te pfm benchmark company feedback report-sharks dont bite ... ·...

Preferred Fiber & Materials (PFM) Index Company Feedback Report for Sharks Don’t Bite

SAMPLE REPORT

TE PFM Benchmark Company Feedback Report © 2017 | 2

We are delighted to present this confidential Feedback Report reflecting your performance in the Textile Exchange Preferred Fiber & Materials Index 2016. Textile companies, such as yours, with the roots of their businesses in the fields, forests, and deep under ground, have an important role to play in the transition to a more resilient, regenerative and circular economy. Moving towards a preferred fiber and materials portfolio is part of that transition and is a significant way to improve impact. In 2015, Textile Exchange (TE) launched the PFM Benchmarking Program for measuring how your company systematically integrates a preferred fiber and materials strategy into mainstream business operations and this year we released the first fully weighted and scored Preferred Fiber & Materials Index (PFM Index). By benchmarking your achievements across the PFM Index sections, and within self-‐selected PFM modules, this Feedback Report summarizes your scores in a Top Line Summary and then gives more insight in the Detailed Results Analysis that follows. Your PFM Index score is 75 and the average for the Outdoor/Sports sub-‐sector is 46 – you are ranked 10 from a total of 14 in your sub-‐sector, and 23 out of 71 Index participants. The results show that, overall, the sector average is 49. Industry-‐led, voluntary and self-‐assessed, the PFM Index for integrating preferred fiber and materials into business strategy is establishing itself as a leading global benchmark for the textile industry, and providing a useful tool to share with important internal and external stakeholders, including the investment community. Examining your company’s individual results, and comparing them with the sector’s performance, is the key to improvement in this annual benchmarking process. You will identify not only how to improve in individual fiber/material categories, but also how changing your mix of PFMs can contribute to positive sustainability impacts. Participants say that the exercise has helped them to gain a deeper understanding of their fiber and materials portfolio opportunities, and has

brought the sustainability of the raw materials on which their products depend, into clearer focus. Benchmarking is the starting point for "bench-‐learning" -‐ a conduit for communicating learning, knowledge and sharing of best practice -‐ and for the leaders to pass their success on to others. As part of the survey, participants were asked to identify their key risks and opportunities. This year, common themes were: credibility and product integrity; supply transparency; and climate change impact on supply. . Participants said that converting to more sustainable alternatives; and working more closely with suppliers deeper into their supply chain, is on the radar for their company. Through the sharing of experiences and the capture of this information, TE is committed to finding ways to improve understanding for all. Many companies are adopting the framework of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to plan a long-‐term approach to sustainability and TE’s PFM Benchmark is built on foundations that align with this work. As the Benchmark evolves more explicit links will be made with the SDGs. Adoption of more preferred fibers is one of the barometers of transformation change within the textile community. The way that you, as a textile brand or retailer, can influence improvement in fiber and material production is one of the greatest opportunities you have to contribute to securing a sustainable future. Thanks – and congratulations on your participation this year!! We hope you find your Feedback Report enlightening and helpful.

La Rhea Pepper Managing Director Textile Exchange

COVER PHOTO (COTTON): Fairtrade International


INTRODUCTIONABOUT TE’S PREFERRED FIBER & MATERIALS INDEX The Preferred Fiber & Materials Index (PFM Index) is based on Business In The Community’s Corporate Responsibility Index in the UK, and has been adapted for the textile industry.

The PFM Index provides a robust structure to help companies systematically measure, manage and integrate a preferred fiber and materials strategy into mainstream business operations, to compare progress within sub-‐sector groupings and the overall universe of participants, and to transparently communicate performance and progress to stakeholders.

Companies follow a self-‐assessment process intended to help identify their strengths and the gaps where future progress can be made. By comparing section scores with those achieved by their peers and the broader industry, companies can plan improvement efforts and prioritize action areas.

TE defines a "preferred" fiber or material as one that is:

• Ecologically and socially progressive and has been selected because it has more sustainable properties in comparison to conventional options.

Ways to recognize or achieve a preferred status include:

• The fiber or material has a recognized industry standard in place that confirms its status as preferred.

• The fiber or material has sustainability criteria developed through a formalized multi-‐stakeholder process.

• The fiber or material has been objectively tested or verified as having superior sustainability attributes, such as through a peer reviewed Life Cycle Assessment.

TE describes a “portfolio approach” as: The process of building a suite of preferred fiber and materials, from a choice of preferred options, through the consideration of impacts and organizational priorities.

The goal is that: PFMs are produced to a globally accepted standard that includes strict criteria in order to qualify as a sustainably preferred product, and are able to be traced through the supply chain.

PFM INDEX MODEL

The PFM Index is an online self-‐completion questionnaire, which rates a company’s strategic approach to integrating preferred fiber and materials into business strategy. It probes a company's success in integrating its strategy into its operations, and the depth of its commitment to transforming conventional supply chain practices and changing fiber and materials to preferred versions.

Having examined the underpinning corporate strategy (Section 1), the questions then concentrate on the company's management practices in three key areas – Supply Chain (Section 2), Consumption (Section 3), and Consumer Engagement (Section 4). All participants must complete Section 1, as Corporate Strategy is positioned as essential to effective management. Since Sections 2, 3, and 4 are specific to the fiber and materials used by a company, these need to be completed for each PFM module submitted.

Index Sections

Section 1: Corporate Strategy

This section asks if and how companies are placing PFMs at the core of their business. Is there a strategy in place and have policies been set to address key sustainability issues in the sourcing of fiber and materials? The setting of goals helps a company stay focused, and the use of rating tools to inform decision-‐making can strengthen internal systems. It is essential that staff members are responsible for getting the job done, and that accountability sits with decision-‐holders. Public reporting is a gateway to transparency and demonstrates a company's strength of commitment.

Section 2: Supply Chain

Product integrity is the linchpin of sustainability in the textile industry. Certification to standards is one of the strongest ways to ensure that product claims are accurate and able to be verified. This section looks at how companies are using Chain of Custody standards and initiative guidelines for verifying content. It also looks at the ways companies are investing and working with suppliers to make improvements. Ultimately, the goal is to move towards transparent and trusting partnerships, which allow companies to closely manage risk and build more resilient trade relations that share value fairly.

TE PFM Benchmark Report Company Feedback © 2017 | 4

Section 3: Consumption

This section moves away from strategy and supply management to look at the hard numbers. How effective have these strategies been in leading to increased use of a PFM in your company? It is important to set specific uptake targets at the fiber level and to measure progress. Tracking uptake is a good indicator of progress, and it is important to consider the percentage of overall fiber usage that is converted to a preferred version. The percentage breakdown of overall fiber usage is of particular interest as it allows a company to reflect on the rate of conversion and growth trends alongside absolute volumes.

Section 4: Consumer Engagement

In this section, we take a look at the marketplace for products made using PFMs, and whether companies are seeing a business benefit as well as any return on their investment. We ask how they communicate a product's sustainability attributes, raise their customers' awareness of sustainability issues, and educate them on how to make more sustainable choices. Communication channels include the use of on-‐product labeling, in-‐store communications, and corporate reporting. We also ask whether companies are monitoring and evaluating the impact of their consumer engagement activities and if this information is used to inform strategy.

The Index can be represented visually, with each section’s scores weighted as shown:

+ PFM Index Framework

Section 1 Corporate Strategy

[25%]

Section 2 Supply Chain

[30%]

Section 3 Consumption

[30%]

Section 4 Consumer Engagement

[15%]

Q1 Corporate Values [5%]

Q10 Factory Standards [Non-‐Scoring]

Q2 Sustainability Strategy [20%]

Q11 Factory Initiatives [Non-‐Scoring]

Q3 Risk Assessment [15%]

Q12 & Q13 PFM Portfolio PFM Module Selection: BCI, CmiA, FT, OC, OFT, rPET, pMMC & cDown

Q4 Goals [10%]

Q14-‐Q30 for Section 2, 3 & 4 are completed for each PFM module selected.

Q5 Policies [10%]

Q14 Chain of Custody [40%]

Q19 History [Non-‐Scoring]

Q22 Product Ranges [Non-‐Scoring]

Q6 Accountability [10%]

Q15 Traceability [40%]

Q20 SMART Targets [25%]

Q23 Key Markets [Non-‐Scoring]

Q7 Responsibility [10%]

Q16 Trade Relations [Non-‐Scoring]

Q21a Uptake [60%]

Q24 Estimated Sales [Non-‐Scoring]

Q8 Rating Tools [5%]

Q17 Pricing Model [Non-‐Scoring]

Q21b Consumption Reporting [15%]

Q25 Establishing Brand Identity [10%]

Q9 Corporate Reporting [15%]

Q18 Sustainability Investment [20%]

Q26 Product Marks & Labeling [20%]

Q27 Monitoring Business Benefits [20%]

Q28 Calculating ROI [10%]

Q29 Consumer Strategy[20%]

Q30 Evaluation of Consumer Strategy[20%]

Fiber and Materials Overall Usage and PFM Portfolios

Key to PFM Module abbreviations

pCotton -‐ Preferred Cotton | BCI -‐ Better Cotton Initiative | CmiA -‐ Cotton made in Africa | FT -‐ Fair Trade Cotton | OC -‐ Organic Cotton | OFT -‐ Organic Fair Trade Cotton | rPET -‐ Recycled Polyester | pMMC -‐ Preferred Man Made Cellulosics | cDown -‐ Certified Down

Note: the pMMC module is currently under development. Within this module, lyocell and modal (with forest certification) hold a status as “preferred.”

See table on page 5 for further details, and survey question elements can be found in Question Elements.


A company selects the PFM modules it wants to complete from a portfolio of options. The table below shows the PFM portfolio options currently available in the benchmark program. PFMs in the greyed out rows are either recognized PFMs of smaller use and/or under consideration for future benchmark program development.

+ PFM Portfolio and Module options

Portfolio PFM Modules Source/Feedstock Criteria Verification Chain of Custody

PFM Weight

Cotton

Better Cotton Initiative Grown to BCI criteria Self-‐assessment

2nd & 3rd party MB 0.6

Cotton made in Africa Grown to CmiA criteria Self-‐assessment

3rd party field/gin MB (IP option) 0.7

Fair Trade Cotton Certified to the Fairtrade Standard FT Standard, 3rd

Party IP (MB option) 0.8

Organic Cotton Grown on certified organic farms OCS/GOTS 3rd Party IP 0.9

Organic Fair Trade Certified to FT and organic farm standards FT and OCS/GOTS

3rd Party IP 1

Recycled Cotton Inputs recycled from pre or post consumer waste RCS/GRS

3rd Party IP NA

Synthetics

Recycled Polyester

Inputs mainly from post consumer plastic bottles or pre or post consumer textile waste

RCS/GRS 3rd Party IP 1

Recycled Nylon Inputs from nylon scrap, pre or post consumer textile waste

RCS/GRS 3rd Party IP NA

Bio Synthetics Module to be developed NA NA NA

Animal Fibers

Certified Down Down from certified farms RDS/TDS 3rd Party IP 1

Recycled Down Inputs from pre or post consumer waste RCS/GRS 3rd Party IP NA

Organic Wool Grown on certified organic farms OCS/GOTS 3rd Party IP NA

Organic Silk Grown on certified organic farms (sericulture) OCS/GOTS 3rd Party IP NA

Recycled Wool Inputs from pre or post consumer waste RCS/GRS 3rd Party IP NA

Responsible Wool Module to be developed RWS

3rd Party IP NA

Man Made Cellulosics Fibers

Modal Wood fiber from certified forests/plantations Supplier 1st Party Supplier based 0.8

Lyocell Wood fiber from certified forests/plantations Supplier 1st Party Supplier based 1

Regenerated Cellulose Inputs from pre or post consumer waste RCS/GRS

3rd Party IP NA

IP-‐ Identity Preserved | MB – Mass Balance ¢ Modules In Development or PFM covered in non-‐scoring Self-‐Selected module

PFM sustainability weightings

Each PFM module has been designated a sustainability weighting.

