Greening the sector: Environmental initiatives and tools in the garment sector in Asia

Berry, Fiona; Sharpe, Samantha; Martinez-Fernandez, M. Cristina Working Paper Greening the sector: Environmental initiatives and tools in the garment sector in Asia ILO Working Paper, No. 52 Provided in Cooperation with: International Labour Organization (ILO), Geneva Suggested Citation: Berry, Fiona; Sharpe, Samantha; Martinez-Fernandez, M. Cristina (2022) : Greening the sector: Environmental initiatives and tools in the garment sector in Asia, ILO Working Paper, No. 52, ISBN 978-92-2-035316-5, International Labour Organization (ILO), Geneva, https://doi.org/10.54394/JRAN5992 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/263115 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/ XGreening the sector Environmental initiatives and tools in the garment sector in Asia Authors / Fiona Berry, Samantha Sharpe, Maria Cristina Martinez Fernandez February / 2022 ILO Working Paper 52 Copyright © International Labour Organization 2022 This is an open access work distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO License (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo). Users can reuse, share, adapt and build upon the original work, even for commercial purposes, as detailed in the License. The ILO must be clearly credited as the owner of the original work. The use of the emblem of the ILO is not permitted in connection with users’ work. Translations – In case of a translation of this work, the following disclaimer must be added along with the attribution: This translation was not created by the International Labour Office (ILO) and should not be considered an official ILO translation. The ILO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. Adaptations – In case of an adaptation of this work, the following disclaimer must be added along with the attribution: This is an adaptation of an original work by the International Labour Office (ILO). Responsibility for the views and opinions expressed in the adaptation rests solely with the author or authors of the adaptation and are not endorsed by the ILO. All queries on rights and licensing should be addressed to ILO Publications (Rights and Licensing), CH-1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland, or by email to [email protected]. ISBN: 9789220353158 (print) ISBN: 9789220353165 (web-pdf) ISBN: 9789220353172 (epub) ISBN: 9789220353189 (mobi) ISBN: 9789220365823 (html) ISSN: 2708-3446 DOI: 10.54394/JRAN5992 The designations employed in ILO publications, which are in conformity with United Nations practice, and the presentation of material therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the International Labour Office concerning the legal status of any country, area or territory or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers. The responsibility for opinions expressed in signed articles, studies and other contributions rests solely with their authors, and publication does not constitute an endorsement by the International Labour Office of the opinions expressed in them. Reference to names of firms and commercial products and processes does not imply their endorsement by the International Labour Office, and any failure to mention a particular firm, commercial product or process is not a sign of disapproval. ILO Working Papers summarize the results of ILO research in progress, and seek to stimulate discussion of a range of issues related to the world of work. Comments on this ILO Working Paper are welcome and can be sent to gr[email protected]. Authorization for publication: Mr Graeme Buckley, Director for ILO DWT for East and South-East Asia and the Pacific ILO Working Papers can be found at: www.ilo.org/global/publications/working-papers Suggested citation: Berry, F., Sharpe, S., Martinez Fernandez, M. 2022. Greening the sector: Environmental initiatives and tools in the garment sector in Asia, ILO Working Paper 52 (Geneva, ILO). 01 ILO Working Paper 52 Abstract The increasing social and environmental impacts of the textile and garment supply chain are well known and have resulted in the development of an array of initiatives, tools and assessment platforms to enhance the sustainability of the sector. There is a great deal of diversity in these initiatives, including differences in their focus, the actors involved, who the beneficiaries are, the longevity of the activities and how they define and measure success. The paper highlights where there might be gaps in the current offerings of initiatives, and what types of initiatives have alignment with MSMEs knowledge and learning needs, as a way to highlight where future attention in developing new or enhanced initiatives might lie. About the authors The paper was prepared by Ms Fiona Berry, Senior Research Consultant, and Dr Samantha Sharpe, Associate Professor, of the Institute of Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney, and Dr Maria Cristina Martinez Fernandez, Senior Specialist, Environment and Decent Work and Asia-Pacific Coordinator - Green Jobs & Just Transition for the International Labour Organization’s Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. 