Slow fashion: changing uses through radicalism and “cool”
Because it is one of the most polluting industries in the world, fashion is called upon to reinvent itself. To do this, it must change its production model and support consumers in adopting new, more virtuous uses.
Nicolas Rohr, co-founder of the French ready-to-wear brand FAGUO and Élisabeth Laville, expert in corporate social responsibility and founder of the consulting firm Utopies, discuss their thoughts on the necessary transformation of the sector, brand commitment who populate it and the modalities of lasting change in the textile industry.
What is your assessment of ethical and responsible issues in the fashion industry?
Élisabeth Laville: We are witnessing a large number of speeches. That's not necessarily a bad thing. I think that the ecological and solidarity transition is above all a cultural change, not just a technical one. The fact that fashion brands, especially luxury brands, are taking it up will help to shift the social norm. Because they not only have an ecological footprint, but also a "brainprint", an influence on trends. This “new cool” is consolidated by the Fashion Pact (series of ecological commitments, editor's note) for example. The evolution of practices suggests that a movement is at work. However, I find that the commitments are uneven. First, they do not deal with the main problem which remains fast fashion, in particular that of increasing the production of clothing. This subject is not dealt with. I remind you that the expression fast fashion is not present once in the Fashion Pact. Recycling is not the solution – today only 1% of clothing is recycled and 12% of the textile market has set circular economy targets. Nor is it a tidal wave. 40% of textile brands in the world have made no CSR commitment to date, according to Deloitte. It is mainly SMEs that lead the market on this. So, in my opinion, if we don't deal with this subject of the economic model, we remain beside the plate.
Nicolas Rohr: We belong to a generation that is more committed than that of our parents, but which is still full of contradictions. According to Ademe, we buy 70% more clothes, use them half as long. We even have a third of them lying around in cupboards and don't know how to throw them away. So, we are of the generation that wants to do well and at the same time, which accentuates the concern a little. When we launched in 2009, very few brands were involved in this territory, except Patagonia which was a beacon for us. Today, the latter are born with an already committed DNA. The problem is that there is no set path or one right behavior. There are different ways to act on carbon emissions or water management, for example. We are very happy today to see a rule emerge and to be part of it. Elisabeth has also campaigned a lot for this model which, with the B-Corp label, comes to set a common framework in environmental, but also societal, inclusion and cultural commitments for companies. Today there is a palette that allows you to engage more in depth and to affirm your transparency. Let's not forget the Pacte law and the emergence of companies with a mission. We were also the first fashion company in France to obtain this status. It's very interesting to see today all the levers that reinforce this entrepreneurial and societal commitment, and bring so-called for-profit companies closer to the NGO model.
In fashion, companies follow trends. Should they adopt this philosophy to precede liability laws?
EL: This is historically what happened on all markets. I have always considered that it progressed in a triangle, that is to say that at the forefront there are the pioneering brands which start with a directly different DNA and will set the tone which will then precede laws and reforms . Why ? Because they take market share from those who are below, the biggest. The Body Shop, for example, came to market with products not tested on animals and reusable packaging. It therefore takes market share from L'Oréal, which must develop alternatives to stay in the race. The practice is expanding because Body Shop convinces consumers. Result: they passed a law against animal testing in England and then in Europe. The law is like the broom wagon that takes everyone on board and generalizes the practice. For textiles, there are plenty of major issues, such as the destruction of unsold items where practices did not precede regulatory changes, particularly in fast fashion. But this remains a fairly recent phenomenon, appearing 20 years ago at the most, which makes me say that the market could very well function differently tomorrow, because it is a historical epiphenomenon. In the United States, in the 1990s, half of the clothing was made in the country. Today, it represents less than 2%.
NR: I think there are ideas already present in society that the laws finally come to confirm. Take the Pacte law for example. When we were contacted at FAGUO to inform us of the birth of the status of company with a mission, we were very happy with Frédéric Mugnier, my partner, to see that the law had formalized our raison d'être, that of engage our generation against climate change. So the law came to comply with companies, which made the transition to mission-based company status very simple. The certifications then come to frame and propel these companies with a committed DNA. B-Corp, for example, pushes companies to improve according to a points system. The number acquired must increase between each certification renewal. Patagonia, for example, entered it with 100 points, when it takes a minimum of 80 and is now at 152. So yes, companies, in a sense, precede laws because they want to have an impact. The law validates them and confirms that they are going in the right direction.
Should we be radical in our sustainable and responsible approach?
NR: In fights for change, there are always rebels, activists and militants. For FAGUO, I do not wish to have this DNA of militants or activists. For the simple and good reason that I would like this change to appear little by little by the cool side. Loving a t-shirt first and then realizing that naturally the brand has thought of as many things as possible to make this garment “responsible”. We are no longer in a process of progress and learning. To raise awareness, we believe it is necessary to go through this “cool” side. We want to let people measure progress and actions for themselves, and then participate in the change. Our role is to support them towards healthier clothing styles by raising awareness of second-hand clothing and the repair of clothing. All our stores are equipped in this sense. I am precisely very afraid of the extremes that are germinating today in the world.
