Where we still fall short

Conventional cotton farming accounts for 2% of the world’s arable land but 10% of pesticide use, with all the risks that entails for biodiversity and the health of those who grow it, in the short and medium term. In this context, the switch to organic cotton seems like a no-brainer (we’ve even written an article on the subject). Since 2019, all our new products and restocks have been made from organic cotton (with the exception of a few items, where there was a misunderstanding with our factories).

Recycled cotton has one clear advantage: it eliminates the need to grow new cotton, which saves the water and energy normally associated with its cultivation. But otherwise, its environmental impact is the same: it goes through the same industrial process of spinning, dyeing, knitting/weaving, and garment manufacturing. In fact, at the outset, there’s even an additional industrial step involved in reprocessing the fabrics back into cotton yarn. The bottom line: according to the 2018 Climate Works report, if 40% of textile fibers were recycled worldwide (which would already be a huge amount), it would save only 4.4% in water and 5.9% in carbon emissions compared to the current system. Not exactly earth-shattering.

Second major problem: the mechanical process of breaking down fabrics into fibers damages the cotton fibers, reducing their length and thus their strength. The quality of the recycled fibers will therefore never match that of the original fibers. Manufacturers must therefore often blend it with other materials (such as polyester or polyamide) to strengthen it.

For this reason, we use recycled cotton only for fabrics where durability isn’t necessary, as is the case with the pouches for our belts.

The issue of recycled wool is not fundamentally different from that of recycled cotton: the environmental benefit is not significant, and the quality of the fiber is inevitably compromised (it will be less soft, less durable, and often needs to be blended with other materials). Nevertheless, the topic deserves further exploration for two reasons:

1- The carbon footprint associated with sheep farming is higher than that of cotton farming (to give you an idea, due to methane emissions, sheep farming accounts for nearly 50% of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions).

2- Wool’s insulating properties remain the same, whether it’s recycled or not. In short, it may make sense to use recycled wool for certain products, such as blankets (as has been done for centuries) or for insulated clothing (as Patagonia does).

Next project: Nothing planned at this stage; recycled wool is not a priority for us. We might consider it for products where the softness of the fiber is less important (e.g., pea coats, jackets...).

Synthetic materials such as polyester and polyamide are generally derived from petroleum, and their production requires a great deal of energy (oil extraction, distillation, cracking, polymerization, etc.). Recycling these materials requires less energy and therefore emits fewer greenhouse gases than using virgin materials. Additionally:

1- There is a lot of plastic waste available for recycling: used plastic bottles for polyester, fishing nets for polyamide, etc.

2- The quality of recycled polyester isn’t very different from that of regular polyester (it may pill more easily and it’s harder to achieve very light colors, but nothing serious).

That said, is recycling synthetic materials a perfect solution? Far from it.

Recycling is not an infinite closed loop. First, only a small portion of clothing ends up in recycling streams, and when it does, it’s sometimes very difficult to recycle (it’s often made of multiple textile materials). Second, these materials cannot be recycled indefinitely: to maintain a sufficient level of quality, virgin material often needs to be added.

But above all, while manufacturing a garment from recycled synthetic materials certainly requires a tiny bit less energy, the reduction in energy consumption is marginal. In fact, the production of textile fibers accounts for only 15% of the greenhouse gas emissions involved in making a garment. The rest of the manufacturing process—which accounts for 85% of greenhouse gas emissions—remains unchanged: the fibers still need to be shredded, spun, woven, bleached, and then the garment must be sewn, transported, and so on.

Finally, claiming that clothing is “recyclable” or “recycled” can keep consumers under the illusion that they can continue to consume without it having an impact on the environment, and thus distracts us from the only viable solution: reducing our consumption.

Upcoming projects:

- Making our clothing from recycled polyamide or polyester is not a magic solution to the pollution caused by the textile industry. However, in situations where we have to choose between virgin synthetic materials and recycled synthetic materials, we will choose the recycled material, which slightly reduces the garment’s environmental impact—provided that it does not significantly shorten the lifespan of our clothing.
- Design the next Loom swimsuit using recycled polyester (made from waste such as plastic bottles) or recycled polyamide (made from waste such as fishing nets, carpets, airbags, etc.).

