Photo by Andrea Leopardi

Can creating new products be sustainable? Franco Fogliato speaks to LUX about Salomon’s sustainability efforts and how he believes consuming differently can be more important than consuming less

LUX: When did Salomon start focusing on environmental responsibility?
Franco Fogliato: Nature is our backyard. We live in the mountains, we are mountain people. Every time we do something we are trying to be less impactful on nature. Fifteen years ago, we began looking for new technologies, new developments and ways to create positive impact in the way we do things. It has gone from creating shoes that are 100% recyclable, to being the first company in France to make its shoes in our home country, minimising the carbon footprint associated with shipping from factories overseas. These are all initiatives that started ten or fifteen years ago, which have been accelerating ever since.

LUX: How is sustainability at Salomon influenced by its athletes and employees?
FF: We are a company that is led by our athletes. Our athletes are at the forefront of our industry. They push the boundaries of what we do every day to ensure not only that we are the highest performers, but also the most sustainable.

Follow LUX on Instagram: luxthemagazine

We also have a generation of employees that are younger, who are in their late twenties and early thirties, and have grown up with sustainability as a daily topic. Sustainability is part of what our teammates want and what they love. Every time they think about a new product, they first think about how they are going to create it without impacting the world and the planet.

Photo by Kaidi Guo

LUX: How do you approach innovation and sustainability together, ensuring that product development aligns with the brand’s commitment to minimising environmental impact?
FF: It’s a tough conversation. Do you choose the most performant product, which is not sustainable, or do you choose the product which is sustainable but less performant? There are examples every day: we had great shoes which had a great insole, but the insole was unsustainable. We changed the insole with a sustainable insole but which was less resistant, and consumers were not happy. The constant push that comes from athletes and the consumer comes back to our factories and our teams to come out with new technology, that pushes us to the next level.

LUX: Because of your company’s heritage and long-standing reputation in the outdoor industry, do you feel like you have more responsibility than others to be initiating this fight against climate change?
FF: We have to be leaders, it’s not a choice. It’s also what we like to do. It’s pushing the boundaries, in sport and building new products which are more sustainable. Sometimes people use the challenges we face just to make noise, rather than focusing on the actions that are needed. Sometimes my teammates ask me, how we’re going to build the company; people will need to consume less, they say. I say, if you think people will consume less, you are mistaken. There will be new technologies which are a lot less impactful than the way they are today.

LUX: Does creating new products contradict your aim to be environmentally friendly?
FF: I think there is a challenge still on the consumer side where there is a little bit of confusion around what is and is not sustainable. I think people see consuming less as the major driver behind minimising climate change, but in fact the driver is not consuming less but consuming differently.

Photo by Kalen Emsley

The carbon footprint impact of producing a pair of shoes is equal to driving a car for thirty miles. I have a theory that people should stop using cars and just run. I tell my people that they should stop using their cars to come to work and just run here. Why do you need a car? The human being was built on running. I think really activating a different consumption and pushing people outside is really what we want to do. We have a challenge with sustainability, but we also have a challenge in the evolution of the population globally with the digital. We have to take care of how people will evolve.

Read more: Rapha CEO Francois Convercey on diversity and sustainability in cycling

LUX: What are some of the initiatives at Salomon which have made the biggest difference towards sustainability?
FF: The biggest impact on producing a product is transportation, so there is an opportunity going forward in the evolution of the sourcing base, to source closer to the consumer. Many brands have tried that in the past and failed. Lately we had the French President, who had recognised our efforts, visiting our shoe factory in France. That factory would never have been born without us sharing our talents and skills with the local entrepreneurs. No one knows how to build shoes in France any more, as the entire production of shoes has shifted to Asia or Eastern Europe. These are the efforts which have made us recognised by the press and by the media.

