When launching a new brand, it’s easier to establish your philosophy for making product from the outset, rather than a couple of years in when you’re in the frenzied cycle of designing, manufacturing, and selling product. Starting intentionally allows founders to really ponder and decide what transparency and circularity goals the business should have for its raw materials and factory base. If a brand doesn’t think about these matters when they are starting out, it will be very challenging—and likely more expensive—to pivot and imbed sustainability at a later point. The most significant hurdle is obviously cost, because once your margin is set you cannot reduce it.
NEW YORK – When launching a new brand, it’s easier to establish your philosophy for making product from the outset, rather than a couple of years in when you’re in the frenzied cycle of designing, manufacturing, and selling product. Starting intentionally allows founders to really ponder and decide what transparency and circularity goals the business should have for its raw materials and factory base. If a brand doesn’t think about these matters when they are starting out, it will be very challenging—and likely more expensive—to pivot and imbed sustainability at a later point. The most significant hurdle is obviously cost, because once your margin is set you cannot reduce it
Some key points Angora Group likes to consider when launching a brand:
- Does the brand want to focus on recycled fibers, tier 3 suppliers? Or upcycle existing materials, (tier 2 suppliers)?
- Will the goal be to limit fabrics to only plant-based fibers that are responsibly farmed?
- Is regenerative agriculture essential to the supply chain? Because mission goals include improving soil and biodiversity, while reducing the use of chemical and pesticides on the land where raw materials are produced.
- What will be the parameters with respect to animal-based fibers and other raw materials?
- As a brand, will the desire be to design for circularity, making product easier to disassemble at end-of life? Will products be made out of mono-materials?
- What about the factories that are sewing the garments or assembling the bags, the tier 1 suppliers? Is the goal to pay their workers a fair living wage?
All decisions that go into establishing a brand’s supply chain and the process steps for creating the product can be evaluated by one or more organizations or groups. These entities provide certifications that then can be touted by the brand once obtained. However, the problem with this is that there are way too many certifications, and the aggregate cost for these is often prohibitive for a new brand. Fashion United attempts to outline all the different certifications that currently exist; it’s an overwhelming list.
We believe that one global governing body is needed to oversee the governance of each organization providing certifications. This global agency would need to determine what the governing rules should be for each membership organization and would need to audit each entity on a regular basis. This global body could then help a new brand determine what essential 2-3 certifications it would need in order to launch responsibly. Most importantly, this governing body could create and maintain a grading system for each certification, so that a brand can have a running tally as it improves in its supply chain and processes.
An example entity that manages a grading system is the Sustainable Apparel Coalition, which created the Higg Index in 2012. Its apparel and footwear members have a rating system that operates through self-assessments for environmental and social sustainability across each of their supply chains. There has been a great deal of controversy since 2022 surrounding the Higg Index, with criticisms relating to non-transparency and assessments based on poor data. The most significant issue raised was that the Higg labels used were allegedly misleading to consumers. There were also fundamental problems around the definition of which fibers were the most sustainable. These issues speak to the complex landscape and how quickly the science is evolving.
Another important factor to consider in this potential solution is who will fund the governing body? In the example of the Leather Working Group, a leather membership organization that certifies tanneries, the brands involved make their demands for the certificates and the tannery must pay to acquire them. Many tier 2 and 3 suppliers cannot afford the certifications, so it is not just brands that are hurt by this certification economy. In the case of regenerative agriculture, the financial burden lands on the farmer, who, in most cases, is making the smallest margin in the whole supply chain. What is evident is that the certification costs are unevenly distributed, with those lower-tier suppliers on the food chain often bearing the brunt of the pricing, when they are the ones who can least afford it. Entities have suggested spreading the cost across all stakeholders, so solutions are being worked on to level the playing field.
One obvious hurdle is the data burden: The sheer volume of information that needs to be deciphered and maintained is so large that no one brand can stay on top of it. There are not enough employees at any brand with the bandwidth to efficiently manage the documentation required of the evolving certification process.
Would such a governing body make it easier for brands, especially new ones, to navigate the supply-chain landscape and select the right suppliers? And who would lead the governing body? Could it be part of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals initiative? Would it be possible for the entity to remain agnostic in such a complex business? There are many unanswered questions, but what’s clear is that the certification matrix has to become more transparent, easier to navigate, and more affordable so that as many players as possible can opt in.
More to come on this topic.
