Kering — which owns luxury brands including Gucci, Stella McCartney, Alexander McQueen, Bottega Veneta, Christopher Kane, Sergio Rossi and Saint Laurent — has just been confirmed as the industry leader for the textiles, apparel and luxury goods sectors by the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes.
“This top ranking reflects the tangible benefits of our pioneering Environmental Profit and Loss Account rollout and our overall strategy to implement a sustainable business model in our own operations and across our supply chain,” Marie-Claire Daveu, chief sustainability officer and head of institutional affairs at Kering, told WWD.
Kering has been working hard to ensure sustainability for some time now. The luxury holding group also received the same honor from the DJSI — which tracks the performance of the 2,500 companies — last year.
According to Daveu, Kering has been working to implement a smart sustainable store program at many of its boutiques. The company is also innovating its manufacturing process to reduce environmental impacts and ensure responsible and sustainable sourcing of raw materials.
The report revealed that Kering’s environmental impact was 40 percent less than expected of a company producing at its scale. It also included statistics from every step of the production process, which stretches to over 1,000 suppliers in 126 countries. Unfortunately, the research revealed that 93 percent of the worst environmental deterioration came from these early processes and, therefore, over 50 percent of the damage happens at companies that Kering cannot control.
“Just Kering, per se, we won’t be able to change supply chains as much as is needed,” Kering CEO and chairman François-Henri Pinault said at the time. “This is why sharing our methodology, sharing our way of thinking, as Marie-Claire [Daveu] mentioned — most of our suppliers are working with many companies like us, so by joining forces and seeing things in the same way, we’ll be much more stronger to be able to change those practices.”
Sustainability for retailers is a particularly slippery slope. While some are lauded for campaigns that make a significant impact, others are cited for hyperbole or greenwashing.
Regardless, having an environmentally friendly ethos is important to consumers — a Nielsen study found that 75 percent of millennials are willing to pay extra for sustainable offerings — and brands have taken note. It’s not enough to just sell run-of-the-mill goods, brands need to have a defined social and societal impact.
We took a look at some of the recent efforts by eight major retail brands and assigned them letter grades based on genuine transparency ventures, reception by consumers and industry leaders, and commentary from outside experts.
Patagonia has long been the frontrunner when it comes to sustainability in retail. In November, it pulled an unprecedented move and donated 100 percent of its global Black Friday sales to grassroots environmental organizations. Patagonia also has a robust repair program that helps consumers maintain longevity of their products, in addition to selling used branded clothingfrom its Portland retail store. (And no one has forgotten its watershed “Don’t Buy This Jacket” campaign in 2011, which asked consumers to think twice before making a purchase in an effort to prevent waste.)
“Patagonia has done a tremendous amount of innovation for people and the planet. It’s been in their DNA from the beginning,” said Rebecca Mallard, founder of Maven Women, a sustainable women’s wear company.
Levi Strauss and Co. recognized it had to do something to cut its abundant water usage, so in 2011, it implemented its Water<Less program, which streamlines its production process to reduce water used to make denim. However, what really sets Levi’s apart is its focus on inter-industry collaboration when it comes to environmental efforts. It hosts an annual “collaboratory” that convenes retailers from around the world to glean insight and tips about more sustainable operations. It also expanded its worker well-being program last year to benefit more countries.
“They’re taking their role seriously in supporting innovation,” Ballard said. “It’s open source and about creating a cohesive network, rather than having a clutched fist attitude. Partnership is an essential element of ethics and sustainability.”
Gap, Inc.: B
Earlier this week, Athleta, part of the Gap, Inc., announced that it is launching its first line of athletic wear fully certified by Fair Trade USA, which is focused on supporting global factory workers. For every garment sold in the collection, factory workers are given an additional financial premium to use to benefit their community in areas like childcare, transportation and education. With its Fair Trade line, Athleta primarily aims to support female factory workers — the new styles are made by a factory in Sri Lanka where more than 80 percent of employees are female.
The move by Athleta follows Gap, Inc.’s announcement last year that it has begun disclosing global factor lists in a push for transparency, taking a cue from companies like UK-based Marks & Spencer and Belgium-based C&A. While it’s an important move, it only serves as the initial step before making tangible improvements to working conditions and Gap has yet to launch a program like Levi’s worker well-being efforts.
“It’s a really great first step in transparency and accountability, saying ‘these are our factories and we’re going to own up,’” said Natalie Grillon, co-founder of Project Just, a informational platform focused on sustainable fashion and beauty.
Kering Group: C+
Kering came under fire in December when it received low marks in the Apparel & Footwear Benchmark Findings Report, developed by watchdog organization KnowTheChain. Kering was positioned fourth-to-last on the report, which ranked mass retailers in several categories, including risk assessment, recruitment, monitoring and governance.
Kering claims the score was a result of issues around its information disclosure practices and that information highlighting its most recent sustainability efforts was not considered. Among these ventures is Kering’s environmental profits and loss app, which launched in October as an educational tool to track the environmental cost of fashion design. In response, Kering launched a “next generation” sustainability strategy at the end of January, a comprehensive plans to curb emissions and increase working conditions.
Though H&M launched its Conscious Collection in 2012 and has since worked with organizations to help improve transparency standards, the actual level of transparency from H&M is minimal, with sporadic posts on social media alluding to improved working conditions. Additionally, the company has been caught in several troubling incidents, like the revelation that it had used refugee workers in Europe.
“The issue with H&M is they brand themselves as better than they actually are,” Ballard said. “When you find Syrian refugee children working in factories in Turkey, which happened, and a recycling campaign that has a greenwashing component, it makes me pause.”
Like H&M, Zara has been plagued with similar challenges falling upon fast-fashion retailers. However, it took four years longer than H&M to launch its first eco-friendly line. As part of its new effort, launched late last year, the Spanish company began offering recycled packaging and boxes and also started a clothing donation program (modeled largely off of H&M’s existing program).
“As any retailer is planning for the next generation of customers, and its business in general, sustainability and social impact have to be a top consideration, and it’s positive to see Zara take a step to improve its supply chain,” Brooke Blashill, svp and director at Boutique@Ogilvy, told Glossy in a previous interview.
Despite operating on a mantra of “radical transparency,” Everlane has shown this notion is particularly elusive. Even with its push to share “Transparency Tuesday” Q&As on social media and its efforts to take customers on tours of factories, it is prohibited from disclosing its factory list and has unspecified compliance guidelines for locating new factories. However, the company audits every facility each quarter and avoids at-risk countries so there is no compliance risk, according to CEO Michael Preysman.
Preysman told Glossy in a previous article that the lack of information about its factories is an attempt to protect other brands that operate out of the same spaces. “Everlane makes products in the same factories as luxury brands,” he said. “We make the same quality product as these other brands, pay the same cost, but charge a much lower markup. We may jeopardize their business.”
In September 2016, an investigative report by BuzzFeed found that Asos workers were subjected to particularly brutal conditions, including being discouraged from taking bathroom and water breaks and getting fired for taking sick time. Despite numerous reports, the brand denied that it was complicit in the allegations. “There have been a number of allegations about the working conditions at our warehouse in Barnsley that are inaccurate, misleading or based on out-of-date information,” it said in a statement.
The company’s giant recycling facility in Germany receives hundreds of tons of old clothes a day. Can it find a way to turn those old clothes into new garments and make its business model sustainable?
Two hours south of Berlin, in the colorless fields of Wolfen, H&M works with a massive textile sorting and recycling facility, one that might prove to be the unlikely looking future and redeemer of fast fashion. Around 25 to 30 trucks a day drop off an average of 14 metric tons of unwanted remainders from Europe’s closets, gathered from recycling bins at H&M’s thousands of locations on the continent. In Wolfen, this detritus of seasons past is industriously sorted for reuse, resale, and recycling, a relatively new trinity for the mass-produced clothing industry.
With 4,200 stores around the world, H&M is the second-largest clothing retailer in the world (after Spain’s Inditex, which has 7,000). Its 2016 revenue is in the neighborhood of $20 billion. It takes a lot of $50 blazers and $10 T-shirts to get to that number, and the company tends to be the prime example of fast-fashion feeding unsustainable consumer habits and environmental damage. And while it clearly has no plans of stopping (the company’s growth target is to increase stores by 10 to 15% annually) it’s also investing heavily in fabric recycling innovations, in the hopes that it can continue to grow while creating a closed-loop system, where most (if not all) of the raw materials for its clothes come from fibers that were already used.
A main feature of this plan is a partnership with a solutions provider called I:CO, which oversees this 13-football-field sized plant, which was opened by their parent company, SOEX, in 1998. (SOEX is a German textile collection and recycling group; I:CO is one of their subsidiaries.) Since 2009, I:CO, which is short for I:Collect, has run the Wolfen plant and since 2013, when H&M began garment collecting, everything left in their European stores has been trucked here. I:CO manages H&M’s in-store cast-off collecting all over the world, and runs two similar facilities—in the U.S. and India—for making zero-waste use of clothes, shoes, and textiles that would otherwise likely end up in landfills.
“For us, the way forward is to create a closed loop for textiles where clothes that are no longer wanted can be turned into new ones, and we don’t see old textiles as waste, but rather a resource,” says Cecilia Brännsten, H&M’s sustainable business expert. The company first began to explore aspects of sustainability with the introduction of some organic cotton back in 2005, but the notion of circular production within their supply chain has really taken off just over the past few years, beginning with the 2013 launch of their in-store garment collecting initiative (you can now leave old textiles at any H&M store in the world).
But keeping clothes out of landfills, while laudable, is more of a first step on the way to the main goal, which is changing the company’s supply chain to a so-called closed loop, thus making far more use of non-virgin fibers (as in, fibers that come from already-worn garments). The H&M Foundation is in the midst of a four-year partnership with The Hong Kong Research Institute of Textiles and Apparel (HKRITA), and has committed $5.8 million to develop the technology to recycle blended textiles into fabrics fit for new clothing. Fibers like cotton-poly are currently un-recyclable into wearable new material, a major obstacle to scaling up the company’s fiber-to-fiber recycling operation and closing that part of the production loop.
