“The textile industry is the second most polluting industry in the world.”
No doubt you have read and heard this statement many times.
This slightly flashy punchline makes a great hook for a social media post. It'll get clicks, likes, comments and reshares, you can bet your last pair of underwear on it!
But it needs to be qualified: according to specialist sources such as The Good Goods or SloWeAre , this statement comes from a rather arbitrary ranking, based on figures that are certainly sourced, but interpreted in a partial way.
Because if it does indeed deserve its place on the podium of greenhouse gas emissions, drawing up a “podium for the biggest polluter” is no easy task.
What is the scale for water consumption?
And water pollution? And soil pollution?
And the waste?
And do we include transportation, or is it a separate industry?
This is certainly not to deny that this industry is dirty, that it needs to improve, and that its impact is major.
But creating generalities to automatically associate textiles with the “worst of the worst” serves neither the industry, nor the environment, nor consumers .
Worse than that , these kinds of statements can even induce a disillusioned philosophy of “fuck it for fuck’s sake”, both among brands and their customers.
Now that this nuance has been restored, we can approach the subject of the day.
TALC will put away its branded hat for a moment. And I will take advantage of this space to ask a thorny question:
What does it mean to be “ethical” in 2023?
“Ethics” is a bit of a catch-all word.
Its moral connotation implies priorities which vary according to the point of view:
For some, it will be the environment above all. For others, the absence of animal exploitation.
And still others, a demand on workers' rights and their treatment.
In the business world, we therefore more often speak of the “CSR” approach, for Social Responsibility (which concerns humans and their working conditions) and Environmental (everything relating to ecology).
Even if all the factors are linked to each other, we can simplify by separating those of the Environmental approach on one side:
And on the other, the Social approach:
- How is it made? Less polluting industrial processes, waste management, what energy sources do the production tools use?
- What is it made of? Recycled materials, with a lower carbon impact, with lower water consumption, of local or closer origin, which do not pollute water via heavy metals or microplastics…
“Produce better” VS “produce less”
At first glance , one might think that the problem is primarily of a “qualitative” nature .
Because on paper, everything that defines a “CSR” approach seems to be resolved by “producing better”: workshops, processes, materials, conditions, etc.
However, when we look at the problem as a whole, both from an economic and ecological perspective, we see that the problem is truly rooted in orders of magnitude.
We note that, in fact, it is above all a quantitative problem:
- We manufacture anywhere at low cost because we have to accommodate a gargantuan volume of consumption, at breakneck speeds, while maximizing profitability.
- We manufacture anything, anyhow, because novelty and quantity count more than quality and durability.
- We must manufacture more to improve productivity (larger volumes = better margins, lower costs).
In other words, the very reason that pushes society to “produce badly” is the need to produce more… at a lower cost!
Add to that the fact that all production (even the “greenest”) has an ecological impact, and it becomes obvious that an “ethical” business can NOT exist on a model that encourages overproduction.
“Ethical fashion”, an oxymoron?
However, as soon as we admit that quantities are at the heart of the problem, it becomes difficult to claim to be “ethical” while selling a traditional relationship to Fashion and trends.
To clarify, let's play on clichés : even if you only offer clothing made from recycled hemp (very low water consumption, ecological), manufactured via a social reintegration project (virtuous for humans)...
If your business model is based on a style that is scheduled to become obsolete in the coming months, you are not really “ethical”.
Being ethical therefore partly means renouncing harmful materials and human exploitation…
But above all it is to give up:
- Overcreation , to always have something new to sell,- Overproduction , to always have more stock to sell,
- And over-communication , to sell to more and more customers, more and more often.
Therefore, to be able to claim to be truly “ethical”, a brand must first and foremost renounce the dictates of calendars and their infernal and absurd pace, excessive and meaningless fashion shows, Fashion Weeks mobilizing entire fleets of planes several times a year...
This is where the real scale of the crisis in the fashion sector lies:
To become ethical, Fashion must give up much of what has defined it and made it prosper until now.
The market: there will (not) be enough for everyone!
