Good news! The Bank of England has just cut its base rate by 1.5% meaning that many of us will have a little more money to go around and we might just start to think that things are going to better in a year or so, also making us feel a little better about the here and now.
That rate cut shaves no less than one third off the base rate. Just like that (as Tommy Cooper might say). It seems so easy for it to happen that you might wonder what conjurer, what slight of hand, makes it happen now when something could and should have been done a while ago.
Isn't hindsight wonderful? Wouldn't it be wonderful if there was a separate committee for the preservation of the planet that could sit down for a chat and decide that we all slice a third off the demands that we place on our environment? Today. Just like that.
That's what the planet needs but even if it could happen the harm already caused would not be quickly undone. And let's face it, now that Tommy Cooper is no longer with us, there's little chance of a conjurer achieving the cut. And as for the global committee that is the human race, as we focus on the credit crunch we are liable to forget the eco-crunch and issues such as sustainability, fair trade and global warming.
So if a magic emission cut is not possible what is going to become of us and our planet?
In the latest Living Planet Report, the WWF, the Zoological Society of London and the Global Footprint Network say "the world is heading for an ecological credit crunch as human demands on the world's natural capital reach nearly a third more than earth can sustain." There's that magic third I was referring to above.
"We are acting ecologically in the same way as financial institutions have been behaving economically – seeking immediate gratification without due regard for the consequences," said Jonathan Loh of the Zoological Society of London. And WWF International Director-General James Leape said “If our demands on the planet continue to increase at the same rate, by the mid-2030s we would need the equivalent of two planets to maintain our lifestyles.”
The report was issued on 29 October. For more statements and highlights from the report see the WWF news archive - here's a direct link to the report.
Thursday, 6 November 2008
Friday, 31 October 2008
Even Walmart's doing it!
Corporate Social Responsibility ("CSR") is one of the buzz terms of the new wider consensus on the need to act ethically in business. Over at the Ethical Corporation blog I detect some concern about the effect that the recession will have on corporate behaviour. Will corners be cut and blind eyes turned when it comes to keeping up standards?
Well not at WalMart apparently. Through the EC blog I found this article at the Financial Times where it seems Walmart's intentions are to push its supplier's harder on their CSR standards. I particularly liked the quote from Lee Scott, Wal-Mart's chief executive, told a meeting of more than 1,000 suppliers in Beijing, many no doubt in the clothing industry.
Well not at WalMart apparently. Through the EC blog I found this article at the Financial Times where it seems Walmart's intentions are to push its supplier's harder on their CSR standards. I particularly liked the quote from Lee Scott, Wal-Mart's chief executive, told a meeting of more than 1,000 suppliers in Beijing, many no doubt in the clothing industry.
"Meeting social and environmental standards is not optional. A company that cheats on overtime and on the age of its labour, that dumps its scraps and its chemicals in our rivers, that does not pay its taxes or honour its contracts - will ultimately cheat on the quality of its products."
I trust that Mr Scott had checked out that WalMart's tax position was squeaky clean before lecturing his suppliers!
Anyway, it's a good message and heartening to hear it put forcibly in China by what may be Chinese industry's biggest customer.
Friday, 24 October 2008
Fair Trade Cotton demand soaring
With all the news about commodity prices taking off and then some, notably oil, declining, I wondered what might be happening in the cotton markets. Thanks to the internet such information is close to hand.
It would appear that cotton about 35% more expensive now than it was 18 months ago but, surprisingly, costs no more than it did at this time in 2003, its previous peak.
My source is indexmundi.com. Looking at other products I like, over 5 years aribica coffee has increased in price to 250% of it's October 2003 value, bananas 250%, salmon 170% and sugar 240%.
And we see these upward price movements reflected in our shopping bills, although with the producer inevitably getting precious little of what we actually pay, the prices that we see have not moved that greatly. And yes, clothing prices in the High Street have been coming down reflecting the relative stability in the price of cotton.
What made me look at these numbers? It was a little report that I picked up in Images, the trade journal for our promotional clothing industry. According to Images, fairtrade.net reports that "the worldwide demand for fair trade cotton has doubled over the past 12 months".
