Draft Research Proposal

Prepared for: Patagonia

Prepared by: Lindsay Bass

Ainsley Close

Amelia Nuding

Loretta Tam

Daniel Young

May 22, 2009

Donald Bren School UC Santa Barbara patagonia@bren.ucsb.edu www.bren.ucsb.edu/~patagonia

Donald Bren School ofEnvironmental Science and Management

Abstract

As anthropogenic climate change and population growth increase the stress on water resources in many parts

of the world, businesses must begin to more closely monitor their reliance and impact on freshwater systems. Patagonia

has chosen to take a pro-active approach in assessing its water usage by attempting to quantify the water used through

the full life cycle of six of its garments. This project will collect water quantity and water quality data from Patagonia’s

suppliers and use existing data on textile manufacturing processes to create a “water footprint.” This water footprint,

combined with assessments of regional water conditions, environmental and social impacts, will help us to understand

Patagonia’s water related business risks so that we can recommend best management practices to mitigate those risks.

The final product will also include a comprehensive and transparent footprinting methodology that can be applied to all of

Patagonia’s product lines, and potentially be extrapolated to the larger textile industry.

Donald Bren School UC Santa Barbara patagonia@bren.ucsb.edu www.bren.ucsb.edu/~patagonia

Table of Contents

....................................................................................Executive Summary 1

.................................................................................................Background 3Global Water Challenges and Implications

The Case for Water Footprinting

Specific Water Challenges of the Textile Industry

Methodologies of Water Footprinting

Water Management in the Textile Industry

..........................................................................................Methodologies 10Water Footprint Model Designed to meet textile industry specific needs

Data Collection

Data Analysis

Environmental Impacts Assessment

Business and Social Impacts Assessment

Best Management Practice Recommendations

........................................................................................................Budget 15

....................................................................................................Schedule 16

..............................................................................................Bibliography 17

.................................................................................Contact Information 22

Patagonia

DRAFT

Appendices

..................................................................Appendix A: Management Plan iGroup Structure and Management

Meeting Structure

Team Responsibilities and Roles

Documentation Protocols

Conflict Resolution

Advisor and Client Meeting Protocol

.....................................................................Appendix B: Sample Surveys vCotton Growing

Cut and Sew Factory

Fabric Factory

Yarn Factory

DRAFT

Executive Summary

Water is an essential element of life on this planet for climate, habitat and nourishment. Apart from these very apparent

ecological values, freshwater also plays an essential role in the world economy, though its true value is rarely reflected in

its cost. As human demand for water intensifies and water resources decline, awareness of the importance of improved

water management is growing. A number of businesses have recently taken action to better understand the impact of

their water use, which has contributed to the development of water accounting methods known as “water footprinting.”

Patagonia, an apparel company with a strong environmental commitment and a history of product-level footprinting

efforts for energy, greenhouse gas emissions and waste, is now interested in conducting water footprints for its products

as well.

We will conduct a water footprint for six of Patagonia’s garments, which will include an assessment of the water quantity

used, the water quality discharged and the geographic region impacted throughout product life cycles. The life cycle of a

garment includes the production of raw materials, the manufacturing and processing of fibers, fabrics and garments, the

distribution, the consumer’s use and finally the disposal or recycling. The following garments were selected as pairs by

Patagonia to illustrate expected differences in one or more of the water impacts being considered.

• W's Organic Cotton T-shirt and W's Simply Organic T: Chosen to highlight differences in quantity of water used

in the cutting and dying stages of organic cotton t-shirts.

• The Synchilla Snap Zip or Snap T (10.6 oz) and the Better Sweater (9.5 oz King whale product): Chosen to

highlight differences in the quality of water resulting from the manufacturing processes between polyester and

recycled synthetic materials.

• The Merino 3 Crew (New Zealand Wool) and a product using wool from the US: Chosen to highlight regional

differences in agricultural impacts.

Questionnaires regarding quantity and quality of water will be developed and distributed to manufacturers within the

supply chain of the six garments. In addition, generic industry data may be used when specific data is not available. The

data will be synthesized in a tool developed by the project team. This tool will calculate the footprint of each garment and

allow for numerical comparisons of total water quantity used per garment, as well as comparisons between similar

processes and facilities. The numerical comparison will be augmented by a qualitative assessment of the regional

impacts of this water use, which will help to identify water-related business risks. A set of management recommendations

will then be developed based on these findings.

Patagonia

DRAFT

The development of this footprint tool will be informed by pre-existing tools such as GaBi life cycle assessment software,

the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s Global Water Tool (WBCSD, 2008) and the corporate water

footprinting methodology developed by the Water Footprint Network (Gerbens-Leenes, Hoekstra 2008). However, the

project footprint tool will be designed specifically for Patagonia so that they may perform water footprints for more

products in the future. We also hope that with this tool we will be able to contribute to the development of water

footprinting methodologies in the textile industry and more broadly.

Patagonia

DRAFT

Background

Global Water Challenges and Implications

Growing Water Demand Freshwater is a necessary element upon which human society and natural ecosystems rely (Costanza and Daly 1992 as

cited in Gerbens-Leenes & Hoekstra 2008). Population growth, urbanization, and the globalization of the world economy

are leading to a widespread increase in the demand for water resources. Goldman Sachs estimates that global water

consumption is increasing at an unsustainable rate, doubling every 20 years (The Economist 2008). According to the

United Nations, roughly two-thirds of the world’s population, which is expected to grow to nearly 8 billion, will be living in

“water-stressed” conditions by the year 2025 (Alter 2009, Rosegrant et al. 2002). Compounding the concerns around

demand for water resources is a growing uncertainty regarding changes in the supply and availability of freshwater.

Changes in Water Supply and QualityClimate change will likely lead to major spatial and temporal changes in precipitation, thereby affecting freshwater

availability (IPCC 2007 as cited in Gerbens-Leenes & Hoekstra 2008). Hydrological models have determined that the

timing and magnitude of runoff are the primary concerns as these changes take place (Tague et al. 2008). A shift in

precipitation patterns and intensity could increase water scarcity, particularly in the sub tropics and mid-latitudes, adding

complexity and unpredictability to water resource issues (Morrison et al. 2009). For example, in Southern Europe, where

a number of Patagonia products are manufactured, freshwater availability is projected to decrease by 25-50% between

2000-2070 (Lehner et al. 2001 as cited in Gerbens-Leenes & Hoekstra 2008). Additionally, climate change is expected to

diminish ecosystem capacity to filter water and create buffers from flooding resulting in lower water quality and changes

in runoff rates and timing (Morrison et al. 2009).

