Sustainable Action Leadership

Marks and Spencer Celebrate Opening of "Green Garment Factories"

25 April 2008| Source: just-style.com

Marks & Spencer CEO Sir Stuart Rose today (25 April) paid a one-day visit to Sri Lanka to open the world’s first ‘green’ garment manufacturing plants which will supply clothing to M&S stores.

 

The plants are owned by two of Sri Lanka’s biggest garment producers, Brandix Lanka and MAS Holdings.

Speaking at the opening ceremony of MAS Intimates Thurulie, a new lingerie factory located in the MAS Fabric Park in Thulhiriya, Sir Stuart described the plant as “a truly exciting development in clothing production.”

He continued: “It really has been a partnership of two like-minded companies, M&S and MAS, and will trial a completely new approach to manufacturing and set standards for others to follow.

In particular he praised its “leading standards in employee welfare.”

 

In his address, at the opening of the Brandix plant, Sir Stuart said: “Not only has it reduced its carbon footprint since its renovation, it has also reduced its energy usage, uses less water and no longer sends waste to landfill. “It will also continue to produce great quality clothing.”

First green factories
“Brandix and MAS are the first green factories that we would be associated with,” said Paschal Little, head of technology for lingerie and childrenswear, M&S, speaking at a press conference organised by Brandix yesterday (24 April).

M&S, which currently buys up around GBP300m (US$592m) worth of clothing from Sri Lanka, will buy up the total production from the two ‘green’ factories.

 

This greening of Sri Lanka’s garment sector is part of the UK retailer’s plans to become carbon neutral by 2012.

M&S says it is setting up ‘model’ green factories, similar to those in Sri Lanka, in other parts of the world as well.

“Since we have not done this before, there are no benchmarks or models that we can refer to,” said Little.

“So we are looking at setting up model green factories, through different projects, in different parts of the world.” M&S is already talking to potential partners in China and Bangladesh.

 

M&S says it “encourages” its suppliers to go green, by providing resources in the form of financial sponsorships and technical assistance. For instance, M&S contributed LKR16m ($148,354) to convert the Brandix factory into a green factory.

The concept of ‘model green plants’ is also expected to demonstrate that going green can have commercial benefits.

Brandix says its converted green factory in Seeduwa has managed to cut electricity bills in half at a time when factories in Sri Lanka are complaining of escalating electricity prices.  In the first month itself, electricity costs reduced by 48%, and in the second month they went down by 51%,” said AJ Johnpillai, a director of Brandix.

In addition the Brandix factory claims to have reduced overall energy consumption by 43%, water consumption by 58% and carbon emissions by 77%. The factory has also eliminated all waste that previously went into land fills.

By Dilshani Samaraweera.

 

Do You Need to “Believe” in Climate Change?

by Andrew Winston via Andrew Winston Blog

Another Earth Day is here (and gone). It’s probably trite to say, “Hey, every day is Earth Day”, but I’ll give it a go. Yes, we need to worry about Earth stuff every day, but not just because the planet is in peril – which is a pretty good reason. Think of it this way: the Earth is often metaphorically compared to our home and, as a fairly recent homeowner, I can tell you that your home needs care and feeding much, much more than once a year (my small lawn of non-pesticide laden, eco-cared-for grass and natural weeds grows really fast). It’s a constant battle to keep a house running smoothly and providing for you and your family.

But let’s take a business perspective. Minding your costs, taking care of your assets, figuring out and fulfilling customer needs – all part of green value creation – are best done consistently and aggressively, not just in big flashy moments of marketing excitement. The days of “plant a tree” Earth Day celebrations being the only thing companies do are over. But many execs still see green as a checkbox exercise, not a corporate mandate and core strategy – do a few things such as retrofitting a facility or putting together a CSR report and move on.

But the environmental work we have ahead of us will be hard and ongoing. Luckily, it should get easier over time. Like the “flywheel” analogy from the bestseller Good to Great, you keep pushing away, and you start to get some real momentum.

All this relates to a question I’ve been struggling with lately: Does it matter if a company or its execs believe in climate change and other environmental imperatives? What got me started on this weeks ago was GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz’ comment that “global warming is a crock of s***.” And at nearly every talk I give on green business, people at all levels in companies from CEOs down inform me that climate change is not real.

