Transparency Is Essential When it Comes to Sustainability in Fashion.

What’s Actually in Your “Sustainable” Lingerie?

Every stretch lingerie garment from any brand, including those marketed as "sustainable", contains Lycra (also called elastane or spandex). It's a synthetic polymer made from petroleum derivatives, first developed by DuPont chemist Joseph Shivers in 1958. It is, structurally, plastic.

This isn't a secret. But it's often not clearly stated in product marketing either.

The lack of transparency creates confusion for consumers who want to make ethical choices. When a brand emphasises natural fibers and uses environmental language in marketing without clearly mentioning the Lycra content, it's easy to come away with an incomplete picture of what you're actually wearing.

Check out the latest pieces, created using sustainable Lycra from Iona Smith Scott.
Made from deadstock material, sourced in Barcelona.

Why Lycra Still Matters in Sustainable Fashion

There is currently no scaled, commercially available alternative to Lycra that performs the same in stretch garments.

This is the key fact that shapes every conversation about sustainable lingerie.

A handful of biodegradable elastanes exist in laboratory settings. Startups are developing plant-based polyurethanes derived from agricultural waste or vegetable oils. But none are yet available at production scale. None are currently cost-competitive. None have been extensively tested for commercial manufacturing durability.

The most developed alternatives cost approximately 20 times what Lycra costs today. They are not yet accessible to most small ateliers or mid-size brands, though this is changing as research advances.

This means that when brands emphasise their natural-fiber content, they're being truthful about that component but if they avoid mentioning Lycra entirely, they're leaving out important information about what makes their garments function.

Some brands are experimenting with garments that minimise Lycra or use alternative stretch mechanisms based on fabric structure and weave. These represent important innovation. The challenge is that garments designed without Lycra often have different performance characteristics: they may not recover as reliably over time, or may require sizing adjustments to achieve similar comfort and support.

The Greenwashing Problem in Sustainable Lingerie

The fashion industry is making genuine efforts toward sustainability, but there's a significant gap between marketing messaging and detailed fiber information.

A 2022 analysis by the Changing Markets Foundation examined sustainability claims across major fashion brands. The research found that most brands emphasise their positive environmental initiatives; renewable energy in factories, water conservation programs, ethical labor practices, but provide less detail about the actual material composition of garments and the environmental tradeoffs inherent in different fiber choices.

In the lingerie category specifically, this transparency gap is noticeable. A typical marketing approach highlights natural fibers (often 85-90% of the garment), uses environmental language prominently, and places technical fiber-composition details in small text or product specification sheets. The result: consumers may not realize that a "natural" lingerie piece contains a synthetic stretch component.

This isn't necessarily deceptive. Brands are often being truthful about the natural-fiber percentage but the omission of context; what the Lycra percentage is, why it's necessary, and what it means for the overall sustainability profile, leaves the picture incomplete.

What consumers are increasingly asking for is fuller transparency: clear percentages, honest discussion and information about where each material comes from and why it was chosen.

DEADSTOCK ISN’T DEAD YET.

Why Deadstock Fabric Is Better for Sustainable Fashion.

Deadstock represents one of the most promising material solutions available today. Deadstock is fabric that a larger fashion house ordered and paid for but ultimately decided not to use or has an excessive amount left over. A garment line gets shelved, a trend shifts or an order is cancelled. The fabric already exists, fully produced. Historically, the standard response has been to incinerate it or send it to landfill.

When a designer purchases deadstock instead, something significant happens: no new production is triggered, there’s no additional water being consumed in manufacturing, no additional chemicals are used in processing and there's no additional carbon emissions generated for fabric sourcing and production.

The fabric has already been made and so, the environmental cost has already been incurred. The only question remaining is whether the material gets worn or whether it gets destroyed.

This is remarkable environmental math, and it's increasingly being recognised by sustainability experts as one of the most effective circular-economy strategies available to the fashion industry.

A 2021 report from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation on circular fashion found that extending the life of existing clothing through reuse and resale eliminates more emissions than most improvements in material production alone. By extension, giving existing fabric a first life (rather than destroying it) aligns with the same circular-economy principles.

The Environmental Benefits of Deadstock Fabric:

It prevents waste. Deadstock was destined for destruction. Using it keeps material in circulation.

