sustainability Archives

Sustainability didn’t fall out of fashion. It was never really in fashion.

18 September, 2026 / Leave a Comment

Reading Time: 5 minutes

What fashion’s retreat from sustainability, as the climate crisis becomes more urgent, says about the industry’s business model

A personal perspective by Rosita Cigliola

Yesterday it was sustainable. Today it is AI-powered. Tomorrow it will be something else.
The Financial Times has just asked what happened to sustainability in fashion. After years of ambitious commitments, brands are quietly retreating from targets, scaling back initiatives and putting profitability at the centre of the conversation.

The obvious explanation is that sustainability failed.

But I think something else happened. Sustainability didn’t fall out of fashion. It was never really in fashion. At least, not in the way the word suggested.

During the pandemic, when factories closed, shops emptied, and fashion had the opportunity to look at itself in the mirror, sustainability became one of the industry’s favourite words. Brands and experts announced commitments (for instance, Rewiring Fashion). Collections became conscious—even fast fashion. Businesses became responsible. Materials and packaging became eco-friendly. Circularity was everywhere.

The language was reassuring.

The problem was that the business model remained awfully familiar.
Fashion still needed to sell more clothes.
And more clothes.
And more clothes.

In fact, this was the uncomfortable contradiction at the heart of the sustainability conversation: an industry built around growth, overproduction and overconsumption was trying to present itself as increasingly sustainable without even questioning the pattern itself.

In This is Greenwashing, we argued this was no accident. Sustainability had become a marketing language – a collection of attractive but often vague words that allowed brands to communicate environmental responsibility. A responsibility that didn’t necessarily require demonstrating systemic change. The industry didn’t need to lie outright. It simply needed to choose its words with care.

Conscious.
Responsible.
Eco.
Green.

Words that sounded like progress. But words that required considerably less evidence than the impression they created. That impression was enough.

Now persistent economic volatility continues to affect the markets, and something revealing is happening.
When sustainability was fashionable, brands could afford to talk about it. But when it became too expensive, too complicated or commercially inconvenient as other costs increased, those commitments became less urgent.
That tells us something important. Especially now, when extreme weather is no longer an abstract warning for a distant future but a reality unfolding all around us.

The climate crisis did not become less urgent. Sustainability became less convenient.

The problem wasn’t a lack of good intentions. They were in abundance. The incentives were wrong. And sustainability was turned into a marketing strategy to reach those incentives.

The underlying problem is that the rules and rewards of fashion have not fundamentally changed.
Producing and selling more generates more revenue. Companies are rewarded for sales growth and profit. Investors expect financial returns. Sustainability can cost more and reduce margins. But voluntary environmental targets often have no consequences if they are missed.
And perhaps that is why I am less surprised by the retreat than some people seem to be.

What surprises me more, though it shouldn’t, is how quickly the industry has found another story. AI.

AI is now everywhere in fashion.

AI for demand forecasting.
AI for product development.
AI for personalised shopping.
AI-generated models.
AI-generated campaigns.
AI for supply-chain management.
AI for sustainability reporting.
AI to reduce waste.
AI to make fashion more efficient.

Efficient, not sustainable.

Sustainability seems to disappear beneath yet another change in marketing labels.

Some of these applications may be useful. AI can help brands analyse enormous quantities of information, identify inefficiencies and improve forecasting. The technology itself is not the point, although its massive freshwater and energy consumption raise serious sustainability questions. The problem is what happens when technology becomes a marketing adjective. Because we have seen this movie before. Replace sustainability with AI-powered and ask the same questions.
What exactly does it mean?
Where is it being used?
What has actually changed?
What problem does it solve?
What evidence do we have?
And – most importantly – does it change the business model, or does it simply make the existing business model faster?

That last question matters enormously in fashion. If AI allows a company to predict demand better and therefore produce fewer unwanted garments, wonderful. If it allows a company to generate thousands of new designs faster, create more marketing content and accelerate production of more things nobody needs, then efficiency has not necessarily made fashion more sustainable. It may simply have made overproduction more efficient.

This is where the sustainability conversation went wrong.

We became fascinated by the solution before asking whether we were solving the right problem. We celebrated recycled polyester without asking how many polyester garments we actually needed. We celebrated resale platforms without understanding the impact on the environment – or that they were pushing overconsumption further. We celebrated circularity without asking how much clothing was entering the system. In essence, we celebrated innovation without asking whether innovation was reducing consumption or simply making it easier.

