I’m thrilled, I must admit, when I discover that true, curious, and profound research has gone into a collection. From a book, a journey, a subculture, a historical moment that someone has chosen to celebrate. When I understand that those fabrics, those shapes, those colors weren’t chosen randomly or because they looked good together, but because they wanted to say something, well, a whole new world opens up to me: fashion stops being an industry and goes back to being a language.

Let’s talk about the depth some designers bring to their research before even designing a collection, with a designer who has this approach in her DNA and applies it in an even more radical context: that of upcycling, where every piece of recovered fabric already carries a story to be heard before a new one can be told.

I met her during the Upcycling Hero call, where we searched for designers who would save and reinvent over 200 secondhand garments destined for the waste stream. Since then, we’ve been involved in the most daring initiatives. In this episode of the Pop-Up Green podcast, we invited Gaia Schiavetti of Restyled by G to explore the theme of dense fashion, the kind that, behind the aesthetics of its creations, more or less visibly conceals a more or less powerful message to communicate.

Dance, the sociology of fashion, fashion styling, social messages, journalism, subcultures: these are just some of the stimuli that inspire Gaia to continually search for meaning to embed in the stitching of her garments. Because expressing something through fashion doesn’t arise from designing a single piece or a single collection: for Gaia, it’s a modus operandi, and probably also a way of life, with which to continually advance her brand.

From a phrase written on a boy’s jacket in Camden Town, Gaia tells us about an important insight for her work: the message of a culture or subculture continues to exist beyond aesthetics and mainstream diffusion if it represents a true lifestyle.

We ask Gaia to discuss the commercial appropriation of subcultures, the subject of her thesis, citing major brands and learning about the aspects of streetwear style not widely known today. As she talks, we’re transported from the punk streets of London to the African-American neighborhoods of film, highlighting how what we wear is more than just a piece of fabric to cover ourselves and protect us from the climatic seasons.

We also discuss how to conduct research, how it differs from simple inspiration, and whether or not to fall into didacticism without creating soulless collections. We delve into the risks involved: not reaching anyone, not being understood, or, conversely, boring others by explaining a collection’s message too clearly. We ask ourselves: does it make sense to communicate even if the message doesn’t get through?

You don’t need a background in sociology to create fashion imbued with meaning or a harbinger of messages. Gaia offers us insights and tips  on how we can do so, suggesting stimulating readings.

We offer examples of designers who have communicated or are communicating through fashion shows or collections, as the result of a process of in-depth, unpremeditated research into subcultures, social situations, and hot topics that they experience directly, or not necessarily so closely. One such example illustrates how it can take a moment to go from conveying a culture’s social message to usurping that culture’s intellectual property.

Among the examples, Gaia explains how the Restyled by G brand itself, through the transformation of garments, profoundly communicates something to those who choose it, to those who see it at a fashion show, to those who talk about it in a podcast. She takes us behind the scenes of her work, enriching both fashion enthusiasts and those who create it.

Fashion becomes meaningful when it is rooted in profound, conscious, and responsible cultural research.

Listen to the episode all the way through. If you’re interested in researching your collections without traditional training, listen from minute 60:08 (see the complete table of contents) below).

And if you want to follow Restyled by G, you can find it here:

Website

Instagram

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

00:00 – Intro

03:00 – Gaia and Restyled by G
The approach to fashion: from dance to studies
The identity of Restyled by G

07:25 – Fashion beyond aesthetics: why it’s a cultural language
That writing on the jacket that sparked a powerful intuition
Fashion and lifestyle: subcultures that survive the mainstream
Belonging vs. appropriation
Significance and meaning of objects
Examples of stimuli that lead to profound fashion

15-30 – The commercial appropriation of a culture: when fashion takes without giving back
Gaia’s thesis
Talking about what no one talks about or what everyone talks about?
Streetwear and the Loss of Meaning: From Culture to Commercial Trend, but Also to Icon

26:37 – What Does Cultural Research Mean?
Where Research Begins
Press Releases and the Tangibility of Collection Concepts

31:08 – Inspiration, Research, and Appropriation
Differences Between Concepts and Inevitable Risks
Voluntariness and Involuntary Consent
Marketable
Inclusiveness and Representative Casting

38:02 – Designers Who Communicate Through Collections
Fashion Shows as Narration, Not Just a Product
Fashion as a Vehicle of Information Beyond the News
The Case of “From Carrier of a Social Message to Usurper of Intellectual Property”

50:48 – Restyled by G and Research
Cultural Message of Upcycled Clothing
An Example of Transformation That Speaks of the Transition from Tradition to the Future, from Constraint to Freedom
The Brand That Speaks of the Italian Cosmic Youth of the 1980s
The Importance of Research for Aesthetics and Process
Criticism of Luxury Fashion
The Packaging
Customizing Services

60:06 – Who’s Behind Restyled
Brand Values
Who is Responsible for Production

60:08 – Building Meaningful Fashion Even Without a Sociology Background
Texts and References to Start With
Too Didactic or Too Cryptic
Ethical, Aesthetic, and Narrative Choices
Is It Worth It Even If It Doesn’t Reach Anyone?
The New Own

Photos: courtesy of Restyled by G

From Shein to Zara: What’s Really Changed—and What Hasn’t

In 2026, fast fashion isn’t dead, but it’s under pressure like never before.