Implicitly, this also implies a frightening economic reality for apparel industry professionals: no matter how it is sliced, the fashion market pie MUST (and probably will) shrink .
There will therefore be:
1 - More room for as many brands.2 - And probably less figure to make for the remaining brands.
And do you know what humans often do when fear and fear of missing out threaten their personal interests?
They compromise their values, and become “ready for anything.”
And that's how you get greenwashing.
Greenwashing: a trap for customers and brands alike
As people become aware of the severity of climate issues, selling “ethics” is no longer just a brand positioning.
Little by little, it becomes an obligation.
Fear for the future of this world, guilt, mistrust... So many barriers to purchasing that are gradually becoming entrenched in people's minds, and that brands must overcome in order to continue selling.
But making ethical fashion, well… It’s not easy. It’s more expensive, it requires more controls, it’s less profitable, less fast, more limiting in the options, it’s a smaller market, less room for maneuver…
So obviously, the temptation to take a shortcut quickly arises.
“What if we embellished it a little?
Just a little yes, because well, we're not worse than anyone else after all.
No, but it's true, what!”
This is how greenwashing is born, this “green washing” based above all on image, rather than actions.
A quick summary of Greenwashing:
Obviously, this is a fault that exists in varying degrees of severity.
But here are some classic examples, well known to fashion marketers (whose job the author of this article knows only too well):
- Talking about “European ISO standards” : to suggest a strict responsible approach (when it is only a question of respecting the law).
- Playing on the ambivalence of production sites : In textiles, it is very rare that the “assembly” site of a product is the same as the one where its material was transformed, and even the one where the raw material was harvested.
This is quite normal, but it is no reason to sugarcoat reality: French cotton (almost) does not exist, and if your t-shirt is made in France with Indian thread, the customer deserves to know.
- Deliberately misleading or simply lying : Example with brands which display “Designed in” or “Conceived in”, to create confusion with “Manufactured in” or “Made in” .
- Use fake labels. It's a bit like fake awards, such as "cheese voted best according to the Fromager Trucmuche 2023 prize" ...
And when you dig a little deeper, you learn that it's a cheap competition funded by the brand with virtually no competitors. Or the absolutely non-independent comparisons of offers and products that abound on the web, and whose primary goal is SEO.
Most labels and certifications are businesses: you have to pay to get them, one way or another.
This does not mean that there are not some more serious than others, but since there are hundreds of them, and the client (and even the professional...) cannot know them all... It is easy to use them to mislead clients.
- Actions with a cosmetic impact : “I plant a tree every time you buy me a t-shirt.” (Except that it is done in China by Uighurs, and we are beginning to learn that planting trees is not magically enough to offset CO2 emissions.)
- The surface commitment : “We use recycled materials” (even if it is only a tiny part of the references in the collection, or a very small percentage of the material needed for the product).
- Cashew nut jargon : “ Biosourced materials in a local short circuit, with sustainable production”. It sounds very serious. But it can mean anything and everything.
- “Our ancestors the Gauls” : When brands abuse the “Made In France” narrative, when only a small part of their production is carried out there.
Or again, when they talk about French manufacturing without specifying that 100% of their materials are manufactured and dyed in Asia.
Highlighting a “low carbon impact” thanks to local manufacturing… While the majority of emissions come from the choice of raw materials and their transport from abroad.
- Branding disconnected from reality :
You don't always have to lie to greenwash. Sometimes, it's just a name and a brand identity "with a green sauce", which plays on associations of ideas such as "hippie", "roots", "nature", "green", "organic", "plants", "animals", "fair"... But with a product as respectful of man and the environment as a V8 racing car straight out of Mad Max.
What's cool is that putting a tree leaf on your packaging, calling yourself "Ecobidule", or using a font that gives the impression of a small family production, is not illegal.
And unfortunately, humans rely heavily on associations of ideas to make choices more quickly.
- The Tartuffes: Perhaps the worst. Like the false devotee, the hypocritical religious person depicted by Molière's Tartuffe, some brands take advantage of the power of their speech to give lessons to the whole world.
