Apresentação Beauty Fair - Nilsen

2009

man

agem

ent

brie

fing

Meeting the environmentalchallenge in the apparel industry

Management briefingJuly/August 2009

Page i

© 2009 All content copyright Aroq Ltd. All rights reserved.

Meeting the environmental

challenge in the apparel industry

Management briefing

July-August 2009

By Ben Cooper

Published by

Aroq Limited

Seneca House

Buntsford Park Road

Bromsgrove

Worcestershire

B60 3DX

United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)1527 573 600

Fax: +44 (0)1527 577 423

Web: www.just-style.com

Registered in England no: 4307068

Page ii


Single-user licence edition

This report is provided for individual use only. If you would like to share this

report with your colleagues, please order additional copies or sign up for a

multi-user licence by contacting:

Chris Clarke

Research manager, just-style.com

Tel: +44 (0)1527 573 615

Email: [email protected]

Copyright statement

© 2009 All content copyright Aroq Limited. All rights reserved.

This publication, or any part of it, may not be copied, reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system, or be transmitted in any form by any means electronic,

mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written

permission of Aroq Limited. This report is the product of extensive research

work. It is protected by copyright under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act

1988. The authors of Aroq Limited’s research reports are drawn from a wide

range of professional and academic disciplines. The facts within this report are

believed to be correct at the time of publication but cannot be guaranteed. All

information within this study has been reasonably verified to the author’s and

publisher’s ability, but neither accept responsibility for loss arising from

decisions based on this report.

Incredible ROI for your budget – single and multi-user licences

We understand the pressure your research budget is under and price our

reports realistically. You won’t find our reports with four, or even five-figure

price tags, but you will find that they make some of the competition look

expensive. Each title is available to you on a single-user basis, supplied on the

strict understanding that each title is not to be copied or shared. Alternatively,

titles can be shared within departments or entire corporations via a cost-

effective multi-user licence. Multi-user licences can also save you money by

avoiding unnecessary order duplication. To further add value, all multi-user

mailto:[email protected]

Page iii


copies are hosted on a password protected extranet for your department or

company – saving you time, resources and effort when sharing research with

your colleagues. To find out more about multi-user pricing please contact Chris

Clarke.

just-style.com membership

From just GBP99/US$169/EUR120* a year you will gain access to a growing

portfolio of exclusive management briefing reports, and also receive all new

briefings for each year you are a member. As well as this impressive list of

members’ only reports, you also gain one year’s access to a constantly-

updated stream of news, feature articles and analysis. Established in 1999,

just-style has rapidly evolved into the premier source of global apparel industry

news, analysis and data for busy senior executives. For details of the current

special joining offer visit: www.just-style.com/offer.aspx

*Prices correct at time of publication.

http://www.just-style.com/offer.aspx

Page iv Table of contents


Table of contents

Single-user licence edition .......................................................................................................... ii

Copyright statement ............................................................................................................... ii Incredible ROI for your budget – single and multi-user licences ............................................. ii just-style.com membership .................................................................................................... iii

Table of contents ........................................................................................................................ iv

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1

Frames of reference in the environmental debate ..................................................................... 2

Categorising the issues .......................................................................................................... 2 Environmental regulation ....................................................................................................... 3 Benchmarking and consistency .............................................................................................. 5

Environmental hotspots .............................................................................................................. 8

Chemical usage ..................................................................................................................... 8

Water ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Waste and recycling ............................................................................................................. 11 Supply chain complexity ....................................................................................................... 12

Changing consumer attitudes and green marketing ............................................................... 15

Growing demand ................................................................................................................. 15 Consumer commitment and pricing ...................................................................................... 16 Green ranges and eco labelling ........................................................................................... 18

Industry action ........................................................................................................................... 22

Corporate platforms ............................................................................................................. 22 Collective action, information sharing and competitive issues .............................................. 23

Engagement with NGOs and multi-stakeholder options ........................................................ 25

Page 1 Introduction


Introduction

The progress the clothing sector has made over the past ten years in

improving labour conditions in its supply chain has shown what can be

achieved by companies acting both individually and collectively to address an

area of acute public concern.

To a degree, the intense media focus given to social issues in the supply chain

has resulted in less public attention being given to the environmental impacts

of the clothing and textiles industry, and by the same token to the efficacy of

the industry’s efforts to meet those environmental challenges.

While the two areas have some issues in common, such as the problems

created by complicated supply chains and the need for multi-stakeholder

engagement, the environment, if anything, poses a raft of even tougher and

more complex ethical challenges for the clothing and textiles sector to meet.

This briefing provides an overview of what those challenges are and how the

industry is attempting to meet them, with perspectives from corporate

responsibility executives, industry advocates and campaigners.

Page 2 Frames of reference in the environmental debate


Frames of reference in the

environmental debate

The clothing industry has already demonstrated a willingness to engage in

improving labour standards in the supply chain, but the scope of that

considerable task arguably pales in comparison with the challenges presented

by the raft of distinct though often inter-related issues related to the

environment.

There are a number of ways of categorising or subdividing the areas in

question, a fact which in itself underlines both the complexity of the field and

the manner in which many of these issues inter-relate.

Categorising the issues

The European clothing and textiles trade association, Euratex, has been fully

engaged in the environmental policy debate for a number of years. With regard

to the environment, Euratex has four prime areas of activity: the definition and

support of any action to improve sustainability in the supply of safe textiles in

Europe; the definition of an integrated environmental strategy in the context of

EU institutions and other decision makers; the dissemination of information on

EU environmental policy to its members; and the coordination of actions to

safeguard industry interests.

As an industry advocacy organisation, environmental policy issues and the

organisation’s relationship with EU environmental policymakers are an

important part of Euratex’s mission. And how the association categorises the

environmental challenge is therefore instructive.

In 2001, it launched its 2001-2010 health and environmental strategy. The

Euratex approach is informed by the main four areas earmarked for priority

action over more or less the same timeframe by the EU. These areas are

climate change; environment and health; protecting nature and biodiversity;

and resource and waste management.



Meanwhile, six working groups within Euratex correspond directly to EU

environmental policy areas. The working groups therefore cover chemicals;

integrated product policy (IPP); integrated pollution prevention and control

(IPPC); waste and recycling; ecolabelling; and trade and environment.