Despite the obvious growth in the fair trade market, this statistic surprised me so I checked out the original report on the fairtrade site. Indeed, it's true - "Fairtrade cotton farmers have... seen demand for their produce more than double in just one year. During 2007, the sales of items made out of Fairtrade certified cotton, ranging from cotton wool to jeans and towels, surpassed 14 million individual items"
And that's just cotton carrying the Fairtrade label, as opposed to carrying other equally worthy certifications such as WRAP (which clothing supplied by our main supplier Starworld carries).
With all this increase in demand, why have our prices have been relatively stable, always a help in times like these? My conclusion is that more and more suppliers are signing up to the fair trade ethos (a good thing) so that supply is to some extent keeping up with demand. And if the prices have been fair in the past, why should they rise anyway?
In the world of commodities today fairness is not exactly an economic concept which is at the forefront of the mind of a commodity trader short selling, but in the fair trade markets where suppliers (like Starworld) buy locally, and then deal directly with buyers (like us), things are perhaps a little different.
It would appear that cotton about 35% more expensive now than it was 18 months ago but, surprisingly, costs no more than it did at this time in 2003, its previous peak.
My source is indexmundi.com. Looking at other products I like, over 5 years aribica coffee has increased in price to 250% of it's October 2003 value, bananas 250%, salmon 170% and sugar 240%.
And we see these upward price movements reflected in our shopping bills, although with the producer inevitably getting precious little of what we actually pay, the prices that we see have not moved that greatly. And yes, clothing prices in the High Street have been coming down reflecting the relative stability in the price of cotton.
What made me look at these numbers? It was a little report that I picked up in Images, the trade journal for our promotional clothing industry. According to Images, fairtrade.net reports that "the worldwide demand for fair trade cotton has doubled over the past 12 months".
Despite the obvious growth in the fair trade market, this statistic surprised me so I checked out the original report on the fairtrade site. Indeed, it's true - "Fairtrade cotton farmers have... seen demand for their produce more than double in just one year. During 2007, the sales of items made out of Fairtrade certified cotton, ranging from cotton wool to jeans and towels, surpassed 14 million individual items"
And that's just cotton carrying the Fairtrade label, as opposed to carrying other equally worthy certifications such as WRAP (which clothing supplied by our main supplier Starworld carries).
With all this increase in demand, why have our prices have been relatively stable, always a help in times like these? My conclusion is that more and more suppliers are signing up to the fair trade ethos (a good thing) so that supply is to some extent keeping up with demand. And if the prices have been fair in the past, why should they rise anyway?
In the world of commodities today fairness is not exactly an economic concept which is at the forefront of the mind of a commodity trader short selling, but in the fair trade markets where suppliers (like Starworld) buy locally, and then deal directly with buyers (like us), things are perhaps a little different.
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
Get Ethical!
The Christmas shopping season is upon us - it seems it was already there in some shops a couple of months ago - but it is around now when most people start thinking about arrangements for Christmas. I know that my shopping will start on or about 22nd December - but then I am a man!
Pier 32 is a member of Ethical Junction, the UK's premier directory of ethical suppliers. In a new collaboration with Get Ethical, www.getethical.com, the long established online originally started in 2001 by The Big Issue as an impartial portal to the world of online ethical merchandise, all suppliers on Get Ethical are now members of Ethical Junction who help monitor the credentials of the suppliers. So why not start you Christmas shopping experience by exploring what is on offer here?
We don't sell on the site because it's geared up to supplying off the shelf products. But as a fast reliable route to a one off Christmas present it's going to be difficult to beat.
Pier 32 is a member of Ethical Junction, the UK's premier directory of ethical suppliers. In a new collaboration with Get Ethical, www.getethical.com, the long established online originally started in 2001 by The Big Issue as an impartial portal to the world of online ethical merchandise, all suppliers on Get Ethical are now members of Ethical Junction who help monitor the credentials of the suppliers. So why not start you Christmas shopping experience by exploring what is on offer here?
We don't sell on the site because it's geared up to supplying off the shelf products. But as a fast reliable route to a one off Christmas present it's going to be difficult to beat.
Friday, 17 October 2008
A time for courage in marketing.....
