Social and Eco-labelling of Textile and Clothing Goods as Means of Communication and Product Differentiation

Abstract

The certification and labelling of ’socially responsible products’ has been clearly attracting
more and more interest in recent years. The systems and practical solutions developed
in this field aim to make “ethical products” recognisable and generally available. This
trend arises from growing consumer appreciation of not only the technical advantages,
price, quality, delivery times and environmental safety of the products they buy but also of
their social and ethical aspects. This article evaluates the importance of socio- and ecocertification
and labelling for meeting buyers’ expectations of textile and clothing products.
It also discusses consumers’ opinions on this matter.

Full text

Koszewska M.; Social and Eco-labelling of Textile and Clothing Goods as Means of Communication and Product Differentiation.
FIBRES & TEXTILES in Eastern Europe 2011, Vol. 19, No. 4 (87) pp. 20-26.
20
Social and Eco-labelling of Textile
and Clothing Goods as Means of
Communication and Product Differentiation
Małgorzata Koszewska
Department of Material and Commodity Sciences,
and Textile Metrology
Centre of Market Analyses of Product Innovations
Technical University of Lodz
ul. Żeromskiego 116, 90-924 Łódź, Poland
E-mail: malgorzata.koszewska@p.lodz.pl
Abstract
The certication and labelling of ’socially responsible products’ has been clearly attract-
ing more and more interest in recent years. The systems and practical solutions developed
in this eld aim to make “ethical products” recognisable and generally available. This
trend arises from growing consumer appreciation of not only the technical advantages,
price, quality, delivery times and environmental safety of the products they buy but also of
their social and ethical aspects. This article evaluates the importance of socio- and eco-
certication and labelling for meeting buyers’ expectations of textile and clothing products.
It also discusses consumers’ opinions on this matter.
Key words: social labelling, eco-labelling, corporate social responsibility, textile and
clothing market, fast fashion, consumer behaviour.
Corporate social responsibility
and the textile and clothing
sector
Ecological and social problems exert
strongly affect the textile and clothing
market. Within the former, the three main
concerns are production ecology, human
ecology and waste disposal [20, 21].
Some raw materials used in the textile
industry are plants that are particularly
burdensome for the environment, as their
growth frequently involves the use of
various fertilisers and pesticides. Besides
this the industry’s nishing processes
(dyeing, printing, and washing) consume
huge amounts of chemical substances.
The social problems that the textile
and clothing industry has to cope with
are particularly acute in the develop-
ing countries, where child employment,
forced and slave labour, workers’ expo-
sure to physical and mental harassment,
very long working hours, pay below the
minimum rates, dangerous working con-
ditions and discriminatory practices have
reached record-high levels.
These problems occur with varying in-
tensity throughout the life cycle of textile
and clothing products (Figure 1, more
information on this subject can be found
in [6]).
The main factors responsible for this sit-
uation are the globalised structure of the
textile and clothing industry and the way
it has developed over the centuries. The
second half of the 20th century witnessed
an unprecedented speed of the reloca-
tion of garment manufacturing facilities,
as a result of which the early stages of
manufacturing were transferred to less
developed countries. As a result, a large
geographical gap has appeared between
the sites where production actually takes
place and the markets for the nished
products. Transactions are carried out
through a complex network of agents,
subcontractors and suppliers. The manu-
facturing end of the clothing industry
is so scattered that even the companies
awarding production contracts do not
always know where garments are made
and what the production conditions are.
This situation should be mainly attrib-
uted to the low labour costs and exible
labour force in the developing coun-
tries, as well as to inducements offered
by countries competing for manufactur-
ing contracts, such as tax havens, looser
environmental protection standards, the
efciency of modern ICT solutions and
their falling prices, and considerably
lower shipment costs.
As a result, garment retailers and estab-
lished brands have become global agents
awarding contracts under which the early
stages of production (i.e. the delivery of
raw materials, manufacturing, and pack-
aging) are performed by suppliers and
contractors comprising a complex net-
work known as ’a global supply chain’.
