The fashion supply chain is infamously opaque, but brands and retailers are increasingly heeding calls for greater transparency and traceability that gets to the heart of their social and environmental impact.

The shift can’t come soon enough. According to a 2019 survey by Ipsos MORI, four in five Americans want fashion brands to provide more information about their environmental commitments and the measures they are taking to curtail pollution in their supply chains. Roughly three quarters believed that brands should be responsible for what happens in the manufacturing process, and that they need to take appropriate action to ensure clothes are produced in an environmentally friendly way.

Similar studies show that consumers not only value information related to a company’s supply chain, but many are in fact prepared to pay a premium for greater transparency and visibility. 

In this episode of the Sustaining Voices podcast, Sourcing Journal sustainability reporter Jasmin Malik Chua speaks with Jamie Barsimantov of SupplyShift, an end-to-end supply chain data management, responsible sourcing and supplier engagement platform; and Tai Ford, chief marketing officer at Retraced, a transparency solution that enables fashion brands to visualize, verify and communicate their supply chains; about the importance of transparency and traceability, the reasons behind their growing prominence and the obstacles that stand in the way of ensuring a socially and environmentally just industry. 

Though traceability and transparency are sometimes interchangeably used, they’re not the same, and “we need to separate that,“ Barsimantov said, though he admits that because people have their own definitions, the confusion isn’t going to go away.  With transparency, “we usually think of a brand lifting the veil off where their manufacturing sites are and information about their practices,“ he said. “When people say full traceability, they’re usually talking about where this bit of cotton came from versus that bit of cotton, which is extremely challenging, expensive, and in some cases, doesn’t even provide the right information to provide that transparency to the consumer.“

Traceability and transparency don’t make a brand more sustainable, but they’re a “means to help you along that journey,“ Ford said. “Traceability doesn’t necessarily say that you have sustainable materials in your supply chain, but [it] at least gives you points of reference to then set to start action plans and to communicate those action plans... with  people in your company, other certification agencies and other members of your supply chain.“

Listen to the podcast to learn about how much of the fashion supply chain we can confidently map, if some materials are easier than others to track, how much transparency and traceability efforts might cost and how calls from governments and human-rights groups to divest from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region will impact the cotton supply chain. 


sv podcast 300x300 2

How can brands and retailers navigate transparency and traceability in complex supply chains riddled with potential pitfalls?  In this episode of the Sustaining Voices podcast, Sourcing Journal reporter Jasmin Malik Chua speaks with Jamie Barsimantov of SupplyShift, and Tai Ford at Retraced.

What is the Fashion Industry Getting Wrong About Transparency and Traceability?

Carbon neutral. Climate positive. Carbon negative. Net zero. Today, it's no longer enough for an environmentally conscious brand or retailer to simply be "sustainable." And no wonder:  The fashion industry is responsible for anywhere between 4 percent to 10 percent of the world’s carbon emissions, depending on the source—too much, no matter how you look at it. 

But what do these terms mean, exactly? What is this "hierarchy of mitigation" companies like Gucci are talking about? And are businesses, by purchasing offsets to neutralize their emissions, simply "paying to pollute"?

In this episode of the Sustaining Voices podcast, Sourcing Journal reporter Jasmin Malik Chua speaks with Pauline Op de Beeck, who engages with the apparel sector for The Carbon Trust and  Saskia van Gendt, head of sustainability at Rothy’s, about fashion's burgeoning impact and the role that carbon neutrality can play in promoting a planet-friendlier fashion.

Indeed, carbon neutral declarations have ramped up over the past couple of years. H&M wants to become climate positive by 2040; the G7 Fashion Pact, a coalition of 150 brands, from Adidas to Prada, have pledged to collectively achieve net-zero emissions by 2050; and Allbirds slapped a carbon tax on itself to neutralize its own footprint. There’s a reason for this trend. 

“I think carbon neutral declarations are, in part a response to the urgency of climate change, but also the increased awareness around fashion’s footprint,” van Gendt explained. “And in the past, I think companies could be wasteful because there was no reason for them not to be—the awareness was low. But now both consumers and companies themselves are becoming much more aware of fashion’s footprint.”

At the same time, brands and retailers should be careful of brandishing the term like a talisman that solves all of fashion's ills. “I think the main thing is that it is part of a wider strategy,” Op de Beeck said. Carbon, she noted, is not the be-all and end-all of a sustainability strategy. “In and of itself, it is a continuously evolving process where companies move to reduce their emissions year on year,” she added. “[But it is also about] driving change throughout the supply chains and changing the way we interact with our apparel when it comes to the use and end of life. And that kind of business change is what we really need to focus on.”


