23-08-19 Final Masterthesis

DEGREE PROJECT IN TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, SECOND CYCLE, 60 CREDITS STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2019

A Comparison of Traceability Approaches and Certifications in the Clothing Industry

A Case Study at ASKET AB

LISA STEFFENHAGEN

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT TRITA TRITA-ABE-MBT-19632

www.kth.se

A Comparison of Traceability Approaches and Certifications in the Clothing Industry

A Case Study at ASKET AB

LISA STEFFENHAGEN

Supervisor LARSGÖRAN STRANDBERG

Examiner CECILIA SUNDBERG

Supervisor at ASKET AB AUGUST BARD-BRINGÉUS

Degree Project in Sustainable Technology KTH Royal Institute of Technology School of Architecture and Built Environment Department of Sustainable Development, Environmental Science and Engineering SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden

Abstract

Abstract The textile industry is one of the most polluting industries worldwide with vast impacts on all three pillars of sustainability – ecology, society and economy. Recently there has been increased interest in improving sustainable practices in the clothing industry. These practices look to tackle the negative impacts from emissions, pollution and synthetic or man-made materials (i.e. those made from fossil fuels). Popular approaches are transparency, supply chain traceability and product certifications.

This research aims to evaluate these different approaches with a multi-criteria analysis using a developed evaluation framework and applying the framework at a case study at ASKET AB, a menswear brand from Sweden. Research included seven different certifications common in the clothing industry. Due to a different focus not on a product but rather on a company management level, one of the certifications is excluded in the evaluation process. To ensure the relevance of the framework, the common approaches in sustainability research of the Planetary Boundaries and the Doughnut Economy are combined with the United Na- tions Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs). Thus, the evaluation framework covers an environmental as well as a social dimension, including 18 impact categories in total. The evaluation results in a score for each certification according to the ranking per impact category for each certification. The results showed a clear advantage for certifications covering impact categories from the environmental as well as the social dimension.

The results from the evaluation are accompanied by semi-structured interviews with seven experts from within the apparel and sustainability industry. The interviews support most of the findings from the literature research and evaluation. The combination of evaluation and interviews concludes that there is a necessity to take different factors into account before choosing a certain certifications scheme. There is no one fits all approach due to the fact that each organisation adopts its own sustainability practices. Key factors to take into consideration include values and focus areas of the company as well as the rigour of the certification. Consequently, depending on the circumstances, a combination of different certifications and ecolabels might be the best approach.

The results are applied to a case study at ASKET AB, a Stockholm-based menswear brand focussing on high-quality and timeless wardrobe essentials. Applicability of different traceability approaches and certifications for ASKET considered different factors including limited monetary and personnel resources of a small- to medium-sized enterprise to a micro-company. Furthermore, a comparison to other approaches of supply chain traceability and transparent communication are taken into account in the assessment. Overall, a different focus depending on the supply chain processes is the most suitable option for ASKET since a full certification of the company, or specific products are not applicable at the current stage of the company.

Keywords: supply chain traceability, transparency, certifications, clothing industry, SME

Sammanfattning

Sammanfattning Textilindustrin är en av världens mest förorenande industrier med stor påverkan på alla tre delar inom hållbarhet – ekologiskt, social och ekonomist. På senare tid har intresset för mer hållbara metoder inom klädindustrin ökat. Målet med dessa metoder är att minska de nega- tiva effekterna från utsläpp, föroreningar samt material från fossila källor. Populära tillväga- gångssätt inkluderar transparens, spårbarhet i leverantörskedjan och produktcertifiering.

Denna studie utvärderar dessa tillvägagångssätt via en multikriterieanalys utförd med ett framtaget utvärderingsramverk. Studien innehåller sju, för klädindustrin, vanliga certifieringar varav en av dessa exkluderades i utvärderingsprocessen på grund av annat fokus. Ramverkets relevans säkerställs genom att kombinera de vanligaste metoderna i hållbar- hetsforskning inom Planetary Boundaries och Doughnut Economy med FN:s mål för hållbar utveckling (FN:s SDGs).

Därmed täcker utvärderingsramen såväl miljö- som sociala aspekter innehållandes 18 olika påverkningsbara kategorier. Utvärderingen ger varje certifiering en poäng enligt ranking per påverkningsbar kategori. Certifieringar innehållandes miljö- och sociala aspekter fick bäst resultat.

Utvärderingsresultaten åtföljdes av semistrukterande intervjuer med sju experter som stöder mestadels av litteraturforskningen och utvärderingen. Utvärderings- och intervjuresultaten visar vikten av att ta olika faktorer i beaktning innan ett certifieringsschema väljs. Dessa inkluderar företagsvärden, fokusområden samt kriteriets strikthet. Det existerar således ingen universell metod och i vissa fall kan en kombination av olika certifieringar och eko- märkningar vara den bästa metoden.

Resultaten applicerades på en fallstudie hos ASKET AB, ett Stockholmsbaserat herrklädes- märke med fokus på högkvalitativa och tidlösa ”wardrobe essentials” (garderobsnödvändig- heter). Tillämpbarheten av olika spårbarhetsmetoder och certifieringar för ASKET innehöll faktorer så som begränsade monetära- och personalresurser för ett litet till medelstort bolag till ett mikroföretag. I bedömningen beaktas även en jämförelse av andra tillvägagångssätt för spårbarhet i leveranskejdan och kommunikationstransparens. Sammanfattningsvis är olika fokus beroende på leveranskedjeproncessen mest användbar för ASKET eftersom en fullständig certifiering av företaget eller en specifik produkt i nuläget inte är applicerbar.

Nyckelord: Spårbarhet i leveranskedja, transparens, certifieringar, klädindustri, SME

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements Firstly, I would like to thank everyone that has supported me during the thesis project, especially my supervisor Larsgöran Strandberg for his continued feedback and insights. More- over, I would like to express my gratitude to ASKET AB and every member of the team in making me feel welcome, with a special thank you to the co-founders August Bard-Bringéus and Jakob Dworsky for their constant feedback.

I would like to address special thanks to all interviewees without who the evaluation of this thesis would not have been possible.

Lastly, I would like to thank Monika Olsson, programme coordinator, as well as lecturers and friends from KTH who have made my master studies a great and unique experience.

Stockholm, August 2019 Lisa Steffenhagen

III

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... I

Sammanfattning ...... II

Acknowledgements ...... III

Table of Contents ...... IV

List of Images ...... VI

List of Tables ...... VII

List of Abbreviations ...... VIII

1 Introduction ...... 1

2 Aim & Objectives ...... 3

3 Methodology ...... 4

4 Literature Research & Results ...... 5

4.1 Sustainability issues in the clothing industry ...... 5

Three pillars of sustainability ...... 5

The Sustainable Development Goals by the UN ...... 7

The Nine Planetary Boundaries ...... 9

The Doughnut Economy ...... 10

4.2 Transparency in the clothing industry ...... 11

4.3 Traceability approaches ...... 13

4.4 Product Certifications ...... 14

4.5 Summary - Research Findings ...... 24

5 Evaluation ...... 26

5.1 Framework ...... 26

5.2 Evaluation Results ...... 28

5.3 Evaluation of transparency and traceability ...... 34

5.4 Interviews ...... 35

Table of Contents

5.4.1 Certifications & Ecolabels ...... 35

5.4.2 Other sustainability approaches – Transparency & Traceability ...... 37

5.5 Summary of Evaluation Results ...... 38

6 Case Study at ASKET & Results ...... 39

6.1 About ASKET ...... 39

6.2 Traceability Tool ...... 40

6.3 Application of traceability approaches ...... 41

6.4 Application possibilities of certifications ...... 44

6.5 Evaluation and Summary of the Case Study at ASKET ...... 46

7 Conclusion ...... 49

8 Recommendations ...... 51

9 References ...... 53

10 Appendix ...... i

Appendix A – Evaluation of Certifications & Ecolabels ...... i

Appendix B – Interviews ...... ii

List of Images

List of Images Image 1: Overview of all 17 SDGs adapted from United Nations (2019)...... 8

Image 2: Impact categories of the Planetary Boundaries, the Doughnut Economy and the SDGs combined that are affected by the clothing industry. The outer dimension represents environmental impacts that are based on the Planetary boundaries. The inner dimension represents the social foundation and is based on the Doughnut Economy and the SDGs which are shown in yellow...... 27

Image 3: The identified impacts have been sorted according to direct (left) and indirect (right) influence. The outer dimension represents environmental impacts. The inner dimension shows the social foundation...... 28

Image 4: Location Map showing all Manufacturing Locations of ASKET's permanent collection. Adapted from ASKET AB (2018a)...... 42

Image 5: Full questionnaire used for the personal and web-based interviews includes in total 12 qualitative questions covering the topics certifications & ecolabels as well as transparency and traceability approaches. This questionnaire was sent out in advance to interviewees and was filled out by one interviewee directly...... ii

List of Tables

List of Tables Table 1: The SDGs impacted directly and indirectly by the clothing industry. Based on the United Nations (2019) six and eight SDGs respectively are directly and indirectly impacted by the clothing industry...... 9

Table 2: Overview of all certifications including a short summary of the label as well as advantages and disadvantages of each certifications...... 23

Table 3: The different certifications receive a score according to rankings for each impact category...... 28

Table 4: The six certifications are ranked according to their impacts for each of the 18 categories on the environmental and social dimension. Some terms were shortened to increase visibility. "EU" refers to the EU Ecolabel, “OEKO” to the OEKO-TEX ® Standard 100 and “Higg” to the Higg Index. “All” indicates the same ranking for all six certifications for that category...... 33

Table 5: Overall scores of the different certifications are based on their impact on the various impact categories...... 34

Table 6: Overview of interviewee positions, interview setting and duration of all six interviews carried out with an average interview length of 33 minutes...... 35

Table 7: Traceability scores of the four categories, Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3 and Trims vary from 0% to 100% traceability depending on the information availability (Adapted from ASKET AB (2019d))...... 41

Table 8: The overview of all certifications shows their impact on the different impact categories...... i

Table 9: Summary of all interview replies highlights key statements as well as main similarities and differences of the interviewees...... iii

Table 10: Overview and summary of the interviews with Co-Founder and Head of Product of ASKET...... vi

VII

List of Abbreviations

Abbreviation Description BAT Best Available Techniques BCI Better Cotton Initiative CFC Chlorofluorocarbon CSR Corporate Social Responsibility

CO2 Carbon Dioxide EU European Union FWF Fairwear Foundation GHG Greenhouse Gases GMO Genetically Modified Organisms GOTS Global Organic Textile Standard ILO International Labour Organization IVN Internationaler Verband der Naturtextil- wirtschaft NOx Nitrogen Oxides REACH Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals SAC Sustainable Apparel Coalition SDG Sustainable Development Goals SME Small – and Medium-sized Enterprise UN United Nations

VIII

Introduction

1 Introduction The clothing industry is estimated to be a 2.5 trillion dollar industry providing jobs for millions of people (Stotz and Kane, 2015; UNFCCC, 2018) considered a unique and creative industry yet it is one of the most polluting industries. It has been found to have a significant carbon footprint, as well as causing negative impacts on people and the environment, while also depleting vast amounts of raw materials (Brad et al., 2018).

The production of clothing is a very energy intensive process using raw materials such as fossil fuels to power the production process (Brad et al., 2018). Additionally, the garments themselves require raw materials, both natural and man-made. Both these processes have a significant impact on emissions as well as polluting air, water and soil. An additional burden of the clothing industry is the end of life of clothing which often ends up in landfill resulting in further emissions. The concept of fast fashion further accelerates these impacts as the business model is built to encourage overconsumption (Henninger, 2015).

It is clear, that the fashion industry impacts not only the three pillars of sustainability (ecology, society and economy) but also numerous Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (United Nations, 2019) and the nine Planetary Boundaries (Steffen et al., 2015). Fast fashion companies and large corporations in the industry release 15 to over 20 collections each year sometimes with weekly updates (Remy et al., 2016) which they source for from various suppliers, manufacturers and factories around the globe. This demand for constant renewal puts enormous pressure on brands, suppliers and manufacturers with decisions being made for quick production times rather than the safety and well-being of the employees. Furthermore, because the fashion supply chain relies on globalised infrastructure this leads to further emissions due to a need for increased transportation.

In order to maximise profits the industry has seen a shift of production to countries with lower wage standards and safety requirements which leads to catastrophes and accidents like the collapse of the Rana Plaza factory building in Bangladesh in 2013 (Hen- ninger et al., 2015). Despite the fashion industry relying on a global network of infrastructure and people, very few brands fully understand the complexity of their supply chain. Yet without knowledge of all the suppliers in the complex system of clothing production, there is little to no way, for companies to reduce their negative impact and improve their operations. As such, the first step towards achieving a more sustainable supply chain is greater traceability. That is for organisations to be able to track their suppliers and manufacturers, ultimately reconstructing the entire supply chain of a garment. Being transparent about traceability or the lack thereof allows the customer to make conscious and informed decision about their purchases.

In light of growing demand, more companies are making attempts to introduce transparency (Fashion Revolution, 2018), sustainability alternatives and new approaches in to the fashion industry (Fashion Revolution, 2018). Increasingly popular are certifications and ecolabelling. While certifications are widely used and established in the food sector especially for ecological products, it is not yet common practice in the fashion industry. That said, companies dedicated to the sustainability of their products and practices, largely rely on certifications to communicate this approach to consumers and other stake-

Introduction holders. Existing certifications, standards and ecolabels in the clothing and apparel industry consider a range of different factors; focusing on either ethical, social or environmental aspects, or taking a combination of several factors into account. The criteria of these certifications can widely differ. On the one hand, this can lead to confusions among organisations and consumers. On the other hand, low criteria can be used to support greenwashing.

Fighting misleading and the lack of information provided by large corporates in the clothing industry and reaching more sustainability is the goal of numerous brands in the fair and ethical fashion industry. This includes ASKET. ASKET, a Stockholm-based menswear company, produces high-quality, timeless basics for men aiming to slow down the fashion industry. While their whole business model is based on long-lasting, high-quality garments and mindful consumption as core values (Bard-Bringéus and Dworsky, 2019), they are constantly thriving for more sustainability. One step in this journey is their commitment to reach 100% traceability for all their garments and their supply chain by 2020 which they set after a negative experience with one of their supplying mills (Bard- Bringéus, 2019). However, ASKET see traceability as a first step, leading to accounta- bility, ultimately taking responsibility for the impact of their supply chain and driving for better practices. As such, they want to evaluate the impact of their garments further and consider other approaches in the field of sustainability, e.g. certifications, to reduce the impact of their garments. Therefore, this thesis evaluates the potential effects of traceability as well as different certifications and considers the potential application for ASKET.

Aim & Objectives

2 Aim & Objectives

The report at hand aims to evaluate different certifications and traceability approaches in terms of their potential sustainability impact and applicability for small companies in the fair fashion industry with a focus on the Swedish menswear brand ASKET.

The objectives include: - The evaluation and comparison of different ecolabels and certifications mainly applied in the clothing industry, with a focus on product certifications applicable by small companies, based on literature research and examples from the industry. - The explanation and evaluation of different existing traceability approaches in the clothing industry based on literature research and best practices of companies. - The design of an evaluation framework and the evaluation of the different approaches based on this framework. - The analysis of these tools and certifications in terms of their applicability and their potential impact for the case of ASKET.

Limitations

A key consideration when identifying comparative brands for the case study was to select companies of similar size and field of practice. Therefore, a focus on small- and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) working in sustainable clothing without retailers is intended. The geographical focus is on companies based in Europe and Sweden where possible.

The field of ethical and environmentally friendly clothing is not new; however, it has been attracting more and more attention of late. At the same time, the model of fast fashion caught more traction in the last decade or so increasing the negative impacts of the clothing industry even further. These developments changed the market largely during that time. Therefore, data from the last ten years will be considered

Moreover, the certifications considered in this research are limited to most common ecolabels in the clothing and textile industry that are mostly applicable in European and Swedish markets. Furthermore, during the research phase, it became apparent that data availability and accessibility was limited, for example the Higg Index limits much of its data to members only. Therefore, only data available directly to the author or a close contact person is considered.

Lastly, only English references and resources are considered in this study to ensure consistency and comprehensibility for the reader.

Methodology

3 Methodology This study uses literature research and stakeholder interviews as methods. The literature research is based on academic and non-academic literature, including papers and journals as well as sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports of different companies. Information regarding the clothing and apparel sector was preferred. Alt- hough, data for this sector was not always available which led to other sectors being considered in the research as well. Academic papers and journals were sourced from the platforms; KTH Primo, Wiley Online Library, Web of Science and EconBiz. Keywords for the search include clothing, industry, fashion, apparel, textile, certifications, ecolabels, green, sustainable, supply chain. This is complemented by web-based research, especially regarding specific certifications, criteria and companies.

The evaluation and analysis are based on the findings from the literature research. As part of the evaluation, a framework to assess the different certifications but also transparency and traceability along the supply chain was developed. The framework is based on a combination of the SDGs (United Nations, 2019), the Planetary Boundaries (Steffen et al., 2015), and the Doughnut Economy (Raworth, 2013) and is explained in more detail in Chapter 5.1. The framework is used in two ways. Firstly, the impact categories influenced by the different certifications are identified. Secondly, based on that, the certifications are ranked according to their impact in that specific category and quantified according to a scoring model.

Furthermore, interviews are carried out to collect different opinions and evaluations regarding the different sustainability approaches. Interviews with seven interviewees with different backgrounds were held. Of these interviews, four were in person, two were via web-conference and one interviewee filled out the questionnaire directly. Most of the interviewees are experts in the clothing and fashion industry, working as consultants, sustainability managers or are founders of a clothing brand. The interviews in person and via web-conference were semi-structured with overall twelve qualitative questions. The setting of semi-structured interviews is flexible with an aligned mode of delivery which was guided by a pre-defined questionnaire (O’Leary, 2014). The questions cover the topics of certifications as well as other sustainability approaches like transparency and traceability along the supply chain. Depending on the situation, additional questions were asked for further explanations or to explore interesting statements further. Moreover, the findings from the literature research are verified based on the interview results. Interviewees include different stakeholders in the clothing industry, including employees of sustainable clothing brands and other organisations active in the field of sustainability as well as of ASKET.

Literature Research & Results

4 Literature Research & Results This chapter introduces the diverse issues in the clothing industry followed by potential solutions which include supply chain traceability and product certifications. The findings are summarised at the end of the chapter.

