The TCBL Protocol by TCBL

TCBL HANDBOOKS

THE TCBL PROTOCOL

Co-funded by Horizon 2020

TCBL 646133 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; HANDBOOK RELEASED AS ANNEX II TO D2.8 (TASK 2.3) 30 June 2019

INTRODUCTION The TCBL label is the visible sign of participation in an innovation community that is working towards the goal of a sustainable textile and clothing industry. The label is applied to Labs and Associates whose practices are coherent with the seven TCBL principles: curiosity, viability, durability, multiplicity, openness, respect and responsibility. These principles have been successfully validated across four years of project activities and are being taken up as such by the TCBL Foundation, the not for profit entity collecting the legacy of the H2020 consortium after the end of the granted period. This Guidebook presents the TCBL Protocol, which is the procedure through which the TCBL label is earned and maintained over time. In it, we briefly present the approach adopted, our sources of inspiration, and how this approach differs from more traditional certification procedures. This guidebook is intended for three main types of reader: • • •

Those sharing the TCBL principles and aiming to attain the TCBL label. Companies and individuals concerned about making sustainable choices in choosing products and suppliers and looking for the right form of guarantee. Members of the TCBL Foundation involved in the management of the TCBL Protocol, interested to learn more about the principles behind it.

WHAT DOES THE TCBL LABEL STAND FOR?

Consumer demand for sustainable fashion is growing rapidly, but the claims and certifications of brands are being seen with increasing diffidence in a system that excludes many players. •

•

While sustainability can be a very effective word in marketing terms, it is not so simple to objectively demonstrate that a given product is sustainable. Specific aspects can be certified by recognised systems – natural cotton, lack of use of a specific chemical product, recognition of minimum wage – but sustainability is a broad, holistic concept. Often, a company claiming sustainability on environmental grounds may be challenged on their social policies, and vice versa. In the end, this can just cause confusion for companies who share the goal of sustainability as well as their customers. The textile and clothing industry is made up of complex supply chains, with increasing pressure on suppliers to deliver quickly and at the lowest cost. In this context, chains of subcontractors make it difficult to know exactly who is producing what (and where) even for the more concerned brands. Supply chain audits, which can easily cost as much as € 5.000 for individual suppliers (for just one audit), often fail to capture the practices of all those involved, in addition to driving costs upwards. As a result, claims of sustainable supply chains are often contradicted by the discovery of non-compliant or hidden participants. Auditing and certification systems are mostly designed for the big brands who invest significant sums in demonstrating their efforts to move towards sustainability, and not for the smaller or independent producers who often have adopted far more sustainable practices from the outset.

The TCBL business community takes a different approach: sustainability is considered not as a static state that can be reached or certified, but rather a common goal, shifting attention to the process of working towards that goal. This involves constant exploration and innovation on different fronts, with many actors collaborating towards a structural transformation of the textile and clothing industry, moving away from compulsive overproduction towards a different model of quality, durability and value creation. The defining feature of this community is the commitment towards a common set of principles, which are: ▪

Curiosity: Creative exploration of innovative paths and business models.

▪

Viability: Increasing business prosperity along with that of communities.

▪

Durability: Commitment to the environment, circular economy, zero km.

▪

Multiplicity: Value of different cultures, traditions, skills, opinions.

▪

Openness: Trust, transparency, participation, resource sharing.

▪

Respect: Value of people and places, respect for privacy and property.

▪

Responsibility: Accountability, reliability, responsible practice.

