This episode is part of "The Curious Case of Leicester" mini-series. While legislation is often seen as the solution to fashion’s sustainability issues, Leicester’s apparel industry presents a paradox: despite being in a developed country, in a city acclaimed for its strong governance, labour rights abuses have persisted. This series explores how such abuses continue and what this means for using legislation as a tool to address fashion's sustainability challenges globally.

**Share your musings, ramblings, or questions on this episode - whether fully formed or half baked by leaving Kim a voice memo or posting to our Curious Case of Leicester Community Wall - where you can also swap notes with fellow listeners. 

Also, join us for live virtual conversation on 3 October at 4PM CET to debrief and compare notes on these episodes. Spots are limited, and are available on a first-come first-serve basis. Register here.**

The Curious Case of Leicester has been supported by Lancaster University Management School and the Pentland Centre for Sustainability in Business at Lancaster University, working in partnership with Justice In Fashion CIC, a UK-based not-for-profit that works to address imbalances of power and resources across the fashion industry supply chain.

Find Lancaster University Management School on:
Linkedin
Twitter

Find Pentland Centre for Sustainability in Business on:
Linkedin
Twitter

CREDITS:

Host: Kim van der Weerd 

Co-Host: Dr. Divya Jyoti

Guest: Jennifer Wascak

This is a Maed in India production.

Creative Director: Mae Mariyam Thomas

Project Manager: Shaun Fanthome

Producer: Sean D'mello 

Co-Producer: Meghna Gulati

Sound Editor & Mix Engineer: Kartik Kulkarni

After getting married and moving to the UK around 32 years ago, Shaishta’s entry point into apparel production in Leceister was on the production floor. A single parent eager to build a better life for her family, Shaista ultimately left her job on the production floor to pursue higher education. She went on to work as a primary school teacher when in 2020, her career came full circle and she found herself working in community engagement for the apparel sector in Leicester.  She shares her thoughts on why labour rights abuses happen in Leicester, what kind of support and solutions are needed, and how recent scrutiny has impacted people on the production floor.

This episode is part of "The Curious Case of Leicester" mini-series. While legislation is often seen as the solution to fashion’s sustainability issues, Leicester’s apparel industry presents a paradox: despite being in a developed country, in a city acclaimed for its strong governance, labour rights abuses have persisted. This series explores how such abuses continue and what this means for using legislation as a tool to address fashion's sustainability challenges globally.

**Share your musings, ramblings, or questions on this episode - whether fully formed or half baked by leaving Kim a voice memo or posting to our Curious Case of Leicester Community Wall - where you can also swap notes with fellow listeners. 

Also, join us for live virtual conversation on 3 October at 4PM CET to debrief and compare notes on these episodes. Spots are limited, and are available on a first-come first-serve basis. Register here.**

The Curious Case of Leicester has been supported by Lancaster University Management School and the Pentland Centre for Sustainability in Business at Lancaster University, working in partnership with Justice In Fashion CIC, a UK-based not-for-profit that works to address imbalances of power and resources across the fashion industry supply chain.

Find Lancaster University Management School on:
Linkedin
Twitter

Find Pentland Centre for Sustainability in Business on:
Linkedin
Twitter

CREDITS:

Host: Kim van der Weerd 

Co-Host: Dr. Divya Jyoti

Guest: Shaista Jakhura

This is a Maed in India production.

Creative Director: Mae Mariyam Thomas

Project Manager: Shaun Fanthome

Producer: Sean D'mello 

Co-Producer: Meghna Gulati

Sound Editor & Mix Engineer: Kartik Kulkarni

We begin by discussing how Leicester, a city that’s seen as a shining example of best practices when it comes to governance, can have such a long track record of human rights violations. We talk about why, despite its strong ties with constituents, local government faces barriers to engaging with the garment sector, the relationship between local government and national government and the subsequent governance loopholes that ensue, and the barriers to enforcement.

This episode is part of "The Curious Case of Leicester" mini-series. While legislation is often seen as the solution to fashion’s sustainability issues, Leicester’s apparel industry presents a paradox: despite being in a developed country, in a city acclaimed for its strong governance, labour rights abuses have persisted. This series explores how such abuses continue and what this means for using legislation as a tool to address fashion's sustainability challenges globally.

**Share your musings, ramblings, or questions on this episode - whether fully formed or half baked by leaving Kim a voice memo or posting to our Curious Case of Leicester Community Wall - where you can also swap notes with fellow listeners. 

Also, join us for live virtual conversation on 3 October at 4PM CET to debrief and compare notes on these episodes. Spots are limited, and are available on a first-come first-serve basis. Register here.**

The Curious Case of Leicester has been supported by Lancaster University Management School and the Pentland Centre for Sustainability in Business at Lancaster University, working in partnership with Justice In Fashion CIC, a UK-based not-for-profit that works to address imbalances of power and resources across the fashion industry supply chain.

Find Lancaster University Management School on:
Linkedin
Twitter

Find Pentland Centre for Sustainability in Business on:
Linkedin
Twitter

CREDITS:

Host: Kim van der Weerd 

Co-Host: Dr. Divya Jyoti

Guests: Adam Clarke and Dr. Martin Quinn

This is a Maed in India production.

Creative Director: Mae Mariyam Thomas

Project Manager: Shaun Fanthome

Producer: Sean D'mello 

Co-Producer: Meghna Gulati

Sound Editor & Mix Engineer: Kartik Kulkarni

This episode is part of "The Curious Case of Leicester" mini-series. While legislation is often seen as the solution to fashion’s sustainability issues, Leicester’s apparel industry presents a paradox: despite being in a developed country, in a city acclaimed for its strong governance, labour rights abuses have persisted. This series explores how such abuses continue and what this means for using legislation as a tool to address fashion's sustainability challenges globally.

**Share your musings, ramblings, or questions on this episode - whether fully formed or half baked by leaving Kim a voice memo or posting to our Curious Case of Leicester Community Wall - where you can also swap notes with fellow listeners. 

Also, join us for live virtual conversation on 3 October at 4PM CET to debrief and compare notes on these episodes. Spots are limited, and are available on a first-come first-serve basis. Register here.**

The Curious Case of Leicester has been supported by Lancaster University Management School and the Pentland Centre for Sustainability in Business at Lancaster University, working in partnership with Justice In Fashion CIC, a UK-based not-for-profit that works to address imbalances of power and resources across the fashion industry supply chain.

Find Lancaster University Management School on:
Linkedin
Twitter

Find Pentland Centre for Sustainability in Business on:
Linkedin
Twitter

CREDITS:

Host: Kim van der Weerd 

Co-Host: Dr. Divya Jyoti

Guest: Sajjad Khan

This is a Maed in India production.

Creative Director: Mae Mariyam Thomas

Project Manager: Shaun Fanthome

Producer: Sean D'mello 

Co-Producer: Meghna Gulati

Sound Editor & Mix Engineer: Kartik Kulkarni

Throughout our discussion, we focus on the recurring theme of inequity within the value chain. We explore the role of inequity, questioning whether it stems from the business model, the unique context of Leicester, or perhaps from the very rules intended to govern the industry. We also discuss whether our attention on what rules permit or prohibit is misguided, and if we should instead be examining the process by which these rules are created in the first place.

Note: In the episode, Kim argues that traceability is not a data issue but a matter of willingness to share information. She emphasises that every commercial actor knows their suppliers and customers. Kim would like to acknowledge that a conversation with Crispin Argento was critical to articulating this perspective.

This episode is part of "The Curious Case of Leicester" mini-series. While legislation is often seen as the solution to fashion’s sustainability issues, Leicester’s apparel industry presents a paradox: despite being in a developed country, in a city acclaimed for its strong governance, labour rights abuses have persisted. This series explores how such abuses continue and what this means for using legislation as a tool to address fashion's sustainability challenges globally.

**Share your musings, ramblings, or questions on this episode - whether fully formed or half baked by leaving Kim a voice memo or posting to our Curious Case of Leicester Community Wall - where you can also swap notes with fellow listeners. 

Also, join us for live virtual conversation on 3 October at 4PM CET to debrief and compare notes on these episodes. Spots are limited, and are available on a first-come first-serve basis. Register here.**

The Curious Case of Leicester has been supported by Lancaster University Management School and the Pentland Centre for Sustainability in Business at Lancaster University, working in partnership with Justice In Fashion CIC, a UK-based not-for-profit that works to address imbalances of power and resources across the fashion industry supply chain.

Find Lancaster University Management School on:
Linkedin
Twitter

Find Pentland Centre for Sustainability in Business on:
Linkedin
Twitter

CREDITS:

Host: Kim van der Weerd 

Co-Host: Dr. Divya Jyoti

Guest: Jennifer Wascak

This is a Maed in India production.

Creative Director: Mae Mariyam Thomas

Project Manager: Shaun Fanthome

Producer: Sean D'mello 

Co-Producer: Meghna Gulati

Sound Editor & Mix Engineer: Kartik Kulkarni

Taking inspiration from Ibram X. Kendi’s book, ‘How to be an Anti-Racist’, Kim explains why we need to start a brand new conversation around sustainable fashion and, to this end, offers some new definitions for terms commonly used in the sector. Indeed, part of shifting the mindsets and beliefs that underpin our current approach to sustainability  is creating a new vocabulary, a new language for talking about our sustainability woes.

This episode is part of the ‘Crossover Moments’ miniseries, where we explore key moments of personal transformation that led people to question and ultimately reject conventional approaches to sustainable fashion.

If you’d like to read a written version of this episode, check this out. 

CREDITS:

Host: Kim van der Weerd 

This is a Maed in India production.

Creative Director: Mae Mariyam Thomas

Project Manager: Shaun Fanthome

Producer: Sean D'mello

Sound Editor & Mix Engineer: Kartik Kulkarni

This episode is part of the "Crossover Moments” miniseries, where we explore key moments of personal transformation that led people to question and ultimately reject conventional approaches to sustainable fashion.

CREDITS:

Host: Kim van der Weerd and Jessie Li 

This is a Maed in India production.

Creative Director: Mae Mariyam Thomas

Project Manager: Shaun Fanthome

Producer: Nikkethana Kamal 

Sound Editor & Mix Engineer: Lakshman Parsuram

This episode is part of the "Crossover Moments” miniseries, where we explore key moments of personal transformation that led people to question and ultimately reject conventional approaches to sustainable fashion. 

CREDITS:

Hosts: Kim van der Weerd and Jessie Li 

Guest : Dr. Divya Jyoti

This is a Maed in India production.

Creative Director: Mae Mariyam Thomas

Project Manager: Shaun Fanthome

Producer: Nikkethana Kamal 

Recording Engineers: Lakshman Parsuram & Kartik Kulkarni

Sound Editor & Mix Engineer: Sarthak Ray 

In this episode, Kim and her guest co-host, Dr.Divya Jyoti, talk to Manufactured co-founder Jessie Li about her crossover moment. She reflects on her time working for a buying office in China, and on realising that so much of the work she and her team were doing was invisible – their stresses and challenges overlooked and ignored. She shares how this realisation made her rethink everything - including how she understands the term “sustainable fashion.”

This episode is part of the "Crossover Moments” miniseries, where we explore key moments of personal transformation that led people to question and ultimately reject conventional approaches to sustainable fashion. 

CREDITS:

Hosts: Kim van der Weerd and Dr. Divya Jyoti

Guest : Jessie Li 

This is a Maed in India production.

Creative Director: Mae Mariyam Thomas

Project Manager: Shaun Fanthome

Producer: Nikkethana Kamal 

Recording Engineers: Lakshman Parsuram & Kartik Kulkarni

Sound Editor & Mix Engineer: Sarthak Ray 

This is a journey into the heart of change. 

Join us in reimagining the very fabric of sustainable fashion.

CREDITS:

Host: Kim van der Weerd

This is a Maed in India production.

Creative Director: Mae Mariyam Thomas

Project Manager: Shaun Fanthome

Producer: Nikkethana Kamal 

Recording Engineers: Lakshman Parsuram & Kartik Kulkarni
Sound Editor & Mix Engineer: Sarthak Ray

This episode takes you through the cotton value chain in the Indian context. Do check out our previous episodes on cotton – episodes 41 and 42, when Kim talked to Cannon Michael, a cotton grower in California, and in episodes 43 and 44 when she spoke to Crispin Argento about direct-to-grower cotton sourcing and traceability.

