2. Published by the
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH
+49 228 44600
Sascha Oppowa (GIZ),
Francisco Koch, Mathilde Treis (South Pole),
Dang Van Dien, Ma Khai Hien (EnerTeam).
Le Thu Huong (GIZ),
Nguyen Thi Hong Xiem (GIZ).
The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this document are based on information
gathered by GIZ and its consultants, partners and contributors.
GIZ does not, however, guarantee the accuracy or completeness of information in this document, and
cannot be held responsible for any errors, omissions or losses which result from its use.
The authors would like to thank Hoang Ngoc Anh (Secretary General) and Nguyen Thi Tuyet Mai
(Vice Secretary General) from the Vietnam Textile and Apparel Association (VITAS) for their
dedicated engagement and insightful contributions, which has provided valuable inputs to this report.
On behalf of the
German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ).
3. Table of contents
1. Introduction 1
Objective of the project 3
2. Voluntary and conditional energy and GHG reduction target setting 5
Step 1: Laying the groundwork 5
Step 2: Kick-off workshop 8
Step 3: Identification of energy-saving opportunities 10
Step 4: GHG emission reduction plans 11
Step 5a: Target definition and setting 13
Step 5b: Monitoring and reporting guidelines 14
Step 6: Brand-supplier dialogues 17
Step 7: Lessons learned 17
3. Key results and findings 18
Main opportunities for energy saving 18
Lighting systems 18
Steam systems 18
Compressed air systems 19
Motors and drives 20
Energy management systems (EMS) 20
Energy savings and GHG reduction target-setting 22
4. Brands’ supplier dialogues and solutions 24
Supplier GHG mitigation target-setting and reporting tool roll-out recommendations 25
Recommendations for the clothing and textile industry 25
Recommendations for setting up the programme 26
Recommendations regarding energy saving measures 27
4. List of tables
Table 1: Structure of a KO workshop 9
Table 2: Elements of an effective EMS 21
Table 3: Voluntary and conditional energy saving and GHG reduction 23
targets in selected garment facilities
List of figures
Figure 1 Steps of the approach 4
Figure 3: Relevant scope and boundaries of emission sources to be monitored 7
Figure 4: Process diagram illustrating the production processes involved 7
Figure 5: Screenshots of the implementation plan 12
Figure 6: Iron fitted steam trap 19
Figure 7: Energy-savings potential for air compressed system 19
Figure 8: Clutch motor vs Servo motor sewing machine load profiles 20
Acronyms and abbreviations
BMZ German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development
Capex capital expenditure
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CSR Corporate Social Responsibility
EE energy efficiency
EMS Energy Management System
ER emission reduction
GHG greenhouse gas
GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH
IFI International Finance Institution
KPI key performance indicator
LED Light Emitting Diode
M&R Monitoring and Reporting
NAMA National Appropriate Mitigation Action
NDC Nationally Determined Contribution
tCO2e tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent
VCOSA Vietnam Cotton and Spinning Association
VITAS Vietnam Textile and Apparel Association
VSD Variable Speed Drivers
5. To meet the challenges of climate change in the
future, the clothing and textile industry, and
international brands respectively, will need to take
bold action for transformational change and
innovation. Reducing CO2 emissions by improving
energy efficiency is a key step towards the
achievement of Sustainable Development Goals by
2030. Successful brands, such as the ones that
have joined the UNFCCC Fashion Charter1, already
recognise that it is necessary to find approaches to
address sustainable development challenges
throughout their supply chains, not just within their
own operations. Networks, stakeholder cooperation
and supplier dialogues play an important role in this
process. Stakeholders will have to work together on
achieving sustainability targets, such as CO2
emissions reductions that would be difficult or
impossible to achieve alone.
1 Under the auspices of UN Climate Change, fashion stakeholders worked during 2018 to identify ways in which the broader textile, clothing and
fashion industry can move tow ards an holistic commitment to climate action. They created the Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action which
contains the vision to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. The charter includes a target of 30% GHG emission reductions by 2030 and a
commitment to analyze and set a decarbonization pathway for the fashion industry drawing on methodologies from the Science-Based Targets
The Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, on behalf of the German Federal
Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, has carried out a pilot project with Vietnamese textile and
garment manufacturers which demonstrates how voluntary energy saving and CO2 reduction targets can be set and
how proper GHG monitoring and reporting (M&R) practices and tools can be introduced voluntarily in garment
factories in Vietnam. The approach adopted is a clear step towards addressing supply chain GHG mitigation
The five suppliers involved, which include garment producers for major international brands, such as Hugo Boss,
Vaude, Otto, Fenix and Esprit, have committed to implement a number of energy saving measures that should result
in up to 9% energy and CO2 savings per year, compared to business as usual (i.e. if none of the measures
proposed were implemented).
The energy saving measures that underpin such voluntary targets include, amongst others, the introduction of
energy efficient operating and maintenance practices and investment in energy saving technologies, such as:
compressed air and steam system pressure optimization, retrofitting air pressure regulators, fitting steam traps on
irons, improved ventilation control/management, insulating presses, and the introduction of LED lighting and servo
motor drive sewing machines to name the most common measures identified. All these energy saving and CO2
reduction measures were found to be financially highly attractive, with paybacks in many cases, well below 2 yrs.
Local garment suppliers’ motivation to improve energy and environmental performance was found to be high during
the course of the pilot. However, the pilot also shed light on the many challenges that garment factories in Vietnam
face in as far as identifying and assessing such energy saving opportunities, specifying equipment needed, sourcing
technical support/technology and implementing energy saving measures are concerned. The provision of expert,
locally sourced technical support proved crucial to overcome such challenges.
Suppliers also indicated their willingness to assess and possibly implement further energy saving measures, which
in some cases could lead to an extra 5% energy savings and CO2 reductions. Achieving such additional savings
however, is conditional to a varying degree upon the provision of third party-funded technical assistance, and
possibly financial support.
A large portion of the voluntary energy savings targets stem from improvements in how plants are operated
and maintained. Factories must have a means in place to also ensure that such gains in energy performance
are not lost over time, as a result of reverting to old, inefficient and more CO2 intensive operating and
maintenance practices. However, the factories supported during the pilot lack the resources needed and a
suitable framework in which to do so. Energy Management Systems provide such a framework but, if at all,
have only been set up rudimentarily in the in factories visited. Outsourcing energy management, or certain
elements of an energy management system to a third party (Energy Management Bureau service) is an
option worth considering in the context of garment factories in Vietnam under circumstances.
