EX XECUTIVE SUMMAR RY on Evvaluatio Fashio on Proggramme e Solidaridad 20003‐2010 Ard Ho ordijk – Nyeenrode Bussiness Unive ersiteit Irene Jo onkers – Nyyenrode Bu usiness Univ versiteit Yvvette van D Dok – Co Mo otion Consu ult Deecember 20 010 Commisssioned by: Solidaridad d
Executive summary This document contains an evaluation of Solidaridad’s Fashion Programme, covering the period between 2003‐2010. The Fashion Programme received financial support from the TMF and the MFS financial support programme of the Dutch Ministry for Foreign Affairs (DGIS). A Mid Term Evaluation of the Fashion Programme was carried out in August 2006. The Mid Term Evaluation included components of the Fashion Programme, which will be used as a narrative for the time frame 2003‐2006. For the MFS period between 2007‐2010 seven case studies have been conducted, based on desk study, position papers and interviews. On the programme level documentation desk research was combined with a set of interviews. The central research question for the current study is: “To what extent has the overall programme objective of Solidaridad’s TMF/MFS Fashion Programme, between 2003 and 2010, been realized and what was the quality of its execution?” The Fashion Programme In 2001 Solidaridad developed the programme “Mainstreaming of Fair Trade” with a focus on sustainable chain management, which aims at integration of social and environmental criteria into all the links of the supply chain. Activities for different commodities were started. One of the programmes focused on sustainable cotton and textiles and started in 2000/2001 with the first trials for organic cotton in Peru – the Fashion Programme. The specific objective of the Fashion Programme was formulated as: Improvement of the position of the most vulnerable links in the fashion production chain globally, and especially in developing countries. By building up best practices, Solidaridad aims to show that a market model based on sustainable production can be a workable model for the conventional sector, and in this way promote developments in this direction. This overall objective contains four key elements: 1. the improvement of the position of the most vulnerable links (i.e. farmers and factory workers); 2. building up best practices; 3. demonstrate that a market based on sustainable production can be a workable model for the conventional sector; and 4. promote developments towards a market model based on sustainable production. Solidaridad aims to make a strategic intervention within mainstream practices in the fashion industry. This implies a dual focus: on the one hand Solidaridad needs to connect with mainstream (business) actors and make sure that their message resonates with them. On 2
the other hand Solidaridad needs to get ‘dirty hands’ on the ground in order to provide a sufficient base of evidence and experience to support their message. Solidaridad acts as an innovator, within a complex value chain with many links and with little best practices readily available. Solidaridad experiments and develops the best practices needed. These aspects make the work within Solidaridad’s fashion chain challenging, complex and requests many different roles and expertise of the staff. To realise the ambitions, three levels of intervention have been depicted by Solidaridad, which are targeted in its projects: 1. local development of cotton farmers and factories; 2. civil society development; 3. market development in the Western markets. Case studies The evaluation for the major part is qualitative of nature, based on a number of case studies. In fact the case studies themselves are sub‐evaluations of the concrete projects. The seven cases are (in chronological order): 1. Oro Blanco, Peru; 2. Chetna, India; 3. Rajlakshmi Cotton Mills Pvt. Limited (RCML), India; 4. MADE‐BY, Netherlands based; 5. Tirupur Steering Group (TSG), India; 6. Fair & Co, Netherlands based; 7. ProCotton, based on Senegal. The Fashion Programme started with a socially sustainable organic cotton project in Peru in 2000. The private company Oro Blanco (case 1) was established with the aim to secure sufficient organic cotton supply for potential ethically oriented fashion brands. Oro Blanco was the first link of the flagship sustainable fashion chain which was established and served as an example for future projects of Solidaridad. In 2004 Solidaridad started the cotton project Chetna (case 2) in India, because it has found the importance of India as suppliers to major European fashion brands. To secure a market for Chetna’s cotton, in the same year Solidaridad engaged with the knitting/dyeing/finishing factory RCML (case 3), also in India. And the year after (2005) MADE‐BY (case 4) was founded to attract Western brands to source sustainable clothing from RCML. To execute a broader influence on the fashion industry in India the Tirupur Steering Group (TSG) (case 5) was established, a platform for trade unions and NGOs to collectively engage with Standards Bodies and the Certification Bodies on various sustainability aspects at the workplace. The preparations started in 2005 and the TSG was founded in 2007. Meanwhile, Solidaridad noticed that MADE‐BY was not able to attract the number of brands aimed for, and especially the bigger brands appeared to be hesitant to engage with MADE‐BY. Therefore in 2006 the company Fair & Co (case 6) 3