As populations increase and cities expand, land-use change will play an increasing role in determining the availability and

quality of water resources. While agriculture is a major contributor of non-point source water pollution, residential and

developed lands are also intensively managed, and can negatively impact water quality (Bhattarai et al. 2008). Water

quantity and quality concerns will continue to grow, leading to potentially contentious political situations between

businesses and local communities, especially in developing countries (Rosegrant et al. 2002). Furthermore, inadequate

allocation and accessibility of water resources will continue to hamper the development processes (Chapagain & Orr

2008). Decreased water availability will exacerbate perceived and real inequalities in communities, which may impact

business growth and licenses to operate; meanwhile, diminished water quality will increase pre-treatment and

wastewater treatment costs, requiring businesses to further scrutinize water-related risks, especially in regions that are

Patagonia

DRAFT 3

already under pressure (Morrison et al. 2009). It is therefore critical to carefully consider the relationship between

increased demand for water resources and decreased supply.

A recent WWF study examined the water consumption of the United Kingdom. Figure 1 is a plot of the water used in

agricultural products that are consumed the UK (vertical axis) versus the source of those products and the relative water

scarcity of that region (horizontal axis). This figure provides a visual representation of the current tension between water

consumption and water scarcity worldwide, and different quadrants represent different levels of risk to both suppliers and

consumers.

Figure 1: The UK agricultural WF and water stressed production sites (Chapagain & Orr 2008)

Patagonia

DRAFT 4

The Case for Water Footprinting

Water Management Implications for BusinessesWhile there is considerable debate regarding the classification of water as a commodity versus a basic human right,

government and business goals regarding water and environmental issues are beginning to align (IBM 2009). All

businesses rely on freshwater supply and certain standards of quality, and therefore have a stake in responsible water

management. According to a Marsh Centre for Risk Insights survey, 40% of Fortune 1000 companies said the impact of

a water shortage on their business would be "severe" or "catastrophic"—but only 17% were prepared for such a crisis

(The Economist 2008). To protect their interests, businesses must be aware of other users, ongoing over-appropriation,

intensifying environmental impacts, declining water quality, climate change effects, and the public’s role in water policy

(Hwang et al. 2007).

Three types of risk must be considered by companies: physical, regulatory and reputational (JP Morgan et al. 2008).

Physical risks, such as the non-availability of water, have the potential to disrupt operations and/or limit growth. In regions

where water supply is a problem, it is in the company’s best interest to engage early with the issue to bring about better

water management practices, rather than face relocation or closure due to environmental concerns (Orr et al. 2009).

Water scarcity can drive up the price of water and constrain growth, or result in regulatory changes such as the

suspension of permits for water withdrawal or discharge (JP Morgan et al. 2008). As a result, companies will increasingly

be under pressure to disclose water use and impacts to investors by outlining costs and supply-chain risks (JP Morgan

et al. 2008).

Regulatory risks, such as restrictions to a firm’s license to operate and changing price structures, must also be

considered in business strategy and decision-making (Morrison et al 2009). New or more stringent wastewater

regulations could increase wastewater treatment costs in textile manufacturing (Morrison et al 2009). In addition,

government restrictions on water-intensive industries have already been instituted and are expected to continue into the

future as water resources face unsustainable demands. According to reports from the China Daily, the 2007 Draft Plan for

National Economic and Social Development placed location constraints on new textile industries in response to water

availability concerns (Morrison et al 2009).

Reputational risks, such as damaged brand or reputation, can undermine a company’s bottom line as well (L&L

Manufacturing 2008). Business water accounting is increasingly regarded as an essential part of corporate performance

accounting, valued by customers and shareholders (Gerbens-Leenes & Hoekstra 2008). Corporate disclosure of water

use is beginning to raise public awareness of the issue. As a result, companies are being pressured to build “greener”

reputations (Chapagain & Orr 2008). Additionally, a company’s social license to operate in any market depends on

constructive dialogue among key stakeholders—community members, farmers, companies, and others—about how

water resources will be shared to meet competing demands. The manner in which a company conducts itself in these

situations can either help or hurt the brand image (Flowers 2006).

Patagonia

DRAFT 5

Already, many large corporations are accounting for their water use. Coca Cola Company and Marks and Spencer

recognize that proactive water management contributes to their profitability and competitiveness in the market while

mitigating associated risks (Gerbens-Leenes and Hoekstra 2008). In addition, by accounting for freshwater use many

companies can take steps to increase efficiency and reduce water use. Univlever PLC, the owner of 400 food and

household brands, estimates that it saved approximately $26 million by reducing water waste in its factories from 2001 to

2007 (Alter 2008).

Specific Water Challenges of the Textile Industry

Water QuantityCurrent projections by the UN indicate that of the three major categories of water use, agricultural, industrial and

domestic, industrial water use will show the greatest increase—by 76 percent—between 1995 and 2025 (Cardone

2004). The textile industry is reliant upon water intensive processes to generate fiber and fabrics for garment creation.

Therefore, industry stakeholders have a vested interest in protecting water resources (L&L Manufacturing 2008, Morrison

et al 2009). The majority of water withdrawal in the textile supply chain occurs in the raw materials and processing

stages, such as dyeing, preparation and finishing (L&L Manufacturing 2008, EPA 1997).

The finishing of textiles alone can require up to 700 liters of freshwater per kilogram of textile (BSR 2008). Yet, a

significant percentage of textile and garment manufacturing is located in water stressed regions, such as Southeast Asia,

India and other areas where local communities do not have reliable access to drinking water. These regions also tend to

be most susceptible to climate change impacts on water resources (Morrison et al 2009). In some countries, such as

China, a narrow focus has been applied to the environmental issues of textile production with efforts centering mainly on

the water quality impacts of dyeing processes. However, considerable consumptive use exists further up the supply

chain in raw material production as well (Wu and Chang 2008).

Agricultural raw materials, such as wool and cotton, require water to grow, harvest and clean natural fibers (Morrison et al

2009). Furthermore, about 53 percent of land used to grow cotton, which is already a water-intensive crop, is located

primarily in dry regions requiring irrigation (L&L Manufacturing 2008, Cherrett et al 2005). In fact, estimates of water

requirements for growing cotton range from 8,000 to 40,000 liters per kilogram of cotton (Cherrett et al 2005, Hwang

2008).

