A conversation with Sandra Capponi

Sandra Capponi founded Good On You, with Gordon Renouf, in 2015. Today they have rated close to 3,000 fashion brands, on a consumer-facing, very easy to use, website and app, that amalgamates all the various indices, reports, benchmarks, and legislation so that the consumer can make more conscious and informed choices. 

Each brand has an overall rating from 1 (We Avoid) to 5 (Great). These ratings take into account hundreds of issues that are broken down into three simple categories; people, planet, and animals. The brand or designer is once again rated from 1 to 5 within each of these subcategories. There is also a short description of why they have scored them this way. The language is very positive, the name Good On You cheers these brands along, willing them to attempt to improve.  

"We are different from many other lists and benchmarks of sustainability," Sandra told me. "We recognise that people don't buy fashion just because it's sustainable. They buy it for many reasons—because it's within their budget because they love the style, it's convenient. After all, it is all of these things, and it is also sustainable. We want to get to a point where we make it easy for people to consider sustainability and ethics in fashion, alongside all the other things we care about when we shop." 

Shonagh Marshall: You began your career working in banking. You had a role in Corporate Social Responsibility at the National Australian Bank (NAB). Could you tell me a bit more about this work and what your job entailed?  

Sandra Capponi: I was working in banking for many years, trying to figure out what my role was. I started in supply chain management, where I became interested in sustainability. This idea that if we could just get big business to spend money in the right places and consider social and environmental issues, we could create positive outcomes, and business could be a driver for good. Over time, I realised that this thing called Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), a whole department within companies, was dedicated to recognising what their responsibility was within society and thinking strategically about their role and how they could be a positive force for change. I had a few great positions at NAB, particularly working in CSR on initiatives from indenginous inclusion and engagement, a significant issue here in Australia. The bank had a role to play in making sure our indigenous communities were able to access funds and were given opportunities, like the rest of us, to build businesses, and that our organisation was culturally sensitive. I also got to work on gender equality issues, making sure that female employees were empowered to step up into leadership roles and felt supported if they were facing violence or abuse in the community or at home. I got to work on environmental sustainability initiatives, both in the bank's direct operations and in engagement with our suppliers. This included how we reported and addressed our obligations to our stakeholders, from consumers through to investors on how we would become more sustainable and respond to critical environmental, social and governance risks. These were all great things, and being in such a big organisation like a bank, I had access to large amounts of money to drive this type of change.  

Shonagh: Why did you decide to change paths and set up Good On You? 

Sandra: After a period of feeling on a high working in that role and in that environment, I did become frustrated over time. I felt the pace of change was too slow and I felt like a lot of other people within my organisation didn't think that my work was a priority. I worked with some wonderful people, and excellent leaders, but I also came across way too many people, in my opinion, who didn't think of CSR as core to business. So I started to look for something else. I have always identified as a conscious shopper; I research everything before I make any shopping choices. I'd always loved fashion too, but I was becoming more and more concerned with the issues behind the scenes in big business and feeling more unsure about my choices. I started hearing more in the media about what was going on in fashion in particular; this was in 2013 at the time of the Dhaka garment factory collapse in Bangladesh, where an eight-story commercial building called Rana Plaza collapsed after a structural failure, killing 1,134 people. People were dying in Bangladesh while making clothes for some of the biggest fashion labels. It was precisely when I was feeling frustrated and looking for something different that I met my co-founder--Gordon Renouf. 

Shonagh: What is Gordon's background, and how did you begin to work together? 

Sandra: Gordon is a long term consumer advocate here in Australia, he ran campaigns for our major advocacy group called CHOICE. He came face to face with the sentiment that I was feeling around wanting to be more conscious in my choices but not being able to. After researching that exact consumer trend Gordon had come up with the initial concept of Good On You to empower people’s choices by enabling them to know the impact of fashion brands easily. He wanted to start in fashion because he acknowledged that supply chains in fashion were especially murky. When we met Gordon recognised that I had the insight into how businesses work behind the scenes. We also connected on a personal level and shared the same passion and vision for a better future, where we could use the power of consumers to shift industry and create a sustainable future. Many of us want to use our choices for good, and we felt that any good business would respond to what consumers demand.  

Shonagh: You mentioned that supply chains in fashion are especially murky; why do you think this is?   

Sandra: A supply chain refers to how something is made and supplied to a consumer. It starts with all the resources and materials, everything put into a product, through to the manufacturing and selling of the item. In fashion, this usually starts with crop farming and  textile production; then manufacturing in factories where garment workers make the clothes, then the clothing is distributed and marketed, and everything else that a company does to sell a product. If you think beyond the supply chain to the concept of the value chain, it can also include what happens to the product after it's been sold and used by someone.   

