# data[].attributes.body
By Kira, Zara, Emma & Jenny

# data[].attributes.body
The State of Fashion 2020
Fashion’s Biological Revolution
Page 64

# data[].attributes.body
The State of Fashion 2020
The Future of Upcycling:
From Rags to Riches
Page 56

# data[].attributes.body
- Rating Materials and displaying on items to encourage customers to reconsider the consequences of their purchases.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sustainability is a big fashion industry talking point these days, but a recent McKinsey study shows ... [+]
picture alliance via Getty Images

With consumers being more environmentally conscious than ever, it's no surprise that sustainability has become a familiar refrain in the fashion industry. But are brands delivering on it? That's a different story.

Among mass-market apparel brands and retailers, only 1% of new products introduced in the first half of this year were tagged sustainable, even after a five-fold increase in the number of such items unveiled in the past two years, according to a McKinsey study released Thursday. "Apparel companies still have a long way to go to meet the demand for sustainability," said the report, titled "Fashion's New Must Have: Sustainable Sourcing At Scale."

While brands face issues such as the cost and availability of sustainable materials, more than half of the industry players want at least half of their products to be made with sustainable materials by 2025, according to the study, which polled 64 global sourcing executive with a combined buying power of $100 billion.

More than four-fifths of the executives also expect physical clothing design samples to be used far less often by 2025.

Even against the shadow of the U.S.-China trade tariffs war, sustainability and transparency surfaced as the top focus-more than double the percentage who cited shifting countries where they buy goods from-when executives were asked how their companies plan to adjust apparel sourcing to respond to macroeconomic trends.

Why? Getting sustainability right pays dividends as consumers, led by millennials and Gen Z, are demanding it: online searches for "sustainable fashion" tripled between 2016 and 2019, the report found.

That trend also highlighted some of the troubles facing fast-fashion teen retailers like Forever 21, which recently filed for bankruptcy protection.

"A population focused on sustainability just doesn't fit in with Forever 21's ethos," said Jefferies & Co. analyst Janine Stichter at the Sourcing Journal Summit in New York on Thursday

At the conference, which gathered 400 industry attendees, sustainability was also a key discussion topic. And one basic problem the industry needs to tackle: how to define sustainable fashion in the first place.

"We don't have common language for that yet," said Marissa Pagnani McGowan, senior vice president of corporate responsibility at Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger parent PVH Corp. "We endlessly struggle with how to communicate with consumers."

On top of that, the McKinsey study found the industry also lacks "a shared set of standards."

There's also the lingering issue of many fashion companies overproducing and failing to nail on the trends and products consumers want, leading to piles of unsold merchandise that often end up in landfills.

"You must solve the issue of excess inventory" before sustainability, said John Thorbeck, chairman of consultancy Chainge Capital and a former industry executive. The industry has "tremendous amount of inefficiency. The idea that we are going to switch focus from inventory to sustainability without a solution that embraces both is very hypocritical."

... Read More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
More Consumers Want Sustainable Fashion, But Are Brands Delivering It?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With consumers being more environmentally conscious than ever, it's no surprise that sustainability has become a familiar refrain in the fashion industry. But are brands delivering on it? That's a different story.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thank you for taking part in this survey for my Final Major Project. All responses are anonymous.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
So, how do consumers navigate packaging options and feel confident that their choices are better for the environment? The first thing to understand is that every packaging format, every material, has implications for a product's carbon footprint.

Many consumers wrongly assume that glass or aluminium are better for the environment. While metal or glass packaging can have higher recycling rates than plastics, for many applications their carbon footprint is typically higher.

When glass breaks and cans dent, and the products they contain are damaged, this causes waste and that increases the overall carbon footprint. Further, the higher weight of these packages means often fewer packages can be transported per truckload, and more energy is required to transport them.

Lightweight plastic packaging is easily converted into attractive formats, and creates convenient packaging that typically has a smaller carbon footprint than alternatives. PET bottles and jars are highly recyclable as well as being lightweight, shatterproof, transparent and reclosable.

More sustainable packaging options can have a combination of sustainability characteristics. Packaging can have a lower carbon footprint, be recyclable or reusable, or made from post-consumer recycled content. It can also be compostable or made from responsibly sourced and bio-based materials.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Communicating to consumers: materials and sustainability - Inside Packaging | Issue 52 | May 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are a range of different aspects to a product's environmental impact to consider when purchasing, but how clearly do consumers understand these? David Clark, sustainability VP at Amcor, offers some clarification and reflects on what companies should keep in mind when communicating these benefits.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Whether you're a senior manager on a mission or a buyer with targets to hit, CottonUP is here to help. This interactive guide answers three big questions about sustainable cotton: why it's important, what you need to know and do, and how to get started.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whether you're a senior manager on a mission or a buyer with targets to hit, CottonUP is here to help. This interactive guide answers three big questions about sustainable cotton: why it's important, what you need to know and do, and how to get started.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sustainability is becoming a big trend in the packaged goods and fashion industry as environmental concerns are increasingly top of mind for consumers.

The U.S. sustainability market is projected to reach $150 billion in sales by 2021, according to Nielsen.

We used clothing brand Reformation as a case study of sorts and spoke with experts in consumer behavior and the fashion industry to better understand the sustainability movement, why consumers love it, and how more brands can do their part.

A good product is no longer enough to win a consumer's favor. Shoppers want more than just quality, often looking for products and brands that align with their personal values.

It seems obvious. Why support a brand financially if we don't agree with their social and environmental values? In the face of climate change, those of us who care enough are ready to consider the consequences of our shopping habits.

The fashion industry is one of the biggest culprits when it comes to pollution. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 26 billion pounds of textiles end up in landfills each year. Realistically, most of us won't quit shopping cold-turkey. We may not even give up all fast-fashion. But, many people are willing to change their habits for the better.

Dr. Matt Johnson, professor at Hult International Business School and founder of neuromarketing blog Pop Neuro, says, "There is accumulating evidence that consumers are impacted by the perceived sustainability of [a] brand, and further, that consumers are willing to pay a premium for products from a sustainable brand over a non-sustainable competitor brand."

Value and ease of purchase are still the main drivers of purchase decisions, but sustainability is becoming a bigger factor. A 2019 survey led by Hotwire found that 47% of internet users worldwide had ditched products and services from a brand that violated their personal values. Protecting the environment topped that list.

Traditionally, you'd find labels like "organic" and "sustainably-grown" in the grocery aisle, but the same verbiage is becoming popular in the fashion industry, too.

Sustainable fashion doesn't seem like a natural pairing - fashion's trend-driven ways press us to buy new pieces every season, while sustainability asks us to pare down - but more and more brands are bettering their business with eco-friendly practices. Reformation is one of the brands leading the charge.

Yael Aflalo, Reformation's founder and CEO, was in the fashion industry for years and "really started to dislike a lot of the harmful industry practices - overprinting lookbooks and tossing 80% of them, yards of leftover fabric getting thrown out," she says. "On a trip to China, I saw first-hand the devastating amount of pollution there from manufacturing, and I knew that I had to make a change and stop contributing to the fashion industry's waste."

The brand's flowy dresses, dressy tops, cozy sweaters, jeans, and more, are beloved by the "it-girl" set. But, they're also made sustainably - everything from the fabrics used to the manufacturing processes to the hangers used in-store are chosen with keeping a minimal carbon footprint in mind.

Reformation is proof that you can be sustainable without sacrificing style. "Without sacrifice" is the key. Aflalo wants shoppers to see how easy it is to live a more sustainable lifestyle. "The success of our sustainability initiatives is determined by how effortless they are to adopt," she says. "We start with small digestible solutions that people can incorporate into their daily lives to make an impact and highlight how those changes can affect the big picture." Buying clothing that you were going to buy anyway, but choosing the item that was made ethically and with less waste is sustainability made easy. There's no significant behavior change, but a simple choice that can ultimately make a big difference.

Even if being sustainable isn't a personal priority, the idea of using a purchase to do good is attractive to many shoppers.

Purchasing expensive products that are environmentally-friendly in some way can help us compensate for the guilt we feel about our self-indulgent spending, Dr. Johnson explains. "A part of us feels guilty about the money we're spending on a new Prius, for example, but the fact that it's a product which has an environmentally friendly angle helps us feel better about the purchase."

For many shoppers, though, choosing a sustainable product is a personal priority, and they want people to know it. It's called Social Signaling, a theory that we buy certain things because of what they say about us to the people around us. People buy designer bags not only because they like the style, but because of the message they tell the world when they're holding one and the social status the product imbues.

The same goes for the environment. Dr. Johnson shares the example of a new Prius. "We may buy a Prius (at least in part) because it is a purchase reliably associated with environmental consciousness, and we want to signal that we're environmentally conscious," he says. And, it turns out that these social motivations are more important than practical features like gas mileage. In a 2007 survey, Prius owners proudly reported that the primary reasons for purchasing the car are because it "makes a statement about me" and that "it shows the world that its owner cares."

While we may be willing to pay more for something that is environmentally friendly, the ultimate goal should be for sustainability to be accessible.

Aflalo wants to break down the notion that sustainability is inherently more expensive. By definition, she says, it isn't - instead, it is "related to less waste and material use, which can actually lead to savings ... But there are some aspects of responsible manufacturing and better materials that may lead to marginally higher costs. So as we scale our business, we are committed to making our stuff even more accessible and passing on efficiencies and savings to our customers wherever possible."

A $28 Reformation tee may seem pricey when compared to a fast-fashion option, but the sustainable fashion movement asks us to consider environmental cost, not just the cost to our own wallet.

There are plenty of brands capitalizing on the movement. Everlane has become a popular choice with its self-proclaimed "radical transparency" in everything from pricing to using innovative materials, like recycled water bottles. Naadam is redefining luxury with its affordable, sustainable cashmere that's better for the environment and its workers.

It's not just startups that are getting in on the positive trend. Big-box retailers are adding more sustainable products to their aisles and committing to cleaning up their practices. The " Clean at Sephora" section of the beauty giant brings eco-friendly, clean beauty products to the masses. Target has a goal to use 100% sustainable, organic cotton in all products from Target-owned brands by 2022. Nordstrom recently launched a Sustainable Style category to help shoppers easily find responsibly-made products.

These efforts surely attract a more sustainably-minded demographic, and it's something worth showing off. Dr. Johnson thinks sustainable brands can certainly use marketing and branding to their advantage. Even though they are typically for-profit companies, he says, with a genuine sustainability foundation, non-profits are more likely to partner with these brands. In turn, this likely adds credibility to sustainability claims.

For Reformation, sustainability plays a significant role in branding.

"Being naked is the #1 most sustainable option. We're #2."

The brand's kitschy slogan is an homage to their sustainable practices, but that's just the start of it. "In recent years," Aflalo says, "we've taken a more formalized approach to transparency through initiatives like RefScale, factory tours, and sustainability reports, educating consumers about the environmental impact of fashion." On the brand's website, you can find plenty of information about its sustainable practices, including a quarterly Sustainability Report that delves deep into the brand's overall environmental footprint.

As someone who has started a fashion brand of their own, Aflalo understands it's not always easy to completely switch up production in favor of more sustainable approaches, which is why she suggests starting small. "To start," she says, "[brands] can focus on sustainable materials - so they can source an organic or better material, and just plug that into their same business model ... This one is a bit harder, but look into operations and business impact to offer better transparency around manufacturing processes (which is often the dirtiest part of the industry) and hold your business accountable to start making changes. The big and small changes will add up," she says. "If we want to have transformational change, we all need to participate."

The same goes for us, the shoppers. We may not all be ready to be minimalists and pare our wardrobes down. We may not be able to give up eating meat, driving to work, or wearing cashmere, but we can tweak these habits to make them better for the planet. Carpooling, meatless Mondays, or shopping with an eye for sustainable materials are small changes we can make for the better.

Read more about some of our favorite sustainable brands:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sustainability sells: Why consumers and clothing brands alike are turning to sustainability as a guiding light

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sustainability is becoming a big trend in the packaged goods and fashion industry as environmental concerns are increasingly top of mind for consumers. The U.S. sustainability market is projected to reach $150 billion in sales by 2021, according to Nielsen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Greenwashing is the use of marketing to portray an organisation's products, activities or policies as environmentally friendly when they are not. With people becoming increasingly aware of fashion's impact on the planet, some brands may be tempted to put a spin on their environmental sins. So how can you tell when a fashion brand is greenwashing?

There are many companies that employ Greenwashing techniques to cover for their environmentally destructive business operations. The practice is particularly bad in the fossil fuel industry. For example, it's no coincidence that one of the biggest oil companies in the world BP, has chosen the colour green as its primary branding colour, and that the logo resembles a flower. These little links to nature reference an eco-friendly model, but most of us can see through the blatant spin.

Greenwashing exists in fashion too, but it may be less glaringly obvious. So what are the telltale signs? Here are some examples that you can identify and avoid:

1. Impressive-sounding initiatives to reduce carbon emissions at head office

Got some solar panels on the Headquarters roof and an office full of plants? That's great, but it's not nearly enough. The supply chain should be one of the first things companies address in order to reduce their carbon footprint, as this is the largest source of carbon emissions. In fact production accounts for a massive 70 percent of the overall carbon footprint of the fashion industry. Brands should look at production facilities, transport and shipping methods, and the environmental impacts of source materials.

A brand's sustainability report should show exactly how it is addressing supply chain emissions. The Good On You app uses these reports to evaluate a brand's environmental impact and give it a score so you can compare brands and see who is truly taking steps to protect the planet.

2. Recycled and minimal packaging is not enough

Keep an eye out for brands who promote minimal, recycled or "recyclable" packaging, as a sign that they are reducing waste. They may even go as far as saying that they recycle their ink cartridges in the office. Again, these gestures alone do not make up for production processes that cause huge amounts of waste and pollution.

The biggest sources of waste in fashion are the textile waste at the production stage and the surplus of clothing being produced. Recently, luxury fashion brand Burberry caused outrage by burning 28 million pounds worth of unsold clothes and perfume, but many have pointed out that it's a common practice for fashion brands.

Then there are the cheap fast fashion brands that encourage throwaway culture with clothing, and can never be truly sustainable. In Australia alone, 6000 kg of clothing is dumped in landfill every 10 minutes. When brands like these talk about reducing waste, without changing their business models, then the greenwashing alarm bells should be ringing.

Look out too for brands who outsource their waste reduction to you, the consumer. Producing clothes that are 'timeless' and 'reject passing trends' is great, but if the clothes are cheap, mass produced and of low quality they're no better than trendy fast fashion because they're still heading for the scrap heap sooner rather than later.

However, if a brand is truly addressing textile waste while also minimising packaging - then that is a win on both fronts!

3. 'Energy efficiency' that's actually just the law

Greenwashing in the fashion industry can come in many shapes and forms. The use of LED and energy-efficient lighting, or sensored lights in stores can sometimes be little more than spin. Many office buildings already have this type of lighting. It is even a legal requirement in some countries. If the company itself has not implemented anything new to improve their environmental footprint, they're just making a big deal about something everyone is required to do.

4. Big claims followed by fine print, making targets look bigger than they are

Targets are a funny thing. Brands are more or less free to set targets for their environmental impact that are comfortable to achieve, sound good and may or may not be impactful.

A good way to decipher this is by looking for the fine print. For example, reducing emissions by 50% sounds great, until you read that the 50% is pegged to a date in the past when a company was much bigger - before they sold off subsidiaries or production facilities. It would be quite comfortable for this brand to achieve a 50% emissions reduction, without doing much. Or even if the emissions reduction is expressed as a percentage of production volume - yes you used 15% less energy to produce a single t-shirt, but you're producing ten times as many t-shirts so your overall emissions have gone up!

Science-based climate targets are the gold standard. If a company is one of the 4 00 or so adopting emissions reductions targets that are actually related to what scientists say we need in order to avoid catastrophic climate change, then they are doing their bit.

5. Greenwashing can apply to labour standards too

Many countries have a minimum wage, the legal lowest wage a company can pay its workers. This is very different to a living wage - the minimum wage a garment worker should earn in order to feed themselves, their families and to pay rent, healthcare, transportation and education. The majority of garment workers in Bangladesh are earning little more than the minimum wage and far below what is considered a living wage. Companies that shout about ensuring the minimum wage is being paid are doing the very least and don't deserve a pat on the back.

When you see a brand talk about their labour standards and the living wage, be aware this is a hard factor to regulate. In large production facilities located in different countries to the brand itself, workers can be overlooked, poorly treated and their health can be put at risk.

That's why full supply chain transparency is essential - ethical brands should list the names and locations of all the factories involved in the production of their products. Better still, brands that operate under fair trade rules are ensuring that workers are getting a fair deal and a living wage.

6. Marketing an aspect of sustainability within a larger organisation that's not sustainable

Feeling tempted to head back to a fast fashion store because they advertise their new 'organics' or 'sustainable' range? Don't be fooled! This is an increasingly common marketing tool with high-volume, fast fashion labels.

Often this range of clothing is a tiny portion of their overall production, and it doesn't mean that these labels have made a complete overhaul of their business models overnight. What a brand is really doing here is hoping that the green glow of one initiative will rub off on the company as a whole.

Don't believe that fast fashion can become ethical from one corner of a massive store. Unless the brand has set clear targets to increase their ethical range to more than 50% of their products, or are working towards making their whole business ethical - it's greenwashing.

Also, brands without a diversity of products in their ethical range may not be serious. Organic cotton t-shirts are easy to do - what about looking at wastewater and water use, harmful dyes, labour rights and conditions? Just because it's organic cotton, doesn't make it green. Lookout for things like GOTS certification to know it's a truly sustainable product.

There are much better options out there anyway with an increasing number of more dedicated sustainable and ethical brands that want to provide full disclosure on the great ways they are making their products - with no greenwashing necessary!