was established in an attempt to increase the market for the sustainable products from the projects in India. In 2007 Solidaridad extended its focus to the African continent and started pilot projects in Senegal. In 2008 cooperation was started with the ProCotton programme (case 7), in partnership with the Rabobank Foundation and Stichting DOEN. Conclusions of the evaluative study The overall question has been translated into seven sub‐questions. Based on the preceding analyses, the researchers have come to the following conclusions: 1. What is the effectiveness of the strategic choices made by Solidaridad and implementing partners within the textiles programme executed between 2003 and 2010? Effectiveness in general The Fashion Programme was most successful in delivering results on the level of farmer families. The final results are well above the original, and even the adjusted (up) target. The results on the factory level are more ambiguous. The original targets were lowered, due to limited demand from brands. The original target was not reached. Whether or not the lower target was reached depends on the decision whether or not to include the improvement project with a solely environmental focus. According to the researchers it would be fair to include these projects, which means that the original target has not been reached, but the lowered target has. On the level of finding implementing partners and setting up MSIs the expected results were roughly reached. This is an important result as it implies the connection with the local communities and an integration in the sector. On the market development side the expected results were not realised. This can partly be explained by a less favourable economic climate than anticipated on. Fair & Co for instance was on track with its financial targets, but suffered from a set‐back at the low point of the financial crisis. But at the same time Solidaridad clearly struggled with finding the right concepts and tools to attract the interest of mainstream brands. Involvement in the recently started BCI (which is part of the indicator on MSIs) is an important achievement on the market development side, which holds much potential. Strategic choices For the twelve most relevant strategic choices the researchers have assessed in what way the chosen options contribute in the current situation to the overall objective of the programme and how they match the overall strategy. Although addressing this question does not result in the answer whether or not the right choice was made, which is fundamentally impossible, reflecting on the result of the choice does provide valuable lessons which can be applied in future situations. Almost all strategic choices are assessed to positively contribute to the objectives in the current situation, i.e. ‘to follow a chain approach’, ‘to develop and make use of other market 4
models in addition to MADE‐BY’, ‘to strengthen Fair & Co’, ‘to use co‐financing in addition to MFS funds’, ‘to up‐scale the successful User Group Methodology for wet processing and social improvement projects’, ‘to transform into a network organisation’ and ‘to also focus on civil society projects’. Some of the choices did bring along the risk of a reduced focus and dispersion of attention in a team with limited capacity (for example ‘to follow a chain approach’, ‘to up‐scale successful User Group Methodology for wet processing and for social improvement projects’, ‘to extend to home garments, leather and gold’, ‘to expand into Africa’, ‘to develop and make use of other market models next to MADE‐BY’). Furthermore, by developing new alternatives, there is a risk that the focus of the Fashion Programme shifts away from earlier initiatives such as MADE‐BY and Oro Blanco. From a more systemic viewpoint, it can be argued that it is important for Solidaridad to keep a healthy relationship with the organisations it has brought to life. For each organisation it is important to collaboratively discuss and develop sound strategies for self‐sustainability and sound exit strategies for Solidaridad. Acknowledgement of the value of each initiative for the overall strategic direction should also be ensured. With regard to the strategic choice of strengthening Fair & Co it was concluded that there is no indication that Fair & Co has had more systemic impact on the Western market. The strategic choice to select gender as a cross cutting element had limited impact and therefore limited contribution to the objectives. On the 2010 campaign on success stories no information was available to the researchers. 