Times are tough, we are talking ourselves into a recession. As we will hear often, it will be survival of the fittest. But what makes you fit to survive?
The latest Bellwether survey (just published by the IPA, the Institute of Practioners in Advertising) makes for depressing reading - "in Q3 annual marketing budgets were revised down to the greatest extent ever recorded in the survey’s nine year history". Moray MacLennan, IPA President, said “I doubt these gloomy results will come as a surprise to anyone. In light of current headlines the biggest surprise may well be that 12% of companies’ budgets were revised upwards"
People will go on buying, after all the GDP will probably only fall a percent or two before we claw back again. But that percent or two will shake out some under-performers and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that a major contribution to failure is a lack of courage in maintaining marketing spend. In fact, when competition to get a new customer increases, can it make more sense to increase marketing spend?
So returning to the 12% spending more, what evidence is there to suggest that increasing their marketing budget is a good thing? I've done a bit of digging:
The Smeal College of Business conducted a survey in 2005 called "Turning Adversity Into Advantage: Does Proactive Marketing During a Recession Pay Off?" The survey interviewed more than 150 senior marketing executives from a variety of industries about the effect of the last US recession in 2003. It found "firms entering a recession with a pre-established strategic emphasis on marketing; an entrepreneurial culture; and a sufficient reserve of under-utilized workers, cash, and spare production capacity are best positioned to approach recessions as opportunities to strengthen their competitive advantage". Dr. Gary Lilien, one of the authors of the study is interviewed at the BNET Intercom blog. It seems that spending more will not work for everyone but if the existing culture is to value marketing, the nerve is there and you have the capital to give you the confidence to do it, then the outcome from the last recession suggests that increased marketing in a recession substantially strengthens the relative competitive position when coming out of it.
A well written piece by Millward Brown entitled "Marketing During Recession: To spend or not to spend" highlights anecdotal and survey evidence that cutting back on marketing is often a bad idea. He highlights an IPA analysis that suggests that "While companies that cut marketing spend enjoyed superior Return on Capital Employed during the recession, they achieved inferior results after the recession ended. During the recovery, the “spenders” achieved significantly higher return on capital employed and gained an additional 1.3 percentage points of market share." What's going on? Well, among other factors, cutting costs almost inevitably increases profitability in the short term, but if you keep marketing the brand during the recession then the relative profile of your brand increases. You can gain a brand advantage and then when there is more money available more of it is spent in your direction.
And here's some commentary on a report by media and communications group Carat: "the main point ... .. is that maintaining a marketing presence during economic downturns pays big dividends when better times return".
The message being repeated is that bold but wise spending on marketing becomes an investment in market share, that pulls in custom now but comes into its own when we emerge from recession. Much of the expenditure of the companies that showed post recession gains must have been on confidently marketing their brands. A longer term strategy winning out over the temptation to go short term cost cutting.
The latest Bellwether survey (just published by the IPA, the Institute of Practioners in Advertising) makes for depressing reading - "in Q3 annual marketing budgets were revised down to the greatest extent ever recorded in the survey’s nine year history". Moray MacLennan, IPA President, said “I doubt these gloomy results will come as a surprise to anyone. In light of current headlines the biggest surprise may well be that 12% of companies’ budgets were revised upwards"
People will go on buying, after all the GDP will probably only fall a percent or two before we claw back again. But that percent or two will shake out some under-performers and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that a major contribution to failure is a lack of courage in maintaining marketing spend. In fact, when competition to get a new customer increases, can it make more sense to increase marketing spend?
So returning to the 12% spending more, what evidence is there to suggest that increasing their marketing budget is a good thing? I've done a bit of digging:
The Smeal College of Business conducted a survey in 2005 called "Turning Adversity Into Advantage: Does Proactive Marketing During a Recession Pay Off?" The survey interviewed more than 150 senior marketing executives from a variety of industries about the effect of the last US recession in 2003. It found "firms entering a recession with a pre-established strategic emphasis on marketing; an entrepreneurial culture; and a sufficient reserve of under-utilized workers, cash, and spare production capacity are best positioned to approach recessions as opportunities to strengthen their competitive advantage". Dr. Gary Lilien, one of the authors of the study is interviewed at the BNET Intercom blog. It seems that spending more will not work for everyone but if the existing culture is to value marketing, the nerve is there and you have the capital to give you the confidence to do it, then the outcome from the last recession suggests that increased marketing in a recession substantially strengthens the relative competitive position when coming out of it.