Update January 2022: We have been using recycled polyester for our swimsuits since the summer of 2021

Update May 2023: We finally looked into it, and this recycled polyester isn't such a good idea after all. Here's a whole article on the subject.

Sneaker soles are usually made of rubber (a blend of natural and synthetic rubber). For our sneakers, we tested a sole made from recycled rubber sourced from factory scraps. This is what’s known as “pre-consumer” recycling: basically, the factory collects defective or non-conforming soles from its production line and remelts them to make new ones. Compared to “post-consumer” recycling (i.e., after the sneaker has been assembled and worn), the quality is better because the raw material is much more uniform. But when we tested this recycled sole for abrasion resistance, it turned out to be 30% less durable than a sole made from non-recycled rubber. This isn’t surprising: recycled materials are generally less stable than virgin materials. So if the sneakers last 3 years with a standard sole, they would only last 2 years with a recycled sole! So we decided to stick with a virgin rubber sole. From an environmental standpoint, the benefits of a recycled sole could never offset this reduction in lifespan. To better understand this, let’s look at an example. If we reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1 kg of CO₂ thanks to a recycled sole, but a more durable sole increases the sneaker’s lifespan by 30% and the production of the sneaker emits 20 kg of CO₂, we ultimately reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30% × 20 – 1 = 5 kg of CO₂.

Dyeing is a highly chemical process that involves many compounds that are potentially harmful to human health or the environment through wastewater (for example: azo dyes, which are potentially carcinogenic, or NPE surfactants, which are harmful to fertility). All of our fabrics are dyed in Europe (where wastewater treatment regulations are strict) and certified by OEKO-TEX or GOTS, standards that are even stricter than the REACH regulations in force in the European Union regarding the use of chemical compounds. There is no risk of “red rivers,” unlike in certain other regions of the world. Among other things, we ensure the absence of:
- alkylphenols (used for dyeing clothing): our dyeing is done early in the process (either on the yarn or on the fabric), and our fabrics are OEKO-TEX or GOTS certified all the way through to the manufacturing stage.
- phthalates (used for printing on clothing): none of our garments feature any prints

However, the dyes we use still involve certain chemical processes that one might be tempted to eliminate entirely by using “natural” dyes, for example. Problem: the more we limit the use of chemical components, the greater the risk of reducing the dye’s fastness and, consequently, the garment’s lifespan. Thus, natural dyes last much shorter than synthetic dyes, unless chemical “mordants” are added to fix the dye...

Next project: Dyeing is still an area we don’t know much about, and we need to deepen our knowledge on the subject before committing to any project. We’ll write an article dedicated to this topic to share our findings and the decisions that resulted from them.

January 2022 Update:
- We’ve launched a dye-free line

Chemical finishes are used to alter the final appearance of garments. Along with dyeing, they represent another stage in the manufacturing process where toxicity levels can be significant. Examples include potentially carcinogenic formaldehyde resins used to reduce shrinkage or wrinkling (as found in some “Easy Iron” garments) and PFCs (perfluorinated compounds), which are potential endocrine disruptors used to enhance the water resistance of garments. In the past, some Loom garments were treated with chemical finishes, such as our wrinkle-free shirt or our swimsuit (the main fabric was treated to prevent discoloration from chlorine and salt, and the mesh was treated to be water-repellent and quick-drying). We have decided to stop using these finishes, particularly PFCs: we are currently working on developing a resin-free swimsuit and have stopped producing and selling the stain-resistant shirt.

Our wool products are machine-washable: for most brands, wool’s non-felting properties are achieved through the use of resins and other chemical finishes that may be endocrine disruptors. We have opted for an electrical treatment (plasma treatment), which poses no toxicity risk. Currently, all the fabrics we use are GOTS-certified or at least OEKO-TEX-certified—standards that are even stricter than the REACH regulations in effect in the European Union regarding the use of chemical compounds.

