The Feasibility of a Voluntary

Ethical Quality Mark for the
Australian Textile, Clothing
and Footwear Industries
Ethical Clothing Australia
27 June 2011



Report Preparation

Authors: John Gertsakis Cameron Neil
Senior Sustainability Associate Senior Associate
WSP Environment & Energy Net Balance

Project Manager: Cameron Neil
Senior Associate
Net Balance

Project Director: John Gertsakis
Senior Sustainability Associate
WSP Environment & Energy

Status: Final Report


Ethical Clothing Australia
Report on the Feasibility of a Voluntary Ethical Quality Mark for the Australian Textile,
Clothing and Footwear Industries
27 June 2011

NB Ref: MMPJ10ECA142



Table of Contents
Report Preparation ......................................................................................................... 2
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 4
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 6
Methodology .................................................................................................................. 8
Research & Analysis ....................................................................................................... 9
1. Review of Ethical & Environmental Sustainability Compliance Programs .......... 9
2. Australian TCF Industries Stakeholder Consultations ...................................... 16
3. Justification of a Voluntary EQM Option ........................................................ 29
Roadmap Toward an Australian Voluntary EQM for TCF Production ........................... 33
Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 39
References .................................................................................................................... 41
Appendix A: Credibility Principles for Sustainable Production Compliance Programs .. 43
Appendix B: Selected Existing Certifications & Compliance Programs for Assessing Ethical
& Environmentally Sustainable Production in the TCF Industries ................................. 44
Appendix C: EQM Feasibility Study – Online Stakeholder Survey Questions ................ 50
Appendix D: Stakeholder Consultation Summary Data & Selected EQM Survey Finding
Tables 58
Interview Responses .................................................................................................. 58
Workshop Results ...................................................................................................... 61
Online Survey Data .................................................................................................... 64
Appendix E: Global Industry Sustainable Supply Chain Initiatives ................................ 71


NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 4
Executive Summary
The feasibility and appropriateness of establishing a voluntary Ethical Quality Mark for the
Australian Textile, Clothing and Footwear industries was assessed over the last six months. The
creation of a voluntary Ethical Quality Mark (EQM) was proposed in 2008 in a review of Textile,
Clothing and Footwear (TCF) industries commissioned by the Australian Government.
The TCF Industries Innovation Council commissioned Ethical Clothing Australia to undertake a
feasibility study and report on the appropriateness of a voluntary EQM, given there are existing
ethical and environmentally sustainable production compliance programs applicable to the TCF
industries. Two sustainability consulting firms with expertise in this area, WSP Environment &
Energy and Net Balance, were engaged to conduct the research and produce the report.
The feasibility of a voluntary EQM was assessed using two major streams of enquiry:
1. A review of existing ethical and environmental sustainability compliance programs
applicable to the TCF industries, as well as relevant global and local industry trends; and
2. Consultation with stakeholders from the Australian TCF industries through interviews,
workshops and an online survey.
Three potential options for a voluntary EQM for Australian TCF products were agreed prior to the
commencement of the study, and were tested during the stakeholder consultations and against
international eco-labelling and sustainable production practices. These options are:
Option 1 – Expansion of the current Ethical Clothing Australia (ECA) label to include
environmental/sustainability accreditation as an optional adjunct to the current labour
rights accreditation for the local TCF industries
Option 2 – Transformation of the current ECA label so that the primary focus of the new
label is on environmental/sustainability accreditation while still accrediting members for
upholding labour rights for the local TCF industries; and
Option 3 – Development of environmental/sustainability accreditation for the local TCF
industries that is separate from ECA.
Each option was assessed with a view to identifying the most desirable, effective and efficient
option to adopt and implement. Justification for the preferred voluntary EQM option is offered,
and a roadmap for moving the current system towards the most feasible voluntary EQM model is
provided.
The feasibility assessment recommends Option 1 as the preferred method for implementing a
voluntary EQM for the Australian TCF industries, in particular for the fashion and clothing sectors,
and potentially footwear.

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 5
Stakeholders in the Australian TCF industries see the potential value and role of a voluntary EQM in
helping to drive more sustainable production and assisting this sector in a competitive global
marketplace. There is particular support for an EQM in some product classes (e.g. clothing and
fashion) and from some stakeholder groups. Implementation of EQM Option 1 will need to address
specific supply chain and production issues (e.g. toxics, waste, carbon, water, and labour rights),
scope of the EQM, as well as how it would address ‘local’ versus ‘off-shore’ manufacturing (and
therefore associated auditing and performance verification processes). The preference for Option 1
reflects the value in integrating labour rights, product safety and environmental performance
across the supply chain, while retaining the current ECA label as a starting point. The broader EQM
ambitions of Option 1 could be implemented in a staged or modular manner.
While Option 1 is the preferred of 3 options for a voluntary EQM, there are dissenting opinions
from some stakeholders. Many stakeholders are non-aligned and sitting on the fence, needing
more information about scope, geographical coverage, and a much clearer business case. While
some believed it could hold potential, there was also a minority view that did not see sufficient
value across all TCF industries. Despite some stakeholders being neutral about the need for a
voluntary EQM, they did acknowledge that it may be more relevant in some TCF product categories
than in others.
There is however broad support for a range of activities (including a voluntary EQM) that can shift
the TCF industries towards a more engaged, informed and proactive mode of operation that
embodies improved and measurable levels of product safety, environmental performance and
labour rights protection.
Methods for funding the implementation of the preferred Option were specifically canvassed with
stakeholders as part of the online survey. While no particular method (e.g. royalties versus annual
application fee) emerged as a clear preference, there was an overt view that the cost of being
certified should be kept minimal and focused on cost-recovery. The importance of government
support to ensure independence and transparency also was considered important by stakeholders.
Depending on its agreed design and scope, a new voluntary EQM under Option 1 has the potential
to connect and harmonise with several existing certification schemes that are relevant to the TCF
industries. These schemes are typically product specific (e.g. carpet, upholstery textiles), or
process-oriented (e.g. organic, toxics). There are several existing schemes and standards from
Australia and overseas that could be referenced directly and incorporated into a voluntary EQM for
the Australian TCF industries.
It is also important to recognise that some product categories (and companies) within the TCF
industries are significantly advanced on certain aspects of environmental performance, product
safety and/or ethical considerations. For example, driven by demands of the Green Building
Council, the Carpet Institute of Australia has developed a comprehensive and widely adopted
industry facing environmental classification system.

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 6
Introduction
The purpose of this project was to assess the feasibility and appropriateness of establishing a
voluntary Ethical Quality Mark (EQM) for the Australian Textile, Clothing and Footwear (TCF)
industries.
The Australian Government’s response was to task the TCF Industries Innovation Council with
examining the feasibility and appropriateness of a voluntary EQM, given there are existing ethical
and environmentally sustainable production compliance programs applicable to the TCF industries.
A concern of Government was that any EQM take in to account the Homeworkers Code of Practice
(and the associated Ethical Clothing Australia label) and various State and Territory compliance
arrangements, and that its design and operation would “complement rather than add complexity to
the arrangements currently in place”.
The TCF Industries Innovation Council commissioned Ethical Clothing Australia (ECA) to produce a
feasibility study. ECA engaged WSP Environment & Energy and Net Balance, two sustainability
consulting firms with expertise in the area, to conduct the research and produce the report.
The research considered a voluntary EQM that:
• covers all issues of concern in TCF production (human health and safety, worker’s rights
and labour conditions, and environmental impacts)
• addresses more than just manufacturing, but also supply chains for fibres and materials,
and aspires to address product stewardship and post-sale use impacts
• is a tool for consumers to inform their choice of TCF products
• provides a competitive advantage in the market to companies and products that qualify for
the certification and use of the Mark
• is complimentary to existing schemes, in particular the Ethical Clothing Australia system;
and
• will reduce rather than increase complexity of existing arrangements.
This report provides an assessment for ECA by WSP Environment & Energy and Net Balance, of the
feasibility of establishing an Australian voluntary EQM for the TCF industries.
The opinion reached on the feasibility or otherwise is based on two streams of enquiry:
1. a review of existing ethical and environmental sustainability compliance programs
applicable to the TCF industries, as well as relevant global and local industry trends; and
2. consultation with stakeholders from the Australian TCF industries through interviews,
workshops and an online survey.

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 7
The report first provides more information on the methodology used to assess the EQM feasibility.
It then presents key findings from the review of existing compliance programs and ethical and
environmentally sustainable production trends relevant to the TCF industries. An analysis and
discussion of stakeholder opinions expressed through the consultations follows. The report then
discusses the feasibility of a voluntary EQM for the Australian TCF industries based on these
findings and the justification for choosing a particular EQM model. Frameworks for a way forward
towards an industry grounded in ethical and environmentally sustainable production are then
presented. The report concludes with some final thoughts and recommendations.



NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 8
Methodology
Applied research methods including desktop research and literature reviews were used to
understand the ‘landscape’ of ecolabelling and sustainable production in the local and global
textile, clothing and footwear industries. This applied chiefly to the review and assessment of
existing certifications, standards and marks.
Mainstream methods of social inquiry were used for the stakeholder engagement aspects of the
study. This included online survey techniques, small-group workshops and face-to-face interviews.
Interaction and discussion was enabled and facilitated by the study team as a key workshop
objective.
The online survey was developed and deployed among stakeholders. A self-administered survey
approach was deemed appropriate and inclusive. Online stakeholder consultation was also adopted
to maximise efficiencies in relation to time, geography and overall project resources.
The workshops were based on an ‘appreciative inquiry’ approach with the aim of creating an
inclusive environment for discussion and debate. Grouping multiple and diverse stakeholders was
considered an important catalyst for issues identification and solution generation. The format
allowed for group-wide discussion as well as smaller break-out sessions.
The interviews were focused on direct and detailed discussions and exploration with individuals,
and provided the opportunity to further deconstruct views, opinions and preferences. Interviews
were conducted as face to face discussions or via telephone.
In summary, the key elements of the feasibility study included:
1. a review of existing systems and tools, as well as industry trends (December 2010)
2. consultation via survey, interviews, and workshops (March/April/May 2011)
3. an analysis of consultation findings (May 2011)
4. an updated review and industry trends (May 2011)
5. an assessment of feasibility and proposition of frameworks for progress (May 2011)


NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 9
Research & Analysis

1. Review of Ethical & Environmental Sustainability Compliance Programs

This review considered a range of standards, certifications and other compliance programs and
initiatives which may be directly or indirectly relevant to the development of a voluntary EQM for
the TCF industries. It builds on the work completed in June 2010 by the Secretariat to the TCF
Industries Innovation Council on “A Voluntary Ethical Quality Mark for the Australian Textile,
Clothing and Footwear Industries: An Examination of Possible Design Components.” The review was
conducted in 2 stages, firstly in December 2010 and then updated in May 2011 to reflect new
activity and trends.

Compliance Programs Applicable to the TCF Industries
The certifications and programs considered in this review were from a number of sources including
the report in June 2010 by the Secretariat of the TCF Industries Innovation Council, web searches
for environmental and ethical/social accreditations and programs relevant to the TCF industries,
existing knowledge of programs by Ethical Clothing Australia, Net Balance and WSP Environment &
Energy, and via the Ecolabel Index (website: http://www.ecolabelindex.com).
Not all compliance initiatives were judged to be in scope. For example, the Ecolabel Index lists 78
initiatives applicable to textiles alone. They are more for buildings and building products, some of
which are applicable to the textiles industry (i.e. carpets, upholstery, industrial textiles). Many of
the programs are highly specific in terms of country of application or use, only relevant to some
parts of the supply chain or limited product application, etc.
The compliance programs reviewed in depth have a number of dimensions relevant to
consideration of the feasibility of a voluntary EQM for the TCF industries in Australia, and how such
an EQM would be best structured and achieved.


NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 10
Existing schemes differ on the following dimensions:
• How they seek to intervene in production systems to achieve more ethical
1
and
environmentally sustainable production: Many schemes take a product certification approach,
and label products based on their compliance along their supply chain with ethical and/or
environmental standards. Other programs are based on life cycle assessment of (almost
exclusively) environmental impacts. Some interventions are business support and engagement
processes that guide companies to continuously improve performance over time (including
Codes of Conduct). Finally, there are initiatives that provide reporting or measurement tools to
businesses. Each approach plays a role and has its own strengths and weaknesses.

• Whether they emphasise consumer facing or industry facing activities: Compliance programs
often employ consumer-facing labels as ‘pull factors’ for businesses to change their behaviour.
These are predominantly product certification, and to a lesser extent life cycle analysis,
approaches. Compliance with standards enables a company to sell products to consumers that
have agreed ethical and/or environmental features. Typical drivers are competitive advantage
in the marketplace. Alternatively there are schemes that focus on industry engagement and
participation, and seek to raise the standard across business performance, industries or
industry groups as a whole. Often such programs offer important information for business-to-
business transactions or inform annual reports to stakeholders. They also often inform choice
editing
2
by retailers and other market intermediaries.

• Their ambition to cover all supply chain production issues: As many interventions have
emerged from responses to single issues in supply chains or production performance, it is
typical for compliance programs to be less inclusive rather than more inclusive when it comes
to their scope. Schemes typically focus on ethical or environmental issues, not both. However,
there are some exceptions and it is certainly the trend for approaches to work towards being
inclusive of both aspects. In most cases, interventions are ethical, with a little bit of
environmental, or vice versa. Truly comprehensive programs that cover all production issues
are aspirational at present.


1
References to ethical in the context of compliance programs encompass initiatives that address social production aspects, primarily
worker’s rights and labour conditions
2
Choice editing refers to voluntary removal by industry, including retailers, of unsustainable or less sustainable products from their
customer offer and providing in their place sustainable alternatives. The choice is removed from the customer to buy unsustainable
products.

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 11
• Whether they are explicitly focused on TCF industries or provide broader coverage of global
consumer goods or other sectors: While there are some programs that are specific to
companies operating in the textile, clothing and footwear industries, there are a myriad of
programs with applicability to TCF production systems that target a broader scope of business
sectors. For example, there are environmental management system certifications that are
generic to all forms of manufacturing, versus highly specific environmental requirements for
carpet production.

• How much of the supply chain from raw materials to finished consumer goods and beyond
they cover: There are often many steps in the supply chains for TCF products. Similar to the
coverage of production issues already discussed, it is the exception rather than the rule for
single compliance programs to provide full supply chain coverage from raw materials through
to finished consumer products. When environmental or social impacts of post-sale use by
consumers is considered, it is only company reporting schemes, such as the Global Reporting
Initiative, that provide a framework for complete supply chain coverage.

• How credible they are: While there are many compliance programs relevant to the TCF
industries, and many added every week, not all are equally credible. Credibility can be difficult
to define, and it is also highly dynamic as expectations and available options change.
Perceptions of credibility are typically tied to how convincing claims made by businesses using a
label or scheme are trusted or believed by stakeholders and customers. Compliance to
programs with multi-stakeholder governance or government support, public standards and
third party verification of claims is typically viewed as more credible in the marketplace. A
longer discussion of credibility principles, and why they are important, is included as Appendix
A.

The compliance programs reviewed are displayed in Table 1, indicating the features of each
program related to these above dimensions. Note that further details for each compliance program
considered can be found in Appendix B of this report, including mapping them to credibility
principles and applicable TCF supply chain coverage areas (the last two dimensions discussed
above).


NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 12
Table 1. Compliance Programs Reviewed
Compliance Program
Program
Origin
Intervention
Approach
Emphasis on
Consumer or
Industry
Facing
TCF Industry Focus
Ethical Production Compliance Programs & Certifications
Ethical Clothing Australia AU
Company
accreditation
Consumer TCF manufacturing
SA8000 Global Factory certification Industry
General
manufacturing social
compliance
Fair Wear Foundation Netherlands Code of Conduct Industry Apparel cut make trim
Fair Labor Association USA Code of Conduct Industry
Textile manufacture
and apparel cut make
trim
GoodWeave International UK Product certification Consumer Rug manufacturing
Business Social Compliance
Initiative
Belgium
Business support &
engagement + Code
of Conduct
Industry General supply chain
Supplier Ethical Data Exchange
(SEDEX)
UK Reporting tool Industry General supply chain
Better Work Programme /
Better Factory Program
Global Tools & projects Industry General supply chain
Textile, Clothing, Footwear &
Associated Industries Award
AU
Government
legislation
Industry TCF manufacturing
ILO Conventions Global
Government
framework
Industry General supply chain
OECD Guidelines for
Multinational Enterprises
Global Industry guidelines Industry General supply chain
ISO 26000 Global Industry guidelines Industry General supply chain
Ethical Trading Initiative UK
Business support &
engagement + Code
of Conduct
Industry General supply chain
Combined Ethical & Environmental Compliance Programs & Certifications
Global Organic Textile Standard
USA, Japan,
UK,
Germany
Product certification Consumer TCF supply chain
Fairtrade Mark Global Product certification Consumer Cotton production
Good Environmental Choice
Label Australia
AU Product certification Consumer General supply chain
Made-by NL Product certification Consumer TCF supply chain
BMP Cotton AU Product certification Consumer Cotton production
Global Reporting Initiative USA Reporting tool Industry General supply chain
Sustainable Apparel Coalition USA
Business
engagement + tools
and projects
Industry Apparel supply chains
UN Global Compact Global Industry guidelines Industry General supply chains
Nordic Initiative Clean and
Ethical
Nordics
Business support &
engagement + tools
and projects
Both
consumer and
Industry
Apparel supply chains
DFID Responsible & Garment
Sector Challenge Fund (RAGS)
UK
Government funding
program
Industry Apparel cut make trim

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 13
Compliance Program
Program
Origin
Intervention
Approach
Emphasis on
Consumer or
Industry
Facing
TCF Industry Focus
Worldwide Responsible
Accredited Production
USA Product certification Consumer
General
manufacturing
(apparel cut make trim
focused)
Environmental Compliance Programs & Certifications
Oeko-Tex 100, 1000, and 100+
standards
Austria,
Germany,
SUI
Product certification Consumer
Textile manufacture
and apparel cut make
trim
ISO 14001 Global
Business process
certification
Industry General supply chain
Certified Organic (various
organic certifiers)
Global Product certification Consumer General supply chain
Eco-Index USA Assessment tool Industry Apparel supply chain
EU Eco-label EU Product certification Consumer General supply chain
Forest Stewardship Council Global Product certification Consumer General supply chain
The Australian Carpet
Classification Scheme -
Environmental Certification
Scheme
AU Product certification Industry
Textile manufacture
and carpet production
Better Cotton Initiative Global
Production
principles
Industry Cotton production
The Design Accord USA
Business
engagement
Industry TCF design
Australian Packaging Covenant AU
Life cycle
management system
Industry General packaging
Environmental Choice New
Zealand
NZ Product certification Consumer General supply chain
Blue Angel Germany Product certification Consumer General supply chain
MBDC Cradle to Cradle
Certification
USA Product certification Consumer General supply chain
Ecospecifier Green Tag
Certification
AU Product certification Consumer General supply chain
Carbon Reduction Label UK Product certification Consumer General supply chain
Australasian Furnishings
Research & Development
Institute (AFRDI Standard 146 -
Leather)
AU Product certification Consumer Leather production
Green Leader Program AU
Business
accreditation
Consumer General supply chain
DEFRA’s Sustainable Clothing
Action Plan
UK
Government
program
Industry Apparel supply chain
Bluesign SUI Business tools Industry Textile supply chain
Leather Working Group UK
Business tools and
protocol
Industry Leather production


NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 14
As Table 1 clearly shows, there are many schemes and initiatives to navigate, understand and
connect with for a voluntary Ethical Quality Mark for the Australian TCF industries that seeks to be
‘complimentary to existing arrangements’. The introduction in recent years of the ECA mark
addressed a gap in the tapestry of schemes relating to ethical Australian manufacturing of textile,
clothing and footwear, and communicating this to Australian consumers. Beyond the ECA program,
there are well established schemes for different aspects of environmental pollution and
performance that can be applied to local or overseas manufacturing and also to retail and other
operational settings. There are also existing approaches for ethical manufacture overseas, and a
growing number of programs covering ethical and environmental aspects of raw material
production whether within Australia or abroad. Initiatives to address product stewardship and
consumer use/end-of-life are under-developed at this stage.

Ecolabel Trends in Textiles & Apparel: The Sustainability Consortium’s Review
A similar review of ecolabels was recently completed by the Corporate Sustainability Initiative at
Duke University for the Sustainability Consortium (Golden, 2010). While the review was much
broader in scope than the TCF industries, it did specifically look at ecolabelling trends in clothing
and textiles. The review says “the textile industry illustrates the importance of not only
environmental considerations in the labelling process. The most successful textile certifications also
examine health and safety issues along with workers’ rights.” (Golden 2010, p7). This is informative
for considerations of whether a voluntary EQM for the TCF industries in Australia should seek to
cover ethical considerations only or include environmental issues as well, and whether it should
seek to do them under one label.
Further observations from the Duke University study include:
• Ecolabels in the textile and apparel sector mostly address human health and safety (e.g.
Oeko-Tex), environmental pollution (of all kinds, e.g. GOTS), and worker’s rights.
• Leading ecolabels – and labels that are quickly becoming leaders – share an aim to cover
the entire textile and apparel supply chain from raw material to finished product (Duke
University suggests this is important to ‘cut out the need for a number of smaller labels’
and thereby reduce consumer label fatigue).
• Ecolabels covering the full supply chain facilitate the creation of ‘supplier networks’ (i.e.
inter-connections between raw material, textile creation and final product manufacturing –
or Cut-Make-Trim (CMT) businesses) that make it easier for upstream companies to engage
and purchase ethically and/or environmentally sustainable produced goods.


NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 15
A quote from the authors of the Duke University study is very relevant to this feasibility
assessment:
“… one thing about ecolabels in the textile and apparel sector is very clear. There are
already definitive “winners” in this industry’s ecolabel space. Comprehensive labels that
cover each of the three issues that are most important in this industry have been developed,
and are enjoying high levels of adoption. While it may be worthwhile for an individual
company to require Oeko-Tex, GOTS … certification for any textiles/apparel it carries,
developing a different set of standards or company-specific codes of conduct for
textile/apparel suppliers may raise the effort and cost without driving any real improvement
in field or market success.” (Golden, 2010, p43).

Alternative Approaches to Achieving Sustainable Production
The Sustainability Consortium, who commissioned the above ecolabel review, is a good example of
an increasingly adopted intervention approach to address moving towards greater ethical and
environmentally sustainable production in global supply chains: the multi-stakeholder,
collaborative, industry-engaged platform (for more on the Sustainability Consortium, see Appendix
E).
Other collaborative and performance-oriented multi-stakeholder programs of this type – all with
high relevance to the TCF industries – include the Global Social Compliance Program (see Appendix
E), the Business Social Compliance Program and the Ethical Trading Initiative (both are in the table
of compliance programs in Appendix B). Most recently – in fact over the course of this project – the
Sustainable Apparel Coalition has launched, adopting this approach amongst some of the biggest
apparel and footwear businesses in the world, with the goal of reducing the social and
environmental impact of apparel and footwear production and consumption.
The Sustainable Apparel Coalition is engaging with the (also new) Eco-Index, an emerging, life cycle
based environmental assessment tool for (initially) outdoor apparel (see more on the Eco-Index in
Appendix B). Taken together, all of these schemes have the potential to transform how the ethical
and environmental performance of TCF industries is understood, measured, and communicated
over the coming decade.
Another collaborative approach of note is The Design Accord (Appendix B). A voluntary,
participation based intervention, The Design Accord seeks to tackle the design phase in the TCF
(and other) industries, which has significant impacts on downstream sustainable consumption and
production. This global coalition attracts signatories, delivers training programs, and shares
knowledge across the design community globally. Design is a vital part of the sustainability agenda
but currently lacks any major compliance initiatives or programs. The Design Accord offers a
solution in this space.

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 16
Finally, the industry collaboration model has been adopted across Nordic countries to help achieve
a “clean and ethical” fashion industry. Fashion industry groups came together to form Nordic
Initiative, Clean & Ethical (NICE) in 2008. NICE has set out a ten-year plan to transform the fashion
sector in collaboration with government and non-government organisations. It also offers tools for
businesses and consumers, and conducts awareness and education campaigns towards this end. It
is notable that the ambitions of NICE are highly convergent with those underpinning the
proposition of a voluntary EQM for the Australian TCF industries.


2. Australian TCF Industries Stakeholder Consultations
Stakeholder Context
The TCF industries in Australia are diverse and comprise a range of different product categories
ranging from apparel and fashion, through to footwear, floor coverings, leather, commercial fabrics
and non-woven technical textiles. Each of these categories or sectors has its own set of issues and
priorities, including different drivers for improved environmental performance, product safety and
ethical behaviour.
It is also important to highlight that stakeholder groups within the TCF industries hold diverse and
sometimes competing views with regard to EQM-related issues. A multi-stakeholder approach was
a high priority requirement from the TCF Industries Innovation Council. The need for a multi-
stakeholder consultation approach was also deemed appropriate, given the diverse product
categories.
In addition to manufacturing, import, export and retail interests, the diversity of stakeholders
extends beyond product categories. The TCF industries also reflect several other sectors that play a
specific role in relation to:
• education and training
• workforce representation and union activity
• government policy, programs and regulation
• research and development
• environment, consumer and fair trade advocacy
• media, marketing and communications.
It should be recognised that some stakeholders within the TCF industries have well-developed
programs and initiatives focused on environment, product safety and ethical requirements. Some
of these activities will be further discussed in relation to the findings below.


NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 17
The Stakeholder Engagement Process
Ensuring widespread consultation and engagement was an important element of seeking views,
opinions and ideas from across the TCF industries. Three specific methods were used:
i) Interviews: Focused on key stakeholders; interactive discussions; face-to-face or
phone; key decision makers and associations.
ii) Workshops: Multiple stakeholders and diverse interests i.e. manufacturers, designers,
associations, educators, designers, activists; enabled face to face group
discussion and debate; allowed stakeholders to ask questions of the study
team directly; conducted two workshops (Melbourne and Sydney).
iii) Online survey: Inclusive and accessible to interested stakeholders; web-based and
uncomplicated to complete; straightforward to promote nationally.
The interviews provided an additional perspective from stakeholders deeply involved with the TCF
industries, with strong views on what any EQM priorities might look like. The Melbourne workshop
enjoyed a larger number of stakeholders (compared to Sydney) and benefited directly from a
longer lead-time promoting the workshop date and location. The online survey proved particularly
successful with higher than expected participation from the TCF industries.

Who Responded & Participated?
A wide range of stakeholders participated in the study across the three streams of inquiry with
representation from business, unions, design, education and non-government groups.
Interviews – nine decision makers and association representatives, including several members of
the TCF Industries Innovation Council and industry associations such as the Council of Textile and
Fashion Industries of Australia, the Carpet Institute of Australia and the Footwear Manufacturers
Association of Australia. The majority of Innovation Council members were interviewed, however
not all members were available or in a position to respond. Some associations deferred to their
completion of the online survey as the primary source of their views and position.
Workshops – 22 participants from Melbourne and Sydney attended the workshops, including
individuals and organisations which reflect the types of business, groups and sectors listed below in
the context of the online survey.
Online survey – 111 respondents from diverse sectors and interests involved directly and indirectly
in the TCF industries. This included companies involved in the production and/or supply of fashion
and apparel, footwear, commercial upholstery textiles, carpet, leather and technical and non-
woven textiles. Not all questions were mandatory which resulted in some respondents skipping
specific questions. A base of approximately 90 respondents completed the majority of questions.

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 18
It is important to note that while industry associations reflect a relatively small percentage of
survey respondents, they typically represent much large numbers of their respective sector or
product category by way of being a collective voice for their member companies.
Union officials (and members) and designers were also well represented in the survey. The
remaining survey respondents were equally spread across stakeholders from:
• educational institutions including teachers, lectures, researchers and students
• environment and consumer oriented organisations (NGOs)
• consultants and think-tanks (environment, TCF and business related); and
• media, marketing and communications.

Interview Results
Several key decisions makers and association representatives were interviewed to gain further
insights as to the feasibility for a voluntary EQM. This included discussions (either face to face or by
phone) with:
• several members of the TCF Industries Innovation Council
• TCF Union of Australia
• Council of Textile and Fashion Industries of Australia
• Carpet Institute of Australia
• Footwear manufacturers Association of Australia
• Australian Association of Leather Industries.
Some associations deferred to their completion of the online survey as the source of their views
and position.
Preferred EQM Option
Of the three options proposed, Option 1 emerged as a preferred model chiefly because it could
expand on existing labour rights focused activities in the fashion and clothing sectors and
potentially footwear. This ability to ‘upgrade’ or integrate labour rights, product safety and
environmental performance, was seen as valuable in how Option 1 could be developed. Another
important finding emerging from the interviews was the view that Option 1 was flexible enough to
reference and integrate existing certification schemes and standards from overseas and Australia.
Effective use of, and harmonisation with, these existing initiatives was considered a positive feature
in pursuing Option 1.


NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 19
Justification for an EQM Option
A key issue that emerged through the interviews was the need for simplicity, efficiency and
effectiveness in the design and implementation of a voluntary EQM, and that this could in part be
achieved through building on the existing ECA accreditation program. Starting from scratch was not
considered viable or desirable when there is already some industry currency through the ECA label.
In other words, several respondents acknowledged the benefits of using and expanding existing
resources, knowledge and multi-stakeholder mechanisms in a new EQM. Specific other existing
schemes cited as worthy of integrating into a new voluntary EQM, and/or learning from, include
the Oeko-Tex, Australian Certified Organic, Good Environmental Choice Australia, and the ACCS
Environmental Certification Scheme for Carpets.
Implementation of an EQM Option
There was agreement among several stakeholders that a joint or multi-stakeholder approach to
managing the design and implementation of a voluntary EQM is appropriate and necessary. This
would not only help ensure appropriate expertise and engagement, it would also contribute
towards transparency and achieving integrity in compliance. The existing ECA accreditation
approach was cited as an obvious example of how a multistakeholder approach helps with effective
implementation and industry outreach, and that this existing ‘infrastructure’ should not be
overlooked in creating a new voluntary EQM.
Limitations & Concerns
The majority of respondents acknowledged that diversity within the TCF industries provided a
challenge to designing, administering and funding a ‘one-size-fits-all’ EQM solution. A single
voluntary EQM that can be equally effective across all product categories within the TCF industries,
and across consumer types, was seen as difficult to realistically achieve.
A particularly strong view from several respondents believed that a ‘level playing field’ was vital. It
was considered essential to avoid creating an EQM that might result in competitive disadvantage
for local manufacturers compared to importers.
Several ‘industry’ respondents did not believe that a new voluntary EQM would help improve the
performance of Australian TCF companies, nor did they believe that household consumer demand
is a major driver. While some believed it could hold potential, there was also a minority view that
did not see sufficient value across all TCF industries. Some respondents remained neutral about the
need for a voluntary EQM, however they acknowledged that it may be more relevant in some
product sectors than others.
For a more detailed summary of interview findings refer to Appendix D.



NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 20
Workshop Findings
The workshops were facilitated to create an inclusive environment for discussion and debate and
were based on an ‘appreciative inquiry’ approach i.e. a workshop structure that seeks to positively
engage all participants to address issues of change, growth and improvement. The workshops
posed four questions as a means of investigating the feasibility of a voluntary EQM:
i) What is happening today to create more ethical and environmentally sustainable TCF products
and services that excite you, both here in Australia and around the world?
ii) How can we get more of these exciting actions to create more ethical and environmentally
sustainable products and services in Australia?
iii) Looking at the actions identified under question ii), how desirable and feasible is each option?
iv) How would you design an EQM so that it is desirable and feasible, and could contribute to
creating thriving and viable TCF industries?
The workshops were held in Melbourne and Sydney with 22 participants from a variety of sectors
and interests, including local manufacturers (outdoor and corporate clothing, non-woven and
technical textiles), TFIA, TCFUA, fashion labels and designers, educators and post-graduate
researchers, Fair Trade advocates and government. Grouping these diverse stakeholders in the
workshops was considered an important catalyst for issues identification and solution generation.
This format allowed for group-wide discussion as well as smaller break-out sessions, all of which
generated a variety of views, ideas and options. The key findings are summarized below.
Preferred EQM Option
The workshops enabled a free-ranging discussion of how ethics, product safety and environmental
performance could be addressed across the TCF industries, and numerous ideas and suggestions
(e.g. regulations, funding, tariffs) were put forward even though many fell outside the scope of the
study. There was however a recurring view that the existing ECA program provides a base from
which to expand certification and labelling to move beyond labour rights requirements.
Option 1 was seen as a logical starting point as ECA accreditation was relatively well known and
understood in the clothing and fashion sectors. The inherent ability to expand Option 1 to deal with
additional certification criteria was also seen as positive and more realistic than designing a new
model from the ground up. There was a clear view emerging from the workshops that developing
an option which undermined existing ECA efforts would not be desirable or supported by key
stakeholders involved in the TCF industries.


NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 21
Justification for an EQM Option
A consistent and recurring finding from the workshops, which underscores the justification of
Option 1, is a view that it provides an established foundation for ongoing expansion to address
additional key certification criteria i.e. product safety and environmental performance. It was also
felt that Option 1 could enable a phased and modular solution to EQM type solutions, and that this
measured or staged approach could increase the chances of longer-term success.
The need and desire to effectively use existing global and/or local certification schemes was also
often raised during the workshops, and is compatible with the basic structure or scope of Option 1.
Ensuring that a new voluntary EQM addressed multiple certification criteria over time was another
key point raised, and the success of such a label would be dependent on showing how its design
and implementation would deal with ethical performance, as well as product safety and
environmental performance. Again, a modular or phased approach possible through Option 1
supports its further development. There was also agreement that ECA accreditation was ‘setting
new standards’ on labour rights with resulting positive outcomes, and that this basic framework
could be extended or adapted to other certification aspects.
The need for increased transparency and credibility that could be realised through an expanded
voluntary EQM was another common workshop theme and seen as increasingly important for
consumer and environment NGOs.
Implementation of an EQM Option
A noteworthy theme emerging from the workshops was the value of ‘modularity’ and how this
could support a more realistic and incremental EQM implementation approach. This view was
flavoured by the need to be realistic and focused about scope, and developing an EQM that was
both desirable and feasible to key stakeholders in terms of sector or product category, and
customer type (e.g. business-to-business and business-to-consumer). In short, the need for
targeting specific customer groups should inform the design and implementation of a voluntary
EQM.
Learning from existing, successful certification schemes relevant to the TCF industries was raised
during the workshops as important and of practical relevance with regard to implementation and
delivery. More specifically, any scheme should learn from the methods and processes adopted by
the Green Building Council of Australia and their Green Star rating tool, and how this influences or
drives the certification of product and company performance concerning product safety and
environmental.

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 22
Many workshop participants raised the issue of consumer interest, demand and awareness for
‘greener’, safer and more ethical products, from reputable manufacturers and retailers. Growing
receptiveness from Gen Y was one example of why EQM type solutions hold merit and may succeed
in the marketplace. This issue was also connected to workshop discussion around the increased
visibility of social and environmental impacts as communicated via blogging, documentaries,
activism and general media interest on such topics.
Limitations & Concerns
There was a strong and clear view from the workshops that any voluntary EQM needs to target the
majority of clothing and fashion if there is to be any measurable social and environmental benefit.
While the relevance of an EQM across all TCF product categories was recognised, the strongest
views were expressed in relation to ensuring effective applicability of an EQM on clothing and
fashion. This view is consistent with related comments on the challenges of achieving a level
playing field by eliminating free-riders who might gain a competitive advantage through non-
participation in an EQM certification program.
A concern from some business stakeholders was raised about limited market demand or other
compelling drivers for business to spend on any form of ethical or environmental certification. In
other words, they were not convinced of the possible return on investment of adopting an EQM.
The need for education and re-education of all stakeholders was also seen as very important in
securing commitment and future action on ethical and environmental improvements across the
TCF industries. Great awareness and understanding of the issues and impacts was considered as a
prerequisite to business engagement and buy-in.
For a more detailed summary of workshop findings refer to the Appendix D.

Online Survey Results
An online survey (the survey) was deployed among stakeholders to help maximise participation and
provide an inclusive approach. The use of a conventional, web-based format enabled the study
team to access stakeholders regardless of their geographical location or time constraints.
Over 30 questions were posed and aimed to explore and investigate levels of general awareness,
attitudes, opinions and preferences in relation to a variety of topics and themes directly and
indirectly related to an EQM. A combination of multiple-choice, closed and open-ended questions
generated a significant body of results that have been used to further evaluate and test the
feasibility of a preferred voluntary EQM option. The online survey questions are listed in Appendix
C.

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 23
A total of 111 respondents from diverse sectors and interests involved in the TCF industries
participated in the survey. The combined representation of business (manufacturers, brand
owners, retailers and importers) represented the largest single grouping (34.9 %). Union officials
and members represented 19.6 % of all responses. Manufacturers formed 15.2 % of all survey
responses. While industry associations reflect a relatively small percentage of survey respondents,
they typically represent much large numbers of their respective sector or product category by way
of being a collective voice for their members.
Which sector best describes your role? Response percent Response count
Manufacturing 15.3 % 17
Brand owner 6.3 % 7
Retailer 8.1 % 9
Importer 5.4 % 6
Designer 10.8 % 12
Union 19.8 % 22
Education and research 9.9 % 11
Industry and professional association 5.4 % 6
Government 0 % 0
Environment or consumer organisations 4.5 % 5
Other 14.4 % 16

In relation to sub-sectors or product categories, the majority of survey respondents considered
themselves as most directly involved with fashion and apparel (52.7 %), as per the table below.
Which product category are you primarily
involved with?
Response percent Response count
Fashion and apparel 52.2 % 58
Footwear 6.3 % 7
Commercial textiles 5.4 % 6
Technical textiles and non woven 1.8 % 2
Leather 3.6 % 4
Carpet and other floor coverings 4.5 % 5
Other 26.1 % 29



NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 24
Preferred EQM Option
Of the three options proposed, the largest single group of survey respondents favoured Option 1 as
being the most attractive to stakeholders. Option 1, or an expanded or modular upgrade of the
existing ECA accreditation program, was considered to be the most attractive to companies with
33.3 % of respondents selecting Option 1. The same Option was also considered as the most
attractive to consumers (36 %), as per the tables below. While the majority of respondents
completed the ‘Options’ questions, some chose to skip this section of the survey.
Which of the three options outlined is most
likely to be attractive to TCF companies?
Response percent Response count
Option 1 33.3 % 37
Option 2 11.7 % 13
Option 3 9.9 % 11
None of the options 3.6 % 3
Other (please describe) 8.1 % 10

Which of the three options outlined is most
likely to be attractive to consumers?
Response percent Response count
Option 1 36 % 40
Option 2 10.8 % 12
Option 3 9 % 10
None of the options 2.7 % 3
Other (please describe) 9 % 10

Of the three options outlined which has the
highest risk of failure or low-level adoption
by TCF companies?
Response percent Response count
Option 1 16.2 % 18
Option 2 27 % 30
Option 3 14.4 % 16
None of the options 0.9 % 1
Other (please describe) 7.2 % 8

It is important to note that a relatively high number of respondents felt that Option 2 has the
highest risk of failure or lowest level of adoption by TCF companies.
A considerable number of respondents (39.6 %) believed that existing labour rights initiatives in the
TCF industries were ‘effective and meeting stakeholders’ needs’, compared to only 16.2 % feeling
the opposite. This tends to highlight the success and performance of the ECA accreditation program
and is consistent with the single largest group of respondents favouring an EQM as described under
Option 1.

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 25
The relationship between a new voluntary EQM and existing labour rights activities was also raised
by some respondents, with a strong preference to see the ECA accreditation program as a
prerequisite to securing additional certification or accreditation to environmental and product
safety standards. This further supports the intent of Option 1 as a sequenced approach that can
help ensure that working conditions are addressed from the outset and not omitted from the
overall scope of an integrated EQM approach.
Justification for an EQM Option
At a general level there is a strong feeling of ‘industry interest, concern and responsibility’ among
respondents. A total of 78 % of respondents either agree or strongly agree that environmental
issues are of great concern to the TCF industries.
The issue of ‘hazardous and/or toxic substances used in the manufacture of TCF products’ was
considered the most significant environmental issue among a large group of respondents at 48.6 %.
Concern about ‘energy consumption and associated carbon emissions/global warming’ was also
seen as significant with 46.8 % of respondents nominating it as a major environmental issue. Given
the nature of fashion and typically short life cycles for many clothing items, it is not surprising that
42.3 % of respondents also considered ‘solid waste resulting from end-of-life TCF products’ as a
significant issue.
More specifically, as a combined percentage (47.7 %), a relatively large group of respondents either
strongly agree (36.9 %) or agree (10.8 %) that a new Environmental Label is much needed for the
TCF industries. These figures indicate that there is more support among respondents than there is
opposition to a voluntary EQM, as per the table below.
A new voluntary Environmental Label for
the TCF industries is much needed in
Australia
Response percent Response count
Strongly agree 36.9 % 41
Agree 10.8 % 12
Undecided 19.8 % 22
Disagree 9.9 % 11
Strongly disagree 2.7 % 3

The single largest group of respondents (36 %) believed that the expansion of the current ECA label
to include environmental/sustainability accreditation as an optional adjunct to the current labour
rights accreditation for local TCF industries would be most attractive to consumers. The least
popular option among respondents (9 %) was Option 3 which proposed to start a new label
separate to the ECA. Option 2 attracted the support of 10.8 %.

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 26
In terms of desirability among TCF companies, the breakdown was similar to that of consumer
attractiveness. An expanded and modular upgrade of the ECA accreditation program was
considered to be the most attractive to companies with 33.3 % of respondents selecting Option 1,
compared to only 11.7% support for Option 2 and 9.9% for Option 3.
A diverse range of factors and potentially positive outcomes underpinned the justification of a new
voluntary EQM by respondents. A strong and recurring justification related to an EQM’s
contribution to achieving a sustainable future and creating employment. Some survey respondents
also believed that an EQM would directly assist with increasing consumer awareness, which in turn
would drive industry to deliver improved TCF products. Additional justifications emerging from the
survey include:
• the potential for a label to provide brand differentiation in the market place, including export
opportunities
• the role of innovation in helping to stimulate competitive spirit between manufacturers
underpinned by a common standard or baseline of product performance
• environmental benefits e.g. less waste, safer products, reduced toxic substances
• the creation of a more direct connection between consumers, the products they purchase, and
the associated environmental impacts; and
• the possibility of raising consumer awareness about Australian-made ethical and/or
environmental products, depending on who was eligible for the EQM.
Several survey respondents noted that in the absence of regulations or mandated labelling
requirements imposed on TCF products, a voluntary EQM remained a worthwhile starting point
that could develop and expand over time.
Implementation of an EQM option
The largest group of survey respondents (50.4 %) believed that a combination of organisations was
best placed to ensure ‘independence and credibility’. The dominant combination among
respondents was ‘unions + industry + associations + environment and consumer NGOs’. This
combination was closely followed by a variation, which included government and research
organisations.
Which stakeholder/s bring the most
independence and credibility to the design
of a voluntary TCF based environmental
label?
Response percent Response count
Australian Government 6.3 % 7
Educational/academic organisations 1.8 % 2
Environment and consumer NGOs 4.5 % 5
Industry and professional associations 9 % 10
Research organisations 1.8 % 2
State and Territory Governments 0.0 % 0
Unions 3.6 % 4
A combination of the above 50.4 % 56

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 27
Respondents were divided on the issue of who should be eligible to receive a voluntary label. The
biggest grouping of respondents (34.2 %) either strongly agree or agree that any new label should
be available to any manufacturer, importer, brand owner or retailer supplying products to the
Australian market.
A new voluntary Environmental Label
should be available to any manufacturer,
importer, brand owner or retailer supplying
the Australian market?
Response percent Response count
Strongly agree 18.9 % 21
Agree 15.3 % 17
Undecided 5.4 % 6
Disagree 5.4 % 6
Strongly disagree 27 % 30

With 63 % of respondents believing that local and overseas manufacturers should be subject to the
same labour rights requirements, it could be concluded that a level ‘playing-field’ without any
exemptions is a priority issue for the majority of survey respondents, and that this is a high priority
implementation requirement.
An important aspect of achieving an integrated approach between and across certification schemes
is to ensure that the design and implementation of an EQM under Option 1 is governed by relevant
expertise, interests and sectors. This highlights the value and benefits associated of adopting a
multi-stakeholder model not dissimilar to how the current ECA accreditation operates.
The survey results also emphasised a range of significant factors in the design of a successful
voluntary EQM including: independence, transparency, robust data, credibility, effectiveness,
industry commitment, collaboration, monitoring, clear communication, clear metrics, and public
recognition.
Methods for funding the implementation of the preferred Option were specifically canvassed with
respondents as part of the survey. While no particular method (e.g. royalties versus annual
application fee) emerged as a clear preference, there was an overt view that the cost of being
certified should be kept minimal, especially given concerns about the rising costs of doing business.
The importance of government support to ensure independence and transparency also was
considered important by stakeholders.
From a learnings and precedent perspective, survey respondents cited several labels and
certification schemes that could inform the future development and implementation of a voluntary
EQM. These include – the Energy Star Rating Scheme, Australian Certified Organic, Sustainable
Apparel Coalition, ACCS Environmental Certification Scheme for Carpets, Fairtrade Label, Good
Environmental Choice, Woolmark label, Made in Australia, the Heart Tick and Forest Stewardship
Council certification.

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 28
Limitations & Concerns
A large number of respondents noted that the performance and benefits of an EQM could be
enhanced or improved if it was regulated in some way i.e. not voluntary. Similarly, a clear definition
around the scope and parameters of any new voluntary EQM would be required to help to focus
the success of such a scheme.
More work needs to be done on the question of eligibility and to whom an EQM under Option 1
could be applied. Survey respondents were divided on this issue. The biggest grouping of
respondents (34.2 %) either strongly agreed or agreed that any new Environmental Label should be
available to all companies supplying TCF products to the Australian market.
For a more detailed summary of the online survey results refer to the Appendix D.