Many of these elements can be certified individually, through the direct observation of business practice. What distinguishes the TCBL approach is the emphasis on how these principles work as a whole. Together, they are a way of doing business that the TCBL Community holds to be the path towards a sustainable industry. So, what does the TCBL label stand for? It means that the individual or organisation having that label shares these principles and applies them in their research and business practice. The label itself is not specific to any single feature, product or company, rather it stands for the community of researchers, businesses and consumers of which each is a member and the long term sustainability of which is heralded by the newly established TCBL Foundation. 3

2. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CERTIFICATION AND ACCREDITATION AND WHAT EXAMPLES ARE THERE? If we want to certify that, say, a given chemical has not been used to produce a given fabric, we can monitor purchases, analyse wastewater quality, etc. along the supply chain and, with some degree of certainty, declare the lack of that chemical as a fact. If instead we want to guarantee that a given company shares the same values as other companies, that is quite a different matter. We call the first type of operation a certification process and the second an accreditation process.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CERTIFICATION AND ACCREDITATION One important difference between the two types of process is the relations they establish between companies and between companies and their customers. For a certification process, a company has invested money in improving their practice and wants to demonstrate it so as to distinguish themselves from competitors who have not taken the same steps. In theory, if all companies are compliant with a given certification, everyone benefits. In practice, certification pits companies against each other, with the winner being the one that is able to attain the certification with the least investment possible. End consumers only see the certificate, and although the ‘halo effect’ may lead them to believe that it implies sustainable business practices, the only thing the certification means is what it says: e.g. this chemical substance has not been used to produce this fabric. It would take an endless number of certifications to demonstrate compliance with all of the dimensions of sustainability. An accreditation process is instead the result of a collaboration between companies, with a focus on the ‘sharing’ component of ‘shared values’. It is applied by other companies in the same community – peers – to indicate belonging, replacing the pretence of objectivity with aggregate subjectivity.1 It is in fact in the interest of all those belonging to the community to defend the value of the label by ensuring that each member is up to standard. As openness and knowledge exchange are shared values, compliance is guaranteed by a peer review approach rather than relying on third-party certification bodies: it is the community itself that accredits its own members. This not only establishes a collaborative relationship between companies in TCBL, it also engenders trust and thus lowers the transaction costs for embarking on collaborative innovation projects or even just doing business together. Customers in turn are also invited to share the community’s values and ‘join the community’ as co-producers of their sustainable fashion experience.

EXAMPLES OF ACCREDITATION The TCBL Protocol has been inspired by similar accreditation systems in other sectors, notably organic agriculture and fair trade, known as Participatory or Peer-based Guarantee Systems. According to the Fair World Project,2 “Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) offer a methodology to ensure social and ecological integrity by engaging stakeholders, including consumers, in a transparent system that prioritizes active participation and transparency for all

For more on the concept of aggregate subjectivity, see research on “sentiment analysis” e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentiment_analysis as well as the economics of value, e.g. https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2010/Borderssubjectivity.html 1

For a good overview, see: https://fairworldproject.org/alternative-paths-for-consumers-assurance/

The TCBL Protocol TCBL Handbooks Textile & Clothing Business Labs

stakeholders.” This approach is promoted by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM)3 which coordinates local PGSs in its network with a shared methodology.

As shown in the figure above, this system includes Pledges, Consequences (of noncompliance), systems for Documentation and Verification, and Support to assist in compliance. A more structured approach is that adopted by the World Fair Trade Organisation (WFTO), which is closer to TCBL in that accreditation is managed centrally. 4 The core features of the WFTO system include: • •

Periodic verification, with the frequency of self-assessments, peer visits and monitoring audits depending on the member’s risk category. Participatory assessment and monitoring, providing space for members and peers to participate in the compliance verification process, learning from each other and exchanging best practices.

https://www.ifoam.bio/en

For a detailed presentation, see https://prezi.com/ba1d1kud0atk/copy-of-wfto-guarantee-system/

The TCBL Protocol TCBL Handbooks Textile & Clothing Business Labs • •

Continuous improvement, with verification procedures highlighting members’ strong and weak points and requiring an improvement plan. Accountability Watch, a special monitoring mechanism for reporting best practices or non-compliance, also open to the public.

3. HOW DOES THE TCBL PROTOCOL WORK? The TCBL Protocol is managed by the TCBL Foundation, and its operations are carried out by Foundation Members, including Advisors who have been nominated to that role.

