Written by guest blogger: Emma Blackmore - Researcher, Sustainable Markets Group
IIED - International Institute for Environment and Development www.iied.org
Consumers today are confronted with a growing array of certification labels – from organic and Fairtade to Rainforest Alliance and Starbucks’ CAFÉ Practices. The market for certification is growing: in general sales are increasing and new products are entering the certified market and some certification schemes are also entering the mainstream.
Certification is often proposed as a means to avoid the traps associated with low and volatile commodity prices, environmentally unsustainable farming practices and poor market access. But IIED’s new report demonstrates that the costs and benefits of these schemes vary greatly, and certification may have little to offer the poorest producers.
It’s important for retailers, manufacturers and consumers, as well as NGOs, to fully understand the opportunities and limitations of certification for embedding sustainability into the supply chain and improving the lives of small producers.
We reviewed several certification schemes in a study that focused on coffee, tea and cotton produced in China, Vietnam, Indonesia and India. The Asian settings are interesting because they are dominated by small-scale production systems, where economic and agricultural opportunities are often quite limited, but are also important sources of a number of commodities – particularly tea and cotton.
Schemes such as Rainforest Alliance, UTZ Certified and CAFÉ Practices offer no minimum prices, no guaranteed premiums and do not aim to address price volatility and inequity in the value chain, though they are less bureaucratic than other schemes and do help to connect small-scale farmers to markets. These schemes are associated with actors with considerable market power (Kraft Foods, Sara Lee and Starbucks respectively). They are not as strong on social criteria, and their basic aim is not to transform inequitable trading relations.
Other schemes include organic and Fairtrade labels, both of which have different emphases and costs and benefits. While organic labelling schemes are likely to create environmental benefits, the social and economic benefits are less clear, particularly where no co-investment or support from other players in the value chain is forthcoming. The conversion periods associated with transition to organic agriculture can be challenging, as it can take three to five years to convert, and some farmers may benefit from a safety net such as Fairtrade certification in the meantime. The social or economic benefit of organic may quickly be eroded by buyers or customers pushing for lower prices, expecting the farmers to carry the financial and technical risks of compliance.
Though Fairtrade certification can act as an important safety net by guaranteeing minimum prices for poor farmers, Fairtrade premiums have fallen in real terms over time and will need to be adjusted to make any significant different to the livelihoods of small-scale farmers.
For small scale farmers, the benefits of certification can include long-term relationships with buyers and therefore potentially better returns, and greater negotiating power in schemes – such as Fairtrade – that require farmers to form democratic producer organisations. But there are challenges to being organised and in some cases farmers may be suspicious of group formation.
Certification can also promote improved farm practices, better quality produce, and training and other opportunities for farmers. Certification can mean improved access to information, training and support – either from donors, NGOs, private sector players such as exporters, government or certification bodies themselves.
But it is unlikely that all farmers will be able to benefit from certification.
Farmers have to absorb the lion’s share of the costs of certification – both direct costs such as certification fees, and indirect ones, such as the costs of establishing the structures needed for traceability. Farmers with larger asset bases who are already producing quality products are better placed to meet certification requirements. For many farmers certification is simply too costly, certification may therefore be a driver of rural differentiation which serves to improve the livelihoods and market opportunities of farmers who are not the poorest. Finding ways to reduce the costs of certification for small-scale farmers is vital. IFOAM’s participatory guarantee system, for example, is a cheaper alternative to conventional verification systems.
Our study concludes that it is unlikely that any certification scheme will emerge as a clear pro-poor winner or the best and only option for firms who wish to embed sustainability in their supply chains. While certification can be an important part of a toolkit for sustainability risk management and ethical consumerism, it’s important to recognise the exclusive nature of certification and its limited market coverage. It’s important for other value chain players to support certification attempts as well as for certification bodies to find more affordable ways for small-scale farmers to get certified, and stay certified.
Given the special focus this month on the Industry Integrity work at Textile Exchange, here is a brief update on our recent work.
