The Higg Index, an open-source sustainability assessment tool for apparel and footwear products, helps companies measure the environmental and social impacts of their supply chains. What is new about the Higg Index 2.0?

Transparency is the new black of fashion. First, we saw a rise in Corporate Social Responsibility, then the focus turned to reducing carbon emissions, and now we have dawned upon a culture of systems-based thinking to assess sustainability. As attitudes shift, companies are searching for streamlined, yet concrete ways to quantifiably assess their impact.

The Higg Index is that tool. Launched in March 2011, along side the Sustainable Apparel Coalition, the tool aims to create a unified and collaborative way for brands to dissect their level of sustainability. Through a series of yes/no questions, companies can examine each tier of their supply chains. The self-assessment tool identifies environmental and social areas of strength and weakness, in which companies then use as a foundation to drive change within areas needing improvement.

The new model, Higg 2.0 was released on December 11, 2013 with new additions to strengthen the measurements. Major additions include questions regarding social and labor components, as well as expanding to the footwear sector.

Snapshot of HiggIndex Program in action.

image: Sustainable Apparel Coalition

Today, the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC), and Higg Index users, represent a community of more than 100 member, brands, retailers,  manufactures, trade associations, non-profit organizations, and academic affiliations. This multi stakeholder group represents a culture of collaboration to move the apparel industry towards a more sustainable future. In total, the group encompasses an astounding total of over one-third of the global apparel and footwear industry.

The Higg Index is not a Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) tool, but does examine all pieces within the life cycle, such as materials, manufacturing, packaging, transportation, use, and end-of-life, showing products through a life cycle systems approach.

The index focuses on three major areas of a company: Brand, Facility and Product. The brand component assesses company culture, and in particular, sustainability ideas around guidelines. For example, “Do guidelines exists for product design?” or  “Are designers asked to come up with, and implement, ideas around reducing packaging?” The facility component is mainly focused on energy, water and waste questions regarding the facilities products are actually manufactured in. And the product component, based largely on Nike’s Materials Sustainability Index, measures use of textiles and other materials that go into a product.

image: Sustainable Apparel Coalition

Using these three branches of a product’s life cycle, the index gives a score 0 – 100 — the greater the number the better the sustainability measure. The test is currently self-monitored, meaning the company conducts the test themselves, because for now the measure is only used internally. But as a member of SAC, companies must be willing to address and take action regarding areas that need improvement.

In the future, SAC promises to expand the tool to include retail outlets, too. And furthermore, once the index is perfected a consumer facing piece will be incorporated.

At the heart of the HIGG index are companies working together sharing their ideas, tools, and strategies–rather than competing with one another.

“In our meetings you’ll see the members are unbelievably collaborative and open about sharing their tools with the rest of the industry,” Jazon Kibbey, Sustainable Apparel Coalition Executive Director said in an interview with Triple Pundit. “I think everybody feels that with sustainability there’s much bigger business gain to have from reducing risk overall in the supply chain, improving efficiencies and developing innovation on a larger scale than from developing tools to be used only within the walls of your company.”

Related on Ecosalon

The Dawn Of The Not So Clueless Fashion Consumer

Eileen Fisher Opens Up About Social Responsibility Through New ‘Ampersand’ Campaign 

H&M Advocates Transparency… Really?

featured image by Juliette Donatelli, with brand splash and logo by Sustainable Apparel Coalition

The post Higg Index Gets A Makeover: Sustainability Stripped Down appeared first on EcoSalon.

Are eco-friendly claims always true? How do you tell if a company really is making a difference?

Peruse most any company’s marketing materials, and after you suspend disbelief, you’d most likely agree with them that the world simply couldn’t exist without their efforts in making the planet a better place. This has always been true, whether a brand was selling us their newest quick dessert mix that made Mom’s life easier, or they’re selling us the latest “eco-friendly,” or “green” household cleaner, mode of transportation or energy bar.

Unlike certifications for organic or Fair Trade foods, the U.S. does not currently have regulations on the use of popular terms including “natural,” “green” or even “eco.”  These companies are not just producing food, either. There are “responsible” fashion companies, car manufacturers, banks (really), investment firms, tech and entertainment companies, and so much more. But without any substantial definition of “green,” it’s no wonder people around the world are stumped when asked to name a socially responsible company.

But that doesn’t mean we should stop trying. Want to find out whether or not you’re supporting a truly green brand or getting greenwashed? Check out these tips:

1. B corporation: Although still a rarity, and not at all a defining factor, a B certification does require an impact assessment that can help a brand protect its sustainability mission by holding companies to standards including: social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency.

