News - The Partnership for Sustainable Textiles (Textiles Partnership) 20 September 2018 First preliminary assessment of the submitted road maps of companies in the Textile Alliance by Gisela Burckhardt The Steering Committee of the Textile Alliance in Cologne 2018. 3rd from Gisela Burckhardt. Photo: © Alliance for Sustainable Textiles Each member of the Textile Alliance had to draw up an action plan (Roadmap) and publish it for the first time this year how it intends to contribute to improving social and environmental conditions in the supply chain in 2018 (FEMNET-Action plan and Progress report as PDF files). The roadmaps are reviewed by external, independent service providers and published on the website of the Textile Alliance. Currently, the Textile Alliance has around 130 members, 79 of whom are companies that, despite some withdrawals, account for almost half of clothing sales in Germany. Brands and retailers had to plan measures for ten binding targets, six additional targets were recommended, and they were also able to set voluntary targets. The roadmaps provide information on which three main production countries companies source goods from and which three main sales markets they have. Lack of transparency Not all of them have yet submitted their roadmap or are waiting for acceptance by the external auditors. If you look at the published roadmaps accepted by the examiners, you first have problems understanding them. It is said that some companies have already achieved individual binding targets, but one does not know which ones. The presentation is non-transparent. This cannot be blamed on the companies, but it is an error of presentation. However, the fact that the answers to questions from the underlying question grid (baseline) are published only on a voluntary basis is due to the attitude of parts of the economy that shy away from transparency. In September 2017, the Steering Committee adopted detailed questions at various levels for the key areas of human rights due diligence, which a company should answer when drawing up its roadmap. However, the answers can only be viewed by the external auditors. Usually only 1-2 short sentences are published. Without explanation, the information remains very general. Thus, it is not comprehensible to outsiders whether a goal is demanding or not, because you do not know where the company stands. Only the external auditors have insight into the baseline and can assess how ambitious the target is compared to the status quo. However, companies can voluntarily publish their baseline, e.g. Otto, Esprit, Hugo Boss and REWE have done so, making their roadmap much easier to understand and understand. Unfortunately, few companies have taken this step into transparency. The evidence for the achievement of the targets in the progress reports is also not published, only the external auditors see it. This lack of transparency is incomprehensible, because companies also publish sustainability reports otherwise, and this is not about information relevant to competition. Very formal examination The purely formal examination is critical. The independent auditors only look at whether there is progress between the baseline and the 2018 target. This does not make the claim level clear. This can only occur if there are clear targets with time constraints or if the initial situation is also published. Only in the area of sustainable and organic cotton have such targets been set, and all other indicators lack them. Binding targets for cotton If you look at the binding targets, there is a different level of ambition. The simplest and most obvious are the indications of willingness to increase the proportion of sustainable cotton and organic cotton. For example, adidas claims to buy 100% of its cotton sustainably, but 0% of it in organic quality. KiK and s.Oliver also contribute nothing to the goal of increasing the purchase of organic cotton. Hess Natur (99.8%) and Tchibo (70%), Otto aims for a target of 1% organic with 85% sustainable cotton, Hugo Boss aims for 1% organic with 30% sustainable cotton. Binding targets for social standards Participants of a working meeting of the Alliance in Cologne 2018. Photo: © Alliance for Sustainable TextilesHere, among other things, a goal had to be set in dealing with child and forced labour. Some companies only refer to their policy or the BSCI/Amfori Zero Tolerance Protocol, but some also do more: REWE wants to carry out a risk analysis on hotspots of forced labour or Lidl wants to have its procedure checked by an independent third party. On the other hand, s.Oliver expresses itself flowerily inconcretely: the aim is to ‘promote’ the process and ‘examine’ measures. Due to the lack of presentation described above, there are also many companies that have already achieved the goal, but you do not know how. It lacks the description and unfortunately also any evidence. Another binding objective includes awareness-raising measures. Fortunately, there are many different measures: from sensitizing buyers to the impact of their own purchasing practices on working conditions (e.g. Aldi), training producers (Hugo Boss, Otto) to better information about the material of clothing for consumers (Esprit) or recycling (C&A). Unfortunately, the goals are not always formulated precisely