Retail Unwrapped from The Robin Report

Luxury Leather’s Toxic Impact

Retail Unwrapped — Fri, 12 Dec 2025 05:01:00 +0000

Traditional fashion and automotive industries are wedded to a leather supply chain that requires 20 toxic processing steps and plastic coatings, while they simultaneously claim environmental leadership. The uncomfortable reality executives don’t acknowledge is that traditional leather production isn’t just environmentally destructive—it’s becoming economically obsolete. Join Shelley and Stephanie Downs, a biomaterials pioneer and CEO of Uncaged, as they have an honest conversation about how fashion executives who use natural leather are caught between mounting environmental pressure to change and legacy suppliers who resist touching alternative materials. Brands are being forced to choose between tradition and transformation. Meanwhile, major automotive brands including Jaguar and Land Rover are already piloting leather alternatives, responding to reputational risk from environmentally conscious consumers. To strengthen public awareness of leather alternatives, Uncaged just announced a new partnership with Oscar winning actress Natalie Portman who is a longtime vegan activist.

Special Guests

Stephanie Downs, CEO, Uncaged Innovations

Transcript

Gen Z Wants Proof Not Promises

Ben Mead — Wed, 10 Dec 2025 05:01:00 +0000

In fashion, loyalty used to be about self-identity. Consumers aligned themselves with brands that reflected their aspirations; what they wore expressed who they were. But in today’s marketplace, particularly among Gen Z, that question has flipped. The next generation of consumers is defining brands by what they do, how they treat people and the planet, and their ethics. According to Bloomberg, Gen Z now represents roughly 40 percent of global consumers and wields more than $360 billion in spending power in the U.S. alone. Their influence reaches far beyond direct purchases, shaping the expectations of millennials and Gen Alpha as well. This attitude has triggered a sea change in sustainability practices and brand perception.

Proof Not Promises

We’ve had a front row seat to this branding shift. Through our work with manufacturers and retailers worldwide, we’ve seen a clear trend emerge. Younger consumers are no longer content with feel-good promises or marketing spin. They want proof. They want evidence. They are not afraid to call out greenwashing when they see it. The implications for fashion brands are enormous. Brands are being forced into an era of radical accountability. Verified transparency, not performative sustainability, now determines long-term trust.

When proof becomes the foundation of brand storytelling, loyalty follows. Younger consumers are not inherently cynical. They are discerning. They want to believe, but they need reasons to.

Social Media: The Great Accountability Engine

In the past, sustainability initiatives lived quietly behind the scenes. They were buried in CSR reports, hangtags or press releases. Today, it plays out in real time, in public, across social feeds. Platforms like TikTok, Instagram and Reddit have turned fashion transparency into a competitive sport. On TikTok alone, hashtags related to sustainable fashion have racked up billions of views, reflecting how the sustainability discourse has become simultaneously mainstream in entertainment, education and advocacy. Armed with smartphones and a growing knowledge base, consumers—many of them Gen Z—are dissecting supply chains, analyzing fiber content and fact-checking corporate claims. Hashtags like #WhoMadeMyClothes and #Greenwashing have become rallying cries of a generation demanding authenticity.

What makes this especially powerful is that the conversation does not stop with the product. It extends to brand leadership, labor practices, packaging and even partnerships. When a brand’s actions contradict its sustainability narrative, word spreads fast and loyalty erodes even faster. Executives who once viewed social media primarily as a marketing channel are now realizing it is also a watchdog. The same platforms that once drove demand now drive discernment.

From Performative to Proven: The New Definition of Sustainability

For years, fashion leaned heavily on storytelling to communicate sustainability. Words like “eco-friendly,” “natural,” and “conscious” dominated marketing campaigns, often without clear definitions or data to back them up. Those days are over. Gen Z is fluent in sustainability language and quick to spot when it is being misused. This generation expects specificity. What chemicals were used in the dying process? Were the workers paid fairly? How much water did manufacturing this fabric consume?

It is not that they have lost faith in brands; they have raised the bar. They understand that sustainability is not a single attribute but a systemic practice that touches every part of production. Performative gestures such as limited-edition “green” collections, one-off donations or broad statements of intent no longer impress. In fact, they often backfire, signaling that a company is more focused on optics than outcomes.

Certifications that once felt like behind-the-scenes quality markers are now consumer-facing trust signals. Trustworthy labels have become proof points; tangible indicators that a product has been independently tested against harmful substances and produced under safer, more transparent conditions. This evolution underscores a critical shift. Brands can no longer say they are sustainable. They have to prove it.

Verified Transparency: The Future of Brand Trust

Trust in fabrics has become transactional and evidence based. Consumers are willing to invest in brands that share verifiable data and undergo third-party testing. Those brands that rely solely on self-reported claims risk losing credibility. For many companies, this challenge feels daunting. But it is also an opportunity. Certifications, testing and traceability systems build consumer confidence and strengthen internal accountability. They push brands to ask better questions of their suppliers, close knowledge gaps in chemical management and reduce risk at every level of the value chain. We issued more than 57,000 certifications globally last year, an eight percent increase from the previous year, demonstrating that verification has moved from niche to necessary.

When a brand can confidently say, “Every material in this garment has been tested against harmful substances,” it is not just good PR. It is good business. It minimizes regulatory exposure, prevents reputational damage and meets growing expectations of investors and policymakers, not just consumers. The brands that will win Gen Z are those that embrace transparency as a core business strategy, not a marketing afterthought.

What Proof Not Promises Means for Fashion

Executives today are dealing with a complex landscape of consumer skepticism, supply chain disruption and regulatory scrutiny. While it is tempting to think of sustainability as a communications challenge, it really is an operational one. “Proof Not Promises” requires rethinking how decisions are made, data is collected, and stories are told. It means aligning marketing with manufacturing and compliance with creativity. It means investing in systems that verify safety and responsibility before a product ever hits the shelf.

The upside? When proof becomes the foundation of brand storytelling, loyalty follows. Younger consumers are not inherently cynical. They are discerning. They want to believe, but they need reasons to. In our work across the textile ecosystem, we see this play out daily. Brands that commit to verified transparency do not just earn trust; they retain it. Their customers become advocates, not just buyers.

The Takeaway: A More Honest Industry Wins

Gen Z has rewritten the rules of engagement for fashion. They have turned brand loyalty into a meritocracy where transparency, accountability and proof determine who earns their trust. The question for executives is not whether this generation cares about sustainability; it is whether you can prove your brand does.

In a market defined by scrutiny, those who prioritize verified transparency will not only weather the shift but lead it. The future of fashion loyalty is not built on perfect storytelling. It is built on honest systems.

Note: For more than 30 years, OEKO-TEX® has offered standardized solutions that companies in the textile and leather industry can use to transparently and sustainably optimize their manufacturing processes. Products and suppliers certified by OEKO-TEX® can be found at https://www.oeko-tex.com/en/buying-guide. Follow OEKO-TEX® on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn and WeChat.

The Digital Product Passport: Regulation or Revolution?

Glyn Atwal — Mon, 03 Nov 2025 05:01:00 +0000

Regulation is no longer just a compliance issue that keeps corporate lawyers awake at night. It’s becoming a catalyst for market disruption and opportunity. A prime example is the European Union’s sustainability legislation, the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR).

By 2027, every fashion item sold in the EU will be required to have a Digital Product Passport (DPP). A digital fingerprint accessible via a QR code will reveal a breakdown of the product’s materials, manufacturing details, supply chain, environmental impact, and lifecycle.

This new level of transparency gives consumers access to information that was once hidden or nearly impossible to obtain. It also provides brands with a direct channel for engagement throughout every stage of the customer journey.

Counterfeiting erodes consumer trust and brand value. A DPP enables buyers to instantly verify a product’s authenticity, boosting confidence in both primary and resale markets.

Product Authentication

Counterfeiting erodes consumer trust and brand value. A DPP enables buyers to instantly verify a product’s authenticity, boosting confidence in both primary and resale markets. The global secondhand apparel market is projected to reach $367 billion by 2029, growing nearly three times faster than the overall apparel industry.

As initiatives like Re.Uniqlo and H&M’s Pre-Loved gain traction, DPPs will help brands capture new revenue streams and own the resale journey. Bain and eBay estimate that DPPs could double a product’s lifetime value. EY’s Luxury Client Index 2025 reports that 54 percent of consumers would buy pre-owned products directly from a luxury brand. EON’s digital ID allows Coachtopia to be sold on Poshmark and already demonstrates how this model can work in practice.