In fashion, I think it's murky for a few reasons, historically, and still today in some of the biggest fashion houses, there is a concept of secrecy and exclusivity. These companies won't share exactly who their best suppliers and producers are because that is part of their unique creation that they are selling to customers. Today I think the main reason is that supply chains have become so complicated, that in actual fact, most companies don't know everything that is going on down the chain. The manufacturers of their garments might outsource two or three times just to get a single garment produced. So either they don't know, or it's become quite difficult to trace that, and therefore be transparent and accountable. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be.  

Shonagh: The mission of Good On You is to try and untangle complex issues, such as the supply chain of a garment, and develop a transparent rating system that empowers the consumer to make informed choices. There is an investigatory element to this work; how are you finding your information? What is the process? 

Sandra: Many people recognise Good On You as a website or an app, but at our core, we are a brand rating system, and over the years, we have developed a methodology which covers our understanding for what the most critical social and environmental sustainability issues in fashion are. There are hundreds of them. There's how workers are treated, their safety, and whether they're paid a living wage. There’s environmental issues related to water use, chemical use, climate change impacts, and managing textile waste. We also look at the impact on animals, how animal products are sourced, and is the welfare of the animal protected in that sourcing process, and ultimately if animal products are avoided.  

We start by identifying what those important issues are, and we look for the best indicators of impact against those issues. We are looking for public information that verifies how the brand addresses those issues. It could be the brand's public statements on their website, or it could be the standards and certifications with which they are complying. There are hundreds of standards and certifications in fashion alone, like the Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) or Fair Trade. There are also lots of other credible data sources like industry indices and benchmarks. All of this fragmented information that addresses these issues is complicated for consumers and industry to understand. Good On You's role is to bring that all together in one spot and make sense of it for consumers first and foremost.  

Shonagh: You split the rating system between people, planet, and animals, then there is an overall rating. How did you choose those three categories?  

Sandra: We always start from the position of the shopper, the everyday person that wants to know how to buy better, and through our research, we found that there were three main issues that most of us care about. That is the brand's impact on people, the planet, and animals. Within those three areas, there are lots of sub-issues related to how our brand is impacting those three things. Our rating system delves into those issues, to assess and score how a brand impacts on people, planet and animals, and then gives an overall rating, which is essentially the average of those three areas.   

When people use Good On You, they can look up a brand to determine how they are rating overall on sustainability and ethics in fashion. For some people, that's enough to have just an overview. But for those people that want to delve into some of the issues that may be more important to them they can also see the rating for people, planet and animals. We also include an explanation of how we arrived at that rating and some of the issues the brand is doing well and not so well at.  

Shonagh: You use very positive language, was that a conscious decision? 

Sandra: We intend to be a positive platform for many reasons. We want to talk to a large group of people, and negative messages can be off putting. They don't encourage the conversation, and they make people feel guilty as opposed to making them feel like there are solutions, and they can play a role in making small changes that will have meaning and add value over time. It's the same for the industry; we don't want to be another organisation that is slapping the wrists of those that are not doing well. We want to recognise the best brands, and also celebrate those that maybe aren't there yet but are doing better than their peers. We elevate the positive stories of those brands and share them with the Good On You community. 

Shonagh: Would you agree that throughout the first part of the 21st Century, conversations about sustainability and fashion sat apart from the fashion industry itself? However, Good On You groups all the fashion brands, large and small, into one place, monitoring who is working towards better practice and who has begun their label with these concerns at the core. Was this important to create a space for all fashion brands when you began Good On You?   

Sandra: As I said before there are hundreds of standards and certifications in fashion, and the organisations that monitor these usually sit as independent entities, honing in on a specific issue or trying to get the biggest brands in the industry to change and comply on the framework that they set. There is value in that, and we draw on their insight and their expertise. But often they don't work with the industry collaboratively and comprehensively. Consumers need sustainability information on all brands, large and small, to make better choices and there are so many things that fashion brands need to think of if they are to truly take sustainability seriously. We see it as our role to be embedded in fashion, to listen to brands, to understand what their challenges are, and share our insights on how to address the most important issues for their customers who care.  

 Shonagh: I like the language that you use. I think it does encourage change. My favourite part of the directory is the explanatory paragraphs because for those that aren't doing so well yet you offer advice on areas where they can improve. For those companies that rate as 'We Avoid' or 'Not Good Enough,' do you think that it is too simple to say that they are not making the necessary changes because it will impact the profit that they make? 

