Old Spice has come out with a new men’s body care line said to rival nature. Yes, actual nature.

Old Spice is at it again. Getting our attention by using something most of us can relate to, even when associated with personal care products: Humor.

Remember “The Man Your Man Could Smell Like” commercials? Even those of us who would never put a conventional deodorant on our pits, or our man’s, loved those ads.

This time, though, Old Spice has taken the direction of countless brands before them and gone natural. Well, sort of.

The latest line up from this decades old men’s care brand has come out with a new line called the Fresher Collection. The body washes, sprays, and deodorants are inspired by nature, and come with monikers like Timber, Amber, and Citron.

The collection was launched with a campaign that includes Twitter updates and more of the brand’s signature offbeat videos. Old Spice is tweeting funny facts to go along with these videos using #NatureFacts.

The videos are pretty hilarious and the campaign does an effective job of linking Old Spice with nature. Or their version of nature, anyway. If a bird vomiting Froot Loops and rocks that microwave pizza bagels are your idea of natural, you will probably love the new line. But if natural to you means healthy, nontoxic ingredients, you’ll be passing on these products.

So are the Fresher Collection products natural in name only? While it almost seems that Old Spice is doing the whole nature thing almost in jest, the press release says otherwise. Once again Old Spice has put a spin on things, this time even doing greenwashing its way. Rather than the typical claims of “our products are natural”, the Fresher Collection is said to “give guys that same great, relaxing feeling that they get from smelling nature”. And there is science to back it up?

So, the press release cites studies that show nature and her natural scents produce calming effects on mind and body. Ok, with them so far. Old Spice also did its own study with Innerscope Research, a “leading neuroscience research firm.” Apparently results show “Old Spice Fresher Collection has the transformational powers to take your brain to the great outdoors, eliciting a more positive response than smelling nature itself.”

For real?

Ok, here’s the deal: My son bought a deodorant from this new collection because it is called Sweat Defense and claims to “give sweat a beat down.” Again with the fabulous marketing. What teenaged guy wouldn’t want this stuff? My son also loves Froot Loops and pizza bagels. Target market, maybe? But does the scent transport me to a place better than nature? Um, no. Smells good, yes, but certainly not better than a walk in the park.

I would wager the thing about these antiperspirants that makes guys feel so uber fantastic is the sweat control. These babies contain 19 percent Aluminum Zirconium Trichlorohydrex, a chemical antiperspirant ingredient. They also tout odor fighting technology, called sweat donuts (yes, really), which trap odor and release fresh scent.

Aluminum used in antiperspirants has been linked to Alzheimer’s Disease and breast cancer. Petro-chemicals, parabens, propylene glycol, and synthetic fragrance are more reasons not to use conventional antiperspirant/deodorant products.

So what’s a guy who doesn’t want to be stinky to do? My husband uses only natural deodorants and has a few that he likes. My trick to keeping your natural deodorant working is to switch them up regularly. Keep a few different brands on hand and trade them out week to week.

Truly Natural Deodorants for Men That Work

Purely Great Citrus

Schmidt’s Natural Dedorant Cedarwood + Juniper

ROCK Deodorant Stick

What do you say? Shall we start a #TrulyNaturalFacts campaign?

Related on EcoSalon

Dude Polish? The Manicure for Men is Trending

Feminist Ryan Gosling Memes Do the Unthinkable

The Art of Shaving

Image of man smelling nature via Shutterstock

The post Old Spice Fresher Collection Not a Walk in the Park appeared first on EcoSalon.

Greenwashing is plenty common, from Tom’s Shoes to H&M’s Conscious Collection; companies take advantage of the fact that customers don’t take the time to research the supply chain of each brand, since ain’t nobody got time for that. There’s no equivalent to USDA organic certification for fashion, so how can you be confident you’re buying clothes that are in line with your values? Here are 7 clues you can use to tell if you garment is really sustainable; keep an eye out for them, and check out the many companies linked to below for an eco fashion crash course.  

1. Made in the USA

Supporting the domestic economy is key, especially when the outsourcing wave of the 90s was the way to go. When a brand makes their product in the US it is sustaining our domestic manufacturing community. Companies also have to adhere to minimum wages and more strict environmental regulation that reformers and activists worked to put in place. Often, if a company still produces in the US there’s a good story behind it too, and they want to share it with you. Are there still unethical companies making clothes in the US? Sure, but it’s a lot less likely, and we do have laws on our side here.

2. Ethical Production

There is often a disconnect between a garment and the hands that make it. The apparel industry is one of the only industries that cannot deflate its labor force through the use of machinery (the New York Times recently published a fun interactive graph of this phenomenon). A machine can’t sew a beautiful dress or make a great pair of shoes; you need human hands and heads involved. With that knowledge, it’s crucial that those that produced the clothes you wear wear paid a fair wage and worked in a safe environment. Companies that practice ethical production usually make it known on a garment’s hangtag or on their website.

3. Company Transparency

Now, I am not taking about H&M revealing their factory list, although yes, that was a small step for the mass market. I’m referring to companies like Honest By and Everlane who aren’t hiding anything, and they want to to know about it! Studio Jux owns a factory in Nepal, and each garment is given a number by which you can trace the maker of that piece (and even learn their favorite past-time) through their website.

4. Zero Waste

Companies like Stabel, Study NY, Titania Inglais, and Tabii Just are championing zero waste by respecting the materials they work with and not wasting resources that went into making the fabric go in a landfill.  Zero Waste Cutting techniques often a new level of creativity to already creative designs.

5. Clean Tech

No one textile is sustainable, because like all things in life, each have their positive and negative impacts. Organic cotton, although grown under strict regulations, is often still bleached, meaning a heavy chemical load after it’s been finished. Fabric made of bamboo and cupro is processed with toxins to transform the cellusoic (hard plant fibers) into the soft final product, and has to be called rayon. But Lyocell, also a regenerative cellulosic fiber (in english, meaning comes from a plant) derived from Eucalyptus trees, are processed with a petrochemical solution, but 99.5% of the cocktail is captured and reused, and uses little water in the process, proving some technology can really affect the environmental bottom line of a fabric. Keep an eye on what your garment is made of.

6. Supporting Artisans

Ever travel to another country and were googly-eyed by the native colors and craftmanship in their markets? Companies like Mercado Global, Blumera and Maiyet know no one does it better than indigenous artisans. When companies work with local artisan communities (rather than copy them) you can be sure your fashion is sustaining less represented communities.

