John Galliano returns to the atelier. But the collaboration with the Spanish giant Inditex raises questions that the press release hasn’t yet answered.

In January 2026, in Paris, a women’s dress designed by John Galliano for Dior sold at auction for € 637,500. A few weeks later, the same designer announced he would be working for Zara. Not for a six-piece capsule collection to be photographed on Instagram—for two years, with seasonal collections, drawing on the Spanish brand’s archive.

If you had a strange feeling reading these two sentences one after the other, that’s understandable. It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong. It means it’s complicated. And complicated things deserve to be explored in depth.

In an era where sustainable and slow fashion are gaining ground, it’s legitimate to ask whether this choice represents a step forward or a contradiction to the sustainability values ​​many consumers seek today.

Who is Galliano?

John Galliano is one of the greatest fashion technicians of the twentieth century. Born in Gibraltar, he trained in London at Central Saint Martins, and became creative director of Givenchy in 1995, then of Dior in 1996. For fifteen years, he transformed fashion shows into theatrical events—shows inspired by feudal Japan, Tsarist Russia, and the homeless of Paris—with clothes constructed on a sartorial architecture that many consider unsurpassed. His fashion shows were cinema, theater, and the anthropology of beauty. His bias-cut silk dresses reappear today on red carpets and at auctions.

In 2011, he was fired from Dior after a video showed him drunk in a Parisian bar uttering anti-Semitic remarks. It was a disastrous fall. Three years of silence followed, a detox, a year of study with a rabbi, and finally a public apology in the 2024 documentary High & Low. Professional rehabilitation came in 2014, when Renzo Rosso appointed him creative director of Maison Margiela. In ten years, Margiela’s sales grew by 24%. The Artisanal collection for winter 2024—presented under a Parisian bridge, featuring extreme corsetry and fabrics worked like sculptures—is considered one of the most powerful of the last twenty years.

In 2024, he left Margiela. For two years, silence. Then, on March 17, 2026, Zara.

What exactly does the agreement provide — and what doesn’t it?

The joint statement states that Galliano will work directly with pieces from Zara’s past seasons, deconstructing and reconfiguring them into new expressions and seasonal creations. The process is called “re-authoring“—a word invented for the occasion, which doesn’t exist in the vocabulary of fashion or sustainability.

Here, it’s necessary to be precise. International press reports indicate that Galliano will create new toiles inspired by pieces from the Zara archives, with new shapes, fabrics, colors, and clothing bearing his distinctive signature (WWD). A toile, in tailoring parlance, is the canvas pattern that precedes the creation of the final garment—it’s the creative starting point. Translated: Galliano uses the Zara archive as a point of inspiration and formal starting point, not as physical material to be transformed piece by piece.

How significant this will be will depend on how much of the line actually comes from reworked stock versus newly manufactured products (Grazia International). We don’t know at this time, as the details of the collection are still unknown. Zara has announced that further information will be released later.

This distinction isn’t a technical detail. It’s the difference between an upcycling operation and a creative effort that uses the archive as inspiration—potentially producing entirely new garments. One reduces production volumes. The other doesn’t, or not necessarily.

Why Galliano says it’s sustainable

During Paris Fashion Week, Galliano told Vogue Business that the project is “a very positive thing to do right now, and truly creatively sustainable.”

The expression is interesting precisely because it contains an important qualification: creatively sustainable. It doesn’t say “environmentally sustainable.” It doesn’t say “low-impact.” It says: it’s sustainable as a creative approach—in the sense that it reuses, reinterprets, and doesn’t start from scratch.

It’s a fair distinction, if you read it that way. The problem is that in public discourse, and especially in marketing, “sustainable” has become a word used without specifying what it’s used for. And when Zara—one of the world’s largest fast-fashion producers—says that one of its lines is “sustainable,” the word carries with it all the weight of what isn’t said.

Inditex’s track record: what it says, what it does

Since 2022, Zara has been undergoing a strategic repositioning process to break away from fast fashion. Galliano is not an isolated case—he is the latest in a string of high-profile designers who have collaborated with Zara, including Narciso Rodriguez, Stefano Pilati, Kate Moss, and Steven Meisel.

Inditex is a company that claims not to ignore sustainability. In its 2025 report, it states that 88% of the fibers used are alternatives with a lower environmental impact, with 47% recycled fibers. Between 2020 and 2025, it reduced unit water consumption in the supply chain by 25%.

These numbers exist. But they must be read within a broader context. A Thomson Reuters Foundation investigation has documented how Inditex’s use of air freight to fuel the fast fashion market is excessive and growing—a practice that contributes to the climate crisis and increases pressure on workers, forced to work unsustainable hours for low wages, exactly the opposite of what is disclosed in sustainability reports.

And there’s a structural question that no press release answers: does the Galliano line add to Zara’s existing production, or does it partially replace it? If the answer is “adds,” the company’s net environmental impact increases, not decreases—regardless of the creative sophistication of the project.

Why this news is also a symptom

Beyond Galliano and Zara, this story tells about something larger about the fashion industry right now.

With Dior and Chanel charging €5,000 for a jacket, €4,000 for a bag, and couture reaching €135,000 for a dress, the trend is moving in the opposite direction (The Hollywood Reporter). Galliano isn’t alone—Francesco Risso, former creative director of Marni, has taken the helm of Gu, a brand of the Fast Retailing group; Clare Waight Keller, former creative director of Givenchy, is now creative director of Uniqlo; and Zac Posen has taken over as creative director of Gap (Il Sole 24 Ore).

This phenomenon has at least two interpretations. The first, optimistic: high-end creativity is finally becoming accessible to a wider audience, democratizing an aesthetic language that had remained locked away within the fashion houses for decades. The second, more critical point: big names lend their cultural reputation to brands that need it to compete with Shein and Temu on a terrain—credibility—where low prices are no longer enough.

Ultrafast players like Shein and Temu can always be cheaper and faster. They can’t easily compete on cultural authority. Partnering with a designer whose archive breaks auction records is a way to buy credibility, not just clicks (Grazia International).

A phenomenon that has a name

The results of the “Spinning Greenwash” study

The Changing Markets Foundation, a nonprofit organization working on environmental sustainability, commissioned research from the Microplastic Research Group at Çukurova University (Turkey) to compare the release of microplastics between recycled and virgin polyester fabrics. The results reveal a surprising and worrying situation:
The recycled polyester garments tested released an average of approximately 55% more microfibers than those made from virgin polyester during wash cycles.

In terms of average quantity, the study recorded approximately 12,430 microfibers per gram in recycled fabrics, compared to 8,028 microfibers per gram in virgin polyester.

The microfibers released from recycled fabrics are smaller—with an average length of approximately 0.42 mm versus 0.52 mm—making them more easily dispersed and potentially more harmful to ecosystems and human health.

The 51 items analyzed came from five major fashion brands — Adidas, H&M, Nike, Shein, and Zara — and included items such as t-shirts, tops, dresses, and shorts.

What does this mean for the environment?

Microplastics are a globally recognized environmental problem: they are found in soil, waterways, and oceans, but also in living organisms, including human tissue, and are associated with potentially adverse effects on biological systems.

A single wash cycle can release hundreds of thousands of microfibers into wastewater, which treatment systems struggle to fully filter, allowing these particles to enter the environmental and food chains.

Where do all those tiny microfibers end up?