The business case to introduce more formal and structured M&R systems has also proven effective. As a
result, the factories now have the means to implement adequate M&R plans and GHG reporting.
Brand visibility is key when bringing across why it is in suppliers best interest to implement voluntary energy
saving measures and adopt more formal and structured GHG Monitoring and Reporting practices. Brands
are also encouraged to explore ways to support their suppliers in increasing energy efficiency, reducing CO2
emissions and Monitoring and Reporting their GHG emissions. Private – Public Partnerships involving
brands, industry associations, local banks and IFIs constitute a vehicle through which such support could be
provided. Brand support can take various forms, such as the provision of expert technical assistance,
facilitating third party technical assistance, training, co-funding supplier support initiatives in conjunction with
other brands, and de-risking third party financing solutions. Brand support, be it through technical assistance
or funding can be used to leverage larger
donor/IFI funding sources, and enable
more ambitious energy and CO2
reductions to be achieved.
The results of the pilot suggest that there is
substantial scope for the garment sector to
save energy and reduce CO2 emissions
through brand driven initiatives such as
the one supported by GIZ. To illustrate, if
1,000 similar garment facilities were to
take on similar voluntary targets, then
approximately 40,000 t CO2/year of the
Brand’s supply chain emissions could be reduced through very cost effective energy savings measures.
Bearing in mind that the textile sector is Vietnam’s second export earner and an important source of GHG
emissions, such levels of energy savings and GHG reductions constitute a powerful GHG mitigation policy
tool for the sector.
The Vietnamese textile sector is the country’s second export earner, yet also an important source of GHG
emissions. The target-setting approach piloted shows how it is possible for factories in Vietnam to take on
energy saving targets that improve the businesses’ bottom-line and reduce CO2 emissions at the same time,
and to do so voluntarily as opposed to being mandated to do so. The approach taken to set such targets
thus constitutes a powerful mitigation strategy to upscale mitigation in the sector.
The textile and garment sector is one of the most important industries in the Vietnamese economy, and the country’s
second largest export sector. This results in a significant contribution to the GHG emissions of Vietnam. To meet the
challenges of climate change in the future, the clothing and textile industry and international brands will need to take
bold action to enable transformational change and innovation. Successful brands have already recognised that it is
necessary to find approaches that can be applied along the entire supply chain. Networks, stakeholder cooperation
and supplier dialogues play an important role in this. Stakeholders will have to work together to achieve sustainability
targets which would be difficult or impossible to achieve alone.
Objective of the project
This project was a spin-off of a Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMA) previously developed for textile
industry2. GIZ worked with five German brands, who are members of / associated with the Partnership for
Sustainable Textiles3 and who each nominated a Vietnamese textile and garment supplier to participate.
The specific objectives this project were:
• to lead five Vietnamese garment suppliers through the process of setting voluntary GHG emission targets and
developing plans for how to achieve these reductions. These reductions will be achieved through the
improvement of their internal EMS. With the financial support of GIZ, these suppliers will become more attractive
to multinational brands due to lower emissions and lower production costs.
• to establish a stakeholder dialogue process between brands and suppliers to increase the recognition and
implementation of commonly agreed sustainability standards within the garment and textile sector. This will
facilitate the Vietnamese suppliers’ exchange with international brands so that the project contributes to the
sustainability development of the sector by promoting knowledge-sharing and cooperation. It will ultimately lead
the Vietnamese garment and textile industry towards a future more resilient to climate change.
2 The energy efficiency (EE) and renewable energy (RE) NAMA in the Vietnamese textile sector seeks to enable the widescale uptake of energy
management systems, variable speed drives, high efficiency electric motors and efficient lighting, and introduces RE in form of rooftop photovoltaic
plants. A set of policy and finanical instruments is proposed to overcome key barriers to the w idescale uptake of such low carbon solutions such as: the
adoption of mandatory codes and standards for electric motors, removal of regulatory barriers for energy service companies and REinstallations as well
as a grants and guarantees in order to overcome the capital investment barriers and derisk innovative low carbon business models
3 The Partnership for Sustainable Textiles is a multi-stakeholder initiative w ith about 120 members from business, government, civil society, unions, and
standards organisations. It strives to improve the conditions within global textile supply networks — from production of raw materials to re-use and
The methodology applied can be used to introduce voluntary GHG emissions reporting and set voluntary and
conditional GHG mitigation targets for suppliers in the Vietnamese garment sector. These targets shall be derived
‘bottom-up’, based on the energy-saving opportunities identified by implementing the methodology, as opposed to
being set using a ‘top down’ approach. These targets will be set following discussions with factory floor personnel
and middle management.
Figure 1: Steps of the approach
The following section describes the steps to be followed to implement the methodology and the GHG reporting to
enable such objectives to be met. The steps are illustrated in Figure 1. It also provides a set of tips, based on the
pilot carried out in the garment sector in Vietnam, to help set the voluntary emissions reduction targets and to
introduce GHG M&R in additional garment factories in Vietnam.
It should be noted that the methodology can also be applied to other textile subsectors and to other manufacturing
sectors, so long as it is tailored and road-tested in such subsectors and sectors beforehand.
The steps involved in setting voluntary and conditional energy and GHG reduction targets are as follows .
Step 1: Laying the groundwork
GHG mitigation and reporting objectives
The programme manager needs to confirm the following with each brand in order to set voluntary GHG mitigation and
reporting targets. These include:
• each brand’s drivers for GHG mitigation and GHG reporting;
• information regarding the carbon footprint of the brand’s own operations (including sustainability reports; initiatives
aimed at reducing the brands scope 1 and 2 emissions);
• each brand to nominate one (or more) of their suppliers;
• the reporting parameters that the brand would like its suppliers to use to make reports
• the extent to which the brand might be willing to help its suppliers in enabling such goals to be achieved (technical
support, co-financing of energy efficiency projects, rooftop photovoltaic (PV) installation, etc.);
• other parameters indicated in the sample questionnaire provided in Annex 1.
2. Voluntary and conditional energy
and GHG reduction target setting
Figure 2: Framework for measuring GHG emissions (source: WRI, GHG Protocol)
Monitoring and Reporting (M&R)
With a view to Monitoring and Reporting, the M&R plan should describe the actions taken to quantify the factory’s GHG
emissions. Details of the monitoring procedures, frequency, quality assurance etc., should be described for all relevant
sources of GHG emissions. Roles and responsibilities of those involved in the process also need to be described.