7. You Love It

Stuck in a hypnotic trance in front of your closet? I know I was this morning. A sustainable garment above all is something you always grab first from your drawers. It’s your tried and true closet staples that you’ll keep, and make it last (almost) forever. And that’s the core of eco fashion.

image: Maiyet

The post 7 Clues To Tell if Your Garment is Really Sustainable: Eco Fashion Dissected 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.

ColumnWith a name like Organix, you might assume that the brand in question is organic… right?

You would be wrong.

The popular drug and big box store line of hair, bath and body products may share six of seven letters with the word “organic,” but its products surprisingly don’t contain any qualifying ingredients.

Owned by Florida-based Vogue International, Organix offers more than 70 personal care products featuring trendy, exotic-sounding ingredients like “pomegranate green tea,” “awapuhi ginger,” “acai berry avocado,” and “Moroccan argan oil.” At prices that easily compete with non-natural competitors, and distribution across major drugstores and superstores nationwide, Organix is viewed as a budget-friendly option for shoppers that desire conscience-friendly products, but don’t have the funds for more expensive all-natural brands.

But how much of the brand’s green marketing is real, and how much is just greenwashing? This week’s Behind The Label takes a look at the good, bad, and questionable.

The Good

On its FAQ page, Organix claims that all of its products are free from sulfates and parabens, those vilified groups of compounds that are said to be toxic and carcinogenic. Sulfate compounds like sodium lauryl sulfate and sodium laureth sulfate are generally added to products like shampoo and body wash as a foaming and degreasing agent, while parabens like ethyparaben, butylparaben, methylparaben, and propylparaben are commonly present as a preservative to prevent the growth of microbes in cosmetic products. Both groups of compounds are suspect: some sulfates are said to release 1,4-dioxane, a known carcinogen, while parabens have been linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, reproductive toxicity, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, and skin irritation. While U.S. regulatory bodies maintain that the small amounts of sulfates and parabens in mass-market personal care products are unlikely to cause significant harm, products that are free from these ingredients are seen as safer for consumers.

Organix also says that it stands against animal testing, and that it carefully monitors all ingredients used in its products. PETA  included Organix on its most recent list of companies that do not test on animals.

Plus, Organix products are said to be sold in environmentally preferable packaging, with recycled materials and eco-friendly inks, though there was little online data to support that claim.

The Bad

Organix’s tagline is: “Beauty, pure and simple.” But how pure and simple are we talking about?

According to the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep cosmetics database, the brand’s Renewing Moroccan Argan Oil Shampoo lists the following ingredients:

Deionized Water, Disodium Laureth Sulfosuccinate, Sodium C 14 16 Olefin Sulfonate, Cocamidopropyl Betaine, Cocamidopropyl Hydroxysultaine, Dimethicone Copolyol (Silica), Cocamide DEA, Glycol Distearate, Argania Spinosa (Argan) Kernel Oil (Argan), Cacao (Theobroma Cacao) Extract (Cocoa Butter), Parfum, Cocos Nucifera Oil (Coconut), Persea Gratissima Oil (Avocado), Aloe Vera (Aloe Barbadensis) Extract (Aloe Leaf), Panthenol, Polyquaternium 11, DMDM Hydantoin, Cetyl Alcohol, Guar Hydroxypropyltrimonium Chloride, PEG 23M, Red 40, Yellow 5

Yikes. After water, the top three ingredients – Disodium Laureth Sulfosuccinate, Sodium C 14 16 Olefin Sulfonate, Cocamidopropyl Betaine – are synthetic surfactants used for their cleansing and foaming properties. Note that “Argania Spinosa (Argan) Kernel Oil” is ninth on the list, a sure sign that it is not a prominent ingredient in the formula.

Organix’s Renewing Moroccan Argan Oil Conditioner has a similarly long list of ingredients. Though free from sulfates and parabens, the item does contain methylisothiazolinone – a controversial preservative that is commonly used in place of parabens but is suspected of causing immunotoxicity and skin toxicity. The United States, Japan, and many European countries have concluded that methylisothiazolinone is safe at maximum concentrations of 0.01 percent, but Canada has banned its use in cosmetics.

The Questionable

Organic shampoo, at your local drugstore, for about the same price as Pantene Pro-V and Garnier Fructis? If it sounds too good to be true, it is.

The funny thing about Organix is that the company never actually claims to include organic ingredients. There aren’t any stamps from the USDA on its packaging, nor are there organic claims on its ingredient list. There’s just that name, which so obviously implies organic even if the rest of the branding doesn’t.

It’s this kind of misleading labeling that has created a sense of distrust and confusion in the natural and organic personal care space. In June 2011, the Center for Environmental Health decided to take action, waging a lawsuit against 26 companies that use the label “organic” on products that list few or no organic ingredients. Organix’ Hydrating Teatree Mint Conditioner was listed among the offenders, along with products from Kiss My Face, Jason, Aubrey Organics, and Nature’s Baby. Eleven of the companies ultimately agreed to comply with clearer labeling restrictions; Vogue International/Organix was not one of them.

For consumers seeking a product that is free from sulfates, parabens, and animal testing, Organix is a decent budget option. But those seeking truly chemical-free products should educate themselves on ingredients and never take “natural” or “organic” claims at face value. Until a strict regulation scheme is in place regarding the use of misleading language on product packaging, the onus lies on us, the consumers, to be ardent questioners and readers of labels.

Images: Organix, Jessica Marati

The post Behind The Label: Organix’s Misleading Labeling appeared first on EcoSalon.

ColumnWhat does the word “artisan” actually mean?

Artisan: the poster child word for the food movement. Slap “artisan” on something and you’ll immediately draw a crowd. Goat cheese or artisan goat cheese? Strawberry preserves or artisan strawberry preserves? Charcuterie plate or artisan charcuterie plate? You tell me which one sounds more attractive.

The word artisan invokes certain images. “Some European guy crafting away in a kitchen creating something healthy,” said my friend John when I asked him what came to mind.

“I think of a goat farm,” replied Alison, another friend taking part in the conversation.

A conversation ensued about what we eat and how we eat it. And what we look for when we buy food.

Handmade. Small batch. Quality. The list of attributes to the word “artisan” goes on, but what does the word really mean? As John added, “but whenever I think of ‘artisan’ I think of Safeway.”

