Global Fashion Summit 2022: Key takeaways in the interview with Holly Syrett from GFA

As a garment manufacturer we found some topics particularly interesting:

• the need to give a larger voice to supply chain players;

• carbon insetting instead of offsetting and;

• innovation in materials & recycling technologies.

Our Global Sustainability Director, Karin Simondon, has asked the below 5 key questions to Holly Syrett, Director of Impact Programmes & Sustainability at Global Fashion Agenda.

1. From commitments to action

A sense of urgency was omnipresent in each single discussions on stage. Many promises have been made, but the need for companies to start scalable projects and change the way they usually do business is critical.

Do you believe that the industry is going to transform in the coming years? Or are we starting a new period of commitments made on new concepts like regeneration etc…?

Yes, the sense of urgency was pre-eminent, and we have done our best to better facilitate dialogue and debate around action initiatives more than talk about the promise of taking action. We do identify a strong transition of organisations’ willingness to share their struggles and successes on stage, versus making statements or staking claims. For instance, ASOS presented an initiative wherein they discovered modern slavery in their supply chain and worked together with different organisations such as Anti-Slavery International to establish a Migrant Resource Centre to protect workers and promote safe migration of workers in Mauritius. I believe this presents a huge mindset shift in the industry that is often characterised by opacity and fear of impacting its brand image. Instead of denying or denouncing social and environmental issues, leading brands are increasingly sharing how they’re trying to address them openly, which is encouraging for all on their sustainability journey. We do believe the industry is going to transform. There’s no convincing left to be done that action’s needed and industry actors are looking for implementation tools and solutions over anything else. Our GFA Monitor publication that was launched at the Summit (download here for free) has been designed to offer guidance and be a resource for all of the solutions that are already out there!

2. Alliances for a new era

Alliances was the theme of this summit. The unbalanced business power between brands and manufacturers has been mentioned as an issue, along with purchasing practices. The lack of concertation with manufacturers and material producers in EU regulatory development as another one.

How can manufacturers and material producers be active members of alliances with brands, nonprofit organization and certification bodies to drive change?

It’s a multifaceted answer. I believe criteria for effective alliances include that they need to be designed from the outset with a global industry and full value chain perspective. I don’t believe we can establish new, mutually beneficial and equal partnerships when approaching them from a mainly Global North, or brand-dominated mindset. It’s necessary to align around a common vision and identify the potentially varying objectives for different actors towards achieving the said vision. Priorities for decarbonisation, for instance, will differ per region and organisation. A few cross-sectoral alliances worth exploring include the UN Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action on climate change, the Policy Hub which advocates for policies to accelerate circularity and the Circular Fashion Partnership which aims to scale recycling and circular systems in manufacturing regions.  

As you mention purchasing practices, I want to note that revising purchasing practices and establishing buyer code-of-conducts are pragmatic tools that we believe should be implemented today in an effort to establish fairer business relationships and protect workers. Together with Social Labor Convergence Programme, Fair Labor Association, ACT for Living Wage, FairWear Foundation and more, we feature it in quite some detail in the GFA Monitor, with links to many tools to support implementation.

3. Insetting vs offsetting

GANNI has‍ explained why they decided to reallocate their budget for offsetting to insetting projects, meaning investing in their own supply chains.

Which benefits beyond reduction of carbon equivalent emissions do you see in these types of projects?

This is another strong example of a brand in action. Whereas offsetting offers a counterbalance to emissions caused, it’s not a preventative or long-term solution. Collaborating with suppliers to evaluate emissions hotspots and start investing in ways to mitigate those at the source, rather than offset projects elsewhere is a way to make actual reductions with partners. Benefits include going to the actual root of the problem, building stronger partnerships and tailoring finance and solution together to meet the actual need of the issue and the organisations and communities involved. The vast majority of emissions are caused in scope 3 and it requires substantial investment to transition to renewable energy – often not accessible in production regions – and upgrade equipment, which is challenging (or even impossible) as an individual actor/producer. Through cross-sectoral partnership throughout the value chain incentives to transition can be provided and investment can be unlocked. This talks to the previous question on effective alliances!

4. Standard auditing vs self-auditing

Upcoming EU regulations will set standards for value chain mandatory due diligence. At the same time, there is a concern that standard audits are keeping brands away from real collaboration and joint understanding with manufacturers and material producers.

In your opinion, will the garment industry decrease its social & environmental impact through standard rules and performance transparency or through specific and tailored collaboration and shared priorities?

I see the great benefit of standardised sustainability assessments. Without measurement, we simply don’t know where we are, where we’re going or what works. By utilising the same ‘measuring stick’ we can pinpoint hotspots for change and collaboration, reduce auditing fatigue and track progress, and transparent disclosure allows for greater accountability and getting the right information into the hands of decision makers.

But context is key in tailoring effective environmental and social strategies. I don’t believe there’s a one-size-fits-all solution for many of our industry’s challenges and we’re all becoming savvier to, for instance, the nuances of restoring biodiversity and/or fresh water basins in specific areas we source from. The same is applicable for social impacts – such as the significant variations in the criteria of minimum wages being paid in different countries. As an industry, we can align on a definition for living wages and fair compensation, but in implementation, we need to tailor it to the local context of each region.

5. Eco-design for Sustainable Products regulation & materials innovation

Innovation in new materials and new recycling technologies has been massive and is expected to remain in the coming years. At the same time, the EU commission is working on defining design and manufacturing requirements on textiles and garments to make them more sustainable.

How do you foresee the regulation to be able to grasp this fast-paced technological development, and what will it mean for start-ups investing in new material solutions that may not meet the new requirements? For example, on the ability to recycle a fabric with mixed synthetics that may not exist today but will probably in some years.  

GFA contributed to the European Commission´s consultation in the framework of the Policy Hub-circularity for Apparel and Footwear, co-founded by GFA. Click here to access the position.

In my opinion, effective regulation should be impact-focused to be relevant and applicable for current and future material mixes. Whatever the material, it could be assessed by environmental criteria such as use of finite resources, chemicals, land, water, energy, GHG emissions, durability/recyclability etc. Generally, I do truly miss the cognisance of social impact and believe we require a human-centric approach to be embedded in all sustainability dialogue, assessments and legislation to reach a net-positive industry, that gives back more to society, the natural world and the economy than it takes out.

About LTP

LTP is a Danish owned garment manufacturer for +60premium brands within active sportswear, cycling, outdoor, urban performance, performance running and organic & lifestyle apparel. LTP was established in1991 and now spans two continents - Europe and Asia with 6 fully owned factories in 5 countries (Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus, Romania and Vietnam). Our European Innovation Centre is located in Kaunas, Lithuania and our Asian Innovation Centre is located in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. We have a Bluesign partner factory in 4 countries where we operate (Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus and Vietnam).

About Global Fashion Agenda

Global Fashion Agenda (GFA) is a non-profit organisation that fosters industry collaboration on sustainability in fashion to accelerate impact. GFA has been leading the sustainability movement since 2009 and are behind the renowned international forum on sustainability in fashion, Global Fashion Summit, the Innovation Forum, thought leadership publications including Fashion CEO Agenda and Fashion on Climate and impact programmes including the Circular Fashion Partnership.