Sustainable Action Leadership

Looking Upstream: A New View of 21st Century Business Practices

By Coral Rose

Original post here:The University of Delaware's online FIBER JOURNAL publication

We have witnessed decades of widespread global economic growth, in which we have seen the standard of living for millions of people around the world rise to unprecedented levels. As China and India enter the age of consumerism, global economic development is linked not only to the core practices of business, but that of environmental and social issues as well.

Our planet now supports 6.5 billion people. We are adding to that, about 70 million people each year. Some may assert that the current global economic business model cannot support or sustain social and economic progress for the projected 8 billion people who will live on this planet by 2050.

In the world of globalization, fundamentally social and environmental issues are business issues and are inseparable from one another.

According to a recent poll conducted by the Global Strategy Group, 87 percent of consumers are more likely to buy products from a retailer that is committed to environmentally sound practices.

With increased awareness, the concern for many companies becomes how to achieve the maximum economic benefit from environmentally and socially responsible products and practices while at the same time increasing shareholder value and increasing stakeholder trust.

Hidden from our View

Today, the majority of products’ social and environmental impacts are hidden from our view — that is, the effects of a product’s social and environmental impacts (life cycle) before it hits the shelves and consumers’ hands. The average designer to purchasing agent (consumers as well) is unaware of the global impacts of their decisions. Hidden from their sight is what lies upstream; all the impacts of growing, processing, manufacturing and transporting raw materials and component parts. Twentieth-century business practices have taught these professionals to focus only on what is downstream (production to consumer).

In the United States in 1960, we were generating 2.7 pounds of waste per person per day. In 2006, that number is 4.6 pounds of waste per person per day. By the time that waste fills one garbage can, 70 garbage cans of waste was created upstream to make the stuff that is now going to the landfill.

To begin to create an accurate picture of what and who are upstream and to make informed decisions about what actions we will take downstream, we must begin to ask: What is the source of our raw materials? Where were the materials harvested, processed, produced? And who and what (people-animals-environment) in the supply chain is affected by the harvesting, processing, and production of our products?

Considering all the social and environmental impacts from harvest/processing to waste/reuse is a total mindset shift at the product design and creation level and a key component to sustainable economic development strategies.

Supply chain transparency is one of the basic tenents or “rules of engagement” for any 21st-century business model.

Ethical Consumerism

Ethical consumerism is on the rise. It’s a movement based on purchasing products that have been ethically produced by organizations that are involved in a process of ensuring that the basic labor rights of the employees of their Third World suppliers are respected.

According to a recent study reported by the Wall Street Journal, companies that embrace more ethical production practices (social and environmental) that are third-party certified, may produce larger profit margins.

What are consumers willing to pay for a pound of coffee based on what they were told about the company’s production standards?

• Ethical standards . . . . . . . . . $9.71
• Unethical standards. . . . . . . . $5.89
• Control (no information) . . . . . $8.31

Source: WSJ — Does Being Ethical Pay?

Consumers may be willing to purchase unethically produced products, but at a steep discount. A recent survey by BBMG indicated that 35 percent of all Americans have avoided buying a product because of a company’s practices. Return on investment (ROI) in the 21st century is clearly rooted in social and environmental responsibility and the ability of a company to look upstream when making sourcing decisions.

Fair Trade — Supply Chain Transparency

Fair Trade Certification is a market-based model of international trade that benefits over one million farmers and farm workers in developing countries. Fair Trade products have experienced consistent global growth in the 40 percent range over the last few years, making Fair Trade good for business.

The roots of Fair Trade can be traced back to churches in North America and Europe in the late 1940s. The goal of these organizations was to provide relief to refugees and other poverty-stricken communities by selling their handicrafts to Northern markets. In the U.S., Alternative Trade Organizations (ATOs), such as Ten Thousand Villages and Equal Exchange, purchase from worker-owned cooperatives. The ATOs were formed to import Fair Trade crafts and coffee to the U.S. market.

In 1988, world coffee prices began a sharp decline, The Netherlands’ Max Havelar offered the mainstream coffee industry the first standardized system of Fair Trade criteria. Currently, Fairtrade Labeling Organizations International (FLO) is the “umbrella organization” that establishes Fair Trade standards globally for the industry using a multi-stakeholder process.