I:CO doesn’t know the exact amount of cotton-poly it collects, but the amount of blended textiles it has been receiving has been on the rise, so finding a way to recycle these into fiber that can be used for new clothing is a problem that needs to be addressed. In 2015, the company joined forces with luxury group Kering to partner with Worn Again, a UK-based textile research firm. Worn Again is trying to address problems like the shortening of natural fibers, which occurs when fabric is re-spun. Right now, when clothes you buy are marked “recycled,” that’s only 20% true. The rest is virgin fiber, which has to be combined with the recycled stuff to make a wearable textile. This is the problem that the scientists at HKRITA are trying to solve.
Both in speaking to its executives and in its exhaustive, public annual sustainability reports, H&M remains committed to finding a way to make all kinds of fiber-to-fiber recycling a major part of their closed loop materials, even if there is no target date yet in sight. In the meantime, at least, the company has produced 1.3 million garments with closed loop material in 2015 (it’s one of the biggest users of recycled polyester and organic cotton in the world) and H&M seems well aware that a future blended textile recycling capability is a key way to decouple their growth from new materials. “There’s resource scarcity on one hand, and we have huge waste on the other,” says Brännsten.
The multiple tons sorted in Wolfen on any given day are still minor compared to the 85% of discarded clothes that sent to landfills (the rest are donated), yet the operation requires seven hundred employees, most of whom work in the 24-hours-a-day business of sorting. I:CO says that salaries start above the German minimum wage, which is 8.50 euros an hour. They’re also offered health benefits on top of normal health insurance, like free physiotherapist visits in Wolfen, likely useful given that each person sifts through more than 6,000 pounds of clothing per eight-hour shift.
The sorting process is based on 350 different criteria which determine whether your old jeans will be re-sold, partly re-used (zippers are handy that way), or fully recycled. Nothing that is fit for reuse, Brännsten stressed, would be recycled. Reuse extends an item’s lifespan, thereby lengthening the time it takes to go around H&M’s circular production loop.
But everything in Wolfen is used, in one way or another. The most worn-out cotton items head to a shredder, where they are gradually broken down and repackaged into inviting bales of fluff, and become wipes and cleaning cloths. The absurd amount of dust produced by the sorting, shredding, and baling is sucked up into brickettes and sold to the paper industry. The reusable clothes—and about 60% of what ends up in Wolfen is still wearable—are sorted by type, fabric, color and quality, packed in 130 to 175 pound bales, and shipped to any of 90 countries (predominantly in Eastern Europe and Africa) for re-sale in used clothing stores.
Customers who drop off clothes receive incentives, in the form of discounts or vouchers per bag of clothing. The idea is to make it as compelling as possible to get rid of clothing that would otherwise be trashed, and the incentives vary by H&M brand and home country regulations. In the U.S., a bag with at least three items (from any brand, and this can include stuff like old sheets) nets you a 15% discount coupon at H&M, while the same bag at the more upscale & Other Stories is rewarded with 10% off. Meanwhile, the proceeds from used clothing re-sale do not feed the company’s bottom line, but are donated to local charities and the H&M Foundation, which splits the funds between social and recycling projects, including the HKRITA partnership.
At the stores themselves, the Conscious Exclusive collection gives organic and partially-recycled clothing a fancier vibe, while the affordable Conscious line might be in your closet already. Close the Loop, an understated recycled denim and knit line for men and women debuted earlier this fall, and is made with 20% post-consumer cotton and wool from I:CO’s India plant. The company uses about 20% sustainable materials overall—using organic cottons, linens, and leathers, recycled polyamides and polyesters, and now, recycled cotton and wool.
So far, the company has collected about 34,000 tons of waste, or the weight of 178 million t-shirts, according to Anna Gedda, H&M’s head of sustainability. Of course, the equivalent of 178 million t-shirts over three years sounds less impressive next to the 550 to 600 million garments the company produces annually (this is based on outside estimates; H&M does not release production numbers). Its sheer size means “we will get criticized,” Brännsten says, throughout their ongoing move toward fuller sustainability.
And certainly, the criticism the company receives for its unsustainable production pales in comparison to its issues with garment production and worker protections. While H&M has publicly committed to fair living wages and working hours for its garment workers, human rights activists on the ground tell a different story. The Clean Clothes Campaign reported last spring that Bangladesh factories who work with H&M were behind schedule on badly-needed improvements (like fire doors) and vendors in Cambodia and India were coercing pregnant employees to get abortions, lest they instead be fired. Any advances the company makes in terms of recycling science certainly must be balanced with a continued push toward worker rights and worker safety, or the quest for sustainability in its supply chain will be meaningless.
Ultimately, the company “need[s] to ask I:CO, instead of the cotton field,” for new material, says Brännsten, noting that one effect of the company’s size is the potential of its influence over supply chains. In Wolfen, the U.S., and the India, already zero-waste facilities, the goal is to move away from down-cycling (the paper brickettes, wipes, cleaning cloths), maximize fiber-to-fiber recycling, and source all cotton sustainably by 2020. Developing cotton-poly recycling will likely speed up if and when H&M’s competitors get on board, too, Brännsten conceded. “It will not be called ‘recycled’ in the future,” she says, “because that’s the polyester that you get.” Walking through Wolfen, under hundreds of suspended sacks of discarded clothing, it’s believable that they are on their way. Now, for its efforts to outstrip the criticism of its business, what it needs most is a hard and fast timeline for that circular future.
Irene-Marie Seelig, Iciar Bravo Tomboly, Ana Pasalic, Agraj Jain, and Elise Comrie have plenty to wax triumphant about. On Monday evening, the five London College of Fashion students found themselves crowned the winners of the 2016 Kering Award for Sustainable Fashion, an annual competition born of a five-year partnership between the lifestyle and luxury conglomerate and the university’s Centre for Sustainable Fashion. Designed to inspire the next generation of ethical designers, the contest whittled 400 applicants to 10 finalists before determining who best fulfilled briefs for two of Kering’s subsidiary brands: Seelig, Tomboly, and Pasalic for Stella McCartney, along with Jain and Comrie for Brioni.
“All students, coming from different academic disciplines and personal backgrounds, showed a deep commitment to fashion and the environment, along with a strong interest to more sustainable practices in business in general,” a spokesperson for the organizers said. “By taking part in the 2016 Kering Award for Sustainable Fashion, they were looking to merge their passions and illustrate the economic relevance of a more sustainable fashion industry.”
Most of the applicants developed their projects by “rethinking the whole production cycle and value chain in fashion,” from material sourcing to end-of-life management.
“This echoes Kering’s own commitment to drive luxury fashion toward higher levels of economic, environmental, ethical and social performance,” the spokesperson added.
By utilizing a “master batch” solution for dyeing, her “Uncoloured Colours” project could help cut back on water use while avoiding the human risk involved during the synthetic dyeing process.
“Reflecting on my own work made me understand that if I want to change the fashion industry I have to do it right at the beginning, on a business level and on a personal level,” she said. “Albert Einstein once said ‘We can’t solve a problem by using the same kind of thinking as when we created it.’ Through the knowledge and the experience I gained during MA Fashion Futures I understood how I, as a designer, could influence and change the fashion industry, starting with materials.
ICIAR BRAVO TOMBOLY
Tomboly, a postgraduate student specializing in fashion-design management, centered her project around measuring a company’s social impact based on the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals and Kering’s own code of conduct.
Sustainability, she said, needs to take into account “all the human beings” involved in the supply chain and the impact our actions have on social values.
“I believe we cannot change our environment without renewing humanity,” Tomboly said. “So we should achieve an integral ecology that focuses not only on environmental and financial issues, but also on social issues.”
Seelig first researched the holistic properties of mushrooms after her mother was diagnosed with lung cancer. While studying fashion entrepreneurship and innovation at the university, she developed a renewable, biodegradable, and vegan-friendly leather alternative using the skin of amadou mushrooms.
After testing the material for durability and aesthetics—both prime considerations for viability in the luxury industry—the California native unveiled two shoe prototypes as part of her presentation.
“Going through that journey with my mother made me realize that sustainability was no longer just about what the composition of the material was to ensure sustainability within the fashion industry,” she said. “It is about the whole ecosystem of a supply chain, from the well-being of the workers within that supply chain to the well-being of its consumers, what components we allow into the production and processing phase, and how we can begin to design products around the cradle to cradle concept through renewable, biodegradable materials with well-being qualities.”
Comrie was inspired by her upbringing in Saskatchewan in Canada to develop a dye derived from tobacco, a fast-growing plant that takes only 90 days from seed to harvest.
“I grew up with a close-knit relationship to indigenous peoples of the region that I’m from and at a young age I learned the spiritual and healing benefits of the sacred tobacco plant,” she said. “It was of prime importance to me that my history and who I am spoke clearly in my proposal. So much of the fashion industry is removed from people and their stories and I felt this to be an important aspect of my project.”
Working with Dimora Colours, which specializes in the development of nontoxic tobacco dyes and fibers, Comrie proposed a line of Brioni smoking jackets composed of the tobacco-dyed textiles.
“I felt it necessary to have a masculine and yet innovative solution that the Brioni man could relate to,” she said. “I felt strongly about the innovative tobacco dye as a platform to help the Brioni client relate and see the importance of sustainability but still have the ‘cool’ factor.”
Jain, who is pursuing a degree in fashion design technology for menswear, drew upon his Jainism roots to present Ahimsa or “peace” silk as a cruelty-free alternative material for Brioni.
