Iconic French brand, Chanel, which sought to purchase organic, environmentally responsible silk from China. However, the luxury brand intentionally engaged suppliers whose environmental practices were rated as very poor by an audit commissioned by Chanel itself. .
In this last article of our GreenFakes series, we look at how Chanel has deliberately opted for Chinese silk suppliers whose practices were assessed as being ‘very poor’ in terms of environmental and workplace safety in an audit conducted in 2020. The GreenFakes investigation, based on confidential documents obtained by the NGO Climate Whistleblowers.
When it comes to luxury and the softness of silk, Chanel charges a hefty price. For instance, an embroidered silk chiffon dress for 11,800 euros, a printed silk tunic for 8,850 euros, or a very chic ecru and black scarf for 530 euros.
At these prices, one would expect silk to be produced to the highest environmental standards. The luxury giant, with sales of 18 billion euros, boasts of its “commitments” to “environmental sustainability” and assures its suppliers that it “sets high standards for [its] raw materials.”
When questioned by Mediapart, Chanel did not deny the findings that their suppliers had questionable environmental and workplace safety standards, but asserted that “numerous corrective measures” have been implemented since the audit was conducted.
It all began in October 2010. Several consultants from the French firm PUR Projet, which specializes in environmental studies, traveled to China. Chanel had commissioned them to “audit potential new suppliers” of organic silk. These producers had already obtained the GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard) label, a private certification aimed at establishing the industry standard. The inspection focused on two mills in the Sichuan region: Antai and Fenggu.
The report’s results, delivered to Chanel a month later, were very disappointing. Fenggu received an overall score of 24 out of 100, while Antai scored 42. The consultants were astonished to discover that there is no correlation between GOTS certification and the sites’ social and environmental compliance.
Antai and Fenggu are rated “red,” the lowest of the four possible grades, regarding their respect for organic production. Both workshops do not “separate,” meaning they mix organic and non-organic silk cocoons. The auditors suspect fraud at Fenggu, as the “volumes sold as ‘organic'” exceed the “certified volumes.” Antai, on the other hand, “probably does not meet all the conditions” for organic production.
Both companies source from numerous breeders in the Sichuan region. These breeders grow and maintain mulberry trees and then introduce silkworms that feed on their leaves.
The audit reveals that these farms are rated “red” on most environmental criteria, including soil, water, and biodiversity management. In many farms, the auditors uncovered instances of water pollution leading to eutrophication, which refers to the proliferation of invasive algae on the surfaces of water bodies. Some farmers associated with Antai’s use NPK, a chemical fertilizer that leads to nitrate pollution. Additionally, farmers place plastic membranes on the ground to protect young trees but fail to remove them afterward.
Most of the large silkworm producers, directly controlled by Antai and Fenggu, were found to be operating correctly. But among the small independent farmers, the auditors saw “numerous bags of fertilizer, empty pesticide [bottles] and antibiotics bottles […] in the streams”.
The situation is not much better at the silk thread mills. The audit points to their very high water consumption: 10 to 30 tons per day. The Fenggu factory is responsible for “water pollution due to poor wastewater treatment”.
The auditors point out that the workers are well-paid. However, “working conditions are difficult” due to dust and heat. Both companies received their worst marks for workplace safety: 28 out of 100 at Antai and only 9 out of 100 at Fenggu.
In both companies, “masks are not always provided to employees despite the dust, they have had no training in handling chemicals, and extinguishers, covered in dust, are not always available”. The report denounces a “super-critical non-compliance” in fire prevention at Fenggu, and points out that there have been two fires at Antai in the past year.
In short, this is way below Chanel’s standards. The report concludes that to satisfy the French luxury giant’s environmental requirements, the two Chinese silk producers would have to implement numerous measures to correct their practices, such as “respecting the principles of organic farming,” “reducing their negative impact on the environment” and “improving occupational health and safety.”
Despite this audit, Chanel has decided to use silk produced by Fenggu and Antai in its garments. Both companies have indicated in the Chinese press that they supply the French group.
