Content uploaded by Iva Jestratijevic
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Iva Jestratijevic on Mar 14, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rgfm20
Journal of Global Fashion Marketing
Bridging Fashion and Marketing
ISSN: 2093-2685 (Print) 2325-4483 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rgfm20
Transparency of sustainability disclosures among
luxury and mass-market fashion brands
Iva Jestratijevic, Nancy A. Rudd & James Uanhoro
To cite this article: Iva Jestratijevic, Nancy A. Rudd & James Uanhoro (2020): Transparency of
sustainability disclosures among luxury and mass-market fashion brands, Journal of Global Fashion
Marketing, DOI: 10.1080/20932685.2019.1708774
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/20932685.2019.1708774
Published online: 08 Jan 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Transparency of sustainability disclosures among luxury and
mass-market fashion brands
Iva Jestratijevic
a
, Nancy A. Rudd
b
and James Uanhoro
c
a
Department of Merchandising & Digital Retailing, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA;
b
Consumer
Sciences: Fashion and Retail Studies, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA;
c
Educational Studies,
The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
ABSTRACT
The study explores the transparency status of sustainability disclo-
sures among luxury and mass-market fashion brands, examining
the possibilities that the type of information disclosed is selectively
prioritized, and higher differences in supply chain disclosure exist
among differently positioned retail brands. Fashion Transparency
Index 2017 represents the first comprehensive index that ranked
100 of the most affluent fashion brands according to the levels of
corporate and supply chain transparency. To explore the index raw-
data study employs non-parametric methods, the Hodges-
Lehmann median differences and the Probability of Superiority.
For 100 brands, the average corporate and supply chain transpar-
ency joint score was just 19.6% (out of 100%). The type of informa-
tion disclosed was selectively prioritized, and there was an 80%
chance that brands were scored higher in corporate than in supply
chain transparency. A comparison of the mass-market (n = 27) and
luxury (n = 13) sub-sample revealed higher transparency of supply
chain disclosures among mass-market brands. Benchmarking the
transparency of sustainability disclosures serves as a point of refer-
ence against which current and future disclosures may be assessed.
Consumers may use these findings to question current transpar-
ency status and facilitate further industry change. Retailers might
use identified critical areas to re-negotiate priorities for future
disclosure.
奢侈时尚品牌与大众时尚品牌可持续性披露的透明度
研究
本研究探究奢侈时尚品牌和大众时尚品牌可持续性披露的透明度
状况,调查了披露信息类型具有优选性的可能性,以及不同定位的
零售品牌在供应链披露方面存在较大差异的可能性°
时尚透明度指数(FTI 2017)是第一个综合性指数,它将100个最
富裕的时尚品牌排名,排名指标是品牌在两个关键领域披露信息
的程度,包括公司透明度(子指标:政策和治理)和供应链透明度(子
指标:可追溯性,审计和负面影响报告)°为了计算该指数,原始数据
研究采用非参数方法,霍奇斯莱曼中差值和优势概率°
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 16 September 2019
Revised 5 December 2019
Accepted 12 December 2019
KEYWORDS
Transparency; supply chain;
sustainability; disclosures;
brands
关键词
透明度;供应链;可持续性;
披露;品牌
CORRESPONDENCE TO Iva Jestratijevic Iva.Jestratijevic@unt.edu Department of Merchandising & Digital
Retailing, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA
JOURNAL OF GLOBAL FASHION MARKETING
https://doi.org/10.1080/20932685.2019.1708774
© 2020 Korean Scholars of Marketing Science
这100个品牌的平均企业透明度和供应链透明度总分仅为19.
6％(满分100％)°所披露信息的类型具有优选性,品牌在企业透
明度中的得分比在供应链透明度中的得分高的可能性为80％°比
较大众时尚品牌(n = 27) 和奢侈时尚品牌(n = 13) 子样本发现,
大众品牌供应链披露的透明度更高°这项研究是第一个全面的,样
本容量较大的全球时尚品牌透明度评级研究°本研究以可持续性
披露的透明度为基准,可以作为评估当前和未来信息披露的参考°
消费者可以利用以上发现质疑当前的透明度状况,推动行业的进
一步变革°零售商可以利用已确定的关键领域重新商议未来优先
披露的信息类型°
1. Introduction
The fashion industry generates enormous profits across world markets, despite the
journeys made by clothing remain largely unseen (Ditty, 2017). Retailers promote and
sell apparel brands, but they rarely produce goods placed on the retail shelves. Instead,
they cooperate with farms that grow fibers, with numerous facilities that dye yarns or
weave or knit the raw materials into fabrics, and hundreds of factories that cut, sew and
assemble the garments (Jestratijevic & Rudd, 2018). The fragmented structure of the
fashion supply chain creates possibilities for different human and environmental abuses.
Retail executives often have limited capability for capturing and assessing negative
business impact, but holistically oriented sustainable development disaffirms the exis-
tence of corporate or legal boundaries for improvement (Dickson & Eckman, 2006;
Elkington, 1998; Yang, Song, & Tong, 2017). In fact, for business competitiveness and
brand credibility, it is no longer enough to create the fashionable product at the most
competitive price (Niinimäki, 2010). External stakeholders such as consumers, govern-
mental and non-governmental organizations increasingly demand sustainable goods that
do not harm the workers or the environment along the production chain (Hiller-Connell
& Kozar, 2017). Consequently, there is growing pressure on retailers to increase the
transparency of corporate communication and to reveal supply chain and pitfalls that can
prevent faster improvement (Marshall, McCarthy, McGrath, & Harrigan, 2016).
Transparency plays an important role in sustainability reporting (Cho, Laine, Roberts,
& Rodrigue, 2015; Gardner et al., 2018). Increasing transparency of sustainability dis-
closures encourages business scrutiny and also signals readiness and openness of the
business for further advancement. From that perspective, transparency in the fashion
industry does not constitute the final business goal but represents a basic precondition
for achieving systematic behavioral change (Bhaduri & Ha-Brookshire, 2017). A number
of studies have been conducted to investigate the structure and contents of sustainability
reports across various industries. Studies exclusively focused on transparency of sustain-
ability disclosures in the fashion industry are scarce. Such studies often include case
analysis (Ho, 2014; Strähle & Merz, 2017) or they investigate small samples of primarily
mass-market brands (e.g. Garcia-Torres, Rey-Garcia, & Albareda-Vivo, 2017; Kozlowski,
Searcy, & Bardecki, 2015; Sherman, 2009). Due to the limited number of studies
investigating luxury brand disclosures, and lack of studies exploring large samples (Ma,
Lee, & Goerlitz, 2016) transparency among famous mass-market and luxury retailers is
yet to be assessed. To benchmark the transparency status of sustainability disclosures
2I. JESTRATIJEVIC ET AL.
among globally recognizable fashion brands, the purpose of this study is threefold: (1) to
quantify the amount of information that was, at a certain point of time, publicly available;
(2) to explore the possibility that fashion brands selectively disclose business information
(Garcia-Torres et al., 2017), prioritizing disclosure of corporate policies and governance
information rather than supply chain information; (3) to examine the possibility that
higher differences in supply chain disclosure exist among differently positioned retail
brands (Kapferer & Michaut-Denizeau, 2014; Karaosman, Brun, & Morales-Alonso,
2017; Towers, Perry, & Chen, 2013). Benchmarking the transparency status of sustain-
ability disclosures among retailers might serve as a point of reference against which
current or future disclosures may be assessed. Consumers may use this study's findings to
question the transparency and facilitate further industry change. Retailers might use
identified critical areas to re-negotiate priorities for future disclosure.