Water QualityIn addition to water use, the impact of textile wastewater on water quality must be considered. Wastewater is by far the

largest waste stream for the industry (EPA 1997). Textile effluents contain high concentrations of salts, total suspended

solids, color, chemical oxygen demand (COD), nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) and toxic compounds, such as

surfactants, heavy metals, and chlorinated organic compounds (Ergas et al 2006). The majority of wastewater is

generated during production at the preparation, dyeing, and finishing stages (EPA 1997). Pollutants vary greatly and

depend on the chemicals and treatment processes used (Tufekci et al 2007). In woven and knit production, wet

Patagonia

DRAFT 6

processing is among the most wasteful and environmentally-intensive processes. However, this process contributes to

improved appearance, durability, and serviceability of fabrics, which are of paramount importance to the industry (Kalliala

and Talvenmaa 1999). In addition, dyeing of textiles requires dealing with large amounts of wastewater that contain

potentially toxic by-products (BSR 2008). Efforts have been made to reduce water use through zero discharge systems.

But, adoption has been slow due to the inability to consistently reproduce exact color, and the high cost of treatment to

meet water quality standards for the dying processes (Ergas et al 2006, Vishnu et al 2008).

Increasing water scarcity poses a serious threat to the textile industry in the form of new environmental regulations and

increasing supply uncertainty (L&L Manufacturing 2008, Wu and Chang 2008). Quantifying water use and wastewater

discharge in a standardized way across the supply chain can provide focus to water efficiency efforts (L&L Manufacturing

2008).

Methodologies of Water Footprinting

Water Footprinting as a SolutionWater footprinting is a detailed assessment of water use and water resource impacts, taking into account variability of

geography and seasonal conditions through the supply chain (Gerbens-Leenes and Hoekstra 2008). A commonly used

definition of a water footprint is “the total annual volume of freshwater used to produce the goods and services

consumed by any well-defined group of consumers, including a family, village, city, province, state, nation or

business” (Gerbens-Leenes, Hoekstra, 2008). More specifically, a water footprint of a business has been defined as “the

total volume of freshwater that is used directly [operational] or indirectly [supply chain] to run and support a

business,” (Gerbens-Leenes, Hoekstra, 2008).

There is currently no standardized way of measuring a water footprint, but methodologies that have been developed to

date provide useful metrics and tools that will be the foundation for this project’s methodology. Among the first

organizations to develop water accounting methods are the Water footprint Network, the World Business Council for

Sustainable Development (WBCSD), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the

University of Groningen (Gerbens-Leenes, Hoekstra, 2008).

The Global Water Tool developed by the WBCSD (2009) compares a company’s water use in its buildings, factories and

through the supply chain, and relates each to its geographic context (country and watershed) using the Food and

Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) data on water availability, water source and population statistics. Advantages of this tool

include an ability to provide insight into the areas of greatest business’ risk with respect to water, and the use of Global

Reporting Index (GRI) metrics, which are internationally recognized within a sustainability reporting framework for

economic, environmental and social performance (GRI 2009). A disadvantage of this tool is its inability to provide specific

local-level analysis. Therefore, a more in-depth analysis is still required to understand business risk within the supply

chain (Schendel et al. 2007).

Patagonia

DRAFT 7

The methodology for calculating a water footprint as developed by Gerbens-Leenes and Hoekstra (2008) requires

defining a business “unit,” and calculating the inputs and outputs for each type of water: blue (lakes, aquifers), green

(rain) and grey (wastewater). A business unit is defined as the site where one homogeneous product is manufactured in a

single location. The inputs and outputs are calculated for each unit through the life cycle of a product, the units are

aggregated, and this type of analysis ultimately performed for all aspects of the business operation, yielding a business

water footprint.

Other tools and techniques have been developed as well. The Corporate Water Gauge integrates Geographic Information

System (GIS) analysis to assess business risk at a more local level (Elroy, 2009) and the “pinch point” analysis technique,

which reveals potential bottlenecks in production, takes local water supply constraints into account (Tan et al. 2009).

LCA compared with a water footprintIt is important to differentiate a water footprint from a life cycle assessment (LCA) because they share many similarities.

An LCA is carried out for one particular product or region and looks at the use of the various types of environmental

resources consumed and impacted, and this includes water (Hoekstra, 2008). LCA ISO 14044 is the official standard for

life cycle assessment, and while there is a requirement within LCA that freshwater impacts be acknowledged, there is no

clearly defined set of standards for doing so (Llorenc 2009). In addition, LCA studies do not explicitly take into account

the source of the water or the condition of the water as it leaves the system (Llorenc 2009).

ChallengesThere are many technical challenges which must be faced when conducting a water footprint. Specifically, a large set of

variables including water quantity and quality metrics must be compared across space, time, and processes, which

poses a challenge when trying to compare them equitably (Schendel et al. 2007). In addition, data and analysis

challenges are presented in the discontinuity of geophysical watershed boundaries with economic and political

boundaries (Schendel et al. 2007). More generally, when input-output based environmental analyses consider

consumption of only one type of resource, they fail to take into account other environmental pressures. For instance, a

change in the supply chain may have positive effects regarding one type of environmental pressure and negative effects

regarding another (Munksgaard et al. 2005). Some solutions are offered by Munksgaard et al. (2005), such as the

weighting of different types of environmental pressures that contribute to larger problems. In addition, a Data

Envelopment Analysis (DEA) would allow for a comparison of different functional units (e.g. factories) through a

productivity or efficiency analysis (Munksgaard et al. 2005). It will be important to consider and address these challenges

as we develop our methodology.

Water Management in the Textile Industry

Best Management PracticesDue to the aforementioned problems of water scarcity, there are increasingly abundant best management practices for

water management within the business community as a whole and specifically for textile and apparel manufacturing.

Patagonia

DRAFT 8

These best management practices come from a range of sources including international agreements (CEO Water

Mandate), consulting firms (e.g. Bluesign), academic journals (e.g. Journal of Cleaner Production), government agencies

(e.g. EPA), and many non-profits (e.g. Pacific Institute, Business for Social Responsibility).

These best practices also range from the macro-level of high level strategic planning to the micro-level of specific

substitutes in the filtration process of textile dyeing (Tufekci et al. 2007; Vishnu et al. 2007; Elroy 2009). On the macro-

level, a number of corporations have agreed to a few key steps that are paramount to improving their water management

(UNGC 2007). For example, businesses have taken steps to influence to their supply chain to reduce water use and

called for greater transparency of water policies (GWPTAC 2000). While water management is normally considered in the

domain of water managers and governments, the private sector has begun to step in as governments fail to fully account

water resources and demands (GWPTAC 2000).

