Thanks to consumers, food industry trends like responsible sourcing have entered the mainstream.

As consumers favor those companies willing to tell them exactly what they’re eating and where it came from, ‘Big Food’ companies are taking steps to fix social and environmental problems cropping up in their supply chain – a.k.a. all the people and practices involved in getting food to your plate (or plastic wrapper). Recently, McDonald’s announced it will face out use of eggs from caged hens; General Mills set ambitious goals to cut greenhouse gas emissions; and Ben & Jerry’s wants to improve dairy farm worker conditions.

Think Fair Trade coffee and chocolate, said Alexis Bateman, director of the Responsible Supply Chain Lab at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Such food industry trends are driven by consumers and activist groups – and right now those groups are prioritizing transparency.

Recent research by the Hartman Group backs her up. Researchers found that consumers are increasingly concerned about the “health and safety of America’s food supply chain,” the group reported in Forbes.

“What we’ve witnessed in the past decade in health and wellness and organic and natural circles has trickled out to the mainstream in somewhat diluted but certainly recognizable forms, without catalysts,” the Hartman Group explained. “Even prior to the influence of scares about melamine and pet food or E. coli contamination of various food and beverage products, mainstream consumers were already becoming much more inquisitive about how and where products are sourced and about the integrity of the company’s business practices and values.”

As consumers ask what’s in their food, companies start to look “upstream” in their supply chain to find the answer, Bateman said. Many companies respond for normal economic reasons, especially when they see competitors already doing it.

“They think there’s a buyer there, and if there’s a buyer, then they’re going to answer that buyer,” she said.

Concerns from consumers come in various forms, from sustainability to labor to animal welfare. Here are a few examples of companies addressing those concerns:

• Say what you want about McDonald’s, but it provides a prime example of what we’re talking about. The fast-food chain announced it will phase out the use of eggs from caged chickens, according to the New York Times. Because McDonald’s uses so many eggs from producers in Canada and the U.S. (more than 4 percent of the eggs produced last year), this has major implications for egg production across the industry. Before that, McDonald’s and Tyson Foods cut ties with a Tennessee poultry farmer as a result of a video showing alleged mistreatment of the animals.
• General Mills will work to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 28 percent within 10 years. The goal extends to the company’s entire supply chain, from farmers to packagers, from cereal to ice cream. “In stating the new emissions goals extend through its supply chain, the company is also acknowledging that a food company’s direct operations are small compared to the far-flung network of farms and mills and processors that it depends on,” GreenBiz reported. “General Mills said more than two-thirds of its total greenhouse gas emissions occur upstream of its direct operations.”
• Ben & Jerry’s is known for its environmentally friendly practices but only recently did that extend to ensuring fair treatment of dairy farmworkers in its supply chain. The  company reached an agreement with Migrant Justice that addresses wage theft, overcrowded and unsanitary housing conditions, and low wages, according to FoodTank. Migrant Justice established a program, Milk with Dignity, to improve farmworker’s livelihoods. “The program recognizes that, with growing interest in ‘fair trade,’ ‘real food,’ ‘sustainable’ or ‘local food,’ there is an urgent need to ensure that workers have the power to directly define, monitor and enforce what is ‘fair,’” the group wrote on its website.
• Then there’s Nestlé, which announced that it’s taking cocoa sourcing for its KitKat bars a step farther by sourcing exclusively from the Nestlé Cocoa Plan beginning early next year. The move is meant to quell fears that the company overlooks the use of child labor. The Nestlé Cocoa Plan includes processes to monitor child labor and remedy any problems that arise. “This announcement will only strengthen consumer trust in KitKat as a responsible brand,” Sandra Martinez, head of Confectionary for Nestlé, told Confectionary News.

Most of these examples describe changes made after they were outed by advocacy groups. In a column that appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Bateman suggested that it’s in a company’s best interest to address these issues ahead of new regulations or crises. Beyond “meeting demand for responsible practices,” companies can manage risk and find ways to save money, she wrote. And if they act first, they’re likely to salvage their reputation and instill trust in consumers.

