However, risk isn’t one dimensional and can’t be easily quantified. But that does not mean that risk assessment isn’t a valuable tool. It is simple to assess whether things are high risk and low risk and then to look at the consequences of failure.
Wash fastness tests are cheap, easy tests that highlight the risk of colours running in the wash and failures are common (i.e. high risk of failure). On one hand the consequences are not serious, in that there are no legal or safety issues, but on the other hand repeated failures will gradually dent a brand’s reputation for quality.
With restricted chemical testing the likelihood of failure is much lower than with colour fastness, but the consequences of failure are much worse. Not only is there a chance that consumers could be exposed to something that is very harmful, but brand reputation can be catastrophically affected by media reports.
But that does not mean it is necessary to panic and test everything for all restricted chemicals. Some restricted substances, such as APEO can be found on any product. But generally there are specific chemical risks for specific textile products. Logic dictates that dye related restricted chemicals, such as banned amines, are unlikely to be found in high levels in pale shades, and skin sensitising dyes will only ever be found where disperse dyes are used.
In addition to looking at the specific risks of specific fibres, dyes and chemicals it is also necessary to factor in the quality and reliability of the factories that make the products ? so sourcing policy has to be a key element of risk assessment.
If retailers don’t know where something is made the risk of failure is very high. The objective advice when buying blind from unknown sources is to test every batch for all relevant quality, safety, performance and legal issues.
Brand knowledge
If brands do know where fabrics are made, then there is more control and a better chance of reducing testing frequency. There are clearly geographical trends to be considered though. Especially when sourcing from developing nations where there is limited exposure to high quality standards, stringent restricted substances standards and safety legislation. Yet it is still wise to have a high frequency of testing if you know where things are made, but do not specifically know the supplier.
It is only by really understanding how a factory operates that retailers can properly evaluate risk. Take formaldehyde on easy to iron shirts for example. A badly controlled drying or curing operation can result in massive product rejections (if you test) or even worse, numerous instances of skin irritation for workers and customers (if you don’t test). This risk can only be established by an expert evaluation of the supplier.
Commercial decisions (i.e. allowing failures to become passes) are sometimes rightly made on borderline failures after careful consideration. But they are often made on abject failures for commercial expediency. Sadly, this gives the impression to suppliers that failure is OK.
Upholding standards and working with high quality suppliers who respect those standards is the best way to reduce testing frequency with confidence.
A really powerful approach is to supplement QC testing with ‘due diligence’ testing where things are tested when they are already on sale. Failures have to be dealt with very firmly and a valid multi-million pound claim on a supplier focuses the mind of the entire supply base on moving to quality assurance rather than seeing what they can get away with.
Image: rrocio | iStock
