Offsetting is not a solution: for example, if we wanted to offset all of our CO2 emissions by planting trees, we would have to reforest almost all of the world's currently cultivated land. Source: Jean-Marc Jancovici.
Therebound effect, more generally, explains that the energy savings expected from a new technology are offset by an increase in consumption. And that is far from being the only perverse effect of sustainable development.
An investment fund is a company that collects and invests money from investors by buying shares in companies. The "three-quarters" figure comes from the white paper published by the Association Nationale des Sociétés par Actions in 2016.
Stock options : variable compensation linked to share value that has skyrocketed since the 70s. Thanks to them, the salaries of top American executives have multiplied by more than 10 over 40 years, while the average employee's salary has only seen a 12% increase.
Who are we to say this? You are on La Mode à l’Envers, a blog run by the clothing brand Loom. The textile industry is in a bad way, and the planet is paying the price. So, everything we learn about the sector, we try to explain to you here. Because making sustainable clothing is good, but revealing, sharing, and inspiring is even more powerful. If you enjoy our content and want more, subscribe to our newsletter by clicking here. We promise: we keep it brief and never spam.
En avril 2019, dans les commentaires d’un article, vous nous avez dit ça :
Et ça nous a fait pas mal réfléchir. On s’est rendu compte que les baskets, c’est la pièce de notre vestiaire qui s’abîme le plus vite. C'est vrai qu'entre les chocs, les frottements, la pluie, c’est pas facile de les garder plus d’un an ou deux. Et pour ne rien arranger, les solutions de réutilisation ou de recyclage sont quasi-inexistantes.
Alors on s'est mis en tête de faire des baskets vraiment durables :
durables dans le sens “solides” : qui durent le plus longtemps possible
durables dans le sens “éthiques” : qui ont l’empreinte sociale et environnementale la plus faible possible
durables dans le sens “belles et confortables” : des baskets que vous aurez toujours envie de porter dans deux ans
Réunir ces trois caractéristiques, ça oblige forcément à faire des compromis. Ces baskets ne sont pas parfaites, mais oui, ce sont les meilleures qu’on ait réussi à faire.
Voici comment on s’y est pris.
With a little help from Caroline
D’abord, on a eu la chance de croiser la route de Caroline. Pour la faire courte, Caroline est une star de la chaussure : formée chez Hermès, elle est passée chez Castelbajac, a chaussé des petits artistes méconnus comme Beyoncé, Lady Gaga ou Gondry avant de monter sa marque de sneakers de luxe. On est aussi raccord sur les questions environnementales et a on a la même vision de l'entreprise (sinon elle n'aurait jamais accepté de travailler avec nous).
Quizz : trouvez sur cette photo la personne qui n’a pas été chaussée par Caroline et qui du coup est dégoûtée.
Franchement, sans elle, on ne sait pas comment on aurait fait. Généralement pour fabriquer un vêtement, il faut identifier deux fournisseurs (1- celui qui fabrique le tissu, 2- celui qui confectionne le vêtement) mais pour la chaussure, c’est une tout autre histoire : il faut trouver le confectionneur, le formier, les fournisseurs de cuir, lacets, oeillets, semelle extérieure, semelle intérieure, boîte en carton… Caroline nous a fait rencontrer directement les bons interlocuteurs : on a pu comprendre ce qui fait une chaussure de qualité, décortiquer les processus, choisir les meilleures éléments, voir de nos propres yeux les conditions de travail... In fine, la plupart des acteurs impliqués dans la fabrication de cette basket se trouvent dans un rayon de 50km autour de Porto. Non seulement ça permet de gagner en qualité et en réactivité, non seulement ça évite que la basket n’ait à parcourir 40 000 km avant d’arriver chez vous, mais surtout, ça permet à un réseau d’entreprises locales de travailler en symbiose. C’est pas ça l’avenir de l’économie ?
Comment on s'y est pris ?
Pour être certain de faire une basket qui tienne longtemps, on a lancé un sondage avec une seule question : “Pourquoi vous jetez vos baskets ?”. Puis on a épluché les 1000 réponses que vous nous avez données, et voici ce qu’on a compris.
La semelle, le talon d'Achille de la basket (lol)
En général, c’est la semelle qui vous lâche en premier.
On a traîné ce monsieur en justice car on a breveté l’expression mais sinon on est d’accord avec son analyse.
Ce qui est le plus courant chez les marques dites "de qualité" c'est d'utiliser une semelle en "gomme" (un mélange de caoutchouc naturel et synthétique) ; plusieurs usines (comme Margom pour la plus connue) proposent ce produit et chacune à sa recette. Pour choisir les plus solides, on a pris des semelles parmi les fournisseurs les plus réputés et on a mesuré leur “résistance à l’abrasion” avec une machine comme ça :
On a aussi testé une semelle à base de gomme recyclée à partir des chutes de matière de l’usine2. Elle s’est avérée 30% moins résistante : ce n’est pas surprenant, les matières recyclées sont généralement moins stables que les matières vierges. Donc si les baskets durent 3 ans avec une semelle normale, elles ne dureraient plus que 2 ans avec une semelle recyclée ! On a donc choisi de rester sur une semelle en gomme vierge. Au niveau environnemental, ce qu’on gagnerait avec une semelle recyclée ne pourrait jamais compenser cette diminution de durée de vie. En revanche, la marque O.T.A. a la bonne idée d’utiliser de la matière non pas recyclée mais upcyclée en récupérant des pneus usagés qu’elle intègre aux semelles. Comme les gens sont en général moins lourds que des voitures, ces semelles sont assez imbattables en terme de résistance à l’abrasion.
Enfin, on s’est attaqué à la forme-même de la semelle : pour réduire sa vitesse d’usure, on a ajouté un peu de matière au niveau des zones de frottements.
Ces crans ajoutent de la matière ce qui augmente la durée de vie de la semelle sans changer son confort.
Cuir ou pas cuir ?
Pour la matière principale, on a d’emblée exclu le tissu (coton, laine, lin, polyester, etc.) : pour pouvoir porter des baskets toute l’année, il faut qu’elles soient étanches. Et puis il y a une question de résistance : sur un tissu, des trous finiront toujours par apparaître...
Même si certes, on peut profiter des trous pour faire un discret rappel couleur.
Du coup, on avait le choix entre :
Du cuir animal (bovin en l’occurrence, de loin le principal cuir utilisé dans la chaussure)
Du cuir synthétique : les simili-cuirs (les cuirs “plastique” comme par exemple le “skaï”) et les cuirs dits végétaux (à base de déchets de pomme, d’ananas ou de raisin par exemple).
Une des raisons pour laquelle nous avons choisi le cuir animal (bovin en l’occurrence, de loin le principal cuir utilisé dans la chaussure), c’est parce qu’il a le meilleur rapport qualité-confort : il est quasi-imperméable à l’eau, il tient chaud, il absorbe l'humidité de la transpiration (ce qui empêche les odeurs voire la formation de mycoses), il est naturellement flexible et s’adapte à la forme des pieds au fur et à mesure des semaines. Et surtout, il est très résistant : quand les cuirs synthétiques peuvent craqueler et s’abîmer avec le temps3, le cuir bovin (s’il est bien nourri) résiste.
On a tout à fait conscience que cette matière est controversée pour les marques éthiques et/ou écoresponsables. Alors on a passé beaucoup de temps à essayer de comprendre cette industrie avant de prendre une décision. C’est une des questions les plus difficiles qu’on ait jamais eues à traiter, parce qu’elle demande de prendre en compte quatre facteurs parfois contradictoires : notre confort, le bien-être animal, la pollution environnementale et la question sociale. On vous explique tout dans un article dédié à ce sujet à lire ici, mais si vous n’avez pas notre temps, voici un récap rapide de pourquoi on a choisi d’utiliser du cuir :
Ethique animale : Nous savons à l’heure actuelle qu’il est impossible de garantir un élevage sans souffrance animale, mais nous pensons qu’à court terme, la meilleure stratégie en faveur du bien-être animal est de favoriser le maintien et de le développement des petits élevages extensifs et aux pratiques vertueuses. Pour cela, il faut choisir du cuir produit en Europe et à moyen terme pousser un système de traçabilité du cuir qui permette de choisir des peaux provenant des élevages les plus vertueux.
Pollution environnementale : l’élevage est certes un très gros contributeur de gaz à effets de serre, mais beaucoup moins en Europe. Donc à condition 1- que notre cuir soit d’origine européenne 2- qu’il soit tanné en Europe et que 3- la basket en cuir tienne au moins deux fois plus longtemps que les autres, elle peut émettre moins de gaz à effets de serre qu’une basket en tissu ou en synthétique.
Impact social et sociétal : tous les cuirs synthétiques, y compris à base de déchets végétaux, nécessitent un processus industriel complexe, notamment à cause de l’utilisation de polyuréthane (environ 50% de la semelle). Ils sont donc aujourd’hui encore largement dépendants de l’industrie pétrolière et/ou chimique, dont le modèle nous paraît moins souhaitable que celui de l’élevage traditionnel et du tannage, qui favorise une économie plus locale, plus frugale, et à taille plus humaine. (Pour lire tout le raisonnement, cliquez ici).
Ce qu’on a compris en creusant ce sujet, c’est que pour le bien-être animal et l’impact environnemental, il faut à tout prix que ce cuir soit produit, tanné et assemblé en Europe. On s’est donc mis en quête du bon cuir européen.
Mais avant ça, il fallait trouver la bonne couleur. Au début, on se disait que les baskets blanches, c’était pas top : un peu trop salissant à la longue et tannage végétal impossible (un cuir à tannage végétal blanc, ça jaunit avec le soleil). Mais on s’est vite rendu à l’évidence : on n’est pas encore Anna Wintour et ce n’est pas nous qui allions détourner les gens des baskets blanches.
On a donc cherché un cuir blanc de qualité, produit et tanné en Europe. La difficulté, c’était d’en trouver un dont la couche de pigments blancs ne soit pas trop épaisse, afin qu’il ne perde pas ses propriétés respirantes et flexibles, qu’il n’ait pas un toucher trop plastique et qu’il ne craquèle pas avec le temps. Au final, après avoir étudié plusieurs options, on a trouvé notre bonheur chez un tanneur espagnol (Palomares) : un cuir bovin européen pleine fleur grainé. Pleine fleur, parce que c’est la partie la plus solide de la peau d’une bête – c’est là où la densité de fibres est la plus forte. Grainé, car à la différence d’un cuir lisse, il marque moins les plis notamment sur l’avant de la chaussure.
Pour l’intérieur, on a trouvé au Portugal un cuir écologiquement inégalable : un cuir bovin à tannage végétal et teinture naturelle (ça veut dire qu’il est sans chrome et sans métaux, ce qui est plus sûr notamment pour les personnes aux peaux plus sensibles, allergiques ou ayant des problèmes de peau).
Rester dans sa zone de confort
On a aussi tout fait pour que ces baskets ne vous fassent pas mal aux pieds.
On a donc d’abord travaillé sur la forme. Notre “formier” travaille avec Caroline depuis plusieurs années, et il a développé pour nous une forme à la fois élégante et confortable4 :
Elle remonte sur l’arrière pour maintenir le talon mais pas trop pour éviter les ampoules au tendon d’Achille.
L’avant de la chaussure est suffisamment bombé pour ne pas appuyer sur votre gros doigt de pied.
Comme nous l’ont aussi conseillé les podologues5 qu’on a rencontrés, le talon de notre basket a un dénivelé de 1,5 à 2 cm entre l’avant et l’arrière du pied.
Mais on ne s’est pas arrêté là, on a ensuite cherché à maximiser le confort de la basket :
Pour assurer un confort maximal, tout l’extérieur de basket n’est constitué que d’une seule pièce de cuir (même si ça coûte un peu plus cher). En effet, plus il y a d’empiècements sur la chaussure, plus il y a de coutures, ce qui rigidifie la basket au risque de la rendre inconfortable (dans le petit monde de la chaussure, on dit que ça diminue le “prêtant”).
La semelle intérieure de la basket (a.k.a. la “première de propreté”) est en latex à mémoire de forme - comme les matelas qui font de la pub dans le métro - et donc ultra-confortable. Et elle est amovible : ça permet de la changer quand elle est trop usée ou de la remplacer par une semelle orthopédique.
En plus, on a ajouté deux mousses épaisses pour entourer la cheville. On n’irait pas jusqu’à dire que vous vous sentirez comme dans des chaussons mais les images parlent d’elles-mêmes :
Un problème = une solution
Ensuite, on a essayé de trouver des solutions à tous les autres problèmes que vous nous aviez remontés :
P*** mais tu décolles ! C’est pas comme ça qu’on fait les shoes. Oh djadja !
Vos semelles finissent par se décoller ? On les a cousues au cuir via une piqûre latérale6, après les avoir collées avec une colle très résistante mais sans solvants (potentiellement toxiques).
Elles se trouent au niveau du gros doigt de pied ? On a mis un bout dur en fibre de résine sous le cuir à l’avant pour s’assurer que cette zone ne s’affaisse pas avec le temps.
Les lacets cassent ? On a pris un modèle en polyester (recyclé), plus résistant que des lacets en coton.
La languette glisse ? On y a ajouté un passant pour que les lacets la maintienne en place.
La doublure se troue au niveau du tendon d’Achille ? Un empiècement en cuir retourné renforce la zone (et évite que votre talon ne glisse).
Is the heel counter wearing out? This often happens because people are too lazy to untie their laces when putting on or taking off their sneakers. So, to make them slide on more easily, we added eyelets to the lace loops (and we dipped these eyelets in a special bath to prevent them from discoloring like they did on our first prototypes).
Tested in real-world conditions
Even with the best ingredients, a dish can still be inedible... The only way to ensure these sneakers are truly great is to test them in real-world conditions. For almost a year now, at Loom, we’ve been wearing the various prototypes almost every day. We even distributed a few pairs to testers (you can read the detailed feedback from one of them here) to make sure our opinion wasn't biased.
With this perspective, we can tell you that our sneakers are among the most comfortable and durable we have ever worn. To be honest, there is only one flaw we haven't managed to solve: white gets dirty. So yes, you have to maintain them regularly. We ran the test with one of our prototypes, and you'll see that if you dedicate half an hour to them from time to time, you can make everyone believe they are brand new (you can find our care tips here).
January 2021 update: And if white really isn't an option for you, the sneakers are now available in black.
For every foot
Since we wanted these sneakers to fit as many people as possible, they are unisex and sizes range from 35 to 47 (if we wanted to go beyond that, we would have had to develop a new mold, and economically, we can't afford that yet).
How much does it cost?
