Featured

How Do We Decarbonize Fashion in a Socially Fair Way

The question we will unpack today is: How do we decarbonize fashion in a socially fair way?

 This is a complex question about a complex consumption system.

But I am sure you all will agree that the question is no longer about the need to decarbonize or align this complex consumption system with the natural system—or having enough solutions.

The question is about our seriousness.

For decades, we have been playing the Whack-a-mole in the name of ethics, responsibility, or the license to operate. And as a result, the problems persist. 

We must stop addressing only the symptoms and start addressing the root causes of the plaguing problems like

Overproduction, overconsumption, underutilization, wastage and exploitation.

So, stay with me while we unpack to find what we can do to decarbonize in a socially fair way and create a fair future.

Let’s first understand,

What does industry mean by decarbonization today?

The industry has primarily focused on transitioning to renewable energy and improving process and energy efficiency as they both make economic sense and save cost.

In addition, we also find a few good examples, and a growing desire to transition to alternate low-carbon materials and the adoption of circular solutions.

But The truth is despite the availability of many solutions and their potential to decarbonize and solve the industry’s plaguing problems, they still represent a tiny percentage of the entire portfolio of most organizations, brands and the industry.

There is no doubt that renewable energy is an essential part of the decarbonization plan, but focusing only on that will not be sufficient, especially when…

  • Fossil fuels dominate the grid energy mix of most apparel-producing countries, and most do not have resources and aggressive plans to transition to renewable energy soon.
  •  We are yet to see concrete plans to achieve scope-3 emission targets and clarity about the role and responsibilities of the stakeholders.

If the expectation is that the upstream supply chain will invest in off-grid renewable energy, then the source and cost of the finance need to be discussed.

  • Even large organizations in the supply chain struggle to procure finance > due to the inherent uncertainty > and > the lack of long-term commitments.
  • Over the past years, Manufacturers have been accommodating annual inflationary and other cost increases by increasing automation and efficiencies and shifting production to lower minimum wage regions within or outside countries.

Considering these factors, the transition to renewable energy is not going to be easy, and even if we make it happen, it will not solve most of the problems of the industry…again it will only address a few symptoms and extend the business-as-usual scenario > that > exploits the frontline communities > and the planet.

This leads to the second part, social fairness, and the related questions

Is expecting fairness a utopian thought:

  • In an industry that pays 15 to 50% of the living wage, which is mostly less than half a percent and in some cases goes up to 3-4% of what consumer pays depending on the amount of time required and where it is produced.
  • Financial concerns are a major cause of mental health issues among workers in the global south

they struggle to manage their monthly expenses and never have enough to cope with emergencies despite living humbly and working long hours.

  • Industry Shifts production for a few cents to lower wage country or region…in other words, punishes the country or region for paying better wages to workers.
  • We are driving automation to reduce dependence on labour when growing population, unemployment and poverty remain unsolved problems for producing countries.
  • On one side, we are advocating reuse and resale without having any plans or conversations about the negative impact of reduced production on workers in the global south, who are already victims of the demand and supply gap.

There are more producers than buyers and less jobs than the workers

  • On the other side, even ethical brands incentivize consumption by offering heavy discounts to entice consumers to buy more.
  • The irony is that all this happens when brands keep at least 60% of the total supply chain profit in their pockets and still struggle to meet shareholders’ expectations.

In the current cost structure and with the mechanisms used to achieve profit margins, Brands and the supply chain will never be able to pay a living wage. If they agree, then in some cases, they will have to give away all or a major portion of their profit margins, which will put their survival under question.  

  • To top it up, brands have committed to decarbonizing their supply chain without discussing it with the supply chain partners, and most of them are not showing any signs of taking financial ownership beyond their scope 1 and 2 emissions, which, as per several estimates, account for around 3% to 5% of the entire supply chain emission.  

Here we need to understand that fairness is not something that can be convenience-based.

