Traceable and transparent fashion: is it possible?

Zoom in on the label

* Writhing in discomfort from an itch in the back *

“Aaaah but what’s itching me there?” … “The label! But it’s way too long! What on earth can they write on it?”

Whether well placed or indiscreet, the label has perhaps already caught your attention, like me. From picto-style washing recommendations to a translation of the composition into 17 languages ​​and a simple Made In : the label always has something to say.

However, we read information that is not very useful, such as "Iron after washing" when we want to know the origin of the cotton or the manufacturing workshop.

Why is this not always reported? Why so many differences from one brand to another?

Because the fundamental problem is traceability. And the transparency of companies with regard to this.

Let's try to understand the challenges facing the textile sector in the face of increasingly heightened ecological awareness among consumers.

What information do we expect from a garment that catches our eye? We would like to know what material it is made of. Where it was made. By whom perhaps? We would like to know more about the raw materials. Which country do they come from? And what about merino wool? My pro-vegan friends would like to make sure that New Zealand's livestock is doing well? … Too much?

Ok, but that's the idea, right? To have information that is relevant enough for the consumer. Whether they are attentive to ethical, health or environmental issues. Or whether they just need to know how to wash their jeans.

I suggest you take a piece of clothing and read its label (discreetly if you choose the one for your pants and you are at work...). If you read the name of a fast-fashion brand like H&M or Zara, it is very likely that the information is written in multiple languages, so small that a magnifying glass may be necessary, if it has not been made illegible by washing in the washing machine.

(Between us, spending five minutes deciphering this little piece of fabric to try to figure out what percentage of polyester it is gets me down pretty quickly, but let's move on.)

These brands have products manufactured for stores around the world, hence the need for a single multilingual label that respects all the constraints of the territories in which they are marketed.

As many countries, as many laws

This is why it is necessary to take into account the specific legislation according to the country of placing on the market. For example, if writing the composition of the garment is mandatory for industries in Europe, the maintenance conditions, the size or the origin of the garment are most often optional.

Other mentions are required:

• In Italy, the name of the person responsible for placing the product on the market must be indicated, followed by their full address.
• The same in Spain, where you must also indicate the company's tax number (intra-community VAT).
• In the UK and Ireland, a Keep away from fire warning must be included on nightwear and children's clothing.
• In Finland, the clothing packaging must include the following information: name of the product, name of the person responsible for placing it on the market, followed by their full address, weight and dimensions of the items.

As many countries, as many laws.

Now let’s look at the labels of the BonneGueule pieces. I take my “speckled gray” shirt from my wardrobe and grab the piece of fabric that is sticking out. I read: “98% cotton, 2% polyamide, Made in Portugal, Italian fabric from Albini”. Material composition, manufacturing origin, fabric origin.

On the other hand, I don't know where the cotton or the polyester comes from. That's where we touch a sensitive chord. Because obviously BonneGueule asked the suppliers where the cotton used for the chosen fabric came from. But they are not always able to give the answer with exact precision.

“Why?” you ask me. Because its supplies are diverse, for two reasons:

For volume issues

Let's take cotton as an example.

The raw material used, the cotton flower, does not always come from the same sources, the quality of which can vary.

Depending on the weather, and therefore the volume of the cotton harvest, and more generally on the volatility of the market, the weaver will not source all of his fabrics from a single producer.

He will therefore have to supplement with other cottons from other crops. And mix them for his manufacturing. Depending on the fabric he wishes to create, the weaver buys the raw material that he considers most relevant for his product, based on its quality but also of course its cost.

For questions of value for money

Because you should also know that not all cottons are equal. Some of our suppliers have very high requirements for the strength of the cotton fiber that will give a better quality fabric. For example, the famous Japanese denim brand Momotaro uses Zimbabwean cotton, known for its strength and ability to fix indigo.

This cotton is rarer and to obtain enough of it, it is sometimes necessary to mix several batches from different countries and cultures. Hence the difficulty of precisely tracing the cotton present in the finished product.

Because the intermediaries between the brand and the producer can be numerous or unclear

When approaching a fabric supplier, it happens differently every time.

