In the retail gazette’s article ‘Fashion retailers work towards green future’, dating from August 19th 2011, the following was quoted...
Where and how was 'ethical fashion' invented? Who played key roles in the past? And where are we at and where are we going? A retrospective analysis that also looks into the future.
The term sustainability is applied as the responsibility of enterprises for their impacts on society. In this context sustainability is about the integration of social, environmental, ethical, human rights, consumer concerns and financial performance into business operations and strategy in collaboration with stakeholders, with the aim of: Identifying, preventing and mitigating any possible adverse impacts of business’ actions on the environment and society while maximizing societal benefit.
The KISS principle - Keep it Simple, Stupid. Can it also be applied to the term ‘sustainable fashion’? Can it the concept help us to clear up some of the confusion around the term 'sustainable fashion'? A discussion by Nerida Lennon.
One of the challenges of sustainable fashion is the wording used to define it. We commonly associate adjectives like “sustainable”, “green”, “eco”, “responsible”, “conscious”, “ethical” with the word “fashion”. The question is: are certain words more popular than others? Or are some others nowadays outdated? How do consumer talk about sustainable fashion? And the industry?
In this article a very brief run down of the main varieties of ‘better’ cotton that exist: Cotton made in Africa, Better Cotton Initiative, Organic and Fairtrade cotton, and 2 more generic good practise farming systems.
For most of us within the small professional circles of sustainable fashion, the terms ‘upcycling’, ‘recycling’, and ‘downcycling’ flow aeasy over our lips. However, while there are a few simple definitions of what these terms means – to follow hereafter – the concept demands a bit more attention when drilling down into material streams related to fibres, in particular
Fashion that has been produced by people who work reasonable hours in safe conditions and are paid a living wage.
Definition of 'sustainable' by the London College of Fashion's Center for Sustainable Fashion.
The quality of governance is one of the key ingredients why projects, companies, and even governments fail in their tasks. It is also the key ingredient to achieve results, buy-in and participation. It is for this very reason that good governance was seen early on as one of the fundamental success factors for the Social Labor Convergence Project (SLCP).
Doughnut Economics = An economic system that respects the planetary boundaries as well as the societal attributes of welfare. To create an economic system that works for the humans and the environment around us.
The Manifesto of a Hummingbird: . 13 + 1 ways to make a stance for responsible business and leadership.
The supply chain.
It has been accepted a long-time ago: supply chain is a risk. Or better: a RISK in capital letters.
But also a word that sounds impersonal. Very akin to a factory being a cogwheel in a much larger clockwork. And while the definition of the term does list ‘people’, the focus is very clearly on the idea of it all being a neat system of seamless interactions.
Many of the most important resources our current civilisation depends on – all of them finite natural resources - form part of what historically would have been called ‘The Commons’. And yet, many of them are economically treated as 'income' and not the valuable and finite 'assets' they are. That again is the tragedy of the commons.
Financial accounting is rather ill suited as well as ill equipped to deal properly with a system that has finite natural resources. Else, why would it not record the environmental losses that come with e.g. extracting bauxite? And what about ESG? Well it turns out, ESG is just more of the same (growth) just in a shade of ‘green’. It is for a reason that the Global Materials Footprint has kept growing in alignment with the much coveted GDP growth. Despite all green efforts. ESG – investing in ‘greener’ tech and businesses – is definitely NOT ‘Sustainability’ as we need it.
The influence of decision bias is nothing new when scrutinising corporate governance. And yet: by and large businesses continue to fail to adjust their strategic decision-making processes to become more climate viable. At best they have just barely started on their journey. Why is that? As we look deeper into the corporate discourse on Climate Change, it becomes evident that one of the silent yet crucial culprits behind the climate change inertia lies in the cognitive biases at play in corporate decision making. What are those biases, what do they mean for boards in the context of strategic Climate Change decisions, and what can be done about it?
It is quite astonishing: all the different contexts that the term ‘circularity’ or ‘circular economy’ is being used. They key point mostly is of course the waste reduction promises inherent in the term, and the subsequent lower dependency on finite resources.
But, in addition to reducing waste, carbon – or rather carbon footprint – is a key factor.
Unfortunately, the reality is sobering: taking fashion as example, at best between 3% and 6% of the industry's carbon footprint could be remedied that way.
And even worse: in order to realise the potential, three fundamental hurdles must be addressed. Some efforts are underway, of course, but a steep hill remains to climb.
Nearly a year ago I wrote about how the terminology we use abstracts from the fact that there are living and sentient human beings doing 'supply chain' work. Listening to a recent podcast it dawned on me that language can be just as useful to gloss over the seriousness and impact of scientific facts. And the resulting necessary actions. Climate Change vs Climate Emergency? Green energy vs renewable energy vs clean energy? Hence, some more thinking about the role of language.
While the relevance and criticality of COP26 is hammered home in the global media, the news reporting on COP15, as an effort possibly and reality more important than its Scottish climate conference peer, was rather subdued and unspectacular.
Let’s therefore get the most context-relevant questions straight out of the way: What is COP15? And why are there two COPs? And what has biodiversity to do with it?
Measuring Biodiversity, in terms of baseline (status quo), progress, and deliverable targets, is not a simple thing. Collateral damages are a serious risk.At the same time though, some companies use outcomes of tools, which where never intended to deal at all with biodiversity, as proxy vehicles. This of course raises the question: Where are we with tools, programmes, and measurement systems for biodiversity? Hereafter a look across what I found to be having (some) teeth - also in comparison to the more popular climate change topic. These are: TNFD, SBTN, as well as two management tools that might be helpful, FFFBB and BIA.
Ask: If you are aware of others initatives 'with teeth' as of of writing (November 2021): do let me know and I’d be happy to list them also. Thank you!