‘Certified’ Cotton Not Always ‘Sustainable’ Cotton; Brands & Retailers Must Raise Transparency Bar

It is disappointing to see that a lot of companies still do not see the urgency of how important it is to source sustainable cotton. There is still so much fear around transparency of where the cotton comes from, the volume and certifications used. The just-released 2023 Cotton Ranking report by Solidaridad Network and Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN UK) shows that the gap between frontrunners and laggards is getting bigger.

Long Story, Cut Short
  • The focus on circularity and recycling seems to temper the urgency to make cotton more sustainable. Recycling seems to be the golden bullet, forgetting about cotton farmers.
  • There's a lack of demand for farmers who invested in sustainable cotton. Conventional cotton in conversion to organic cotton is, for eg, not sold for a higher price. Cotton farmers with a sustainable production do not profit from longer term contracts.
  • Climate pressure and poor returns are already making agriculture marginal for many and we are seeing an exodus of growers from the country to the cities seeking better livelihoods.
 It is disappointing that after all these years a lot of companies did not make any or little progress, and still do not see the urgency of how important it is to source sustainable cotton. There is still so much fear around transparency of where the cotton comes from, the volume and certifications used. It shows that the gap between frontrunners and laggards is getting bigger.
Big disappointment It is disappointing that after all these years a lot of companies did not make any or little progress, and still do not see the urgency of how important it is to source sustainable cotton. There is still so much fear around transparency of where the cotton comes from, the volume and certifications used. It shows that the gap between frontrunners and laggards is getting bigger. Solidaridad Network

Tamar Hoek, Senior Policy Director (Sustainable Fashion) at Solidaridad Network and Keith Tyrell, Director, Pesticide Action Network - UK (PAN UK) discuss the just released 2023 Cotton Ranking published by Solidaridad Europe and the Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN UK).

texfash.com: This sums up the state of affairs: "Only 9 of the 82 largest cotton-sourcing companies in the world are found to be doing the bare minimum of sourcing 99% or more of their cotton from certified sources. All other companies are failing to achieve even this bare minimum, with 30 companies scoring zero." Given that so much of work has been happening around cotton, are you surprised with the dismal results? Or, did you have a prima facie inkling that this would happen?
Tamar Hoek and Keith Tyrell: Not surprised. The ranking is based on how transparent brands are with regards to the type of certified cotton they use. A lot of the brands are not publishing this information; so, it is hard to evaluate their progress or to judge if they make any progress at all with buying certified cotton.

What we see happening is that a lot of brands hide behind the fact that they do not know where their cotton comes from. The upcoming due diligence legislation somehow stops them from taking action, and puts them in a waiting mode. The focus on circularity and recycling seems to temper the urgency to make cotton more sustainable. Recycling seems to be the golden bullet, forgetting about cotton farmers.

There is a lack of demand for farmers that invested in more sustainable cotton. Conventional cotton in conversion to organic cotton is, for example, not sold for a higher price. Cotton farmers with a sustainable production do not profit from longer term contracts. This can lead to farmers stepping out due to the lack of a business case for them. Which in the end makes the costs to comply with upcoming legislation higher.

Luckily there are positive examples but the majority of the companies are lagging behind.

Very broadly: the pace of progress has been pathetic, say over the 2016 or the 2020 cotton rankings. There are far too many companies that score zero and quite a few that did not respond. This shows a lot of callousness or the lack of will to make changes. Or both. Your comments, please.  
Tamar Hoek and Keith Tyrell: It is disappointing that after all these years a lot of companies did not make any or little progress, and still do not see the urgency of how important it is to source sustainable cotton. There is still so much fear around transparency of where the cotton comes from, the volume and certifications used. It shows that the gap between frontrunners and laggards is getting bigger.

In the paper Cotton & Corporate Responsibility that accompanies the Ranking, the percentage of cotton in the final price of a product is little. Increasing that price shouldn't have much impact on the companies or consumers but impacts big on the improvement of the livelihoods of farmers. If companies really want to change something, they need to invest in smallholder climate adaptation, update purchasing practices to ensure better pay for cotton producers, & become transparent on cotton sourcing.
Cotton and Corporate Responsibility In the paper 'Cotton and Corporate Responsibility' that accompanies the Ranking, the percentage of cotton in the final price of a product is very little. Increasing that price should not have a huge impact on the companies or consumers but has a huge impact on the improvement of the livelihoods of farmers. If companies really want to change something, they need to invest in smallholder climate adaptation, update purchasing practices to ensure better pay for cotton producers, and become transparent on cotton sourcing. Solidaridad Network

The bottomline is profit. All said and done, the corporate will go for the cheapest and best. How can corporations reconcile both? Do you think there needs to be something like a sensitisation drive? What do you think is the way out? Make it a part of CSR or ESG, or what?
Tamar Hoek and Keith Tyrell: Paying a fair price for cotton and for textile products should be the first step. That should indeed be part of the overall policy of a company and a board level responsibility. If you read the paper 'Cotton and Corporate Responsibility', that accompanies the Ranking, the percentage of cotton in the final price of a product is so little. Increasing that price should not have a huge impact on the companies or consumers but has a huge impact on the improvement of the livelihoods of farmers.

If companies really want to change something, they need to invest in smallholder climate adaptation, update purchasing practices to ensure better pay for cotton producers, and become transparent on cotton sourcing.

Price is important, but those companies that focus solely on this are taking a very short-term—and risky—approach. Farmers will only grow cotton if it makes business sense; cotton is an annual crop and growers can switch to other crops, or can leave farming altogether. Climate pressure and poor returns are already making agriculture marginal for many and we are seeing an exodus of growers from the country to the cities seeking better livelihoods.