Next project: We no longer use chemical resins to enhance the performance of our fabrics; instead, we are exploring non-toxic enzymes (as is the case with all our circular-knit products, where pilling is reduced through “bio-polishing”) or mechanical solutions (as is the case with our wool sweaters, which are electrically treated to make them machine-washable). For our more technical garments (such as our swimwear), we will use only PFC-free textiles.

January 2022 update:
- The fabric of our swimwear is now free of “Dry Speed” treatment

As stated in our commitments, we use as few synthetic fibers as possible (polyester, nylon, spandex, acrylic) to minimize the release of microfibers into the oceans during washing. However, we do use them on occasion when we cannot find alternative solutions. Typically, there is no alternative to spandex for providing stretch to chinos, socks, or boxers.

But contrary to what is often claimed regarding microfiber release, synthetic materials are not the only problem: cotton clothing releases microfibers, and if it is dyed, it breaks down just as poorly in water as plastic fibers. Therefore, using synthetic materials is just as problematic as using dyed natural materials. However, unless everyone dresses in ecru, we cannot completely do away with dyeing.

The only way to limit this release of microfibers is therefore to manufacture more durable textiles (long fibers, ring-spun or compact yarns, twisted yarns, dense weaving or knitting, etc.): as it happens, that’s our number one obsession.

Next project: developing a line of undyed clothing.

January 2022 update:
- We’ve launched an undyed line

We’re an e-commerce company: we deliver clothing to you using delivery vehicles that consume fuel. But contrary to what you might think, shopping online has a much smaller carbon footprint than driving your car to go shopping: in e-commerce, CO2 emissions are actually shared among all the packages transported by the delivery vehicle. You can play around with this simulator if you want to compare the two methods. However, if you shop on foot, by bike, or using public transportation, then it’s much better to go directly to the store rather than have your order delivered.

Next project: We’re constantly working to reduce our rate of clothing returns and exchanges. Because clothing that travels a long way isn’t good for anyone: not for our finances, not for you when you have to send packages back, and not for the planet :)

January 2022 update: We plan to open a store in Paris within the next 6 months

Update May 2023: Our Paris store is now open! Come see us at 4 Rue Barbette, in the Marais

We use two types of packaging in production: the packaging used to deliver Loom packages to your home, and the clear plastic bags—known as “polybags”—used to transport clothing from the factories to the logistics warehouse.

To reduce the environmental impact of our final packaging, we’ve chosen kraft envelopes, and we explain why here. For larger orders, we use cardboard boxes manufactured in the Île-de-France region, made from wood sourced from sustainably managed European forests. And like all cardboard, this packaging is fully recyclable: not only does the recycling technology exist, but the recycling infrastructure is fairly well established in France. In short, you can put it in the recycling bin, and it will be turned into a new small cardboard box.

As for polybags: after manufacturing, all factories pack the clothes in these plastic bags to protect them during transport to the brands’ warehouses. But since this bag is a bit ugly, many brands throw it away and then repackage the garment in tissue paper before sending it to you. That’s what we used to do at first, too. Then we faced the facts: it’s not very eco-friendly to use two types of packaging instead of just one. So we decided to leave our clothes in this plastic. This also helps compensate for the fact that kraft paper isn’t quite as durable as plastic (see this page for more details): if the shipping packaging tears a little, your white T-shirt will still be protected from the rain. Unfortunately, like all flexible polyethylene packaging, our polybags cannot be recycled at home because there is no dedicated recycling system for them. So the best we can do is use polybags made from recycled plastic (which is what we’ve been doing since 2019). Keep in mind, however, that their carbon footprint is relatively low: 200 plastic bags pollute as much as a cotton T-shirt, for example.

Upcoming projects:
- Ideally, we’d eliminate our polybags entirely, but that won’t happen right away: we first need to implement special processes with our factories to prevent the clothes from getting damaged or dirty during shipping.
- Additionally, we know that the kraft envelopes used to ship your packages tend to tear when exposed to excessive moisture (like when it rains). We’re looking into other types of kraft paper that are more durable.