2. Literature review
2.1. Fashion supply chain and social and environmental impacts
Today’sfashion brands rarely own manufacturing facilities; instead, they work with
thousands of factories around the world at any given time. Apparel manufacture is
a labor-intensive industry. Human labor is required for each production aspect, starting
with design, to pattern making, fabric cutting, and garment assembling. Fashion supply
chain includes all the activities involved in processing raw materials up until the
production and distribution of the final consumer goods (Lund-Thomsen &
Lindgreen, 2014). Three main supply chain segments are often recognized as a part of
consequent production phases, where suppliers are divided within tier-one (finalization),
tier-two (processing) and tier-three stages (raw material cultivation) (Fletcher, 2013).
Both mass-market and luxury brands operate across complex supply chains. In 2016,
H&M Group reported having an estimated one million supply chain workers, employed
by approximately 820 suppliers and 1,900 factories. Inditex, in the same year, reported
partnerships in 50 countries with 1,725 tier-one suppliers and 6,298 other facilities (Ditty,
2017). In the luxury sector, Burberry and Prada were among the first brands to announce
production delocalization, from countries of brand heritage to countries with lower
production costs (Kapferer, 2012). In 2010, Prada disclosed a supply network that
included 480 manufacturing facilities in China, Turkey, Vietnam, and Romania
(Tokatli, 2014; Visconti & Di Giuli, 2014). In 2015, luxury giant, Gucci, reported audits
on 659 international suppliers (Ditty, 2017).
The fragmented structure of fashion supply chains creates possibilities for many
sustainability-related problems (Kamal & Deegan, 2013). Production in different coun-
tries requires different laws and regulations, which dictate workers’rights, and influence
production standards, chemical usage, and waste regulation. Pollution caused by textile
production represents a pervasive problem, and the apparel industry is recognized as
the second biggest environmental polluter (Cline, 2012). Similarly, the social impacts are
enormous. The industry workforce is largely made up of women and children; even
though countries have outlawed child labor, each country has different regulations on
what constitutes “child labor”(i.e. the legal minimum working age) (Nimbalker,
Mawson, Lee, & Cremen, 2017). The suggested minimal requirements for a living wage
JOURNALOFGLOBALFASHIONMARKETING 3
in sourcing countries are not met (Ditty, 2017). In 2017, in Bangladesh, “the minimal
entry level industry wage was US$ 63 per month, while Global Alliance suggested a fair
living wage of approximately US$ 214 for Dhaka, and US$177 for cities around Dhaka”
(Nimbalker et al., 2018, p. 15). Most of the production processes involve continuous
exposure to heavy chemicals, while laborers often have limited access to professional
training, and work is conducted in poorly equipped and unsafe working environments.
Furthermore, suppliers often sub-contract work to other factories, or homeworkers,
making issues an invisible part of an illegal and hidden production chain (Khan &
Rodrigues, 2015; Preuss, 2001).
Lack of supplier knowledge has seriously harmed the reputation of the retail business
(Kang & Hustvedt, 2014). In the 1990s, Nike’s CEO dismissed sweatshop allegations at
Nike’s Indonesian factories, transferring responsibility to Nike’s contractors (Maryanov,
2010). In 2009, Anti-Slavery International (ASI) reported that Bangladesh Beximco
Textiles, a major cotton supplier for clothing brands, admitted that 45–50% of their
raw cotton was imported from Uzbekistan, a country known for forced child labor. ASI
urged international retailers to improve suppliers’tracing, preventing further human
exploitation (ASI, 2010). After the Rana Plaza factory collapse in Bangladesh which killed
1,134 garment workers, famous mass-market brands, could not determine whether they
were sourcing from that particular factory despite their clothing labels being found in the
rubble (Khan & Rodrigues, 2015). In 2016, a survey of 106 retailers was conducted to
estimate whether tracing improvements were achieved. Researched showed that only 7%
of companies knew their cotton suppliers, indicating that the suppliers’limited knowl-
edge was embedded within the deeper supply chain structure (Nimbalker et al., 2017).
Unlike mass-market brands whose corporate and supply chain failures are often publicly
scrutinized (Cline, 2012; Turker & Altuntas, 2014), ethics is implicitly associated with
luxury business (Towers et al., 2013). Luxury brands are historically recognized for brand
provenance, expertise, and quality (Brun & Castelli, 2013). Supply chain information
protection is especially enabled in the case of vertical organization of the production,
where companies possess manufacturing facilities, leather tanneries and exotic animal
farms (Kapferer & Michaut-Denizeau, 2014). The most publicly criticized issues in this
sector include animals’welfare violations in the process of rearing and killing the animals
(Bendell & Kleanthous, 2007), and unsold merchandise burning to maintain brand
desirability (Napier & Sanguineti, 2018).
2.2. Transparency of sustainability disclosures
Sustainability reporting refers to voluntary, non-financial disclosure made by compa-
nies on the social and environmental impacts of their businesses (Diouf & Boiral, 2017;
Hahn & Kühnen, 2013). Since 1997, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) established
reporting guidelines for companies that want to commit to sustainable improvements.
The essence of its reporting is to make companies’impacts and procedures transpar-
ent, so that organizations and different stakeholders can jointly catalyze positive
change, measure performance, negotiate goals, and manage progress (GRI, 2015). To
assess critical corporate and supply chain performance, disclosures should map key
performance indicators (KPIs) such as material sourcing, energy, water, biodiversity,
carbon emissions, waste and chemical management, innovation, and life-cycle
4I. JESTRATIJEVIC ET AL.
assessment (GRI, 2015). Reporting is done using corporate web sites, or through
integrated, or independent sustainability reports (Marshall et al., 2016).