Sustainability weightings have been determined by a number of factors including:

• Their score in recognized sustainability assessment and tools such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), the Sustainable Apparel Coalition’s Material Sustainability Index (MSI), and Made-‐By’s Environmental Benchmark for Fibers.

• The rigor of the verification process. Credibility is key and the form of verification most recommended by Textile Exchange is third-‐party certification to a recognized standard, as it ensures the highest degree of impartiality and assurance. Ideally, the party who has written and owns the standard is a separate entity from the party certifying to the standard. Certification bodies are accredited by another separate party (an accreditation body) to ensure professionalism and consistency in the way the certification is carried out.

Important note:

The PFM sustainability weighting is not applied to the PFM Index. It is only used in the calculation that determines a company’s overall Fiber & Materials (FM) Result (see page 8).

The notion of applying a sustainability weighting, and how that weighting should be determined, is under discussion and part of the Program Review for 2017.


IMPLEMENTATION METHODOLOGYCompanies take part in the PFM Benchmark through a secure online portal. Each submission is only considered valid if it is signed off by the survey lead at the company to ensure commitment to the veracity of the responses to the survey.

+ PFM Index Implementation Methodology

Companies complete survey u TE reviews surveys u

TE clarifies gaps with companies u TE updates gaps

q

TE prepares reports t TE analyzes data t TE checks consistency

& standardizes t TE finalizes data

Organic Cotton Market Report

Preferred Fiber Market Report

PFM Benchmark Industry Report

PFM Company Feedback Report

Review Rigor

TE staff review each company’s submitted survey and supporting documentation. In the survey review process, each submission is reviewed for completeness, consistency and adequate supporting evidence. Where there is a gap, TE, with the agreement of the company, will make the necessary amendments.

Note that this process is not an audit; the basis of the submission is self-‐assessment. TE believes that self-‐assessment is the starting point for action and improvement. We understand that this may lead to limitations in the information provided by companies and the misinterpretation of questions. To minimize the inherent constraints of a self-‐assessed survey, TE supports participants throughout all phases of the process.

1. Company completes survey

Companies are issued with registration and access details for the online portal. Guidance notes and other supporting material are provided. The TE team is available to directly support the survey submission process. “Company Submission Teams” complete the survey and the “Survey Lead” signs off internally. The signed-‐off sheet is uploaded to the system. Company formally submits the survey.

2-‐5. TE reviews, clarifies and finalizes data with the company

The TE team ensures information is securely stored. All submissions receive a first review and the TE team works to a common review template. This helps build a consistent approach across the different reviewers. The team checks responses for completeness and consistency. Queries are raised with the company via phone and email. During the review phase, the TE team is available to join online team meetings or make company visits.

6. TE checks data for consistency and standardizes submissions

A second review is carried out across a selected sample of 50 percent (minimum) of all submissions. In order to standardize and increase consistency even further, the same individual carries out this second review. Once submissions are finalized through mutual agreement with the company, any resulting amendments are entered into the system by the TE team. The data is ready to be analyzed

7. TE analyzes data

Scores are generated automatically for the Company Feedback Reports. The TE team checks all data, the scoring system and the aggregation of scores. The team carries out data analysis and creates sub-‐sector and overall sector averages for the Index. Both quantitative and written analyses are prepared.

8. TE prepares reports

The TE team runs a final accuracy check of the data in graphs and text. Customized Company Feedback Reports are generated for participating companies. In addition, TE prepares a Sector Report for wider communication of sector and sub-‐sector results.

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8


PFM BENCHMARK SCORING MODEL+ Example of PFM Index Scoring Model

The basic components to the Scoring Model are:

• Question scores are achieved based on response entered for each question. Each question carries a question weight.

• Section scores are the accumulation of question scores in a section. There are four sections – 1: Corporate Strategy, 2: Supply Chain, 3: Consumption and 4: Consumer Engagement. Sections 2, 3 and 4 are module based. Each section carries a section weight.

• PFM module scores are the accumulation of section scores in a module. There are eight scoring modules to select from: BCI, CmiA, FT, OC, OFT, rPET, pMMC and cDown. Modules are based on a company’s selection. Each module carries a sustainability weight (see page 5 for restrictions on how the sustainability weighting is used).

• PFM uptake is the breakdown of the PFM portfolio and covers cotton (share of conventional, BCI, CmiA, FT, OC and OFT used), synthetics (share of conventional, recycled and other polyester used), MMC (viscose/rayon, lyocell, modal and other MMC used) and Down (share of conventional, responsible down [certified to the RDS], traceable [certified to the TDS] and other down used). Where uptake is not provided, a sub-‐sector average is used as a proxy.

• FM usage is the overall share of cotton, synthetics, MMC and animal fiber used.


This feedback report presents a company’s benchmark results in two parts:

• Top Line Results provide a summary of your company’s section and PFM module scores.

• Detailed Analysis provides a deeper dive into the scores and participant's response at a question level.

All scores are reported at the company, sub-‐sector and sector level. Sector score refers to the average score of all participants who took part in the benchmark.

TOP LINE RESULTS

A company’s Top Line Results are given at two levels. The objective for this is to recognize both the sustainability efforts of a company within specific PFMs, and the efforts made to replace conventional with a PFM across a company’s entire fiber and material usage.

Level 1: PFM Index Result

The PFM Index Result shows a company’s top performing PFMs. It comprises of a company’s Section 1 score plus the average score for Section 2, 3 and 4 for a company’s top three performing modules. Uptake of the PFM as a percentage of the PFM portfolio is factored into Section 3 as part of Q21a. No sustainability weight is applied at the Index Result level.

Level 2: FM Result

The FM Result shows a company’s overall progress in PFM conversion. It is based on the Section 1 score plus the score for Section 2, 3 and 4 for all modules selected, weighted against the breakdown of a company’s PFM portfolio, the sustainability weighting of the PFM, and overall FM usage reported.

Where a company’s PFM portfolio and overall FM usage is not reported, a sub-‐sector average is applied as a proxy.

+ Comparison of PFM Index Result and FM Result

Index Result FM Result

What is taken into account?

Questions considered All All

Sections considered All All

PFM modules considered Top 3 modules All modules except self-‐selected

Assessment & Weighting

Question weights Yes Yes

Section weights Yes Yes

PFM sustainability weights No Yes

PFM uptake Yes

(as a component of a PFM) Yes

(across whole and all modules)

Total FM usage No Yes

DETAILED ANALYSIS

A company’s question scores are given in the detailed analysis together with the participant's response for respective questions. The detailed analysis is organized according to PFM modules, sections, and questions in the survey.

All scores reported in the detailed analysis are unweighted baseline normalized scores and have been rounded to remove decimal places.


PARTICIPANT PROFILEIn total, 89 companies participated in the PFM Benchmark Survey in 2016. After excluding partial submissions and shadow participants, 71 companies submitted complete entries and their responses form the basis of this report. Of these 71 companies, 60% are TE members.

Sub-‐Sector Breakdown

The table below shows the sub-‐sector breakdown of the 71 participants. At 30%, Apparel (Small/Medium) is the biggest sub-‐sector covered with fairly even distribution amongst all other sub-‐sectors.

+ Participation by Sub-‐Sector (%)

Sub-‐Sector Description Product Categories Participants

Multi-‐Sector/ Apparel (Extra Large)

Extra large apparel and multi-‐sector brands and retailers. Submissions from holding

companies are also included in this sub-‐sector.

Fashion, family, baby, basics, intimates, work wear (uniforms) and

home textiles.

20%

Apparel (Large) Large and mid-‐size brands and retailers of mainly apparel.

Designer, luxury, fashion, family, baby, basics and intimates.

15%

Apparel (Small/Medium)

Small to mid-‐size apparel brands and retailers. Also includes

submissions based on "product line" (even if the company size would place them in Large or

Extra Large).

Designer, fashion, family, baby, basics, intimates, and work wear (uniforms).

30%

Outdoor/ Sports

Brands and retailers, all sizes, of outdoor and sportswear.

Mountain, active and performance sports, yoga, lifestyle, and

footwear.

20%

Home Textiles

Brands and retailers, all sizes, of exclusively or predominantly home textiles. Catering and

hospitality companies are also included in this sub-‐sector.

Dining (table cloths, napkins), bed and bath, and indoor or

outdoor soft furnishing.

15%

All attempts were made to categorize sub-‐sectors according to recognized naming systems. However, in order to create like-‐for-‐like comparisons, Apparel is divided into three sub-‐sectors: Small/Medium, Large, and Extra-‐Large Enterprises, depending upon turnover. For the Outdoor/Sports sub-‐sector, there is large variation in company size; however, the majority classify as either Large or Extra Large

Enterprises by turnover (36% and 43% respectively). In Home Textiles, there is some variation in company size, however the majority are Small or Medium Enterprises (73%).

Total value, based on the estimated turnovers of participating companies, is USD $1.53 trillion.

Country Breakdown

The table below shows the participation rate according to HQ location. The majority of participating companies are located in the USA (33%), Germany (23%), and the United Kingdom (14%).

+ Participation By Country (%)

Country Participants Country Participants USA 33% Japan 3% Germany 23% Norway 3% United Kingdom 14% Australia 1% Sweden 4% Canada 1% Belgium 3% Switzerland 1% Denmark 3% Netherlands 1% Spain 3% New Zealand 1% France 3% South Africa 1% Selection of PFM Modules

The table below shows the selection breakdown across the PFM modules offered in the Index. Organic Cotton, at 79%, has the highest participation rate. Recycled polyester follows at 58% participation, with preferred MMC (lyocell and modal) at 39%, Certified Down at 32% and BCI at 31%.

+ Participation by PFM Module (%)

pCotton rPET pMMC cDown BCI CmiA FT OC OFT 31% 7% 8% 79% 23% 58% 39% 32%

Key: pCotton -‐ Preferred Cotton| BCI -‐ Better Cotton Initiative | CmiA -‐ Cotton made in Africa | FT -‐ Fair Trade Cotton | OC -‐ Organic Cotton | OFT -‐ Organic Fair Trade Cotton | rPET -‐ Recycled Polyester | pMMC -‐ Preferred Man Made Cellulosics | cDown -‐ Certified Down


PFM INDEX 2016 PARTICIPANT LINE-‐UP

Below is the line-‐up of PFM Index participants for the year 2016 (by sub-‐sector, in alphabetical order):

Multi-‐Sector/Apparel (Extra Large)

C&A Global CARREFOUR GROUP Cintas Corporation Coop Switzerland Fast Retailing H&M Inditex Group John Lewis plc Marks and Spencer Otto Group Tchibo GmbH VARNER WOOLWORTHS (PTY) LTD 1 x undisclosed participant

Apparel (Large)

AB Lindex Burberry EILEEN FISHER, Inc. G-‐Star RAW C.V. HUGO BOSS JACK & JONES JACK WILLS Marc O'Polo International GmbH Stella McCartney Triaz GmbH 1 x undisclosed participant

Apparel (Small/Medium)

ALANA (dm-‐drogerie markt) ARMEDANGELS (Social Fashion Company GmbH) Arthur & Henry Continental® Cotonea (Gebr. Elmer & Zweifel) Cream Workwear Dedicated EarthPositive® Felissimo Corporation Hanky Panky HempAge AG KnowledgeCotton Apparel Loomstate Mantis World Mara Hoffman Outerknown PACT Apparel, LLC Raven + Lily Salvage® SKUNKFUNK Stanley and Stella SA

Outdoor/Sports adidas DECATHLON elkline JanSport Kathmandu MEC New Balance Athletics, Inc. NIKE, Inc. Norrøna Sport Patagonia PUMA SE The North Face Toad&Co Volcom

Home Textiles +Olive Boll & Branch Coyuchi, Inc. Dibella Group Hemtex LA SIESTA Naturepedic Portico Under the Canopy WestPoint Home Williams-‐Sonoma, Inc.


