From Vidarbha to Your Wardrobe

9 October, 2026 | Kolkata

If cotton is natural, what makes a cotton shirt sustainable?

World Cotton Day, observed every year on 7 October, recognises cotton’s role in livelihoods, trade and the global textile industry. The 2026 observance highlighted the theme “Cotton for Good: Building Prosperity Through Trade, Transformation and Partnership”, placing economic opportunity and sustainability within the same conversation. 

But the conversation should not end with celebrating cotton as a natural fibre. It should also ask how it is grown, how much water and how many chemicals are involved, whether farmers earn enough, and what happens when the fibre reaches textile factories.

These questions matter when consumers begin buying clothes for Durga Puja, Deepawali and other festive occasions. A label may describe a shirt as cotton, organic or sustainably sourced, but each term tells us something different. None of them automatically proves that the entire garment has a low environmental footprint.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) identifies cotton as an important source of income and employment for millions of smallholders and people across the textile value chain. Cotton also competes with fibres such as polyester, while manufacturers face pressure to control costs and meet buyers’ quality requirements. Sustainability therefore involves environmental protection, economic viability and the livelihoods of people who grow and process the crop. 

The Hidden Water Cost of Your Cotton Shirt

Cotton is often criticised for its high water requirements, but its impact varies depending on where and how it is grown. Rain-fed cotton, irrigated cotton and cotton cultivated under different soil and weather conditions cannot be treated as though they have the same water footprint.

A 2025 study of cotton production in central India examined water use, runoff and soil loss under rain-fed and drip-irrigated conditions between 2019 and 2022. The researchers reported that 51% of the average annual rainfall during the study period was lost through runoff. They estimated crop water use at 541 millimetres under rain-fed conditions and 624 millimetres under drip irrigation. The study also found that drip irrigation improved lint yield and reduced the calculated water footprint compared with the rain-fed system examined. These findings highlight why local conditions and the methods used to measure water consumption matter. However, they should not be treated as representative measurements for every cotton farm in Vidarbha.

For this investigation, the reporting must trace the cotton back to where it was grown and establish whether the farm relied on rainfall, groundwater, canal water or another source. Farm records, irrigation details, local rainfall data and water-stress assessments can help provide this context. If a brand claims that its cotton uses less water, it should clearly explain the method, assessment boundary and comparison behind that claim.

The investigation must also follow the material beyond the farm. Ginning separates cotton fibres from seeds, spinning turns the fibres into yarn, and weaving or knitting converts the yarn into fabric. Dyeing, washing and finishing can require additional water and chemicals. Therefore, lower water use during cultivation does not automatically mean that the finished shirt has a lower overall environmental footprint.

Organic cotton: does certification tell the whole story?

Organic certification can provide useful evidence about how cotton was grown under a defined standard. It helps buyers distinguish certified material from cotton for which an equivalent claim has not been demonstrated.

India has a voluntary Standard for Chain of Custody for Indian Organic Fibres and Products, introduced under the National Programme for Organic Production. The system sets requirements for certified fibre, processing, handling and documentation, including transaction certificates for consignments moving through different processing units. It is designed to help maintain the integrity of organic material as it moves through the supply chain. 

However, certification should not be treated as proof of every environmental benefit a brand might claim. A certificate does not automatically establish the water footprint of a finished shirt, the full chemical profile of its processing, its durability or the income received by the farmer.

A 2025 systematic review of 20 cotton life-cycle assessment studies highlights why the distinction matters. The review found that organic cotton farming could have lower environmental impacts per unit of cultivated area, but higher impacts per unit of cotton mass in some comparisons, partly because organic systems may produce lower yields. The result depends on the measurement unit, farming conditions and impact being assessed. The review also identifies processing and consumer care, including washing and drying, as important parts of the wider lifecycle. 

This does not mean organic cotton is inherently worse or that certification is unhelpful. It means that a single label cannot answer every question.

Certification specialists may argue that standards and audits provide a practical foundation for accountability. Brands may point to certification as a way to manage complex supply chains. But maintaining records and separate material flows can involve costs, particularly for smaller suppliers. The reporting should examine what certification proves, what it leaves unmeasured and whether its requirements are practical for farmers and businesses.

The key question is whether the claim on the garment is supported by the relevant records - and whether the brand explains the limits of that claim.

Pesticides and farmer income: who bears the cost of cotton?