Sustainability Performance

Consumers increasingly prioritize sustainability, especially in luxury, but are also skeptical about greenwashing. EY Luxury Client Index 2025 reports that nearly a third of respondents ranked sustainability among the top five factors influencing purchase. However, 24 percent say it’s not a priority because they see many brands’ sustainability as not credible or just greenwashing.

A DPP can restore credibility by providing verifiable data on a product’s lifecycle, from carbon footprint to water usage. It can also display durability scores and connect consumers to repair or recycling services, reinforcing circularity. A Mintel survey found that 51 percent of UK respondents say information about the durability of the item on the clothing item is the main factor that would influence them when buying clothes.

Product Chain

For many brands, provenance is central to their identity, yet transparency gaps remain. According to PwC’s New Generation Circular Fashion 2024 Survey, almost 40 percent of younger consumers say they lack information about how products are made.

A DPP bridges that trust gap, documenting where and how each item is produced and what materials it contains. For many French and Italian luxury brands, this stands as a hallmark of their savoir-faire. This is also the case for Calida, the Swiss lifestyle label, which will use the DPP as an effective touchpoint to reinforce its ‘Made in Europe’ positioning.

There will be no reprieve for fashion brands that fail to introduce a DPP for their products. And this isn’t just about fashion, as compliance will gradually extend to other sectors, including beauty. According to the 2025 C-Suite Sustainability Report, sustainability is the top-three executive priority, alongside technology adoption and artificial intelligence. The DPP perfectly illustrates how these priorities are converging.

Yet EU legislation should not be viewed as a regulatory hurdle but as a brand-building opportunity to strengthen consumer trust and engagement. DPPs will fundamentally transform how consumers interact with products and brands. Luxury labels, for example, can tell authentic stories rooted in sustainability and provenance. They can also create personalized digital experiences, as Balenciaga did with an exclusive soundtrack embedded in an integrated chip. Engagement like this delivers tangible results. Deloitte reported that in a DPP pilot, Prada found products enhanced with digital storytelling led to higher average customer spend.

The DPP will soon be the gateway for brands to operate in the EU, but its influence may extend globally, setting a new standard for transparency and accountability. This will create a level playing field where fashion brands can compete on more than price, using sustainability and authenticity to differentiate themselves from ultra-fast-fashion players.

Whether scanning QR codes becomes an everyday habit remains to be seen, but ultimately, it is the brand’s reputation on the line. In today’s hyper-transparent market, brands that ignore sustainability will not just fall behind; they will be called out.

Electronics Retailers Can Shift the Future of PFAS: Here’s How

Arick Wierson — Tue, 26 Aug 2025 04:01:00 +0000

Walk into any major retail store today, from Target to Best Buy, and you’ll see shelves stacked with the latest smartphones, laptops, gaming consoles, and smart home gadgets. These products aren’t just consumer favorites — they are the beating heart of global retail. In 2024 alone, consumer electronics sales topped $1.2 trillion worldwide, making them one of the most important growth engines in the sector.

But behind the sleek glass screen of the latest iPhone or the processing power of a Nvidia graphics card lies a paradox that few shoppers, and not enough retailers, understand: Semiconductors, the chips powering nearly every device on the market, cannot be manufactured without PFAS, the notorious “forever chemicals” now at the center of intensifying public, regulatory, and legal scrutiny.

For retailers, the message is stark: what begins in chemical plants and semiconductor fabs doesn’t stay there. It flows directly into the products on their shelves — and into the headlines that shape consumer trust. Companies like Target, Best Buy, and Walmart may not manufacture chips, but they market and sell the devices that depend on them.

The Semiconductor Paradox

PFAS, shorthand for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a family of more than 15,000 synthetic chemicals. Their defining feature is the carbon-fluorine bond, one of the strongest in chemistry, which makes them extraordinarily resistant to heat, corrosion, and chemical breakdown. In turn, those traits make them indispensable in semiconductor manufacturing.

As Andrew Chien, a University of Chicago computer scientist and former Intel research leader, recently told Politico: “They’re used in a sequential fashion in the processing of the chips. We can become more efficient about it, but it’s not obvious how we transition away from [PFAS].”

That reality is echoed by Cally Edgren, Vice President of Sustainability and Global Regulatory at Assent, an Ontario-based supply-chain and data platform. She notes: “When most people think about PFAS, they picture water resistance or non-stick coatings. But behind the scenes, ‘forever chemicals’ are foundational to advanced industrial processes — perhaps none more so than semiconductor manufacturing. Their unique chemical properties enable photolithography, plasma processing, wafer cleaning, and even the pristine cleanroom environments essential for chip fabrication. In these settings, PFAS aren’t just convenient—they’re indispensable.”

Translation: without PFAS, there are no semiconductors. And without semiconductors, there are no smartphones, laptops, televisions, ecommerce platforms, or even point-of-sale systems. The chip shortage of 2021, which left retailers scrambling to stock laptops, game consoles, and cars, showed just how vulnerable retail is to disruptions in semiconductor supply. Now, PFAS has become another fault line, raising the stakes even higher.

Why Electronics Retailers Can’t Ignore the PFAS Problem

What makes PFAS so useful in chips is also what makes them dangerous. PFAS compounds don’t naturally degrade, and as a result, they accumulate in water, soil, and bloodstreams, and have been linked to a long list of health issues, including cancers, thyroid disease, infertility, and developmental issues, to name just a few. Major PFAS production facilities in the U.S., Asia and Europe have already left contamination in their wake. Chemours’ Fayetteville Works plant in North Carolina has polluted ten counties with a PFAS called GenX, while its Parkersburg, West Virginia site has repeatedly exceeded wastewater limits, according to the EPA.

For retailers, the stakes aren’t theoretical anymore. PFAS has become a real supply-chain, compliance, and brand risk. UL Solutions, which advises global retailers on chemical safety, points out that rules and reporting requirements are multiplying across states, countries, and regions. At the same time, shoppers are waking up to the issue and increasingly prefer products marketed as PFAS-free. That creates ripple effects: supply chains strained by reformulation or sourcing changes, brands exposed to reputational damage if their products are tied to “forever chemicals,” and mounting costs for compliance, labeling, and even recalls.

In Europe, the issue has already reached a boiling point. It’s not just about regulation—it’s about politics and public pressure. In France, for example, hundreds of activists stormed a PFAS-producing facility near Lyon in March of 2024, staging what they called a “citizens’ inspection” and sparking national headlines about the health risks tied to local contamination. Across the EU, PFAS is no longer a niche concern. It’s a mainstream environmental crisis—and one that consumers, civil society, and retailers are watching closely.

The weight of that public scrutiny has also translated into historic legal accountability. In June 2025, an Italian court delivered a landmark ruling, sentencing eleven former executives — including board members linked to Mitsubishi and other parent companies—to a combined 141 years in prison, with individual terms of up to 17 years. Their crime: decades of mismanagement that left nearly 200 square kilometers of soil and drinking water contaminated with PFAS. It was the first time corporate managers in Europe were held criminally liable for PFAS pollution — a powerful signal that industrial negligence is no longer just a reputational risk, but a path to doing hard time.

In the U.S., the challenges are of an entirely different character. With federal momentum under the Trump Administration moving slowly and often inconsistently, state governments have become the frontline of PFAS regulation. This has produced a patchwork of requirements that vary widely across jurisdictions, forcing retailers and manufacturers to track shifting compliance obligations state by state.

But the biggest risks revolve around litigation. Over the past several years, PFAS lawsuits have led to some of the largest environmental settlements in U.S. history. In 2023, 3M agreed to pay up to $12.5 billion to settle claims related to PFAS contamination of public water systems. That same year, DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva reached a $1.19 billion settlement for similar claims. These cases are only the beginning: municipalities, states, and private plaintiffs continue to file actions against a wide array of companies—including retailers—alleging PFAS contamination or failure to disclose risks.

“For semiconductor companies, the litigation risks are acute, and they should all consider preemptive investment in advanced PFAS treatment infrastructure to demonstrate good faith and reduce damage exposure,” noted Chad Cummings, the CEO of Texas and Florida-based Cummings & Cummings Law, which advises manufacturing companies on mitigating their liability exposure.

For retailers, the message is stark: what begins in chemical plants and semiconductor fabs doesn’t stay there. It flows directly into the products on their shelves — and into the headlines that shape consumer trust. Companies like Target, Best Buy, and Walmart may not manufacture chips, but they market and sell the devices that depend on them. That makes them the public face of PFAS risk, whether through regulatory fines, lawsuits, or reputational damage. In an industry where consumer confidence drives sales, ignoring PFAS is no longer an option; managing it has become a core business imperative.