In recent years—and with increasing intensity in recent months—the industry has entered a phase of systemic scrutiny: regulatory, media, and cultural. Yet, despite investigations, accusations of greenwashing, and new European regulations, the major players continue to grow, adapting faster than the criticism they receive.

The two faces of fast fashion: under accusation, but expanding

Brands like Shein and Temu have redefined the speed of the system, taking it to the next level: ultra-fast production, extremely low prices, and global digital distribution. Their model—often referred to as ultra-fast fashion—has attracted the attention of European authorities, particularly for issues related to transparency, product safety, and commercial practices.

At the same time, historic giants like Zara, H&M, and Primark continue to dominate retail, maintaining high volumes and competitive margins while striving to reposition themselves in terms of sustainability.

Greenwashing: From Perception to Legal Issue

In recent years, greenwashing has gone from an ethical criticism to a legal issue.

Several independent reports and investigations (including those by the Changing Markets Foundation and other European organizations) have highlighted significant discrepancies between brands’ “green” communication and the reality of the materials used.

A telling finding concerns so-called sustainable collections: large-scale analyses have shown that some “eco” lines feature a high percentage of synthetic fibers. Specifically:

Some collections labeled as sustainable contained up to 70% or more synthetic materials;
in several cases, the use of polyester was even higher than in standard collections;
only a marginal share of the garments analyzed (about 6%) included recycled synthetic materials, often derived from PET bottles (source: Changing Markets Foundation).
The critical point is structural: synthetic fibers—even when recycled—remain fossil-based and present significant limitations in terms of true circularity. Their widespread use therefore contradicts the “green” narrative promoted by brands.

This evidence has helped open investigations and strengthen regulatory pressure in Europe.

Europe: towards a strict regulation

The European Union is accelerating regulatory action, with measures that directly impact the fast fashion model:

• Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (updated): aims to limit vague or misleading environmental claims;
• Green Claims Directive (in the process of being implemented): will require companies to scientifically substantiate sustainability claims;
• Sustainable and Circular Textile Strategy: introduces requirements for durability, recyclability, and transparency;
• Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): brands will be increasingly responsible for the end-of-life of products.

Some European countries are also considering or introducing specific measures against ultra-fast fashion, including targeted taxes and advertising restrictions.

At the EU Environment Council, Germany, France, and the Netherlands called for a coordinated European approach to address the sector’s environmental impacts, emphasizing how the ultra-low-cost, ultra-high-frequency production of clothing significantly contributes to resource consumption, emissions, and product end-of-life crises. Germany, in particular, has urged the European Commission to introduce more stringent requirements within the Ecodesign Regulation, including criteria on durability, recyclability, and recycled content, as well as strengthening extended producer responsibility for textiles. The stated goal is to correct a structural competitive distortion: according to the German position, the production of very low-cost disposable garments should no longer represent a market advantage, while online platforms and cross-border sales models should be subject to the same environmental and compliance standards applied to European manufacturers.

France: The first systematic attack on ultra-fast fashion

The turning point comes from Paris. At the end of June 2026, the French Parliament approved an unprecedented law against ultra-fast fashion, targeting platforms like Shein and Temu.

The legislation introduces:

• financial penalties per item (up to approximately €6 in 2026, gradually increasing to €10 by 2030);
• restrictions or bans on advertising and influencer marketing for these players;
• a system based on environmental impact and the logic of overproduction.

It is a historic step: for the first time, a European state directly targets the economic model of ultra-fast fashion.

However, it is also a controversial law. After years of negotiations and lobbying, the final text was scaled back and primarily affects non-European players, largely excluding large groups like Zara and H&M.

Reputation: The New Battlefield

Reputational risk has become a strategic asset. In recent years, several brands have been the subject of:

• legal actions for misleading environmental communications;
• public reporting campaigns;
• investigations into working conditions and the supply chain.

Shein, in particular, has repeatedly been at the center of controversies related to transparency, workers’ rights, and product safety. At the same time, platforms like Temu have quickly entered the radar of European authorities for similar issues.

Even brands like H&M and Zara, despite having more structured sustainability strategies, have been criticized for the gap between declared objectives and actual impact.

Zara, H&M, Mango, and Primark in recent years:

have been criticized for the gap between storytelling and actual impact
have scaled back or reformulated some “green” communications
are investing in alternative materials and traceability

But the model remains unchanged: high turnover, high volumes, competitive prices.

Fast Fashion Lawsuits, Fines, and Charges

Shein’s Paradox: Under Attack… as It Opens Stores

The Shein case perfectly encapsulates the contradictions of the system.

In November 2025, while French authorities initiated proceedings to suspend the platform due to the presence of illegal products, the brand opened its first physical space in the world in Paris.

