A Systematic Framework for Evaluating Sustainability in the Textile and Apparel Industry

Abstract

This study analyzes how sustainability research in the textile and apparel industry is structured and argues that technological innovation—while essential for sustainable transformation—cannot generate meaningful impact when pursued in isolation. Its effectiveness depends on alignment with environmental assessment, ethical and institutional mechanisms, and circular strategies. A review of 133 publications (2020–2024) examining titles, keywords, abstracts, and conclusions identified these four thematic axes as the core framework shaping current research. Findings show that technological innovation is the most extensively addressed dimension, yet its industrial and policy influence remains limited when not connected to standardized assessment tools, governance systems, or consumer use-phase behaviors. When the four dimensions operate collectively, technological advances achieve stronger empirical validation, institutional coherence, and circular-system integration. By addressing a key gap in prior literature—which has typically examined these dimensions separately rather than as an integrated system—this study clarifies how their coordinated interaction conditions sustainability transition pathways. The integrated framework provides a theoretical basis for understanding constraints and mediators within sustainability transitions and suggests that future research and policy should adopt system-level strategies that intentionally strengthen linkages across the four dimensions to accelerate sustainable transformation.

1. Introduction

The textile and apparel industry is widely regarded as a sector with substantial environmental and social impacts due to large-scale production, intensive resource consumption, significant waste generation, and complex global supply chains spanning material development through product consumption [1,2,3]. As a result, pressures for a structural transition toward sustainable development have intensified worldwide, alongside the rapid specification of policy and institutional requirements. For instance, the European Union has emphasized lifecycle management and information transparency for textile products through its EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles, and has advanced the Digital Product Passport (DPP) as a mechanism to mandate product-level disclosure of sustainability information [4]. The OECD has also examined how Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) influences innovation and waste-management structures, underscoring the need for institutional transition in the apparel sector [5]. These regulatory shifts—interacting with rising consumer awareness and accelerating technological innovation—further highlight the necessity of an analytical framework capable of evaluating sustainability in the textile and apparel industry in a comprehensive and systematic manner.

The concept of sustainability has progressively evolved from a predominantly environmental concern toward a multidimensional construct encompassing social, economic, and cultural dimensions. This conceptual expansion is articulated through landmark frameworks such as the Brundtland Commission’s definition of sustainable development [6], Elkington’s “Triple Bottom Line” approach [7], and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [8].

In the apparel and textile sector, this multidimensional understanding has driven the adoption of circular economy principles, emphasizing recycling, upcycling, reuse, and ethical labor practices. However, despite this broadened conceptual foundation, recent scholarship often operationalizes sustainability through analytically fragmented lenses. As evidenced in studies by Abbate et al. [9], Brydges [10], and Coscieme et al. [11], consumer behavior, policy instruments, and circular business models are frequently examined in isolation, limiting their capacity to capture systemic interdependencies across production, consumption, and governance structures.

Although a limited number of studies have attempted more integrative perspectives—such as De Oliveira et al. [12]—comprehensive analytical frameworks that simultaneously address technological innovation, environmental assessment, and institutional or systemic mechanisms remain scarce. This fragmentation constrains system-level understanding of sustainability transitions in the textile and apparel industry and underscores the need for review approaches capable of synthesizing diverse thematic domains within a coherent analytical structure.

Within this context, research on sustainability in the textile and apparel industry has rapidly expanded to encompass a broad range of topics, including technological innovation, circular economy strategies, environmental impact assessment, and ethical and institutional issues. Prior review studies indicate that scholarship has accumulated more actively around technological innovation and circular strategies, whereas environmental assessment and ethical or systemic dimensions have received comparatively limited attention [9,12,13]. Moreover, although many studies provide in-depth analysis within individual thematic domains, research that integratively examines relationships across sustainability dimensions or analyzes their structural interactions remains relatively scarce [9,13].

Within this landscape, technological innovation has increasingly functioned not merely as a set of isolated solutions, but as a potential structural driver capable of mediating interactions among environmental performance, institutional mechanisms, and circular strategies—although this role has yet to be systematically examined in existing reviews.

Meanwhile, growing interest across industry and academia in “sustainable textiles and materials” has led to an increasing number of materials and products being promoted as eco-friendly or sustainable alternatives [9,12,13,14,15]. This trend—aligned with the broader diffusion of circular economy discourse—suggests that sustainable materials and design strategies have become central research and industrial concerns. At the same time, it implies that the concept of sustainability is often presented in parallel through disparate criteria and approaches rather than being consolidated within a coherent, consistent structure.

A key gap identified in the existing literature is that sustainability discourse in the textile and apparel industry has tended to develop in a fragmented manner across thematic dimensions. For example, studies addressing recycling technologies and circular strategies have largely focused on the technical feasibility and environmental performance of mechanical, chemical, and biological recycling pathways [16,17,18,19,20,21]. By contrast, institutional and governance-oriented studies have primarily emphasized regulatory structures, governance mechanisms, and the limitations and challenges of institutional design [13,22]. Environmental assessment research has contributed to quantitatively diagnosing environmental performance in textile and apparel products through life cycle assessment (LCA) and carbon, water, and energy footprint indicators [1,2,3,23]. However, integrative analyses examining how such assessment outcomes connect with technological innovation or institutional transition to facilitate sustainability transformation remain insufficiently developed.

Furthermore, technological innovation has often been discussed at the level of individual case examples or process-efficiency improvements, without being systematically positioned as a structural driver mediating sustainability transitions [10,12]. Consequently, system-level understanding of the transition process—shaped by interactions among technological innovation, environmental performance, institutional mechanisms, and circular strategies—remains limited, and integrative analytical frameworks capable of explaining relationships across these dimensions are still underdeveloped [2].

Taken together, these gaps suggest that while prior studies have contributed to knowledge accumulation within individual sustainability dimensions, they remain limited in explaining structural linkages and transition mechanisms across dimensions [9,12,13]. Accordingly, this study addresses the following research questions:

RQ1: What structural thematic patterns characterize sustainability research in the textile and apparel industry published between 2020 and 2024?

RQ2: How are the major thematic axes derived from the literature analysis interrelated?

RQ3: What research gaps emerge within these relationships, and what implications do they provide for future sustainability-transition discourse?

To answer these research questions, this study adopts a scoping review as an appropriate approach for systematically mapping recent sustainability research in the textile and apparel industry and identifying its thematic structure. Scoping reviews have been proposed as particularly suitable for comprehensively surveying research domains in which conceptual definitions and methodological approaches are heterogeneous, and for identifying recurring thematic patterns and conceptual clusters [24,25,26,27]. This study focuses on academic literature published between 2020 and 2024. Rather than applying a pre-fixed classification scheme, the analytical design enables the thematic structure embedded in the literature to be inductively derived.

Based on this analysis, the study makes three primary scholarly contributions. First, it reorganizes sustainability research in the textile and apparel industry—often discussed in a theme-by-theme, fragmented manner in prior reviews—through a structural perspective [9,12,13]. Second, it proposes an integrated analytical framework that connects technological innovation with environmental assessment, ethical and institutional dimensions, and circular strategies, thereby responding to repeated calls in the literature for integrative approaches [12,13]. Third, by identifying structural imbalances and points of discontinuity in the sustainability-transition process, the study provides meaningful implications not only for setting future research directions but also for industrial practice and policy design.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the research background and situates the study within the context of prior review literature. Section 3 describes the research design and scoping review procedures. Section 4 presents the results of the literature analysis, including thematic classification and frequency analysis. Section 5 discusses relationships among the identified sustainability dimensions and analyzes transition implications at the system level. Finally, Section 6 synthesizes the main findings and presents limitations and directions for future research.

2. Conceptual Background and Review of Sustainability Transitions in the Textile and Apparel Industry

2.1. Technological Innovation as a Structural Driver of Sustainability Transition

In recent discussions on sustainability transitions in the textile and apparel industry, technological innovation is no longer regarded as a peripheral or supportive element, but rather as a core driver that structurally shapes transition processes. Prior studies analyzing sustainability research trends in the textile and apparel sector consistently emphasize that technological change plays a decisive role in restructuring production systems, improving environmental performance, and shaping industry-wide transition pathways [9,12,13]. Within this context, sustainability has expanded beyond issues of material substitution or end-of-life management to encompass transformations across the entire technology-based value chain.

Advances in digital manufacturing technologies, smart and electronic textiles, and data-driven design systems are fundamentally reshaping how sustainability is assessed, implemented, and communicated across the industry. Akram et al. (2022) examined the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies in the fashion industry and demonstrated that digitalization can enhance sustainability management capabilities through data integration, process optimization, and increased transparency [28]. At the material and product levels, Dulal et al. (2022) reviewed technological developments in wearable electronic textiles, highlighting not only functional innovation but also emerging challenges related to sustainability and recyclability [29]. Similarly, Chakraborty and Biswas (2020) showed that additive manufacturing technologies, including 3D printing, can reduce material use and waste through on-demand production and enhanced design flexibility [30].

Beyond efficiency gains, technological innovation increasingly influences environmental performance, governance mechanisms, and circular strategies. Keßler et al. (2021) and Ribul et al. (2021) demonstrated that, within recycling and circular design contexts, technological choices critically determine material circularity, feasible recycling pathways, and the viability of closed-loop systems [20,21]. These findings suggest that technology functions as a mediating variable linking process-level decision-making with sustainability outcomes.

Digital traceability technologies further illustrate the structural role of technological innovation. Agrawal et al. (2021) proposed a blockchain-based traceability framework for textile and apparel supply chains, empirically demonstrating its potential to enhance transparency and accountability across global production networks [31]. The strategic importance of such technologies is reinforced at the policy level through the European Union’s introduction of the Digital Product Passport (DPP), which emphasizes lifecycle-wide information disclosure and traceability [4].