02 ILO Working Paper 52 Abstract 01 About the authors 01 Acronyms 05 Executive Summary 06 XIntroduction 08 0.1. Purpose of this paper 08 0.2. Just Tansition Toolkit 09 0.3. Methodology 09 0.4. Structure of the paper 11 0.5. Background context 11 X1 Analysis of environmental initiatives 13 1.1. Reach and targets of initiatives 17 1.2. Characteristics of initiatives 20 1.2.1. Actors 20 1.2.2. Governance 22 1.2.3. Funding 22 1.2.4. Focus of change 23 X2 Barriers and enablers to eco-innovation in MSMEs in the textile and garment sector 25 2.1. Innovative activity in Asia 25 2.2. Eco-innovation in the textile and garment sector 26 2.3. Innovation enablers 27 XConclusion and implications for the effectiveness of green initiatives 29 References 31 Acknowledgements 33 Table of contents 03 ILO Working Paper 52 List of Figures Figure 1. Supply chain coverage of initiatives 17 Figure 2. Summary of country-level focus of the selected initiatives 20 Figure 3. Duration of operation of the selected initiatives 22 Figure 4. Innovative activity in Asia by sector 26 04 ILO Working Paper 52 List of Tables Table 1. Environmental initiatives in the Textile and Garment sector selected for further analysis 14 Table 2. Country and sector focuses of initiatives 18 Table 3. Organizational and country reach of each initiative 19 Table 4. Administration arrangements of the selected initiatives 21 Table 5. Funding arrangements of the selected initiatives 23 Table 6. Sustainability elements of the selected initiatives 24 05 ILO Working Paper 52 Acronyms EU European Union GHG greenhouse gas GOTS Global Organic Textile Standard MSMEs micro-, smalland medium-sized enterprises PaCT Partnership for Cleaner Textile SDG Sustainable Development Goal SME smalland medium-sized enterprise STWI Sweden Textile Water Initiative ZDHC Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals 06 ILO Working Paper 52 Executive Summary The increasing social and environmental impacts of the textile and garment supply chain are well known and have resulted in the development of an array of initiatives, tools and assessment platforms to enhance the sustainability of the sector. There is a great deal of diversity in these initiatives, including differences in their focus, the actors involved, who the beneficiaries are, the longevity of the activities and how they define and measure success. For many stakeholders in Asia the number and diversity of initiatives is confusing. This paper has two aims: first, to analyse an illustrative group of these initiatives in terms geographic and sectoral coverage, target participants, operating model, method of intervention, scale, success and replicability, with the aim of identifying where and how these initiatives can and are enhancing environmental sustainability in the garment sector, and to identify if and where any gaps exist in initiatives offerings. The second aim is to investigate the coverage and reach of environmental initiatives to micro-, smalland medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) in the sector. Sectoral commentary suggests that smaller firms are a “blind spot” in achieving enhanced sustainability; therefore, this paper also seeks to examine the overlap of these initiatives with the innovation drivers in MSMEs. The sustainability challenges facing smaller firms are similar to all firms, yet because of their smaller size (and correspondingly smaller human and financial capital resources) and peripheral position in the supply chain (with less access to knowledge and knowhow), these challenges are more difficult to overcome. The analysis in this paper found three high-level operating models across these environmental sustainability initiatives: 1. Performance standards – usually found with certification and sometimes capacity-building activities; 2. Programme offer – a time-limited programme of activities, usually including brand-level dialogue and tool/advice development, factory-level auditing and engagement activities, policy system analysis and advocacy, and access to finance for sustainability investments; and 3. Social Dialogue, knowledge sharing and advocacy – these initiatives focus on social dialogue and knowledge-sharing activities up and down the supply chain. They are usually linked with wider sustainability goals, such as the Sustainable Development Goals, and the contextualizing of these goals for the textile and garment sector. These initiatives usually have a strong role for multistakeholder dialogue. When analysing how these initiatives overlap with barriers and enablers for eco-innovation in MSMEs, the following barriers to the uptake of eco-innovations are found: ●Lack of awareness about environmental issues and their impacts, including social impacts; ●Lack of awareness of options for eco-innovation, and how eco-innovation could be integrated into strategic business planning activities and contribute to competitiveness and productivity; ●Lack of awareness of responsibilities in complying with environmental legislation, and know-how in investing in moving beyond mere compliance; ●Lack of access to knowledge and skills transfer networks – seeing how best practice is implemented in other businesses and the capacity to adapt and adopt; ●Communication gaps in supply chains; ●Barriers in accessing finance; ● Poor infrastructure availability, for example, access to water systems and waste water filtration systems. 