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?

Il New York Times dedica un articolo all’economia italiana “nell’ombra” con riferimento a migliaia di lavoratori sottopagati che da casa creano articoli di lusso senza contratto né assicurazione.
E’ nel barese che la testata statunitense raccoglie testimonianze (di circa 60 persone) come quella di una donna di mezza età che lavora pesantemente al tavolo della sua cucina, ricamando un sofisticato cappotto di lana: un capo che potrà essere venduto tra gli 800 e i 2.000 euro mentre la donna riceverà un euro per ogni metro di tessuto lavorato.
Un metro di tessuto comporta un’ora di ricamo; per completare un cappotto servono circa 4-5 ore, un guadagno per la donna pari a 4-5 euro a fronte di 800-2.000 euro di valore. “Il massimo che abbia mai guadagnato per un cappotto è 24 euro”, racconta.

Un’altra donna racconta che una decina di anni fa, quando i suoi due bambini erano più piccoli, lavorava 16-18 ore al giorno decorando vestiti da sposa con paillette e applicazioni dietro un compenso tra 1,50 e 2 euro all’ora, ricevuto solo ad abito ultimato.
Pensiamo che la schiavitù moderna, così è definito il fenomeno, riguardi solo paesi lontani (India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Cina, Vietnam, ecc.) ma è presente anche accanto a noi. L’area di Bari non è l’unica in Italia.
Il New York Times si interroga: “Made in Italy”, ma a che prezzo? La leggenda del “fatto in Italia” ha vacillato negli ultimi anni sotto il peso della burocrazia, i costi in aumento e la disoccupazione inasprita.
Nel nostro paese si stimano 500.000 persone impiegate direttamente e indirettamente nell’industria dei beni di lusso nel 2017, secondo i dati di uno studio dell’Università Bocconi e di Altagamma, un’organizzazione di commercio di lusso.
Il lavoro in nero riguarda tutti i settori: nel 2017 l’Istat ha calcolato 7.216 lavoratori, di cui 3.467 senza regolare contratto. Non ci sono ovviamente dati ufficiali che possano misurare precisamente il fenomeno. Nel libro “Fabbriche invisibili”, Tania Toffanin stima 2.000-4.000 persone che lavorano da casa in nero nella produzione di abbigliamento.

La testata di New York racconta anche di un’altra storia, un ex avvocato sindacalista Eugenio Romano che ha dedicato gli ultimi 5 anni alla causa di Carla Ventura, un’imprenditrice di Keope srl, contro un grande brand di scarpe e  un suo fornitore. Dopo una prima azione legale nel 2011 contro il fornitore, in cui ha ottenuto il pagamento dei debiti, Carla Ventura ha intrapreso un’altra causa contro entrambe le aziende, sostenendo che il grande marchio di calzature fosse a conoscenza delle pratiche aziendali illegali.
La regione del Salento registra un alto tasso di disoccupazione che rende vulnerabile la sua forza lavoro. Sebbene i marchi non suggeriscano mai ufficialmente di sfruttare i lavoratori, alcuni proprietari di fabbriche hanno rivelato all’avvocato Romano che esiste un messaggio sottostante di utilizzare una gamma di espedienti tra cui sottopagare i dipendenti ed impiegarli a casa.

L’articolo ha suscitato reazioni opposte nei commentatori in calce al testo. Tra chi conferma la situazione italiana definendola da Terzo Mondo, a chi sottolinea burocrazia, evasione fiscale, lavoro in nero, pratiche illegali e corruzione come caratteristiche del tessuto sociale ed economico italiano, a chi ancora accusa The New York Times di uscire con un simile articolo tatticamente durante la settimana della moda italiana o di fondare il proprio testo su basi vacillanti (criticando per esempio il limitato numero di 60 casi). Nelle foto qui sotto, alcuni dei commenti all’articolo.
“Deve essere una sorta di strana causalità che questo articolo esca proprio all’inizio della settimana della moda milanese, con Max Mara e Fendi (aziende citate esplicitamente) che mostrano proprio oggi le loro meravigliose collezioni. Avete ridotto l’intero Made in Italy a un sistema di un gruppo di 60 donne intervistate nella campagna pugliese (non rappresentativa dell’intero paese e settore”. “Spero veramente che questo non abbia nulla a che fare con il fatto che il sistema italiano della moda sta guadagnando quote a spese dei marchi americani (che il New York Times ha sempre sproporzionatamente supportato), ma la tempistica con cui esce è troppo sospetta…”.
Un’italiana, Stefania, così scrive: “Mi piacerebbe invitare questa giornalista nella mia regione, le Marche, dove abbiamo molti artigiani ben pagati, tante eccellenze in termini di qualità e posti piacevoli dove lavorare. E tutto nonostante il terribile terremoto di cui abbiamo sofferto due anni fa. La stessa regione in cui Tod’s ha ricostruito posti e scuole, fabbriche e centri, perché qui vivono e sanno quanto sia importante ricambiare nel posto in cui si vive”. E aggiunge: “Sono felice di sapere che la camera italiana della moda sta per citarvi per danni all’immagine delle aziende citate solo per acquisire visitatori del vostro articolo, ma lontane dall’essere coinvolte nei comportamenti che provate a descrivere”.