If Safeway, a large chain with numerous outlets, has co-opted the word, has it lost its meaning? Is “artisan” the greenwashing of the food movement?

This is a thought that has crossed my mind frequently while traveling through France, the country whose food culture I hold in high esteem; a country of local producers and diners that have an appreciation for what they consume.

In a small French village – the kind that’s enclosed by stone walls and can only by accessed by going over a moat – in the Pyrenees I found a sign advertising “Miel dégustation du producteur,” tasting of local honey. 500 grams for only 7.50 euros. Cheap for something that’s good and local. Oh thank you France, for giving me a sign that’s so iconic it’s almost cliché.

Above the sign was another noting the store’s sale of “confitures artisanales” – artisan jams. In one small grocery store, the only one within the city walls, there were practically more local products than a Portland farmers market. The refrigerator in the back was filled with smelly unwrapped cheese and sausage from the French/Spanish border.

But I had to wonder; did the sign emphasizing the local specialties aim to attract a certain clientele that was already predisposed to being in search of such delicacies? Ultimately, isn’t even the artisan world all just about marketing?

We live in such a globalized, mono-cropped, GMO-infused, mechanized society where products made by hand, in small batches are no longer the norm. Long meals are rare, and eating a vegetable that your neighbor grew is even less so. All things that were once very normal today are practically foreign.

Globalization and the industrial revolution have left us with larger yields, and the ability to feed more people, more efficiently, but on our path to bigger, better and faster, we have lost many things along the way. To put it simply: we have replaced what we once used to be able to do ourselves with technology in a quest for simplicity and ease.

Even in a country like France that is notorious for its sale of specialty regional products – take the right exit off of the freeway and you might even find them in a truck stop – there is a problem of agribusiness and monoculture. The government might be better about regulating GMOs, but that is simply because of the fact they still exist. The romanticized view of the bucolic farm setting with a local paysan is harder and harder to find. And yet, when we are in a certain position that gives us the luxury of choice, that’s exactly what we want.

We are seduced by the idea of something being made directly by someone’s hands. Why? We don’t make anything with our hands anymore. We spend our days texting and emailing and computing numbers. When was the last time you created something with your own bare hands? Built something? Dug in the earth? Cooking is our last chance to reconnect with what we were meant to do: physical labor. It’s our thirty minutes a day that most of us disconnect from everything else and commit to the creation of a single (ok, maybe several, if there’s a side and main dish, and maybe even dessert, involved), and that is part of the reason we have an inherent draw to products that are made… by hand.

We live comfortable lifestyles. In our globalized world, we are so spoiled that we are accustomed to being able to eat oranges at all times of the year. Hell, I bought a Florida grapefruit the other morning because I was craving one instead of a croissant. Healthy? Yes. Local? Certainly not.

“Artisan” isn’t just a buzzword, it’s an attachment to a lifestyle that was once the norm, but in our modern day world, it’s a lifestyle that has nearly been lost. Unless we bring it back from the brink of extinction. Support the producer, support the cause.

The pull of “artisan” products is that there was an individual involved, not just a business or a corporate collection of people. Just like we should all get off of our email and sit down with our friends for coffee, we have to devote more time to real conversations with real people. If the words “artisan” and “organic” are obsolete in their meanings, we must look to something else to inform our decisions, and human to human contact is exponentially more informative than a nutrition label.

Talk to your farmer. Talk to your neighbor. Talk to the owner of your local grocery store. Know what you’re buying, not because you looked at the word that was slapped on the front of the package, but because you asked a question. If we are in a place to be making a decision about our food, we have the obligation to do so.

Artisan honey tasting in a small French town? Yes. But not because it says artisan. Because you know where it comes from, the person that made it and that it was made with love and intention.

This is the latest installment of Anna Brones’ weekly column at EcoSalon: Foodie Underground, an exploration of what’s new and different in the underground movement, and how we make the topic of good food more accessible to everyone. More musings on the topic can be found at www.foodieunderground.com.

Photo Credit: Anna Brones

The post Foodie Underground: Is it Artisan? appeared first on EcoSalon.

Underneath the inspirational sayings, some pretty shady right-wing ideologies.

Very few people can argue with the feel-good affirmations printed on the Lululemon Manifesto. There are practical directives (“Drink fresh water and as much water as you can”); important reminders (“What we do to the Earth we do to ourselves”); feel-good quotes (“Do one thing a day that scares you”); and inspirational action statements (“This is not your practice life. This is all there is”). Loyal customers of the yoga-inspired apparel company carry reusable tote bags printed with the manifesto, hang the recognizable red-hued posters on their walls, and spread the message across pretty much every social media channel there is.

The Lululemon Manifesto is a veritable viral sensation. But what do the words indicate about Lululemon Athletica and the ideologies underlying its operations? The answer is slightly more complicated than “Dance, sing, floss and travel.”

Lululemon Athletica was founded in 1998 by Dennis “Chip” Wilson, a husky Canadian businessman who had previously produced snowboarding and ski apparel. According to Lululemon lore, Wilson was exhilarated after taking his first commercial yoga class, and he spotted an opportunity to tap into the growing market of upper middle class female yogis. In 2000, Wilson opened the first Lululemon store in the beachside Kitsilano neighborhood of Vancouver.

The Good

According to Wilson, the company’s initial vision was to be a “community hub to provide our guests with knowledge, tools and the components for people to live longer, healthier and more fun lives.” But after realizing that this vision could not scale, Lululemon refocused its efforts on staff development, particularly in the areas of goal setting and personal responsibility. The company’s vision then shifted to “elevating the world from mediocrity to greatness.”

What does that mean, exactly? According to Wilson,

Mediocrity can be defined in many ways. To paint you a picture, mediocrity is doing an “okay job,” having a relationship that “works,” being just “a little” overweight, or having a job that “pays the bills.” Mediocrity is putting up with things the way they are with no firm plan to change the situation by a specific date. Mediocrity is following a predetermined and unfulfilling path. Most people live in a state of mediocrity. Mediocrity is as close to the bottom as it is the top.

In contrast,

Greatness is demanding the best of everything and doing what is required to get it. Greatness is demanding friends who demand the best, demanding the best wife or husband and the best job with the best pay. Greatness is demanding the company you work for to make the best products and be uncompromising in its promise to its customers. Greatness is demanding the best out of one’s self.