In the most common cases, the supplier has a sufficiently developed structure to deal directly with its customers. We meet him at trade fairs dedicated to professionals in the sector (Première Vision, Milano Unica, etc.) or in his showroom to choose with him the next fabrics that we will use for our products.

The supplier can already give us the main information relating to their samples (composition, weight, count, etc.) which will allow us to make the right choice of fabric for the piece we want to develop.

But not all information, such as the origin of the raw material, is immediately available, as surprising as that may seem.

Sometimes, the person who deals directly with the brands is an intermediary who helps give visibility to suppliers who are too underdeveloped to handle the export of their goods themselves.

Added to this is the language barrier that can hinder exchanges. As well as adapting to the cultural specificities of each person. For example, the Japanese are very discreet about their sourcing and manufacturing process.

Some categorically refuse to talk to us about it under the cover of confidentiality.

In the mass market sector, that is to say the very large textile brands, there are also traders between the producers of raw materials and the spinners. Additional intermediaries therefore.

Others have not yet integrated traceability processes into their business . Which is not so surprising.

You should know that tracing your raw material is a fairly recent concept! The editor-in-chief of BonneGueule, Christophe, told me that “traceability” was a neologism until recently.

It was the agri-food industry, around the case of mad cow disease, which raised the awareness of consumers who have now become more vigilant about the supply chain. of the products he consumes.

And in the textile sector, very few brands before the start of the 21st century questioned their suppliers on the working conditions of employees, harvests or the manufacturing methods used.

Simply because we didn't see the point.

On the contrary, companies were massively relocating to North Africa, then to China and finally to India, Bangladesh and Pakistan as part of a cost-cutting strategy.

The rest of the story is well known: fast fashion then pushed textile factories in developing countries to mass produce in order to justify its business model .

It required a very cheap workforce, which worked hard to produce large quantities in very short time frames.

And the less we asked ourselves the question of traceability, the better. Because it meant deploying teams to production sites to check the real working conditions. A costly deployment that did not always fit into the strategy of these brands.

Especially since the question of subcontracting and its control by the brands themselves arises.

The tragic event of Rana Plaza in 2013 highlighted these unsustainable practices of the textile giants and triggered a general awareness on the subject.

Now the question arises: who makes our clothes, where and under what conditions? With what materials and what chemicals?

“ Who made my clothes? ” has become the hashtag symbolizing the “Fashion Revolution”, this collective bringing together brands wishing to create a fairer industry.

So, the players in the sector, under pressure from consumers and the media, are starting to get moving, to ask questions, to challenge themselves, and that takes time.

We realize that there are many more intermediaries than we thought. And that in fact the product has been subcontracted to a subcontractor of a subcontractor.

In the end, we know nothing about who, what, where, what it is. An industry so opaque that we can only do better.

Companies are trying to restore order in a globalized industry formatted by production at the lowest costs for the benefit of the highest margins. And not only in fast-fashion .

The project is vast. But the work is progressing.

"Beware of greenwashing and socialwashing in fast fashion !" warns Nayla Ajaltouni, spokesperson for the collective "Ethics on the label" , which fights for respect for fundamental human rights.

And in the textile industry, the violation of these rights is commonplace. Let's look at what's happening in Bangladesh, India, Cambodia, in these countries that work for fast fashion and mass distribution.

"The business model of these unscrupulous companies based on ever faster and cheaper production is not compatible with working conditions that respect either the worker or the environment. In addition, they do not provide the necessary resources to ensure that the workshops are safe for their employees. Companies will not change on their own because they see it as a risk to their profits. That is why we want to force them to do so by law! " adds Nayla.

The good news is that among the new brands, some are immediately adopting good habits.

This is the difference between an “ethical” brand that will develop a business by taking into account CSR issues upstream in all its approaches and a brand that has become “responsible” and which gradually improves its value chain already built on an old model. Like century-old fashion houses for example.

But ethical brands are developing more slowly due, in addition to financial resources, to the difficulty of setting up a whole production that meets very high ethical and eco-responsible standards.

