With Collective Impact methodology chosen as guiding force, we brought in 10 partners, all experts within their field, to tackle different challenges faced by waste pickers as had been identified through the ethnographic survey, with the objective of addressing several concerns together — not just water or education or work safety or earning capacity or housing & social security — but all of these. To provide waste pickers holistic solutions with equity and equitable access to outcomes by all populations as foundational benchmarks of the initiative.

We adopted the Collective Impact approach — a highly structured method to build a collective of community members, organizations, and institutions that advance equity by learning and working together — as it catered to all that we wanted to achieve, and provided the  collaborative framework needed to overcome complex socio-economic problems. 

‍As we successfully close the first phase of Saamuhika Shakti, and march strongly into the second phase this January 2024, we’re proud to report that our partners in Bengaluru, India, have not only demonstrated  that collaboration is possible, but have also showed that by working together, more is possible than the sum of its parts. 

However, we didn’t start this way. 

Our aim to shift power relations, create inclusive societies, and ensure equity for the long term required patience, adaptability, and continuous communication, as it is not easy to completely reimagine how different actors collaborate, that too in a system where too many organizations are used to working in isolation from one another. 

The work was not without challenges… Read the full story at saamuhikashakti.org

Unprecedented challenges also call for unprecedented efforts to tackle complex problems. Applying a systems change perspective allows actors as diverse as non-governmental organisations, businesses, and governments to create interventions that address the underlying root causes of complex problems and tackle the drivers of poverty and inequality.

What is systems change?

According to the Observatory of Public Innovation, systems change requires working across organisational boundaries and scales. By applying a systems lens to complex problems, organisations can map the dynamics of the system they’re trying to improve, explore the relationships between different actors in the system, and identify suitable interventions. The method requires a shift in mindset from linear thinking to embracing the complexity and interconnectedness of systems, individuals, and problems. 

“System change is about confronting the root causes rather than the symptoms by transforming structures, customs, mindsets, and power dynamics,” said Charlotte Brunnström, strategy lead at H&M Foundation.

Since 2020, the foundation has been implementing the so-called Collective Impact method, a highly structured collaborative model where a diverse group of actors come together in partnerships to solve complex social challenges. The aim of the method is precisely to achieve this deeper systems change, explained Brunnström.

“As a philanthropic foundation, we can engage in long-term initiatives that are not just about head-counting or finding a quick fix. And as a non-profit, we can engage in activities that focus on perception change and behaviour change, but also trying to change power relations and resource flows, which takes time,” she said.

How does the Collective Impact method work?

The CI method consists of a cluster of implementing partners each providing an intervention. Together, they provide a holistic solution to the primary actor – sometimes referred to as beneficiaries in other models – through deep collaboration coordinated by one, neutral backbone organisation.

In Bangladesh, for example, the H&M Foundation has set up a CI initiative called Oporajita – meaning “undefeated” in Bengali – to help prepare and equip women garment workers for the changes brought about by increased automation of the ready-made-garments, or RMG, industry. The livelihoods of women garment workers are particularly at risk. “The reason for this is two fold. Many women lack the necessary skills and are sometimes also illiterate. But the big problem is that there are a lot of deep-rooted stereotypes in Bangladesh, saying that women cannot work with advanced tech and that they aren’t capable of leadership positions,” said Brunnström. That’s why only providing skills training isn’t enough – the initative also works to change these harmful gender norms, but also to ensure women have access to childcare and create a decent work environment.

The Asia Foundation, as the backbone organisation, coordinates the efforts and communication between the 11 implementing partners which jointly offer interventions ranging from creating sustainable livelihood alternatives for unemployed workers to addressing gender-based discrimination and harassment. 

