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.

A new e-commerce site redefining what sustainable fashion means.

Sustainable fashion isn’t just about rigorous sourcing and handmade craftsmanship. As much as we might admire a sweater by Edun or a skirt by Organic by John Patrick, most of us who appreciate responsibly made, high-quality clothing make do with scouring resale racks, and the occasional guilty purchase at Target.

But there is a middle ground, where sustainability and affordability collide, and it’s bigger than we think it is. Everlane, a company that was founded in November of 2011, might not market itself as earth-conscious, but their system of manufacturing so radically eliminates the bloat and waste endemic to the fashion industry that it can’t be overlooked.

Before you can understand how drastically Everlane has upended the traditional model of industrial clothing production, you have to understand how the original model works. A traditional clothing designer plans and produces a line around six months in advance, in lots of perhaps 20,000 units apiece. That’s 20,000 skirts, 20,000 shirts and 20,000 pants that have to be designed, sewn, stored and shipped to retailers all over the world. After this herculean feat takes place, the company crosses their fingers and hopes that it all sells – usually at an incredibly inflated price.

This model applies to all the items in a manufacturer’s line, from shoes, to jewelry, to accessories and starts over a year in advance, with occasionally colossal expenditures and no room for error if say, the demand for polka dots or the color chartreuse isn’t as high as originally anticipated. If all those items aren’t sold, it becomes overstock that is sold at a loss to the manufacturer as well as the retailer – or worse, destroyed.

Polyester is made from petroleum; cotton is extremely pesticide-dependent. Dying the fabric creates hundreds of gallons of wastewater and toxic runoff – all for clothes that may just find their way into a dumpster. Many people were horrified to discover that in a world where so many people are cold and unclothed, companies like Wal-Mart and H&M were shredding overstock but isn’t the overstock’s very existence a problem in itself?

That’s where Everlane’s minimalist solution comes in. The company doesn’t build and staff its own factories. They don’t even build or staff their own physical stores. Instead, they contract with already-existing factories that manufacture many other high-end brands and keep their marketplace entirely online. Their clothes are manufactured in runs of five hundred or less and sold exclusively to their subscriber base, which currently stands around 200,000.

Everlane’s line of cool, classic garments with a twist has included everything from bags, to sweatshirts, to accessories like iPhone cases, for both men and women. They keep everything priced under $100 while maintaining exceptionally high quality. If a micro-run of backpacks sells out incredibly fast, then they manufacture more. If not, then the company moves in another direction. “It’s about understanding the consumer, instead of predicting what they’ll like,” says Michael Preysman, Everlane’s co-founder.

The company also tries to unveil a new style every week. Some runs may sell in a month or two; others, like a run of backpacks, sell in less than a day. Less overstock means less storage, fewer associated transportation costs, and perhaps most importantly, fewer processed materials.

By eliminating a lot of the costs associated with starting a clothing line, they’re able to pass on those savings to their customers. A long-sleeved tee shirt that might sell for $75 only costs $20.

“We try to be conscious about everything we do, from office waste to minimal packaging. Avoiding excess is part of our design philosophy, and as an added bonus it’s also usually more cost efficient,” says Preysman.

Avoiding excess is such an obviously sustainable practice that few of us devote any thought to it. We compost our leftovers and wash our reusable bags, but then we shop H&M’s organic collection without thinking about the fact that it probably produces just as much waste – in terms of labor, time and processed materials – as their non-organic counterparts.

Sometimes, the most innovative solutions are hiding in plain sight. Sustainability doesn’t have to be expensive it can, as Preysman points out, simply be a good business plan.

“I think efficiency and sustainability go hand in hand,” Preysman says. “And high quality doesn’t have to be high priced.”

The post Everlane Eliminates Fashion Waste (While Still Serving Up Luxury) appeared first on EcoSalon.

From a wasteful fashion industry emerges the Zero Waste movement.

It is said that the next great war will not be over oil, but water. So when it takes 1,800 gallons of water to grow enough cotton to produce a single pair of jeans, it is extraordinary that cloth has become a readily disposable commodity of little value. Indicative of this is the fact that on average 15 – 20% of cloth needed to produce a garment is wasted and the useless remnants are destined for the incinerator, landfill or occasionally as mattress filler.