LUX: What set Salomon apart from other outdoor gear brands which are also focusing on the sustainability mission?
FF: We like to think this is not a battle for who does the most. The battle is not between companies, it’s much bigger. We have to be ourselves. We have the first fully recyclable shoes; we were the first to do that in the marketplace a couple of years ago. But if someone comes in and is better than us, great! We’ve got to learn to do better, to improve. This is a battle we all fight together. I don’t have a problem with sharing technologies or doing anything which will help make the world into a better place. For once, it’s a competitive environment where there is a team. We are competing all together to make the planet into a better place.

Find out more: salomon.com

Photo by Tim Marshall

Ahead of World Ocean Day, LUX speaks to Jean-Baptiste Jouffray, researcher at the Stockholm Resilience Centre, about his work on the Anthropocene, the blue acceleration, and why saving our oceans must be a collaborative effort

Jean-Baptiste Jouffray

LUX: The use of the word Anthropocene has only become widespread in the scientific community fairly recently, but it’s now a key focus of your work. Why is this terminology important?
Jean Baptiste Jouffray: The Anthropocene is often described as this new period or epoch or era where humans have become a dominant force of planetary change, with profound impact on, not just the climate system, but also all sorts of ecosystems and the functioning of the earth’s system. It’s essential to my work as an analytical framework. It’s more than just entering a discussion about whether it’s a geological epoch, which means agreeing when it starts exactly. Does it start after WW2 when we start using radioactivity? Does it start exactly 2000 years ago? Does it start 10,000 years ago when we started to have agriculture and other things? I think it is more important to use it as an analytical framework, rather than focusing on those types of questions. It’s often characterised by unprecedented speed, scale and connectivity across sectors, across people, across regions, across socioeconomic contexts. What do these things mean? How do we make sure we move forward in a more sustainable and equitable way? I think that’s the power of the Anthropocene, in my work at least. Others focus more on the geological aspect of it and the question of whether it is the next geological era after the Holocene or not.

LUX: You say that in your work you use inter- and transdisciplinary approaches, which is a method which is becoming more prevalent across STEM fields. Would you say that this is particularly important when researching sustainability?
JJ: Absolutely. That’s because I think sustainability is a different kind of science. It has been described as a science for which the real test of success will be implementing its knowledge to solve the big societal challenges. So, in that sense, I think sustainability science is about translating knowledge into action. It’s not just about creating knowledge for the sake of it, but really creating knowledge, and ideally co-creating knowledge amongst multiple stakeholders to solve the problems we’re facing. Sustainable science is often said to be problem-driven and solution-oriented, and in that sense you need more than just one discipline. You have to synthesise knowledge across academic disciplines.

Beyond academia, you also need to engage with different societal actors, be it governments, NGOs or the private sector, for instance. It’s true that the coproduction of knowledge should also lead to co-operation in the designing of solutions and their implementation. If it’s just a top down thing, scientists in their ivory tower and the rest of the world, it’s not going to work.

Photo by Ivan bandura

LUX: You have been involved with SeaBOS, the organisation involved in creating a dialogue between corporations and experts in sustainability. Obviously businesses are becoming more engaged with science, but how are they really doing this and do you think we have a long way to go?
JJ: Yes we do. But it’s good that we have started somewhere. I think SeaBOS is an example of what I just described, it’s scientists coming together with businesses and trying to co-produce knowledge, agreeing on what the challenges are and discussing what the possible solutions could be. It’s really that kind of science-business dialogue that has been a really fascinating experience. I think this is because, ultimately, it is a dance between those two entities; you have to compromise somewhere. For example, scientists usually like to see more results or ambitious time goals, and then the business side also have to deal with the reality of their own operations and what is feasible. You have to adapt to the other side, and this is a really exciting prospect.

We need collective and collaborative action across the whole supply chain. It’s not just miscellaneous companies and scientists: we need the financiers involved, we need governments to set up the right regulatory landscapes to incentivise better practices, and consumers need to be aware of it as well. So it is really that collective and collaborative approach that can accelerate sustainability.