Now AI arrives with the same seductive promise: technology will fix the mess. Perhaps it will fix some of it — the business problems, not the environmental ones. But technology cannot decide what fashion should produce. Which, on a deeper level, also means what world we do want.
People do.
Companies do.
Consumers do.
And ultimately, the business model does.

There is also a delicious irony here.

We spent years telling consumers to look for the green label. Now we may tell them to look for the AI label. And if history is any guide (even this seems quite dubious lately), we should be careful. Because once a word becomes valuable enough to sell something, marketing will learn how to use it.

This does not mean that sustainability was meaningless. Nor does it mean that every brand that made environmental commitments was acting cynically. There are designers, manufacturers, and brands doing serious work. And there are consumers who genuinely want fashion to have less impact. But meaningful change was never going to come from vocabulary alone.

A more sustainable fashion industry cannot be created by changing the adjectives attached to the same products, the same volumes and the same incentives. That is the uncomfortable part. And perhaps the most useful conclusion we can draw from sustainability’s disappearance is not that fashion has abandoned the environment. It is that we should finally stop confusing talking about change with changing the system.

Because if sustainability disappears when climate change gets brutally real, it was not a business principle.

It was a trend.

Sustainability didn’t fall out of fashion. It was never really in fashion. Read More »

Copernicus Climate Change Service: The European State of the Climate 2025

11 May, 2026 / Leave a Comment

Reading Time: 7 minutes

From heatwaves to near-record ocean temperatures, Europe remains the fastest-warming continent

According to the latest European State of the Climate report (ESOTC 2025), published by Copernicus Climate Change Service and the World Meteorological Organisation, Europe remains the world’s fastest-warming continent.

The report, released on 29 April 2026, documents a year marked by record heatwaves, near-record ocean temperatures, destructive wildfires, shrinking glaciers, and mounting pressure on biodiversity. More than 95% of Europe experienced above-average temperatures in 2025.

Globally, 2025 ranked as the third-warmest year ever recorded, with planetary warming now reaching approximately 1.4°C above pre-industrial levels. If emissions continue at their current pace, the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C threshold could be exceeded before the end of this decade.

Across Europe, the signs of climate change are no longer isolated events but interconnected realities reshaping ecosystems, economies, and daily life.

Copernicus Climate: Europe in 2025

Temperature: Almost the entire continent saw above‑average temperatures. Several northern European countries logged their warmest or second‑warmest year.

Heatwaves: Europe endured its second most-severe heatwave on record; sub‑Arctic Fennoscandia saw its longest.

Wildfires: Record burnt area and fire emissions, led by August fires on the Iberian Peninsula.

Oceans: Highest annual sea surface temperature on record, with 86% of the region experiencing at least “strong” marine heatwave conditions.

Glaciers & snow: Net mass loss across all European glacier regions. Snow cover extent and mass both third lowest on record.

Floods/storms: Strong regional contrasts. Storms and flooding hit some areas, but overall less widespread than in recent years.

Energy: Renewables supplied 46.4% of Europe’s electricity. Solar power set a new contribution record (12.5%).

Copernicus Climate Change Service: line graph showing rising global atmospheric CO₂ and methane concentrations from 2020 to 2025.

Temperature across Europe’s land and seas

According to the Copernicus Climate report, Europe is warming more than twice as fast as the global average — and 2025 brought that into sharp focus. On land, almost the entire continent (at least 95%) saw above-average annual temperatures, with Europe suffering its second most severe heatwave on record. At sea, the picture was equally alarming: the annual sea surface temperature for the European ocean region reached an all-time high, and a record 86% of the region experienced at least “strong” marine heatwave conditions.

Hydrological conditions in 2025

In 2025, much of northwestern to eastern Europe was drier than average, with annual precipitation totals 10–40% below normal. This led to record-low soil moisture in some areas and below-average river flow in 70% of Europe’s rivers. In contrast, southwestern and parts of northeastern Europe saw above-average precipitation, soil moisture, and river flow. These patterns also influenced sunshine, cloud cover, and climate-driven renewable power potential.

The contrasts aligned with prevailing atmospheric circulation. High pressure brought drier, sunnier conditions to northwestern, central, and eastern Europe, while low pressure over the North Atlantic shifted storm tracks further south toward southwestern Europe.