The standards
The Content Claim Standard, or CCS, is currently in review. This standard will function as a chain of custody standard, able to support claims being made about the amount of a given material in a final product. The CCS will remain source neutral, meaning it will accept any type of raw material. The CCS may be built into other voluntary standards to provide the chain of custody element. The standard is being reviewed as part of the TE-OIA Materials Traceability Working Group, or MTWG. The CCS task group, organized by the MTWG, includes 140 members from every part of the industry.
We are currently working to revise the OE standards to become the Organic Content Standard, or OCS. The next version will apply to all organic fibers; it will no longer be limited to organic cotton. Like the present version, the OCS will function as a chain of custody standard only, without social, environmental, or chemical restriction in processing. The OCS will couple the CCS with organic farm certification and final product labeling. The OCS will also be reviewed by a MTWG task group, similar to the CCS task group.
We are also working on version three of the Global Recycle Standard, GRS v3. This standard is being reviewed by an International Working Group of certification and standards professionals. The GRS v3 will apply to any recycled material in the supply chain of any product. The group is working to update the standard to address chemical use, incorporate the CCS, and ensure the standard is as effective and efficient as possible for full product claims.
Another standard in development is the Recycled Content Standard, or RCS. This standard will function very similarly to the OCS, by pairing the CCS with a raw material recycled certification, rather than the organic farm certification. The RCS will apply to all recycled materials and will be reviewed by a MTWG task group as well.
If you would like to be involved in any of our work involving standards development, please contact Anne Gillespie for more information. (link to – Anne@TextileExchange.org)
Education and outreach
A Regional Integrity Workbook Series is being produced as a joint project between the Farm Engagement and Industry Integrity teams at Textile Exchange. The workbooks for India, South America and Africa will look at each area and provide information on the structure of farming and manufacturing, the way certification works, and the impact of government schemes and regulations. The purpose of the series is to identify the specific challenges of certification in each area and present possible solutions.
In the next few weeks, we will be present at a few TE events providing additional information about Integrity in the textile supply chain. Find out more information about our seminars at NC State and Dhaka, Bangladesh on the events page. (link to events page)
We are thankful for the support from our members and others industry stakeholders; this work would not be possible without you. Whether your company is just beginning to develop a strategy for Integrity or you already have one in place, Textile Exchange and the Industry Integrity team can provide tools and resources to help.
Written by: Anne Gillespie - Director of Industry Integrity, Textile Exchange
The other day I stepped in a puddle of water in my sock feet and I was instantly and profoundly overwhelmed by how quickly it happens and how long it takes for my sock to dry. It seems grossly unfair that such a quick, innocent oversight could result in such an annoying and long-lasting result.
The same is true with integrity: after just one, seemingly small, 'lapse' in diligence, the next thing you know your whole order of organic cotton t-shirts can no longer be sold as organic, or a publicity crisis erupts over invalid recycled content claims, or worse. The scale of the problem seems enormous relative to the issue that caused it; why should one missing transaction certificate be a problem? Or the sewing factory’s certification that lapsed two months earlier? Who knew such small things could be so important?
Ignorance is not an excuse. If you step in a puddle, the sock is going to get wet.
Let’s use some real-world examples and take a closer look at why you are responsible:
- Missing transaction certificate (TC): If you are working with a standard that requires a transaction certificate (eg: OE 100/Blended, GOTS, GRS), then you should be requesting and receiving a transaction certificate with every shipment of certified goods you receive. Without the TC, you have no way to ensure the standard has been met at all points along your supply chain. The goods could have been confused, or even deliberately swapped, with other goods, or some of the conditions of the standard may not have been met (eg: social and/or environmental). If you do not have the TC for your goods, then you cannot use the logo of the standard, and may be vulnerable if the materials or production method of your product is called into question, much worse than a wet sock.