Another CI initative supported by the H&M Foundation is Saamuhika Shakti – meaning “collective strength” – in India, which works to enable informal waste pickers to have greater agency to lead secure and dignified lives. To many of India’s rural population who migrate to larger cities such as Bangalore in search of better economic opportunities, waste picking is often a gateway occupation until they manage to get settled and make more connections, explained Akshay Soni, the executive director of Saamuhika Shakti and a managing director at The Nudge Institute, the programs’ backbone organisation. 

Waste pickers also play a crucial role in ensuring materials such as plastics are recycled. Globally, only about 9% of plastic gets recycled. In India, that number is over 30%, and it’s mainly because of waste pickers, explained Soni. Despite their crucial role in the recycling ecosystem, their work is often met with stigma and prejudice from the rest of the population. 

Working with partners to offer a holistic solution

The benefits of the CI method lie in bringing together specialist organisations to jointly address a multi-layered, complex problem, explained Soni. Organisations that run all sorts of different interventions for a community rarely manage to scale because they are generalists. “And generalists who are doing a lot of different things are unable to lower the cost of the intervention on a per-person basis, to give a great ROI [Return on Investment] on philanthropic money,” he said.

Specialist organisations, on the other hand, look at one problem really deeply and “solve for it by uncovering the layers of the onion right down to the root causes,” he said. The CI method allows you to bring together a group of specialist organisations to solve for a single community, explained Soni. “So you’ve lowered the cost of the intervention by using the specialists and getting them to come together.”

“The CI method allows you to bring together a group of specialist organisations to solve for a single community”

Akshay Soni

In the case of Saamuhika Shakti, that means some organisations are focusing on providing vocational training and life skills for the waste pickers, while others are working to improve professional pride among waste pickers and to encourage Bangalore’s general population to respect and value waste picking.

When Sivalami was 13 years old, she used to go waste picking with her mother whenever the family needed some extra income. She has experienced the stigma that comes with the profession firsthand. “If it was a male who was waste picking, they [the community] would still have some respect for them. But because it was a woman leading the family and going waste picking, they would often accuse us of being thiefs, of stealing,” she said through a translator. 

However, she would also feel pride in ensuring the plastic she picked got recycled. ”The knowledge that when I pick up plastic, I’m making sure it’s getting made into something else. And if I don’t pick it up, it will just be there in the soil and not degrade for years and years,” she said.  

Sivalami stopped waste picking eight years ago when she got married, and now works as a community health care worker and has also participated in the tailoring classes offered by the Saamuhika Shakti initative.

The CI method also places a lot of importance on engaging directly with primary actors who have lived experience around the issues each program is trying to solve. During the design phase of the inititive, the backbone organisation ensure their needs and views are taken into account when creating each intervention. “They need to also be part of the solution,” said Soni.

Implementing the Collective Impact method

The CI method is built on a shared vision, shared agenda, shared goal, and unique metrics for each organisation, explained Brunnström. At the beginning of a program, all the implementing partners are convened by the backbone organisation to jointly develop this common agenda and metrics. The shared measurement system includes different indicators linked to each implementing organisation’s specific intervention, but also indicators that are linked to the common goal and the common agenda, explained Brunnström. 

This helps to track progress, but also to ensure mutually reinforcing activities, coordinate each partner’s activities, and encourage continuous communication so that everyone knows what others are working on. The evaluation of a CI initiative is not quantitative and simple, for example, counting the number of people engaged in an activity is not super important for us, added Brunnström. “We are more focused on other kinds of more long-term results such as changing policy, power dynamics, or resource flows.”

A key part of each CI initative is a strong and neutral backbone organisation – which is carefully selected by the H&M Foundation –  consisting of a local team dedicated to coordinating the work of the cluster. The backbone is not an implementing organisation itself but works like our extended arm in-country, coordinating the daily work of all the implementing actors, explained Brunnström, adding that it’s also crucial for fostering cross-sector communication. 

“The CI method is built on a shared vision, shared agenda, shared goal, and unique metrics for each organisation.”

