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

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

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

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

Why it matters

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

Implications for sustainable and ethic fashion

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

A. Fair competition = part of sustainability.

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

B. Trasparenza e responsabilità Transparency and responsibility

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

C. Opportunity for sustainable brands

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

D. What consumers should ask themselves

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

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

Curiosities about the three brands and the context

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data That Debunk the Myth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Gap Between Image and Reality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments on Reddit include statements like:

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

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

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

New Rules on the Horizon

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

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

What Can We Do?

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

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

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

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

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

What Kind of Luxury Do We Believe In?

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

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

So, what kind of luxury do we believe in?

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

“Before finding solutions, perhaps one should first ask: What do we want to sustain in fashion? Such a question may at first seem abstract and idealist. But without questioning the basic framework under which the work toward sustainability occurs, the risk is of sustaining unintended dynamics in fashion. Sustainability risks becoming a cloak under which to hide how injustices are made permanent, suffering made invisible, while maintaining social conflict and systemic inequities, rather than boosting the democratic principles the industry suggests it desires to sustain. Much everyday brand-initiated discourse on sustainable fashion is an excuse for keeping up the status quo, implementing surveillance regimes on goods and labor, and effectively blaming the poor for their aspirations and consumption” – Otto von Bush

In the fashion industry there is growing attention to sustainability, especially the impact of fast fashion. However, often attempts are made to solve the problem in a limited way, emphasizing technological solutions and consumer ethics and avoiding addressing social complexities, such as globalization, social conflict, identity and community politics , precarious work, labor organization and the imperative to achieve public and mental health. The emphasis on sustainability can become an excuse to maintain the status quo and blame the poor for their consumption.
This is the theme of a study that invite to think (von Busch 2022*) of which we share the main ideas in the present article. The author uses Guattari’s three ecologies model** to analyze conflict in fashion, considering the environmental, social and mental levels. The challenge of sustainable fashion is characterized by tensions and contradictions which often do not receive the necessary attention. An obvious conflict is between the idea of “democratic” fashion and its impact on global systems. Applying Guattari’s three ecologies model, it turns out that the fashion industry negatively affects all three dimensions:
– exploits the resources of the planet and labour
– influences social relationships
– affects consumer attitudes.

particularly affecting poor and marginalized communities.

“It is ‘they’ who consume too much, the consumers of cheap garments. While goods and behaviors readily available to the upper strata of society are deemed sustainable”

In fashion, as in other industries, there are systemic inequalities that contribute to social injustice. Recommendations for more sustainable consumption are often spread in a paternalistic way and do not take into account different social positions. For example, advice on repairing clothes or buying high-quality parts assumes a certain economic and social standing, and may not be accessible to everyone.
It is important to address these reflections and consider what behavior is really suitable for achieving sustainability in fashion. The goal is to reflect to develop more inclusive sustainability practices that take into account the aspirations of people with fewer resources.

Environmental ecology

In the fashion industry, the trend is to look for technical and industrial solutions to tackle environmental problems, such as river pollution, the use of toxic chemicals in agriculture and the accumulation of textile waste. However, often these solutions are focused on the interests of the industry and do not take into account global disparities. Developed countries have shifted polluting production to developing countries, creating double standards in how the pollution problem is viewed.

“While this is perhaps most obviously happening in production, we see it as well under the umbrella of “circularity,”in recycling and waste management. It is also inherent in the label of “recycling”or “reuse”as garments are dumped in developing countries. While the incremental fixes of the industry arenot useless, they distort the overall picture. As production and consumption keep increasing, the industry’s improvements are not keeping up, and overall levels of extraction and pollution become worse still.”

The “solutionist” approach to sustainable fashion tends to reduce complex problems to technological solutions and to favor efficiency and transparency at the expense of other values by continuing to reproduce consumerism.“Pollution isreduced to ecologically friendly fibers, transparencyis a street address to a factory on the product web-site, and ethics is a collection labeled ‘conscious.’ Transparency gets easily mistaken for power. Whileit may be an ethical opportunity to see a photo ofwho works in a factory and know its address, itgives little agency to consumers to change the con-ditions of the workers. Instead, the same regime oftransparency is used to hide abuse, shift blame, andincrease surveillance of laborers and consumerswhile bypassing the systemic responsibilities of cor-porations and international trade negotiations.” As an example, the absence of criticisms of power systems is reported in True Cost (2015), a documentary popular among Western consumers. “The scene misses the political games of trade and globalization, the corporate C-suites, the growth of capital and stocks, and all systems of power promoting and profiting from the current paradigm. All, except the powerful, are to blame for the catastrophe we witness in the movie.”