Fair Trade standards require sustainable farming techniques and offer further price premiums for organic production, but Fair Trade certification does not guarantee that a product was organically grown. Where farmers are not certified organic, they are required to implement a system of integrated crop management (ICM). FLO stiuplates that the International Labor Organization’s (ILO) conventions be followed.

One hundred million people around the world rely on cotton for their livelihoods. Fairtrade certified cotton carrying the FAIRTRADE Mark was launched in April 2005. Countries and producers receiving certification for cotton include farmers in India, Mali, Peru, and Senegal, Burkina Faso, and Egypt. Pakistan and Brazil will follow in the near future.

Note: Under the FAIRTRADE Mark it is only the cotton that is certified Fairtrade, not the yarn, fabric, or garment. Therefore, a product can only be referred to as Fairtrade Cotton NOT for example a Fairtrade Cotton shirt. The label must read: “Made with FAIRTRADE Certified Cotton.” Currently The United Nations “Least Developed” Countries are the only countries eligible for Fair Trade Certification.

The term Fair Trade is sometimes used interchangeably with Ethical Trading. Ethical Trading refers to organizations. The FAIRTRADE Mark, applies to products rather than organizations.

Walmart — Increasing Social and Environmental Global Supply Chain Standards

Walmart Stores, Inc., recently announced in Beijing, China, that the company will focus on taking a number of steps to strengthen and enforce supplier compliance with rigorous social and environmental standards, including the creation of a new supplier agreement and scorecards that will require factories to certify compliance with laws and regulations where they operate.

The agreement will be phased in beginning with suppliers in China in January 2009. It will expand to suppliers globally by 2011. In terms of supply chain transparency, by 2009, Walmart will require all direct import suppliers plus all suppliers of private label and non-branded products to provide the name and location of every factory they use to make the products it sells. The company will also instruct all suppliers it buys from directly to source 95 percent of their production from factories that meet the company’s highest ratings on social and environmental practices by 2012.

Looking Forward

Organizations not communicating their social and environmental practices and progress may lose out to their competitors that do. Here are some steps you can take:

1. Not only understand but be responsible for improving your product’s life cycle. To better understand where you can improve your performance both economically, socially, and environmentally, consider Lifecycle assessments (LCA.) Reach out to NGOs and subject matter experts to support this process.
   

2. Develop and choose products that can be authenticated to the source. Strive to use independent third-party certification or accredited standards (e.g. Organic, Fair Trade).
   

3. Educate your organization, consumers, and investors. Focus on energy saved, waste reduced, pollutants eliminated, and protection of workers’ rights. Be prepared to link to a source that can authenticate all of the above statements and tell the whole story across the supply chain. Note both the successes and the areas for improvement. Supply chain transparency is the new business and marketing model.
   

4. Many view social and environmental sustainability as the competitive advantage to the slowing economy. Organizations that can adapt quickly to the current troubled economy and become focused on the cost savings of sustainable business practices may be the ones to deliver a return on investment in tough times. Cost savings derived from increased energy efficiency of the supply chain could lead us to not only cost savings but a more localized and regionalized supply chain versus one that is globalized.
   

5. Keep your eye on the future and horizon issues. Plan now. Should consumers opt to buy less, how will this affect your business model? Will you be offering more services to offset the lower product sales?

Economic success in the 21st century will be measured and led by brands and retailers that can successfully create long-term brand value and stakeholder loyalty by creating products, processes, and services that consider the environmental and social impacts of their supply chains.

Techno-Green Textiles

Excerpt from the latest issue of Textile Insight:

Click here: Fusing Eco and Function in this Season of Sustainability

Just like synthetics and natural fibers learned to co-exist in today’s marketplace – when was the last time you heard “cotton kills” or any anti-wool comments? – the worlds of eco and performance are now aligning.

No longer considered separate forces, the emerging trend is finding common ground where both man-made fibers and eco-based textiles can thrive. Indeed, these days the market appears to be asking for some bamboo with its CoolMax and nylon that is Oeko-Tex approved.

In this season of sustainability, not only is the merging of green and synthetic found in new product – consider Schoeller’s nanosphere technology used with hemp for snowboard garments – but the trend carries over to new production methods and innovative marketing efforts. Certification has ramped up considerably in the past year, and in many cases the industry as a whole is demanding “approved” products and processes in forming new partnerships.