Across the Iberian Peninsula, spring brought above-average rainfall, followed by summer heatwaves. This shift created abundant dried vegetation that fueled large wildfires.

Key messages

Soil moisture: 2025 ranked as one of the three driest years for soil moisture across Europe since 1992. In May, 35% of Europe experienced “extreme” agricultural drought.
Precipitation (northwest/central Europe): 2025 ranked among the ten driest years in 47 years for this region — a sharp contrast to the exceptionally wet conditions of 2023 and 2024.
River flooding: Despite several significant flood events, total flooded extent was the second lowest since 1992 and far smaller than the widespread flooding seen in 2023 and 2024.
Extreme precipitation: The share of Europe’s land area affected by extreme precipitation was below average, notably smaller than in several recent years — especially for the most extreme events.
Wildfire emissions: Annual wildfire emissions reached record highs in Spain (where contrasting hydrological conditions fueled large fires), as well as in Cyprus, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Germany.

Long heatwave in sub-Arctic Fennoscandia

In July 2025, sub-Arctic Fennoscandia experienced its longest and most severe heatwave on record, lasting 21 days from 12 July to 1 August. Temperatures near and within the Arctic Circle reached 30°C.

The region typically sees up to two “strong” heat stress days per year, but in 2025 some areas endured almost two weeks at this level. The combination of dry conditions and high temperatures produced “moderate” to “severe” drought during the heatwave, along with up to two weeks of elevated fire danger.

The heatwave coincided with a marine heatwave in the Norwegian Sea, as well as parts of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea.

Cold environments in a warming climate

From the Alps to the Arctic, Europe’s ice and snow cover is shrinking. The area experiencing winter days with freezing temperatures is also declining.

Snow cover: In 2025, end-of-season snow cover extent and mass were the third lowest in the 42-year record. In March alone, the snow-covered area was roughly 1.32 million km² below average — an area equivalent to France, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, and Austria combined.

Glaciers: European glaciers recorded a net mass loss in 2025, with the most negative balances observed in Iceland.

Greenland: The Greenland Ice Sheet lost approximately 139 gigatonnes (Gt) of ice in 2025, equivalent to about 1.5 times the total ice stored in all European Alpine glaciers.

Climate policy and action: biodiversity

Biodiversity — the variety of life on Earth — is essential for a sustainable future, yet climate change is a major driver of its decline.

Healthy ecosystems provide clean air and water, fertile soils, and pollination, all of which underpin food security, livelihoods, and human health. Biodiversity also helps regulate the climate and buffers against extreme weather events.

Recognising this link, European policy frameworks have increasingly integrated climate and biodiversity. The EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 aims to protect and restore nature. By the end of 2025, approximately half of the Strategy’s recommended actions were either in place or fully completed, with most of the remainder already underway.

Climate’s impact on biodiversity

Marine heatwaves have shifted from occasional to annual events, driving mass mortality, species shifts, and ecosystem disruption. From 2023 to 2025, the entire Mediterranean Sea experienced at least “strong” marine heatwave conditions each year.

Posidonia oceanica seagrass — covering ~19,000 km² of Europe’s coasts — is highly sensitive to heat. Thermal stress has driven a 34% decline in its meadows over 50 years. Yet conservation efforts over the past decade have stabilised some areas, boosting species richness, restoring fish nurseries, and enhancing carbon storage and coastal protection.

Peatland wildfires: Europe has lost more peatland proportionally than any other region. Remaining sites like Deurnsche Peel and Mariapeel (Netherlands) are vital. Dried-out peat ignites easily — in April 2020, a 710-hectare fire burned for four days and smouldered for two months. Such fires kill amphibians, ground-nesting birds, and Sphagnum mosses, degrading habitats. Solutions include green firebreaks, ecological corridors, buffer zones, and native reforestation.

Copernicus Climate: trends in climate indicators

The latest Copernicus Climate data shows a clear pattern: the planet is warming, oceans are absorbing more heat, ice is disappearing, and sea levels are rising. Europe and the Mediterranean are warming significantly faster than the global average.

Rising temperatures (since pre-industrial, 1850–1900)

Global: +1.4°C
Europe: +2.4°C
WMO Region VI (Europe): +2.6°C
Arctic: +3.2°C

Oceans under pressure

Sea surface temperatures since the 1980s:

Global oceans: +0.6°C
Europe: +1.1°C
Mediterranean Sea: +1.4°C

Ocean heat content (upper 2000 m) has risen steadily since 1993.