This episode is part of a mini-series that explains the production processes behind different fabrics, the players involved, what are their incentives, and more. It's hard to have a conversation about how to make a material better if we don't understand how it's made in the first place.

Connect with Rajeev on LinkedIn. And, get in touch with me on LinkedIn, or drop me an email at kim@manufacturedpodcast.com.

CREDITS:

Host: Kim van der Weerd

This is a Maed in India production.

Recording Engineers: Lakshman Parsuram & Kartik Kulkarni
Sound Editor & Mix Engineer: Kartik Kulkarni

Creative Director: Mae Mariyam Thomas

Project Manager: Shaun Fanthome

Producer: Husein Haveliwala

This episode is part of a mini-series that explains the production processes behind different fabrics, the players involved, what are their incentives, and more. It's hard to have a conversation about how to make a material better if we don't understand how it's made in the first place.

Take a look at the work Hilmond does with Bombyx at www.bombyxsilk.com. Connect with me on LinkedIn, or drop me an email at kim@manufacturedpodcast.com.

Kim recommends this article by Irna Hofman on silk production in Tajikistan.

CREDITS:

Host: Kim van der Weerd

This is a Maed in India production.

Recording Engineers: Lakshman Parsuram & Kartik Kulkarni
Sound Editor & Mix Engineer: Kartik Kulkarni

Creative Director: Mae Mariyam Thomas

Project Manager: Shaun Fanthome

Producer: Husein Haveliwala

This episode is part of a mini-series that explains the production processes behind different fabrics, the players involved, what are their incentives, and more. It's hard to have a conversation about how to make a material better if we don't understand how it's made in the first place.

Connect with Krishna on LinkedIn. And, get in touch with me on LinkedIn, or drop me an email at kim@manufacturedpodcast.com.

We’ve featured Candiani on the show on episodes:

• 16 - 13th October 2020 - Danielle Arzaga on Italian-made denim, biodegradability, and direct to grower cotton sourcing
• 17 - 20th October 2020 - Danielle Arzaga on why the Candiani denim mill decided to tell its own story
• 82 - 11th October 2022 - Manufactured x Transformers Foundation: Decarbonization – Perspectives from the denim supply chain (featuring Alberto Candiani)

CREDITS:

Host: Kim van der Weerd

This is a Maed in India production.

Recording Engineers: Lakshman Parsuram & Kartik Kulkarni
Sound Editor & Mix Engineer: Kartik Kulkarni

Creative Director: Mae Mariyam Thomas

Project Manager: Shaun Fanthome

Producer: Husein Haveliwala

This episode is part of a mini-series that explains the production processes behind different fabrics, the players involved, what are their incentives, and more. It's hard to have a conversation about how to make a material better if we don't understand how it's made in the first place.

Connect with Vijay on LinkedIn to follow his work. And, connect with me on LinkedIn, or drop me an email at kim@manufacturedpodcast.com.

CREDITS:

Host: Kim van der Weerd & Jessie Li

This is a Maed in India production.

Recording Engineers: Lakshman Parsuram & Kartik Kulkarni
Sound Editor & Mix Engineer: Kartik Kulkarni

Creative Director: Mae Mariyam Thomas

Project Manager: Shaun Fanthome

Producer: Husein Haveliwala

This episode is part of a mini-series that explains the production processes behind different fabrics, the players involved, what are their incentives, and more. It's hard to have a conversation about how to make a material better if we don't understand how it's made in the first place.

Connect with Marianne on LinkedIn to follow her work. And, connect with me on LinkedIn, or drop me an email at kim@manufacturedpodcast.com.

CREDITS:

Host: Kim van der Weerd

This is a Maed in India production.

Recording Engineers: Lakshman Parsuram & Kartik Kulkarni
Sound Editor & Mix Engineer: Kartik Kulkarni

Creative Director: Mae Mariyam Thomas

Project Manager: Shaun Fanthome

Producer: Husein Haveliwala

This episode is part of a mini-series that explains the production processes behind different fabrics, the players involved, what are their incentives, and more. It's hard to have a conversation about how to make a material better if we don't understand how it's made in the first place.

Connect with Sharon on LinkedIn. And, get in touch with me on LinkedIn, or drop me an email at kim@manufacturedpodcast.com.

CREDITS:

Host: Kim van der Weerd

This is a Maed in India production.

Recording Engineers: Lakshman Parsuram & Kartik Kulkarni
Sound Editor & Mix Engineer: Kartik Kulkarni

Creative Director: Mae Mariyam Thomas

Project Manager: Shaun Fanthome

Producer: Husein Haveliwala

Marzia Lanfranchi is the Intelligence Director of Transformers Foundation, an independent sustainable fashion consultant, and the founder of Cotton Diaries, a solution-based platform for cotton sustainability.

Elizabeth L. Cline is a freelance journalist who writes about environmental and labor issues in the global fashion industry.  She’s author of the critically acclaimed book Overdressed: The Shockingly High Cost of Cheap Fashion and The Conscious Closet: A Revolutionary Guide to Looking Good While Doing Good. She’s also played a big role in the PayUp campaign, and now the PayUpFashion campaign which we’ve referred to often on the show for its important work on purchasing practices. And she’s the Advocacy & Policy Director at Remake.

In this episode we talk about numbers. How should they be approached? How do we make space for context? How can we use numbers to tell more nuanced stories, instead of flattened ones?

Want to dig deeper ?

Read the full report: Cotton: A Case Study in Misinformation. 

Transformers Foundation is the unified voice representing the denim industry and its ideas for positive change. It was founded to provide a thus-far missing platform to the jeans and denim supply chain, and a central point of contact for consumers, brands, NGOs, and media who want to learn more about ethics and sustainable innovation in the industry.  For more on Transformers Foundation’s work follow along on LinkedIn or Instagram or tune into this episode with their founder (and Marzia!). 

Highly recommend checking out Sarah Mock, freelance rural and agricultural writer and researcher. She’s also the author of the book Farm (and Other F Words) and the newsletter Big Team Farms. Reading it is the highlight of my week – informative AND funny

Marzia Lanfranchi is the Intelligence Director of Transformers Foundation, an independent sustainable fashion consultant, and the founder of Cotton Diaries, a solution-based platform for cotton sustainability.

Elizabeth L. Cline is a freelance journalist who writes about environmental and labor issues in the global fashion industry.  She’s author of the critically acclaimed book Overdressed: The Shockingly High Cost of Cheap Fashion and The Conscious Closet: A Revolutionary Guide to Looking Good While Doing Good. She’s also played a big role in the PayUp campaign, and now the PayUpFashion campaign which we’ve referred to often on the show for its important work on purchasing practices. And she’s the Advocacy & Policy Director at Remake.

In this episode Marzia and Elizabeth explain a bit about their report, Cotton: A Case Study in Misinformation and why it was a project they wanted to take on. We then get into one of the myths about cotton that they debunk in the report, and their take on how this myth came to be so widely circulated in the first place. This takes us into some bigger questions like: what would make someone inclined to believe that the myth was true in the first place? What are the biases within information itself? How do we tell better, more nuanced stories? And who should be telling these stories?   

Want to dig deeper ?

Read the full report: Cotton: A Case Study in Misinformation. 

Transformers Foundation is the unified voice representing the denim industry and its ideas for positive change. It was founded to provide a thus-far missing platform to the jeans and denim supply chain, and a central point of contact for consumers, brands, NGOs, and media who want to learn more about ethics and sustainable innovation in the industry.  For more on Transformers Foundation’s work follow along on LinkedIn or Instagram or tune into this episode with their founder (and Marzia!). 

Highly recommend checking out Sarah Mock, freelance rural and agricultural writer and researcher. She’s also the author of the book Farm (and Other F Words) and the newsletter Big Team Farms. Reading it is the highlight of my week – informative AND funny

On the supplier side, I’m joined by Himond Hui and Lubeina Shahpurwala.

Hilmond is VP of VP of Bombyx and VP of PFG. PFG is a manufacturing company with factories across mainland China and Hong Kong, doing textile production, dyeing, weaving, cut and sew, and logistics – and a long history of producing for brands like Eileen Fisher. Bombyx is a subset of PFG. Their focus is on regenerative silk production. If you want to learn more about Bombyx, be sure to go back and check out these episodes.

Lubeina is a Partner at Mustang Enterprises. Mustang produces socks in India, both for the local market as well as export markets. Mustang is a rare women-owned manufacturing company focused on eco-friendly processes and products. They also wholeheartedly support ethical trade movements.

On the investor side, I’m joined by Johanna Schmidt, an Investment Strategist at Triodos Investment Management that’s really pushing the envelope when it comes to impact investing.

In this episode, part one of our chat, we lay the groundwork for the big questions. What, exactly, do Hilmond, Lubeina, and Johanna do? What is impact investing? How do impact investors decide what constitutes a good investment? Where does the information come from?

Want to dig deeper ?

Absolutely loved this thoughtful and easy-to-read three-part piece by Tariq Fancy – The Secret Diary of a ‘Sustainable Investor’ about how his thinking has “evolved from evangelizing ‘sustainable investing’ for the world’s largest investment firm to decrying it as a dangerous placebo that harms the public interest.”

If you want to learn more about Bombyx, be sure to go back and check out these episodes.

Learn more about the work Triodos Investment Management is doing generally here and their approach to the fashion industry specifically here. 

On the supplier side, I’m joined by Himond Hui and Lubeina Shahpurwala.

Hilmond is VP of VP of Bombyx and VP of PFG. PFG is a manufacturing company with factories across mainland China and Hong Kong, doing textile production, dyeing, weaving, cut and sew, and logistics – and a long history of producing for brands like Eileen Fisher. Bombyx is a subset of PFG. Their focus is on regenerative silk production. If you want to learn more about Bombyx, be sure to go back and check out these episodes.

Lubeina is a Partner at Mustang Enterprises. Mustang produces socks in India, both for the local market as well as export markets. Mustang is a rare women-owned manufacturing company focused on eco-friendly processes and products. They also wholeheartedly support ethical trade movements.

On the investor side, I’m joined by Johanna Schmidt, an Investment Strategist at Triodos Investment Management that’s really pushing the envelope when it comes to impact investing.

In this episode, part two of our chat, we get into the big questions. We start with certifications. How does Johanna decide which ones to look at? What do Hilmond and Lubeina think about this? Do they think it’s information that it makes sense for investors to be looking at?

We then open things up to an even bigger question: what do Lubeina and Hilmond want from the brands they produce for, and what role could impact investors play to support this? Hint: it has something to do with relationships and partnerships and fairness.

Want to dig deeper ?

Absolutely loved this thoughtful and easy-to-read three-part piece by Tariq Fancy – The Secret Diary of a ‘Sustainable Investor’ about how his thinking has “evolved from evangelizing ‘sustainable investing’ for the world’s largest investment firm to decrying it as a dangerous placebo that harms the public interest.”

If you want to learn more about Bombyx, be sure to go back and check out these episodes.

Learn more about the work Triodos Investment Management is doing generally here and their approach to the fashion industry specifically here. 

This is part two of my conversation with Hilmond Hui, VP of Bombyx and VP of PFG. PFG is a manufacturing company with factories across mainland China and Hong Kong, doing textile production, dyeing, weaving, cut and sew, and logistics and a long history of producing for brands like Eileen Fisher.

Bombyx is a subset of PFG formed in 2018. Their focus is on regenerative silk production and transforming the way silk is produced, traded and consumed. They’re on a mission to do everything from dirt to fabric and beyond.

In this episode, we talk barriers. If regenerative silk is so great, why doesn’t everyone do it? Was everyone within PFG on board with the idea of Bombyx from the beginning? What did getting the green light for this project take? And why did the push for Bombyx come from within rather than, as many might assume, from the brands for which they produce?

Want to dig deeper ?

Check out this episode with Danielle Arzaga about why Candiani has opted for biodegradability and regenerative production practices over recycling. Looking for a nuanced perspective on fashion’s latest buzz word?  Check out Sarah Mock‘s piece 80 Million Reasons Not to Pay for Regenerative Farming. Also recommend subscribing to her weekly newsletter.

