Discussion Should Be about Sharing Risks and Rewards Than Simply Transferring Risks

The subject is such that a Convention in itself cannot do much, except be that proverbial starting point. How do you plan to take this forward? Would you (IAF) be working with other organisations and networks?
Matthijs Crietee: This is exactly what the IAF is doing! Between each of its annual conventions, the IAF has been busy trying to practice what we preach. The major project that we co-founded, the Sustainable Terms of Trade Initiative or STTI, has helped to create urgency around the improvement of purchasing practices. Together with partners it is now the manufacturers that are creating a global standard, as well as the instruments around it, including better contracts. And it has demonstrated the ability of the global manufacturing community to act in unity and to speak with a single voice on the topics that matter most to manufacturers.

Representing the global manufacturing community, the IAF has started to create structural connections between apparel manufacturers and the global initiatives that are mostly founded by brands and retailers. This to make sure that the entire supply chain is designing its solutions together. This way the solutions are better and can be more easily implemented. In the past months, the IAF has signed or is in the process of signing MoUs and agreements with Inditex, the SAC, Fair Wear, SLCP, AII, Better Buying, the ITC, and more.

Continuing emphasis on the term "supply chains" also perpetuates nations into being just buyers and suppliers. Except for some, most supplying nations have not been able to boost their own domestic textile-apparel-fashion markets. And most discussions about supply chains tend to be about brands and retailers saving themselves from supply chain shocks. Comments, please.
Matthijs Crietee: This is a really good point. First of all, IAF sees supply chains definitely in a broader sense than just brands versus suppliers. A supply chain may consist of separate links for textile and garment manufacturing, brand building and retailing, but it may also be partly integrated within one company, such as when a manufacturer builds a brand. And we don’t try to label a country as either a supplier or a buyer country. As a matter of fact, many of the associations that are IAF members represent a mix of brands and manufacturers. And we see in many countries, including India and China, the largest countries in the world, that the main production is for the domestic market and that an important part of this market is served by local brands.

Having said this, an important issue for the IAF is purchasing practices and the relationship between buying brands and supplying manufacturers. We want the discussion to be about sharing risks and rewards in the supply chain rather than about simply transferring risks such as you refer to. This, by the way, is a discussion that not only takes place between brands from Europe and the US and suppliers from Asia. Also within countries, such as in Brazil, India and China, these discussions are taking place between buyers and their suppliers.

Reports indicate that most brands and retailers are far from being in control of Scope 3 emissions; and in fact in most cases even exact numbers are not known. A sustainable supply chain would need to factor this in. Your comments, please.
Matthijs Crietee: You are right, Scope 3 emissions are the name of the game. This is where the biggest impact on global warming is to be found. Brands and retailers that still only focus on Scope 1 emissions and claim they are taking important steps to reduce global warming are engaging in greenwashing. But that doesn't mean it is easy for brands and retailers to create real impact on Scope 3 emissions.

Transparency and data gathering is important here, but this is only a means, not an end. No global warming is prevented by transparency alone. Important steps are taken by retailers investing for instance in recycling innovations, such as new fibres made through chemical recycling. Better purchasing practices are important to enable garment manufacturers to buy lower emission raw materials. As we often see, manufacturers cannot act green when they are in the red. And finally, manufacturers have a major role to play in promoting and directing Tier 3 investments to lower Scope 3 emissions and this is partly stipulated in the upcoming EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence legislation. IAF will spend considerable time and effort to help explain the exact meaning of this legislation to its members.

A recent Cornell study pointed out how climate disasters would affect manufacturing in 4 Asian countries. The same scenario would of course apply to scores of other manufacturing countries around the world. What kind of effect do you see the climate crisis having on the fashion ecosystem itself?
Matthijs Crietee: The Cornell study has done a very good job shining the light on some major implications of climate change on our industry that we haven’t sufficiently realised. I fear that in addition to preventing climate change, in the coming decade we will unfortunately need to be talking a lot more about adaptation to climate change as well. 

And here, as always, the major issue is: “who is paying the bills”. We have to face the fact that climate change will make manufacturing more expensive. Somebody has to pay for higher cooling costs and for flood control or moving out of flood affected areas. And obviously it cannot and it should not be the manufacturer who bears the full brunt of the inevitable mounting climate adaptation bills.