Resource Management

This is a test.

This is a test.

This is a test.

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

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

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

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

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

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

USDA  is soliciting comments on how to best design methods for measuring greenhouse gas sources and sinks in the agriculture and forestry sectors [ notice published Feb. 18, 2011  in the Federal Register. The USDA notice on methodologies for quantifying greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration from agriculture and forestry is available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-02-18/pdf/2011-3667.pdf.]The guidelines are intended to be clear enough that they can easily be used by farmers looking to reduce their GHG  emissions, and will incorporate elements of existing methods and guidelines. USDA expects to complete the project within three years. Carbon sinks are natural systems that suck up and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The guidelines being developed by USDA will be used within USDA and by farmers, ranchers, and forest land owners and will be made publicly available. To ensure the project deliverables are of benefit to the widest possible set of stakeholders,  the process of developing the guidelines, methods, and reporting tools will emphasize scientific rigor, transparency, internal consistency, and reducing uncertainty. The notice emphasized USDA is seeking comments on how it may “best improve upon existing GHG  estimation guidelines for the agriculture and forestry sectors, while at the same time simplifying the input requirements and enhancing the ease of use for individuals and entities. The guidelines will seek to offer emissions calculation methodologies, emissions reduction techniques, and ways to increase carbon sequestration for a wide range of agricultural activities including soil management.

This should be helpful to cotton farmers to have a way approved by a government body to show how much reduction in GHGs they are getting on their farm.

Advertising Age named sustainability one of the “ jargon” words of 2010. Misuse is made easy due to the lack of a universally agreed upon definition.  The difficulty in coming up with a shared definition is complicated by the fact that sustainability applies to a multitude of dynamically interrelated issues — environmental, economic, and social. The most popular definition of sustainability came out of the Brundtland Commission (formally known as the World Commission on Environment and Development) of the United Nations General Assembly on March 20, 1987. The Brundtland definition is criticized as being too vague and not providing a guide for how sustainability can become “operational.” In addition, there is no one regulating the “environmentally-friendly” steps that many companies claim they are taking.

However, used properly (i.e., based on validated improvements and not ‘greenwash’), ‘more sustainable’  describes practices through which the global economy can grow. Today it appears there are many articles indicating that sustainability is helping to shape business. Companies used to shy away from setting public performance targets. But two key changes have occurred. First, sustainability has become a topic on the Board's agenda. Second, it is now more widely understood that becoming ‘more sustainable’ can spark innovation that delivers a competitive advantage--it is not simply a risk mitigation exercise. These changes have led companies like Walmart and Levi as well as many others to link their companies' reputations to their sustainability performance.

Is this what your company is experiencing? Do you expect this of your suppliers and do your customers expect this of you?