A well written piece by Millward Brown entitled "Marketing During Recession: To spend or not to spend" highlights anecdotal and survey evidence that cutting back on marketing is often a bad idea. He highlights an IPA analysis that suggests that "While companies that cut marketing spend enjoyed superior Return on Capital Employed during the recession, they achieved inferior results after the recession ended. During the recovery, the “spenders” achieved significantly higher return on capital employed and gained an additional 1.3 percentage points of market share." What's going on? Well, among other factors, cutting costs almost inevitably increases profitability in the short term, but if you keep marketing the brand during the recession then the relative profile of your brand increases. You can gain a brand advantage and then when there is more money available more of it is spent in your direction.
And here's some commentary on a report by media and communications group Carat: "the main point ... .. is that maintaining a marketing presence during economic downturns pays big dividends when better times return".
The message being repeated is that bold but wise spending on marketing becomes an investment in market share, that pulls in custom now but comes into its own when we emerge from recession. Much of the expenditure of the companies that showed post recession gains must have been on confidently marketing their brands. A longer term strategy winning out over the temptation to go short term cost cutting.
Tuesday, 14 October 2008
Pick your cotton carefully!
It's good to see a conference being organised to highlight issues in the supply of cotton for clothing. We've already featured the use of child labour in Kazakhstan in this blog - follow the 'cotton industry' label below for more articles - and this conference seeks to pick up this issue and others such as the use of pesticide and fair trade.
To present the issues, speakers will include representatives from Pesticide Action Network UK, Action Aid, Traidcraft and the International Fair Trade Association.
The conference is at Southampton Solent University on Saturday 25 October - click here for a .pdf with full details or view the Southampton Fair Trade Group website.
Aside from the discussions, there will be a Cotton fair displaying organic fairly traded garments and displays illustrating the history of the cotton industry and working displays of spinning and hand-loom weaving.
To present the issues, speakers will include representatives from Pesticide Action Network UK, Action Aid, Traidcraft and the International Fair Trade Association.
The conference is at Southampton Solent University on Saturday 25 October - click here for a .pdf with full details or view the Southampton Fair Trade Group website.
Aside from the discussions, there will be a Cotton fair displaying organic fairly traded garments and displays illustrating the history of the cotton industry and working displays of spinning and hand-loom weaving.
Monday, 29 September 2008
Ethical Brand Profile - Continental
Continental, alongside Starworld, are the names behind the two promotional clothing ranges who supply direct to Pier 32. Almost all the other brands that we have been reviewing in our Ethical Brand Profiles are supplied to us through an intermediary distributor. Starworld's ethical credentials have been the subject of many articles in this blog; Continental have featured too - but we have not yet completed a Brand Profile - so with no further ado.....
Continental go about presenting their products in a modern, polished manner. Instantly from the home page of their website there is a green environmental message coming across is all the branding. We have already featured in this blog their EarthPositive range featuring their Climate Neutral clothing collection, their role in campaigning against the exploitation of child labour in the cotton fields of Uzbekistan, the positive aspects of using organic cotton in conversion, and the eco-friendly luxury of the bamboo t-shirt.
This paints the background of a company with high eco-friendly standards. They are a private company and their UK based founders feature prominently in the various initiatives which they have followed. While their Climate Neutral clothing range directly using natural energy in its production, the rest of the company's activities are certified as Carbon Neutral by an independent monitor as a result of carbon offsetting.
Independent monitoring of their environmental claims is very evident with Oeko-Tex certification, their main line of organic t-shirts are certified organic by Skal and carry the organisation's EKO symbol and last but by no means least, their Earth Positive range is certified organic by the Soil Association.
What you get in terms of environmental impact very much depends on which brand line you go for. To concentrate on their mainstream range, "Continental Collection", and moving away from their Skal certified organic range that is part of that collection, what you get here is a t-shirt made from organic cotton in conversion. Follow the link for more information.