In 2008 China, one of the world’s largest exporters of textiles and clothing produced 31.8 billion meters of fabric in January to July alone. You could reasonably estimate that almost 5 billion meters of that fabric was wasted. This astonishing wastefulness is caused by the entrenched traditions of the fashion industry, which separate the stages of garment design and production into hierarchies where the designers often work isolated from production. It is a system that fails to acknowledge that textiles are a finished product with energy invested into their design and manufacture and which seems primarily interested in the next new thing, forgetting also about what happens to garments at the end of their fashionable lives. So what’s being done about it?

Zero Waste cutting

Over the last couple of years I have had the privilege of working with Parsons Assistant Professor Timo Rissanen to bring together the work of 12 designers from all over the world in a zero waste fashion exhibition called Yield: Making Fashion Without Making Waste. All of these designers engage in some way with what has come to be known as Zero Waste Fashion Design (ZWFD). ZWFD involves designing clothing that in some way eliminates waste from the production or consumption of clothing.

This can be achieved in a number of ways and through various approaches; some designers use the left over fabric pieces to make other garments or products; others eliminate the creation of waste altogether when designing their patterns. Many designers use second hand clothing in order to remove waste from the post consumer end of the fashion consumption cycle, while others use innovative technology to make garments in completely new ways. All are in some way are addressing the huge volumes of textile waste contributed by the fashion and textile industry and consumers every year – a massive 30kg per person per year in UK and U.S.

Piles of second hand clothes for sale

Designing Out the Waste
Anybody who has cut out and sewn up a garment will be aware of the pieces between the pattern that are not incorporated into the finished garment. Many people save such offcuts for future projects, but there will typically be pieces that are either too small or oddly shaped to be of any use. These are routinely discarded, passing through the trash, en route to the landfill. In industry, markers are designed to eliminate as much of this wastage as possible in order to save money. However, the design of the garments is dictated by aesthetics and market alone, inevitably resulting in surplus pieces that cannot be used. The company can either creatively use this left over 15% to make different products, or by designing both the positive and negative spaces of the pattern it is possible to reduce this figure to zero. ZWFD aims to tick all the boxes of aesthetics, fit, market and zero waste.

The kimono as a historic example of Zero Waste cutting

These approaches, while sometimes appearing new, are in fact as old as clothing itself. For hundreds of years, aesthetics, and to a lesser extent functionality, have been the two pillars of fashion design, and when coupled with the slightly more contemporary desire for speed and change, has lead to the proliferation of too much fashion, too many collections, too often. Historically fashion was expensive because cloth was expensive and time consuming to produce. This meant it made sense to be careful about how you used the cloth you had and how you cared for the clothing you owned. Mending was common and using cloth frugally was standard practice – there are examples of “zero waste garments” from almost every continent and culture, and we’ve been practicing it for centuries.

Admittedly designing ZWF isn’t the easiest when first starting out. This type of design is not about numbers, it’s about experimentation, playfulness and taking a risk, all while being mindful of the impact of your actions. It slows the design of fashion down and forces many parts of the fashion chain to think about waste and material use from a design and production perspective. Many of the problems that exist in the fashion industry begin with ideas of separation, both geographical and hierarchical. Whether designer/producer, producer/consumer, consumption and disposal, the greater the distance and separation between the stakeholders in the fashion chain, the greater the likelihood of discordance and a lack of appreciation of what is really going on.

Holly McQuillan’s own Zero Waste Designs

Designing ZWF needs to be done with either a close relationship between designer and pattern cutter, or by a designer who is the pattern cutter, any other arrangement will be an exercise in futility. The change enables a close relationship between market, aesthetic and fabric yield to flourish, and from this, beautiful things are possible.

A designer attempting a zero waste garment design cannot simply ask, “have I used ALL of that piece of cloth?”

Doing only this would potentially result in garments that no one would want to purchase. So with ZWFD and indeed all sustainable design, aesthetics cannot be at the expense of the environment, just as the environment cannot be at the expense of aesthetics. There must exist a harmony between both.

Writer Holly McQuillan, is the Yield exhibit’s curator, and is also a designer and lecturer in the fashion design program at Massey University’s College of Creative Arts in Wellington, New Zealand.

Top image: McQuillan’s Yield Exhibit in Chicago

The post Zero Waste Fashion and the Next Great War appeared first on EcoSalon.

After a rough patch, business in NYC’s Garment District is starting to pick up.

