We believe that transparency is the first step toward sustainability. That’s why we publish product-level carbon data for each item we make. This report shows the estimated Scope 3 CO₂e emissions for each product — from raw material extraction to delivery at our warehouse.

Every product is shown with a CO₂e range (minimum–maximum) to reflect real-world variation. The results help guide smarter decisions — for us as a brand, and for you as a customer.

Your values is our promise.

Approach: We used a “Score 3” model aligned with mostly the GHG Protocol, focusing on Scope 3 emissions – i.e. all significant indirect emissions from the product’s life cycle before it reaches the customer. In practice, this means we accounted for cradle-to-gate impacts: raw material extraction and processing, textile production (spinning, knitting/weaving, dyeing), assembly/sewing, packaging, and transport.

This comprehensive approach is essentially a product Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) concentrating on supply-chain GHG emissions. (Scopes 1
and 2 – direct emissions from our own operations and purchased energy – are
excluded from product-level numbers, since here we’re tabulating the product
footprints mostly driven by upstream processes.)

Data Sources: The carbon emission factors for materials and processes come from reputable industry LCA
data. We prioritized data from Textile Exchange’s LCI (Life Cycle Inventory) library and reports wherever possible, as well as peer-reviewed studies, to ensure representative values.

Merino wool (RWS certified): We used Textile Exchange data and other LCA literature reflecting the high impact of wool. Sheep-related emissions (methane from enteric fermentation and nitrous oxide from manure) make wool one of the most carbon-intensive fibers.

Emissions around 50–80 kg CO₂e per kg of clean wool are typical for conventional merino wool.

(For context, producing just 1 kg of merino wool can emit ~74 kg CO₂e; this is why even a lightweight wool garment has a sizable footprint.)

We allocate those farming emissions to wool fiber production in our model, following standard LCA allocation methods.

Recycled nylon (polyamide): We source recycled nylon (e.g. ECONYL® regenerated nylon) data indicating significantly lower GHG emissions than virgin nylon. Virgin nylon 6 typically emits around 5–9 kg CO₂e per kg produced. Recycled nylon avoids new petrochemical production; literature and supplier data suggest roughly 2–4 kg CO₂e per kg for recycled polyamide, depending on recycling process. (For example, one low-impact nylon yarn has a carbon footprint ~4 kg CO₂e/kg, and an experimental bio-based nylon can be as low as ~2.1 kg CO₂e/kg) We used a conservative middle range for recycled nylon in our calculations.

Elastane (spandex): Though only a small fraction of our wool blend fabrics (~5%), elastane manufacture is energy-intensive. LCA benchmarks show about 15–20 kg CO₂e per kg of elastane fiber produced. Its overall contribution in a garment is modest due to low percentage, but we include it for completeness.

Recycled polyester: Many of our outerwear and fleece products use GRS-certified recycled polyester (rPET). Producing recycled polyester generally emits 50–80% less GHG than virgin polyester. We applied an emission factor of roughly 1.5–2.5 kg CO₂e per kg rPET, versus about ~5.5 kg CO₂e/kg for virgin PET.

This significantly lowers the footprints of our synthetic jackets. (Polyester’s impact is mostly from the energy used in polymerization; recycling skips the petroleum refining step)

Organic cotton: For our organic cotton tees, we used Textile Exchange/industry data for organic cotton farming and ginning. Organic cotton typically has a slightly lower GHG footprint than conventional cotton due to the absence of synthetic fertilizer (a major source of N₂O emissions). We assumed roughly 2–3 kg CO₂e per kg of organic cotton fiber at farm gate. After including yarn spinning, knitting and dyeing, an organic cotton t-shirt of ~0.2 kg ends up around 3–5 kg CO₂e total. This aligns with other studies showing a basic cotton t-shirt in the single-digit kilograms of CO₂e.

Tencel: Lyocell (a type of rayon made by Lenzing AG under the Tencel brand) is derived from wood pulp in a closed-loop solvent process. According to LCA data, lyocell production has relatively low fossil energy use and GHG emissions per kg of fiber (often lower than cotton or viscose). We used an estimate of ~3–5 kg CO₂e per kg lyocell fiber. Given our Tencel tees weigh ~0.18 kg, their footprints fall in the ~2–5 kg range, including manufacturing.

Manufacturing processes: We included the impacts from yarn spinning, fabric knitting/weaving, dyeing, finishing, and cut-sew assembly. These processes require electricity and heat, often from fossil fuels. For example, fabric dyeing can be energy-intensive (hot water, steam) and contribute a few kilograms CO₂e per kg of textile. Sewing and assembly have a smaller carbon cost (mostly electricity for sewing machines and facility operations). We estimated these steps using data from Textile Exchange’s LCI datasets and typical factory energy usage. In our results, these process emissions are embedded in each product’s total.

(For instance, the “sewing: 11.3%” noted in shell jacket impacts illustrates that manufacturing energy, while not negligible, is a smaller share compared to materials.)

Packaging & transport: We account for the packaging materials (e.g. a polyethylene polybag, paper labels) and transport of finished products from factories to our distribution center in Denmark.These contributions are relatively minor (generally well under 5% of total CO₂e for most garments). For transport, we assume shipments by sea freight (for intercontinental transport from Asia) and truck within Europe, which have lower CO₂ per ton-km compared to air freight. For example, shipping a ~0.5 kg jacket from Asia to Europe typically adds only around ~0.2–0.5 kg CO₂e.

Nevertheless, we include an allowance for freight emissions in each product’s footprint. Our decision to produce closer to the source of raw materials (e.g. doing cotton knitting in Turkey, wool processing in Lithuania/China) helps minimize unnecessary transport.

Packaging for each product (a recycled plastic bag or cardboard sleeve) might contribute on the order of only ~0.1 kg CO₂e, so it’s included but has a negligible impact on the ranges shown.

Understanding the Values:

The min–max ranges given for each product reflect the uncertainty and variability in data and assumptions. The lower end of a range might represent an optimistic scenario – for instance,
using best-in-class practices or data (such as farms with lower methane
emissions, factories powered by renewables, etc.). The upper end might represent more conservative estimates from literature or less efficient processes. In all
cases, the major driver of a garment’s footprint is its raw material
production. This is why products rich in wool have higher numbers
(methane from sheep is a potent GHG), whereas those made from recycled synthetics or plant-based fibers tend to have lower footprints. By
presenting the values per product, we aim to be fully transparent about the
climate impact of each item. These LCA-based calculations follow the Score 3
model of reporting, meaning we are focusing on Scope 3 (supply
chain) emissions per product in a standardized way, so consumers can easily understand and compare the carbon impact of our products. All figures are expressed in “CO₂-equivalents”, which aggregate all greenhouse gases
(CO₂, methane, etc.) into a single comparable metric.

In summary, the table and methodology above show cradle-to-gate CO₂e emissions for each
Superino product, using the best available data (with emphasis on
Textile Exchange’s trusted datasets) and in compliance with GHG Protocol
standards for product LCA.

We want our customers to know the carbon footprint associated with each item – and by doing so, we underscore our commitment to reducing those footprints over time through better materials and processes.