In order to make a compelling case for a brand’s supplier to monitor and report their GHG emissions on a voluntary
basis the following information is necessary:
1. a rationale for the brand’s request. Such a rationale may include the brand’s need to respond to stakeholders’
concerns and requirements: pressure from investors, customers, peers, suppliers, civil society and reporting
frameworks (e.g. TCFD, CDP, SBTs) to report and manage scope 3 emissions;
2. the benefits of the reported data. Having formal M&R structures in place strengthens the suppliers’ position as an
environmentally responsible supplier and allows the supplier to differentiate itself. It helps suppliers understand
climate change related business transitions risks. Understanding such risks enables suppliers to manage them.
Furthermore, having an adequate M&R improves the possibilities of accessing international sources of funding,
finance and capital;
3. the key performance indicators (KPIs) on which a supplier should report. Brands should indicate their reporting
requirements, as well as the frequency with which reports should be issued.
It shall be noted that each brand could make a case as to why such M&R is required.
Brands are advised to actively engage with their suppliers at this stage, and communicate to them the background to
the initiative, its objectives, key aspects of the scope and how the suppliers can benefit from it. Such communication will
more effective than if done solely by the programme manager, such as GIZ, who serves as neutral broker between the
Figure 3: Relevant scope and boundaries of emission sources to be monitored
Obtain a simplified-process diagram that illustrates the type production processes involved, such as the one shown
in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Process diagram illustrating the production processes involved
Once the targeted suppliers have been invited to participate in the programme, the following preparatory work needs
to be carried out:
• select local experts who have hands-on experience in assessing and implementing the energy savings
measures that will be put forward to the suppliers. The local experts are also required to employ staff fluent in
English, particularly if the methodology is being applied for the first time. Local experts are key for making a
convincing case to factory upper management to take up the energy saving recommendations. This is therefore
crucial to the programme’s success,
• develop a compelling business case for suppliers to take action to save energy and reduce GHG emissions and
to implement GHG M&R. It is important to note that since this is a voluntary action from suppliers, the business
case should focus on the purpose of reducing costs and increasing profits. It is best not to assume that suppliers
will respond to the call solely to reduce GHG emissions.
• On the side of the brands:
o information regarding the carbon footprint of the brand’s own operations
o Brands could also be prepared to communicate any standards they may have regarding energy/CO2
performance. As well as any other climate change relevant indicators they are keen on keeping track of on
their scorecards can affect a supplier’s ranking.
• On the side of the suppliers:
o Information concerning their operations, energy bill, energy sources etc.
• prepare a one-day workshop and site visits with an international expert (on-the-job training), develop the local
expert’s capacity to:
o communicate the objectives, expected outcomes and expectations of the support programme to the
o implement the scope of work (beyond the energy-savings assessment).
Step 2: Kick-off workshop
The objective of the kick-off (KO) workshop is to reiterate the business case to local suppliers to set voluntary,
unconditional and conditional CO2 emissions targets, as well as to implement CO2 mitigation actions to achieve
The table below demonstrates how such a KO workshop should be structured.
Amongst other aspects, the KO workshop should describe:
• drivers for actions
• expected outcomes
• scope of work
• project management approach and project milestones
• responsibilities and focal point of contacts of all parties involved
• next steps (planning session)
• Annex 2, attached to this report, provides examples of workshop material
• The initiative’s programme manager (GIZ)
• Brands and/or the brand’s local representatives
• Suppliers (Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), factory management)
• Industry associations, e.g. Vietnam Textile and Apparel Association (VITAS),
Vietnam Cotton and Spinning Association (VCOSA)
Table 1: Process diagram illustrating the production processes involved
Ensure that brands are present at the KO meeting and that they communicate to the audience in very clear terms
why they need their suppliers to reduce CO2 emissions and to start reporting them. Brands could further present
their own strategy, targets and potential programs they have in place. The brand should clearly indicate that for a
brand to achieve its mitigation targets, it needs their suppliers to reduce emissions on their end. A compelling
business case for suppliers to take action needs to be made.
• Trade associations have an important role to play in raising factory management’s awareness and motivation
to adopt more sustainable development practices, and to explain why it is in their businesses’ best interest to
do so. They can therefore add further weight to the brand’s call for action.
• Be practical and business-oriented: refrain from assuming that suppliers will act voluntarily to save energy
because it reduces CO2. Refrain from assuming that suppliers have ‘spare’ time to invest in such efforts, or
even to report GHG emissions, unless they feel there is a compelling reason to do so.
• Back up any statements made with facts and examples that are relevant to the target audience. Talking about
business risk and opportunities without putting forward any relevant examples does little to make a compelling
case for supplier action.
• Emphasise that substantial emissions reductions can be achieved:
o through no/low-cost energy-saving measures that see returns within <1 year, and in often much less time
o through medium capital expenditure (Capex) measures, with paybacks typically within < 2 years
• Illustrate the above points using examples from industrial facilities in the host country. Examples should also
include how much suppliers can expect to invest and save.
Step 3: Identificationof energy-saving opportunities
The objective of this task is to support suppliers’ factory staff in identifying and assessing potential energy-saving
opportunities4. This is done by taking the specific context of the industry into account.
For example, it is very common for garment companies to lease the buildings in which the factory is housed. Hence,
energy-saving measures need to account for the fact that the company might move its operations elsewhere at some
point in the near future. Hence, projects that entail a substantial amount of Capex will only be considered in cases where
the company owns the installations or is in a long-term lease.
The support provided is delivered through a one-day factory visit led by the local expert.
The steps to follow are:
1. Agenda preparation. An agenda needs to be prepared which clearly indicates issues to be discussed. Prior
to/during the visit, information relevant to the meeting should be made available. The agenda needs to be sent
ahead of the agreed meeting date to ensure key factory staff are present.
2. Factory visit. The scope should entail:
o an introduction to the support initiative, objectives, scope and expected outcomes;
o an overview of the factory’s production process;
o an EMS assessment;
o factory monitoring and reporting;
o factory site visit to identify energy savings;
o discussion of key energy opportunities identified; and
o next steps
3. The factory visit also seeks to gauge the level of support that suppliers are likely to need in as far as identifying,
assessing, developing and implementing energy-saving measures and to identify ways in which such support could
4 In the pilot, the focus was on energy efficiency. However, the proposed framew ork can be expanded to include implementing renew able energy in the
factories as well.