Summary of Key Findings from the Interviews, Workshops and Online Survey
The results from, and analysis of, the stakeholder consultations have provided a comprehensive
body of information to help determine the feasibility of a new voluntary EQM for the TCF industries
in Australia. When the results are considered as a collective set of findings it becomes apparent
that there is support for a voluntary EQM regardless of any limitations, caveats and concerns.
The interviews with individual decisions makers indicated support for Option 1 because it was well
placed to expand on existing labour rights activities in the fashion and clothing categories, and
potentially footwear. Option 1 was also considered flexible enough to reference and integrate
existing schemes and standards from overseas and Australia. Simplicity, efficiency and effectiveness
in the design and implementation of any new EQM were seen as important. A joint or multi-
stakeholder approach to the implementation was also considered a priority by most respondents,
as was the need for a level playing field to ensure that local manufacturers did not suffer any
competitive disadvantage.
The issues, themes and ideas emerging from the workshops suggest that while many innovative
ideas and possibilities exist, that the essential structure of Option 1 was considered to be a logical
starting point, especially for fashion and clothing. The ability to expand Option 1 to deal with
additional certification criteria was also seen as positive and more realistic than designing a new
model from the ground up. There was also general agreement that ECA accreditation was ‘setting
new standards’ on labour rights with resulting positive outcomes, and that this basic framework
could be extended or adapted to other certification aspects. The need to be focused and realistic
about a new EQM was also clear, as was the acknowledgement of re-educating key stakeholders
and increasing consumer interest and awareness.

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 29
In the first instance, the online survey results highlight a strong degree of interest in the issue
merely through the high number of respondents. Furthermore, the breakdown of results shows
that those involved with fashion and apparel are especially engaged and eager to see positive
outcomes. Of the three options proposed, the single largest group of survey respondents favoured
Option 1 as being the most attractive to stakeholders – both companies and consumers. A strong
and recurring justification related to an EQM’s contribution to achieving a sustainable future and
creating employment. The majority of survey respondents (50.4 %) believed that a combination of
organisations was best placed to ensure ‘independence and credibility’. The dominant combination
among respondents was ‘unions + industry + associations + environment and consumer NGOs’.
Concerns and queries across all three streams of inquiry relate to the need for clarity around scope,
eligibility, source of production, avoiding competitive disadvantage and the importance of learning
from, and integrating with existing local and global certifications. While some believed it could hold
potential, there was also a minority view that did not see sufficient value across all TCF industries.
Some stakeholders remained neutral about the need for a voluntary EQM, however they
acknowledged that it might be more relevant in some TCF product categories than in others.
In summary, there are dominant and common areas of agreement emerging from all three streams
of consultation. Most importantly and within the context of assessing the feasibility of the
proposed options, there is general agreement that Option 1 is the preferred approach.


3. Justification of a Voluntary EQM Option
Referring back to the context for this report, the Australian Government asked the TCF Industries
Innovation Council to examine the feasibility and appropriateness of a voluntary EQM given there
are existing ethical and environmentally sustainable production compliance programs applicable to
the TCF industries. Factors considered during the conduct of the study included a voluntary EQM
that:
• covers all issues of concern in TCF production (human health and safety, worker’s rights
and labour conditions, and environmental impacts)
• addresses more than just manufacturing, but also supply chains for fibres and materials,
and aspires to address product stewardship and post-sale use impacts
• is a tool for consumers to inform their choice of TCF products
• provides a competitive advantage in the market to companies and products that qualify for
the certification and use of the Mark
• is complimentary to existing schemes, in particular the Ethical Clothing Australia system;
and
• will reduce rather than increase complexity of existing arrangements.

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 30
The voluntary EQM options tested by this study were:
Option 1: Expansion of the current Ethical Clothing Australia label to include
environmental/sustainability accreditation as an optional adjunct to the current labour
rights accreditation for the local textile, clothing and footwear industries.
Option 2: Transformation of the current Ethical Clothing Australia label so that the primary
focus of the new label is an environmental/sustainability accreditation while still accrediting
members for upholding labour rights for the local textile, clothing and footwear industries.
Option 3: Development of an environmental/sustainability accreditation for the local
textile, clothing and footwear industries that is separate from Ethical Clothing Australia.

The voluntary EQM Option 1 has emerged as the most supported and likely to succeed of these
options. The intervention approach implied under EQM Option 1 is a product certification model,
compared to Codes of Conduct or industry-performance enhancement approaches. An explicit
focus on TCF industries is also implied rather than a general sustainability compliance tool.
Credibility is assumed, of course, but not a given, and will need to be considered in any final design.
Further questions regarding the justification for Option 1 and its feasibility as a voluntary EQM for
the Australian TCF industries are posed below. The answers draw on the streams of enquiry
discussed in this Research & Analysis section, including the review of global and local compliance
programs and sustainable production trends, stakeholder interviews, workshops and the online
survey.

1. Do Stakeholders in the Australian TCF Industries See the Value, Demand for, and Interest in
Creating a New Voluntary EQM?
Stakeholders in the Australian TCF industries see the potential value and role of a voluntary EQM
that builds on existing labour rights initiatives. There is strong support for an EQM in some product
classes (e.g. clothing, fashion, technical textiles) and from some stakeholder groups (e.g. trade
union and some industry associations).
The results emerging from the stakeholder consultations show broad support for a voluntary EQM
that can shift the TCF industries towards a more engaged, informed and proactive mode of
operation that embodies improved and measurable levels of product safety, environmental
performance and labour rights protection. While some believed it could hold potential, there was
also a minority view that did not see sufficient value across all TCF industries. Some stakeholders
remained neutral about the need and justification for a voluntary EQM, however they
acknowledged that it may be more relevant in some TCF product categories than in others.

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 31
The majority of survey respondents (50.4 %) believed that a combination of organisations was best
placed to ensure ‘independence and credibility’. The dominant combination among respondents
was ‘unions + industry + associations + environment and consumer NGOs’.
Stakeholders also see the value of learning from existing, successful certification schemes relevant
to the TCF industries. More specifically, any scheme should learn from the methods and processes
adopted by the Green Building Council of Australia and their Green Star rating tool, and how this
influences or drives the certification of product and company performance concerning product
safety and environmental factors. For example the Carpet Institute of Australia has developed a
comprehensive and widely adopted environmental classification system, partly driven by Green
Star. Similarly, several Australian commercial upholstery suppliers have successfully adopted a
range of international and local environmental certification schemes such as Good Environmental
Choice Australia, EcoSpecifier GreenTag and Oeko-Tex.

2. Which of the Three Options Proposed by the TCF Industries Innovation Council has the Most
Support & What Does That Tell Us?
Based on the results of stakeholder consultation, and the three options presented to stakeholders,
Option 1 has the most support at this point in time:
Expansion of the current Ethical Clothing Australia (ECA) labour rights related label to
include environmental/sustainability accreditation as an optional adjunct to the current
labour rights accreditation for the local textile, clothing and footwear industries.
While the overall thrust of the findings was supportive of Option 1, the online survey results further
reinforced stakeholder preferences for this Option i.e. the largest single group of respondents
favoured Option 1 as being the most attractive to stakeholders. Option 1, or an expanded or
modular upgrade of the existing ECA accreditation program, was considered to be the most
attractive to companies with 33.3 % of respondents selecting Option 1, compared to only 11.7 %
support for Option 2 and 9.9 % for Option 3. The same Option was also considered as the most
attractive to consumers.
The preference for Option 1 also suggests that stakeholders see value in integrating labour rights,
product safety and environmental performance, in a staged or modular manner within the context
of retaining ECA involvement.



NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 32
3. How Does a New Voluntary EQM Compare to Existing Initiatives (Local & Global), & What Does
That Tell Us?
Depending on its design and scope, a new voluntary EQM has the potential to connect and/or
harmonise with several existing certification schemes that are relevant to the TCF industries. These
schemes are typically product specific (e.g. carpet, upholstery textiles), or process-oriented (e.g.
organic, toxics). In Australia these include:
• Good Environmental Choice Australia
• EcoSpecifier Green Tag
• Australian Carpet Classification Scheme (Environmental Classification Scheme)
• Australian Certified Organic (amongst other organic certifiers).
A range of overseas schemes and standards also has applicability within an Australian context. An
obvious and widely used standard dealing with restricted and harmful substances is the Swiss-
based Oeko-Tex standard.
Other international initiatives also have relevance and are discussed in the next chapter. In short,
there are several existing schemes and/or standards from Australia and overseas that could be
referenced directly into a comprehensive voluntary EQM for the Australian TCF industries.

4. Is a Voluntary EQM for the TCF Industries Feasible for Australia?
The analysis of the stakeholder consultation results, as well as the literature review of certification
schemes, recommends Option 1 as the most feasible approach for a voluntary EQM at this time.
In particular, there are opportunities to work towards a phased approach that targets TCF
product(s) where demand and awareness is currently strong. The results support this conclusion.
The feasibility is likely to increase if the scope and focus of the EQM are narrowed to a specific
product category or sector(s) where there is clear demand from stakeholders, be they
manufacturers, suppliers, brand-owners or consumers, as is the case with clothing and fashion.
The feasibility of a voluntary EQM within the context of Option 1 can also be increased through
additional work to establish a compelling business case that includes some form of cost-benefit
analysis for a specific product category or sector. It is also important to note that some
stakeholders are neutral and sitting on the fence, needing additional information about scope and a
much stronger business case.
In summary, a voluntary EQM in accordance with Option 1 is the most feasible of the three options
proposed. By focusing the design, scope, eligibility and market relevance of Option 1, the feasibility
can be further increased. Mindful of this measured approach, the following Roadmap seeks to
address and accommodate how a phased approach to implementing a voluntary EQM could be
implemented.

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 33
Roadmap Toward an Australian Voluntary EQM for TCF Production
The most desirable and feasible of the three voluntary EQM design options put to Australian
stakeholders was:
Option 1: Expansion of the current Ethical Clothing Australia label to include
environmental/sustainability accreditation as an optional adjunct to the current labour
rights accreditation for the local textile, clothing and footwear industries
A roadmap from current arrangements towards Option 1 for fashion, clothing and potentially
footwear will need to take the following aspects in to account:
• Domestic versus full global supply chain scope: The stakeholder consultation revealed general
agreement that an EQM covering domestic activities only is more feasible, but likely not
credible to end users (i.e. retailers, consumers). Additionally, a domestic application would
exclude most TCF products in the Australian market. Adopting a full global supply chain scope
creates opportunities for any scheme to be accessed by Australian brands producing overseas,
as well as international companies selling in to the Australian market – though there are strong
opposing opinions on the latter aspect. It is also noted that the Sustainability Consortium’s
ecolabel review concluded that global leading labels in the TCF industries aim to cover the
whole supply chain from raw materials to finished products, as they limit the need for a
number of smaller, supply chain step labels and consumer label confusion/fatigue.

• New versus existing initiatives: Complimentarity has been emphasised throughout this report
as a key requirement for the Australian Government in considering the feasibility of a voluntary
EQM. There are existing compliance programs covering most relevant supply chain issues and
areas that can be utilised. As the Duke University report stated, there is likely questionable
return on investment in creating new standards or labels compared to utilising schemes already
in operation. New models should complement the existing work of Ethical Clothing Australia
(which accredits to the Code).

• Financial feasibility: Preferred intervention approaches must consider where money has
already been invested, competition for funds, and value to stakeholders so that it can rapidly
transition to a self-sustaining enterprise beyond an initial start-up period. Government funding
support is an important and appropriate requirement to help increase success of any ongoing
development activities.


NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 34
• A rapidly evolving global environment: There have been many innovations in recent years in
the TCF industries, and the significant global momentum suggests this will continue. Platforms
like the Sustainable Apparel Coalition, the Sustainability Consortium and the Global Social
Compliance Program are working on enhancing ethical and environmentally sustainable
production in TCF industries. Consequently, any model adopted in Australia needs to remain
flexible and open to global developments, and preferably develop direct relationships with such
organisations to facilitate knowledge, information and tool exchange.

With the above points in mind, as well as the findings from the review of current global compliance
programs and Australian TCF industries stakeholder views, a possible roadmap for implementing a
the preferred voluntary EQM model (i.e. Option 1) is outlined below. The roadmap focuses on
consumer-facing standards and certification, starting with ECA, and providing a competitive,
market-differentiation framework for businesses to pursue ethical and environmentally sustainable
fashion, clothing and possibly footwear production.

Key Features of the Roadmap:
Builds on existing ECA accreditation covering worker’s rights and labour conditions.
Starts with Ethical Clothing Australia system and expands both along the supply chain
(so it incorporates more stages) and to incorporate more production issues (i.e.
environmental and health and safety aspects).
Engages business by offering consumer-facing standards and certification that give
them a competitive advantage in the market through offering credible claims of
ethical and environmentally sustainable production.
Uses a passport framework to do this credibly using existing compliance programs.
Communicates to industry and consumers a vision, a direction, and credible choices
for ethical and environmentally sustainable production.

One possible route towards Option 1 is the creation of a recognition framework to provide TCF
businesses with a ‘tick’ in their ethical and environmentally sustainable production passport across
their supply chain activity (see Figure 1). A tick would be dependent on demonstrating achievement
using credible existing systems as the performance criteria.

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 35
As illustrated in Figure 1, there are 8 supply chain areas of ethical and/or environmental
performance which could form the passport portfolio. Credibility principles, as discussed earlier and
in Appendix A, would be used to determine what constitutes effective action in each supply chain
area.

Generic TCF Supply Chain Stages for Australian
Product Sales
• Key ethical and environmental challenges for each
step in the supply chain (Human Health & Safety and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions are cross-cutting supply
chain issues)
• Major initiatives to ensure ethical/environmentally
sustainable production for each supply chain step
Figure1. Graphic illustration of Roadmap.
Offshore Stages
Local Stages
Life Cycle or Supply Chain Stages

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 36
In keeping with Option 1, such a passport system could begin with the Australian CMT
(manufacturing of clothing and potentially footwear) stage and the ECA label – requiring ECA
accreditation as the starting point, i.e. companies manufacturing in Australia demonstrating ethical
production. The passport could be then expanded over time, at a pace judged to be effective for
both industry and the passports’ management. Expansion across the supply chain stages and into
human health and safety and environmental pollution performance widens the scope for Australian
(and possibly global businesses) to participate, which:
• increases economic viability of the scheme (i.e. more companies as clients)
• provides coverage over more TCF products, which increases consumer awareness; and
• substantially increases social and environmental impact of the scheme.
This could be approached by making new supply chain areas or issues part of progress
requirements for maintaining initial ECA accreditation. To illustrate, once the passport framework is
in place, and decisions are made on where to build out to first, companies would need to
demonstrate adequate performance in other areas of their supply chain and/or on other
production issues to maintain their ECA accreditation. ECA may require accredited businesses to
demonstrate they have environmental management systems in place for their Australian CMT
operations, or that they are addressing human health and safety of their products by acquiring
Okeo-Tex certification.
Table 2 attempts to illustrate this further and provide some possible compliance program options
for expanding the ECA sequentially or modularly, consistent with Figure 1. The passport framework
starts with recognising the ECA accreditation and product label as a credible compliance program,
demonstrating ethical performance in the Australian CMT stage of a TCF product supply chain.
Table 2. Possible Compliance Program Combinations Under Route 1
Supply Chain Area Supply Chain Issue Compliance Program Combination
Starting Point
Australian CMT Worker’s rights ECA
Second Step – Build out on production issues within Australian CMT
Australian CMT Worker’s rights
Environmental management
ECA
ISO 14001
Australian CMT Worker’s rights
Environmental management
Human health and safety
ECA
ISO 14001
Oeko-Tex
Additional Future Step – Build out on worker’s rights and labour conditions across the supply chain
Australian CMT
Overseas textiles
Overseas fibres
Worker’s rights
Labour conditions & worker’s rights
Labour conditions and fair prices
ECA
SA8000
Fairtrade Certified Cotton
Other Steps/Possibilities
Australian CMT
Overseas/local textiles
Worker’s rights & human health & safety
Human health and safety
ECA
Oeko-Tex


NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 37
In pursuit of Option 1, accreditation is geared towards product labelling. However, the model could
be applicable to the whole of a company’s operation, especially in some supply chain areas (i.e.
environmental performance in textile manufacture). The framework may require a minimum level
of compliance across the whole company before products are able to carry the labelling. However,
this may work against the attractiveness of the recognition framework. In time, the supply chain
area ‘ticks’ across the passport could be adapted to a ‘star rating’ system for TCF products.
The framework itself could be communicated, along with the principles for choosing credible
compliance schemes to demonstrate ethical and environmental performance along the supply
chain, to the sector well in advance of the formal EQM process adopting full supply chain area and
issue coverage. The stakeholder consultations indicate providing industry with such guidance on
choosing credible schemes and knowing what issues and supply chain areas to manage would be
very helpful. In the absence of such information, new schemes are being created, or less credible
systems adopted, often with little ethical or environmental benefit to production outcomes – and
at expense to businesses and increasing confusion for consumers. An additional advantage of using
this framework to communicate to industry is that it may create more businesses and production
systems eligible for accreditation against the EQM as it grows to be more encompassing.
Some possible benefits and weaknesses of this particular approach are described in Table 3.
Table 3. Benefits & Weaknesses of this Roadmap to EQM Option 1
Benefits & Opportunities Weaknesses & Challenges
It is complimentary to existing initiatives, i.e. Ethical
Clothing Australia, rather than in competition.
Will businesses see the value in paying for, or going
through the process of, additional recognition for
compliance they have already invested in elsewhere?
Businesses who have already invested in action get
recognition without having to go through additional
certification.
Businesses who have invested time and money in
compliance programs that are not deemed ‘credible’
may object, criticise, or stay away.
New compliance programs can be recognised against
the credibility principles as they are
developed/assessed.
Not all supply chains encompass all 8 areas, meaning
not all products could be scored on an 8 part rating
system, e.g. products made from Australian cotton in
Australia could only ever have 5 stars. This presents a
challenge for consumer communication but could be
overcome through using %, differentiating Australian
grown and made products, etc.
Businesses are able to be recognised for action in
some areas of their supply chain as encouragement
to go further, i.e. starts with where business is.
Is compliance in any one supply chain area more
important than in others? Does this differ across
product classes? Should they be differentially
weighted?
Recognition framework could be adopted by retailers
and/or institutional end users (i.e. government or
corporate procurement) to choice edit.
May not be as useful for consumer facing as
business-to-business transactions, given lack of
comparability across supply chain areas (though a
‘star rating’ system is known and may be easily
generalised from water and energy consumption to
TCF products).

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 38
Benefits & Opportunities Weaknesses & Challenges
Provides information to industry and consumers on
what supply chain issues need to be addressed, and
what constitutes credible action.
If it was determined to adapt such a model to a
consumer facing ‘star rating’ type system, then there
would need to be investment in establishing a visual
identity or brand which may compete with existing
schemes – and may take time to garner consumer
awareness, etc.
No avenues for businesses to engage – it is a
compliance program that they meet or they don’t
(push rather than pull approach).

To further assist with conceptualising and implementing the proposed model and mapping out how
it could be achieved, some thoughts on how it could operate are outlined below.
Operation
Under the model proposed above, the passport and recognition framework would likely sit within
the existing Ethical Clothing Australia organisation. The framework may err on the side of being an
organisational scheme rather than a consumer facing scheme in the early stages until a critical mass
is achieved and/or a consistent approach developed, keeping the ECA Label as the primary
consumer facing activity for a period of time. Strategic and business plans would be need to be
developed soon after establishment by the Steering/Executive Committee and Secretariat.
Governance
The program will need a representative Steering or Executive Committee to oversee its operation
and direction; involvement of industry, unions and government are likely essential for credibility.
The program will need a strong, independent and representative Compliance Committee to apply
(and determine) the credibility principles and assess new programs that could be used to ‘tick’
supply chain area actions. The Compliance Committee could also assess the applications for
recognition, though this would likely be delegated to the Secretariat as early as possible.
Funding
Conduct an outreach campaign to industry to introduce the program and attract applicants – this
may come from the Australian Government and/or other sources. Ongoing operational funding
could be derived from application fees from business to have their performance recognised against
the framework, i.e. fees per supply chain area. Attention would need to be given to an appropriate
level of fees to balance funding the operation of the program, maintaining accessibility for all types
of businesses, and recognising businesses have already paid to be compliant against other
tools/programs. Consumer and industry outreach and education activities may require additional
funding, to be pursued through partnerships, grants, participating business investment, etc.


NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 39
Conclusions
The feasibility assessment recommends Option 1 as the preferred method for implementing a
voluntary EQM for the Australian TCF industries, in particular for the fashion and clothing sectors
and potentially footwear.
Stakeholders in the Australian TCF industries see the potential value and role of a voluntary EQM.
There is particular support for an EQM in some product classes (e.g. clothing and fashion) and from
some stakeholder groups.
Implementation of Option 1 will need to address specific subject matters (e.g. toxics, waste,
carbon, water, and labour rights), scope of the EQM, as well as how it would address ‘local’ versus
‘off-shore’ manufacturing (and therefore associated auditing and performance verification
processes).
The preference for Option 1 also reflects the value in integrating labour rights, product safety and
environmental performance, in a staged or modular manner, within the context of retaining the
current ECA label as a starting point. Any EQM must address the whole supply chain over time and
embody the principles of life cycle thinking and life cycle assessment.
While Option 1 is preferred, there are dissenting opinions from some stakeholders, particularly
outside the fashion and clothing sectors. Many stakeholders are neutral and sitting on the fence,
needing additional information about EQM scope, and a much clearer business case. While some
believed it could hold potential, there was also a minority view that did not see sufficient value
across all TCF industries.
Depending on its design, a new voluntary EQM under Option 1 has the potential to connect and
harmonise with several existing certification schemes that are relevant to the TCF industries. These
schemes are typically product specific (e.g. carpet, upholstery textiles), or process-oriented (e.g.
organic, toxics). Various overseas schemes and standards have applicability within an Australian
context e.g. ISO14001 and Oeko-Tex. These could be referenced directly and incorporated into a
voluntary EQM for the Australian TCF industries.
No particular method (e.g. royalties versus annual application fee) emerged as a clear preference
for funding the implementation of the preferred Option, however there was an overt view that the
cost of being certified should be kept minimal and focused on cost-recovery. The importance of
government support to ensure independence and transparency was considered important.
There is broad support for a range of activities (including an EQM) that can shift the TCF industries
towards a more engaged, informed and proactive mode of operation that embodies improved and
measurable levels of product safety, environmental performance and labour rights protection.

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 40
As part of any ongoing work on a new EQM, it is important to recognise that some product
categories (and companies) within the TCF industries are significantly advanced on certain aspects
of environmental performance, product safety and/or ethical considerations. For example, driven
by demands of the Green Building Council, the Carpet Institute of Australia has developed a
comprehensive and widely adopted industry facing environmental classification system.


NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 41
References
Australian Government, 2010, Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research,
Competitive Industries Branch, Secretariat, TCF Industries Innovation Council, February 2010, A
Voluntary Ethical Quality Mark for the Australian Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industries?
Australian Government, 2010, Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research,
Competitive Industries Branch, Secretariat, TCF Industries Innovation Council, June 2010, A
Voluntary Ethical Quality Mark for the Australian Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industries: An
Examination of Possible Design Components.
Australian Government, 2010, Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research,
Competitive Industries Branch, Secretariat, TCF Industries Innovation Council, September 2010,
Product Stewardship and the TCF Industries.
Allwood, J, Laursen, S, Malvido de Rodriquez, C & Bocken, N, 2006, Well dressed? The present and
future sustainability of clothing and textiles in the United Kingdom, University of Cambridge
Institute for Manufacturing, Cambridge, viewed 17 May 2011,
http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/sustainability/projects/mass/UK_textiles.pdf
Collins, M & Aumonier, S, 2002, Streamlined life cycle assessment of two Marks & Spencer plc
apparel products, Environmental Resource Management, London, viewed 17 May 2011,
http://aestivaltd.web.officelive.com/Documents/MandS%20LCA%20Final%20Report.pdf.
UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2011, Sustainable Clothing Action Plan,
London, viewed 17
th
May 2011, http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2011/03/30/pb13206-
clothing-action-plan/.
UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2011, Sustainable Clothing Roadmap:
Progress Report 2011, viewed 17 May 2011,
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/products/roadmaps/documents/clothing-
actionplan110317.pdf
Diviney, E & Lillywhite, S, 2009, Travelling textiles: A sustainability roadmap of natural fibre
garments, viewed 17 May 2011,
http://thehub.ethics.org.au/uploads/files/BSL_Travelling_Textiles_%20Garment_PRM_Report.pdf.
Diviney, E & Lillywhite, S, 2007, Ethical Threads: Corporate social responsibility in the Australian
garment industry, Brotherhood of St Laurence, Melbourne, viewed 17 May 2011,
http://www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/DivineyLillywhite_ethical_threads.pdf.
Diviney, E & Lillywhite, S, 2009, Corporate responsibility and stakeholder governance: Relevance to
the Australian garment sector, in Fair Trade, Corporate Accountability and Beyond: Experiments in
Globalising Justice.

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 42
Draper, S, Murray, V & Weissbrod, I, 2007, Fashioning sustainability: a review of the sustainability
impacts of the clothing industry, Forum for the Future, London, viewed 17 May 2011,
http://www.forumforthefuture.org.uk/files/Fashionsustain.pdf.
Ecolabel Index, 2011, viewed 17 May 2011, http://www.ecolabelindex.com.
Fletcher, K, 2008, Sustainable fashion and textile design journeys, Earthscan, London.
Golden, J (Ed), 2010, An Overview of Ecolabels and Sustainability Certifications in the Global
Marketplace (interim report), Corporate Sustainability Initiative, Nicholas Institute for
Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University, Durham, viewed 17 May 2011,
http://www.sustainabilityconsortium.org/wp-
content/themes/sustainability/assets/pdf/Ecolabels_Report.pdf.
International Finance Corporation (IFC), 2007, Environmental health and safety guidelines, IFC,
viewed 17 May 2011,
http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/sustainability.nsf/Content/EnvironmentalGuidelines.
Hiscox, MJ & Smyth, NFB, 2005, Is there Consumer Demand for Improved Labor Standards?
Evidence from Field Experiments in Social Product Labeling, Harvard University.
Jadav, A & Ajmera, N, 2009, Cost effectiveness in textile processing, Fibre 2 Fibre, viewed 17 May
2011, http://www.fibre2fashion.com/industry-article/4/316/cost-effectiveness-in-textile-
processing1.asp.
Madsen, J, Hartlin, B, Perumalpillai, S, Selby, S & Aumonier, S, 2007, Mapping the evidence on
sustainable development impacts that occur in life cycles of clothing: a report to the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Environmental Resources Management Ltd, DEFRA, London,
viewed 17 May 2011,
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=EV02028_7073_FRP.pdf.
Moussa M, 2009, Environmental impacts of textile industries, section 3 of Process analysis of textile
manufacturing, UNESCO – IHE, Delft, Netherlands.
WRAP, 2011, Sustainable Clothing Roadmap and Action Plan, viewed 17 May 2011,
http://www.wrap.org.uk/business/sustainable_clothing.html.



NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 43
Appendix A: Credibility Principles for Sustainable Production Compliance
Programs
Credibility principles were explored in part one of the Research & Analysis section, and are also part
of the assessment of existing compliance programs in Appendix B. The use of credibility principles
also underpins the proposed roadmap.
The three core ‘principles’ proposed here, are:
i. It is a multi-stakeholder driven and owned program, or is established and run through
credible Government processes
ii. It has public standards for compliance
iii. Verification is undertaken by parties independent from the company being certified,
preferably with a credible, transparent system (e.g. ISO 65)
Other considerations might include whether the compliance program is meaningful, consistent and
clear in its application, has no conflicts of interest within the major parties to the program, and
whether it is open to public consultation on standard development.
It is important to determine a set of ‘credibility principles’ so as to agree what compliance
programs provide credible, valid information along the TCF supply chain – given just how many
sustainability claims and tools are now on offer.
The ISEAL Alliance, the peak body for credible voluntary social and environmental standards
systems is in the process of producing what it is calling ‘High Level Credibility Principles’ for
sustainability claims. Once produced, this could be utilised by those pursuing the implementation
of an EQM in whatever form.
The science based life cycle assessment tools being developed and applied by the Sustainable
Apparel Coalition (i.e. extending the EcoIndex) and the Sustainability Consortium can also inform
the criteria implemented here in Australia.
It is recommended that credibility criteria used in the roadmap model in this report match global
consensus on the best tools available to ensure Australian developments are:
• multi-stakeholder owned and run
• ‘good practice’
• have global credibility
• facilitate global market access; and
• make it easier for Australian companies – given their smaller demand pull relative to other
European or North American operators – to access compliant supply chains.



NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 44
Appendix B: Selected Existing Certifications & Compliance Programs for Assessing Ethical & Environmentally
Sustainable Production in the TCF Industries
Credibility Supply Chain Area
Certification/Program
Multi-
stakeholder
or Gov’t
Public
Standards
3rd
Party
Cert
OS
Fibres
OS
Textiles
OS CMT Au
Fibres
AU
Textiles
Au CMT AU
Retail
AU Use
Ethical Production Compliance Programs and Certifications

Ethical Clothing Australia
www.ethicalclothingaustralia.org.au
X X X X X
SA8000 www.sa-intl.org X X X X X X X
Fair Wear Foundation fairwear.org X ? X X
Fair Labor Association www.fairlabor.org X X X X X
GoodWeave International www.goodweave.net X X X X X
Better Work Programme / Better Factory Program
www.betterwork.org
X X X
Textile, Clothing, Footwear & Associated Industries
Award
X X X X X
Combined Ethical & Environmental Compliance Programs & Certifications

Global Organic Textile Standard www.global-
standard.org
? ? X X X X X X X
Fairtrade Mark www.fairtrade.net X X X X
Good Environmental Choice Label Australia
www.geca.org.au
X X ? X X
Made-by www.made-by.nl X ? ? X X X
BMP Cotton www.bmpcotton.com.au ? ? ? X X
Worldwide Responsible Accredited Production
www.wrapcompliance.org
? ? X X X X X

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 45
Credibility Supply Chain Area
Certification/Program
Multi-
stakeholder
or Gov’t
Public
Standards
3rd
Party
Cert
OS
Fibres
OS
Textiles
OS CMT Au
Fibres
AU
Textiles
Au CMT AU
Retail
AU Use
Environmental Compliance Programs & Certifications

Oeko-Tex 100, 1000, and 100+ standards www.oeko-
tex.com
? X X X X X X
ISO 14001 www.iso14000-iso14001-environmental-
management.com/iso14000.htm
X X X X X X X X ?
Certified Organic (various organic certifiers) e.g.
www.australianorganic.com.au, www.nasaa.com.au
Also ECO-CERT, BIO, JAS, etc.
X X X X X X X X X
EU Eco-label www.eco-label.com X ? X X X X X X X X
Forest Stewardship Council www.fsc.org X X X X X
The Australian Carpet Classification Scheme -
Environmental Certification Scheme
www.carpetinstitute.com.au
? ? X X X X X
Better Cotton Initiative www.bettercotton.org X X
Australian Packaging Covenant
www.packagingcovenant.org.au
X X
Environmental Choice New Zealand www.enviro-
choice.org.nz
X ? ? ? X ? X
Blue Angel www.blauer-engel.de X X X X X
MBDC Cradle to Cradle Certification www.mbdc.com X X X X X X X
Ecospecifier Green Tag Certification
www.ecospecifier.org
X X X X X X
Carbon Reduction Label www.carbon-label.com X X X
Green Leader Program www.greenleader.ca ? X
Bluesign www.bluesign.com X X X X X X X X
Leather Working Group
www.leatherworkinggroup.com
X X X X X X X

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 46



Other Relevant Compliance Codes, Programs, Initiatives Details Relevance
ISO 26000
www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/management_standards/social_responsibility.htm
Guidance on social responsibility. Gives guidance to organisations on 7 subjects:
Organisational governance, Human rights, Labour
standards, The environment, Fair operating practices,
Consumer issues and Community involvement and
development.
OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises
http://www.oecd.org/department/0,3355,en_2649_34889_1_1_1_1_1,00.html
Covers all major areas of business ethics,
including corporate steps to obey the law,
observe internationally-recognised standards
and respond to other societal expectations.
Guidelines include Employment and industrial relations,
Human rights, Environment, Information disclosure,
Combating bribery, Consumer interests, Science and
technology, Competition and Taxation.
Global Reporting Initiative www.globalreporting.org Reporting framework - organisational
operations, environmental, economic and
social criteria.
GRI guidelines est. 2000. Sector Supplement still at pilot
stage. In addition to the GRI guidelines, the sector
supplement mentions: Code of conduct content and
coverage, compliance audit process, supply chain
policies, non-compliance with labour standards; Use of
materials, environmentally-preferable materials; Energy
consumed from renewable sources; Employment
standards, wages and hours, diversity and equal
opportunity, adherence to ILO conventions,
labour/management relations, health and safety;
Community investment and Public policy.
Ethical Trading Initiative www.ethicaltrade.org A ground-breaking alliance of companies,
trade unions and voluntary organisations,
working in partnership to improve the lives of
workers across the globe who make or grow
consumer goods.
ETI brings corporate, trade union and voluntary sector
members together in a unique alliance that enables us
to collectively tackle many thorny issues that cannot be
addressed by individual companies working alone.

