27/10/2009

Mr Bruce E Bergstrom VP, Vendor Compliance,Li & Fung

"Sustainability is a great concept like liberty. We are in a world with many problems and sustainability is the solution. This is the answer given by Bruce Bergstrom, VP vendor compliance of sourcing giant Li & Fung, who tackled the difficult question of What is Sustainable Fashion? at the first-ever Sustainable Fashion Forum held earlier this month.  "It is of utmost importance that we meet the needs of the present without compromising the needs of the future. Sustainability needs to be aligned and be woven into the corporate fabric," he added. Indeed, Sustainability is a global movement that involves economics, environment and social issues. With its rising global concern and its implications in the fashion industry, APLF Ltd – organisers of the renowned Prime Source Forum – rolled out this new forum held alongside Fashion Access. In three sessions, the panel of speakers tackled three key issues: What is Sustainable Fashion? Is Sustainable Fashion Profitable? Who Wants Sustainable Fashion?

Session One:

Moderating the first session, Michael Lavergne, director-Asia, Worldwide Responsible Accredited Production (WRAP), posed to the panel "What does it really mean to be sustainable and what is best practice?"

Adding to his big-picture view of sustainable fashion, Mr. Bergstrom says economics play a strong role in the current approaches to sustainability, while solutions taken from social and environmental perspectives are sure to come.  

"Sustainability is now a retailer and brand-driven initiative, but we need to convince the manufacturers to see the benefits of sustainable operation starting with raw materials,’" said Hong Lee, manager of Asia Pacific, Control Union. 

But when widespread consumerism drives disposable fashion, is there really a place for sustainable fashion? The answer is yes, according to Janvier Serrano, creative director and founder of The 091/091’s Eco Couture brand, which features bags made from recycled scraps.

"Although it is difficult to achieve sustainability right now and it is a big challenge, we must do it. We must be open, we must be proactive. We must educate the consumers to go for quality and not quantity," advised Serrano. 

Agreed Amy Small, Creative Director at Green2greener, a b2b trade platform for eco-fashion: "Sustainability is a continuous goal, it is to put back the same amount as what you take out". In her opinion, small companies, successful in sustainable production, can inspire big companies to follow. 

"Fashion is not only in clothing but it is a lifestyle and attitude of life. We have to be vigilant on sustainability in day to day operation and living. It is important to impress upon the students of today the concept of sustainable living so that it can be passed down to the next generations", said Mary Yan Yan Chan, director of Style Central Ltd, the exclusive agent of Perclers Paris. 

Taking questions and opinions from the floor, the panel and audience agreed that a paradigm shift is needed for the fashion industry to tackle sustainability effectively. There is a need to drive innovation. Governments can also play a part, through education and green policies.  

Session Two:

Devangshu Dutta, chief executive of Third Eyesight led the 2nd session panelists to discuss "Is Sustainable Fashion Profitable?"  He commented that sustainability is not viable in the long term without financial returns and a good business sense.

"Sustainable fashion can be profitable because shoppers today are looking for something more meaningful. Consumers are accepting the concept of reuse and recycle in a creative way", said Olivier Grammont, founder of eco fashion brand Francs-Bourgeois. He described how his company uses second hand materials for handbags and the finished products are selling well in boutiques.

Concurred James Ockenden, director of publishing house Media Karma which specializes in the environmental technology, energy and finance industries. Ockenden citied the case of an olive oil company that used olive pits to generate energy for the plant. The company has now expanded to processing palm oil waste to produce a power supply to 400 households. Ockenden strongly believes that green legislation is the way forward but subsidy for new technology is necessary. He proposed adding ‘government’ to the three pillars of sustainability, that being economics, environment and social. 