So there is the environment looking good. What about ethical, free trade issues? Here things are not quite so clear from the website. The supply chain of the EarthPositive range is stated to be Fair Wear foundation accredited. The same applies to the Eco Apparel range within the unbranded "Private Label" service. What about the rest? Our conclusion is that Continental have messed up their presentation
The Fair Wear Foundation website lists all its members and there you will find details of Continental. The message confirms our own long standing understanding that Continental products are manufactured in a factory in Turkey and that factory is monitored by the Fair Wear Foundation. With Continental's concern for the environment and their campaigning on child labour issue, it would have been most surprising to have discovered a chink in their ethical armour.
Know any different? Let us know!
Wednesday, 10 September 2008
Starworld WRAP it up
Although we offer a huge range of options, the majority of the t-shirts that we print are supplied by Starworld who manufacture the shirts in Egypt. We like Starworld because of the price and the high ethical standards under which they operate. They don't just boast about standards using flowery language, they back up their position with independent certification from a range of sources.
The Oeko-Tex 100 certification means that a whole range of harmful chemicals are not used in the production process. The quality management systems are certified to the ISO 9001 standard. The organic t-shirts are certified organic by Skal to the Global Organic Textiles Standard and carry the organisation's EKO symbol.
Now Starworld are certified by WRAP (Worldwide Responsible Accredited Production). WRAP is a not for profit organisation based in the USA with an office in Hong Kong dedicated to promoting humane, ethical, and lawful conditions and practices in manufacturing facilities all over the world.
The organisation achieves this in two ways. First, the Certification Program certifies individual factories for compliance with WRAP's principles and procedures concerning, fair pay, workers' dignity, safe and secure conditions, and environmental impact. The Apparel Certification Program has operated since 2000; programs for other industries will be added in the future. Second, various training programs educate workers, factory managers, government inspectors, and others about issues related to global supply chains and their workers.
The WRAP website sets out here what gives their certification integrity. The certificate, which covers all the areas of the Starworld Ethical Policy Statement, and goes further, means that Starworld can be relied on to actually be following the high standards they set themselves - "Our compliance with the WRAP standards is just the beginning is just the beginning of our commitment to our employees and the environment. We have developed a wide range of initiatives that greatly reduce our impact on the planet and contribute positively to the well-being of our workers and the local community"
We'd like to highlight the vertical integration of Starworld. The whole production process is carried out by Starworld and its employees. Pier32 buys direct and that means our customers get the best value while the new WRAP certification means that we have ever growing confidence about the ethics of our supply chain.
Monday, 1 September 2008
Ethical brand profile - Regatta
Regatta supplies clothing for the "great outdoors" - going beyond t-shirts, through weather protection clothing for those occasionally active outdoors, to high performance clothing for "high-energy activities". And it supplies these in ranges for men, women and children. There's also a specific corporate clothing website http://www.regattacorporatewear.com/
Right on the homepage of its main website is the prominent image link to their ethical trading policy, available for viewing as a .pdf. Regatta is part of a bigger group that includes popular brands for British mail order or High Street shoppers such as Hawkshead and Craghoppers. The ethical trading policy covers all their brands.
Most of the clothing is supplied from Asia (although it's not clear where) and there's a focus on 'the worker' in what is presented. "We feel very strongly that workers in factories are treated fairly and are better off through working with us than they were before."
Moving into the detail, it's a little confusing as to what's going on. There's a Policy section which sets out that Regatta require visual inspections of factories and conduct interviews with managers and workers. Then there's an audit section which says "In addition to our own Ethical Trading policy, we also use a recognised third party organisation that carries out strict ethical inspections." So there's a suggestion of a 2 tier approach - regatta monitoring and 3rd party monitoring - but it's not quite clear that this is indeed the case. It may be that the audit of the policy is in the hands of third parties only.
The audit is carried out by a "recognised leader in its field" but Regatta aren't telling us who! But we should not nit pic because Regatta do go rather further than many and the ethical code that is presented is as good as most.