Because these food industry trends aren’t going anywhere.

“Above all,” Bateman wrote, “businesses should understand that pressure to improve supply chain transparency will continue to increase.”

Related on EcoSalon

Angora Wool is Finally on the Decline: Fashion Brands Ditching Cruelty

Follow the ‘Cotton Road’: The Fashion Industry’s Unflattering Supply Chain

Whole Foods Market Whole Trade Guarantee: Behind the Label

Grocery shopping image from Shutterstock

The post Food Industry Trends Favor Transparency, and That Means Cleaner Food appeared first on EcoSalon.

Eileen Fisher is the real deal when it comes to sustainability.

Back in 2011, when I was a wee lass who had just been accepted to business school, I attended a panel discussion titled “Sales with an Impact: The CSR Advantage in Consumer-Facing Businesses” at Boston’s Simmons College. It was a fascinating event: One that left an aspiring, mission-focused marketing consultant wide-eyed and bushy-tailed at the thought of a concentration in business ethics and sustainability. There was one panel member, however, who – even several years later – I recall as being remarkably not full of shit. That was Amy Hall, Eileen Fisher’s Director of Social Consciousness.

It’s a testament to Hall’s character that’s particularly crucial on the heels of Eileen Fisher’s Vision2020 announcement: The declaration that, by 2020, to go from being on 66 percent sustainable, according to the initiative’s website, to 100 percent. By then, the company has declared, “if the linen is conventionally grown we won’t use it.” It’s so much more than linen, though. “Sustainability” is a far-reaching term that certainly includes, but also extends beyond ecological sustainability. It’s about labor issues, toxic treatments, and recycling, among other imperative parts of the supply chain. In the company’s words, there will be “no excuses.” But, as I said back in 2011, “no bullshit.”

Last Monday, Hall, joined by three of her colleagues (Liz Wisler, Eilieen Fisher’s VP of Manufacturing and Product Development, Candice Reffe, Co-Creative Officer, and Inka Apter, Facilitating Manager, Fabric Development) at New York’s Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT) for a panel discussion on the company’s Sustainable Business Vision. Perhaps the largest takeaway, as first made evident by the multi-departmental composition of the panel, was, in fact, the company’s extensive and momentous definition of sustainability.

“Eileen Fisher is not siloing sustainability in a CSR department,” says Sass Brown, FIT’s Acting Associate Dean School of Art and Design. “It’s a conversation across the entirety of the company, the entirety of the supply chain.”

On Vision2020’s website, Eileen Fisher lists six fundamental categories that will fall under its broad sustainability initiative: Fibers, color, resources, people, mapping, and reuse. Fabric wastage? Outta there. Toxic dyes? See ya. And anything less than fair pay for global workers? Forget about it.

“They are talking about human rights,” continues Brown, “as well as environmental justice.”

Back to the idea of no BS, though. I hardly believe I was the only one who raised a skeptical eyebrow under the Color category when I read, “By 2020, roughly 30% of our product will be bluesign® certified,” meaning that it meets the standards of this third-party system of rating of water and chemical utilization.  That was, however, until I read the next sentence: “But frankly that’s not good enough.”

That sentiment reflects what was another key impression left by the FIT panel: The transparency of Eileen Fisher and its people. “They were quite honest that they don’t have all the answers,” says Brown, “and they don’t know exactly how they’re going to change, in some respects.”

The brand is the first to admit the freakishly ambitious nature of Vision2020. After all, I’ve been trying to give up carbs for five years, not change an entire corporate ecosystem, and I still haven’t been able to commit. While not an entirely fair comparison, Eileen Fisher does have its work cut out:  Four years, 6 months, and 17 days remain before January 1, 2020.

I have faith, however, and there are two reasons for my confidence: The first: Eileen Fisher’s role as something of a pioneer in the space of social consciousness. After all, prior to meeting Amy Hall at Simmons in 2011, the words “social consciousness” hadn’t even appeared in any job title I came across. Second, while its aspirations may be bold, they’re also precise; Eileen Fisher has broken down and analyzed vital details of what, exactly, the company is setting out to achieve within the realm of Vision2020. Rather than “going green” or “reducing waste,” the company has done its math and spelled out exactly what those commitments will look like. And if Eileen Fisher falls short? They’ll be the first ones to admit it.

