In 2010, our overall production increased by about 36%, as did usage of most materials across the board.  We are disappointed to report that we did not meet our emissions reduction goal of 10% for 2010.  While we implemented numerous energy conservation measures, it was not sufficient to offset the increase in production compared to the much lower production year of 2009 and the change in product mix to more dyed shirts compared to white shirts in 2008 and 2009.  When we originally set this goal, we did have concerns that we might not be able to meet the goal since our production was reduced in 2009 due to the economic downturn and our own retrenchment.

In order to better understand the impact of the change in product mix, below is a table which shows an estimated difference in energy used to make a dyed t-shirt compared to a white t-shirt.  From the company’s standpoint, dyed t-shirts are more profitable and therefore, this product mix change will not likely be reversed.  In addition, we expect to continue to grow in the next few years and therefore, our focus has shifted to assessing the per unit consumption of energy while we develop longer-term alternatives to our current sources of energy.

When we compare a dyed shirt manufactured in 2010 compared to a dyed shirt manufactured in 2009, we see an improvement in both energy and water.  The same is true for a white shirt. How did we get these numbers? We take the energy or water units per finished pound of fabric and then multiply that by the weight of the t-shirt.

Our continued use of bio-mass, dye recipe and other process changes and conservation and efficiency measures have yielded savings to offset what could have been an even larger percentage increase in energy for 2010.

Material utilization also increased consistent with 2010’s production growth with a a nearly 50% increase in the use of dye and chemicals reflecting the same shift in the ratio of our dyed versus white t-shirts.

Water usage did decline by 10% but when we calculated our Water Footprint, we realized that agriculture dominates water consumption, and that most of the water used at Anvil locations is not actually ‘consumed’ since it is returned to the same watershed.  Furthermore, water consumption during textile processing has a very small effect on water deprivation because we manufacture in the water abundant areas of Honduras and Nicaragua.   While we confirmed that the water use in a bleached t-shirt is lower than a dyed t-shirt, that difference is negligible compared to the agricultural impact of cotton.

Outgoing third party emissions increased from 15% of total emissions to 20%, which represents a significant increase but is directly related to increased growth.  This was partially offset by reductions achieved through re-routing to more favorable ports and other measures.

This Progress Report will be supplemented in the future with a more detailed Water and Fiber Sourcing  and Diversification Strategy which is in development.