Yes the world of fashion is far behind the treehuggers of the future, and its unfortunate that it has to be that way. I have been looking for sustainable style for the past year or so and it is really difficult to find anything good looking or even remotely attractive. Bamboo seems to be the cloth leading the textile race these days, but the high price of manufacturing the material generally leads me to cheaper alternatives. As a college student, its not an ethical struggle to do the right thing, because I know what the "right" decision is here; merely a economic burden that weighs heavy on my wallet. Even if I buy the ethical textile, how can I afford the locally produced organic food? Until major companies embrace the green movement, I'm afraid my forward thinking fashion trends will have to be on the back burner....

ethical consumer on the north face (vf corporation):

Environmental Reporting:
Worst ECRA rating for environment report (July 2004)
The North Face website www.thenorthface.com was viewed by ECRA Publishing on 28 July 2004. The website did not display an environmental policy or report. (ref: 59)

Pollution & Toxics:
Nanotech fabric additives (2005) According to the February 2005 issue of Corporate Watch,
wrinkle resistant fabric used in some clothing lines by Lee contained nanotech particles. Nanotechnology was said to be of concern because, according to toxicologist Dr Vyvyan Howard, “There is evidence that [nano particles] can gain entry to the body by a number of routes, including inhalation, ingestion and across
the skin. There is considerable evidence that [nanoparticles] are toxic and therefore potentially hazardous. The basis of this toxicity is not fully established but a prime candidate for consideration is the increased reactivity associated with very
small size.” (ref: 60)

Workers’ Rights:
Labour abuses at Needle Craft factory, Jordan (2005)
A May 2006 report by the National Labor Committee reported that labour abuses had been rife at the UAE-owned Needle Craft factory in Zarqa, Jordan, which had produced for Wal-Mart, Kohl’s and Target and Nautica. Abuses reported by workers included:
- regular beatings by management for asking questions about wages;
- routine weeks of 103 hours or more;
- pay of less than one US$ per day for 14-16 hours, around 10% of the wages legally due to them;
- mandatory all-night shifts on some assembly lines;
- seven-day weeks and no days off in over six weeks;
- health impacts resulting from excessive hours;
- poor accommodation and food and sporadic water supplies;
- inadequate toilet facilities;
- forcible deportation of women who insisted on being paid;
- high levels of indebtedness after fees charged by agents who arranged the jobs from Bangladesh. (ref: 65)

Anti-union activity (2004):
According to the International Confederation of Free Trade Union’s Annual Survey of Trade Union Rights 2004, management at the We Care Corporation in Japan, which made bags for Jansport, made it very difficult for its workers’ union to carry out normal activities. The report also claimed that whenever the union called a meeting, compulsory overtime was imposed. Any
worker refusing to do the overtime had their contract terminated.
(ref: 66)

Suppliers with poor workers’ rights records (2003):
According to the SEARC/City University Hong Kong report “The Situation of Burmese Migrant Workers in Mae Sot, Thailand,” VF Corporation was one of a number of companies which sourced fabric from Novel Group companies. Novel’s factories and subsidiary companies were said to include some in China and Thailand (regarded by ECRA s oppressive regimes) and some
which had been criticised for using cheap Burmese migrant labour, implementing forced overtime and maintaining poor conditions in their factories. (ref: 67)

Supply Chain Policy:
Middle ECRA rating for code of conduct (2005)
ECRA located the VF Corporation 2004 Global Compliance Report, that dealt with workers’ rights issues in supplier factories, on the company’s website. The report contained clauses on the following issues: child labour (although it set the minimum age at 14 in countries were the law permits, which ECRA considers as
child labour), forced labour, wages and benefits, hours of work, freedom of association/collective bargaining, health and safety, nondiscrimination, harassment, women’s rights and monitoring and compliance. VF Corporation stated that it carried out an audit process of all factories before entering into a supplier relationship
with them. However, this audit process did not seem to be maintained once the relationship had been established. VF Corporation stated that its suppliers were “audited by a team of VF employees or independent third-party auditors”. It did not
state who these third-party auditors were, so was unable to obtain ECRA’s best rating. The only brands that were covered by independent auditing were JanSport and LeeSport. According to VF: “As a member of the Fair LAbor Association (FLA), factories producing apparel under the JanSport and LeeSport brands are subject to unannounced audits by FLA-authorized
personnel.” (ref: 59)

I dunno. The fact that The North Face markets its stuff to ghetto kids who can't afford it and is now more of a fashion statement than any real practical outdoor gear really bugs me. That's not sustainable - in the real, rounded version of sustainable that goes beyond green.

