Recently, several non-governmental organizations, including the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs, released a pollution investigation report on the mainland textile industry entitled "Clean Up Fashion," which named 48 well-known international and domestic clothing brands as "dirty fashion," including ZARA, H&M, and Adidas, whose supply chain production processes contain a large amount of pollution. The report calls for attention to the "unbeautiful" environment behind the pursuit of fashion.
Greenpeace's latest investigation also reveals that some well-known brand clothing retains toxic chemicals called NPE (nonylphenol ethoxylate), which are released in large quantities during washing and subsequently discharged into rivers, lakes, and oceans, transforming into the more toxic NP (nonylphenol), a chemical that can disrupt the endocrine system. Alarmingly, China's per capita available water resources are only a quarter of the world average, yet in 2010, China's textile exports accounted for 34% of the world's total. According to the "China Environmental Statistics Yearbook" (2010), the textile industry ranked third among China's 39 major industries in terms of total wastewater discharge, discharging approximately 2.5 billion tons of wastewater annually. The report further points out that, for the same unit of product production, the average pollutant content in mainland China's dyeing and printing wastewater is 2-3 times higher than that abroad, while water consumption is 3-4 times higher. Dyeing and printing wastewater accounts for 80% of the total wastewater discharge from the entire textile industry. This makes it even more difficult to find clean rivers and lakes in densely populated areas of China, where water resources are already limited, and even drinking water carries a risk of toxicity. This has severely impacted the health and quality of life of millions of people.
Since 2003, the Chinese government has enacted a series of regulations and policies to promote environmental information disclosure. This investigative report from a mainland environmental organization also offers the following recommendations to both the government and brand retailers:
I. Government: Should strengthen control, expand information disclosure, and guide enterprises to conserve energy and reduce carbon emissions through market-based means.
Second, brands and retailers should utilize information disclosure, adopt green supply chain policies, and urge suppliers to comply with regulations and continuously improve.
The emphasis is specifically on "rectification and improvement with public disclosure." Why encourage suppliers to publicly disclose their improvements? The reasons can be summarized in the following four points.
First, from the perspective of protecting people's environmental rights, the supplier's violation of standards has had a potential or actual impact on the environment and the health and safety of community residents. Therefore, the public has the right to demand that the violating company disclose what it did wrong and what corrective measures it has taken.
Second, from the perspective of corporate responsibility, companies that violate regulations have a responsibility to explain the problems they have encountered and the rectification and improvement process, and to provide relevant proof; while brands that rely on outsourced production also have a responsibility to urge their suppliers to make the above explanations and proofs.
Third, from the perspective of helping brands improve their environmental management standards, information disclosure puts supply chain environmental management under public scrutiny, making suppliers feel the pressure from all sectors, understand their social responsibilities, and thus promote their compliance with environmental regulations.
Fourth, from the technical perspective of NGOs' management of brands, if problematic suppliers do not publicly disclose their improvement status, the public will have no way of making a judgment, and therefore cannot judge the basic level of the brand's supply chain environment management.
Another key point is "regularly publishing emissions data," mainly for the following two reasons:
From the perspective of corporate environmental management, publishing emissions data means that companies must collect, organize, and archive the test results of their pollution emissions; suppliers can use this to understand their own pollutant control status, and brands can also use this to gain a clearer understanding of the environmental footprint of their products.
Second, this is a key practice for companies to exceed regulatory requirements. Regulatory requirements are only the basics; after achieving compliance, companies need to continuously improve upon them. They should use actual data to demonstrate to the public whether their environmental performance has improved and whether their environmental footprint is expanding or decreasing.
The environmental organization that released this report on pollution in the fashion industry is reminding consumers to pay attention to the environmental performance of apparel brands and retailers, and expressing its expectations and demands to brands that refuse to respond to public concerns. Consumers should clearly express their desire to understand the environmental footprint of the entire supply chain behind every product; this will motivate textile brands to improve their supply chain environmental management.
Source: "Cleansing Fashion: A Survey Report on the Textile Industry" (April 9, 2012)