2. Sustainability and CDP reporting: Does a company issue an annual sustainability report?  What about participating in the Carbon Disclosure Project? Triple Pundit says you can search the Global Reporting database and the CDP’s database to see if a brand has reported on its use of carbon, water and impact on the world’s forests.

3. Who owns them? While you might find a lot of great things about Honest Tea or Stonyfield Yogurt, did you know those brands are owned by some of the world’s biggest corporations? Some people see this as a step in the right direction and continue to support brands bought out by larger entities, but others see it as greenwashing—all the good being offset by the company’s other less green practices.

4. Shareholder resolutions: According to Triple Pundit, a company that is more responsible “will have a smaller number of shareholder resolutions if at all, and will work together with its shareholders to find agreeable solutions to the issues that they bring up through the resolutions.” You can use the Ceres database to see shareholder resolutions summaries on public companies.

5. Browse the forums: Consumer feedback can be really helpful in researching products and services. While it’s not necessarily as cut and dry as whether or not a company bought carbon credits, it can reveal a bit more about customer service and the day-to-day experiences with a company. Truly green brands tend to have very knowledgeable staff who also love their jobs.

Keep in touch with Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Image: Ian Muttoo

The post But Is It Really Eco-Friendly? 5 Tricks to Uncovering ‘Green’ Claims appeared first on EcoSalon.

ColumnIs H&M as conscious as it claims to be?

The notion of H&M as a sustainable fashion brand might strike you as an oxymoron. How can the Swedish retailer, best known for pioneering wasteful, disposable, trend-driven fast fashion, possibly claim to be socially responsible?

It might take time, but that is H&M’s aim, if the company’s latest Conscious Actions Report is any indication. The 93-page document outlines in detail H&M’s goals, actions, and progress toward becoming a more sustainable fashion brand. Along with the report, H&M recently released its full supplier list for the first time, a significant move toward greater transparency for the multi-billion dollar corporation. And then there’s H&M’s new Conscious Exclusive Collection, the latest in a line of fashionable capsule collections featuring eco-preferable fabrics, like organic cotton and recycled polyester.

According to CEO Karl-Johan Persson, H&M doesn’t just want to improve its own sustainability – it wants to create long-lasting systemic change in the fashion industry. “Our size gives us the opportunity to promote such change well beyond our own operations,” Persson says in the report. “Together with our millions of customers we can bring massive change – from improving the livelihood of a cotton farmer to how our customers care for the clothes they buy.”

But how does H&M’s words stack up against its actions? Last year, we launched Behind The Label with a look at H&M’s conscious efforts. This week, we return to see how far the company has come.

The Good

Some fashion brands launch capsule eco-collections, promote them to death, then call it a day. But for H&M, its Conscious Collections are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to social responsibility efforts.

At the latest collection’s launch in New York City last week, I caught up with Caterina Midby, director of fashion and sustainability communications, to discuss how H&M incorporates sustainability into the design process. Turns out, the first step is having high expectations.

“We never start the design process by seeing what’s available,” said Midby. “We would rather design the garment, decide on how it looks, then go out and look… some of these fabrics have never been available on the market. It’s been up to us to request them and for our suppliers to develop them.”

Indeed, H&M’s size has allowed it to demand from suppliers what other brands can’t. But in that power lies great responsibility, which the company appears to be taking seriously. In its Conscious Actions Report, H&M identifies seven major areas of commitment:

1. Provide fashion for conscious consumers
2. Choose and reward responsible partners
3. Be ethical
4. Be climate smart
5. Reduce, reuse, recycle
6. Use natural resources responsibly
7. Strengthen communities

Alone, the commitments sound pretty innocuous. However, the Conscious Actions listed beneath each commitment reveal a strong understanding of the challenges facing the global apparel industry, as well as the extenuating factors that make those challenges difficult to overcome. For instance, under “Choose and reward responsible partners,” commitment number one is for H&M to be a good partner to suppliers, “by providing fair lead times, fair pricing, on-time payments and clear communication.” Too often, brands blame their suppliers when labor abuses occur. Here, H&M asserts that it, too, bears the responsibility to be a good partner.

Some other highlights from the report:

• For the second year in a row, H&M was the largest purchaser of organic cotton in the world – an amount totaling only 7.8 percent of its total cotton use, which is indicative of the power a brand has at H&M’s scale. The company’s goal is to convert entirely to more sustainably sourced cotton by 2020.
• In 2012, H&M became the first global retailer to start a system to collect and recycle old clothing. Customers now have the opportunity to drop old clothes, from any brand, in collection bins at H&M stores. H&M will then reuse and recycle those clothes in an effort to close the textile loop.
• Also this year, H&M launched a new three-year partnership with the World Water Fund to create new standards for water stewardship in the fashion industry, starting from the design of a garment all the way to advocating for public policy changes.