Best water management practices have been outlined for the various stages of the apparel process through the design,

agriculture, mill, manufacturing, customer and retailer stages. At each point in the life cycle, technical innovation, strategic

planning and/or environmental accounting can nearly always improve water management (L&L Manufacturing 2008). For

example, designers can reduce water use by replacing cotton with less intensive fibers, and design garments for

durability and recyclability. In the consumer phase, customers can replace their washing machines with high efficiency

washers, buy durable garments and repair instead of replace garments. These improvements can result in cost savings

and increased efficiency (EPA 1997). For this project we will select the most applicable best management practices

which meet Patagonia’s specific needs, and develop new approaches on a case by case basis.

Patagonia

DRAFT 9

Methodologies

The design of a water footprint methodology for Patagonia is a continuation of their efforts to track key environmental

issues across their product supply chains. In the case of water, each product’s footprint is influenced by the production

methods, production locations and water productivities of the supply chain. Our methodology will provide Patagonia

decision-makers with a condensed metric that indicates impact of product water use through a rigorous, repeatable, and

transparent process.

With numerous components and materials contributing to each garment, the focus of our project will be on primary

materials, with secondary materials included when they comprise a significant portion of the product. The following table

outlines the different footprint components, their respective data levels, and the sources from which the data will be

derived.

Footprint Component Data Level Data Sources

Primary Material Origin (the

agricultural field for the fiber source in

the case of cotton, the ranches for

wool and leather products, and the

polymer for synthetic products)

Local / RegionalSupply chain survey / Publicly

available industry resources

Garment Production (from fiber to

yarn to fabric to a finished garment

arriving at the Patagonia Distribution

Center in Reno, Nevada)

Local / RegionalSupply chain survey / Historical

Patagonia information

Transport and Retail (Transport to and

operation of Patagonia retail stores)Local / Regional

Supply chain survey / Historical

Patagonia information

Consumer Use (From purchase to

final use of garment)Regional / National / Global

Literature and sales data from

Patagonia/ Publicly available industry

resources

End of Life (Entry of garment into

waste or recycling stream)Product specific

Supply chain survey / Historical

Patagonia information

Patagonia

DRAFT 10

Water Footprint Model Designed to meet textile industry specific needsSeveral large corporate water footprint efforts are currently underway; this project will add to this body of literature by

demonstrating how water footprint techniques can be specifically applied to six textile products for a small outdoor

apparel retailer. In early 2009, Patagonia began tracking water use through the Footprint Chronicles. Our project will

expand upon existing data to look at water sources, as well as regional impacts on water quality, the environment,

business operations and social stability. Our project will leverage existing corporate water tools along with the water

footprint concept and methodology developed by Professor Arjun Hoekstra at UNESCO-IHE, which focuses on three

main components: blue, green and grey water footprints.

Existing Models & ToolsWhile several water tools are available to help businesses document their water use, many are either too simplistic to

demonstrate environmental impact, too complex for a business to repeat consistently or too vague to determine the

scope of the analysis. At the detailed end of this range, the ISO 14040 guidelines and the life cycle assessment (LCA)

methodology provide a comprehensive approach for assessing the environmental impact of a product’s lifecycle.

However, water use is a small component of this analysis, and it also does not include the source or regional impact

assessment. At the other end of the spectrum, the Global Water Tool provides simple measures to assess business risk

in terms of regional water use. However, the method is designed for large corporations rather than specific product

supply chains. Falling somewhere in the middle is the Corporate Water Gauge, which compares facility water use to a

specific watershed supply, but requires professional consultants to compile and analyze the information. Even so, their

incorporation of GIS watershed analysis is appealing and will be assessed for incorporation into our project’s

methodology.

Toward a Patagonia-Specific MethodologyBuilding on the water withdrawal and discharge data collected by Patagonia, our methodology will need to determine

where the water is coming from and the quality of the water when it leaves vendor facilities. These additional data

components will need to be added to existing vendor environmental questionnaires in a manner that is concise and

relevant to the audience. Best practices from life cycle analysis and ISO 14040 guidelines will be employed to ensure to

the greatest extent possible that data sets are complete, representative, well documented and easy to replicate.

Additionally, it will be important to gauge the level uncertainty within the data, models and assumptions.

Obtaining water quality information from vendors may be a challenge. In the event data cannot be supplied by the

vendor, the robust LCA software, GaBi, could be used to obtain water quality estimates for certain textile processes. If

necessary, the project, with client support, could have the option of purchasing a special textile finishing database, which

includes information on pre-treatment, dyeing and printing, finishing, and fabrics. Another potential source of water

quality data for textile processes is Bluesign Technologies AG. Bluesign has been working with Patagonia to encourage

vendors to become certified in the bluesign® standard for environmental health and safety, and have compiled a

tremendous amount of information on water quality measurements for different textile processes.

Patagonia

DRAFT 11

Beta TestTo ensure that the project methodology is sound, a beta test will be conducted with either the Women’s Simply Organic

T-shirt or the Women’s Cotton T-shirt. This exercise will allow the project team to identify obstacles in data collection,

finalize access to necessary databases, and remove data points that do not add value to the final analysis. By testing

assumptions early, the project team will be able to apply a refined methodology to remaining vendor questionnaire efforts,

and ensure the delivery of a rigorous and reasonable water footprint methodology to our client.

Data CollectionWater use in primary production of raw materials will be gathered from data sources such as The Water Footprint

Network, World Resources Institute and Patagonia. Water use through the supply chain, as well as during the recycling

phase, will be gathered via survey with the help of our Clients. These surveys will be modeled after existing environmental

inventory surveys, such as those developed by Patagonia, the Global Water Tool, the Global Reporting Initiative and the

ISO 14040 life cycle assessments. Below is an example of an environmental impact survey from the ISP 14040

guidelines which includes a water consumption portion. Data regarding water use during the consumer phase will be

gathered from studies conducted by companies such as Johnson & Johnson, Procter and Gamble and 7th Generation.

Contact with employees of these companies will be provided by Patagonia.