• Brands/brand representatives are encouraged to participate in the factory visits. This provides a unique insight
into a factory’s room for energy efficiency improvement, but also the challenges it might face in becoming more
energy efficient. It also provides a suitable stage for exploring ways in which brands could support their suppliers
in their efforts to introduce less energy-intensive work practices and technologies.
• Brand presence during site visits, be it through the brand or its representative, sends a clear message to the
factory that CO2 mitigation and reporting is an important business issue. Factories are more likely to take actions
to save energy and report GHG emissions if encouraged to do so directly by the brand, as opposed to indirectly
through a 3rd party (such as a consultant) visiting their facilities.
Step 4: GHG emissionreductionplans
5 This project only focused on direct emissions from the factory, so called Scope 1 and 2 emissions. Scope 3 emissions, usually the most significant
emissions in the textile and garment industry, can be categorised as indirect emission that occur for example in the supply chain.
• Factory staff met at this meeting are bound to be technical and mid-level managerial, and may have not been
present at the KO meeting. A brief introduction to the background of the initiative, a description of the objectives
and expected outcomes of both the initiative and the site visit, is thus advisable.
• Suppliers are expected to allocate time to factory staff to identify and assess key energy-saving opportunities.
Experience with the visited garment companies suggests that factories lack staff with the necessary competences
and field measurement tools needed to identify energy-saving opportunities. Moreover, they tend to lack the
capabilities needed to estimate the savings, specify works or implement energy-saving opportunities (with the
notable exceptions limited to operations introductions and certain maintenance energy-saving meaasures).
• Follow up visits are hence likely to be necessary in order to discuss/assess selected energy-saving opportunities in
greater detail. In such cases, the local expert shall recommend the measures that should be examined in more
detail, based on his experience and understanding of the factory’s context. The programme manager should then
judge whether such additional assessment is worth pursuing.
The objective of this activity is to help supplier suppliers’ factory staff in developing an emission reduction plan that
can be translated into Scope 1 and 25 GHG emissions reductions. This plan can be used to set energy-saving and
emissions reduction targets at the factory level. The template (see Figure 2) provides an overview of the energy
savings identified. It also serves as an energy management support tool, to help factories keep an account of
identified energy-saving opportunities and track their implementation status, i.e. whether any given energy saving
• under assessment;
• under implementation;
• implemented; or
The first step in the development of the emission reduction plan is to support the factory staff in populating the
template with the energy-saving opportunities identified during the site visit. Indicative energy savings and
implementation cost estimates are provided, as well as the corresponding CO2 reductions. Relevant electricity and
fuel emissions factors should be communicated by the programme manager.
Each emission reduction plan includes the following elements (as seen in Figure 2):
• estimated energy savings;
• estimated magnitude costs savings;
• order of magnitude emissions reductions (ERs);
• indicative costs; and
• simple payback.
Step 5a: Target definition and setting
These figures are then translated into absolute emissions reductions figures by multiplying the aggregated energy
saved by the power grid’s emissions factor. The resulting emissions reductions are then compared to the site’s
emissions in 2018.
As a second step, factory staff and management assess the various measures presented in the implementation and
select a) those that will be pursued using their human and financial resources and b) those that will be pursued with
external support (through third-party funded technical support or co-funding):
1. Target setting. Each supplier will put forward two targets:
a) Voluntary energy-savings targets are derived bottom-up by aggregating the energy savings that the
factory agrees to implement using its own resources.
b) Conditional energy savings targets are derived bottom-up by aggregating the energy savings that the
factory might be willing to implement if the barriers that prevent the factory from pursuing them on their own
can be overcome (i.e. if support was available). Such barriers may include, but are not limited to:
o a lack of experience in implementing the particular energy-saving measure;
o a perceived risk that the energy-saving measure may not deliver the expected cost savings and/or
adversely impact the factory’s production;
o a lack of budget to implement the energy saving measures;
o the payback period being deemed too long; and/or
o a lack of human resources with the competencies and experience needed to implement the measure (e.g.
no prior experience in engaging in performance contracting, no experience in specifying, selecting and
installing Variable Speed Drives (VSD), steam traps, etc.
2. Bilateral discussion. Factory staff, supported by 3rd parties such as consultants/experts, discuss which of the
identified energy saving measures are to be implemented by the factory using its own resources, and which
measures it might be willing to implement if third-party funded support were to be made available.
3. Sign-off of targets by upper management. The selected measures are then communicated to upper
management for internal ‘sign off’.
4. Communicate targets. Factories shall submit the final energy efficiency implementation plan, including the
unconditional and conditional potential energy measures and GHG mitigations targets so that these can, in turn,
be communicated to the brands. Factories are free to communicate any external support that they considered is
necessary to implement additional energy-saving measures and to achieve a more ambitious energy saving (and
hence CO2 reduction target).
The aggregated energy savings are the sum of all individual energy efficiency measures proposed. These aggregated
estimates are presented in terms of total energy savings and as a percentage of energy savings of the preceding year’s
Step 5b: Monitoring and reporting guidelines
• Factories need to be sure that an energy-saving measure is feasible prior to its implementation. Additional expert
support may prove necessary to assist factory staff and management in better understanding the savings measures.
In some cases, such support might also entail making the case to upper management to implement them. Though
ideally this support should be provided remotely, the support programme should be prepared to undertake an
additional site visit to discuss key measures (e.g. due to a clear lack of in-house capabilities and experience in
implementing such energy-saving measures). A support programme should therefore cater for the possibility that
such support might be required.
• Brand/brand representatives are advised to follow up with the factory after the site visit. Such follow-up calls serve
as a reminder for the factory that the brand expects the supplier to act upon the provided recommendations, or to
justify why it is not willing to do so. In the call, the brand/brand representative should:
o remind the factories to clarify any issues, as well as
o reiterate the importance of defining the measures that they are willing to implement using their own resources.
• Shifting from a factory with no energy performance target to one that strives for continuous improvement is a big
step. The key is therefore to set an energy-savings target and to see it through, voluntarily. The magnitude of the
target in this sense is of secondary importance at this particular stage. Once a target has been set, this can be
increased continuously to increase its ambition. This conversation can be led by the brand.
• Prioritise low/no-cost energy-savings measures. Manufacturing facilities that lack formal EMS tend to present
considerable scope for energy-savings opportunities through no/low-cost measures, which, when aggregated, can
amount to savings in excess of 10% (in many cases even more), as shown by the assessment results for all five
factories supported. Such measures rarely require senior management approval to pursue, because they involve
very small investment and do not interfere with a factory’s operations. However, factory floor management approval
• The garment facilities assessed produce a variety of garments and lack the metering systems that would be
needed to report on total tonnes of CO2 equivalents (tCO2e) emitted per type of garment and per brand.
