To receive the Vogue Business Supply Chain Edit, sign up here.
The pandemic cast a harsh light on the need for a just transition in fashion, as brands and retailers cancelled orders, refusing payment and leaving global suppliers unable to pay wages. Since then, increased attention on the treatment of garment workers – from consumers as well as activists – has forced the industry to reckon with its social impact, bringing the idea of a just transition, where social impact becomes a top consideration in the move to low-carbon economies, into the mainstream. Experts say it must be at the centre of the conversation as fashion continues to embrace circularity, and changing models of production. For brands, this means a radical mindset shift.
While the concept of a just transition is relatively new to fashion, the issues underpinning it have been plaguing brands for decades, says Clíodhnagh Conlon, associate director of consumer sectors at nonprofit Business for Social Responsibility. “Essentially, we’re talking about how workers and communities in the supply chain are treated.”
The term first emerged in the 1960s, when big corporations began acquiring small, family-run coal mines to improve efficiency in the face of increasing competition from oil and natural gas. Many were closed, affecting communities that relied on them for their livelihoods, and trade unions had to step in to protect worker rights. The concept was formalised at the 1997 Kyoto Conference by the International Trade Union Confederation, and was widely adopted beyond the energy sector from 2010 onwards. 2015 was another turning point, when the Paris Climate Agreement stated that the transition to a low-carbon economy must be done in just ways, and the UN’s International Labour Organization (ILO) introduced its guidelines for a just transition, which will be addressed again at its annual conference this June.
Social sustainability gained momentum this year, but experts say there is much more to be done, especially on garment worker rights in the supply chain, and diversity and inclusion in head offices.
Today, definitions vary. Dr Hakan Karaosman, assistant professor at Cardiff University, and Professor Donna Marshall, professor of supply chain management at University College Dublin (UCD) — who together lead the EU-funded research centre Fashion’s Responsible Supply Chain Hub (FReSCH) – define it as “inclusive, holistic, and equitable actions led by people and communities to disrupt and transform market-based, capitalist systems that perpetuate social and environmental problems”. For the ILO, it means simply that “nobody is left behind” as industries decarbonise.
This is a big step-change for fashion, which has a notoriously secretive and fragmented supply chain, says Marshall. But, the solutions can be surprisingly straightforward if brands adopt the right mindset. “Stop chasing ridiculous schemes like carbon offsetting and pie-in-the-sky technologies that will be here 10 years too late. The two things we have to get right are decarbonisation and living wage — these will unlock the biggest impacts and they should go hand-in-hand.”
Brands should share the significant financial burden of decarbonising the supply chain, says Elizabeth Cline, director of advocacy and policy at nonprofit Remake. The 2022 Remake Fashion Accountability Report ranked brands based on their commitment to a just transition, assessing their supply chain investments, efforts to decarbonise and their support for stricter legislation. Only 19 per cent of companies were able to demonstrate financial support for factories decarbonising: American Eagle Outfitters, Columbia Sportswear, Gap Inc., Kering, Levi Strauss & Co., Lululemon, Puma, Ralph Lauren, Reformation and Target.
Perhaps most importantly, brands need to redress the power imbalances permeating supply chains, Cline says. “Without more systemic and structural changes, the race to decarbonise industries will simply replicate current industry dynamics.”
Redressing the power imbalance
At its core, a just transition is about power – the way power has historically been held in the Global North, by those at the top of the supply chain, and perpetuated cycles of inequality, poverty and injustice for those at the bottom, often in the Global South. There is a risk that initiatives to solve the climate crisis fall into the same patterns, says Cline; a criticism also levelled at the loss and damage fund introduced at COP27. “Currently, most climate initiatives in fashion are led by big brands, NGOs and policymakers in the Global North. This approach is not inclusive of the communities already ravaged by climate change, on whom the burden of transition will fall. Often, brands require factories to meet certain social and environmental standards without actually creating the economic conditions that make this feasible. Instead, brands have continued to push down prices, which results in lower pay, longer hours and an inhumane pace of work.”
A top-down approach will never work, says UCD’s Marshall. “Looking at past attempts at a just transition [in other sectors], if industry and government decided what was appropriate and aspirational, that led to failure in nearly every case. When they worked with grassroots organisations and citizens assemblies to represent the people involved, we saw much greater success rates. It’s a top-down, white saviour, commercial agenda that is undermining these initiatives.”
Instead, brands need to make structural changes that allow the voices of workers to be heard. In January, stunt activists The Yes Men and advocacy organisation Clean Clothes Campaign tricked mainstream media with false reports that Adidas had appointed a former Cambodian garment worker as co-CEO to oversee the company’s ethics. The organisations quickly claimed their hoax, but the idea sparked an interesting debate about the limited power garment workers currently have in fashion brands. “Brands will need to put suppliers and key supply chain managers on the board in future, to hold other stakeholders accountable and amplify workers’ voices,” says Safia Minney, social entrepreneur, author, founder of Fair Trade retailer People Tree, and founder and CEO of Fashion Declares. And fashion businesses must reverse the trend for their sustainability teams to be siloed and under-resourced, says Casper Edmonds, head of unit, extractives, energy and manufacturing in the sectoral policies department of the ILO.
A just transition won’t look the same in every country or sector, says Vositha Wijenayake, executive director of Slycan Trust Global. Next steps should be made in consultation with local communities, suppliers, workers and their unions. “We need inclusive and participatory processes in a just transition, implementing solutions where the most vulnerable are able to address their climate vulnerabilities without their rights or needs being erased,” she explains.