Rather than boil the silk cocoon to prematurely release strands of filament-like fiber, Ahimsa silk is extracted only after a metamorphosing worm has emerged from its cocoon.
Since silk is used in the linings of most of Brioni’s suits, as well as its shirts, ties, and scarves, Jain saw an opportunity for the firm to not only boost its ethical profile but also have a “beautiful story to tell.”
“For me, sustainability is a ‘healthy’ positive lifestyle,” he said. “That’s what I try to consider during my work: along with outer beauty a product should have a beautiful soul and the process of its production should be beautiful, too.”
A New Design Course Will be Launched and Students Will Utilize a New App to Measure the Environmental Impact of Their Designs
The New School’s Parsons School of Design and Kering announced a new collaboration under their long-standing partnership today, with the launch of a new design curriculum which will leverage the pioneering KERING x PARSONS: EP&L program pilot and the My EP&L App to measure and better understand the environmental impacts of students’ creations.
As part of their collaboration, Kering is introducing new modules to the Parsons Fashion program and embedding practical lessons in sustainability into the Parsons curriculum. Parsons will offer the Kering modules to students in three senior Systems & Society Thesis sections and two Materiality Thesis sections. Students will have the opportunity to study Kering’s Environmental Profit and Loss (EP&L) methodology, which measures and monetizes the environmental impacts from business’ activities across the entire supply chain. Students will also learn how to integrate sustainability from the very start of the design process by evaluating and comparing various materials’ and understanding how their choices influence the extent of the environmental impacts from sourcing to manufacturing via the My EP&L App, introduced by Kering. Students’ thesis projects will subsequently be evaluated and scored on both design and sustainability criteria, with the ten top students given unparalleled exposure for their designs in an exclusive Design Exhibition, following the course and hosted by Kering and Parsons.
Piloted as part of the Parsons curriculum, My EP&L App is based on Kering’s EP&L methodology and is an easy way for design students and the fashion industry to visualize the environmental impact of a typical product from raw material extraction through to sales. Highlighting 4 different items in our wardrobe to select – jackets, shoes, handbags and rings – My EP&L App users can choose the raw materials used (such as cashmere, wool, organic cotton, leather), where these are sourced from and then manufactured. In each category the environmental impacts from carbon emissions, water use, water and air pollution, waste production and land use changes are then analysed from an underlying 5000+ indicators to calculate a product’s final impact. Furthermore, My EP&Lcan be used as acomparative toolby allowing users to understand and determine better options in order to ascertain lower impact decisions and ultimately create more sustainable designs. As an illustration, My EP&L shows that by choosing between a bag made from French leather with the inner lining in Chinese silk and hardware in brass from Chile versus a bag made out of U.S. leather with the inner lining in Chinese linen and hardware in Chinese bamboo there is 4.40€ less EP&L impact from the first product decisions, or 26% environmental savings.
“My EP&L illustrates the power of an Environmental Profit and Loss (EP&L) analysis and will assist fashion designers to easily calculate better options in real time in order to embed sustainability into their products at the very beginning of the design phase,” said Marie-Claire Daveu, Chief Sustainability Officer and Head of International institutional affairs at Kering. “As part of our ongoing commitment to advocate theimportance of sustainability with the next generation entering our industry, we are excited to expand our Parsons collaboration with a view to sharing My EP&L with further educational institutions following the pilot.”
“We are excited to collaborate with Kering on this important initiative for our students,” said Burak Cakmak, Dean of Fashion at Parsons School of Design. “Sustainability education is vital for our students, and with Kering’s help, Parsons will be educating the next generation of fashion industry leaders who can create powerful change.”
Fast-growing, fast-fashion retailer H&M, which has more than 4,000 stores in 62 countries, sold $24.5 billion worth of T-shirts, pants, jackets and dresses last year. It also took 12,000 tons of clothes back. In a glossy, celebrity-studded video, H&M says: “There are no rules in fashion but one: Recycle your clothes.”
Recycling has become a rallying cry in the apparel industry, with H&M as its most vocal evangelist. The Swedish firm launched a €1 million contest to seek out ideas for turning old clothes into new, invested in Worn Again, a company developing textile recycling technology, and enlisted hip-hop artist M.I.A. to produce a music video called Rewear It that aims to “highlight the importance of garment collecting and recycling.”
With Nike, H&M is a global partner of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, whose mission is to drive a transition to a circular economy — an industrial system in which everything at the end of its life is made into something new, in contrast to today’s economy, where most consumer goods are produced, used and then thrown away.
“We have to change how fashion is made,” Karl-Johan Persson, chief executive officer of H&M, has said. “We have to go from a linear model to a circular model and we have to do it at scale.”
It’s not just H&M. American Eagle Outfitters, Eileen Fisher, Levi-Strauss & Co., Nike, the North Face, Patagonia and Zara all collect old garments (or shoes, in the case of Nike) in their stores, in some cases taking clothes from any manufacturer. Startups Ambercycle, Dutch Awareness and Evrnu are developing chemical processes to take cotton, polyester or blended apparel and transform them into new fibers. “Our ultimate goal is to harvest our raw materials from our consumers’ closets,” said Michael Kobori, vice president of sustainability at Levi Strauss.
That H&M is leading the charge for the circular economy is no small irony. The company’s low-cost clothes — it sells women’s T-shirts for $5.99 and boys’ jeans for $9.99 — are one reason why the apparel industry is growing so fast and drawing fire from environmental activists.
It’s been estimated that the global apparel industry generates as much as $2.5 trillion in annual revenue and that it will double in the next decade. What’s more, despite efforts to collect old clothes by retailers and nonprofits such as Goodwill Industries, the overwhelming majority of items eventually wind up in landfills, at least in the U.S. Americans dispose of about 12.8 million tons of textiles annually, which amounts to about 80 pounds for each man, woman and child, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated.
Eileen Fisher, the founder of the apparel company that bears her name, has called the clothing industry “the second largest polluter in the world, second only to oil,” a claim that can’t be verified because reliable data on fashion’s global footprint is scarce. But there’s no doubt that vast amounts of water, energy and chemicals are required to manufacture clothes — up to 200 tons of water, for example, to make a ton of fabric, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. In places where environmental regulation is lax, chemicals are routinely discharged into rivers and streams without treatment. The textile industry long has been one of China’s biggest polluters, and it has fouled rivers and ruined farmland in India, Cambodia and Bangladesh, as well.
Growing cotton, the most-used fabric in fashion, requires water and agricultural chemicals. (Organic cotton is an exception.) While cotton is grown on just 2.4 percent of the world’s cropland, it accounts for 24 percent and 11 percent of global sales of insecticides and pesticides, respectively, according to the World Wildlife Fund. The Sustainable Apparel Coalition — an alliance of retailers, brands and nonprofits — has been working for about five years to measure and reform the industry’s environmental footprint.
In the long run, the industry will need to take more radical action, particularly if it wants to sustain current growth rates, sustainability executives say.
For Nike to achieve its “moonshot ambition” of cutting its environmental impact by half while doubling its business, the company “will need to forget the linear and move to a circular model,” said Hannah Jones, the company’s chief sustainability officer. “Incrementalism and efficiency measures will not get us there.” Anna Gedda, H&M’s head of sustainability, said the company wants to “decouple growth from resource use, so that economic and social development can happen, but within planetary boundaries.”
This will be a daunting task. Consumer behavior is one obstacle. Most people don’t bring their old clothes back to stores, despite incentives. In the U.S., H&M, Levi-Strauss and the North Face have offered a variety of discounts, sometimes for as much as 20 percent on future purchases, but they are collecting far fewer clothes than they sell, executives admit. (H&M won’t say how many tons of clothes it sells, but the 12,000 tons it took back in 2015 is clearly a fraction of what the chain sold.) San Francisco is one of very few cities to offer curbside recycling of textiles.
Some insiders say the hype about closing the loop in fashion is outpacing actual progress. John Mowbray, founder of MCL Global, a media company focused on textiles that last year published a 100-page report called Closing the Loop, said: “There’s a hell of a long way to go for the industry to get to meaningful scale, despite what the marketing people are saying.”
To see why the job ahead is so hard, it’s essential to distinguish between recycling and closing the loop. Conventional recycling of clothes doesn’t create feedstock for new clothes. Instead, garments that can be worn again are sold in thrift stores or bundled for overseas bulk sales at just a few pennies a pound. (Even at those rock-bottom prices, the U.S. exported $705 million of worn clothing last year, sometimes to the detriment of local economies.) Clothes that can’t be worn again are resold as rags; downcycled for use in products such as insulation, carpet padding and stuffing for toys; incinerated for energy, or sent to landfills.
By contrast, a closed loop or circular economy is “restorative and regenerative by design,” stated the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. For the apparel industry, this means designing a system that will keep textile resources in use for a long as possible, and then recovering the materials at the end of life to make new high-value products. No company today is doing this on a commercial scale, but several are trying.
London-based Worn Again began “upcycling” a decade ago by turning textile waste — including discarded McDonald’s uniforms, Virgin Atlantic airplane seats and prison blankets — into clothes, shoes and bags. But founder Cyndi Rhoades soon realized that making consistent products out of a variety of materials was “a very difficult business.” She turned her attention to recycling cotton and polyester, which poses a different set of obstacles. Mechanical recycling of cotton lowers its quality as chopped-up fibers get shorter and less soft, while recycled polyester costs more than new. Harder still is recycling clothes made from a blend of fabrics, which must be separated.
After several years of research, Worn Again joined forces (PDF) with H&M and the PUMA division of Kering to develop chemical processes that will capture polyester and cotton from old textiles that have been broken down to the molecular level. Said Rhoades: “The holy grail is a process that can separate blended fibers, recapture the raw materials and reintroduce them into the supply chain at a price competitive with their virgin counterparts.” The technology has been proven in a lab, but Rhoades declined to predict when it will be deployed more widely.
