Making decisions for sustainable circularity: A critical

Making decisions for sustainable circularity: A cr... https://www.is4ce.org/en/conference/conference...

social-ecological perspective on the global fashion and

textile system
Print
Submitted by Last Updated:  02 July 2020

fashion industry (/en/component/tags/tag/fashion-industry) resilience (/en/component/tags/tag/resilience)

social-ecological system  (/en/component/tags/tag/social-ecological-system%20)

textile �bres (/en/component/tags/tag/textile-�bres) Sustainable circularity (/en/component/tags/tag/sustainable-circularity)

* Celinda Palm1, Sarah E. Cornell1 and Tiina Häyhä1

1 Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University

*celinda.palm@su.se (mailto:celinda.palm@su.se) (mailto:*celinda.palm@su.se)

Abstract 

The fashion and textiles industry, and policymakers at all levels, are showing an increased interest in the
concepts of planetary boundaries and the circular economy as a way to decrease business risks and
negative environmental impacts. These biophysically expressed concepts are seen as a basis for strategic
decisions aiming towards sustainable circularity for textile fashion. Yet fashion is a social-ecological
system and cannot be understood merely by addressing its environmental dimensions. We rethink social
drivers and ecological impacts from a critical social-ecological perspective, to expose other aspects to
address in sustainable and resilient responses. We show how the complex links between the global fashion
system, culture and creativity and the dynamics of the living planet. We argue that reducing planetary
pressure from the global fashion and textiles industry requires greater recognition of the system’s social
drivers with more emphasis on the nested links between social and ecological aspects. We conclude that
strategic decisions towards sustainable circularity for textile fashion must pay attention to social activities
beyond the industry value chain, not just material �ows within it. Our framework shows how options for
better responses can shift the stakeholder constellation of consumers, policymakers and traders,
expanding business relationships across scales and beyond the textile fashion value chain.

1  Introduction: The need for better decision-making for sustainable circularity

Decision-makers in today’s fashion and textile industry increasingly recognise that they face global-scale
sustainability challenges ( (https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?W47cHy)Table 1). The sector has
become a sizeable global industry, but increased production and consumption have accelerated material
throughputs and increased disposal and waste, contributing to environmental changes at planetary scale.
The industry is projected to continue to grow (EMF, 2017), and unless concerted efforts are made, its
damaging effects are expected to increase. In response, companies have created many coalitions,
1 z 10 07.07.2020, 20:45
initiatives and platforms (Figure 1, bottom panel). However, Figure 1 also shows that despite increased
Prywatność - Warunki

conversations about the industry’s sustainability, the fashion system’s pressure on the planet is still rising.
The 2019
Making Global for
decisions Pulse Report showed
sustainable an increasing
circularity: A cr... gap between the industry’s growth and its progress
https://www.is4ce.org/en/conference/conference...
on sustainability performance (Global Fashion Agenda, 2019).  

Companies are beginning to discuss ‘sustainable circularity’ as a way to decrease business risks and
reduce the negative environmental impacts of the  industry.  The intention is often described as moving
the industry from a so-called ‘take-make-waste’ business model towards a circular one in support of
sustainable production and consumption. Circular economy principles emphasise closed-loop and
regenerative material cycles, and provide a means to extend use-life of goods and maintain access to
resources. Global sustainability concepts, such as the planetary boundaries framework, provide a way to
assess longer term business risks and responsibilities relating to planet-scale environmental changes. 

Figure 1: Growth trends in production, consumption, environmental impacts and industry

initiatives. Scales of the y-axis for each chart start at the 1990 value. Data sources: polyester production:
Techon OrbiChem; cotton production: International Cotton Advisory Association; world GDP: World
Bank; clothing consumption: Eurostat; carbon dioxide emissions: International Energy Agency; Red List
species: International Union for the Conservation of Nature; sustainable fashion initiatives: authors’
compilation. 