13 ILO Working Paper 52 X1 Analysis of environmental initiatives There exist a multitude of initiatives by governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations designed to improve social and environmental standards in the garment value chain (Sharpe 2017). In the process of identifying environmental initiatives for this study, 35 such initiatives were identified. Initiatives include tools, standards, capacity-building programmes, audits, awareness-raising activities, or a combination of some or all of these activities. In some cases, environmental sustainability was the sole focus, but most often environmental issues were addressed alongside social sustainability issues, particularly labour standards. The 35 identified initiatives include both current and past projects. Past projects, although no longer operating, can still provide opportunities for profiling different operating models, and for learning about impact and change target beneficiaries in the past. Analyses of past projects can also highlight the evolution of initiatives – so where a first generation of initiatives might be focus on awareness raising, later generation initiatives can focus on pilot projects and proving business cases. From this long list, a shortened list of 17 initiatives was selected for further analysis. These initiatives are listed in table 1 below along with some basic characteristics. The selection criteria in creating the short list were: 1. identifying initiatives that had a substantial focus on environmental sustainability (including the development of specific tools and know-how within the sector for environmental sustainability); 2. coverage across the region and the four focus countries; and 3. selecting a range of initiatives that offered the possibility for a comparative analysis of a range of activities (including tool development, standard settings, capacity development, case studies and best practices, audit and advice programmes, and networks and knowledge sharing). 14 ILO Working Paper 52 XTable 1. Environmental initiatives in the Textile and Garment sector selected for further analysis 15 ILO Working Paper 52 16 ILO Working Paper 52 Figure 1 illustrates where each of the initiatives falls along the textile supply chain. Many of the initiatives are ongoing labelling, certification or standards programmes with regular funding and established administrators and operating entities. Others were one-off projects that ran for a number of years from one source of funding and then either ceased operating or continue to work with additional supplements of funding. Two of the initiatives – Vietnam Green Label and China Environmental Label – appeared to be largely inactive at the time of research, with little recent information available during the desktop review.4 The activities were varied, from specific tools and guidelines for key actors in the supply chain (such as product or brand tools and facility tools), to labelling or certification schemes, to training platforms and support directories, to laboratory certification programmes. Initiatives often had some kind of government advocacy, knowledge dissemination and capacity-building aspect to their operations. Figure 1 also maps the activities of each of the analysed initiatives across the supply chain. The figure shows that there are many initiatives operating in this space and many covered similar areas of the supply chain. Ten of the 17 initiatives cover most of the production elements of the supply chain. Across all the initiatives three operating models are evident: 1. Performance standards – usually with certification and sometimes capacity-building activities. This includes, at one end of the spectrum, ecolabelling initiatives – where producers meet certain criteria in order to access a label to signal environmental sustainability to customers and/or consumers – through to more complex and comprehensive performance standards that assess performance in social and environmental sustainability, for example Higg or Bluesign. These latter initiatives have comprehensive guidance materials and technical capacity-building and audit activities. 2. Programme offer – a time-limited programmes of activities usually including brand-level dialogues and tool/advice development, factory-level audits and engagement activities, policy system analysis and advocacy, and access to finance for sustainability investments. Examples include the Sweden Textile Water Initiative and PaCT. 3. Social dialogue, knowledge sharing and advocacy – these initiatives focus on social dialogue and knowledge-sharing activities up and down the supply chain. These initiatives are usually linked with wider sustainability goals, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the contextualizing these goals for the textile and garment sector. These initiatives usually have a strong role for multi-stakeholder dialogue. Examples include the UN Alliance for Sustainable Fashion (linked to the SDGs) and the UN Fashion Charter for Climate Action (linked to the Paris Agreement). All initiatives include aspects of multi-stakeholder engagement and dialogue. Multi-stakeholder initiatives have