New campaigns and corporate promotions are also centered on environmental initiatives, but based on green product that is performance-oriented.

How Green Is Your Wardrobe?

Orginal Post on EcoTextile News click here

MATLOCK – [08.07.08] A new on-line calculator which allows consumers to calculate the environmental impact of their clothing has been launched by Colour Connections Ltd – the same company which developed the ground-breaking textile eco-metrics (click here or see this blogs 7.18.08 post) for manufacturers and clothing brands.

The new ‘Household Textile Environmental Impact Calculator’ differs from textile eco-metrics in that it's aimed specifically at shoppers instead of the textile industry. Using a series of drop-down menus and a set of complex mathematics hidden behind its user friendly interface allows consumers to assess the environmental impact of the choices they make when they buy, care and dispose of household textiles and clothing.

All users have to do is choose from a list of common clothing items in terms of how many items they buy and how they are disposed in a twelve month period. Then users are asked how these items are washed, dried and ironed in a typical week. After pressing the 'calculate' button, users score a rating in terms of 'Environmental Damage Units' or EDU’s. The EDU value is an environmental measure which is scientifically arrived at based on water and energy use, the use of non-renewable resources and pollution.

The overall EDU score for each item of clothing depends on each individual consumer’s buying preferences, how they care for their garments and ultimately how they dispose of them.

“You may be surprised at how much impact your personal or family clothing preferences have on the environment,” said Phil Patterson, managing director of Colour Connections. “Doing one fewer tumble drying cycle per week saves 170 EDU’s, which is enough to make the fabric for 50 pairs of underpants.”

CLICK HERE to see how your wardrobe stacks up.

Copyright © 2008 Mowbray Communications Ltd 

Labeling of Textiles: National Organic Program (NOP)

USDA regulates the term “organic” as it applies to agricultural products through its
National Organic Program (NOP) regulation, 7 CFR Part 205.(LINK HERE)

● Raw natural fibers, such as cotton, wool ,flax, etc., are agricultural products and
are covered under the NOP crop/livestock production standards. Off-farm treatment of
raw organic fibers are not covered under the NOP crop/livestock production standards. 

● Although the NOP has no specific fiber or textile processing and manufacturing
standards, it may be possible for fi bers grown and certified to NOP crop/livestock standards
to be processed and manufactured into textile and other products which meet NOP
standards. 

Labeling for Certified Handling/Processing/ Manufacturing Operations 

Only textile products certified to the NOP production AND processing standards are eligible to be labeled
“100 percent organic” and “organic.” 

100 percent organic 

● 100 percent organic fiber content.

● Only organic processing aids.

● USDA Organic seal may be displayed on final product, in marketing materials, and in retail
displays—in proximity to certified products only.

● All operations producing, handling, processing and manufacturing the final product must be
certified. 

Organic 

● Minimum of 95 percent organic fiber content.

● 5 percent nonorganic substances, as listed in Section 205.605 of the NOP regulation.

● No non-organic fibers.

● USDA Organic seal may be displayed on final product, in marketing materials, and in retail
displays—in proximity to certified products only.

● All operations producing, handling, processing,and manufacturing the final product must be certified. 

Other Uses of the Word “Organic” in Textile Product Labeling 

The NOP does not restrict the use of the term “made with organic …” in the labeling of textile products to
only those products manufactured in certified organic facilities or containing a minimum of 70 percent
organic fibers. However, all fibers identified in these textile products as “organic” must be produced and
certified to NOP standards. 

Labels on textile products from non-certified handling/processing/manufacturing operations: 

● May identify specific fibers as being organic if certified to the NOP crop/livestock standards.

● May state the percentage of organic fibers contained in the final product.

● May not use the USDA Organic seal.

● May not imply or lead the consumer to believe that the final product is certified organic 

Other Labeling Laws 

● NOP label requirements are in addition to those required by the Federal Trade
Commission’s (FTC) Textile and Wool Acts.

● Information on FTC labeling requirements for textiles can be found at the following websites:

Threading Your Way Through the Labeling Requirements of The Textile and Wool Acts

Calling it Cotton

M&S Plastic Bag Use Drops 80% in Ten Weeks

British retailer Marks & Spencer says shopper demand for plastic bags has plummeted 80% since it began charging for the bags in early May.