Cotton farmers must manage pests, weeds, unpredictable weather and production costs. Their decisions are shaped by available advice, labour, seeds, inputs and reliable buyers. Reporting on pesticide use must recognise these pressures rather than treating farmers as the sole cause of environmental harm.

Pesticide use can create risks for farm workers, nearby communities, soil and water when products are applied or handled improperly. Yet pesticide runoff at a particular location must be established through appropriate sampling and testing, not inferred from the mere presence of cotton cultivation.

Research offers evidence that alternative approaches can be worth examining. A field study conducted during the 2022–2024 rainy seasons in Khandwa district, Madhya Pradesh, evaluated integrated pest management in Bt cotton. It reported a 46.55% reduction in pesticide sprays, a 25.38% increase in seed-cotton yield and net returns more than 56% higher than under the farmers’ usual practices. The findings support further investigation of integrated pest management, but they do not establish that the same outcomes have already been achieved across Vidarbha. 

For farmers, however, the question is not simply whether a method is environmentally preferable. It must also be practical and financially viable. An alternative may require new equipment, training, additional labour or different timing. Farmers need to know whether the expected benefits outweigh those costs and whether buyers will reward the effort.

This is why farmer net returns deserve particular attention. A higher selling price does not necessarily mean a higher profit. Seed, fertiliser, pesticide, irrigation, labour, transport, interest and other costs affect what remains after harvest.

The investigation should compare production costs with sale receipts and, where possible, payments under procurement arrangements. It should ask whether certified cotton earns a premium, whether that premium reaches the farmer after intermediary costs, and whether growers face additional expenses to meet sourcing requirements.

A brand may describe its sourcing as responsible, but the claim means little economically if the farmer cannot demonstrate a fair or reliable return. Equally, a sourcing programme should not be dismissed simply because it has documentation costs. The relevant question is whether the arrangement provides verifiable environmental and livelihood benefits, and who bears the cost of achieving them.

From Vidarbha to the export house

Cotton may pass through several businesses before it becomes a shirt. It can be sold to a ginner, processed into fibre, spun into yarn, woven or knitted into fabric, dyed and finished, cut and stitched into a garment, and then supplied to a retailer or export house. At each stage, material may be combined, processed or transferred to another operator.

This makes chain-of-custody evidence central to claims that a garment contains cotton from a particular farm, region or certified source.

India’s Kasturi Cotton Bharat programme is one example of an effort to strengthen traceability and certification. A Ministry of Textiles backgrounder reported that, as of 30 June 2026, 3,29,550 bales had been certified under the programme and 116 units had renewed registration. The initiative describes QR-based certification and blockchain technology as part of its traceability approach. These figures show activity within the programme; they do not prove that any particular retail shirt contains cotton from a named farm. Product-level claims require product-level evidence. 

For this story, the evidence trail should connect the farm or producer group to the ginner, spinner, fabric maker, processor, garment manufacturer and exporter. Purchase orders, invoices, batch identifiers, processing records, certification documents and transaction records can help establish whether the material remained traceable through these stages.

It is also important to distinguish physical traceability from systems that reconcile certified inputs and outputs through records. A company must explain which system it uses and what that system proves. A certificate may establish compliance with a particular standard, but it should not be presented as proof of every environmental or social benefit.

Different stakeholders may judge the same sourcing system differently. Exporters may prioritise consistent quality, timely delivery and competitive pricing. Weavers may focus on yarn quality, fabric performance and reliable supply. Farmers may be concerned with crop risks, production costs and the price received. Certification specialists may emphasise standards, documentation and auditability.

These priorities can overlap, but they can also conflict. Stronger traceability may improve accountability while increasing administrative costs. A sustainability premium may help farmers, but only if it is passed through transparently. A certified material may satisfy a buyer’s sourcing requirements without establishing that every stage of processing has a lower environmental impact.

The reporting should test these competing perspectives against documents and evidence rather than assuming that either a certificate or a criticism settles the question.

Blends, Durability and the Clothes We Keep

The fibre content of a shirt is another important part of its sustainability profile. A garment marketed as cotton may contain a blend of different fibres, making its exact composition important. Blended fabrics can offer practical benefits, including stretch, better shape retention and reduced creasing. However, their environmental impact depends on the materials used, how the garment is constructed, how long it lasts, how it must be cared for and what options are available when it reaches the end of its useful life.

