The way forward for WOOLUME

Erlend Hua Lun Kok on 21. mai 2024

Summary

This note looks at knowledge transference between a country of high wool utilisation (Norway) and a country of low wool utilisation (Poland). The findings that are presented here, are collected through semi-structured interviews, via Zoom, in person and also with one written response. All interviewees were project partners. Economics and scale are important themes, especially for moving forward with better use of local wool. As identified in other projects, things need to happen in the right order and there must be an economic fundament that ensures a professionalism and not that what one does is done on a hobby basis. The skills gap is an important issue if there is to be a future for the wool industry in Europe, and this must be addressed at national and EU level, this is not something a project or industry can fix on their own.

Click here to read full report.

En norsk plastelefant vekker oppsikt

tobiasson on 9. oktober 2023

Foredrag om plastelefanten med foredragsholder Tone Skårdal Tobiasson på scenen

Åpningsseansen på Natural Fiber Connect konferansen i Biella, Italia helt i slutten av september, satte den stadig oftere omtalte elefanten i rommet på programmet, nemlig overproduksjon og plastifiseringen som kjennetegner tekstilbransjen.

At den italienske miljøvernministeren åpnet konferansen med en videohilsen, vitner om hvor viktig tekstilbransjen er for italienerne, og ikke minst hvor alvorlig de tar miljøproblemene den samme bransjen står for. Men til motsetning til industrien som helhet, har de stor forståelse for at produksjonen, og da særlig av syntetiske materialer, må reduseres betraktelig – noe som betyr dyrere tekstiler og mer fokus på naturfibre. Dette er musikk i den italienske industriens ører, men også for naturfiber-representanter som hadde samlet seg i Biella: kasjmir-, alpakka-, ull-, bomull- og silke-produsenter fra gårdsnivå og opp til spinnerier, veverier og annen industri.

«Det var en gledens dag,” fortalte to damer som arbeider for italienske luksustekstilprodusenten Zegna i lunsjpausen om da det norske Forbrukertilsynet kom med sin avgjørelse om at Higg forbrukermerking er grønnvasking. «Det har vært utrolig vanskelig for bransjen å forstå hvorfor dette verktøyet favoriserer syntetiske materialer, og det at det nå ikke kan brukes for å grønnvaske plast er en stor lettelse for oss.»

Vekting av miljøavtrykk diskuteres

Vi lovet selvsagt å overbringe dette til norske forbrukermyndigheter. Også fra scenen fikk Tonje Drevland og Forbrukertilsynet oppmerksomhet, da den internasjonale Make The Label Count (MTLC) aksjonen viste hvor mye medieoppmerksomhet denne avgjørelsen har fått. MTLC jobber til daglig med nettopp vektingen i verktøy som Higg og PEF, og hvordan dette kan bli mer rettferdig for naturfibrene.

Key note talen ble holdt av Veronica Bates Kassatly (avbildet over), som var en viktig aktør i sammenheng med Forbrukertilsynets avgjørelse. Men til motsetning til MTLC, som for tiden iherdig argumenterer for at flere parametere må inn i f. eks. PEF, som biologisk nedbrytbarhet, mikroplast og fornybarhet av ressurser; hadde Kassatly tenkt helt motsatt. Hun mener at klimagassutslipp må vektes mye mer (dvs. CO2 utslipp i hennes argumentasjon), og at mange av de 16 parameterne som EUs Joint Research Center har bestemt skal med, bør kuttes ut eller vektes mye svakere: som vannbruk og landområdebruk, to ting som slår uheldig ut for naturfibre, men hvor forskjellene er store på global basis slik at snitt-tall gir veldig liten mening. En norsk sau på utmarksbeite vil for eksempel bruke enorme landområder for å produsere noen kilo ull, og det teller negativt.

Står i fare for å øke plastbruken

En fersk rapport fra SIFO, som vi for enkelthets skyld kan kalle Plastelefanten, fulgte Kassatlys key note og silkebransjens sterke kritikk av datagrunnlaget for Higg og PEF (silke kommer aller dårligst ut). Hovedbudskapet i SIFO-rapporten er at en gjennomgang av politikkinstrumenter, strategier fra industrien og organisasjoner viser at de i veldig liten grad tar for seg hva som kan gjøres for å få ned volumene og ikke minst få ned den store økningen de siste 40 årene i syntetiske materialer og fast fashion. Når EUs Tekstilstrategi går i bresjen for å få “fast fashion out of fashion» er ingen av verktøyene i verktøykassen gode nok og om noe, vil de øke plastifiseringen. Rapporten forklarer hvorfor, og publikum på konferansen nikket megetsigende da begrunnelsene ble presentert.