These patterns suggest that technological innovation should be understood not merely as an enabling tool, but as a central determinant of sustainability outcomes in the textile and apparel industry. By linking environmental performance with process optimization, circular resource flows, and institutional governance, technology shapes the conditions under which sustainability transitions occur [9,12,20,21]. Accordingly, analytical frameworks for evaluating sustainability in the textile and apparel industry must treat technological innovation as an independent and central dimension, rather than as a subordinate component of environmentally or production-oriented assessments.

2.2. Prior Review Studies and the Need for an Integrated Perspective

Literature reviews addressing sustainability in the textile and apparel industry have accumulated from diverse perspectives, reflecting both thematic expansion and increasing specialization. One of the earliest and most established research streams focuses on environmental impact assessment and life cycle assessment (LCA). Sandin and Peters (2018) reviewed the environmental impacts of textile reuse and recycling, highlighting trade-offs among climate change, water use, and toxicity impacts [2]. Roos et al. (2015), through an environmental assessment of Swedish fashion consumption, demonstrated that the production stage accounts for a dominant share of overall environmental burdens [3]. More recently, Moazzem et al. (2021) [1] and Abagnato et al. (2024) [23] synthesized LCA studies applied to apparel products and circular textile practices, pointing out that methodological heterogeneity and inconsistent assessment criteria limit their effectiveness in supporting policy and industrial decision-making.

A second stream centers on technology- and material-oriented recycling strategies. Baloyi et al. (2024) [16] and Damayanti et al. (2021) [17] classified textile recycling technologies into mechanical, chemical, and biological pathways, comparing their process efficiencies and levels of technological maturity. Complementing this work, Jönsson et al. (2021) [18] and Subramanian et al. (2020) [19] examined bio-based and biocatalytic recycling routes, demonstrating linkages between technological innovation and environmental performance through LCA-based analyses. However, these studies largely concentrate on specific materials or process stages, offering limited structural integration with consumer behavior or institutional contexts.

Another prominent research stream addresses circular economy strategies, business models, and system-level transitions. Harmsen et al. (2021) emphasized that material properties and technological constraints are key determinants of viable circular pathways in textile recycling [15]. Dissanayake and Weerasinghe (2022) reviewed circular fashion strategies, barriers, and enablers, highlighting the importance of institutional support and stakeholder collaboration [32]. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2019) identified circular economy principles as a core strategy for reducing the fashion industry’s climate impacts [33]. From a design perspective, Aus et al. (2021) explored the integration of upcycling and circular design into conventional apparel manufacturing processes [34]. Nevertheless, even within this body of work, technological innovation is often treated as one component among many, rather than as a mediating mechanism linking environmental assessment and governance structures.

In parallel, review studies focusing on consumer behavior and ethical consumption have developed as a distinct research stream. Henninger et al. (2016) examined diverse definitions of sustainable fashion and highlighted persistent conceptual ambiguity [35], while Lundblad and Davies (2016) analyzed values and motivations underlying sustainable fashion consumption [36]. Aakko and Koskennurmi-Sivonen (2013) discussed the opportunities and limitations of sustainability from a fashion design perspective [14]. Synthesizing this literature, Busalim et al. (2022) conducted a systematic review of sustainable fashion consumption research and repeatedly identified a structural value–action gap, whereby consumers’ attitudes and values fail to translate into actual purchasing behavior [37]. Importantly, this study attributed the gap to limited information reliability, inconsistent evaluation criteria, and insufficient integration with technological, environmental, and institutional factors, demonstrating that consumer-focused research has remained largely isolated from broader sustainability transition debates.

Truly integrative review perspectives remain limited. Harsanto et al. (2023) systematically reviewed sustainability innovation in the textile industry, identifying technological, organizational, and market drivers, yet did not consolidate environmental assessment, circular strategies, and social dimensions within a single analytical framework [38]. Similarly, Eppinger (2022) [13] and Okafor et al. (2021) [22] analyzed recycling technologies and sustainability management strategies from policy and systems perspectives, but offered limited integration with consumer-level analysis or life cycle-based approaches.

At a system level, these studies suggest that existing review research has contributed substantially to advancing individual dimensions of sustainability; however, integrative analyses that simultaneously address technological innovation, environmental assessment, circular strategies, and consumer or ethical dimensions remain scarce. This fragmentation constrains system-level understanding of sustainability transitions in the textile and apparel industry. Consequently, a comprehensive review approach capable of encompassing diverse thematic domains while elucidating interconnections and structural patterns—namely, a scoping review methodology—is warranted.

3. Methods

3.1. Protocol and Registration

This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Although PRISMA reporting standards were followed to ensure transparency and methodological rigor, this study was designed as a scoping review aimed at mapping and structurally organizing the heterogeneous body of sustainability research in the textile and apparel industry, rather than synthesizing evidence to address narrowly defined research questions. Accordingly, a review protocol was not registered in PROSPERO or any other public registry prior to the commencement of this study.

This study was motivated by the observation that sustainability research in the textile and apparel industry is widely dispersed across multiple thematic domains, including technological innovation, environmental impact assessment, social and ethical considerations, and circular economy strategies. Within this body of literature, research objectives, methodological approaches, and units of analysis vary substantially, resulting in a highly heterogeneous research landscape.

Given these characteristics, a traditional systematic review, which is designed to synthesize evidence addressing narrowly defined research questions or to compare effect sizes across studies, was considered unsuitable. Instead, a scoping review approach was deemed more appropriate, as it allows for the mapping of research domains, conceptual structures, and thematic relationships, as well as the identification of research gaps across a broad and fragmented field.

This study adopts the foundational conceptualization of scoping reviews proposed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) as its theoretical point of departure [25]. However, rather than focusing on data charting or variable extraction, the primary analytical objective of this review was to structurally map how sustainability research in the textile and apparel industry has been organized across thematic dimensions. Accordingly, this study follows an interpretive and mapping-oriented scoping review approach, as further elaborated by Levac et al. (2010) and Munn et al. (2018), which emphasizes conceptual synthesis over quantitative aggregation [26,27].

Reporting was guided by the PRISMA-ScR checklist [24], while the study selection process was illustrated using a PRISMA 2020-style flow diagram (see Supplementary Materials) [39].

3.2. Literature Search and Selection Criteria

The literature search was conducted using Google Scholar as the primary search platform. This choice was based on the interdisciplinary nature of sustainability research in the textile and apparel sector, which spans engineering, environmental science, social science, and design studies. Compared to discipline-specific databases, Google Scholar provides broader indexing coverage and facilitates the retrieval of literature across diverse academic domains [25,26,40,41].

The search strategy employed Boolean operators (AND, OR) using the following query: (sustainability OR sustainable OR eco-friendly) AND (textiles OR fashion) AND (circular economy OR social sustainability). This approach was designed to capture a broad range of relevant literature and included combinations such as “sustainability in textiles,” “sustainable fashion,” “circular economy and textiles,” and “social sustainability in fashion,” thereby ensuring comprehensive coverage of both environmental and social dimensions within the textile and apparel sustainability discourse.

The initial search yielded 221,399 records. A stepwise screening process was then applied as follows:

Studies with at least 30 citations were prioritized to ensure academic relevance and scholarly influence [42];

Duplicate records and non-English publications were excluded;

Studies not directly related to the textile and apparel industry were removed;

Titles, keywords, and abstracts were screened for thematic relevance.

Following this process, a total of 133 articles were retained for final analysis. The full identification–screening–eligibility–inclusion process is presented in the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram (Figure 1) [39].

3.3. Literature Classification and Coding Procedures

In alignment with the objectives of a scoping review, this study applied an interpretive and inductive analytical procedure, rather than a predefined rating or scoring system. This approach is consistent with the methodological foundations of scoping reviews, which aim to identify recurring patterns and conceptual structures across a body of literature [25,26].

The analytical process consisted of six stages:

• Initial classification based on titles and keywords: Each article was provisionally assigned to one of four potential thematic dimensions based on its primary research focus as indicated by titles and keywords.
• Final category confirmation through conclusion review: For studies addressing multiple themes or exhibiting ambiguous focal points, conclusions and key findings were examined to determine the study’s core contribution.
• Inductive thematic coding and category refinement: Recurrent concepts, analytical targets, and sustainability discourses were compared across studies, allowing thematic categories to be inductively refined.
• Frequency and distribution analysis: The finalized classification was used to analyze thematic frequency and distribution patterns, thereby mapping areas of research concentration and underrepresentation.
• Relational analysis of technological innovation: Studies addressing technological innovation were further examined to assess how they intersect with environmental assessment, ethical and social dimensions, and circular strategies, supporting the positioning of technological innovation as an independent analytical axis.
• Acknowledgment of single-coder limitation: All classification and coding procedures were conducted by a single researcher. While this ensured interpretive consistency, the absence of intercoder reliability assessment constitutes a methodological limitation, as noted in prior scoping review discussions [26]. Future studies may address this limitation through multi-coder validation.

3.4. Framework Development and Analytical Strategy

Synthesizing the structural patterns identified through the above analytical procedures, this study conceptualized sustainability research in the textile and apparel industry as comprising four interrelated thematic dimensions:

• Technology-driven sustainability, focusing on the role of technological advancements in materials, processes, supply chains, and sustainability performance;
• Environmental impact and performance assessment, emphasizing life-cycle-based quantitative evaluation of environmental outcomes;
• Ethical, social, and governance dimensions, addressing institutional conditions, stakeholder mechanisms, and social responsibility;
• Circular strategies and resource recovery, encompassing reuse, recycling, upcycling, and circular economy-oriented approaches.

These dimensions are broadly consistent with thematic structures reported in prior review studies within the field [16,38,39]. However, this framework is distinctive in its explicit positioning of technological innovation as an independent transition axis, rather than treating it as a subsidiary component of environmental or circular strategies.