- Lapsed certification: In order for a company to produce and sell goods certified to a given standard, they must be inspected by a third-party certification body, usually once a year. Once they have passed the inspection, they are issued a ‘Scope Certificate’ (SC), valid until a certain date. Each company receiving certified goods is responsible for verifying the seller is qualified. This means reviewing the SC’s on a regular basis to ensure they are valid. A simple annual calendar reminder may be all you need. If the sewing factory’s certification has lapsed, it may be as innocent as forgetting to schedule a re-inspection or as serious as a major violation of the standard which has resulted in temporary suspension of their certification. Whether the reason is small or large, you are vulnerable; you may be getting fraudulent TC’s from this factory or none at all.
As daunting as all this checking sounds, it’s necessary. If you are not diligent in these issues, then you could be a victim of greenwashing, or an unwitting perpetrator. Certification definitely adds cost and complexity to the process of making products, but until we have full supply chain transparency, and full diligence and integrity by everyone involved, we need the assurance given by third party certification.
Fortunately Textile Exchange is here to help you. We currently have the Essential Guide to Certification and are in the process of expanding this to The Essential Series that will give detailed and clear information about the certification process, the roles and responsibilities of each player, and examples of the documentation involved. Look for it later this month.
For the first time, Textile Exchange has decided to charge $50 for the Executive Summary of our 2011 Farm & Fiber Report. In the past, we have always charged $400 USD for the full report and provided the Executive Summary at no charge.
Every year, our report has become more and more robust. With a rapidly changing landscape in organic cotton production, the report provides reliable information to help companies make decisions. The full report is a valuable aspect of membership and we are proud of the high quality content, in-depth interpretation, and valuable insight the full report provides. As with anything, there are costs associated with distributing the report and packaging it in an accessible format. We realize that there is a fine line we walk as a nonprofit dedicated to accelerating positive change in the textile industry between providing heavily researched and vetted reports, tools, and publications for free and determining how to finance future research and reports by charging a fixed price. To more sustainably support the development of the Farm & Fiber Report, we had two options. One option was to decrease the amount of information provided in the Executive Summary, in order to encourage more people to buy the full report. The second option was to maintain, even increase the amount of valuable information in the Executive Summary and provide it at a minimum cost to lower the threshold of access to in-depth information.
We are thankful for years of support from our members and from organizations like ICCO, without them, the report would not happen. Through their support, we are able to produce a great deal of information at no cost. Resources like Making Informed Choices, FastFacts Guides, and an upcoming revision of the Essential Guide to Certification allow small, huge, and in-between companies access to information we hope will equip and inspire them to accelerate sustainable practices in the textile value chain. We are so proud of our work, and humbled by such generous supporters.
Do you have questions about how we spend the money we receive?
Look through our Annual Reports here: http://textileexchange.org/about-us/annual-reports
Do you have time, money or ideas to empower or improve our work?
Please let us know by sending an email to Info@TextileExchange.org.
Perhaps more than you think!
The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) defines organic agriculture as:
“... a production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems and people. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects. Organic agriculture combines tradition, innovation and science to benefit the shared environment and promote fair relationships and a good quality of life for all involved.”
IFOAM also developed four http://www.ifoam.org/about_ifoam/principles/index.html of production (health, ecology, fairness, and care) which outline the holistic nature of organic agriculture including socio-economic as well as ecological wellbeing. IFOAM explains how the principles of organic agriculture serve to inspire the organic movement in its full diversity and declare that “Production methods, which violate human rights, cannot be certified as organic”.
In reality, organic certification focuses on the ecological practices and organic status of the land, not the social side of the production system outlined in the IFOAM principles. As a result, organic certification has become recognised as an ‘environmental’ standard only; and the social ethos behind it has been weaker in terms of understanding and recognition.
Photo: Kyurgizstan organic cotton farmers completing production records, BioFarmers Group
There are a number of points I’d like to make about the social side of organic production. First, many of the requirements behind organic certification depend upon farmers achieving a degree of social cohesion (unlike a purely commodity-marketed product which doesn’t generally require farmers to work together to trade). It will come down to the values and practices of the producer group, and – most importantly - to their financial stability, as to how well the social principles of organic become part of the DNA.