Cotton is not automatically the best choice for every purpose, just as a synthetic blend is not automatically the worst. A meaningful comparison must consider what the garment is designed to do, how long it is likely to last, how frequently it will be worn and what happens when it is no longer usable.

Durability deserves greater attention during festive shopping. A shirt that is worn repeatedly and repaired when needed may offer better value than one that loses its shape, tears or is discarded after only a few uses. However, durability claims should also be examined rather than accepted at face value. Fabric specifications, seam strength, shrinkage, colourfastness, care instructions and repair options can all help indicate how well a garment is likely to last.

The same scrutiny should apply to claims about recycled content or easy recyclability. A fabric’s composition can determine how easily its fibres can be separated and recovered. Consumers should not assume that a blended garment can be recycled simply because one of its materials is recyclable on its own.

The wider life cycle matters too. A garment’s environmental footprint extends beyond cotton cultivation. Processing, manufacturing, transport, washing, drying, repair and disposal all contribute to its overall impact. A 2025 systematic review of cotton life-cycle assessments highlights the importance of examining these stages together rather than judging sustainability by the raw material alone.

What Should Shoppers Ask Before Buying Festive Clothes?

Consumers cannot inspect an entire supply chain while shopping, but they can ask more informed questions:

1. What is the exact fibre composition? Check whether the garment is made from pure cotton or a blend of different fibres.
2. Is the organic or sustainability claim certified? Look for a valid certificate and understand what it actually covers.
3. Can the brand explain its sourcing? Ask whether the cotton can be traced from the farm to the finished garment.
4. What is known about water and chemical management? Look for specific evidence rather than broad environmental promises.
5. Is the garment built to last? Consider the fabric quality, stitching, care instructions and availability of repair options.
6. Does the company explain the returns to farmers? Responsible-sourcing claims should not overlook the economic realities faced by growers.
7. What happens when the garment is no longer usable? Check whether repair, reuse or recycling options are realistically available.

Brands should explain the scope of their sustainability claims in clear, accessible language. Where supporting evidence is unavailable, that limitation should be acknowledged rather than concealed behind terms such as “green”, “natural” or “conscious”.

For businesses, stronger traceability can be more than a compliance exercise. Reliable records can help identify supply-chain risks, respond to buyer requirements and distinguish documented performance from marketing claims. However, the cost of certification and documentation also matters. A credible sourcing model should consider whether smaller farmers and suppliers can participate without facing a disproportionate financial or administrative burden.

Following World Cotton Day, the central lesson is clear: cotton may be natural, but its sustainability must be demonstrated. It depends on how the crop is grown, how farmers and workers are treated, how the material is processed, how long the garment lasts and whether its environmental claims can be verified.

The next time a shirt carries a sustainability label, the most useful question is not simply what the label says.

It is what evidence stands behind it.

Sources

1. FAO — Cotton: Markets and Trade. Background on cotton’s role in livelihoods, employment, trade and competition with other fibres. https://www.fao.org/markets-and-trade/commodities-overview/fibres/en
2. FAO — World Cotton Day, 7 October. Background on the annual observance and the 2026 theme, Cotton for Good: Building Prosperity Through Trade, Transformation and Partnership. https://www.fao.org/world-cotton-day/world-cotton-day-7-october/3/en
3. APEDA / National Programme for Organic Production — Chain of Custody for Indian Organic Fibres and Products. Requirements for certified organic fibre and supply-chain documentation. https://npop.apeda.gov.in/sites/default/files/announcements/Notifications_organic_textiles_1402202011032020.pdf
4. Vitale et al., Journal of Agriculture and Food Research (2025) — “Environmental sustainability of cotton: a systematic literature review of life cycle assessments.” Review of environmental impacts across cotton cultivation, processing and use. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2025.102069
5. Bhargavi, Blaise and Nalayini, Cleaner Water (2025) — “Water footprint, runoff and soil loss assessment of cotton production in central India.” Study of rain-fed and drip-irrigated cotton under the conditions examined. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950263225000572
6. Kumar et al., The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences — “Field validation of integrated pest management strategy in Bt cotton under farmers’ participatory mode in central India.” Study of integrated pest management in Khandwa, Madhya Pradesh, during the 2022–2024 rainy seasons. https://epubs.icar.org.in/index.php/IJAgS/article/view/168748
7. Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Textiles (2026) — Kasturi Cotton Bharat programme background. Programme information and certification figures reported as of 30 June 2026. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2286497