Design students from across India showed off their fashion collections during two amazing runway shows last night at the LaLit Hotel in Mumbai, India before an enthusiastic crowd of industry leaders, writers and fashion moguls. Some collections featured fabrics made from recovered plastics and cassette tapes while others were handmade of natural fibers with deep textures, amazing hues and incredibly detailed handwork.
All this and more was sponsored by the School of Fashion Technology (Pune, India, www.softpune.com) and DyStar following a day-long, engaging and informative "Green Fashion Conference". See www.cgreenfashion.com for a peek at some of the collections and the agenda. More photos will be posted shortly.
Fashion, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Three collections, in particular, caught my attention. An all-white collection of evening wear from dressy casual to stunning formal was one of the finest I've ever seen and would rival anything from the world's top designers. This collection had the complete attention of the audience from the first model to the very last. "Oh, wow!" was heard over and over again as each piece was presented. We knew the collection must be good when the models themselves were smiling from ear-to-ear and applauding wildly as the designers came on stage to greet the audience.
Next was a Charlie Chaplin-inspired casual collection of skirts, shorts, pants, tops, vests and hats that engaged the entire audience. The models were fitted with Chaplin mustaches and bowler hats, and strutted their stuff up and down the runway mimicking the famous Chaplin walk which was a captivating and amusing change-up from the usually stoic and stiff walk of the models. Again, the applause was enthusiastic and genuine for this unique and fun collection. Any young lady of 14-30 would love to add this line to her wardrobe.
The last collection that really caught my eye was a casual collection of earth toned, cotton woven fabrics in prints and embroidered dresses, pants, skirts and tops which featured a stunning emerald dress with a pleated front - unlike any other I've seen before.
All the collections were unique, very well done and exceeded our expectations but these three truly stood out. The teams of designers were met with raucous applause from all in the audience. In speaking with the judges (which included a former Miss India), they all agreed that these three collections had instant commercial appeal and should be immediately available in the stores.
I know all this because I was there. I was honored to be invited as a keynote speaker for the conference focusing my remarks on some of the future sustainability issues the apparel and textiles industry are likely to face in the near future, and in the next 30-40 years.
What truly impressed me was the commitment expressed by faculty and student presenters to the whole space of eco-friendly and sustainably produced apparel/fashion. It could be argued that "fashion" is not "sustainable" but that rugged clothing might be. Be that as it may, the issue is that these young ladies are trying to find a balance between the current commercial demand for fashionable clothing and the recognized need for a sustainable future.
Another presenter, Gerard de Nazelle, CEO of Polygenta (Mumbai) talked about how his company is using recycled water bottles (PET) and converting them into polyester yarn which is made into fabrics for the apparel and fashion sector. While I'm not a big fan of plastic water bottles, he and his staff are clearly providing a needed and valuable service helping keep all those bottles out of our landfills and reusing them for a valuable purpose. Congratulations to him for setting up a plant in India - from scratch - to make this product!
Among those of us in the dais, and during the ensuing discussions with fellow professionals, we agreed that industry leaders - the spinners, dyers, colorists, chemists and weavers - and at the management and product design level - need to work a little harder and think a little smarter about how we're going to clothe our current and future populations and do so in a sustainable manner.
I'm glad I was invited to participate. I'll now have to plant a number of trees when I return home - in part to celebrate Arbor Day - but also to offset all the CO2 I generated traveling from the USA to India and back.
Sunday, April 7, 2013
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
How Would You Change The World?
Imagine for a moment that you wake up one morning and laying on your bedside table is a Magic Wand, just like you've seen in the Harry Potter movies. Beneath the Wand is a hand-written note:
"I'm leaving this Magic Wand for you to change the world in any way you choose. You have demonstrated your passion for Sustainability and wanting to change the world to be a better place. You've been given five (5) opportunities to do that with this Wand. Be wise in your choices for these will be all you have." You think to yourself, "This can't be. Magic Wands only exist in the movies? Or, do they?"
This probably won't happen to you or me, but if it did .... what would you do? What five things would YOU do to change the world for the better?
I'm reminded of the quote from Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful citizens can't change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
Share your thoughts on how you'd change the world.
"I'm leaving this Magic Wand for you to change the world in any way you choose. You have demonstrated your passion for Sustainability and wanting to change the world to be a better place. You've been given five (5) opportunities to do that with this Wand. Be wise in your choices for these will be all you have." You think to yourself, "This can't be. Magic Wands only exist in the movies? Or, do they?"
This probably won't happen to you or me, but if it did .... what would you do? What five things would YOU do to change the world for the better?
I'm reminded of the quote from Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful citizens can't change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
Share your thoughts on how you'd change the world.
Monday, March 25, 2013
A Sustainablity Choice: Bottled Water or Tap Water?
For the better part of the last 20 years, I've traveled 140-220 night per year in the USA and to 65 other assorted countries. (Yes, I've burned a lot of fuel and I've had a big carbon footprint. I'm sorry - it went with the job. More on that later.) That amount of travel gave me an elite status in several hotel chains and access to "welcome gifts" which included free bottles of water at the front desk, bottles of water next to my bed and in the bathroom or mini-bar, along with high fat cookies or pop corn.
