Description says “Its print is made with a blend of organic dyes and hand marbling, so each piece has its own distinct pattern, and the brand says both the method and the material draw on Indian handloom traditions. The shirt is made from cotton mulmul, weighs about 100 g, and features flowing lines in the print with”
Carbon footprint
7.33kg CO₂e
per item, whole life · sold in India · made in India
FIG. 01Where 7.33 kg CO₂e comes from: per item, whole life. A screening estimate from the listing and published data.
Change anything below and the footprint recalculates. What you change is marked “Stated”. Nothing here is saved.
Sold in
Freight
Materials
Part
Material (kg CO₂e per kg)
Share %
Mass
Source
Material
Family word, assumption applied ⓘ
250 g
Estimated
Primary source
Raw materials17%1.23 kg
Production49%3.58 kg
Packaging3%0.20 kg
Distribution1%0.05 kg
Use phase29%2.12 kg
End of life2%0.16 kg
6.70 kgincluding carbon taken up by plants
5.00 kgup to the factory gate
4.65–20.73likely range, 95%
In everyday terms, about the same as driving 43 km in a petrol car, 916 smartphone charges, or 0.3 tree-years of absorption.
Is this your product?Replace our defaults with your own materials, energy and supplier data. The biggest lever here: run the factory on solar electricity.
Everything behind the figure, for auditors and the curious. Built to the requirements of ISO 14040/44, ISO 14067 and PACT v3.
Standards checkISO 14040/44, ISO 14067 and PACT v3, requirement by requirement
Standards check · ISO 14040/44 · ISO 14067 · PACT v3Screening estimate: not a full footprint study
ISO 14040/14044
Listed calculation checks passed; independent review or verification pending
13 met · 1 justified · 0 not met · 1 need reviewer
ISO 14067
Does not conform
21 met · 2 justified · 1 not met · 1 need reviewer
PACT
Does not conform
14 met · 1 justified · 3 not met · 1 need reviewer
All 30 requirements, with clauses
Requirement
ISO 14040/44
ISO 14067
PACT v3
The study's purpose is written down
Met
§4.2.2
Met
§6.3.1
—
No public claim that one product beats another
Met
§4.2.2; Amd 1 Annex C
Met
§Annex A, Annex B
—
The unit is clear, and a partial footprint is labelled as such
Met
§4.2.3.2
Met
§6.3.3
Met
§3.2.4
The system boundary is described
Met
§4.2.3.3
Met
§6.3.4, 7.3 b
Met
§3.2.3
The time period is stated and justified
—
Met
§6.3.6
Met
§3.2.3
Product category rules are used where they exist
PEFCR Apparel & Footwear v3.1 (EU) applies to this category. This screening estimate does not follow it: it uses MFP screening defaults for processing, use and end of life, so it is not a PEFCR study (ISO 14067 §6.2). Fix: Follow the category rules that apply to this product.
—
Justified
§6.2
Justified
§3.1.2
Anything left out is small, estimated and reported
Met
§4.2.3.3.3
Met
§6.3.4.3
Met
§3.3.1.2
The data is checked for consistency
Met
§4.3.2–4.3.3
Met
§6.4.3
—
Own processes use measured data, or say why not
—
Met
§6.3.5
Met
§4.1.3
Every database value is referenced and fit for purpose
Met
§4.3.2
Met
§6.3.5
Met
§4.1.3.2
Shared factory burdens are split by the standard rules
Not applicable
§4.3.4
Not applicable
§6.4.6
Not applicable
§3.3.1.4
Recycling is counted with the cut-off method
Met
§4.3.4.3
Met
§6.4.6.3
Met
§3.3.2.2
Electricity covers its whole life cycle
Met
§4.3.2–4.3.3
Met
§6.4.9.4.1
Met
§3.3.2.3
Electricity follows the market-based rules
—
Met
§6.4.9.4.4
Met
§3.3.2.3, Box 7
Land-use change is counted and shown separately
dLUC included but not separable in the factor for m1; factor does not state whether dLUC is covered for pk2. Fix: Use a factor with a separate dLUC result, or supply material.land_use_change with its value, source, year and whether the material factor already includes it. A documented no-LUC statement can resolve an unknown coverage gap.
—
Not met
§6.4.9.5
Not met
§3.3.2.4
Biogenic carbon is counted in and out
—
Met
§6.4.9.2, 6.4.9.3, 6.5.2
Met
§3.3.2.4
Air freight is shown separately, without radiative forcing
—
Not applicable
§6.4.9.7
Not applicable
§3.3.2.1
No offsets or avoided emissions
—
Met
§6.3.4.1
Met
§3.3.2.2
Latest IPCC warming factors (AR6, 100 years)
75.5 % of cradle-to-gate emissions use AR5 factors; PACT allows only the latest IPCC report once its grace year has passed. Fix: Replace these factors with AR6-characterised data.
