Imagine you are the chief supply chain officer at a multi-billion-dollar fashion brand.

Your company has set ambitious targets to reduce its planet-warming emissions. That’s made your job more complicated. The supply chain, which you oversee, is where most of your company’s climate impact takes place. It’s also where you have the least control because you don’t own the mills that make your fabrics, the facilities that dye your cloth or the factories where your products are sewn.

It’s a prodigious problem, so you’ll tackle it bit by bit. This season, one focus is on reducing the carbon emissions associated with fossil fuel-powered boilers used in the jeans dying process. A supplier presents you with two options (both with the same capital and operating costs), only one of which they can fund:

• Option 1: In one facility, the supplier can swap out a very old natural gas-powered boiler for a newer version. The old boiler can process one pair of jeans per cubic meter (m³) of gas and the new, more efficient one can process two pairs per m³.
• Option 2: In another facility that was already using the next generation boiler, the supplier offers to install an even more efficient version that would increase production from two pairs of jeans per m³ to five units per m³.

You will need to process 1,000 pairs of jeans in each facility to meet your production quota and the choice seems like a no brainer. With Option 2 you get three more units per cubic meter of gas burned; with Option 1 you only get one.

But here is where fashion’s climate math stops making intuitive sense; though Option 2 seems like it will deliver more impact, Option 1 will actually deliver larger emissions reductions.

Let me break it down:

The first upgrade to your supplier’s boiler — the one that gives you just one extra unit per m³ — results in a healthy 500m³ reduction in your suppliers’ natural gas consumption for every 1,000 units produced. The second upgrade only saves 300m³.

This is fashion’s decarbonisation calculus; the more efficient production gets, the harder it is to squeeze out energy and emissions savings. In other words, the relationship between effort and impact is a nonlinear one of diminishing returns.

Decoding Fashion’s Climate Math

The same math manifests in almost all the industry’s decarbonisation efforts.

When brands and manufacturers first get started, emissions reductions can be quite swift and cost efficient. This is the domain of low-hanging fruit. For instance, factories can switch to more efficient LED lighting, thereby reducing their energy consumption, and often get returns on the investment in less than one year.

But more ambitious projects, like upgrading boilers to make them more efficient or switching them to run on less carbon-intensive fuels, generally cost more and deliver savings more slowly, if at all. Getting factories fully off carbon-intensive fossil fuels requires massive investment and government action to shift national grids to renewable energy.

Two additional factors further complicate fashion’s decarbonisation math.

First, the impact of climate change — the end result of the industry’s current polluting practices — is hitting harder and faster than most expected. Temperatures in many of fashion’s largest manufacturing hubs in Asia pushed 40 degrees Celsius in April and May. In parts of India and Pakistan they breached 50 degrees. Such extreme heat is becoming more common, more severe and lasting longer. The industry will have to adapt to this grim climate reality, which has serious implications for worker health, productivity and general factory operations. That means air conditioning factories, according to one Asia-based sustainability executive. But effective cooling will come with a hefty energy bill, adding to emissions at fossil fuel-dependent factories just when the industry is trying to decarbonise.

Finally, even where companies are successfully curbing emissions, that progress is often offset by continued growth. This is why, one now ex-sustainability executive from a multi-billion-dollar brand told me, no fashion brand with robust science-based climate targets is in a position to deliver on them.

The Consumer Conundrum

A similar non-linear calculus comes into play when looking at the other side of this equation: consumer demand.

For many years, the industry has advertised its pursuit of sustainability goals based on the assumption that this would appeal to shoppers. Indeed, surveys often ask consumers to rate their environmental concern from one to five, and over time, the results of such exercises indicate worry about the climate is increasing. But that hasn’t directly translated into changes in purchase behaviour.

If all this makes your head hurt, you’re not alone. The human brain tends to think in straight lines, so these complex, non-linear relationships are literally mind boggling. (If you want to understand this better read this excellent analysis from The Harvard Business Review, which has helped shape my thinking on the topic). This also helps to explain why delivery of environmental sustainability is such a daunting challenge.

Yet if the consumer intention versus action gap lessens pressure on brands and decarbonisation turns out to be harder and more expensive than anticipated, the prognosis for voluntary progress is dim. This math is immutable, even if it is counterintuitive.

This is precisely why sane policy is needed to mandate and incentivise minimum social and environmental standards — measures that could tip fashion’s climate calculus more in favour of action.

That’s not simply down to the fact survey participants are rarely totally honest in their responses. It’s also because the relationship between consumer attitudes and consumer behaviour maps on a curve, not a straight line — just like efforts to reduce emissions.

