Sustainability is becoming less about storytelling and more about substantiation.
As sustainability expectations rise, apparel companies are finding that good intentions are no longer enough. Brands are being asked to back up environmental claims with credible data that can withstand scrutiny from regulators, customers and investors alike. That shift is putting life cycle assessments under the spotlight, making the quality of the data as well as the methodology behind it a strategic issue rather than simply a sustainability exercise.
Cotton Incorporated’s latest study aims to meet that need with what it says is the most comprehensive life cycle assessment ever conducted on U.S. cotton fiber production, drawing on primary data from growers across every U.S. cotton-producing region. The LCA found that U.S. cotton can achieve a net negative cradle-to-gate carbon footprint when biogenic carbon storage is included, while also identifying fertilizer production, field emissions and irrigation as the industry’s biggest opportunities for further improvement.
Here, Jesse Daystar, Ph.D., vice president and chief sustainability officer for Cotton Incorporated, explains where U.S. cotton has made the greatest sustainability gains over the past decade, why nitrogen efficiency and soil health represent the next frontier for reducing environmental impacts, and how better measurement is helping growers translate on-farm progress into a stronger value proposition for brands.
HGI: This is being described as the most comprehensive life cycle assessment conducted on U.S. cotton. From your perspective, what makes these findings a meaningful milestone for the cotton industry?
What sets this study apart is the data and the rigor behind it. It is the most detailed assessment focused solely on U.S. cotton fiber production to date, built on primary data from 753 growers across all 17 cotton-producing states for the 2021/22 crop year. The numbers start with the people who farm.
The study conforms with ISO 14040 and 14044 and was critically reviewed by an independent panel of external experts. That matters because the industry has been making billion-dollar sourcing decisions on fiber data that is often outdated or too general. Brands, retailers and sourcing teams now have current, transparent data they can stand behind with customers and regulators.
HGI: One of the main findings is that U.S. cotton can achieve a net negative cradle-to-gate carbon footprint when biogenic carbon storage is included. How significant is that result in the broader discussion about natural versus synthetic fibers?
The research covers cotton farming through ginning. It does not cover a finished garment or the full product life cycle. Within that scope, producing 1 kilogram of U.S. cotton fiber creates about 1.45 kilograms of fossil CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent). At the same time, the crop temporarily stores about 1.71 kilograms of CO2e in the fiber and soil. When calculating temporary storage, the result is negative 0.264 kilograms of CO2e per kilogram of fiber.
This does not mean every cotton product is carbon negative. For most carbon reporting, brands should assume the carbon stored in cotton fiber returns to the atmosphere at the end of life unless they have supply chain data that shows otherwise. Cotton takes up carbon from the atmosphere as it grows, while synthetic fibers come from fossil carbon. If garments are incinerated at end of life, cotton releases biogenic carbon while synthetics release fossil carbon. That distinction matters when companies compare fiber choices and end-of-life impacts. It is not a claim of zero impact and it does not mean every cotton product is carbon negative.
HGI: Compared with where the industry was a decade ago, what are the biggest sustainability gains U.S. cotton growers have made? Which farming practices have had the greatest impact on reducing cotton’s environmental footprint?
The long-term record is strong. Irrigation water use per pound of lint is down 58 percent over four decades, and about 64 percent of U.S. cotton is grown with rainfall alone.
The biggest shift of the past decade has happened in the soil. Conservation tillage, no-till, and cover cropping have moved into the mainstream, and these practices sit at the core of regenerative systems. Their benefits reach well beyond carbon. They improve water infiltration and storage in the soil, often lower nutrient needs, reduce soil loss, and make farms more resilient. In this study, modeled soil carbon storage associated with changes in field management contributes roughly 0.19 kilograms of CO2 stored per kilogram of fiber, a benefit that did not exist at scale a decade ago.
GWP (IPCC AR6 GWP 100), including biogenic carbon dioxide, including and excluding temporary storage of fiber [kg CO2eq per kg of cotton fiber]
HGI: The study identifies fertilizer production, field emissions and irrigation as the biggest environmental hotspots. Where do you see the greatest opportunity for improvement over the next five to 10 years?