Charotte Brunnström

One of their key responsibilities is to get actors within the cluster to collaborate. At the start, The Nudge Institute assumed that organisations would collaborate – but they did not, explained Soni. A lot of nonprofits have the so-called “not-invented-here-syndrome,” meaning they are often reluctant to implement other organisation’s interventions even if they might be effective, he explained. The CI method works to change that mindset and they ended up introducing collaborative KPIs to incentivize collaboration – and it worked, explained Soni.

“The backbone organisation plays this cohesive role because they have the overview of the entire program, they understand who’s doing what and how we can leverage each other’s strengths,” said Saurabh Dey, manager at the Circular Apparel Innovation Factory, one of 11 implementing partners in the Oporajita initative in Bangladesh as well as a partner in Saamuhika Shakti. 

“The backbone organisation plays this cohesive role because they have the overview of the entire program, they understand who’s doing what and how we can leverage each other’s strengths”

Saurabh Dey

Each implementing partner is responsible for or “leading” at least one workstream and is then encouraged to collaborate and support other organisations on theirs. The Circular Apparel Innovation Factory, for example, works on three different workstreams: identifying alternative employment opportunities with a circular economy lens, ensuring micro-entrepreneurs adopt circular practices, and promoting circular innovation in the textile R&D space, explained Dey. They lead the work on the first workstream and support other organisations in the cluster on the other two. 

To him, the greatest benefit of the CI method is “targeting an intervention based on a primary actor rather than focusing on a huge geography and [having] each organisation trying to come up with their own agenda…it allows you to ensure the primary actors get the holistic support they require,” said Dey. 

Lessons Learned from Collective Impact

One of the biggest benefits of the CI method is precisely the collaboration it encourages, but for that to work, funders need to be willing to invest in the added cost of a backbone organisation and also accept that not all impact will easily be traced back to each and one of the organisation. “Most philanthropic money globally is focused on breadth of intervention, not depth of intervention, which is where it starts to fall apart. So that is the problem of actually getting people to collaborate,” said Soni. 

Funders such as H&M Foundation have the opportunity to catalyze change and impact with big bets and collective actions. “As innovators, philanthropic organisations can test new ideas and adopt innovative approaches, so philanthropy should use these advantages to focus on the root causes of the current broken systems,” said Brunnström.

It’s also important to invest time and funding for everyone in the cluster to establish relationships and to build trust. “I think that’s a prerequisite for everyone to be transparent about the challenges that they’re facing, and ways to help each other,” said Brunnström. 

Together with the backbone organization we need to ensure coordination and accountability among all the members of the cluster and foster the trust needed to achieve long-lasting and collective change, she added.

What is Open Perspectives?  

Open Perspectives by H&M Foundation is an inspirational physical and digital face-to-face concept to share insights and learnings from our own work, from the textile industry and from others who inspire us. The overarching goal is to inspire others to contribute to the vision of enabling a more inclusive and sustainable fashion and textile industry.  

If you didn’t have the opportunity to watch the session live, you can find it in its entirety above.  

Transformative narratives can change the world

The event was kicked off by keynote speaker Per Olsson, Associate Professor and Deputy Science Director at Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, who shared his views on the power of discourse in shaping perceptions, and specifically, some the challenges that arise and must be faced head-on if we are to succeed.  

Per Olsson “Over time we have
been separating nature and people, but I think it’s fairly easy to mend;
I think we have it in us that we’re completely dependent on healthy ecosystems for our own health and survival. And it’s about life! The planet won’t die, it has gone
through several things for four billion years. Ultimately, the questions is, do we want to be
part of this journey with the
planet for longer?” 

“The planet won’t die, it has gone through several things for four billion years. Ultimately, the questions is, do we want to be part of this journey with the planet for longer?”