EL: I agree with Nicolas' remarks, brands can only offer an alternative, and not impose it. But they also contribute to developing new alternative narratives, new imaginaries, new social norms – this is a major role. Unfortunately we have no other possible choice than the radicality of the strategies. Because the challenges demand it: we have succeeded in reducing our CO2 emissions by 7% in 2020 thanks to the almost total cessation of human activities for a quarter of the year. If we want to reach the figures of the Paris Climate Agreement by 2050, we must reduce CO2 emissions on the same momentum as in 2020…, but without stopping activities. And so radicalism, basically, is not a militant posture, but a necessity imposed by the facts. Even if it means giving yourself a little more time, you have to make disruptive commitments aimed at transforming 100% of the economic model. For textiles, the commitment to the circular economy will not be enough. We have to commit to reducing the production of clothing with no doubt an increase in quality and a reduction in the rhythm of collections. Having clothes that last longer, that can be repaired, easily recovered at the end of their life, etc. We must make commitments commensurate with the challenges before us.
Fast fashion has become the benchmark for ready-to-wear brands. How can a fashion company go against this model?
NR: There is a real price logic to be put into perspective. What is needed first is a price that does not vary, because that creates overconsumption. We tell you: it's a bargain, so buy it. Whereas one should buy because one needs it. The relationship between the brand and the consumer is skewed because of this. 97% of brands have floating sales and only 3% have fixed prices. The second point is the subject of collections and the fair assessment of quantities. Today, we need to offer fewer collections and more renewals. Then, the model of pre-orders and just-in-time production is very difficult to generalize. A whole section of the French economy which is called multi-brand and generates 250,000 jobs in France asks players in the sector to commit one year before the start of production in order to be able to distribute their clothes in their stores.
EL: On the subject of sales, I fully agree. Unless I'm mistaken, 70% of textile consumers say that prices no longer mean anything. What is the true price of a product? Some French brands, such as Sensee or Teddy Bear, offer a fixed price all year round, explaining to consumers why and what it contains (French production, no obsolete stock, service optimum and qualitative). Maison Standard has had an interesting approach in this education, but through sales. She offered a timeless collection with different sales rates, explaining that the 50% sale barely covers production costs, the 40% one covers production costs and logistics and the 30% one helps support the brand in His development. This has the merit of transparency and empowers consumers by making them aware of the true cost of the garment.
Is zero waste the future? Can it combine performance and responsibility?
EL: There is a movement developing in Sweden around köpskam, that is to say the shame of buying new. If we look at the youngest, they almost all buy second-hand. This is a subject for tomorrow's brands and it is not the effect of the crisis. We see the propulsion of platforms such as Vinted which encourage other forms of consumption. The second hand, the circular economy, is a real market that tends towards zero waste. Luxury is also getting involved in its own way by offering clothing rental. Others like 1083 rely on the sale of 100% recycled parts with deposit, to encourage consumers to integrate this virtuous model in a sustainable way.
NR: At FAGUO, for creation, designers and product managers need two calculators right from the thinking phase: one to calculate margins and sustain the company, the other for the carbon footprint. We want to move towards a model of negative carbon emissions. In the meantime, we are bringing the 250,000 tons of waste generated back to life at our level by using it to create the FAGUO locker room. 80% of our parts are then designed from recycled materials, which considerably reduces our CO2 emissions. The idea, ultimately, would be to join the Interface model, which has created a carpet that does not emit CO2.
Does commitment necessarily lead to renunciation?
EL: I believe that commitment calls for commitment. In other words: the best way to engage consumers is still brand commitment, which is never expressed so clearly as in renunciation. I always tell my clients: if your strategy doesn't lead you to give up something, it won't work. Typically, in the textile industry, it's the same: what are the renunciations that the big brands are ready to face? Because of their climate commitments, should we renounce the use of certain materials, in particular materials synthetics which have a polluting production and are dangerous at the health level. The solution to solve the problem of pollution via microplastics is to give up these materials completely. Can we find another economic model than one based on overproduction? For me, this question is the sinews of war.
Read also Have we found the “new Emmanuel Faber”? The CEO of Bel wants to put an end to “the only logic of profit”NR: In my opinion, the new generation does not like constraint, just like the previous ones. This is why the changes must be "cool" and enviable. Commitment and products must be trendy to work and reach the most people. Today, it is necessary to find a balance in order to avoid disengagement. Perhaps allow yourself an annual amount of carbon emissions, for example, and consume according to the amount spent. Our generation needs to understand, without being forced to, and to act in a conscious, balanced way. A brand like ours must make available all the necessary elements of understanding. Carbon labeling is a good example.