The answer is everywhere. Not just in the seas and rivers, but also in the air we breathe, in the soil of our fields, in the most remote sediments, even in the organic tissues of living beings. According to an Italian report on micro and nanoplastics in the human body (Vera Studio 2024), synthetic textiles are among the most significant sources of microplastics linked to home laundry processes, and certain technical steps like pre-washing can release far greater quantities of microfibers than simple washing and rinsing.

This is the reality: what we wear, wash, and use every day comes into contact with environments we can no longer separate from our daily lives. Yet, amid this scientific reality, some marketing narratives remain reassuring. The Changing Markets Foundation uses a powerful symbolic image to describe many companies’ communications: it calls it a “sustainability fig leaf,” a fig leaf that covers a deep dependence on synthetic materials without properly addressing the problem of microplastics (The Ecologist). And the message comes from an authoritative voice: Urska Trunk, senior campaign manager at Changing Markets, told The Ecologist very clearly that “fashion has sold recycled polyester as a green solution, yet our findings show it exacerbates the problem of microplastic pollution.”

Why is this phrase so important? Because it directly challenges the core of the global textile industry’s green narrative. It’s not about demonizing recycling—but about highlighting the fact that sustainability cannot be a superficial promise, based on catchy claims, if products continue to release significant amounts of microplastics.

And this awareness isn’t just for scientists or environmentalists. It’s about us, our consumption, our washing habits, and, ultimately, the future of our communities and the planet we inhabit.

Why does recycled material release more microplastics?

According to the authors of the Changing Markets study, the difference can be traced back to the structural characteristics of recycled fibers. During recycling processes—both mechanical and chemical—the polyester polymer chains shorten and weaken, making the fibers more fragile and prone to breakage. This leads to a greater release of microfibers during use and washing.

Labeling and transparency: another critical issue

The Changing Markets study also found discrepancies in brand claims: some garments advertised as being made from recycled polyester exhibited shedding behavior similar to that of virgin fabrics. In some cases, online labels and descriptions did not match the fiber information physically displayed on the garments, raising concerns about potentially misleading marketing practices.

What Other Research Says

In addition to the Changing Markets Foundation study, other scientific research is helping to clarify the situation, showing that recycled polyester is not automatically a better solution in terms of microfiber release. A study published in Environmental Pollution in 2024 found that, during home washing, recycled polyester garments can release more microfibers than virgin polyester ones, likely due to the lower mechanical strength of fibers subjected to recycling and heat treatments. Analyses conducted by The Microfibre Consortium confirm this trend in several cases, indicating, in some samples, a release of up to twice as many microfibers, often finer in size and therefore potentially more impactful on ecosystems and the food chain. However, the data also show strong variability: fabric structure, yarn type, production processes, and washing conditions significantly influence the results, with some tests showing less marked differences between virgin and recycled materials.

Overall, the scientific literature converges on one key point: polyester recycling reduces upstream plastic waste, but it does not solve—and can sometimes exacerbate—the problem of microplastic dispersion, confirming the need for a broader approach that includes material innovation, responsible textile design, and strategies to overall reduce the amount of synthetic fibers in circulation.

Microfibers and the Fabric Life Cycle: Beyond Home Washing

When discussing microplastics and microfibers, the common debate often focuses on release during home washing. However, recent research highlights that several stages of textile production are also significant sources of microfiber emissions. A study published in Scientific Reports monitored microfiber emissions in a large textile manufacturing plant and found that wet processing—such as dyeing and finishing—can release up to 25 times more microfibers than home washing cycles, with dyeing accounting for over 95% of emissions under some conditions. These findings suggest that the environmental impact of textiles is not reduced simply by changing the type of fiber (virgin or recycled), but requires optimization and mitigation from the earliest stages of production, for example, through lower dyeing temperatures, shorter process times, and the use of yarns and textile structures that minimize fiber shedding.

How Garment Care and Design Influence Microfiber Release

The amount of microfibers released from a garment depends not only on the material, but also on manufacturing techniques and care conditions. Different cutting and sewing methods, as well as washing conditions, can significantly influence the release of microplastics into the environment. Research published in Science of the Total Environment (2023, R Rathinamoorthy, S Raja Balasaraswathi) demonstrated that the use of more advanced cutting techniques such as laser or ultrasonic cutting can reduce microfiber release by up to 15–20 times compared to traditional scissors, while choosing specific stitch patterns and stitch densities can further reduce fraying. The use of multiple needles increases the release of microfibers across different variations of the same stitch pattern. For example, a 45.27% increase in microfiber release was reported with the 4-thread (2-needle) overlock stitch compared to the 3-thread (1-needle) stitch.

Furthermore, studies conducted on actual laundry loads (Science of the Total Environment, 2023, R Rathinamoorthy, S Raja Balasaraswathi) indicate that parameters such as temperature and cycle length influence the amount of microfibers released, with shorter, colder cycles, full loads, and high-efficiency washing machines reducing release. These findings highlight how changes in garment design and household care practices can help reduce microplastic shedding, complementing efforts to develop more sustainable materials.

An illusory solution or an intermediate step?

The findings of the Changing Markets study do not imply that all recycled materials are useless or that recycling has no value. Rather, they highlight a critical point: reducing environmental impact cannot be solely achieved by transitioning to “recycled” materials if they continue to release significant microplastics.

In other words, if the goal is a truly sustainable textile system, it is necessary to consider:

• design strategies that minimize the release of microfibers (e.g., low-release yarns, more compact textile structures, and less degrading finishes);
• technologies for capturing microfibers in domestic and industrial washing processes;
• an overall reduction in reliance on synthetic fibers—recycled or otherwise—in favor of alternative materials with a lower microplastic impact.

What we can do, concretely

For brands
• design garments with low-linting yarns and more compact structures;
• improve industrial processes, especially dyeing and finishing;
• adopt less fraying cutting and sewing techniques;
• communicate clearly and verifiably;
• invest in microfiber-capturing technologies in industrial laundries and supply chains.

For fashion buyers and consumers
• wash at low temperatures and shorter cycles;
• prefer full loads;
• use more efficient washing machines when possible;
• consider using certified filters or microfiber-capturing devices;
• above all: reduce dependence on fast fashion and synthetics, even recycled ones.
It’s not “buying nothing anymore.”
It’s buying better, less, more consciously.

Toward a broader vision of sustainability

This research is part of a broader debate on sustainability strategies in the fashion industry, which requires integrated and transparent approaches. It’s not just about replacing raw material A with B, but about rethinking production, consumption, and end-of-life models of garments with a truly circular perspective.
For consumers and industry professionals, the study is an invitation to look beyond “recycled” labels and evaluate concrete, independent data to make choices that truly make a difference.

The decision came after the French consumer watchdog (DGCCRF) discovered disturbing ads on the Shein marketplace: sex dolls with “child-like” features and even prohibited weapons, such as machetes and large knives.
In response, Shein announced a global ban on the sale of sex dolls on the platform, temporarily suspended the “adult products” category in France, and took action against the responsible sellers.
The investigation is ongoing, and French authorities have also involved the European Commission. Until proven otherwise, access to the site has not yet been completely blocked, but the suspension procedure is active. Shein took immediate measures to limit the reputational damage.