Per Olsson

After a short film showcasing a current exhibition at Fotografiska (in partnership with the H&M Foundation and Planethon) called The Echo Chamber by celebrated photographer Erik Johnasson – who through his work invites us to explore the power of perception – the stage was then given to our own Charlotte Brunnström, Strategy Lead for Inclusive Societies at H&M Foundation and Andrew Merrie, Head of Futures and Research Lead at Planethon. The discussion centered around the power of perception including themes concerning prejudice and how we overcome it, as well as looking at what we can draw on from the past to help guide us in creating a better future.  

Charlotte Brunnström “I want to stress the importance of being inclusive. I want to remind us all about the importance of being aware of the current power relations out there and constantly ask yourself, who’s invited to the conversation? Is there a diversity of backgrounds and competences? If we all do that we will surely make better decisions.”  

“I want to remind us all about the importance of being aware of the current power relations out there and constantly ask yourself, who’s invited to the conversation?”

Charlotte Brunnström

Before concluding remarks, an evocative and impactful video made our partner BBC Media Action (the BBC’s international charity using media and communications for good) who works with perception change in our project in India, was shown highlighting the negative perceptions and social implications that can arise from those simply earning a living and trying to contribute to a better society, in this instance, a more circular economy.  

Speaking to the sentiment behind this video, and in summing up the session,  Planethon’s Andrew Merrie commented that “There are so many groups of people that are invisible but could be invaluable. If we imagined creating an army of invaluables from all around the world, that would create a huge network of valuable people helping to create the future we say that we want. We often talk about the role of technology to be key to create a better future, but we need to bring human dignity at the forefront and we need to image how different groups of humans are part of creating the society we want.”  

Thank you to all those who participated in the event. 

Interested to learn more? Below you can find some interesting resources to dive deeper into some of the topics explored across Open Perspectives.  

• Planethon
• BBC Media Action
• The Echo Chamber

Since then, it has gone from mostly being used to assess potential negative impacts of large government projects to becoming an integral part of the work done by everyone from multilateral development banks and non-governmental organizations to social entrepreneurs and the private sector.

Despite its importance, measuring social impact is far from a straightforward exercise and more than 150 different methodologies have been developed for wide use, according to the Journal of Global Policy. More recently, many social innovators and the philanthropic donors that fund them have started questioning how to meaningfully measure the impact interventions – and funding – are having. To many in the social impact space, the current practice of impact measurement is coming up short, with too much focus being placed on the reporting of outputs such as the number of women reached by a skills training program or the number of jobs created by a startup. 

The complex challenges facing the world today require interventions that go beyond band-aid solutions to tackling the root causes of poverty or inequality by actually changing the system that upholds them in the first place. And trying to measure it requires a totally different approach – and mindset.

“Complex issues like systems change are context-sensitive. We
all have intent, but there is no recipe for systems change. So when you’re in a game of systems change, you’re in a game of maybe. We improve the probability that we can get an outcome, but there’s nothing guaranteed,” said Mark Cabaj, an expert in social innovation, strategic learning, and evaluation and the president of the consulting company From Here to There.

H&M Foundation spoke to Cabaj about why many organizations still struggle to measure systems change and why organizations should go beyond just tracking outputs if they want to contribute to lasting change.

The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

For organizations looking to achieve social impact, it’s easier to collect low-hanging fruit and strive for easily quantifiable impact – such as the number of mosquito bed nets handed out – than to tackle the root causes of poverty or inequality. But why is it important to also measure deeper systems change if more organizations are to take on this challenge?

It’s a classic challenge showing how it’s easier to default to tracking outputs and just assume that something magical will happen. It’s natural behavior ever since we started normalizing logic models and results frameworks. I’m really interested in measurement, but I’m very cautious about measurement because it’s only one small part of evaluation. I think we have obsessive measurement disorder – we follow the principle that it’s really important to focus on outcomes and outputs. The question is, when do you go beyond simply tracking outputs? How do you do it in a feasible way? And how do you actually get measurements that mean something?

“I’m really interested in measurement, but I’m very cautious about measurement because it’s only one small part of evaluation.”