In fact, academic research shows little or no behavioural difference between consumers who, on a five-point scale, give their environmental concern the lowest rating, one, and consumers who rate it a four. But the difference between fours and fives is huge.

In other words, only those who care the most really act on their values.

Kenneth P. Pucker is a professor of practice at the Tufts Fletcher School. He worked at Timberland for 15 years and served as chief operating officer from 2000 to 2007.

No longer a nice-to-have, sustainability standards will soon be enforced business requirements as global political bodies move to implement regulations to combat the environmental impact of heavily polluting industries.

The textile industry, for one, produces 25 percent of the global chemical output, according to environmental social governance (ESG) compliance technology platform Compare Ethics. The European Union has consequently already banned over 30 substances from being used in fashion production in its region.

More regulations are on the horizon — the EU’s flagship Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR), coming into full effect by 2025, will set minimum design standards for all individual products sold within the EU. This regulation includes requirements around recyclability, durability, reusability, repairability and limits the use of hazardous substances. Other EU rules, several of which were approved in April ahead of European Parliament elections in June, extend into supply chain regulation in an attempt to make brands more accountable for how their products are produced. Outside of the EU, the delayed but transformational US SEC climate-related disclosure — effective imminently — will require companies to report on their greenhouse gas emissions and other climate-related areas.

These impending legislations have only heightened the relevance of certification platforms like Oeko-Tex, whose partnered leather and textile testing institutes and laboratories span 70 countries across Europe and Japan. The certification body was founded in 1992 and is guided by developments in international legislation standards, such as those outlined in the ESPR or the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.

The partnership of testing facilities provides a comprehensive range of product labels including: “Made in Green,” for items produced in socially responsible workplaces; “Standard 100″ and “Leather Standard,” for textiles and leather that have passed safety tests for the presence of harmful substances; and “Organic Cotton,” for cotton manufactured without the use of GMOs and tested for pesticides and other harmful substances. The organisation also provides a production facility certification, “STeP,” a supply chain management certification, “Responsible Business,” as well as a chemical certification, “Eco Passport”. Oeko-Tex’s certifications are compliant with several regulatory bodies worldwide, including those in the UK, US and EU.

Now, BoF sits down with Oeko-Tex interim CEO, Dr. Stefan Droste, to discuss the need for transparency through certification in fashion today, the importance of brands’ due diligence in meeting environmental standards and how to stay ahead of upcoming regulation.

Why is product and supply chain certification important for fashion brands today?

The certification system is a way to future-proof a brand by fulfilling legislative needs easily because at Oeko-Tex, we are on top of all upcoming regulations — and there is a huge wave of legislation coming towards us. Many are driven by the goal from the European Union to become climate neutral by 2025, and the United States has the Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act, which means you need to know where your product is coming from.

Based on legislation, transparency will become a necessity to do business at all. Our Oeko-Tex certification system helps you stay on top of these changes because it is our core business to understand what this legislation means for our partners. In turn, this allows brands to focus on selecting suppliers that are certified, so they know that traceability is a given, and to react quickly to changes in the supply chain; which are in flux all the time.

As a result, brands and retailers don’t have the headache of trying to understand exactly what the legislation means for them specifically — our operational system is designed to be easy to use and make it possible to operationalise these requirements, so that brands and retailers can then focus on their own core business.

What role does the end consumer play in the development of these certification labels?

While legislative change is the driving force nowadays for brands and retailers seeking certification, it’s not the only important factor — consumers nowadays are shopping at brands that align with their own values, their environmental conscience and at brands which show ethical business practices.

Certification helps support purchasing decisions: consumers can see a certificate that provides neutral, external proof that this is a good, responsible product, and they can make informed decisions at the point of sale. We want to help consumers understand what is sustainable, to ensure that the information is easily accessible and that the label is easy to recognise, so our task is to help companies communicate their investments into sustainability at large to the end consumer.

The certification system is a way to futureproof a brand by fulfilling legislative needs easily because at Oeko-Tex, we are on top of all upcoming regulations.

Through this, I believe we are also creating a valuable marketing tool for brands, because we are helping them to make an independent statement about product quality. One of our partners, a large e-commerce company, actually told us they see an uptick of double-digit numbers in traffic to their site and in turnover for certified products.

How is Oeko-Tex’s certification programme prepared for changing regulatory needs?