Internationally, many fashion industry initiatives now mobilize towards sustainable circularity (Table 1).
However, focus is placed mainly on the material ‘stuff’ of textile fashion and its biophysical harms. From a
social-ecological system perspective this material focus has three shortcomings; 

It neglects the importance of the fashion users who make everyday decisions on what clothes to buy,
use and dispose, and thereby hides vital social drivers causing environmental harm. 
It fails to recognise the intertwined nature of social-ecological systems. Decision criteria framed only
in environmental terms miss important social dimensions. This lack of recognition that decisions have
different consequences depending on their place and context creates risks and erodes resilience. 
It leads to proposed solutions that tackle just one dimension of today’s sustainability problems, missing
cross-scale social-ecological connections that in�uence dynamics of the system as a whole. 
2 z 10 07.07.2020, 20:45
In this paper, we argue that the biophysical and social dimensions of the fashion system should be brought
into thedecisions
Making same perspective to inform
for sustainable better decision-making
circularity: A cr... for sustainability and resilience. Our overall
https://www.is4ce.org/en/conference/conference...
aim is to show why current responses to global sustainability challenges have so far fallen short and to
expand possibilities for reframing responses to increase the likelihood of desired outcomes.

2  Materials and Methods 

We apply a a cross-scale social-ecological systems approach (Berkes et al., 2002), complementing a

narrative literature review of fashion studies with the recent synthesis review by (Sandin, Roos,
Johansson, et al., 2019), which re�ects the industry’s current understandings of sustainability and
circularity. To sketch out the boundaries of the fashion system, our study is oriented on the lifecycle
phases of textile �bres. We use the widespread expression ‘take-make-waste’ as a shorthand describing
the value chain in just a few broad phases, recognizing that in reality the fashion and textiles industry is a
complex global network, with many steps along which value creation can take place and where
environmental harms can accrue. Our intention is merely to show how an integrated view of social drivers
and environmental impacts of different phases deepens systemic understanding and helps in identifying
strategic options towards sustainable circularity. 

Table 1: Global initiatives for reducing environmental pressures from fashion and textile value chain
activities.

Year Initiative        Initiative’s focus areas

Voluntary initiative, CEO commitments to

UN Global
2000 Mainly social implement universal sustainability principles
Compact
and support UN goals.

Corporation aiming to reduce use and impact of

2004 AFIRM Group Chemicals harmful substances in the apparel and
footwear supply chain.

Multistakeholder commitment platform in

CEO Water
2007 Water partnership with the UN to advance water
Mandate
stewardship.

Better Cotton Industry led not-for-pro�t organisation for

2009 Water and chemicals
Initiative better global cotton production

Sustainable
Collaborative framework by Waste &
Clothing
2009 Waste Resources Action Programme on industry-led
resource reduction targets.
Action Plan
3 z 10 07.07.2020, 20:45
Making decisions for sustainable circularity: A cr... https://www.is4ce.org/en/conference/conference...
Global collaboration for inclusion of value
2009 Natural Capital Ecosystems provided by nature, people and society in
business decision making.

Industry led alliance promoting social and

Sustainable
2010 Sustainability metrics environmental improvements towards
Apparel Coalition
sustainability.

Zero Discharge of Business led collaboration working to reduce

2011 Hazardous Chemicals industry's chemical footprint throughout the
Chemicals value chain.

The Better
Corporate foundation for better sustainability
2013 Water and chemicals
performance of textile wet processing in China.
Mill Initiative

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (not-for-pro�t)

Make Fashion
2017 Material �ows initiative to accelerate shifts to a circular
Circular
fashion and textile economy.

The Industry Industry led initiative aiming for a target of

2018 Charter for Carbon emissions 30% greenhouse gas emission reductions by
Climate Action 2030.

A global coalition of companies committed to

C
2019 Fashion Pact stopping global warming, restoring nature and
emissionsEcosystems
protecting oceans.

UN Alliance for UN led initiative for meeting Sustainable

2019 Sustainable Sustainability metrics Development Goals through coordinated
Fashion action in the fashion sector.

Throughout the paper we refer to the following key concepts:

Circular economy - a framework for an economic system focused on material �ows aiming to maintain a
continuous �ow of goods and services in socially and ecologically restorative ways (Korhonen et al., 2018).
Circular economy is gaining interest from decision-makers at all levels (European Commission, 2020;
UNSSC, 2020). 
4 z 10 07.07.2020, 20:45
Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) - a widely used technique for assessing the aggregate environmental impact
of materials
Making fromfor
decisions “cradle to grave”
sustainable – or fromAproduction
circularity: cr... tohttps://www.is4ce.org/en/conference/conference...
�nal disposal. In the textiles industry, LCA is
regarded as a good tool for enabling cost effectiveness comparisons and informing decisions on decreased
environmental impacts of a garment(Dahllöf, 2003).