When we lived in Chicago, we'd occasionally buy large jugs of water for the kids' lacrosse and soccer games. (Buying bottled waster was fashionable then and the locals decried the quality of our tap water. I thought it was fine.) I like to read labels. The label on the five gallon jug read: Source: Chicago Municipal Water Supply. What I almost bought was tap water that some enterprising group simply put into a generic water jug and sold for twice the (then) price of gasoline. Tap water! I passed on buying the water. I had big Thermos coolers at home. At the checkout, I couldn't help but notice that the chap next to me had the same water in his cart. I asked him if he knew where the water in the jug came from. He didn't. I suggested he read the label. When he did, his face turned red and he exclaimed: "What? I'm buying tap water? This is a ripoff!" He bought it anyway. P.T. Barnum was right. There's a sucker born every minute.
Do we really need to drink water from the Alps? Or, Italy? Or, Fiji? Or, France? Is Eau du Mineral important? Do I need that water in a glass bottle with a fancy, color-painted label? Glass is heavy. Add in the weight of the water and I wonder what the carbon footprint is for schlepping water from across the seas to my home or restaurant table? I don't buy that water.
New York City is famed for the quality of its tap water. I really like it. It's clean, crisp and tastes good. And, it isn't chlorinated. NYC has one of the most protected water sheds on the planet. When I checked into a hotel two weeks ago in The Big Apple, I politely refused the two bottles of water the front desk clerk tried to give me. And, I told her why I was refusing it. She still insisted I take the bottled water. I still refused. I refuse to contribute to an unsustainable practice of drinking bottled water. If I'm in a location where drinking the water might make me sick, that's another matter. But in most of the USA, I'm happy with tap water.
We need to drink water to keep hydrated. My doctor told me that if I feel thirsty, I'm getting dehydrated and need to drink more water. Do I need bottled water? Or, is the water from the tap OK to drink?
When we lived in Chicago, we'd occasionally buy large jugs of water for the kids' lacrosse and soccer games. (Buying bottled waster was fashionable then and the locals decried the quality of our tap water. I thought it was fine.) I like to read labels. The label on the five gallon jug read: Source: Chicago Municipal Water Supply. What I almost bought was tap water that some enterprising group simply put into a generic water jug and sold for twice the (then) price of gasoline. Tap water! I passed on buying the water. I had big Thermos coolers at home. At the checkout, I couldn't help but notice that the chap next to me had the same water in his cart. I asked him if he knew where the water in the jug came from. He didn't. I suggested he read the label. When he did, his face turned red and he exclaimed: "What? I'm buying tap water? This is a ripoff!" He bought it anyway. P.T. Barnum was right. There's a sucker born every minute.
Bottled water has become a huge, worldwide business. By some estimates, over 200,000,000,000 half-liter water bottles are sold every year. (That's 200 BILLION) So, how many is 200 billion? If you put them end-to-end, that's enough to go from the Earth to the Moon and back - about 40 times. Side-by-side, it's a two-lane road for cars - to the Moon and back. And 80% of those empty bottles end up in the landfill.
Do we really need to drink water from the Alps? Or, Italy? Or, Fiji? Or, France? Is Eau du Mineral important? Do I need that water in a glass bottle with a fancy, color-painted label? Glass is heavy. Add in the weight of the water and I wonder what the carbon footprint is for schlepping water from across the seas to my home or restaurant table? I don't buy that water.
New York City is famed for the quality of its tap water. I really like it. It's clean, crisp and tastes good. And, it isn't chlorinated. NYC has one of the most protected water sheds on the planet. When I checked into a hotel two weeks ago in The Big Apple, I politely refused the two bottles of water the front desk clerk tried to give me. And, I told her why I was refusing it. She still insisted I take the bottled water. I still refused. I refuse to contribute to an unsustainable practice of drinking bottled water. If I'm in a location where drinking the water might make me sick, that's another matter. But in most of the USA, I'm happy with tap water.
If your tap water doesn't taste good, or it isn't healthy, let's fix the problem with the municipal water system. Instead of buying bottled water, you can buy a home water filter which will save you BIG money versus bottled water. At $8.00 per gallon - or more, and twice the price of gasoline - bottled water is VERY expensive.
For your consideration ... you might want to call your local water company and ask what they're doing to improve the quality of your drinking water. Ask your elected officials what they're doing. Go to your City Council meeting. If they're drinking bottled water, ask them - in public - why they're not drinking city tap water from a reusable glass and a water pitcher. And, remind them that 80% of the bottles go into the community landfill.
I'll save the discussion on how much oil is used to make plastic water bottles for another blog.
The next time you're thirsty, think about your the choice you have: bottled water or tap water?
The next time you're thirsty, think about your the choice you have: bottled water or tap water?
