Destination Zero - Greenpeace

Aug 02, 2011Aug 11, 2011Aug 12, 2011Aug 17, 2011Aug 19, 2011Aug 23, 2011Design competition50.000 people sign the petitionand ask for a toxic-free futurePeople Power in ShanghaiDetox Commitment, NikePeople Power against adidasReport - Dirty Laundry 2; Hung Out to DryThousands of people join the cause inNike pledges to phase out allActivists around the world rebrandGreenpeace releases new research that revealsShanghai and show off their Detox tattoos.hazardous chemicals until 2020.adidas stores with huge “Detox”how major clothing brands use nonylphenolstickers.ethoxylates (NPEs), which subsequentlyPeople redesign logos of Nike andAdidas to reflect their toxic practices.break down to form toxic substances, in theirmanufacturing.2. Introduction Athit Perawongmetha / Greenpeacecommercial subcontractors but further upthe supply chain where hazardous chemicalsare used and most of the pollution happens.Confronted with the reality of insufficientchemical management practices on theground, brands have often had to build thenecessary capacity from scratch by providingtraining and technical assistance.chemical formulas. Despite this, the eliminationof hazardous PFCs, one of the key chemicalgroups highlighted by our campaign, has beenachieved by most Detox companies, with 72%reporting that their complete elimination fromproducts has been achieved, while all havemade significant progress.Going forwardThis involvement changes everything; itbecomes obvious that establishing longterm relationships with suppliers is the key toreaping the benefits of investments in cleaningup the manufacturing supply chain. So whiletransparency was already a pillar of Detox, withbrands required to publicly report upon theirprogress and to ensure that a growing fractionof their suppliers publish wastewater testingresults, it was a natural step to also disclosetheir list of suppliers - with some showingbest practice by sharing 3 tiers of their supplychain list, while a few are already committed toinclude the earlier stages of fibre production.The substitution solutionThrough questioning the use of hazardouschemicals, companies discovered thatsome uses were not required or weresimply gimmicks with a disproportionateenvironmental cost. However, for a lot of uses, ithas been necessary to find replacements. Weare told that substituting these chemicals canbe a difficult exercise, with the main barriersbeing the cost, availability and robustness ofalternatives, the need for proper assessmentto avoid “regrettable substitution”, the lack ofrecognition and assistance from regulators,and the chemical industry, which still does notbear the burden of proof for the safety of their6A lot more still needs to be done leading upto 2020. Companies report many technicalchallenges but also point to the need forpolicy-makers, in the EU and countries ofmanufacture, to take responsibility andtranslate the best practice into regulation.The chemical industry also needs to be moretransparent on the formulations they provide,develop safer alternatives and further reduceunintentional contaminants.The collective progress made by the Detoxcompanies means there is now no excusefor the whole textile industry, or any otherindustrial sector, not to endorse and implementDetox. Fashion is at the crossroads, withhuge environmental impacts and many morechallenges than just hazardous chemicals.However, with the circular economy the newbuzzword within the sector, Detox companiesagree with us, circularity cannot happenwithout designing out harmful substances asan absolute prerequisite.This report tells the story of the Detoxcampaign, its supporters, the organisationsnow involved in implementing Detox, itsimpacts on policy and how it is transformingthe clothing industry.2011: the textiles industry is a major user ofhazardous chemicals 1 and industrial polluterof freshwater worldwide.2 For many yearslocal communities in the Global South havewitnessed multi-coloured rivers, as a result ofeffluent from the dyeing and processing ofclothes for global clothing brands. Yet mostbrands are not clearly associated with thispollution of rivers and waterways, nor dothey take responsibility for the problem. Thecolourful effluents hide an even more seriousand sometimes invisible problem - hazardouschemicals - some of which are already knownto cause cancer or disrupt hormonal systemsin humans and/or animals. With insufficientcontrol from local authorities, these effluents arepolluting freshwater resources and eventuallythe ocean - in some cases leading to the buildup of hazardous chemicals in the food chain 3 and impacting the health and livelihoods of localcommunities in the Global South.4A pattern of pollution - from the North to theSouthFor decades, factories from all industrialsectors, especially in Europe and North Americaused rivers and waterways as a convenientdumping ground for their waste, often leaving ahuge and costly legacy of hazardous chemicalcontamination.5 The prevailing mindset thattoxic pollution could be diluted and dispersedin the environment was widely held by many inindustry and governments. Only after years ofcampaigning by the environmental movementdid legislators and companies begin to shifttowards a more precautionary approach wherehazardous chemicals are banned or restricted.In 1998 the global Stockholm Convention wasagreed, which banned the most well-knownhazardous and persistent chemicals,6 while5 Greenpeace / Cris Toala Olivares