Session 2 Panel: Mr Olivier Grammont, Mr James Ockenden,  Ms Cassandra Postema, Ms Dong Shing Chiu

Moderator: Mr Devangshu Dutta  Chief Executive, Third Eyesight

Meanwhile Carolina Rubiasih, VP sourcing & product development of the SAK questioned whether today’s consumers, who want value-for-money products, are indeed ready to for sustainable options that generally incur greater costs.  The younger generation, however, is adopting healthier lifestyles that will likely encompass sustainable fashion. As time goes by, sustainability will be the norm and a way of life and perspective.

Offering ideas on how to be profitable with sustainable products, Ms Rubiasih advises to produce only what you can sell, improve on the design to reduce wastage, use less packaging layers, increase efficiency in logistics and study the tariff code to tap lower tariff categories with minor adjustments to the material & design. Her privately owned company took such steps and yielded good results, outperforming their previous year’s revenue.  

Echoing Rubiasih’s emphasis on the importance of design, Cassandra Postema, director of fair trade fashion brand Dialog said "As designers, we have to design a product that can sell and sustain and compete with the regular products. It took People Tree, an eco-friendly company, 10 years to breakeven." 

Some audience members felt that sustainability must be price neutral if not cheaper to sell to consumers and noted that supply chain efficiently is critical to profitability, while innovation and good management can bring costs down. It was also suggested that designers should place attention towards engineering so as to produce more efficiency. 

Session Three:

In Session 3 Mr Ockenden facilitated the panel to probe into the question of "Who Wants Sustainable Fashion?" People buy fashion for various reasons, but experts often agree is linked to an emotional element. Companies can encourage sustainable fashion purchases by strengthening its ‘feel-good’ factor. 

Sustainable fashion is in-demand among fashion brands, but under the financially low-risk terms of cost and time-efficient production, says Mr. Lavergne. NGOs are nudging the concept of sustainability onto the brands and retailers and the social climate is ripe for them to take such a stand. 

Meanwhile Mr. Dutta says that general perception of fast fashion is quite wrong; it is actually not about throw away clothing but a management system that can improve the efficiency of the supply chain. Fashion is by nature not a sustainable concept but how can we make it sustainable? He hopes that in 10-20 years time we will truly have sustainable fashion.

Moderator: Mr James Ockenden, Direct, Media Karma

Overview of the forum

Summary: 

The panelists recognise that sustainable business is still in its infancy, and urge the brands, retailers, buyers and suppliers to take small steps towards sustainability. There is no one answer to the complex and multi-faceted issue and finding solutions will require a collaborative effort. Improvements in education, innovation, technology and government policies will make sustainable fashion possible – and profitable. 

• Most people want to fit in rather than stand apart from their peers, so pushing sustainable or responsible fashion will need time – just like the typical fashion cycle, the first thrust needs to be on the innovators and early adopters (both consumers and companies), before the majority of the market picks up the trend.
• We typically talk about the “triple-bottom line” – referring to the benefit to the business (profit), benefit to the environment and benefit to the community. However, I think most sustainability initiatives don’t gain enough traction because there is no bottom-line defined for the “individual”. The questions “how am I impacted?” and “what is in it for me?” need to be answered to really push fashion in the direction of sustainability.
• “There is enough on this Earth for everyone’s need, but not for everyone’s greed”. Fashion, by its very nature, lives on obsolescence, so it is pertinent to ask whether “sustainable fashion” is an oxymoron. However, there is some merit in questioning how extreme this sense of forcing obsolescence has become in the industry over the last few decades as companies have sought ever-growing top-lines. The entire industry ecosystem will need to be overhauled for it to become “sustainable”.
• The cause of sustainability may be helped actually by the fragmentation of demand that is going on around the world. This fragmentation may be our inadvertent saviour. Since fashion is about the peaking and the decline of specific trends, with fragmentation there are lower peaks, less forced trending, less forced obsolescence and potentially less waste.
• There was a mention of the concept of “fast fashion”. There are two aspects to it: one is the more visible rapid-change, low-price retail concept and that would certainly seem to be the antithesis of sustainability. However, there is another side to the fast fashion business model: lean management, efficient product development and reduced waste. The traditional fashion business model and supply chain can’t cope effectively with the fragmented demand and short selling-windows. In the fast fashion supply chain model, with shorter lead times, more time is spent on productive activities and successful products, rather than wasting resources and money in developing designs and flying samples back and forth for products that will get sold at a discount. Such waste would be fatal in the aerospace, automotive and high-tech industries – those industries use tools and processes that have also been available to the fashion industry for the last 4 decades. If fashion companies honestly examine how expensive that waste is, we might start moving towards more sustainable fashion.