Through its advocacy, Remake has gathered insights from supply chain workers about how the industry might better serve them. This includes brands consulting garment workers and suppliers when making decisions that will affect them. It also means jobs enabling workers to relocate or protect themselves if natural disasters strike, and building factories with climate resilience, so increasingly frequent bouts of extreme heat (which can cause fainting, exhaustion and other health problems) are less damaging. The ILO anticipates that extreme heat alone will render millions of jobs impossible in the next few decades, says Edmonds, but it is already affecting supply chains, including cotton production in Egypt and Uzbekistan, and garment manufacturing in India and Bangladesh. “Those impacts will just get worse unless we manage to limit global warming to 1.5°C.”
Making a just transition legally binding
New legal frameworks and strict enforcement will be necessary to achieve a just transition in fashion, experts agree.
This should start with fair living wages for workers throughout the supply chain, says People Tree’s Minney. A wave of sustainability legislation — both pending and passed — has tried to address this: California’s Senate Bill 62; the US Fabric Act; New York’s Fashion Act; the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive; the German Due Diligence Law; and the updated International Accord. Advocacy organisation Fashion Revolution is currently pushing for guaranteed living wages for garment worker wages with its Good Clothes, Fair Pay campaign. However, compliance requires transparency throughout supply chains, which is something very few fashion brands have in place, especially when it comes to Tier 3 and subcontracted suppliers.
The cost of complying with new legislation is another barrier. In 2021, the EU established a Just Transition Fund, which will distribute €19.2 billion between 2021 and 2027, and is available to regions affected by the decline of fossil fuel production (in particular coal, lignite, peat and oil shale) or the transformation of carbon-intensive industries. It could theoretically fund circular economy initiatives, but there are no fashion industry-focused projects currently in the works. Projects related to a just transition in fashion could also be eligible for funding from the European Commission’s Worth Partnership Project — which totals €3.5 million — as it helps scale-up businesses addressing sector-wide challenges, including the green and digital transitions, inclusion and resilience, although it hasn’t been used to this end yet.
Legislation is also limited by geography. “EU legislation usually applies within European territory, but we have legislation on due diligence that expands the rulings to the entire supply chain, which is expected to pass in the next few months,” says European Commission spokesperson Sonya Gospodinova. Experts warn against legislation that incentivises near-shoring, as moving opportunities away from the Global South does nothing to redress inequalities.
The roadmap to change
There is a four-step process brands can follow to implement decarbonisation justly, according to FReSCH’s Karaosman and Marshall: explore, execute, evaluate and evolve. Steps within this include identifying key partners, consulting and engaging the communities affected, creating social dialogues, implementing new projects and evaluating their successes and risks, and constantly iterating and improving on the projects, as well as the broader policy underpinning them.
One company starting to work this way is UK beauty brand Lush. The company is divesting from fossil fuels by switching its cash reserves to more “ethical” banks, hoping to redress power imbalances. (Day-to-day corporate banking is harder to move because of limited functionality in alternative banks, the company says.) “The war in Ukraine has increased pressure on the expansion of fossil fuels in Africa, which will cause untold harm to communities there who have a history of harm being done to them by the Global North,” explains Ruth Andrade, who leads giving, regenerative impact and organisational development at Lush. “Banks need your money to support these developments, so Lush is opting out.” The same applies to deforestation, she adds.
The brand is also focusing on handmade products, so it employs more people than mechanised factories, and has a history of employing those with refugee status. Lush is slowly rebuilding its raw material supply chain, says Andrade, supporting communities in the transition to regenerative agriculture, moving away from monocultures and cash crops towards food sovereignty and autonomy (so communities can benefit from the supply chains with other businesses beyond Lush). Andrade points to the work Lush has done with the Ghana Permaculture Institute developing moringa oil, and a sandalwood project co-owned by Aboriginal Australians. “We go directly to the people on the ground wherever possible.”
Brands could also learn from the Fair Trade framework, says People Tree’s Minney. If the Global North shifts from overconsumption of new goods to limited consumption within circular business models, this will reduce the number of jobs in farming, as well as new garment and fibre production. However, investing in heritage craft skills could still provide economic empowerment in rural communities. “We could move towards crafted textiles, looking at hand-weaving, hand-knitting, hand-block printing — low-carbon methods.”
Moving forward, brand-supplier interactions need to be “honest and clear”, says FReSCH’s Karaosman, based on long-term “justice and empathy” rather than being transactional. It’s not enough to rely on auditing. “Auditors cherry-pick workers to speak to and leave once they have asked their set questions. No one is asking workers how they feel, how they think the system should change,” says Karaosman. “Auditing has led to a falsification industry,” adds Marshall.
Procedures should be written in conversation with suppliers, not just created by brands and passed down. And brands must share the benefits of change with suppliers, as well as the risks. “Profit-driven brands shoehorning this into existing business models will never work,” Karaosman adds. As resources become scarce, suppliers will have more power to choose which brands they distribute those resources to, and the most demanding will be the first contracts culled. “Brands using these old transactional strategies will lose suppliers. This is the future.”
Comments, questions or feedback? Email us at feedback@voguebusiness.com.
More from this author:
Net-a-Porter launches repairs and alterations with The Seam
France has laid down the law on sustainability: What does it mean for fashion?
Not just “like new”: Visibly used bags rise in resale’s ranks