Fashionably Sustainable Or Sustainably Fashionable?

Home , Sustainable sourcing

Fashionably Sustainable or Sustainably Fashionable?

A case study about how fashion companies communicate

environmental sustainability based on green-highlighting

Annika Elisabeth Björkholm – 11186569

Master Thesis – Final version

Business Administration – Marketing

UvA Faculty of Economics and Business

Supervisor: Lars Moratis

Statement of originality

This document is written by student Annika Elisabeth Björkholm who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………… 6 1.1 Primary elements………………………………………………………………… 6 1.2 Academic and managerial relevance…………………………………………… 10 1.3 Structure of the thesis…………………………………………………………... 11

2 LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………………………. 12 2.1 Corporate Social Responsibility…………………………………………………12 2.2 CSR communication and consumer trust ………………………………………..13 2.2.1 Greenwashing and consumer scepticism……………………..16 2.2.2 Green-highlighting and greywashing…………………………19 2.3 The apparel industry .……………………………………………………………20 2.3.1 Sustainability in the fashion industry..………………………..22 2.3.2 Existing research ……………………………………………..24 2.3.3 Low-end fast fashion……………………………………….....26 2.3.4 Mid-range premium fashion………………………………...... 27 2.3.5 High-end luxury fashion ………………..………………..…...28 2.4 Research framework and objectives………………………………………….…..30

3 METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………………………...33 3.1 Research method ………………………………………………………………...... 33 3.1.1 Sample………………………………………………………………….34 3.1.1.1 Case company 1: H&M…………………………………....…..35 3.1.1.2 Case company 2: Levi Strauss & Co. ………………………....36 3.1.1.3 Case company 3: Burberry………………………………….....37 3.1.2 Document analysis……………………………………………………...38 3.2 Research procedure and data analysis…………………………………………….....41 3.3 Evaluation of the study………………………………………………………………43

4 RESULTS……………………….…………………………………………………………....45 4.1 Drivers ……………………………………………………………………………....45 4.1.1 Internal drivers ………………………………………………………....45 4.1.2 Market drivers ………………………………………………………….46 4.1.3 Context drivers ………………………………………………………....47 4.2 Practices …………………………………………………………………………...... 49 4.2.1 Products ………………………………………………………………...49 4.2.1.1 Case 1: H&M ……………………………………………….....49 4.2.1.2 Case 2: Levi Strauss & Co. ………………………………...….52 4.2.1.3 Case 3: Burberry …………………………………………...….54 4.2.2 Processes ……………………………………………………………….56 4.2.2.1 Case 1: H&M ……………………………………………...…..56 4.2.2.2 Case 2: Levi Strauss & Co. ……………………………...…….59 4.2.2.3 Case 3: Burberry ………………………………………...…….62 4.2.3 Supply chains ………………………………………………….……….63 4.2.3.1 Case 1: H&M ………………………………………………….63 4.2.3.2 Case 2: Levi Strauss & Co. …………………………………....65 4.2.3.3 Case 3: Burberry ………………………………………………66 3

4.2.4 Findings ………………………………………………………………….66 4.2.4.1 Case 1: H&M ……...…………………………………………....67 4.2.4.2 Case 2: Levi Strauss & Co.……………………………………...68 4.2.4.3 Case 3: Burberry ……………………………………………...... 69 4.3 Comparison of the case companies ………………………………………………..…70 4.3.1 Product aspects …………………………………………………….....…70 4.3.2 Process aspects ………………………………………………………….71 4.3.3 Supply chain aspects …………………………………………….…..….72

5 DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………………………………75 5.1 Revised results ……………………………………………………………………….75 5.2 Findings related to existing research ………………………………………………...77 5.2.1 Drivers: future growth and competitive advantages ……………………78 5.2.2 Practices: high fit and consumer attention ……………………………...79 5.2.3 Consumer scepticism versus transparency ……………………………...80 5.3 Limitations …………………………………………………………………………...83 5.4 Future research …………………………………………………………………….....84

6 CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………. 85

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………….88

FIGURES

Figure 1: A framework of CSR communication….…………………………………………....14 Figure 2: Environmental performance in fashion supply chains …………………………….. 15 Figure 3: Luxury, fashion and premium positioning triangle .……………………………..….24 Figure 4: Research framework: environmental CSR communication in the fashion industry...32 Figure 5: Revised research framework ……………………………………………………...... 77

TABLES

Table 1: Hypothesis-performance relationship………………………………………………..30 Table 2: The sample ………………………………………………………………………..…38 Table 3: Drivers and practices in CSR message content …………..…………………………40 Table 4: Data analysis framework ……………………………………………………………….....42 Table 5: Drivers ………………………………………………………………………….….. 48 Table 6.1: Practices H&M …………………………………………………………….…….. 67 Table 6.2: Practices Levi Strauss & Co. …………………………………………….………..68 Table 6.3: Practices Burberry …………………………………………………….…………..69 Table 7: Revised hypothesis-performance relationship…………………………..…………..70 Table 8: Revised hypotheses …………………………………………………..……………..73 Table 9: New green-highlighting types identified …………………………..………………..75 Table 10: Green-highlighting type by brand and rank ……………………………………….76

APPENDIX

Appendix 1. Word frequency…………………………………………………………………95 Appendix 2. Revised results ………………………………………………………………….98

ABSTRACT

Social issues connected to labour rights have been the dominating cause for concern in most CSR research conducted in the last few years. In the globally dispersed clothing industry this trend is mainly due to the many CSR scandals that have occurred and attracted media attention. Although the fashion industry also has a significant impact on the environment, there is much less research done on environmental sustainability. Also, there has been little research done on efficient CSR communication in this dispersed and polluting trade. This is surprising since CSR scepticism can have a big negative impact on brands, especially in the highly competitive apparel industry.

This study focuses on green-highlighting (Walker & Wan 2012), which highlights the importance of communicating both past and present substantive CSR activities and symbolic future aspirations. The comparative multiple case study explores how three fashion brands operating on different market levels in the fashion industry communicate environmental sustainability through content analysis of corporate websites and publicly available reports. Both the drivers behind CSR activities and the practices

(products, processes and supply chains) of the chosen low-end, mid-range and high-end case brands are identified, analysed and compared.

The analysis shows that the CSR communication of the low-end case brand is most in accordance with green-highlighting, whereas the high-end brand is the least. The results also include the identification of seven new sub-types of green-highlighting (weak symbolic, strong symbolic, weak substantive, strong substantive, unspecified, weak green-highlighting and strong green-highlighting). Two new drivers behind CSR activities that have not been mentioned by scholars before were also found: brand heritage and market leader aspiration.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Primary elements

Imagine yourself as a fisherman in Indonesia. You have lived and worked by the Citarum River all your life, but the natural paradise of your youth has become a pollution paradise in the last two decades.

The water is muggy, there is hardly any fish in the river anymore and the surrounding rice fields don’t yield crop due to the toxic water they’ve been watered with. Also, many of your neighbors and relatives have fallen ill with cancer and there are not many wild animals left in the area (Susanti 2016). The

Citarum is considered one of the most polluted waterways in the world, and you know that the reason for this is the toxic wastewater discharged from the many clothing factories along the river, producing textiles for a worth of €17B a year (Setayati 2015). Your family, neighbors and the natural environment around you are not the only ones to suffer from the toxified river – the economic damage from the water pollution in the last ten years is estimated to be around €750M (Greenpeace Indonesia 2016).

Since you can’t fish in the river anymore but you have to provide for your family in some way and your options are limited, you decide to apply for a job at the clothing factory that toxifies the river.

Picture yourself in another scenario: you’re a Bangladeshi garment worker in one of Dhaka’s overcrowded factories. The building has cracks in the walls, the air is heavy to breathe and working hours are way too long compared to the salary you earn. The neighboring factory building, Rana Plaza, collapsed three years ago and killed several of your closest friends, among the 1138 victims in total.

Although you see the cracks in the walls and ceilings every day and you have problems with your lungs from the polluted air, the factory owners and the government officials don’t seem to care. Another thing that worries you in your workplace is that the eight-year-old girl who usually works next to you hasn’t come to work for a few days, and you suspect that it’s because she had the courage to comment on the cracks in the walls and why nobody fixed them. Maybe she was abused, or maybe even killed.

You decide to keep your mouth shut and keep on sewing – you don’t want to get into trouble and nobody would listen to you here anyways. (Abrams 2016; Butler 2016)

A few of the ethical issues in the apparel industry were illustrated in the two scenarios above. The apparel industry is heavily dependent on resources such as water, chemicals and fossil fuel that pollute and toxify the environment throughout the supply chain and product life-cycle of a garment; from growing and manufacturing the fiber to dyeing and printing the fabric to transporting and selling the garment to finally washing and disposing it (Walker 2008; Shaw et al 2006). Swiftly shifting trends and planned obsolescence are common practices in the industry spurring these unsustainable behaviors.

Environmental pollution is a big problem in the globally dispersed apparel industry, but so are social issues such as sweatshops, employee abuse and child labour in unregulated labour markets, where manufacturing has moved in search of the lowest production cost. The highly competitive apparel industry is one of the most globalized industries in the world with production and distribution lines spread out across the globe. This comes with huge variations in governmental regulations, employment and environmental protection and salary levels as a consequence (Laudal 2010). Clothing companies therefore have several legal and moral standards to manage at many levels and locations in their supply chains. Considering the impact that this multibillion-industry has on both the planet and the people living on it, the fashion industry lends itself for a critical investigation of the sustainability of its business.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become an important standard term in most forms of business in the last years and can be defined as the voluntary integration of social and environmental concerns in business practices and interaction with stakeholders of companies while taking future generations in consideration (Aguinis & Glavas 2012). Companies are expected to do good for the society and are put under external pressure by their stakeholders, who demand more transparent, responsible and sustainable ways of doing business (Bromwell & Powell 2012). Many companies participate in CSR programs in order to reduce the negative impact they have on the environment and society and thus be positive actors for social change, but they are also motivated to engage in CSR in order to boost their own business returns through better reputation, higher levels of sales and

7 investment, customer loyalty, employment interest, a strengthened corporate image and better overall stakeholder relationships (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen 2010). In order to reap these strategic benefits of

CSR, a company has to be able to communicate its efforts efficiently. In order to do this, it has to tackle the two key challenges of efficient CSR communication; raising stakeholder CSR awareness and minimizing stakeholder CSR scepticism. Thus, managers need to both understand how to perform the actions in business practices regarding products, processes and supply chains, and how to communicate these practices in a resourceful way to raise stakeholder awareness and trust.

The term greenwashing is often used to describe the inconsistency between “talk” and “walk” of CSR initiatives (Walker & Wan 2012) and has in general been considered to be bad for the reputation of a firm. However, more recent research has examined if some forms greenwashing, in fact, can have positive effects on an organization. Green-highlighting means that a company communicates both existing and previous substantive CSR actions but also future symbolic CSR ideals and goals (Walker

& Wan 2012). CSR as aspirational talk is CSR communication as merely aspirational ideals for a company’s future actions (Christensen, Morsing & Thyssen 2013). A company can thus communicate its CSR efforts from three main time aspects; the past, present and future practices that are either substantive or symbolic. Past and present actions need solid proof of impact and effectiveness in order to be perceived as credible. Future intentions are aspirational ideas of what the firm wants to do in the future that need a clear plan of action to happen and convince stakeholders.

The company should emphasize the underlying social reasons for why it engages in particular issues in order to further improve the trustworthiness of its CSR communication, such as the company’s commitment to a cause, the impact it has and the CSR motives together with the company fit (Du et al.

2010). The drivers behind engaging in certain CSR issues are according to Caniato et al (2012) either internal, market- or context-driven. According to the scholars, CSR practices involve redesigning products to be more environmentally friendly through the choice of materials, components or

8 packaging; improving manufacturing processes throughout the value chain and managing the supply chain channels and relations.

There is a lack of empirical studies done on CSR communication in the fashion industry. Also, green- highlighting and the underlying drivers for companies to involve in responsible practices are not much researched topics. No previous studies have been conducted with a focus on how different clothing brands in different market levels communicate responsible efforts on their corporate websites and publicly available documents, such as CSR and annual reports. This leaves a research gap for this study, and the following research question aims at filling it.

How do fashion brands communicate environmental sustainability on their

corporate websites and publicly available documents based on green-highlighting?

The research question will answer following sub-questions:

1. What are the underlying drivers for the brand to engage in sustainable practices?

2. What past, present and future CSR practices are communicated and how are they addressed?

3. What are the differences and/or similarities in CSR communication between the three case

companies?

The focus of this exploratory multiple-case study is to analyse how fashion companies communicate environmental sustainability efforts on their corporate websites and publicly available documents on them. The CSR content of three fashion brands that operate in three different market sectors of the industry are analysed and compared. The three different sectors of the apparel industry are low-end fast fashion, mid-range premium fashion and high-end luxury fashion. The chosen case companies that represent the sectors were selected because they have a global presence and claim to engage in socially responsible activities. Content analysis is done in order to trace the drivers and practices behind environmental CSR initiatives the three case companies participate in.

1.2 Academic and managerial relevance

This study contributes to the existing academic research done in the field of CSR communication in multiple ways. It presents a new framework based on existing research and new findings on how fashion companies communicate sustainability and the differences between the three different market levels. This is based on content analysis of three case companies operating in three different sectors of the industry. It empirically tests the concept of green-highlighting by Walker and Wan (2012) by analysing past, current and future CSR activities communicated by the case companies. It furthermore builds on current literature by extending the theory of green-highlighting by adding seven new sub- types to the concept. This is done by examining the different forms green-highlighting can take in CSR communication and how it is operationalized. Both symbolic and substantive green-highlighting is investigated in order to trace evidence of past, present and future efforts. The concept is critically evaluated on the basis of consistency in communication and by comparing it with CSR as aspirational talk. Green-highlighting has not been used to analyse CSR communication in multiple-case studies before, especially not in the apparel industry, although it is a very resource-intensive and polluting trade. Also, two new drivers behind CSR activities have been discovered that build on theory presented by several scholars and further broadens the scope of current literature (Hur et al 2014; Aguinis &

Glavas 2012; Du et al. 2010; Skarmeas & Leonidou 2013).

Since it is very important for managers to understand why, what, how, when and where to communicate responsible actions in an efficient way in order to benefit from CSR strategically, this paper also offers an important managerial implication. The implications of untruthful CSR communication are widespread because consumers are sceptical about which products actually are good for the environment. Due to higher rates of consumer scepticism, legitimate attempts by companies to be more environmentally friendly might lose competitive advantage because consumers see environmental claims as simple marketing tricks without any real positive impact. Untruthful environmental marketing and communication does thus not only hurt the consumers and firms, but also the

10 environment in the end. When a consumer is sceptical about a product and what it claims, she is more likely to ignore all environmental claims, also claims about products that actually are better for the environment. (Polonsky et al 1998) This managerial implication is not only helpful for managers in the apparel industry but can be applied in the CSR communication of any company.

1.3 Structure of the thesis

The structure of this paper follows with a literature review where the key concepts in corporate social responsibility and CSR communication are presented. Also, sustainability issues in the fashion industry are discussed and the three chosen market sectors are presented. In the same chapter, the research gap in existing research is highlighted and a preliminary conceptual framework formulated. Following this, the methodology chapter gives an explanation of the research methods, procedures and data analysis used in the study. The results from the document analysis are presented in the fourth chapter. Finally, the empirical findings based on the obtained data are discussed and the revised conceptual framework presented. Also, limitations of the study and suggestions for future research are given. The final conclusion of the research can be found in the last chapter of the paper.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review will discuss different terms in CSR communication especially related to greenwashing and green-highlighting. Furthermore, an insight to the fashion industry will be given and the three sectors – fast fashion, premium fashion and luxury fashion – will be analysed together with a discussion about sustainable environmental practices in the clothing manufacturing industry and existing research in the field. Finally, the preliminary research framework is presented.

2.1 Corporate Social Responsibility

The way humanity lives today is pushing our Earth’s planetary boundaries and the alarming growth of global environmental problems, such as climate change, resource scarcity and pollution that is caused by human - and mainly business - activity is something we no longer can ignore (Pacala & Socolow

2004; Rockström et al 2009). The negative externalities of environmental degradation come in various forms and exist in almost every industry; ground water is polluted by mining operations, land is contaminated by the vast use of chemicals in agriculture and waterways are toxified by the excesses from textile dyeing processes (Cohen & Winn 2007). Companies in all trades therefore need to make drastic changes in the ways they conduct business.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become “a mainstream, highly visible and commonplace practice” for most businesses today, with focus on applying ethical standards to business practices, but also on the benefits it brings to the reputation and goodwill of a company and the employee and customer satisfaction and loyalty (Skarmeas & Leonidou 2013: 1831; Du et al. 2010). Companies are expected to do good for the society and are put under external pressure by their stakeholders, who demand more transparent, responsible and sustainable ways of doing business (Bromley & Powell 2012). However, the ideals, standards and goals in the area of CSR exploration are constantly evolving and expanding, which results in quite an unstable concept that often is criticized (Gilbert et al 2011; Banerjee 2008).

CSR can therefore be defined in many different ways, but a well-established definition by Aguinis and

Glavas (2012) would read: CSR is the voluntary integration of social and environmental concerns in business practices and interaction with stakeholders of companies while taking future generations in consideration. Corporate responsibility is thus about establishing long-term intergenerational justice in business practices.

Aguinis and Glavas (2012) state that companies engage in CSR practices because of instrumental reasons connected to profit and performance; normative reasons connected to company values; non- financial effects such as better product quality, operational efficiency and more investor interest and for image-protection reasons. Du et al (2010) and Skarmeas and Leonidou (2013) highlight the business benefits a company can enjoy from CSR activities communicated in a reliable manner, for example more sales, higher investment rates and more interest in employment deriving from more positive stakeholder attitudes, but also a stronger corporate image and better relationships with stakeholder.

Also Ambec and Lanoie (2008) claim that responsible companies attract young, well-educated people who never would work for a firm with a bad social and environmental reputation. Hur et al (2014) claim that CSR has a direct positive connection with corporate brand credibility and corporate reputation and the way CSR is communicated to stakeholders is therefore very important. Also, more and more consumers think about ethics when shopping and Jobber (2006: 217) describes ethical consumption as “the taking of purchase decisions not only on the basis of personal interests but also on the basis of the interests of society and the environment”. It therefore has a close link with CSR and how companies should communicate it in a reliable manner in order to avoid consumer scepticism.

