Cleaning Up Fashion’s Impact Requires More Inclusive Standards for Sustainability Standard-Setting 

CLEANING UP FASHION’S IMPACT REQUIRES MORE INCLUSIVE STANDARDS FOR SUSTAINABILITY STANDARD-SETTING

by Kim van der Weerd

Legislators in the Global North are ramping up efforts to pass laws that hold fashion companies accountable for their adverse social and environmental impacts. However, a key finding of the recently launched Apparel Supplier’s Guide to Sustainability Legislation in the US, EU, and UK – a resource created for suppliers by suppliers – is that apparel suppliers seem to have been largely excluded from the legislative development process. This is despite suppliers being the entities who will, by and large, be practically (and maybe even legally) responsible for their implementation. The Guide highlights how this has resulted in some legislation that could fall short on key practical details and therefore is unlikely to achieve the intended benefits.

Cue one of the calls to action featured in the Guide: suppliers, primarily operating in the Global South,  should be more effectively included in the development of sustainability-related legislation primarily being developed in the Global North. Indeed, this is why Transformers Foundation, as one of the entities that supported the resource, is planning a half-day in-person event in October that strives to bring policymakers, brands, and suppliers together in conversation (it’s free and open to the public).

The role of multistakeholder-created standards in legislation

However, in recent weeks I’ve found myself reconsidering this call to action. While I certainly think that more effective supplier involvement in the legislative process is needed, a recent conversation with someone working within a multistakeholder organization made me question whether it’s really the golden ticket. This person pointed out to me that legislators tend to be generalists, meaning they likely do not understand the ins and outs of every context they attempt to regulate.  Thus, to deliver on their ambitions, legislators tend to look to credible multistakeholder standards to guide their approach.  In other words: what ends up in legislation is likely to be heavily influenced by some of the standards and approaches created by multistakeholder organizations.

The problem is that even though multistakeholder standards are generally considered to represent a wide range of stakeholders, manufacturers have by and large also been excluded from multistakeholder platforms. I say this both as a former factory manager with first-hand experience engaging in some of these platforms and also as the Intelligence Director for Transformers Foundation which aims to amplify perspectives on sustainability from the denim supply chain – meaning that a big part of my job is talking to apparel suppliers. 

So I have to wonder: could manufacturer exclusion from the legislative process have been avoided, or at least minimized, if manufacturers had been better included in the multistakeholder-led attempts at standards development? Is the lack of manufacturer inclusion in the legislative process, at least partially, a failure of multistakeholder convenors?  If so, it’s worth looking at how and why manufacturers tend to be excluded from multistakeholder settings. 

It’s also worth noting from the outset that the examples put forward in this article focus largely on the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC); however, it’s important to stress that this is not because the problem is unique to the SAC but rather because there are a number of recent examples where some suppliers feel excluded within that setting. To focus exclusively on the SAC would miss the broader point: a space that equitably - both from a structural and procedural perspective - is recognized by all actors to include all perspectives is still a work in process. Figuring out how to generate this mutual understanding is essential because it is a precondition to collective action.

Structural exclusion: How manufacturers are left out of multistakeholder standard development  

A quick scan of sustainability-focused multistakeholder platforms reveals varying degrees of formal manufacturer inclusion. Some entities do not appear to formally allow manufacturers to join. Others - like the SAC, Textile Exchange, and ZDHC - to varying degrees - do. Anecdotally, many suppliers I’ve talked to over the last few years have consistently expressed that, even in multistakeholder settings where they are formally included, they nonetheless feel structurally excluded.

When I’ve pushed for clarification about what is meant by “structural exclusion”, several manufacturers I spoke to on the condition of anonymity for this article raised the issue of unequal distribution of wealth between brands and manufacturers as a structural factor shaping how multistakeholder organizations operate. For example, one person commented:

“Even in organizations like the SAC, which, unlike some platforms, at least have the stated intention of including manufacturers, brands can make more noise. Not only are there more brand and retailer members than manufacturer members but those brands and retailers have more resources to participate and are a more critical constituent for the organization’s financial survival. For example, within the SAC, one of the promises was a single standard, but that hasn’t happened. Brands haven’t given up their own standards, and yet they’re not held accountable for this and continue their membership status.”

Another emphasized:

“It’s not just about who is part of a multistakeholder organization’s Board. It’s about who can be part of a multistakeholder organization and has a voice in shaping standard development. What’s the representation like? Are they taking steps to attract manufacturers? If it’s a membership organization, are they disaggregating membership growth statistics by stakeholder type?”

This supplier went on to share:

“The commercial nature of the relationship between brands and suppliers makes it hard for manufacturers to talk about these issues.” 