It’s certainly a positive message, one that has resonated with Lululemon fans around the world. The Lululemon Manifesto, which translates the mediocrity-to-greatness concept into a series of inspirational sayings, has served to connect these values of action, wellness, and personal responsibility with the company’s pricy line of yoga-inspired athletic wear. By purchasing a $98 pair of sweatpants, customers aren’t just purchasing a new piece of apparel. They are buying into a lifestyle and a set of values.

The formula has been wildly successful. Lululemon has built up a loyal community of devotees, and it has hundreds of locations around the world. Despite the recession, annual revenue continues to grow, and earlier this year the company was added to Goldman Sach’s list of top stock picks.

The Bad

The words of the Lululemon Manifesto are viewed as inspiring and uplifting.

“Effectiveness is predicated by replacing the words ‘wish,’ ‘should’ and ‘try’ with ‘I will.’”

“Nature wants us to be mediocre because we have a greater chance to survive and reproduce. Mediocrity is as close to the bottom as it is to the top, and will give you a lousy life.”

“Have you woken up two days in a row uninspired? Change your life!”

But in absorbing these messages, history nerds (hi!) may discern traces of Herbert Hoover’s “rugged individualism” – the Republican concept that man is self-sufficient and does not require assistance in tough times (like, say, the Great Depression… we all know how that turned out). They may also observe strains of social Darwinism – the “survival of the fittest” ideology that was used to explain away historical events like colonialism, slavery, and even the Holocaust. Contemporary readers may hear echoes of Mitt Romney’s now infamous “47 percent” blunder, in which he chastised people who “refuse to take personal responsibility” because they rely on government programs.

Perhaps most obvious, though, are notions from Ayn Rand’s classic 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, in which the author lays out the tenets of Objectivism, a philosophy stating that man’s “pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.” Rand’s “Shrugged,” and Objectivism have recently been adopted by the Republican Tea Party movement to propel forth its right-wing, anti-Socialist agenda. Needless to say, the messages are a far cry from the liberal ideals that many in the yoga community embrace.

What does all of this have to do with sports bras again?

Well, it’s the very same ideologies that underlie the Tea Party movement that form the foundation of Lululemon’s mission. According to the Lululemon blog, founder Chip Wilson first read Atlas Shrugged when he was 18 years old, and the book heavily influenced his “quest to elevate the world from mediocrity to greatness” – a quest that later became Lululemon’s company vision. Last year, the company printed thousands of reusable tote bags with the words “Who is John Galt?” – a famous line from the book – and distributed them in stores.

Our bags are visual reminders for ourselves to live a life we love and conquer the epidemic of mediocrity. We all have a John Galt inside of us, cheering us on. How are we going to live lives we love?

This emphasis on Rand’s ideologies, particularly the “virtue of selfishness,” goes a long way to explain some of the highly questionable actions that Lululemon has taken over the past several years.

Take, for instance, the time that Chip Wilson told a conference of North American business owners that “third world children should be allowed to work in factories because it provides them with much-needed wages.”

“I look at it the same way the WTO does it, and that is that the single easiest way to spread wealth around the world is to have poor countries pull themselves out of poverty,” Wilson told The Tyee, a Canadian publication.

Lululemon has also been criticized for its “survival of the fittest” hiring policies, which tend to favor competitive, type A personalities.

“When we first started, we hired nothing but yogis,” Wilson told Fast Company in 2009. “But it didn’t work because they were too slow. So we started hiring runners who like yoga. They’re more on the ball, more type A.”

In that article, Fast Company described Lululemon as a “cult of selling,” informed by “a heady self-actualizing cocktail from equal parts Landmark Forum (seminars based on the philosophy of Werner Erhard), the books of motivational business guru Brian Tracy, and Oprah-endorsed best seller The Secret, by Rhonda Byrn.”

The result may be positive for sales, if revenue growth is any indication, but it may also be dangerous, as a highly publicized murder case hinted last year. In that case, Lululemon employee Brittany Norwood brutally killed co-worker Jayna Murray after a conflict that reportedly involved a pair of stolen yoga pants. While there is no proof of Lululemon’s involvement in the crime, Huffington Post columnist Stewart J. Lawrence questioned if the company’s policies may have been a contributing factor.

Lululemon is no typical workplace, in fact. It’s highly competitive – indeed, cultish – corporate culture has raised serious ethical concerns for years, and so have the company’s exploitative marketing and advertising policies.

The Questionable

The instances highlighted above constitute only a sampling of Lululemon’s missteps. Manipulative marketing techniques? Check. Racist “marketing strategies”? Uh-huh. Blatant greenwashing? Naturally. Drug-related secret messages hidden on shopping bags? Yup, even that.

Lululemon has been hailed by the New York Times for its successful promotion of “conceptual consumption” – the notion that “what we buy is not simply some thing but some idea that is embodied by that thing.” On the surface, the ideas that Lululemon promote appear to be positive: drink fresh water, avoid chemical cleaners, get the right amount of sunshine, floss.

But it’s impossible to ignore the controversial, right-wing ideologies under these messages, and the ethically irresponsible practices of the company behind them. If I’m going to spend $68 on a sports bra, my money is better spent with a company that authentically embodies the values it promotes.

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.

Images: Lululemon Athletica, [2]

The post Behind The Label: The Lululemon Manifesto appeared first on EcoSalon.

The labels say natural and organic, but how can we know for sure?

It’s rare that a global supermarket chain retains the atmosphere of an intimate neighborhood grocery store. But in the five decades that it has been in operation, Trader Joe’s has managed to do just that, attracting a loyal following of conscious consumers with an extensive array of quality, feel-good, low-priced grocery items.

But how exactly is Trader Joe’s able to offer such seemingly gourmet foods at such a markdown? The company is notoriously opaque about its sourcing practices, claiming that it wants to protect itself and its suppliers from competitors. But without any information about Trader Joe’s practices, can we really trust the “healthy” and “organic” products we purchase from there?

In its early days, maybe. In 1958, Joe Coulombe opened the first incarnation of Trader Joe’s, then called Pronto Markets, in Pasadena, California, after returning from a trip to the Caribbean – hence the South Seas branding. Joe wanted to bring the exotic flavors from his travels to the corner supermarket, and his first stores were stocked with then-unknown ethnic food, California wines, and convenience items. Within ten years, TJ’s had expanded to 20 locations.