Transparency represents a key condition for creating reliable disclosure meaning that
information shared should be easily accessible, clear, accurate, comparable, and rele-
vant (Dando & Swift, 2003;Mol,2015). Between 2012 and 2017, the percentage of the
global companies across the industries releasing a sustainability report has grown from
20% to 80% (Ioannou & Serafeim, 2017). External drivers for disclosures in a retail
industry come from various sides including new regulations, NGO pressures, and
industry practices (Marshall et al., 2016). In the United States, the California
Transparency Supply Chain Act (CATSCA) requires retailers to trace their supply
chain, and to disclose on their website efforts they use to eradicate human abuse in the
production process. In the United Kingdom, the UK Modern Slavery Act was estab-
lished for the same purpose. In the European Union, the REACH (Registration,
Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals) Act was created to direct
chemical management and information disclosure. Non-governmental associations
also foster corporate disclosure. Clean Clothes, PETA (People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals), and Greenpeace are pressuring companies to improve the
ethical treatment of workers, animals, and the environment, and to disclose the
remediation processes used to resolve issues.
Even though companies in the apparel community overall have taken certain steps to
deepen and disclose their commitment to sustainability, the current status of disclosures
represents a topic that definitely deserves greater academic examination. So far, there has
been a little academic examination of sustainability-related disclosures in the apparel
industry. Consequently, corporate and supply chain disclosures remain poorly under-
stood industry practices (Gardner et al., 2018). Part of the problem is based on the fact
that most of the existing studies that explore sustainability reports in the fashion industry
are conducted with small samples (n = 1–14) of fashion brands and, therefore, it is hard
to generalize their findings. For example, Sherman (2009) employed a case-study content
analysis of Nike’s and Adidas’s reports. Brands previously scrutinized for production
failures were found to benchmark sustainability values and commitments to enhance
brand credibility. Another available case study compared sustainability reports among
Inditex and H&M, revealing that companies invest great efforts to identify universal
negative production impacts while they add little information about their own supply
chain practices that were “previously secret or unknown”(Garcia-Torres et al., 2017,
p. 21). Some individual case analysis offered valuable insights into mechanisms used by
only a few leading retailers to proactively shift boundaries of supply chain disclosure. For
example, in the case of Nike, interactive mapping systems were examined as an effective
and easily accessible tool to disclose manufacturer information on the corporate website,
including the facility name, location, and subcontracting status (Marshall et al., 2016).
Similarly, the luxury brand Honestby was examined, for creating 100% transparent
disclosures, where product life-cycle assessment and cost and profit calculations per
product are disclosed entirely on the corporate website (Strähle & Merz, 2017). Except
those few proactive approaches to sustainability disclosure, previous research most
commonly agreed that, unlike promoting sustainability commitments, communicating
supply chain information is often particularly problematic due to the supplier non-
compliance (Turker & Altuntas, 2014), reputation associated risks (Kapferer, 2012;
JOURNALOFGLOBALFASHIONMARKETING 5
Karaosman et al., 2017), and the difficulties in setting up monitoring systems across
complex supply chains (Marshall et al., 2016).
Previous studies also recognized the possibility that certain differences exist in the
supply chain disclosures among differently positioned retail brands (Kapferer &
Michaut-Denizeau, 2014; Karaosman et al., 2017; Towers et al., 2013). Luxury brands
were found to be very secretive about their corporate and supply chain practices mainly
to maintain brand exclusivity (Strähle & Merz, 2017). Due to the evident lack of
information, luxury disclosures are especially underexplored. One available case study
showed that responsible supply chain practices in the luxury sector are assumed as
“implicit rather than explicit”(Towers et al., 2013, p. 11), and supplier auditability
often did not follow formal procedures found in the case of mass-market retailers. An
exploration of cashmere supply chain strategies in the case of a Scottish luxury garment
manufacturer (Towers et al., 2013) confirmed that the heritage of being a family-owned
business served as the main vehicle for establishing a trustworthy company-supplier
collaboration. Luxury supply chain efficiency is furthermore perceived as an advantage of
vertically organized production systems where retailers own manufacturing facilities; this
production system enables monitoring and also increases information protection
(Kapferer & Michaut-Denizeau, 2014). Nevertheless, studies exploring disclosures
among a large number of brands are rare. Fulton and Lee (2013) conducted a website
content analysis of 156 small and family-owned online retailers, arguing that businesses
committed to sustainability need to embrace greater transparency, showing consumers
the full spectrum of challenges they face to achieve sustainability commitments.
Similarly, Ma et al. (2016) conducted a quantitative analysis of 204 California-based
apparel retailers, exploring their online compliance of CATSCA requirements. Findings
showed that 50% of the companies did not adhere to CATSCA guidelines since they did
not disclose on the corporate website the required corporate and supply chain informa-
tion. Even though studies that investigated disclosures among a greater number of
privately owned small-businesses (Fulton & Lee, 2013) and California-based retailers
(Ma et al., 2016) confirmed that retailers need to embrace greater transparency, trans-
parency among big samples of famous mass-market and luxury retailers is yet to be
quantified and assessed. Additionally, a closer examination is needed for sustainability
disclosures that are selectively created, as well as differences in supply chain disclosure
that exist among differently positioned retail brands.
2.3. Research questions
To advance examination of sustainability-related corporate and supply chain disclosures
in the apparel industry the purpose of the study is threefold. Firstly, to benchmark the
transparency status of sustainability disclosures, the study aims to quantify the amount of
information, fashion brands have made publicly available. Therefore, the first research
question is: How much sustainability-related information are fashion brands publicly
disclosing? Secondly, to validate and expand previous findings (Garcia-Torres et al.,
2017; Sherman, 2009), study examines the possibility that the type of information
retailers disclose is selectively prioritized as corporate sustainability values are more
visible than supply chain procedures (Diouf & Boiral, 2017). Thus, the second research
question is: Do brands primarily tend to disclose information on policies and corporate
6I. JESTRATIJEVIC ET AL.
governance as opposed to information on supply chain transparency? Thirdly, the study
aims to determine the possibility that differences in the supply chain disclosure exist
among differently positioned retail brands (Kapferer & Michaut-Denizeau, 2014;
Karaosman et al., 2017; Towers et al., 2013), as mass-market brands are prone to release
more transparent supply chain information to enhance brand trust, reputation, and
corporate credibility (Diouf & Boiral, 2017; Griskevicius, Tybur, & Van den Bergh,
2010; Kang & Hustvedt, 2014). Hence, the final research question is: Are mass-market
brands more likely to disclose information on supply chain transparency as compared to
luxury brands?
