

Article
The Textile Environmental Score: A System to Watch For


Article
The Textile Environmental Score: A System to Watch For
While at the European level, the Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules – PEFCR—for apparel and footwear—have just been published, and in France, the display of the environmental cost of clothing has just been approved by the European Commission; let’s take a closer look at these two measures.
If both managers– European and French – Although they are not perfectly equivalent, their similarities are notable. The two approaches have fed off each other and will continue to do so, and while the two scoring systems are expected to coexist in the short term (much like organic farming labels), the goal is clearly to move toward a single score across the entire European Union.
Furthermore, while these two scores are not currently mandatory, a company would be well advised to begin assessing the environmental cost of its products now, in order to anticipate regulatory requirements and implement a transition strategy. Uncertainties regarding the calculation method are no longer an obstacle; companies can now evaluate their product portfolios using these two approaches.
Among the various tools available to lawmakers to influence the behavior of economic actors, providing consumers with access to information ranks high among the most effective measures.
Let's take the example of the now-famous Nutri-Score, which rates the nutritional quality of a food product on a scale from A to E. This new information has led to changes in consumer behavior (demand for products rated A or B has increased[1]) that producers' behavior (the supply aimed at obtaining more favorable scores has increased[2]).
Changing behavior is precisely one of the goals of environmental labeling for textile products, which is currently under development. The goal is to provide information on a product’s environmental impacts throughout its entire life cycle[3], to transform the supply—with producers favoring theeco-design to achieve a better score—and as demand decreases—consumers are reducing their consumption of high-impact products.
While providing a summary score has the advantage of making the information easier to understand, calculating that summary score always involves making methodological choices. Thus, a score highlights and emphasizes certain criteria, while obscuring or downplaying others. Take, for example, the AB Organic Agriculture certification: this certification recognizes farms that do not use chemical inputs, thereby reducing the impact on biodiversity, even though these same farms have a greater climate impact than conventional agriculture due to lower yields.
The development of a scoring system therefore has political implications, which explains why the creation of environmental labeling—both at the European and French levels—took time and required consultation with numerous stakeholders.

This also indicates that interpreting this environmental label must always be accompanied by a thorough understanding of how it was developed.
Now that we’ve provided some background, let’s take a closer look at the current state of environmental labeling in the textile sector. This sector, which has significant environmental impacts (including pressures on biodiversity, resource use, carbon footprint, pollution, and waste), is one of the first sectors to have been the subject of discussions regardingenvironmental signage (including food products, electronics, furniture, the hospitality industry, and construction products[4]).
Then these reflections on thetextile environmental labeling have accelerated:
Methodological developments at the European and French levels have been intertwined, with the two approaches reinforcing one another. Let’s take a closer look at these developments, as well as their similarities and differences.
The finalized methodologies have several characteristics:



Both initiatives reached important milestones in mid-May 2025: the PEFCRs for apparel and footwear were published, and Agnès Pannier-Runacher announced that the European Commission had approved the labeling of the environmental cost of clothing.
Today, both at the European and French levels, systems for reporting environmental scores remain voluntary. As a result, European companies may share results with third parties (B2B partners or governments, but not end consumers) subject to verification[9]. For France, it is stated that “the way is clear for the deployment [of the system] as early as the second half of 2025, always on a voluntary basis”[10]. And in fact, starting October 1, 2025, brands can display their environmental impact online or in-store.
It should be noted, however, that these scores are becoming benchmarks in the regulatory landscape. Thus, the PEF Is it listed as the reference method in the context of theDigital Product Passport (DPP) integrated into the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR), but also as part of the Director of Corporate Sustainability Reporting (CSRD) or as part of the Green Claims Directive.
In this context, for a company in the textile industry, it is without regret to begin developing an environmental understanding of their product portfolio right away. Indeed, even though the regulations are not yet mandatory, ADEME recommends that companies to anticipate these environmental labeling schemes, first of all to spread out the costs the human and financial resources needed to implement this scoring system, and then to seize opportunities competitive by promoting eco-design now to improve this score even before it becomes mandatory.
Carbone 4 is now able to help companies prepare for environmental labeling in several ways:
Anticipating inevitable regulatory changes allows companies to deepen their understanding of the physical flows underlying the use of textile products, work toward making their product portfolio more sustainable, and reevaluate their material choices.
If you would like to learn more about environmental labeling issues, regulatory challenges, and how to develop a solid environmental strategy, please feel free to contact the team at Carbone 4.
1.
NielsenIQ Study
2.
Christoph Bauner, Rajib Rahman, “The Effect of Front-of-Package Nutrition Labeling on Product Composition,” European Review of Agricultural Economics, Volume 51, Issue 2, April 2024
3.
A product's life cycle refers to all the stages that define the product's life, from the extraction of the raw materials needed for its manufacture through to the end of its life.
4.
See, in particular, the Inies database or the Low-Carbon Prescribers Hub at https://www.carbone4.com/expertises/innovation/hub
5.
Law No. 2020-105 of February 10, 2020, on Waste Reduction and the Circular Economy, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/article_jo/JORFARTI000041553780
6.
Act No. 2021-1104 of August 22, 2021, on combating climate change and strengthening resilience to its effects (1), https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/article_jo/JORFARTI000043956979
7.
Ibid.
8.
For more on the rebound effect, see https://theothereconomy.com/fr/fiches/comprendre-leffet-rebond/#:~:text=The%20rebound%20effect%20manifests%20itself;%20we%20can%20already%20talk%20about%20a%20rebound%20effect.
9.
https://pefapparelandfootwear.eu/faq-glossary/#Q&A accessed on June 3, 2025.
10.
https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/presse/agnes-pannier-runacher-annonce-validation-laffichage-du-cout-environnemental-vetements
Made by
With the contribution of
Hélène Chauviré
Senior Manager / Department leader
Valentine Pierre
Consultant
Gildas Mevel
Senior Manager / Department leader
Jean-Baptiste Sultan
Senior Manager / Department leader
Subscribe to our contents