At a time when climate issues are increasingly permeating general policies from one country to another, brands are working to forcefully rethink their processes. This is the case for Hast. These issues are our priorities. In order to improve our impact on the environment, we recently collaborated with the French agency Utopies©, whose studies enable us to develop tailor-made environmental strategies. Before revealing the precise content of the work carried out with Utopies in an upcoming post, Antoine, the agency's consulting director, spoke to our newspaper.
The Utopies agency has been affiliated with the B Corp community since 2014. What does this mean exactly?
B Corp is both a community, a label and a reference launched by Americans that allows to clearly certify the social and ecological impacts of a company. More concretely, it is a demanding, complete questionnaire that includes two hundred questions in order to analyze the effects that a company has on its surroundings. It is about knowing if the business of a company is inherently positive or not. Ultimately, this helps companies to orient their activities in such a way that they can do good around them in some way. Doing business is not a dirty word. We can do it well.
Is the textile industry considered polluting?
The textile industry is the fourth most polluting sector in the world. It is first and foremost a matter of components. To make clothing, we use raw materials that are extremely polluting. These are materials that are of animal origin, such as leather or wool. There are always brands that are surprised to find that they pollute because their products contain this type of material, whereas we usually think that it is something noble. If we focus for a moment on wool, it is a polluting material because large-scale sheep farming is an activity that pollutes. The transformation of the material is also polluting. When we weave wool, when we tan leather, when we wash fabric, we consume a huge amount of energy, electricity and water. According to a study by the Quantis agency, dyeing represents 64% of the CO2 emissions involved in the production of a t-shirt. Thirdly, a brand that organises the transport of its collections by plane does not, in fact, have a very positive impact on the environment. Some brands can have 20% of their greenhouse gas emissions linked to the fact that they integrate the plane a lot into their activities, because there are always new prototypes, new collections to transport, but also delays on the production line that require delivering all at once, more quickly, to stores, thanks to the plane. In these cases, transport is a very polluting moment in a brand's work. The plane is a concern that people are increasingly aware of. It is not always easy to stop logistics by plane, but it is still easier to do that than to start manufacturing a product with vegan leather or any recycled fabric.
When considering a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for a fashion brand, are there any surprising issues?
Relocating production activities does not necessarily mean improving the carbon footprint, for example. If we move a textile factory located in Taiwan to Poland, we have to be careful. In Poland, electricity consumption will be very coal-based and there will therefore be a lot of carbon emissions. And then, to bring the product from Poland to France, we will not be able to take the boat: we will have to use the plane or road transport and much more than if it was just a matter of driving trucks from the port of Le Havre, for example. But if one day we introduce a real carbon tax at the borders of the European Union, it may be more financially interesting to relocate to Poland, yes.
What summary can you give us of the research work you carried out for Hast?
We managed to collect data for each type of product, from the formal shirt to the classic shirt . For each product, we listed the type of fabric and the length of fabric needed to make it. We wanted to know if it was linen, cotton, organic cotton. We took into account what this implies in terms of production, with spinning and manufacturing, but also in terms of distribution to storage sites and then sales. We were interested in the washing and ironing of each product, too. Until the end of their life, when they are nothing more than waste. We can therefore conclude that Hast produces, for example, 178 tonnes of CO2 per collection. We also know how this figure is distributed according to the products. We really get into detail. For the production of a formal shirt, for example, we know that there are 10 kilos of CO2 released into the air. Of these 10 kilos, 6.3 come from the factory production and 3.6 come from the use of raw materials. We know that shirts that are 100% cotton have a weight of 13 kilos of CO2. 11 kilos for those that are 90% cotton and 10% linen. We also know that socks and underwear have a greater impact on the environment than other items because these are products that are washed and rewashed. In this survey, something surprised me: I did not expect that using organic linen would reduce greenhouse gas emissions as much as cotton. Linen production requires less water than cotton, so there is less processing in agriculture. And then it is a lighter material - weight is a factor that counts in the calculation of emissions. But we still have a problem to solve: in the textile industry, it is still difficult to precisely identify the origin of traditional raw materials. We do not know exactly where the cotton comes from. Many brands buy their fabric from wholesalers who, in turn, buy it on markets where fabric from all over the world is aggregated, with a whole bunch of interries. It is impossible to know where all this comes from. To be able to trace the origin of the materials as best as possible, some luxury brands integrate the entire chain: they buy cotton fields, they develop partnerships with specific producers. But only the big players in the market are capable of doing this.
What are the main levers that need to be activated in order to improve your carbon strategy?
For some brands, reducing their carbon footprint simply means finding an alternative to the main fabric in their collection. For a shoe brand, for example, it means using something other than leather, and obviously, it's not that simple. You can review your supply chain, fly less, but you'll also have to make an effort in research and development to test new materials, such as vegetable leather. It's something that takes time. It's a real difficulty for some brands. In the case of Hast, to develop a lower-carbon offering, you'll have to identify suppliers who will offer organic and recycled fabrics. But that's going to cost more and more because these are products in high demand. There's going to be a strain on supply. On a simpler level, you can also set up contracts with renewable electricity suppliers for logistics warehouses. That's already a first step towards reducing your carbon footprint.
Is carbon neutrality achievable in fashion?
The climate problem is first and foremost an energy problem. When China commits to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050, it is not insignificant at all. The Chinese want to close coal-fired power plants to replace them with hydroelectric or nuclear power. As a result, suppliers of French brands that work in China will necessarily be less carbon intensive. And the carbon footprint of these brands will drop imtely. They will benefit from initiatives that they could not implement on their own. It is complicated to change the Chinese energy mix when you are a small brand. If it really happens, it would be an extremely positive step. I don't think we will be able to achieve carbon neutrality anytime soon, but I am rather optimistic for the future. We are consuming more and more second-hand products, we are buying better and better, and uses are changing.
