At a time when climate challenges increasingly shape policies across countries, brands are actively rethinking their processes. This is certainly the case for Hast. These issues are our priorities. To lessen our environmental impact, we recently partnered with the French consultancy Utopies©, whose studies help formulate bespoke environmental strategies. Before sharing the full details of our work with Utopies in an upcoming post, Antoine, Consulting Director at the agency, spoke with our journal.
The agency Utopies has been certified as a B Corp since 2014. What does that mean precisely?
B Corp is a community, a certification, and a standard established in the United States that rigorously verifies a company's social and environmental impact. In practice, it involves a demanding, comprehensive 200-question assessment designed to evaluate a business's impact on its ecosystem. The goal is to determine whether a company's core model is fundamentally positive. Ultimately, it guides businesses in steering their operations to genuinely create a positive impact. Doing business is not a bad thing. It can be done well.
Is the textile industry considered polluting?
The textile industry is the fourth most polluting sector worldwide. It is primarily a question of components. Making clothing requires raw materials that are highly polluting. These include materials of animal origin, such as leather or wool. Some brands are still surprised to find that they pollute because their products contain such materials, whereas they are conventionally regarded as noble fibres. If we focus on wool for a moment, it is an impactful material because large-scale sheep farming generates significant emissions. Processing the raw material is also resource-intensive. Weaving wool, tanning leather, and washing fabrics consume vast amounts of energy, electricity, and water. According to a study by the Quantis agency, dyeing accounts for 64% of the Co2 emissions generated during the production of a T-shirt. Furthermore, a brand that relies on air freight for its collections inevitably has a considerable environmental footprint. For some brands, up to 20% of their greenhouse gas emissions can stem from heavy reliance on air transport, driven by the need to ship prototypes and new collections, or to offset production delays by rushing deliveries to stores. In such instances, transport becomes a major source of emissions. Air freight is a concern that people are increasingly aware of. While ending air logistics is not always straightforward, it remains easier than transitioning to vegan leather or recycled fabrics.
When implementing a strategy to reduce a fashion brand's greenhouse gas emissions, are there any surprising challenges?
Reshoring manufacturing operations does not necessarily equate to an improved carbon footprint, for instance. If you move a textile factory from Taiwan to Poland, caution is required. In Poland, electricity generation is heavily reliant on coal, resulting in high carbon emissions. Moreover, transporting goods from Poland to France cannot be done by sea: it requires air or road haulage, generating far more emissions than simply trucking containers from the port of Le Havre, for example. That said, should a genuine carbon border adjustment tax be introduced across the European Union, reshoring to Poland might indeed make better financial sense.
How would you summarise the study you conducted for Hast?
We managed to collect data for each product category, from the dress shirt to the classic shirt. For each product, we catalogued the fabric type and the fabric yardage required for its manufacture. We looked into whether it was linen, cotton, or organic cotton. We took into account what this entails in terms of production, including spinning and garment making, as well as distribution to storage sites and retail points. We also looked at the washing and ironing of each product. Right through to the end of its life cycle, when it becomes mere waste. We can thus establish that Hast generates, for example, 178 tonnes of Co2 per collection. We also know how this figure is distributed across products. We really delve into the details. For the production of a dress shirt, for example, we know that 10 kilos of Co2 are emitted. Of these 10 kilos, 6.3 come from factory manufacturing and 3.6 stem from raw material usage. We know that shirts made of 100% cotton account for 13 kilos of Co2. 11 kilos for one made of 90% cotton and 10% linen. We also know that socks and boxer shorts have a greater environmental impact than other garments because they are items that undergo frequent laundering. In this study, one finding surprised me: I did not expect the use of organic linen to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so significantly compared to cotton. Linen production requires less water than cotton, which means fewer agricultural treatments. Furthermore, it is a lighter material — weight being a key factor in calculating emissions. However, we still have one challenge to address: across the textile industry, accurately tracing the origin of conventional raw materials remains difficult. We do not know precisely where the cotton originates. Many brands purchase their fabrics from wholesalers who, in turn, source them from markets pooling fabrics from all over the world, involving numerous interries. It is impossible to know where it all comes from. To ensure full traceability of raw materials, some luxury houses integrate the entire supply chain: they acquire cotton fields and forge direct partnerships with specific growers. But only the major market players have the means to do so.
What are the main levers to pull in order to improve a carbon strategy?
For some brands, reducing their carbon footprint simply means finding an alternative to the main fabric of their collection. For a footwear brand, for instance, it means using something other than leather and, naturally, that is not so straightforward. One can rethink the supply chain, fly less, but significant R&D efforts will also be required to test new materials, such as plant-based leather. It is something that takes time. It represents a real challenge for certain brands. In the case of Hast, developing a lower-carbon offering means identifying suppliers capable of providing organic and recycled fabrics. However, this will become increasingly costly due to high demand. There will be pressure on supplies. On a simpler level, contracts can also be set up with renewable electricity suppliers for logistics warehouses. That is already an initial step towards reducing one's carbon footprint.
Is carbon neutrality achievable in fashion?
The climate issue is primarily an energy issue. When China commits to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050, it is by no means insignificant. The Chinese authorities aim to close coal-fired power stations and replace them with hydro or nuclear energy. Consequently, the suppliers of French brands operating in China will inevitably have a lower carbon footprint. And the carbon footprint of these brands will drop instantly. They will benefit from initiatives they could never implement on their own. Changing the Chinese energy mix is complicated when you are a small brand. If this genuinely happens, it would be an extremely positive step forward. I do not think we will achieve carbon neutrality anytime soon, but I am rather optimistic about the future. We are consuming more and more second-hand goods, buying better, and habits are changing.
