Ironically Inditex and H & M: The kings of disposable fashion – Inditex sells among other clothing brand Zara – are praised by Greenpeace as an environmentally friendly pioneers. However, for their clean clothes and not for their business model. The two companies had been particularly successful in recent years to ban harmful chemicals from the factories of its suppliers, according to a recent report by the environmental organization. Even Benetton applies to those skilled in the vanguard of pollutants during production.
Greenpeace has spent years with chemicals in clothing. Because they are a problem – depending on the pollutant concentration in the fabrics for the customer, but even more so for workers and the environment in producer countries. In China, for example, according to Greenpeace, over 60 percent of the fresh water resources of the major cities are heavily polluted because of the toxic effluent of textile production
. <- Tile: 7 desktop adctrl ->
in the new report, the environmental organization is now examining how far the fashion companies have come in their quest to harmful chemicals to banish from their supply chains. Do they have a thoughtful “detox plan”? Close it based on verifiable criteria the right materials from production of? Are the existing carcinogenic perfluorinated and polyfluorinated chemicals banned? Publish the suppliers sufficient data about their effluents and the data also controlled? And last but not least: Make the fashion companies that their suppliers produce low emissions not only for them but also for all other customers in the complete factory
Total: 19 fashion brands based on these issues checked. They all have, according to Greenpeace connected and promised to produce pollution-free by 2020, the campaign of the Organisation for clean clothes.
Inditex, H & M and Benetton are the results suggest that very far. “Prove that a pollution-free production for companies of any size can”, the three companies said Manfred Santen, chemists and textile expert at Greenpeace. “Committed show brands that it is possible even in a complicated and interconnected world, to make the production of products transparent.” At the same time Santen criticized the fast fashion business model of the three brands. “New collections every few weeks pollute the environment and require enormous resources.”
criticizes Greenpeace also at the initiative of the Textile Alliance for emission clothing. Its list of 100 chemicals which are no longer to be used, is merely a “minimum standard” by which “is not to get to grips with the release of carcinogenic or reproductive harmful substances from textile production”.
While brands like Adidas, Puma, Levi’s and Primark end up in the rankings in midfield, Esprit, Victoria’s Secret, Li Ning and Nike did particularly badly. At Greenpeace we see in these companies “detoxify no real willingness”. Nike, for example, aspire to, “reduce hazardous chemicals only, not to eliminate,” the environmental organization. The black list of banned substances was “patchy”, even per- and polyfluorinated chemicals are partially allowed. Important data were not sufficiently disclosed. Change is nothing ran Nike and the other three last placed at risk of breaking its promises.
No comments:
Post a Comment