What does "carbon neutrality" mean for the fashion industry?

Is "Carbon Neutrality" in Fashion Green or Greenwashing?

The COVID-19 crisis has resulted in a period of unprecedented upheaval for the retail industry, which has fielded a battery of hits due to shuttered storefronts, retreated foot traffic, shrinking discretionary incomes and mounting economic uncertainty. Brands and retailers have to contend with collapsing revenues, rent payments and mountains of unsold merchandise. Does something need to change?

In this episode of the Sustaining Voices podcast, Sourcing Journal reporter Jasmin Malik Chua speaks with Gregory Schlegel, founder of the Supply Chain Risk Management Consortium, and Nikki Baird, vice president of retail innovation at Aptos, about how the retail supply chain can adapt to a post-pandemic landscape that will look markedly different from the one that came before. 

Inventory and pricy real estate have long been two of retail’s biggest albatrosses, but they haven’t changed because there’s been little motivation to change them. COVID-19, however, is presenting them through a fresh lens. “Those are the places where the pain is the greatest right now,” Baird said. “There’s a lot of, ‘Well, we’ve always done it that way’ in the apparel supply chain, but the pandemic has really exposed the weaknesses in the way we’ve always done it.”

Brands and retailers, for one, can no longer muddle along with the limited visibility they’ve always had, Schlegel said. “The retail supply chain is in need of massive investments in people, flexibility, visibility and automation to survive, thrive and become more resilient,” he said. “As retail and apparel move through COVID-19, [they can’t bring] these historical supply-chain inefficiencies along with them.”

Before the pandemic, fashion businesses were experimenting with inventory-less stores that trafficked in experiences and branding rather than saleable merchandise. The pandemic may accelerate such innovations, including those borne out of necessity, such as buy online, pick up in store and enhanced ecommerce platforms punched up by video-enhanced bells and whistles and personalized assistance. Many of these changes are likely to have staying power, and as the borders of online and offline begin to blur,  consumers will increasingly look to stores—even physical ones, whenever they reopen—to be more than repositories of merchandise. 

“There’s no future for stores, whether they have inventory or not, without that aspect of entertainment or expertise or some kind of guidance or interaction,” Baird said. 


The pandemic has revealed the weaknesses of the fashion supply chain. What needs to change? 

What Should a Post-Pandemic Supply Chain Look Like? 

Fashion needs to rethink its take-make-dispose model.

With the COVID-19-stalled supply chains exacerbating the millions of tons of textile waste produced every year, keeping clothing out of the landfill has become more vital than ever.

In this episode of the Sustaining Voices podcast, Sourcing Journal reporter Jasmin Malik Chua speaks with Gwen Cunningham, lead of the Circle Textiles program at Circle Economy, and Jonas Eder-Hansen, public affairs director at Global Fashion Agenda, about what the industry needs to do to prevent textiles from becoming waste, the close interrelationship between consumption and disposal practices and why investing in recycling alone isn’t the answer.

“We’ve seen the consumer, between 2007 and 2014, buying 60 percent more and keeping the clothing for half as long as they used to,” Cunningham said. “And so these materials are becoming post-consumer quicker than ever before.”

While textile waste can be broadly categorized into two streams—pre-consumer and post-consumer—tackling the problem requires a multi-pronged approach. Waste is a symptom of an issue that requires new design approaches, life-extending business models such as repair and resale, and beefed-up infrastructure for end-of-life management.

Policy, too, isn’t emphasized in discussions nearly enough.

“I think the role of policymakers in actually addressing textile waste is something that hasn't really been accounted for,” Eder-Hansen said. "The ability to actually engage in constructive dialogue with policymakers is something that many brands and retailers have shied away from because policymakers are seen as to impose further regulation. But if you turn that around, policymakers can also help accelerate and shift the transition to the circular economy, including also scaling up some of those technologies that are necessary to address textile waste.”


The world is drowning in textile waste. What are the factors that contribute to its creation, and are there existing and emerging solutions that can mitigate the problem? 

Trimming Back Fashion's Waste Problem

It can be a touchy subject, but this is no time for hurt feelings. The apparel industry simply isn’t doing enough when it comes to climate change.

In a provocative, no-holds-barred episode of the Sustaining Voices podcast, produced in partnership with Cotton Incorporated, Sourcing Journal publisher Caletha Crawford explores whether our incremental changes are having the impact needed. Joining her are Morton Lehmann, chief sustainability officer for Global Fashion Agenda, and Jeff Wilson, senior business development manager of sustainability for NSF International.