At de lo høyt og klappet da selve bakgrunnen for Plastelefanten ble presentert i starten, var selvsagt befriende. Det betød å ta publikum tilbake til Copenhagen Fashion Summit i 2017, hvor den ferske Pulse rapporten postulerte at forbruker må overtales til å foretrekke syntetisk fremfor bomull; og hvor EcoAges Livia Firth gikk i strupen på H&Ms Helena Helmersson med spørsmålet: Hvorfor må dere produsere så mye og pushe stadig nye kolleksjoner på forbrukere? Helmersson svarte at de bare gjør det forbrukerne ønsker, hvorpå Firth svarte: «Mine barn vil ha sukker hver eneste dag, men gir jeg dem det? Nei.» Da runget latteren og applausen fulgte.

Sukker ble en snakkis

Resten av konferansen snakket alle om «sukkeret», som noe som er usunt, underforstått de syntetiske materialene. At SIFO-forskning resonnerer på denne måten, er moro å oppleve.

Dag 2 var, for noen av oss, viet europeisk ull, da NFC konferansen hadde invitert flere aktører som ønsker seg bedre utnyttelse av europeisk ull. I EU har vi tidligere anslått at bruken er så lav som muligens 20%, og at 80% kastes eller brennes. Et fransk initiativ, under fanen Collectif Tricolor pour les Laines de France, fortalte at deres ambisjon er å gå fra 4% til 50% utnyttelse innen 2030. De hadde fått midler fra den franske stat, og hadde store aktører som LVMH på lag. Nina Alsborn fra Fibershed Nordfjeldske representerte Fibershed Europa, mens Rebecca Josefsson var tilstede som representant for det svenske store ullinitiativet som er finansiert av Ax Foundation i Sverige.

Hele seansen fra første morgenen, inkludert Kassatlys key note og Tobiassons foredrag om plastelefanten kan sees på LinkedIn (klikk her).

THE PLASTIC ELEPHANT: Overproduction and synthetic fibres in sustainable textile strategies

Lisbeth Løvbak Berg on 30. juni 2023

Forfattere: Ingun Grimstad Klepp, Lisbeth Løvbak Berg, Anna Schytte Sigaard, Tone Skårdal Tobiasson og Lea Gleisberg

Sammendrag

I denne rapporten undersøker vi nasjonale, internasjonale og bedriftsstrategier for bærekraftige tekstiler for å forstå om, og i så fall hvordan de inkluderer problemet med økte produksjonsvolumer basert på syntetiske materialer som kan bli omtalt som ‘plastelefanten i rommet’. Dette gjøres ved å stille fire spørsmål. Først ser vi etter om strategiene diskuterer vekst i produksjonsvolumer og mulige virkemidler for å stoppe denne veksten. Deretter undersøker vi om de adresserer plastifiseringen av tekstiler. Med plastifisering mener vi den økende andelen plastfibre som brukes i tekstilproduksjonen. For det tredje, om de diskuterer råmaterialene for plast, og for det fjerde, plastavfall. Resultatet viser at ingen av disse spørsmålene relatert til å få ned miljøbelastningene fra produksjon av klær står sentralt i strategiene.

Klikk her for å lese hele rapporten på engelsk.

Stemmer fibermerkingen?

Lisbeth Løvbak Berg on 14. november 2022

Vi sjekker merkelappen med Matoha FabriTell fiberskanner.

Forfattere: Anna Schytte Sigaard, Ingun Grimstad Klepp og Tone Skårdal Tobiasson

I prosjektet Wasted Textiles har en av utfordringene vært å identifisere hvilke fibre klær faktisk består av, både når klærne er merket – men spesielt når de ikke er det.

I november var Wasted Textiles så heldige å få tilgang på fiberskanneren FabriTell fra det engelske firmaet Matoha (matoha.com). FabriTell er en liten håndholdt maskin på bare 0,5 kg som bruker nær infrarød (NIR) analyseteknikk til å identifisere fibersammensettingen i tekstiler. Den kan kjenne igjen to-komponent blandinger av de mest vanlige fibrene, som bomull, polyester, viskose, ull, silke, elastan og akryl i alle typer konstruksjoner av tekstiler, altså både strikkede, vevde og nonwoven materialer.