Let the pervasive sustainability countdown begin.

Say hey to Amanda on Twitter or Instagram

Related on EcoSalon

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

Finding the Sexy In a Supply Chain

The EcoChic Design Award: Challenging Fashion Designers to Cut Waste

Image: Eileen Fisher on Facebook

The post Eileen Fisher Isn’t Half-Assing Sustainability appeared first on EcoSalon.

Following the path of cotton from field to suit, Laura Kissel’s documentary “Cotton Road” sets out to explore the fashion industry’s previously elusive supply chain.

“Americans consume nearly 20 billion new items of clothing each year,” reads the opening on-screen caption, followed by the statistic: “98% of it is manufactured overseas.”

A domino effect is soon discovered: one that is largely influenced by U.S. economic conditions, expanding far beyond the fashion industry. That prevalence is first made evident by the dialogue of Carl Brown, a South Carolina cotton farmer, lamenting the impact of the 2008 financial crisis on agriculture. He explains that crops are treated with a chemical weed-killing combination of Roundup and Staple, highlighting the environmental impact of the apparel industry that can begin before factories even become involved. Then, he utters what is perhaps the most blood-boiling sentiment found in the film’s total running time:

“We cannot afford to pay the same price for fertilizer next year that we did this year,” Brown says. “Coupled with that, we’ve had these genetically modified seeds going up [in price]. Monsanto, who’s the primary player in the market, [is] adding to their technology fees.” The biotech giant, it turns out, threatens to appear in more household rooms than the kitchen.”*

Eventually, the cultivated cotton lands by ship in the pollution-fogged Shanghai, where Cathie Xu, a port logistics specialist, states what some might identify as the essence of the supply chain’s every wrongdoing. At first, she says with a laugh, she despised the smell of cotton, until her supervisor told her, “It’s the smell of money.”

“I like the smell now,” she says.

It’s a conviction echoed throughout the film, particularly in the narratives of Chinese textile factory employees: predominantly young women who come to the warehouse-laden, industrial Shanghai suburb of Changzhou out of financial necessity. One of them, Liu Chengfeng, was sent there by her mother at age 18. The money she would earn was necessary to fix the leaking roof of her family’s home, or else the house would flood. Her recollection of the dye factories she observed in Changzhou raise further environmental issues, as she describes “lots of terrible smells coming out, and some polluted water.”

Back in Shanghai, there are more factories. One of them, the Shanghai Sky-High Fashion Company, is managed by Jiang Guifang, a noticeably better-dressed, direct woman who keeps no secrets regarding the supply chain’s corrupt nature. Pay attention to Guifang; she’s the voice behind the documentary’s pivotal final 12 minutes, in which she definitively illustrates where the harmful nature of the cotton and clothing trade comes to fruition.

The first problem is the fee offered by American companies, which she says “has always been low,” but today, “the quantities have fallen. And the price offered now is even lower than before.”

Complicating matters are the factory inspections required by many of these American companies, the funds and time for which relatively small operations, like Guifang’s, do not have. Those who do pass the inspections, she implies, have done so through “underhanded” means.

“If you do business following all the standards, you can not survive,” Guifang explains. “For example, no working overtime. If they work overtime, you need to pay them several times their salary. How can we afford those salaries on the prices offered by American companies?”

In a sense, “Cotton Road” sheds more light on the implications of U.S. economic conditions than it does about its foreign counterparts; after all, it is on American farms where the path appears to begin. Domestically, there already exists the widespread dilemma of paying minimum-wage earners a sustainable living, leaving concerned citizens wondering how to resolve conflicts on both the national and international level. Can they be remedied with federal regulation and, if so, how? Or, is responsibility ultimately assigned to the private sector?