2.2 CSR communication and consumer trust

Du et al (2010) highlight that in order for a company to benefit from CSR efforts, it has to communicate its responsible actions in an efficient way by raising stakeholder CSR awareness and minimizing stakeholder CSR scepticism. Chaundhri and Wang (2007) argue that transparency is the key to successful CSR communication. It is thus very important for managers to understand how why, what, when and where to communicate responsible practices in a truthful and resourceful manner. As presented 13 in figure 1 below, CSR communication consists of the content of the message and the channel it is communicated through. The message content is what the company actually communicates about and can be divided into the importance of the issue for the company and the involvement in the initiatives. The scholars claim that a high fit with the cause is important - there should be coherence between the company’s core business and the cause. Nan and Heo (2007:72) define fit as “the overall perceived relatedness of the brand and the cause with multiple cognitive bases”. Du et al (2010) further propose that the company has to assure its stakeholders that it is committed to a CSR issue, clarify the underlying reasons and the impact of the CSR activities in order to communicate in a transparent and proactive manner. Elving (2013) agrees that the degree of skepticism regarding the underlying CSR motives of a firm can predict how successful the performance of the CSR initiatives will be.

This study will focus only on the CSR communication part of the presented framework (framed with a dashed line), which consists of the message content - drivers and practices - communicated through the message channel - corporate websites and public reports - of three chosen case companies. Both channels are managed by the company itself and the content is therefore subjective and lacks objective critique

(Du et al 2010). However, these sources are ideal to compare what the three chosen case companies want to convey to their stakeholders about their sustainable actions.

Figure 1: A framework of CSR communication. Reprinted from Du et al. (2010: 11).

Caniato et al (2012) agree with Du et al (2010) and Elving (2013) on that the drivers behind CSR involvement are important aspects of successful CSR performance, as seen in figure 2 below. The scholars divide the underlying motivating drivers into internal, market and context driven. Internal drivers are related to efficiency objectives and company values. Market drivers on the other hand are connected to stakeholders, whereas context-specific drivers are regulatory reasons for change such as laws and restrictions. CSR communication mostly consists of the responsible practices a company is involved in in the present, have been involved in in the past or want to be involved in in the future.

These practices involve enhancing the product design features such as material, components or packaging; improving the process design throughout the value chain of a product (for example manufacturing) and managing the relationships within the supply chain.

This study will focus on these two parts of the framework; the drivers behind CSR initiatives and the actual practices communicated by the three case companies (framed with a dashed line).

Figure 2: Environmental performance in fashion supply chains. Reprinted from Caniato et al. (2012:

662).

CSR legitimacy is described as “a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions’’ (Suchman 1995: 574). Corporate brand credibility is linked to CSR legitimacy since it shows how likely a stakeholder is to trust the information communicated by a brand and that it can consistently deliver what it has promised (Erdem et al 2002; Newell and Goldsmith 2001). Corporate brand credibility is important for companies because a low rate of credibility perceived by their consumers is likely to have a negative impact on triggering demand, being the brand of choice and generating effective and trustworthy advertisements (LaBarbera 1982). CSR legitimacy is hard to measure because the ideals, standards and goals in the field of CSR are constantly developing and there is no single truth for what sincere CSR communication actually is (Gilbert et al 2011). However, it can be assumed that a company that communicates both underlying motivational drivers for CSR efforts and practices in products, processes and supply chains in a transparent manner, regarding both past, present and future actions, can be considered as legitimate.

2.2.1 Greenwashing and consumer scepticism

The rising number of companies engaging in CSR and the fact that many are caught for fraud or scams by causing social transgressions and environmental disasters, lead to consumers having trouble distinguishing sincere companies from irresponsible ones (Parguel, Benoît-Moreau & Larceneux 2011).

According to a global public tracking only 38 percent of the respondents believe that firms communicate honestly about social and environmental issues (GlobeScan 2012). However, it is interesting to note that

72 percent of these respondents are very interested in learning about CSR. This is a serious problem for companies since they might miss an important chance to engage with consumers that are ever more receptive to social and environmental communication. There is thus a serious credibility gap in companies’ CSR communication which can be seen as the fundamental problem in CSR itself and communication about CSR.

Consumer CSR scepticism occurs when a consumer is not convinced of the true social awareness of a company and expresses doubts about its ethical principles and social responsibility (Skarmeas &

Leonidou 2013). Szykman et al (2004) further discuss consumer scepticism as a result of a company’s unclear CSR motives and intentions, which can make CSR actions backfire. CSR scepticism is influenced by a bad corporate reputation which in turn can influence the purchase behavior negatively

(Elving 2013). Another reason behind CSR scepticism is consumers’ dependence on company written reports on environmental practices, such as CSR reports. Since consumers usually have limited knowledge about the issues discussed in the report and do not have a possibility to control whether or not the communication is truthful, they become more critical towards CSR communication in general and see it as a marketing trick with no real impacts (Polonsky et al 1998; Furlow 2010). It can be assumed that CSR scepticism is especially important in highly competitive industries, such as fashion retail, where brands play a key role and consumers have many alternatives to choose between.

The CSR efforts of several companies have been criticized due to a gap between their CSR communications and actions which lead to stakeholder scepticism. Walker and Wan (2012) describe this phenomenon as greenwashing - an inconsistency between CSR communications and CSR activities, or a discrepancy between “talk” and “walk”. Lyon and Maxwell (2011: 5) define this umbrella term as the

“selective disclosure of positive information about a company's environmental or social performance while withholding negative information on these dimensions”. Marquis and Toffel (2012) further elaborate on selective disclosure as the act of shaping an impression of transparency while masking the company’s true actions. This misalignment is also known as decoupling and can be either policy-practice decoupling or means-end decoupling, where the policies are thoroughly implemented but don’t connect with the core task of the company (Bromley & Powell 2012). This is what Nan and Heo (2007), Du et al (2010) and Elving (2013) call company-cause fit.

Although most articles about CSR communication criticize this misalignment between communication and actions, it can also be seen as a positive and inspirational message for the future efforts of a company,

17 moving the entire CSR field towards higher goals and standards. Christensen et al (2013) name two types of hypocrisy in CSR communication: hypocrisy as duplicity, which is when a firm is involved in fraud by hiding an inconvenient truth behind pretty words, and hypocrisy as aspiration, when it imagines a wished-for future already partly is true and lets it serve as a positive inspiration for the future. The scholars argue that the unstable and evolving nature of CSR actually is a positive thing and that CSR communication is fundamentally aspirational to its nature and therefore does not perfectly mirror a company’s practices. The scholars describe CSR as aspirational talk as the CSR ideals that a company strives for in the future, without necessarily mentioning substantive past or current actions. Aspirational

CSR communication has according to the scholars the potential to act as a resource for positive social change and stimulate CSR improvements, even when a company doesn’t live up to these aspirations yet.

Christensen et al (2013) further argue that this discrepancy can even increase the company’s principles, practices and goals and act as a driver for change by motivating employees to quicker implement these aspirations.

The critique against CSR as aspirational talk is that consumers perceive the CSR actions as more substantial than they actually are, which leads to a distorted and critical view of the CSR activities of all companies, even the ones that are truly sincere about CSR (Parguel et al. 2011). Aras and Crowther

(2009) further argue that CSR is purely about doing something that is good for the society, not only talking about it. Also Banerjee (2008: 51) suggests that only talking about CSR only is a symbol of an ideological effort that intends to legitimize and further strengthen the power of large corporations.

Bowen and Aragon-Correa (2014) stress the importance of aiming at the material impacts of voluntary environmental initiatives in the firms themselves, but also in cross-sector partnerships and entire industries, instead of merely symbolic communications.

2.2.2 Green-highlighting and greywashing

Walker and Wan (2012) argue that only talking about CSR is harmful to both the company’s reputation and financial performance. They developed the term green-highlighting - CSR actions of a company 18 that align with the communication by combining “talking the talk and walking the walk”. This is done by both communicating environmental responsibility in what they are doing currently or what they have done in the past, called substantive actions, and having clear CSR goals and plans for the future

- symbolic actions. The difference between greenwashing and green-highlighting is that the symbolic actions are supported by substantive ones in green-highlighting and that it doesn’t harm the firm financially, whereas greenwashing does. The key to successful and sincere CSR communication is according to the scholars a combination of symbolic and substantive actions, which is beneficial both for the company’s finance and reputation. This term focusing on both past, present and future aspects of CSR communication and action is an accurate tool for this study to analyse the CSR drivers and practices communicated by three case companies operating in the clothing industry.

The last form of greenwashing is called greywashing, which means that a company behaves in a responsible manner but does not communicate these actions. Thus, even though greywashing actually does more good than harm, it is still not in line with the CSR claims of an organization since it does not say anything about them. This type of greenwashing has increased due to companies being afraid of greenwashing accusations (Furlow 2010).

This study will focus on the drivers behind CSR activities and the actual practices in CSR communication presented in figures 1 and 2 earlier in this chapter. These factors are coherent with the theory of green-highlighting presented by Walker and Wan (2012) about the symbolic and substantive

CSR efforts the company communicates in past, present and future tense. The communicated symbolic and substantive drivers and practices in the past, present and future are analysed on the base of how well they are illustrated with evidence (for example facts, numbers, charts or listings) and how consistent the communication is.

2.3 The apparel industry

The focus of this study will be CSR communication in the apparel industry. The fashion industry, as many other industries, is making use of more resources than our planet allows. As the demand for clothes increases, the amount of waste and pollution follows while resources become more and more scarce. With ever shorter product life cycles, higher global competitive pressure and increased social and regulatory demands on companies to act environmentally conscious, manufacturing principles that focus on environmental sustainability and social responsibility have become increasingly important

(Ellram et al 2008). However, environmental requirements are many times seen as a burden that slows down or adds costs to product development and are sometimes even added to the product after it has been developed to give the company a better image (Handfield et al 1997; Angell & Klassen 1999).

The clothing industry is a globally dispersed multi-billion dollar business; the total value of the clothing industry was $483 billion in 2014 and it accounted for 2.6% of all total global exports (World Trade

Organization, WTO 2015). The industry is very resource- and labour-intensive, but also one of the most polluting industries in the world especially in comparison to its global volumes (WTO 2015).

Pollution from manufacturing, transportation and waste, the use of toxic chemicals, non-renewable resources and planned obsolescence together with unethical working practices such as employee abuse are some of the big CSR issues in the industry (Turker & Altuntas 2014; De Brito et al 2008; Barnes

& Lea-Greenwood 2006). The supply chain of a garment is very long and includes several steps and processes. Water is needed not only to grow the fibers, but also to dye and print the fabric and wash it.

Chemicals are used as pesticides when growing natural fibres, but also in the different treatments of the garments, such as dyeing and washing. Cotton, which many garments are made out of, is seen as the world’s most valuable crop, but also the dirtiest; cotton production alone makes use of 16% of all global insecticides (54% of pesticides used in India), which is more than any other individual crop

(Environmental Justice Foundation 2007). Due to the lack of pollution control systems and knowledge of the harms, chemicals used in the different production processes get in our soil, air and waterways.

The environment gets toxified, which is harmful to all living organisms living in and around it.

Furthermore, some very commonly used synthetic fabric materials are made from fossil fuels, such as polyester, which consist of both coal and petroleum. Also running the factories producing the yarn, fabric and clothing are mostly running on fossil fuels. (Walker 2008; Shaw et al 2006)

The industry does not only have a negative impact on the environment. Due to the huge amount of clothes produced, the need for manpower for manufacturing them is equally huge. The sector is still one of the most labour-intensive industries, although technology and workplace practices have advanced (International Labour Organization 2014). Due to globalisation and ever lower clothing prices, factories have been moved to countries where production is as cheap as possible and working conditions usually are poor. Production costs are pushed down while efficiency is pushed up. The apparel industry is one of the most globally dispersed industries, with manufacturing and distribution lines spread around the world, which naturally comes with consequences such as huge variations in governmental regulations, employment and environmental protection and payment levels (Laudal

2010).

The textile, clothing, leather and footwear (TCLF) industries are characterized by low predictability and low profit margins due to swiftly shifting trends and high competition that bring production costs down. The industries are furthermore clearly divided into high-end and low-end producers and brands.

Usually high-end production makes use of factories with better equipment and a more skilled workforce, whereas low-end production has a strong low-price focus and frequently bad working conditions. Also, the employees of the clothing industry consist on average of 68% (in some countries up to 90%) young uneducated women, who are vulnerable to exploitation, violence and inequalities.

(International Labour Organization 2014) However, the clothing industry also provides millions of low-skilled workers in developing countries with jobs and can thus help both individuals and nations rise from poverty and make economic progress.

A company is not only responsible for environmental and social scandals it causes with its own direct actions, but is also held accountable for problems caused by suppliers and partners. Pollution and immoral actions of suppliers and manufacturers have a direct effect on the reputation of a brand and

CSR has thus become a necessary part of the globalization strategy also of fashion companies (Li et al.

2014). Due to the high rate of outsourcing in the apparel industry, many clothing brands that produce their collections in external factories try to play innocent when a CSR scandal occurs (Spar & La Mure

2003). The scholars mention the labour condition scandal of Nike as an example, where the brand value, reputation and stock price sunk significantly due to the revelation of the sweatshops the company used to produce products, where children worked under immoral conditions. Nike finally capitulated due to strong NGO activism and set monitoring systems to control the factories better. The greater the importance of a brand is for a company, the more likely it is to capitulate to activist pressure. CSR scandals have a huge impact on fashion companies, since a brand often is the central feature distinguishing one apparel brand from another (Spar & La Mure 2003).

2.3.1 Sustainability in the fashion industry

Ruthless treatment of both employees and the environment in the fashion industry has gained much media attention in recent years. This has opened the eyes of many consumers to reveal how harsh the highly competitive fashion industry can be, but also put pressure on clothing companies to act more responsibly and transparently. A well-known example of this is the collapse of Rana Plaza that killed

1138 garment workers in Bangladesh in 2013 (Abrams 2016; Butler 2016). Such scandals cause uproar towards the brands producing garments with negative social or environmental consequences and result in boycotts and activism pressure. This in turn leads to many brands publishing supplier lists and making changes in their products, processes and supply chains in order to appear more responsible and act proactively.

The many multifaceted social and environmental issues that can be found in the fashion industry have also given birth to new clothing brands and collections with sustainability as a core feature, as the demand for “fair fashion” increases. Sustainable fashion can be found in both small-scale ethical clothing brands but also in sustainable practices of big retailers, focusing on cleaner production principles throughout the value chain, sweatshop-free Fair Trade labour conditions, usage of materials that are recycled or organic and higher quality to make garments last longer (Goworek 2011; Joergens

2006).

Due to the many legal, moral, social and environmental standards that clothing companies have to manage at different levels and locations in their supply chains, but also the impact it has on both the planet and people, the apparel sector is a suitable industry to conduct a CSR study upon. This study focuses on how sustainability is communicated in three different market levels of the fashion industry; low-end fast fashion, mid-range premium fashion and high-end luxury fashion. Three case companies have been chosen in order to investigate how they communicate environmental CSR efforts in their sustainability reports and on their websites. The message content is analysed and compared in order to find out what their underlying motives are; what past, present and future CSR actions are communicated and how they are addressed; and how these three different market levels differ from each other when it comes to sustainability. Figure 3 below presents the luxury, fashion and premium positioning triangle adapted from Kapferer (2012: 32) to fit the fashion industry.

Figure 3. Luxury, fashion and premium positioning triangle. Adapted from Kapferer (2012: 32).

2.3.2 Existing research

Caniato et al (2012) have investigated sustainability in fashion supply chains in an exploratory manner by identifying the drivers (market, internal and context), practices (product, process and supply chain) and environmental performance of five different fashion companies (classified as either “green international brands” or “small alternative firms”) that devote significant attention to environmental issues through qualitative interviews. They conclude that big companies focus more on products and process improvements, whereas small companies have been able to reshape their entire supply chains.

This study is also an exploratory case-study on sustainability drivers and practices in the fashion industry, but data will be collected through content analysis instead of interviews and the case companies operate in three different market levels of the apparel industry and are all big multinational brands. The framework presented by the scholars (figure 2) is used as a base for the conceptual framework for this study.

Turker and Altuntas (2014) have investigated sustainable supply chain management in the fast fashion industry by analysing and comparing the contents of corporate responsibility reports of nine different brands. They have based their analysis on five different dimensions: firm objective, performance, risks, improvement, communication and criteria for suppliers. They conclude that it becomes increasingly difficult for these firms to manage and monitor the activities in their decomposed worldwide supply chain, but that all investigated firms pay substantial attention to reporting their sustainability activities.

The nine fast fashion companies compared particularly focus on integrating their suppliers into adapting sustainable practices by setting codes of conduct and monitoring systems. Li et al (2014) have done a similar study with focus on the fast fashion supply chain and apply the sustainability governance mechanisms via a case study based on the seven sustainability commitments of H&M, communicated in the company’s sustainability report. They conclude that the sustainable development of H&M is substantial and well-functioning, by engaging the entire supply chain and through dialogue, control and long-term partnerships. The scholars claim that “H&M can have the power to influence the entire fast fashion supply chain by sharing best practices and developing ways to take sustainability further”

(Li et al 2014: 833). Their gap for future research suggests a comparative analysis between multiple focal companies in the fashion industry.

Mann et al (2013) have focused on the CSR communication of 17 apparel specialty retail companies by analysing corporate website content over a period of one year. They replicated the study one year later to see if there had been an increase in CSR communication. Research done on CSR communication through corporate websites are scarce and no study has been found that focuses on

CSR communication by fashion brands operating in different sectors.

There is not much research done on CSR communication in the luxury market. Thus there is a research gap for this comparative study. However, Achabou and Dekhili (2013) have investigated if there’s a match between luxury goods and sustainability and conclude that recycled materials in luxury products affects consumer preferences negatively and show that there is a mismatch between recycling and

25 luxury products. Also Janssen, Vanhamme & Lindgreen (2014) have investigated the fit between luxury and CSR and claim that luxury is a seldom investigated topic and therefore call for more research in the area of “responsible luxury”. Davies et al (2012) have analysed consumers’ ethical perceptions in the production of luxury goods and their findings suggest that there is a lower tendency to consider ethics when purchasing luxury than commoditized goods. Also they highlight the lack of

CSR literature in the field of luxury.

2.3.3 Low-end fast fashion

Fashion sells being fashionable, which commands the way fashion is produced, distributed and marketed (Kapferer 2012). Since fashion changes swiftly and shops have to get rid of their inventory before the new collection comes in, prices are cut significantly at the end of a season. In order for fashion brands to stay profitable and maximize the gross margin, production costs are lowered as much as possible.