The paradox is clear: on the one hand, France appears to be targeting the ultra-fast fashion model with aggressive policies—such as a proposed law to impose a penalty on low-cost imports, fines for unfair business practices (e.g., Shein was fined €40 million for misleading discounts), and strong political action against Shein.

On the other hand, France is granting Shein prestigious physical access, thanks to a partnership with Société des Grands Magasins (SGM), which operates BHV and other stores in France, allowing for an “offline test” of the brand.

This means “banning online” but “accepting a physical store” at the same time—a contradiction that reflects real tensions between political values, economic interests, and market dynamics.

Why did France give the green light to the physical store?

Here are some hypotheses that help explain why:

Local business strategy: Shein states that France is “a major global fashion market” and that the physical opening serves to “respond to the demand for real-world contact” (Retail Gazette). In other words, from a traditional retail perspective (department stores, foot traffic), the deal makes commercial sense for SGM.

Differentiation between online and offline: The regulations France is implementing often primarily concern e-commerce, imports, low-cost shipping, and deceptive discounting practices. Opening a local physical store may seem like a more “controllable” environment.

Regulatory framework still evolving: Fines, anti-fast fashion rules, and import controls are coming but are not yet fully implemented or may have time limits. France appears to be “making the rules,” but in the meantime, the market continues to shift.

Economic and negotiating pressures: French department stores likely saw the agreement as an opportunity to boost sales (increased footfall, new products). Although politically criticized, there is significant private interest.

Possibility of control and oversight: The fact that the physical store was physically “visible” in Paris, within a regulated space, may have induced the authorities to accept the opening while simultaneously maintaining pressure on online sales.

Timing and lobbying: The fact that the opening caused a stir may also indicate that deals were made before the anti-fast-fashion law was in effect, or that the negotiation took place in a context where the brand was able to enter “before everything was clear.”

Social Reactions and Comments

The store’s opening was accompanied by protests: demonstrators holding signs (“From Colonization to Your Closets”) gathered outside the BHV.
But not everyone was opposed: one customer explained that the appeal for many is simply the price:

“With €200 a month, I can buy 50 T-shirts from Shein, or three made in France..”

(source The Guardian)

This comment underscores how ultra-cheap fast fashion responds to real economic demand, even among those on limited incomes. France’s action has not been confined to the national level: the government has written to the EU, requesting action under the Digital Services Act (DSA) (source: euronews).
The European Commission is involved, and the case could set a precedent for how member states can regulate digital platforms selling potentially illegal or morally controversial items.
Furthermore, according to the Brussels Times, French authorities have threatened permanent bans if certain products return to Shein’s platforms.

In Paris, Deputy Mayor Nicolas Bonnet Oulaldj openly criticized the agreement between Shein and SGM, declaring that allowing an ultra-fast fashion giant to enter the traditional retail landscape is “incompatible” with the city’s environmental and social goals. “Shein cannot be blamed for all the problems affecting French ready-to-wear,” reacted a spokesperson for the Shein platform in France. The Chinese giant plans to open five more discount clothing and accessories stores in the Galeries Lafayette department stores in Dijon, Reims, Grenoble, Angers, and Limoges. “This decision,” stated Anne Hidalgo, Mayor of Paris, “is contrary to the environmental and social ambitions of Paris, which supports responsible and sustainable local retail.” (source: Ansa.it)

BHV owner Frédéric Merlin responded firmly to the criticism, calling the partnership with Shein “the beginning of a new adventure” that combines e-commerce and traditional retail (source: The Guardian). According to him, the products sold in the store are manufactured by Shein itself (“made by Shein in Shein factories”) and are not solely third-party suppliers—a detail that could influence liability assessments.

Things We Don’t Know

There doesn’t appear to be an official French statement stating, “We allowed the physical opening because…” The explanations are drawn primarily from Shein’s statements.
It’s unclear whether the business license for the physical store comes with special conditions or whether there are specific monitoring agreements with local authorities.
It’s not yet clear how future legislation or French government action will impact that physical store (for example, inspections, restrictions, sanctions).
It’s unclear to what extent the physical opening is seen as a “loophole” with respect to online regulations (one possibility); there are no sources that explicitly state this.

Why aren’t Primark and Uniqlo receiving the same pressure as Shein?

Not all major “low-cost” clothing brands are receiving the same public and political pressure that Shein is currently experiencing, as the comparison with Primark and Uniqlo demonstrates. Both brands are present and expanding in France: Primark has announced a €200 million investment in France and Spain to expand its retail network by 2026 and has some of the most profitable stores in the French market; Uniqlo, for its part, continues to strengthen its presence with flagship stores, such as the renovated one in the Paris Opera district, and a large and stable network.

The reason these brands aren’t experiencing the same pressure as Shein?

• Different business models: Primark and Uniqlo operate primarily through established physical stores; they don’t rely on ultra-low-cost imports shipped individually from non-EU countries, as Shein does. This makes them less vulnerable to certain anti-import regulations or micro-parcel taxes.
• Clearer regulation: Many of the measures proposed by France (and other countries)—such as the tax on low-cost parcels—are aimed primarily at cross-border e-commerce, not at brick-and-mortar retailers with established chains.
• Visible and local presence: Having physical stores implies local responsibility, European-wide inventory management, and more direct control, elements that can make their presence more acceptable (politically and socially) compared to an ultra-fast, digital-only player.
• Sustainability and image strategy: Uniqlo, in particular, focuses heavily on “LifeWear” and an image of quality, functionality, and durability, which can mitigate criticism of “disposable” fashion. Primark, despite being “fast fashion,” has a very different model from Shein, with different margins and operating methods. So does greenwashing make a difference?

Primark e Uniqlo non sono però completamente fuori dal radar: l’UE ha richiamato tutti i grandi retailer, compresi questi due marchi, a maggiore trasparenza sulla tracciabilità e sulle performance ambientali attraverso il nuovo quadro normativo del Green Deal, dal Digital Product Passport al divieto di greenwashing e claim ambientali vaghi. La differenza è che, pur essendo criticati per il modello fast fashion, Primark e Uniqlo rientrano in una struttura regolatoria già conosciuta e gestita dall’Europa, mentre Shein rappresenta una sfida nuova: un “gigante digitale” che accelera più velocemente delle norme che cercano di incasellarlo.

Primark and Uniqlo aren’t completely off the radar, however: the EU has called on all major retailers, including these two brands, to increase transparency on traceability and environmental performance through the new Green Deal regulatory framework, from the Digital Product Passport to the ban on greenwashing and vague environmental claims. The difference is that, despite being criticized for their fast fashion model, Primark and Uniqlo fall within a regulatory framework already known and managed by Europe, while Shein represents a new challenge: a “digital giant” that is accelerating faster than the regulations that seek to pigeonhole it.

Reflections

The Shein case is emblematic of the fact that the transition to more sustainable fashion is not linear and full of contradictions. On the one hand, France seems to declare “enough with low-cost fast fashion,” while on the other, it accepts—without apparent resistance—the physical arrival of one of the protagonists of the model it seeks to limit.