become prominent mechanisms for sustainability governance across multiple scales, from the local and national to the regional and global. These initiatives are viewed as more effective in sustainability governance than State actor-based networks, although to date there is little evidence of effectiveness in terms of impact (Okereke and Stacewicz 2018). Multi-stakeholder initiatives work in establishing norms and setting standards for wrong and right actions, as well as providing a space for learning networks and experimentation in institutional configurations for sustainability (Schouten et al. 2012). In a complex supply chain, this boundary spanning and experimentation are essential in stimulating change to sustainability. Although power asymmetries between stakeholders and who is considered a stakeholder (and therefore part of the discussion) are limitations to the change-making potential in multi-stakeholder initiatives. 4It is this lack of up-to-date information concerning these initiatives that has prompted these two initiatives to be marked “info not current” within tables in this paper. 17 ILO Working Paper 52 XFigure 1. Supply chain coverage of initiatives 1.1. Reach and targets of initiatives The initiatives analysed were available in a range of locations around the world. Seven of the initiatives were country-specific and the remainder were implemented in a large number of countries or available in any country. Nine of the initiatives were specific to the textile and/or garment sectors, one was specific to cotton, another for leather and three were for various manufacturing sectors. Most of the countryspecific initiatives were more narrowly focused on a specific part of the supply chain, for example, wet processing. Country-specific initiatives also addressed policy and institutional capacity context in the countries in which they worked. For example, PaCT in Bangladesh and STWI in India. Where initiatives operate across multiple countries and regions, wider supply chain issues are the focus. These initiatives usually include programmes for both brand companies where corporate activities occur and the textile factories and mills in the supply chain. 18 ILO Working Paper 52 XTable 2. Country and sector focuses of initiatives Figure 2 shows where the environmental initiatives are operating globally. There is wide geographical reach of the various environmental initiatives analysed, as shown in table 3. The three categories of initiatives identified are also useful in understanding organizational reach. For performance standards initiatives, the broad reach of many organizations across many jurisdictions would be necessary for the associated performance standard to have an impact on environmental sustainability. In the case of programme offer initiatives, deep engagement with a smaller number of organizations and countries is the target. For social dialogue, knowledge sharing and advocacy initiatives, reaching a certain number of individual organizations is not the target, rather the target is around developing consensus and networks among organizations for social and environmental sustainability. Table 3 below outlines the number of organizations (unless otherwise labelled) or countries in which each initiative has been implemented. 19 ILO Working Paper 52 XTable 3. Organizational and country reach of each initiative 20 ILO Working Paper 52 XFigure 2. Summary of country-level focus of the selected initiatives 1.2. Characteristics of initiatives This section analyses the initiatives across a number of characteristics including the actors and institutions involved in administering initiatives, governance arrangements, funding models and their focus of change. 1.2.1. Actors The environmental initiatives were owned or administrated by a variety of organizations. Several initiatives were established through aid organizations of international organizations or bodies, such as the International Finance Corporation (PaCT and China Water) and European Union (Ecoleban via Switch Asia Program). By far the largest category of actors was not-for-profit organizations and foundations that were established to manage and deliver the environmental initiative. These consisted of larger international non-profits such as Better Cotton, Sustainable Apparel Coalition, Fairtrade, Stockholm International Water Institute and Bluesign, as well as smaller non-profits such as GOTS, Sequa and the Stichting ZDHC Foundation. The final 21 ILO Working Paper 52 category of actors were government agencies within the countries of operation, including China, India and Viet Nam. These government run initiatives were often associated with one-off funding and information on the initiatives was outdated and the status of the initiative at the time of research was uncertain. Table 4 provides summary data on the administration arrangements for each of the initiatives, and figure 3 shows the length of time these initiatives have been in operation. XTable 4. Administration arrangements of the selected initiatives 22 ILO Working Paper 52 XFigure 3. Duration of operation of the selected initiatives 1.2.2. Governance There are a variety of governance structures for the various environmental initiatives reviewed. Generally, the