Guifang’s account, however, raises skepticism regarding the plausibility of efforts made by corporations to improve labor conditions overseas, challenging the idea that a significant number of international manufacturers even have the means to follow such standards. At the very least, “Cotton Road” prompts many personal considerations, leaving several members of its audience dejectedly motivated to check the labels of what they have elected to wear that day. The results mirror the montage of images displayed at the movie’s conclusion: A shuffling slideshow of labels originating in China, India, Bangladesh and Indonesia.

The film leaves behind no uncertainty of a troubling reality. Rather, it begs the question of what can be done. To learn more about “Cotton Road” or to attend a screening, visit www.cottonroadmovie.com. 

*A timeline of Monsanto’s penetration of the cotton seed market was compiled in Food & Water Watch’s “Monsanto: A Corporate Profile.”

Related on EcoSalon

Finding the Sexy In a Supply Chain : EcoSalon

H&M Advocates Transparency…Really?

‘Made in the USA’ Accelerator Program

Image: Mike Beauregard

The post Follow the ‘Cotton Road’: The Fashion Industry’s Unflattering Supply Chain appeared first on EcoSalon.

H&M released its supplier list just days after the launch of its “sustainable” Conscious Exclusive collection.

Swedish fashion giant H&M released its 11^th Sustainability Report last Thursday, which included a list of its global suppliers. The list accounts for 95% of the order volume for all its brands, which are H&M, Cos, Weekday, Monki, Cheap Monday and & Other Stories. The label claims to have done this in order to “take another step in making our industry more transparent and ultimately more sustainable.” But is that what they are truly doing?

H&M claims to have published this list in order to create clearer communication along the supply chain, which is laudable indeed, and a huge step towards inspiring industry-wide transparency. The company says that due to its established and strategic bonds with suppliers, it is not concerned about releasing information on factory names and locations. The reason for previously keeping supplier lists private was the risk of competition trying to use the same factories for the best available production capacity. Alongside promoting transparency, the company also wants this publication to  “incentivize our suppliers to take ownership over their sustainability and recognize the progress they are making.”

Taking a look at the supplier list reveals that H&M works with a total of 785 different suppliers, which subcontract a total 1,798 factories for garment and accessories manufacturing. Of these factories 760 are located in the Far East, 499 in Southern Asia, and 539 in the EMEA. While H&M’s 2012 Sustainability Report demonstrated that the company has noticed several of the issues omnipresent in many of its suppliers’ the factories, it didn’t seem to offer up a realistic and responsible solution for issues such as overtime hours, living wages, workers basic rights, chemical handling or concrete plans for re-usable energy sources.

Hopefully the list has been published in a genuine attempt to foster true transparency within the industry, and to to collaborate with governments, human rights organizations and suppliers on pressing issues within the supply chain. Although H&M has actively worked on training factory workers and managers about workers rights, a large percentage still earn far less than what is considered a sustaining wage. The current minimum wage for a factory worker in Cambodia (where H&M’s suppliers have 33 factories) is 75 USD per month, and the calculated basic, monthly living expenses for a Cambodian worker and her family is about four times as much at 274 USD. In 2011, over 2400 Cambodian factory workers passed out in factories as a direct consequence of insufficient wages, mostly because they couldn’t afford to properly feed themselves. As far as the number of workers in H&M’s supplier factories who actually know how their wages have been calculated goes, percentages have fallen since 2010 in Bangladesh and practically slumped in Turkey, although they have slightly risen in China and India.

Karl-Johan Persson, CEO of H&M says, “our customers should feel confident that everything they buy from H&M is designed, manufactured and handled with responsibility for people and the environment.” Really? How can that be possible when the company itself has not assured a fair living wage to many of the individuals involved in manufacturing? The response of Helena Helmersson, Head of H&M’s Sustainability Team is: “We buy garments from suppliers. Hence, we don’t pay the wages to the factory workers.” How does that type of statement foster transparency? If the processes that make up the value chain of H&M’s products aren’t entirely understood by the company itself, how can it possibly claim to ensure customers of the sustaianiblity or ethicality of these products?