Aug 31, 2011Sep 13, 2011Sep 20, 2011Oct 25, 2011Detox Commitment, adidasPeople power calling on H&MDetox Commitment, H&MH&M kicks off transparency revolutionThanks to global people power, theH&M pledges to publish information aboutH&M publishes a detailed version of their Restricted Substances List on their website,sportswear giant accepts the Detoxchemicals released from the factories of itsa small step that represents the beginning of a transparency revolution that is set tochallenge and joins Puma and Nike on thesuppliers and to eliminate the use and releasesweep the fashion sector.journey to a toxic-free future.of all hazardous chemicals from its supply chainby 2020. Greenpeace / Ludvig Tillmanmore comprehensive legislation designed totarget the multitude of hazardous chemicalvillains being made and used within the EUwas agreed in 2006, when the EU adoptedits REACH regulation.7 This regulation wassupported by several global clothing brands,conscious of a heightened level of consumerawareness in Europe on the issue of hazardouschemicals in products. However, these positiveregulatory developments are slow to come intoforce, still contain loopholes, are just starting toaddress the problem of numerous unregulatedhazardous chemicals,8 and still do not drive theidentification of safer alternatives.In the meantime, much of the industrialmanufacturing that had caused the hazardouschemical problem had already been outsourcedto countries in the Global South. Was thetextiles industry replicating its familiar patternof “pollution by dilution” in these countries?In 2011 Greenpeace launched the “Detox MyFashion” campaign to reveal the problem. Wefollowed the toxic trail, from the end of the pipe,back to the factories making our clothes, tothe international clothing brands using thesefactories to make their products, which havethe power to change the system and Detox ourfuture.This report shows how people power helped toshine a light on this unacknowledged problem,persuading brands and companies to step upto the Detox challenge by committing to zerodischarges of hazardous chemicals by 2020.It charts the progress that has been madesince then and asks: is this the beginning of atransformation of the clothing industry?3. On the Detox trailStarting at the end of the pipe, Greenpeaceinvestigators sampled the effluent of twolarge textiles suppliers in China, the largesttextile manufacturing hub in the world.9Because discharging wastewater at nightto avoid monitoring by the regulatoryauthorities is a well-known practice, we tooksamples during the day and the night. Wescreened the samples and looked for wellknown hazardous and persistent chemicals,some of which were already regulated bymany industrialised countries (see Box 1), tosee if textile factories in China were usingand discharging them into waterways. Wefound a wide range of hazardous chemicalsincluding alkylphenols - banned for usein textile manufacturing in Europe - werebeing discharged into rivers, as well asperfluorinated chemicals (PFCs). The problemof these unseen chemicals was not beingsolved by the modern wastewater treatmentplants installed at both the facilities, whichcannot ‘treat’ many persistent hazardouschemicals; the only option is to tackle suchchemicals at their source – by going for zerouse. Our investigators then traced the chainof custody back to the global sportswearbrands making their clothes at these facilities- and confronted them with the evidence fromthe end of the pipes.Greenpeace’s call for corporate responsibility– and the corresponding demand fortransparency on the discharge of hazardouschemicals by factories – was greeted by manyin the industry with scepticism.10 However,many thousands of people supported ourcampaign by urging the sports brands toact, in the first of many creative actionsand petitions by citizens motivated to jointhe Detox campaign. As a result, Pumabecame the first brand to sign up to a “Detoxcommitment” to eliminate the discharge ofALL hazardous chemicals by 2020 (see Box1). It was soon followed by Nike and adidas,despite their initial reluctance. Not long after,H&M became the first of many fashion brandsto commit to Detox.Almost immediately following the launch of thecampaign, the industry responded collectivelyby creating the ZDHC (Zero Discharges ofHazardous Chemicals) group in 2011 to providea coordinated response to the campaign andenable collaboration of the brands (see Box 6,ZDHC).We challenged global sportswear giants tobecome the first clean water champions - bytaking responsibility for their supply chainpollution and aiming for zero discharges of allhazardous chemicals from their productionprocesses.Figure 1: The elements of Detox (see Annex 1 for further details)89

