208
D. Machek et al.
is perceived difficult to continue receiving additional funding for activities, however,
thus STWI needs more support from members. Due to, among others, limited
resources, other priorities set by the top management, and limited success achieved
by STWI so far, however, securing financial contribution from participating brands
has not been an easy task.
A further issue also raised in relation to the limited resource o SMEs was the power
asymmetry among brands. This came up especially in relation to SAC. While SAC’s
fee structure for corporate members is differentiated based on their annual revenue,
the fact still remains that there is limitation for SMEs to find resources to take part in
important decision making process, such as Higg Index. Higg Index is meant to serve
as a benchmark tool for sustainability performance of brands (Sustainable Apparel
Coalition n.d.), manufacturing facilities and products, which also enables sustainability improvements. Although non-brand actors, such as academia and NGOs, are
also engaged in the development of Higg Index, the final decision is made by the socalled Core Team, which consists of only certain brands. Some interviewees revealed
that there has been occasions where the level of standards have been compromised at a
suboptimal level from sustainability perspective so as not to jeopardise the members
of Core Team. The situation is in line with some of the criticisms raised against
MSIs in previous studies (Lund-Thomsen and Lindgren 2014; Locke 2013; Martens
2007), as introduced in Sect. 15.1. Lack of clarity in the decision making process
was another concern raised in relation to SAC.
15.3.3 Additional Findings
The study further found that there is general trend where textile MSIs started to
harmonise the standards and tools they are providing. For instance, both TE and
STWI are now members of SAC. This makes the role of a larger and long-established
MSI like SAC even more significant.
15.4 Conclusions and Suggestions for the Future
15.4.1 Conclusions
The review of recent policy development pertaining to SSCM of clothing sector at
the EU level and in Sweden reveals that in both cases, textile has attracted significant attention in the policy discourse. However, despite their intention of addressing
upstream environmental and/or social impacts of clothing industry, participation of
the brands is voluntary in most cases—exception are the mandates in waste related
laws addressing the closure of material loops as well as the REACH Regulation
that is to do with the specific property of products. The requirement posed in the
D. Machek et al.
is perceived difficult to continue receiving additional funding for activities, however,
thus STWI needs more support from members. Due to, among others, limited
resources, other priorities set by the top management, and limited success achieved
by STWI so far, however, securing financial contribution from participating brands
has not been an easy task.
A further issue also raised in relation to the limited resource o SMEs was the power
asymmetry among brands. This came up especially in relation to SAC. While SAC’s
fee structure for corporate members is differentiated based on their annual revenue,
the fact still remains that there is limitation for SMEs to find resources to take part in
important decision making process, such as Higg Index. Higg Index is meant to serve
as a benchmark tool for sustainability performance of brands (Sustainable Apparel
Coalition n.d.), manufacturing facilities and products, which also enables sustainability improvements. Although non-brand actors, such as academia and NGOs, are
also engaged in the development of Higg Index, the final decision is made by the socalled Core Team, which consists of only certain brands. Some interviewees revealed
that there has been occasions where the level of standards have been compromised at a
suboptimal level from sustainability perspective so as not to jeopardise the members
of Core Team. The situation is in line with some of the criticisms raised against
MSIs in previous studies (Lund-Thomsen and Lindgren 2014; Locke 2013; Martens
2007), as introduced in Sect. 15.1. Lack of clarity in the decision making process
was another concern raised in relation to SAC.
15.3.3 Additional Findings
The study further found that there is general trend where textile MSIs started to
harmonise the standards and tools they are providing. For instance, both TE and
STWI are now members of SAC. This makes the role of a larger and long-established
MSI like SAC even more significant.
15.4 Conclusions and Suggestions for the Future
15.4.1 Conclusions
The review of recent policy development pertaining to SSCM of clothing sector at
the EU level and in Sweden reveals that in both cases, textile has attracted significant attention in the policy discourse. However, despite their intention of addressing
upstream environmental and/or social impacts of clothing industry, participation of
the brands is voluntary in most cases—exception are the mandates in waste related
laws addressing the closure of material loops as well as the REACH Regulation
that is to do with the specific property of products. The requirement posed in the