Sustainability assessment of textile and apparel sector: a review of current approaches and tools

T.G. Fadara, K. Y. Wong, M. I. Maulana
{"title":"Sustainability assessment of textile and apparel sector: a review of current approaches and tools","authors":"T.G. Fadara, K. Y. Wong, M. I. Maulana","doi":"10.4314/njtd.v20i3.1255","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this study is to provide an overview of sustainability evaluation techniques in textile and apparel sector. The review studies are divided into two namely product relate assessment methods and integrated assessment methods which summarizes the different dimension covered, weightage, number of indicators involved, and highlight the weakness and strength of the previous developed sustainability assessment methods in the textile industry. The analysis revealed that majority of the product-related assessment methods focused on environmental factors only, while all the studies reviewed in this category neglected triple bottom line (TBL) in their assessment approach. Nevertheless, there is still a need to focus more on integrated assessment tools to fulfil the TBL goals. This current study offers comprehensive details of product related assessment and integrated assessment methods that was published from 2010 to 2022. Furthermore, examined current sustainability evaluation methods and offered insights into how sustainability assessment techniques have evolved in the textile and apparel industry. The review showed the product related assessment tools are impact assessment techniques are frequently used as an independent tool for evaluating the specific impact of one sustainability measurement, also have no weights attached to them because most indicators assessed were more generic. While integrated assessment method revealed that results would be less reliable if weighting and data collection were non-standardized and inconsistent. However, from the uncertainty’s perspectives, only integrated assessment tools considered fuzziness, grey and stochastic ambiguities in some of their methods, whereas product related assessment tools studied, ignored fuzziness and grey uncertainties completely.","PeriodicalId":31273,"journal":{"name":"Nigerian Journal of Technological Development","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nigerian Journal of Technological Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4314/njtd.v20i3.1255","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Engineering","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to provide an overview of sustainability evaluation techniques in textile and apparel sector. The review studies are divided into two namely product relate assessment methods and integrated assessment methods which summarizes the different dimension covered, weightage, number of indicators involved, and highlight the weakness and strength of the previous developed sustainability assessment methods in the textile industry. The analysis revealed that majority of the product-related assessment methods focused on environmental factors only, while all the studies reviewed in this category neglected triple bottom line (TBL) in their assessment approach. Nevertheless, there is still a need to focus more on integrated assessment tools to fulfil the TBL goals. This current study offers comprehensive details of product related assessment and integrated assessment methods that was published from 2010 to 2022. Furthermore, examined current sustainability evaluation methods and offered insights into how sustainability assessment techniques have evolved in the textile and apparel industry. The review showed the product related assessment tools are impact assessment techniques are frequently used as an independent tool for evaluating the specific impact of one sustainability measurement, also have no weights attached to them because most indicators assessed were more generic. While integrated assessment method revealed that results would be less reliable if weighting and data collection were non-standardized and inconsistent. However, from the uncertainty’s perspectives, only integrated assessment tools considered fuzziness, grey and stochastic ambiguities in some of their methods, whereas product related assessment tools studied, ignored fuzziness and grey uncertainties completely.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
纺织和服装部门的可持续性评估:对现行方法和工具的审查
本研究的目的是提供一个概览的可持续发展评价技术在纺织和服装部门。综述研究分为与产品相关的评价方法和综合评价方法两种,总结了所涵盖的不同维度、权重、指标数量,突出了以往发展的纺织行业可持续发展评价方法的优缺点。分析表明,大多数与产品相关的评估方法只关注环境因素,而在这一类别中审查的所有研究在其评估方法中都忽略了三重底线(TBL)。尽管如此,仍然需要更多地关注综合评估工具,以实现TBL目标。本研究提供了2010年至2022年发布的产品相关评估和综合评估方法的全面细节。此外,研究了当前的可持续性评估方法,并提供了关于可持续性评估技术如何在纺织和服装行业发展的见解。审查表明,与产品有关的评价工具是影响评价技术,经常被用作评价一种可持续性量度的具体影响的独立工具,也没有附加权重,因为所评价的大多数指标比较一般。而综合评价方法表明,如果权重和数据收集不标准化和不一致,结果将不可靠。然而,从不确定性的角度来看,只有综合评估工具在某些方法中考虑了模糊性、灰色模糊性和随机模糊性,而产品相关评估工具研究时,完全忽略了模糊性和灰色不确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Nigerian Journal of Technological Development
Nigerian Journal of Technological Development Engineering-Engineering (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of MgO-ZnO-Crab Shell Biofillers as Reinforcement for Biodegradable Polylactic Acid (PLA) Composite Impact of Rice Husk Ash Based-Geopolymer on Some Geotechnical Properties of Selected Residual Tropical Soils ANFIS-based Indoor localization and Tracking in Wireless Sensor Networking Characterization And Impact Of Cutting Parameters On Face-Milled Surfaces Of Pearlitic Ductile Iron Detection and confirmation of electricity thefts in Advanced Metering Infrastructure by Long Short-Term Memory and fuzzy inference system models
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1