Safety Should Not Become a Monopoly: A Personal Concern About UL Dependence in Accord Remediation

Safety Should Not Become a Monopoly: A Personal Concern About UL Dependence in Accord Remediation

I fully respect the role of Accord, RSC, and Pakistan Accord in improving fire, electrical, structural, and building safety in the garment industry. Their work has contributed significantly to safer factories in Bangladesh and Pakistan, and this should be acknowledged.

However, as someone working closely with garment factories and compliance activities, I have a serious concern that needs open and professional discussion.

In many cases, factories are being advised or guided to use UL-listed or UL-approved materials for fire and building safety remediation. UL is a globally recognized certification body, and there is no doubt that UL-certified products have strong international acceptance. My concern is not against UL itself. My concern is about the growing dependency on one certification route and whether this is creating an unfair market advantage, higher costs, and a possible monopoly-like situation.

When engineers repeatedly refer to UL-approved materials, many factories start believing that only UL products are acceptable. This creates pressure on factories to buy from a limited group of suppliers, even when other internationally recognized certification bodies may offer equivalent safety standards. This can increase remediation costs, delay project completion, and reduce fair competition in the market.

Factory safety must always remain the first priority. But safety should not become a commercial gate controlled by one approval system.

The Pakistan Accord Building Standard gives importance to UL listing and approval, but it also allows other recognized certification routes if approved by the relevant Accord authority. This means UL is not necessarily the only acceptable option. However, in practical factory-level implementation, this message is not always clear. As a result, factories may feel that they have no real alternative.

This situation raises some important questions:

Are factories clearly informed about acceptable alternatives to UL?

Are engineers recommending performance standards, or are they indirectly promoting one certification system?

Are equivalent certifications from Intertek, FM Approvals, BSI, VdS, Certifire, Warringtonfire, TÜV, SGS, Bureau Veritas, or other recognized bodies being fairly considered?

Is there a transparent approval process for non-UL but equivalent materials?

Are there proper conflict-of-interest declarations from engineers, consultants, suppliers, and approval reviewers?

These questions are not accusations. These are necessary governance questions for a safety program that affects thousands of factories, millions of workers, and large amounts of factory investment.

Bangladesh and Pakistan garment factories already face high pressure from buyers, compliance requirements, energy costs, wage costs, and remediation expenses. If approved-material requirements become too narrow, factories may suffer financially while a small number of suppliers or certification-linked products benefit commercially.

That is why I believe Accord, RSC, and Pakistan Accord should take a more transparent and balanced approach.

They should publish a clear approved-material and certification-equivalency policy. For each product category, such as fire doors, fire alarms, emergency lights, fire-stop sealants, electrical cables, sprinkler systems, fire pumps, and electrical panels, the accepted certification options should be clearly listed.

For example, if UL is accepted, then equivalent certifications such as FM, Intertek/Warnock Hersey, Certifire, BSI, VdS, LPCB, EN standards, or other internationally recognized approvals should also be clearly evaluated where technically appropriate.

Engineers should specify the required safety performance, fire rating, test standard, installation requirement, and documentation requirement. They should avoid recommending any specific brand, supplier, or certification body unless there is a clear and documented safety reason.

There should also be a formal appeal process for factories. If a factory proposes a non-UL but internationally certified equivalent product, Accord should review it within a fixed timeline and provide a written technical decision. If rejected, the reason should be clearly explained. This will help remove confusion and reduce unnecessary dependency.

Another important step is conflict-of-interest transparency. Engineers, consultants, reviewers, and technical decision-makers should declare whether they have any direct or indirect relationship with certification bodies, suppliers, distributors, or manufacturers. This will protect the credibility of the Accord system and reduce suspicion in the industry.

I also strongly believe that Bangladesh and Pakistan should develop stronger local and regional testing capacity. International certification is important, but long-term dependency on foreign approval systems is not healthy for the industry. Local manufacturers should have a fair chance to produce compliant safety materials if they meet the required international standards.

