Organic textiles brand Cotonea: “We need to overcome the throwaway mentality”

The German manufacturer of organic textiles, Cotonea, has long been committed to greater transparency in the textile supply chain. For example, through the blockchain-based platform Textile Trust, which it developed together with IBM and the supplier of sustainable workwear, Kaya&Kato, back in 2020. Or the Textile Tracker, a joint project with the Research Institute for Textiles and Clothing at the Niederrhein University of Applied Sciences, Agroisolab GmbH, and WWF Germany, which made headlines in 2021.

In October, the German company announced its intention to present comprehensive and groundbreaking CO2 and energy analyses of a total of 460 fabrics, analysing the entire value chain from the cotton plant to the finished fabric. FashionUnited wanted to know more about the data acquisition and processing and spoke to Roland Stelzer, managing director of Cotonea and mother company Elmer & Zweifel.

Mr. Stelzer, could you tell us a bit about your career path?

Elmer & Zweifel is a family business; I am the sixth generation. I initially studied mechanical engineering, and afterwards, my father asked me if I could imagine joining the company. I decided to do so and then completed a postgraduate degree in industrial engineering. I joined the company in November 1987 and took over the management in January 1990.

That was just after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when the market was difficult – the political risk of sourcing was high. In addition, fast fashion was on the rise and completely changed Europe. It was clear to me, after a year at the latest, that things could not continue like this. So, we relocated the weaving mill to the Czech Republic, which worked, in two stages, and was completed by mid-1994.

How did Elmer & Zweifel continue its reorientation?

In 1995, we started establishing a different product range. At that time, grey fabrics were mainly made of cellulosic fibres, i.e., viscose and cotton. We had few but large customers at the time, and the price pressure was enormous. Although we were state-of-the-art and very efficient, it was clear that there was immense pressure. We then decided to also manufacture finished goods, as one has more influence over what to produce and to what extent. In 1995, we started gaining experience with organic cotton.

We also joined the then AKN (a working committee for natural textiles, ed.), which a few years later (1999, ed.) became the IVN (International Association of the Natural Textile Industry e. V., ed.). We were founding members.

The second stage of the competitive change was in 2001, when China joined the WTO, the World Trade Organization, and practically all barriers fell for Chinese goods to come to Europe, the USA, and other countries.

At that time, we had already gained experience with finished goods, but we then decided, 'we'll leave the whole old business behind and concentrate only on organic'. Back then, there was a first organic hype, around the turn of the millennium. Cotonea started in 2003 as our answer to increased competition from China and Asia.

Then came the milestones between 2006 and 2016 with farmers in Kyrgyzstan, where we started sourcing with the help of the Swiss Development Cooperation. We continue to support the cooperative on our own today, after development aid expired in 2016. In 2009 we started sourcing in Uganda. They have a fabulous organic product, of which there are currently very few in the world that are similarly interesting and good. We then realised that social fairness is part of sustainability and therefore sought external certification (FFL - Fair for Life) to make this visible.

We now offer finished goods and fabrics to others, and a much wider range of different fabrics than we used to produce. Since then, we have a large fabric collection, which is our main sales area. Fabrics, on an organic and Fairtrade basis, for other brands.

Producing in Asia was not an option?

In Asia, the focus is more on low manufacturing prices. We knew we wanted to emphasise on quality, so manufacturing in Asia did not come up. I did look at many companies there, but the high quality we were looking for was not available.

By producing in Germany and Europe, our fabrics acquire properties that are better than those of the competition. In addition, Germany has had regulations for many years, expensive energy, expensive water, and good mechanical engineering. So the difference is easily one to ten or even more in terms of consumption, process accuracy and product consistency. It is simply a different world and we thought, ‘this will produce good results’.

And then, as far as sustainability is concerned, we delved into agriculture. Transparency was also important. Likewise, circularity and renewable energies in the production facilities became more and more of a discussion, which has always been an important topic for us.

Was the data acquisition therefore a bit easier? What were some of the biggest hurdles?

The data is certainly not easy to obtain, but we have been equipping all of our own machines with meters for the last 15 years. Therefore, we know exactly what is going on in our own facilities.

We have a network of regular suppliers; they are always the same and each one uses a specific technology. Everything we need in terms of technology runs through the partner. During the Corona period, we were sometimes able to advance orders and thus utilise factories to capacity; those were not bad years. We built up a lot of trust, and that is why the most important partners also participated in the analysis. The main production site is very close by, they also invested resources (personnel) and installed meters. A few factories only provided average values, but this has had a marginal effect. Overall, everyone participated.