When contacted by Mediapart, Chanel stated that it had no direct contractual relationship with Fenggu and Antai, but confirmed that these two companies do indeed deliver their silk yarns to the fabric manufacturer from which the luxury brand obtains its supplies.
Chanel declined to comment on the 2020 audit, or its decision to use these silk producers despite their poor environmental performance (read the full response in the appendices to this article).
The Group asserts that the aim of the audit was “to support [its] suppliers, even indirect ones, in a continuous improvement process”: “As you note, this initial study establishes several areas for improvement, as well as their feasibility. Several action plans and audits have been carried out over the past four years, leading to the implementation of numerous corrective measures, which are in line with our global commitments to sustainable development. In particular, we are initiating a pilot regenerative agriculture project covering several hectares. All this represents a long-term undertaking, but we are convinced that it will bear fruit.”
Chanel claims that new “audits” have enabled it to “measure the progress made.” However, the group refused to provide us with these documents, “which are for internal use only.”
Black Box
When contacted by Mediapart, Chanel responded in writing (see the full reply in the appendices to this article). When reached by phone, silk producers Fenggu and Antai declined to comment and refused to confirm their association with Chanel, despite having stated this to the Chinese media.
Chanel response
Sourcing our raw materials is a strategic issue for Chanel. We have been working for several years on our supply chains to ensure that they meet our strict requirements in terms of quality, regulatory compliance, sustainable development, and resources for those involved in the value chain.
The vast majority of silk, which comes from China, has been the focus of our attention in recent years as a natural raw material in our collections.
About the silk supply chain:
First of all, let’s recall that we don’t buy silk directly and that its supply chain is complex. For your information, Chanel buys silk fabrics from a weaver, who in turn buys from a miller. The miller works with a specialized partner, who in turn sources from spinning companies such as Antai or Fenggu. The latter calls on farmers, who may or may not form cooperatives.
The articles you quote, which refer to a contract between these two Chinese silk suppliers and Chanel, therefore contain inaccurate information.
However, this does not prevent us from deepening our knowledge of the industry. The first studies, carried out back in 2020, aimed to achieve this. They were part of our drive to gain a better understanding of our value chain as a whole and identify its impacts and areas for improvement.
Our involvement well upstream in the chain enables us to support our suppliers, even indirect ones, in a continuous improvement process.
About environmental and social issues, and the health and safety of farmers:
The silk industry relies in part on a traditional ecosystem with thousands of small farmers, generally elderly, and not always aware of the requirements of the collection centers to which their produce is sold. In 2020, these small farms still accounted for around a third of production. Since then, things have changed, and in 2024 alone, their numbers were down by 20%.
As a result, some spinning mills are moving towards greater integration, offering farmers training, tools, and a methodology that enables them to work in line with various international standards. That’s why we’ve decided to focus our sourcing on mills that follow this model.
We buy certified organic silk. But this certification alone is not enough for us, so we carry out additional field studies to check that the certification requirements are actually applied.
As far as remuneration is concerned, farmers working on these farms receive wages equivalent to 3 to 5 times the average income in the Yunnan region. The study you consulted mentions the efforts made in this area.
About Chanel’s commitments:
As you note, this first study establishes several areas for improvement and their feasibility. Several action plans and audits have been carried out over the past four years, leading to the implementation of numerous corrective measures, which are in line with our global commitments to sustainable development. In particular, we are initiating a pilot regenerative agriculture project covering several hectares. All this represents a long-term project, but we are convinced it will bear fruit. Our regular audits and follow-ups enable us to measure the progress made.
We are unable to provide you with the requested documents, which are for internal use only.
“GreenFakes” is a series of investigations conducted by Mediapart, published in partnership with Mongabay and Africa Uncensored. They are based on internal documents from Biotope, leading French ecological auditing firm, obtained by Climate Whistleblowers, an organization specializing in the protection of climate and environmental whistleblowers.
Add comment