{"id":11226,"date":"2025-09-30T18:57:03","date_gmt":"2025-09-30T16:57:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/delab.it\/intervista-al-dott-alessandro-galli-direttore-della-ricerca-hot-or-cool-institute-berlino\/"},"modified":"2025-09-30T19:04:16","modified_gmt":"2025-09-30T17:04:16","slug":"interview-with-dr-alessandro-galli-research-director-hot-or-cool-institute-berlin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/delab.it\/en\/interview-with-dr-alessandro-galli-research-director-hot-or-cool-institute-berlin\/","title":{"rendered":"Interview with Dr. Alessandro Galli, Research Director, Hot or Cool Institute \u2013 Berlin\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In your view, what should happen in order to persuade businesses to take sustainability seriously, treating it as a genuine driver of growth rather than as an unjustified additional cost?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Businesses thrive when societies are stable and prosperous, not when they exist in a state of permanent crisis. For this reason, they have a direct interest in contributing to initiatives that orient lifestyles and behaviors toward sustainability. If we fail to address the interconnected challenges of our time\u2014climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution on the one hand; growing inequalities and the erosion of democratic processes on the other\u2014the world in which businesses will operate will increasingly be marked by recurrent crises. Such crises threaten their success and jeopardize business models themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the same time, we are witnessing among younger generations a redefinition of what it means to \u201clive well\u201d: no longer material accumulation or the ownership of a car as a status symbol, but rather a better balance between work and life, equity, dignity, and the quality of social relationships. Businesses therefore have a crucial role not only in reducing environmental impacts, but also in contributing to this emerging collective narrative: redefining what we mean by quality of life, adopting responsible marketing practices, and offering products and services that help people live well within the planet\u2019s limits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The food sector, together with mobility and construction, ranks among the major polluters at the European level. To what extent do transport activities along the food supply chain\u2014from production to distribution\u2014affect the sustainability of our food systems?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Transport within the food supply chain undoubtedly has an impact: only about one-third of the global population is able to meet its demand for plant-based foods locally, that is, within 100 kilometers. Yet transport is not the primary issue. Multiple studies, including one published two years ago in Nature Food<\/a> focusing on European food systems, in which I was involved, demonstrate that the dominant share of the impact derives from what we eat and how we produce it, rather than from how far food travels or the means by which it reaches our tables. Diets high in meat and dairy products\u2014particularly those sourced from intensive farming\u2014require vast amounts of land and water, generate extremely high greenhouse gas emissions, and are the principal drivers of deforestation and biodiversity loss. Agriculture as a whole is in fact the leading driver of biodiversity decline, accounting for over half of terrestrial species loss and roughly 80% of global deforestation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The data are striking: meat production and consumption have tripled in the past 50 years, reaching 45 kilograms per person in 2022. Today, just 12 plant species and 5 animal species account for 75% of the global food supply\u2014an alarming homogenization that undermines ecosystem resilience. At the same time, according to FAO estimates, nearly 30% of the world\u2019s agricultural land is used to produce food that ultimately goes to waste, representing an economic loss of nearly one trillion euros annually.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the forthcoming edition of our A climate for Sufficiency: 1.5-Degree Lifestyles<\/a> report, nutrition and mobility together account for between one-half and two-thirds of lifestyle-related greenhouse gas emissions. In high-income countries, mobility has a greater weight than food; however, it is in the domain of food that the greatest reduction potential lies. Adopting predominantly plant-based diets can save up to 2,500 kilograms of CO\u2082 equivalent per person per year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, food is not only sustenance; it is also culture, identity, and social connection. Yet our current food system drives us toward an ever-growing ecological debt, with consequences that are not only environmental but also social, as they disproportionately affect the most vulnerable communities and jeopardize global food security. Rethinking our relationship with food thus means redefining the very notion of \u201cgood nutrition\u201d: not unlimited abundance, but quality, health, equity, and respect for nature. It also requires recognizing that the lowest price is rarely the best price, since behind this apparent convenience often lie unacceptable living and working conditions for farmers, fishers, and herders\u2014the true custodians of the planet\u2019s biodiversity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The textile and fashion industry is particularly polluting, yet it is also one of the sectors most deeply entrenched in a globalized sales system that is difficult to move away from. Which aspects of a garment\u2019s life cycle are most critical, and how could we realistically break free from the fast fashion cycle without placing an excessive burden on consumers\u2019 budgets?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The greatest impact in the fashion sector arises from overproduction and the extremely short lifespan of garments. The report Unfit, Unfair, Unfashionable<\/em><\/a>, published a few years ago by the Hot or Cool Institute<\/a> where I work, shows that, on average, consumption in this sector by the wealthiest 20% of the population generates 20 times more emissions than that of the poorest 20%, highlighting stark inequalities and a disproportionate contribution to global emissions. Reductions of 60% or more in fashion consumption levels in high-income countries\u2014as proposed by Hot or Cool\u2014may appear radical, yet in reality they would simply mean returning to per capita consumption levels typical of just a decade ago. The real issue lies in the rapid growth and normalization of much higher levels of consumption, made possible by the spread of fast fashion and, more recently, ultra-fast fashion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Breaking free from this spiral of fast fashion does not necessarily entail greater costs for consumers. It means buying fewer but higher-quality items, extending the lifespan of clothing through durable design, repairs, the use of second-hand garments, and clothing rental models. In the long run, this often results in savings, as consumers purchase less frequently while obtaining better-quality pieces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For fashion houses, however, the challenge is deeper and more radical: it requires rethinking business models built on volume and speed of collections, and instead shifting toward quality, services, and social and environmental responsibility across the entire value chain. This transformation demands courage, but it also presents an opportunity: those able to lead this shift will become competitive in a market that increasingly associates beauty with creativity, equity, and sustainability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you were to identify three positive trends in the field of environmental sustainability, whether at the local or global level, what would they be?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n