Sea level rise (1999–2025)

Global: +3.7 mm per year
Europe: +2–4 mm per year

Greenhouse gases (annual increase since 2020)

CO₂: +2.6 ppm
CH₄: +11.6 ppb

Ice loss accelerating

Arctic sea ice (September): -33% since the 1980s
Antarctic sea ice (February): -20%

Ice loss since the 1970s:

Greenland: -5,747 Gt
Antarctica: -4,876 Gt
Global glaciers: -9,580 Gt

These indicators confirm that climate change is not a distant threat — it is an ongoing transformation already reshaping ecosystems, coastlines, and weather patterns worldwide.

Final thoughts

Reading the Copernicus 2025 Climate report (download it here), one might be tempted to highlight the positives. Renewables at 46%. Solar at a record 12.5%. Half of biodiversity actions completed.

Do not be fooled.

As climate scientist Kevin Anderson has long argued, every metric points the wrong way. Global temperature: up. Ocean heat: up. Sea levels: up. Ice loss: accelerating. Europe’s warming rate: twice the global average. The 1.5°C Paris threshold: set to be breached by the end of this decade — a decade earlier than predicted.

This is not progress. This is managed decline dressed up as hope.

Leaders knew the science. They had the tools. They chose delay. Most importantly, they chose fossil fuels. In doing so, they chose their own political timelines over the planet’s physical timelines. That is not a failure of capability. It is a failure of will — and of conscience.

The report does not show that we are on the right track. It shows that we are running off track, and those at the controls have intentionally refused to brake.

Copernicus Climate Change Service: The European State of the Climate 2025 Read More »

Solutions to micro and nanoplastics: what can we actually do?

22 April, 2026 / Leave a Comment

Reading Time: 7 minutes

Second part — Notes from the Scientific and informative day promoted by the Microplastics on Human Health Committee with the municipality of Milan

After Monday’s post on research and scenarios, we turn to a more urgent question: are there realistic solutions to micro and nanoplastics?

This is the second part of the second annual outreach conference on micro- and nanoplastics, organised by the Microplastics on Human Health Committee in collaboration with the Municipality of Milan. (You can read part. 1 here).

Exploring ideas and solutions to micro and nanoplastics.

Image from the Municipality of Milan and Acquairum for the scientific and informative day "Micro and nanoplastics: research status and scenarios," promoted by the Microplastics on Human Health Committee with the Municipality of Milan.

The recovery of micro- and nanoplastics in biomethane production

Alessandro Daneu, Environmental Engineer

He focused on organic wastewater treatment through anaerobic digestion for biogas and biomethane production. This is not only an excellent example of circular economy but also — with appropriate process modifications — a potential solution to reduce the dispersion of micro- and nanoplastics while simultaneously using them to increase biomethane production.
These solutions are currently being tested and patented, further confirmed by collaboration with Tongji University in Shanghai.

The starting problem is simple:
We are immersed in plastic. Ultimately, it has to go somewhere.

Today, we recover large, visible plastic at collection centres. In some European countries, every plastic number has its own container. When plastic is mixed, separation systems exist — but recovery is very difficult. The only plastic easily recoverable is PET (bottles).

Italy is at the forefront of PET recovery, recovering more than 50% — higher than the European requirement.

Plastics that aren’t recovered end up in waste-to-energy plants. Since they’re a petroleum derivative, combustion is the most appropriate use.

The real problem is micro- and nanoplastics — about which we know little.
Plastics from organic waste most easily enter the water cycle. The challenge is separating plastics without shredding them, as was once done.

Biomethane as an opportunity for Europe:

It represents the valorisation of waste. These are molecules that, if recovered, do not enter the environment. The nitrogen contained in organic proteins is transformed into ammonia, which can create environmental problems. Here, ammonia recovery is also possible.
From an energy perspective, biomethane replaces natural methane — reducing foreign dependence, creating a domestic product, and providing clean fuel recovered from recycling.

Today, many freight trucks are methane-powered, and a large portion run on biomethane.

Energy is recovered and sold. Fertilisers can be made. Ammonia can be recovered as bioammonia. By-products that can be reused.

FMSW (municipal organic waste). Initial separation is important because all sorts of things end up in the organic waste. The recycling process does not consume external water.