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Sustainability Requires Change
Albert Einstein's famously said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Many of us talk a lot about creating a sustainable planet, but we're not changing our behaviors very much. Not really. We continue to live our lives the same way we have for the last few decades, and continue to consume what we need and want like there are no consequences to our decisions. If we're truly serious about creating a sustainable planet, we much change the way we live our lives. Several examples:
How can we start changing our lives to help create a sustainable planet?
- Two weeks ago, I attended a two-day CSR conference in New York City and bottles of water were positioned everywhere for the attendees. Bottled water? Why? New York City has some of the cleanest, best tasting tap water on the planet. Why not have old-fashioned reusable pitchers and washable glasses for people to drink out of? Given that 80% of plastic water bottles end up in land fills, is drinking water out of a plastic bottle being socially responsible? Is it sustainable? I mentioned this to the conference organizer and watched his face transform into the look of: "OMG! We never thought of that!"
- Our youngest daughter attended a product safety and sustainability conference in Dongguan, China last week. Same issue: tables full of plastic water bottles. She mentioned the disconnect to the meeting organizer and suggested "The hotel offers very good, clean, filtered water. Why pay for imported bottled water? Just ask the hotel to put out pitchers and glasses. It's free for every meeting here. Filtered tap water is much more sustainable."
How can we start changing our lives to help create a sustainable planet?
- Start drinking tap water. If you don't like the taste, or if your water is known to be bad for you, contact your political leaders and demand that they fix the problem. Mother Nature gave us clean water. Man has polluted it and Man can clean it up. In the mean time, buy a good water filter and filter your water.
- Use the drinking fountain at work. If you don't like the taste of the water at work, tell your boss and ask if it can be fixed. In the mean time, take a reusable container to work with your own filtered water.
- Organize your shopping to minimize unnecessary trips. If you live in the suburbs, like most of us in the USA and many other parts of the world do, think about how you can efficiently organize your daily or weekly trips to minimize the fuel you use. And, can you double up with a friend or neighbor to do your errands together? It's a great time to connect with friends and save energy.
- If you're driving and are stopped in traffic, like at a drive-up bank or pharmacy window for more than a minute, turn off the car's engine. You're wasting gas letting it run.
- When you go to bed, turn down your thermostat and turn it down when you leave for work. Most of us sleep better in cool environments. The majority of Scandanavians put their infants outside in their strollers for their afternoon naps. It's been proven the little ones sleep longer and better. If no one is at home while you're at work, why heat the home and waste the energy?
- When you go to the store - any store - are you buying more than you need? Need and want are two different subjects. Rewarding ourselves occasionally is a good thing. We all need a reward or something that makes us feel better - like having our favorite dessert. But having that dessert every day, or at every meal, will eventually bring unwanted consequences - extra weight. Do you really need that new pair of jeans when you already have seven pair in the closet? Think about your purchasing decisions before you buy something. Make a list when you go to the store and only buy from that list.
If you have ideas on how we can change, individually or collectively, to make a more sustainable planet, please post your comments below. I'd like to hear from you.
Friday, March 22, 2013
World Water Day is Today! Are You Supporting It?
Today is World Water Day as sponsored by the United Nations. UN World Water Day
And, the UN has declared that 2013 to be International Year of Water Cooperation.
Given that 1% of the water on this planet is fit for human consumption, let's consider how we'll take care of the precious resource we have and share it with our fellow man. Without potable water, we're all in deep doo-doo. We can live for several days, or a week, without food. But, we can't live for very long without water. Nor can the animals and plants that we rely upon survive either.
As you turn on your tap today, drink your next drink and have your next meal, consider how you are helping to use only the water you need and protecting our water resources for future generations.
And, the UN has declared that 2013 to be International Year of Water Cooperation.
Given that 1% of the water on this planet is fit for human consumption, let's consider how we'll take care of the precious resource we have and share it with our fellow man. Without potable water, we're all in deep doo-doo. We can live for several days, or a week, without food. But, we can't live for very long without water. Nor can the animals and plants that we rely upon survive either.
As you turn on your tap today, drink your next drink and have your next meal, consider how you are helping to use only the water you need and protecting our water resources for future generations.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Sustainability and The Mediterranean Diet
Here's an interesting article which falls into the sustainability category: feeding ourselves. As this article also points out, by following a Mediterranean Diet, we can save money, eat more nutritious food and better maintain our weight.
It is well-known that fruits and vegetables require far fewer resources to grow than protein, and that we really don't need more than three or four ounces of protein per meal. Some dietitians suggest having protein at one or two meals is sufficient for most adults.
Since Food is one of my top three favorite sports, you may see more food-related post from time to time.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/03/study-mediterranean-diet-can-save-money/274213/
Enjoy!
It is well-known that fruits and vegetables require far fewer resources to grow than protein, and that we really don't need more than three or four ounces of protein per meal. Some dietitians suggest having protein at one or two meals is sufficient for most adults.
Since Food is one of my top three favorite sports, you may see more food-related post from time to time.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/03/study-mediterranean-diet-can-save-money/274213/
Enjoy!
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
How Do You Define Sustainability?