For decades, fashion mavens and budding designers have flocked to the quadrant between 34th and 42nd Streets, hedged in by 5th and 9th Avenues. Here, in New York City’s Garment District, fabric can be purchased, patterns made, pieces sewn, trimming added, and dreams realized, all in the space of a few blocks. Designers like Donna Karan, Calvin Klein, and Oscar de la Renta have all made the Garment District their home at a point in their careers, and countless others got their start in the neighborhood. At one time, the Garment District was the global hub of textile manufacturing. But not anymore.

“The only thing that has not changed is the location,” says Anthony Lilore, owner of RESTORE Clothing and a founder of the Save the Garment Center movement. “The physical appearance has gone from streets packed with garment racks and push carts, to some racks, some push carts, and some rickshaws with tourists.”

Indeed, over the past fifty years, the Garment District has seen a steady decline in business, owing primarily to overseas outsourcing, mostly to China. When that picked up in the early 1990s, family-owned companies in business for generations were forced to shut their doors, and designers, burdened by the higher rents and rising costs of working in midtown Manhattan, moved elsewhere. Most of those who have survived the downturn and recession say they’re hanging on by a hair.

“At this point, it’s a labor of love,” says Maria Lipari-Bertone, whose family has run Quality Patterns, which specializes in grading and marking, for more than forty years. “This is our bread and butter. Many of us came from overseas, and we made our lives in the Garment District.”

But there are signs of revitalization. At New York’s first City Source Expo, held January 10 at the Fashion Institute of Technology, more than fifty producers, suppliers, and pattern makers turned out to field questions and take orders from attendees interested in local production. Several vendors said that they’re starting to see an uptick in sales, mostly due to China’s rising “minimums” for new orders, a weak dollar, and higher shipping costs. Lipari-Bertone says that many new designers can no longer afford to work in China, so they’re starting to inquire into local production again.

Plus, in recent years groups like Save the Garment Center, Made in Midtown, and the Garment Industry Development Corporation have surfaced to advocate for Garment District preservation and serve as a resource for designers interested in manufacturing there. Backed by New York fashion industry vets like Nanette Lepore, Anna Sui, Jason Wu, and Yeohlee Teng, these groups emphasize the district’s historical, creative, and economic value to the city of Manhattan.

Made in Midtown says:

Ultimately, this story is about much more than fashion. It’s about one of the last neighborhoods in Manhattan that has not yet been remade by recent waves of new development. It’s about jobs and immigrant workers. It’s about the decisions city officials make to support certain kinds of businesses.

And for designers interested in sustainability, a one-stop-shop like the Garment District means a more compact production process, which eliminates the costs, both financial and environmental, of working with subcontractors in different parts of the world.

“The quality of craftsmanship and the concentration of schools, designers, sample rooms, showrooms, production, and stores make the Garment Center the only one of its kind anywhere,” says Lilore.

The post In New York City’s Garment District, Signs of a Comeback appeared first on EcoSalon.

Feral Childe, a bi-coastal collaboration of Oakland, CA, based designer Alice Wu and Brooklynite Moriah Carlson, has sped to the forefront of sustainable design labels, most notably for their refreshing prints and inventive styling details. The brand’s following is comprised of all ages of women who want something unique for their closet and know these two designers will never let them down.

The duo is fortunate enough to be able to manufacture in New York City where Carlson is based – so why would they ever want to produce their line in China? Is the backlash so bad against the entire country that now it’s all Chinese we sneer at? Wu, of Chinese descent, and I recently had a conversation about whether it was insulting, all the negative connotations from the entire sustainable community regarding China.

Offshore manufacturing? That’s just something designers have to do. Many are doing it in China. The best way to look at all this and your feelings on China is to support the handful of designers who are manufacturing from China, the right way.

Alice Wu and Moriah Carlson, designers of Feral Childe

Here’s what Alice Wu had to say about it:

“Our company, Feral Childe, is proud to be able to manufacture our garments in New York City, and hope to do so for as long as we can. I prefer to manufacture in the US but am frequently dismayed that ‘Made in China’ has such negative connotations, especially within the green community. I think that before you dismiss manufacturing in China as completely unethical, you have to look at what ‘Made in China’ really means.

We have all read about worker abuse and fraudulent manufacturing practices, horrific pollution and so on. But these days, it’s almost impossible to have an apparel business without China being involved in some way, simply because we don’t have all of these options domestically. These overseas options can still be eco: many organic and sustainable fabrics are sourced from China, whether from the raw materials or to the milling of the fabric.