Talking about regenerative agriculture also raises questions about sourcing models. Tune into our conversation with Crispin Argento about direct to grower cotton sourcing and this episode with cotton grower Cannon Michael.

Want to learn more about soil health? We learned a lot from this Wardrobe Crisis interview with Nina Marenzi. Which also led us this article in the Guardian by George Monbiot: “We’re Treating the Soil Like Dirt. It’s a Fatal Mistake, as Our Lives Depend on It”.

For a more uplifting take on soil health, check out the movie Kiss the Ground – available on Netflix.

Bombyx is a subset of PFG formed in 2018. Their focus is on regenerative silk production and transforming the way silk is produced, traded and consumed. They’re on a mission to do everything from dirt to fabric and beyond.

In this episode, Hilmond shares a bit about his entry point into the world of garment manufacturing writ large, the evolution of  PFG, and how this ultimately led to Bombyx. We then dive into the details: what does regenerative silk production mean? How does Bombyx approach it?

Want to dig deeper ?

Looking for a nuanced perspective on fashion’s latest buzz word?  Check out Sarah Mock‘s piece 80 Million Reasons Not to Pay for Regenerative Farming. Also recommend subscribing to her weekly newsletter. 

Check out this episode with Danielle Arzaga about why Candiani has opted for biodegradability and regenerative production practices over recycling. 

Talking about regenerative agriculture also raises questions about sourcing models. Tune into our conversation with Crispin Argento about direct to grower cotton sourcing and this episode with cotton grower Cannon Michael.

Want to learn more about soil health? We learned a lot from this Wardrobe Crisis interview with Nina Marenzi. Which also led us this article in the Guardian by George Monbiot: “We’re Treating the Soil Like Dirt. It’s a Fatal Mistake, as Our Lives Depend on It”.

For a more uplifting take on soil health, check out the movie Kiss the Ground – available on Netflix.

DXM is a local, on-demand manufacturing company that’s co-owned by different supply chain actors. There are five founding partners: Shahi Exports, Brandix, MAS Holdings, and Busana Group, and Carhartt.

In this episode we get into who the partners are, what the process for bringing together such massive competitors was actually like, what the fashion industry can learn from other industries, and what the social and environmental implications of the DXM model might be. 

[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.9.7″ text_text_color=”#424242″ text_font_size=”21px” text_letter_spacing=”1px” text_line_height=”1.4em” header_2_text_color=”#632036″ custom_margin=”||40px||false|false” custom_padding=”||40px||false|false”]

Want to dig deeper?

I published this some time ago, but given the themes of this episode, it seems like an appropriate time to bring it back: Why Shared Financial Risk is the Key To Radically Transforming the Fashion Industry.

Are you a manufacturer? Join for an exclusive, unrecorded, informal, supplier meet-up I’m organizing together with the Asia Garment Hub about the Sustainable Terms of Trade Initiative (the supplier led-call for minimum standards on purchasing practices) on Monday 8 November at 8AM CET / 1PM Dhaka / 2PM Phnom Penh / 3PM Hong Kong. Miran Ali will share a couple of updates, and the rest of the session will focus on Q&A. More information here.

DXM is a local, on-demand manufacturing company that’s co-owned by different supply chain actors. There are five founding partners: Shahi Exports, Brandix, MAS Holdings, and Busana Group, and Carhartt.

In this episode, part one of our chat, Matthew shares a bit about his family’s history in the world of fashion, and how that’s led to what he’s doing now. We then get into what, exactly, DXM does, and what the impetus for its founding was.

[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.9.7″ text_text_color=”#424242″ text_font_size=”21px” text_letter_spacing=”1px” text_line_height=”1.4em” header_2_text_color=”#632036″ custom_margin=”||40px||false|false” custom_padding=”||40px||false|false”]

Want to dig deeper ?

I published this some time ago, but given the themes of this episode, it seems like an appropriate time to bring it back: Why Shared Financial Risk is the Key To Radically Transforming the Fashion Industry.

Are you a manufacturer? Join for an exclusive, unrecorded, informal, supplier meet-up I’m organizing together with the Asia Garment Hub about the Sustainable Terms of Trade Initiative (the supplier led-call for minimum standards on purchasing practices) on Monday 8 November at 8AM CET / 1PM Dhaka / 2PM Phnom Penh / 3PM Hong Kong. Miran Ali will share a couple of updates, and the rest of the session will focus on Q&A. More information here.

This is part two of the conversation between three manufacturers and an activist.

On the manufacturing side, I’m joined by Jay Shroff of Fashion Panda – an India-based manufacturer of timeless loungewear and womenswear apparel, Amrin Sachathep of Atlantic Mills – a vertically integrated denim manufacturer primarily based in Thailand, and Suzanne Vétillart CEO of Boma jewelry. Boma also has its factory in Thailand. They produce for their own brand as well as for larger retailers.

On the activist side, we’re joined by Kate, the educator and activist behind Sustainable Outfits. Sustainable Outfits is a blog, Instagram account, and beyond.

In this episode, we cover two big questions.  First: overproduction. How would Suzanne, Amrin, and Jay like Kate to engage in conversations about overproduction? Second: we talk about the common practice of calling out brands. What do Jay, Amrin, and Suzanne think about activists and educators calling out brands? Is it helpful? How does it impact their businesses? And what does Kate think of their suggestions?

Want to dig deeper ?

Find out more about today’s guests: Jay Shroff of Fashion Panda, Amrin Sachathep of Atlantic Mills, Suzanne Vétillart CEO of Boma Jewelry (a certified B-corp) and Kate of Sustainable Outfits.

On the manufacturing side, I’m joined by Jay Shroff of Fashion Panda – an India-based manufacturer of timeless loungewear and womenswear apparel, Amrin Sachathep of Atlantic Mills – a vertically integrated denim manufacturer primarily based in Thailand, and Suzanne Vétillart CEO of Boma jewelry. Boma also has its factory in Thailand. They produce for their own brand as well as for larger retailers.

On the activist side, I’m joined by Kate, the educator and activist behind Sustainable Outfits. Sustainable Outfits is a blog, Instagram account, and beyond.

We cover a big question: what kind of information would Suzanne, Jay, and Amrin like to see Kate looking at when educating the public about the fashion industry?

Want to dig deeper ?

Find out more about today’s guests: Jay Shroff of Fashion Panda, Amrin Sachathep of Atlantic Mills, Suzanne Vétillart CEO of Boma Jewelry (a certified B-corp) and Kate of Sustainable Outfits.

Epic Group is a manufacturer of woven topics and bottoms, denim, and most recently, knitwear. The company is headquartered in Hong Kong, and produces across Bangladesh and Ethiopia. Vidhura is based in Sri Lanka.

In part one we covered some big questions: Why is Vidhura uncomfortable with science-based targets? What would just transition in the fashion industry look like? And how can we talk about environmental targets in a way that’s sensitive to context, to the particular? He proposes an approach rooted in a principle he calls “equal but differentiated.” We chat about why he thinks the current model will fail to have the impact we so desperately want to have, and what gives him hope.

In this episode we shift to the firm level: Given the importance of context to environmental target setting, how does he approach his work at EPIC? How does he balance short term goals with the need to have a broader, bigger picture, conversation? What’s been their process for setting targets? And how are they working towards these?

Want to dig deeper?

Learn more about Epic Group.

Of Carrots, Sticks, Cats and Mice – Reflecting on the Compliance Regimes in the Apparel Industry by Dr. Vidhura Ralapanwe.

Explainer: Why ‘differentiation’ is key to unlocking Paris climate deal by Sophie Yeo and Simon Evans

IPCC report 2021

Struggling to reconcile the industry’s need to set universal goals with sensitivity to the particular? As a scholar of human rights, I feel you. How to make universal ethical claims without steamrolling diversity? I’ve found Anna Tsing’s work very useful here and recommend reading her article Supply Chains and the Human Condition.

Epic Group is a manufacturer of woven topics and bottoms, denim, and most recently, knitwear. The company is headquartered in Hong Kong, and produces across Bangladesh and Ethiopia. Vidhura is based in Sri Lanka.

This week’s conversation is… a conversation about the conversation we’re not having. We begin this episode with some basics: what was Vidhura’s entry point into the world of fashion? And what does he do now? We then move into science-based targets, why they make Vidhura uncomfortable, and why he thinks they won’t get the industry we want to be in terms of reduced environmental impact. How could we do science-based targets in a way that’s sensitive to context, to the particular? And how can we talk about environmental targets in a way that won’t leave anyone behind? We close part one by exploring the alternative models that give Vidhura hope.

[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.9.7″ text_text_color=”#424242″ text_font_size=”21px” text_letter_spacing=”1px” text_line_height=”1.4em” header_2_text_color=”#632036″ custom_margin=”||40px||false|false” custom_padding=”||40px||false|false”]

Want to dig deeper ?

Learn more about Epic Group.

Of Carrots, Sticks, Cats and Mice – Reflecting on the Compliance Regimes in the Apparel Industry by Dr. Vidhura Ralapanwe.

Explainer: Why ‘differentiation’ is key to unlocking Paris climate deal by Sophie Yeo and Simon Evans

IPCC report 2021

Struggling to reconcile the industry’s need to set universal goals with sensitivity to the particular? As a scholar of human rights, I feel you. How to make universal ethical claims without steamrolling diversity? I’ve found Anna Tsing’s work very useful here and recommend reading her article Supply Chains and the Human Condition.

In this episode, part two, we get into the meaning of dialogue for Tchibo. What kind of dialogue does Gladys think supply chain actors should engage in? How does Tchibo strive to leverage its WE program to support dialogue? How did they overcome supplier reluctance to participate in the program? We also put some hard questions to Gladys, like how does Tchibo ensure alignment between purchasing and sustainability departments, and how do they address supplier concerns around price?

Want to dig deeper ?

Our episodes this week are thanks to our collaboration with the GIZ FABRIC. The FABRIC project is commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development and supports the Asian textile industry in its transformation towards fair production for people and the environment.

Gladys was a speaker on the eighth edition of GIZ FABRIC’s online seminar series called “Getting Through the Crisis Together: Asian Dialogues on Sustainability in the Textile and Garment Industry.”

Read Kim’s article: Women Sewing for Fabletics Face Gender-Based Violence: Social Compliance Audits Still Aren’t Working

We’ve also been loving the collaboration between Sourcing Journal and the New Conversations Project. Back in December 2020 they put forward a compelling piece arguing that social compliance audits have failed to deliver for workers. The piece relied on research that looked at over 40,000 factory labor audits over 12 countries and 12 industries. The number of violations found in labor audits “was almost unchanged between 2011 and 2018 across all countries and industries.”

Then, in early 2021, they put forward several theories as to why social compliance audits have failed to deliver for workers. This was followed up by a piece in April 2021 by a piece that goes into more details on the opacity theory.

Photo by Giorgio Grani

In this episode, part one of our conversation, we start with Gladys’s entry point into the world of sustainability as a social compliance auditor. She shares why her experience left her feeling that conventional approaches to sustainability were inadequate, and ultimately, led her to Tchibo.

Why does she think the Tchibo brand has been so willing to acknowledge the short comings of social audits? Why is dialogue the key to a more sustainable future? And what would it take for more brands to follow in its footsteps?

Want to dig deeper ?

Our episodes this week are thanks to our collaboration with the GIZ FABRIC. The FABRIC project is commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development and supports the Asian textile industry in its transformation towards fair production for people and the environment.

Gladys was a speaker on the eighth edition of GIZ FABRIC’s online seminar series called “Getting Through the Crisis Together: Asian Dialogues on Sustainability in the Textile and Garment Industry.”

Read Kim’s article: Women Sewing for Fabletics Face Gender-Based Violence: Social Compliance Audits Still Aren’t Working

We’ve also been loving the collaboration between Sourcing Journal and the New Conversations Project. Back in December 2020 they put forward a compelling piece arguing that social compliance audits have failed to deliver for workers. The piece relied on research that looked at over 40,000 factory labor audits over 12 countries and 12 industries. The number of violations found in labor audits “was almost unchanged between 2011 and 2018 across all countries and industries.”

