7.3.0 IPCC and ReCiPe
[70] * 2021 Cradle-to-Gate OpenLCA 2.1 ILCD
[71] 2011 Cradle-to-Grave SimaPro 7.1.8 TRACI
[72] * 2018 Cradle-to-Grave Open LCA CML
[73] 2018 Cradle-to-Grave NA NA
[74] * 2021 Cradle-to-Grave OpenLCA ReCiPe and CML
[75] 2020 Cradle-to-Gate NA IPCC
[76] * 2012 Cradle-to-Gate SimaPro 7.3 IPCC
[77] * 2018 Gate-to-Gate SimaPro 1.11 ReCiPe
[78] * 2015 Gate-to-Gate SimaPro 7.3.3 CML
[79] * 2017 Cradle-to-Gate NA ReCiPe
[80] 2019 Cradle-to-Grave GaBi ReCiPe
[81] 2013 Cradle-to-Gate NA NA
[82] * 2023 Cradle-to-Grave Simapro 9.2.02 CML-IA

Sustainability2023,15, 15267 8 of 23
Table 1.Cont.
Reference Year System Boundaries Software Impact Assessment Method
[83] * 2010 Cradle-to-Gate NA IPCC and CML
[84] 2022 Cradle-to-Grave SimaPro 8 ReCiPe
[85] 2018 Cradle-to-Grave NA NA
[42] * 2021 Cradle-to-Grave NA ReCiPe
[86] * 2021 Cradle-to-Grave SimaPro 8.5.2 TRACI
[87] 2014 Cradle-to-Gate SimaPro 7.3 ReCiPe and CML
[88] 2015 Cradle-to-Grave SimaPro 8 IPCC and ILCD
[89] 2014 Cradle-to-Grave NA NA
[90] * 2008 Cradle-to-Gate SimaPro 1.1 IPCC
[91] * 2011 Cradle-to-Gate NA IPCC
[92] * 2015 Cradle-to-gate NA IPCC
[93] * 2019 Cradle-to-Gate SimaPro 8 IPCC
[94] 2019 Cradle-to-Gate SimaPro 8.3.0 IPCC and ReCiPe
[95] * 2015 Cradle-to-Gate NA IPCC
[96] * 2020 Cradle-to-Grave SimaPro 9.0 IPCC
[11] * 2022 Cradle-to-Grave SimaPro 9.1 IPCC
[97] * 2022 Cradle-to-Grave SimaPro 9.3 IPCC
[98] * 2020 Cradle-to-Grave NA NA
[99] 2016 Cradle-to-Gate SimaPro 7.1 Ecoindicator99
[100] 2020 Cradle-to-Gate NA NA
[101] * 2020 Cradle-to-Gate GaBi ReCiPe
[16] 2018 Cradle-to-Gate GaBi 5 CML
[102] 2023 Gate-to-Gate GaBi 10.6 ReCiPe
[103] * 2015 Cradle-to-Grave GaBi 6.0 CML
[104] 2018 Cradle-to-Grave GaBi CML
[105] 2021 Cradle-to-Grave SimaPro 9.1.1.1 Environmental Footprint (EF)
[106] 2017 Cradle-to-Grave SimaPro 8.0.1 TRACI
[107] 2015 Cradle-to-Grave NA NA
[108] 2021 Cradle-to-Gate NA IPCC
[109] * 2023 Cradle-to-Gate NA Environmental Footprint (EF)
[110] 2022 Cradle-to-Grave Excel ReCiPe
[111] 2022 Cradle-to-Gate SimaPro 7.1.8 CML and ReCiPe
[112] 2018 Cradle-to-Gate OpenLCA CML
* Included in the quantitative analysis; NAnot available.
3.1. Goal and Scope Denition
The objective and scope varied depending, essentially, on the focus of the analysis
carried out as well as the dened functional unit. With this information, 8 studies delimited
gate-to-gate boundaries, 30 cradle-to-grave, and the remaining 35 carried a cradle-to-gate
approach, as seen in Figure). It is
important to mention that in the denition of cradle-to-gate, some studies may include
distinct phases in the system boundary. For example, Shen et al. and Astudillo only
include raw material acquisition and ber production [45,83]. Others consider boundaries

Sustainability2023,15, 15267 9 of 23
to be yarn production or fabric production, such as Liu et al. and La Rosa et al. [64,101],
while others may include garment/nal production, as is the case of Kazan et al. and
Muthukumara et al. [63,77], or even transport and retail, namely Periyasamy et al., Fidan
et al., and Martin et al. [59,70,79]. Moreover, one particular study by Wang et al. dened a
cradle-to-gate boundary but also included the usage phase within the analyzed boundaries
due to its relevant contribution to overall greenhouse gas emissions [92].Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 22

While geographical borders could be relevant for delimiting the scope of articles, they
were not considered in the analysis.
From this point on, the results will be presented depending on which stage of the
LCA they could be associated with.
3.1. Goal and Scope Definition
The objective and scope varied depending, essentially, on the focus of the analysis
carried out as well as the defined functional unit. With this information, 8 studies delim-
ited gate-to-gate boundaries, 30 cradle-to-grave, and the remaining 35 carried a cradle-to-
gate approach, as seen in Figure 7 (corresponding papers can be consulted in Table 1). It
is important to mention that in the definition of cradle-to-gate, some studies may include
distinct phases in the system boundary. For example, Shen et al. and Astudillo only in-
clude raw material acquisition and fiber production [45,83]. Others consider boundaries
to be yarn production or fabric production, such as Liu et al. and La Rosa et al. [64,101],
while others may include garment/final production, as is the case of Kazan et al. and Mu-
thukumara et al. [63,77], or even transport and retail, namely Periyasamy et al., Fidan et
al., and Martin et al. [59,70,79]. Moreover, one particular study by Wang et al. defined a
cradle-to-gate boundary but also included the usage phase within the analyzed bounda-
ries due to its relevant contribution to overall greenhouse gas emissions [92].

Figure 7. Distribution of the universe of the 73 articles by system boundary.
Regarding the choice of functional unit (FU), more than half of the studies chose a
final product as a functional unit, ranging from t-shirts, which could either be a single
piece with 0.160 g or 1000 pieces [62,63], to 1000 socks [43]. Fibers and fabrics (usually
considering 1 kg) were the second most common FU (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Distribution of the chosen functional unit from the 73 articles analyzed.
Figure 7.Distribution of the universe of the 73 articles by system boundary.
Regarding the choice of functional unit (FU), more than half of the studies chose a nal
product as a functional unit, ranging from t-shirts, which could either be a single piece with
0.160 g or 1000 pieces [62,63], to 1000 socks [43]. Fibers and fabrics (usually considering
1 kg) were the second most common FU (Figure).Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 22

While geographical borders could be relevant for delimiting the scope of articles, they
were not considered in the analysis.
From this point on, the results will be presented depending on which stage of the
LCA they could be associated with.
3.1. Goal and Scope Definition
The objective and scope varied depending, essentially, on the focus of the analysis
carried out as well as the defined functional unit. With this information, 8 studies delim-
ited gate-to-gate boundaries, 30 cradle-to-grave, and the remaining 35 carried a cradle-to-
gate approach, as seen in Figure 7 (corresponding papers can be consulted in Table 1). It
is important to mention that in the definition of cradle-to-gate, some studies may include
distinct phases in the system boundary. For example, Shen et al. and Astudillo only in-
clude raw material acquisition and fiber production [45,83]. Others consider boundaries
to be yarn production or fabric production, such as Liu et al. and La Rosa et al. [64,101],
while others may include garment/final production, as is the case of Kazan et al. and Mu-
thukumara et al. [63,77], or even transport and retail, namely Periyasamy et al., Fidan et
al., and Martin et al. [59,70,79]. Moreover, one particular study by Wang et al. defined a
cradle-to-gate boundary but also included the usage phase within the analyzed bounda-
ries due to its relevant contribution to overall greenhouse gas emissions [92].