The goal should not be to reduce safety requirements. The goal should be to make safety requirements more transparent, competitive, and technically fair.

UL may continue to be one of the accepted certification routes. But UL should not become the only practical route. A strong safety system should welcome all equivalent, reliable, and internationally recognized certifications.

Worker safety must never be compromised. At the same time, safety compliance should not create unnecessary monopoly, excessive cost, or unfair market control.

Accord, RSC, and Pakistan Accord have an opportunity to lead this reform. By publishing clear equivalency rules, avoiding brand-specific influence, ensuring conflict-of-interest declarations, and allowing fair technical review of alternative certified materials, they can strengthen trust in the entire safety-remediation system.

In my view, the industry needs a simple principle:

Strict safety, transparent approval, fair competition.

This will protect workers, support factories, reduce unnecessary cost, and keep the Accord system credible, independent, and respected.

7:05 pm, Karachi, 21.05.2026 - Enamul Haque Bipul

#Accord #InternationalAccord #PakistanAccord #RSC #GarmentIndustry #TextileIndustry #FactorySafety #FireSafety #ElectricalSafety #BuildingSafety #Compliance #ESG #Sustainability #WorkerSafety #Bangladesh #Pakistan #ULCertification #FMApproval #Intertek #LPCB #SupplyChain #ResponsibleSourcing #ApparelIndustry #TextileCompliance #IndustrialSafety

DON’T BLOCK THE ROAD TO GREEN.

The future of sustainability must be truly circular.

• Turning PET bottles into textiles while pushing textile polyester waste to landfills is not sustainability — it is shifting the problem.

• True sustainability means enabling textile-to-textile recycling and reducing dependence on virgin polyester

Today, millions of PET bottles from the beverage industry are converted into textile polyester. But after use, much of that textile polyester waste still goes to landfill instead of being recycled back into new textiles.

This breaks the loop.
This blocks the road to green.

A real circular economy means:
Reducing virgin polyester dependency
Enabling textile-to-textile recycling
Keeping polyester waste out of landfills
Building systems that support 100% circularity

Recycling should not end after one life cycle.
Let’s move from a linear model to a truly circular future. 🌍♻️

#CircularEconomy #CircularFashion #TextileRecycling #Sustainability #RecycledPolyester #CloseTheLoop #GreenFuture #ClimateAction #TextileIndustry #ZeroWaste

The Bottle-to-Polyester Myth

How Recycling Plastic Bottles into Textiles May Be Undermining the Circular Economy

Over the last decade, the global fashion industry has widely promoted recycled polyester made from plastic bottles as a sustainability breakthrough. Clothing labels proudly claim garments are “made from recycled bottles,” and major brands frequently highlight how many bottles are diverted from landfills through their products.

At first glance, this innovation appears to offer a perfect environmental solution: plastic waste is transformed into clothing, reducing reliance on fossil fuels and preventing bottles from entering landfills or oceans.

However, a growing body of research from sustainability organizations, textile scientists, and circular economy experts suggests that this narrative may be misleading. While bottle-to-textile recycling reduces some waste in the short term, it may inadvertently weaken the long-term circular economy for both plastics and textiles.

The core problem is structural: turning plastic bottles into clothing creates an open-loop recycling system, which breaks the circular recycling chain of PET bottles while failing to solve the much larger problem of textile waste.

This article explores how bottle-to-polyester recycling works, the economic and environmental implications of this model, and why it may actually discourage true textile recycling while indirectly supporting continued production of virgin polyester.

Polyester Dominance in the Global Textile Industry

Polyester is the most widely used fiber in the world. Its low cost, durability, and adaptability make it essential for modern fashion supply chains.

According to global fiber production statistics:

• Polyester accounts for around 55–60% of global textile fiber production.
• Global polyester production exceeded 63 million tonnes in 2022.
• Polyester demand is expected to reach over 90 million tonnes by 2030.