Vi skal bruke skanneren til å sjekke fiberinnhold i klær og tekstiler innsamlet fra husholdninger i Oslo, Vestfold og Salten i løpet av det siste året. Vi har allerede registrert fiberinnhold som angitt på merkelappene, men mange av tekstilene har ikke merkelapp og i en stor del av klærne har lappen blitt klippet av eller er så slitt fra vask at den ikke kan avleses. Med FabriTell får vi nå mulighet for å registrere innholdet mer presist for disse tekstilene. Vi vil også få vite om våre antagelser om fiberinnhold stemmer. Undersøkelser i andre land har vist at mange klær er feilmerket og faktisk inneholder en større andel av syntetiske fibre enn det som er oppgitt på merkelappene. Vi skal sjekke om dette også gjelder for klær i Norge.

De siste dagene har vi skannet over 200 klesplagg og ser allerede nå at noen er feilmerket, mens andre utelater visse deler av plaggene i det oppgitte fiberinnholdet. På bildene under ses eksempler fra skanningene. På det første bildet skannes en bluse, som ut ifra fibermerkingen skulle bestå av 60% viskose, 20% bomull og 20% polyester, altså 80% plantebaserte fibre og 20% syntetiske fibre. Ifølge skanningen består denne blusen av ca. 80% polyester og 20% elastan, altså 100% syntetiske fibre.

På det andre bildet skannes en genser som ifølge merkelappen skal være laget av 50% bomull og 50% viskose, men FabriTell gir et litt annet resultat. Når forside og bakside av t-skjorten skannes, viser den riktignok 100% plantebaserte fibre, men når kragen skannes, blir resultatet ca. 80% bomull og 20% polyester. Vi fant det samme for flere plagg som var angitt som 100% plantebaserte fibre. Når vi testet hoveddelene av plaggene, stemte fibermerkingen overens med resultatene fra skanneren, men når vi testet krage, ermekanter og bunnribben på gensere og t-skjorter, så målte vi opp imot 30% elastan, nylon eller polyester.

Det vi har sett så langt tilsier at mange klesplagg som ifølge merkelappen skal være laget av plantebaserte fibre også inneholder syntetiske fibre i deler av plaggene og at andre plagg kan være fullstendig feilmerket. Merking av klær er en av de få kildene til informasjon vi som forbrukere har tilgang på om klærne vi kjøper. Feilmerking av denne typen bidrar derfor til at forbrukere får enda større problemer med å navigere i et allerede uoversiktlig marked og, i visse tilfeller, blir ført bak lyset av klesprodusentene. For oss i Wasted Textiles vil skanneren bidra til mer nøyaktige opplysninger om hvor mye av klærne som går ut av bruk i Norge er laget av syntetiske fiber.

I løpet av den neste måned skal vi skanne datamaterialet som er innsamlet til doktorgradsprosjektet i prosjektet bestående av kasserte klær og tekstiler fra 28 husholdninger. Resultatene vil gi et innblikk i feilmerking av klærne som i Norge ender opp i avfallsstrømmer eller går ut av bruk på andre måter. Dette er viktig informasjon hvis vi skal planlegge for hva vi skal gjøre med tekstilavfallet vårt fordi fiberblandinger vanskeliggjør resirkulering.

How to make sure Extended Producer Responsibility becomes a silver bullet

Lisbeth Løvbak Berg on 24. oktober 2022

This is a letter sent to commissioners and members of the European Commission in October 2022, from 4 participants in the Wasted Textiles project that explains their suggestions for a way of developing an EPR scheme that addresses volumes. They suggest an Eco-modulation based on volumes in the waste and therefore include the growing online trade.

How to make sure Extended Producer Responsibility becomes a silver bullet

We would firstly like to recognize the immense effort made by the EU Commission in launching the EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles in the spring of 2022 and welcome the long-awaited focus on this sector. We would also like to express our appreciation of the strategy’s systemic approach to tackling the various challenges in the textile sector. We especially welcome that the strategy addresses fast fashion, the problem of synthetics and the need for EPR.