Although data on total production in terms of each piece is available, reporting tCO2e/piece has little value
because CO2 emissions can vary considerably from one piece to another. Hence tCO2e/year and tCO2e/unit
value of sales (e.g. EUR), were deemed to be the most meaningful KPIs to report on under the particular
• Host a webinar explaining the M&R plan and GHG calculator to the local expert. The M&R plan should be in
English. The document may have to be translated to facilitate its use by factory staff, who should be made
aware of their CO2 emissions by operations.
• Submetering should be installed only in areas which represent major energy consumption and where a clear
correlation can be established between the energy consumption and the production variables. This should be
however the subject of a more detailed submetering audit, taking into account the factory’s electrical layout.
The proposed M&R plan and tool to be used to calculate a factory’s CO2 emissions needs to be introduced to the
• making the ‘business case’ (see above) for the introduction of an M&R system in the factory, i.e. answering the
question: why should the factory have such a system?
• an overview of emissions scopes. Discuss which ones are important for the factory to report on and why.
• a presentation of a sample M&R plan to draw attention to the need for a structured approach to M&R, with
procedures and clearly defined roles and responsibilities.
• a description of the GHG accounting tool.
• a description of the parameters to be reported.
• a description of measuring equipment requirements and calibration.
• establishing reporting requirements and frequency.
• determining additional monitoring requirements, if any.
The M&R plan then needs to then be defined and confirmed with the factory staff.
• Agree a work plan with each supplier to adapt the proposed M&R plan to the supplier’s business or for the supplier
to apply/develop an alternative plan.
• Determine the M&R roles and responsibilities for such work plans.
• Develop a timeline to introduce M&R revisions to the proposed plan or to implement an alternative M&R solution.
Annex 4 provides the garment suppliers’ M&R plans and their respective CO2 emission estimates.
• Identify primary data points to be gathered in order to calculate emissions.
• Define estimation methodologies and secondary data requirements.
• Establish suitable KPIs for the monitoring and reporting of emission performance over time.
• Specify any M&R protocols with data collection process requirements.
• Describe measuring equipment requirements and calibration.
• Establish reporting requirements and frequency.
• Develop a monitoring and reporting plan indicating key M&R roles and responsibilities to ensure all M&R
system operational requirements can be met.
• Obtain factory energy consumption and production data.
• Populate the calculation tool to determine the sites’ CO2 emissions and enable a baseline emissions year to be
• Ensure that the brand’s M&R expectations are known prior to engaging the suppliers on this topic. The level of
detail can vary considerably, in the sense that not all brands require a comprehensive set of energy data and
other primary GHG-relevant data to be reported by their supplier, but instead need sufficient information to be
available to inform their strategy and decision making (please refer to the Brand Questionnaire’ responses
provided in Annex 1, attached to this report).
• Unless otherwise indicated by a brand, the emphasis should be on getting the supplier to put a robust M&R
framework in place and to set a habit of monitoring and reporting key GHG emissions. It is important to keep
reporting requirements as simple as possible; avoid including any information that is only ‘nice to have’ in
order to avoid placing an unnecessary strain on factory staff. The scope of such monitoring and reporting can
always be widened at a later stage in response to the brand’s reporting requirements. Expecting a supplier to
introduce a fully-fledged M&R scope on a voluntary basis may deter an otherwise willing supplier from
implementing an M&R system.
• Ensure factories understand why CO2 reporting is necessary and in their best interest to pursue, i.e. get them
to ‘buy into it’. It is best is to assume a limited understanding of GHG accounting, GHG M&R fundamentals
and the importance of M&R at the factory level.
• Some suppliers view M&R as a ‘compliance’ issue. They implement it not because they want to, but because
they understand that they have to. Hence it is also important to engage the supplier’s department that is
responsible for compliance matters when discussing M&R.
• Emphasise that the M&R plan put forward to the supplier is a “proposal” and a set of good M&R practices. It is,
however, up to the supplier to adapt such a plan to their needs, or to propose an alternative M&R plan if they
prefer. It is also up to the supplier to decide which primary production data to report. For example, the GHG
calculation sheet that was prepared enables the supplier to input total production and sales volumes on a
monthly basis. Some suppliers consider this information to be commercially sensitive and would rather avoid
this making this visible. Should this be the case, it is enough to report the total sales volume attributed to the
brand expressed as a percentage of total annual sales, and to use this figure to apportion the annual CO2
emissions to the brand.
• In order to properly implement an M&R plan, it is necessary that roles and responsibilities be assigned to
factory staff. The formal allocation of resources to implement monitoring and reporting tasks, regardless of
how simple and low-effort they may be, nonetheless have to be approved by upper management. Therefore,
factory staff will probably not be able to commit ‘on the spot’ to allocating such roles and responsibilities.
• Brands are encouraged to build on the M&R foundations laid down through this pilot and discuss any
additional M&R requirements.
Step 6: Brand-supplierdialogues
Both the targets and the M&R plan are then discussed between brands and suppliers:
• The voluntary target indicates the level of emission reduction possible through measures undertaken by the
factory with their own budget (often no-/low-cost measures with payback periods of less than 2 years);
• The conditional target indicates the full scope of emission reduction potential, and provides an educated basis for
this discussion: if brands are willing to support their suppliers (be it in the shape of technical assistance such as
trainings, financial support or other), the conditional target is the more ambitious benchmark to aim for.
• The M&R plan should be considered so that it allows the tracking of GHG emissions through the years, to see
whether the target achievement is on track.
Step 7: Lessons learned
Once implemented, it is key to critically reflect on the programme:
• Draw conclusions with a view to the elements that worked well.
• Consider revising those elements that may be improved through an adjusted approach.
This then will inform another iteration or application of the programme.
3. Key results and findings
The following section describes the most important energy-saving opportunities identified during the course of the
factory assessments. It also presents the voluntary targets that garment suppliers are willing to commit to, as well as
more ambitious targets that they might be willing to commit to, if the third party funded support needed to help them
assess and advance the additional energy savings measures were made available.
Main opportunities for energy saving
The factory assessments have enabled a variety of energy-savings measures to be identified, including lighting
systems, steam systems, compressed air systems, motors and drives and EMS.