COMPANY’S INDEX SUMMARY The Textile Exchange Preferred Fiber & Materials (PFM) Index has been specially developed for use in the textile industry. Brands and retailers can compare their results with the universe of participants (sector) and, more specifically, with peers within their sub-‐sector. Importantly, participants can increase their understanding of where they need to focus efforts within their business and balance their efforts according to gaps identified.

The online survey comprises of four sections, starting with Section 1: Corporate Strategy – a company's strategic intentions. It then focuses on how those intentions are turned into actions within their self-‐selected PFM modules -‐ Section 2: Supply Chain, Section 3: Consumption, and Section 4: Consumer Engagement. Corporate Strategy is positioned as underpinning, with Supply Chain, Consumption, and Consumer Engagement elements rolled out through eight PFM module options.

The table opposite shows your company’s Index score and the PFM modules that you completed. How your company is progressing in each PFM is indicated by the star status (i.e. Starting Out, Developing, Progressing Well or Leading the Field.)

+ Sub-‐Sector Breakdown: • Multi-‐Sector/Apparel (Extra Large) • Outdoor/Sports • Apparel (Large) • Home Textiles • Apparel (Small/Mid)

Company’s sub-‐sector: Outdoor/Sports + PFM Portfolio Modules: Preferred Cotton Portfolio Preferred Polyester Portfolio • BCI • Recycled Polyester • CmiA Preferred MMC Portfolio • Fair Trade • Lyocell/Modal • Organic Certified Down Portfolio • Organic Fair Trade • Responsible/Traceable Down

Company’s submitted modules: Organic Cotton| Organic Fair Trade|Certified Down|

Recycled Polyester

Company Name: Sharks Don’t Bite

PFM Index Result (Top 3): 69 PFM Index Average: 49 Index Ranking: 15 of 71 Sub-‐Sector Ranking: 2 of 14 Summary of Section Results:

Section 1: Strategy 63 ✪

Section 2: Supply Chain 72 ✪✪

Section 3: Consumption: Targets & Reporting 79 ✪✪

Section 3: Consumption: Uptake 81 ●

Section 4: Consumer Engagement 52 ✪ Summary of Module Results:

Better Cotton Initiative n/a

Cotton made in Africa n/a

Fair Trade Cotton n/a

Organic Cotton 51 ●

Organic Fair Trade 43 ●

Recycled Polyester 49 ●

Preferred Man Made Cellulosics n/a

Certified Down 60 ✪ ✪✪✪ -‐ Leading (>80%) | ✪✪ -‐ Progressing Well (70-‐79%) |

✪ -‐ Developing (60-‐69%) | l -‐ Starting Out (<60%)


TOP LINE RESULTSResults at Two Levels

PFM Index Results are provided at two levels. The objective of this is to not only recognize the sustainability efforts made in each PFM module, but also to recognize the impact of and efforts made to replace conventional with a PFM across a company’s entire fiber and material usage.

LEVEL 1: PFM INDEX RESULT

The PFM Index Results show your company’s top performing PFMs. It comprises of your company’s Section 1 score plus the average score for Sections 2, 3 and 4 for your company’s top three performing modules.

Your company’s PFM Index Result is the underlying score used to determine your company’s position in the Index, which is reported confidentially to each company.

+ Company, Sub-‐Sector, and Sector PFM Index Results by Section

¢ Company ¢ Sub-‐Sector ¢ Sector

The sector PFM Index Score is 49. The sector is performing best in Corporate Strategy (60), followed by Consumption: Targets & Reporting (55), Supply Chain (50) and Consumption Uptake (38). Consumer Engagement (35) alongside Uptake, are the areas that require the most improvement.

LEVEL 2: FM RESULT

The second level result includes all PFM modules (not just the top 3) and ties back to your company’s overall FM usage. It is based on the Section 1 score plus the score for Sections 2, 3 and 4 for all modules selected and weighted against the breakdown of the overall FM usage reported by the company. Note that when a company was unable to provide a portfolio breakdown or overall FM usage, the average of their sub-‐sector has been used as a proxy.

+ Company, Sub-‐Sector, and Sector FM Results by Section


Note: FM Results are based on reported FM Usage and PFM uptake. If either are not reported a sub-‐sector average is used as a proxy to provide your company’s indicative FM Result.

Taking into consideration the PFM sustainability weight, proportional uptake and overall FM usage, the sector FM score reduces to 34, indicating a need for the industry to grow its share of PFM vis-‐à-‐vis conventional. While companies perform relatively well in specific PFMs, significant improvements can be achieved through increasing the proportional share of PFMs across all fiber and material categories.

Corporate Strategy, being the underpinning section and unaffected by the PFM modules, remains the highest scoring section. The areas affected the most are Supply Chain and Consumer Engagement. The dip in Supply Chain is partly due to low levels of verification, traceability and investment, particularly for rPET. The scenario is slightly worse for Consumer Engagement, where the lack of verification extends into labeling. On top of this, there appears to be a general lack of coherent strategy for building business benefit at retail and for effectively engaging consumers.


DETAILED ANALYSIS + Summary of Company, Sub-‐Sector (S.Sector) and Sector Results by Section and Module (Score)

Company S.Sector Sector S1 Corporate Strategy 63 65 60

Preferred Cotton Better Cotton Initiative Cotton made in Africa Fair Trade Organic Organic Fair Trade

Company S.Sector Sector Company S.Sector Sector Company S.Sector Sector Company S.Sector Sector Company S.Sector Sector

S2 Supply Chain n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 58 48 56 65 67 71

S3 Targets & Reporting n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 100 62 64 41 41 72

S3 Uptake n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 56 43 43 46 46 34

S4 Consumer Engagement n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 78 34 42 72 37 42

Module Score n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 51 46 51 43 52 56 Recycled Polyester Company S.Sector Sector S2 Supply Chain 76 31 33 S3 Targets & Reporting 38 42 40 S3 Uptake 86 7 27 S4 Consumer Engagement 42 26 27

Module Score 49 26 31

Preferred MMC Company S.Sector Sector

S2 Supply Chain n/a n/a n/a

S3 Targets & Reporting n/a n/a n/a

S3 Uptake n/a n/a n/a

S4 Consumer Engagement n/a n/a n/a

Module Score n/a n/a n/a

Certified Down Company S.Sector Sector

S2 Supply Chain 82 53 42

S3 Targets & Reporting 100 75 45 S3 Uptake 100 57 37 S4 Consumer Engagement 44 37 20 Module Score 60 55 37

51 43

49 60

46 54

46 52

26 23

55

33 30 23

51 56

31 39 37

BCI CMIA FT OC OFT rPET pMMC cDown

+ Your Company‘s PFM Module Results Mapped Against Sector & Sub Sector Results



SECTION 1: CORPORATE STRATEGY

This section asks how companies are placing PFMs at the core of their business. Is there a strategy in place, and have policies been set to address key sustainability issues in the sourcing of fiber and materials? The setting of goals helps a company stay focused, and the use of rating tools to inform decision-‐making can strengthen internal systems. It is essential that staff members are responsible for getting the job done, and that accountability sits with senior staff. Public reporting is a gateway to transparency and demonstrates a company's strength of commitment. QUESTION LEVEL INDEX RESULTS

+ Company, Sub-‐Sector, and Sector Results for Q1-‐Q9 (Score)




Overall, the sector is sitting at 60 for Corporate Strategy, however, there is a wide range in scores and in the strengths and gaps within this section. The following provides some insight into the results for Section 1. SPOTLIGHT ON PARTICIPANTS’ RESPONSES

Corporate Values (Q1)

Average sector score: 94. Overall, 95% of companies have sustainability as a corporate value, with almost all participating companies (92%) publicly communicating these values.

Sustainability Strategy (Q2)

Average sector score: 70. 82% of companies have a sustainability strategy that covers fiber and materials. However, when looking deeper into the sub-‐sectors, half (50%) of the companies in the Multi-‐sector/Apparel (XL) sub-‐sector (abbreviated from here in as "MS/Apparel (XL)") are still in the process of developing their strategy. Almost all (93%) of the Outdoor/Sports sub-‐sector reported having a strategy in place.

+ Breakdown of Participants’ Response to Sustainability Strategy (Q2) (%)

¢ No ¢ In Development ¢ Sustainability Strategy

80

65

0

93 76

23

94

70

23

Corporate Values (Q1) Sustainability Strategy (Q2) Risk Assessment (Q3)

100

70 80 90

69 61

80

66 67

Goals (Q4) Policies (Q5) Accountability (Q6)

70

0

90

53 63

75

36 39

72

Responsibility (Q7) Ra~ng Tools (Q8) Corporate Repor~ng (Q9)

1 17 82

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


¢ Fiber & Materials Covered

Company strategies most commonly include cotton (97% of companies), followed by recycled materials (71%), animal fibers (53%) and Man Made Cellulosics (50%). The most common “Others” reported (at 28%) are linen, bluesign certified materials, other organic or natural materials, and Forest Stewardship Certified materials. Understandably, it is proving more difficult for larger companies to extend their sustainability strategy across their entire business, with 50% of companies from MS/Apparel (XL) and 91% of companies from Apparel (L) responding to this question.

On the whole, larger apparel companies are the most likely to engage external stakeholders in strategy development (100%). Although for the Outdoor/Sports sub-‐sector, the opposite is true, with staff more likely to be actively involved. The majority of companies (90%) is engaged in some level of communication, and makes their strategy publicly available.

Risk Assessment (Q3)

Average sector score: 23. The majority (69%) of companies have either not started a risk review of their fiber and materials use, or it is under development. Risk review tends to focus on parts of the business operations, or not all. Out of the 31% of participants that have conducted a risk assessment, only 10% can confirm that risks associated with fiber and materials make it to the corporate risk registry.

The companies that are assessing risk tend to involve external stakeholders in this process. Interestingly, internal stakeholders (staff) are less likely to be involved.

Risks and opportunities reported as material to business included: Credibility and integrity of product; Climate change impacts on supply; Converting to more sustainable alternatives; Closer links to upstream suppliers.

Goals (Q4)

Average sector score: 80. Overall, 86% of participants have set long-‐term goals for their fiber and materials usage, with 59% reporting publicly. The MS/Apparel (XL) sub-‐sector is the least likely to have developed goals, with almost half (43%) yet to set goals or have goals that are under development.

Policies (Q5)

Average sector score: 66. Overall, the majority (86%) of companies have introduced sustainability policies that reach down to the sourcing of fiber and materials. The smaller companies are the least likely to have formalized their policies, with 10% reporting that they have no formal policies in place.

+ Breakdown of Participants’ Response to Policies (Q5) (%)

¢ No ¢ In Development ¢ Fiber & Materials Policies

¢ Policy In Place

28

53

50

71

97

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Animal Based Fiber

MM Cellulosics

Recycled

Co�on

6 8 86

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

95 Natural Capital

98 Social Capital

72

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Animal Welfare

Covering: Biodiversity (47%), Chemical/Toxicity (83%), Climate Change (66%), Energy Use (66%), Forestry (53%), Water Consumption/Quality (84%), Land Use/Soil Conservation & Fertility (64%), Resource Efficiency (59%)

Covering: Ethical Trade (87%), Health & Safety (95%), Child Labor (97%), Human Rights (83%), Labor/Decent Work (93%), Living Wage (57%), Other (13%)

Covering: Angora (52%), Down (68%), Fur (57%), Leather (59%), Silk (14%) and Wool (75%)


In the survey, policies have been divided into three broad categories: (a) Natural Capital (including the environment and natural resources), (b) Social Capital (including human rights, labor standards, ethical trade), and (c) Animal Welfare.

• Natural Capital: Overall, companies tend to have a policy in place (95%). At 75%, the MS/Apparel (XL) sub-‐sector is lagging slightly behind. Overall, where a policy is in place, it is most likely to cover: Chemical use/Toxicity, Water, Energy use, and Climate Change. Policy areas least developed are Biodiversity and Forestry.

