Ohoskin has its cradle-to-gate LCA. Thanks to Climate Partner, we now know the carbon footprint of our orange and cactus-based material. And it’s lower than PU-based alternatives. Download the LCA here.
At Ohoskin, we’ve always worked to make our product more responsible for the planet. This is why we chose a composition that privileges durability and is the reason behind our endeavor to upgrade the composition of our orange and cactus-based material with recycled plastics.
However, we’ve always believed that genuine commitment comes from the entire disclosure of the carbon footprint and our efforts to reduce it. So, we asked Climate Partner, an independent agency, to make a life cycle analysis (LCA) of our coated textile. And the results are better than we imagined.
We worked with them for almost an entire year. As a result, we extracted countless data from every step of our supply and production chain. The result is an LCA with a solid assessment of our carbon footprint cradle-to-gate.
What makes Climate Partner’s LCA reliable
This is a question we asked Climate Partner. The answer is in their process, which consists of two phases:
- Verification of the data plausibility with comparable analysis
- Data validation with the help of internal benchmarks
- Feedback for further details
- Feedback on data quality and further analysis for the emission factor choices.
Emission factors selection
- Identification of emissions factors
- Access to scientific data banks, such as.
- Measurement of the carbon footprint
Ohoskin’s impact in its LCA and a comparative analysis
After months of data collecting, here are the results of the LCA. Each square meter of Ohoskin produces 2.57 kilograms of CO2. What does that mean? To fully understand it, we must look at how other materials perform. Let’s see:
- Italy-tanned leather (i.e., one that uses a process that takes into account strict environmental laws) produces 14.7 Kg of CO2 for each square meter of finished bovine leather.
- However, leather-tanned elsewhere can produce up to 86kgs for each square meter.
- But more interesting is that, as per available data, PU-based alternatives have a carbon footprint of 3.92 kgs of CO2 for each square meter of material.
The last one is the most exciting data. Plant-based alternatives made with PU (the most common solution in the market) scored an excellent result. Still, our even lower score proves what we’ve always told: labels are different than facts, and actual environmental responsibility must consider many factors.
And while it is a common belief that PU is good and PVC is harmful, the truth is that it all goes down to how much of these plastics are being used, for what purpose, and what they are and their origins. We chose not to use PU precisely because our patented formula grants us superior durability and, consequently, a minor environmental impact. What is more, PVC is polluting only when disposed of and when the virgin fossil is extracted to make it. Using recycled components, we prevent both and give our material an unmatched quality. This is why another independent analysis verified our compliance with the UN’s 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, and 15 SDGs.
The case of transparency, again
We are proud of the decision we’ve made. It is not only about the results but of the process. It would have been easier for us being vague, not disclosing data or releasing one without sources.
But, as we did with our blockchain-based traceability system, we want to keep our promise to ourselves and our clients: to prove every statement we make with black-on-white data and independent scrutiny.