Case Study | How to Talk to Customers About Fashion’s Dirty Secrets

This text is a part of BoF’s particular version, Can Trend Clear Up Its Act?

Is “radical transparency” in vogue even attainable?

McKinsey & Company has referred to as out “a rising belief deficit” amongst shoppers, placing stress on manufacturers to indicate there’s depth to their claims about transparency and sustainability.

However there are some manufacturers doing the work to indicate shoppers they’re severe about company accountability.

Veja, Reformation, Eileen Fisher and others which have already taken steps to carry the curtain on their enterprise practices, however maybe no model has been extra vocal than San Francisco-based direct-to-consumer attire firm Everlane, which positioned itself as a pacesetter on this wave, embedding the buzzy company slogan of “radical transparency” into its business model.

However radical transparency isn’t simple. Critics say that probably the most radical factor about Everlane is its advertising — a cost the corporate vigorously denies.

And whereas the pressure is mounting on brands to supply shoppers with extra info to again up claims of moral, sustainable or price-competitive practices, embedding transparency right into a enterprise presents key ache factors:

• Transparency would not scale effectively. Working transparently means manufacturers should have a extremely strong understanding of their very own inside operations, and that will get more and more tough as manufacturers scale up; larger provide chains imply extra complexity.
• Transparency is a transferring goal. A decade in the past, merely speaking about the place garments have been made was thought of a brand new frontier of transparency, now that is only a hygiene issue. However offering higher and extra granular info creates new challenges. As an example, rising demand for readability on garments’ local weather affect requires manufacturers to not solely perceive their provide chains, but additionally grasp environmental accounting.
• Getting clear communications proper is tough. From a gross sales and advertising perspective, how manufacturers discuss transparency issues nearly as a lot as really doing the best factor. With call-out tradition on the rise, it is a delicate steadiness: promise an excessive amount of and threat a backlash that undercuts any good work that could be underway. Alternatively, if manufacturers fail to essentially educate shoppers, rivals doing much less might profit from a halo of greenwashing from which it’s tough to face out.
• Transparency is not sufficient. Finally, most shoppers nonetheless care extra about worth, high quality and elegance than anything when making buying selections, which implies many within the business are selecting to not tackle the extra burdens that include extra transparency.

BoF’s newest case examine explores what it takes to be a clear and commercially profitable model — massive or small — with out being accused of “clearwashing.”

Editor’s Be aware: This case examine was corrected on February 12, 2020. A earlier model misstated Kathleen Talbot’s title, her description of the fallout from uncovering points that may’t be remediated at main manufacturing companions as “harmful,” and that Good On You final reviewed Everlane in February, 2018. That is incorrect. Kathleen Talbot is chief sustainability officer and vice chairman of operations at Reformation, she stated the affect of points at producers was “disruptive,” and Good on You final reviewed Everlane in December, 2019.