70% cotton, 29% polyamide, 1% elastane

These ankle socks will age really well and get holes far more slowly than ordinary ankle socks. That said, we've already had reports of holes, especially from people with particularly sharp nails or who wear safety shoes. More likely: fine pilling can appear on friction zones, particularly around the Achilles tendon... but nothing a fabric shaver can't handle — tutorial here.

First things first: if they feel a little tight when you put them on, that feeling goes away once you're wearing them, and it's that snug fit that keeps them firmly in place.

It's better to wash them at 30°C than at 40°C: it's just as effective, far greener, and it will extend their lifespan.

To make these trainer socks last longer (and for the planet's sake), the best thing is to let them air-dry. If you have to use a tumble dryer, do it on a low temperature (i.e. the delicate or synthetic setting) so the sock's elastane doesn't lose its stretch.

Finally, a slight fold may form at the back of the trainer socks when you put them on: rest assured you won't feel it inside your sneaker, and it's this shape that keeps the socks from slipping down over the course of the day.

And then trim your toenails :)

The label above shows the product's environmental cost according to the official methodology of the French environmental labelling scheme. It represents what its manufacture "costs" nature when you look at its impact on climate change, ocean acidification, its toxicity to freshwater, and so on. Currently being rolled out in the textile sector, this label should soon appear on many everyday consumer products (food, cosmetics, furniture, etc.) to help you shop in a more responsible way.

These ankle socks therefore have an environmental cost of 67 impact points*.

By comparison, a garment of equivalent weight, made from 100% conventional cotton, manufactured in Bangladesh and sold by a fast fashion brand, has an environmental cost of 261 points*.

Why the difference? Here are the main reasons:

• The countries of production: making garments in Portugal or France requires less fossil fuel than in Bangladesh (one of the main producers of low-cost clothing). The result: this more local manufacturing limits the impact on climate change, ocean acidification and resource depletion.
• The material: organic cotton has a fairly low environmental impact compared with conventional cotton, notably because it uses few pesticides (so low toxicity for freshwater) and because it's biodegradable (so fewer issues with microfibres or end-of-life waste).
• Durability: fast fashion brands encourage buying, notably by refreshing their collections very quickly and offering a huge number of items, and they discourage repairs by charging laughably low prices. This increases the number of garments sold per person and reduces the number of times a garment is worn. At Loom, we've done the opposite: we've chosen business practices that encourage our customers to keep their clothes as long as possible.

Even though we've done everything we can to make it as low as possible, the environmental impact of this product isn't negligible. So before you buy, make your clothes last as long as possible.

*Calculations performed by Loom on 31/08/2026. Click the links to access the simulations from the official Ecobalyse tool and get more details on the assumptions used. Please note: the number of points isn't always exactly the same on Ecobalyse (whose method evolves regularly) as on the official environmental label (based on version 7.0 of Ecobalyse)