Then, in early 2021, they put forward several theories as to why social compliance audits have failed to deliver for workers. This was followed up by a piece in April 2021 by a piece that goes into more details on the opacity theory.

Photo by Adam Borkowski

Vijay gives an overview of the leather production steps and situates Asiatan within that. Which parts of the process do they do? What’s their relationship with shoe factories? And what’s their relationship with brands?

Want to dig deeper ?

The FABRIC project is commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development and supports the Asian textile industry in its transformation towards fair production for people and the environment.

Vijay was a panelists on the fourth edition of GIZ FABRIC’s online seminar series. Learn more about GIZ FABRIC’s online seminar series “Getting Through the Crisis Together: Asian Dialogues on Sustainability in the Textile and Garment Industry.”

Learn more about the Leather Working Group and the rating system to which Vijay refers.

This overview by Common Objective offers an accessible beginner’s guide to the issues within the leather industry and the various initiatives out there seeking to reduce its environmental impact.

Want to learn more about the chemicals used in the fashion industry? We love this free and accessible ebook by Frank Michel, Executive Director of The ZDHC Foundation “Detoxing the Fashion Industry for Dummies”.

Photo by Kevin Menajang

We kick off with some context: Why are brands disconnected from cotton growers in the first place? And why does this matter? What are the all the steps that cotton goes through before it lands in a retail shop as a finished t-shirt? What’s the role of the merchant? What would it take to change the way cotton is sourced? Why is brands buying directly from growers such a radical idea?

We then get into a question that’s been on our minds for a while: if there’s a shortage of sustainable cotton (however that might be defined), why doesn’t this lead to higher prices for growers? How is risk and reward distributed across cotton supply chains?

Want to dig deeper ?

We recommend Empire of Cotton, a book by Harvard history professor Sven Beckert.

Check out Crispin Argento’s piece on why cotton won’t ever be sustainable until farmers are paid more.

Check out Elizabeth Cline’s piece for Another Tomorrow: The Controversy Over Cotton

Check out Cotton Diaries, a global community of people passionate about cotton and committed to making cotton supply chains more sustainable.

Photo by Carsten Vollrath

In this episode, we take a deep dive into tonlé’s design process. We look at how tonlé’s ownership structure shapes and enables a collaborative design process, and true co-creation between the sales side of the business and the production side of the business.

Want to dig deeper ?

Find out more about tonlé. Watch this video to learn more about tonlé’s zero waste process.

To learn more about the design process in more conventional production settings, check out our interview with Makala Schouls about her time working as a designer for a Bangladeshi factory.

Check out the data: Better Buying compiles extensive information about design and development, which they include as one of their seven key responsible purchasing practices. Here’s their deep dive on better design, development and calendar management.

What’s considered “high quality” isn’t natural, or inherent… it’s created. For an ethnographic deep dive into how notions of quality come into being, and are shaped by political, social, cultural, and economic forces, take a look at the book Tasting Qualities by Sarah Besky. Don’t let the fact that it’s about tea put you off… there are many insights that apply to the fashion industry’s approach to quality, too!

Photo taken by Hannah Tabert, provided by tonlé

In this episode we chat to Rachel about why tonlé does its own manufacturing, and what that’s meant for the company as they’ve grown… Particularly when it came to finding investors. Rachel shares how being a manufacturer made it difficult to get investors on board, and how she’s balanced the industry’s emphasis on short-term shareholder returns with her convictions about what sustainability requires.

Want to dig deeper ?

Find out more about tonlé. Watch this video to learn more about tonlé’s zero waste process.

Check out River Blue, a documentary about water pollution and the fashion industry.

Read the Fashion on Climate report by McKinsey.

Read Winners Take All: “The New York Times bestselling, groundbreaking investigation of how the global elite’s efforts to “change the world” preserve the status quo and obscure their role in causing the problems they later seek to solve. An essential read for understanding some of the egregious abuses of power that dominate today’s news.”

Photo provided by tonlé

Herman gets candid about how he balances his duty to safeguard the short-term financial health of Dakota with longer term goals, and how the company’s ownership structure supports him in this balancing act. He also zooms out, offering a broader view of what it would take for various supply chain actors to avoid “the prisoner’s dilemma”– whether between brands and suppliers, or between factory management and workers. And finally, we get into deflationary prices: how can suppliers continue to reinvent the ways they add value?

Want to dig deeper ?

Watch this Big Think interview with Nobel Laureate Eleanor Ostram – the first of only two women to win the Nobel Prize in Economics. She’s best known for her critique of the prisoner’s dilemma. Better yet, watch her full Nobel Prize lecture.

The legacy of Milton Friedman looms large over any conversation about how to define shareholder obligations. And although we don’t personally endorse his position, it’s worth engaging more deeply with the line of thinking that so profoundly shaped the world we’ve inherited. Of everything put forward in this essay, it’s this paragraph that gave us the most pause for thought:

“[Including social causes in a definition of shareholder obligations] amounts to is an assertion that those who favor the taxes and expenditures in question have failed to persuade a majority of their fellow citizens to be of like mind and that they are seeking to attain by undemocratic procedures what they cannot attain by democratic procedures. In a free society, it is hard for “good” people to do “good,” but that is a small price to pay for making it hard for “evil” people to do “evil,” especially since one man’s good is anther’s evil.”

Learn more about deflationary prices in the fashion industry.

The FABRIC project is commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development and supports the Asian textile industry in its transformation towards fair production for people and the environment

We also want to highlight that GIZ Fabric has a great online seminar series called “Getting Through the Crisis Together: Asian Dialogues on Sustainability in the Textile and Garment Industry.” Herman was a speaker on both the first and the tenth seminar within this series. All the seminars are free and available online, and we highly recommend checking them out.

Dakota working with HKRITA , photo provided by Dakota

Our main episodes focus on the STAR Network and its recent call for minimum standards on purchasing practices. But as with any good conversation, our chatting sometimes got a little off topic.

As a result, we have a short bonus episode for you. Miran shares more details about Bitopi Group, the manufacturing company he manages in Bangladesh. He also shares bit about the innovative sustainability projects Bitopi is leading, and how he’s overcome obstacles like access to financing and weak returns on investment.

Photo Johan Anblick

The STAR Network is the first inter-Asian network of producer associations, initiated with the support of GIZs FABRIC project. The network brings together representatives of the producing associations from Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Myanmar, Pakistan and Vietnam.

In this episode we talk to Miran about the origins of the STAR Network back in 2016. How did it come about? What was the process for getting it set up? How did they address supplier fears regarding collaboration? What kinds of issues were suppliers keen to collaborate on? And which issues are off limits?

Want to dig deeper ?

Learn more about the STAR Network.

The FABRIC project is commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development and supports the Asian textile industry in its transformation towards fair production for people and the environment.

Learn more about GIZ FABRIC’s online seminar series “Getting Through the Crisis Together: Asian Dialogues on Sustainability in the Textile and Garment Industry.” Miran Ali was a speaker on the first and the eleventh seminar within this series. All the seminars are free and available online, and we highly recommend checking them out.

Photo Giorgio Grani

We then get into their relationship with cotton farmers, and chat about why and how they’re supporting Indian cotton growers to improve their yield and quality.

And of course, it’s impossible to talk about cotton these days without also getting into what’s happening in China. Anant and Gauri offer their take on how that’s impacting Indian cotton, and how difficult traceability really is.

[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.9.0″ text_text_color=”#424242″ text_font_size=”21px” text_letter_spacing=”1px” text_line_height=”1.4em” header_2_text_color=”#632036″ hover_enabled=”0″ sticky_enabled=”0″]

Want to dig deeper ?

Find out more about Shahi Exports and their partnership on the SAP project with HKRITA.

Though we didn’t have a chance to talk about it in the interview, we’ve done our fair share of fan girl-ing over another project Gauri co-founded: SUSS. It’s a community and movement to drive conversations, build collaborations, and inspire action on sustainable fashion in India.

Learn more about farmer suicides in India.

Photo provided by Shahi Exports

This takes us into familiar territory, supplier leadership within the sustainability agenda. It’s a topic we also covered in episodes 14 and 15 when we chatted to Ariel Muller and Martin Su. Anant and Gauri share what they perceive to be the barriers to suppliers taking a leadership role within sustainability, and how they tackled these within Shahi. The result? Some pretty innovative social initiatives with a pretty attractive return on investment.

Want to dig deeper ?

Find out more about Shahi Exports, Good Business Lab, and the P.A.C.E. program.

Though we didn’t have a chance to talk about it in the interview, we’ve done our fair share of fan girl-ing over another project Gauri co-founded: SUSS. It’s a community and movement to drive conversations, build collaborations, and inspire action on sustainable fashion in India.

We loved this interview with Christian Smith about why brands favor conversations on environmental sustainability over social sustainability.

Did you know that major fashion brands make up a relatively small percentage of global market share?

McKinsey’s Fashion on Climate.

Find out more about the quota system and the Multi Fiber Arrangement.

This is part one of a conversation with Anant Ahuja and Gauri Sharma of Shahi exports, one of India’s largest garment manufacturers. We get into how, why, and when Shahi exports started taking on more and more of the production processes… from spinning yarn, to making fabric, to cutting and sewing garments for export, to logistics and design. And what does this mean for where they see Shahi’s future? Will they start selling direct to consumers someday too?

This takes us into familiar territory, supplier leadership within the sustainability agenda. It’s a topic we also covered in episodes 14 and 15 when we chatted to Ariel Muller and Martin Su. Anant and Gauri share what they perceive to be the barriers to suppliers taking a leadership role within sustainability, and how they tackled these within Shahi. The result? Some pretty innovative social initiatives with a pretty attractive return on investment.

Want to dig deeper ?

Find out more about Shahi Exports, Good Business Lab, and the P.A.C.E. program.

Though we didn’t have a chance to talk about it in the interview, we’ve done our fair share of fan girl-ing over another project Gauri co-founded: SUSS. It’s a community and movement to drive conversations, build collaborations, and inspire action on sustainable fashion in India.

We loved this interview with Christian Smith about why brands favor conversations on environmental sustainability over social sustainability.

Did you know that major fashion brands make up a relatively small percentage of global market share?

McKinsey’s Fashion on Climate.

Find out more about the quota system and the Multi Fiber Arrangement.

 

Photo provided by Shahi Exports

Edwin is currently CEO of the Hong Kong Research Institute of Textiles and Apparel. Prior to that, he worked in senior supply chain roles within companies like Walmart, Donna Karan, and Payless Shoes as well as an educator at the Wharton School and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology – to name just a few.

This episode picks up right where part 1 left off. If forecasts are moving away from past-oriented regression models, and if a rapidly changing world is making it harder and harder for brands to accurately forecast, what comes next?

Edwin shares his thoughts on predictive analytics, and how this will shape brand and supplier roles. This sets the stage for some even bigger questions, like: what will it take for brands and suppliers to take the long-term view? How do we get to a place where brands and suppliers behave more like they’re on the same team? How do we get beyond the transactional nature of brand-supplier relationships?

Want to dig deeper ?

The FABRIC project is commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development and supports the Asian textile industry in its transformation towards fair production for people and the environment.

Learn more about GIZ FABRIC’s online seminar series “Getting Through the Crisis Together: Asian Dialogues on Sustainability in the Textile and Garment Industry.” Back in November 2020, Edwin was a speaker on the eleventh seminar within this series, which aimed to tack stock of where the industry is now, more or less one year into the pandemic. All the seminars are free and available online, and we highly recommend checking them out.”

Watch this short introductory video about predictive analytics.

Though a bit outdated, this short article paints a helpful picture of how forecasting is changing in the fashion industry.

Find out more about the Hong Kong Research Institute of Textiles and Apparel.

“I helped create a unique upcycling system—but it won’t solve fashion’s waste problem” – we loved this article by Ronna Chao, Chair, Novetex Textiles Limited, and one of HKRITA’s partners.

Photo Rodolfo Clix

Edwin is currently CEO of the Hong Kong Research Institute of Textiles and Apparel. Prior to that, he worked in senior supply chain roles within companies like Walmart, Donna Karan, and Payless Shoes as well as an educator at the Wharton School and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology – to name just a few.