Justified
§4.4.2
Justified
§6.5.1
Not met
§3.2.2
Fossil and biogenic methane are kept apart
—
Met
§6.5.2
—
Key choices are stress-tested
Met
§4.5.3.3
Met
§6.4.5, 6.6
—
Uncertainty is assessed
—
Met
§6.6
—
Data quality is scored
Met
§4.2.3.6
Met
§6.3.5
Met
§4.2.2, 4.2.3
Limitations are stated
Met
§4.5.4
Met
§6.6, Annex A
—
Results are broken down the required way
—
Met
§7.2
Met
§3.3.1, data model
The study report contains every required item
Met
§5.2
Met
§7.3
—
The PACT data file is complete
Missing or invalid: companyIds, productIds. Fix: Add company and product identifiers (URNs such as urn:mfp:company:acme), the reference period and a PACT unit.
—
—
Not met
§6.1; Tech Specs v3.0.3
The primary data share is reported
—
—
Met
§4.2.2
Independent critical review
No critical review recorded. Fix: Commission an ISO 14071 critical review before any public communication; a panel review is mandatory for public comparisons.
Needs reviewer
§6
Needs reviewer
§8
—
Third-party verification of the calculation model
The MFP footprint calculation model has not yet been verified by a third party. Fix: Commission limited-assurance verification of the calculation model (PACT v3 §5.3.3, Tables 14–15).
—
—
Needs reviewer
§5.3.3
These standards apply to studies. This checklist reports the implemented checks; it is not certification or a substitute for independent review. “Needs reviewer” items (critical review, verification of the calculation model) can only be closed by an independent third party.
Assumptions and defaults24 entries, 3 warnings
Warnings · 3
Factor te26_cotton_conv_in includes land-use change that cannot be separated; LUC is reported inside fossil GHG for this line.
Grid electricity uses location-based national or regional averages. PACT v3 and Catena-X require the market-based residual mix where contractual instruments exist; supply electricity_factor for contracted or residual-mix power.
Temporal scores for desnz_2025, textile_exchange_2026 use the edition year; their underlying data are older, so those temporal scores may be better than the data deserve.
Assumptions register · 24 entries
Screening mode: this listing gives no primary data, so every input below that is not a stated material or weight is a named screening default. The result is not PACT-conformant (primary data share 0 %).
Product mass 0.25 kg is a category typical value for "shirt", not a measured weight.
Country of manufacture not stated in the listing; India assumed.
m1: material matched from "mulmul" (family, MEDIUM confidence): a cotton fabric name (or 'cotton' in another language) is modelled as conventional cotton.
m1: material share 100 % is estimated from the listing text.
Textile cutting and making loss 15 % of fabric input (PEF-style screening default), sent to landfill.
Packaging not stated; screening default for apparel: Poly bag 20 g ldpe film, virgin, Shipping box (share) 120 g corrugated board.
Yarn spinning: 0.294 kg fibre × Ring spinning (cotton, ~200 dtex) electricity: 3.4 kWh per kg yarn (van der Velden, Patel & Vogtlander, Int J LCA, 2014).
Weaving: 0.294 kg × Weaving (air-jet) electricity: 3.6 kWh per kg fabric (van der Velden et al., Int J LCA, 2014).
Dyeing & finishing: 0.294 kg × Dyeing & finishing (wet processing) energy: 7 kWh per kg fabric (electricity + thermal) (Quantis, Measuring Fashion, 2018 (dyeing & finishing = 36% of apparel GHG, largest stage)); thermal energy is modelled as grid electricity (no fuel split available).
Cut, make & trim: 0.25 kg × Cut-make-trim (garment assembly): 1 kWh per kg garment (Quantis, Measuring Fashion, 2018 (assembly ~7% of apparel GHG)).
Process energy is unmetered screening data (activity uncertainty GSD 1.5–2.0), on the IN grid.
Inbound transport of materials to the factory is left out of the total, because supplier locations are unknown; its likely size is estimated and reported under the cut-off rule below.
Distribution route is a screening default (1,000 km road), carrying product plus packaging.
Cut-off rule: processes are excluded only where no verified data exists, and each exclusion is estimated where possible and reported (ISO 14044 §4.2.3.3.3). Inbound transport is estimated at 0.0184 kg CO₂e.
Carbon content of cellulose computed from repeat-unit stoichiometry (0.4445 kgC/kg), pure polymer basis (additives, moisture and finishes ignored).
Secondary (library) factors are scored at least 3 on technology: PACT v3 Table 12 reserves scores 1-2 for primary data.