3. Methods
3.1. Fashion transparency index 2017
In 2017, the Fashion Revolution Foundation UK published a Fashion Transparency Index
(FTI 2017), the comprehensive index that ranked 100 of the most affluent fashion brands
according to the level of information they disclosed on the brand website(s), parent
company website(s), or within annual/sustainability reports published between
January 2015 and March 2017. The information tracked in the index covered two key
areas: corporate transparency (sub-areas: policies and governance), and supply chain
transparency (sub-areas: traceability, audits, and negative impact reporting). Sub-areas
are defined as: policies refer to the social and environmental standards the business adheres
to. Governance refers to the level of visibility of top management and the responsibility
they hold. Traceability refers to the visibility of suppliers and production networks. Audits
refer to the information on the producer’s last audits, corrective plans, and remediations.
Negative impact reporting covers mapping the social and environmental impacts of the
business. The purpose of the Index is to provide a snapshot, and a condensed summary of
ratings in the form of cumulative, and area-specific scores for each brand. To extend the
information provided by the Index (63 pages), the research team used raw-data provided
within the Index. As an example, raw-data in policy sub-area offers a full list of social and
environmental policies examined, accompanied by point/s for each part of the policy
released. The policy application can be traced from the headquarters to supplying facilities.
The Index also provides direct links to corporate pages, and reports of brands examined:
those tools were used to contextualize information.
3.2. Brand sample and sub-sample
The FTI 2017 full data set (n = 100) was assessed in this study. Therefore, this paper
explored the sample of 100 international fashion brands that had annual revenues in 2016
that were higher than $1.2 billion in US dollars. For the purpose of examining differences
in supply chain disclosure among differently positioned brands (RQ3), a sub-sample of
40 brands was examined, consisting of 27 mass-market brands and 13 luxury brands. The
study follows operational definitions that clearly distinguish the mass market and luxury
brand positioning. Mass-market brands are ones that produce goods in mass quantities
from inexpensive materials, and they are affordable to consumers (Tungate, 2012).
Luxury brands are recognized globally for their production expertise, high price, and
JOURNALOFGLOBALFASHIONMARKETING 7
established historical brand heritage (Kapferer, 2012). To maintain an accurate distinc-
tion between luxury and mass-market sub-sample, relatively newer premium brands
(created after the late 1960s) that tend to blur luxury and mass-market categories were
excluded (Kapferer, 2012). Mass-markets sub-sample brands include: Abercrombie &
Fitch, Adidas, Aéropostale, American Eagle, ASICS, Banana Republic, Champion,
Bershka, Claire’s Accessories, Converse, Gap, H&M, Jordan, Levi’s, Lululemon,
Monsoon, New Balance, Nike, Old Navy, Puma, Reebok, Timberland, Under Armour,
Uniqlo, Victoria’s Secret, Wrangler, Zara. Luxury sub-sample brands include: Bottega
Veneta, Burberry, Chanel, Dior, Ermenegildo Zegna, Giorgio Armani, Gucci, Hermès,
Lacoste, Louis Vuitton, Miu Miu, Prada, Yves Saint Laurent.
4. Data analysis
The index weighted the five sub-areas as follows: policies –50 points (20%), governance –
12 points (4.8%), traceability –85 points (34%), audits –75 points (30%), and negative
impact reporting –28 points (11.2%), for a total of 250 possible points (100%). Preliminary
analysis of FTI 2017 showed that the data were atypical. First, the data were extremely non-
normally distributed. The impact of this on data analysis is that commonplace analytical
methods, such as the difference between two groups means, may lead to substantive errors
in the interpretation of data as the means may not be representative of the data (Erceg-
Hurn & Mirosevich, 2008). Secondly, answering some of the research questions required
the analysis of small samples. Hence, the study employs non-parametric methods, which
are more appropriate for the analysis of this kind of data. Additionally, the analysis
described the data using graphs. Given that the findings in the study do not generalize
beyond the brands explored, the analysis did not include inferential methods. Moreover,
the focus on robust non-parametric techniques and graphs allowed for disciplined data
exploration (Tong, 2019; Tukey, 1977). For research questions related to the comparison of
the two groups, the Hodges-Lehmann median difference has been reported (Hodges &
Lehmann, 1963; Newson, 2002). This is the parameter tested in the Mann–Whitney test as
the non-parametric alternative to the independent-samples t-test. In situations where it
would be adequate to perform the non-parametric Mann–Whitney test (such as under
extreme non-normality), the Hodges-Lehmann median difference is an adequate effect size
(Newson, 2002). Moreover, the difference between group means was also computed. In
situations where the difference between group means agrees with the Hodges-Lehmann
median difference, the use of the mean difference is recommended because it is a familiar
statistic; otherwise, the Hodges-Lehmann median difference should be utilized (Tong,
2019). An additional measure calculated to quantify the difference between the groups is
the probability of superiority (PS) (Grissom & Kim, 2001). The PS is the probability that
a random score selected from one group is greater than a randomly selected score from the
other group. For example, if one compares mass-market and luxury brands on governance,
and both brand types had equivalent scores, the PS for this comparison would be 50%.
However, if mass-market brands scored higher than luxury brands on average, the PS
would be greater than 50% for mass-market brands, and under 50% for luxury brands
(Brooks, Dalal, & Nolan, 2014; Vargha & Delaney, 2000). All the rating scores were
analyzed on the percentage scale. As an example, if a brand scored 6 points out of 12
possible points on governance, a 50% (6/12 * 100%) score was used as the brand’s
8I. JESTRATIJEVIC ET AL.
governance score in all analyses that included governance. Hence, the scores for all analyses
had a theoretical minimum and maximum of 0% and 100%, respectively; 0% being zero
transparency within the relevant business area(s) and 100% being complete transparency
within the relevant business area(s).
5. Results
How much sustainability-related information are the fashion brands publicly disclosing?
FTI 2017 ratings showed that from 100 brands, 32 brands scored 10% or less on total
transparency, and not a single brand scored above 49%. Total transparency scores (%) for
some selected brands are displayed in Table 1.
Three brands, Dior, Heilan Home, and S. Oliver scored zero for not disclosing any
corporate or supply chain information. When contextualizing their data, and accordingly
exploring brand websites, the exact address of the corporate headquarters could not even
be found. Likewise, it was not clear whether they did or did not have sustainability
departments. Chanel was rated as 1% transparent for disclosing: names and roles of top
executives, and the presence of two social policies (equal pay and anti-harassment).
Table 1. FTI, 2017 total transparency scores (%) for some selected apparel brands
(from n = 100).