Using apps like Good On You is a great place to read up on the overall impact of a brand, with detailed information from their sustainability report and other reliable sources. It is platforms such as these that provide the disclosure some brands avoid offering, gives the consumer the power to know the impact of the products they are buying and point out the ones who are constantly greenwashing and misleading consumers.
Have you seen any blatant fashion greenwashing? Let us know in the comments below!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Can You Tell When A Fashion Brand Is Greenwashing? - Good On You

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Greenwashing is the use of marketing to portray an organisation's products, activities or policies as environmentally friendly when they are not. With people becoming increasingly aware of fashion's impact on the planet, some brands may be tempted to put a spin on their environmental sins.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The scheme gives businesses a rating from 5 to 0 which is displayed at their premises and online so you can make more informed choices about where to buy and eat food.

5 - hygiene standards are very good

4 - hygiene standards are good

3 - hygiene standards are generally satisfactory

2 - some improvement is necessary

1 - major improvement is necessary

0 - urgent improvement is required

The scheme is set out in law in Wales and Northern Ireland but display of the rating sticker is voluntary in England.

Food Hygiene Rating Sticker with a rating of five

What the rating covers

Ratings are a snapshot of the standards of food hygiene found at the time of inspection. It is the responsibility of the business to comply with food hygiene law at all times.

This includes:

handling of food

how food is stored

how food is prepared

cleanliness of facilities

how food safety is managed

The food hygiene rating scheme does not provide information on the following factors:

quality of the food

customer service

culinary skill

presentation

comfort

For suspected food poisoning, seek medical advice from your GP and contact your local environmental health or food safety team.

Understanding ratings

The rating shows how well the business is doing overall, based on standards found at the time of inspection. The ratings can be found online and on stickers which are displayed at business premises. The back of the sticker and the online rating will also show the date of the inspection by the local authority's food safety officer.

Ratings are typically given to places where food is supplied, sold or consumed, such as:

restaurants, pubs and cafes

takeaways, food vans and stalls

canteens and hotels

supermarkets and other food shops

schools, hospitals and care homes

A food safety officer from the local authority inspects a business to check that it follows food hygiene law so that the food is safe to eat.

At the inspection, the officer will check the following three elements:

how hygienically the food is handled - how it is prepared, cooked, re-heated, cooled and stored

the physical condition of the business -including cleanliness, layout, lighting, ventilation, pest control and other facilities

how the business manages ways of keeping food safe, looking at processes, training and systems to ensure good hygiene is maintained. The officer can then assess the level of confidence in standards being maintained in the future

Exemptions

There are two groups of exempt businesses which are inspected by the local authority food safety officer but are not given a food hygiene rating:

businesses that are low-risk to public health, for example, newsagents, chemist shops or visitor centres selling pre-wrapped goods that do not require refrigeration

childminders and businesses that offer caring services at home

The rating scale

The hygiene standards found at the time of inspection are then rated on a scale:

5 is top of the scale, this means the hygiene standards are very good and fully comply with the law

0 is at the bottom of the scale, this means urgent improvement is necessary

To get the top rating, businesses must do well in all three elements which are referenced above. If the top rating is not given, the officer will explain to the business the necessary actions they can take to improve their hygiene rating.

A breakdown of the three elements making up the food hygiene rating for business is also provided with the online rating. This information is available for businesses inspected since April 2016 in England and Northern Ireland and for businesses inspected in Wales since November 2014.

Detailed information is included in the food safety officer's inspection report. If you want to see this you could make a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the local authority that carried out the inspection. You can find the local authority's contact details by searching for the business and then clicking on the name of the business.

The local authority will consider your FOI request and will usually send you a copy of the report. In some cases, the local authority may decide that they cannot do so but will let you know this and explain why. Any concerns relating to a business's food safety can be reported to the local food safety team who are responsible for the business. You can find the local authority's contact details by searching for the business and then clicking on the name of the business.

Finding a rating
Browse our ratings online.
Ratings can be displayed in an obvious location within the business' window or door. You can also ask a member of staff what rating was given at the last inspection. Putting a hygiene rating on show is a good advertisement for businesses that meet the requirements of food hygiene law. If the rating is low you can then choose to buy your food or meal from a place with a higher rating.

Businesses in England do not have to display their rating at their premises but are encouraged to do so.

Businesses in Wales are legally required to display their ratings in a prominent place, like the front door, entrance or window of the business. All businesses in Wales must provide information on their rating verbally if requested in person or over the phone.

The scheme applies to businesses who sell to businesses including food manufacturers and wholesalers. Takeaways must include a bilingual statement on menu leaflets and flyers which tells consumers how to find details of the rating on our website.

Businesses in Northern Ireland are legally required to display their ratings at or near each customer entrance like the front door, entrance or window of the business. Stickers must be displayed in a location where they can be readily seen and easily read by customers before they enter the establishment when it is open for business.

All businesses in Northern Ireland must provide information on their rating verbally if requested in person or over the phone.

Differences between online ratings and rating sticker displayed

There may be temporary differences between the rating displayed at a business and online rating for which there are valid reasons, such as:

the business has appealed its latest rating and is awaiting the result

the local authority is in the process of uploading the new rating to our website

Even if a business achieves the top rating there can be a short delay while the local authority updates the website. Local authorities upload ratings at least every 28 days. If you cannot find a rating for business then you will need to contact the local authority responsible for inspecting the business.

You should also contact the local authority if you are concerned that a business is deliberately displaying a higher rating to the one on the website to suggest it has higher hygiene standards than it actually does.
Find your local authority food safety team.
Businesses with poor ratings

Businesses which are given low ratings must make urgent or major improvements to hygiene standards. The local authority food safety officer has several enforcement options available as well as giving advice and guidance to make sure these improvements are made.

The food safety officer will also tell the business how quickly these improvements must be made and this will depend on the type of issue that needs to be addressed.

If the officer finds that a business's hygiene standards are very poor and there is an imminent risk to public health, when food may be unsafe to eat, the officer must act to ensure consumers are protected. This could result in stopping part of the business or closing it down completely until it is safe to recommence.

Frequency of inspections

A new rating is given each time a business is inspected by a food safety officer from the business's local authority.

Each local authority plans a programme of inspections every year. The frequency of inspections depends on the potential risk to public health.

The assessment takes account of the following factors:

type of food that is handled

the number and type of customers, for example vulnerable groups

types of processes carried out before the food is sold or served

hygiene standards seen on the day of the last inspection

Businesses that pose a higher risk are inspected more often than businesses that pose a lower risk, for example a small retailer selling a range of prepacked foods that only need to be refrigerated. The time between inspections varies from six months for the highest risk businesses to two years for lower risk businesses. For some very low risk businesses, the interval between inspections may be longer than two years, however there may be some exceptions to this.

In between inspections, local authorities may also monitor businesses in other ways to ensure they are maintaining hygiene standards. If these checks reveal anything that might indicate that hygiene standards have deteriorated, the officer will carry out an inspection and the business will get a new rating.

If the local authority receives a complaint or new information about a business that they are not due to inspect, and this suggests hygiene standards are not being maintained, the local authority will investigate and may inspect the business and give it a new hygiene rating.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The scheme gives businesses a rating from 5 to 0 which is displayed at their premises and online so you can make more informed choices about where to buy and eat food.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New research has revealed that 58% of UK customers would not consider eating food from an outlet with a hygiene rating lower than four stars.
The research, carried out by Navitas, follows the news that Just Eat will begin publishing the food hygiene rating of all restaurants on its delivery platform and has removed all zero-rated restaurants from the platform.

The survey, which included under 2,000 participants in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, found that a 3-star rating was considered adequate by just 27% of people.

45% said that 4 stars was the minimum rating they would expect a food outlet to have and 13% claimed they would only eat at 5-star establishments.

The research also found that discovering a food outlet had a lower than anticipated hygiene rating would put 83% of people off going back even if they had enjoyed eating there before.

The display of food hygiene ratings is not mandatory in England and fewer than one in five of people (19%) always check the food hygiene rating of a restaurant or takeaway before eating out.

Bob Mackay, a qualified environmental health practitioner and technical director with Navitas Group who has previously called for the mandatory display of food hygiene ratings right across the UK has welcomed the move by Just Eat as a step towards creating consistency and greater transparency for consumers and raising food hygiene standards.

He said: "This move is good news and supports the work the Food Standards Agency has been doing making diners aware of how and where they can check food hygiene ratings and should create the impetus for food outlets to raise their standards if they want to be listed by achieving a minimum of 3 stars.

However, as our research shows, food outlets should be aiming higher if they want to attract and retain customers and should ideally be aiming to beat or match the competition by targeting a 5-star rating."

According to Mackay, raising and maintaining food hygiene standards should be a key focus for any food business.

He concluded: "Eating out has never been so popular and the choices so varied.

"Our research shows that people do want to make informed choices and be confident that the food they're eating away from home has been stored, prepped and cooked safely and correctly and to good hygiene standards."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Majority of customers would avoid food outlets with lower than four star hygiene rating - report

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New research has revealed that 58% of UK customers would not consider eating food from an outlet with a hygiene rating lower than four stars. The research, carried out by Navitas, follows the news that Just Eat will begin publishing the food hygiene rating of all restaurants on its delivery platform and has removed all zero-rated restaurants from the platform.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This statistic shows the world's leading cotton producing countries in crop year 2022/2023. In that year, cotton production in China amounted to around 6.7 million metric tons.

Cotton production

Cotton is a natural plant fiber which grows around the seed of the cotton plant. Fibers are used in the textile industry, where they are the starting point of the production chain. First, the cotton fiber is obtained from the cotton plant and then spun into yarn. From there, the cotton yarn is woven or knitted into fabric.

The use of cotton has a long tradition in the clothing industry due to its desirable characteristics. Cloths made of this fiber are moisture-absorbent, have a good drape and are known for their long durability. Consumers continue to purchase large amounts of cotton products as they prefer cotton's light and comfortable qualities. Products made out of cotton range from highly absorbent bath towels over bed linens to basic clothes such as t-shirts, underwear or socks.

The top cotton producing countries include China, India and the United States respectively. Within the United States, the Southern states traditionally harvest the largest quantities of cotton. This region was formerly known as the 'Cotton Belt', where cotton was the predominant cash crop from the 18th to the 20th century. Due to soil depletion and social and economic changes, cotton production has declined and acres in this region are now mainly used for crops such as corn, soybeans and wheat.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cotton production by country worldwide 2022/2023 | Statista

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over the lasr decade China and India are by far leading the world cotton production.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Leather will never be an animal-friendly product: It is made of dead animal skin. However, the skin used to make leather comes from animals raised for their meat. In that sense, it uses a byproduct from another industry, so it doesn't actually need additional land and resources.

Conventional leather is heavily criticized for the environmental impact of the tanning process. But leather can also be eco-friendly. There are not many options in the market yet, but they do exist. These include Ecolife™ by Green Hides, which creates eco-friendly, chrome-free leather in Italian tanneries that recycle and purify wastewater.

The Leather Working Group is also promoting sustainable environmental practices within the leather industry.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Leather will never be an animal-friendly product: It is made of dead animal skin. However, the skin used to make leather comes from animals raised for their meat. In that sense, it uses a byproduct from another industry, so it doesn't actually need additional land and resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1. Every year, the global leather industry slaughters more than a billion animals.

2. If you're wearing leather, it probably came from China or India.

In China, there are no penalties for abusing animals on farms.

3. Along with cattle, other animals-including sheep, dogs, and cats-are killed for their skin in China.

Dog and cat leather is often intentionally mislabeled, so you could be wearing dog leather and not even know it.

4. In India animals fare no better.

India's animal-protection laws are also rarely enforced.

5. In India, cows are forced to march for days-without food or water-to their own deaths.

6. Cattle who collapse from exhaustion have their tails broken or chili peppers rubbed into their eyes in order to force them to keep moving.

7. There's virtually no way to tell where leather comes from.

Even if a product says that it was made in Italy or the U.S., the raw materials probably came from India or China.

8. Turning skin into leather uses dangerous chemicals, including mineral salts, formaldehyde, and coal-tar derivatives.

Without this process, the leather that your shoes are made of would rot right off your feet.

9. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that the incidence of leukemia among residents near a tannery in Kentucky was five times greater than the U.S. average.

Studies of leather-tannery workers in Sweden and Italy found cancer risks "between 20% and 50% above [those] expected."

10. In the U.S., leather often comes from cows who were used for meat and milk.

11. Cows are subjected to cruel practices such as castration and branding.

And they rarely receive any painkillers during these procedures.

12. All animals who are used for leather have to face the slaughterhouse.

13. Cows are extremely intelligent animals who develop complex relationships, can perform difficult tasks, and even mourn the deaths of their friends ...

14. ... But the leather industry allows none of that.

Please don't buy leather and choose affordable and durable faux "leather" instead.

Will you stand up for cows? Help animals who are used for leather right now and share this page on Facebook.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
14 Things the Leather Industry Doesn't Want You to See | PETA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In China, there are no penalties for abusing animals on farms. Dog and cat leather is often intentionally mislabeled, so you could be wearing dog leather and not even know it. India's animal-protection laws are also rarely enforced. Even if a product says that it was made in Italy or the U.S., the raw materials probably came from India or China.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sustainability is becoming a big trend in the packaged goods and fashion industry as environmental concerns are increasingly top of mind for consumers.

The U.S. sustainability market is projected to reach $150 billion in sales by 2021, according to Nielsen.

We used clothing brand Reformation as a case study of sorts and spoke with experts in consumer behavior and the fashion industry to better understand the sustainability movement, why consumers love it, and how more brands can do their part.

A good product is no longer enough to win a consumer's favor. Shoppers want more than just quality, often looking for products and brands that align with their personal values.

It seems obvious. Why support a brand financially if we don't agree with their social and environmental values? In the face of climate change, those of us who care enough are ready to consider the consequences of our shopping habits.

The fashion industry is one of the biggest culprits when it comes to pollution. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 26 billion pounds of textiles end up in landfills each year. Realistically, most of us won't quit shopping cold-turkey. We may not even give up all fast-fashion. But, many people are willing to change their habits for the better.

Dr. Matt Johnson, professor at Hult International Business School and founder of neuromarketing blog Pop Neuro, says, "There is accumulating evidence that consumers are impacted by the perceived sustainability of [a] brand, and further, that consumers are willing to pay a premium for products from a sustainable brand over a non-sustainable competitor brand."

Value and ease of purchase are still the main drivers of purchase decisions, but sustainability is becoming a bigger factor. A 2019 survey led by Hotwire found that 47% of internet users worldwide had ditched products and services from a brand that violated their personal values. Protecting the environment topped that list.

Traditionally, you'd find labels like "organic" and "sustainably-grown" in the grocery aisle, but the same verbiage is becoming popular in the fashion industry, too.

Sustainable fashion doesn't seem like a natural pairing - fashion's trend-driven ways press us to buy new pieces every season, while sustainability asks us to pare down - but more and more brands are bettering their business with eco-friendly practices. Reformation is one of the brands leading the charge.

Yael Aflalo, Reformation's founder and CEO, was in the fashion industry for years and "really started to dislike a lot of the harmful industry practices - overprinting lookbooks and tossing 80% of them, yards of leftover fabric getting thrown out," she says. "On a trip to China, I saw first-hand the devastating amount of pollution there from manufacturing, and I knew that I had to make a change and stop contributing to the fashion industry's waste."

The brand's flowy dresses, dressy tops, cozy sweaters, jeans, and more, are beloved by the "it-girl" set. But, they're also made sustainably - everything from the fabrics used to the manufacturing processes to the hangers used in-store are chosen with keeping a minimal carbon footprint in mind.

Reformation is proof that you can be sustainable without sacrificing style. "Without sacrifice" is the key. Aflalo wants shoppers to see how easy it is to live a more sustainable lifestyle. "The success of our sustainability initiatives is determined by how effortless they are to adopt," she says. "We start with small digestible solutions that people can incorporate into their daily lives to make an impact and highlight how those changes can affect the big picture." Buying clothing that you were going to buy anyway, but choosing the item that was made ethically and with less waste is sustainability made easy. There's no significant behavior change, but a simple choice that can ultimately make a big difference.

Even if being sustainable isn't a personal priority, the idea of using a purchase to do good is attractive to many shoppers.

Purchasing expensive products that are environmentally-friendly in some way can help us compensate for the guilt we feel about our self-indulgent spending, Dr. Johnson explains. "A part of us feels guilty about the money we're spending on a new Prius, for example, but the fact that it's a product which has an environmentally friendly angle helps us feel better about the purchase."

For many shoppers, though, choosing a sustainable product is a personal priority, and they want people to know it. It's called Social Signaling, a theory that we buy certain things because of what they say about us to the people around us. People buy designer bags not only because they like the style, but because of the message they tell the world when they're holding one and the social status the product imbues.

The same goes for the environment. Dr. Johnson shares the example of a new Prius. "We may buy a Prius (at least in part) because it is a purchase reliably associated with environmental consciousness, and we want to signal that we're environmentally conscious," he says. And, it turns out that these social motivations are more important than practical features like gas mileage. In a 2007 survey, Prius owners proudly reported that the primary reasons for purchasing the car are because it "makes a statement about me" and that "it shows the world that its owner cares."

While we may be willing to pay more for something that is environmentally friendly, the ultimate goal should be for sustainability to be accessible.

Aflalo wants to break down the notion that sustainability is inherently more expensive. By definition, she says, it isn't - instead, it is "related to less waste and material use, which can actually lead to savings ... But there are some aspects of responsible manufacturing and better materials that may lead to marginally higher costs. So as we scale our business, we are committed to making our stuff even more accessible and passing on efficiencies and savings to our customers wherever possible."

A $28 Reformation tee may seem pricey when compared to a fast-fashion option, but the sustainable fashion movement asks us to consider environmental cost, not just the cost to our own wallet.

There are plenty of brands capitalizing on the movement. Everlane has become a popular choice with its self-proclaimed "radical transparency" in everything from pricing to using innovative materials, like recycled water bottles. Naadam is redefining luxury with its affordable, sustainable cashmere that's better for the environment and its workers.