4.1 Sustainability issues in the clothing industry The clothing industry with its extensive and fragmented supply chain (Nagurney et al., 2015) has vast impacts on a diverse set of aspects, consequently, impacting all three pillars of sustainability – ecology, society, and economy. At the same time large companies often do not have a sufficient overview of their whole supply chain and all their suppliers (Brad et al., 2018). This sub-chapter elaborates on important and established frameworks in sustainability research and the impact of the clothing industry on these models. Considered in detail are the UN SDGs as one of the globally acknowledged and communicated standards in sustainability, the Planetary Boundaries Framework as well as the Doughnut Economy. The latter two are of great importance in sustainability studies and are widely used by researchers.

Three pillars of sustainability The three pillars of sustainability encompass an environmental, a social and an economic dimension. Often depicted in a Venn diagram where the three circles of Environment, Society and Economy overlap in the middle (Purvis et al., 2019). Sustainable Develop- ment is only possible at that ‘sweet spot’ where the three circles meet (Purvis et al., 2019). However, there are graphs in which the three dimensions are depicted as con- centric circles with the Economy in the inner circle surrounded by the Society with the Environment surrounding the both (Purvis et al., 2019). This image shows a better understanding of the dependence of society and economy on functional and healthy ecosystems.

ENVIRONMENT

The production, distribution and consumption of clothing have a huge impact on environmental issues worldwide. One of the most significant aspects are the vast amounts of emissions to the atmosphere, including Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and other Greenhouse Gases (GHG) like Methane, that accelerate global warming and climate change. This is due to the energy needed for different production processes as well as transport that is necessary to bring the different components of garments together and the final product to the consumer. Additionally, the combustion of bio- and fossil fuels leads to the emission of black carbon, organic carbon as well as sulphates and nitrates which affect atmospheric aerosol loading (Steffen et al., 2015). Land use change due to large areas needed for the cultivation of fibres like cotton has an impact on emissions and biodiversity (Houdini Sportswear et al., 2018). The globalisation of the clothing industry leads to longer distances between the different lifecycle stages resulting in higher emissions. Ac- cording to the UN (UNFCCC, 2018), the clothing industry is responsible for 10 % of global GHG emissions, accounting for a larger energy use than the aviation and shipping industry combined.

The concept of fast fashion and its high pace of consumption with low prices and numerous collections within one year’s time puts increasing pressure on different stakeholders

Literature Research & Results within the industry. The pressure from large companies to produce more clothes for lower prices leads to a shift of production mostly to developing countries in Asia where legal restrictions regarding the environment and working conditions are often lower (Brad et al., 2018).

Furthermore, the most commonly used materials in clothing are very resource intense. Combined, cotton and polyester account for a share of over 50% of fibres used in clothing in the EU (Statista, 2019). Cotton needs large amounts of water in its cultivation, e.g. 10.000 litres of water are needed to grow only one kilogram of conventional cotton (UN- FCCC, 2018), while almost 70 million barrels of the non-renewable source petrol are used per year to produce polyester fibres (Conca, 2015). This makes the clothing industry hugely resource intense (Brad et al., 2018).

The Montreal protocol played an important role in reducing the concentration of chloro- fluorocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere due to its ban of CFCs. Since then nitrous oxides have become the most important ozone-depleting substances by human activities (Ravishankara et al., 2009). Therefore, the use of synthetic fertilisers which is often involved in the cultivation of natural fibres largely influences the stratospheric ozone layer and nitrogen cycle.

Not only on the production side but also on the consumption side, the model of fast fashion leads to vast amounts of pollution and waste. Fabric scraps from the production as well as clothing that consumers do not want to use anymore get disposed of. Around the world, this results in 85% of textiles being incinerated or ending up in landfills (UN- FCCC, 2018). Additionally, plastic packaging and plastic pollution is a result of the shipping of clothes that ends up in landfills, waterways and oceans. Plastic pollution and with that microplastic impacts species and ecosystems (McRae et al., 2016). Processes like dyeing, finishing and other treatments often use harmful substances that can be hazardous and toxic for the environment and workers depending on local legislation. Overall, the clothing industry accounts for 20% of global wastewater (UNFCCC, 2018). With a lack of wastewater treatment, these substances end up in ground and freshwater sometimes in regions where freshwater is a scarce resource already influencing the local population and ecosystem functions (Houdini Sportswear et al., 2018).

Summarising, the production and consumption of clothing has a huge impact on the environment due to energy use, emissions, pollution and waste generation affecting different aspects of the environment.

SOCIAL

A significant event that raised awareness on the ethical and social aspects of the garment production process was the collapse of the Rana Plaza factory building in Bangla- desh in 2013 where more than 1100 workers died (Henninger et al., 2015) resulting in campaigns and organisations like the Fashion Revolution Week. The Fashion Revolution Week aims at increasing interest in production circumstances and labour practices in the clothing industry. However, the Rana Plaza collapse is not a one-off incident. Less than one year before the collapse over 314 people died in deadly fires in two garment factories in Pakistan. Not only are environmental standards often lower in developing countries, but there is often also a lack of safety standards for workers’ health and safety while

Literature Research & Results wages are low (Brad et al., 2018; Henninger et al., 2015). These safety issues and a lack of audits and basic safety controls cause accidents like these.

Other supply-chain risks include welfare, i.e. forced labour and poor working conditions in the factories (Brad et al., 2018). Furthermore, lower environmental standards lead to the exposure of workers to harmful and toxic substances resulting in injuries and diseases. Other social impacts include child labour and human trafficking (Remy et al., 2016). With about 60 to 75 million employees in the textile and footwear industry, this has huge impacts especially on women, as three-quarters of garment workers are female (Stotz and Kane, 2015). This poses a special risk on gender equality, as the most pre- dominant discrimination in the industry is gender-based (Stotz and Kane, 2015).

ECONOMY

While the production processes and working conditions can have negative impacts on the environment and humans, the textile industry is of considerable economic importance for many. Low wages and limited need for commitment effort regarding other factors of the production enable large brands to offer their products at low prices. At the same time, the UN considers the fashion industry to be worth 2.5 trillion dollar providing jobs for millions of people (Stotz and Kane, 2015; UNFCCC, 2018). Its diverse supply chain, including production, transportation, as well as retail, can under the right conditions enable people, especially women, around the world to work and reach more independence (Schultze, 2015). Furthermore, the clothing and apparel industry has a large impact on the industrial development of several countries. In Bangladesh, for example, the textile sector provides 75% of all jobs in the manufacturing sector (Oxfam, 2016). Connected to that is the increasing power of dominating companies in the clothing industry which makes some countries in Asia largely dependent on the textile sector.

The low prices and constant updates of fast fashion brands encourages consumers to buy more at a faster pace leading to enormous growth in consumption. The number of garments produced doubled between 2000 and 2014 (Remy et al., 2016) with around one-third of clothing hanging in closets unused (Smithers, 2012). Due to the fast rate of the development of new clothing the companies do not aim at producing high-quality products but rather at satisfying the fast-changing demand of customers for one season.

The Sustainable Development Goals by the UN A widely used model to put impacts and sustainability efforts in context are the SDGs. These goals were adopted by all UN member countries after the UN Sustainable Devel- opment Summit in 2015 and provide “a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future” (United Nations, 2019). The model recognises a close relationship between the 17 goals and their influence on each other. The 17 goals cover different aspects including social and environmental issues as well as technological and collaborative goals. An overview of all the UN (2019) SDGs can be seen in Image 1 below. As a widely used concept approved, different organisations including clothing companies approach their sustainability and CSR efforts using the SDGs.

Literature Research & Results

Image 1: Overview of all 17 SDGs adapted from United Nations (2019).

In the following, the before mentioned impacts of the clothing industry on the three pillars of sustainability are connected to the 17 SDGs. Table 1 shows all SDGs that have been identified to be directly or indirectly impacted by the practices of the garment industry (United Nations, 2019). Direct impacts include effects that the clothing industry has directly on workers and the environment through emissions and pollution. Whereas indirect impacts comprise of effects that can be a result of employment or potential development and influence of employers in the industry. A short summary of how each goal is impacted is included as well.

Literature Research & Results

Table 1: The SDGs impacted directly and indirectly by the clothing industry. Based on the United Nations (2019) six and eight SDGs respectively are directly and indirectly impacted by the clothing industry.

Directly Impacted SDGs Indirectly impacted SDGs Goal 5: Gender equality Goal 1: No Poverty - Through empowerment of female - Through employment and wages garment workers Goal 2: No Hunger Goal 6: Clean Water and Sanitation - Through wages increasing the ac- - Through wastewater management cessibility of food and water pollution Goal 3: Good Health and Well-being Goal 8: Decent Work and Economic - Through good practices regarding Growth water and air emissions as well as standards regarding workers’ - Through payment of wages and health development of the industry Goal 4: Quality Education Goal 13: Climate Action - Through additional education and - Through efforts to reduce emis- development programs of em- sions from the fast fashion indus- ployers for their employees try Goal 7: Affordable and clean energy Goal 14: Life Below Water - Through the choice of greener en- - Through raising awareness of ergy sources for the large ocean pollution such as plastic amounts of energy needed during and microfibres production Goal 15: Life on Land Goal 9: Industry, Innovation and Infra- structure - Through efforts to reduce clothing on landfills, pollution and land - Through innovation and positive degradation due to resource use development of the industry Goal 10: Reduced Inequalities - Through enabling of increased independence for women Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Commu- nities - Through positive impact of emerg- ing industries on the development of cities and communities Goal 12: Sustainable Consumption and Production - Through a company’s education and communication

The Nine Planetary Boundaries The Planetary Boundaries framework was first developed in 2009 by Rockström et al. (Rockström et al., 2009) and updated in 2015. The update included adjusted definitions of some boundaries and control variables. The nine planetary boundaries define a “safe

Literature Research & Results operating space for humanity based on the intrinsic biophysical processes that regulate the stability on the Earth system” (Steffen et al., 2015, p. 1). Transgressing these boundaries due to human activity can lead to a tipping point resulting in abrupt and potentially irreversible change and therefore the leaving of the Holocene, which is the stable state the Earth has been in for the last centuries that made civilisation possible (Raworth, 2012).

The nine planetary boundaries are Climate Change, Novel Entities, Stratospheric Ozone Depletion, Atmosphere Aerosol Loading, Ocean Acidification, Biochemical Flows (including Phosphorus and Nitrogen cycles), Freshwater Use, Land-system Change and Bio- sphere Integrity (including Functional and Genetic Diversity). According to Steffen et al. (2015), humanity has already transgressed the safe operating space and has entered the zone of high risk for the two planetary boundaries Biochemical Flows and Biosphere Integrity. Within Climate Change and Land-system Change humanity is currently in the zone of uncertainty (Steffen et al., 2015). The planetary boundaries have local and global impacts on ecosystem functioning and resilience. Due to close and interlinked connec- tions between all boundaries, they influence each other strongly and impacts can accelerate on a global scale. If humanity continues transgressing the boundaries, the functioning of the Earth system and ecosystem services may be changed considerably (Steffen et al., 2015).

As an “explorative collaboration” (Houdini Sportswear et al., 2018, p. 39) the Swedish outdoor brand Houdini Sportswear assessed their impacts for 2018 using the planetary boundaries framework in cooperation with Mistra Future Fashion, a research program aiming to make the fashion industry more sustainable, and Albaeco, an independent non-profit organisation (Houdini Sportswear et al., 2018). In their report, they discuss the vast impacts of the clothing industry in general and their operations in particular on each of the planetary boundaries. Most of the impacts explained by Houdini Sportswear et al. (2018) have been mentioned in relation to the three pillars of sustainability earlier in this chapter. They affect the Planetary Boundaries; Climate Change, Stratospheric Ozone Depletion, Stratospheric Aerosol Loading, Land-system Change and Biosphere Integrity. Houdini’s report is the first approach of a clothing brand to assess their impacts not only using the UN SDGs but referring to one of the most important frameworks in sustainability science and research, the Planetary Boundaries.

Impacted aspects not mentioned before, include Freshwater Use and Ocean Acidifica- tion. Cotton cultivation requires large amounts of water for irrigation; hence, influencing

Freshwater Use (Sandin et al., 2019). Another critical effect of CO2 emission is Ocean

Acidification. As CO2 emissions are rising CO2 gets absorbed by the oceans influencing coral reefs and other species.

The Doughnut Economy Based on a combination of social aspects and the Planetary Boundaries, Kate Raworth designed the Doughnut Economy model. The Doughnut Economy combines the Plane- tary Boundaries which are essential to prevent an irreversible change of ecosystems and the earth systems’ functioning with a social dimension. Hence, the Doughnut Economy covers two dimensions. The inner dimension and base of the model is the social dimension, which is surrounded by the environmental dimension. With that the “doughnut of

Literature Research & Results ecological and social boundaries defines an environmentally safe and socially just space in which humanity can thrive” (Raworth, 2013).

The social dimension of the doughnut economy comprises of twelve different aspects, including Peace and Justice, Political Voice as well as Housing and Social Equity. Ideally, on the inner dimension of the Doughnut Economy, all criteria should be fulfilled to ensure the welfare of societies without overshooting the outer dimension and therefore harming the planet’s ecosystems (Raworth, 2012). As a result, people’s needs should be met while operating within the planetary boundaries and therefore without transgressing the ecological ceiling (Raworth, 2012). This operating space is symbolised by a doughnut- like shape which defines the “environmentally safe and socially just space” for human activity (Raworth, 2012).

Summarising, the clothing industry has vast direct and indirect effects on all pillars of sustainability, several UN SDGs, the Planetary Boundaries and the impact categories of the Doughnut Economy. Based on the findings from this sub-chapter an evaluation framework will be developed to assess the following sustainability approaches in the clothing industry.

4.2 Transparency in the clothing industry Due to the complex and globalised supply chains of companies, it is tremendously chal- lenging for customers to find detailed information about the production of their clothes including who made the clothes and under which conditions (Fashion Revolution, 2018), especially since until a few years ago there was only limited awareness around supply chain transparency. This became particularly evident as some of the fashion brands sourcing from factories located in the collapsed Rana Plaza building could not trace the production of their clothing and were not even aware of the fact they were sourcing from this facility (Fashion Revolution, 2018). Additionally, most brands do not own manufacturing facilities and suppliers might hire subcontractors without the knowledge of the initial client which makes monitoring more complicated (Fashion Revolution, 2018).

As a base to understand the vast impacts of the clothing industry, companies in the industry first need to understand their supply chains. An understanding can only be achieved if all stakeholders, manufacturers and suppliers provide information transparently and communicate openly. Only once open communication is accomplished, can improvements be made.

According to Strähle (2017), the accurate definition of transparency largely depends on the context in which transparency is applied. In this report, transparency is defined as open communication about practices, including inputs and outputs as well as impacts connected to the operations that influence all aspects of sustainability. Corporate transparency, for example, can include sustainability or CSR reports as well as certifications (Strähle, 2017). Moreover, a distinction between internal and external supply chain transparency is necessary (Strähle, 2017). Internal supply chain transparency covers transparent behaviour and communication between different stakeholder along the supply chain. Whereas external supply chain transparency is transparency towards external stakeholders not involved in practices along the supply chain Although a clear definition of transparency is hard to find and therefore the evaluation of a company as fully transparent might be more complicated, Strähle (2017) mentions three aspects that imply a

Literature Research & Results transparent approach of a company. The aspects include the information disclosure of the supplier names, information about sustainability efforts and conditions at these suppliers and the factories and lastly, which buying and purchasing practices the company uses. It also includes an overview of the products’ cost structure. The definition of transparency by the Fashion Revolution, that publishes the yearly Fashion Transparency In- dex, is slightly different. They include five categories in their transparency assessment. These include Policy & Commitments, Governance, Traceability, Know, Show & Fix and Spotlight Issues (Fashion Revolution, 2018). Moreover, they define transparency as the “credible, comprehensive and comparable public disclosure of data and information about brands and retailers’ supply chain, business practices and the impacts of these practices on workers, communities and the environment” (Fashion Revolution, 2018, p. 13).

Larger companies established for a longer period tend to have a more complicated and complex supply chain, which might make it harder for these companies to provide more transparency. Hence, the smaller and more recently established a company is, the more that company might know about the different steps along their supply chain and can provide a larger level of transparency (Strähle, 2017). Furthermore, the demand for more transparency along companies’ supply chains grows due to recent accidents in production facilities, the rise of social media and with that the fast distribution of news as well as pressure from other stakeholders, NGOs, and politics (Strähle, 2017). Therefore, it becomes more important even to larger companies to pay more attention to the conditions along their supply chain (Strähle, 2017). More newly established companies, on the other hand, can focus on setting certain standards as a core of their business right away. The rising awareness of transparency and sustainability in the clothing industry is also shown in the Pulse Report 2018 (Lehmann et al., 2018).

The more transparency companies reach, the more information can be provided to stakeholders and customers which, in turn, results in reduced information asymmetry between actors and gives consumers and other stakeholders more knowledge enabling conscious and informed decision making (Strähle, 2017).

However, based on the definitions and requirements according to Strähle (2017), the evaluation of companies’ transparency is still not easily made and the before mentioned sustainability reports do not necessarily imply full transparency. Depending on the company’s intentions, certain information can be left out, and companies could focus on specific efforts that they are especially proud of instead of highlighting weaknesses in their sustainability and CSR performance. Hence, a fully transparent sustainability report would be based on open and transparent communication including all aspects of operations covering weaknesses and possible improvements as well as good performance.

Concluding, a higher level of transparency does not only bring benefits for stakeholders and consumers which can lead to more customer loyalty but also enables the companies to address supply chain issues more directly and efficiently while working responsibly and with greater control (Strähle, 2017). Hence, problems along the supply chain can be tackled more easily, and solutions found faster (Fashion Revolution, 2018).

Therefore, reaching more transparency is essential for brands and customers alike. Ac- cording to Nagurney et al. (2015), the fashion industry has a great ability for change, and a change should include environmentally friendly practices and transparency alike. Along

Literature Research & Results with this transformation each step towards more transparency is of importance, as per- fection can obstruct positive development (Strähle, 2017). Brad et al. (2018) even see transparency as a base of responsible business. Orsola de Castro, the founder and creative director of the Fashion Revolution, feels positive about the rise of transparency: “We expect transparency to become the norm in the near future, with more and more brands publishing or mapping their supplier list” (Lehmann et al., 2018, p. 35).