The plain truth is that there’s simply not enough effort. While the news isn’t all bad—the industry has set its fair share of bold targets—40 percent of the industry has done almost nothing, said Lehmann.

What’s more, the industry is woefully inadequate on both transparency and supply chain mapping, Wilson said, hampering our ability to measure and document progress and impact with credibility. This authenticity is becoming important to consumers—who are often already operating in an environment lacking in brand trust—and it makes it harder to properly allocate funding. (And if you think it’s hard to find the funds to effect change now, just wait until the regulations start coming.)

As for the consumers who say they aren’t willing to pay higher prices for ethically made products? Wilson said, they shouldn’t have to.

“We’ve continued to ask consumers, whether they want this, how much they want it, how much more they’re willing to pay. To me, those are absurd questions. As an industry, we just need to own this,” said Wilson, noting that the industry is well aware of the current practices involving slave labor, child labor, unsafe factories and toxic chemicals.

He added: “We ask our customers, ‘Well, do you want a T-shirt that doesn’t hurt people or a T-shirt that does hurt people? If you want a T-shirt that doesn’t hurt people, how much more you willing to pay for that?’ Are you kidding me? We just need to own building the T-shirt that doesn’t hurt people and the environment—and make that happen.”

Listen to the podcast for a frank discussion on what the C-Suite needs to pay attention to, why it’s good news that companies are finally admitting how hard this is, and techniques on how to do more. (One hint: Don’t even bother trying to go this alone.)

The apparel industry simply isn’t doing enough when it comes to climate change. While the news isn’t all bad—the industry has set its fair share of bold targets—40 percent of the industry has done almost nothing.

No More Excuses: The Industry isn’t Doing Enough to Slow Climate Change

More than 150 million trees are logged each year and turned into cellulosic fabric, many from ancient and endangered forests. As a result, irreparable damage is being inflicted upon the roots connecting our world’s facilities.

In this podcast, Amanda Carr, director of strategic initiatives at Canopy, talks about the problem and her organization's efforts to raise awareness and slow the erosion of this natural resource. And Franco Costantini, managing director at Control Union, provides details on his company’s Connected traceability platform and how it helps brands and retailers establish and stick with responsible sourcing.

Canopy's CanopyStyle initiative, now in its fifth year, seeks to end logging from these threatened areas while supporting the development of alternative fibers and advancing large-scale conservation efforts. Canopy's latest initiative is ForestMapper, a web-based publicly available tool that enables all purchasers of forest products to discern whether they’re at risk of sourcing from these areas.

“Studies are showing that when intact forests are cleared or degraded, there’s a reduction in cloud cover and rainfall,” noted Carr. “We can think of forests of a sort of simple ecosystem on the planet, or we can start connecting them in our minds to all of the services they provide.”

Above all, the interactive ForestMapper tool intends to bring transparency to the supply chain so brands, retailers, manufacturers and designers can make the necessary changes to stop sourcing from these vulnerable areas.  

With Connected, Control Union helps brands and retailers meet their CanopyStyle commitments by providing visibility throughout the entire supply chain. Costantini added that not only does increasing transparency help companies identify where they’re sourcing from, the aggregation of data can also bring to light inefficiencies and previously unknown cost savings. 

Consumers, meanwhile, are seeking more transparency into their apparel purchases, and they are placing a higher value upon the products and brands that share this information, according to Costantini.

“We are at the moment of a cultural change,” said Costantini. “People are more aware of sustainability issues. Brands, by consequence, are able to implement their [strategies]. It’s like snowballs: The more people who are aware, the more momentum is created.”

Listen to the podcast to learn:

- The role that trees play in the health of our planet
- The scalability of some of the newest alternative raw materials
- The catalyst behind the growing awareness of sustainability—and the level of education still required
- Who carries the responsibility in educating consumers
- How to get C-Suite executives on board with making these necessary changes
- Why marketing is contributing to confusion in the marketplace
- The role that governments should have in creating protected areas


More than 150 million trees are logged each year and turned into cellulosic fabric, many from ancient and endangered forests. As a result, irreparable damage is being inflicted upon the roots connecting our world’s facilities. Amanda Carr, director of strategic initiatives at Canopy, and Franco Costantini, managing director at Control Union, discuss the problem and possible solutions.

Practicing Responsible Sourcing, One Tree at a Time

Sticking your head in the sand about supply chain transparency is not only inefficient and ethically dubious—it’s simply not sound financial practice. 

