Challenges in Implementing Sustainable Design

Sustainability and responsible supply chains have become the new corporate imperative. Against the backdrop of mounting regulations and transition to a new economy, the urgency for businesses to adapt to a rapidly changing world has never been more pronounced. Amidst this backdrop, Farri, Cervini, and Rosani, in their HBR article, "How Sustainability Efforts Fall Apart," delve into the paradox that while companies are setting ambitious sustainability goals, a chasm exists between these aspirations and their realization. This gap, as observed through the authors' experiences, often arises after initial successes, where sustainability programs hit a wall and fail to scale, thus jeopardizing long-term objectives. Interestingly, the authors expand that the crux of the problem lies within the organizations themselves, hidden under layers of outdated management practices. The four "hidden enemies" of sustainability are outlined as: 1) Structure and governance, which often silos sustainability efforts away from core business operations; 2) Processes and metrics, where traditional profit-driven decision-making criteria overlook sustainability; 3) Culture and leadership, which has not evolved to integrate sustainability at its core; 4) Methods and skills, where traditional business tools do not account for sustainability outcomes. To counter these challenges, the authors propose a transformative approach: 1) integrating sustainability into the organizational DNA through an organizational mesh 2) embedding it by design into every process, fostering a culture of co-creation and trust 3) embracing ecosystem thinking for strategic decision-making This guidance aims to overcome the internal blockers but also to enable companies to truly embed sustainability into their operations and ethos. It is clear that overcoming these hidden enemies requires concerted effort, innovative thinking, and a deep commitment to change. What stands out to me most is a call to action for leaders and organizations to not just set ambitious goals but to * fundamentally rethink * their approach to business, leadership, and innovation to make sustainability the cornerstone of their operations. The path to sustainability is tough with challenges, but it is also ripe with opportunity like any transformation. By acknowledging and addressing the internal barriers to sustainability, companies can unlock new avenues for growth, innovation, and resilience. Let's not allow our efforts to fall apart. How have you embraced the challenge? And if not, what’s holding you back? #sustainability #supplychain #leadership

The fashion industry’s journey toward sustainability is encountering significant challenges due to a volatile market, incoming regulations, and shifting politics. What started as a gradual shift has now become more pronounced. Brands that once proudly showcased their sustainable initiatives are now scaling back or pausing these efforts. This shift is accompanied by job cuts in senior sustainability roles, with companies like Nike and Canada Goose restructuring their teams. Moncler even removed its chief sustainability officer earlier this year. While some companies continue to hire for sustainability roles, the industry is rethinking how to resource and manage these teams. Brands like ASOS.com and Crocs have delayed or abandoned their climate targets, citing unrealistic initial goals. Companies claim they are restructuring to align with changing standards and business realities, not lowering their sustainability ambitions. However, these changes threaten to derail the industry’s already lagging climate progress, especially as record-breaking temperatures highlight the urgency of action. In the aftermath of the 2015 Paris Agreement and a pandemic-fueled consumer awakening, big brands set ambitious sustainability targets. However, as business priorities shift, sustainability efforts, which often have intangible benefits, are becoming easy targets for cost-cutting. This trend extends beyond fashion, particularly in the US, where political backlash against “woke capitalism” has led some companies to abandon both diversity and climate targets. Nike and Canada Goose have significantly cut their sustainability teams, though they maintain their commitment to sustainability. McKinsey & Company reports that about two-thirds of fashion brands are behind on their decarbonization schedules. The changes also reflect tightening regulations and evolving standards, prompting companies to reevaluate their sustainability initiatives. Many are becoming more cautious in communicating achievements and setting targets amid a crackdown on #greenwashing. Recruiters note that the structure of sustainability teams is changing, with C-suite positions being slashed and key activities integrated into more operational roles. New hires are focused on change management rather than grand strategy. The challenges are not unique to the fashion industry; various sectors are adjusting their sustainability goals in response to external pressures and evolving market conditions. As we navigate these turbulent times, it is crucial to find a balance between business realities and the urgent need for sustainable practices. In the meantime, the world keeps getting hotter.  🌱 #Sustainability #BusinessStrategy #ClimateAction #CorporateResponsibility #EnvironmentalGoals #Leadership #Innovation #FutureOfWork The Business of Fashion https://lnkd.in/g3SJ7Dqx

Spent the last year talking with hundreds of manufacturers about their EPD journeys. One thing that keeps surprising me? The local mom-and-pop manufacturer with 20 employees often faces the same EPD challenges as the multinational with thousands of staff. Both struggle with: 1. Data collection complexity – gathering comprehensive supplier data, utility information, and transportation metrics across operations 2. PCR interpretation challenges – navigating the nuanced rules and technical requirements, like allocation methods and boundary conditions, that vary across product categories and geographies 3. LCA expertise – life cycle assessments are a specialized skillset, but many producers aren’t staffed with dedicated LCA professionals to manage complex modeling and verification requirements 4 Cost!! - this is an obvious hurdle for smaller manufacturers, but even the largest manufacturers see EPD costs as a barrier to greater EPD coverage across the product portfolio You guys observing similar? Or different? Curious what others are seeing out there.