2Sustain

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…)

Last month, the athletic apparel company PUMA announced its first “environmental profit and loss statement.” PUMA’s CEO Jochen Zeitz explained the decision by insisting that, in order to remain profitable, companies must integrate into their business models the true costs of relying on nature.

PUMA’s move is an example of “corporate ecosystem valuation,” the process of businesses making strategic decisions by assigning a financial price to both ecosystem degradation and the services that ecosystems provide. For example, clean water and forests provide services like erosion control, CO2 absorption, and food.

But, why would companies consider adding a value to resources like water or timber? After all, these are not line items an analyst typically finds on a balance sheet. Data from the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) tells part of the story: (more…)

The Sportlifestyle company Puma wants to enhance transparency and improve social and working conditions in its supply chain, and so the company is going to provide training about sustainability reporting to its strategic suppliers.

Puma says 20 of its strategic suppliers  –which account for more than two thirds of all Puma products – will receive GRI-certified training on transparent measurement and reporting of their sustainability performance using the GRI G3 Guidelines. The training, part of  the Global Action Network for Transparency in the Supply Chain program (GANTSCh), will be conducted by GRI Certified Training Partners, and during the reporting process, the suppliers will be supported by regional sustainability consultants.

The training is scheduled to start in 2010, and the suppliers’ first sustainability reports are expected to be released in 2011/2012. (more…)

Last month, the Sportlifestyle company Puma introduced an innovative sustainable packaging and distribution system that the company says will offer significant reductions in waste and CO2 emissions, compared to traditional product packaging, such as shoe-boxes and apparel polyethylene bags.

Puma partnered with designer Yves Behar, of San Francisco based fuseproject, to rethink the way the millions of pairs of shoes that it sells each year are packaged. Ultimately, Behar designed a “Clever Little Bag,” replacing the cardboard shoebox with a re-usable shoe bag. Although it lacks the structure of a box, Puma says the bag adequately protects each pair of shoes –from the factory until the consumer takes them home.

Naturally, less packaging requires fewer raw materials and less use of water and energy to produce. Using the bag instead of a box also means there’s less weight to ship and less waste for disposal.

According to Puma, the “Clever Little Bag” will reduce water, energy and diesel consumption on the manufacturing level by more than 60 percent per year. It will also save 500,000 liters of diesel during transport. (more…)