Don’t get me wrong – it’s great to see this supplier list. The company’s mission to “use our scale to bring about systemic change to our industry and across our entire value chain” can have an amazing impact on the fashion and textile industries. They are working towards this change through sourcing of organic cotton and Better Cotton, water use reduction, banning certain toxics, clothing recycling schemes and by investing in poverty reduction charities. But we really need to see a lot more integral changes happen before their claims of transparency and being “at the forefront of sustainability” can be held true. H&M’s revenue (or turnover) in 2012 reached a massive 17 billion Euros, and their profit topped the 2 million Euro mark. This money is not being fed back into the system that makes it, and the means for obtaining it is costing human lives, the environment and our conscience. As Niels Oskam, founder of Rank-a-Brand says, “The turnover of H&M grows year after year, planet earth does not.” Neither does human tolerance for starvation, 16 hour working days, and miserable living conditions.

Image: H&M Conscious Exclusive Collection

The post H&M Advocates Transparency…Really? appeared first on EcoSalon.

If you’re new here, we’re on a road trip down the West Coast this summer with our sustainable clothing company, {r}evolution apparel. You can track our journey here, here, and here!

Money. It’s what makes the world go round.

We think about money a lot. We used to be bargain bin, after-Christmas-sale kind of girls. But then, during our crazy journey from college grads to nomadic travelers to clothing designers, we started tracking the money trail of fashion.

It changed our perspective completely. Now, after two years of living and breathing sustainable fashion, we can hardly remember what it’s like to buy something new, or make purchases without hemming and hawing.

But we wanted to know how other people shop. What’s important to them? How often do they think about the money trail of their purchase?

According to the US Census Bureau, the average American family spent $144 per month on clothing in 2009. But where does all of that money go? We created a diagram to trace the hands that touch a garment.

That’s a lot of hands, a lot of shipping, and a lot of activity for one t-shirt or one pair of jeans. And when we look closely at all of those steps, it’s hard not to ask,

“How can clothes possibly be so cheap?”

The average pair of jeans in America costs $34. But if we accounted for all of the environmental damage done along the way — emissions, processing, GMO seeds, pesticide-use — what would the cost really be?

How much would you pay to breathe clean air? Or drink clean water?

How much would you pay so that the people who make your clothes could breathe clean air and drink clean water?

A dollar extra? Two? Three?

We don’t have all the answers and we’re learning more about true cost and the trickle-down effect every day. What we do know, though, is that shopping isn’t some frivolous activity. Shopping is an investment in the world – and your investment represents the kind of world you want to live in.

The post {r}evolution Reel: Where Does the Money Go? appeared first on EcoSalon.

Kids are at once prime marketing targets, financial liabilities, and cheap labor.

The business sector seems to have children in its crosshairs. If they aren’t reporting child labor in their overseas supply chains, companies are aggressively marketing junk food to kids, denying them health care coverage and teaching them the benefits of dirty energy.

Leading Them Down the Garden Path

Scholastic is a brand that has long been synonymous with educational materials, and it won the hearts of millions by bringing the Harry Potter stories to the U.S. However, the company recently had to recall a fourth grade educational curriculum it developed in collaboration with the American Coal Foundation after a major public outcry.

Scholastic materials are used in 90 percent of American classrooms, and children, parents and teachers alike have come to trust them. But Scholastic has made questionable decisions about partnering with companies that many feel have compromised the quality and integrity of their materials. Are sponsored educational materials developed for learning, or are they just ads disguised as schoolwork?

The United States of Energy champions coal as an essential energy source, ignoring the issues that come with it, such as greenhouse gas emissions, toxic waste, and mountaintop removal. This book discusses the different energy alternatives, but does not steer students to ask any questions about which one might be harmful, or consider any consequences due to production.

The materials went out to 66,000 fourth grade teachers and were used for three years until child advocacy groups kicked up a fuss and The New York Times criticized the sponsored materials. After expressing enthusiasm over the partnership and hoping to expand it to fifth grade materials, the CEO of Scholastic released a statement declaring they would no longer produce or distribute the title beginning May 2011.