To manufacture a sneaker of this quality in Portugal, you have to pay the price: they cost €49 to produce. To give you a point of comparison, a pair of major brand sneakers like the Stan Smith is bought in China for around €5 to €10. In short, to be able to manufacture these sneakers, pay for logistics, shipping, VAT, and feed our children and pets, the minimum price we can sell them for is €115 (as usual, delivery is included and returns/exchanges are on us).
Pre-orders are open
YES, WE KNOW, we told you thatwe would never do pre-orders again However, in the meantime, Covid-19 happened, and we need to be very careful about how we manage our money and our inventory. Plus, since this is a brand-new product category for us, we have no idea how much you’re going to order or what the size breakdown will be… So, we’d rather ask you first and manufacture based on that.
Pre-ordering starts now and will end on Sunday, June 14th at midnight. And we will deliver to you… in early November. YES, WE KNOW, THAT’S A REALLY LONG TIME.7.
In all seriousness, Covid has turned many things upside down for our suppliers. The good news is that the manufacturer who makes our shoes has a full order book: right now, those who produce well and locally are in high demand. The not-so-good news is that if we don’t want to sacrifice the health of the people working in the factory or the quality of our sneakers, we have to accept a 5-month wait. But given the choice, we always prefer to do things right rather than fast, and we know you understand that.
January 2022 update: These sneakers are now available for direct purchase.
Who are we to say that? You are on La Mode à l’Envers, a blog run by the clothing brand Loom. The textile industry is in a bad way, and the planet is paying the price. So, everything we learn about the sector, we try to explain to you here. Because making sustainable clothing is good, but revealing, sharing, and inspiring is even more powerful. If you like what we write and want more, subscribe to our newsletter by clicking here. We promise: we don't write often and we never spam.
Sources for the notes:
The EcoTlc study which states that “The reality of recycling used shoes is quite harsh: there are no (or very few) recovery solutions” is available here.
The 2017 study of 60 podiatrists, 83% of whom recommend a 2 to 4 cm heel, is available here.
Notes
1 And for the insiders: yes, we tested a Margom, and yes, the Bolflex is better, even though the results show that both are very good soles.
2 This is what is known as pre-consumer recycling. Basically, they collect defective or non-compliant soles and melt them down to make new ones. Compared to post-consumer recycling, the quality is better because the raw material is much more consistent.
3 We haven't found any studies that objectively confirm this result, so we are repeating what the suppliers have told us. We will look into this further in the future.
4 There are so many different foot shapes that a sneaker will never be comfortable for 100% of the population. But a good last maker knows how to create a shape that is comfortable for the vast majority.
5 The subject of heel-to-toe drop in footwear is highly debated among podiatrists. However, according to this 2017 study of 60 podiatrists, 83% of them recommended a 2 to 4 cm heel.
6 This is a construction similar to the famous Blake or Goodyear stitching used in dress shoes (where the sole is stitched entirely under the shoe), but adapted for sneakers (where the sole rises slightly up the sides).
7 But the second season of Baron Noir also took forever to come out, and yet it was worth the wait, right?
When we wanted to launch our sneakers, we basically had two material options:
Animal leather (bovine, in this case, which is by far the most common type used in footwear)
Synthetic leather: faux leathers (plastic-based leathers like "pleather") and so-called plant-based leathers (made from apple, pineapple, or grape waste, for example).
Why did animal leather seem like a good option to us?
Bovine leather seemed like the best choice. Its comfort and durability are very difficult to replicate artificially. And let’s face it: it is, after all, the skin of an animal that can live outdoors all year round.
They look great, don't they?
The main advantages of animal leather compared to synthetic leather:
It is virtually waterproof
It keeps you warm while remaining breathable
It absorbs moisture from sweat, which prevents odors
It is comfortable: in the footwear industry, we say it has "give." Just as skin adapts to an animal as it grows, leather adapts to the shape of the foot
It is very durable: all the suppliers we spoke to agreed that synthetic materials crack and deteriorate over time, whereas leather (if properly conditioned) lasts.
But not everyone saw things the same way we did.
It all started in August 2019. We were explaining on Instagram what’s great about our card holder leather, when suddenly:
And even more recently, under the video of our TEDx, between two enthusiastic comments:
Basically, we were told that leather pollutes and kills animals, and that we therefore couldn't be an ethical brand while making leather products.
And to be perfectly honest, we realized that we hadn't asked ourselves the question enough. In fact, if plenty of brands that call themselves "ethical" are simply abandoning this material, perhaps there's a good reason for it. So it was time to really determine whether we can consider ourselves ethical while selling leather. This meant digging into three huge aspects of leather:
Animal ethics
Environmental pollution
The social and societal dimension
Animal ethics: can you wear leather and respect animal welfare?
Before we begin, let's clarify one thing: yes, consuming leather does encourage livestock farming to some extent. We say this because it is not at all what the leather industry claims. According to them, the economic value of leather represents only a small part of a cow's value1, so even if we stopped selling hides, we would continue to raise cows for milk and meat. In short, leather is supposedly just a byproduct of the dairy and meat industry, and the leather industry is merely "repurposing waste" that would otherwise have to be incinerated or left to rot in a landfill. A sort of ancestral upcycling.
That is partly true, but it’s still a bit too convenient… If cow hides weren't sold, the profitability of livestock farming would be slightly lower. It wouldn't be immediate, but in the long run, we can imagine there would be a bit less livestock farming.
The question of animal welfare is therefore very much relevant to leather.
Moreover, it is relevant to an even greater extent for milk2 which accounts for the majority of a dairy cow's value. There is no cow raised for milk that isn't eventually slaughtered for meat – dairy cows end up on your plate. Given this, if we consider a company unethical for using leather, we must apply the same judgment to all those that use milk, butter, and so on.
Shortbread cookies and kouign-amanns: if we consider leather unethical, these are even more so.
We turn a blind eye to a system that causes animal suffering
Before being called out on this, we were burying our heads in the sand regarding the ethical aspects of animal farming. We had seen a few horrific videos of slaughterhouses filmed by L214, but we told ourselves it was still possible to work with farmers who do things right and respect their animals.
It must be said that in our urban consumer society, we are quite removed from the realities of farming. If we only look at advertising and marketing, we get the impression that everything is fine.
Nothing to see here: the animals are always happy.
In fact, we have looked away for so long that today, industrial farming has become the norm, even in France. You know the type: battery-farmed chickens, pigs that never see the light of day and spend their entire lives on a tiny patch of concrete...
Proportion of intensive farming in France according to L214: poor rabbits...
But when we talk about leather, we must focus primarily on cattle farming. This intensification is less pronounced in France and Europe (only 13% intensive farming in France for cows), but it is prevalent in other countries. In the United States, for example, feedlots (intensive farms with over 1,000 animals) are favored: animals are packed into atrocious conditions with the use of growth hormones, fattening with animal meal, or antibiotics used as growth promoters.
The 19,000-cow "Five Star Feedlot" in New Zealand.
How did we get here? In truth, it is because most of us do not place the same importance on the interests of animals as we do on those of humans. We tell ourselves it is "normal" or "natural" to eat meat, cheese, drink milk, or wear leather. That it is what humans have done since the dawn of time, so there is no need to overthink these animal welfare issues.
But by digging into the subject, we had to face the facts: we must give the same weight to the interests of animals as we do to those of humans.
We will explain everything now. If you are not particularly interested, you do not have to read these lines to understand the rest of the article, and you can click here to skip them. But if you're new to the topic, you might find this interesting.
A brief guide to antispeciesism (or why we should give the same weight to animal interests as we do to human ones)
The first antispeciesist thinker is Peter Singer. He’s a big deal: his book “Animal Liberation,” written in the 70s, has sold over a million copies.
Peter Singer (on the right).
According to him, “speciesists”—those who value animal interests differently than human ones—use the same thought patterns as racists (who value the interests of other “races” differently) or sexists (who value the interests of the other sex differently). He also argues that in a few decades, given the conditions in which we raise animals today, our children or grandchildren will look back at contemporary humanity the way we look back at slaveholders or men who beat their wives.
Wait, what? When we first heard this, we started pulling out (intellectually) a bunch of objections to justify our existence as meat-eaters, cheese-lovers, and leather-wearers. Here are the main arguments we came up with… and how the antispeciesists shut us down every time:
1/ “It’s normal to farm animals; humans have always eaten meat or worn leather.”
To which antispeciesists reply: “True, but just because a practice is old doesn’t mean it’s ethical. We held animal fights for a long time, but that doesn’t mean we should keep doing it. Plus, there are 7 billion of us now; that might require changing our practices compared to the Neolithic era.”3
2/ “But eating meat is natural: look at animals, they eat each other.”
To which antispeciesists reply: “Natural doesn’t mean moral. Some animals are cannibals or commit rape. Should we imitate them for that reason? Besides, some carnivores have to eat others to survive; we don’t.”
3/ “Okay, but we’re a different species, we have the right. We’re humans, they’re ANIMALS—surely that’s not the same thing?”
To which anti-speciesists reply: “Saying that is a completely arbitrary belief: it is no different from the behavior of a slave owner who discriminates against Black people based on their skin color.”
4/ “But it’s not the same: we have far superior faculties to other animals: we are more intelligent, we can speak, use tools…”
To which anti-speciesists reply: “Imagine a society that discriminates based on intelligence, for example. Babies or people with severe mental disabilities are less capable of reasoning than chimpanzees. Should we therefore grant superior rights to chimpanzees? That is, of course, impossible. And we could apply the same type of reasoning to any other human faculty: we have learned in recent decades that some animals can use tools, master languages, have self-awareness, etc. It is therefore not relevant to discriminate against living beings based on their faculties.”
5/ “Okay, but there is still proof that we must eat animals, which is that we need vitamin B12 to survive, which only they can synthesize.”
To which anti-speciesists reply: “Indeed, some animals like ruminants synthesize vitamin B12 via the bacteria present in their intestines. But is it a problem to take supplements? After all, we already give vitamin D supplements to babies to compensate for a lack of sun, and we fortify salt with iodine to prevent cretinism.”
6/ “But that would cause problems for our food supply: traditional agriculture is not possible without animals. We necessarily have to fertilize the soil with manure (animal waste) as we have done since the dawn of time.”
To which anti-speciesists reply: “False: we do not need animals to farm.”
Aaargh, they are annoying, aren't they? So we spent some time digging into this question of agriculture. And we concluded that here too, they are (partly) right: traditional agriculture without animals and without chemical fertilizers is entirely possible, even if it is a little less easy. We explain why below.
Parenthesis: is agriculture without animals possible? If we look at our history, we might think that animals are essential for maintaining soil fertility. From antiquity until the beginning of industrial agriculture, throughout Europe, we used crop rotation systems4 with a year of fallow. Nothing to do with the current fallow periods imposed by the CAP, which are just bare land. Back then, fallow meant letting the soil rest by growing a meadow and having it grazed by animals (meaning we let the animals graze on the grass all day, digest it, and return it as manure rich in nutrients for the soil). Attempts to eliminate this fallow period by replacing it with simple nitrogen-fixing crops have shown a decrease in yields sur le long terme à cause des manques de phosphore ou de potasse (les principaux nutriments indispensables pour les plantes sont l’azote, le phosphore et la potasse)… Comme l’affirme l’agronome Pierre-Paul Dehérain au XIXe siècle : “pour que la jachère ait été conservée pendant des siècles, il fallait qu’elle eût quelques avantages.” Bah oui : si on avait trouvé un système agricole plus productif, on aurait laissé tomber les animaux depuis longtemps, non ?
Oui mais voilà.
Depuis quelques décennies, nos connaissances en agronomie ont évolué. On sait maintenant que tout est cyclique et que les animaux ne “créent” pas de nutriments. Au XIXe siècle, on a compris que ce qui faisait l’intérêt des prairies en jachère, ce ne sont pas les animaux qui pâturent dessus mais surtout 1- certaines plantes qui fixent l’azote de l’air 2- l’activité des champignons mycorhiziens qui se plaisent particulièrement sous les prairies et qui permettent aux plantes de mieux fixer le phosphore et la potasse. Du coup, les animaux d’élevage ne sont plus que des intermédiaires inutiles : on peut très bien faire une jachère efficace sans animaux. Mais ce n’est pas fini : dans les années 70, on a même compris comment fixer le phosphore et le potassium sans faire de rotation des cultures : par exemple, on peut couvrir le sol de jeunes branches d’arbres broyées (du bois raméal fragmenté) pour recréer une sorte d'humus forestier qui favorise le développement des champignons mycorhiziens. Bref, dans la majeure partie du monde, on peut maintenant parfaitement imaginer de faire une agriculture cyclique sans animaux. Et il y a plein d’exemples dans le monde de personnes qui y arrivent déjà avec succès.
Alors adieu veaux, vaches, cochons ? Les animaux ne servent-ils absolument à rien dans le cadre d’une agriculture traditionnelle ? Non, ça serait aller un peu vite.
D’abord, le fumier permet de faire des “transferts de fertilité”. Par exemple, on peut faire pâturer les animaux dans les prairies non cultivées (40% des terres arables en France) ou non cultivables (en moyenne montagne par exemple), puis mettre les animaux à l’étable pendant la nuit ou l’hiver et y récupérer le fumier, avant de l’épandre sur les terres cultivées. Bref, les animaux ne créent pas de nutriments mais ils permettent de les concentrer sur certaines parcelles et donc de booster les rendements. C’est magique : ça permet d’avoir une production agricole plus élevée à travail humain équivalent (même si le potentiel de création de calories est moins grand : cela fournirait plus de calories si on cultivait à la fois le champ et la prairie).
D’autre part, les animaux rendent beaucoup de services aux agriculteurs, comme par exemple les poules qui mangent les insectes nuisibles aux cultures ou les cochons et les chèvres qui mangent les restes et nettoient les parcelles des ronces et des racines.
Enfin, l’énergie animale reste très utile (voire indispensable dans certains pays) pour les travaux dans les champs, par exemple pour faire les semis ou aérer les sols.
Pour finir, sur certaines terres dites “marginales”, trop pauvres pour être cultivées, seul l'élevage peut permettre de nourrir la population. Au Groenland, heureusement que les Inuits peuvent manger des phoques pour survivre. Au Sahel, heureusement qu’il y a du bétail en transhumance pour nourrir la population.
Conclusion : l’agriculture sans animaux et sans engrais chimiques est possible, mais elle est un peu plus galère. Fin de la parenthèse !
En tout cas, la philosophie antispéciste est très robuste : on a lu des dizaines et des dizaines d’articles, on a regardé des heures de débat télé avec Aymeric Caron et on a lu les 427 commentaires de “y a-t-il une manière morale de manger de la viande ?”, et tous les arguments qu’on a entendu habituellement contre l'antispécisme sont plutôt à ranger du côté des sophismes ou de la mauvaise foi.