It's not just startups that are getting in on the positive trend. Big-box retailers are adding more sustainable products to their aisles and committing to cleaning up their practices. The " Clean at Sephora" section of the beauty giant brings eco-friendly, clean beauty products to the masses. Target has a goal to use 100% sustainable, organic cotton in all products from Target-owned brands by 2022. Nordstrom recently launched a Sustainable Style category to help shoppers easily find responsibly-made products.

These efforts surely attract a more sustainably-minded demographic, and it's something worth showing off. Dr. Johnson thinks sustainable brands can certainly use marketing and branding to their advantage. Even though they are typically for-profit companies, he says, with a genuine sustainability foundation, non-profits are more likely to partner with these brands. In turn, this likely adds credibility to sustainability claims.

For Reformation, sustainability plays a significant role in branding.

"Being naked is the #1 most sustainable option. We're #2."

The brand's kitschy slogan is an homage to their sustainable practices, but that's just the start of it. "In recent years," Aflalo says, "we've taken a more formalized approach to transparency through initiatives like RefScale, factory tours, and sustainability reports, educating consumers about the environmental impact of fashion." On the brand's website, you can find plenty of information about its sustainable practices, including a quarterly Sustainability Report that delves deep into the brand's overall environmental footprint.

As someone who has started a fashion brand of their own, Aflalo understands it's not always easy to completely switch up production in favor of more sustainable approaches, which is why she suggests starting small. "To start," she says, "[brands] can focus on sustainable materials - so they can source an organic or better material, and just plug that into their same business model ... This one is a bit harder, but look into operations and business impact to offer better transparency around manufacturing processes (which is often the dirtiest part of the industry) and hold your business accountable to start making changes. The big and small changes will add up," she says. "If we want to have transformational change, we all need to participate."

The same goes for us, the shoppers. We may not all be ready to be minimalists and pare our wardrobes down. We may not be able to give up eating meat, driving to work, or wearing cashmere, but we can tweak these habits to make them better for the planet. Carpooling, meatless Mondays, or shopping with an eye for sustainable materials are small changes we can make for the better.

Read more about some of our favorite sustainable brands:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sustainability sells: Why consumers and clothing brands alike are turning to sustainability as a guiding light

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sustainability is becoming a big trend in the packaged goods and fashion industry as environmental concerns are increasingly top of mind for consumers. The U.S. sustainability market is projected to reach $150 billion in sales by 2021, according to Nielsen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Good On You ethical brand rating system gives you the power to make better choices as an informed shopper. Choices that reflect your commitment to doing better by the planet, people and animals. We believe fashion brands have a responsibility and should be transparent about their impact. How did the clothes you're wearing get to you and how do your favourite brands stack up?

We look at brands impact on workers across the supply chain. These include policies and practices on child labour, forced labour, worker safety, freedom of association (the right to join a union) and payment of a living wage. We also consider a brand's supplier relationships and auditing practices.

We consider each brand's resource use and disposal, energy use and carbon emissions, impacts on water, as well as chemical use and disposal.

We identify the use of fur, angora, down feather, shearling, karakul and exotic animal skin and hair. We also consider wool use including 'mulesing' and whether and how the brand uses leather.

For each of people, planet and animals we also consider if brands are taking positive steps - such as providing industry leadership on issues - or whether they engage in 'negative citizenship' like lobbying against legislation to increase transparency or reduce harm.

Information sources

Good On You ethical brand ratings build on the great work done by certification schemes and other independent rating projects. The most reliable information about how a brand performs on an issue comes from certification schemes like Fair Trade, OEKO-TEX and the Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS). However only a small minority of brands offer certified products and so we need to look further at the standard systems brands may choose to follow and the other actions that they claim to take. We take into account information from more than 50 certifications schemes, standards systems and independent ratings or assessment method that are available for use by brands.

Where an issue is not fully covered by a standard system or rating, we consider the brand's own public statements. We only put weight on those statements where they meet certain conditions that increase their reliability and usefulness. In particular, we look for statements that make relevant and specific claims which, if false, would breach misleading advertising laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How We Rate Fashion Brand Ethics - Good On You

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Good On You ethical brand rating system gives you the power to make better choices as an informed shopper. Choices that reflect your commitment to doing better by the planet, people and animals. We believe fashion brands have a responsibility and should be transparent about their impact.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Environmental Audit Committee is calling on the UK government to make fashion retailers take responsibility for the waste they create.
In a new report, , the Environmental Audit Committee ( EAC) calls on the UK government to make fashion retailers take responsibility for the waste they create - suggesting, among other measures, a 1p producer responsibility charge on each item of clothing that could pay for better clothing collection and recycling.

In June 2018, the EAC launched an inquiry into the sustainability of the fashion industry, surveying 16 leading UK fashion retailers on what, if anything, they are doing to reduce the environmental and social impact of the clothes and shoes they sell. Within the report are key recommendations that the EAC hopes parliament will pass into law. As the EAC states in the report, "The fashion industry has marked its own homework for too long."

The report outlines key recommendations for Parliament that cover not only waste, but also the importance of education, and improving human rights and other responsible supply chain practices:

Mandatory environmental targets for fashion retailers with a turnover above £36 million;

The continued evolution of circularity

Hear about the latest progress in advancing a global circular economy from practitioners and experts in a variety of industries - at SB'20 Long Beach.

An Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme to reduce textile waste with a one-penny charge per garment on producers;

The scheme should reward fashion companies that design products with lower environmental impacts and penalize those that do not - using the tax system to shift the balance of incentives in favor of reuse, repair and recycling to support responsible producers.

The Government should follow Sweden's lead and reduce VAT on repair services.

Lessons on designing, creating, mending and repairing clothes should be part of school curricula

The Government should publish a publicly accessible list of retailers required to release a modern slavery statement. This should be supported by an appropriate penalty for those companies who fail to report and comply with the Modern Slavery Act.

The fashion industry must come together to set out a blueprint for a net zero emissions world, reducing their carbon consumption back to 1990 levels.

Environmental Audit Committee Chair Mary Creagh MP comments below:

Sustainable clothing: "voluntary approach has failed"

The report warns that although some parts of the fashion industry are making progress in reducing their carbon and water consumption, these improvements have been outweighed by the increased volumes of clothing being sold. It concludes that a voluntary approach to improving the sustainability of the fashion industry is failing, with just 10 fashion retailers signed up to reduce their water, waste and carbon footprints.

It recommends that compliance with WRAP's Sustainability Clothing Action Plan targets should be made mandatory for all retailers with a turnover of more than £36 million as a 'license to practice.'

It is also recommended that Government work with retailers to increase use of digital supply chain technology for better traceability.

New economic models for fashion

The MPs say that we need new economic models for fashion that are based on reducing the material consumption associated with growth. To drive improvements, the Government should reform taxation to reward fashion companies that design products with lower environmental impacts.

This could include extending the proposed tax on virgin plastics to synthetic textile products to stimulate the market for recycled fibers in the UK. The Committee also wants the new EPR scheme to accelerate government and industry research into the environmental performance of different materials and measures to reduce microfiber pollution.

The report also calls on Ministers to explore how they can support new sharing economy models such as hiring, swapping or subscription clothes services.

Government must act to end throwaway fashion

Increasing a garment's lifetime is one of the most effective means of reducing its environmental footprint. Around 300,000 tonnes of clothing ends up in household bins every year with around 80% of this incinerated and 20% sent to landfill.

A charge of one penny per garment producers as part of a new EPR scheme could raise £35 million for investment in better clothing collection and recycling in the UK. The Committee is also calling on the Government to ban incineration or landfilling of unsold stock that can be reused or recycled.

Ending labor exploitation

While many clothing brands are produced in Asian countries with low labor costs and weak environmental governance, there has been a recently growth in garment manufacturing in the UK, as brands and retailers seek to respond faster to consumer demand. Unsurprisingly, manufacturers are under pressure from retailers to produce garments at unrealistically low prices - as a result, the EAC heard evidence that sub-minimum wage issues are widespread in Leicester's garment factories.

The report calls for changes to the Modern Slavery Act and Companies Act to increase transparency, and require large fashion brands and retailers to perform due diligence checks across their supply chains to ensure their products are produced without forced or child labor.

In a statement,Fashion Revolution - a key contributor to the report - said it welcomes the EAC's findings:

"We too want to see a thriving fashion industry in the UK that employs people, inspires creativity and contributes to sustainable livelihoods in the UK and around the world, and we believe that brands and retailers have an obligation to address the fundamental business model," said Policy Director Sarah Ditty. "We believe that the fashion industry in the United Kingdom and globally needs far-reaching systemic change in order to tackle poverty, inequality and environmental degradation, and greater transparency is the first crucial step towards solving its human rights and environmental crises. We hope to see the policymakers and citizens across the UK work hard to make sure that these recommendations are adopted into policy."

While agreeing that the proposed tax is a "good first step," Becky Willan, Managing Director of brand purpose consultancy Given London, adds: "A tax initiative like this does put well-placed pressure on fashion brands, but the challenges of making the industry truly sustainable are so much broader and more complex than simply recycling, [which] does little to address the throwaway culture that exists at the heart of 'fast fashion. Consumer behaviour and attitudes also need to be transformed - to reverse the trend of overconsumption, we need to unlock a much bigger culture shift."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UK Gov Proposes Tax, Other Incentives to Help End Throwaway Fashion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Environmental Audit Committee is calling on the UK government to make fashion retailers take responsibility for the waste they create. In a new report, , the Environmental Audit Committee ( EAC) calls on the UK government to make fashion retailers take responsibility for the waste they create - suggesting, among other measures, a 1p producer responsibility charge on each item of clothing that could pay for better clothing collection and recycling.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In support of the environment, you've been probably purchasing organic produce or products manufactured in ethical and sustainable conditions. But, in many cases, the "organic" fruits on the grocery's shelves are no different than the conventional ones. This practice of "portraying an organization's products, activities or policies as environmentally friendly when they are not" is known as greenwashing. In a world where environmental issues are increasing exponentially, many individuals and companies mislead their consumers by brushing up their image with fake "green" touches. From farmers' market vendors to multinational corporations, here are a few examples of greenwashing in the food industry.
Farmers' market
Who doesn't like local farmers' markets? By stopping by, you're not only supporting clean agriculture, but also helping your local community and cutting carbon emission.

A CBC News investigation reveals an unpleasant truth about "homegrown and organic" produce displayed at a Canadian farmers' market. As usual, the vendors had amazing backstories about their products which were supposedly grown in their own farms. Testing the veracity of their confessions, the investigators tracked one of them and found out that he acquired his produce at a wholesale warehouse early morning! Worst, other dishonest vendors didn't even bother to remove the barcode tag from the fruits' peels. A similar investigation by The New York Times found out the same lies.

When you go to the farmer's market, beware of these scams. A barcode tag on any product should be a hint that it was grown hundreds (if not thousands) miles away with synthetic fertilizers.
Plastic Water Bottle
There's no doubt about the detrimental nature of disposable water bottles. They hurt your wallet, contaminate your water with microplastics, fill up landfills, and threaten ocean animals. You've been told to use reusable bottles to avoid these problems, but Nestlé had a more creative solution.

A few years ago, the company advertised an disposable water bottle that was made with 30% less plastic and featured a smaller label. They also praised the bottle's flexibility which facilitated crushing for recycling, as if recycling was the answer to plastic pollution. Their blatantly greenwashed advertisement was criticized by a lot of environmental activists.

includes appealing nature landscapes in advertisement campaigns for its disposable bottles and states that "FIJI Water purchase helps reduce carbon emissions and protect Fijian rainforest". These misleading ads are meant to boost the company's profits rather than protecting the environment. On the top of selling disposable plastic bottles, FIJI water fails to provide its nearby community access to safe water ーto be precise, "47% of Fijians don't have access to clean, safe drinking water" according to the World Health Organization.
100% Natural Juice
Whenever I see a bold "100% natural" on a juice pouch, I always wonder why the taste differs from the original fruit. The reason? It's not so natural.

From the farm to your fridge, the supposedly natural juice undergoes all kinds of processing steps, including the addition of flavor packs. Surprisingly, HuffingtonPost pointed out that these flavors "are not a natural food product but rather are designed by flavor and fragrance companies. Yes, the same companies that make your perfume." Moreover, bottled juice contains way more sugar than the actual fruit (what makes them "only minimally better than soda") and chemical additives that are necessary for preservation. Next time you see a "100% natural juice" on the shelf, think twice.

Despite these dishonest marketing strategies, keep in mind that some companies are genuinely supporting the environment and providing healthy food. When looking for eco-friendly options, be vigilant! A vague "Organic" or "Non-GMO" claim on a greenish package doesn't mean anything if not endorsed by authentic certifications such as USDA.

Written by Kelly Jean, Class of 2021
Photo thanks to Pixabay

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In support of the environment, you've been probably purchasing organic produce or products manufactured in ethical and sustainable conditions. But, in many cases, the "organic" fruits on the grocery's shelves are no different than the conventional ones. This practice of "portraying an organization's products, activities or policies as environmentally friendly when they are not" is known as greenwashing .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Have you noticed how products ranging from diesel to wet wipes have suddenly become "eco", "green", "bio", "organic", "clean", or "sustainable", replacing previously typical labels like "best", "cheapest", and "number one" seemingly overnight?

Yet simultaneously temperatures are rising, non-recyclable waste clogs our oceans, and the sixth extinction is well underway. With such a clean market and such sustainable lifestyles, how come the living world is still in big trouble? What could be going wrong if we're doing so many things right?

According to billboards and TV ads the world seems to be doing fine... but take off the pink goggles and you'll see that the reality falls far short of the promises.

Though over-consumption and ecological collapse are alluded to by an obscenely lucrative advertising industry - to demonstrate companies' supposed bleeding-heart politics - the real intentions are far from noble. Dishonest language (and that's putting it politely) and glittery campaigns are presented to the public with the sole intention of bolstering stockholders' financial profits, as reassurance that everything remains healthy, ethical, and by the book along the supply chain.

The public relations game 📯

Trust and honesty are not the primary expectations of marketing, advertising, or public relations. The illusion that your life will be completed by, or that you will be made happier/sexier/more fulfilled/more attractive by a particular new product is the lifeblood of the advertising industry.

On some level, we all know this. Yet a credulous majority still buys into the fantasy of life being improved by an item destined for landfill in a matter of months.

Downplaying the consequences of producing the goods feeding this fantasy - ecocidal pollution and habitat destruction; bulldozing of human rights; abuses of power (by the 'developed' world over the 'developing') - is a new game, one with dangerous and lasting effects.

This is 'greenwashing': a relatively recent PR practice, usually associated with wasteful, polluting companies, that uses marketing campaigns to fabricate a veneer of sustainability and environmentally friendliness; wrong-doing deceitfully masquerading as virtuous solutions.

Defining greenwash 🦎

The term greenwash was coined by environmentalist Jay Westerveld in 1986 (inspired by an incident involving luxury towels on a beach in Fiji, rather than industrial-scale pollutants); by the end of the 1990s it was included in the Oxford English Dictionary: "disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image."

The Centre for Media and Democracy 's definition widens its reach beyond marketing campaigns:

"Greenwashing is the unjustified appropriation of environmental virtue by a company, an industry, a government, a politician or even a non-government organization to create a pro-environmental image, sell a product or a policy, or to try and rehabilitate their standing with the public and decision makers after being embroiled in controversy."

Wikipedia defines this compound word (also called green sheen), modelled on whitewash, as "a form of spin in which green PR or green marketing is deceptively used to promote the perception [that] an organization's products, aims or policies are environmentally friendly."

Below we will focus on the greenwashing around us, splashed by marketing campaigns across walls, screens, and print.

Different shades of greenwashing 🧪

No doubt you've spotted greenwashing already, but didn't necessarily realise it had a name. An IRL example: my local convenience store produced a massive new sign, promoting itself as the place for "organic groceries" (on a green background, naturally). Less than a third of its shelves actually carry organic products.

People in the area are keen to buy organic, local, independent products. The shop's owners know this, and their green signage likely attracts these customers (who may even demand more of the promised organic produce, encouraging the expansion of this side of the business). Though a mild form of greenwashing, the practise is often much more pernicious than some green paint on the front of a shop.

Old-school greenwashing 🗞️

The practice of falsely proclaiming cleanliness, safety, and responsibility dates back to the 1960s and "continued at a steady, moderate level through the first Earth Day in 1970."

Growing post-war economies were focused on financial profit at all costs, including through experimentation with new practices of the times, but with little interest in proper disposal of hazardous waste or the lives crippled in the process.

When a harmful incident took place, due to little regulation, it would be glossed over in bright green colours. Many greenwashing campaigns pop up in this way, following 'an incident' that damaged the public image of the company in question.

"As the contemporary environmental movement built momentum in the mid-to-late 1960s, undermining the public trust in many a corporation, newly greened corporate images flooded the airwaves, newspapers and magazines. This initial wave of greenwash was labeled by former Madison Avenue advertising executive Jerry Mander and others at the time as ' ecopornography'." ― Joshua Karliner

The US Environmental Protection Agency was "born in the wake of elevated concern about environmental pollution", in 1970. It was intended "to consolidate in one agency a variety of federal research, monitoring, standard-setting and enforcement activities to ensure environmental protection."

Most countries have agencies that monitor (or should monitor) big polluters and ensure the general public doesn't end up with an unhealthy environment. Ideally these agencies should also monitor the PR tactics paid for or supported by the same polluting companies, tactics designed to distract from, cover up, or downright lie about issues relevant to the general public.

Further reading: A Brief History of Greenwash by Joshua Karliner

Keeping up with the times 🖱️

The outrageous corporate environmental claims of the late twentieth century have gradually became more sophisticated and nuanced, while reaching larger audiences with the onset of digital communication.

Greenwashing has now grown into a chameleonic, multi-tendrilled structure tended by spin doctors, consultants, marketeers, and myriad others. It is used to increase sales, push through legislation obscuring levels of pollution, and generally improve polluters' reputations, strengthening their authority and position on global and local levels. The more products being sold, the more malpractice to hide and truths to bend.