Except that it happens quite often that they are not so exemplary. Sometimes through negligence, sometimes through pure dishonesty.
(This is also what pushes us to be cautious in our demands at TALC, but we will come back to that…)
Who is more ethical? “Me, me, me!”
Once all the green has been washed away, ethics, which aimed to “do better”, has been diverted from its original mission.
For customers, it becomes a way to buy a conscience (regardless of the systemic reality behind it). We want to be able to shine in the eyes of our fellow citizens as “exemplary” consumers.
For some consumers, this need for recognition even ends up becoming more important than the concern for an overall improvement of the situation.
Conversely, for brands, CSR ends up becoming a competitive argument.
The discourse gradually shifts from “doing better” to “doing better than the neighbor” .
Because for a small brand with few resources, improvable products, weaker communication power...
Moral posturing is sometimes a low-cost way to stand out.
And that doesn't mean that the giants aren't getting in on the act either. Even though it's the small, web-native brands that have been pioneers of responsible marketing, the big groups have no intention of depriving themselves of this card either.
Unfortunately, this implies that in a few years, practically all market players have rushed (with more or less sincerity) into a “responsible” discourse.
Loss of trust and lack of accountability
Do you know the story of the boy who cried wolf?
By shouting “wolf, wolf!” every night, even when there was none, the villagers stopped going out to see what was happening.
Result? One night, the kid got eaten, desperately screaming for help without anyone caring.
Well , greenwashing is a bit similar.
- The wolf is pollution, poor working conditions for workers, and greenhouse gas emissions.- The villagers are you and me.
- And the screaming kid? That's a greenwashing brand.
Simply, instead of crying “Wolf!”, she cries:
“Hey villagers, THIS IS IT, I HAVE THE SOLUTION! I promise, for me (unlike the others), it’s for real. Real real! At my place you can consume without an ounce of guilt. Buying from me is a bit like saving the World, in fact.”
These words were probably more or less those of a brand celebrated worldwide as the very example of virtuous entrepreneurship...
Just before getting caught out for catastrophic working conditions for his products made in Asia. (Hint: it starts with “Pata” and ends with “Nia” )
So, by being overwhelmed with flashes of headlights in all directions, bombarded with “green” messages, and deprived of the means and time to sort the wheat from the chaff, the customer overheats.
Especially since, on top of that, “Ethical Fashion” costs more:
Yes, of course!
When workers are not modern slaves and clothes are made from decent materials, costs go up.
So, our poor client, assailed by the ambient confusion and the thinning wallet (thanks inflation!) changes his point of view a little.
At best, he gradually moves towards indifference in order to preserve a minimum of mental health.
And at worst? It might just make him cynical.
Ethics is just the basics
But what should we do, concretely?
Should we stop being responsible?
Certainly not!
Stop promoting it?
No… But maybe go about it a little differently.
We are at a point where awareness is essential for all brands. Being ethical is the basis.
We must gradually transition to a world where economic and social responsibility is not “an asset to boast about”, but a prerequisite.
This has already partly started: these days, it is almost more difficult to find a brand that does not mention its CSR approach anywhere than to list those that do.
But we believe brands need to transcend “green marketing” and embrace it as one component of their brand identity, rather than a spearhead.
Desirability and ethics: a double paradox
Because being ethical does not mean giving up desirability.
Some brands have focused entirely on this, almost thinking that the lack of impact would replace having a coherent, desirable product and offering.
But in making this choice, they are wrong in two respects:
1 - Clothes remain a product purchased as much out of need as for pleasure. Removing the guilt is not enough to create desire.
By focusing all their arguments on ecology, all their communication on the misery of the world, some brands struggle to convey positive emotions, essential to trigger a purchase.
2 - Responsible brands should make it their mission to be more attractive than those that are not.
Because no matter how many of them come onto the market, if they don't take a slice of the pie from the bad guys, the ecological and social situation of the industry won't change one bit.