The dominance of polyester is driven largely by fast fashion and performance textiles. Compared to natural fibers such as cotton or wool, polyester offers:

• Lower production cost

• Consistent quality

• Strong durability

• Compatibility with high-speed manufacturing

However, polyester is fundamentally a petroleum-based plastic fiber, derived from fossil fuels. As sustainability concerns increased, brands began searching for ways to reduce their environmental footprint without fundamentally changing the polyester-based business model.

The result was the rapid adoption of recycled polyester (rPET).

The Rise of Recycled Polyester

Recycled polyester is typically produced from polyethylene terephthalate (PET), the same plastic used to manufacture beverage bottles.

The recycling process generally involves:

1. Collecting post-consumer plastic bottles
2. Cleaning and sorting the bottles
3. Shredding them into PET flakes
4. Melting and extruding the flakes
5. Spinning the melted plastic into polyester fibers

This mechanical recycling process is relatively inexpensive and technologically mature, which allowed the fashion industry to adopt recycled polyester quickly.

By 2022:

• Approximately 14–15% of global polyester production was recycled polyester.
• Nearly 98–99% of recycled polyester feedstock came from PET bottles, not textile waste.

This distinction is critical. Despite widespread sustainability messaging, the vast majority of recycled polyester does not come from old clothes.

Instead, it comes from plastic bottles that were already part of a functioning recycling system.

The Circular Economy of PET Bottles

Among all types of plastics, PET beverage bottles have one of the most successful recycling systems in the world.

In many countries, PET bottles are collected, processed, and recycled into new bottles through a closed-loop recycling process.

Closed-loop recycling means:

Bottle → Bottle → Bottle

This system allows the same material to remain in circulation for multiple lifecycles while minimizing the need for new raw materials.

In the European Union, regulations now require beverage companies to increase recycled content in bottles:

• 25% recycled PET by 2025
• 30% recycled PET by 2030

Similar regulations are emerging globally as governments attempt to reduce plastic pollution and fossil fuel consumption.

However, when bottles are converted into clothing, this closed loop is broken.

Bottle-to-Textile Recycling Is an Open Loop

Turning plastic bottles into polyester garments creates an open-loop recycling pathway:

Bottle → Textile → Waste

Unlike bottles, polyester garments are extremely difficult to recycle.

Most clothing ends up in one of three destinations:

• Landfill

• Incineration

• Low-value downcycling

Globally, textile recycling rates remain extremely low.

Research estimates that:

• Less than 1% of clothing is recycled into new clothing
• Over 85% of textiles are landfilled or burned annually

This means that when a bottle becomes a polyester garment, it is effectively removed from the recycling system permanently.

Instead of circulating multiple times within the bottle industry, the plastic is likely to end its life after a single use cycle in fashion.

Competition Between the Fashion and Beverage Industries

As recycled polyester demand grows, the fashion industry increasingly competes with the beverage industry for recycled PET feedstock.

This competition creates a critical sustainability dilemma.

When fashion brands purchase recycled PET bottles to produce polyester fibers, beverage companies still need raw material to manufacture new bottles.

If sufficient recycled PET is unavailable, the packaging industry must compensate by increasing the use of virgin PET, which is derived from fossil fuels.

In other words:

More bottle-to-textile recycling can result in more new plastic bottles being produced from virgin petroleum resources.

This paradox is becoming increasingly visible as global demand for recycled materials rises.

Why Bottle Recycling Discourages Textile Recycling

Another major concern is that bottle-based recycled polyester reduces the economic incentive to develop textile recycling infrastructure.

Recycling garments is significantly more complex than recycling bottles.

Textiles often contain:

• Multiple fiber types

• Blended fabrics (cotton-polyester blends)

• Chemical dyes and finishes

• Elastane or synthetic additives

Separating these materials is technologically challenging and expensive.

Because recycled bottles provide a clean and reliable feedstock for polyester production, manufacturers have little financial motivation to invest in expensive textile recycling technologies.

