70% cotton, 29% polyamide, 1% elastane

These trainer socks will age very well and develop holes far more slowly than regular trainer socks. That said, we've had the odd report of holes appearing, particularly from people with especially sharp nails or who wear safety shoes. More likely: fine pilling may show up in the areas that rub, notably 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 France's environmental labelling scheme. It's what its manufacture "costs" nature when you look at its impact on climate change, ocean acidification, its toxicity for freshwater, and so on. Currently rolled out across the textile sector, this label should soon appear on many everyday consumer products (food, cosmetics, furniture, and more) to help you shop more responsibly.

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

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

Why this difference? Here are the main reasons:

• The countries of production: making clothes in Portugal or France requires less fossil energy than in Bangladesh (one of the main producers of low-cost clothing). The result: this more local production limits the impacts 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 is biodegradable (so fewer issues with microfibres or end-of-life waste).
• Durability: fast fashion brands drive purchases in particular by renewing their collections very quickly and offering a huge range of items, and they discourage repairs by charging ridiculously low prices. This increases the number of garments sold per person and reduces the number of times a garment is worn. At Loom, by contrast, 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 keep it as low as possible, this product's environmental impact isn't negligible. So before buying, make your clothes last as long as you possibly can.

*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 is not always exactly the same on Ecobalyse (whose method evolves regularly) as on the official environmental labelling (based on version 7.0 of Ecobalyse)