Implementation of the ETI Base Code address ethical
production in supply chains.
Australasian Furnishings Research & Development Institute (AFRDI Standard 146 -
Leather)
www.furntech.org.au/index.php/commercial-furniture/lether.html
The AFRDI Standard 146 - Leather
Descriptions Furniture Industry was prepared
and released in April 2006 in order to provide
the Australian and New Zealand commercial
and residential furniture industry with a set
of description and performance guidelines
for leather, and with particular focus on
making this information readily available to
the consumer.
Standards for furniture manufacturers to use with
leather specifically the authenticity of leather and
chemical use.

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 47
Other Relevant Compliance Codes, Programs, Initiatives Details Relevance
Supplier Ethical Data Exchange (SEDEX) www.sedex.org.uk Database of ethical performance Provides valuation of what companies are doing
Sustainable Apparel Coalition www.apparelcoalition.org The Sustainable Apparel Coalition is an
industry-wide group of leading apparel and
footwear brands, retailers, manufacturers,
non-governmental organizations, academic
experts and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency working to reduce the
environmental and social impacts of apparel
and footwear products around the world.
The Sustainable Apparel Coalition’s first major project is
the development of a common, industry-wide tool for
measuring the environmental and social performance of
apparel products and the supply chains that produce
them. Founding members of the Sustainable Apparel
Coalition are based in North America, Asia, Europe and
the U.K.
Eco-Index www.ecoindexbeta.org The Eco Index is a ground-breaking
environmental assessment tool designed to
advance sustainability practices within the
outdoor industry. It provides companies
throughout the supply chain a way to
benchmark and measure their environmental
footprint, allowing them to identify areas for
improvement and make informed sourcing
and product life cycle decisions.
This index is being taken and expanded – potentially – to
other apparel, in collaboration with the Sustainable
Apparel Coalition.

ILO Conventions www.ilo.org The ILO is the international organization
responsible for drawing up and overseeing
international labour standards. It is the only
'tripartite' United Nations agency that brings
together representatives of governments,
employers and workers to jointly shape
policies and programmes promoting Decent
Work for all. This unique arrangement gives
the ILO an edge in incorporating 'real world'
knowledge about employment and work.
The main aims of the ILO are to promote rights at work,
encourage decent employment opportunities, enhance
social protection and strengthen dialogue on work-
related issues.

Very active in labour rights in TCF supply chains,
especially garment manufacture. Works with
governments and other international NGOs and
multilateral bodies.
Nordic Initiative Clean and Ethical www.nicefashion.org Pan-Nordic initiative to achieve a clean and
ethical fashion sector
10 year plan, consumer tools, business tools – lots of
similarities to what could be done in Australia.
Business Social Compliance Initiative http://bsci-eu.org Business-driven initiative for companies
committed to improving working conditions
in the global supply chain. Unites 700+
companies around a development-oriented
system applicable to all sectors and sourcing
countries.
Applicable to TCF industries sourcing from outside
Australia. Provides a Code of Conduct and step-by-step
progress towards achieving an ethical supply chain.
Australian Made www.australianmade.com.au A program to identify products made in
Australia
Product labelling available to TCF products
manufactured in Australia

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 48
Other Relevant Compliance Codes, Programs, Initiatives Details Relevance
The Design Accord www.designersaccord.org The Designers Accord is a global coalition of
designers, educators, and business leaders,
working together to create positive
environmental and social impact.

The Designers Accord was founded with the goal of
changing the way the creative community does
business. Designers, educators, and business leaders
adopted a “Kyoto Treaty” of design (later renamed the
Designers Accord) that specified a particular ethos and
behaviour around sustainable design.

* 761 Design Firm Adopters
* 39 Educational Institution Adopters
* 40 Corporate Adopters
* 100 Countries
* 6 Continents
* All design disciplines
DEFRA’s Sustainable Clothing Action Plan www.defra.gov.uk A UK government program to reduce the
social and environmental impacts of the
clothing industry
Addresses environmental impacts including energy use
and generation of GHG emissions from washing and
drying of clothes; energy use; resource depletion and
generation of GHG emissions from processing fossil fuels
into synthetic fibres; significant water use; toxicity from
fertiliser, pesticide and herbicide use; energy use and
GHG emissions associated with fertiliser generation and
irrigation systems from fibre crops, e.g. cotton, water
use; toxicity; hazardous waste and effluent associated
with production stage; pre-treatment chemicals, dyes
and finishes and waste. It also addresses social impacts
such as working conditions, child labour, trade inequities
and animal welfare, limited market access and
information for farmers and workers leading to
inequitable trading conditions.
DFID Responsible & Garment Sector Challenge Fund (RAGS) www.dfid.gov.uk A funding initiative from the UK government The Responsible and Accountable Garment Sector
(RAGS) Challenge Fund supports projects aimed at
improving conditions of vulnerable workers in the ready-
made garment (RMG) production sector. The fund aims
to benefit workers in low- and lower-middle-income
countries in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa that supply the
UK market

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 49
Other Relevant Compliance Codes, Programs, Initiatives Details Relevance
Restricted Substances Lists for textiles, apparel, and footwear including
http://www.apparelandfootwear.org/Resources/restrictedsubstances.asp &
http://www.afirm-group.com/faq.htm
Various codes and supplier requirements by
textile, apparel and footwear brands on
substances being used in their supply chains
There are a growing number of Restricted Substances
Lists applicable to textiles, apparel and footwear
imposed by companies such as Adidas and Nike on their
suppliers. These Lists aim to eliminate substances
harmful to those involved in the supply chain and
customers.
UN Global Compact www.unglobalcompact.org Principles that businesses sign up to. Human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption


NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 50

Appendix C: EQM Feasibility Study – Online Stakeholder Survey Questions
General Information
1. Please fill out your details below:
Name:
Organisation:
Position:
Email:
Phone:
Website:

2. * Which sector best describes your role?
Manufacturing
Brand owner
Retailer
Importer
Designer
Union
Education and research
Industry and professional association
Government
Environment or consumer organisation
Other (please specify):

3. * Which product category are you primarily involved with?
Fashion and apparel
Footwear
Commercial textiles
Technical textiles and non-woven
Leather
Carpet and other floor-coverings
Other

CONTEXT
4. * Environmental issues are of great concern to the TCF industries:
Strongly agree
Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly disagree


NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 51
5. * What do you believe to be the three most significant environmental issues resulting from the
textile, clothing and footwear (TCF) industries?
Land degradation associated with the production of natural fibres
Emissions to air, water and soil from the production of synthetic fibres
Emissions to air, water and soil from manufacturing TCF products
Energy consumption and associated carbon emissions/global warming
Consumption of non-renewable resources
Hazardous and/or toxic substances used in the manufacture of TCF products
Solid waste arising from end-of-life TCF products
Water consumption during fibre production and product
Water, energy and detergent consumption during the use phase of TCF products
Other (please describe):

6. * The environmental performance of the TCF industries in Australia is best described as:
Creating products which demonstrate best of class environmental features
Meeting regulatory requirements but not much more
Pragmatic about improving its environmental commitment and performance
Having made a strong start but has much more to do
Diverse with some companies as world leaders, and others as laggards
Reactive to the market and adopting new initiatives if commercially viable
Showing few if any measurable environmental improvements and benefits
Embarrassed about its environmental achievements to date
Other (please describe):

7. * What do you believe is the most effective way to minimise environmental impacts associated with
the Australian TCF industries?

8. * Do you believe existing Government and Industry initiatives on product safety in the TCF industries
are effective and meeting stakeholders’ needs?
Yes
No
Undecided
Not aware of initiatives
Please comment on the reason(s) behind your response:



NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 52
9. * Do you believe existing initiatives in Australia on labour rights in the TCF industries are effective
and meeting stakeholders’ needs?
Yes
No
Undecided
Not aware of initiatives
Please comment on the reason(s) behind your response:…………………………

10. * Do you believe overseas manufacturers and brands should be held to the same labour rights
standards and requirements as local manufacturers i.e. those producing products in Australia?
Yes
No
Undecided
Not aware of initiatives
Please comment on the reason(s) behind your response:…………………………

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE
11. * Which of the following initiatives do you believe are best placed to improve the environmental
performance of TCF products in Australia?
Voluntary Environmental labels
Environmental regulations
Government support to industry
Voluntary industry-driven programs
Training and professional development
Nothing new should be done i.e. business as usual
Other (please describe

12. * A new voluntary Environmental Label for the TCF industries is much needed in Australia:
Strongly agree
Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Please comment on the reason(s) behind your response: …………………………

13. * What do you believe are positive and/or negative outcomes associated with a voluntary
Environmental Label for the TCF industries in Australia?

Positive outcomes:…………………………
Negative outcomes:…………………………


NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 53
14. * Can you provide an example of similar environmental labels for other products/sectors in
Australia? Describe why you believe they have been successful or unsuccessful, highlighting any
specific challenges:

WHY IT SHOULD BE DONE
15. * Consumer demand is the key driver for developing a new Environmental Label in Australia:
Strongly agree
Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Please comment on the reason(s) behind your response:…………………………

16. * The need to address labour rights issues AND environmental issues is a priority for TCF companies
in Australia:
Strongly agree
Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Please comment on the reason(s) behind your response:…………………………

17. * An effectively promoted voluntary Environmental Label will play a key role in helping consumers
make environmentally informed purchasing decisions:
Strongly agree
Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Please comment on the reason(s) behind your response:…………………………

18. * A new voluntary Environmental Label would play a major role in improving the environmental
performance of TCF products in the Australian market:
Strongly agree
Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Please comment on the reason(s) behind your response:…………………………



NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 54
WHO SHOULD DO IT
19. * Which stakeholder/s brings the most independence and credibility to the design of a voluntary TCF
based Environmental Label?
Australian Government
Educational/academic organisations
Environment and consumer NGOs
Industry and professional associations
Research organisations
State and Territory Governments
Unions
A combination of the above (please list which combination:…………………………

20. * Which stakeholder/s brings the most independence and credibility to the administration of a
voluntary Environmental Label?
Australian Government
Educational/academic organisations
Environment and consumer NGOs
Industry and professional associations
Research organisations
State and Territory Governments
Unions
A combination of the above (please list which combination):…………………………

21. * Which stakeholders have the most to gain or lose from a new voluntary Environmental Label?

Most to gain:…………………………
Most to lose:…………………………

HOW SHOULD IT BE DONE
22. * What do you believe is the most significant factor in designing a successful voluntary Environmental
Label for the TCF industries in Australia?

23. * What do you believe is the single most significant factor in administering a successful voluntary
Environmental Label for the TCF industries in Australia?

24. * What do you believe are the key barriers to the successful design and adoption of a new voluntary
Environmental Label for the TCF industries in Australia?



NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 55
25. * Accreditation to a new voluntary Environmental Label is the most effective way to make the TCF
industries more sustainable:
Strongly agree
Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Please comment on the reason(s) behind your response:…………………………

26. * An adequately resourced Environmental Label program is best achieved through a:
Royalties-based approach i.e. a charge per unit or product sold
One-off certification fee renewed every three years
An annual application fee
Undecided
Other
Please comment on the reason(s) behind your response:…………………………

BUSINESS, CONSUMERS AND TIMING
27. * Companies in the TCF industries are likely to be very enthusiastic about the potential for a new
voluntary Environmental Label:
Strongly agree
Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Please comment on the reason(s) behind your response:…………………………

28. * A new voluntary Environmental Label should only be available to TCF companies manufacturing in
Australia:
Strongly agree
Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Please comment on the reason(s) behind your response:…………………………



NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 56
29. * A new voluntary Environmental Label should be available to any manufacturer, importer, brand
owner or retailer supplying the Australian market:
Strongly agree
Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Please comment on the reason(s) behind your response:…………………………

30. * A new voluntary Environmental Label could be successfully designed and launched inside:
1 year
2 years
3 years
Other (please describe):…………………………

31. * What do you believe are the major opportunities and benefits of a new Environmental Label for
the TCF industries in Australia?

FUTURE OPTIONS FOR A TCF ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL IN AUSTRALIA
The following questions are optional and require some knowledge of the existing Ethical Clothing Australia
labour rights-related accreditation program.
Please read the following options carefully, and use them to provide responses to the questions below.
Option 1. Expansion of the current Ethical Clothing Australia (ECA) labour rights related label to include
environmental/sustainability accreditation as an optional adjunct to the current labour rights accreditation
for the local textile, clothing and footwear industries.
Option 2. Transformation of the current Ethical Clothing Australia label so that the primary focus of the new
label is an environmental/sustainability accreditation while still accrediting members for upholding labour
rights for the local textile, clothing and footwear industries.
Option 3. Development of an environment/sustainability accreditation for the local textile, clothing and
footwear industries that is separate from Ethical Clothing Australia.

32. Which of the three options outlined above is most likely to be attractive to consumers?
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
None of the options
Other (please describe):…………………………


NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 57
33. Which of the three options outlined above is most likely to be attractive to TCF companies?
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
None of the options
Other (please describe):…………………………

34. Of the three options outlined above which has the highest risk of failure or low-level adoption by
TCF companies?
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
None of the options
Other (please describe) …………………………

35. Of the three options outlined above which has the highest chance of widespread adoption by TCF
companies?
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
None of the options
Other (please describe):…………………………

OTHER ISSUES
36. Are there any other issues, views, ideas, suggestions or concerns you wish to raise? If yes, please
elaborate below.







NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 58
Appendix D: Stakeholder Consultation Summary Data & Selected EQM Survey
Finding Tables
Appendix D documents summary data from the stakeholder consultation interviews and workshops, as well
as selected data tables from the online survey.
Interview Responses
Several respondents talked about the need for simplicity in whatever is done without ‘dumbing down’ the
process or outcomes. At the same time it was noted that ‘starting from scratch’ was not desirable or viable
given that resources and time are limited i.e. avoid re-inventing the wheel if related, similar or compatible
initiatives already exist, provided they were ‘rigorous and robust’.
There appeared to be moderate support for a voluntary EQM among most but not all respondents. Support
was often given with caveats and conditions. While some believed it could hold potential, there was also a
minority view that did not see sufficient value across all TCF industries. Some respondents remained
neutral about the need and justification for a voluntary EQM, however they acknowledged that it may be
more relevant in some TCF product categories than in others.
Avoiding confusion in the industry was also considered important in any future work i.e. having too many
options might not deliver consistent or measurable outcomes and improvements. Too many options might
also result in some business choosing the cheapest, easiest and least rigorous standards and certification
schemes.
Some respondents believed that integrity of compliance with any new scheme would be critical, and that
the current ‘joint stakeholder management’ structure of ECA accreditation works very well. It was claimed
that this existing structure works effectively and could be modified to include other interests and
stakeholders in order to address other product categories as well as specific technical and scientific
expertise.
One respondent was very clear about the need to maintain, nurture and further grow the uptake of the
existing ECA accreditation program, and to ensure that any new voluntary EQM did not undermine or
cannibalise the existing labour rights focussed initiative. The same respondent was also of the view that any
new voluntary EQM should remain primarily focussed on supporting and developing Australian
manufacturing and local employment. It was also noted that the extent to which the worker’s voice was
being heard as part of the study was limited, yet workers are directly affected by such initiatives.
One respondent directly involved in TCF manufacturing noted that much work has been done around
environmental management and cleaner production for TCF related companies, and that such schemes and
programs should be more seriously considered as part of any detailed EQM development process.
A key decision maker and business owner involved with manufacturing highlighted that the focus of any
future voluntary EQM should be on product safety and human health issues associated with finished
product as well as production processes.

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 59
One respondent was of the view that they had been through a similar process and were well advanced on
product safety and environmental issues compared to other sectors within the TCF industries. The same
respondent noted its significant investment of funds, time and expertise over the last two decades resulting
in its own product-specific environmental programs. It was their view that a TCF industries-wide EQM
would do little to enhance their current activities and outputs.
Regardless of any specific solution, program design or EQM, several respondents believed that a ‘level
playing field’ was essential. It was considered imperative that any initiative would need to be applied in a
fair and equitable manner across the industries, whether the product was made in Australia or overseas.
The need to avoid creating any new initiative that resulted in a competitive disadvantage for local
manufacturers compared to importers was seen as important.
One respondent noted that an EQM would further aggravate existing business challenges and be a
‘backward’ step. The same respondent believes that this feasibility study starts from an incorrect premise
and that much of the industry did not support Professor Green’s recommendation in 2008.
A common issue raised among several respondents (chiefly from business) was the absence of any
significant evidence or drivers in support of an EQM and the necessary investment to design and administer
such a program. In other words, it is currently perceived as a cost with little benefit to those who would be
potentially affected by it.
A view from some business respondents also characterised a voluntary EQM as something ‘warm and
cuddly’ driven by altruistic motivations rather than justifying its measurable benefits to the environment,
business, human health and consumers.
One respondent noted that even the existing ECA program and its focus on labour rights was irrelevant to
its sector, and questioned why it should be imposed indirectly through procurement processes.
A respondent involved in manufacturing raised the issue of effective monitoring and ‘policing’ and the
difficulties with ensuring effective enforcement of manufacturers, importers, brand owners and retailers to
prevent them making misleading claims (e.g. greenwash) in the market place. An example was cited where
even the ACCC failed to pursue an issue related to product safety and environmental claims leaving the
supplier in question to promote a questionable product to consumers.
Some respondents from business noted that within their product category, there was little or no demand
or interest for EQM-type information from buyers, retailers, and consumers generally.
Several respondents noted that existing initiatives and certification schemes available overseas and in
Australia could be used more effectively as part of any process to advance the environmental, product
safety and ethical performance of Australian TCF companies.
The majority of respondents acknowledged that diversity within the TCF industries provided a challenge to
designing, administering and funding a ‘one-size-fits-all’ EQM solution that has relevance to all sub-sectors
and products categories i.e. a potentially effective voluntary EQM for clothing or possibly footwear for the
business-to-consumer market might not be effective with commercial textiles and non-wovens for the
business-to-business market.
It was also evident that some respondents were very clear on the drivers and demands for EQM type
initiatives and how they relate to specific environmental, product safety and labour rights issues.

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 60
A respondent involved with TCF manufacturing highlighted that more opportunities need to be exploited at
the research, design and development stage of the process, and that product sustainability objectives
related to durability, longevity and extended product life, could contribute to improved environmental and
sustainable resource use outcomes.
One respondent felt that very little work had been undertaken by the TCF industries as a whole, to find
common ground in relation to environmental issues, including carbon related issues. The same respondent
believed that many of the answers and solutions rested with effective regulation as opposed to voluntary
initiatives, which can suffer from limited industry uptake. The same respondent believed that the ‘ideal
next step’ would be a regulatory framework underpinned with significant resources, and a strong education
and capacity building component. Meeting existing requirements for labour standards should remain a pre-
requisite to obtaining or meeting any environmental standards.
One respondent noted that they were not in a position to manage compliance in relation to environmental
requirements and this would require specific expertise as part of any new initiative. Furthermore, the
respondent believed that any new scheme requires a multi-stakeholder management structure to ensure
compliance integrity and transparency.
The same respondent noted that they will always have the view that environmental issues cannot be done
at the expense of labour rights, and that we have to start with those issues where there is realistic control
and influence i.e. ‘manufacturing on shore’. The respondent also emphasised that something positive had
to be done to ‘create jobs in Australia, not lose them’, and ‘if there is no requirement for local production,
how does this create jobs?’
One respondent believed that a global environmental label would have more advantages than creating a
new EQM just for Australia. The same respondent also felt that regulations, government support for
industry, and voluntary industry driven initiatives, are better placed to improve the environmental
performance of TCF products in Australia, compared to environmental labels.
Several respondents suggested several successful labelling schemes as either relevant to TCF or as a
noteworthy model. These included: Good Environmental Choice Australia and Australian Certified Organic,
the ACCS Environment Certification Scheme for Carpets, Oeko-Tex and the Energy Star Rating Scheme.
The majority of industry respondents did not believe that a new voluntary EQM would help improve the
performance of Australian TCF companies, nor did they believe that consumer demand is a major driver.
Another stakeholder involved with TCF manufacturing in Australia believed that while a voluntary EQM is
needed and should be developed quickly, the respondent also felt that regulation was the most effective
method for requiring companies to meet environmental performance standards.
One respondent involved with the leather industry believed that Australia is operating at world’s best
practice in terms of environmental standards and performance. This is a result of the sector being a highly
regulated space, as well as stringent demands from product manufacturers. The same respondent believed
that regulation and government support to industry and training would be best placed to improve the
environmental performance of TCF products in Australia. They remained undecided as to whether a new
EQM label is necessary.


NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 61
Workshop Results
The workshop process was built around four key questions as a way of generating discussion and
facilitating an inclusive forum for idea generation and debate. The feedback from the workshops is
summarised under each of the four questions below.
Workshop Question 1: “What is happening today to create more ethical and environmentally sustainable
TCF products and services that excites you, both here in Australia and around the world?”
Ideas and Observations from the Participants
• Growing influence of cradle to grave management or life cycle thinking. This contributes to the
approach with Eco-Index and the Sustainable Apparel Coalition.
• Good examples exist of producers and suppliers of upholstery and carpets in Australia, as driven by
Green Star rating tools and the Green Building Council of Australia.
• More manufacturers are asking supply chains to improve their standards; increased corporate social
responsibility reporting.
• Labels such as OEKO-TEX are making it possible to identify harmful substances and avoid them.
• Large companies are being proactive, and there is increasing leadership from big corporates such as
Marks & Spencer (i.e. Plan A), Gap.
• Increasing collaboration between organisations working on similar issues e.g. Eco-Index is a good
example of sharing and collaboration in relation to textiles and sustainability.
• ECA is setting new standards for cleaning up the industry and having a positive effect.
• Individual TCF companies are taking action by themselves and gaining ECA accreditation.
• Big trend towards SA 8000 (Social Accountability) in South East Asia; China is increasing its investment
in ‘sustainability’ and the debate is starting to move beyond ‘minimum wages’.
• Development of ‘Made in Melbourne’ as an opportunity.
• Increased visibility of social and environmental impacts via documentaries, blogging, activism.
Issues and Concerns Identified by the Participants
• Much more development overseas than here at the moment, and overseas consumers are more
engaged; ‘Ethical’ doesn’t need to mean ‘Australian made’.
• Gen Y consumers seem to be more receptive to such issues.
• Consumers say they want Australian made, but will still buy cheap imports.
• There is potential for government to use local resources, but it appears they are looking for cheaper
prices instead.
• The message needs to be simplified to become ‘mainstream’. We run the risk of not building on what
we’ve already done. The challenge is the balance between access and credibility.
• There is a very complicated subset of people purchasing clothes; need to address this issue.
• Retailers must understand that the risk of not being involved is greater than being involved.
• Much more could be done with government initiatives.
• Design quality should not be undermined. It can be undermined through ‘greenwash’.
• There is an absence of drivers and significant demand for an EQM; it’s yet another cost with no
certainty on a return.

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 62
• Major buyers and consumers aren’t interested in an EQM.

Workshop Question 2: “How can we get more of these exciting actions to create more ethical and
environmentally sustainable TCF products and services happening in Australia?”
Ideas and Observations from the Participants
• Don’t reinvent the wheel; adopt models, schemes and labels from other parts of the world.
• Develop a better understanding of what the specific issues and impacts are.
• Government policy change, support and endorsement, including legislation and tariff changes.
• Use the carbon tax as an opportunity.
• Education and training including ‘green’ education for designers.
• Target different segments and generations of consumers (particularly children).
• Help consumers understand the value of clothing and create demand e.g. Country Road.
• Use business registration as a check-point to provide people with education and training.
• Make green ‘sexy’ without greenwashing; use soft clever marketing using social technology.
• Mainstream the message to reach the most people (but dealing with complex consumer base).
• Buy less at better quality. We have moved into throwaway society (on the cusp of slowly turning
back?).
• Help people change their lifestyles and values.
• Have engagement across all areas of what is being improved (chicken and egg: education and product
availability) and promote more active engagement across the world. Take a holistic approach.
• Engage and educate by targeting businesses and consumers simultaneously; use government policy and
programs to achieve this.
• Effective carrot and stick approaches i.e. regulation + incentives + good business case studies.
• Understand what motivates commitment from retailers and manufacturers; connect the business case
to the ethical/environmental case.
• Assess the potential of business moving from a product-based business model to a service-based model
e.g. new revenue streams through mending, servicing, leasing clothing.
Issues and Concerns Identified by the Participants
• Do consumers and companies understand the difference between ‘ethical’ and ‘environmental’?
• Is this issue about saving the ‘environment’ or saving the ‘industry’?
• Europe is looking at a global label that brings in environmental factors.
• If things are environmental and ethical, does that mean that they will be recyclable?
• If this is a fashionable thing, does the industry embrace it at a surface or deeper level? Run the risk of
green-washing the conversation.
• Australian consumers don’t understand how big this issue is already.



NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 63

Workshop Question 3: “Looking at the actions we’ve identified: how desirable and feasible is each option?”
Ideas and Observations from the Participants
Highly desirable and highly feasible Highly desirable but low-medium feasibility
EQM – building on existing initiatives
Import overseas expertise
Assist small business with education and training
Government subsidies and programs
Cadetships in TCF industries
Improve enforcement of existing standards
Give consumers more information, and increase
national pride (e.g. through marketing – target
emotional areas [baby products])
Increase in regulation
Government procurement policy for locally made
Deeper understanding of issues
Incentives for locally made
New innovations for the industry
Free Trade Agreement’s need to include ethical &
environmental sustainability considerations
Investment in development of training and
knowledge products for designers and new
businesses
Create/greater international partnerships
Change in tariffs
Transparency in Government procurement (subsidies
etc)
Tax concessions for sustainable business
Incentives to buy locally produced materials
Mentoring to industry by experienced people
Carbon tax to support local product

Workshop Question 4: “How would you design the EQM so that it was more desirable and feasible, and
contribute to creating thriving and viable TCF industries?”
Ideas and Observations from the Participants
• Early Innovation meetings were all about promoting Australian product for export; how did we move
from wanting to achieve a ‘Brand Australia’ Mark (to promote Australian made product) to an EQM?
And how did this become something we might accredit companies for – locally and/or globally?
• An EQM is one piece of work and ‘Brand Australia’ is another piece of work; they are separate but
related. Achieving an EQM doesn’t necessarily mean you’re achieving ‘Brand Australia’; they are two
things along a continuum.
• That we import a billion units of clothing into Australia every year (there are only a few companies that
actually knit the stuff here) means the logistics of the supply chain need to be considered. Are we going
to accredit the product or the company? There are so many links in the supply chain, where do you
ring-fence this on an international and domestic scale?
• Is it about social and environmental output, input and impact?
• Talking to companies informs the process; while initially supportive of an EQM its important to
investigate how it would actually work.
• Use a rating scale (e.g. Energy Star); companies should not be given only a ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
• Something that could be used at different stages, but could not get to the consumer point/be put on a
product until the company has reached at least 90 % accreditation.
• A label with an environment and ethics component, with various different facets.
• What constitutes the two different categories - ‘environment’ and ‘ethics’?
• Use one of the many highly successful labels from overseas, many have set the precedent for improving
companies profitability, longevity and impact on the environment.
• No label is really enough.

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 64
• Keep it small and tight to start off with, a select number of small companies with small supply chains
could get accredited first (to maintain credibility). This would set standards, and could be built upon.
The full supply chain would need to be involved to maintain the integrity and credibility of the EQM
(couldn’t have everything ticked, and still have yarn being made by child labour, wouldn’t be
reasonable in terms of public expectation). Could work along a continuum to get accredited.
• An EQM would need to target the majority of Australian clothing.
• Enable consumers to research the supply chain of a garment.