Planned obsolescence is another unsustainable practice that is very deeply rooted in the fashion industry, especially low-end fashion. Companies use this strategy in order to deliberately make products unfashionable or no longer usable, with the purpose of encouraging continuous consumption and thus increasing the rate of sales growth (Guiltinan 2009). This is evident in the case of garments quickly becoming unfashionable, but also in that many fast fashion chains and large retailers design products of poorer quality that last only a limited amount of washes to get customers to shop more frequently to replace the obsolete garment. Obsolete garments often end up in landfills and contribute to the ever-growing mountains of waste. However, several fashion companies have also taken a stance against such unethical consumerism by encouraging customers to bring back their obsolete clothes to the shop so they can be recycled into new clothes. However, there are still claimed technological barriers to produce new products of recycled garments.

The term “fast fashion” comes from shortened lead-times in design, production and delivery, a faster inventory turnover and higher order fulfillment, as a response to swiftly shifting trends and consumer preferences in fashion (Barnes & Lea-Greenwood 2006). Fast fashion is also characterized by chain stores with low prices and planned obsolescence occurs frequently. Kapferer (2012) describes ephemerality and social imitation as typical aspects of products that quickly go out of fashion or become obsolete. Fast fashion is often bought impulsively because consumers get “seduced” by the looks and the price of the products. The process cycle from designing the garment to a ready-to-sell product has been minimized to a matter of weeks, which brings up the question of how sustainable the production and supply chain processes actually are (Choi et al. 2014). Some fast fashion chains introduce a new collection of clothing every week in order to keep consumers interested and shop more often. Fashion has in general become disposable: consumers buy cheap clothes, wear them a few times and throw them away when they become unfashionable or unusable, whereafter they replace them with new garments instead of fixing them. ILO (2015) states that low-end manufacturers often use unsafe technology in the factories and have poorer working conditions for their laborers in order to keep prices as low as possible.

Hypothesis 1: Low-end fashion brands focus on communicating process and supply chain

aspects more than product aspects.

2.3.4 Mid-range premium fashion

Premium fashion brands are in between fast and luxury fashion brands and the premium business model is built upon best-in-class products that communicate style and a proof of quality (Kapferer 2012).

Such brands tend to offer garments of higher quality due to better materials or craftsmanship and can thus be sold for a higher price. Also a well-known and established brand contributes to that mid-range fashion brands can take a premium price. Premium brands tend to have a narrower target customer

27 group than fast fashion and present fewer collections a year. These brands can both have own retail stores and be sold through department stores. Premium fashion is bought as a lasting investment, compared to fast fashion that often is bought impulsively to fit certain trends on the short term.

According to the ILO (2015), high-end brands tend to use factories with higher pollution control, safer technology and better working conditions.

However, due to lack of controlling possibilities in the dispersed fashion supply chains, it could also be assumed that fast and premium fashion garments are produced in the same external factories for the same cost, but premium brands take a higher margin because of higher brand equity. To illustrate an example, Ralph Lauren is a well-known premium brand with a strong brand image and high brand equity. It is successful in creating an illusion of a privileged lifestyle brand from the glamorous 1920s through its skillful branding, even though the brand was established in 1968 and the garments are produced at a low cost in China. This illusion together with the exclusive looks of the flagship stores makes it possible for the brand to take a premium price (Kapferer 2012). Thus, we can assume that a premium image does not always guarantee higher rates of sustainability.

Hypothesis 2a: Mid-range fashion brands focus on communicating product aspects more

than low-end brands.

Hypothesis 2b: Mid-range fashion brands focus on communicating product aspects as

much as high-end brands.

2.3.5 High-end luxury fashion

Kapferer (1998) describes luxury as a scarce, hedonic object of very high quality that is sold at a price far beyond its functional value as a source of self-reward, image and status accessible only for a small amount of people. Phau and Prendergast (2000) further state that luxury brands compete based on exclusivity, a distinguished and exclusive brand identity, high brand awareness and perceived quality

28 and loyal customers. Premium products can also be sold for a very high price and bring the owner a feeling of prestige, which diffuses the difference between the two terms. The distinction between a premium and a luxury brand is that luxury products signal the ability of the buyer to exceed functional and objective needs and benefits and bring the buyer the highest form of social distinction and prestige

(Phau & Prendergast 2000; Hagtvedt & Patrick 2009; Kapferer 2012). Thus, if everyone could afford to buy a specific brand, the prestigious and exclusive luxury aspect would be eroded. Several luxury brands have delocalized their production for cost-cutting reasons by reducing the production cost of the products, instead of setting ever-higher retail prices. This is a frequently occurring practice and can harm the luxury image of a brand by eliminating one of the main sources of true luxury brand incomparability: cultural and historical heritage (Kapferer 2012).

According to Kapferer (2010:42), durability is the opponent of the fashion industry and of the entire mass market industry, due to the idea of planned obsolescence. Luxury on the other hand is the business of long-lasting worth and is hence the enemy of the throw-away society. Although luxury products often are resource dependent and rely on rare and exclusive materials, luxury and sustainable development can be seen to go hand in hand because of the urge to protect these limited resources in the long term by restraining the demand through high prices.

Traditionally high-end brands have not been seen walking hand in hand with sustainable practices due to the use of scarce resources, unethical manufacturing practices and social stratification, but also many luxury brands have started to feel the pressure for more sustainable actions and truthful communication

(Achabou & Dekhili 2013; Janssen et al. 2014). This has accelerated especially after well-known high- end brands have found themselves in negative media attention after CSR scandals, such as when Louis

Vuitton had a poor compliance with supply chain requirements and Prada used illegal immigrant employees to produce bags in Italian sweatshops (Davies et al 2012). Davies et al (2012) further comment that despite many ethical scandals in the high-end fashion industry have occurred, there are not many NGOs controlling this sector, few labelling and certification systems to keep track of

29 responsible luxury and little research on how consumers view ethics when purchasing luxury. A study by two prominent luxury organisations, the Luxury Institute and Positive Luxury that work together with several luxury brands, state that sustainability and corporate responsibility are new requirements also for luxury brands. These findings are based on following key pressures: laws and regulations on supply chain transparency are changing; social norms and celebrity taste-makers are changing; expectations on companies’ way of doing business are changing; investment requirements are changing and resource scarcity is becoming a fact (Positive Luxury 2016).

Hypothesis 3: High-end fashion brands focus on communicating process aspects more than

low-end and mid-range fashion brands.

The three above stated hypotheses are related to different brand types and focus areas, which is why the relationship between them is presented in table 1 below for a clearer overview. The focus area is on the y-axis whereas the brand type is on the x-axis of the table. The hypothesised performance of the

CSR communication ranges from the lowest evaluation - - (very bad) to the highest + + (very good).

Low-end brand Mid-range brand High-end brand Product aspects - - + + + + Process aspects + + + +

Supply chain aspects + + + +

Table 1. Hypothesis-performance relationship.

2.4 Research framework and objectives

The aim of this exploratory case-based study is to analyse how low-end, mid-range and high-end fashion companies communicate environmental sustainability based on green-highlighting on their corporate websites and publicly available documents and reports. Two different factors are identified:

30 the drivers that motivate companies to pursue responsible practices and the different practices they use that are communicated in the identified sources. Due to the complexity and high heterogeneity of the fashion industry, this study has chosen to focus specifically on environmental sustainability, which is an increasingly important and contemporary issue within all layers of the industry.

This study will have both managerial and theoretical implications for further studies about this highly contemporary issue, not only within fashion, but across all fields of mass-production. A review of the existing literature reveals that there is very limited research conducted on the different aspects of how companies communicate sustainability, especially in the apparel industry, although the industry has a considerable impact on both society and environment due to its globally spread and complex supply chains. Exploratory multiple-case studies analysing the CSR content of both sustainability (or annual) reports and corporate websites of fashion brands have not yet been conducted.

Based on an analysis of existing literature presented in this chapter, the different elements of CSR communication in the fashion industry are detailed in the research framework below in figure 4. Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the figure below is preliminary and will be revised in the discussion section. The model is based on the research framework presented by Caniato et al (2012) in figure 2. The two variables are the drivers behind CSR activities and the actual practices in CSR communication. Drivers can be either internal (based on efficiency-seeking, cost-benefits or corporate values) context-based (laws and regulations) or market-based (stakeholder pressure and competition).

Practices are based on product features, material, design, components and packaging; the entire production process from raw material to finished garment and the supply chain (outsourcing, logistics, suppliers and customers). The framework of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is an overarching performance standard that monitors a firm’s overall environmental impact. This study will focus on main dimensions of the GRI framework in order to trace the environmental impacts of the companies’ practices. Following categories are observed in the CSR communication of the three case companies:

31 materials, energy, water, biodiversity, emission and waste, transport and business integration (GRI

2013:52-63). A detailed table of the selected dimensions can be found in the methodology chapter.

The aspect of time has been added as a moderating factor in this study. The time aspect is adapted from

Walker and Wan’s (2012) theory about green-highlighting, which states that CSR communication about both past, current and future actions are seen as a strength for a company. Also, whether the communicated activities are perceived as symbolic or substantive acts as a further moderator of the outcome.

Thus, this research will analyse the CSR messages communicated by three different fashion brands through the message channels corporate websites and publicly available documents and reports, such as CSR and annual reports, with a focus on the past, current and future CSR drivers and practices. The future aspect is based on what the companies say they will do in the future. These aspects aim at answering the research question and the sub-questions regarding why, how, what and when clothing companies communicate their CSR efforts.

Figure 4. Research framework: environmental CSR communication in the fashion industry.

3. METHODOLOGY

This research is a qualitative, interpretive multiple-case study with a focus on the in-depth exploration of how three unique fashion companies communicate their CSR efforts. This chapter explains how the empirical part of the study has been done in order to answer the purpose of the study stated in previous chapters. An explanation of chosen methods is given, how case companies and documents were selected, how data was collected, how the data was analysed and how credible the end result is based on these criteria.

3.1 Research method

A qualitative approach was selected for this research for several reasons. This study takes an exploratory approach in discovering how the chosen case companies communicate CSR drivers and practices due to lack of previous research in the studied topic. This research adds to existing literature by presenting fresh insights, asking new questions and assessing the topic of CSR communication in a new light (Saunders & Lewis 2012).

The approach of this research is a combination of a deductive and an inductive approach, since the codes used for the data analysis are derived from existing theory collected before the fieldwork, but the research is also open to new themes and codes along the process and modifications of existing codes. The codes are led by the theoretical framework presented in the previous chapter, however these can change during the data collection and analysis process. A preliminary conceptual model together with a number of hypotheses is created before the actual research and is concluded into a new or modified theory which is presented in the discussion of this paper. This is done by analysing, measuring and observing patterns and often occurring scenarios during the research, in order to reach propositions to turn into theory. An inductive approach is more flexible and more tolerable for change than a deductive one, which is convenient when researching a fairly new phenomenon that hasn’t been much studied before. (Saunders & Lewis 2012)

3.1.1 Sample

In order to avoid criticism and scepticism of having “all eggs in one basket”, which would be the case if only one company was investigated, a multiple-case methodology approach was chosen for exploring the contemporary subject of this study (Yin 2014: 64). The sample consists of three case companies that were chosen through purposeful sampling, which means that cases were selected on the basis of suitability to answer the research question (Marshall 1996). The strategy for the selection of sampled case companies is according to Flyvbjerg (2006) a paradigmatic case selection, since this thesis aims to develop a metaphor or establish a norm for the domains that the case companies represent, which in this case concern low, mid and high-end fashion. The chosen cases were selected since they are suitable for understanding the relationships between the analysed concepts and since they offer a representative sample pool of different kinds of companies (Eisenhardt 1989). According to Yin (2009:57) the selection is based on theoretical replication, which predicts contrasting results for anticipatable reasons, which in this study is based on the different market levels the case companies operate in.

The case companies are split in three different categories based on the market level they operate in within the fashion industry. This means that each case represents one market level. The three case companies were chosen on the basis of following criteria:

- Well-established international brands with focus on design and retail.

- Delocalized production that relies on external manufacturers for production activities.

- Strong sustainability focus and strive to be market leader.

- Separate “sustainability”-section on the corporate website.

- Publicly available CSR report, annual report with strong sustainability focus or other

documents communicating CSR initiatives.

- Member of following NGOs:

o Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC) which is an alliance for sustainable production in

the textile industry. SAC has developed the Higg Index, which is a standardized supply 34

chain measurement tool for understanding the environmental and social impacts of

producing and selling products (apparelcoalition.org).

o Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) for more sustainable cotton production by training

farmers on practices that cut consumption of water and chemicals while increasing yield

and profitability (bettercotton.org).

o ZDHC (The Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals Programme) with aim to

implement sustainable chemistry in the textile and footwear industries

(roadmaptozero.com).

The three chosen case companies are presented below. Rivals that were considered were Zara and

Mango for fast fashion, Ralph Lauren and Tommy Hilfiger for premium fashion and Chanel and Louis

Vuitton for luxury fashion. The initial idea was to choose three companies that use the Global Reporting

Initiative (GRI) as a base for CSR communication, but it was difficult to find three comparably globally prominent brands that use this standard and highlight sustainability efforts in marketing and communication. Thus, the selection below was considered to have the best match with each other and with the requirements presented above.

3.1.1.1 Case company 1: H&M Hennes & Mauritz AB

The Swedish fashion group H&M Hennes & Mauritz AB (hereafter H&M) was chosen to represent the fast fashion sector in this study as the company is one of the biggest fast fashion retailers in the world and has been used as an example in several previous studies (Turker & Altuntas 2014; Li et al

2014; Mann et al 2013). The H&M brand is globally well-known and has currently 4100 stores in 64 markets, with 148 000 direct employees and 1.6 million indirect employees in the supply chain (H&M

2016b). The company has been on the market since 1947 and had a revenue of €18,985B in 2015

(H&M 2016c).

The brand has a sustainable clothing line “H&M Conscious” and is loudly communicating its CSR efforts both in ads and by sponsoring and even hosting sustainability events, such as the Copenhagen

Fashion Summit and a Circular Fashion event (together with KPMG in Amsterdam in September

2016). The H&M Group, which also includes the brands COS, Weekday, & Other Stories, Cheap

Monday and Monki, has its own non-profit global foundation, the H&M Foundation, that invests in

“education, clean water, strengthening women and protecting the planet” (H&M 2016a). The group furthermore claims to have several collaborations and partnerships with NGOs and is listed on several indexes and rankings, such as Dow Jones Sustainability Index, Global Compact 100 Stock Index,

FTSE4Good Index and awarded with the RobecoSAM Sustainability Award and as one of the World’s

Most Ethical Companies 2016 (H&M 2016c).

The corporate website of H&M has been analysed in the section of “sustainability” (H&M 2016a).

Furthermore the group’s CSR report of 2015 called “Conscious actions” which consists of seven sustainable commitments communicated on 130 pages has been analysed (H&M 2016b). The supplier compliance levels (H&M 2015) and parts of the annual report from 2015 (H&M 2016c) have also been analysed.

3.1.1.2 Case company 2: Levi Strauss & Co.

Levi Strauss & Co. (LS&Co.) has been chosen to represent the mid-range sector of premium fashion.

The company sells apparel labels Levi's, Dockers, Signature by Levi Strauss, and Denizen and is globally active in 110 markets with a net revenue of €4,306B in 2015. The total number of employees was 12,500 in 2015. (LS&Co. 2016b)

The company claims to be the first worldwide clothing company to found a comprehensive “workplace code of conduct” and global guidelines for water quality standards for their manufacturing suppliers

(LS&Co. 2016a). Levi Strauss & Co. highlights the durability of their products as a cornerstone of their business practices. The brand has further invested in production processes and collections using

36 recycled materials and less water, for example the Waste

Strauss Foundation, which promotes the human rights and welfare of unprivileged people affected by the company’s business operations. LS&Co. is further a member of several environmental sustainability initiatives, such as the Better Cotton Initiative, the Sustainable Apparel Coalition and the

United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) (LS&Co. 2016a).

The corporate website under the section “sustainability” (LS&Co. 2016a) has been analysed together with the company’s 2015 annual report (LS&Co. 2016b). The company further provides several smaller CSR related documents on the website that were analysed: The Lifecycle Assessment of a Jean

(LS&Co. 2015), CEO Water Mandate (LS&Co. 2014) and the Sustainability Guidebook (LS&Co.

2013). The web shop (Levi’s 2016) and the factory list (LS&Co. 2016c) have also been looked through.

The brand does not provide a separate CSR report, but these documents can be assumed to cover the same amount of information as a CSR report.

3.1.1.3 Case company 3: Burberry

The British fashion house Burberry was chosen as the case company for high-end fashion because of their loud sustainability communication. The brand is active in 64 markets worldwide with a workforce of 10,613 employees and a revenue of €2,955B in 2015 (Burberry 2016d).

The company was top-ranked in the “Dow Jones Sustainability Index” 2016 and is also listed in the

“FTSE4Good Index” and the “MSCI Global Sustainability Index Series” and is furthermore a partner of the “UN Global Compact”, the “Ethical Trading Initiative” and the “Sustainable Apparel Coalition”

(Burberry 2016b). Burberry also runs its own foundation “Burberry Foundation”, which supports innovative youth charities with 1% of company profits (Burberry 2016b).

The production of Burberry has delocalized from Great Britain a few years ago and caused a major uproar because the country of origin is according to some a very important factor of luxury goods

(Kapferer 2012: 362). Although Burberry can be seen as a luxury brand, it follows a fashion business strategy where production costs are reduced as much as possible and customers’ emotional experiences are enhanced on a short-term profit base. Because of the delocalized manufacturing, Burberry can be compared with H&M and Levi Strauss & Co.

The corporate responsibility report of Burberry from 2015 is a separate document of 53 pages (Burberry

2016a). The report is an overview of the most important numbers that are presented in more detail on the corporate website under “corporate responsibility” (Burberry 2016b). Also the Burberry Global

Environmental Policy (2014), the Basis of Reporting for 2015/16 (Burberry 2015), the web shop

(Burberry 2016c) and parts of the annual report of 2015 (Burberry 2016d) were analysed.

Table 2. The sample.

3.1.2 Document analysis

Data on what the three chosen case companies communicate about their sustainable actions have been collected from existing data through content analysis of corporate websites, CSR or annual reports of the year 2015 and other publicly available documents. Analysing publicly available documents is a good way to research what a company wants to tell the outside world about its ideals, efforts and image.