A partnership between Levi Strauss and Seattle-based startup Evrnu recently brought forth the world’s first pair of jeans made of post-consumer cotton waste. A preliminary lifecycle assessment of the product generated encouraging results, according to Paul Dillinger, vice president and head of global product innovation at Levi Strauss.
“Cotton cultivation versus Evrnu, we’re looking at a 98 percent reduction in water use,” said Dillinger, noting that cotton is cultivated in places such as China, India and Pakistan that are — or soon could be — water-stressed.
Stacy Flynn, a former Target executive who is the co-founder of Evrnu, said its patented process purifies cotton garment waste, converts it to a pulp and extrudes it as a clean new fiber that is softer than silk and stronger than cotton. Evrnu expects to announce partnerships with two more retailers soon, one of which wants to make knit shirts out of textile waste. The other will focus on footwear.
Flynn said: “Our goal — and we’re not there yet — is to use no virgin product in the creation of our fiber, and create no waste.”
Visitors who stepped into fashion retailer H&M’s showroom in New York City on April 4, 2016, were confronted by a pile of cast-off clothing reaching to the ceiling. A T.S. Eliot quote stenciled on the wall (“In my end is my beginning”) gave the showroom the air of an art gallery or museum. In the next room, reporters and fashion bloggers sipped wine while studying the half-dozen mannequins wearing bespoke creations pieced together from old jeans, patches of jackets and cut-up blouses.
This cocktail party was to celebrate the launch of H&M’s most recent Conscious Collection. The actress Olivia Wilde, spokeswoman and model for H&M’s forays into sustainable fashion, was there wearing a new dress from the line. But the fast-fashion giant, which has almost 4,000 stores worldwide and earned over $25 billion in sales in 2015, wanted participants to also take notice of its latest initiative: getting customers to recycle their clothes. Or, rather, convincing them to bring in their old clothes (from any brand) and put them in bins in H&M’s stores worldwide. “H&M will recycle them and create new textile fibre, and in return you get vouchers to use at H&M. Everybody wins!” H&M said on its blog.
It’s a nice sentiment, but it’s a gross oversimplification. Only 0.1 percent of all clothing collected by charities and take-back programs is recycled into new textile fiber, according to H&M’s development sustainability manager, Henrik Lampa, who was at the cocktail party answering questions from the press. And despite the impressive amount of marketing dollars the company pumped into World Recycle Week to promote the idea of recycling clothes—including the funding of a music video by M.I.A.—what H&M is doing is nothing special. Its salvaged clothing goes through almost the exact same process as garments donated to, say, Goodwill, or really anywhere else.
Picture yourself with a trash bag of old clothes you’ve just cleaned out of your closet. You think you could get some money out of them, so you take them to a consignment or thrift store, or sell them via one of the new online equivalents, like ThredUp. But they’ll probably reject most of your old clothes, even the ones you paid dearly for, because of small flaws or no longer being in season. With fast fashion speeding up trends and shortening seasons, your clothing is quite likely dated if it’s more than a year old. Many secondhand stores will reject items from fast-fashion chains like Forever 21, H&M, Zara and Topshop. The inexpensive clothing is poor quality, with low resale value, and there’s just too much of it.
If you’re an American, your next step is likely to throw those old clothes in the trash. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 84 percent of unwanted clothes in the United States in 2012 went into either a landfill or an incinerator.
When natural fibers, like cotton, linen and silk, or semi-synthetic fibers created from plant-based cellulose, like rayon, Tencel and modal, are buried in a landfill, in one sense they act like food waste, producing the potent greenhouse gas methane as they degrade. But unlike banana peels, you can’t compost old clothes, even if they’re made of natural materials. “Natural fibers go through a lot of unnatural processes on their way to becoming clothing,” says Jason Kibbey, CEO of the Sustainable Apparel Coalition. “They’ve been bleached, dyed, printed on, scoured in chemical baths.” Those chemicals can leach from the textiles and—in improperly sealed landfills—into groundwater. Burning the items in incinerators can release those toxins into the air.
Meanwhile, synthetic fibers, like polyester, nylon and acrylic, have the same environmental drawbacks, and because they are essentially a type of plastic made from petroleum, they will take hundreds of years, if not a thousand, to biodegrade.
Despite these ugly statistics, Americans are blithely trashing more clothes than ever. In less than 20 years, the volume of clothing Americans toss each year has doubled from 7 million to 14 million tons, or an astounding 80 pounds per person. The EPA estimates that diverting all of those often-toxic trashed textiles into a recycling program would be the environmental equivalent of taking 7.3 million cars and their carbon dioxide emissions off the road.
Trashing the clothes is also a huge waste of money. Nationwide, a municipality pays $45 per ton of waste sent to a landfill. It costs New York City $20.6 million annually to ship textiles to landfills and incinerators—a major reason it has become especially interested in diverting unwanted clothing out of the waste stream. The Department of Sanitation’s Re-FashioNYC program, for example, provides large collection bins to buildings with 10 or more units. Housing Works (a New York–based nonprofit that operates used-clothing stores to fund AIDS and homelessness programs) receives the goods, paying Re-FashioNYC for each ton collected, which in turn puts the money toward more bins. Since it launched in 2011, the program has diverted 6.4 million pounds of textiles from landfills, and Housing Works has opened up several new secondhand clothing sales locations.
But that’s only 0.3 percent of the 200,000 tons of textiles going to the dump every year from the city. Just 690 out of the estimated 35,000 or so qualified buildings in the city participate.
Smaller municipalities have tried curbside collection programs, but most go underpublicized and unused. The best bet in most places is to take your old clothing to a charity. Haul your bag to the back door of Goodwill, the Salvation Army or a smaller local shop, get a tax receipt and congratulate yourself on your largess. The clothes are out of your life and off your mind. But their long, international journey may be just beginning.
Made to Not Last
According to the Council for Textile Recycling, charities overall sell only 20 percent of the clothing donated to them at their retail outlets. All the big charities I contacted asserted that they sell more than that—30 percent at Goodwill, 45 to 75 percent at the Salvation Army and 40 percent at Housing Works, to give a few examples. This disparity is probably because, unlike small charity shops, these larger organizations have well-developed systems for processing clothing. If items don’t sell in the main retail store, they can send them to their outlets, where customers can walk out with a bag full of clothing for just a few dollars. But even at that laughably cheap price, they can’t sell everything.
“When it doesn’t sell in the store, or online, or outlets, we have to do something with it,” says Michael Meyer, vice president of donated goods retail and marketing for Goodwill Industries International. So Goodwill—and others—“bale up” the remaining unwanted clothing into shrink-wrapped cubes taller than a person and sell them to textile recyclers.
“What Really Happens to Your Clothing Donations?” “Let’s just say they’re not all going towards a good cause.”
This outrages people who believe the role of thrift shop charities is to transfer clothes to the needy. “What Really Happens to Your Clothing Donations?” read a Fashionista headline earlier this year. The story hinted, “Let’s just say they’re not all going towards a good cause.”
“People like to feel like they are doing something good, and the problem they run into in a country such as the U.S. is that we don’t have people who need [clothes] on the scale at which we are producing,“ says Pietra Rivoli, a professor of economics at Georgetown University. The nonprofit N Street Village in Washington, D.C., which provides services to homeless and low-income women,says in its wish list that “due to overwhelming support,” it can’t accept any clothing, with the exception of a few particularly useful and hard-to-come-by items like bras and rain ponchos.
Fast fashion is forcing charities to process larger amounts of garments in less time to get the same amount of revenue—like an even more down-market fast-fashion retailer. “We need to go through more and more donations to find those great pieces, which can make it more costly to find those pieces and get them to customers,” says David Raper, senior vice president of business enterprises at Housing Works. Goodwill’s strategy is much the same, says Meyer: “If I can get more fresh product more quickly on the floor, I can extract more value.”
This strategy—advertising new product on a weekly basis—is remarkably similar to that of Spanish fast-fashion retailer Zara, which upended the entire fashion game by restocking new designs twice a week instead of once or twice a season. And so clothing moves through the system faster and faster, seeking somebody, anybody, who will pay a few cents for it.
If you donate your clothing anywhere in the New York City area and the items aren’t sold at a secondhand store, they’re likely to end up at Trans-Americas Trading Co. Workers at this large warehouse in Clifton, New Jersey, receive and process about 80,000 pounds of clothing a day.
When Eric Stubin, owner of Trans-Americas, president of the Council for Textile Recycling and president of the Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles Association, takes me on a tour of the warehouse, he pauses while a forklift scurries around the corner with a bale of garments and neatly stacks it in a tall, dense wall of clothing, before shooting back around the corner to grab another from a semi that’s backed up to the loading bay. Workers stand in front of conveyor belts making split-second assessments as they mine the castoffs for valuable pieces. Sometimes, they find a gem—a pair of vintage Levi’s, an ugly Christmas sweater, an army jacket—and toss it into a small bin full of other covetable items, which Trans-Americas can sell at a markup to vintage stores in Brooklyn. But that’s just about 2 percent of what they get. The rest is sorted into broad categories, like T-shirts, pants or cold-weather items, then divided again by quality and material.
Forty percent of the clothing will be baled and shipped all over the globe to be resold as is. Japan gets the second nicest vintage items after the U.S. stores, South American countries get the mid-grade stuff, Eastern European countries get the cold-weather clothes, and African countries get the low-grade stuff no one else will take. In the 1980s, secondhand clothing began flowing into African countries that had dropped their protectionist economic policies. And because it was cheaper and seen as higher quality than domestically produced clothing, it dominated the market. By 2004, 81 percent of clothing purchased in Uganda was secondhand. In 2005, according to an Oxfam report, secondhand clothing made up half of the volume of clothing imports in sub-Saharan Africa. As a result, starting in the 1990s, textile industries in those African countries cratered.