Debunking some myths:

• Separating macroplastics does not eliminate microplastics and nanoplastics — they still end up in our waters.
• The only way to intercept them is in purifiers, wastewater, and water treatment processes.
• Biodegradable or compostable plastic does not solve the problem. We get microplastics and nanoplastics anyway.
• The downstream purifier does not solve the problem on its own unless appropriate treatment policies are implemented.
• Anaerobic digestion does not solve the entire problem — in fact, it could create one due to ammonia.

What can we do: solutions to micro and nanoplastics

PHAs and microplastics: sustainable solutions for agriculture and design

Eligio Martini, Chemical Engineer and Maip group president

The accumulation of microplastics in agricultural soils is an emerging problem threatening soil fertility, crop health, and food security. Conventional plastics used in agriculture — mulch films, greenhouse films, irrigation materials — fragment and persist in the environment for a long time.

Enter PHAs (polyhydroxyalkanoates): bioplastics of microbial origin, completely biodegradable in soil. A promising alternative.

The confusion around “bioplastics”
The term isn’t accurate. “Bioplastics” means everything:

Some are of natural origin (not from oil).
Some are biodegradable in specific conditions.
But not all bioplastics are biodegradable.
Some bioplastics come from oil and are biodegradable.

Real bioplastics are both natural in origin and biodegradable.

What is PHA?

A natural polymer. Exists in nature. Biodegradable.
Forms through fermentation — a natural process. Transformation of a polymer into biomass, water, and carbon dioxide.

PHA is a family of polymers. Fermenters are used to produce it, but the process is natural.
Polyester is a large family of materials that can be more or less harmful. Polyester is the chemical characteristic of the material. The chemical structure makes it a polyester, but there are different kinds of polyesters.

Why PHA matters:
Unlike PLA (which is not biodegradable everywhere and lasts like traditional plastic), PHA is biodegradable under all conditions—controlled or not by man.

Truly biodegradable materials:

Pure cellulose (paper, not wood)
Rice starch
PHA

PHA is the only natural material that can be processed like plastic but is not plastic. It releases no microplastics. Nothing toxic for the environment.

A striking statistic:
All the plastic islands we see in the seas? Only 2% of the plastic present in the water. PHA would help solve the rest.

Applications are vast:
Pens, cosmetics, packaging, bioremediation of the seas, agriculture — where plastic gets discarded and never collected.

So why aren’t we using PHA everywhere?
It’s called “the sleeping giant” — quite unknown, perhaps to emphasise its potential but limited use. It is more expensive than plastic, so it’s used for high-value items.

The challenge: passing the concept that even if it costs more, the long-term positive effects are worth it.

Note: The MAIP Group (European) is one of the few producers of PHA.

The microplastic-free lamp and fashion from organic farming and certified forests

Natasha Calandrino Van Kleef and Carlo Covini — Sustainable design experts, NKV and Lenzing

Natasha presented the design of a design object — the “Sibilla” lamp prototype — entirely made with a process that produces no microplastics throughout the entire product cycle.

Together with Carlo Covini (Lenzing manager), she also illustrated a virtuous example of completely natural clothing, including all its components and therefore certifiable: “Garments from Organic Farming and Certified Forests.”

Key distinction: biodegradable vs. compostable

Biodegradable: a natural process (light, water, air)
Compostable: an industrial process

This distinction forms the backdrop to the new NKV Fashion & Lenzing project — the result of years of research into microplastic pollution in fashion.

What they discussed:
Garments made from 100% hemp or 100% organic cotton, both GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard) certified.
Sewn with innovative TENCEL™ Lyocell sewing thread from certified forests.

The bigger picture:
Cellulosic fibres make up only 6% of the market.
Meanwhile, synthetic fibre production is increasing.

Biochar and innovative solutions

Dalia Benefatto — Sustainable economy expert

She explained the nature of biochar: a vegetable carbon obtained from the pyrolysis of agricultural waste and organic residues.

Why biochar is promising:
The production process has particularly attractive environmental characteristics — it co-produces renewable energy and is carbon-negative.

But most importantly, biochar is a prime tool for removing micro- and nanoplastics from the environment.

Milestones achieved and future potential
Among the advantages of biochar: its use as a carbon-negative pigment for dyeing — an eco-friendly and functional alternative.