“It’s difficult but it’s possible. You have to go on site, ask a lot of questions, check the working conditions of the workers, it takes time... but where there’s a will, there’s a way!” Julia Faure, who is developing the Loom brand with her partner, tells us. .

“We advocate responsible consumption of fashion and it is true that we have developed few products compared to a more classic ready-to-wear brand, but we prefer to produce less and better.”

Indeed, it is easier to adopt high ethical standards and traceability in its production when it is small. So, when a brand manages globalized production, is it able to improve it in terms of traceability?

It depends of course on his collection rate. And his values.

The case of luxury

If in the textile industry, some players have a different approach to sourcing , it is luxury.

In order to offer the best products, luxury houses must find the most beautiful fibers, the most beautiful skins, the most beautiful stones.

Logically, companies are very demanding and impose rigorous specifications on producers of these materials.

This requirement for quality therefore naturally goes in the direction of traceability and responsibility. It is understandable that luxury houses cannot afford to have gray areas in their value chain.

They also try as much as possible to be vertically integrated, that is to say to control their supply chain from the raw material to the distribution of the finished product. Always with a concern for quality. This requirement is logically found among consumers and INGOs. .

Associations like Greenpeace and PETA have much more visibility from the internet and social networks. They put pressure on brands to force them to come out of silence.

“How are these skins produced? By whom? In which country?” are the kinds of questions that are publicly asked of these brands. “A refusal to answer and you’re guaranteed bad buzz!”, says Hélène Sarfati-Leduc, expert consultant in luxury fashion and sustainable development at Le French Bureau. “So it’s in their best interest to be transparent, especially since they’re not the worst performers.”

Over the last ten years, some luxury brands have adopted a strategy that is resolutely focused on sustainable development.

This is demonstrated in particular by the Kering group, which includes, among others, the brands Gucci, Balenciaga and Saint Laurent.

Formerly PPR, the group did not change its name by chance. Kering (pronounced “caring” in English) is a pioneer in carbon footprint analysis and is increasingly demanding with its suppliers on the traceability and environmental safety of their manufacturing processes.

At Hermès, the traceability of diamonds is particularly advanced thanks to the company's control at each stage of the extraction of the stone until the sale of the finished product.

The preservation of plant and animal species of interest to luxury has been at the heart of the strategy of the great French houses.

>The LVMH group created the ethnobotany department to preserve the plants needed for perfume and cosmetics. Also at LVMH, the Loro Piana brand signed an agreement (in 1994!) to have the exclusivity to buy, process and export Peruvian vicuna wool.

Enough to ensure the sustainability of their business but also perfect traceability. And it is with pride that they communicate it on their site.

Where the problem lies is in noting the gap sometimes between declarations of intent, the strictest specifications in the world and the reality of their implementation, the difficulty of controlling subcontractors and the subcontractors of the latter. The issue of Cash Investigation on France 2 entitled " Luxury, the shocking underbelly " attests to this forcefully. In particular, the part of the subject devoted to tanneries in Italy.
And demonstrates how much progress these large luxury groups still have to make when a grain of sand gets into a well-oiled communication.

False transparency

If today companies are working to have more advanced traceability, some brands go so far as to speak of a model of “complete transparency” in the manufacturing of their products.

Understand “here is the photo of the factory we work with and here are the margins we practice”. Beware of the tree that hides the forest!

While displaying prices in full transparency is a rather commendable initiative, the customer should not be satisfied with this and should continue to ask questions about the product. Because he knows how much it cost, in the case of Maison Standards for example, to make his shirt but has no further explanation of the price.

The origin of the materials is often unknown because, no, the cotton does not come from Portugal as their infographic might suggest. It is the workshop manufacturing the fabric or the one assembling the shirt that must be in Portugal. Not very clear, therefore not really transparent.

Factory photos may be reassuring but a comprehensive report of ALL the factories they work with, detailing contracts and working conditions would be more coherent to justify this “transparent model”. With all the limitations of the exercise.

Does “real” transparency exist?