Coulombe’s venture attracted the attention of Theo Albrecht, the German entrepreneur who owns Aldi, one of the world’s largest discount supermarket chains. The Albrechts purchased Trader Joe’s in 1979, growing it from a small California business to a multi-million dollar chain, now with more than 365 locations.

The Good

Though Trader Joe’s doesn’t call itself a health food store, it stocks a wide array of natural and organic foods, from organic virgin coconut oil to gluten-free pancake mix. TJ’s states that all of its private-label products, which comprise an estimated 80 percent of inventory, contain non-GMO ingredients, no MSG, no added trans-fats, and no artificial flavors, colors, or preservatives. All Trader Joe’s-brand eggs come from cage-free hens, and ground beef is guaranteed to be “pink slime” free.

These conscience-friendly items are available at near-Walmart prices, a fact that both confounds and thrills many conscious consumers. One explanation lies in Trader Joe’s streamlined operations. According to Fortune magazine, Trader Joe’s purchases all of its products directly from manufacturers, which then ship straight to TJ’s distribution centers. Contracts are simple, which eliminates the need for corporate middlemen. Says Fortune:

Trader Joe’s is a supplier’s dream account: It pays on time and doesn’t mess with extra charges for advertising, couponing, or slotting fees that traditional supermarkets charge suppliers to get their products onto the shelves. ‘It’s all transparent – no BS,’ says a former executive.

Since Trader Joe’s purchases such large quantities, it is able to fetch lower wholesale prices for its products – a discount that is then passed on to the customer. Trader Joe’s also carries less product variety than competitors – 4,000 SKUs, as compared to 50,000 at most grocery stores – and products are retired if they’re not able to “earn their shelf space” in sales.

The Bad

Many of Trader Joe’s private label items are the same products you’ll find at other supermarkets, just with different packaging and prices. According to Fortune, TJ’s Pita Chips are manufactured by Stacy’s Pita Chip Company, which is managed by Frito-Lay and owned by PepsiCo. Trader Joe’s yogurt is produced by Stonyfield Organic (a Groupe Danone company), while its popular Indian Fare instant meals are made by Tasty Bite, a Mumbai-based manufacturer that also supplies Whole Foods.

Though these bits of information have leaked out to the public, Trader Joe’s is generally secretive about its product sourcing, claiming that it wants to protect both itself from the competition, and its suppliers from other supermarkets that may demand the same cut-rate pricing. While this rationale makes business sense, it means that in most cases, shoppers have no idea where their purchases come from, or whether they are truly safe, healthy, and ethically-produced.

A prime example of a Trader Joe’s product with suspicious origins is its famous Charles Shaw wine, also known as “Two Buck Chuck.” According to Business 2.0, the Charles Shaw line is produced by California-based Bronco Wine Company, the nation’s fourth-largest wine producer. Bronco also manufactures wine for budget labels Estrella, Forest Glen, ForestVille, Montpellier, and Silver Ridge, and its owner, Charles Franzia, descends from the family behind Franzia boxed wines.

While Charles Shaw bottles advertise a Napa Valley origin, most of Bronco’s grapes are actually grown in California’s San Joaquin Valley, which is known to produce lower quality wines. According to Inside Scoop SF, these grapes are then supplemented with additives like Mega Purple (a syrupy, concentrated, 68-percent-sugar concoction that is used to add body and flavor to “deficient” wines) and wood chips (which are thrown into wine barrels to mimic the taste of oak aging). The result, according to wine expert Jon Bonné, is “industrial wine that is the equivalent of a Big Mac or Velveeta.”

The San Joaquin Valley is also known for its unethical factory farming practices and large concentration of migrant workers. These issues came to a head in 2008, when an undocumented pregnant teenage worker died from heat stroke while picking grapes on a Bronco-owned farm, after working more than nine hours in hundred-degree temperatures. The death led to protests and petition efforts from the United Farmworkers National Union, calling for supervisor arrests and jail time. Bronco’s labor contractor, Merced Farm Labor, escaped relatively unscathed, but has been fined multiple times for violating workplace safety rules.

The Questionable

On its website, Trader Joe’s states that

Curiosity is a virtue. We value the inquisitive mind and enjoy the opportunity to satiate it (as well as the tummy that accompanies it).

However, TJ’s secretive practices and lack of transparency don’t lend to an easy inquisition. The company’s FAQ page lists cute responses to questions like “Why do you guys wear those Hawaiian shirts?” (“Because we’re traders on the culinary seas, searching the world over for cool items to bring home to our customers”) and “What do the bells mean at my local Trader Joe’s?” (“Those blustery PA systems just didn’t feel right to us, so we came up with a simple system to communicate – island style”).

But as for the tough questions on product origins, labor practices, supply chains, and just how it’s possible to manufacture a decent-tasting Cabernet Sauvignon for under $2, Trader Joe’s is notably silent. Perhaps it’s because of the competition, as they say. But perhaps it’s also because the stories behind TJ’s products resemble that behind Two Buck Chuck: questionable labor practices, sugary additives, and poor quality ingredients.

Trader Joe’s friendly atmosphere and yee-haw branding make us want to trust them. But until the company becomes more open about the way that it operates, it’s impossible to know for sure if Trader Joe’s is the more socially responsible supermarket choice.

SEE ALSO:

Behind the Label: Whole Foods’ 365 Everyday Value

Behind the Label: Investigating FreshDirect’s Local Commitment

Behind the Label: The Kashi Controversy

Behind the Label: McDonald’s See What We’re Made Of Campaign

Behind the Label: Chipotle, Food With Integrity

Check out all Behind the Label columns here.

Images: trekkyandy, Kables

The post Behind The Label: Trader Joe’s Secretive Sourcing Practices appeared first on EcoSalon.

Has Melissa earned its eco-friendly reputation?

In the sustainable fashion world, Brazilian shoe brand Melissa has attracted a cult following among women searching for shoes that are stylish, comfortable, and eco-friendly. Not since the jelly shoe craze of the 1980s have shoe fiends embraced PVC footwear with such gusto.

According to its vendors and fans, Melissa shoes are non-toxic, hypo-allergenic, cruelty-free, and vegan. However, little official information exists to back up Melissa’s environmental claims. Does Melissa deserve its eco-friendly reputation?