larger initiatives worked across the supply chain collaborating across fashion brands, manufacturers, suppliers (for example, chemical suppliers), factories and laboratories. Often the fashion brands or related businesses are founding members. Those initiatives funded by international bodies (such as the European Union (EU) or the International Finance Corporation) have an established operating unit or non-profit organization that delivers the initiative. Partners also include other non profits in developed countries and banks that facilitate green lending. In the case of Fairtrade, the Sweden Textile Water Initiative and the Higg Index, there is a non-profit or foundation that works alongside an established private company to deliver the operational aspects of the initiative. Partnerships with local industry associations and research centres are also common within some of the initiatives. 1.2.3. Funding The funding of the initiatives fell into three categories: ●privately funded via participation, membership, license or sponsorship fees; ●funding from international bodies (for example, the EU); ●private funding (table 5). 29 ILO Working Paper 52 XConclusion and implications for the effectiveness of green initiatives The textile and garment sector is one of the most globalized supply chains in the world. The social and environmental impacts of the supply chain are under close scrutiny by many stakeholders. In response to these impacts and in recognition of the complex and multi-faceted drivers of and solutions to these issues, a number of initiatives, tools and assessment platforms have been developed and implemented throughout the supply chain. There is a great deal of diversity in these initiatives, including differences in their focus, the actors involved, who the beneficiaries are, the longevity of the activities, and how they define and measure success. For many stakeholders the number and diversity of initiatives is confusing. The first aim of this paper was to map and analyse these initiatives in the supply chain, specifically focusing on initiatives that seek to enhance environmental sustainability in the sector. A short-list of 17 initiatives from a long list of 35 was analysed in Section 2. The analysis of the selected initiatives highlighted three operating models for these environmental initiatives: 1. Performance standards – usually with certification and sometimes capacity-building activities. This includes, at one end of the spectrum, ecolabelling initiatives – where producers meet certain criteria in order to access a label to signal environmental sustainability to customers and/or consumers – through to more complex and comprehensive performance standards that assess performance in social and environmental sustainability, for example the Higg Index or Bluesign. These latter initiatives have comprehensive guidance materials and technical capacity-building and audit activities. 2. Programme offer – a time-limited programmes of activities usually including brand-level dialogues and tool/advice development, factory-level audits and engagement activities, policy system analysis and advocacy, and access to finance for sustainability investments. Examples include the Sweden Textile Water Initiative and PaCT. 3. Social dialogue, knowledge sharing and advocacy – these initiatives focus on social dialogue and knowledge-sharing activities up and down the supply chain. These initiatives are usually linked with wider sustainability goals such as the SDGs, and contextualizing these goals for the textile and garment sector. These initiatives usually have a strong role for multi-stakeholder dialogue. Examples include the UN Alliance for Sustainable Fashion (linked to the SDGs) and the UN Fashion Charter for Climate Action (linked to the Paris Agreement). The second aim of this paper was to uncover how these initiatives overlap with barriers and enablers for eco-innovation in MSMEs. These firms make up the majority of firms within the supply chain and a significant proportion of employment. These firms are not often at the core of the supply chain but rather at the periphery – existing through sub-contracting relationships with the larger firms and buyers. The sustainability challenges in these firms are similar to all firms in the supply chain, yet because of their smaller size (and correspondingly smaller human and financial capital resources) and their peripheral position in the supply chain (with less access to knowledge and know-how), these challenges are more difficult to overcome. Section 3 summarized a literature review of barriers and enablers for eco-innovation in SMEs. We drew upon literature from studies focusing on textile and garment firms/ sector and/or Asian MSMEs. This review highlighted a number of barriers to the uptake of eco-innovations including: ●Lack of awareness about environmental issues and their impacts, including social impacts; 30 ILO Working Paper 52 ●Lack of awareness of options for eco-innovation, and how eco-innovation could be integrated into strategic business planning activities and contribute to competitiveness and productivity; ●Lack of awareness of responsibilities in complying with environmental legislation, and know-how in investing in moving beyond