The environmental issues facing the clothing and textiles sector were also

categorised by Jef Wintermans, director of Netherlands trade association

Modint, when addressing the Global Responsibility Committee of the

International Apparel Federation (IAF) in Cologne in April.

The seven areas highlighted by Wintermans serve as a further useful frame of

reference for assessing the industry’s response and future action on both a

company and collective basis. The criteria are as follows: the use of more

sustainable raw materials; chemical usage; fossil fuel usage; volatile organic

compound (VOC) emissions; adsorbable organohalogen (AOX) emissions;

water usage in textile processing; and water wastage in general.

Environmental regulation

The Euratex environmental mission in particular underlines the importance for

industry of engaging with regulators, policymakers and legislators. It is easy to

view environmental consciousness on the part of companies primarily as a

component of a responsible business platform, a necessary element in today’s

business environment but still, to a significant degree, elective. However, the

environmental field covers a whole area of regulatory compliance for

companies, arguably every bit as exacting as that relating to financial

governance.

According to Adil Elmassi, who leads the environmental work at Euratex, this

creates competition issues between manufacturers in Europe, where

legislation is the toughest, and other parts of the world. “In the EU there is a

green production process, something that you do not find in China or in India

or in other places, because there is a battery of legislation that needs to be

respected. There is a minimum standard, stemming from all the legislation you

have, and Europe is much higher than anywhere in the world. Not even in the

US do they have such a high level of environmental and consumer safety

policy. Our main action is to negotiate policies in a way that we maintain

sustainable development.”



Dr David Santillo, senior scientist at the Greenpeace Research Laboratories,

believes one of the reasons why the clothing and textiles industry has to pay

closer attention to the environmental agenda is because so much of the

primary production occurs in industrialising countries where there is “a much

lower regard for environmental protection and waste management”.

However, Malcolm Ball, chairman of the Association of Suppliers to the British

Clothing Industry (ASBCI), believes the disparity between developing and

developed countries is fast disappearing: “We know there have been abuses in

the past and there probably still are, but the major manufacturers and

organisations that are supplying the European and US markets are serious

people, and the investment in good practice, looking after the environment,

has become a prime part of their planning.”

Ball adds: “What you see now in investment in China and India and other parts

of the world is that the impact on their environment from poor industrial

practices has been horrendous, and so there is a great initiative, a move to

correct these areas on their own behalf. It‟s not just a matter of keeping

western consumers happy. There‟s a dire need to protect their own resources,

their own population from bad practices.”

Steve Lamar, executive vice president at the American Apparel and Footwear

Association (AAFA), agrees. “I think a traditional view might tell you that that‟s

the problem but that‟s certainly not where the industry is,” Lamar says, adding

that the supplier base in developing countries is now being informed by new

regulations, new consumer demand and new retailer demands, as well as a

greater general sensibility towards sustainability and the environment.

Jef Wintermans also warns against black-and-white distinctions between

developed and developing countries: “It is way too simple to say that because

the legislation is in order, everything produced in Europe is environmentally

sound and everything that is imported is not.”

The influence of regulation is clearly key to the environmental debate, so

companies’ environmental strategies have to cover compliance with existing

regulatory standards and negotiation with regulators regarding future

regulation, as well as going ‘beyond compliance’ as part of any ethical

business agenda. Indeed, these areas are themselves interconnected. The

more proactive industry is in terms of improving itself, and raising its own



standards, the more influence its advocates are likely to have with legislators

and regulators when it comes to framing legislation.

Certainly the Outdoor Industry Association (OIA) in the US has found that its

strong stance on environmental issues has helped to forge a good relationship

with legislators. “Because our industry is viewed as a leader in this area we‟ll

get Congressional staff and members of Congress reaching out to our industry

as they craft legislation, to say we want to craft legislation that protects

consumers, but in a way that makes sense for industry,” says OIA director of

government affairs Amy Roberts. “And that‟s kind of the ideal situation, that we

see that we have input into the legislative process.”

And in the environmental field, this does not have to mean lobbying for a more

permissive regulatory approach. Roberts says that while companies in the

outdoor industry are effectively taking a lead through innovation and in spite of

an instinct to “see the marketplace work”, if there are companies are getting

away with lower standards then regulation is desirable.

Currently before Congress is the Optimal Use of Trade to Develop Outerwear

and Outdoor Recreation (OUTDOOR) Act, which would reduce tariffs on

imported recreational performance outerwear such as ski jackets. Roberts

says the OIA is supporting the creation, within the same legislation, of the

Sustainable Textile and Apparel Research (STAR) Fund, under which

companies benefiting from the reduced tariffs would contribute to funding

research into sustainable manufacturing processes. “We‟re willing to keep a

small tax on ourselves to fund, as a collective, precompetitive sustainable

research,” Roberts says.

Meanwhile, Levi Strauss, Nike and Timberland are members of Business for

Innovative Climate and Energy Policy (BICEP), a coalition in the US which is

lobbying for stronger climate and energy legislation.

Benchmarking and consistency

One important distinction between work on social improvements and

environmental issues, according to Jef Wintermans, is a lack of clear

established international standards. He believes International Labour

Organization (ILO) standards have greatly helped companies in their bid to



raise working conditions in their supply chains, and says the lack of an

equivalent in the environmental field is a drawback.

“What I notice is lacking in the environmental sphere is a commonly agreed

worldwide set of standards defining which behaviour we all should try for, not

from the perspective to block people off the market if they don‟t comply yet,” he

says, “but to help them focus their energy and enter into a process aimed at

improving.”

Wintermans believes industry organisations have a role to play in this regard.

“That‟s exactly what I am trying to do within the IAF now, and I‟m making some

progress I feel. If IAF could engage in a process to work towards defining the

criteria or the goals more or less equivalent to the ILO social standards then

the worldwide industry would have a point of orientation and could really start

making progress.”

To this end, Wintermans has been forging links with the International Union for

Conservation of Nature (IUCN). He says one advantage of the IUCN is that it

already has multi-stakeholder credibility, drawing its membership from

government agencies, NGOs large and small, economic development

agencies, scientists and academics, the private sector and representatives of

civil society.