What lessons can we learn?
Legislation may lag behind the market. Anti-fast fashion regulations, import taxes, and restrictions on misleading discounts are still being implemented. Meanwhile, fast fashion brands are expanding.
The “online” vs. “offline” model creates arbitrage: a physical store may appear more respectable or at least more visible, and therefore perhaps “less risky” in the eyes of authorities, than an e-commerce site shipping low-cost packages from abroad.
Public policies can clash with local economic interests (department stores, employment, customer traffic). This can lead to compromises or seemingly contradictory choices.
Finally, it’s a reminder: consistency between political statements and concrete actions is difficult. The effort towards sustainable fashion requires not only regulations, but also control tools, transparency, and perhaps alternative sales models that aren’t just “faster, cheaper.”

On October 14, 2025, the Commission fined three major luxury brands—Gucci, Chloé, and Loewe—a total of €157 million (approximately US$182 million) for restrictive practices regarding retail price revaluation.

According to the Commission, the three brands imposed conditions on their independent retailers that limited their pricing autonomy (both online and in-store), defining maximum discounts, predetermined sales periods, or even prohibiting certain discounts.

Gucci received the highest fine (approximately €119.7 million), Chloé about €19.7 million, and Loewe €18 million. The fines were reduced thanks to the brands’ cooperation with investigators.

Why it matters

• For the first time in the luxury fashion sector, the Commission highlights that price-control practices can constitute a violation of European antitrust rules, even when they concern recognized brands.
• This action confirms that the fashion sector is not excluded from the EU’s stringent focus on transparency, fair competition, and corporate responsibility.
• It comes at a time when the EU itself is simultaneously pushing for stricter rules on sustainable fashion, ethics, supply chain transparency, and anti-greenwashing practices. See, for example, the new rules on calculating the environmental footprint of clothing and footwear.

Implications for sustainable and ethic fashion

For a site like Dress ECOde, which focuses on sustainable and ethical fashion, this case offers useful insights.

A. Fair competition = part of sustainability.

Truly sustainable fashion isn’t just about materials, production, waste, or working conditions, but also about fair business practices. When a brand limits retailers’ pricing freedom, it can lead to higher costs for consumers and influence intense competition that can spur more eco-friendly or ethical alternatives. Compliance with competition rules is therefore an integral part of overall responsibility.

B. Trasparenza e responsabilità Transparency and responsibility

This case reinforces the message that companies must be responsible on multiple fronts—not just environmental and social aspects, but also governance, distribution channels, and commercial policies. Consumers focused on sustainable fashion are increasingly sensitive to these aspects.

C. Opportunity for sustainable brands

Brands that adopt rigorous criteria for production, material selection, working conditions, and transparent distribution can gain a competitive advantage. In a scenario where big names are under pressure from authorities like the Commission, the opportunity for ethical/sustainable brands to differentiate themselves with credibility emerges.

D. What consumers should ask themselves

• Is the brand transparent about its sales and resale policies?

• Are there any conditions imposed on retailers that could limit discounts or independent decisions?
• Does the brand demonstrate responsibility beyond “just” sustainable materials, including pricing and distribution practices?

Curiosities about the three brands and the context

Here are some lesser-known facts that provide context for the three fashion houses involved:

• Gucci: Part of the French group Kering. Gucci has previously faced controversies related to diversity, representation, and inclusivity in its campaigns. The fact that the highest fine was imposed on Gucci highlights the extent to which even high-end luxury brands are held accountable for behind-the-scenes practices.Chloé: A French brand known for its feminine and cool-chic style. Chloé’s fine was “only” the second of the three, but it was significant. In official statements, Chloé has already stated that it has strengthened its compliance and internal competition training following the Commission’s notification.Loewe: A Spanish brand, part of the LVMH group. Often perceived as a luxury boutique, the fine highlights that even brands that are perhaps less mainstream than Gucci are not “safe.” Choosing to collaborate allowed the fine to be reduced.

The broader context – This decision comes as the EU tightens regulations on fashion and textiles, for example, the new Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) for clothing and footwear, presented in June 2025.

An interesting connection – Although the case is primarily about competition and price, for the consumer focused on “sustainable fashion,” it’s a reminder: a brand’s reputation for sustainability/plastics/waste/supplier verification can coexist with less transparent business practices. It’s about considering sustainability holistically: it’s not just about “more ethical materials,” but includes business practices, transparency, and governance.

Conclusion

The European Commission’s fine against Gucci, Chloé, and Loewe marks a turning point: it demonstrates that even luxury brands cannot ignore the rules of competition, and that sustainability in fashion requires attention to every aspect—from fiber to distribution, from price to product durability.
For readers interested in ethical and sustainable fashion, this is a useful reminder: simply choosing “eco” isn’t enough to make a garment labeled “recycled” or “green”—it’s essential to verify the brand’s entire history. Dress ECOde’s informative role aims to guide informed consumers and brands toward truly sustainable, ethical, and transparent choices.

However, the recent scandal involving Loro Piana—a historic Italian cashmere brand under investigation for labor exploitation—undermines this belief.

And it’s not an isolated case. Max Mara, Dior, Armani, Valentino are among other luxury brands recently implicated in cases of poor labor conditions. It points to a deeper issue. In this article-podcast, we explore the phenomenon of luxurywashing—the construction of a “green and ethical” image that masks inconsistent practices, even in the luxury sector.

 What are the most common greenwashing tactics used by luxury brands?

• Launching capsules or limited collections (e.g., made from organic or recycled materials), while the core production remains unsustainable.

• Promoting carbon neutrality through offsetting (tree planting, carbon credits) without significantly reducing internal emissions.

• Misleading use of self-declared certifications or partnerships with “eco-like” organizations, which often cover only a tiny fraction of the supply chain. Some certifications are not independent or not applied across the full product line.

• Organizing “green” events (like carbon-neutral fashion shows) to build an image of commitment without altering overall production.

• Investing in sustainability initiatives to boost ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) scores, while the core business model stays untouched—enhancing a green image without real change.

Data That Debunk the Myth

Antoine Arnault, son of Bernard Arnault, owner of LVMH, publicly stated that luxury goods are “sustainable by nature.” He made this statement at a fashion sustainability summit—but is it true?

A study funded by Primark and conducted by the University of Leeds in collaboration with Hubbub (2022–2024) revealed that luxury garments do not last longer than fast fashion ones. Some of the most expensive items scored from average to poor in durability tests. For instance, a men’s T-shirt priced between £36 and £45 ranked 9th out of 17 items. So price is not a reliable indicator of durability or structural quality.

The Business of Fashion Sustainability Index 2023 gave failing scores to most luxury brands due to a lack of transparency in their supply chains—especially concerning labor conditions, raw material traceability, and waste management. There’s no clear evidence that luxury brands are more sustainable than fast fashion brands. LVMH is not more sustainable than H&M or Inditex (owner of Zara, Pull&Bear, Bershka).

The point isn’t just whether materials are organic or emissions are offset. The issue runs deeper.

Luxury traditionally aligns with extrinsic values like wealth, prestige, and social status—values that speak more to “appearing” than “being.” In contrast, sustainability is rooted in intrinsic values like social justice, respect for the environment, and genuine connection with the natural world. There’s a clear tension between two worldviews: luxury as a symbol of individual success vs. sustainability as a collective commitment to the common good. According to Holmes and Bendell, luxury brands risk contradiction when they try to embrace sustainability: how can they promote moderation, justice, and balance with nature while simultaneously feeding desires tied to power, exclusivity, and privilege?

So when a luxury brand claims to be sustainable, the uncomfortable question becomes: is it really shifting paradigms, or just dressing up old values in green? The risk is that sustainability becomes a tool to reinforce the very extrinsic values it should be challenging.

