Green-factory evaluation stresses evidence: environmental data cannot replace workwear performance files

MIIT's interpretation of the 2025 green-factory and green-park list stresses online submission and supporting evidence. Workwear supply chains can borrow the evidence-management approach, but environmental data, protective performance, and compliance conclusions still need separate records.

Source-backed points

• The interpretation mentions a common online evaluation tool, enterprise data entry, and uploaded evidence.
• Green-manufacturing examples include energy monitoring, process control, and resource use.
• A green-factory designation or case does not automatically prove that a garment meets a specific protective requirement.

Editorial context

The common confusion is putting a supplier's green information directly into a product-performance field. A safer approach is to link every environmental claim to scope, evidence, and review date, alongside—not in place of—material and garment test files.

Use boundary and next step

• Separate environmental attributes, performance evidence, and verification date in RFQ sheets.
• Treat a claim that cannot resolve to an SKU or batch as pending verification only.

Sources: 中华人民共和国工业和信息化部《《工业和信息化部办公厅关于公布绿色工厂、绿色工业园区（2025年度）名单的通知》解读》. This is an independently written, link-and-summary editorial note; it does not republish source text, images, or attachments. For standards, procurement, and safety decisions, use the original record and qualified professional advice.