Energy-efficient lighting opportunities observed include measures such as:
• light-emitting diode (LED) retrofitting
• retrofitting lighting controls
• lighting level optimisation
LED retrofitting is one of the few energy-saving measures that most factories are aware of. Despite their usually
attractive return, retrofitting rates are often limited by budget constraints, resulting in existing lights only being
replaced by more efficient ones upon failure. Nevertheless, retrofitting could be accelerated through third-party
finance solutions. Another energy saving measure worth drawing attention to is reducing over lighting by matching the
lighting levels to those required to carry out the work that takes place in the factory.
All the garment factories assessed use steam to a varying degree for ironing. In all cases, steam was found to be
produced by electric boilers. There is considerable scope to improve energy performance through a combination of
no/low-cost energy savings measures and small-to-medium capex improvements, such as:
• optimising steam system start up and shutdown times considering factory production time;
• reducing boiler steam pressure; without compromising the need to meet end user steam requirements
• increasing condensate recovery rates, to recover greater volumes of hot and clean water;
• retrofitting steam traps in irons to avoid the loss of live steam; and
• Insulating iron presses to prevent heat loss and reduce air conditioning loads (where applicable).
A substantial amount of electricity can be saved, particularly by fitting steam traps to irons (see Figure 5) to prevent
live steam from being lost. Up to 20% of the steam used in a factory can be saved, with payback time often less than
half a year.
Figure 6: Iron fitted steam trap
Substantial quantities of heat and, in the context of these factories, electricity can also be saved through condensate
recovery. The Quanon factory, for example, had already implemented this energy-saving measure as a result of its
participation in a previous GIZ-hosted energy training event, having noted substantial energy savings as a result.
Compressed air systems
The compressed air systems assessed were found to be either designed, operated or maintained in a manner that
results in excessive electricity consumption.
A number of energy-saving opportunities can be found in compressed air systems, most of which entail changing the
way the compressed air system is operated and maintained, or undertaking relatively minor air distribution system
design changes on the piping layout and end-use pressure regulation, such as:
• compressed air leak reduction, through the implementation of a leak inspection and correction programme;
• optimising daily start and stop times, to prevent the compressed air system running when there is no factory
compressed air load;
• reducing system pressure to reduce compressor work and losses, but doing so gradually in small steps, to ensure
that end users compressed air needs are not compromised;
• installing pressure regulators to match end user pressure requirements, e.g. on sewing lines;
• energy-efficient compressed air distribution, e.g. loop system design to reduce pressure drop.
As shown in Figure 6, substantial compressed air system energy savings can be obtained through a compressed air
leak inspection and correction programme, a good example of how a low-cost, albeit routine, maintenance practice can
save a large portion of the electricity consumed to generate compressed air.
Figure 7: Energy-savings potential for air compressed system
Figure 8: Clutch motor vs Servo motor sewing machine load profiles
Garment factories tend use hundreds of sewing machines. Replacing all clutch motors with servos can thus
represent a significant expenditure (replacing 2,000 clutch driven machines with servos could cost in excess of USD
300,000). Some factories that are aware of the energy savings that can be achieved by substituting clutch motors
with servos opt to replace the former, but only upon failure.
There is thus scope to encourage both replacement with servos upon equipment failure, or better still, encourage
more ambitious savings through accelerated replacement programmes, whereby the replacement is made before
machine failure takes place. The latter however requires somewhat sophisticated third-party finance contracting
solutions to be introduced, which factory staff may unfortunately find too complex and risky to enter into.
Energy management systems (EMS)
An EMS achieves energy savings by introducing a framework in a factory that provides the underlying business with
a means to:
• identify new energy-saving opportunities, which leads to CO2 reduction and often resource-savings opportunities
• ensure that the gains in energy performance resulting from energy-saving measures that were implemented
earlier are not lost over time;
• Monitor and report energy consumption.
Many of the energy-saving measures that have been identified through the assessments would have been identified
within the framework of an effective EMS. Moreover, it is important to highlight the role that an EMS has in ensuring
that past gains in energy efficiency are not lost over time. To illustrate the latter point, three examples are described
1. One of the factories assessed (Phong Phu International JSC – Phong Phu Jean Factory) had already installed
steam traps on its irons to prevent the loss of live steam. However, it was observed that a large number of such
traps were not functioning properly. All steam traps fail over time due to ‘wear and tear’ and need to be replaced.
Motors and drives
Energy savings in motors and drives include:
• replacing clutch motor-sewing machines with much more efficient servo equivalents;
• retrofitting Variable Speed Drives (VSD) on air compressors;
• matching ventilation supply to ventilation load; and
• motor management systems, to ensure that motors that should be replaced with more efficient motors are
replaced and that motor rewind is carried out with minimal efficiency loss, etc.
Replacing traditional clutch motors with servo motors results in savings typically between 40% to 80%. A Servo
Motor is an electronically controlled motor which only works when you start to sew, unlike the conventional clutch
motor which runs once you turn the power on. During idling period, the servo motor's power consumption is much
lower than that of conventional clutch motor. Figure 8 below shows the difference between a clutch motor and servo
Steam trap inspection and maintenance programmes therefore need to be in place to ensure that such traps
function properly, and to make sure that, when they fail, they are readily replaced.
2. Correcting compressed air leaks once will not prevent new leaks developing over time. A leak inspection and
correction programme is thus necessary to keep the compressed air system ‘in check’.
3. There is always a risk that compressed air systems or steam delivery pressure settings that may have been
optimised to save energy, will eventually be set back to previous values, thus resulting in energy waste. Without
proper monitoring or routine checks in place, the gains in efficiency that result from operational changes will be
These are just a few examples of some activities that are typically implemented within the framework of a well-
designed and operated EMS to ensure that savings and GHG reductions that have already been achieved are
An effective EMS requires a number of elements to be in place (see Table 2) which, however, were absent to a large
degree in the factories visited
Table 2: Elements of an effective EMS
Elements Assessment of factories visited
organisational set up
Factories lack a dedicated Energy Manager and teams to identify energy savings and
pursue energy-saving measures.
Motivation to save energy
High motivation to save energy by factory technical staff, and mid and upper
• some factories, such as Quanon, have pressed ahead and already implemented and
tested some operational energy-savings measures recommended to them.
• May Fair factory has gone ahead and tested fitting steam traps on irons.
Awareness to energy
Factories, in general, do not have the resources and inhouse capacities to identify
energy-saving opportunities, estimate the savings, assess them, specify equipment
where necessary, or, in many cases, to implement them. Limited exceptions to this are
LED retrofitting and, in certain cases, the replacement of the motors in clutch sewing
machines with servo motors, upon end of life.
