Inside Eileen Fisher: Their innovative Tiny Factory as a model for the circular fashion industry
Over the next few weeks, I’m taking a look at circular fashion and how people are starting to shift their design thinking, and the consumer mindset to adapt to this new model. The next step in sustainable fashion is hacking circularity, taking the traditional “take, make, waste” model and closing the loop. How do we reverse the damage we’ve done and create garments out of discarded garments?
I talked with Carmen Gama, Designer of Eileen Fisher Renew, to hear about how they are stepping up as leaders in the industry to create a circular production model at their Tiny Factory. Carmen established RESEWN, a remanufacturing model so solve the company’s challenge of repurposing damaged inventory that they had been collecting since 2009.
The Tiny Factory, located on the Hudson in Irvington, New York, is pioneering the way for the industry to redefine its product lifecycle and production models. They’ve faced challenges along the way and are still developing ways to grow and scale their model to tackle all the inventory they have in stock but are finding innovative ways to overcome setbacks. Read more about Carmen’s work with the RESEWN program and the Tiny Factory in the interview below.
How did you first start the Eileen Fisher RESEWN program?
I started working with Eileen Fisher three years ago when I was a recently graduated student from Parsons. The CFDA partnered up with Eileen Fisher, along with two other students from Parsons, to figure out what to do with their damaged inventory they had been collecting from their take back program since 2009. We were trying to figure out how to make something profitable, beautiful and scalable. By repurposing just one garment at a time, changing a sleeve or fixing a button, we would not have been able to tackle the challenge the company was facing. We really focused in on developing systems and processes that were able to produce these garments.
At the end of the year we had a collection made of 500 units, and after Eileen saw our collection and our process she was really excited about our proposal to resolve this challenge. She asked us to continue, and I decided to stay and work on the project.
How did the Tiny Factory come into being?
While I was working on creating the systems for the RESEWN program, the manager who was guiding the project, Cynthia Power from Eileen Fisher, also had an idea of Eileen Fisher having their own factory here in Irvington. The factory didn’t start with the idea of making garments out of garments, but out of the idea of owning some of our Eileen Fisher production. So they opened the factory and at the same time, we were trying to scale our process. When it opened it was supposed to be 75% Eileen Fisher main collection and 25% Eileen Fisher RESEWN collections, and it started that way. Very quickly, Eileen decided to do only RESEWN because it was too expensive to do the main production in the facility.
What does the production process look like at the Tiny Factory?
Making garments out of garments requires different steps from regular production. First, you have to source the inventory that you need. Second, you have to deconstruct that garment. Third, you have to prep the materials on a table. You have to lay it all out to be ready for cutting. This is what we call our pre-production steps. It’s kind of like when designers place their fabric orders, or the colors of their yarn, you forget what happens on the other side of the world, people spinning and creating textiles. That is what those three steps are for us, we are prepping the garment to become raw material.
After those steps then it’s just regular production. We cut them and then we sew them, we have three factory sewers. They were hired initially with a very simple skill set, which was sewing basic pants, one of our viscose pants. But when they started doing our production, the skill set for making garments out of garments was a lot higher. We ended up having to train them because sometimes we had garments made from silk and other details. In the beginning, I was very much involved in every step from the sorting to the deconstructing, so it was not very economically sustainable. To solve this we cross-trained all of the sewers to not only to sit down at the sewing machine constructing the garments but also doing the other pre-production steps.
Has there ever been inventory that you’ve been stumped on what to do with? And how did you work around it?
Yeah, there’s a lot of them, but we have one, in particular, it’s a silk jersey. It’s a bread and butter fabric that we use every season. That fabric tends to stain in the same way, it’s this oily stain that is pretty consistent, but they’re everywhere in the garment. Sometimes you don’t even see it, but when you’re pressing them more stains come up. We actually did a production of them, it’s a beautiful shell. But as we were finishing production and we were steaming them to be ready to be packed to the store, stains were surfacing.
Now we’re working with one of our vendors that is doing fiber recycling with textiles to solve this problem. We told them to take the silk and experiment with it, that we would like to use it if they can shred it and turn it into a new textile. They were so excited, within a month they came back with a sample. Now those garments will be part of a new textile that we will be using for Spring 2019.
