As well as delivering on its commitment to eliminate PFCs, Benetton has published its investigation into its products and supply chain processes and ensures that alternatives are tested against hazard criteria. Benetton continues to make good progress towards its’ longer term goal on transparency and provides information on its monitoring of wastewater discharges, publishing full details of the suppliers that were tested.

It has a regularly updated Detox 2020 plan which includes hazardous chemicals beyond the initial 11 groups, that is based on a transparent hazard screening method and uses the lowest detection limits. Its programme is applied using a Clean Factory approach to enforce its targets, by ensuring that suppliers apply Detox across their whole mill, not only for the brand’s products.

H&M was the first brand to eliminate the hazardous chemicals PFCs from its products but it still needs to deliver on its commitment to publish a case study which documents this, to help expedite the elimination of PFCs by other brands and through regulation.

Although it has improved its Detox 2020 plan by setting its own wastewater testing standards for hazardous chemicals and referring to its “clean factory” approach, unfortunately it still relies on the inadequate screening methodology behind the ZDHC’s MRSL which results in fundamental flaws.

C&A successfully eliminated PFCs from its products in January 2015 and provides information to its suppliers on PFC-free alternatives to use; it still needs to publish a case study on substituting PFCs.

Fast Retailing takes individual responsibility for its Detox 2020 plan and has an MRSL with many progressive elements, including a hazard based screening methodology and the recognition of “no safe levels” of hazardous chemicals; it needs to adopt a “clean factory” approach which would be applied to the suppliers whole factory, not just to its own production lines and present the dates for its elimination targets and phase outs more clearly.

Fast Retailing has acknowledged it will not deliver on its target to eliminate PFCs by July of this year; it reports that 98% of its products are PFC-free and that it requires one more year to achieve 100%.

It does best on PFCs and transparency, but it is hampered by its use of the ZDHCs MRSL for its Detox 2020 plan, although G-Star goes further with its own plans and fills in some important gaps that allow for better implementation of its elimination of hazardous chemicals. G-Star needs to create its own MRSL which proactively uses a hazard based screening methodology and implements a “clean factory” approach which would be applied to the suppliers whole factory, not just to its own production lines.

Mango’s Detox 2020 plan includes its own individual MRSL, which is updated regularly and implements the fact that there are “no safe levels” of hazardous chemicals. It also has a “clean factory” approach which it applies to a supplier’s whole factory, not just to its own production line. It needs to explain in more detail how it uses its screening methodology for selecting additional hazardous chemicals as well as fill some gaps in the new chemicals it has selected. Mango was among the first companies to eliminate the use of PFCs in line with its commitment; none of its products contain PFCs. It has committed to publish a case study documenting the process.

This is partly due to the incomplete communication of its priorities to its suppliers in its Detox 2020 plan - while it has banned the use of all PFCs, some important examples (fluorinated telomers) are not included in its list for manufacturers, even though they are restricted in products. Valentino has eliminated the use of all PFCs. It also openly reports that some PFCs remain a problem and provides complete information about its investigation, which is exemplary. Greenpeace recognises this effort of transparency, which we would expect from any brand facing the same problems of enforcement.

adidas’s Detox 2020 plan has some positive elements, such as its reference to a ‘clean factory’ approach, its proactive chemicals management and its suppliers engagement tools, but it is undermined by the fundamentally flawed ZDHC MRSL. Its progress would be much faster if adidas developed its own individual MRSL to implement its “clean factory” approach. adidas is on track to meet its goal on the elimination of PFCs by 2017 but given the fast pace of innovation on alternatives, it should accelerate its complete phase out of these hazardous chemicals. It should also provide information to its customers on PFC and PFC-free products.

It has recently achieved its target to eliminate all PFCs and needs to publish a case study documenting this process as well as show transparent hazard assessment of the alternatives. On transparency it reports that over 80% of its global wet processing suppliers have published their data on hazardous chemicals and it documents its facility level testing on its own website. It now needs to ensure its suppliers continue to report their Detox data, provide a more detailed breakdown and to publish a list of its suppliers, which needs to include its major wet processing suppliers.