mere compliance; ●Lack access to knowledge and skills transfer networks – seeing how best practice is implemented in other businesses and the capacity to adapt and adopt; ●Communication gaps in supply chains; ●Low savings rates as a barrier to access to finance; ●Poor infrastructure, for example, access to water systems and waste water filtration systems. Considering the conclusions from the initiatives analysis and the literature review of eco-innovation in MSMEs, two key findings emerge: First, none of the initiatives specifically focus on MSMEs, even though these firms make up a significant proportion of the sector and have clear, distinctive and well-evidenced barriers for the adoption of cleaner production processes. Second, while none of the three operational models for initiatives seek to exclude MSMEs, there are a number of features in each model that limit their ability to have the desired impact on MSMEs: ●Concerning the performance standards model, MSMEs tend to lack the required level of internal absorptive capacity to bring in, integrate and use the performance standards in a way that develops the environmental sustainability of the firm. ●Concerning the programme offer model, if an MSME is within the target group for the initiative the firm will likely benefit from the programme offer model, because these programmes provide a mix of capacity building, auditing and improvement advice, access to finance and advocacy to policymakers to address other non-market barriers. However, because of the resource intensity of these initiatives only a relatively small number of firms can benefit, and therefore they are not offered on a scale to deliver widespread, system-level change. ●The social dialogue, knowledge sharing and advocacy model is useful in sharing “best practices”, but a limitation can be found in who is included in the dialogue and what is considered as being “best practice”. Are all stakeholders with roles and potential roles in enhancing environmental sustainability part of the dialogue – including MSMEs? And what processes are in place to address and moderate other issues of inclusivity, such as power imbalances and differing knowledge bases. These sector-based initiatives have an important role to play in coordinating sustainability activities across the sector, and these mechanisms will be essential in achieving enhanced environmental sustainability in the sector, including achieving emissions reduction goals with a low carbon transition that is also “just”. These initiatives represent a form of sectoral governance mechanisms that can operate at the sectoral level, but also mutually reinforce and enhance efforts at the country level (regulations, public incentives) and enterprise level (firm level strategy, behaviour change, investments in eco innovation). However, there are limits to these initiatives, and we should be aware of these limits. Each of the three types of operating model has, by design, limitations with regard to reach, coverage and focus, and this is before implementation metrics are considered (on which there are minimal data available in the public domain). Focus on and coverage geared towards enhancing the environmental sustainability of micro-, smalland medium-sized enterprises in the garment sector is a clear gap – as well as an opportunity and direction for future work. 31 ILO Working Paper 52 References Aragón-Correa, J. Alberto, Nuria Hurtado-Torres, Sanjay Sharma, and Víctor J. García-Morales. 2008. "Environmental strategy and performance in small firms: A resource-based perspective." Journal of environmental management 86(1): 88-103. Aryanto, Vincent, Yohan Wismantoro, and Karis Widyatmoko. 2018. “Implementing Eco-Innovation by Utilizing the Internet to Enhance Firm's Marketing Performance: Study of Green Batik Small and Medium Enterprises in Indonesia.” International Journal of E-Business Research 14 (1): 21–36. Asian Development Bank. 2020. Asian Development Outlook 2020: What Drives Innovation in Asia? Beyers, Felix, and Harald Heinrichs. 2020. “Global Partnerships for a Textile Transformation? A Systematic Literature Review on Interand Transnational Collaborative Governance of the Textile and Clothing Industry.” Journal of Cleaner Production 261: 121-131. Bhamra, Tracy, Ricardo Hernandez, Yaone Rapitsenyane, and Rhoda Trimingham. 2018. “Product Service Systems: A Sustainable Design Strategy for SMEs in the Textiles and Leather Sectors.” She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation 4 (3): 229–248. Diabat, Ali, Devika Kannan, and K. Mathiyazhagan. 2014. “Analysis of Enablers for Implementation of Sustainable Supply Chain Management – A Textile Case.” Journal of Cleaner Production 83: 391– 403. EMF (Ellen Macarthur Foundation). 2017. A New Textiles Economy: Redesigning Fashion’s Future. Flannery, Brenda L., and Douglas R. May.2000. "Environmental ethical decision making in the US metalfinishing industry." Academy of Management Journal 43 (4): 642-662. Gadenne, David L., Jessica Kennedy, and Catherine McKeiver.2009. "An empirical study of environmental awareness and practices in SMEs." Journal of Business Ethics 84 (1): 45-63. GFA (Global Fashion Agenda), BCG (Boston Consulting Group), and SAC (Sustainable Apparel Coalition). 