Thus, luxury remains accessible to a few, while the environmental and social impact falls on the many. Sustainability gets stripped of its authentic meaning—reduced to a marketing tool to ennoble what is far from noble.

The Gap Between Image and Reality

The problem with luxurywashing isn’t just inconsistency—it’s the narrative being crafted. Evocative language, emotional campaigns, “eco” capsules or sustainable limited editions become distractions when the core production remains opaque and sometimes illegal. I remember that during the Sustainable Business Models in the Luxury Sector course, a student presented Loro Piana as an example of a sustainable brand, swayed by online sources praising its positive impact. In the past, Loro Piana was accused of building its sustainable narrative around vicuña (a luxury fiber from a camelid native to the Andes), without offering transparent data on the real socio-environmental impact or benefits returned to the Andean communities involved.

In the Loro Piana case (a brand owned by LVMH), the world’s finest cashmere was sewn by underpaid workers forced to endure exhausting shifts in unsafe environments.

Spending €2,000 on a sweater and discovering that the person who made it earns €4 per hour working up to 90 hours a week calls into question the very meaning of value.

Numerous luxury brands—including Prada, Hugo Boss, and Dolce & Gabbana—were named in a recent Clean Clothes Campaign report on labor conditions in the so-called Euro-Mediterranean textile cluster, an area that includes countries like Croatia, Moldova, and Albania.

The report highlights that in Croatia, for instance, some Hugo Boss suppliers pay wages that amount to just one-third of what would be considered a living wage. A Hugo Boss spokesperson responded by stating that the company requires suppliers to comply with national minimum wage laws. However, they also said that wage negotiations are a matter for local employers, employees, and national institutions—while expressing openness to “constructive dialogue.”

According to the report, Germany and Italy are key destinations for these garments produced in the Euro-Med cluster. It’s not just fast fashion brands like Primark and Tesco sourcing there, but also luxury labels like Versace, Dolce & Gabbana, Armani, and Max Mara.

Clean Clothes Campaign noted that none of the high-end brands mentioned responded officially to the allegations. Hugo Boss, which received an advance copy of the Stitched Up study, did not provide specific statements on its findings (source: The Guardian).

The luxury sector may appear to be outside the system of offshoring production to cut labor costs and boost profits. But behind the façade of craftsmanship, design, quality, uniqueness, and sustainability—prominently displayed in online reports—lie the same factories and the same labor conditions.

Comments on Reddit include statements like:

“”Luxury brands don’t just sell you a product, they sell you an identity. If you admit that this identity is built on exploitation, the whole system collapses.”

“What bothers me the most: if I could afford to pay a markup of several thousand dollars on a bag, I’d want to be absolutely certain that a proportional part of that money goes toward guaranteeing world-class production and labor conditions. (…) At Dior bag prices, there’s just no excuse. (…) That luxury markup should extend to every stage of the production process. (…) Another thing that bothers me: almost all handbag brands, whether luxury or mid-range, have a section on their website dedicated to sustainability initiatives and green certifications for their factories… but VERY few (and almost none among the luxury ones) provide information about ethical working conditions for people.”

The fortress of luxury—behind which brands have hidden choices increasingly similar to fast fashion—is crumbling.

New Rules on the Horizon

The good news is that things are beginning to change. The European Commission is introducing new regulations, such as those from the Green Claims Directive, which will require brands to provide verifiable evidence of their environmental and social claims. It will be harder to hide behind vague slogans or unclear certifications.

In the meantime, reports like the one from BSI (British Standards Institution) suggest that brands must restructure their entire supply chain, not just their communications, if they want to avoid a collapse of consumer trust.

What Can We Do?

As consumers, we have more power than we think. We can:

• Ask for transparency: demand that brands clearly state where and by whom a product was made.

• Rely on independent rating tools (like Good On You).

• Choose second-hand or small brands with short, traceable supply chains.

• Be wary of vague claims like “green,” “eco,” or “responsible” that lack supporting data.

What Kind of Luxury Do We Believe In?

The Loro Piana case is just the latest crack in a system built on the myth of spotless excellence. But excellence without respect for human rights and the environment is just a façade.

There are businesses trying to redefine the meaning of luxury—through slow gestures, conscious craftsmanship, and transparent supply chains. And yet, even they must navigate a system that rewards exclusivity more than justice.

So, what kind of luxury do we believe in?

Perhaps in one that doesn’t need to appear ethical—because it truly is. In the luxury of small brands. The ones that don’t shout, but whisper. Measured not in status, but in time, care, and justice. That don’t promise perfection, but at least try not to build their value on the silence of those sewing in the shadows. There’s a luxury that doesn’t need to seem ethical, because it truly is. Are we ready to recognize it, even if it doesn’t have a famous logo?

When fashion forgets who sews it

In the 1960s and 1970s, female textile workers in Reggio Emilia went on strike in major factories like Confit, Bloch, Maska, Max Mara, and not just for wages. They demanded rights over their bodies, their health, their time. They worked in environments saturated with fibers, standing for hours, with night shifts that left no room for motherhood, life, dignity. Those women, often invisible in the union narratives of the time, brought a new urgency to the heart of the factories: the struggle was not just economic. It was existential.

In cases like Max Mara, the workers demanded recognition of the trade unions and national labor contracts in the sector.

“The request to improve the working environment and to act in defense of health […] represented a significant speech and an autonomous field of mobilization for many women”

from Le lotte delle operaie tessili reggiane, Genere Lavoro Cultura Tecnica

Within textile companies such as the Max Mara Group, workers promoted self-investigations into environmental and health conditions in the workplace. An investigation carried out in collaboration with the Occupational Medicine Center of Guastalla revealed serious critical issues: high temperatures, poor ventilation, noise, textile dust, lack of natural light and forced sedentary positions. The consequences were widespread: gynecological, muscular, visual and psychosomatic disorders such as anxiety and irritability.

Fifty-four years later, the thread seems to have tied itself in the same place.

May 2025. The workers of Manifattura San Maurizio – home of Max Mara production – go on strike. “Here we are stuck in the 80s” – explains Erica Morelli, general secretary of Filctem Cgil Reggio Emilia.

Right there, in the province of Reggio Emilia where the workers had gone on strike, modern workers denounce a production system that seems to have forgotten everything. That imposes frenetic rhythms, pays by piecework in disguise, constantly monitors to produce more and more. That judges them by their bodies – too slow, too fat, “cash cows” – inviting them to exercise at home to lose weight, as they denounced in interviews with Ilaria Mauri of IIl Fatto Quotidiano . A language that degrades, dehumanizes. And behind that language, an organization that exploits silence and the need to bring home a salary.

“They practically pay us by the piece and they also check how many times we go to the toilette, but we are all women, we have our periods: it’s inhumane”

It’s not just Max Mara. In the same days, at the end of May, the Carabinieri of the Modena Station and the Modena Labor Inspectorate Unit raid a textile factory in Cognento, and discover Chinese workers hired illegally, underpaid, and without rights. The Chinese manager was arrested.

In the fall of 2024, between Reggio Emilia and Modena, an operation against gangmastering coordinated by the Reggio Prosecutor’s Office leads to the seizure of seven factories in the manufacturing and clothing packaging sector. Serious conditions of exploitation, violations of health and safety regulations, and precarious and degrading housing conditions come to light.