The Bad

It wasn’t too long ago that clothing was something that people valued. Garments cost a bit more, but they lasted for decades. If you ripped your shirt, you would mend it. You left the mall with one or two purchases, and you would wear them to pieces.

But today, you can find H&M shirts for $3 and jeans for $15. If you rip your shirt, you throw it away and buy a new one. You leave the mall with 15 purchases, and some you don’t even get around to wearing.

Through sophisticated marketing and merchandising, fast fashion brands like H&M have fundamentally changed the way that consumers approach shopping, leading many to consume more than they actually need and dispose of everything else. H&M’s rock-bottom pricing model has also had a profound effect on the rest of the fashion world, forcing other brands to lower their prices in order to compete. What this usually means is lower quality fabrics and production methods across the board, as well as lower wages for garment workers.

But when questioned about the (un)sustainability of its business model, H&M’s sustainability executives seem to shrug off the company’s responsibility. At an H&M- and Vogue-sponsored panel on conscious fashion last week, head of sustainability Helena Helmersson dodged the fast fashion question by saying, “For us it’s about reducing impact. Still we’re going to expand, so how do we reduce the impact and our footprint?”

Caterina Midby, who also sat on the panel, placed the onus for responsible consumption on the consumer: “It’s not how like it used to be when I started in the business, when trends change from one season to another,” she said. “Now it’s all about personal style. You don’t really need to renew your wardrobe every six to seven months. It’s really up to the consumer.”

The Questionable

H&M prides itself on democratizing fashion, on “bringing it to the masses,” if you will. It’s a lovely thought – who doesn’t love democracy? – but too often it leads to overconsumption. According to Elizabeth Cline, author of “Overdressed: The Shockingly High Cost of Fast Fashion,” the average American purchases 68 garments and seven pairs of shoes each year. Compare that to 1929, when the average woman had just nine outfits total.

I place part of the blame on H&M for getting us to this point. Whether H&M wants to admit it or not, it’s due to its sophisticated marketing and merchandising engine that consumers now feel the need to buy more of what they don’t need.

That said, I am encouraged by H&M’s stated commitment to sustainability. One has only to visit HM.com or walk into one of its retail stores to see the marketing power that the company has put behind its Conscious campaign. The flora and fauna swathing spokeswoman Vanessa Paradis may be a bit overkill, but the message is pretty clear: H&M is going green, and it’s taking you with it.

If H&M was able to change the way we view the fashion calendar in the course of just a few decades, I hope that now, it will use its power to make us view fashion more responsibly. A brand of its scale has the ability not only to have a positive effect through its own behavior, but also to influence its peers and its customers. I hope it is conscious of that fact.

Images: H&M

The post Behind The Label: Revisiting H&M Conscious appeared first on EcoSalon.

No more tears… but at what cost?

For many Americans, the lightly floral scent of Johnson’s Baby Shampoo brings to mind the cherubic purity of a newborn baby.

That’s why it was shocking to find that Johnson & Johnson’s popular line of baby care products contains trace amounts of known and probable carcinogens – chemicals that have been linked with cancer.

The information was brought to light by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, which has been calling on Johnson & Johnson to remove these chemicals from their baby products since 2009. In 2011, the Campaign organized a media blitz and boycott, which ended a few weeks later with a promise by Johnson & Johnson to phase out suspect chemicals by 2013. Then, last fall, Johnson & Johnson announced that it would be phasing out suspected carcinogens from all of its cosmetics products – a major commitment from a corporation that huge.

While the announcement is certainly a victory, it has come with its drawbacks. In being open and transparent about its efforts, Johnson & Johnson has also brought attention to the fact that its products contained potentially toxic ingredients in the first place – a fact that many consumers were previously unaware of. This week’s Behind the Label takes a look at the Johnson & Johnson’s controversy, but also at the risks involved in taking corporate social responsibility public.

The Good

With 250 subsidiaries and operations in 175 countries, Johnson & Johnson is one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies. Its products are a roll call of household names: Band-Aids, Tylenol, Neutrogena, and, of course, Johnson’s baby products.

That’s why the news that Johnson & Johnson is removing suspected toxins from all of its cosmetics products is significant. It’s the first major commitment by a multinational pharmaceuticals corporation to remove commonly used but potentially toxic chemicals from products on a large scale.