A Breakthrough That Changes the Equation

For years, the semiconductor–PFAS paradox seemed inescapable: the chemicals were indispensable, but using toxic chemicals with the potential to seep into the environment was almost inevitable.

Now that equation has begun to shift —not in Silicon Valley but in Decatur, Alabama, of all places. There, Daikin America — the U.S. arm of Daikin Industries, a Japanese multinational best known as the world’s largest air-conditioner manufacturer, but is also a global leader in the production of fluorochemicals — agreed to let a small Minneapolis startup try something new. Daikin is not a chipmaker, but it makes the critical PFAS chemicals that chipmakers depend on to make key electronic components. If PFAS can be destroyed at the source, in a plant like Daikin’s, then the manufacturers downstream can easily follow suit.

Enter Claros Technologies, a relatively unknown albeit well-funded environmental technology company that was spun out of the University of Minnesota. Earlier this year, Claros installed its UV-photochemical system at Daikin’s facility and ran it under industrial conditions. Over the course of the pilot, the system processed more than 50,000 gallons of contaminated wastewater and reported 99.99 percent destruction rates. Even more impressive than the percentage destruction was the scale: capable of hundreds of gallons a minute, not the dribble of a contained laboratory experiment.

Claros’ innovation lies in pairing UV with proprietary reagents — a formula that operates at low energy and low cost, while achieving levels of PFAS destruction that far outpace more exotic and expensive approaches like plasma or supercritical water oxidation. That combination — taking a familiar technology like UV and making it do something no one thought possible — is what is turning heads across the industry, prompting one major trade publication in the chemical industry to hail the Daikin trial as a “major breakthrough.

And the implications ripple far beyond Decatur. If chemical plants can destroy PFAS in the wastewater at the point of production, semiconductor fabs, the underlying technology supporting the trillion-dollar consumer-electronics market, can also eliminate PFAS from their production waste streams. At last, one might say, the semiconductor industry may be able to have its cake and eat it too, enabling manufacturers to keep using the PFAS that make modern chips possible, while shedding the risk profile that has made them a global liability.

The Global Arms Race for PFAS Solutions

Although Claros’ UV technology has pulled decisively ahead of its rivals, scores of companies are pursuing an array of promising approaches with different trade-offs in terms of throughput, efficacy, and cost —an arms race in pursuit of the “killer app” for PFAS destruction. The reality, however, is a bit more nuanced; there will not be a single solution for all PFAS destruction. Different settings require different tools: remediating PFAS in farmland soil is not the same as cleaning a contaminated reservoir, which is not the same as treating high-volume wastewater from chip fabs.

The global race to solve PFAS contamination is far from over. Different technologies will likely dominate in different contexts—plasma for certain industrial waste streams, enzymatic degradation for small-scale cleanup, and supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) for specialized niche applications. But for industrial and semiconductor wastewater, the stakes are immediate, and UV-based technology is showing what is possible.

“Semiconductors aren’t going PFAS-free anytime soon,” John Brockgreitens, Ph.D., Vice President of Product Development at Claros, told The Robin Report. “But that doesn’t mean PFAS pollution is inevitable. We’ve proven you can eliminate PFAS at the source, before they ever reach the environment. That’s not just a win for manufacturers — it’s a win for retailers, consumers, and communities that expect supply chains to be sustainable.”

What This All Means for Retail

For retailers, the implications are direct. Electronics sales depend entirely on the steady flow of semiconductors. A disruption in chipmaking — whether caused by regulation, litigation, or reputational fallout — becomes a disruption in retail sales. The 2021 shortage was a warning shot; PFAS represents a potentially longer-term challenge.

But destruction technologies like Claros give retailers a path forward. They provide supply-chain assurance, allowing retailers to say confidently that the products on their shelves are tied to responsible manufacturing. They offer regulatory readiness, helping retailers stay compliant as PFAS rules tighten globally. They protect brand equity by insulating companies from the fallout of PFAS-related headlines. And they strengthen consumer loyalty in an era where shoppers want safer, cleaner, more transparent supply chains.

Replacing PFAS in semiconductor production may take decades, if it can be done at all. In the meantime, the retail sector doesn’t have to stand still. By encouraging suppliers to adopt proven destruction methods, retailers can insulate themselves from regulatory shocks, protect their brands, and give customers the confidence that the products they buy aren’t contributing to PFAS pollution.

For retailers, the message is clear: PFAS may remain essential to semiconductor production, but they no longer have to be a liability. With new destruction technologies now proven at scale, the industry has a way to keep chips flowing, shelves stocked, and consumer trust intact.

Still, voices from inside the supply chain caution against assuming PFAS can be phased out overnight. Mike Bangasser, CEO of Best Technology speaks for many in the industry when he warns: “If PFAS were banned outright, wafer production would collapse. You’d cripple data centers, spike energy use, and stall technologies that underpin modern life — from smartphones to aerospace.” His point echoes a broader frustration: too often, non-scientific policymakers try to legislate away materials that scientists know remain essential, at least until real alternatives exist.

For years, the PFAS debate has been framed as a choice between economic growth and environmental safety. These new technologies suggest that, at least in this case, it doesn’t have to be either-or. By destroying PFAS at the point of production, manufacturers can continue to build the breakthrough chips that underpin the global economy without compounding the environmental damage that has come to define “forever chemicals.”

That, in turn, gives retailers something they have never had before: the ability to break the cycle of liability. But peace of mind only matters if it is backed up by action. The semiconductor industry must show its progress more clearly to the supply chain, and retailers must demand it, pushing suppliers to adopt destruction technologies, requiring transparency, and making PFAS risk management a core part of brand strategy. By doing so, retailers won’t just insulate themselves from regulatory shocks and reputational risk; they will set a new standard for responsible supply chains in the electronics industry. If they seize that role, they can transform PFAS from a looming liability into a competitive advantage. For once, the environment and the economy both stand to win — and the entire electronics ecosystem, from fabs to storefronts, will be stronger for it.

Rimowa’s Upcycling Edge

Glyn Atwal — Tue, 24 Jun 2025 04:01:00 +0000

Upcycling is in fashion. Rimowa recently introduced its Re-Crafted service in the U.S., offering to buy their expensive, used aluminum suitcases, refurbish them, and give them a second life. More than just sustainable, Rimowa Re-Crafted has become a coveted fashion statement. Demand is currently outpacing supply, with buyers needing to sign up for notifications ahead of each new drop. Rimowa is not only showcasing its commitment to sustainability but is re-crafting its heritage with engineering excellence to create a powerful brand narrative.

Brands can lower the production costs associated with sourcing new materials by upcycling. This drives economic and environmental value, promoting resource efficiency and reducing waste. Embracing upcycling also allows brands to attract new more conscious consumers while driving that competitive edge. Today more than ever incorporating upcycling practices helps brands align with changing regulations and reduce risks associated with resource scarcity.

According to Christine Sintermann, Founder & Business Development at Biosofa, an Italian brand that produces natural furniture applying upcycling practices (such as the use of pressed cotton padding recycled from hospitality textile waste), “Sometimes, it’s worth the investment to restore or transform existing materials rather than always producing new ones. For brands, this approach can lead to unique, story-rich designs while aligning with the growing consumer demand for sustainability.” She adds, “We need to be more mindful of how we use resources, especially when it comes to managing waste. Too many materials are discarded unnecessarily when they could be given a second life. Upcycling is not just about reducing waste—it’s about rethinking value.”

Conscious Consumption

Greater consumer awareness and scrutiny are changing consumption patterns. According to Euromonitor International’s 2024 Sustainability Survey, over 60 percent of consumers seek to impact the environment positively. In response, brands in the fashion industry are becoming increasingly transparent about their environmental progress. While environmental impact dashboards may not flash on the runway, they’ve become a critical part of a brand’s image perception. For example, Tommy Hilfiger reports that its circular business models have kept over 110,000 pounds of textiles out of landfills since 2020.

And brand reputation matters (remember #Burnberry?), even as consumers face growing financial pressure to pay a premium for conscious consumption. The ‘SHEIN x Rescued’ initiative, which aims to reduce waste by upcycling deadstock fabrics, is far from an isolated case.