Do you work with the design team from the Eileen Fisher main line to talk about what fabrics are used designs are done in the main line?
I’m part of the circular by design team at Eileen Fisher, which is a team of people trying to make sense of circularity, how it works and what does it look like for Eileen Fisher. We have been thinking a lot about design for takeback. Eileen has essentially been doing this since day one since her designs have been so simple, so they actually provide a lot of material to work with.
Are you working with other brands to share what you’ve learned?
We opened our doors and share the story with anyone who is interested. It’s not only up to us to change this industry it’s up to everybody else. We were talking about sustainability, and now we’re talking about circularity and I think transparency is the next big thing that people are going to jump on board for. If these companies really want to see change in this industry, companies will have to be transparent in order to see change and we have to share how we’re doing it. We’re working on some collaborations with designers and companies like H&M have come to tour the facility. We open our doors to anybody. It doesn’t have to be the same model for everybody, but it’s about taking what we’re doing and applying it to your own needs.
How do you see this programming growing? What do you see for the future of the Tiny Factory?
Right now because of manpower there is a limit. I feel like our processes are there. We have processes that can replicate what we’re doing by the hundreds. The number of people who are working here is just not enough to do that. So far, every store would love to have our product. And I’d love to have more online, our product actually sells well online, our story is told better there.
My ideal shoot for the moon goal for the factory is that we can produce as fast as we are getting garments in. We will need a lot more people. I think our designs are there. Right now we’re at a bottleneck, we’re really drowning in garments. I would like to produce as fast as clothing is coming in.
—
Click here to shop Eileen Fisher RESEWN products
Inside Wildlife Works: Protecting nature while producing ethically made clothing
You can’t answer the question, “what is ethical fashion” without looking at the process of cutting, sewing and finishing goods. You need to ask complex questions like, who are the people that make my clothing and are they working in a safe environment where they are being paid fairly? The apparel supply chain is very complex and it’s rare that you can pick up a t-shirt and know exactly where it was made and if the people who made it are making fair wages.
As consumers become more aware of working conditions and as brands are starting to cater to these customers, the intricacies and importance of ethical manufacturing have come to the forefront of many discussions. One organization driving change is Wildlife Works in Kenya. They’ve seen ups and downs and have watched the industry grow and develop since they were founded almost 20 years ago.
Wildlife Works approached apparel manufacturing as a market driven solution to their conservation efforts, resulting in the world’s only carbon neutral, fair trade factory protecting wildlife. When they started the facility in 2000 they were way ahead of the curve and had to work hard to create a market for their product. Now they are seeing big name fashion conglomerates like Kering and fast fashion brands like H&M engaging in sustainability practices.
I spoke with the Marketing and Creative Director of Wildlife Works, Joyce Hu, who oversees operations for the apparel manufacturing facility in Kenya, as well as overall messaging and branding. She told me about how Wildlife Works began and how it’s evolved over time in the rapidly changing fashion landscape.
Can you tell me a little bit about how Wildlife Works was founded and how you got involved with the organization?
The company was founded back in 1998 by Mike Korchinsky. Before then, he had a very successful consulting firm, working with clients from fortune 500 companies. He had an opportunity to go on safari in Kenya, and while he was there, saw a cycle of violence between the poachers, rangers, and community that was caused by the lack of jobs. The community needed jobs and a lot of the existing organizations weren’t filling that need. Because of this unemployment, poaching and deforestation were happening at a high rate.
He had a vision to create a market based solution for conservation, to combat unemployment. In 2000 he set up a factory. He focused on apparel manufacturing since sewing is a low skill job that people can be trained to do where there is very little job opportunity. Also, a lot of the communities had a sewing background already. He started with 10 seamstresses.
I connected with Wildlife Works in 2006 and thought the brand was amazing. I ended up helping them produce a fashion show for World Environmental Day. Then I went off to pursue other opportunities and got back in touch with them in 2009, when they were on hiatus after the recession. Mike was getting more involved with REDD+ and carbon offsetting and was starting to gain a lot of momentum. Through that, he met a lot of great customers and investors and hired me when a big investment came through. I was hired to take on the factory for a relaunch of the brand, manage the factory from product development and production management to marketing and branding.