The new policy will extend to Johnson products that are classified as “cosmetics,” with the addition of sunscreen and acne medication, and will encompass popular brands like Aveeno, Clean & Clear, Johnson’s, Lubriderm, Neutrogena, and RoC.

According to the New York Times, Johnson’s also intends to phase out other toxins and irritants, including phthalates, triclosan, and synthetic fragrances. All parabens will be removed from baby products, and some parabens will be removed from adult products.

Publicizing this new initiative was bold, but also risky. As the New York Times noted:

Johnson & Johnson’s decision requires the company to navigate a public relations tightrope, by portraying itself as willing to make extensive changes while simultaneously reassuring consumers that its existing products are safe.

Seventh Generation, which has a competing line of natural baby products, applauded Johnson & Johnson’s efforts, but noted that more needs to be done. “Johnson & Johnson’s announcement represents a start, but it’s clear that the need for sweeping systemic change that would remove all hazards from all products remains,” read a company press release. “We urge Johnson & Johnson, and all personal care and cosmetic companies, to follow the Precautionary Principle and do just that.”

The Bad

While Johnson & Johnson’s announcement was a significant step forward, it also highlighted the fact that the company’s baby products contained potentially harmful chemicals in the first place. While Johnson’s insists that all of its products undergo a five-level safety assurance process, and that these chemicals are not harmful in small doses, the news still raised a major red flag among parents.

Specifically, Johnson’s Baby Shampoo was found to contain two chemicals suspected of contributing to cancer. One is quaternium-15, a preservative that acts as a formaldehyde-releaser. Formaldehyde, also found in disinfectants and cigarette smoke, was declared a known human carcinogen by the U.S. National Toxicology Program in June 2011, though it has been listed as an “anticipated human carcinogen” since 1981.

According to the Associated Press, quaternium-15 is not present in Johnson’s baby products sold in at least eight other countries, including the U.K., Denmark, Japan, and South Africa, but it remains in Johnson’s baby products sold in the U.S., Canada, China, Indonesia, and Australia.

The second suspect ingredient is 1,4-dioxane, a probable human carcinogen that is generated during the ethoxylation process, which, ironically, is used to make other chemicals less harsh on the skin. According to the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, it is highly unlikely that one product containing 1,4-dioxane will cause harm on its own. However,

… repeated exposures from many different products add up. The same baby could be exposed to 1,4-dioxane from baby shampoo, bath bubbles and body wash in a single bath, as well as from other contaminated personal care products today, tomorrow and the next day. Repeated exposures to a single carcinogen, synergistic effects from exposures to multiple carcinogenic and mutagenic ingredients, and concerns about exposures at key points in development (such as pregnancy, infancy and puberty) are cause for concern even though little risk is evident from a single small exposure.

According to the Campaign, the presence of 1,4-dioxane is preventable by using “vacuum-stripping” to remove the chemical from an ethoxylated product, or by simply using less-harsh ingredients, like organic ones, to begin with.

The Questionable

This controversy was clearly preventable. Johnson & Johnson has long been formulating carcinogen-free baby products for European and foreign markets. So why did it take years of political pressure from advocacy groups for Johnson to make the same commitment in the U.S.?

Susan Nettesheim, who heads up Johnson’s evaluation of product chemicals and safety, told the Associated Press that the decision to produce different formulas in different countries is “based on the availability of raw materials, development of formulas that were done in many cases years ago and consumer preferences” for the look and feel of products. Though Johnson & Johnson says that it is “working with global suppliers” to reduce chemicals like 1,4-dioxane to less than four parts per million, it won’t completely phase out the chemicals in U.S. baby products until 2013.

Seventh Generation points out that Johnson’s Natural product line and healthier overseas formulations are proof that Johnson’s is capable of taking much stronger and more comprehensive steps quickly and easily. “Eliminating a handful of the harmful ingredients from a formula while allowing others to remain and taking years to fully implement this is a half-measure and ultimately accomplishes little. It compels the question: is this about protecting public relations or public health?”

The news has also created suspicion among consumers, particularly moms who were shocked to learn that the baby products they had assumed were safe might not be.

“In my household, we never use J&J baby products because they contain a number of potentially harmful chemicals,” mommy blogger Jennifer Taggart told the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. “If they can produce for Europe a product that doesn’t contain carcinogens, why can’t they produce it for (American) babies?”