In the meantime:

• Oltre 100 cause per copia di design
  Shein è uno dei brand più citati per violazione di proprietà intellettuale, con cause da parte di designer indipendenti e marchi come Ralph Lauren e Dr. Martens. Molti casi si chiudono con accordi economici.
• €40 million fine in France (2024–2025)
  Shein has been fined by French authorities for deceptive commercial practices, particularly the use of false discounts and manipulated prices, violating European consumer protection regulations.
• Over €22 million in new fines in France (2026)
  French authorities have imposed additional fines for:
  • lack of transparency on prices and sellers
  • violations of the right of withdrawal
  • absence of environmental information on products
• €1 million fine in Italy for greenwashing (2025)
  The Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) determined that Shein was disseminating vague or misleading environmental claims, especially in its “evoluSHEIN” line, which was presented as sustainable without adequate evidence.
• EU Investigation for Misleading Practices (2025)
  The European Commission has accused Shein of:
  • false discounts
  • manipulative countdowns
  • misleading product information
    possibly violating EU consumer law.
• BEUC Official Complaint for “Dark Patterns” (2025)
  The European consumer organization has reported Shein for using manipulative digital mechanisms designed to drive compulsive purchasing, in violation of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.
• Over 100 Design Copying Cases
  Shein is one of the most frequently cited brands for intellectual property infringement, with lawsuits filed by independent designers and brands such as Ralph Lauren and Dr. Martens. Many cases result in settlements.

Another Shein paradox:

Shein launched a €250 million circularity fund for circular economy initiatives, while simultaneously exceeding those of Zara, H&M, and other major fashion brands. According to the “Fossil Free Fashion Scorecard 2025” analysis by environmental group Stand.earth, Shein increased its absolute emissions by over 170% in just two years. Same brand, two opposing narratives in the same timeframe.

H&M: privacy and greenwashing

• €35 million fine (Germany, 2020)
  H&M was fined by the Hamburg authority for employee privacy violations, after collecting sensitive data (including personal and family information) without consent.
  → One of the largest GDPR cases in the retail sector.
• Accusations of greenwashing (various European investigations)
  H&M has been criticized by authorities and NGOs for:
  misleading “Conscious” labels
  unverifiable environmental communications
  Some of the brand’s online tools have been modified or removed after transparency concerns.

ZARA (Inditex): accusations and disputes

• Design Copying Lawsuits
  Zara has been repeatedly accused of copying designs from independent designers and small brands, resulting in several legal disputes over time (often resolved out of court).
• Criticism over Environmental Claims
  Inditex has also been targeted by NGOs and watchdogs for environmental claims deemed ambiguous or unprovable, as part of European investigations into greenwashing.

BOOHOO: scandals and violations

• Labor Scandal and Investigations in the UK (2020–2021)
  Boohoo was implicated in a case of workers’ rights violations in its supply chain (factories in the UK with wages below the legal minimum).
  → Not a single significant fine, but a case that led to government investigations and a reputational meltdown.
• Accusations of Greenwashing
  Among brands criticized for improperly using “sustainable” claims without verifiable basis.

Temu and the platforms: the new regulatory front

Temu represents acceleration. The global marketplace model—based on extreme volumes, ultra-low prices, and hyper-fragmented supply chains—is now under scrutiny by European authorities for:

• product safety
• information transparency
• compliance with digital regulations

The French law sets a precedent: other countries are considering similar measures, while the European Commission is working on broader instruments to regulate non-EU e-commerce.

TEMU vs. SHEIN: A legal battle between the platforms

• Cross-Suit Lawsuits (USA, 2022–2023)
  Shein accused Temu of improper use of images and content
  Temu accused Shein of anti-competitive practices and supplier intimidation
  → A prime example of aggressive competition in the ultra-fast model.

Key Insight:

• The litigation is not episodic: it is systemic and multi-layered (consumer law, IP, ESG, digital).
  The main accusations focus on three areas:
  1. Greenwashing (false or vague environmental claims)
  2. Consumer manipulation (discounts, UX, dark patterns)
  3. Intellectual property (systematic design copying)
• Fine penalties are rising rapidly → a sign of a regulatory paradigm shift.

Is AI making fast fashion even faster?

The acceleration of fast fashion is no longer just a question of supply chain. It is, increasingly, a question of technological infrastructure.

In recent years, the systematic introduction of artificial intelligence has transformed the operating model of major players—particularly those in ultra-fast fashion—shifting competitive advantage from production to product generation and selection.

Artificial intelligence isn’t simply optimizing fast fashion. It’s changing its underlying operational logic, shifting the focus from the traditional creative cycle to a data-driven system, in which the product is increasingly the result of a predictive process.

The most emblematic case is that of Shein. According to industry analyses, the platform is capable of releasing up to 10,000 new designs per day, while academic studies indicate a capacity of between 2,000 and 10,000 new styles daily, with development cycles reduced to 3–7 days. These numbers do not represent an incremental evolution compared to traditional fast fashion, but a true shift in industrial scale.

This acceleration is driven by intensive use of AI for real-time trend sensing. Proprietary algorithms continuously analyze data from social media, online searches, and purchasing behavior, enabling the identification of emerging microtrends and their rapid translation into products.

The result is a radically different model from the industry’s historical one. It is no longer a linear sequence—design, production, sales—but an iterative, software-driven system:
massive generation → testing → selection → scalability.

It is a cycle that not only responds to demand, but actively helps generate it through the hypertrophy of supply.

A study by the Stanford Graduate School of Business defines this paradigm as “ultra-fresh fashion“: a system based on the extreme frequency of launches and the breadth of supply, capable not only of responding to demand, but of actively creating it. The continuous introduction of new products fuels a sense of permanent novelty that stimulates consumption, reducing the perceived life cycle of garments.

In this context, AI does not so much accelerate physical production—which remains constrained by industrial limits—as it does the speed of decision-making. Companies don’t necessarily produce faster: they decide more quickly what to produce, in what quantities, and when to scale.

