Washington Legislature Takes On Fast Fashion’s Environmental Impact

Newly proposed legislation in Washington state takes aim at waste-making fast-fashion brands and retailers.

House Bill 2068, introduced by Rep. Sharlett Mena in the state legislature this week, would require large fashion companies operating in Washington to publicly disclose their environmental due diligence policies, processes and outcomes, owning up to potential or existing ecological impacts. Companies making a worldwide gross income of more than $100 million would also be required to publish their remediation plans and sustainability targets on their websites, or provide written disclosures to any person who asks within 30 days.

More from Sourcing Journal

• India, Bangladesh Lose Textile Exchange Accreditation After Summer Suspension

• Trade Groups Back Law to Tackle Credit Card Swipe Fees

• Innovation, Investment: What's Next for New Materials at Biofabricate

Supported by brands like Patagonia and Cotopaxi, the bill calls upon fashion companies to engage in supply-chain mapping across all tiers of production, from raw materials through the manufacturing of finished goods, with a minimum of 50 percent of suppliers by volume accounted for. They would need to disclose the names of prioritized suppliers, and publish an externally available sustainability report that elucidates their due diligence processes and efforts to identify and mitigate adverse impacts to workers in the supply chain, too.

If passed, the bill would require companies to institute performance targets surrounding greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, water usage and chemical usage and track them by Jan. 1, 2027. Those that don’t meet their established goals could be penalized by the state Department of Ecology.

“Fast fashion seems like a trendy way to stay up to date, but its shiny veneer hides another side:…massive pollution, environmental shortcuts and social justice issues as well,” Rep. Mena said at a hearing on Thursday. The industry is “a major polluter responsible for up to 10 percent of global carbon emissions, with about 85 percent of textiles going to the dump,” she added. “There’s a lot that we can do in this space—I think low-hanging fruit—to really get closer to our climate goals and our environmental goals.”

Tufts University ESG and sustainability professor and veteran Timberland chief operating officer Kenneth Pucker testified on behalf of the legislation, telling lawmakers that mandated, in-depth corporate social responsibility reporting is necessary in order to move the needle and ensure brands are held accountable for their impacts.

“During my tenure, Timberland’s carbon emissions declined by double digits every year, while our revenues increased double digits—we were a much awarded paragon,” he said. “And yet, when you looked at the fine print of Timberland CSR report, you would note that our emissions declines were confined to what are called Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions,” which stem from operations under a company’s direct control, as well as purchased electricity.

“Due to complexity from an outsourced global supply chain, Timberland was not able to calculate its own Scope 3 emissions, which represent a 98 percent of our total emissions,” he added. The company was lauded for reducing 2 percent of its total emissions by 10 percent each year, while the remaining 98 percent, generated elsewhere in the supply chain, increased.

“Sadly, this remains the state of play when it comes to the industry; CSR reports remain voluntary and mostly unaudited,” Tucker said. Fewer than 50 percent of publicly traded companies report on Scope 3 emissions, and most of the enterprises that have committed to emissions-reduction targets aren’t on track to reach their goals.

“To change behavior, we must change system structure and rules,” he added. “My experience at Timberland leads me to conclude that the best sustainability champion was unable to make progress, and emissions reductions legislation is needed to raise the floor in this environmentally damaging industry.”

Cotopaxi vice president of impact and sustainability Annie Agle told Sourcing Journal that brand supports the legislation and its intent to accelerate progress. “The fashion and apparel sector must evolve its historic approach to business,” she said. “We must all do more to ensure accountability around human rights, environmental impacts, and value preservation.”

Agle called the bill “a critically important step to making sure significant offenders take responsibility for the ways in which their businesses externalize their waste, injustices, and environmental impacts upon the rest of society.”

The bill has its detractors, including the Washington Retail Association, which represents 3,500 storefronts statewide. “The proposed legislation, given the global nature of the fashion supply chain, poses significant challenges in establishing, tracking and disclosing information effectively,” state and local government affairs manager Crystal Leatherman said. While WRA supports the intent behind HB 2068, the trade group feels the issue would be better addressed at the federal level.