My approach in these moments has generally been to stay quiet or point out that it doesn’t really matter whether you believe it or not, as long as you buy that going green is good for business. If you’re still pursuing green value through, say, eco-efficiency or product innovation, then who cares what you believe. This is basically what Lutz went on to say after his more colorful remarks ("My thoughts on what has or hasn't been the cause of climate change have nothing to do with the decisions I make to advance the cause of General Motors”). This general idea that you don’t really need the first half of the Green Wave (made up of natural forces/pressures and stakeholders), is a key point my co-author and I make in our book Green to Gold.

But I’m beginning to wonder.

Yes, in the short run, you can go down a profitable green path with the conviction that if enough of your stakeholders care, it’s good for business. But what about in the longer-run, as the excitement that’s swept the business world quiets down and we have to make this new green way of doing business work?

Innovation is hard. Creating new products and services and finding new markets for them is hard. Handling what may be a permanent rise in the cost of all commodities and thus the cost of doing business is extremely hard. Won’t all these pursuits go a lot easier if there’s a bit more on the line than “well, we just have to do this because our competitors are doing it and customers are asking for it”? Won’t employees drive harder if they and their bosses believe the underpinnings of why it’s good for business? When Shell CEO Jeroen van der Veer said recently that dealing with climate change “will be hard work and there is little time,” I believe his employees appreciated the blunt honesty and could set their nose to the flywheel/grindstone.

So does belief matter? I don’t have the answer, but I have my suspicions. The now oft-told green business success story of the Toyota Prius still speaks volumes – the company set out to make an environmental car. It wasn’t just an efficiency pursuit, but a real belief that the 21st century needed a form of transportation that reduced environmental burden. Going forward, GM may have trouble matching Toyota’s innovations if attitudes remain so different.

In the end, doesn’t it hurt morale, creativity, and productivity to hear your boss say one of the biggest drivers for action is a crock?

 

National Organic Program; Sets the Record Straight Regarding Usage of 5% Blend of Organic Cotton in Textiles

1.) Does “made with organic cotton” clothing have to be made from NOP-certified organic cotton? Yes.

2.) FTC regulations allow special fiber content claims to be made at the 5% threshold level. Can I label my clothing “made with organic cotton” if they only have 5% organic cotton?

No. The NOP regulations require at least 70% certified organic content for products to be labeled as “made with organic."

Please see 4/14 post for full text of NOP Q&A.

Organic Veggies Have More Nutrients

A review of nearly 100 scientific studies has concluded that, on average, organic fruits and vegetables have more vitamins, minerals, and beneficial antioxidants than their conventionally grown counterparts.

In the new report, scientists from The Organic Center (a nonprofit that promotes organic farming), examined carefully matched measurements of selected nutrients in specific organic and conventionally grown foods. The scientists found that the organic produce had higher levels of tested nutrients in 61 percent of the cases. Furthermore, the organic foods tended to have higher levels of antioxidants and polyphenols, nutrients that are often in short supply in U.S. diets. By contrast, conventional produce had higher levels of potassium, phosphorus, and total protein, which most people already have in their diets in sufficient amounts. The Organic Center will update its findings online as new studies comparing organic and conventional foods are published.

Read the report here

GMOs and Wal-Mart's new Check-Out Blog:

I have copied my post last month, to the new Wal-Mart "Check-out" Blog:

"It would seem natural for Wal-Mart to adopt the same Non-GMO labeling standard as Whole Foods and other multi-stakeholders in the organic food market: (See link below.)

Organic agriculture is certified organic in a process based standards system. While GMOs are prohibited per the USDA/NOP Certified Organic Standard, there are NO TESTS conducted during the certification process on organic agriculture to ensure/prove that Organic food is indeed Non-GMO or GMO-Free.

As you know GMO contamination does happen albeit primarily accidental via drift-or inappropriate transfer handling of GMO product. Concerns are arising daily with GMO contamination especially in the area of feedstock (e.g.cows) for products such as organic milk.

In 2006 the US represented 55% of the GLOBAL area devoted to biotech planted crops. Of the area in the US ( 2006) that is now laden with GMO crops; 89% of SOY is GMO, 83% of Cotton, 75% of Canola and 60% of all the CORN planted is a GMO variety.

Europe has a Non-GMO labeling system-mandatory-inplace.By the way demanded for, by consumers!!!
Since Wal-Mart has stores in the EU, it is already being done there and you could follow best practices in the EU.

For Wal-Mart to adopt the labeling of Non-GMO product for ALL ORGANICS seems like an extra bit of an insurance policy to ensure the integrity of the "Certified Organic" label in your stores (Sams Club too!)

PLUS- This lets the Wal-Mart consumer know that YOU-Wal-Mart truly care about the health and well being of all of us consumers that shop there.