Follow LUX on Instagram: luxthemagazine

LUX: Is it realistic to expect consumers to understand the science and the environmental impacts behind their purchases? Do they need to?
JJ: They need to understand it in order to add another dimension of pressure in what I just described in terms of collaborative and collective action. I think consumers have a role to play, but whether they should have the sole responsibility, I don’t think so. In an ideal world, as a consumer you would enter a grocery store and only have sustainable products to choose from, you wouldn’t have to choose between a sustainable version and an unsustainable version, often with a price premium for the sustainable one, which brings more difficulties.

I think for this question it is a yes and no. Yes, they do have a role to play, and we’ve seen it in boycott or buycott campaigns which have had a really strong influence on industry. One of the most widespread mechanisms used by companies is certification or labelling of products, and we do see that it has an impact, but also limits. If you do a survey and show maybe half a dozen labels to a random, average consumer or customer in the grocery store, they will recognise some that do not exist. This was actually done in the context of seafood when consumers were presented with labels; they were recognising some of the legit ones as well as some that were totally made up.

Photo by Ivan Bandura

LUX: How do you see the relationship between science and governmental policy and what role do you think researchers should play in shaping policy and decisions?
JJ: Speaking from my own field of sustainability science  I think scientists have a really big role to play. This goes back to this example of staying in your ivory tower and publishing papers and then moving onto the next one, without really caring what happens next. I think that model of operating – again, for sustainability science, I want to make that distinction because I think there are a lot of applied or fundamental sciences that are different and that we need for the sake of them. But in the context of sustainability, it has to operate with the ambition to translate that knowledge into action, and that means communicating it to different stakeholders, like the private sector, but certainly to governments so that policy decisions are evidence based. That’s really what the IPCC is about in the context of climate change.

On the other hand, however, this doesn’t mean we always need to wait for science to act. I think there is a double-edged sword to big organisations like the IPCC, and that’s why several of the scientists who have been engaged for years in the IPCC and various reports, have publicly said this will be their last report. They will not contribute anymore because it gives the impression that we need to wait for the next report to have more information to act upon, when in fact we have all of the information we need to know in terms of the urgency of the situation and to know the solution to it, and therefore we need to act.

LUX: Can you explain what is meant by ‘blue acceleration’ and what this means for our oceans going forwards?
JJ: The term blue acceleration is something we coined very much in the spirit of the Great Acceleration idea and concept by Will Steffen, who recently passed away and was a giant of science. He used the term of the Great Acceleration to describe an exponential growth. The growth usually starts in the Industrial Revolution, but it really takes off in the mid-50s after WW2. You see across economic and socio environmental variables with population, GDP, deforestation, CO2 emissions across the board, you see that really rapid, exponential growth. Of course, it has its consequences, and it’s often one of the most iconic illustrations of the Anthropocene.

If we go back to the notion of the Anthropocene, how do you visualise, how do you embody the Anthropocene? It could be with those graphs of the Great Acceleration and our work focused on how that relates to the ocean specifically. If we take that lens and look at what happens in the ocean, it looks very similar. So that’s the interesting parallel, that’s why we called it the blue acceleration, because you see a rapid increase across a wide range of sectors. There are multiple increasing uses of the ocean for food, for energy, for materials, and for space as well.

If you look at marine aquaculture or agriculture for instance, it’s one of the fastest food production sectors in the world. If you look at shipping, the volume of goods transported by containers has quadrupled over the past 20 years and more than 1,000,000km of submarine cables have been laid on the sea bed. Undersea cables account for 99% of all international telecommunications that are happening in the world; it’s cheaper, more reliable, faster and safer than satellites.

Offshore wind is another example, one of the most promising marine renewable energies and the only one so far to have been scaled up commercially. It has increased 500 fold in the past 20 years. What the blue acceleration is, in essence, is a new phase of humanity’s relationship with the ocean that is characterised by this rapid increase at the onset of the 21st century, so very recently.