Bon par contre pour la coupe de cheveux, on n’est pas d’accord. ET NON CE N’EST PAS PARCE QU’ON N’A PAS ASSEZ DE CHEVEUX POUR SE FAIRE LA MÊME !
Après avoir creusé ce sujet de l’antispécisme, on comprend que l’élevage n’est ni normal, ni naturel, ni nécessaire comme on l’entend souvent. Dès lors, si on veut justifier l’élevage, il n’y a qu’une seule question à se poser :
“Est-ce que le bien-être qu’on tire de l’élevage peut justifier la souffrance animale que ça peut générer ?”
Sachant que ce “bien-être” peut englober plusieurs dimensions. C’est d’abord bien sûr le plaisir gustatif quand on mange de la viande ou des produits laitiers ou le confort de porter des vêtements en cuir. Il y aussi l’attachement à un certain patrimoine culturel et gastronomique, la satisfaction de soutenir des petits éleveurs, le plaisir de voir des vaches gambader dans des prairies, l’insouciance de pouvoir manger sans trop penser à la composition de ses repas… Et il y aussi une forme de bien-être collectif. Même s’il est théoriquement possible d’avoir une agriculture sans animaux et sans engrais, en pratique, aujourd’hui, les petites exploitations agricoles vertueuses utilisent en immense majorité du fumier animal.
Quand on formule la question de l’élevage en ces termes, ça devient juste impossible de détourner le regard des conditions d’élevage comme on a trop souvent tendance à le faire. Qui pourrait dire que son plaisir ponctuel vaut PLUS que la souffrance d’un animal pendant toute une vie ? L’élevage industriel devient absolument intolérable : on ne peut plus détourner les yeux.
En fait, il n’y a que deux réponses possibles.
Première réponse : il faut abolir l’élevage, comme le demandent certains antispécistes. Tout le monde doit donc devenir “vegan” et cesser toute consommation de produits d’origine animale : le cuir, la laine, la viande, le lait, le fromage, les oeufs, le poisson. Les animaux ont le droit de vivre libres et mourir de leur belle mort, rien ne peut donc justifier de leur ôter ce droit juste pour notre plaisir personnel bref, rien ne peut justifier l'élevage.
Deuxième réponse : on peut faire de l’élevage mais à condition d’en retirer un maximum de souffrance animale. C’est la réponse dite “welfariste”5, celle de Peter Singer lui-même. Dans cas, il faut d’abord faire en sorte que les animaux puissent grandir sans souffrance dans des conditions adaptées à leur espèce : les animaux d’élevage sont des êtres sensibles dotés d’un système nerveux, donc ils veulent éviter de souffrir tout autant que nous. Deuxièmement, il faut les tuer de la façon la plus respectueuse possible. Contrairement aux abolitionnistes, les welfaristes estiment que les animaux d’élevage n’ont pas la même capacité à anticiper et à former des projets que les humains, donc qu’ils ne se rendent pas compte qu’ils vont être tués et ne souffrent donc pas de cette pensée tout au long de leur vie (pour les vaches, c’est ce que montre par exemple Temple Grandin, une des plus grandes spécialistes du comportement des bovins).
Mais est-ce que ce welfarisme est possible en pratique ?
Un élevage sans souffrance animale c'est possible ?
Si on est sûrs que les conditions de vie des animaux sont très mauvaises dans les élevages intensifs, ce n’est pas pour autant que les “petites fermes” familiales d’élevage bovin sont dépourvues de souffrance animale.
En France, plus de 80% des fermes sont de petites et moyennes exploitations qui élèvent moins de 100 bêtes. Et c’est vrai que parmi elles, plein de petits éleveurs s’engagent au quotidien pour le respect du bien-être animal. Par exemple, leur bétail pâture dehors la plupart de l’année, ils mettent de la paille à l’intérieur des bâtiments pour plus de confort, ils font attention à la douleur pendant les écornages6, ils nourrissent les veaux sous la mère, ils brossent leurs animaux, leur parlent, etc. Bref, il y a plein d’éleveurs qui aiment leurs bêtes et en prennent le plus grand soin, même s’ils doivent un jour les envoyer à l’abattoir.
Mais ce n’est pas le cas dans toutes ces fermes. Il y en a encore beaucoup d’autres où on pratique un écornage douloureux, des castrations à vif… Et dans les élevages laitiers, on sépare très souvent le veau de sa mère, on pratique des inséminations artificielles à répétition, on abat les mâles... En plus, certains éleveurs sont parfois dans de telles difficultés économiques qu’il n’est pas évident pour eux de se concentrer sur le bien-être animal : difficile d’aller faire des câlins à ses vaches quand on ne peut pas boucler sa fin du mois (donc avant de les blâmer, il faudrait déjà réorienter les subventions de la PAC vers les plus petits élevages).
Et puis il y a les abattoirs. Pour des raisons d'hygiène et de santé publique, l'abattage des animaux à la ferme est interdit en France. Alors les éleveurs n'ont donc pas d'autre choix que d'envoyer leurs bêtes à l'abattoir. Problème : il y existe souvent des dérives, dont certaines ont été mises en lumière par les vidéos glaçantes de L214. Et puis dans ces lieux, la souffrance animale côtoie aussi souvent la souffrance humaine avec des conditions de travail indignes7 pour les travailleurs. Et c’est sans compter les temps de trajet longs et stressants pour les éleveurs comme les bêtes. La solution la plus plausible pour diminuer la souffrance animale et l’abattage industriel serait le développement d’abattoirs mobiles, se déplaçant sur les lieux d’élevage comme c'est déjà le cas en Allemagne ou en Suède. Depuis quelques mois, des premières expérimentations ont été autorisées en France. Mais on est encore très loin de leur généralisation.
Comment réduire cette souffrance animale ?
Chez Loom, à long terme, nous voudrions bien sûr faire disparaître toute souffrance animale8. On ne voit pas toutes et tous les choses de la même façon : une partie de l’équipe pense qu’on devra un jour se passer d’élevage, d’autres aspirent à un élevage sans souffrance animale (schématiquement, laisser les vaches vivre avec leurs veaux, ne pas abattre systématiquement les mâles, imposer moins de gestations aux vaches quitte à avoir moins de lait, etc.).
Pour autant, si on veut améliorer le bien-être animal, nous ne pensons pas qu’il faille renoncer au cuir à court terme. Si on le boycotte, cela diminuerait la rentabilité des élevages existants et favoriserait les plus intensifs qui optimisent les coûts. Cela mettrait aussi un stress économique supplémentaire sur des petits éleveurs déjà précaires, qui ont déjà souvent du mal à diminuer leur fin de mois. Les actions en faveur du bien-être animal mais qui ne rapportent pas d’argent vont tendre à diminuer, et cela pourrait même accentuer le risque de maltraitance dans les fermes et les abattoirs. Albert Schweitzer disait : "Dans les abattoirs, ce n’est pas la méchanceté des hommes qui fait la souffrance animale, c’est la pression économique".
En revanche, nous devons à tout prix choisir un cuir issu des fermes les plus soigneuses avec leurs animaux, et les encourager à améliorer leurs pratiques, en acceptant de payer leur cuir plus cher par exemple. Sauf que voilà, il n’y a pas de traçabilité suffisante pour permettre ce genre de pratique.
Le cuir, son univers intraçable
A travers notre alimentation, il est possible de favoriser l’élevage paysan et de boycotter l’élevage industriel : on peut choisir de n’acheter que des produits en vente directe ou circuits courts issus de petites exploitations bio ou plein air, voire dans des restaurants, des boucheries ou des crèmeries qui ont des pratiques d'approvisionnement vertueuses et transparentes. Oui, ça coûte beaucoup plus cher, mais c’est le vrai prix de ces aliments et il faut de toute manière réduire notre consommation (en effet, il est impossible à un niveau national que tout le monde mange beaucoup de produits animaux : il n’y aurait jamais assez de petites fermes qui puissent produire autant).
Pour le cuir, c’est beaucoup plus difficile de “voter avec son porte-monnaie”. Contrairement au lait ou à la viande, il est quasi-impossible de savoir de quel type de ferme vient une peau. Aujourd’hui, dans les abattoirs, les peaux sont regroupées par lots plus ou moins homogènes selon leur qualité et leur poids, sans aucun type de marquage. Et les tanneries achètent ensuite les peaux à des abattoirs de différents pays. Donc même si une tannerie est basée en France, vous ne pouvez pas savoir avec certitude si le cuir que vous lui achetez provient d’une vache bio française ou d’une vache sacrée indienne, et vous pouvez encore moins savoir dans quel type de ferme cette vache a été élevée… Et la situation n’est pas prête de changer : il y a bien quelques expérimentations de traçabilité en cours poussées notamment par l’industrie du luxe (comme par exemple le marquage des peaux au laser) mais elles sont encore loin d’être mises en place.
A ce stade, le mieux que l’on puisse faire, c’est s’assurer que les peaux utilisées par la tannerie proviennent d’Europe, voire mieux, de France. Et aussi pousser la filière viande-cuir à mettre en place un système de traçabilité digne de ce nom.
Voilà nos réflexions en ce qui concerne l’éthique animale. Et du point de vue l’environnement, le cuir est-il vraiment le matériau le plus polluant ?
Est-ce que le cuir pollue plus que ses alternatives ?
Les gaz à effet de serre
Quand on parle pollution du cuir, ce sont principalement les gaz à effet de serre de l’élevage bovin dont il est question. À raison : l’élevage émet 14,5% des gaz à effets de serre de la planète9, et les deux-tiers proviennent des bovins. C’est énorme et c’est surtout à cause de deux choses :
D’abord, les vaches rotent du méthane, un gaz au pouvoir réchauffant 28 fois plus élevé que celui du CO210
Pour les nourrir, la plupart des élevages utilisent des céréales (souvent importées). Or la culture céréalière émet beaucoup de gaz à effets de serre, notamment à cause de la production d'engrais, de l'utilisation des machines et de la déforestation. Et puis il y a aussi des résidus d’engrais azotés : l’excédent se transforme en protoxyde d’azote, un gaz qui a de bons côtés (c’est du gaz hilarant) et de mauvais côtés (il est 300 fois plus réchauffant que le CO2).
Mais si on y regarde de plus près, on se rend compte que toutes les vaches ne polluent pas pareil. En Europe, les émissions de gaz à effet de serre d’un kilo de boeuf sont 4 times lower than in South America or South Asia. For many reasons: pastures in temperate zones are easier for cows to digest, so they emit less methane; we haven't been deforesting for a long time; livestock productivity is very high because the animals are healthy; and most feed is produced locally, which avoids transportation, etc.
European cows are the ones that emit the fewest greenhouse gases.
And even then, in Europe, these greenhouse gas emissions are likely overestimated: this study does not take into account the fact that grasslands absorb some of the methane emissions from ruminants: 20 to 60% of emissions according to the latest studies.
Thanks to the Ingalls family for their contribution to greenhouse gas sequestration.
The question now is: does leather emit more or less greenhouse gas than its alternatives? To find out, let's look at a study by Ademe (the government agency that is the authority on the subject), which compared the emissions of leather shoes with those of sports and fabric shoes. And here, a surprise:
Leather shoes emit less CO2 than the others! Strange, right? Well, certainly, this can be explained by the fact that tanning leather requires less energy than spinning thread, weaving, and dyeing fabric—an industrial process that requires using large machines that consume a lot of electricity.
But actually, we have just touched on a very sensitive subject: what share of the livestock carbon footprint should be allocated to leather? In this study, Ademe relies on a framework that attributes... 0% of the impact of livestock farming to leather. This can be justified by the reasoning we mentioned earlier: what determines the volume of cattle farming is milk and meat, so it won't change anything if we stop making leather. But we have already shown that this reasoning has its limits, so let's look at the European framework (the Product Environmental Footprint): it is based on the economic value of the hide and attributes 3.5% of the carcass's carbon footprint to leather, which seems closer to reality.
Based on this figure (and on the carbon emissions of cows in Europe, where our leather would come from), we recalculated11 carbon emissions for shoes from ADEME (we’ve provided them at this link), and here is what it looks like:
This completely changes the game: the carbon footprint of leather shoes is twice as high as the others.
So, at first glance, we should probably give them up... Except that when you want to analyze the environmental impact of a product, you have to look at its lifespan. And leather, provided it is well maintained, lasts longer than most other materials...
Would the same version in cotton have lasted five centuries, really?
So let’s assume we have well-made leather shoes and we make them last twice as long as the others. The carbon footprint would then be roughly equivalent across all three pairs:
In short, global livestock farming is a huge problem for global warming due to its sheer volume, which must be reduced urgently. But European livestock farming is (a little) less problematic, and if we use its leather to make products that really last a long time, it can even become more eco-friendly than the alternatives.
And what about the rest?
Water consumption
We sometimes read “that it takes 15,000 liters of water to produce a kilo of meat”. For leather, we can also read “thatit takes 17,000 liters of water to make a kilo of leather”. It’s true that raising a cow consumes water (just like a human, actually): for the animal to drink directly, but mostly to irrigate the crops used to feed it.
But 93% of this water is simply rainwater that irrigates the pastures (this is known as"green water"): it would have fallen on the pasture anyway, whether there was livestock or not. In France, if we take into account actual water withdrawals and their impact on the environment, producing one kilo of meat requires only 315 liters of water (sourced from groundwater or rivers, known as "blue water").
But is 315 liters a lot or a little? In reality, this blue water consumption can only be interpreted if compared to the amount needed to produce the caloric equivalent in plants, and here is how it breaks down according to this source :
We can see that while beef certainly consumes a fair amount of water, it is "only" twice as much as corn or soy, and much less than rice (if you have ever seen a rice paddy…). It is not insignificant, but it is primarily a problem in regions experiencing water stress : it is more of an issue in India than in Norway, for example.
So once again, the country of origin for the leather is the deciding factor. If it comes from a country with a temperate climate where water stress is rare, such as Central or Northern Europe, water is not an issue.
To be thorough regarding the issues posed by livestock farming, we should also consider food security concerns (it occupies 60% of the world's fertile land to produce only 18% of calories), eutrophication (the infamous "green tides"), and the rise of antibiotic resistance… These provide further reasons to move away from industrial farming, which is the primary culprit. But let's move on from the topic of livestock to look at tanning.
Pollution related to tanning
Turning an animal hide into leather doesn't happen on its own: it requires a long process called "tanning." Leather can be tanned the traditional way, using vegetable tannins (in which case it is called vegetable tanning). But since this process is quite long (and therefore costly), the most common method used in the industry is chrome salt-based tanning.
