Green Giant
Eco consultant Lynda Grose stays at the forefront of sustainable fashion
If ever there were a right time to be an “eco consultant,” it is now. Yet that’s not what Lynda Grose calls herself; she prefers “designer and consultant with a focus on sustainability.”
The British native, who studied fashion design at Kingston University in London and currently lives in Marin County, Calif., has been sustaining a passion for environmentally aware apparel manufacturing for 20 years. As head of the Ecollection at Esprit in the early ’90s, Grose brought to market the first corporate, internationally marketed eco-friendly apparel collection.
Since 1995, she has consulted with both major corporations and nonprofit organizations on how to “green” their practices (though she doesn’t like “green” as a verb or an adjective), while teaching sustainable fashion design at the California College of Arts in San Francisco.
The California Apparel News spoke with Grose about her pioneering work at Esprit, her current projects, her classes on sustainability for young designers, and her advice on what both companies and “end users” (she doesn’t like the word “consumer” either) can do to help the planet.
CAN: Why don’t you like the term “green”?LG: It is a marketing term rather than descriptive of a real environmental benefit. “Green” doesn’t explain what the specific benefit is. It therefore misses an opportunity to inform the end user so they can make educated decisions about the product they are purchasing.
“Environmentally friendly” and “sustainable” are other terms that are in the same category. “Environmental/social advancements” is a more honest term.
Nothing we do in making products is currently “sustainable”—everything has a social and ecological impact. Yvon Chouinard of Patagonia admits this about his company’s products.
I favor calling out specific advancements that relate to ecological issues that are tracked by scientists so everyone uses the same language and understands where we are and how far there is yet to go. For example, “This product reduces global warming emissions because ... ” or, “This product reduces toxicity because ... ”CAN: What did you learn about sustainability and fashion during your tenure at Esprit?LG: In the late ’80s, owner Doug Tompkins realized that ecology would be an integral part of business in the future and set up several programs at the company to influence all employees. These included a “be-informed” lecture series of brown-bag lunch sessions that played host to major environmentalists. He also set up an eco desk with an environmentalist available to employees on a daily basis and an “eco audit” of the company. CAN: What did that entail?LG: We were primarily looking to reduce the impact of the operations of the company. But as a designer on the eco-audit team, I started to apply the content of the lectures and eco audit to product design and development. This research culminated in the launch of Esprit’s Ecollection line, which debuted in the spring of 1992.CAN: What were some of the changes the company made?LG: In the late ’80s, Esprit’s look was bright and fun and youthful, with lots of brightly colored plastic hangtags and packaging for shoeboxes. But that all changed as we implemented the eco audit.
Our packaging became brown paper with soy-based inks—a huge shift in aesthetics at the time. We also switched to energy-efficient light bulbs [and] low-flow faucets and eliminated plastic hangers on shipped products. We also ran advertisements in the Utne Reader with a plea for responsible consumption and ran messages throughout our children’s catalogues, such as, “Please leave to us an Antarctic world park.”CAN: Why did Ecollection only last for three years?LG: At the time, Esprit was going through a difficult period. The Gap was becoming very strong. With changes of ownership and so forth, lines that were making less profit were cut. Ecollection involved a lot of research and development, which was carried through to the cost of the garments rather than being amortized over the regular businesses. So as a change of ownership and support for the concept shifted, it was cut. Ecollection was a $6 million business at the time.CAN: What made it sustainable?LG: I like to say “ecologically advanced materials and processes” because I’m not sure adding another clothing line is “sustainable.”
We were focused primarily on substituting higher-impact materials and processes with more-benign ones. So we had organic-cotton knits and wovens, organic wool, and organic linen.
We were also the first to promote non-electroplated hardware, once we discovered the toxic waste that comes from the process. We also coined the term “low-impact dyes” after looking at energy use and temperature, water use, and the dyestuffs in fabrics. We used fiber-reactive dyestuffs from Ciba Geigy on a cold-pad, batch-dye system.