4.3 Traceability approaches For traceability, especially along the supply chain of clothing, transparency is necessary. Without sufficient knowledge about suppliers and manufacturers, companies cannot reach traceability of their supply chain. Hence, companies are dependent on their suppliers to provide enough information to track down the different supply chain steps of the whole production. Therefore, transparency and traceability are two approaches that go hand in hand. While traceability is largely dependent on the transparency of the different players; transparency, on the other hand, is independent of traceability. At the same time, it might be debatable if a transparent approach without any traceability efforts can be categorised as transparent behaviour as is does not have any positive effects.

The ISO 22005:2007 defines traceability as the “ability to trace the history, location, or application of that which is under consideration” (Kumar et al., 2017, p. 4; Olsen and Borit, 2013, p. 143).

Although sustainability and traceability are two separate concepts that are more or less independent from each other, traceability can be interpreted as a base for sustainability (Kumar et al., 2017) and detailed knowledge about the supply chain is necessary in order to make improvements and achieve sustainability-related goals. According to Lehmann et al. (2018), traceability along the supply chain is a prerequisite to understanding the environmental and social impact of business operations and products. Furthermore, increased traceability enables companies to improve their operational efficiency and identify challenges and risks. At the same time, it supports companies in building long-term relationships with suppliers (Lehmann et al., 2018).

Hence, optimised and standardised transparency approaches can reduce costs due to improved quality control and efficiency while increasing the attractiveness of the company to customers (Cheng et al., 2013). Therefore, detailed traceability can act as a competitive advantage (Strähle, 2017).

The rising awareness of traceability becomes more evident as more and more companies follow some traceability approach which, in general, follows a similar approach of providing as much information as possible to customers and stakeholder. As part of different traceability approaches of companies in the fair fashion industry, shared information includes the address of the facilities which products are produced at this facility, Furthermore, it includes the approximate number of workers including background info on gender, the percentage of migrant or contract workers as well as the date of the last audit (Fashion Revolution, 2018). Overall, the traceability approaches of different companies show similarities as well as differences.

Most of the companies provide information about their suppliers, their location as well as which products or product types these facilities produce (Henninger et al., 2015; Nudie Jeans Co, n.d.; Rapanui, 2017). The information provided differs in regard to the level of

Literature Research & Results detail it gives which is also largely dependent on the size of the company. For example, Levi Strauss & Co. provides a 14 pages long document on their website listing factory information covering the factory name, address, product type and a rough number of employees (Levi Strauss & Co., 2019). Among other pieces of information available on their website, Nudie Jeans shares pictures and auditing or training reports of their suppliers (Nudie Jeans Co, n.d.). Additionally, the share of production is shown per country and particular item. They also provide general information about auditing procedures as well as material and transport. In contrast to these two companies, Rapanui (2017) provides information using a simple world map including some pictures of their ginning as well as cutting and sewing facility. However, their product range and with that their supply chain and its complexity is way more limited compared to the other two examples.

Another approach is the implementation of an individual product ID that enables customers to retrace different production steps of the product. Jan ‘n June (2018) uses ECO-ID which is an individual and scannable QR-code for each product that provides information about each step of the supply chain from the origin of the resource to the final product. Eterna (Eterna Mode GmbH, n.d.) uses a similar approach where an individual product ID can be entered on the Made in Green website by OEKO-TEX® (OEKO-TEX® Service GmbH, n.d.) providing information about the location of the different supply chain steps partly including the name and address of the supplier (OEKO-TEX® Service GmbH, n.d.). Most of the above mentioned companies introduced a world map to show the locations of their suppliers.

Another example is HundHund (HundHund, n.d.). HundHund is a comparable company to ASKET regarding its approach and business model. They only use e-commerce, follow a radical transparency approach regarding the cost of their products and focus on high-quality materials that are processed under ethical conditions on a small scale in Europe (HundHund, n.d.). The product site includes information regarding the location of production and fabric origin.

Additional to the mentioned fair fashion brands that include traceability as part of their operational principles or core values, there are companies offering traceability tools or software as a service. As such, providers like sourcemap (Sourcemap Inc., n.d.) and TrusTrace (2018) have developed platforms for suppliers and brands mapping supply chains and verifying supplier data.

Overall, there are several approaches to brands’ traceability efforts, with each providing different depths of information. That said, most approaches are based on similar principles and ultimately have the same aim: achieving greater traceability along the supply chain of companies in the clothing industry, communicating this with customers as well as stakeholders, and working towards making traceability the new standard in the clothing industry.

4.4 Product Certifications A commonly used approach to show and verify efforts in supply chain practice are certifications. This report does not intend to differentiate the terms certification and ecolabel, as such both will be used interchangeably throughout the report. Furthermore, certifications here cover different approaches and not necessarily certifications in the traditional sense, including for example self-assessment tools. Certifications and ecolabels are

Literature Research & Results used in different industries and can certify specific production steps along the supply chain or a final product. Moreover, the focus of certifications can lie on different factors, i.e. only considering environmental or labour right aspects. Local and regional laws are mandatory, whereas certifications and ecolabels are voluntary (Golden, 2010).

The legislation in the European Union (EU) is an example of mandatory legislation. Mem- ber states and companies based in these countries need to comply with laws and regulations not only set by each country but also by the EU. National and international laws can differ especially regarding their stringency. A regulation by the EU that largely influences production processes of clothing taking place in the EU is the REACH program. REACH, which stands for Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals, is an EU-program for the communication and registration for chemicals and consumer products (Moore and Wentz, 2009).

Excluding mandatory legislation, the International Organisation of Standardisation (ISO) groups voluntary certifications into three types; Type I, Type II and Type III (Henninger, 2015). The three types categories certifications according to their approach and assessment of different aspects. Generally, the three types can be used by different stakeholders and can involve third-party verification or auditing. In the following, Type I, Type II and Type III certifications according to the ISO are explained further.

Type I involves third-party organisations that grant the certification. The third-party organisations can be non-commercial organisations or supported by governments. Type I ecolabels are voluntary and used in different sectors. However, they are most common in public procurements and assess the lifecycle of a product (Moore and Wentz, 2009). An example of this type of ecolabel is the EU Ecolabel. (Henninger, 2015)

Type II is a type of self-declared label. It is a rather one-sided label as it is funded on claims made by one of the stakeholders along the supply chain regarding environmental information. Examples are certain claims or own labels by the manufacturer on the product packaging. (Henninger, 2015)

The last type, Type III, is based on lifecycle impacts and contains measured information of the labelled products or services. This information is presented in the form of a sustainability or environmental performance report. (Henninger, 2015)

Often mistaken with certifications and in particular, Type II certifications like sustainability reports is the “Code of Conduct”. A Code of Conduct is defined individually by the company and can be based on certain requirements from official certifications or related to, for example, EU legislation. Often these are considered to have a more significant impact on social justice and fair working conditions than they might actually have. As they are not necessarily certified by a third party (e.g. Fair Wear Foundation) or sufficiently verified, they can include whatever the brand defines as necessary. With that, every company can set its own Code of Conduct.

As mentioned before, certifications can focus on specific sectors, industries and supply chain steps. Some certifications focus merely on working conditions and social aspects while others concentrate on the environmentally friendly and chemical-free treatment of fibres along the supply chain. For example, when a fibre is labelled as organic, depending on the label’s standards, processes after harvesting like treatment and processing could include the use of harmful chemicals. Hence, the final fabric and product are not 15

Literature Research & Results complying with the certification anymore, and only the raw material can be certified as organic. Emphases of major labels according to Golden (2010) include raw materials which, for example, are the focus of the Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS). In contrast to that the OEKO-TEX® Standard 1000 focuses on processing only compared to the OEKO-TEX® Standard 100 that considers the full life cycle.

Certifications can provide guidance and support in decision making for conscious consumers. Moreover, a comprehensive certification scheme that is established across markets could assist in unifying individual efforts as well as making certifications more accessible for different stakeholders, while simplifying collaboration across countries and regions. Since companies applying for certifications have to provide information in order to comply with the requirements, transparency is necessary for those companies and a base of reliable certifications. Furthermore, certifications need to communicate openly and in a transparent manner what exact requirements are included and need to be met by the certified companies or products. If certifications are not entirely transparent with all their operations and in all their aspects, they are not trustworthy and risk of greenwashing arises (Moore and Wentz, 2009).

While a transparent and global certification system stands to benefit markets as it in- creases verification and standards in the industry, there is a risk that regional certifications might limit market access and reduce global competition (Moore and Wentz, 2009). Moreover, there are currently over 460 ecolabels in almost 200 countries spreading over 25 sectors (Big Room Inc., 2019) with over 100 labels related to textiles alone (Nagurney et al., 2015). The number of ecolabels can be overwhelming and confusing for consumers. This can lead to consumer stepping back from certifications entirely because of a lack of knowledge and understanding of what each label stands for. This, in turn, can complicate informed and conscious decision making instead of supporting consumers.

Next, seven certifications which have been identified as important and valuable in the clothing industry will be reviewed. Due to the involvement of third-party organisations which are ideally neutral and objective in their assessment, Type I certifications are the most reliable. Therefore, this work focusses on Type I and product certifications. The evaluation is based on prior knowledge, feedback from supervisors and research of most commonly used certifications in the industry. During this process, different certifications were added to and excluded from the list, e.g. due to a lack of strict criteria. Unfortunately, no data about different market shares of certifications were available to base this decision on. Main aspects included in the overview of different certifications are a short description, criteria for brands or products to get certified, a price estimation for the certification or membership as well as strengths and weaknesses. These short descriptions are followed by Table 2, which summaries the main aspects of the certifications.

OEKO-TEX® Standard 100

The OEKO-TEX ® Standard 100 is one of several certifications by the OEKO-TEX® that aims at limiting and regulating the use of chemical substances in textiles (Golden, 2010). The OEKO-TEX® offers different services including several certifications and comprises of 18 independent textile-testing and research institutes (Brad et al., 2018). The OEKO- TEX® is a registered trademark and was introduced in 1992 (OEKO-TEX® Service GmbH, 2019a). Its field of work includes the development of test criteria, limiting values

Literature Research & Results and test methods on a scientific basis (OEKO-TEX® Service GmbH, 2019a). A commonly used label in the clothing industry is the OEKO-TEX® Standard 100 which is a Type I certification. To comply with the standard more than 100 tests are required based on measures that restrict the use of several hundred regulated substances considering legal regulations but also including restrictions of harmful chemicals that are partially not regulated by law yet (OEKO-TEX® Service GmbH, 2019a). The cost of the label includes a licencing fee, as well as the costs of the visits for the testing institute and for the laboratory tests (OEKO-TEX® Service GmbH, 2019b).

Regular (laboratory) tests and annual updates of criteria based on a scientific approach ensure the label’s standards are upheld, while ensuring that certified products still comply with the Standard’s requirements (Golden, 2010). Furthermore, according to Golden (2010), the OEKO-TEX® Standard 100 safeguards transparency and comparability on a global scale and has become an established standard that is accepted by the industry and seen as an important element of quality control. Moreover, the range of prohibited substances of the OEKO-TEX® Standard 100 includes more materials than some national laws and is stricter than the EU Ecolabel as it limits the use of more substances (Golden, 2010; Moore and Wentz, 2009). The label can be issued for textile products at all stages of production, as well as for finished products (Brad et al., 2018).

The OEKO-TEX® Standard 100 merely requires compliance with prohibited substances and chemical use. It does not include any social aspects (Brad et al., 2018). Also, the OEKO-TEX® Association offers different services and issues several standards with different requirements and focusses. The number of different standards and labels by the Association might be confusing for consumers as the names sometimes only differ slightly.

Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS)

The Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) is a certification for natural fibres. It labels products either as ‘organic’ or as ‘made with x % organic materials’ (Brad et al., 2018) and aims at defining globally recognised standards that guarantee the “organic status of textiles” (Global Standard gGmbH, 2016a). The requirements cover the steps along the supply chain, including the harvest of raw material as well as manufacturing (Global Standard gGmbH, 2016a). According to the ISO grouping, GOTS is a Type I certification.

A detailed report on the criteria of the GOTS is easily accessible on their website (Global Standard gGmbH, 2017) and includes a list of prohibited substances which is specified in detail for different processes, i.e. during wet treatment synthetic sizes are only allowed to a limited extend, and only if they meet certain requirements (Global Standard gGmbH, 2017). The criteria also encompass other environmental aspects, such as the treatment of wastewater, which has to be monitored periodically, as well as social criteria for textile processing, manufacturing, and trading stages (Global Standard gGmbH, 2017).

According to the GOTS, the costs of the certification largely depend on the complexity of the supply chain, meaning the number of locations, the size and type of facilities and the range of the products (Global Standard gGmbH, 2016b). Annual certification costs are estimated to range from € 1200 to € 3000. An additional license fee of € 120 per calendar year applies for inspections of each certified entity (Global Standard gGmbH, 2016b).

Literature Research & Results

Among sustainability schemes, in general, GOTS is one of the strictest standards regarding environmental criteria (Brad et al., 2018). It does not permit the use of Genet- ically Modified (GM) cotton which is allowed by other standards in the industry and is strict regarding the mixing of conventional and organic fibres along the whole supply chain (Brad et al., 2018). Furthermore, the standard includes social aspects (Brad et al., 2018). To date there are almost 3000 GOTS certified products (Brad et al., 2018), a strong indicator in recognition of the GOTS in the industry.

However, the list of GOTS certified products includes large corporates that base their business concept on the principle of fast fashion and largely unsustainable practices where a risk of greenwashing occurs. Therefore, it should be avoided to interpret GOTS certified products as being entirely sustainably produced. Although the standard includes social requirements, and sets the same requirements for the production processes also on a farm level, GOTS recognises limited possibilities to monitor on farm level which indicates a lack of controlled requirements on this level (Brad et al., 2018; Global Standard gGmbH, 2017; Golden, 2010). Furthermore, critics address a missing commitment regarding the living wage as the criteria only include compliance with national legal standards (Brad et al., 2018; Global Standard gGmbH, 2017; Golden, 2010). Further- more, the certification allows a percentage of up to 25% of synthetic fibres depending on the product (Kersten, 2013). This might lead to issues during the recycling as the sepa- ration of mixed fibres for recycling is still problematic.

Fair Wear Foundation (FWF)

The Fair Wear Foundation (FWF) is a non-profit organisation that works with different stakeholders in the clothing and textile industry with the intent to improve working conditions of garment workers (Fair Wear Foundation, 2017a). The FWF standard is based on the UN’s Declaration on Human Rights and the eight labour standards by the Inter- national Labour Organization (ILO) (Bennett, 2017). Their Code of Labour Practices includes the following eight requirements: Employment is freely chosen, freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, no discrimination in employment, no exploitation of child labour, payment of a living wage, reasonable hours of work, safe and healthily working conditions, and a legally binding employment relationship (Fair Wear Foundation, 2017b). Based on these standards the FWF conducts annual Brand Perfor- mance Checks of their members and audits of facilities (Fair Wear Foundation, 2017b). The FWF Performance Checks can be classified as Type I certification.

The fee for members of the FWF is based on the turnover of the company and ranges from € 3270 for companies with a turnover of maximum € 5 million to around € 260000 for companies with a turnover of maximum € 4 billion (Fair Wear Foundation, 2017c). Additionally, a monitoring fee between € 1690 and € 3590 depending on the production country and the size of the company occurs (Fair Wear Foundation, 2017c).

Currently, the FWF counts over 100 member brands and has been growing in recent years (Fair Wear Foundation, 2017d). The list of members does not include large companies that work unsustainably but rather companies that are committed to ethical and fair fashion. Furthermore, members are clustered into performance benchmarking categories and need to improve practices if they are labelled as ‘good’ or ‘needs improvement’ (Fair Wear Foundation, 2017b). The performance of the different member companies is reported by the FWF and is easily accessible through their website. Members are

Literature Research & Results encouraged to improve after their first performance check and need to develop continuously to avoid suspension (Fair Wear Foundation, 2017b). The standard includes an extensive set of criteria regarding social and ethical aspects.

Overall, the standard only focuses on social requirements and does not include any criteria regarding other environmental aspects. Moreover, it categorises countries according to their risk and is mostly active in high-risk countries. This excludes active engage- ment of the FWF in most European countries.

Higg Index

The Higg Index is a self-assessment tool developed by the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC) (Sustainable Apparel Coalition, 2019a). According to the SAC (2019a), the use of the tools ‘enable brands, retailers, and facilities of all sizes to accurately measure and score’ their sustainability performance. Members of the SAC can be brands, retailers, manufacturers or affiliates (Sustainable Apparel Coalition, 2019b). Members have access to the set of tools which includes the Higg Product, Facility, and Brand & Retail tools (Sustainable Apparel Coalition, 2019a). In contrast to the other certifications presented here, the Higg Index is a mixture of Type I and II certifications since the assessment is based on a framework designed by the SAC and is also in some way verified by the SAC. However, the Higg Index is a self-assessment tool.

The membership fee varies depending on the yearly revenues of the companies and ranges from $ 1000 for NGOs and Academics to $ 60000 for affiliates for revenues ex- ceeding $ 10 billion (Sustainable Apparel Coalition, 2019b). Access to the Higg Index for brands and retailers is also possible for a fee between $ 2500 and $ 10000 (Sustainable Apparel Coalition, 2017a).

The assessment of the Higg Index is widely used by companies in the fashion industry covering about 40% of the apparel industry (Brad et al., 2018) which is mostly due to the size of the participating companies. The questionnaire of the Facility Environmental Mod- ule for companies, for example, is comprehensive and entails 99 pages of questions covering topics like energy and water use. Moreover, improvements and goals are monitored (Sustainable Apparel Coalition, 2017b).

However, the Higg Index is a self-assessment tool and the publishing of the results is not required. Results are only accessible for members (Brad et al., 2018). Moreover, it is not clear if the results are verified and if there is an incentive for members to improve over time (Brad et al., 2018). Material and content of the tools are only to a limited extent available for non-members of the SAC. Therefore, Brad et al. (2018) criticise a lack of transparency. Lastly, the list of members includes fast fashion and largely unsustainable brands (Brad et al., 2018).