Many thanks to Apparel Magazine, apparel.edgl.com, for publishing this on their Apparel.Com site yesterday, March 19, 2013. Only correction, I'm the COO of ICG, not the CEO.
http://apparel.edgl.com/case-studies/How-Do-You-Define-Sustainability-85389
How Do You Define Sustainability?
"How do you define the term "sustainability"? This is the question I've asked a dozen or so presenters at conferences over the past several years. In corporate social responsibility (CSR) circles, "sustainability" has become a primary topic of discussion — from sustainable financial investment to sustainability in the environment, sustainability in the apparel industry, and more. Sustainability even seems to have overtaken CSR as the Madison Avenue buzzword du jour as company after company seeks to market how sustainable it is.
At a Sustainable Investment conference in New York City, I asked the four speakers on the keynote panel — each a CEO or SVP of a leading "responsible investment fund" — to offer their definition of the term. All struggled and none could. At a Washington, D.C., conference, a senior member of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) spoke on what her agency was doing to help create sustainable communities. Again, I asked her to define the term. "You know, we at the EPA have really struggled with the term and we've had a really hard time trying to define what sustainability really means. I'd have to say we're still working on it." I was dumbfounded as she spoke with great authority on the topic yet was unable to define it. It reminded me a bit of the 1982 Supreme Court decision on obscenity and pornography in which Justice Potter Stewart said he could not define the term but declared, "I know it when I see it." I think we need to do a little better than that, as I believe our very existence on this planet may hang in the balance.
On the Bloomberg News website an entire section is devoted to sustainability, with topics ranging widely from corporate governance to health care law, the electrical blackout at the Super Bowl, drug abuse, assault weapons, snow storms, and battery problems with the new Boeing 787. One must wonder how these disparate issues all fall within the term "sustainability." Or, is Bloomberg using the term as a catch-all for everything that has to do with "social and environmental issues — and then some," trying to market itself as a news agency concerned about a topic that it is having a hard time defining?
The Financial Times issued a general invitation to an afternoon conference in London on Oct. 17, 2012, on "Sustainable and Ethical Investment." The lead-in was "Socially responsible investment (SRI) allows people to align their personal beliefs regarding environmental, social and ethical concerns with their financial objectives." I would suggest that SRI and sustainability are two very different terms with very different meanings, yet forward-thinking organizations such as the Financial Times continue to confuse the two. In my view, SRI focuses on issues such as labor, the environment, and not investing in companies involved with products or issues that the investor finds distasteful such as conflict minerals, liquor, tobacco, weapons of war, testing of cosmetics on animals, and so on. Sustainability is entirely another matter.
In 1987, the United Nations issued the Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. The commission was chaired by Dr. Harlem Brundtland, a physician and former prime minister of Norway who later became the head of the World Health Organization. (For those with a serious interest in world affairs, I highly recommend reading the full 247-page report.) In this seminal document the term "sustainable development" was defined as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." The needs they refer to are food, clothing, shelter and the ability to work and live in a qualitatively consistent manner. Of primary concern was the issue of how we, as a people, will continue to support ourselves in the face of a continually growing global population and dwindling natural resources.
The issues raised in 1987 haven't gone away. In many ways, they've gotten considerably worse. In the past 26 years, we've added 2 billion more people to Planet Earth. Today, we have slightly more than 7 billion people on the earth — compared to 3 billion in 1960. In just over 50 years (the equivalent of two generations), we've more than doubled the size of our world population with the anticipation that by the year 2050 we'll have almost 10 billion people on the planet, a 43 percent increase over today's population and a 400 percent increase since 1950! That's right. We will have increased our global population by four times in just 100 years! Even more disturbing are the projections beyond 2050 — numbers the U.S. Census Bureau hasn't published.
Extrapolations indicate the global population will continue to grow, especially in the developing countries of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, much of the Middle East, Africa and Latin America until we plateau at about 16 billion around 2125 or 2150. One must wonder what the quality of life will be like with that many people on earth.
Given the challenges of the next 25 to 40 years — a space of time I believe we can affect — what can we do? I suggest we start by defining "sustainability" in a way that is useful for the apparel and textiles industry.
The word "sustain" is a verb meaning "to keep up or keep going, as an action or process: to sustain a conversation." I offer a variation of the Brundtland Commission definition that could be used in the context of what we do on a daily basis.
Sustainability is:
As a current example, anyone who follows global environmental matters knows that China is literally choking to death on its air pollution. China uses 47 percent of the world's coal to generate electricity to power its manufacturing machine — from steel to appliances, automobiles to engine parts, and toys to tableware. They have very few scrubbers on their smokestacks, and pollution control technology for their trucks and farm machinery is virtually non-existent. Factories and trucks belch exhaust unabated at an ever-increasing rate.
China's own citizens and business leaders are raising their voices that "something must be done to fix the situation" yet in the past month, air pollution levels have jumped to new highs — to more than three times the level of "Extreme Danger" posed to humans and animals. A good day in Shanghai or Beijing is one when the sun can be seen and drivers don't need to turn on their headlights at noon. One must ask: Why is China choking itself to death when the leaders know full well the human and environmental costs of their actions? An increasing number of people are asking that question. And, is half of the pollution that's clogging the U.S. West Coast really blown over across the Pacific Ocean from China? Some scientists believe so.