Hang tags and labels are often outsourced to China even if you order them from a US-based company. But those can be green too: at least one Chinese company uses non-toxic inks to print hang tags on recycled paper and garment labels made from recycled polyester. I know American eco-designers who have made the choice to produce in China. And they are in China up to six months out of the year, overseeing their production. They tell me that the working conditions are fair and that the sewing is quality top-notch.

Obviously, there are reputable suppliers and manufacturers in China – if we want to do business with China, we are the ones who have to do our homework and steer clear of the bad apples (and there are no doubt a bunch of them) and push China for greener business practices. China is fast and smart and it is in their best interest to clean up their negative image, and they are already working on it. I think we’ll start hearing an explosion of green innovations in China within the next few years. They know the world is watching. It’s going to take awhile for the negative image to go away, but there are a growing number of young Chinese entrepreneurs in various business sectors who care about green, and collectively they can make a difference at home and abroad.”

The post Is the ‘Made In China’ Backlash Racist? appeared first on EcoSalon.

I work with many sustainable designers and one of the more common questions I’m asked is usually about who another designer uses for manufacturing or dyeing. I will never forget the loss of a U.S based non-toxic dyeing facility that one of the designers below regularly used – and eventually had to close its doors.

Another designer had asked me to ask her (as if we were in high school) where she did her dyeing and I suggested, “She’s really nice and will tell you. Just ask her.”

That designer never did and so the business went under.

I wonder how many more stories are out there where designers were too nervous to ask about production and so stayed mum.

Mom always told me, the dumbest question was the one that never got asked.

I caught up with six top sustainable designers to ask them a simple question: Do you think the more sustainable designers share their sources, the stronger their field will become?

Here’s what they had to say.

Nicole Bridger, I think it’s great for us eco designers to work together and help each other out. We are stronger as a collective for sure. The only thing to be careful of is that we don’t all end up using the same fabrics and colors, the different lines can end up looking the same. So for that reason it is important to keep your individual aesthetic. But I think its possible for us to work together and be mindful not to have the same fabrics.

Celeste Lilore, RESTORE Barriers for entry become points of “cooperation” when sourcing is shared. It takes a village and building community will help move sustainable fashion to mainstream.

Davora Lindner, Prairie Underground Most designers in this category share a short list of resources. Sourcing unique sustainable textiles is more about buying power than availability. Purchasing greater quantities increases your options and makes the price per yard less expensive. The ability to source overseas expands your options a good deal, but again these are custom production orders with high minimum yardage.  We focus on textile categories in our small collection to ensure that we can move forward with new fabrications in a manner that is realistic for production.

Alice Wu, Feral Childe Yes, if designers collaborate on sustainable sourcing, the field will be stronger. Currently the variety of sustainable fabrics available to independent and emerging designers is fairly limited since not only is there not that much variety in color and fabrication, it can be difficult to meet a 1,000 yard opening order minimum that some suppliers demand. If suppliers see that sustainable designers have staying power in the marketplace it may encourage them to lower their minimums and offer greater product variety. There is a golden opportunity out there for a U.S-based independent sustainable fabric sales rep to connect the dots – someone who’s got the relationships both with designers and suppliers who can help us pool together our needs for new fabric production orders as well as find takers for production overrun fabric.

Tara St. James, Study NY My short answer is yes. Absolutely. To elaborate, I am a huge proponent of open source material and transparency in manufacturing. Luckily most sustainable designers seem to agree with me and are very forthcoming with their resources and ready to share their contacts. It allows independent designers to share resources without the burden of production minimums, while affording them lower costs and share shipping. If only the rest of the fashion industry were to adopt the same philosophy, it would allow for not only larger exposure for sustainable textile vendors, but more demand on traditional manufacturers to implement sustainable practices.

Gretchen Jones Yes and No. Collaborations are all about the partners. Is each artist bringing to the table some new perspective and referential material?  Can the collaboration maintain each others individual voices, while supporting the complimentary elements?

To me, as a designer whom struggles with the connection to sustainability and ethical business practices vs. my high fashion, yet independent aesthetics. I believe the success of a collaboration would and will only be successful [and heighten the eco movement] by walking the tight rope between style and morals. I want to diversify, I want to diffuse. I know my strengths, and am very aware of my weaknesses. Collaborations are about building each other up. I think, when done thoughtfully and with intention to elevate, collaborations can certainly lead to progression for sustainability.