Other industry associations have a role to play in this area. The OIA, for

instance, sees some form of environmental indexing as a key element in its

sustainability work. Amy Roberts reports that its eco committee is working

towards establishing an eco index, modelled on OIA member Timberland’s

Green Index, measuring criteria such as water usage and the use of

environmentally friendly materials, which all its members, large and small,

could use as a resource.

The index would have three elements: environmental guidelines, which are

qualitative principles and practices to be used as an educational tool,

promoting continuous improvement for companies and suppliers;

environmental performance metrics, units of measure of environmental impact,

including an industry-wide common methodology of calculating the metric; and

a comparative scoring system which would be used to inform product design.

The OIA plans to set aside a period to collect additional stakeholder input once

these principles are in place.



The AAFA takes a similar view towards benchmarking. Steve Lamar says

sustainability “means a lot of things to a lot of different people” and companies

“are at all different sorts of places” in trying to implement sustainable business

practices, whether in terms of restricted substances, water, packaging, carbon

footprint or other criteria. “So some of what we‟ve been doing has been really

trying to establish benchmarks to help them see what some of their peers are

doing, to help them break the problem down into smaller chunks, so they can

decide what they want to implement, or how they want to implement, or what

they are going to put as a priority.”

Page 8 Environmental hotspots


Environmental hotspots

While there may be a raft of environmental areas that all need to be addressed

by any industrial sector, it is clear that some are more pertinent to, or

problematic for, some industries than others, and so it is for clothing and

textiles. Moreover, the sheer breadth of scope in the environmental area

makes some degree of industry-specific prioritisation in itself desirable.

There is naturally some divergence of view among experts as to precisely

which are the most pressing areas of concern for the textiles and clothing

sectors, but in researching this briefing, there were three issues that were

consistently identified as key priority areas, and they are water, chemical

usage and waste/recycling.

Chemical usage

While the clothing and textiles sector does not attract the level of attention in

terms of environmental impacts as say the oil, automotive or nuclear industries

there is no doubt that on the issue of chemical usage the industry does have

significant exposure.

Dr David Santillo of Greenpeace points out that while consumers may view

garments made from natural fibres as more environmentally friendly than those

made from synthetics, both types are often treated with a whole range of

chemicals.

“And the problem is that often those chemicals are quite water soluble, so it‟s

done within a water matrix, often with quite little recovery of the contaminated

waste water, so they can be quite polluting,” says Santillo. “It‟s not always very

complicated substances, it can be a lot of salt for example, or it can be a lot of

degradable organic material which is going into rivers and streams, but those

can be equally devastating in terms of aquatic life.”

In 2005, Greenpeace Research Laboratories produced a report, entitled An

Overview of Textiles Processing and Related Environmental Concerns,

highlighting these issues, and Santillo, who was one of the report’s authors,

says there has been some improvement since then. “There has been some



progress,” he says, citing work by the Department of Environment, Food and

Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in the UK specifically addressing chemical usage in

textiles manufacturing. “I think what else has happened since 2005 is that a

number of retail outlets have taken their responsibilities more seriously on both

ethical and environmental grounds.”

Ingrid Schullström, CSR manager at H&M, a company which has put

environmental issues at the forefront of its corporate responsibility agenda,

says chemical usage was the first environmental area that the company

focused on. Schullström says chemical use is a priority area not only for

environmental reasons but also “a clear responsibility for a company” from a

health and safety perspective.

Santillo also believes there are safety issues to be addressed in chemical

usage. In addition to the environmental damage caused by the discharge of

chemically contaminated waste water into local water sources, he points to the

problem of workers in industrialising countries handling chemicals and

dyestuffs without sufficient protective clothing.

The list of environmental improvement options put to the IAF Global

Responsibility Committee by Jef Wintermans of Dutch trade association

Modint contained several recommendations relating to chemical usage. In

addition to paying careful attention to the storage and handling of chemicals,

companies should avoid unnecessary use of chemicals such as detergents

and surfactants, complexing agents and lubricating oils and should strive to

recycle chemicals wherever possible.

Water

Water usage is another prime area of environmental concern for the clothing

and textiles industry, not least because it is an issue in three different stages of

a garment’s life: the growing of natural fibres, particularly cotton; the

processing of textiles; and during garment care by consumers.

Steve Lamar, who heads up environmental affairs for the American Apparel

and Footwear Association (AAFA), believes the significance of water usage

during these three phases makes it a “huge” issue for the industry, and one

where a lot of companies are striving to improve practices. “Really if you back

at the supply chain, you‟re talking about cotton products for example, you see



water usage in growing cotton, then you see water usage in the production of

the textiles, and then you also see water usage in the care of the garment

itself,” he says.

Water usage in clothing production has become a key issue for clothing

companies. Nike, for example, monitors water usage at its supplier factories

using a traffic light system. According to John Frazier, head of Nike’s restricted

substances list and green chemistry programme, it takes 2,650 litres of water

to make one T-shirt and around 10,000 litres for a pair of jeans, while the

clothing industry uses around 40bn gallons of water per year in the production

process.

The question of water usage also brings two desirable environmental goals

into potential conflict, as Santillo explains. “People have generally assumed in

the past that if they are buying natural fibres that they‟re avoiding some of the

environmental problems that might be associated with synthetic fibres,” he

says. “What people have really got to realise is that what they are actually

getting is a different set of environmental, and in fact social, problems

associated with producing natural fibres.”

The growing of cotton, Santillo points out, can be “very fertilizer-intensive, very

water-intensive and very pesticide-intensive”, while wool production can raise

environmental issues related to animal husbandry and associated agriculture.

The reduction of unnecessary water and energy usage by consumers during

the life of clothing has become an important consideration for clothing

producers. Like Lamar, Ingrid Schullström believes that the fact that water

usage is an issue both in production and during the life of a garment makes it

“particularly relevant” to clothing companies.

However, the degree to which clothing companies have responsibility for the

water consumers use to wash clothes is a difficult question. “I‟m not sure I

would use the word „responsibility‟ because the consumer obviously has a

responsibility,” says Schullström. “But there is perhaps something companies

can do in terms of consumer education.