Today, greenwash appears in:

Commercials (TV, radio, digital media, print, windows, street banners - you name it)

General PR campaigns (when called out for environmentally unfriendly practices, the company's solution is often a promotional campaign to publicly clean up their act)

Corporate social responsibility policies

Legislation (Barry Commoner coined the term "linguistic detoxification": when, "through legislation or other government action, the definitions of toxicity for certain substances are changed, or the name of the substance is changed, so that fewer things fall under a particular classification as toxic")

Offsetting.

And much more.

Now, imagine a corporation running a business that is hazardous by nature, with a global impact (paint, oil, gas, mining, etc.). Imagine it attempting to camouflage its spills, and its poisoning of air and water, by erecting a green sign outside its oil distilleries or open-cast mines. When air is no longer breathable and water no longer fit for drinking, the willful, criminal inadequacy of attempting to persuade the public otherwise becomes clear.

Transnational corporate greenwashing 📉

Greenwashing becomes truly damaging in the hands of big transnational corporations (TNCs), impacting entire industries, countries, and social groups. It's this element of greenwashing that draws most attention from researchers, journalists, and academics.

In their book Greenwash: The Reality Behind Corporate Environmentalism, Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno detail case studies of TNC greenwashing campaigns prior to its publication in 1996.

The typical scenario is simple: like the 'organic' shop with little to back up its claim, TNCs heavily promote promises which sound like a big deal, but are in actuality insignificant by comparison to the huge unseen damage they inflict.

There are notorious examples in most industries, though funnily enough those polluting most are the worst offenders: the clothing, oil, gas, coal, mining, and paper industries all have an impressive track record of greenwashing. For instance, every stage of oil production (exploration, production, transportation, manufacturing, and consumption) can cause enormous damage to both the environment and human health - making the industry's exaggerated public-facing green credentials all the more egregiously unjustifiable.

Here's a selection of corporate greenwash in posters from the 80s and 90s, examined in Greer and Bruno's book. I have omitted company names - some of which continue to greenwash 40 years later - since these examples apply just as well to entire industries:

Image of a toddler hugging the globe, with the caption "protected by"... an oil company that has been aware of climate change for decades (due to studies they ordered), yet does almost nothing to tackle it, instead supporting campaigns that stall action on the climate crisis.From the same corporation comes a priceless quote claiming that "as long as the earth needs someone to care for it [we can be sure of them]".

Pristine river in ad for a chemical corporation responsible for one of the worst toxic river spills in history.

Ad claiming an herbicide works "in perfect harmony" with nature, for the producer of an extremely toxic herbicide banned in five countries at the time.

Photo of a bird in midair with a fish in its beak and the word CARING underneath... for major chlorine and polyvinyl chlorine manufacturer bragging about "recycling" chlorinated waste - in reality a dangerous form of waste incineration.

Plastic and waste disposal industries appropriating the language of recycling by applying it to processes which in no way accomplish the true purpose of recycling. They exploited the public's enthusiasm for recycling and used it to cover dirty operations (a very common form of greenwashing); sometimes "recycling" becomes a euphemism for sending the waste abroad (largely from wealthy countries to poorer ones).

Ad showing clouds and lab scientists, with the headline "protecting the skies" - for a transnational chemical company, "leader" in ozone destruction, and massive generator of hazardous waste and toxic lead gasoline additives.

For all the juicy details, and case studies based on years of investigations and expert backing, you'll have to read the book.

How do we spot greenwashing? 🔍

It may sound like a job for Sherlock and co, but anyone curious about the world can identify greenwashing. If you flex your critical eye, I guarantee you'll end up rolling your critical eyes all too often when walking in the city, watching TV, or browsing online.

Here are some pointers:

When it's too good to be true

For example, compostable coffee pods, flushable eco-wipes, clean coal, or eco diesel.... A Fashion Revolution fanzine advises that we question everything: "If a product claims to be carbon neutral, 100% organic, 100% anything in fact, chances are it's 100% greenwash."

Look for the seven sins of greenwashing

These sins were coined in 2009, when the environmental marketing agency TerraChoice (sister company to UL) evaluated 5,296 products on the market, and established that only 4.5 percent were sin-free, with "products [that] passed muster on seven common greenwashing missteps." The research revealed that a vast majority of products (more than 95 percent) claiming to be green were stretching the truth in some way.

Here are the sins:

1. The Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off (presenting a product as green by highlighting a single environmental attribute without acknowledging the full environmental impact)

2. The Sin of No Proof (making environmental claims with no evidence backing them up)

3. The Sin of Vagueness (the use of feel-good language so vague as to be meaningless)

4. The Sin of Irrelevance (a claim that's truthful but unimportant or unhelpful)

5. The Sin of the Lesser of Two Evils (labeling products like cigarettes as organic to distract from their fundamental problems)

6. The Sin of Fibbing (claims that are simply untrue)

7. The Sin of Exaggerating 🎭

Read more about them here.

Words and visuals go hand in hand

There have been myriad attempts to classify consumer behaviour in response to different colours in advertising. The colour green is often associated with peacefulness, health, nature, organic, and growth. Yet... British Petroleum uses it in their logo. And so does Greenpeace. Obviously, you can't ban a company from using a colour, but you can try and spot the other shades lurking in the back.

Check out watchdog initiatives like the Hall of Shame 🖼️

In the year 2000, the Public Eye on Davos campaign was begun as a counter-summit to the World Economic Forum, subsequently growing into a powerful online campaign, naming and shaming companies with its awards from 2005 to 2015. The Hall of Shame features all the companies that have won a Public Eye Award: "corporations whose business activities have been characterized by human rights violations, environmental destruction, immoral tax practices or corruption."

Further reading: The story behind this campaign here.

How do we resist greenwash? 🛡️

Be skeptical of ads

If you don't suffer from banner blindness, examine everything. Do a quick search about the company you're about to buy from for the first time. No doubt many companies look back with nostalgia at the halcyon days when consumers' news came from television, radio, and print media which could be easily flooded with "high-priced, slickly-produced commercials and print ads".

Once you become accustomed to questioning claims so proudly made in the public space, it won't feel like homework. Companies don't expect you to question their marketing - all the more reason to remain vigilant.

Some simple questions to ask:

Why? (e.g. Why does a 'sustainable' cosmetics company still uses non-recyclable plastic packaging? Why would an oil and gas company pretend to be an energy company while pushing for new fossil fuel drilling? Why would an oil company claim to be focused on the future, when it has "ambitious plans to grow its [destructive] oil and gas production 16% by 2025"?

What? (e.g. What does it mean for a financial institution such as a bank to be 'natural'? Has it divested from fossil fuels? Does it invest only in sustainable projects?)

Why now? (Context is everything. Was the company, product, or brand involved in a recent scandal, investigation, or similar?)

How? (e.g. How are they achieving what they brag about? Are there any figures, documents, or real-world achievements out there?)

Ask yourself these questions, and if answers aren't forthcoming, take them further by writing to the company, asking why/why now/how/what? Start by questioning the products and services you commonly use.

Follow trustworthy media outlets (which don't shy away from investigations)

Keep an eye on figures and facts. Facts should speak louder than paid-for promotional posters; use them to make your case, ask your questions, and start clarifying conversations.

Add your expertise to the Citizen's Guide to Greenspeak

Greenwash. The Reality Behind Corporate Environmentalism includes a few helpful definitions of greenwashing vocabulary. Here are four:

"Excellent environmental performance": Having fewer accidents while manufacturing deadly products.

"Continuous improvement": Industry has a terrible environmental record, but that will always be due to past practices.

"Corporate environmentalism": Environmental laws and citizen watchdogs are no longer necessary.

"Change in corporate culture": Prettier advertisements.

How do we act on greenwashing? 📢

Talk about it; make a fuss; boycott

If you suspect your favourite brand is greenwashing you, reach out to them, asking for further details. In this competitive world, it is in their interest to listen to their customers; explain your concern.

Talk to other people about your greenwashing discovery/investigation/concern, especially those in advertising who are creating these campaigns.

Talk about it online. You can call them on their lies by starting a small social media campaign, if that's your thing. Don't forget to tag the company!

Talk to your children about lying, so they grow up to be attentive humans and knowing not to take advertising for granted.

Contact regulatory bodies such as the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) when you spot greenwashing. You will need to provide evidence; regulatory bodies like the ASA and the Committees of Advertising Practice are ever-evolving systems, for which your support and expertise are crucial to stop greenwashing gaining yet more ground.
For instance, file a complaint if you spot something like this advertisement that implies gas is a "low-carbon energy" source.

Boycott companies that greenwash, and make sure they know it.

Join organisations or campaigns that actively fight greenwashing, like the Art Not Oil Coalition, which attempts to end oil industry sponsorship of the arts (another form of greenwashing we'll explore soon). Or BP or not BP? - "a merry troupe of players who came together in 2012 aghast that our beloved Bard's works and memory had been purloined by BP in a case of greenwash most foul."

Encourage and support politicians and policymakers who push for tougher regulation on greenwashing marketing campaigns.

Talk about the importance of an ecocide law, which would make destruction of the environment a crime against peace. This would keep the big polluters pretty busy cleaning up their act in real life. Sign petitions like this one.

Those who make big claims should back them up with strong evidence or drop them altogether. Sure, we're talking about powerful industries, but they still need clients to survive, and that includes you, your business, and your family. In most countries ethical alternatives are available. Or you might even discover that you can do without.

Why should we care?

Greenwashing perpetuates and normalises the fallacy of business-as-usual in the face of ecocide, while also indirectly draining credibility from honest brands that are genuinely sustainable and environmentally friendly. "There's no such thing as organic" is already a classic example as people often consider it's just a trick to justify raising a product's price. Few realise that "organic" is a hard-earned badge in certain countries, with farmers doing hard honest work to get it.

The illusion that a product is credible and a company greener encourages more and more people to purchase it. In being misguided into consuming an unethical product, we endorse the company that produced it, vindicating their dodgy practices. There is just too much at stake; we need to pay attention, especially when it comes to products and services we routinely consume.

By calling them on their greenwash, companies might start investing in cleaning up their act in reality, minimising their toxic environmental impact, instead of pumping large amounts of money into making themselves look green and respectable.

Uncovering greenwash won't deter everyone from buying certain products, but may still make them think twice about investing or supporting it in other ways.

"... it is tragic to contemplate the pernicious effect such ads can have on children, who may grow up believing that oil companies are the main preservers of wilderness or that farmers need synthetic chemicals to work in harmony with nature. But the real political danger of greenwash lies in the possibility it will convince governments and intergovernmental organizations to abdicate further their responsibility to regulate and hold accountable the TNCs." ― Greer and Bruno

"You should be able to trust the ads you see" was a national ad campaign run by the ASA, encouraging people to report falsities in the words and images that surround us. "Over the years, the advertising self-regulatory system has responded to changes in society and media. The system is continuing to develop based on the enduring principles that ads should not mislead, harm or offend."; resistance to greenwashing could have a positive impact. Don't sit this one out.

Let's talk greenwash!

We've barely scratched the surface here, so we want to keep this conversation open. With an ever-changing mediascape, greenwashing will have to keep up with the changes. Spotting greenwashing in our everyday lives may start as a game or challenge, but it can become something more significant, motivating us into action. Comment below or join us on our community forum! Thanks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Have you noticed how products ranging from diesel to wet wipes have suddenly become "eco", "green", "bio", "organic", "clean", or "sustainable", replacing previously typical labels like "best", "cheapest", and "number one" seemingly overnight? Yet simultaneously temperatures are rising, non-recyclable waste clogs our oceans, and the sixth extinction is well underway.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The number of trademark applications for new vegan and food drink products is rising.

From 2018 to 2019, there was a 128 percent increase in companies successfully applying for trademarks on vegan products.

According to law firm EMW, in 2019, companies applied for 107 trademarks on products like dairy-free ice cream and plant-based burgers. In 2018, there were 47 recorded applications of the same nature.

EMW notes that the vegan food category is growing with help from major corporations. Unilever, for example, trademarked vegan ice cream. The consumer goods giant owns both Magnum and Ben & Jerry's.

Supermarket chain Lidl trademarked a range of plant-based products. Restaurant chains, including Honest Burgers and Leon, also registered trademarks for products like vegan meat and condiments.

Daisy Divoka, an associate at EMW, told LIVEKINDLY: "for a relatively small cost, a registered trademark gives a business a level of protection from trademark infringement, extra credibility with its customers and suppliers, and it is an extra asset that can hold significant value on a future exit."

Upfield, the owner of Flora and vegan cheese brand Violife, and California-based Beyond Meat, both trademarked variations on "Beyond Cheese," "Beyond Mince," and "Beyond Butter."

'A Fast-Growing Sector'

"There are now more vegan products on supermarket shelves than ever before," Divoka said in a statement. Tesco recently launched 30 new vegan products and, in January, Waitrose announced it was doubling its plant-based range, adding products like fish-free goujons and meat-free mousaka.

"Multi-national corporations have identified this as a fast-growing sector and are competing to register their trademarks with the aim of capturing and defending a share of the market," Divoka added. "The trend towards vegan food shows no sign of abating anytime soon."

While the data is from before the lockdown, the ongoing coronavirus pandemic seems to have encouraged Brits to eat more vegan food.

According to research from Mintel, nearly 8 million people in the UK now perceive a plant-based diet as "more attractive." A separate study stated that 25 percent of millennial Brits said the pandemic has made vegan food more appealing.

"Even before the spread of COVID-19, we were seeing a growing interest in plant-based food and drink across global markets," said Alex Beckett, Mintel's associate director for food and drink, in a statement. "It may well be that the pandemic is accelerating this trend."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UK Vegan Food Trademarks Increased 128% In One Year

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The number of trademark applications for new vegan and food drink products is rising. From 2018 to 2019, there was a 128 percent increase in companies successfully applying for trademarks on vegan products. According to law firm EMW, in 2019, companies applied for 107 trademarks on products like dairy-free ice cream and plant-based burgers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fashion brands are making commitments to sustainability to boost consumer trust and attract talent while reducing risks of boycotts and litigation.

The H&M Foundation, a non-profit organisation backed by the founders of the H&M Group, is looking to boost the industry's use of recycled clothing material with a new hydrothermal recycling machine.

But companies could be doing more, says London College of Fashion's Matthew Drinkwater. In addition to taking greater ownership over their supply chains, 3D design, 3D sampling, 3D prototyping and artificial intelligence can help cut down on waste.

In two decades, the H&M Group has grown from a medium-sized European retail chain to the second-largest garment company in the world, producing approximately three billion items per year to sell across its 4,800 stores. But a recent drop in sales (paywall) and profits has forced the Swedish giant to face its structural issues, including a production process which led to $4.3 billion of unsold clothes in early 2018.

"The old bricks-and-mortar [model of] just pump up new stores, push out garments into stores and someone will buy them, is dead," David Sävman, H&M Group's head of production, said at a recent meeting in Hong Kong where I was a guest of the H&M Foundation, the non-profit arm of the Swedish company. (Full disclosure: my flights and accommodation were paid for by the foundation.)

The H&M Group launched its first Conscious Collection in spring 2011, which included materials like organic cotton and recycled polyester, followed by a garment-collecting initiative in 2013. The company has also experimented with combined deliveries, electric vans and packaging-free delivery in India to curb its e-commerce impact. These efforts have given the Swedish retailer a no. 4 spot in the Fashion Revolution 2018 Transparency Index.

Where change needs to happen

"H&M and Zara are seen as two leaders in sustainability," Elizabeth L. Cline, author of Overdressed: The Shockingly High Cost of Cheap Fashion, writes by email. "However, it's not enough to just be less bad than your competition."

If retailers want to effect change, they should focus on manufacturing, rather than greening stores and logistics, she says. Fibre production, yarn preparation, fabric production and dyeing contributed to 97 per cent of the apparel industry's total global climate impact in 2016. Retailers, however, rarely own the factories producing their garments. Zara owner Inditex owns around 3 per cent of its manufacturing capacity, while the H&M Group exclusively works with external suppliers, which number more than 1,000.

Companies often point to a lack of factory ownership to justify their limited influence on supply chains, but Rachel Arthur, chief innovation officer at innovation agency TheCurrent, thinks they can do more: "They deal with [these suppliers] in big numbers, so they have the ability to put pressure on them to make these changes happen." These multinational companies also have enough scale to lobby governments to implement better regulations, she adds.

"Much more local management of the supply chain is what is required from all of these brands," says Matthew Drinkwater, head of the Fashion Innovation Agency at the London College of Fashion. "It's resource intensive but there isn't really another choice."

How technology can help

In addition to working more closely with suppliers, Drinkwater urges companies to invest in technologies that could reduce production volume. 3D design, 3D sampling and 3D prototyping can all help cut waste, while artificial intelligence can be used to produce small garment runs for specific stores. These technologies could be implemented almost immediately, but companies need to make the skill set to manage and operate them a priority.

Drinkwater believes that the H&M Group, which appointed Linda Leopold as head of AI policy and Cambridge Analytica whistleblower Christopher Wylie as head of research for artificial intelligence this year, is heading in the right direction.

Where H&M goes next

Despite its widely publicised commitments to sustainability, the company has no plans to change the factors - production volumes, turnaround times, low prices - that have helped shape a throwaway culture that sends 300,000 tonnes of clothes to landfill per year in the UK alone. Hanna Hallin, sustainability manager for H&M Group in Greater China, doesn't see an alternative. "We can stop producing the volumes we do [now], but then the 98 per cent [of companies that are] less transparent and less sustainable will just keep making money. We have a role to play going forward - we ought to put others who are not transparent out of business."

This is where the H&M Foundation, backed by $177 million from the Stefan Persson family (owners of H&M), comes in.

