A student is researching the impact of fast fashion on the environment. They find the following passage on a clothing company's website: 'We are committed t...

(a) One strength and one limitation of using a company's own website as a research source on environmental impact [4]

Strength [2]: The company has direct access to its own production data, such as the exact percentage of recycled polyester used and precise water consumption figures from its factories. No external source would have the same level of detail about the company's internal operations, so the specific numbers cited (30% recycled polyester, 12% water reduction) may be accurate and verifiable.

Limitation [2]: The company has a clear commercial interest in presenting itself positively to customers. It may highlight improvements (such as the 12% water reduction) while omitting negative information, for example total carbon emissions, waste generated, or the environmental impact of its remaining 70% non-recycled polyester. The passage itself includes marketing language ("Join our green loyalty programme"), confirming that the purpose is promotional rather than informational.

(b) Two questions a researcher should ask about the 12% water reduction claim [4]

Any two of the following, each worth [2]:

1. What was the baseline water consumption? A 12% reduction sounds significant, but if the original level was very high, the company may still be using large volumes of water. A percentage reduction is meaningless without knowing the absolute starting figure.
2. Does the figure apply to all factories or only selected sites? The company might report the figure from its most efficient factory while ignoring others, making the overall picture less impressive than the statistic suggests.
3. Has an independent auditor verified the claim? Self-reported data from a company with a financial motive to appear sustainable may not be accurate. Third-party verification would add credibility.
4. Has total production volume increased? If the company has expanded, a 12% per-unit reduction might still mean overall water use has risen. Efficiency gains can be outweighed by growth in output.

(c) Two alternative sources for a more balanced understanding, with reasons [4]

Any two of the following, each worth [2]:

1. An environmental NGO report (e.g. from Greenpeace or the Ellen MacArthur Foundation): this would likely include criticism as well as praise and cover the fast fashion industry as a whole rather than one company's self-selected highlights. NGOs typically have environmental protection as their mission, providing a counterbalance to the company's commercial perspective.
2. A peer-reviewed academic study on textile waste: academic research uses systematic methodology, is independently reviewed before publication, and must disclose methods and limitations. This provides a more rigorous evidence base than a corporate website.
3. Government environmental agency data on textile industry pollution: official bodies collect data using standardised methods across an entire sector, providing regulated statistics that no single company can manipulate.
4. Investigative journalism from a reputable outlet: professional journalists seek multiple viewpoints, verify claims against independent data, and have editorial standards that reduce the risk of one-sided reporting.