EU Ecolabel

Established in 1992 by the European Commission, the EU Ecolabel (also the EU Flower) is the official Ecolabel of the EU and 30 countries participate in the scheme (Aalto et al., 2008; Lange et al., 2014). Products with this label have to comply with a set of environmental criteria that are developed by a panel of experts and different stakeholders. The ecolabel aims at highlighting products and services that are environmentally friendly and of good quality for consumers (Aalto et al., 2008; European Commission, 2019; Lange

Literature Research & Results et al., 2014). Updates of the criteria take place every four years, and the EU Ecolabel licence is valid for 12 months (European Commission, 2014). The criteria defined by the European Commission take the whole life cycle of a product into account covering products ranging from shampoos to furniture as well as services (European Commission, 2019). The criteria for textiles are grouped according to the different materials, i.e. natural and synthetic materials. Overall, the EU Ecolabel covers aspects of manufacturing and energy use, the use of hazardous materials as well as social aspects (European Commission, 2014). Other aspects covered by the criteria include pesticide use, the use of substances including a restricted substance list, hazardous substances and high concern substances. Furthermore, social requirements as fundamental principles and rights at work, as well as precautions for workers’ health, are incorporated (European Commission, 2014). The EU Ecolabel is a Type I certification.

Fees for the EU Ecolabel occur for the application, the extension as well as for inspections. Costs vary depending on the country and company size (European Commission, 2018). For Sweden, the application fee is € 1500 for SMEs and micro-enterprises, and the extension fee is € 125 per hour. Furthermore, an annual fee occurs depending on the annual turnover in the EU and travel/lodging need to be covered plus additional € 1000 for inspections. (European Commission, 2018)

As a certification established by an official international organisation, the EU Ecolabel is a reliable source for customers. Moreover, the criteria are developed in a thorough process that involves different stakeholders including market analyses and environmental assessment (Aalto et al., 2008) and are third-party verified (Brad et al., 2018). Additional to environmental and social standards, the criteria of the standard also cover the quality of the product, including requirements like colour fastness, pilling, shrinkage and similar aspects. Criteria that ensure the quality of a product, in turn, have an impact on the overall lifetime and longevity of a product.

The EU Ecolabel has a complex and multi-layered governance structure which might hinder or delay certain developments requiring a quick reaction and decision making (Aalto et al., 2008). According to Brad et al. (2018), the label should implement stricter requirements and adjust more to the Best Available Techniques (BAT) defined by the EU.

Furthermore, the label has some shortcomings depending on the specific type of textile and lags behind some national labels like the Nordic Swan and Bra Miljöval (Brad et al., 2018). According to Aalto (2008), the Nordic Swan is more dominant surpassing the EU Ecolabel’s number of licenses in the Nordic countries. The label covers a large number of different products from varying categories which is a benefit for consumers. The general approach of the label covering different industries might be a weakness compared to other certifications merely dedicated to the textile industry as those can be more specific and detailed.

Svanen

The Nordic Swan Ecolabel (Swedish: Svanen) is the Swedish part of the Nordic Ecolabel and is issued by Ecolabelling Sweden. It was established by the Nordic Ministers in charge of consumer affairs in 1989 (Aalto et al., 2008). Ecolabelling Sweden operates without interest in profit and on behalf of the Swedish government (Ecolabelling Sweden,

Literature Research & Results

2019a; Unge, 2018). Similar to the EU Ecolabel, Svanen aims at providing a tool for consumers to identify environmentally friendly and high-quality products and contribute to sustainable consumption (Lange et al., 2014). It is a Type I certification. Depending on the specific product or service the product needs to comply with certain requirements which are developed by experts from Nordic Ecolabelling organisations influenced by other stakeholders, e.g. from ministries and environmental organisations (Lange et al., 2014). Like the EU Ecolabel, Svanen groups the criteria for textiles according to the material and contains criteria regarding chemical use including dyes and bleaching agents, emissions as well as energy and water consumption (Nordic Ecolabelling, 2018). De- pending on the specific material different requirements need to be met. Contrary to the EU Ecolabel, Svanen includes animal welfare criteria additional to working conditions according to the ILO’s convention (Nordic Ecolabelling, 2018).

The cost for the Svanen label varies slightly between the different product groups but amounts to around € 3000. This fee can usually cover several products that are manu- factured at the same production site. However, if additional inspection visits are necessary a supplementary fee occurs. Moreover, an annual usage fee of around € 2000 occurs (Ecolabelling Sweden, 2019b). Additional fees follow for renewal and extensions.

The Svanen Ecolabel follows a life-cycle approach. This ensures the consideration of all life cycle stages of the product without a shifting of burden from one life-cycle phase to another (Bergman, 2018). As well as for the EU Ecolabel, the criteria for the Svanen label are developed thoroughly in collaboration with different stakeholders including market analyses and environmental assessments (Aalto et al., 2008). The label is updated regularly every 4-5 years (Bergman, 2018) and annual follow-ups of the criteria are necessary (Nordic Ecolabelling, 2018). Furthermore, with 1400 licenses across the Nordic countries, Svanen is more popular in the Nordics compared to the EU Ecolabel (Aalto et al., 2008). As with the EU Ecolabel, Svanen also includes criteria regarding the quality of a product with an influence on the overall lifetime and longevity.

Like the EU Ecolabel, this label covers a large number of different products which might be a weakness compared to other certifications focused on textiles. Moreover, Svanen focusses on the Nordics which leads to a limited market awareness and accessibility for markets of other countries.

Svensk Miljöbas

The Swedish Environmental Base (Swedish: Svensk Miljöbas) aims at uniting different types of environmental certifications and levels of requirements in Sweden (The Swedish Environmental Base, 2017). The goal is to create one shared standard that is mostly focused on smaller organisations and their needs. With implementing the environmental management system according to Svensk Miljöbas, organisations should be enabled to present “a well-functioning and documented environmental work to stakeholders and cli- ents” (The Swedish Environmental Base, 2017, p. 4). In order to implement the standard, companies need to comply with certain requirements regarding different environmental issues and publish these publicly in an annual report. Furthermore, environmental management needs to be reviewed and evaluated annually (The Swedish Environmental Base, 2017). Hence, the Svensk Miljöbas represents a Type I certification according to the ISO grouping.

Literature Research & Results

Members need to pay an annual fee of SEK 1000 as well as a SEK 9000 service fee (Föreningen Svensk Miljöbas, 2016). Additionally, a license fee needs to be covered depending on the number of employees. This fee varies between SEK 700 and SEK 3000. (Föreningen Svensk Miljöbas, 2016)

The requirement of publishing publicly and including a review of the environmental management system can serve as an incentive for companies to improve their performance and set stricter environmental goals.

Due to the focus on SMEs in the Swedish market the overall awareness of the label is limited especially among international customers. Furthermore, Svensk Miljöbas focuses on the implementation of environmental management principles within an organisation or company instead of the certification of certain practices or a product. Due to this difference in focus and a limited amount of information available about the assessment criteria of the Svensk Miljöbas, this standard will be excluded from further evaluation.

Table 2 below shows an overview of all certifications, except the Svensk Miljöbas due to its different focus. The introduced certifications are summarised in the order they have been covered in this chapter. The table includes a short description of each certification as well as the main advantages and disadvantages of each label.

Literature Research & Results

Table 2: Overview of all certifications including a short summary of the label as well as advantages and disadvantages of each certifications.

Summary Pros Cons

The OEKO-TEX® - Scientific approach - Criteria merely restrict Standard 100 limits the with laboratory tests the use of harmful sub- use of harmful substances stances, based on a - Comprehensive list of multi-level certification prohibited substances - Other environmental or system. social aspects are not covered

The GOTS certifies natu- - One of the strictest - Lack of social require- ral fibres and products standards regarding ments on a farm-level covering different steps ecological criteria and regarding a living along the supply chain. wage - Widely recognised and used in the industry - GOTS certified products are offered by unsustainable companies

The FWF works with dif- - Improvements over - Focus on social require- ferent stakeholders to time required ments are considered, improve working condi- without including any tions for garment work- - Results are published environmental criteria ers. and openly accessible

The Higg index includes - Widely used in the - Publishing of results is a combination of different fashion industry not required tools to enable stakeholders to measure their - Coverage of several - Lack of transparency sustainability perfor- aspects by the differ- mance. ent tools

The EU Ecolabel covers - Reliable government - Lags behind some na- a set of strict criteria to supported label tional labels ensure good quality and environmentally friendly - Widely used by 30 - Less popular in the Nor- products for consumers. countries in Europe dic countries

Svanen aims at support- - Reliable label acting - Focus on Nordic market ing environmentally on behalf of the Swe- friendly consumption de- dish government cisions.

Literature Research & Results

4.5 Summary - Research Findings Transparency and traceability are two approaches that go hand in hand while there is a one-sided dependency. Traceability cannot be achieved without transparent behaviour and communication of the different actors involved. Even though transparency itself is a valuable and necessary step towards more environmentally friendly practices and sustainability, transparency does not necessarily imply sustainable practices. Within the industry, there are significant differences between companies and their level of transparency, which is the same for traceability. The researched approaches show similarities especially regarding their way of communicating. However, uniformity is lacking. A standard of which information is provided in what manner would make it easier for customers to compare different approaches and levels of traceability.

Overall, initiatives like the yearly Fashion Transparency Index by the Fashion Revolution (Fashion Revolution, 2018) and companies, especially in the fair fashion sector that provide more and more information regarding their practices, raise the bar for other stakeholders in the industry. Furthermore, incidents at production facilities as well as the pace of social media and therefore faster news distribution increase the demand for more transparency by consumers further. Usually, if companies implement traceability, they also communicate their approach transparently. If that is not the case, information asym- metries remain, and benefits are limited.

In general, certifications come with advantages and disadvantages. One of the main strengths of certifications is the reliable verification of environmentally friendly or ethical practices by a third party. If results are published, this will provide valuable information for customers and other stakeholders. Furthermore, often the improvement of the company’s performance is part of the requirements. However, certifications are only support- ive if the labels communicate their criteria and assessment results transparently and openly. Hence, non-transparent certifications are undermining the industry’s attempts instead of accelerating positive development.

On the other hand, the number of certifications can confuse consumers, hindering sustainable consumption rather than enabling positive change (Brad et al., 2018, p. 7). For example, several ecolabels exist alone for Fairtrade products. Additionally, some retailers and brands offer their own certifications and labels (Nagurney et al., 2015). Further- more, due to a large number of certifications, it might be hard for customers to find the right label depending on their priorities while the increasing amount of certifications also results in significant redundancies among certifications (Golden, 2010).

Among the main critique points of Brad et al. (2018) is a lack of transparency and sufficiently strict requirements of certifications which can lead to larger volumes of products being certified. Also, ecolabels should aim at covering the whole life cycle of products to avoid a shifting of burden (Brad et al., 2018).

In general, the effectiveness of labels depends on the involvement and acceptance of stakeholders and the industry (Aalto et al., 2008). Moreover, it needs to be taken into account that the application of all certifications, in general, is connected to costs and effort. The required time effort differs largely between the different labels ranging from next-day certifications to an average duration of three to six months (Golden, 2010).

Literature Research & Results

While transparency and traceability are a reasonable goal for each company without the involvement of third parties, certifications rely on the involvement of other stakeholders and often third parties. Although all three approaches are connected to time and cost effort, these factors differ between the different models. Especially for smaller companies, costs and effort might act as a deterrent and capacities for causes like that might be limited. Furthermore, it can be hard to find the most suitable certification for smaller companies that cover all their needs while that particular ecolabel needed might not even exist. Most certifications focus on one aspect along the supply chain, only covering either social or environmental standards sufficiently, or do not include all steps along the supply chain (Brad et al., 2018). Therefore, specific information and efforts in the field of sustainability of companies might be undermined (Kumar et al., 2017). Traceability, on the other hand, can cover all sustainability practices and efforts based on the requirement that companies communicate in a transparent way which cannot be assured with a third- party verification as some largely lack transparency.

In order to cover all essential aspects along the supply chain, several certifications might be necessary (Henninger, 2015). This, in turn, is connected to additional costs and effort. If a coverage of all social and environmental factors is intended, none of the certifications introduced in this report covers all aspects sufficiently. Hence, a combination of one certification focussing on social and another focussing on environmental aspects could be used to cover as many impact categories as possible. An example, could be the combination of the FWF, covering social and ethical aspects, and the OEKO-TEX® Standard 100 or the GOTS certification focussing on environmentally friendly practices. On the other hand, the EU Ecolabel and Svanen which cover social as well as environmental factors might be a solid choice, depending on the level of strictness for the criteria intended. There is no “one fits all” approach, and the right solution might vary largely depending on the company, its values and goals as well as the production location as this is closely linked to country or region-specific legislation.

Furthermore, some certifications might be of greater importance depending on the tier along the supply chain. For example, during the chemical intense processes of wet treatment the restriction of harmful substances and chemical use are of importance whereas strict requirements regarding biodiversity and pesticide use are especially useful on a farm level or tier 3. Thus, the OEKO-TEX® Standard 100 has the largest impact during the chemical intense production processes while organic practices, hence GOTS certified raw materials, are of importance on a tier 3 level.

Finally, a proper application of certifications is based on open communication between stakeholders. Therefore, the goal should be to achieve a base for all practices in the whole fashion industry including clear transparency aiming for full traceability of each step along the supply chain. This enables the identification of hotspots of the production and makes implementing improvements more manageable for all stakeholders involved as well as for the companies themselves.

The research findings elaborated in this chapter are the base for the evaluation of the different approaches and their applicability for the menswear brand ASKET which follows in the next chapter.

Evaluation

5 Evaluation In the following sub-chapter, the different certifications and traceability approaches introduced in Chapter 4 are discussed and evaluated based on an evaluation framework. The framework and its development are further explained in sub-chapter 5.1 followed by a summary of the interviews and an evaluation using the framework as well as the interview results.

5.1 Framework

The evaluation and assessment of the different sustainability approaches and their potential impacts is based on three sustainability frameworks to categorise the impacts of the clothing industry. These approaches were elaborated in sub-chapter 4.1 and include the UN SDGs, the Planetary Boundaries Framework and the Doughnut Economy. The three frameworks are combined to cover the most essential aspects of sustainability when evaluating the different certifications as well as transparency and traceability approaches. The combination ensures the inclusion of environmental aspects with the Planetary Boundaries framework as well as social factors with the consideration of the Doughnut Economy. These two frameworks are currently the most advanced frameworks in their field and are based on scientific approaches. Furthermore, since the Doughnut Economy incorporates the Planetary Boundaries framework and is therefore partly based on this approach, these two approaches are very similar. The addition of the SDGs guarantees the relevance of the evaluation framework for actors in the industry globally as the SDGs were designed to communicate global goals with large parts of the population including business stakeholders and industries. Whereas the Planetary Boundaries and the Doughnut Economy are primarily of importance in the field of sustainability (research) and are only slowly starting to become more recognised in the industry.

The SDGs cover environmental as well as social aspects. Therefore, most of the SDGs can either be connected to the Planetary Boundaries or the Doughnut Economy. More- over, the formulation of the SDGs is relatively elaborate while the aspects of the social foundation in the Doughnut Economy is rather short and comparatively general. For example, the Doughnut Economy includes Water as the general term while the SDGs include two goals dedicated to water, Goal 6: Clean Water & Sanitation and Goal 14: Life Below Water. On the other hand, regarding environmental aspects, the Planetary Bound- aries are more detailed than the SDGs. Several planetary boundaries cover aspects of Goal 14: Life below water and Goal 15: Life on land, whereas Goal 15 is so broad and largely impacted by a wide range of aspects. The main changes include the addition of Goal 1: No Poverty and Goal 8: Decent Work & Economic Growth to the social dimension as these were not fully covered by the social foundation of the Doughnut Economy. On the other hand, Political Voice is an important social aspect which is not covered by the SDGs but by the Doughnut Economy.

Furthermore, neither the Planetary Boundaries nor the Doughnut Economy cover Goal 12: Responsible Consumption and Production. It is of particular importance since consumers and production practices need to change genuinely and sustainable practices

Evaluation will only be fruitful if accompanied by a change of perceptions and a move from overconsumption and current production practices. Therefore, this aspect is added to the social foundation as well.

An overview of the impacted categories of the environmental and social dimension can be seen below in Image 2.

In the next step, this overview is narrowed down to only include the criteria that are relevant for the clothing industry. Therefore, the impact categories are grouped in direct and indirect influences. Direct influences mainly include environmental impacts caused by pollution and emissions as well as direct social impacts through employment. Indirect influences are social aspects that can potentially influence employees positively if practices are appropriate and particular standards are implemented as part of the employment, e.g. health care or a living wage. The result is shown in Image 3. The outer dimension, showing the environmental criteria, is directly impacted by the clothing industry mainly due to production practices and consumer behaviour. Social aspects, on the other hand, depicted on the inner dimension, are influenced directly and indirectly by the industry. This is mainly due to the potential positive effect of employers due to additional offers for their employees like education programs. Another example is that employment leads to a steady income of employees which in turn has an impact on aspects like food and poverty.

Therefore, Image 3 depicts the final evaluation framework including direct as well as indirect influences on an environmental and social dimension. In the following, the different certifications are evaluated based on their performance in the 18 different impact categories.

Evaluation

5.2 Evaluation Results

This sub-chapter is divided according to the different certifications in the order they were introduced above. For each certification, the effects on the different impact categories are explained. The table considers positive as well as potential or unknown impacts. This evaluation is followed by a ranking of the different certifications by each impact category. According to the ranking a scoring system is introduced which is shown in Table 3. The scale ranges from zero to five, with five being the best result. Based on this system a quantification is possible. This results in an overall score for each certification based on their impact on the different criteria of the evaluation framework. Following, the impacts for each certification are explained in more detail.

As mentioned in Chapter 4.4, Svensk Miljöbas will be excluded for the evaluation, due to the difference in focus and a limited amount of information available about the assessment criteria of the Svensk Miljöbas.

Table 3: The different certifications receive a score according to rankings for each impact category.

Extremely Very Good Good Neutral Poor Very Poor Ranking Poor Score 5 4 3 2 1 0

The scores of the different certifications, in the order they were first introduced, are explained in more detail in the following.

OEKO-TEX® Standard 100

The OEKO-TEX® Standard 100 covers several hundred regulated substances. Which impact categories are influenced by these restricted substances depends largely on the

Evaluation restricted chemicals and their composition. For a detailed and correct assessment, deep chemical knowledge and experienced background would be beneficial. The requested support from the OEKO-TEX® association remained unanswered. Therefore, this assessment is based on the limited chemical knowledge available. The criteria of the standard restrict the use of pesticides. Reduced use of chemicals leads to a decrease in emissions to water due to run off. Also, it is assumed that the production of chemicals uses water which, with a reduced use leads to a reduction of Freshwater Use. However, the criteria do not include particular requirements regarding the use of Nitrogen and Phos- phorous. Hence, the influence on Biochemical Flows is not evident. Also, the influence on the environmental impact categories Climate Change, Land-system Change, Strato- spheric Ozone and Atmospheric Aerosol Loading are ambiguous and largely depend on the specific chemical composition.