This approach is further amplified by the “small batch, rapid test” model: initial micro-lots, often of just a few hundred units, are released to market and monitored in real time. Only products that perform well are rapidly scaled up. Industrial risk is reduced, while variety explodes.

The consequences are also visible on the supply side: platforms like Shein can host hundreds of thousands of items simultaneously, a density impossible to sustain without advanced automation.

Yet this efficiency creates a structural paradox. While AI promises greater precision—and therefore potentially fewer unsold items—it also contributes to intensifying the production-consumption cycle, increasing pressure on resources, supply chains, and waste management systems.

Several independent studies and analyses highlight a structural paradox. While AI can theoretically improve demand forecasting and reduce waste, in practice it tends to increase the variety and frequency of launches, fueling a more intense consumption cycle. The literature on sustainability and AI in fashion also points out that the overall environmental effects depend less on the technology itself and more on companies’ strategic use of it.

In other words, artificial intelligence isn’t simply making fast fashion faster. It’s transforming it into something else: a predictive, adaptive, and hyper-scalable system, in which creativity is subordinated to data and the product becomes a variable optimized in real time.

More than an evolution of fast fashion, it’s a reconfiguration of the relationship between data, desire, and production.

Where is Zara going?

In recent months, Zara has accelerated a transformation that marks a departure from the traditional fast fashion model, while remaining anchored to its core philosophy of speed. The direction is twofold: upgrading its positioning and deeply integrating artificial intelligence.

On the industrial and retail levels, the Inditex group has undertaken a rationalization of its physical network: fewer stores, but larger, more technologically advanced, and strategically located. The number of Zara stores has fallen below 1,500 for the first time in almost 15 years, while the average store size and experiential level of the spaces are increasing.
This evolution is accompanied by a clear attempt to elevate the brand’s perception, including through collaborations with luxury brands and a greater focus on quality and styling.

At the same time, Zara is systematically investing in artificial intelligence, but with a less visible approach than ultra-fast players like Shein. This is what the industry is increasingly calling “quiet AI”: silent integration, distributed throughout the supply chain, geared more toward operational efficiency than technological spectacle.

There are many concrete signs. On the commercial front, Inditex has stated that recent growth is also supported by the use of AI, with sales expected to grow by 2025. On the customer experience front, Zara has introduced tools such as AI-based virtual try-on, already active in dozens of markets, with millions of uses in the first few months: a technology designed not so much to accelerate desire, but to reduce purchasing uncertainty and reduce returns, one of the main hidden costs of e-commerce.

Even more significant is the application of AI in content production and marketing: Zara uses generative systems to create product images from real models, dramatically speeding up campaign times and costs.

The key point is that Zara is not chasing ultra-fast fashion on the terrain of extreme quantity or pure speed. Instead, it is building a hybrid model: less dependent on hyperproduction, more focused on precision, data, and margins.

In this sense, Zara’s “quiet AI” represents a significant evolution: not a visible acceleration of the fashion cycle, but an invisible optimization.

However, an open tension remains: even if AI is used to improve efficiency and forecasting, the ability to react in real time to demand continues to fuel a system based on rapid product rotation.
Zara is changing shape, but it isn’t abandoning the paradigm of speed: it’s simply making it more sophisticated.

The consumer: more aware, but not enough

While awareness is growing, purchasing behavior remains ambivalent.

Price, accessibility, and speed continue to prevail. Fast fashion isn’t just a production model: it’s a response to a market demand that, for now, shows no sign of abating.

Evolution or adaptation?

2026 marks a turning point:

• A European state directly taxes ultra-fast fashion
• The EU systematically investigates global platforms
• Greenwashing enters the legal scope

Yet, the system does not retreat.

Shein continues to grow. Temu expands its presence. Major European groups adapt without changing their structures.

Fast fashion is not in crisis. It is under pressure.

Companies are refining their strategies: more cautious communication, investments in alternative materials, greater attention to regulatory compliance. While the core of the model—fast production, high volumes, low prices—remains intact.

The real turning point will only come when regulation, innovation, and consumer behavior converge.

Until then, the system will continue to do what it has always done: adapt, without truly changing.

Fashion Revolution Week 2026 has chosen Active Collaboration as its theme. We chose to tell this story through episodes in fashion history that demonstrate the power of unity.

There’s an image that endures in the collective imagination of fashion: the designer who creates alone, signs alone, and receives applause alone. A powerful image, built over decades by biographies and documentaries. In reality, there are moments when fashion has truly left its mark on the world. Real changes—those that have shifted standards of beauty, opened the runways to those previously excluded, and built global movements—have arisen every time someone has chosen not to act alone.

This belief is the basis for the Pop-Up Green episode we created as a contribution to Fashion Revolution Week 2026. An Instagram Live in which, together with designer Carlotta Redaelli, we retraced some episodes in fashion history that are rarely told together—and which, when viewed together, create a surprising narrative.
Like the “battle” between designers won thanks to the union of forces. Or when fashion said no to racism on the runways. When a collaboration opened real cracks in one of the most closed systems, which also demonstrated, with all its struggle, how difficult it is to maintain pressure when institutions lose interest. When a well-known fashion house decides to support students. Or when an open letter shook the major fashion houses, and many other stories.

