Sustainable Action Leadership

Walmart, H&M Commit to Sustainability in Chinese Textiles

Original Post here on Sustainable Life Media

ByThomas Miner

September 27, 2010 – Last week at the Clinton Global Initiative 2 of the world’s largest clothing retailers, Walmart and H&M, agreed to work with their Chinese textile suppliers to reduce the water, energy, and chemical use in their supply chains through the Natural Resource Defense Council’s “Clean by Design“ project.
 
Based on the commitment announced today, Walmart agrees that the mills selected to implement NRDC’s program will provide benchmark data on water and energy use at the start of the assessment and will track and verify reductions they achieve. H&M, which operates more than 2,000 stores worldwide, launched a similar agreement with NRDC in Shanghai on Sept. 13.

So far, trial implementations at textile plants have shown that NRDC’s recommended practices can pay for themselves in less than eight months. Taken together, the best practices can cut approximately 25 percent of water and 30 percent of fuel use.

If just 100 small- to medium-sized textile mills implement NRDC’s recommended improvements, China would save more than 16 million metric tons of water annually, enough to provide 12.4 million people drinking water for a year. The practices can also eliminate nearly 1 million metric tons of CO2 annually, approximately the same amount of emissions from 172,000 cars per year.
 
Other retailers and brands collaborating with NRDC in the Clean by Design effort include Gap, Levi, Nike, Marks and Spencer, and Li and Fung, a large Hong Kong sourcing firm. 
 
For a more in-depth understanding of NRDC’s Clean by Design program, watch below.

 

---

Low Impact For the Environment (LIFE) Textiles

 
Watch this informative video and find out how the INSTYLE Company working with Walmart has been producing sustainable and ethical textiles. INSTYLE is the winner of the United Nations of Australia - 2008 World Environment Day Awards, Business Sustainability - Environmental Best Practice Program. INSTYLE is also the winner of three awards in the NSW Governments 2008 Sustainability Green Globe Awards.

 

Walmarts "American Summer" By Way of China and South America…….

Walmart is unequivocally the “Green Giant”...  the “Green Superman,” they are able to take giant leaps of Sustainability with a single bound and change the world!!!!

They have done an outstanding job in the last five years of walking their talk in regards to Sustainability, some of which I am proud to have participated in.

I noticed on a recent trip to Walmart, the Walmart  “American Summer” shop—great stuff!!!  Almost all the T-shirts were made of Organic Cotton, and most were just $3.00…Really exciting…However upon taking a closer look—Nothing in this shop was made in the USA. Flip flops from China, T-Shirts from China,Pakistan and Guatemala.

I am thrilled that the Tee’s are Organic Cotton…but nothing in this shop was made in the USA…and yet the name of the shop is “American Summer” with a tag line of “Main Street USA 2010.” Many people on Main Street are having a tough time these days and many are unemployed. A great solution to  'Main Street USA' would be if Walmart were to source ALL their USA flag bearing products "From Farm (Raw materials) to Shelf" right here in the US? 

Just like we as US consumers are the root cause of the Oil Disaster in the Gulf of Mexico due to our addiction to oil, we are also the cause of  Walmarts “American Summer” by way of China, and South America sourcing model. We want products at affordable prices albeit cheap—and this is just the 'cause and effect' rule in action!.

Looks like Walmart still has work to do!!!! Big Company---Big Change---Takes Time……….  One thing I know for sure....in time they will do the right thing!!!                                                                          

 

Climb The Green Ladder

                                        Climb The Green Ladder

Make Your Company and Career More Sustainable

By Shari Aaron and Amy Fetzer

Be sure and pick up a copy of this book, many inspiring stories-including Sams Club and Walmarts GAME CHANGING entry into organics-highlighting the work of Coral Rose. A great framework for taking action now---

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.

Will Sustainability Feel the Squeeze?

EcoTextileNews Cover Story-November 2008 issue

by Coral Rose

As a result of the U.S. credit crunch and slowing economy, we are now seeing consumers including, ethical consumers become more economically conscious. What remains to be seen is how, if and when this might affect the solid upward trend of organic and sustainable fibers and products.

The Lenzing Group recently released results for the first half of 2008. With noted strong sales increases of 17.4%, they may be the first to acknowledge a shift in the market; “First signs of a weakening global fiber market were perceptible already from the beginning of the second quarter.”  And “The unfavorable economic development that started in the USA clouds expectations for the global economy. The weak dollar and turbulent raw material and energy markets will add further pressure”

In a global economy, U.S. issues are global issues. There are now concerns that the U.S. credit crisis is spreading to Europe and quickly becoming a global economic hurtle.