• Social Capital: Most companies (98%) tend to have a policy in place though, once again, the MS/Apparel (XL) sub-‐sector is slightly behind at 92%. Where a policy is in place, it most commonly covers: Decent work, Child labor, Health & Safety. Least reported were human rights and living wage. Further analysis is necessary, but this may be due to the complexity of implementation at the fiber and materials production (Tier 4) level.

• Animal Welfare: This is the least developed policy area of the three (72%), although it is not always relevant since not all companies use animal fibers. Depending on the company, policy areas most commonly covered are angora (rabbit), down, fur, leather, and wool.

Accountability (Q6)

+ Breakdown of Participants’ Response to Accountability (Q6) (%)

¢ Accountable for Fiber & Materials Sustainability

Average sector score: 67 Results show that, overall, accountability for fiber and materials strategy and its implementation sits with the CEO (42%) or senior management (31%). It is less likely that a Board member (18%) would carry this role,

but much less likely that accountability would be at middle management (6%), or not held at all (3%).

Responsibility (Q7)

Average sector score: 36 Overall, 73% of companies have assigned responsibilities and incentives for staff to address fiber and materials sustainability. However, results show a checkered response to incorporating fiber and materials into staff roles and responsibilities. At a sub-‐sector level, Outdoor/Sports are the most likely to integrate sustainability into training, job descriptions, and compensation/rewards across the organization, including marketing teams, designers, buyers, as well as dedicated sustainability staff.

Rating Tools (Q8)

Average sector score: 39 Approximately half of participants (51%) report using a rating tool to evaluate the sustainability of their fiber and materials usage. At 86%, companies belonging to the Outdoor/Sports sub-‐sector are the most likely to carry out an evaluation. Within the user group, 58% have developed their own tool, 50% are adopting the Higg Index and using the Material Sustainability Index (MSI), 28% are using the Made-‐By Fiber Benchmark, and 8% have embarked on Cradle-‐to-‐Cradle. At 83%, Outdoor/Sports are the most likely sub-‐sector to use the Higg Index.

Corporate Reporting (Q9)

Average sector score: 72 Overall, results for Annual Reporting were fairly evenly spread. 52% of companies said they did not report on their fiber and materials activities at all, though 21% of this group said that reporting is under development. For the 48% of companies that are publicly reporting, 28% have incorporated key performance indicators (KPIs) and progress trends. At 72%, the MS/Apparel (XL) sub-‐sector is the most likely to report, with half (36%) of this sub-‐sector reporting their KPIs. All participants that answered affirmatively to reporting confirmed that their reports are in the public domain. A high proportion (50%) of reports are independently verified.

3

6

31

42

18

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Not Covered

Middle Management

Senior Management

CEO/Managing Director

Board Member

TE PFM Benchmark Company Feedback Report © 2017 |

17

FIBER AND MATERIALS USE

OVERALL FIBER AND MATERIALS USAGE

All participants are asked to estimate their overall fiber and materials (FM) usage, irrespective of whether it is conventional or preferred. This data provides a birds eye view of a company’s dominant FMs. Not surprisingly, most companies tend to be either cotton or synthetics dominant.

+ Makeup of FM Usage

FM Usage

Cotton Synthetics MMC Animal Fibers Others

¢ FM Usage Coverage ¢ Other FMS

BREAKDOWN OF FM USAGE

The company calculates its FM usage by allocating a percentage according to the main FM categories: Cotton, Synthetics, Man Made Cellulosics (MMC), Animal Fibers, and “Other” FMs. Other FMs reported by participants included a range of naturals such as linen, wool and leather, and synthetics such as acrylic and nylon.

Company estimates are self-‐reported and provide a proportional breakdown only, i.e. this graph is not based on volumes. Sub-‐sector and sector breakdowns are based on company averages. While severely limited, where a company has not provided data, the sub-‐sector average has been used as a proxy.

As an approximation, the FM usage for the universe of index participants is: 58% Cotton, 25% Synthetics, 5% MMC, 4% Animal fibers and 7% Other. Note this percentage share profile is not representative of global trends (where synthetics are dominant). Index results indicate a skew towards companies with high cotton usage as more likely to engage in fiber sustainability activities, or at least TE’s PFM benchmarking program.

Apparel (S/M) has the largest share of Cotton at 76%, with Synthetics at 12%, MMC at 6%, Animal Fibers at 2% and Others at 4%. This profile is mirrored closely in Home Textiles, where usage of Cotton is 67%, Synthetics is 15%, MMC is 1%, Animal Fibers is 6% and 11% is Others.

MS/Apparel (XL) and Apparel (L) sub-‐sectors are approximately 50% Cotton, with Apparel (L) companies displaying the greatest use of animal fibers (13%) and Other (17%). It is evident that the higher-‐end/luxury companies that make up this sub-‐sector are more likely to have wool, leather, linen and silk at higher proportions of their overall FM usage than companies in other sub-‐sectors. Outdoor/Sports has the largest share of Synthetics, at 63%, and the smallest share of cotton, at 28%.

+ PFM Usage Results

The Preferred FM Usage Result reflects a company’s overall PFM conversion (page 12). Note: if data is not provided, “n/a” will be displayed.

Company PFM Usage Result: 41 Sub-‐Sector Average: 18 Sector Average: 41

+ FM Usage: Company, Sub-‐Sector, and Sector Estimated Averages (%)

¢ Cotton ¢ Synthetic ¢ MMC ¢ Animal Fiber ¢ Other Fibers

67

28

76

49

50

58

50

15

63

12

15

30

25

30

1

4

6

6

8

5

10

6

3

2

13

4

4

5

11

2

4

17

8

7

5

Home Tex~les

Outdoor/Sports

Apparel (S/M)

Apparel (L)

MS/Apparel (XL)

Industry

Company


18

PREFERRED COTTON

PREFERRED COTTON PORTFOLIO

The preferred Cotton (pCotton) portfolio offers the largest number of options for a company to select from. Options include: Better Cotton Initiative (BCI), Cotton made in Africa (CmiA), Fair Trade Cotton (FT), Organic Cotton (OC) and Organic Fair Trade Cotton (OFT). The following chart illustrates the modules that currently make up the pCotton portfolio.

+ Makeup of Cotton Portfolio

Cotton Portfolio

Conventional BCI CmiA Fair Trade Organic Organic Fair Trade Recycled Others

¢ Preferred Cottons Modules ¢ In Development/Other Modules

PARTICIPANTS’ RESPONSE

Almost all (66) index participants completed one or more of the preferred cotton modules. At 56 participants, the OC module has the highest number of participants by far and accounts for 79% of all index participants. This is followed by BCI at 22 participants (31%) and OFT at 16 participants (23%). It should be noted that the number of participants in the OC (56) and FT (6) modules excludes participants who are using cotton certified to both FT and OC, which is accounted for in the OFT module.

+ Selection of Preferred Cotton Modules by Number of Participants (Number)

BCI CmiA FT OC OFT Index 22 5 6 56 16 MS/Apparel (XL) 9 3 3 12 2 Apparel (L) 5 2 -‐ 7 -‐ Apparel (S/M) -‐ -‐ 1 17 8 Outdoor/Sports 6 -‐ 1 11 1 Home Textiles 2 -‐ 1 9 5

BREAKDOWN OF COTTON USAGE

The graph below shows the estimated proportional breakdown of conventional to preferred cotton. As an approximation, the cotton usage proportional breakdown for this index is: 44% Conventional, 4% BCI, 1% CmiA, 0.1% FT, 40% OC, 10% OFT and 2% Other. Based on the chart, MS/Apparel (XL) has the largest share of conventional (72%) and Apparel (S/M) the least (22%) vis-‐à-‐vis preferred cotton. Apparel (S/M) has the largest share of OC (50%) and OFT (23%) followed by Home Textiles with 43% OC and 12% OFT. Apparel (S/M) also has the largest share of Other Cotton (5%) such as recycled. Although volumes are small, the MS/Apparel (XL) and Apparel (L) sub-‐sectors are using more BCI and CmiA than the others.

+ Preferred Cotton Portfolio Results

Preferred Cotton Modules: OC, OFT Company’s Preferred Cotton Portfolio Results: 51 Sub-‐Sector Average: 40 Index Average: 51

+ Cotton Usage: Company, Sub-‐Sector and Sector Estimated Averages (%)

¢ Conventional ¢ BCI ¢ CmiA ¢ FT ¢ OC ¢ OFT ¢ Other Cotton

42

56

22

48

72

44

20

3

6

8

9

4

4

1

43

37

50

44

14

40

50

12

23

1

10

30

1

5

0.2

Home Tex~les

Outdoor/Sports

Apparel (S/M)

Apparel (L)

MS/Apparel (XL)

Industry

Company


19

PFM MODULE: ORGANIC COTTON

Organic Cotton (OC) is grown within a rotation system that builds soil fertility, protects biodiversity, and is grown without the use of any synthetic chemicals or GMOs. Growers must meet organic agricultural standards as set nationally, and by the importing country if export is carried out. The Organic Content Standard (OCS) and the Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) provides third party assurance on organic product claims. In addition, the GOTS includes environmental and social responsibility in processing.

Company OC Module Score: 51

SECTION 2: SUPPLY CHAIN

Chain of Custody (CoC) supports a product content claim and Traceability is the ability to trace supply through all stages of production, potentially resulting in deeper transparency. Supply and Sustainability Investment, especially in the early stages, is often necessary to support capacity building, technical and operational development. Investment, over time, should shift from "development" towards sharing risk and reward within trade relations.

MODULE PARTICIPATION PROFILE

Of the 56 participants who responded to the OC module, 30% are from the Apparel (S/M) sub sector, 21% and 20% are from MS/Apparel (XL) and Outdoor/Sports sub-‐sectors, respectively, 16% are from Home Textiles and the remaining 13% are from Apparel (L).

QUESTION LEVEL INDEX RESULTS

Overall, the sector is scoring well on CoC (75) but more work is needed on Traceability (49) and Sustainability Investment (34). The lower Traceability score is due to 34% full traceability to Fiber Producer compared to 92% for OFT. Although the Sustainability Investment sector score is only 34 for OC, it fares reasonably well compared to other modules that score between 1 and 40.

+ Company, Sub-‐Sector, and Sector Results for Q14, Q15 and Q18 (Score)


SPOTLIGHT ON PARTICIPANTS’ RESPONSES

Chain of Custody (CoC) (Q14)

Options for third party CoC include GOTS and Textile Exchange’s OCS. While requirements under the GOTS and the OCS vary, they both offer a third party verified CoC that supports a content claim by linking the farm level organic certificate at each processing step to the final product. GOTS have strict rules on blending, while the OCS allows product blending as long as percentages of organic are fully recorded.

+ Breakdown of Participants’ Response to Chain of Custody (CoC) (Q14) (%)

¢ No ¢ In Development ¢ Farm Standard ¢ 3rd Party Standard

¢ OCS ¢ GOTS ¢ OCS & GOTS

82% of OC module participants use a third party standard for material verification. 89% of participants from Home Textiles, 86% from Apparel (L), 83% from MS/Apparel (XL), 82% from Apparel (S/M) and 73% from Outdoor/Sports carry out verification. Of those using a third party standard, 9% use OCS, 30% use GOTS and 61% use both OCS and GOTS. 75% of OCS-‐only certified companies apply the OCS to 100% of their business and the remaining 25% apply it to 76-‐99% of their business. The situation is similar with GOTS, where 71% of GOTS-‐only certified companies apply it to 100% of

OC 80

60

10

73

43

8

75

49

34

Chain of Custody (Q14) Traceability (Q15) Sustainability Investment (Q18)

2 7 9 82

9 30 61

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


20

their business and the remaining 29% apply it to 76-‐99% of their business. In cases where companies are using both OCS and GOTS, 25% of OCS and GOTS certified companies apply it to 100% of the business and it is primarily concentrated in 1-‐25% of the business and, to a lesser degree, 26-‐50% and 51-‐75% of the business.