Figure 7. Distribution of the universe of the 73 articles by system boundary.
Regarding the choice of functional unit (FU), more than half of the studies chose a
final product as a functional unit, ranging from t-shirts, which could either be a single
piece with 0.160 g or 1000 pieces [62,63], to 1000 socks [43]. Fibers and fabrics (usually
considering 1 kg) were the second most common FU (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Distribution of the chosen functional unit from the 73 articles analyzed.
Figure 8.Distribution of the chosen functional unit from the 73 articles analyzed.
3.2. Life Cycle Inventory
Most studies used the SimaPro software to carry out the LCA, accounting for almost
half of the reviewed papers. For the same purpose, the Gabi and OpenLCA software

Sustainability2023,15, 15267 10 of 23
were used in 14 and 5 articles, respectively. A total of 17 papers did not mention or use
software for the LCA analysis, in which case the LCA was most likely carried out by hand,
for example, by resorting to an Excel spreadsheet [113] (Figure). The data used for creating
the life cycle inventory ranged from sources such as literature, public databases, databases
with LCA software, and industry.Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 22

3.2. Life Cycle Inventory
Most studies used the “SimaPro” software to carry out the LCA, accounting for al-
most half of the reviewed papers. For the same purpose, the “Gabi” and “OpenLCA” soft-
ware were used in 14 and 5 articles, respectively. A total of 17 papers did not mention or
use software for the LCA analysis, in which case the LCA was most likely carried out by
hand, for example, by resorting to an Excel spreadsheet [113] (Figure 9). The data used for
creating the life cycle inventory ranged from sources such as literature, public databases,
databases with LCA software, and industry.

Figure 9. Distribution of the universe of the 73 articles analyzed by type of software used. NA—not
available.
Regarding the choice of raw material, Figure 10 only includes information for the 39
quantifiable studies. Some studies focused on the comparison of different feedstocks and
therefore evaluated more than one type of raw material. Cotton was the most commonly
chosen raw material, with 31 mentions, followed by PET and wool, with 12 and 11 men-
tions, respectively.

Figure 10. Distribution of chosen materials in the 39 articles analyzed for quantitative assessment
(some studies include more than one type of material).
Figure 9.
Distribution of the universe of the 73 articles analyzed by type of software used.
NAnot available.
Regarding the choice of raw material, Figure
39 quantiable studies. Some studies focused on the comparison of different feedstocks
and therefore evaluated more than one type of raw material. Cotton was the most com-
monly chosen raw material, with 31 mentions, followed by PET and wool, with 12 and
11 mentions, respectively.Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 22

3.2. Life Cycle Inventory
Most studies used the “SimaPro” software to carry out the LCA, accounting for al-
most half of the reviewed papers. For the same purpose, the “Gabi” and “OpenLCA” soft-
ware were used in 14 and 5 articles, respectively. A total of 17 papers did not mention or
use software for the LCA analysis, in which case the LCA was most likely carried out by
hand, for example, by resorting to an Excel spreadsheet [113] (Figure 9). The data used for
creating the life cycle inventory ranged from sources such as literature, public databases,
databases with LCA software, and industry.

Figure 9. Distribution of the universe of the 73 articles analyzed by type of software used. NA—not
available.
Regarding the choice of raw material, Figure 10 only includes information for the 39
quantifiable studies. Some studies focused on the comparison of different feedstocks and
therefore evaluated more than one type of raw material. Cotton was the most commonly
chosen raw material, with 31 mentions, followed by PET and wool, with 12 and 11 men-
tions, respectively.

Figure 10. Distribution of chosen materials in the 39 articles analyzed for quantitative assessment
(some studies include more than one type of material).
Figure 10.
Distribution of chosen materials in the 39 articles analyzed for quantitative assessment
(some studies include more than one type of material).
3.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment
The methodology for the impact assessment methods was collected for all 73 studies,
with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ReCiPe, and CML baseline

Sustainability2023,15, 15267 11 of 23
being the most commonly used methods, with 24, 22, and 16 mentions, respectively.
These types of environmental impact assessment methods were not used or mentioned
in nine studies (Figure). The frequency of impact categories was only analyzed for
the quantiable studies, with the most common being Climate Change/Global Warming
Potential (with a unit dened as kg CO2eq), appearing in approximately 95% of studies.
For the remaining categories, since their use was not consistent with the globality of articles,
as well as having different dening units, the results will not be presented in the next
subsection but can be consulted in the Supplementary Materials (Tables S2S8).Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 22

3.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment
The methodology for the impact assessment methods was collected for all 73 studies,
with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ReCiPe, and CML baseline
being the most commonly used methods, with 24, 22, and 16 mentions, respectively. These
types of environmental impact assessment methods were not used or mentioned in nine
studies (Figure 11). The frequency of impact categories was only analyzed for the quanti-
fiable studies, with the most common being Climate Change/Global Warming Potential
(with a unit defined as kg CO2 eq), appearing in approximately 95% of studies. For the
remaining categories, since their use was not consistent with the globality of articles, as
well as having different defining units, the results will not be presented in the next sub-
section but can be consulted in the Supplementary Materials (Tables S2–S8).

Figure 11. The distribution of the universe of the 73 articles was analyzed according to the chosen
environmental assessment method. NA—not available.
3.4. Interpretation
In this section, the results of the impact assessment will only be presented for the
category Climate Change/Global Warming Potential (CC/GWP), as previously mentioned.
Results only represent the studies chosen for quantification and are divided as described
in the methodology section, and results represent the production of 1 kg of material.
3.4.1. Impact Assessment According to System Boundaries
In studies using a cradle-to-gate approach for fiber production, silk and wool scored
the highest values, with an average of 18.66 and 13.68 kg CO2 eq, respectively. Flax and
jute presented the lowest values for fiber production (Figure 12). Considering yarn pro-
duction, wool presented the highest potential impact, with an average of 95.70 kg CO2 eq,
followed by hemp, flax, and cotton with 14.60, 13.60, and 8.08 kg CO2 eq, respectively.
When considering fabric production, silk presented by far the highest results, at 80.9 kg
CO2 eq, followed by polyester at 14.9 kg CO2 eq.
Wool yarn production presented substantially higher values than fabric production,
and this could be related to the size of fibers considered by the authors. Although the size
of the fibers used is not mentioned in Parisi et al. [78] (for fabric production), Bianco et al.
[109] state that shorter fibers generally present lower potential impacts than longer fibers
for yarn production. Cotton had lower average values for fabric production than yarn.
This could be related to studies considering different approaches to system boundaries,
where they may include or not transportation and packaging, consider different
Figure 11.
The distribution of the universe of the 73 articles was analyzed according to the chosen
environmental assessment method. NAnot available.
3.4. Interpretation
In this section, the results of the impact assessment will only be presented for the
category Climate Change/Global Warming Potential (CC/GWP), as previously mentioned.
Results only represent the studies chosen for quantication and are divided as described in
the methodology section, and results represent the production of 1 kg of material.
3.4.1. Impact Assessment According to System Boundaries
In studies using a cradle-to-gate approach for ber production, silk and wool scored
the highest values, with an average of 18.66 and 13.68 kg CO2eq, respectively. Flax and jute
presented the lowest values for ber production (Figure). Considering yarn production,
wool presented the highest potential impact, with an average of 95.70 kg CO2eq, followed
by hemp, ax, and cotton with 14.60, 13.60, and 8.08 kg CO2eq, respectively. When
considering fabric production, silk presented by far the highest results, at 80.9 kg CO2eq,
followed by polyester at 14.9 kg CO2eq.
Wool yarn production presented substantially higher values than fabric production,
and this could be related to the size of bers considered by the authors. Although the size of
the bers used is not mentioned in Parisi et al. [78] (for fabric production), Bianco et al. [109]
state that shorter bers generally present lower potential impacts than longer bers for
yarn production. Cotton had lower average values for fabric production than yarn. This
could be related to studies considering different approaches to system boundaries, where
they may include or not transportation and packaging, consider different manufacturing
techniques, and use data with distinct origins to build the inventory for the assessment.

Sustainability2023,15, 15267 12 of 23Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 22

Figure 12. Average values of standardized environmental impact values for 1 kg of material, for the
impact category climate change/global warming potential in kg CO2 eq, from a cradle-to-gate system
boundary, for fiber, yarn, fabric, and final product.