China isn't the only country with challenges. For all the progress that's been made in Los Angeles, Chicago, Mexico City, Athens, New York and Rio, we have a long way to go in the 10 most polluted cities on the planet, which are located in Peru, China, Russia, India, Azerbaijan, Ukraine and Zambia, according to The Blacksmith Institute.
At the same time, I don't believe that dire straits are a foregone conclusion. We can change for the better and ensure sustainable businesses and enterprises. It will require focused commitment and collective action. Here are a few no-cost ways to get started:
The anthropologist Margaret Mead once said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Leaders in the apparel, textile and accessories industry can change the course of history.
Steven Jesseph is the CEO for the consultancy group ICG and is based in Cornelius, N. C., and is the former CEO of Worldwide Responsible Accredited Production (WRAP) and vice president, compliance and risk management for Sara Lee Branded Apparel.
http://apparel.edgl.com/case-studies/How-Do-You-Define-Sustainability-85389
How Do You Define Sustainability?
"How do you define the term "sustainability"? This is the question I've asked a dozen or so presenters at conferences over the past several years. In corporate social responsibility (CSR) circles, "sustainability" has become a primary topic of discussion — from sustainable financial investment to sustainability in the environment, sustainability in the apparel industry, and more. Sustainability even seems to have overtaken CSR as the Madison Avenue buzzword du jour as company after company seeks to market how sustainable it is.At a Sustainable Investment conference in New York City, I asked the four speakers on the keynote panel — each a CEO or SVP of a leading "responsible investment fund" — to offer their definition of the term. All struggled and none could. At a Washington, D.C., conference, a senior member of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) spoke on what her agency was doing to help create sustainable communities. Again, I asked her to define the term. "You know, we at the EPA have really struggled with the term and we've had a really hard time trying to define what sustainability really means. I'd have to say we're still working on it." I was dumbfounded as she spoke with great authority on the topic yet was unable to define it. It reminded me a bit of the 1982 Supreme Court decision on obscenity and pornography in which Justice Potter Stewart said he could not define the term but declared, "I know it when I see it." I think we need to do a little better than that, as I believe our very existence on this planet may hang in the balance.
On the Bloomberg News website an entire section is devoted to sustainability, with topics ranging widely from corporate governance to health care law, the electrical blackout at the Super Bowl, drug abuse, assault weapons, snow storms, and battery problems with the new Boeing 787. One must wonder how these disparate issues all fall within the term "sustainability." Or, is Bloomberg using the term as a catch-all for everything that has to do with "social and environmental issues — and then some," trying to market itself as a news agency concerned about a topic that it is having a hard time defining?
The Financial Times issued a general invitation to an afternoon conference in London on Oct. 17, 2012, on "Sustainable and Ethical Investment." The lead-in was "Socially responsible investment (SRI) allows people to align their personal beliefs regarding environmental, social and ethical concerns with their financial objectives." I would suggest that SRI and sustainability are two very different terms with very different meanings, yet forward-thinking organizations such as the Financial Times continue to confuse the two. In my view, SRI focuses on issues such as labor, the environment, and not investing in companies involved with products or issues that the investor finds distasteful such as conflict minerals, liquor, tobacco, weapons of war, testing of cosmetics on animals, and so on. Sustainability is entirely another matter.
In 1987, the United Nations issued the Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. The commission was chaired by Dr. Harlem Brundtland, a physician and former prime minister of Norway who later became the head of the World Health Organization. (For those with a serious interest in world affairs, I highly recommend reading the full 247-page report.) In this seminal document the term "sustainable development" was defined as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." The needs they refer to are food, clothing, shelter and the ability to work and live in a qualitatively consistent manner. Of primary concern was the issue of how we, as a people, will continue to support ourselves in the face of a continually growing global population and dwindling natural resources.
The issues raised in 1987 haven't gone away. In many ways, they've gotten considerably worse. In the past 26 years, we've added 2 billion more people to Planet Earth. Today, we have slightly more than 7 billion people on the earth — compared to 3 billion in 1960. In just over 50 years (the equivalent of two generations), we've more than doubled the size of our world population with the anticipation that by the year 2050 we'll have almost 10 billion people on the planet, a 43 percent increase over today's population and a 400 percent increase since 1950! That's right. We will have increased our global population by four times in just 100 years! Even more disturbing are the projections beyond 2050 — numbers the U.S. Census Bureau hasn't published.
Extrapolations indicate the global population will continue to grow, especially in the developing countries of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, much of the Middle East, Africa and Latin America until we plateau at about 16 billion around 2125 or 2150. One must wonder what the quality of life will be like with that many people on earth.
Given the challenges of the next 25 to 40 years — a space of time I believe we can affect — what can we do? I suggest we start by defining "sustainability" in a way that is useful for the apparel and textiles industry.