One end of the chain is markets domi-
nated by several leading retailers and
renowned brands (the largest brands and
chains of clothing retailers control 75%
of the clothing market), and the other
end is a workforce busily producing gar-
ments for minimum wages earned under
frequently unacceptable conditions.
Although clothing prices keep falling,
rms’ prots are steadily rising. This is
mainly due to the fast growing number
of countries and producers that are ready
to deliver products to the stores of large
rms. This imbalance gives a lot of power
to western retailers and brands that can
afford to constantly cut their market
prices while demanding that their suppli-
ers produce faster and faster. The pres-
sure of time and cost reductions mainly
hurts the producer’s workforce i.e. work-
ers’ wages keep declining and they have
to work longer and longer hours under
deteriorating conditions. Moreover, the
complexity of garment making makes it
possible for many factories producing for
renowned rms to conceal all these bad
aspects. Labour conditions in the global
south countries allow clothing compa-
nies to earn large prots in spite of the
constantly falling prices and costly sales
promotions.

21
FIBRES & TEXTILES in Eastern Europe 2011, Vol. 19, No. 4 (87)
Another factor that makes these prob-
lems difcult to solve is so-called ‘fast
fashion’. Because the world today is
always on the move, ever-shorter pro-
duction times, electronic payments and
more efcient transport facilities also ac-
celerate the ow of textile and clothing
products. Despite the fact that garments
are still made manually, new designs are
ready for sale within 12 days. Consump-
tion is keeping pace with production –
according to the most recent reports, the
volume of clothing that consumers have
purchased over the last four years has in-
creased by 1/3.
However, the faster production and con-
sumption of goods cannot change some
basic factors – bre still needs the same
amount of time to grow (e.g. cotton be-
comes harvestable after 1 year) and ig-
nores the speed at which products are
expected to appear in the market; clean-
ing, bleaching and dyeing can be neither
shortened nor skipped. The time when
a product is purchased and then used
seems to be unrelated to the making of
a nished product. Accelerating produc-
tion and consumption is very costly. It
would not be possible to deliver cheap
clothing ‘overnight’, if the workforce
and the natural environment were not ex-
ploited [22].
The challenges that the textile and cloth-
ing industry has to deal with have led
to the development of a range of initia-
tives to address the situation. More and
more rms seem to understand that the
growing community of conscious and de-
manding consumers will insist more and
more strongly that manufacturers respect
the principles of ethical conduct, people
and the natural environment. This aware-
ness has encouraged renowned rms to
add ’ethical’ garment lines to their fash-
ion collections; another sign of change
has been the establishment of the Fair-
trade Cotton Mark1).
The ODCE surveyed the quality of CSR
communication between textile and
clothing manufacturers and their con-
sumers and of the instruments that tex-
tile and clothing manufacturers use to
inform buyers about their manufacturing
conditions [1]. It was found that textile
and clothing manufacturers employ al-
most all available CSR tools, and they
are more successful in doing this than the
other sectors of industry (see Table 1).
Trying to cope with the problem of long
and complex supply chains and of con-
trolling each aspect of organisations’
relationships with thousands of partners
and subcontractors scattered all over the
world, some textile and clothing rms
have decided to disclose the names and
locations of their suppliers.
The ODCE survey additionally revealed
that the textile and clothing industry
provides buyers with access to a huge
number of publications and online infor-
mation services. Consumer guides such
as Ethical Consumer, Ethiscore, New-
consumer, Lift the Label Ethical Direc-
tory, and Getethical contain a wealth of
information on apparel stores, ethical
fashion, organic cotton, fair trade, etc.
Moreover, more and more textile and
clothing manufacturers decide to ap-
ply for process certication to label
their products appropriately (e.g. Clean
Clothes Campaign, Rugmark, and No
Sweat labels). In a growing number of
cases, such labels co-occur with standard
labels giving information on raw mate-
rial composition, the product’s country of
origin, etc.
Reporting initiatives are very common
in the textile and clothing industry, espe-
cially compared with other sectors trad-
ing globally in products such as fresh
sh, cut owers, and cosmetics. Most
of them include reports on working con-
ditions in global supply chains, whose
printed as well as downloadable versions
are usually available to the public.