Marks & Spencer says it has saved 70 million plastic bags in the ten weeks since instituting a ten-cent surcharge per bag. The retailer has so far raised more than $400,000 from the charge, which it will donate to local parks and public gardens.

"It is fair to say that M&S’ carrier bag charging policy has provoked a lot of debate but these figures show that the overwhelming majority of our customers support charging and are already helping us to make a huge difference by bringing their own bags in with them when they shop with us," says Sir Stuart Rose, M&S chairman.

The policy is part of the company's sustainability program, Plan A which aims to reduce carrier bag usage by a third and to have no waste from its operations go to landfill by 2012.

Ikea is seeing similar success charging its customers for bags - its plastic bag use is down 90%. 

Shipping Costs Start to Crimp Globalization

August 3, 2008

Shipping Costs Start to Crimp Globalization-New York Times

By LARRY ROHTER

When Tesla Motors, a pioneer in electric-powered cars, set out to make a luxury roadster for the American market, it had the global supply chain in mind. Tesla planned to manufacture 1,000-pound battery packs in Thailand, ship them to Britain for installation, then bring the mostly assembled cars back to the United States.

But when it began production this spring, the company decided to make the batteries and assemble the cars near its home base in California, cutting more than 5,000 miles from the shipping bill for each vehicle.

“It was kind of a no-brain decision for us,” said Darryl Siry, the company’s senior vice president of global sales, marketing and service. “A major reason was to avoid the transportation costs, which are terrible.”

The world economy has become so integrated that shoppers find relatively few T-shirts and sneakers in Wal-Mart and Target carrying a “Made in the U.S.A.” label. But globalization may be losing some of the inexorable economic power it had for much of the past quarter-century, even as it faces fresh challenges as a political ideology.

Cheap oil, the lubricant of quick, inexpensive transportation links across the world, may not return anytime soon, upsetting the logic of diffuse global supply chains that treat geography as a footnote in the pursuit of lower wages. Rising concern about global warming, the reaction against lost jobs in rich countries, worries about food safety and security, and the collapse of world trade talks in Geneva last week also signal that political and environmental concerns may make the calculus of globalization far more complex.

“If we think about the Wal-Mart model, it is incredibly fuel-intensive at every stage, and at every one of those stages we are now seeing an inflation of the costs for boats, trucks, cars,” said Naomi Klein, the author of “The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.”

“That is necessarily leading to a rethinking of this emissions-intensive model, whether the increased interest in growing foods locally, producing locally or shopping locally, and I think that’s great.”

Many economists argue that globalization will not shift into reverse even if oil prices continue their rising trend. But many see evidence that companies looking to keep prices low will have to move some production closer to consumers. Globe-spanning supply chains — Brazilian iron ore turned into Chinese steel used to make washing machines shipped to Long Beach, Calif., and then trucked to appliance stores in Chicago — make less sense today than they did a few years ago.

To avoid having to ship all its products from abroad, the Swedish furniture manufacturer Ikea opened its first factory in the United States in May. Some electronics companies that left Mexico in recent years for the lower wages in China are now returning to Mexico, because they can lower costs by trucking their output overland to American consumers.

Neighborhood Effect

Decisions like those suggest that what some economists call a neighborhood effect — putting factories closer to components suppliers and to consumers, to reduce transportation costs — could grow in importance if oil remains expensive. A barrel sold for $125 on Friday, compared with lows of $10 a decade ago.

The cost of shipping a 40-foot container from Shanghai to the United States has risen to $8,000, compared with $3,000 early in the decade, according to a recent study of transportation costs. Big container ships, the pack mules of the 21st-century economy, have shaved their top speed by nearly 20 percent to save on fuel costs, substantially slowing shipping times.

The spike in shipping costs comes at a moment when concern about the environmental impact of globalization is also growing. Many companies have in recent years shifted production from countries with greater energy efficiency and more rigorous standards on carbon emissions, especially in Europe, to those that are more lax, like China and India.

Cotton vs. Polyester......

Originally posted here on UD Journal: FIBER

by Gail Baugh 

Cotton is the “green” fiber! Polyester is bad for the environment! Simple, right? Our choices are not so simple anymore. With broadened awareness of fiber and textile innovations and of human impact on our environment, we must consider our choices with new enlightenment. Is it possible that polyester fiber is more eco-friendly than cotton fiber?