Here is a summary of the Sustainable Fashion Forum, and some more pictures from the afternoon.

And here is a previous article on sustainability and corporate responsibility.

Four months ago in this column (“Organic – Hope or Hype?”) I wrote about the need for customers to make themselves aware of the true nature of organic products, and it is time to reopen that discussion.

Food is an emotive subject with us as consumers, food distribution and retail is big business with us as the trade, and agriculture is a sensitive area of governance.

On top of that, studies are seldom exhaustive enough in terms of sampling, duration of the study, establishment of controls etc., and for every study that proves the superiority of organics, you will be able to find counter-studies and opposing arguments.

In recent years brands have tended to make much of their organic certification. Marketers are known for overstatement anyway, and the promotional language used by some implies (or even explicitly states) that these products are superior to other alternatives. Surely, then, the consumer should be willing to pay higher prices for these “better” products?

If only, if only, facts were that straightforward.

In the earlier column I’d written: “We expect organic products to contain more nutrition and be better for our bodies. While this may be true of organic animal products compared to their inorganic counterparts, it has not been demonstrated for plant products, other than anecdotal experience of taste and appearance.” I had also raised the question: if organic foods are no better nutritionally than inorganic and could be as productive for the farmer, are many of the organic brands just skimming the gullible customer while the going is good?

Well, the debate just got messier. Recently a study sponsored by Britain’s Food Standards Agency last month (July 2009) really set the cat among the pigeons. The report was based on review of existing research papers to find out if organic products were nutritionally superior to inorganic products. And their conclusion was that the studies reviewed did not provide enough evidence that organic food is more nutritious.

Well, what the report really said was that on the basis of the limited number of studies that were deemed to be rigorous enough, there was not enough evidence to prove that organic food is more nutritious.

Okay.

Imagine an examiner saying that he does not have enough evidence to prove that a student who has passed did not cheat. Notice, he is not saying that the student actually cheated. But wouldn’t this statement alone raise suspicion in your mind about the student’s integrity?

Unfortunately, newspapers and electronic media sell headlines, and headlines need to be short and snappy. Here are a couple of examples about this study.

• Organic ‘has no health benefits’ (BBC)
• The benefits of “bio” in question (Le Figaro)

These clearly raise questions about any benefit at all from organics.

In the noise, the disclaimers by the team that prepared the report seem to have been ignored. For instance, this one: “It should be noted that this conclusion relates to the evidence base currently available on the nutrient content of foodstuffs, which contains limitations in the design and in the comparability of studies.” The report also states: “This review does not address contaminant content (such as herbicide, pesticide and fungicide residues) of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, or the environmental impacts of organic and conventional agricultural practices.”

Like any good research report, it admits that “it is important to recognise the potential limitations of the review process”. And the final line in the Conclusion section of the detailed report says: “Examination of this scattered evidence indicates a need for further high-quality research in this field.”

As a reader or TV viewer, how many of us would be motivated to go to the original source and read these disclaimers as well?

Promoters of organic farming, such as Britain’s Soil Association, of course, have trashed the study saying that it is too narrow having excluded most of the available research papers since they did not meet the review standards, and that it ignored the biggest long-term health impact – that of pesticides and other chemicals used in inorganic produce.

