ColumnIs fast fashion giant H&M really making moves to become more sustainable, or is it all just greenwashing?

Editor’s Note: This is Jessica Marati’s first column for Behind The Label, which will explore whether brands claiming sustainable initiatives are going green – or just plain greenwashing.

It’s so easy to love and hate H&M. On the one hand, the Swedish fashion chain has played a significant role in democratizing fashion and bringing trends once reserved for the upper classes to the masses. On the other, H&M’s fast fashion model has accelerated the fashion cycle to its current frenetic pace, driving down prices and increasing pressure within the industry to produce more, quicker, with little regard to the people and environments involved.

In recent years, H&M has made efforts to be more transparent with its social responsibility efforts, releasing a hefty Conscious Actions Sustainability Report in 2010 that outlined its sustainability goals and action roadmap. The company also dabbled in small scale sustainable fashion campaigns like a capsule organic cotton line in 2007, a recycled fabric commitment in 2009, and an eco-fiber Garden Collection in 2010, none of which gained much notice.

In 2011, however, H&M stepped up its efforts with the release of a much-anticipated Conscious Collection, a white-hued line of separates made from organic cotton, Tencel®, and recycled polyester. In the fall, they followed up with a romantic floral line inspired by Swedish folklore as well as a holiday party collection. New lines for 2012 haven’t yet been announced, but it appears that H&M is folding its sustainability efforts into more of its products across the board.

But how much of this progress is part of an honest, dedicated commitment to doing good, and how much is just great greenwashing? Let’s have a look at some of the facts behind the marketing.

THE GOOD: In September, H&M surpassed Walmart as the world’s largest buyer of organic cotton, consuming more than 15,000 tonnes in 2010, an increase of 77 percent from the previous year. The milestone is linked to H&M’s aim to source all of its cotton from more sustainable sources by 2020. H&M is also a founding member of the Better Cotton Initiative, which introduces more sustainable practices at every step of the cotton production supply chain. In addition to organic cotton, H&M has also experimented with other eco-fibers, including recycled polyester, recycled polyamide, recycled plastic, organic linen, recycled cotton, recycled wool, Tencel®, and organic hemp.

THE BAD: Although H&M is a member of the Fair Labor Association, which aims to improve working conditions in factories, the company was recently hit with a slew of bad press after a series of mass fainting incidents at partner factories in Cambodia. An investigation from VICE TV explored the impoverished conditions under which many of the young female workers live. And that’s just one of many scandals: a Greenpeace report recently alleged that H&M-affiliated factories are discharging hazardous chemicals into rivers in China. In 2010, the German edition of the Financial Times reported that H&M was knowingly passing off genetically modified cotton as organic. That same year, it was discovered that an H&M store in Manhattan was destroying and discarding bags of excess merchandise. H&M representatives insisted that the incident was isolated, and that company policy is to donate unworn clothing to charity.

THE QUESTIONABLE: H&M’s corporate transparency about its steps toward sustainability are certainly laudable. However, it’s undeniable that H&M’s fast fashion model is in itself wildly unsustainable, with its focus on producing cheap disposable clothing for a world where tastes seem to change by the minute. As a pioneer of this business model, H&M is fast forwarding fashion trends, as well as driving down the costs of clothing to the delight of consumers but the detriment of competitors, including ones that operate more sustainably. One commitment the fast fashion giant might add to its action plan list is reversing that trend.

Images: H&M.

The country’s first-ever fashion week shows there’s more to Cambodian fashion than fainting garment workers.

These days, Cambodia is known more for its clothing manufacturing than its clothing design. But with the launch of the first-ever Cambodia Fashion Week, that’s about to change.

Festivities kicked off yesterday in the capital city of Phnom Penh and continue through November 5, with a full slate of fashion shows, invite-only receptions, celebrity studded after-parties, and all of the glitz and glamor you’d expect from an international fashion showcase.

But in Cambodia, Fashion Week takes on additional significance in a country where most people subsist on less than $2 a day, and the clothing manufacturing industry provides a much needed step out of extreme poverty for many rural poor. Difficult working conditions, child labor, and toxic waste still permeate the industry, a fact recently spotlighted after a string of mass fainting incidents in Phnom Penh factories – suppliers to fast fashion giants like H&M – hit the mainstream media.

Event organizers are hoping to trump that negative attention and are more focused on Cambodia Fashion Week highlighting the more positive side of Cambodian fashion: its ability to showcase the country’s rich artistic and craft-based heritage.