Brand FTI, 2017 score (%)
Dior 0
S. Oliver 0
Heilan Home 0
Chanel 1
Forever 21 3
Express 4
Michael Kors 8
Giorgio Armani 8
Ralph Lauren 9
Victoria’s Secret 11
Guess 12
Louis Vuitton 15
Coach 21
Hèrmes 22
Timberland 24
Topshop 25
Burberry 25
Calvin Klein 29
Tommy Hilfiger 29
ASOS 33
Levi’s35
Nike 36
Zara 36
Old Navy 46
Gap 46
Banana republic 46
Puma 46
H&M 48
Marks & Spencer 48
Reebok 49
Adidas 49
Note: The scores had a theoretical minimum and maximum of 0% and 100%, respectively; 0%
means zero transparency within the relevant business area(s). If brands made any disclosure
improvements after the FTI 2017 was released (April 2017), information on those improvements
would not be reflected here.
JOURNALOFGLOBALFASHIONMARKETING 9
Twenty-five brands including Forever 21, Express, Ralph Lauren, Michael Kors, and
Giorgio Armani scored between 3% and 9% transparent for disclosing only corporate
code of conduct and basic hiring policies. Forty-eight brands including Timberland,
Topshop, Calvin Klein, Coach, Guess, Hermes, Louis Vuitton, and Burberry were rated
between 11% and 30% transparent. Victoria Secret (11%) did not disclose corporate
address or the names/roles of top executives. Their supply chain network was not
publicly available, but main social policies, and the names of organizations that run
supply chain audits were disclosed. Tommy Hilfiger (29%) disclosed sustainability board
information, social and environmental policies (including chemical management, waste,
and recycling). Twelve brands (e.g. Zara, Levi’s, Nike, and ASOS) rated between 32% and
37% transparent, disclosed additional information including supplier assessments, find-
ings, and remediations. ASOS (33%) disclosed policies that apply to all-level suppliers,
non-compliance issues that would prevent further collaboration, and measurable time-
bound social and environmental commitments. Only eight brands (Adidas, Reebok, Old
Navy, Gap, Banana Republic, Puma, H&M and Marks & Spencer) scored as more than
40% transparent. The highest-rated Adidas and Reebok (49%) published searchable lists
of tier-one and some tier-two suppliers, including facility names, address, type of
products/services they provide, frequency of assessment/main findings. They also pub-
lished a commitment to achieve living wages across the value chain.
Do brands primarily tend to disclose information on policies and corporate governance
as opposed to information on supply chain transparency? The brands performed differ-
ently on the two types of transparency (Figure 1). Corporate transparency was higher
compared to supply chain transparency. The most prevalent policies among brands
were a Code of Business Ethics and a Supplier Code of Conduct. On a local community
level, the majority of brands had adequate policies on engagement, diversity, and
inclusion, waste and recycling, water use, and emission and energy. Nevertheless, the
most touted policies in the country where the corporate headquarters are located were
absent in the supply chain network. Thus, policies on diversity and inclusion and
policies on waste and recycling were excluded from the majority of Supplier Codes of
Conduct which most frequently covered issues such as child/forced labor; anti-
discrimination; freedom of association; harassment and abuse; health and safety; and
working hours. There was a wide variation in brand performance on corporate
transparency; some brands were on the low end, while some scored well above 50%
(Figure 1). Overall, 64% of brands published general contact details for their sustain-
ability departments, 43% of brands revealed the names and roles of executives who are
responsible for the sustainability performance, but only 15 brands disclosed the contact
details for responsible individuals. The performance of brands on supply chain trans-
parency showed less variation, as the majority of brands scored relatively low. The sub-
area averages within corporate transparency were both above 30%, while the sub-area
averages within supply chain transparency were below 20%. Summarizing the data by
the two types of transparency, the difference between the two was about 30%, meaning
that on average, brands scored about 30% higher on corporate transparency than they
did on supply chain transparency. This number was consistent regardless of whether it
was calculated using the mean difference or the Hodges-Lehmann median difference
(Table 2).
10 I. JESTRATIJEVIC ET AL.
The probability that a randomly selected corporate transparency score was greater
than a randomly selected supply chain transparency score was 80.52%. Thus, the type of
information retailers disclose was selectively prioritized, as information on governing
bodies and policies was far more visible than supply chain information.
Although most brands (84%) from the sample reported that their factory assessment
procedures were fully established, only 12 brands disclosed general assessment findings
for facilities beyond tier-one. Eighty-four brands disclosed information about the sup-
plier assessment process and 23 brands disclosed how many of their factories have
Corrective Action Plans in place in case of production problems. From 100 brands
explored, 45 brands acknowledged sourcing from Bangladesh and signing the
Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety, but only 21 of those brands revealed
local suppliers' remediations.
Table 2. Estimates of difference in performance on the different types of transparency.
Type of transparency Mean (SD) HL median Probability of superiority
Corporate (n = 200) 41.13 (28.63) - 80.52%
Supply chain (n = 300) 10.69 (12.07) - 19.48%
Difference 30.44 31.00 -
Note: HL median is the Hodges-Lehmann median difference (see Data Analysis section). The standard
deviation calculated here is the population standard deviation.
Figure 1. Brand performance across the five business sub-areas. The points represent the average
performance across the five business sub-areas. The vertical dotted line is the unweighted mean
across the five sub-areas. The line range for each sub-area represents the range of the middle 50% of
scores (the interquartile range) within that sub-area.
JOURNALOFGLOBALFASHIONMARKETING 11
Are mass-market brands more likely to disclose information on supply chain transpar-
ency as compared to luxury brands? The mass-market’s sub-sample (n= 27) performed
better than the luxury brand’s sub-sample (n= 13) across all three sub-areas comprising
supply chain transparency (see Figure 2). The best performing mass-market brands in the
audits segment were Reebok, Adidas, and H&M. All the luxury brands had near-zero
scores, except Kering group brands (Gucci, YSL, and Bottega Veneta) and Burberry, who
performed at levels comparable to average mass-market brands (see Figure 2). Moreover,
the probability that a mass-market brand had a higher score than a luxury brand was
76%, with a gap of about seven percentage points between both sectors (Table 3).
In the negative impact reporting sub-area, H&M received the highest rating (46.43%)
as they disclosed a transparent living wage roadmap on their official website. Once again,
the Kering group brands and Burberry were the only luxury brands to have scores above
zero for disclosing financial investments in circular resources or technologies toward
reducing water and energy in the production process (Figure 2). The probability that
a mass-market brand performed better than a luxury brand was about 81%, with a gap of
about 14 percentage points between both sectors (Table 3).