Content analysis is a research technique that is used to define the occurrence of specific words and concepts in a text and is according to Krippendorff (2004: 18) used for producing “replicable and valid inferences from texts (or other meaningful matter) to the contexts of use”. It is a scientific tool suitable for examining data systematically to find new insights about a specific phenomenon (Krippendorff

2004) and is extensively employed in CSR research and is the most used research method for analysing companies’ social and environmental communication (Milne & Adler 1999).

In this study, the content of CSR or annuals reports and corporate websites was analysed and interpreted in order to explore the drivers and practices behind environmental CSR communication. The significant texts in the documents were conceptualized in order to find patterns in the use of words, phrases, concepts and themes. The coding process began with analysing the relevant texts including the six sub- codes (presented in table 3 below) to see if they involve the past, present or future CRS practices or drivers and if they can be classified as symbolic or substantive. Then the existence and frequency of occurring words, phrases and sentences were measured in each document whereafter they were compared with each other and the hypotheses. The content has been analysed through human text coding by thoroughly reading the message channels of the three case companies and noting the communicated drivers and practices (Neuendorf 2002). The word frequency analysis of the 100 most frequently occurring words of each case was done through computer coding using nVivo and can be found in Appendix 1. The bolded words are connected to sustainability and the weighted average percentage is compared to the total word count.

By combining these message channels of CSR communication, this study aims to achieve a holistic perspective of CSR communication in depth and detail (Flyvbjerg 2006; Yin 2014). By comparing the

CSR messages communicated through documentation, the content is stable and can be reviewed repeatedly. Also, the content has not been specifically created for the case study and can thus be seen as unobtrusive. Furthermore, documentation is both specific and broad with details that cover a long time, many events and settings. However, documentation may also contain bias since the content reflects the thoughts and ideas of the document’s author. It should be observed that document analysis is used as a tool to analyse communicated CSR in this research, not necessarily CSR actions that really have taken place. (Yin 2009: 106)

Table 3 below illustrates the two analysed message elements drivers (underlying motivational reasons for engaging in CSR action) and practices (CSR actions) together with a short explanation on each sub-element based on Caniato et al (2012) and Du et al (2010) presented in the literature review of this study. Practices are further divided into the time aspects past, present and future, but also symbolic and substantive actions, as presented in the data analysis framework in table 4.

Table 3. Drivers and practices in CSR message content.

The practices have been analysed based on the environmental sustainability dimension according to the GRI G4 guidelines (2013). The environmental dimension of sustainability is according to the GRI

(2013:52) “the organization’s impact on living and non-living natural systems, including land, air, water and ecosystems.” Following aspects from the GRI G4 environmental guidelines (2013:52-63) have been considered when analysing the document and website content:

- Materials: ability to reduce material use and increase recycling. - Products and services: initiatives that mitigate environmental impacts of products, services and packaging. - Energy: energy consumption and intensity inside and outside the organization (also supplier production energy consumption), development of energy-efficient products and saved energy. - Water: water sources affected by practices and recycled/reused water. - Biodiversity: prevention, management and restoration of damage caused by organization’s practices on the natural habitat.

- Emissions: measure and reduce levels of greenhouse gases (GHG), ozone-depleting

substances, NOX, SOX, and other significant air emissions. - Effluents and waste: amount and quality of discharged water, waste and spills. - Transport: environmental impacts from transport, logistics and distribution. - Supplier environmental assessment: environmental performance screening of new suppliers; negative environmental impacts in the supply chain and actions taken.

3.2 Research procedure and data analysis

The research procedure follows a typical multiple-case study procedure presented by Yin (2009:60), where theory first is developed, followed by the selection of cases and design of a data collection protocol. Thereafter data is collected through individual case studies and individual case reports are written for each case. The procedure ends with analysis and conclusion of findings through cross-case conclusions drawing, theory modification, policy implication development and finally a cross-case report of the findings.

Content analysis involves coding and classifying data (also known as categorization or indexing) and is used in qualitative research in order to classify and group the collected data (Neuendorf 2002). This is done in order decipher the collected data and highlight the most important messages, features and findings (Neuendorf 2002). The content collected from the documentary analysis has been identified and linked to existing theories in order to find a connection with already known phenomena, but also to explore new patterns for a new inductive theoretical framework (Spiggle 1994).

Data has been analysed based on following techniques: pattern matching, explanation building, time- series analysis, logic models and cross-case synthesis (Yin 2009: 142-167). Pattern matching is relating the observed variables to the predicted ones made before data collection, which in this study are the hypotheses stated in the literature review. Explanation building is comparing the findings of an initial case to other cases, which is done here by observing the CSR communication of three different fashion

41 brands. Time-series analysis is adopted in this research by analysing the communicated CSR practices in the past, current and future to trace changes and similarities over time and between cases. Firm-level logic models are used in this study by the specification and operationalization of a complex chain of events (drivers and practices of CSR) over a period of time (the past, present and future) in different brands. This technique is similar to pattern matching since it also highlights the importance of comparing collected data to predicted hypotheses. Finally, cross-case synthesis is applied in this study since it involves more than two case companies. Word tables for every case have been created to display collected data, in order to draw cross-case conclusions about the three case companies. When data has been collected, a comparative cross-case analysis is created to clearly display the final data from the individual cases according to the research framework (table 10 and Appendix 2). Clear data display allows the researcher to distinguish systematic patterns, themes and interrelationships in the analysed data in order to answer the research question. (Yin 2009)

Following set of codes (table 4) has been used to analyse the content of the method channels in the environmental CSR communication. However, codes can be redefined, added or discarded during the document analysis process.

Table 4. Data analysis framework based on communicated environmental CSR drivers and practices.

3.3 Evaluation of the study

Both qualitative and quantitative researchers need to test and prove that their studies are credible.

Therefore the study is critically reviewed with focus on four tests can be used to judge the quality of a research design. First these concepts are briefly explained and examined based on how well they are fulfilled in the study. Thereafter the quality of each part of the study is gone through.

Validity shows how well the research answers its purpose (Saunders et al 2012) and can be divided into three parts; construct validity, which is the use of correct measures, internal validity which establishes causal relationships leading to other conclusions and external validity that outlines the domain to which results can be generalized (Yin 2009). All these terms should be carefully overseen in case studies in the research design, data collection and analysis. Tactics that can be used to increase validity in case studies are the usage of multiple sources of evidence, match patterns, build explanations, usage of logic models in data analysis and replication logic (Yin 2009). Also Patton

(2002) suggests the use of triangulation in order to determine the validity of a qualitative study, by combining different methods and data. The construct validity of this study can be considered high since data triangulation is used by combining different kinds of document sources by analysing both corporate websites and publicly available CSR reports and documents. The data from the different sources was put together by using the codes presented in table 4 as a base for the analysis. This also made it easier to know what to focus on in the CSR communication. A sufficient level of triangulation is reached by using several sources and confirming the information in them. However, by combining this document analysis with other types of data sources, such as interviews with company representatives and documents or reports written by external parties, an even higher degree of triangulation could have been reached. (Yin 2009; Patton 2002)

The internal validity can be seen in the data analysis part, where a clear model presents the collected data in order to match patterns, trace differences and build explanations. External validity is about analytic generalization and can also be considered sufficient since the research question includes the word “how” and appropriate theory has been used in the literature review. (Yin 2009)

Reliability is the degree of consistent and stable results in a research and examines if the same study can be repeated with the same results in order to minimize errors and biases (Patton 2002; Yin 2009).

Reliability can be tested in the data collection phase of the research and can be established by using a case study protocol or developing a case study database. The reliability of this study can be considered high, since the content is derived from publicly available documents and websites (which have been printed) and the researched aspects have been clearly clarified. The chain of evidence is furthermore held throughout the study (from research question to case study report), which allows the external observer to follow the development of evidence derived from data to become conclusions of the case study (Yin 2009: 127).

Spiggle (1994) has listed four ways to measure the quality of qualitative studies. Innovation means to bring a new and creative way to observe a phenomenon, integration to find something in the material which is beyond the typical findings, resonance how informative and inspiring it is and adequacy how well the results are linked to the research. This research can be considered to be innovative because it observes CSR communication from an unusual perspective with a focus on three different market levels in fashion that hasn’t been done before. The author of this research finds the topic very interesting and inspiring and hopes that this is communicated through the paper to the reader as well. The aim of this research is to find new perspectives of CSR communication in the fashion industry that are different from usual discoveries. If this aim is accomplished, resonance and adequacy requirements are also fulfilled. The shortcomings and limitations of this study are presented in the discussion part.

4. RESULTS

In this section of the research, the results found through the empirical content analysis are presented and analyzed.

4.1 Drivers

The drivers are the underlying motivational reasons for companies to engage in CSR actions. The internal, market and context drivers are presented in detail below together with the findings from each case company’s CSR communication. Table 5 presents the concluded drivers of all three case companies. This chapter answers the first sub-question presented in the introduction of this thesis:

SQ1: What are the underlying drivers for the brand to engage in sustainable practices?

4.1.1 Internal drivers

The internal drivers behind CSR practices of the three case companies were fairly similar. All three companies name future or long-term growth and success as an important key driver. The CEO of H&M says that he believes that the future success of any company depends on efficient and long-term sustainability work. H&M wishes to continue growing, but is committed to grow responsibly - “our growth must always be balanced by sustainable practices” (H&M 2016b: 4). Also Levi Strauss & Co. highlights driving positive and sustainable change together with future profitability aspects (Levi

Strauss & Co. 2016a). So does Burberry, as the brand says to “drive continuous improvement in performance” by setting sustainable targets and objectives (Burberry 2014: 3).

Corporate values is another internal driver that all three brands share. Levi Strauss & Co. (2016a) mentions empathy, originality, integrity and courage as some of their corporate values and claims to be a leader in making a difference and highlights the company’s historical heritage of many firsts. The company claims that it is “made of progress” and that this is woven into everything they do, from clothes production to the care for planet and people. H&M (2016b) states that the family-owned company is based on a long-term view and a strong commitment to sustainability that is deeply rooted

45 in the culture of the company. The CEO of the company further acknowledges the aim for a circular economy and poverty reduction in developing countries as some of the most important corporate values

(H&M 2016b). Burberry (2014: 2) takes a slightly different approach on this and highlights the

“extended global community” that is “at the heart of the core values: to protect, explore and inspire”.

The company further claims that its environmental policy “directly supports one of the themes in our business strategy: operational excellence.”

The next common factor is production cost reduction and profitability. This can already be linked to the first factor mentioned - long-term success – since profitability can be seen as a part of this. Resource efficiency and production cost reduction are themes that all three companies also mention separately.

Levi Strauss & Co. (2016a) has a strong focus on one specific resource: water. The company claims that the extensive water usage in the industry and the water scarcity because of this acts as an internal driver for the company to innovate and transform the way they do business in order to become the world’s most sustainable apparel company.

Burberry (2014) further expresses two internal drivers to act responsibly: to attract and retain talented employees and to strengthen the brand. These two points are very vital for many companies, especially for those who seek to attract young, well-educated people who wouldn’t work for a company with poor social and environmental reputation and for companies with a valuable brand (Ambec & Lanoie 2008).

4.1.2 Market drivers

Also the market drivers look very similar. Competitive advantage and strategic leverage to rival brands are the key driver for all three companies, but is expressed in different ways. H&M (2016b) says they want to set a good example for other brands by showing that you can be both profitable and responsible at the same time. Levi Strauss & Co. (2016a) wants to differ from competitors but also mentions to show example by being a good steward for sustainability. The company further strongly communicates the aim to be a market leader in sustainability and claims that it is their “responsibility as a leading

46 apparel company to be a catalyst for change – within and beyond our industry” (2016a). H&M’s statement is very similar: “we want to cooperate within the industry as well as across industry borders”

(2016b: 5) to “set best practice examples for the industry and show that leadership in sustainability…can go well together with best business performance” (2016b: 47). Burberry on the other hand states competitive advantage as a market driver for sustainable practices to achieve first- rate efficiency compared to competitors.

Interesting to note is that none of the brands mention pressure from stakeholders, such as customers, shareholders or NGOs, as a market driver for acting responsibly. H&M (2016b: 5) mentions that consumer demand for sustainable products has increased and that the more informed they are, “the more pressure they will put on companies to act sustainably”, but does not explicitly state this as a driver for them per se. However, H&M does state that stakeholder insights and dialogue are important sources driving sustainable innovation.

4.1.3 Context drivers

On the matter of legislation, both H&M and Levi Strauss & Co. see changes in laws, regulations, restrictions and standards as relatively irrelevant drivers for positive change. This since both brands want to set a new, even higher market standard for sustainability in the apparel industry by working in a proactive and innovative manner. H&M (2016: 4) claims to “follow a science-based approach aimed at setting new standards for the fashion industry” by “investing in new innovation and technology” in order to proceed towards a circular economy. Levi Strauss & Co.’s (2016a) vision is to “build sustainability into everything we do, so that our profitable growth helps restore the planet” through

“transforming the way we do business”. Levi Strauss & Co. (2016a) further says that the company’s

“commitment to sustainability goes far beyond regulatory compliance or minimizing the environmental impact of our business practices”.

Both companies also highlight that cooperation within the industry and across industries is important for reaching sustainable goals. Levi Strauss & Co. (2016a) states that “collaboration and cooperation with governments, NGOs, suppliers and even competitors” ensures that “we can work together to move our industry forward while reducing our impact on the planet”. H&M (2016b: 5) agrees on this with the statement that “you can only drive real change if you have a collaborative mindset”. This is mirrored in the statements by both brands to set an example for other brands in the industry to act in more sustainable ways and the strong wish to act as market leaders in sustainability. Burberry (2014: 3) takes a similar approach by promising to “comply with or exceed relevant legislative requirements” and aims to set own standards where existing ones are inadequate.

An interesting observation is that none of the brands mention global sustainability agreements, such as the Paris Agreement (COP22) set by the United Nations, as a concrete driver for responsible change.

Table 5. Drivers.

The underlying reasons for fashion companies to engage in sustainable practices are above all future long-term profitability and success, but also the wish to be market leader in order to gain a competitive advantage compared to rival brands. The corporate values and history also play an important role.

4.2 Practices

The practices are the actual CSR actions the company claims to take part in. The practices are divided into products (the garments and the raw materials they are produced of), processes (production from raw material to finished garment) and supply chains (outsourcing, logistics, suppliers and customers) and these are further divided into seven aspects presented in the GRI’s G4 environmental guidelines

(2013: 52-63). These aspects are: materials under “products”; energy, water, emissions and biodiversity under “processes” and transport and supplier environmental assessment under “supply chains”. All these will be presented in terms of time perspective (past, present or future) and whether the actions are symbolic or substantive in order to trace the differences and similarities in CSR communication between the three case companies. Following sub-questions are answered in this chapter:

SQ2: What past, present and future CSR practices are communicated and how are they addressed?

SQ3: What are the differences and/or similarities in CSR communication between the three case

companies?

4.2.1 Products

The products analysed in this research are clothes and the initiatives that mitigate the environmental impacts of them. Clothes can be made from various materials that come from different sources and are sold bearing different labels to communicate the material and sourcing origin. This section will focus on the ability to reduce material use, increase recycling of the garments and analyse the sourcing origin.

The three case companies are analysed separately.

4.2.1.1 Case 1: H&M

H&M says that 12% of its total climate impacts come from raw materials (H&M 2016b: 83). The brand further claims to always be on the lookout for innovative materials and processes that can make their

49 products more sustainable (H&M 2016b: 16). The brand has published a list of sustainably sourced materials it uses and mentions organic, recycled and better cotton; recycled polyester, polyamide and wool; lyocell; denimite and organic linen, silk and hemp (H&M 2016a). The company says that choosing the right materials in the design phase is crucial to make a difference, and claims to offer

“sustainable classics that can be worn season after season” (H&M 2016b: 13) and “extend the life of a garment” through “long product durability and facilitating secondary use, for example second hand sales” (H&M 2016b: 90). This claim goes against the idea that fast fashion brands deliberately make use of planned obsolescence. However, there might be a difference in quality and durability between the “sustainable classics” and the “latest trends” that the report also mentions (H&M 2016b:13). The trendy items might be made out of poorer materials because trends only last a short time and planned obsolescence can thus still be practiced in the company.

The brand wants to increase the ratio of sustainably sourced materials each year in order to make sustainable garments available to a larger group of people, scale up the total usage of sustainable materials and create demand for sustainable innovation in the fashion industry (H&M 2016b: 17).

Currently the percentage of recycled, organic and “better” materials account for 20% of the company’s total of produced garments, compared to 14.2% in 2014 and 10.3% in 2013. No future aspirational goal for the share of sustainably sourced materials is however given, but the growth rate has risen from

3.9% between 2013 and 2014 to 5.8% between 2014 and 2015.

H&M says cotton is the material they use the most and claims to be the world’s biggest user of certified organic cotton (2015: 18). Sustainable sources (organic, recycled and Better Cotton) represent 31.4% of the total cotton use (up from 21.2% in 2014) and H&M’s goal is 100% by 2020 (2015: 14). This goal seems fairly symbolic due to the average growth rate of 5.95 percent per year since 2011.

However, the growth rate in the usage of sustainable cotton of the total cotton use from 2014 to 2015 was 10.2 percent compared to 5.4 percent from 2013 to 2014, so there might be a chance of cumulative growth in the upcoming 5 years. If the growth rate stays the same as currently, the brand would need

50 seven years (until 2022) to reach the target of 100%. Thus, the growth rate needs to accelerate in the upcoming years in order to achieve the goal until 2020.

H&M claims that moving towards a circular closed-loop model is key for their future success and growth (H&M 2016b: 89). The biggest concern according to the company’s sustainability report is what happens to the clothes when the consumer no longer wants them. Thus, every H&M store provides a garment collecting service, which has collected 22,000 tonnes of fabric since 2013 when they were set up (which according to H&M accounts for more than 100 million t-shirts). The recycled material is then turned into new garments and the brand says to be the world’s biggest user of recycled polyester

(H&M 2016b: 87). In 2015, 1.3 million H&M garments were made with closed loop material, which is an increase of 300% compared to 2014 (H&M 2016b: 7). However, there are still claimed technology limits for recycling textiles but H&M wishes to “create demand for further innovation and investing in exciting innovation ideas” as a future aspiration (2016b: 90). These technological limits would partly explain the difference between the entire collected amounts accounting for around 100 million t-shirts and the approximate 2 million garments produced of the closed loop material in total during the last three years. No further information is given on what happens to the remaining textile mass that cannot be reused in producing new garments and assuming that only t-shirts would be made of the recycled material, there would still be 98 million t-shirts gone to waste.