Figure 13. Average values of standardized environmental impact values for 1 kg of polymer for the
impact category climate change/global warming potential in kg CO2 eq, from a cradle-to-grave
boundary.
Figure 12.
Average values of standardized environmental impact values for 1 kg of material, for the
impact category climate change/global warming potential in kg CO
2eq, from a cradle-to-gate system
boundary, for ber, yarn, fabric, and nal product.
For the nal product production, data was only available for cotton and polyester,
which had values of 29.53 and 19.62 kg CO2eq, respectively (Figure). Considering the
differences between maximum and minimum values, the most prevalent variations are
for the cotton nal product, where the maximum is 58.82 kg CO2eq, data retrieved from
Periyasamy et al. [79]), for the production of 1 kg of stonewash jeans, and the minimum
is 11.51 kg CO2eq, data retrieved from Muthukumarana et al. [77]), for the production
of a short-sleeve blouse (Figure). Both of these studies take into account raw material
acquisition, fabric manufacturing, cutting, sewing, nishing, and transportation. Since the
equipment used, raw materials, and manufacturing method of the clothes might differ,
the generalizability and applicability of the results for another product with considerable
variances may be limited. Furthermore, Muthukumarana et al. [77] stated that assumptions
were used in the life cycle evaluation when data was unavailable due to the geographical
limit of the study being Sri Lanka and a lack of country-specic data.
When adopting a cradle-to-grave approach, polyester showed the highest potential
impact with an average of 40.28 kg CO2eq (data was limited for most materials, except for
polyester, cotton, and wool, considering the production of 1 kg of product). The maximum
value (114.23 kg CO2eq) for polyester corresponds to Moazzem et al. [73]), which consider
the production of 1 kg of apparel and use for a one-year period, being reused at the end of
life. The minimum value is 0.16 kg CO2eq, from Horn et al. [62], which only considers a
single use of a polyester T-shirt. Both cotton and wool are natural bers, and their CC/GWP
average values were similar, at 31 and 30.94 kg CO2eq (Figure). In the case of wool,
there was a signicant difference between the maximum and minimum values of 91.72 and
0.53 kg CO2eq, respectively. The rst value corresponds to Bech et al. [50], which considers

Sustainability2023,15, 15267 13 of 23
the use of a wool t-shirt for a six-month period with a closed loop recycling end-of-life and
considers 36 washes, while the second, from Wiedemann et al. [97]), considers 14 washes
of a virgin wool sweater with reuse at the end of life.Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 22

Figure 12. Average values of standardized environmental impact values for 1 kg of material, for the
impact category climate change/global warming potential in kg CO2 eq, from a cradle-to-gate system
boundary, for fiber, yarn, fabric, and final product.

Figure 13. Average values of standardized environmental impact values for 1 kg of polymer for the
impact category climate change/global warming potential in kg CO2 eq, from a cradle-to-grave
boundary.
Figure 13.
Average values of standardized environmental impact values for 1 kg of polymer for
the impact category climate change/global warming potential in kg CO
2eq, from a cradle-to-
grave boundary.
3.4.2. Impact Assessment According to Life Cycle Phases
In the individual analysis of life cycle phases, only studies that provided comprehen-
sive data on all life cycle phases were considered. For instance, if a study with polyester as
a raw material only included ber production, the values were included in this analysis,
and so on.
Although life cycle data was not available for all types of feedstocks, for those where it
was, the assessment showed that the use phase of the nal product had the most signicant
impact on CC/GWP. There is a small difference when comparing the global warming
contribution of the use phase between conventional polyester and polyester garments
dened as smart textiles (with nanosilver incorporated), being lower for the later one
(Figure), while the manufacturing phase of these smart textiles had a higher contribution
to overall CC/GWP. Meanwhile, when comparing conventional cotton with organic cotton,
there is a signicant difference in the contribution of the manufacturing phase to the overall
impact, being higher for conventional cotton (Figure).
The limited availability of data for certain life cycle phases for materials such as
recovered cotton and wool, as well as conventional production of wool, hinders a clear
interpretation of the results (see Table S9). However, this will be discussed further in the
next section.

Sustainability2023,15, 15267 14 of 23Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 22

3.4.2. Impact Assessment According to Life Cycle Phases
In the individual analysis of life cycle phases, only studies that provided comprehen-
sive data on all life cycle phases were considered. For instance, if a study with polyester
as a raw material only included fiber production, the values were included in this analysis,
and so on.
Although life cycle data was not available for all types of feedstocks, for those where
it was, the assessment showed that the use phase of the final product had the most signif-
icant impact on CC/GWP. There is a small difference when comparing the global warming
contribution of the use phase between conventional polyester and polyester garments de-
fined as smart textiles (with nanosilver incorporated), being lower for the later one (Figure
14), while the manufacturing phase of these smart textiles had a higher contribution to
overall CC/GWP. Meanwhile, when comparing conventional cotton with organic cotton,
there is a significant difference in the contribution of the manufacturing phase to the over-
all impact, being higher for conventional cotton (Figure 14).
The limited availability of data for certain life cycle phases for materials such as re-
covered cotton and wool, as well as conventional production of wool, hinders a clear in-
terpretation of the results (see Table S9). However, this will be discussed further in the
next section.

Figure 14. Contribution of life cycle phases to overall climate change/global warming potential.
NA—not available.
4. Discussion
The full life cycle of textile products encompasses processes related to raw material
extraction, manufacturing, distribution, retail, use, and end-of-life handling. A systematic
approach was used to assess trends in studies relating to this topic, as well as the impacts
of using different feedstocks and considering specific life cycle phases.
It is important to acknowledge that the more complex the product is, the more com-
plex the evaluation of its life cycle will be [62], and for this study, a simplified method for
a complex process was approached. For instance, the manufacturing phase is complex and
differs according to the type of material and final end product, and chemicals and add-
ons to the material also contribute to the overall impact, but they were not considered in
this analysis [29].
The criteria for the methodological approach accounted for as much comparison as
possible. Although 73 studies met the overall criteria for qualitative analysis, some did not
present data in a retrievable manner and therefore were not included in the quantifiable
Figure 14.
Contribution of life cycle phases to overall climate change/global warming potential.
NAnot available.
4. Discussion
The full life cycle of textile products encompasses processes related to raw material
extraction, manufacturing, distribution, retail, use, and end-of-life handling. A systematic
approach was used to assess trends in studies relating to this topic, as well as the impacts
of using different feedstocks and considering specic life cycle phases.
It is important to acknowledge that the more complex the product is, the more complex
the evaluation of its life cycle will be [62], and for this study, a simplied method for a
complex process was approached. For instance, the manufacturing phase is complex and
differs according to the type of material and nal end product, and chemicals and add-ons
to the material also contribute to the overall impact, but they were not considered in this
analysis [29].
The criteria for the methodological approach accounted for as much comparison as
possible. Although 73 studies met the overall criteria for qualitative analysis, some did not
present data in a retrievable manner and therefore were not included in the quantiable
assessment. More than half of the studies were from the last 5 years. The keyword co-
occurrence relationships showed there is a relevant association with LCA, consumer care,
and apparel. From a life cycle perspective, consumer education on environmental practices
when it comes to the care of apparel, such as air-drying and cool washing, can be as relevant
as efcient appliances [114].
The majority of the analyzed studies had a cradle-to-gate approach, neglecting the
user phase, which is as important as the remaining life cycle phases.
Regarding the materials, cotton, polyester, and wool were the choices for a large
portion of the studies and are representative of the feedstock used in the industry. According
to the Preferred Fiber and Materials Market Report 2022 from Textile Exchange, synthetic
bers held 64% of the global ber production in 2021, with polyester being the most
prominent form of synthetic ber at 54%. Cotton was the most prevalent natural ber,
accounting for 22% of plant bers from a total share of 28%, and nally, wool, the primary
animal ber produced, accounts for 1% of the total share [115].
A lack of consistency was identied in the choice of impact categories; insufcient data
posed challenges for the review process. Although the comparison was made whenever
possible and those results can be consulted on the supplementary materials (Tables S2S8),
because CC/GWP was represented in the great majority of the studies, as previously ex-
plained, those were the only results presented in the review. Changes in global temperature