In the traceability sub-area, mass-market brands Gap, Banana Republic, and Old Navy,
received the highest ratings (43.53%) as they disclosed the most detailed supplier lists
including information on tier-two suppliers. Mass-market brands again performed better
than luxury brands, as almost all the luxury brands had near-zero scores (Figure 2). Only
Hermès (29.41%) published information that goes beyond tier-one suppliers. Again, the
probability that a mass-market brand had a higher traceability score than a luxury brand was
about 80%, and the performance gap between both sectors was about 12 percentage points
(Table 3).
6. Conclusion
This research employed non-parametric methods to explore FTI 2017 raw data, bench-
marking transparency status of sustainability disclosures among globally recognizable
Table 3. Differences between mass-market (n = 27) and luxury brands (n = 13) on supply
chain transparency sub-areas.
Mean HL median Probability of superiority
Audits
Mass-market 14.42 - 75.93%
Luxury 4.40 - 24.07%
Difference 10.02 7.14 -
Negative impact reporting
Mass-market 21.63 - 81.34%
Luxury 7.79 - 18.66%
Difference 13.83 13.33 -
Traceability
Mass-market 17.60 - 80.48%
Luxury 2.71 - 19.52%
Difference 14.89 11.76 -
Note: HL median is the Hodges-Lehmann median difference (see Data Analysis section under Methods).
Except for the negative impact reporting sub-area, the Hodges-Lehmann median difference suggested
that the difference between both groups was not as wide as suggested by the mean difference. The
difference in the negative impact reporting does not add up due to rounding error.
12 I. JESTRATIJEVIC ET AL.
fashion brands. Quantifying and exploring the amount of information that brands have
recently made universally available might serve as a reference point against which current
or future disclosers may be assessed. This study’s results represent an eloquent reminder
that major fashion brands reluctantly share their business information. Even the brands
with the best performance score (49%) would have to double their efforts to become fully
transparent. Yet the fact that some brands have intentionally chosen not to release any
internal information represents a very significant, if troubling problem. From all brands
investigated, only Levi’s and Gap made an explicit commitment to transparency. From 32
brands least-transparent rated, the majority did not publish any form of sustainability
reports, nor did they announce having sustainability departments. Nevertheless, on official
brand websites, these brands withheld the core corporate information, such as the address
and phone number of their headquarters and/or names, and the roles of their top manage-
ment executives. It would be understandable to conceal, and thus to protect the informa-
tion related to unique manufacturing techniques, textiles under development, or the source
of an artisan supply as that is information that is vital for brand distinction and competitive
advantage (Marshall et al., 2016). However, the absence of any tangible corporate informa-
tion means that, in reality, it is still possible for fashion businesses to generate enormous
profits, while information about their executives, corporate location, producers and the
social and environmental impacts these brands devour, remain explicitly unknown. The
path toward transformative transparency must also deal with other obstacles. Despite the
types of barriers that prevent retailers from disclosing enough critical information (Fulton
Figure 2. Comparison of mass-market (n = 27) and luxury brands (n = 13) on key sub-areas of supply
chain transparency. The points are jittered because of the presence of tied values in the data. Brands
that stood out are labelled.
JOURNALOFGLOBALFASHIONMARKETING 13
& Lee, 2013), most of the companies investigated here selectively disclosed only specific
type of information. Quantifying the differences in corporate and supply chain disclosures
using a large sample of fashion brands enabled the research team to validate previous
qualitative studies confirming that the type of information shared is extremely dispropor-
tionate (Garcia-Torres et al., 2017;Sherman,2009).
This study also adds new insights, showing that policies and governance information
are prioritized for public release over any supply chain information. For example,
despite announcing the implementation of policies that regulate chemical use in
clothing production, no brand actually disclosed the list of chemicals banned for
specific products, even though this information would have a direct impact on
a producer’s health and safety, and similarly, it might affect the final consumer.
Likewise, brands disclose commitment to support suppliers’efforts to increase worker
wages. However, no brand disclosed how their purchasing practices enabled supplier
wage increase, nor did they disclose the frequency of wage negotiation by elected trade
unions and/or workers’representatives. This is to say, having adequate policies is
desirable, but they should not represent a substitute for disclosing corresponding
supply chain information. If the business fails to acknowledge how unsustainable
practices drive behavior changes, reporting is likely to have for a company a high
burden. Furthermore, the inclination of retailers that operate in the same part of the
sector to have a similar absence of/or low levels of information visibility, across three
supply chain sub-areas, indicates that mass-market and luxury companies have almost
strategic approaches to creating public disclosure (Marshall et al., 2016). In the case of
mass-market brands, higher supply chain transparency in a specific area might repre-
sent reactive tackling previously questioned production practices (Ho, 2014). Likewise,
revealing supply chain information in the case of luxury brands is still optional as their
practices are not firmly questioned, nor is the release of information vigorously
demanded (Karaosman et al., 2017; Towers et al., 2013). Nevertheless, the fact that
the weakest supply chain sub-areas for both mass-market and luxury brands represents
traceability, and negative impact reporting raises other important concerns. Firstly, it
suggests that companies have a solid degree of knowledge about their supplier’s
production procedures, and impacts, but due to reputation associated risks (Bendell
& Kleanthous, 2007; Kapferer, 2012), they intentionally avoid releasing such data.
Secondly, the absence of such information might also suggest that the company does
not yet have enough supply chain knowledge; thus, it is impossible for them to estimate
supply chain impacts, and to disclose that data. The problem is, however, that social
and environmental risks found in the retail industry are by 80% embedded in the
supply chain processes and not in the corporate direct operations (e.g. marketing,
distribution) (The State of Green business, 2012). Thus, un-disclosing critical supply
chain impacts such as workers’rights, water use, or carbon emissions, might generate
controversies to explain business unresponsiveness and consequently diminishing
positive impacts that would be disclosed (Marshall et al., 2016). Similarly, withholding
supply chain information brings up even more harmful concern that these businesses
are unaccountable, to the extent that retailers cannot be trusted that their supply chain
is safe, ethical, and abuse-free, since they failed to publicly show concrete knowledge of
who their suppliers are.