Their opponents, in turn have trashed defendants of organic farming by calling them unscientific and narrow-minded in their own right. They point out that high-output inorganic farming is far more useful to serving the exploding human population, than low-intensity organic farming.

One of the readers of the British newspaper Daily Mail was emphatic that she didn’t “eat organic stuff to get extra nutrition”, but was “happy to pay more to be free from additives”. Certainly that is a significant benefit that motivates most people who are well into organic products. In an unusual open letter, the Chief Executive of the Food Standards Agency clarified: “Pesticides were specifically excluded from the scope of this work. This is because our position on the safety of pesticides is already clear: pesticides are rigorously assessed and their residues are closely monitored. Because of this the use of pesticides in either organic or conventional food production does not pose an unacceptable risk to human health and helps to ensure a plentiful supply of food all year round.”

The other motivation for organics is our attitude towards the environment, which can either benefit us over the longer term or, if we are irresponsible, it could accumulate toxins which only show their impact over decades and generations. But, let’s be honest, are most consumers likely to buy products because of some distant benefit to the environment, or products that benefit themselves immediately?

Possibly the answer lies in the organic sector cleaning up its message.

Are consumers any wiser after this study and the debate? I’m not sure. For now, my take on this issue remains: be aware and make up your own mind about what you want to ingest, because this debate isn’t over yet.

Bernice Hurst, Contributing Editor, RetailWire mentioned the “Let Children Grow” campaign in the UK jointly promoted by The Independent on Sunday newspaper and the highly respected gardening charity, the Royal Horticultural Society (RHS). Launched in 2007, the RHS Campaign for School Gardening, sponsored by the food and grocery retailer Waitrose, is a nationwide scheme designed to encourage schools to create gardens and teach children the skills of growing plants.

It is described as “an ambitious initiative to encourage the nation’s children to grow their own fruit and vegetables”. The programme targets deprived areas, particularly those with combinations of poor health, low income and levels of aspiration. By working with young people, the idea is to improve their health while teaching them what to eat and where food comes from. RHS research suggests it can “help improve academic achievement, behavior and confidence among pupils”.

According to the Independent on Sunday, most of the children “are learning for the first time about gardening, and with it the enjoyment of fresh air, appreciation of the environment, healthy eating and in turn the prospect of a longer life.”

Bernice Hurst asks, “Can/should retailers encourage and sponsor such education programs to inspire consumer loyalty?”

As far as I can tell, if there is a country in love with its gardens, it is the UK, so this should be a hit with the parents and the teachers.

Pre-teens certainly don’t mind getting dirt under their fingernails, so it should appeal to them as well.

Whether this has any tangible impact on Waitrose’s image and business remains to be seen but, then, some things should simply be done because they are the right thing to do.

The RetailWire discussion is here:  Looking at Literal as Well as Figurative Growth, and the Independent article is here: Digging for victory: Schools back gardens plan.

An article in Convenience Store Decisions wonders “Can Packaging Boost Sales?”

According to the article, in November 2008 McDonald’s reported that 82 percent of its packaging in its nine largest markets is now made from renewable materials. And “convenience store retailers are following Mickey D’s lead, seeking to capture a greater share of takeout sales as well as respect the earth with reliable, environmentally friendly packaging that won’t drive up the cost of takeout meals.”

The question is: how much of a selling point is green packaging at retail? Is the sales lift worth the investment in green packaging?

(At the risk of sounding naive,) I think well-conceived green packaging (starting with reduced packaging) would be a win-win-win: lower cost for the retailer, higher acceptability with the consumer, and better for the planet.

On a different note, we do conveniently ignore the true cost of the excessive throw-away packaging. If the cost of disposing that were added to the price of the product, the switch over to green packing might be faster.

I recall reading about a protest in the UK a couple of years ago by consumers who unwrapped excessive packaging at the cash-till and left it there – imagine that at your local supermarket on a Saturday!

The original article from Convenience Store Decisions is here: Can Packaging Boost Sales?