There are also strict requirements for animal origin materials such as wool, leather and down in the

CSR communication, and the company aims at full traceability of these raw materials by 2018 (2016b:

21). There are however no numbers available to trace the development of this. Also, H&M wants to be part of developing a certification standard “to ensure good animal husbandry on the ground and to help lift this kind of requirement beyond our value chain into the entire fashion industry” (2016b: 21).

When it comes to labelling, an H&M product that consists of at least 50% of sustainable materials (or

20% for recycled cotton) is labelled with a green “Conscious” hangtag to make it easily recognizable for consumers. H&M also wants to be part of setting an industry standard for measuring product

51 sustainability together with partners in the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC) through the “Higg

Index” which is a product labelling system that allows customers to benchmark products across brands

(2016b: 25). This aspiration goes hand in hand with the context driver of setting higher industry standards and the market driver of setting an example for the rest of the industry and gaining a competitive advantage.

4.2.1.2 Case 2: Levi Strauss & Co.

Levi Strauss & Co. (LS&Co.) claims to be “the antithesis of fast fashion” since the brand’s products are “built to last” (LS&Co. 2016b: 19). The claim that durability is the cornerstone of all Levi’s products can be seen throughout the brand’s sustainability communication. Apart from this, the brand has a strong focus especially on two main resources that are strongly interconnected: cotton and water.

Cotton stands for 95% of the overall product content of their products, and 68% of the water used in the lifecycle of a pair of jeans comes from growing the cotton (LS&Co. 2016b: 16). The company is a founding member of the Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) and states that 12% of the cotton used in 2015 is sourced from BCI cotton, an increase of 5% from 2014. The future aspiration is to use 100% sustainable and recycled cotton by 2020. This goal seems unachievable due to the fact that the brand then would need to increase its sustainable sourcing by 88% in only 5 years. With the current speed

(2.4% average increase a year since 2010) it would take 37 years to reach 100%. However, the Better

Cotton procurement seems to be accelerating since it rose from 5% in 2013 to 7% in 2014 (2% increase) to 12% in 2015 (5% increase). If this cumulative trend continues, the company might reach its goal by

2020, however this is fairly unlikely to occur.

Product innovation to create a more circular economy is claimed to be an important part of LS&Co. and the company has introduced a few specific clothing lines and innovations that either save water, are easier to recycle or are partly made from sustainable materials.

Recycling is an approach LS&Co. communicates strongly and claim that jeans crafted with 15% recycled cotton “save as much water as the entire manufacturing process consumes” (LS&Co. 2016a).

The brand has a collection called Levi’s® Waste

“products such as Levi’s® 511™ Skinny jeans, Levi’s®Trucker jackets and the women’s Levi’s®

Boyfriend Skinny jeans” (LS&Co. 2016a). However when investigating the Levi’s webshop (levi.com) none of these pieces are labelled with the Waste

All Levi’s stores in the US have introduced a clothing recycling program to help encourage consumers to “treat worn textiles like bottles, cans and paper” and minimize the amount of textiles ending up in landfills (LS&Co. 2016b: 19). No further information about launching the idea in other markets or external retail stores selling Levi’s products is given. No amounts of how much recycled material has been collected so far or how big percentage of this has been made into new products is expressed either.

There could be a natural link between the Waste

The Wellthread™ collection is made of 100% cotton, since this makes products more durable and the company claims that “mixed-fiber products can be difficult – sometimes impossible – to separate when recycling and repurposing a given garment” (Levi’s 2016). This statement however hurts the claimed sustainability of the Waste

53 garments that the brand sells are made from mixed materials and the recycling spots offered in all stores collects all types of garments, whether they’re pure cotton or not. The collection is furthermore very small – it consists of four garments only offered for men in the online web shop. When it comes to labelling, “Wellthread™” can only be seen in the product name without a specific label. “Every aspect of production” is apparently considered more when manufacturing the Wellthread™ collection – from the materials used to the workers’ well-being. This can bring up conflicting thoughts such as - is the well-being of workers not considered as much when producing the other collection? Are materials not selected with as much care for the other lines? Considering that this collection is a small fraction of what the brand offers, such strong communication of how much better it is compared to other lines can be harmful and evoke CSR scepticism. (LS&Co. 2016a)

Levi Strauss & Co. reports on the development of BCI cotton in a way that corresponds with green- highlighting, although the 2020 aspiration of 100% seems unachievable. The “sustainable” collections of Waste

4.2.1.3 Case 3: Burberry

Burberry claims that nearly half of its environmental impacts “occur at raw material stage” (Burberry

2016a: 7). In its Global Environmental Policy (2014: 3) Burberry claims to “progressively reduce the environmental impact caused by their products and activities” by designing, developing and manufacturing products with consideration of the environment by using more sustainable or recycled materials. There are however no specifications of recycled materials in any of the analysed documents.

The brand highlights the efforts taken in the sourcing of so called “heritage raw materials” cotton, cashmere and leather which are “key materials in terms of volume used” in their collections (Burberry

2016b). Burberry says to focus on Peru as cotton production country where it together with an organization called CottonConnect promotes sustainable cotton farming for their local suppliers.

During a three-year training programme, the farmers reported 26% less use of less chemical fertilisers 54 and 68% less chemical pesticides while yielding a 16% higher cotton harvest compared to a control group. The brand is also part of the Better Cotton Initiative in order to “support and drive global demand for sustainable cotton”. However, no products in the Burberry webshop (burberry.com) are labelled as sustainable or as made of partly sustainably sourced materials, which can be seen as greywashing.

Burberry states that it takes the hair from one goat to make one Burberry classic cashmere scarf

(Burberry 2016b). It is thus obvious that the brand’s products are very resource intensive. This together with the assumption that the global demand for cashmere is rising, can be seen as a sustainability threat.

However, Burberry claims to take actions against this by being a founding member of the Sustainable

Fibre Alliance (SFA), an NGO that works with stakeholders in Mongolia (an important production centre of global cashmere supply) to care for animal welfare, grasslands and goat herders. The SFA aims to create a “certified source of sustainable cashmere”. However, no specific numbers or graphs on the development of this nor information on the total amount of cashmere products sold are available.

It is widely known that the entire value chain of leather production, from methane emissions to destruction of natural ecosystems to the amount of water and chemicals used in tanneries, has major negative environmental impacts. Burberry claims that 10% of their greenhouse gas emissions come from leather production. The brand further claims that 55% of leather used its Burberry products come from tanneries with sustainability certifications from organisations such as Leather Working Group

(LWG), the Italian Istituto di Certificazione della Qualità per l'Industria Conciaria (ICEC) and the

International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Burberry fails to mention how the use of

“sustainable” leather has developed during the years and what their aim is for the future. (Burberry

2016b)

Burberry makes use of several valuable materials sourced from animals such as fur, exotic skins and down. The brand claims to “never knowingly source raw materials if there have been any concerns over animal welfare” and “actively engage welfare experts to ensure good husbandry of animals in the supply chain” (Burberry 2016b). However, Burberry does indirectly admit that they are or have been 55 using skins of endangered species, but want to drive positive change by “exploring initiatives to modernise and simplify established industry ways of working” by for example ensuring traceable and transparent value chains of materials and their origin. Although Burberry lists a number of NGOs and organizations they have partnered up with to work for a more sustainable sourcing of animal materials, there are no numbers, figures or graphs available on how Burberry has developed in this matter or what their ambitions are for the future. Also, it is unclear what specific new initiatives they are exploring to modernise the industry’s way of working with animal materials – do they want to move away from using animals in the first place and use alternative sources instead, cut down on the usage of these materials or keep to ensuring higher animal welfare standards?

When it comes to the materials used in Burberry products and how they are labelled, several lacks can be found in the CSR communication. Although the brand lists the progress on some points (for example

2017 progress on plan or behind plan), it fails to mention exact figures, graphs or numbers on the development. Thus it is very hard to establish a clear analysis of the past, present and future practices.

4.2.2 Processes

In this section the communication about production processes from raw material to finished garment is discussed. This section includes important points connected to manufacturing such as energy and water use, waste, emissions and effluents and protection of biodiversity.

4.2.2.1 Case 1: H&M

H&M claims to continuously increase their focus on their climate impact and “keeps supporting innovation in technology enabling more environmentally friendly materials and processes” and

“energy efficiency” (H&M 2016b: 75). The brand strives to use renewable electricity in its own operations wherever credible sources are available. According to a graph in the sustainability report

(H&M 2016b:76) the brand had a big increase in the use of renewables in their total in-house electricity

56 use – it grew from 27% in 2014 to 78% in 2015, but there are no future aspirations. H&M claims to be

“committed to use less energy per square meter store space” and aims to achieve cutting electricity intensity with 20% per square meter by 2020 compared to 2007 (H&M 2016b: 79). Currently this reduction is 8% compared to 2007, but the 2020 aim seems substantive since the brand already reached

-14% in 2012 and 2013. The brand presents a table of total energy use in gigajoules that includes building diesel; district heating; electricity; building natural gas, oil and others (H&M 2016b: 82). The total energy use has actually increased 38.7% from 2011 to 2015 and total electricity use with 46.3%, but this is presumably due to an increase in the number of stores. This includes H&M stores, offices and warehouses and does thus not include the outsourced factories producing the products and they have the biggest energy consumption in the value chain. However, H&M aims at assessing and auditing also the sustainability performance of supplier factories during 2016, which would include energy reduction (H&M 2016b: 34). There is no specific mention of how much energy the supplier factories use and what specific type of suppliers this assessment includes.

When it comes to water, H&M clams to have developed the first water stewardship strategy for the fashion industry together with the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) (H&M 2016b: 100). The brand claims that the biggest water footprint in the value chain occurs at raw material production, which accounts for 87%, mainly due to the high water-intensity of cotton production. The brand says to tackle this by aiming at 100% sustainable (BCI, recycled and organic) cotton sourcing by 2020. The second largest footprint is caused by consumers when washing the clothes, which the company confronts by advising people to wash their clothes in lower temperatures (H&M 2016b: 106). The third largest water footprint comes from the washing and dyeing processes in fabric production and garment finishing.

H&M claims to set high assessment measures to control suppliers to reduce their water, energy and material consumption and says that results show that participating mills have increased profits through this programme (H&M 201b6: 104). There are however no percentages or amounts available for the development of this. H&M claims that 75% of their supplier factories were in full compliance with

57 wastewater quality requirements in 2015, and the percentage has been rising steadily since 2011, when it was only 41% (H&M 2016b: 102). The brand does not mention a desired future aspiration on this point. There is also partial information under the “share of total water discharge by destination” in

2015, since only two production countries, China (3%) and Bangladesh (51%) are mentioned, which means that the total communicated wastewater discharge percentage is only 54% of the total (H&M

2016b: 102). It would be interesting to know why other countries accounting for the withstanding 46% are not featured in this list. H&M furthermore highlights its efforts in water usage reduction in denim and other water-intense product types. The brand claims that 50% of all denim products have reached the highest water efficiency level in 2015, which means that “a maximum of 35 litres of water per garment has been used during the treatment processes” (H&M 2016b: 103). On this point only the present progress is mentioned and nothing is said about the past progress or the future aspirations.

Additionally H&M has installed water-efficient equipment (such as low-flow taps) in 37% of its stores, offices and warehouses with the goal of 100% in 2020 (H&M 2016b: 105). Considering the development since 2013, the percentage has grown from 19% to 24% in 2014 (5% increase) to 37% in

2015 (13% increase) which could mean that the goal is substantive to reach by 2020.

H&M reports that the reduction in total CO2 emissions in 2015 was 56% from 2014 compared to the growth in sales that increased with 11% during the same time period (H&M 2016b: 76). The change between 2013 and 2014 was -4% in emissions compared to +14% in sales. The main reason for this reduction is said to be the increased use of renewable electricity, which increased from 27% in 2014 to

78% in 2015 (H&M 2016b: 76). There is no clear indication of what the future target is for carbon emission reduction else than that it should be minimized simultaneously with an annual global growth of 10-15% new stores opening. However, when looking at the total CO2 emissions (H&M 2016b: 84), there has actually been an increase from 279,010t in 2013 to 324,794t in 2014 to 328,470t in 2015.

These numbers include energy use, goods transport, distribution and business travel. H&M has manipulated the presentation of the emissions that actually have risen, not shrunk as one could assume

58 from the presented graph, by comparing the emission reduction to sales growth. This is misleading for anyone not comparing the two graphs with each other and can be seen as greenwashing.

H&M says that they do not report on biodiversity or that this is done by request only (H&M 2016b:

127). This is interesting because biodiversity is mentioned two times in the sustainability report excluding the reporting description. This is somewhat hypocritical also because H&M has a partnership with WWF and claims to protect the future of biodiversity through its responsible water management initiative (H&M 2016b: 100). The company however claims to use “raw materials that do not contribute to deforestation”, but there is little additional information on this topic (H&M 2016b: 83).

4.2.2.2 Case 2: Levi Strauss & Co.

Levi Strauss & Co. has as a goal to become the world’s most sustainable apparel company by changing the way they do business, which also includes acting as a pioneer introducing practices that reduce energy, water, chemical and material use together with other brands and organizations (LS&Co.

2016a).

Also LS&Co claims to invest in renewable energy but does not provide clear figures on the development of this in their operations. The two buildings mentioned are the distribution center in

Nevada and the headquarters in San Francisco that have been awarded for their “high performance in multiple areas of green design and energy use”. It is however unclear whether other warehouses, offices and stores run by the brand aim at being climate smart as well. However, the brand claims that it supports “state, federal and international efforts to reduce carbon pollution”. This includes backing the

COP21 agreement, energy efficiency in California and the US Environmental Protection Agency’s

Clean Power Plant. Without more specific details it is difficult to tell the impact of the actions. The brand has aimed at a reduction of 22% in carbon pollution since 2007, which was projected to be reached in the end of 2015. This target was feasible since 21% was already reached in 2014. There is no new goal for further carbon reduction. (LS&Co. 2016b: 18)

On the other hand Levi Strauss & Co. has a strong focus on water. The brand claims that only 9% of the water used in a jean’s lifecycle comes from the manufacturing whereas 68% come from fiber production and 23% from consumer care (LS&Co. 2015). However since manufacturing is the process the brand can control most directly it is an important driver of change in the industry. The

“Water

According to the brand’s website (LS&Co. 2016a), the innovation has saved more than 1 billion liters of water so far. However, it is fairly vague if this is a big sum or not since no other numbers are provided to compare it with. The standards and tools behind the Water

2016a). In the annual report the brand says that 28% of all Levi’s products are produced using the

Water

(levi.com) we can see that 14.5% of all women’s and 22.2% of men’s clothes, thus 19.4% of the total, are produced using the Water

The brand claims that 325,000 pairs of jeans have been made from 100 percent recycled water through the “Water Recycle/Reuse Standard, which has saved 32 million liters of freshwater in total (LS&Co.

2014). This standard has been adopted in unspecified supplier factories and the brand aspires to carry out this in “supplier factories around the world, with the aim of implementing it across all of our collections and beyond” (LS&Co. 2014: 2). No specific numbers on the development are however provided, which again makes it difficult to estimate if the aspiration is symbolic or substantive.

There has been a slow decrease in water usage in many of the brand’s owned-and-operated factories in the four countries presented between 2008 and 2014 (LS&Co. 2014: 4). The gallons water per units

60 produced decreased from 23 to 13 in Polish factories and from 22 to 15 in South Africa, but increased from 19 to 22 in Turkey and from 12 to 27 in Vietnam. The company has 51 factories in Vietnam, 21 in Turkey, 3 in Poland and one in South Africa and it is worrying that the water consumption has risen in the countries with more factories. Presenting the development in only four selected production countries out of the 36 in total (11%) is furthermore not a very representative figure and we also don’t know how much of the total these countries produce (LS&Co. 2016c). The relatively slow development is surprising considering that the Water

2011 and that the brand in general has a strong focus on water. There are no future aspirations on this point and no numbers of the total water use throughout the supply chain.

Levi Strauss & Co. claims to be one of the first companies to have established a “Restricted Substances

List” and is committed to achieve “zero discharge of hazardous chemicals by 2020” and has so far banned several substances completely from supplier’s production processes (LS&Co. 2016a). The brand however does not provide the current or previous levels of hazardous chemical discharge, which makes it difficult to assess whether this aspiration is substantive.

In the CEO Water Mandate report (2014) the brand claims that 80% of 72 tested supplier factories were compliant to the brand’s “Global Effluent Requirements” that limit suppliers’ wastewater discharge to the environment. However, this number cannot be seen as representative since the company has 547 supplier factories and the ones tested only make up for 13% of the total. There are specific environmental requirements and limits for each effluent provided in the brand’s “Sustainability

Guidebook” (2013: 98). When it comes to waste management of solid and hazardous materials, Levi

Strauss & Co. has provided a list of typical inspection violations to make it easier for suppliers to find concrete solutions to improve their practices (LS&Co. 2013: 198). The future aspiration on effluent and waste management is simply that “there is more work to be done” (LS&Co. 2016a). Levi Strauss

& Co. does not mention biodiversity in its sustainability communication.

4.2.2.3 Case 3: Burberry

Burberry claims that 75% of its direct greenhouse gases stem from energy usage in retail locations and aims to cut the consumption through renewable energy usage, real-life monitoring of energy data and

LED lighting. The brand claims that the progress against its 2017 target for installing LED lighting in

75% of new concept stores is achieved, but that it still is behind plan both for using renewable energy in all stores and reducing total energy usage by 15%. The development in energy and global greenhouse gas emissions from financial year 2014 to 2015 (year to March 31th) was overall negative; there was a 12.64% increase in the combustion of fuel and operation of facilities (kg CO2e); a 5.27% increase in total emissions (kg CO2e) and a 4.9% increase in the purchased amount of electricity, heat, steam and cooling. However the curve turned towards the positive in the following financial year (-1.5%; -4.7% and -4.5%) compared to FY2014/15 (Burberry 2016b). When it comes to suppliers’ energy usage, the

2017 goals of reducing energy by 25% from two UK factories and assist key suppliers to reduce energy usage by 20% are both behind plan and it is difficult to tell if the aspirations for 2017 are achievable since these numbers are not publicly available. However, 10% reduction of energy use in specific distribution centres has already been achieved. (Burberry 2016b)

Burberry wants to “work with key mills to assist them to reduce their water consumption by up to

20%”, but the 2017 target for this is behind plan and there are no exact figures on this to analyse the data further. Burberry also mentions water when discussing leather tanneries and controlling how effective the waste water treatment processes and the brand claims to have visited “a number” of tanneries that supply 70% of their leather (Burberry 2016b). Thus there are no concrete numbers to base this process on. Burberry uses the Higg Index by the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC) to identify energy and water consumption in their supply chain and 115 partners have completed the index

(Burberry 2016a). Although Burberry claims to “promote transparency throughout its operations”, there is no supplier list to be found, thus it is difficult to say if the percentage of suppliers complying is high or low. There are no future aspirations on this topic.