Sustainability2023,15, 15267 15 of 23
caused by greenhouse gases affect biodiversity, deteriorate environmental health, and cause
climatic phenomena such as extreme weather events [116].
When considering studies with a cradle-to-gate boundary, for the manufacture of
1 kg of material, silk ber production had the highest value for global warming potential
(18.66 kg CO2eq) in comparison to the remaining materials (wool, cotton, ax, and jute).
Silk production involves harvesting mulberry trees, the food source for silk worms, that,
after entering the cocoon phase, are dried and then boiled to extract the ber [45]. Although
untreated silk is a biodegradable animal ber, the raw material extraction phase is a
highly intensive process that includes the production of Kraft paper used for covering
silkworms and high amounts of electricity [47,61]. Astudillo et al. [45] identied causes
for the high values of global warming potential, associating them with fertilizer use and
farmyard manure practices, which may also explain the values that silk fabric production
presented (80.9 kg CO2eq). Additionally, adopting circular economy practices by valorizing
and recovering the byproducts and wastes from the different life cycle phases of silk
production, mainly at the farm level, can be of great value to reducing overall environmental
impacts [117]. For yarn production, wool presented the highest values, but it is important
to note that only one study had retrievable values [109], while the results for cotton were
the average of three studies [51,67,101]. Wool yarn production values were higher than
those obtained for wool fabric production, and this could be related to the size of the bers
being produced from the raw materials. For instance, longer and more expansive bers
are obtained by worsted processing (the case of Bianco et al. [109]), which generally has a
higher impact than shorter and cheaper bers obtained by woolen processing (the case of
Parisi et al. [78]) [109]. Additionally, other variables should be considered that may result in
higher impacts, such as the type of wool, that can also inuence the lifetime or recyclability
of a garment [109].
For the nal product, data was only available for cotton and polyester, with 29.53 and
19.62 kg CO2eq, respectively. Only one study was considered for polyester [91], while for
cotton, the value corresponds to the average of four studies [63,77,79,92]. For this chain
of production, maximum and minimum values presented the highest disparity, which
correspond to cotton apparel production, where the maximum is 58.82 kg CO2 eq, data
retrieved from Periyasamy et al. [79]), for the production of 1 kg of stonewash jeans, and
the minimum is 11.51 kg CO2eq, data retrieved from Muthukumarana et al. [77], for the
production of a short-sleeve blouse.
From the cradle-to-grave perspective, it was only possible to compare results for
the conventional production of cotton, polyester, and wool. Polyester's global warming
potential values surpassed those of the remaining bers, with a total of 40.28 kg CO2eq
per kg of product. The bers used for the synthetic fossil-based polymers of polyester
are derived from coal, air, water, and petroleum [62]. Alternatives for obtaining polyester,
such as adopting biological-based feedstocks that are renewable in nature, were analyzed
in Wiedemann et al., where it was reported that for GHG emissions, bio-based polyester
obtained higher values than fossil-derived polyester [11]. Additionally, there is a growing
problem associated with synthetic bers, where microbers released during the production
and washing of the fabrics are considered primary sources of microplastics in the oceans,
affecting different ecosystems and impacting the health of living organisms [89,118,119].
In Section, for the cradle-to-grave system boundary, the differences in maximum
and minimum values for both polyester and wool are related to the frequency of use and
care considered by the authors [50,62,64,72,79,97].
Although it was not the focus of the review due to a lack of data, adopting circular
ideas, such as using recycled bers as an alternative to virgin bers, may reduce envi-
ronmental impact compared to incineration and landlls [120]. However, under certain
assumptions, there is a risk that textile recycling causes certain categories of environmental
impacts, such as climate change impacts, to increase if the recycling processes are powered
by fossil energy [120].

Sustainability2023,15, 15267 16 of 23
In the analysis of the contribution of each life cycle phase to the overall impact of
CC/GWP, results need to be carefully considered due to a lack of data consistency and
authors considering different time periods or frequency of care for the use phase. Some
authors may consider one use of the garment [11], while others may consider one or more
years of use and care of the garment [62,72,98]. Additionally, the considered care methods,
such as temperature of washing, use of a tumble dryer, and ironing, may also impact the
results [82].
When considered, the use phase is the main contributor to GHG emissions. The use
phase may include washing, drying, and ironing and is associated with spending high
amounts of resources such as energy, water, detergents, or other careproducts [11,42] .
Consumer behavior is a determinant of the overall impacts of this life cycle phase. How-
ever, from a circular economy perspective, both the design and use phases are of central
importance, as these can provide signicant points for optimization [62], where eco-design
tools can be introduced to optimize the energetic efciency of technologies and appliances
and develop products that have a reduced need for maintenance [121,122].
In this light, smart textiles have been explored and designed to optimize the per-
formance of textiles (either overall or for a specic function) [43,86]. For example, the
incorporation of silver nanoparticles has been widely used to produce textiles with an-
timicrobial properties and, thus, decrease the frequency of care. In spite of the results
showing a reduction in the contribution of the use phase to overall climate change, when
comparing conventional polyester with smart-textile polyester (from 69% to 67.5%), the
contribution increased for smart-textiles during the manufacturing phase (from 13% to
31%). However, the impacts that nanosilver has on the environment and organisms' health
are still unknown [43]. It is important to note that there was no data available for the phases
of raw material acquisition as well as retail and transport in the studies that assessed the
impacts of smart textiles, although it could be assumed that for retail and transport the
impact would be similar to conventional polyester products.
Organic cotton's raw material acquisition and manufacturing phases had lower con-
tributions to the overall climate change potential (3.56% and 18.95, respectively) when
compared to conventional cotton (16.10% and 46.35%, respectively). In the case of raw
material acquisition, the lower values are mainly due to the restricted use of fertilizers and
pesticides in the production of organic cotton [82]. Regarding the manufacturing phase,
the values may vary due to different studies considering different inputs. The use phase
presented higher values for organic cotton; however, different studies can assume different
care practices and therefore intensify the results for this life cycle phase (e.g., frequency of
washing, temperature, detergent quantities, etc.) [82].
In the case of conventional versus recycled wool, although data was not available
for all life cycle phases, the contribution that the raw material acquisition phase has in
conventional wool (73.8%) was allocated to the manufacturing phase of the recycled wool
(90.54%), being a hotspot for fossil energy consumption, therefore GHG emissions, and
contributing to CC/GWP [93,97].
Depending on the method of disposal, this stage may have signicant environmental
consequences. End-of-life reuse is considered the best strategy to manage waste as it
does not involve further processing, followed by recycling, which processes materials
via monomer, oligomer, and polymer ber, or fabric recycling methods. Incineration
and gasication are the least preferred from a resource recovery perspective but are used
for energy recovery. Finally, landll is the worst disposal method from an environmental
viewpoint [123,124]. The data obtained was insufcient to denitively differentiate between
end-of-life methods. As a result, the outcomes may exhibit variability due to this limitation.
Limitations of the Study and Future Work
This study identied some limitations that should be considered when interpreting
the results presented in this paper. Firstly, the availability of data for each life cycle phase
was lacking for most reviewed papers; therefore, there was a need to simplify very complex

Sustainability2023,15, 15267 17 of 23
and diverse processes (especially when comparing different feedstocks). Furthermore, the
impact assessment methods also varied amongst the selected papers, which may result in
uncertainties when comparing data. This led to the choice of only reviewing one impact
category, CC/GWP (kg CO2eq), since it was the only category considered in almost all
reviewed papers (95%).
The textile industry is a complex area of study, from raw material acquisition to
disposal, and includes diverse feedstocks, products, and processes. LCA is a useful tool to
assess environmental hotspots, but it is also important to understand that the impact of a
garment or product goes beyond ber production and includes dyes, pigments, nishes,
and auxiliaries. Similarly, future work should also include a deep dive into the LCA of
products made from blended materials, as well as waste streams and treatments from this
vast industry.
5. Conclusions
The objective of this study was to emphasize the prevailing research in Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) within the textile value chain. The emphasis was placed on materials and
various phases of the product life cycle. Additionally, the study aimed to draw attention to
the constraints and diversity of conducting LCA.
The textile value chain is crucial for modern society, providing textiles and other
apparel products. However, overproduction, overconsumption, and a society without
attention for the environmental consequences of the incorrect use of textile products con-
tribute negatively to environmental issues, including carbon emissions, waste management,
and waste disposal. The industry faces many challenges throughout the value chain,
including reducing waste and promoting sustainable practices in production and raw
material use. LCA and eco-design are essential tools and approaches for understanding the
environmental impacts of products and services and dening strategies to minimize these
problems. LCA may provide a holistic assessment of textile products' life cycle, focusing on
raw material extraction, manufacturing, distribution, use, and disposal. This methodology
can identify high energy costs and pollution stages in manufacturing and support the
development of the best available technologies along the value chain.
The systematic analysis adopted to explore trends and impacts within this realm has
highlighted the signicance of different feedstocks and specic life cycle phases. Notably,
the evaluation complexity escalates with the product's intricacy, and a simplied approach
was used in this study. While acknowledging the multifaceted nature of the manufacturing
phase, it is important to recognize that certain factors, such as material additives, were
omitted. The study's methodological framework aimed for maximal comparability, leading
to qualitative assessment criteria for a substantial number of studies. However, some
studies were excluded due to data limitations.
Keyword co-occurrence patterns emphasized the linkages between LCA, consumer
practices, and apparel. In a holistic life cycle perspective, consumer education in sustainable
garment care practices emerges as pivotal as adopting energy-efcient appliances.
The exploration of materials revealed cotton, polyester, and wool as focal points,
aligning with industry trends. Synthetic bers, especially polyester, emerged dominantly in
the global ber landscape. The results for wool yarn production were especially interesting
because the authors considered the size of the bers being used, associated with the type of
treatment and spinning technique applied to the ber, showing that in the case of wool,
size matters. Comparing silk, polyester, and wool's cradle-to-grave impacts revealed that
polyester had a pronounced global warming potential (40.28 kg CO2eq per kilogram of
textile), stemming from its fossil-based origins. The use phase emerged as a prominent
contributor to emissions associated with consumer behaviors, accounting for more than
half of the total global warming potential throughout a garment's life cycle.
As the study concludes, it acknowledges limitations inherent in data availability and
the diversity of impact assessment methodologies, which limited the comparison. Future
trends and opportunities include circular clothing systems and longevity-focused clothing