Planetary boundaries - a global sustainability framework for characterizing planet-level Earth system
conditions that can maintain a resilient state for human development. It stresses the rising risks of
systemic environmental change for long-term sustainability (Steffen et al., 2015).

In each case, we probe these biophysically expressed frameworks in order to consider the tacit and in
some cases invisible social aspects that make the fashion system a dynamic, complex and adaptive social-
ecological system. We structure our analysis of the fashion system using a Driver – State - Response
framework (United Nations, 1996), which allows us to clarify and structure the causal links between social
drivers, environmental conditions, and options for societal actions towards sustainable and resilient
outcomes of value chain activities. As a point of clari�cation, in this paper we use the word material in its
literal sense as ‘made of stuff’, not to be confused with the legal and �nancial senses of the word as
‘something of signi�cance for decision making’. Consequently, the term non-material is to be understood to
refer to things that are not made of stuff, such as social values and norms - even though these things are
very often of signi�cance for decision-making, as we elaborate below.

3  Problem analysis: disconnected social-ecological perspectives of the fashion system

3.1  The missing user in social drivers of global changes 

There is no doubt that today’s fashion system is driving planet-scale changes. Three key factors drive the
industry’s increase in planetary environmental pressures. First, the production of fashion textiles has
burgeoned as markets and industrialised economic development become globalised. The bigger the
industry grows, the greater the demand for Earth’s natural resources and the release of polluting
emissions. Sandin, Roos, Spak, et al., (2019) have shown that three quarters of climate impact from
clothing in Sweden comes from the production phase. Secondly, the speed of consumption has accelerated,
as consumers worldwide buy more clothes, at lower prices, and use their clothes for a shorter time before
replacing them with new clothes (WRAP, 2017). Finally, fashion has a systemic lock-in to material leakages
at every step in the life cycle of a garment. For instance, 35% of the initial mass of cotton �bres are lost
during the production of a T-shirt (Grilli, 2018). Additional material is lost in the consumer phase, as
clothes are washed and worn. Clothes are not being disposed due to wear and tear but instead a larger
proportion, 70% of people’s wardrobes, is seen as almost disposable - worn for a season or even a day, then
discarded (Palomo-Lovinski & Hahn, 2020). Many people’s wardrobes contain clothes that have been
bought but never been worn.

The phrase ‘take-make-waste’ is a widely used description of the industry’s value chain but it only re�ects
two of these three drivers. The expression is gaining ground, frequently used in calls to shift to circular
economy by both business and policy makers (WRI 2019; WEF 2020; European Commission 2020; UN
Global Compact 2020). As a description of the value chain, its perspective includes social actions, but it
presents a view of a world where social drivers of change are depersonalized. As a result, despite being
readily communicated and appealing, ‘take-make-waste’ becomes problematic when trying to express how
5the
z 10
fashion system drives environmental harms. Normalizing an approach that misses out07.07.2020, 20:45
users and the
using of stuff has implications for the diagnosis of sustainability challenges in the industry and the design
of circular
Making economy
decisions for responses.
sustainableWith a depersonalized
circularity: A cr... approach, the industry’s responses are
https://www.is4ce.org/en/conference/conference...
predominantly focused on materials and technological innovation, such as novel �bres, and innovative
ways to capture chemical pollution, offset emissions, and collect waste materials, as shown in Table 1.

Environmental pressures can be conceptualised as social-ecological hybrids (Stone-Jovicich, 2015)

emerging from activities that span across the value chain – and where non-material links matter as much
as material �ows. Societies respond to ecological changes when the state of the environment degrades to
the point that it creates negative social impacts. In particular, fashion businesses respond to pressure from
their customers, re�ected in the industry’s high ranking of consumer preferences as a strategic business
risk (Mckinsey&Company, 2019). At present, environmental harms caused by fashion are not readily
perceivable by consumers and often not by fashion brands themselves (Palomo-Lovinski and Hahn 2020)
(https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?aQTJjy). Even where the industry’s impacts are evident, the
capacity for fashion users, companies and policy makers alike to respond sustainably is hindered by the
dif�culty of expressing the links between global environmental changes and the garments in an individual
person’s wardrobe. 