Beyond Sustainability

The case for brands to embrace upcycling solutions centers primarily on sustainability performance and staying ahead of regulatory pressures. As Sintermann notes, “Upcycling will play an increasing role in sustainable design, especially as regulations and consumer preferences push the industry toward circularity.” For example, The Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation will require fashion companies in the EU to report on the management of excess stock and will make it illegal to destroy unsold products.

However, companies must evaluate the benefits of upcycling across the entire value chain. Stephanie Joy Benedetto, Founder and CEO of Queen of Raw (now Aloqia), a platform that connects sellers of unused fabric with buyers, emphasizes the importance of integrating upcycling into the broader business strategy. “Brands can lower the production costs associated with sourcing new materials by upcycling. This drives economic and environmental value, promoting resource efficiency and reducing waste. Embracing upcycling also allows brands to attract new more conscious consumers while driving that competitive edge. Today more than ever incorporating upcycling practices helps brands align with changing regulations and reduce risks associated with resource scarcity.”

Green’s Cool Edge

One game-changer is how brands have shifted from seeing upcycling as a “nice-to-have” green marketing tactic to recognizing it as a strategic branding asset. Urban Outfitters, for example, has expanded its exclusive upcycled collections under the Vintage + ReMade program. Its recent collaboration with artist Maggie McLaughlin featuring designs made from upcycled materials has nearly sold out. It is a clear message that consumers are not just demanding sustainable practices, they’re seeking distinctive, style-forward products with authentic green credentials.

Likewise, Coach pushed the boundaries of coolness with the 2023 launch of its sub-brand, Coachtopia, built around the slogan, “Have taste, love waste.” (The founder’s 2024 Ted Talk titled “Luxury, not landfill — the waste-free future of fashion” has been viewed over 500,000 times). The brand, which embodies a “world of circular craft,” introduces a distinct creative identity designed to captivate a new and younger audience who may not connect with Coach’s more traditional designs.

Upcycled Community Relationships

The marketing potential of upcycling goes beyond just the physical product and offers brands the opportunity to develop deeper emotional brand relationships. Coachtopia, for instance, has a sub-cultural personality that is “powered by community.” Similarly, Uniqlo has expanded its RE.UNIQLO STUDIO concept internationally, where sales associates guide customers through a variety of options like repairing, remaking, reusing, and recycling. This isn’t about a focus on selling new merchandise, it’s about creating personal and meaningful interactions.

Green Innovation

Creativity and innovation are both drivers and outcomes of upcycling initiatives. Material innovation has for example become a key competitive battleground in the fashion sector. Brands are driven to experiment and develop new sustainable materials which is not always easy as Sintermann notes, “Upcycled materials should not compromise durability or aesthetics.”

Yet, brands have shown that innovation can be part of the solution. Timberland, for instance, has developed ReBOTL material made from plastic bottles and HoverLite Comfort Technology crafted from recycled rubber. Strategic partnerships can facilitate effective knowledge transfer. For example, lululemon collaborated with the Australian enviro-tech startup, Samsara Eco, to launch a limited-edition Packable Anorak made from enzymatically recycled polyester.

Scaling Up

The growing demand for upcycling solutions has created a gap in the value chain. As Benedetto explains, “The biggest challenge for brands has been developing the infrastructure and technological capabilities needed to support efficient upcycling processes. Traditionally, this has required significant investment and innovation.”

Companies must refigure their value chains and create ecosystems that support a circular business model. Brands such as Ralph Lauren and Victoria’s Secret have partnered with Aloqia to meet this challenge. Sintermann reinforces this, noting, “The challenge will be scalability—integrating upcycled materials into mass production without sacrificing craftsmanship.” Hugo Boss has taken a step in this direction with the launch of Eightyards, an independent corporation focused on recycling and reusing the group’s surplus materials.

Benedetto is confident that the future of upcycling is poised for growth “because of regulatory changes, increased consumer demand, technological advancements in design and manufacturing, and collaborative efforts among brands, suppliers, and technology providers.”

Upcycling Washing

Authenticity and transparency are key to any purpose-driven strategy, as consumers will punish brands for deceptive or misleading sustainability claims. According to NIQ data, 77 percent of consumers will avoid brands that are guilty of greenwashing. Brands should not question whether they have an upcycling strategy, but whether their upcycling efforts are truly delivering value. Get it right, and brands can benefit from new profit opportunities. Get it wrong, and brand management could face a PR crisis.

The Chemical Safety Crisis in Your Closet

Ben Mead — Thu, 12 Jun 2025 04:01:00 +0000

There is a better way to manage chemical toxicity, and forward-thinking brands are already moving in that direction. Clean, traceable supply chains are no longer a “nice-to-have.” They are proving to be strategic assets that build trust with consumers, reduce risk and lay the groundwork for more responsible growth.

In today’s retail landscape, if you think transparency is optional marketing jargon, you’re wrong. It’s essential. Consumers want to trust what they use and wear. This puts regulators in the spotlight as they step in as consumer protectors.

While the fashion industry buzzes about the macro issues of sustainability, circularity and conscious consumption, chemical safety is finally making headlines. There’s a lesser-known concern woven into many fabrics: harmful chemicals like hormone-disrupting phthalates, allergy-triggering dyes and the so-called “forever chemicals” known as PFAS.

Silent Toxins

The reality is unsettling: clothing that symbolizes self-expression, comfort, and even sustainability, is often contaminated with toxic chemicals. This hidden hazard puts garment workers at risk, harms factory communities and exposes consumers, including children, to avoidable health threats. In a chase for climate commitments and ESG metrics, the human and chemical safety side of sustainability has long been sidelined. But that’s beginning to change. Executives and brand leaders are being held accountable not just for what their products claim, but for what’s actually in them and how those ingredients ripple across the value chain.

The campaign for toxic chemical awareness isn’t just about doing what’s right, it’s about brand survival. And it’s why safer, traceable supply chains, powered by science-backed certifications like nonprofit OEKO-TEX® are rapidly becoming one of the most powerful competitive advantages for brands.

The Chemical Burden of Fashion

Fashion is one of the most chemically intensive industries in the world. Up to 3,500 different substances are used in textile processing, with over 750 (21%) known to be hazardous to human health. Some are used to dye fabrics, others to provide wrinkle resistance, waterproofing, flame retardance, or anti-odor properties. Among the most concerning are per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, a class of over 12,000 synthetic chemicals linked to cancer, liver damage, immune suppression and reproductive issues. Commonly used in stain-resistant coatings on outerwear, uniforms, activewear and even children’s clothing, PFAS are called “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down in the environment and accumulate in the human body.

As global awareness and public health research on PFAS accelerate, so do regulations. In the U.S., nearly a dozen states, including California, have passed or proposed bans on PFAs in textiles, with AB 1817 going into effect in 2025. The EU is also moving toward a wide-reaching PFAS restriction under REACH. These aren’t abstract compliance hurdles; they’re real legal risks. Brands caught unprepared could face lawsuits, product recalls and public backlash. Investors are also paying attention, and falling short on safety can hurt your reputation and bottom line.

Who’s Most at Risk? Everyone

Toxic chemicals in textiles don’t just impact the end consumer; they pose significant risks throughout the supply chain.

Garment workers. Many operate in countries with weak labor and environmental protections and face daily exposure to chemical-laden dyes, finishes and solvents, often with no protective equipment. These exposures have been linked to respiratory problems, skin disorders, reproductive health issues and long-term chronic illness.
Local communities. Residents living nearby textile and dyeing factories, particularly in major manufacturing hubs across South Asia, often contend with contaminated water supplies and soil, creating multi-generational health impacts.
Consumers, particularly children. People are exposed daily to hazardous substances through skin contact, especially in garments like pajamas, underwear and school uniforms. Children’s smaller bodies and developing systems make them more vulnerable to toxic chemicals like formaldehyde and heavy metals.

What’s most concerning is that while many brands know there’s a problem, they don’t know where to begin to solve it. Most don’t have chemists on staff, don’t know how to check their supply chains, and aren’t sure what questions to ask. At the same time, most consumers remain unaware that the clothes they wear and everyday home textiles, like bed sheets, towels and rugs, could be impacting their health and the well-being of their families.

A Brand Liability Crisis in the Making

The conversation around brand risk used to focus on sweatshop labor and carbon emissions. Today, safety is emerging as the next major challenge for brand reputation.

High-profile investigative reports and lawsuits have already put brands on the defensive. In just the past two years:

Major retailers have been sued for selling PFAS-treated products under “eco-friendly” labels.
NGOs have flagged dangerous chemicals in supposedly “organic” or “sustainable” collections.
Influencers and watchdogs have taken to social media to expose “greenwashed” garments that fail basic toxicity tests.