There is a downside: while chrome tanning is faster, chrome residues are hazardous to health. Fortunately, for a leather product to be sold in Europe, it must contain a sufficiently low level of chromeSo, as far as the health of European consumers is concerned, we can rest easy (even if, well…).
The real problem lies in production. If left untreated, chromium pollutes the immediate environment around tanneries and poisons workers and local populations. This isn't an issue in Europe (thanks to European Directive 2000/60/EC, which regulates these practices), but it is a major concern in regions where leather production lacks protective regulations (such as Morocco, but especially Bangladesh and India).
In short, leather tanning is not an environmental problem if it is carried out in a European tannery, as the law requires them to protect the health of their employees and treat their wastewater. However, it is a disaster if it comes from an Indian tannery that dumps chromium residues into the Ganges.
To conclude our look at leather usage, we must examine a third, highly important topic.
The social and societal dimension
There is a fundamental difference between animal leather and synthetic leather: the type of industries and jobs they support today. Just as we delved into the animal leather production process, we have studied that of synthetic leather. As a reminder, this leather falls into two main categories: faux leather ("plastic" leather, such as "leatherette") and so-called plant-based leathers (made from apple, pineapple, or grape waste, for example).
For these materials to be durable and waterproof, they follow roughly the same manufacturing process:
1 - We manufacture a textile backing, made from polyamide for faux leathers or plant waste for so-called plant-based leathers.
2- We "coat" this textile with a polyurethane resin to provide water resistance and durability.
Example of the coating process for pineapple leather.
Of course, a textile base made from plant waste is great: it’s the best kind of recycling imaginable, a sort of next-generation compost. But the problem is that the polyurethane coating still makes up a large part of the material: 50% for Végéa (grape leather) orApple Skin (apple leather), and 42% for Pinatex (pineapple leather).
But polyurethane means petrochemicals, which involves oil extraction and refineries. Sure, we could try to "bio-source" this polyurethane by using plant biomass instead of oil. But for now, we are only partially successful, mainly due to cost and qualityissues. Furthermore, bio-sourced or not, producing polyurethane requires a complex industrial process in large chemical plants to transform the raw materials.
On the other hand, animal leather doesn't require high-tech or overly complex industrial processes; you just need to raise cattle and tan the hides, something we have known how to do (with varying degrees of success) for thousands of years.
In short, synthetic leather (for now) requires a high-tech world, whereas animal leather can support a low-techworld. It’s a bit like comparing the production of a Tesla to that of a bicycle. What difference does that make? Quite a lot, actually:
Low-tech favors human-scale economic structures with local jobs, while high-tech imposes a complex, more globalized industrial and economic system. For example, with animal leather, we can choosing to work with small-scale farmers and medium-sized tanneries in France or Europe. As for the polyurethane required for synthetic leather, the world's leading producers are BASF, Bayer, Dow Chemical… massive, ultra-globalized chemical companies—the same ones fueling the intensive agricultural system (hello, Bayer-Monsantoconglomerate), whose business models are largely responsible for the environmental crisis we find ourselves in today (we’ve already talked about this at length here).
Low-tech allows for greater restraint in terms of energy and resource consumption. You can produce animal leather with a pasture, a few cows, and a small tannery. For synthetic leather, you currently need a large factory and machinery that consume electricity, rare metals, and so on.
In a low-tech approach, humans have full mastery over their production tools, whereas in high-tech, humans lose their autonomy and can become enslaved by technology. A farmer, for example, can master their entire operation from start to finish, from feed production to the slaughterhouse. In a highly industrial and globalized business, each individual is just a small link in a much more complex chain, which can lead to a loss of meaning in daily work, or even be alienating in some cases.
Of course, we aren't saying we should throw all high technology out the window: we use it ourselves every day, starting with our computers. We simply believe that if we can achieve an acceptable level of comfort without high-tech solutions, it is better to forgo them due to their negative consequences. Just as we at Loom prefer to commute by bike rather than by car, we currently prefer animal leather over synthetic leather.
There is also a real short-term social issue for livestock farmers and agricultural workers if we transition to synthetic leather. As we saw earlier, stopping or reducing leather consumption risks wiping out small-scale farming models in favor of intensive agriculture.
And what would happen tomorrow if we reduced livestock farming? Today, animal-free agriculture is theoretically possible, but it remains experimental. Almost all farms that reject the industrial model currently use animal manure. Without this manure, we would have to rely more heavily on chemical fertilizers (produced, incidentally, by the same large companies that supply the raw materials for synthetic leather), which is not desirable either. To transition to animal-free small-scale farming, such farms must exist, serve as examples, spread, and become the norm—and if that is to happen, it will take a very, very long time.
So, ultimately, is leather good or not?
Here is a quick recap of what we’ve discussed:
Performance : leather offers a level of durability, comfort, and water resistance that is very difficult to replicate artificially for sneakers worn year-round.
Animal ethics : We know that it is currently impossible to guarantee livestock farming without animal suffering, but we believe that in the short term, the best strategy for animal welfare is to eliminate industrial farming and support the maintenance and development of small-scale, extensive farms with virtuous practices. To achieve this, we must choose leather produced in Europe and, in the medium term, push for a leather traceability system that allows us to select hides from the most ethical farms.
Environmental pollution : While livestock farming is certainly a major contributor to greenhouse gases, its impact is significantly lower in Europe. Therefore, provided that 1) our leather is of European origin and 2) the leather sneaker lasts at least twice as long as others, it can emit fewer greenhouse gases than a fabric or synthetic sneaker.
Social and societal dimension : All synthetic leathers, including those made from plant waste, require a complex industrial process, primarily due to the use of polyurethane. Consequently, they remain heavily dependent on the oil and chemical industries, whose high-tech model seems less desirable to us than that of traditional livestock farming and tanning, which fosters a more local, frugal, and human-scale economy.
As with most current environmental issues, the poison is in the dose: we need to produce less and better. For us, this means 1) making leather products that last as long as possible and 2) choosing leather that is raised, tanned, and assembled in Europe.
What does this mean for the future?
Our decision for our sneakers
We have decided for our sneakers to use animal leather, subject to the following conditions:
We choose bovine leather. Some of our shoes currently use pig leather for the lining, and given current farming conditions, the likelihood that the animal did not suffer is about as high as winning the lottery.
We work with trusted tanneries in Portugal and Spain and use leather of European origin, which we believe is generally more respectful of animal welfare and less polluting than other sources.
We have done our best to ensure the sneaker lasts as long as possible to reduce the environmental impact of leather production. For example, we chose a non-recycled sole over a recycled one (which has almost no impact on greenhouse gas emissions) because it can increase the overall lifespan of the sneaker by 30%. To further improve the durability of this sneaker, we have several avenues to explore: improving the resistance of the sole (the main weak point of sneakers in general), improving repairability, educating on maintenance, and changing colors (yes, everyone wears white leather sneakers, but we have to admit they aren't the easiest to keep clean...)
What's next?
We will be closely monitoring developments in plant-based synthetic leathers to see if they move in the right direction: toward greater durability and comfort, less plastic, and more local, low-tech production systems. If that happens, great: we would be moving toward a less polluted world and a more resilient society, without animal or human suffering. In that case, we will gladly give up animal leather.
But as we have seen, we aren't there yet. So in the meantime, we will strive to overcome the two main limitations of animal leather:
Traceability : We will trace the leather supply chain as far back as possible to ensure that the hides come from traditional pastoral farms with as little animal suffering as possible. Our economic power is very limited (our revenue is tiny compared to that of major brands), but by writing articles like this and discussing this topic with our various partners, we hope to contribute to changing the leather industry on the issue of traceability.
The lifespan of our leather products12: to produce less, we need to ensure our products last as long as possible. Fortunately, that’s what we’ve been striving for since Loom began.
As for our other potentially leather products, we will decide on a case-by-case basis. For instance, it seems clear to us that a leather jeans patch serves only an aesthetic purpose, and we should move away from it. For belts and cardholders, we may need to conduct comparative durability tests with other natural materials before making a decision.
There you have it
This question of leather is one of the most difficult we have ever had to address, because it requires balancing four sometimes contradictory factors: our well-being, animal ethics, environmental pollution, and social and societal issues. To respond to the criticisms we mentioned at the beginning of the article, it would have been much easier for us to either give up leather entirely or justify its use by saying it is simply a byproduct of the livestock industry that we are putting to good use. However, the goal of this article is not to convince skeptics of our ethical and environmental commitment (we are fairly certain we won't change their minds) but to understand the subject in depth so we can make choices that have the smallest possible impact on the planet and on people. In short, to build our own opinion and provide you with all the information you need to form your own.
Article written by Guillaume Declair
---
PS: What can you do on your own level to minimize the impact of livestock farming?
If you want to be almost certain13 of causing no animal suffering and you have the courage to do so, there is only one solution: go vegan and give up leather, meat, dairy products, fish, and eggs. Otherwise, here is what you can do on your own level to minimize animal suffering and environmental pollution:
Eat MUCH, MUCH less meat and dairy. In France, we have committed to dividing by 4 our greenhouse gas emissions. If we apply this to livestock farming, each of us must divide our consumption of meat, milk, yogurt, cheese, and eggs by 4. So, basically, going from 10 meals with meat per week to 2 or 3. Plus, it will be much better for our health.
Only choose meat and dairy products from small farms that respect animals and the environment. Since meat and milk account for the vast majority of an animal's economic value, this is where you will have the most impact if you want to phase out industrial farming and support small-scale agriculture.
Make a difference, for example by signing this Greenpeace petition to reform the Common Agricultural Policy in favor of small-scale farms. Today, 1 in 5 farmers lives below the poverty line in Europe. This petition calls for reallocating European subsidies, which are currently directed toward the most intensive farms, to more traditional livestock operations.
When it comes to leather, you also have the power to make a difference:
Keep your leather goods for much longer. To do this, buy high-quality leather products, but above all, take better care of them than ever before.
Choose leather products for uses where its comfort and durability are truly put to good use. Yes to shoes, no to eyeglass cases, iPad covers, or car seats.
As much as possible, ensure that the leather and tanning come from Europe. In any case, avoid skins from countries like Brazil (where livestock farming directly contributes to deforestation), India (where conditions for raising and slaughtering cows are horrific), or the United States (known for factory farms and growth hormones).
Pay the price. Just as a €5 t-shirt was almost certainly produced under disastrous working conditions and at a high environmental cost, leather sneakers under €100 likely contain poor-quality leather or were produced under poor conditions. But stay vigilant: an expensive leather product doesn't necessarily mean it was produced well; you might just be paying for the brand's markup, not the raw material.
Buy second-hand leather products. It’s better, but not perfect: it can also create demand for new leather (much in the same way that Vinted also drives the consumption of new clothing).
To learn more, here are some interesting resources that helped us write this article:
This long article by Michael Pollan, the American journalist behind the series Cooked on Netflix, which explains his intellectual journey toward welfarism while reading Peter Singer in a steakhouse
This op-ed from Libération, a summary of fallacious arguments against veganism
Who are we to say that? You are on La Mode à l’Envers, a blog run by the clothing brand Loom. The textile industry is in a bad way, and the planet is paying the price. So, everything we learn about the sector, we try to explain to you here. Because making sustainable clothing is good, but revealing, sharing, and inspiring is even more powerful. If you like what we write and want more, subscribe to our newsletter by clicking here. We promise: we keep it brief and never spam.
Notes
1 The "fifth quarter" (hides and offal) accounts for an average of only 8% of the sale price of a cattle carcass, according to a Blézat Consulting study commissioned by FranceAgriMer.
2 Furthermore, animal suffering may be even more prevalent for dairy cows than for beef cattle, particularly due to the repeated pregnancies imposed on the cows and the separation of mother and calf.
3 Moreover, culinary habits have evolved significantly over the 20th century: before the advent of intensive farming, people did not eat meat every day. It was considered a luxury item accessible only to the wealthy. While human life expectancy was not as high as it is today, the aging of the population is explained more by improvements in hygiene than by the systematization of meat-based diets.
4 If you recall your history and geography lessons, this was known as two-field or three-field crop rotation.
5 Philosophically, welfarism is what is known as "preference utilitarianism," which aims to maximize the satisfaction of the preferences of living beings. Conversely, abolitionism is a "hedonistic utilitarianism" that aims to maximize the well-being of individuals in an absolute sense.
6 The act of completely or partially removing an animal's horns: this is done to prevent cows from injuring each other or the farmer.
7 See the chilling book "Steak Machine" by journalist Geoffrey Le Guilcher, which recounts forty days of work in a slaughterhouse.
8 We know this is an ideal to strive for, much like a world without any human suffering or environmental pollution: it is unlikely we will ever reach it, but that does not mean we should abandon the goal.
9 It is sometimes claimed that this is equivalent to the transport sector (14%), even though these two figures are derived using different methods. The calculation for livestock comes from the FAO, based on life cycle assessment models, which include various dimensions of livestock farming. In contrast, the calculation for transport, which comes from the IPCC (Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report), only takes into account GHG emissions from vehicles in use. Using the life cycle assessment method, this figure would be much higher.
10 Even though the atmospheric lifetime of methane is 12 years and CO2 is 100 years.
11 In fact, ADEME also conducted a sensitivity analysis based on the Product Environmental Footprint, but their results show that it has almost no impact on the carbon footprint of leather shoes: we really don't understand how that's possible! If anyone from ADEME would like to send us the methodology behind it, we'd love to see it...
12 Moreover, these two topics are closely linked: animal-welfare-friendly farming conditions can only be generalized if overall consumption decreases drastically. This is the only way we will ever be able to eliminate industrial farming.
13 Even as a vegan, it is not impossible to cause animal suffering, because there is no guarantee that animals were not used in the production of any given vegetable.
The coronavirus crisis is imposing mind-boggling restrictions on our individual freedoms. These measures are entirely justified, but they would make any dictator jealous: mandatory stay-at-home orders, bans on traveling where you want, bans on meeting up with friends, bans on walking in the park, and the requirement to wash your hands and spend time with your children (lol).
And yet, all French people (and others) are accepting this situation almost without a murmur.
Yes, even the Balkany family is respecting the lockdown.
Faced with the looming environmental crisis, the recommendations from scientists are just as clear and unanimous : we must change our way of life urgently. Yet, we are not ready to make those efforts.
Let’s be clear, the coronavirus crisis is of extraordinary gravity: tens of thousands of people around the world are suffering and dying, millions of healthcare workers are working in very difficult conditions, and tens of millions of workers are at risk of losing their jobs. But the scale remains far smaller than that of the upcoming crises likely to result from climate change. Our agricultural system continues to function almost normally, no city has been submerged by floods, no mass migration or war has been triggered, and this virus will never kill as many as the ecological crisis: air pollution alone causes nearly 10 million deaths per year worldwide. Above all, the epidemic is temporary, whereas climate disruptions are virtually eternal. As Juliette Nouel says : “The climate breakdown and the collapse of biodiversity already underway will last for centuries and lead to an uninterrupted succession of crises like the one we are experiencing today.”