The Apparel Water Quality Working Group assembled by the Business for Social Responsibility group recognized 17

textile water quality metrics, and Patagonia has identified the following five measurements as a starting point for

incorporation into their water footprint methodology: temperature, pH, Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Chemical Oxygen

Demand (COD) and Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD). Specific factory and product water quality data will be compared

with regional water quality information in GEMStat, a global online database of water quality maintained by the UNEP

GEMS/Water Programme. GEMStat data has also been incorporated into the Yale University Environmental Performance

Index (EPI) tool for regional water quality measurements.

The data results from each facility will provide:

• Quantity of water withdrawn by source (e.g. groundwater, surface water)

• Quantity of water recycled

• Quantity of water discharged by output location, with water quality metrics included

• Quantity of water used in specific processes (e.g. dying, pre-treatment)

Data AnalysisThe goal of the data analysis is to develop a ranking system that represents the overall water impact of an individual

garment through its life cycle. This ranking system will incorporate a number of metrics for each garment, namely:

Patagonia

DRAFT 12

• the total quantity of water used,

• the quality and quantity of water discharged, and

• the environmental and social impacts of the withdrawal and discharge across the supply chain (described

below)

The six garments were selected in three pairs so that meaningful comparisons between similar garments could be made.

If the water quantity used in one stage (e.g. the consumer stage) far surpasses all others, then we will further break down

the data to make additional meaningful comparisons. We will also make comparisons across facilities and comparable

processes when possible. Analysis between non-paired garments will require a normalization technique, and this will be

attempted if it seems both valuable and feasible.

To help illustrate the components of each of the water footprints, we will graphically represent them in the following

manner: 1) pie charts to relate the footprint size and components of water use for each garment to one another, and 2) a

map to trace the footprint through the lifecycle of the garment.

Environmental Impacts AssessmentThe scope of this assessment, as well as with all other assessments, will depend on the feasibility, results from the

footprints and on our client’s interest in each region. That is, we would ideally analyze each region, but if need be, the

scope will be narrowed to provide a comprehensive assessment of a few regions rather than a superficial assessment of

many regions.

• The environmental impact assessment will include a qualitative and quantitative analysis of ecosystem services

and water stress:

• Impact to Ecosystem Services: Qualitative assessment measures from the Global Reporting Index could

indicate the potential for water bodies to be significantly affected by supply chain runoff. In addition, the size,

protected status, and biodiversity value of water bodies and related habitats significantly affected by the supply

chain’s discharges of water and runoff could be estimated.

• Water Resource Stability: The UN Food and Agriculture (FAOSTAT) database provides regional metrics, such as

Total Renewable Water per capita and Dependency Ratios on external water resources, to indicate water

resource stability. In addition, withdrawal as a percentage of total withdrawal will be assessed for the following

use categories: agriculture, domestic and industrial.

• Water Stress Assessment: The University of New Hampshire’s Water Stress Index has the potential to highlight

the intensity of a region’s water stress.

• Renewable Water Resource Projections: Data from the World Resources Institute will provide measures of the

likelihood of future water stress in a region.

Patagonia

DRAFT 13

Business and Social Impacts AssessmentThe social impact assessments will analyze regional water demand trends and water allocation trends through the supply

chain, as well as water conditions in consumer markets. The following sources will be instrumental in this assessment:

• Human Access to Water Infrastructure: WHO/UNICEF regional metrics will be used to create a better

understanding the state of a region’s water infrastructure. Measures might include: rural and urban access to

improved water and sanitation.

• Industry Trends: The World Water Development Report reports the following regional indicators for determining

industry pressure on water resources: trends in industrial water use and productivity, as well as ISO 14001

certification.

• Climate and Policy Risks: The WWDR lists key regional metrics, such as the Climate Vulnerability Index and the

Risk and Policy Assessment indicator.

• World Trend: World Resources Institute has developed a number of reports and databases, which articulate the

environmental conditions and socioeconomic trends worldwide.

Business risks associated with water scarcity have been identified by a number of industry reports, such as JP Morgan’s

“Watching Water” (2008) and the Business for Social Responsibility’s “At the Crest of a Wave” (2007). Materiality

assessments are an increasingly popular way of allowing companies to better understand which sustainability issues

pose the greatest business risks, as well as the greatest opportunities (Merck 2008). We will look to these assessment

examples to help contextualize Patagonia’s water risk in relation to other risks. In addition, several large corporations

have undertaken water footprinting efforts, such as Levis Strauss and Co, Coca Cola Company, SAB Miller, and Intel.

These cases will be analyzed to better understand the risks they face associated with water quality and supply, consumer

pressure, and government compliance. The identification of business risks specific to Patagonia will be based in part on

the themes found in these aforementioned sources, as well as through a comparison of regional water scarcity and

supply chain locations, incorporating the political realities when possible.

Best Management Practice RecommendationsBest management practice recommendations to Patagonia will be developed based on the aforementioned assessments

and on existing literature specific to the textile industry, provided by groups such as the EPA, Bluesign, the CEO Water

Mandate, and others. While the these resources address general practices that can theoretically be adopted, the specific

recommendations we provide to Patagonia will also include a “road map” for implementing the water footprint method

more broadly through their company. Effective implementation of the methodology will depend on a strategic plan, which

we will help Patagonia develop so that they may continue these efforts in the future.

Patagonia

DRAFT 14

Budget

The Bren School of Environmental Science and Management will provide $1300 to cover necessary costs, plus an

additional $200 for printing costs. Any adjustments to our budget will be addressed by the group through the Financial

Manager. This budget will be updated to reflect the discussed changes within one business day.

Description Cost

Phone calls $50.00

Printing $200.00

Photocopying $20.00

Poster/Brief printing $400.00

Travel to Patagonia in Ventura (80miles*$0.50/mile*4trips) $160.00

Travel to factory in Los Angeles (240miles*$0.50/mile*1trip $120.00

Professional editing $300.00

Client parking ($8/permit*3permits) $24.00

Miscellaneous Expenses $226.00

Total $1,500.00

Patagonia

DRAFT 15

Schedule

SPRING 2009SPRING 2009

May 5, 2009 Methods Outline

May 14, 2009 Proposal Draft

May 19, 2009 Presentations

May, 26, 2009 Submit final proposal to review committee

SUMMER 2009SUMMER 2009

June 1, 2009 Committee review of final proposal

June 12, 2009 Summary of proposal review meeting and weblink due to group project coordinator

July - August 2009 Formulation and distribution of supply chain survey

FALL 2009FALL 2009

September 2009 Collection and compilation of data from supply chain surveys

October 2009 Data analysis and interpretation

November 13, 2009 Progress reviews must be completed

December 4, 2009 Written progress report and submission of self/peer evaluations to faculty advisors

WINTER 2010WINTER 2010

January 2010 Project defenses

February 15, 2010 Draft of final report due to faculty advisors

March 10, 2010 Submit presentation abstract to group project coordinator

March 19, 2010 Final report, project brief and evaluation forms due to group project coordinator

SPRING 2010SPRING 2010

April 2010 Submit powerpoint presentation to faculty advisor for review

May 2010 Group project presentations

Patagonia

DRAFT 16

Bibliography

Alter, A. (2009). Yet Another 'Footprint' to Worry About: Water. The Wall Street Journal. February 19, 2009. Accessed

online April 20, 2009 at <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12 3483638138996305.html>.