What was it like to relaunch the brand, was the market ready for the product?
We first relaunched with graphic tees and trendier silhouettes and we did that for a few years. It was a time when fast fashion was really dominating the fashion market, and we were doing things so differently with logistics and manufacturing. The wholesale market was so different then. We didn’t have a million dollars to put into marketing, so we switched gears and moved to doing private label production for brands. That’s how we are able to support ourselves, doing private label with sustainable brands. That’s what we’ve focused on for the past years. We’ve tied our brand to movements like Fashion Revolution and brands are asking for ethical manufacturing now.
As the factory has developed, how have you determined fair wages? Have you always been a Fair Trade Certified factory?
We’ve always paid at an urban minimum wage level, most people train up in skill and are paid more than that. But low skilled labor is paid the county’s minimum wage.
As for certifications, we are Fairtrade International and USA Fair Trade certified, it’s very important for us to have that transparency. Puma, one of our investors requires us to be Puma Safe certified, which is mostly safety auditing. A lot of our brand partners don’t actually need the fair trade certification since we are already very transparent. Especially a lot of the smaller brands we work with, they are very transparent and are able to support their claims by showing who they work with and storytelling.
Fair trade certifications are very expensive and are mostly for larger brands who lack the transparency and they really need that sort of certification in order to legitimize whatever they are trying to say on the marketing side of things.
Do you feel now that ethical fashion is being talked about more, how has the landscape changed?
People are way more open to the conversation now. It also helps that we have some big name carbon credit customers, for example, Kering. Because of working with the carbon credit program, Kering is now open to talking to about manufacturing opportunities. We now can have conversations with bigger brands like the Gap Incs of the industry who never would have before considered talking to us when we first got started.
We’re still quite far from producing with them, not only are we a bit small for them, but we are also against the direction of mainstream fashion right now. But, at least they know about us and they are willing to have a conversation. It’s opening up a market.
Do you have your own definition of ethical fashion?
I think it’s really doing everything you can in your power to make decisions that make the least amount of harm on people, planet, and wildlife.
It’s a great question, it shows that you’re really deep in it. It’s easy to say that you’re a brand that does sustainable fashion using organic cotton or does sustainable production. But the deeper you get into it you see how grey it is and how the lines are so blurred because the global supply chain is very hidden and not transparent. It’s so hard to make the right decisions because the system doesn’t allow you to.
Are you optimistic about the future of sustainable fashion?
Yeah, I see a lot of progress. The fact that our business has been able to grow is a great indication. I am hopeful, but I don’t think that solution is what we think it is going to be. I think the solution is going to be something that is very technology driven, that we don’t even know right now. We are up to our head in the current global supply chain and we are blinded by it, something needs to come from nowhere really fast and that’s how change is going to happen.
Systemic Change – Better Labor Standards in Cambodia
When you start looking into the world of fashion corporate social responsibility, it is not uncommon to stumble upon big game changers that somehow haven’t trickled down to the media. These are often actions taken by corporations out of necessity and have good timing to thank. International trade negotiations in Cambodia during the rise of their garment manufacturing sector are a clear example of this case, which I like to call “accidental ethical fashion”.
One thing I’ve learned since starting graduate school at NYU is that policies may seem to sometimes pop out of nowhere, but there is often a long history of hard work that is goes unseen. Interest groups and activist are waiting to pounce on those perfect, unpredictable opportunities to push forward their initiatives. It’s our job to be ready, and know how to mobilize quickly when those windows open.
In the case of Cambodia, and confluence of multiple factors led the country to be the first to partner with the International Labor Organization (ILO) to monitor labor standards in garment factories. This partnership resulted in working conditions in factories being directly tied to how many garments they were able to export. The pilot program sparked a new era for the ILO and Better Work organizations were formed in other countries to continue the program around the world.
Cambodia has grown from being completely a closed market from 1975 to 1989, to now having 32.65% of the global garment sector share. The country’s entry into the market in the early 1990’s allowed them to sidestep export quotas allowing their garment sector to flourish. The rapid growth in the industry led to growing pains in the workforce and when stricter trade regulations needed to be put in place in 1998 this allowed for the perfect climate to create the first ever trade laws developed to incentivize ethical labor standards.