Its most recent project is a hydrothermal recycling system that solves one of garment recycling's biggest obstacles: separating fibre blends. Occupying the space of a small conference room, the Green Machine could boost the amount of recycled material used by the H&M Group, which currently numbers approximately 0.018 per cent. Once it reaches industrial capacity, the foundation hopes it will be adopted by the broader industry.

While garment recycling addresses only a small part of the problem, it is a step in the right direction, says Jeffrey Silberman, chair of textile development and marketing at the Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT). "If this becomes one of many operations that can recycle and keep significant amounts of unused fibre and fabric out of landfills and the oceans, it could change the way the industry creates product and manages its life cycle."

To receive the Vogue Business Sustainability Edit, sign up here.

Comments, questions or feedback? Email us at feedback@voguebusiness.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fashion brands are making commitments to sustainability to boost consumer trust and attract talent while reducing risks of boycotts and litigation. The H&M Foundation, a non-profit organisation backed by the founders of the H&M Group, is looking to boost the industry's use of recycled clothing material with a new hydrothermal recycling machine.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Retailers like H&M and Levi's test sustainable practices through "eco-friendly" capsule collections that represent small pieces of overall business.

Critics say such limited product lines don't go far enough to address problems like carbon footprint, and that messaging may be misleading to customers.

Executed correctly, these collections can represent longer-lead progress in areas like supply chain practices and material sourcing.

As a fast-fashion behemoth, H&M's sustainability practices are subject to criticism. Environmentalists claim that H&M's attempts to go greener, particularly with its Conscious collection, are nothing more than greenwashing. The most common complaint is that for a retailer that brought in $24 billion in 2019, the fraction of business that "consciously" made clothes represents is a meagre response to the scale of the climate crisis and doesn't touch the issue of labour conditions.

According to Pascal Brun, H&M's head of sustainability, the criteria for Conscious products is that they're made with 50 per cent "sustainable" - such as organic or recycled - materials, or 20 per cent recycled materials in the case of cotton, because of technical limitations. Conscious products are marked by green hang tags, while H&M's Conscious Exclusive collection, through which it experiments with new materials and practices, is released twice annually. The company wouldn't share sales figures or how much of H&M's total business it represents.

"Conscious", "eco-friendly" and "sustainable" capsule collections are popular among retailers whose main collections aren't made following such practices. They've become common but are not exclusive to fast-fashion companies: Asos, Zara and Mango are among the brands that, in addition to H&M, put out special collections they label eco-friendly.

Retailers test sustainability in limited product runs in part because of the added costs that can come with implementing sustainability measures. But beyond that, material supply may not be available yet, the suppliers themselves may not be equipped or, in the case of new technologies, they may not have been scaled yet. A company might also be divided, internally, on the best ways to push sustainability forward - or whether to prioritise it at all.

While these collections may get called out for not doing enough to drive meaningful change, a number of industry experts argue that they can be useful for companies to build up sustainable practices by testing out new materials, processes or sourcing strategies. But there needs to be a viable plan for a company to scale the progress; and messaging matters.

"Consumers would care if marketing teams did a better job to make them care," Ayesha Barenblat, founder of the California nonprofit Remake, says.

Capsules as experiments

Starting small has allowed Levi's to expand both its "Water<Less" technology, which cuts the amount of water used in its denim manufacturing by up to 95 per cent, and its "cottonised hemp", a proprietary fabric with a smaller carbon footprint than traditional cotton. Over three seasons, Levi's had to figure out how to spin and weave the cotton-hemp blend, dye it and finish the fabric, improving the processes along the way before expanding them to other products over time.

"A small fashion capsule is useful because you can test or validate good or bad ideas at a scale that's safe," says Paul Dillinger, VP of global product innovation at Levi's. "The last thing that the cause of sustainability in fashion needs is a big failure to cause everyone in the C-suite or the top-floor offices to question whether we should be doing it at all."

Humble beginnings allow brands to work out kinks. When Reebok rolled out a sneaker made with cotton and corn-based fibres, president Matt O'Toole says they were able to integrate consumer feedback on comfort and performance when designing the next generations of the shoe; those releases have expanded in variety and in quantity over time.

Similar ripple effects imply small-scale or limited-edition efforts can have outsized influence. The North Face first used recycled material for a jacket pocket lining before rolling it out to other products. New Balance expanded its use of chrome-free leather after its Reformation collaboration last year required it to first establish that supply.

H&M's first Conscious Exclusive collection used some recycled polyester; today, 30 per cent of the company's total polyester is recycled. (Recycled polyester, which is actually made from plastic, has its flaws. H&M says it's involved in several projects to develop and commercialise recycling polyester back into fabric, including Worn Again Technologies and Ambercycle.)

"The sustainable collection helps us to bring to scale some innovations that we have just started. You need those collections to reach future impact," says Brun. He adds each time H&M launches a new material, the goal is to expand it however small the initial use might seem. Several new materials are currently in the pipeline.

Capsules as marketing

Maxine Bédat, founder and director of the nonprofit New Standard Institute, says H&M is making changes that can influence the broader market, like shifting to organic cotton. But it's not enough, she says, and she finds the company's language particularly problematic.

There are few regulations for making claims like "sustainable" and "ethical" clothing, and it's hard to tell when shopping H&M how the retailer decided on the criteria for products to qualify for the Conscious collection. Specific details are hard to come by, and details matter. Some Conscious clothes are made with lyocell, a cellulosic material; H&M says it "mainly" uses Tencel, a brand that claims to source it responsibly - but other lyocell production, which H&M would not put a percentage to, is heavily associated with deforestation.

"They are doing [positive] things," Bédat says. "It's just that the marketing of what they're doing is far outpacing what they're doing."

The H&M website says, for example, "By choosing Conscious products, you help us make the fashion industry more sustainable" and the company described a recycled polyester made from plastic shoreline waste as a "revolutionary sustainable material" in 2017. Critics disagree with the notion that it is, or was then, revolutionary.

Far beyond any one brand, Bédat says consumers are entitled to - and hungry for - nuance in what companies tell them about their sustainability efforts, which would include disclosing details around what a company is working on, where they're making progress and where they still need to improve. Otherwise, it's hard to tell what a company's main objective is. "What are we trying to do here? Are we trying to sell to a new customer or are we trying to solve climate change?" she says.

The very claim of "sustainability" for a brand or product should probably disappear altogether, she argues, because it's not actually applicable in the context of consumption. "We're not planting trees here," she says.

Value versus cost

In some cases, brands will be able to adjust how they make a product without increasing costs, whether because the change isn't more expensive or because a brand can find ways to offset the expense elsewhere. Tim Bantle, global GM of urban exploration and mountain lifestyle at The North Face, says simplifying garment design can cut down sewing time and costs enough to use a lower-impact but more expensive material, for example.

But higher prices may be something brands and consumers alike need to come to terms with, says Rebecca Burgess, founder and director of Fibershed, a California nonprofit that focuses on regional textile production. This, for her, is the key function of a sustainable capsule collection.

During manufacturing, many clothing brands contaminate water supplies and cause other environmental impacts considered to be externalised costs that the brand doesn't have to pay for. Responsible production often requires brands to pay for the tools that will reduce the negative impacts - and taking on those costs probably means needing to raise consumer prices. Often through capsules, "brands are determining if the customer can tolerate that," says Burgess. "We can be passing the buck all day. But... [a brand's] business model is based on sales, they need to be able to sell product. And if consumers are not going to be able to spend more on a product, everything falls pretty flat right there."

Raising prices can work if brands tell the story well; Burgess says all the brands that Fibershed has worked with to source climate-beneficial wool, including Coyuchi, Elizabeth Suzann and The North Face, have increased their sourcing of the material once their limited collections established consumers would buy it. These brands, however, have the advantage of a customer base able to pay premiums; fast fashion brands, whose business models are predicated on cheap, disposable clothing, don't.

Rachel Faller, founder of Tonlé, a line of women's clothing and accessories made from waste materials, says brands that avoid increasing prices of more sustainable products may do so by subsidising them with profits from other parts of the company. She points to "Fair Trade certified" jeans at Target as a potential example. "Knowing how denim is made, there's no way that you can make a pair of Fair Trade jeans for $30 with a traditional retail markup," she says. (Faller does not have any connection to Target or its operations.) Doing so sends the message to customers that it's possible to produce goods fairly and sustainably and still keep costs low. A subsidised collection also likely means a brand is perpetuating status-quo practices in the rest of its products, Faller adds. "They use sustainability to get people in the door, but ultimately end up selling more unsustainable products." (A Target spokesperson said in response, "Universal Thread Fair Trade Certified denim is a growing and profitable area of our apparel assortment.")

Another metric that could help people to gauge the sincerity of a brand in its capsule efforts is its evolution - or lack thereof - over time. Is it growing in size or broadening its use of different materials or technologies? "You can never tell by looking at one just season of the capsule," says Dillinger of Levi's. "It is the right question to be asking: is it greenwashing or is this practising for the new normal?"

Ultimately, Bédat advocates for recognising progress where it's happening, without losing sight of the scale of the problem and the need for more than incremental progress to solve it.

"We need to be moving away from this black-and-white language of sustainable fashion versus non-sustainable fashion, and toward a more nuanced and realistic understanding of how we reduce impact with the understanding that we're never reducing it to zero," she says.

To receive the Vogue Business Sustainability Edit, sign up here.

Comments, questions or feedback? Email us at feedback@voguebusiness.com.
More from this author: As fashion churns out more 'sustainable' goods, why is so much made from plastic? What the food industry can teach fashion about sustainability The UN set 17 sustainability goals. It needs fashion's help meeting them

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The impact of fashion's 'sustainable' capsule collections

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Retailers like H&M and Levi's test sustainable practices through "eco-friendly" capsule collections that represent small pieces of overall business. Critics say such limited product lines don't go far enough to address problems like carbon footprint, and that messaging may be misleading to customers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Getty images

Trust is critical to any relationship. Of course, trust is essential between your business and your customers.

Consumer trust has been waning in recent years, despite the efforts of many businesses across industries to ramp up transparency initiatives and improve customer engagement. Numerous scandals around corporate and political leadership as well as several high-profile consumer data breaches have put consumers on edge - and they're more skeptical than ever.

The 2019 Edelman Brand Trust Survey revealed only 39% believe tech companies put welfare of customers ahead of profits. What's more, although 81% say trust impacts their purchasing decisions, only a third of people say they trust the brands they buy from. And, 41% say they don't trust brands' marketing communications to be accurate or truthful.

Those are some pretty concerning data. And once customer trust is lost, it's hard to get back. According to Edelman's survey, 45% of consumers would never trust a brand again after it displays unethical behavior or is involved in a scandal, and 40% say they'd stop buying from that brand altogether.

Consumers aren't only wary about the truthfulness of a brand's communications, they're concerned about their data being used improperly. Salesforce reports that over half of consumers fear their personal data are vulnerable to hackers and think companies don't operate with their best interests in mind.
Consumer Trust Impacts Your Bottom Line
A lack of trust can be costly. Take, for example, the Cambridge Analytica scandal in September last year, which revealed that Facebook handed over 87 million user profiles. Facebook's shares fell more than 24% and lost $134 billion in market value in a week. Accenture reports that lack of trust costs U.S. brands $756 billion per year. And new research by PushOn suggests that a lack of consumer confidence in a brand may be delaying people from buying - or prompting them to shop elsewhere.

To sum things up, consumer trust is hard to gain and easy to lose - but essential to business success.
Building Trust Takes Work
In this age of "fake news," questionable political practices and corporate influence, how do you earn, build and maintain customer trust, and use it to improve your brand's reputation?

First and foremost, you need to be transparent about how you're handling customer data. California is spearheading the development of new laws that give consumers more control over their personal data and a company's ability to purchase it - a common practice among marketers that dates back decades.

For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)- similar to the E.U.'s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) - will take effect in January, requiring companies to disclose the personal data they collect and how that data is used, and to delete it upon a customer's request. (Reputation.com recently wrote a whitepaper on the regulation.) This law will likely be a blueprint for other data privacy laws sure to emerge over the next few years.

And it's probably a good idea not to rely solely on purchased data for marketing efforts anyway. Deloitte reports that 71% of purchased data is inaccurate. Consumer-generated content and data that is given freely, such as when customers fill out a form to download content, respond to a survey or leave a review on Google or Facebook, is more direct and reliable. Reviews, social commentary and survey responses are also full of information you can use to fine-tune your marketing efforts and develop really relevant messaging and content.

But companies need to do more than be compliant with data privacy regulations. What are other ways to build trust?

Build a reputation for transparency. In one study, participants were asked to evaluate organizations using the same messaging around transparency in response to a crisis. Companies that had a reputation for transparency were deemed more trustworthy than companies who didn't. One of the ways you can build a reputation for being transparent about your business practices is by managing and responding to reviews. In the just-released 2019 Retail Reputation Report, we learned that retailers aren't responding to negative reviews. In fact, overall, response rates are a measly 2%. When customers leave negative feedback, don't put your head in the sand. Acknowledge the blunder and disclose your plans to right the wrong. Be proactive about collecting and analyzing customer feedback, take action on what you discover, and tell people about it. Also it's important that you not remove negative reviews in most cases - 95% of consumers doubt the validity of positive reviews when they don't see any negative ones.

Get your social media ducks in a row. Social media is a great channel for proving to customers that you're authentic and genuine in your desire to meet their needs and live up to your brand promises. Social media also provides a platform for showing your business's human side and engaging in meaningful ways with consumers. Know who your followers are and make sure your posts and content align with their interests. Tune in regularly to the conversations happening on social media channels and engage frequently. And just like with negative reviews, don't shy away from negative comments. Own up to any wrongdoing and be completely honest and transparent about how you plan to address and hopefully correct the problem. If there's a crisis involving your brand, act rapidly. Remember United Airlines' blunder a couple years back? The company's hesitance to respond and be accountable for their mistakes sent their market cap into a $255 million nosedive overnight and forced them to invest heavily in rebuilding their tarnished reputation.

Exceed expectations. When you wow your customers, you instantly build trust. That's because to delight them, you have to understand them and anticipate their wants and needs - often before they figure it out themselves. If you do this once, they'll trust you do it again and again. Look at Apple - they probably have the most loyal customers of any brand, because consumers don't wonder if Apple products will be great - they trust the company to exceed their expectations. Apple accomplishes this by being transparent, listening to and acting on feedback, engaging in meaningful ways with its customers. That's why paying attention to customer feedback is so critical.

In a world in which consumer trust is increasingly rare and tenuous, businesses can't take anything for granted. By monitoring and analyzing what customers are actually saying about you, engaging in that conversation and taking action on what you discover, you can create a relationship built on trust and unshakable loyalty.

##

... Read More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Trust is critical to any relationship. Of course, trust is essential between your business and your customers. Consumer trust has been waning in recent years, despite the efforts of many businesses across industries to ramp up transparency initiatives and improve customer engagement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Advertising Standards Authority | Committee of Advertising Practice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As a report claims that airlines are struggling to control their contribution to the climate crisis, the question grows more urgent for aviation: does it have a greener future, and will a zero-emission plane ever fly?

Executives hope a combination of sustainable fuels, offsetting and improving flight paths can play a part in reducing aviation's footprint until, if ever, carbon-free flying becomes a viable technological and commercial reality. For now, the best long-term hope for the airline industry appears to be electric planes.

At Cranfield University, the laboratory for much of British aviation research, the transport secretary, Grant Shapps, on Thursday urged the industry "to create an electric revolution in our skies"; for the climate and, incidentally, "to seize a share of a market that could be worth £4tn globally by 2050".

Manufacturers are pursuing electric dreams: not just companies like Boeing and Airbus, but a host of tech firms, particularly for urban air mobility - aircraft that could be clean and silent enough to make shorter air hops possible without large airports. How much that can be scaled up remains a question. For now, the development of batteries with better power-to-weight ratio means shorter trips on small planes may not be far away.

At this year's Paris air show, electric planes on display included a nine-seater plane named Alice, being developed just outside Tel Aviv by Eviation. The Israeli startup is aiming to have commercial deliveries of its plane as early as 2022.

A bigger version, a partly British-built hybrid electric plane, is aiming for test flights in 2021. The e-Fan X, a collaboration between Cranfield with Airbus, Siemens and Rolls-Royce, will convert a small passenger jet to demonstrate the potential for wider commercial use.

That kind of project has excited analysts: the move towards hybrid and electric engines for short-haul flights could come in the next two decades, according to an analyst report by UBS.

Another zero-emission alternative could be hydrogen, the fuel behind a plane soon to be tested on flights from the Orkney islands. Trials backed by £5.3m in government funding were announced this week - underlining the potential of hydrogen for commercial aviation, according to Val Miftakhov, the founder and chief executive of ZeroAvia, which is providing the plane's propulsion technology. He said: "Our project goal of 300 nautical miles is equivalent to the distance from London to Edinburgh and will prove that zero emission aviation, powered by hydrogen, can play a key role within the UK and other countries' transport strategies - enabling net-zero targets to be met."

The cost of producing and storing hydrogen is one major barrier. But Dr Bobby Sethi, a senior researcher at Cranfield, believes the current cost of liquid hydrogen - five to six times that of jet fuel by weight - will come down. Sethi said: "As large scale hydrogen production and liquefaction infrastructures become more established, and that of jet fuel and taxation of CO2 emissions goes up, particularly with heightened environmental awareness, we believe LH2 (liquid hydrogen) will be very competitive on cost in the medium to long term."

Manufacturers like Airbus predict new forms of plane will come - but not for 15 years. Bob Lange, a senior vice-president, says hybrid-electric propulsion could be feasible by the mid 2030s. The newest planes unveiled in recent years, such as Airbus's A350 and Boeing's 787, have brought a step-change in fuel efficiency, but Lange says the next major product launches will be on hold. "We need to do our research and development now for the next fuel technology."