A quick comparison of the risks: Coronavirus vs. Climate (thanks to Jancovici for the inspiration).
So, are there lessons to be learned from how we are dealing with the Coronavirus that can be applied to the looming ecological crisis?
Yes. Because today, we realize that when faced with danger, we have the capacity, both individually and collectively, to change our way of life. In particular, we are capable of moving away from our current consumption model.
The problem with our consumption model: marginal comfort
We all have basic needs: drinking, eating, having a roof over our heads, healthcare, heating, clothing... And for most people in so-called developed countries, these needs are largely met. So we are also able to satisfy more “artificial” needs: buying sneakers, going on vacation, ordering a phone, etc. These needs are perfectly legitimate, and we all have the right to indulge in them from time to time.
But the problem is that in recent years, our consumption has shifted toward even more artificial, or even superfluous, needs created by technology, advertising, and marketing: needs for “marginal comfort.” For example, buying stylish sneakers in addition to the ones we already have, buying the latest iPhone even though our current one still works, getting a “smart speaker” to dictate our grocery list, having wireless earbuds, etc. This phenomenon has been further exacerbated since a portion of the economy is dedicated solely to making us give in to our greatest weakness: laziness. With just one click, we can summon a driver, order a meal, request a dry-cleaning service, get a massage, have someone clean our home, have a bottle of whiskey delivered...
A connected refrigerator that lets you see what’s inside with a few clicks... who even has time to open their fridge door anymore?
Why is this marginal comfort a problem?
First, because it doesn’t bring us much personally. As with any consumption, we derive less and less pleasure the more we buy. It’s a bit like a cold beer or soda: the first sip feels great, but the more you drink, the less you enjoy it.
But the main problem is that the social and environmental impact is roughly proportional to our consumption:
Examples of the problems this causes:
When we buy a pair of super stylish sneakers we don’t really need, it doesn’t change much in our lives, but it has generated an average of 15kg of CO2—the same as every other pair already sitting in our closet.
When we buy a pair of AirPods even though we already have headphones, it certainly saves us from tangled wires, but it uses rare metals like tungsten, lithium, or cobalt, for which we only have a few decades or centuries of reserves left.
When we have a meal delivered via a click on an app, it saves us the micro-effort of cooking or going down to pick up our food, but it comes at the cost of the sometimes disastrous working conditions of the delivery drivers.
And honestly, it’s normal to be tempted to take advantage of all this marginal comfort: companies only show us the benefits we’ll get and hide the negative consequences. They offer to deliver our packages in under 24 hours without mentioning that this type of delivery is more polluting than a standard delivery or that it puts extra pressure on delivery drivers. When fashion brands boast about the style of their collections, they never mention the terrible working conditions of the people who made their clothes. Tech companies lead us to believe that robots are doing the dirty work when in reality they also rely on millions of precarious, invisible workers .
Fortunately, the coronavirus crisis shows us that giving up this marginal comfort is well within our reach.
Individual effort
What the lockdown is making us realize is that all the consumption we thought was absolutely “necessary” a few weeks ago isn’t actually that essential. We’re realizing that we’ll survive without the new iPhone and that an extra pair of sneakers won’t change much in our lives. And those brands that want to keep selling us items through sales, free shipping, and “x% of proceeds donated to such-and-such charity” seem almost indecent now that we realize people are putting their health at risk so we can enjoy these “great deals.”
And if we accept all these restrictions, it’s because the media is educating us on the risks of the epidemic and we understand why it’s important. In the same way, we must educate ourselves as much as possible about the social or environmental impacts of every purchase, avoid being blinded by brand messaging, and keep our critical thinking skills sharp. It’s much easier psychologically to stop ordering food delivery once you’ve seen what goes on behind the scenes.
In fact, we must keep in mind that every purchase is inevitably a compromise between three dimensions: our personal comfort, the impact on others, and the impact on the planet.
Finding the right balance.
Of course, today, we wouldn’t say no to a good restaurant or even a bad concert. But during the lockdown, we’re noticing what we truly miss: seeing our loved ones, going for walks, or being out in nature. So, if in the past we were financially privileged enough to afford this marginal comfort (which is far from the case for everyone), this quarantine shows us that we can live without it. We can move toward a more sober daily life that won’t make us any less happy:
Spending less time shopping means more time to spend with loved ones, learning, playing sports…
Flying less means (re)discovering just how beautiful and varied the French landscape is.
Buying only seasonal fruits and vegetables means learning to cook new things.
Limiting your spending means you can choose a job that might pay less but suits you better.
Etc.
Why bother flying when THEY SHOULD HAVE FILMED LORD OF THE RINGS IN THE MASSIF CENTRAL, YEAH!
But let’s be honest: in the long run, it’s hard to change your lifestyle on your own if everyone else keeps living as if nothing is happening. Why should I bike to work if I have to choke on the exhaust fumes of the cars around me? Why should I fly less if I see people coming back with a tan from a week in Thailand? The truth is, if you’re the only one doing the right thing, you feel like you’re losing twice over: not only is it frustrating to deny yourself things that others keep enjoying, but ON TOP OF THAT, if others don’t change their behavior, your sacrifices are all for nothing.
Isn’t that unfair? Trying to lead by example is inevitably exhausting in the long run.
Collective effort
If the lockdown is generally well-accepted, it’s because it is imposed on most of us. Of course, some live in much more comfortable conditions than others: it’s easier to be locked down in a 2,000-square-foot apartment or a second home than if you live in overcrowded or unsanitaryhousing. And of course, many people are still required to go to work (healthcare workers, but also those staffing supermarket checkouts, collecting our trash, delivering our packages, etc.). But no one is allowed to see their friends, no one can go out for a coffee, no one is allowed to go clothes shopping or visit the hairdresser.
Would you be willing to stay in lockdown for so long if your neighbors could go out every night to have drinks with their friends?
In 2018, the government tried to reduce car usage by increasing the carbon tax on fuel. Naturally, the measure didn't affect everyone in the same way: this tax was a trifle for the wealthy but a heavy burden for many others (not to mention that it didn't apply to aviation kerosene). It was unfair, and it led to the Yellow Vests movement.
Isn't it shocking to see all those people standing less than 1.5 meters apart?
There is no chance that measures to fight the ecological crisis will be accepted if they exacerbate social inequalities.
There can be no ecological transition without social justice.
We therefore need binding legislation that applies equally to everyone to move us away from the current consumption model. If the state is capable of asking the population for a collective "war effort" to fight the coronavirus, it must be capable of imposing more restraint on all citizens to fight the climate crisis. For example:
Banning certain forms of advertising (e.g., in public spaces, using video screens, targeting children...)
Implementing progressive energy pricing1 to prevent waste
Penalizing planned obsolescence and requiring manufacturers to provide long-term product warranties
Requiring brands to display an environmental rating on their products that accounts for durability (including for clothing brands)
Banning the import of certain superfluous products (honestly, do we really need to import green beans from Kenya or roses from Ecuador?)
Considering the introduction of individual CO2 quotas (to encourage people to fly less, for example)
Limiting certain types of highly polluting industries (e.g., the rollout of 5G) or highly polluting vehicles (e.g., limiting their weight to stop the production of ever-heavier SUVs)
Do these efforts seem like an infringement on your freedom? Do you feel like we're describing a "green dictatorship" or "punitive ecology"?
Let’s not forget that many restrictions once considered oppressive now seem like common sense and have saved a great many lives: the ban on smoking in public places, mandatory seatbelt use... And this time, we aren’t just talking about personal safety, but our collective survival. Doesn’t our freedom end where the destruction of the environment begins?
So, what can we do as individuals to ensure such measures are taken? We’re not telling you anything new: first, you can vote. But if that isn’t enough (and it’s clear that it isn’t), there are other ways to put pressure on governments: go to protests, get involved in citizen lobbying groups, or join local associations fighting for biodiversity preservation or supporting those in need. In fact, every time we have access to even a small bit of power, we must use it to try to tip the scales in favor of the environment.
But we know full well that for things to truly change, citizen mobilization isn’t enough: businesses must also step up.
Corporate responsibility
In June 2019, Tropicana conducted a study on consumer expectations, and apparently, what the average customer wants is transparent bottles. And since “the customer is king,” they didn’t hesitate to switch from cardboard cartons to plastic bottles. As the company states itself in a Medium post, even though they chose partially recycled plastic, their only goal was to satisfy the consumer. This means that the carbon footprint was not a factor in their decision-making criteria.
This dogma of the “customer is king” or “customer first” can no longer continue. There cannot be 7 billion kings on our planet.
If a company truly wants to fight the ecological crisis, it must take social and environmental dimensions into account for every decision, even if it’s not what the customer is asking for and even if it doesn’t result in an economic benefit (we’ve already talked about this at length if you’re interested in the topic).
And frankly, treating someone like a king rarely makes them a better person. Frontline workers2 (sales staff, cashiers, customer service representatives, call center agents, etc.) often bear the brunt of these “king” customers who think they are entitled to everything. Even for brands, it isn’t really strategic to treat their customers “like kings” by being obsequious, opaque, and terrified of their judgment, all while trying to sell them things they don’t need. In the end, we always prefer those who treat us with honesty and kindness.
Good news: what the current crisis shows us is that companies are also capable of mobilizing, moving beyond simple financial goals, and stopping their obsession with “customer experience.” We are seeing surges of solidarity like never before, such as parts of the textile industry reorienting their production toward manufacturing masks.
Let’s use this crisis to change the world
The coronavirus crisis is a human catastrophe, but it has the merit of exposing societal dysfunctions that we can no longer ignore.
We are collectively realizing (among other things) the importance of funding our healthcare system, that it is essential to revalue certain professions (and for our part, just how superfluous our own can be), or that certain social inequalities are intolerable.
But we are also realizing that, for the common good, we are capable of things we thought were impossible just 10 days ago—on an individual level, a collective level, and even within companies. By showing us that we can move away from our current consumption model, this coronavirus is an opportunity (and perhaps our last) to change things.
Giving up our marginal comforts will not be enough to solve the ecological crisis: systemic changes are required that can only be implemented at the state level, such as decarbonizing our agricultural system, power generation, and building construction. However, what is certain is that we cannot face this ecological crisis without giving up our marginal comforts. The good news is that this is much easier than giving up our fundamental freedoms.
A few readings that inspired us to write this article, if you would like to explore further:
And how do we get you to give up marginal comfort at Loom? We certainly consider the customer very important, but not a king. For example:
We don't offer express shipping, but we do provide Colissimo delivery in two to three days. It might be a little less "convenient," but it avoids 1- having trucks that aren't full and therefore polluting, and 2- putting unnecessary pressure on delivery drivers.
Our packaging is made of kraft paper, not plastic. It sometimes arrives a little torn at the customer's end, but its carbon footprint is better.
We no longer offer "easy-care" clothing, such as shirts that don't need ironing. It's less convenient for our customers, but it's betterfor their health and for the environment.
Notes
1The California example shows that it is possible and that it can have a huge impact on electricity consumption, while protecting the most vulnerable.
2 And this period particularly highlights why these are the people who should be treated with the greatest respect.
Who are we to say that? You are on La Mode à l’Envers, a blog run by the clothing brand Loom. The textile industry is in a bad way, and the planet is paying the price. We try to explain everything we understand about the sector right here. Because making sustainable clothing is good, but revealing, sharing, and inspiring is even more powerful. If you like what we write and want more, subscribe to our newsletter by clicking here. We promise: we don't write often and we never spam.
We are back at it: we have decided to resume shipping to our customers now that our warehouse and the postal service have returned to near-normal operations. Delivery times may be slightly longer due to the health precautions taken by our warehouse and the postal service. Please also note that it is currently impossible to have items delivered to a pickup point, as most businesses are still closed and post offices are not providing this service. We are therefore only shipping via Colissimo to your home (without a signature, of course). As for returns, we are extending the window to 90 days after delivery to give you more time. Rather than going to the post office to drop off your return packages, we encourage you to leave them in your mailbox if possible so the mail carrier can pick them up (this process is explained on the return labels we will send you if needed). Regarding orders placed since mid-March that were scheduled to be delivered "after the lockdown," they will be shipped in the coming days.
Article updated on March 31, 2020 at 5:00 PM
We are going through a strange time right now, and we cannot pretend that everything is business as usual. In case you were wondering, here is what is happening at Loom, with full transparency.
Can you still buy clothes from Loom?
Yes, you can still order our clothes on the site, but we will only be able to deliver them after the lockdown ends. Our warehouse, based in Troyes, has significantly slowed down its operations to protect its staff, and in any case, Colissimo has stopped delivering to several cities in the Ile-de-France region.
What about exchanges and refunds?
All exchanges and refunds are on hold until further notice: our warehouse is operating at a reduced capacity and can no longer receive packages. All requests will be processed once operations resume.
Is everyone okay?
Yes, everyone is doing well: for now, neither we nor our loved ones are showing any symptoms of coronavirus infection. Since Friday, we have been in lockdown at home working remotely, and our spirits are holding up.
Julia's kitten is doing well: all is well.
Will Loom survive?
Since we are selling very few clothes and still have to pay certain expenses (like salaries), our cash flow (the money we have in our bank account) will also decrease, which puts the economic health of our company at risk. As a result, we have tried to act quickly to reduce our costs as much as possible (see our LinkedIn post as of Friday, March 13). For example, we reduced our salaries, left our Station F incubator to stop paying rent, and, after ensuring it wouldn't cause them financial hardship, we canceled some of our factory orders. The government's economic support measures for businesses will certainly help us as well. Under these conditions, unless there is a total lockdown for a year, Loom will survive.
What will we be doing while waiting for things to return to normal?
We feel it’s not really the right time to talk to you about new clothes, so we are postponing the launches we had planned. Instead, we are going to focus on long-term projects. First, we are going to work on our clothing. Even though our factories are running at a slower pace and it will take longer to make prototypes, we will continue to improve the durability of our clothes and develop new ones. In particular, we are going to focus on our women's collection. Next, more than ever, we are going to write articles. This coronavirus crisis highlights certain limits of the current model of infinite corporate growth that we would like to shed light on. In fact, we have just finished this article. Finally, we would like to create a textile "wiki." For nearly two years, we have been noting everything we learn about how to make long-lasting clothing in a document. Several brands have asked us to share this document with them, and we think that’s a great idea. We’ve realized that we sometimes change consumer behavior through our blog posts, and that this may have more impact than just making and selling our own clothes. If we want to change the textile industry, it is much more effective to help other brands improve the durability of their clothing than to keep this knowledge to ourselves (even if it means losing a "competitive advantage"). In fact, we believe this is exactly the kind of knowledge that should be accessible to everyone and improved collaboratively by all brands.