The big names in the textile and clothing
industry draw up their reports according
to various reporting guidelines and invite
independent organisations to audit the
entire process on which they report to en-
sure report credibility. Manufacturers ap-
parently wish to respond to the growing
expectations of the public and understand
very well how important communication
and business transparency are in the glo-
balising economy. It is notable that so-
cial or environmental reports are a tool
for communication (with the company’s
internal and external stakeholders) and
management (allowing companies to
structure their approach to sustainable
development, progress measurement,
formulation of strategies and improve-
ment goals). This trend characterises
both the manufacturers of consumer
goods and industrial goods [see 23].
Figure 1. Stages of the textile product life-cycle and impacts; Source: Pruzan-Jorgensen
P. M., Sustainability in the European Apparel and Textile Industry,2010 EURATEX General
Assembly, June 10, 2010.
Table 1. Comparison of schemes; Source: CSR and trade: informing consumers about so-
cial and environmental conditions of globalised production, OECD Trade Policy Working
Paper No. 47.
Fish Cut owers Textiles Cosmetics
Certicatnion and
libelling several
several
(mostly business-to-
business)
many
(mostly business-
to-business)
seldom
CSR reporting seldom seldom frequent very frequent
General/CSR
specialised consumer
guides
only some sh
guides
very seldom
(general guides or CSR
guides)
frequent seldom
Corporate marketing some mainly in niche market of
organic cut owers very frequent dominant
(branding)

FIBRES & TEXTILES in Eastern Europe 2011,Vol. 19, No. 4 (87)
22
An evaluation of textile and clothing
manufacturers should not skip, however,
a much less favourable picture of the
situation that emerges from the research
and practices of many NGOs - the dec-
larations that companies make in their
reports, codes of conduct, etc., which are
frequently illusory and misrepresent the
true facts (more on this matter in [7]).
Let us now consider what consumers
think about the various sources of infor-
mation and its content. Why some of the
CSR communication tools are more ef-
fective than the others?
An average European consumer asked
about the most appropriate CSR commu-
nication method would point to informa-
tion afxed directly to products and
labels. Respondents also tend to prefer
spontaneous and specic informational
actions launched by producers, appreci-
ating them much more than regular social
reporting, etc. [8]. Furthermore, when
asked about the type of information that
garment labels should carry to facilitate
their buying decisions, 65% of the British
surveyed in 2005 pointed to no child la-
bour involved in the making of a product.
The other types of important information
were the fabric composition in the case of
garments (58%), ‘not tested on animals’
(53%), fair pay for workers (53%), and
the producer’s country (46%). The ‘en-
vironmentally-friendly’ label was impor-
tant for 42% of respondents, while 36%
appreciated good labour conditions [9].
Although labelling is a generally accept-
ed source of information that can present
a company as a socially responsible or-
ganisation, its inuence on most con-
sumers continues to be relatively weak.
Therefore, a more detailed analysis of
CSR labelling that applies to textile and
clothing products seems especially use-
ful, as well as an evaluation of the role of
labelling in product differentiation.
Eco- and social labelling
and its role in differentiating
textile and clothing products
Eco-labelling, and increasingly more of-
ten social labelling, is a method of differ-
entiating products that better meet social
(ethical) and ecological standards with
respect to traditional products. Eco- and
social labels (special quality marks) are
awarded by public or private organisa-
tions that aim to popularise and promote
products that are kinder to humans or the
environment while having comparable
usability and functional characteristics.
As well as inuencing consumer choices,
such labels have become the linchpin of
the entire certication process and the
main object of producers’ interest [5].
Recently a huge number of social and
eco-labelling systems for certifying prod-
ucts have appeared that meet the criteria
prescribed.
Labelling systems can be divided along
many lines. One criterion can be their
territorial coverage (i.e. national – Ger-
many’s Blue Angle, supranational – EU
Ecolabel, or international – Fair Trade)
or thematic scope (the type of products
covered by a label), etc.