It will also depend on the history and starting point of the organisation or ‘project’. In the early days, organic production was seen by NGOs as a tool to improve livelihoods in developing countries. NGOs and financial donors incorporated social criteria into the framework of their project development and their funding would be subject to this criteria being met. Of course, the ultimate goal is for producer groups to become independent of donors and NGOs but still manage to achieve social standards, ideally within a co-relational bond with their value chain partners.
From my understanding and experience, the better established organic cotton producer groups (of which there are many) are delivering social benefits on the ground. They have developed robust internal social standards and ways of measuring them. Many are using their certification framework (i.e. Internal Control Systems) to roll out and check on ‘compliance’. Others will be certified Fairtrade as well as organic; either to provide best practice guidance internally, and/ or to achieve added value in the marketplace and for their customers.
The biggest concern for producers wanting to deliver their social standards is being able to pay for it. Building capacity and enforcing social policies requires financial investment. This investment needs to be a shared concern between the producer groups and their market partners. A ‘pro-poor’ agenda – one that enables farmers to take responsibility for their own (and their communities) socio-economic development and wellbeing – depends upon farmers being able to cover costs of production and have something left over to invest in education, health, housing, and other social services. Currently the social side of rural development is too heavily subsidised by NGOs and donors, rather than met through market mechanisms and recognition of these indirect costs and benefits.
However there is room for optimism, IFOAM provide a sound basis for ensuring organic production is socially as well as ecologically focussed. Whether compliance needs to be better audited through third party certification or through a deeper level of intimacy between value chain players is a great subject for debate. The former may be necessary before the more mature status of partnership and voluntary recognition of shared responsibility can be achieved.
Thank you for listening. We would like to hear what you think! Please share your thoughts or write in to us with your questions and comments.
Provided by Skunkfunk
We have come a long way since we started back in the late nineties. We started small, with just a line of t-shirts and when we had a complete collection fully designed by us, we were still manufacturing it all in the Basque Country - where there is not much textile industry. We were doing it all by ourselves and this is how we learned the business, as none of the three people on board back then had any design or textiles background.
“We did it because we didn’t know it was impossible”
Mikel Feijoo, Skunkfunk’s founder and president.
SKUNKFUNK was born in nature and has grown on a non-stop journey through international urban landscapes. The brand is absolutely inspired by the all-green Basque nature but, at the same time, it integrates details from really far away. A global and local vision combined. A perfect balance between international citizenship and strong local identity.
We manufactured the prototypes with our friends’ help, searched for materials in European fabric and trim fairs, and transported all of the products from one place to another along the value chain: from the cutting factory to embroidery, printing, sewing, and finishing – all small factories, most of them cooperatives. There we were, back and forth with long production lead times and lots of headaches. As quantities grew, we moved to Southern Spain, Morocco, and eventually to Turkey. It was not so much about better manufacturing prices but more about larger capacity and timing.
By 2004 we had already set foot in Hong Kong and, from there we moved on to China. There we found a completely different approach to manufacturing: big factories in massive production areas in the endless towns of southern China. We also realized the impact our consumerism and their manufacturing practices had on both people and the planet. It was shocking, yet exciting, to see the factory of the world.
After a few initial bad experiences with buying houses, we learned the benefit of working in direct contact with the factories. We regularly visited them and had our own control of our supply base.
That was also how we started sourcing materials that we considered more sustainable, and we also met people developing new techniques such as dry dying, saving tons of clean water… Step by step, we were approaching a new way of understanding and making fashion.