In this first part of our conversation, Edwin shares a bit of context about his own career and HKRITA, setting the stage for a reflective discussion about sustainability frameworks – which Edwin defines the shorthand we use to make sense of the world.

And speaking of frameworks, he suggests that making sense of supply chains requires thinking about them on three levels: physical, financial, and data. He shares why he’s most excited about the data supply chain, and why he thinks it has the potential to disrupt the industry.

We get into which data, exactly, he thinks will disrupt the industry. Where will it come from? How will different supply chain actors use it? What potential does it have for shaking up brand-supplier roles and relationships? And how will it intersect with and shape the way physical and financial supply chains evolve?

Want to dig deeper ?

The FABRIC project is commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development and supports the Asian textile industry in its transformation towards fair production for people and the environment.

Learn more about GIZ FABRIC’s online seminar series “Getting Through the Crisis Together: Asian Dialogues on Sustainability in the Textile and Garment Industry.” Back in November 2020, Edwin was a speaker on the eleventh seminar within this series, which aimed to tack stock of where the industry is now, more or less one year into the pandemic. All the seminars are free and available online, and we highly recommend checking them out.”

Professional Forecasters Have Been Getting It Wrong Since the Beginning – this article gives some great general context for the history of forecasting. Margaret Heffernen is the author of Uncharted, a book that explores how forecasting fails us and better ways of living, working and thinking in the face of uncertainty. We highly recommend checking out her Ted talk, too.

Read Kim’s piece on why shared risk is the key to radically transforming the fashion industry. Or watch a short animated video we put together about it.

Edwin refers to the bullwhip effect, and it’s pretty essential to understanding supply chains more generally. Watch this short illustrated video for a very accessible overview.

Find out more about the Hong Kong Research Institute of Textiles and Apparel.

Photo Tom Fisk

Want to dig deeper ?

Read Kim’s highly personal piece on her sometimes -contentious relationship with production staff and her conviction that singular narratives about worker-management relations fail us.

The truth is, our experience within the fashion supply chain has been full of ambiguity, or anecdotes and stories that seem to contradict one another. This journal article was particularly helpful for making sense of all.

Here’s a snippet: “supply chains…team with politically ambiguous, liminal figures, caught within the contradictions between varied forms of hierarchy and exclusion. I suggest that we pay attention to these figures, rather than rejecting them as flawed protagonists.” Don’t let the fact that it’s an academic piece put you off! It’s well worth the effort

A question on Jessie’s mind throughout this podcast has been: if one lives in a big city and can only afford a 5$ T-shirt, is there a way to shop sustainably? At first, Jessie tried to find technical answers to this question. But gradually, she concluded that doing sustainability affordably is less of a technical issue and more of a political one. It’s about inequality in a society – how wealth is distributed or centralized.

This left her feeling a bit helpless. But then she wondered: could looking back give a clue as to the way forward? Kim, having grown up primarily in the “West”, hardly remembers a time when her clothes weren’t made abroad. But in Jessie, having grown up in China, has seen the way she acquires clothes change immensely over her lifetime. So where did she get her clothes when she was a kid? Where did her parents get their clothes in the 1960s? Where did her grandparents get their clothes in 1940’s, in a mostly pre-industrial China? Though a single personal story will never give us all the answers, we hope that Jessie’s memories can be a tiny note of a reference for imagining the possibilities of a more sustainable future.

Want to dig deeper ?

One OpEd we read recently caught our attention: Could the solution to our sustainability challenges be de-materializing the fashion industry? What if the fashion industry stopped selling stuff? And if the fashion industry did manage to de-materialize, how do we ensure the vulnerable livelihoods associated with making stuff aren’t disproportionately affected? Is there an alternative to economic models based on growth?

We’re always up for the thought provoking pieces Elizabeth Cline puts out. Have you seen her latest piece on greenwashing? Her words: “…underneath all of the debate about greenwashing in fashion is a much bigger conversation. We’re not really talking about greenwashing; we’re talking about the future of life on this planet.”

Photo Balazs Fejes

This episode we want to address two questions... This is the first one that we’ve gotten from a lot of listeners outside the industry:

"As a consumer, it's sometimes hard to understand all the different steps that needs to happen and who usually does them. What part of the production process do you do? What kinds of raw materials do you need? And who do you sell to? Do you know where your raw material suppliers get their inputs from? What's your view on what consumers can/should do to shop more responsibly?"

Responses to Question 1:

One supplier responded: “Tough one...stop buying fast fashion! Honestly, I think to shop more responsibly means looking for quality and durability. It's not necessarily about finding the organic cotton, or a responsible supply chain. These are important. But lessening your purchases and holding on longer to what you do purchase will have a more lasting impact on the planet. From a social perspective, a sudden shift like this could mean loss of jobs for vulnerable workers in the supply chain. Yet, a sudden shift is unlikely and I do not think it would mean long-term unemployment. Rather a shift in economic productivity away from fashion, and perhaps towards more sustainable industries.

As for the steps required to produce a garment and who does them: Completely understand the sentiment being a consumer myself. It's why I believe in transparency. As a finished product manufacturer, we generally know our mill, dyehouses, and spinners. At least from our major fabric manufacturers. However, from our customer nominated fabric suppliers, who is doing what is a bit more opaque, especially if the end product is not going through our special finishing process. Our special finishing process requires us to work with the fabric mills to ensure the quality of the fabric for our finishing process. We also generally know the region where our raw cotton is coming from. We don't know exact farms or gins, but we know the region. What kind of raw materials we need depends on the product. Cotton a bit easier to trace. Polyester back to the oil well, probably impossible. Overall, we generally know where the material is from, but these supply chain routes can fluctuate day to day quite a bit, so mapping them for a single product can be more difficult.

Another supplier responded: “I'd rather propose a simple approach. Just ask: "Who made my clothes?" Demand to see the factory's name on Care Label. Shift the focus from glittery-media savvy topics like 'biodegradable'/'organic'/'eco-friendly' materials, and start considering the humans behind your clothes.

Does it really matter if your jeans saved 5 liters of water, while the factory employing 5,000 workers faced a discount on shipment? I remember Makala Schouls' interview (episode 7), where she put it very correctly that garments is a human industry and you cannot take the human factor out of it.”

Note from Jessie: In this context the word “discount” is used to refer to when brands ask their suppliers for a discounted price on an order. We’re not talking about discounts for the end consumer. To learn more about this we recommend going back to listen to episode 1, when Jessie shares about her time working for a third party inspection company. In it she explains how quality inspection reports were used as a kind of insurance – to tie factory performance to a brand’s sales performance.

Question 2:

The second question we want to address today is related to this week’s episode, released yesterday. In this episode we share part two of our conversation with Nurul Muktadir Bappy about why, if life as a garment factory owner is so tough, do people remain in the business? Why not quit? In the episode I also end up sharing quite a bit about my experience shutting down a garment factory in Cambodia. But we wanted to get insight from a few more voices.

Responses to question 2:

One respondent said: “I believe there's pretty contrasting reasons that suppliers stay in the industry. (Sorry if it sounds like I'm generalising, but its my observation)

1. First Generation owners stay because its the only industry they know since 30-40 years. So even though business may have become tougher over their tenure, they feel an obligation to their employee base to continue operations (of course they won't run business at a loss, but may be ok to run it at lower margins than 10-15 years ago).

2. Second-Third Generation owners are in the industry because they feel the supplier/manufacturer part of the equation is crucial to the success of a brand. Therefore they seek a more equal equation with their client.”

Another respondent said “I'm not a factory owner so I often wonder myself. Garment making used to be a money printing machine. This was during the quota era of textiles. At that time manufacturers had more leverage because it was all about quota. Those who had quota got the business and those who didn't lost out. This changed when the quota system ended. It opened up competition and ended up squeezing profits as new garment manufacturers entered the game. Yet, the profits made during the quota era have lasted for quite some time and allowed these business owners to probably place their money in the market or other ventures (i.e. diversify either their investment portfolio or businesses). I think we stay because we believe we are one of the best to do what we do and we are respected for this by our customers. This means customers still choose us because we offer good quality, but we know this can be fleeting. We can only stay in the game if we are considered to offer the best value for money, and we're trying define value in a more holistic way which includes sustainability.

Also, owners are competitive people. They want to win. Showing you are winning is getting business and making money. Having the right strategy to do this is crucial and at least our business sees sustainability as part of a winning formula. Time will tell. But no one wants to admit defeat and go out of business. There is still money to be made, and it's fun figuring out how to make that money.”

We turn to a question that, in many ways, is a subtle undercurrent running through many of our episodes: if life as a factory owner is so difficult, why do they remain in the business? Why not quit? And why, when and if a factory manager does decide to quit, do we usually hear about them shutting down in the middle of the night, totally abandoning their workers? This leads me to share my own experience shutting down a garment factory, and the challenges of trying to do this in a corrupt legal context.

But not all hope is lost! There are certainly some factories out there who are thriving. Bappy shares his thoughts on what’s different for these factories. The key ingredients we end up teasing out of those examples has to do with shared risk, and how critical this is to changing the incentive structures that govern supply chain relationships, and for nudging us towards partnership.

Want to digger deeper?

The question of how and whether garment factory owners exit the business is especially timely given the number of factory closures in the wake of Covid-19. According to this report by Business & Human Rights Resource Center on Cambodia, over 256 factories have suspended operations, affected more than 130,000 workers.

When factories do close (whether permanently or temporarily), female employees are disproportionately impacted. Check out the ILO’s recent report.

Photo by Suyab Ahmed

We talk to Bappy about why he decided to enter the fashion industry, and how the industry is perceived within Bangladesh. This brings us into much more conceptual territory about how, as a society and as an industry, we assign value to different types of work. We get into the disconnect between the glamorous world of fashion design and the blue-collar world of production, and how, as sustainability advocates, part of our task is to re-imagine how value is distributed and to elevate the makers of fashion.

We then get into Bappy’s time working with a manufacturer, and a feeling he describes as “seeing that he was on board a sinking ship but not knowing how to stop it.”

Though we have often looked at how an unequal distribution of risk and reward affects relationships between supply chain actors, in this episode take a slightly different angle: how does the broader context within which a factory operates impact the relationships and the dynamics within the factory itself?

Photo by Md Towhidul Islam

We received on supplier response after the episode was released, which we’d like to take a moment to share now:

“I know I'm late to provide a response, but wanted to share our experience with subcontracting. We have a policy against subcontracting. We won't do it by our own accord. However, some brands we work with demand we subcontract to a preferred/nominated facility where they can get a lower cost, such as embroidery, printing, or finishing. Yet, we are expected to carry out the due diligence on the subcontractor and perform audits. It's quite strange.”

This week the question we’re addressing has to do with global pandemic impact. The question is:

“What are things like for suppliers now 6 months after all the order cancellations? Have things gotten better, or worse?”

We’d like to start by sharing what we have seen happen to Pactics, our former employer. Initially, things were quite rough. Our main customer stopped calling off stock overnight, meaning our revenue turned off overnight. The company had to lay off some workers and reduce working hours. But since late spring, things are looking much better, and they are struggling to get enough staff on board. The company is on track to get in more revenue this year than last year, and that’s because of orders for face masks. The company is uniquely situated to address this demand because it’s specialized in digital dye sublimation, a printing technique that lends itself well to customization. So it can easily make the same mask printed with different designs and prints for different retailers. The owner of the company has said to us that he’s been amazed: for the first time in his life, none of his buyers care about price. The only thing they care about is lead time. The question of course is how long this extra demand will last, and how long it will take new producers to enter the market.

Another supplier said: “Six months later, if we only consider the cancellations, things are better. Many brands reversed their decision to cancel orders. But overall we are still not doing good. We talked a lot about change, owners came forward, workers raised voices and many discussed about the faulty supply chain processes. But, all's quiet now.

I have also heard stories of brands forcing their suppliers to be silent. For example, by only committing to solving issues if factories remain silent.”

