Water Scarcity in Fashion: The Impact Metric Brands Are Overlooking

Fashion's sustainability conversation is dominated by carbon. Climate targets, carbon footprints, Scope 3 emissions and net zero commitments take up the majority of boardroom time and column inches. Carbon matters, and it should be measured and reduced. But for a significant share of fashion products, the environmental impact that receives the least attention is among the most acute environmental pressures in the regions where garments are actually made.

Water scarcity is that impact. And the reason it gets overlooked is not that the data is unavailable. It is that most brands are not measuring it.

This guide explains why water scarcity matters for fashion, why total water volume is a misleading metric, how the AWARE method addresses this and why any brand serious about credible environmental assessment should be looking at water alongside carbon.

Fashion and Water: The Scale of the Issue

The fashion industry is one of the most water-intensive sectors in the global economy. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has identified fashion as the second-largest consumer of water globally, though this figure is cited with varying precision depending on the source.

What is less contested is where the water is used. The largest water demands in the fashion supply chain sit in two stages:

Agricultural fibre production. Cotton cultivation accounts for the vast majority of water consumed in natural fibre production. The Water Footprint Network has published figures of approximately 10,000 litres per kilogram of cotton fibre as a global average, though this figure varies enormously by growing region and irrigation method. Other natural fibres (linen, hemp, wool) have different but also significant water profiles.

Wet processing. Dyeing, finishing, washing and bleaching are water-intensive industrial processes. A single kilogram of fabric can require 100-150 litres of water in wet processing alone, depending on the fibre type, colour depth and finishing requirements. The wastewater from these processes also carries chemical residues, dyes and salts that create downstream water quality impacts.

These two stages dominate the water picture for most garments, and they are also the stages where environmental hotspots concentrate most frequently.

Why Total Water Volume Is Misleading

Here is the problem with the headline water figures that appear in most fashion sustainability discussions: they measure volume without context.

Using 1,000 litres of water to produce a garment in a region with abundant, regularly replenished freshwater resources is a fundamentally different environmental proposition from using the same 1,000 litres in a region where water is scarce, demand exceeds sustainable supply and communities and ecosystems are under stress.

A cotton farm in Pakistan's Punjab province, irrigating from the Indus basin, is consuming water from a system under severe stress. A cotton farm in rain-fed regions of Mozambique or Tanzania is drawing on water that falls naturally and is not being diverted from other uses. The volume may be similar. The environmental impact is not comparable.

This is why water footprint volume, on its own, is an inadequate metric for environmental assessment. It tells you how much water was used. It does not tell you whether that water use caused environmental harm.

The AWARE Method: Measuring What Matters

The AWARE method (Available WAter REmaining) was developed by the WULCA (Water Use in LCA) working group, a collaboration of LCA researchers and practitioners working under the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. It is the recommended water scarcity method under the EU's Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) framework and the EF 3.0/3.1 characterisation methods.

AWARE works by weighting water consumption against a regional scarcity factor. The scarcity factor reflects how much water remains available in a given watershed after human and ecosystem needs have been met. A region where most available water is already allocated scores a high scarcity factor. A region with abundant remaining water scores a low one.

The result is expressed in cubic metres of world-equivalent water (m³ world-eq), which represents the amount of water that would need to be consumed in an average global location to cause the same environmental stress as the actual water consumed in the specific production geography.

In practical terms, this means the same garment produced with identical water volumes but in different locations will produce different water scarcity impact scores. And that difference can be significant: water consumed in severely stressed basins can carry a scarcity factor 50 to 100 times higher than water consumed in water-abundant regions.

This geographic specificity is what makes AWARE a genuinely useful metric for fashion brands with global supply chains. It tells you not just where water is being used, but where water use is causing the most acute environmental pressure.

Why Carbon Alone Is Not Enough

Most fashion brands that have begun environmental assessment are measuring carbon. Far fewer are measuring water scarcity. This creates a blind spot that is both environmentally significant and strategically risky.