“In the short run, I hear people saying that we won’t have the resources to address sustainability now that we’re spending a trillion rescuing the financial system.  That seems backwards.  We need to address climate change and resource shortages even more aggressively.  It’s about risk management.  The leaner we are, the less stuff we use to make every product and service, the better prepared we are for whatever comes our way.” Andrew Winston, Founder of Eco-Strategies, and Co-Author Green to Gold.

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 might assert that the current global economic business model cannot support or sustain economic progress for the projected 8 billion people who will live on this planet by 2050.

“In many ways, the credit crunch is the epitome of non-sustainability. Observing this crisis, you can study the consequences of non-sustainable (economic) actions that - in the end - will affect people, in other words the social/societal dimension of sustainability. For us this development strengthens the conviction that sustainable management is the only way of succeeding in the long run and we will continue to focus on sustainability in all respects." Friedrich Weninger, Vice-President, Lenzing AG. 

In the coming months, we will invariably see organizations implementing mid-course short term adjustments to their long term strategies. Some consider this the opportunity of the 21^st Century; to bring fresh ideas, knowledge, collaborative resources and innovation together in ways that link sustainability, with opportunities for sustainable economic growth. 

David Basson, President of Greensource Organic Company, views sustainability as “the competitive advantage to the slowing economy.”  “Sustainability is front and center on consumer’s minds right now, with high energy costs being a primary focus of the current Presidential elections.”

“We are seeing a tighter economy; consumers are looking for value and shopping at stores that they had not previously frequented.”  He noted a recent trip where he observed many high - end cars in a Walmart parking lot, he sees this as an enormous opportunity for Mass Market retailers.

While the current economic slowdown is not affecting Greensource fiber strategies, David Basson noted that pricing is still a large factor. As a vertical supplier he stressed the importance of long term relationships in his supply chain, as being “key to being able to service his customers through any economic challenges that may occur.”

Brian Powell, Director Sales & Operations-West for YKK USA, is optimistic about sustainability for the YKK brand. While foreseeing a potential definitive economic ‘downturn’ for the next year to eighteen months, “YKK understands that customers are resilient and will support the brands that can differentiate their product selections bringing added value such as sustainable designs/materials.” YKK is looking long term, and will move forward with sustainability. “YKKs culture is rooted in sustainability, we will continue to invest and build products cradle to cradle from recycled and or organic materials because we believe that profitability is synonymous with being sustainable.”

Patagonia is a brand that has successfully created long term brand value and stakeholder loyalty by considering the environmental and social impacts of their supply chain and products. Levi Straus & Co. recently reported that the current economic slowdown “is not hindering any product initiatives or other work LS&CO is doing in this (sustainability) area.”

"Marc Gunther, Senior Writer Fortune Magazine, who writes about the impact of business on society, with a focus on environmental issues, says “that this turmoil in the capital markets can't be good for the sustainability movement.” however, “if nothing else the economic slowdown is a huge distraction. But this will pass, eventually, and then there is no way that companies, and consumers, are going to be able to ignore sustainability"

"Walmart remains committed to Sustainability," according to Walmart spokeswoman Shannon Frederick; “At Walmart, we believe that being environmentally friendly and running a good business go hand in hand during times of economic prosperity as well as during tough economic times like our customers are currently experiencing. We remain committed to our sustainability-focused goals to be supplied 100% by renewable energy, to create zero waste, and to sell products that sustain our resources and the environment. All along we have said that we believe families should have access to affordable environmentally-friendly products. And we're committed to making sure our customers don't have to choose between a more sustainable product and one they can afford.”

How might the economic slowdown affect consumer purchasing behavior? Natural Marketing Institute recently reported that consumers state higher purchases of “Natural” versus “Organic” foods and beverages. “This is driven by a wide range of factors; levels of understanding, availability, price, and perceived benefits.”  Will we see this trend from organic to ‘natural’ (sustainable) in the fiber market?

As the impacts of a slowing economy are felt, companies that can adapt quickly to the 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 a more localized and regionalized supply chain versus one that is globalized.

Economically tough times of the past yield us some insight to forthcoming possible actions; Retailers may sharpen margins and work towards leaner inventories; this will trickle down the supply chain. Brands and retailers may be less willing to make long term commitments at least for the short term until the rising economic tide has passed. Consumers will invariably spend less money while at the same time looking for products with added brand value, and consumers will shift to purchasing practical-no frills basics, this includes upcoming holiday gift purchases.

It is clear that companies who can strategize to thrive during this time, will no doubt be well situated for long term sustainable economic development and growth.

Copyright(C) 2008 Mowbry Communications Limited

Will an Economic Slowdown Affect Organic Consumer Purchasing Behavior?

The sales volume of organic products, which had been growing at 20 percent a year in recent years, slowed to a much lower growth rate in the last few months, according to the Nielsen Company, a market research firm.