Figure 2 shows a general classication
of CSR labels that can be subdivided us-
ing the aforementioned criteria.
Eco-labelling
Certication systems awarding eco-la-
bels were established much earlier than
social labelling, and their inuence is
much wider. The eco-certication rules
were jointly created by a range of in-
ternational organisations, such as the
European Community, World Trade Or-
ganisation (WTO), United Nations Envi-
ronmental Programme (UNEP) and the
International Organisation for Standardi-
sation (ISO).
Table 2. Comparison of the types of ISO eco-labels; Source: developed by the author.
Type Eco-labelling
Type I Type II Type III
Standard ISO 14024 ISO 14021 ISO 14025
Third party involvement yes no yes
Life cycle analysis simplied no yes
Scope multi-criterial selected product
traits
parameter categories dened for
the sector
Possibility of differentiating
products ecologically within
a group of products
yes no yes
Information carrier a label – graphic
mark, logo
graphic mark /
word/slogan
numerical data represented by
graphs, drawings, text
Voluntary yes yes yes
Veriability/reliability high low high
Prospects for development good weak
(low reliability)
average
(complex procedure, analysis of a
large volume of data)
Figure 2. Classication of CSR labels; Source: developed by the author.

23
FIBRES & TEXTILES in Eastern Europe 2011, Vol. 19, No. 4 (87)
The last 30 years have witnessed many
initiatives that were designed to certify
products and services that have better
environmental properties than those re-
quired by the standards in force. To en-
sure a uniform approach to this type of
labelling, the International Organisation
for Standardisation has published a se-
ries of standards (ISO 14020, ISO 14021,
ISO 14024, ISO 14025).
As the ISO classication provides for
three types of information describing the
environmental advantages of a product or
service, three ISO eco-labels have been
established. Table 2 compares the labels
and presents the related standards.
The other types of eco-labelling are:
n Industry labelling – specic to an
industry, e.g. forest exploitation, agri-
culture, textiles
n Corporate labelling – used by or-
ganisations manufacturing or selling
products. However, it must be remem-
bered that the meeting of some spe-
cic environmental requirements
by the organisation may not be re-
lated to its product’s compliance
with other environmental criteria
[13].
n Package labelling – gives informa-
tion on the packaging and not on the
product inside.
Table 3 shows some examples of the
most popular eco-labels attached to tex-
tile and clothing products.
Social labelling
Social labelling has its roots in the trade-
union and cooperative movement. The
rst consumer organisation established
in the UK, Rochdale Pioneers, created its
own brand (the Co-op brand) referring to
the 19th c. co-operatives. The National
Consumer League in the USA introduced
and then developed the ’White Label’ to
mark female and children’s underwear
manufactured by factories that respect
basic laws and have no workforce under
16 years of age.
However, most of the social labels that
are applied today were created in the
1990s [2]. Compared with the ecological
labels, the social labels are relatively new
and denitely fewer.
Although some social labels cannot be
awarded without requiring the organisa-
tion meet certain environmental stand-
ards, they primarily show the organisa-
tion’s respect for workers’ rights, occupa-
tional safety and health rules, as well as
its involvement in the well-being of local
communities and in fair terms of trade.
Many social labelling systems have been
designed to provide consumers living in
developed countries with information
about producers operating in developing
countries. Most of the systems apply to
exporting markets and niche products [3]
(Table 4 see page 24).
Knowledge of CSR labels among
Polish buyers of textiles and clothing
This section of the article presents the
results of a survey involving a repre-
sentative random sample of 981 adults
living in Poland, conducted by the author
through the Public Opinion Research
Centre between 30 November and 8 De-
Table 3. The most popular eco-labels (For a review of eco-labels used in particular countries see [18]); Source: developed by the author.
Label Description Logo type
Blue Angel
Germany
The Blue Angel is the rst and oldest environmental label for products and services.
It is a voluntary market-oriented instrument of environmental policy which has
been designed to emphasise the positive environmental properties of products and
services.