The analysis addresses pressing challenges, exploring its potential effectiveness in mitigating PFAS. An experimental study is proposed on cotton-polyester blend fabrics, with the aim of transforming them into new by-products while eliminating the release of microplastics.

Key concept: Return economy

Waste as a resource
Waste valorisation

And: biochar removes CO₂ from the atmosphere.

Innovation and process in hospitals

Elena Bottinelli — Director, Villa Erbosa – San Donato group

She emphasised that those working in the healthcare sector cannot ignore the One Health approach — the interconnection between human health, animal health, and environmental health.

The key question:
How are hospitals implementing initiatives to reduce their environmental impact?

The scale of the problem:
25% of hospital waste is plastic.

The challenge:
Reducing plastic consumption while maintaining cost-effectiveness and sterility — guaranteed by the use of disposable products.

The proposal:
Process innovations that combine plastic reduction with organisational efficiency, resulting in positive impacts on overall sustainability. Evidence from best practices.

Solutions to micro and nanoplastics — Final thoughts

So yes, solutions to micro and nanoplastics exist.
The question is whether we — citizens, institutions, industries — are willing to adopt them before the system reaches its limits.

Time is not on our side.

From biomethane recovery to PHA, from biochar to circular processes, the ideas are there. But they remain fragmented — often expensive, often limited in scale, often carried forward by the same actors.

And this is where a familiar discomfort returns.

When we hear about certifications, “certified forests”, biodegradable materials, something doesn’t fully settle. Not because these solutions are false. But because we have learned how easily they can be absorbed into narratives that promise change without transforming the system.

Greenwashing wasn’t named here either.
But again, it lingered.

In sectors like fashion, the gap is still evident. Beyond pilot projects and virtuous examples, the structural issues remain: overproduction, waste, and a system that continues to generate the problem faster than it can solve it.

So the question is no longer whether solutions exist.
It is whether we are ready to recognise the difference between solutions and stories — and who benefits when we confuse the two.

Solutions to micro and nanoplastics: what can we actually do? Read More »

Micro and nanoplastics: research status and scenarios

20 April, 2026 / Leave a Comment

Reading Time: 8 minutes

Scientific and informative day promoted by the Microplastics on Human Health Committee with the municipality of Milan

This is the second annual outreach conference on micro- and nanoplastics, organised by the Microplastics on Human Health Committee in collaboration with the Municipality of Milan.

Last year’s conference opened the conversation — covered in a three-part series: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

Why this event? Because scientific knowledge is often poorly communicated. Misinformation is widespread.

This topic spans multiple domains:
• effects on human health
• the biological world
• the industrial world
• disposal and reuse of plastic
• the fashion world

The goal is simple but essential: to share accurate information with the public and with institutions.
You can watch the event here.

The weight of things: a brief history of anthropogenic mass

Telmo Pievani – professor of philosophy of biological sciences, University of Padua.

He opens the panel.

What is plastic?
He starts with a quote:

“The material that nature forgot to invent.”

On one hand, it’s a sign of human inventiveness — the creation of a democratic material. On the other hand, it also has a dark side: if nature didn’t invent it, it means there are no bacteria capable of destroying it.

How long have we been inventing materials that nature forgot to invent?
We have become physiologically dependent on technology. Just think of something as basic as cooking.
We changed the world through technology, and we have become dependent on it.
Now, we must learn to interact with nature in a virtuous way.

The problem is time. Let’s consider the human impact on the environment: from the 1950s onwards, there has been a great acceleration. In the last three generations, the human impact on the planet has gone out of control.

The weight of human artefacts used in our lives has exceeded the combined weight of all the plants, organisms, and microorganisms on Earth.
(Ron Milo, study published in Nature, December 2020).

If we continue like this, by 2050, there will be more plastic than fish in the sea.

We must learn to make peace with nature.
Nature-based solutions — as explored by Frances Arnold. She has found enzymes capable of reducing pollutants.

So, back to where we started: this, too, was not invented by nature, but it is a solution. Harnold exploited evolution to produce an enzyme that nature hadn’t invented. Researchers are now looking for bacteria capable of degrading plastic.

The attractiveness of plastic and its environmental implications, with particular reference to water

Nicoletta Ancona – Curator of the Aquarium and Civic Hydrological Station of Milan.

Plastics — what are they?
Polymers — very long chains. Many different substances that we group together under a single name.