Traceability (Q15)

Traceability of a company's OC supply chain can be achieved through supply chain mapping initiatives and tools, and/or working with a certification body.

+ Breakdown of Participants’ Response to Traceability (Q15) (%)

¢ No ¢ In Development ¢ Traceability System

Level of Traceability: ¢ 0% ¢ 1-‐25% ¢ 26-‐50% ¢ 51-‐75% ¢ 76-‐99% ¢ 100%

68% of OC participants have a system in place to trace their cotton. Based on the chart above, of those with a traceability system, 95% have full traceability of their OC to sewing factory, 71% to fabric maker, 55% to yarn mill, 39% to gin and 34% to fiber producer.

Sustainability Investment (Q18)

Investment in OC can be made through a company’s own farm or supply chain program, third party support (NGOs or for-‐profit businesses), or other collaborative activities. 39% of OC participants are making additional investments in their supply chain, 11% are considering investing and 50% are not currently investing. Of the 39% investing, 55% invest in Collective Action, 27% in Community Development, 5% in Matched Funding, 14% in Organic in Transition, 18% in Trade Arrangements and 36% in other means (i.e. building supplier relationships, building farmer relationships, organic cotton projects/initiatives such as the Organic Cotton Accelerator,

CottonForLife, etc.). 36% of investors rely on standard owner/initiatives to measure benefits of the said investment and 23% measure these benefits on themselves but are not able to report the impact benefits yet. 14% have set KPIs on, and measure the impacts of, these investments.

SECTION 3: CONSUMPTION

Setting and reporting SMART Targets (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Results-‐focused and Time-‐related) and Consumption Data demonstrates that a company is managing performance. Monitoring growth (year-‐on-‐year) assures that progress is in the right direction. Calculating the percentage of a PFM Uptake relative to overall FM usage allows a company to see growth trends alongside absolute volumes, and reflect on the rate of conversion.

QUESTION LEVEL INDEX RESULTS At 51 for Section 3, OC is the highest scoring module. The sector is performing reasonably in SMART Targets (58) and performing well in Consumption Reporting (73). Just over half (52%) of OC participants have SMART Targets in place, which accounted for the relatively lower sector score for that question. For Consumption Reporting, OC recorded the second highest sector score of 73 after OFT at 75. The estimated sector average percentage of OC in the cotton portfolio is approximately 40% -‐ this is excluding the 10% of OC production reported in the OFT module.

+ Company, Sub-‐Sector, and Sector Results for Q20, Q21a and Q21b (Score)


21 11 68

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

34

24

11

3

18

18

11

5

3

5

11

8

3

8

8

8

8

18

3

34

39

55

71

95

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Fiber

Gin

Yarn

Fabric

Sewing

100

56

100

61

43

64 58

43

73

SMART Targets (Q20) Uptake (Q21a) Consump~on Repor~ng (Q21b)


21

CONSUMPTION DASHBOARD

Calculating the volumes of OC usage year-‐on-‐year helps a company keep track of progress. The percentage of OC consumption relative to overall portfolio usage should also be monitored, as it allows a company to reflect on the rate of conversion and growth trends alongside absolute volumes. 2015 OC Sector Ranking by Volume: 31 of 56 2015 OC Consumption: 50mt 2015 Percentage OC in Cotton Portfolio: 50% OC Year-‐On-‐Year Growth by Volume: 5% (2015-‐2014), n/a% (2014-‐2013)

Note: Dashboard data is only available if data has been provided in Q12 and Q21.


SMART Targets (Q20)

Targets for cotton can be set at a company’s portfolio level, e.g. “100% of cotton uptake from more sustainable cotton sources by 2020” and/or specifically for organic.

+ Breakdown of Participants’ Response to SMART Targets (Q20) (%)

¢ No ¢ In Development ¢ Overall Targets ¢ SMART Targets

SMART Targets ¢ Internal Targets ¢ Publicly Reported Targets

20% of OC participants have an overall target, while just over half (52%) have SMART targets, making it the PFM with the second highest percentage of SMART targets. 14% stated they are working towards developing targets whilst 14% have no targets in place. Of the 20% with overall targets, most (82%) report targets publicly and of the 52% with SMART targets, 69% report publicly.

Uptake (Q21a)

At the sector level, OC uptake is approximately 40% of the cotton portfolio, which may be attributed to the high number of participants (79%) for this module. 38% of OC participants have an uptake between 1-‐20% and 27% of OC participants have an uptake between 91-‐100%. 13% of OC participants did not provide uptake details.

Consumption Reporting (Q21b)

OC volumes can be calculated back from final product weights and blends or from bulk fiber consumption analysis. 73% of OC participants reported consumption data – 88% from Apparel (S/M), 75% from MS/Apparel (XL), 67% from Home Textiles, 64% from Outdoor/Sports and 57% from Apparel (L).

SECTION 4: CONSUMER ENGAGEMENT

Establishing Brand Identity through communicating activities in sustainability conveys the importance a company places on the topic. Third party Product Marks & Labels are responsible ways to communicate a product's sustainability attributes to customers. Analyzing Business Benefits proves the business case and, over time, the Return on Investment. A clear Engagement Strategy will help a company integrate efforts to be more sustainable with overall retail objectives.


At 42, OC and OFT are the highest scoring modules in the Consumer Engagement section. 63% of OC participants reported that OC is core to brand identity and almost all (96%) communicate/label their OC products, although only half (52%) use third party standard communications. The two areas for greatest improvement are Calculating ROI (which has a score of 16) and Evaluation of Consumer Strategy (which has a score of 22).

+ Company, Sub-‐Sector, and Sector Results for Q25 to Q30 (Score)


14 14 20 52

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

31 69

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

50

80 100

68

47 36

76

52

34

Establishing Brand Iden~ty (Q25) Product Marks & Labeling (Q26) Monitoring Business Benefits (Q27)


22


SPOTLIGHT ON PARTCIPANTS’ RESPONSES

Establishing Brand Identity (Q25)

27% of OC participants reported that OC is complementary while 63% reported that it is core to brand identity. Of those that reported OC is complementary/core to brand identity, 27% place a price differential on OC products.

Product Marks & Labeling (Q26)

To label a product as organic or containing organic fiber, third party certification, and the use of the OCS or GOTS label, is best practice. Both standards include rules on when and how to apply their logo.

+ Breakdown of Participants’ Response to Product Marks & Labeling (Q26) (%)

¢ No ¢ In Development ¢ Product Marks & Labeling

¢ Method of Product Marks/Labeling

96% of OC participants communicate/label their OC products. Of these, 70% use their own labeling, 52% use third party standard product communications and 63%

communicate via their website/reports. It is worth noting that of the 70% that use own labeling, 37% use it in conjunction with third party standard communications.

Monitoring Business Benefits (Q27)

Monitoring Business Benefits associated with a company's investment in a product or initiative, such as Organic Cotton, helps drive strategy.

34% of OC participants monitor benefits associated with products containing OC, 11% have plans to and 55% currently do not monitor. Of the 34% who are monitoring benefits, 11% reported that they cannot differentiate the benefits of OC from other preferred product offerings and 79% reported that they could identify financial/non-‐financial benefits associated with products containing OC.

Calculating Return on Investment (ROI) (Q28)

16% of OC participants calculate financial returns on selling OC products, of which 78% use ROI, 22% use S-‐ROI and 11% use other methods (i.e. sales).

Consumer Strategy (Q29)

+ Breakdown of Participants’ Response to Consumer Strategy (Q29) (%)

¢ No ¢ In Development ¢ Engage Customers

¢ Method of Consumer Engagement

0

100 85

0

45

10 16

57

22

Calcula~ng ROI (Q28) Consumer Strategy (Q29) Monitoring and Evalua~on (Q30)

4 96

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

63

52

70

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Website/Reports

3rd Party Standard Comms

Own Comms/Label

18 14 68

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

11

63

61

55

24

53

71

95

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Train Staff to Communicate

Customer Dialogue

Involve Customers

Cause Related Marke~ng

Encourage Ques~ons

Marke~ng Collateral

Website


23

68% of OC participants engage consumers, 14% are in development and 18% do not. Of those who are engaging consumers, 95% communicate via their website, 71% communicate via marketing collateral, 53% encourage customers to ask questions, 24% participate in cause related marketing, 55% involve customers, 61% have open dialogue with customers, 63% train staff to communicate sustainability benefits to customers and 11% use other methods, such as partnerships, workshops, social media, and campaigns to reach consumers.

Evaluation of Consumer Strategy (Q30)

29% of OC participants monitor or evaluate consumer engagement activities, 14% have plans to and 57% do not monitor. All (100%) monitor customer feedback, 25% evaluate impact of consumer engagement activities and 31% use the results to shape business strategies. None have programs that are independently verified.

PFM MODULE: ORGANIC FAIR TRADE COTTON

Organic Fair Trade (OFT) cotton is cotton that is certified to both Fair Trade and organic standards, i.e. by FLOCERT and OCS or GOTS. Fair Trade standards require farmers to organize in democratic producer organizations and organic farm standards ensure that the cotton is grown within a rotation system that builds soil fertility, protects biodiversity, and is grown without the use of any synthetic chemicals or GMOs.

Company OFT Module Score: 43


Chain of Custody (CoC) supports a product content claim and Traceability is the ability to trace supply through all stages of production, potentially resulting in deeper transparency. Supply and Sustainability Investment, especially in the early stages, is often necessary to support capacity building, technical and operational development. Investment, over time, should shift from "development" towards sharing risk and reward within trade relations.

MODULE PARTICIPATION PROFILE

Half (50%) of the 16 OFT participants were from the Apparel (S/M) sub-‐sector, 31% from Home Textiles, 13% from MS/Apparel (XL) and 6% from Outdoor/Sports.


Overall, the sector is scoring well on Chain of Custody (85) and Traceability (73). All OFT participants carry out some form of CoC, be it FT (12%) or a combination of FT and third party standard (88%). The majority (75%) of participants almost fully trace their materials across the supply chain. While the Sustainability Investment sector score (39) is not high, it is the highest of all PFM modules.

OFT


24





Third party CoC provides a content claim from fiber to final product. CoC is provided through the standard and certification schemes developed by the Fairtrade Labeling Organization (FLO) and Fair Trade USA. The CoC supports the content claim by linking the organic farm certificate and Fairtrade seed cotton certification from the farm gate to the final product.


¢ No ¢ In Development ¢ Fair Trade Standard ¢ 3rd Party Standard

¢ FT ¢ OCS/ GOTS & FT

88% of OFT module participants use a combination of FT and third party standards for organic verification whilst 12% rely on just a FT standard. All (100%) participants from Outdoor/Sports and Apparel (S/M), 80% from Home Textiles and 50% from MS/Apparel (XL) carry out product verification.

Of those who use both FT and third party organic standards, 21% use the FT Physically Traced system while 79% use a combination of OCS, GOTS and FT. All (100%) of those who use the FT Physically Traced system apply it across all (100%) of their business. 91% of those using an OCS/GOTS and FT combination apply it across all (100%) of their business and 9% apply it to 51-‐75% of their business.

Traceability (Q15)

Traceability of a company's OFT cotton supply chain can be achieved through working with a FT organization, or certifier, and/or a company's own supply chain mapping and tools.




74% of OFT participants have a system in place to trace their cotton. Based on the chart above, of those with a traceability system, OFT has almost full traceability across the supply chain with 100% to the sewing factory, 92% to the fabric maker, 100% to the yarn mill, 92% to gin and 92% to fiber producer.


The FT pricing mechanism protects farmers from unfavorable price volatility in the open market and provides a Community Premium. In addition, there are more ways to get involved and invest in OFT farming communities, such as through a company's own OC program, third party support (NGOs or for-‐profit businesses), and/or stakeholder collaborative initiatives.