We are an applied research consortium under the umbrella of the project Wasted Textiles, which represents strong expertise on textiles, i.e., consumption and wardrobe studies (use, reuse, laundry, repair, disposal), end-of-life practices and waste analysis, fibres and measurement tools, greenwashing, marketing claims and consumer communication and, business models. We wish to offer our interdisciplinary expertise and in-depth knowledge of consumer research, waste and recycling management and policies from 30 years of research and recycling industry development. Wasted Textiles is led by Consumption Research Norway (SIFO), a non-profit, transdisciplinary research institute at the Oslo Metropolitan University.  SIFO has a history going back to the 1930s and the birth of home economics and has worked with clothing consumption from the start. Today the institute has extensive research on clothing, especially the use phase.

With this letter, we would like to express our support for the EU Commission’s work within textiles and at the same time highlight key areas of concern that need to be addressed for a much-needed systemic change within the industry. Specifically, this letter concerns the development of harmonised      EU Extended producer responsibility (EPR) rules for textiles with eco-modulation fees as part of the forthcoming revision of the Waste Framework Directive in 2023.

Norway was one of the first countries in Europe to implement Extended Producer Responsibility for packaging waste and electric electronic equipment (EE goods) and batteries during the early 1990s. The law from 2017 replaced the voluntary industry agreements from 1994. The National Waste Association of Norway (Avfall Norge, part of the Wasted Textiles consortium) has a history dating back to 1986. Norway also got its first Pollution Act in 1981.

We believe that harmonised EU EPR rules for textiles can be an important instrument to bring the needed systemic changes in the textile sector. In line with a recent report by Eunomia “Driving a Circular Economy for Textiles through EPR”, we believe the aim of the EPR scheme must be the reduction of environmental impacts from the textile sector. This is in line with the original definition of EPR from the Swedish researcher Thomas Lindhqvist from 1992:

«Extended producer responsibility is an environmental protection strategy to achieve an environmental goal of reduced total environmental impact from a product, by making the manufacturer of the product responsible for the entire life cycle of the product and especially for the return, recycling and final disposal of the product. The extended producer responsibility is implemented through administrative, financial and informative instruments. The composition of these instruments determines the exact form of the extended producer responsibility.”

Our point of departure is that the biggest challenge in the textile sector is overproduction. The amount of clothes produced and sold has increased drastically in the past 20 years. This means that each individual garment is used less and less. In order to reduce environmental burdens, measures are therefore needed that not only address the product’s design but above all the quantity of products. It is those who produce the clothes that are used the least – or never even used at all – who emit the most. At the same time, it is the clothes that are worn the longest that burden the environment and waste systems the least. In other words, we want to take the waste hierarchy seriously by showing how EPR can prevent waste and not just stimulate increased reuse and recycling.

As a starting point, and in line with the beforementioned Eunomia report, we believe the aim of the scheme must be the reduction of environmental impacts. This is achieved most quickly and efficiently by reducing the EU’s production and import of new apparel and other textile products. But, for EPR to move towards a circular economy for textiles and not simply be an exercise in transferring costs, as the report formulates it, EPR must be designed smartly. One of the challenges with EPR, that the report points to, is precisely taking the waste hierarchy seriously, e.g., by not favouring recycling over reuse, ensuring that the environmental fee is high enough to have an effect on production volumes, and that the scheme includes the growing online shopping with direct imports.

The biggest challenge is overproduction: EPR must be designed accordingly

We are concerned that the measures proposed in the EU’s textile strategy (PEF, the Eco-design Directive and EPR) focus primarily on the product and its design together with end-of-life strategies (recycling), and thus not on the possible systemic changes that are pressing. In order to reduce the environmental impact of large volumes of textiles (fast fashion), measures are therefore needed that not only address the product’s design and strategies for prolonged- and end-of-life textiles, but also the number of products produced. If the EU is to achieve its goal of making fast fashion out of fashion, the means must be directed at factors that make fast fashion unprofitable. In extreme cases, we are talking about disposable products, in addition to the destruction of products that have never been used at all. It is not the design of each individual product that distinguishes fast fashion, which means that eco-design criteria will therefore not have the desired effect standing alone. A weakness of most of the EPR systems that have been implemented so far is that they do not take the issue of quantity seriously.

If the EU is to achieve its goal of making fast fashion out of fashion, the means must be directed at what makes fast fashion profitable: large volumes and rapid changes. The commission has been discussing a ban on greenwashing and planned obsolescence. In fact, fast fashion is planned obsolescence by definition. The clothes are not meant to last. Not because of bad quality or bad design, but because there is a new trend coming ever more often and faster.