Photo by Danny Copeland

LUX: Can you tell us about the Ocean 100 project?
JJ: The Ocean 100 really speaks to the blue acceleration. If you acknowledge that acceleration and that growth across all sectors, you see that there is a scramble for the sea. Then the question is, who is racing? Or, if you look at it another way, who is left behind?

The Ocean 100 is looking at the big companies, particularly in the private sector, who are involved in ocean based industries. What you see is that a handful of companies often control a really large market share of the sector. For instance, the top ten oil and gas companies in terms of offshore production are responsible for more than half of total offshore production. If you look at the 10 largest companies in cruise tourism, they are 93% of the global market share, so really highly concentrated in terms of revenues. We look at those companies within sectors, and we look at it across sectors just by revenues, to see who are the largest of the largest across ocean industries. That’s the Ocean 100. The 100 largest companies by revenues.

What’s striking is that 47 out of the 100 are oil and gas companies, and 9 of the top 10. It’s a reality check because there is a mismatch between the aspiration of a blue economy, a sustainable and equitable ocean economy, and the reality of today’s extraction where oil and gas is by far the largest industry in the ocean today. The project identified who they were and in a subsequent effort, tried to engage in dialogue. So similar to what SeaBOS has managed to do within the seafood industry, they engaged in dialogue with some of those industries to see what they could do together across industries that they couldn’t do alone within their own sector.

Read more: Markus Müller on the links between the ocean and the economy

LUX: You recently completed your PhD. What is next for you?
JJ: I’ll keep doing it, I’ll keep going at it! I’m just starting a position at the Stanford Center for Ocean Solution, whose mission is to translate knowledge into impact across a series of initiatives. I’m very keen to keep looking at the ocean economy and trying to look at how we make sure it becomes a blue economy. It’s often used synonymously; people think of the blue economy as the ocean economy. I like to make a distinction. The blue economy right now is very aspirational, it would be a sustainable and equitable version of the ocean economy. But the reality that we’re dealing with today is very much a dark blue ocean economy.

I will be looking at the ocean economy, trying to make sense of it, increasing transparency, but not just for the sake of transparency. Transparency on its own is not enough. What you need is accountability as well. Trying to identify the levels of accountability in ocean economic sectors and leverage points to change. Who can set the right incentives? I believe the financial sector has really strong power to create incentives for industry, as do governments. You need a regulatory landscape. It’s not going to happen out of altruism as much as we could wish for this, it’s not how we operate. You need the regulation to be in place to incentivise better practices, and we’re going back to collective action. I think diving into that is something that I’m really keen on.

Photo by Danny Copeland

LUX: In 10 years’ time what changes do you hope to see in the world as a result of your research and the initiatives that you’ve worked on?
JJ: In 10 years’ time we’re past 2030, so we’ve either delivered or not on the Sustainable Development Agenda. So far it doesn’t look that good to be entirely honest, I don’t know if we are on track for delivering.

But I hope we will have got to a point where governments have been bold enough to set in motion the policies that will enable change. We can’t just stick to business as usual with a few incremental changes here and there, or a couple of long term targets that make everyone feel good.

More specifically, when it comes to the financial sector, I really like to think of financiers as either enablers or gatekeepers in terms of their potential influence. I would like to see them enable capital to flow towards sustainable activities. What’s striking in the ocean domain is that SDG 14 is the least financed goal of all of them. The SDG 14, life below water, the ocean SDG, is the least financed over the past ten years. Only 1% of the total value of the ocean economy has been invested into sustainable activity. In 10 years’ time I would hope they do more to fill that gap and enable more sustainable investment.

At the same time, regardless of that ocean finance gap, you have that blue acceleration that is exponentially increasing. This means that capital is going to those sectors, one way or another. That’s where I think of financiers as gatekeepers. Ideally financiers would take the sustainability criteria into consideration in their financial decision. It’s not the norm, but I hope it will be in 10 years’ time. Loans by default should be sustainability linked instead of the other way around, because suddenly that means companies have an incentive, a very tangible incentive to perform from a sustainability perspective.