2. How efficient has the programme been executed between 2003 and 2010? Lack of clear standards to judge Solidaridad’s activities against – due to the uniqueness of its activities ‐ make it impossible to come to a straightforward assessment on whether or not the Fashion Programme was executed efficiently. However, there are many different indicators which can give some indications on efficiency. On the most general level, the researchers have found Solidaridad, as a fairly small organisation, was able to reach a reasonably large audience within the (sustainable) fashion industry, through all sorts of platforms and connections. Participation in broader projects like ProCotton and BCI increases the circle of influence. And Solidaridad’s activities in itself had attracting power to initiative of likeminded organisations – as the User Group project in Tirupur which was developed in partnership with TNO and Conquest indicates, and by attracting other donors ‐ as was the case in Chetna. According to the researchers, aligning activities to that of other players, can be considered a good sign of efficiency, optimally making use of resources that are in place. A clear systematic approach on the budgeting and financial reporting system seems to be lacking within Solidaridad. The data on financial performance of the different years cannot be compared. The base of reporting shifts from reporting on activities, to reporting on projects per regions, and ultimately to regions only which makes systematic comparison impossible. Also, when preparing the case studies, it was not always easy to get hold of the 5
right financial information on project level. Not for all requested information became available. In all cases studied by the researchers, Solidaridad entered at the very early stage of an initiative – in some cases being the initiator ‐ where large inputs are required. This is usually not the most efficient stage, in terms of input/output ratio. This type of work requires major investments in terms of time and finance, patience and ‘trial and error’. Obviously, starting up projects is only efficient if they eventually add value and are continued. As argued above, in many projects Solidaridad sets out to develop something new and innovative, to address pressing challenges within a dynamic, globally organised sector. It is the impression of the researchers that the Fashion Team, based on prior experiences, in the start up of new types of activities automatically assumes that it deals with complex issues, which can only be addressed through ‘trial and error’/‘probing and sensing’. This may be true for large part of the work, but there are also elements which could qualify as complicated instead, justifying a more thorough analysis of the status quo up front, to apply existing good practices and partly prevent failures. This issue was recognised by the Fashion Team during the course of the years under evaluation. A more systemised approach for the start up of new projects was developed, e.g. consisting of a thorough context analysis. This approach was for instance followed for the ProCotton project in Africa, as well as the up‐ scaling of the User Group projects in Bangladesh and China. 3. What is the impact of the programme that has been executed between 2003 and 2010? A systematic impact assessment is lacking, but the case studies indicate major impact on the farmer families directly involved in the cotton production projects in Oro Blanco, Chetna and the ProCotton project in Senegal. All projects seem to have had positive impacts on the position of vulnerable links, improving income, health and safety conditions and leading to empowerment. On factory level the RCML case reports on important positive impact on the 605 workers’ lives. Also the User Group Methodology in Tirupur had impact on factories and its employees. Impacts include better working conditions for factory workers, better compliance with regulations for the factory and for the communities better educational opportunities for the children of the workers. On the market level, the case studies indicate that MADE‐BY has made it more easy for brands to take qualitatively better steps in making their supply chains more sustainable. The number of members, however has been lower than expected. Fair & Co played an instrumental role by sourcing organic cotton from Oro Blanco and later from RCML and Chetna. Fair & Co does not seem to have a larger systemic impact on the overall movement of the mainstream sector towards sustainable fashion. Capacity building and organisational development is an important focus of Solidaridad’s activities. This can be observed in the Oro Blanco, Chetna, ProCotton, RCML and TSG cases.