 

Bhattarai, G., Srivastava, P., Marzen, L., Hite, D., & Hatch, U. (2008). Assessment of economic and water quality impacts

of land use change using a simple bioeconomic model. Environmental management, 42(1), 122-31.

 

BlueSign. 2009. The bluesign standard for textile manufacturers. Accessed online April 29, 2009 at <http://

www.bluesign.com>.

 

Business for Social Responsibility (BSR). (2008). Water Management in China’s Apparel and Textile Factories. Accessed

online April 24, 2009 at <http://www.bsr.org/reports/ChinaWater_IssueBrief_042908.pdf>.

 

Cardone, R. (2004). Wet Business Risks. Business Knights Magazine, Vol. 3, pp.16-17.

 

Chapagain, A., & Orr, S. (2008). UK Water Footprint: the impact of the UK’s food and fibre consumption on global water

resources. World Wildlife Fund, V(1).

 

Cherrett, N., Barrett, J., Clemett, A., Chadwick, M., & Chadwick, M. (2005). Ecological Footprint and Water Analysis of

Cotton, Hemp and Polyester. Analysis. Stockholm: Stockholm Enivronment Institute.

 

L&L Manufacturing (2008). L&L Manufacturing Water Use efficiency in Apparel Manufacturing. Water Footprint

Conference. San Francisco, December 2-3, 2008.

Patagonia

DRAFT 17

 

Elroy, M. (2009). Corporate Water Gauge. v3.3. Center for Sustainable Innovation. Accessed online April 27, 2009 at

<http://www.sustainableinnovation.org>.

 

Environmental Protection Agency. (1997). Profile of the Textile Industry. Accessed online April 27, 2009 at <http://

www.epa.gov>.

 

Ergas, S. J., Therriault, M. A., Reckhow, D. A., & Asce, M. (2006). Evaluation of Water Reuse Technologies for the Textile

Industry. Journal of Environmental Engineering, (March), 315-324.

 

Flowers, B.S. (2006). Business in the world of water: Water Scenarios to 2025. World Business Council for Sustainable

Development. Accessed online April 19, 2009 <http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?

type=DocDet&ObjectId=MTk2MzY>.

 

Gerbens-Leenes, P., & Hoekstra, A. (2008). Business water footprint accounting. Accessed online April 30, 2009 at

<http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/Publications>.

 

Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2009). Global Reporting Initiative. Accessed online on April 30, 2009 at <http://

www.globalinitiative.org>.

 

Global Water Partnership Technical Advisory Committee (GWPTAC). (2000). Integrated Water Resources Management.

TAC Background Papers. Stockholm: Global Water Partnership. Accessed online April 29, 2009 at <http://

www.gwpforum.org>.

 

Hoekstra, A. (2003). Virtual water trade. Water Resources, Issue 12. Accessed online April 10, 2009 at <http://

www.waterfootprint.org/>.

 

Patagonia

DRAFT 18

Hoekstra, A. (2008). Human appropriation of natural capital: A comparison of ecological footprint and water footprint

analysis. Ecological Economics, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.021.

 

Hwang, L. (2008). Water Management in the Apparel & Textile Supply Chain. Business for Social Responsibility.

Accessed online April 27, 2009 at <http://www.bsr.org>.

 

Hwang, Linda and Jason Morrison. (2007). At the Crest of a Wave: A Proactive Approach to Corporate Water Strategy.

Business for Social Responsibility. Accessed online April 27, 2009 at <http://www.bsr.org>.

 

International Business Machines, Corporation (IBM). (2009). Water: A global innovation outlook report.

 

JP Morgan, Levinson, M., & Lee, E. (2008). Watching water. Global Equity Research. Accessed on April 30, 2009 at

<http://www.morganmarkets.com>.

 

Kalliala, E., & Talvenmaa, P. (2000). Environmental profile of textile wet processing in Finland. Journal of Cleaner

Production, Vol.8, pp143-154.

 

Llorenc, M. I., Chenoweth, J., Chapagain, A., Orr, S., Antón, A., Clift, R. (2009). Assessing freshwater use impacts in

LCA: Part I—inventory modelling and characterisation factors for the main impact pathways. The International Journal of

Life Cycle Assessment, Vol 14(1), pp28-42.

 

Morrison, J. (2009). WATER DISCLOSURE 2.0 Assessment of Current and Emerging Practice in Corporate Water

Reporting. Elements, Vol (March) 2009.

 

Munksgaard, J. (2005). Using Input-Output Analysis to Measure the Environmental Pressure of Consumption at Different

Spatial Levels. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(1-2), 169-185.

Patagonia

DRAFT 19

Orr, S., Cartwright, A., & Tickner, D. (2009). Understanding water risks: A primer on understanding the consequences of

water scarcity for government. World Wildlife Fund. Accessed online April 30, 2009 at <http://www.wwf.org.uk/

research_centre/index.cfm?2842>.

 

Rosegrant, M., Ximing Cai, X., & Cline, S. (2002). Global water outlook to 2025: Averting an Impending Crisis.

International Food Policy Research Institute.

 

Schendel, E. K., Macdonald, J. R., Schreier, H., & Lavkulich, L. E. (2007). Virtual water: A framework for comparative

regional resource assessment. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, Vol 9(3), pp 341-355.

 

Tague, C., Grant, G., Farrell, M., Choate, J., & Jefferson, A. (2008). Deep groundwater mediates streamflow response to

climate warming in the Oregon Cascades. Climatic Change, Vol 86(1-2), pp189-210.

 

Tan, R., Foo, D., AVISO, K., & Ng, D. (2009). The use of graphical pinch analysis for visualizing water footprint constraints

in biofuel production. Applied Energy, Vol 86(5), pp605-609.