During the 1990s when Cambodia was stabilizing, the government saw garment manufacturing as a low capital plan for economic development in their country. Cambodia looked to their neighbor’s economies booming after establishing successful garment manufacturing sectors and wanted to reap the same benefits. The state had a large population of unskilled workers looking for jobs and the garment industry’s low barrier to entry was ideal. Minimal capital investment and training were required to get the industry started, so Cambodia jumped on the opportunity to bring economic prosperity to their people.
Seeing the opportunity to work around the Multi-Fibre Agreement (which set strict export quotas in other countries), investors from Taiwan, China, and South Korea descended on Cambodia to build garment factories and attract foreign brands who were limited by quotas system in other countries. This served Cambodia well, and the market grew rapidly from $80 million in exports in 1996 to $6.8 billion in 2015. The rise of Cambodia’s garment industry owes its success to their opportune timing of market entry. The lack of restrictions allowed them to thrive as other developing countries’ manufacturing sectors were dampened.
In 1998 when the US government faced growing pressure from domestic apparel manufacturers to impose restrictions on Cambodian garment imports, simultaneously Cambodian factories were experiencing increasing discontent from their workers leading to strikes and protests. News of the conditions in factories abroad prompted American supportive labor groups who in turn petitioned the US government to take action and review the claimed abuses of workers’ rights in Cambodian factories. This created the perfect climate for US and Cambodian governments to collaborate on a trade incentivized structure for monitoring working conditions in apparel factories.
With acknowledgment from all parties that government monitoring of factory labor standards was not credible, the ILO was approached to step in as a third party auditor. This was an innovative and groundbreaking partnership, at the time the ILO had never monitored private sector operations, nor had they been involved with on the ground audits of workplaces. The Director-General of the ILO at the time, Juan Somavia, cautiously accepted the proposal after much debate with the ILO bureaucracy and governing body. This agreement would prove to be successful and spark the Decent Work program at the ILO, which protects workers and advocates for fair wages and safe working conditions. The partnership also created a more cohesive ILO, and some would argue, more relevant in the increasingly globalized apparel supply chain.
The monitoring system faced some problems at the beginning, but they were amended quickly to ensure transparency and credibility. Firstly, the quotas were set for the entire garment sector in Cambodia, not by the individual factory, and it was not mandatory for factories to participate in the ILO workplace monitoring. This did not incentivize manufacturers to partake in the program, instead, they would be more likely to try and get a free ride off of other factory’s good efforts. Once this problem came to light, the Cambodian government limited availability of the export quota to the US to only factories participating in the ILO program.
Secondly, transparency of information was imperative for the industry but whether the ILO should name all factories by name or produce an aggregate report was left unresolved. In order to address this issue, the ILO came up with a two-step approach to their reporting. First, they would release a synthesis report of all factories, highlighting overall trends and problems that need to be addressed in the industry. Then, after a re-inspection for compliance, the ILO would name factories that weren’t complying by the ILO standards for labor rights and working conditions. This allowed for the transparency needed and did so in a more impactful way than comparable private monitoring programs.
The private sector responded positively to the ILO monitoring program, which allowed for risk mitigation for operating in Cambodia. Nike, for example, had left Cambodia due to labor rights scandals tarnishing their brand image. Once the ILO started their monitoring of labor conditions in factories, Nike returned some of their production to the country.
There have been debates whether these private sector fashion brands should financially support these initiatives since they are largely benefitting from them. This idea, however, raises issues of incentives. If the private sector is funding the monitoring, they could be driven by driving profits and improving public image, not necessarily by ensuring fair and safe working conditions. That being said, there is a trend in the market for brands to invest in complying with labor laws, so there is some hope that brands may become more invested in this effort in the future.
As the program continued to grow and response from the private sector was highly supportive of their efforts, Better Factories Cambodia was created to manage and oversee the monitoring program in apparel factories. This monitoring agency was founded in 2009 and has grown to offer training programs to help factories reach the ILO standards.
Although this ILO partnership was revolutionary for it’s time, we are still left wanting more. Working conditions in garment factories are still lacking, as seen by the mass faintings occurring in Cambodia in the summer of 2017. Now that we are creating better systems for monitoring and change, how can we inspire a higher level change in the way we conduct business?