Online Survey Data
Below are tabulations of survey responses not included in text as part of Research & Analysis, 2. Australian
TCF Industries Stakeholder Consultations.
The following results represent a sample of the key questions and scenarios posed in the online survey.
The results are sampled against the key themes i.e. Context; What should be done; Who should do it etc.
This section seeks to provide a summary of the main questions, the primary findings and the study team’s
conclusions.
Context
Which sector best describes your role? Response percent Response count
Manufacturing 15.3 % 17
Brand owner 6.3 % 7
Retailer 8.1 % 9
Importer 5.4 % 6
Designer 10.8 % 12
Union 19.8 % 22
Education and research 9.9 % 11
Industry and professional association 5.4 % 6
Government 0 % 0
Environment or consumer organisations 4.5 % 5
Other 14.4 % 16

Highest participation in any single category came from Union officials and members (19.8 %), which is likely
to reflect their interest in, and involvement with, labour rights issues and the associated Ethical Clothing
Australia accreditation program. It is important to note that the combined representation of business i.e.
manufacturers, brand-owners, retailers and importers, totalled 35.1 %. As a result business and union
interests dominated the survey responses.
Which product category are you primarily involved with? Response percent Response count
Fashion and apparel 52.2 % 58
Footwear 6.3 % 7
Commercial textiles 5.4 % 6
Technical textiles and non woven 1.8 % 2
Leather 3.6 % 4
Carpet and other floor coverings 4.5 % 5
Other 26.1 % 29

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 65

The majority of respondents considered themselves to be most directly involved with fashion and apparel
at 52.2 %, with relatively low counts being associated with the other product categories. This may be a
result of several factors including: significant media and editorial coverage of the survey in clothing and
fashion related publications; high participation of Union officials and members involved with ECA
accreditation; and available stakeholder contact lists featuring a greater percentage of fashion and apparel
related organisations.
Environmental issues are of great concern to the TCF
industries
Response percent Response count
Strongly agree 45.9 % 51
Agree 18 % 20
Undecided 8.1 % 9
Disagree 8.1 % 9
Strongly disagree 1.8 % 2

A total of 63.9 % of respondents either agree or strongly agree that environmental issues are of great
concern to the TCF industries. This represents a significant count and is likely to influence views, positions
and opinions related to subsequent questions and scenarios. There is clearly a strongly feeling of ‘industry
interest, concern and responsibility’ among respondents.
What do you believe to be the three most significant
environmental issues resulting from the TCF industries?
Response percent Response count
Land degradation associated with the production of natural
fibres
9.9 % 11
Emissions to air, water and soil from the production of synthetic
fibres
7.2 % 8
Emissions to air, water and soil from manufacturing TCF products 22.5 % 25
Energy consumption and associated carbon emissions/global
warming
46.8 % 52
Consumption of non-renewable resources 19.8 % 22
Hazardous and/or toxic substances used in the manufacture of
TCF products
48.6 % 54
Solid waste arising from end-of-life TCF products 42.3 % 47
Water consumption during fibre production and product
manufacture
14.4 % 16
Water, energy and detergent consumption during the use phase
of TCF products
17.1 % 19
Other 13.5 % 15

The issue of ‘hazardous and/or toxic substances used in the manufacture of TCF products’ was considered
the most significant environmental issue among a large group of respondents at 48.6 %. This response is
also consistent with general and anecdotal concerns related to overall product safety issues for both
workers and consumers. Concern about ‘energy consumption and associated carbon emissions/global
warming’ was also seen as significant with 46.8 % of respondents nominating it as a major environmental
issue. Given the nature of fashion and typically short life cycles for many clothing items, it is not surprising
that 42.3 % of respondents also considered ‘solid waste resulting from end-of-life TCF products’ as a
significant issue.


NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 66

The environmental performance of the TCF industries in
Australia is best described as:
Response percent Response count
Creating products which demonstrate best of class
environmental features
1.8 % 2
Meeting regulatory requirements but not much more 9 % 10
Pragmatic about improving its environmental commitment and
performance
9 % 10
Having made a strong start but has much more to do 2.7 % 3
Diverse with some companies as world leaders, and others as
laggards
8.1 % 9
Reactive to the market and adopting new initiatives if
commercially viable
18 % 20
Showing few if any measurable environmental improvements
and benefits
26.1 % 29
Embarrassed about its achievements to date 5.4 % 6
Other 1.8 % 2

A relatively high number of respondents were not overly positive about the environmental performance of
Australia’s TCF industries with 26.1 % believing that ‘few if any measurable improvements and benefits’
were being achieved. This may also reflect a lack of knowledge and awareness of positive industry-wide
environmental initiatives underway in the carpet industry and those manufacturers and suppliers of
commercial textiles. In contrast, a relatively small percentage of respondents categorised the industries as
‘creating products which demonstrate best of class environmental features’.
Do you believe existing Government and industry initiatives on
product safety in the TCF industries are effective and meeting
stakeholders’ needs?
Response percent Response count
Yes 9 % 10
No 33.3 % 37
Undecided 11.7 % 13
Not aware of initiatives 27.9 % 31

A significant number of respondents were either unaware of Government and industry initiatives related to
product safety in the TCF industries (27.9 %), or believed that existing initiatives were not ‘effective and
meeting stakeholders’ needs’ (33.3 %). These results are consistent with earlier results that highlighted that
respondents were concerned about hazardous and/or toxic substances.
Do you believe existing initiatives in Australia on labour rights
in the TCF industries are effective and meeting stakeholders’
needs?
Response percent Response count
Yes 39.6 % 44
No 16.2 % 18
Undecided 14.4 % 16
Not aware of initiatives 11.7 % 13

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 67

In contrast, a significant number of respondents (39.6 %) believed that existing labour rights initiatives in
the TCF industries were ‘effective and meeting stakeholders’ needs’. This is most likely due to the high
number of union officials and members that participated in the survey, combined with a high number of
‘fashion and apparel’ participants. It could be concluded that these results tend to indicate indirect support
for the existing ECA accreditation program.

Do you believe overseas manufacturers and brands should be
held to the same labour rights standards and requirements as
local manufacturers?
Response percent Response count
Yes 63 % 70
No 10.8 % 12
Undecided 8.1 % 9

With 63 % of respondents believing that local and overseas manufacturers should be subject to the same
labour rights requirements, it could be concluded that a level ‘playing-field’ without any exemptions is a
priority issue for the majority of survey respondents.
What Should be Done
Which of the following initiatives do you believe are best
placed to improve the environmental performance of TCF
products in Australia?
Response percent Response count
Voluntary environmental labels 15.3 % 17
Environmental regulations 52.2 % 58
Government support to industry 59.4 % 66
Voluntary industry-driven programs 15.3 % 17
Training and professional development 26.1 % 29
Nothing new should be done i.e. business as usual 1.8 % 2
Other 12.6 % 14

There is considerable support among the majority of respondents (59.4 %) for ‘Government support to
industry’ as a key initiative, which can improve the environmental performance of TCF products in
Australia. Also noteworthy, is the view among 52.2 % of respondents that ‘Environmental regulations’ is an
important tool in achieving environmental improvement. 15.3 % of respondents believed that a ‘voluntary
environmental label’ would be best placed to deliver environmental improvement.
A new voluntary Environmental Label for the TCF industries is
much needed in Australia
Response percent Response count
Strongly agree 36.9 % 41
Agree 10.8 % 12
Undecided 19.8 % 22
Disagree 9.9 % 11
Strongly disagree 2.7 % 3

As a combined percentage (47.7 %), a relatively high number of respondents either strongly agree (36.9 %)
or agree (10.8 %) that a new Environmental Label is much needed for the TCF industries. These figures
indicate that is more support among respondents than there is opposition to a voluntary EQM.

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 68

Can you provide an example of similar environmental labels for other products/sectors in Australia? Describe why
you believe they have been successful or unsuccessful.

By far the dominant example put forward by respondents was the Energy Star rating scheme as used on major
appliances in Australia. This was considered high profile and effective with consumers while also having industry-wide
involvement. It is critical to note that the energy star rating scheme is administered under Federal and State laws and
regulations and is governed by detailed, product specific energy efficiency standards developed by Australian
Standards. Also very popular among respondents was the Australian Certified Organic program.

With regard to TCF specifically, there were minor references to the Sustainable Apparel Coalition and the Australian
Carpet Classification Scheme’s environmental extension – the ACCS Environmental Certification Scheme for Carpets.
The Fair Trade label was also proposed by a few respondents as a successful example, as was some reference to the
Good Environmental Choice Australia certification program.

Plastics recycling symbols were also mentioned in relation to providing consumers with guidance on where and how
to recycle specific plastic types. The Body Shop brand was seen as positive in terms of product safety and prevention
of cruelty to animals.

A small number of respondents mentioned the Woolmark label, Made in Australia, the Heart Tick and the Forest
Stewardship Certification scheme, as other worthy labels and schemes.

Why it Should be Done
The need to address labour rights issues AND environmental
issues is a priority for TCF companies in Australia:
Response percent Response count
Strongly agree 40.5 % 45
Agree 13.5 % 15
Undecided 9 % 10
Disagree 13.5 % 15
Strongly disagree 3.6 % 4

The majority of respondents (54 %) considered that labour rights and environmental issues are a priority for
TCF companies in Australia. Only 17.1 % respondents either strongly disagreed or disagreed with the
‘priority’ view of addressing both labour rights and environmental issues. There is clearly a view that both
issues/impacts should be addressed.
Who Should Do it

Which stakeholder/s bring the most independence and
credibility to the design of a voluntary TCF based environmental
label?
Response percent Response count
Australian Government 6.3 % 7
Educational/academic organisations 1.8 % 2
Environment and consumer NGOs 4.5 % 5
Industry and professional associations 9 % 10
Research organisations 1.8 % 2
State and Territory Governments 0.0 % 0
Unions 3.6 % 4
A combination of the above 50.4 % 56

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 69

As a single entity, ‘industry and professional associations’ were the single biggest group (9 %) who were
considered to bring independence and credibility to the design of a TCF based environmental label,
however the vast majority of respondents (50.4 %) believed that a combination of organisations was best
placed to ensure ‘independence and credibility’. The dominant combination among respondents was
‘unions + industry + associations + environment and consumer NGOs’. The popularity of this particular
combination is associated with a high number of respondents involved with the union. This combination
was closely followed by a variation which included government and research organisations.
How it Should be Done
What do you believe is the most significant factor in designing a successful voluntary Environment Label for the TCF
industries in Australia?

Significant factors listed by respondents included:

• independence, transparency, robust data and international perspective
• credibility and effectiveness
• clear communication and awareness raising
• industry commitment to a real solution
• creating a system that include metrics and guides industry towards true sustainability
• effective, regulated monitoring aimed at achieving continual improvement in industry behaviour
• strong knowledge base and flexible labelling systems
• a life cycle assessment approach
• effective communication of process and scheme
• integrated to address environment, health and safety, product safety and social accountability
• effectiveness or take-up
• collaboration and consultation
• public recognition and understanding.

Methods for funding the implementation of the preferred Option were specifically canvassed with
respondents as part of the survey. While no particular method (e.g. royalties versus annual application fee)
emerged as a clear preference, there was an overt view that the cost of being certified should be kept
minimal and focused on cost-recovery. The importance of government support to ensure independence
and transparency also was considered important by stakeholders.

Business, Consumers & Timing

A new voluntary Environmental Label should be available to
any manufacturer, importer, brand owner or retailer supplying
the Australian market?
Response percent Response count
Strongly agree 18.9 % 21
Agree 15.3 % 17
Undecided 5.4 % 6
Disagree 5.4 % 6
Strongly disagree 27 % 30

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 70

Respondents were divided on the issue of who should be eligible to receive a voluntary Environmental
Label. A total of 32.4 % of respondents either strongly disagreed (27 %) or disagreed that any manufacturer,
importer brand owner or retailer should be eligible. On the other side, 34.2 % of respondents either
strongly agreed or agreed that any new Environmental Label should be available to any manufacturers,
importer brand owner or retailers supplying TCF products to the Australian market. These figures highlight
one of the more contentious issues associated with the scope and eligibility requirements for any new
EQM.
Future Options for a TCF Label in Australia
Which of the three options outlined above is most likely to be
attractive to consumers?
Response percent Response count
Option 1 36 % 40
Option 2 10.8 % 12
Option 3 9 % 10
None of the options 2.7 % 3
Other (please describe) 9 % 10

A large group of respondents (36 %) believed that the expansion of the current ECA label to include
environmental/sustainability accreditation as an optional adjunct to the current labour rights accreditation
for local TCF industries would be most attractive to consumers. This indicates that the ECA program has
relatively strong support among respondents. This may also be explained by the high number of union
respondents with pre-existing knowledge (and involvement) of the ECA program that participated in the
survey. The least popular option among respondents was posed as being new and separate to the ECA.
Which of the three options outlined above is most likely to be
attractive to TCF companies
Response percent Response count
Option 1 33.3 % 37
Option 2 11.7 % 13
Option 3 9.9 % 11
None of the options 3.6 % 3
Other (please describe) 8.1 % 10

In terms of desirability among TCF companies, the breakdown was similar to that of consumer
attractiveness. An expanded and/or modular upgrade of the ECA accreditation program was considered to
be the most attractive to companies with 33.3 % of respondents selecting Option 1. A strong fashion
representation with pre-existing ECA knowledge is likely to be significant influencing factor for this
proposition.
Of the three options outlined which has the highest risk of
failure or low-level adoption by TCF companies?
Response percent Response count
Option 1 16.2 % 18
Option 2 27 % 30
Option 3 14.4 % 16
None of the options 0.9 % 1
Other (please describe) 7.2 % 8


NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 71
Appendix E: Global Industry Sustainable Supply Chain Initiatives
The Global Social Compliance Program www.gscpnet.com

WHAT IT DOES: The Global Social Compliance Programme (the GSCP) is a business-driven programme for
the continuous improvement of working and environmental conditions in global supply chains. The GSCP
was created by and for global buying companies wanting to work collaboratively on improving the
sustainability (ethical, social and environmental) of their often-shared supply base. To this end, these
companies are working on harmonising existing efforts to deliver a shared, global and sustainable approach
based on consensus and best existing practice.

GOVERNANCE:



• Task Force
⇒ Composed of Retailer and Brand Manufacturer Companies from all over the world and all
Consumer Goods Markets who nominate one representative to have decision making authority
on the board. The chairman of the Task Force is elected by majority from this group of
representative.
⇒ The Task Force appoints Executive Board Members and are also eligible for appointment to the
Executive Board.
• Executive Board – Responsible for the general management of the GSCP
⇒ Composed of 6-12 members who fairly represent the diversity in role, geography and sectors of
member companies in the task force.
⇒ The Chairman of the executive Board can be appointed from within the board or outside and
chairs the Task Force Meetings.
⇒ All decisions are made by a consensus vote.
• Expert Working Groups – Appointed by the Executive Board
⇒ Composed of 4-12 operational experts drawn from Task Force members who then vote on a
chairperson.
⇒ They are set up to execute a specific task and are disbanded on completion.
• Advisory Board
⇒ Composed of 6-12 members selected for their expertise in issues linked to labour conditions in
the supply chain.

NB Reference: MMPJ10ECA142 72
⇒ Drawn from a balanced variety of civil society stakeholders (NGOs, trade unions, Academics
etc).
⇒ Appointed by the Executive Board on recommendation of Task Force, Executive Board and
Advisory Board members
⇒ Membership of the Advisory board does NOT signify endorsement of the programme
• Decision Making:
⇒ Initial recommendations are made based on the decisions of both the Task Force and the
Advisory Board.
⇒ Actions taken on these recommendations and are executed by the Task Force only after a
consensus is reached by all the members of the GSCP governance structure.


The Sustainability Consortium www.sustainabilityconsortium.org

WHAT IT DOES: The Sustainability Consortium is an independent organization of diverse global participants
who work collaboratively to build a scientific foundation that drives innovation to improve consumer
product sustainability through all stages of a product's life cycle.

GOVERNANCE:












• Board of Directors
⇒ Consists of two Co-Directors who represent each of the Academic Institutions that house the
Sustainability Consortium.
⇒ Additionally a new Board of Directors has been appointed that comprises 5 elected
representatives of member organizations.
• Steering Committee
⇒ Consists of representatives of all Tier 13 Industry members, NGOs, Governments and Academic
Partners.
⇒ The Steering Committee includes a Government Task Force, External Relations Committee,
Financial Committee and Developmental Task Force.
• Working Groups and Initiatives
⇒ The permanent Working Groups are split on the basis of industry and additionally sustainability
measurement categories (i.e. Science, IT and assurance).



S
e
c
r
e
t
a
r
i
a
t

Board of Directors
Steering
Committee
Working Group and Initiatives 1
Working Group and Initiatives 2
Working Group and Initiatives 3

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful