The Higg Index, some bad press and the potential of blockchain technology

The global apparel supply chain is one of the most complex in any industry. It has been reported that one T-shirt can travel thousands of miles before a customer buys it, expertly shown in this KQED presentation. But these numerous international stops along the supply chain lead to an overall unsustainable and globally exciting industry. Everything from environmental inefficiency to human labor abuse can plague the supply chain for that one T-shirt.

This is where the Higg index comes into play.

Created by the Walmart- and Patagonia-sponsored Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC) in 2012, Higg (the official name of the business) became an independent software company in 2019. It collects and quantifies textile production and supply chain data from all apparel companies willing to share , gather the information in one place (the Higg index) with the intention of creating a global standard for effective and efficient textile production. A standard based on certifiable information that clearly addresses resource use, fair labor and environmental impact is desperately needed in the unregulated and unpredictable clothing industry.

But in recent months, the Higg Index has come under scrutiny for its flawed approach to the environmental impacts of synthetic fiber production and the rampant misrepresentation of the data by brands. It has even been criticized for “trivializing the amount of change that the fashion industry needs to take to become sustainable.”

The Higg index is an example of a well-intentioned concept that struggles to stick on the landing. Critics fault the index for not fully addressing the systemic change that nearly everyone agrees is needed across all stages of the apparel industry. And yet, for better or worse, Higg remains the best catalyst for this transformation. Increasing visibility of the needlessly wasteful global fashion supply chain is the first step. The only question is how to proceed?

The answer, like everything else in the sustainability sector, is: “It’s complicated”.

The most obvious response is to make the environmental and social consequences of each step in the supply chain visible (exactly what Higg set out to do) to all stakeholders, thereby enabling the market to reward those who meet the standards and punish those who do the. t. Customers would stop buying products from companies with problematic supply chains, subsidiary companies would change or die, and the fashion industry would become more sustainable.

Everything from environmental inefficiency to human labor abuse can plague the supply chain for that one T-shirt.

At least that’s the theory of change. Manifesting that utopian future requires digging into these supply chains and coming up with accurate data—a task that has proven easier said than done.

This is where blockchain comes into the chat.

To ensure that comfortable T-shirt arrives on time and ready for use, a growing number of clothing companies are using the use of blockchain technology. Best described as a decentralized ledger that provides visibility of the product at every stop on the journey, blockchain acts as an external and secure log of all kinds of information. Such visibility can, for example, notify a distributor if there is a stoppage or other problem in the supply chain. The distributor can then adjust accordingly, reducing customer fallout and negative financial consequences.

But what if your supply chain consists of thousands of small designers, cutters, sewers, dyers, finishers and other businesses? The complexity can grow exponentially, although there are solutions.

Walmart, for example, uses blockchain to track its green green and pepper supply chains, which include thousands of small farmers around the world. Tejas Bhatt, senior director of Walmart’s global food safety innovation team, explained to me the benefit of blockchain data’s immutable nature: “Suppliers are much more careful about the accuracy of the data they put on the blockchain because it can’t be updated retroactively.” Bhatt said Walmart aimed to reduce human error by “verifying that the digital footprint that [Walmart] looking at the blockchain actually matches the physical footprint of the product as it flows through the supply chain,” using automation.

Walmart has even created a solution for suppliers who lack the financial and human capital to integrate blockchain. Bhatt and his team worked with each supplier in the capacity specific to their operational capabilities. For example, smaller suppliers may use Excel spreadsheets as opposed to a more expensive counterpart that is unnecessary for that supplier’s size. Instead of trying to integrate a complicated process into a company that cannot support the technology, Walmart is working to create a scaled, digitized data set that can be easily uploaded into the chain without exceeding financial constraints.

And while this example is specifically rooted in manufacturing, Bhatt is optimistic that “while the Walmart model specifically” may not translate to fashion, blockchain in general can definitely make the jump from one industry to another.

But Higg is not a company that focuses on one product’s supply chain. Instead, Higg attempts to catalog all environmental and societal inputs along every step of the entire global fashion industry’s thousands of supply chains and then simplify this data into clear industry standards.

Blockchain can help simplify this process.

And it’s a move the company appears to be considering. James Schaffer, head of strategy at Higg, told me: “[Higg] has a number of fronts of technological innovation going on, some of which are linked to this new generation of digital traceability companies.” While he wouldn’t go into detail, he agreed with critics’ call for “much better governance and quality assurance of each bit of data in and out of the system.”

The aforementioned criticism of Higg is legitimate and deserves thoughtful and deliberate action and response. No company should be able to use Higgs data out of context without serious consequences from the data’s originating company, and the environmental impact of synthetic fibers (such as those used to make vegan leather) should be scrutinized and clearly labeled as dependent on the petroleum industry. Condemning Higg for these fumbles rather than helping it move forward does not advance the ultimate goal of a sustainable global fashion industry.

Only Higg himself can decide how it intends to proceed. Currently, SAC and Higg have halted the consumer-facing transparency program globally to address the criticism and redesign the process so clearly it needs an update. Schaffer commented during our conversation, “I think our [Higg’s employees and staff] hearts are actually in the right place, but we are working on something very hard. … And we just want that honest back and forth so we can really improve.” And whether you’re a Higg critic or loyal supporter, we can all agree with Schaffer’s sentiments.