SEE ALSO:

Behind the Label: Burt’s Bees

Behind the Label: Lush Fresh Handmade Cosmetics

Behind the Label: The Body Shop’s ‘Against Animal Testing’ Campaign

Behind the Label: Avon’s Crusade Against Breast Cancer

Read more Behind the Label here.

Images: Greg Tee

The post Behind the Label: Johnson’s Baby Shampoo appeared first on EcoSalon.

Eileen Fisher shows off its company’s commitment to sustainable and ethical business practices. 

Thumbing through Eileen Fisher’s fall eco collection is an intensely tactile experience. There’s thick organic wool knit into a slouchy sweater, hung next to blouses in lightweight textured sheer hemp, fluid bluesign®-certified silk, and an unbelievably soft cashmere from Outer Mongolia, made even more sensuous from a lack of chemical dye.

On another rack, you’ll find stiff, organic, made-in-NYC denim jeans and an organic version of stretch French terry, one of the company’s trademark fabrics. On the accessories front, wrap yourself in a hand-tie-dyed Japanese shibori scarf or try on a pair of vibrant striped wool glovelettes, naturally dyed with plants from designer Cornelia Blümli’s garden.

Eileen Fisher has long been known for producing simple but sophisticated womenswear, and the fall line is no exception. But what most customers don’t know is that the fashion brand also operates with a strong sense of social responsibility. That’s about to change this fall, with the launch of the Eileen Fisher Ampersand campaign, a new marketing initiative that highlights the company’s commitment to sustainable and ethical business practices.

The purpose of the campaign is to give customers a look at what’s “behind the label” of Eileen Fisher items, an idea that is literally translated through new garment hang tags featuring a checklist of the item’s eco-credentials.

In many ways, the name of the campaign embodies the company’s approach to its industry accomplishments. Though Eileen Fisher has long operated under the dictum of “business as a movement” – a phrase coined by Eileen herself – it has been hesitant to shine a spotlight on its social responsibility efforts.

“Subtle is who we are,” explained Candice Reffe, a member of the Core Concept Team at a recent Eileen Fisher breakfast. “What’s bold about the Ampersand campaign is that we’ve decided to actually speak out about things that we’ve been doing for decades, but that no one knew about.”

The hallmark of the campaign is an elegant ampersand symbol (&) used throughout marketing and advertising material to indicate additional information about an item’s production.

“It feels like us,” says Claire Whitcomb, who worked on the campaign. “It’s ‘by the way, here’s a bit more about what we’re doing. Here’s more of the story.'”

The company dives a bit deeper into those stories in a new newsletter available online and in retail locations. It is a refreshing break from typical CSR publications, with a fresh design and creative approach to product storytelling. Reffe, for instance, contributed a poetic image recap of a sourcing trip to China in the last issue, while other articles explore the process of sourcing sustainable denim and provide practical advice on how to hand wash a sweater.

The new hang tags are another key element of the campaign, letting customers know off the bat if the product consists of organic fibers, recycled fibers, or sustainable fibers; whether it is undyed or certified dyed; and if it is Fair Trade or made in the United States.

Highlights of the collection include:

• A nubby organic cotton sweater that is hand-knit by Fair Trade cooperatives in Peru.
• Silks certified by the strict bluesign® standard, which considers both inputs and outputs in the dying process.
• A sensuous “undyed” cashmere sweater, woven from five different types of “dyed by nature” cashmere yarns from goats in Outer Mongolia.
• Naturally-dyed wool glovelettes produced through a collaboration with Barcelona-based designer Cornelia Blümli.

The post Eileen Fisher Opens Up About Social Responsibility Through New ‘Ampersand’ Campaign appeared first on EcoSalon.

Exploring the relationship between corporate mergers and corporate social responsibility.

Timberland’s mission is unique for a shoe company: “to equip people to make a difference in their world.”

Then again, Timberland isn’t your average shoe company. For more than a decade, Timberland has been at the forefront of the corporate social responsibility space, showing the industry that it’s possible for a mainstream brand to operate sustainably without sacrificing profits. “It’s no longer enough to measure business by standards of profit, efficiency and market share,” wrote CEO Jeffrey Schwartz in the company’s first CSR report, published in 2000. “We must also ask how business contributes to social justice, environmental sustainability and the values by which we choose to live.”

On the surface, it seemed that Timberland was successful in achieving that balance, which is why many were surprised when the company announced in 2011 that it was being acquired by VF Corporation, one of the world’s largest lifestyle and apparel conglomerates.