Early last year, at a summit of East African heads of state, some of the regional leaders proposed a ban on the importation of secondhand clothing; English-speaking news sites such as Voices of Africa and CNN followed up by positing that old clothing from the U.K. and U.S. was creating a post-colonial economic mess. “Exporting low-quality clothing that has no value in our own society forges a relationship of dependency,” says Andrew Brooks at Kings College London. “You can call me idealistic, but I don’t really want to live in a world where people who are in the global south, the only clothes they can afford to buy are clothes you and I don’t want.”
Not everyone agrees. Georgetown University’s Rivoli, for example, says the secondhand clothing trade creates jobs in not only selling but also cleaning, repairing and tailoring. Karen Tranberg Hansen, an anthropologist at Northwestern University, has argued that secondhand clothing in countries like Kenya, Zambia, Lesotho and Uganda fills a different niche than the textile industry. “There are different segments of the population that have different desires,” she says. “It is not a direct competition.” Secondhand clothing, traditional clothing that is made locally, Asian imports—different people buy different things, she asserts.
But what everyone agrees on is that Africans buy cast-off clothing from the U.S. because they see it as high quality and good value. This might not be true much longer. The 2005 Oxfam report found that in Kenya up to a quarter of clothing in imported secondhand bales was unsalable due to poor quality. Since then, fast fashion’s market share has expanded, even as it has become synonymous with “falls apart after two wears” for Western consumers. It’s possible that Africans might eventually recognize that the secondhand fashion is just cheap, old imported clothing from Asia that made a quick pit stop in the U.K. and U.S. And like Americans, they might decide to just buy it new.
On the Brink of Collapse
Thirty percent of the clothing that comes into Trans-Americas is T-shirts and polos that will be cut into wiping rags for auto shops and other industrial uses. Another 20 percent of the clothing—the ripped and stained items—will be shipped out to processors that will chop it up into “shoddy,” to be used in building insulation or carpet padding or floor mats for the auto industry. These are the least profitable types of clothing recycling for Trans-Americas.
The surge of fast-fashion garments poses a problem for Trans-Americas too. “More garments are made with polyester [or] poly-cotton blend,” Stubin says. “If you have clothing that is lower quality, you’re going to end up with more wiping rags and more material for the fiber market. The market for fiber is pennies these days. Half of the clothing we sell for less than the acquisition value.”
Though it’s better to downcycle clothes—turn them into less valuable consumer goods like auto-shop rags—than to send them straight to the landfill, it’s not a complete solution. Those rags will still find their way to the landfill after a few uses; insulation will be thrown in the dumpster when it’s torn out of a wall or old car. Everything is broken down further and further until it eventually reaches the landfill.
The cost to the planet isn’t just what the stuff does when it’s put in the ground, though that’s bad enough. The wasted resources it took to create a textile are devastating for the planet. “When it ends up in the landfill, it’s a wasted material,” says Annie Gullingsrud of the Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute. “There’s been an expense to the planet. There’s been an expense to the company [and] sometimes to the people creating the materials. And it creates a need to use virgin materials.”
International companies like Adidas, Levi’s, Nike and H&M don’t want you to stop buying their products, but they also don’t want to give up on their fast-fashion business models. “The holy grail for sustainability in fashion is closed-loop sourcing,” Marie-Claire Daveu of the global luxury holding company Kering told Vogue. (Kering owns companies like Gucci, Alexander McQueen, Saint Laurent and Stella McCartney, among many others.) “Reuse old materials. Make new materials out of old materials. Recapture the fibers.”
Closed-loop technology, where a product is recycled back into almost the same product, is a tantalizing prospect for sustainability advocates, because it essentially mimics the natural process of life. A plant grows out of dirt, dies, is incorporated back into dirt, and then another plant grows from that dirt. Rain falls, moves through the forest and into a river, flows to the sea, evaporates into the sky and falls again. There’s no waste. If closed-loop technology could be achieved for fashion, nothing would ever go the landfill—it would just be endlessly looped through textile factories, garment factories, stores, your closet, secondhand retailers, textile recyclers and back to textile factories again. Polyester thread would be created, woven into a textile, made into a garment, broken down into pure polyester and woven into a textile again. Same for natural fibers.
But commercially scalable, closed-loop textile recycling technology is still five to 10 years away, at best. According to a 2014 report commissioned by the Sustainable Apparel Coalition, there is closed-loop technology for pure cotton that could take a garment, break it down and reweave—but once cotton is dyed, treated or blended with other materials, the process no longer works. Treated cotton, linen, silk and wool can be mechanically chopped up for recycling, but they yield a low-quality, short fiber that must be mixed with virgin fiber for clothing. At 20 percent reused cotton, H&M’s recycled denim line released last summer pushed the limits of what’s possible today—a higher percentage of recycled cotton results in a lower-quality textile that tears too easily to be wearable.
A hopeful note appeared in May when Levi’s debuted a prototype of jeans in partnership with the textile technology startup Evrnu, made with 52 percent chemically recycled cotton from old T-shirts. Evrnu says its technology isn’t sensitive to certain dyes, and it hopes to eventually make jeans from 100 percent post-consumer cotton waste. But there’s no timeline available yet for when these jeans will become available.
Closed-loop recycling of synthetic textiles like elastane-nylon blends is even further away from commercial feasibility. The technology exists to chemically process polyester into its core components and spin it back into polyester thread, and Patagonia is already using it to recycle its clothing. But Patagonia is doing it out of principle, not for profit; the process is prohibitively expensive and finicky, requiring high-quality polyester textile (Patagonia’s own fleeces) as an input, instead of the cheap polyester textiles typically used by fast-fashion retailers.
Then there are popular blended fabrics with both polyester and natural fibers that, currently, can’t be closed-loop recycled at all. Because the manufacture of polyester textiles is soaring—from 5.8 million tons in 1980 to 34 million in 1997 and an estimated 100 million in 2015— we won’t be able to handle our output of old clothing until that problem is solved.
H&M knows this, which is why in February it handed out $1.1 millionthrough its charity, Conscious Foundation, to five “innovation teams” working on textile recycling technologies. One team will be working on a process to dissolve old cotton clothing into a cotton-like material that can be spun into new fibers. Another is developing a microbe that can digest polyester, even if it’s blended with a natural fiber, and break it down into its basic components for resale back to polyester manufacturers.
These processes need to be developed in tandem with a sorting technology that can easily tell apart pure cotton, synthetic fabric and blended fiber, or recognize that a jacket has cotton on the outside and polyester on the inside. “If we’re going to try to get 24 billion pounds out of the landfill, we can’t be hand sorting,” says Jennifer Gilbert of the international secondhand clothing collection company I:CO.
There’s a special sense of urgency to these brands’ efforts to close the loop, which would create a new and—hopefully—profitable market for old textiles. In the past year, the market for secondhand textiles has tanked, pushing this entire system to the brink of collapse.
At the moment your old clothing is baled for sale to a textile recycler, it ceases to be discrete items whose value is determined by the label, quality or trendiness. Instead, it becomes a commodity with a per-pound price governed by global supply and demand. In the past 18 months, that price has dropped to a few cents per pound, shoved down by the strength of the dollar, weak demand due to unrest in the Middle East (where much of the secondhand clothing is processed), upward economic mobility in Eastern European countries and a fire in the largest secondhand market in East Africa.
Some percentage of that price drop could be attributed to a steady increase in the supply of lower-quality secondhand clothing, as charities race to process more clothes faster. “The used-clothing industry is going through an extremely difficult period both here in the U.K. and globally,” Alan Wheeler, director of the Textile Recycling Association in the U.K., told Sourcing Journal in April. “Yet consumption of new clothing is continuing to rise, with clothing prices still generally much lower than they used to be. Continuing downward pressure on prices for used clothing is inevitable for some time to come.” With little financial incentive for recyclers, collection rates have dropped by 4 percent in the past year, after rising steadily during the years after the Great Recession of the late 2000s.
If clothing quality continues to fall, demand from the international market drops even further and the closed-loop recycling technology doesn’t come through, we might have a secondhand clothing crisis. And then there wouldn’t be any place at all to take your cheap, old clothes.
Marie Claire heads to Alaska to witness the alarming effects of climate change—and to ask how fashion can be part of the solution.
Nina Garcia is having a moment. We’re standing on top of the Mendenhall Glacier just outside of Juneau, Alaska, and although she, in theory, would like to say something, speech is not happening right now. Instead, Marie Claire‘s Creative Director stares silently at the vast, glittering, 3,000-year-old ice field in front of us. “My God,” she says finally, softly. “Oh, my God.”
It does that to you, Alaska. Knocks the words right out of your head. Leaves you speechless as you pass fields full of bald eagles the size of apes alongside Lemon Creek and the massive turquoise ice sculptures that float like cruise ships in Holkham Bay.
“Hear that?” says Earthjustice‘s vice president of litigation for climate and energy, Abigail Dillen—our on-ground expert in this otherworldly place. A 44-year-old sprite with a cap of curly bronze hair, Dillen typically spends her days working in the courts and Congress to secure enforceable cuts in climate pollution and create pathways for clean power through litigation that challenges our reliance on fossil fuels. She cocks her head in the direction of the quiet but steady sound of water dripping off to our left.
THE FASHION BUSINESS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 85 PERCENT OF ALL TEXTILES THAT END UP IN LANDFILLS—ABOUT 21 BILLION TONS—AND FOR 10 PERCENT OF GLOBAL CARBON EMISSIONS.
“What is it?” asks Garcia. “That’s the sound of the glacier,” says Dillen, “melting.” We’ve come to Alaska with Earthjustice—the nation’s top nonprofit public interest environmental law firm—for a crash course in climate change. We’re also here to look at some of the extraordinary efforts now being made within the fashion industry—both to curb its role in climate change (which is significant) and to transform the business in a way that no one could have imagined 30 years ago.