As a result, the industry continues relying on bottle feedstock instead of developing true fiber-to-fiber recycling systems.

The Marketing Advantage of Bottle Recycling

Another reason bottle-to-textile recycling became popular is marketing.

Brands can easily communicate sustainability through simple messages such as:

“This jacket is made from 30 recycled plastic bottles.”

These claims are easy for consumers to understand and create a perception of environmental responsibility.

However, this marketing narrative can obscure the underlying systemic issue: the product is still made of polyester and will likely remain unrecyclable at the end of its life.

Critics argue that bottle recycling in fashion functions partly as a greenwashing mechanism, allowing brands to maintain current production volumes while presenting incremental improvements as major sustainability achievements.

Microplastic Pollution from Polyester Textiles

Even when polyester is recycled, it still contributes to microplastic pollution.

During washing and wear, synthetic fabrics shed microscopic fibers.

These fibers enter:

• Rivers and oceans

• Soil systems

• The food chain

• The atmosphere

Studies suggest that textile microfibers may account for around 35% of microplastics entering marine environments.

Some research indicates recycled polyester fabrics may shed equal or higher levels of microfibers compared to virgin polyester, although this varies depending on fabric structure and processing.

Therefore, recycled polyester does not eliminate one of the most serious environmental impacts associated with synthetic textiles.

Policy and Industry Shifts

As awareness grows, several organizations are beginning to reconsider bottle-to-textile recycling.

Some sustainability standards and policy groups now encourage companies to prioritize textile-to-textile recycling rather than relying on bottle feedstock.

At the same time, new technologies are emerging that aim to recycle garments directly into new fibers.

These include:

• Chemical polyester recycling

• Enzymatic fiber separation

• Molecular recycling technologies

Companies developing these solutions aim to create a truly circular system:

Old garment → New fiber → New garment

However, scaling these technologies will require major investment across the textile supply chain.

Implications for the Apparel Supply Chain

For sourcing managers, sustainability leaders, and manufacturers—particularly in major textile producing countries such as Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and China—the transition toward true circularity will have significant implications.

Factories may eventually need to adapt to:

• Recyclable material design requirements

• Fiber traceability systems

• Waste collection infrastructure

• New recycling technologies

Brands will increasingly expect suppliers to support circular material strategies rather than simply substituting virgin polyester with bottle-based recycled fibers.

For countries heavily dependent on the ready-made garment sector, this transition presents both challenges and opportunities.

Those that invest early in circular textile technologies could become global leaders in sustainable manufacturing.

Toward a Truly Circular Textile Industry

If the fashion industry aims to achieve real sustainability, experts argue that several changes are necessary.

First, the industry must prioritize textile-to-textile recycling, ensuring that garments are designed for recyclability.

Second, brands must reduce dependence on synthetic fibers derived from fossil fuels.

Third, governments may need to introduce Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policies that require companies to manage textile waste.

Finally, transparency and accurate sustainability communication are essential to prevent misleading claims about recycled materials.

Bottle-to-textile recycling may still play a temporary role in reducing waste, but it should not be mistaken for a long-term circular solution.

Conclusion

Recycling plastic bottles into polyester clothing initially appeared to be an innovative sustainability solution for the fashion industry. However, deeper analysis reveals a more complex reality.

By diverting bottles from closed-loop recycling systems, discouraging investment in textile recycling technologies, and sustaining demand for virgin plastic production, bottle-to-polyester recycling may undermine the circular economy it claims to support.

The future of sustainable fashion will depend not on converting bottles into clothing, but on developing systems that allow clothing to become clothing again.

Only through true fiber-to-fiber recycling and reduced reliance on fossil-based materials can the textile industry move toward a genuinely circular future.

5.33 am, Dhaka, 11.03.2026 - Enamul Haque Bipul

#Sustainability, #CircularEconomy, #TextileRecycling, #FashionIndustry, #Polyester, #ESG, #SustainableFashion, #RMG