January 2022 update:
- After giving the issue of packaging a lot of thought, we realized it was a bad idea to focus our energy on this: all our packaging causes pollution, but it’s really nothing compared to the carbon footprint of a single piece of clothing. The carbon footprint of a cotton T-shirt, for example, is 7,000g of CO2 equivalent*—that’s 350 times more than our kraft paper bag. So make no mistake: what matters isn’t having “eco-friendly” packaging—it’s buying only the clothes you really need.

Data centers are among the world’s biggest polluters: they consume about 10% of the world’s electricity. At Loom, we use two hosting providers: OVH for our blog and Google Cloud (via Shopify) for our e-commerce site. OVH says it’s mindful of the issue and is even installing wind turbines. But it’s Google Cloud in particular that has done a great job on this front (after all, the CEO’s name is Diane Greene—you can’t make that up). Since 2017, 100% of their energy has come from renewable sources. Of course, this percentage remains somewhat theoretical: solar and wind energy production fluctuates over time, while Google’s demand is more or less constant. Consequently, some of the energy inevitably comes from non-renewable sources, such as fuel oil or coal.

But on this issue as well, our efforts must focus on reducing our consumption. That is why we are working to reduce the file sizes of our web pages, in particular by avoiding hosting videos on them (which account for more than 80% of the data volume exchanged on the internet).

Next project: Ensuring that our website is more energy-efficient. This involves two things: 1) having lighter pages to consume less data and thus use less electricity on our servers; 2) adopting a more “low-tech” approach to the technologies we use so as not to contribute to the planned obsolescence of users’ computers and smartphones (the forced replacement of which consumes a great deal of energy and resources).

Wearing a garment for one more year reduces your carbon footprint by 24%. We therefore encourage our customers to repair their products. If they have a defective product, we offer them a flat-rate package to cover the cost of repairs at a local tailor. If they’ve snagged the fabric or lost a button, we advise them on the best way to fix it.

Upcoming Projects:
- Claire joined the Loom team in March 2020 and is the point person on this topic. Her main mission is to write advice that’s accessible to everyone to help people easily repair our clothes and to show that a mended or re-dyed garment can look really great.
- We’re also exploring the possibility of launching a “repair e-shop” where customers can purchase replacement parts for our clothing on our website to extend their lifespan. For now, we don’t yet have the scale, profitability, or sufficient resources to handle these repairs ourselves (as Patagonia does), but we hope to get there someday.
- Finally, we need to make our clothing easier to repair. We must therefore incorporate the concept of “repairability” into the design of our products.

Updated January 2022:
- We’ve tested and documented many ways to care for our clothing. Thanks to this new knowledge, we can better advise our customers and anyone who reads our tips.

The idea that we can recycle or reuse clothing at the end of its life has a certain intellectual appeal: it gives us the impression that we can “close the loop,” generate virtually no environmental impact, and therefore consume indefinitely. It’s no surprise that fast-fashion companies heavily promote this possibility, for example by installing recycling bins in stores for customers to drop off their clothes.

The reality is far less appealing, for two main reasons:

1/ If we look at what happens to clothes dropped off at recycling bins in France, we’re very far from “closed-loop recycling”:
- Only 6% of donated clothes are resold as-is in secondhand stores in France.
- 55% of the clothing is exported to Africa… and ends up in massive open-air landfills.
- The rest of the clothing is recycled, but not in a closed-loop system at all. Currently, technology does not allow for the production of materials of sufficiently high quality to make new clothing. The vast majority of clothing is therefore currently “downcycled”—that is, transformed into rags, insulation, or car seat padding, for example.

2/ Claiming that clothing can be recycled indefinitely keeps consumers under the illusion that they can keep consuming just as much… This can create a “rebound effect,” fueled by certain fast-fashion brands that even offer discount coupons when customers drop off their old clothes at recycling bins.