3.2 Missing social depth in assessments of environmental performance 

Fashion businesses are increasingly asking questions such as ‘Which �bre is best?’ and ‘How can textile
production processes “close the loop”?’, with the stated ambition to reduce contributions to problematic
environmental trends. Here too, the industry frames the environmental problem as material – but this
time it is missing out its social contexts. Tools, metrics and tests for ecological impacts, such as life cycle
and footprint assessments give a partial perspective for business responses. Framing questions narrowly
in terms of changes in environmental conditions, disconnected from the social activities driving them and
the impacts they cause (Palm 2017) (https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?7QKHnZ), leads to misplaced
responses.

The implications can be seen with a comparison of cotton and polyester. Both �bres have many adverse
environmental effects - there is no ‘best’ �bre. Sandin et al. (2019a) (https://www.zotero.org/google-
docs/?15bfS7) observe that there is not enough data (or reliable enough data) to really demonstrate a
sustainability difference between any �bres. Due to the scale of cotton and polyester production, they
impact all nine planetary boundaries. Cotton cultivation uses a disproportionate amount of water,
fertilizers, insecticides and pesticides compared with other agricultural crops (Mekonnen & Hoekstra,
2011). Synthetic �bres are increasingly a cause for concern, but for different environmental reasons:
mostly manufactured from non-renewable crude oil, they are now recognised as a source of long-lasting
pollution (Henry et al., 2018). 

Despite the discourses of closing material loops and the focus on recycled �bres (especially for synthetics),
no substitutions are happening at scale within the fashion industry. Instead, production of cotton and
polyester are projected to continue their increasing trends (Table 1, Figure 1). In 2018, close to 90 million
tons of cotton and polyester �bres were produced, constituting over 75% of global textile �bre production
(Niinimäki et al., 2020). The quantities of cotton and polyester used make it unlikely for them to be
substituted by any novel �bre or by increased production of alternative natural �bres with better
ecological performance. 
6 z 10 07.07.2020, 20:45

Life cycle assessments of cotton and synthetics give large differences in the environmental impacts
assessed
Making (Sandin,for
decisions Roos, Johansson,
sustainable et al., 2019;
circularity: Sandin, Roos,
A cr... Spak, et al., 2019), making it impossible to
https://www.is4ce.org/en/conference/conference...
compare across studies and evaluate the effectiveness of footprinting approaches and sustainability
certi�cations. For instance, some organic cotton certi�cations allow irrigation and some do not. A social-
ecological perspective is needed when impacts depend as much on societal decisions about water use as
on biophysical aspects of crop water demand.  

3.3 Today’s responses – eroding global social-ecological resilience? 

The fashion industry is fully aware of its global size and its social and ecological effects on a planetary
scale. The industry has always been responsive to accusations of social impacts such as sweatshops. With
media and consumers increasingly alert to environmental effects, it makes increasingly ambitious
statements about sustainable circularity (e.g., closing the loop to keep materials ‘at their highest value
during use and re-enter the economy afterwards, never ending up as waste’ (EMF, 2017). Global businesses are
attracted to the planetary boundaries framework, working through global multistakeholder coalitions
(Table 1). For example, the Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action has a vision to achieve net zero
climate emissions by 2050 (unfccc.int 2020). The Fashion Pact (2020) focuses on stopping global warming,
restoring biodiversity and protecting the oceans. 

Today’s fashion industry acts when it must in response to local, immediate (and mostly social) impacts, but
can still postpone action by making big statements about future targets for the global environment,
sharing futuristic visions of sustainable circularity. No businesses have yet cut emissions by 8% per year –
as needed if net zero targets are to be met.  Occasionally these impacts pose risks to a company, but as
Figure 1 shows, nothing has yet impacted the economic expansion of the global industry. Comparing parts
of the system may give a relative measure of environmental improvement when alternative materials,
products or processes are developed, but without comprehensive and comparable data and in the absence
of an absolute baseline (Bjørn et al., 2015) it is impossible to assess if efforts ‘add up’ towards sustainable
circularity. Industry often uses quanti�ed amounts of materials taken at one place to offset elsewhere by
compensatory payments, as if social and ecological diversity did not matter for system behaviour. But
societies, culture and ecosystems change over time, so demands for fashion are constantly changing.
Resilient responses need to accommodate the cross-scale dynamics of the system, and be able to persist
and evolve with social and ecological changes.

