Better sustainability measurement is emerging to capture natural fibers’ complete story, from carbon sequestration and soil regeneration to the biodiversity and rural communities they sustain. Here’s how we get there.

If you’re an outdoor brand that values performance, sustainability, and reduced microplastics pollution, you’re likely among the growing number transitioning to natural fibers. Yet many brands committed to these materials are finding that tools like the EU’s Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and platforms such as Ecobalyse don’t reflect the full sustainability story.

This frustration is valid. But the issue isn’t with your material choices. It’s with how current measurement methods capture impacts.

These tools rely on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), a methodology designed for industrial systems. Traditional LCA uses an “attributional” approach that captures emissions and resource use at one moment in time. While valuable for manufactured products, this snapshot misses the dynamic benefits of biological systems, such as carbon storage, soil regeneration, and biodiversity enhancement. Natural fibers deliver on these throughout their life cycle.

If your natural fiber products are showing “red”

Consider what those scores aren’t measuring. Through photosynthesis, natural fibers actively sequester carbon, creating a biogenic carbon cycle that supports climate mitigation. When produced on grasslands unsuitable for crops, they maintain landscapes requiring grazing for health and biodiversity while providing essential livelihoods. On arable land, they integrate into diverse systems that build soil health.

Your natural fiber products likely offer greater durability, reducing lifetime environmental impact. However, PEF currently applies standardized assumptions rather than recognizing real-world performance. Beyond environmental metrics, natural fiber systems sustain millions of rural jobs globally. These are socio-economic contributions that align with EU sustainability and just transition priorities, yet remain outside current assessment frameworks.

Better understanding the measurement challenge

Current tools invite direct comparison between fundamentally different systems. Natural fibers emerge from farmed, regenerative systems that interact with ecosystems. Synthetic fibers, meanwhile, derive from mined, fossil-based systems. ISO standards recognize that LCAs with different functional units and system boundaries shouldn’t be directly compared, and the European Commission advises against using PEF for material comparisons.

Simplified scores suggest direct equivalence, reflecting the methodology used rather than the material reality. When your renewable, circular materials appear to underperform against fossil-derived synthetics, it is not your sourcing strategy that needs to be updated. It’s your assessment framework.

Staying strong until the systems catch up

Progress is emerging through LCA+ frameworks that account for both impacts and benefits. A fuller picture would include microplastic emissions, biogenic carbon storage and regenerative land management, circularity indicators distinguishing renewable from fossil-based materials, durability assessment through actual performance data, and social dimensions including rural resilience.

While these comprehensive frameworks develop, you can strengthen your position. Work with suppliers who can demonstrate regenerative outcomes. Biodiversity enhancement, soil health improvements, and carbon sequestration data tell your products’ complete story. Document the durability and service life of your products to counter generic assumptions. Engage in industry collaborations developing more complete metrics, data, and support standards that recognize natural fibers’ full sustainability value.

Your commitment to natural fibers reflects sound environmental strategy. As measurement methods evolve to capture what truly matters, the scores will better reflect the innovation and stewardship your material choices represent.