Sustainability2023,15, 15267 18 of 23
design, efcient municipal sorting of textile waste, and repair and refurbishment initiatives,
which are crucial for sustainable development. Another important aspect, besides the
development of policies and adopting more environmentally friendly production practices,
is focusing on consumer behavior and education.
Supplementary Materials:
The following supporting information can be downloaded at:
www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su152115267/s1. Table S1: Global vision of the 73 articles analyzed
for the qualitative assessment. Table S2: Average values of 1 kg for the cradle-to-grave production of
polyester textiles (conventional, bio-based, and smart-textiles) for the indicated impact categories and
respective studies considered for the values. Information not available is identied as NA. Table S3:
Average values of 1 kg for the cradle-to-grave production of cotton textiles (conventional and organic),
for the indicated impact categories and respective studies considered for the values. Information not
available is identied as NA. Table S4: Average values of 1 kg for the cradle-to-grave production of
wool textiles (conventional and recovered) for the indicated impact categories and respective studies
considered for the values. Information not available is identied as NA. Table S5: Average values of 1
kg for the cradle-to-gate production of ber (cotton, wool, silk, ax, jute, and hemp) for the indicated
impact categories and respective studies considered for the values. Information not available is
identied as NA. Table S6: Average values of 1 kg for the cradle-to-gate production of yarn (cotton,
ax, and hemp) for the indicated impact categories and respective studies considered for the values.
Information not available is identied as NA. Table S7: Average values of 1 kg for the cradle-to-gate
production of fabric (polyester, cotton, wool, silk, jute, and kenaf) for the indicated impact categories
and respective studies considered for the values. Information not available is identied as NA. Table
S8: Average values of 1 kg for the cradle-to-gate production of the nal product (polyester, cotton,
wool, silk, jute, and kenaf) for the indicated impact categories and respective studies considered
for the values. Information not available is identied as NA. Table S9: Average values for climate
change/global warming potential from the production of 1 kg for each life cycle phase. Information
not available is identied as NA.
Author Contributions:
Methodology A.F.; Formal analysis, A.F.; writing original draft preparation,
A.F.; writingreview and editing, A.F., E.R., A.G., R.H., F.F. and J.N.; F.F. and J.N., conceptualization,
validation, visualization, resources, and funding acquisition, along with the editing and supervision.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This research was funded by CiiMCircular Innovation Inter-Municipality (CENTRO-04-
3560-FSE-072501) Centro Region Operational Programme (Centro2020), under the PORTUGAL 2020
partnership agreement through the European Social Fund (EFS), and WinBioWaste, Interior, and
Bioeconomy (POCI-01-0246-FEDER-181335), under the Thematic Operational Programme Competi-
tiveness and Internationalization, COMPETE 2020, through the European Regional Development
Fund (FEDER). Filipa Figueiredo thanks her research contract funded by Interface Mission under the
PRRRecovery and Resilience Plan (RE-C05-i02Interface Missionnº01/C05-i02/2022), Collabo-
rative Laboratories Base Fund, through the CECOLAB base fund, funded by the European Union
NextGeneration EU. Centre Bio R&D Uni. BLC3 thanks their support funded by Fundaç¢o para a
Ci¶ncia e Tecnologia (FCT) UIDP/05083/2020 and UIDB/05083/2020.
Institutional Review Board Statement:Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement:Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement:Data is contained within the article or Supplementary Materials.
Conicts of Interest:The authors declare no conict of interest.
References
1.
Costa, C.; Azoia, N.G.; Silva, C.; Marques, E.F. Textile Industry in a Changing World: Challenges of Sustainable Development.
Univ. Porto J. Eng.2020,6, 8697. [CrossRef]
2.
Duhoux, T.; Le Bl²vennec, K.; Arnold, M.; Mortensen, L.F.Textiles and the Environment the Role of Design in Europe's Circular
Economy; ECT CE: Brussels, Belgium, 2022.
3.
Smith, P.; Baille, J.; McHattie, L.S. Sustainable Design Futures: An Open Design Vision for the Circular Economy in Fashion and
Textiles.Des. J.2017,20, S1938S1947. [CrossRef]

Sustainability2023,15, 15267 19 of 23
4.
Nikolina, . Environmental Impact of the Textile and Clothing Industry. What Consumers Need to Know.Eur. Parliam. Res. Serv.
2019. Available online:
5.
Beylot, A.; Ardente, F.; Marques, A.; Mathieux, F.; Pant, R.; Sala, S.; Zampori, L.; European Commission Joint Research Centre.
Abiotic and Biotic Resources Impact Categories in LCA: Development of New Approaches: Accounting for Abiotic Resources Dissipation and
Biotic Resources; Publications Ofce of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2020; ISBN 9789276172277.
6.
Panda, S.K.B.C.; Sen, K.; Mukhopadhyay, S. Sustainable Pretreatments in Textile Wet Processing.J. Clean. Prod.2021,329, 129725.
[CrossRef]
7. Indian J. Pure Appl. Biosci.2020,8, 134139. [CrossRef]
8.
Broega, A.C.; Jord¢o, C.; Martins, S.B. Textile Sustainability: Reuse of Clean Waste from the Textile and Apparel Industry.IOP
Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng.2017,254, 192006. [CrossRef]
9.
European Commission. EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles.Commun. Comm. Eur. Parliam. Counc. Eur. Econ. Soc.
Comm. Comm. Reg.2022,1, 524.
10.
Salo, H.H.; Suikkanen, J.; Nissinen, A. Eco-Innovation Motivations and Ecodesign Tool Implementation in Companies in the
Nordic Textile and Information Technology Sectors.Bus. Strateg. Environ.2020,29, 26542667. [CrossRef]
11.
Wiedemann, S.G.; Nguyen, Q.V.; Clarke, S.J. Using LCA and Circularity Indicators to Measure the Sustainability of
TextilesExamples of Renewable and Non-Renewable Fibres.Sustainability2022,14, 16683. [CrossRef]
12.
Cicconi, P. Eco-Design and Eco-Materials: An Interactive and Collaborative Approach.Sustain. Mater. Technol.2020,23, e00135.
[CrossRef]
13.
Msahli, S.; Faouzi, S.; Taieb, A.H.; Sakly, F. An Eco-Design Approach for the Functional Textile. In Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference on the Future Technical Textile Conference (FTT 2014), Istanbul, Turkey, 1517 October 2014.
14. Res. J. Text. Appar.2006,10, 6775. [CrossRef]
15.
Cimatti, B.; Campana, G.; Carluccio, L. Eco Design and Sustainable Manufacturing in Fashion: A Case Study in the Luxury
Personal Accessories Industry.Procedia Manuf.2017,8, 393400. [CrossRef]
16.
Zhang, Y.; Kang, H.; Hou, H.; Shao, S.; Sun, X.; Qin, C.; Zhang, S. Improved Design for Textile Production Process Based on Life
Cycle Assessment.Clean Technol. Environ. Policy2018,20, 13551365. [CrossRef]
17.
Standard ISO 14006; Environmental Management SystemsGuidelines for Incorporating Ecodesign. 2nd ed. International
Standard Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.
18.
Salo, H.; Suikkanen, J.; Nissinen, A.Use of Ecodesign Tools and Expectations for Product Environmental Footprint: Case Study of Nordic
Textile and IT Companies; Nordic Council of Ministers: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2019; ISBN 978-92-893-6254-2.
19.
Navajas, A.; Uriarte, L.; Gand½a, L.M. Application of Eco-Design and Life Cycle Assessment Standards for Environmental Impact
Reduction of an Industrial Product.Sustainability2017,9, 1724. [CrossRef]
20.
Dekoninck, E.A.; Domingo, L.; O'Hare, J.A.; Pigosso, D.C.A.; Reyes, T.; Troussier, N. Dening the Challenges for Ecodesign
Implementation in Companies: Development and Consolidation of a Framework.J. Clean. Prod.2016,135, 410425. [CrossRef]
21.
ISO 14040; Environmental ManagementLife Cycle AssessmentPrinciples and Framework. 2nd ed. International Standard
Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
22.
ISO 14044; Environmental ManagementLife Cycle AssessmentRequirements and Guidelines. 1st ed. International Standard
Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
23.
Muthu, S.S.Textile and Clothing Sustainability: Recycled and Upcycled Textiles and Fashion; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany,
2017; ISBN 978-981-10-2146-6.
24.
Harsanto, B.; Primiana, I.; Sarasi, V.; Satyakti, Y. Sustainability Innovation in the Textile Industry: A Systematic Review.
Sustainability2023,15, 1549. [CrossRef]
25.
Munasinghe, P.; Druckman, A.; Dissanayake, D.G.K. A Systematic Review of the Life Cycle Inventory of Clothing.J. Clean. Prod.
2021,320, 128852. [CrossRef]
26.
Roos, S.; Zamani, B.; Sandin, G.; Peters, G.M.; Svanström, M. A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)-Based Approach to Guiding an
Industry Sector towards Sustainability: The Case of the Swedish Apparel Sector.J. Clean. Prod.2016,133, 691700. [CrossRef]
27. Sustainable Polyester and Caprolactam Fibres; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022.
28.
Laiblov¡, L.; Peta, J.J.; Kumar, A.; H¡jek, P.; Fiala, C.; Vlach, T.; Koc½, V. Environmental Impact of Textile Reinforced Concrete
Facades Compared to Conventional Solutions-Lca Case Study.Materials2019,12, 3194. [CrossRef]
29.
Dahllöf, L.; Steen, B. A Statistical Approach for Estimation of Process Flow Data from Production of Chemicals of Fossil Origin.
Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.2007,12, 103108. [CrossRef]
30.
Ahangarnokolaei, M.A.; Attarian, P.; Ayati, B.; Ganjidoust, H.; Rizzo, L. Life Cycle Assessment of Sequential and Simultaneous
Combination of Electrocoagulation and Ozonation for Textile Wastewater Treatment.J. Environ. Chem. Eng.2021,9, 106251.
[CrossRef]
31.
Chen, F.; Ji, X.; Chu, J.; Xu, P.; Wang, L. A Review: Life Cycle Assessment of Cotton Textiles.Ind. Textila2021,72, 1929. [CrossRef]
32.Russell, I.M. Sustainable Wool Production and Processing. InSustainable TextilesLife Cycle and Environmental Impact; Woodhead
Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2009; pp. 6387. [CrossRef]
33.
Schrott, W.; Paul, R.Environmental Impacts of Denim Manufacture; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015;
ISBN 9780857098498.