Our garments were also made in the U.S., and we had artisan cooperative products, such as recycled glass buttons, which we imported through Aid to Artisans. CAN: So you were a real pioneer in sustainable fashion.LG: It was the first “sustainable” collection marketed internationally by a large corporation, and we worked with the Texas Department of Agriculture to craft standards for organic fabrics, which were subsequently folded into the Global Organic Textile Standards (GOTS).CAN: Why has it taken so long for the green trend to catch on, given that you were doing this 15 years ago? And you must already be thinking about what will happen when the current trend fades.LG: To answer this, it helps to separate long-term trends from short-term ones. Long-term trends are essentially shifts in culture, and by their nature they take a long time. There has to be an increase in awareness, then a connection of awareness to behaviors, then a shift in behavior.
In the early ’90s, we had just come out of the Alar scare on apples and the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Earth Day 1990 was well publicized and attended. The “Green Consumer Guide” was featured in the pages of Elle. This was the context for the short-term eco-fashion trend in the early ’90s.
Products were largely unbleached and undyed. Even though Esprit was using low-impact dyes, we also had to make some unbleached garments because it was expected of an eco line. So when the aesthetic is that extreme, of course, the short-term fashion pendulum swings back, and, sure enough, the mid-’90s heralded the arrival of polyester microfibers and fluorescent colors.
In the meantime, the long-term cultural shift was still building. While there were few eco lines through the mid-’90s, we still worked out of the retail limelight to institutionalize change. National organic standards were developed and have now become GOTS standards. Organic cotton was blended with conventional to help bring prices to workable levels. More retailers, mills and spinners became involved. Lifecycle analysis emerged as a tool to help us assess impacts of our products. “Cradle to Cradle” [by William McDonough and Michael Braungart] was published and widened our vision from materials to cycles. The Organic Exchange was formed. The Prius car was an enormous success.
Now the fashion trend has surfaced again, but this time it is more sophisticated and the infrastructure more robust. Our understanding of sustainability is broadening and deepening, and so the aesthetic is more varied and not so extreme.
So I don’t see the short-term pendulum swinging as far as it did in the mid-’90s, and the long-term trend is here to stay. There’s a huge cultural shift happening.CAN: And how is that shift manifesting in the apparel industry, and what are the pros and cons of it?LG: Fashion touches everyone, so it is great that the apparel industry is promoting sustainability. It raises the profile of the movement and brings awareness mainstream.
I do, however, see companies developing “eco lines” to increase sales, rather than changing their regular businesses at a deep level. Some companies research their ecological impact and institute changes. But many follow the market and miss why a given fabric or process is more ecologically advanced than another. CAN: You say that business as usual needs to change. What exactly needs to change?LG: Changing the materials of the product is only part of the picture. We have an increasing population and wealth worldwide, and with that comes increased consumption. Even if a garment is organic, with the fiber grown in one country, shipped to another to spin and another to weave and another to cut and sew, then shipped back to a distribution center, then out to all the markets, and then the customer wears it once and throws it away—that’s not sustainable.
Businesses at the moment are substituting materials but still largely producing in a linear way, increasing units that are bought and disposed of in ever-quickening cycles. Even the “eco” companies are working within this business model.CAN: And what about consumption patterns, or, to put it more succinctly, shopping?LG: There are some new models emerging that are very exciting and hopeful.
Patagonia and Nau have polyester garments that are not just recycled material but are also fully recyclable at the end of their usable life—what’s called closed-loop recycling. This is one example of a cyclical rather than a linear business model.
The company Bag Borrow or Steal charges a fee for leasing designer bags for a night or week. After use, the customer simply returns the item and rents another one.
Amy Twigger Holroyd of Keep & Share in England designs garments that are stylish but timeless and, as the name of the company suggests, encourages the customer to keep them and pass them on after use. She is about to launch a childrenswear company called Riot & Return aimed at young children who grow out of their clothing quickly. It’s a library system where, for a monthly fee, you can rent a certain number of garments.