As early as 2004, we started using fibers such as BAMBOO, SOYA, HEMP, FLAX, MODAL, ORGANIC COTTON, and later on, RECYCLED FIBERS. But that was our first contact with this kind of sourcing and, as we kept on learning, we realized sustainability in textiles is a highly complex matter… For example, we learned that BAMBOO is not such a sustainable fabric since the fiber is extracted and developed chemically, that SOYA has been linked to deforestation in some areas and its production processes have such a lack of transparency, we could not be sure of its sustainability.
This journey is a constant learning process; that’s also how we understand sustainability: an active journey that leads to excellence with a lot of passion and some hard efforts in between.
As we went deeper in this sustainability issue we realized it had to be mainstreamed along the company for it to be successful. We searched for help within organizations that had been working on sustainability and textiles for a while, such as Textile Exchange, people who, just like us, think that sustainability needs to become part of our core business.
And so we went back to the meeting rooms to get everyone in the company involved making the different departments hands on in order for us to make significant progress.
Green is our color and our approach to fashion. ACT IN GREEN! is our motto and it expresses both our sustainability vision and our participatory action philosophy.
We have grown even closer to our clients, and our aim is to be part of their lifestyle. We share our vision with them and share what we know, empowering the final consumer to make change happen. We want to provide people with tools to make informed choices, fostering in this way a more sustainable textile industry.
Apart from having a priority of integrating environmentally preferred raw materials in our collection, the company also put emphasis on bringing changes to the way we consume, creating concepts of durable and multiFUNKtional items in an effort to increase their lifecycle. Skunkfunk style is authentic and doesn’t follow ephemeral trends that perish in few months; we would rather create a personal look and break the rules imposed by fast-consuming fashion.
Skunkfunk is always looking for new green actions and change catalysts. The struggle goes on.
Textile Exchange would like to thank our first 1,000 followers on Twitter. Without your support, we wouldn't be here today! THANK YOU!
If you weren't one of the first 1,000 we invite you to be among the first of the next 1,000! Follow us at Twitter.com/TextileExchange today.
By Liesl Truscott
One of the best ways for the world to manage textile waste is to work on society’s ‘attitude’ to clothes and clothes consumption. Imagine if textile companies could not only manage waste more effectively but radically change the way we value and treat our clothes.
Imagine if we, particularly in the West, could go from:
- FAST fashion ... to ... SLOW fashion
- A search for the cheapest price (often badly made and not capable of withstanding more than a couple of washes)... to ... a considered purchase (that might cost a little more but is admired for its craftsmanship and cared for so it lasts longer ... maybe even mended to make it last longer still....?)
- ‘Made by Unknown’ ... to ... a meaningful and ethical choice (such as a garment made from organic cotton grown by a farmer cooperative, where the community is benefiting from responsible trade and safe and healthy agriculture).
- 'Wear it once' ... to ... 'Improving with age' (value the character it acquires and memories it holds)
- 'Throw it away when [for example] the kid has grown out of it' (which they tend to do in a few short months) ... to... 'Extend its life. Pass it down to a friend’s toddler to dribble and wipe goodness-knows-what on!'
The challenge with more-is-less is ‘where’s the business case?’
Well, along with increasingly prohibitive environmental legislation (download our Waste: Fast Facts if you haven’t already) and other drivers to do more with waste and conserve resources, there is a growing ‘culture’ interested in making things to last and making things last. We all need to adapt to life in the 21st century – and find ways to build a viable business where 'less is more'!
What started as a growing interest in ‘retro clothes’ and ‘vintage’, driven by young low income consumers (such as students) in the 90’s has grown into an even more colourful and lucrative affair a decade or so later. Oxfam in the UK simply revolutionised charity shop fashion with their 'loved longer' slogan and by taking 'op shopping' online.
But it's businesses brave enough to use the first 'R' word: Reduce, that are taking us to the next level. Patagonia actually tells their customers “not to buy what they don’t need” and Howies mantra is “Let’s make things that stick around for a long old time”, Katvig bought back the ‘Swap Party’ (a little different from the 1970s version ☺). Last year, the iconic and increasingly green Vivienne Westwood told us all to “give up shopping for at least six months —to keep our landfills from filling up.”