Keok’ Jay, Fall ’11

“There’s a lot of manufacturing here, but very little design,” says Rachel Faller, founder of Keok’Jay, a social enterprise that will debut its latest collection at CFW. “Fashion Week will be a great opportunity for Cambodia to create and promote its design identity.”

Faller is one of many local designers who are proving that it’s possible to produce great fashion while respecting human rights.  Since 2008, she has worked with low-income, HIV-positive women to create sustainable apparel and accessories. Her latest collection is inspired by the sea, and makes plentiful use of recycled jersey and fabric scraps, but in a way that’s cohesive, not patchwork, she says. The collection will be sold at Keok’Jay’s three Cambodia retail locations and an online retailer located on their website.

Another ethical highlight of the week is the opening show from Eric Raisina, a Madagascar-born designer who has worked with traditional silk weavers to produce unique textiles for nearly a decade. His Siem Reap workshop employs nearly 30 Cambodian artisans, each groomed by Raisina himself, trained in a diverse set of skills, and paid a living wage.

Eric Raisina

Raisina’s new collection is inspired by the black orchid, a rare flower found only in Madagascar. “This collection will show exactly what Eric likes to do with silk in Cambodia,” says Christine Gleizes, Raisina’s publicity director. The show will also feature new prêt-à-porter items made from cotton, linen, and other fabrics found in local markets, which will be sold in Raisina’s new Phnom Penh boutique.

The week will culminate with an exclusive two-day shopping event featuring participating designers and local boutiques. The event will also include a social enterprise showcase, with projects and products from socially responsible businesses and NGOs. Unearthed are some great treasures including contemporary ikat handbags and accessories from Push Pull Cambodia; traditional krama check urban gear from Good Krama; pop-art inspired t-shirts from Friends International, an NGO that works with marginalized youth; and much more.

“Traditionally there is no social enterprise component to a Fashion Week,” says Emma Fountain, Marketing Advisor for Friends International and a showcase organizer. “But Cambodia is a special case. With the essence of the country still recovering, it is important to acknowledge this in a country where fashion is still very much emerging.”

Check out the full schedule online and follow the action on Twitter by following @CambodiaFW.

Mainstream fashion media and corporate-sponsored design houses continue to shun environmental progress.

Fashion week has always been an exciting time of year for the fashion industry. It’s an amped up version of “Project Runway,” where designers scramble to present the most eye drawing collections, fighting every other designer showing for the attention of the press. It’s a lot of work, a lot of hype and the best man or woman wins orders from Neiman Marcus, Bloomingdales, or maybe even a capsule line at Target or H&M if they’re really lucky. Innovation is heralded and beauty is showcased as fashion struts its stuff to show the ordinary people how to dress exceptionally.

So if this is the case, why does Ralph Lauren’s Runway Collection, season after season, get the New York Fashion week cover of WWD and raving reviews from all the fashion press? He literally designs the same retro looks year after year: 1920-30′s, Great Gatsby-esque, horse riding get ups for the rich. Feather boas? Have you ever seen anyone in public pull that off without looking slightly ridiculous? This is what the fashion industry heralds as innovative, new and headlining.

The fashion press applauds loudest for the very same fashion houses that do the most advertising. Coincidence? Imagine if an oil company donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to a politician’s campaign and they just happened to be in the same business that the politician fought to give special tax breaks to. This is the exact same way the mainstream fashion industry runs: donations and lobbying, also known as paying for advertising.

The Business of Fashion pulled from a Guardian article, quoting Alexandra Shulman the Editor-in-Chief of British Vogue saying “Vogue makes most of its money out of advertising — and it does make an awful lot of money — so we’ve got to have a good relationship with our advertisers. They’re not going to place £100,000 a year and then say ‘Feel free not to use any of our goods’  — life’s not like that. So although there is this feeling sometimes that creatively it’s not pure, well magazines are a business, you’re not sitting there writing poetry.”

Marrying Sustainable Fashion With Mainstream

While the mainstream fashion press is busy paying lip service to old school fashion house’s fat wallets, they barely acknowledge that sustainability for the future of fashion means a lot more than traditional press and sales. Outside of the advertising winner’s circle, there are plenty of designers, press, and bloggers who acknowledge, report upon, work for and really do see the change of the sustainable design community’s efforts.