It requires no new production. The carbon footprint of manufacturing has already occurred. No additional environmental cost is incurred in giving the fabric its intended purpose.

It creates stock limitations. Deadstock is finite. Designers cannot order more of the same fabric or colour. Each piece is genuinely unique, not by marketing choice, but by material necessity. This structural scarcity encourages thoughtful design and discourages overproduction.

It supports circular principles. Deadstock sourcing is among the most direct applications of circular-economy thinking in fashion: take existing material, give it purpose, extend its life.

The adoption of deadstock by designers and brands is growing. Some brands have made deadstock sourcing central to their production model. Others use deadstock selectively. What's notable is that deadstock's environmental benefit is increasingly well-understood by both brands and consumers.

Deadstock's greatest challenge isn't its environmental impact, which is both genuine and measurable, but consumer awareness and understanding. Many consumers have never heard the term. Some brands using deadstock don't explain what makes it environmentally valuable, leaving consumers to guess whether "limited edition" is a sustainability feature or a scarcity tactic.

Is Lycra Bad for Sustainable Lingerie?

When consumers discover a garment contains Lycra, the reaction can sometimes be disappointment. Many expect a sustainable product to be entirely natural.

But that's not the most useful question.

Rather than asking, "Why does this garment contain plastic?", it's worth asking: "What would a comfortable, supportive, long-lasting bra be made without it?"

Today, there is no commercially viable alternative to Lycra that delivers the same stretch, recovery, durability, and affordability at scale. As a result, virtually every well-fitting stretch garment contains some form of elastane.

The more meaningful consideration is not whether Lycra is present, but how thoughtfully it is used and what other choices have been made to reduce a garment's overall impact.

For example, a garment made from:

• Deadstock fabrics sourced locally, preventing usable materials from becoming waste.

• OEKO-Tex certified organic cotton, produced to strict environmental and safety standards.

• A minimal percentage of Lycra, used only where necessary for fit, comfort, and longevity.

• Durable stainless steel hardware instead of disposable plastic components.

• A design intended to last for years rather than seasons.

...represents a considered approach to sustainability.

It's not a perfect garment, no garment is. But sustainability is rarely about perfection. It's about making informed material choices, being transparent about these choices, and creating products designed to be worn, loved, and kept.

The Bigger Problem With Synthetic Materials in Fashion

Lycra itself isn't the core issue. The real problem is that the fashion industry lacks the infrastructure needed to manage synthetic textiles responsibly.

Synthetic fabrics can persist in landfills for decades, release emissions when incinerated, and shed microfibers during washing. These microfibers enter waterways and oceans, where they accumulate in marine ecosystems. Research published in Environmental Science & Technology estimated that washing synthetic textiles releases hundreds of thousands of tons of microfibers into the ocean each year.

The industry's response has been slow. Microfiber filtration, textile recycling systems, wastewater treatment upgrades, and producer responsibility regulations remain limited, while many brands continue to market products as "sustainable" without addressing their end-of-life impact.

Deadstock fabric helps tackle a different part of the problem. By repurposing existing materials, it reduces waste and avoids the environmental costs of producing new textiles. However, it does not solve microfiber pollution or textile disposal challenges.

A truly sustainable fashion industry will require:

• Biodegradable and lower-impact synthetic alternatives.

• Better textile recycling and wastewater infrastructure.

• Stronger producer responsibility regulations.

• Greater transparency around fibre content and environmental impact.

Sustainability is not just about what materials are used; it's also about what happens to them after their life cycle ends, making durable handmade garments can help ease the strain.

The Honest Position: Why Iona Smith Scott's Transparency Is Rare

When a brand tells you that their garment contains Lycra, they are making a choice that is uncommon in the industry.

They are saying: "We could market this as 'plastic-free' and 'natural' because 95% of the material is not synthetic. We could use soft-focus photography and environmental language to create an impression of sustainability. We could position this as 'eco-friendly.' But we think you deserve to know what is actually in the thing against your skin."

This is not a marketing strategy. It is the opposite of a marketing strategy. It is an acknowledgment that sustainability is not a checkbox. It is a position on a spectrum. And transparency about where you actually sit on that spectrum is more valuable than a false claim about where you wish you were.

