Executive Summary
The goal of this study is to collect and provide the consumer information and analysis on the sustainability of producing one pair of two athletic company's leggings, Lululemon, and the Girlfriend Collective. The system analyzed in this LCSA report is the production of one pair of Lululemon’s Align leggings and Girlfriend Collective’s Compression leggings. The system function is to create aesthetically pleasing clothing that is functional and comfortable to workout in for consumers to wear. The system boundaries will include the production stage of the product lifecycle. For the LCC assessment, however, the system boundary will be the use and maintenance of the product’s life cycle since the evaluation is from the consumer's point of view. The functional unit for this LCSA will be one pair of leggings.
With limitations in this assessment, it is essential to point out that this LCSA is not using the same methods as of a formal, official LCSA since this LSCA is not undergoing a rigorous, professional, peer-review process. Therefore, this LCSA should not be looked at and used in the same way as an official LCSA. This assessment should not be used to make informed decisions. Instead, the intended audience is for those seeking to do further research on the subject. This LCSA may be useful for consumers who are environmentally aware and looking to become more educated on the sustainability of Lululemon's and Girlfriend Collective's production methods.
The LCSA has three different assessments: an environmental life cycle assessment (LCA), a life cycle costing assessment (LCC), and a social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). The main environmental result from the LCA shows that the Girlfriend Collective’s Compression leggings are more environmentally friendly than the Lululemon Align leggings. The Girlfriend Collective’s production process is superior in terms of environmental impact, greenhouse gas emissions, and water waste. The Girlfriend Collective’s production of one pair of leggings emits 0.355 kg of CO2 for the production of their raw material plus CO2 emissions to cut and sew the leggings. On the other hand, the production of one pair of Lululemon leggings emits 4.31 kg of CO2 and the CO2 emitted from cutting and sewing the leggings in the factories. Also, Lululemon uses petroleum to create its fabric, which releases N2O that is 300 times more damaging than CO2 (“Estimating the carbon footprint of a fabric”, 2012). In the LCC, the costs for the pairs of leggings for the Girlfriend Collective end up being less expensive than Lululemon’s Align leggings. Lastly, the S-LCA reveals that Lululemon struggles significantly more than the Girlfriend Collective when investigating the brand’s records with workers’ health and safety.
The Girlfriend Collective scored considerably higher in all of the reports done. Still, it is impossible to determine which pair of leggings is more sustainable because of the lack of data and the need for more concrete, intensive analysis. Also, the Girlfriend Collective started in 2016 and is a new company compared to Lululemon. So, the lack of data availability found is not surprising since the fashion industry is very secretive when it comes to the brand’s environmental and social effects and the fact that one of the brands was young. Therefore, at this moment, it is hard to say exactly which one is more sustainable, but as more information is formed in the future, there will be opportunities to create more intensive and clearer LCSAs.
Conclusions
Sustainability evaluation:
It is impossible to conclude which leggings are more sustainable based only on this LCSA. Since this assessment is not an official LCSA and doesn’t go through a professional review process, it is not as informed and complete in data as an official LCSA. However, some conclusions can be made with this LCSA. It seems that the Girlfriend Collective faired bettered than Lululemon in terms of all three pillars: environmental, social, and economical. For the environmental assessment, the Girlfriend Collective Compression leggings emitted less CO2 and water waste than the production of the Lululemon Align leggings. In terms of social sustainability, Lululemon struggled to keep workers healthy and safe in factories that made leggings. There were many media reports about the mistreatment of workers by their managers. However, there wasn’t enough information in the S-LCA to make an informed decision about who is more socially sustainable because not enough data could be found for the Girlfriend Collective. Also, there are many different factors of social sustainability that this LCSA did not touch on, like end-of-life responsibility, consumer privacy, and working hours, which contribute to not being about to conclude which brands are socially sustainable. Lastly, looking at the life cycle costs (LCC) of both pairs of leggings, the Girlfriend Collective costs is less than Lululemon in terms of maintenance and use.
So, the overall evaluation of the system in terms of which brand is more sustainable from the three pillars perspective would be the Girlfriend Collective, based on the fact that it was better environmental and economic sustainability than Lululemon. Though, as I said before, the S-LCA is less definite because I couldn’t find data on the Girlfriend Collective outside of what the company tells their consumer, which could be untrue.
Trade-offs:
In environmental LCA and S-LCA, it showed that there weren’t any significant trade-offs when it came to sustainability. The Compression leggings were more environmentally sustainable and socially sustainable than the Align leggings while being less expensive than the Align leggings. Though, since Girlfriend Collective is a newer company, there could be more data in the future that better represent the trade-offs in their production.
Key life cycle stages or impact categories:
Of the three pillars examined in the LCSA, the environmental LCA and S-LCA are most likely the critical life cycle stages because there were clear differences between the leggings. In the LCC, even though the Girlfriend Collective leggings were less than Lululemon’s, there wasn’t a significant difference in price. So, there wasn’t a distinctive, clear difference in the LCC as there was in the environmental LCA and S-LCA. The data, primary sources, and articles used showed that Lululemon Align leggings were lacking in both environmental LCA and S-LCA compared to Girlfriend Collective Compression leggings. Therefore, the environmental LCA and S-LCA are the key life cycle stage in this LCSA.
Overall Evaluation of data quality:
For the Girlfriend Collective, the data quality wasn’t the same as Lululemon because Girlfriend Collective is a much younger company. So, there isn’t a lot of public information and history for that brand about their sustainability impacts. Even though the company does try to be as transparent as possible, it is hard to say whether or not they are telling the truth since they wouldn’t say bad things about their own company. On the other hand, Lululemon has a plethora of data out on the internet from themselves and others about their sustainability impacts. This LCSA used the data that was available to reach the conclusions while also stating the limitations presented in this LCSA and all three assessments: environmental LCA, S-LCA, LCC. However, future LCSAs would benefit from more information and data being released.
Finally, it is hard to state that the Girlfriend Collective Compression leggings are definitely more sustainable than Lululemon Align leggings. Nevertheless, with the data that currently exists, it is clear that the Girlfriend Collective beats Lululemon in terms of environmental, social, and economic sustainability.