About 10,000 products and services in 80 product categories carry the Blue Angel
eco-label.
n textiles categories (carrier bags, cleaning rags, handkerchiefs, mattresses,
napkins, textile oor coverings)
http://www.blauer-engel.de
ISO type I
EU Eco-label / EU
Marguerite
The European Ecolabel is a voluntary scheme established in 1992 to encourage
businesses to market products and services that are kinder to the environment.
Products and services awarded the Ecolabel carry the ower logo, allowing
consumers - including public and private buyers – to identify them easily.
n textiles categories: textiles, Mattresses, shoes
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/index_en.htm
ISO type I
Nordic Swan
(Scandinavian
countries)
Covers 66 different product groups
n textiles categories (micro-bre clothes and mops, textiles, skins and leather)
http://www.svanen.nu/
ISO type I
The Oeko-Tex® Standard 100 was introduced at the beginning of the 1990s in
response to the general public’s demand for textiles posing no health hazards.
"Poison in textiles" and other negative headlines were common at that time and
indiscriminately branded all chemicals used in textile manufacturing as negative and
dangerous to health.
http://www.oeko-tex.com/OekoTex100_PUBLIC/index.asp
Industry label for the
textile industry
EMAS
The Eco-management and Audit Scheme EMAS is a European instrument that
was implemented based on a Regulation of the European Parliament and Council
to encourage different organisations (companies, plants, institutions, etc.) to keep
improving their environmental performance.
Being an EMAS member is equivalent to having a trademark showing that the
organisation aims to be perfect. The basic EMAS principle is to distinguish and
appreciate those organisations that exceed the minimum legal requirements and
never cease to make efforts to improve their environmental performance.
Organization label

FIBRES & TEXTILES in Eastern Europe 2011,Vol. 19, No. 4 (87)
24
cember 2010. The sample was drawn
from the PESEL system. The interviews
utilised face-to-face methodology and
CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal In-
terviewing).
According to the research ndings, the
best known CSR label is the EU Ecola-
bel. Every fth Polish consumer noticed
the label attached to textile products. The
Ecolabel was followed in the ranking
by the Global Organic Textile Standard,
recognised by almost 19% of Polish con-
sumers, and next by the Oeko-Tex Stand-
ard (18.2%) – see Figure 3 (see page 25).
At the same time, almost every fourth
Polish consumer bought a textile product
with an eco- and/or social label attached
to it.
The weak and strong points of
labelling as a tool for differentiating
socially responsible textiles in the
market
A straightforward evaluation of the role
of labels in product differentiation is not
possible. Eco-labels and social labels
are sometimes an effective tool enabling
communication with consumers and a
Table 4. The most popular eco-labels in the textile and clothing industry; Source: developed by the author.
Name Description Logo
Attached to specic products
Fair trade
The FAIRTRADE Mark is now the most widely recognised social and development label in the world.
The FAIRTRADE Certication Mark is a registered trademark of Fairtrade Labelling Organisations
International (FLO). It certies that products meet the social, economic and environmental standards
set by Fairtrade.
The Mark certies products not companies. It does not cover the companies or organisations selling
the products
textiles categories: cotton
Rugmark / GoodWeave™
RugMark International e.V. (RMI) is an international non- governmental organisation working to end
illegal child labour in the handmade rug industry and offer educational opportunities to children in
India and Nepal. The GoodWeave certication label is issued to rug manufacturers that adhere to
the RugMark standard, agree to its independent verication and voluntarily join RMI as licensees.
Global Organic Textile
Standard
This standard for organic textiles covers the production, processing, manufacturing, packaging,
labelling, exportation, importation and distribution of all natural bres. The nal products may include,
but are not limited to, bre products, yarns, fabrics and clothes. The standards focus on compulsory
criteria only.
The aim of the standard is to dene requirements to ensure the organic status of textiles, from the
harvesting of the raw materials, through environmentally and socially responsible manufacturing, to
labelling in order to provide a credible assurance to the end consumer.
Care & Fair-Siegel An initiative against illegal Child Labour and for the support of people working in carpet production
in India, Nepal and Pakistan.