Sustainability2023,15, 15267 20 of 23
34.
Bhatt, A.; Abbassi, B. Review of Environmental Performance of Sheep Farming Using Life Cycle Assessment.J. Clean. Prod.2021,
293, 126192. [CrossRef]
35.
Devaraju, A.; Harikumar, R.Life Cycle Assessment of Sisal Fiber; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; Volume 15,
ISBN 9780128131961.
36.
Muthu, S.S. (Ed.)Handbook of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Textiles and Clothing; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015;
ISBN 9780081001875.
37.
Jhanji, Y. Life Cycle Analysis of Textiles and Associated Carbon Emissions. InSustainable Fibres for Fashion and Textile Manufacturing;
Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 403431. ISBN 9780128240526.
38.
Watson, K.J.; Wiedemann, S.G. Review of Methodological Choices in LCA-Based Textile and Apparel Rating Tools: Key Issues
and Recommendations Relating to Assessment of Fabrics Made from Natural Fibre Types.Sustainability2019,11, 3846. [CrossRef]
39.Footprint, E.; Impacts, S. Looking for Sustainability Scoring in Apparel: A Review on Environmental Footprint, Social Impacts
and Transparency.Energies2021,14, 3032.
40.
Moazzem, S.; Wang, L.; Daver, F.; Crossin, E. Environmental Impact of Discarded Apparel Landlling and Recycling.Resour.
Conserv. Recycl.2021,166, 105338. [CrossRef]
41.
Dahlbo, H.; Aalto, K.; Eskelinen, H.; Salmenperä, H. Increasing Textile CirculationConsequences and Requirements.Sustain.
Prod. Consum.2017,9, 4457. [CrossRef]
42.
Sohn, J.; Nielsen, K.S.; Birkved, M.; Joanes, T.; Gwozdz, W. The Environmental Impacts of Clothing: Evidence from United States
and Three European Countries.Sustain. Prod. Consum.2021,27, 21532164. [CrossRef]
43.
Abu-Qdais, H.A.; Abu-Dalo, M.A.; Hajeer, Y.Y. Impacts of Nanosilver-Based Textile Products Using a Life Cycle Assessment.
Sustain.2021,13, 3436. [CrossRef]
44.
Agnhage, T.; Perwuelz, A.; Behary, N. Towards Sustainable Rubia Tinctorum L. Dyeing of Woven Fabric: How Life Cycle
Assessment Can Contribute.J. Clean. Prod.2017,141, 12211230. [CrossRef]
45. J. Clean. Prod.2014,81, 158167. [CrossRef]
46.
Avad½, A.; Marcin, M.; Biard, Y.; Renou, A.; Gourlot, J.P.; Basset-Mens, C. Life Cycle Assessment of Organic and Conventional
Non-Bt Cotton Products from Mali.Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.2020,25, 678697. [CrossRef]
47.
Barcelos, S.; Oiko, O.; Salvador, R. Basis for Conducting Life Cycle Assessment of Brazilian Silk Yarn Manufacturing.E3S Web
Conf.2022,349, 08001. [CrossRef]
48.
Barnes, E.M.; Daystar, J.S.; Wallace, M.L. Challenges of Conducting a Life Cycle Assessment for Bio-Based Materials Using a
Cotton Example.ASABE 2018 Annu. Int. Meet.2018, 1800013. [CrossRef]
49.
Baydar, G.; Ciliz, N.; Mammadov, A. Life Cycle Assessment of Cotton Textile Products in Turkey.Resour. Conserv. Recycl.2015,
104, 213223. [CrossRef]
50.
Bech, N.M.; Birkved, M.; Charnley, F.; Kjaer, L.L.; Pigosso, D.C.A.; Hauschild, M.Z.; McAloone, T.C.; Moreno, M. Evaluating the
Environmental Performance of a Product/Service-System Business Model for Merino Wool Next-to-Skin Garments: The Case of
Armadillo Merino
®
.Sustainability2019,11, 5854. [CrossRef]
51.
Bevilacqua, M.; Ciarapica, F.E.; Mazzuto, G.; Paciarotti, C. Environmental Analysis of a Cotton Yarn Supply Chain.J. Clean. Prod.
2014,82, 154165. [CrossRef]
52.
Bianco, I.; Gerboni, R.; Picerno, G.; Blengini, G.A. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of MWool
®
Recycled Wool Fibers.Resources2022,
11, 41. [CrossRef]
53.
Biswas, W.K.; Graham, J.; Kelly, K.; John, M.B. Global Warming Contributions from Wheat, Sheep Meat and Wool Production in
Victoria, Australia-a Life Cycle Assessment.J. Clean. Prod.2010,18, 13861392. [CrossRef]
54.
Busi, E.; Maranghi, S.; Corsi, L.; Basosi, R. Environmental Sustainability Evaluation of Innovative Self-Cleaning Textiles.J. Clean.
Prod.2016,133, 439450. [CrossRef]
55.
Costa, A.F.S.; Arag¢o, J.V.S.; Duarte, A.D.; Mac¶do, J.S.; Galdino, C.J.S.; Milanez, V.F.A.; Silva, G.L.; Sarubbo, L.A. Analysis of the
Environmental Life Cycle of Dyeing in Textiles.Chem. Eng. Trans.2021,86, 727732. [CrossRef]
56.
De Saxce, M.; Pesnel, S.; Perwuelz, A. LCA of Bed SheetsSome Relevant Parameters for Lifetime Assessment.J. Clean. Prod.
2012,37, 221228. [CrossRef]
57.
Esteve-Turrillas, F.A.; de la Guardia, M. Environmental Impact of Recover Cotton in Textile Industry.Resour. Conserv. Recycl.2017,
116, 107115. [CrossRef]
58.
Farrant, L.; Olsen, S.I.; Wangel, A. Environmental Benets from Reusing Clothes.Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.2010,15, 726736.
[CrossRef]
59.
Fidan, F.; Aydo gan, E.K.; Uzal, N. An Integrated Life Cycle Assessment Approach for Denim Fabric Production Using Recycled
Cotton Fibers and Combined Heat and Power Plant.J. Clean. Prod.2021,287, 125439. [CrossRef]
60.
Gonz¡lez-Garc½a, S.; Hospido, A.; Feijoo, G.; Moreira, M.T. Life Cycle Assessment of Raw Materials for Non-Wood Pulp Mills:
Hemp and Flax.Resour. Conserv. Recycl.2010,54, 923930. [CrossRef]
61.
Gonzalez, V.; Lou, X.; Chi, T. Evaluating Environmental Impact of Natural and Synthetic Fibers: A Life Cycle Assessment
Approach.Sustainability2023,15, 7670. [CrossRef]
62.
Horn, S.; Mölsä, K.M.; Sorvari, J.; Tuovila, H.; Heikkilä, P. Environmental Sustainability Assessment of a Polyester
T-ShirtComparison of Circularity Strategies.Sci. Total Environ.2023,884, 163821. [CrossRef]