LS & Co reports on the elimination of PFCs by 2016 in line with its commitment and it has published a case study which includes a hazard assessment of the substitute being used, though it should be encouraged to continue researching substitutes for PFCs as this assessment shows its preferred alternative is not ideal.

Primark's dependency on the ZDHC means it is not selecting new target chemicals for elimination or ensuring that when it tests for their elimination it is as close as possible to ‘zero’ - recognising that there is no ‘safe level’ for hazardous and persistent chemicals. It performs best on the elimination of hazardous PFCs within its deadline which it has documented in a case study.

To ensure contamination does not remain in its supply chain Primark needs to adopt a “clean factory” approach which is applied to the suppliers’ whole factory – not just to Primark’s own production lines.

This means that Puma’s Detox 2020 plan is not hazard-based, not transparent, is lacking wastewater testing detection limits and some key hazardous chemical groups. Despite this, Puma’s plan has some positive elements such as its engagement with suppliers. Puma needs to set its own individual MRSL which implements a “clean factory” approach which would be applied to the suppliers whole factory, not just to its own production lines.

Puma performs best on transparency by publishing an exemplary suppliers list as well as full details about its suppliers reporting on their Detox wastewater discharges on its website, with links to the online data.

It performs worst on its Detox 2020 plan where despite some positive elements such as a ‘clean factory’ approach, the mandatory disclosure of chemical inventories and its work with suppliers on implementation, M&S’s efforts are hampered by its use of the ZDHC’s MRSL with its fundamental flaws. M&S at least recognises that the use of best available detection limits is necessary, in support of the fact that there are no safe levels of hazardous chemicals. It performs best on transparency where it has ensured the disclosure of data representing 39% of its wet process facilities, publishes an interactive online list of suppliers and is monitoring for hazardous chemicals at various stages of the manufacturing process, although more analysis of trends needs to be done. M&S; is on target to achieve its objective of eliminating the use of PFCs in its products in July 2016, although M&S is not directly labelling existing stock made with PFC finishes that will still be sold.

It is no longer ensuring that its suppliers publish their Detox data, part of its commitment to transparency, and instead is focussing on chemical inputs. Although this is also necessary, by deciding to de-prioritise wastewater testing it is missing a vital safety net for checking all sources of hazardous chemicals in a facility, which then need to be tracked back to find the actual source. It is also shirking its responsibility to the public and its customers for transparent disclosure of its discharges of hazardous chemicals.

It has failed to provide a positive confirmation that it has eliminated all PFCs, in line with its commitment that these should no longer be used in its manufacturing by July 2015. Limited Brands also relies on the flawed ZDHC chemicals list to implement its Detox 2020 plan and as result it is failing to match up to its 2020 Detox Commitment. Its best efforts are made on transparency, for ensuring that its suppliers publically report their discharges of hazardous chemicals and providing a discharges analysis report, although it needs to be more rigorous in testing wastewater BEFORE it is treated.

Instead of taking individual responsibility, LiNing refers to the flawed system set up by the ZDHC for implementing its Detox 2020 plan. This is full of gaps and misinterprets the required hazard screening methodology for adding new hazardous chemicals. LiNing has also not committed to eliminate all PFCs - it will only do this for 95% of its woven products only - and does not provide an update on progress. However, its performance on transparency is better - it reports that is has achieved its goal to disclose data from 80% of its suppliers on a global online platform.

Despite efforts made by Greenpeace to work with Nike on improving its Detox 2020 plan, Nike still does not take individual responsibility for implementing its Detox Commitment, relying instead on the inadequate ‘ZDHC’ list of chemicals which is missing most of the PFCs (one of the 11 priority groups of hazardous chemicals) and has some other gaps. On PFC elimination it has succeeded in eliminating 90% of the PFCs it uses but it still does not commit to eliminate all PFCs in all the products it makes.