“We actually already do it on our website. A lot of people in Sweden wear

things once and then they wash it. Also normally the temperature mentioned

on the garment is the highest that you can wash it without harming the



garment but usually if it‟s not that dirty you don‟t need that temperature. And

just washing at a lower temperature saves a lot of energy and water usually.

So it‟s a question of educating customers about garment care, you don‟t need

to wash so often and at such high temperatures.”

So far, for H&M, the emphasis has been more on consumer education than

product development, and product development in this area, Schullström

points out, has to be carefully considered, as once again two desirable

outcomes could be in opposition.

“Synthetic fibre, for example, dries very quickly [and] doesn‟t need tumble

drying, so that is good but then we have to look what materials it is made of. Is

it is synthetic fibre made from oil? So would we promote a synthetic? So I think

one would have to think very carefully about what issue is it that you want to

give priority to over another.” By the same token, she adds, a product that is

‘non-iron’ may have been treated with a chemical finishing agent.

Waste and recycling

The Association of Suppliers to the British Clothing Industry (ASBCI) has held

a series of environmental conferences in recent years, and chairman Malcolm

Ball says the issue that has constantly come up is waste. “And that is waste

across everything,” he says, “waste in agriculture, where we‟re using an awful

lot of water and energy to create fibres, we‟re wasting energy and resources in

processing. Processing is inefficient or equipment is not being used properly.”

Part of the problem has stemmed from the evolution of the market in recent

years, Ball says, and specifically the growth in fast fashion. “Fast fashion is

extremely wasteful because by its very nature it creates waste because of the

amount of material coming through. It‟s forcing organisations to really look at

their planning but until they get on top of that, there‟s bound to be a waste of

resources in moving material around and ineffective deliveries and things like

this, where containers are not completely full, so you‟re actually shipping fresh

air.”

Fast fashion and the mass availability of cheap clothing, which encourages a

high turnover of clothing among consumers, also puts an onus on recycling but

so far the industry’s record on recycling of garments is poor. Ball believes this

is a key issue for the industry to address. “An awful lot of clothing goes to



landfill either from people who are discarding it when it‟s not really worn out or

just out of fashion, and from shops that just cannot move the material. If we‟re

not going to recycle it, it‟s just lost resource.”

According to UK retailer Marks & Spencer (M&S), as much as 80% of clothing

in the UK is simply discarded as waste away after use. Indeed, M&S has

included a recycling initiative, in collaboration with Oxfam, within its Plan A

environmental strategy, which Mike Barry, the retailer’s head of corporate

responsibility, describes as one of the company’s most exciting projects.

Under the scheme, M&S customers can take their secondhand clothing to

Oxfam stores and receive a GBP5 price-off M&S voucher on a GBP35

purchase. In the 12 months since the scheme’s launch, around 800,000 M&S

customers have donated clothes to Oxfam, which amounts to over 3m items.

As a result, Oxfam has raised GBP1.8m. Barry also points out that around

55% of customers participating in the scheme are bringing the vouchers back

to M&S which is much better than the traditional rate of redemption for

marketing vouchers.

Wintermans makes the point that much could be achieved in waste reduction

through more sophisticated garment size coding. “Size coding research and

harmony would do enormous good for the environment,” he says. “Taking

average dimensions you could steer production much more intelligently and

prevent the production of garments that are never worn and that would be

more interesting to do rather than to say that fast fashion is not OK.”

Supply chain complexity

Another general factor that exacerbates many of the environmental challenges

facing the industry is the complexity of the clothing and textiles supply chain.

For David Santillo, this sets the industry apart from many others that he

monitors for environmental impacts. And while it makes it difficult to assess

true accountability, by the same token it hampers the industry’s own attempts

to improve its environmental performance.

“The textiles industry is quite different from, for example, the oil industry or the

nuclear industry or the coal industry, in that what you‟ve got as being the very

visible part of textiles is the retail side,” Santillo says. “The retail side is

disconnected in many ways from the production side. When you‟re dealing



with the nuclear industry you know who is handling the fuel and producing the

waste, the same with the coal industry and oil industry. They are all big-name

companies that are directly responsible for the management of those activities

and for any waste and pollution that results.

“The tricky thing with the textiles industry is knowing precisely who is making

what and where, and often it can be a large, very complicated network of

smaller companies which are much more difficult to track down, and I think

that‟s why it‟s routinely been done by targeting the retailers at the far end.”

The recent exposé by Greenpeace of certain footwear companies sourcing

leather from farms linked to illegal deforestation underlines the problems that

convoluted supply chains can create. Amy Roberts of the US Outdoor Industry

Association (OIA) says the Greenpeace report showed “the complexity of the

system and the difficulty of making sure you‟re able to stay on top of each step

of the supply chain”.

Sarah Shoraka of Greenpeace UK says its findings showed that companies

were “not paying sufficient attention” to their supply chains, but acknowledged

that the complex nature of the supply chains in question did make the task of

tracing the raw materials concerned difficult.

David Santillo says the complexity of supply chains means making an accurate

read of the industry’s environmental performance is not easy. However, he

says that notwithstanding the progress on chemical usage, the textile industry

globally “is a major source of environmental pollution, a major source of air

pollution, of water pollution”, while “production of solid waste is also a major

issue”.

Santillo continues: “There needs to be some kind of global coming together of

information, sharing of information, to get an idea of just what the scale of that

problem is, and to look at ways in which supply chains can be simplified, in

order that, firstly, they can be more sustainable and, secondly, the retailers can

keep a much more careful audit of their own supply chains, because the way

it‟s set up, the way things have developed historically, just makes that

incredibly difficult for anybody to do.”

Precisely that type of collective action is discussed later in this briefing. But it

should also be borne in mind that the strides the industry has made, both on a



collective and individual company basis, in terms of rendering complex supply

chains less problematic in terms of the ethical treatment of workers has shown

what can be achieved.

Page 15 Changing consumer attitudes and green marketing


Changing consumer attitudes and

green marketing

As with concerns over labour standards in the supply chain, changing

consumer opinions and priorities on green issues is proving to be a significant

influence on corporate behaviour, both at an individual company level and

collectively.