6
Connection between the different projects and partners of Solidaridad mutually reinforces the impact the individual projects have. With COFA farmers being shareholders of RCML their market is guaranteed. Stability of income has a positive impact on farmers’ lives. In turn MADE‐BY customers are important and appreciated consumers of RCML’s products, assuring its existence. And being known as a ‘sustainable producer’ also attracts other customers looking for organic products. And, apart from developing the civil society in producer countries, the Fashion Programme also impacts the general debate on sustainable fashion, e.g. by participating in BCI and engaging with standard organisations like SAI and BSCI. A debate in which Solidaridad actively engages as part of the Fashion Programme is the reliability and applicability of certification and the integrity of the auditing organisations. The actual impact of these advocating activities is difficult to assess, but some recent changes can be noticed. Overall the Fashion Programme seems to have considerable impacts, although it is impossible to quantify or judge whether it is ‘sufficient’. In case of the improvement of lives of the farmers and factory workers, the questions of impact are more easily related to the projects. Even though all cases have clearly shown the vulnerability to economic and societal trends. When it comes to creating movement in the sector, it is even more difficult to distil Solidaridad’s impact to the obvious global growth of the organic textile segment. Solidaridad is a small organisation, heavily relying on its networking and advocating skills. 4. Regarding relevance of results of the programme, of the changes observed in the textile and cotton sector, what can be said for contribution and attribution? Some general conclusions in terms of contribution and attribution can be drawn. Contribution In terms of contribution it was frequently noted by all stakeholders and interviewees that Solidaridad has contributed to the impacts realised both on the conditions of the vulnerable links and on the movement towards a more sustainable industry. The major added value of Solidaridad seems to be that of a broker, trusted by all stakeholders involved. Brands consider involvement of Solidaridad as a guarantee, which allows them to switch to ‘sustainable suppliers’. The garment and textiles factories and cotton farmers organisations take Solidaridad’s guidance and are awarded by being connected to market parties. Solidaridad offers ‘hands on’ technical support. And through the capacity building of the local civil society, more connections are brokered. The role as a broker is remarkable and the created trust with all stakeholders impressive. By taking a pragmatic, cooperative and market oriented approach, the Fashion Programme has been able to find resonance and therefore add value. Another important contribution of Solidaridad is the gathering of expertise and creating showcase ‘best practice’ projects. Projects like RCML and TSG do fulfil this role. MADE‐BY is a source of information and expertise for brands in Western markets. Other donors and local NGOs are confident and happy to take the Fashion Team’s guidance and come to joint efforts. Solidaridad has been able to build a good name with regard to sustainable fashion, 7
although the researchers think that the knowledge and expertise could even be more systematically and widely spread and applied. Attribution The last decade has shown a consistent, global move towards more sustainable fashion practices. Obviously there are many factors and parties which play a role in this global movement. Solidaridad has clear presence in the Western European sustainable fashion market, but influence in other Western markets is limited. What would have happened if the Solidaridad had not executed the activities under the Fashion Programme? All cases show the vulnerability to developments in world economics, vulnerability to policy changes (e.g. in case of Oro Blanco where American trade policies negatively influence market opportunities), and of course factors like weather. Based on the case study it can be assumed that part of the improved conditions reported by the direct stakeholders of the projects can be attributed to Solidaridad. When it comes to the overall movement in the sector, it can be noted that the project in Oro Blanco was started in 2000 and was one of the first bio‐cotton projects worldwide and is therefore likely to have played its part. However, judgments in the quantitative sense are senseless to make, right because of the complex combination of factors and actors. Many of the interviewees mentioned that an important attribution of Solidaridad is making sustainable fashion in North Western Europe appropriate for the mainstream industry and getting it out of the ethical niche markets. For the brands and companies (e.g. Approvato) it can be questioned whether they would not have moved towards sustainable products based on an intrinsic motivation. And as a result of that, the factories and primary producers would also have made effort to meet demand. However, the extensive and innovative learning journey set out by the Fashion Programme has generated experience, knowledge and a network which made the transformation more efficient and easy for the parties involved. Mutual learning had a catalysing effect. 5. How durable are the (expected) outcomes of the programme? Most of the cases show an indication of longer term viability and durability. None of the projects has reached the point yet where they are fully (commercially) self‐sustaining and still are vulnerable to internal and external conditions. Oro Blanco and Fair & Co seem to be most advanced. But although they were able to make profits at one point, they suffered from set‐backs the next year, proving that they are not completely resilient yet to the changing conditions. In both cases the business propositions and type of activities undertaken are being reconsidered. Chetna has proven that it is a viable organic and fair trade cotton initiative, that is extending horizontally (for example the supportive role of the regional government and the ambition to become a centre of excellence around organic and fair trade cotton) and looking for quantitative growth. At the same time it is vulnerable to market circumstances and institutional issues such as fraud. Also the vertical link with RCML is vulnerable, mainly with regard to the issue of timely payments. The TSG has shown that it is possible a set up a MSI to improve certification processes, but is vulnerable in the sense that the uptake is very limited and even boycotted by some. MADE‐BY has had positive 8