Chief among the game changers is the unlikely duo of Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus and former high-fashion power boss Cara Smyth. Together, Yunus and Smyth are the founding force behind Glasgow Caledonian University’s (GCU) Fair Fashion Center, a non-profit based in New York, where many of fashion’s biggest players come to reinvent their companies within the context of our rapidly warming planet. Along the way, they’re answering a question posed by Yunus that’s quietly revolutionizing the industry: “Can fashion be an instrument of sustainable development? And, if so, how?”
Smyth and Yunus first met back in 2014. Smyth had had a long, successful career in luxury fashion, including stints as president of Jil Sander America, a director of Burberry Prorsum, and CEO of Italian fashion brand Menichetti International. Yunus had won the Nobel in 2006 for pioneering microfinance (which helps people in developing countries start their own businesses by giving them loans) and was also the chancellor of GCU. It was in this role that Yunus asked Smyth his question.
“At first, I didn’t really know if such a thing was possible,” recalls Smyth, a striking woman in her late 40s with a mane of strawberry-blonde hair, mint-green eyes, and a Long Island accent studded with Italian and German from years spent living abroad. “I grew up in the business at a time when nobody was talking about sustainability, other than maybe Patagonia. I don’t think any of us realized the impact the business had on people and on the climate.”
The fashion business, which brings in $2.5 trillion per year, is responsible for 85 percent of all textiles that end up in landfills (about 21 billion tons) each year and for 10 percent of global carbon emissions, which are the primary source of human-caused global warming. The fashion industry is also the second-largest user of water, research by the Danish Fashion Institute shows, currently contributing 20 percent of the industrial water waste on the planet.
‘Do you really think you can rebrand sustainability? Everybody thinks it’s sad, brown trousers and granola and poor lady in Bangladesh.’
“The numbers terrified me,” says Smyth, who started asking industry friends questions most didn’t feel like answering. “It was a lot of, ‘Cara, leave me out of this. Talk to somebody else.'” She remembers laughing with a friend about the absurdity of what she was trying to do: “He said, ‘Do you really think you can rebrand sustainability? Everybody thinks it’s sad, brown trousers and granola and poor lady in Bangladesh.'”
Still, alliances like the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC)—a nonprofit founded by Patagonia and Walmart in 2009—seemed to indicate a growing desire for sustainability. (Today, the SAC boasts more than 180 members, including H&M and Nike.) She thought,There has to be a way.
Back on the Mendenhall Glacier, Dillen is explaining how global warming works. “Basically, whenever fossil fuels—such as oil and gas— are burned, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are released. These gases then trap heat from the sun inside the Earth’s atmosphere,” she says. “Think of a blanket around the planet that keeps getting thicker just when we need to start cooling down.”
The general consensus is that the planet’s temperature must not be allowed to rise more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-Industrial levels. Last December’s Paris Agreement—in which 195 countries adopted a landmark climate pact to limit global warming—set 2 degrees Celsius as the maximum heat increase the planet can handle, while noting that 1.5 degrees is a far more desirable target from the perspective of human welfare. At 2 degrees, says Dillen, postcards from the future will include super droughts (“like, California droughts”), more Zika-type viruses, mass animal extinction, floods of refugees, and the loss of most of our glaciers and sea ice. “We need to do everything we can to keep warming below 1.5 degrees.”
“What happens if we don’t?” Garcia asks, looking down at tear-shaped pools filled with impossibly clear turquoise water known as “meltwater.” “What happens if the glaciers do melt?”
“If all the glaciers melt, we flood every coastal city on the planet. We’re talking about New York City, Mumbai, and Shanghai under water“
Dillen’s eyes widen; then she responds, “If all the glaciers melt, we flood every coastal city on the planet.” Sea levels have risen eight inches on average globally over the past 100 years, and most scientists predict that they will rise another two to six feet in our century (with highly respected scientists—like James Hansen, director of the Program on Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions at Columbia University’s Earth Institute—predicting that sea levels could rise as much as six to 15 feet). “We’re talking about New York City, Mumbai, and Shanghai under water,” Dillen continues. “The scale of the dislocation is hard to even imagine.”
In Alaska, the results of ice loss and rising seas are already all too present. Spend a night talking to people in Juneau, and you’ll hear stories of starving polar bears up in the Northwest Territories and native villages crashing into the Beaufort Sea. You’ll hear that it’s hardly snowed in Juneau for two years and that 80 sea otters washed up onshore dead the other day from eating toxic algae—poisoned by an overheated sea. “You don’t want people to be depressed, because then they become paralyzed,” says John Neary, director of the Mendenhall Glacier Visitor Center, “but it’s important for all of us to look at what our current lifestyles are costing us and to realize that we can do things differently.”
Sitaantaagu was the Mendenhall Glacier’s original name. That’s what the Tlingit people—and everyone else—called it. (In 1891, white folks renamed it after a meteorologist from Ohio.) It means “the glacier behind the town,” which is a pretty apt name for the pale-blue beast of ice that spreads behind Juneau like a spilled milk shake—13 miles long and hundreds of feet thick. It lures about 750,000 visitors per year to this remote archipelago in southeast Alaska (most via cruise ships). And it’s the thing everyone in Juneau talks about more or less all the time: how awesome it is, how totally screwed it is.
Exactly how screwed is a matter of debate. Certainly, the fact that it has receded 2.5 miles over the past 250 years (and 1.5 miles in the past century alone) is not good. Nor that Alaska’s glaciers in general are losing 75 gigatons—aka 75 billion tons—of ice each year. But even dire climate experts say that if the world would commit to cutting emissions by about 6 percent a year, the climate could be stabilized. “There’s a very small window where we still have a choice about what the future looks like,” says Dillen. “But it’s closing very quickly.”
There are a lot of ways to see Sitaantaagu up close. You can hike up to it, helicopter over it, kayak across Mendenhall Lake toward it, or just gaze at it from behind the window at the visitor center. But I’d argue that the most breathtaking way to see the glacier is from underneath, inside the ice caves.
Stepping into the Mendenhall Glacier’s ice caves is like entering another dimension. For starters, they’re blue—a wild, bright Windex blue—and clear as glass, very, very thick glass, only the glass is all sculpted and hugely bubbled within, so walking through them feels like walking through a dreamscape in some crazy Stanley Kubrick movie or a really huge sapphire. You’re surrounded by this glowing blue city of ice, ice with prehistoric trees frozen inside, ice that was here when the mammoths walked.
“Hey, Nina, whaddya think: Fashion Week or the glacier?” asks our photographer,National Geographic‘s Pete McBride, when we climb out at last, blinking and gasping in the sunlight.
“Are you kidding me?” she responds. “The glacier. It’s not even a question.”
OUR CAPTAIN IS EXPLAINING THE PROCESS OF GLACIER “CALVING,” OR CHUNKS BREAKING OFF DUE TO WARM WEATHER, WHEN HE SUDDENLY YELLS, “HANG ON!” AND STARTS BACKING UP THE BOAT. “OH, YEAH! SHE’S GONNA GO!”
Later, Garcia and I start talking about how excited we are to bring our families back here. “You better hurry,” says our guide, Elliot Sofhauser. “Caves are gonna be gone within a year or two. They say this summer is probably the last one. After that, the lip over the entrance will melt, and the whole thing will just collapse.”
It’s hard to imagine a more dramatic illustration of climate change in Alaska than the glacier’s ice caves collapsing—until another example arrives, as if on schedule, the next morning. We’ve taken a boat three hours south of Juneau into a remote wilderness area called the Tracy Arm fjord to see a dramatic piece of ice known as the Sawyer Glacier. Icebergs ranging from XS to XXL dot the bay, along with dozens of harbor seals lolling belly-up in the sun as two black bears and a brown one lumber along the rocky shoreline. At the pale, milky blue feet of the massive glacier, our captain, Steve Weber, is explaining the process of glacier “calving,” or chunks breaking off, increasingly common with all the warm weather, when he suddenly yells, “Hang on!” and starts backing up the boat fast. “Oh, yeah! She’s gonna go!”
And then it happens. A long skinny crack that runs partway along the glacier’s face shoots suddenly down the rest of it. A sound like two planets crashing into each other thunders from inside, and a slice of glacier the size of a house breaks off and slides into the sea.
A little while later, we’re sitting in the main cabin of the Adventure Bound, quietly mulling what we just witnessed. “It’s hard to think about,” Garcia says. “That our actions are responsible for this.”
“I think a lot of people feel like it’s too depressing to even look at,” says Dillen. “Like, I don’t know what to do; I am complicit in this disaster.”
“I understand that,” says Garcia. “I think a lot of people feel that way. Like, What can I do?“
“BUT WE ACTUALLY CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT,” DILLEN SAYS. “WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY NOW TO POWER OUR LIVES WITH CLEAN ENERGY.”
“But we actually can do something about it,” Dillen says. “We have the technology now to power our lives with clean energy. In 10 years, we’ve gone from not having very good answers about how to power this country without coal to being at a place where clean energy is the cheap solution, as well as the one that’s good for the planet.”
Garcia looks at her. “But changing the infrastructure would be very expensive, no?”
“Not nearly as expensive as it will be to lose all of our coastal cities to flooding,” says Dillen. “And think what it would do for our economy to create a new clean-energy sector. It’s hard to imagine a more powerful engine to create new jobs and new wealth. Right now, we have an infra- structure in the U.S. that’s crumbling, and we’re going to end up spend- ing trillions of dollars one way or another to keep the lights on. Why fix up an old energy system that’s putting us all in so much danger, when we could invest in a clean new one that will improve everyone’s life for the better?” A few moments later, Garcia says, “So a lot of this depends on policy—on who we vote into office in November.”