What can we do for you?
We are just a clothing brand. We realize right now that making t-shirts or pants is not an essential service. But if there is anything we can do for you, topics you want us to cover, information you would like to have, or updates on how this little kitten is growing, let us know. Or if, on the contrary, you think it’s better for us to stay quiet for a while, let us know that too. We wish you the best of luck.
Il n’y a pas un jour qui passe sans que quelqu’un de notre entourage nous demande notre avis sur telle ou telle marque.
Un lundi comme un autre au bureau.
On nous le demande sur les vêtements mais aussi sur la nourriture, la banque, les cosmétiques et même les vélos. Et ça se comprend : en ce moment, on dirait que toutes les marques du monde sont engagées pour la protection de l’environnement, des plus petites aux plus énormes.
Si toutes les entreprises s’engagent pour l’écologie, on pourrait se dire que ça va dans le bon sens, qu’on va réussir à limiter le réchauffement de la planète et la crise écologique et que oui enfin, le monde va aller de mieux en mieux.
Nous quand on voit que toutes les entreprises s’engagent pour l’environnement.
Mais alors attendez : pourquoi le climat continue de se réchauffer ? Les océans d’être pollués ? la biodiversité continue de s’effondrer ? Si toutes les entreprises font les choses bien, pourquoi tous les experts disent qu’on continue à aller droit dans le mur ? Est-ce que ces entreprises mentent ?
Dans l’immense majorité des cas, elles disent la vérité. La plupart du temps, les marques ne font pas de greenwashing à proprement parler. Oui, H&M est bien le premier acheteur de coton bio. Oui, Airfrance plante des arbres pour compenser tous les trajets nationaux.
Oui, Monsanto fait bien... ah non, pour le coup Monsanto c’est des mythos.
Le problème, c’est le type d’engagements que ces marques prennent.
Des engagements écologiques largement insuffisants
En fait, la plupart des efforts écologiques des marques portent sur 2 choses :
l’écoconception : consommer moins de ressources pour fabriquer un produit (exemple : faire un packaging en kraft, utiliser des matières recyclées…)
la compensation : payer pour encourager des actions qui compensent la pollution émise, comme planter un arbre ou financer une asso (ex : 1% for the Planet)
Et franchement, l’éco-conception et la compensation, c’est indispensable. Mais c’est loin d’être suffisant.
D’abord, parce que l’écoconception ne permet pas toujours de diminuer la consommation de ressources. Entre autres à cause de l’effet rebond. Le meilleur exemple, c’est l’automobile. Certes les moteurs de voiture consomment de moins en moins d’énergie, mais comme les gens roulent plus et achètent des voitures de plus en plus lourdes, au global, les émissions totales des voitures augmentent d’année en année. Autre exemple : si un t-shirt est bio, on est tenté de penser qu’on peut en acheter autant qu’on veut sans que ça pollue (spoiler : c’est faux).
Quant à la compensation, c’est loin d’être une solution magique, pour plein de raisons. S’il ne fallait en retenir qu’une, c’est qu’elle n’est pas viable à grande échelle. Par exemple, si on voulait compenser l’intégralité de nos émissions de CO2 en plantant des arbres, il faudrait boiser quasiment l’intégralité des terres cultivées aujourd’hui dans le monde (ce qui veut dire qu’on aurait vachement faim au bout d’un moment).
On pourrait se dire que mises bout à bout, toutes ces actions peuvent finir par payer. C’est ce qu’on appelle la “croissance verte” : on ne change pas de modèle et on espère que la technologie va nous sauver. C’est vrai que grâce aux énergies renouvelables, les émissions de CO2 liées à l’énergie ont enfin stagné en 2019. Mais le chemin est encore très long et incertain. Rien qu’en France, pour ne pas dépasser les 2 degrés de réchauffement, il faudrait diviser nos émissions de CO2 par 5 d’ici 2050.
C’est vrai qu’il y a une petite probabilité qu’on résolve la crise climatique sans changer notre mode de vie. Toute la question est : est-ce qu’on veut prendre le risque ? Imaginez que vous arriviez avec toute votre famille devant un avion tout bringuebalant et le pilote vous dit qu'il a 30% de chances qu’il arrive entier à destination. Est-ce que vous monteriez dedans ? Même avec 50% ou 80% de chances que vous arriviez sain et sauf, personne ne monte dedans avec sa famille.
La seule manière d’affronter le changement climatique, c’est de produire et consommer moins. Quoi qu’on nous raconte, quelles que soient les solutions technologiques qu’on agite devant nos yeux, il a une équation qu’on ne pourra jamais changer : produire, c’est polluer. Comme vient de le rappeler une tribune de 1000 scientifiques dans Le Monde, “Notre mode de vie actuel et la croissance économique ne sont pas compatibles avec la limitation du dérèglement climatique à des niveaux acceptables. Continuer à promouvoir des technologies superflues et énergivores [...] est irresponsable à l’heure où nos modes de vie doivent évoluer vers plus de frugalité.” Bref, parler d’écoconception ou de compensation sans s’attaquer au sujet de la surproduction, c’est comme mettre un pansement (avec des petits dessins dessus) sur une jambe amputée. C’est mieux que rien mais ça ne va pas résoudre le problème.
Pour lutter contre cette surproduction et cette sur-consommation, voici ce que les marques peuvent faire :
Proposer des produits ou services qui économisent les ressources, comme des voitures plus légères qui consomment moins d’énergie (et pas un nouveau modèle de SUV).
Faire que les produits durent plus longtemps : une super innovation serait que nos téléphones soient plus réparables par exemple, pas qu’ils soient dotés d’un troisième objectif
Ne pas inciter à la consommation : pour cela, il faut arrêter de faire des promotions à tour de bras, de recourir aux dark patterns pour faire acheter les gens, de renouveler les collections en permanence pour susciter le désir, etc.
C’est très bien que Danone se fasse certifier B-corp mais il faudrait d’abord arrêter de vendre de l’eau dans des bouteilles en plastique.
Toutes ces marques, qui s’intéressent à l’écologie, qui ont créé tant de postes de “responsable RSE”, qui investissent autant sur le sujet, doivent forcément en arriver aux mêmes conclusions.
Alors pourquoi ne s’attaquent-elles pas au problème de la surproduction et de la surconsommation ?
Pourquoi les marques ne s’attaquent pas au problème ?
C’est vrai que dans certains cas particuliers, l’engagement écologique véritable d’une marque peut être un avantage compétitif. Si ce n’était pas le cas, des marques comme la nôtre, 1083 ou Les Récupérables n’auraient sans doute jamais pu voir le jour.
Mais dans la plupart des cas, c’est faux : s’attaquer au problème de la surconsommation et de la surproduction, ce n’est pas bon pour le business.
Fabriquer des produits plus durables (i.e. qui durent plus longtemps, plus sobres ou plus durables), cela veut dire en vendre moins. Arrêter d’inciter à la consommation en diminuant les promotions ou les publicités aguicheuses, ça fait forcément diminuer les ventes.
Et surtout, la compensation et l’écoconception sont les actions les plus visibles pour les consommateurs. Les marques peuvent facilement les transformer en arguments marketing pour vendre plus : rien de tel qu’un beau packaging éco-responsable pour endormir l’éco-anxiété des clients. Ce sont aussi des arguments pour attirer les jeunes talents : la prise de conscience des jeunes salariés est un véritable casse-tête pour les entreprises polluantes qui ont de plus en plus de mal à recruter.
Ouf, la planète est sauvée.
Du coup, les entreprises ont tendance à laisser tomber les actions non visibles, alors que ce sont précisément les actions indispensables pour diminuer l’empreinte environnementale d’une entreprise. En fait, c’est celui qui fait le moins d’efforts environnementaux qui gagne le plus d’argent. C’est ce que l’économiste Gaël Giraud appelle la prime au vice.
Une petite slide récap qu’on a fait tout seuls sur PowerPoint. C’est beau hein ?
Donc oui, faire des vrais efforts écologiques, c’est moins bon pour le business. Mais les Coca-Cola, Danone et autres grosses entreprises ne sont pas vraiment au bord de la faillite. S’il y en a bien qui peuvent se permettre de diminuer un peu leur rentabilité sans mettre la clef sous la porte, ce sont elles. Et après tout, elles sont composées d’êtres humains, qui sont tout aussi inquiets que nous sur la question climatique. Alors pourquoi n’acceptent-elles jamais de faire un peu moins de croissance ou moins de rentabilité au nom de notre survie à tous ?
La financiarisation des entreprises
Si vous avez un peu suivi nos précédentes aventures, vous ne serez pas surpris de notre première hypothèse : le problème, c’est la finance.
Qui c’est qui l’avait dit avant tout le monde ?
C’est vrai qu’aujourd’hui, près des trois quarts des actions des entreprises françaises appartiennent à des sociétés financières (fonds de gestion d’actifs, fonds indiciels, fonds de private equity…). Et même si ces entités financières ne possèdent pas les entreprises à 100%, elles peuvent imposer leur vision aux dirigeants via leurs droits de votes dans les conseils d’administration, et elles incitent aussi les dirigeants à faire toujours plus de croissance via des mécanismes de “stock-options”.
Et c’est vrai que ces entités financières recherchent avant tout un rendement financier. Elles peuvent prétendre le contraire, mais au mieux, elles pousseront les entreprises à faire uniquement des efforts écologiques qui peuvent favoriser leur croissance : écoconception ou compensation. Quel fonds d’investissement acceptera qu’une entreprise lutte contre la surproduction si ça a un impact négatif sur ses performances économiques ?
Les seules entreprises qui ont la possibilité d’accepter de diminuer leur bénéfice au nom de la protection de l’environnement ou de la justice sociale, ce sont celles qui sont dirigées par des êtres humains, pas celles qui sont sous la pression d’une entité financière froide. D’ailleurs, les entreprises reconnues comme les plus engagées écologiquement sont très souvent des entreprises indépendantes, familiales ou en coopérative : Enercoop dans l’énergie, Fairphone dans la téléphonie, La Nef ou le Crédit Coopératif pour les banques, la Camif pour le mobilier, Biocoop pour les supermarchés, la MAIF pour les assurances, etc.
Même avec les meilleures intentions du monde, une entreprise financiarisée aura beaucoup de mal à prendre les actions écologiques indispensables.
Oui mais voilà.
Si on regarde notre secteur (les marques de prêt-à-porter), très peu d’entreprises sont financiarisées.
Bien sûr, il y a quelques exemples de marques françaises qui se sont transformées sous la pression financière : Vivarte (Caroll, Kookaï, La Halle aux vêtements…) racheté successivement par trois fonds depuis les années 2000, qui a dû fermer plein de magasins et supprimer 7000 postes depuis. Ou Dim rachetée successivement par deux fonds qui a délocalisé une partie de la production. Et puis il y a les nombreuses marques de mode rachetées par le fonds Experienced Capital qui ne se cache pas de pousser les marques à la croissance, notamment en ouvrant des dizaines de boutiques en un temps record...
Mais l’immense majorité des entreprises de mode est encore constituée de groupes familiaux, y compris les géants de la fast fashion.
Les propriétaires des marques qu’on imaginait.
Les propriétaires des marques dans la réalité.
Alors bien sûr, certaines de ces marques sont partiellement cotées en bourse ou ont fait rentrer des fonds d’investissement dans leur capital. Et c’est clair qu’elles en subissent aussi la pression – ou qu’elles se la mettent elles-mêmes puisque leur fortune personnelle est directement corrélée au cours de l’action.
Mais quand même, ces familles contrôlent encore leurs entreprises. L’industrie de la mode aurait donc dû être un secteur économique exemplaire. Ces familles transmettront peut-être leur entreprise à leurs enfants : elles devraient donc faire preuve d’une vision très long terme, sans pression pour grossir toujours plus et toujours plus vite. Et puis elles jouent leur nom et leur réputation : elles devraient donc être vigilantes sur la qualité de leurs produits, sur les conditions de travail de celles et ceux qui les fabriquent et sur leur impact environnemental.
Pourtant, elles se sont presque toutes, à des degrés plus ou moins forts, calquées sur le modèle destructeur de la fast fashion : délocalisation, renouvellement ultra-rapide des collections, dégradation de la qualité, ouverture de nouveaux points de ventes à marche forcée.
Comment se fait-il que ces familles se soient laissées emporter par cette course à la croissance ?
Le culte de la croissance à tout prix
Reprenons la liste des familles citées plus haut et jetons un coup d’oeil à leur compte en banque :
Bref, on peut raisonnablement dire qu’un euro supplémentaire sur leur compte en banque ne changera pas grand chose à leur train de vie.
Et ces personnes en sont parfaitement conscientes. Amancio Ortega, 1e fortune d’Espagne et fondateur de Zara, confie lui-même : “Je veux juste une vie normale et pouvoir boire un café sur une place tranquillement avec ma femme sans que personne ne fasse attention à nous.” Il concède que gagner plus d’argent ne le rendra pas plus heureux.
C’est fou le nombre de mecs qui ont juste besoin d’un café pour être heureux.
Et pourtant, c’est le même homme qui s’est lancé à la conquête du monde entier pour recouvrir la planète de ses magasins Zara, imposant son modèle de fast fashion au reste de l’industrie.
Alors, que se passe-t-il dans sa tête ?
En fait, c’est lui-même qui nous donne la réponse :
“Même quand je n’avais rien, je rêvais de croissance. Sans croissance, l’entreprise meurt. A 72 ans, je pense toujours la même chose : il ne faut pas s'arrêter de grossir."
Pour lui, la taille optimale d’une entreprise est forcément sa taille maximale. Tant pis si les employés croulent sous le travail. Tant pis si cette croissance se fait au prix de la qualité des vêtements. Tant pis si cela uniformise les centre-villes avec des magasins clones partout. Tant pis si cela participe au réchauffement climatique.