Before those planes appear, the industry - and the planet - needs other ways to curb aviation emissions. Sustainable fuels were a major hope for aviation; and with concerns over biofuels, the focus has shifted to the potential of domestic and industrial waste. A Virgin service claiming to be the first to be partly powered by recycled waste crossed the Atlantic last October. According to its US fuel supply firm, LanzaTech, if that single flight could be scaled up - and more importantly, function with a fuel blend of 50% recycled waste rather than just 5% - it could curb greenhouse gas emissions by 65% compared with conventional jet fuel.

British Airways has eyed similar technology and - after several false starts - has submitted plans to develop, with Shell, a new plant in Immingham, Humberside, which could divert half a million tonnes per year of waste - from packaging to nappies - into more sustainable jet fuel.

Other measures have been stalled in planning: a single European sky and better air traffic management could cut CO2 emissions by 10%, the industry says.

Airlines are meanwhile fighting to avoid more punitive taxation, with Germany poised to announce additional levies on flying. A4E, a trade body representing Lufthansa, BA and others says: "Instead of taxes, the German government should support measures such as reforming EU airspace."

But as aviation finally gets moving on emissions, the pace of change may prove too slow to avoid a clampdown.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Aviation's flight towards low emissions only fuels the crisis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As a report claims that airlines are struggling to control their contribution to the climate crisis, the question grows more urgent for aviation: does it have a greener future, and will a zero-emission plane ever fly?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Of the European Union's ten biggest carbon dioxide (CO2) emitters, nine of them are coal-fired power plants. The tenth is Ryanair, the low-cost Irish airline which released 9.9 megatonnes of greenhouse gases in 2018 - a 6.9 per cent increase from 2017.

But Ryanair has its own spin on the data that contradicts the EU Transport & Environment group's report. According to a series of TV, print and radio adverts promoting the airline, Ryanair should be the airline of choice for carbon-conscious flyers.

"Everybody knows that when you fly Ryanair you enjoy the lowest fares. But do you know you are travelling on the airline with Europe's lowest emissions as well?" reads one advert, part of a series that has attracted more than 100 complaints to the UK advertising regulator, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). The ASA is currently assessing whether to open an investigation into the adverts.

Ryanair isn't the only airline flexing its environmental credentials. On October 10, British Airways announced it would offset carbon emissions for all domestic flights starting in 2020, a first step towards its eventual goal of achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050. EasyJet, too, says it's reducing per passenger carbon emissions by investing in lighter seats and decreasing fuel consumption with better planes and engines.

But is there really such a thing as an environmentally-friendly airline, or is Ryanair just the latest to partake in a little self-indulgent greenwashing? It all comes down to whether the airline industry can innovate its way out of climbing emissions, or if passengers will just have to accept that the only low-carbon flight is no flight at all.

In order to see this embed, you must give consent to Social Media cookies. Open my cookie preferences.

While Ryanair might have been a little generous with its adverts, it's not totally wrong to say that does produce low emissions, for an airline. The key metric here is CO2 released per passenger kilometre, not overall emissions. So if you had 200 passengers on a plane that travelled 1,000 kilometres, that journey would amount to 200,000 passenger kilometres. Dividing the total emissions for that journey by the number of passenger kilometres will give you CO2 emitted per passenger kilometre.

Ryanair's figure - and the reason why it can lay claim to being Europe's "lowest emissions" airline - is 67 grams of CO2 per passenger kilometre. That's the lowest for any EU airline, beating Virgin's 78.2g in 2017 and Easyjet which was 81.05g in 2015, despite the fact that Ryanair's total 2018 emissions were almost 60 per cent more than Easyjet's.

Although these are impressive figures - by the aviation industry's standards - they don't mean that Ryanair has actively been trying to reduce its carbon footprint. "They are almost certainly nothing to do with Ryanair's environmental strategy," says Christian Jardine, a research analyst at the University of Oxford's Environmental Change Institute.

Instead, Ryanair's numbers come down to three factors: the age of its planes, how full they are and how far they fly. The airline has one of Europe's youngest fleets, consisting of over 450 Boeing 737-800 planes with an average age of 6.5 years. Since newer planes are more fuel efficient they release less carbon dioxide, cutting down the overall emissions from each flight.

Ryanair is also very good at packing those planes with people. "Ryanair's sole business model is to grow passenger kilometres," says Jardine. The airline fills more of its seats than any other EU airline, with an average load capacity of 96 per cent, thanks to its bargain basement prices. Most Ryanair planes have 189 seats and, on average, they're filled with 181 (and a half) passengers per journey. The more passengers Ryanair has, the higher the number of passenger kilometres it racks up, meaning it divides up its carbon emissions further.

The distance that Ryanair flies also helps. In 2010 the average Ryanair plane flew just over 1,000 kilometres per journey, although that's likely to have increased since then. The relatively short distance means that Ryanair's planes don't need to carry lots of excess fuel, which would increase weight and makes the planes less energy efficient. And it's also more fuel efficient than very short haul flights (such as UK domestic flights) since taking off is the most fuel-intensive part of the flight.

While that all adds up to Ryanair being the most carbon efficient airline, it is already hitting the limits of how far it can drive that number down. The airline wants to reduce its CO2 per passenger kilometre to 60g by 2030, but if you compare that to something like high-speed rail - which weighs in at six grams per passenger kilometre - even optimistic efficiency gains are woefully inadequate.

"The improvements year on year are decreasing because we're reaching the limits of technology," says Andrew Timmis at Loughborough University's School of Architecture, Building and Civil Engineering. The aviation industry has agreed to improve its fuel efficiency by 1.5 per cent per year up until 2020, but this is outweighed by the annual growth of the aviation industry of around four per cent.

"Although the relative efficiency is improving, the total [carbon footprint] is increasing as flights are getting cheaper," says Timmis. And as Boeing and Airbus are still struggling to deliver the thousands of planes that they still have outstanding orders for, it's likely that the current generation of planes are going to hang around for decades to come. Electric planes - unlike electric cars - are still highly speculative and don't offer any realistic route to decarbonising the aviation industry at scale.

So what might an environmentally-friendly airline actually look like? If it can't innovate its way out of carbon emissions, the only option left is to simply fly less. "If we were super serious about tackling climate change, we would be tackling the demand issue. Which we're not," says Timmis.

One proposed solution is charging levies to people who fly more than once a year. The so-called frequent flyer tax was detailed by the UK Committee on Climate Change in September in a series of policy options to help the UK reach its net zero target by 2050. Aviation, the committee warned, is set to become the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

"We're now in a time where a lot of the easy wins have happened, mostly without any political action," says Matt Winning, an environmental economist at University College London. But frequent flying levies might not be totally unpopular in the UK. In 2012, 57 per cent of the UK population didn't take a flight at all while 70 per cent of all flights in the UK were taken by just 15 per cent of adults.

For Winning, this is the crux of the aviation problem. Although airlines are becoming increasingly keen on parading their green credentials - the Dutch airline KLM is running a "fly responsibly" campaign allowing people to carbon offset their flights and directing would-be flyers to lower carbon transport options - this is just a distraction from the real challenge: cutting down flights altogether.

"[Aviation] either has to not exist or it has to exist in a radically different way," says Winning. "I think the only solution really is pricing changes within the airline industry."

More great stories from WIRED
💰 Meet the economist with a brilliant plan to fix capitalism 🎮 Long Read: Inside Google Stadia 🎧 Expand your mind with the WIRED guide to the best podcasts 🤕 No-deal Brexit would trigger a huge data problem 📧 Get the best tech deals and gadget news in your inbox

Get WIRED Weekender, your at-a-glance roundup of the most important, interesting and unusual stories from the past week. In your inbox every Saturday by 10am.

by entering your email address, you agree to our privacy policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sorry Ryanair, there's no such thing as a green airline

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Of the European Union's ten biggest carbon dioxide (CO2) emitters, nine of them are coal-fired power plants. The tenth is Ryanair, the low-cost Irish airline which released 9.9 megatonnes of greenhouse gases in 2018 - a 6.9 per cent increase from 2017.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Last month, fast fashion company Boohoo came under fire for its labor practices in an investigation published by the Sunday Times. As a result, the company's stock dropped 42% and Boohoo lost £2bn in shareholder value. Were there any precursors to this crisis?

Storyful's Intelligence team analyzed the online conversation around Boohoo, uncovering the social and digital data signals that could have alerted shareholders to Boohoo's impending crisis. Digital intelligence may not necessarily have prevented the crisis, but it could have mitigated its impact on Boohoo's value and reputation.

March 26, 2020.

While it wasn't until 5 July that the Sunday Times story was published, the conversation condemning Boohoo's labor practices predated the Sunday Times investigation, with highly negative conversations and news coverage going as far back as March 2020 and culminating in multiple spikes in conversation in June 2020:

Digital mentions of Boohoo from June 19, 2020 to July 16, 2020 (left axis), alongside the company's share price (right axis).

As the chart above indicates, digital mentions of Boohoo increased on June 26, June 28th and July 1st. Had investors been privy to the nuance in conversation on social, they would have seen highly engaged posts on the platform explicitly mentioning the issues of slavery and low pay, often in the context of a largely minority workforce and the Black Lives Matter movement.

Negative testimonials on Glassdoor from former Boohoo workers throughout 2020 included one remark from a warehouse picker who stated in January that employees "work like slaves."

The notoriety of the fast fashion industry has been top of mind in recent years, with brands like ASOS under fire since 2016. But COVID-19 pandemic caused economic disparities to bubble up to the surface. The global question of who has the privilege to work from home and who does not was shedding light on workplace policies everywhere, leaving little to no surprise that the voices of activist opposition, including retail worker union USDAW and the Labour Behind the Label campaign, would be coming after Boohoo in due time. Analyzing and monitoring those entities' digital footprint and social engagement would have revealed to investors a campaign to surface issues within the Boohoo supply chain.

With rising worker discontent at facing high risk of contracting the novel coronavirus, local groups grew more and more vocal about Boohoo's working conditions. Conversations in community news outlets were the first warning signals, later spreading to industry and national news.

At each stage of growth in this risk factor, social and digital monitoring by Storyful would have identified the rising threat factors, and helped investors understand and mitigate the risk.
To learn more about Storyful, please contact sales@storyful.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Critical Signals Missed in the Weeks Leading Up to Boohoo Crisis | Storyful

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last month, fast fashion company Boohoo came under fire for its labor practices in an investigation published by the Sunday Times. As a result, the company's stock dropped 42% and Boohoo lost £2bn in shareholder value. Were there any precursors to this crisis?

# data[].attributes.body
Responsible Rating, to educate consumers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Retailers like H&M and Levi's test sustainable practices through "eco-friendly" capsule collections that represent small pieces of overall business.

Critics say such limited product lines don't go far enough to address problems like carbon footprint, and that messaging may be misleading to customers.

Executed correctly, these collections can represent longer-lead progress in areas like supply chain practices and material sourcing.

As a fast-fashion behemoth, H&M's sustainability practices are subject to criticism. Environmentalists claim that H&M's attempts to go greener, particularly with its Conscious collection, are nothing more than greenwashing. The most common complaint is that for a retailer that brought in $24 billion in 2019, the fraction of business that "consciously" made clothes represents is a meagre response to the scale of the climate crisis and doesn't touch the issue of labour conditions.

According to Pascal Brun, H&M's head of sustainability, the criteria for Conscious products is that they're made with 50 per cent "sustainable" - such as organic or recycled - materials, or 20 per cent recycled materials in the case of cotton, because of technical limitations. Conscious products are marked by green hang tags, while H&M's Conscious Exclusive collection, through which it experiments with new materials and practices, is released twice annually. The company wouldn't share sales figures or how much of H&M's total business it represents.

"Conscious", "eco-friendly" and "sustainable" capsule collections are popular among retailers whose main collections aren't made following such practices. They've become common but are not exclusive to fast-fashion companies: Asos, Zara and Mango are among the brands that, in addition to H&M, put out special collections they label eco-friendly.

Retailers test sustainability in limited product runs in part because of the added costs that can come with implementing sustainability measures. But beyond that, material supply may not be available yet, the suppliers themselves may not be equipped or, in the case of new technologies, they may not have been scaled yet. A company might also be divided, internally, on the best ways to push sustainability forward - or whether to prioritise it at all.

While these collections may get called out for not doing enough to drive meaningful change, a number of industry experts argue that they can be useful for companies to build up sustainable practices by testing out new materials, processes or sourcing strategies. But there needs to be a viable plan for a company to scale the progress; and messaging matters.

"Consumers would care if marketing teams did a better job to make them care," Ayesha Barenblat, founder of the California nonprofit Remake, says.

Capsules as experiments

Starting small has allowed Levi's to expand both its "Water<Less" technology, which cuts the amount of water used in its denim manufacturing by up to 95 per cent, and its "cottonised hemp", a proprietary fabric with a smaller carbon footprint than traditional cotton. Over three seasons, Levi's had to figure out how to spin and weave the cotton-hemp blend, dye it and finish the fabric, improving the processes along the way before expanding them to other products over time.

"A small fashion capsule is useful because you can test or validate good or bad ideas at a scale that's safe," says Paul Dillinger, VP of global product innovation at Levi's. "The last thing that the cause of sustainability in fashion needs is a big failure to cause everyone in the C-suite or the top-floor offices to question whether we should be doing it at all."

Humble beginnings allow brands to work out kinks. When Reebok rolled out a sneaker made with cotton and corn-based fibres, president Matt O'Toole says they were able to integrate consumer feedback on comfort and performance when designing the next generations of the shoe; those releases have expanded in variety and in quantity over time.

Similar ripple effects imply small-scale or limited-edition efforts can have outsized influence. The North Face first used recycled material for a jacket pocket lining before rolling it out to other products. New Balance expanded its use of chrome-free leather after its Reformation collaboration last year required it to first establish that supply.

H&M's first Conscious Exclusive collection used some recycled polyester; today, 30 per cent of the company's total polyester is recycled. (Recycled polyester, which is actually made from plastic, has its flaws. H&M says it's involved in several projects to develop and commercialise recycling polyester back into fabric, including Worn Again Technologies and Ambercycle.)

"The sustainable collection helps us to bring to scale some innovations that we have just started. You need those collections to reach future impact," says Brun. He adds each time H&M launches a new material, the goal is to expand it however small the initial use might seem. Several new materials are currently in the pipeline.

Capsules as marketing

Maxine Bédat, founder and director of the nonprofit New Standard Institute, says H&M is making changes that can influence the broader market, like shifting to organic cotton. But it's not enough, she says, and she finds the company's language particularly problematic.

There are few regulations for making claims like "sustainable" and "ethical" clothing, and it's hard to tell when shopping H&M how the retailer decided on the criteria for products to qualify for the Conscious collection. Specific details are hard to come by, and details matter. Some Conscious clothes are made with lyocell, a cellulosic material; H&M says it "mainly" uses Tencel, a brand that claims to source it responsibly - but other lyocell production, which H&M would not put a percentage to, is heavily associated with deforestation.

"They are doing [positive] things," Bédat says. "It's just that the marketing of what they're doing is far outpacing what they're doing."

The H&M website says, for example, "By choosing Conscious products, you help us make the fashion industry more sustainable" and the company described a recycled polyester made from plastic shoreline waste as a "revolutionary sustainable material" in 2017. Critics disagree with the notion that it is, or was then, revolutionary.

Far beyond any one brand, Bédat says consumers are entitled to - and hungry for - nuance in what companies tell them about their sustainability efforts, which would include disclosing details around what a company is working on, where they're making progress and where they still need to improve. Otherwise, it's hard to tell what a company's main objective is. "What are we trying to do here? Are we trying to sell to a new customer or are we trying to solve climate change?" she says.

The very claim of "sustainability" for a brand or product should probably disappear altogether, she argues, because it's not actually applicable in the context of consumption. "We're not planting trees here," she says.

Value versus cost

In some cases, brands will be able to adjust how they make a product without increasing costs, whether because the change isn't more expensive or because a brand can find ways to offset the expense elsewhere. Tim Bantle, global GM of urban exploration and mountain lifestyle at The North Face, says simplifying garment design can cut down sewing time and costs enough to use a lower-impact but more expensive material, for example.

But higher prices may be something brands and consumers alike need to come to terms with, says Rebecca Burgess, founder and director of Fibershed, a California nonprofit that focuses on regional textile production. This, for her, is the key function of a sustainable capsule collection.

During manufacturing, many clothing brands contaminate water supplies and cause other environmental impacts considered to be externalised costs that the brand doesn't have to pay for. Responsible production often requires brands to pay for the tools that will reduce the negative impacts - and taking on those costs probably means needing to raise consumer prices. Often through capsules, "brands are determining if the customer can tolerate that," says Burgess. "We can be passing the buck all day. But... [a brand's] business model is based on sales, they need to be able to sell product. And if consumers are not going to be able to spend more on a product, everything falls pretty flat right there."

Raising prices can work if brands tell the story well; Burgess says all the brands that Fibershed has worked with to source climate-beneficial wool, including Coyuchi, Elizabeth Suzann and The North Face, have increased their sourcing of the material once their limited collections established consumers would buy it. These brands, however, have the advantage of a customer base able to pay premiums; fast fashion brands, whose business models are predicated on cheap, disposable clothing, don't.

Rachel Faller, founder of Tonlé, a line of women's clothing and accessories made from waste materials, says brands that avoid increasing prices of more sustainable products may do so by subsidising them with profits from other parts of the company. She points to "Fair Trade certified" jeans at Target as a potential example. "Knowing how denim is made, there's no way that you can make a pair of Fair Trade jeans for $30 with a traditional retail markup," she says. (Faller does not have any connection to Target or its operations.) Doing so sends the message to customers that it's possible to produce goods fairly and sustainably and still keep costs low. A subsidised collection also likely means a brand is perpetuating status-quo practices in the rest of its products, Faller adds. "They use sustainability to get people in the door, but ultimately end up selling more unsustainable products." (A Target spokesperson said in response, "Universal Thread Fair Trade Certified denim is a growing and profitable area of our apparel assortment.")