 Sandra: I think that many players in the industry have been looking at ways to cut costs, and sadly that means cutting corners in protecting people, planet, and animals. You could argue that that is because they are profit-driven, so if they were to suddenly change their practices, it would cost them more, and they would see a hit to their bottom line. But Good On You is also out to prove they will also see a blow to their bottom line if they don't start responding to what their customers and more people in society care about, and that is a brand's sustainability. People every day are asking brands how my clothes are made? How can I be sure that it's not causing harm to the environment? Good On You provides a platform for them to get answers to those questions. For a brand that is not rating well, and continues not to rank well over time, they will also lose profit; they will see their customers leave them for better alternatives and find it harder to win new customers. 

Shonagh: I have spent time exploring different brands and how they rate over the past couple of days. You have close to 3,000 brands listed and some brands I thought would rank well, don't. These brands, in their marketing, and in the way that they communicate with their customers, hinges on their effort to make positive steps to protect people, planet and animals. Some, for example say they are choosing recycled or non-harmful textiles. Do you think that these companies are greenwashing? Or is it that you just couldn't find out enough information about their practices? 

Sandra: I think there are many well-intended brands trying to build sustainable businesses but aren't talking about it in a way that demonstrates what they're doing. They may be being picked up by the media. Their story is fantastic on a conceptual level but when it comes to understanding how they have sourced their materials, what materials are they using, where the clothes are being manufactured, and are they making sure that everyone is being paid fairly, they've rated low on Good On You because we couldn't validate those critical questions. They need to be publicly talking about it--it doesn't need to be on their top line marketing messaging-- we just need to be able to find somewhere how they're addressing those key issues.  

For small brands, it can be difficult. It is sometimes an onerous task to think through and document it. But how is a consumer supposed to know and make informed choices if they don't? We recognise that there is a difference between a small brand or a designer versus a massive company with a big CSR team. So we have a different set of expectations for the large brands. For small brands, we are just expecting them to know what their policies and practice are and list them on their website. In contrast, for large brands, we expect target setting and performance reports and adherence to those certifications. Unfortunately, some of those smaller brands aren't saying enough to give them a good rating. We are trying to build it into our process to reach out to brands to provide them with a heads up that we are rating them, and this is what we are looking for so that they can perhaps have a chance to update their websites before we take that next step of grading them. However, we would never take information directly from the brand. We would always need them to publish it. It goes back to our whole purpose of empowering consumer choices and we can drive that unless the information is in the public domain. We are always advocating for transparency and the consumer's right to know. Brands reach out to us a lot of the time, asking about their rating and how they can improve. We tell them that if they just publish it somewhere, we will update your rating.  

Shonagh: You are becoming an international watchdog for the fashion industry. 

Sandra: Yes. We are a go-to standard for consumers, and therefore the industry is recognising that and is responding by making sure we have the most current information. Many brands including big names like Nike and H&M regularly update us with their disclosure and their sustainability reports. It might seem contradictory but in H&M, you see a fast fashion brand that is taking what we do very seriously and recognises the community we are building at Good on You is reflective of the general consumer sentiment around these issues.   

Shonagh: H&M is the goliath of fast fashion. 

Sandra: We spoke about these small brands who may be doing good things but aren't talking about it enough. On the other hand, because there is this big trend for conscious consumerism, maybe brands have started talking about it that shouldn't be.  Framed from a marketing perspective rather than a genuine commitment within the organisation to hone in and report on these issues and let their customers know that they have a positive impact.  But I still think that talking about it is better than saying nothing at all.

Shonagh: I am interested in the behavioural issues at the heart of overproduction and overconsumption. Do you ever think about this in your work? In a way, you are creating a convenient way for shoppers to continue to buy clothing, which means brands will continue to produce on a large scale.  

Sandra: All the individuals who make up Good On You believe that we need to produce less and consume less. That goes to the core of the problem in fashion. There is too much stuff, and it's causing enormous harm and destruction to people all around the world and, of course, to our environment. We actually feed that view into our assessment of a brand. We look at how they are working to reduce and ultimately eliminate waste. Humans are creating products where so much of the leftover textiles are discarded, so many clothes that are produced are unsold and destroyed, and then clothes that are sold are eventually ending up in landfill after just a few wears too.  