It is not yet clear how granular the textile and leather industry will have to report on the final product and I think some politicians are a little over-optimistic on what information brands can provide. However, the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act, for example, will mean that businesses need to understand the material flow for the whole bill of materials through every production step. As a result, our certification system is already investing heavily to make sure that we will meet that demand.

We build in some flexibility to our systems, depending on what sort of direction regulation takes — but at the end of the day, our certification system needs to be easy to use. It needs to be scalable and it needs to provide actionable information for the user of the system.

I believe that our investment into this topic will pay off. If I look at the French system right now, you can use our “Made in Green” label to reclaim the benefits of the changes that are happening within French legislation. So, we are staying in touch with legislation and talking to legislators to understand what their goals are.

How do the different layers of Oeko-Tex’s modular certification system work?

The architecture of the system is a comprehensive framework. It focuses on the complete supply chain and makes sure that the products are safe, that the supply chain is environmentally friendly and that products are manufactured under socially responsible conditions. This system is broken down into several certifications which are addressing different aspects of the supply chain and the people using it, with a goal to avoid things like double testing.

Our best-known certificate — the “Standard 100″ — is laser-focused on product safety and it adapts to regulatory requirements. The “Eco Passport” then looks at the chemistry side at input level, so you have far fewer surprises in terms of unwanted pollutants. We are looking continuously at the scientific evidence that is going on or is developing for harmful substances, which is already taking into account anticipated regulatory changes, so we are not trying to catch up with legislation but remain one step ahead.

Certification helps support purchasing decisions: consumers can see a certificate that provides neutral, external proof that this is a good, responsible product.

We also provide an overview of the whole production side through our “STeP” system, which stands for Sustainable Textile Production, but which also certifies sustainable leather production. This combines the social and environmental aspects through several modules in the system, offering a report that provides a sound comparison between factories within your supply chain. So, for example, it examines whether they are improving their production practices over time and, if not, how to help them improve and on which areas they need to focus to do that.

Then, we have the eco-modulation part, represented by our “Made in Green” label, which combines product safety with production control. This is the umbrella for the other two systems, which incorporates traceability. It is a great addition to any aspect of a due diligence system that brands often have.

Why should brands and retailers engage with all layers of the certification programme?

Every brand, every retailer, is different in terms of what they need. I would describe the different layers to our certification system as cogs working together in a machine. Together, they move the engine forward. So, it’s not necessarily a question of choosing one or the other, but they are strong compliments to each other. They are modular.

Say you want to start by addressing product safety in addition to your due diligence and prevent double testing, then you start with the “Standard 100.” What we see then is the tendency for our customers to increase the footprint of the certification system. So, you can mix and combine the “Standard 100″ and “STeP” systems with our “Made in Green” label — and understand your supply chain more holistically.

At the end of the day, I believe that it makes sense to find mistakes as early as possible. Businesses should look to engage in the input chemistry control, which is the aim of our “Eco Passport.” Imagine you have to change the buttons on a garment you are producing, because they are brittle. If you switch to a certified button, you do not even have to incorporate retesting, so it improves the speed-to-market of your product.

It’s not only that the different levels give you control over your supply chain — at the end of the day, it greatly reduces cost compared to our traditional process of testing everything at the end, because you have already tested all the parts, reducing logistical challenges for anybody who is involved in quality control.

This is a sponsored feature paid for by Oeko-Tex as part of a BoF partnership.

PARIS — The upcoming Olympic Games are inescapable in Paris. Couture show-goers this week are most likely to experience them via the time they spend in cabs, edging at a snail’s pace through snarled traffic. But Monday, the first day of the shows, mercifully offered other takes on the impact of the world’s biggest sporting event.

In Daniel Roseberry’s case, it was entirely oblique. For the past three seasons, he’s shown his couture collections for Schiaparelli in the grandiose surroundings of the Petit Palais. He saw them as a trilogy. So when the Olympics placed his old venue out of bounds, he had the opportunity to close that chapter and open a new one somewhere else. He fancied something dark, intimate, “as cinematic as possible.” Which is how we ended up in the cellar of the Hôtel Salomon de Rothschild. Dark it most certainly was, and hot. Nina Simone was on the soundtrack. We were groomed for transport. “The Petit Palais was almost like going to church,” said Roseberry. “This one I wanted to feel like going to a ballet.”

He called his show “The Phoenix”, perfect title for his new chapter. And the collection, a tight 31 looks, did have a transformative edge. If not quite balletic, the show moved with a glacial grace. The models stopped to fix audience members in the eye, adding to the drama of the clothes. The first look, a black velvet cape with huge embroidered feather wings that wrapped the model’s body like she was a bird of prey sleeping, established the mood: glamorous with a hint of danger. Later, there would be a dress studded with leather thorns, and a jacket whose shawl collar was festooned with orange quills (silk organza, which took the edge off their lethality). Which felt in tune with Elsa’s own sharpish sensibility.