Regarding social impacts, the restriction of harmful chemical use reduces water pollution as well as negative impacts on workers’ and consumers’ Health. Also, OEKO-TEX® Standard 100 influences Social Equity indirectly. Since mostly poorer societies in developing countries with lower environmental restrictions are involved in the production of clothing, the reduction of chemical use can decrease the negative impacts on these already weakened societies. Therefore, the already existing gap between poorer and richer societies which is intensified by the negative impacts on the environment and human health can be reduced by having a positive impact on these societies.

GOTS

The GOTS certification covers different steps along the supply chain, including the harvest of the raw material and manufacturing. It includes a list of prohibited substances, requirements regarding the wastewater treatment and permits the use of GM-cotton. Furthermore, the use of artificial fertilisers and pesticides is restricted. Moreover, social criteria cover the textile processing, manufacturing, and trading stages. Results regarding the environmental impacts and the differences between organic and conventional cotton vary between studies. However, organic cotton tends to have a slightly lower impact on Climate Change, which is mostly a result from reduced use of artificial fertilisers that have a carbon-intensive production (Sandin et al., 2019). This, in turn, impacts Ocean Acidification. Cherrett et al. (2005) examined, among others, differences between conventional and organic farming in the US, and concluded in a smaller carbon footprint of organic cotton. Due to reduced efficiency of organic cotton organic farming tends to require more land. Hence, organic cotton harms Land-system Change which can be problematic in areas with land-related pressures (Sandin et al., 2019). On the other hand, the restriction of harmful pesticides can improve the soil quality in the long term compared to conventional cotton (Sandin et al., 2019). This, however, has a positive impact on Biosphere Integrity and Novel Entities which also includes pollution from GMOs (Bavec and Bavec, 2015; Pharand-Deschênes, 2012). Also, due to restricted use of pesticides and fertilisers, run-off is reduced with a positive impact on Biochemical Flows and ocean eutrophication. Regarding Freshwater Use, results are very site-specific and vary between regions more than between aver- ages of organic and conventional cotton (Sandin et al., 2019). Though, organic cotton generally uses less blue water (Sandin et al., 2019).

Evaluation

Although the GOTS Standard is criticised for insufficient criteria regarding social aspects, some are still positively impacted by the standard including the impact categories Income and Work, Health and No Poverty. Furthermore, Clean Water & Sanitation are positively impacted as pollution is reduced due to the restricted use of pesticides, fertilisers and other chemicals. Decent Work & Economic Growth could be impacted to a larger extent if GOTS certified farms would get similar support to the Fairtrade model, where additional investment is made in projects that enhance social, economic and environmental development (Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International, e.V., 2019). Therefore, the impact on Decent Work & Eco- nomic Growth as well as Networks is not clear.

FWF

The FWF focuses purely on social factors. Therefore, it does not have an impact on any of the environmental impact categories. However, most of the social criteria are covered directly or indirectly by the FWF Code of Labour Practices as explained in Chapter 4.4. Compared to the other certifications, the FWF has the strictest criteria and audits when it comes to Income & Work, Social Equity, Gender Equity, No Poverty and Health which all are impacted directly by the regulations of the FWF. Clean Water & Sanitation and Decent Work & Economic Growth, on the other hand, are only indirectly influenced by the FWF. Though, safe and healthy working conditions might have an indirect influence on Clean Water & Sanitation. Also, appropriate working conditions influence Decent Work, whereas, this might not directly be the case for Economic Growth. Hence, the ranking is lower for these categories. Moreover, since the assessment and auditing results are openly accessible on the website of the FWF, Networks and potential collaborations can be positively influenced by the available information. Since the impact category Education of the social dimension is not covered an influence on this aspect is unclear.

Higg Index

Due to limited access to the three modules of the Higg index without a membership, this part only evaluates the potential impact of the facility module. Also, an inquiry for further information and support to the Sustainable Apparel Coalition and the Higg index remained unanswered. The facility module aims to be used mainly by manufacturers. Questions of the assessment cover the areas energy use, water use, wastewater use, waste and chemicals management. Questions regarding energy use cover the energy source, equipment maintenance as well as the potential energy source and fuel use, hence emissions. With that, the tool has an effect on the impact categories Climate Change, Ocean Acidification, Novel Entities and Atmospheric Aerosol Loading. From the available questionnaire, it does not become clear how information and data are evaluated afterwards. Furthermore, it seems like social factors are not further covered. Hence, is it questionable to what extent the criteria of the Higg index impact social factors. Thus, the impact of the Higg index on most of the impact categories is unclear.

Evaluation

EU Ecolabel

Overall, the EU Ecolabel covers different environmental criteria, including pesticide use. Moreover, the label includes a list of restricted substances as well as hazardous and high-concern substances. Although, this list is less stringent than the requirements of the OEKO-TEX® Standard 100. Similarly to the OEKO-TEX® Standard 100, Freshwater Use and Novel Entities are impacted by the prohibited use of certain substances. Furthermore, due to the restriction of pesticide use, Biochemical Flows and Biosphere Integrity are affected. Climate Change and Ocean Acidification are influenced by criteria regarding the treatment of emissions to air and water included in the EU Ecolabel. Re- quirements regarding the energy use influence Atmospheric Aerosol Loading as the combustion of bio- and fossil fuels increase aerosol loading in the atmosphere. However, the influence on Stratospheric Ozone is not clear. The social criteria of the EU Ecolabel are based on the ILO core Labour Standard and cover worker rights as well as precautions for workers’ health (European Commission, 2015). Hence, the social impact categories Income and Work, Health, Social Equity and No Poverty are impacted directly. Due to the restricted use of chemicals and pesticides, Clean Water & Sanitation might be influenced indirectly. An influence on Networks and Education is not clear.

Svanen

Similar to the EU Ecolabel, Svanen restricts the use of chemicals. Also, energy and water use need to be stated in the assessment. This result has an impact on the categories Climate Change, Biochemical Flows, Freshwater Use, Ocean Acidification, Novel Enti- ties and Biosphere Integrity. Furthermore, Atmospheric Aerosol Loading is affected by the choice of the energy source as it can include the combustion of bio- or fossil fuels. As for the EU Ecolabel, the impact on Stratospheric Ozone is not clear.

Compared to the EU Ecolabel, Svanen includes more criteria regarding social and ethical aspects. For example, they include requirements regarding animal welfare which is not considered in the EU Ecolabel’s criteria. However, animal welfare is not considered as an impact category in the evaluation framework. Except that, the social criteria are based on the ILO’s convention as well (Nordic Ecolabelling, 2018). Therefore, the categories Income and Work, Health, Social Equity as well as No Poverty are influenced. As for the EU Ecolabel, Clean Water & Sanitation is influenced indirectly because of a restriction of chemical and pesticide use. The same is the case for the influence on Networks and Education which is unclear.

Conclusion

The ranking of the different certifications based on the introduced framework can be seen in Table 4. In general, the impacts on the categories Climate Change and Stratospheric Ozone are mainly based on requirements regarding energy use. The combustion of fossil fuels and coal is the main emitter of GHG emissions impacting Climate Change (Steffen et al., 2015). Another effect comes from the use of artificial fertilisers which have a carbon intense production (Sandin et al., 2019). Connected to the emissions of GHG, especially

CO2, is Ocean Acidification. With a rising concentration of atmospheric CO2, oceans take

Evaluation up additional CO2 which leads to the acidification of oceans (Steffen et al., 2015). Strat- ospheric Ozone, on the other hand, is mainly driven by CFC use of which has been restricted by the Montreal Protocol in 1987 (European Commission, 2007). Since then NOx has become the main driver for ozone depletion (Ravishankara et al., 2009). None of the certifications cover these emissions directly. However, energy use can have an impact here, which is the reason for a ranking of all certifications on the 5th position.

Since the FWF does not cover any environmental impacts, it is ranked lowest for all impact categories of the environmental dimension. Nevertheless, the FWF is higher ranked when it comes to the social dimension where it is mostly ranked first. Also, Net- works are not covered by any of the certifications. However, the results of the GOTS and the FWF are easily accessible which could be an incentive for collaborations between different brands, manufacturers and other stakeholders which is why those two labels are ranked on the fifth position.

As mentioned before the OEKO-TEX® Standard 100 has stricter requirements than the EU Ecolabel and some national labels regarding permitted substances. Therefore, it is ranked higher in the case of Biosphere integrity. The fact that the GOTS has strict requirements regarding environmental standards but also includes some social standards is clearly shown in the result. The same is the case for the EU Ecolabel and Svanen.

A detailed overview can be seen in Table 8 in Appendix A – Evaluation and shows which impact categories are affected for each certification.

Evaluation

Ranking Very Very Extremely Good Neutral Poor Good Poor Poor Environmental Dimension Climate EU GOTS Svanen Higg OEKO FWF Change Land-System All Change Biochemical GOTS EU Svanen Higg OEKO FWF Flows Freshwater GOTS Svanen EU OEKO Higg FWF Use Ocean EU GOTS Svanen Higg OEKO FWF Acidification EU Novel GOTS OEKO Higg FWF Entities Svanen Biosphere GOTS OEKO EU Svanen Higg FWF Integrity All, Stratospheric except FWF Ozone FWF Atmospheric All, Aerosol except FWF Loading FWF Social Dimension All, except FWF Networks FWF and GOTS GOTS Clean Water & All Sanitation Income & FWF EU Svanen GOTS Higg OEKO Work Decent Work All, ex- & Economic cept OEKO Growth OEKO FWF Health EU Svanen OEKO Higg GOTS GOTS Social FWF EU Higg OEKO Equity Svanen GOTS Gender FWF EU Higg OEKO Equity Svanen Education All GOTS No Poverty FWF EU Higg OEKO Svanen

Evaluation

Adding up the corresponding scores depending on the ranking per impact categories results in the final score for each certification. The results in Table 5 show a clear distinction between the certifications depending on the certification covering environmental and social factors or only one of the two dimensions which becomes obvious for the OEKO-TEX® Standard 100 and the FWF.

Table 5: Overall scores of the different certifications are based on their impact on the various impact categories.

OEKO-TEX®

Higg EU Eco- Max. Standard GOTS FWF Svanen 100 Index label Total Environmental 15 30 0 13 26 21 45 Dimension Social 4 22 28 10 22 19 45 Dimension Overall Score 19 52 28 23 48 40 90 Overall, GOTS has the highest score in the environmental dimension with 30 out of the maximum of 45. On the social dimension, the FWF performs best with 28 out of 45. Regarding the total score, the GOTS is superior compared to the other options with 52 out of 90. Even though, GOTS has the highest score in relation to the maximum achiev- able score in the evaluation framework the final score of 52 only represents a percentage of around 58 %.

5.3 Evaluation of transparency and traceability

Depending on the level of transparency and traceability adopted by an organisation, all to none of the impact categories could be affected. The principles of the two approaches do not have any positive or negative impact on environmental and social factors. There- fore, an application of the evaluation framework in this case is problematic since the results would largely depend on the specific attempt of transparency and traceability. However, if they are used as a base for improvement and positive development, they can cover a broad range of criteria affecting almost all impact categories. For example, traceability of a supply chain mainly located in Europe covers automatically several social and environmental factors because of European legislations. Social factors impacted include, for example, Decent Work, Health and Clean Water & Sanitation. Environmental factors affected, on the other hand, are connected to chemicals use as well as air and water pollution due to REACH and legislation for wastewater and waste treatment.

Whereas, if manufacturing is located outside of Europe traceability and transparency alone do not ensure any positive impacts on environmental and social factors. Overall, transparency and supply chain traceability are essential approaches in the clothing industry, especially since no assessment or improvement of supply chain processes is possible if these are not known or communicated properly. Therefore, these two approaches should be the base of sustainable practices even though they do not necessarily ensure socially and environmentally friendly practices.

Evaluation

Concluding, the location of the production processes plays an important role regarding labour standards, environmental requirements and energy use since these aspects are dependent on local legislation and energy mix. Following the right approach, can have a large impact.

5.4 Interviews

As part of the evaluation process, interviews were carried out in order to consider external opinions and evaluations. The questionnaire with all questions can be seen in Image 5 in Appendix B – Interviews. Also, a summary of all interview answers can be found in Appendix B – Interviews as well. The results are anonymised to avoid bias and a connection to the companies the interviewees are employed at. To evaluate the interviews, key findings are summarised including main similarities and variances between the different statements. The topics of the summary are covered according to the order of the questionnaire. An overview of the setting of the interviews and background information of the interviewees can be seen in Table 6. The interview lengths varied from 22 minutes to 45 minutes. Table 6: Overview of interviewee positions, interview setting and duration of all six interviews carried out with an average interview length of 33 minutes. Interview Interviewee Date Position Duration setting Consultant Sustainable In person 1 28.03.2019 44:44 Fashion Sustainability and Brand In person 2 29.03.2019 34:07 Manager Web- 3 26.04.2019 Communication Manager 26:50 conference 4 08.04.2019 Sustainability Coordinator In person 33:41 5 26.04.2019 Designer In person 38:38 E-mail Ques- 6 26.04.2019 Co-founder and Designer / tionnaire Managing Director in the Web- 7 07.05.2019 field of Sustainable Brand- conference 21:44 ing, Lecturer

5.4.1 Certifications & Ecolabels

The bulk of the interview focused on the topic of certifications and ecolabels, with nine of 14 questions covering certifications and ecolabels. The questions ranged from general opinions to more specific questions covering from self-assessment tools to industry specific labels as well as more general certifications. Overall, there was a strong consensus between the interviewees. Where difference in opinion did occur, it could be attributed to the individuals professional background and first-hand experience.

All interviewees agreed on the complexity of certifications and that certifications generally have strengths and weaknesses. Some interviewees highlighted the importance of

Evaluation certifications and the potential positive impact of certified practices. Furthermore, certifications could increase transparency within the industry. While some interviewees argued for certifications and their potential to enable customers to compare different products, others mentioned a lack of comparability between different labels. Additionally, other negative aspects like costs and effort connected to the certifying process were discussed by several. Moreover, the large number of certifications on the market as well as a lack of clarity what some certifications cover and that no label is perfect covering all essential aspects was stated.

One interviewee discussed differing goals and roles of certifications depending on the timeframe. According to her, certifications are of particular importance on a short-term perspective. However, long-term they should no longer be necessary and every product entering the market should fulfil certain requirements from the beginning. Another interviewee stated the fact that certifications do not solve the problem of unsustainable consumption and over-consumption which is an essential issue in the industry. Its importance is reflected by the inclusion of Goal 12: Sustainable Consumption & Production as one of the 17 SDGs.

The majority of interviewees tended to trust the certification most that they had acquired the most knowledge about as well as certifications that have been established for a longer time. Opinions varied most widely in relation to government regulated or supported certifications like the EU Ecolabel. While some interviewees trust those, others doubt its criteria which is mainly due to a more detailed knowledge regarding the criteria of the label in the food sector. In this area, the EU Ecolabel lacks strictness compared to other labels according to one interviewee. As the most important or popular certifications GOTS, OEKO-TEX® and the Higg Index were mentioned several times. Other labels mentioned include Svanen, EU Ecolabel and FWF as well as the Better Cotton Initiative (BCI), BlueSign, BeCorp and Fairtrade which are not included in this study. Also mentioned in this context was legislation and with that strict regulation regarding working conditions and chemical use, i.e. in Europe. Another aspect that was mentioned by one interviewee is the tendency of some certifications to focus on either environmental or social factors which is reflected by the results in Sub-chapter 5.2. When asked about which certifications the interviewees personally believe or do not believe in, the GOTS was mentioned several times because of its high awareness in the market and strict criteria. The same was discussed for Fairtrade. Although, GOTS was also criticised regarding its user-friendliness for companies to administer. The Higg Index was mentioned to be on the right path. One interviewee mentioned the BCI and its benefit with a principle of supporting change.

The main strengths of certifications identified by the interviewees were primarily two factors including; the verification of labels and with that the ability for companies to be held accountable. This can save time when it comes to the choice of suppliers for smaller companies, as they can rely on certifications instead of doing more in-depth research about each potential supplier and their sustainability approach. Despite their merits, interviewees found more weaknesses than strengths with certifications and ecolabels. Several interviewees pointed out the complexity of labels, followed by the costs and overall high number of certifications on the market which can increase confusion among customers as well as experts. Furthermore, the lack of sufficiently strict criteria and a missing global standard covering social and environmental factors while being inclusive

Evaluation for smaller companies was criticised. One interviewee mentioned that certified materials are not necessarily the best option, for example, alternative materials could be beneficial compared to organic cotton. Another aspect covered by one interviewee, was the tendency of brands to create their own label which is increasing confusion and the number of certifications even more.

More narrow and specific labels were in favour among the interviewees as they assumed that those labels had stricter criteria and can serve as a leading example in that particular part of the industry. Although several interviewees argued for both narrower niche certifications as well as for broader certifications covering different sectors and kinds of products that usually have a higher awareness. Moreover, larger labels make comparisons for consumers easier. A significant factor to take into account in this discussion is the goal of the company. The ideal would be one label that covers everything to guide consumers more easily and clearly.

General opinions about self-assessment tools were quite positive, because of different reasons which include, support in identifying issues along the supply chain and analysing a company’s operations to find ways to improve. Further benefits of self-assessment tools identified by the interviewees included; a lower barrier to entry compared to certifications which rely on audits, and direct feedback which can be especially helpful in product development. Especially for brands that are still developing and therefore do not yet reach the results they want it could be an incentive that they do not have to publish results. However, third-party verification might be necessary for more complex issues and to prove credible in communication efforts. Two interviewees discussed trust issues for both types. Overall, the two approaches serve different purposes and depending on the company a combination of the two types might be reasonable.

Interviewees did not agree entirely on certifications being a good way to ensure a more sustainable supply chain. In the cases of certifications that consider the whole supply chain, they can improve sustainability. In general, certifications can make companies in production areas more sustainable if they comply with specific certification standards. However, if the production is located in Europe, legislation already puts relatively high standards on the production facilities. While certifications are a trust-worthy tool for customers to base purchasing decisions on, they do not make a company more sustainable according to one interviewee.