This isn’t Scholastic’s only partnership misstep. Advocacy groups have also protested a previous campaign encouraging kids to drink SunnyD, a sugary, fruit-flavored drink, to earn free books. Scholastic, you’ve disappointed us so.

What Do You Mean You Use Child Labor?

Apple makes stunning products, even their packaging is elegant. However, they build many of their products overseas, requiring them to utilize foreign suppliers, and the computer giant has uncovered some very ugly practices in their supply chain. In addition to health and safety violations and negative environmental impact, Apple has found that their suppliers have employed child labor.

Apple’s Supplier Responsibility 2011 Progress Report showed that the company discovered 49 underage workers across nine facilities, and 42 underage workers in another facility. Apple has pledged to make “social responsibility a fundamental part of the way we do business, we insist that our suppliers take Apple’s code as seriously as we do,” but what is their responsibility regarding third-party contractors? As a condition of doing business can they compel them to meet certain criteria? It is a question that many companies that use third-party labor struggle with.

In this case, Apple split the baby. For the first nine facilities, the company mandated that the suppliers must support the underage workers’ return to school. They also demanded that those facilities change their recruitment practices and age-verification procedures. Since these suppliers have indicated that they would comply, Apple has chosen to continue to do business with them.

As for the remaining facility with 42 underage workers, Apple instituted the same requirements, but later decided the supplier was non-compliant. Apple has since voided its contract with this supplier.

But should Apple have terminated its business with all of these suppliers? Isn’t using child labor until being forced to stop indicative of a less-than-ethical supplier? This has been a recurring problem.

Sweets to the sweet

Food marketing is big business, but the Federal Trade Commision (FTC) limits the amount of time companies can market junk food to children on television. However, marketers have found a new avenue around that restriction – the web. Obesity experts are concerned since much of the food being marketed to kids is sugary, high-calorie snacks and drinks, and companies are finding multiple, innovative ways to attract kids.

Companies like General Mills (LuckyCharms.com), McDonald’s (HappyMeal.com and McWorld.com), and Kellogg’s (AppleJacks.com) have developed multimedia games, online quizzes and cell phone and tablet apps designed to lure young internet users. In the past, companies had to sell parents on their products. Now, they can largely bypass the parents and appeal directly to kids.

The Atlantic’s Marion Nestle quotes Advertising Age statistics that show that over half of parents surveyed believe their children should be able to go online on their own by age six, and can use a cell phone for games by age five. The New York Times says that hundreds of thousands of visitors are hitting these sites each month, and about half are under the age of twelve.

Many say it’s the parents’ job to run interference, but it’s difficult when the messages are coming from all directions. The obesity problem in the U.S. has reached epidemic proportions, and experts trace much of the issue back to childhood eating habits. With children influencing household spending while inundated with images and games of sugary foods, parents are losing the battle.

Federal agencies have decided to step in. The Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Disease Control, and United States Dairy Association all partnered to propose new nutritional standards for food marketed to children ages 2-17. Foods either had to contain certain nutritional elements (no sugary drinks or fatty food allowed), or they could not be marketed. So, companies could choose to continue to produce fattening food with limited avenues of marketing, or produce more nutritional food that falls within the guidelines of marketing to that all-important age group.

To date, those guidelines have not been passed, leading to speculation that the companies are fighting these regulations behind the scenes. A decision should be made in the next few months. Just as they forced Joe Camel into retirement, will the Keebler Elves and their brethren receive their marching papers, or will they find themselves promoting healthier fare?

Don’t Come to Us for Help

The redesign of America’s healthcare system has caused so much anger and distress that politicians are literally at each others throats, health care lobbyists are working overtime, and the public doesn’t know what will come next or how it will impact them.

In early 2010, President Obama signed into law health care reform legislation. One of the major provisions of the bill was that insurance carriers must offer insurance to children with pre-existing conditions. In response, several major U.S. insurance carriers announced that they were dropping individual child-only insurance plans just days before parts of the health care law were to go into effect. WellPoint, CoventryOne and Aetna, Inc., among others, announced their intention to discontinue offering the plans in several states.