impact, but is in the process of finding commercially viable earnings model. The Federation in Senegal (ProCotton case) is working towards financial independence, but still has a long way to go. At this moment it depends on Solidaridad and Rabobank for 50% of its funding. Furthermore, much more effort in capacity building is needed to allow the Federation to run independently. RCML exemplifies a sustainable garment factory. ‘Sustainability’ is an integral part of its business operations, but it is vulnerable to market conditions and struggles to meet the diverging requirements of brands. Although the projects all are unique and have their individual objectives, Solidaridad used the following strategies to ensure durability: flexibility; creating networks and linking different players; capacity building of the involved farmers, workers, companies and local NGOs; ownership constructions; stressing the importance of self‐sustainability of the projects. On the programme level the Fashion Programme intends to create movement in the sector, and by doing that stimulating durable changes with regard to the position of the most vulnerable links. Solidaridad has done and is still doing extensive work in the piloting phase and is now translating these lessons into models and approaches that can be used for the mainstream industry. All individual projects are designed in order to work towards this overall aim. In several interviews with Solidaridad three phases towards mainstreaming sustainable supply chains were mentioned. Although this conceptual framework has not been structurally and explicitly used in the programme, the research team decided to use these phases to assess the second aspect of durability, i.e. long term structural change. It gives insight into the progress of Solidaridad with respect to mainstreaming, based on a conceptual framework that is being used by Solidaridad itself. The three phases of mainstreaming sustainable supply chains are initial phase, translation phase and mainstreaming/institutionalisation. Considering the projects executed by the Fashion Team, the producer related projects and factory improvement projects seem mainly to be functioning as pilot cases to show that sustainable production is possible and to learn how it works. Those can be placed in the initial phase. RCML is a best practice, but has not resulted in other factories following its example. Its learnings are being used by Solidaridad and its partners for the design of new programmes and initiatives related to sustainable fashion. Initiatives aimed at developing models that will be used wider in the mainstream are BCI, and ProCotton. Developing marketing models for Western brands (MADE‐BY), and the User Group Methodology can be placed as early translation phase initiatives. The best example of this phase is BCI. Because of the credibility, network and experience Solidaridad developed in the initial phase, it can now play a leading role in the BCI. SAI’s recommendation to replicate the TSG in other contexts can be seen as a very early indication of a translation phase. This recommendation has however not been made operational. SAI will need to put effort in this, to progress from a political statement only. If these initiatives turn out to be 9
successful, long term structural change in the whole sector can be reached. But currently there are no initiatives in the mainstream phase. 6. In evaluating the process, what advise can be given in the development and execution of future programmes? Recommendations will be formulated in an interactive workshop with the Fashion Programme management after finalising the formal evaluation. Some key issues to focus on for the Fashion Programme are: how to reintegrate its innovative activities into the mainstream and to establish institutionalisation; how to work collaboratively with its partners towards sustainable fashion and improvement of the position of weak links, while at the same time acknowledging the diverging interests and visions on how to go forward? What position and role can Solidaridad play in relation to its Fashion Programme?; how to relate best to those initiatives that were important in the past, but are now losing their strategic relevance, with new questions and initiatives emerging? What role should Solidaridad play and what kind of relationship is desirable: divest, acknowledge, support in becoming self sustaining, new form of collaboration? More concrete recommendations are: to develop a robust monitoring protocol that represents systemic approach; to develop a strategy to communicate and spread the best practices it has developed in the past and will develop in the future; to continue and further develop the systematic approach to analyse contexts and (local) settings before starting future initiatives and the systematic approach to learning; to not make gender an issue in itself within the Fashion Programme, but relate it to the overall objective of the Fashion Programme. 7. What has been done with the advise related to the textiles programme formulated in the TMF Mid Term Review? Some of the issues raised by the mid term assessors are no longer encountered by the current researchers as ‘weak spots’, e.g. the need to focus more in capacity building and multi‐stakeholder platforms to distribute knowledge and experience, lack of clarity in stakeholders’ expectations and a more systematic preparation before starting a new initiative. Some action has indeed been taken on gender, but the development of a clear policy and approach remains a challenge.
