The Onerous Task of Calculating the Full Impact of a Garment at the Onset Itself

I could see this only fleetingly during the demo (by Simon) that the number of garment types under General Info seemed to be too few. There are hundreds of thousands of garment types across the world. So, is the TCC suited only to Western buyers (as of now, at least)?
Anse Smeets: The TCC was developed in the context of a European funded Horizon2020 research project; hence, indeed the European scope. In addition, the scope of SCIRT project was on apparel (with involved brand partners Petit Bateau, HNST, Xandres, Bel&Bo, Decathlon). The product types in the tool are derived from the Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) for textiles, as developed by the European Commission. The PEFCR provides product type specific input parameters for our calculation model (e.g. on durability), which explains why we are hesitant at this point to extend the list on our own. However, the underlying model and logic could be extended to other product groups (e.g. work wear or footwear) in the future.

The True Cost Accounting (TCA) method has mostly been used in the food-agriculture sector so far. What were the learnings from there that you tried to keep in mind while developing this TCC?
Anse Smeets: It is indeed mostly applied to food products, but the methodology in itself is sector agnostic. We could simply select those impact categories relevant in the context of the textiles sector.

It is not easy to assign a monetary value to externalities. How do you assign a value to biodiversity impact/loss, for instance? Moreover, this is also subjective, isn't it?
Anse Smeets: We are building upon environmental impact categories expressed in ReCiPe LCA methodology, biodiversity loss is not included here (see the ‘How it works’ page on the TCC website for the list in scope). Although not entirely subjective, there are indeed various ways to approach monetisation, also described in literature. Several possible methodologies for monetisation have been screened in the light of this project, assessing their maturity, transparency in documentation, geographical and impact scope, as well as applicability to the textiles sector.

The TCC should include both environmental and social costs and the geographical scope should be global, and the most recent method fulfilling these criteria is the True Price method. They calculate the True Cost as the minimum costs necessary to remediate the unsustainable external effects by carrying out one or more remediation activities. Remediation costs are operationalised in terms of four types of cost: restoration cost, compensation cost, prevention cost and retribution cost. One or more of these types of costs are relevant for different types of damages caused to people and the environment and are combined to derive the remediation cost of an impact.

In terms of use case scenarios, it is obvious what designers/manufacturers and buyers can do with this tool. But how is this useful for sustainability consultants? It is unlikely that they can delve too deep into details, and provide enough information (just as end-consumers won't be able to). 
Anse Smeets: As already briefly mentioned, when we started the development of the tool, we started by a broad stakeholder consultation to get an overview of the potential users, the relevance and needs for these users, the functional requirements and boundary conditions and challenges. From this consultation it was clear that there were many potential users of the ‘true cost’. 

However, as the timing and budget was limited, we had to choose and define the scope to start with. It was decided to first focus on designers and purchasers. Therefore, the tool as it is live today, is developed for these two profiles. Of course, for other user groups such as sustainability consultants or end-consumers, the tool as it currently is, will not meet their needs, as you rightfully mention that sustainability consultants nor end-consumers do not have the information at hand. 

However, sustainability consultants and end-consumers could benefit from working with the results of the model and tool. E.g. sustainability consultants or CSR departments could monitor the true cost of the company’s product portfolio and set targets to reduce the true cost gap by a given date, thereby empowering designers and purchasers. If the true cost (gap) of a product would be communicated on the price tag of a product in store, end-consumers could be guided towards better purchase decisions. However, to date it is not allowed for users of the current tool to publicly communicate the true cost result.

Again, a person would definitely come up with different results depending on the volume of inputs. A high intensity of details would be more accurate than one that is not. So, do the end results for a product give a warning that accuracy level might be low because of poor data input quality?
Anse Smeets: Poor data input quality is not something we can assess. We can indeed include a disclaimer to highlight that the less product-specific a user provides, the less specific the result will be. The fact that we are providing a lot of default data options to maintain user-friendliness is also the main reason we clearly state that the tool can only be used for decision support purposes and not for external communication or use by end-consumers. However, in the underlying model we can change or add way more detail; so, users that want to make a full and more accurate calculation can contact us to do a full and thorough true cost calculation using as much primary data as possible.

The TCC provides the internal direct costs of a garment. So, if I am a buyer, then I can use this information to bargain with the seller/manufacturer. Is that right?
Anse Smeets: No, the internal direct cost is based upon the cost information that is provided by the user. If they can only provide the costs up to e.g. the fabric level, a theoretical breakdown is applied for the prior production steps, which is based on literature and expert knowledge. But the base cost data is provided by the user, not generated by the model.

Which are the areas in which you foresee a need for improvement? A related question: which are the input metrics which will need to be updated/modified constantly? 
Anse Smeets: In terms of input metrics the future changes should be limited. Continued improvement is focused on the back-end calculation model. We are continuously looking for additional process data to fuel out datasets, including sorting and recycling processes but also finishing processes. We are also exploring the option to ‘overrule’ specific impacts if specific certificates are obtained (e.g. on fair labour. We are already requesting this info, but not doing anything with it yet). Furthermore, we are applying and tailoring the calculation model for specific product and company context.