If this was adopted by Wal-Mart this would prove Wal-Marts Market Leadership in Sustainability, and if you are leary of this,why don't you start where you did in organic cotton--in the baby area. Infant formula and baby food would be a natural--what says you care more about consumers than that?

PS While, I would like to see Wal-Mart adopt Non-GMO Labeling of all food, organic and conventional it seems appropriate to start somewhere like baby, as that proved successful in the area of organic cotton."

Link to Mulit-Stakeholder: Non-GMO Project: www.nongmoproject.org

GMO Resource Corner: Science or Nonsense; Two Sides of the GMO Debate Part IV of IV

Click Here:Science or Nonsense; Two Sides of the GMO Debate

GMO RESOURCE CORNER:

Cornell University GEO-PIE http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/

Friends of the Earth International http://www.foei.org/

GMO Compass http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/home/

National Ag Law Center http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/

National Organic Program http://www.ams.usda.gov/NOP/indexNet.htm

Organic & Non-GMO Report http://www.non-gmoreport.com/

Organic Trade Association http://www.ota.com/index.html

Union of Concerned Scientists http://www.ucsusa.org/

University California Davis Ag Division http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/

University of Richmond-PEW Ag Bio Tech http://pewagbiotech.org/

Soil Association UK http://www.soilassociation.org/

Non-GMO Project Part III of IV

 

What is the Non-GMO Project?

The Non-GMO Project’s central mission is to provide the following:

Knowledge—Knowledge and information on GMOs that will help the organic and natural foods industry to understand and avoid them in their products.

Standard—A uniform, authoritative, consensus-based standard with which to verify non-GMO foods.

Verification Program—A centralized, economical, confidential, third-party program for verifying that products meet the non-GMO standard.

The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization, created by leaders representing all sectors of the organic and natural products industry in the U.S. and Canada, to offer consumers a consistent “non-GMO” choice for organic and natural products that are produced without genetic engineering or recombinant DNA technologies.

The Project began as an initiative of independent natural foods retailers who were interested in providing their customers with more information regarding the GMO risk of their products. As the Project evolved, it became clear that in order for the initial vision of standardized labeling to be possible, a 3rd party verification program was needed that would identify products compliant with a uniform, consensus-based definition of non-GMO. With the help of technical consultants FoodChain Global Advisors, and fueled by the passion of a dynamic array of industry leaders.

Download here the latest Spring 2008 update from the Non-GMO Project.

GMOs what are they? Part II of IV

Unlike open-pollination and hybridization, which occur in nature, genetic engineering requires human intervention in a laboratory setting, directly manipulating DNA. Genetic engineers insert a foreign gene into the host DNA. Genetic engineering has the ability to cross all natural species boundaries and its products are often called “transgenic” (literally across genus boundaries).

Plant breeding, animal husbandry, beer brewing and yogurt fermentation as well as more advanced technologies of using micro-organisms, phyto-pharmacology, vaccination or the use of biomass for energy production - All these technologies are forms of biotechnology.

Getting it straight? GM, GE, GEO and GMO?

The terms genetically modified (GM) and genetically engineered (GE) are used interchangeably by the industry, concurrently referring to genetic engineering, also known as recombinant DNA technology. GMO’s are genetically modified organisms, i.e. organisms whose DNA has undergone gene insertion. They are also called GEO’s, for genetically engineered organisms. If a GMO is used for food or to produce GM proteins used in food, the ingested product is called GM food. The term Bioengineering is also used to describe genetic engineering.

Hybrids are not GM, they are the result of the deliberate crossing of two different parent varieties, usually inbreeds. Typically, a corn variety will be crossed with a different corn variety and the result will always be a corn.

Pharma crops are crops genetically engineered to produce drugs to prevent or treat a variety of diseases and certain froms of cancer, AIDS, and hepatitis. The term can also encompass industrial crops engineered to produce raw materials for plastics, detergents, paints, and other products.

What crops (foods) are genetically engineered? Data; 2006

Soybeans - Farmers planted 89% of the US 2006 soybean acreage with varieties genetically engineered to be resistant to Roundup herbicide. Soybean oil, soy protein, and soy lecithin are found in a wide array of processed foods.

Corn – 60% of corn varieties planted are the insect resistant and herbicide tolerant varieties. Corn oil, corn syrup, corn flour and corn starch are used in many foods.

Canola -  75% of canola is herbicide resistant. Canola oil is extracted from rapeseed and is a common cooking oil.

