Recycled Cotton is 81.50% less GHG intensive than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

Recycled Cotton – GRS uses 70% less fossil fuel resources than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

The inherent production practices of mechanically recycled cotton reduce GHG emissions relating to farm level. In addition, GRS requires producers to demonstrate emission and environmental management plans at production sites addressing overall GHG emissions relating to energy use and emissions to air.

The inherent production practices of mechanically recycled cotton reduce GHG emissions relating to material sourcing. However, emissions are still commonly created during the production due to collection, processing, and shipping. GRS does, however, require producers to monitor energy use at production level, meeting legal requirements, record keeping, and reviewing annually to set meaningful targets.

As a recycled cotton, significant climate impact is reduced at the material sourcing level. In addition, GRS requires producers to demonstrate environmental management as a prioritized outcome at the production level, demonstrating ambition to set emission-related targets and improvements.

The inherent production practices of mechanically recycled cotton reduce the overall impact to climate at material sourcing. In addition, GRS requires producers to adopt lower carbon practices for climate mitigation through setting and meeting targets for meaningful improvements in energy use and emissions.

The inherent production practices of mechanically recycled cotton reduce the overall impact to climate at material sourcing. In addition, GRS requires producers to safeguard against fire through safe buildings and equipment, including residential facilities where provided.

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Recycled Cotton – GRS is 99.72% less prone to causing Water Scarcity than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

Recycled Cotton – GRS uses 99.72% less water than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

Recycled Cotton – GRS’s Eutrophication Potential is equal to Cotton Made in Africa’s Eutrophication Potential and is therefore used as a baseline.

Water related risks in mechanically recycled cotton are significantly low due to the little water used and wasted in recycling. In addition, GRS requires producers to comply with relevant legislation relating to water use and wastewater, demonstrate water management practices, and conduct annual reviews on and offsite.

Water use for mechanically recycled cotton is significantly lower than conventional. In addition, GRS requires producers to demonstrate water monitoring practices, measuring and recording outputs, and set meaningful improvements that are reviewed annually.

Wastewater or effluent for mechanically recycled cotton is low. Generally recycled cotton is mechanically recycled and uses low amounts of water, but some chemicals may remain from the original inputs. Therefore, it is important to ensure harmful and restricted substances are not found in the recycled product. In addition, GRS requires producers to demonstrate water monitoring practices through record keeping, permits, drainage, wastewater identification and management, on and off site.

As a recycled cotton, significant water impact is reduced at the farm level. In addition, GRS requires producers to set water use as a prioritized outcome, setting meaningful targets which are reviewed targets for improvements.

As a recycled cotton, significant water impact is reduced at the farm level. In addition, GRS requires producers to set water disposal as a prioritized outcome, identifying and treating waste water, conducting tests and up-to-date compliance.

There is no evidence that GRS producers are required to outline a water source consumption list. Therefore, coverage cannot be defined.

There is no evidence that GRS producers are required to outline a comprehensive water strategy for water contamination. Therefore, coverage cannot be defined.

GRS requires producers to input a recycled feedstock. In addition, cotton and recycled cotton is a biobased feedstock and does not require oil and gas extraction. As such, surface and groundwater risks do not exist. GRS do not, however, require producers to utilize renewable energy sources, therefore some risk remains.

Recycled Cotton – GRS is deemed to score 66.67% better than Conventional Cotton in relation to Chemistry when using data from the Higg MSI

Generally, mechanically recycled cotton poses less risks than conventional cotton due to its inherent production practices. Any toxic substances often exist from the original inputs, meaning that it is important to ensure harmful and restricted substances are not found in the recycled product. In addition, GRS requires producers to demonstrate a chemical management system with accurate lists and data sheets, and annual reviews.

Generally, mechanically recycled cotton poses less risks than conventional cotton due to its inherent production practices. In addition, GRS producers are required to implement chemical management practices at the production site to minimize risk. The program includes best practice criteria on the labelling and storing and separation of chemicals, cleaning and disposal and PPE and training.

Generally, mechanically recycled cotton poses less risks than conventional cotton due to its inherent production practices. In addition, GRS requires producers to monitor and meet legal requirements related to chemical management. This also includes restrictions of chemical substances and alignment to the ZDHC Manufacturing Restricted Substance List.

For recycled cotton, chemical impact is significantly reduced at the farm level. In addition, GRS requires producers to demonstrate continuous improvement methods with ongoing reviews of chemical restriction lists and annual progress reviews, demonstrating chemical strategy as a priortized outcome.

Generally, mechanically recycled cotton poses less risks than conventional cotton due to its inherent production practices. GRS producers are required to prioritize chemical discharge into air and water. They are also required to ensure sludge receives proper treatment and disposal and that the Restricted Substance List is followed for input and output chemicals.

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Mechanically recycled cotton utilizes pre and post-consumer feedstock, reducing feedstock that would otherwise be sent to landfill or incineration. In addition, GRS requires producers to set meaningful reductions in waste production, improvements in waste management, and review progress annually.

Mechanically recycled cotton utilizes pre and post-consumer feedstock, reducing feedstock that would otherwise be sent to landfill or incineration. In addition, GRS requires producers to monitor and take actions to reuse and recycle waste streams.

GRS requires producers to input recycled feedstock for production. Mechanically recycled cotton is sourced from pre and post-consumer waste.

The inherent production practices of mechanically recycled cotton reduce human health and safety at farm level. During production, little to no chemicals are used to wash the recovered materials; the only substances may be present from previous material inputs. While risks are minimal, GRS also requires producers to follow health and safety principles, provide safe workplaces, record a safety data sheet, and mandate PPE along with training and onsite first aid.

GRS certifications are voluntary and sold at a premium price to producers, aimed to set requirements for third-party certification of Recycled Content, chain of custody, social and environmental practices, and chemical restrictions. There is no evidence of requirements to encourage premium selling costs, diversify crops or increase farmer income.

The inherent production practices of mechanically recycled cotton reduce risks associated with virgin cotton at farm level. GRS requires producers to comply with local and national labor and employment law and is protected by strong social responsibility policy.

Program is not applicable at farm-level. At initial processing, program has health & safety requirements.

Program is not applicable at farm-level. At initial processing, program has labor rights requirements.

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: upholding legal and customary rights of tenure, respecting the rights, customs and culture of indigenous peoples, engaging with stakeholders and document measures taken to resolve disputes, identifying legal and customary rights of tenure.

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: engaging in dialogue with neighboring communities and individuals, minimizing and mitigating negative impacts from operations on communities and individuals, providing local employment opportunities, producers engaging in welfare programs where relevant to the social context, monitoring impacts on the local economy and adapting management as necessary.

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing potential impacts on communities and individuals, including food security and water availability, prior to any significant intensification/expansion, assessing and maintain High Conservation Values category 5 (basic necessities for local communities).

Program meets CAT indicators on: core normative documents are publicly available, ISEAL membership, resourced secretariat with contact details publicly available, membership organization, names and affiliation of members are publicly available, the highest decision-making forum ensures that no single interest group can dominate governance (economic, social or environmental), changes to core normative documents require voting.

Program meets CAT indicators on: assessing social and environmental impacts, workers’ conditions/rights, community relations, environment, and biodiversity; taking into account the ISEAL Impact Code, draft programs are subject to multiple rounds of public consultation, publicly available program documents, having auditable indicators, revisions at least every 5 years.

Program meets CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: CB’s proactively consult with affected stakeholders during any audit, complaints procedures have clear deadlines.

Program meets CAT indicators on: accreditation organization verifies that certification bodies engage effectively with stakeholders, accreditation organization conducts risk-based auditing and surveillance of certification bodies. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: certification bodies are accredited by an ISEAL member accreditation organization, summaries of accreditation assessments of certification bodies are publicly available.

Program meets CAT indicators on: procedures to monitor custody and trade of materials from certified producers, certification bodies (CBs) survey certificate holders’ chain of custody procedures, CBs survey use of claims, trademarks and labels on and off products, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on claimed/labelled products do not contain any materials from areas where HCVs (1-6) are threatened.

EU Organic + GOTS + Fairtrade cotton is 48.31% less GHG intensive than Conventional Cotton using data from the Higg MSI.

EU Organic + GOTS + Fairtrade cotton uses 52.65% less fossil fuel resources than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

EU Organic and Fairtrade require producers to demonstrate management plans for GHG emissions and to review them on a development basis.

EU Organic and Fairtrade require producers to monitor the emissions of owned and controlled sources.

EU Organic and Fairtrade require producers to prioritize GHG emissions reductions and the responsible use of energy.

EU Organic and Fairtrade require producers to restrict the use of synthetic chemistry and replace non-renewable energy sources where possible.

EU Organic and Fairtrade require producers to develop multiple climate adaptation techniques such as practices to promote soil health, the implementation of rainwater storage, and recycling.

EU Organic and Fairtrade require producers to protect and enhance soils, though no mention of peat soils as a priority or outlined consideration is present in either certification.

EU Organic and Fairtrade require producers to protect and enhance soils, though no mention of above-ground carbon stocks as a priority or outlined consideration is present in either certification.

EU Organic and Fairtrade require producers to demonstrate that they have qualitative evidence on soil carbon sequestration.

EU Organic + GOTS + Fairtrade cotton production is 91.12% less prone to causing water scarcity than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

EU Organic + GOTS + Fairtrade cotton production uses 90.91% less water than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

EU Organic + GOTS + Fairtrade cotton production is deemed to score 75% better than Conventional Cotton in relation to Eutrophication Potential when using data from the Higg MSI.

Fairtrade producers are supported in developing a regional-level water management plan that focuses on continual improvement of water use in production. This plan is audited every three years and is responsive to the changes suggested in this audit. Additionally, GOTS producers are required to develop plans that identify water use and quality, as well as ways to improve on these figures.

Fairtrade requires producers to monitor the pressures and state of water withdrawal by identifying water sources for irrigation and measuring how much water is used for production. Training members on monitoring practices specifically in regard to the state of water use in the production unit takes place gradually, and like the management plan, is assessed every three years. At the gin level, GOTS production requires regular consumption monitoring at the state and pressure levels.

Fairtrade supports producers to monitor the quality of water used for irrigation and drinking on the production unit over time with producer-developed water monitoring plans that promote baseline knowledge of monitoring techniques. In addition, GOTS production requires regular water contamination/quality monitoring at the state and pressure levels.

No evidence is provided in either Fairtrade or EU organic for prioritizing water resources in regard to consumption. However, GOTS production requires producers to continually improve in regard to water use efficiency.

Water quality for irrigation and drinking is named a priority outcome under the Fairtrade certification. In addition, GOTS requires producers to continually improve in regard to water quality/contamination.

No evidence is provided in either Fairtrade or EU organic for prioritizing water resources in regard to consumption.

Fairtrade specifies groundwater and surface water as prominent water sources to avoid contamination.

Producers who are certified in both EU organic and Fairtrade cotton production are shown to source completely bio-based feedstocks and restrict the use of synthetic chemicals.

EU Organic + GOTS + Fairtrade cotton production scores 66.67% better than Conventional Cotton in relation to Chemistry when using data from the Higg MSI.

Fairtrade and EU Organic producers are shown to incorporate restricted chemistry lists and verification of implementation takes place every year. GOTS requirements add in assurances of site-attuned chemical management plans that are reviewed annually.

Fairtrade requires producers to maintain best practices in chemical management, from labeling and storage to PPE and training, to cleaning and proper disposal. At the gin level, GOTS builds on this in requirements to provide PPE and training, labeling, handling, and disposal procedures.

As EU Organic prohibits the use of synthetic and harmful chemicals/additives in cotton production, the risks of not monitoring for chemical-related impacts becomes greatly reduced.

Combined with prohibiting the use of synthetic and/or harmful chemicals and inputs, EU Organic also highlights that production should contribute to a non-toxic society.

Fairtrade names air and water discharge a priority outcome. It also mandates producers to follow a restricted chemistry list. GOTS production builds on these restrictions in limits to chemical discharge into water and discharge of sludge during production.

Fairtrade requires producers to implement procedures to identify, mitigate and prevent degradations to soil health through erosion. This risk assessment is repeated a minimum of every three years

EU Organic requires the state and pressure monitoring for the quality of soil to ensure that requirements of maintaining and enhancement of soil quality are met.

EU Organic production requires the continual improvement of soil health outcomes such as soil organic matter and fertility.

EU Organic highlights many priority soil health outcomes, including nutrient and carbon cycling, soil microbial activity and structure as well as chemical content.

EU Organic requires the use of beneficial soil practices to increase soil quality long-term. These practices include crop rotations, organic amendments and residues, and minimal tillage.

Producers certified in both EU organic and Fairtrade cotton production demonstrate a land management plan that is regionally specific, site-attuned, and adaptive to regular review.

EU Organic and Fairtrade producers take measures to ensure no deforestation and can even benefit from a pilot project that uses satellite imaging to protect against deforestation around the management unit.

EU Organic and Fairtrade producers take measures to ensure enhanced land conversion protections and can even benefit from a pilot project that uses satellite imaging to protect against land conversion around the management unit.

Land-use health is named a priority outcome in EU Organic and Fairtrade production through the continual improvement of carbon storage ecosystems.

Fairtrade supports producers in developing a plan to protect and enhance key biodiversity features such as water bodies, high conservation value areas, and buffer zones. Fairtrade highlights communicating this plan and biodiversity awareness to all levels of the production unit.