In addition to building environmental awareness into their corporate

responsibility platforms, pioneering companies, such as Nike and M&S, are

making much more explicit reference to green issues in their direct consumer

marketing, through labelling, consumer education and the marketing of green

ranges, such as organic cotton garments.

Not only is this a response to changing consumer demands but it is also

catalysing further development of the green market. The marketing of organic

cotton garments within core ranges by retailers such as Top Shop and H&M

serves to underline how eco consumerism is spreading into the mainstream.

Growing demand

As Paula Andrea Trujillo, internationalisation director at Colombian clothing

and textiles trade association Inexmoda, puts it: “Some years ago, ideas such

as „green‟, „organic‟ and „eco‟ seemed distant and expensive. Today‟s

consumer is changing and commercial brands understand these new

demands.”

Like in other areas of ethical consumerism, the strength of the trend varies

significantly from market to market. “It is really something that is not clear cut.

It all depends on geographic area for example,” says Adil Elmassi of Euratex,

citing Sweden, Denmark and Germany as having “more of an environmental

culture in their way of thinking, in their way of doing things”.

Overall, however, Elmassi adds that “there is an increased awareness when it

comes to environment and health issues” which, he says, was prompted to a

degree by health and food scares, such as BSE, which have made people



“really aware of and more focused on certain aspects related to environment

and health”.

Mike Barry, head of corporate responsibility at M&S, cites consumer opinion as

one of the four key drivers behind the retailer’s sustainability agenda. “80% of

M&S customers, about 21m people in our shops every week, say in some

shape or form they want us to take a lead on environmental and social issues

on their behalf.” Barry adds that there has been a 1% rise in customer

expectations on sustainability in the last 12 months, suggesting that economic

concerns have not seriously disrupted the green trend.

Beth Holzman, manager of CSR strategy and reporting at Timberland, says

Timberland has certainly been affected by the downturn but believes the

differentiation its sustainability commitments provide is, if anything, a buffer to

the depressed market conditions. “I really think that Timberland has been

working on these things for a long time and while resources are certainly being

scrutinised and tightened in some areas I think that we really believe that our

CSR objectives and the improved products on both the social and the

environmental side are going to help distinguish us as we move forward.”

Referring to strong sales of its Earthkeepers eco friendly range, Holzman

adds: “We are seeing consumers starting to reward us for putting these

products into the marketplace and doing so at a price point that isn‟t much

higher.”

H&M’s Ingrid Schullström says the interest shown in the Swedish retailer’s

organic cotton range underlines a clear consumer trend. “If you look at our

organic cotton collections that we started a couple of years ago, the demand

has been really good. The customers really welcome those collections and that

response, we feel, is a sign of the consumer being aware and wanting to make

a sustainable choice in their shopping.”

Consumer commitment and pricing

However, there is often a discrepancy between what consumers say they want

and how they behave when they are actually shopping, so the issue of price

remains central in the environmental debate.



Malcolm Ball of ASBCI says while there is far greater concern among

consumers about the production of the goods they buy, price may well be the

determining factor. “Judging from a lot of material that we‟ve seen, if there are

two goods sitting on the shelf in one store, one says it‟s green and one doesn‟t

have any labelling at all, and the one that isn‟t green is cheaper that will sell,”

he says. While Ball does not expect the downturn to derail the strong trend

towards environmentally friendly goods, he believes financial hardship can be

expected to exacerbate that price sensitivity in the short term.

Steve Lamar of AAFA shares Ball’s reservations about consumer willingness

to pay a premium for environmentally friendly clothing. “Consumers will always

say they want something that‟s more green,” Lamar says, “but are they willing

to pay for something if it costs more?” With this in mind, he believes regulators

have an important role to play in improving consistency in terminology so

consumers can have absolute confidence in the environmental claims that are

being made.

Lamar adds that persuading consumers to act when purchasing in the way

they say they want to act in opinion polls is “at the heart of everything my

members do”. Ultimately, however, he adds if companies strive towards a

“greener doesn‟t have to be more expensive” concept then the issue “goes

away”. Euratex’s Adil Elmassi says consumer behaviour needs to “be targeted

by companies to translate the way they are thinking into buying goods”.

The evidence from the Fairtrade movement supports the contention that

burgeoning ethical consumerism is given a significant boost when price parity

between mainstream and ethical choices is achieved. Holzman says pricing

parity is what Timberland is striving for. “Our goal is to design products that

don‟t necessarily have to cost more money to consumers as well as to

ourselves in our business process.”

Ingrid Schullström believes there has also been a problem with the design of

environmentally friendly ranges in the past, and suggests that in order to

appeal to mainstream consumers retailers should strive to normalise the eco

friendly idea.

“I think sometimes, for some reason designers have thought that this is organic

cotton so we have to make a garment that is really comfortable and practical,

somehow connected to some sort of healthy living,” she says. “Let‟s just make



the latest fashion; the only thing we change is that the cotton we use is

organic, that‟s all – same colours, same style – so that our fashion-conscious

customer can go in and buy their fashion garment that they‟re really looking

for, and as an added benefit that garment is made out of organic cotton.” She

believes this approach has been an important factor behind the success of

H&M’s organic cotton range, because people are not “making a sacrifice

buying it”.

Green ranges and eco labelling

Growing consumer awareness places greater onus on labelling and

merchandising of greener products, and as the eco trend has gathered pace, a

number of companies have developed green ranges. By giving consumers

more environmental information on products, companies are not only

appealing to already environmentally aware consumers but also fostering the

burgeoning interest that many other consumers are beginning to show.

For example, Nike’s Considered Design range is a line of environmentally

friendly products covering all six of its major categories: basketball, running,

soccer, women’s training, men’s training and sportswear. Nike CEO Mark

Parker has said of this range: “We are designing for the sustainable economy

of tomorrow, and for us that means using fewer resources, more sustainable

materials and renewable energy to produce new products.”

Timberland’s Earthkeepers range is marketed as a line of premium Timberland

footwear and apparel that reflects “our commitment to „Make it Better‟”.

Launched in 2008, the Earthkeepers label has to meet design criteria in

relation to recycled, organic and renewable material content, solvent-free

adhesives and reduced climate impact. For example, the Earthkeepers

Mountain Sneaker includes a ‘Smartwool’ fabric lining made from sustainable,

biodegradable merino wool, organically tanned, premium full-grain leather and

fast-growing hemp. The ‘EcoStep’ outsole is made from 30% recycled rubber.