Dillen nods. “There could not be more at stake in November. There’s a lot we can do on an individual level—drive less, fly less, eat less meat, spend our money on clothes that last—but the biggest changes have to come at the level of government spending. And I really believe women are the key here. When I lie awake at night, worrying about what kind of world my son is going to inherit, I find myself thinking that if we can just get women to come together on this, to talk about climate—ask the candidates what their energy platforms are, demand that they ramp up clean energy, vote for the people whose policy resonates with them—we can solve it. But we have to do it right now. Everything hinges on what happens in the next five years.”
Cara Smyth eventually answered Yunus’ question. She would not tell you that it is the solution to all climate-change problems, but she might acknowledge that it’s an important step in the right direction. Like a lot of great answers in life, it came to her in the form of yet another question: Can we prove the business case for sustainability in fashion?
Can we prove the business case for sustainability in fashion?
In 2014, Smyth and Yunus founded GCU’s Fair Fashion Center in hopes of answering this question. Headquartered inside a white-and-glass aerie in Soho, it’s a place pretty much nobody knows about outside of fashion’s biggest insiders. The center describes its mission this way: to “aggregate exist-ing industry best practices, source new opportunities for engagement, and research emergent tactics and technologies in supply chain sus- tainability and environmental impact reduction.”
In other words, it’s where CEOs from some of the fashion world’s largest companies figure out how to improve sustainable practices while remaining profitable.
At first, getting CEOs to show up was a hell of a project. But eventually, a solution arrived in the form of a very fancy men’s dress shirt. One day, while she was shopping, Smyth opened up a tuxedo shirt and realized that each one involved 14 to 18 pieces of packaging, from the little plastic clips to the cardboard collar. “18!” says Smyth. “And it turns out that the pieces typically come from four to six different countries. It just doesn’t make sense.”
She went to visit a few people in the business and said, “This costs about a dollar and change by the time you fly all the bits around the world—if we could reduce that sum by just 10 percent—remembering that you’re selling about 30 million shirts a year—then all of a sudden, you’ve got profitability and sustainability.”
Fashion CEOs understood this immediately. In fact, the dress shirt turned out to be such a perfect example of packaging absurdity and financial opportunity that Smyth started carrying one around in her bag as a visual aid in her presentations. This—along with the statistics of the damage the fashion industry is doing to the environment—persuaded CEOs to come on board.
“WOMEN ARE THE KEY HERE. IF WE CAN JUST GET THEM TO COME TOGETHER TO TALK ABOUT CLIMATE, WE CAN SOLVE IT.”
Currently, the Fair Fashion Center works with 30 CEOs and 211 brands (we’re talking luxury conglomerates and major retail and distribution companies) that are together responsible for $200 billion in business. I wish I could tell you who they are, but so far, the big fashion brands prefer that their work remain private, except one: François-Henri Pinault, chairman and CEO of Kering, whose brands include Saint Laurent, Gucci, and Balenciaga. “There is an increased focus on companies being accountable for the environmental and social impacts associated with their business activities and their responsibility to contribute to mitigating climate change,” Pinault says. “Kering embraces this responsibility to act. It has been our business imperative for several years to become a more sustainable company, but we will only be successful through collaboration with other stakeholders in the industry to improve standards and practices. The Fair Fashion Center is part of these key partners we’re working with, being a unique model that provides the fashion industry with accessible resources that support profitable sustainability through research and a sharing of best practices.”
Among Fair Fashion’s key initiatives and goals are facilitating a 100 percent renewable energy strategy, reducing packaging, and creating an online carbon offset option called NOCO2 (meaning No Carbon Dioxide), which allows customers to round their purchases up to the nearest dollar, with the extra money helping offset the climate impact of whatever they’ve just bought—along with the attendant shipping. Similarly, when buying clothes online, you’ll soon be able to click a button that says “Please Reduce My Packaging” to avoid waste. A pet project of Smyth’s is an attempt to turn discarded fabric (that would otherwise end up in landfills) into shipping cartons.
But for all the good she’s doing, Smyth has an even bigger dream for sustainable fashion. “Get one of the very top designers to do a sustainable collection for a fashion company that is doing sustainability,” she says, “and make that damn thing so cool all day long. So people are like, ‘You know what? He’s making bags out of post-consumer waste. He’s making shoes out of soda bottles.’ That would totally change the dialogue. Suddenly, everyone in the world would be into sustainability. I just really feel business can be an incredible force for good, especially fashion.”
If you ask her, we shouldn’t have to decide between fashion and the glacier. If we start making the right choices, we can have both.
LONDON, United Kingdom — Today, French conglomerate Kering will publicly report its performance vis-à-vis sustainability targets voluntarily set in 2012 to reduce the group’s negative environmental and social impact, covering areas including CO2 emissions, hazardous chemicals and the way the company sources gold, leather and precious skins.
The report reveals a mixed picture of progress and pain points. The company has only reached 15 percent of its target to source 100 percent of its gold from verified responsible sources, for example, yet has achieved 99 percent of its target to make its collections PVC-free by 2016. Across its supply chains, the company has also managed to reduce carbon emissions by 11 percent, decrease its waste output by 16 percent and cut its water usage by 19 percent since 2012, falling short of its stated targets to slash all three by 25 percent.
“We have really made big changes,” Marie-Claire Daveu, chief sustainability officer and head of international institutional affairs at Kering, told BoF. Daveu, a trained engineer and former senior civil servant in the French ministry for ecology, joined Kering in 2012. “If we want to change the paradigm, it’s really key to exchange not only our successes, but to share why and where we have an issue to tackle,” she continued.
Kering, which owns a number of luxury fashion brands, including Gucci, Yves Saint Laurent, Bottega Veneta and Stella McCartney, has received recognition from third parties for its sustainability efforts, including the 2015 Dow Jones Sustainability Index and RobecoSAM, a global investments company with a specific focus on sustainability.
The report marks the first time a luxury group of this size has released a public report on the environmental and social impact of its supply chain. (Kering’s Environment Profit and Loss account, Kering’s analysis of its environmental impact, has also been made publicly available.) As such, it provides rare insight into the social and environmental impact a luxury conglomerate’s supply chain can have on the world, and why reducing that impact is tougher in some areas than others.
The production of raw materials accounts for 50 percent of Kering’s overall environmental impact, while processing those materials counts for an additional 25 percent.
Kering’s report demonstrates the varying scale of challenges within raw materials. In some areas, progress has been fast: the group reached 99 percent of its target to have PVC-free products by 2016, while 81 percent of Kering’s paper and packaging is now from certified sustainably managed forests, with a minimum of 50 percent recycled content. “The certification is already quite advanced. It’s straightforward for a company to purchase paper and packaging from certified sources,” explains Daveu.
Other areas present bigger challenges: against an aim to source 100 percent of its gold from verified sources that don’t harm ecosystems, wildlife or communities by 2016, the group achieved only 15 percent of its target.
“I am very proud of what we were able to do with gold,” said Daveu. In 2015, Kering brands bought 220 kgs of Responsible Jewelry Council Chain of Custody-certified gold, a figure Kering predicts will double this year. “At the beginning, it was about what we can define as ethical, and this kind of sourcing, and what does it mean operationally? You have to have a clear understanding of not only what’s happening in your company, but what’s happening all over the world: sourcing, legislation, best practices,” she continued.
Kering reached only 64 percent of its target to source 100 percent of its leather from responsible and verified sources that don’t result in converting sensitive ecosystems into agricultural land (within this, luxury bovine leather, which is sourced mostly in Europe, and therefore subject to EU regulations, reached 91 percent). Kering also aimed to source 100 percent of its crocodile, fur and precious skins from verified captive breeding or sustainably managed wild populations by 2016: it has reached 91 percent of its target for crocodile skin; 78 percent for shearling fur and 41 percent for precious skins. While the crocodile trade has had welfare and ecological standards in place for the last three decades, there are still “very few sources that are transparent enough and up to our standards” for precious skins, according to the report.
Indeed, some sustainability targets — say, switching to recycled packaging — can be tackled “inside the brands, inside the companies,” explained Daveu, while gold or precious skins sourcing, which occur in emerging markets with less industry regulation than Europe, require collaboration. “You need to meet with NGOs, experts, with other industries,” she continued. On skins, Kering has formed the Python Conservation Partnership, with the International Trade Centre and International Union for Conservation of Nature; on gold sourcing, it is being advised by NGOs including Solidaridad.
Another way to tackle these issues is vertical integration — by owning its facilities, a company can exercise more control over the welfare and environmental standards implemented there. As a conglomerate, Kering has some advantages in this area — as well as having its own distribution and logistics firm, Kering owns the Blutonic leather tannery in Tuscany — where it has implemented an IT tool to trace the tannery’s leather back to the farm or country of origin, and also developed metal-free tanning for Gucci products — as well as France Croco, a French tannery specialising in crocodile, and the Italian Caravel tannery, which specialises in precious skins.
Back in 2012, Kering committed to reduce the carbon emissions, waste and water use throughout its supply chains by 25 percent by 2016. To date, it has reduced emissions by 11 percent, waste by 16 percent and water by 19 percent, missing all three targets.
Progress on waste includes a “no box” policy, which swapped its primary shipment packaging for bags and suitcases from cartons to recyclable bags; a new process that turns its luxury brands’ leather offcuts into organic fertiliser: since 2013, the Bottega Veneta sites involved in the programme have generated almost 120 tonnes of offcuts, recycling two-thirds of this. Kering also operates a programme at Gucci to use crocodile offcuts to make shoes: in 2013 alone, 1,825 pairs were made this way.
On energy savings, the group has rolled out LED lights in its stores, installed energy monitoring systems at nearly 500 of its sites, and since 2012, more-than quadrupled the amount of renewable energy it bought, meaning 24.5 percent of Kering’s energy was renewable in 2015.