True stories that show how active collaboration is a possible practice. It’s not enough to start together: we must stay together, even when it becomes uncomfortable.
We discussed this from the perspective of those who make fashion every day, bringing Carlotta’s experience into the conversation ( (instagram: @carlottaredaelli_atelier).

The questions that remain open: what does it really mean to collaborate in today’s fashion system? When does collaboration become a tool for change, and when does it risk becoming just a good story to tell? How can a collaborative mindset spread throughout the industry?

The full episode is available on all platforms.
→ LISTEN TO THE FULL EPISODE OF POP-UP GREEN:

Pop-Up Green is the podcast from Dress ECOde, the Italian platform dedicated to ethical, sustainable, and conscious fashion.

 There’s a word that often gets left out of fashion storytelling: vulnerability.

And yet, it’s precisely there that the most important choices come from. For brands, but also for people.

Being vulnerable doesn’t mean being fragile. It means exposing yourself with clarity, acknowledging what doesn’t work, accepting that not everything can be done as you’d like. It’s a form of honesty. It’s a less visible, yet profoundly human, place. It’s where you no longer seek perfection and instead begin to see things for what they are.

In the fashion system, this is even more difficult.
Because the dominant narrative demands absolute coherence, strong identities, clear positioning.
It demands success and stories of perfection.

However, building a truly responsible brand is, by its very nature, the opposite: it’s a process of constant adjustments, imperfect decisions, and inevitable compromises.

In the new episode of the Pop-Up Green podcast, we step into the Eyelet Milano showroom for a conversation that focuses on precisely this: what happens when a brand decides not to hide its limitations, but to make them part of its journey. Simona Luparello and Alessia Boselini, brand managers, discuss how to address limitations and compromises, where to start to build a more sustainable brand, and which mistakes to avoid.

What you will discover in the interview

In this episode, we touched on some of the most relevant topics for those working in or interested in sustainable fashion:

• Where did the choice to create an ethical brand come from (3:06)
What does Eyelet do and what is its distinctive feature?
The moment the choice to not create “normal fashion” was born
Ideology, necessity, or strategy?
The first question to ask yourself before starting

• Limits and compromises (16:15)
The first compromise accepted
The most difficult one on a personal level
Sustainability vs. survival: the strongest doubt
What is still not sustainable today
Declaring limits or hiding them
The brand’s greatest vulnerabilities

• The choices that define an identity (32:56)
The decision worth being proud of
The aspects of the brand that customers are most satisfied with
What is recognized and appreciated by customers

• For those who want to start a more responsible brand (42:25)
What NOT to do at the beginning
Where to really start
How to face limits and compromises without losing your identity
Three mistakes to avoid

True innovation, in this sector, is not declaring yourself sustainable. It’s knowing how to recognize—and talk about—even what isn’t yet.
If you work in fashion, if you’re building your own project, or if you really want to understand what’s behind a more responsible brand, listen to the full interview.

Photos: Courtesy of Eyelet Milano

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

How the clothes we wear shape our thoughts — and why that has a lot to say for sustainable fashion

Enclothed cognition refers to the way clothing influences psychological processes such as thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, both through physical sensation and symbolic meaning. Research shows that this effect depends both on the associations we make when we wear clothes and on the physical experience. In recent years, this phenomenon has opened a fascinating window into the relationship between what we wear and what we think, feel, and do.

The coat that sharpened the mind

It all starts with a now-classic study, published in 2012 by Hajo Adam and Adam D. Galinsky in Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. The researchers had a group of participants wear a white doctor’s coat and complete some attention tests. The result? They performed significantly better than those who performed the same tasks in normal clothes—or even than those who had the coat before their eyes, but not on them.

The key detail is precisely this: it wasn’t enough to see the coat. You had to wear it. And you had to know what it represented.

According to Adam and Galinsky, enclothed cognition works through two simultaneous channels: the physical sensation of the fabric on the body and the symbolic meaning that sensation activates. The doctor’s coat isn’t just a garment—it’s a cultural code that evokes care, rigor, and responsibility. When we put it on, that code enters us. Their study formally defines the phenomenon as “the systematic influence of clothing on psychological processes,” emphasizing that this effect depends both on the physical act of wearing the garment and on the understanding of its symbolic meaning.

Not just lab coats: clothes always speak

Once the logic is understood, examples multiply everywhere.

Those who work from home know that staying in their pajamas until the afternoon has a real cognitive cost: it’s difficult to feel productive without the ritual of “getting dressed.” Conversely, many professionals report keeping their jackets on even during video conferences during lockdown—not to look good, but to feel in character.

Athletes are not immune: studies on so-called power dressing show that wearing uniforms perceived as “champion-like” affects confidence and even physical performance. Colors matter, shapes matter, and the weight of the fabric matters.

There’s one example that’s striking for its precision: a study (Dubois & Anik, Emerald 2022) showed that wearing heels makes women feel more powerful than when they wear flats—but only under one condition: that the heels are visible to the observer. When they’re hidden, the effect vanishes. This confirms that cognition is activated not only by the physical sensation, but by the social recognition of the symbol.

Enclothed mood

And then there’s the emotional side: what we call enclothed mood—the effect that a favorite, comforting, or simply “right” outfit has on our mood on difficult days.