Timberland is among a number of companies making strides in eco labelling

generally. Indeed, Beth Holzman considers the work the company has done on

eco labelling to be one of its foremost achievements in the environmental

sphere over the past 18 months.



The Timberland eco label system, called the Green Index, was introduced in

2007. So far only applied to footwear, it has three components, based on life

cycle analysis: a climate impact score; a chemical use score; and a rating

related to the use of renewable resources. “The goal there is that we‟re

communicating with consumers to empower them to really be able to make

responsible purchasing decisions,” Holzman says.

While to a degree the Green Index gives Timberland something of a USP,

Holzman would like to see green labelling becoming far more widespread in

the marketplace. “One of the challenges we face is that in order to really have

comparable shopping take place for our consumers, all companies should be

using these types of labels.”

The principal challenge as eco labelling initiatives proliferate, however, is

analogous with the observations about benchmarking made in the first section

of this briefing: that there needs to be more standardisation and uniformity of

green claims so that consumers can make accurate comparisons.

“There has to be a common approach,” says Malcolm Ball. “We have seen in

the past that we‟ve had care labelling that has been different in the US, Japan

and Europe. A garment from anywhere can end up in any country, and

labelling tends to be applied at the source when the garment is fabricated, so

to have common system of labelling, a common language and a common

understanding of what these labels mean is essential.”

To this end, Timberland has been working collaboratively with its peers in the

outdoor industry in a bid to broaden the scope of the Green Index. “One of the

things that I think we can really be proud of and it‟s still a work in progress is

our work with the Outdoor Industry Association and their eco labelling working

group which we helped to co-found,” said Beth Holzman. “The goal there was

really to create a standardised label for products in the outdoor industry that is

based on the same standards and methodology, so that there can be a

consistent label applied to our products as well as others. So we‟re now in the

process of working with the group, which is over 60 brands, to actually create a

comparable and multi-stakeholder-informed label that all brands could adopt in

the future. Our goal is to really take what we have started with the Green Index

and really use that as a tool for empowering consumers.”



Amy Roberts says that at the moment the work in the OIA on eco indexing is

more industry-facing than consumer-facing, but the idea of developing this

work into the creation of an eco label to be used by all OIA members is a

possibility. Its aim now is to give companies “information and an index to work

off of; how they present their progress to the consumer is still up to each

company to decide. The outdoor industry is not necessarily going to have a

label or a certification process.”

She continues: “After we‟re able to complete an industry-facing index, I think

there will be discussion about do we keep it industry-facing or do they want to

make a consumer-facing label, and that would require a separate certification

body and that type of thing. That‟s something I think will be discussed within

the next year or so as we get this first piece of the work done.”

In Europe, there is, of course, the official EU ‘Ecolabel’ programme which was

established in 1992. Products and services meeting the necessary criteria can

carry the Ecolabel flower logo.

The scheme covers a wide range of product groups, including cleaning

products, appliances, paper products and clothing and textiles. In fact, Adil

Elmassi points out that the clothing and textiles sector is the largest user of the

scheme. However, even so Elmassi adds that “the vast majority of our

members tend to use more private or national schemes. There are many

labels in our sector that are competitors. The vast majority are using more

national or private labels than European Ecolabel.”

While some are more forthright about the difficulties created by this

fragmented picture and the lack of consistency and uniformity in eco labelling,

Elmassi believes companies are justified in choosing the scheme which is

appropriate for them. He says the most important fact is that some form of eco

labelling is used and that it is consumer-friendly. “The main message we

deliver is that there is need to use these labels but the decision is made by the

company. We do not dictate conduct and we don‟t say you should use this

label rather than the other. They know which one they want to link their image

to, which one costs less, which one suits their marketing best. So there are lots

of considerations.”



Malcolm Ball says the fragmented nature of the landscape to a degree comes

down to the fact that many companies are still at a fairly early stage in this

regard, “and people are still working out what works and what doesn‟t”.

However, he adds that the sooner something more uniform can be developed

in terms of messaging to consumers, the better. “We want to work together

with the other key trade associations to get our message right,” Ball says, to

eliminate the confusion created by “this cacophony of different messages”.

Page 22 Industry action


Industry action

Environmental concern has become increasingly important for clothing and

textiles producers and retailers. However, just as we have seen in regard to

social issues, some companies have moved faster than others.

Given the changing views of consumers, what the leading companies in this

field have in common is the recognition that a strong green agenda can be an

important differentiator in the marketplace.

Corporate platforms

Companies such as Nike and Timberland in the US, C&A in the Netherlands,

M&S in the UK, and H&M in Sweden have all been acknowledged for the

environmental platforms they have established. Meanwhile, specialist clothing

manufacturers such as Patagonia, which have made environmental-

consciousness their prime selling point, have also played an important role in

greening the clothing sector.

In addition to the clear consumer demand, Barry identifies three other key

drivers behind M&S’s ‘Plan A’ sustainability platform: business efficiency,

employee motivation and the need to innovate and cater for new markets. All

these elements serve to underline the clear business case which now exists

for having a strong environmental agenda.

Malcolm Ball of ASBCI believes what we are seeing in the environmental area

is a convergence of two beneficial factors. A strong environmental programme

is good from a marketing point of view and “there is a gain to be made against

the bottom line”.

Beth Holzman of Timberland supports the business efficiency argument. “You

look at the energy that we‟re saving in our buildings that will help us get to our

carbon neutral goals but, at the same time that is really helping us reduce our

total costs as a business.”



Collective action, information sharing and competitive issues

There seems little doubt that major companies can turn environmental

challenges into commercial opportunity. However, notwithstanding progress

across the board and particularly the attention start-ups often give to

sustainability, going ‘beyond compliance’ is more difficult for SMEs, which

have nowhere near the resources of the large companies to fund product and

technological development, and may not stand to gain the same marketing

benefit.

In this context, the work of trade associations and industry networks to assist

in information sharing and the spreading of best practice is clearly critical.

However, given that an environmental platform can potentially be a

differentiator in the marketplace and that the technological innovation required

to produce products more sustainably can entail substantial investment, the

principle of information sharing is a delicate one.

