H&M: the embodiment of greenwashing in fashion

Vendredi dernier, nous nous réjouissions que "la mode se met (enfin) sérieusement au recyclage". Sauf que les grandes marques ont bien senti le créneau, H&M en tête. Le géant multiplie les initiatives, tout en se voyant accusé de brûler ses invendus (pour une valeur totale de 4 milliards de dollars). Jetant au passage de forts soupçons de greenwashing, cet art de paraître écolo dans un seul but marketing.

This is in any case the point of view of Julia Faure, co -founder of Loom, a brand launched two years ago with the idea of producing only clothes "designed to last", with the hope of "democratizing theEthical clothes ". Voici sa critique du greewashing entrepris par la fast-fashion, et qu'incarne H&M.

Julia Faure

Fashion is unpredictable.In a few years, t-shirts have become new expression spaces.We were rather used to those of the type "in the morning it's too early" or "Madame Biante" (sic), but recently, we came across a new specimen, a little more demanding, on the site of a famous brandclothing :

Ce n'est pas anodin de la part d'H&M.The company aims to be the leader in sustainable development among the so-called "fast food" brands (those that have implemented an ultra-fast renewal system of their collections). Elle enchaîne les initiatives, souvent largement médiatisées - H&M Conscious, Close The Loop ou Climate positive 2040 par exemple.And at first glance, she seems to be the best student in the class on this subject, with her 220 people dedicated to sustainable development.

Is this fast-fashion really becoming sustainable or is it just in the middle of Greenwashing?(spoiler: answer 2)

La pollution chimique : la plus médiatisée

Le tee-shirt "There is no planet B" de H&M

In China, a joke says that we can predict the next fashionable color just by looking at that of the rivers (we were not checking). En termes d'efforts sur ce sujet, H&M n'a pas trop à rougir : ce sont les mieux classés par Greenpeace dans leur Detox Catwalk, avec Zara et Benetton.Basically, they are committed by 2020:

- to eliminate toxic waste rejected in wastewater;

- to limit the emission of carcinogenic substances or endocrine disruptors, these substances in particular used to make waterproof clothes, prints, or are in the detergents of the factories.

And the job is huge.No brand of fast food has its own factories: they have subcontractors, who themselves go through subcontractors, who themselves go through subcontractors, etc..But this chemical pollution, even if it is dramatic, is only the emerged part of the iceberg*.

Même à vélo, vous faites fondre la banquise

Extract from the Greenpeace "Toxic Glamor" campaign

Fast Fashion poses three major environmental problems (not to mention the working conditions of textile workers, often deplorable, but it's another story):

- The fashion industry consumes 79 billion cubic meters of water each year, almost 1% of world consumption.This water is used, among other things, for cotton cultivation, a large part of which is cultivated in regions which are already arid, such as Uzbekistan or the Indus valley.Suddenly, whole territories are dried, with serious environmental consequences, such as the disappearance at 90% of the Aral Sea.

- Polyester, an oil derivative, now represents 60% of the textile fibers used worldwide.When this polyester is of poor quality, at each machine, thousands of "micro-plastics", invisible to the naked eye, stand out from our clothes and then are poured into the pipes.Assessment: these micro-platics represent 90% of the waste found in the ocean.At this rate, there will be more plastic in 2050 than fish.

- Cotton cultivation, production of synthetic fibers, spinning, weaving, dyeing, making...Making a garment consumes energy and consequently produces greenhouse gases - contrary to what we believe, it is not transport that produces a lot of greenhouse gases (only just over 1% shows).To give an idea, to dye a fabric, we use autoclaves: huge pressurized machines with a dye bath at more than 100 ° C.Energy chasms.And as most factories are located in Asia, electricity is produced by burning coal or natural gas, which rejects CO2 in quantity.

Assessment: According to the 2018 Climate Works Report, the fashion industry emits 8.1% of greenhouse gases in the world, is almost as much as all of the planet's road transport **.In short, you may go to work by bike, if you put a new t-shirt every day, you still melt the ice floe.

Que fait H&M ?

Extract from the Greenpeace "Toxic Glamor" campaign

A première vue, H&M a l'air (encore) d'être parmi les premiers de la classe.With their Postive 2040 Climate Initiative, they say not only to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, but become positive contributors by 2040!

Owl.But when we look in detail how they plan to do it, there is a little concern.Most greenhouse gas emissions are linked, as we have seen, to...the making.A sector on which they do not have the hand, since none of the factories that produces their clothes belongs to them.

So to get there, they want to rely on "carbon wells" especially artificial.The idea?Suck up the CO2 of the atmosphere with huge machines to hide it under the earth, very deeply.