4  Insights for strategic decisions for a ‘better’ fashion system

The system is mobilised by social needs 

Even though the industry clearly recognizes that social actions are driving global unsustainability, it
systematically takes the social out of their rhetorics. Yet fashion users drive the system by their needs and
their decisions on what clothes to buy, use, re-use and dispose of as waste. Fashion users do not make their
decisions based on LCA, circularity indices or material footprints. The plethora of research on people’s use
of fashion points unanimously to the role of non-material aspects. As Entwistle (2000) argues, people in all
societes dress their bodies, making the everyday act of getting dressed imperative for micro-social order.
Users’ decisions on what to wear re�ect complex interactions between the user, their social conditions,
fashion trends, and social norms and values. Users' decisions in dress are unpredictably complex processes
7shaping
z 10 how individuals orientate themselves to the social world. Because of this,Niinimäki 07.07.2020, 20:45
(2011) argues
that the discussion and evaluation of consumers’ values should underpin sustainable design. The users of
fashiondecisions
Making are key tofor
decreasing waste,
sustainable keepingAmaterial
circularity: cr... in use and ‘closing the loop’ (Figure 2).  
https://www.is4ce.org/en/conference/conference...

Figure 2: From a linear take-make-waste to a resilient, adaptive take-make-use-waste approach to

circularity

Textile fashion’s environmental harms need reconnecting to value chain activities 

The industry makes statements on responses to planetary harms, but fails to assess key elements relevant
from a planetary perspective. For instance, Sandin, Roos, Johansson, et al. (2019) show that LCA of textiles
does not assess impacts on biodiversity from large-scale monocultures; land use change and freshwater
use do not properly represent the vast diversity in social practices and ecological contexts, and chemical
pollution assessment disregards ‘chemical cocktails’, impacts of feedstock production for plastics, and
potential effects of chemicals and �bres released along the value chain. In addition, comparisons from
alternative LCIA-informed �bre choices are treated as if different environmental impacts cancel each
other out. Textile �bres have diverse societal impacts, and affect the environment through multiple
processes and feedbacks. Much more data is therefore needed to inform actionable sustainable circularity
assessments. 

Sustainable responses are not really decisions towards material circularity

Halting a growing fashion and textile industry’s negative impacts on the environment and on the social
systems that depend on Earth’s life-support systems is really not about the relative bene�ts of the �bres
as such, it is about altering the quantity of �bres being produced. The biggest contributions from cotton
and synthetic �bres to environmental harms come from the use of fossil fuels in the production phase, and
the biggest scope to limit those harms comes from from how the �nal product is used and how long for.
Sustainable circularity is not about efforts to ‘close the loop’ of material stuff but rather about better
managed connections to the non-material aspects. Each step of the textile and fashion value chain is
driven by people’s needs and desires. Most of these needs and desires are out of scope of business
decisions, as they relate to different scales and levels in policymaking and society. Changes in the fashion
system will involve different groups of people in diverse societal contexts and will happen over different
timescales. Focusing on textile �bres within the production and retail phases of the value chain risks
eroding resilience even more, by making “rational, informed” decisions about just a small part of the
system. 

Even though there is no ‘best’ �bre a better fashion system is possible

Moving the fashion industry from a take-make-waste business model towards a sustainable circular
8business
z 10 model requires that the industry rethinks what the system is. When businesses and07.07.2020, 20:45
policymakers
talk about circular economy for the fashion and textiles industry, they consistently emphasise the need for
decisions
Making to address
decisions the materials,
for sustainable for example
circularity: deciding between
A cr... cotton or synthetic �bres. They need a
https://www.is4ce.org/en/conference/conference...
social-ecological system perspective that goes beyond the fashion industry’s boundaries if they want to
achieve change towards sustainable circularity. 

Fundamentally there needs to be more attention to the fashion user. A take-make-use-waste approach
brings in users and can bring attention to other human beings involved in the social-ecological fashion
system. Today, none of the initiatives in Table 1 focus on social aspects that are not related to working
conditions and workers’ rights. Yet fashion users are key for achieving ‘more fashion’ that is decoupled
from ‘more environmental harms’.

