PLAN OF ACTION
Kering head François-Henri Pinault explains how luxury may serve as an example to fast fashion and discusses the real need to find clean alternatives.
The fashion industry has embarked on a path toward ecological change, and in France, the response to growing environmental concerns in the sector has been lead by Kering head François-Henri Pinault. Here, he explains how luxury may serve as an example to fast fashion and discusses the real need to find clean alternatives. By Aude Massiot.
It takes 2,700 litres of water to make a cotton T-shirt; almost 50 kilograms of raw materials to make faded jeans, and more than 70 kilograms of raw materials to create a viscose dress. Our clothes carry a heavy footprint. Waste, heavy metals, pesticides, plastics, global transport – the fashion industry is responsible for 20 per cent of the world’s wastewater discharges and 10 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions. In the face of these negative effects, the sector has started an ecological transformation. Case in point: in July 2019, Stockholm fashion week was cancelled to focus on finding a less polluting model.
Responding to this issue, last May French President Emmanuel Macron charged François-Henri Pinault, president of the Kering group (Gucci, Yves Saint Laurent, Boucheron, Bottega Veneta and Alexander McQueen), to mobilise the fashion and luxury industry so that France would be exemplary in reducing the environmental footprint of the sector. In August, during the G7 summit in Biarritz, Pinault’s work culminated in the launch of a Fashion Pact, signed by 32 companies. Their commitment: “To lead their companies towards actions compatible with the trajectory of halting global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius, via a fair transition to reach zero net emission of CO2 by 2050.” Vogue met Pinault – who has just committed Kering to carbon neutrality – to find out more.
When the Fashion Pact was announced, some questioned why your goals were not binding and enshrined in the law. François-Henri Pinault:
“At the international level, if one waits for those criteria to be decided upon and imposed, that could take 10 years. We must act faster. For example, we’re going to establish criteria about respect for biodiversity based on scientific foundations. The same thing on the traceability of products.”
How does the fashion industry impact on biodiversity? FHP:
“In different ways. Take gold, for example. At Kering, we obtain gold from an ethical fair-mined gold mine in Guyana, yet mining exploration has an impact on local ecosystems. Mining companies have a legal obligation to restore the soil to a 30 per cent level. We have decided to finance a program to restore the vegetal ecosystem for 100 per cent of the damaged spaces.”
One of the main causes of pollution in the textile industry is the disposal of plastics in the oceans. How do you fight against this? FHP:
“There are two types of pollution: single-use plastics, used widely in the logistics chain of textiles, and microfibres, which escape in the process of industrial washing and with individuals. We must convince washing machine manufacturers and change the rules so that it becomes mandatory to have a filter that retains the microfibres. Pollution also comes from clothing left in landfills, where plastic components enter the soil and water. At Kering, we work with the start-up Worn Again, which has developed a process to separate the natural and synthetic fibres of textiles and recycle them.”
In 2016, the Kering Group aimed for a 50 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions for 2025. What does that imply?
FHP:
“In the fashion industry, almost 90 per cent of the gas emissions’ greenhouse effect comes from the supply chain upstream of the perimeter of the company. To reduce our carbon imprint, we must know the sources and all the manufacturing stages of materials. For example, with leather, we must know whether certain leather comes from Brazil, and if that’s the case, whether they come from firms linked with deforestation. This allows us to make good choices in raw materials to reduce our impact. Then, we need to try to reduce the maximum emissions linked to the manufacturing process. For instance, we have set up a process of tanning leather without heavy metals at our tanneries, and promote the use of renewable energies with our suppliers. At Gucci, for example, we have decided to achieve 100 per cent renewable energies by 2020. All our new boutiques are built with materials chosen according to environmental criteria and power by renewable energies. To meet these ambitious criteria publicly forces us to do everything to achieve them, even if we don’t quite know fully how to get there.”
One of the pillars of ecological transition is restraint. Yet this seems contradictory in the industry of fashion and luxury. FHP:
“You’re right. For the textile industry, it is a bit counterintuitive. For luxury, it is less problematic in that we’re creating products intended to last, because of their quality. One cannot
nowadays propose a luxury product made to the detriment of the planet. According to our definitions, the criteria for a luxury product – whether metalwork, leather or textiles – must include respect for the environment, which is part of the notion of quality. Luxury has two responsibilities in this industry: to inject true creativity and to promote sustainable development. If we are not the ones to offer examples, find solutions and finance the research on innovations to allow us to improve the carbon imprint in our sector, no-one will do it. For the past five years we have also been changing the way we create. Luxury generates overconsumption when every season new trends are created and we encouraged people to purchase more. The change in creativity from one season to another used to be inherent to fashion. Now we have chosen artistic directors who will promote a vision that lasts longer. A creative director for a brand must be consistent from one season to the next. If, for example, you have purchased an article from the first collection of Alessandro Michele for Gucci in 2015, you will always be able to wear it.”
