EcoLoom
C-Suite Ready Insights — trusted by 5,000+ ESG leaders. Straight To Your Inbox. Twice A Month.
How a global apparel and lifestyle company turned fragmented supplier data from Higg FEM, ZDHC Gateway and BHive into a single sustainability scorecard aligned with its own 2030 methodology.
Komar works with a wide network of suppliers and already collects sustainability data from most of them. Higg FEM covers environmental management, energy, water, and waste. ZDHC Gateway provides chemical management and wastewater data. BHive provides chemical inventory and wastewater data for parts of the network. Certifications and supporting documents are kept separately.
To assess a supplier’s overall performance, Komar had to pull information from all these sources and reconcile it manually.
GreenStitch worked with Komar to consolidate this data into a single supplier sustainability scorecard aligned with Komar’s 2030 sustainability objectives. The scorecard assesses Tier 1 and Tier 2 facilities, ranks their performance, and shows suppliers where they need to improve.
Komar had access to a lot of data and information about its suppliers, but the difficulty was in reconciling it. Each platform reports on a different area using its own methodology and format, and they did not answer how a given supplier was performing against the expectations set out in the 2030 strategy. Comparing two suppliers, reading Tier 1 and Tier 2 performance together, deciding where to intervene first, and connecting one facility’s numbers back to a corporate target all required manual interpretation. There was also no consistent metric by which strong performers could be recognized, so suppliers who were doing well had no path to being rewarded for it.
The biggest limitation was therefore not necessarily the absence of data, but the difficulty of synthesizing fragmented data into a consistent view of supplier performance.
— Dr. Thiwanka De Fonseka, Chief Sustainability Officer at Komar
The scale of Komar’s 2030 sustainability commitments made the manual approach impractical. The company needed to know whether suppliers were completing assessments and whether their performance was moving in the direction the strategy required. Running these checks manually across a network of that size was not something spreadsheets alone could have handled.
Komar decided to build a supplier sustainability scorecard to solve this limitation.
Komar built the scoring methodology in-house. It was aligned to the 2030 strategy, with its own rules for Tier 1 and Tier 2, partial and percentage-based scoring, threshold logic, and corrective-action recommendations.
After developing the methodology, Komar began looking for a platform that could build the scorecard. The brand needed a partner who could digitize that methodology without flattening it into a generic scoring model, and who understood apparel supply chains. It wanted something that would integrate multiple industry data sources, apply Komar’s own scoring rules to them, and turn the results into insights for supplier engagement and sourcing decisions. Flexibility mattered more than feature coverage, because the methodology was already fixed and the platform had to accommodate it rather than the other way round.
Komar needed supplier-level dashboards, facility rankings and recommended improvement actions, running off the logic. GreenStitch’s willingness to work through those requirements with Komar and to handle apparel-specific data sources natively is what set it apart from the alternatives.
We did not want technology to dictate our strategy; we wanted it to enable our strategy. GreenStitch gave us the opportunity to build around Komar’s specific objectives and supplier management model.
— Dr. Thiwanka De Fonseka, Chief Sustainability Officer at Komar
Each facility is scored against criteria drawn from Komar’s 2030 sustainability objectives and receives a score, a ranking and a set of recommended actions.
The Tier 1 framework covers long-term sustainability planning, complete energy and water consumption records, baselines, reduction targets and action plans, renewable electricity use, zero-landfill of raw-material waste, absolute potable-water reduction targets, verified Higg FEM performance, etc.
The Tier 2 framework goes deeper into knitting, weaving, and wet processing, covering ZDHC Level 1 or above chemical compliance, Supplier to Zero, Clearstream, renewable energy, water, waste, Higg FEM performance, etc.
Criteria are scored differently depending on what they measure. Some are yes/no; others award partial credit; and some turn on a threshold, so renewable electricity scores, then scores higher once it exceeds 40% of total electricity.
The methodology also separates commitment from delivery by awarding points for meeting an absolute potable-water reduction target and additional points for achieving a 5% or greater reduction. Tier 2 results feed into a cumulative Tier 1 score, so a Tier 1 supplier’s result reflects the performance of the mills it sources from. Where a supplier scores zero on a question, the scorecard returns a recommended action explaining what to do about it.
Converting sustainability information of that many different shapes into a single credible score was difficult, and Tier 2 added a further problem because responsibility varies by sourcing model. Where Komar nominates the mill, a requirement can apply directly to that facility. Under FOB arrangements, the Tier 1 supplier carries more responsibility for selecting and influencing its Tier 2 facilities. The scorecard had to account for that difference without becoming too complicated for suppliers to work with.