14 I. JESTRATIJEVIC ET AL.
6.1. Practical implications
6.1.1. For brands
This study’sfindings might aid retailers to carefully re-negotiate priorities for future
sustainability disclosures while examining the strengths and weaknesses of recent disclosure
assessments. The research team believes that brand comparisons provide valuable insights
into best peer practices and critical areas that require greater industry attention. To improve
the overall relevance of sustainability disclosures, the indispensable task for retailers is to
grasp what an increasing demand for transparency means for their consumers, workers,
suppliers, and organization, and consequently what information has, for the general public,
a higher value. Increasing the substantive transparency of one phenomenon should not
makeothermorecriticalissueslessvisible,which ultimately leaves them poorly understood
(Gardner et al., 2018). For example, to increase the relevance of information released in the
negative impact reporting sub-area, the H&M Group should limit extensive information on
quantities of textile waste collected through close-the-loop initiative, on their corporate
websiteexplaining if, how, and in which amount the waste, internally collected, has been
reused or recycled. By making such, and similar changes, the information shared will not
sound deceptively impressive (Griskevicius et al., 2010),butitwillbecomemorerelevantto
information users. While embracing governmental (UN, CATSCA), non-governmental
(Ditty, 2017) and consumer demands for greater transparency (Hiller-Connell & Kozar,
2017),theentireapparelcommunityshouldgrasp how to make relevant disclosure more
accessible for public usage. The adoption of new tracking and tracing technologies may
greatly facilitate transparency potential, and make disclosure informative and interactive.
Conversely, in today’s digitally transparent society, absolute lack of information may
instantly generate questions and controversies, and thus considerably hurt a brand’sreputa-
tion (Marshall et al., 2016). Therefore, this study not only calls brands into action to improve
overall sustainability-related reporting, but to consider relevance, efficacy, and accessibility of
disclosed information.
6.1.2. For consumers
The brand comparisons provide valuable insightinto the kind of information retailers make
readily accessible for public usage. Consumers may use these findings to better understand
the current state of sustainability disclosures and grasp which retailers scored high and
which retailers scored low, and why. Acknowledging one of the basic consumer rights, “the
right to be informed,”the research team believes that consumers deserve to know that the
clothing they purchase has not contributed to social or environmental degradation. Hence,
the lack of transparency among major retailers may inspire a growing number of sustain-
able-oriented consumers (Hiller-Connell & Kozar, 2017) to critically examine favorite
brands before making their next clothing purchases. By supporting and financially reward-
ing brands that are embracing greater transparency and showing the full spectrum of
challenges their businesses are facing to achieve sustainability commitments, consumers
hold enormous power to facilitate overall industry amelioration and positive change.
6.1.3. For policy officers
Results validate previous research (Ma et al., 2016)showing the weak implementation of
existing national laws (CATSCA) and international laws (REACH). If there is no
JOURNALOFGLOBALFASHIONMARKETING 15
inspection or no penalty for such violations, businesses will continue to generate enor-
mous profits, while the producers of goods sold will remain unseen, and the social and
environmental impacts will remain unknown.
6.2. Limitations and future research
To benchmark transparency among global retailers, an exploratory approach was taken,
and no inferential methods (p-values, confidence intervals) were performed in the
analysis. Brands investigated by the index constitute the population for which any
findings from this analysis hold. If brands made any improvements after the FTI 2017
was released (April 2017), information on those improvements would not be reflected in
this study. Hence, for exploring disclosures created after April 2017, more recent indexes
might be used, and this study’sfindings might inform and facilitate such examinations.
This research represents an important first step toward quantitatively assessing transpar-
ency in sustainability reporting among global fashion brands. Subsequent studies are
needed to analyze thoroughly the critical areas/sub-areas for sustainable reporting and to
suggest steps that would mitigate faster progress. It would be beneficial to separately
explore the alignment between mass-market or luxury corporate and supply chain
information to further examine reasoning and means for creating strategic disclosure.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Iva Jestratijevic http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1776-335X
James Uanhoro http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4843-927X
References
Antislavery International. (2010). Call for H&M and Zara to stop using Uzbek Cotton. Antislavery.
Retrieved from https://www.antislavery.org/call-hm-zara-stop-using-uzbek-cotton/
Bendell, J., & Kleanthous, A. (2007). Deeper luxury: Quality and style when the world matters.
World Wide Fund for Nature UK. Retrieved from http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/luxury_
report.pdf
Bhaduri, G., & Ha-Brookshire, J. (2017). The role of brand schemas, information transparency,
and source of message on apparel brands’social responsibility communication. Journal of
Marketing Communications,23(3), 293–310.
Brooks, M. E., Dalal, D. K., & Nolan, K. P. (2014). Are common language effect sizes easier to
understand than traditional effect sizes? Journal of Applied Psychology,99(2), 332–340.
Brun, A., & Castelli, C. (2013). The nature of luxury: A consumer perspective. International
Journal of Retail and Distribution Management,4(11/12), 823–847.
Cho, C. H., Laine, M., Roberts, R. W., & Rodrigue, M. (2015). Organized hypocrisy, organizational
façades, and sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society,40,78–94.
Cline, E. L. (2012). Overdressed: The shockingly high cost of cheap fashion. London: Penguin.
Dando, N., & Swift, T. (2003). Transparency and assurance minding the credibility gap. Journal of
Business Ethics,44(2–3), 195–200.
16 I. JESTRATIJEVIC ET AL.
Dickson, M. A., & Eckman, M. (2006). Social responsibility: The concept as defined by apparel and
textile scholars. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal,24(3), 178–191.
Diouf, D., & Boiral, O. (2017). The quality of sustainability reports and impression management:
A stakeholder perspective. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,30(3), 643–667.
Ditty, S. (2017). Fashion transparency index. Fashion Revolution. London. Retrieved from https://
issuu.com/fashionrevolution/docs/fr_fashiontransparencyindex2017?e=25766662/47726047
Elkington, J. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-century
business. Environmental Quality Management,8(1), 37–51.
Erceg-Hurn, D. M., & Mirosevich, V. M. (2008). Modern robust statistical methods: An easy way
to maximize the accuracy and power of your research. American Psychologist,63(7), 591–601.
Fletcher, K. (2013). Sustainable fashion and textiles: Design journeys. London: Routledge.
Fulton, K., & Lee, S. E. (2013). Assessing sustainable initiatives of apparel retailers on the internet.
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: an International Journal,17(3), 353–366.
Garcia-Torres, S., Rey-Garcia, M., & Albareda-Vivo, L. (2017). Effective disclosure in the
fast-fashion industry: From sustainability reporting to action. Sustainability,9(12), 2256.
Gardner, T. A., Benzie, M., Börner, J., Dawkins, E., Fick, S., Garrett, R., . . . Mardas, N. (2018).
Transparency and sustainability in global commodity supply chains. World Development.
Available online May 31st, 2018. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.025
GRI. (2015). Sustainability Report. Global reporting. Retrieved from https://www.globalreporting.
org/resourcelibrary/TCS%20GRI%20Study%202015.pdf
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: Status, reputation,
and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,98(3), 392.
Grissom, R. J., & Kim, J. J. (2001). Review of assumptions and problems in the appropriate
conceptualization of effect size. Psychological Methods,6(2), 135–146.