Mark Cabaj

There are even cases when measurement isn’t necessary. Take vaccination campaigns – if you follow a logic model that lays out the outcomes and research has already shown that vaccines reduce COVID-19 cases, you might not have to measure all of the outcomes. Why would you track a first principle there’s already evidence for? Instead, you might want to evaluate the quality of the implementation of the campaign or see which communities you might be missing.  We should in principle measure impact, but depending on the strategy and the existing evidence base, it may not be a good use of time and resources.

How can funders who want to see at least some feedback on the impact their money is having approach impact measurement? 

The challenge of philanthropy is investing in social innovators and wanting to get some kind of feedback about whether your dollars are making a difference. But it actually takes a lot of expertise and resources to do impact measurement well. When we started doing evaluations in the 1970s and ’80s, we had big think tanks and research institutes trying to track outcomes with a lot of expertise and money. 

And then there was this accountability shift and instead of financing these think tanks and having them do the evaluation, we downgraded the responsibility of tracking impact to non-governmental organizations and those doing the work. While NGOs are mostly really good at what they’re doing, they hardly ever get resources to do decent tracking, and almost never have the required expertise. We don’t have the infrastructure for NGOs to properly measure impact and we need to invest in their capability to do so. 

I spent my whole life trying to track outcomes. And sometimes I’m so desperate to find out, but there’s actually no feasible way of knowing the impact. But that doesn’t mean I would not invest in an idea that logically seems good. For example, I would invest in almost any clever communication campaign that focuses on the beliefs of those reluctant to admit climate change is real. It’s probably not going to be possible to know the exact impact of that work, but it’s still worth spending money on it and it’s the right thing to do. 

You mentioned that measurement is only a small part of evaluation. So what else goes into impact evaluation if done well? 

Good evaluation of systems change actually starts by asking questions about strategic learning. Let’s say a farmer growing coffee beans only gets $9 dollars a day, so what are we learning about the systems that prevent him from earning more? Strategic learning is when you intervene, you get feedback on the outcomes, and then you ask ‘What are we learning about the nature of the problem we’re trying to address and the strengths and limitations of our strategy?’. 

Most evaluations are not used, and that’s partly because we’re data and measurement-rich, but sense-making and use-making poor. Our sense-making processes aren’t very good and we don’t pay attention to how we facilitate the insights gathered from evaluation to make actual changes because we turn it into a measurement exercise. 

“Most evaluations are not used, and that’s partly because we’re data and measurement-rich, but sense-making and use-making poor.”

Mark Cabaj

When I read a report, I have three questions: what is the change, how do they describe it, and is there at least enough sense-making to provoke me into agreeing or disagreeing? Then the next question is, ‘So what now? Tell me the implications of the things you measure.’ That’s when it starts bridging into the zone of usefulness. Without it, it’s just noise.

There’s been a recent shift towards international organizations focusing more on addressing unequal power structures to shift power to local organizations and communities. But how do you measure and quantify something as complex as power? 

Tracking change – particularly power and systems change – almost always requires mixed methods, meaning qualitative and quantitative, because there are no narratives without numbers and no numbers without narratives. So one of the challenges of the evaluator when looking at something like shifting power is to ask: ‘What does that outcome look like? What do you mean by power? And how is it shifted?’ 

There’s this instinct and an impulse in a group to say we want to change power, and the evaluator’s job is to help people make that explicit and say ‘Well, what does it look like? What’s the theory of change?’. So we actually have to help people sharpen up what they mean by these outcome statements, and then we can do something about it. Just saying what you mean by power is a very useful exercise for innovators.

Measuring long-lasting and meaningful systems change might seem like an insurmountable task to many organizations, especially in the beginning. So where do you start?

First, you need to ask what system you’re trying to change. If it’s the health system, for example, how big is that system, is it the health system in Nepal, or across the planet? Or is it just in one city? Then you want to consider the characteristics and try to describe the system as much as possible. How is it behaving now? And how do you want the system to change and behave after your intervention? 