and clearly, which was a requirement for the goal formulation. It is therefore somewhat surprising that the external auditors have accepted these objectives. Overall, however, there are not yet sufficiently binding targets for social standards. Measures for effective complaint mechanisms and living wages are not to become binding until 2019. Measures to eliminate discrimination against women and gender-based violence in the workplace are still lacking. Recommended objectives Looking at the recommended goals, it is noticeable that these were only set by some companies (e.g. Aldi, C&A), but many additional voluntary goals that the company can set itself. Hugo Boss takes it to the top with 75 goals, of which 10 are binding and five are recommended, the rest are freely chosen. Hugo Boss answers all questions of the baseline and publishes them, the company shows transparency here. However, the large number of targets has also been named very small and sometimes double. On the one hand, the large number of voluntary targets makes it impossible to compare with other companies, but on the other hand, it also shows that the binding and recommended targets seem insufficient for many members. For example, some companies set goals that will only become binding in 2019: such as targets for the payment of living wages or the establishment of complaint mechanisms; It is gratifying that a lot is already being planned here, although it is not yet mandatory. On the other hand, the information is sometimes ridiculous if Aldi, for example, only sets the goal of participating in the expert group on living wages within the framework of the textile alliance and does not start any measures at its own suppliers. The recommended targets in particular show the level of ambition, e.g. whether a company is willing to disclose its supply chain or whether it participates in an alliance initiative (BI). So far, there are two alliance initiatives, one of which concerns the improvement of working conditions in spinning mills in India, initiated by FEMNET. Four companies have participated so far (KiK, Otto, Tchibo, Hugo Boss). Many companies are not willing to invest money and time in a BI. Progress reports Participants of a working meeting of the Alliance in Cologne 2018. Photo: © Alliance for Sustainable TextilesThis year, although the progress reports have to be submitted and reviewed by the auditors, they have not yet been published. Last year, 19 companies took the step of publishing their roadmap. So far this year, only nine companies have published a progress report in which they report on whether or not they have achieved their self-imposed goals for 2017. (Adidas AG, Aldi, Gerry Weber, Kettelhack, Otto, Tchibo, Vaude, Primark, Sympatex). Some progress reports provide little information about the actual activities, as simply a catch is published in the achievement of the goals. Evidence is missing (e.g. Aldi). It is different if detailed explanations are voluntarily added (e.g. Tchibo, VAUDE and Gerry Weber), Otto, Primark and adidas make this only sparse. If so few companies publish explanations in their progress reports next year, they will provide little information about the actual activities of the companies. Resumée Overall, it can be summarized that a first important step was taken in the textile alliance with the binding targets and the mandatory publication of the roadmaps. Small and medium-sized enterprises in particular, which do not issue a sustainability report, seem to be dealing more intensively with their supply chain for the first time. However, there is a lack of transparency if the objectives are not explained using the question grid (baseline). There are also many important goals missing, such as preventing discrimination against seamstresses, supporting the organisation of employees or anti-corruption measures. These and other goals must be included in the following roadmaps. Just as the topic of sustainability now concerns every company, transparency will also be required in the future. Consumers, NGOs, trade unions want to know under what conditions clothes are made. More companies should therefore agree to disclose their supply chain and publish the baseline and evidence of their objectives. However, the roadmaps are only measures to which a company commits itself, but what exactly do they achieve? Few companies were willing to publish their progress reports and again very few have published the evidence. Here, too, there is a lack of transparency. There is also an urgent need to determine the effects of the measures, because this is the only way we know whether and what has improved for the seamstresses on the ground. So far, the published roadmaps provide only limited information about the extent to which companies are committed to human rights in their supply chains. After all, the members of the Textile Alliance undergo the process of roadmap creation, the necessary data about their suppliers must be collected. However, they only cover half of the German textile market. The other half of the market does not face this process. In order to move the entire market, legal regulations for the observance of human rights in global textile supply chains are needed. FEMNET is a member of the Alliance for Sustainable Textiles Status: 20.09.2018