Most brands will not make this choice. The sustainability premium in pricing is real. The consumer willingness to pay extra for products marketed as "ethical" is documented and well-understood. The incentive structure favors marketing language over honesty.

A brand that is transparent about material choices is choosing a harder path. They are potentially leaving money on the table. They are trusting that consumers, once they understand the full picture, will value honesty.

This is rare enough to be newsworthy. And it is rare enough that understanding why it happens is important to understanding the broader greenwashing problem.

Why Deadstock Works Better Than Vague Eco Claims.

The most interesting material choice in Iona Smith Scott's production process is the use of deadstock material.

Deadstock is supply-constrained by its nature. You cannot manufacture artificial scarcity with deadstock. You cannot order more of it. You can only use what exists until it runs out, then source something different.

This means:

• Each piece is genuinely one-of-a-kind because fabric sources are finite and variable.

• Limited quantities are a structural reality rather than a scarcity tactic.

• When a garment is sold out, it is actually sold out, not temporarily while new production happens.

• The environmental benefit is not aspirational, it is a mathematical fact: the fabric was already made; using it prevents waste.

The industry response to deadstock has been interesting. Some brands have adopted deadstock sourcing and marketed it heavily as a sustainability strategy. This is legitimate, deadstock is genuinely better on the carbon math than virgin-material production.

However, when a brand uses deadstock while also marketing themselves as "sustainable" without explaining why deadstock specifically is better, they are still engaging in greenwashing. They are trading on the halo effect of environmental language without doing the work to explain what makes their choice actually better.

Transparency requires explaining: deadstock is good because the fabric would otherwise be incinerated. The environmental benefit comes from preventing new production, not from any special property of the deadstock fabric itself. The tradeoff is that you cannot control the fiber composition, the colors, or the quantities available.

Most brands using deadstock do not explain this. They simply market the pieces as limited-edition or exclusive, letting consumers draw their own (incorrect) conclusions about sustainability.

FAQ: Lycra, Deadstock, and Sustainable Lingerie

Is Lycra plastic?

Yes. Lycra (also called elastane or spandex) is a synthetic polymer made from petroleum derivatives. It is structurally plastic, though it's typically used in small percentages (5-10%) in stretch garments.

Why do sustainable lingerie brands use Lycra if it's plastic?

Because there is currently no scaled, commercially available alternative to Lycra that performs the same function. Alternatives being developed in labs cost approximately 20 times more and are not yet available at production scale. Until those alternatives are commercialized, every functional stretch garment contains Lycra.

What is deadstock fabric?

Deadstock is fabric that a larger fashion house ordered and paid for but decided not to use. Instead of being incinerated (the industry standard), it's purchased by designers and used to create new garments, preventing waste without triggering new production.

Why is deadstock better for the environment than organic cotton?

Deadstock has already been manufactured—the environmental cost is already paid. Using it prevents incineration while avoiding new production entirely. Organic cotton still requires new manufacturing, water consumption, and production-related emissions.

Is there a plastic-free alternative to Lycra?

Not at commercial scale. Some brands minimize Lycra using alternative stretch mechanisms but these garments typically don't recover as reliably after washing or provide the same comfort and support as Lycra-containing garments.

What does OEKO-Tex Standard 100 certification mean?

OEKO-Tex Standard 100 is the strictest textile certification for chemical safety, testing for pesticides, heavy metals, formaldehyde, and approximately 100 other harmful substances. Most fast-fashion and many "natural" lingerie brands don't pursue it because of the testing rigor required.

Where does Iona Smith Scott source materials?

Iona sources deadstock fabric, organic cotton, and Lycra from local suppliers in Barcelona. Using local suppliers reduces transportation emissions and keeps production within the local economy.

What percentage of Lycra is in Iona Smith Scott lingerie?

Iona Smith Scott lingerie is approximately 5% Lycra blended into 55% OEKO-Tex certified organic cotton, with the remainder being deadstock material. The 5% Lycra is the minimum necessary for proper fit and durability.

How long do Iona Smith Scott garments last?

Iona Smith Scott designs garments to last five years or more with regular wear, significantly longer than fast-fashion lingerie (3-6 months). From a per-wear environmental cost perspective, longer-lasting garments are more sustainable even if they have a higher upfront footprint.