Similar cases emerge in the North:

• In Tezze sul Brenta (Vicenza), a raid by the Guardia di Finanza: laboratory seized, dormitories created in warehouses, dangerous systems (Il Giornale di Vicenza)
• In Serravalle a Po (Mantova), the local inspectorate discovered illegal workers and disregarded safety regulations. The Public Prosecutor’s Office of Mantova reported a 29-year-old of Chinese origin (Gazzetta di Mantova)
• In Cabiate (Como), a Chinese textile laboratory that produces on behalf of the best Italian brands in the fashion sector has been closed (Il Giorno)
• In Milan and Monza, other laboratories are fined. Seven Chinese owners are reported for gangmastering. Irregular and clandestine labor in exploitative conditions. Completely disregarded are also the rules on safety in the workplace and there (il Cittadino Monza e Brianza). In Milan, a dormitory factory where workers were paid 4 euros an hour to work up to 90 hours a week, 7 days a week, has been closed (Ansa).

The labels are Italian, the conditions are not.

But the indignation quickly dies down, like an Instagram story.

Yet these stories scream. They scream of a return of gangmastering in new forms. They scream that even in “high-end” fashion, human dignity can be sewn away, stitch after stitch, in the name of productivity. The hands that make the perfect coat never appear on the catwalk. But they are there, worn, checked, tired. And now they finally speak.

Is this the “spring-summer collection” of Italian fashion? Denigrated bodies, ignored voices, elegance based on the sacrifice of others. The fashion industry – including luxury – is woven of contradictions: beautiful images and threads of silence.

Sustainability cannot be an empty word on tags. It must be a public commitment: environmental, economic, human. If there is something to remember today, it is this: behind a thousand-euro coat, there is the temperature of squeezed bodies. If we want to talk about the right fashion, let’s start with those who sew that fashion.

A few thoughts

• The female body as a “measure” of productivity: that “cash cow” is the extreme path of industrial body-shaming, where the body becomes an instrument, not a subject.
• The model of the invisible chain: clothes that cost thousands of euros are born from an inhumane mechanism of gangmastering, illegal ramifications that reveal the dark soul of the fashion supply chain.
• • From exploitation to rebellion: from the struggles of the textile workers of the 70s – who put the issues of gender and health on the table – today raising one’s head is a political, social, aesthetic need: beauty cannot ignore dignity.

What is urgently needed?

Cosetex has revolutionized the industry by transforming what was once considered waste into new opportunities: natural padding, high-quality yarns and collaborations with the denim world. Silvio tells us about the environmental benefits of silk, such as its ability to capture CO2 and the fact that it does not produce plastic microfibers.

But what does “silk waste” really mean? How did silk end up at the Premier Vision denim fair? And how can you give new life to a fine material without waste?

Let’s discover together the path of Cosetex, the materials that you can also use in your collections between tradition and innovation, and its contribution to a more conscious fashion.

Introduction

(0:00) Introduction

• Presentation by Silvio Mandelli and Cosetex
• Silk between luxury and innovation

The world of silk and the role of Cosetex

(1:22) What is silk waste?

• Difference between continuous and discontinuous thread
• How silk waste becomes reusable materials

(4:10) Origin of silk and the role of Cosetex

• The history of the company and the Italian roots in silk production
• The evolution of the silk market: from Italy to China and India

(6:09) The choice of suppliers

• The importance of quality and tradition in the selection of raw materials
• Relations with Chinese and Indian producers

Sustainability and innovation in silk

(7:35) Sustainability in the processing of silk waste

• Recovery of waste and its reuse
• The environmental impact compared to other fibers

The silk market and the challenges of the sector

(16:44) The evolution of the silk market

• Experimentation with silk in different fields
• The relationship between tradition and innovation

(18:57) Innovative applications of silk

• New destinations of use: from padding to technical fabrics
• Collaborations with brands in the fashion sector and home
• Silk at Denim Premiere Vision
• T.Silk

(35:45) The difficulties with companies

• Positioning a niche product
• Educating the market on materials

(38:35) Regulations in the textile sector

• How laws affect smaller companies in the sector

The future

(45:11) The future of sustainable fashion and Cosetex

• Evolution of silk
• The push from below
• G.Silk

Listen to the episode to enter the fascinating world of silk!

Here’s where you can find Cosetex:

Cosetex – 360-degree silk fiber business

https://www.cosetex.it/ – Insights

T.Silk

https://t.silk.bio/ – presentation and e-commerce

https://t.silk.bio/pages/brevetto-imbottitura-in-seta – 100% Silk padding patent

https://t.silk.bio/blogs/magazine – Blog and information

Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/T.SilkOfficial/

https://www.facebook.com/Cosetex

Instagram

@Cosetex | @tsilkcollection

https://www.instagram.com/tsilkcollection/

https://www.instagram.com/cosetex.official/

Linkedin

@Cosetex

https://www.linkedin.com/company/cosetex-seta

photo: courtesy of Cosetex

Dario tells us about the need for a “gentle revolution” to counter the fast fashion model, in a context in which the economy shifts wealth from many to few without actually creating well-being for humanity. Slow Fiber wants to positively change the paradigm of production, consumption and, therefore, the perception of textiles. Today, in fact, we find ourselves immersed in a consumerist and fast-fashion lifestyle, as Dario states.

Slow Fiber uses a series of KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) to evaluate the companies that join its network. Each aspect of the project is accompanied by measurable criteria, divided into mandatory and optional. These KPIs focus on five pillars: “good”, “healthy”, “clean”, “fair” and “durable”. For example, the “good” criterion requires that companies maintain their original headquarters and do not relocate, while “healthy” refers to the rigorous control of the chemistry used in production. The idea is that no company can be considered in the network if it does not meet all the criteria of these five pillars.

Listen to the episode to find out how current legislation turns into a “rubber wall” for virtuous companies. Furthermore, the concept of Made in Italy is put under the lens in the episode, where it is stated that “it is worth little or nothing” if not accompanied by effective controls. The concern is that products can be labeled as Italian even without respecting quality standards since there are no adequate controls on imports. Fast fashion lobbies heavily influence regulations, making it difficult to protect Italian sustainable practices.

Explore the common ground between food and fashion, discussing localisms and fast consumption/production, and new economic approaches such as “post growth“, more necessary than ever for a sustainable future.

We also reveal how certifications, which certainly help, can be misleading and how powerful fast fashion lobbies resist necessary changes. The European Green Deal could risk turning into a certification label that does not really address environmental issues – and not only that (find out which other important aspect it does not address). The episode highlights how many legislative initiatives tend to preserve the current business model, rather than tearing down an industrial system deemed dangerous. In short, the Green Deal may seem like a positive step, but it could mask an unchanged reality rather than bring about substantial changes.

In this dialogue that invites reflection and action, Dario paints a frank picture of the sector, helps us better understand some dynamics and introduces us to a reality that intends to sow a new way of producing and consuming by involving producers and consumers.