Even Oprah has something to say about it. Yet the fashion industry doesn’t want to outwardly acknowledge the shifts going on towards sustainable consumerism perhaps from a fear because they’re afraid that following, or even promoting ethical and sustainable business practices would mean a few things:

1.  The admittance that things have been and continue to be done unethically in almost every step of the process.

2. The end of days for business processes that are comfortable, which might equate to a loss of sales and/or jobs for people who don’t know how to evolve.

3. Quite possibly the end of all the excess that is fashion week because it would require focusing on doing things based on a whole new model.

Eko-Lab, A/W 2011

Melissa Kirgan co-designer for sustainable label Eko-Lab asks why sustainable fashion and mainstream fashion need to be two separate entities when they both ultimately share the same goal: to sell a product.

“No matter how ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’ a design is, if it is not bought there is no business. For us at Eko-Lab the number one important focus is to make an amazing product, our beliefs and ethics are to be valued as building blocks in the heritage of our brand.”
Yet Kirgan relays her own story of a trip to Bendel’s Open Call to present her line which was an eye opening moment for her and partner Xing-Zhen Chung.

“When we presented our product it was well received and we were given many complements, when we began to share the origin of our fibers and their organic qualities there was an instant change in tone and we were told that was not their customer,” says Kirgan, adding that while fashion is glamorous, it’s function is to create an illusion of how the wearer wishes to project themselves to the world.
“While sustainable design appears to still suffer crunchy connotations. If you must make these into two groups (mainstream vs. sustainable) then sustainable design is going to need way better branding.“

Better Branding and Changing Existing Fashion Industry Models

Every sustainable designer has had to look in the mirror and face the need to reinvent the wheel. When it comes to the fashion business, no matter what, designers (sustainable or not) are still adding to a massive waste stream. If we actually believe fashion can be a platform to stop planetary, environmental, and health degradation, it’s going to consistently be a painful reinvention for designers to go through, (especially if they like the idea of a steady paycheck and health insurance). Very few eco-designers make it after two years. 

This might also be why you don’t see most eco-designers, showing up at the Lincoln Center Tents, (which cost $20,000 a runway), where every season the “notable” designers present with a new and cheerful line of must have items.

Are there designers who support and propel a healthy future that the population would rather hear about? Of course, but the only way most people might see them is if they go searching for it outside of the daily barrage of advertising. Even with Oprah’s blessing, the eco-design world is considered “the fringe,” not something that appears regularly on mainstream fashion’s radar. But even with their “fringe” status some of these designers are somehow staying in business, making a huge impact, and offering consumers an option to opt out of the game of Fashion Monopoly that no one but the big corporations win.

Stewart + Brown

Howard Brown of Stewart+Brown is one of those designers and says the ethical fashion movement needs to remain true to its core mission; to lead by example and shift the paradigm toward sustainable business and production practices.

“Opportunistic grandstanding and hollow gestures from the fashion establishment do nothing meaningful to change the status quo yet compromise the mission and integrity of the ethical fashion movement. The path towards sustainability does not pass through fast fashion retailing. Remember what Bucky Fuller said, ‘You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.’”

Image: MokeSDoke

Hormone disrupting chemicals, found by Greenpeace, can affect immune systems and alter sexual development.

Greenpeace recently reported that clothing items bearing the logos of 14 global brands – including Adidas, H&M, Calvin Klein and Abercrombie & Fitch – have been found to contain nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs), chemicals that can break down to form the hormone-disrupting substance nonylphenol (NP). Just this morning, Reuters released the news that Nearly 300 Cambodian workers fell sick this week at a garment factory producing goods for Swedish fashion brand H&M.

“Workers smelled something bad coming from the shirts,” said 26-year-old Norn Leakhena, a worker at the factory.

Greenpeace also reports in their findings that “Of the 78 articles of clothing bought and manufactured in locations all over the world, two thirds (52) tested positive for these chemicals – demonstrating that the use and release of these substances is a global problem affecting the entire textile industry, and further reinforcing the findings of the first Dirty Laundry Report, published 6 weeks ago.”

We caught up with Tommy Crawford, Communications Manager for Greenpeace International to help us break down what this means for us in terms of personal as well as ecological safety.

Are the hormone disrupting chemicals coming from finishes on the clothes?
Nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs) are used as surfactants in textile production. They subsequently break down into the toxic nonylphenol (NP) in the manufacturing process in wastewater discharges, as well as when finished clothes are washed by the consumers. This means that the persistent, hormone-disrupting NPs end up predominately in rivers and waterways in the countries of production but also in the countries of sale – including countries where use of the parent compounds (NPEs) is banned.