Another supplier added to this sentiment:

“It’s very difficult for a supplier to openly contradict a brand and retailer. I only really get to say what I want to say 15-20% of the time. In general, most of the time, the sustainability people who are put in front of a brand by a supplier are the sustainability people who will say “yes” to what the brands and retailers want. The sustainability people willing to challenge the status quo rarely get into the room. It’s self-censorship.” 

This supplier went on to say:

“Culturally the expectation is that if the brand says jump, manufacturers will jump. An unequal distribution of wealth is why manufacturers struggle to work collectively or more proactively shape the direction of standards development in multistakeholder settings. Multistakeholder organizations are not proactively creating conditions for manufacturers to join or have a voice. For example, they could be setting quotas for working groups, or scheduling meetings at times that manufacturers find it difficult to attend.”

The supplier concluded by sharing an experience from their engagement within the SAC specifically:

“Within the SAC governance process, Member Expert Teams (METs) are supposed to have equal representation. But from what I have seen, these METs don’t have equal representation from brands and manufacturers. So there is a governance process that’s supposed to be followed, but it’s not being followed.”

When I asked about why industry associations might not fill this gap, one person referred to language barriers and weak regional and global manufacturer association infrastructure. Another suggested that because many factories themselves do not have adequate sustainability staff, associations have been slow to wade into this space.

The manufacturers I spoke to also pointed to the fact that multistakeholder organizations tend to be predominantly staffed by individuals who formerly worked for global brands and retailers.  This does not make those individuals ill-intentioned people, but it likely does mean that they have a particular way of diagnosing the problem a given standard aims to solve. 

Here’s a silly but relevant analogy from the recent Barbie movie: in Barbieland Ken thinks his problem is that Barbie doesn’t notice him. In the real world, Ken decides his problem is that he isn’t getting enough respect from Barbie. How Ken diagnoses his problem changes based on where he sits, based on his perspective. 

One of the suppliers I spoke to gave another analogy: 

“If a company has 97% male employees, you would not be surprised to find that the organization has a very masculine culture.” 

Another supplier chimed in:  

“Now imagine the organization is making standards for women.” 

In other words, the conceptual framing of conversations around standard setting in multistakeholder settings tends to be incredibly narrow. A manufacturer participating in a multistakeholder platform might, at best, be able to give feedback on an indicator. But a discussion about whether a particular approach is the best approach in the first place? Rare.  

As an entity that advocates for the denim supply chain’s perspectives on sustainability, we talk about this a lot within Transformers Foundation. We’ve worked hard to publish reports on various sustainability issues that have started to earn us a seat at some of these “proverbial tables”.  On the one hand, we’re thrilled to have a seat. On the other hand, we fear being used as a rubber stamp – there to endorse an approach we haven’t been part of designing or co-creating.  Again, the framing is too narrow. 

Procedural exclusion: How manufacturers are left out of multistakeholder standard development

In addition to structural exclusion, many manufacturers I’ve talked to anecdotally over the years have expressed their frustration with procedural exclusion from standard development in multistakeholder settings.  By “procedure” I mean the processes that determine how a multistakeholder organization translates big, abstract, normative goals into standards and metrics that can actually be verified and monitored.

For example, the suppliers I spoke to for this article referred to a general lack of transparency in how feedback or disagreements about a particular indicator or metric within a standard are resolved. 

Two individuals referred to recent updates to the SAC’s Facility Environmental Module (FEM 4.0) - a tool intended to assess factories and support their improvement - as an example of how manufacturers and technical experts are not effectively included in standards review. They referred to an assessment question in the new tool that asks factories whether they are “monitoring or reporting against any industry guidelines or tools for air emissions (additional to the legal requirement).” They noted that if a supplier answers “yes”, then they will be given a number of options which include indicating whether they are following the ZDHC air emissions guidelines. They pointed out that  ZDHC’s Air Emissions guidance has yet to be released. How can a standard that hasn’t been released yet be used, let alone verified?

Another manufacturer echoed: 

“If the manufacturers who are SAC members had been given the chance to sit together and go through the questions and the guide on the new version of FEM V4 before they started asking us to do beta testing, that would have been much more effective.”

One manufacturer shared that something as simple as how a manufacturer is invited to participate in standards development matters. Receiving a generic newsletter sent to all stakeholders is not likely to yield as much engagement as personalized outreach and invitations. Manufacturers need these special measures because they don’t have the same resources as brands and are likely to inadvertently miss opportunities. This supplier went on to articulate that it also matters how people working to define the details of a new standard are selected. They suggested that quotas for different types of stakeholders are needed and that there must be transparent processes for resolving differences of opinion. 