An investigation into Melissa shoes is actually an investigation into Grendene, the brand’s Brazilian parent company and one of the world’s largest manufacturers of injection-molded plastic footwear. Grendene’s brands include Ipanema, Rider, Grendha, and Melissa, and its thirteen factories employ approximately 20,000 people. The Melissa brand is guided by research-and-development lead Edson Matsuo, and much of its success has come from high-profile collaborations with designers, architects, and celebrities like Vivienne Westwood, Jean Paul Gaultier, Zaha Hadid, and Gisele Bunchen.

The Good

According to the company’s 2006 annual report, sustainability and innovation are at the heart of Grendene’s operations.

More than a concept, sustainable design is everyday experience instilled into the company’s DNA. Based on the Business-Society-Environment triad, the purpose is to create synergy that all parts of this triad can benefit from.

Grendene states that 99 percent of its industrial residues are recycled, and that other waste is reprocessed, recycled, or disposed of responsibly. According to the report, the company adopts a closed circuit approach to water use, and it has its own onsite sewage treatment systems.

One major way that Grendene embraces sustainability is through its mono-material injection-molding manufacturing process, which results in shoes that are easy to disassemble and recycle. Some Melissa stores host events where customers can bring back old shoes to trade in and recycle.

The Bad

Melissa shoes are made from Melflex, a particular type of PVC which was developed and patented by Grendene. Grendene states that the technology it employs for PVC development is “the most sustainable and ecologically correct in the world market.” But is PVC necessarily a sustainable material?

The opinion is split. Environmental groups like Greenpeace argue that PVC is the most environmentally damaging of all plastics. According to the group, toxic chlorine-based chemicals are released at every stage of PVC’s production, use, and disposal, resulting in health problems like cancer, immune system damage, and hormone disruption. A report from the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University expands on these claims:

PVC poses hazards to human health over the course of its life cycle. PVC production exposes workers and communities to vinyl chloride and other toxic substances. PVC products such as medical equipment and children’s toys can leach toxic additives during their useful life. Vinyl building materials release hydrochloric acid fumes if they catch fire, and burning PVC creates byproducts including dioxin, a potent carcinogen.

Melissa’s website, on the other hand, claims that PVC is “one of the most sustainable thermoplastics available” and that Melflex is “versatile, durable, totally reusable and extremely environmentally friendly.” Grendene’s annual report states that “when disposed of, (PVC shoes) can be entirely recycled, burned for recovery of energy, or even sent to landfills, since they do not contaminate the soils or water tables.”

However, neither Melissa nor Grendene provide any specific information proving that its PVC is less harmful than the types of PVC attacked by environmental groups.

The Questionable 

While Melissa shoes may be cruelty-free and recyclable, they are still made from a material that is synthetic, controversial, and reportedly harmful to the environment. Grendene may claim that its PVC is eco-friendly, but without a public body of evidence, it’s impossible to evaluate if the claim is true or not.

In my opinion, the greatest sustainability element of Melissa shoes is their ability to… well, sustain. EcoSalon’s Editor-in-Chief raves that she has had her Melissas for years, yet they still look like new and retain their distinct bubblegum scent (which we’re guessing doesn’t come from nature). Another friend and EcoSalon contributor has worn her Melissas through nearly a decade of international work and travel.

Melissas are built to last, which is sustainable because it prevents the need for additional shoe purchases. But as for the eco-friendliness of their product lifecycle? Until Melissa and Grendene release more information, we can’t know for sure.

SEE ALSO:

Behind the Label: TOMS’ One for One Campaign

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

Behind the Label: Timberland’s CSR After the VF Merger

Read more Behind the Label here.

The post Behind The Label: The Sustainability Claims Behind Melissa Shoes appeared first on EcoSalon.

In the last of this 4 part series, undercover industry writer, Louise Lagosi address the history of fashion marketing, the strategies used to build the perfect consumer while covering up poor quality, and how those tactics have effected us as a society. We also look at how the fashion industry and marketing is changing with the times to keep up with an evolving society of people.

If you read the first three parts of this series, you might be in the mood to avoid the media, shut off your TV, stop shopping, and just give up on fashion. But, other than offering you peace of mind, what would that accomplish? As easy as it is to point fingers, the leaders of the fashion industry are not the only ones responsible for the state of fashion. Society as a whole bought what was being sold without stopping as individuals to question the motives behind the advertisement or wondering if our “consumer” habits were good for us, our neighbors, or the planet.

Unless you want to go back to wearing burlap bags, and go Medieval, we all need something to adorn our bodies. And let’s face it, beautiful clothes, beautiful anything for that matter, really does make life more joyful. That said, nothing can be beautiful if it has a dirty, rotten underbelly it’s hiding. So let’s just get to the core of this thing.

Taking Responsibility

Now that the phrase “Think Globally, Act Locally” has been imprinted on our brains, we all know that shopping with small mom and pops stores, as well as supporting local designers and supply chains is the best thing we can do for our immediate environment, but how can we be effective on a global level? Have you read any articles, or signed any petitions requesting that corporations clean up their acts? Written to your government representative asking for higher international labor standards lately? Not sure who your representatives are? Well, it’s pretty easy to find out. In this age of information sharing with a little due diligence and research it’s becoming increasingly easier to figure out who’s doing business right, and who’s doing business wrong. And it’s even easier to find a petition or even to start a petition asking companies and the government to do business responsibly.

It has become more and more common to share our opinions and knowledge of this kind freely among our friends and associates, on Facebook, Twitter, and various social media sources. As a favor for your sharing the information, they in turn go on and share it with their friends and pretty soon the news has gone viral. Some of your conversations on Facebook might look something like this:

“There’s a joke going around China today that you can tell what colors are going to be in fashion next season by looking at the rivers.“

“I think I’ll opt for a nice neutral, beige from now on, thanks.”

 “Time to Stop the Fashion Pirates again. Forever 21 has gotten caught stealing yet another design from independent designers.”

“I stopped shopping at Forever 21 after my last purchase from there smelled like magic markers and fell apart in the first wash. But I do buy clothes from the local designers in my own town.“

 “Why does Disney still carry polyester jammies for kids coated in fire-retardants? Didn’t they get the memo that it’s been repeatedly proven that both the synthetic fibers in clothing and formaldehyde based fire-retardants are carcinogenic, cancer causing, hormone disrupting, and/or can cause damage to our nervous systems?!