4. Results and Discussions

4.1. A Multi-Dimensional Framework for Evaluating Sustainability

This study structures the core domains shaping sustainability in the textile and apparel industry into four interrelated dimensions—technological innovation, environmental impact assessment, ethical–social–institutional factors, and circular strategies—based on a recent analysis of the literature. These dimensions do not operate independently; rather, they form an interconnected and integrative system that collectively drives sustainability transitions across the sector.

Technological innovation expands the potential for sustainability through advances in materials, processing technologies, and digital tools. The effects of such technological progress become tangible only when they are measured and validated through environmental assessment systems. The outcomes of these assessments, in turn, reinforce the legitimacy of ethical production, supply-chain transparency, and consumer trust, thereby strengthening social and institutional foundations. These social foundations enable the practical implementation of circular strategies, which reduce waste through resource recovery, reuse, and recycling, while simultaneously acting as feedback mechanisms that stimulate upstream technological innovation [9,11,43].

This interactional structure moves beyond the fragmentary frameworks of prior studies that focused primarily on LCA or isolated circular-economy elements. It offers a reinterpretation of sustainability transitions from a dynamic and process-oriented—yet systemic—perspective. The Sustainability Transition Pathways proposed in this study conceptualize the four dimensions not as linear stages but as cyclical and cumulative structures (Figure 2), demonstrating that sustainability in the industry is not a fixed end state but an evolving process shaped by the alignment and integration of multiple dimensions [9,43].

The framework also clarifies how these four dimensions are linked across the product life cycle. For example, technological innovations such as biodegradable material development or digital simulation-based design facilitate circular design by incorporating reuse and remanufacturing potential from the outset [12,30]. Ethical sourcing and fair labor systems provide foundations for eco-labeling and consumer trust [14,35,36]. Environmental impact assessments offer evidence for policymaking and regulatory development, thereby driving institutional transformation [19,20,21].

The transition pathways illustrated in Figure 2 show that the four dimensions progress sequentially yet interact iteratively. Technological innovation is validated through environmental performance, legitimized by social and institutional mechanisms, and ultimately realized through circular strategies. Importantly, circular strategies do not constitute the final stage; instead, they form a feedback loop that reactivates technological innovation, thereby accelerating sustainability transitions throughout the industry [33].

Accordingly, the framework does not position these dimensions as parallel or competing domains, but as interdependent mechanisms through which technological innovation is translated into measurable, legitimate, and durable sustainability outcomes. This multidimensional structure demonstrates that the four domains operate not as independent categories but as intermediation mechanisms that shape the trajectory of sustainability transitions. It clarifies that sustainability in the textile and apparel sector is not the outcome of a single technological or managerial intervention, but rather the cumulative result of iterative interactions among technological, environmental, social, and circular processes. In doing so, the framework provides an analytical foundation for understanding how transition patterns emerge through path-dependent developments and repeated feedback loops, offering a more process-oriented interpretation than earlier linear or domain-specific approaches.

4.2. Frequency Analysis of Thematic Dimensions

A frequency analysis of the 133 selected studies revealed that sustainability research in the textile and apparel sector is unevenly distributed across the four core thematic dimensions (Figure 3). This asymmetric distribution reflects both the current research landscape and the directions in which future transitions are likely to develop. The most prominent domain was technology-driven innovation, accounting for approximately 33.8% of the total. Studies in this category examined diverse technological approaches, including bio-based and biodegradable materials, 3D printing and digital design, blockchain-enabled traceability, sustainable dyeing and finishing techniques, and smart textiles. Although these technologies hold significant potential to enhance sustainability across the entire value chain—from material development and product design to supply-chain visibility and end-of-life (EoL) processes—systematic comparisons between technologies and rigorous analyses of industrial applicability remain limited. This suggests that while technological innovation is closely linked to other sustainability dimensions, its impact is not yet fully assessed or integrated.

Environmental impact assessment research accounted for 17.3% of the total, with most studies focusing on quantifying environmental burdens through LCA. However, a considerable portion of the literature still addressed single-category indicators such as carbon, water, or energy footprints. Integrated evaluations combining multiple environmental indicators, or linking environmental assessment with social and ethical dimensions, were relatively scarce. This highlights the need to build more comprehensive assessment frameworks that connect environmental evaluation with technological innovation and circular strategies, as well as to expand empirical and interpretive capacities for diagnosing sustainability transitions with greater analytical precision.

Studies addressing the ethical, social, and institutional dimensions accounted for 15.8% of the sample, with a predominant focus on consumer perceptions and ethical purchasing behaviors. In contrast, research examining structural factors—such as circular policies and regulations, regional production systems, and broader governance mechanisms—was comparatively limited. This imbalance indicates that the social diffusion of sustainability has been strongly oriented toward consumer-level change, while deeper analyses of institutional foundations and policy effectiveness remain insufficient. Further research is particularly needed to understand how technological innovations become institutionalized within regulatory structures and how they are integrated into broader systems of accountability.

Research on circular strategies constituted 33.1% of the total and showed patterns similar to those observed in technological innovation. Considerable scholarly attention has been directed toward circular product design, upcycling practices, and mechanical or chemical recycling technologies. However, studies that address the social enablers of circularity—such as eco-labeling, transparency mechanisms, and consumer participation—were comparatively scarce. This imbalance suggests the need for a shift from predominantly technology- and design-driven approaches toward market- and consumer-oriented pathways that can enhance the practical implementation of circular economy principles.

When the thematic distribution is considered holistically, research on technological innovation and circular strategies shows clear expansion, whereas studies that integrate multi-layered environmental assessment, policy and institutional mechanisms, and consumer or market dynamics remain comparatively underdeveloped. Rather than advancing in parallel, these imbalances indicate that scholarly attention has been uneven across the four dimensions. The limited convergence among technological, environmental, social, and circular perspectives suggests that the field has yet to fully articulate the mechanisms through which these dimensions interact in practice. In particular, empirical research is still insufficient in explaining how technological innovation connects with institutional trust-building and how such connections ultimately shape the implementation of circular strategies. These gaps highlight central areas for future inquiry within sustainability research in the textile and apparel sector.

4.3. Technology-Driven Innovation

As shown in Table 1, technological innovation represents the most rapidly diversifying and expanding area of sustainability research in the textile and apparel sector [9,38]. However, the literature remains largely concentrated on material- and process-level interventions, while persistent gaps exist in life-cycle comparability and end-of-life (EoL) validation [2,23]. Bio-based and biodegradable materials, process-efficiency technologies, and digital and data-driven systems constitute its major thematic foci [12,28,31].

However, merely cataloging individual technologies does not sufficiently explain how these innovations interact with other sustainability dimensions—environmental assessment (Section 4.4), ethical and institutional mechanisms (Section 4.5), and circular strategies (Section 4.6)—to drive structural transitions across the industry [9,38]. Accordingly, this study reorganizes technological innovation into three functional transition axes—material transformation, process and resource-efficiency innovation, and digital and data-driven innovation—and analyzes how each axis interacts with the other sustainability dimensions.

Material transformation refers to shifts in what products are made from, primarily encompassing bio-based and biodegradable materials and recycled feedstocks [12]. Process innovation addresses how products are made, focusing on enhancing the efficiency of resource- and energy-intensive operations such as dyeing, finishing, and wastewater treatment [2,23]. Digital and data-driven innovation includes 3D printing, virtual sampling, smart and electronic textiles, and blockchain-based traceability, all of which restructure information flows and decision-making across design, production, distribution, use, and EoL stages to improve system-level transparency and coordination [28,31]. These three axes do not operate as isolated technological clusters; rather, they intersect with environmental assessment (Section 4.4), socio-institutional governance (Section 4.5), and circular economy strategies (Section 4.6), functioning as interlinked pathways that mediate sustainability transitions across the industry.

Table 1. Research Trends and Analytical Gaps in Technology-Driven Innovation for Sustainable Textile and Apparel Systems (2020–2024).

Subtopic	References		Freq.(%)	Core Sustainability Metrics	Recurrent Research Gaps
Bio-Based & Biodegradable Materials	Ribul et al., 2021 [21] D’Itria & Colombi, 2022 [43] Colasante & D’Adamo, 2021 [44] Hildebrandt et al., 2021 [45] Mazotto et al., 2021 [46] Mehrizi et al., 2023 [47] Panda et al., 2021 [48] Patti & Acierno, 2022 [49] Perin et al., 2021 [50]	Provin et al., 2021 [51] Provin & de Aguiar Dutra, 2021 [52] Rognoli et al., 2022 [53] Santos et al., 2021 [54] Todor et al., 2021 [55] Vinod et al., 2020 [56] Wojnowska-Baryła et al., 2022 [57]	16 (35.6)	Biodegradability, renewability, mechanical performance, toxicity	Inconsistent assumptions regarding end-of-life (EoL) conditions and biodegradation infrastructure, along with limited LCA-based comparative assessments
Sustainable dyeing & Finishing	Azanaw et al., 2022 [58] Ismail & Sakai, 2022 [59] Jahan et al., 2022 [60] Lara et al., 2022 [61]	Patel et al., 2022 [62] Powar et al., 2020 [63] Periyasamy & Periyasami, 2023 [64]	7 (15.6)	Water use, energy consumption, chemical load, color fastness	Insufficient validation of industrial scalability and lack of standardized process benchmarking
3D Printing & Digital Design	Akram et al., 2022 [28] Chakraborty & Biswas, 2020 [30] Biswas et al., 2021 [65] Choi, 2022 [66] Dip et al., 2020 [67]	Ikram, 2022 [68] Jeong et al., 2021 [69] McQuillan, 2020 [70] Spahiu et al., 2021 [71]	9 (20.0)	Material efficiency, waste reduction, design flexibility	Limited integration of environmental performance metrics (e.g., LCA) and inadequate validation at production scale
Smart Textiles & E-Textiles	Dulal, 2022 [29] Júnior et al., 2022 [72] Rese et al., 2022 [73]	Wu & Devendorf, 2020 [74] Zhang et al., 2023 [75]	5 (11.1)	Durability, energy use, functional lifespan	Insufficient consideration of recyclability and biodegradability, and weak integration with circular strategies
Blockchain & Traceability	Agrawal et al., 2021 [31] Ahmed & MacCarthy, 2021 [76] Casciani et al., 2022 [77] Garcia-Torres et al., 2022 [78]	Fung et al., 2021 [79] Guo et al., 2020 [80] Hader et al., 2022 [81] Lee, 2021 [82]	8 (17.8)	Transparency, data integrity, traceability coverage	Absence of accredited verification bodies and standardized data protocols, limiting integration with regulatory and certification frameworks

Table 1. Research Trends and Analytical Gaps in Technology-Driven Innovation for Sustainable Textile and Apparel Systems (2020–2024).