Sustainable circularity is thus about having a social-ecological system perspective of fashion which is only
possible when drivers are included in responses for action. A take-make-use-waste approach potentially
changes the discourse on what the problem is represented to be. Bringing in users potentially changes the
way solutions are thought about. It is not an insigni�cant rhetorical change - rhetorics re�ect actions and
steer thinking about the fashion system.  Bringing in the missing user highlights that responses must
include acting across geographical and temporal scales and societal levels. Bringing in the users does bring
in additional complex processes to an already complex system but it also reveals multiple potential
opportunities for both societies and nature.  

Acknowledgements

This research is part of 'Sustainable Textiles', a collaborative project between H&M, Ellen McArthur
Foundation and Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University.

References 

Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (2002). Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for
Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press.

Bjørn, A., Diamond, M., Owsianiak, M., Verzat, B., & Hauschild, M. Z. (2015). Strengthening the Link
between Life Cycle Assessment and Indicators for Absolute Sustainability To Support Development within
Planetary Boundaries. Environmental Science & Technology, 49(11), 6370–6371.

Dahllöf, L. (2003). Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) applied in the textile sector: The usefulness, limitations and
methodological problems–A literature review. Chalmers University of Technology.

EMF, Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2017). A New Textiles Economy.

https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/

Entwistle, J. (2000). The fashioned body: Fashion, dress, and modern social theory. Polity Press ; Blackwell.

European Commission. (2020). Circular Economy Action Plan: For a cleaner and more competitive Europe (pp.
1–28).
9 z 10 07.07.2020, 20:45

Global Fashion Agenda. (2019). Pulse 2019. https://www.globalfashionagenda.com/pulse-2019-update/#

Grilli, P.decisions
Making (2018). Environmental impacts
for sustainable of circular
circularity: scenarios for
A cr... the textile industry: A planetary boundaries-
https://www.is4ce.org/en/conference/conference...
based life cycle assessment of cotton t-shirt. Stockholm University.

Henry, B., Laitala, K., & Grimstad Klepp, I. (2018). Microplastic pollution from textiles—A literature review.pdf
(No. 1–2018; pp. 1–48).

Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., & Seppälä, J. (2018). Circular Economy: The Concept and its Limitations.
Ecological Economics, 143, 37–46.

Mckinsey&Company. (2019). The State of Fashion 2019. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey

/Industries/Retail/Our%20Insights/

Mekonnen, M. M., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2011). The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived
crop products. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15(5), 1577–1600.

Niinimäki, K. (2011). From disposable to sustainable: The complex interplay between design and consumption of
textiles and clothing. Aalto University.

Niinimäki, K., Peters, G., Dahlbo, H., Perry, P., Rissanen, T., & Gwilt, A. (2020). The environmental price of
fast fashion. Nature Reviews Earth Environment, 1, 189–200.

Palomo-Lovinski, N., & Hahn, K. (2020). American Consumer Perceptions of Sustainable Fashion, Fast
Fashion, and Mass Fashion Practices. The Int. J. of Sust. in Economic, Social, and Cultural Context, 16(1),
15–27. https://doi.org/10.18848/2325-1115/CGP/v16i01/15-27

Sandin, G., Roos, S., Johansson, M., & RISE. (2019). Environmental impact of textile �bers – what we know and
what we don’t know. The �ber bible part 2 (2019:03 part 2; p. 98).

Sandin, G., Roos, S., Spak, B., Zamani, B., & Peters, G. (2019). Environmental assessment of Swedish clothing
consumption—Six garments, sustainable futures (2019:05; p. 167).

Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstrom, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S. R.,
de Vries, W., de Wit, C. A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G. M., Persson, L. M., Ramanathan, V.,
Reyers, B., & Sorlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet.
Science, 347(6223), 1259855–1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855

Stone-Jovicich, S. (2015). Probing the interfaces between the social sciences and social-ecological
resilience Ecology and Society, 20(2).

United Nations. (1996). Indicators of Sustainable Development: Framework and Methodologies.

UNSSC. (2020). Circular Economy and the 2030 Agenda. https://www.unssc.org/

WRAP. (2017). Valuing our clothes: The cost of UK fashion. https://www.wrap.org.uk/sustainable-textiles

/valuing-our-clothes%20
10 z 10 07.07.2020, 20:45