Another metric that could help people to gauge the sincerity of a brand in its capsule efforts is its evolution - or lack thereof - over time. Is it growing in size or broadening its use of different materials or technologies? "You can never tell by looking at one just season of the capsule," says Dillinger of Levi's. "It is the right question to be asking: is it greenwashing or is this practising for the new normal?"

Ultimately, Bédat advocates for recognising progress where it's happening, without losing sight of the scale of the problem and the need for more than incremental progress to solve it.

"We need to be moving away from this black-and-white language of sustainable fashion versus non-sustainable fashion, and toward a more nuanced and realistic understanding of how we reduce impact with the understanding that we're never reducing it to zero," she says.

To receive the Vogue Business Sustainability Edit, sign up here.

Comments, questions or feedback? Email us at feedback@voguebusiness.com.
More from this author: As fashion churns out more 'sustainable' goods, why is so much made from plastic? What the food industry can teach fashion about sustainability The UN set 17 sustainability goals. It needs fashion's help meeting them

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The impact of fashion's 'sustainable' capsule collections

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Retailers like H&M and Levi's test sustainable practices through "eco-friendly" capsule collections that represent small pieces of overall business. Critics say such limited product lines don't go far enough to address problems like carbon footprint, and that messaging may be misleading to customers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh (The Accord)

The Accord is a legally binding agreement between global brands, retailers and trade unions designed to build a safe and healthy Bangladeshi Ready-Made Garment (RMG) Industry. With this commitment, together with other companies, trade unions, employer organisations and the Government of Bangladesh, we can influence and contribute to safe and healthy working conditions in the Bangladeshi textile industry. During 2020, the Accord will transition into the RMG Sustainability Council (RSC).

ACT (Action, Collaboration, Transformation)

ACT is a ground-breaking agreement between global brands, retailers and trade unions to transform the garment and textile industry and achieve living wages for workers through industry-wide collective bargaining linked to purchasing practices. ACT is the first global commitment on living wages in the sector that provides a framework through which all relevant actors, including brands and retailers, trade unions, manufacturers, and governments, can exercise their responsibility and role in achieving living wages. ACT was founded by 17 global brands and retailers, including H&M Group, and IndustrialALL Global Union who represent garment and textile workers from around the globe.

AFIRM Group

The AFIRM Group works to reduce the use and impact of harmful substances in the apparel and footwear supply chain. It provides a forum to advance the global management of restricted substances in apparel and footwear, communicates information about RSL (restricted substance list) to the supply chain, discusses concerns, and exchange ideas for improving RSL management.

Better Cotton Initiative (BCI)

BCI is a multi-stakeholder initiative that aims to promote measurable improvements in the environmental and social impacts of cotton production. We are one of the founders of BCI, and one of the biggest users and financial contributors among retailer members. ​

Business Network on Civic Freedoms and Human Rights Defenders

The Business Network on Civic Freedoms and Human Rights Defenders is an informal network of companies, convened and facilitated by Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, The B Team and The International Service for Human Rights. H&M Group is currently in the Secretariat of the network, having been a member since 2018. The network calls for protection of human rights defenders and civic freedoms, which are under attack across the world.

Better Than Cash Alliance

The Better Than Cash Alliance is a partnership of governments, companies and international organisations that accelerates the transition from cash to digital payments, to reduce poverty and drive inclusive growth. Based at the UN, the Alliance has 60 members, collaborates closely with other global organisations, and is an implementing partner for the G20 Global Partnership for Financial Inclusion. H&M Group joined the Alliance in 2017.

Better Work

The International Labour Organization (ILO) started the Better Work programme with the aim of bringing employees and employers together to find solutions to workers' issues and ensure a sustainable labour market. We collaborate on in-country programmes in Cambodia (Better Factories Cambodia), Indonesia and Vietnam. These programmes include assessments, training, advocacy and research that work to change policies, attitudes and behaviour.

BSR Clean Cargo Working Group

The Clean Cargo Working Group (CCWG) is a business-to-business leadership initiative organised by BSR (Business for Social Responsibility). The initiative involves major brands, cargo carriers, and freight forwarders dedicated to reducing the environmental impacts of global goods transportation and promoting responsible shipping.

Canopy​ Style

The Canada-based NGO Canopy works with the forest industry's biggest customers and their suppliers to develop business solutions that protect the world's ancient and endangered forest.​ We work with them to ensure our​ viscose does not contribute to the deforestation of ancient or endangered forests.​

CEO Water Mandate

In June 2008, we signed the CEO Water Mandate, a voluntary initiative from the UN Global Compact. The mandate commits H&M Group to improve both our own and our suppliers' water efficiency, improve wastewater quality and report transparently on our progress.

Chemsec Business Group

H&M Group is part of the ChemSec Business Group - a collaboration between companies to inspire progress and push for more progressive legislation on the use of toxic chemicals. ​

Ellen MacArthur Foundation

As a Global Partner of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (a key organisation in support of circular economic systems) and its Circular Economy 100 programme, we are working together with other corporates, governments and cities, academic institutions, emerging innovators, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and others to accelerate the transition to a circular economy. H&M Group is a Core Partner of the Foundation's Make Fashion Circular initiative, which works to create a textiles economy fit for the 21st century, and a signatory to the Foundation's New Plastic Economy Commitment, which sets out three major goals in order to establish a sustainable use of plastics.

EP100

H&M Group was the first international fashion company to join EP100 after its launch in May 2016. Led by The Climate Group in partnership with the Alliance to Save Energy, EP100 encourages influential businesses to double their energy productivity as part of international efforts to transition to a net-zero economy. By doubling the economic output from every unit of energy consumed, companies set a bold target, demonstrating climate leadership while reaping the benefits of lower energy costs.

Ethical Trade Initiative (ETI)

We were accepted as a full ETI member in 2016 after two years as a foundation stage member. The ETI is a leading alliance of companies, trade unions and NGOs that promotes respect for workers' rights around the globe. It offers a platform for collaborating with peers and stakeholders to collectively and strategically address concerns and issues in our supply chain.

Fashion Pact

The Fashion Pact was initiated in 2019 by the French President Emmanuel Macron together with the fashion group Kering. H&M Group is one of the signatories, aligning our commitments and ambitions on climate, oceans and biodiversity more closely with several other brands in the fashion and textile industry.

The Global Deal

The Global Deal is an initiative that was launched by the Swedish Prime Minister in cooperation with the OECD and the ILO in 2016 to address challenges in the global labour markets. The initiative focuses on sound industrial relations and social dialogue to contribute to decent work, quality jobs and increased productivity and, by extension, to greater equality and inclusive growth.

Global Fashion Agenda

Global Fashion Agenda is a global non-profit initiative founded by the Danish Fashion Institute in 2016. With a mission to make sustainability fashionable, its aim is to mobilise the global fashion system to change the way we produce, market and consume fashion, for a world beyond next season. In collaboration with its group of Strategic Partners, Global Fashion Agenda leads the global sustainability conversation. The founding group of Strategic Partners are H&M Group, Kering, Target, Sustainable Apparel Coalition and Li & Fung.

Global Logistics Emissions Council (GLEC)

Global Logistics Emissions Council (GLEC) is a voluntary partnership of companies, industry associations and green freight programmes backed by governments and other stakeholders. Together, we developed the GLEC Framework for logistics emissions accounting and reporting.

Green Freight Asia

Green Freight Asia is a network of Asian road freight companies working together to improve fuel efficiency, reduce CO2 emissions, and lower logistics costs across the entire supply chain. The group is made up of large, medium, and small logistics companies (carriers) and customers of logistics companies (shippers).

Humane Society International (HSI)

The HSI is a global animal protection organisation working to protect animals around the world, including animals in laboratories, farm animals, companion animals and wildlife. As a fashion company, it is crucial we work together to protect animal welfare across our industry.

I:CO

I:CO is a global service provider that collaborates with H&M Group to collect the textiles from our in-store collection points.

IndustriALL/IF Metall

We are one of the few companies in our industry to have signed a Global Framework Agreement (GFA) with IndustriALL Global Union and Swedish trade union IF Metall. The agreement is based on a shared conviction that collaboration between the parties in the labour market is crucial for lasting improvements for garment workers and to support good industrial relations. IndustriALL and IF Metall are key partners in a project carried out under partnership agreements with the ILO and Sida.

International Finance Cooperation (IFC)

In 2017, IFC and H&M Group signed a cooperation agreement to develop a Low-Carbon Roadmap for our global supply chain, to be implemented over the next 10 to 15 years. IFC, a member of the World Bank Group, is the largest global development institution focused exclusively on the private sector in developing countries. This partnership builds upon the strong commitment and leadership of the H&M Group to increase the share of renewable energy in its own operations.

International Labour Organization (ILO)

We partner with the ILO to improve global, national and enterprise labour relations; strengthening legal frameworks and institutional capacities for labour inspection and dispute resolution, and supporting the formulation of sound policies for strengthening work-place dialogue and wages.

International Organisation for Migration (IOM)

The IOM is the leading inter-governmental organisation in the field of migration and combats all forms of exploitation and abuse of migrant workers. In 2019, IOM and H&M Group signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to promote cooperation and mutual assistance in relation to ethical recruitment and protection of migrant workers in global supply chains.

Leather Working Group

Leather products have a relatively high environmental impact because of the use of potentially polluting chemicals in the tanning process. In 2009, we became a member of the Leather Working Group to promote sustainable and appropriate environmental business practices within the leather industry.

Mekong Club

The Mekong Club uses an association model to bring four industry-specific working groups together, including Banking, Manufacturing, Hospitality and Retail to end modern slavery in global supply chains.

​Mistra Future Fashion

H&M Group is a member of the Mistra Future Fashion programme​ - a research programme that has a system perspective on the fashion industry. Its vision is to close the loop on fashion and enable a systemic change in the Swedish fashion industry. ​

Network for Transport Measures (NTM)

NTM is a non-profit organisation founded in 1993 with the goal of establishing a common base of values on how to calculate the environmental performance for all modes of traffic, including the transport of goods and people.

Organic Cotton Accelerator (OCA)

H&M Group was a founding member of the OCA and is actively involved in further strengthening the supply, demand and integrity of organic cotton. The OCA's mission is to build a fair, robust organic cotton market that promotes transparency and traceability and makes it easier for farmers to switch to organic production.

RE100

Led by The Climate Group, RE100 is a collaborative, global initiative uniting more than 100 influential businesses committed to 100% renewable electricity and working to massively increase demand for - and delivery of - renewable energy. Companies joining RE100 are strongly encouraged to set a public goal to source 100% of their global electricity consumption from renewable sources.

Responsible Mica Initiative

Mica is the name for a group of minerals used in cosmetic products. Mica mining is prone to labour abuses including poor working conditions and child labour. In collaboration with over 50 members from various industry sectors and NGOs, the Responsible Mica Initiative takes a holistic approach to improve traceability and working conditions in this sector.

An independent non-profit expert organisation that provides practical guidance on the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Shift supports and helps governments, businesses and their stakeholders put the UN Guiding Principles into practice. Shift supports us with its expertise (we participate in their business learning programme) and helps us improve our human rights management approach.

Sida and Swedish Leadership for Sustainable Development

The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) is a government agency with a mission to reduce poverty. In 2014, Sida and the H&M Group signed a memorandum of understanding that focuses on supporting decent jobs and sustainable development opportunities with respect for human rights, at a programme and policy level depending on the country and region.

Social & Labour Convergence Program (SLCP)

SLCP is a joint initiative between manufacturers, brands, retailers, industry groups, (inter)governmental organisations, service providers and civil society organisations to develop a simple, unified and effective industry-wide assessment framework for evaluating efforts to improve working conditions.

Solidaridad

The Solidaridad Network is an international civil society organisation that facilitates the development of socially responsible, ecologically sound and profitable supply chains. H&M Group and Solidaridad have been working together on several projects, from cotton fields to dyeing mills and sewing factories. In 2014, this resulted in a multi-annual partnership. Our aim is to further improve social and environmental conditions in the supply chain and find better ways to support sustainability in the fashion industry. For example, we have developed and launched the cleaner production program "Better Mill Initiative (BMI)" in China. The BMI supports dyeing and printing mills' transition to cleaner production in textile wet processing.

Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC)​

The SRC researches how to improve social-ecological systems, in particular their ability​ to deal with change while developing. As part of our research project with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, we are working with the SRC to find a way to create a circular fibre system that works within planetary boundaries. ​

Sustainable Air Freight Initiative

Established by Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) in 2019, the Initiative brings together 15 companies from different sectors working to create more sustainable low-carbon air freight options.

Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC)

As a group of sustainability leaders in the apparel sector, including H&M Group, the Coalition takes a collaborative approach to improve the environmental and social impacts of apparel and footwear products.

Sweden Textile Water Initiative (STWI)​

In 2010, H&M Group joined other major Swedish textile and leather brands and the Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) to launch the Sweden Textile Water Initiative. The aim of the collective is to gain a better understanding of the water challenges facing the industry and to find the right mechanisms to address them.

Textilbuendnis / Partnership for Sustainable Textiles

H&M Germany is part of the German Federal Government's initiative aiming to further improve sustainability performance in the fashion industry, the Partnership for Sustainable Textiles.

Textile Exchange

Textile Exchange is a global non-profit organisation that works closely with all sectors of the textile supply chain to find the best ways to minimise the industry's negative impacts on water, soil, air, animals and people. H&M Group has been a member of Textile Exchange since 2004.

TENT

TENT works to support refugees around the world, by partnering with companies to set specific action plans. H&M Group became a partner in 2019.

The Pathways Coalition

The Pathways Coalition was formed by E.ON, H&M Group, Scania and Siemens to accelerate decarbonisation of heavy transport. The member companies commit to the vision of the Coalition: to the objective to reach zero CO2 latest by the year 2050; to contribute with real action in the partnership, and to contribute funds in accordance with joint decisions.

Transparency International Sweden

H&M Group has been a corporate supporter member of Transparency International Sweden (TI Sweden) since 2013. TI Sweden is an independent non-profit organisation that, together with 100 national chapters worldwide, is part of the global coalition Transparency International, which combats corruption in all forms.

UN Population Fund (UNFPA) Indonesia

UNFPA is the United Nations sexual and reproductive health agency. Its mission is to deliver a world where every pregnancy is wanted, every childbirth is safe and every young person's potential is fulfilled.

UN Global Compact (UNGC)

H&M Group is a signatory to the United Nations Global Compact. The Global Compact is a strategic policy initiative for businesses that are committed to aligning their operations and strategies with 10 universally accepted principles concerning human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption.

UNFCCC

Founded at the UN Climate Change Conference in Katowice, Poland (COP24), the UNFCCC has formed a fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action. H&M Group is one of the signatories together with other leading fashion brands, retailers, supplier organisations and others.

UNI Global Union

Together with UNI Global, we have formed the H&M Alliance, an annual meeting intended to improve our workplace dialogue where neutrality, freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining are acknowledged and enforced.

2030 Water Resource Group

The 2030 Water Resources Group (2030 WRG) is a public, private, civil society partnership hosted by the World Bank Group. The partnership supports country-level collaboration designed to unite diverse groups with a common interest in the sustainable management of water resources. We started our work together several years ago in Bangladesh and are now exploring how to expand the collaboration further.

WWF

Our long-term partnership with WWF enables us to take a more holistic approach to address broader challenges and opportunities, going beyond water to include the climate and strategic dialogue. Starting in 2017, this partnership now includes membership to the WWF Climate Savers.

Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC)

The H&M Group is an active member of the ZDHC group. This programme takes a holistic approach to tackle the issue of hazardous chemicals in the global textile and footwear value chain. Together with other ZDHC brands, we are engaging with diverse stakeholders to raise the awareness of industry standards and work towards zero discharge of hazardous chemicals in the fashion industry.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Accord is a legally binding agreement between global brands, retailers and trade unions designed to build a safe and healthy Bangladeshi Ready-Made Garment (RMG) Industry. With this commitment, together with other companies, trade unions, employer organisations and the Government of Bangladesh, we can influence and contribute to safe and healthy working conditions in the Bangladeshi textile industry.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our supplier list shares the details of our tier 1 suppliers and their manufacturing and processing factories accounting for 100% of the products we sell across our brands. As active participants of the Transparency Pledge we disclose details including the name, location, product type produced and number of workers employed by each supplier.

The list also includes the names and locations of Tier 2 mills involved in making the majority of our product volume (70%). These 291 mills provide our suppliers with fabrics and yarns, including spinning, tanneries and fabric dyeing and printing. By the end of 2021 we aim to disclose 100% of the fabric dyeing and printing locations involve in making our products

The supplier information displayed on our list is updated monthly. When business needs occur, we onboard new suppliers or factories and occasionally we responsibly phase them out. Such changes will be reflected in the forthcoming update of the supplier list.

Our supply chain in numbers

We do business with over 700 commercial product suppliers who manufacture products for our brands in over 1600 tier 1 factories in Europe, Asia and Africa.

China and Bangladesh are the largest production markets for clothing

The European Union is the largest production market for our beauty assortment.

6 years is the global average length of our relationship with a supplier since 2006*, but some have been doing business with us for over 25 years

1.56 million people are employed by the supplier factories we work with 63% are women

We operate 20 local production offices, employing 3000 colleagues who working daily with our suppliers.150 of these colleagues are sustainability experts and developers.

447 of the manufacturing factories reported one or more trade unions on site**

1127 factories reported that worker representatives are freely chosen by the workers**.hare of women employed and trade union and worker representative data per supplier. These findings are based on self-assessed data from units on our Supplier List as of January 2021.

*Disclaimer: consecutive data only available from 2006
**Data validated by our country teams Feb 2021.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Having strong, long-term relations with our suppliers that are based on mutual trust and transparency is a priority at H&M Group. This is something we are committed to and have always worked hard to achieve. As a result we have been disclosing our supplier list since 2013.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Pressure to meet fast fashion deadlines is leading to women working in Asian factories supplying Gap and H&M being sexually and physically abused, according to unions and rights groups.