Subtopic	References		Freq.(%)	Core Sustainability Metrics	Recurrent Research Gaps
Bio-Based & Biodegradable Materials	Ribul et al., 2021 [21] D’Itria & Colombi, 2022 [43] Colasante & D’Adamo, 2021 [44] Hildebrandt et al., 2021 [45] Mazotto et al., 2021 [46] Mehrizi et al., 2023 [47] Panda et al., 2021 [48] Patti & Acierno, 2022 [49] Perin et al., 2021 [50]	Provin et al., 2021 [51] Provin & de Aguiar Dutra, 2021 [52] Rognoli et al., 2022 [53] Santos et al., 2021 [54] Todor et al., 2021 [55] Vinod et al., 2020 [56] Wojnowska-Baryła et al., 2022 [57]	16 (35.6)	Biodegradability, renewability, mechanical performance, toxicity	Inconsistent assumptions regarding end-of-life (EoL) conditions and biodegradation infrastructure, along with limited LCA-based comparative assessments
Sustainable dyeing & Finishing	Azanaw et al., 2022 [58] Ismail & Sakai, 2022 [59] Jahan et al., 2022 [60] Lara et al., 2022 [61]	Patel et al., 2022 [62] Powar et al., 2020 [63] Periyasamy & Periyasami, 2023 [64]	7 (15.6)	Water use, energy consumption, chemical load, color fastness	Insufficient validation of industrial scalability and lack of standardized process benchmarking
3D Printing & Digital Design	Akram et al., 2022 [28] Chakraborty & Biswas, 2020 [30] Biswas et al., 2021 [65] Choi, 2022 [66] Dip et al., 2020 [67]	Ikram, 2022 [68] Jeong et al., 2021 [69] McQuillan, 2020 [70] Spahiu et al., 2021 [71]	9 (20.0)	Material efficiency, waste reduction, design flexibility	Limited integration of environmental performance metrics (e.g., LCA) and inadequate validation at production scale
Smart Textiles & E-Textiles	Dulal, 2022 [29] Júnior et al., 2022 [72] Rese et al., 2022 [73]	Wu & Devendorf, 2020 [74] Zhang et al., 2023 [75]	5 (11.1)	Durability, energy use, functional lifespan	Insufficient consideration of recyclability and biodegradability, and weak integration with circular strategies
Blockchain & Traceability	Agrawal et al., 2021 [31] Ahmed & MacCarthy, 2021 [76] Casciani et al., 2022 [77] Garcia-Torres et al., 2022 [78]	Fung et al., 2021 [79] Guo et al., 2020 [80] Hader et al., 2022 [81] Lee, 2021 [82]	8 (17.8)	Transparency, data integrity, traceability coverage	Absence of accredited verification bodies and standardized data protocols, limiting integration with regulatory and certification frameworks

4.3.1. Material Transformation: Bio-Based and Biodegradable Shifts

Material innovation is the most visibly emerging area in the sustainability transitions of the textile and apparel sector, with notable growth in bio-based and biodegradable materials [43,44,45,46,47,49,50]. Such materials draw on renewable biomass and aim to support both decarbonization and resource circularity at the feedstock level, potentially reducing environmental burdens at EoL under appropriate conditions. Examples include microbial- and enzyme-based processing systems that reduce intermediate chemical steps and lower energy requirements—developments that align material properties more closely with circular design principles [46].

However, material innovation cannot be assumed to be “sustainable” by default. First, scalability and cost structures remain key challenges. Many bio-based polymers are still at pilot or semi-industrial scales, with production costs reported to be 20–60% higher than conventional petrochemical alternatives [44,49]. Without advances in process intensification, local supply-chain integration, and recycling infrastructure, large-scale market adoption remains limited. Second, biodegradability is contingent on environmental conditions rather than being an inherent material attribute. While industrial composting environments may support relatively rapid degradation, decomposition rates and ecotoxicity outcomes differ markedly in soil or aquatic contexts, requiring LCA-based assessments that reflect real-use scenarios [54,57].

Third, feedstock sourcing presents environmental and social risks. Biomass derived from food or feed crops may contribute to land-use competition, water stress, and biodiversity loss [43,45], challenging the assumption that “bio-based” materials are inherently sustainable. Recent research therefore turns toward non-food biomass such as seaweed, agricultural residues, and food by-products, seeking more coherent sustainability profiles when evaluated through environmental assessment (Section 4.4) and circular strategies such as recycling or composting [47,48,49,54,55,56,57].

Ultimately, the sustainability of material innovation depends not on the emergence of new materials alone but on how these materials are integrated into broader systems through LCA-based verification, alignment with regulatory tools such as the DPP and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), and strengthened supply-chain accountability and transparency. This demonstrates that material innovation becomes a meaningful driver of sustainability transitions only when connected with environmental assessment (Section 4.4), socio-institutional governance (Section 4.5), and circular strategies (Section 4.6).

4.3.2. Process Innovation: Enhancing Resource and Energy Efficiency

Process innovation focuses on reducing environmental burdens across dyeing, finishing, pretreatment, and wastewater management—stages known for high water, energy, and chemical consumption [58,59,60,61,62,63,64]. Dyeing and finishing, for example, may require 100–200 L of water per kilogram of fabric, representing a major environmental hotspot and a substantial share of total process energy use [58,60]. To address these impacts, diverse technologies have been proposed, including plant- and microbe-based natural dyes, enzymatic treatment, supercritical CO₂ dyeing, plasma pretreatment, advanced oxidation processes (AOP), membrane separation, and Zero-Liquid-Discharge (ZLD) systems [58,59,60,61,63].

Despite their environmental potential, these technologies face practical challenges to industrial adoption. Heterogeneity in dye chemistries (reactive, vat, disperse), substrate characteristics (fiber blends, fabric structures), and process conditions (pH, temperature, flow rates) limits the applicability of single technologies across varied wastewater profiles [59,60]. Additionally, systems such as ZLD and advanced membrane technologies entail high capital and operational costs, posing significant barriers to Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) [62,63]. Consequently, hybrid strategies combining upstream optimization (low-liquor-ratio dyeing, biodegradable auxiliaries, process shortening) with downstream infrastructure upgrades (shared wastewater facilities, modular ZLD systems) are often considered more feasible [61,64].

Process innovation is directly linked to environmental assessment. As discussed in Section 4.4, dyeing and finishing repeatedly emerge as hotspots in textile LCA studies [83,84,85], and improvements incorporating renewable energy systems (e.g., solar heating, combined heat and power, CHP) can meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas and energy footprints [83,86,87]. Thus, evaluating process innovation requires not only assessing the efficiency of individual technologies but also identifying which combinations of process interventions yield the greatest improvements in specific operational contexts—an inquiry well suited to LCA and footprint-based research.

From a policy and institutional perspective, financial incentives, shared infrastructure support, and technology transfer or capacity-building programs are essential to enabling broader uptake [58,62]. This underscores that process innovation becomes an actionable transition pathway only when technological improvements align with environmental assessment, regulatory support, and circular strategies. In effect, process innovation functions as a mediating axis that restructures resource and energy use across the industry.

4.3.3. Digital and Data-Driven Innovation: Linking Design, Production, and Governance

Digital and data-driven innovations—including 3D printing, digital design, smart and electronic textiles, blockchain, and supply-chain traceability—reshape the information architecture across the entire product life cycle. Although these technologies appear heterogeneous, they share a common objective: enabling data-informed decisions that optimize resource use and reinforce social and institutional trust.

Three-dimensional printing and digital design offer potential reductions in sampling waste, inventory volumes, and logistics burdens through virtual prototyping, pattern optimization, and on-demand production [30,65,67,70]. Nonetheless, many applications still emphasize “efficiency” without integrating environmental assessment, and weak data linkages across Computer-Aided Design (CAD)-Product Lifecycle Management (PLM)-Additive Manufacturing (AM) systems prevent sustainability objectives from being consistently communicated throughout production and distribution stages [66,69,70]. This reveals the need for integrated systems in which digital design tools embed LCA modules and resource/emission databases, enabling environmental indicators to be considered from the earliest design stages.

Smart and electronic textiles generate new forms of user value through sensing, communication, and energy-harvesting functions but also complicate reuse and recycling pathways due to composite material structures and embedded electronics [29,72,73,74,75]. Ensuring sustainability therefore requires integrating circular design principles—disassembly, modularity, and recyclability—into early design decisions. Data privacy, user acceptance, and ethical use are additional concerns directly tied to the socio-institutional dimension (Section 4.5) [72,73].