With a portfolio of more than 30 brands including The North Face, Vans, Reef, Nautica, Jansport, Kipling, and 7 For All Mankind, VF seems perfectly positioned to expand the Timberland brand. But as Timberland itself admits, “there’s much more involved than simply adding up the two balance sheets.” This week’s Behind the Label explores the Timberland-VF merger and its implications for Timberland’s social responsibility efforts.

The Good

Timberland’s story dates back to 1952, when shoemaker Nathan Schwartz purchased shares of the Abington Shoe Company, a small manufacturer based out of Abington, Massachusetts. The company mostly focused on contract manufacturing until 1973, when it launched its first guaranteed water-proof boot under the Timberland brand name. Through the second part of the 20th century, Timberland was run as a family business, first by Nathan, and then later by his son Sidney and grandson Jeffrey.

With Jeffrey at the helm, Timberland became a pioneer in corporate social responsibility in the 1990s, with comprehensive reports and ambitious goals that raised the industry bar. Thankfully, it appears that Timberland is adequately equipped with the tools, structure, and leadership to continue working toward its sustainability goals under the VF umbrella.

One tool that will be invaluable is Timberland’s new online responsibility portal, hailed as a breakthrough in corporate transparency upon its launch in 2011. The portal is broken into sections exploring Climate, Product, Factories, and Service, providing status updates as well as hard graphs and data on the company’s progress in areas like carbon emissions, eco-conscious materials, factory conditions, employee engagement in service activities, and even number of trees planted.

For those who don’t wish or aren’t equipped to sift through the data, Timberland also releases a quarterly newsletter that provides summaries of its efforts, as well as podcasts, blog posts, and a section called “Voices of Challenge,” which brings together CSR professionals to discuss issues around sustainability.

“People can go granular as they want or stay as generalist as they’d like,” Mark Newton, Timberland’s Vice President of CSR, told Forbes. “What’s different about the portal is that we are not starting conversations by discussing one of our pillars or metrics but focusing on stories that matter and then getting to the things that are underneath those stories.”

The portal also includes an interactive scorecard that allows stakeholders to view Timberland’s progress toward its CSR goals for 2015. The scorecard reveals the good, including greater use of environmentally preferred materials and growth of the company’s eco-friendly Earthkeepers line, and the bad, like a 4.5% increase in greenhouse gas emissions from 2010 to 2011 (which Timberland recognizes as a function of increased growth and employee air travel).

The Bad

During the acquisition process, VF Corporation has indicated a desire to continue working toward Timberland’s sustainability goals. “Regardless of what happens post-merger, we are all in this together,” Newton told Forbes. “Our values are integrated into all of us and everyone who works here.”

However, certain public comments and actions indicate that the transition process may have a larger impact on Timberland’s CSR efforts than leadership lets on. For one, it’s a given that VF’s multinational corporate interests will differ somewhat from Timberland’s triple bottom line approach. In a New York Times Dealbook article published at the start of the merger, it appeared that VF’s approach to the acquisition was primarily profit-driven.

VF executives appeared confident that it could wring profits by improving Timberland’s business performance, primarily by folding it into the apparel giant’s global platform and cutting costs. On an investor call with analysts, VF’s chief financial officer, Bob Shearer, said his company planned to raise its new acquisition’s operating margin to 15 percent, in line with the rest of the conglomerate’s brands.

Part of this “folding in” is the replacement of Timberland’s long-standing, well-respected, and notoriously strict factory Code of Conduct with VF’s Terms of Engagement and Global Compliance Principles, the same principles in place across all 30 of the company’s brands. According to Timberland, this will allow for a two-step approach to factory compliance: factory inspections and audits by the VF team, followed by remediation, training, and “beyond compliance” efforts from Timberland’s Supplier Sustainability Team. The success of this new approach is yet to be seen, but one has to wonder how continued “cost-cutting measures” will impact the socially responsible supply chain that Timberland already has in place.

The Questionable

Before the merger, Timberland was on oft-cited example of a homegrown family business that successfully grew into a mainstream brand, without sacrificing its commitment to sustainable business practices. However, comments from Schwartz before his departure from the company revealed that the endeavor was far from simple:

For three generations, we’ve tried to create and master a weird new kind of modern dance—the one that blends the foxtrot of “fiduciary responsibility to shareholders” with the tango of “authentic brand building,” with the Alvin Ailey contortion of “sustainable for profit business practice” … For 30 years, we’ve been trying, fighting, struggling, to choreograph the intricate interaction between shareholder value, consumer demand, and social accountability. I have the scars, and the long list of failed efforts, incomplete outcomes, unrealized dreams and frustrated ambitions before my eyes all the time that reflect this passionate effort. 