“For systems change, you have to be able to handle ambiguity and have a tolerance for risk, and you have to be able to accept failure.”

Mark Cabaj

You also need to consider that systems change happens through little tipping points – slowly, but then suddenly. And everyone wants to be that tipping point, that last snowflake to break the branch. But it’s difficult to know how much of that “tipping” you’re responsible for. Consider your ability to create the conditions for systems change without ever pretending that you will know for certain that you’re gonna be the last snowflake to break the branch, but you can track to what degree you’re adding on snowflakes.

And so when people say I want systems change but I want predictable outcomes, my response is always ‘Get out of that game, you won’t handle it.’ Go take on simple things like vaccination rates, you can handle that. For systems change, you have to be able to handle ambiguity and have a tolerance for risk, and you have to be able to accept failure.

Explore how a shift in our worldviews could open new paths to a brighter future and be a key enabler in creating a more inclusive society – and textile industry. How can we expand our horizons and catalyse a positive future?

Welcome to Open Perspectives by H&M Foundation!

For registration and more information, please visit the digital LinkedIn event here.

As impatient change makers, we are curious to explore new ways of using innovation as a driver for change. The Global Change Award is our main lever for innovation and has supported so many brilliant innovators with bold ideas throughout the years, of which many have been piloted and adopted by the industry.

It makes me really proud. Since GCA was launched in 2015, we have gathered a lot of learnings from both our successes and failures. And we are constantly evaluating how we can create even better impact for both the planet and people. So now we’re working on how we can take GCA to the next level.

But why now?

Well, GCA has evolved through the years. From being “a green prize for fashion”, as media dubbed it the first year when circularity was the focus – which was quite an unknown term in 2015 – to the wider planet positive scope that we have today. Every year we’ve made a few tweaks here and there, but change is not happening fast enough, and we believe we can help to find and accelerate the solutions the industry needs to create a bigger impact. I also believe that as a philanthropic foundation, we have an even bigger role to play as we can contribute with funding, support and absorb risk that most private and public actors can’t. So, the decision to take GCA to the next level was pretty simple. And this is what we are working on right now.

So what does this mean, when can I apply?

It means keep an eye out for this space, because a lot of exciting new opportunities will emerge during 2024!

As many industries are looking to minimize waste and save resources, the demand for recycled materials in the fashion industry has increased. However, recycling certain materials can sometimes be a tricky process, especially leather waste can be difficult to recycle. Much of the recycled leather contains harmful chemical residues, such as chromium VI, which result from the tanning process. These chemical residuals are carried through in the conventional recycling process.

To enable a planet positive industry, by accelerating vital research and supporting breakthrough innovation to scale, H&M Foundation is collaborating with HKRITA in the programme Planet First. One of the research projects, reProLeather, has resulted in a new technology to separate the chromium VI from the shredded leather fibres and create a bio-based, alternative to the PU and PVC binders, thereby creating a new form of recycled leather that is biodegradable and recyclable.

The reProLeather successfully restructured post-consumer leather fibres into leather sheets in its research stage. HKRITA is now seeking industry partners to optimize production properties and enhance functions, paving the way for improved industry applicability in the future.

“As a philanthropic change agent for the entire industry, we take risks to unlock needed solutions with the ambition to find technologies that can contribute to a planet positive fashion future. I’m always open to sharing our findings openly with others, to find industry actors ready to adopt bold innovations and reProLeather could be one of these solutions. I hope to see it scale soon.”

Christiane Dolva, Strategy Lead at H&M Foundation

The technology

reProLeather is a recycled leather system that separates, categorises and recycles post-consumer leather products into useful raw materials for the manufacturing of new products.

It is carried out in two steps, beginning with shredding a whole post-consumer leather product into pieces until leather fibres of high purity are obtained and removing free chromium by transforming it into a soluble salt or complex compound. Then the separated leather fibres react with bio-based binders such as sugar or protein under mild conditions, and collagen fibres become interconnected and form a new leather.