Professor Karen Pine of the University of Hertfordshire (2014) documented a distinct connection between mood and clothing choices: when they feel sad or depressed, women tend to wear jeans, and when they’re stressed, their world narrows to the point where they wear only 10% of their wardrobe, ignoring everything else. This effect occurs due to the combination of the symbolic meaning attributed to the garment and the physical experience of wearing it.

The mechanism also works in reverse: Pine has developed a list of “happy clothes“—garments that tend to induce positive emotional states—identifying characteristics such as:

• natural fibers (linen, cotton, silk, wool)
• flowing fabrics
• bright colors
• and vintage pieces

all of which evoke positive symbolic associations for the wearer.

What if the dress also spoke about the planet?

So far, so science. But there’s an even more interesting, yet less explored, territory: what happens when the clothing we wear is sustainable?

Applying the logic of enclothed cognition to ethical consumption opens up a territory still little explored by research. If a white coat activates values ​​of care and precision, a garment made with more eco-friendly materials, ethically produced, consciously chosen, or a second-hand dress could activate something similar: a sense of responsibility toward the environment, of coherence with one’s values, of belonging to a different vision of the world.

It’s a fascinating hypothesis that we’re advancing, and one that we at Dress ECOde intend to explore with empirical tools. Some researchers have already begun exploring this area. In 2025, Cegarra-Navarro and colleagues at the Polytechnic University of Cartagena (2025) published the first study formally using the concept of “sustainable enclothed cognition” (SEC) in Journal of Intellectual Capital: the idea that low-impact clothing can evoke values ​​of respect for the ecosystem, reinforcing more sustainability-oriented behaviors and mindsets in its wearers. The study—conducted on 211 young workers—shows that when consumers choose sustainable clothing by integrating logic, emotion, and values, the connection with the brand deepens and translates into measurable relational capital for companies.

Wearing a sustainable garment knowing it is, according to this logic, would function as a physical and continuous reminder of one’s ecological values. The idea is that clothing made with low-impact materials can evoke values ​​of respect for the ecosystem, reinforcing more sustainability-oriented behaviors and mindsets in its wearers.

Does dressing sustainably really change behavior?

Thinking through the lens of enclothed cognition, the answer isn’t straightforward. Let’s consider some interesting findings from the research, even if the picture is more nuanced than one might hope.

A first finding concerns the perception of value. Industry studies show that consumers perceive sustainable garments as having superior quality and greater value, which translates into higher brand loyalty and a lower propensity for compulsive purchasing typical of fast fashion. Those who wear consciously chosen garments tend to associate them with a sense of environmental responsibility, spontaneously embracing more streamlined and less wasteful wardrobes.

A second phenomenon, which the literature calls spillover behavior, is even more interesting: the adoption of virtuous behavior tends to spread to other areas of life. A study published in Fashion and Textiles (2016) documented how consumers’ recycling behavior spills over into eco-friendly fashion purchases through a specific mediating mechanism: environmental concern. Translated: those who already recycle tend to purchase more ethical fashion, and the process also works in reverse. Pro-environmental behaviors are not independent of one another—they feed off one another. A communication strategy focused on a single virtuous behavior can, over time, trigger a cascade of broader choices.

A study published in Scientific Reports (2025) adds another piece: direct experience with sustainable products can lower the psychological threshold for similar future choices, reducing the perceived risk of purchasing less familiar circular products.

A fourth interesting effect concerns long-term changes. Available evidence indicates that consumers who have had positive experiences with ethical fashion show a lower overall purchase frequency—prioritizing quality over quantity—and a longer lifespan for each item, all of which benefits textile waste reduction.

Taken together, these four elements—the perception of superior value, spillover behavior between pro-environmental behaviors, reduced psychological risk for future choices, and the tendency to prioritize quality and durability—paint a coherent picture, albeit one still riddled with question marks. It’s something that closely resembles what we might call sustainable enclothed cognition. It’s not enough to buy a sustainable garment, just as it wasn’t enough to see a doctor’s coat. You have to wear it knowing what it represents. It’s the conscious meaning—not the recycled fabric itself—that can trigger change. If this mechanism applies to cognitive precision and a sense of empowerment, it could also apply to ecological responsibility. Sustainable clothing, worn with intention, would then become something more than a simple ethical purchase: a physical and continuous reminder of who one has chosen to be—and how one has chosen to be in the world. A symbolic value that, once activated, isn’t confined to the moment of purchase but guides behavior in a broader and more lasting way, choosing fewer, more meaningful pieces. Every time one wears that piece with awareness, one’s identity would be strengthened, and that identity would make choices consistent with it more natural.

What if it doesn’t work?

The research doesn’t hide the contradictions. A 2025 study of 1,009 American consumers published in PMC found that those who buy secondhand often consume more overall, not less. Purchasing behavior in secondhand stores is positively correlated with that in fast fashion stores, especially among younger consumers.

This is the so-called rebound effect, amplified by what psychologists call moral licensing: one feels virtuous for choosing secondhand, and that feeling of “moral credit” authorizes one to buy more elsewhere. Their conscience is clear, their wardrobe grows.

And it doesn’t end there. The same study on spillover behavior warns that the effect weakens—or disappears entirely—when the aesthetic quality of the sustainable product disappoints. Consumers are increasingly willing to support eco-friendly practices, but only if the garment is also beautiful. An unconventional design or one perceived as aesthetically risky can block any spillover. Sustainability alone isn’t enough: we need products that are both environmentally friendly and aesthetically pleasing.