 

The Economist (2008). Running Dry: Business and Water. The Economist. August 21, 2008. Accessed online April 18,

2009 from <http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11966993>.

 

Tufekci, N., Sivri, N., & Toroz, I. (2007). Pollutants of Textile Industry Wastewater and Assessment of its Discharge Limits

by Water Quality Standards. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Vol 103, pp97-103.

 

United Nations Global Compact (UNGC). (2007). The CEO Water Mandate. United Nations Global Compact. Accessed

online April 29, 2009 at <http://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/ news_events/8.1/Ceo_water_mandate.pdf>.

 

Vishnu, G., Palanisamy, S., & Joseph, K. (2008). Assessment of fieldscale zero liquid discharge treatment systems for

recovery of water and salt from textile effluents. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol 16(10), pp1081-1089.

 

Patagonia

DRAFT 20

World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBSCD). (2009). Global Water Tool. Accessed April 30, 2009 at

<http://www.wbcsd.org/templates/TemplateWBCSD5/layout. asptype=p&MenuId=MTUxNQ&doOpen=1&ClickMenu

=LeftMenu=LeftMenu>.

 

Wu, C., & Chang, N. (2008). Evaluation of environmentally benign production program in the textile-dyeing industry (II): a

multi-objective programming approach. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, Vol 25(1), pp1-28.

Patagonia

DRAFT 21

Contact Information

Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management

University of California, Santa Barbara

2400 Bren Hall

Santa Barbara, CA 93106

Phone: (805) 893-7611

Fax: (805) 893-7612

Email: patagonia@bren.ucsb.edu

www.bren.ucsb.edu/~pantagonia

Group Members:

Amelia Nuding: MNuding@bren.ucsb.edu

Ainsley Close: AClose@bren.ucsb.edu

Daniel Young: DYoung@bren.ucsb.edu

Lindsay Bass: LBass@bren.ucsb.edu

Loretta Tam: LTam@bren.ucsb.edu

Patagonia

DRAFT 22

Appendices

Patagonia

DRAFT

Appendix A: Management Plan

Group Structure and Management

Meeting StructureThe group will meet twice weekly for one hour, and adjust as necessary. Tom Dunne will be invited to the first part of one

of those meetings. The Project Manager will send out a meeting agenda before each meeting, and will include input from

the group in the agenda. The project manager will also be responsible for keeping the group discussion focused on the

agenda tasks. Ainsley Close will coordinate the meeting times and locations, and Lindsay Bass will take meeting notes.

DRAFT i

Team Responsibilities and Roles

Project Manager

Ameila Nuding

Project Manager is responsible for maintaining the project timeline, which will be developed by the entire group. The

Project Manager will also be the primary contact person with the Client. The Project Manager is responsible for driving

forward the work agenda and for making sure the group work is meeting expectations as outlined by the group and

client. This role may rotate in subsequent quarters.

Financial Manager

Daniel Young

The financial manager is the point person for all financial matters.  He will maintain the $1300 + $200 (for printing) group

project budget and be familiar with the information about finances set forth in the group project handbook.  He will also

act as liaison to the Bren School’s Financial Staff, specifically Connie Fourqurean regarding purchasing, Frank Soares

regarding travel and payroll, and Mike Best regarding extramural and gift funds, proposals, financial statements, and

other assorted questions and problems.  Additionally, he will coordinate with Jennifer Deacon, in the event that external

funding is secured.

Data and Resources Manager

Ainsley Close and Lindsay Bass

As the data and resource managers, Ainsley Close and Lindsay Bass will be responsible for collecting and organizing

group data. This includes but is not limited to: scheduling all meetings; taking and distributing meeting notes within 48

hours of a meeting; organizing academic and research papers; organizing data from survey respondents; and, providing

accessible data for group members and clients. They will also be responsible for setting up a file system and provide

access to all participants. The standard file naming system will be “document names_MMDDYY_Initials.” The will be

responsible for ensuring that the data structure continues to meet group needs.

Media and Website Developer/Manager

Loretta Tam

The web manager will be responsible for the direct design of website elements using Dreamweaver with the assistance of

the compute team, and ensure that the site is current and up to date. The site will be maintained in accordance with

Bren School policies regulating Bren School web formats and content. The website will contain at the minimum

information set forth in the Group Project Guidelines.

Patagonia

DRAFT 2

Internship Coordinator

Amelia Nuding

Amelia Nuding, who as project manager is already the liaison with the client, will also act as the internship coordinator.

She will work with Patagonia to define the scope of the internship work over the summer (if there is an internship

available) and will coordinate with Bren administrative staff on the logistics of this position.

Documentation ProtocolsWorking documents will be stored as Word and Excel files primarily, in the shared G:/ on the Bren server. We will enable

track changes on collaborative documents, and group members will take turns finalizing each document. Each edited

version of the document will be saved with the date, time, and initialed. At every meeting, notes will be taken and

distributed to the group within two days. Loretta Tam will be responsible for the submission of all final documents. The

organization of these documents will be the responsibility of the data managers. Expenses incurred during the course of

this work (e.g. travel to the Patagonia office) will be recorded through out the project . Expense reports will be completed

by group members and maintained by the Finance Manager.

The Data Manager is responsible for creating the file structure and as needed, periodically adding subdirectories to

ensure files are easily found by any group project member. Any digital material cited by group members in their writing will

be placed in the “literature” folder on the shared drive under the appropriate subdirectory. Literature will be named:

title_author_yyyy.

Conflict ResolutionGroup members have agreed to be honest with each other. We will openly discuss issues related to individual efforts and

overall progress during the weekly meetings whenever necessary. Interpersonal conflict will first be addressed in one-on-

one conversations. If necessary, the conflict will be addressed in a group discussion. As a last resort, we will seek the

advice of a campus ombudsman to resolve an interpersonal conflict.

If a conflict arises regarding which course of action to pursue in a given situation, the group will first discuss the issue and

try to reach consensus. If no resolution is reached, it is the job of the Project Manager to call for a vote, and the majority

will rule on this vote. If a conflict cannot be resolved between group members, all parties involved will seek the assistance

of the Advisor to help alleviate the problem. When a resolution is reached, a plan will be written and shared with all group

members that outlines agreed upon solution. If serious problems persist after an agreed upon solution was reached, the

student will be confronted in a constructive manner. As a last resort, group project members reserve the right to contact

Bren School administrators under very serious circumstances.