Legibility was the other constraint on the design. Higg FEM, ZDHC, BHive, energy, water, waste, and certifications all use different methodologies and reporting structures, and the scorecard had to preserve the credibility of each while producing something a sourcing colleague or a supplier manager could read quickly.
Since the methodology was fixed, most of the build work was translation, carrying every scoring rule across intact, including the cumulative Tier 1 logic and the corrective-action recommendations, while keeping the result usable at the other end. GreenStitch made sure that the scorecard preserved the credibility of each data source.
The system also had to be more than a reporting tool. GreenStitch built the scorecard so suppliers could see where they stand, what they need to improve, how improvements would affect their score, and where Komar could support them.
The most valuable aspect has been the ability to turn sustainability data into a management tool rather than merely a reporting repository. That fosters a much more collaborative relationship around sustainability performance.
— Dr. Thiwanka De Fonseka, Chief Sustainability Officer at Komar
| Before | With the GreenStitch scorecard | |
|---|---|---|
| Supplier view | Individual data points across Higg FEM, ZDHC Gateway, BHive and certifications | One framework covering Tier 1 and Tier 2 in a common view |
| Comparison | Manual interpretation each time two suppliers were compared | Individual and cumulative scores, with facility rankings |
| Link to 2030 targets | Established by hand, supplier by supplier | Built into the scoring criteria |
| Supplier engagement | Broadly the same approach applied across the base | Targeted by where the score shows the gap |
| Improvement guidance | Available on request, from separate assessments | Recommended action returned for every zero-scoring question |
| Recognition | No consistent basis for rewarding strong performers | Score-based, with reward tied to performance |
| Sourcing visibility | Sustainability information largely held in the sustainability function | Separate sourcing access, alongside traditional supplier criteria |
The clearest gain for Komar is visibility. The brand can now assess Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers within a shared framework and track performance against the priorities that matter to the company, enabling the team to act much faster than before.
It has changed how supplier engagement is allocated. One supplier may need help establishing energy and water baselines; another may need to increase its use of renewable electricity; and a wet-processing facility may need to improve its ZDHC chemical compliance or wastewater reporting. The score identifies which is which, so capacity building is directed and not applied uniformly across the base.
Regarding supplier performance, Komar reports early positive movement in the areas where the scorecard has clarified expectations. Suppliers are beginning to move from reporting sustainability data to setting targets and building action plans behind them. Komar expects to quantify this more systematically as year-over-year scores accumulate.
What gets measured consistently becomes easier to manage, and what becomes visible creates a stronger incentive to improve.
— Dr. Thiwanka De Fonseka, Chief Sustainability Officer at Komar
Dr. De Fonseka led the methodological approach from the sustainability perspective. He translated Komar’s 2030 objectives into measurable facility-level criteria, deciding how those criteria should be scored, and mapping each indicator to the evidence source that would support it.
Most of the decisions involved were methodological. He had to determine which indicators reflected sustainability maturity, which requirements should carry greater weight, where thresholds should sit, when partial scoring was appropriate, and how far Tier 2 performance should influence a Tier 1 result. For example, renewable electricity is weighted more heavily above 40% because that threshold directly reflects Komar’s supply-chain renewable-energy ambition.
He also pushed the project past measurement. His position was that scoring on its own would not produce the behavioral change Komar wanted, which led to the recommended actions: the option for suppliers to select their own improvement priorities for the following year, and the reward logic behind the score.
It would have been relatively easy to build a dashboard that displayed Higg FEM or ZDHC results. The more difficult task was determining what those data points should mean to Komar.
— Dr. Thiwanka De Fonseka, Chief Sustainability Officer at Komar
Internally, he was responsible for ensuring sustainability insights for support sourcing decisions, agreeing on what would be expected of suppliers, how results would be communicated, and how Komar would support facilities that needed help. Sourcing teams have their own access to the system for that reason.
V1.0 covers Tier 1 and selected Tier 2 facilities. Komar intends to widen supplier coverage, deepen Tier 2 visibility, and move further upstream, with more automated integration, facility-level greenhouse gas trajectories, renewable energy progress, water-risk indicators, product and material sustainability information, improved waste and circularity metrics, and traceability into lower tiers of the supply chain.
The longer-term intention is for the scorecard to serve as an early-warning and decision-support system, enabling Komar to determine whether a supplier is on track for 2030 before it is too late to intervene.
Dr. De Fonseka’s advice to other apparel companies considering the same route is to leave the technology until last.
First, determine the sustainability outcomes you want your suppliers to achieve. Then identify which data actually shows whether they are progressing toward those outcomes. Only after that should you digitize the framework.
— Dr. Thiwanka De Fonseka, Chief Sustainability Officer at Komar
Ready to Build Your Own Sustainability Scorecard?