Our vision of Ethical Fashion
Criticism is useful for gaining perspective. That said, criticizing without proposing anything is probably the worst thing.
So here are the various principles that we follow at TALC, and that we urge brands to follow.
Values and speaking out
1 - Strength in numbers: Young brands cannot work miracles on their own, but they can lead by example. The more brands that make sincere efforts, the more customers will have healthier purchasing options, and the more consumer awareness will be raised.
2 - Sincerity: being ethical is above all being conscious, sincere. Doing the best with the tools you have, rather than pretending to be perfect. Starting with the choice of responsible raw materials. Because it is this stage of the clothing life cycle that has the greatest impact on the environment.
Yes, it can be tempting to present an idealized, flawless vision of your brand.
But this is paid for in the long term: not only on the scale of a brand, which risks losing the trust of its customers, but on the scale of the entire market , for which greenwashing discredits CSR efforts in the eyes of the public.
3 - Subtlety: in a market flooded with greenwashing, the brands that will sustainably stand out will be those that know how to show their credentials, without falling into excessive virtue signaling, while working on their desirability with singularity.
They will treat ethics as a point on which reassurance is needed , an essential on which work must be humbly done... Rather than a sales argument to be hammered home at all costs.
The 3 “D”s of the product: “sustainable”, “durable”, and “sustainable”
No, that’s not a typo. In our opinion, for a brand to be truly ethical, it must design its products with a focus on “sustainable” propositions… in all three senses of the word :
1 - Sustainable in the way they are produced , through a choice of workshops and sourcing that preserves human beings and the environment. This is what is currently recognized as the “standard” definition of an “ethical” approach. (But it is not enough.)
2 - Durable from a wear point of view , by prioritizing clothes capable of lasting a certain time, whether through design choices, materials, or simply through superior manufacturing quality.
Because if you make clothes with a low environmental impact, but they have to be changed twice as often, your positive impact is nullified.
3 - And finally, sustainable in terms of style and value proposition : clothes designed not to rush into the latest market fad, but to satisfy long-term aesthetic pleasure.
We must try to serve a vision of Beauty that properly resists the passage of time.
We must accept that the future of a healthier fashion lies in a multitude of “niches” of tastes and needs, evolving very slowly, rather than generating trends that are as massive as they are ephemeral.
For example, for TALC: making healthy and comfortable homewear does not depend on the whims of the latest designer put at the head of a major luxury house.
Note that on this last point, you will always have some disillusioned people to answer you that “There will always be trends, we can't do anything about that.” Or even that “truly timeless clothing does not exist” ...
And it's true.
But that doesn't mean we should allow ourselves the right to do the opposite.
Fashion will never be completely frozen in time. But it can, and must, slow down.
And for consumers?
Brands are only half the equation. For things to change, we as consumers need to change too.
But we won't keep telling you about "consuming less but better". If you've read this far, you already know that this is obvious. But we still have two pieces of advice to give:
1 - If you are in a position of influence , of media coverage, try to set an example of sobriety. Do not give in to that old demonstrative instinct, do not use clothes to display to the whole world the abundance that you have.
If it matters to you (and the author of this article is very well placed to understand this), prove your taste and your means by the requirement of your purchases , their quality and the care you take in choosing them.
…Not by an avalanche of textiles.
How do you expect the 99% of the world to change their behavior when the 1% who monopolize their attention are in the "do as I say, not as I do" mode?
2 - Treat your clothes with affection and care.
See each piece you own as a relationship in your life:
Why is it there? What does wearing it bring you, practical or emotional? How attached are you to it? How much do you need it?
This tiny change can completely change your mindset:
The more you like clothes, the more you respect them. The more you are aware of their properties, their benefits, their appeal...
The more you enjoy it, paradoxically, the less Fashion controls you.
There is a future where the market is not dominated only by Luxury and Fast-Fashion.
A future where brands produce better, and customers consume more reasonably.
But the first step towards this future is to see the realities of the industry as they are … while working to transform them into what we would like them to be.
Nicolo Minchillo, pen for Talc .