“Organics continue to grow and outpace many categories,” the Nielsen Company concluded in an October report. “However, recent weeks are showing slower growths, possibly a start of an organics growth plateau.”

For the four-week period that ended Oct. 4, the volume of organic products sold rose just 4 percent compared with the same period a year earlier.

If the slowdown continues, it could have broad implications beyond the organic industry, whose success spawned a growing number of products with values-based marketing claims, from fair trade coffee to hormone-free beef to humanely raised chickens. Nearly all of them command a premium price.

While a group of core customers considers organic or locally produced products a top priority, the growth of recent years was driven by a far larger group of less committed customers. The weak economy is prompting many of them to choose which marketing claim, if any, is really important to them.

Among organic products, those marketed to children will probably continue to thrive because they appeal to parents’ concerns about health, said Laurie Demeritt, the president and chief operating officer of the Hartman Group, a market research firm for the health and wellness industry. But products that do not have as much perceived benefit, like processed foods for adults, may struggle.

Theresa Marquez, the chief marketing executive for Organic Valley, which sells primarily dairy products, said she was not worried about core customers because they were so committed to buying organic.

“I’m not sure the periphery — those that purchase perhaps only four or so times a month — will break the industry,” she said in an e-mail conversation after the convention. “But I am concerned that those periphery customers are important to the growth of the industry and without them, organic growth is sure to go flat.”

Organic Valley’s sales have slowed in the last four months, in part because of price increases, company officials said.

Robert Atallah, the owner of Cedarlane Foods, which makes organic and natural frozen meals, said his business had slowed in the last 18 months, a problem he attributed to increased competition and the economy. He said that he believed a newly developed line of products could help sales but cannot convince buyers for grocery chains to commit.

“The morale of buyers is so low, they don’t want to buy anything,” he said. “It’s a sick feeling all the way around. People don’t know if their job is going to be there.”

But others said they had not yet noticed a slowdown and were optimistic that sales would remain steady — or possibly improve — as consumers ate fewer meals in restaurants and devoted more time to cooking. Some store-brand manufacturers said they were thriving as consumers looked for cheaper alternatives to branded products.

Some others said they were cutting back on organic food to save money.Joni Heard, a 29-year-old mother of two who lives in central Florida, said that in the past she would buy organic milk, cheese and produce but had cut back because it was too expensive. “I’m a stay-at-home mom and my husband — you never know if he’s going to be laid off,” she said in an interview, explaining that her husband works in construction. “I can’t justify spending $2 or $3 more for a single item.”

The shift to “NATURAL”

The Natural Marketing Institute recently reported that consumers state higher purchases of “Natural” versus “Organic” foods and beverages. “This is driven by a wide range of factors; levels of understanding, availability, price, and perceived benefits.” *Note: there is not a USDA Standard with third party certification in place for products with a “Natural” identifier as there is for and “Organic” label.

Will we see this trend from organic to ‘natural’ (sustainable) in the fiber market?

Portions originally posted Here by The New York Times;
Budgets Squeezed, Some Families Bypass Organics

By ANDREW MARTIN

 

Patagonia Providing Continuing Ed for Voters

Originally posted here on Smart Solutions for Sustainable Business Blog

by Mary Hunt

All that rock climbing must be what makes Patagonia fearless in the business world.

Today they announced that they'll be using their retail reach to encourage individuals to "Vote the Environment" and are using You Tube to get the message across.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW3V6ThF6dc&feature=user

Casey Sheahan, president and CEO of Patagonia says, "We're using our story-telling and marketing expertise to get this message out during a critical time in our country's history. We know that some customers may be put off by the strong environmental message. Not all our customers are environmentalists. But we are."

That last line is the most telling about Patagonia's brand, they stick to their mission regardless of who may not agree. That's being authentic at at a time when trust in corporations is at an all time low.

Patagonia understands its responsibility to not only make a profit, but to use its advertising and retail distribution connections to provide continuing education to the masses. If repetitive advertising can change a buying behavior, then it also can change a social responsibility behavior. 

It's hard to tell where the .com stops and the .org starts.

Patagonia has already given over $30 million to grassroots environmental activists since 1985. These are mostly micro projects, such as cleaning up a local river or bringing an environmental education class to a small town. Those actions don't make the big press releases, but are the ultimate in consumer engagement. It must be working, they crested $280 million in sales last year.

What I appreciate most is their ability to educate their base on both the micro and the macro issues impacting the planet. To do so they hold their own story up to scrutiny. Their "Footprint Chronicles" provide a retail-lite, Life Cycle Assessment. It falls short on quantified numbers, but does give a nod to the good and the bad of each product. That's a big step towards transparency.

"Vote the Environment" doesn't pick a party, it provides educational links for individuals to use and decide for themself who will do a better job. In the primaries, according to research by the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the environment was #18 on the list of top voter concerns across party lines. With this new initiative, Patagonia is hoping to put environmental issues into the #1 spot.