Blockchain and supply-chain traceability technologies record information across sourcing, production, distribution, and EoL stages, providing the operational foundation for governance tools such as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reporting, fair-trade verification, DPP, and EPR systems [31,76,77,78,79,80,81,82]. However, the lack of data standards, limited interoperability, and cost or capability gaps among SMEs hinder widespread adoption [76,80]. Moreover, despite blockchain’s immutability, data reliability issues persist if inaccurate or incomplete information is entered (“garbage in, garbage out”). Combining blockchain with Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), IoT, or AI-based automated data collection may mitigate some limitations, but broader solutions require third-party verification, alignment with international standards, and reduction in digital capability disparities across stakeholders [31,77,78,79].

Digital and data-driven innovation thus functions as the informational and governance backbone that connects technological innovation, environmental assessment, socio-institutional mechanisms, and circular strategies. In design stages, these technologies support resource-efficient and environmentally informed decision-making; in production and distribution, they enhance transparency and operational coordination; and in use and EoL phases, they provide mechanisms for reuse, recycling, and responsible waste management. Their significance lies not only in advancing individual technologies but in enabling system-level sustainability transitions through integrated information and governance structures.

4.4. Environmental Assessment

Environmental assessment provides the quantitative baseline for evaluating sustainability transitions across technological, institutional, and circular dimensions [88,89]. As summarized in Table 2, environmental assessment research is heavily concentrated on life cycle assessment (LCA), which constitutes the dominant methodological framework, while footprint-based studies play a complementary but more limited role [84,89]. Footprint-based diagnostics and LCA function as tools for identifying the conditions under which technological or systemic changes translate into measurable improvements in environmental performance.

At the same time, Table 2 highlights persistent methodological heterogeneity and limited standardization across LCA studies, particularly in terms of system boundaries, regional assumptions, and the integration of circularity-related indicators [85,88,90,91]. This section synthesizes key findings from the literature by structuring the discussion into two components: carbon, water, and energy footprint assessments (Section 4.4.1), and the standardization and circularity integration of LCA (Section 4.4.2).

Table 2. Research Trends and Methodological Challenges in Environmental Assessment of Textile and Apparel Sustainability (2020–2024).

Subtopic	References		Freq.(%)	Core Sustainability Metrics	Recurrent Research Gaps
Carbon, Water & Energy Footprint	Farhana et al., 2022 [83] Luo et al., 2022 [86] Payet, 2021 [87]	Amicarelli et al., 2022 [88] Munasinghe et al., 2021 [91] Wiedemann et al., 2020 [92]	6 (26.1)	Carbon emissions, water consumption, energy use, renewable energy integration	Limited comparability due to inconsistent system boundaries and data assumptions; partial coverage of life-cycle stages
LCA & Standardization	Moazzem et al., 2021a [1] Gonçalves & Silva, 2021 [84] Islam et al., 2022 [85] Gbolarumi et al., 2021 [89] Chen et al., 2021 [90] Fidan et al., 2021 [93] Gonzalez et al., 2023 [94] Herrera Almanza & Corona, 2020 [95]	Kazan et al., 2020 [96] Klepp et al., 2020 [97] Peters et al., 2021 [98] Uddin et al., 2022 [99] Liu et al., 2021 [100] Pérez et al., 2022 [101] Saleem & Zaidi, 2020 [102] Zhang et al., 2021 [103] Moazzem et al., 2021b [104]	17 (73.9)	Multi-impact LCA indicators (GHG, water, energy, toxicity), regionalized impact factors, standardization frameworks	High methodological heterogeneity across LCA studies; limited alignment with policy-oriented standards (e.g., PEF); insufficient integration with circularity indicators

Table 2. Research Trends and Methodological Challenges in Environmental Assessment of Textile and Apparel Sustainability (2020–2024).

Subtopic	References		Freq.(%)	Core Sustainability Metrics	Recurrent Research Gaps
Carbon, Water & Energy Footprint	Farhana et al., 2022 [83] Luo et al., 2022 [86] Payet, 2021 [87]	Amicarelli et al., 2022 [88] Munasinghe et al., 2021 [91] Wiedemann et al., 2020 [92]	6 (26.1)	Carbon emissions, water consumption, energy use, renewable energy integration	Limited comparability due to inconsistent system boundaries and data assumptions; partial coverage of life-cycle stages
LCA & Standardization	Moazzem et al., 2021a [1] Gonçalves & Silva, 2021 [84] Islam et al., 2022 [85] Gbolarumi et al., 2021 [89] Chen et al., 2021 [90] Fidan et al., 2021 [93] Gonzalez et al., 2023 [94] Herrera Almanza & Corona, 2020 [95]	Kazan et al., 2020 [96] Klepp et al., 2020 [97] Peters et al., 2021 [98] Uddin et al., 2022 [99] Liu et al., 2021 [100] Pérez et al., 2022 [101] Saleem & Zaidi, 2020 [102] Zhang et al., 2021 [103] Moazzem et al., 2021b [104]	17 (73.9)	Multi-impact LCA indicators (GHG, water, energy, toxicity), regionalized impact factors, standardization frameworks	High methodological heterogeneity across LCA studies; limited alignment with policy-oriented standards (e.g., PEF); insufficient integration with circularity indicators

4.4.1. Carbon, Water and Energy Footprint Assessments

The textile and apparel industry is widely recognized as a high-impact sector, accounting for approximately 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions, 20% of industrial wastewater, and up to 35% of microplastic releases [83,85]. Accordingly, footprint assessments serve as essential diagnostic tools for identifying environmental hotspots across production, distribution, use, and EoL stages. By quantifying emissions and resource use across these stages, footprint studies provide the empirical basis for determining where technological innovations or circular strategies yield the greatest improvement potential.

However, the literature reveals substantial inconsistencies in how footprint studies define system boundaries and functional units. Approximately 60% of studies use a cradle-to-gate scope, 30% employ cradle-to-grave, and fewer than 10% adopt cradle-to-cradle approaches [85,87,90,96]. These discrepancies can lead to differences of up to 50% in reported results for the same material. Such variation underscores the need for standardized accounting methods to ensure comparability and support policy and industry decision-making.

Environmental profiles also differ markedly across fiber types. For example, cotton cultivation relies heavily on irrigation and pesticides, contributing to water stress of up to 40% in arid regions [86,91]. Polyester, by contrast, exhibits higher energy and carbon burdens during production but may offset part of its impact during the use phase due to greater durability and less frequent laundering [83,92]. These findings indicate that binary comparisons between natural and synthetic fibers are problematic; comprehensive, multivariate interpretations must account for inter-stage trade-offs across the life cycle.

Dyeing and finishing consistently emerge as major hotspots, contributing roughly 30% of total emissions [83], yet renewable energy utilization in these processes remains below 15%. Studies suggest that solar thermal systems or CHP technologies could reduce process emissions by 35–40% [83]. However, such outcomes are unlikely to be achieved at scale without integration with process innovations discussed in Section 4.4.2. Thus, footprint assessments play a critical role in identifying the conditions under which process improvements and energy transitions translate into meaningful reductions.

Despite growing interest in recycled and bio-based materials, their global production share remains below 12% [91,105]. This limitation stems less from technological maturity than from variations in environmental data quality across producers, regions, and processes, as well as fragmented verification frameworks. Consequently, future research must prioritize data governance—including harmonized accounting methods, interoperable datasets, and region-specific environmental databases—as a core requirement alongside technological innovation.

With a robust data infrastructure in place, footprint assessments can move beyond simple environmental burden quantification to function as cross-dimensional diagnostic tools that connect technological innovation (Section 4.3), consumer and ethical considerations (Section 4.5), and circular strategies (Section 4.6). In this capacity, they provide essential foundations for formulating industry-wide sustainability strategies.

4.4.2. Standardization and Circularity Integration in LCA of Textile Products

LCA remains the most widely applied method for quantitatively comparing the environmental impacts of textile and apparel products. Existing studies primarily compare the burdens associated with major fiber categories—cotton, polyester, regenerated cellulose, etc. [19,94,105]. However, most LCAs remain heavily weighted toward production-stage impacts, with insufficient consideration of use and EoL phases, resulting in systematic underestimation of full life cycle effects.

Behavioral variables such as washing frequency, drying methods, and product lifespan can alter total environmental impact by 20–40% [97,98,106]. Yet, more than 80% of LCA studies incorporate the use phase only partially or not at all [92,97,98,99]. This gap demonstrates the need for LCA frameworks to integrate not only technological innovations but also consumer behavior, business models, repair and reuse strategies, and other socio-economic factors.

Another critical limitation concerns the lack of regional specificity in Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) databases. Widely used datasets such as Ecoinvent and GaBi do not sufficiently reflect local conditions in major manufacturing regions such as Bangladesh, India, or Vietnam—particularly regarding electricity mixes, wastewater treatment capacity, and water resource availability [86,89,100,101]. As a result, the same process can yield more than 30% variation in environmental outcomes depending on geographic context. Establishing region-specific LCI datasets and ensuring periodic updates are therefore essential for using LCA as a global standard.

Expanded approaches incorporating circularity are also emerging. Circular LCA (C-LCA) integrates factors such as reuse rates, recycling rates, and extended product lifespans, demonstrating that recycled fiber substitution can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 50% [1,94,107]. These developments signal LCA’s evolution into an integrated assessment tool capable of evaluating the combined effects of technological innovations (e.g., recycling technologies, biodegradable materials) and circular strategies (e.g., EoL management, reuse and recycling pathways).

Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA)—which combines environmental LCA, social LCA (S-LCA), and life cycle costing (LCC)—further expands LCA into a multidimensional decision-making framework aligned with the SDGs and EU circular economy policies [84,89,95]. This shift illustrates that environmental assessment is transitioning from a technology-focused analytical method to a governance-oriented system that integrates environmental, social, and economic considerations.

Finally, AI- and ontology-based metadata architectures and blockchain-linked LCA systems are emerging as tools capable of enhancing data accuracy and verification across regions, platforms, and organizations [14,107,108]. These developments transform LCA from a static, retrospective evaluation tool into a predictive and verification-oriented governance mechanism linked to DPP and traceability systems—directly intersecting with the digital and data-driven innovations discussed in Section 4.3.