Fairtrade labelling organizations – labels applying to organisations and not products
Fairtrade Organization
Mark
Introduced by the WFTO (formerly IFAT) in January 2004 during the World Social Forum in Mumbai
in India. It is not used for product certication. The WFTO awards this sign to its trading members that
meet standards specied in the WFTO monitoring system. Non-trading WFTO members and other
organisations are not allowed to use the sign.
EFTA
EFTA (the European Fair Trade Association) is an association of eleven Fair Trade importers in nine
European countries (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland
and the United Kingdom). EFTA was established informally in 1987 by some of the oldest and largest
Fair Trade importers. It gained formal status in 1990. EFTA is based in the Netherlands and has Dutch
Articles of Association.
Clean Clothes Campaign
The Clean Clothes Campaign is an alliance of organisations in 13 European countries. Members
include trade unions and NGOs covering a broad spectrum of perspectives and interests, such as
women’s rights, consumer advocacy and poverty reduction.
http://www.cleanclothes.org
Fair Wear Foundation
FWF is an independent, not-for-prot foundation. Independence is guaranteed by a tripartite (multi-
stakeholder) board, in which business associations, trade unions and (labour) NGOs are equally
represented. Based in Amsterdam, FWF works internationally with companies all over Europe and in
production countries worldwide.
http://fairwear.org/

25
FIBRES & TEXTILES in Eastern Europe 2011, Vol. 19, No. 4 (87)
major factor driving their purchasing de-
cisions. It is also true, however, that they
frequently cause confusion and frustra-
tion in the market. Surveys indicate that
consumers expect more transparent and
clearer information in this area.
The main advantage of labels compared
with other means of communication
(e.g. reports, codes of conduct, etc.) is
that they are simple and visible. In the
case of consumer goods, such as textiles
and clothing, labels are a particularily
useful and efcient instrument provid-
ing consumers with information on the
properties of products meeting, or not,
their social and ecological expectations
or preferences. This quality makes them
especially useful for consumers who are
too busy to seek information about the
properties of products or services.
As a means of communication, labelling
systems also have a number of weak-
nesses: In the rst place they cover only
a limited number of consumer goods,
rarely applying to intermediate products
(semi-products).
Products labelled as ’socially responsi-
ble’ are traded in the niche markets and
frequently account for less than 2% of
goods consumed in the given category.
On the other hand, the growing number
of labelling systems suggests that they
are covering more and more sectors,
which may confuse customers having to
cope with such a fast growing diversity
of marks and labels and make them dis-
trustful.
This lack of transparency followed by
the eroding credibility of labels has be-
come one of the major problems affect-
ing labelling systems. A range of surveys
and analyses has shown that consumers
are frequently sceptical about the cred-
ibility of some of the labels and uncertain
about their actual message [11]. The au-
thor’s research conrmed these ndings.
According to Polish buyers, the purchas-
ing of textile products made by respon-
sible manufacturers is mainly impeded
by the unavailability of relevant informa-
tion (55%), problems with distinguishing
one textile from another (32.8%) and by
the buyer’s limited or non-existent con-
dence in manufacturers’ declarations
(22%). The higher prices of such prod-
ucts were ranked only fourth.
Another group of problems arises from
the general level of environmental
awareness, or in broader terms, from
corporate social responsibility.
There are also problems caused by fact
that it is difcult to award labels when
production chains are long, like those
in the textile and clothing industry. The
Fairtrade label is usually given to unproc-
essed goods (or low-processed ones), but
even simple products such as tea or cof-
fee give rise to many controversies about
what auditing and monitoring methods
would be the most relevant. Transpar-
ent control over the work of thousands
of petty farmers, agents and cooperatives
scattered all over the world is not easy,
even in the case of coffee, which is sold
almost unprocessed. Trying to certify the
entire garment making process, from cot-
ton growing, bre processing, dyeing and
weaving to cutting and sewing the fabric
is much more difcult, not to mention the
production of accessories, such as but-
tons, clasps and sequins [16].