Recently, there have been a lot of polemics about the waste represented by burning unsold articles. Every second, 2,600 kilograms of clothing are discarded in the world.
FHP:
“In fashion, brands don’t want their products to lose value, so they destroy them. It is a practice that we are going to eliminate next year. First, thanks to artificial intelligence, which will allow us to estimate how much to produce for which sales outlets in order to avoid manufacturing more articles than we will sell; then, shifting as much as possible, particularly through sales to staff. To reduce consumption, putting items in secondhand stores is also important. We are also looking at programs to recycle unworn products. This is done a lot with accessories, such as bags.”
Will the Fashion Pact focus on overconsumption? FHP:
“We are going to talk about it. The Fashion Pact is not mandatory. Only those who have the will to participate do so, and they are already quite advanced in sustainable development. But it is important to recognise that goodwill alone is not enough. Today, the textile industry continues to be highly polluting. The Fashion Pact is a way to say that if we all set up the same goals, which we work on together and at the same time, with the same ambition, we will be more effective than if we remain isolated in our own corners. The participating companies represent more than 30 per cent of the sector. We can have a larger impact, because behind us there is an entire line of suppliers compelled to come up with new solutions. Those who want to engage in greenwashing are not there. Even groups such as H&M and Inditex are determined. They aim at a younger clientele for whom environmental concerns are more and more important. They are interested in participating in the transition.”
You have purchased a python firm so as not to participate in illegal trafficking. But isn’t raising serpents solely to make bags out of them treating them as objects?
FHP:
“We try to avoid that. We have already almost eradicated fur in the group. The artistic directors in our houses have also gotten there themselves. The fur we still use comes solely from animals raised for food. In the long-term, we have invested in a start-up that works on creating alternative materials, like leather made from mushrooms.”
Can it be developed on a larger scale? FHP:
“That’s our hope. In terms of innovation, we work on disruptive scenarios: what would we do tomorrow if we could not use leather? There’s a company that develops tissue fibres using spider silk. Another American start-up tries to produce leather based on animal stem cells. This is still experimental research, but with a chance to succeed. We invest in these because we ask the question: ‘What if tomorrow we must produce leather without killing the animals?’ A question that no-one in the sector was asking even 10 years ago.”
With climate change, some companies may see turnover drop between now and 2050. Can a brand afford to ignore these topics? FHP:
“It is self-destructive not to act, and irresponsible for the leader of the luxury sector. You cannot be in a market that grows structurally, with comfortable margins, without bearing responsibilities and undertaking commitments. I do not see it as a constraint. If, from the creative process, you apply sustainable development criteria, these things impose themselves naturally, and open unheard-of opportunities. When we want to change these production chains, the problem is rapidly an economic one. We reflect on how best to produce without it costing more. For example, leather tanned without heavy metals is about 25 per cent more expensive. Why? Because you must sort the skins at the start of the process, and some of them are left out, deemed to be waste. It is what nowadays creates the price gap. We then approach the automobile industry to sell them our untanned cowhide rugs and they are interested. Thanks to that, we are able to lower the production cost gap, but again, we must ask the question.”
Is there a moment which you can attribute to the industry’s newfound awareness?
FHP:
“More than anything it is a generational change. We must not forget that a company is not frozen. The change in perception on these topics comes from within. Fifteen years ago, I imposed it on the brands. For example, I indexed some bonuses for leaders of some houses in the group on sustainable development criteria. In 2007, I asked them if the artistic directors were aware of these incentives. They answered that the creative spirit should not be hampered by constraints. I went to see them, nonetheless, one by one. In fact, the artistic directors were, all of them, far more advanced in their thoughts on those issues than their presidents. They are often people who are very sensitive to those issues. These days that has become almost obvious. Daniel Lee, the young artistic director of Bottega Veneta – when I spoke to him about the importance of sustainable development, said: ‘For me it is obvious; I don’t know how to do it any other way.’ There is no need to convince him on lead-free tanning – for him, there is no alternative. The lines move naturally, but we must go quickly. We must have a widespread effect for the behaviours to tip over. If, after tomorrow, a third of the industry can claim organic cotton or leather doesn’t come from deforestation, the changes will take place quickly.”
“It is self-destructive not to act, and irresponsible for the leader of the luxury sector. You cannot be in a market that grows structurally, with comfortable margins, without bearing responsibilities”