I did a consulting project last fall comparing the environmental impact of cotton and polyester fiber production with surprising results. I concluded recycled polyester fiber, produced from existing polyester products, is more sustainable than cotton fiber.

Since the mid-1980s, cotton and polyester fiber production have grown dramatically, so that today, these two fibers account for more than 80% of all fiber production worldwide. The quantity of production of these two fibers is nearly equal. Future production of these fibers will confront new problems. Petroleum production will continue to decline, and arable  land for fiber production may also be reduced, as the demand for biofuel and food production take priority over fiber.

There are ongoing innovations in fiber and textiles. For the past 15+ years, plastic bottles have been recycled into low-grade polyester fiber. The big news is that it is now possible to recycle polyester fiber, yarn, fabric, and garments into new, high-quality polyester fiber. Cotton fiber can also be recycled into new yarn and fabric, but the quality of the fiber is reduced, so the res ulting product is not as high quality as the original fiber. For both fibers, it is a new concept that it is now possible to recycle and create new fiber and products from existing fiber.

Let’s clarify some of the terms the press and the fashion industry are using to tell customers how they can help prevent pollution. There are no standard industry definitions to describe the ecology of the fashion business. The result is confusion regarding the complex nature of fiber, fabric, and garment production and the impact each has on the environment and resources.

• First, banish the terms “eco,” “eco-friendly,” and “green.” I’ve used them above to make a point. To another generation, these were defining words, but they do not currently describe what we are      facing in climate change, resource depletion, or full landfills.
• Second, use terms that describe “methods” or “practices” that can be implemented to sustain resources and protect our nvironment. These terms will give the industry choices to act      responsibly. I use the term “sustainable practices” to define choices we can make instead of using terms like “green.”

As I compared cotton with polyester fiber, I developed a set of questions to determine which fiber used more sustainable practices:

• Is the fiber easily renewable?
• For natural fiber, is the use of water and land appropriate for the quantity and cost of the fiber produced?
• For manufactured fiber, is the raw material for production easily available and renewable?
• Is the fiber produced using nonpolluting methods?
• For natural fiber, is it grown/raised using nontoxic substances in the air, land, and water?
• For manufactured fiber, is it produced using nontoxic methods or materials that may end up in the air, land, and water?
• Can the products be recycled into new fiber production? Is the recycled fiber the same quality as the original fiber?

In my consulting project last fall, I compared the production of cotton fiber (both conventionally and organically grown) to virgin polyester and recycled polyester fiber production. Using three questions above to compare the environmental impact of each fiber, I concluded recycled polyester fiber involved more sustainable practices than any cotton fiber. Here’s why:

Is the fiber easily renewable?

Cotton Summary — Water and energy use are high, and the useable fiber is one-third of the total harvest volume.

Water use: Both conventionally and organically grown cotton fiber require large quantities of water for a consistent crop yield. Estimates range from 1,400–3,400 gallons per pound of fiber. (1 lb of fiber = about two t-shirts.)

Fiber yield per acre: About two-thirds of an acre’s harvest volume is discarded, leaving one-third of the harvest volume available for textile production.

Energy use: About 8.6–9.4 Kwh per pound of fiber for both types of cotton. However, energy used to move water for irrigation (organic and conventional cotton) and to produce synthetic fertilizers (mostly petroleum-based products — conventional cotton only) is not considered in this figure. By adding in this additional energy use, conventional cotton fiber energy consumption is estimated to be nearly the same as virgin polyester energy consumption.

Recycled Polyester Fiber Summary — Low water use. Energy use is high, though one-third less than virgin fiber. Very little waste in fiber production.

Water use: Water used in recycled fiber production is almost nil. Even in virgin fiber production, water is used as a coolant, in very small amounts.

Fiber yield: Compared to raw materials used, which must be measured by weight. There was some weight loss, but nothing close to the two-thirds lost in the cotton harvest.

Energy use: About 13.8 Kwh per pound of fiber. Energy used to produce the original virgin fiber was about 18.3 Kwh per pound of fiber.

Is the fiber produced using nonpolluting methods?

Cotton Summary — Synthetic chemicals used continue to pose significant water, soil, and air pollution threats.