Sustainability2023,15, 15267 21 of 23
63.
Kazan, H.; Akgul, D.; Kerc, A. Life Cycle Assessment of Cotton Woven Shirts and Alternative Manufacturing Techniques.Clean
Technol. Environ. Policy2020,22, 849864. [CrossRef]
64.
La Rosa, A.D.; Grammatikos, S.A. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Cotton and Other Natural Fibers for Textile Applications.
Fibers2019,7, 101. [CrossRef]
65.
L'Abbate, P.; Dassisti, M.; Cappelletti, G.M.; Nicoletti, G.M.; Russo, C.; Ioppolo, G. Environmental Analysis of Polyester Fabric for
Ticking.J. Clean. Prod.2018,172, 735742. [CrossRef]
66.
Lenzo, P.; Traverso, M.; Mondello, G.; Salomone, R.; Ioppolo, G. Sustainability Performance of an Italian Textile Product.Economies
2018,6, 17. [CrossRef]
67.
Liu, Y.; Huang, H.; Zhu, L.; Zhang, C.; Ren, F.; Liu, Z. Could the Recycled Yarns Substitute for the Virgin Cotton Yarns:
A Comparative LCA.Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.2020,25, 20502062. [CrossRef]
68.
Mahiat, T.; Alam, M.A.A.; Argho, M.; Corlett, J.; Chowdhury, R.B.; Biswas, K.F.; Hossain, M.M.; Sujauddin, M. Modeling the
Environmental and Social Impacts of the Handloom Industry in Bangladesh through Life Cycle Assessment.Model. Earth Syst.
Environ.2023,9, 239252. [CrossRef]
69.
Manda, B.M.K.; Worrell, E.; Patel, M.K. Prospective Life Cycle Assessment of an Antibacterial T-Shirt and Supporting Business
Decisions to Create Value.Resour. Conserv. Recycl.2015,103, 4757. [CrossRef]
70.
Martin, M.; Herlaar, S. Environmental and Social Performance of Valorizing Waste Wool for Sweater Production.Sustain. Prod.
Consum.2021,25, 425438. [CrossRef]
71.
Meyer, D.E.; Curran, M.A.; Gonzalez, M.A. An Examination of Silver Nanoparticles in Socks Using Screening-Level Life Cycle
Assessment.J. Nanoparticle Res.2011,13, 147156. [CrossRef]
72.
Moazzem, S.; Daver, F.; Crossin, E.; Wang, L. Assessing Environmental Impact of Textile Supply Chain Using Life Cycle
Assessment Methodology.J. Text. Inst.2018,109, 15741585. [CrossRef]
73.
Moazzem, S.; Crossin, E.; Daver, F.; Wang, L. Baseline Scenario of Carbon Footprint of Polyester T-Shirt.J. Fiber Bioeng. Inform.
2018,11, 114. [CrossRef]
74.
Moazzem, S.; Crossin, E.; Daver, F.; Wang, L. Life Cycle Assessment of Apparel Consumption in Australia.Environ. Clim. Technol.
2021,25, 71111. [CrossRef]
75.
Morita, A.M.; Moore, C.C.S.; Nogueira, A.R.; Kulay, L.; da Silva S¡Ravagnani, M.A. Assessment of Potential Alternatives for
Improving Environmental Trouser Jeans Manufacturing Performance in Brazil.J. Clean. Prod.2020,247, 119156. [CrossRef]
76.
Muthu, S.S.K.; Li, Y.; Hu, J.Y.; Ze, L. Carbon Footprint Reduction in the Textile Process Chain: Recycling of Textile Materials.
Fibers Polym.2012,13, 10651070. [CrossRef]
77.
Muthukumarana, T.T.; Karunathilake, H.P.; Punchihewa, H.K.G.; Manthilake, M.M.I.D.; Hewage, K.N. Life Cycle Environmental
Impacts of the Apparel Industry in Sri Lanka: Analysis of the Energy Sources.J. Clean. Prod.2018,172, 13461357. [CrossRef]
78.
Coloured Textiles.J. Clean. Prod.2015,108, 514524. [CrossRef]
79.
Periyasamy, A.P.; Wiener, J.; Militky, J.Life-Cycle Assessment of Denim; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017;
ISBN 9780081020449.
80.
Piontek, F.M.; Rapaport, M.; Müller, M. One Year of Clothing Consumption of a German Female Consumer.Procedia CIRP2019,
80, 417421. [CrossRef]
81.
Sandin, G.; Peters, G.M.; Svanström, M. Moving down the Cause-Effect Chain of Water and Land Use Impacts: An LCA Case
Study of Textile Fibres.Resour. Conserv. Recycl.2013,73, 104113. [CrossRef]
82.
¸Sener Fidan, F.; Kzlkaya Aydo gan, E.; Uzal, N. The Impact of Organic Cotton Use and Consumer Habits in the Sustainability of
Jean Production Using the LCA Approach.Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.2023,30, 88538867. [CrossRef]
83.
Shen, L.; Worrell, E.; Patel, M.K. Environmental Impact Assessment of Man-Made Cellulose Fibres.Resour. Conserv. Recycl.2010,
55, 260274. [CrossRef]
84.
Shou, M.; Domenech, T. Integrating LCA and Blockchain Technology to Promote Circular FashionA Case Study of Leather
Handbags.J. Clean. Prod.2022,373, 133557. [CrossRef]
85.
Sim, J.; Prabhu, V. The Life Cycle Assessment of Energy and Carbon Emissions on Wool and Nylon Carpets in the United States.J.
Clean. Prod.2018,170, 12311243. [CrossRef]
86.
Temizel-Sekeryan, S.; Hicks, A.L. Cradle-to-Grave Environmental Impact Assessment of Silver Enabled t-Shirts: Do Nano-Specic
Impacts Exceed Non Nano-Specic Emissions?NanoImpact2021,22, 100319. [CrossRef]
87.
Terinte, N.; Manda, B.M.K.; Taylor, J.; Schuster, K.C.; Patel, M.K. Environmental Assessment of Coloured Fabrics and Op-
portunities for Value Creation: Spin-Dyeing versus Conventional Dyeing of Modal Fabrics.J. Clean. Prod.2014,72, 127138.
[CrossRef]
88.
van der Velden, N.M.; Kuusk, K.; Köhler, A.R. Life Cycle Assessment and Eco-Design of Smart Textiles: The Importance of
Material Selection Demonstrated through e-Textile Product Redesign.Mater. Des.2015,84, 313324. [CrossRef]
89.
Van Der Velden, N.M.; Patel, M.K.; Vogtländer, J.G. LCA Benchmarking Study on Textiles Made of Cotton, Polyester, Nylon,
Acryl, or Elastane.Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.2014,19, 331356. [CrossRef]
90.
van der Werf, H.M.G.; Turunen, L. The Environmental Impacts of the Production of Hemp and Flax Textile Yarn.Ind. Crop. Prod.
2008,27, 110. [CrossRef]

