Devangshu Dutta
May 31, 2010
Are you being carried, or are you carrying others?
To know the answer to that question, bear with me while I take you on a short mental journey through the emerging landscape of “ethical business” and to the stories at the end of this piece. (Okay, you can cheat and skip ahead, but I would really prefer you to read through the whole thing.)
For the most part sustainability and responsibility – or “corporate social responsibility” (CSR) to use the proper jargon – is seen as more relevant to the western economies, rather than the emerging economies like China, India and Brazil.
The pressure to do the ‘right thing’ is like a carpenter’s vice, whose one jaw is public opinion and the other is regulation, together squeezing ever tighter on corporate business. Clearly, there is a significant portion of customers in western markets who are vocal in expressing their opinions on business practices that are seen as wrong or unethical. On the other side, judicial implementation of regulations is also extremely stringent.
In fact, in the last 10-15 years CSR and sustainability have become far more important to top management in western economies since the real penalties in terms of negative impact on the brand and financial penalties through regulation and litigation are extremely high. Multi-billion dollar businesses certainly have much at risk, as demonstrated by well-documented PR disasters of large brands and retailers in the last decade or so. The variety of issues they have faced has covered sweatshop factories, child-labour, product safety, food adulteration and many others.
Since the mid-1990s there has been a steady increase in CSR initiatives, or at least an increase in initiatives that are labelled under the CSR umbrella. There is no doubt that there is good intent behind many CSR initiatives.
Some of these are focussed on improving the core business processes and practices of the company, and have measurable improvement goals that also have a positive impact beyond the company itself. These can truly be called socially-responsible corporate initiatives.
However, one can’t help but question many others which are fuzzy in their impact on both within the business and outside. The motivation of this type of initiative seems to be a two-pronged PR effort: firstly to get positive PR for “good work” mostly unrelated to the business and secondly, more importantly, to avoid negative PR for poor or questionable business practices in the company’s mainstream products or services.
Lest I sound too cynical about the corporate efforts, let me say this: there is also lack of clarity and agreement in non-corporate circles about what constitutes “corporate social responsibility” or “responsible business”. The label is relatively new to mainstream management thinking and very mutable. Social responsibility, ethical business, sustainability are all terms that are broad-based, used interchangeably, and are open to interpretation which can change with the context. (I wrote about this in an earlier column “Corporate Responsibility – Beyond Babel” about 18 months ago.)
And that brings me to four separate incidents that happened recently, which are (in hindsight) neatly threaded together with a common thought process. (Thank you for your patience so far!)
The first was a discussion recently initiated by an international organisation about what could motivate Indian brands and retailers to make moves in the area of corporate responsibility, whether regulations needed to be tighter or whether it would be consumer pressure that would bring about a change. The underlying assumption – right or wrong – was that, as corporate entities, Indian retailers and brands were not sufficiently motivated to take significant and visible steps towards making their businesses more sustainable and socially responsible than their current state. The discussion was inconclusive, with many different, all potentially valid, points of view on the subject.
Very soon thereafter, I had the opportunity to participate in a dialogue with Gurcharan Das, the philosopher-author who, in his last corporate role, was Managing Director – Strategic Planning for Procter & Gamble worldwide. The dialogue primarily centred on his latest book: “The Difficulty of Being Good”. There was much debate and discussion on the wider consequence of individual actions and especially of those in positions of authority, highlighting the importance of individual choices.
A few days later, in a totally different context and with an entirely different person, the third incident occurred, when I was told an updated version of an old story to demonstrate the power of “a few good men” (and women). The story was as follows:
“50 people were travelling in a bus. Part-way through the journey, the weather suddenly turned stormy, with massive thunder and lightning bolts cracking all over the place. At times it seemed as if lightning would strike the bus and kill everyone on board. Then, someone proclaimed that there was someone on the bus whose end had come, who the lightning was seeking, and that it would be better for everyone else to get that person off the bus. The driver stopped the bus, and each person was sent off by turn, to go and touch a tree at a distance. 49 people got off the bus and returned unharmed after touching the tree. Then, as the last person got off and walked away from the bus, the bus was struck by a massive bolt of lightning.”
I thought this was a gruesome but effective moral science tale! During the next few hours I went about my activities, but kept mulling over the lesson(s) in that little story.
