Why zero faults is not a realistic requirement
Short answer: Because clothing is handled by people and machines in many steps, and because a check only sees part of the batch. A demand for zero faults would mean every garment is inspected, and it would still guarantee nothing.
Clothing passes through many steps
From yarn to finished garment, the fabric goes through knitting, dyeing, cutting, sewing, inspection and packing. At each step people and machines work quickly with small tolerances. With so many steps, it is unrealistic to promise that no loose thread, crooked seam or small stain ever slips through the whole chain.
The check is a sample
Even a very thorough check sees only part of the batch, because not every box is opened and not every garment examined. That is why nobody can promise that no fault exists anywhere. It is not a sign of carelessness, but an honest description of what a sample can and cannot do.
Full inspection does not promise zero either
You could imagine every garment being examined one by one. But eyes get tired too, and even an experienced inspector sometimes misses a small fault. Full inspection would still not guarantee zero, and it would take so long that the goods reached the shop much later.
The price rises with no gain
Full inspection of every garment costs more than the faults it finds. The money would end up in the price, and the customer would pay more for a certainty that does not exist. That is the main reason a sample with agreed limits is chosen instead. See also Boody.
That is why limits are used
Instead of a demand for zero, it is agreed how many faults may occur and which faults are never accepted. The limits are written down so both sides know what applies. That makes the check measurable and fair, and it is a far more useful rule than a promise nobody can keep. See also Lindbergh and CCDK.
Some faults are never accepted
Even though small faults have a limit, some faults are never accepted. A piece of metal stuck in the fabric, or a wrong fibre content on the label, stops the whole batch no matter how many garments were checked. The limit for serious faults is therefore in practice zero.
Faults are caught early in production
Many factories also check along the way and not only at the end. If a crooked seam is spotted during sewing, it can be corrected at once, before the whole batch is sewn. That leaves fewer faults at the end and partly explains why the final check can make do with a sample.
When a fault slips through anyway
Even with good checks, a faulty garment can reach the customer. It is then handled as a complaint, and the customer gets the item exchanged or the money back. That is the simplest and most honest way to deal with the few faults no check can catch.
How you should see it
A demand for zero faults sounds safe, but it is not realistic and would not make the product better. Better is a clear agreement on limits, an independent check and a proper complaints right. Then you know what to expect and what you can do if something is not as it should be.
Frequently asked questions
Does it mean faults are fine
No. It means there is a difference between a loose thread and a hole, and they are treated differently. Serious faults are never accepted, while small ones have an agreed limit.
What happens to faults that slip through
They are handled as complaints, and the customer gets the item exchanged or the money back. The factory is told, so it can fix the cause in later batches.
Is the factory punished
Repeated faults of the same kind lead to demands for corrections and, in the end, a change of factory. The agreement made in advance decides what is reasonable.
You can find the full range at Bamboo-Clothing.com.
