Week 2 and 3

My project is coming along well. I’m currently researching the field of sustainability and CSR strategies and I’m working on the conceptual background for the study. My aim is to, in the empirical part, interview representatives from different types of fashion companies in Sweden to analyse how grounded their sustainability commitment is depending on ownership structure, business model and market segment. I have my own office space where I work, with a window in the pitched roof with a beautiful view over the rooftops of Haga and Linnéstaden.

During one of the lunches last week, I asked the head of department about the differences between the eco-labels in the Swedish market and the competitive issues that might arise due to the amount of labels, as well as companies own “green initiative” campaigns. Personally, I think it is hard to separate and interpret what many of the labels and certifications really mean, and I believe that regular consumers are even more confused by the many types of labels available.

I learned that the most common labels in Sweden, and the labels that are the most alike are:
Nordic Ecolabel/The Swan, which is the official label for the Nordic countries. It is governed at state level jointly by Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland.
Bra Miljöval/Good Environmental Choice, which is governed by the independent Swedish organization Naturskyddsföreningen/Swedish Society for Nature Conservation.
Eu Eco-label, which is governed by the European Union.

In Sweden the licenses and development for both the Swan and the EU Eco-label are responsibilities for the organisation Miljömärkning Sverige AB, assigned by the government. Swedish Society for Nature Conservation is an independent membership-organization.

The criteria set by these organizations when it comes to environmental impact, harmful substances and ethics of production are close to each other. Nordic Ecolabel and Good Environmental Choice has both existed for a bit over 20 years and they are both well known by consumers in many product categories. Since they are so close I was wondering what really separated them and of course wanted to know which one is “the best” to go with. The closeness of the two (and three for that matter) makes any choice a good one; it is always better to buy one of these (even if it is a competitor’s label) than to buy a non-certified product. The differences between the two Swedish labels lie in the criteria formulation and the development process. Since the Swan is governed by five countries together their process is much more complex and they have had problems entering in to new areas, as the different countries have differences in opinions. The criteria set are a bit more flexible within the Swan, and there is a bigger opportunity for companies to get away with trade-offs or arguments to keep specific and somewhat questionable substances. The Good Environmental Choice is more black and white, with clearer specifications of what substances are allowed or not, and thereby they can easier say no. So there is a difference in methodology where the latter might be stricter in some regards.

I was also interested in the choice of partnerships with companies who wants to get certified. The Good Environmental Choice label works for product groups, products or materials, but also at store level, for example in grocery stores. Since it is not the company itself who gets certified, but the products, I was wondering if not the potential badwill of a company would risk to spill over at the organization itself, hurting credibility if a partner company would have an ethical crisis. Was this risk something they consider? I would believe that consumers (and SSNC members) would think less of the organization if for example H&M was granted a certification for their socks (hypothetical case), when the ethics of H&M’s overall business strategy and as a company can be discussed. Especially in these times when they have been in the media regarding the wages of their garment producers in Bangladesh, and the land grabbing practices of some of their cotton producers in Ethiopia. Surprisingly this was not considered to be a risk or a problem for SSNC, and the solution is said to be “clear communication about what the label is about and how the certification system works”. If the organization communicates clearly about why a company receives a certification and what it covers, consumers will not have unrealistic expectations and so cannot be disappointed in the labelling organization itself. To me this showcases a very rational consumer behaviour, which is surprising as so many other aspects of consumer behaviour and demands are emotionally driven.

I’m glad that it works this way even though for myself I would wish for a better way to distinguish between companies on the company-level, since I believe that even by purchasing a specific "good" item one might put money into an “evil” system. From another perspective though, this might be what drives a good development - if demand for certified and “good” products increase, more investments would be put to those and hopefully, eventually, bad products and production processes would finally be unfulfilling for companies.

-

In the end of my second week I visited the conference The Design of Prosperity in Borås, to listen to companies and associations discuss sustainability and the need for transparency in textile supply chains. It was an interesting day and I always enjoy hearing real life stories from companies who strive to implement sustainable practices, though this day was more inspirational than teaching.

What moved me the most was a small sentence that Kavita Parmar, founder of the IOU project, said. It was something so small and simple, but two weeks later it is still with me. She reminded me of something that I think is often forgotten when talking about supply chain management. That the supply chain is made of human beings. Human beings are the supply chain, no matter how automated it is. She said that a Nike shoe is touched by a human 246 times before it reaches the consumer. Social and environmental aspects of the supply chain are managed by close relationships and joint understandings of ethical practices. It is too easy to see the supply chain as just value adding entities that are separated from the ordering company. In the same way, as a consumer I rarely reflect over who sew my sweater, or who picked the cotton for my jeans. Who stitched my sneakers, who cut my t-shirt and who knitted my scarf? Everyday when you get dressed, you should give just a second of your time to reflect and maybe give a thank you to the people who by their own hands made it possible for you to wear your garments. You should be thankful, value the pieces you own and think twice before throwing it away. Someone made this for you.

The conference was also a perfect opportunity for me to network with industry representatives, and to meet respondents for my study. I have three really exciting, but different, companies who said that they wanted to take part in my project: H&M, Filippa K and Woolpower. This means one global fast fashion company, one smaller slow fashion company and one outdoor company. This has given me some direction in my work with the study, and I will try to reach out to other actors in the same three categories to get a spread of answers and a possibility to study differences depending on market niches. In my fourth week I hope to have the survey ready for a test round, and then send it out. By now I have read through around 30 scientific articles, so I’m pretty excited to move on to the empirical part of the project…

Emelie