Table of Contents

1. 1. Definition of Slow Fiber (0:36)
   2. The comparison between textiles and agricultural supply chains (1:02)
   3. Problems of the textile supply chain (1:50)
   4. Sustainability in fashion (2:28)
   5. Career change towards textiles (3:34)
   6. Selection of member companies (9:00)
   7. Sustainability criteria and KPIs (11:39)
   8. The paradox and weight of certifications (17:23)
   9. The Slow Fiber audit system (19:06)
   10. The extra something compared to the current legislative model that wants to save both goats and cabbages (21:54)
   11. The need for a slowdown in consumption and a new economic model (24.56)
   12. Awareness-raising activities and demonstrations (34:11)
   13. Greenwashing and regulations (40:25)
   14. Future prospects and innovation (48:11)
   15. AI, blockchain and traceability (50:37)
   16. Made in Italy (53.14)
   17. Values ​​and economic model (53:17)

If you want to learn more, we recommend the Slow Fiber website and Dario’s book:

(The episode is in Italian. In case you would like to have the transcription in English write to us)

The fashion industry, once synonymous with creativity and expression, now grapples with its own demons:

The Dark Side of Fashion

Fashion’s current trajectory is not just concerning—it’s downright alarming. The relentless production of clothing by fast fashion large corporations, not only overwhelms landfills but also poses a significant threat to our oceans, our communities, and our collective conscience. The sheer volume of garments produced by fast fashion giants has reached staggering proportions, overflowing landfills with an abundance of discarded clothes. This waste isn’t confined to developed nations; it seeps into the very fabric of communities across the globe, from bustling urban centres to remote villages. Sadly, western countries ship off their unwanted and disposed garments to developing countries such as Chile (which can be seen from space) and Africa, despite the fact that these nations do not want our clothes. In places like Chile and Africa, landfill sites groan under the weight of this unwanted apparel, serving as grim reminders of fashion’s dark underbelly.

But the environmental toll doesn’t end there.

Synthetic fabrics, common in fast fashion’s inexpensive offerings, release microplastics into our waterways with each wash, contaminating marine ecosystems and endangering aquatic life. These tiny particles, invisible to the naked eye but devastating in their impact, permeate every corner of the ocean, from the depths of the sea to the shores of distant islands, as well as in our very own drinking water.

Yet, perhaps even more harmful than the environmental devastation is the human cost of fashion’s unchecked greed. The historical context of fashion’s migration to developing nations tells a tale of exploitation and disregard for human life. From the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in 1911 in the USA to the Rana Plaza collapse in 2013, tragic events have laid bare the human toll of fashion’s relentless pursuit of profit. Despite modest improvements in safety standards, the underlying issues of exploitation and inequality persist, casting a shadow over the industry’s conscience.

In the face of this mounting crisis, the fashion industry stands at a crossroads. Will it continue down the path of exploitation and environmental destruction, or will it act on the call for change? The choice is clear, and the time to act is now. For the sake of our planet, our communities, and our shared humanity, fashion must undergo a radical transformation—one that prioritizes sustainability, ethics, and compassion above all else.

The Rise of Made-to-Order

Amidst this backdrop of turmoil, a quiet revolution appears to be underway. The made-toorder fashion business model is by no means a new concept, but in our current climate is seemingly making a come-back, offering a fresh start and hopeful vision for the future of fashion. Once confined to the realms of haute couture, made-to-order fashion is gaining traction as a viable alternative to fast fashion’s destructive practices. By producing garments only upon customer request, these brands are challenging the status quo and redefining fashion’s relationship with time, quality, and consumer demand.

Benefits of Made-to-Order

Less Waste
The advantages of made-to-order fashion extend far beyond environmental sustainability. Made-to-order fashion brands create minimal waste and with that are able to prevent overproduction and overconsumption. Naturally, there’s a longer waiting period between ordering and receiving a garment. This serves as a reminder that patience is rewarded and fosters an understanding of the dedication and time invested in crafting clothing. Thus, this approach not only decelerates the pace of production but also moderates our overall expectations of fashion.

Size Inclusivity

Made-to-order fashion business models offer a solution to make fashion more inclusive for individuals who have been historically overlooked and underrepresented in the fashion industry, such as plus-sized individuals or people who have a disability, who have long been overlooked by the fashion industry. By tailoring garments to the customer’s specific preferences, made-to-order clothing offers an abundance of style options for all consumers, empowering them to select clothing that suits their unique body shapes and sizes.

Creating an Emotional Connection to Our Clothes

Perhaps most importantly, made-to-order fashion nurtures a deeper connection between consumers and their clothing. Each garment is instilled with a sense of purpose and intentionality, serving as a testament to the craftsmanship and care that went into its creation. Establishing an emotional connection with our clothing helps us to move away from the throw-away attitude we have adopted in fashion the past few decades and is a much needed direction we need to focus on if we want to make a real change.

Challenges and Opportunities

A few hurdles in made-to-order business models may arise for fashion brands. Firstly, production times tend to stretch longer compared to ready-to-wear items, resulting in extended lead times. This delay can test the patience of customers accustomed to instant gratification. 

Moreover, traditional fashion brands are adept at managing inventory based on forecasts and trends. However, predicting demand becomes a trickier task with made-to-order, potentially leading to frustrating stock outs.

Setting up a made-to-order system demands investments in technology, skilled labour, and infrastructure. Initial setup costs can mount, and profit margins might thin out compared to mass-produced items.

Dealing with consumer expectations adds another layer of complexity. Customization options, pricing variations, and delivery timelines need careful management. Balancing these diverse demands while ensuring profitability is indeed a tightrope walk.

Yet, within these challenges several opportunities emerge. Made-to-order fashion inherently champions sustainability, aligning perfectly with the growing consumer demand for eco-friendly alternatives. By producing items only upon order, excess inventory and unsold products typical to ready-to-wear fashion are significantly reduced.

Made-to-order production can also offer benefits in terms of cashflow, ensuring sales are made before going ahead with production, thus avoiding the lag between spending and payment. This makes the model more manageable for launching and sustaining a business, eliminating the necessity for external investment.

Moreover, this model offers a wealth of data, enabling a deeper understanding of individual consumer preferences and needs, thus improving inventory planning. Another tool to ease adaptation to demand fluctuations and simultaneously mitigate the risk of product delivery delays involves virtual prototyping, such as CLO-3D and other technologies enabling the automation and digitization of garment design and production processes.

Embracing a made-to-order model can set your brand apart in a saturated market. It signals innovation and customer-centricity, drawing in consumers who prioritize transparency, sustainability, and uniqueness.

Conclusions

As consumers increasingly prioritize sustainability and ethics in their purchasing decisions, the fashion industry finds itself at a crossroads. The rise of made-to-order models offers a compelling vision for a more sustainable and equitable future—one where fashion is not just a commodity, but a form of self-expression and creativity. By embracing these models, fashion brands can not only reduce their environmental footprint but also foster deeper connections with consumers and drive positive change in the industry.

The path forward may be challenging, but the potential rewards are boundless—a future where fashion is not just beautiful, but truly sustainable. If you have any inquiries or wish to explore made-to-order production further, don’t hesitate to schedule an appointment with us. We can discuss your needs and determine if our services align with your requirements.

Inge Duiker

The French National Assembly has unanimously adopted the bill aimed at reducing the environmental impact of the textile industry, which will have to continue its legislative process in the Senate. Intended to curb “fast fashion”, the text provides: 

• the ban on advertising for the sale of clothing at rock-bottom prices
• the decision to define fast fashion based on a set number of items placed on the market annually
• an enhanced environmental penalty to make fast fashion products less attractive

Furthermore, companies that sell disposable fashion online will have to display messages near the price on their website that:

• raise awareness of the environmental impact of their products;
• encourage sobriety, reuse, repair or recycling.