An inconvenient truth is emerging: Chemical safety isn’t a niche concern; it’s a mainstream mandate. And consumers are paying attention. According to OEKO-TEX® research, over 60 percent of global consumers say they want more transparency about what’s in the clothes they buy, and nearly half say they’d switch brands to avoid harmful substances.

Why Are So Are Many Brands Still Laggards?

Despite rising awareness, many brands are struggling to keep up. It’s not because they don’t care, it’s because the problem is so complex and there’s a lack of the right tools and infrastructure to fix it. Fashion supply chains are long, opaque and often built for speed, not safety. Brands frequently rely on Tier 1 suppliers or factories that sew, finish and ship final garments for assurances, with little to no visibility into upstream processes where most chemical inputs occur. Even when sustainability teams want to eliminate harmful substances, they often run into the same core problems:

Lack of reliable chemical data from mills and manufacturers
Inconsistent testing protocols across product categories and geographies
Vendor pushback on the cost or feasibility of switching to safer alternatives

Without the right systems in place, many brands end up in reaction mode, responding to crises rather than preventing them. But in today’s climate of tightening legislation and growing consumer scrutiny, being reactive isn’t just risky; it’s unsustainable. What’s needed is a shift in mindset. Chemical safety must move from a hidden vulnerability to a core strategic priority. And that transformation starts with visibility into supply chains, expert guidance and the right tools to build a cleaner, safer and more trustworthy production process.

Good News: Clean Chemistry Is a Competitive Edge

Achieving this kind of supply chain transparency doesn’t happen by accident. It requires systems that not only identify harmful substances but also help brands make smarter decisions about what goes into their products and how those products are made.

That’s where independent, science-based certification frameworks come into play. Tools from OEKO-TEX® offer practical pathways to:

Detect and eliminate harmful substances before they enter supply chains and before products reach the market
Audit and improve chemical management and worker protections across production tiers
Build traceability and transparency that’s visible to consumers
Align with current and emerging legislation through regularly updated restricted substance lists (RSLs)

These certifications don’t just support sustainability claims; they provide third-party verification at a time when trust is harder to earn and easier to lose. As PFAS bans and other chemical restrictions become the norm, brands that take a proactive approach to safety will be better positioned, legally, reputationally and operationally. Not because they have to be but because the future of fashion depends on it.

What’s Next? Accountability by Design

The fashion industry doesn’t need another sustainability buzzword. It needs tools to rebuild consumer trust. That means asking hard questions at the highest levels:

What chemicals are in our products?
Are we testing beyond compliance, based on risk?
Are we protecting our most vulnerable stakeholders, the people who make, wear, use and live near our products?

For brands serious about sustainability, chemical safety must be elevated to a boardroom-level discussion. Third-party certifications are no longer optional extras; they’re ESG performance levers and signals of brand integrity. A safer, more responsible fashion system is not only possible but already underway. But it takes leadership. It takes brands willing to treat chemical safety not as a compliance burden or additional expense but as a core brand value. Because in the post-greenwashing era, trust isn’t built with marketing. It’s earned through science and proven with certification.

Inside Beauty Product Recalls

Dana Wood — Wed, 14 May 2025 04:01:00 +0000

It’s 2025, summer is right around the corner and sun worshippers are about to slather “suntan lotion” all over their paler winter skin. So why is the known human carcinogen benzene still finding its way into myriad sunscreens lining American drugstore shelves? Further, why does benzene play a role in so many of the acne products U.S. citizens of all ages use to clear up pesky breakouts?

Chemical straighteners have contained formaldehyde, a known human carcinogen also responsible for nervous system disorders, respiratory problems and skin conditions, since as early as the 1920s. When combined with heat, as it always is when hair is chemically straightened, it’s toxic not only for the consumer but for the hairstylist administering the treatment as well.

Benzene Behind the Times

In short, blame the creaky old Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Instituted in 1938 (yes, you read that right – 87 years ago), prohibits the Food & Drug Administration from regulating beauty products, save for color additives, before they go to market.

After they go to market? All bets are off. And that’s what’s driving an uptick in recent beauty product recalls, including sunscreens and acne remedies laced with dangerously high levels of benzene, a chemical compound “intermediate” used to produce other chemicals (from dyes and rubber to plastics and pesticides); it’s also found naturally in forest fires and volcanoes. Previously, beauty product recalls were issued for dry shampoos and spray deodorants containing benzene. In fact, when that happened, in fall 2022, Unilever yanked a whopping 19 dry shampoos across its Nexxus, Dove and Tresemmé brands.

But more recently – as in the first quarter of this year – the beauty product recalls have mostly been centered around acne fixes. All contain benzoyl peroxide, which can evidently break down and morph, in a sinister fashion, into benzene. While the FDA actually allows a miniscule amount – two parts per million (2 ppm) – of benzene, Valisure, an independent research lab that does third-party safety testing on consumer goods, found levels up to 100 ppm and sounded the alarm.

Among the beauty product recalls cited are La Roche-Posay Effaclar Duo Acne Spot Treatment, Walgreens Acne Control Cleanser, Walgreens Tinted Acne Cream, Proactiv Emergency Blemish Relief Cream Benzoyl Peroxide 5%, Proactiv Skin Smoothing Exfoliator and SLMD Benzoyl Peroxide Acne Lotion.

Onus Is on Beauty Brands to Police Themselves

When cosmetics are recalled, it’s not as if the FDA rolls up to your local CVS with an empty box and sweeps the shelves. Rather, it puts the onus on the brands to do that while alerting consumers that the recall has been issued.

In some cases, isolated batches of particular products will get contaminated forcing a voluntary recall. That’s the case with Gen Z favorite Drunk Elephant, which recently had to scoop up close to 100,000 units of its Beste No. 9 Jelly Cleanser, Protini Polypeptide Cream and Lala Sample Packettes of multiple products.

Another Gen Z-beloved brand – Summer Fridays – got firmly in front of a recall situation on social media. After multiple accounts of redness and irritation caused by its Jet Lag Mask began surfacing online, the brand took to Instagram to offer full refunds and share the news that the product is being reformulated without essential oils. The brand also vowed to establish “new, more stringent manufacturing protocols using OTC-level guidelines to ensure each step in the manufacturing process is carefully monitored and checked for full compliance and adherence to our high standards.”

Disproportionate Toll on Black Women

If only the makers of chemical hair straighteners – not to mention the FDA — were as invested in consumer safety as Summer Fridays. In its excellent and thoroughly alarming two-part investigation, “Dereliction of Beauty,” the watchdog publication Inside Climate News delves into the literally deadly ways Black women have been underserved by America’s all but nonexistent cosmetic regulation.

Specifically, Inside Climate News takes aim at formaldehyde, a star ingredient in a massive chunk of the chemical relaxers Black women have relied on for decades to present a pop culture-defined more palatable and “business-like” version of their natural coils. I strongly urge everyone to read this investigative report in its entirety but allow me to topline the issue at hand.

Chemical straighteners have contained formaldehyde, a known human carcinogen also responsible for nervous system disorders, respiratory problems and skin conditions, since as early as the 1920s. When combined with heat, as it always is when hair is chemically straightened, it’s toxic not only for the consumer but for the hairstylist administering the treatment as well.

Way back in 1987, the Environmental Protection Agency sounded the alarm about formaldehyde. This was followed by a damning study by the International Agency for Cancer Research – an arm of the World Health Organization – a year later. Flash forward to 2025 and the FDA still has not banned formaldehyde in chemical relaxers. If that doesn’t tell you we’re largely on our own in all this, I don’t know what does.

The Potential RFK Jr Effect?

It’s become almost a cliché, if not comical, to compare the number of banned cosmetic ingredients in the EU (ranging from 100 to 2400, depending on your source) with the U.S. (11). Tasked by President Donald Trump to “go wild on health,” it will be interesting to see when – or even if – the newly appointed United States Secretary of Health and Human Services will turn his attention to the beauty industry.

In broad strokes, Kennedy is anecdotally anti-pharma. One wonders what he might make of the cosmetics industry’s biggest lobbying body, the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC), which is known to fiercely protect Big Beauty from excessive ingredient and manufacturing oversight. At first blush, PCPC seems like exactly the kind of group Kennedy would have a big, big problem with. And given his fixation with ingredients he deems toxic, formaldehyde-laced hair relaxers just might be headed for the scrap heap.