Producers certified in both EU Organic + Fairtrade production of cotton demonstrate that biodiversity monitoring takes place in the form of identification of pests and weeds that would negatively contribute to biodiversity in the production unit.

Producers certified in both EU Organic + Fairtrade production of cotton demonstrate the maintenance and preservation of biodiversity as a priority objective.

EU Organic + Fairtrade producers are to respect habitat corridors where present in the production unit.

There is no evidence that EU Organic or Fairtrade producers are required to set aside a percentage of the production land for naturalization.

EU organic agriculture maintains natural crossing borders, the populations of native species through harvesting plans, and restricts many synthetic chemical inputs

EU Organic + Fairtrade producers demonstrate actions to prevent introduction through Fairtrade requirements on specific steps for dealing with invasive species; action to prevent their introduction, build up, and resistance in the production unit.

The main risks associated with waste are linked to improper management of chemicals, waste, and waste byproducts as well as fertilizer and pesticide application at the farm level. However, EU organic cotton requires waste produced in cotton growing to be reused as inputs for later production. In this way, risks of unorganized and growing waste streams during production are mitigated.

EU organic cotton requires the use of on-field waste and by-products to be returned to the field as organic amendments/inputs.

EU organic cotton production requires the feedstock to be completely bio-based and therefore, renewable.

Cotton has many human health risks associated with production, including exposure to toxic/hazardous chemicals, inadequate PPE provided, and more. However, being an organic system, EU organic cotton is inherently lower risk to human health safety due to the restriction of synthetic inputs/additives. Additionally, Fairtrade requires all chemicals to be listed on Material Safety Data Sheets that align with international standards. Fairtrade also requires an appropriately well-supplied first-aid station with a sufficient number of trained employees at all times. GOTS production adds assurances of PPE and training being provided, as well as further chemical input restrictions and adequate first-aid.

Fairtrade encourages producers to practice crop diversification as a source of revenue in the face of changing climates. The program also requires that a premium be paid for Fairtrade cotton and that portions of that premium go back to the workers. There is no evidence that certifications are sold at a premium price, association or member/coop incentives are provided, extension services and training surrounding finance are provided, that the program increases farmer income through enabling reduced input cost, or that support is given to producers through agricultural crop strategies to address risks at scale for the farm level. At the gin-level, GOTS requires the right to collective bargaining.

Indicator not applicable

At farm-level, program meets CAT indicators on: identifying and mitigating health and safety risks, documenting all procedures in relation to chemicals, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: workers are equipped, instructed and trained for tasks, including safe use of and chemical handling, addressing grievances and providing compensation for occupational injuries. At initial processing, program have health & safety requirements.

At farm-level, program meet CAT indicators on: banning forced labor, banning child labor, banning workplace discrimination, punishment, abuse, harassment or intimidation, respecting workers’ freedom of association and right to collective bargaining, respecting core ILO rights of workers. Program does not meet CAT indicators on addressing grievances and compensating for injuries. At initial processing, program has labor rights requirements.

Program meets CAT indicators on: respecting the rights, customs and culture of indigenous peoples, engaging with stakeholders and document measures taken to resolve disputes. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: upholding legal and customary rights of tenure, identifying legal and customary rights of tenure.

Program meets CAT indicators on minimizing and mitigating negative impacts from operations on communities and individuals. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: engaging in dialogue with neighboring communities and individuals, providing local employment opportunities, producers engaging in welfare programs where relevant to the social context, monitoring impacts on the local economy and adapting management as necessary.

Program meets CAT indicators on: assessing and maintain High Conservation Values category 5 (basic necessities for local communities), cultivating a mix of genotypes of each main crop, ensure access to safe drinking water, adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene (WASH). Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing potential impacts on communities and individuals, including food security and water availability, prior to any significant intensification/expansion.

Program meets CAT indicators on: core normative documents are publicly available, ISEAL membership, resourced secretariat with contact details publicly available, names and affiliation of members are publicly available, changes to core normative documents requires voting. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: membership organization, the highest decision-making forum ensures that no single interest group can dominate governance (economic, social or environmental).

Program meets CAT indicators on: taking into account the ISEAL Impact Code, publicly available program documents, having auditable indicators, revisions at least every 5 years. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing social and environmental impacts, workers’ conditions/rights, community relations, environment, and biodiversity; draft programs are subject to multiple rounds of public consultation.

Program meets CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination, complaints procedures have clear deadlines, etc. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: CB’s proactively consult with affected stakeholders during any audit.

Program meets CAT indicators on: certification bodies are accredited by an ISEAL member accreditation organization, accreditation organization verifies that certification bodies engage effectively with stakeholders, accreditation organization conducts risk-based auditing and surveillance of certification bodies, summaries of accreditation assessments of certification bodies are publicly available.

Program meets CAT indicators on: procedures to monitor custody and trade of materials from certified producers, certification bodies (CBs) survey certificate holders’ chain of custody procedures, CBs survey use of claims, trademarks and labels on and off products, claimed/labelled products do not contain any materials from areas where HCVs (1-6) are threatened.

Organic Cotton – GOTS is 48.31% less GHG intensive than Conventional Cotton using data from the Higg MSI.

Organic Cotton – GOTS uses 52.65% less fossil fuel resources than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

EU Organic Legislation states that organic production should focus on adaptation to diverse climate conditions and contribute to the protection of the environment and climate. Specific methods and outcomes/thresholds for these requirements are not outlined in the legislation. However, as part of the Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS), producers are required to know about their emissions and goals to minimize them.

There is no evidence to support farm-level emission monitoring being a requirement for EU agricultural production. The Global Organic Textile Standard does require producers to monitor their scope I emissions.

EU Organic highlights responsible energy-use as a guiding principle of organic agricultural production. GOTS production criteria state that improvements on energy-use and emissions are to be identified and measured against.

EU Organic agricultural production requires climate change mitigation practices and outcomes in the form of beneficial soil health practices to prevent soil degradation and erosion. EU Organic also restricts synthetic chemistry use to mitigate effects of climate change.

EU Organic agricultural production supports climate resilience through the implementation of soil enhancing practices.

EU Organic legislation requires the maintenance and enhancement of soil quality through such actions as combating the loss of soil organic matter, but does not outline peat soils as a priority in soil protection.

EU Organic legislation requires the maintenance and enhancement of soil quality through such actions as combating the loss of soil organic matter, but does not outline above-ground carbon stocks as a priority in soil protection.

Maintaining and enhancing soil stability and fertility among others is a requirement in EU Organic agriculture. Verifying that soil fertility and stability had been maintained serves as proxy measurements for the soils’ ability to sequester carbon.

Organic Cotton – GOTS is 91.12% less prone to causing water scarcity than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

Organic Cotton – GOTS uses 90.91% less water than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

Organic Cotton – GOTS cotton is deemed to be 75% lower than Conventional Cotton in regard to EutrophicationPotential using data from the Higg MSI.

Organic agriculture results in a lower-risk fiber regarding water risks – prohibits synthetic chemistry, and crops are primarily rainfed. In fulfilling the requirement to not exploit water resources and quality, EU Organic producers must be aware of water use principles and maintain water health values. Additionally, GOTS producers are required to develop plans that identify water use and quality, as well as ways to improve on these figures.

Organic production requires the responsible use of natural resources – though no methods or outcomes are explicitly stated in the legislation. However, GOTS production requires regular consumption monitoring at the state and pressure levels.

EU Organic requires producers to minimize any contribution to the contamination of the environment – though specific parts of the environment and ways to avoid contamination to them are not named. In addition, GOTS production requires regular water contamination/quality monitoring at the state and pressure levels.

EU Organic highlights water use and withdrawal as a priority objective in organic agricultural production. In addition, GOTS production requires producers to continually improve in regard to water-use efficiency.

EU Organic requires that water quality be preserved on agricultural production units. In addition, GOTS production requires producers to continually improve in regard to water quality/contamination.

EU Organic highlights water use and withdrawal as a priority objective in organic agricultural production.

There is no evidence that EU Organic outlines specific water resources, such as surface or groundwater, in the avoidance of water contamination on agricultural production.

Organic cotton is a 100% bio-based feedstock. As an organic material, the use of synthetic fertilizer is restricted.

Organic Cotton – GOTS is deemed to score 66.67% better than Conventional Cotton in regard to Chemistry when using data from the Higg MSI.

EU Organic shows chemical management procedures in the form of restricting harmful and synthetic external inputs and with the guiding objective of substantially contributing to a non-toxic society. GOTS requirements add in assurances of site-attuned chemical management plans that are reviewed annually.

EU Organic prohibits the use and storage of synthetic chemicals on the production site. GOTS builds on this in requirements to provide PPE and training, labelling, handling and disposal procedures.

As EU Organic prohibits the use of synthetic and harmful chemicals/additives in cotton production, the need to monitor for chemical-related impacts becomes reduced. At the gin level, GOTS requirements of the state of chemical use monitoring are in place.

Combined with prohibiting the use of synthetic and/or harmful chemicals and inputs, EU Organic also highlights that agricultural production should contribute to a non-toxic society. At the gin level, GOTS specifies thresholds of chemical discharge to not exceed at a minimum and improve on over time.

EU Organic production demonstrates comprehensiveness in the restriction of non-organic fertilizers and chemicals. GOTS production builds on this restriction with limits to chemical discharge into water and discharge of sludge during production.

At the farm level, EU Organic outlines that soil quality and maintenance are primary objectives for organic cotton production. Whereas at the gin level, GOTS doesn’t specify soil health requirements or management procedures.

EU Organic requires state and pressure monitoring for the quality of soil to ensure that requirements for maintaining and enhancing soil quality are met. Considerations for soil health and monitoring at the gin level are not present in GOTS certification.

EU Organic production requires the continual improvement of soil health outcomes such as soil organic matter and fertility. Considerations for soil health at the gin level are not present in GOTS certification.

EU Organic highlights many priority soil health outcomes, including nutrient and carbon cycling, soil microbial activity and structure as well as chemical content. Considerations for soil health at the gin level are not present in GOTS certification.

EU Organic requires the use of beneficial soil practices to increase the soil quality long-term. These practices include crop rotations, organic amendments and residues, and minimal tillage.

Common elements of land management in EU Organic agricultural production are: the avoidance of practices that cause land degradation and a systems-based approach to land management. Being an organic program, producers must be able to prove that their land and its management meet organic requirements for at least three years prior to certification.

While the preservation of natural landscape elements such as forests is required in EU Organic production, specific preventative and restorative actions as well as deforestation cut-off dates are not shown to be required in EU Organic, or GOTS certifications.

While the preservation of natural landscape elements such as forests is required in EU Organic production, specific preventative and restorative actions as well as deforestation cut-off dates are not shown to be required in EU Organic, or GOTS certifications.

EU Organic producers must maintain and enhance soils and landscapes.

Biodiversity management is a priority objective of organic cotton production in the EU. Producers are required to be aware of biodiversity values on the production unit. Though this is not reflected in the criteria under GOTS at the gin level.

Under EU Organic production, biodiversity monitoring takes place in the form of the identification of pests and weeds that would negatively contribute to biodiversity on the production unit. Though this is not reflected in the criteria under GOTS certification at the gin level.

The maintenance and preservation of biodiversity is a priority objective of organic agriculture in the EU – though this is not reflected in the criteria under GOTS at the gin level.

EU Organic producers are to respect habitat corridors where present. However, no practices contributing to ecosystem diversity are required in GOTS certifications at the gin level.

There is no evidence that EU Organic, Fairtrade or GOTS producers are required to set aside a percentage of the production land for naturalization.

EU Organic agriculture maintains natural crossing borders, the populations of native species through harvesting plans, and restricts many synthetic chemical inputs. However, no genetic diversity criteria are present under GOTS certification at the gin level.

EU Organic outlines processes for the identification of pests and invasive species through monitoring – whether intervention is taken is dependent on monitoring results. Additionally, physical removal techniques and those that prioritize the health of native species are preferred. However, no genetic diversity criteria are present under GOTS certification at the gin level.

The main risks associated with waste are linked to the improper management of chemicals, waste, and waste byproducts as well as fertilizer and pesticide application at the farm level. However, EU Organic cotton requires waste produced in cotton growing to be reused as inputs for later production. In this way, risks of waste streams during production growing are mitigated.

EU Organic cotton requires the use of on-field waste and by-products to be returned to the field as organic amendments/inputs.

EU Organic + GOTS cotton production requires the feedstock to be completely bio-based and therefore, 100% renewable.

Being an organic system, EU Organic cotton is inherently lower risk to human health safety due to the restriction of synthetic inputs/additives. GOTS production adds assurances of PPE and training being provided, as well as further chemical input restrictions and adequate first-aid.

There is no evidence that EU Organic certifications are sold at a premium price, association or member/coop incentives are provided, extension services and training surrounding finance are provided, that the program increases farmer income through enabling reduced input cost, or that support is given to producers through agricultural crop strategies to address risks at scale for the farm level. At the gin level, GOTS requires the right to collective bargaining.

Indicator not applicable

At farm-level, program meets CAT indicators on documenting all procedures in relation to chemicals. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: identifying and mitigating health and safety risks, workers are equipped, instructed and trained for tasks, including safe use of and chemical handling, addressing grievances and providing compensation for occupational injuries. At initial processing, program has health & safety requirements.