Contact Mary at [email protected]

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

The Challenge of Ethical Consumerism

The Challenge of Ethical Consumerism originally posted here on Smart Solutions for Sustainable Business

by Coral Rose

The world is shifting, companies will take note and drive sustainable change or they will become part of (what one of my former supervisors deemed) “the Left Behind Series.” In other words, companies not communicating their environmental and social progress will lose out to their competitors that do.

Imagine what would happen if all consumers looked at all their disposable income and decided they were going to only purchase products that supported a sustainable, healthy and socially just world? Imagine what your business would look like if you weren't prepared for that day.

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

With this increased awareness, the question 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?

Looking Up and Down-Stream

·         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 1 garbage can, 70 garbage cans of manufacturing waste were created upstream to make the stuff that is now junk.

                   Source:2006 EPA Facts and Story of Stuff

(Read that last bullet point again. From the source of the product through the sale-use, disposal and or reuse it takes 70 times the resources to produce that one can of garbage! That's a bad ROI - Return on Investment or ROJ Return on Junk, any way you look at it.)

Jared Diamond in, "What's Your Consumption Factor"? expands that “1 can” to its worldly impact, "The average rates at which people consume resources like oil and metals, and produce wastes like plastics and greenhouse gases, are about 32 times higher in North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia than they are in the developing world.”

When we talk to consumers about greening up their life, usually it's in terms of what they can do after the fact or "downstream" from their point of contact, i.e. bringing down the size of their 1 personal can of trash. How do you think they'll react when they know that 70 more cans were created prior to reaching them? Will they get angry, or will they just give up?

Today, the majority of products' environmental and social impacts are hidden from our view. Consumers don't ask because they really don't know to do so, or perhaps they don’t want to know what's behind the curtain - either way, with more awareness, Ethical Consumerism is on the rise. It's a movement based on purchasing products that have been ethically produced - products that have been made without harming the environment or exploiting individuals and animals.

Defining exactly what is or isn't ethical will be one of the most difficult issues of our economic times.

While many new labels have come to market recently, they have not yet matched the impact of programs such as ENERGY STAR. This is one label that has become a simplified clear choice, but it only represents one aspect of the product's value - low energy.

The acceptance of the labels with the highest recognition in today's market follows closely to what impacts the consumer interests the most, i.e. Energy (personal cost), Recycling (cost and handling issues), USDA Organic, (safe to eat), Fair Trade (safe for global workers). They follow the same path as what makes a company tick – profit, lean-manufacturing, safety and happy workers. [SMaRT covers all four areas] 

Does it Pay for Business to Be Ethical?

According to a recent study reported by the Wall Street Journal, moving your company to embrace more environmentally and socially responsible practices-that are third party certified would be a good investment. Green consumers may be willing to purchase unethically produced products, but at a steep discount.

The return on investment and profits of companies in the 21st Century are clearly rooted in social responsibility as noted in these results:

Reward and Punishment

What are consumers were 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” 

A recent survey by BBMG indicated that 35% of all Americans have avoided a product because of a company’s practices. “People may not pay more for green products, but they may punish products and companies perceived as not socially or environmentally responsible.” Andrew Winston.

With the rise of social media including blogging, if you're lucky, your consumers will punish you by not buying the product. If you're unlucky, they'll punish you by putting up a bad review on the Internet that will follow your company and the product around for decades.

What Now?

Sustainability is becoming less "optional" and is already becoming a necessary part of every business strategy.

So, how will we conduct business in the 21st Century where the consumer-becomes a conservative-ethically minded conscious-consumer and actually practices the art of buying and spending less?

The competitive advantage of the 21st Century has arrived, be aware, educate yourself and your teams

formulate eco-strategies to save energy, lean up waste, stop the pollutants and take care of  workers producing your products. Those are the top areas that will resonate with consumers.

What else can you do?

1.) Not only understand but, “own” your product's life cycle. This is a mindset shift at the design level. Lifecycle includes understanding and owning the environmental and social impacts along the supply value chain.

2.) Choose products that can be authenticated to the source. Independent Third Party Certification of Accredited Standards e.g. SMaRT, Organic, Fair Trade, etc.

3.) Educate your purchasing agents, consumers and investors. Focus on energy saved, waste reduced, pollutants eliminated and workers rights issues. Be prepared to link to a source that can prove all of the above statements and tell the whole story across the supply chain. Note both the successes and the places you have to improve. Talking up the good and leaving out the bad is ok when talking about your family, but not your products. Truth and proof is the new marketing mantra.

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

If you have a plan in place you will have the 21^st Century edge.

Write Coral at [email protected]

We welcome your comments.