Une conversation avec Luc Teerlinck

What does it mean to rethink ownership in a world built on consumption? 

For decades, Decathlon has been known for making sport accessible through affordable gear. Now, the company is exploring a new frontier: servitisation — shifting from ownership to access, from selling products to providing services. It’s a bold step that challenges the DNA of traditional retail while opening new possibilities for customers, business, and the planet.

In Belgium, this experiment has been led by Luc Teerlinck, whose unconventional entry into Decathlon began with a simple phone call to the CEO. Starting with a grassroots pilot, Luc and his team tested a subscription model that revealed something surprising: the more durable the products, the more profitable — and sustainable — the model became.

In this conversation, Luc shares how Decathlon’s journey into servitisation is proving that sustainability and economic performance are not only compatible, but mutually reinforcing. 

Can you tell us what sparked the idea for introducing servitization and circular models at Decathlon?

My journey at Decathlon has been an incredible one. I think, in a way, it all started from a deep realization about how we, as a society and businesses, approach ownership and consumption. In 2019, I started thinking about purpose. I had always run my own companies, but it took a pandemic for me to truly realize that I was most passionate about conceptualizing projects and then mobilizing the energy around those projects. At that time, I started meeting with the leaders of Decathlon Belgium as part of my work with other companies. And that’s where it just clicked for me. 

What was it that inspired you? 

First of all, there was a unique company dynamic that spoke to me, and the leaders I met had this coherent alignment in their approach. They also shared insights into what was happening at Decathlon in terms of governance, which was very exciting. It was then that I realized that if we could shift the model to allow customers to use products instead of buying and owning them, we could potentially create a much more sustainable business model for everyone: the customers, the partners, and the environment. That’s when I picked up the phone and called Decathon’s CEO to offer my service. I’m forever grateful for what he said. 

Which was? 

‘Create your job and you are most welcome’ 

That must have been quite a turning point for you. How did you go about bringing your idea to life? Which challenges did you face and how did you overcome them?

Absolutely, it was not easy. Decathlon, as you can imagine, is a company that thrives on selling products. Shifting away from this traditional model was challenging for many people internally. There were doubts. People said, ‘How are we going to make this work financially?’ or ‘What if customers don’t take care of the products?’ The biggest obstacle, however, was the belief that reducing environmental impact would hurt profitability. The idea that being environmentally conscious meant compromising on performance and revenue. We had to prove that wasn’t the case.

And how did you manage to prove that? 

Well, it took a lot of experimentation and data analysis. We started by developing a simple pricing model based on usage rather than ownership. For example, we offered a subscription model where customers could use our products for a set fee, instead of buying them outright. Initially, the skeptics thought it wouldn’t be profitable, but after testing the model, we realized something incredible: the more we focused on reducing the environmental impact, the more we actually increased economic performance. This model became 30% cheaper for some customers compared to outright purchasing the products. Not only that, but we found that the business could be more profitable and we could also reduce emissions by a factor of two for the same results. 

Can you walk us through the idea behind the model you developed?

We looked at a few key aspects. One of the revelations I had was that the more durable a product is, the cheaper it becomes to rent over its lifespan compared to owning it. I did this calculation with Patagonia. An average jacket will cost you €280, while a similar one from Decathlon is sold for around €90. Let’s take the €280 Patagonia jacket as an example and assume it comes with a 10-year guarantee. The cost-effectiveness comparison between Decathlon's model and Patagonia's model comes down to the durability of the products and the way they’re rented over time.

Let’s break it down:

• Durability and Product Lifespan: The Patagonia jacket, for example, has a lifespan of 10 years and costs €280. In a usage-based model, you need to generate €28 in rental revenue per year to cover the cost of the jacket. The Decathlon jacket, on the other hand, lasts only 2 years and costs €90. To recover its cost over 2 years, Decathlon needs to generate €45 in rental revenue per year.
• Lower Annual Cost of More Durable Products: When we compare the two, the Patagonia jacket is more durable but, in terms of yearly rental revenue, actually ends up costing less annually (€28) than the Decathlon jacket (€45). This is because the rental cost is spread over a longer period, making the Patagonia model more cost-effective on an annual basis, despite the higher initial price.
• The Subscription Model: Decathlon’s usage-based model offers flexibility and cost-effectiveness for consumers, which also plays into the company's business strategy. By promoting longer-lasting products like the Patagonia jacket, Decathlon can reduce overall costs in the long run while still offering affordable access through their rental model.

So, while Patagonia jackets cost more upfront, they are cheaper over time in a usage-based model compared to the less durable, cheaper Decathlon options. By focusing on durability, Decathlon can provide a cost-effective solution for its customers without compromising on quality. 

How was the model put to the clients? 

We proposed a subscription model where clients could choose between two plans: €25 per month for up to €400 worth of products or €50 per month for up to €1,025 worth of products. The idea was to give customers flexibility and access to a range of gear without the commitment of ownership. The key feature was that the limit represented the maximum value of products they could have at home at any given time.

Could you elaborate on that?   

For example, if someone was subscribed to the €400 plan but had already rented €150 worth of equipment and now wanted to rent kayaking gear worth €250, they would exceed their plan’s limit. In that case, they’d need to return some items—like their tent or the previous gear—before they could rent the new equipment. This kept things simple and gave clients the flexibility to switch between products as needed.

That sounds very flexible. Were there any conditions for clients to keep in mind?