Sorry to be "that guy" but could you please change the picture from Arc'Teryx jacket to something North Face.

Arc'Teryx is part of the Amer Sports group which unfortunately has its own fair share of social and environmental problems. However over recent years they've become better and Arc'Teryx is now one of several companies that makes products out of recycled Capilene.

Main idea though is to not totally condemn all outdoor companies as being socially and environmentally despicable which slightly comes through in the article but then is made even more present when you have a picture of another company's product. Patagonia is a wonderfully environmentally and socially responsible company and a leading manufacturer of outdoor equipment and clothing.

=== author's response follows ===
Chose this shot simply because the name had that dinosaur like quality I was looking for to symbolize the use of fossil feedstock.

It seems you have laid out the positives of this unrelated company and given tribute where it belongs. Given that, do you feel it would it be ok to leave it up, or is it a must change issue in your view?

We certainly understand that some outdoor gear companies are working on sustainable designs and supply chains ... the post gave Patagonia as one example of that... and we did not mean to imply anything about the maker of the pictured product.

The main point of the post is that green outerwear designs, in general, have a long way to go before they achieve dominant presence at mainstream retailers.

The faster this changes, the better. May Arc'Teryx lead the way!

I've worn North Face clothing for years, and find the vast majority of it to be durable, comfortable, easy to clean and maintain, and eminently suited for life here in Colorado.

I have one Mountain Light jacket, in fact, that still looks and wears well and it's 17 years old. Further, NF will recondition outerwear, replace zippers, and do other work that extends the life of the garment and ensures that it doesn't end up in the trash or in a landfill. Not eco-friendly?

And yes, most of their products are polyfleece or moisture-wicking breathable synthetics made from hydrocarbons. But again, the base for most of those materials are the crude "leftovers" generated from the production of gasoline and oil. Or isn't using "waste" byproducts considered eco-friendly either?

Also the one comment regarding, "The North Face markets its stuff to ghetto kids..." is, in my experience, false-to-fact. Some gangs co-opted the brand, much the same as some did with Addias or Nike or with sports teams, but I've yet to see any advertising targeted specifically to "ghetto kids".

In this case, it appears the author is targeting a brand simply because it currently happens to be "hot".

And what happened to reviewing your own article, which concluded "From the sounds of it, The North Face will soon impress it with its eco-innovation!"

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/the_north_facel_1.php

Please change the picture, your reasoning for having it there is flawed. If you are talking about Ford would you show a picture of a Toyota?

No serious publication would allow this to happen, let alone let it remain uncorrected. It makes you look like lightweights, and distracts from your message.

I'm with M. Long. my L.L. Bean winter jacket failed after 10 years and I consider this unacceptably short. My wife has a Land's End jacket of the same age and it's still going strong without any sign of wear. Contrasting that to the old wool coats my father had. They were heavy, not waterproof, unbearably itchy, and ripped on a regular basis and had to be replaced every five to seven years.

Given a choice, I will take a petrochemical, 20 year lifetime, lightweight, water resistant jacket that can keep me warm at night under clear skies than something heavier and less functional made from natural fibers.

functionality trumps politics.

=== author's comment follows ==
Surprised you cited politics as a driver right after bringing up what is technically the important topic to dive into. Design life certainly can trump natural materials if all other things are equal.

I'd add, however, that designing for the high fashion urban consumer who'll probably never put an outwear item on for a competition is a bit like selling SUV's to suburbanites.

My Filson wool logging jacket (red and black check) is over 35 years old, made in the USA of long fiber, high strength wool, is not itchy, sheds water from an overcape, and not a bit faded. It's a more than century old design that has outlasted several modern jackets including LL Bean models!

Something related but not too off the topic..

Athletic wear companies are shifting to more environment friendly techniques to fight odor.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119888106821856441.html

Thanks

=== author's response follows ====
Fascinating article. The WSJ overlooked the fact, however, that adding silver ions to a fabric to reduce odors results in silver in the wastewater which means in turn that public sewerage systems can lose their effectiveness as bacterial growth may be hindered. Once treatment effectiveness goes down in the WWTP as more consumers adapt silver lined clothing (pun intended), silver makes it into the discharge receiving water, where aquatic toxicity is the problem.

Do not these manufacturers remember the issues about photo developer and printing solution toxicity? It is as if every lesson has to be re-learned by a new generation.

I am also dismayed at how clueless the WSJ seems in passing along a reporting silver ion threat to "Groundwater."