What is greenwashing in fashion?

Greenwashing is when brands make vague, unsubstantiated, or contradictory sustainability claims. A 2022 analysis by the Changing Markets Foundation found that 71% of major fashion brands' sustainability claims were either vague, unsubstantiated, or contradicted by actual practices.

What's the difference between Lycra, elastane, and spandex?

They are the same material. Lycra is a brand name (owned by Invista). Elastane is the chemical name. Spandex is another regional term. All three refer to the same synthetic elastic polymer invented by DuPont in 1958.

Can you make lingerie without synthetic materials?

Technically yes, but with major tradeoffs. Natural rubber is heavier, less durable, less comfortable, and more expensive. Garments without elastic components won't provide the same fit or support, meaning they're replaced more frequently—increasing overall environmental cost.

Why don't all sustainable brands source deadstock?

Deadstock is supply-constrained and unpredictable. You can't order specific colors or quantities. Many consumers are unfamiliar with the term. Marketing virgin-material garments with sustainability language is often more profitable than explaining deadstock sourcing's complexities.

Is microfiber pollution from Lycra worse than other synthetics?

No. Microfiber pollution from synthetic textiles affects all synthetics: polyester, nylon, acrylic, and elastane equally. Research estimates washing synthetic garments generates 500,000+ tonnes of microplastics into oceans annually. The solution is improving washing machine filters and wastewater treatment, not eliminating specific synthetics.

What's the difference between "sustainable" and "less bad"?

"Sustainable" suggests indefinite production without environmental degradation and no garment achieves this. A more accurate term is "less bad" or positioned on a spectrum. Understanding where a garment sits on that spectrum is more useful than seeking a perfectly sustainable product.

How do I know if a sustainable lingerie brand is greenwashing?

Look for specific information: exact fiber percentages, sourcing details, certifications like OEKO-Tex, and honest discussion of tradeoffs. Be skeptical of vague terms like "eco-friendly" without definitions, or claims of "plastic-free" on stretch garments—that's physically impossible.

Does Iona Smith Scott use virgin Lycra or recycled Lycra?

Iona Smith Scott uses deadstock Lycra sourced from local Barcelona suppliers. The Lycra was already manufactured and would have been incinerated. By purchasing deadstock Lycra, Iona avoids triggering new production while still using the material that makes functional garments possible.

What happens to Iona garments at end of life?

Iona Smith Scott garments can be disposed of through textile recycling programs where available, though recycling technology for blended fabrics remains under-developed. Because Iona Smith Scott garments are designed to last five years or more, the end-of-life phase is delayed significantly compared to fast fashion.

Why is transparency about material choices important?

Transparency allows consumers to make informed decisions based on full information rather than marketing impressions. When you know about plastic content, deadstock benefits, and tradeoffs, you can make truly ethical purchasing decisions instead of being systematically misled.

Is Iona Smith Scott truly sustainable?

No—and the brand is transparent about this. Iona garments contain plastic, microfiber pollution remains unsolved, and end-of-life recycling is underdeveloped. What Iona does is make specific, defensible choices across multiple dimensions and tell you about all of them.

Footnotes

1. Changing Markets Foundation. (2022). "Licence to Greenwash: How certification schemes and voluntary initiatives are fuelling fossil fashion" and related reports on sustainability claim verification. https://changingmarkets.org/ ↩
   
   

2. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2017). "A New Textiles Economy: Redesigning fashion's future." The report documents that 73% of used clothes are incinerated or disposed of in landfills, with $100 billion in materials lost annually. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/a-new-textiles-economy ↩
   
   

3. De Falco, F., Di Pace, E., Cocca, M., & Avella, M. (2019). "The contribution of washing processes of synthetic clothes to microplastic pollution." Scientific Reports, 9, 6633. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6488573/ ↩
   
   

4. Environmental Chemistry Letters and related research on synthetic textile microfiber releases. (2025). Estimates indicate 500,000+ tonnes of primary microplastics released from textile laundering into oceans annually, with synthetic textiles accounting for 73% of global fiber consumption. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-024-01796-2 ↩
   
   

5. Changing Markets Foundation. (2023). Analysis of 15 major fashion retailers' sustainability claims and actual performance. https://changingmarkets.org/ ↩