However, according to Daveu, for a company of Kering’s size, zero emissions would be “physically impossible.” While Kering has zoned in on where its supply chain has the biggest impact — 69 percent of its emissions in its supply chain come from raw material production — the company “offsets” its remaining scope 1 and 2 emissions (which cover Kering’s own emissions, but not those of outsourced activities, such as emissions from factories the group does not own), meaning it contributes funds to environmental projects proportional to the level of its own environmental impact, an alternative to actually reducing emissions. “You have to adapt to the best practices, and at the end of the day, if you are not able to emit zero emissions, we think it is our responsibility to offset that,” said Daveu.
For hazardous chemicals, Kering set a target for 2020, rather than 2016 and hasn’t reported how close it is to achieving this target. “When it was decided in 2012, we were very conscious that it will need work, research,” said Daveu, of why this target required more time. Better “green” chemical products still need to be developed, she added, in order to remove hazardous chemicals completely and ensure that swapping out existing chemicals will still achieve a luxury-level quality of product. “We need to have more research to be sure that when you substitute, you have the same quality, the same colour, the same sensation, touch.”
The final part of Kering’s report looks at its social impact. Kering’s set target was to evaluate all key suppliers at least once every two years, and the company has since performed 6,000 supplier audits, which according to the company, covers most of its direct and indirect suppliers. The results of these audits are made publicly available in the company’s annual Reference Document.
“It’s an ongoing process. You have to be sure first that all the compliance standards are applied, all over the world,” said Daveu, of why the data is presented differently here to in other areas of the report. “When you are speaking about audits, you are checking your requests are really applied in the factories. It’s another kind of KPI.”
“When it’s linked with the social side, zero risk doesn’t exist,” she added. “The most important work you can do with your supplier is to explain why it’s key and why in the future, for them, it’s not only to be pleasant to the requests of Kering, but it’s also key for them for their own development.”
Kering declined to reveal the financial cost of its sustainability programmes and whether these initiatives were good for the bottom line. However, small points of data in the report — for example, in 2015, Gucci earmarked €2.4 million to replace lights in stores with energy-efficient LEDs — suggest the total sum spent on these activities is significant.
“I don’t have a number to say thanks to sustainability, our business is growing by ABC percent. I can’t say that. But again, we don’t do it for that. We do sustainability because we believe in it and we think that if we want to continue our business, it’s not an option, it’s a necessity,” said Daveu. In a report released in 2015 with non-profit consultancy Business for Social Responsibility, Kering laid out how climate change posed a significant threat to the sourcing of raw materials like cashmere and cotton, which the group relies on to make its products.
“You have to accept a different kind of payback, different kind of ROI. That’s why the most important thing is the commitment of the top management,” concluded Daveu.
On Saturday in Paris, the gavel came down on two weeks of fraught talks, resulting in a landmark agreement between representatives of 195 countries to cut emissions of greenhouse gases.
The deal, which comes into effect in 2020, aims to ensure that global warming does not exceed 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels, with an additional aim to cap this at 1.5 degrees C. A temperature rise of 2 degrees C could could result in catastrophic environmental changes, such as extreme weather, accelerated melting of the polar ice caps and dangerous rises in sea levels.
As the first universal agreement on climate change, the Paris deal sends an important signal that all countries — including developing nations like China and India — are committed to a low-carbon future. The private sector, too, has a part to play — and supporters of the agreement are optimistic that it could encourage business leaders to turn away from fossil fuels and invest in renewables with confidence.
But what does the agreement mean for the fashion and luxury industries?
“This agreement marks a transformative moment on the journey towards a low-carbon economy, providing the certainty and confidence businesses need to continue to pursue positive climate action,” says Hannah Jones, chief sustainability officer at Nike.
Pierre Börjesson, sustainability business expert on climate at H&M concurs that the deal is a step towards a “safe environment with continued growth and increased quality of life for more people around the world.”
Before the agreement was announced, Eric Liedtke, who is responsible for global brands at Adidas, wrote to BoF: “World leaders forging an agreement is wonderful, but we shouldn’t need to be told to do the right thing. The industry can’t afford to wait for directions any longer.”
Ramping up policies
That said, the Paris accord was more ambitious than many predicted — in particular, the additional aim to cut global warming to 1.5 degrees C. Will this spur companies to ramp up their existing environmental policies?
“We plan to align the next phase of our targets and actions to ensure that we can contribute to a 1.5 degrees world,” says Marie-Claire Daveu, chief sustainability officer and head of international institutional affairs at Kering, which will report on its 2016 sustainability targets in the spring.
In 2012, Levi Strauss & Co. committed to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020. By 2014, the company had already done so by 20 percent. “That, along with this agreement, are driving the need to set more ambitious targets,” says Anna Walker, senior director of government affairs and public policy at Levi’s, which will update its climate strategy and targets in 2016.
Where to begin?
Some sections of fashion companies’ supply chains present greater risks to the environment than others. “The impact of the raw materials stage is the most significant,” says Elisa Niemtzow, consumer sectors director at non-profit consultancy Business for Social Responsibility (BSR). “There are opportunities there to work with suppliers to improve practices and to ensure small producers are more protected and resilient in the face of climate change.”
Indeed, raw materials like cotton and cashmere require huge amounts of electricity and water to produce, and are sourced in parts of the developing world that are particularly vulnerable to the early effects of climate change, such as increased flooding and droughts. Traceability in supply chains can also give companies a clearer view of the knock-on effects of their operations — for example, the production of rayon and viscose has been linked to deforestation.
Another high-impact part of the industry is in transport and logistics, where businesses can partner with their transport providers on route optimisation and choose eco-friendly fuels to reduce the impact of moving product around the world.
“Approximately 25 percent of the energy footprint is coming from the customer, after we’ve sold them the product,” adds Pierre Börjesson of H&M, citing tumble dryers and dry cleaning as key culprits. “We need to help and inspire customers to minimise their energy usage when they are caring for our products,” he says.
Cost of the climate
But transitioning to a low-carbon future requires investment. Can fashion companies cut carbon and keep up business growth?
“They have to make investments no matter what, so making investments in a way that’s much more sustainable for them in the long-term is just a much smarter way of thinking,” argues Emily Farnworth, campaign director of RE100, a programme set up by non-profit The Climate Group, to sign up companies to commit to using 100 percent renewable power. RE100 participants include Google, H&M, Nike, and Yoox Group. With renewable technologies “dramatically” dropping in price, “it’s often good business sense anyway,” she says.
According to Anna Walker of Levi’s, governments can help companies follow a low-carbon path. “We’ve found that where governments have incentivised and focussed on growing the renewables in their own countries, we’re able to do more, faster, to reduce our own emissions and make those investments in renewable energy as well,” she says.
However, concerns remain around the real costs that these investments will mean for businesses — and the extent to which governments will make the private sector accountable for its impact on the planet. There are no legal mechanisms currently holding companies to their sustainability goals — though that could change, as countries that are bound by the Paris agreement (which is, overall, legally binding) draw up plans to radically reduce their nation’s emissions.
For the moment, civil society provides a “check and balance” for companies, says Elisa Niemtzow.“It’s consumers who we see are increasingly seeking out that information,” she says.
Luca Solca, head of luxury goods at Exane BNP Paribas, concurs that companies must back up their storytelling with substance — or risk losing consumer trust. “Social media is making the houses we live in increasingly transparent. Paying lip service to issues like the environment and workers rights will be more and more difficult to get away with,” he says.
Some businesses are also partnering with cross-industry organisations and NGOs, which hold them accountable to targets. Kering and Tiffany have both committed to net zero emissions by 2050 through The B Team, a not-for-profit comprised of business leaders across different industries.
Social media is making the houses we live in increasingly transparent. Paying lip service to issues like the environment and workers rights will be more and more difficult to get away with.
A global effort
As part of the Paris agreement, countries committed to raise $100 billion a year by 2020, to help developing nations mitigate and adapt to the consequences of climate change. Do fashion’s large, powerful firms also have a responsibility to share resources and help smaller businesses fight climate change?
“As one of the biggest fashion retailers, we have a huge responsibility to motivate parts of the value chain where other companies are influenced,” says Pierre Börjesson of H&M, who points out that this responsibility begins in its own supply chain, which is made up of smaller sourcing and production companies, many of which are based in the developing world.
“Just by virtue of companies being in these parts of the world and demanding renewables is giving confidence to investors,” says Emily Farnworth of RE100. By investing in clean technologies at scale, companies can also help make these technologies more affordable. “[Companies] have a really positive role to play in enabling this investment to flow through them.”
Pierre Börjesson adds that fashion brands can speed up tech advances that the whole industry can benefit from. H&M runs a textiles collection programme, which encourages customers to drop off old clothes in store, which the company then recycles. “The whole industry will gain from having more [textiles] returned, so we can get more leverage in the recycling industry, helping recyclists find ways of recycling more fibres,” he says.
However, industry-wide change requires companies to work together.
“The groundwork has been laid,” says Elisa of BSR, who points to groups like the Sustainable Apparel Coalition and the Better Cotton Initiative, in which fashion brands work together towards shared goals. “I think companies are getting out of the more traditional mind-set of secrecy — especially for luxury brands, that’s been the standard. They understand that to tackle a lot of the challenges, particularly when it comes to procuring commodities, you need to partner.”
“You need to have collaboration across borders — politicians, civil society, regions,” says Börjesson of H&M. Of the Paris deal, he says, “Getting this global agreement and a handshake all over the world will help us drive this change through the whole value chain: everything from the cotton farmers, to the customers that are wearing our products.”
For the fashion and luxury industries — whose supply chains rely on parts of the world that are already suffering the effects of climate change — the time to act is now. “We will have to become disruptive and find new ways of doing business. It is an exciting time,” says Marie-Claire Daveu of Kering. “The world will be watching how we all react.”