Another supplier said: “Orders are still down for us. While we switched to some mask production for consumers this only partially helps the bottom line. We expect to end the year somewhere between 40-50% down in revenue from 2019, and we expect this to be case through 2021. The shift in people working from home has lowered the demand for work clothes, shifting to casual and atheleisure, which is not our forte. Also, since people are going out less, then our market research has pointed to much lower demand for new clothes in general. From my cynical sustainability perspective, less demand means less environmental impact, however, the socioeconomic cost of the pandemic is still hovering over the industry. If I assess whether I will still have a job in the near future, my uncertainty begins at about 3 months outlook. That being said our customers have increased their interest in sustainable materials and production. We have received more requests for what we can offer in these categories. From that perspective I think there is some glimmer of hope.”

And finally, another supplier said: “In general price there is even more price pressure due to lower demand. But in some areas price has improved where demand is more like knitting yarn. This is mainly due to change in consumer shift towards non formal wears where knitting fabric are much more used.”

One of those is the offshoring of manufacturing in the United States and Europe. Sure, there’s the simple narrative we often hear: the cost of labor got too expensive. This, combined with advances in logistics, technology, and certain trade policies, resulted in production being moved abroad and the long, complex supply networks we see today.

But we wanted to talk to someone who worked for a brand and experienced this transition to dig a little deeper. Which parts of the product development and production processes were brands responsible before the offshoring of production versus afterwards? How did this impact skillsets and knowledge of production processes within brands? And how has this shift in knowledge and skillsets affected price negotiations with suppliers?

Tara St. James is the wearer of many hats. She’s a founder at Resource Library - the United States’ first free-standing sustainable textiles library, owner and creative director of Study NY, a sustainable womenswear brand made in NYC, and an adjunct professor at FIT, Fashion Institute of Technology.

Perhaps counterintuitively, the starting point for all of these fabulous projects, and her own sustainability journey, was her first job working for a much more mainstream fashion brand – just as the industry was adjusting to offshore production.

Want to dig deeper?

Learn more about Tara’s made-in-NYC womenswear brand Study New York.

Read this article by Elizabeth Cline, published by the New Fashion Initiative, about ReSource Library - the United States’ first free-standing sustainable textiles library.

Photo by Ivan Karpov

This week, we take a deep dive into their production process. When you’re doing just one piece, who is responsible for sourcing and purchasing raw materials? Who is responsible for product development? How, exactly, does the production process work? How does OnPoint Manufacturing manage to produce efficiently and cost effectively when they’re only making one piece?

We then get into some broader questions. How does OnPoint Manufacturing’s approach differ to other manufacturers also seeking to quote-on-quote climb up the value chain? And how does producing just one of a given product affect the relationship between the manufacturer and the brand?

Want to dig deeper?

Check out this video about OnPoint Manufacturing.

Also founded by Kirby Best is Eloise.Fashion, which will officially launch in November 2020. Eloise.Fashion is a digital marketplace for the global fashion industry that provides apparel designers and brands access to the software, apps and suppliers needed to design and bring their products to market quickly, economically, and sustainably.

Photo provided by EloiseFashion

Question:

This week’s main podcast episode is based on an interview with Mr. Lin, a Chinese subcontractor based in Phnom Penh. In the episode, we question conventional wisdom that better oversight is what leads to better human rights outcomes for people working in subcontracted factories. Kim’s also penned an article to go along with it, that you can find a link to in the show notes for this week’s main episode. So we thought it would be appropriate to address a question about subcontracting in this week’s edition of Loose Threads too.

It’s a pretty simple question, but actually has a pretty complicated answer.

So without further delay, here’s the question:

“Why do suppliers subcontract?”

The first answer we got goes like this:

“Classic question! What happens is, normally, none of the brands occupies an entire production facility. We have seen 'compliant' factories with a capacity of 100,000pcs basic denim pants producing for as many as 11 different brands. Unless a factory combines brands, it is nearly impossible to maintain a smooth balance in production.

Timing is a challenge. When factory 'A' is in rush, the majority of market will be in rush. Moreover, when I'm working for a brand, I can't simply say no to additional 3,000pcs because my capacity is lacking. Even just 3% over my capacity…Seems doable, right? But multiply it by the number of all the brands and you are left with a huge chunk with almost identical delivery date.

Despite knowing the rush seasons, factories can NEVER plan ahead because the materials and accessories take time to finalize and we’re waiting for approval from brands. It’s normal to get the buttons of April's jeans approved in March. (Thanks to the vicious trend of 'Fast Fashion'!) Therefore, to meet the delivery, only way is to subcontract.

Only 'non-compliant' factories would have available capacity. The only job usually given to subcon is sewing-finishing-packing (not cutting). That means the subcon is not involved at all in the ordering and sourcing of raw materials and is only given a small time to sew and finish 3,000pcs goods. By 'small time' I mean 7-10 days (out of the whole order lead time 30-40 days, except shipping). How is it feasible to ensure 'rights of people' when the window is this little?

Probably factories would like to avoid subcontracting if they could: Subcontracting adds significant expenses (often more than the original prices). Then there are issues of quality, rejection and short-shipment.

Then there are other hurdles to complicate it even more: When a factory is having capacity issues, brands don’t support them to do the production elsewhere simply because it adds to brand's cost of following up one more factory atop existing ones. In terms of relationships, When a factory subcontracts an order, the brand also feels factory is giving it less priority.”

In the main podcast episode this week, On Subcontracting with Mr. Lin, Kim shared some of her own experiences with subcontracting. She makes the case that at the prices and lead times the industry expects, many suppliers depend on subcontracting to stay in business.

Fundamentally, the fashion industry (as it exists today) needs a workforce capable of cheaply expanding and contracting to cope with variable demand and the low prices the industry has come to expect.

To put it differently: the livelihoods of workers in better regulated facilities depend on the existence and persistence of more precarious livelihoods elsewhere in the supply chain.

This doesn’t mean that human rights abuses are justified, it means we need to address the way the fashion industry relies on cheaply flexible labor to cope with variable demand.

In response to this point of view, one supplier shared:

“I listened yesterday to the Podcast of Mr. Lin's story and I do want to share one other recent experience we have as a supplier. As we moved into the production of Facemasks (Fabric) we were confronted with a sudden and significant demand. We designed, tested and made the mask completely in house, so it was 'our' product.

That changed the whole game. We immediately had big orders from a couple of brands. we insisted on 50% pre-payment, no problem. At a certain moment we needed to outsource due to different circumstances and we communicated this with the brands. And they agreed, so all in full transparency.

So depending on the 'demand' and the power you have as a supplier in a certain circumstance with your product, the rules of the game can change easily and without a problem. Showing that this is a clear 'demand' driven behavior and we might have to come to the conclusion that in general there is also an oversupply of suppliers, thus creating the stage for brands to negotiate tough deals. Price and lead time are critical in this subcontracting, but the fact that it is a buyers’ market overall allows brand to force these conditions?”

We start the episode with some general context: What is subcontracting? Why does it exist? Next, we get into Mr. Lin’s story. How did he end up in Cambodia doing subcontracting? What kind of products does he make? How has Covid-19 impacted his business? And how does he see the future? We conclude by sharing our own thoughts about how the sustainability agenda might more effectively protect the rights of workers in subcontracted factories.

Want to dig deeper?

Read Kim's article On Protecting the Rights of Workers in Subcontracted Factories: How Sustainable Fashion Advocates Get It Wrong.

Is the decision to subcontract predictable? And if it is, does that means brands can’t claim ignorance when human rights abuses arise in production facilities they weren’t aware of? A new research paper tries to answer these questions by analyzing more than 32,000 orders placed by an Asia-based supply chain manager.

How to Make Use the Crisis to Make Fashion Sourcing More Agile and Sustainable – a McKinsey Report.

Learn more about Minor Feelings: An Asian American Reckoning, a book by Cathy Park Hong.

Photo Soroush Zargar

But Candiani denim has done just that. Last week we talked about Candiani’s rich history, their unique vertically integrated structure, and how this has enabled their pioneering approach to sustainability. Why have they opted for biodegradability over recycling? And how does regenerative agriculture and cotton sourcing strategies come into play?

All of this is important context for understanding the difficulty Candiani had in educating their customers (brands) about their approach to sustainability. Candiani realized that for people to understand what they were doing (whether brands or end consumers), they needed to tell their own story. Wary of cannibalizing their own market, they set out to brand the denim fabric itself.

In this week’s episode we explore Candiani’s journey to brand its fabric. How has it changed their communication with customers (brands)? How does the end consumer know whether they’ve got a pair of jeans made with Candiani fabric? Why did they decide to open their own retail outlet in Milan? And how has their customer portfolio evolved as a result?

Want to dig deeper?

We shared this last week too, but it’s just that good. If you haven’t already seen it, Elizabeth Cline’s piece “The Controversy Over Cotton” is an all-too-rare long form story offering a nuanced perspective on an issue often reduced to over-simplified sound bites. The photos are stunning too.

Did you know that Nike is about to launch a Denim Air Max? And that it will be made with denim from Candiani mills?

Learn more about Candiani’s biodegradable stretch denim.

Photo Trisha Downing

The question we’re addressing today is one that’s especially timely given the sweeping order cancellations the fashion supply chain has experienced in the wake of global pandemic, and the searing new report published by the Worker’s Rights Consortium and ECCHR about contract terms in the fashion supply chain – which we definitely recommend reading.

So without further delay, here’s the question:

“I would be interested to hear more about payment terms in the industry - how these have evolved over the years and what suppliers consider as "favourable/good" payment terms, i.e. that give them financial security.”

This was a question that prompted a lot of discussion, so instead of reading the answers separately we’re going to try and share snippets of the conversation.

One of the first suppliers to respond said: “I think we need more legal recourse and better contracts which level the playing field. The risk on the supplier side is paying upfront capital for goods or investments, which is paid for by future business. A proper legal structure where a supplier can easily sue a brand for breaking contracts could be a solution.

We need an international legal system with teeth. If one party knows a contract they sign isn’t meaningful and they can shirk their responsibility. Then of course signing anything is just a formality. If two businesses in the USA or Europe renege on a contract there is a clear legal recourse. The same can’t be said about international trade in other parts of the world. Here I think comparative trade theory is relevant but perhaps what is lacking from that discourse is comparative power balances.”

In episode 3 we actually talked about exactly this problem with factory owner Piet Holten. He describes how his customer, a brand, forced him to agree to new contract terms. He describes effectively being powerless: technically, he could have sued. But it would have bankrupted him. His customer knew that and took advantage of it.

Another supplier said: “We strictly do business with Letter of Credit or advance payment basis.”

Another responded: “I'd agree, some advance upfront is the best way (even if it's a small amount, say 10%). It has been historically successful in Bangladesh. Not only in terms of security, but factories go out of their ways to ensure future orders with such a customer.

But this respondent also adds: “The country's overall position plays a big role in setting payment terms. See, Letter of Credit is a legally binding contract. But what do we do when the brand wants to cancel an order and simply doesn't send authorized 3rd party inspectors to audit the goods? If we deny and goods don't go, it'd seem WE didn't "comply with Letter of Credit terms".

One might wonder why the factory's bank doesn't complain to the buyer's bank? But A poor country like Bangladesh never holds the upper hand in such situations. We have to willingly give in to the manipulation of foreign banks, otherwise risk our bank's other businesses.”

This is interesting too, as it resonates with a lot of what we explored in episode one of this podcast when we looked at Jessie’s time with a third-party inspection company.

Some suppliers took a slightly different angle for answering the question, and instead of focusing on the details of the terms, highlighted the need for suppliers to work together.

For example, one supplier said: “It will be a collective effort to show that IT IS a bad order term.”

Another respondent chimed in: “If another supplier takes the order then we lose out. Either the brands need to take responsibility for recognizing poor payment terms for their manufacturers, or manufacturers need a collective agreement to not accept such terms. I wonder if the latter could be considered monopolistic behavior...like a cartel (i.e. OPEC).”

Others were more skeptical of collaboration, saying things like:“A contract would mean competitors coming together. A legal agreement always needs Government's intervention. Brands would retaliate. Maybe by using unions to put pressure on Govt, as they fund the labor associations (it's happening in Bangladesh all the time).”

This respondent goes on to suggest a different kind of collaboration model: “Contrarily, I think of a more simplistic approach. See, open public review on Facebook has led customers choose the restaurant with the best review. A platform- where factories can do the same about brands- would bring similar outcome. Mostly, factories accept to work with 'popular' brands overlooking bad payment terms, because they think it's "all formalities" and lack information. Even in a sourcing office, we see different merchandising teams handling factories in different ways.