Then, that very afternoon, I got an email containing the following thought: “…when it looks like the whole place is going to implode – with pollution, disease, and war; famine, fatigue, and fright – there are still those who see the beauty. Who act with kindness. And who live with hope and gratitude. Actually, they carry the entire planet. (Mike Dooley)”
In looking back to the article 18-months ago, I closed the loop: it is the individual manager, who is also a citizen in a community, a consumer, and as a parent a stakeholder in future generations, who has to make the choices. His or her choices – both right and wrong – do have an impact beyond his or her own life and business. The so-called triple bottom line – profit, people (community) and planet (environment) – are irrelevant unless the first question is answered: “what does this mean for me?”
So as we go about our day, launching and growing brands, opening new stores, creating new products, I offer you this thought to reflect upon: are we carrying, or being carried? Is the bus safe because of us, or are we the ones the lightning is seeking?
[Go to the earlier post: “Corporate Responsibility – Beyond Babel“, December 2008]
Devangshu Dutta
May 21, 2010
A lively discussion / debate took place on Retailwire.com about whether retailers were using chargebacks as justifiable penalties for poor performance by vendors or an unjustified means of generating income for the retailers.
The fact is that fees, discounts and chargebacks are becoming more common, and in private conversations – when no retail customer is within earshot – vendors will verify this. Retailers say that such chargebacks are only compensation for vendors not complying with processes that have been clearly laid down and agreed to, since non-compliance creates extra costs for the retailer, or loses the retailer margin.
But is vendor performance really becoming worse with each passing season? Or is it that difficult trading conditions or insufficient skills are making buyers take this easy road to margin?
It’s an open secret that merchandise quality and delays – the two most common causes for chargebacks – are easily overlooked when the market is hot and the product is in demand.
Chargebacks are a dangerous tool in the hands of a lazy, short-term thinking buyer who is incentivised on gross/realised margins from season to season; to him/her they are a quicker way to get to that bonus check for the season. Pragmatic vendors, for the most part, don’t want to antagonise the buyer because that risks not just business with the current retail customer, but any retailer that the buyer moves to in the future.
It’s ironic that vendors are mainly cited as “partners” when it comes to sharing the retailer’s pain. I don’t recall any retailer calling such vendor-partners up to a stage for distributing checks to share extra margin in particularly profitable years. Comments are welcome from anyone who can remember that happening; we’ll all have something inspiring to quote in industry meets, then. (And I’m really hoping some comments quoting such incidents will appear soon!)
The Retailwire discussion on this topic (with comments justifying both sides) is here – “Clothing Vendors Take a Chargeback Hit” – and the original article in Crain’s New York Business is here – “Retailer fee frenzy hits designers“.
Devangshu Dutta
February 28, 2010
Who knew that a mere vegetable – the humble purple, shiny brinjal, eggplant, aubergine – could create such an uproar?
And why retailers and consumer product companies should be concerned about genetically modified (GM) crops is a complicated story with multiple twists and turns across political, economic, social, scientific and philosophical landscapes.
At their basic level, brinjals have so far been possibly equally hated and loved for their flavour and texture across the world. But their newest avatar – Bt Brinjal – is now being viewed on the one hand as an evil alien transplant that will kill everything good and natural, and the first step of capitalist monopolies to dominate food crops in a large and growing market, while on the other hand it is seen as a saviour of the embattled farmer, an eco-friendly alternative to pesticides and a well-thought out scientific solution to agricultural productivity.
Though it might appear that genetically modification is a 20th century invention, the fact is that such food is not new. Since the time we began farming some 10,000 years ago, we have been carrying out genetic screening and selection, and modifying to create plants and animals that suit our purposes. All farmed products are a product of artificial rather than pure natural selection, as humans have pure-bred and cross-bred strains of crops that are seen as more beneficial in terms of nutrition, hardiness and ease of cultivation.
However, there are some important differences between earlier efforts and now, which underlie the recent loud and violent debate. Let me outline the concerns as seen from the anti-GM side of the table.
Previous genetic selections and modifications happened not just over generations of plants, but generations of human beings. By default, this allowed time to try and test different variants and arrive at varieties that met multiple criteria – profitable cultivation, nutrition, taste, durability and safety. There are concerns that not enough is known about the eventual impact of the new GM crops on human and environmental health, and the speed of adoption frightens people. (In 1948 a Swiss chemist was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work on DDT’s effectiveness as a pesticide, just a few short decades before it was banned from widespread agricultural use for – among other things – apparently causing cancer, and being acutely toxic to organisms other than the pests at which it was targeted.)