These are completely different business models, requiring a different infrastructure within the company [and] a different role for the designer and which change the behavior of the end user. CAN: Tell us about your classes and how you’re able to think about clothes differently there without the pressures of the marketplace.LG: Teaching sustainable fashion design is extremely gratifying. Young designers are very aware of the state of the world and are eager to engage and act. They typically think that a sustainable garment is organic or recycled, again following the marketing labels rather than understanding the root causes of degradation.
We do go over the ecological crisis and the impact of textiles and the fashion industry, then quickly move into other areas in the lifecycle of the garment, including distribution, care, connection to the end user and end of life. Students read and research the ecological impact from all these perspectives and then come up with design strategies that address what they have discovered. They identify a problem and then use that as a point for innovation.
In the industry, the financial pull of the market is so strong that innovative ideas are difficult to implement. In a college setting, we can give visual form to completely new ideas, which then inspire and motivate the industry.CAN: As far as your consulting goes, what do you actually do? Who hires you and why?LG: My clients range from businesses to nonprofits, farmers and artisans. I am a design consultant for Aid to Artisans, which works with craftspeople around the world, helping them to build their own businesses and connect them to markets. In this context, you have to design within the culture of the place, using available materials, and design timeless items that may last for several seasons.
I also design for companies wanting to use artisan sources. Indigenous Designs, for example, is a Northern California company [for which] I designed sweaters for Fall/Winter ’07/’08, working with artisans I know in Peru. Some of my designs have appeared in the Garnet Hill, Hanna Andersson, Sundance and Patagonia catalogues.
I also develop tools enabling companies to act. For the Gap, I developed sustainable textile documents that capture the ecological impact, identified best practices/available alternatives, and recommended design and marketing opportunities.
For MarketPlace: Handwork of India, which works to empower rural women and provide health care, I have been hired to connect them to organic-cotton suppliers so their products can be both fair trade and organic. I’ll also develop a presentation to connect them to retailers.CAN: And what about your work with California cotton farmers?LG: I am also a consultant on the Sustainable Cotton Project (SCP), which works with California farmers to help reduce their chemical use on cotton.
Organic cotton is considered the vehicle of choice for reducing chemical use, but its effectiveness is very limited in California because of the cost of production. There were only 250 acres of organic cotton grown last year because the market can’t or won’t bear the price.
We just can’t compete with the overseas labor that is needed for hand-weeding organic. The Japanese market is the only market currently buying high-quality California organic Pima cotton.
So, SCP has a program that introduces conventional cotton farmers to biological systems to combat pests. It’s called BASIC—Biological Agricultural Systems in Cotton—and, over the years, has been proven to reduce chemical use by as much as 73 percent.
So my role is to make presentations to companies explaining the benefits of BASIC cotton and gain their interest in using this cleaner cotton. We call it the Cleaner Cotton Campaign, and we are currently approaching California companies to be part of a statewide effort to source locally grown “Cleaner Cotton” for their products. CAN: What’s your preferred terminology? For example, you prefer “end user” to “consumer,” and you don’t like “green.” LG: Yes, I don’t like “consumer” because it reinforces a behavior that we are questioning. “End user” suggests people can do more than just mindless consuming.
If we engage the end user in our exploration of what can be sustainable, we open up more opportunities for solutions. The end user is god to a company, and if they change their consumption patterns, businesses will change.CAN: What can the average end user do to make things better?LG: Don’t throw out your conventional towels and apparel and replace them with organic—use your towels and wear your clothes until they are thoroughly worn out, then buy organic replacements.
Shop at Goodwill, don’t just deposit your used clothes there. You are not recycling unless you are buying recycled clothes. When thrift garments don’t sell on the floor, they are shipped overseas to Third World countries, where the cheap clothing depresses local textile industries.
Buy vintage and collectible clothes, and trade them back in after use. They’re often worth more than what you bought them for.
