Writer, Investor, Advisory Director, Berkshire Partners – Professor of Practice, Fletcher School Tufts University
The fashion industry continues to advance voluntary and unlikely solutions to its plastic problem. Only higher prices will flip the script, writes Kenneth P. Pucker.
https://www.businessoffashion.com/opinions/sustainability/why-fashion-should-have-a-plastic-tax/?utm_source=newsletter_dailydigest&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily_Digest_030524&utm_content=intro
The ‘instant fashion’ juggernaut’s explosive growth is attracting imitators. But keeping up with Shein’s relentless churn puts the industry on a perilous course when it comes to sustainability
https://www.businessoffashion.com/opinions/sustainability/shein-fast-fashion-hm-sustainability/?utm_source=newsletter_dailydigest&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily_Digest_050324&utm_term=SY6SWPMZQBDD7D52PZ42I4CDEU&utm_content=top_story_2_title
Instant fashion has exploded in recent years, led by Shein whose sales have multiplied by more than 20 times since it entered the U.S. less than six years ago. As Shein explores an IPO, the author reviews the social phenomena that have contributed to instant fashion, the factors that allow it to succeed, and the dangers of the industry’s model. While there’s clearly demand for these products, consumers and policy makers also need to be aware that the business model comes with side effects — particularly the privatization of profit and the socialization of costs, including social and environmental harm.
https://hbr.org/2024/02/the-lingering-cost-of-instant-fashion
Fashion companies argue proposed government mandates for greater supply chain transparency are ‘impractical.’ They shouldn’t be, writes Kenneth P. Pucker.
https://www.businessoffashion.com/opinions/sustainability/why-big-brands-are-pushing-back-against-sustainability-regulations/
Excess is built into the economics of the industry at every step of the value chain, writes Kenneth P. Pucker.
https://www.businessoffashion.com/opinions/sustainability/fashion-waste-business-model-design/?utm_source=newsletter_dailydigest&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily_Digest_201223&utm_term=R7CCWIZCQJD3ZPWK6R3U72MNQA&utm_content=top_story_2_title
A growing body of consumer surveys suggests interest in sustainable consumption is reaching a tipping point. Those surveys are deeply flawed, writes Kenneth P. Pucker.
Most of the world’s biggest fashion companies have committed to radically reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Though it’s a complex challenge, how to deliver is no mystery.
That is, in part, because there is a cottage industry of consultants advising brands on decarbonisation strategies. As but one high-profile example, trade group Global Fashion Agenda (GFA) and McKinsey co-authored a report in 2020 laying out a comprehensive roadmap to cut fashion greenhouse gas emissions by just over 50 percent by 2030. The analysis shows that more than half the recommended actions will also result in cost savings.
And yet, the industry’s greenhouse gas emissions continue to trend in precisely the opposite direction.
https://www.businessoffashion.com/opinions/sustainability/fashion-brands-curb-climate-impact-why-not-inaction/
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/a_realists_guide_to_investing_for_good
“How would you suggest that I invest my savings of ten thousand dollars to have a positive social and environmental impact?”
The question came from a PhD student this time, but we get it a lot. Many people want their money to work for them—to preserve their financial security and to improve the world. In fact, almost 85 percent of individual investors say they are interested in sustainable investing and more than three quarters believe they can use their investments to influence the extent of climate change. In response, asset managers have created and rebranded trillions of dollars of funds as ESG (environment, social, and governance) funds targeting socially minded investors. So, it should be easy to recommend many worthy qualifying investments. Right?
Flooding from torrential rains recently led Vermonters to kayak through the streets of the state capital. A month later, Hawaiians were forced to flee to the ocean to avoid devastating blazes. All the while, toxic smoke from wildfires has imperiled the health of Americans across huge swaths of the country. All these alarming environmental developments hurt economic activity. Yet many political leaders seem preoccupied with banning investors from considering the impacts of the fast-changing environment on business.
These fervent objections to the longstanding use of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria in investing are a recent political chimera emanating — at least in part — from the overselling of an ill-defined concept. ESG investors include nonfinancial factors in their decisions to buy or sell a security or private asset. ESG does not, however, prevent them or anybody else from purchasing the stocks of fossil fuel companies, nor does it contribute essential primary capital to develop solutions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/2c3comfbca055bi96zxts/opinion/proponents-and-critics-of-esg-claim-it-can-change-society-both-will-be-disappointed
For much of the last decade, advocates for sustainable businesses have argued that reporting on ESG measures would lead to a sustainable future. It hasn’t happened, writes Kenneth Pucker.
https://www.businessoffashion.com/opinions/sustainability/fashion-sustanability-reporting-wont-tell-you-esg/?utm_source=newsletter_dailydigest&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily_Digest_220823&utm_content=intro