By several accounts, it seems that Timberland’s troubles lay in its ability to scale its operations so as to continue operating sustainably while maintaining its responsibility to shareholders as a publicly traded company. The best option, it seems, was to align itself with a larger conglomerate, like the VF Corporation, that would be able to shepherd the company to the next level. In a research memo from Sterne Agee cited in Dealbook, analysts said that they “regard Timberland as a high-quality brand that has been operationally challenged for a number of years,” and that “VF has exhibited a strong track record and the capabilities to rectify many of the historical problems.”

Judging from his heartfelt farewell blog post, Schwartz seemed to agree with that analysis. He also seemed confident that he was leaving Timberland in the right hands, and that VF Corporation would be able to grow Timberland without abandoning the social responsibility that was central to its mission.

To illustrate his confidence, Schwartz shared a story from an employee town hall meeting that took place during the changing of hands.

An environmental activist in our ranks rose, way in the back, to ask the new guy, the Boss to Be, about sustainability.

“Tell us, please, why sustainability is important to you.”

Wow. That is town hall democracy the way Rockwell painted it. Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide — respectful, but a “no quarter granted” question.

And the man with whom I negotiated hard and long for the best possible deal for shareholders stood his ground, and answered, authentically and naturally. “The answer is simple—we believe that sustainability is good for the business and good for the world environmentally.”

… In this poignant moment of transition, from a business run by my family for three generations to a business to be run by relative strangers – here is the CEO of a 10B$ powerhouse, talking about sustainability simply and easily — good for business, good for the earth. And he means what he says. 

Corporate acquisitions of sustainable brands tend to instinctually make me cringe. But in some cases, I have to wonder if they can actually be a positive thing, not only for the companies in question but also for the industry as a whole.

Although he’s no longer at the helm of Timberland, Schwartz certainly seems hopeful that this corporate undertaking is a step in the right direction.

It strikes me, hard, as I sit there — 30 years later, a vitally important conversation has shifted … Used to be, “what in the world does for-profit business have to do with social issues? That’s the purview of the government or the church.” And yet here, and now — I hear this powerful leader telling my colleagues, announcing to the whole damn world, that the question is not “if” corporations should be involved in questions of sustainability — not “if,” only “how.”  Thirty years later–the corporate conversation turns from “if” to “how.” 

SEE ALSO:

Behind the Label: H&M’s Conscious Collection

Behind the Label: Levi Strauss’ E-Valuate Program

Behind the Label: TOMS’ One for One Campaign

Behind the Label: Puma’s Vision and Clever Little Bag

Behind the Label: Anthropologie’s Made In Kind

Behind the Label: Is Stella McCartney A Sustainable Brand?

Behind the Label: Tommy Hilfiger’s Promise Collection

Behind the Label: Alternative Apparel

Read more Behind the Label here.

The post Behind The Label: Timberland’s CSR After the VF Merger appeared first on EcoSalon.

A few years ago, “eco fashion” became the hottest buzzword. The media in particular loved it and used every opportunity available to position it as the hottest trend. Recall those “Green is the New Black” headlines everywhere? Fast forward to today, and we know that eco fashion is definitely not a trend. It is a movement, and one that is taking the world by storm.

How so? Well for starters, a growing number of designers are now sourcing more sustainable fabrics than a few years ago, and the variety and quantity of those fabrics has grown out of this demand. An increasing number of brands and retailers are now engaged in ethical sourcing, and are working with their suppliers to create benchmarks and standards. Many companies now understand the benefits of corporate social responsibility (CSR), even if their product or service is not “green”.

Organic Exchange (OE) offers more evidence of this eco fashion movement. According to their Organic Cotton Market Report, global sales of organic cotton apparel and textiles has grown by $1 billion in 2009, which amounts to a 35 percent increase over 2008. And at the same time that organic cotton sales have grown, overall cotton clothing and home textiles sales have shrunk by seven percent.

However, the rise of organic cotton has been steady for nearly a decade – on average by 40 percent each year since 2001. You just didn’t hear much about it because it wasn’t deemed important enough by mainstream media and industry. But that seems to be changing.

Organic Exchange estimates that the organic cotton market will continue to grow at this steady pace of 20-40 percent – both this year and next, to about $6 billion; and that the organic cotton market has been driven largely by consumer interest in “green” products, and by retailers and companies looking to offer more organic options.

So just who are the top organic cotton buyers from 2009 according to the OE report? You might be shocked to learn that it’s some of the biggest names in retail, including Nike, Walmart and Adidas.