She has never been far from Roseberry’s mind in his regeneration of the fashion house she founded almost a century ago, but this season her ability to reinvent herself really captured his imagination. The broad shoulders, puff sleeves and inverted V silhouette were Elsa at her most austere, while a swathe of midnight blue neoprene, or an equally voluminous jumpsuit in a trompe l’oeil zebra pattern felt like the kind of sweeping modernist gestures she would have relished. Roseberry indulged his urge to experiment with volume and colour. The most striking look in the show was a mesh bustier tied up in a huge absinthe satin bow. “It would have been up here in the 50s,” he indicated. “We just dropped it down and exposed the bustier.”

The invitation arrived in the form of a golden key. “The more I went into the archives, the more I found the key to make it modern,” Roseberry said. “I wanted the season to feel unlocked.” But it wasn’t modern I got so much as other-worldly. On the soundtrack was “Rachel’s Song” from “Blade Runner,” the most perfect piece of music ever written for a replicant. And Roseberry’s models were perfect too - hair, makeup, the occasional veil – in their utterly exquisite dresses. It was an off-planet moment for haute couture.

Thom Browne’s acknowledgement of the Olympic presence in Paris was much more direct than his erstwhile design director Roseberry’s. The famously athletic Browne already tipped his cap to the Games with the spectacle he staged in Los Angeles during the pandemic. His show on Monday opened with a tug of war and closed with gold, silver and bronze on the prizewinners’ podium. Throughout the presentation itself, an Olympian referee monitored the event, gold wreath on her head, huge whistle-shaped purse swinging from her shoulder. Fortunately, there were no infractions.

To reach the heights of sporting fame requires a degree of superhuman obsession. It’s hard to escape the notion that Browne is no stranger to such obsession. In show after extraordinary show, he has stretched the limits of creativity, endurance and credibility. And he does it in schoolboy shorts, with an aw-shucks modesty. Latest exhibit: a couture collection that took the grandest of fashion gestures back to ground zero, the humble muslin toile, the prototype where all of those big fancy dresses begin. The Blueprint, rather than The Bomb. “Last July, everything was highly finished, highly embroidered,” said Browne. “I wanted the exact opposite, to bring it back to where it all starts with the customer.”

The power of the toile is such that I still count an exhibition of Balenciaga’s toiles I saw at FIT in New York many decades ago as one of my all-time favourite shows. Which is why it made perfect sense that Browne saw his collection for women and men as a celebration of the art of making clothes. It’s often been said that you can judge the quality of haute couture by the fact that the inside should be as perfect as the outside. The inside-outness was a key feature here. You could see the hand-basting on the seams. Browne compared his efforts to his partner Andrew Bolton’s curation of the “Ex Machina” show at the Met “showing the beauty of handwork compared to machine work”. Still, it was a bold move on his part to offer a toile as the finished garment, and it made for a fascinating show.

Because, of course, it was no mere muslin we were presented with: 300 yards of the fabric were smocked in one look that sailed past. Normally, we’d be looking at some gorgeous silk. Then there were embroideries so extraordinary that Browne admitted, “We had to pull ourselves back to keep it true to the concept. I love finish and I love perfection, but where it all starts was such a great story.”

Everything was muslin: muslin yarn in the cardigans, muslin ribbon in the trim, muslin tweed miraculously conjured up by Lesage, and muslin making up the flowers in the massive bouquet that weighed down Anna Cleveland in the bridal gown she had to be sewn into after a zipper broke just as she was about to take to the catwalk. But Browne emphasised that none of it came cheap. “It’s the most pattern work we’ve ever done. And the Lesage muslin tweeds were as expensive as real tweeds.”

I was feeling there was a point to be made here about the humblest of fabrics being co-opted by the most extravagant of métiers. A conceptual have-and-have-not moment that felt oddly apposite to everything that is going on in the world now. I doubt that Browne would take to that suggestion. Still, amidst the relentlessly neutral palette, there was a quietly stunning flash of colour in a dress that was bifurcated to reveal one half of a flayed torso, beaded red. It was a reminder that this designer has always had a killer instinct for the dark side.

Schiaparelli Autumn/Winter 2024 Haute Couture

Thom Browne Autumn/Winter 2024 Haute Couture