At farm-level, program does not meet CAT indicators on: banning forced labor, banning child labor, banning workplace discrimination, punishment, abuse, harassment or intimidation, respecting workers’ freedom of association and right to collective bargaining, respecting core ILO rights of workers, addressing grievances and compensating for injuries. At initial processing, program has labor rights requirements.

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: upholding legal and customary rights of tenure, respecting the rights, customs and culture of indigenous peoples, engaging with stakeholders and document measures taken to resolve disputes, identifying legal and customary rights of tenure.

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: engaging in dialogue with neighboring communities and individuals, minimizing and mitigating negative impacts from operations on communities and individuals, providing local employment opportunities, producers engaging in welfare programs where relevant to the social context, monitoring impacts on the local economy and adapting management as necessary.

Program meets CAT indicators on: cultivating a mix of genotypes of each main crop. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing potential impacts on communities and individuals, including food security and water availability, prior to any significant intensification/expansion, assessing and maintain High Conservation Values category 5 (basic necessities for local communities), ensure access to safe drinking water, adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene (WASH).

Program meets CAT indicators on: cultivating a mix of genotypes of each main crop, etc. Standard does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing potential impacts on communities and individuals, including food security and water availability, prior to any significant intensification/expansion, assessing and maintain High Conservation Values category 5 (basic necessities for local communities), ensure access to safe drinking water, adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene (WASH).

Program meets CAT indicators on: publicly available standard documents, having auditable indicators, revisions at least every 5 years. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing social and environmental impacts, workers’ conditions/rights, community relations, environment, and biodiversity; taking into account the ISEAL Impact Code, draft programs are subject to multiple rounds of public consultation.

Program meets CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: CB’s proactively consult with affected stakeholders during any audit, complaints procedures have clear deadlines.

Program meets CAT indicators on: certification bodies are accredited by an ISEAL member accreditation organization, accreditation organization verifies that certification bodies engage effectively with stakeholders. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: accreditation organization conducts risk-based auditing and surveillance of certification bodies, summaries of accreditation assessments of certification bodies are publicly available.

Program meets CAT indicators on: procedures to monitor custody and trade of materials from certified producers, certification bodies (CBs) survey certificate holders’ chain of custody procedures, CBs survey use of claims, trademarks and labels on and off products. Program does not meet CAT indicators on claimed/labelled products do not contain any materials from areas where HCVs (1-6) are threatened.

Cotton Made In Africa is 34.86% less GHG intensive than Conventional Cotton using data from the Higg MSI.

Cotton Made In Africa uses 38.80% less fossil fuel resources than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

CMiA requires producers to conduct an environmental assessment. While emission management is not required, fuel and land use is required in the environmental assessments.

CMiA requires producers to implement a management plan. The corresponding monitoring process is reviewed annually – verified by a 3rd-party. The results are also used for remediation actions by the managing unit. The scope of the environmental assessment only extends to scope I emissions.

CMiA requires producers to carry out verification to record measures taken by managing entities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

CMiA recognizes that the changing climate will affect agricultural production and trains farmers on practices to reduce the impact of climate change: soil health practices, soil monitoring and climate resiliency training for cotton production.

CMiA recognizes that the changing climate will affect agricultural production and trains farmers on practices to support against extreme weather events through: soil health practices, and rainfall storage.

CMiA requires managing entities to map and identify HCV areas in and around production zones. The monitoring is for HCV’s 1-6, meaning below-ground carbon stocks qualify as they are a focal point of HCV II and III: Landscape-level ecosystem mosaics and Ecosystems and Habitats (respectively).

CMiA requires managing entities to map and identify HCV areas in and around production zones. The monitoring is for HCV’s 1-6, meaning above-ground carbon stocks qualify as they are the focal point of HCV II and III: Landscape-level ecosystem mosaics and Ecosystems and Habitats (respectively).

Evidence for soil carbon is most likely to be presented in the form of proxy measurements such as: soil structure and fertility as outlined in the components of a soil health management plan.

Cotton Made In Africa production is 99.97% less prone to ca water scarcity than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

Cotton Made In Africa uses 99.97% less water than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

Cotton Made In Africa’s eutrophication potential is the highest and therefore is the baseline that other programs are measured against.

CMiA requires a water stewardship plan that is time-bound, and must have site-specific considerations such as the mapping and identification of production zone water resources.

CMiA mandates the monitoring of water pressure through identifying water resources in production zones and prohibiting the extraction of surface or groundwater for production.

CMiA mandates the monitoring of water pressure through identifying water resources in production zones and prohibiting the extraction of surface or groundwater for production.

No use of surface or groundwater in production is mandated by CMiA in order to reduce water pressures associated with withdrawing from critical water resources.

Water quality is named as a prioritized outcome in the CMiA certification. The program provides documents and training on the importance of water quality in cotton production.

Surface and ground water use is a prioritized outcome in the CMiA certification.

Water quality is a prioritized outcome in the CMiA certification – with a particular focus on maintaining surface and ground water quality despite the use of chemicals/pesticides.

As a bio-based feedstock, cotton doesn’t run risks of oil and gas extraction, though as no commitments to renewable enrgy are made in CMiA, risks of extraction contaminating water still exist.

Cotton Made In Africa production is shown to be 33.33% better than Conventional Cotton in regard to Chemistry when using data from the Higg MSI.

CMiA takes steps towards an explicit chemical management plan with its required implementation of Integrated Production and Pest Management plans (IPPMs). The IPPM takes site-specific factors such as pesticide and application technique needed into account. CMiA IPPMs are reviewed for conformance annually.

CMiA provides best practice information and/or training on chemical management for all practices except separation.

CMiA requires managing enitities to monitor the sources of the chemicals used in prodcution, representative of measuring the state of chemical use. CMiA also requires producers to follow a widely-accepted chemical ban list such as the Stockhom, Rotterdam and Montreal Conventions.

CMiA requires managing entities to implement an Integrated Production and Pest Management plan (IPPM) to grow a healthy crop without the impacts of negligent chemical use. The IPPM aims to continually reduce such impacts through monitoring of pests, chemicals used and optimizing processes based on results.

CMiA employs input chemical bans and prioritizes avoidance of water quality detriment through training in chemical application, with discharge into water as a focus point.

CMiA requires a soil health management plan that is time-bound and must have site-specific considerations such as the mapping and identification of production zone water resources.

CMiA producers are required to monitor soil for outlined soil health outcomes: structure, nutrient cycling and water retention.

Soil health is named as a prioritized outcome under the CMiA certification. Continuous improvement on soil fertility, structure and water retention are required for managing entities.

Soil nutrient health is outlined as a priority, measured with soil fertility testing. Additionally, soil structure is a prioritized outcome with soil erosion as the corresponding metric.

CMiA requires managing entities to improve soil health through all of the outlined soil health practices: Crop Rotation, cover cropping and using organic amendments for the soil.

CMiA requires managing entities to identify and map ciritcal land features on/around production zones. It puts in place remediation and restoration actions, and is reviewed by 3rd-party for verification every 1-2 years.

CMiA follows national legislation for actions on land use and doesn’t allow producers to grow cotton on land that is not intended for agricultural use. However, no frameworks for deforestation or land conversion cut-off dates are supplied or mandated.

CMiA follows national legislation for actions on land use and doesn’t allow producers to grow cotton on land that is not intended for agricultural use. However, no frameworks for deforestation or land conversion cut-off dates are supplied or mandated.

CMiA follows national legislation for actions on land use and doesn’t allow producers to grow cotton on land that is not intended for agricultural use. However, no frameworks for deforestation or land conversion cut-off dates are supplied or mandated and as such, land health is not named as a prioritized outcome.

CMiA requires a biodiversity management plan that is time-bound and must have site-specific considerations such as the mapping and identification of production zone High Conservation Values and enhancing buffer and riparian zones.

CMiA requires managing entities to identify and map HCV areas on and near the production zone, where HCVs are found, and biodiversity figures for those areas must be maintained.

The program outlines key biodiversity outcomes in the statement of the management plan; the continued identification, protection, and restoration (if necessary) of HCV, riparian and buffer zones are required. Additionally, biodiversity values in HCVs must be maintained in the face of production.

CMiA outlines key areas for managing entities to protect and maintain or restore if degraded: habitat corridors, buffer and riparian zones.

As CMiA is made up of around 95% smallholder farmers, (below 20 hectares, no year-round workers etc.) set-asides in the production unit are not relevant or required.

CMiA mandates species and genetic diversity protections in the form of restoring habitat corridors/migration pathways, restricting the use of chemicals in pest control, and identifying threatened or endangered species in the production zone.

CMiA uses biological controls to prevent the spread and build-up of pests/invasive species in the production zone.

Waste management plans are categorized as continuous improvement criteria in the CMiA program – meaning non-conformance doesn’t disqualify from certification. It does require identifying waste streams and actions to reduce and reuse waste on a site-specific level, however, there isn’t evidence that supports precision planning and production taking place. Documentation of waste reduction actions is supported, though not tied to management responses or specified waste reduction goals.

Waste at the field level for cotton production is minimal, and many by-products such as the seed are reused in a variety of ways. For CMiA, waste is required to be separated and disposed of according to local requirements.

Cotton is a perennial plant and a renewable feedstock.

Cotton has many human health risks associated with production, including exposure to toxic/hazardous chemicals, inadequate PPE provided, and more. However, CMiA provides PPE and relevant training to workers. Additionally, hazardous inputs are labeled and impacts are documented and compiled. CMiA offers on-site first-aid and training through the managing entity but doesn’t have a restriction on synthetic input use. These address some risks at scale for cotton at the farm level.

CMiA provides basic business and finance training, helping producers come up with a business plan. The Managing Entity also pays the premium for certified seed cotton and provides inputs at or less than the market rate. CMiA requires Managing Entities to provide training on best agricultural practices and storage techniques to maintain products at high quality and to avoid losses.

Indicator not applicable

At farm-level, program meets CAT indicators on: identifying and mitigating health and safety risks, workers are equipped, instructed and trained for tasks, including safe use of and chemical handling, addressing grievances and providing compensation for occupational injuries, documenting all procedures in relation to chemicals. At initial processing, program has health & safety requirements.

At farm-level, program meets CAT indicators on: banning forced labor, banning child labor, banning workplace discrimination, punishment, abuse, harassment or intimidation, respecting workers’ freedom of association and right to collective bargaining, respecting core ILO rights of workers, addressing grievances and compensating for injuries. At initial processing, program has labor rights requirements.

Program meets CAT indicators on respecting the rights, customs and culture of indigenous peoples. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: upholding legal and customary rights of tenure, engaging with stakeholders and document measures taken to resolve disputes, identifying legal and customary rights of tenure.

Program meets CAT indicators on: engaging in dialogue with neighboring communities and individuals, minimizing and mitigating negative impacts from operations on communities and individuals. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: providing local employment opportunities, producers engaging in welfare programs where relevant to the social context, monitoring impacts on the local economy and adapting management as necessary.

Program meets CAT indicators on: ensure access to safe drinking water, adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene (WASH). Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing potential impacts on communities and individuals, including food security and water availability, prior to any significant intensification/expansion, assessing and maintain High Conservation Values category 5 (basic necessities for local communities), cultivating a mix of genotypes of each main crop.

Program meets CAT indicators on: core normative documents are publicly available, resourced secretariat with contact details publicly available, names and affiliation of members are publicly available. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: ISEAL membership, membership organization, the highest decision-making forum ensures that no single interest group can dominate governance (economic, social or environmental), changes to core normative documents require voting.

Program meets CAT indicators on: assessing social and environmental impacts, workers’ conditions/rights, community relations, environment, and biodiversity; taking into account the ISEAL Impact Code, publicly available standard documents, having auditable indicators, revisions at least every 5 years. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: draft standards are subject to multiple rounds of public consultation.

Program meets CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, CB’s proactively consult with affected stakeholders during any audit, CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts, complaints procedures have clear deadlines.

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: certification bodies are accredited by an ISEAL member accreditation organization, accreditation organization verifies that certification bodies engage effectively with stakeholders, accreditation organization conducts risk-based auditing and surveillance of certification bodies, summaries of accreditation assessments of certification bodies are publicly available.

Program meets CAT indicators on: procedures to monitor custody and trade of materials from certified producers, certification bodies (CBs) survey certificate holders’ chain of custody procedures, CBs survey use of claims, trademarks and labels on and off products. Program does not meet CAT indicators on claimed/labelled products do not contain any materials from areas where HCVs (1-6) are threatened.

Organic Cotton – OCS is 48.31% less GHG intensive than Conventional Cotton using data from the Higg MSI.

Organic Cotton – OCS uses 52.65% less fossil fuel resources than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

EU Organic Legislation states that organic production should focus on adaptation to diverse climate conditions and contribute to the protection of the environment and climate. Specific methods and outcomes/thresholds for these requirements, however, are not outlined in the legislation.

There is no evidence that emission monitoring is required to track emissions at any scope or align with any accounting methodology to address the risks present at scale for the farm level, even if individual producers have some procedures in place.

EU Organic requires producers to adhere to the guiding principles of responsible energy use for organic agricultural production.

EU Organic agricultural production requires climate change mitigation practices and outcomes in the form of beneficial soil health practices to prevent soil degradation and erosion. EU Organic also restricts synthetic chemistry use, to mitigate the effects of climate change.

EU Organic agricultural production supports climate resilience through the implementation of soil-enhancing practices.