W HO’S INVOLVED? The TCBL Protocol involves four distinct roles: • •

•

The (aspiring) Member. This is the organisation wishing to gain and/or keep the status of a TCBL Lab or Associate. The TCBL Advisor. This is an individual selected according to the Advisor point system and also belonging to a TCBL Foundation Founding Member or specifically appointed by the Steering Committee of the TCBL Foundation. One Advisor is appointed for each Member, and that Advisor follows the Member throughout the time of participation in TCBL. Local Mentor: Often, a new member will join following the advice of a local Foundation Member, Lab or Associate. In that case, this can become a Local Mentor, providing local support in terms of translation, organising visits, etc. Otherwise, the Advisor will generally play the role of Mentor. TCBL Peers: Each Member upon application selects two Peers who will follow the Member’s Protocol throughout the time of participation in TCBL.

W HAT’S THE PROCESS ? The accreditation process differs slightly for TCBL Labs and Associates (see below) but the main steps are as follows: 1. Self-assessment: The aspiring Lab or Associate first must request to become a member of the TCBL Foundation, and does so by compiling a form that a) provides information that will go into the Member Directory if the application is successful and b) includes a self-assessment of the applicant’s commitment to the TCBL principles. 2. First evaluation: Once the Advisor, Mentor and Peers have been assigned to a member, their self-assessment form is evaluated for a first judgement on coherence with the aims, goals and principles of TCBL and discussed with the applicant. The options available are: 7

The TCBL Protocol TCBL Handbooks Textile & Clothing Business Labs o

The self-assessment is reliable and strongly coherent. In this case, the TCBL label can be directly accredited. o The self-assessment is good but could be improved. Often an applicant will misunderstand a question or under- or over-estimate capabilities. The Advisor, Mentor and Peers can discuss the responses with the applicant until a satisfactory result is achieved. o The self-assessment is poor though with a possibility of reaching the threshold for accreditation. In this case, the discussions will attempt to better explain the nature of the TCBL community to see if there is hope of welcoming the applicant. The possibility of a ‘no-go’ is taken into consideration and adopted if required. o The self-assessment is off track. In this case, the applicant shares TCBL values but would be better suited in a different role, i.e. as a service provider. In this case the application procedure is closed but with an alternative plan. o The self-assessment is very poor. In this case, the applicant has totally misunderstood what TCBL stands for or is not at all focused on the textile and clothing industry. In this case the application procedure is closed with a no-go. 3. Engagement monitoring: On the basis of the quality of interaction in the previous step, the Advisor, Mentor and Peers make a risk assessment as to the probability that the candidate will engage in innovation processes within the TCBL Community. They will then carry engagement monitoring – generally with a call to discuss activities carried out – after the first six months and at a variable period thereafter, in order to adjust the previous risk assessment on the basis of progress made. The outcomes can be: o Active: The member is participating actively in the community and does not require an intervention. Follow-up monitoring after one year. o Interested: The member appears to be interested in TCBL opportunities but has not followed up. Contact strategy to be decided between Advisor, Mentor and Peers. Follow-up monitoring after six months. o Waiting: The member seems to require some support in order to more actively engage. Contact strategy to be decided between Advisor, Mentor and Peers, could include a Check-up (see below), with the objective of better illustrating opportunities. Follow-up monitoring after three months. o Dormant: The member is not responding to opportunities nor offers of support. Check-up to be organised by Advisor, Mentor and Peers with the objective of better understanding needs. Follow-up monitoring after three months. o Leaving: The member is not responding and appears to either have lost interest or misunderstood the goals of TCBL. Final Check-up to be organised by Advisor, Mentor and Peers with the objective of validating coherence with the TCBL principles. If the risk assessment resulting from the Check-up is unchanged, the Member loses the TCBL accreditation. 4. Check-up: A check-up is similar to an audit, although it aims to have a more participatory nature and be more open to listening and learning. Nonetheless, it is a more in-depth examination of activities of a member considered as having some degree of risk. A check-up is sparked off by either a decision of engagement monitoring as per the above, or by a mention of the Member in the Compliance Watch.5 A check-up can 5

This is an on-line form open to all TCBL members and the general public to signal both best practice as well as incoherent practice. In the latter case, the form remains confidential and is forwarded to the Advisor for assessment.

