Discussion - Blog & Discussion - FashionNetAsia.com

SUSTAINABILITY – ‘NO’ IS NOT AN OPTION.

There's nothing new about sustainability. What is new is the extent to which it has become better understood and accepted. No longer just a fine-sounding ideal put out by fringe elements of the ‘green’ movement. Instead, it has developed into mainstream business thinking, to the point where it has become an integral part of the commercial process involving organizations great and small.

For example, the well-known UK-based retailer, Marks & Spencer (M&S), has mandated sustainability considerations be applied throughout their entire supply-chain. It is referred to as Plan A. There is no Plan B because failure is simply, ‘Not an option’.

However, although sustainability is widely acknowledged, its full implications are typically not so widely understood. Indeed, many who are familiar with the word might have difficulty defining it precisely.

During the recent Fashion Access September exhibition in Hong Kong (which ran September 28 – 30, 2010) sustainability was the topic under review at a half-day Workshop, organized by Prime Source Forum and conducted by Derek Binns, Managing Director of UK-based DBL Consultants.

Binns offers an easy-to-understand definition of sustainability in a business environment.

“Sustainability means that an item has been produced in a way that maintains the planet’s resources rather than depleting or destroying them. In practice this signifies that a company is implementing good environmental and social standards that can be maintained in a commercial framework.”

Binns explained that his main client base were among the garment and apparel industries. The precise wording would likely vary depending on location, language and industry sector, but the overall concept would remain unaffected.

Digging a little deeper into sustainability Binns said, “It’s two things: it’s Fairtrade, essentially about people and production standards, and the Environment, covering issues like climate change, pollution, animal welfare, etc.

Having just offered a simple definition of sustainability Binns then admitted, “It can get very complicated after that because so many bodies and organizations get involved. There’s the Fairtrade Foundation, and FLO, the certification and accreditation body. There are others working on organic production, like WRAP.

Many fashion companies, especially the larger ones and those operating internationally, now have a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) department and have developed a strategy to look at addressing these issues.

Binns pointed out, “It is important to understand that, to be meaningful, any sustainability initiative must extend across the entire brand and at all points in the supply chain of that brand. It’s a brand-wide, not a product, programme.

“There exists the fact that some brands select just a few products within the brand range to act as ‘halo’ products while ignoring the rest.”

There are many reasons a company might inaugurate a sustainability programme but two of the most common are:

Because the company believes it is the ‘right’ thing to do

Because there is external pressure(s) from such as NGOs, the media, potential or existing buyers of the company’s goods or services, even shareholders.

Well, you could probably add a third – namely, a combination of both the above.

CALL IN THE HIRED HELP

The next step is that you have to do something practical about it. “I’d say, ‘call in the consultants”, Binns remarked lightly as he conceded there were many to chose from and most would concentrate on certain industrial sectors.

Those consultants, apart from being familiar with the various official and unofficial organizations, would have you look at your supply chain as a whole, from raw materials onward, and then look to see what is realistic and ‘do-able’. Individual companies set standards based on the company’s perception of what it is capable of. Obviously, these bench marks must be realistic (you can always add to them or raise the bar higher at a later stage).

Generally though, as Binns points out, the programme should be guided by the Four P’s:

People

Planet

Prosperity and, what most businesses would probably look at first…

Profits!

When it comes to the point of actually implementing a programme it’s time to look at the Five R’s:

Reduce

Reuse

Repair

Repurpose and, wait for it ……

Raise the issues.

The last item, Raise the Issues, is what turns a somewhat well-meaning but hazy theory into a practical programme as more companies enter, adding their own experience and criteria.

Some may require a bit of ‘arm twisting’, viewing it as an extra cost on already tight margins. But, as Binns points out, whilst today sustainability is indeed a cost, it is not an extra cost. Indeed, it is far more likely to become an extra cost if a sustainability programme is not initiated. Sustainability has become an integral part of sourcing decisions.

Sustainability is simply Good Business.

RISK IS ALWAYS PRESENT

A sustainability programme does cost money. Anything involving People, the Planet, and Prosperity, and is going to show up somewhere in the bottom line (the Profit) of any business. But it’s a two-way thing: you can enhance your reputation or risk it. It’s as simple as that.

A company like Nike, for example, carries enormous risks: the length and variety of the links in its supply chain stretches across continents, cultures and legal frameworks. ‘Exposes’ in the media, or negative charges from NGOs, etc. can quickly turn into product boycott campaigns. These charges may be without any foundation whatsoever, but they still have to be dealt with as though they were true in every detail.

The process is on-going. Using Nike again as an example – for it was one of the first really big global brands to become involved – remains open to all manner of charges, such as child labour and exploitation of workers in factories making Nike products. Again, these charges may be without justification but they have to handled as though they are fully warranted.

The failure to act could be catastrophic – and that’s no exaggeration if there’s a chance that it could lead to consumer resistance developing against Nike products. Not only could Nike lose the sale, that sale would likely go to a competitor’s brand.

So Nike, along with many (most) large brands, need to be constantly aware of the risk and importantly, be able to operate a programme whenever a ‘red light’ flashes.

A sustainability programme is not a ‘one-off’ thing: it’s on-going, the risk of something, anything, popping up is always present.

RUMBLE IN THE JUNGLE

SUSTAINABILITY – THE MEGA-TREND BANGING ON YOUR DOOR

QUESTION. WHO’S CHECKING THE TRENDS