I personally believe the only way we will make a change, is to create and manufacturer competitive, forward and quality goods.  The sustainable design community must produce with the focus on ‘fashion first,’ after all, we are a part of the fashion industry, we will always be able to do so ethically, the challenge is in creating at the high caliber design of those competing with out their environmental in mind. We change minds through changing perspectives. Collaborations could and will, create opportunity to express with support, deliver with quality and produce competitively. In turn – we change minds and grow our community through shared experience and story – not just a dress.

Image by Pheezy

The post EcoSalon Asks, 6 Designers Answer appeared first on EcoSalon.

Toggery designer Kate D’Arcy created her classic, easy-to-wear jersey styles to easily transition from casual to dressy and from season to season. We love everything about the line – from the styles to the fact that they domestically manufacture right in Pennsylvania where D’Arcy lives.

D’Arcy says the brand’s classic ribbed race tank (The Cruz) made from 100 percent organic supima cotton goes with just about anything: “I seriously wear this tank four out of seven days a week,” she says.

The softness and styling of the tank makes it an easily addictive wardrobe staple with its one seam detailing up the back and length that works like the picture above with leggings and a slouchy cardigan or layered underneath just about anything.

Toggery’s site reads: “Women can nurture themselves in the finest fabrics nature has to offer in the fashionable line of women’s contemporary knit styles including fashion tees, basic tees, dresses and leggings. There is a good feeling knowing that no compromise was made via humanity or the environment for a quality signature style.”

Who doesn’t need a new tank top that was made with a conscience?

Leave a comment below to try your hand at winning this really good one to implement a piece of Toggery’s signature style to your own wardrobe.

(Legalese: contest rules and FTC compliance.)

The post Toggery’s Racer Tank Giveaway appeared first on EcoSalon.

You don’t have to be an economist to want to understand the economics of “the fabric of our lives.” Case in point: The recent ban on cotton exports by the Indian government has piqued my curiosity. I wanted to understand whether this ban would have an impact not only on the cotton farmers, particularly those growing organic and fair-trade cotton, but also what impact it might have on us as consumers.

What I learned is that there are no clear answers.

Fact: the price of cotton is at a 15-year high.

Why? According to Eco Textile News, this is the result of Indian authorities lowering cotton export tax rebates. With higher rebates there is more incentive to export raw cotton. Once you lower those tax rebates, you are effectively lowering its export appeal. Supply goes down, but demand is up (marginally), and the price of cotton rises.

So why ban raw cotton export altogether? What does this mean to the farmers? And what will be the impact to consumers?

The reason for the ban is simple, if you are the Indian government and your best interest is to protect the textile industry. A robust export market means a shortfall in the amount of cotton available for India’s own textile manufacturing sector. When you factor in China as a fierce competitor, this makes sense. China is, after all, the world’s largest cotton importer.

When it comes to the impact of the ban on cotton farmers, there are conflicting views.

On the one hand, some experts contend this decision was made in haste, out of panic over the fact that cotton prices have risen by 80%. And, that by restricting exports, cotton farmers (particularly organic and fair-trade growers) are not seeing any of the benefits enjoyed by the cotton traders. The organic and fair-trade cotton growers in India rely heavily on its export, and some believe that when times are good, these communities should be supported rather than punished.

On the other hand, some organizations support the banning of raw cotton export from India.

“I believe the true value of this commodity is long overdue, and has been taken advantage of for so many years,” says UK Pants to Poverty representative Ben Ramsden. “Without any move to keep cotton within India, the booming Indian textile and garmenting industry could be considerably challenged, putting further strain on this very fragile industry.”

Will we feel this impact on our wallets?

In some cases, fabric suppliers could pass their costs up the supply chain. This would result in retailers paying more for basic cotton items such as socks and t-shirts. However, some industry experts claim the ban will have little impact on domestic cotton prices, as most of the exports for the current cotton season have already been committed. So if we do feel any price sting, it will likely be marginal.

To this end, Ramsden says, “If this goes some way to enabling us all to understand more about where our clothes come from, and why our choices can change the world, then the whole exercise will be fantastic.”

Image: Ken Lund

The post The Economics of Cotton appeared first on EcoSalon.