Resource Management

Green solutions to the world's energy, water, chemical use problems will only work if they are integrated parts of thoughtfully devised systems. It's not just that a system perspective is better than a narrower one for achieving sustainability goals. A narrow focus can actually backfire. Organic cotton vs conventional cotton can be used to illustrate why a holistic approach is better for achieving sustainability goals. And that a narrow focus where the whole lifecycle is not considered can actually backfire. For example,  a textile manufacturer's switch to organic cotton could fail if it was done without considering the entire system, crop yields, fiber properties, requiring chemicals and dyes in manufacturing that were worse for the environment than those used on conventional cotton. Just swapping one material, vendor, location, production step, or mode of transportation for another can, when you factor in the unintended consequences, end up raising financial, social, or environmental costs and lead to supply chains that are not sustainable. Companies up and down supply chains in numerous industries confront the same challenge: A well-intentioned individual action or demand aimed at making a business greener can create a long string of unanticipated consequences that collectively dwarf the benefits. [See Don’t Tweak Your Supply Chain—Rethink It End to End Harvard Business Review Oct 2010 http://hbr.org/2010/10/dont-tweak-your-supply-chain-rethink-it-end-to-end/ar/1 ]

Is this approach consistant with your thinking about making progress toward achieving your 'sustainability goals'?

There continues to be much written about how important sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR) are to all types of businesses. Many articles are written by certifying organizations or Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). And these can be self-serving since all ‘green marketers’ are working to profit and grow and maybe, to make a difference. Even ‘green’ non-profit organizations have to eventually answer to someone to stay viable.Few if any of the articles deal directly with the textile and apparel industries.

So are CSR and sustainability helping to shape textile and apparel production and retailing or are they mostly sales and marketing tools? Do your customers ask you about your energy use, your water use, your carbon footprint, or whether you use chemicals on the various restricted chemical lists or flame retardants that are being band?  Do you ask your suppliers these questions? If so, what do you use as a meaningful basis for decisions?

On March 1, 2011 the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC) [http://www.apparelcoalition.org/about_us ], which includes Nike and Levi's among the nearly 30 manufacturers and retailers as well as non-profits, academics and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), announced that have created an industry-wide index to evaluate apparel products' environmental impact. The Apparel Index is meant to be a database of scores assigned to all the players in the life cycle of a garment - cotton growers, synthetic fabric makers, dye suppliers, textile mill owners, as well as packagers, shippers, retailers and consumers - based on a variety of social and environmental measures like water and land use, energy efficiency, waste production, chemical use, greenhouse gases and labor practices. A clothing company designer could then use the tool to select materials and suppliers, computing an overall sustainability score based on industry standards. The Apparel Index will draws on previous efforts by members, including the Outdoor Industry Association's Eco Index [www.outdoorindustry.org ] and Nike's Environmental Apparel Design [http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/11/30/nike-releases-environmental-apparel-design-tool/ ] , unveiled late last year. The Index aims to reduce the environmental and social impacts of apparel products sold around the world.

SAC members have already drawn up Version 1.0 of their Apparel Index, with beta testing by members and their suppliers due to begin in April. Version 1.0 uses indicators that span the entire apparel life cycle, including materials, manufacturing, packaging, transportation, use and end of life. Its environmental impact categories include energy, greenhouse gases, water quality, water use, chemistry and toxics, waste, land use and air emissions. The Apparel Index will not be a consumer-facing rating in the short term, because of the complexity of calculating a single numeric score, but instead, it will be used to drive improvements. The index will be developed with the expectation that customer-facing scoring will be used in the future, and it will be fully transparent to encourage broad, global adoption.