The work on the development of PEF (Product Environmental Footprint) for clothing has also shown that it is extremely difficult to develop eco-design criteria for clothing, as the criteria for what constitutes good clothing are so varied and person-specific. Focusing on the product’s design does not capture the most important: whether there is an actual use for the product.

We believe that EPR can be designed so that quantity and speed are taken into account. This must be done by studying the use and disposal phases, and possibly also the quantity and speed of production. Those clothes that are used little and cost a lot to reuse/recycle will be the most expensive to put on the market.

If this is done and combined with sufficiently high fees, we ensure that one of the instruments in the textile strategy actually works, i.e., brings systemic change and is thus a true silver bullet.    

The importance of the use phase

By the use phase we mean the time the product is in use. The longer this is, the less waste is created. Currently, textile use is an area with limited knowledge and data, however, in order for the EPR rules to have an impact on fast fashion and the related overconsumption, it is highly important, that we make sure that an EPR scheme considers use-related aspects. The use phase for clothing can be measured in the number of times something is used, or how long it is used. The latter is far easier than the former to measure. Instead of trying to guess which products will be used for a long time and modulating the fee on design parameters, it is possible to measure how long products from different (larger) retailers remain in use. Using “picking analysis” (a type of waste audit, an established method for analysing waste streams), sample analyses of textile waste and textiles donated for reuse, an average usage phase can be estimated.

The system will be far more accurate when the year of production is included in the mandatory labelling of clothing, a long overdue requirement. The time-lapse from when the product is put on the market until it goes out of use will give the manufacturers a score which is then multiplied by the volumes of the various brands or collections that suppliers put on the market. The modulation of the fee should take into account the producers’/brands’ average usage phase.

The brands that are not found in the waste streams will be exempt from paying a fee. This may be because the products are perceived as so valuable by consumers that they remain in their possession. Differentiations based on clothing categories should, however, be included as some garment types are expected to have longer use phases than others, e.g, a coat versus a T-shirt.

Reuse and disposal phase

When more textiles are to be collected for reuse and recycling, and more is to be done in Europe rather than in the Global South, the costs of these processes will increase. If more is to be utilised at a higher level in the waste hierarchy, it will also cost more. Much of what is not reused today could be reused if the clothes were renewed, i.e. repaired, washed or stains were removed, which in turn captures the reuse value of these products but at the same time carries a cost. These activities and related business models are currently underfinanced, and they lack profitability due to the associated high costs of manual labour and the overload of big volumes of low-priced and low-quality fast fashion items with no or limited reuse value.  At the same time, certain textiles have a high value and can ensure a profit for collectors (e.g., resell business models where ca 5-10% of high-quality garments are sold on online platforms). It is important that all reusable textiles are given the opportunity to have longer lifespans, so if the EU is to aim to increase the reuse of textiles, preparation for reuse and repair activities must be financially supported by the EPR.

The same will apply to various forms of recycling: different products have different recycling costs. Some can be easily recycled; other textiles will not be recyclable at all or only if cost-intensive measures are first taken. As for the use phase, we, therefore, propose an average per brand based on how much the waste management costs. Those with a high reuse value and low cost of recycling will receive a lower fee, possibly an exemption in the end.

The modulation of the fee will thus consist of a combination of how long clothing from the brand is used on average and how costly better waste treatment is. Both evaluations can be made based on picking analyses that are repeated at regular intervals so that new brands, or improvements by already existing brands, can be captured. These analyses will also ensure increased knowledge about textile consumption and textile waste and will be important for statistics, research and regulation in the textile area. We have called this way of modulating the fee in an EPR system Targeted Producer Responsibility (TPR), which is described in ScienceNorway.no.

Production and marketing

The way EPR is usually conceived, the total tonnage of products placed on the market by an individual producer forms the starting point for the fee. But the quantities can also be used in the modulation of the environmental fee. It is possible to let those manufacturers who have many collections, a short timespan in-store for each individual product and also sell large volumes, incur a higher fee, which is then multiplied by the weight of what they place on the market. Proposals for such a fee modulation have been made by several Norwegian environmental organisations and can easily be combined with a TPR. It is also possible to use other parameters in the modulation, such as the proportion sold with reduced prices (the percentage that goes on sale), the proportion of returned goods, unsold goods, etc.