More than 540 workers at factories that supply the two retailers have described incidents of threats and abuse, according to two separate reports published last week by Global Labour Justice on gender-based violence in Gap and H&M's garment supply chains.

The reports claim that these allegations, recorded between January and May this year in Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia and Sri Lanka, are a direct result of pressure for quick turnarounds and low overheads.

Publication of the reports comes as negotiations are being held this week at the International Labour Organisation (ILO) to tackle workplace harassment.

Tola Moeun, director of Central Cambodia, an NGO involved in the research, said abuse was a daily reality for female garment workers driven to meet unrealistic targets in H&M and Gap's supply chains. "Most of these cases are not reported due to fear of retaliation in the workplace."

Gap and H&M both told the Guardian they would investigate the allegations and that they welcomed initiatives to tackle violence, including an ILO convention.

Jennifer Rosenbaum, US director of Global Labour Justice, said: "We must understand gender-based violence as an outcome of the global supply chain structure. H&M and Gap's fast fashion supply chain model creates unreasonable production targets and underbid contracts, resulting in women working unpaid overtime and working very fast under extreme pressure.

"Unions and many governments agree an ILO convention on gender-based violence is essential, although there is still opposition from some employers."

Global Dispatch: stories and hard-hitting features from Africa, Asia, South and Central America and beyond

H&M lists 235 Indian garment factories among its suppliers, the report says. In one dispute last month in a Bangalore factory over wages and working conditions, a female tailor said to researchers that she was grabbed by the hair and punched, then told: "You whore, your caste people should be kept where the slippers are kept."

One worker in another H&M supplier factory told researchers she was beaten as punishment for not meeting production quotas.

"[My] batch supervisor came up behind me as I was working on the sewing machine, yelling, 'You are not meeting your target production.' He pulled me out of the chair and I fell on the floor. He hit me, including on my breasts. He pulled me up and then pushed me to the floor again [and] kicked me."

At an H&M supplier factory in Sri Lanka, one woman complained: "When girls scold machine operators for touching them or grabbing them, they take revenge. Sometimes they give them machines that don't function properly. Then they don't come and repair it for a long time. After that, supervisors scold us for not meeting the target."

In a factory supplying Gap in Indonesia, a woman talked about daily being called stupid, mocked for not working faster and threatened with contract termination.

"They also throw materials. They kick our chairs. They don't touch us, so they don't leave a mark that could be used as evidence with the police," she said.

Debbie Coulter, of the Ethical Trading Initiative, of which both Gap and H&M are members, said: "These allegations are deeply concerning. Gender-based violence is unacceptable under any circumstances, and brands need to make sure that women working in their supply chain are protected.

"We expect H&M and Gap to investigate these allegations, and to work with supplier factories so that any women affected have swift access to remedy.

"ETI will be in regular contact with these members and will offer support where appropriate to ensure a swift resolution for all workers affected."

In an email, H&M told the Guardian: "All forms of abuse or harassment are against everything that H&M group stands for. Violence against women is one of the most prevalent human rights violations. Gender-based violence makes women all around the world suffer daily and undermines their health, dignity and security. This is why we welcome any initiative strengthening the human rights of women at work, such as the international convention against gender-based violence in the workplace being discussed within the ILO.

"We will go through every section of the report and follow-up on factory level with our local teams based in each production country."

Gap said it was "deeply concerned" about the allegations and was now conducting due diligence to investigate and address these issues.

"We are committed to making sure that the people who make our clothes work in safe conditions and are treated with respect. We've consolidated our supplier base to focus on partners that share our values and goals, and an increasing number of factories we source from are audited by ILO's Better Work programme.

"Our Code of Vendor Conduct, which closely aligns with our environmental and human rights policies, prohibits any form of discrimination. We conduct assessments of our branded apparel suppliers on a regular basis to ensure compliance, and when we encounter any discriminatory or retaliatory practices in our supply chain, we require that our suppliers promptly remediate the situation.

"Gap Inc agrees that gender-based workplace violence is a significant issue and an appropriate subject for ILO action."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Abuse is daily reality for female garment workers for Gap and H&M, says report

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pressure to meet fast fashion deadlines is leading to women working in Asian factories supplying Gap and H&M being sexually and physically abused, according to unions and rights groups. More than 540 workers at factories that supply the two retailers have described incidents of threats and abuse, according to two separate reports published last week by Global Labour Justice on gender-based violence in Gap and H&M's garment supply chains.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our material ethics

H&M Group is committed to ensuring that sourcing the raw materials used in our products is done in a sustainable way and that social and environmental impacts are taken into consideration during the entire sourcing process.

Raw material production and sourcing must be in line with both local laws as well as international standards and must not lead to degradation or destruction of ecosystems and biodiversity. Securing our supply of raw materials from an ethical perspective is an extremely important part of H&M Group's business model. We are committed to ensure that the natural raw materials used in our products are produced in a way that contributes to sustainable development, respects human rights, preserves natural resources, and helps maintain biodiversity. No vulnerable or endangered species must be used.

Some highlights from our Material Ethics policy:

Suppliers of natural raw material must comply with all applicable environmental, health & safety, labour and social laws and regulations (including applicable land tenure and use rights).

We do not allow any wood or other forest-derived materials, including man-made cellulosic fibre, to originate from ancient and endangered forests, or forests operations damaging high conservation values.

No endangered and/or vulnerable species* may be used in the production of our products.

By 2020, all cotton sourced for H&M Group will come from more sustainable sources**.

By the end of 2025, 100% of all wood used in our products, including man-made cellulosic materials, will be sourced from well-managed and FSC™ -certified forests.

Read our Material Ethics policy

How we evaluate materials

At H&M Group we use third-party lifecycle assessment (LCA) data to evaluate the environmental impact of recycled and other sustainably sourced materials. This includes individual LCAs as well as external material benchmarks based on LCA data, such as the Material Sustainability Index (MSI) by Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC). We encourage material manufacturers to contribute to the MSI by submitting their data and having their material transparently benchmarked. This helps everyone make better informed choices.

Ensuring integrity

For our more sustainable materials we typically require the use of credible third-party certification schemes (if they exist) or set up other robust schemes to ensure sustainable sourcing and integrity. Standards we use to certify our materials against include: Better Cotton Initiative (BCI), Organic Content Standard (OCS), Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS), Global Recycled Standard (GRS), Recycled Claim Standard (RCS), Responsible Wool Standard (RWS), Responsible Down Standard (RDS) and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).

The rules behind our on-product sustainability claims

H&M Group brands can claim, on a product level, the sourcing of more sustainable materials. To make such claim credible and transparent, the general rule is that at least 50%*** of a product must consist of more sustainable materials. Our brands can set that bar higher, but not lower. Any such claim must also be accompanied by a description of the more sustainable material and in what part of the product it appears. If a product fulfils the requirements, it is up to each brand within H&M Group to decide on the details and if they want to make such claim, and whether or not to use the logo (e.g. GOTS, OCS, GRS, RWS) of the standard against which the material is certified.

Commonly sourced materials

Cotton

Cotton is the raw material we source the most. It has many benefits but it is also a challenging commodity. Our goal is for all cotton in our range to be sustainably sourced by 2020. Read more about cotton.

Recycled polyester

Polyester is an artificial fibre made from oil, which is used widely around the world, especially common in sportswear. Recycled polyester is a more sustainable option made from oil-based waste, such as PET drinks bottles - a way of preventing plastic waste from ending up in landfills.

Recycled polyamide

Polyamide is another popular oil-based fibre, often used to make underwear and tights, but also outerwear. We get our recycled polyamide from materials like old fishing nets and carpets. We also utilise leftover waste from production, a way of saving natural resources and reducing what ends up in landfills.

Lyocell is a fibre made from the cellulose from wood. This is a renewable material made from natural resources requiring little or no irrigation or pesticides, making it a more sustainable option than cotton. We mainly use TENCEL™ branded lyocell fibres which are derived from sustainable wood sources. It is produced in an environmental responsible closed loop production process, which transforms wood pulp into cellulosic fibres.

Recycled wool

Recycled wool is ideal for heavier, outdoor garments. It comes from the waste or cut-offs created during production, or from clothes gathered via our garment collecting initiative. By recycling wool, we save raw materials and reduce what ends up in landfills. We also use recycled wool in knitted sweaters, hats, gloves and scarves.

Organic linen

Linen is a beautiful and durable material made from flax plants. Our organic linen derives from plants grown without chemical pesticides or fertilisers - better for farmers' health and the environment. The fabric is of the same high quality as conventional linen but without any genetically modified fibres.

Organic silk

Conventional silk comes from silkworms living in mulberry trees. Organic silk guarantees that the trees are grown in an environmentally friendly way, using natural and sustainable farming techniques. Organic silk has the same high quality as conventional silk.

FSC™ natural rubber

The Forest Stewardship Council™ (FSC) is a global, independent, non-profit organisation that develops sustainable forestry certification standards. Our FSC™ natural rubber comes from well-managed rubber trees. Natural rubber is a renewable and recyclable material that requires little energy and few chemicals to produce.

Recycled glass

Glass is easy to recycle without any loss in quality. Beads made of recycled glass can be used for embellishments for clothes, accessories and home decor. Recycling glass means we save natural resources such as sand or limestone.

Recycled plastic

We get our recycled plastic from PET plastic drinks bottles, plastic bags, shampoo bottles and other plastic containers. We then use this plastic to make, for example, some of our popular accessories. Being able to repurpose plastic waste and incorporate it into new fashion pieces is a great way of avoiding harm to our planet.

FSC™ certified wood

FSC™ certified wood comes from FSC™ certified forests that have been audited by a third-party accredited certification body.

FSC™ recycled wood

Wood products carrying the FSC™ Recycled label have been verified by a third-party certification body as being made from at least 70% post-consumer reclaimed materials, i.e. wood and or wood fibres that have been reclaimed from a product after that product has been used for its intended purpose.

FSC™ recycled paper

Paper products can contain any balance of pre-consumer and post-consumer reclaimed material if all applicable parts of the product are verified as reclaimed. The FSC™ Recycled label is not, however, a guarantee that the wood originally comes from an FSC™ certified forest.

Recycled cashmere

Recycled cashmere comes from post-consumer and post-industrial waste or cut-offs from production. By recycling cashmere, we save raw materials, use fewer chemicals, water and land but also reduce what ends up in landfills.

Recycled down and feathers

Recycled down comes from feathers recovered from, for example, old blankets, pillows or cushions. By recycling down we save raw materials, use fewer chemicals, water and land but also reduce what ends up in landfills. Recycled down can be used in the same applications as virgin down.

Organic jute

Jute is a fibre extracted from the bark of the white jute plant. It requires little water, no chemical pesticides or fertilizers and contains no GMOs.

Recycled silver

Recycled and refined silver is obtained from all above-ground sources which could be industrial scrap and old silver products such as candle holders, flatware, coins and scrap jewellery. By recycling metals, all the negative impacts of mining are avoided and a lot of energy is saved.

* As defined by CITES - Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species - and the IUCN red list of Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable listed species by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red list.

** Currently, this means certified organic cotton, recycled cotton, or from Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) sources.

***Unless higher criteria apply based on the standard used to certify the material. An exception from the 50% general rule is also made for mechanically recycled cotton. This is because of quality challenges from higher recycled content caused by the shortening of fibres in the recycling process. For mechanically recycled cotton, the minimum content is instead 20%, but due to the remarkably better sustainability performance of recycled cotton compared with virgin cotton, it is still be big improvement in sustainability. H&M Group is working to develop recycling technologies to overcome these challenges.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
H&M Group is committed to ensuring that sourcing the raw materials used in our products is done in a sustainable way and that social and environmental impacts are taken into consideration during the entire sourcing process.

# data[].attributes.body
Transparency: Looking at H&M developing the sustainable apparel coalition and how they use this to increase transparency

# data[].attributes.body
— We disclose our full apparel and footwear supplier

list through the global database Open Apparel

Registry and a list of suppliers in China through

the China Institute of Public Affairs Blue Map.

want to reach full visibility of all our suppliers’ own

suppliers. We plan to introduce real-time updates

to our supplier disclosure through our interactive

supplier map in 2020.

– 1,712 manufacturers and their processing

providers (dyeing, printing), covering 100% of

relevant production volume.

– 366 component factories including fabric mills,

fibre processors, spinners, tanneries, fabric

dyeing and other processing facilities, covering

67% of relevant production volume.

— 1,125 of our suppliers’ manufacturing factories

and 207 mills, dyeing and printing factories used

the Higg Index Facility Environment Module. 23

factories piloted the new Higg Index Facility Social

and Labor Module.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Here we are on the 7 year anniversary of the Rana Plaza catastrophe, focusing on asking #WHOMADEMYCLOTHES because we want a more transparent and especially ethical fashion industry. We want the garment workers who make clothing for the big high street brands to be treated in a respectable manner, and especially now, in the Corona Crisis we want the people who make our clothes to have health care, clean water and food. BASIC LIVING NEEDS THAT IS. Well enough said, then this ->

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GREENWASHING ALERT | H&M is NOT the Most Transparent Brand! - Sustainable Fashion Matterz

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here we are on the 7 year anniversary of the Rana Plaza catastrophe, focusing on asking #WHOMADEMYCLOTHES because we want a more transparent and especially ethical fashion industry. We want the garment workers who make clothing for the big high street brands to be treated in a respectable manner, and especially now, in the Corona Crisis we want the people who make our clothes to have health care, clean water and food.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Pressure to meet fast fashion deadlines is leading to women working in Asian factories supplying Gap and H&M being sexually and physically abused, according to unions and rights groups.

More than 540 workers at factories that supply the two retailers have described incidents of threats and abuse, according to two separate reports published last week by Global Labour Justice on gender-based violence in Gap and H&M's garment supply chains.

The reports claim that these allegations, recorded between January and May this year in Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia and Sri Lanka, are a direct result of pressure for quick turnarounds and low overheads.

Publication of the reports comes as negotiations are being held this week at the International Labour Organisation (ILO) to tackle workplace harassment.

Tola Moeun, director of Central Cambodia, an NGO involved in the research, said abuse was a daily reality for female garment workers driven to meet unrealistic targets in H&M and Gap's supply chains. "Most of these cases are not reported due to fear of retaliation in the workplace."

Gap and H&M both told the Guardian they would investigate the allegations and that they welcomed initiatives to tackle violence, including an ILO convention.

Jennifer Rosenbaum, US director of Global Labour Justice, said: "We must understand gender-based violence as an outcome of the global supply chain structure. H&M and Gap's fast fashion supply chain model creates unreasonable production targets and underbid contracts, resulting in women working unpaid overtime and working very fast under extreme pressure.

"Unions and many governments agree an ILO convention on gender-based violence is essential, although there is still opposition from some employers."

Global Dispatch: stories and hard-hitting features from Africa, Asia, South and Central America and beyond

H&M lists 235 Indian garment factories among its suppliers, the report says. In one dispute last month in a Bangalore factory over wages and working conditions, a female tailor said to researchers that she was grabbed by the hair and punched, then told: "You whore, your caste people should be kept where the slippers are kept."

One worker in another H&M supplier factory told researchers she was beaten as punishment for not meeting production quotas.

"[My] batch supervisor came up behind me as I was working on the sewing machine, yelling, 'You are not meeting your target production.' He pulled me out of the chair and I fell on the floor. He hit me, including on my breasts. He pulled me up and then pushed me to the floor again [and] kicked me."

At an H&M supplier factory in Sri Lanka, one woman complained: "When girls scold machine operators for touching them or grabbing them, they take revenge. Sometimes they give them machines that don't function properly. Then they don't come and repair it for a long time. After that, supervisors scold us for not meeting the target."

In a factory supplying Gap in Indonesia, a woman talked about daily being called stupid, mocked for not working faster and threatened with contract termination.

"They also throw materials. They kick our chairs. They don't touch us, so they don't leave a mark that could be used as evidence with the police," she said.

Debbie Coulter, of the Ethical Trading Initiative, of which both Gap and H&M are members, said: "These allegations are deeply concerning. Gender-based violence is unacceptable under any circumstances, and brands need to make sure that women working in their supply chain are protected.

"We expect H&M and Gap to investigate these allegations, and to work with supplier factories so that any women affected have swift access to remedy.

"ETI will be in regular contact with these members and will offer support where appropriate to ensure a swift resolution for all workers affected."

In an email, H&M told the Guardian: "All forms of abuse or harassment are against everything that H&M group stands for. Violence against women is one of the most prevalent human rights violations. Gender-based violence makes women all around the world suffer daily and undermines their health, dignity and security. This is why we welcome any initiative strengthening the human rights of women at work, such as the international convention against gender-based violence in the workplace being discussed within the ILO.

"We will go through every section of the report and follow-up on factory level with our local teams based in each production country."

Gap said it was "deeply concerned" about the allegations and was now conducting due diligence to investigate and address these issues.

"We are committed to making sure that the people who make our clothes work in safe conditions and are treated with respect. We've consolidated our supplier base to focus on partners that share our values and goals, and an increasing number of factories we source from are audited by ILO's Better Work programme.

"Our Code of Vendor Conduct, which closely aligns with our environmental and human rights policies, prohibits any form of discrimination. We conduct assessments of our branded apparel suppliers on a regular basis to ensure compliance, and when we encounter any discriminatory or retaliatory practices in our supply chain, we require that our suppliers promptly remediate the situation.

"Gap Inc agrees that gender-based workplace violence is a significant issue and an appropriate subject for ILO action."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Abuse is daily reality for female garment workers for Gap and H&M, says report

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pressure to meet fast fashion deadlines is leading to women working in Asian factories supplying Gap and H&M being sexually and physically abused, according to unions and rights groups. More than 540 workers at factories that supply the two retailers have described incidents of threats and abuse, according to two separate reports published last week by Global Labour Justice on gender-based violence in Gap and H&M's garment supply chains.

# data[].attributes.body
Fair and equal 2019 highlights

# data[].attributes.body
Circular & Climate Positive Highlights 2019

# data[].attributes.body
Circular & Climate Positive KPI