Use of chemicals: Conventionally grown cotton uses synthetic fertilizers and pesticides (mostly petroleum-based). Pesticides have been greatly reduced due to genetically modified seed. However, these same GM seeds seem to require specific synthetic fertilizers and irrigation to have better yields than other seed. The use of these synthetic fertilizers has polluted the soil, ground water, nearby streams/lakes, and potential human water supplies. Emissions from spraying also contaminate surfaces and endanger nearby human habitation. Mono-crop cultivation reduces the future soil enrichment. Cotton does not return nutrients to the soil as other fiber crops do naturally. Organically grown fiber does not use GM seeds, synthetic fertilizers, or pesticides.

Recycled Polyester Fiber Summary — Chemicals used for recycled polyester fiber production are recycled back to produce more fiber.

Use of chemicals: Most or all of the chemicals used to recreate polyester fiber from the recycled material are then recycled back into more recycled fiber production — it’s a closed-loop production system. It’s unlikely that toxic chemicals enter the water supply. There are some emissions but less exposure to the population than in cotton aerial spraying. In virgin polyester production, there are more emissions than in recycled fiber production. However, if this closed-loop system becomes marketable, there may not be as much need to produce virgin polyester.

Is the fiber recyclable?

Cotton Summary — Recycled cotton fiber is lower quality than the original fiber.

The physics of breaking down a cotton fabric into fiber, called “opening,” breaks the cotton fiber into shorter fibers. When spinning the fiber into yarn, these short fibers create weak, low-quality yarns. There are on-going experiments to improve the yarn quality by introducing other fibers. So far, the perfect blend hasn’t been developed. But the fact remains that recycling cotton products back into fiber and new products is possible and is ongoing now. Of course, the idea of using existing cotton fabrics as a resource to create recycled yarn and fabric is a new concept. The issue remains that cotton fiber quality is reduced when recycled. Therefore, the recycled fiber may need other nontextile uses to stay out of the landfill.

I suggest that there be new research efforts to recycle cotton fiber into new fabrics. There has been extensive research for growing new fiber more efficiently. I suggest that this same energy also focus on how to use the existing cotton fiber supply. Also, perhaps there can be new ways to evaluate cotton fiber. For example, organically grown, the least available fiber, should be used for the highest quality items; transitional cotton (chemical-free production) for most production; and finally, recycled cotton fiber in low-quality items.

Recycled Polyester Fiber Summary — Recycled polyester fiber is the same quality as the original fiber.

This fiber, produced from existing polyester textile products, meets or exceeds the quality of virgin polyester. Continuously recycling the enormous quantity of existing polyester productions into new polyester fiber does not reduce the quality of the new fiber. Is it possible to nearly eliminate the production of virgin polyester?

I suggest that we review Patagonia’s example of collection and recycling of their products, particularly their partnerships with Teijin and Toray and other suppliers. In my conversations with my industry colleagues, it is clear that recycling polyester into new fiber is very costly. However, with the petroleum supply continuing to decline, it seems this innovation will be become more necessary and cost effective.

My study led me to conclude that recycled polyester fiber, produced from existing polyester fabrics, either post-industrial or post-consumer products, is more sustainable than conventional or organic cotton fiber. Cotton fiber research has concentrated on genetic modification to control pests and reduce water use for new fiber production. The polyester fiber mills, recognizing the shrinking petroleum supply and the environmental problems of virgin polyester fiber production, have eclipsed the cotton fiber innovation effort.

We find ourselves in a world where climate change and oil supplies will force the textile industry to make different choices. It must reevaluate its raw material sources and the environmental impact of its production methods. With over 80% of all fiber production in polyester and cotton fibers, fiber and fabric producers must diversify raw materials (incorporating existing fiber stock as a raw material source), lower water and energy consumption, improve soil restoration, and reduce pollutants in production while maintaining the fiber and fabric supply we had come to assume was unlimited.

*Please note the findings in this article may be contrary to findings posted by other organizations and studies~Coral Rose

Web Tool Calculates Textile Eco-Footprint

Originally Posted Here on Eco Textile News

PONTEFRACT – [07.18.08] Textile eco-metrics, the world’s first tool for simple assessment of the environmental impacts of textile production and use has been now been launched by Colour Connections in conjunction with Ecotextile News. It is now available to access directly from this web-site.

This revolutionary new web-based calculator takes into account the entire production route from fibre selection through to fabric production to dyeing and finishing. It also compares the production impacts of different washing and drying methods over the lifetime of a garment by consumers.