The paradox is this: while we see brands everywhere talking about clothing “recycling,” more clothing has never been destroyed worldwide. Communication about end-of-life recycling therefore seems rather counterproductive.

This doesn’t mean we should stop dropping off our clothes at recycling bins or stop making efforts to produce clothing that’s easier to recycle. In fact, at Loom, since 2020, we’ve been incorporating the concept of “ease of recycling” into our product design (for example, by replacing metal eyelets with embroidered ones whenever possible).

But at Loom, we’ve chosen not to focus our efforts on the end of a garment’s life. For us, the primary challenge is reducing our massive consumption of clothing. For example, if we have to choose between making a garment more easily recyclable and making it more durable, we’ll always opt for the latter.

Our free shipping threshold is €100—a fairly standard amount in the online apparel retail industry. This prevents us from losing money on small orders and encourages people to combine their purchases with us, thereby reducing the environmental impact of shipping. Nevertheless, we’re aware that this can also encourage our customers to add more items to their carts, which effectively serves as an incentive to consume more.

Next step: Set up Mondial Relay shipping (cheaper than Colissimo) to offer lower shipping costs and reduce the incentive to reach the €100 threshold.

To minimize the risk of poor working conditions, we work with suppliers in countries where the law adequately protects employees (France, Portugal, Spain, Italy) and where the minimum wage is higher than the living wage. We also build relationships of trust with our partners: we visit them on average twice a year, and in the past, we have terminated partnerships when we discovered subcontracting or questionable practices. We believe that the combination of these two factors—local laws and our close proximity to our factories—is the best guarantee of decent working conditions. This applies to the factories that manufacture and launder our garments (Level 1) as well as those that weave, knit, and dye our fabrics (with the exception of our chinos, where we know only our finishing contractor, not our weaver) (Level 2). However, we do not have this level of knowledge for all the factories that manufacture and dye our yarns (Level 3) or for the farms and factories that supply our raw materials (Level 4).

When it comes to our raw materials, the main risk comes from cotton. GOTS certification ensures a certain level of ethical standards in working conditions, but it would be better to also have “fair trade” certification. For now, we’re held back by the complexity and cost of this additional step.

Upcoming projects:
- We’re currently taking a closer look at what the “fair-trade” label guarantees, whether it’s relevant for some of our products, and how we might potentially implement it for certain items.

- We continue our efforts to work exclusively with factories in France, Portugal, Italy, and Spain, while acknowledging that this is impossible in some cases. Through these efforts, we not only eliminate the risk of poor working conditions but also encourage the reshoring of the textile industry.
- The buckles on our belts are manufactured in China. We’re trying to find a French or European supplier who could make them, but we haven’t been successful so far.
- We strive to identify all Tier 3 and Tier 4 suppliers. If these suppliers are not located in the countries identified above, we try to find an equivalent supplier closer to us who can provide the same quality, even if it costs us more (which is always the case). These efforts are made difficult by our requirement to source GOTS-certified, high-quality raw materials: this limits the number of factories capable of supplying the products we need.
- To ensure we meet these goals, we list the name, city, and country of the factories involved in manufacturing on all our product pages (in the “Origin” tab). If this information is unknown to us, we also state that fact.

WOOLWe use “mulesing-free” wool as much as possible (mulesing is a painful practice, common in Australia, that involves removing part of the perianal skin of sheep to prevent certain flies from laying larvae there), certified by RWS. These are among the best guarantees to ensure that sheep live in good conditions and do not suffer during shearing or transport. To do even better, we would need to source French wool and visit the farms regularly.

LEATHERLeather is a byproduct of industrial cattle farming—where cattle are raised for meat—whose animal welfare practices are regularly criticized. We’ve written a detailed article to explore everything involved in the use of this material. At present, it is impossible to guarantee livestock farming without animal suffering, but we believe that, in the short term, the best strategy for animal welfare is to phase out industrial livestock farming and to support the preservation and development of small-scale, extensive farms that employ ethical practices. To this end, we choose leather produced in Europe and advocate for a leather traceability system that allows us to select hides from the most ethical farms. Specifically, this means: We choose cowhide. The lining of some shoes today is made of pigskin, and given current farming conditions, the likelihood that the pig did not suffer is about the same as winning the lottery. We work with trusted tanneries in Portugal and Spain and use leather of European origin, which is known to be more respectful of animal welfare and less polluting than other sources.