They have responded to human needs in every circumstance, as they are very cheap materials. The main problem issingle-use plastic — it degrades very slowly. Therefore, its use must be severely limited.

Plastic production is rapidly increasing. But where does all this plastic end up?
Only a tiny portion is recovered. The rest is dispersed everywhere, through the water cycle. Concentrations of plastic are found everywhere.
Microplastics are the most damaging. Micro- and nanoplastics are much less visible but make up a significant portion of our diet. It starts with filter feeders — oysters, shellfish, whales — so they enter the food chain.
There are also substances that bind to plastic and amplify its harmful effects.

So, there is an ethical and health issue. It is important to inform, raise awareness, and educate. Let’s start from the bottom — from our daily lives — to limiting plastics.

A striking note:
It’s sad to hear that in a facility like the Aquarium, they still use plastic cups for coffee. Due to existing agreements, bla bla bla… When we say the system is designed to fail, are we really wrong?

The hidden threats of plastics on human health

Prof. Claudio Fenizia – Professor of Immunology, University of Milan

Threats of plastic to human health. Highlighting the critical issues.

How plastics enter the body:
Plastics enter through inhalation, food, food and beverage containers, food storage containers, and transdermal application.
Plastics have been found in blood, testes, placenta, and amniotic fluid.
What is the effect?
• In atherosclerotic plaques, a higher concentration of plastic corresponds to greater inflammation.
• Plastic has been found in tumour tissue.
• A higher amount of plastic in the brain corresponds to a higher proportion of individuals with disorders such as senile dementia.

But – and this is key –
Until the causal mechanism is identified, the effect cannot be demonstrated.
Or rather: it must be defined whether plastic is the cause or the effect of inflammation or disease.

Environment, water and health

Prof. Caterina La Porta – Professor of Pathology, University of Milan

The environment we live in determines our health. A single vision of health emerges — One health.

Water is one of the most important vectors of exposure. We drink. We bathe. We wash our clothes. Everything in the environment reaches us.

Heavy metals, pesticides, and organic compounds accumulate in the environment.
This isn’t just an environmental problem — it’s becoming a health issue.

Regarding the impact of micro- and nanoplastics, we need to determine whether there is correlation or causality. Whether there is a single effect or bioaccumulation.

The microbiota — the complex network of bacteria, fungi, and viruses present in our intestines — is key.
Studies are being conducted to understand what happens with microplastics, which function as a concentration of toxic substances.

Climate change multiplies the risk. For example, drought increases concentration.

Education means making it clear that there is a problem. And making the right choice together.

What kind of future do we want?

Are PFAS and plastics really eternal pollutants?

Prof. Edoardo Puglisi – Professor of Agricultural Microbiology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Cremona

The question — which may seem philosophical, but it’s a scientific one — concerns whether we can solve the problems posed by these invaders.

First, a distinction: pollutant vs. contaminant.
When we talk about pollution, we use the words pollutant and contaminant in the same way, as synonyms. Technically, they are two different things.

• Contaminant: a natural or man-made substance that reaches a certain threshold.
• Pollutant: when that substance reaches levels high enough to cause adverse effects.

Another related issue is natural vs. synthetic substances.
There’s a tendency to think that natural substances are less toxic, but this isn’t always true.
We must have a scientific approach that allows us to understand how and to what extent substances can be dangerous.

Some natural substances are much more toxic than chemical ones.
In science, it’s best not to have multiple words that mean the same thing.

Another key distinction: danger vs. risk

• Danger: a substance that is toxic and can be dangerous to humans and the environment.
• Risk: depends on exposure. Risk combines danger and exposure. How much we are exposed to these substances. Risk assessment involves addressing these two elements.

A tiger can be dangerous, but the risk depends on the exposure.
The same goes for pollutants.

As a microbiologist, the answer he tries to give as to whether PFAS are truly contaminants starts from the observation of microorganisms. These are the oldest organisms on Earth. They are a constant with an enormous capacity to adapt, even to new invaders.

New substances are called xenobiotics — substances that have never existed on Earth. Like PFAS, like plastics.
Organisms were unaware of them, but they learned to interact with them.

Microorganisms are, therefore, allies in remediation. If we are dealing with an organic pollutant, microorganisms can learn to degrade and consume it.
There is a coevolution between microorganisms and the xenobiotics existing in the environment. New metabolic pathways are developing that can lead to degradation.

What are PFAS?