Patagonia

DRAFT 3

Advisor and Client Meeting ProtocolDuring our meetings with our advisor, the Project Manager will structure the agenda to make the most use of the Project

Advisor’s time and expertise during the first part of the meeting. Meetings/conversations with the client will take place at

regular intervals, by phone or in person as necessary. The frequency of these interactions will be determined in

consultation with the client.

Advisor ExpectationsThe project advisor will attend weekly meetings with group members and must notify group members via email to

paratonia@bren at least 24 hours in advance if a meeting must be missed or rescheduled. Additionally, the advisor may

attend occasional additional meetings with clients and/or other project stakeholders. He will provide constructive and

timely feedback on project work including group and client interactions, and project scope, methodology, and

deliverables. Also he will provide technical or logistical advice when needed. As necessary, he will mediate conflicts.

Client ExpectationsPatagonia will assist the group with facilitating contact with additional relevant stakeholders. Additionally, the client will

provide group with data and other useful information as needed, as well as constructive criticism on work products. The

client or client representatives may attend occasional meetings as necessary.

Patagonia

DRAFT 4

Appendix B: Sample Surveys

The following are samples of a variety of iterations of supply chain surveys previously used by Patagonia to gather data to

construct the Footprint Chronicles. They vary based on what stage in the supply chain they were sent to (i.e. fiber

supplier, spinner, or weaver/knitter.

DRAFT v

Cotton Growing

Patagonia

DRAFT 6

Metric tons of Cotton Yarn

1.) How many metric tons of cotton did you produce last year?

2.) Of your total production, what % was organic cotton?

3.) How much electricity was used in 2008 (Nov 2007 – Nov 2008) to grow the cotton?

___ kWh

4.) Do you generate electricity on-site ___ Yes __ No

5.) How much of the following types of energy did you use in 2008 (Nov 2007 – Nov 2008) to grow the cotton?

Quantity Units (therms, tons, liters, kg, etc.)

Natural Gas (including propane)

Fuel Oil

Diesel

Coal

LPG (liquid Petroleum gas)

Biodiesel

Quantity Units (please report in gallons or liters of water)

6.) How much water was used in 2008 (Please report on water use from Nov 2007 to Nov 2008 to account for one full calendar year)?

7.) How much water was discharged in 2008 (Please report on water discharged from Nov 2007 to Nov 2008 to account for one full calendar year)?

8.) Please list all the processes that are included this data (ie: growing, ginning, processing, spinning etc):

How much solid waste is generated in each process? Please report by weight of waste or as a % of the total fabric made (example: 20% of materials used end up as waste)?

9.) How far are the cotton fields from the cotton gin? What country/city is the ginning done in?

10.) How is the cotton transported from the cotton fields to the ginning facility? Truck or Train, or/and Ship?

Cut and Sew Factory

Patagonia

DRAFT 7

Quantity

1.) How many garments were made at your facility in 2008 (January – December)?

2.) Do you track energy use at your facility?

3.) How much electricity did you use in 2008 (November 2007 – November 2008)?

___ kWh

4.) Do you generate electricity on-site ___ Yes __ No

If so, how much electricity do you generate? ____ kWh

5.) How much of the following types of energy did you use in 2008 (Nov 2007 – Nov 2008)?

Quantity Units (therms, tons, liters, kg, etc.)

Natural Gas (including propane)

Fuel Oil

Diesel

Coal

LPG (liquid Petroleum gas

Biodiesel

Quantity Units (please report in gallons or liters of water)

6.) How much water was used in 2008 (Nov 07- Nov 08)?

7.) How much water was discharged in 2008 (Nov 07- Nov 08)?

8.) How much of the total water used is recycled?

9.) Please check all the processes that occur in your facility and provide the quantity of waste generated in each process.

Place and x in this column if process is done at your facility.

How much solid waste is generated in each process? (please report as % of total materials used in the process)

Dyeing/printing

Textile finishing

Fabric cutting

Sewing

Garment washing/dyeing

Please report in Miles or Kilometers

10.) How are the Patagonia products made at your facility, shipped from the factory to the shipping port? Truck or Train?

11.) How far is the shipping port from your facility?

13.) What city is the shipping port located in?

Fabric Factory

Patagonia

DRAFT 8

1.) How many yards fabric do you produce in 2007?

Yards of Fabric

Fabric

Pounds of Fabric

2.) How many pounds of yarn are needed to make 1,000 yards of fabric # ____________?

3.) Do you track energy use at your facility?

4.) How much electricity did you use in 2007 ____ kWh

5.) Do you generate electricity on-site ___ Yes __No

6.) How much of the following types of energy did you use in 2007?

Quantity Units (therms, tons, liters, kg, etc.)

Natural Gas (including propane)

Fuel Oil

Diesel

Coal

LPG (liquid Petroleum gas

Biodiesel

7.) Please check all the processes that occur in your facility.

Please place an x in this column if the process occurs in your facility.

How much solid waste is generated in each process? Please report by weight of waste or as a % of the total fabric made (example: 20% of materials used end up as waste)?

Spinning

Yarn dyeing

Knitting

Weaving

Dyeing/printing

Textile finishing

Yarn Factory

Patagonia

DRAFT 9

1.) How many metric tons of yarn did you produce in 2008?

Quantity

Tons of Yarn

2.) How many pounds of cotton are needed to make 1,000 lbs of ___________yarn?

3.) Do you track energy use at your facility?

4.) How much electricity did you use in 2007 ____ kWh

5.) Do you generate electricity on-site ___ Yes ___ No

6.) How much of the following types of energy did you use in 2007?

Quantity Units (therms, tons, liters, kg, etc.)

Natural Gas (including propane)

Fuel Oil

Diesel

Coal

LPG (liquid Petroleum gas

Biodiesel

7.) Please check all the processes that occur in your factory

Please place an x in this column if the process occurs in your facility.

How much solid waste is generated in each process? Please report by weight of waste or as a % of the total fabric made (example: 20% of materials used end up as waste)?

Spinning

Yarn dyeing

Knitting

Weaving

Dyeing/printing

Textile finishing

Fabric cutting

Sewing

Garment washing/dyeing

8.) How are the materials/products transported to and from your factory? Is it trucked from factory to port? Do you ever ship by train?

9.) What city and country is your factory located in?

10.) What is the name of closest major port to the facility? What city is the port in?

11.) How far is the port from your factory?