Cette croyance, en plus d’être dangereuse, est largement fausse. D’abord, on oublie souvent les déséconomies d’échelle des grosses entreprises (difficultés de communication, process de plus en plus lourds, politique interne, inertie…) qui les pénalisent face aux plus petites entreprises. Mais surtout, dans le monde, il y a plein de contre-exemples d’entreprises parfaitement viables sans croissance, qui cherchent non pas à faire “plus”, mais à faire “mieux”. Elles se concentrent sur l’innovation, l’amélioration de leurs produits et de leurs services, le bien-être de leurs salariés ou de leurs communautés, sans pour autant vouloir augmenter leur chiffre d’affaires à tout prix. D’abord, il y a des millions d’artisans ou de commerces de proximité, comme votre boulanger du coin, qui vend probablement la même quantité de baguettes et de croissants depuis des années tout en étant parfaitement viable économiquement. Il y a aussi ces petites et moyennes entreprises centenaires ou bicentenaires qui existent encore sans avoir grandi jusqu’à plus soif. Il y a aussi ces entreprises tech qui ont fait le choix de ne pas mettre la croissance comme objectif comme Basecamp, Buffer ou Wistia. Il y a même toutes ces entreprises à succès qui ont fait le choix délibéré de la non-croissance pour protéger l’environnement ou le bien-être de leurs salariés.
Cette croissance à marche forcée des marques de vêtements n’est donc pas uniquement imposée par le système financier. Elle est surtout issue d’une croyance largement partagée aujourd’hui : celle qu’il faut grossir à tout prix. “Grossir ou mourir”. “The bigger the better”.
Comment faire pour que les entreprises arrêtent de ne rêver que de croissance
Alors pourquoi un homme dont la vraie passion c’est de glander en terrasse en buvant la boisson la moins chère de la carte se dit que plus une entreprise est grande, plus elle réussit ?
Soyons honnête : c’est ce que pensent la plupart des gens.
Parce que nous vivons dans un monde où on associe toujours croissance et réussite et où la grosse entreprise est glorifiée. Résultat : ceux qui les ont montées et ceux qui les dirigent sont érigés comme modèles au reste de la société.
Les médias célèbrent les levées de fonds records et les introductions en Bourse fracassantes. On peut lire ici et là que le Graal pour une entreprise c’est de devenir une licorne, c’est-à-dire de valoir un milliard d’euros.
Spoiler : ceci n’est pas un classement des entreprises les plus utiles pour la société.
Les biographies d’entrepreneurs qui se vendent le plus sont les ouvrages à la gloire de ceux qui ont construit des empires comme Nike ou Apple, et ces livres ne s’attardent pas sur les conséquencescatastrophiques de leur “succès”. Et dans les écoles de commerces, on étudie les cas de ces grosses boîtes et les recettes de leur “réussite”.
Bref, comme vous et nous, Amancio Ortega est soumis au quotidien à des représentations qui associent réussite et croissance. Pas étonnant qu’il se dise que sa boîte doit toujours grossir.
Alors pour faire en sorte que les entreprises révisent leur ambitions, et qu’Amancio boive enfin son café tranquilou sans arrière pensée de conquérir (encore plus) le monde, il faut changer notre représentation de la réussite.
Make Amancio heureux to drink son café again ! (Rien à voir mais vous avez vu, il a un polo Hugo Boss. Pas très corporate).
Bonne nouvelle Amancio : ces représentations sont (un petit peu) en train de changer.
Mais pour que notre définition du succès change complètement, ça va prendre du temps…
Qu’est-ce qu’on fait en attendant ?
Chez Loom, on vous l’avait déjà expliqué, on a décidé de ne faire appel à aucun fonds d’investissement qui pourrait trop nous pousser à la croissance. Mais comme on l’a vu, ça ne suffit pas. Même avec les meilleures intentions, tout le monde peut être gagné par l’ivresse de la croissance.
Alors voici ce qu’on essaie de mettre en place :
1/ une culture d’entreprise de “non-croissance”. On ne refuse pas la croissance, mais on n'en fait pas un objectif. Elle doit être une résultante de fondamentaux solides : satisfaction de nos clients, relations saines avec nos fournisseurs, qualité de nos produits, motivation des personnes qui travaillent chez nous. Par exemple, lancer Loom à l’étranger ne nous intéresse pas. Développer notre réseau de boutiques sur tout le territoire non plus.
2/ des garde-fous. On a bien réfléchi, et on pense qu’on sera toujours moins tenté de faire de la croissance à tout prix si on a rien à y gagner. Donc la chose qui nous semble la plus efficace, c’est de plafonner nos salaires, pour que personne ne gagne jamais plus de 5 fois le SMIC. A quoi bon faire un milliard de chiffre d’affaires si ça ne change rien au chiffre en bas de notre feuille de paie ?
On n’est pas en train de dire que toutes les entreprises doivent faire exactement la même chose que nous. Mais en tout cas, beaucoup d’entre elles doivent changer de philosophie. Bien entendu, elles doivent être rentables et payer dignement leurs salariés, leurs prestataires ou leurs impôts. Mais une fois cette rentabilité atteinte, il faut que les personnes qui dirigent les entreprises arrêtent de parler d’objectifs de croissance mais cherchent d’abord à faire mieux les choses.
Quizz : selon votre analyse du champ lexical de ce jeune CEO, diriez-vous que l’objectif de cette entreprise est plutôt de grossir ou d’être utile à la société ?
Il faut arrêter de se réjouir des chiffres de croissance mais plutôt d’un client qui dit merci, d’un salarié heureux de rentrer chez lui un peu plus tôt ou d’un fournisseur soulagé qu’on lui accorde un plus long délai de production. Il faut renoncer à faire plus, et avoir juste envie de faire mieux. Il faut choisir entre conquérir le monde et improve what is within our power. It is time for success to be defined not by money, but by positive impact. And for companies to work for the common good rather than the enrichment of a few.
And the great thing is, we are far from being the only ones who think this way. As we mentioned earlier, all over France and the world, there are thousands of companies that are useful to society, profitable, and not seeking growth at any cost. It is their model that deserves to be in the spotlight.
Today, they are still the exception.
Tomorrow, they must become the rule.
Who are we to say that?
You are on La Mode à l’Envers, a blog run by the clothing brand Loom. The textile industry is in a bad way, and the planet is paying the price. So, everything we learn about the sector, we try to explain to you here. Because making sustainable clothing is good, but revealing, sharing, and inspiring is even more powerful.
If you like what we write and want more, subscribe to our newsletter by clicking here. We promise: we don't write often and we never spam.
P.S.: By the way, if you know of any companies that share this philosophy or these commitments, let us know here; we would love to list them and find a way to highlight them.
P.S.2: We were lucky enough to talk about this vision at the TEDx Université de Tours a few weeks ago. We’ll let you watch the video and share your thoughts in the comments.
The upside: your windshield is clean. The downside: we are all going to die.
The insect apocalypse
Organic food has been a staple on our plates for about a decade now. It must be said that when it comes to food, organic farming has a compelling argument: it does not increase the risk of cancer.
Treated on average 35 times : the apple from conventional farming looks just like Snow White's.
But when it comes to clothing, whether your t-shirt cotton is organic or sprayed by Monsanto, it makes no difference to your health : the toxic substances found in clothing come from dyes and other industrial treatments, not from the cotton cultivation itself1.
Here’s a fun fact for your next dinner party: this is what cotton looks like. And even though people call it a “cotton flower,” what you’re actually seeing is the fruit.
This probably explains why organic cotton hasn’t seen the same growth as organic food: it accounts for only 0.95% of global production (compared to over 6% for food). The vast majority of cotton is grown using so-called “conventional” farming methods. In other words: the kind that relies heavily on chemical fertilizers, irrigation, and intensive monoculture. And, of course, pesticides.
A 1945 photo showing DDT, one of the first insecticides, being sprayed in homes to fight malaria (before we realized it was killing off birds and increasing the risk of cancer, premature birth, autism, and Alzheimer’s in humans).
The thing is, cotton is primarily a “self-pollinating” plant, meaning it doesn’t need any help to reproduce—not even from bees. So, you can kill off all the surrounding insects without significantly impacting yields. As a result, while cotton occupies only 2-3% of the world’s farmland, it consumes 10% of all insecticides used globally.
The first step in making a “conventional” cotton t-shirt.
If you are over 30, you know the answer is no. Because you are familiar with the "windshield phenomenon" mentioned in the introduction. And if you don't drive, here are a few figures. In Germany, over just 27 years, 75% of flying insects have disappeared. In the United States, two-thirds of the insect populations studied have lost 45% of their biomass. And as demonstrated by the extensive investigation by a journalist from Le Monde, neonicotinoids are the primary cause of this decline. The phenomenon is so massive that scientists call it the "Insect Apocalypse": these two studies suggest thatin just 30 years, nearly half of the planet's insects have vanished.
But then again, who cares about insects, right? It’s not like they’re actually useful for anything (other than stinging us right on the eyelid on summer nights)...
If things keep going this way, you’ll have to explain to your children that this is not a mini-badminton racket.
In reality, insects are vital to our survival.
If bees die out, for example, flowering plants will no longer be pollinated: say goodbye to fruits and vegetables and, more generally, about a third of what’s on our plates.
You don't need to be Neo from The Matrix to fall into a depression when that's all you have to eat for every meal.
And if we break the first link in the food chain, the survival of every other species is put at risk2.
"It's like the links in a chain in the great circle of life."
The two other families of insecticides used on cotton? They are hardly any better:
The pyrethroids, which are found in aerosol sprays like Baygon. They are suspected of being endocrine disruptors.
The organophosphates are neurotoxic agents. Fine for the pesky moths, but also for farm workers. According to the 35 studies listed in this report.
As you can see, conventional agriculture is far from virtuous, and cotton is a major contributor.
Official ranking of the worst villains of all time.
A global problem with the agro-industrial system
Over the last thirty years, the agrochemical industry has succeeded in spreading the use of products that are increasingly toxic. How is this possible? Because the agro-industrial system as a whole lacks any real safeguards. Driven by industry lobbying efforts, the precautionary principle has been completely forgotten3. France has justban neonicotinoids (it is the first country to do so), but that doesn't solve the problem:
these products remain active in the soil for a very long time (20 years for neonicotinoids)
it is likely that an equally dangerous molecule will come to replace them. In fact, there are alreadyother pesticides certainly just as dangerous in circulation (it’s just that we don’t have enough perspective yet to realize it).
So what is the solution?
GMO cotton that resists caterpillars? Monsanto tried it with Bt cotton, which secretes the insecticide itself. At first, it worked: the quantities of pesticides decreased significantly where it was introduced. Except that nature adapts: the caterpillars became resistant. A study conducted in China revealed that after seven years, farmers were back to the same level of pesticide use as before the introduction of Bt cotton.
Say what you will, they certainly have a sense of humor at Monsanto.
The only reasonable thing to do is to switch to organic farming (what, you guessed it?).
Why organic is good
Organic cotton farming uses far fewer insecticides than "conventional" farming. To get rid of pests, it maintains a balance between insects and their natural predators thanks to rich, living soil, plants trap crops4 around the edges of the fields to be protected…
And there are plenty of other benefits to organic farming:
It significantly reduces the use of chemical fertilizers (or even eliminates them entirely in the case of agro-ecological farmers) through crop rotation, cover cropping, minimal soil disturbance, green manures, composting...
It uses no synthetic herbicides (and therefore certainly no glyphosate). For example, to remove leaves before harvest, we prefer to wait for them to fall naturally with the first frosts.
It makes farmers less dependent on agrochemical multinationals (to give you an idea, some small cotton farmers currently spend 60% of their income on pesticides)
Living, less-tilled soil helps capture CO2 from the atmosphere. This is called regenerative agriculture, and it could absorb up to 13% of our annual CO2 emissions
So why aren't all brands switching to organic?
Some brands have been using organic cotton since they started (Ekyog, Hopaal, 1083, Patine, Armed Angels, People Tree, Patagonia, Organic Basics, Knowledge Cotton Apparel...) and we take our hats off to them. But the vast majority of clothing (including some of our own) continues to be made from conventional cotton. Why?
First invalid argument: price
Yes, organic is more expensive than non-organic. Farming in a way that respects the land is harder than spraying a field with pesticides. Not to mention the very difficult period for farmers during the transition from one system to the other: it can take several years during which they cannot sell under the organic label.
But in the total price of a garment, frankly, it doesn't change much. In a 100% cotton shirt, the cost of the cotton is about €1.50. So even if you buy your organic cotton for twice the price, it will only cost you €1.50 more. To give you an idea, for one of our shirts that we switched to organic cotton, our production cost went from €22 to €24.
That’s perfectly acceptable, right? What might be holding fast fashion brands back from adopting organic cotton today is that their labor is so cheap that an increase in the price of cotton generates a large percentage increase in the cost of production.
Second invalid argument: quality
Whether cotton is organic or not has no impact on its quality: the latter depends essentially on the seeds or climatic conditions.
But it is true that we have been searching for over a year and found it very difficult to find organic AND durable yarn... The reason is simple: demand is so low that quality organic cotton (known as "long-staple" and "extra-long-staple") accounts for less than 0.01% of global production.
Finding durable organic cotton is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Send us your own cotton-related puns at hello@loom.fr
But producers of quality organic cotton do exist. And the more brands that turn to organic cotton, the more the supply will grow, including that of quality organic cotton.
Third invalid argument: organic cotton is no better than conventional cotton
There may be controversies surrounding organic food farming, particularly regarding the use of Bordeaux mixture or the fact that, in any case, treated fields contaminate organic ones. But in the textile industry, there are two labels that guarantee cotton is organic and which, to our knowledge, have never been called into question (unlike the "Better Cotton Initiative" and other green labels):
OCS (Organic Content Standard)
GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard), which also guarantees decent working conditions
The real reason: we lack information
The real reason why brands aren't switching to organic is that very few people are aware of the severity of the problems caused by conventional cotton.
Why don't we know about it? Because pesticide manufacturers (Bayer, Syngenta, BASF...) create a smokescreen6 by trying to make us believe that the disappearance of insects is not due to insecticides, but to a multitude of other causes: climate change, the presence of parasites, urbanization, night lighting... All this through lobbying and funding scientific studies to sow doubt (this one for example, funded by Bayer and Syngenta, attempts to demonstrate that neonicotinoids in cotton are perfectly harmless). None of them, of course, can explain the abrupt decline in insect populations in the mid-90s, at the time of the introduction of neonics, but that doesn't matter.
“The agrochemical industry has pulled off an admirable feat: making us lose sight of the fact that insecticides do exactly what they were designed to do, which is to destroy insects.”
Conclusion
To be perfectly honest: not even two years ago, we had no intention of switching to organic cotton. We thought it meant paying more for very little. We naively told ourselves that there were laws to protect us and that manufacturers couldn't just do whatever they wanted. We thought that global warming was such a serious problem that it took precedence over all others. By digging into the subject, we realized we were wrong.
We have been trying for almost a year to switch our entire range to organic materials. Some products on our site already are, like most of our shirts or our sweaters. For the others, it is in progress, but as we mentioned above, it’s not exactly easy to find the right materials. Two or three times, we thought we had found the right solution, only to start from scratch after running durability tests on the finished products. But by the end of 2020, we should succeed in switching our entire range to organic.