4.5. Ethical and Systemic Dimensions

Ethical and systemic dimensions address the social, cultural, and institutional conditions that mediate sustainability transitions beyond technological and environmental performance. As summarized in Table 3, the literature within this dimension is strongly skewed toward consumer awareness and ethical purchasing behavior, while research on CSR implementation, fair trade governance, and cultural sustainability remains comparatively limited [37,109,110].

Table 3. Research Trends and Structural Limitations in Ethical and Systemic Dimensions of Sustainable Textile and Apparel Practices (2020–2024).

Subtopic	References		Freq.	Core Sustainability Metrics	Subtopic
Consumer Awareness & Ethical Purchasing	Busalim et al., 2022 [37] Bianchi & Gonzalez, 2021 [109] Sinha et al., 2023 [111] Ray & Nayak, 2023 [112] Aakko & Niinimäki, 2022 [113]	Gomes et al., 2022 [114] Mandarić et al., 2021 [115] Mohr et al., 2022 [116] Paço et al., 2021 [117] Wagner & Heinzel, 2020 [110]	10 (47.6)	Consumer awareness, ethical purchasing intention, willingness to pay, behavioral change	Persistent attitude–behavior gap; limited consideration of contextual and institutional constraints on ethical consumption
Local Production Systems	Brown & Vacca, 2022 [118] Sandhu, 2020 [119]	Väänänen & Pöllänen, 2020 [120] Wanniarachchi et al., 2020 [121]	4 (19.0)	Cultural sustainability, craftsmanship, local value creation, social embeddedness	Limited scalability and economic viability; insufficient integration with global supply chains
Circular Policy & Regulation	Abreu et al., 2021 [122] Cai & Choi, 2020 [123] Heinze, 2020 [124] Karaosman et al., 2020 [125]	Niessen, 2020 [126] Peleg Mizrachi & Tal, 2022 [127] Thorisdottir & Johannsdottir, 2020 [128]	7 (33.3)	CSR implementation, fair trade practices, governance mechanisms, regulatory alignment	Fragmented regulatory frameworks; limited enforcement mechanisms and weak integration with supply-chain transparency tools

Table 3. Research Trends and Structural Limitations in Ethical and Systemic Dimensions of Sustainable Textile and Apparel Practices (2020–2024).

Subtopic	References		Freq.	Core Sustainability Metrics	Subtopic
Consumer Awareness & Ethical Purchasing	Busalim et al., 2022 [37] Bianchi & Gonzalez, 2021 [109] Sinha et al., 2023 [111] Ray & Nayak, 2023 [112] Aakko & Niinimäki, 2022 [113]	Gomes et al., 2022 [114] Mandarić et al., 2021 [115] Mohr et al., 2022 [116] Paço et al., 2021 [117] Wagner & Heinzel, 2020 [110]	10 (47.6)	Consumer awareness, ethical purchasing intention, willingness to pay, behavioral change	Persistent attitude–behavior gap; limited consideration of contextual and institutional constraints on ethical consumption
Local Production Systems	Brown & Vacca, 2022 [118] Sandhu, 2020 [119]	Väänänen & Pöllänen, 2020 [120] Wanniarachchi et al., 2020 [121]	4 (19.0)	Cultural sustainability, craftsmanship, local value creation, social embeddedness	Limited scalability and economic viability; insufficient integration with global supply chains
Circular Policy & Regulation	Abreu et al., 2021 [122] Cai & Choi, 2020 [123] Heinze, 2020 [124] Karaosman et al., 2020 [125]	Niessen, 2020 [126] Peleg Mizrachi & Tal, 2022 [127] Thorisdottir & Johannsdottir, 2020 [128]	7 (33.3)	CSR implementation, fair trade practices, governance mechanisms, regulatory alignment	Fragmented regulatory frameworks; limited enforcement mechanisms and weak integration with supply-chain transparency tools

This imbalance reflects a broader structural tendency within sustainability debates to privilege environmental and technical dimensions, often at the expense of social and cultural considerations [123,126]. Elements such as labor rights, fair trade practices, cultural heritage preservation, and institutional accountability constitute essential pillars of sustainability, yet they are frequently treated as secondary or peripheral concerns [118,125,127]. Table 3 further reveals that these gaps are not merely thematic but structural, stemming from fragmented regulatory frameworks and weak integration between ethical governance mechanisms and technological or environmental assessment tools [122,123,128].

Accordingly, ethical and systemic dimensions should not be understood as auxiliary components but as foundational mechanisms that anchor technological innovation (4.3) and environmental assessment (4.4) within societal structures [124,126]. In practical terms, these dimensions shape the conditions under which technological innovations gain legitimacy, are adopted by stakeholders, and are translated into durable sustainability practices [37,124].

4.5.1. Consumer Awareness and Ethical Purchasing

Consumer awareness serves as a major driver of market transitions and corporate responsibility, with more than half of the reviewed studies focusing on consumer attitudes, ethical purchasing, and eco-labeling [37,109,112,113,114,115]. However, as repeatedly demonstrated in the literature, the attitude–behavior gap remains a persistent structural challenge. Economic constraints, information deficits, cognitive burdens, and social norms all contribute to the disconnect between ethical intentions and actual purchasing behavior [37,109,112,113].

Studies employing the Value–Belief–Norm (VBN) model and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) show that perceived behavioral control and subjective norms exert stronger explanatory power over purchasing behavior than moral intentions [114,115]. This suggests that sustainable purchasing cannot be driven by value endorsement alone; rather, it requires the integration of practical considerations such as price, durability, availability, and aesthetic diversity to translate intentions into concrete behavior.

The proliferation of eco-labels and certification schemes has also intensified information asymmetry, generating consumer fatigue and mistrust [117]. Consequently, strategies centered on value internalization—including emotional resonance, lifestyle alignment, and brand trust—appear more effective than mere information provision [128]. These behavioral and cognitive foundations can serve as institutional levers that reinforce technology-enabled transparency systems (e.g., DPP, blockchain), thereby promoting more sustained shifts in consumption practices. In this sense, consumer awareness and ethical purchasing function as critical mediating conditions that determine whether digital transparency technologies translate into actual behavioral change and market uptake.

4.5.2. Local Production Systems

Despite their importance in shaping the social and cultural dimensions of sustainability, local craft and regional production systems remain underrepresented in the literature, accounting for approximately 19% of studies [118,119,120,121]. Such systems often exhibit lower energy use and waste generation than industrialized mass production due to their reliance on renewable materials, small-scale operations, and labor-intensive processes. At the same time, they strengthen local economies, community cohesion, and cultural identity.

Examples such as India’s Khadi, Japan’s Mingei, and Italy’s Slow Fiber Districts illustrate how localized circularity, rooted in regional knowledge and community-based practices, can simultaneously advance economic viability and cultural continuity [118,119,120,121].

However, the aging of artisans and the lack of successors pose major threats to knowledge transmission [119,120]. Institutionalizing craft education, establishing designer–artisan collaboration platforms, and developing regionally grounded certification systems have therefore been proposed as critical strategies for sustaining cultural ecosystems. Nevertheless, frameworks capable of quantitatively assessing local craft systems—such as LCA or Social Return on Investment (SROI)—remain largely absent, hindering the integration of cultural sustainability into policy decision-making. Local production systems thus function as an analytical counterweight that complements technological innovation and environmental assessment by capturing non-quantifiable dimensions of sustainability. In this respect, local production systems also provide critical testbeds for evaluating how technological innovations—such as digital traceability, small-scale process technologies, or circular design tools—can be adapted to context-specific, low-volume, and culturally embedded production environments.

4.5.3. Circular Policy and Regulation

CSR and Fair Trade operate as key mechanisms for institutionalizing accountability, transparency, and social legitimacy within global apparel supply chains, though their actual impact varies considerably by region and firm size [122,123,124,125,126,127]. Despite widespread CSR reporting, only about 30% of companies adhere to GRI standards, and fewer than 10% incorporate third-party verification [122]. Such superficial engagement often results in ethics washing, which undermines credibility and diminishes strategic effectiveness [124,125,126].

SMEs show low participation in fair trade certification due to financial burdens, staffing constraints, and complex verification procedures [122,123,127]. To address these barriers, the literature calls for supply-chain consortia, shared certification schemes, and government-supported capacity-building initiatives. The coexistence of more than 400 sustainability labels further contributes to market confusion, elevating the need for alignment among international normative frameworks such as ISO 26000, the OECD Due Diligence Guidance (DDG), and the UN Guiding Principles (UNGPs).

Although digital traceability tools (e.g., DPP, blockchain) can enhance data transparency, the core of ethical legitimacy lies not in technology itself but in institutional verification, independence, and accountability [123,127]. In regions characterized by weak labor regulation or entrenched subcontracting structures, the effects of CSR remain limited. As a result, integrating social responsibility into national legislation and trade agreements, particularly in alignment with SDGs 8, 12, and 17, is increasingly viewed as essential.

Ultimately, CSR and Fair Trade constitute governance mechanisms that institutionalize the social foundations of sustainability. They provide the legitimacy, trust, and accountability necessary for technological innovation and environmental assessment to take root within industrial systems. In this context, CSR and Fair Trade frameworks also shape the conditions under which digital traceability tools and assessment systems are recognized as credible and are accepted by regulators, firms, and consumers.

4.6. Circular Strategies

Circular strategies address how textile and apparel systems can be reorganized to retain material value and minimize waste across use and post-use stages. As summarized in Table 4, research in this domain is heavily concentrated on upcycling and circular product design, whereas behavioral and institutional approaches—such as consumer participation, use-phase engagement, and ecolabeling mechanisms—remain comparatively underexplored.