100

60

5

100

65

5

85 73

40


12 88

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

21 79

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

13 13 74

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

8

8

8

92

92

100

92

100

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Fiber

Gin

Yarn

Fabric

Sewing


25

44% of OFT participants are making additional investments in the supply chain outside of the FT program, 31% are considering it and 25% are not currently investing. Of the 44% investing, 57% invest in Collective Action, 29% in Community Development, 29% in farmer training and capacity building, 14% in Organic in Transition, 29% in Trade Arrangements and 43% by other means, such as investment in a foundation or cross-‐selling of OFT crop rotation products. 14% of investors rely on standard owner/initiatives to measure benefits of said investment and 57% measure benefits themselves but are not able to report on its benefits and impacts. None (0%) have KPIs on these investments and benefits.




With a score of 49, OFT is the highest scoring module for Section 3, with a sector score of 70 for SMART Targets, 35 for Uptake and 75 for Consumption Reporting. This is because 75% of OFT participants have SMART Targets in place and the same number (75%) report consumption data. The estimated sector average percentage of OFT in the cotton portfolio is approximately 10%.




Calculating the volumes of OFT usage year-‐on-‐year helps a company keep track of progress. The percentage of OFT consumption relative to overall portfolio usage should also be monitored, as it allows a company to reflect on the rate of conversion and growth trends alongside absolute volumes.

2015 OFT Sector Ranking by Volume: 9 of 16 2015 OFT Consumption: 30mt 2015 Percentage OFT in Cotton Portfolio: 30% OFT Year-‐On-‐Year Growth by Volume: n/a% (2015-‐2014), n/a% (2014-‐2013)



SMART Targets (Q20)

Targets for cotton can be set at a company’s portfolio level, e.g. "100% of cotton uptake from more sustainable cotton sources by 2020" and/or specifically for OFT.




6% of OFT participants have an overall target, while most (75%) have SMART Targets in place – making it the PFM with the highest percentage of SMART Targets. 13% stated they are working towards developing targets and only 6% have no targets in place. Of the 6% with overall targets, none (0%) report targets publicly while, of the 75% with SMART targets, 58% report publicly.

Uptake (Q21a)

At the sector level, OFT uptake is approximately 10% of the cotton portfolio. 50% of OFT participants reported uptake of 1-‐20%, 31% reported uptake of 21-‐80% and 13% reported uptake of 100%. 6% of OFT participants did not report uptake.

5

46

100

5

46

100

70

35

75


6 13 6 75

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

42 58

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


26


OFT cotton volumes can be calculated back from final product weights and blends or from bulk fiber consumption analysis. 75% of OFT module participants reported consumption data – 100% of which were from Outdoor/Sports companies, 88% from Apparel (S/M), 60% from Home Textiles and 50% from MS/Apparel (XL). Keeping records of consumption data is good practice and important for monitoring progress.




With a score of 42, OFT is the second highest scoring modules in Consumer Engagement. This is primarily due to the higher scores in Establishing Brand Identity (88), Product Marks & Labeling (54) and Consumer Strategy (67). Monitoring Business Benefits (13), Calculating ROI (13) and Evaluation of Consumer Strategy (24) are areas with generally lower scoring across all modules.






13% of OFT participants reported that OFT is complementary while 81% reported that it is core to brand identity. None of the participants reported placing a price differential on OFT products.


To label a product as Organic or containing Organic Cotton fiber, third party certification, and the use of the OCS or GOTS label, is best practice. Both standards include rules on when and how to apply their logo.




94% of OFT participants communicate/label their OFT product, of which 53% use their own labeling, 67% use third party standard product communications and 73% communicate via website/reports. Of the 53% using own labeling, half are using it together with OFT on or off product communications.

100

50

100 100

50

5

88

54

13


0

100

60

0

75

5 13

67

24


6 94

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

73

67

53

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Website/Reports


Own Comms/Label


27


Monitoring Business Benefits associated with a company's investment in a product or initiative, such as Organic Cotton, helps to drive strategy.

13% of OFT participants monitor benefits associated with products containing OFT, 13% have plans to and 75% currently do not monitor. Of the 13% who are monitoring benefits, half (50%) reported that they cannot differentiate the benefits of OFT from other preferred product offerings and half (50%) identified financial/non-‐financial benefits with products containing OFT.


13% of OC module participants calculate returns on selling OC products, 88% do not. Of the 13% who are doing, all (100%) use ROI to calculate financial return.





81% of OFT participants engage consumers, 6% are in development and 13% are not. Of those who are engaging consumers, all (100%) communicate via their website, 85% communicate via marketing collateral, 62% encourage customers to ask

questions, 38% participate in cause related marketing, 62% involve customers, 69% have open dialogue with customers, 62% train staff to communicate sustainability benefits to customers and 8% employ other means, such as sustainability workshops.


31% of OC participants monitor/evaluate consumer engagement activities, 6% have plans to and 63% currently do not monitor. Of the 31% that do monitor, all (100%) monitor customer feedback, 20% evaluate impact of consumer engagement activities and 20% use the results to shape business strategies.

13 6 81

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

8

62

69

62

38

62

85

100

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other


Customer Dialogue

Involve Customers


Encourage Ques~ons

Marke~ng Collateral

Website


28

PREFERRED POLYESTER

PREFERRED POLYESTER PORTFOLIO

The Polyester Portfolio currently includes Recycled Polyester (rPET) as the only preferred PFM option, though a biobased module may be an option eventually. The following chart illustrates how rPET sits within the polyester portfolio.

+ Makeup of Polyester Portfolio

Polyester

Virgin Recycled Biobased Others

¢ rPET Module ¢ In Development/Other Modules


In total, 41 participants selected the rPET module, which accounts for 58% of index participants. 93% of participants from Outdoor/Sports selected this module and make up the largest share (32%). Participation rates from other sub-‐sectors are distributed fairly evenly.

+ Selection of rPET Modules by Number of Participants (Number)

rPET Index 41 MS/Apparel (XL) 7 Apparel (L) 7 Apparel (S/M) 8 Outdoor/Sports 13 Home Textiles 6

BREAKDOWN OF POLYESTER USAGE

The graph below shows the estimated proportional breakdown of virgin to preferred polyester for the index and across all sub-‐sectors. As an approximation, the polyester portfolio breakdown for participants of this index is: 67% Virgin, 33% Recycled.

Although bulk volumes of polyester are smaller than many of the other sub sectors, Apparel (S/M) has the highest share of rPET (76%), followed by Home Textiles (46%). Outdoor/Sports uses approximately 14% of rPET vis-‐à-‐vis conventional and is the only sub-‐sector that has reported usage of biobased polyester. MS/Apparel (XL) has the smallest uptake of rPET, at 2%.

+ Preferred Polyester Portfolio Results

Preferred Polyester Modules: rPET Company’s Preferred Polyester Result: 42 Sub-‐Sector Average: 15 Sector Average: 42

+ Polyester Usage – Company, Sub-‐Sector, and Sector Estimated Averages (%)

¢ Virgin ¢ Recycled ¢ Biobased ¢ Other

54

85

24

95

98

67

46

14

76

5

2

33

100

2

0.0

Home Tex~les

Outdoor/Sports

Apparel (S/M)

Apparel (L)

MS/Apparel (XL)

Industry

Company


29

PFM MODULE: RECYCLED POLYESTER

Recycled Polyester (rPET) uses mainly post consumer plastic (PET) bottles, or pre /post-‐consumer textile waste as the raw material. rPET can be either mechanically or chemically recycled into filament or yarn. The Recycled Claim Standard (RCS) and the Global Recycled Standard (GRS) are Chain of Custody standards to track recycled raw materials through the supply chain. The GRS, in addition, gives guidelines for social and environmental requirements during the production stages.

Company rPET Module Score: 49


Chain of Custody (CoC) supports a product content claim and Traceability is the ability to trace supply through all stages of production, potentially resulting in deeper transparency. Sustainability Investment, especially in the early stages, is often necessary to support capacity building, technical and operational development. Investment, over time, should shift from "development" towards sharing risk and reward within trade relations.


With a score of 33, rPET has the lowest score for Supply Chain amongst all modules. Sector scores are 35 for Chain of Custody, 39 for Traceability and 16 for Sustainability Investment. The low performance is because participant adoption of CoC standards and traceability systems is only at 46% and 56%, respectively. Performance on Sustainability Investment is also low, with only 17% of participants investing in their rPET supply chains.





Using a third party CoC standard, such as the Global Recycled Standard (GRS) or the Recycled Content Standard (RCS), is considered best practice. The CoC provides a recycled content claim from raw material to final product. Recycled content can range from an OC "blended" product to 100% recycled.


¢ No ¢ In Development ¢ 3rd Party Standard

¢ RCS ¢ GRS ¢ RCS & GRS

Less than half (46%) of rPET participants use a third party CoC standard for material verification. Of the remaining share, 37% are in developmental stages and 17% do not verify. 71% of participants from Apparel (L), 67% from Home Textiles, 43% from MS/Apparel (XL), 38% from Outdoor/Sports and 25% from Apparel (S/M) carry out verification to the RCS, GRS or both.

Of those who use third party standards, 16% use RCS, 42% use GRS and 42% use both RCS and GRS. These results show that where standards are in place, participants prefer the more comprehensive (GRS). 33% of RCS certified companies apply the standard to 100% of their business while 67% apply it to 1-‐25% of their business. 63% of GRS certified companies apply the standard to 100% of their business, the rest are spread evenly between 76-‐99%, 51-‐75% and 1-‐25%. Where RCS and GRS are used together, 75% apply the standards to 100% of their business.

Traceability (Q15)

Traceability of a company's rPET supply chain can be achieved through supply chain mapping initiatives and tools, and/or working with your certifier.

85 100

10

30 37 22

35 39

16


17 37 46

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

16 42 42

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


30




56% of rPET participants have a system in place to trace their cotton. Based on the chart above, of those with traceability systems, rPET has 87% full traceability to sewing factory, 65% to fabric maker, 39% to yarn mill and 35% to feedstock producer.


Investment in rPET supply can be made through a company's own programs, third party support (NGOs or for-‐profit businesses), and/or stakeholder collaborative initiatives. There are a number of new textile-‐to-‐textile initiatives supporting the development and improvement of "closing the loop" and innovative approaches to recycling (such as the Circle Textiles Program by Circle Economy and the Plastic Soup Foundation addressing plastics in the ocean).

17% of rPET module participants are making additional investments in their supply chain, 29% are considering it and 54% are not currently investing. This makes rPET one of the least invested PFMs across all modules (FT being the other, but FT has an investment component inherent in the program). Of the 17% investing, 57% invest in Collective Action, 71% in Research and Development and 14% in other means such as investment in clean up campaigns and foundations. 57% of the investors measure benefits of said investments, 43% are not measuring and none (0%) have KPIs on these investments and benefits.




The sector is performing just above par for Consumption Reporting (59) but further improvement is needed for setting SMART Targets (29) and increasing Uptake (27). 59% of rPET module participants reported consumption data and only 27% of rPET module participants have SMART targets in place. The estimated sector average percentage of rPET in a polyester portfolio is 33%.




Calculating the volumes of rPET usage year-‐on-‐year helps a company keep track of progress. The percentage of rPET consumption relative to overall portfolio usage should also be monitored, as it allows a company to reflect on the rate of conversion and growth trends alongside absolute volumes. 2015 rPET Sector Ranking by Volume:13 of 41 2015 rPET Consumption: 60mt 2015 Percentage of rPET in Polyester Portfolio: 100% rPET Year-‐On-‐Year Growth by Volume: 10% (2015-‐2014)


17 27 56

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

35

26

13

4

22

13

9

4

4

9

4

13

13

4

35

39

65

87

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Feedstock

Yarn

Fabric

Sewing

0

86 100

34

7

54

29 27

59



31


SMART Targets (Q20)

Targets for recycled content can be set at a synthetics portfolio level e.g. "100% inputs from recycled sources by 2020” and/or for rPET specifically.