MoCRA: A Small Step in the Right Direction

Passed by Congress in 2022, MoCRA (Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act) was heralded as a huge step up from the 1938 Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. But how effective is it when it still doesn’t require the beauty industry to ban – or even require consumer notification of – egregious ingredients like parabens and phthalates?

Upping the count on banned ingredients wasn’t necessarily the point of MoCRA, rather, its chief goals are to widen the purview of the FDA regarding manufacturing oversight, to boost transparency regarding potentially allergenic masking fragrances and to institute standardized product-testing processes, for, say asbestos in talc.

As for troublesome ingredients, it looks like we’ll all need to continue to be diligent label-scrutinizers for the foreseeable future. Consumers will have to assert their personal power to search for “recalled cosmetic products” on a regular basis. Vigilance may prove to be the best self-defense.

Levi’s and Collateral Tariff Impact

Pam Danziger — Thu, 24 Apr 2025 04:01:00 +0000

On May 1, Levi Strauss and Company will celebrate its 172nd birthday. The company credits its longevity to leveraging its brand heritage as an asset for emotional connection with customers, competitive differentiation and driving innovation. Levi’s even employs a corporate historian and archivist, Tracey Panek, as part of the marketing team, to amplify its heritage. She explained the formula: “Stay rooted in Levi’s core elements of branding and quality; go back to the stories; connect to culture; and stay forever young.”

Inbound tariffs could force Levi’s to raise prices, putting pressure on its U.S. performance. It primarily sources goods from Vietnam, representing mid-to-high single digits, Mexico (five percent), China (one percent), as well as Bangladesh, Cambodia, Egypt, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. It could also face pressure on the international front from retaliatory tariffs, as well as backlash should the Boycott USA movement grow.

Brand Equity

Levi’s invented the denim category and continues to be the market’s pacesetter. While there are bigger fashion brands – Levi’s generated $6.4 billion in reported revenues last year – there are few with as great a level of brand awareness or appeal. Over 90 percent of U.S. consumers know the Levi’s brand and almost 60 percent say they own a Levi’s item.

That puts Levi’s in the lead in the measures that matter. BrandKeys gives it a gold star along with Nike in its 2025 Brand Loyalty Index. Morning Consult rates it the number one most trusted apparel, footwear and accessories brand. And consistently over the past many years, Levi Strauss & Co. ranked as the top apparel brand in the RepTrak Reputation Index that measures some 5,000 leading global brands across seven dimensions – Products/Services, Innovation, Workplace, Conduct, Citizenship, Leadership and Performance. That is until this year.

Levi’s Loses to Adidas

German-based Adidas unseated Levi’s as the most reputable fashion brand in the world. Levi’s still holds an enviable number 11 position in the world’s top 100 brands in 2025, but Adidas rose from number 16 last year to take over Levi’s 2024 number nine slot this year. RepTrak chief reputation and strategy officer Stephen Hahn attributed Levi’s slip to a recent reputational decline in Canada and Mexico, “suggesting some early warning signals of potential geopolitical blowback due to anti-American sentiment.”

That risk is real as a grassroots Boycott USA movement is beginning to coalesce. “You can’t hide the fact the brand is an all-American original,” Hahn stated. “Over the foreseeable future, the challenge for brands of U.S. origin is that authentic Americana may not be as readily exportable or as appealing across key international markets.”

Is Heritage Enough?

In the latest earnings call, Levi’s CEO Michelle Gass said the company generates nearly 60 percent of revenues outside the U.S. If Levi’s loses sales internationally, it will have to lean heavily on American consumers to make up the difference.

Levi’s issued guidance for a 3.5 to 4.5 percent increase this year, expecting to do better than the 3.2 percent organic growth achieved last year. However, company guidance foresees “no significant worsening of macro-economic pressures on the consumer or inflationary pressures.” Nor does it allow for supply chain disruptions and tariff effects, which the company is confident it can overcome.

“As an iconic brand with more than 170 years of history, we’ve weathered challenging times before. We have a playbook that begins with leveraging the strength of our brand and our deep connection with consumers. We know, especially during times like these, people turn to the brands they know and trust and prioritize value and quality, and that’s what Levi’s has always stood for,” Gass said. “We have scale with an agile global supply chain, deep vendor relationships, and a strong balance sheet, all of which position us well to navigate this time of uncertainty.”

Pressure Rising

Nonetheless, inbound tariffs could force Levi’s to raise prices, putting pressure on its U.S. performance. It primarily sources goods from Vietnam, representing mid-to-high single digits, Mexico (five percent), China (one percent), as well as Bangladesh, Cambodia, Egypt, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, according to the latest earnings call. It could also face pressure on the international front from retaliatory tariffs, as well as backlash should the Boycott USA movement grow.

How can Levi’s manage the backlash from America’s tariff policies? Reptrak’s Hahn said that in these troubled times, “A focus on ESG and sustainability should be a priority for Levi’s in enhancing perceptions of good citizenship.” Citizenship is defined by three factors: Being environmentally conscious, supporting good causes and having a positive influence on society.

However, ESG is currently in the government’s crosshairs, making good citizenship problematic. Nonetheless, Levi Strauss & Co. got high marks from Sustainability Magazine this year, rated among the world’s top ten most sustainable brands, after introducing an updated Climate Transition Plan. It announced the goal of achieving a 42 percent absolute reduction in supply chain emissions by 2030 and going full net-zero in emissions by 2050.

Those are admirable goals, and how Levi’s will achieve them is detailed in a 40+ page report, requiring an advanced science degree to understand. The report points to a potential weakness in Levi’s grand sustainability mission: transparency.

Transparency is a consumer hot button. Fashion Revolution, an advocacy organization for environmental responsibility in the fashion industry, recently conducted a brand transparency study across 250 leading fashion brands measuring five key dimensions of transparency.

Levi’s got an overall 60 score on a 100-point scale, doing better than over 80 percent of the brands rated, but leaving much to be desired. It gets high marks in overall policies and commitments (90 points), governance (82) and supply chain traceability (76). Yet it scores much lower in two other measures – the know, show and fix score (43) and spotlight issues related to employment issues throughout its supply chain (42) Essentially, Levi’s gets high marks on its stated ESG policies, but it falls short in its actions to implement those policies.

While Levi’s is doing well on the sustainable and transparency front, it could do better. But then, are good works enough to maintain customer goodwill, especially if the world sours on American brands? Ultimately, how important is sustainability when it comes to purchases?

Value Still Exceeds Values

Numerous consumer surveys have found the growing importance of sustainability in the purchase decision – virtue signaling? Yet sustainability always plays a supporting and never a leading role. Price and convenience consistently win out, as in a Blue Yonder survey conducted this year among 5,000+ consumers in the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Australia and New Zealand.

While 78 percent agree that sustainability is very or somewhat important when choosing a product to buy or a place to shop, a majority (54 percent) say the higher cost for the sustainable option is a luxury they can do without. For the rest, they are willing to pay a modest five to less than ten percent premium for sustainability. And when push comes to shove, only 29 percent say they’ve switched to brands that offer a more sustainable option.

Most tellingly, only 20 percent of consumers believe a brand’s sustainability claims, despite 62 percent noticing more sustainability messaging from brands. This points back to the transparency index and Levi’s good not great 60-point score.

Levi’s Uphill Climb

Even if Levi’s were the planet’s most sustainable and transparent fashion brand, sustainability isn’t enough to pull it ahead. Other factors, like price and convenience, always count more in the consumers’ purchasing equation. And then there’s the rising anti-American sentiment, putting nearly 60 percent of Levi’s revenues at risk.

“There are a growing number of consumers across the world who will think twice before buying brands that personify American values,” observed Reptrak’s Hahn.” In response to imposed tariffs and current U.S. trade policies, more consumers in key international export markets and beyond will likely go out of their way to avoid buying U.S. brands of origin.”

Owing to its heritage, Levi’s, perhaps more than any other U.S.-based brand, is in the crosshairs of a rising international consumer backlash. It looks increasingly unlikely Levi’s will be able to pull off its ambitious 3.5 percent to 4.5 percent growth goal this year, and we can expect to see revised downward guidance in succeeding quarters.

Ironically, the brand’s singular strength, “Levi’s exemplifies the power of American heritage,” Morning Consult said it could be its Achilles heel in the current global market turned upside down by Trump tariffs.

PFAS Are High Risk for Retail

Arick Wierson — Wed, 23 Apr 2025 04:01:00 +0000

Editor’s Note: This is the first installment in an ongoing series for The Robin Report about PFAS in consumer products, one of the most disruptive and far-reaching environmental dangers to confront the retail industry. In the months ahead, this series will dive deep into how the growing PFAS crisis is reshaping key sectors—from apparel and beauty to home goods and food retail—and what it means for the future of brands, supply chains, and consumer trust.