But really, this isn’t all that surprising when you consider the report Exporting Textiles: March to Sustainability, that recently profiled the top brands and retailers who are implementing environmental sustainability throughout their global supply chains. Among the 19 companies profiled are once again, Nike, Walmart and Adidas! So what exactly are these companies doing to be given such accolades? Let’s take a look.

Adidas adheres to the ISO14001 standard and has an internal environmental benchmarking assessment that they use to collect data from their suppliers. Their top three sustainability priorities are embedding environmental sustainability across the business, effectively managing business risks and social compliance in the supply chain, and extending engagement internally and externally.

Walmart, as we all know, has issued their Sustainability Index, which asks their suppliers a series of questions as they relate to social and environmental practices. They also carry GOTS certification on organic textiles (although questionable to what degree) and their focus on energy efficiency is now shifting toward their suppliers.

Nike uses a few internal tools such as Material Analysis Tool (MAT) and Considered Index to evaluate its life cycle impacts. They have a water program, and have integrated energy efficiency practices at supplier factories.

According to this report, which focuses primarily on energy efficiency, carbon emissions, water and chemical footprint as well as logistics, these three companies rank in the top 5 (Levi Strauss & Co. and Marks & Spencer round out the list).

And so the evidence is mounting. It becomes clearer every day that eco fashion is a movement, and one that is gaining solid ground. I look forward to actively watching as more and more of the big brands and retailers move toward increased sustainability, motivated by people like us who demand quality and ethics from the products we choose to buy.

Image: adifansnet

The post Building the Case for Eco Fashion as a Movement appeared first on EcoSalon.

According to the 2007 WWF Deeper Luxury Report, the luxury industry lagged behind other brands of consumer products when it came to sustainability. They claimed the cause to be lack of consumer awareness and public demand.

The report ranked a number of companies that included Gucci, Louis Vuitton and Hermes on a sustainability scale, and no companies were given a score higher than a C+. Many brands even failed to get a passing grade.

Three years ago, this report was thought to be the tipping point of the industry. After all, many luxury consumers are increasingly well-educated and concerned about social and environmental issues. Yet the luxury brands were missing out on opportunities to become sustainable leaders.

So where do luxury brands rank today? Particularly the luxury fashion brands?

The answer is not an obvious one. In fact, it is very difficult to uncover the luxury fashion companies who are demonstrating ethical excellence. Given the increase in multinationals who report on their corporate social responsibility (CSR) behavior, it would seem that either luxury brands are slow to engage, or they are doing a poor job at communicating what steps they have taken toward sustainability.

Is it accurate to say that consumer awareness and public demand is still at fault? Or is it that executives have simply become complacent? There are likely a number of reasons why this sector has a poor track record.

But let’s start with the sustainable luxury consumer. Who are they? Let’s face it, they are not you and I. Rather, they are a small percentage of the population who, by definition, can afford indulgence. They are not driven to consumption by necessity, but rather out of pleasure.

I’m not convinced that the reason for this sluggish shift is entirely due to a lack of consumer awareness. It could be that the luxury consumer has simply become accustomed to a lifestyle of waste, and can’t be bothered to make any changes in their shopping habits. Given the resources available to them, awareness is at their fingertips. So if they are truly hungry for sustainable luxury brands, they should know where to find them.

But maybe they are truly concerned consumers, keen to indulge in products that have a lighter environmental footprint. The only obstacle they face, however, is the lack of options available to them. Certain sectors are undoubtedly leading the way in the world of sustainable luxury. There are many options for the home, the car, and even travel. It appears however, that it is the luxury fashion industry that is digging in its heels.

So if its not about a lack of consumer awareness, it may have something to do with the complacency of companies – particularly those where there is a generational gap in decision-making. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it right?

Wrong. Clearly it is broken. The reality is that we cannot continue to deplete our earth’s resources at the rate of those before us.

We must all come together in this crucial paradigm shift, and luxury brands have the ability to take a leadership role.

According to Graydon Carter, editor-in-chief of Vanity Fair: “For the new generation, luxury brands that will not take environmental issues into consideration will lose most of their appeal. Modern brands must address these questions. Ignoring them would be old-fashioned and would equal a return to the previous century.”

If we all aspire for luxury, then the same could be said of sustainable luxury. Will our younger generations flip through Vanity Fair and Vogue magazines, ogling ads for sustainably made Chanel bags, or hemp silk gowns by Versace? Possibly. One can only hope.

Images: chad davis, dr_vaibhavahuja, Sarah McD

The post Sustainable Luxury: An Emerging Trend? appeared first on EcoSalon.