Light problem: we never managed to prove that it could work...Moreover, most projects to set up carbon wells have simply been abandoned due to staggering costs or technical problems. C'est sans doute la raison pour laquelle, sur sa page, H&M appelle à l'aide les "experts et innovateurs" du monde entier.Anyone available?

Se jeter de la falaise ?

Another proposal: producing clothes from recycled fibers. On aime beaucoup le clip Close The Loop d'H&M, mais en termes d'empreinte carbone, le recyclage des fibres textile n'est qu'une solution très partielle – à ne pas confondre avec le vertueux "open loop recycling", qui consiste à recycler le plastique d'autres produits, comme les bouteilles, notamment utilisé par Patagonia, Hopaal et Ecohalf.

Producing a garment from recycled fibers presupposes an industrial process which also generates a lot of CO2, if only to recover the fibers...In addition, technology is not at all a lot of cases.For example, we do not yet know how to separate cotton and polyester fibers at a reasonable cost.Result: even with an ultra-optimistic hypothesis of 40% recycled fibers, we would reduce CO2 emissions from the fashion industry by less than 10%.

Recycling clothing certainly makes it possible to minimize the use of raw materials (water and pesticides in the case of cotton, oil in the case of polyester), but in terms of carbon footprint, there is really nothing to savewhite bear.In short, to use Philippe Bihouix's metaphor:

S'attaquer au modèle même du vêtement jetable

Nombre d'implantations de magasins H&M dans le monde depuis 1974

To solve the environmental problem of fast-fashion, we prefer to lure ourselves by betting on technologies that remain to be invented rather than tackling the real subject: disposable fashion.

Each year, the ready-to-wear industry produces 150 billion clothes, most of which are piled up in cupboards or are thrown after a few months.And it goes by increasing: global production of clothing has doubled between 2000 and 2014.

This exponential curve is not compatible with a planet which, by definition, has finished resources.No, "there is no planet B".The negative environmental consequences of fast food are at the very heart of its model.Any "ecological" initiative, in such a context, would amount to filling a pierced bathtub.

Greenwashing is dangerous because it discourages us to change our consumption modes.Because he makes us believe that the problem is solved.Because it puts us sleep while the house burns.Of course, we may one day be able to invent great CO2 suction technologies or fiber recycling to solve environmental problems.But it's a huge bet.And above all a huge risk.

En attendant, qu'est-ce qu'on fait ?

Young girl in a thrift store (Anouk de Maar/Cultura Creative/AFP)

In the meantime, there is an equation that will not change: to produce is to pollute.So what do we do ?You can make your clothes yourself.Or buy in Frieves.It's cool.But you don't have to make an illusion: it will never dress everyone.Good luck to find a white t-shirt in size M at Ding Fring or Guerrisol...

There is only one solution, simple and obvious.Common sense: buy less.By choosing well -constructed, quality clothes, which will keep as long as possible.Of course, cotton is not kevlar.You can never keep a t-shirt all your life.But if you are a vigilant minimum, you will wear it for several years.And it's easier than you think:

- Buy brands that produce well and intelligently, like Veja, Patagonia, Standard house, asphalt, good mouth, hopaal, recovery, 1083, Toffery workshop...And of course Loom, with whom we strive to make clothes that last long.

- Take your time.If the garment is a bit too small but you take it hoping to lose weight, if you don't like the color too much but you buy because it's on sale...drop.Besides, do not be blinded by the promotions, it is often an artificial way to make you buy something that you do not need.

- Look at the label.If the material is Oeko-Tex certified, that means that there are no toxic products.If it is made in Europe, this ensures that workers work in a legal protective framework (unlike Bangladesh) and that the carbon footprint is more limited.

- Take care.50% of the lifespan of a garment is played after purchase, just by the way you maintain it.So follow the washing instructions and these animal tips (yes, you have to stop washing your wool sweaters).

- The retouchers are your friends.A small repair rarely costs more than 10 euros, makes someone work next to you and prevents you from buying a garment that costs 5 times more.

The fashion industry was not really part in the right direction.And it is up to each of us to decide where she must now go.

Tribune by Julia Faure, co -founder of the Loom brand

* No, the textile industry is not the second most polluting sector of activity in the world after oil.This statistic, resumed by mass, does not specify the type of pollution which it covers and is based on absolutely no source.

** According to the intergovernmental panel on climate change, road transport represents 10% of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide: in 2010, transport represents 14% of greenhouse gas emissions, and road transportrepresents 72% of transport greenhouse gas emissions.This would therefore make fashion the 4th most polluting sector of activity in the world on this criterion, behind agriculture, electricity and the heating of buildings, and therefore, transport (distribution of activity sectors here).