To summarise our proposal:

  • The EU has a golden opportunity to ensure a systemic change for the better of its citizens and the environment.
  • If we are to achieve the goal of reducing environmental impacts from textile production the quantities must be reduced. Less clothing is the prerequisite for each garment to be used longer, in line with the principles of the waste hierarchy and circular economy.
  • The measures proposed in the EU’s textile strategy (PEF; the Eco-design Directive and EPR) all focus on the product and its design, and thus not on the systemic changes. EPR on textiles can, if desired, be designed so that it changes the business models of fast fashion by making it less profitable, and those clothes that are used little and cost a lot to be reused and recycled also become unprofitable to put on the market.

The above concerns and suggestions were a selection of many, and we are aware that a successful EPR agenda in the EU will include many more elements and key areas for coherent consideration.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,

Ingun Grimstad Klepp

Professor of Clothing and Sustainability, SIFO, OsloMet

Jens Måge

Technical Advisor, National Waste Association of Norway

Kerli Kant Hvass

Assistant Professor in Circular Economy, Aalborg University

Tone Skårdal Tobiasson

Author, journalist, founder NICE Fashion and Board member Union of Concerned Researchers in Fashion 

KRUS final report: Enhancing local value chains in Norway

ingridha on 9. september 2019

Ingun Grimstad Klepp, Tone Skårdal Tobiasson, Vilde Haugrønning, Gunnar Vittersø, Lise Grøva, Torhild Kvingedal, Ingvild Espelien & Elin Kubberød

From its initiation in 2015 to the end in 2019, KRUS had two goals: to improve the market for and the value of Norwegian wool, and survey the opportunities for local production in a move towards a goal of sustainability in the fashion sector. On a larger scale, KRUS has looked at how we can re-establish an understanding of the connection between the raw material and the finished product within the textile industry and among consumers. It is critical to understand this connection, both to ensure quality products and to reach the market potential for Norwegian wool.

To restore the understanding of “where clothes come from” is also at the heart of challenges currently facing the textile industry. The consumption and production of textiles faces major challenges and changes in the future. Today the industry is characterized by low control and little knowledge, while growth in quantity, environmental impact, as well as stress on animals and humans is high. KRUS has contributed to the debate on sustainable clothing by focusing on local value-chains and locally produced apparel.

The focus on Norwegian wool and the specific qualities of the different breeds has played an essential role for Norwegian textile tradition and dress culture, and a better understanding of this has been essential to the project. An important challenge for Norwegian wool is that it has not been marketed with any kind of label of origin. Private actors have thus entered the field and developed their own private labels for Norwegian wool. In addition, there are few products on the market containing Norwegian wool beyond hand-knitting yarn, which means that availability has been limited.

Throughout the project, we have seen a shift, especially for older sheep breeds, which have posed a special challenge. Their wool is central in keeping Norwegian handicrafts alive, but the quality on some of the wool types has been declining. For others, the challenge is that much of the wool is not taken care of, and constitutes a waste problem. Through breeding-projects, work collaboration, looking closely at labelling systems and business models, KRUS has addressed these challenges.

Click here to read the full report (oda.oslomet.no)

Opprinnelsesmerking av norsk ull

ingridha on 27. mars 2017

Gunnar Vittersø, Ingun Grimstad Klepp, Tone Skårdal Tobiasson og Kjersti Kviseth

Sammendrag

Hensikten med denne rapporten er å undersøke mulighetene for en opprinnelsesmerking av norsk ull. Et slikt merke kan bidra til økt bevissthet og oppmerksomhet om norsk ull både blant produsenter og forbrukere, og dermed styrke produksjon og salg av lokal ull. Rapporten diskuterer en rekke argumenter for en merkeordning. Blant annet at et offisielt merke kan være et hjelpemiddel mot en til dels uryddig markedsføring av ull som vi ser i dag. Dessuten kan det fremme ulike kvaliteter ved norsk ull.

Rapporten bygger på ulike data inkludert intervjuer med aktører i verdikjeden og forbrukerundersøkelser. Erfaringer med merkeordninger fra andre land samt ulike mat-og miljømerkeordninger er også diskutert. Rapporten kan fungere som et kunnskapsgrunnlag for en eventuell etablering av en merkeordning, og den utreder ulike alternative ordninger, men uten å ta stilling til hvordan en merkeordning faktisk bør organiseres.