“I wouldn’t know, I avoid both synthetics and Disney like the plague.“

 “Did you hear that Victoria’s Secret were caught slashing and throwing away garments that were returned because donating them to charity was too much of a hassle to organize?”

“I wouldn’t wear Victoria Secret, even if it were free. Let’s just say that I don’t know a single 16 year old whose boobs naturally sit directly under her chin, so why, at any age, should mine?”

Whether or not these conversations in social media and on the street actually sway the decisions of those in power to create a change in the industry, for us to be aware enough about these issues that we feel a little whistle blowing is in order can make us better, more informed, people.

Word gets around fast in this Internet Age and in no time at all, Walmart has a publicity crisis for abusing their laborers, and the Gap is making public apologies for promoting red,white, & blue flag waving products that are made in China. H&M and Nike claim they too are doing their parts, all while receiving raised eyebrows from the sustainable community, for making lofty corporate responsibility initiatives mandated for 2020 that promise unprecedented standards with little or no suggestions on how they might go about doing so. Perhaps H&M & Nike could borrow from their multibillion dollar marketing budgets to fund reaching their 2020 goals.

Are initiatives enough? Hardly, but when you’re a company that’s big enough to consume one third of the planets organic cotton supply, even a small initiative, like H&M’s organic cotton initiative can keep large amounts of fertilizer and herbicide from going into our water, provided it’s an honest effort. “Good” is questionable when you take into account that their organic cotton is not all that organic after all.

Recent New York City H&M window

With their greenwashing marketing efforts these companies still do not get the green light for sustainable shopping. In the same way we shop for food, if we can’t find clear and certifiable labeling on the product, many of us are not buying it. Some consumers are even going so far as avoiding stores with bad track records altogether, regardless of their “eco” initiatives.

In 2009, The Hartman Group’s report, titled Sustainablity: the Rise in Consumer Responsibility stated that 88% of consumers engage in what they consider to be sustainable behavior. Are people hearing concerns about water contamination or global warming and choosing to cut back where they can to help? Are fast fashion fans growing annoyed that their clothes fall apart after a couple washes when the hand-me-downs from their mother’s wardrobe seem to last forever? Have people suddenly realized that they have enough stuff in their closets that they could probably go for years without shopping and still maintain appearances?

Author of Overdressed: The Shockingly High Cost of Cheap Fashion, Elizabeth Cline, describes the pivotal moment in her consumer mindset, “When I piled up all of my clothes in the middle of my bedroom, I was astonished that there wasn’t much variety within the mound of poorly made clothing. It was mostly all one color, and I had bought more or less the same few items over and over again. I wasn’t using most of it, and most of it was cheep crap that I didn’t even like very much. Overall, I was unsatisfied with what was in there.”

She explains the transformation that occurred in that moment of realization, “It made me more mindful. I shop my own closet now. I have stopped buying repeat garments. I don’t crave having a million tops. That doesn’t really interest me anymore. I want one or two good garments for each category to make complete outfits within my wardrobe. I want to save my money to buy really nice items to fill in the holes.”

Signs of Change in Mainstream Fashion Media

CFDA Leader, Diane Von Furstenburg, and American Vogue Editor-in-Chief, Anna Wintour, recently released that they support encouraging a cleaner Fashion Industry through an initiative presented by the NRDC called Clean By Design. We’re still waiting to see how they do clean up, but they have taken the first step, which is openly acknowledging the elephant in the room. This is nothing short of a miracle.

Fashion Labels Evolving With the Times

Eileen Fisher

This privately owned company has always taken a holistic approach to designing clothing. The brand carefully chooses fibers for their sustainable, community based, growing methods, natural content, longevity, and feel. They work with collectives and factories around the world that pay fair-trade wages. They design clothes that are timeless and that do not relate to any trends, allowing the clothes to survive as long as their high quality materials do. And through their recent initiatives like Ampersand, they have been educating their customers on why choosing their products supports a sustainable environment here on earth for everyone involved.

Patagonia 

Patagonia also keeps their marketing to a minimum, but when they do promote something, the message is unusual for a clothing company. They promote clean water initiatives, such as Our Common Waters, in their recent Common Threads Initiative, they tell people to stop buying more than they need. They also provide transparency in their supply chain like in The Footprint Chronicles, with this interactive map on their site showing exactly where their factories are located with stats, reports, and a brief on Patagonia’s history with each one. This brand ultimately puts their dollars in recycled materials innovations, such as polar fleece made of recycled bottles, and maintaining factory standards, so they can provide more responsible products to their customers.

Timberland

Timberland is a brand that is committed to the outdoors. Which is why they have made  developed TIMBERLAND RESPONSIBILITY, their plan for significantly reducing their companies emissions through the research, evaluation, and investment in company structures that will allow them to run cleaner and produce products that have a smaller impact on the earth. The company reports are transparent and available to the public on their home site, grading their efforts and describing all the methods used to achieve their challenging goals to reduce their company wide climate impact.

Levi’s 

Levi’s has been doing business with the goal of striving towards sustainability and excellence for over 100 years now. They give cash credits to customers who return their old Levi’s in for their denim recycling programs and they have been working on increasingly finding ways to reducing their water use in their denim production processes. Are they singing about their exceptional practices in their ad campaigns to help better educate their customers? Let’s just say this is one of the places where they still have room to improve.

Pendleton

This nearly 150 year old American company produces much of it’s premium products, from fibers grown, spun, dyed, and woven in America. They keep marketing to a minimum and keep their funding aimed at doing business responsibly and offering the best quality products possible to the customers they serve. Their product’s are so beautifully made, by  that they end up heirlooms in most of the fortunate homes that they grace.

Change is indeed happening all around, but most of all it starts with each one of us. We have to make up our own minds. What type of consumers are we?

Image: oxfam, Fashionista, Last Night’s Garbage,Amy DuFault

The post Fashion Marketing 101: From Social Media to Social Responsibility, Fashion Evolves appeared first on EcoSalon.

How “alternative” is Alternative Apparel?

Alternative Apparel is often marketed as an alternative to mass-market brands – a line of high-quality basics “inspired by and created for free-thinking people everywhere,” with product names like the “V-Gan Organic V-Neck” and the “Eco-Streaky Bellflower Tunic.”