Hahn, R., & Kühnen, M. (2013). Determinants of sustainability reporting: A review of results,
trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. Journal of Cleaner
Production,59,5–21.
Hiller-Connell, K. Y., & Kozar, J. M. (2017). Introduction to special issue on sustainability and the
triple bottom line within the global clothing and textiles industry. Fashion and Textiles,4(1), 16.
Ho, D. C. (2014). A case study of H&M’s strategy and practices of corporate environmental
sustainability. Logistics Operations, Supply Chain Management and Sustainability, 241–254.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07287-6_16
Hodges, J. L., Jr, & Lehmann, E. L. (1963). Estimates of location based on rank tests. The Annals of
Mathematical Statistics,34, 598–611.
Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2017). The consequences of mandatory corporate sustainability
reporting. Harvard Business School research working paper,11–100.
Jestratijevic, I., & Rudd, N. A. (2018). Making fashion transparent: What consumers know about
the brands they admire. In L. Davis-Burnes (Ed.), Fashion business cases. London: Bloomsbury
Academic. Online edition. doi:10.5040/9781474208765.0007.
Kamal, Y., & Deegan, C. (2013). Corporate social and environment-related governance disclosure
practices in the textile and garment industry: Evidence from a developing country. Australian
Accounting Review,23(2), 117–134.
Kang, J., & Hustvedt, G. (2014). Building trust between consumers and corporations: The role of
consumer perceptions of transparency and social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics,125
(2), 253–265.
Kapferer, J.-N. (2012). Why luxury should not delocalize. European Business Review,58–62.
Kapferer, J. N., & Michaut-Denizeau, A. (2014). Is luxury compatible with sustainability? Luxury
consumers’viewpoint. Journal of Brand Management,21(1), 1–22.
Karaosman, H., Brun, A., & Morales-Alonso, G. (2017). Vogue or Vague: Sustainability perfor-
mance appraisal in luxury fashion supply chains”. In Gardetti & A. Miguel (Eds.), Sustainable
management of luxury (pp. 301–330). Singapore: Springer.
Khan, Z. R., & Rodrigues, G. (2015). Human before the garment: Bangladesh tragedy revisited.
Ethical manufacturing or lack thereof in garment manufacturing industry. World,5(1), 22–35.
JOURNALOFGLOBALFASHIONMARKETING 17
Kozlowski, A., Searcy, C., & Bardecki, M. (2015). Corporate sustainability reporting in the apparel
industry: An analysis of indicators disclosed. International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management,64(3), 377–397.
Lund-Thomsen, P., & Lindgreen, A. (2014). Corporate social responsibility in global value chains:
Where are we now and where are we going? Journal of Business Ethics,123(1), 11–22.
Ma, Y. J., Lee, H. H., & Goerlitz, K. (2016). Transparency of global apparel supply chains:
Quantitative analysis of corporate disclosures. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management,23(5), 308–318.
Marshall, D., McCarthy, L., McGrath, P., & Harrigan, F. (2016). What’s your strategy for supply
chain disclosure? MIT Sloan Management Review,57(2), 37–45.
Maryanov, D. C. (2010). Sweatshop liability: Corporate codes of conduct and the governance of
labor standards in the international supply chain. Lewis & Clark Law Review,14, 397.
Mol, A. P. (2015). Transparency and value chain sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production,107,
154–161.
Napier, E., & Sanguineti, F. (2018). Fashion Merchandisers’Slash and Burn Dilemma:
A Consequence of Over Production and Excessive Waste. Rutgers Business Review,3,2.
Newson, R. (2002). Parameters behind nonparametric statistics: Kendall’s tau, Somers’D and
median differences. Stata Journal,2(1), 45–64.
Niinimäki, K. (2010). Eco-clothing, consumer identity and ideology. Sustainable Development,18
(3), 150–162.
Nimbalker, G., Mawson, J., Harris, C., Rynan, M., Sanders, L., Hart, C., & Shove, M. (2018). The
Ethical Fashion report. The truth behind the barcode. Baptist World Aid Australia. Retrieved
from https://www.tearfund.org.nz/getattachment/Get-Involved/Ethical-Fashion-Guide
/FashionReport_2018_with-TF-Logo_FINAL_compressed.pdf.aspx
Nimbalker, G., Mawson, J., Lee, H. A., & Cremen, C. (2017). The Ethical Fashion report. The truth
behind the barcode. Baptist World Aid Australia. Retrieved from https://www.tearfund.org.nz/
getmedia/135135c5-9701-4245-964b-e50864170bff/EthicalFashionReport_2017.pdf.aspx
Preuss, L. (2001). In dirty chains. Purchasing and greener manufacturing. Journal of Business
Ethics,34(3–4), 345–359.
Sherman, W. R. (2009). The global reporting initiative: What value is added. International Business
& Economics Research Journal,8(5), 9–22.
The State of Green business (2012). Green business. Retrieved from https://www.greenbiz.com/
research/report/2012/01/state-green-business-report-2012
Strähle, J., & Merz, L. (2017). Case Study: Total Transparency at. In J. Strähle (Ed..), Green fashion
retail (pp. 269–291). Singapore: Springer. Honestby.com.
Tokatli, N. (2014). Made in Italy? Who cares! Prada’s new economic geography. Geoforum,54,1–9.
Tong, C. (2019). Statistical inference enables bad science; Statistical thinking enables good science.
The American Statistician,73(1), 246–261.
Towers, N., Perry, P., & Chen, R. (2013). Corporate social responsibility in luxury manufacturer
supply chains: An exploratory investigation of a Scottish cashmere garment manufacturer.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,41(11/12), 961–972.
Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis (Vol. 2). London: Pearson.
Tungate, M. (2012). Fashion brands: Branding style from Armani to Zara. Philadelphia: Kogan
Page Publishers.
Turker, D., & Altuntas, C. (2014). Sustainable supply-chain management in the fast fashion
industry: An analysis of corporate reports. European Management Journal,32(5), 837–849.
Vargha, A., & Delaney, H. D. (2000). A critique and improvement of the CL common language
effect size statistics of McGraw and Wong. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics,25
(2), 101–132.
Visconti, L. M., & Di Giuli, A. (2014). Principles and levels of Mediterranean connectivity: Evidence
from Prada’s Made in Worlds brand strategy. Journal of Consumer Behavior,13(3), 164–175.
Yang, S., Song, Y., & Tong, S. (2017). Sustainable retailing in the fashion industry: A systematic
literature review. Sustainability,9(7), 1266.
18 I. JESTRATIJEVIC ET AL.