Go see Veja's project : here we enter the "game" of transparency. And sincerity. We also understand very well what their limits are in terms of sourcing and social commitments. With several advantages in their case: they work in a short circuit on a single type of product (shoes), with few intermediaries, which they also know.

The work of the Asket brand is also worth highlighting. For each product, each material, each thread is traceable. Or almost: it is noted that the search for traceability is underway for a few more production details. Work in progress … But we at least know where the raw material comes from.

And I'm not just talking about growing plant fibers! What about animal fibers? Traceability is not necessarily easier.

In some cases where the spinning mill is integrated and partnerships with farms are created, the supplier can say precisely where the wool comes from and what its precise quality is.

It's simple, it's cool, it's good, it's beautiful. Some brands like Icebreaker go so far as to communicate a report detailing their sourcing , namely mainly merino sheep farms.

We learn in particular that the brand and the breeders are linked by ten-year contracts. Relationships of trust, therefore, beneficial for both parties. We know only too well at BonneGueule the interest of these relationships of trust with suppliers.

When the spinning mill is not completely vertically integrated, in the majority of cases, the wool can come from several suppliers.

And the only real means of control is to go on site to check the working conditions of the employees and the breeding of the animals.

In the absence of human and financial resources - and it takes a LOT to carry out this control work - the company must trust the supplier. But the supplier can also reassure it via labels.

Environmental labels

There are many in the textile industry but few are really reliable. We remember in particular this famous report on cotton pinning the BCI label but fortunately some are more solid.

GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard) is one of them. The requirements of this label are interesting in many respects: environment (natural fibers grown in organic farming), ethics (social protection of workers) and health (constraints on chemical products).

Independent laboratories come to audit and monitor the proper implementation of these standards at production sites.

Can we trust GOTS labeled products? It is always difficult to answer in the affirmative on this kind of questions because to be sure you would have to check it yourself.

But we really want to believe in GOTS. Particularly because of their complete specifications and the audit of the sites by a third-party laboratory.

With a downside according to Julien, our collection manager: "there is less choice at the moment, but we are attracted by GOTS. Knowing that there is no miracle solution".

But new avenues need to be explored for better tracking: RFID-UHF and blockchain.

Technology to the rescue of traceability

The RFID chip can hold and deliver data using radio frequency waves. It is an interesting tool for several reasons.

1. There is a benefit for the consumer: having all the information about the garment in store (or at home) with a simple scan.
2. And there are also several advantages for the brand: better tracking throughout the clothing supply chain as well as considerable time savings for stock monitoring (inventory, etc.).
3. Particularly interesting in mass-market brands that manage millions of products every day, the RFID chip also presents undeniable advantages at our level. If only for a time saving on the tracking of the goods from the manufacturing workshops.

Another technology that is much talked about because it risks revolutionizing computer data security on an international scale: blockchain .

Basically, the database will be distributed in “ block ” structures linked together, thus forming a “ chain ”. This distribution helps to combat data falsification. This technology can therefore be applied to product traceability.

Provenance, a British company, helps brands to set up a transparent supply chain for their consumers.

Each actor involved in the production process could add information on a QR code or an RFID chip located on the label or directly in the fabric.

Provenance collaborated with Martine Jarglaard (who cut her teeth at Vivienne Westwood), who launched her eponymous women’s ready-to-wear brand. The first collection using blockchain across all stages of its value chain was launched in 2017.

Certainly Martine Jarglaard offers a reduced collection, built with few suppliers, but resolutely turned towards the future. That of a fashion more responsible towards its environment and more transparent with its customers.

Update 2024: more transparency with the AGEC law

In April 2022, a decree was signed in France implementing Article 13 of the AGEC law (anti-waste law for a circular economy). This law requires textile brands to provide additional information on the traceability of the clothing offered.

More specifically, two new pieces of information will be mandatory: the indication of the origin of the weaving, dyeing and assembly of the garment, as well as a warning for mainly synthetic textiles which release microplastic fibres when washed.

This decree comes into force between January 1, 2023 and 2025 depending on the turnover generated by the brands (earlier for large brands, and later for smaller structures).

To give a concrete example, Zara now indicates this information on all its product pages.