Cotton Incorporated Responds to Sustainability Report

The April 4 publication of a 10-page report titled “Mind the Gap: Towards a More Sustainable Cotton Market” has prompted a response from Cotton Incorporated aimed at filling gaps in the report.

The report, published by Pesticides Action Network UK, Solidaridad and WWF, was carried by a number of sustainability and textile trade press. The document portrays conventional cotton as unsustainable, citing environmental, social and economic issues. It also asserts that sustainable cotton is only available through certification programs such as Better Cotton Initiative (BCI), CMIA and Organic, and suggests that more promotion is needed to call attention to problems with conventional cotton.

Advertisement

In response, Cotton Incorporated released an editorial to Sourcing Journal to refute some of the claims and provide facts to fill gaps in the report. In the editorial, Cotton Incorporated President and CEO Berrye Worsham called the Mind the Gap report a:

“…document that pits cotton programs against each other, at the expense of the entire industry. The paper positions certification programs not as one path to responsible cotton production, but the only path.  This philosophy favors paperwork over real, measurable and verified progress, including that made by conventional cotton growers in many countries. By identifying those facts that support a pro-certification agenda, the report obscures the fact that cotton is the only commodity fiber offering the supply chain multiple methods and programs to assure responsible production and traceability.”

Throughout the editorial, Cotton Incorporated corrects many inaccuracies from the Mind the Gap report and strongly asserts the case for sustainable conventional U.S. cotton. Cotton Incorporated also highlights the Cotton LEADS program (not mentioned in Mind the Gap), saying:

Top Articles
Putting the Best of Both Worlds Together

“Not every country has the luxury of a robust and longstanding infrastructure of national regulation, self-investment in improvement, or the ability to enact these practices on a national level. These commonalities are what led cotton organizations from the U.S. and Australia to form Cotton LEADS. For countries without this level of infrastructure and achievement, the education offered by certification programs is a valid and welcome means of encouraging responsible production and traceability. But it is not the only path to environmental gains for cotton.

Every cotton identity program should stand on its own merits and present a complete and absolutely honest case for itself. Incendiary statements and obfuscation may increase membership numbers in the short term, but in the long term are a disservice to cotton businesses in search of a sustainable path, and to the ideal of sustainability.”

In closing, Cotton Incorporated refocused the discussion and called out cotton’s real threat – synthetics.

“The real threat to cotton continues to be synthetics. If the energy expended on vilifying conventional cotton were focused on combating loss of cotton share, there would be more than enough room for all cotton identity programs to flourish.”

 

0