Klikk her for å lese hele rapporten (oda.oslomet.no)

Summary

The purpose of this report is to examine the possibilities of a labelling scheme for origin of Norwegian wool. A label can help to raise awareness about Norwegian wool among both producers and consumers, thus strengthening production and sales of local wool. Norwegian wool has many properties that seen both from a quality and environmental perspective are favorable. A labelling scheme could also contribute to a more trustworthy marketing of wool. The report builds on diverse data such as interviews with stakeholders in the value chain as well as consumer surveys. Experiences with labelling schemes from other countries as well as different food and environmental labelling schemes are also discussed. The report serves as a knowledge base for the potential establishment of a new labelling scheme. It investigates various alternative arrangements without taking a definite stand on how a labelling scheme actually should be organized.

The full report is only available in Norwegian.

Wool as an Heirloom: How Natural Fibres Can Reinvent Value in Terms of Money, Life-Span and Love

ingridha on 24. august 2016

Ingun Grimstad Klepp, Tone Skårdal Tobiasson & Kirsi Laitala

Abstract

This paper addresses a main challenge for natural fibres; falling prices and increased focus on quantity versus quality. This is a challenge not only related to economic issues and profit, but is also unsustainable in an environmental perspective and in light of the challenges the textile sector and the world face. The paper uses wool as an example and in a surprising approach links the history and century-old traditions of natural fibers to an environmental thinking which supplements the traditional thinking around circular economy and LCA. Fabrics with a long life are the ones that have the lowest environmental impact (Fletcher and Tham2015; Laitala2014). Longevity or lifespan is a complex phenomenon in which both technical and social, or aesthetic aspects, are intertwined.

Click here to see the full paper in the book Advances in Science and Technology Towards Industrial Applications (springer.com)

Why Cotton as Linen? The Use of Wool in Beds in Norway

ingridha on 22. august 2016

Ingun Grimstad Klepp, Tone Skårdal Tobiasson & Kirsi Laitala

Abstract

Cotton is the “natural” choice and the dominating material in bed linen and sleepwear in Norway as in many other European countries. Regulation of temperature and humidity are important for good sleep, but they are not cotton’s strong points. There must have been other than the functional reasons which made cotton the winner in the bedding market. This article builds on literature about bedding in Norway from the 1800s and survey questions from 1951. We ask the question: what materials have been used and why? Wool was used in all bed textiles, both closest to the body and the layers over and under, from the cheapest chopped rags to the most costly textiles. The decline was seen throughout the 1800 and 1900s, but only in the 1960s does wool become totally absent as a next to skin bed textile. The cheap imports of cotton made cottage industry and home production unprofitable and the new emphasis on cleanliness gave cotton a clear leverage.

Click here to read the full article (tandfonline.com)

 Woolbed

Lisbeth Løvbak Berg on 16. februar 2016

Ingun Grimstad Klepp, Kirsi Laitala og Tone Skårdal Tobiasson

Sammendrag


Vi har undersøkt mulighetene for å gjeninnføre ull som sengetekstil. Barrierer for bruk av ull i nattøy og sengetøy blant norske og svenske forbrukere er analysert basert på web survey, intervjuer der informantene også kjente på en rekke ulike stoffer, og en brukertest av sengetøy og nattøy i ull. Muligheten for et sengetøy i ull ble møtt med positiv nysgjerrighet av de aller fleste informanter. Et viktig funn er koblet til hvordan endring finner sted. I Norge er bruken av ull, og da spesielt på mindre barn og i forbindelse med utendørsaktiviteter om vinteren en norm, en standard forbrukeren bevisst må velge bort. I Sverige derimot er valget av ull, nettopp et valg noen gjør og da ofte med en sterkere ideologisk begrunnelse. Markedet for kroppsnær ull vokser i Sverige og forskjellene mellom de to land kan dermed forventes å minke. Barrierer knyttet til hygiene, varmeregulering, struktur og mykhet er viktige i forbrukernes tanker omkring ull som sengetekstil. De har lite erfaringer med tynnere vevde stoffer og vanskeligere for både å gjenkjenne slike stoffer som ull og se for seg hvordan de vil virke i bruk.

Klikk her for å lese hele rapporten på engelsk (oslomet.no)