Nowadays we know that eco-labels are
also frequently abused and counter-
feited. The growing popularity of ‘false’
eco-labels prevents ‘real’ labels from
becoming more credible. Many prod-
ucts are given labels such as owers,
bushes, trees, shrubs, hares and birds,
but no modication to the product or its
manufacturing is required. Many manu-
facturers have been misled by companies
presenting labels associable with envi-
ronmental protection.
While media campaigns promoting eco-
labelling apparently raise the awareness
of consumers and gradually remodel
their behaviour, the business community
has not made much progress, one reason
being certication and licensing costs
[10, 14]. Developing countries also com-
plain more and more that they often have
to struggle with the huge burden of costs
that signicantly impede trade [15].
With all the weaknesses of present label-
ling systems, they still seem to be one
of the most convenient and consumer-
friendly channels of communication that
manufacturers can use in this area. The
research showed that they are also one
of the most effective. For over 70% of
Polish consumers noticing any CSR mes-
sage from textile and clothing manufac-
turers, this was a label or tag attached to a
textile product to conrm its eco-friendly
or ethical characteristics.
Two factors determine the success of la-
belling systems: one is the awareness of
consumers and their ability to understand
their message, and the other one is the
business community’s willingness to ac-
cept the systems.
n Conclusions
The above review of various CSR com-
munication initiatives shows that certi-
cation and labelling systems belong to
the most effective instruments that can
induce positive changes in consumer be-
haviour. The empirical research ndings,
showing that consumers prefer informa-
tion attached to products and labels, cor-
roborate this conclusion.
Another nding is that the role certica-
tion and labelling plays in product dif-
ferentiation is not sufcient. The latent
Figure 3. Recognisability of eco- and social-labels among Polish buyers of textiles and
clothing; Source: author’s research.

FIBRES & TEXTILES in Eastern Europe 2011,Vol. 19, No. 4 (87)
26
benets of signs and labels need the fol-
lowing to become fully available:
1. transparent standardisation and certi-
cation systems,
2. the harmonisation and standardisation
of existing systems,
3. a methodological framework ensuring
some systemisation of the present di-
versity of signs and labels.
4. a new approach to consumer educa-
tion and information – although prod-
uct labelling is a simple method for
sending complex messages, CSR in-
tricacy calls for a completely new ap-
proach to communication strategies.
Textile and clothing companies will have
to confront most of these challenges. Al-
though ODCE data show that companies
use almost all CSR communication in-
struments that are available, the commu-
nication is still insufcient. Another huge
problem that this sector of industry has
to solve is the development of effective
communication systems that will be able
to cope with its long, complicated and
barely controllable supply chain.
Editorial note
1) The mark only shows that some cotton
cultivation and picking rules were re-
spected (e.g. fair pay, workers’ rights),
butgivesnoinformationonhowworkers
involved in the later stages of garment
production were treated. Unfortunately,
manycompaniestendtoexploitconsum-
ers’ignorance of thisfactandintention-
allymisleadthem.
Acknowledgment
This work was (partially) supported by
structuralfunds withinthe frameworkof the
projectentitled’Development ofaresearch
infrastructurefor innovative techniquesand
technologiesofthe textile clothingindustry’
CLO– 2IN–TEX, nancedbyOperational
ProgrammeInnovativeEconomy,2007-2013,
Action2.1.
References
1. CSRand trade: informing consumers
about social and environmental condi-
tions of globalised production, OECD
TradePolicyWorkingPaperNo.47.
2. DicksonM.A,Utilityofnosweatlabelsfor
apparelconsumers:Prolinglabelusers
andPredictingTheirPurchases,TheJo-
urnalofConsumerAffairs;Summer2001.
3. Fliess B., Lee Hyung-Jong, Dubreuil
O. L., Agatiello O., CSR and Trade:
InformingConsumersabout Social and
EnvironmentalConditions ofGlobalised
ProductionOECDTradePolicyWorking
PaperNo.47-PARTI.
4. GreenPaperonCSR.
5. HartliebS.,JonesB.,HumanisingBusi-
nessThroughEthicalLabelling:Progress
andParadoxesintheUKJournalofBusi-
nessEthics(2009)88:583–600.