Nitrogen is the biggest opportunity. Field emissions and fertilizer production together drive approximately 78 percent of the fossil greenhouse gas footprint, and about half of that comes from upstream fertilizer production rather than the field. That gives the industry two main levers. We can improve nitrogen-use efficiency through soil testing, optimized rates and timing, and precision application and we can reduce the production footprint of fertilizer through lower-carbon technologies such as green and blue ammonia.
The greatest opportunities for continued progress lie in improving resource efficiency, advancing soil health and expanding the use of science-based practices across cotton production. And these practices spread when they work economically for growers. Sustainability and profitability have to move together
HGI: The report spends considerable time discussing methodology, allocation choices and uncertainty analysis. Is there anything here you want to highlight as textile and apparel executives attempt to compare and contrast the findings in this LCA with other published data?
How you measure matters as much as what you measure. In this study, changing the allocation method alone shifted results by more than 50 percent and changing the background database moved greenhouse gas results by 34 percent. That means the same farm data can produce very different numbers depending on the method researchers use. Sampling, geography, weather, system boundaries, and modeling choices can all materially affect agricultural LCA results. Our baseline uses economic allocation, which assigns a comparatively high share of impacts to cotton fiber. We published alternative approaches alongside it for transparency.
Textile and apparel teams should compare LCA numbers only when studies use similar scopes, data sets, allocation methods and impact methods. Many tools still rely on outdated global average data. If a fiber score appears as one simple number without the method behind it, sourcing teams should ask more questions.
HGI: The report acknowledges important limitations of the LCA, including the need for better on-farm emissions data and the fact that it focuses only on environmental impacts. What additional research is needed to give brands a more complete picture of cotton’s overall sustainability performance?
The highest priority is direct field measurement of nitrous oxide emissions across different soils, climates, fertilizers, and management practices. The industry still relies on international default emission factors. Continued investment in research and measurement will be critical to improving sustainability insights, strengthening data quality and supporting science-based progress across the industry.
Complementary research is needed beyond the farm and gin. Brands need a better understanding of carbon storage and release across a product’s life, plastic pollution impacts, renewable energy options at gins and the cost of adopting regenerative practices. Companies should consider environmental data alongside economic and social factors because an LCA alone does not tell the full sustainability story.
HGI: Fashion brands are under increasing pressure to reduce Scope 3 emissions. Where do you see cotton fitting into apparel’s broader strategy to become more environmentally responsible, especially as companies evaluate fiber choices?
Fiber choices affect a company’s reported Scope 3 footprint. Brands need practical, science-based data to make sourcing decisions, support sustainability reporting and identify opportunities to reduce impacts. This LCA gives them a far stronger U.S. cotton baseline, and the updated inventory data has been prepared for the platforms brands already use company-specific claims will still require traceable supply chain data, but this LCA provides a stronger foundation for decision-making across the value chain.
Cotton also has an important advantage because its carbon comes from the atmosphere. Farming practices that build soil carbon can add value when traceability and sound accounting support them. Still fiber strategy should not depend on carbon alone. Durability, recyclability, biodegradability and microplastics also shape real-world impact and industry regulatory requirements.
HGI: As it relates to U.S. cotton growers, what should be the industry’s top priorities over the next decade? Which practices or investments have the greatest potential to further reduce environmental impacts?
The top priorities are nitrogen efficiency, soil health and irrigation efficiency, with the relative emphasis varying by region, because that is where the footprint sits. Measurement underpins all three. The industry needs to keep investing in primary data so we can track progress and give growers credit for what they achieve. You cannot market what you cannot prove.
These practices also need to work economically for growers. They will scale only if they are practical and profitable. The next step is not reinventing agriculture; it is expanding the practices that leading growers already use.
HGI: Sourcing professionals are increasingly having to balance environmental impact with trade and market access issues. In this context, how important are robust LCAs like this one in ensuring U.S. cotton remains competitive?
Increasingly, credible data is a condition of market access. Industry regulators, customers and rating systems all want environmental claims backed by transparent evidence. A fiber supported by current, primary, independently reviewed data has a real competitive advantage over one described by outdated or generic estimates.
This LCA provides that evidence. I describe our approach as going from science to compliance. It gives brands, retailers and other industry stakeholders practical, science-based data they can use for reporting, due diligence, sourcing decisions and compliance. When brands pair the data with stronger traceability systems, they can reduce risk when they buy U.S. cotton. Price, quality and reliability still matter, but environmental performance has joined the list and U.S. cotton helps set that higher standard.