The brand furthermore is committed to generate less waste by recycling damaged garments into for example insulation materials and new yarns (Burberry 2016a). The brand claims that 150 Italian supply chain partners have participated in recycling 17 tonnes of textile waste into new yarns. The brand’s global environmental policy states that branded fabric waste should be shredded and non-branded waste can be donated (Burberry 2014). However, no mentions of what happens to the shredded material or where the donated material goes can be found. The total amount of textile waste of Burberry is not provided and there are no future aspirations mentioned on this point.

When it comes to biodiversity, Burberry is concerned about overgrazing cashmere goats that cause desertification on the fragile ecosystems of the Mongolian grasslands (Burberry 2016b). Cashmere farming is thus linked to significant environmental challenges and the brand has established a training programme for Mongolian goat herders and takes part of an “Animal Welfare and Land Management

Code of Practice” aiming at creating a certified source of sustainable cashmere (Burberry 2016a: 8).

Leather sourcing can be associated with deforestation and biodiversity loss and Burberry avoids leather originating from the Amazon Biome (Burberry 2016b).

4.2.3 Supply chains

In this section communication about supply chains including transport, distribution, logistics and supplier environmental assessment is analysed.

4.2.3.1 Case 1: H&M

Considering that a claimed 90% of H&M’s climate impacts happen outside their own operations, the actions of suppliers and partner companies are significant. When it comes to supplier environmental assessment and supply chain management in general, H&M highlights long-lasting collaboration and improvement built on trust and transparency. A partnership approach called SIPP (Sustainable Impact

Partnership Programme) has as its goal to assess, measure and manage the sustainability performance

63 and climate impacts of suppliers and support them better in matters regarding the sustainability (H&M

2016b: 8). The Sustainability Commitment is a “mandatory requirement to enter a business relationship with H&M” and is a “holistic commitment beyond legal, social and environmental requirements” with fundamental and aspirational goals set on suppliers to integrate into their business operations proactively (H&M 2016b: 31). H&M says that they want to “look beyond their own walls and inspire others to be climate smart” by encouraging first- and second-tier suppliers to set own reduction targets and cleaner production programmes through a reward system (H&M 2016b: 83). The suppliers’ performance is measured with the sustainability index (0-100) which is the base for purchasing routines

– suppliers and factories with higher scores are rewarded with better business (H&M 2016b: 32). There is also an anonymous reporting system in use where workers can report complaints directly to H&M or through local trade unions. However, considering that H&M has production facilities in countries with high levels of corruption and power distance it would be interesting to see numbers of received complaints, the matters they concern and how they were dealt with. H&M audited 80% of its first-tier supplier factories during 2015 which is a decline from previous years (2013: 82%, 2014: 84%) whereas the average number of audits was 1.8 for strategic factories and 1.4 for standard factories in 2015 (2013:

1.3 and 1.3, 2014: 1.5 and 1.5) (H&M 2016b: 34). There are no future aspirations on this issue which is surprising given that H&M was hardly criticized after (possibly) being involved in the Rana Plaza when it collapsed in 2013 for bad supplier compliance. However the company claims to be one of the first firms to adopt a Sustainability Index on a large scale throughout its supply chain, and has as future aspiration to inspire other companies to make use of a similar assessment method. H&M seems transparent about its auditing, and has published supplier compliance levels based on location (EMEA,

Far East and South Asia) with detailed questions (H&M 2015). The total average compliance level for the 14 questions regarding environment was 77% in 2015, but there are no future aspirations on this matter. It is also interesting to note that 84% of H&M’s business partners see the brand as a fair business partner, which has risen from 76% in 2014. The aspiration for 2018 is 90% (H&M 2016b: 38).

Transport stands for around 6% of greenhouse gas emissions of an H&M garment’s lifecycle (H&M

2016b: 10). This is however mentioned as an important factor to reduce CO2 emissions and H&M does this by ensuring that all “transport service providers are either SmartWay partners (North America),

WayAhead registered (Europe and Asia) or participating in the Clean Shipping Project” (H&M 2016b:

84). It would however be interesting to see the full list of transport partners and the allocation of means of transport and the future aspirations regarding transport.

4.2.3.2 Case 2: Levi Strauss & Co.

LS&Co. has also published a complete supplier list of their 547 factories in order to foster transparency and collaboration with other brands that use the same factories and to improve the entire apparel sector

(LS&Co. 2016a). Due to their large scale production, LS&Co. has the power to pressure both suppliers and competitors to adopt more sustainable practices. The company says that it keeps track of all factories through external local monitors every 12-15 months by identifying areas of improvement with a detailed corrective plan and timelines. In their Sustainability Guidebook (2013), which is based on the company’s “Terms of Engagement” that include all requirements on partners, Levi Strauss & Co. provides suppliers with all standards regarding environment, health and safety inspections. There is also a list of typical inspection violations to help them find solutions to improve their practices

(LS&Co. 2013: 198). LS&Co. wants to invest in long-term relations with suppliers and thus also requires lasting responsible improvement from them. The company invests in training and systems development in order to make suppliers more pro-active and “appreciate and understand the importance of operating a responsible workplace” (LS&Co. 2016a). Although this all sounds good, it would be interesting to see the development on for example number of inspections, auditing and supplier compliance levels. Also a future aspiration would contribute to green-highlighting in this matter.

Transport is only mentioned together with safety measures of transporting chemicals and other hazardous materials to and waste from supplier factories. Thus the transport of readymade Levi’s

65 products from the factories to retailers is not part of the company’s CSR communication (LS&Co.

2013).

4.2.3.3 Case 3: Burberry

Burberry states that the number of audits and assessments of suppliers was 548 in the financial year

2015/16. This is an increase of 1.3% from the previous financial year, but a significant decrease from

2013/14, when the amount was 713. However, this can be explained in the increase of training and engagement activities in stead, which has increased by 53% in two years (from 142 in 2013/14 to 205 in 2014/15 to 217 in 2015/16). (Burberry 2016b) The company further states that manufacturers who fail to meet requirements outlined in Burberry’s “Ethical Trading Code of Conduct” are rejected as business partners, whereas those who need improvement as “Acceptable” and the majority (45% in the second half of 2015/16; 40% in 2014/15) as “Satisfactory” in order to help the company reduce risk and support the factories to improve (Burberry 2015). There are however no future aspirations mentioned on the area of supplier environmental assessment.

Burberry claims that 10% of the greenhouse gases it emits come from transport and encourages “carrier involvement in international multi-stakeholder groups, such as SmartWay and Green Freight Europe, to help promote wider change in the industry” (Burberry 2016b). By increasing the number of units transported per van from distribution centres to stores, the company wishes to cut total carbon emissions from transport by 10% by 2017. The reported progress since 2012/13 is said to be 15% per unit, but this cannot be compared to the 2017 aspiration since the measure is different.

4.2.4 Findings

The findings from the communicated past, present and future CSR practices are presented in the following sections. The differences between the brands are presented in the end of this chapter.

4.2.4.1 H&M

Table 6.1. Practices H&M

As seen in table 6.1 above, H&M has a fairly covering CSR communication about its practices. Most areas (12 out of 19) however lack a future aspiration and some aspirations are unspecified or lack proof

(2 out of 19). However, the company does succeed in convincing the reader about its future aspirations in five areas; explicitly using sustainable cotton by 2020, full animal origin traceability, installment of water-efficient equipment, reduction of electricity intensity per square meter and increase of the amount of suppliers who see the company as a fair business partner. There is enough information about the past and present progress provided to base the future aspiration on, although all may not be achievable within the given timeframe. 26.3% (5 out of 19) of H&M’s CSR communication falls under the category of green-highlighting.

4.2.4.2 Levi Strauss & Co.

Table 6.2. Practices Levi Strauss & Co.

Levi Strauss & Co. does not communicate its practices as strongly as H&M, as seen in table 6.2 above.

The focus is mostly on the present progress and past progress is rarely communicated at all. The company succeeds in communicating the carbon emission reduction goal according to green- highlighting, since there is data on both past and present figures and the future aspiration is within reach. Also the aspiration of using only BCI cotton by 2020 is communicated according to green- highlighting, although the chance of reaching the goal within the set timeframe is small since the current percentage is on 12% and the growth rate has not been very fast. Also the aspiration of producing 80% of all products using the water-saving Water

Furthermore, four out of 14 analysed areas lack an aspiration whatsoever and five lack precise figures.

Also, the brand does not mention biodiversity or transport at all. 14.2% (2 out of 14) of Levi Strauss &

Co.’s CSR communication can be considered to be green-highlighting.

4.2.4.3 Burberry

Table 6.3. Practices Burberry.

The CSR communication of Burberry also mostly lacks information about either past progress (15 out of 18 times) or future aspirations (8 out of 18 times). This makes it difficult to analyse the information from a green-highlighting perspective. The lack of specific numbers and data of the progress makes it even harder to establish an understanding of the future development. The progress is often specified only as either “on plan” or “behind plan”.

However, the brand claims to already have reached some of its targets for 2017 (install LED lighting in 75% of all new stores and reduce 10% of energy consumption in distribution centers) but these achievements however lack past substantive figures. Thus, Burberry does not fit the criteria for green-

69 highlighting in its CSR communication in any of the analysed areas due to lacking past figures and future aspirations.

4.3 Comparison of the case companies

The third sub-question “What are the differences and/or similarities in CSR communication between the three cases?” is answered in this section together with a revised version of the hypothesis- performance relationship (table 7) with explanations for each area. A revised version of the four hypotheses is furthermore presented in table 8 in the end of the chapter.

Low-end brand Mid-range brand High-end brand Product aspects - - + + + + + Process aspects + + + + + + - Supply chain aspects + + + + + + -

Table 7. Revised hypothesis-performance relationship.

4.3.1 Product aspects

H&M claims that it focuses on both “sustainable classics” and “latest trends” but avoids mentioning planned obsolescence. However the brand signals that it wants to facilitate second-hand use and wants garments to be durable season after season. This is hard to prove to be true, but the hypothesised lowest rating of (- -) seems too low since the brand does communicate durability and quality of its garments and has facilitated a recycling programme in all its stores to “close the loop”. The focus on product aspects was thus better than expected and the brand’s rating is upgraded two steps (+).

Levi Strauss & Co. sees durability as a cornerstone of their products and wants their classical garments to be as long-lasting as possible so they ca be worn season after season. Also high-quality materials is

70 consistently communicated. This is clearly stated in the CSR communication several times and the brand can therefore keep its hypothesised highest rating (+ +).

Also Burberry focuses on timeless high-quality products and claims that only the best “heritage raw materials” are good enough. Product quality and durability are not much communicated however, probably because high quality is an underlying assumption for luxury consumers. However, the luxury brand does not mention recycling materials, maybe due to the claimed mismatch between recycling and luxury products (Achabou & Dekhili 2013). Burberry uses several qualifications and certifications to ensure a high product quality and supports sustainable production of both cotton, cashmere, wool and leather. Thus, the hypothesised rating (+ +) can remain.

4.3.2 Process aspects

H&M communicates its manufacturing practices better than expected since the brand has taken several actions to minimize emissions, water and energy usage throughout its processes. The development is often presented with clear numbers and some issues are presented using green-highlighting. Also, there is a publicly available supplier list for transparency purposes. Thus, the brand has earned the highest rating in clear CSR communication about its process aspects (+ +).

Levi Strauss & Co. has a strong focus on water and has developed their own water-saving production innovation that is available for other companies to use or imitate. In this way the brand wants to pressure other players in the industry to become more sustainable. However, the brand fails to present exact figures on the development in water usage, chemical discharge and effluent requirement compliance. The hypothesised rating (+) therefore remains.

Burberry does not reveal much information on its production processes. There is limited information on where the supplier factories are located and how sustainable their practices are. There is no supplier list available although the brand claims to “promote transparency throughout its operations”. Numbers on emissions are especially scarce and although there is mention about energy and water saving

71 practices, the information is often unspecified. Due to this, the brand’s rating is degraded two steps

(from + + to -).

4.3.3 Supply chain aspects

Due to the heavy critique that many fast fashion companies have received from bad control of suppliers that do not comply with environmental and labour standards, it was hypothesised that the low-end brand would focus more on supply chains in their CSR communication than higher-range brands. Case company H&M has published its entire list of supplier factories, audited 80% of first-tier suppliers and wants to be perceived as a fair business partner. There is a Sustainability Index in use and the company claims to set higher standards for the entire industry. There are also clear measures for most production processes. The highest rating (+ +) on this point was thus correctly hypothesised.

Levi Strauss & Co. has also published a complete list of suppliers and drives change in the supply chain through training partners to act proactively and provides them with concrete examples in their

Sustainability Handbook. The mid-range case company can be seen to perform as well on this point as the low-end brand and the hypothesised rating (+) was thus an underestimation.

Burberry performed worse than expected on this point, since the brand has not published a supplier list and does not even mention how many suppliers it has. This although it has been criticised after de- localizing its production away from the United Kingdom for cost-cutting reasons and it claims to strive for transparency. Only 45% of Burberry’s supplier factories passed assessments with a satisfactory grade, but there has been an increase in both the amount of assessments and training offered. Supplier energy use reduction is behind plan and there are few figures in general available on supplier performance. Thus, the good hypothesised rating for the high-end brand (+) is degraded to bad (-).

Below the four original hypotheses and a revised version of the third hypothesis since it was rejected.

Original hypothesis Result Revised hypothesis (if rejected) Hypothesis 1: Low-end fashion brands focus on communicating process and Confirmed - supply chain aspects more than product aspects. Hypothesis 2a: Mid-range fashion brands focus on communicating Confirmed - product aspects more than low-end brands.

Hypothesis 2b: Mid-range fashion brands focus on communicating Confirmed - product aspects as much as high-end brands.

Hypothesis 3: High-end fashion Hypothesis 3: High-end fashion brands brands focus on communicating focus on communicating process and Rejected process aspects more than low-end supply chain aspects less than low-end and mid-range fashion brands. and mid-range fashion brands.

Table 8. Revised hypotheses

The main difference between the three investigated brands is the amount of past and future information presented and how specific the provided information is. There were very small differences between the brands’ drivers behind their CSR communication. The low-end case brand H&M performed very well

(+ +) on communicating both process and supply chain practices and well (+) on product aspects. 21% of the brand’s communication falls under green-highlighting, whereas 14.2% of Levi Strauss & Co.’s communication falls under the same category. Due to unspecified or lacking information, Burberry fails to communicate any of its practices according to green-highlighting. The brand further performed worse than expected in communicating its process and supply chain aspects (-).

All three brands are part of the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC), the Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) and the Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals Programme (ZDHC) and have a strong focus on sustainability in their marketing and want to drive the entire industry to become more sustainable. Both

H&M and Levi Strauss & Co. have adopted recycling schemes in their stores and also produce a part

73 of their garments from recycled materials. Burberry only recycles textile waste. All three companies mention water use reduction in some form and efforts to control suppliers’ actions better through assessments and trainings are mentioned by all three. All three companies have adopted sustainability indexes or handbooks for this purpose. Also emission and energy reduction is mentioned by all three.

However, Levi Strauss & Co. fails to mention biodiversity and transport in their CSR communication and Burberry has very limited information about emissions reduction in their processes. Also H&M has a lack of information about biodiversity.

5. DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the new findings of the study and relates them to existing literature. An overview

of the revised results, the seven new sub-types of green-highlighting and the revised conceptual

framework are presented. Also limitations of the study and suggestions for future research are given.

The aim of the study was to answer the following research question:

How do fashion brands communicate environmental sustainability on their corporate

websites and in publicly available documents based on green-highlighting?

5.1 Revised results

Due to the explorative approach of this thesis, some new specified green-highlighting communication

types have been identified (table 9) and added to the revised conceptual framework (figure 5). Walker

and Wan (2012) specify green-highlighting as CSR actions that align with the communication by

combining talking the talk and walking the walk. In order for CSR communication to be reliable, both

past and present substantive information should be communicated, but also clear symbolic aspirations

for the future should be highlighted. After analysing the CSR communication of the three chosen case

companies, the sub-categories of green-highlighting presented in the table below were identified.

Green-highlighting type Clarification

Weak substantive Only either past or present information presented, no future aspiration Strong substantive Both past and present figures are clear, development easy to follow, no future aspiration Weak symbolic Unspecific future aspiration (eg. no numbers or year), no past or present information Strong symbolic Specific future aspiration (CSR as aspirational talk), either past or present information Unspecified Either past or present figure with unspecific future aspiration (eg. no numbers or year) Weak green-highlighting Unrealistic and unachievable goal based on past and present development Strong green-highlighting Realistic and achievable goal based on past and present development Table 9. New green-highlighting types identified.

Based on these new sub-types of green-highlighting, the result tables of the three case companies presented in the previous chapter have been revised and can be found in Appendix 2 on page 98. Each area of the analysed CSR practices has been categorized according to the seven sub-types per brand.

H&M made use of strong substantive CSR communication the most (7 out of 19) followed by weak substantive (6 out of 19) and strong green-highlighting (3 out of 19). Levi Strauss & Co. on the other hand used both unspecified and weak substantive communication the most (4 out of 12) followed by an equal amount of weak and strong symbolic and weak and strong green-highlighting (all used once).

Burberry used weak substantive communication the most (7 out of 18) followed by weak symbolic (5 out of 18) and strong substantive (3 out of 18).

Constructed from these findings, table 10 below presents the percentage of each green-highlighting communication type used by the case companies. The percentages are calculated based on total CSR communication per brand, thus from the 19 issues communicated by H&M, 6 fall under the “weak substantive” category, which is 31.58% (6 out of 19) of their total analysed CSR communication. The ranking on the right side shows the usage frequency of each green-highlighting type as a total of all three case companies. It can be concluded that “weak substantive” communication is the most frequently used sub-type among the three investigated case companies, followed by “strong substantive” and “unspecified” communication. Green-highlighting where past, present and future aspects are communicated using clear numbers and figures, here specified as “strong green- highlighting” is however quite rare, but more common than “weak green-highlighting”.