The hotspot for carbon and the hotspot for water are not always the same stage. For many garments, the manufacturing stage (particularly wet processing) drives the largest share of carbon emissions due to energy intensity. But fibre production, particularly irrigated cotton in water-stressed regions, can dominate the water scarcity impact. A brand that optimises for carbon alone may inadvertently shift sourcing toward regions or processes that worsen water scarcity outcomes.

Regulatory frameworks are multi-indicator. The EU PEF methodology includes water use as one of its 16 impact categories and it is consistently identified as one of the most relevant for apparel. The Digital Product Passport is expected to include water-related indicators. CSRD reporting under ESRS E3 covers disclosure on water consumption and water stress exposure where material. A carbon-only approach is unlikely to satisfy these requirements.

Water stress is increasing. Climate change is intensifying water scarcity in many of the regions where fashion's raw materials are grown and processed. The World Resources Institute's Aqueduct tool projects that water stress will worsen significantly in key textile production regions including South Asia, Central Asia and parts of China by 2040. Brands with water-intensive supply chains in these regions face an environmental risk that is not captured by carbon metrics.

Stakeholders are paying attention. The CDP Water Security questionnaire, investor ESG frameworks and retailer sustainability assessments increasingly include water-related questions. Brands without water scarcity data are increasingly unable to respond credibly to these requests.

Where Water Scarcity Matters Most in Fashion

The water scarcity profile of a garment depends on its material composition and its supply chain geography. But several patterns are consistent:

Irrigated cotton in water-stressed regions is the single largest water scarcity driver for many fashion products. Cotton grown in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, north-west India and parts of Turkey draws on water from basins under severe stress. The same fibre grown with rain-fed agriculture in other regions has a fraction of the scarcity impact.

Wet processing in water-stressed manufacturing hubs contributes meaningfully to water scarcity when dyeing, finishing and washing occur in regions where industrial water demand competes with domestic and agricultural needs. Parts of Bangladesh, India, China and Turkey are relevant here.

Leather processing is highly water-intensive and often concentrated in regions with significant water stress, making it a material worth assessing on water scarcity specifically.

The variation between products is large enough that product-level assessment, rather than category averages, is necessary for meaningful decision-making. Two cotton t-shirts from different supply chains can have dramatically different water scarcity impacts based on where the cotton was grown and where the fabric was processed.

What Brands Should Be Doing

Measure water scarcity alongside carbon. A single-indicator approach is insufficient for credible environmental assessment. At minimum, climate impact and water scarcity impact should be assessed together.

Use a recognised scarcity-weighted method. Total water volume is directionally useful but not sufficient for product-level disclosure or regulatory compliance. The AWARE method is the PEF-recommended approach and the most widely accepted in LCA practice.

Assess at the product level, with geographic specificity. Water scarcity is inherently geographic. Assessments that do not account for production location are missing the most important dimension of the metric.

Use water data to inform sourcing decisions. If two suppliers can deliver equivalent product quality, but one operates in a severely water-stressed region and the other does not, that information should factor into sourcing strategy. This is not about avoiding regions. It is about understanding the environmental exposure associated with sourcing decisions and managing it transparently.

Connect water data to your broader environmental data strategy. Water scarcity data supports DPP readiness, CSRD disclosure, green claims substantiation and LCA-based product assessment. It is part of the same "measure once, report everywhere" data foundation.

How ENVRT Approaches Water Scarcity

ENVRT LAB™ generates water scarcity impact alongside climate impact (CO₂e) at the product level, on a cradle-to-gate basis. The water scarcity assessment uses the AWARE method, weighting water consumption by regional scarcity factors to produce a figure that reflects actual environmental stress, not just volume.

This dual-indicator approach exists precisely because the hotspot for carbon and the hotspot for water are not always the same stage. Seeing both together allows brands to make decisions that address the full environmental picture rather than optimising one metric at the expense of the other.

The result feeds directly into the ENVRT Digital Product Passport, where water scarcity data is presented alongside climate data in a format that is genuinely readable for consumers and retailers. It also supports the water-related disclosures that CSRD and the PEF framework require.

If you want to understand the water scarcity impact of your products, get in touch with the ENVRT team.

Frequently asked questions

Related articles