10
Other issues are still closely related to the conclusions in the previous evaluation questions. Many concern organisational and management related challenges, like the aspects of systematisation, planning, (systematic) organisational learning, and developing a suitable monitoring system. The systems that are in place are not yet fully reliable and consistent. Although these issues have been taken up within the Fashion Programme and progress has indeed been made, systemising still needs attention. But it has to be recognised that developing and integrating these elements needs to be done thoughtfully and therefore are time‐consuming processes. This should probably be addressed on the more general level within Solidaridad. Another issue which was raised in the Mid Term Evaluation is the tension within Solidaridad’s overall objective and the question whether all people and organisations directly involved in the Fashion Programme share the same vision. Although in an operational and tactical sense, a collaborative approach is being used, this issue has become even more relevant in the current stage of the Fashion Programme, where choices have to be made in which direction the programme will evolve. For cases such as Chetna and the TSG Solidaridad and its partners in the Fashion Programme have shown that it is possible to successfully set‐up such an initiative. But both initiatives are still vulnerable, and also looking for ways to mature, grow and move along. In this stage the difference of interests of the partners and the Fashion Team have become more explicit. For the future the need arises for a new shared vision to be developed and possibly come to a new division of roles. Lastly, the recommendation to enlarge the impact of the Fashion Programme by scaling‐ up/mainstreaming has been followed up. Examples are the BCI, ProCotton and the User Group Methodology. These examples are still at an early stage. Final conclusion on realisation of the overall objective of the Fashion Programme For the purpose of this evaluation the researchers have extracted the following four elements of the overall objective: 1. improve the position of the vulnerable links in the chain; 2. develop best practices; 3. show that a market model based on sustainable production can be a workable model in the conventional sector; 4. create movement to more sustainable production in the sector as a whole. The first and fourth element are both considered to be the desired impact of the Fashion Programme. The second and third elements represent the strategy chosen by the Fashion Team in order to achieve impacts 1 and 4. 11
1. improve the position of the vulnerable links in the chain; The case studies for the projects where the vulnerable links (being farmers and factory workers) were directly targeted, indicate clearly that their position has improved. The Fashion Programme was most successful in delivering results on the level of farmer families. The final results are well above the original, and even the adjusted (up) target. The results on the factory level are more ambiguous. The original targets were lowered, due to limited demand from brands. The original target was not reached. Whether or not the lower target was reached depends on the decision whether or not to include the improvement project with a solely environmental focus. According to the researchers it would be fair to include these projects, which means that the original target has not been reached, but the lowered target has. A systematic impact assessment is lacking, but the case studies indicate major impact on the farmer families directly involved in the cotton production projects in Oro Blanco, Chetna and the ProCotton project in Senegal. All projects seem to have had positive impacts on the position of vulnerable links, improving income, health and safety conditions and leading to more empowerment. On factory level the RCML case reports an important positive impact on the 605 workers’ lives. Also the User Group Methodology in Tirupur, executed in conjunction with TNO and Conquest, had impact on factories and its employees. Impacts include better working conditions for factory workers, better compliance of regulations for the factory and for the communities better educational opportunities for the children of the workers. For the projects where the links are more indirect, the results can be stated less straightforwardly. E.g. in the case of the TSG so far only four factories have been subject to the pre‐ and post certification methodology developed by the TSG. On the market development side the expected results were not realised. This can partly be explained by a less favourable economic climate than anticipated on. Fair & Co for instance was on track with its financial targets, but suffered from a set‐back at the low point of the financial crisis. But at the same time the Fashion Team clearly struggled with finding the right concepts and tools to attract the interest of mainstream brands. Involvement in the recently started BCI is an important achievement on the market development side, which holds much potential. In case of MADE‐BY and Fair & CO, even though the expected project results were not realised, the purchasing power of its members did indirectly benefit the position of the vulnerable links earlier on the chain by providing a market. In general it can be concluded that the Fashion Programme was effective in improving the position of the vulnerable links. 2. develop best practices; Solidaridad has developed several important show cases on sustainable fashion practices, e.g. the TSG, RCML, Franky & Ricky linked with Oro Blanco or the User Group Methodology in Tirupur to address environmental problems. Broadly interpreted, best practices have been created by setting up successful and inspiring projects. Interpreting best practices more strictly, would lead to the question: were the successful projects analysed, important lessons extracted and documented in terms of what works and why? The SAI mentions the TSG as a 12