It is either there or not there.

The industry is in a gridlock situation. The supply chain operates out of fear. The Fear of losing market share, the fear of losing production, and the fear of losing jobs.

We have a lot to be fixed.

We often hold capitalism responsible for the problems, whereas the truth is all human-created systems have and will have flaws unless they are aligned to the natural system of which we all are a part.

In my understanding, no system is bad if it is fair and does not exploit.

If we are serious about Setting the Future right, we must stop playing this game of Whack-a-Mole and collectively and simultaneously address the root causes of the plaguing problems. None of us are flawless, and we all must do

Everything

at Every level of the consumption cycle

and all at once. 

Let’s imagine a world where we all do our part.

A world where

  • Living wage is mandatory.
  • Carbon Emissions are minimum
  • The supply chain works as partners and ensures zero exploitation
  • Automation is used only for hazardous processes
  • Biodegradable materials and Green chemistry are used
  • The use of fossil-fuel-based materials is restricted
  • Brands plan better and produce less, pay the true cost and charge the consumers accordingly
  • Discounts are turned into incentives for maximizing the use and for returning products to the resource pool  
  • Consumers buy less, use more and return after use
  • Performance is measured based on the resources used and the social, environmental and economic value generated per unit.

Now, let’s return to the reality and make it a reality…

The question is, how do we do that…

The ideal would be that we all start doing our part, and we can do if we want to…

But in the current system, we have no choice but to start with the regulations as they are the only hope to ensure that we all do our part simultaneously…

Let’s create the world we have imagined Let’s encourage each other to do our part.

Let’s fix the inconsistent regulations that favour perpetual growth and exploitation.

A transcript of the talk presented at ” Setting the Future: Reimagining Sustainability Transition” on 29 November 2023, organized by Cardiff Business School and POLIMI Graduate School of Management.

DO NOT BUY A GIFT FOR ME

A gift is defined as something given voluntarily without the expectation of return. It is an act to show love and appreciation or honor an occasion. It is also a gesture of help or favor.

But in reality, is it a voluntary act, or is it a part of a system of reciprocity?

It is a part of the perpetual system of generational and intergenerational reciprocity where every gift is returned while being mindful of the honor of the giver and the receiver. The gift could be in the form of an item of status or spiritual or material possession, with similar reciprocity rules applied to each one of them. The rule could be to maintain the equal return value for a stable system of honor or to produce a contest of escalating honor with a higher value of every reciprocating gift. The whole society appears to be a system of cycling gifts.

When it comes to material things, gift-giving, in reality, is a consumption choice made by someone else for someone. Unfortunately, in many cases, gift-giving leads to the accumulation of unuseful material things. The best gift is a gift that fulfills a need, not only from the giver’s point of view but actually for the receiver.

The system of cycling the items of material possession as gifts is so engraved in our daily lives that even the minimalists and environmentalists find it hard to break out of it. However, research has shown that this system of gift-giving items of material possessions is a potential source of deadweight loss. The deadweight loss occurs when the perceived value of a gift to the receiver is less than the value to the giver. The deadweight loss increases as the social distance and age gap increases between the gift receiver and the giver. Research suggests giving gifts to only close relatives whose needs and taste we know well else giving cash is the best option. The concept of Regift is not new. However, the research shows many misconceptions about how the previous giver and the final receiver feel or think about regifting.

Considering the current overconsumption, underutilization, and wastage of resources, removing those misconceptions with redefining the gift-giving system that involves items of material possessions is necessary. There isn’t one size fit all solution to such complex systems-related problems. Instead, we should choose the one that works for us in the individual situation. But one thing that we all can do is give options to make it easy for those who intend to gift us. By doing so we will use our power to bring in a positive change in the system of cycling gifts of the items of material possessions and reduce accumulation and consumption of unwanted things.

 Every year the Thursday before Christmas is celebrated as the Regifting day.