(Image: Snapshot from Anvil's Track My T)
Further examples of innovative business strategies are aimed at changing the way consumers connect to their purchases such as Anvil, Icebreaker, and Mammut-Remei’s tracking tools that take you back to the cotton or sheep your very t-shirt was grown from. These companies have committed relationships with their fiber producers and are making profound improvements on the way supply chains operate – doing business as if people mattered.
There is also a fabulous spin-off industry based on the revival of knitting circles, such as the uber-cool sewing cafe Sweat Shop in Paris. ‘Swishing’ is the new ‘girls night out’ and is probably right up there with E-bay, Facebook, and Twitter in terms of innovation sliding quickly into the everyday. Plus, it plays to the addiction for something new and different, but without the costly ecological price tag. Surely there’s a business opportunity here for fashion companies to lease their clothes, in the same way Ray Anderson of Interface did a few years back with carpet? The business driver here is to make sure it is built to last! And Ray was truly loved for his vision. And quite frankly, how many business leaders – or carpet sellers - are described on the company website as ‘the adored chairman and founder of...’?
Once again it comes down to innovation, leading the pack, and finding ways to turn a challenge into an opportunity. Isn’t that the first rule of smart business? Yet I wonder if business leaders have ever been more challenged by this ‘opportunity’. Finding a way to prosper by using less of the world’s resources and creating a culture of inter and intra-generational care is every businesses responsibility, and everybody’s business now; empowering us all to act as change-agents.
The Slow Movement
Professor Guttorm Fløistad of The World Institute of Slowness explains the philosophy of the slow movement as:
“The only thing for certain is that everything changes. The rate of change increases. If you want to hang on, you’d better speed up. That is the message of today. It could, however, be useful to remind everyone that our basic needs never change. This is given only through slowness in human relations. In order to master changes, we have to rediscover slowness, reflection, and togetherness. There we will find real renewal.”
And if you can find the time... take a read of ‘The Paradox of our Time’ by the 14th Dalai Lama:
We have bigger houses but smaller families;
more conveniences, but less time;
We have more degrees, but less sense;
more knowledge, but less judgement;
more experts, but more problems;
more medicines, but less healthiness;
We've been all the way to the moon and back,
but have trouble crossing the street to meet
the new neighbor.
We build more computers to hold more
information to produce more copies than ever,
but have less communication;
We have become long on quantity, but short on quality.
These are times of fast foods but slow digestion;
Tall men but short character;
Steep profits but shallow relationships.
It's a time when there is much in the window,
but nothing in the room.
How can the outdoor industry do its part?
Written by guest blogger Benjamin Marias
The European Outdoor Group (EOG) http://www.europeanoutdoorgroup.com/ is an association set up to represent the common interests of the European outdoor industry. Part of the EOG’s mission is to provide a common position on sustainability topics for the outdoor industry, which it does via the Sustainability Working Group (SWG) and initiative started in 2008. Thus, the EOG and the SWG work to ensure that the industry is up-to-date on relevant environmental and health and safety issues. Product End-of-Life (EoL) is one of the hot topics. A specific task group (open to all brands, retailers, recyclers, etc. we encourage everyone to actively participate) was created three years ago in order to:
- Understand better the process of what happens next
- Provide and promote cooperative EoL-solutions for the European outdoor industry
- Educate industry and consumers
Thus, four projects have been defined:
1. Better understand the bottlenecks: To identify where the bottlenecks are within the garment recycling industry, as well as the core questions to ask the key players: Retail, Charities, Clothing Recyclers/Collection and Sorting, Yarn Recyclers/Spinning Mills, Brands, and Consumers.
2. Educate and provide information to the consumer: A single page document that can be used by brands/retailers in their consumer communications: The objective is to summarize textile recycling options that are available to the consumer in order to divert as much postconsumer textile waste from landfill as possible (a beginner’s guide to…what might typically happen etc.).