Yes, there were two key obligations for the clients. First, if the product existed in our inventory and had been used before, they had to accept the used product. We didn’t offer brand new items on request if used ones were available. Second, clients were responsible for cleaning and maintaining the products themselves. For example, if they rented a sleeping bag, they needed to clean it before returning it. If they didn’t, we would charge them for cleaning services.

It sounds like you had a lot of moving parts to manage. How did you approach testing this model?

Our goal at the outset was really to collect data and test the concept. We wanted to validate whether this model could work, so we didn’t focus on answering every potential question right away. There were a lot of unknowns—how would we handle digital infrastructure? What would the logistics look like? How would we ensure scalability? Instead of trying to over-anticipate everything, we just focused on the fundamentals and decided to learn as we went.

Which technology was used for this?  

We worked with a digital tool that cost just €15 per month, which wasn’t ideal and wasn’t built for this scale, but it helped us get started. The project was quite hands-on—we stored some of the equipment in our own homes, and the team was small, with only three people. We even managed all the customer interactions ourselves and didn’t ask the store teams to get involved. The priority was to gather data and build customer relationships, not perfect the process.

That’s a very grassroots approach. How did it go in practice? 

 It was definitely a scrappy, low-tech start, but it was valuable. We had two stores participate: one in Brussels and another in Ghent. The experience really helped us learn what worked and what didn’t. We quickly realized that focusing on building customer relationships and understanding their needs was more important than getting everything perfect from the start. We used the feedback we gathered to shape the next steps and refine our offering.

Looking back, what were the biggest lessons you learned from this pilot? 

One of the key takeaways was that the model could work and provide value to customers, even without all the perfect tools and processes in place. Another big lesson was how important it is to keep things simple at the start. We didn’t overcomplicate the logistics or the technology—we focused on the customer experience and just made it happen. Ultimately, the data we gathered showed us that people were open to renting gear and products, as long as it was flexible and affordable.

Do you see this model being adopted more widely in the future?

Absolutely. The subscription model allows for a more sustainable and flexible approach to consumption. As people become more aware of environmental issues, I think more companies will start offering usage-based models. It’s not just about renting products; it’s about offering people more control over their consumption and providing them with quality, durable products that they can use when they need them. This model could really help shift the mindset towards a more sustainable, circular economy. 

What do you consider essential to making these types of business models successful, particularly in a larger organization like Decathlon?

I think the key is showing that these models can actually deliver more money while also doing good for the planet. There’s a misconception that sustainability means sacrificing profits. But if we prove that it’s more profitable to focus on sustainability, it becomes a win-win situation. This is what we did at Decathlon—we demonstrated that this circular approach could be more financially viable, which made it easier to get buy-in from all sides. People saw that it wasn’t just about being green; it was about being smart with the resources we had.

You also mentioned that you don’t believe in forcing people to change their behavior through constraints. Can you explain why?

Yes, that’s a big part of my philosophy. I don’t think we can change people’s habits by just telling them, ‘You should behave better.’ That’s not how change works. I think we need to show people the benefits of these new models. For instance, in our circular model, we didn’t force customers to follow strict rules or punish them if they didn’t take care of the products. We simply demonstrated that it could be more affordable, more convenient, and more sustainable. When people see the benefits for themselves, they’re more likely to engage in it. The only way to know if something works is to get started and see how it evolves.

You mentioned that you’re not particularly passionate about economic models, but you’re deeply engaged in creating impactful change. Could you elaborate on that?

Sure. I don’t see myself as someone who gets excited about economic models for the sake of them. I teach economics, but I’m not fascinated by theory alone. What excites me is creating something that makes a real difference. This circular model, for example, is not just an abstract concept—it’s a tangible change that can reduce environmental impact and improve economic performance at the same time. For me, it’s about seeing how these models translate into actual, meaningful results. If I can show that it’s possible to make more money while doing good, that’s where I find real fulfillment.

That’s such a powerful approach. Lastly, with all the changes happening in business and sustainability, what advice would you give to other companies looking to innovate and become more sustainable?

Be unreasonable! My advice would be to not be afraid to take risks and experiment. Don’t let fear of failure hold you back. Sustainability isn’t a constraint, it’s an opportunity to create new, better business models. And don’t try to do everything at once. Start small, collect data, learn from your experiments, and iterate. But most importantly, show people that it’s possible to do well by doing good. When businesses see that sustainability can be profitable, it will become the new standard.

So, the idea of sustainability and economic performance aren’t mutually exclusive?

Exactly. I believe the future of business is in aligning economic performance with sustainability. The more focused we are on reducing environmental impact, the more profitable the model becomes. We tested this model, and for certain customer segments, it actually turned out to be 30% cheaper than buying a product outright. We also saw profit margins between 26% and 30% for the business in this model, which is incredible considering the scale of environmental impact we were able to reduce.

So, you were able to show that sustainability leads to better results? 

Absolutely. Our model not only delivered better environmental performance but also higher profitability and customer satisfaction. It’s all about proving that when businesses prioritize the long-term impact of their decisions, everyone benefits—customers, companies, and the planet.

What lessons did you take away from this experience? 

For me, it reinforced the idea that businesses need to evolve and innovate beyond traditional models. We don’t change behaviors by forcing people to act differently; instead, we show them that doing the right thing can also be the most beneficial approach. It’s about creating value that’s both economically and environmentally sustainable, and that’s how we can truly drive change.