6 The highest factory billof the five factories is around EUR 220,000 and the rest is less than EUR 120,000.
The fact that overall the energy bills are relatively small in these factories6 explains, to a large extent, why such energy-
saving opportunities had not yet been identified in the factories visited. Selling energy management to factory
management can prove challenging. This is because, contrary to an LED or VSD retrofit, the savings resulting from an
EMS cannot be estimated in advance. Moreover, the factory needs to invest in human resources with the required
competencies for the EMS, which, as argued above, many factories often do not seem to have. The relatively small
energy bills put forward a compelling case for an effective (in house supported) energy management systems.
Considering the points above, outsourcing energy management or certain elements of an EMS to a third party, is an
option worth considering in the context of clothing factories in Vietnam.
Regardless of whether an EMS is to be implemented in full by a factory using its own staff, or partly outsourced to a
third party, there is a pressing need for EMS demonstration projects in the sector, which can prove how such systems
deliver reductions in energy, cost and CO2 emissions, with very attractive returns.
Making a compelling business case to upper management to support EMS will otherwise prove very challenging, time-
consuming, and may deter many suppliers from introducing such systems in their factories.
Energy savings and GHG reduction target-setting
Assessments undertaken at the five garment factories illustrate the substantial amount of energy savings that can be
achieved (well above 5% in many cases) through no/low-cost energy saving measures (more efficient operations and
maintenance practices) and medium Capex investments.
Submetering is absent in almost all sites. Introducing submetering requires an analysis of
the factories wiring, on the one hand, and on the other, ensuring that submeters are fitted
where they can generate information that can be used to manage energy. This can be
particularly challenging in the context of sewing operations, in the sense that metered
electricity consumption is of little value if it cannot be adequately correlated with the
production parameters the influence it.
It is currently not possible to derive robust correlations due to:
• a lack of submetering and the significant number of different garments produced in any
• the associated difference in specific energy consumption; and
• other variables that impact energy consumption.
Factories that have introduced specific energy consumption KPIs have found such metrics
of no value in managing energy.
With the exception of accelerated lighting and motor replacement programmes, most
Capex measures are relatively minor. There has, however, been very limited exposure to
third-party financing solutions that could enable such accelerated retrofitting to be made.
The factories visited are not in the best position to entertain third-party finance offers with
confidence, thus missing out on potentially attractive alternatives to enable the delivery of
greater cost savings.
Table 3: Voluntary and conditional energy saving and GHG reduction targets in selected garment facilities
MWh/yr % tCO2eq/yr % MWh/yr % tCO2eq %
Vaude Bo Hsing (1) 332 12.5 287 12.2 48
Otto Quanon 83 13.4 72 13.4 12
Esprit PPJ 329 23.3 0 0.0 0
May Fair 167 14.4 144 14.3 3
Fenix LTP 38 3.0 33 3.0 38
Source: EnerTeam /South Pole based on individual factory Energy Efficiency Implementation plans, 2019.
As the above table shows, garment suppliers are willing to set very large energy and CO2 reduction targets, and to
commit to implementing them with their own resources. Voluntary CO2 reduction targets range from to 23% of 2018
energy consumption. These very high levels of commitment can be explained through the fact that the energy savings
measures identified are relatively straightforward to implement. Most are no / low capex measures, with paybacks
generally well below 2 years, at times returning even immediately or after just a few months. Last but not least, the local
consultant’s hands on experience with such energy saving measures and its ability to address the factory staff’s
concerns regarding their implementation is also highly important.
It should be noted that factories such as Quanon and Bo Hsing have already implemented some of the proposed energy
measures. Bo Hsing, for instance, has a clutch motor replacement upon failure programme in place. A very indicative
estimate suggests annual electricity savings of 1,400 MWh/year (34% of the factory’s electricity bill) and approximately
1,200 tCO2/year should have been delivered as a result. These savings have not been included in the Bo Hing’s
voluntary target because they cannot be attributed to the pilot. Nevertheless, such early action should be acknowledged
by the brand as an indication of the site’s motivation to save energy.
Suppliers are willing to consider implementing additional energy-saving measures, subject to a more detailed
assessment and, in some cases, to the provision of external support (both technical and financial). As noted previously,
in general, factories lack the impetus to assess costs and specify and implement the measures. Thus, brands should
follow-up on their supplier’s efforts to implement energy-saving measures.
The following Table 3 provides an overview of the voluntary energy and CO2 reduction targets that the factories would be
able to achieve using their own resources. Also shown in Table 3 are the additional energy savings and CO2 reductions
that could be achieved if the factories received the support needed to progress and implement such measures (these are
known as conditional energy savings).
Suppliers are keen to assess and possibly implement some of the remaining energy savings opportunities identified.
Implementing such additional measures would enable more ambitious energy-savings targets to be introduced, and
consequently more ambitious GHG mitigation interventions to be set.
A number of challenges faced by suppliers are:
• an inability to assess the risk, given a lack of experience with the proposed energy-saving measures;
• a lack of in-house capabilities for making the assessments (estimating the energy savings, determining the scope of
the work/material/equipment needed to implement the measure (where applicable), estimating the costs, specifying
the works/equipment needed, and planning and implementing the measure);
• budget constraints that limit the pace at which certain energy saving measures such as LED retrofitting, servo motor
driven sewing machine adoption and other more capex intensive measures are implemented.
• limited or lack of experience in pursuing third-party finance/performance-based contracting options to deploy energy-
savings measures, such as LEDs, electric motors, VSDs, steam traps and retrofitting;
• a lack of experience with EMS and outsourcing energy management services.
Brands can help address a number of challenges for example by:
• sharing inhouse experience/best practice with similar measures;
• providing technical assistance using their own staff;
• facilitating the provision of technical assistance and matchmaking with experts;
• de-risking third-party finance solutions (garment suppliers and solutions providers); and
• undertaking demonstration projects.
Brands could, for example, ‘band together’ and work as a syndicate to provide such support to their garment suppliers.
They could also engage in a private-public partnership with IFIs to attract additional funding.
Brands would also need to agree beforehand how they would like to contribute to such an effort, for example by:
1) providing technical resources, 2) co-funding, or 3) a combination of the above. Once the value of the brand’s
contribution is known, co-funding options to leverage a contribution could be explored.