Regenerated leather obtained with such a novel bio-based approach is water-resistant and biodegradable, resulting in a ‘virtuous circle’ for leather recycling.

Key technological advancements:

• Utilizing environmentally friendly bio-based binders (e.g., sugar or protein) as substitutes for synthetic PU and PVC, resulting in a new sheet of leather.
• Employing a reaction process that minimizes the formation of toxic chromium VI during recycling.
• Successfully restructuring the pro-consumer leather fibres to form a leather sheet.

Benefits for the industry:

• Mitigating environmental harm and health concerns stemming from chrome tanning in leather production.
• Providing an eco-friendly alternative to traditional recycled leather.
• Incorporating raw collagen fibres that enhances the tactile experience.
• Ensuring the recycled leather is durable enough for further manufacturing.

“Our thoughts are with those impacted by this terrible disaster. We at H&M Foundation wanted to show our support and solidarity to the people of Morocco with this donation, that will support the aid relief efforts of the Red Cross Red Crescent in Morocco.”

Karl-Johan Persson, board member H&M Foundation

The Moroccan Red Crescent (MRCS) have been on the ground since the very beginning. Teams are supporting local and national authorities in the search and rescue operation, also in hard-to-reach areas (mountainous areas). The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) together with the partner national societies such as the Swedish Red Cross aim to support the Moroccan Red Crescent Society (MRCS) in the response to this earthquake.

Emergency efforts targeting 500,000 people include:

• Integrated assistance such as in-kind relief items (food, household items), cash programming and shelter.
• Access to clean water, sanitation and hygiene service (WaSH).
• Health well as healthcare and emergency medical assistance including mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS).
• Restoring family links and community-based protection activities for unaccompanied and separated children, and other persons with special needs.

To learn more about the disaster relief efforts led by the Red Cross/Red Crescent, please visit their website.

“H&M Foundation provided us the space and flexibility to apply new ways of working and to learn more about what’s needed to advance progress towards sustainable, safe and universal water, sanitation and hygiene. In addition to reaching over 400,000 people with water, sanitation and hygiene, the external final evaluation found that we had helped to strengthen the systems required to keep services running, hygiene behaviours reinforced, and reach everyone with WASH in all four countries”, says Hannah Crichton-Smith, Senior Advisor for Systems Strengthening at WaterAid. “It also found that we had successfully captured and shared lessons to advance WaterAid’s and the wider sectors’ understanding of how to apply systems strengthening approaches in practice.”

“H&M Foundation provided us the space and flexibility to apply new ways of working and to learn more about what’s needed to advance progress towards sustainable, safe and universal water, sanitation and hygiene.”

Hannah Crichton-Smith

The final evaluation of the programme helped to consolidate lessons learned and produced a number of recommendations for how WaterAid can advance the application of systems strengthening approaches to achieve SDG 6, clean water and sanitation for all.

“The most significant example is how the reports have informed our new global strategy which was launched in February last year (2022) and which places systems strengthening as our core approach – emphasising the importance of evidence, analysis, collective action (partnerships and alliances), working at national and sub-national levels, learning, innovation and adaptation”, says Hanna.

WaterAid has adapted some of the tools piloted in the SusWASH programme to support country teams to design their new country-level strategies and programmes. They are also exploring new ways to monitor and evaluate their projects and contribution towards achieving SDG 6 and are working to embed the programmes’ lessons and recommendations into new staff inductions and training.

Watch Open Perspectives on YouTube.

A message from 2063

Seeing is believing. That’s why Open Perspectives opened with a story told by a future generation, aimed at the changemakers of today. The science-backed scenario – made in collaboration with Planethon – illustrated what a possible future textile industry could look like if we dare to transform ourselves and the system.

