The fashion industry has a huge impact on both the environment and on emissions: It is estimated that the industry contributes to between 2 and 4 per cent of emissions due to its long supply chains and energy intensive production. The industry also produces about 20 per cent of global wastewater, while 85 per cent of textiles end up in landfills or are incinerated when most of these materials could be reused. The emergence of ‘fast fashion’ in recent years – where cheaper clothes are rushed to high-street shops and are often worn only a few times before being thrown away – has only further deepened fashion’s effect on the environment.
The recent Fashion Charter report highlighted the issues the industry faces and provided a roadmap that fashion brands can follow to ensure they reduce their impact on the environment. Its overall aim is to drive the fashion industry to net-zero emissions no later than 2050.
One Fashion Charter signatory is House of Baukjen. Winner of the Global Climate Action award at COP26 last year, it is home to two brands: Baukjen womenswear and Isabella Oliver maternity wear. This London-based company was set up in 2003 by Geoff van Sonsbeeck and his wife, Baukjen De Swaan Arons.
Their transition to a more sustainable path was one taken incrementally, van Sonsbeeck says. “During 2019, we decided to take a more active role in the environmental and social impact of our brands. Our model was never one of fast fashion, the more we learned about the harsh reality of the fashion industry the more disconnected we felt,” he says. “We implemented better management processes, we worked with the team to better our production, sourcing, and overall business model – which is now fully circular.”
In December 2020, the company became carbon negative across its entire supply chain and operations (Scopes 1, 2 and 3) including logistics offsetting its carbon emissions through Gold Standard CER and VER offsets. It sources its materials from ethical suppliers, opting for mostly natural fibres that are renewable and a growing percentage of recycled fabrics.
Transportation was an area more difficult to reduce emissions in. “We have so far achieved reductions by near-shoring production [the practice of transferring a business operation to a nearby country], therefore reducing the amount of miles our clothes travel, and choosing less carbon-intensive shipping options,” van Sonsbeeck says. “Otherwise, we are reliant on our logistics partners to decarbonise this area of the business, with outbound logistics (shipping parcels and receiving returns) remaining a particularly big challenge.”
Yet it is manufacturing rather than transport that remains the biggest issue. “Manufacturing companies have historically not been well-equipped (both in terms of equipment and human resources) to measure and understand their own environmental footprint, making it near impossible [for us] to communicate this to the brands commissioning product,” he says.
The company works closely with its manufacturing partners to ensure that their practices are not harmful to the environment and that they adhere to a strict code of conduct. Waste has been reduced across production sites and most material waste created in production is recycled
“Even without primary data to assess environmental footprints, at a factory level some processes are well-understood to have a large impact. Alternatives exist but often manufacturing companies don’t have the funds to replace existing equipment with other less resource-intensive options (for example, replacing coal-fired boilers). If brands don’t even know which equipment is being used in their supply chains or where, it’s next to impossible to address such issues even if they have the intention to.”
The company focused on its Scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions that occur in a company’s value chain, from business travel to waste disposal to transportation), so the “low hanging fruit” was replacing higher impact fibres with more responsible alternatives, which included completely moving away from virgin cashmere and silk (two particularly high-impact natural fibres), as well as replacing conventional cotton and viscose with lower impact alternatives, such as organic and recycled materials.
As the climate crisis has gotten more acute in recent years, consumers have been demanding that the brands they buy from adopt sustainable practices, something van Sonsbeeck has noticed. “Consumers are paying closer attention to what we are doing and asking more questions, which we really appreciate,” he says. “While well-informed customers are also forcing our competitors to adapt and act on climate, this is something we all need to do if we are going to meet the Paris Agreement goal and limit global warming to +1.5C.”
Yet while many fashion brands have made strides in reducing emissions, van Sonsbeeck believes that many in the industry have a lot more to do. “Most brands are still waiting on regulation to take meaningful action, whilst some of the biggest brands with most visibility are slow to achieve meaningful results, because they try to balance investment in more sustainable fashion with profits,” he says.
“There are two main blockers that come to mind: firstly, most consumers don’t have a comprehensive understanding of environmental impact and struggle to judge between what is more ‘sustainable’ and what is a marketing stunt. Secondly, so many brands haven’t grasped the opportunity to become early movers in the industry. We found that moving early toward more sustainable fashion practices, is not only good for the planet and people, but also for long-term, sustained profit.”
This is not just an issue for the fashion industry but for every company: how to balance the needs of shareholders and maximizing profit with the need to move towards sustainable practices. Key to this will be government regulations, which is happening, slowly but surely.
“Regulations are catching up, and consumers’ and staff expectations and demands are increasingly shaping business,” van Sonsbeeck says. “We have also seen a lot of interesting developments in the textile industry. There’s a lot of innovation that is focused on lowering environmental footprint and creating a more circular materials economy. As these technological innovations prove themselves and start to scale, they’ll soon be within easier reach for manufacturers and brands of all sizes, hopefully helping tip the scale in the right direction.”
And, as the need to tackle the climate crisis gets ever more urgent, public awareness of it, and the growing demands for change increases. “While most consumers are still learning about ‘sustainable fashion’, awareness is growing quickly,” he says. “People increasingly care about what they spend their money on, what they are working towards, and are more conscious of the negative impacts of our industry, both on people and the planet,” he adds. “Once you learn how unethical and polluting fashion can be, it’s very hard to turn a blind eye and spend money with companies who knowingly perpetuate poverty, disease and wastefulness. The more aware customers are, the stronger they’ll feel about doing the right thing and consuming clothes in a more responsible manner.”
With more than 200 brands having signed UNFCCC’s Fashion Charter since 2018, the hope is that the efforts of House of Baukjen – and the rest of the signatories – will soon become the norm across the industry. The Fashion Charter is both a roadmap for the industry and a living document, updated to follow the latest science, and a document that enables the fashion industry to translate ambition into concrete action as quickly as possible.