2017. Pulse of the Fashion Industry 2017. ———. 2018. Pulse of the Fashion Industry 2018. ———. 2018. Pulse of the Fashion Industry: 2019 Update. Gherib, Jouhaina, and Chiraz Ghozzi-Nékhili. 2012. "Motivations and organizational implications of ISO 14001 certification: the case of Tunisia." Research in Management Sciences 5: 135-154. Islam, Md Mazedul, Patsy Perry, and Simeon Gill. 2020. "Mapping environmentally sustainable practices in textiles, apparel and fashion industries: a systematic literature review." Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal. In press, DOI.10.11.1108/JFMM-072020-0130. Kamal, Yousuf, and Craig Deegan. 2013. “Corporate Social and Environment-related Governance Disclosure Practices in the Textile and Garment Industry: Evidence from a Developing Country.” Australian Accounting Review 23 (2): 117–134. Labaronne, Daniel, and Emna Gana-Oueslati. 2011. "Morocco-Tunisia comparative analysis of the institutional framework for CSR in SMEs." Management Avenir 3: 103-121. 32 ILO Working Paper 52 McCourtie, Simone D. 2013. “Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise (MSME) Finance”, 5 April, available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2013/04/05/msme-finance-expanding-opportunities-andcreatingjobs. Merk, Jeroen. 2014. “The Rise of Tier 1 Firms in the Global Garment Industry: Challenges for Labour Rights Advocates.” Oxford Development Studies 42 (2): 259–277. Niinimaki, Kirsi, Greg Peters, Helena Dahlbo, Patsy Perry, Timo Rissanen, and Alison Gwilt. 2020. “The Environmental Price of Fast Fashion.” Nature Reviews: Earth and Environment 1: 189–200. Nhung, Bich, and Tran Thi Phuong Thuy. 2018. “Vietnam’s Textile and Garment Industry: An Overview.” Business and IT 8 (2): 45–53. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2013. Skills Development and Training in SMEs. Okereke, Chukwumerije, and Izabela Stacewicz. 2018. "Stakeholder perceptions of the environmental effectiveness of multi-stakeholder initiatives: Evidence from the palm oil, soy, cotton, and timber programs." Society & Natural Resources 31 (11): 1302-1318. Papagiannakis, Giorgos, and Spyros Lioukas. 2012. "Values, attitudes and perceptions of managers as predictors of corporate environmental responsiveness." Journal of Environmental Management 100: 41-51. Quantis. 2018. Measuring Fashion: Environmental Impact of the Global Apparel and Footwear Industries. Rastogi, Vasundhara. 2018. “Cambodia’s Garment Manufacturing Industry.” ASEAN Briefing blog, 1 November. Schouten, Greetje, Pieter Leroy, and Pieter Glasbergen. 2012. "On the deliberative capacity of private multi-stakeholder governance: the roundtables on responsible soy and sustainable palm oil." Ecological Economics 83: 42-50. Sharpe, Samantha. 2017. Environmental Scoping Study: Decent Work in the Garment Sector Supply Chains in Asia. ILO. Steg, Linda, and Charles Vlek. 2009. "Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda." Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (3): 309-317 Sumner, Mark. 2019. “Written Evidence Submitted by Dr. Mark Sumner, University of Leeds”, submission to the UK Parliament Fixing Fashion: Clothing Consumption and Sustainability hearings, available at: http:// data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/ evidencedocument/environmental-audit-committee/sustainability-of-the-fashion-industry/ written/88396.html. Tounés, Azzedine, Erno T. Tornikoski, and Fafani Gribaa. 2019. “The Formation of Environmentally Friendly Intentions of SME Owner-Managers in an Emerging Country: The Case of Tunisian’s Textile–Clothing Industry.” Organization & Environment 32 (4): 528–554. United Kingdom, House of Commons, Environmental Audit Committee. 2019. Fixing Fashion: Clothing Consumption and Sustainability, HC 1952. Zucchella, Antonella, and Alfonso Siano. 2014. “Internationalization and Innovation as Resources for SME Growth in Foreign Markets – A Focus on Textile and Clothing Firms in the Campania Region.” Journal of International Studies of Management & Organization 44 (1): 21–41. 33 ILO Working Paper 52 Acknowledgements This paper has been prepared for the ILO’s Decent Work in Garment Supply Chains in Asia project with the financial support of the Swedish Development Agency (Sida). We would like to acknowledge reviewers of the Textile and Garment Eco-Innovation Research Network (TERN); David Williams, Laurel Anderson Hoffner and other colleagues of the Decent Work in Garment Supply Chains in Asia project; John Maloy; Katarina Veem; Georginia Pascual; and the ILO’s GREEN JOBS programme for their valuable contributions. ILO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific DWT–Bangkok ILO Country Office for Thailand United Nations Building, 11th Floor Rajdamnern Nok Avenue, P.O. Box 2-349 Bangkok 10200 Thailand T +662 288 12 34 XAdvancing social justice, promoting decent work The International Labour Organization is the United Nations agency for the world of work. We bring together governments, employers and workers to improve the working lives of all people, driving a human-centred approach to the future of work through employment creation, rights at work, social protection and social dialogue. I S B N 9789220353158 9HSTCMA*dfdbfi+ 9 789220 353158 Contact details