In the past, if some variety was wiped out due to climatic variation or pests, it was very likely that alternative varieties were close at hand to substitute it. (Estimates about the number of brinjal varieties in India alone vary widely, from 2,000 to over 3,500 though most of them are not actively cultivated in any significant number.) On the other hand the agricultural information and supply chain today is far more integrated, allowing a previously unknown speed and completeness of adoption of new technology and inputs, frequently at the cost of traditional knowledge. Extinction of natural species is not just due to hunting or disasters, whether man-made or natural. If a new engineered variety is profitable in the foreseeable future, farmers would very likely replace other varieties without examining the long-term impact. (This is true also of other inputs, like overuse of heavily promoted synthetic fertilisers or pesticides.)
Previous ‘engineering’ was restricted to pollination, grafting and selection, whereas now we are attempting to manipulate individual genes or sets of genes, and transplanting genes across species (from a bacterium in the case of Bt). This approach is similar to how we look at most things, today – individually, separate from or devoid of the natural context, ignoring any interaction with other elements (other genes, in the case of genetically modified crops). While in some cases there may be no significant impact on the outcome, our knowledge of genetics is far from complete and holistic to be able to confidently make the statement about no long-term harm.
All agriculture in the last 10,000 years was based on the assumption that future generations of the crop could be raised from seed saved from previous generations. Current genetically modified varieties, on the other hand, are seen as corporate intellectual property created with huge investments, where the return of investment is sought from fresh seed being sold by the company to the farmer for each planting. This is one of the most violently opposed aspects of GM crops, not just in developing economies like India but in developed economies such as the US as well.
I believe I’ve listed the major concerns of the anti-GM side of the debate above, with the rider that not everyone on the anti-GM side shares all the concerns equally.
Unfortunately, the debate is neither simple nor clear as emotions and stakes run high on both sides of the debate.
Pro-GM groups and individuals express the view that their opponents are stuck in the past and are standing the way of progress that is urgently needed to solve immediate human problems.
For one, proponents of genetic modification will point out that the humongous increase in human population needs new strains of crops that can grow more with fewer inputs in terms of water, fertilisers and pesticides. Without such crops, we run the risk of widespread food and water shortages around the world. ‘Green’ concerns may also be quoted in favour of GM crops. The argument is that using genetically modified crops would actually do less damage to the environment than conventional crops, for instance by needing lower doses of pesticide, or producing more crop from smaller patches of land.
Another concern quoted by the pro-GM group is that publicly funded organisations do not have the skills, the scale or the funding to undertake massive and rapid research for the breakthrough agricultural solutions needed in the short term, and that fundamental research needs to be carried out by commercial for-profit organisations. Obviously, as an outcome of that, the profit from the intellectual property needs to be protected such that it can provide adequate returns over a period of time.
For now, most governments (including in India) are playing it safe by maintaining the current status, and disallowing the introduction of GM crops, although there are opposing viewpoints even within each government.
As consumers, also, we could take the view, as many consumers are taking, that what exists (or what existed many years ago) is the best and safest option, since it is the most proven. We could give more muscle to producers and sellers of natural, organically grown varieties, by choosing to buy only such merchandise and rejecting GM foods completely.
I wish it was that simple.
I wish we could say that everything artificial is harmful and everything natural is beneficial. I wish we could blithely accepts labels such as ‘Franken-foods’ for genetically modified crops, treating them as a monster creation.
I wish we could say that one side or the other is adopting more robust scientific methods so that we can take clear and well-informed decisions.
As consumers, unfortunately for us, the truth is not so clear. There are pros and cons on both sides, which will get quoted in and out of context, to support different arguments, for and against genetic modifications.
More importantly, both for consumers and the industry, what is not clear is how complete separation of GM and non-GM products can be maintained. Once GM foods enter the supply chain, it is likely that they will mix with non-GM produce, whether at the farm, in storage or in processing. The current compliance standards in the global food sector offer no confidence that the non-GM and GM supply chains can be sealed off from each other and monitored separately, such that retailers and consumers can make their choice with complete confidence that they are buying what it says on the label.
In this case, more time, and a more robust and holistic investigation may be the only solution. The Environment Minister has asked us to ‘watch this space’.
Now what we end up with in terms of individual, social and economic health will depend on what kind of effort and intent goes into that space. Industry, consumers, scientists, farmers, and governments, all have a role to play in shaping that intent. We all choose whether we want the green organic genes – or the other kind, be they blue genes, purple or yellow.
admin
October 27, 2009
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. |
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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.
Devangshu Dutta
October 8, 2009
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.
Moderator: Mr Michael Lavergne
Session 1 Panel: Mr Javier Serrano, Ms Mary Yan Yan Chan, Mr Bruce E Bergstrom, Mr Hong Lee 
Moderator: Mr Devangshu Dutta 
Overview of the forum