The word "sustain" is a verb meaning "to keep up or keep going, as an action or process: to sustain a conversation." I offer a variation of the Brundtland Commission definition that could be used in the context of what we do on a daily basis.
Sustainability is:
- In the context of a societal unit (individual, family, tribe, village, town, city, county, state, country), the capacity to survive and thrive for the short and long term including, but not limited to, its ability to provide for the basic human needs of food, clothing, shelter and medical care, and;
- In the context of an organizational unit (business, non-profit or government), the capacity to meet its objectives of providing goods and/or services to its customers or constituents in the short and long term, and;
- For both societal and organizational units, their capacity to achieve their objectives but not by compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.
- Uses only renewable raw materials: cotton, wool, flax, linen, silk and certain plant-derived polyesters, acetate and rayon.
- Uses only renewable energy sources such as plant and garbage waste, wind, solar, wave and hydroelectric in securing, processing and transporting raw materials and finished products.
- Uses only renewable and/or recyclable buildings and machinery built from stone, wood, natural fibers, rubber and steel.
- Only purchases raw materials, packaging, transportation and advertising services — in short, all goods and services that support the product and brands — from companies that use only renewable energy and raw materials.
As a current example, anyone who follows global environmental matters knows that China is literally choking to death on its air pollution. China uses 47 percent of the world's coal to generate electricity to power its manufacturing machine — from steel to appliances, automobiles to engine parts, and toys to tableware. They have very few scrubbers on their smokestacks, and pollution control technology for their trucks and farm machinery is virtually non-existent. Factories and trucks belch exhaust unabated at an ever-increasing rate.
China's own citizens and business leaders are raising their voices that "something must be done to fix the situation" yet in the past month, air pollution levels have jumped to new highs — to more than three times the level of "Extreme Danger" posed to humans and animals. A good day in Shanghai or Beijing is one when the sun can be seen and drivers don't need to turn on their headlights at noon. One must ask: Why is China choking itself to death when the leaders know full well the human and environmental costs of their actions? An increasing number of people are asking that question. And, is half of the pollution that's clogging the U.S. West Coast really blown over across the Pacific Ocean from China? Some scientists believe so.
China isn't the only country with challenges. For all the progress that's been made in Los Angeles, Chicago, Mexico City, Athens, New York and Rio, we have a long way to go in the 10 most polluted cities on the planet, which are located in Peru, China, Russia, India, Azerbaijan, Ukraine and Zambia, according to The Blacksmith Institute.
At the same time, I don't believe that dire straits are a foregone conclusion. We can change for the better and ensure sustainable businesses and enterprises. It will require focused commitment and collective action. Here are a few no-cost ways to get started:
- Engage every employee in your organization to think about how you can create a "lean enterprise." Use the principles of lean manufacturing across your entire business from sales and headquarters offices through raw materials and finished product, transportation, manufacturing, distribution centers, packaging, labeling, advertising and more.
- Minimize, to the greatest extent possible, the use of all chemicals in every part of the supply chain. Regardless of their apparent "neutrality", far too many chemicals have negative downstream impacts on the environment, treatment facilities, capture and reuse, and the energy used to create them and transport them into the supply chain. The more we pay to "treat" chemicals in a publically owned treatment works, the more clean water costs us all. The AAFA has done a remarkably good job of pulling together a Restricted Substances List.
- Add another "R" to the old "Reduce, Reuse and Recycle" mantra: Refuse.Refuse to use products that have marginal or no value. Consider bottled water. We generate enough half-liter water bottles every year to extend from earth to the moon and back 40 times! (See the Pacific Institute website for the energy, oil and water consumed to produce all our water bottles.) Do we really need to have bottled water when clean tap water would work just as well? Why not go back to using washable glasses and a water pitcher for meetings? Look at how well New York City has done protecting its water supply – the best in the world by all accounts.
- Seek out and/or create renewable energy sources for every part of your supply chain. Add windmills, biomass energy facilities and solar panels wherever possible. Current indicators show we've used just about half of the world's oil supply. Starting in 2015 or so, global production is predicted to drop precipitously to near zero levels by the year 2080. Alternative energy sources may be a bit more expensive now but they will only cost more, and at a faster rate, as oil comes out of our energy chain. The cost of coal and natural gas, while relatively inexpensive now, will only increase as oil disappears, and population and demand increase.
- Seek fix-priced, long-term supply agreements. You may recall that Southwest Airlines had a 10-year jet fuel agreement with its suppliers, which allowed the company to thrive and grow as competitors faced huge price increases with jet fuel prices skyrocketing through the roof.
The anthropologist Margaret Mead once said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Leaders in the apparel, textile and accessories industry can change the course of history.
Steven Jesseph is the CEO for the consultancy group ICG and is based in Cornelius, N. C., and is the former CEO of Worldwide Responsible Accredited Production (WRAP) and vice president, compliance and risk management for Sara Lee Branded Apparel.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Sustainable Investment or Squandering Money?