However, Amy Roberts of the Outdoor Industry Association (OIA), which has a

large eco working group, says that with regard to sustainability there is a

strong commitment to a broader environmental objective. “I think there‟s a

bigger environmental ethic within the outdoor industry to maybe put those

competitive edges aside to some degree and bring best practices together,”

she says.

Roberts points out that some of the larger companies may have ten, 20 or

even 50 people working on different environmental efforts, while a smaller

company or start-up may just have one. “One person obviously is not going to

make the same advances on their own. And so it [the eco working group]

enables the smaller companies to come in and adopt some of the best

practices, even at a baseline level, that maybe they wouldn‟t know about or

wouldn‟t have the resources to try to come up with on their own.”

Part of the reason why there is this particular commitment to a collective

approach, Roberts says, comes down to the particular connection that OIA

companies have with the natural world. As the companies are making shoes

and clothes to allow people to recreate in nature, the “natural desire to protect

the natural world is instilled already in a lot of people that already work in the

outdoor industry”.



Fortunately, the spirit of cooperation does not appear to be restricted to

outdoor specialists. Steve Lamar says the environmental projects at the

American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA) are there “to help

everybody”, enabling “companies that haven‟t taken as many steps on this

path to learn from what others have done”. And there is also information-

sharing among the leaders: “The ones that are most advanced, they learn from

each other.”

While M&S’s Mike Barry concedes that there is inevitably a competitive

element too, this actually underlines that talk of a tangible business benefit is

not just PR. “There‟ll always be a little bit of it now that is competitive,” he says.

“I think real step-change innovation comes from businesses trying to compete

to get market advantage. Those that succeed are the ones that can walk that

fine line, collaborate and compete at the same time.”

The environmental working groups established by trade associations underline

the importance this area is assuming within the overall work and remit of

industry groups. Steve Lamar says the amount of time the AAFA devotes to

environmental matters is increasing every year. But it is not just cooperation

within the membership of trade associations that is furthering the

environmental agenda. Information sharing between industry groups on

environmental matters is also proving valuable. For example, the OIA has

been briefing the Environment Committee of the AAFA on its eco labelling

work.

Malcolm Ball believes the integrated nature of the supply chain means there is

a great need for cooperation between different forums. He describes ASBCI as

the type of “networking forum” which can foster just such cooperation. “Our

organisation has traditionally been drawn from middle management, technical

people, lab people, buyers, merchandisers. Our membership needs to know

what the common goals and common issues are. But our membership doesn‟t

have senior board members. They meet in other forums. If all these forums

communicate then we get an in-depth relationship through our organisation

and there‟s a common approach or a common knowledge.”

The RITE Group, meanwhile, is an information-sharing network set up in the

UK specifically to work in the environmental field. Formed in 2007 by two

academics from the University of Leeds, it aims “to provide advice and fact-

based information to minimise the negative environmental impact of the



production, use and disposal of textiles and apparel”. Its stated aim is “to drive

forward the sustainable production of textiles and clothing throughout the

global supply chain through a number of new initiatives and expert working

groups”. The working groups develop best practice for sub-sections of the

textile industry and coordinate conferences, seminars, publications and

interactions with other like-minded groups.

The RITE Group has a bold agenda, covering most of the challenges

highlighted in this report. In addition to providing a forum for inter-disciplinary

discussions on sustainability/green debates, it aims to promote best practice in

reducing the impact of textiles on the environment; to develop methods of

objectively assessing the ‘greenness’ of textile production, processes and

products, eventually through a scoring/grading system based on a full life cycle

analysis; to develop clear, industry accepted, definitions of commonly used

green/sustainability terms; to develop clear ways of objectively communicating

‘greenness’ information to consumers; to promote and encourage the use of

scientific facts in all sustainability/green debates; and educate brands,

retailers, manufacturers consumers, media and pressure groups to understand

what is fact and what is hype.

Meanwhile, Jef Wintermans of Dutch trade association Modint says he was

buoyed by the positive view taken towards environmental challenges by

representatives from a wide variety of countries at the IAF’s Global

Responsibility Committee meeting in Cologne in April this year. He views IAF

as a “meeting place” where representatives from different countries can share

insights and work together on common problems.

Engagement with NGOs and multi-stakeholder options

Engaging with the campaign community and NGOs is also seen as important.

“One of the things we try to do is reach outside the industry and find what

lessons that we can find there,” says Steve Lamar. He says one of the themes

companies he is speaking with are stressing is the importance working with all

stakeholders, including environmental groups.

Beth Holzman says multi-stakeholder engagement is fundamental to

Timberland’s approach to environmental issues. “Our commitment to working

with multi-stakeholder organisations and institutions is I hope very apparent.

It‟s really embedded in our transparency and accountability philosophy, and



our philosophy around stakeholder engagement is that we want to be as open

and communicative with stakeholders, so we can improve our programmes

and the impacts that come out of those programmes.”

Holzman says Timberland believes in “collaborative opportunities that can help

scale our impacts” and also aims to be “as inclusive as possible to get all

different sides of the equation that we should be considering when designing

and implementing those programmes”.

Consulting all stakeholders, including representatives of government and

NGOs, is a key element in the development of the OIA’s eco index, says Amy

Roberts. Once a provisional index has been developed, she says the OIA will

“need to go out and get stakeholders to come in and look at it and criticise it

and make suggestions so that it will be credible. And that would include NGOs

but also currently within the eco working group we do have a participant from

the US Environmental Protection Agency so we have a Government

participant already.”

She also points out that the OIA’s eco working group has open meetings about

four times a year, and the organisation is keen to invite NGOs in to make

presentations to these meetings. “I can see a scenario where we would have

them come in, do a presentation to our group, share the information that they

feel can help these companies make better-informed decisions. I think they‟ll

find our industry very open to getting knowledgeable input from lots of different

sources about the different impacts and different manufacturing environments

in different countries.”

However, while clothing companies have joined in multi-stakeholder

partnerships, such as the Ethical Trading Initiative and the Fair Labor

Organization (FLA) in the US, to address the issue of working conditions in the

supply chain, there has to date been less in the way of formalised multi-

stakeholder collaboration on environmental issues.

