Fiber recycling technologies do not develop overnight, but the fashion industry needs them as soon as possible to meet the ambitious 2030 climate goals. For the Lenzing Group, one of the oldest companies in the field of regenerated cellulose fibers, “Refibra” is the central recycling innovation. The fiber blend consists of cellulose pulp from wood and cotton waste. Despite some successful collaborations, Refibra has yet to go mainstream.
So why is it taking so long for commercial recycling to catch on? FashionUnited asked Michael Kininmonth from Lenzing about the challenges and solutions he has experienced in his 47-year career in the textile industry.
You are responsible for the business development of the Lenzing Group. What is the next big innovation we can expect from Lenzing in the field of recycling?
We want to equip all our fibers with recycled material. This will be the case for viscose and modal, and we are increasing the recycled content in Tencel x Refibra. The next big topic in this area is scaling – not only for Lenzing, but for the entire fiber recycling industry.
Can you briefly tell us the story behind Refibra?
It started in 2011. I was at the Lenzing headquarters with the head of research and development. He told me that he had taken an old cotton towel and was experimenting with making fibers from this cotton waste. About six months later I met Nick Ryan from Worn Again in the UK who told me they were looking into separation technology for poly-cotton blends. I thought to myself: Why can’t we do that as Lenzing? After all, our business was based on the conversion of cellulose.
We were able to fund a PhD and we worked on this for two or three years. And finally I got management approval. We found a way to mix pulp from wood and pulp from cotton waste and launched it in 2017. We were the first to be able to produce something on a large scale.
Brands like Patagonia and Levi’s already use Refibra. It seems to be going well.
We’ve been able to increase the percentage of recycled material to thirty percent and some too [Post-]Include consumer waste. But we’ve probably made very little profit from Refibra in the last five years because it’s an extra step.
We are used to working with our perfect raw material, pulp, and now we are asked to turn another very imperfect material, namely cotton waste, back into a fibrous form and use it to make new fibers of higher quality. Also, any imperfections such as dyes and other chemicals must be removed.
Why is it going so slowly?
Because you work much less efficiently and produce much smaller quantities, the prices are higher than for standard fibres. You need brand approval to set up very large production facilities, to have economies of scale [für Hunderte von Millionen Euro] to achieve and to refine the process technically. I don’t think that’s the case for anyone working in this field. The brands say: we like recycling, we have to have it, but we don’t want it for this price. In fact, they reject it.
Many of the chemical recycling technologies you hear about today have only been invested in for the past decade. I don’t think anyone understood the scale of the fiber industry and the needs so progress has been extremely slow.
Where does this lack of understanding come from?
Very few people at the brand level have actually worked in the industry. When you talk to people who are very inexperienced, you can’t give them arguments because they don’t understand the problems and complexities. Instead, they set up a myriad of rules and certifications. When you look at it, it’s just confusing. Someone asks what to do about carbon emissions, someone else asks about forestry… It’s not only a complex situation, it also costs a lot of money.
There is also a knowledge gap in chemical recycling. Chemical separation is one thing; retaining the qualities required of a fiber company is something else. In the early days we had non-disclosure agreements with companies that would send us the stuff like a soup with no way to spin it into a fiber because they almost destroyed the cellulose in the process. They didn’t understand the needs of the spinning mills and didn’t have textile experts but chemists.
How is it now?
And that’s exactly what’s happening now. There’s a lot of great activity out there and I applaud organizations like Fashion for Good for being a platform to engage innovators. But if you look at many of the innovations, there is no indication that they worked with the textile industry.
There is a culture of ‘big business is bad, small business is good’, with a strong focus and support for the latter. But the small start-ups also need the big companies. Companies like Lenzing have honed their skills over decades.
What about the balance of power? Do they inhibit the scaling of recycling technologies?
There are many relatively inexpensive technological solutions out there, but no one can afford to adopt them because the money has gone into the supply chain. All operate at very low profit margins and the proceeds are not evenly distributed in the supply chain. All are demanding a situation where we put competition aside and all come together and share our knowledge. The reality is that there is a balance of power and money to be balanced here.
What does that mean specifically?
Brands want to get involved, but only if the solutions are already ready, and they have to be cost-neutral. That’s a euphemism to say we don’t want to pay for it. Innovators do years of research and development, which costs a lot of money, but they can’t ask for more money. When I worked for fabric mills in the 1970s, they had power. They could say to a new brand or a retail establishment: If you don’t buy the product at this price this week… [werden wir uns für jemand anderen entscheiden].
Could governments change the rules of the game?
Governments could levy some kind of five or ten cent levy on clothing and divert that money back to industry for research and development. I think it was discussed a few years ago, for example in the Swedish Parliament, but it didn’t happen.
Governments also tend to move slowly. Should we expect more movement on the investor side?
There seems to be some momentum in that some recycling companies are getting pretty good investments: millions from investment companies and foundations, like the H&M Foundation or the C&A Foundation. I think things are starting to accelerate and companies have started to merge. Take Lenzing for example, we have this joint venture Södra Group and we work with companies like Renewcell.
I think one of the dangers is that there are many different ways of using chemistry in our business. If you look at how viscose is made – a process that’s over a hundred years old – there aren’t ten ways to make it, just one. As a result, some companies will unfortunately fall by the wayside. When brands buy multiple complicated technologies, most of it is wasted on the industry.
What do you think is the holy grail for solving this problem?
I am deeply convinced that education is the way forward. Sustainability is about science and chemistry, and it’s complicated. Who really understands the claims at all levels? Hardly anyone. But if kids grew up with it, they’d be in a better position to make a rational decision when buying their clothes.
This article originally appeared on FashionUnited.uk. Translated and edited by Simone Preuss.