12% of participants who filled in the rPET module have an Overall Target, while 27% have SMART Targets in place. 24% stated they are working towards developing targets and 37% have no targets in place. Of the 12% with Overall Targets, 60% report them publicly, while of the 27% with SMART Targets, 27% report publicly.

Uptake (Q21a)

34% of rPET participants reported uptake of 1-‐20%, 17% reported uptake of 100% and 12% are spread out between 21-‐99%. 37% did not report uptake.


Volumes of rPET can be calculated back from final product weights and blends or from bulk fiber consumption analysis. Keeping a record of consumption data is good practice and important in monitoring progress. 59% of index participants who completed the rPET module reported consumption data, of which 75% were from Apparel (S/M), 71% from Apparel (L), 54% from Outdoor/Sports, 50% from Home Textiles and 43% from MS/Apparel (XL).




Overall, the sector scored 27 for Section 4: Consumer Engagement in rPET. The low score is primarily due to gaps in Monitoring Business Benefits (15), Calculating ROI (5) and Evaluation of Consumer Strategy (8). While 78% of rPET module participants communicate/label their rPET products, only 22% of them use third party standards for their communications. Consumer Strategy is just under par at 42.




37 24 12 27

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

73 27

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

50

25

50 62

31 24

61

33

15


50

80

5 0

34

10 5

42

8



32



34% of participants reported that rPET use is complementary to brand identity, while 44% reported that it is core. Of those that reported rPET to be complementary or core to brand identity, 7% said they place a price differential on rPET products.


To label a product as recycled or containing recycled fibers (blends), third party certification, and the use of the GRS or RCS label is best practice. Both standards include rules on when and how to apply their logo.




78% of rPET participants communicate/label their products, 12% have plans to and 10% do not. Of the 78% that are communicating/labeling, 84% use their own, 22% use third party standard and 59% communicate via their website/reports. Of the 84% using own labeling, 26% also use a third party standard.


Monitoring Business Benefits associated with a company's investment in a product or initiative helps drive strategy. 15% of rPET participants monitor benefits associated with products containing rPET, 15% have plans to and 71% currently do not monitor. Of the 15% who are monitoring benefits, half (50%) reported that they cannot differentiate the benefits of rPET from other preferred product offerings and half (50%) identified financial/non-‐financial benefits with products containing rPET, such as increased sales, a "halo" effect and positive brand reputation.


5% of rPET participants calculate the return on investment of selling rPET products, of which half (50%) use ROI and half (50%) use S-‐ROI.





49% of rPET participants engage consumers, 22% are in development and 29% are not. Of those who are engaging consumers, all (100%) communicate via website, 70% communicate via marketing collateral, 55% encourage customers to ask questions, 20% participate in cause related marketing, 50% involve customers, 65% have open dialogue with customers and 60% train staff to communicate benefits to customers.


10% of rPET participants evaluate consumer engagement activities, 22% have plans to and 68% currently do not monitor. Of the 10% that do, all (100%) review customer feedback, 75% evaluate impact of consumer engagement activities and half (50%) use the results to shape business strategies.

10 12 78

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

59

22

84

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Website/Reports


Own Comms/Label

29 22 49

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

60

65

50

20

55

70

100

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other


Customer Dialogue

Involve Customers


Encourage Ques~ons

Marke~ng Collateral

Website


33

CERTIFIED DOWN

CERTIFIED DOWN PORTFOLIO The certified down (cDown) module incorporates products certified to either the Responsible Down Standard (RDS) or the Traceable Down Standard (TDS): + Makeup of Polyester Portfolio

Down

Conventional Responsible Traceable Recycled Others Organic Fair Trade Others

¢ cDown PFM Modules including RDS and TDS ¢ In Development/Other Modules


In total, 23 participants selected the cDown module, accounting for 32% of index participants. The highest participation rates are from MS/Apparel (XL) at 57% (8), followed by Apparel (L) at 55% (6), Outdoor/Sports at 43% (6) and Home Textiles at 27% (3).

+ Selection of cDown Module by Number of Participants (Number)

cDown Index 23 MS/Apparel (XL) 8 Apparel (L) 6 Apparel (S/M) -‐ Outdoor/Sports 6 Home Textiles 3

DOWN USAGE

The graph below shows the estimated proportional breakdown of conventional to certified down for the index and across all sub-‐sectors. As an approximation, the breakdown of down usage for the participants of this index is: 40% Conventional, 40% Responsible (RDS), 5% Traceable (TDS) and 15% Other (mainly down audited and inspected by the IDFL). The Outdoor/Sports sub-‐sector holds the highest share of cDown, with 40% Responsible and 17% Traceable. This is closely followed by Apparel (L), with 54% Responsible. Home Textiles has a 50% share of Responsible Down and MS/Apparel (XL) at 25%.

+ Certified Down Portfolio Results

Certified Down Modules: cDOWN Company’s Certified Down Result: 66 Sub-‐Sector Average: 68 Sector Average: 66

+ Down Usage: Company, Sub-‐Sector, and Sector Estimated Averages (%)

¢ Conventional ¢ Responsible ¢ Traceable ¢ Other Down

50

27

26

60

40

50

40

54

25

40

100

17

5

16

20

15

15

Home Tex~les

Outdoor/Sports

Apparel (S/M)

Apparel (L)

MS/Apparel (XL)

Industry

Company


34

PFM MODULE: CERTIFIED DOWN

Certified Down (cDown) comes from farms certified to either the Responsible Down Standard (RDS) or the Traceable Down Standard (TDS). The down of birds is a layer of fine feathers found under the tougher exterior feathers and is obtained from the breast area of geese and ducks. Down is often blended in products with smaller feathers. Among other criteria, cDown excludes feathers/down from birds that have been live plucked or force-‐fed.

Company cDown Module Score: 60


Chain of Custody (CoC) supports a product content claim and Traceability is the ability to trace supply through all stages of production, potentially resulting in deeper transparency. Sustainability Investment, especially in the early stages, is often necessary to support capacity building, technical and operational development. Investment, over time, should shift from "development" towards sharing risk and reward within trade relations.


Overall, the sector scored 45 for Chain of Custody, 50 for Traceability and 18 for Sustainability Investment. While Sustainability Investment is generally not high across modules (the highest being 39), at 18, investment in cDown supply chain is on the low side.





Using a Chain of Custody standard such as the Responsible Down Standard (RDS) or the Traceable Down Standard (TDS) is considered best practice. The CoC provides a content claim from farm to final product.

+ Breakdown of Participants’ Response to Chain of Custody (CoC) (Q14)

¢ No ¢ In Development ¢ 3rd Party Standard

¢ Laboratory Testing ¢ RDS ¢ TDS

70% of cDown participants reported use of a third party standard for material verification, 22% are in development and 9% do not currently verify. 83% of participants from Outdoor/Sports and Apparel (L), 67% from Home Textiles and 50% from MS/Apparel (XL) carry out verification.

Of those who use third party standards, 63% use RDS, 6% use TDS and 31% adhere to laboratory testing such as IDFL, which, although not a third party sustainability standard, forms a transition for many participants to RDS. 90% of RDS certified companies apply it to 100% of their business and 10% to 1-‐25% of their business. All (100%) TDS certified companies apply the standard to 100% of their business.

Traceability (Q15)

Traceability of a company's certified Down supply chain can be achieved through supply chain mapping initiatives and tools, and/or working with a certifier.



C.DOWN

100 100

10

68 53

27

45 50

18


8 22 70

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

31 6 63

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

13 35 52

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


35


52% of cDown participants have a system in place to trace their fiber. Of those with a traceability system, cDown has close to full traceability (92%) to the Sewing Factory, 92% to the Down Processor, 83% to the Slaughter House and 67% to the Farm.


26% of cDown participants are making additional investment in their supply chain, 26% are considering it and 48% are not currently investing. 17% of investors rely on standard owner/initiatives to measure benefits of said investment and 67% do not measure the impact of investments.

Investment in cDown supply can be made through a company's own programs, third party support (NGOs or for-‐profit businesses), and/or stakeholder collaborative initiatives.


Setting and reporting SMART Targets (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Results-‐focused and Time-‐related) and Consumption Data demonstrates that a company is managing performance. Monitoring growth (year-‐on-‐year) assures that progress is in the right direction. Calculating the percentage of Uptake relative to overall FM usage allows a company to see growth trends alongside absolute volumes, and reflect on the rate of conversion.


On the whole, the sector is performing just below par (48) for cDown with regards to Section 3: Consumption. This is reflected in the sector scores of 49 for SMART Targets, 37 for Uptake and 39 for Consumption Reporting. Just over half (52%) of participants have SMART Targets in place and 39% report consumption data. The

estimated sector average percentage of cDown in the down portfolio is approximately 45%.




Calculating the volumes of cDown usage year-‐on-‐year helps a company keep track of progress. The percentage of cDown consumption relative to overall portfolio usage should also be monitored, as it allows a company to reflect on the rate of conversion and growth trends alongside absolute volumes.

2015 cDown Sector Ranking by Volume: 8 of 23 2015 cDown Consumption: 10mt 2015 Percentage cDown in Down Portfolio:100% cDown Year-‐On-‐Year Growth by Volume: 10% (2015-‐2014)



SMART Targets (Q20)

Targets for cDown can be set at a portfolio level, e.g. "100% from certified down sources by 2020" and/or at the standards level, i.e. RDS/TDS.

8 8

8

8 8

8

8

8

67

83

92

92

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Farm

Slaughter

Down

Sewing

100 100 100

80

57 67

49 37 39



36




4% of sector participants who filled in the cDown module have overall targets, while 52% have SMART targets specific to the RDS or TDS. 13% state they are working towards developing targets and 30% have no targets in place. Of the 4% with overall targets, none (0%) report targets publicly, while of the 52% with SMART targets for the RDS or TDS, 58% report publicly.

Uptake (Q21a)

57% of cDown participants reported uptake: 13% reported 1-‐10% uptake, 9% reported 31-‐40% uptake, 4% reported 61-‐70% uptake and 30% reported 100% uptake. 43% did not report their uptake.


Keeping records of consumption data is good practice and important for monitoring progress. Volumes of cDown can be calculated back from final product weights or from bulk fiber consumption analysis.

39% of sector participants who filled in the cDown module reported consumption data. 67% reported from Outdoor/Sports, 38% from MS/Apparel (XL) and 33% from Apparel (L).


Establishing Brand Identity through communicating activities in sustainability conveys the importance a company places on the topic. Third party Product Marks & Labels are responsible ways to communicate a product's sustainability attributes to customers. Analyzing Business Benefits proves the business case and, over time, the Return on Investment. A clear Engagement Strategy will help a company integrate sustainability efforts with overall retail objectives.


Even though cDown is a fairly important component to a participants’ brand identity (62), and particularly so for the Outdoor/Sports sub-‐sector (92), Product Marks & Labeling (25) and Consumer Strategy (24) remain relatively underdeveloped. Monitoring Business Benefits (9), Calculating ROI (0) and Monitoring & Evaluation (8) are virtually untapped areas that the sector can improve on.






35% of cDown participants reported that cDown is complementary to brand identity and 43% reported that it is core. None (0%) place a price differential on cDown products.

30 13 4 52

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

42 58

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

40 30

10

92

47

34

62

25

9


50

88

10 0

30 29

0

24

8



37


To label a product as certified to either the RDS or TDS, rules apply on when and how the logo is applied.




52% of cDown module participants communicate/label cDown products, 30% have plans to and 17% do not. Of the 52% who communicate/label, 83% use their own labeling, 42% use supplier’s communications/labeling and 58% communicate via their website. 30% of those who use their own labeling do so in conjunction with supplier communications.


Monitoring the Business Benefits associated with a company's investment in a product or initiative helps drive strategy.

9% of cDown participants monitor benefits associated with products containing cDown, 13% plan to and 78% currently do not monitor. Of the 9% monitoring benefits, 50% reported that they cannot differentiate the benefits of cDown from other preferred product offerings and 50% identified financial/non-‐financial benefits with products containing cDown.


