Unpacking what the UNDP’s plastic breakdown really means for the fashion industry
The UNDP released a breakdown on plastic production: What are plastics used for? It reveals unexpected items hiding plastic in plain sight (UNDP). Just 6% of plastic production goes into clothing, dwarfed by packaging (31%), construction (16%), vehicles (14%), consumer products (11%), and other (18%).
So, if fashion contributes so little to plastic production, why is it often called the second most polluting industry in the world?
The plastic production statistic: just one part of the story
The key lies in understanding that the UNDP’s data tracks plastic feedstock only, not the fashion industry’s total environmental footprint. While plastic is a concern—especially with synthetic fabrics like polyester—the industry’s pollution runs much deeper.
In other words, the UNDP’s data is accurate but incomplete. In fact, fashion’s pollution extends beyond plastic. Here’s what the 6% figure doesn’t capture:
- Water pollution
- Toxic dyes and chemical runoff from textile factories account for 20% of global industrial water pollution (World Bank).
- Synthetic fabrics shed microplastics, making up 35% of ocean microplastic pollution (IUCN).
- Carbon emissions
- The fashion industry is responsible for 4–10% of global CO₂ emissions—more than aviation and shipping combined (UNEP).
- Fast fashion’s rapid production cycles and global supply chains multiply its climate impact.
- Waste crisis
- One garbage truck of textiles is landfilled or burned every second (Ellen MacArthur Foundation).
- Less than 1% of clothing is recycled into new garments, creating a massive waste stream.
- Resource exploitation
- Cotton farming guzzles 2,700 litres of water per t-shirt (WWF) and relies heavily on pesticides.
- The industry’s linear “take-make-waste” model is inherently unsustainable.
Is fashion really the second worst polluter?
The ranking is debated. While oil and gas reliably top the list, fashion’s position varies by study:
- Some rank it #2 due to its aggregate harm (water, emissions, waste).
- Others place it lower, alongside agriculture or livestock.
The takeaway? Even if not definitively second, fashion’s environmental damage is undeniable—and the 6% plastic stat barely scratches the surface.
What the UNDP’s data tells us
The 6% figure isn’t wrong—it’s just one metric in a far larger crisis. It’s one piece of the puzzle. Fashion’s true impact comes from its entire lifecycle—from pesticide-laced cotton fields to landfill-clogging waste. Reducing its harm will require systemic change, not just swapping polyester for alternatives.
What can we do? Support circular fashion, buy less, wear more, demand transparency.
(For more on how brands spin their sustainability claims, check out our ebook: This Is Greenwashing.)