Hati Kecil Visuals / Greenpeace

Box 1 - The Detox CommitmentBox 2 - ChinaBrands signing the Greenpeace Detox Commitment implement preventive and precautionary action on chemicals, by setting goals toeliminate hazardous chemicals in manufacturing.A large hot, smelly “black swirl” marks the point where a hugeunderwater pipe pumping effluent from a big industrial park,The key elements of the Detox Commitment are: Chemicals management - specifically setting a Manufacturing Restricted Substances List, or M-RSL, which initially focussed on 11priority hazardous chemical groups (see table 1) and testing for them in wastewater discharges and sludge. Transparency - of the wastewater and sludge testing results, to be published by the supplier on an online platform, and the publicationof suppliers lists to include wet processing (washing and dyeing) suppliers (Tier 2/3). Substitution and elimination - with a particular focus on alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEs), per- and polyfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) andphthalatesbubbles up under the tidal estuary of the Qiantang River inZhejiang Province. The sheer scale of the pollution in this areais shocking, even for our team in East Asia that had spent manyyears working on the issue.As the major manufacturing hub of the global textile industry,China was a natural starting point for the Detox campaign.The scale of the problem that confronted our investigatorsTable 1: The 11 priority hazardous chemical groups and examples of uses and hazardswas immense and the Greenpeace campaign highlightedmany different pollution stories over the years. The ‘blackCHEMICAL VILLAINS - the 11 priority hazardouschemical groups: 11Examples of uses /functions1. Alkylphenols/alkylphenol ethoxylates(APs/APEs), including nonylphenols/nonylphenolethoxylates (NPs/NPEs)Detergents and auxiliaries2. PhthalatesSofteners in plastic coatings3. Brominated and chlorinated flame retardants(BFRs, CFRs)Fire retardant textiles4. Azo dyes with cleavable carcinogenic aminesDyes and colourants5. Organotin compounds6. Per- and polyfluorinated chemicals (PFCs)7. Chlorobenzenes8. Chlorinated solvents9. Chlorophenols10. Short chain chlorinated paraffins11. Heavy metals: cadmium, lead, mercury andchromium (VI).1212Antibacterial and anti-mould agents;Water-, oil-, stain- resistant coatingsCarriersCarriers/solventsAntibacterial and anti-mould agentsFlame retardant & finishing agentDyes and colourants; additives in someplastic coatingsExamples of hazards to environment and human health (seenote*) and relevant regulationAPs: toxic to aquatic life, persistence, bioaccumulation,endocrine disruptors. Heavily regulated in the EU.Some phthalates are classed as reprotoxic, others are knownfor other types of toxicity. Under EU REACH legislation manyphthalates are listed as Substance of Very High Concern. 13Many are persistent and bioaccumulative. Some PBDEs areendocrine disruptors and are banned under EU law.Release chemicals known as aromatic amines, which arecarcinogenic for these azo dyes. Banned by the EU in textilesthat come into contact with human skin.Some organotins are persistent, bioaccumulative, andcan affect immune and reproductive systems. Consumerproducts containing more than 0.1% of some organotincompounds are banned in the EU.Many PFCs are persistent and bioaccumulative. Some canaffect the liver or act as endocrine disruptors, altering levelsof growth and reproductive hormones.Persistent, some are bioaccumulative, commonly affect theliver, thyroid and central nervous system; HCB is an endocrinedisruptor.Effects vary from chemical to chemical: potential healtheffects include central nervous system, reproductive, liver,and kidney toxicity, and carcinogenicity.14 Regulationsinclude a severe restriction on the use of TCE in the EU inboth products and fabric cleaningPCP (penta chlorophenol) is highly toxic to humans and canaffect many organs in the body. It is highly toxic to aquaticorganisms. The EU banned production of PCP-containingproducts in 1991.Highly toxic to aquatic organisms, persistent,bioaccumulative. Their use has been restricted in someapplications in the EU since 2004.Some can bioaccumulate in the body over time and arehighly toxic, with irreversible effects including damageto the nervous system (lead and mercury) or the kidneys(cadmium). Cadmium is also known to cause cancer.From the pipe to the product - and backagainswirl’ symbolised one of the biggest problems that confrontedus - unravelling the sources of pollution coming from largeindustrial parks, where effluent from numerous factories wasmixed together and discharged into one communal wastewaterSo, hazardous chemicals were proven to bereleased into rivers from two factories, butwas this an isolated