Wash clothes only when necessary and [in a] cool temperature. Sixty-five percent of the total energy used in a cotton garment occurs in the washing and drying by the end user. The next time you buy a washing machine, buy a low-energy, low-water model, but also one with a steam cycle. The number-one reason people wash their clothes is for odor, and this can be eliminated with steam rather than water and chemicals.CAN: How do you respond to the industry’s point of view about buying vintage and keeping your clothes, rather than stocking up on new fashion each season?LG: The current fashion industry is built on fast cycles and developing and shipping millions of units a year. Buying vintage and slowing down consumption makes them nervous because it threatens their business model.
In some markets, it may make sense to develop slow-fashion items, items that are intended to be kept, like with Keep & Share, or [be] like Christina Kim of Dosa, who develops exquisite products that are meant to be heirloom pieces—what we call “future nostalgia.”
But there are other markets that may never become slow. Teen-agers, for example, have a cultural and psychological need to participate and engage in fashion. For companies serving these markets, it makes more sense to develop closed-loop recyclable garments, like Nau and Patagonia do. So if the garments are going to be disposed of quickly, how can this be done more sustainably?
Changing the business model doesn’t mean companies will go out of business; it just means the model changes. A company that has recycled and recyclable polyester garments is still in business; it’s just a different kind of business.CAN: What is the most important thing that should come from the current green trend or movement?LG: Real environmental gains. The word “organic” is often used interchangeably with “sustainable,” but organic is not sustainable in and of itself. It’s just one of many tools we can use to move forward. Organic is an effective tool in a Third World country where chemical use is high and labor is cheap; it’s not as effective in a developed country where the labor cost is high. And it’s not even relevant in a country where chemicals are not used to begin with.
Fair Trade is also a tool. Cleaner Cotton is a tool. Recycled is a tool. Low-temperature wash is a tool. Modular clothing is a tool. And zero waste is a tool.
We would never limit a carpenter to one tool and expect him to build a house. Identifying impacts throughout the lifecycle of the garment, including consumption itself, makes available a whole plethora of strategies that can motivate and inspire change.
Sustainable Shoulds and Should Nots
California Apparel News asked eco consultant Lynda Grose to provide a list of things apparel companies should do to better their practices. We also asked her to point out some common mistakes companies make when trying to go green.
According to Grose, apparel businesses:
SHOULDbull; Apply more ecologically advanced products and processes across your whole business; this integrates advances and enhances their long-term stability.bull; Ask questions about where your cotton was grown, how chemical- and water-intensive it was to begin with, and what labor practices were involved in its creation. Organic is one tool, but it’s not the only tool. Other tools include fair-trade cotton, non-GM (genetically modified) cotton, biological IPM (integrated pest management) cotton and Cleaner Cotton. bull; Research and consider the full lifecycle of a product to open up more possibilities for innovation and solutions. For example, washing and drying by the end user accounts for 65 percent of the energy used in the lifecycle of a cotton garment. An organic cotton label doesn’t change that. A low-temperature wash label does change that. bull; Identify the items, product categories and markets that are classic or slow fashion, and make products that are more durable. Then identify which are fast fashion, and design those products to have cyclical lifecycles.bull; Provide information in an easy-to-read format. Educating the end user about real issues will help your company market more ecologically advanced products and help your production team make real ecological advances.bull; Look at other areas of high impact in your company. Can you eliminate chlorine bleaching completely and market hydrogen peroxide’s soft white as the new American classic?SHOULD NOTbull; Develop an eco line separate from your regular line. Eco lines are typically more expensive and can be easily cut when the trend moves on or when finances are tight.bull; Be driven just by current marketing trends or terms when developing an eco line. Labels can be limiting. “Organic,” for example, does not capture labor issues or water use in production. Likewise, “green” and “eco-friendly” fail to educate the customer about real ecological issues.bull; Only consider substituting materials to develop an eco line. This is just one part of the lifecycle of the garment and addresses a limited number of ecological impacts.bull; Develop durable garments just to be “sustainable.” Durability is an asset if the garment is to be kept for years. It is a liability if the garment is disposed of after only a few wearings.
