ESG Insects and Marine Materials

Material

Environmental

Social

Governance

Chitin & Chitosan (Derived from Insect or Crustacean Shells)

Pros: Chitin is a byproduct of seafood waste (shrimp, crab shells), promoting circularity. It is biodegradable and can replace petroleum-based synthetics. Cons: Industrial extraction involves chemical processing (alkalis, acids), which can lead to pollution if not managed responsibly.

Concerns: Shellfish-derived chitosan can be problematic for allergies and may not be inclusive for all consumers. Positive Impact: Alternative insect-based chitin (e.g., from mealworms) offers a low-carbon farming option for textile applications.

Lack of Standards: No universal sustainability certification exists for chitin in fashion. Transparency on sourcing (wild vs. farmed, extraction methods) needs improvement.

Coral (Red, Black, Precious Coral)

Pros: A naturally biodegradable marine material used in jewelry and decorative fashion. When sustainably sourced, it offers durability, reduces fashion waste, and can promote coral conservation. Recycled and vintage coral further minimize environmental impact.

Cons: Coral harvesting is a major environmental threat, leading to reef destruction, biodiversity loss, and illegal wildlife trade. Alternatives: Lab-grown or recycled coral jewelry is being developed to reduce impact.

Concerns: Coral extraction affects coastal communities reliant on reefs for food and tourism.

CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) restricts trade in endangered corals. Weak Enforcement: Illegal coral trade persists due to high demand in jewelry and luxury markets.

Fish Leather (Salmon, Tilapia, Cod, etc.)

Pros: Upcycling fish skin from food waste minimizes waste. Fish leather processing has a lower impact than cow leather. 

Cons: Chemical tanning methods can be polluting if not regulated properly.

Ethical Sourcing: Ensuring fish are sustainably farmed or wild-caught responsibly is crucial. Fair Wages: Indigenous communities in Iceland and Alaska produce fish leather using traditional methods—ensuring they receive fair wages is essential.

Lack of Standardized Certifications: Unlike bovine leather, fish leather lacks a universal eco-label. Some brands use LWG (Leather Working Group) standards, but enforcement varies.

Mother-of-Pearl (Nacre)

Pros: Byproduct of pearl farming, making it a low-impact material.

Ethical concerns arise in large-scale marine harvesting.

CITES regulates endangered mollusk species, but enforcement varies.

Pearls (Natural, Cultured, Biogenic)

Pros: Pearls are naturally occurring and have low carbon footprints if farmed responsibly. Oyster farming can also improve marine biodiversity by filtering water. 

Cons: Large-scale pearl farming can cause habitat destruction, disrupt marine ecosystems, and contribute to ocean acidification.

Ethical Issues: Pearl diving was historically associated with forced labor and dangerous working conditions. Modern farms must ensure fair wages and safe environments.

Certifications Exist: Fair Trade Pearls & CIBJO (World Jewellery Confederation) set ethical guidelines. Lack of transparency in pearl origin and sustainability remains a concern.

Sea Turtle Shell

Pros:  A durable, biodegradable material historically used for accessories and decorative fashion. Vintage and recycled pieces reduce the need for new harvesting, helping to preserve marine ecosystems

Cons: Severe threat to endangered species; illegal harvesting depletes populations.

Ethical Issues: Black-market trade fuels unethical labor practices and criminal activity.

Governance; Banned under CITES, but illegal trade persists due to demand in luxury markets.

Seacell

Pros: A biodegradable fiber made from seaweed and lyocell, requiring minimal water and energy in production, but needs more oversight

It supports fair labor practices, providing economic benefits to coastal communities while offering potential skin benefits to consumers. 

Governance; Certified by OEKO-TEX and other standards, but sustainable seaweed harvesting and supply chain transparency remain governance challenges.

Still a niche market with limited regulation.

Seaweed & Algae Textiles (e.g., SeaCell, Algaetex)

Pros: Seaweed-based fibers require no pesticides, little water, and absorb CO₂, making them highly sustainable. Cons: Large-scale farming could disrupt marine habitats if not managed carefully.

Potential Health Benefits: Some seaweed fabrics claim to have skin-enhancing properties (e.g., vitamins, minerals).

Certification Gaps: No global seaweed textile standard exists. Brands self-regulate, making transparency difficult.

Shells (various)

Environmental: Biodegradable and naturally abundant, shells can be sustainably sourced as byproducts of the seafood industry, reducing waste. However, excessive harvesting, especially of rare species, can disrupt marine ecosystems.

Social: Supports artisanal and coastal communities through traditional crafts and jewelry-making. Ethical sourcing ensures fair labor practices, but unregulated collection may exploit vulnerable workers.

Governance: Certification and traceability are limited, making it difficult to verify sustainable harvesting. Stronger regulations are needed to prevent overexploitation and ensure ethical trade. Lack of global governance although some countries regulate shell collection to prevent depletion.

Silk (Bombyx mori & Wild Varieties)

Pros: Silk is biodegradable and has a long lifespan, making it more sustainable than synthetic alternatives. Cons: Mulberry tree farming for silk requires land, water, and pesticides. The boiling of silkworm cocoons also raises ethical concerns.

Labor Issues: Silk production in India, China, and Thailand can involve child labor and low wages. Ethical Silk Alternatives: "Ahimsa" (peace silk) allows silkworms to emerge naturally but is less commercially viable.

GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard) covers organic silk production. Sericulture regulations vary, and enforcement of labor laws is inconsistent.