Is an owner really that stupid to work with a buyer that kills suppliers? No, he just doesn't know the brand's previous transaction history, or about certain corrupt employees of sourcing offices.”

The same supplier goes on to say: “When a potential competitor is approaching me, I wouldn't necessarily give the right information about brands. My admissions of brand's wrongdoings would be held against me. Also, there's no harm in misleading my contender, right?

So my personal opinion is that any collaboration has to be anonymous.

At this point, another supplier chimes in with still a different view, connecting audits to payment terms. The respondent says: “The auditing and the payment terms are in my view heavily connected. The auditing is a paper trail of CMY (cover my ass) but not intended to take real responsibility but forced upon the legal/compliance departments of the brands. Just to make sure that if anything goes bad, they can show that it is not 'them' but 'us'.

The same is for payment terms. For the bigger brands the complete ignorance of their responsibility to have indeed a good relationship with suppliers and thus also for the continuity and improvement of products and processes is manifest. We have seen this during the last months. We're working with payment terms for some of our customers far over 4 monhs after delivery. We can use factoring that costs us another fee because we need the money earlier than 4 months after delivery (working capital tied up 6-7 months).

Why are Brands not audited upon their performance in this area and only push this principle downstream. Be clear, I am not a big fan of Audits, but if we want to create a more equal playing field some accountability should take place, which includes the way the prices and payment terms are set. This is key in my view. The consumer will need an easy way to check how the brands are dealing with their suppliers, not only through he 'sustainable' talk through their websites.

Just thinking out loud: Suppliers could think about a 'ranking the stars' -'ranking the brands' a couple of criteria (payment terms, flexibility in volatile times, adherence to accepted standards and certificate s and not always having to do your 'own' audit, transparency about how they manage their supply chain to communicate to the outside world, how it is to work with that specific brand. I think suppliers will be conscious about contacting each other when getting potential orders form Brands. You might be in direct competition. That is the difficulty.”

In response to the conversation about ratings, someone else said: "I used to think ranking brands would help suppliers better choose their customer. I thought the Higg BRM would help this. Now working on the manufacturing side I’m less optimistic about such rankings. I think market for textile manufacturing is fairly saturated which means buyers' market. If there were more buyers than manufacturers then buyers would be competing with each other for manufacturing partners, rather than manufacturers competing for business. Maybe we need to bring back the golden age of the quota system "

And I think this thought from a supplier closes out the conversation quite nicely: “As always there is not one solution. Different approaches should be tried at the same time. I think the ranking is done by suppliers, but meant for consumers. The only way to influence brands is through consumers/directly effecting shareholders value. Brands are very aware of reputational risk. If suppliers collectively come to a system where the consumer can find out how the different brands deal with them and make that accessible, that could be useful. This should be 'anonymous' of course otherwise suppliers would be afraid to give the relevant feedback. And it should be verifiable at the same time.

And yes, a supplier network is another thing that could work and should be explored. Suppliers are most of the time lone wolfs in the desert, trying to get some shelter, but with hardly anybody recognising their dilemma's and risks. Suppliers have no access to the 'individual' customer, so this is what needs to be organised.”

Want to dig deeper?

If you haven’t already seen it, Elizabeth Cline’s piece “The Controversy Over Cotton” is an all-too-rare long form story offering a nuanced perspective on an issue often reduced to over-simplified sound bites. The photos are stunning too.

Interested in learning more about direct-to-grower models for cotton? Crispin Argento is founder of the The Sourcery, a new platform connecting growers directly to brands.

Want to learn more about soil health? We learned a lot from this Wardrobe Crisis interview with Nina Marenzi. Which also led us this article in the Guardian by George Monbiot: “We’re Treating the Soil Like Dirt. It’s a Fatal Mistake, as Our Lives Depend on It”.

For a more uplifting take on soil health, check out the movie Kiss the Ground – available on Netflix.

Photo Lan Deng Quddu

We ask a lot of big questions: What’s the difference between value chains and value networks? What are the different ways of creating value? How does this framing help us think about ways of creating trust? And within the context of Covid-19, what’s the role of various players within these networks – from brands, to suppliers, to consumers, and government – to ensure we emerge ready to drive deep transformational change?

Ariel is based in Singapore and is the Managing Director for Asia at Forum for the Future. Forum for the Future is a leading international non-profit working with business, government and civil society to solve complex sustainability challenges.

Martin is the Head of Sustainability for Yee Chain International. Yee Chain International is a family owned and managed manufacturer of high-quality performance fabrics and neoprene rubber foam for globally recognized footwear brands. Founded in 1997 in Taiwan, Yee Chain International now operates in Taiwan, China, Vietnam, and Indonesia.

Image from Forum for the Future

Want to dig deeper ?

Anyone out there read “The Mushroom at the End of the World” by Anna Tsing? Kim needs someone to talk to about it. Going to go out on a limb and say that it should be required reading for anyone working in supply chains.

Value, Unchained, a report by Forum for the Future.

Read the full Circular Leap Asia report.

Photo Waldemar Brandt (left), Adam Borkowski (right)

Answer #1: It really depends on what is meant by compliance issues. In my experience, 99% of the time the "compliance issue" is something unique to the audit program, it's something fairly minor and easy to fix. But if we are talking about egregious compliance issues still being found, like forced labor, then it's because there are bad apples out there who are intentionally trying to flout the law, or do not hold the same values as their brand partners. This is why it's important as a brand to get to know the supplier before starting business with them. Not enough time is spent doing this. Perhaps if the brand had more trust in the suppliers because they knew them well enough then there is less of a need for audits. I think what feeds the audit system is that brands are unable to establish meaningful relationships with their suppliers because of the number of suppliers they are doing business with.

Second, I don't think I have ever been in an audit where some issue isn't found. The audit mentality is a "gotcha" system. The auditor must find something. It's their job. In my opinion the auditor must find something on every audit, otherwise people may wonder if the auditor was doing their job or there was bribery.

Another challenge is many audit programs are very prescriptive and every brand has their own prescription. For example, how much space should go between production lines, where should fire extinguishers be placed, how much overtime is allowed, environmental impact targets, etc. This then makes it hard for manufacturers to make everyone happy. If we tried, we would spend all of our time preparing for audits.

We'd rather set our own stringent internal standards benchmarked to international best practices, and follow these. In the end these duplicated efforts by brands don't offer incentives for manufacturers to take ownership of their own impacts. What incentive do manufacturers have to push the needle when a brand may disagree with our approach if it doesn't meet certain prescriptions in their audit program. If any issues are found, it's easier to create a "quick fix", show the evidence, pass the audit, and go back to how we were doing things. Plus, many times auditors have different interpretation of the audit criteria under the same program. A practice that was fine one year is then a problem the next. The program didn't change, just the auditor. There are many examples of this happening.

Answer #2: let me give an insight from Bangladesh a country with a lot scandals of labor rights violation (credit to our dysfunctional union system, but that's another story). Compliance here has always been a 'posh' kinda job. You are all suited up, take a tour around the floor, interview random workers with great showmanship, dive into old salary sheets like an FBI investigator and then write a disastrous report while eating fresh fruits inside the best decorated room. It’s been designed this way where auditors are applauded based on number of findings, not status of improvement of said factory!

The compliance process is messed up, it's all publicity and little impact. Lots of interrogation, zero field work. Giving advice or finding faults from outside is easy. Being a part of the process and helping to find solutions is needed, but never done. If we really want a change, we need to involve brands in their supply chain. Perhaps, by paying for their raw materials. That changes the entire narrative; because then the brand becomes invested in shipping the goods to get a return on their investment, as well as maintain compliance since their name is at stake. However, when manufacturers finance all the risk, brands can simply back out at their sweet will.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

Over the last four months we’ve heard a lot about the challenges suppliers within the fashion supply chain face in terms of driving the sustainability agenda forward. But this week we focus on a new angle we haven’t talk about much before, and that’s mindset. How do we shift supplier mindset from simply executing a brand’s demands, to leading the conversation? And how do we do this in a way that doesn’t reduce the challenges to suppliers’ face to mindset alone?

Ariel is based in Singapore and is the Managing Director for Asia at Forum for the Future. Forum for the Future is a leading international non-profit working with business, government and civil society to solve complex sustainability challenges.

Martin is the Head of Sustainability for Yee Chain International. Yee Chain International is a manufacturer of high-quality performance fabrics and neoprene rubber foam for globally recognized footwear brands. Founded in 1997 in Taiwan, Yee Chain International now operates in Taiwan, China, Vietnam, and Indonesia.

Image from Forum for the Future

[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version="4.6.1" text_text_color="#424242" text_font_size="21px" text_letter_spacing="1px" text_line_height="1.4em" header_2_text_color="#632036" hover_enabled="0" sticky_enabled="0"]

Want to dig deeper ?

Sign up for Forum for the Future’s free webinar about Circular Leap Asia and learn about insights from the project’s manufacturing partners. Hurry, it’s TOMORROW!

Read the full Circular Leap Asia report.

Photo Waldemar Brandt (left), Adam Borkowski (right)

This week we turn to Hansika’s conviction that sustainability in the fashion world requires a systems lens. We start by talking about what systems change means to Hansika. Next, we get into some concrete examples of what systems change looks like in Hansika’s current role with Forum for the Future. And finally, we ask: if systems change resonates, where does that leave the individual? Should we just throw up our hands? Where do the individual and the system intersect? And what can we, as sustainable fashion advocates, actually do?

Photo Johan Anblick

Want to dig deeper ?

How can we harness the radical disruption presented by today’s crisis to drive a truly sustainable, just and resilient future? Watch this recent webinar from Forum for the Future.

Interested in learning more about the work of Nobel Laureate Elinor Ostrom? Watch this Big Think interview. Read more about Rationality and Complexity in the Work of Elinor Ostrom. Or discover the Tragedy of Commons: How Elinor Ostrom Solved One of Life's Greatest Dilemmas.

Or check out this introductory video to system change by the Donella Meadows team.

Interested in learning more about Hansika's work with Forum for the Future? Check out this Cotton Up webinar on how to source sustainable cotton. Learn more about Cotton 2040 and Circular Leap Asia.

Read Kim's full thoughts on a recent New York Times investigation into forced labor in fashion supply chains, and why systemic framing really matters.

Photo Atharva Tulsi (left), Handy Wicaksono (right)

Next week we’ll share part 2 of this episode, digging into how Hansika became an advocate of systems change, what systems change even means, and her current work with Forum for the Future.

Photo Johan Anblick

Want to dig deeper ?

Interested in learning more about the role of a Merchandiser? Check out episode 002 to hear about Jessie’s time working as a Merchandiser for a French brand in China.

Read Kim’s thoughts on sustainable fashion’s language problem and why we must push brands to look inward.

Photo Varun Tandon (left), Atharva Tulsi (right)

So, what does someone leading sustainability for a manufacturer actually do? The manufacturer for which Matthew works has numerous production facilities. He shares how his strategy has shifted away from prescriptive, top-down approaches, in favor of giving production facilities ownership over their own sustainability stories.

Throughout season 1 of this podcast, we’ve repeatedly heard about suppliers leading the push for sustainability and trying to convince brands to change their behavior. The manufacturer for which Matthew works is no exception. A big part of Matthew’s job is educating customers, brands, about what sustainability means. He shares the challenges of educating marketing departments about the technical, mundane, and unglamorous sides of sustainability.

On the one hand, Matthew’s role as distributor of sustainability knowledge from the bottom-up is a critical piece of better educating sustainability professionals, and by extension, consumers. But having brands tell the story of their supply chain also reinforces the narrative that the brands are the ultimate owners of what happens in sustainability, incentivizing sustainability models focused on surveillance and control.

So how do we move away from sustainability models focused on surveillance? Have we industrialized the practice of sustainability? Matthew shares how resilience thinking has shaped his view of what a more effective model for sustainability might look like. Ecological resilience, as defined in a 2004 article in Ecology and Society by Holling, Carpenter, and Kinzig, is the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks." How can we do a better job of sharing the narrative, delineating who is responsible for what, and become more resilient?

