HOW WE CALCULATE IMPACT DATA
Taking Back an Item to Recirculate it Mitigates
60% of the Impact of Making a New One
When a brand takes back a used item instead of letting it go to landfill, and that item finds a second life through resale, it stands in for – or displaces – a new item that doesn’t have to be manufactured.
This framework comes from the science of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), which evaluates a product’s environmental footprint throughout its lifespan, from raw material extraction, manufacturing to distribution, use, and final disposal. For a garment, this involves the environmental impacts from harvesting raw materials, spinning yarn, dyeing fabric, cutting and assembling the finished piece, wearing and caring for it, to disposing of it when it’s no longer desired.
In LCA methodology, the net environmental saving of recirculating clothing depends on a critical factor called the “displacement rate”. It measures how many new garments are avoided when consumers buy preloved items. A 100% displacement rate means that the item fully substitutes a new one. However, the rates are often lower than 100% in reality.¹
Net Avoided Impact of Preloved Item
Resale Process Impact − (Displacement Rate × Impact of New Item)
Source: WRAP’s standardised methodology for calculating displacement rates (2025)
To establish a reliable benchmark, we looked at a wide range of academic studies, industry reports, and resale data. The most robust figures we found come from the global environmental action organisation WRAP. Their Displacement Rates Untangled report identifies a 64.6% displacement rate for UK peer-to-peer apparel resale, which means that for every 5 preloved items purchased, roughly 3 of them displace a new purchase². This standardised method was developed and tested across the sector, including by major resale platforms eBay, Vestiaire Collective and Depop.
For our impact modelling, we apply a discounted displacement rate of 60% (0.6) to account for differences between peer-to-peer resale and our managed take-back model, ensuring our calculations remain conservative and realistic while we collect our own platform-specific displacement data.
Our Base Data
How We Estimate the Environmental
Impact of New Clothing
For new clothing, we apply recognised global textile impact benchmarks per kilogram (kg) of clothing to establish the baseline footprint of manufacturing a brand-new garment, and assign a category weight to the item to determine its weight.
Impact of New Item
Impact of 1 kg of Clothing × Item’s Estimated Weight (kg)
Base Impact Benchmarks (Per 1 kg of New Clothing)
Carbon Footprint: 25 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).
Published estimates for the climate impact of textile production range from 17 to 39 kg CO2e per kg³, depending on scope, geography, and fibre mix. We use 25 kg CO2e, which is at the conservative end of this range. This figure accounts for cradle-to-shelf emissions, including raw materials, manufacturing, and global transport.
Water Footprint: 5,000 litres of water
Published water footprint data varies by material and research methodology. For cotton, fibre production alone is estimated at 10,000-15,000 litres per kg⁴, with 10,000 litres per kg being the most commonly cited figure across industry sources⁵. Hemp and flax (linen) require substantially less water, approximately 2,700-3,800 litres per kg⁴. In our calculations, we use a 5,000-litre baseline which reflects a conservative blended average for the natural and cellulosic fibres typical in mid-to-high-end fashion.
Supply Chain Waste: 1.1 kg of waste generated
Manufacturing an apparel item creates waste before it reaches a customer. During cutting, fabric is trimmed to patterns, and the offcuts are often discarded. Published estimates put this pre-consumer cutting waste at approximately 10% to 30% of fabric input.⁶ We apply a conservative 1.1× multiplier to estimate the fabric weight that goes into producing 1 kg of finished clothing (equivalent to a cutting waste rate of 9.09%). With this assumption, producing 1 kg of clothing draws in 1.1 kg of fabric, of which 0.1 kg is lost as cutting waste before the garment is sewn.
The Environmental Impact
of 1 Kg of New Clothing
1 kg
25 kg
5,000 ltr
1.1 kg
Category Weight Assumptions
To ensure streamlined operations without compromising data integrity, we group clothing into four broad categories and assign an average weight to each:
- Lightweight (Tops, Shirts, Blouses): 200 grams (0.2 kg)
- Medium-weight (Dresses, Jumpsuits, Knitwear, Pants, Summer Jackets): 400 grams (0.4 kg)
- Heavy-weight (Denim Jeans, Jackets, Heavy Material Skirts): 600 grams (0.6 kg)
- Extra-heavy (Heavy Jackets, Coats, Outerwear): 1,000 grams (1.0 kg)
Our Formula
Net Environmental Savings from
Preloved Item
Putting it all together, let’s now calculate the environmental impact of buying a preloved dress that weighs roughly 400 grams compared to purchasing new. Using the formula,
Displacement Rate (0.6) × Impact of 1 kg of New Clothing × Item’s Category Weight (0.4)
We find that choosing a preloved dress over a new one saves:
- 6.0 kg of CO2e: Equivalent to driving an average passenger car about 50 km⁷ – the distance from the east to the west of Singapore.
- 1,200 litres of water saved: Enough drinking water for one person for over 1.6 years⁸.
- 0.26 kg of waste diverted from landfill: Equivalent to 32% of the 0.83 kg waste produced daily per person in Singapore. For context, the national target is to reduce daily waste sent to the Semakau Landfill by 30% by 2030 to sustain its longevity.