And the data processing and collection?

That is complex, of course, we could not have managed on our own. Therefore, we collaborated with the IVGT (German Association for Finishing - Yarns - Fabrics - Technical Textiles, ed). Several environmental experts work there in various areas, and one has become familiar with the life cycle assessment software “Umberto”. We were a pilot customer there, the second one to be precise, who developed this with them. It was a good collaboration, so that know-how has also grown at the IVGT for spreading this knowledge within the industry.

The limitations of LCAs (life cycle assessments) also needs to be viewed critically. What can such a life cycle assessment do and what can it not? Certain questions are simply stored via some database values, but they have little to do with the truth. What do I mean by that? We can say ‘we used so many kilowatt hours, or joules/megajoules’. They are composed of a certain percentage of photovoltaics, hydropower, gas power plant - one can break that down, the data is there.

But what does a kilowatt hour of solar footprint mean compared to a kilowatt hour of hydropower, etc.? That is where the data stops. And that is something that bothers me as an engineer. But one has to be aware that the data, if one works consistently, is comparable, it is usable and good, but ultimately, they are just model results, which also contain modelling assumptions.

Will these data values be broken down further?

(laughs) That is a good question. So if there are queries about it, we can go into the tables and extract the figures, but these are huge Excel spreadsheets with hundreds of columns for each fabric, it is quite mind-boggling. How does one make results visible? One can, of course, highlight some aspects, but what does one communicate?

What is important is the farming - organic farming is superior to conventional methods. One kilo of fibre sequesters 1.53 kilos of CO2. That is a chemical formula, one can convert it very easily, it is always like that. If we do not dye but only wash out natural colours, we still achieve a net sink for most fabrics.

Such results also help in engineering, namely, ‘what products do I make, what do I offer?’ And you can then incorporate this into your decisions in various ways later on: So we plan to include this in our online portal for fabrics, step by step, I think that will happen in the next six months. It is a matter of capacity. And with the finished goods, we already have item codes, but it still needs some work to include it with the item right away.

Are consumers already asking for this information?

Not at all. But we will now also successively issue communications so that people know “Cotonea has it”. Consumers may not yet be able to track and assess the figures, but they know that Cotonea has them and can procure them. And at some point, other brands will follow suit, that is for sure. And then one will see ‘aha, the figures are also good’. We want to start a thought process first.

What would actually be right is if one did not externalise the true costs, for example, microplastic pollution or water pollution, but mapped them onto the product. Then it would be much easier and much better to present. And in the end, if one actually always wanted to buy new things, if that was the value of being well-dressed, then buying high quality, without paying a luxury mark-ups, is certainly cheaper than buying fast fashion.

What needs to happen for consumers to care more about what they buy?

They should not just buy by price. The value of products has been lost. We currently have a museum exhibition in our area on the value of textiles. Cotton cost 72 cents per pound in 1970. What does it cost today? 72 cents per pound or 75 - basically the same, nominally. But the dollar is worth 95 percent less since then, which means that farmers today only receive 5 percent of what they received in 1970 in real purchasing power. And this has created enormous pressure on the smallholder farmers at the beginning of the chain - there are millions of them who live and depend on this and are not paid decently.

There are a few large corporations that make the big business, and with their cheap products, they have pushed the good competition into the luxury corner and marginalised them in terms of quantity. We need to make the value of what we consume and its significance for our planet clear to people, primarily through the media and brand messages. My observation is: When people hear this, they understand it.

What irks me is that on the one hand, there are efforts in Europe towards less harmful chemicals, but then on the other, companies like Temu and Shein are allowed to fly in products by plane, hundreds of planes a day to Europe and the USA, allegedly 300 planes, in any case huge quantities. Of 20 products tested, 17 failed all guidelines - one sandal broke after four hours of wear. Why is this allowed to happen? Consumers get satisfaction through the object they purchase, but where is that satisfaction when one constantly has to buy new things? That is addiction-like behaviour.

What is the solution, reducing production?

Not only that - you also have to offer good quality. Fibre production reached 118 million tonnes, of which only 25 million tonnes (plus or minus) were cotton. Polyester has its place in technical textiles, but there the consumption is much, much smaller. We could achieve the same uses and applications with a third, perhaps even less, of our annual new fibre input if we could only overcome this throwaway mentality.