Green-highlighting type H&M LS&Co. Burberry Rank Weak substantive 31.58 % 33.33 % 38.89 % 1 Strong substantive 36.84 % 0 % 16.67 % 2 Weak symbolic 5.26 % 8.33 % 27.78 % 4 Strong symbolic 5.26 % 8.33 % 5.56 % 6 Unspecified 0.00 % 33.33 % 11.11 % 3 Weak green-highlighting 5.26 % 8.33 % 0 % 7 Strong green-highlighting 15.79 % 8.33 % 0 % 5 Table 10. Green-highlighting type by brand and rank.

Figure 5 shows the revised conceptual framework, where the added weak and strong aspects of the past and present substantive communication, future symbolic and green-highlighting are shown in the dotted boxes. Also the “unspecified” category is added in between the substantive and symbolic communication.

Figure 5. Revised research framework.

5.2 Findings related to existing literature

Due to the highly spread and competitive apparel industry with many brands that distinguish the players, truthful and transparent CSR communication is very important especially for fashion companies (Spar & La Mure 2003). Efficient CSR communication that both raises stakeholders’ CSR awareness and minimizes CSR scepticism (Du et al. 2010) is according to Walker and Wan (2012) to

77 communicate existing and previous CSR actions with solid proof of their impact, but also clear and achievable future goals based on the past and present development. Du et al (2010) further highlight the importance of a high fit with and commitment to the cause, clear underlying drivers and the impact of past and present practices for transparent and proactive CSR communication. This paper has investigated the various ways a fashion company can communicate its CSR drivers and practices from a green-highlighting perspective.

5.2.1 Drivers: future growth and competitive advantages

The drivers behind CSR activities of the three case companies were surprisingly similar. All three companies mention future long-term success and growth as a powerful internal driver for engaging in

CSR, which is according to the findings of Du et al (2010). This is also in accordance with Aguinis and Glavas (2012) who state this driver as an instrumental reason behind CSR connected to profit and performance. The previously mentioned scholars also highlight normative reasons behind CSR connected to company values, which all three companies mention together with their “corporate values” (H&M), “corporate culture” (Levi Strauss & Co.) or “core values” (Burberry). Production cost reduction was mentioned by both H&M and Levi Strauss & Co., which is stated by Aguinis and Glavas

(2012) as “operational efficiency”. Burberry mentions this together with claiming a competitive advantage over competitors through “operational excellence”. The brand also mentions attracting and retaining best talents as a driver, which is mentioned by Du et al (2010), Skarmeas and Leonidou (2013) and Ambec and Lanoie (2008). None of the investigated companies mention better product quality

(Aguinis & Glavas 2012) or more investor interest (Aguinis & Glavas 2012; Du et al. 2010; Skarmeas

& Leonidou 2013) as specific drivers behind their CSR practices. Image and reputation can be seen to be the main reason for engaging in CSR activities (Hur et al 2014; Aguinis & Glavas 2012; Du et al.

2010; Skarmeas & Leonidou 2013) but is not explicitly mentioned by any of the case companies.

However, this can be seen as obvious or as something you do not want to communicate to your external stakeholders.

Levi Strauss & Co. highlights the company’s long history as a driver for sustainable innovation, which is not specifically mentioned by any scholars. The drive for being market leader in sustainability and claiming a competitive advantage over competitors by setting own higher standards is mentioned by all three brands but has not either been discussed by scholars previously. Thus, brand heritage and market leader aspiration can be added as CSR drivers that engage companies in socially responsible activities as a contribution of this study.

5.2.2 Practices: high fit and consumer attention

Du et al (2010), Nan and Heo (2007) and Elving (2013) highlight the importance of a high fit with the

CSR cause and all case companies seem to have a high overall fit with their chosen causes. However, when it comes to recycling, Levi Strauss & Co. has used recycled plastic bottles in the production of their “Waste

Li et al (2014) concluded that the sustainable development of H&M is substantial and well-functioning.

The same can be concluded from this paper when comparing their CSR communication to the other case companies, since H&M scored the lowest scores of CSR as aspirational talk (in this paper called unspecified, weak and strong symbolic CSR communication) which accounted for 10.52% of their total

CSR communication and also the highest score of green-highlighting (21.05%). H&M has previously been criticized for a lack of control on their supply chain, but has hopefully learnt from old mistakes since they have such a strong focus on sustainability in their communications now. Also, H&M has the highest revenue and growth rate of the three compared brands, which can imply that they have most resources to invest in sustainable practices. Levi Strauss & Co. got the highest score in CSR as aspirational talk (49.99%) but also scored fairly well on green-highlighting (16.66%). Although the brand has launched some innovative sustainable practices, it would benefit from communicating these 79 practices more efficiently with clear substantive figures and achievable future goals in order to evoke consumer attention and trust but also reap the other benefits of engaging in CSR activities, such as more sales, a better image and relationships with stakeholders (Du et al. 2010; Skarmeas & Leonidou

2013). Burberry got the lowest score of green-highlighting (0%) and a high score of CSR as aspirational talk (44.45% of their total CSR communication). The luxury brand’s low score can depend on the findings made by Davies et al (2012), suggesting that there is a lower tendency to consider ethics when shopping luxury goods and therefore luxury brands do not feel the need to communicate CSR as efficiently as other brands.

However, all three case companies claim to strive for partnerships with other companies in the industry in order to make the entire industry more sustainable. Due to the strong market positions of the companies in their own sectors, they might have the power to pressure competitors and suppliers to adopt similar sustainable practices for the greater good. All three also have several partnerships with

NGOs. This is in line with Bowen and Aragon-Correa (2014) who stress the importance of cross-sector partnerships and the collaboration within industries in order for CSR activities to actually have an effect.

5.2.3 Consumer scepticism versus transparency

Parguel et al (2011) talk about how companies that greenwash negatively affect other companies that are truly sincere about CSR, since consumers cannot distinguish these two from each other or generalize to assume that for example all clothing companies use the same unethical practices as the one caught. However, the scholars argue that CSR as aspirational talk, which is CSR communication as merely aspirational ideals for a wished-for future (Christensen et al. 2013), has the same effect.

Consumers perceive the company’s practices as more substantial than they really are which leads them to have a negative biased view of other companies’ CSR activities and increased CSR scepticism.

Although this paper examined green-highlighting, it also came across sub-types of green-highlighting that are very similar to CSR as aspirational talk: weak symbolic, strong symbolic and unspecified CSR 80 communication. Szykman (2004) defines CSR scepticism as a result of a company’s unclear CSR motives and intentions, which is the case in these three sub-types of green-highlighting. Since all case companies used these types of CSR communication to some extent (H&M 10.52%, Burberry 44.45% and LS&Co. 49.99% of their total) it can be assumed that they all contribute to spreading CSR scepticism, not only towards their own brand but also other clothing brands.

It is difficult to distinguish greenwashing from mere CSR communication, since the words should be compared to real actions to see if there is a discrepancy between them (Walker & Wan 2012). However, one example that was found is Burberry that claims to strive for transparency in all its operations, but does not have a publicly available supplier factory list or even a mention of how many factories it uses in which countries. This can be considered greenwashing, since the brand says one thing (“we are transparent”) but does another (“but we don’t want you to know where our factories are located”). Also

H&M can also be accused of greenwashing, since the brand has manipulated the presentation of its emissions by comparing the emission reduction to sales growth that in fact have risen and not shrunk as the reader could assume from the presented graph (H&M 2016b: 76). Transparency is argued to be the most important driver behind successful CSR communication (Chaudhri & Wang 2007) but can backfire is misused like this. This is in line with Lyon and Maxwell’s (2011) definition of greenwashing as selective disclosure of only positive information and Marquis and Toffel’s (2012:1) definition of selective disclosure as “creating an impression of transparency while masking their true performance”.

However, no other clear signs of greenwashing were found in the analysed CSR communication.

Unclear or untruthful CSR communication of one company can affect consumers to be more sceptical against all CSR communication and see it as a mere marketing trick without real impacts, and thus distrust all products claiming to be sustainable (Polonsky et al 1998; Furlow 2010). Since CSR scepticism furthermore can influence the purchase behavior of consumers and the reputation of a company (Elving 2013) and even affect an entire industry negatively (Parguel et al. 2011), companies should strive to communicate their CSR drivers and practices as transparently as possible in order to

81 be considered as legitimate. This should preferably be done according to “strong green-highlighting”, with clear proof of impact from both past and present development together with an achievable future aspiration with a set timeframe (adapted from Walker & Wan 2012). However, the questions posed by

Caniato et al (2012: 667) remains: “is this just a good story to sell more products, or does this new way of doing business really increase environmental sustainability?” This cannot be answered in this paper, but it can be assumed that the more talk there is about sustainability in the fashion industry, the more consumers demand sustainable products practices from fashion brands. Since brands depend on the consumers’ wishes to make a profit in the highly competitive industry, and since greenwashing probably would cause a CSR scandal decreasing the brand’s value, fashion brands realize that it is time to change their unsustainable practices and communicate about what they have done, what they currently are doing and what they aim to do in the future for the environment in a truthful and transparent manner. Brands that invest heavily in sustainable practices are likely to get a competitive advantage in front of their rivals by setting higher standards for the entire industry but also influence other brands across industries to understand that being sustainable can also be competitive and profitable.

Li et al (2014) suggested a comparative analysis between different fashion brands for future research, which this paper has done. All in all, this study highlights the importance of transparent and efficient

CSR communication in the fashion industry with focus on green-highlighting in three different market levels. The findings include new sub-types of green-highlighting presented in table 9 and two new drivers behind CSR practices: brand heritage and market leader aspiration.

5.3 Limitations

However, this research also has some shortcomings. Content analysis of publicly available documents written by a company is always threatened by bias, since the information source reflects the ideas and opinions of the firm due to the author’s subjectivity. Thus, negative information is rarely mentioned and there is a risk of selective disclosure and greenwashing. Yet, since this research focuses on what and how the case companies communicate CRS and not what they actually do (since the author of this research would have to travel to investigate the production facilities and unfortunately lacks the resources to do so), potential bias is not considered to be a flaw that would take down the trustworthiness of this paper. However, by combining this document analysis with other sources of data, such as qualitative interviews with company representatives or external reports, an even higher level of triangulation could have been reached in order to confirm the collected information.

There were some difficulties that affected the data collection procedure, such as different website design and content, amount and details of information, different nature of the analysed reports (CSR reports, annual reports and other available CSR documents) and the different nature of the case brands.

Also, the brands did not follow the same reporting standards. Despite these limitations the brands still seemed to focus on communicating the same environmental sustainability issues as the ones presented by the GRI framework used as a base for the analysis and can be seen as comparable. However, H&M uses the GRI framework as a basis for their CSR reporting which might have given them a leverage to perform better than the two compared brands. Furthermore, the size of the sampled companies can be seen as a further limitation since the results may have been effected by the bigger size of H&M in terms of their revenue, markets, stores, suppliers and employees. This might have been an advantage in actually implementing more sustainable practices. The emphasis of this paper is only on environmental

CSR, and thus oversees other unethical practices considering for example labour, due to the complexity of the investigated industry. With more time and resources, also the social part could have been analysed in detail. Furthermore, the number of case companies is limited to three due to focus and time

83 limitations. If the sample would have been bigger, more generalized findings could have been made.

This could be done either by having a larger sample pool of cases representing all three market levels or by focusing on one specific market level in more detail. This would both test the generalizability of the extended green-highlighting theory and the two new drivers behind CSR activities found in this research. It would also highlight similarities and differences in more detail either within or across market levels.

5.4 Future research

As already briefly stated in the limitations above, further studies could focus on either one market level or three market levels in more detail. This could for example be done by comparing the CSR communication of nine different fashion brands whereof three would be low-end, three premium and three- high-end brands. This research set-up would allow the researcher to draw more general conclusions about similarities and differences both within and across the three market levels. It would further build on the green-highlighting extension made in the current study by confirming that the seven identified sub-types can be applied to a larger number of cases, not only the ones chosen for this study.

A more specific research avenue could be to investigate one of these market levels in more detail by analysing the CSR communication of nine low-end fashion brands to get a more general understanding of the differences and similarities within this specific market level. Furthermore, the findings by Davies et al (2012), suggesting that luxury shoppers have a lower tendency to consider ethics when shopping and that luxury brands thus potentially do not feel as obliged to communicate CSR as efficiently, could be tested by analysing the CSR communication of several luxury brands. The generalizability of the extended green-highlighting concept could be tested on a more specified sample pool. In this way the two new drivers found in this research, brand heritage and market leader aspiration, could also be further investigated and proven. The drivers “better product quality” and “more investor interest”

(Aguinis & Glavas 2012; Du et al. 2010; Skarmeas & Leonidou 2013) were not mentioned by any of the case companies in this research and it would thus be interesting to see if these two drivers are mentioned more frequently by other case companies.

Qualitative interviews with managers of the brands would be an interesting add-on to the current study.

The collected data from the interviews could either be compared to what the brand communicates in its publicly available documents as a sort of monitoring tool or used as a complement to gain deeper insight to the researched topics. Another suggestion is to add quantitative analysis of the numeric data found in the CSR communication to the research. In this way a higher level of triangulation could be achieved.

The consumer insight aspect would also be an interesting new angle of the current research to see what kind of reactions different CSR communication yields. This would build on the communication outcomes presented by Du et al (2010) presented in figure 1. In this way the theory that green- highlighting really is the most efficient type of CSR communication could be empirically tested and a best practice could be established. The new sub-types of green-highlighting found in this research could also be tested on consumers to prove their existence.

With more time and resources the actual environmental performance of the investigated brands could be tested through factory and supplier visits to see if they comply with the communicated actions. This would build on the research by Caniato et al (2012) focusing on both drivers, practices and the true environmental performance and would study actual greenwashing.

Based on the results of the current study, existing research on CSR communication could be extended in several ways. More general conclusions about the three market levels could be done by including a bigger sample and a more specific understanding of one market level could be achieved by analysing several cases operating on the same market level. The new sub-types of green-highlighting and drivers could also be tested and confirmed by including a bigger sample. A higher level of triangulation could furthermore be reached by adding several different types of sources to the research.

6. CONCLUSION

In this paper, the CSR communication on environmental sustainability of three companies that operate on different market levels in the fashion industry was analysed and compared though content analysis of corporate websites and publicly available reports. The content was analysed based on green- highlighting, which is a greenwashing term which focuses on CSR communication about both past and present substantive CSR actions and future symbolic aspirations (Walker & Wan 2012). The most efficient CSR communication, that evokes both consumer awareness and trust, includes all these three with clear evidence of development and achievable timeframes. The drivers behind the CSR activities and the products, processes and supply chain practices of each case were identified, analysed and compared.

The results of this explorative case study show that the drivers behind the activities are very similar, since they all include long-term growth, corporate values and competitive advantage over rivals. Also, all three case imply that they aim to set higher standards for the entire industry and that current legislation thus is an irrelevant driver. Results further show that the low-end brand performed better than both the premium and luxury brand in communicating its CSR practices efficiently. This is due to the fact that the low-end case company was able to provide the reader with proof from past sustainable development and figures about the present state but also clear and achievable future goals. This is most in line with green-highlighting, whereas the mid-range case performed fairly well and the high-end brand did not reach green-highlighting in any of the analysed environmental topics.

The current research contributes to exiting literature on CSR communication in several ways. First, it compares the CSR communication of three fashion brands in three different market levels and empirically tests the concept of green-highlighting through case analysis, which has not been done before. Second, it identifies brand heritage and market leader aspiration as two new drivers behind engaging in CSR activities. This study furthermore contributes with the identification of seven new

86 sub-types of green-highlighting. These were generated from the content analysis and are more specifically weak symbolic, strong symbolic, weak substantive, strong substantive, unspecified, weak green-highlighting and strong green-highlighting. These sub-types differ from each other in the aspects of time (past, present or future) and specificity (clear and achievable or unrealistic aspirations) and contributes to current research by making the concept of green-highlighting more detailed and specific.

The sub-types specify the original concept of green-highlighting and makes it easier to identify where and how a company’s CSR communication is lacking. This can help managers in most mass-production industries to communicate CSR drivers and practices more efficiently and thus enjoy the benefits from higher levels of more consumer trust and awareness.

REFERENCES

Abrams, R. (2016, May 31st). Retailers Like H&M and Walmart Fall Short of Pledges to Overseas Workers. New York Times. Retrieved 9.10.2016 from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/business/international/top-retailers-fall-short-of- commitments-to-overseas-workers.html. Achabou, M. A., & Dekhili, S. (2013). Luxury and sustainable development: Is there a match?. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1896-1903. Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility a review and research agenda. Journal of management, 38(4), 932-968. Ambec, S., & Lanoie, P. (2008). Does it pay to be green? A systematic overview. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(4), 45-62. Angell, L. C., & Klassen, R. D. (1999). Integrating environmental issues into the mainstream: an agenda for research in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 17(5), 575- 598.

Aras, G., & Crowther, D. (2009). Corporate sustainability reporting: a study in disingenuity? Journal of business ethics, 87(1), 279-288.

Banerjee, S. B. (2008). Corporate Social Responsibility. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Critical Sociology 34(1): 51–79. Barnes, L., & Lea-Greenwood, G. (2006). Fast fashioning the supply chain: shaping the research agenda. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 10(3), 259- 271. Bowen, F., & Aragon-Correa, J. A. (2014). Greenwashing in corporate environmentalism research and practice: The importance of what we say and do. Organization Environment, 27(107), 108- 112.

Bromley, P., & Powell, W. W. (2012). From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. The Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 483-530. Burberry PLC (2014). Global Environmental Policy. Retrieved 12.11.2016 from http://www.burberryplc.com/documents/corporate_responsibility/global-environmental- policy.pdf. Burberry PLC (2015). Basis of Reporting 2015/16. Retrieved 5.1.2017 from http://www.burberryplc.com/documents/corporate_responsibility/burberry-basis-of- reporting.pdf.

Burberry PLC (2016a). Corporate Responsibility: sustainability report 2015. London. Retrieved 11.11.2016 from http://www.burberryplc.com/documents/corporate_responsibility/corporate_responsibility_pack_ june_2016.pdf.

Burberry PLC (2016b). Corporate Responsibility. Retrieved 11.11.2016 from http://www.burberryplc.com/corporate_responsibility. Burberry PLC (2016c). Web shop. Retrieved 20.12.2016 from www.burberry.com. Burberry PLC (2016d). Annual Report 2015. Retrieved 5.1.2017 from http://www.burberryplc.com/documents/ar-15-16/burberry_annual_report_2015-16.pdf. Butler, S. (2016, January 28th). Bangladesh fashion factory safety work severely behind schedule. The Guardian. Retrieved 9.10.2016 from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/28/bangladesh-factory-safety-scheme-stalls.