The TCBL Protocol TCBL Handbooks Textile & Clothing Business Labs

be organised as a video conference, site visit, or physical meeting according to needs, and expresses both the concerns of the Advisor, Mentor and/or Peers as well as those of the Member in question. The goal of a check-up is to raise the level of the risk assessment in the next engagement monitoring and may include an improvement plan. If a check-up does not result in an improved assessment, the risk level is lowered, and the Member may ultimately lose their accreditation. Below are two schematic representations of how the TCBL Protocol is applied to the accreditation process for Labs and Associates.

W HAT ARE THE BENEFITS ? The main benefits of the TCBL Protocol to the community and its members can be summarised as follows: • • •

The TCBL label gains in credibility as a signifier of progress towards a sustainable textile and clothing industry, through the expression of a clear and verifiable procedure. Members of the TCBL Community can participate actively in ensuring that the level of quality and adherence to the TCBL principles is maintained over time. Customers and end users realise that sustainability is not something to be bought, but rather a collective endeavour they can actively participate in.

These benefits are best illustrated through their impact on TCBL Associates. Where the checkup procedure leads to unexpected or innovative results – i.e. a new innovation project, capturing new needs or methods, etc. – TCBL will tell the story of these experiences as examples of how the TCBL Protocol can support participation and innovation in a value-based community. 9

The TCBL Protocol TCBL Handbooks Textile & Clothing Business Labs

DOCUMENT INFORMATION REVISION HISTORY This document is Annex I to TCBL Deliverable 2.5, “Achievements and Perspectives in Knowledge Exchange (with special focus on Scouting and Issue Tracking) – Version 2”. Author: Jesse Marsh (Prato), This Annex is also written by Jesse Marsh. REVISION Version 1 Version 2

DATE

AUTHOR

15.07.2019 21.07.2019

Jesse Marsh Jesse Marsh

ORGANISATION

DESCRIPTION

Prato Prato

First draft for review Final version incorporating reviewers’ comments.

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY This deliverable contains original unpublished work except where clearly indicated otherwise. Acknowledgement of previously published material and of the work of others has been made through appropriate citation, quotation or both.

COPYRIGHT This work is licensed by the TCBL Consortium under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, 2015-2016. For details, see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ The TCBL Consortium, consisting of: Municipality of Prato (PRATO) Italy; German Institutes for Textile and Fiber Research - Center for Management Research (DITF) Germany; LINKS Foundation (LINKS) Italy; Skillaware (SKILL) Italy; Oxford Brookes University (OBU) UK; imec (IMEC) Belgium; Tavistock Institute (TAVI) UK; Materials Industrial Research & Technology Center S.A. (MIRTEC) Greece; Waag Society (WAAG) Netherlands; Huddersfield & District Textile Training Company Ltd (TCOE) UK; eZavod (eZAVOD) Slovenia; Consorzio Arca (ARCA) Italy; Unioncamere del Veneto (UCV) Italy; Hellenic Clothing Industry Association (HCIA) Greece; Sanjotec - Centro Empresarial e Tecnológico (SANJO) Portugal; Reginnova NE (Reginnova) Romania, Centexbel (CTB) Belgium, Institut Français de la Mode (IFM) France, IAAC (FabTextiles) Spain, Cleviria (Cleviria) Italy, and Sqetch (Sqetch) Netherlands.

DISCLAIMER All information included in this document is subject to change without notice. The Members of the TCBL Consortium make no warranty of any kind with regard to this document, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The Members of the TCBL Consortium shall not be held liable for errors contained herein or direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages in connection with the furnishing, performance, or use of this material.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The TCBL project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Programme for research, technology development, and innovation under Grant Agreement n. 646133.