A discomforting truism about climate debates is that there are as many perspectives as there are players and stakeholders, as many solutions as there are critics and activists. This is what makes climate debates so fascinating and baffling—both at the same time. Yet, one reason why the upcoming COP28 in Dubai is going to be a battleground of politicking and lobbying yet again is that the world has still not come to a definitive conclusion—41 gruelling years since the 1992 Rio Summit—as to who should take the blame and who should shoulder the financial burden.
When this global Babel of conflicting voices is narrowed down to the fashion industry, it still remains a tower of claims and counter-claims, a war of ideas between facts and fiction. One can never be sure where fact ends, and fiction begins. Making sense of things is a daunting and thankless task. But that is what a new report from Transformers Foundation seeks to do.
The study at hand has looked at global fashion industry's climate strategy through the prism of denim suppliers. It finds a sorry disconnect between the industry pursuit of science-based targets and feasibility, equity and financing. The findings, and therefore also the inevitable conclusions, draw heavily from interviews with suppliers in China, Bangladesh, Pakistan and India. Türkiye had to be left out because of the devastating quake there earlier this year.
The 115-page report starts with a headlong dive into a mechanism that is the veritable bone of contention: the Science-Based Targets (SBTs) system. The report underlines in as many words: "It’s important to keep in mind that once a supplier in a brand or retailers’ Scope 3 sets their own targets, those targets apply to their own Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. In other words, a brand and retailers’ Scope 3 emissions is a factory’s Scope 1 and 2 emissions."
It goes on to put today's befogging situation in perspective: "Until recently, companies were more reticent to set targets that applied to their supply chain, given that they do not, for the most part, own their suppliers and have less control over their operations. But investor, consumer, and institutional pressure has changed the dynamic. The now over 400 apparel, footwear, textile and luxury companies who have set SBTs all have Scope 3 targets that cover their supply chain, as per the requirements of SBTi."
The researchers have cited unequivocal examples of multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs), which by their very nature set down the responsibility on suppliers for making this happen. They illustrate that the practice in effect pushes the burden back on to Global South companies, and by proxy, nations. This is all the more fallacious since the approach mistakenly assumes that all companies are capable of decarbonising to the same extent and at the same pace. Not done, you would say.
But, there are, of course, some things that can be done, and some that simply cannot be: a very practical and pressing issue is that many suppliers plead that these roughly 50%-reduction-targets are simply impossible currently to achieve in their facilities. There are three issues to start with: not all companies have the same access to renewable electricity; thermal energy sources cannot reliably be decarbonised; and, there are roadblocks to accessing renewable energy solutions.
Besides, there is—what many may see as—the primary issue: who pays for the great change that we all want. It is also the most contentious one. The subject is hardly ever discussed explicitly in conversations between brands and suppliers, and it is implicitly assumed that the suppliers would eventually pay. The study looks at some factory-level financing initiatives, and concludes that most of these are primarily debt-based. In other words, these ought to fall flat on their heads.
Without going into the intricacies, certain things are evident. To start with, the availability of funds is insufficient. "Grants available through the Fashion Climate Fund, for example, range from $50k–250k, and suppliers say this is often just a fraction of what’s needed for new equipment or changes in energy sources in a factory.” There is also little acknowledgment of the fact that these are essentially “no payback” measures. That’s where much of the problem lies: these can’t be seen as investments. If these are projected as investment avenues, no money will ever come in for nonstarter projects.
The study also contends that accessing funds is a challenge, particularly in the Global South nations. But this is only partially true. There’s a lot of funds around—all one needs to do is visit some of these countries and ascertain the number of so-called non-profits that have mushroomed since 1992. Trillions of dollars have flown into far too many countries in the Global South, and those have not made an iota of a difference on the ground. The report also turns a blind eye to the fact that many countries in the Global South are corrupt to the bone. Financial tools leak like a sieve.
As the report quietly flows on, it makes an important point: “Suppliers are tasked with taking on the bulk of fashion’s work to decarbonise. As this chapter demonstrates, the assumption is they should also pay for it. They must do most of the work — and foot the bill. This assumption that the supplier pays is not only inequitable — it’s impracticable.” This is true—but only till a point. Most of the “suppliers” listed in the report are big players in their own right in their respective countries. They are well-off, and well-nigh capable of taking care of themselves. They can’t be lusting for monies.
And that’s probably where a deep-seated flaw in the report rests. The study—rightly so—explores the continual and incessant exploitation of the Global South, but to make its point, the report needs to draw from opinions and perspectives of the crème de la crème in countries here.
Now, why should Arvind—for instance, one of the biggest companies in India, be speaking on behalf of companies in the poor countries of the Global South? The rich in “poor” countries are given too much of a voice in the Western platforms of debate. Just see the speaker line-ups at the annual OECD meets on due diligence. You cannot miss the pattern, because you will also see the same faces at the Global Fashion Summits also. You would have seen most of them earlier too, and also in countless other webinars and seminars. The same suppliers din the same drivel into the ears of the same Western audiences that wants to hear the same things. You will also find the same five-star NGOs parroting the same words. Needless to say most of these NGOs are funded by the same Western nations. It is a revulsive burlesque that makes the West the echo chamber it resoundingly is.
Agreed, this assertion has nothing directly to do with the study in question, but the context begets it. The discomforting truth is that the West rules, and it does so with an arm-twisting hand in the Global South through these, well, big time suppliers. It is an insidious confluence of crony capitalism and neo-colonialism. It is colonialism by proxy; it is what I call crony-colonialism. The very least that studies can do is to legitimise and perpetuate the unholy nexus.
Nevertheless, the report very correctly and justifiably looks at the problem of the North-South divide, but it still does so through a de facto Northern lens. With due respect to the authors, all widely respected for all the right reasons, they are from the Global North.
The report also begs one to think aloud on certain other aspects that it throws up by default. Like, when is it that the West is going to throw out that term “suppliers”? For heaven’s sake, this is 2023. The term is condescending, maybe unwittingly so. But it perpetuates the North-South divide. *We* are partners, but *you* are *our* suppliers. And, for the same reason, the term “supply chain” needs to be relegated to the dustbins of history too.
No, this is not a critique—so to speak—of the report. It certainly raises a lot of questions by design and points out logistical flaws just as well; but then, the debate also needs to be taken forward.