best practice, however without further operationalisation to date. Solidaridad itself uses its experience and expertise in one project to implement in the next. The broader (external) communication of the best practices is rather implicit. The documentation and distribution of the best practices could be done much more explicitly and well‐targeted. 3. show that a market model based on sustainable production can be a workable model in the conventional sector; In line with the conclusion under 2, also this element can be interpreted in a broad and a strict sense. With its projects Solidaridad has shown that sustainable fashion is possible. In terms of advocacy and actively communicating on this Solidaridad has undertaken some activities, but it seems to the researchers to be rather ad hoc and anecdotic of nature. The global Fashion Team is well aware of its network and informally succeeds in redirecting interested parties to interesting contacts and example projects. RCML e.g. receives directors from other textile factories to show that sustainable manufacturing is possible. The international coordinator of the of the Fashion Programme is member of BCI’s Council. Furthermore, Solidaridad has attracted media coverage and has presented on several congresses and events on sustainable fashion. Some of these projects do indeed function as a showcase and Solidaridad eagerly shares its expertise on request of others. The strategy of providing a ‘showcase’ for sustainable fashion practices holds room for improvement, to the opinion of the researchers. This would do more justice to the achievements actually realised ‘on the grounds’ in the projects. 4. create movement to more sustainable production in the sector as a whole. On the fourth element no indicators were available to measure effectiveness in a strict sense. But the last decade has shown a consistent, global move towards more sustainable fashion practices. Obviously there are many factors and parties which play a role in this global movement. Solidaridad has clear presence in the Western European sustainable fashion market, but influence in other Western markets is limited. When it comes to the overall movement in the sector, it can be noted that the project in Oro Blanco was started in 2000 and was one of the first bio‐cotton projects worldwide and is therefore likely to have played its part. However, judgments in the quantitative sense are senseless to make, right because of the complex combination of factors and actors. Many of the interviewees mentioned that an important attribution to Solidaridad is making sustainable fashion in North West Europe appropriate for the mainstream industry and getting it out of the ethical niche markets. The Fashion Programme also impacts the general debate on sustainable fashion, e.g. by participating in BCI and engaging with standard organisations like SAI and BSCI. A debate in which the global Fashion Team actively engages is on the reliability and applicability of certification and the integrity of the auditing organisations. The actual impact of these advocating activities is difficult to assess. On a programme level the Fashion Programme intends to create movement in the sector, and by doing that making durable changes with regard to the position of the most vulnerable 13
links. Solidaridad has done and is still doing extensive work in the piloting phase and is now translating these lessons into models and approaches that can be used for the mainstream industry. Considering the projects done by Solidaridad, the producer related projects and factory improvement projects seem mainly to be functioning as pilot cases to show that sustainable production is possible and to learn how it works. RCML is a best practice, but has not resulted in other factories following its example. Its learnings are being used by the Fashion Team and its partners for the design of new programmes and initiatives. Initiatives aimed at developing models that will be used wider in the mainstream are BCI, and ProCotton. Developing marketing models for Western brands (MADE‐BY), and the User Group Methodology can be characterised as early translation phase initiatives. The best example of this phase is BCI. Because of the credibility, network and experience Solidaridad developed in the initial phase, it can now play a leading role in the BCI. SAI’s recommendation to duplicate the TSG in other contexts can be seen as a very early indication of a translation phase, if made operational. Currently there are no initiatives in the mainstream. But if these initiatives turn out to be successful, long term structural change in the whole sector can be reached.
14