One area where these ethical codes can break down (as highlighted in recent television coverage of Primark) is where some work on the clothing being produced is being carried out in sweatshop conditions outside the confines of the factory being audited. The possibilities of abuses in sub contracting further down the supply chain is something which does not feature in policies which centre on auditing factories. We think that it would be better if the full supply chain for a particular garment was audited - however the nature of what Regatta sell probably means that the whole manufacturing process occurs in one place.
Unlike some bigger companies such as Adidas, Regatta do not publish the results of the audit process. Again it may seem like nit picking for what appears to be a fairly well sorted company, but it's through comment on this sort of thing that standards get pushed even further forward.
Switching to environmental issues, the Regatta brochures highlight the wide range of performance fabrics used in their clothing - 'Polartec', 'Isotex' and 'Isolite' being examples. Curiously there seems to be no specific mention of the impact of production on the environment, which is disappointing.
Right on the homepage of its main website is the prominent image link to their ethical trading policy, available for viewing as a .pdf. Regatta is part of a bigger group that includes popular brands for British mail order or High Street shoppers such as Hawkshead and Craghoppers. The ethical trading policy covers all their brands.
Most of the clothing is supplied from Asia (although it's not clear where) and there's a focus on 'the worker' in what is presented. "We feel very strongly that workers in factories are treated fairly and are better off through working with us than they were before."
Moving into the detail, it's a little confusing as to what's going on. There's a Policy section which sets out that Regatta require visual inspections of factories and conduct interviews with managers and workers. Then there's an audit section which says "In addition to our own Ethical Trading policy, we also use a recognised third party organisation that carries out strict ethical inspections." So there's a suggestion of a 2 tier approach - regatta monitoring and 3rd party monitoring - but it's not quite clear that this is indeed the case. It may be that the audit of the policy is in the hands of third parties only.
The audit is carried out by a "recognised leader in its field" but Regatta aren't telling us who! But we should not nit pic because Regatta do go rather further than many and the ethical code that is presented is as good as most.
One area where these ethical codes can break down (as highlighted in recent television coverage of Primark) is where some work on the clothing being produced is being carried out in sweatshop conditions outside the confines of the factory being audited. The possibilities of abuses in sub contracting further down the supply chain is something which does not feature in policies which centre on auditing factories. We think that it would be better if the full supply chain for a particular garment was audited - however the nature of what Regatta sell probably means that the whole manufacturing process occurs in one place.
Unlike some bigger companies such as Adidas, Regatta do not publish the results of the audit process. Again it may seem like nit picking for what appears to be a fairly well sorted company, but it's through comment on this sort of thing that standards get pushed even further forward.
Switching to environmental issues, the Regatta brochures highlight the wide range of performance fabrics used in their clothing - 'Polartec', 'Isotex' and 'Isolite' being examples. Curiously there seems to be no specific mention of the impact of production on the environment, which is disappointing.
Thursday, 28 August 2008
Back in action....
Yes, there's not been a blog article for a while! It's not that things slow down in the summer months, if anything with the profusion of outdoor events it gets busier, but we have been getting in our own holidays and making significant changes to the web site as well. But things are settling down now and we intend to be blogging again on a regular basis.
So what are the changes on the website? They are aimed at making life easier for our customers through amendments to the site that make it simpler to use and by providing more information in a cleaner, clearer way....
So what are the changes on the website? They are aimed at making life easier for our customers through amendments to the site that make it simpler to use and by providing more information in a cleaner, clearer way....
- There's a new cleaner home page design; we've reduced the number of navigation links and this makes it easier for customers to head off in the right direction
- We've introduced the Quick Quote facility which allows customers to answer a minimum of questions about what they want, and send us an artwork sample, so we can get back to them with a clear t-shirt printing quote within a working day
- We'd provided new pages setting out information such as what exactly we need in the way of artwork and segmented lots of information that previously used to be on a single page
- We've set up a new section to deal with the Earth Positive range of climate neutral t-shirts
- We've reduced the clutter from our banner to give you a more soothing fluffy blue sky experience (just like the blog has always been!).
- And, finally, you navigate from page to page using our new extended menu system that, yes, works not only in Internet Explorer but also in Firefox and far more obscure browsers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)