Cotton – 83% of GE varieties that are herbicide resistant and/or insect resistant. While cotton is primarily thought of as a fiber crop, the seed is processed into cottonseed oil for use in many fried snacks, peanut butter, and other products.

Other plants; Disease resistant GE varieties of papaya (Hawaiian papaya 50%), squash and zucchini grown commercially. FlavrSavr tomato and insect resistant Bt potatoes were marketed at one time. GE varieties of rice, sugar beet, and radicchio have been approved, but are not currently marketed.

 

U.S. organic food industry fears GMO contamination Part I of IV

Organic an alternative to genetic engineering in agriculture?

U.S. national organic standards and industry practices do not allow the use of genetic engineering in the production and processing of organic products. Organic agriculture gives consumers who wish to avoid genetically modified foods a choice in the marketplace. However, there are  concerns with the possible contamination  of  organic  agriculture. This is the first in a four part series exploring genetic engineering and steps being taken to minimize the risk of contamination by the foremost organic industry pioneers and leaders .

By Carey Gillam (Reuters) - Widespread contamination of U.S. corn, soybeans and other crops by genetically engineered varieties is threatening the purity of organic and natural food products and driving purveyors of such specialty products to new efforts to protect their markets, industry leaders said this week.

A range of players, from dairy farmers to natural food retailers, are behind an effort to introduce testing requirements and standards for certification aimed at keeping contamination at bay. That goal is rapidly becoming harder, however, as planting of biotech corn, soybeans, and other crops expands across the United States.

"We think we can keep the contamination from getting worse by putting safeguards in place so people who want to choose to eat organic products free of genetic contamination can do so," said Michael Funk, CEO of United Natural Foods, which is backing the initiative. "The longer we delay ... the more challenging it is going to be."

Biotech crops, primarily corn, soybeans, cotton and canola, have genes that have been manipulated to express specific traits, most commonly a resistance to herbicide, which helps farmers. Biotech developers such as Monsanto Co patent the crop technology and tightly control use of the seed.

But mixing of biotech crops and conventional crops can occur during many phases of harvest, storage and shipment of grain, and drifting pollen and other natural forces can also contaminate crops while they are still in the fields.

Indeed, contamination of conventional crops by biotech crops has been reported around the world. There were 39 cases of crop contamination in 23 countries in 2007, and more than 200 in 57 countries over the last 10 years, according to biotech critic Greenpeace International.

Contamination of corn is the biggest concern for those trying to sell biotech-free food. Corn is not only used in human food but is also used to feed livestock, meaning organic beef and dairy farmers must ensure their animals are fed corn that is free of contamination.

That has become more difficult as biotech corn acres have expanded in the United States. In 2007, an estimated 73 percent of the 92.9 million acres of U.S. corn planted were biotech, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

National Organic Program: Answers Your Textile Questions

I am a clothing designer using organic cotton for my pieces. My manufacturer uses USDA certified organic cotton and I want to know if their certification will pass along to me? Can I market my clothing as USDA certified organic or do I need to apply for my own certification from the USDA?

No. Certification does not "pass along" or accompany the clothing. You also need to apply for certification and must contact a certifying agent.

Is it possible to certify a wood product as organic?

No. There are no standards for the certification of wood as organic under the NOP regulations at this time.

Is wool covered under the NOP? Flax? Any fiber?

Yes. Wool, cotton, and flax are considered inedible fibers and are covered by the NOP regulations.

Does “made with organic cotton” clothing have to be made from NOP-certified organic cotton?

Yes.

May the NOP seal be used on organic cotton textiles?

Yes, if the production and handling complies with all NOP regulations.

If cotton that was raised organically but then treated pursuant to import requirements into the US, can it still be considered organic for the purposes of making “made with organic” clothing?

The cotton might be organic, but only if the treatment is an allowed substance on the NOP National List. Otherwise, the cotton has been treated with a prohibited substance, is no longer considered organic, and may not be used for the production of products “made with organic cotton.”

FTC regulations allow special fiber content claims to be made at the 5% threshold level. Can I label my clothing “made with organic cotton” if they only have 5% organic cotton?

No. The NOP regulations require at least 70% certified organic content for products to be labeled as “made with organic [ingredients].

If NOP product also meets a foreign organic standard, is it a violation of the NOP regulations to say it meets the foreign organic standard on the product?

No. Truthful label claims are allowed under the National Organic Program regulations.

Can conventional sheep be managed organically for 1 year and then be used for organic wool production?

No. The 1-year livestock conversion only applies to dairy animals’ eligibility to produce organic milk. All other livestock must be managed organically from the last third of gestation.