Why Better Data and Integrated MMCF Assessments Matter

A recent scientific publication from the School of CHEM at Aalto University  in the Journal of Cleaner Environmental Systems reviews existing scientific literature to identify sustainability indicators across environmental, economic, and social dimensions, aiming to support the responsible scale-up of man-made cellulosic fiber (MMCF) technologies.

MMCFs (including viscose, acetate, lyocell, modal, and cupro) are progressively seen as strong alternatives to cotton and fossil-based fibers, offering properties such as moisture absorption and a smooth, silky feel. In addition, recent regulations and consumer pressure are expected to accelerate this growth, with lyocell projected to expand at the fastest rate with a 20–30% CAGR. However, MMCF production relies on a complex global value chain. Long distances between supply chain stages contribute to overproduction, waste, and high transport emissions, especially when fast fashion models depend on air freight. Every step from fiber production to transport and retail generates high CO2 emissions and consumes significant quantities of water, chemicals, and energy.

Current findings reveal shared cost pressures but often offer limited clarity on how different factors contribute to the final price of the fibers, specifically due to lack of publicly available data. Feedstock and energy remain major cost drivers to the production price of the lyocell fibers (Fig. 1). Moreover, closed-loop production of fibers requires large capital investments. Supply chain logistics, labor costs, and the location of pulping and spinning facilities also influence final production costs.

Three key studies identified in the review paper highlight that dissolving pulp, capital, and solvent recovery costs have a major influence on the final lyocell staple fiber production cost. However, with improved solvent recycling efficiency and solvent recovery system design, the future volumes can increase, lowering the production cost to 2.81–3.84 €/kg. Alternatively, using agricultural residues as feedstock may lower costs, though expenses still depend heavily on electricity and capital needs. In another study, an improved lyocell process using ionic liquids presented roughly 9% lower operating costs if solvent and water use were optimized. Together, these studies show that the choice of pulp, energy, and solvents consistently shape the feasibility of MMCF manufacturing. Nevertheless, limited data, emerging technologies, and evolving feedstocks make it difficult to compare pathways or establish robust economic indicators.

Life cycle assessments (LCAs), water footprints, and carbon footprints provide key insights into MMCF sustainability from an environmental perspective (Fig 2). Across studies, climate change remains the dominant concern, followed by water use, fossil resource depletion, energy demand, land use, and ecosystem impacts such as eutrophication and acidification (Fig 3).

Most assessments focus on conventional viscose and lyocell processes, with growing interest in alternative feedstocks such as agricultural residues, forestry waste, bacterial cellulose, and recycled textiles. Yet methodological differences limit comparability (e.g., system boundaries, allocation choices, functional units, and inconsistent accounting for biogenic carbon). Another issue arises from the use of European datasets for LCA calculation even though most of the textile production occurs in Asia, leading to reduced geographic relevance.

As a result, the outcomes of conducted LCA vary widely, ranging from negative emissions to 13 kg CO₂‑eq per kilogram of fiber, depending on feedstock, energy sources, and process integration. Lyocell generally performs better than viscose, especially where viscose production relies on coal. Water use is typically lower than cotton, though comparisons are challenging due to differing system scopes. Early‑stage feedstock innovations show promise but cannot yet be reliably compared to established industrial processes.

Despite no studies directly assess the social impacts of MMCF production, the broader Social LCAs of textile sectors reveal key risk areas. For instance, while raw material extraction and textile manufacturing present significant social hotspots, the background sectors of the textile value chain (e.g., commerce and real estate services) can also contribute to risks. In addition, labor rights issues, low wages, and exposure to hazardous chemicals remain the most critical concerns. These gaps clearly demonstrate the need for targeted social sustainability assessments specific to MMCF.

Europe’s push for circular textiles positions MMCF as an important alternative fiber, yet globalized supply chains require international cooperation and better lifecycle data for effective policymaking.

• • Economically, limited and inconsistent TEAs make it difficult to evaluate how new feedstocks or technologies influence final fiber costs.
  • Environmentally, LCAs pre-dominate the literature but differ widely in methods and assumptions,  leaving significant knowledge gaps, especially concerning the use phase and end-of-life performance. MMCF production can involve high energy and chemical use, and even promising solvent systems like ionic liquids face high cost, toxicity, and energy intensity challenges. Feedstock sourcing strongly influences environmental outcomes, with unsustainable forestry practices posing risks of deforestation and ecosystem damage.
  • Social impacts remain largely unaddressed due to limited data and early technology maturity. Meanwhile, higher costs and consumer reluctance to pay premiums hinder market uptake, and brands struggle to balance cost, performance, and sustainability under fragmented regulatory pressures. Recycling technologies for MMCF are advancing but not yet mature, and broader financial and policy support is needed to scale innovations.

Therefore, integrated TEA-LCA-SLCA approaches are essential to better understand the trade-offs and determine whether MMCF can genuinely operate within planetary boundaries as sustainable textile alternatives.

The full version of Aalto University’s paper in the Journal of Cleaner Environmental Systems titled “Sustainability indicators for accelerating the production of man-made cellulosic fibers” is available online here since 30 December 2025. It has been authored by Aalto University´s principal investigators in CELLFL, Luana Dessbesell and Kirsi Niinimäki, as well as scientist Tooba I. Qureshi. Find out more about CELLFIL’s scientific publications on our website here.

Article by Marianna Granatier from RTDS