Find out more: stockholmresilience.org/jouffray

How well do you know your socio-economic and demographic grouping acronyms?

Abercrombie & Kent founder and LUX contributor Geoffrey Kent discusses how a new generation of consumers are influencing brands

How well do you know your socio-economic and demographic grouping acronyms? From the best-known, like Yuppie and Wasp, to the more recent, Sinbad – there seems to be an acronym for everyone.

If you are a frequent reader of my columns here on LUX or if you’re familiar with our luxury travel company, Abercrombie & Kent, you might be forgiven for thinking that we concentrate on attracting Dinkies, Tinkies (two incomes, nanny and kids), Glams (those who are greying, leisured, affluent and middle-aged), or even Rappies (retired affluent professionals), but in fact, we, like all brands, are increasingly turning our attention to the Henrys.

Follow LUX on Instagram: the.official.lux.magazine

Nothing to do with the Hooray Henry, this term was coined by Fortune magazine and stands for ‘high earners, not rich yet’, Henrys are those on their way to affluence, but not quite there yet due to high living costs and other factors. While Henrys span both the millennial and GenY generation, it is millennial Henrys, which are of so much interest to entrepreneurs and their marketers for two simple reasons.

Firstly, their numbers: as revealed in an all-important announcement in 2015 from the U.S. Census bureau, millennials (born between 1980-2000) surpassed Baby Boomers (those born between 1946 and 1964) as the largest generation in the U.S. (where this type of research frequently seems to stem from and of interest to me because of A&K’s American offices (A&K is headquartered in both London and Downers Grove, Illinois). Plus there are many, many more of them in comparison to their parents’ generation.

Secondly, their spending power: from now until 2040, millennials will be entering their prime spending years. They will be the key consumer segment driving the world’s economies.

The millennial generation had its biggest birth year in 1990, so using them as an example, the top 20 per cent Henrys (high earners, not rich yet) born in 1990 earn over $50,000 per annum and the top 10 per are earning more than $75,000 a year approximately. They are well on their way to affluence, and are more educated, better informed and setting the trends that other millennials will emulate.

And with millennials driving economies, as brands try to win their business, millennials will change the businesses and their offerings, thus affecting us all. They are driving what is coming to be called the ‘experience economy’, moving from consumerism towards experientialism (read more about how they are redefining luxury travel here). If you have a subscription to a streaming service and no longer purchase DVDs or boxsets for example, it’s all down to millennials and this trend. If you have noticed more travel companies urging you to experience a destination like a local or learn something on holiday, you now know who the cause is. This isn’t exactly new ground for A&K – we’ve been encouraging travellers to make horizon-broadening connections since the early 1960s – plus ça change.

Read more: Kuwait’s ASCC launches visual arts programme in Venice

Millennials and the Henrys among them are focussed on value, not price point, and interested in feeling proud of their purchases and the things they do. They are design-led, crave authenticity and want for everything they do to be climate positive (or at a bare minimum, neutral). They are the type to choose a travel brand that is philanthropic and does good in the places in which its guests travel (such as A&K). They want a curated experience, that does no harm (i.e. is socially responsible) and that is Instagrammable. They share their experiences in the same way that their parents related theirs at dinner parties.

They are searching for a connection to their communities, other cultures and the world at large. Travel is a practical way to process and respond to an increasingly complex globe.

Thanks to childhoods, lifestyles and the psychology of millennials, they are the ‘Do It For Me’ customer – exactly the type that appreciates a well-travelled and knowledgeable travel expert who will arrange their luxury holidays for them. A match made in heaven? Who knows, but it certainly was a match made sometime between 1980 and 2000.