EU Organic Legislation requires the maintenance and enhancement of soil quality through actions such as combating the loss of soil organic matter, but does not outline peat soils as a priority in soil protection.

EU Organic Legislation requires the maintenance and enhancement of soil quality through actions such as combating the loss of soil organic matter but does not outline above-ground carbon stocks as a priority in soil protection.

EU Organic requires producers to maintain and enhance soil stability and fertility. In addition, verifying that soil fertility and stability had been maintained serves as proxy measurements for the soils’ ability to sequester carbon.

Organic Cotton – OCS causes 91.12% less water scarcity than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

Organic Cotton – OCS uses 90.91% less water than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

Organic Cotton – OCS is 75% less prone to Eutrophication Potential than Conventional Cotton using data from the Higg MSI.

Organic agriculture is a lower-risk fiber regarding water risks — restrictions on synthetic chemistry are implemented, and crops are primarily rainfed. In fulfilling the requirement to not exploit water resources and quality, EU Organic producers must be aware of water use principles and maintain water health values.

EU Organic requires producers to monitor the state and pressures of water use/withdrawal in agricultural production.

EU Organic requires producers to monitor the state and pressures of the water quality used in agricultural production.

EU Organic highlights water use and withdrawal as a priority metric and further requires rainwater recycling to ensure good water use outcomes in agricultural production.

EU Organic requires that water quality be preserved on agricultural production units.

EU Organic requires that rainwater use and withdrawal be a priority metric and further stipulates a rainwater recycling system to ensure it’s responsible use in agricultural production.

There is no evidence that EU Organic outlines specific water resources, such as surface or groundwater, in the avoidance of water contamination in agricultural production.

Organic cotton is a 100% bio-based feedstock. As an organic material, the use of synthetic fertilizer is restricted.

Organic Cotton – OCS is deemed to score 66.67% better than Conventional Cotton in regard to Chemistry when using data in the Higg MSI.

EU Organic shows chemical management procedures in the form of restricting harmful and synthetic external inputs, with the guiding objective of “substantially contributing to a non-toxic society.”

EU Organic prohibits the use and storage of synthetic chemicals on agricultural production sites.

As EU Organic prohibits the use of synthetic and harmful chemicals/additives in cotton production, the need to monitor for chemical-related impacts becomes reduced.

Combined with prohibiting the use of synthetic and/or harmful chemicals and inputs, EU Organic also highlights that agricultural production should contribute to a non-toxic society.

EU Organic production demonstrates comprehensiveness in the restriction of non-organic fertilizers and chemicals.

EU Organic outlines that soil quality and maintenance are primary objectives for organic cotton production.

EU Organic requires state and pressure monitoring for the quality of soil to ensure that requirements for maintaining and enhancing soil quality are met.

EU Organic production requires the continual improvement of soil health outcomes such as soil organic matter and fertility.

EU Organic highlights many priority soil health outcomes, including nutrient and carbon cycling, soil microbial activity and structure as well as chemical content.

EU Organic requires the use of beneficial soil practices to increase soil quality long-term. These practices include crop rotations, organic amendments and residues, and minimal tillage.

Common elements of land management in EU Organic agricultural production are the avoidance of practices that cause land degradation and a systems-based approach to land management. Being an organic program, producers must be able to prove that their land and its management meet organic requirements for at least three years prior to certification.

While the preservation of natural landscape elements such as forests is required in EU Organic production, specific preventative and restorative actions are not outlined.

While the preservation of natural landscape elements is required in EU Organic production, specific preventative and restorative actions are not outlined.

EU Organic producers must maintain and enhance soils and landscapes.

Biodiversity management is a priority objective of organic cotton production in the EU. Producers are required to be aware of biodiversity values on the production unit.

Biodiversity monitoring takes place in the form of the identification of pests and weeds that would negatively contribute to biodiversity in the production unit.

The maintenance and preservation of biodiversity is a priority objective of organic agriculture in the EU.

EU Organic producers are to respect habitat corridors where present.

There is no evidence that EU organic producers are required to set aside a percentage of the production land for naturalization.

EU Organic agriculture maintains natural crossing borders, the populations of native species through harvesting plans, and restricts many synthetic chemical inputs.

EU Organic outlines processes for the identification of pests and invasive species through monitoring – whether intervention is taken is dependent on monitoring results. Additionally, physical removal techniques and those that prioritize the health of native species are preferred.

The main risks associated with waste are linked to improper management of chemicals, waste, and waste byproducts as well as fertilizer and pesticide application at the farm level. However, EU Organic cotton requires waste produced in cotton growing to be reused as inputs for later production. In this way, the risks of growing waste streams during production are mitigated.

EU Organic cotton requires the use of on-field waste and by-products to be returned to the field as organic amendments/inputs.

EU Organic cotton production requires the feedstock be completely bio-based and therefore, renewable.

Cotton has many human health risks associated with production, including exposure to toxic/hazardous chemicals, inadequate PPE provided, and more. However, being an organic system, EU Organic cotton is inherently lower risk to human health safety due to the restriction of synthetic inputs/additives. These address some risks at scale for cotton at the farm level.

There is no evidence that certifications are sold at a premium price, association or member/coop incentives are provided, extension services and training surrounding finance are provided, that the program increases farmer income through enabling reduced input cost, or that support is given to producers through agricultural crop strategies to address risks at scale for the farm level.

Indicator not applicable

At farm level, standards meet CAT indicators on documenting all procedures in relation to chemicals. Standards do not meet CAT indicators on: identifying and mitigating health and safety risks, workers are equipped, instructed and trained for tasks, including safe use of and chemical handling, addressing grievances and providing compensation for occupational injuries, etc.

At farm level, standards do not meet CAT indicators on: banning forced labor, banning child labor, banning workplace discrimination, punishment, abuse, harassment or intimidation, respecting workers’ freedom of association and right to collective bargaining, respecting core ILO rights of workers, addressing grievances and compensating for injuries, etc. At initial processing, standard does not have labor rights requirements.

Standards do not meet CAT indicators on: upholding legal and customary rights of tenure, respecting the rights, customs and culture of indigenous peoples, engaging with stakeholders and documenting measures taken to resolve disputes, identifying legal and customary rights of tenure, etc.

Standards do not meet CAT indicators on: engaging in dialogue with neighboring communities and individuals, minimizing and mitigating negative impacts from operations on communities and individuals, providing local employment opportunities, producers engaging in welfare programs where relevant to the social context, monitoring impacts on the local economy and adapting management as necessary, etc.

Standard meets CAT indicators on: cultivating a mix of genotypes of each main crop, etc. Standard does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing potential impacts on communities and individuals, including food security and water availability, prior to any significant intensification/expansion, assessing and maintain High Conservation Values category 5 (basic necessities for local communities), ensure access to safe drinking water, adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene (WASH). etc.

Standards meet CAT indicators on: core normative documents are publicly available, ISEAL membership, resourced secretariat with contact details publicly available, membership organization, names and affiliation of members are publicly available, the highest decision-making forum ensures that no single interest group can dominate governance (economic, social or environmental), changes to core normative documents requires voting, etc.

Standards meet CAT indicators on: taking into account the ISEAL Impact Code, draft standards are subject to multiple rounds of public consultation, publicly available standard documents, having auditable indicators, revisions at least every 5 years, etc. Standards do not meet CAT indicators on: assessing social and environmental impacts, workers’ conditions/rights, community relations, environment, and biodiversity; etc.

Standards meet CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination, etc. Standards do not meet CAT indicators on: CB’s proactively consulting with affected stakeholders during any audit, complaints procedures have clear deadlines, etc.

Standards meet CAT indicators on accreditation organization verifies that certification bodies engage effectively with stakeholders. Standards do not meet CAT indicators on: certification bodies are accredited by an ISEAL member accreditation organization, accreditation organization conducts risk-based auditing and surveillance of certification bodies, summaries of accreditation assessments of certification bodies are publicly available, etc.

Standards meet CAT indicators on: procedures to monitor custody and trade of materials from certified producers, certification bodies (CBs) survey certificate holders’ chain of custody procedures, CBs survey use of claims, trademarks and labels on and off products, etc. Standards do not meet CAT indicators on claimed/labelled products do not contain any materials from areas where HCVs (1-6) are threatened.

No LCA data is available in the Higg MSI for Fairtrade cotton, as such conventional proxies are used – Conventional cotton accounts for the highest Global Warming Potential among cotton LCA values.

No LCA data is available in the Higg MSI for Fairtrade cotton and therefore conventional figures are used as a proxy. Conventional scores 25% better than Cotton Made in Africa (baseline) in the likelihood of eutrophication during production.

Fairtrade certification criteria evidence a site-specific, regularly reviewed emission management plan in development criteria to identify climate risks and GHG-reducing activities.

Fairtrade encourages producers to take measures to reduce GHG emissions during production. Producers monitor scope I emissions – aligned with international standards.

Fairtrade encourages cotton producers to take measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions during production.

Fairtrade requires producers to implement climate mitigation actions through the use of energy efficiency, and replace non-renewable sources with renewables where possible.

Fairtrade promotes climate adaptation actions through development criteria on capturing rainwater and practices to improve soil health and prevent erosion.

Carbon sequestration as a more general outcome is required of Fairtrade producers. Though there is no evidence that peat soils are identified and/or protected to achieve this goal.

Carbon sequestration as a more general outcome is encouraged of Fairtrade producers. Though there is no evidence that high above-ground carbon stocks are identified and/or protected to achieve this goal.

Fairtrade requires producers to increase carbon sequestration in production. The program also requires producers to increase soil fertility and prevent erosion – both proxy measurements for soil carbon.

No LCA data is available in the Higg MSI for Fairtrade Cotton and therefore conventional figures are used as a proxy. Conventional cotton has the lowest score for Water Scarcity.

No LCA data is available in the Higg MSI for Fairtrade Cotton and therefore conventional figures are used as a proxy. Conventional cotton has the lowest score for Water Consumption.

No LCA data is available in the Higg MSI for Fairtrade cotton and therefore conventional figures are used as a proxy. Conventional scores 25% better than Cotton Made in Africa (baseline) in the likelihood of eutrophication during production.

Fairtrade producers are supported in developing a regional-level water management plan that focuses on continual improvement of water use in production. This plan is audited every three years and is responsive to the changes suggested in this audit.

Fairtrade requires producers to monitor the pressures and state of water withdrawal by identifying water sources for irrigation and measuring how much water is used for production. Training members on monitoring practices specifically in regard to the state of water use in the production unit takes place gradually, and like the management plan, is assessed every three years.

Fairtrade supports producers to monitor the quality of water used for irrigation and drinking on the production unit over time with producer-developed water monitoring plans that promote baseline knowledge of monitoring techniques.

Fairtrade supports producers in continually improving their water usage during production through non-pass-fail criteria that are assessed every three years.

Water quality for irrigation and drinking is named a priority outcome under the Fairtrade certification.

Water use efficiency and improvement are to be developed by Fairtrade producers. While producers have to list the sources they draw water from, no mention of specific water sources to accompany best water use practices is given.

Fairtrade specifies groundwater and surface water as prominent water sources to avoid contamination.

Fairtrade cotton is a 100% bio-based feedstock. While the program doesn’t mandate a certain level of renewable energy, it is required for producers to implement it where possible.

No LCA data is available in the Higg MSI for Fairtrade cotton and therefore conventional figures are used as a proxy. Conventional cotton has the lowest score for Chemistry.

Fairtrade requires producers to develop a chemical management plan as part of the certification. This plan is for the improvement of chemical use and management. It is reviewed and updated every three years.

Fairtrade requires producers to maintain best practices in chemical management; from labeling and storage to PPE and training, to cleaning and disposal.

Fairtrade implements a restricted chemistry list to address some risks at scale.

Fairtrade requires continual improvement/phasing out of harmful chemicals for safer and more sustainable alternatives.

Fairtrade names air and water discharge a priority outcome. It also mandates producers to follow a restricted chemistry list.

Fairtrade requires producers to implement procedures to identify, mitigate and prevent degradations to soil health through erosion.

Fairtrade requires the monitoring of the state of soil health in identifying soils at risk of erosion as well as the pressures to soil health in the identification of soils that have already eroded.

Fairtrade supports producers to continually improve soil health through the identification and prevention of erosion.

Fairtrade supports producers in developing specific soil health outcomes such as soil fertility, structure and carbon sequestration.

Fairtrade doesn’t require the implementation of soil health practices but does highlight several in order to reduce the impacts of pests. These practices are not required but can be implemented by Fairtrade producers.

Fairtrade requires producers to implement procedures to ensure deforestation and degradation of land do not occur. These procedures are reviewed at least every three years.

Preventative and restorative teps are taken by Fairtrade producers in regard to deforestation and land conversion. Additionally, pilot projects are being launched to incorporate satellite images of forest landscapes in production zones for visualizing land conversion/deforestation over time.

Preventative and restorative steps are taken by Fairtrade producers in regard to deforestation and land conversion. Additionally, pilot projects are being launched to incorporate satellite images of forest landscapes in production zones for visualizing land conversion/deforestation over time.

Land use health is named a priority outcome through the continual improvement of carbon storage ecosystems.

Fairtrade supports producers in developing a plan to protect and enhance key biodiversity features such as water bodies, high conservation value areas, and buffer zones. Fairtrade highlights communicating this plan and biodiversity awareness to all levels of the production unit.