Actually, we shouldn't say we are switching to organic, but rather returning to organic. Closing a chapter that should never have been opened in the first place.
Article written by Guillaume Declair
Updated October 2021
We read an excellent report from the Transformers Foundation that debunks a number of myths about the cotton industry. After reading it, we corrected several points in this article:
We previously stated that cotton accounts for 16% of global insecticide use: that is an outdated 2014 figure. In 2019, according to the International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC), cotton accounted for 10.24% of global insecticide sales.
We stated that organic cotton represents 0.5% of global cotton. For 2019/2020, (source: Textile Exchange) that figure rose to 0.95%.
By the way, there are several very interesting debunks, including the one often heard that "the textile industry accounts for 20% of global water pollution." In all likelihood, this figure comes from a 2007 World Bank and China report, which stated that "industry" was responsible for 20% of pollution in 7 Chinese rivers (textiles being one of the 6 industries mentioned). In short, it has nothing to do with it.
And otherwise, today, we only use organic cotton for our clothing.
Notes
1 Pesticides remain on the outer shell of the cotton. And once the cotton boll is harvested, the fiber is washed so thoroughly that no pesticides are found in the finished products. According to Antoine Guian, director of the SMT textile testing laboratory.
2 Many insects provide invisible services that are just as necessary to agriculture: ladybugs eat aphids, earthworms aerate and nourish the soil... And then insects are eaten by birds, which are themselves eaten by other animals, and so on.
3 For example, under pressure from industry lobbyists, the PAFF Committee (the body responsible for defining the implementation of European agricultural laws) has refused 27 times (!) to decide on a new pesticide approval process that accounts for chronic toxicity in bees (according to Stéphane Foucart in "Et le monde devint silencieux").
4 Trap crops are used to lure pests away from main crops; for example, alfalfa can be used to attract heteroptera, and chickpeas can be used for certain types of caterpillars.
5 Critics of organic cotton are right to point out that GMO cotton plants are more productive than non-GMO varieties (which include organic) and therefore require less irrigation water per unit produced. However, one must account for "grey" water—the water polluted by pesticides—the volume of which is five times lower in organic farming than in conventional agriculture, according to the NGO Water Footprint.
6 This bears a striking resemblance to the tobacco industry's strategy in the 1950s. When the first studies linking smoking to cancer were published, tobacco companies didn't dispute them. Instead, they chose to fund a massive number of other studies (over 6,000) to suggest that cancer could have other causes (heredity, nutrition, etc.), leading us to believe that smoking wasn't so bad compared to all those other factors.
Who are we to say this?
You are on La Mode à l’Envers, a blog run by the clothing brand Loom. The textile industry is in a bad way, and the planet is paying the price. We try to explain everything we learn about the sector right here. Because making sustainable clothing is good, but revealing, sharing, and inspiring is even more powerful.
If you like what we write and want more, subscribe to our newsletter by clicking here. We promise: we don't write often and we never spam.
May 23, 2022. We click the “send” button that releases the newsletter announcing the launch of our male denim pants. At first, nothing revolutionary for a clothing brand. Except that these pants are a little bit special: the dreaded crotch blow out should appear later than on other jeans. To get there, we have worked for three years, invented a new wear test with our laboratory and finally developed our own fabric in the Vosges mountains. Let us walk you through the process.
Crotch blow out: a denim's plague
Before starting the manufacturing of our jeans, we sent you a small questionnaire: "What is usually the problem with your jeans?” And to a simple question, a simple answer: the problem is the crotch blow out.That's right: when you walk, your thigh rubs against the other thigh (or rather: against the bottom of your buttock), which weakens the fabric of the jeans and eventually perforates them.To make our own, we first had to understand why some jeans get holes faster than others. Our first reflex: skim the hundreds of web articles dedicated to crotch blow out. But on the websites and forums we visited, nobody agreed: fabric that is too thin, presence of elastane, bad cotton quality, cut that is too tight, seams that are too thick, humidity due to perspiration...
And then one day, we had a revelation: what if the truth about holes in jeans lies... in chino pants. We've been selling our Loom chino pants since 2019, and we know one thing for sure: crotch blow out is not a thing with chino pants, and the few customers who have experienced it are heavy bike or motorcycle riders - in other words, our chinos don't have holes from the friction of walking.
So the question was simple: what are the specifics of jeans versus chinos that could explain the crotch blow out with jeans?
Looking for the explanation
This question allowed us to eliminate most of the hypotheses found online:
Jeans have holes because they are too thin: no, chinos are generally thinner than a pair of jeans.
Jeans have holes because they are too tight in the thighs: no, in the crotch area, jeans and chinos are more or less cut the same way.
Jeans have holes because of exogenous factors (moisture due to perspiration, tension when moving...): no, unless proven wrong, we do almost the same thing with jeans as with chino pants.
Jeans have holes because they have elastane: no, like most jeans, most chinos contain some percentage of elastane for comfort.
Jeans have holes because their cotton is of poor quality: no, there is no reason why the cotton fibers used in jeans should be shorter or of lower quality than those used in chinos.
Jeans have holes because their yarns are of lower quality: no, even if it is true that a part of the jeans were woven since the 70's with "open-end" yarns (cheaper and maybe less resistant to abrasion), 95% of the jeans are nowadays woven with traditional "ringspun" yarns, most probably like chinos.
We were left with only two hypotheses to test:
Hypothesis #1: The double seam. The inner leg seam of jeans is thicker than that of chinos - a double seam could cause more intense chafing than with chinos.
Suspect n°1: the jeans' double seam
Hypothesis #2: Roughness. The threads of jeans are thicker than those of chinos: their fabric is therefore rougher. When one thigh rubs against the other, it's a bit like a piece of sandpaper rubbing against the fabric.
Suspect n°2: the roughness of the jeans (not that sweet little horse)
Our lab tests
To test our hypotheses, we decided to simulate this friction in a laboratory, with a test called "Martindale": a machine rubs the fabric until a hole appears. The result is counted in number of cycles: the higher the number, the more resistant the fabric.
A Martindale machine in action.
To begin with, we wanted to check that the Martindale test simulates what happens in real life: we sent pieces of jeans fabric and of chino fabric to our lab to check that, in lab conditions, jeans get holes faster than chinos as well.But when we received the results, we were surprised: in the lab, the jean fabric had lasted twice as long as the chino fabric (100,000 vs. 50,000 cycles). The opposite of what happens in real life...So we thought for a second: this Martindale test cannot simulate what really happens to the crotch, since it uses the same standard "abrasive wool" to rub against the fabric. But when you walk, the fabric rubs against itself! We called our lab and came up with another type of test, where we replace the abrasive wool with the fabric itself. After some adjustments on the right pressure level in the machine, this test will answer to the sweet name of "Fabric abrasion resistance Martindale method modified fabric against fabric, pressure 12 kPa". A few days later, the results of the new test were in:
Bingo! We had found a laboratory test that simulates what happens in real life: chinos are (at least) three times more resistant than jeans to friction: 100,000 vs. 35,000 cycles.So we could move on to the next step: testing our two hypotheses to find the cause of these holes on your jeans.To test the first hypothesis (the double sewing of the jeans), we replaced the single fabric with a fabric with sewing on the Martindale machine... When we received the results, we realized that it did not change anything: the sewing does not weaken the fabric.
Suspect found not guilty.
No holes after 100,000 cycles.
By elimination, only one suspect remained: roughness. To check this hypothesis, we decided to have several types of jeans tested: smooth jeans and rough jeans. And all the results confirmed that the thicker and rougher the jeans, the faster they get holes:
The thinnest jeans we found (Muji brand) resist very well: they exceed 100 000 cycles.
Thicker raw jeans (Uniqlo brand) do not resist very well: 35 000 cycles. On the other hand, when we make the fabric less rough manually with sandpaper before sending it to be tested, it holds much better and also exceeds 100 000 cycles!
Jeans that are quite rough because of the use of an "open end" thread do not hold very well: only 16,000 cycles.
Raw jeans and their washed equivalent (and thus less rough): the first one holds 70 000 cycles, much less than the second one, which breaks at 100 000 cycles.
In short, after several months of testing (and a few thousand euros spent...), we had identified the culprit: roughness. Exactly the opposite of what we would have thought intuitively: thick cowboy jeans are more likely to experience crotch blowout than thin jeans.
Had they known, all the cowboys would have worn yoga pants.
Then, we just had to develop our fabric. We had two options:
Test a lot of existing fabrics from suppliers and choose the best one.
Develop our own fabric: more uncertain, slower, more expensive... but with the hope of creating a fabric perhaps more powerful than those that already exist!
You can already guess what we chose, right?
Going to Les Vosges
Finding a factory that would agree to make such a development with us was not supposed to be an easy ride. It takes time, money and we are not Levi's: at first, we hoped to order max 10,000 meters of fabric per year, that is to say a little more than 100,000 euros... Economically not very interesting for a manufacturer.However, Tissage de France, the factory in the Vosges region of France that manufactures the jeans for the brand 1083, immediately agreed to work with us on this project. The deal was: we share the development costs, and if it works, the factory will be able to reuse everything we learned together in other projects with other customers (this is what we had already done successfully when we developed our cotton socks).
Us in the Vosges with Tissage de France (six clues in this photo will help you find the year of our visit).
To develop a denim fabric that is not too rough but still keeps a nice hold, we decided to weave:
A rather thin denim (12 oz weight).
With a ringspun yarn (softer than its open-end equivalent).
And double-twisted (two threads twisted together for more resistance and hold).
All in organic cotton, of course.
But we didn't stop there: we also wanted to solve the 2nd big problem that came up in our questionnaire: the fact that jeans get loose over time. For that, instead of spinning the elastane at the same time as the cotton fibers (the classic method known as "corespun"), Denis, the director of the factory, recommended that we twist two cotton threads around a filament of elastane (the "covered" method, more expensive but seemingly more effective).
It took us a few tries to make the final adjustments (especially on the size of the elastane thread), and finally: we managed to weave a denim that holds up. If you want proof:
With the test we invented (fabric vs. fabric abrasion), our jeans exceed 200,000 cycles! That's more than any other jeans we've ever tested.
With the residual deformation test, the residual elongation after one minute is only 1.8%, which is quite honorable: on the six other jeans we tested, only one did better.
Yes, but if it's to make a solid but ugly denim, there's not much point, is there? Good news, our fabric looks like this:
A denim with just the right amount of roughness (thanks in particular to spun elastane) to give it character.
We've got it
With the development of the fabric, we had done the biggest part of the job. Because for the manufacturing part, we knew who to turn to: 5D, our Portuguese factory specialized in pants (and which manufactures for many great French brands).Compared to our fabric, our specifications were quite simple... We wanted:
A semi-slim fit.
Pockets deep enough to fit your phone and strong enough for your keys not to tear them.
A zipper fly, because it's more practical and it washes out more nicely.
A first pre-wash on the raw denim, so it doesn't shrink at home.
Reinforced belt loops.
After some back and forth on the cut, we had our jeans! Beautiful, comfortable, and solid. It was ready for production.
A satisfying fitting session.
Sidenote: Let’s talk about that price These jeans are sold for 100€. Yes, it's not cheap... but it's not that expensive: First of all, the development phase cost us a lot of money: between the lab tests, the development of weaving tests and the back and forth on the prototypes, it cost us about 10,000 euros (not counting our own work time). The fabric costs about 15 euros/meter to produce, which is almost twice as expensive as the classic made in Italy fabrics: organic cotton, ringspun, double twisted yarns, elastane yarns with a sheath rather than corespun, made in France... Our ethics and our quality choices have a cost. The confection is carefully made in Portugal, with wages much higher than 95% of the jeans on the market, mostly made in Asia or North Africa. But as we don't make any collection, nor sales, nor ads, and as our shareholders don't push us to make a big margin (more details here - if you can read French), we sell it for "only" 100 euros (for the moment - this price could change with the inflation on energy and raw materials).
Resistant, but not indestructible
It's been almost a year since we launched these jeans: we're starting to have some hindsight on how they age. First of all, the people who bought them seem very satisfied: they are rated 4.7/5 by more than 100 people, which is really great.But will these jeans resist crotch holes for eternity? No.Out of more than 2,000 jeans sold, we have already had three cases of crotch blowouts: people who regularly ride bikes or motorcycles. Now, we designed these jeans to resist well to "thigh against thigh" rubbing... but they will not be much more resistant than other jeans for "thigh against saddle" rubbing (even if, each time, the concerned customers told us that their Loom jeans pierced less quickly than the other ones they wear).And even for the rubbing related to classic walking, if they will probably resist longer than the average, it is very likely that they will also end up with a hole one day: in a nutshell, like any garment made of natural materials, these jeans will eventually wear out.
Could we make even more resistant jeans?Probably, but then we would have to use more synthetic materials: to make a stronger garment, it is often enough to replace cotton by polyester. But it is less pleasant to wear, it retains odors and especially, for the environment, we think that fashion must get rid of plastic (we talk about it here, in English).
But are these holes really that bad?
Not really. Because like all clothes, jeans can be repaired.In fact, jeans are even easier to repair than other clothes.First, their alternating blue and white threads make them visually inconsistent... so repairs can be almost invisible. To repair a crotch blowout, you can add a patch of fabric inside the jeans and then sew it with a thread of the right color... And here is the result:
Moreover, even if the repair shows a little, it's not so bad: denim experts consider that what makes the beauty of a pair of jeans is the mark of what it has been through. Washing, tears, repairs... In short, the "patina" are all scars that give it value - and that many brands try to reproduce artificially in the factory.
The A.P.C brand even sells worn jeans that are naturally more expensive than new ones.
Conclusion: let's not focus on the wrong fight
If our jeans will eventually break down and repair relatively easily, was it worth the research?We hope so: if the first holes in the crotch appear even one or two years later than with your other jeans, that’s still a win. Also, to develop these jeans, we had to understand the science behind the clothes. And that really motivates us. Finally, supporting French factories by doing R&D with them is also our most exciting and higher mission.But we have to keep a clear head: indestructible clothes don’t exist… and they never will. The most important thing to do to keep a garment for a long time is not its inner quality: it is above all how we take care of it. The clothes of our grandparents were probably much less resistant than today's. Yet they kept them much longer. Because they knew how to maintain them, repair them, mend them.We must now collectively re-learn how to take care of our clothes. Putting on a towel before eating tomato pasta, shaving the pilling from our sweaters or socks, delicately washing our woolen sweaters, sewing on our buttons, repairing tears… and mending the holes in the crotch of our jeans.In short, clothes that last a long time are above all clothes that age well.Buy less clothes, take care of them.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.