Net Environmental Savings
from Buying a Preloved Dress
0.4 kg
6 kg
Driving a passenger car for 50 km
1,200 ltr
Drinking water for 1.6 years
0.26 kg
32% daily waste per person in SG
DISCLOSURES
Limitations of the Model &
Data Transparency
There are recognised limitations in the generalised environmental impact model we use. We are transparent that our figures represent conservative, peer-reviewed benchmarks rather than an individualised supply chain audit of every item in our store. Where uncertainty exists, we have purposefully chosen the lower end of published ranges, or applied a conservative simplification, and disclosed it here.
- Fibre mix: Fashion brands use a variety of materials, many of which are blended. However, verified environmental impact data does not exist for all fibres and material compositions. We are limited by data availability, and our method is based on standardising material mix across categories. These assumptions may not reflect the actual material composition of an individual garment, or of a particular brand.
- Displacement Rate: WRAP notes that its published displacement rate is weighted for the UK market. Actual displacement rates in Singapore and the wider Asian market may differ.
- Weight: Our category weights are standardised averages. Individual garments within a category may weigh more or less than the assumed baseline figure.
- Resale Process Impact: Taking back garments and processing them for resale generates its own environmental footprint, which will offset a portion of the net gains.
- Scope of impact Categories: Our model quantifies carbon, water, and waste impact – the three categories for which credible, published data is most available. It does not account for other recognised environmental impacts of textile production and use, including microplastic fibre shedding, land use, and chemical pollution from material cultivation and processing.
That said, findings across all major studies including our calculation confirm the core directional message: choosing preloved clothing over new results in net environmental savings in carbon, water, and waste footprint.
REFERENCES
Sources We Reference
LCA methodology and product displacement
[1] Sandin, G. & Peters, G. (2018). Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling – A review, Journal of Cleaner Production, 184, 353–365. Reviews the LCA literature on textile reuse and recycling, confirming product displacement as the dominant methodology used to calculate environmental savings.
[2] WRAP (2025). Displacement Rates Untangled: A Standardised Methodology. Waste and Resources Action Programme. Establishes a UK weighted average displacement rate of 64.6% for peer-to-peer clothing resale.
Carbon footprint data
[3] Östlund, Å., Roos, S., Sweet, S. & Sjöström, E. (2020). Investor Brief: Sustainability in Textiles and Fashion. Mistra Dialogue Report 2020:1, Appendix D. Compares climate impact figures per kg of textile across six sources (17–39 kg CO2-eq/kg), reflecting differences in scope, geography, and methodology rather than a single comparable measurement.
Water footprint data
[4] Mikucioniene, D., Mínguez-García, D., Repon, M.R., Milašius, R., Priniotakis, G., Chronis, I., Kiskira, K., Hogeboom, R., Belda-Anaya, R. & Díaz-García, P. (2024). Understanding and addressing the water footprint in the textile sector: A review. AUTEX Research Journal, 24(1), 20240004. Reports a cotton fibre production range of 10,000–15,000 L/kg citing Chapagain et al. (2006), and total water footprints of 2,713 L/kg for hemp and 3,783 L/kg for flax citing Hossain & Khan (2020).
[5] Water Footprint Network. A guide to reduce the water footprint of cotton cultivation. States a global average of approximately 10,000 litres of water to produce 1 kg of cotton fabric. This figure is widely referenced across the fashion and textile industry.
Fabric waste data
[6] 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. Reports pre-consumer cutting-room fabric waste estimates ranging from approximately 10% to 30% of fabric input.
Equivalency conversion factors
[7] European Environment Agency (2025). Average CO2 emissions from new cars and new vans slightly increased in 2024. Reports average CO2 emissions from new passenger cars registered in Europe at 106.4 g CO2/km in 2023, rising to 106.8 g CO2/km in 2024. We use [100/120]g CO2/km as a conservative equivalency baseline.
[8] Howard, G. & Bartram, J., World Health Organization (2003). Domestic Water Quantity, Service Level and Health. WHO/SDE/WSH/03.02. States a minimum of 2 litres per day for hydration under average conditions, rising to 4.5 litres or more in tropical climates. We use 2 litres/day as a conservative baseline for the drinking water equivalency.
Need to quantify the environmental footprint of your fashion brand?
We tailor WRAP-based displacement methodology to your business. Request a consultation with us.
CITATION GUIDELINES
Referencing Our Methodology & Data
This methodology – including the calculation framework, applicable displacement rates, and base impact figures – is original work developed by Lucerna Impact, derived from a verified set of academic and industry sources.
You’re welcome to reference it in your own published content. Please cite as: Environmental Impact Methodology, Lucerna Impact, www.lucernaimpact.com/impact-data. Accessed [insert today’s date]. If you’re referencing a specific figure or calculation (for example, the cotton water footprint or displacement rate), please cite both Lucerna Impact and the original source as listed on this page.
What’s not permitted: reproducing or closely paraphrasing this methodology on another site, presenting it as your own work, or using it as the basis for a competing calculation tool or service. Please refer to our Terms of Service for further details.
Lucerna Impact maintains this page as a working reference and updates it as sources and figures are revised. We’re not responsible for how third parties apply or interpret these figures in their own claims.
For questions about licensing or attribution, please contact us at research@lucernaimpact.com
Last updated: 22 June 2026