Critics of the proposed law, however, worry that it would make history for its negative impact: They say the measure was written to greenwash fossil fuel manufacturing by fashion\u2019s worst climate offenders who depend on cheap synthetic fibers \u2014 allowing for massive profits, while masking the products\u2019 true environmental costs.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey\u2019re colluding with the fossil fuel industry to protect their bottom line,\u201d said Dileep Kumar, the program coordinator of the International Sericultural Commission, a nonprofit focused on the global silk industry.<\/p>\n
The proposed New York law is part of a larger effort by groups backed by clothing manufacturers to present an environmentally friendly image. Along with the New York bill, organizations like the Sustainable Apparel Coalition are leaving their fingerprints on other environmental legislation, such as the European Commission\u2019s Product Environmental Footprint.<\/p>\n
Concerns about the framework proposed in the New York law are already coming under scrutiny in some countries. The Sustainable Apparel Coalition\u2019s Higg Index,\u00a0a standardized supply chain measurement tool\u00a0used by some clothing labels to show their social and environmental footprint to consumers, is\u00a0reportedly<\/a> facing a ban in Norway after the country\u2019s consumer watchdog raised \u201cgreenwashing\u201d concerns this week.<\/p>\n The proposals are based on sustainability targets, and its reporting methods are created by the Sustainable Apparel Coalition and other networks of self-promoting \u201cindependent\u201d organizations.<\/p>\n While the widely recognized goal of climate change efforts is to reduce emissions, brands appealing to the Sustainable Apparel Coalition can win high scores even as the level of pollution they create increases annually. The apparent paradox should not come as a surprise: The boards of these industry-backed groups are cross-pollinated with some of the fashion industry\u2019s worst offenders, meaning the members of these organizations each have a stake in the continued growth \u2014 and profits \u2014 of the industry, rather than the reduction of emissions.<\/p>\n By setting goals that are, in essence, internally created by its biggest culprits, fashion has ensured it remains accountable only to its shareholders.<\/p>\n \u201cFrankly, if the industry itself were drafting the legislation, both the New York act and the EU PEF are the sort of thing that they would propose,\u201d said Veronica Bates Kassatly, an independent researcher who evaluates sustainability claims. \u201cNeither requires any fundamental change in the business model and both could easily increase consumption rather than reduce it, by suggesting to consumers that their shopping is now sustainable.\u201d<\/p>\n An employee works on the production line of polyester yarns at a textile factory on Jan. 18, 2022, in Xinyu, China.<\/p>\n \nPhoto: Zhao Chunliang\/VCG via Getty Images<\/p><\/div>\n Fashion\u2019s bid to<\/u> rescue its image began in 2009 when Patagonia and Walmart wrote a joint letter \u201cinviting CEOs of leading global companies to come together to develop an index that would measure the environmental impact of their products.\u201d The Sustainable Apparel Coalition was formed as a result in 2010, and the group and the companies behind it worked together to produce their measurement tool, the Higg Index. Patagonia did not respond to a request for comment, and the Sustainable Apparel Coalition declined to answer The Intercept\u2019s questions.<\/p>\n A central piece of the New York Fashion Act known as the Higg Materials Sustainability Index, or Higg MSI, is a database that ranks the environmental impact of fibers used in manufacturing. The proposed New York law says it relies on the reporting standard \u2014 the Higg Index \u2014 pushed by a research nonprofit called the World Resources Institute. Liz Cook, a vice president at the institute who sat on the Sustainable Apparel Coalition board from its beginnings until her term ended in 2021, eventually even went into fashion herself, launching an underwear brand in September 2020.<\/p>\n \u201cWRI is not involved with the drafting of the environmental legislation,\u201d a spokesperson for the institute said. \u201cWe also are not in the business of promoting SAC or its derivatives.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWRI has worked with the apparel industry on setting and delivering on science-based targets on climate change,\u201d the spokesperson continued, pointing to its role as a founding member of Science Based Targets, an initiative aimed at apparel and footwear companies, founded by Nike. \u201cWRI believes in the importance of setting targets and rigorously tracking emissions in all sectors, and in holding companies accountable to their climate commitments. WRI is proud of this guidance, as it aligns with our mission to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with what science requires.