This imbalance indicates that much of the existing literature emphasizes design- and technology-oriented solutions, while the social, behavioral, and governance conditions required to operationalize circularity receive less systematic attention. Previous studies have already demonstrated that fast fashion business models externalize significant environmental and social costs by accelerating production and consumption cycles and shortening garment lifespans [3,14,129]. As fast fashion accelerates consumption cycles and post-use textile waste continues to mount globally [130], addressing these challenges requires a multilayered approach that integrates sorting and classification technologies, advanced mechanical and chemical recycling processes, and policy-driven collection and certification infrastructures.

Within this context, the circular economy paradigm seeks to replace traditional linear production systems with an industrial structure that enables closed-loop cycles of product life extension, reuse, recycling, and resource regeneration [81]. Table 4 further highlights that without stronger integration of consumer engagement mechanisms and standardized transparency tools, technological advances in circular design and recycling may face significant barriers to large-scale implementation.

Table 4. Research Trends and Implementation Barriers in Circular Strategies for the Textile and Apparel Industry (2020–2024).

Subtopic	References		Freq.	Core Sustainability Metrics	Recurrent Research Gaps
Consumer Engagement & Use-Phase Strategies	Cooper & Claxton, 2022 [131] Goworek et al., 2020 [132]	Saccani et al., 2023 [133] Rotimi et al., 2021 [134] Conlon, 2020 [135]	5 (11.4)	Consumer participation, product longevity, use-phase behavior, repair and reuse	Limited empirical evidence on long-term behavioral change; weak linkage between consumer engagement and quantified environmental outcomes
Circular Product Design & Upcycling	Abbate et al., 2024 [9] Brydges, 2021 [10] Coscieme et al., 2022 [11] Keßler et al., 2021 [20] Okafor et al., 2021 [22] Dissanayake & Weerasinghe, 2021 [32] Aus et al., 2021 [34] Claxton & Kent, 2020 [136] Colucci & Vecchi, 2021 [137] Atalay Onur, 2020 [138] Dan & Østergaard, 2021 [139]	De Ponte, 2023 [140] Dragomir & Dumitru, 2022 [141] ElShishtawy et al., 2022 [142] Karell & Niinimäki, 2020 [143] Levänen et al., 2021 [144] Murzyn-Kupisz & Hołuj, 2021 [145] Palm et al., 2021 [146] Piller, 2022 [147] Schmutz & Som, 2022 [148] Xie et al., 2021 [149]	21 (47.7)	Design for circularity, material reuse, waste reduction, product lifespan extension	Predominantly conceptual or case-based studies; limited scalability assessment and insufficient integration with end-of-life recycling systems
Mechanical & Chemical Recycling	De Oliveira et al., 2021 [12] Eppinger, 2022 [13] Harmsen et al., 2021 [15] Baloyi et al., 2024 [16] Damayanti et al., 2021 [17] Jönsson et al., 2021 [18] Subramanian et al., 2020 [19]	Wang & Salmon, 2022 [105] Niinimäki et al.,2020 [129] Juanga-Labayen et al., 2022 [130] Hussain, 2021 [150] Kahoush& Kadi, 2022 [151] Yousef, 2020 [152]	13 (29.5)	Recycling efficiency, material recovery rate, energy demand, fiber quality retention	Technical feasibility demonstrated, but economic viability and fiber-to-fiber recycling performance remain insufficiently validated at scale
Ecolabeling & Transparency	Byrd & Su, 2021 [153] Feuß et al., 2022 [154] Hayat et al., 2020 [155]	Plakantonaki et al., 2023 [156] Ranasinghe & Jayasooriya, 2021 [157]	5 (11.4)	Certification credibility, transparency, consumer trust, information disclosure	Proliferation of heterogeneous labels; limited consumer understanding and lack of standardized verification mechanisms

Table 4. Research Trends and Implementation Barriers in Circular Strategies for the Textile and Apparel Industry (2020–2024).

Subtopic	References		Freq.	Core Sustainability Metrics	Recurrent Research Gaps
Consumer Engagement & Use-Phase Strategies	Cooper & Claxton, 2022 [131] Goworek et al., 2020 [132]	Saccani et al., 2023 [133] Rotimi et al., 2021 [134] Conlon, 2020 [135]	5 (11.4)	Consumer participation, product longevity, use-phase behavior, repair and reuse	Limited empirical evidence on long-term behavioral change; weak linkage between consumer engagement and quantified environmental outcomes
Circular Product Design & Upcycling	Abbate et al., 2024 [9] Brydges, 2021 [10] Coscieme et al., 2022 [11] Keßler et al., 2021 [20] Okafor et al., 2021 [22] Dissanayake & Weerasinghe, 2021 [32] Aus et al., 2021 [34] Claxton & Kent, 2020 [136] Colucci & Vecchi, 2021 [137] Atalay Onur, 2020 [138] Dan & Østergaard, 2021 [139]	De Ponte, 2023 [140] Dragomir & Dumitru, 2022 [141] ElShishtawy et al., 2022 [142] Karell & Niinimäki, 2020 [143] Levänen et al., 2021 [144] Murzyn-Kupisz & Hołuj, 2021 [145] Palm et al., 2021 [146] Piller, 2022 [147] Schmutz & Som, 2022 [148] Xie et al., 2021 [149]	21 (47.7)	Design for circularity, material reuse, waste reduction, product lifespan extension	Predominantly conceptual or case-based studies; limited scalability assessment and insufficient integration with end-of-life recycling systems
Mechanical & Chemical Recycling	De Oliveira et al., 2021 [12] Eppinger, 2022 [13] Harmsen et al., 2021 [15] Baloyi et al., 2024 [16] Damayanti et al., 2021 [17] Jönsson et al., 2021 [18] Subramanian et al., 2020 [19]	Wang & Salmon, 2022 [105] Niinimäki et al.,2020 [129] Juanga-Labayen et al., 2022 [130] Hussain, 2021 [150] Kahoush& Kadi, 2022 [151] Yousef, 2020 [152]	13 (29.5)	Recycling efficiency, material recovery rate, energy demand, fiber quality retention	Technical feasibility demonstrated, but economic viability and fiber-to-fiber recycling performance remain insufficiently validated at scale
Ecolabeling & Transparency	Byrd & Su, 2021 [153] Feuß et al., 2022 [154] Hayat et al., 2020 [155]	Plakantonaki et al., 2023 [156] Ranasinghe & Jayasooriya, 2021 [157]	5 (11.4)	Certification credibility, transparency, consumer trust, information disclosure	Proliferation of heterogeneous labels; limited consumer understanding and lack of standardized verification mechanisms

In this study, ecolabels—which have traditionally been framed within the realm of ethical consumption—are situated within circular strategies, as they function as institutional mechanisms directly linked to recycling certification and circularity verification. Certifications such as the GRS and Cradle to Cradle play a critical role in ensuring material circularity.

4.6.1. Consumer Engagement and Use-Phase Strategies

Circular fashion operates through the interaction between consumers and brands, making it essential to examine how circular practices—such as reuse, repair, rental, and upcycling—transition into routine consumption. Yet only about 10% of the reviewed studies directly address consumer participation [131,132,133,134,135], indicating that behavioral strategies remain less developed than technology- or design-centered research.

Despite increasing environmental awareness, participation in reuse and repair remains low, reflecting a persistent intention–behavior gap [134]. This gap cannot be attributed solely to individual morality; instead, it emerges from structural constraints such as price sensitivity, limited design variety, and hygiene concerns [131,134]. Thus, circular participation should be understood not as a matter of personal ethics but as a co-creation system shaped by consumer–firm–institution interactions.

Digital platforms facilitate new forms of participation—resale, rental recommendations, and AI-based wardrobe management [133]—while reward-based mechanisms help sustain repeated engagement. However, technology alone cannot deliver circularity. Fragmented collection infrastructure and a lack of coordination across manufacturers, retailers, and municipalities remain major barriers to scalability. Globally, only 15–20% of post-consumer textiles are collected, and less than 1% are recycled fiber-to-fiber [130], underscoring the structural limitations.

Overcoming these constraints requires expanding EPR-based collection and reuse systems, providing financial incentives for circular business models, and integrating co-creation strategies into the design stage. Notably, product durability in the use-phase is determined not only by material properties but also by “use and care” behaviors. Modular design, replaceable components, and repairability thus serve as critical design innovations that underpin social participation.

When behavioral motivation, digital facilitation, and institutional infrastructure are aligned, circular consumption can transition into a structural model—one that operates in synergy with the ethical and systemic dimension (Section 4.5), technological innovation (Section 4.3), and environmental assessment (Section 4.4) [132,133,134,135,151].

4.6.2. Circular Product Design and Upcycling Approaches

Circular product design and upcycling constitute the material and creative core of circular fashion, encompassing strategies that embed durability, modularity, and emotional longevity across the product life cycle. Approximately 47.7% of the analyzed literature falls within this category, demonstrating the rapid growth of design-centered sustainability research [9,11,32,34,136].

However, industrial implementation remains constrained by three interconnected challenges:

• Technological constraints: The heterogeneity of post-consumer textiles—mixed fibers, contamination, and degradation—reduces recyclability and quality consistency [136,143]. Zero-waste pattern design and digital optimization have achieved 20–30% improvements in fabric efficiency [144], yet the lack of fiber composition standardization and incomplete DPP-based material traceability inhibit large-scale diffusion [132].
• Economic constraints: Upcycling often depends on labor-intensive processes, increasing production costs. Consumers may also perceive upcycled products as lacking trend relevance or quality assurance [137].
• Institutional and educational constraints: Challenges include the absence of formal durability design standards, certification burdens for SMEs, and insufficient integration of systems thinking into design and materials education [17,146].