None (0%) of the module participants calculated the return on investment for cDown.





26% of the cDown participants work to engage consumers, 35% are in development and 39% are not. Of those who are engaging consumers, 83% communicate via their website, 67% communicate via marketing collateral, 83% encourage customers to ask questions, 17% are participate in cause related marketing, 50% involve customers, all (100%) have open dialogue with customers, 83% train staff to communicate sustainability benefits to customers and 17% employ other means such as holding sustainability workshops.


9% of cDown participants monitor/evaluate consumer engagement activities, 13% have plans to and 78% currently do not monitor. All (100%) monitor customer feedback and 50% evaluate impact of consumer engagement activities.

17 30 52

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

58

42

83

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Website/Reports

Supplier Label

Own Comms/Label

39 35 26

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

17

83

100

50

17

83

67

83

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other


Customer Dialogue

Involve Customers


Encourage Ques~ons

Marke~ng Collateral

Website


38

QUESTION ELEMENTS

OVERVIEW ELEMENTS SCORING WEIGHTING

SECTION 1 CORPORATE STRATEGY Yes 25%

CORPORATE VALUES 1. Corporate Values -‐ Sustainability incorporated into overall vision and mission

The company has a mission, vision or values statement (or equivalent) that: -‐ includes a commitment to sustainability -‐ is formalized and overarching -‐ is publicly available -‐ can be evidenced.

Yes 5%

SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGY

2. Sustainability Strategy -‐ Sustainability strategy includes fibers/materials

The company has a sustainability strategy that: -‐ incorporates fibers and materials -‐ has assessed risk and opportunity up and down the supply chain -‐ has been reviewed as part of a stakeholder consultation process -‐ is publicly available -‐ is company-‐wide or global -‐ can be evidenced.

Yes 20%

3. Risk Assessment -‐ Business risk/opportunity assessment covers fibers/materials

The company has a risk/opportunity assessment that: -‐ covers fibers and materials -‐ has been reviewed as part of a stakeholder consultation process -‐ is company-‐wide or global. Risks and opportunities associated with the sustainability of fiber and material choices are managed in the same way as any other key risk or opportunity. They are included on risk registers alongside other risks/opportunities, their likelihood and impact have been assessed and strategies have been created to manage them.

Yes 15%

4. Goals -‐ Overall long-‐term sustainability goals for fibers/materials

The company has incorporated long-‐term goals for fiber and material sustainability into its strategic planning and has made these goals publicly available.

Yes 10%

5. Policies -‐ Natural Capital -‐ Social Capital -‐ Animal Welfare

The company has policies that: -‐ guide supply chain practices and the adoption of preferred fibers and materials -‐ cover a wide range of criteria related to Natural Capital, Social Capital and Animal Welfare -‐ are publicly available -‐ are company-‐wide or global -‐ can be evidenced.

Yes 10%

INTEGRATION 6. Accountability -‐ Accountability held at a senior level within the company

Accountability for delivery of the sustainability strategy, including the advancement of a preferred fiber and materials portfolio, is held at a senior level within the company.

Yes 10%


39

SECTION 1 CORPORATE STRATEGY Yes 25%

INTEGRATION 7. Responsibility -‐ Responsibility integrated through the company -‐ KPIs integrated through the company -‐ Incentives integrated through the company -‐ Mechanisms in place to ensure integration

The company: -‐ has assigned responsibilities and incentivized staff to address sustainability in its use of fibers and materials -‐ has mechanisms in place to ensure KPIs are integrated throughout the entire company, not only within the sustainability team -‐ ensures job descriptions explicitly include sustainability responsibilities -‐ ensures staff are equipped through training and capacity building, and evaluated or incentivized against the KPIs to ensure successful delivery of the sustainability strategy, including responsibility for a preferred fiber and materials portfolio.

Yes

10%

TOOLS 8.Rating Tools -‐ Sustainability of fiber/materials objectively evaluated -‐ Rating tool influencing sourcing decisions

The company uses an sector-‐developed or company-‐developed rating tool/system, which: -‐ influences the company's preferred fiber and material sourcing decisions -‐ is company-‐wide or global.

Yes

5%

REPORTING 9. Corporate Reporting -‐ Fiber/materials sustainability activities, progress against KPIs -‐ Report independently verified

The company reports on sustainability activities related to its fiber and material usage and supply chain practices. This reporting: -‐ includes communication of risks, challenges, opportunities and progress against KPIs -‐ is verified by an independent party -‐ is publicly available.

Yes

15%

SECTION 2A SUPPLY CHAIN PART A: PROCESSING No 0%

PROCESSING STANDARDS & INITIATIVES

10. Factory Standards -‐ Adoption of sustainability standards in factories

The company is using a number of industry standards to address environmental and social sustainability issues in textile processing, and these standards are company-‐wide or global.

No 0%

11. Factory Initiatives -‐ Supply chain codes of conduct and initiatives

The company is involved in supply chain sustainability initiatives and/or shared codes of conduct that aim to engage a variety of stakeholders to act together to address issues in textile processing. These are applied company-‐wide or globally.

No 0%

FIBER & MATERIALS PORTFOLIO

12. Fiber and Materials Profile -‐ Breakdown of fiber/materials usage

The company can provide: -‐ an estimated percentage breakdown of its overall fibers and materials usage -‐ an estimated percentage breakdown of its cotton, down, MM cellulosics or polyester consumption, where applicable.

No 0%

13. Portfolio Selection for Benchmark Cotton: BCI, CmiA, Fairtrade, Organic, Organic-‐Fairtrade Other fibers and materials: Certified Down, Pref. MMC, rPET Self-‐select: e.g. Rec. Cotton, Rec. Nylon, Organic Linen, Biobased

The company has developed a definition for a "preferred fiber or material" (or equivalent term) and can list the preferred fibers and materials it currently has in its portfolio, including those under development.

No

0%


40

SECTION 2B SUPPLY CHAIN PART B: INTEGRITY & INVESTMENT Yes 30%

CHAIN OF CUSTODY 14. Chain of Custody -‐ Use of chain of custody standard or initiative guideline

The company uses a chain of custody standard or initiative guidelines to verify content of its selected PFM. The standard or guidelines cover 100% of the company's supply chain for the selected PFM.

Yes 40%

TRACEABILITY 15. Traceability -‐ Keeping track of PFM through a traceability system

The company has an effective traceability management system in place that tracks its selected PFM through the supply chain. The selected PFM can be traced through all stages of production and processing (for example, back to the farm for land-‐based fibers), ensuring product integrity. This is best achieved through supply chain mapping.

Yes 40%

16. Trade Relations -‐ Building relations to improve trade and value sharing

The company is working closely with its PFM supply chain partners with the objective of building more extensive relationships.

No 0%

INVESTMENT 17. Pricing Model -‐ Pricing that captures sustainability benefits

The company has a business or pricing model that incorporates the additional sustainability value of its selected PFM, and can describe the model used.

No 0%

18. Sustainability investment -‐ Investing in supply and evaluating impact

The company is making an additional investment in its PFM supply chain and is measuring the benefits or impacts of this investment.

Yes 20%

SECTION 3 CONSUMPTION MONITORING & REPORTING Yes 30%

HISTORY 19. History -‐ Number of years sourcing the PFM

The company can provide details of how long it has been sourcing the selected PFM. No 0%

TARGETS 20. SMART Targets -‐ Targets set for PFM consumption

In addition to having overall goals, the company has specific targets relating to its PFM usage that: -‐ are SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Results-‐focused, and Time-‐related) -‐ are publicly available -‐ can be evidenced -‐ the company is measuring progress against these targets.

Yes 25%

VOLUME 21a. Uptake -‐ Estimate of bulk fiber/materials consumed

The company tracks and can provide volume data for its annual PFM consumption (either as bulk fiber or by entering number of units and product type/ weight into TE's fiber calculation tool).

Yes

60%

21b. Consumption Reporting -‐ Conversion of conventional to preferred

The company tracks and can provide volume data for its annual PFM consumption (either as bulk fiber or by entering number of units and product type/ weight into TE's fiber calculation tool).

Yes 15%


41

SECTION 4 CONSUMER ENGAGEMENT Yes 15%

MARKET PRESENCE

22. Product Range -‐ Product ranges containing a PFM

The company can provide details of which product categories contain its selected PFM. No 0%

23. Key Markets The company can provide details of its key retail markets for products containing the selected PFM. No 0%

24. Sales -‐ Sales turnover and growth forecasts

The company can provide details of its estimated sales turnover for products containing the selected PFM, including projections for the coming year.

No

0%

PRODUCT DIFFERENTIATION

25. Establishing Brand Identity -‐ Core or complementary

The sustainability attributes of the selected PFM are core to the company's brand value and identity, and the company places a price differential on the retail of products containing the selected PFM.

Yes 10%

26. Product Marks & Labeling -‐ On-‐product labeling and off-‐product messaging

The company communicates or labels its PFM products either using its own communications/labeling or using those provided by the respective standard or initiative. This communication/labeling applies to 100% of its PFM products.

Yes 10%

CORPORATE RETURNS

27. Monitoring Business Benefits -‐ Analyzing returns on investment

The company has a monitoring program in place to track the business benefits (financial and non-‐financial) associated with its PFM products, and can provide details of the nature of these benefits.

Yes 20%

28. Calculating Return On Investment -‐ Calculating financial ROI and ROI in sustainability

The company calculates financial returns from sales of PFM products and can provide details of the methodology used.

Yes 10%

ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY

29. Consumer Strategy -‐ Education/awareness raising strategy in place

The company has a strategy in place to raise awareness and inform its customers about the sustainability benefits associated with PFMs, and this strategy: -‐ is informational rather than promotional -‐ has been reviewed as part of a stakeholder consultation process -‐ is company-‐wide or global.

Yes 20%

30. Evaluation of Consumer Strategy -‐ Monitoring & Evaluation of activities and impact

The company monitors and evaluates its PFM-‐related Consumer Engagement activities and this: -‐ involves routine and systematic collection of information -‐ influences the company's overall business strategy.

Yes 20%


42

HOW WE CAN HELP YOU For companies wishing to explore their results further, we offer the following options:

A. Performance Analysis Presentation US$6,000 (TE Members), US$9,000 (Non-‐Members)

This feedback option includes a Performance Analysis Presentation to your company’s core team, covering:

• A summary of your PFM Benchmark results and areas of strength • A gap analysis of your company’s performance • Modeling of your company’s areas for improvement

B. Gap Analysis Report US$7,000 (TE Members), US$10,000 (Non-‐Members)

This feedback option provides a Gap Analysis Report, covering:

• A summary of your PFM Benchmark results and areas of strength • A detailed gap analysis of your company’s performance • Tailored recommendations, including examples of best practice from peers and

Index participants • Prioritization of areas for improvement and action

C. Bespoke Support All advisory projects are scoped and priced individually

Based on your TE Benchmark results we can offer bespoke advice that can help you progress on your preferred materials journey. Focusing on your company’s individual needs, we will provide specialist support and practical recommendations to further embed sustainability, preferred materials, and good supply chain management.

Examples of our advisory services and projects include:

• Aligning business strategy with raw materials and supply chain risks and

opportunities

• Developing an action plan to address specific issues identified through the TE

Benchmark program

• Materials mapping and supply chain engagement to help improve supply chain

connections, transparency, and security of supply.

• Customized learning modules for you and your team

• Customized communication, messaging and infographics on environmental

savings based on the peer-‐reviewed Life Cycle Assessment for organic cotton

commissioned by TE and undertaken by thinkstep, global leaders in LCA.

Contact Liesl Truscott, TE's European and Materials Strategy Director: [email protected]


43

www.TextileExchange.org

We envision a global textile industry that

protects and restores the environment and enhances lives.

For further information on TE's PFM Benchmark services, please contact: [email protected]

te pfm benchmark company feedback report-sharks dont bite ... ·...

Documents