Despite the hue and cry that went up when we learned that the US Olympic team uniforms were ‘manufactured overseas,’ the reality is that MILLIONS of US workers rely upon and contribute to, the global value chains (GVCs) that design, produce, market, ship and deliver leading brands such as Polo (Ralph Lauren).  Our kudos to Moongate & Associates, for its study published this month (and commissioned by the TPP) which clarifies with impressive supporting data, that the perception that there are two categories into which apparel falls:  imported or ‘made in the USA,’ is simplistic and outdated in today’s global economy.

In fact, according to this study, on average 70.3% of the retail price of studied apparel is value added by high paying US jobs.

Most of the lowest skilled jobs are done overseas, leaving the more highly skilled professional employment concentrated in the United States.  These jobs are spread throughout the stages of U.S. value–‐added beginning with fashion designers (average salary $73,640), and fabric and apparel patternmakers ($48,110), and continuing with transportation, storage, and distribution managers ($82,923), compliance officers ($66,620), software developers ($95,283), and sales managers ($111, 283). Moreover, there are high–‐quality blue–‐collar jobs throughout the chain; for example, cargo and freight agents ($45,100), production, planning, and expediting clerks ($41,060), industrial machinery mechanics ($45,740) 9, railroad employees ($76,574) 10, and longshore workers ($124,138)11.

http://www.tppapparelcoalition.org/uploads/021313_Moongate_Assoc_Global_Value_Chain_Report.pdf

Maybe this data could be included in the next news report on this topic?

-Michele Carroll 2/25/2013

Ian A. Gentis
Reclipse Group
Monday, May 14th 2012

While the science of global warming is being debated, there is no doubt about a new metric coming to your supply chain: the carbon footprint. The measurement of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has become another plank in companies’ Corporate Responsibility platforms, and there is a good chance that you will be asked to provide your carbon footprint data in your next RFP response.

Here’s good news: Companies large and small that have decided to focus on reducing greenhouse gases as responsible policy, are finding out that they can save money.

The basic approach is to conduct a study of the carbon footprint of your supply chain as part of your product life cycle analysis (LCA).

Here’s some bad news: There is a lot of “junk science” and snake oil being offered up and some companies making honest efforts to understand their carbon footprint have had poor results.

Over the course of the next several blogs, we’ll explore the progress being made, offer resources and suggestions, and help you navigate through the hype to reach your goals.

So what is this all about?  A definition of carbon footprint

Our friends at Carbon Trust (www.carbontrust.com) in the United Kingdom (UK) helpfully offer this definition:

A carbon footprint measures the total greenhouse gas emissions caused directly and indirectly by a person, organization, event or product.

A carbon footprint is measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e). The carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) allows the different greenhouse gases to be compared on a like-for-like basis relative to one unit of CO2. CO2e is calculated by multiplying the emissions of each of the six greenhouse gases by its 100 year global warming potential (GWP).

A carbon footprint considers all six of the Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous oxide (N2O), Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6).

There are two types of carbon footprinting

The main types of carbon footprint for organizations are:

1. Organizational carbon footprint

Emissions from all the activities across the organization, including buildings’ energy use, industrial processes and company vehicles.

2. Product carbon footprint

Emissions over the whole life of a product or service, from the extraction of raw materials and manufacturing right through to its use and final reuse, recycling or disposal.

To get to a carbon footprint of the supply chain we will draw on both types of footprints.

What outputs can I expect from a carbon footprint? Some examples of carbon footprints

Let’s take a look at a recent carbon footprint study at Sprint Nextel (To review and download the full study, registration is required, but is free).

Sprint Nextel spends $13.5B annually on the 162 suppliers in its supply chain. Economic consultants Trucost (www.trucost.com) conducted a supply chain carbon footprint. A summary of their findings:

The carbon footprint of the Sprint Nextel supply chain is very concentrated in a few suppliers.

• The top 5 suppliers contribute to 58% of the total carbon footprint of the supply chain.
• The top 50 suppliers account for over 94% of the total carbon.
• Manufacturing is the most carbon intensive sector, accounting for 83% of the total carbon emissions and 67% of the expenditure.
• A total of 121 suppliers from Sprint Nextel’s supply chain are located within the top three sectors.

What can I do with this information?  Make plans to reduce your carbon footprint

Turning again to the Trucost Sprint Nextel study:

Measuring and understanding carbon footprints is the first step to towards managing and reducing them. Sprint Nextel can play a role in promoting emission reductions in the supply chains of its suppliers:

Develop low-carbon procurement strategies:

• An understanding of the main sources of emissions within supply chains could inform low-carbon procurement strategies.
• Baselines can be used to set carbon reduction targets for procurement.
• Include a requirement in tenders for suppliers to report carbon emissions data. Greater transparency can help identify opportunities to reduce emissions and demonstrate improvements in carbon performance.
• Carbon prices can be applied to emissions data to inform procurement decisions.
• Identify opportunities to monitor and share cost savings achieved through improvements in energy and carbon efficiency with procurement.

Inform engagement with suppliers:

• Identify the companies and sectors where engagement could be most effective to reduce supply chain emissions.
• Engage with suppliers that contribute most to carbon footprints, and are carbon-intensive compared with sector benchmarks, to encourage improvements in carbon efficiency.
• Ask suppliers to develop action plans to manage GHG emissions and monitor their performance. Encourage them to focus on improving the efficiency of fuel and electricity use so that they benefit from both carbon and cost savings.

For further reading, here is an interesting white paper from our friends at Carbon Trust which is no longer hosted on their website. (Understanding & Optimizing SC Carbon Footprints PDF)