PFAS are a highly heterogeneous family of chemical molecules containing a covalent bond between carbon and fluorine. They are called “eternal pollutants” because they are difficult to degrade.

PFAS and microplastics move through the environment and enter humans. Plastics tend to become micro- and nanoplastics. The smaller they are, the more they tend to accumulate.

Plastifera, the communities of bacteria and microscopic fungi that have learned to colonise plastics. The degradation of plastics is still very limited. But fungi are beginning to degrade plastics.

Remediation is possible
PFAS can be remediated. The costs are high, but the costs associated with pollution are even higher.
There are enzymes that have learned to colonise PFAS.

Case study: Veneto
In Veneto, there has been a significant accumulation of PFAS in water and the environment. A study is underway to identify degradation genes.

His conclusion:
He is confident that solutions can be found to degrade PFAS.

Micro and nanoplastics — closing notes

If by 2050 we’ll have more plastic than fish in the sea, these bacteria need to hurry up.

From Pievani’s “material that nature forgot to invent” to Puglisi’s microbes slowly learning to eat it, one thing is clear: nature is trying to catch up. But time is not on our side.

We left the panel with more questions than answers—
Not just about causality and bioaccumulation, but about who to trust. Greenwashing wasn’t mentioned by name, but it hung in the air like the plastic cups of the Aquarium.

—

Coming Wednesday:
Micro and nanoplastics: what can we actually do? From daily choices to institutional action.

Micro and nanoplastics: research status and scenarios Read More »

The normalisation of greenwashing

30 March, 2026 / Leave a Comment

Reading Time: 3 minutes

As sustainability fades from fashion’s agenda, misleading claims fill the void

The normalisation of greenwashing is becoming increasingly visible across fashion — not as a failure of the system, but as a feature of it.

While sustainability appears to be fading from fashion agendas, greenwashing is becoming acceptable.

We came across a Business of Fashion Instagram post that stopped us in our tracks:

“H&M says sustainability is good for business. Can it get shoppers to care?”

The accompanying feature—a sit-down with H&M Group Chief Executive Daniel Ervér and Chief Sustainability Officer Leyla Ertur—explores why the fast fashion giant is “sticking to its long-set sustainability plans” and working on “connecting with customers.”

This piece of news is depressing. Not surprising, perhaps. But depressing.

H&M’s business model is built on overproduction, rapid deliveries, and overconsumption. These are not conditions that can be retrofitted with sustainability plans. Yet there — in the pages of one of fashion’s most respected industry publications — the premise is presented as earnest: Can a fast fashion giant make sustainability matter to shoppers?

Then comes this quote:

“The reality is, it’s hard. To help customers change their behaviour, we have to create real value for them. Otherwise, why should they change?”

Let’s sit with that for a moment.

Shifting the responsibility: the normalisation of greenwashing

In a single statement, H&M absolves itself of responsibility and shifts the burden onto consumers. Not a word about the structural realities of overproduction. Not a question about whether a business model built on volume can ever align with sustainability. Instead: If customers don’t change, that’s on them.

This is the manoeuvre we’ve seen before. Exploit people and the planet through a system engineered to encourage overconsumption, then frame the lack of consumer “will” as the obstacle to progress.

Which raises a more uncomfortable question: Why is The Business of Fashion—a publication that positions itself as the authoritative voice of the industry—willing to take part in this game?

We have our suspicions. Whether or not this was sponsored content, the real question is: what does it say about the state of fashion media when a fast fashion giant’s sustainability messaging is platformed without scrutiny?

Ultimately, the question remains: can a fast fashion brand ever be truly sustainable?

As we explored in our previous post, the answer here is the same. This is greenwashing.
Not because H&M lacks sustainability initiatives, but because sustainability cannot be grafted onto a business model fundamentally at odds with it.

Promoting oneself as sustainable while maintaining that model is not progress—it’s a manipulation of eco-discourse. With the approval of the press.

A final reflection

So here we are, facing the normalisation of greenwashing. Sustainability quietly fades from the scene. Greenwashing becomes acceptable. Safe. Sound. Normal. And perhaps not just acceptable, but the dominant language through which fashion now speaks about responsibility.

P.S.: We wrote an eBook to help you cut through the noise. If you want to understand whether a brand is genuinely sustainable or simply dressing itself in green, it’s here:

This is Greenwashing

The normalisation of greenwashing Read More »