There’s no shortage of major issues facing today’s retailers—supply chain fragility, inflation, labor churn, and shifting consumer habits. But looming just beyond the current headlines is a chemical crisis that’s already transforming how manufacturers, suppliers, regulators, and even water utilities operate. PFAS is the “forever factor,” and its reckoning is here. With implications that stretch across every product category and supply chain, PFAS represents not just an environmental crisis but defines a challenge for the future of commerce itself. For retailers, it will impact everything from product development, shelf placement, and packaging to pricing, and ultimately, consumer trust.

PFAS first grabbed headlines for contaminating drinking water—and for good reason. Recent studies suggest that up to half of all U.S. households may have toxic levels of PFAS in their tap water. And the problem doesn’t stop at the kitchen sink. The PFAS crisis reaches far beyond the faucet, infiltrating an astonishing range of industries, supply chains, and everyday consumer products.

PFAS Crisis

PFAS—short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances—are a class of over 15,000 manmade compounds prized for their resistance to water, oil, heat, and grease. They’re the backbone of modern convenience: Stain-proof rugs, nonstick pans, waterproof mascara, weather-resistant jackets, fast-food wrappers, and thousands of other everyday items owe their performance to PFAS chemistry. But there’s a catch: PFAS don’t break down in nature or the human body. And over time, their accumulation has been linked to everything from cancer and immune system dysfunction to liver damage and cognitive developmental delays.

PFAS first grabbed headlines for contaminating drinking water—and for good reason. Recent studies suggest that up to half of all U.S. households may have toxic levels of PFAS in their tap water. And the problem doesn’t stop at the kitchen sink. The PFAS crisis reaches far beyond the faucet, infiltrating an astonishing range of industries, supply chains, and everyday consumer products.

Capture and Cleanup

“There’s no bigger environmental issue right now touching virtually every aspect of society and industry than PFAS,” said Michelle Bellanca, CEO of Claros Technologies, the leading company deploying advanced technology to permanently destroy PFAS from industrial wastewater and contaminated environments. “For many nonessential uses—like certain cosmetics or food packaging—phasing out PFAS entirely makes sense and is already underway. But in critical consumer applications, such as medical devices, smartphones, and lithium batteries, there often aren’t viable substitutes yet.

“That’s why the smarter path, and the one gaining consensus among regulators and industry leaders, is to focus on two things: first, making sure PFAS used in essential applications are captured and destroyed before they ever leave a facility; and second, accelerating cleanup efforts where PFAS have already contaminated our environment,” added Bellanca. “At Claros, we’re doing both—and that’s the future we’re helping to shape.”

PFAS Legal Complexity

What began as a relatively obscure environmental issue just a couple of decades ago is now snowballing into one of the biggest legal quagmires in recent history. From industrial giants to consumer brands, companies across the spectrum are being pulled into a tidal wave of litigation over PFAS exposure—facing mounting liability for products and practices that, until recently, were largely flying under the radar.

“One window into just how widespread the PFAS problem has become is the legal fallout,” said Christian Simmons, torts expert and writer for Drugwatch.com. “Right now, there are nearly 9,000 lawsuits pending in federal court tied to exposure from firefighting foam alone—cases involving claims that PFAS chemicals have caused cancer and other serious health conditions. And that’s just one product category. The broader implications for consumer goods are massive.”

For retailers, the bigger storm is brewing around product liability, compliance, and consumer perception. PFAS are everywhere—and regulators, investors, and customers are paying attention. From apparel to home furnishings, cosmetics to cookware, the retail sector is in the crosshairs of a growing global crackdown on these persistent chemicals.

California and Minnesota have already enacted sweeping restrictions on PFAS in consumer products, with bans covering categories like textiles, cosmetics, food packaging, and cookware. “Amara’s Law” in Minnesota, passed in 2023 and named after a young woman who died of PFAS-induced cancer, has become a blueprint for similar legislation nationwide. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken significant steps toward regulating PFAS. During the Biden administration, new rules finalizing enforceable drinking water standards for six compounds and new reporting requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) were released—though some of those actions are now facing potential rollback under the Trump administration, adding fresh uncertainty to an already complex regulatory landscape.

PFAS Retail Ecosystem

Retailers can no longer afford to treat these developments as background noise—because the industry isn’t just adjacent to the PFAS crisis; it’s ground zero.

From big-box chains and grocery stores to fashion brands, home goods suppliers, and electronics retailers, PFAS exposure touches virtually every corner of the retail ecosystem. These chemicals are embedded in countless consumer products—from nonstick cookware and waterproof cosmetics to stain-resistant furniture and smartphone components. As public awareness intensifies and regulatory pressure mounts, retailers are being forced to rethink product lines, overhaul sourcing strategies, and confront growing reputational and legal risks.

The home improvement and DIY sector, for example, is particularly exposed. “PFAS are found in a myriad of building materials,” said Andy Pace, founder of The Green Design Center and host of the Non-Toxic Environments podcast. “They’re most commonly found in water-based paints, but they also show up in adhesives, sealants, and many surface coatings. It’s pervasive.” As consumers become more environmentally conscious—and as litigation heats up—major home retailers like Home Depot and Lowe’s are under increasing pressure to audit their assortments. While neither has made sweeping PFAS-related announcements, both companies have faced shareholder proposals and public campaigns calling for transparency and phase-outs.

A 2023 investigation by Toxic-Free Future found PFAS in the majority of textile products purchased at major U.S. retailers, including outdoor gear and furniture. It’s not hard to imagine a future in which product labeling for PFAS becomes as common—and expected—as GMO disclosures or BPA-free packaging. And in an age where “clean beauty,” “natural living,” and “sustainable home” are lucrative consumer lanes, PFAS-free may become the next must-have brand promise.

But eliminating PFAS from consumer goods isn’t a simple substitution game. As Claros’ Bellanca notes, many PFAS-based applications remain essential to performance, especially in areas like medical devices, semiconductors, aerospace components, and industrial gear. But they’re also critical in more everyday products—think rechargeable batteries in smartphones, heat-resistant wiring in kitchen appliances, weatherproof electrical components, and advanced filtration systems used in refrigerators and water purifiers. Even where alternatives exist, they may not match the durability, safety, or cost-effectiveness of PFAS—at least not yet. That creates a logistical nightmare for brands and retailers trying to proactively “clean up” their assortments without sacrificing functionality or profitability.

The risk calculus is shifting fast. Retailers that fail to act may not just face backlash from environmentally savvy shoppers—they could find themselves entangled in costly litigation or penalized by emerging global trade rules. Supply chains will be strained. Compliance costs will climb. And consumer trust will be on the line.

America Lags Behind

Europe is significantly ahead of the U.S. in regulating PFAS, and in an interconnected global market, this disparity matters. In 2023, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) proposed sweeping restrictions under the REACH regulation that could ban over 10,000 PFAS compounds from being manufactured, used, or sold in the EU, except for essential applications. Additionally, starting January 1, 2026, France will ban, with limited exceptions, the manufacture, import, export, and marketing of products containing PFAS in items such as clothing, footwear, cosmetics, and ski wax, with the ban extending to all textile products by 2030 unless deemed essential.

These regulatory advancements in the EU are setting new benchmarks for product safety and environmental responsibility. Retailers operating internationally must navigate these stringent regulations, which could influence global supply chains and consumer expectations. As European regulators continue to implement comprehensive PFAS restrictions, U.S. retailers may face increased pressure to align with these standards to maintain market access and consumer trust.

Moving Forward

As retailers grapple with the implications of PFAS contamination, some brands are recognizing a significant market opportunity emerging from consumer demand for safer products. Among those seeing this potential is Jeff Leitman, CEO of Hell’s Kitchen Cookware, a brand that has invested considerable resources into developing PFAS-free cookware. Leitman believes addressing this issue isn’t just about consumer preference—it’s also about industry responsibility.

“The growing awareness around health and environmental concerns related to PFAS has created a pivotal moment for our industry,” noted Leitman. “Consumers are actively searching for products they trust, and brands that step up to deliver safer, healthier options have a real opportunity to lead. At Hell’s Kitchen Cookware, we saw this shift happening early and committed ourselves to innovating around PFAS-free materials. It wasn’t easy—effective, durable PFAS-free coatings were still emerging—but we viewed the challenge as essential. We knew if we could get this right, we’d be responding to a clear market need while setting a new standard for the cookware industry.”

