Paradox
It's a funny state of things: One where investors complain that ESG data is not standardised; where at the same time companies – and notably their boards – complain that investors do not ask for data in a standardised way. And where the very same companies and boards nonetheless prioritise proprietary measurement systems over any other one for their own supply chains and products. It's a paradox. One that is not efficient, effective, or conducive to impact. A call to leave politics to the side, focus in impact, and standardise, standardise, standardise.
Graphics Traceability System
Authentication and traceability backbone solutions have become a key technology for many a brand to prevent not only product forgery, but also to prove truthfulness of on-and-off product claims. What few realise: product authentication is just one half of a 2-part system (Figure 1) whereby authentication is applied to the product at its point of origin, and a traceability backbone ensures that the product reaches its destination – for example the end consumer – safely and untampered.
Of the close to 500 eco-labels that exist worldwide, just over 100 apply to textiles, according to the Eco Label Index. Behind each label is, or should be, a standard that backs up the claim being made. Given the prevalence of standards, the following questions arise: Why do standards exist? What value do they deliver? What are their limitations? What is ‘best practice’ for standards, their development process? What about the proliferation of standards?
Large corporations now habitually report on their sustainability achievements, have resource efficiency programmes firmly implemented into their operations, and are investing to make their enterprises ‘future proof’. But what needs to happen for SMEs to do the same? After all they make up way over 80% of national economies ...
n this post, I’ll be looking at the CSC Responsible Source standard, which aims very clearly at the issue of (un)ethical, (in)transparent supply chains. The standard exists for 2 very specific area of expertise: precious gems and metals; and man-made fibres and textiles.
India, the largest producer of organic cotton in the world is all set to have an Indian Standard for Organic Textiles (ISOT) of its own. The unique selling proposition (USP) of this standard is that it will cover the life cycle of the cotton fibre right from crop to clothing. This is different to GOTS which is primarily concerned with the growing stage of cotton, and only includes minimum regulations for the subsequent manufacturing stages. From the Indian perspective, GOTS does not permit to maintain traceability and integrity of organic textiles.
It’s not news that there exist many, many labels out there that hope to convey low-risk or sustainability credentials to consumers (B2C) and/or buyers (B2B). Some of these are indeed so specialised, or hidden within the larger context, that indeed few people have seen or taken note of it. One such label is the Greenguard certification, which is focused entirely onto remedying negative health impacts in interior spaces: from furniture, to interior textiles, air filters, adhesives, flooring and floor finishes etc.
Nordic countries have been recognised for their advanced sustainability practices, particularly at a business level. The Nordic Ecolabel is a voluntary certificate 100% made in Scandinavia that was established in 1989 by the Nordic Council of Ministers. The original aim of the label was probably to respond to the needs of the new “green consumer” movement that strengthened in the 80s after the environmentalism wave of the 1970s.
Can we say that modern businesses prefer long-term over short-term? For sure the business environment is more and more rewarding companies that think ahead and do not fail to consider existing or potential risks. What has happened in finance is striking and is based on the concept that long-term benefits outweigh the short-term pain.