Fairtrade supports producers in developing capabilities in monitoring the pressures on biodiversity health via pests and plant diseases.

Biodiversity is named as a priority in the Fairtrade certification – producers are supported in maintaining and enhancing biodiversity values. This is not a required criterion, but a development one under the Fairtrade certification and is assessed every three years on a spectrum, rather than pass/fail.

Fairtrade outlines maintaining, developing, or creating buffer zones, especially around waterbodies on the production unit. Though these criteria are not required as core criteria, producers are supported in developing these practices.

There is no evidence that Fairtrade producers are required to set aside a portion of the production unit for conservation.

Fairtrade producers demonstrate considerations for species and genetic diversity by prohibiting hunting or overcollection of endangered and native species.

Fairtrade outlines specific steps for dealing with invasive species: action to prevent their introduction, build up, and resistance in the production unit.

The main risks associated with waste are linked to improper management of chemicals, waste, and waste byproducts as well as fertilizer and pesticide application at the farm level. However, Fairtrade requires producers to be aware of waste-reducing concepts and practices. The program highlights that the burning of organic waste is prohibited unless under special circumstances.

Fairtrade encourages producers to develop a plan that is communicated to all members on using waste as a nutrient stream. Further, it only allows burning if legally required or on other exceptional occasions.

Fairtrade requires producers to acquire non-GMO seeds, which are renewable feedstock.

Cotton has many human health risks associated with production, including exposure to toxic/hazardous chemicals, inadequate PPE provided, and more. However, Fairtrade requires producers to provide PPE and relevant training to employees. The program also requires all chemicals to be listed on Material Safety Data Sheets that align with international standards. Fairtrade also requires an appropriately well-supplied first-aid station with a sufficient number of trained employees at all times.

Fairtrade encourages producers to practice crop diversification as a source of revenue in the face of changing climates. The program also requires that a premium be paid for Fairtrade cotton and that portions of that premium go back to the workers.

Indicator not applicable

At farm-level, program meets CAT indicators on identifying and mitigating health and safety risks. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: workers are equipped, instructed and trained for tasks, including safe use of and chemical handling, addressing grievances and providing compensation for occupational injuries, documenting all procedures in relation to chemicals. At initial processing, program does not have health & safety requirements.

At farm-level, program meets CAT indicators on: banning forced labor, banning child labor, banning workplace discrimination, punishment, abuse, harassment or intimidation, respecting workers’ freedom of association and right to collective bargaining, respecting core ILO rights of workers. Program does not meet CAT indicators on addressing grievances and compensating for injuries. At initial processing, program does not have labor rights requirements.

Program meets CAT indicators on: respecting the rights, customs and culture of indigenous peoples, engaging with stakeholders and document measures taken to resolve disputes. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: upholding legal and customary rights of tenure, identifying legal and customary rights of tenure.

Program meets CAT indicators on minimizing and mitigating negative impacts from operations on communities and individuals. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: engaging in dialogue with neighboring communities and individuals, providing local employment opportunities, producers engaging in welfare programs where relevant to the social context, monitoring impacts on the local economy and adapting management as necessary.

Program meets CAT indicators on: assessing and maintain High Conservation Values category 5 (basic necessities for local communities), ensure access to safe drinking water, adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene (WASH). Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing potential impacts on communities and individuals, including food security and water availability, prior to any significant intensification/expansion, cultivating a mix of genotypes of each main crop.

Program meets CAT indicators on: core normative documents are publicly available, ISEAL membership, resourced secretariat with contact details publicly available, names and affiliation of members are publicly available, changes to core normative documents requires voting. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: membership organization, the highest decision-making forum ensures that no single interest group can dominate governance (economic, social or environmental).

Program meets CAT indicators on: taking into account the ISEAL Impact Code, publicly available program documents, having auditable indicators, revisions at least every 5 years. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing social and environmental impacts, workers’ conditions/rights, community relations, environment, and biodiversity; draft programs are subject to multiple rounds of public consultation.

Program meets CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination, complaints procedures have clear deadlines. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, CB’s proactively consult with affected stakeholders during any audit.

Program meets CAT indicators on: accreditation organization conducts risk-based auditing and surveillance of certification bodies, summaries of accreditation assessments of certification bodies are publicly available. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: certification bodies are accredited by an ISEAL member accreditation organization, accreditation organization verifies that certification bodies engage effectively with stakeholders.

Program meets CAT indicators on: procedures to monitor custody and trade of materials from certified producers, certification bodies (CBs) survey certificate holders’ chain of custody procedures, CBs survey use of claims, trademarks and labels on and off products, claimed/labelled products do not contain any materials from areas where HCVs (1-6) are threatened.

Recycled Cotton – RCS is 81.50% less GHG intensive than Conventional Cotton using data from the Higg MSI.

Recycled Cotton – RCS uses 70% less fossil fuel resources than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

The inherent production practices of mechanically recycled cotton reduce GHG emissions relating to farm level. While best practices may be executed, RCS does not require producers to demonstrate emission management at the production level, therefore emissions may still commonly be created.

The inherent production practices of mechanically recycled cotton reduce GHG emissions relating to material sourcing. However, emissions are still commonly created during production due to collection, processing, and shipping. While best practices may be executed, RCS does not require producers to demonstrate emission monitoring at production sites.

While RCS does not require producers to implement an emission strategy, the ambition of RCS aims to reduce the impacts of farm level. Emissions are still commonly created during the cutting/shredding process, however, the overall emission impact is reduced and therefore recognized as a prioritized outcome.

The inherent production practices of mechanically recycled cotton reduce the overall impact on climate at material sourcing. While RCS does demonstrate a reduced impact on climate, producers are not required to adopt lower carbon practices.

The inherent production practices of mechanically recycled cotton reduce the overall impact on climate. While best practices may be executed, RCS does not require producers to implement climate resiliency methods to protect against extreme weather events.

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Recycled Cotton – RCS is 99.77% less prone to causing water scarcity than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

Recycled Cotton – RCS uses 99.72% less water than Conventional Cotton when using data from the Higg MSI.

Recycled Cotton – RCS’s eutrophication potential is equal to Cotton Made in Africa’s and is therefore used as a baseline.

Water-related risks in mechanically recycled cotton are significantly low due to the little water used and wasted in the recycling process and the removal of water usage at the farm level. While best practices may be executed, RCS does not require producers to demonstrate water risk management.

Water use for mechanically recycled cotton is significantly lower than conventional. While best practices may be executed, RCS does not require producers to demonstrate water withdrawal monitoring at production sites, which poses risks to the environment and the local community.

Wastewater or effluent for mechanically recycled cotton is low. Generally, the process of recycling uses little water, but some chemicals may remain from the original inputs. It is therefore important to ensure harmful and restricted substances are not found in the recycled product. Furthermore, while best practices may be executed, RCS does not require producers to demonstrate water contamination monitoring at production sites and as such, the risk still remains

While RCS does not require producers to implement a water strategy, the ambition of RCS aims to reduce the impact of material sourcing, therefore reducing the overall water use. In addition, little water is utilized in the process of recycling, therefore, demonstrating water as a prioritized outcome.

While RCS does not require producers to implement a water strategy, the ambition of RCS aims to reduce the impact of material sourcing, therefore reducing the potential of contaminated water. In addition, little wastewater is produced in the process of recycling, therefore, demonstrating water as a prioritized outcome.

There is no evidence that RCS producers are required to outline a water source consumption list.

There is no evidence that RCS producers are required to outline potential water source contamination list.

RCS requires producers to input recycled feedstock. In addition, cotton and recycled cotton is a biobased feedstock and do not require oil and gas extraction. As such, surface and groundwater risks do not exist. RCS does not, however, require producers to utilize renewable energy sources, therefore some risk remains.

Recycled Cotton – RCS scores 66.67% lower than Conventional Cotton on the Higg MSI chemistry score.

The inherent production practices of mechanically recycled cotton reduce chemical risks at the material sourcing level due to the removal of fertilizer. However, minimal risks at production still exist from the original inputs. While best practices may be executed, RCS does not require producers to demonstrate a chemical management system at the production site.

The inherent production practices of mechanically recycled cotton reduce chemical risks at the material sourcing level, but minimal risks still exist at production sites. While best practices may be executed, RCS does not require producers to implement chemical management practices at the production site to minimize risk.

The inherent production practices of mechanically recycled cotton reduce chemical risks at the material sourcing level, but minimal risks still exist at production sites. While best practices may be executed, RCS does not require producers to monitor and meet legal requirements related to chemical management.

For recycled cotton, the chemical impact is significantly reduced at the farm level. While RCS does not require producers to implement a chemical strategy, the little use of chemicals reduces risks associated with chemical discharge, demonstrating chemistry as a prioritized outcome.

While the inherent production practices of mechanically recycled cotton reduce chemical risks at the farm level, minimal risks still exist at production sites. While RCS does not require producers to prioritize a chemical strategy, chemical discharge, and manufacturing inputs are prioritized metrics.

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Indicator not applicable

Mechanically recycled cotton utilizes pre and post-consumer feedstock, reducing feedstock that would otherwise be sent to landfill or incineration. While best practices may be executed and waste is minimal, RCS does not require producers to reduce waste in production and conduct waste management, tracking, and separation.

Mechanically recycled cotton utilizes pre and post-consumer feedstock, reducing feedstock that would otherwise be sent to landfill or incineration. While best practices may be executed and waste is minimal, RCS does not require producers to conduct waste stream utilization efficiency.

RCS requires producers to input recycled feedstock for production. Mechanically recycled cotton is sourced from pre and post-consumer waste.

The inherent production practices of mechanically recycled cotton reduce human health and safety at the farm level. During production, little to no chemicals are used to wash the recovered materials, the only substances may be present from previous material inputs, resulting in minimal risk. While best practices may be executed, RCS does not require producers to address chemical hazards to workers.

RCS certifications are voluntary and sold at a premium price to producers, aimed to set requirements for third-party certification of Recycled Content, a chain of custody, social and environmental practices, and chemical restrictions. There is no evidence of requirements to encourage premium selling costs, diversify crops or increase farmer income.

The inherent production practices of mechanically recycled cotton reduce risks associated with virgin cotton at the farm level. While best practices may be executed and risks are minimal, RCS does not replace local and national labor and employment law and therefore cannot confirm compliance.

Program is not applicable at farm-level. At initial processing, program does not have health & safety requirements.

Program is not applicable at farm-level. At initial processing, program does not have labor rights requirements.

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: upholding legal and customary rights of tenure, respecting the rights, customs and culture of indigenous peoples, engaging with stakeholders and document measures taken to resolve disputes, identifying legal and customary rights of tenure.

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: engaging in dialogue with neighboring communities and individuals, minimizing and mitigating negative impacts from operations on communities and individuals, providing local employment opportunities, producers engaging in welfare programs where relevant to the social context, monitoring impacts on the local economy and adapting management as necessary.

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing potential impacts on communities and individuals, including food security and water availability, prior to any significant intensification/expansion, assessing and maintain High Conservation Values category 5 (basic necessities for local communities).

Program meets CAT indicators on: core normative documents are publicly available, ISEAL membership, resourced secretariat with contact details publicly available, membership organization, names and affiliation of members are publicly available, the highest decision-making forum ensures that no single interest group can dominate governance (economic, social or environmental), changes to core normative documents require voting.

Program meets CAT indicators on: taking into account the ISEAL Impact Code, draft programs are subject to multiple rounds of public consultation, publicly available program documents, having auditable indicators, revisions at least every 5 years. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing social and environmental impacts, workers’ conditions/rights, community relations, environment, and biodiversity.

Program meets CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: CB’s proactively consult with affected stakeholders during any audit, complaints procedures have clear deadlines.

Program meets CAT indicators on accreditation organization verifies that certification bodies engage effectively with stakeholders. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: certification bodies are accredited by an ISEAL member accreditation organization, accreditation organization conducts risk-based auditing and surveillance of certification bodies, summaries of accreditation assessments of certification bodies are publicly available.

Program meets CAT indicators on: procedures to monitor custody and trade of materials from certified producers, certification bodies (CBs) survey certificate holders’ chain of custody procedures, CBs survey use of claims, trademarks and labels on and off products. Program does not meet CAT indicators on claimed/labelled products do not contain any materials from areas where HCVs (1-6) are threatened.

No LCA data is available in the Higg MSI for Better Cotton, as such conventional proxies are used – Conventional cotton accounts for the highest Global Warming Potential among cotton LCA values.

No LCA data is available in the Higg MSI for Better Cotton and therefore conventional figures are used as a proxy. Conventional cotton has the lowest score for Resource Depletion.

Better Cotton producers are not required to implement climate or emissions management plans – while climate considerations may be part of the Continuous Improvement Plan, there is no threshold to meet in implementation and review only takes place once every five years.

While general monitoring is an important aspect of the Better Cotton management system, the current principles do not require producers to conduct emission monitoring. Better Cotton is however demonstrating actions towards introducing GHG emissions monitoring and strategy through the pilot project Delta Framework for scope one emissions.

Emission reduction targets are one of the five core prioritized impact targets for Better Cotton. A continuous improvement plan against set targets is required and measured.

Climate change mitigation practices are demonstrated as key principles for Better Cotton. Producers are required to demonstrate climate mitigation practices by improving fertilizer management and managing soil carbon.

Climate change adaptation practices are demonstrated as key principles for Better Cotton. Producers are required to demonstrate climate adaptation practices through soil practices.

Better Cotton requires producers to use an HCV assessment to identify, and maintain such values on the production unit – however, no mandatory practices or procedures relating to peat soil health are expanded upon or outlined in the certification.

Better Cotton requires producers to use an HCV assessment to identify, maintain and monitor those values relating to above-ground carbon stocks.

Better Cotton requires producers to conduct soil type and texture determinations to evidence soil carbon sequestration measures.

No LCA data is available in the Higg MSI for Better Cotton and therefore conventional figures are used as a proxy. Conventional cotton has the lowest score for Water Scarcity.

No LCA data is available in the Higg MSI for Better Cotton and therefore conventional figures are used as a proxy. Conventional cotton has the lowest score for Water Consumption.

No LCA data is available in the Higg MSI for Better Cotton and therefore conventional figures are used as a proxy. Conventional scores 25% better than Cotton Made in Africa (baseline) in the likelihood of eutrophication during production.

Better Cotton producers are required to adopt a Water Management Plan to optimize water use for both irrigated and rain-fed crops. The plan must show an understanding of water resources, soil moisture management, irrigation methods, and the quality of surface and groundwater.

Better Cotton producers are required to uphold good water stewardship practices; understanding their own water use, the catchment context, and the shared risk in terms of water governance, water balance, and important water-related areas.

Better Cotton producers are required to uphold good water stewardship practices: understanding the catchment context and the shared risk in terms of water governance, water quality and important water-related areas.

Water health is named as a prioritized outcome for Better Cotton. Producers are required to develop and implement a Continuous Improvement Plan (CIP). Although the CIP does not require specific water-related measures, the Water Management Plan does demonstrate collective, sustainable decisions and improvements in water quantity.

Water health is named as a prioritized outcome for Better Cotton. Producers are required to develop and implement a Continuous Improvement Plan (CIP). Although the CIP does not require specific water-related measures, the Water Management Plan does demonstrate collective, sustainable decisions and improvements in water quality.

Better Cotton producers are required to understand water availability to better manage water resources. Though there are no water resources outlined as a priority or corresponding metrics for the health of those water resources listed in the certification.

Better Cotton producers are required to understand water quality to better manage water resources. Though there are no water resources outlined as a priority or corresponding metrics for the health of those water resources listed in the certification.

Cotton feedstock is 100% bio-based, however, Better Cotton currently do not have any commitments to renewable energy sources to be utilized by the producer, therefore contributing to oil and gas extraction.

No LCA data is available in the Higg MSI for Better Cotton and therefore, conventional figures are used as a proxy. Conventional cotton has the lowest score for Chemistry.

There is no evidence that Better Cotton producers are required to develop and implement a chemical management plan. However, Better Cotton does expect producers to adopt Integrated Pest Management with an emphasis on avoiding pesticide application at all costs. Better Cotton also requires producers to adhere to the restricted chemicals list, along with category one and category two of phased-out chemicals.

Better Cotton producers are required to implement chemical management practices that minimize risk. The program includes best practice criteria on the labeling, storing and separation of chemicals, cleaning, and disposal, and PPE and training.

Although Better Cotton producers are not required to conduct chemical monitoring actions, chemical restrictions align with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and substances listed in the annexes of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (a protocol of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer).

Better Cotton demonstrates continuous improvement methods through ongoing reviews of chemical restriction lists, and adding new criteria when appropriate.

Better Cotton names chemical discharge as a prioritized outcome, eliminating the use of high-toxicity pesticides and increasing the use of natural pest control – prioritizing organic pesticides (such as neem oil) with low toxicity and high efficacy against multiple target pests.

Better Cotton requires the development and implementation of a soil management plan. Good soil management practices are required to maintain and enhance soil structure and fertility, in order to achieve optimal conditions for plant growth.

The soil management plan required for Better Cotton producers defines the quantity and timing of available nutrients and should be based on a combination of soil and plant analyses.

Soil health is named as a prioritized outcome for Better Cotton producers and demonstrated continuous improvement plan.

Better Cotton demonstrates prioritized outcomes for soil microbial health, soil carbon cycle, soil structural health, soil water cycle, and soil nutrient cycle. Although chemical use is considered, soil chemical balance is not evidenced as a prioritized outcome.

Beneficial soil health practices are required for Better Cotton producers, namely, crop rotation.

Better Cotton requires land management practices through the Better Cotton Biodiversity Enhancement & Land Use principles. Producers must identify degraded areas and define ways to restore and enhance them. Additionally, in the case of any proposed conversion from non-agricultural land to agricultural land, Better Cotton High Conservation Value risk-based simplified approach must be implemented.

Better Cotton outlines additional steps to take in order to prevent and/or restore deforestation.

The cut-off date for land conversion held by Better Cotton is January 1, 2016. Land conversion occurring prior to 2016 shall be considered for the BCI license, subject to compliance with local legal requirements for land use change in existence at the time of conversion. This allowance is consistent with the requirement of the Better Cotton Standard at that time.

Better Cotton names land health in the form of HCVs and their continued enhancement as a priority outcome in the certification.

Better Cotton requires producers to adopt a Biodiversity Management Plan that conserves and enhances biodiversity on and surrounding the farm, including: identifying and mapping biodiversity resources, identifying and restoring degraded areas, enhancing populations of beneficial insects as per the Integrated Pest Management plan, ensuring crop rotation, and protecting riparian areas.

Biodiversity identification and mapping are required for all Better Cotton producers through local or national collaboration. In the case of conversion of non-agricultural land to agricultural land, identifying and mapping biodiversity can be combined with the HCV assessment, which also includes resource identification to maximize efficiency.

Biodiversity is named as a prioritized outcome for Better Cotton producers, considering the impact of expansion and restoration practices. A Continuous Improvement Planning process is required by all Better Cotton producers, identifying priority areas for the producer to adapt the Biodiversity Management Plan.

Better Cotton producers must have plans in place for the protection and recovery of buffer zones, riparian areas, native species, and corridors.

Better Cotton is exploring landscape approaches through Adaptation to Landscape Approach (ATLA) project. The purpose of the ATLA project is to help Better Cotton identify opportunities to evolve its approach and systems to support work at the landscape or jurisdictional level in areas where this can deliver the most value. Despite this, there seem to be no commitments made to set aside a proportion of production land.

Better Cotton requires produces to foster positive human-wildlife coexistence by encouraging chemical control by ensuring chemicals utilized at the farm level do not contribute to degraded areas. However, in some cases, certain levels of chemicals are allowed by law.

There is no evidence that Better Cotton requires producers to take precautions to restrict the spread of invasive species on site.

For cotton production, it is important to avoid contamination of fiber during harvest, storage, transport, ginning, and baling (pressing). Better Cotton producers are required to adopt good management practices to maximize fiber quality. These could include harvest management and general hygiene, choice of materials, how and where cotton is stored, and how cotton is transported – though no requirements on reducing waste during production are present in the certification.

Better Cotton producers are required to adopt good management practices for crop protection and waste management – evidence of tracking waste streams for reuse is present in Better Cotton certification.

Cotton is a perennial plant and a renewable feedstock.

Cotton has many human health risks associated with production, including exposure to toxic/hazardous chemicals, inadequate PPE provided, and more. However, Better Cotton requires producers to adhere to worker safety guidelines, utilize PPE, and controlled application practices that plan to phase out the use of chemical pesticides and provide training to workers on safety measures. These address some risks at scale for cotton at the farm level.

While Better Cotton encourages providing guidance to producers on reducing raw material inputs, increasing diversified crop practices, and practicing production efficiency – none of these practices are required of producers. Additionally, no price differential is paid directly to farmers. Farmers are paid based on prevailing market price and quality, rather than being supported with premium price certifications.

Indicator not applicable

At farm-level, program meets CAT indicators on workers are equipped, instructed and trained for tasks, including safe use of and chemical handling. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: identifying and mitigating health and safety risks, addressing grievances and providing compensation for occupational injuries, documenting all procedures in relation to chemicals. At initial processing, program does not have health & safety requirements.

At farm-level, program meets CAT indicators on: banning forced labor, banning child labor, banning workplace discrimination, punishment, abuse, harassment or intimidation, respecting core ILO rights of workers. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: respecting workers’ freedom of association and right to collective bargaining, addressing grievances and compensating for injuries. At initial processing, program does not have labor rights requirements.

Program meets CAT indicators on respecting the rights, customs and culture of indigenous peoples. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: upholding legal and customary rights of tenure, engaging with stakeholders and document measures taken to resolve disputes, identifying legal and customary rights of tenure.

Program meets CAT indicators on producers engaging in welfare programs where relevant to the social context. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: engaging in dialogue with neighboring communities and individuals, minimizing and mitigating negative impacts from operations on communities and individuals, providing local employment opportunities, monitoring impacts on the local economy and adapting management as necessary.

Program meets CAT indicators on: assessing potential impacts on communities and individuals, including food security and water availability, prior to any significant intensification/expansion. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing and maintain High Conservation Values category 5 (basic necessities for local communities), cultivating a mix of genotypes of each main crop, ensure access to safe drinking water, adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene (WASH).

Program meets CAT indicators on: core normative documents are publicly available, ISEAL membership, resourced secretariat with contact details publicly available, membership organization, names and affiliation of members are publicly available, the highest decision-making forum ensures that no single interest group can dominate governance (economic, social or environmental), changes to core normative documents require voting.

Program meets CAT indicators on: assessing social and environmental impacts, workers’ conditions/rights, community relations, environment, and biodiversity; taking into account the ISEAL Impact Code, draft standards are subject to multiple rounds of public consultation, publicly available standard documents, having auditable indicators, revisions at least every 5 years.

Program meets CAT indicators on: CB’s proactively consult with affected stakeholders during any audit, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination, complaints procedures have clear deadlines. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts.

Program meets CAT indicators on: certification bodies are accredited by an ISEAL member accreditation organization, accreditation organization verifies that certification bodies engage effectively with stakeholders, accreditation organization conducts risk-based auditing and surveillance of certification bodies. Program does not meet CAT indicators on summaries of accreditation assessments of certification bodies are publicly available.

Program meets CAT indicators on procedures to monitor custody and trade of materials from certified producers. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: certification bodies (CBs) survey certificate holders’ chain of custody procedures, CBs survey use of claims, trademarks and labels on and off products, claimed/labelled products do not contain any materials from areas where HCVs (1-6) are threatened.

No LCA data is available in the Higg MSI for ABRAPA, as such conventional proxies are used – Conventional cotton accounts for the highest Global Warming Potential among cotton LCA values.

No LCA data is available in the Higg MSI for ABRAPA and therefore conventional figures are used as a proxy. Conventional cotton has the lowest score for Resource Depletion.

ABRAPA producers demonstrate general concepts of emissions management – understanding sources and future implications of emissions in production. They also mandate procedures for navigating increasing extreme weather occurrences.

ABRAPA requires producers to monitor scope I emissions from farm-level production such as emissions from waste.

ABRAPA producers are required to specify the importance of environmental/climate concerns in production as well as for the larger community and future.

ABRAPA producers are required to outline soil health practices and considerations in line with climate mitigation; soil water cycle, structure, and microbial content. It also has criteria to test that chemicals and fertilizers are applied in the correct dosage and manner to reduce overapplication and discharge.

ABRAPA requires producers to follow national legislation in maintaining riparian areas in production zones and implements procedures to navigate extreme weather events.

No evidence suggests that ABRAPA producers are required to outline criteria for the identification and subsequent protection of below-ground carbon stocks.

No evidence suggests that ABRAPA outlines criteria for the identification and subsequent protection of above-ground carbon stocks.

No quantitative monitoring of soil carbon sequestration is mandated under ABRAPA, though proxy measurements/monitoring are evidenced to take place in the form of soil structure verifications.

No LCA data is available in the Higg MSI for ABRAPA and therefore conventional figures are used as a proxy. Conventional cotton has the lowest score for Water Scarcity.

No LCA data is available in the Higg MSI for ABRAPA and therefore conventional figures are used as a proxy. Conventional cotton has the lowest score for Water Consumption.

No LCA data is available in the Higg MSI for ABRAPA and therefore conventional figures are used as a proxy. Conventional scores 25% better than Cotton Made in Africa (baseline) in the likelihood of eutrophication during production.

ABRAPA requires producers to produce site-specific water management plans, identifying and mapping water sources. It also stipulates maintaining water sources through production, avoiding overconsumption or contamination. Room for improvement exists in regular updates and development with relevant stakeholders.

ABRAPA has requirements for monitoring the procedure and amount of water used daily at the producer level, such as the identification of practices to ensure groundwater isn’t negatively impacted by production.

The program requires monitoring water contamination pressures and state, minimizing impacts on water quality from chemical residues, and monitoring for water quality to maintain a safe quality for human consumption.

Monitoring daily water use is a priority requirement for ABRAPA certification along with the stipulation that extraction can’t negatively impact waterways or sources leading to a system that can be expected to regularly minimize impacts and take steps towards more sustainable water consumption.

ABRAPA has criteria in place to keep water on production units at high quality: Implementing practices to minimize chemical contamination and keeping drinking water at potable quality.

ABRAPA demonstrates comprehensiveness in their water strategy by outlining key water sources to protect (in quality and quantity): Surface water and groundwater.

ABRAPA demonstrates comprehensiveness in its water strategy by outlining key water sources to protect (in quality and quantity): Surface, ground, and drinking water from contamination.