4. Brands’ supplier dialogues
Supplier GHG mitigation target-setting and reporting tool roll-out recommendations
The methodology that has been used to enable garment suppliers to introduce energy saving/GHG reduction targets
and adopt GHG monitoring and reporting plans on a voluntary basis has been well received. The suppliers involved,
which include garment producers for major international brands, such as Hugo Boss, Vaude, Otto, Fenix and Esprit,
have signalled their willingness to implement a number of energy-saving measures that should result in savings of up to
9% in energy and CO2 emissions.
The methodology has been piloted in close cooperation with local experts and is deemed to be ready for further roll-out.
Other brands may now follow efforts in encouraging and supporting their own suppliers to become more energy-
efficient, reduce their CO2 emissions and better understand their supply chain’s emissions. The methodology described
in this report has been revised to reflect the experience gained throughout the pilot’s implementation. It also provides
practical ‘implementation tips’ to assist the methodology’s roll-out.
Recommendations for the clothing and textile industry
• The pilot shows that there is substantial scope for the garment sector to save energy and reduce CO2 emissions
voluntarily through very cost-effective measures. To illustrate: if 1,000 similar garment facilities were to take on
similar voluntary targets, then approximately 40,000 tCO2/year of the brand’s supply chain emissions could be
reduced (assuming small-size garment facilities with an annual energy bill of around EUR 40,000/year).
• Suppliers have also indicated their willingness to assess and possibly implement additional energy-saving measures,
which in some cases could lead to energy savings and CO2 reductions of an extra 5%. Achieving such additional
savings, however, is conditional to a varying degree on the provision of third party-funded technical assistance, and
possibly financial support.
• Brands are encouraged to explore ways to support their suppliers in increasing energy efficiency, reducing CO2
emissions and monitoring and reporting their GHG emissions. Private-public partnerships involving brands, industry
associations, local banks and IFIs constitute a vehicle through which such support could be provided to enable the
voluntary CO2-reduction target-setting and GHG M&R programme to be rolled out. Brand support can take various
forms, such as the provision of expert assistance, facilitating technical assistance, training, co-funding
supplier support initiatives in conjunction with other
brands, and de-risking third-party financing solutions.
Brand support, be it through assistance or funding, can
be used to leverage larger donor/IFI funding and enable
more ambitious reductions in energy and CO2 to be
• The voluntary and conditional target-setting methodology
can also be adapted to help brands achieve similar goals
to the ones stated above in other textile industry
subsectors in Vietnam. As for the garment sector case,
however, the methodology should first be tailored to
such subsectors and piloted, before attempting a wider
roll-out. Moreover, the methodology’s design is
sufficiently broad to enable it to be deployed in other
sectors, where international brands source products and
materials from suppliers in Vietnam, as well as from any
other country, for that matter.
Recommendations for setting up the programme
• Good programme management and coordination has
proven to be key in ensuring the effective delivery of the
target setting programme’s pilot. Rolling out such a
programme requires adequate coordination between the
key stakeholders involved (namely, the brands and
suppliers), and the organisational capacity to manage
large-scale upscaling initiatives.
• The pilot demonstrates the high level of motivation that
local suppliers have for improving energy and
environmental performance. However, it also sheds light
on the many challenges that garment factories in Vietnam
face in so far as identifying and assessing energy-saving
opportunities, specifying the equipment needed, sourcing
the technical support/technology and implementation are
concerned. The provision of expert, locally sourced
technical support has proven crucial to the pilot’s
success. It shows just how important the selection of a
local expert can prove to be in circumstances such as
• Local trade associations such as VITAS in Vietnam can
and should play a more prominent role in any sector-wide
roll-out efforts, for example, in disseminating initiative to
encourage brands and suppliers to pursue similar
initiatives and disseminate results, etc. This should be
discussed and agreed with the programme manager prior
to roll-out and dependent on the level of external funding
support that might be needed to undertake such a roll-
out. Local trade associations are likely to play an
important role in enabling such support to materialise.
Recommendations regarding energy saving measures
• Substantial energy savings and CO2 reduction opportunities, with paybacks no greater than two years, and often
much less and even immediate, can be delivered voluntarily. The energy-saving measures that underpin voluntary
targets include, amongst others, the introduction of more energy-efficient operating and maintenance practices and
investment in energy-saving technologies, such as compressed air and steam system pressure optimisation,
retrofitting pressure regulators, fitting steam traps to irons, improving ventilation control/management, insulating
presses and introducing LED lighting and servo motor drive sewing machines.
• Brand visibility is key in providing suppliers with the extra push to act on the energy-saving measures that have
been put to them. Brands should be visible throughout the programme, and the more visible they are, the better.
For example, brands should be present during the programme’s kick-off meeting, and should communicate why it
is important for suppliers to reduce their CO2 emissions. They should be present during the factory visits and in the
follow-up to encourage factories to at least implement the most attractive energy-saving measures.
• A number of energy-saving measures identified during the pilot require a more detailed assessment before they
can be implemented (the measures that contribute to the conditional energy savings target). Furthermore, scope
for additional gains in energy efficiency are bound to exist but would require further investigation. Factories often
lack the resources and framework needed to do so. It is, however, worthwhile to note that a large proportion of the
voluntary energy-savings targets stem from improvements in how plants are operated and maintained, which in
entail no or very little costs to implement (quick returns).
• Factories must have a means in place to ensure that such gains in energy performance are not lost over time, as a
result of reverting to old, inefficient and more CO2-intensive practices. An EMS provides a suitable framework but
is very much lacking in the factories visited. Outsourcing energy management, or certain elements of an EMS to a
third party, is an option worth considering in the context of garment factories in Vietnam.
• Regardless of whether an EMS is to be implemented in full by a factory or some of its elements are to be
outsourced to a third party, there is a pressing need for EMS demonstration projects in this textile subsector. Such
demonstration projects should illustrate how these systems can deliver reductions in energy, cost and CO2
emissions with very attractive returns and sustain the gains in performance that are achieved over time. Making a
compelling business case to upper management in this type of factory will otherwise prove very challenging, time-
consuming and may deter many suppliers from introducing these systems into their factories.
• The business case for introducing formal M&R systems has also proven effective. Suppliers’ factory responses to
the M&R plans and the GHG calculation tool presented have been very positive. Brands have a very important role
to play here as well in ensuring that such M&R plans are implemented and GHG emissions reported to them. As a
result of the pilot, the factories now have the means to implement M&R plans and GHG reporting.
32. Promotion of multi-stakeholder projects for sustainable textile supply chains
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH
Registered offices Bonn and Eschborn, Germany
+49 228 44600