\u201d<\/p>\n\n Analysts have repeatedly criticized the Higg MSI for using dubious data to promote polyester \u2014 a material which only became widely used 20 years ago and now accounts for 60 percent of the industry\u2019s products \u2014 as the most sustainable fabric available. Dileep Kumar\u2019s group, the International Sericultural Commission, wrote to California\u2019s attorney general in June 2021 claiming the\u00a0Sustainable Apparel Coalition publicized \u201cfalse information\u201d in order to \u201cbring credibility to their unfair practice.\u201d<\/p>\n Some critics of the ranking of various fibers suggested other factors were at play in judging what was sustainable; several noted that the Higg MSI ranks the cheapest materials as the most sustainable. \u201cThey\u2019re deliberately marketing polyester as sustainable,\u201d said Kassatly, the sustainability claims researcher. Kassatly said the Higgs MSI tends to list materials from least expensive to most expensive.<\/p>\n The Higg MSI does not collect primary data or conduct its own studies. Instead, the index collates secondary data from life-cycle analyses, which track impacts of products from sourcing of materials to their eventual demise.<\/p>\n Take polyester. The Higg Index uses a life-cycle analysis produced by Plastics Europe, which gathered data on European-produced polyester from 2009. Yet 93 percent of polyester is produced in Asia, where manufacturing and energy standards vary wildly between nations and companies.<\/p>\n An environmental activist from Extinction Rebellion with face covered in fake oil protests the fashion industry’s reliance on synthetic polyester and nylon textiles made from petroleum on Aug. 24, 2021, in London.<\/p>\n \nPhoto: Wiktor Szymanowicz\/Future Publishing via Getty Images<\/p><\/div>\n Neither do the chemicals used in polyester production get a full airing. The synthetic wins praise because, unlike natural fiber production, it does not depend on pesticides and fertilizers. The ranking elides that antimony, a suspected carcinogen, is a chemical element used in the production of polyester.<\/p>\n Nor does the Higg MSI take into account the full life cycle of each material, only measuring its \u201ccradle to gate\u201d impact \u2014 excluding what happens after the products are sold \u2014 despite the life-cycle analyses covering the products\u2019 whole lifetimes. For synthetic fibers, this means microplastics, which shed with every wear and wash \u2014\u00a0and deemed to have dangerous and toxic effects, according to recent research \u2014 are not considered.<\/p>\n The Higg MSI is equally notorious for refusing to disclose information. The International Sericultural Commission says the creators of the index refused to provide the study used to create the ratings for silk manufacturers.<\/p>\n This lack of transparency is common among enterprises associated with the Sustainable Apparel Coalition. The group is based in California but was only registered in 2012 as a foreign company under the jurisdiction of Delaware, a\u00a0state well known for enabling companies and individuals to hide their finances and intent<\/a>. Patagonia\u2019s Rick Ridgeway and Walmart\u2019s Ken Lanshe created the nonprofit, but it was Sustainable Apparel Coalition CEO Jason Kibbey who signed the company documents \u2014 after his internship with Patagonia during business school.<\/p>\n Kibbey also created the Sustainable Apparel Foundation in California in 2012, which was renamed the Apparel Impact Institute in 2017, a collaboration between the Sustainable Apparel Coalition, the Sustainable Trade Initiative, and Target Corporation \u201cto strategically drive sustainability improvements.\u201d<\/p>\n In 2019, Kibbey founded a company called Higg, again with a Californian address but under the jurisdiction of Delaware. The company, which says it is an independent technology company that licenses the MSI from the the Sustainable Apparel Coalition, declined to comment about the practices used in creating the MSI.<\/p>\n Critics say that the refusal to offer more information on the index is a feature of both Higg\u2019s and the Sustainable Apparel Coalition\u2019s work. For instance, when the rating of polyester dropped from 45\/kilo to 36.2\/kilo overnight on the Higg MSI in May 2021, the new numbers bestowed an even better sustainability ranking on the plastic-based fiber. Experts cannot explain the change, and Higg and the coalition have not publicly offered their reasoning.<\/p>\n Jason Kibbey, CEO, Higg Co LLC, takes part in the Copenhagen Fashion Summit on May 16, 2019, in Copenhagen.