For cotton, the feedstock is 100% bio-based. No commitments to renewable energy are applicable to conventional cotton production around the world.

No LCA data is available in the Higg MSI for ABRAPA and therefore conventional figures are used as a proxy. Conventional cotton has the lowest score for Chemistry.

ABRAPA requires components of regionally-specific chemical management plans: key information must be communicated to employees regarding how and when to apply chemicals, as well as necessary equipment and how to use it during the process. Evidence for the regular reviewing and updating of chemical management plans under ABRAPA is not supported.

ABRAPA comprehensively outlines chemical management practices applicable to producers: labeling, handling, cleaning, and disposal techniques can be expected from at least 85% of ABRAPA producers, while requirements on PPE and training are a priority, making them universal in ABRAPA production.

A priority criterion is implementing a ban on chemicals found in the Stockholm Convention, making it certain that ABRAPA producers are at least compliant with one widely accepted chemical ban. There is a second criterion that makes it likely that producers also follow pesticide use as dictated by WHO and Rotterdam.

ABRAPA requires producers to understand the importance of chemical management in the production process and ensures it is communicated to all employees.

As input chemistry is outlined to be a priority criterion for ABRAPA producers, they can reasonably be expected to implement a widely-accepted Manufacturing Restricted Substance List, such as the Stockholm and Rotterdam Conventions. Additionally, producers have explicit criteria to recognize the potential for chemical discharge into waterways.

ABRAPA producers are required to maintain several aspects of soil health: structural, biological, chemical, nutrient and water balance. These practices are focused on at the farm level, however, evidence doesn’t support a review and update process for soil management.

ABRAPA requires soil health outcomes that necessitate monitoring to fulfill, such as causes of degradation and state of soil quality. Proving optimal soil structure and nutrient balance is reflective of state monitoring whereas erosion control requires pressure monitoring.

Soil health criteria are present throughout the ABRAPA certification, and prioritized outcomes can be seen in criteria to prove soil health in terms of structure, water use, and nutrient balance.

ABRAPA requires the demonstration of soil health outcomes/metrics including structural nutrient balance, microbial health, chemical balance, and water retention.

ABRAPA mandates soil health outcomes in the form of soil structure, water retention, and microbial health but doesn’t outline specific practices to produce these outcomes.

ABRAPA outlines that land must be managed according to national legislation, specifically in regard to expansion/conversion. Though without explicit land management concerns, risks still remain.

National law prescribes percentages of set asides to maintain permanently in production zones and requires any deforestation or land conversion to be in accordance with national legislation.

National law prescribes percentages of set-asides to maintain permanently in production zones and requires any conversion of natural land to be in accordance with national legislation.

National law prescribes percentages of set-asides to maintain permanently in production zones. However, no evidence can be found for considerations of expansion, or for requiring positive land outcomes.

No explicit biodiversity management plan is outlined under the ABRAPA certification, though concepts of biodiversity management are present: maintaining and restoring degraded areas and mapping areas of biodiversity importance on the production unit.

The mapping of biodiversity features like springs, water bodies, and vegetation is indicative of monitoring the state of biodiversity. Additionally, with the implementation of an IPM, it can be expected with reasonable certainty that monitoring pressures on biodiversity such as chemical use on species will take place.

ABRAPA shows continuous improvement in biodiversity in the criteria to have plans for protecting and restoring degraded areas on the production unit.

ABRAPA highlights that producers must have plans in place for the protection and recovery of buffer zones and riparian areas.

Producers in Brazil are required by law to set aside a percentage of their farm for naturalization. This figure stands to shift depending on the size of the farm and the ecosystems it’s on or near. 20% of private farms should be conserved outside of the Amazon compared to 35% inside the region.

ABRAPA demonstrates two concepts of Species and Genetic Diversity: forbidding hunting on reservation land and non-lethal control methods under the IPM.

ABRAPA mandates the use of an Integrated Pest Management system (IPM) that prioritizes the use of beneficial organisms in maintaining resistance to and avoiding the introduction of invasive species.

The main risks associated with waste are linked to improper management of chemicals, waste, and waste byproducts as well as fertilizer and pesticide application at the farm level. There is no evidence to suggest that ABRAPA aims to reduce waste produced in the cotton growing processes.

ABRAPA outlines considerations for turning waste streams into energy at the production level — no other actions to maximize the value of waste streams are supported.

ABRAPA mandates that producers purchase seeds from the National Seed Registry in Brazil, supporting that all feedstock is biobased, though no commitments to renewable energy are supported or required for ABRAPA producers.

Cotton has many human health risks associated with production, including exposure to toxic/hazardous chemicals, inadequate PPE provided, and more. While the program isn’t organic, ABRAPA outlines that PPE is provided, up to date, free of charge, and with training to the employees. ABRAPA also requires detailed records of chemicals used, highlighting relevant health risks. These address some risks at scale for cotton at the farm level.

The program has a requirement to purchase seeds and seedlings (feedstock) through the National Registry which aligns under national legislation.

Indicator not applicable

At farm-level, program meets CAT indicators on: identifying and mitigating health and safety risks, workers are equipped, instructed and trained for tasks, including safe use of and chemical handling, documenting all procedures in relation to chemicals. Program does not meet CAT indicators on addressing grievances and providing compensation for occupational injuries. At initial processing, program does not have health & safety requirements.

At farm-level, program meets CAT indicators on: banning forced labor, banning child labor, banning workplace discrimination, punishment, abuse, harassment or intimidation, respecting workers’ freedom of association and right to collective bargaining, respecting core ILO rights of workers. Program does not meet CAT indicators on addressing grievances and compensating for injuries. At initial processing, program does not have labor rights requirements.

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: upholding legal and customary rights of tenure, respecting the rights, customs and culture of indigenous peoples, engaging with stakeholders and document measures taken to resolve disputes, identifying legal and customary rights of tenure.

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: engaging in dialogue with neighboring communities and individuals, minimizing and mitigating negative impacts from operations on communities and individuals, providing local employment opportunities, producers engaging in welfare programs where relevant to the social context, monitoring impacts on the local economy and adapting management as necessary.

Program meets CAT indicators on: ensure access to safe drinking water, adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene (WASH). Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing potential impacts on communities and individuals, including food security and water availability, prior to any significant intensification/expansion, assessing and maintain High Conservation Values category 5 (basic necessities for local communities), cultivating a mix of genotypes of each main crop.

Program meets CAT indicators on: core normative documents are publicly available, resourced secretariat with contact details publicly available, names and affiliation of members are publicly available. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: ISEAL membership, membership organization, the highest decision-making forum ensures that no single interest group can dominate governance (economic, social or environmental), changes to core normative documents requires voting.

Program meets CAT indicators on: assessing social and environmental impacts, workers’ conditions/rights, community relations, environment, and biodiversity; publicly available standard documents, having auditable indicators. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: taking into account the ISEAL Impact Code, draft standards are subject to multiple rounds of public consultation, revisions at least every 5 years.

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, CB’s proactively consult with affected stakeholders during any audit, CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination, complaints procedures have clear deadlines.

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: certification bodies are accredited by an ISEAL member accreditation organization, accreditation organization verifies that certification bodies engage effectively with stakeholders, accreditation organization conducts risk-based auditing and surveillance of certification bodies, summaries of accreditation assessments of certification bodies are publicly available.

Program meets CAT indicators on procedures to monitor custody and trade of materials from certified producers. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: certification bodies (CBs) survey certificate holders’ chain of custody procedures, CBs survey use of claims, trademarks and labels on and off products, claimed/labelled products do not contain any materials from areas where HCVs (1-6) are threatened.

No LCA data is available in the Higg MSI for myBMP, as such conventional proxies are used – Conventional cotton accounts for the highest Global Warming Potential among cotton LCA values.

No LCA data is available in the Higg MSI for myBMP and therefore conventional figures are used as a proxy. Conventional cotton has the lowest score for Resource Depletion.

MyBMP requires producers to consider site-specific energy use and efficiency practices, focusing on energy sources, irrigation techniques, and fuel efficiency on machinery.

Emission reduction is a prioritized module of myBMP producers, covering both scope one and scope two emissions through energy use and efficiency at the farm level, monitoring energy inputs, and efficiency of irrigation and machinery.

Emission reduction is a prioritized outcome for myBMP producers, assessing and improving machinery performance along with assessing and improving irrigation pump performance and efficiency, however, there is no evidence to demonstrate actions are taken following monitoring into continuous improvement.

MyBMP producers are required to consider lower carbon production methods through the adoption of process innovations in soil health, transitions to renewable energy sources, and energy efficiency procedures in machinery and irrigation pump performance.

MyBMP producers are required to demonstrate climate adaptation practices to prevent and minimize climate change disruption through the use of irrigation techniques, rainfall storage, protection of riparian areas, and weather warning systems.

The myBMP producers are required to adhere to the sustainable Natural Landscape module to map and identify natural resources whilst maximizing ground cover to prevent erosion and improve soil health and stabilizing riverbanks and waterways to reduce erosion.

The myBMP producers are required to adhere to the sustainable Natural Landscape module to map and identify natural resources whilst maintaining a vegetation structure and re-vegetation techniques.

Soil carbon sequestration and emissions are required to be identified across myBMP producers’ farms. Soil structure assessments are likely to evidence soil carbon sequestration.

No LCA data is available in the Higg MSI for myBMP and therefore conventional figures are used as a proxy. Conventional cotton has the lowest score for Water Scarcity.

No LCA data is available in the Higg MSI for myBMP and therefore conventional figures are used as a proxy. Conventional cotton has the lowest score for Water Consumption.

No LCA data is available in the Higg MSI for myBMP cotton and therefore conventional figures are used as a proxy. Conventional scores 25% better than Cotton Made in Africa (baseline) in the likelihood of eutrophication during production.

MyBMP producers are required to implement site-specific water management practices, including surface irrigation, center pivot, and lateral moves, drip irrigation as well as dryland water usage.

MyBMP requires producers to maintain efficient water management and storage practices, including metering and monitoring, irrigation scheduling, legislative compliance, and managing storage to minimize seepage and evaporation. MyBMP focuses on the minimization and mitigation of negative impacts of direct operations on water quantity.

MyBMP requires producers to maintain efficient water management and practices to prevent run-off, including testing water quality, and monitoring water use, maintenance of systems, and managing storage. MyBMP focuses on the minimization and mitigation of negative impacts of direct operations on water quality.

MyBMP producers are required to understand water use and efficiency whilst conducting performance evaluation and benchmarking.

MyBMP producers are required to understand water quality and participate in water quality sampling programs.

MyBMP requires producers to consider groundwater, surface water and rainwater catchments.

MyBMP requires producers to consider groundwater and surface water along with saltwater movements within the water contamination strategy.

Cotton feedstock is 100% bio-based. While myBMP requires producers to consider alternative energy sources on farms, petrochemicals are still utilized.

No LCA data is available in the Higg MSI for myBMP and therefore, conventional figures are used as a proxy. Conventional cotton has the lowest score for Chemistry.

MyBMP producers are required to use only locally registered or permitted products on farms. The grower ensures pesticide application takes place only during appropriate weather conditions (i.e. field-specific weather parameters are established) and follows the application method as stated on the label.

MyBMP producers are required to implement chemical management practices that minimize risk. The program includes best practice criteria on the labeling, storing, and separation of chemicals, cleaning, and disposal, and PPE and training.

MyBMP producers are required to adhere to safety monitoring of petrochemicals, conduct weather monitoring activities to avoid spray drift, restrict hazardous chemicals and monitor limits of chemical waste.

MyBMP demonstrates practices to reduce hazardous chemicals through phasing out and aligning to Better Cotton for closed-loop transfer systems.

MyBMP requires producers to consider the impact of chemical discharge into waterways, with a focus on spraying parameters and water quality.

MyBMP requires producers to implement a soil health management plan, including adapting fertilization to soil conditions, maintaining or improving soil quality, and avoiding or minimizing soil erosion risks.

MyBMP requires producers to monitor impacts and adapt management as necessary. The monitoring focuses on identifying pressure and state of soil health, a fertilizer plan recording trends, In crop monitoring used to assess nutrient levels.

MyBMP requires producers to identify soil health as a prioritized outcome and demonstrate continuous improvement, however, there is no evidence to suggest soil health is considered around the management unit.

MyBMP requires producers to demonstrate prioritized outcomes for the soil carbon cycle, soil structural health, soil water cycle and soil nutrient cycle, and chemical balance.

Beneficial soil health practices are required for myBMP producers, including crop rotation, intercropping, and crop residues.

MyBMP requires land management practices through The Sustainable Natural Landscape myBMP module. Producers must identify natural resources, preserve, and enhance habitats for beneficials.

There is no evidence to suggest that myBMP requires producers to consider deforestation.

There is no evidence to suggest that myBMP requires producers to consider land conversion cut-off dates.

MyBMP producers are encouraged to go beyond national legislation guidelines on land use but ultimately are not required to do so.

Although the Sustainable Natural Landscape module does consider biodiversity through re-vegetation techniques, there is no evidence that myBMP requires producers to implement a biodiversity management plan.

There is no evidence myBMP requires biodiversity monitoring to be carried out by producers.

There is no evidence myBMP requires a biodiversity strategy to be carried out by producers.