Would you say these are brands targeted mostly at a younger demographic who could care less about toxic clothing?
Toxic chemicals are a concern for everyone, regardless of their age. Greenpeace is not looking to discourage people from buying these brands, but we are interested in empowering their consumers to challenge these brands to produce their clothes in a way that does not come with a high price for people and the environment. A toxic-free future is possible, and concerned and empowered consumers have already played a massive role in convincing Nike and Puma to commit to the total elimination of all hazardous chemicals from their production by watching and sharing the campaign video and signing the petition. Over 600 supporters and activists even took part in the world’s biggest coordinated striptease to send a clear message to the brands to “Detox” our future.

The Greenpeace report says that chemicals are entering waterways and altering organisms. Why should we care?
We should care as we are talking about very problematic toxic chemicals entering into our water and our environment and having harmful and often unknown impacts. Chemicals that have no safe levels. Chemicals that stay in our environment for a long time (persistent), build up in the food chain (bioaccumulative), and that are hormone disrupting and toxic.

The substances Nonylphenol ethoxolates (NPEs) that we found in the clothes breakdown into the toxic nonylphenol (NP) once released into sewage treatment plants or directly into rivers (such as in manufacturing wastewaters, or during normal washing by consumers). NPs have the ability to mimic natural estrogen hormones. Scientific studies have found that exposure to NP can lead to altered sexual development in some organisms, particularly fish and other aquatic organisms. Lab testing on animal cells has also observed NP impacting immune system cells. Many of these effects can occur at relatively low levels.

With 13 countries involved in the supply chain for all these tested brands, how can they be regulated to ensure change? Is it too big a project?
No it is not. Suppliers in all these 13 countries are supplying big international clothing brands. By campaigning on the clothing brands, urging them to take responsibility for the toxic discharges in the manufacture of their clothes and becoming part of the solution by cleaning up their supply chains we can witness positive results for people and the environment in all production countries. It is not an impossible task, we have already seen both Puma and Nike committing to a toxic-free future by 2020.

Following its commitment last Wednesday Nike immediately took measures to start the elimination of NPEs in their supply chain by informing all of their suppliers around the world that NPEs need to be eliminated. Nike immediately moved NPEs from their list of ‘future restricted substances during manufacture’ to their existing list of ‘restricted substances during manufacture.’ This means that by encouraging the brands to commit to creating a toxic-free world, we can bring about positive and widespread change in all the countries of manufacture – very important for all the millions of people living in the countries of production who are dependent on rivers and other waterways for their drinking water.

Will you be checking back with Puma and Nike regarding their commitment to change?
Yes, both companies have publicly committed to come back with a Plan of Action with a road map detailing how they will get to zero discharges of hazardous chemicals by 2020. Nike, for example, wrote last week in its public commitment: ”Within eight weeks Nike Inc. will announce it’s action plan for the goal of eliminating hazardous chemicals within our supply chain addressing transparency, chemical management, including how we will address the need for industry disclosure in line with the right to know principles and a time-line for the highest priority hazardous chemicals.” Puma has also committed to publishing an action plan detailing how they will deliver their commitment within the next eight weeks.

Greenpeace will be closely watching this process and reviewing the plans of action to ensure they will indeed lead to the brands and their suppliers achieving toxic-free production by 2020.

Images: Greenpeace

Over the past few years, there has been a growing number of sustainable denim brands on the market, including Levi’s Eco, REUSE, Good Society, Loomstate Organic and the now (sadly) defunct Del Forte Denim.

Traditionally speaking (if you can call it that after only three short years), what makes denim sustainable is the use of 100 percent organic cotton and plant based indigo dyes. Some brands use recycled denim and Del Forte had a great recycling program where they would take your old jeans and recycle them into new ones.

Today however, the eco denim scene is abuzz with Levi’s and H&M’s recent announcement of their plans to globally ban sandblasting by 2011. Together, they are encouraging other brands to follow suit, in the hope that it will become industry practice.

The sandblasting technique involves the “˜blasting’ of an abrasive material in a granular or powder form, at a very high speed and pressure, on specific areas of the garment surface to give it the desired distressed or used look. You know the look some of us achieve more naturally from wearing our favorite pair of jeans for years and years.

Their surprising decision came about from rising concerns over textile workers developing silicosis, a harsh lung disease caused from the airborne particles produced from sandblasting denim.

