Recycled polyester (rPET) has become an easy choice for many brands wanting to be more “sustainable” but this narrative is increasingly being challenged and sparking an important conversation about what defines a sustainable material.

For years, the logic has been quite straightforward: recycled polyester uses less energy and water to produce than virgin polyester, diverts plastic waste from landfills, and reduces dependence on fossil fuels. Fashion brands embraced it as their ticket to sustainability - Adidas now claims 99% of its polyester is recycled, H&M reports 94%.

The assumption was clear that recycled = better.

Changing Markets Foundation recently released a report on the topic (Spinning Greenwash: How the fashion industry’s shift to recycled polyester is worsening microplastic pollution) and it pulls no punches. Their laboratory testing of 51 garments from major brands (Adidas, H&M, Nike, Shein, and Zara) revealed that recycled polyester sheds significantly more microfibers than virgin polyester - and those fibers are smaller, which makes them more dangerous. Smaller fibers travel further in ecosystems, penetrate deeper into lungs, and are more easily ingested by wildlife.

Beyond microplastics, critics argue that rPET enables greenwashing. Since 98% of recycled polyester comes from plastic bottles (not old textiles), it removes bottles from effective closed-loop recycling and downcycles them into garments that can't be recycled again. Meanwhile, some brands use rPET to appear sustainable while continuing to overproduce synthetic clothing.

SEE THE REPORT →

As someone who's spent years evaluating sustainability claims across hundreds of brands, I can tell you that it's rarely black and white.

Take a brand I'm currently working with. They're using rPET blended with lotus fiber to create a silk alternative. Why? The founder wanted to end the suffering of silkworms. They chose rPET not to greenwash, but because it was an accessible synthetic that could achieve the silky texture they needed while being better than virgin polyester on carbon and water use.

Is this greenwashing? Or is this a small brand doing their best with imperfect options?

The reality is that material choices exist on a spectrum. rPET is better than virgin polyester on some metrics (carbon footprint, fossil fuel use) but worse on others (microplastic shedding, circularity). Context matters: a brand producing 500 thoughtful pieces per year using rPET is different from a fast fashion giant pumping out millions and millions of rPET items just to appear "sustainable."

Whether you work with textiles or not, this debate offers important lessons:

No material is perfect. Every choice has tradeoffs. The "most sustainable" option depends entirely on your context and what impacts you're prioritizing.

Honest communication wins. Customers can tell the difference between "we use rPET because it's perfect" and "we use rPET because it's better than virgin polyester on carbon, but we're still working on the microplastic issue."

Beware of single-metric thinking. A material can score well on one measure and poorly on another. Leading sustainable brands look at the whole picture.

In our ratings, we recognize rPET as better than virgin synthetics - but we also score brands lower in waste and circularity when they rely heavily on any synthetics. Because both things can be true: it's better than virgin polyester AND it's not a long-term solution.

The Spinning Greenwash report pushes us all to think more critically. The answer is not to vilify every brand using rPET but rather to demand more nuance, more honesty, and more holistic thinking.

Until next time,

Small steps. Big change.