President Obama announced last week that he wants to spend another $2 Billion of the US Taxpayer's money for research into battery technology and clean fuel technologies. Why?
Within his own cabinet sits the Secretary of Energy, a senior government official in charge an agency with 16,000 direct employees and an additional 90,000+ employees whose stated mission is "to ensure America's security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions." The budget for the DOE was $15 Billion in 1980. The budget today is $30.6 Billion.
The Department of Energy was created by Congress at the urging of former President Jimmy Carter after the oil crunch of 1973. The following are excerpts from his remarks on March 1, 1977, 36 years ago this month:
"Today we sent to the Congress a proposal for the creation of a new and comprehensive Department of Energy. This is long overdue. We now have more than 50 different Federal agencies who have divided among themselves the responsibilities for the evolution and the carrying out of an energy policy for our country.
This Department will make it possible for us to evolve very quickly a comprehensive energy policy which we've missed. It will give us an opportunity to regulate the production and distribution of energy along with the pricing concepts clearly and, I believe, cohesively.
It will also permit us to channel research and development funds in a way that would be consistent with the long-range needs of our country. It will let us insure to a maximum degree that the data that we obtain concerning energy reserves are accurate and, also, that the American people might trust the information provided to them about how much energy we have available in different forms. And it will greatly simplify the bureaucracy."
Our Department of Energy has several Energy Innovation Hubs, "integrated research centers that combine basic and applied research with engineering to accelerate scientific discovery in critical energy issue areas." If we already have these hubs, why do we need to spend $2 Billion more to develop the technologies that President Obama wants? Why don't we have them now? Has anyone been holding the agency and its former heads accountable for the money they've been spending?
I'm very concerned about the future energy needs of the USA and the planet, and that we're making meaningful progress toward creating a sustainable future. We need to have an adult conversation about exactly what the DoE is doing to fulfill its mission to help ensure America's security and prosperity. Given the hundreds of billions of US taxpayer dollars that have already spent, and that fact that no new technologies have been developed to ensure our energy independence, what is our path forward on energy? Is it spending more money on programs that haven't produced any results, or is it recognizing that the path we've chosen simply isn't working and we need to look for another path altogether.
To quote former US Senator Everett Dirkson, "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money." Let's make sure those billions are being spent in a responsible and productive manner.
Within his own cabinet sits the Secretary of Energy, a senior government official in charge an agency with 16,000 direct employees and an additional 90,000+ employees whose stated mission is "to ensure America's security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions." The budget for the DOE was $15 Billion in 1980. The budget today is $30.6 Billion.
The Department of Energy was created by Congress at the urging of former President Jimmy Carter after the oil crunch of 1973. The following are excerpts from his remarks on March 1, 1977, 36 years ago this month:
"Today we sent to the Congress a proposal for the creation of a new and comprehensive Department of Energy. This is long overdue. We now have more than 50 different Federal agencies who have divided among themselves the responsibilities for the evolution and the carrying out of an energy policy for our country.
This Department will make it possible for us to evolve very quickly a comprehensive energy policy which we've missed. It will give us an opportunity to regulate the production and distribution of energy along with the pricing concepts clearly and, I believe, cohesively.
It will also permit us to channel research and development funds in a way that would be consistent with the long-range needs of our country. It will let us insure to a maximum degree that the data that we obtain concerning energy reserves are accurate and, also, that the American people might trust the information provided to them about how much energy we have available in different forms. And it will greatly simplify the bureaucracy."
Our Department of Energy has several Energy Innovation Hubs, "integrated research centers that combine basic and applied research with engineering to accelerate scientific discovery in critical energy issue areas." If we already have these hubs, why do we need to spend $2 Billion more to develop the technologies that President Obama wants? Why don't we have them now? Has anyone been holding the agency and its former heads accountable for the money they've been spending?
I'm very concerned about the future energy needs of the USA and the planet, and that we're making meaningful progress toward creating a sustainable future. We need to have an adult conversation about exactly what the DoE is doing to fulfill its mission to help ensure America's security and prosperity. Given the hundreds of billions of US taxpayer dollars that have already spent, and that fact that no new technologies have been developed to ensure our energy independence, what is our path forward on energy? Is it spending more money on programs that haven't produced any results, or is it recognizing that the path we've chosen simply isn't working and we need to look for another path altogether.
To quote former US Senator Everett Dirkson, "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money." Let's make sure those billions are being spent in a responsible and productive manner.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
A Ham and Eggs Breakfast
Last week I attended a conference where one of the breakout sessions focused on this question: How do we get sourcing managers and buyers to reinforce a company's code of conduct for suppliers?
A common observation by many at our double table was that "The Company" has a "Code of Conduct" which they expect their suppliers and vendors to abide by, and that the "Compliance Department" is the group responsible for making sure the vendors are in compliance. The Compliance Department conducts regular or random audits to make sure the supplier understands the requirements and is in compliance with those requirements. However, in far too many instances, the suppliers are far from compliant. According to "The Rules", the non-compliant suppliers should be removed from "The Approved List" and barred from producing products for The Company. But, the Compliance Department rarely has the ability to stop or prohibit production from non-compliant factories.