Carbon content of polyethylene computed from repeat-unit stoichiometry (0.8563 kgC/kg), pure polymer basis (additives, moisture and finishes ignored).
Paper/board carbon: IPCC 2006 Vol.5 Table 2.4 defaults (90 % dry matter, 46 % C of dry, 1 % fossil).
Use-phase scenario: MFP screening scenario, not PEFCR: 52 washes (PEFCR Apparel & Footwear v3.1 applied example (cyrcID)) × 0.7 kWh per cycle (EU Energy Label Regulation 2019/2014 / JRC washing machine preparatory study 2017), allocated over a 4 kg load by garment mass; tumble drying 5 % of washes × 2 kWh per cycle (EU tumble dryer energy label data (Europa Energy Efficient Products)). Replace with PEFCR A&F v3.1 §6.4 Tables 39–42.
End-of-life route shares: MFP screening scenario for India, not PEFCR: textiles and leather goods 80 % landfill / dump, 5 % burning; plastics 60 % / 10 %; paper 40 % / 5 %; metals and glass 50 % landfill; the rest recovered (cut-off). Anchored on CPCB Annual Report on Solid Waste Management 2021-22 (24 % landfilled, 22 % unaccounted).
Incineration: 100 % oxidation of carbon assumed (IPCC 2006 Vol.5 Ch.5 default oxidation factor for MSW incineration). Energy-recovery credits are not applied under cut-off.
Aggregated secondary factors are used as published in their own GWP basis (AR5); only gas-split fuel factors and direct gas emissions are characterised with AR6. Residual inconsistency is typically a few percent for CO2-dominated factors.
Sources quoted as published figures (not open-licensed datasets): textile_exchange_2026. Replace with licensed or supplier data before external or comparative claims.
SensitivityThe figure with other published choices
Sensitivity analysis (ISO 14067 §6.4.5, §6.6)
The footprint recalculated with each alternative choice: other published factors, the other allocation method, the grid mix instead of a green-power contract, and the use profile at its uncertainty bounds. A large change shows where better data pays off first.
Line
Choice tested
Baseline
Alternative
Δ kg CO₂e
Δ %
Cotton, conventional
Emission factor
Conventional cotton lint, India country average
Conventional cotton fibre
ifeu (2022) Environmental footprints of cotton and cotton fibres
-0.432
-5.9%
Cotton, conventional
Emission factor
Conventional cotton lint, India country average
Conventional cotton fibre (TE/PE International 2014 comparison baseline)
Textile Exchange (2014) LCA of Organic Cotton Fiber, summary (PE International)
-0.695
-9.5%
Cotton, conventional
Emission factor
Conventional cotton lint, India country average
Conventional cotton fibre, global average
Cotton Incorporated LCA update (2017), as cited by ifeu 2022
-0.844
-11.5%
Cotton, conventional
Emission factor
Conventional cotton lint, India country average
Conventional cotton lint, global production-weighted average
Textile Exchange (2026) LCA for Cotton, technical report, Table 5-2 / Annex F
-0.374
-5.1%
Washing and drying (52 washes)
Use profile
2.6 kWh
x2.214 (high)
+2.567
+35%
Washing and drying (52 washes)
Use profile
2.6 kWh
/2.214 (low)
-1.160
-15.8%
Every line of the calculation21 lines: activity × factor, with sources
Full inventory
Footprint = Σ activity × emission factor
Every line: how much (activity) × how much CO₂e per unit (factor), with its source. Source labels
Screening carbon footprint shown on the Made for Planet catalogue so brands and buyers can see where a product's emissions come from. Reasons: No company data is available for this listing; a transparent estimate from the listing and published factors shows the likely size and the main stages. Audience: Brands and buyers (business-to-business). The estimate is also displayed on madeforplanet.com, labelled as a screening estimate; it is not an environmental claim the brand may use in marketing. Public comparative assertion: no.
Functional or declared unit and reference flow
§7.3 a
Functional unit: one shirt delivered and used to the end of its life, sold in India; reference flow 0.25 kg of product.
System boundary
§7.3 b
cradle to grave. Screening: materials, processing energy, packaging, distribution, use and end of life. Capital goods are excluded, as is usual for attributional product footprints. Stages modelled: raw_materials, production, packaging, distribution, use, end_of_life.
Significant unit processes
§7.3 c
cotton_fibre_conventional (virgin) (16.73 %); spinning: grid electricity IN (11.1 %); weaving: grid electricity IN (11.75 %); wet_processing: grid electricity IN (22.85 %); use-phase electricity IN (28.85 %)
Data sources
§7.3 d
LCA for Cotton, technical report Mar 2026; UK DESNZ Greenhouse gas reporting: conversion factors 2025 2025 (flat file); Carbon intensity of electricity (Ember via Our World in Data) 2026 release (2025 data)
Greenhouse gases considered
§7.3 e
CO₂, CH₄ (fossil and biogenic), N₂O and refrigerant gases (HFCs, SF₆, NF₃) where present; secondary factors cover the gases their publishers include.