In our ratings, we factor in that brands should take responsibility for reducing all that pollution and waste. Not just in their production, we have talked about supply chains, but right through to the other end of the value chain, for example taking responsibility for what happens to the garment once somebody has worn it and no longer wants to wear it anymore. Can it be repaired or recycled? Can it be brought back into the system, instead of being thrown away? Yes, we are giving people rating information so that they can know the impact of the clothes that they want to buy. We are also creating a platform where we publish articles, guides, and advice encouraging alternatives to buying new. We want people to think about buying secondhand, about learning how to mend garments or buying from brands that are made to lastSustainable consumption and production is one of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and also goes to the heart of Good On You's purpose. These goals mean buying and producing less than we do today, and Good On You plays a role in driving change through how we assess brands and empower shoppers to have better choices and alternatives.  

Shonagh: Something that keeps coming up in discussions around shopping more consciously is that it will inevitably be more expensive for the consumer. Do you have any thoughts about this? 

Sandra: Sustainable fashion, in many ways is more expensive. It is a reality that most workers in fashion are not being paid fairly so that shoppers can access cheap clothes. Also, toxic materials and chemicals are often used because they are cheaper alternatives. So it makes sense that sustainable fashion costs more. However, there always has to be affordable options in fashion because many people don't want or simply don't have the means, to buy high priced garments. One of the things we are trying to demonstrate in our ratings in Good On You is that many brands are doing great ethical, sustainable things at all different price ranges. Yes some are at the luxury price level, but there are also many basics brands that offer staples such as denim, t-shirts, and underwear that start at a lower price point. They dispel this myth that all sustainable fashion is more expensive. But at the end of the day I think it is essential to recognise that it needs to be more costly than what fast fashion is offering because somebody is paying for that low-cost garment.  

Another element to this is the concept of cost per wear. If you are buying a $5 t-shirt, not only has somebody borne the cost, the likelihood of that garment lasting a long time is very low, it's most likely going to last a few wears, and then you're going to have to purchase a new one anyway. If you are investing in something more expensive upfront, which lasts a long time, I have got some t-shirts that I have had for close to twenty years, then the cost per wear for that garment is well below $5.

Shonagh: 2019 saw a growing interest in the science around climate change, and as a result, to care about the climate crisis became fashionable. Did you notice a shift in mainstream thinking, and if so, why do you think this was? 

Sandra: I don't know if I have the answer to why! We've seen this so often in recent history where environmental issues have suddenly become on-trend, and prominent figures are talking about it. Another example was in the 1990s when sustainability and sustainable fashion was fashionable, but then pushed into the background. Arguably when Good On You started, the main thing that was spoken about in fashion were labour rights issues and protecting workers in places like Bangladesh, China, and Cambodia. Similar to previous interest in the environment, that wave faded away for some people.  

I think sustainable fashion hit the headlines in 2019 because of the context of climate change. It was suddenly becoming of significant concern, especially to young people all around the world who were rallying together in a compelling way. Mainstream media responded to this, and everybody from influencers to Vogue was talking about sustainable fashion. There is a report that Lyst, the global fashion search engine, produces every year focused on how many people are searching for sustainability-related terms, and it went up around 75% in 2019 from the previous year.  

Shonagh: Who uses Good On You? 

Sandra: We started in Australia back in 2015, then we expanded first to the US after a successful crowdfunding campaign, and more recently we have launched in Europe. In Europe, we saw a huge group of people wanting to use Good On You and support us even before we had officially landed there. They are our three main markets because we are rating brands there as quickly as we can. But Good On You is available globally, and we have people using our app all around the world. Our community is reflective of the community at large that is interested in fashion; it's often young women. Just like in society, there's always been a group of people who were proactive in making better choices and were concerned about sustainability issues for a long time. They are possibly some of our early adopters. But we are also increasingly talking to a larger and more mainstream audience of fashion lovers who are becoming aware of these issues and want to learn more about it in a digestible way and being a part of the movement for change.  

Shonagh: In 2018, you worked with Emma Watson when she was invited to guest edit the March issue of Vogue Australia. What were you asked to do?  

Sandra: Yes, we were asked by Emma Watson to be the verification partner for Vogue Australia’s first sustainability issue. It was so exciting on so many levels that Vogue Australia was taking this initiative and that Emma wanted to work with us. She was happy to do the issue with Vogue, but she wanted to make sure that the brands she was advocating for, and the brands that were featured in the issue, were verified with a level of robustness. She recognised that Good On You, a local partner in Australia, could add value to that verification process and essentially rate the clothes that Emma would wear in the shoot. It was the start of what is now a long term relationship. Good On You helps support Emma’s choices today, and most recently, in her work with British Vogue, we rated the brands she wore to make sure they ranked at least 'It's A Start' or above, that's the standard she has set for herself. It also enables her to talk about these issues with our support, which has huge power because so many people are listening to what she has to say.  