In case of violation, companies will incur a financial penalty (up to 15,000 euros).

It’s not a tax

It is incorrectly called a tax but it is a bonus/malus system: the products with the worst environmental impact will not be able to benefit from the bonuses but will be subject to dissuasive sanctions starting from 2025. The ecological penalty will be over product:

• 5 euros in 2025
• 6 euros in 2026
• 7 euros in 2027
• 8 euro in 2028
• 9 euros in 2029
• 10 euros in 2030.

These sanctions should help finance bonuses for the benefit of virtuous companies in the textile sector.

Taxes are generally imposed by governments as mandatory payments on individuals, businesses, or other entities to fund government spending and public services.

Sanctions, on the other hand, are associated with punitive measures for violations of laws or regulations.

While they might work similarly to taxes in terms of their financial impact on businesses, they are not exactly the same.

Will the measures be effective?

From a macroeconomic perspective, the effectiveness of a bill targeting fast fashion companies depends on various factors, including the specific provisions of the bill, the reactions of consumers and businesses, and broader market dynamics. Here are some considerations:

• Elasticity of demand: If consumers are highly responsive to changes in prices or advertising restrictions, then the penalties and advertising bans imposed by the bill could lead to a significant decrease in demand for fast fashion products. However, if demand for fast fashion is relatively inelastic, meaning consumers are less sensitive to price changes, the impact of the bill may be limited.
• Substitution effects: Companies operating in the fast fashion industry may respond to the penalties and advertising bans by shifting their production strategies or diversifying their product offerings. For example, they may focus on producing higher-quality, longer-lasting clothing or explore alternative business models such as sustainable fashion lines. The extent to which they can successfully adapt will influence the effectiveness of the bill as a deterrent.
• Market competition: The fast fashion industry is highly competitive, with numerous companies vying for market share. If only one country implements penalties and advertising bans, companies may simply shift their operations to other countries with more lenient regulations. The effectiveness of the bill could be enhanced if it is part of a coordinated effort across multiple countries or regions.
• Innovation and technological advancements: Fast fashion companies may invest in research and development to find ways to mitigate the environmental impact of their products or improve their sustainability credentials. This could involve innovations in materials, production processes, or supply chain management. The bill may incentivize such innovation by creating market opportunities for companies that can offer more sustainable alternatives.
• Enforcement and government support: The effectiveness of the bill will depend on the French government’s ability to enforce its provisions and provide support to companies in transitioning to more sustainable practices. Effective enforcement mechanisms, together with financial incentives and support for innovation, could help ensure compliance and promote industry-wide change.

From a microeconomics perspective, the sanctions imposed by the fast fashion law can have different effects on the behavior of individual companies and consumers in the fashion market. Here are some of the possible effects:

• Reduced fast fashion production: Financial sanctions and advertising bans can make it less cost-effective for companies to produce and market fast fashion products. As a result, companies may reduce the quantity of such products offered on the market, instead focusing on more sustainable and higher quality product lines.
• Incentives for innovation and differentiation: Penalties can push companies to invest in research and development to develop more sustainable materials and production processes. This could lead to increased innovation in the fashion industry and the creation of differentiated products that stand out for their sustainability and quality.
• Increased retail prices: If companies pass on the costs of sanctions to consumers through retail price increases, this could reduce demand for fast fashion products. Consumers may be willing to pay more for more sustainable or higher quality products, but they may also reduce their overall spending on clothing due to higher prices.
• Changes in consumer preferences: Sanctions and advertising bans can influence consumer perceptions and preferences towards fast fashion products. Reducing advertising exposure to such products could lead consumers to seek more sustainable alternatives or to evaluate brands that promote more ethical and responsible practices differently.
• Consequences for small businesses: The sanctions could disproportionately affect small businesses operating in the fast fashion sector who may have limited resources to comply with the new regulations. This could lead to a reduction in competition in the sector and favor large companies that have greater financial resources to adapt to the new rules.

Pros and Cons

Pros:

1. Environmental benefits: By imposing penalties and advertising bans on fast fashion products, the bill encourages companies to adopt more sustainable practices, such as reducing carbon emissions, minimizing waste, and using eco-friendly materials. This can lead to long-term environmental benefits, including reduced pollution and resource conservation.
2. Market correction: Fast fashion has been criticized for its negative social and environmental impacts, such as exploitative labor practices and excessive consumption of natural resources. The bill provides a mechanism for correcting market failures by internalizing the external costs associated with fast fashion, thereby promoting more socially responsible behavior among companies.
3. Innovation and job creation: The bill incentivizes investment in research and development to develop sustainable alternatives to traditional fast fashion products. This can stimulate innovation in the fashion industry and create new opportunities for businesses that specialize in eco-friendly materials, technologies, and production processes. Additionally, the shift towards sustainable fashion may create new jobs in areas such as sustainable design.
4. Enhanced competitiveness: Adopting sustainable practices can enhance the competitiveness of French fashion companies in both domestic and international markets. As consumer preferences shift towards more environmentally friendly products, companies that prioritize sustainability may gain a competitive edge and attract more customers. This can contribute to the long-term viability and success of the French fashion industry.

Cons:

1. Cost implications: Compliance with the bill’s provisions, such as penalties for fast fashion products and restrictions on advertising, may increase production costs for companies. These additional costs could be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, potentially reducing consumer purchasing power and overall demand for clothing. This may have negative implications for economic growth and employment in the fashion industry.
2. Market distortions: The bill may create distortions in the fashion market by favoring companies that can afford to invest in sustainability initiatives over smaller or less financially secure businesses. This could lead to market concentration and reduced competition, potentially limiting consumer choice and innovation in the long run. Moreover, if the penalties disproportionately affect domestic companies compared to international competitors, it may result in market inefficiencies and trade imbalances.
3. Supply chain complexities: Implementing sustainable practices in the fashion industry requires collaboration and coordination across complex global supply chains. Companies may face challenges in sourcing sustainable materials, ensuring ethical labor practices, and maintaining quality standards throughout the production process. This could lead to supply chain disruptions, increased administrative burdens, and higher operational risks for businesses.
4. Unintended consequences: The bill’s provisions may have unintended consequences that negatively impact certain stakeholders, such as workers in the fast fashion industry or consumers with limited purchasing options. For example, restrictions on advertising could affect the livelihoods of workers employed in marketing and advertising roles, while penalties on fast fashion products could disproportionately affect low-income consumers who rely on affordable clothing options.

Shein’s reaction

Next steps

The issue of thresholds, which would define disposable fashion, has come under criticism for being left to the government, with fears it may not be implemented effectively.

Furthermore, the introduction of social criteria to ensure respect for human rights in clothing production has raised debate, with some supporters citing previous scandals such as Rana Plaza. However, others have warned that ultra-fast fashion may not be the right context for establishing global rules against social dumping.

The minister of ecological transition has promised to launch a mission to define social and ecological criteria in the next two months. After being adopted at first reading by the National Assembly, the bill will then have to continue its legislative journey in the Senate. Meanwhile, France’s environment minister has announced plans to propose an EU-wide ban on used clothing exports, seeking to tackle the growing problem of textile waste.

Sources: LCP Assemblée Nationale; Vie Publique; Reuters