Sustainability2023,15, 15267 22 of 23
91.
Walser, T.; Demou, E.; Lang, D.J.; Hellweg, S. Prospective Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Nanosilver T-Shirts.Environ.
Sci. Technol.2011,45, 45704578. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
92.
Wang, C.; Wang, L.; Liu, X.; Du, C.; Ding, D.; Jia, J.; Yan, Y.; Wu, G. Carbon Footprint of Textile throughout Its Life Cycle: A Case
Study of Chinese Cotton Shirts.J. Clean. Prod.2015,108, 464475. [CrossRef]
93.
Wiedemann, S.G.; Yan, M.J.; Henry, B.K.; Murphy, C.M. Resource Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Three Wool Production
Regions in Australia.J. Clean. Prod.2016,122, 121132. [CrossRef]
94.
Wiedemann, S.G.; Simmons, A.; Watson, K.J.L.; Biggs, L. Effect of Methodological Choice on the Estimated Impacts of Wool
Production and the Signicance for LCA-Based Rating Systems.Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.2019,24, 848855. [CrossRef]
95.
Wiedemann, S.G.; Ledgard, S.F.; Henry, B.K.; Yan, M.J.; Mao, N.; Russell, S.J. Application of Life Cycle Assessment to Sheep
Production Systems: Investigating Co-Production of Wool and Meat Using Case Studies from Major Global Producers.Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess.2015,20, 463476. [CrossRef]
96.
Wiedemann, S.G.; Biggs, L.; Nebel, B.; Bauch, K.; Laitala, K.; Klepp, I.G.; Swan, P.G.; Watson, K. Environmental Impacts Associated
with the Production, Use, and End-of-Life of a Woollen Garment.Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.2020,25, 14861499. [CrossRef]
97.
Wiedemann, S.G.; Biggs, L.; Clarke, S.J.; Russell, S.J. Reducing the Environmental Impacts of Garments through Industrially
Scalable Closed-Loop Recycling: Life Cycle Assessment of a Recycled Wool Blend Sweater.Sustainability2022,14, 1081. [CrossRef]
98.Wu, Z. Haode Evaluating the Life-Cycle Environmental Impacts of Polyester Sports T-Shirts.IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.
2020,474, 022017. [CrossRef]
99.
Yacout, D.M.M.; Abd El-Kawi, M.A.; Hassouna, M.S. Cradle to Gate Environmental Impact Assessment of Acrylic Fiber
Manufacturing.Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.2016,21, 326336. [CrossRef]
100.
Yang, Y.; He, W.; Chen, F.; Wang, L. Water Footprint Assessment of Silk Apparel in China.J. Clean. Prod.2020,260, 121050.
[CrossRef]
101.
Liu, Y.; Zhu, L.; Zhang, C.; Ren, F.; Huang, H.; Liu, Z. Life Cycle Assessment of Melange Yarns from the Manufacturer Perspective.
Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.2020,25, 588599. [CrossRef]
102.
Zhang, S.; Xu, C.; Xie, R.; Yu, H.; Sun, M.; Li, F. Environmental Assessment of Fabric Wet Processing from Gate-to-Gate Perspective:
Comparative Study of Weaving and Materials.Sci. Total Environ.2023,857, 159495. [CrossRef]
103.
Zhang, Y.; Liu, X.; Xiao, R.; Yuan, Z. Life Cycle Assessment of Cotton T-Shirts in China.Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.2015,20, 9941004.
[CrossRef]
104.
Bhalla, K.; Kumar, T.; Rangaswamy, J. An Integrated Rural Development Model Based on Comprehensive Life-Cycle Assessment
(LCA) of Khadi-Handloom Industry in Rural India.Procedia CIRP2018,69, 493498. [CrossRef]
105.
Braun, G.; Som, C.; Schmutz, M.; Hischier, R. Environmental Consequences of Closing the Textile Loop-Life Cycle Assessment of
a Circular Polyester Jacket.Appl. Sci.2021,11, 2964. [CrossRef]
106.
Hicks, A.L.; Theis, T.L. A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Commercially Available Household Silver-Enabled Polyester
Textiles.Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.2017,22, 256265. [CrossRef]
107.
Rana, S.; Karunamoorthy, S.; Parveen, S.; Fangueiro, R. Life Cycle Assessment of Cotton Textiles and Clothing. InHandbook of Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Textiles and Clothing; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 195216.
108.
Zhao, M.; Zhou, Y.; Meng, J.; Zheng, H.; Cai, Y.; Shan, Y.; Guan, D.; Yang, Z. Virtual Carbon and Water Flows Embodied in Global
Fashion TradeA Case Study of Denim Products.J. Clean. Prod.2021,303, 127080. [CrossRef]
109.
Bianco, I.; Picerno, G.; Blengini, G.A. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Worsted and Woollen Processing in Wool Production:
ReviWool
®
Noils and Other Wool Co-Products.J. Clean. Prod.2023,415, 137877. [CrossRef]
110.
Mölsä, K.M.; Horn, S.; Dahlbo, H.; Rissanen, M. Linear, Reuse or Recycling? An Environmental Comparison of Different Life
Cycle Options for Cotton Roller Towels.J. Clean. Prod.2022,374, 133976. [CrossRef]
111.
Selli, F.; Kornhan, S.; Kaya, A.; Erdogan, U.H. Effect of Reprocess on the Sustainability of T-Shirt Production.J. Text. Eng.2022,
1, 254259.
112.
Siagian, Y.Y.; Sinaga, R.; Sinaga, C.; Manik, Y. Life Cycle Assessment and Eco-Efciency Indicator for Ulos Weaving Using Loom
Machine in Toba Samosir Regency of North Sumatra.E3S Web Conf.2018,74, 05002. [CrossRef]
113.
Parker, G.Measuring the Environmental Performance of Food Packaging: Life Cycle Assessment; Woodhead Publishing Limited:
Sawston, UK, 2008; ISBN 9781845691943.
114.
Steinberger, J.K.; Friot, D.; Jolliet, O.; Erkman, S. A Spatially Explicit Life Cycle Inventory of the Global Textile Chain.Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess.2009,14, 443455. [CrossRef]
115. Preferred Fiber & Materials: Market Report 2022; Textile Exchange: Lamesa, TX, USA, 2022; pp. 1118.
116.
Al-Ghussain, L. Global Warming: Review on Driving Forces and Mitigation.Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy2019,38, 1321.
[CrossRef]
117.
Barcelos, S.M.B.D.; Salvador, R.; Barros, M.V.; de Francisco, A.C.; Guedes, G. Circularity of Brazilian Silk: Promoting a Circular
Bioeconomy in the Production of Silk Cocoons.J. Environ. Manag.2021,296, 113373. [CrossRef]
118.
Hernandez, E.; Nowack, B.; Mitrano, D.M. Polyester Textiles as a Source of Microplastics from Households: A Mechanistic Study
to Understand Microber Release during Washing.Environ. Sci. Technol.2017,51, 70367046. [CrossRef]
119.
Abbate, S.; Centobelli, P.; Cerchione, R.; Nadeem, S.P.; Riccio, E. Sustainability Trends and Gaps in the Textile, Apparel and
Fashion Industries. InEnvironment, Development and Sustainability; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023. [CrossRef]

Sustainability2023,15, 15267 23 of 23
120.
Sandin, G.; Peters, G.M. Environmental Impact of Textile Reuse and RecyclingA Review.J. Clean. Prod.2018,184, 353365.
[CrossRef]
121.
Van Eynde, H. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Hemp and Cotton Fibres Used in Chinese Textile Manufacturing. Master's
Thesis, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, 2015; 158p.
122.
Yukseler, H.; Uzal, N.; Sahinkaya, E.; Kitis, M.; Dilek, F.B.; Yetis, U. Analysis of the Best Available Techniques for Wastewaters
from a Denim Manufacturing Textile Mill.J. Environ. Manag.2017,203, 11181125. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
123.
Patti, A.; Cicala, G.; Acierno, D. Eco-Sustainability of the Textile Production: Waste Recovery and Current Recycling in the
Composites World.Polymers2021,13, 134. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
124.
Rashid, M.E.; Khan, M.R.; Haque, R.U.; Hasanuzzaman, M. Challenges of Textile Waste Composite Products and Its Prospects of
Recycling.J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag.2023,25, 12671287. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher's Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Systematic Insights into a Textile Industry: Reviewing Life Cycle Assessment and Eco-Design

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Tags

Categories

Download

Quick Actions

Statistics

Related Slideshows

Systematic Insights into a Textile Industry: Reviewing Life Cycle Assessment and Eco-Design

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Slide 1

Slide 2

Slide 3

Slide 4

Slide 5

Slide 6

Slide 7

Slide 8

Slide 9

Slide 10

Slide 11

Slide 12

Slide 13

Slide 14

Slide 15

Slide 16

Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 19

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

Slide 23

Tags

Categories

Download

Quick Actions

Statistics

Related Slideshows

DTI BPI Pivot Small Business - BUSINESS START UP PLAN

CATHOLIC EDUCATIONAL Corporate Responsibilities

Karin Schaupp – Evocation; lançamento: 2000

Pillars of Biblical Oneness in the Book of Acts

7-10. STP + Branding and Product &amp; Services Strategies.pptx

Business Legislation PPT - UNIT 1 jimllpkggg

7-10. STP + Branding and Product & Services Strategies.pptx