Next project: We will trace the leather supply chain as far back as possible to ensure that the hides come from traditional pastoral farms where animal suffering is minimized. Our economic clout is very limited (our revenue is minuscule compared to that of major brands), but by writing articles like this and discussing this topic with our various partners, we hope to help drive change in the leather industry regarding traceability.

Update January 2022
-Leather: We contacted the various organizations and tanneries claiming to be able to ensure leather traceability, but we received no response.

Most of our clothing is available in sizes XS through XL. Developing XXL or 3XL sizes is complex because these sizes require specific patternmaking (the gradations are no longer linear—we’ve already tried this and failed spectacularly), and it’s difficult to find patternmakers who are skilled in this area. Furthermore, they require high sales volumes: these sizes sell relatively infrequently and can lead to excess inventory and thus additional costs, which could jeopardize our company’s profitability. At first, we thought that offering larger sizes wasn’t our responsibility, but as we learned more about fatphobia and its consequences, we realized that, as a fashion brand, we simply couldn’t ignore the issue.

Upcoming initiatives: - For the men’s collection, we’ll gradually introduce garments in sizes 2XL and 3XL. For the women’s collection, we plan to offer these sizes right from the launch. Does this apply to you, and would you like to help us out? Fill out this questionnaire for plus sizes in our men’s collection or this one for the women’s collection.
- We’ll share what we’ve learned from this experience so that other brands can also easily offer larger sizes.

Update January 2022:
- We’ve launched the women’s collection, offering sizes up to 48 and 3XL

We work with several service providers, for whom we do not set the working conditions ourselves: Logtex (France) for the storage and shipping of our clothing, SMT (France) for durability testing of our products, Auditia (France) for our accounting, and Colissimo (France) for order delivery, Almost all of them are based in France (which guarantees decent working conditions), except for the agency handling our web development, which is based in Ukraine. We love working with this agency: the work is done exceptionally well, the people are friendly, we send each other gifts, photos, and jokes… and of course, it costs us at least half as much as it would in France. Plus, IT development jobs are well-paid in that country. However, we’re aware that social security benefits there are much weaker than in France and that email exchanges will never replace a real, face-to-face relationship.

Next project: We’ll look for an IT development agency in France once we reach the break-even point (hopefully in 2021).

Update, October 2022: We are now working with a (great) web development agency based in France: Apotech Studio.

We use Macs, our email accounts are on Gmail, we have Instagram and Facebook accounts, and we even order stuff from Amazon sometimes… Even though open-source tools and ethical alternatives exist, we use the tools provided by GAFAM, which—on our very small scale—reinforces these companies’ monopolistic position. We use them because their tools are by far the most powerful on the market… and we don’t really want to make our workdays any longer. The alternative tools we’ve tested simply aren’t up to par yet. Unfortunately, we can’t fight every battle.

Next project: Nothing planned for now; we're keeping our fingers crossed that Framasoft will become as powerful as the Google Suite.

The Loom team consists of 4 women and 4 men. The company covers co-parental leave so that it is the same length as state-provided maternity leave. Our pay scale is fixed, transparent, and applies across all roles to prevent any pay discrimination. We strive to eliminate all misogynistic, homophobic, racist, fatphobic, or ableist behavior or jokes from our workplace. We undergo ongoing training on these topics and on discrimination in general. We are aware of the relative homogeneity of our team, but we face a dilemma: since affirmative action is prohibited in France, we cannot make membership in a minority group a condition of employment.

Next step: For future hiring, we will review our selection criteria and the channels through which we post job openings in order to encourage applications from people who are more likely to face employment discrimination.