Sustainable Menswear?

[Old_ School]

Sustainability and innovation are on their minds. The job of a CEO is to maximize capital allocation to generate the best impact, and Western consumer sentiment has clearly shifted to this regardless of industry.

The role of a business is no longer to maximize profit for stakeholders. Please note I am not taking sides and do not want this to turn into another pissing match about economic theory and how interventionist one should be.

GenZ has repeatedly said that they want mission-driven, meaningful work ahead of maximizing profit and income. As this generation enters the workforce in higher numbers, businesses will adapt simply because leaders are rotating out.

My experience leads me to believe the change in CEO focus is clearly in progress in some industries but just as clearly not in others. Often where pension plans, institutional funds, and hedge funds hold significant positions the role of a CEO is indeed to maximize profit for stakeholders over a shorter term horizon, rather than generate the best impact, unless by impact we mean profit. I don't see progressive leadership in the majority at the top of the Canadian publicly-traded corporates I am familiar with, albeit we are an economy dominated by resource extraction and banking.

 

[ChasingStyle]

When you’re working at all levels in the organization and often the same with the companies you sell too and you work for several companies solving differing operational issues that go to the heart of strategy and execution, not likely....buts it’s possible.

So you are a management consultant? Closer to academia than real corporate, if you ask me.

 

[FlyingMonkey]

It's been said many times before that intelligent people are aware of the limits of their knowledge. I can't imagine thinking that I, alone, know everything that happened in business boardrooms in all industries and all sectors for the last thirty years.

There are just certain kinds of men (and they are more often than not, men) who just cannot bring themselves to admit ignorance. Ignorance isn't a bad thing - we're all ignorant in many areas (don't ask me about any American sports, or ballet, or fluid dynamics, to take just a few of many examples), but as you say, it's being aware of your limits that is important to both deeper self-respect and credibility. Aggressive ignorance, the refusal to back down, the whole pseudo-macho bluffing - it's a curse and it's a political tactic, because it is specifically designed to prevent honest conversation and the possibility of learning (which I think it really why people like this hate education so much).

I can't help noticing too, the little slipping in of 'Obama' as somehow being responsible for 'sustainability' (despite the 50-year history several of us have alluded to, and Obama not actually being particularly interested in the environment). It's rather telling, isn't it?

 

[Badenoch]

Honestly, all of you should be ashamed of yourselves. Regardless of political affiliation. None of this has anything to do with what the OP asked which is whether or not there were specific brands that were making efforts to be sustainable in classic menswear.

The etymology of "sustainability" and whether it is a recent buzzword or not doesn't matter because the OP believes it to be an issue or they wouldn't have asked.

Your opinions on the philosophy and viability of capitalism and macro and micro economics only matter in so much as they answer the OP's question and help them find a solution. If they don't they belong in another thread.

And all of this useless dick measuring is pointless. If I were new to this forum (and I sort of am) and I came across this thread I would immediately lose interest in classic menswear. Because all of you seem like clowns wearing fancy costumes and certainly not dignified gentlemen trying to assist someone asking a question from their own point of view.

The clothes really don't make the man.

And where the hell are the moderators?

 

[Phileas Fogg]

Honestly, all of you should be ashamed of yourselves. Regardless of political affiliation. None of this has anything to do with what the OP asked which is whether or not there were specific brands that were making efforts to be sustainable in classic menswear.

The etymology of "sustainability" and whether it is a recent buzzword or not doesn't matter because the OP believes it to be an issue or they wouldn't have asked.

Your opinions on the philosophy and viability of capitalism and macro and micro economics only matter in so much as they answer the OP's question and help them find a solution. If they don't they belong in another thread.

And all of this useless dick measuring is pointless. If I were new to this forum (and I sort of am) and I came across this thread I would immediately lose interest in classic menswear. Because all of you seem like clowns wearing fancy costumes and certainly not dignified gentlemen trying to assist someone asking a question from their own point of view.

The clothes really don't make the man.

And where the hell are the moderators?

 

[Badenoch]

View attachment 1588572

 

[Boggis]

While I can't claim to have 30 years of experience across the globe in boardrooms in the most innovative industry on the planet, I do have close to 20 years involvement in one of the least innovative and most change averse industries, construction. Sustainability has always been in the lexicon during this period.

I will say however that I have a copy of an industry publication from 2007 which suggests "Sustainability is very much the flavour of the month".