Rather than wasting time on developing individual specs that end up wasting time during production, as factories attempt to comply with a variety of competing mandates—like the varying rules on where the fire extinguisher must be mounted—companies that commit to a minimum standard of disclosure can reap the benefits in time, money and brand reputation. 

Sourcing Journal founder and president Edward Hertzman sat down with Alison Kiehl Friedman, executive director International Corporate Accountability Roundtable (ICAR), to explore why being proactive about supply chain transparency is easier than you might think, how it can affect access to capital and why there’s safety in numbers.

For one thing, companies that are currently sharing data about their supply chains and where they’re sourcing have achieved immediate savings by agreeing to share monitoring costs in joint factories, she said. Also, shining a light on your supply chain can reveal other inefficiencies that had previously been hidden but had been having negative effects on profits and on-time deliveries.  

“What we’ve seen in the industry is that the more companies are transparent about their supply chains and where they’re sourcing, the more common savings can be created and the more investments can go into either supply chain efficiency or the promotion of workers’ rights and human rights in ways that consumers are looking at more,” Friedman noted.

Listen to the podcast to learn:
•	How being proactive can help a company be more profitable 
•	How transparency can help speed to market and reduce worker turnover 
•	Why it’s better that companies help shape government regulations (before it’s done for them)
•	Why preconceived risks associated with transparency are outdated and irrelevant
•	Why investors are paying attention

Subscribe to the Sourcing Journal Podcast on Spotify, Apple iTunes, Google Play and Tune In. 

Receive more insight about transparency and traceability with Sourcing Journal’s just-released 2019 Transparency Study. 


Rather than wasting time on developing individual specs that end up wasting time during production, as factories attempt to comply with a variety of competing mandates—like the varying rules on where the fire extinguisher must be mounted—companies that commit to a minimum standard of disclosure can reap the benefits in time, money and brand reputation. 

Sustaining Voices Podcast: Transparency's Many Upsides

The apparel industry is racing to find more sustainable options for both its inputs and processes. But the reality is, no matter how environmentally friendly these innovations may be, developing them requires investment so the question becomes, who’s financing fashion’s sustainable evolution?

This podcast series is a companion to our Sustaining Voices platform, which celebrates the efforts the apparel industry is making toward securing a more environmentally responsible future. This episode features Rogier van Mazijk, investment manager for Fashion for Good, which support sustainable fashion innovation through initiatives like its Plug &amp; Play Accelerator. We're also joined by Luke Henning, CFO of Tyton BioSciences, which recycles blended textiles using water as a solvent. Together Rogier and Luke provide perspectives on what it takes to launch and scale sustainable innovations.

Below are some excerpts from the conversation:

van Mazijk on the types of innovation that are important to Fashion for Good:

"There’s always been a focus on efficiency improvement. Manufacturing of the processes that we see in the production of apparel and footwear hasn’t changed over the last century. There’s been no complete overhaul of these processes. At Fashion for Good, we don’t want to focus on 'less bad' but instead focus on innovations that change these processes from the very core. Take textile dyeing where you’d normally have lots of water with acid dyes, with low ph and high temperatures. It’s not great. Most of the innovation has been focused on making it more sustainable, so less water, less high temperatures and less energy use but we have some innovators that are focused on [it] from a different way like no water use using bacteria."

Henning on investor mindsets and why it's important for retailers and brands within the industry to step up in order to drive change:

"There’s definitely investment cycles where tech goes through cycles where some things are in fashion to invest in and some things are out of fashion, so it’s about making sure that you fit within people's mandates. The biggest challenge now is that a lot of the traditional technology ventures just aren’t aware of the issue that’s in fashion or aren’t comfortable with fashion supply chains, and they don’t understand the market demand and the pull from the market for solutions. And they’re looking for the brands to show some leadership to put some real capital at risk to show that they’re invested in the solution. That’s a challenge for a mature industry like apparel because they have a low risk tolerance. They’ve been focused on incremental changes."

Listen to the podcast to learn how companies can make their innovations more attractive to investors, why apparel needs a "unicorn" like Uber and why purpose and mission driven funds are an ideal fit for this type of investment.

The apparel industry is racing to find more sustainable options for both its inputs and processes. But the reality is, no matter how environmentally friendly these innovations may be, developing them requires investment so the question becomes, who’s financing fashion’s sustainable evolution?

Trimming Back Fashion's Waste Problem

About Sustaining Voices Podcasts

Related Honorees