Sources:

Turning Plastic Water Bottles Into Clothes—Is This Addressing the Problem in the Right Way?

A friend asked while referring to a recent article* about bottle2fashion initiative of Danone-Aqua and H&M Indonesia, “Is this addressing the problem in the right way?”

Danone and H&M have partnered to turn used plastic bottles into children’s collection under Cleaning-up for the Future campaign, which they plan to sell online. The question asked here is indeed simple, and the answer could also appear simple. But it is not as simple as it seems, it is rather complicated due to many surrounding misconceptions, ideas, and beliefs. So, I decided to break it down into parts to examine it from various perspective:

From material utilization perspective: It is turning food-grade plastic water bottles (which has the least risk of contamination) into lower grade plastic—neither a good solution nor a right way to address the problem. 

From microplastics pollution perspective: Turning a secondary source (bottles) of microplastics pollution into a primary source (Textile) of microplastics Pollution—neither a good solution nor a right way to address the problem.

From Waste management perspective: this approach of Danone to deal with the waste created by its product can be divided into two parts and reviewed form the waste management perspectives respectively. 1) it stops plastic from going to landfill or in the oceans and from that perspective it is indeed an excellent solution 2) it has partnered with H&M to convert the collected water bottles into textile which is downcycling of material. The selection of this solution by Danone appears to be done without the exploration of available better solutions (bottle to bottle recycling) and consideration of the hierarchy of waste management** to ensure value maximization from the resources. Implementing a solution without the review of the entire process and the potential negative impacts negates the right intentions, and that is why it— could be termed as a partially good solution, but it is not. It is not the right way to address the problems.

 From consumption perspective: clothes made of recycled material and sold by a fast-fashion brand as sustainable fashion is indeed an oxymoronic situation and it won’t be wrong to call it greenwashing. The use of recycled material for a fast-fashion product only makes it less of a devil but not a sustainable brand or product— could be termed as a partially good solution, but it is not. It is not the right way to address the problems.

From the use of Recycled material perspective: The only long-term solution to plastic and microfiber problems is not to create new at all and use only recycled plastic to fulfil the essential needs. There is no doubt that there are better solutions available to replace plastic, but it is also true that we have already created a lot, and we got to deal with that first. So, the best solution is to first maximize the value (economic, social, and environmental) out of what we have already created before creating or using new materials, be it the biodegradable material. We must also remember that recycling is the right solution if it considers all the impacts and aims to maximize value by following the hierarchy of waste management. The case referenced here, doesn’t seem to explore all the potential better options and follow the hierarchy of waste management to maximize the value out of the material before downcycling it, so it is—neither a good solution nor a right way to address the problems.

From the efforts of the business perspective: three cheers for Danone for taking the first step but criticisms for not thinking through and utilizing the vastly available better solutions to ensure the value maximization from the resources.  As far as H&M goes, they are not perfect, but I would give them a lot of credit over a lot of other brands for their efforts and positive impact on the industry. Their efforts have resulted in shifts in the industry approaches at broader levels. I would also give them the due credit for using, and initiating, promoting and funding the development of new and sustainable technologies and concepts in the fashion industry. In this case, they seem to be concerned about reducing their impact, which in isolation is commendable but as a whole—not the right way to address the problems.

A probably well-intended partnership like this one shows that without a holistic view, even the efforts with right intentions end up accelerating the other problems and can cause more harm than doing good. It is worth noting that something is not always better than nothing and all the efforts are not worth appreciation.

*https://www.thejakartapost.com/life/2020/09/01/aqua-hm-join-forces-to-turn-plastic-waste-into-clothes.html?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1598959278

**1) rethink/reimagine, 2) reduce, 3) recreate/redesign, 4) reuse, 5) upcycle, 6) recycle, 7) downcycle (Conversion into lower-value material, product, or incinerating it to produce energy), and 8) if any of the above is not possible, then landfill (safely))