example of bad practiceor more widespread? To establish the scaleof the problem Greenpeace took samplesof the clothing and footwear sold by globalbrands from 18 countries around the world.Our scientists found alkylphenol ethoxylates(APEs) in two thirds of the clothing orfootwear articles tested.15 This proved thatthey were being used during manufacturing,that the practice was widespread and thattherefore the discharge of APEs into riversand waterways in the Global South wasinevitably taking place on a large scale. Adouble standard was exposed: the use ofAPEs in manufacturing was already outlawedin the EU.treatment plant. This made it impossible to connect hazardouschemicals in the discharge directly to any individual factory inthe area, where one third of China’s textile dyeing and printingtakes place, let alone link this to global brands.So, to shine a light on this problem, Greenpeace released sampleresults from the “black swirl”, which showed hormone disruptingand cancer causing chemicals were being discharged. 18 Towitness the pollution we placed mannequins wearing the Detoxlogo (meaning “water” in Chinese), fitted with cameras. Wearingprotective gear the team entered the hot, smelly, dirty water andwere able to secure the mannequins down. Then, at the pressconference in Beijing where Greenpeace released its report, welive streamed footage of the scene of the environmental crimedirectly to a room full of shocked journalists.There was a big increase in public awareness about hazardouschemicals and water pollution as a result of Greenpeace’s workto reveal the truth. Water pollution issues rose up the policyagenda, accelerating the development of industrial standardson the Textile industry in 2012, 19 ensuring that stricter chemicalscontrols were applied to textiles manufacturing in China’s 5In an ironic twist, we also revealed the scandalof these hazardous chemicals still finding theirway back into rivers and waterways in the EUand elsewhere - after the clothes were soldand washed in customer’s washing machines,and then released into rivers from the publicwastewater treatment plants that cannotdeal with them.16 This revelation exposeda serious loophole in the EU’s REACHregulation, one that was closed three yearslater when EU member states voted to banthe toxic chemical NPE from textile imports,in a significant victory for the campaign.17 Ityear plan in 2013, 20 and leading to the release of transparency(PRTR) regulation in 2012, which was later revoked, reportedlydue to lack of implementation capacity, a step backwards forthe efforts of brands and suppliers working to Detox in China.21The industrial standards were also weakened at a later date, butnevertheless different brands and suppliers are now workingtogether through platforms such as the ZDHC, to achieve theirDetox commitments. The collaboration and progress made bymany suppliers has been evident at industry conferences via theChina National Textile & Apparel Council (CNTAC), which inturn is influencing policy makers. A shift to cleaner productionis also apparent in reports about recent interventions by theChinese Government to clean up and close down pollutingfactories, including textiles facilities, as part of a major drive toaddress air and water pollution from all industries in China. 2213

Nov 21, 2011Nov 21, 2011Jan 11, 2012March 25, 2012ZDHC Joint Roadmap launchedDetox Commitment, C&A andLi-NingPhilippines bill against toxic pollutantsReport - Dirty Laundry - ReloadedGreenpeace tests outdoor clothes for PFCsThe Detox campaign leads to Senator Miriam Defensor-New research uncovers how chemicals used by global fashion brands are releasedOur research finds environmentally damaging toxins (perfluorinatedSantiago filing a bill against toxic pollutersinto waterways when consumers wash their clothes in ordinary washing machines.chemicals or PFCs) in all 14 tested rain jackets and pants. Alanah Torralba / Greenpeace Alex Stoneman / Greenpeace Kajsa Sjölander / GreenpeaceC&A and Li-Ning team up withAdidas, Nike, Puma and H&MOct, 2012to launch a joint roadmapdesigned to tackle toxic pollutionby the fashion industry - theZero Discharges of HazardousChemicalsalso showed that we cannot use persistentand hazardous chemicals to manufacture aproduct in one part of the world and expectthe problem not to appear in other regions- especially when brands perpetuate thisproblem by continually shifting productionto countries with lower labour costs andenvironmental regulations. These findingssupported our main campaign demand:instead of attempting to clean up effluent,wherever that may be, we need to stop usinghazardous chemicals to make ou

and suppliers, from fashion and sportswear, to luxury, multiple retailers and the outdoor sector: after intensive efforts to implement their commitments, we wanted to see how far they have come. As we draw closer to the 2020 deadline for achieving zero discharges, for the first time, Greenpeace has assembled the collective achievements of Detox