The most notable example of such cooperation in the clothing and textiles field

is the Better Cotton Initiative (BCI). BCI describes itself as “a collaborative

global process, involving a wide range of stakeholders from farmers and their

representatives along the cotton value chain to brands, and retailers”. Its long-

term aims are to demonstrate the inherent benefits of better cotton production,

particularly the financial profitability for farmers; to reduce the impact of water



and pesticide use on human and environmental health; to improve soil health

and biodiversity; to promote Decent Work for farming communities and cotton

farm workers; to facilitate global knowledge exchange on more sustainable

cotton production; and to increase the traceability along the cotton supply

chain.

In keeping with the multi-stakeholder ideal, the BCI is governed by a Steering

Committee which includes companies, producer organisations, NGOs, trade

and industry organisations and civil society institutions, as well as international

organisations. Current members are Adidas, Gap Inc, H&M, the International

Federation of Agricultural Producers (IFAP), International Finance Corporation

(IFC), Ikea, Organic Exchange, Oxfam, Pesticide Action Network UK and

WWF.

The organisation also draws its funding from a broad range of stakeholders,

and says it strives for a well-balanced financial support to avoid financial

dominance of one specific stakeholder group. It is currently funded by the

Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA), the State Secretariat for

Economic Affairs (SECO) of the Swiss Confederation, as well as members of

the Steering Committee and Better Cotton Partners, which are described as

“stakeholders that consistently participate in the development of Better Cotton

over time, playing an active role in BCI on a cross-section of issues, and

contributing financial or in-kind support to BCI”. Current Better Cotton Partners

include Cotton made in Africa, ECOM Agroindustrial Corp., International

Labour Rights Forum, Hemtex, Levi Strauss, Marks & Spencer and Nike.

There appears to be consensus among both NGOs and companies that multi-

stakeholder collaboration can be extremely effective. The success of BCI and

of multi-stakeholder initiatives dealing with social issues appears to bear this

out. But in spite of the success of the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) and others

in dealing with social issues, many have reservations about whether the

clothing industry could establish some form of counterpart dealing with

environmental matters because the area is too broad to be approached in the

same way.

With an overall umbrella approach, Steve Lamar says, it would be “really hard

to create something that was meaningful because the issue is so enormously

huge”. Most feel that multi-stakeholder collaboration in the environmental



space may be more effective if focused on specific issues, such as the Better

Cotton Initiative.

Mike Barry adds: “I think the ETI has been very successful on the social side.

Do we need something similar on the environment side? There is clearly going

to have to be more collaboration there. Clearly over the next five years there

have to be more collaborative mechanisms about environmental protection in

clothing. I think generally you‟ll see things progressing on two routes. One is

the multi-stakeholder group that looks at all issues generally, so looks at

sustainable clothes in its entirety. And you‟ll get sector-specific or issue-

specific groups working on cotton, on polyester, on wood, dye-houses that can

focus on practical solutions for that area.”

Ingrid Schullström believes there could be scope for existing multi-stakeholder

initiatives which deal with supply chain issues to expand their remit to look at

environmental factors specifically related to the supply chain. However, she

shares Lamar’s reservations about a multi-stakeholder collaboration that could

take on the entire environmental mantle.

“If you mean everything that is concerning us, that we could join in a multi-

stakeholder initiative and deal with every environmental issue that is relevant

for a company, I would doubt that it would be very efficient,” Schullström says.

“Then I think it would be easier to work with climate separately and maybe

water separately.”

David Santillo of Greenpeace also feels there is merit in focusing multi-

stakeholder collaboration on specific issues. “There is an element these days

of proliferation of multi-stakeholder consultations on various things which can

sometimes have difficulty getting away from the superficial,” he says. “They

focus on coming out with common statements which are very watered down by

the time they come out, or they start on processes that don‟t really seem to

have a specific end. Where there is perhaps a much greater need to put some

effort in is on much more direct, much more case-specific working with

stakeholders, maybe an individual stakeholder, an individual NGO, or a small

group of NGOs that are actually focused on finding solutions to a particular

case.”

Nothing may seem more likely to compromise multi-stakeholder dialogue, or

be more disconcerting for companies striving to improve their environmental



profile, than a report from a campaign group revealing or alleging

environmental abuse or failings in monitoring. The recent Greenpeace report,

Slaughtering the Amazon, which alleges that companies, including Nike and

Timberland, have been sourcing leather from farms linked with Amazon

deforestation is a highly topical case to point. The problems of traceability of

the suspect leather demonstrate all too well how convoluted supply chains

exacerbate the challenges facing the textiles, clothing and footwear sectors.

Such incidences may highlight the tensions that exist between the corporate

sector and NGOs, but they also serve to underline how important cooperation

between the two is. Indeed, what the Greenpeace revelations show is that the

campaign community, even if it often takes a sceptical view of industry, can be

an important source of information. Dialogue with NGOs is not just about

hearing the other side of the argument. It can provide invaluable intelligence.

While Santillo says that Greenpeace does not have “any permanent

adversaries and nor do we have any permanent allies”, he adds that “where

we can help people by providing information, getting them in touch with other

companies in that field that maybe have got new approaches and new

technologies, we‟re all for it”. A number of companies implicated in the

Slaughtering the Amazon report, including Nike, Adidas and Timberland, all

expressed a desire to meet with Greenpeace to discuss the report’s findings.

Sarah Shoraka of Greenpeace UK, who worked on the report, says “the olive

branch is there”. She adds: “I think the way we‟ve tried to approach this is by

telling these companies that they‟ve got these problems and we want to work

with them to sort it out. I don‟t think we‟ve taken an aggressive stance and said

that they‟re irredeemable. And in a way the fact that they‟ve got these CSR

policies in place and they‟re trying to make progress in other areas means that

I think they will want to work with us.” So in fact, rather than driving a rift

between companies and campaigners, there is a sense that even this

potentially damaging and embarrassing report could be a catalyst for further

stakeholder collaboration.

Apresentação Beauty Fair - Nilsen

Economy & Finance

content copyright aroq

research budget

multiuser licenceswe

multiuser pricing

budget single

environmental challenge

singleuser licence edition

environmental debate