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

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?

Fast fashion consumption thrives largely as a function of our purchasing behavior, driven by the desire to own more and more clothes and supported by the continuous decrease in prices.

Through what we buy, we express ourselves and strengthen our identity towards ourselves and towards others. In cultures where our purchases convey self-realization and identity expression, clothes represent a visual language that communicates our belonging to certain social groups, cultures or communities. We are driven to change our identity through new clothes and we are fascinated by being fashionable, leaving in the shadows concerns for the environment, working conditions, ethical supply chains.

With this premise, a research conducted in Spain used agent-based modeling (ABM* ) to analyze consumer decisions regarding fast fashion. Because social and environmental progress requires that the public has the will to take part and support initiatives that address fast fashion and other issues.

How much do environmental concerns and awareness of the (un)sustainability of fast fashion affect our purchasing choices?

The study by Soboleva & Sánchez (2024) investigates how individuals choose to purchase fast fashion and how awareness of the effects of fashion, particularly fast fashion, affects this process, examining the influence of factors such as government intervention, social media and peer pressure.

Government intervention:

The analysis finds that government interventions are critical, with state’s campaigns setting the overall tone of progress, but up to a point beyond which they produce diminishing returns. One of the key findings is therefore that the state does not need to be extremely proactive or continue campaigns indefinitely to achieve optimal results. The state’s influence on public opinion reaches a point where further interventions produce insignificant results.

Environmental Concern, Awareness, and Sustainability Education:

Investigating the impact of awareness and sustainability education on individuals’ decision-making processes regarding fast fashion purchases indicates that environmental concerns do not significantly influence purchasing habits, nor do normative expectations (beliefs about what others think we should or should not do).

Social pressure:

Positive social pressure can stimulate collective change. If knowledge is not enough, feeling that one’s sustainable behavior is shared and appreciated by others can influence choices.

The study highlights that there are no explicit or implicit social expectations that push people to choose sustainably. In other words, in the society analyzed, there is no cultural climate or relational context in which sustainable choices are encouraged, rewarded or considered the norm.

The absence of social pressure is worrying, because without it it is not possible to address issues such as fast fashion and shape collective behavior: even those who are educated on the topic may choose to remain silent. Those who know the negative impact of fast fashion may not act, nor speak out, if they feel alone or lack social support.

Bandwagon effect or bandwagon effect: When there is no social pressure to make sustainable choices, the bandwagon effect is activated in the opposite direction: people unconsciously follow the crowd that continues to buy fast fashion. The bandwagon effect is part of a larger group of cognitive distortions that influence people’s judgments and decisions. Cognitive distortions can help people think and reason faster, but they often introduce errors of calculation and evaluation. Among these, the bandwagon effect is a psychological phenomenon in which people adopt behaviors or attitudes simply because others do so. It describes the tendency of people to follow the crowd, to desire what others have, to act as others act, deciding based on what the larger group is doing.

The term bandwagon originates from the traveling circuses of the nineteenth century, whose musical bands paraded on wagons to attract the public. Clown and entertainer Dan Rice used this float to support Zachary Taylor’s 1848 presidential campaign, inviting people to “jump on the bandwagon” to support him. After Taylor’s success, other politicians imitated the strategy, giving rise to the phrase “bandwagon effect”, which refers to the tendency for people to join a cause simply because it is popular, and some began to use the idea of ​​”jumping on the bandwagon” as a negative action.

Food trends and the popularity of certain foods can be influenced by the bandwagon effect. Even the acquisition of generational slang terms can be an example of “getting on the bandwagon.” On social media, trends can involve the recreation of specific types of posts or the sharing of certain types of content. A recent example? The AI-generated Barbie dolls kit that have filled our Instagram feeds. The very use of specific social media platforms and the popularity of certain TV shows and movies can also be attributed to the bandwagon effect. Additionally, research has shown that the effect can also influence decisions made by doctors, therapists, and other healthcare professionals.

In fashion, trends appear to be particularly vulnerable to the bandwagon effect and also tend to be fleeting, making certain items quickly obsolete and forgotten in our closets. We buy clothes, shoes, and accessories because so many do, following the popularity of brands, stores, and products.

Why exactly does the bandwagon effect occur? Individuals are strongly influenced by peer pressure and norms. When it seems like most of the group is doing something, it becomes increasingly difficult not to do it. If our peer group, the people in our social circle, buy fast fashion, it is difficult to do otherwise.

Why is it so difficult?

It’s a natural tendency for people to follow the rest of the group. because we feel pressured. In other cases, we compare ourselves to others and then try to change to be more like the group. Following trends can even help build bonds with others.