Discover Abercrombie & Kent’s luxury travel itineraries: abercrombiekent.co.uk

With a billion people about to become luxury consumers over the next decade, real luxury will become more personal, more individual and more secretive. So predicts our columnist, Jean-Claude Biver, continuing our series on business philosophy and strategy 

Jean-Claude Biver

Luxury will always will be here. Growth will always be here. When people do better, they want to differentiate themselves, so the growth of luxury will always track economic growth.

But in the future we will have two different levels of luxury: accessible luxury, items that have an incredible image but an affordable price, and inaccessible luxury. This is the extreme luxury of people wishing to have something made for themselves or being completely different, being unique, saying, “What I have, you will never have”.

Accessible luxury will be huge: the middle class in China will develop to 500 million people, in India maybe 300 million, in Latin America around 200 million, so you will have a billion new customers in the next 20 years. This middle class will definitely go for the accessible luxury, but maybe 10 million out of this billion will want real luxury. That will comprise exclusivity, incredible quality, and uniqueness. And these two types of luxury will develop together. Luxury will be like a building with two floors – only a few people will go up to the second floor, while most people will remain on the first floor.

Read next: Leading auctioneer, Simon de Pury on the eternity of art 

The upper tier of luxury will be defined through exclusivity and also through the fact that it will adapt to the facets of made-to-measure luxury. These people want individuality, something made just for themselves. They want something that other people’s money cannot buy, because that’s the ultimate. You get access to something that normally money cannot buy, but you can buy it because you have the relationship and the contacts. That will be the extreme level of luxury, only for you, and to enable you to stand out from the masses and their accessible luxury. The way this extreme luxury is communicated will also change. It will be word of mouth, very discreet and only for the few who know. Like a secret: “Ah, you know this brand, wow, you belong, because you wear this shirt or this special tie or these special socks made in Rome.” The ultimate individualization of your person.

Jean-Claude Biver with Cara Delevingne at the TAG Heuer Yacht party during the 2015 Monaco Grand Prix

People will still collect, will always collect, but the problem with today’s goods becoming collectible is linked to the concept of eternity. If I collect a Ferrari that is from the 1980s or 1970s, that is a car that will enter eternity because whatever the new industrial revolution brings us, this car will comfortably be repairable. But modern cars, because they are not mechanical any longer, will not be repairable in 100 years because the microchips that control everything from the gearbox to the windows will be useless. That is why a Ferrari Testarossa (from the 1980s ) or a 275 GTB (from the 1960s) will still be collectible. Why should people collect what is due to die when they can collect what is due to become eternal? That’s why you can have an old Lockheed Constellation plane (from the 1950s) and it still works – you can fly with it! An Airbus A380 will not still be capable of flying in 50 or 100 years.

(From left) Lapo Elkann, Jean-Claude Biver, Bar Refaeli, Esteban Gutiérrex, Pelé and Ricardo Gudalupe celebrate the opening of Hublot’s second manufacture in Switzerland

Luxury should be marked by eternity. Great art is eternal and there is nothing else made by humans that doesn’t die, just art. So that means luxury is eternity and luxury is art; and if you can create the eternal, you have the business of the future in luxury.

Read next: Chopard’s Caroline Scheufele on the young luxury consumer 

But accessible luxury is very different, a more competitive field where you have more marketing and illusions. But everywhere there is going to be a reaction to mass luxury. People will want more and more to be considered individuals. We all need to be treated like kings, to be treated differently, because we are surrounded by mass. Look at travel – that’s why people have a special area to check in when they fly first class, a special line for security, a special seat, special food and so on. People need to be treated differently because now everything is going mass.

In the area of accessible luxury, the same brands are adapting, they are comfortably innovating and comfortably renewing their offering and positioning so they stay current. They will adapt and survive. In accessible luxury, it will be more difficult for newcomers to enter the market. But in the area of higher quality luxury, we may have new artists and creators coming. Because it will be very personal.

Jean-Claude Biver is president of LVMH Watch Brands and chairman of Hublot. lvmh.com, hublot.com