Shonagh: Do you think that there are different attitudes to environmental issues in various countries across the world? Take Australia, for example, do you think more people are thinking about making positive consumer choices than in other countries? When you launched there, you had 10,000 downloads of the app in one week, that is an incredible amount of people.  

Sandra: It is interesting; people outside of Australia often have this view of us being green. We live in a beautiful environment, and many of us here cherish it, but, sadly, sustainability issues are not a priority for our government. Many people, from business people to students, do not proactively engage and advocate for these issues. But of course, there is a big group of people that do and especially young people--who are demanding change. They are the ones that jumped on Good On You and supported us when we started back in 2015.   

I was in New York the day President Donald Trump was elected, we were just about to launch Good On You in the US, and we questioned if it was the right time. We asked, should we postpone? Should we start somewhere else? We went ahead, and I am so glad we did because it is the same situation that we have in Australia. Just because the leaders aren't driving the change that many of us want to see doesn't mean that there is not a massive group of people there that are. There are some core businesses and brands that are stepping up and doing the right thing. We play a role in connecting those two groups of people. 

The leadership has really inspired me in Europe and the decisions the EU is making to drive necessary regulation and facilitate the growth of sustainability in fashion. It supports small brands to build themselves from the ground up to be more sustainable and supports huge players to transition.  

Shonagh: An excellent example of a huge player that has made significant steps to change Adidas. What work have they done to improve their impact, and why did they make these changes? 

Sandra: I am not sure if I know why, but maybe their being a European company has something to do with it. Like H&M, perhaps the work they are doing has something to do with where they are based. However, it's not just born from a need to comply with the regulations, although they recognise that there is a mounting risk. It's smart business to be one step ahead of any regulation that's coming, they are also acknowledging that consumer demands are shifting and that to stay ahead of their competitors they need to be genuinely innovative.  

Adidas rates well on Good On You because they are looking at the hundreds of issues that we are considering. Everything from how they are managing their climate change impact, which is not just about switching to renewables in their head office, it's about considering how all of their materials are sourced, measuring their CO2 emissions and setting targets to reduce them. This is industry best practice. They have also delved into their labour practices and navigated all of those complexities and tiers in their supply chains. They are not doing it perfectly, hardly anyone of that size is, but they have taken steps to not only trace and publish who their suppliers are but working closely with their suppliers to understand impacts on their labour practices. 

Shonagh: As a result, they haven't raised the price of their garments and accessories? Or have they? 

Sandra: Arguably, they have always offered a premium product, and sustainability is another attribute or should be, of a premium product. If you are making something that lasts that is quality, it's about knowing and being open about how you have done that in a way that doesn't destroy but instead supports the workforce and environment. They have also released certain products, for example, the Parley shoe, that goes to the next level around innovation on sustainable materials, perhaps that is more expensive than some of their other products. As far as I know they have not passed on a direct cost to consumers, but I would say that they have become more profitable.  

Shonagh: For other companies that aren't doing so well, you talk about in terms of "negative citizenship," which you define as fighting legislation that would increase transparency. Could you give some examples of this? 

Sandra: We have been thinking a lot about the idea of negative citizenship in the context of COVID-19. Some brands have cancelled orders and put all the burden of dealing with the fallout of the global pandemic on suppliers, billions of dollars worth of orders are now sitting in factories in places like Bangladesh and Cambodia because big brands have handed off that responsibility. In this case, it is not about avoiding regulation, it's avoiding responsibility for something because they are trying to find ways to cut costs. They've passed the burden to suppliers and some of the most vulnerable workers in the world, that they should be protecting.  

We have recently adjusted our ratings under the concept of negative citizenship. We are rewarding those brands who are stepping up and doing something to support their workers and suppliers through the coronavirus pandemic, and importantly we are penalising those that aren't and are cancelling orders. Sadly there are hundreds of brands that have done that. To gather this information together, we are using the Workers Rights Consortium.  

Shonagh: I have taken to asking people as a final question, what their fashion utopia would look like. How do you see Good On You reshaping the future of the fashion industry? 

Sandra: My utopia would be that it would be just as easy to see and know the impact a brand was having as it was to see the price. This would mean that brands are entirely transparent about what they are doing to address the issues we all care about, people, planet and animals, and that we are all empowered to act on the things that matter. Maybe this is a long way away, but we believe that Good On You, our community, and the partners that we work with can force that change sooner rather than later.