When it seems like everyone is doing something, there’s a huge pressure to conform, which is perhaps why “bandwagon” behaviors tend to form so easily. People want to be right. They want to be on the winning side. One reason people conform is because they seek information from other members of their social group about what is right or acceptable. If it seems like everyone else is doing something, people feel like it’s the right thing to do.

Fear of exclusion also plays a role in the bandwagon effect. People generally don’t want to be on the excluded side, so conforming to what the rest of the group is doing is a way of ensuring social inclusion and acceptance. The need to belong drives people to adopt the norms and attitudes of the majority in order to gain acceptance and approval from the group.

Although the bandwagon effect can have potentially dangerous consequences in some cases, it can also lead to the adoption of healthy behaviors. If it appears that most people reject unhealthy behaviors (such as smoking) and adopt healthy choices (such as physical activity and exercise), people may then be more likely to avoid risky choices and adopt healthy behaviors.

Bandwagon effect, peer pressure and sustainable fashion:

• Popular pressure creates the context.
• The bandwagon effect spreads behavior that appears successful or approved in that context.

If peer pressure is absent, the bandwagon reinforces the unsustainable status quo. If it is present and positive, it can accelerate collective change. If a cultural inversion is triggered – for example, by showing that more and more people are choosing sustainable fashion – the bandwagon effect can become a powerful ally: sustainability can be perceived not only as right, but also as popular.

In this way, positive peer pressure can exploit the bandwagon effect to make more ethical behavior desirable and “fashionable”. The bandwagon effect can lead consumers to follow sustainable trends if they are perceived as popular.

Social media:

According to the Spanish study, social media profoundly influences concerns and opinions, playing an important role in shaping our behavior. They can both promote progress and hinder the adaptation of new purchasing habits. Furthermore, the general bias of social media has a significant impact on efforts to change current purchasing habits in the fashion industry.

A study published in Frontiers in Communication analyzed how key opinion leaders (KOLs), including influencers and celebrities, influence consumers’ purchase intentions regarding sustainable fashion products. The findings highlight that:

• KOLs can significantly influence purchasing decisions, brand perception, and marketing strategies.
• Their presence on social media and their credibility can motivate consumers to adopt more sustainable purchasing behaviors.

Generational influences:

A master’s thesis from the Portuguese Catholic University examined how peer pressure influences sustainable fashion purchasing decisions among Generations Y and Z. The results indicate that:

• Generation Y is more susceptible to peer pressure in purchasing eco-fashion products
• Generation Z is more influenced when eco-fashion is promoted on social media platforms such as Instagram.
• The study suggests that peer pressure acts as a mediator between generation and purchase intention, with social media amplifying this effect.

Social norms are not enough to influence the choice of what we buy:

A study published byMDPI investigated the role of social norms in sustainable clothing purchasing behavior. The results indicate that:

• Social norms influence the perception of the social acceptability of sustainable clothing.
• However, no significant moderating effect of social norms was found between purchase intention and actual purchasing behavior.

This suggests that, although social norms may influence intentions, other factors such as personal values ​​and financial availability may play a more determining role in actual purchasing behavior.

Conclusions:

Education on sustainability and government interventions are not enough to slow down the purchase of fast fashion. Social media and social pressure are crucial to guide more responsible and ethical purchasing behaviors. Added to this are other elements such as personal values ​​and financial availability.

Defined personal values ​​and identities can overcome the bandwagon effect. Evaluating yourself based on what is considered popular at a given moment can also damage self-esteem and prevent you from reaching your full potential. Just because you like something that is not popular or has an interest that many others do not seem to share, does not mean that those activities, that style, those ideas are not worth pursuing.

To avoid the bandwagon effect, do not listen to just one source when evaluating information. Look for a variety of data and opinions, including alternative or contrary points of view, legitimate and evidence-based information that can support or refute those claims.

The point remains of the financial availability and accessibility of alternatives to fast fashion. But that’s another story, which you’ll hear about soon.

*An agent-based model can simulate how consumers decide whether to buy fast fashion or ethical fashion. Each consumer is represented by a virtual actor with their own behaviors, to observe how sustainable choices spread.

Study mentioned in this article: Soboleva & Sánchez, 2024, Agent-Based Insight into Eco-Choices: Simulating the Fast Fashion Shift, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.18814

Other sources: Ebsco; Frontiers; MDPI; UCB Repository; Very Well Mind.com

Photos: Julia Андрэй (cover),Markus Spiske, Kate Trysh, Toa Heftiba on Unsplash

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