Lastly, the role and accessibility for smaller companies were discussed. While larger companies have more resources but also more responsibility, smaller companies have fewer resources but are also more agile and flexible according to one interviewee. Three interviewees mentioned the burden of costs. Stated by several interviewees, other aspects like sustainable design, seeking new solutions and knowledge about the fibre’s origin is more important for sustainability in smaller companies.

5.4.2 Other sustainability approaches – Transparency & Traceability In addition to certifications and ecolabels, other approaches for sustainable supply chains were discussed in three questions. Besides transparency and traceability, common sense, respect, close-by and local production, material-based design, the use of recycled materials, product life cycle analysis in the design and long-term relationships

Evaluation to reliable suppliers were touched on. A sustainable business model as a base can also ensure sustainability which can include building a company on the right foundation and doing business the right way from the beginning. Furthermore, industry-wide cooperation can be important to ensure more ethical and environmentally friendly practices along the supply chain.

Regarding transparency and traceability, overall opinions of the interviewees were quite alike. According to several interviewees, transparency is vital, supply chain traceability is of importance, and both approaches go hand in hand. One interviewee suggested that with overarching transparency there would be no need for certifications. Another one pointed out that transparency and traceability should be the very first step in a sustainable company. One interviewee preferred certified fabrics because of the length and complexity of supply chains in clothing.

5.5 Summary of Evaluation Results

The developed framework focusses on the potential effect of the certifications and ecolabels on the different impact categories. Based on that, certifications that do not only focus either on social or environmental aspects and cover aspects from both dimensions result in the highest scores. Therefore, the GOTS and the EU Ecolabel perform best according to the developed evaluation framework with a score of 52 and 48 respectively out of a maximum score of 90. Whereas, when looking at only one dimension at a time, the FWF is superior on the social perspective compared to the other labels with a score of 28 out of a maximum score of 45. Concerning the environmental dimension, the GOTS performs best. Concluding, the final score shows a clear advantage for certifications that cover both social and environmental aspects. This, however, does not necessarily mean that the best performing certifications according to this evaluation are universally the best for different intentions. This is partly reflected when looking at the maximum achieved percentages of the different labels that are between around 58 % and 53 % of the total score. When only considering one dimension 67 % is the maximum achieved scored.

Some of the results from the evaluation were confirmed by the interviews. For example, GOTS was mentioned by several interviewees as one of the most promising and strict labels as well as being among the most trust-worthy ones. Moreover, the GOTS has a high awareness in the market. In contrast, several interviewees argued for more specific labels that focus on one industry rather than having a broader approach like the EU Ecolabel or Svanen. Furthermore, the interviewees were more positive towards self-assessment methods compared to the evaluation. However, it needs to be highlighted that the evaluation of the one self-assessment tool included in this study was based on limited information which is a reason for the low performance of the Higg Index in the evaluation. Reasons for the more positive opinion of self-assessment methods of the interviewees included a tendency of smaller effort and costs. Hence, they are more accessible especially for smaller companies.

Overall, the results from the evaluation framework and interviews have similarities and differ mainly due to different focusses and depth of evaluation.

Case Study at ASKET

6 Case Study at ASKET The results will be applied to the Stockholm-based menswear company ASKET AB which is active in sustainable clothing. The case study is introduced in the following sub- chapters. According to the company’s background and the findings above different sustainability approaches and their suitability for ASKET are analysed in Sub-chapters 6.3 and 6.4. As part of the evaluation, semi-structured interviews with August Bard-Bringéus, Co-Founder of ASKET, and Dan Vo, the Head of Product, were carried out. Topics covered include general opinions about certifications as well as most established and known certifications and the biggest problems with certifications. Also, the topic of traceability, its problems and the role of transparency in the fashion industry were discussed. A summary of the answers divided by question for both of the interviews is depicted in Table 10 in Appendix B – Interviews.

6.1 About ASKET ASKET was founded in 2015 by two co-founders August Bard-Bringéus and Jakob Dworsky. Since then the company has grown both in terms of revenue and personnel with a total around twenty full- and part-time employees from Spring 2019. The employees work towards changing the current way of doing business and consuming fashion to slow down the apparel industry. Through the approach of offering meaningful essentials, ASKET aims to influence people’s habits to buy fewer but better garments (Bard- Bringéus and Dworsky, 2019). ASKET’s menswear is based on four main principles; one permanent collection, revolutionary sizing, radical pricing and true honesty. The four principles are explained in more detail below based on ASKET AB (2019a) and Bard- Bringéus and Dworsky (2019):

One permanent collection

ASKET designs garments to be Timeless Essentials of high quality that “do not go out of fashion” (ASKET AB, 2019a). Instead of releasing new collections every season, each garment is seen as software that is continuously improved and perfected over time rather than just a piece of clothing, which based on customer feedback and own experiences.

Revolutionary sizing

In order to create the perfect fit of the garments contributing to the pieces’ longevity and lifetime, ASKET introduced 15 sizes instead of the usual five, ranging from XS to XL. They added a second dimension of length to their garments and offer the choice between a short, regular and long fit (ASKET AB, 2019b). For their trousers, they offer a slim and a regular fit additionally to the usual sizes considering waist and length measurements (ASKET AB, 2019c).

Radical Pricing

Excluding steps along their value chain that “do not add more value to the product” (ASKET AB, 2019a), including middlemen and retail, allows for a fairer price. Hence, the price of the garment pays for the craft of the piece of clothing instead of just the logo, and therefore the marketing of the company behind that piece. Moreover, this gives ASKET complete control over the experience of their customers and with that the whole customer journey.

Case Study at ASKET

True Honesty

Striving for inherent and true honesty ASKET traces and discloses information regarding factories as well as communicating the breakdown of their prices. This provides the pos- sibility for customers to gain more knowledge about the products and consequently enabling them to make informed and conscious decisions. Moreover, a map on the website shows the different locations and links to overviews of the different manufacturers. These overviews provide more detailed information about the different suppliers and factories including the number of employees, average salary, products produced in that facility and the date of the last visit (ASKET AB, 2018a).

Based on these four principles, ASKET does not only want to provide timeless, high- quality essentials for an affordable price; they also want to change habits of consumption in the fashion industry by stimulating mindfulness and providing meaningfulness (Bard- Bringéus and Dworsky, 2019).

6.2 Traceability Tool As one of ASKET’s principles, the traceability of their garments is of crucial importance (ASKET AB, 2018b). As mentioned in the Introduction, in May 2018 ASKET set the goal to reach 100% traceability of their garments by 2020. For them, this means breaking down each garment into all its components and tracking these back to their origin. De- spite every garment requiring a “Made In” label, the current standard grossly simplifies the production process of clothes. The goal of full traceability allows the customer as well as ASKET to make informed and conscious decisions. In order to assess the traceability of their permanent collection, they developed a traceability score which will be explained in more detail in this sub-chapter. (ASKET AB, 2018b)

In order to assess the traceability of each garment and their progress towards their goal of full traceability, ASKET (2018b) groups the production of each piece of clothing into the four main categories Manufacturing (Tier 1), Milling (Tier 2), Raw Materials (Tier 3) and Trims. Furthermore, each of these categories is weighted for the overall score according to the contribution to the final product. The four categories are again split into individual sub-processes which include the following:

o Manufacturing (Tier 1) – All steps from fabric to final garment: Cutting, Sew- ing, Washing, Pressing and Packing o Milling (Tier 2) – Creation of the main fabric from the raw material: Combing, Spinning, Twisting, Carding, Dying, Weaving and Finishing o Raw Materials (Tier 3) – Raw Materials and Farming o Trims – Remaining components of the garment: Sewing thread, Hangtags, Hardware like buttons and zips, Labels and Fusing As manufacturing is the most labour intense part of the production, ASKET visits these facilities in person to assure good working conditions (ASKET AB, 2018b). The Milling processes, on the other hand, are resource intensive, requiring energy, water and chemical use. Therefore, the focus for the production phase is energy source, water treatments and chemical use. Like manufacturing, the raw material stage is labour intensive. Also, this phase uses soil, water and pesticides, so human and natural resources are in focus here. For animal-based fabrics, animal welfare and ethical treatment, i.e. non- mulesing for wool, are of great concern.

Case Study at ASKET

Depending on the available information for each of the tiers a score results which in the end is multiplied with the weight dedicated to the phases and summed up for the final score of each garment. Manufacturing, Milling and Raw Material are each weighted equally with 30% whereas Trims contribute to 10% to the overall rating. As depicted in Table 7, no information naturally leads to a score of zero for the process regardless of the category. If the country is known for the three tiers, traceability is accounted with 33% and if the region or city is known 67% are reached. If the farm, factory or plant is known or certified, full traceability is reached for the three tiers. For trims, traceability is rated with 50% if the country is known and 100% if the region or city is known. However, ASKET strives to know each name or owner of the subcontractors and plants of their suppliers even though this is not represented in the currently communicated traceability score. Thus, internal standards are stricter than what is communicated to customers and stakeholders (ASKET AB, 2019d).

Table 7: Traceability scores of the four categories, Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3 and Trims vary from 0% to 100% traceability depending on the information availability (Adapted from ASKET AB (2019d)).

Information availability Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Trims No information 0% 0% 0% 0% Country known 33% 33% 33% 50% Region/City known 67% 67% 67% 100% Farm/factory/plant location known/certi- 100% 100% 100% fied In April 2019, the permanent collection of 21 garments comprises of around 400 processes and has an overall traceability of 71% (ASKET AB, 2018b).

Summarising, ASKET set up a traceability tool that is based on logical assumptions cen- tred around the overall contribution of the different production steps to the final product. The grouping according to the three tiers and trims make the tool universal and applicable for other stakeholders in the industry. Moreover, the setting of stricter internal goals implies ASKET’s ambition to go further than reaching 100% traceability of their garments and adjusting their framework over time. With defining traceability as one of their main goals in the next years, ASKET sets a clear sign and shows their aspiration of positive change and to develop sustainable practices further while making their approach quantifiable.

6.3 Application of traceability approaches As part of the interviews, both Bard-Bringéus and Vo, agree that achieving greater traceability is a necessary and crucial step. It is the first step towards more sustainability which must, however, be followed by further steps like impact assessment and continuous improvements of supply chain processes. Main problems they see with traceability is the complexity of the fashion industry resulting in a massive amount of information and data needed. Part of this is the challenge to get suppliers to comply and provide necessary information due to different reasons. These issues underline the importance of transparency in the whole process since traceability cannot be reached with suppliers withholding certain information or sharing wrong information.

Case Study at ASKET

Connected to the developed evaluation framework ASKET’s traceability tool covers several impact categories. Especially social factors like Income & Work, Decent Work & Economic Growth, Health and No Poverty are affected, mostly due to personal visits to manufacturing facilities. Since almost all of the manufacturing facilities are located in Europe, these have to comply with European laws which impact Clean Water & Sanita- tion, Social Equity and Gender Equity to a certain extent. This is the same for Freshwater Use and Biosphere Integrity due to chemical regulations. Out of all manufacturing facilities which can be seen in the Location Map shown below in Image 4 there are only two production locations outside of Europe; in Tunisia and Japan. These follow strict regulations as well (ASKET AB, 2018a).

Image 4: Location Map showing all Manufacturing Locations of ASKET's permanent collection. Adapted from ASKET AB (2018a).

However, these impacts cannot be ensured for steps further down the supply chain. Also, energy sources are not regulated further in Europe. Hence, the potential impact on Cli- mate Change, Ocean Acidification, Stratospheric Ozone and Atmospheric Aerosol Load- ing is not clear.

In general, the impact of the traceability tool largely depends on the different production locations. Furthermore, the number of facilities visited by ASKET is limited, and the evaluation of these is based on the impression of employees. However, overall, ASKET’s approach and traceability tool are setting an essential standard in the industry and set the base for further positive development. While ASKET’s approach to reaching full traceability and the development of their traceability is a crucial step towards more transparency and sustainable practices, it also leaves room for improvements.

Compared to the other traceability tools introduced in Sub-chapter 4.3, ASKET’s approach is quite advanced. They developed a tool with quantifiable results. Similar to Nudie Jeans Co. and Rapanui, ASKET shows the different steps of the supply chain on a world map. Currently, information can be found on the dedicated traceability webpage which includes an explanation of the traceability tool as well as an overview of all garments and their traceability score including which information along the supply chain is still missing (ASKET AB, 2018b). Communication is transparent regarding available information but also missing information.

Case Study at ASKET

Additionally, information is available on each product site. A combination and connection of the information available at different places on the website and a linking to the world map would increase accessibility. All information would be accessible in one place, hence, improving readability and enabling customers to get a more straightforward overview of the different supply chains depending on the garment.

Companies assumingly of similar size and concepts compared to ASKET are the two German companies Jan ‘n June and HundHund. All three companies follow a more or less minimal design, using only or mainly e-commerce as a distribution channel with direct customer contact. While ASKET only sells menswear, Jan ‘n June and HundHund sell both womens- and menswear. All of them put a large focus on ethical and environmentally friendly practices as well as transparent communications. Regarding the level of detail of the information available, Jan ‘n June is on a similar level as ASKET. How- ever, they are not setting any specific goals regarding their traceability. HundHund, on the other side, provide less data. Although supply chain traceability is obviously of importance to ASKET, Jan ‘n June and HundHund, a comparison shows relatively significant differences in their approaches of traceability.

With the aim of more uniformity in the industry and the goal to avoid similar issues of confusion and an overload of different approaches like the problems arising with certifications, it might be problematic if each company defines their own assessment method for traceability and sustainability approaches. This is for one reflected in differing definitions of specific terms. The definition of tiers, meaning which production processes be- long to Tier 1, 2, and 3 can differ to a relatively large extent between companies. This is due to a lack of clearly defined terms in the clothing industry. The overarching goal of achieving more conformity within the industry should not be underestimated as it in- creases clarity for customers and stakeholders alike. A collaboration between ASKET and other stakeholders in the industry could be a logical and important step in that direc- tion. Even though developing a widely usable traceability tool is not the main business activity of ASKET, and will probably never be, the company could have an essential role in pushing change and should keep this potential in mind when making changes and adjustments to their traceability tool. With work in the area of collaborations, ASKET could valuably contribute to work towards Goal 17: Partnerships for the Goals of the SDGs (United Nations, 2019).

Moreover, depending on the garment the contribution of trims can vary widely. The Chino has more accessories like buttons and zippers compared to the Merino Sweater, which only has sewing thread as a trim. Therefore, it might be interesting to explore the possi- bility of a weight allocation and explore the difference in impacts depending on the garment.

Concluding, the traceability score designed by ASKET is a logic and solid way of providing data about their products’ supply chains and evaluating internal progress. A few improvements, as mentioned above, could be implemented in order to improve accessibility for customers. Although considering the whole fashion industry, the higher aim should be unifying traceability within the entire industry. However, the lack of comprehensive and unified definitions and terms in the industry are a general and immense problem that will be hard to tackle by SMEs in fair fashion, like ASKET.

Case Study at ASKET

6.4 Application possibilities of certifications This section comprises a summary of the statements from the interviews with Co-founder August Bard-Bringéus and Head of Product Dan Vo which is followed by an evaluation of the potential application of certifications at the end of this section. This is based on the evaluation of the certifications in Chapter 5.2. Hence, this analysis will focus on the certifications with the best ranking, which are mainly the GOTS, FWF, the EU Ecolabel, Svanen and OEKO-TEX®.

Overall, Bard-Bringéus and Vo acknowledge the necessity and importance of certifications in the current environment of the fashion industry. However, they see a few but significant problems with certifications in general. Both believe that the additional monetary and bureaucratic effort is a hindrance, especially for smaller companies and farms. Furthermore, Vo mentions a lack of clarity of what is behind specific certifications, and which processes these exactly certify. Bard-Bringéus uses the comparison of vineyards, explaining that good vineyards usually do not use certifications and are of high quality because they take care of their grapes to maintain a high level of quality. Hence, they do not need certifications to act responsibly. Moreover, ASKET’s Co-founder comments on the problematic shift of responsibility as consumers can consume without a bad conscious if the products are certified and therefore less harmful for the environment which is contradictory to supporting the move from over-consumption to reduced and conscious consumption.

Summarising, the internal interviews at ASKET showed that even among experts in the industry confusion exists about what certifications exactly cover. Furthermore, several problems and issues arise with certifications. Also, the concept of traceability faces some issues and is dependent on transparency. Overall both, Bard-Bringéus and Vo, think that certifications are of importance in sustainable fashion, i.e. for verification of working conditions as well as requirements and to standardise information in the industry. However, they still see a wide range of challenges with certifications and their applications in the case of ASKET.

This differs when it comes to transparency and traceability. In that matter, they fully agree on the importance of transparency and traceability in the transition towards a more sustainable fashion industry. Also, these approaches are the base of sustainable practices and are necessary for the application of certifications.

In general, the application possibilities of certifications differ for small- and large-scale companies and depend on the goals and values of a company. The additional bureaucratic and monetary effort can be a burden, especially for small companies to get involved with certifications. In order to cover multiple aspects in the most thorough way a combination of several certifications specialised in one field would be an option to make sure that the most stringent criteria are applied to a product. For example, environmental aspects like chemicals use, on the one hand, and social and ethical standards, on the other hand could be combined. Furthermore, this could ensure that the most suitable labels are used for the different tiers where differing focusses are important. Though, the use of several certifications would lead to an increase in costs and bureaucratic effort accordingly.

Case Study at ASKET

In the case of ASKET, a combination of different options is possible. ASKET is a rather small company that has limited resources fully dedicated to the topic of sustainability. Therefore, the most thorough approach of using several certifications to cover environmental and social criteria is not the most applicable option. Another challenge is that some credentials may not be geographically applicable for example the FWF which covers social aspects to the best extent focuses on the work in eleven priority countries mostly located in Asia, except for Romania and Bulgaria. Therefore, manufacturing locations of ASKET are excluded, as all tier 1 suppliers are placed in either Italy, Portugal, Tunisia or Poland. Furthermore, the auditing by the FWF does only cover tier 1 suppliers in most countries (Chavez, 2019). Since manufacturing facilities are visited personally and mainly located in Europe, working and labour rights can be ensured according to the European legislation. Additionally, other third-party audits might be useful to ensure ethical and fair working conditions in the case of ASKET.