Caniato, F., Caridi, M., Crippa, L., & Moretto, A. (2012). Environmental sustainability in fashion supply chains: An exploratory case based research. International journal of production economics, 135(2), 659-670. Chaudhri, V., & Wang, J. (2007). Communicating corporate social responsibility on the internet a case study of the top 100 information technology companies in India. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(2), 232-247. Choi, T. M., Chiu, C. H., Govindan, K., & Yue, X. (2014). Sustainable fashion supply chain management: The European scenario. European Management Journal, 32(?), 821-822.

Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2013). CSR as aspirational talk. Organization, 20(3), 372-393. Cohen, B., & Winn, M. I. (2007). Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 29-49. Davies, I. A., Lee, Z., & Ahonkhai, I. (2012). Do consumers care about ethical-luxury?. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 37-51. De Brito, M. P., Carbone, V., & Blanquart, C. M. (2008). Towards a sustainable fashion retail supply chain in Europe: Organisation and performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 114(2), 534-553. Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8-19. Ellram, L. M., Tate, W., & Carter, C. R. (2008). Applying 3DCE to environmentally responsible manufacturing practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1620-1631. Elving, W. J. (2013). Scepticism and corporate social responsibility communications: the influence of fit and reputation. Journal of Marketing Communications, 19(4), 277-292.

Environmental Justice Foundation (2007). The Deadly Chemicals in Cotton. Retrieved 13.10.2016 from http://ejfoundation.org/sites/default/files/public/the_deadly_chemicals_in_cotton.pdf. Erdem, T., Swait, J., & Louviere, J. (2002). The impact of brand credibility on consumer price sensitivity. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(1), 1-19.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative inquiry, 12(2), 219-245. Furlow, N. E. (2010). Greenwashing in the new millennium. The Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 10(6), 22. Gilbert, D. U., Rasche, A. and Waddock, S. (2011). Accountability in a Global Economy: The Emergence of International Accountability Standards to Advance Corporate Social Responsibility, Business Ethics Quarterly, 21: 23–44. Global Reporting Initiative (2013). G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Retrieved 25.11.2016 from https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRIG4-Part1-Reporting-Principles-and- Standard-Disclosures.pdf. GlobeScan Espresso (2012, July 20th). Credibility gap persists around companies’ CSR communications [Blog post]. Retrieved 17.1.2017 from http://www.globescan.com/news-and- analysis/blog/entry/credibility-gap-persists-around-companies-csr-communications.html. Goworek, H. (2011). Social and environmental sustainability in the clothing industry: a case study of a fair trade retailer. Social Responsibility Journal, 7(1), 74-86. Greenpeace Indonesia (2016, April 4th). Hidden Consequences: Valuation of Economic Loss Due to Industrial Pollution [translated from Indonesian]. Greenpeace. Retrieved 7.10.2016 from http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/id/press/reports/valuasi-kerugian-ekonomi-akibat- pencemaran-limbah-industri/. Guiltinan, J. (2009). Creative destruction and destructive creations: environmental ethics and planned obsolescence. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(1), 19-28. Hagtvedt, H. & Patrick, V. M. (2009). The broad embrace of luxury: Hedonic potential as a driver of brand extendibility. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(10), 608-618. H&M Group (2015). Supplier Compliance Levels in Detail. Retrieved 5.1.2017 from http://sustainability.hm.com/en/sustainability/downloads-resources/resources/supplier- compliance.html. H&M Group (2016a). Sustainability. Retrieved 13.10.2016 from http://sustainability.hm.com/en. H&M Group (2016b). Conscious Actions – Sustainability Report 2015. Retrieved 11.10.2013 from http://sustainability.hm.com/content/dam/hm/about/documents/en/CSR/2015%20Sustainability% 20report/HM_SustainabilityReport_2015_final_FullReport_en.pdf. H&M Group (2016c). Annual Report 2015. Retrieved 5.1.2017 from https://about.hm.com/content/dam/hmgroup/groupsite/documents/masterlanguage/Annual%20Re port/Annual%20Report%202015.pdf.

Handfield, R. B., Walton, S. V., Seegers, L. K., & Melnyk, S. A. (1997). ‘Green’ value chain practices in the furniture industry. Journal of Operations Management, 15(4), 293-315.

Hur, W., Kim, H. & Woo, J. (2014). How CSR Leads to Corporate Brand Equity: Mediating Mechanisms of Corporate Brand Credibility and Reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(1), 75-86 International Labour Organization (2014). Issues Paper for discussion at the Global Dialogue Forum on Wages and Working Hours in the Textiles, Clothing, Leather and Footwear Industries. ILO, Geneva 23-25.9.2014. Retrieved 26.9.2016 from http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_dialogue/@sector/documents/publication/wcms _300463.pdf. Janssen, C., Vanhamme, J., Lindgreen, A., & Lefebvre, C. (2014). The catch-22 of responsible luxury: effects of luxury product characteristics on consumers’ perception of fit with corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(1), 45-57.

Jobber, D. (2006), Principles and Practice of Marketing, 5th ed., McGraw‐Hill, Maidenhead.

Joergens, C. (2006), Ethical fashion: myth or future trend? Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 10(3), 360‐71. Kapferer, J. N. (1998). Why are we seduced by luxury brands?. Journal of Brand Management, 6(1), 44-49. Kapferer, J.-N. (2010). All that glitters is not green: The challenge of sustainable luxury. European Business Review, 40-45. Kapferer, J. N. (2012). The luxury strategy: Break the rules of marketing to build luxury brands. London: Kogan Page Publishers. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publishing. LaBarbera, P. A. (1982). Overcoming a no-reputation liability through documentation and advertising regulation. Journal of Marketing Research, 223-228.

Laudal, T. (2010). An attempt to determine the CSR potential of the international clothing business. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(1), 63-77. Levi Strauss & Co. (2013). Sustainability Guidebook. Retrieved 15.12.2016 from http://www.levistrauss.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/LSCO-Sustainability-Guidebook-2013- December.pdf. 95-114. Levi Strauss & Co. (2014). CEO Water Mandate. Retrieved 15.12.2016 from http://levistrauss.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/LSCo_CEOWaterMandate_COP_2014.pdf. Levi Strauss & Co. (2015). The Lifecycle Assessment of a Jean. Retrieved 20.11.2016 from http://levistrauss.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Full-LCA-Results-Deck-FINAL.pdf. Levi Strauss & Co. (2016a). Sustainability. Retrieved 11.11.2016 from http://www.levistrauss.com/sustainability/.

Levi Strauss & Co. (2016b). Unleashing our potential: 2015 Annual report. Retrieved 11.11.2016 from http://levistrauss.com/investors/annual-reports/2015-annual-report/. 1-22. Levi Strauss & Co. (2016c). Factory List December 2016. Retrieved 5.1.2017 from http://www.levistrauss.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Levi-Strauss-Co-Factory-List- December-2016.pdf. Levi’s (2016). Web shop. Retrieved 20.12.2016 from www.levi.com. Li, Y., Zhao, X., Shi, D., & Li, X. (2014). Governance of sustainable supply chains in the fast fashion industry. European Management Journal, 32(5), 823-836.

Lyon, T. P., & Maxwell, J. W. (2011). Greenwash: Corporate environmental disclosure under threat of audit. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 20(1), 3-41. Mann, M., Byun, S. E., Kim, H., & Hoggle, K. (2014). Assessment of leading apparel specialty retailers’ CSR practices as communicated on corporate websites: Problems and opportunities. Journal of business ethics, 122(4), 599-622. Marquis, C., & Toffel, M. W. (2012). When do firms greenwash? Corporate visibility, civil society scrutiny, and environmental disclosure. Harvard Business School Organizational Behavior Unit Working Paper, (11-115).

Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family practice (Oxford University Press) 13(6), 522-526. Milne, M. J., & Adler, R. W. (1999). Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures content analysis. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 12(2), 237-256. Nan, X., & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives: Examining the role of brand-cause fit in cause-related marketing. Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 63-74. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage Publications. Newell, S. J., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2001). The development of a scale to measure perceived corporate credibility. Journal of Business Research, 52(3), 235-247.

Pacala, S., & Socolow, R. (2004). Stabilization wedges: Solving theclimate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science, 305(5686), 968–972. Parguel, B., Benoît-Moreau, F., & Larceneux, F. (2011). How sustainability ratings might deter ‘greenwashing’: A closer look at ethical corporate communication. Journal of business ethics, 102(1), 15-28. Patton, D. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage Publications. Phau, I., & Prendergast, G. (2000). Consuming luxury brands: the relevance of the ‘rarity principle’. Journal of Brand Management, 8(2), 122-138.

Polonsky, M. J., Bailey, J., Baker, H., Basche, C., Jepson, C., & Neath, L. (1998). Communicating environmental information: are marketing claims on packaging misleading?. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(3), 281-294. Positive Luxury. (2016). Predictions for the Luxury Industry: Sustainability and Innovation. London: Positive Luxury. Executive summary retrieved 11.11.2016 from http://positiveluxury.msgfocus.com/files/amf_pets_pyjamas/project_173/2016_Predictions_for_t he_Luxury_Industry_in_Sustainability_and_Innovation_-_The_Executive_Summary.pdf. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., ... & Nykvist, B. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472-475.

Shaw, D., Hogg, G., Wilson, E., Shui, E. and Hassan, L. (2006), Fashion victim: the impact of fair trade consumers on clothing choice, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 14 (14), 427-40. Saunders, M. & Lewis, P. (2012). Doing research in business and management: An essential guide to planning your project. Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited. Setayati, A. (2016, July 29th). Analysis: Indonesian textile industry faces formidable challenges. The Jakarta Post. Retrieved 7.10.2016 from http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/07/29/analysis-indonesian-textile-industry-faces- formidable-challenges.html. Skarmeas, D., & Leonidou, C. N. (2013). When consumers doubt, watch out! The role of CSR skepticism. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1831-1838. Skarmeas, D., Leonidou, C. N., & Saridakis, C. (2014). Examining the role of CSR skepticism using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. Journal of business research, 67(9), 1796-1805. Spar, D. L., & La Mure, L. T. (2003). The power of activism: Assessing the impact of NGOs on global business. California Management Review, 45(3), 78-101. Spiggle, S. (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 3, 491-503.

Susanti, R. (2016, February 4th). Residents of Rancaekek in Bandung Prone to Cancer [translated from Indonesian]. Kompas. Retrieved 7.10.2016 from http://regional.kompas.com/read/2016/02/04/21595701/Warga.Rancaekek.di.Bandung.Rawan.Te rkena.Kanker. Szykman, L. R., Bloom, P. N., & Blazing, J. (2004). Does corporate sponsorship of a socially- oriented message make a difference? An investigation of the effects of sponsorship identity on responses to an anti-drinking and driving message. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1), 13- 20.

Turker, D., & Altuntas, C. (2014). Sustainable supply chain management in the fast fashion industry: An analysis of corporate reports. European Management Journal, 32(5), 837-849. Walker, D. (2008). Sustainability: environmental management, transparency and competitive advantage. Journal of Retail and Leisure Property. 7(2), 119-30.

Walker, K., & Wan, F. (2012). The harm of symbolic actions and green-washing: Corporate actions and communications on environmental performance and their financial implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(2), 227-242. World Trade Organization (2015). International Trade Statistics 2015, WTO. Retrieved 26.9.2016 from https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2015_e/its15_merch_trade_product_e.pdf. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th edition). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publishing. Yin, R. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (5th edition). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publishing.

APPENDIX

Appendix 1. Word frequency: top 100 per case (bolded words are connected to environmental sustainability).

Case 1: H&M Case 2: LS&Co. Case 3: Burberry Count Weighted Count Weighted Count Weighted Word Word Word (45208) % (23100) % (18302) % 2015 434 0,96 levi 298 1,29 burberry 485 2,65

sustainability 408 0,90 water 297 1,28 supply 173 0,95

conscious 298 0,66 strauss 184 0,79 chain 152 0,83

water 276 0,61 hazardous 153 0,66 business 143 0,78

report 240 0,53 waste 138 0,60 environmental 111 0,61

rights 237 0,52 impact 113 0,49 rights 106 0,58

business 231 0,51 factories 112 0,48 policy 103 0,56

actions 230 0,51 wastewater 110 0,47 energy 100 0,55

factories 225 0,50 factory 106 0,46 global 94 0,51

suppliers 223 0,49 products 106 0,46 human 94 0,51

commitment 205 0,45 requirements 100 0,43 ethical 93 0,51

industry 195 0,43 consumer 97 0,42 working 90 0,49

human 194 0,43 2015 96 0,41 2015 87 0,48

work 194 0,43 global 93 0,40 trading 86 0,47

year 182 0,40 environment 91 0,39 group 77 0,42

cotton 181 0,40 cotton 88 0,38 including 73 0,40

also 178 0,39 wash 85 0,37 programme 71 0,39

focus 178 0,39 percent 82 0,35 labour 68 0,37

global 171 0,38 jeans 81 0,35 employees 65 0,36

chain 169 0,37 materials 81 0,35 waste 62 0,34

well 162 0,36 must 79 0,34 local 60 0,33

supplier 160 0,35 apparel 78 0,34 materials 60 0,33

fashion 158 0,35 energy 78 0,34 suppliers 60 0,33

2014 154 0,34 workers 72 0,31 responsible 59 0,32

fair 153 0,34 well 70 0,30 code 57 0,31

sustainable 147 0,32 every 69 0,30 corporate 56 0,31

impact 129 0,28 year 65 0,28 responsibility 56 0,31

value 128 0,28 business 64 0,28 principles 54 0,30

wage 128 0,28 sustainability 64 0,28 sustainable 53 0,29

make 127 0,28 world 64 0,28 impact 52 0,28

products 127 0,28 also 63 0,27 targets 51 0,28

working 124 0,27 health 63 0,27 sourcing 49 0,27

performance 122 0,27 program 63 0,27 support 48 0,26

management 118 0,26 industry 62 0,27 cotton 47 0,26

based 117 0,26 treatment 62 0,27 information 46 0,25

customers 117 0,26 consumers 61 0,26 partners 46 0,25

production 113 0,25 product 61 0,26 chief 45 0,25

textile 112 0,25 less 59 0,25 conduct 45 0,25

workers 110 0,24 wastes 59 0,25 workers 44 0,24

95 better 109 0,24 change 57 0,25 also 43 0,24 impacts 109 0,24 company 57 0,25 management 43 0,24 partners 105 0,23 employees 57 0,25 performance 43 0,24 world 105 0,23 suppliers 54 0,23 well 43 0,24 want 101 0,22 environmental 53 0,23 emissions 42 0,23 colleagues 100 0,22 china 51 0,22 people 42 0,23 wages 100 0,22 practices 51 0,22 company 41 0,22

2013 99 0,22 used 51 0,22 leather 41 0,22 compliance 99 0,22 average 50 0,22 across 40 0,22 policy 99 0,22 climate 50 0,22 chemical 40 0,22 climate 98 0,22 washing 50 0,22 industry 39 0,21 living 98 0,22 management 48 0,21 manufacturing 39 0,21 status 98 0,22 reduce 47 0,20 used 39 0,21

2016 97 0,21 supply 47 0,20 water 39 0,21 materials 97 0,21 worker 47 0,20 assurance 38 0,21 people 97 0,21 care 46 0,20 impacts 38 0,21 change 93 0,21 include 46 0,20 progress 38 0,21 timeline 92 0,20 make 46 0,20 reduction 38 0,21 ensure 91 0,20 brand 45 0,19 internal 37 0,20 made 91 0,20 local 45 0,19 operations 37 0,20 companies 89 0,20 chain 44 0,19 work 37 0,20 help 89 0,20 areas 43 0,19 commitment 36 0,20 total 89 0,20 guidelines 43 0,19 number 36 0,20 training 89 0,20 made 43 0,19 officer 36 0,20 data 87 0,19 safety 43 0,19 products 36 0,20 first 87 0,19 2013 42 0,18 training 36 0,20 development 84 0,19 around 42 0,18 committee 35 0,19 together 84 0,19 foundation 42 0,18 compliance 35 0,19 markets 83 0,18 production 42 0,18 external 35 0,19 countries 82 0,18 training 42 0,18 plan 35 0,19 stores 82 0,18 effluent 41 0,18 reduce 35 0,19 garment 81 0,18 first 41 0,18 slavery 35 0,19 social 79 0,17 sustainable 41 0,18 standards 35 0,19 supply 79 0,17 equipment 40 0,17 year 35 0,19 important 78 0,17 work 40 0,17 activities 34 0,19 issues 78 0,17 discharge 39 0,17 international 34 0,19 bangladesh 77 0,17 lifecycle 39 0,17 limited 34 0,19 recycled 77 0,17 process 39 0,17 sustainability 34 0,19 many 74 0,16 working 39 0,17 team 34 0,19 resources 74 0,16 2014 38 0,16 construction 33 0,18 reduce 73 0,16 including 38 0,16 welfare 33 0,18 around 72 0,16 lifetime 38 0,16 committed 32 0,18 strategy 72 0,16 people 37 0,16 must 32 0,18 long 71 0,16 domestic 36 0,16 stores 32 0,18 reporting 71 0,16 facility 36 0,16 communities 31 0,17 standards 71 0,16 initiative 36 0,16 modern 31 0,17 example 70 0,15 women 36 0,16 programmes 31 0,17 factory 70 0,15 assessment 35 0,15 risk 31 0,17 index 70 0,15 million 35 0,15 sites 30 0,16 need 70 0,15 tank 35 0,15 2017 29 0,16 responsible 70 0,15 time 35 0,15 areas 29 0,16 code 69 0,15 best 34 0,15 employment 29 0,16

96 labour 69 0,15 community 34 0,15 health 29 0,16 emissions 67 0,15 pair 34 0,15 policies 29 0,16 environmenta 67 0,15 help 33 0,14 product 29 0,16 l programme 67 0,15 life 33 0,14 production 29 0,16 communities 66 0,15 line 33 0,14 associates 28 0,15 part 66 0,15 recycling 33 0,14 finished 28 0,15 energy 64 0,14 report 33 0,14 retail 28 0,15 million 64 0,14 retail 33 0,14 third 28 0,15 provide 64 0,14 aids 32 0,14 based 27 0,15

27/100 (27%) of words are strongly connected 29/100 (29%) of words are strongly connected 27/100 (27%) of words are strongly to environmental sustainability to environmental sustainability connected to environmental sustainability

Appendix 2. Revised results of sustainable practices.

Case 1: H&M

Case 2: Levi Strauss & Co.

Case 3: Burberry