WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?

2018 World’s Most Ethical Companies by the Ethisphere Institute

Today I read an article stating that VF Corporation was awarded this designation; wonderful a perfect bit of you watch my back and I’ll watch yours in my opinion. You can go to the ethisphere institute web site to learn how they come about recognizing a company that fits the mold.

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?

There are finished products available in several thousand retail stores spread out around the world that are at this time selling clothing products that come from companies that are owned by VF Corporation that disqualify them from being considered an ethical company. My reason for saying this is because any company that chooses not to take responsibility for the performance capability of the product they sell is in my opinion not an ethical company.

If a raw material producer develops a product that they choose not to fully test but chooses to market the product based upon superfluous evidence of ability to work are they ethical? NO!!! Who is responsible?

If you are a manufacturer and you choose to purchase the raw material and use it to manufacture a product stated by the fabric supplier that will function in a certain manner but choose to make the product and then not to test it yourself to make sure the finished product functions in the manner described by the raw material supplier, is the manufacturer ethical? NO!!! Who is responsible?

If you are a retailer and you purchase a garment from a manufacture who has made the garment from the material produced by the raw material supplier and you do not test it to verify that the garment made with this raw material functions as it has been represented to you but offer it for sale anyway are you ethical? NO!!! Who is responsible?

In 1977 I was approached by representatives of the Gore Company wanting to sell me their new waterproof/breathable product for rain wear. At that time I had a company in North Carolina, Olam Outdoors Sports Inc. We made outerwear and I happened to be experimenting with a very tightly woven fabric that Celanese Corporation was developing. It was so tightly woven it was basically waterproof, but it did not allow the sweat out of the garment. I made the samples for Celanese and they tested them by hiking in the Great Smoky Mountains and reported these findings back to me. I have no knowledge of what they may have done with this new material if anything at all because it was never offered for sale for garment use.

Then I was contacted by Gore and told them I would see them at the outdoor trade show that took place in Chicago at that time. It was at that show Bobby Gore demonstrated the boiling water creating steam going through the Teflon film. It was there that I asked Bobby who wanted me to use his product to introduce me to one person who was sweating at the same rate as boiling water makes steam and if so I would buy his product. The audience was about 15 or so retailers who probably believed what he was demonstrating. It was two days later at O’Hare airport that I had a drink with him and told him what he and his father developed would not work ever and therefore I would not buy it.

Historically Gore had problems; first was delamination of the film from the nylon fabric. They at Gore who were probably using a laminator at the time were laminating the film to a nylon fabric already finished with a water repellent treatment. When the water repellent broke down delamination occurred since they were laminating to the finish not the actual fabric; lesson one when laminating, only laminate to pure finish fabrics.However, I am sure they never field tested garments made with this processed fabric. Had they, they would have learned vapor permeability was not sufficient to allow sweat out of the garment. The adhesive clogged many of those 9 billion holes per square inch they said existed in the film.

They then put a urethane coating on the Teflon film; even the lightest thickness or weight possible would further clog holes before lamination. I am not sure why they had to add the urethane but doing so further reduced any vapor permeability that existed.

The next step was to laminate a tricot to the exposed side of the film which further reduced the number of holes because there was even more adhesive covering the film. The end result is less vapor permeability.

Along the way did Gore ever field test sample garments made with their different combinations of lamination; I DOUBT IT! Who is responsible?

Vapor permeability is the proper representation of air or vapor movement through fabric not breathability. Inanimate material such as fabric is not alive so it cannot breathe as it has no lungs.

The next party in line assisting Gore in putting their never field tested product on the market are any and all companies that choose to buy the material from Gore to use for the manufacture of outerwear garments as well as footwear and hand wear. Did any of these customers of Gore request verification of the fabrics ability to function as was represented by Gore representatives; I doubt it!!! Did any of these companies take the time to actually make samples of the garments they intended to sell to retail stores and verify for them, that the garments actually did function as was represented by Gore? NO!!!! Who is responsible?

The next stop in the chain of events is the retailer. Did one retailer ever buy a single garment and go into the field and use the garment in conditions that would allow him to experience how wonderful the garment would work for the purpose of keeping rain out of the garment and allow the sweat they were producing to escape through whatever holes were still in existence so you would be comfortable. And therefore you as the final link in the chain could tell your customer when you showed him one of these garments that it actually performed as all of the hyped advertising stated? I am quite sure this never happened. Who is responsible?

I could offer the same scenario about a multitude of component products sold to manufacturers in the outdoor industry but the ultimate question would always be the same. Who is responsible?

There are a multitude of companies on the most ethical companies list and a great deal of them uses waterproof / breathable laminate materials other than the Gore product as well, and not a one of them actually functions as they all represent their competing products. So are these companies ethical when in fact they are all involved in selling to manufacturers a material that does not function as represented who make garments sold to unsuspecting individual consumers? NO!!! I do not think they fit the description associated with what an ethical company is.

So who is responsible when it comes to putting a finished product on the market for individuals to purchase when the product not only does not function as described but has no chance of ever working? In my opinion all parties listed; Gore and their competitors, the many manufacturers who use these brands of raw materials as well as well as the retailers who chose to sell products made with these materials. In my opinion they are all complicit, therefore all are responsible for costing the unsuspecting consumers I suspect hundreds of millions of dollars for garments that do not work as Bill and Bobby Gore advertised 40 plus years ago.

Literally every retail chain as well as mom and pop shop have benefitted financially from selling a product that if it had ever been tested correctly in the first place would have failed to perform as desired and today I cannot tell you the number of people who have told me personally and via email that they have never had one of these products work for them as described in the advertised literature.

The responsible party is in my opinion any company that has profited from selling bogus products!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THESE PRODUCTS SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN MADE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND IN MY OPINION THEY ARE ALL UN-ETHICAL!!!!!