University of Vaasa - Vaasan yliopisto

156
Castilla, and Helm 2008; Bansal 2005; Maignan and Ralston 2002). This visibility is
vital for organic cotton as the ethical issues surrounding non-organic production are
still not well known by the general public (Sanfillipo 2007). Research by Verdict
(2007) found that such knowledge was a powerful driver behind the purchase of
organic products, and a lack of media coverage was at least partly responsible for the
lack of demand that led to the organic cotton crisis in the US in 1994 (Ton 2002).
There now appears to be increasing concern about the damage caused by the
production of conventional cotton. Most of this comes in the form of both
environmental and social loss, such as human life, water pollution and damage of
natural ecosystems, soil erosion and the emission of nitrogen peroxide, a greenhouse
gas (Alfoeldi, Fliessbach, Geier, Kilcher, Niggli, Pfiffner, Stolze, and Willer 2002).
As an example, it has been estimated that only 0. 1% of applied pesticides reach the
target pests, leaving the remaining 99.9% to impact the environment (Pimentel 1995).
Pimentel (1997) showed that the environmental costs of using pesticides in the US
alone may be as high as $9 billion a year, and also calculated that for every $1 spent
on pesticides, the achievable profits of $3-5 were counteracted by environmental
costs of $3. Another study by the United Nations found that the social and
environmental costs of pesticides in Nicaragua during the cotton boom approached
$200 million per year, yet income from cotton production was only $141 million
(Myers 1999).
The development of the organic cotton industry has been aided by increasing
consumer awareness of the benefits of organic food production, which began earlier
in the 1970s / 1980s (Tregear, Dent, and McGregor 1994). However, some
specialists in the field of organic cotton caution that this is no guarantee that the sales
of eco-textiles will follow the same growth path (Ton 2002). Nevertheless, in line
with institutional theory (Haberberg and Rieple 2007; Bansal 2005; Maignan and
Ralston 2002), more companies appear to be joining in the so-called ‘green
bandwagon’; the number of UK retailers selling organic cotton is estimated to have
increased by 95% from 200 in 2004 to 390 in 2005 (Sanfillipo 2006).
This take-up by retailers appears to be due to escalating media attention as well as
awareness of the potential for increased profits from organic products, in part the
result of improvements to the firm’s reputation. A number of recent surveys have
pointed out a positive correlation between the selling of ethical products and brand
performance (yougov website 2006 and 2007 surveys). Pioneering, ideologicallydriven,
companies like ‘Gossypium’, ‘People Tree’ ‘Wild Life Works’ and
‘Patagonia’ which sell mainly organic and fair-trade products started in business due
to ethical concerns, even though demand in the initial stages was low. Now, larger
corporations such as Marks and Spencer, Nike, Next and Reebok are increasingly
promoting ethical products, finding that it helps differentiate their offer. These
companies’ size and influence, and their formal involvement with the Organic
Exchange (a US-based organisation that promotes and researches organic production
methods) and similar agencies, such as Pesticides Action Network, Greenpeace,
FiBL (the German Research Institute for Organic Agriculture) which promote the
cause of the environment in general and organic products in particular,
institutionalises organic cotton further into the mainstream retail environment
(Haberberg et. al. 2008).