È difficile negare che non siano presenti nel nostro paese situazioni di evasione fiscale e di lavoro in nero, sottopagato, svolto tra le mura di casa senza tutela né assicurazione, anche nel settore moda-lusso; situazioni descritte in diversi reportage su distretti produttivi dal nord al centro al sud Italia. Succede anche (ed è comune in tutti i paesi) che non sempre i grandi brand riescano a tracciare tutta la filiera produttiva e che possano davvero non essere a conoscenza di eventuali prassi poco etiche adottate da fornitori e imprese con cui collaborano.
Ciò che possiamo fare è chiedere maggiore trasparenza alle aziende, più accertamenti, maggiore tracciabilità. Possiamo scegliere di comprare articoli da chi si impegna a produrre in modo etico e sostenibile. Possiamo preferire l’acquisto diretto dagli artigiani. Quello che conta è non dimenticare mai che le nostre scelte come consumatori hanno impatto.

(Fonte: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/fashion/italy-luxury-shadow-economy.html)

ENGLISH

The New York Times dedicates an article to the Italian Shadow Economy referring to thousands of underpaid workers that create luxury items at home without a labour contract neither an insurance.
It is in Bari’s area that the US magazine collected evidences (of about 60 people), like the one of a middle-age woman who hardly works at her kitchen table, stitching a sophisticated woolen coat: an item that would be sent for 800 to 2,000 euros while the woman will receive an euro for each meter of fabric she completes.
A meter of fabric means one hour of stitching; completing a coat requires 4-5 hours, an earning of 4-5 euros for the woman versus the item’s value of 800-2,000 euros. “The most I have ever earned for a coat is 24 euros”, she tells.
Another woman said that a decade ago, when her 2 children were younger, she had worked for 16-18 hours a day embroidering wedding dressed with paillettes and appliqués,  for a salary of 1.50 and 2 euros per hour, received only when the dress is complete.

We think that the modern slavery, as the phenomenon is defined, only concerns far countries (India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, China, Vietnam, etc.), but it is present also near us. Bari’s area is not the only one in Italy.

The New York Times wonders: Made in Italy, but at what cost? Made in Italy  legend has been shaken in recent years under the weight of bureaucracy, rising coast and soaring unemployment.

In our country, 500,000 employees are estimated to be directly and indirectly employed in the luxury goods sector in 2017, according to a report of Bocconi University and Altagamma, a luxury trade organisation.
The black labour concerns all sectors: in 2017 Istat counted 7,216 workers, 3,467 on which without a regular contract. Obviously there are not official data able to measuring exactly the phenomenon. In the book “Fabbriche invisibili”, Tania Toffanin estimates 2,000-4,000 people home working irregularly in the garment manufacturing.

The New York magazine tells about another story, a former union lawyer Eugenio Romano dedicating the last 5 years to the legal action promoted by Carla Ventura, the factory owner of Keope srl, against a large shoe brand and one of its providers, declaring that the large brand knew about the supplier illegal practices.
The Salento area has a high unemployment rate that makes the work force vulnerable. Although brands would never officially suggest taking advantage of employees, some factory owners have told Mr. Romano that there is an underlying message to use a range of means, including underpaying employees and paying them to work at home.

The article has sparked opposite reactions in the commentators below the text. From who confirms the Italian situation defining it “Third World”, to who underlines the bureaucracy, the tax evasion, the black labour, the illegal practices and the corruption as features of the Italian social and economic fabric, furthermore to who blames The New York Times for coming out tactically with an article like this during the Milano Fashion Week or for founding its content on wobbly basis (for example criticising the limited number of 60 cases).
In the pictures below, some of the comments to the article.

“It must be some sort of strange causality that this article comes up just at the beginning of the Milan fashion week, with MaxMara and Fendi (firms that you quote explicitly) showing their marvelous collections today. You reduce the entire Made in Italy to system to a group of 60 women you have interviewed in the deep countryside of Puglia (which by all means is not representative of the whole country and sector)”. “I really hope this has nothing to do with the Italian fashion system gaining share and momentum at the expense of the American brands (which the NYT has always disproportionately supported), but the timing it comes out is just way too suspicious…”.
An Italian woman, Stefania, writes: “I would love to invite this journalist in my region, Le Marche, where we have also many artesans well paid, a lot of excellences in terms of quality and happy places to work. And everything despite the terrible earthquake we suffered two years ago. Same region in which Tod’s rebuilt places and schools, factories and centers, becasue they live in this place and they know how important is giving back in the place in which you live”. And she adds: “I am happy to know that Italian Fashion Chamber is on its way to sue you for the damages to the image of companies mentioned only to make visitors to your article, but far from being involved in the conducts you are trying to describe”.

It is hard to deny that in our country there aren’t any cases of tax evasion and black labour, underpaid, realised between home walls without protection neither insurance, also in the fashion-luxury sector; these situations are described in different essays about the manufacturing districts from the North to the Centre to the South of Italy. It happens also (and it is common also in other countries), that not always the large brands are able to track the whole production and supply chain and that they could really not know about any practices not very ethic adopted by suppliers and factories with whom they collaborate.
What we can do is requiring more transparency to companies, more verifications, more traceability. We can choose to buy goods from who engages himself in producing in ethical and sustainable ways. We can prefer to buy directly from artisans.
What counts is to never forget that our choices as consumers have an impact.

(Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/fashion/italy-luxury-shadow-economy.html)