To address these issues, modularity, repairability, and co-design must be embedded from the earliest stages of product planning. Building platform-based collaboration ecosystems among upcycling producers, designers, and recycling facilities is also essential. Policy measures could integrate durability standards into EPR systems, support shared infrastructure, and incorporate systems thinking into education and training programs.

Ultimately, circular design functions not merely as an artistic practice but as a structural mediator that links technological innovation, environmental assessment, and social participation. When supported by standardized design guidelines and cross-industry collaboration, circular design can evolve into a robust institutional framework [13,14,136,146].

4.6.3. Mechanical and Chemical Recycling

Recycling forms the material foundation of the circular economy, with mechanical and chemical processes offering distinct advantages and limitations. Approximately 29.5% of the analyzed studies examine recycling technologies, with both approaches receiving balanced attention [12,13,15,16,17,18,21].

Mechanical recycling is favorable in terms of energy efficiency and cost, but shortened fiber length and reduced strength limit its applicability to high-value uses. Recent advances in AI/NIR-based sorting have improved the classification accuracy of blended materials [3,150], yet their effectiveness remains constrained without robust pre-processing and fiber standardization.

Chemical recycling enables the regeneration of PET, nylon, cellulose, and other materials at the molecular level. Although enzymatic PET depolymerization and solvent-based cellulose separation have progressed to pilot phases [5,151], challenges remain concerning solvent recovery, contaminant removal, and energy intensity.

Key barriers to industrial scaling include:

• Economic: high capital investment and unstable waste supply
• Technological: difficulties in process integration and handling mixed waste streams
• Policy-related: inconsistent recycling standards, subsidies, and certifications across countries

Environmentally, recycling cannot be assumed to be “sustainable” without LCA-based verification. Some chemical processes, despite high recovery rates, may increase energy and water demand [6,35,105]; environmental circularity is achievable only when supported by renewable energy inputs, solvent recovery, and integrated wastewater treatment.

Ultimately, recycling creates the structural foundation for waste reduction and resource regeneration when aligned with technological innovation (Section 4.3), environmental assessment (Section 4.4), and circular design approaches (Section 4.6.2).

4.6.4. Ecolabeling and Transparency

Ecolabels and transparency systems function as key infrastructures mediating information, trust, and accountability in the circular economy. About 11.4% of the reviewed studies address certification and transparency mechanisms [153,154,155,156,157], indicating that while essential, these systems are still hindered by institutional complexity and a lack of standardization.

Although consumer awareness of ecolabels is relatively high, understanding of certification criteria, processes, and verification mechanisms remains low [153,154,155], increasing information asymmetry and the risk of greenwashing. The coexistence of more than 400 sustainability labels internationally further contributes to market confusion [155,156].

To address these challenges, standardizing environmental indicators under the EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) framework, establishing mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) with existing certifications such as GRS and C2C, and developing multi-tiered certification structures are necessary. For SMEs, financial incentives, preferential access to public procurement, and streamlined verification processes can alleviate certification burdens.

Digital technologies such as DPP, blockchain, RFID, and IoT strengthen real-time verification and supply-chain transparency. However, technology alone cannot ensure trust; institutional coherence and data consistency must underpin these systems. From a behavioral standpoint, price sensitivity and information overload hinder consumer uptake, suggesting that reward-based applications, ecolabel education, and emotional engagement strategies are needed to complement transparency tools.

Ultimately, ecolabeling and transparency mechanisms serve as institutional platforms that support the entire spectrum of circular strategies. When linked to technology-enabled traceability and LCA-based verification, they help establish the social and environmental legitimacy of circularity.

5. Conclusions

This study aimed to systematically examine how sustainability research in the textile and apparel industry has been structured, and to identify how four key dimensions—technological innovation, environmental assessment, ethical and institutional mechanisms, and circular strategies—mediate or constrain industrial transformation. To this end, studies published between 2020 and 2024 were reviewed by analyzing titles, keywords, abstracts, and conclusions, through which the four thematic pillars were derived and their interlinkages and structural limitations were assessed.

The findings indicate that technological innovation is the most extensively discussed domain within the sustainability literature; however, its industrial and policy impacts remain limited when it is not sufficiently integrated with environmental assessment mechanisms, regulatory structures, and consumer behavior. Conversely, when the four dimensions operate in a mutually reinforcing manner, the potential for sustainability transitions increases substantially. This reveals that sustainability in the textile and apparel sector emerges not from isolated efforts but from a multilayered process shaped by dynamic interactions among the four dimensions. Notably, the asynchronous development of technology, policy, assessment, and behavior—each progressing with different temporal rhythms—creates structural tensions that hinder effective transitions.

Several structural limitations associated with technology-driven approaches were also identified. (1) Without integration into robust environmental assessment systems, technological claims remain unverified. (2) Technologies that do not align with regulatory requirements face significant barriers in commercialization. (3) When consumer use-phase behaviors are overlooked, discrepancies arise between technological improvements and actual environmental outcomes. (4) When technologies are not embedded within circular strategies, their influence is confined to incremental efficiency gains within linear systems. These results underscore the need to reconceptualize technological innovation as an intermediary axis that links and activates the other three dimensions. Technology gains legitimacy through assessment, becomes institutionalized through regulatory frameworks, expands through consumer practices, and drives systemic transformation when coupled with circular strategies.

Building on these findings, four strategic priorities for future research and industry transformation are proposed.

First, standardized alignment between emerging technologies and key environmental assessment tools—such as LCA, carbon, water, and energy footprints—is essential for ensuring technological credibility.

Second, coherence between technology deployment strategies and regulatory incentive structures—including DPP, EPR, and CEAP—must be strengthened to support institutional diffusion.

Third, use-phase integration models should be developed to enhance technological acceptance and translate innovations into measurable environmental benefits.

Fourth, technological innovation should be repositioned within a circular ecosystem in which design, recycling, and service models function as interconnected components throughout the product lifecycle.

Despite its contributions, this study has several limitations inherent to the scoping review methodology and the design choices adopted.

First, the review focused on studies published between 2020 and 2024 and applied a citation-based inclusion criterion (≥30 citations) to ensure academic relevance and scholarly impact. While this approach strengthened the robustness of the reviewed corpus, it may have constrained the temporal and topical diversity of the dataset. Under such conditions, extensive descriptive analyses—such as temporal distributions, technology-type frequencies, or journal-based counts—could risk overrepresenting already well-established technologies and dominant research streams, thereby introducing interpretive bias. Accordingly, this study deliberately prioritized structural and relational analysis over frequency-based descriptive reporting in order to avoid potentially misleading representations of research trends.

Second, although the review followed the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, database coverage and search strategy constraints may have resulted in the omission of relevant studies. In addition, the classification of literature based on titles, keywords, abstracts, and conclusions inevitably involves a degree of interpretive subjectivity, particularly in an interdisciplinary field characterized by overlapping concepts and heterogeneous terminologies. Future research could mitigate these limitations by incorporating natural language processing (NLP) techniques, machine-learning-based classification, and large language model (LLM)-assisted text analysis to enhance reproducibility and analytical transparency.

Finally, the predominance of European-focused studies within the reviewed corpus may introduce regional bias. Differences in technological maturity, regulatory capacity, consumer behavior, and recycling infrastructure across regions suggest that the applicability of the four-dimensional interaction framework may vary by geographic and institutional context. Future studies are therefore encouraged to conduct region-specific or industry-specific analyses to further refine and validate the framework.

Nevertheless, this study contributes to the development of a conceptual foundation for understanding sustainability transitions in the textile and apparel industry by structurally integrating the four dimensions and articulating their intermediary mechanisms. Future studies may refine this framework by conducting region- and industry-specific case analyses, developing quantitative indicators, and modeling the coupling degree among the four dimensions. For industry and policy domains alike, adopting system-level strategies that enhance connectivity among technology, assessment, policy, and consumer behavior will be crucial for accelerating the transition toward a sustainable textile and fashion economy.

6. Practical Implications

The four-dimensional intermediary framework proposed in this study calls for high-level transition strategies across industry, policy, organizational structures, design practices, and consumer behavior.

First, at the industry level, firms must move beyond technology-centric innovation and adopt an integrated transition strategy that strengthens the coupling between technology, assessment, policy, and consumer behavior. This requires establishing an innovation orchestration system in which technological development is coordinated with LCA-based verification, regulatory requirements (e.g., DPP, EPR), consumer use patterns, and circular design principles.

Second, at the policy level, regulatory design should shift from performance-based criteria to mechanisms that enhance connectivity among the four dimensions. Standardized assessment modules, technology-acceptance-based incentive structures (e.g., eco-modulated EPR), and investment in circular ecosystem infrastructure are essential.

Third, at the organizational level, firms should transcend functionally segmented structures (R&D, legal, sustainability, LCA) by establishing a Transition Management Unit that integrates and coordinates technological, regulatory, assessment, and market information—repositioning innovation as a system-wide organizational process.

Fourth, at the design and product development level, sustainability must be embedded as an inherent design principle through a system-integrated design approach, encompassing disassembly, mono-materiality, durability, use-phase impacts, and recyclability.

Fifth, at the consumer and use-phase level, behavioral strategies that translate technology into real environmental benefits are critical. Repair and reuse services, extended warranties, take-back programs, and data-driven feedback systems can strengthen the connection between innovation and consumer action.

Finally, assessment and certification bodies must establish specialized indicators and modular evaluation systems capable of assessing the environmental performance of emerging materials and technologies. This function is central to regulating the speed and direction of sustainability transitions across the industry.

Collectively, these implications reaffirm that sustainability transitions require the design of system-level architectures—rather than isolated improvements—across industry, policy, organizations, design, and consumer behavior. The transition architecture proposed herein offers a strategic framework that moves beyond technology-centric approaches toward an integrated and systemic pathway for achieving sustainability in the textile and apparel sector.