2Sustain

Brooks Sports, Inc. released its first corporate responsibility (CR) report earlier this month.

Brooks Sports, parent of leading running brand Brooks and women’s active lifestyle brand Moving Comfort, aptly titled the report Running Responsibly and is using it to:

• highlight the company’s environmental and social performance in 2009 and 2010 and
• outline challenges and key focus areas for the future.

Among the sustainability achievements, Brooks has:

• modified materials used in the manufacture of the vast majority of Brooks shoes. For example, virtually every component of the Cascadia 6 has an environmentally-friendlier feature, such as materials made of recycled content, soy-based foams and water-based inks and adhesives.
• reduced packaging materials needed and waste generated in the manufacture of its shoe boxes.
• reduced the use of hazardous substances in the manufacturing process. I n 2010, Brooks listed 193 chemicals on its restricted substance list and actively tracked 67 of the highest risk substances. All 49 of Brooks’ footwear component and material suppliers, and contract factories have enlisted in its Restricted Substances program to help make Brooks products as safe as possible.

With regard to factory and supplier performance, Brooks: (more…)

Last week, Cotton Incorporated released a first-ever comprehensive life cycle inventory and life cycle analysis of cotton products.

The study, which took two years to complete, takes a holistic and comprehensive view, focusing solely on cotton (and not competitive fibers).

More specifically, the life cycle inventory (LCI) is a quantification of relevant energy and material inputs and environmental release data associated with the production of cotton from cradle-to-gate (fiber) and manufacturing from gate-to-gate (fabric).

The associated life cycle assessment (LCA) models the environmental impact of representative cotton apparel (a knit golf shirt and woven cotton trousers) from the field through to consumer care, use and disposal (cradle-to-grave).

Cotton Incorporated says the peer-reviewed data and assessment methodology will help direct sustainability research efforts for the cotton industry, as well as to aid textile decision-makers in achieving their own sustainability goals.

Data for the cradle-to-gate segment was collected from the three largest cotton producing countries (China, India, and the United States) and reported as a global average. Similarly, the data for the textile processing phase was culled from surveys among representative mills in the four largest textile processing areas (Turkey, India, China, and Latin America) and are also presented as a global average. Data for the cut-and-sew and consumer use phase were supplemented by a range of credible secondary sources.

(more…)

Last week, I discussed how Nike and Puma have pledged to eliminate the release of all hazardous chemicals across their supply chains (and now adidas has made a similar commitment).

It’s too early to know what impact these new initiatives will have on manufacturing costs. But, if making sustainable apparel costs more and those costs are passed on to consumers, how will Nike, Puma and adidas customers react?  A new study from the University of Missouri offers some insights.

Gargi Bhaduri, a doctoral student, and Jung Ha-Brookshire, an assistant professor of textile and apparel management in the College of Human Environmental Sciences at the University of Missouri, surveyed apparel consumers to find out if they were willing to pay a premium for products made using sustainable and ethical methods.

They found that consumers would be willing to pay 15 to 20 percent more for “eco-friendly” products. However, they also found that consumers were also likely to remain skeptical about apparel companies’ claims of transparency and sustainability.

Consumer skepticism of corporate transparency stems from the suspicion that sustainability claims are falsified or exaggerated by apparel companies for use as marketing ploys. In other words, greenwashing persists as a significant, and nagging, problem. Before they buy sustainable apparel, savvy consumers feel the need for assurances such as: (more…)

Earlier this summer, Greenpeace challenged major clothing brands, including Nike, Puma and Adidas, to eliminate the release of all hazardous chemicals across their supply chains.

I’m very pleased to report that within the past month or so, both Nike and Puma have announced significant commitments to “detox.”

Nike, the world’s largest sportswear brand, announced last week that it will eliminate the releases of all hazardous chemicals across its entire supply chain and the entire life-cycle of its products by 2020. In addition, the company has agreed to full transparency about the chemicals being released from its suppliers’ factories and to work toward the widespread elimination of hazardous chemicals from the clothing industry. Nike has said that it will publish its implementation plan within eight weeks. From the company’s press release:

NIKE, Inc. is committed to the goal of zero discharge of hazardous chemicals by 2020.

To make this a reality, NIKE, Inc. will continue phasing out hazardous chemicals in our supply chain and we will accelerate the phase out of the highest priority hazardous chemicals. NIKE, Inc. will continue to work with brands, material suppliers, the broader chemical industry, NGOs and other stakeholders to achieve this goal. We will drive towards innovative solutions for transparency in chemical management disclosure.

We recognize the path to reaching this goal must be through innovation, the application of green chemistry, and broad industry and regulatory collaboration and engagement. NIKE, Inc.’s commitment and investment towards this goal and the dedication to system change is unwavering.

We will work tirelessly to affect system change across the industry towards this goal. This commitment includes sustained investment in moving industry, government, science and technology to deliver on systemic change.

We commit to continue to share what we learn, our approaches and tools and work with others8 in finding new solutions and removing existing barriers, and to report progress towards comprehensive chemicals management.

Puma had already made a similar commitment: (more…)

For years now, sustainability advocates have urged manufacturers to use carbon footprint labels on consumer products. These labels would show the volume of greenhouse gasses emitted during a product’s lifecycle, so that consumers could make more educated choices based on the environmental impact of the products they buy.

And, as a result of these efforts, carbon footprint labels are in use in a few limited areas. For instance, the Carbon Trust has established carbon footprint labels for some products in the UK. (See earlier posts about Walkers crisps and the UK dairy sector, e.g.) But, the idea has never really caught on in the US.

Michael Vandenbergh, environmental law professor at Vanderbilt Law School and director of the Climate Change Research Network, Thomas Dietz of Michigan State University and Paul Stern of the US National Research Council would like to see that change.

In their commentary, recently published in the premier issue of the journal Nature Climate Change, the three argue that adding carbon labels to products has benefits for both consumers and manufacturers alike. Carbon footprint product labels allow consumers to choose a product based on its lower carbon footprint. That, in turn, may influence how businesses produce, package and transport products, leading to even lower carbon emissions. Plus, as I have pointed before, greening the supply chain in these ways can lead to significant financial benefits to companies, as well. (more…)