But dig deeper and you’ll find that apart from the earthy branding, there’s not much that’s very “alternative” about Alternative Apparel at all. Between the company’s vague marketing-speak, round-about answers to customer questions, and misleading Social Responsibility page, it’s near impossible to decipher whether the company’s practices are truly better than, well, the alternatives.

Founded in 1995, Alternative Apparel produces casual clothing and accessories with a quality vintage feel. According to its website, each item embodies the company’s “commitment to comfort, craftsmanship, community and authenticity.” Though the company sells online and in stores like Nordstrom, Bloomingdales, and Macy’s, only 5 percent of its sales volume goes directly to consumers, while the remaining 95 percent of product is directed to wholesale/ASI/brand accounts, said founder Greg Alterman in a 2010 interview.

The Good

In 1997, Alternative Apparel launched Alternative Earth, promoted as a sustainable line of products set apart by its “earth-friendly production.” Products in the line are made from organic cotton, recycled polyester, and “man-made fibers derived from sustainable raw materials such as rayon,” and they’re finished with low-impact dyes, natural wash methods, biodegradable fabric softeners, and natural enzymes. A portion of Alternative Earth sales is said to benefit environmental organizations and charities, though no information about that philanthropy is available online.

In the initial press release for the line, Alterman said:

Our philosophy for Alternative Earth is simple: Make a difference with what you wear… Alternative is working to make a difference by enabling our consumer to wear their favorite tees, while being mindful of Mother Earth at the same time.

Alternative Apparel publishes its factory vendor guidelines, which the company says are in line with the Fair Labor Association Workplace Code of Conduct, on its Social Responsibility page. The company states that many of its factories have Worldwide Responsible Apparel Production (WRAP) certification, and that Alternative Apparel places ethics as a priority in vendor selection:

The first elements we consider when selecting a vendor is their ability to meet our social compliance standards and the quality of their products … Typically, there are only certain geographic areas of the world that can meet our production needs. We head to those areas and search for vendors that exceed our expectations and requirements. If a factory does not meet our social compliance standards from the very beginning, we don’t even consider them. After that, we base or search on the quality of the goods and the efficiency with which they can be produced.

The Bad

While Alternative Apparel’s Social Responsibility page aims to provide information about the company’s sustainability and ethics, the language used is vague at best, and potentially misleading. Take, for example, the information provided about Alternative Earth fabrics. We’re familiar with organic cotton, but what exactly are “Eco-Heather” and “Eco-Fleece”? The product page copy doesn’t reveal much, but when you click on the small Q&A button on some of the product pages, the story starts to unfold.

In the Q&A for the Eco-Heather Slouchy Pullover, for instance, you find that Eco-Heather is a blend of 50% Polyester (6.25% recycled), 38% cotton (6.25% organic), and 12% naturally-occurring rayon. Depending on whether the percentages in parentheses refer to the percentage of each fabric or the percentage of the whole, that’s between 5.475% and 12.5% of the textile that is made from organic or recycled material.

And according to the Q&A for the Color Block Maniac Sweatshirt, Eco-Fleece has a similar make-up: 50% Polyester (6.25% recycled), 46% cotton (6.25% organic), and 4% rayon, for a grand total of 6% to 12.5% organic or recycled material.

So it turns out that these “eco” fabrics are only about 10 percent composed of materials that can be considered environmentally-preferable… and no, we don’t buy the story that rayon is an eco-friendly textile just because it is manufactured from plant fiber.

But at least Alternative Apparel’s cotton products are organic… right?

Q: Is Alternative’s cotton certified organic? A: Yes. Anything in our line stating it is 100% Organic Cotton is certified organic cotton, produced pesticide-free. We keep copies of the organic certificates on file.

A search in Alternative Apparel’s online store, though, reveals that less than ten products are stated as being 100% organic cotton, so really, that answer is misleading. Since only a handful of products state that they are 100% organic cotton, the vast majority of cotton used in Alternative Apparel garments is not organic.

Alternative Apparel’s confusing statements and lack of transparency apply to its production processes as well. In the Q&A for the 3/4-Sleeve Raglan Henley, the simple question, “Where was this manufactured?” received the following round-about response:

Typically, our clothing is made in the United States; however, we cannot guarantee that this shirt will always be made there. Thanks!

Okay. The Social Responsibility page offers slightly more information.

We make our products in locations and factories all over the world, including the United States, Peru, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Indonesia and China. All of our Alternative Earth products originate from Peru and the Dominican Republic.

Alternative Apparel assures us, though, that its vendors “pay employees, as a floor, at least the required minimum wage.” But according to the U.S. State Department’s 2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, minimum wages in many of these countries amount to far less than a living wage: about $36-67/month in Vietnam, $60-$123/month in Indonesia, and $136/month in the Dominican Republic.

And although Alternative Apparel assures us that its vendors comply with high ethical standards – “many” are WRAP-certified, after all – the company refuses to share its vendor list or offer information about its sourcing and operations, citing a need for protection.

We have decided not to publish our vendor list to protect ourselves from competitors, not because of any social compliance concerns. We’re proud of the working conditions of our factories, and we are huge advocates for operational transparency. However, we want to protect ourselves from anyone out there who might attempt to go straight to our vendors. We’ve put in enough time with them that we feel strongly that we have the right to protect ourselves in this regard.

It’s an interesting excuse for opaqueness, but we’re not quite sure it’s one we buy.

The Questionable

In its branding and its messaging, Alternative Apparel attempts to position itself as a label for the conscientious consumer. By throwing out grand platitudes like, “We at Alternative take our responsibility to the community seriously,” and, “We can all make a difference with what we wear,” consumers are expected to believe that Alternative Apparel’s actions reflect its words.

However, evidence of Alternative Apparel’s social responsibility is scant, and claims of eco-friendliness amount to little more than greenwashing. A fabric that is composed of 10 percent recycled and organic material can not responsibly be labeled an “eco” fabric. The answer to the question, “Is Alternative’s cotton certified organic?” is “No” if you look at the brand’s entire product line. And tip-toeing around the question of where a particular product is manufactured does not inspire confidence in the ethical nature of the production process.

If Alternative Apparel truly wants to design clothing for “free-thinking people,” it should be prepared when those people ask questions and hold the company accountable for its practices. At the very least, Alternative Apparel should back up its eco-branding with open, honest information about where its products come from.

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

Read more Behind the Label here.

The post Behind the Label: Alternative Apparel appeared first on EcoSalon.