7th World Conference on Sport and the Environment - International ...

Report
dramatic decrease in the presence of Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOCs) in the workplace
and those released to the atmosphere. This was
good for the workers making our products and
good for the environment. We set and met the
European Union’s standards worldwide and we are
continuing to seek further reductions.
The third example relates to transparency and
to sharing experiences. Our key manufacturing
partners, particularly those in footwear, have
participated for many years in Best Practice
Sharing sessions – practical training exercises
that rotate between factories – to improve health,
safety and environmental conditions. Building on
this in 2002 we launched our Environmental Best
Practice Guidelines and have supported these with
waste minimization workshops in 2003 and tailored
energy management workshops in 2004, 2005
and 2006. Further energy efficiency workshops
are scheduled for 2007 here in China. We are
arming our business partners with ideas and with
information, and we are seeing positive results.
One supplier recently approached me with a
suggestion to building a wind turbine to generate
on-site power.
Challenges
Let me know turn to some of our challenges.
Adidas prides itself on its technical innovation,
on engineering solutions and developing higher
performance sports products.
In 2005 we launched the first “intelligent shoe”:
the adidas 1. The adidas 1 has a sensor and motor
to adjust the tensile strength of the sole. Also,
embedded sensors in fabrics to measure heart rate
and new materials that regulate body temperature,
or offer additional stretch and flexibility, are
increasingly featuring in our product ranges. The
sports goods industry is embracing technology
and with this comes the challenge of managing
new components and new materials. adidas is in
ongoing discussions with the regulators in Europe,
for example, over the classification of the adidas 1.
Is it an electronics product, or is it a shoe? If it is
an electronic gadget, the EU requires a substantial
part of the product to be recycled, or reused,
as say it does for a mobile phone, or a laptop
computer.
Such debates will continue and greater
engagement is needed.
As a general approach, we focus our efforts to
the areas where we have the greatest influence.
That is, in the design of our product and in their
manufacture. In the supply chain our greatest
leverage lies with our key manufacturing partners.
Those who are directly contracted to produce
the finished goods. We term these our Tier 1
relationships. But we know from our own research
and from product life cycle analyses, that it is the
second and third tiers in the supply chain pyramid
that present the largest environmental risks. That
is, the fabric mills and dye houses and the plants
which manufacture the chemicals, synthetics
and other components – which form the second
tier – and raw material sources, which lie at the
base of the pyramid. The challenge is that, as we
move deeper into the supply chain, the complexity
and scale of issues increases, and yet our ability
and our resources to influence processes and
outcomes declines.
Thus, in these subordinate tiers of the supply
chain, we can not act alone. We will only be
effective in managing environmental impacts where
we partner for change. Those partnerships must
be forged with other brands, with manufacturing
associations, with industry bodies and with
governments and non-government organisations.
Collaboration must be the way forward.
<strong>7th</strong> <strong>World</strong> <strong>Conference</strong> on Sport and the Environment
International Cooperation and Development Dept.
Page 145/256