Turkey imposed a ban on the practice of sandblasting apparel in 2008, following a study conducted by news channel France24 that uncovered numerous denim workers in Istanbul who contracted this incurable disease.

As a result of the ban, some of the large denim companies in Turkey are now subcontracting to Pakistan, Bangladesh, Syria and Egypt, thus proving it may be difficult to monitor.

However, brands that are engaged with their supply chain, such as H&M and Levi’s, are in a better position to police the restriction closely.

But not everyone is convinced that this is a good idea. Monitoring the ban means that someone would have to visit the factories, to which some argue that a more effective solution is to impose a ban on factories that fail to implement good health and safety practices when sandblasting.

And another possible solution could be to provide workers with the appropriate protection, and use dust extraction equipment, making it less of a health risk.

Still, H&M and Levi’s decision to impose the ban is a step in the right direction, toward more responsible production that cares for its workers and their overall health. And because the ban could pose great operational risks for both companies, their actions should be applauded.

While I sit back and watch this play out, I think I’ll stick to buying vintage denim that already comes with that worn out, distressed look.

Image: Vivian Chen

Much of sustainable design is focused on producing new products in line with the cradle-to-cradle concept but, with so much clothing in landfills, the most compelling applications are those that reclaim and reexamine found materials. San Francisco’s latest eco-fashion launch, Piece x Piece, illustrates how a new response to climate change can be the catalyst for truly smart and innovative design. Created from discarded fabric swatches, the finished limited-edition garments are at once fresh and timeless, a testament to the beauty and possibility inherent in embracing change. We talked to Piece X Piece founder, Elizabeth Brunner, about her new line and what the future holds for responsible fashion lovers.

What are your views on the current state of the eco-fashion movement?

“I think the eco-fashion movement is headed in a good direction in terms of availability and getting more attention. On the West Coast and, in SF in particular, I think more people have eco-fashion in their wardrobes and it’s slowly becoming the norm, which is great. Fast fashion is a hard habit to break because everyone loves a great deal, myself included! But at the same time, I think some people are finding the sparkle of fast fashion fading because it’s generally not original – by any means – and people are craving individuality and want something that’s made well, which usually equates to spending a little more money.”

What about the so-called eco-fashion paradox – when we have so much already, how can buying more create a profound engagement with clothing that can transform and inspire change?

“That’s a tough question but one that I actually thought a lot about when I was studying fashion because I have such a love/hate relationship with the industry. Fashion is a form of expression and it’s really the only way to communicate without saying a word – that’s what I love about it – it’s very creative. It can also be frivolous and superficial but that’s not something you can change peoples minds about. It has to be an observation you make on your own. Then it becomes less about “stuff” and more about substance.”

What do you think the “mantra” of the woman looking to dress more sustainably should be?

“Quality not quantity. If you buy clothes that are well designed, fit you well, and are made well, whether it’s made of organic cotton or not, if it stays in your closet for years over - that’s a form of sustainability that I can get behind.”

Who do you imagine as your customer?

“I hate to give any description of my “customer” because I think it’s very limiting. All I’ll really say is that I make clothes that I love and I hope others love it too.”

Describe your personal style?

“I dress very simply when I’m working because it doesn’t make sense to wear stiletto boots and mini skirts while I’m digging through boxes or cutting out patterns. I have a very easy sense of style and don’t like anything super fussy, so I tend to wear darker tones and accentuate with color. I kick it up a notch or two when I’m out socially, and I hope I’m expressing confidence with ease.”

Tell us about some of your favorite pieces from the line.

“The Cubic Crop is one of my first designs where I knew I was on to something. I created it on one of those days when nothing was coming out the way I wanted it to and I just took a break stepped back and I realized I was trying too hard. I wanted to make something fun and different that was easy to wear and I think I did. I wore this recently with a white tank top underneath, a blazer over it with jeans and boots and I felt really pulled together.”

“The Local Sparrow dress was the first hybrid design in my collection because I use a new fabric on top and pieced the entire bottom. I thought this would make the dress easier to wear but still be eye catching. I love this dress because it’s youthful without being age specific. Pair this dress with some simple black platforms and you’re done!”

“The Skylark wrap is my “pièce de résistance” because it truly was a labor of love to complete the first one! This skirt is completely pieced and is cut on the bias for fullness and to give it a nice drape. Everyone who has seen this skirt in person loves it because you can really appreciate all that went into it. I also hand stitch some of the swatches to make it even more special. It’s a wrap skirt also, with a high waist, which accentuates the smallest part of your figure. It’s a great look for Fall/Winter! I wear this with a simple tank top or v-neck t-shirt. You don’t want anything to compete with this skirt so it’s best to keep it simple.”