With the use of the EU Ecolabel or Svanen, which cover more or less the same aspects, except animal welfare, both environmental and social aspects would be covered. Such certifications that combine both impact dimensions are the most suitable option for ASKET in order to certify a whole product covering most of the impact categories. Fur- thermore, large labels like these are known widely by customers. Since the market of ASKET is not limited to Sweden, the EU Ecolabel is probably more known among customers of the brand. However, ASKET ships worldwide and has a significant customer base in the US. Hence, the certification would not be valuable for the whole market of the company. Therefore, a certification that is recognised globally would be a valuable option.

Similar to Svanen and the EU Ecolabel, GOTS also covers aspects of the environmental and social dimension. Although it is criticised to have flaws in certain areas, it ensures environmentally safe and more sustainable sourcing of raw materials. However, communication of this certification, alike to the EU Ecolabel and Svanen, is only possible if the whole supply chain is certified and only uses organic materials. This is not applicable with the current choice of suppliers.

Because the supply chains for the different products are not the same, several certification processes would be necessary for the certification of several products. This would make a choice necessary of which product to certify first. Currently, personnel and financial capacity do not allow for ASKET to get their full supply chain certified. Thus, the certifications of final products no matter the certification is currently not the most suitable option for ASKET.

Even though, a communication regarding the use of certified materials and the certification of a final product would not be possible if not the whole supply chain is certified according to the standard, the use of certified raw material ensures a decreased negative impact on the environment and workers due to more sustainable practices on the farm. Therefore, it is a valuable option for ASKET to use sustainable and environmentally friendly raw materials, especially since the two primary materials cotton and wool can have significant impacts on workers and animals on the tier 3 level if social, ethical and animal welfare standards are not considered. Furthermore, on a tier 2 level which includes chemical intense processes, certifications that restrict the use of harmful chemicals like the OEKO-TEX® Standard 100 is a good option.

Case Study at ASKET

Instead of focussing on the certification of the whole supply chain or a final product, ASKET can concentrate on reducing the negative impact of the different steps along the supply chain asking their suppliers for specific certifications depending on their practices. Although, this approach is not useful in terms of communication because the certification approach of ASKET cannot be communicated using the specific labels, it has the largest potential of reducing negative effects from the production of their garments.

6.5 Evaluation and Summary of the Case Study at ASKET

ASKET’s traceability tool indicates the importance of fair and environmentally friendly practices for the company. Although employees personally visit the tier 1 manufacturers regularly to check the production and working conditions, no third-party verification and auditing take place. Hence, ethical and fair working conditions along the whole supply chain cannot be fully ensured even though most of tier 1 and 2 suppliers are located in Europe and therefore have to comply with European laws and legislation. This, however, is not the case for sub-suppliers that are located outside of Europe. Hence, some kind of auditing, not necessarily by one of the introduced certifications, could be beneficial to ensure certain standards.

Furthermore, one of the primary materials used for ASKET products is Merino wool, where special requirements are necessary to ensure animal welfare and well-being of the sheep. Therefore, external auditing and un-scheduled site-visits of the sheep farms and production facilities of sub-suppliers outside of Europe carried out by external organisations could ensure ethical, humane and animal-friendly practices. The other main input is cotton which is water and carbon intensive in its production especially if artificial fertilisers and pesticides are used. This has significant impacts on the environment and workers’ health. Monitoring and certain standards for these suppliers could reduce the environmental and social burden significantly. This could be part of the production and collaboration contract or could be ensured by the choice of GOTS certified raw material.

Moreover, certified raw materials and processes like dyeing should be in focus when developing new products and sourcing new suppliers until certification of the whole supply chain for a product might be possible. This results in a reduced impact on the raw material level, hence tier 3, and can lower negative impacts due to chemical use in the processing and manufacturing of the clothes, thus on tier 1 and 2. Ideally, most impactful steps of the supply chain could be identified and based on that improved introducing certain policies or demanding certifications.

A general problem with raw materials for textiles is that batches from different farms are often collected and mixed at auction, in order to achieve the right quantity of the fibres of the same quality. This makes tracking down fibres and raw materials especially complicated as origins become mixed very early on the supply chain. The contracting of one specific cotton or sheep farm could counter that and ensure full traceability along that supply chain. Although, this decision would come with certain risks in case of natural catastrophes, a change of weather patterns or the outbreak of diseases among the animals, hence, leading to bad harvests or lower qualities of the fibres. Decision making needs to acknowledge all of these aspects and weigh them according to the company’s goals and opportunities.

Case Study at ASKET

Even though Codes of Conduct or Codes of Labour were criticised earlier in this study, they represent a valuable first step to be integrated into contracts with suppliers and sub- suppliers to ensure compliance with ethical and social standards as part of a legally binding agreement and working relationship.

Overall, a combination of the traceability score and certifications that ensure environmentally friendly and ethical conditions for workers and animals along the whole supply chain, could solve issues like those mentioned. As explained before, in order to cover all possible aspects, different certifications would be needed. This is costly and much effort especially when it comes to operations further along the supply chain, as these are naturally already hard to track down. Alternatively, certifications like the GOTS and EU Eco- label that performed best in the evaluation can be a valuable choice as they cover different aspects along the supply chain including environmental and social factors. On the other hand, self-assessment methods like the Higg Index could have the potential of identifying hotspots along the supply chain and reduce the environmental impact of specific processes and practices.

The challenge of tracking down each step of the supply chain especially regarding raw materials remains which is problematic for both certifications and self-assessment tools. Traceability tools like TrusTrace and Sourcemap can assist companies with this intention and play an important role here. Also, ASKET is on a journey towards reaching full traceability. Once this is reached, the process of certifying certain products should be simpli- fied at least in its effort since all supply chain steps are already traced down to a certain extent. Remaining steps would include gathering data, applying for the certifications and audits although the disadvantage of costs remains. Therefore, this might not be the most valuable option for ASKET at the moment. However, it should be something the company could consider in the future once full traceability is reached and additional resources can ensure personnel as well as budget for certifications.

In general, a positive step would be for the fashion industry to work towards more uniformity regarding communications and standards. The development of own standards by individual brands might make that harder and create a similar confusion regarding traceability approaches as it already exists for certification. Hence, the overarching ambition should be to develop a unified approach. Therefore, ASKET should consider the potential transferability of their traceability tool for other brands (and maybe even industries) although this is not a focus activity of the company.

Even though the effectiveness of the Higg Index is debatable at its current state and the lack of transparency in their communication of results and criteria is one of its largest flaws, the Higg Index aims at the higher goal of unifying practices in the industry and combining different standards. If one of the introduced certifications could reach such a combination of all relevant and essential requirements covering social and environmental criteria sufficiently that is largely recognised and applied in the industry some of the main problems with certifications could be solved.

Overall, ASKET’s work within traceability sets important standards in the fashion industry. Reaching full traceability builds a base for impact assessment approaches and identifying potential hotspots of the supply chain, showing room for improvements. Without transparency and traceability along the supply chain an appropriate impact assessment

Case Study at ASKET and therefore purposeful improvements are not possible. Furthermore, transparency and traceability are crucial for the certification of products and full supply chains. Generally, the right choice of certifications largely depends on the values and priorities of a company. With ethical and environmentally friendly production as parts of their principles, ASKET could improve its practices by getting these approaches certified or at least verified.

Conclusion

7 Conclusion

This report studied different certifications and traceability approaches in the clothing industry in terms of their potential sustainability impact and discusses the strengths and weaknesses of certifications in general, and in particular of seven specific ecolabels and certifications. Furthermore, the applicability of these approaches for smaller companies in the fair fashion industry and especially the Swedish menswear brand ASKET was evaluated. Based on literature research different certifications are introduced and their advantages and disadvantages are discussed in Sub-Chapter 4.1. This is followed by transparency and traceability approaches with examples of different companies incorpo- rating these principles in their practices. Based on an evaluation framework which combines the UN SDGs, the Planetary Boundaries and the Doughnut Economy Framework the certifications are evaluated. The findings are validated using interviews with different stakeholders from the industry.

The findings from Chapter 4 and 5 are applied in the case study at ASKET. First, the company and its approach to traceability is introduced which is followed by an evaluation regarding the applicability and suitability of the best performing certifications from the evaluation before. Moreover, ASKET’s transparency and traceability approach are analysed regarding their strengths and weaknesses. Finally, actions for the company are recommended.

The choice of certifications is based on research and personal experience of most used and popular standards in the industry. Based on literature research these certifications were evaluated. The conducted interviews confirmed the choice of certifications. Inter- viewees mentioned most of the considered ecolabels in this study. However, other certifications were mentioned in that context as well. Generally, all certifications covered have strengths and weaknesses, and there is no perfect certification or ecolabel that suits all purposes.

Overall, based on literature research and the interview results the potential impacts on sustainability and the applicability of the different certifications for smaller companies in general and particularly for ASKET are evaluated. Regarding the certifications, it can be concluded that there is a lack of clarity and comparability between different certifications. Furthermore, certifications and, connected to that, auditing requires budget and effort which is not always easily accessible for smaller companies. The large number of certifications on the market leads to confusion among consumers as well as experts. A unified standard that is acknowledged by a large part of the industry and that covers all important aspects sufficiently while being inclusive for smaller companies would be ideal for solving these problems. Moreover, certifications ensure trust-worthy auditing according to certain standards and requirements.

Furthermore, transparency and traceability are discussed, and several approaches of supply chain traceability from different companies are introduced. The findings of the literature research were applied to the case study at ASKET. The introduced transparency and traceability approaches were compared to ASKET’s approach. While there were clear similarities of the different approaches such as the data provided about suppliers and the inclusion of a world map, there were also differences regarding the detail of data accessible. Compared to the other approaches of Jan ‘n June, HundHund and

Conclusion

Rapanui, ASKET provides more detailed information about their supply chain. Very similar to ASKET’s approach and the level of details is Nudie Jeans Co.’s traceability. The differences between the traceability approaches complicate a direct comparison between different approaches. A standard of which information should be provided in what manner would make it easier for customers to compare different approaches and levels of traceability.

In order to evaluate the introduced certifications, an evaluation framework covering different impact categories was developed. Based on the UN SDGs, the Planetary Bound- aries framework and the Doughnut Economics the framework combines all of the three approaches and divides the impact categories into a social and an environmental dimension. Due to limited data access and a different focus of the Svensk Miljöbas only six of the initial seven certifications are included in the evaluation. The evaluation results in a clear advantage of certifications covering both environmental and social aspects like the GOTS and the EU Ecolabel. Complementing the evaluation results, interviews with seven interviewees were included aiming at verifying the literature research and evaluation. Furthermore, an insight into the industry in general and opinions of stakeholders in different positions in the clothing industry were made possible with the interviews.

The evaluation result, however, does not necessarily mean that the GOTS is the best certification for all purposes. Especially regarding social standards, it lacks strictness. Therefore, the right choice largely depends on the needs and values of a company. De- pending on that a combination of different certifications might lead to the best results. However, with the limited resources of a smaller company this is not the most suitable solution.

Therefore, in the case of ASKET focus areas along the supply chain should be identified. Ideally, production steps with the most significant environmental impact should be identified and certifications introduced accordingly. For example, on the resource-intense raw material level, the application of the GOTS ensures reduced negative impact due to chemical use, in particular, fertiliser and pesticides. Which, in turn, has a large impact on social and environmental factors. For wet processing, especially certifications like the OEKO-TEX® Standard 100 are of importance, as this production step can use large amounts of harmful chemicals with impacts on people and planet.

Recommendations

8 Recommendations

The recommendations based on this study can be divided into two parts. On the one hand, recommended actions for research include the improvement of the evaluation tool and further research regarding data gaps. As discussed earlier, these include detailed research and expert opinions about the potential impact of chemicals and with that the evaluation of the OEKO-TEX® Standard 100. Furthermore, more information regarding the assessment criteria of the Higg Index is necessary in order to properly evaluate the potential impact on the standard on the different impact categories.

Moreover, the evaluation framework focuses on the impacts on the two dimensions and their social and environmental impact categories. Hence, the evaluation merely considers impacts on these categories. Therefore, the results show a clear advantage for certifications that cover both the social and environmental dimension. Other strengths and weaknesses mentioned in Sub-chapter 4.4 are, not completely taken into account in the evaluation. Thus, results do not necessarily represent the universally best choice. In order to build a more balanced framework that also takes weaknesses into account one should consider including an additional dimension or the option of a negative evaluation such as an addition to the existing framework using a wider scoring range covering negative scores as well and therefore considering weakness on the overall performance of the certification.

Furthermore, all impact categories are considered as being of equal importance in this study. In order to adjust results according to specific goals and values of a company, a weighting of different impact categories could be beneficial leading to a more accurate result fitting to the company. Additionally, the suitability for the different tiers could be taken into account in the adjustments of the evaluation framework.

Data gaps regarding the potential impact of chemicals as well as the criteria of the Higg Index should be addressed in further research. More detailed results on these two topics could have a relatively large impact on the results of the evaluation. Especially limited access to detailed information regarding the Higg Index shows one of the main problems in the clothing industry which is a lack of transparency as well as clear definitions and industry-wide standards.

Recommended actions for ASKET include some adjustments to improve the traceability tool and especially clarity and accessibility for customers on ASKET’s website. Moreo- ver, further research regarding other third-party verifications or certification bodies not covered in this report is recommended. This is especially of importance regarding social factors in countries that are not covered by the FWF. This would ensure ethical working conditions along ASKET’s supply chain as this cannot fully be ensured by the personal but scheduled visits of employees. Additionally, the identification of main goals as well as hotspots along the supply chain has a large potential to decrease negative impacts of ASKET’s practices. Based on these results certifications with the most significant impact potential on the identified issues should be introduced. Notably, the use of conventional cotton could be relatively easily switched.

Higher goals of the whole industry should include the development of a unified standard covering all essential factors as well as definitions of clear standards when it comes to

Recommendations traceability reporting. This, however, is not solemnly in the hands of ASKET. Although, ASKET is well placed to lead change in this area.

References

9 References

Aalto, K., Heiskanen, E., Leire, C., Thidell, Å., 2008. The Nordic Swan - From past experiences to future possibilities. Nordiska ministerrådets förlag, Copenhagen. ASKET AB, 2019a. ASKET - Essentially Different: Garments Made With Love [WWW Document]. ASKET. URL https://www.asket.com/about/ (accessed 2.14.19). ASKET AB, 2019b. ASKET Press Kit - ASKET Sizes. ASKET AB, 2019c. ASKET - The Chino [WWW Document]. URL https://www.asket.com/shop/chino/ (accessed 5.6.19). ASKET AB, 2019d. Traceability Product Origin Master File. ASKET AB, 2018a. The Factories [WWW Document]. ASKET. URL https://www.asket.com/factories/all/ (accessed 5.2.19). ASKET AB, 2018b. Full Traceability - Garment tracing, from farm to finish line [WWW Document]. ASKET. URL https://www.asket.com/traceability/ (accessed 2.14.19). Bard-Bringéus, A., 2019. The Mill That Fooled Us And How Full Traceability Started. URL https://mailchi.mp/asket.com/the-mill-that-fooled-us (accessed 3.8.19). Bard-Bringéus, A., Dworsky, J., 2019. ASKET Investor Presentation 2019. Bavec, M., Bavec, F., 2015. Impact of Organic Farming on Biodiversity, in: Lo, Y.-H., Blanco, J.A., Roy, S. (Eds.), Biodiversity in Ecosystems - Linking Structure and Function. InTech. https://doi.org/10.5772/58974 Bennett, L., 2017. Ethical Fashion Certifications and Standards: What Do the Labels Mean? [WWW Document]. Good You. URL https://goodonyou.eco/ethical-fashion-certifications-explained/ (accessed 2.25.19). Bergman, S., 2018. Introduction to Product Development and the tool RPS. Big Room Inc., 2019. Ecolabel Index | Who’s deciding what’s green? [WWW Document]. Ecolabel Index. URL http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabels/?st=category,textiles (accessed 1.31.19). Brad, A., Delemare, A., Hurley, N., Lenikus, V., Mulrenan, R., Nemes, N., Trunk, U., Urbancic, N., 2018. The false promise of certification. Changing Markets Foun- dation, Utrecht. Chavez, H., 2019. Questions regarding the Brand Performance Checks | Master Thesis. Cheng, Z., Xiao, J., Xie, K., Huang, X., 2013. Optimal Product Quality of Supply Chain Based on Information Traceability in Fashion and Textiles Industry: An Adverse Logistics Perspective. Math. Probl. Eng. 2013, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/629363 Cherrett, N., Stockholm Environment Institute, BioRegional Development Group, 2005. Ecological footprint and water analysis of cotton, hemp and polyester. Stockholm Environmental Institute, Stockholm. Conca, J., 2015. Making Climate Change Fashionable - The Garment Industry Takes On Global Warming [WWW Document]. Forbes. URL https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/12/03/making-climate-change- fashionable-the-garment-industry-takes-on-global-warming/ (accessed 4.23.19). Ecolabelling Sweden, 2019a. Ecolabelling Sweden [WWW Document]. svanen.se. URL http://www.svanen.se/en/About-us/About/ (accessed 2.25.19).