Using cleverly derived Environmental Damage Units (EDU’s) the impact of different fibres, fabric weights and dyeing and finishing methods can be compared in terms of water impact, energy use, use of non-renewable resources and pollution.

A simple colour coded report is produced that enables users to see at a glance where a particular product has most impact and highlights the areas that require attention or, conversely, where products and methods are good. The easy-to-read colour coded grid conceals the complex mathematics involved but an overall indicative EDU score enables easy comparisons between different textiles to be made.

Textile eco-metrics also provides simple, easy to understand explanations of what is good or bad about a particular fibre, fabric or process so it can be used to increase the levels of understanding about what is fact and what is ‘greenwash’ in the world of textiles and clothing.

Of particular interest to those committed to a sustainable textile industry are the Sub-Optimal Durability Units (SODU’s) that are calculated to show just how bad low durability clothing merchandise is for the environment. For example a product that has a production impact of 10 EDU’s and lasts for 50 domestic washes is far better than a similar garment that an impact of five production EDU’s but only lasts five washes – the latter garment would need to replaced nine times in the same lifetime so a penalty of 45 EDU’s would be awarded.

Textile Eco-metrics will be developed on an on-going basis and is available for an annual subscription.

To see how to use Eco-Metrics CLICK HERE.

CLICK HERE for more information on how to subscribe to EcoTextile News.

Copyright © 2008 Mowbray Communications Ltd

 

Eco-fabrics Featured At G8 Summit

As reported by Eco Textile News: Eco-fabrics featured at G8 summit

TOYAKO – [08.07.08] Heat resistant PLA fabrics and recycled polyester textiles from Teijin Fibers have featured at an eco fashion show as part of the G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit of world leaders currently taking place in Japan.

Teijin’s latest ‘Biofront’ fibre was used in garments for the ‘Fashion for the Earth in Sapporo’ show, which took place under the auspices of the sponsor organisation and as part of The Environmental Exhibit of 2008 (sponsored by the G8 Hokkaido Toyako Commemorative Summit in the Hokkaido Environmental Exhibition Organising Committee).

All the garments worn at the show were made primarily of ‘green materials’ which included women’s jackets made of Teijin’s heat-resistant poly-lactic acid (PLA)-based fibre ‘Biofront’. Unlike earlier versions of PLA fibre, this new polymer has pushed up the melting point of ordinary PLA fibres to 210oC from 170oC, which has enabled high-temperature and high-pressure dyeing along with moderate-temperature ironing of the fabrics.

Previously it was virtually impossible to iron garments at high temperatures made with PLA without destroying the fibres. There were also issues surrounding the dyeing of deep shade fabrics due to the limitations of PLA when it came to heat resistance during dyeing.

Teijin says that Ms. Masako Oka, chairman of the fashion show‘s executive committee, has been promoting the use of the PLA heat-resistant materials at the event and has worked together with Teijin’s ‘Sustainable Management’ team.

Meanwhile, the huge message flags used for the G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit events at the Environmental Exhibit 2008 were made from Teijin’s ‘Eco Circle’ recycled polyester fibres which have been certified with an ‘Eco Mark’ seal of approval. This message flag uses roller-screen textile fabrics developed jointly by Teijin Fibers and Tachikawa Corporation. Copyright © 2008 Mowbray Communications Ltd  

What Does it Really Mean to Take a Stand?

We sometimes think of taking a stand as.......making a declaration for or against something, forming a resolution or perhaps choosing a side.

Werner Erhard distinguishes taking a stand from all of these.

He defines taking a a stand as:

“A powerful way of being that can enable an individual to have an impact in the course of humanity.”

With sustainability, more of us are integrating personal values into business, or should I say are not fearful of "taking a stand" for future generations-"taking a stand" is also more effective when utilized in creating teams.

......."We Can Solve It"  or The We Campaign is another way that Al Gore is taking a stand, his stand for Climate Change is the stuff of which Werner Erhards definition is made of.

"The We Campaign is a project of The Alliance for Climate Protection -- a nonprofit, nonpartisan effort founded by Nobel laureate and former Vice President Al Gore. Our ultimate aim is to halt global warming. Specifically we are educating people in the US and around the world that the climate crisis is both urgent and solvable."