<\/p>\n \nPhoto: Ole Jensen\/Getty Images for Copenhagen Fashion Summit<\/p><\/div>\n From politics to<\/u> oil and gas, this fashion network seems to have a finger in every pie in the U.S. and abroad. Like a greenwashing merry-go-round, the Sustainable Apparel Coalition and other \u201csustainability\u201d organizations share a host of board members, funders, and, in some cases, are even based in the same building. The intertwining networks can make for strange bedfellows.<\/p>\n The building in Amsterdam that houses the Sustainable Apparel Coalition office there, for instance, also houses the Laudes Foundation, a philanthropic organization. Laudes is connected to the Sustainable Apparel Coalition because the foundation funds the group whose reporting standards the proposed New York law uses, the World Resources Institute. Laudes, for its part, was created by the Brenninkmeijer family, which made its fortune from the apparel retail giant C&A.<\/p>\n The family also owns Cofra Holdings, which through a subsidiary in turn owns energy firms doing oil and gas fracking in North America. The Sustainable Apparel Coalition, then, ends up being linked to the oil and gas industry whose products are frequently used in the production of polyester.<\/p>\n Many of the groups involved in the sustainable apparel machine are peppered with these sorts of connections. The links prompted a group of independent experts \u2014 including Veronica Bates Kassatly \u2014 to write an open letter to the New York Fashion Act\u2019s Democratic co-sponsors, Sen. Alessandra Biaggi and Assemblymember Anna Kelles. The experts warned them that the proposed law used ambiguous language and suffered from \u201cpoor data integrity.\u201d They pushed for removing the World Resources Institute from the bill.<\/p>\n Biaggi said her office met with some of the activists behind the letter, opened a dialogue with them, and proposed amendments to the bill accordingly in an effort to \u201cfine tune\u201d the proposal. \u201cI want to be clear that the requirements for companies to reduce and report their green-house gas emissions remain an open issue,\u201d Biaggi said. \u201cWe share the goal of requiring companies to use site specific data \u2014 and most importantly, providing the right tools for rapid decarbonization of the industry.\u201d<\/p>\n The activists noted that the World Resources Institute had not, however, been removed from the bill. One of the signatories then followed up on the issue; that letter was ignored, the activists said, until an hour after The Intercept\u2019s inquiry to Biaggi\u2019s office.<\/p>\n The latest version of the bill is no longer available to download on the New York State Senate website, but The Intercept reviewed a leaked copy. For the meantime, the language and models the experts warned against \u2014 citing the World Resources Institute \u2014 remains in.<\/p>\n The post Industry-Linked Sustainability Standard Allows Clothing Giants to Ramp Up Emissions<\/a> appeared first on The Intercept<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n This post was originally published on The Intercept<\/a>. <\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The index used to certify sustainability in New York’s Fashion Act is tied to apparel giants like Patagonia and Walmart.<\/p>\n The post Industry-Linked Sustainability Standard Allows Clothing Giants to Ramp Up Emissions<\/a> appeared first on The Intercept<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":16451,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[393],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/683725"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/16451"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=683725"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/683725\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":683750,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/683725\/revisions\/683750"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=683725"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=683725"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=683725"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\u201cBoth [laws] could easily increase consumption rather than reduce it.\u201d<\/blockquote>\n
![\"XINYU,](\"https:\/\/prod01-cdn05.cdn.firstlook.org\/wp-uploads\/sites\/1\/2022\/06\/GettyImages-1365305902.jpg\")
\n![\"LONDON,](\"https:\/\/prod01-cdn05.cdn.firstlook.org\/wp-uploads\/sites\/1\/2022\/06\/GettyImages-1234856537-1024x682.jpg\")
\n\u201cThey\u2019re deliberately marketing polyester as sustainable.\u201d<\/blockquote>\n
![\"Copenhagen](\"https:\/\/prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org\/wp-uploads\/sites\/1\/2022\/06\/GettyImages-1149525977.jpg\")
\nThe links prompted a group of independent experts\u00a0to write an open letter to the New York Fashion Act\u2019s Democratic co-sponsors.<\/blockquote>\n