US AAFA writes to Massachusetts committee opposing The Fashion Act
While the legislation is well intended, it creates a costly and burdensome regulatory mechanism that cannot effectuate the results it seeks, AAFA noted.
US trade body AAFA wrote to the Massachusetts joint committee on environment and natural resources sharing its concerns over The Fashion Act, aimed at environmental accountability in the fashion sector.
The act creates a costly and burdensome regulatory mechanism that cannot effectuate the results it seeks, AAFA noted.
It does not allow for full alignment with the Science-Based Targets Initiative.
The act establishes requirements that do not align with standards and initiatives referenced in the act, as well as legislative and regulatory requirements to which the fashion industry is already subject, AAFA president and chief executive officer Steve Lamar wrote in the letter.
This lack of harmonisation creates an unnecessarily complicated compliance framework for companies without providing a material sustainability benefit. In some instances, such conflicts can undermine the goals of the initiatives to which the legislation points, he noted.
Harmonisation with European Union (EU) regulations will be critical and it will also be important to learn from what was unworkable for the EU, the letter said.
The European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (which applies to many US companies, both in and outside the fashion sector) and the California Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) both currently require covered companies to report on their greenhouse gas emissions.
The Fashion Act does not align with the established timelines or assurance levels in either piece of legislation. It does not align with other pending climate legislation in New York, New Jersey, Colorado or Illinois as well, AAFA remarked.
While The Fashion Act requires fashion sellers to set targets, it does not actually allow for full alignment with the Science-Based Targets Initiative (SBTi). The act prohibits some sellers from using intensity-based targets, even though SBTi validates such targets, the AAFA letter said.
Holding companies to absolute targets means mergers or acquisitions could put companies out of compliance, while divestment of business would give the appearance of emissions reduction without actual achievement, the letter noted.
The act provides overly prescriptive data collection requirements that are not required by SBTi, and are not actually implementable, AAFA observed.
Despite the industry adhering to dozens of chemical regulations across the globe, The Fashion Act piles additional, impractical requirements that are not aligned with existing programmes and would actually discourage the addition and detection of new chemicals in wastewater, Lamar wrote.
“Sales of fashion products by third-party sellers on online marketplaces would be exempt from the requirements under the bill as it is written. If the intention of the legislation is to make marketplaces clean up their production, this bill misses the mark. With third-party sales expected to comprise almost two thirds of all e-commerce sales by 2027, this represents a significant omission,” the AAFA letter mentioned.
Finally, the legislation provides no incentives, no diplomatic or technical support and no guidance for the industry to achieve its objectives, it added.
Fibre2Fashion News Desk (DS)
