Why a policy lull is the perfect time to accelerate sustainability

The opinions expressed here by Trellis expert contributors are their own, not those of Trellis.​

Never let a lull go to waste. That’s the simple message for anyone working on environmental issues in textiles and apparel who feels worn down. The buzz around climate, ESG and sustainable fashion has cooled. In Washington, climate rules are stalled or watered down. And around the industry, some companies are treating the shift as permission to ease off the gas and move sustainability back into the nice-to-have column.

In many businesses, sustainability budgets are under review and projects are being pushed. People who once invited long presentations on climate risk now ask for shorter decks focused on margin and inventory. Suppose you have spent years working on cleaner production, better farming practices or traceability. In that case, your work has been downgraded to a side note. The temptation is to wait for a friendlier policy climate and hope the wind changes.

That would be a mistake. A policy lull doesn’t change the fundamental facts facing this industry: stressed water basins, volatile energy prices, fragile raw material supply, growing waste streams and rising expectations from buyers and younger consumers. Mills are still fighting wastewater costs, brands are still drowning in excess inventory and farmers are still dealing with unstable weather. The underlying pressures remain in place. The question is whether we use this quiet period to regroup or complain.

We should view this lull as an opportunity to act and make headway on important issues complicating progress on sustainability. Here are three ways to do that. 

Streamline a confusing array of standards 

One problem we can tackle without any new law is the mess we created with standards. The sector is overcrowded with indexes, scores, badges and certifications. Each one promises clarity; together they deliver confusion. Factory managers face overlapping questionnaires from different brands, each tied to a slightly different framework. The same polyester T-shirt can be rated three ways, depending on whose template you use.

From a distance, it looks like progress. Up close, it seems like bureaucracy. Instead of a short list of core metrics that everyone understands — water use, energy, chemistry, land, waste, overproduction — we’ve assembled a patchwork of tools that rarely match up. Assumptions are buried in methodology notes. Data is locked behind memberships. People on the production floor are left wondering which version of “sustainable” they are supposed to hit this season.

The lull is a chance to clean this up. Rather than inventing yet another scorecard, we can work on aligning what already exists, pushing for shared baselines and open methods. That means fewer vanity projects and more work on comparability and interoperability. It also means being honest about which tools help reduce discharge, cut waste or improve yields — and which mainly help marketing departments fill sustainability pages. Suppose we want to be taken seriously the next time governments or investors look for credible industry standards. In that case, this is the housekeeping we must do now.

Turn environmentalism into an operations strategy

Another gap sits inside the business case. Environmental initiatives have generated plenty of concepts, such as preferred fibers, circularity, regenerative this and that, but too often the pitch stops at values and reputation. That plays well on stage, but it doesn’t always survive a budget meeting. And yet, much of what we call environmental improvement is just better industrial management. Tighter dye recipes mean fewer reruns and less effluent. Smarter pattern-making and cutting reduces fabric waste. More efficient boilers and motors cut both emissions and electricity bills. Better planning reduces rush air freight and the write-offs that follow poor forecasting. These are familiar operational problems that happen to carry environmental benefits, not the other way around.

The lull gives us time to put complex numbers on these links. Instead of leading with carbon alone, start with yield, scrap rates, energy per unit, and payback periods. Show how a wastewater fix reduces chemical spend and downtime. Show how cutting fabric waste improves margin and reduces landfill pressure. When environmental work is presented to stabilize costs and strengthen supply, it stops looking like politics and becomes common sense. That is the argument that will endure, no matter who wins the next election.

Include more voices in conversations 

There’s also room to rethink who is in the room. Too many discussions about sustainability still take place among the same circle of brands, NGOs and consultants. Meanwhile, people who run spinning frames, dye jets, cutting tables, knitting machines or trucks are often brought in at the end, if at all. The best ideas usually appear when those voices are involved from the start.

This lull is a good time to bring the value chain together around specific problems instead of abstract goals. Farmers, ginners, spinners, weavers, knitters, dyers, finishers, cut-and-sew operators, logistics firms, recyclers and brands all see different parts of the same system. Sit them down with a simple process map and ask where the most significant waste, cost, and risk points really sit. Then test practical changes in real facilities, not just in pilot reports or glossy case studies.

For people working on environmental issues, this means a shift in role. Less time acting as the conscience in the corner, more time serving as a translator between technical, commercial, and policy worlds. Less focus on adding new commitments, more emphasis on helping teams execute a smaller number of changes that matter. When the policy cycle swings back, and governments look for industries with serious, workable plans, those who used the lull well will be ready. Never let a lull go to waste.