In 2063, the textile industry can be inclusive and serve Earth for all. It requires radical transformation. But it is possible. The scenario is based on large numbers of industry reports, brimming innovations, and interdisciplinary papers from sustainability science, the planetary boundaries framework and the book Earth for All: A Survival Guide for Humanity.

It’s now in our hands to make it happen.

Unleashing exponential transformation

Climate scientist, Professor Johan Rockström, opened the summit by sharing the state of knowledge and the urgent actions required to hold the 1,5 degrees Celsius limit, halt biodiversity loss, and ensure a safe landing for both planet and people. We have less than seven years until the window closes.

“The planet is so small, and the world has become so big that nothing but exponential transformation at scale is now required. It is possible, not only necessary, and requires all hands on deck and a pathway that is accelerated.”

Prof. Johan Rockström

Watch Johan Rockström’s keynote (10 mins).

Change the narrative – change the system

Anna Gedda, Global Manager at H&M Foundation, sent a call to action to the brands, suppliers, innovators, academia, investors, NGOs and decision-makers in the audience.

“Continue to listen to the experts, be guided by their insights, support and scale innovation in the way you can, address the systems and not the silos, and be that story of change that helps others to act. It all comes down to us.” – Anna Gedda.

Watch Anna Gedda’s opening remarks (10 mins).

Pitching for the planet

Throughout Open Perspectives, an array of Global Change Award alumni and social entrepreneurs backed by H&M Foundation took the primetime opportunity to pitch their solutions to the stakeholders watching. The audience were introduced to

• Werewool – Creating fabrics on DNA level with natural colours, stretch and other features
• Resortecs – A dissolvable thread that makes repairing and recycling a breeze
• Phool – Vegan leather made from discarded temple flowers, in collaboration with waste pickers
• GALY – Using biotechnology to create lab-grown cotton
• Ashaya – Sunglasses from packets of chips, made in collaboration with waste pickers
• BIORESTORE – A laundry solution that restores old and worn garments to mint condition

After the summit, new and previous GCA winners, as well as social entrepreneurs, showcased their innovations to investors, brands and industry stakeholders capable of accelerating their journey from lab to launch.

Turning ideas into impact

Panel discussion on innovation’s role in transforming the textile industry with impact advisor Linda Greer, food entrepreneur Miles Kubheka, and Closed Loop Partners’ Caroline Brown. Moderated by Christiane Dolva, H&M Foundation.

“Follow the tons. How much impact are you going to be able to have, how fast are you going to be able to have it, and make the case that this is going to be a significant innovation to help the world,” says Linda Greer in a call to action to every innovator in the room.

Watch the panel (15 mins).

Addressing systems change

Panel discussion on systems change with Resortecs’ Ann Runnel, The Good Business Lab’s Anant Ahuja and Novetex Textiles Limited’s Ronna Chau. Moderated by Jasmin Malik Chua, Sourcing Journal.

“I would like to be put out of business, because there’s no longer any excess inventory and not because people aren’t willing to talk about their excess. Right now though, there are a lot of brands with a lot of excess, that don’t know how to deal with it because it’s been accumulating over years. The changes aren’t happening quickly enough, we need to go at it all angles, help and provide more solutions.” – Ronna Chau.

Watch the panel (15 mins).

Storytelling for a sustainable future

Rachel Arthur, advocacy lead at the UN Environment Programme, called on the fashion industry’s unsung heroes to step forward and dare to tell new stories, stories that shift narratives and show what a possible fashion future can look like.

“We need every piece of talent this industry has. And that starts with bringing those who get these stories in front of consumers to join us at the table: Marketers, storytellers, artists, image makers, role models, writers, creators, designers, influencers, advocates and more. We need them to help us envision what this new world looks like.”

Rachel Arthur

Watch Rachel Arthur’s keynote (10 mins).

Watch the live stream from Open Perspectives to learn more from Professor Johan Rockström, Ronna Chao, Miles Kubehka, Caroline Brown, Linda Greer, Rachel Arthur, entrepreneurs and many other brilliant minds.