If brands want a stable and sustainable supply of cotton for the future they need to invest in their supply chains and make cotton attractive to growers—build long-term partnerships with them, support them to adapt to climate change and pay them fairly. This will benefit their bottomline too!

The world over there are traditional methods of farming, which have for centuries taken care of pests, rejuvenation of soil and hundreds of other factors. Yield was perhaps not as much. Is there no middle way that brings in the best of both to help even small scale farmers get the desired results? Don’t we need deeper research into those methods and how the fruits of modern science can be blended into those?
Tamar Hoek and Keith Tyrell: Agroecology is already here and delivering both in terms of farmer income and yield. PAN UK supports nearly 10,000 small scale organic cotton growers in Benin, and thanks to training and support they have very similar yields to their conventional neighbours, but make around 3x as much through lower input costs. Farmers don’t have to choose between their health, the environment and profits, it's perfectly possible to have all three.

A paper says: “…training is an integral factor to tackling cotton poverty. While some retailers, brands, or standards may arrange enough farmer training to gain certification, their success is often only measured in yield over one season, and not longer term profitability or resilience. High-quality training has been shown to both decrease production costs and increase incomes.” – What steps are being taken in this direction?
Tamar Hoek and Keith Tyrell: We need more attention for proper training and supporting farmers to make the transition beyond certification. Training that supports farmers throughout the year based on conditions that go beyond certification and towards real improvements, like increasing the living income, long term commitments, improving soil health for next year etc.

Within MSIs and standards there is more attention for supporting farmers to make the transition towards sustainable production and not just certification, training should focus on changing behaviour and practices for the long run. 

Tamar Hoek
Tamar Hoek
Senior Policy Director (Sustainable Fashion)
Solidaridad Network

What we see happening is that a lot of brands hide behind the fact that they do not know where their cotton comes from. The upcoming due diligence legislation somehow stops them from taking action, and puts them in a waiting mode. The focus on circularity and recycling seems to temper the urgency to make cotton more sustainable. Recycling seems to be the golden bullet, forgetting about cotton farmers.

Ingredient branding is much in vogue now. Think Lycra. Why does the cotton industry not take it up as a key tool to reach out to consumers where the farmer, his/her field, his/her story is communicated to the end consumer. It will in the long run yield dividends when a more discerning Generation Alpha and Generation Beta will demand to know where the cotton comes from.
Ingredient branding Ingredient branding is much in vogue now. Think Lycra. Why does the cotton industry not take it up as a key tool to reach out to consumers where the farmer, his/her field, his/her story is communicated to the end consumer? It will in the long run yield dividends when a more discerning Generation Alpha and Generation Beta will demand to know where the cotton comes from. Solidaridad Network

Ingredient branding is much in vogue now. Think Lycra. Why does the cotton industry not take it up as a key tool to reach out to consumers where the farmer, his/her field, his/her story is communicated to the end consumer? It will in the long run yield dividends when a more discerning Generation Alpha and Generation Beta will demand to know where the cotton comes from.
Tamar Hoek and Keith Tyrell: Interesting thought. So far, a lot of companies do not know where their cotton comes from, so cannot provide these stories to consumers. There are examples of initiatives that work with cases and stories of farmers, like the Organic Cotton Accelerator. If eventually cotton can be traced from the farm to the end product, these stories can accompany the product, and consumers can make better informed choices. Consumers should put pressure on brands and ask questions on where the cotton comes from and how the product was produced. And obviously buy sustainable.

The new 2023 rankings can also be seen as an Impact Report of the earlier rankings. Are you planning to change your campaign content or style so as to have a better impact? If these rankings were to be a document for introspection or even retrospection, what would you do?
Tamar Hoek and Keith Tyrell: The 2023 Cotton Ranking is already slightly different than previous years. We no longer give credits for good intentions. We want to see action from companies in sourcing certified cotton. While good policies and transparency are crucial to do things right, the only thing that in the end counts is if companies are buying all their cotton from certified sources. Apart from this other CSOs have ranked and researched companies on policy and transparency. We don’t want to duplicate that.

This year we also talk about certified cotton instead of more sustainable cotton. Standards and certification systems remain relevant market-based tools to drive sustainability in the cotton sector. However ‘certified’ cotton doesn’t always equal ‘sustainable’ cotton, and we wish to look more broadly for all the approaches that can drive sustainability in the sector.

So our message this year is on the recommendations and steps that companies can take to go beyond certified cotton.

Very important. Where do we go from here?
Tamar Hoek and Keith Tyrell: Summarised we want companies to

  • Take responsibility for their value chain by investing in producers;
  • Improve purchasing practices;
  • Raise the bar on transparency;
  • Make clearer performance demands from traders;
  • Support Standards to add more value;
  • Proactively engage with multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs);
  • Create durable, recyclable, and circular products.
Keith Tyrell
Keith Tyrell
Director
Pesticide Action Network - UK

Agroecology is already here and delivering both in terms of farmer income and yield. PAN UK supports nearly 10,000 small scale organic cotton growers in Benin, and thanks to training and support they have very similar yields to their conventional neighbours, but make around 3x as much through lower input costs. Farmers don’t have to choose between their health, the environment and profits, it's perfectly possible to have all three.

Subir Ghosh

SUBIR GHOSH is a Kolkata-based independent journalist-writer-researcher who writes about environment, corruption, crony capitalism, conflict, wildlife, and cinema. He is the author of two books, and has co-authored two more with others. He writes, edits, reports and designs. He is also a professionally trained and qualified photographer.

 
 
 
  • Dated posted: 13 June 2023
  • Last modified: 14 June 2023