"The Buyers" - the ones who order products from the supplier - are focused on three things: making sure The Product is shipped/delivered on time, that The Product meets The Company's Quality Standards, and that The Price is as agreed upon. The Buyer is paid for ensuring these three things, and their bonus is, in turn, dependent upon consistently performing to these three standards. It is not The Buyer's job to ensure Compliance with company standards. Hence, The Buyer and The Compliance Department are not In Sync. They have different roles and priorities. To the above question, my response is this: If you want to have The Buyers and Sourcing Staff help enforce The Company's Code of Conduct, we must change the rules.
As one CEO told a group of buyers during a discussion about The Company's Code of Conduct: "If we don't have product on our shelves, we're out of business. The one thing you need to remember of all our suppliers is this: Ship The Product! The ONLY reason you shouldn't ship product is if you find child labor in the factory. (pause) Let me rephrase that. If you find kids working in one of our supplier factories, call me." In other words, there was nothing he could think of that would take a supplier out of their supply chain as long as the supplier met the three rules of price, quality and delivery. Everything else was a distant second to shipping the product.
Have you ever heard the phrase "Involvement and Commitment is like a ham and eggs breakfast: The chicken is Involved, the pig is Committed."? In this case, I believe the CEO is the chicken. He supports the Code of Conduct, and he's Involved in Compliance discussions, but he's not Committed. He's Committed to Price, Quality and Delivery. Why? Because he is paid on the Sales and Profits of the company. He is not paid based on compliance with the Code of Conduct. The Board of Directors supports the Code of Conduct, but they set the compensation rules for the CEO. When The Board decides to include a Compliance component in the CEO's annual performance review and/or his bonus, then he (or she) will pay attention to The Code. When the CEO includes a Compliance section in the annual performance review of The Buyers, then they will pay attention to the Code of Conduct and only buy from compliant factories.
So, you ask: "How do I get The Board of my Company to include Compliance with our Code of Conduct in our CEO's performance review and/or bonus? And, in the performance review and/or bonus of our buyers?" Probably by having a frank and honest discussion at management meetings about the true values of the company, and where their commitments lie. Is management committed to the words they write, or are they simply involved in a CSR movement they may not really believe in?
A common observation by many at our double table was that "The Company" has a "Code of Conduct" which they expect their suppliers and vendors to abide by, and that the "Compliance Department" is the group responsible for making sure the vendors are in compliance. The Compliance Department conducts regular or random audits to make sure the supplier understands the requirements and is in compliance with those requirements. However, in far too many instances, the suppliers are far from compliant. According to "The Rules", the non-compliant suppliers should be removed from "The Approved List" and barred from producing products for The Company. But, the Compliance Department rarely has the ability to stop or prohibit production from non-compliant factories.
"The Buyers" - the ones who order products from the supplier - are focused on three things: making sure The Product is shipped/delivered on time, that The Product meets The Company's Quality Standards, and that The Price is as agreed upon. The Buyer is paid for ensuring these three things, and their bonus is, in turn, dependent upon consistently performing to these three standards. It is not The Buyer's job to ensure Compliance with company standards. Hence, The Buyer and The Compliance Department are not In Sync. They have different roles and priorities. To the above question, my response is this: If you want to have The Buyers and Sourcing Staff help enforce The Company's Code of Conduct, we must change the rules.
As one CEO told a group of buyers during a discussion about The Company's Code of Conduct: "If we don't have product on our shelves, we're out of business. The one thing you need to remember of all our suppliers is this: Ship The Product! The ONLY reason you shouldn't ship product is if you find child labor in the factory. (pause) Let me rephrase that. If you find kids working in one of our supplier factories, call me." In other words, there was nothing he could think of that would take a supplier out of their supply chain as long as the supplier met the three rules of price, quality and delivery. Everything else was a distant second to shipping the product.
Have you ever heard the phrase "Involvement and Commitment is like a ham and eggs breakfast: The chicken is Involved, the pig is Committed."? In this case, I believe the CEO is the chicken. He supports the Code of Conduct, and he's Involved in Compliance discussions, but he's not Committed. He's Committed to Price, Quality and Delivery. Why? Because he is paid on the Sales and Profits of the company. He is not paid based on compliance with the Code of Conduct. The Board of Directors supports the Code of Conduct, but they set the compensation rules for the CEO. When The Board decides to include a Compliance component in the CEO's annual performance review and/or his bonus, then he (or she) will pay attention to The Code. When the CEO includes a Compliance section in the annual performance review of The Buyers, then they will pay attention to the Code of Conduct and only buy from compliant factories.
So, you ask: "How do I get The Board of my Company to include Compliance with our Code of Conduct in our CEO's performance review and/or bonus? And, in the performance review and/or bonus of our buyers?" Probably by having a frank and honest discussion at management meetings about the true values of the company, and where their commitments lie. Is management committed to the words they write, or are they simply involved in a CSR movement they may not really believe in?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)