About half the US potable water is from wells and most of those wells are hundreds of feet deep, isolated from streams. Very little wastewater is sprayed on the land with the intention of groundwater recharge. Hence the risk of well contamination only applies to those living with septic systems and shallow wells - a small population.

USEPA treats ads that say bacterial growth is limited as a "pesticidal claim" and hence the maker must register the product and submit to testing to prove safety and effectiveness. I wonder if the vague unprovable claims cited in the article are a ruse to avoid this regulatory obligation? Regardless, manufacturers of textiles and washing machines that use silver ions to reduce bacterial growth are skating on thin ice in a world where potable water supplies are constrained by drought, WWTP plants in need of expensive upgrading, and triclosan in consumer products suspected to increase societal exposure to superbugs.

I think I'll stick to the cotton lined woolies I bought from LL Bean 30 years ago - they still look goot and don't smell at all!

note to author's response to my original post

When I say functionality trumps politics, the politics are referred to is choosing a green solution in preference to a good solution. This is not to say that a green solution is not a good solution. In this context, it still needs to be proven. I would love to see a comparison of winter wear using the Natick Army labs research facility. This lab is where they test all of the clothing for things like heat loss etc. There we would get a good objective measure of the different classes of materials(natural, synthetic, green recycled)

for what it's worth, I'm disabled and I take a similarly cranky attitude towards people that design software that is accessible to disabled (i.e. almost all Web 2.0 applications).

As for your wool coat, that's fantastic. I'm glad it works for you. My father had one that I believe was similar and he had to replace it a couple of times because it got damaged on the job (he's a rigger) or in the woods when hunting. For me, wool always itches which is another reason why I absolutely love synthetic fabrics.

one might think selling heavy-duty winter coats to city dwellers, may seen silly but if you need to stand on a street and wait for a bus without any shelter in the middle of winter, you need a good quality winter coat as much as a country dweller does. In fact, I would argue they need better coats because city dwellers are cycling from room temperature to outdoor temperature and a much more rapid rate. The kind of breathability they need to cope with sweat etc. can only come from synthetic fabrics AFAIK.

Of course, high fashion types are not exactly motivated by practical need. :-) I wish I could say they were a vanishingly small minority but they seem to be growing in numbers. Conjecture on why withheld for more appropriate forum.

thanks for the feedback

As a knitter, quilter, all around textile nut, I hate to knit pick (hehehe), but synthetic fabrics are notorious for not being able to breathe like natural fibers. As a rule natural fibers are far superior to that of synthetics in wear and tear. Remember how bad leisure suits were (yuck!)? They were 100% synthetic. All of the greatest fabrics are natural ones (think cashmere, silk and yes, cotton).

The main reason companies like LL Bean and North Face use synthetics is because they're CHEAP (not because they can breathe)! After processing and weaving, and production, these jackets cost the company around $6 and after shipping the cost goes up to about $17.50. After that it's all profit, and usually these garment sell for around $150.

The jacket the author of this post owns is significant in value and in price. Natural wool that has to be carded and processes then spun and finally woven to be turned into a jacket is more expensive to produce. Being a natural fiber obviously makes it a better product. After production the jacket probably cost five times that of the synthetic to produce (around $70) and will outlast the synthetic two fold.

The most pressing issue at hand that I thought was overlooked was what Lars has said. The fact that these companies employ practically slave labor to make cheap garments is appalling, and btw we are paying a small fortune for them.

To be debating whether one synthetic jacket is better over another synthetic jacket in value is a moot point. They are both (#$%, one will just end up in the landfill faster then the next.

"After that it's all profit, and usually these garment sell for around $150."

Thats funny. It must have been a while since you last looked at North Face coats. They may have some softshell jackets for $150, but there is a large collection of them that range from $300 to $500.

I personally had one of the more expensive ones that I loved. It performed well, was comfortable and built to last. It was stolen however and I replaced it with a Nau jacket that performs just as well, fits and looks much better and is made from 100% recycled materials. Time will tell if it's constructed with the same level of quality.

I also love that there are no logos on it.

Look at the bright side. The North Face products last for years. Once they are finally discarded, that carbon becomes sequestered in a landfill usually, instead of being used as fuel. It would be a shame if a good item were discarded simply because it was no longer trendy.

Look at the bright side. The North Face products last for years. Once they are finally discarded, that carbon becomes sequestered in a landfill usually, instead of being used as fuel. It would be a shame if a good item were discarded simply because it was no longer trendy.