Another manufacturer shared that, procedurally, it’s important that suppliers have time to implement new standards before they are assessed. They shared that sometimes, in multistakeholder settings, structural blindspots lead to roll-out processes and timelines that simply aren’t feasible for manufacturers. They went on the share:

“For example, in order for a manufacturer to properly implement the SAC’s FEM standard, they need the supporting guidance document called “How to Higg”. The SAC’s new FEM V4 standard applies from 1 January 2023. However, the How to Higg guide for this standard was not released until August 2023. How can we retroactively implement a standard?”

Interestingly, the second page of the FEM How to Higg Guide released in August notes that the version is not final and will be updated again in November. 

Another supplier shared a similar anecdote relating to their engagement with Textile Exchange: 

“Towards the end of 2022, Textile Exchange imposed many additional documentation requirements on suppliers for approving the transaction certificates for sustainable raw materials. However, they applied these new requirements retroactively to raw materials already produced - meaning that these materials were already part of our supply chains and subject to the new requirements but it was impossible to get the documentation we needed.”

The retroactive application of standards, or the application of standards without adequate preparation time, disproportionately impacts manufacturers because their facilities are the ones being assessed. This means that it’s their sustainability performance scores that are impacted, which, in some cases, not only impacts their reputations but also brand and retailer sourcing decisions and sometimes even investor relations. 

I'm sure there is a reason why standards are retroactively applied, but on its face, it doesn't make sense and – more to the point – the manufacturers subject to these new standards don't understand why this is happening and cannot easily comply. Similarly, according to the manufacturers I spoke to, those creating the standards do not seem to understand why suppliers can't comply and why this is such a big issue for them. 

Conclusion: A non-exhaustive checklist for manufacturer inclusion in multistakeholder standard development

I know the knee-jerk reaction to this article will likely be to nit-pick over the details – to argue over the accuracy or validity of what I have said. But to focus on these details would be to miss the point. Instead, the bigger picture point I’d like to drive home is this: the fact that the suppliers I talked to for this article do not understand the justification for what they would deem egregiously exclusive standard-setting structures and processes indicates that a space that equitably includes all perspectives, and therefore fosters real mutual understanding, remains aspirational. 

In addition to creating obvious practical problems (since manufacturers bring much-needed operational and on-the-ground insight into how to translate abstract normative goals into practical standards that drive meaningful change), this mutual lack of understanding makes it impossible for any standard, law, or guideline to ever represent a consensus. A sound standard requires equitable participation at both a structural and procedural level from all stakeholders. 

Furthermore, the notion that standards (whether formal or informal) can and should be imposed on manufacturers by non-manufacturers has been so normalized that we don’t always see it as a problem – nor do we scrutinize whether standards created by multistakeholder platforms structurally and procedurally include manufacturers. Morally, this matters: a group with very little agency in defining a standard is nonetheless expected to take full agency in delivering against the changes those standards are intended to deliver. This is unethical. 

As multistakeholder organizations looking to drive meaningful change (and as legislators looking for credible multistakeholder consensus around sustainability standards to guide new laws), there are a few simple questions that are likely to give a pretty good sense of whether a standard has been developed in a way that’s inclusive of manufacturer perspectives. Here’s a non-exhaustive list that I hope kickstarts a more inclusive path:

• At a minimum, are manufacturers formally included in the given multistakeholder platform? Is that platform taking proactive steps to reach out to and grow manufacturer participation?

• Is the multistakeholder organization’s staff made up of a representative mix of stakeholders?

• Are there quotas for different stakeholder groups on the teams tasked with tool development (not only at a strategic level but also across working groups looking at the details?) Are these governance processes followed?

• When stakeholders disagree, are these disagreements resolved in a transparent way or are these left to staff discretion?

• Are new standards rolled out with sufficient time for manufacturers to comply? Have manufacturers been included in determining what a reasonable timeline might be, and when supporting documents would be required to support this?

My hope is that this article triggers dialogue and exchange between groups so that we better understand how it’s possible that different groups seem to experience the same set of events in very different ways. In this spirit, I’d like to conclude with a quote from Amina Razvi, Chief Executive Officer of the SAC:

“SAC values the scrutiny and dialogue surrounding our work, recognizing its vital role in advancing our shared commitment to sustainability. Guided by our foundational principle of multi-stakeholder collaboration, we actively engage with a diverse range of perspectives, including those of manufacturers, within our governance and tool development processes, such as the recent launch of Higg FEM 4.0 As we navigate diverse viewpoints, we remain committed to implementing rigorous processes that ensure equitable representation, especially within the context of systemic industry power dynamics. We appreciate the continued dialogue with the Transformers Foundation and look forward to continuing our discussion as we collectively seek to advance an inclusive sustainability agenda.”

There will be a follow-up and dialogue with the SAC on this important topic, watch this space for more details.