Insurance companies began to fall like dominoes, and within a few months there was hardly a child-only plan to be found anywhere. Insurance companies claimed that the new legislation allowed families to avoid paying insurance premiums for their children until they were sick, and then signing them up for insurance, potentially costing insurance companies millions.

Other scenarios include parents who work for companies that don’t cover dependents and need insurance just for their children, or parents who are out of work and decide to just cover their children because they can’t afford a more expensive family plan. Children with or without pre-existing conditions were still covered under a family plan that includes an adult, and children with existing child-only plans were not immediately affected.

In early 2011, states started to fight back, passing their own legislation that levied harsh punishments on insurance companies who refused to offer child-only plans. Many companies, realizing they would lose more revenue due to the state sanctions, grudgingly reinstated the plans.  Others instituted enrollment at certain times of the year. What’s up in the air is how much premiums will cost families.

Child-only plans represent a small percentage of insurance business, yet many children in the U.S. still aren’t covered. Taking this step to make it that much more difficult to insure children left many insurance critics with a sour taste in their mouths.

A Better Future?

The good news is that many of these companies are voluntarily making changes, some due to public pressure, some due to company conscience, but changes nonetheless. In some cases government or governing agencies are stepping in and mandating compliance. Are children disproportionately targeted by businesses to increase profits or minimize financial risks? Children are a booming market so the temptation will always be there, but it’s up to the public to keep it from being a dog-eat-puppy world.

image: thejbird

The post Targeting Tiny appeared first on EcoSalon.

Do you ever wonder what goes on behind the scenes in the eco fashion industry? Thankfully, there are many helpful sites that do a great job at pulling back the curtain so fashionistas of the world can understand what makes a garment sustainable. Valuable information like that can go a long way to justifying the expense, n’est-ce pas?

Perhaps one of the most unglamorous aspects of any “behind-the-scenes” look in apparel is the supply chain. And I mean unglamorous in that the term itself just doesn’t sound as sexy as an eco atelier, hempsilk, or fair trade. Yet it is the one big umbrella under which each of these elements resides, and one where companies can incorporate both social and environmental practices.

I realized just how many companies are taking this seriously when I read about the Green Supply Chain Awards. Run by Supply & Demand Chain Executive, the award recognized 65 companies for their sustainability efforts, with the goal of highlighting the industry’s best practices in the field, so that readers would have a means to assess their own efforts.

It was encouraging to see that in addition to companies based in logistics, transportation and healthcare, that clothing and footwear apparel companies were also included in this award. Timberland deserves a big congrats, the company that won in this category. After all, they have been committed to sustainability for years, and are one of the 100 well-known apparel brands behind the recent Eco Index (currently in beta).

As defined by Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) a sustainable supply chain is “a system of aligned business activities throughout the lifecycle of products that creates value for all stakeholders, ensures ongoing commercial success, and improves the wellbeing of people and the environment.”

Therefore, a sustainable supply chain in the fashion business is pretty much the entire process involved in making a garment, along with its social and environmental footprint. From the farm where the raw fibers are grown, to the factories where the fabric and garments are made, and all the various transportation points in between.

Or think of it in reverse order, starting with that gorgeous dress hanging in the window at your favorite retailer, and then trace it back through the various stages along the way, back to it’s raw material form. How many of us think of this when we are buying our clothes? The point is, we all should.

A number of apparel companies have made great efforts to make their supply chain more sustainable. From providing fair wages and working conditions for farmers and factory workers, to smarter design and less use of toxic chemicals, to being more mindful of waste and effluent, and developing more efficient transportation methods.

This is no easy feat. Given the way the conventional apparel industry has functioned for decades, its no surprise to see corporations, non-profits and governments all working together to bring about greater sustainability in each stage of the apparel supply chain. They need each other for this massive market transformation.

So while an apparel company’s supply chain is not the first thing we think about when choosing what brands to buy, we have the ability to make better choices and be more mindful of it the next time we shop.

The post Finding the Sexy In a Supply Chain appeared first on EcoSalon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image: Vivian Chen

The post Sandblasting Be Gone 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.