Characterisation factors
§7.3 f
IPCC AR6 GWP100 with climate-carbon feedbacks; secondary factors in their published basis where no AR6 version exists (see gwp check).
Cut-off criteria and exclusions
§7.3 g, o
Inbound transport of materials to the factory: 0.018415 kg CO₂e (screening estimate: 0.294 kg of materials × 500 km by average lorry (UK DESNZ GHG conversion factors 2025, Freighting goods + WTT delivery vehicles); supplier locations are not known)
Allocation procedures
§7.3 h
No multi-output processes. Recycling: cut-off.
Timing of emissions
§7.3 i, 6.4.8
All emissions and removals counted as at the start of the assessment period; no delayed-emission weighting.
Data description and quality
§7.3 j
PACT Table 12 DQR: technological 3, geographical 1.23, temporal 1; per-line scores, confidence and 95 % uncertainty in the inventory.
Sensitivity and uncertainty
§7.3 k
6 sensitivity case(s); lognormal Monte Carlo on pedigree uncertainty.
Climate change only: other impacts (water, land, toxicity, biodiversity) are not assessed, so a lower footprint does not mean a lower environmental impact overall. Secondary factors limit accuracy as shown by the data-quality scores.
Value choices
§7.3 n
Cut-off for recycling (PACT); economic allocation only above a 5× value ratio; conservative factor where published values disagree (see sensitivity).
Scope changes and exclusions
§7.3 o
None.
Life-cycle stages, use and end-of-life scenarios
§7.3 p, 6.3.7, 6.3.8
Use-phase scenario: MFP screening scenario, not PEFCR: 52 washes (PEFCR Apparel & Footwear v3.1 applied example (cyrcID)) × 0.7 kWh per cycle (EU Energy Label Regulation 2019/2014 / JRC washing machine preparatory study 2017), allocated over a 4 kg load by garment mass; tumble drying 5 % of washes × 2 kWh per cycle (EU tumble dryer energy label data (Europa Energy Efficient Products)). Replace with PEFCR A&F v3.1 §6.4 Tables 39–42. End-of-life route shares: MFP screening scenario for India, not PEFCR: textiles and leather goods 80 % landfill / dump, 5 % burning; plastics 60 % / 10 %; paper 40 % / 5 %; metals and glass 50 % landfill; the rest recovered (cut-off). Anchored on CPCB Annual Report on Solid Waste Management 2021-22 (24 % landfilled, 22 % unaccounted).
2026-01-01 to 2026-12-31: current production as represented by the factor library (each factor's own data year is scored in the temporal data quality)
Product category rules
§7.3 s, 6.2
PEFCR Apparel & Footwear v3.1 (EU) applies to this category. This screening estimate does not follow it: it uses MFP screening defaults for processing, use and end of life, so it is not a PEFCR study (ISO 14067 §6.2).
Performance tracking
§7.3 t, 6.4.7
Not a performance-tracking study.
ISO 14067 counts biogenic removals (−1) and emissions (+1) in the carbon footprint; the PACT headline excludes biogenic uptake. Both are shown.
PACT v3 data and biogenic carbonData-exchange values and a downloadable file
PACT v3 data model (cradle-to-gate) and biogenic carbon balance
Download PACT v3.0.3 JSONProductFootprint in the Technical Specifications v3.0.3 format (decimals as strings). Check the conformance panel before sending it.
Footprint excl. biogenic uptake
5.0048 kg CO₂e
Footprint incl. biogenic uptake
4.3456 kg CO₂e
Fossil GHG emissions
4.9829 kg CO₂e
Land-use change GHG
—
Biogenic non-CO₂
0.0219 kg CO₂e
Biogenic CO₂ uptake
-0.6592 kg CO₂
Fossil carbon content
0.0000 kg C
Biogenic carbon content
0.1111 kg C
Aircraft GHG (no RF)
0.0000 kg CO₂e
Packaging GHG
0.2033 kg CO₂e
Exempted emissions
0.3670 %
Primary data share
0.0000 %
IPCC characterisation
AR6, AR5
Biogenic CO₂ uptake
-0.6592 kg CO₂
Biogenic CO₂ emitted
0.0294 kg CO₂
Biogenic C stored in landfill
0.1282 kg C
Biogenic C exported to recycling
0.0437 kg C
Biogenic C in product
0.1111 kg C
Engine / factor library
1.2.0 / 2026.11-mfp.8
FLUID SHIRTS – BLUE HS carbon footprint: 7.33 kg CO₂e