Research confirms this: consumers of sustainable fashion associate these garments with greater quality and longevity, but there’s still a gulf between this perception and real, measurable behavioral change. And some research warns of a paradoxical effect: those who buy secondhand or ethical fashion don’t necessarily buy less overall—sometimes they simply buy more, through different channels.

The practical implications if it worked instead

Despite the contradictions, the potential of sustainable enclothed cognition is too compelling to ignore. If the mechanism works, the consequences extend far beyond the individual consumer.

Companies could rethink their uniforms as tools of organizational culture. Equipping employees with eco-friendly workwear isn’t just an external communication choice—it could concretely reinforce sustainability values ​​in the wearer’s daily attitude, influencing decisions and brand perceptions from within. Cegarra-Navarro and colleagues formulate it bluntly: clothing choices act as a form of nonverbal communication and are an integral part of creating sustainable corporate practices.

On the marketing front, the phenomenon offers a powerful yet underutilized argument: instead of communicating sustainability solely through certifications and numbers—how much CO₂ has been saved, how many bottles have been recycled—brands could convey what it feels like to wear an ethical garment. The sense of responsibility, consistency, and authenticity could be a much more effective lever for engagement than aesthetics or price.

And then there’s the minimalist wardrobe. Having fewer, more meaningful pieces, carefully chosen and worn over long periods of time, is exactly the kind of relationship with clothing that enclothed cognition values. A small wardrobe that’s consistent with your values ​​isn’t a sacrifice—it’s an identity enhancer.

Let’s try to imagine

If enclothed cognition works through the combination of physical sensation and conscious symbolic meaning, we can try to think about how the same mechanism could be activated with sustainable clothing—even if no one has yet rigorously measured it.

Let’s take a concrete example. Every morning, a person puts on an upcycled sweatshirt, purchased from a brand whose supply chain they know. They know how it’s made, they know what it represents. According to the logic of enclothed cognition, that garment isn’t just a warm garment: it’s a physical reminder, worn for hours, of one’s intention to consume differently. Much like the doctor’s coat activated attention and rigor, that sweatshirt could activate—with each subsequent purchase—a higher threshold of awareness. Not because the fabric has magical properties, but because the meaning we attribute to it silently guides our behavior.

Or again: imagine a manufacturing employee given uniforms made from recovered fabrics with a precise explanation of how and why they were produced. Not an institutional communication forgotten in an email, but something they wear every day. The logic of enclothed cognition suggests that that gesture—consciously wearing a symbol of corporate values—could strengthen identification with those same values ​​far more than any sustainability training course.

A third example concerns those who choose secondhand with intention—not to save money, but out of conviction. If that person knows the history of the garment, knows where it comes from, and has deliberately chosen it as an alternative to new, they might experience that garment as an active statement of identity. And according to the mechanism Adam and Galinsky described, that statement wouldn’t remain merely external: it would re-enter, day after day, the way that person thinks about themselves and their choices.

These are hypotheses, not certainties. But they are hypotheses based on the same logic that produced measurable results with doctor’s coats and high heels. They are worth putting to the test.

An open territory: Dress ECOde’s contribution

Enclothed cognition reminds us of something we know intuitively but tend to overlook: clothes are not neutral. They are not passive containers of our bodies—they are active constructors of our selves.

If this applies to a doctor’s coat, it could also apply to a recycled wool sweater chosen with intention, a secondhand jacket purchased with awareness of its history, or an ethically produced dress worn with pride. The skin touching the fabric, the meaning we recognize in that fabric: the mechanism is the same.

But it “couldn’t” be enough. The available research raises more questions than it answers, and the direct connection between enclothed cognition and long-term sustainable behavior remains to be empirically demonstrated with the rigor it deserves.

This is why at Dress ECOde, we’re interested in contributing to the study of this phenomenon: understanding whether and how dressing sustainably—not just buying ethical products, but wearing them with awareness of their meaning—can become a real driver of cultural change toward more conscious clothing choices.

The question that guides us is simple, even if the answer isn’t: can the right dress, worn with the right awareness, change the way we think and act in the world? We believe it’s worth finding out.

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.

The Dutch Study: 41% of Labels Are Wrong

A study conducted in the Netherlands* on more than 10,000 garments revealed alarming statistics: labels were inaccurate in 41% of cases. Most of the sample consisted of post-consumer, non-reusable clothing items discarded by consumers and delivered to a textile sorting center. Significant differences were found in the accuracy of composition claims between pure and blended materials. Discrepancies were especially evident in garments mixing fibers (e.g., cotton + polyester), where the accuracy rate dropped to just 23%. Analyses suggest that the intentional exaggeration of cotton content is indeed plausible. For pure fibers, the accuracy rate rose to 77%.

This is not just a matter of dishonest marketing: misleading labels erode consumer trust, complicate recycling processes, and fuel greenwashing.

Examples from the EU Market

EU regulations require all textile products sold within the Union to display clear and legible information about their composition. However, checks conducted by NGOs and independent bodies have shown that some brands fail to comply — particularly when labels include implicit environmental claims (green claims) without solid evidence.