6. Madsen,Jacob, Hartlin, Bryan, Peru-
malpillai, Shahila, Selby,Sarah and
Aumônier,Simon. (2007). Mapping of
EvidenceonSustainableDevelopment
Impacts that Occur in Life Cycles of
Clothing:AReport to the Department
forEnvironment,FoodandRuralAffairs.
EnvironmentalResources Management
(ERM)Ltd.Defra,London.
7. MazurK.CSRwglobalnymprzemyśle
tekstylno-odzieżowym–chwytPR,dobry
interezczyrealne zobowiązaniewobec
społeczeństwa w: Etyczne dylematy
na rynku tekstylno-odziezowym, red:
M.Malinowska-Olszowy,Wydawnictwo
AdamMarszałekToruń2009,ISBN978-
83-7611-536-8.
8. MORI(Marketand Opinion Research
International),onbehalfofCSREurope
(2000),ThersteverEuropeansurveyof
consumers attitudes towards corporate
socialresponsibility,CSREurope,Brus-
sels,Belgium,November2000.
9. MORI/BITC(MarketandOpinionRese-
archInternational,1005adults16+,July,
September2005.
10.OECD (1999), Consumer Policy Con-
tributionstoDevelopingSustainable
Consumption Patterns [DSTI/CP(99)2/
FINAL],Paris.
11.OECD (2001), Information and Consu-
merDecision-MakingForSustainable
Consumption
12.PN-EN ISO 14020:2003 Etykiety i de-
klaracjeśrodowiskowe–zasadyogólne
Received 10.01.2011 Reviewed 10.02.2011
13.PochylukR., Świętojańska A.,Macniak
M.,Kryteriaśrodowiskowedostosowania
przyprzetargachnansowanychześrod-
kówpublicznych,Katalogopracowanyna
zlecenieMinisterstwaGospodarki,www.
eko-net.pl
14.Ralph E. Horne, Limits to labels: The
roleofeco-labels in theassessmentof
productsustainabilityandroutestosusta-
inableconsumption,InternationalJournal
ofConsumerStudies33(2009)175–182
ISSN1470-6423,s.176
15.RotherhamtT.,LabellingforEnvironmen-
talPurposes.Areviewofthestateofthe
debateintheWorldTradeOrganization,
tknthematicpaper,January2003.
16.SzeniawskaK.,Fairtrade-cosiędzieje
ze sprawiedliwą modą ‚Pomagamy’, nr
26,2007.
17.Targosz-Wrona E., Ecolabelling as a
ConrmationoftheApplicationofSusta-
inable Materials in Textiles,FIBRES &
TEXTILESinEasternEurope2009,Vol.
17,No.4(75)pp.21-25.
18.Targosz-WronaE.,Etykietyśrodowisko-
we jako Znaki towarowe w marketingu
produktów przyjaznych środowisku w
dobieglobalizacji.ZeszytyNaukowe.
ZarządzanieiMarketing/WyższaSzkoła
Humanitas2007Vol..1.-pp.87-99.
19.The Trade and Environment Effects of
Ecolabels:AssessmentandResponse.-
UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme
(2005), http://www.unep.ch/etb/publica-
tions/Ecolabelpap141005f.pdf.
20.MachnikowskiW.,Zdrowotneiśrodowi-
skowezagrożenia stwarzaneprzezwy-
kończoneprzeciwpalniewyrobywłókien-
nicze,ZeszytyNaukoweATH–Inżynieria
WłókienniczaiOchronaŚrodowiska7(3);
329-342;2002.
21.AndrzejewskaA.,możliwośćwystępowa-
niaszkodliwychsubstancjichemicznych
wmateriałachstosowanychwrękawicach
i obuwiu ochronnym, Bezpieczeństwo
pracy5/2006.
22.FletcherK.,Slowfashion,‚TheEcologist’
06/2007.
23.Kos zew ska.  M. As pek ty społ ecz nej
odpowiedzialnościbiznesuwobszarze
tekstyliówochronnych,Innovatex.