Where can we find your pieces?

“They are carried exclusively at Wear Something Rare in San Francisco.”

With not only H&M and organic certifier EcoCert caught in an unprecedented organic cotton scandal, courtesy of “organic cotton” suppliers from India, retailers worldwide can’t help but brace for their own industry-altering aftermath.

According to Ecotextile News, Lothar Kruse, a director of the independent testing laboratory Impetus in Bremerhaven, Germany examined the cotton fabrics that came from Indian farms and claimed roughly “30% of the tested samples” contained genetically modified (GM) cotton.

The head of the Indian agricultural authority Apeda, Sanjay Dave, told the newspaper they were dealing with fraud on “a gigantic scale.”

Organic Exchange, an organization committed to expanding organic agriculture, is releasing figures any day regarding how much so-called organic cotton India has produced on an international level for retail.

Current figures provided by them include 61% of the total amount of organic cotton produced worldwide in 2008-2009 were from them, with some 107,000 tons of fiber out of the total 175,113 tons grown worldwide.

Ecotextile News also reports that “Indian authorities discovered the alleged fraud back in April 2009 and fines were imposed at that time on third party certification agencies EcoCert and Control Union.”

Rumors have been flying for some time in the sustainable textile industry halls that the Indian organic cotton sector has been suspect.

Wondering what’s wrong with genetically modifying organic cotton?

According to the Human Genome Project, the act of genetically modifying something like organic cotton has its own ripple effect from the potential environmental impacts of unintended transfer of trans genes through cross-pollination and unknown effects on other organisms (e.g., soil microbes), to the loss of flora and fauna biodiversity.

Cut to the chase: when we screw with nature, we screw ourselves.

So what kind of ripple effect will this new information have on the entire sustainable textile industry?

Aside from the fact that eco-haters will have a field day bashing sustainable industries striving to make progress, this presents a great (if painful) opportunity to thoroughly consider our supply chains.

When companies large and small can’t trust certifiers and government officials to ensure organic products are in fact organic, we in the eco-world have reached a breach of the worst sort.

From designers to retailers, from teachers to industry writers, we all will come to realize that trust in large corporations and organizations can still be a shaky commodity and one that will require even more stringent watch-dogging.

One can only hope this clamp down won’t add a larger price tag to an already inflated organic ticket.

Image: Le Xav

It might be gray and raining outside, but a few days into 2010 and I’m already looking forward to spring designs. This might be because as far as fashion goes, more and more designers and big names in the industry are opting for sustainable materials. Today’s spotlight is on fashion-giant H&M, which this week announced the spring Garden Collection.

They tell me it’s all about floral patterns this spring, and fortunately, looking fresh and fun will also be eco-friendly. All of the garments in the new line have been made using sustainable materials or textile waste.

On its list of sustainable materials, H&M has incorporated organic cotton, organic linen, recycled polyester and tencel, the renewable fiber that’s quickly making its way into eco-designers’ repertoires.

H&M isn’t new to sustainable design, and they’re well aware of conventional cotton’s impact on the environment. The company started using organic cotton back in 2004, and in the last three years, they’ve increased the amount of organic cotton they use from 30 to 3,000 tons.

As an international fashion company, H&M is a key player in the industry, and increasing demand for organic cotton in turn helps organic cotton farmers. The company is also committed to ensuring that more farmers switch to organic, by supporting transitional cotton growing; converting from conventional to organic cotton production is a process that usually takes three years and working with farmers that are in that process helps keep the industry growing.

When H&M announced it was starting an organic cotton collection last year, devoted shoppers yearning for sustainable apparel at ultra low prices got excited. Now the retail giant has announced its plans to not only incorporate more organic cotton in their spring collection, but also recycled cotton, wool, polyester and PET bottles from fabric remnants in production.

And being a progressive company realizing that being labeled as environmentally friendly means more than recycling soda bottles in the company break room and green fabrics, H&M has gone as far as providing an environmental objective and sustainability policy at their website.

H&M should probably consider their investment one of the wisest ones they’ve made in a while. Certainly better than forcing Madonna to strike a pose in a satin track suit. Enhancing its brand by being progressive (and catering to its desired shoppers: us) will only make them stronger.