So while I disagree strongly that sustainability has only been a thing for the last decade, plenty of evidence has already been provided to counter that suggestion, I do think it's fair to say that sustainability is a much bigger concept now (in terms of widespread use and understanding of the term) than it was 10 or 15 years ago.

 

[cb200]

On the apparel industry side of sustainability there has been a push by a group called the "sustainable apparel commission" and their use of a reporting/measuring method called the Higg index over the last few years. The whole thing was kicked off by Patagonia and Wallmart. In part, due to the origins, as well as the cultural angle of the markets it has mostly enrolled outdoors / lifestyle brands and manufacturing facilities/ suppliers and not more menswear type brands. It's also a work in progress and looks to have changed somewhat in the latest iteration with the addition of materials library.

The Higg index is a set of tools to assist in measuring and tracking efforts in environmental and social sustainability/impact along the value chain specifically for apparel. The idea is that a standardized weighing and reporting metrics of sustainability efforts could enables transparency in the supply chain. Allowing for and a common language and metrics could enable comparisons between sources and materials and assist with improvement. It could also be used by brands to demand/request/prefer suppliers used the reporting tools to get business from larger firms.

Multiple groups and standards, potential for fraudulent verifications, as well as geopolitical issues, as seen recently with the the better cotton initiative recently in China, can make things fairly complex and just having a group or commission doesn't mean it's members are necessarily better actors, but it's a step towards better outcomes.

Who We Are | Cascale

Cascale is a global non-profit alliance of 300 members driving sustainability in the consumer goods industry, and the creator of the Higg Index.

apparelcoalition.org

 

[Phileas Fogg]

China’s ‘tainted’ cotton

www.bbc.co.uk

Let’s not dwell on sustainability while this is going on. Nothing wrong with being green, but the effort is for naught and largely feel good unless the bigger problems are first confronted.

 

[Keith Taylor]

China’s ‘tainted’ cotton

www.bbc.co.uk

Let’s not dwell on sustainability while this is going on. Nothing wrong with being green, but the effort is for naught and largely feel good unless the bigger problems are first confronted.

I think you might struggle to explain the logic of refusing to address one problem because other problems also exist. It’s the same bad faith anti-environmental argument people have been making for years, reasoning (in the absolute loosest sense of the word) that any effort to protect the environment is pointless while (insert foreign enemy du jour here) is (insert harmful activity here).

That said, I’m happy to hear you’ve chosen to devote yourself to fighting the persecution of Uighurs

 

[Phileas Fogg]

I think you might struggle to explain the logic of refusing to address one problem because other problems also exist. It’s the same bad faith anti-environmental argument people have been making for years, reasoning (in the absolute loosest sense of the word) that any effort to protect the environment is pointless while (insert foreign enemy du jour here) is (insert harmful activity here).

That said, I’m happy to hear you’ve chosen to devote yourself to fighting the persecution of Uighurs

I’m not refusing to acknowledge anything. But the topic I’ve referenced seems somewhat absent within the conversation, if it’s to be called that, we are having. Instead, the solution seems to be for people not to wear cheap cashmere.

I will say that we can’t count on government to do much and the consumer needs to be the one that take the lead.

 

[Boggis]

I’m not refusing to acknowledge anything. But the topic I’ve referenced seems somewhat absent within the conversation, if it’s to be called that, we are having.

It is absolutely relevant to the conversation, someone who wishes to be an ethical consumer should consider the human toll of their purchases in addition to the environmental.

But it's not accurate to suggest that sustainability is just about "being green", forced labor is one of the topics addressed in the UN sustainable development goals.

 

[Keith Taylor]

I’m not refusing to acknowledge anything.

Then the sensible thing to do would be to consider sustainability while also insisting that your clothing doesn’t have forced labour anywhere in the supply chain. Boycotting Chinese made clothing and all fast fashion brands would be a good start. A bit of a blunt instrument, but good nonetheless.

 

[dieworkwear]

China’s ‘tainted’ cotton

www.bbc.co.uk

Let’s not dwell on sustainability while this is going on. Nothing wrong with being green, but the effort is for naught and largely feel good unless the bigger problems are first confronted.

If you don't want to discuss sustainability, why participate in this thread?

 

[Panama]

but markets are better than ever at self regulating due to the proliferation of information

So the banking crisis of 2008, and the earlier Enron scandal were great examples of self regulation?