References

Ecolabelling Sweden, 2019b. What does it cost? [WWW Document]. Nord. Ecolabel. URL http://www.nordic-ecolabel.org/certification/costs/ (accessed 2.25.19). Eterna Mode GmbH, n.d. ETERNA [WWW Document]. ETERNA. URL https://uk.eterna.de/ (accessed 5.21.19). European Commission, 2019. EU Ecolabel for Consumers - Ecolabel - EUROPA [WWW Document]. URL http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/eu-ecolabel-for-consumers.html (accessed 2.25.19). European Commission, 2018. EU Ecolabel Fees. European Commission, 2015. EU Ecolabel Textile Products - User Manual (No. 1.0). European Commission, 2014. Commission Decision establishing the ecoloical criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for textile products (Official Journal of the Euro- pean Union No. L174/46). European Commission (Ed.), 2007. The Montreal Protocol, Environment Air. Office for Official Publ. of the Europ. Communities, Luxembourg. Fair Wear Foundation, 2017a. Research Agenda 2007 -> 2020. Government of the Neth- erlands, Amsterdam. Fair Wear Foundation, 2017b. Brand Performance Check Guide (No. Assessment Pe- riod: member financial year starting from 2018). Government of the Netherlands, Amsterdam. Fair Wear Foundation, 2017c. FWF Membership costs 2018. Amsterdam. Fair Wear Foundation, 2017d. Who we are — Fair Wear Foundation [WWW Document]. URL https://www.fairwear.org/about/approach/ (accessed 2.25.19). Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International, e.V., 2019. Aims of Fairtrade standards [WWW Document]. URL https://www.fairtrade.net/standards/aims-of-fairtrade- standards.html (accessed 4.15.19). Fashion Revolution, 2018. Fashion Transparency Index 2018 (No. 2018 Edition). Ash- bourne, Derbyshire. Föreningen Svensk Miljöbas, 2016. Årliga Avgifter till föreningen [WWW Document]. Sven. Miljöbas. URL https://www.svenskmiljobas.se/avgifter.html (accessed 2.26.19). Global Standard gGmbH, 2017. Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) (No. Version 5.0). Global Standard gGmbH, 2016a. General Description - Global Standard gGmbH [WWW Document]. URL https://global-standard.org/the-standard/general-description.html (accessed 2.19.19). Global Standard gGmbH, 2016b. FAQ’s - Global Standard gGmbH [WWW Document]. URL https://www.global-standard.org/information-centre/faqs.html#what-is-the- cost-of-certification (accessed 2.18.19). Golden, Jay.S., 2010. An Overview of Ecolables and Sustainability Certifications in the Global Marketplace (No. #2010-10-1). Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions Duke University, Durham. Henninger, C., 2015. Traceability the New Eco-Label in the Slow-Fashion Industry?— Consumer Perceptions and Micro-Organisations Responses. Sustainability 7, 6011–6032. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7056011 Henninger, C.E., Alevizou, P.J., Oates, C.J., Cheng, R., 2015. Sustainable Supply Chain Management in the Slow-Fashion Industry, in: Choi, T.-M., Cheng, T.C.E. (Eds.),

References

Sustainable Fashion Supply Chain Management. Springer International Publish- ing, Cham, pp. 129–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12703-3_7 Houdini Sportswear, Albaeco, Mistra Future Fashion, 2018. Planetary Boundaries As- sessment 2018 - This is Houdini. Stockholm. HundHund, n.d. Introducing Radical Transparency [WWW Document]. URL https://www.hundhund.com/blogs/stories/introducing-radical-transparency (accessed 3.12.19). Jan ’n June, 2018. Jan ’n June | Production & Sustainability. JAN N JUNE. URL https://jannjune.com/production-sustainability/ (accessed 3.12.19). Kersten, C., 2013. Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) - Was garantiert GOTS dem Kunden? Wo sind die Grenzen? Kumar, V., Agrawal, T.K., Wang, L., Chen, Y., 2017. Contribution of traceability towards attaining sustainability in the textile sector. Text. Cloth. Sustain. 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40689-017-0027-8 Lange, P., Kjeldsen, U.B., Tofteng, M., Krag, A., Lindgaard, K., 2014. The coexistence of two Ecolabels. Nordic Council of Ministers. https://doi.org/10.6027/TN2014- 525 Lehmann, M., Tärneberg, S., Tochtermann, T., Chalmer, C., Eder-Hansen, J., Seara, J.F., Boger, S., Hase, C., Von Berlepsch, V., Deichmann, S., 2018. The Pulse of the Fashion Industry. Global Fashion Agenda, The Boston Consulting Group. Levi Strauss & Co., 2019. Sustainability | Production [WWW Document]. Levi Strauss. URL https://levistrauss.com/sustainability/production/ (accessed 3.12.19). McRae, L., Freeman, R., Marconi, V., 2016. Living Planet Report 2016: Risk and Resili- ence in a New Era. Moore, S.B., Wentz, M., 2009. Eco-labeling for textiles and apparel, in: Sustainable Tex- tiles. Elsevier, pp. 214–230. https://doi.org/10.1533/9781845696948.2.214 Nagurney, A., Yu, M., Floden, J., 2015. Fashion Supply Chain Network Competition with Ecolabeling, in: Choi, T.-M., Cheng, T.C.E. (Eds.), Sustainable Fashion Supply Chain Management. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 61–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12703-3_4 Nordic Ecolabelling, 2018. Nordic Ecolabelling for Textiles, hides/skins and leather (No. 039/4.9). Nudie Jeans Co, n.d. Nudie Jeans Production Guide [WWW Document]. URL https://www.nudiejeans.com/productionguide/ (accessed 3.12.19). OEKO-TEX® Service GmbH, 2019a. STANDARD 100 by OEKO-TEX [WWW Docu- ment]. OEKO-TEX Inspiring Confid. URL https://www.oeko-tex.com/en/business/certifications_and_services/ots_100/ots_100_start.xhtml (accessed 2.16.19). OEKO-TEX® Service GmbH, 2019b. OEKO-TEX® | STANDARD 100 by OEKO-TEX® - Zertifizierung [WWW Document]. URL https://www.oeko-tex.com/de/business/certifications_and_services/ots_100/ots_100_certification/ots_100_certifi- cation.xhtml (accessed 2.19.19). OEKO-TEX® Service GmbH, n.d. Trace your Made in Green labelled product [WWW Document]. URL https://www.madeingreen.com/en/_mig/mig_trace_your_prod- uct/mig_trace_your_product.html?code=M1CPGF113 (accessed 3.12.19). O’Leary, Z., 2014. The essential guide to doing your research project, 2nd edition. ed. SAGE, Los Angeles.

References

Olsen, P., Borit, M., 2013. How to define traceability. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 29, 142– 150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2012.10.003 Oxfam, 2016. An Economy for the 1% - How privilege and power in the economy drive extreme inequality and how this can be stopped. Pharand-Deschênes, F., 2012. The Anthropocene | Novel entities [WWW Document]. URL http://www.anthropocene.info/pb2.php (accessed 4.9.19). Purvis, B., Mao, Y., Robinson, D., 2019. Three pillars of sustainability: in search of con- ceptual origins. Sustain. Sci. 14, 681–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018- 0627-5 Rapanui, 2017. Rapanui | The Journey - How it’s made [WWW Document]. URL https://rapanuiclothing.com/traceability-clothing/ (accessed 3.12.19). Ravishankara, A.R., Daniel, J.S., Portmann, R.W., 2009. Nitrous Oxide (N2O): The Dom- inant Ozone-Depleting Substance Emitted in the 21st Century. Science 326, 123–125. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1176985 Raworth, K., 2013. What on Earth is the Doughnut? Kate Raworth. URL https://www.kateraworth.com/doughnut/ (accessed 2.13.19). Raworth, K., 2012. Doughnut Economics [WWW Document]. Cent. Hum. Nat. URL https://www.humansandnature.org/economy-kate-raworth (accessed 4.25.19). Remy, N., Speelman, E., Swartz, S., 2016. Style that’s sustainable: A new fast-fashion formula | McKinsey [WWW Document]. URL https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/style-thats-sustainable-a-new-fast- fashion-formula (accessed 2.13.19). Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F.S.I., Lambin, E., Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., Foley, J., 2009. Plane- tary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecol. Soc. 14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03180-140232 Sandin, G., Roos, S., Johansson, M., 2019. Environmental Impact of Textile Fibers - What we know and what we don’t know - The Fiber Bible Part 2 (No. 2019:03 part 2), The Fiber Bible. RI.SE. Schultze, E., 2015. Exploitation or emancipation? Women workers in the garment industry [WWW Document]. Fash. Revolut. URL https://www.fashionrevolution.org/exploitation-or-emancipation-women-workers-in-the-garment-industry/ (accessed 4.23.19). Smithers, R., 2012. Unused clothing worth £30bn, report finds. The Guardian. Sourcemap Inc., n.d. Our Approach [WWW Document]. Supply Chain Mapp. URL https://www.sourcemap.com/approach (accessed 3.12.19). Statista, 2019. EU: share of main fibers used in clothing textiles 2015 [WWW Document]. URL https://www.statista.com/statistics/819822/share-of-main-fibers-used-in- clothing-textiles-european-union-eu/ (accessed 3.8.19). Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstrom, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S.R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C.A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G.M., Persson, L.M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., Sorlin, S., 2015. Plan- etary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855–1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855 Stotz, L., Kane, G., 2015. Facts on The Global Garment Industry.

References

Strähle, J. (Ed.), 2017. Green Fashion Retail, Springer Series in Fashion Business. Springer Singapore, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2440-5 Sustainable Apparel Coalition, 2019a. The Higg Index [WWW Document]. URL https://apparelcoalition.org/the-higg-index/ (accessed 2.25.19). Sustainable Apparel Coalition, 2019b. SAC Membership. San Francisco. Sustainable Apparel Coalition, 2017a. Non-member SME Higg Index Acess. San Fran- cisco. Sustainable Apparel Coalition, 2017b. Higg Index - Higg facility Environment Module (Higg FEM) Assessment Questions (No. Version 3.0). San Francisco. The Swedish Environmental Base, 2017. The Swedish Environmental Base - Standard. Stockholm. TrusTrace, 2018. TrusTrace | Trust through Traceability [WWW Document]. URL https://trustrace.com/ (accessed 3.12.19). UNFCCC, 2018. UN Helps Fashion Industry Shift to Low Carbon [WWW Document]. UNFCC. URL https://unfccc.int/news/un-helps-fashion-industry-shift-to-low-carbon (accessed 2.14.19). Unge, R., 2018. Welcome to Ecolabelling Sweden! United Nations, 2019. Sustainable Development Goals: Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform [WWW Document]. Sustain. Dev. Goals Sustain. Dev. Knowl. Platf. URL https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300 (accessed 2.13.19).

Appendix

10 Appendix Appendix A – Evaluation of Certifications & Ecolabels The table below shows which impact categories are affected by which certifications. A + indicates a positive impact by the criteria of the certifications. A 0 implies an indirect effect on the impact category. A ? indicates a potential impact which cannot be further evaluated due to limited data.

Table 8: The overview of all certifications shows their impact on the different impact categories.

OEKO- Higg EU Impact TEX GOTS FWF In- Eco- Svanen category Stand- dex label ard 100 Environmental Dimension Climate Change ? + + + + Land-System Change 0 ? Biochemical Flows ? + ? + + Freshwater Use + + + + + Ocean Acidification ? + + + + Novel Entities + + + + +

Biosphere Integrity + + ? + + Stratospheric Ozone + ? ? Atmospheric Aerosol Loading + ? ? Social Dimension Clean Water & Sanitation 0 0 0 0 Income & Work + + + + + Decent Work & Economic Growth ? + + Health + + + + + + Social Dimension – Indirect Networks ? + + Social Equity + + + + + Gender Equity + Education + No Poverty + + + +

Appendix

Appendix B – Interviews

Questionnaire

Certifications & Ecolabels – General

1. What is your general opinion about certifications and eco-labels? 2. Does your opinion differ depending on the label?

Certifications & Ecolabels – More specific

3. What are the most important and/or popular certifications in the clothing industry, in your opinion? 4. Are there any labels that you particular believe in or don’t believe in? 5. Where do you see the strengths and weaknesses of certifications? 6. What is your opinion about certifications like the EU Ecolabel or Svanen that cover products from several industries compared to very specific labels only applicable for textiles/one sector? 7. What do you think about third-party certifications compared to self-assessment methods, like the Higg Index?

Certifications & Ecolabels – Evaluation

8. What is the role of certifications and how important are they to achieve more sustainability in a company? 9. How applicable are certifications especially for smaller companies in the clothing industry?

Other sustainability approaches – Transparency and traceability

10. What are other important approaches to ensure more ethical and environmentally friendly practices along the supply chain? 11. How important is overall transparency for achieving more sustainability? 12. What is the role of supply chain traceability in that?

Image 5: Full questionnaire used for the personal and web-based interviews includes in total 12 qualitative questions covering the topics certifications & ecolabels as well as transparency and traceability approaches. This questionnaire was sent out in advance to interviewees and was filled out by one interviewee directly.

Table 9 includes a summarised overview of all interviews according to the different questions. Main statements, as well as similarities and differences between the statements of the interviewees are collected below in keywords.

Appendix

Table 9: Summary of all interview replies highlights key statements as well as main similarities and differences of the interviewees.

Question Summary - Certifications have strengths and weaknesses - The importance and positive impact of certifications was mentioned by two interviewees - Other benefits of certifications include the support for customers and enabling comparison for customers, creating transparency - Disadvantages like costs, low criteria and limited possibilities to compare were mentioned by several interviewees 1. - Other negative aspects of certifications mentioned include the high number of certifications, their complexity, the fact that no label covers everything and that certifications do not solve the issue of over- consumption - One interviewee differentiated between a short- and long-term perspective, where certifications are of importance especially on a short-term, long-term everything that enters the market should be safe and labels would become therefore unnecessary - Most of the interviewees trust certification the most they have the deepest knowledge about or established certifications that have been on the market for a long time - Opinions differ regarding government regulated certifications like 2. ISO and the EU Ecolabel - Some do not trust any certifications as none are frontrunners - International labels were mentioned here as well, as they fit the global market of the fashion industry the best - GOTS, OEKO-TEX and Higg Index were mentioned five, four and two times respectively - Government supported labels as ISO, Nordic Swan and the EU Ecolabel where mentioned along with BlueSign, BeCorp, Fairtrade, Fairwear, IVN 3. - European-based production and with that strict regulations were mentioned insurance for good working conditions and restricted chemical use - The division between social and environmental criteria was pointed out by one interviewee - The GOTS was mentioned several times, on the one hand as having strict criteria and large awareness in the market, on the other hand it was criticised regarding its user-friendliness - The Higg was also mentioned to be on its way “to get there” but also problems with inclusion and user-friendliness were mentioned in this context 4. - Strict criteria and awareness in the market were also mentioned in relation to Fairtrade - Other labels mentioned include BeCorp, OEKO-TEX, IVN and the BCI, with the principle of supporting change - One interviewee did not want to “promote anything” as she felt that deeper and specific research would be needed for that

iii

Appendix

- Strengths: o Verification of facts, holds companies accountable o Can safe time, as requesting certifications will give instant information about the company without the need to research the whole supply chain - Weaknesses: o complexity of labels and a lack of clarity of what certain certifications cover and do, which brings a lack of comparison possibilities between products with it 5. o followed by costs that cannot be covered so some smaller producers that produce according to standards cannot get the certifications o high number of certifications o low criteria o no global standard that includes social and environmental factors while including small-scale companies - In general, way forward for fashion is regulation - Organic cotton could be much worse than another fibre à certifications doe not mean it is the best choice - The majority of interviewees was in favour of specific niche certifications, as they tend to be stricter and lead the way and have experts for the complex supply chains of textiles while the more general certifications might lack experts in that specific industry, also it might be uncertain what broader labels promise - Several interviewees argued for both types as they are needed in today’s society and one is not necessarily better than the other, the right choice depends on the business 6. - Benefits of broader labels discussed included larger awareness, enabling a simpler choice, especially referring to the EU Ecolabel and Svanen - Ideal would be one label covering everything to guide consumers - One interviewee said niche labels should be the standard and should not be necessary to communicate while another interviewee argued for more general labels that should be minimal law - One interviewee highlighted the fact that fibres tend to be in focus even though the main environmental impact lies in the production - General opinions about self-assessment tools were quite positive, because of different reasons which include helping with realising issues along the supply chain and analysing a company’s operations and finding ways to improve, direct feedback, lower entrance barrier - Tools like the Higg can be especially helpful in the development of new products and therefore reduce their negative impact - If brands are not performing that well yet it might be good if publish- 7. ing is not necessary - Third-party verification is necessary for more complex issues and self-assessment itself is not credible for communication - Trust issues and costs were mentioned by two interviewees for both types - Overall, both approaches serve different purposes and a combination of both might be beneficial

Appendix

- Some certifications consider the whole supply chain à in those cases certifications can improve sustainability, which is good for small companies that cannot go through their whole supply chain themselves - Certifications can make companies in production areas more sustainable if they comply with standards 8. - The role depends on the production location, e.g. in Europe regulations are quite strict - Certifications are mostly a (trust-worthy) tool for consumers - An inclusive label considering all important aspects can become a financial incentive - Certifications do not really make a company more sustainable and are rather a way to verify - Bigger companies have more resources but also more responsibility - Smaller companies have limited resources but are more flexible - Costs were mentioned as a burden by three interviewees 9. - Other aspects like sustainable design, seeking new solutions and knowing where the fibre is from, is more important for sustainability in smaller companies according to several interviewees - To ensure fibre origin certifications can be beneficial - Other important approaches mentioned: common sense and respect, close-by and local production, material-based design, recycled materials, product-life cycle analysis in design, long-term relationships with good suppliers 10. - A sustainable business model can ensure more sustainable practices - Transparency, certifications and traceability are very much alike -> no certification if not transparent - Transparency is key according to several interviewees - If everyone would be transparent there would be no need for certifi- cates according to one interviewee 11. - Rising awareness and knowledge enables customers to make better choices - Should be accompanied by increased collaboration within the industry - According to two interviewees transparency and traceability go hand in hand, both should be the first step in a sustainable company according to another interviewee 12. - All interviewees agree about the importance of supply chain traceability - One interviewee preferred certified fabrics because of the length and complexity of supply chains in clothing

Table 10 shows an overview and summary of the semi-structured interviews with the Co- founder of ASKET, August Bard-Bringéus and the Head of Product, Dan Vo. Statements from both are summarised. Also, main differences and similarities are covered.

Appendix

Table 10: Overview and summary of the interviews with Co-Founder and Head of Product of ASKET.

Question/Topic Summary of both interviews General opinion about - Certifications are important and necessary certifications (in the fash- - Enable brands and customers to verify and test certain ion industry) information Most important and es- - GOTS, OEKO-TEX, different ISO standards, REACH, tablished certifications and Fairtrade Problems with certifica- - Definition of certification criteria and what is actually tions certified by the certification - Costs - Might lead to an increased gap between small and big farms, as bigger farms that can afford the certification are supported differently à power of small companies is limited - Shift the responsibility of consumption from consumer à hinderance of real change of consumption habits - Some labels are exploited by otherwise unsustainable brands Opinion about traceability - Necessary/crucial - First step towards more sustainability - Needs to be followed by further steps, i.e. impact assessments and based on that improvements of supply chain processes Problems with traceability - The fashion industry is extremely complex à lots of pieces of information and data are necessary for full traceability - Complexity largely varies between different products - Big players with power in the industry often do not use it in a sufficient way - Main challenge: get suppliers to comply and provide information, because of: à secrecy, use of a “secret recipe” for their products, fear of competition à factories might not have the information à some information is inherently hard to find, i.e. raw materials are blended from different sources to keep a certain quality Role of transparency - Necessary for traceability - Problems: conflicting information from suppliers including a switch of farms and mixing cotton from different farms without transparent communication à main hurdle for transparency and therefore reaching traceability