In the fur market, for example, a study** analyzing 667 items containing animal fibers found that 68% did not comply with EU labeling rules. Real and synthetic fur are becoming increasingly similar in appearance, texture, and even price. Consumers — most of whom reject real fur for ethical reasons — must receive accurate information to make informed choices. It is often assumed that a low price indicates synthetic fur, and that if an item contains real fur, such information should be clearly displayed on the label. However, the current labeling system fails to provide an easy way to alert consumers to the presence of real animal fur.

Greenwashing and Misleading Environmental Claims

Why It’s a Problem (Beyond Fraud): The Real Consequences

This kind of misrepresentation goes far beyond deceiving the consumer.

1. Compromised Traceability and Textile Recycling
   In a world where recycling and sustainable practices are essential, recyclers need accurate information about the fabrics they work with. For those involved in recycling or circular economy processes, knowing the exact fiber (cotton, wool, polyester, etc.) is crucial for proper material handling. The effectiveness of recycling relies on understanding a garment’s material composition, since different fabrics require distinct recycling methods. False labeling hinders sorting and reduces the quality of regeneration processes. Misinformation can lead to contamination of recycling streams, lowering overall efficiency and causing further environmental harm. Simply put, if we don’t know what a fabric is made of, we can’t treat or dispose of it properly.
2. Erosion of Consumer Trust
   When we discover that a garment isn’t what it claimed to be — for instance, “100% cotton” turns out to be a blend, or “Made in Italy” is a false indication — the relationship with the brand is damaged. Today’s conscious consumers highly value label honesty, and each deception undermines brand reputation. As shoppers become more attentive to sustainable choices, they often rely on labels to guide their purchases. Some consumers also have specific needs regarding fabric composition — for example, due to allergies, religious beliefs, or personal values. For many, understanding a garment’s material is also essential for assessing its environmental impact. When labels are misleading, consumers believe they’re making responsible choices, only to realize they’ve unknowingly supported practices that contradict their values.
3. Fueling Greenwashing
   Generic environmental claims (“eco,” “sustainable,” “green”) without real transparency create the illusion of doing the right thing, while the actual impact may be identical — or even worse. Deceptive labels become a marketing tool, not an information tool.
4. Legal Risks and Penalties
   In the EU market, brands that provide misleading information may face inspections, administrative sanctions, or compensation claims. Some countries are already scrutinizing environmental claims more closely to enforce greater transparency.

Do you already know of some real cases of false or misleading labeling in clothing?
Listen to this episode to find out what happened — in our country and beyond

The Causes Behind the Errors

1. Complex and Fragmented Supply Chains
   Textile supply chains often span multiple continents, involving numerous suppliers, dyeing processes, treatments, and finishing stages. Sometimes brands receive fabrics that are already blended or reprocessed, making accurate traceability extremely difficult.

2. Insufficient Testing and Quality Control
   Some brands do not test every batch or rely solely on visual checks instead of chemical analyses. This increases the margin of error when suppliers provide incomplete or partial composition data.

3. Costs and the Desire for Differentiation
   Claiming a high percentage of natural or “eco” fibers can make a product more appealing. In some cases, there’s a temptation to round up figures or present the “best-case scenario”rather than the truth.

4. Unclear Regulations or Poor Enforcement
   Labeling laws exist, but their implementation varies widely between countries. Minor violations are often barely penalized. Although brands and retailers are legally required to provide accurate information about the composition of products they place on the market, they have (so far) faced no public legal consequences for inaccurate labeling. When a brand discovers that a label is incorrect, the entire shipment — both in storage and in transit — must be recalled and re-labeled.

What a Sustainability-Focused Brand Should Do

The Dutch study serves as a wake-up call for brands in the sustainable fashion sector. It highlights the need for clear standards and rigorous controls in labeling practices to ensure accuracy. As sustainable brands strive to differentiate themselves in a saturated market, a commitment to labeling honesty can enhance credibility and strengthen consumer trust.

Brands that prioritize accurate labeling not only embody their sustainability values but also empower consumers to make informed choices. By ensuring the accuracy of fabric composition and country-of-origin information, brands can contribute to a more transparent fashion system.

The positive ripple effects of precise labeling go far beyond immediate trust: they encourage a shift toward circular economy principles, where consumers feel confident about recycling or reusing their garments — ultimately helping to reduce waste.

The Importance of Accurate Textile Labeling

In 2020, the Global Fashion Agenda report emphasized the importance of transparency, calling for greater traceability across fashion supply chains. This ongoing dialogue among industry stakeholders aligns closely with the findings of the Dutch study, pointing to the systemic change needed for the future of sustainable fashion to truly thrive.

In conclusion, incorrect labeling represents a major barrier to achieving a transparent and sustainable fashion landscape. As fashion enthusiasts and brands advocate for change, it is vital to remember that sustainable fashion is not solely about using eco-friendly materials — it encompasses the entire lifecycle of a garment. Ensuring that labeling is accurate and trustworthy is essential if we are to move toward a truly ethical and sustainable industry.

Brands should take immediate action to improve the accuracy of their labeling practices. For consumers, recognizing the importance of carefully examining labels can help guide choices that genuinely reflect their values. Together, we can foster a fashion industry built on trust, transparency, and sustainability.

* Clothing labels: accurate or not?, Circle Economy for The Ministry of Infrastructure & Waterways, 2019.

** Mislabelled and Misleading – Fur labelling problems, Fur Free Alliance, 2017