MyBMP requires producers to maintain native vegetation diversity and connectivity, record natural features such as riparian areas in farm plans, and maintain awareness of corridors, patches, and single trees and how they link across the farm.

While there is no specific biodiversity management plan required from myBMP producers, habitat and ecosystem diversity is required to identify and record the natural resources on the farm and on the surrounding area, however, no boundary is defined.

There is no evidence that myBMP requires producers to protect against human-wildlife conflict and foster positive human-wildlife coexistence.

MyBMP aligns with the national legislation requirements associated with clearing native vegetation, modifying riverine areas, and controlling invasive plants and animals.

The main risks associated with waste are linked to improper management of chemicals, waste, and waste byproducts as well as fertilizer and pesticide application at the farm level. Although waste is disposed of in an appropriate manner, there is no evidence of myBMP requiring producers to demonstrate a waste reduction plan.

Although waste is disposed of in an appropriate manner, there is no evidence of myBMP requiring producers to monitor waste streams for reuse and recycling, either across chemical use and/or fiber.

There is no evidence that myBMP requires producers to source from organic or recycled sources.

Cotton has many human health risks associated with production, including exposure to toxic/hazardous chemicals, inadequate PPE provided, and more. However, myBMP requires producers to align to Work Health and Safety (WHS) guidelines for a safe working environment. PPE, training and safety data sheets (SDS) are provided, and first aid support. Further, a Pesticide Application management plan exists. These address some risks at scale for cotton at the farm level.

There is no evidence that myBMP provides guidance to producers on financial support towards improved income, crop diversity, reducing raw material inputs, and production efficiency.

Indicator not applicable

At farm-level, program meets CAT indicators on: identifying and mitigating health and safety risks, workers are equipped, instructed and trained for tasks, including safe use of and chemical handling, addressing grievances and providing compensation for occupational injuries, documenting all procedures in relation to chemicals. At initial processing, program does not have health & safety requirements.

At farm-level, standard meets CAT indicators on: banning workplace discrimination, punishment, abuse, harassment or intimidation, respecting workers’ freedom of association and right to collective bargaining, addressing grievances and compensating for injuries, ensuring that wages, working hours and leave comply with, or exceed, applicable legislation and sector minimum standards, etc. Standard does not meet CAT indicators on: banning forced labor, banning child labor, respecting core ILO rights of workers. At initial processing, standard does not have labor rights requirements.

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: upholding legal and customary rights of tenure, respecting the rights, customs and culture of indigenous peoples, engaging with stakeholders and document measures taken to resolve disputes, identifying legal and customary rights of tenure.

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: engaging in dialogue with neighboring communities and individuals, minimizing and mitigating negative impacts from operations on communities and individuals, providing local employment opportunities, producers engaging in welfare programs where relevant to the social context, monitoring impacts on the local economy and adapting management as necessary.

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing potential impacts on communities and individuals, including food security and water availability, prior to any significant intensification/expansion, assessing and maintain High Conservation Values category 5 (basic necessities for local communities), cultivating a mix of genotypes of each main crop, ensure access to safe drinking water, adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene (WASH).

Program meets CAT indicators on resourced secretariat with contact details publicly available. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: core normative documents are publicly available, ISEAL membership, membership organization, names and affiliation of members are publicly available, the highest decision-making forum ensures that no single interest group can dominate governance (economic, social or environmental), changes to core normative documents requires voting.

Program meets CAT indicators on: publicly available standard documents, having auditable indicators, revisions at least every 5 years. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: assessing social and environmental impacts, workers’ conditions/rights, community relations, environment, and biodiversity; taking into account the ISEAL Impact Code, draft standards are subject to multiple rounds of public consultation.

Program meets CAT indicators on: CB’s proactively consult with affected stakeholders during any audit. Program does not meet CAT indicators on: producers are certified by independent, third-party certification bodies (CBs) in compliance with ISO requirements, CBs conduct annual or more frequent audits, CB’s conduct unannounced audits in high-risk contexts, unresolved severe non-compliances lead to suspension/termination, complaints procedures have clear deadlines.

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: certification bodies are accredited by an ISEAL member accreditation organization, accreditation organization verifies that certification bodies engage effectively with stakeholders, accreditation organization conducts risk-based auditing and surveillance of certification bodies, summaries of accreditation assessments of certification bodies are publicly available.

Program does not meet CAT indicators on: procedures to monitor custody and trade of materials from certified producers, certification bodies (CBs) survey certificate holders’ chain of custody procedures, CBs survey use of claims, trademarks and labels on and off products, claimed/labelled products do not contain any materials from areas where HCVs (1-6) are threatened.

Conventional cotton is assessed as the baseline performance against which all other programs are assessed. Impacts for cotton are concentration in fertilizer production and field emissions with tertiary impacts attributable to irrigation and farm equipment.

Conventional cotton is assessed as the baseline performance against which all other programs are assessed. Impacts for Cotton come from equipment run on oil and electricity at ginning which varies due to the regional grid mix.

The main risks associated with cotton production are related to field emissions of nitrous oxide along with fertilizer and pesticide production. While best practices may be executed, there are no certifications of standards to ensure emission management plans are implemented.

There is no evidence that emission monitoring is required to track emissions at any scope or align with any accounting methodology to address the risks present at scale for the farm level, even if individual producers have some procedures in place.

As a conventional fiber, there is no evidence that GHG emissions are named as a prioritized outcome at the farm level, even if individual producers have some practices in place.

There are no widespread actions supporting climate mitigation within global conventional cotton production. In the US and some other parts of the world, renewable energy installation is supported, but evidence is needed to clarify which regions require it. Surface irrigation, the high use of pesticides and fertilizers, as well as conventional tillage practices, weaken surrounding ecosystems and lead to high carbon dioxide emissions.

There are no widespread actions supporting climate adaptation within global conventional cotton production. In the US and some other parts of the world, crop insurance and pilot project climate training programs provide risk mitigation to the worst effects of climate change, but evidence is needed to clarify which regions require it. Surface irrigation, the high use of pesticides and fertilizers, as well as conventional tillage practices, weaken surrounding ecosystems and lead to high carbon dioxide emissions.

There is no evidence to suggest participation in identifying, protecting, and restoring peat soils and/or areas of below-ground carbon stocks through producer management practices is required.

There is no evidence to suggest participation in identifying, protecting, and restoring areas of above-ground carbon stocks through producer management practices is required.

Evidence shows that reviewed studies on cotton’s ability to sequester carbon exist representing global averages.

Conventional cotton is assessed as the baseline performance against which all other programs are assessed. Many cotton-growing regions experience stress on water resources due to cumulative agricultural demand.

Conventional cotton is assessed as the baseline performance against which all other programs are assessed. Without required practices to reduce water consumption, conventional cotton that is not rainfed is recorded to be highly water intensive.

Conventional cotton scores 25% better than Cotton Made in Africa in regard to Eutrophication potential.

Despite evidence outlining the breakdown of water inputs for conventional cotton production being just over 50% rainfed, water management plans are not evidenced to be uniformly required in conventional cotton production.

There is evidence that basic water monitoring (source) exists on a global scale. However, it can’t be said that all farmers everywhere measure the amount and/or source of the water they use.

Conventional cotton often uses fertilizers or pesticides that can contaminate water sources. While some producing countries will have legislation to prevent this, without mandated quality monitoring, water quality risks remain.

There is a substantial group of producers using completely rain-fed systems which is conducive to limiting withdrawal stresses, however, it is unclear to what degree such practices are implemented, if at all.

Conventional cotton production employs chemicals such as pesticides and fertilizers that when mixed with water or water sources, can lead to contamination. There are no frameworks in place for the reduction of chemical leaching or use or prioritization of water health outcomes.

A little over half of conventional cotton is rain-fed, potentially reducing stresses on local waterbodies, however, there are no associated certification criteria.

Conventional cotton production employs chemicals such as pesticides and fertilizers that when mixed with water or water sources, contaminate them. There are no frameworks in place for the reduction of chemical leaching or use or prioritization of water health outcomes.

For cotton, the feedstock is 100% bio-based. No commitments to renewable energy are applicable to conventional cotton production around the world.

Conventional cotton is assessed as the baseline performance against which all other programs are assessed. Chemistry risks are concentrated in synthetic pesticide and fertilizer use.

Conventional cotton production uses chemicals and fertilizers, and while national legislation might dictate best practices, no framework exists to tie these together for conventional cotton production, making it impossible to know which practices are used.

Conventional cotton uses chemicals and fertilizers, and while national legislation might dictate best practices, no framework exists to tie these together for conventional cotton production, making it unclear to what degree chemical management such as handling, storage, disposal, or PPE use, takes place.

There is no evidence to suggest that chemical management monitoring or restricted chemistry lists are implemented in conventional cotton production.

There is no evidence to suggest that chemical management outcomes are prioritized outside of national legislation in conventional cotton production.

Conventional cotton uses chemicals and fertilizer, and while national legislation might dictate best practices, no framework exists to tie these together for conventional cotton production. This leaves no evidence to suggest that a comprehensive chemical strategy is achieved.

There is no evidence that producers develop management plans for soil health development in conventional cotton production.

There is no evidence that producers develop monitoring plans for soil health development in conventional cotton production.

There is no evidence that producers prioritize soil health outcomes in conventional cotton production.

There is no evidence that producers prioritize aspects of soil health development such as soil structure and nutrient and water cycles in conventional cotton production.

There is no evidence that conventional cotton requires the implementation of beneficial soil health practices in production.

Global data shows reduced land use pressure per pound of cotton lint harvested over the past forty years, however as it isn’t tied to a management plan which encompasses conventional production, land management risks remain.

As a conventional material, there is no evidence of additional protective actions.

As a conventional material, there is no evidence of additional protective actions.

Global data shows reduced land use pressure per pound of cotton lint harvested over the past forty years. However, as it isn’t tied to a management plan which encompasses conventional production, land health risks remain.

There is no evidence to suggest that biodiversity management plans are present in cotton production. Without a biodiversity management plan, the chemicals from pesticides on farms have the potential to leach into the surrounding ecosystem.

Conventional Cotton production isn’t evidenced to monitor for biodiversity. Without monitoring, impacts, and detriments from chemical use risk going undetected.

There is no evidence that biodiversity is a prioritized outcome in cotton production across the board.

There is no evidence that producers take action to reduce impacts on habitats and ecosystems in conventional cotton production.

There is no evidence that producers take action to protect and/or restore habitats and ecosystems in conventional cotton production.

There is no evidence that producers take action to promote species and genetic diversity in conventional cotton production.

There is no evidence that producers take action to promote species and genetic diversity in conventional cotton production.

The main risks associated with waste are linked to improper management of chemicals, waste, and waste byproducts as well as fertilizer and pesticide application at the farm level. There is no evidence to suggest that conventional cotton production aims to reduce waste through stated plans. Despite cotton waste largely being evidenced to be repurposed and/or left to bio-degrade for organic amendments, the likelihood of waste risks such as discharge and pollution going unaddressed remains high.

There is no evidence to suggest that conventional cotton production aims to maximize waste through stated plans despite cotton waste largely evidenced to be repurposed and/or left to bio-degrade for organic amendments.

Cotton as a plant is a renewable feedstock, though as most conventional cotton feedstock is Genetically Modified cotton globally, risks of feedstock selection still remain.

Conventional cotton has many human health risks associated with production, including exposure to toxic/hazardous chemicals, inadequate PPE provided, and more. Many nations will have labor laws and standards, however, there is no standard in their application. As such, there is no evidence that it is standard in conventional cotton production to supply PPE and take part in a process that is lower risk.

There is no evidence to suggest that producer income potential is addressed outside of legislation in conventional cotton production. No financial support or training is mandated to be provided, and as it is not produced under a certification, premiums are not provided.

Indicator not applicable

At the farm level, health and safety risks stem from the use of agrochemicals with inadequate protection or training. The risk of using these chemicals, combined with long hours and harsh work conditions, puts the health and wellbeing of producers’ health at risk.

Forced and child labor is well documented in cotton-producing countries, including state-controlled forced labour in certain countries. Child labour in cotton is mainly a risk in small-scale farms. The US Department of Labor lists cotton production with forced labor in eight countries, and child labor in 15 countries. Labor abuses are also reported in spinning mills in certain countries, particularly prevalent against migrant women in some regions.

The global area devoted to cotton cultivation has remained constant for the past 70 years. Despite this, reports indicate that cotton is being cultivated on land where appropriation of land and displacement of local communities has occurred, particularly in regions expanding their cotton production.

As a conventional fiber, there are no certification or program requirements to mitigate risk, and which can be assessed by the Certification Assessment Tool (CAT); however, risks do exist and should be considered. Climate change will likely have greater effects on low income and BIPOC folks across the globe. Environmental racism will be intensified as old systems of production (i.e. pesticide spraying and herbicide use and factory locations) continue to be used throughout the supply chain.

Cotton can contribute to over-consumption of water, depleting local water sources for surrounding communities. Furthermore, loose regulations around wastewater disposal and runoff may contaminate surrounding water sources.

As a conventional fiber no assessable program requirements or certifications are implemented to mitigate risk.

As a conventional fiber no assessable program requirements or certifications are implemented to mitigate risk.

As a conventional fiber no assessable program requirements or certifications are implemented to mitigate risk.

As a conventional fiber no assessable program requirements or certifications are implemented to mitigate risk.

As a conventional fiber no assessable program requirements or certifications are implemented to mitigate risk.