Photo Photo Pixabay from Pexels

Want to dig deeper ?

According to resilience thinking, the way to maintain the resilience of a system is by allowing it to probe its boundaries.

Could the many layers of crisis within the fashion industry today be cause for optimism? Are we in the process of probing our own boundaries? Is the pain and discomfort we’re experiencing necessary for understanding the feedback loops within our industry? And could that understanding be the key to creating a fashion system that organizes in the way that we want it to?

If like us, you’re feeling a bit overwhelmed, we highly recommend taking ten minutes out of your day to watch this short introductory video. If you want to go deeper, learn more about anti-fragility and resilience thinking. Or read Matthew’s own musings on the questions sustainability advocates need to be asking themselves, including whether we’ve industrialized sustainability.

Speaking of discomfort, we’ve also been reflecting quite a bit on the role of racism within the sustainability agenda. If we’ve benefited from race, class, or gender privilege: what are our implicit biases? How have we built these into our sustainable fashion solutions, policies, and institutions? In her most recent article, Kim explores these questions by reflecting on her personal journey with the title “Garment Factory Manager”.

During this episode we refer to a number of standards and acronyms. Learn more about GOTS, Blue Sign, and SA8000.

Did you know, one in six people worldwide work in the fashion supply chain?

Photo Kelly Sikkema (left), Stijn Dijkstra (right)

Green Design Link supports a community of over 1000 knitters in Peru. Knitters aren’t directly employed by Green Design Link, instead Green Design Link works with a network of small business leaders who directly manage the relationship with knitters. Historically, Green Design Link has been a producer for other brands. However, they recently decided to start their own in-house brand called The Endery.

We chat about why Green Design Link decided to create its own in-house brand. To our surprise, the impetus for this transition was deadstock and pre-consumer waste. We explore the barriers manufacturers face in selling directly to end consumers, and what positioned Green Design Link to make this leap.

Kelly and Ellen share quite a bit of detail about how the relationship between Green Design Link and its knitters is structured, how the risk and reward is distributed, and the kind of relationship they’ve managed to establish.

Inevitably, this takes us into social compliance. We look at the tension between mainstream models for social compliance, and how these do or don’t fit within Green Design Link’s production model. And what the implications are for thinking about how we might integrate artisanal production into more conventional fashion supply chains.

Photo provided by Green Design Link

Want to dig deeper ?

Learn more about Green Design Link and the Endery.

Interested in learning more about zero waste production? Check out this Huffington Post video featuring Tonlé, a pioneer in zero-waste production techniques.

Learn more about why textiles are so difficult to recycle. 

Check out Reverse Resources, a trading platform for pre-consumer waste.

Check out this great investigative piece on social compliance auditing by Maria Hengeveld.

Learn more about the remarkable fall in China's suicide rate (especially among women) as a result of formal employment opportunities, and the accompanying financial independence. 

Photo provided by Green Design Link

You might be wondering, why would a garment factory in Bangladesh employ a designer? Isn’t that the job of the brands? Yes, historically it was. But this is changing. So is this a way for factories to move up the value chain and reclaim some of their power at the negotiating table? Or are factories just being saddled with more and more costs without increased compensation?

We also get a bit technical: what makes a pair of jeans sustainable? Where does the drive for more sustainable production come from? Who has responsibility for educating the consumer? And how could we transform the way we talk about transparency within sustainable fashion spaces to make it a more effective tool of consumer education?

Photos Lan Deng

Want to dig deeper ?

Interested in learning more about the role of transparency in consumer education? Kim has written a series of articles on this topic over the last few months. She explores how transparency inadvertently leads to sustainability solutions focused on control. Why equal partnership a better alternative. And how can Fashion Revolution's Transparency Index be changed to support equal partnership.

Looking for a good reference guide to sustainability-related terms? Makala recommends this one from Vogue and this one put together by Tencel.

Tencel has also hosted a webinar with a Pakistani denim mill about sustainability in light of Covid. Watch it here.

Makala also recommends these resources from Cotton Works on denim finishing, this article on the environmental cost of jeans, and Fashion Revolution’s article on the future of denim.

Looking for a less technical overview of sustainable denim options? Check out this recent article published in the Guardian.

And finally, interested in sustainable cotton options? The sustainable cotton landscape can get quite confusing. The Textile Exchange provides a great overview of the differences between the many cotton accreditations out there.

Photo Waldemar Brandt (left) / Makala Schouls (right)

She’s part of a growing group of university educated young South East Asians passionate about sustainability and working within the fashion industry. She started her career working for a major logistics company, which is what we covered in last week’s episode.

This week, we’re lucky enough to get to chat to Kim again, this time about her time working for a buying office as a Quality Production Leader. The brand for which Kim worked had an unusually close relationship with the factories producing their goods – which, we should note, were not owned by the brand. We look at the conditions that facilitated this quite transparent and close relationship – like the contract terms, the sharing of certain financial risks and even the technical nature of the products being produced.

But while we see quite a positive example of a relationship between brand and factory management on the one hand, we also hear about Kim’s struggle to mediate and improve the relationship between factory management and workers. We consider what strategies brands could take to be more effective in this space, and the complex relationship between purchasing terms, the pressure to reduce costs, and sustainability goals.

We learned so much from this conversation and are so excited to share it with you.

Photos Waldemar Brandt

Want to dig deeper ?

Want to learn more about how contract terms and purchasing practices shape the relationship between suppliers and brands?

Read co-host Kim’s piece about the urgency of addressing purchasing practices in Common Objective.

Or, read Better Buying’s recently released report on the minimally acceptable payment terms and standards.

Interested in learning more about Chinese owned and managed garment factories operating outside of China?

This article in the Chinese Daily gives a good overview.

But for more in-depth insight, check out this nuanced perspective on Chinese approaches to management published in Harvard Business Review. It’s a must-read for sustainability advocates seeking insight into how to engage with Chinese factory management.

And finally, if all this social distancing means your movie watch-list is getting low, we highly recommend the critically acclaimed Netflix documentary American Factory. Though not specific to the garment industry, this documentary offers rare and nuanced insight into a Chinese manufacturing company setting up shop in the United States.

Photo Kim van der Weerd (left) / SinAbrochar (right)

She started her career in the fashion supply chain working for as a Sea Freight Export Operator for a major logistics company responsible for organizing the transport of finished garments made in Cambodia to their final destinations around the world.

Have you ever thought about the complicated process of moving goods all over the world? Through Kim’s experience, we gain a much deeper understand of why freight forwarders exist and what they actually do – especially in contexts where brands do not have buying offices on the ground in a given production country. We also examine the importance of INCOTERMS, the terms which define at which point in the transportation process the seller (factory) bears the costs and risks and at which point these are shifted to the buyer (brand).

On time delivery was an important theme that came up in our first two episodes when Jessie shared about her experiences with a third-party inspection company and as a Merchandising Manager. Today, we return to this theme and explore how complicated it can be to locate responsibility for on-time delivery and the role of the forwarder in this picture.

We learned so much from this conversation and are so excited to share it with you.

Photo by Andy Li on Unsplash

Want to dig deeper ?

Our episode this week mainly focuses on the relationship between forwarder, factory and brand and the impact this can have on partnership, and therefore sustainability, throughout the fashion supply chain. It’s an oft overlooked piece of the sustainability puzzle. Most of the information available, and therefore most of the links we provide below, focus on the environmental impact of shipping and logistics within the fashion industry.

Read Good On You’s brief overview of shipping’s environmental impact within the fashion industry.

Want to understand more about INCOTERMS? Watch this short 3 minute explanatory video.

Kuehne+Nagel is one of the world’s largest logistics companies. They recently extended their 2030 net-zero carbon goal to include suppliers, contractors. Read about their approach here.

Read Clean Technica’s take on a new research center focused on de-carbonizing shipping.

Learn about H&M’s plans to reduce their carbon footprint through partnership with Maersk’s Eco Delivery Program.

Read the Clean Cargo Initiative’s 2019 report.

Photo by Tobias A. Müller on Unsplash

Photo by frank mckenna on Unsplash

First we will take a close look at how efficiency is defined, set and executed. Efficiency refers to the time each step takes within the production process. Managed responsibly, it can be an essential tool for equal partnership with production operators, from whom management can gain valuable and first-hand insight. It’s also about engineering the working environment to make it more human oriented, finding ways of reducing raw material waste, and reducing water and electricity usage. Whether efficiency is a tool of sustainability depends on how we approach it.

Second, we look at how the diverging interests between brands and suppliers can make them head in opposite directions, creating tension between efficiency and productivity. On the one hand, brands require competitive buying prices. An abundance of easily replaceable suppliers at a similar price and quality level is probably a welcome reality.

On the other hand, factories do their best to remain competitive and to be irreplaceable. Efficiency improvements can be a key tool for achieving this: faster means lower cost, more output, more capacity and being less replaceable. But the key to efficiency resulting in more productivity is stable demand.

Productivity can be defined as the amount of finished goods a factory produces divided by the number of people that it has. It is measured as output per labor hour. When a factory is dealing with unstable demand and low order volumes, the connection between efficiency and productivity can be inverted.

For example, if you have demand for only 1 shirt, and you break it into 20 steps and assign 20 people to make it. Each step was fast, but when the first person is doing that 1 small step, the rest 19 people just sit idle there waiting for the piece to be passed down. In this extreme example, being more efficient at each step does not equal more productivity. A better financial choice in this extreme situation would be to have only 1 person making the whole shirt, even though each step is not optimized (takes more time), and let the rest 19 people go home.

This example shows how important it is for the output rate to match market demand, otherwise the benefits earned from optimizing efficiency will be lost very quickly and the chances of it being done irresponsibly also increase. If stable demand is important for being able to deploy efficiency responsibly, and if it’s so important for factory management, what does that mean for the way we approach sustainability?

Chathu shares abundant technical details that help us define efficiency, productivity, volume and stable demand, and bring to life how those ideas connect to one and another, and affect sustainability goals.

Photo provided by Pactics

Want to dig deeper ?

We strongly recommend reading two books, if your job involves communicating with manufacturers, or if you would like to be able to have more informed conversations with them about production.

The first is The Goal by Eil Goldratt, best known for introducing the theory of constraints. It's an easy, quick, engaging read. We promise, you won't fall asleep... and you'll be sure to impress your manufacturer colleague at your next meeting.

The second is The Toyota Way, an in-depth case study of Toyota and the principles of lean manufacturing the company developed. We know, it has nothing to do with garments. But we promise, you'll be much better positioned to talk to you manufacturing colleagues within the garment industry if you read this book!

Though we really encourage listeners to read both books, we know not everyone has time for that. This short video gives some very simple and easy to understand examples of the relationship between efficiency, productivity, and demand. Don't be put off by the technical words in the video title!

And this short video explores the quickest way to empty a bottle of water. Though it's a totally different context, it shows how important design and engineering is to efficiency and process optimization.

Photo Ksenia Chernaya (left), Wallace Chuck (right)

If you stick with us until the end, we’ll debrief a bit about some of the important themes that come up. For example, what lessons can sustainable fashion advocates draw from Piet’s decision to build his factory in the provinces instead of the city?

And how does the common practice of designating supply chain partners risks or liabilities to be minimized instead of assets in which to invest pose a challenge to equal partnership?

Piet shares some of his experiences dealing with highly specialized decision making within brands and the tension between purchasing and sustainability departments. We’ll share some of our own experiences with this as well, and try to find a constructive frame for talking about the problem.

Piet also shares quite a bit about his role in financing the cost of production for his customers. Even going so far as to call himself a bank. We’ll unpack in a little more detail what this means, and how it ties into a potential shift in perspective from supply chain partners as liabilities to supply chain partners as potential assets.

Piet’s story certainly gave us a lot to think about, and we hope you enjoy it too.

Photo Kim van der Weerd

Want to dig deeper ?

• Learn more about Luxottica from John Oliver

• Learn more about how apparel brand purchasing practices drive labor abuses from Human Rights Watch
• Check out this great investigative piece on social compliance audits by Maria Hengeveld
• Read more about Pactics in the New York Times and the Guardian, or on their website
• Check out Kim's piece about how the drive to reduce risks within brands poses barriers to sustainability