3. Provide information to the industry (brands): A single page document for the industry to use describing the status of EoL, giving statistics, recycling routes and how to contribute. The objective here is to give a clear overview of what options are out there, in Europe and within each European country.
4. Develop EoL indicators though the Index http://www.apparelcoalition.org/. In collaboration with the Outdoor Industry Association and the Sustainable Apparel Coalition our goal is to help companies to establish an EoL program with measurable targets as well as specific communication to the consumer.
All the results of this work will be presented at the next OutDoor Show in Friedrichshafen (July 12-15, Germany). Everybody is welcome to join the discussion and to contribute!
Just a quick reminder, EOG’s role is limited to providing guidance, collective negotiation and the promotion of key issues, as decisions regarding sensitive matters such as manufacturing, positioning or competitiveness, can only be made by companies themselves.
Benjamin Marias
Chair of the SWG EoL Task Group
Coordinator of the Outdoor Sports Valley Sustainability Committee
Co-managing director of AZIMUT INNOVATION
Picture: Benjamin Marias
Written by Charline Ducas, Textile Exchange Sustainable Materials Specialist
Waste
According to the Eco-Index[1], waste encompasses excess non-reusable, non-recyclable raw materials; by-products in processing; excessive, non-reusable, non-recyclable packaging; harmful and hazardous substances used in a variety of processes from extraction and farming. Waste is prevalent throughout the lifecycle of a product.
Sources of Textile Waste
Textile Waste is generated at both pre-consumer as well as post consumers stages.
Pre-consumer waste comes from any excess material created during the steps of material and product manufacturing, e.g. selvage from weaving, fabric from factory cutting rooms, or excess production and unsold items that might normally be disposed of as waste.
Post-consumer waste comes from household resources, for example used apparel or home textile products.
Why is it a concern?
Each year, millions of tonnes of textile waste are discarded, recycled in very low quality products, sent to landfill or incinerated. There are concerning environmental impacts associated with these practices which include:
-
Discarding of valuable textiles raw materials with potential for reuse at a time of increasing scarcity of virgin resources
-
Limited landfill space, in a world with increasing population and consumption patterns
-
Release of greenhouse gases and toxics, in landfills or incineration
-
Increased governments focus on commercial waste and producer responsibility to meet the increased recycling/reuse/prevention targets
These issues are of vital concern to companies in the textile sector, since as the creators of this waste, they are expected to also become creators of the solution. Not only chances of bans on recyclable textiles being disposed of[2]are becoming increasingly likely, but the costs of virgin resources and securing long term business are also rising, rapidly bringing waste strategies high on many companies agendas.
It is therefore important that brands, retailers, and manufacturers develop sound strategies for reducing waste creation but as well for developing solutions for closing the loop.xtiles being disposed of[2] are becoming increasingly likely, but the costs of virgin resources and securing long term business are also rising, rapidly bringing waste strategies high on many companies agendas.
Opportunities resulting from waste minimisation strategies
-
Better resource management
-
Increased efficiencies
-
Cost savings
-
Improved corporate responsibility
-
New business opportunities
-
Stakeholder engagement
Practices to promote: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
The waste hierarchy[3][4] refers to the 3 (or 5) Rs of Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, (Recover and Reject) which classify waste management strategies according to their desirability. The Rs are meant to be a hierarchy, in order of importance. This hierarchy has taken many forms over the past decade, but the basic concept has remained the cornerstone of most waste minimisation strategies.
The aim of the waste hierarchy is to extract the maximum practical benefits from products and to generate the minimum amount of waste, and can be considered in the same way by any actor, from individuals to companies and public sector institutions.
Want to know more?
Look out for our FastFacts on Textile and Product Waste which will be released next week.
Want to share what your company is already doing in this area? We welcome your comments on this blog!
[1] http://www.ecoindexbeta.org/content/lenses
[4] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:312:0003:0030:EN:pdf