PFAS are no longer just a regulatory concern—they’ve become a full-blown business model issue. What’s coming is a reckoning that will ripple through every link in the retail value chain, from R&D labs and procurement teams to store shelves and stockrooms. Retailers that take proactive steps now—by mapping their PFAS exposure, collaborating with suppliers, exploring safer alternatives, and embracing transparency—will be far better positioned to adapt.

Retailers who fail to take the PFAS crisis seriously aren’t just overlooking a regulatory hurdle—they’re underestimating one of the most far-reaching environmental and consumer safety challenges of our time. This is not a passing trend or a matter of green optics. It’s a structural reckoning that will define the next era of retail. From litigation and legislation to consumer trust and global market access, the consequences are mounting.

Those who lead now will shape the future. Those who don’t may not have a place in it.

The Fast Food Microplastics Crisis

Arick Wierson — Mon, 21 Apr 2025 04:01:00 +0000

There is a condiment available at almost every American fast-food joint, but it’s off-menu. Like, way off-menu. It’s called microplastics. And American fast food is drowning in it.

Fast food chains have faced criticism for nutritional concerns, environmental impact, and unethical sourcing—but the microplastic issue may be their biggest challenge yet. With scientific evidence mounting, the idea of eating plastic with every meal is no longer a fringe conspiracy theory—it’s a scientifically proven reality.

Once a symbol of convenience and guilty pleasure, fast food now comes with an unsettling extra ingredient: plastic. Not just in the wrappers, cups, and straws—but in the food itself. New research confirms that from McDonald’s and Taco Bell to Burger King and KFC, nearly every major retail chain is serving up this invisible yet insidious side dish

Ubiquitous Microplastics

Microscopic pollutants, now found in everything from burger buns to fried chicken, are raising urgent questions about their long-term health effects. Scientists and consumer advocates warn that these particles—linked to everything from cardiovascular risks and gastrointestinal issues to cancer—are infiltrating our bodies with every bite. And when it comes to plastic pollution, no sector in the food industry is more culpable than fast food.

Under growing scrutiny, the fast-food retail industry is facing mounting pressure to clean up its act. But as evidence piles up, the real question looms: will fast-food giants act before consumers start pushing back—or before regulators force their hand?

How Microplastics Are Contaminating Fast Food

A Consumer Reports investigation published in early 2024 found detectable levels of plastic in fast food items across multiple chains, suggesting that microplastics have infiltrated the industry at nearly every level.

Microplastics are plastic fragments measuring less than five millimeters in size—many are often hundreds of times smaller and invisible to the naked eye—often originating from the breakdown of larger plastics or manufactured as microbeads for industrial use. While these tiny particles are known to pollute oceans and drinking water, a growing number of studies show they are also contaminating food—especially fast food.

A 2024 scientific study revealed widespread microplastic contamination in meals served at fast food retail establishments. This follows another report from George Washington University that detected plastic-related chemicals known as phthalates in food from major chains like McDonald’s, Domino’s and Pizza Hut.

The contamination of food by microplastics tends to originate from multiple sources. Food packaging is probably the biggest culprit, with grease-resistant wrappers, plastic-lined containers, and Styrofoam packaging leaching microplastics into hot, fatty foods. Processing equipment also contributes to the problem, as industrial-scale production means food often comes into contact with plastic conveyor belts, gloves, and storage bins long before reaching consumers. Additionally, supply chain contamination is a concern, as food may be exposed to plastic during farming, transportation, and storage, even before it arrives at restaurants.

Health Risks: What Happens When You Digest Microplastics?

The realization that we are routinely ingesting plastic is deeply unsettling. Scientists are still working to fully understand the health effects of microplastic consumption, but early research raises serious concerns. One particularly alarming study, published in Nature, made global headlines with its finding that the average human brain contains enough microplastics to equal the size of a plastic spoon. Think about it: We all have an equivalent of a plastic spoon floating around in our heads.

Dr. Jennifer Brandon is a San Diego-based marine biologist and ecologist who is widely recognized as an early pioneer in the field of plastic pollution. She told TRR, “We’re finding microplastics in basically every part of the human body we examine. Now comes the tough part of parsing out correlation from causation and figuring out what health problems are directly caused by those microplastics. And of course, there’s no control group — we’re all exposed already.”

Long-term exposure to microplastics may be linked to several serious health concerns. Many plastics contain endocrine-disrupting chemicals, such as phthalates, which can interfere with hormone production and regulation, leading to hormonal imbalances. Microplastics may also alter gut bacteria, disrupt digestion, and trigger chronic inflammation, potentially weakening the immune system.

While further research is certainly called for, we already know that some plastics contain known carcinogens that contribute to an increased risk of cancer. Perhaps most alarming, the presence of microplastics in the brain raises concerns about their potential role in neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. As scientists continue to investigate these risks, the growing evidence underscores the need for urgent action to reduce microplastic exposure in our daily lives. “We can’t wait until we know everything about microplastics’ health effects before working on regulating and removing them,” observed Dr. Brandon. “But we know enough to know we don’t want to be eating plastic in our food.”

Phthalates vs. Microplastics: A Double Threat

While microplastics themselves pose health risks, they often come with an even more dangerous companion: phthalates. These chemicals, commonly used to make plastics flexible, have been found in fast food at alarming levels.

A 2021 study found that fast food meals contained 35 percent more phthalates than home-cooked meals, with cheeseburgers and chicken nuggets among the worst offenders. The presence of these chemicals in food has been linked to lower testosterone levels, which can disrupt hormone balance, as well as developmental issues in children that may affect growth and reproductive health. Additionally, research suggests that exposure to phthalates increases the risk of obesity and diabetes, raising concerns about their long-term impact on public health.

Unlike microplastics, which mostly come from packaging, phthalates leach into food from plastic food-processing equipment. The more processed the food, the higher the contamination risk.

What Is the Fast-Food Industry Doing About It?

With growing public awareness, most major fast-food chains are scrambling to address the issue. McDonald’s, Wendy’s, and KFC have pledged to reduce their use of plastic packaging and transition to biodegradable alternatives. McDonald’s, for example, announced plans to phase out plastic straws and replace foam-based packaging with paper-based materials. (However, many of these efforts are now in limbo, as President Trump has openly criticized paper straws, a stance that has complicated the political landscape surrounding fast-food packaging.) Despite the industry’s move toward more sustainable options, experts warn that paper-based packaging often contains harmful chemicals, making it only a partial solution to the environmental problem.

Some brands, including Chipotle and Panera, have positioned themselves as more eco-conscious by prioritizing safer packaging materials and minimal processing. However, many fast-food giants still rely on cheap plastic alternatives, making industry-wide change slow and inconsistent.

Regulatory action may force the industry’s hand. The European Union has already banned many single-use plastics, while U.S. lawmakers are considering stricter regulations on fast food packaging. The FDA and EPA have been pressured by environmental groups to address microplastics in food, but progress has been sluggish.

Are There Any Solutions?

While completely eliminating microplastics from food is nearly impossible in the short term, there are steps consumers and companies can take to reduce exposure.

For consumers, reducing plastic consumption can be achieved by avoiding food served in plastic packaging, cutting back on fast food, and opting for fresh, minimally processed meals. Experts also advise against consuming hot, greasy foods from plastic containers, as heat accelerates the leaching of harmful chemicals.

For the fast-food industry, solutions include investing in biodegradable, non-toxic packaging, phasing out plastic food processing equipment, and reducing the reliance on heavily processed ingredients. Additionally, supporting stricter food safety regulations would help ensure that food packaging and preparation methods are safer for both consumers and the environment.

A Plastic Problem That Can’t Be Ignored

Fast-food chains have faced criticism for nutritional concerns, environmental impact, and unethical sourcing—but the microplastic issue may be their biggest challenge yet. With scientific evidence mounting, the idea of eating plastic with every meal is no longer a fringe conspiracy theory—it’s a scientifically proven reality.

Dr. Brandon perhaps sums it up best: “Microplastics are far more prevalent in the food system than anyone thought possible a few years ago, but I believe it’s still at a point that we can turn it around and clean up the system, now that more and more people are aware of the problem.”

As new studies continue to expose the dangers of microplastic consumption, the pressure on fast-food companies will only grow. However, until meaningful change is implemented, the next time you bite into a burger, just know you might also be taking a bite of something far less appetizing—tiny pieces of microplastics.