Fast fashion and fast food are often viewed as negative, while artisanal food and slow production are associated with greater nutrition and health. Technology, when applied to quality, can distinguish those who have access to luxury goods that don’t require repairs from those who consume cheaper consumer goods that often need to be repaired. While artisans may work in factory-like conditions in developing countries, their work is often considered superior and more sustainable due to the slowness and involvement of the hands. Not always slow equals sustainable.

Furthermore, consumption of fast fashion is associated with the poor, while luxury goods are considered sustainable, creating a paradoxical gap in judgment. “The consumption of the rich becomes invisible, if not celebrated as more techno-logically sophisticated. Those who can afford to doso can enjoy splurging on more goods, as these arenow from biomaterials, eco-friendly fibers, and artisanal labor. In the end, all goods end up in landfills”.

Social ecology

Fashion is a social phenomenon that is based on imitation and thrives on the differences and tensions between groups and styles. However, fashion is often criticized for its connections to trade, capitalism and social inequalities. Nonetheless, fashion can uphold democratic principles through individual expression, intergroup solidarity and respect for difference. However, these democratic principles can be corrupted by consumerism and the creation of social hierarchies.

Sustainability talk often:

• blames low-income consumers and suggests buying less and investing in durable pieces, but this can limit individual expression and social mobility
• blames the poor for their consumer aspirations
• does not address the systemic injustices present in fashion.

Luxury fashion, on the other hand, is often seen as sustainable and representative of quality and ethics. This approach favors those who are already privileged and gets in the way of fashion’s empowering potential for the disadvantaged.

“With their longing for ‘democratic’ tokens of inclusion, the masses’ desires quickly accumulate to unsustainable amounts of goods, and with their cheap copies they undermine the actual value of fashion. When not physically limiting the number of pieces people can buy, the sustainability discourse tries to make consumers ‘buy classic pieces.’ But there appears to be little concern about who can afford the quality of such items. It is much easier to buy a classic piece when one is in a social position that cements this social standing, making it last over time. A classic piece must also fit into therest of one’s status environment. It is easy to do this if I am higher in the social strata, but less so if I am poor or marginalized. The imperative to ‘buy classic’ basically tells the needy ‘buy only what you can afford, stay at the low rung, and do not aspire to beone of us’. The second suggested method translates to something similar, like ‘buy things your kids can inherit.’ Most people want to inherit a vintage Chanel bag, but less so the cheap copy.”

Mental ecology

Mental ecology promotes sustainability through the modification of cultural values, moving away from selfish desires (lust, greed, vanity) towards virtues such as authenticity and honesty and the desire for a beautiful and ethical life. However, this approach often excludes the poor and condemns their consumption.  “The wealthy set these standards with the modeling of the perfect life, while the poor are excluded and later cursed if they aspire for these same standards beyond their means.”

Changing values and cultures becomes a priority to achieve sustainability, but this jeopardizes individual freedom.

“If discussing values, one may need to take a stepback and ask: Can fashion promote any ethical values in the first place? It is a question not commonly appearing in academic inquiries. Karen Hanson (1990)*** suggested three decades ago that fashion stands in contrast to many of the foundational values and virtues of social reality that philosophers have examined over the ages. The hedonistic need to acquire the symbols of affluence and status undermines the liberal possibilities of society and only comes to serve competitive consumption. Following Lipovetsky (1994)****, fashion is a movement that finally helps consumer society to overcome the old virtue of thrift and to make vanity not only acceptable but a precious cornerstone of contemporary identity production. These forces emphasize the individual subject as the moral center of gravity aligned with what and how it consumes. This move has shattering consequences for the discourse around sustainable fashion and howt he issue is addressed as a call for ethical and virtuous behavior.”

The current debate on sustainable fashion focuses on consumers’ responsibility and suggests that only by changing their habits can sustainability be achieved. This view tends to blame the masses, attributing them a “problem” with excessive consumption. However, cultural change and the redefinition of values are crucial aspects to promote sustainability at a systemic level. This leads to a moralization of consumption, in which “good” consumers are seen as virtuous and respectable, while “bad” consumers are condemned for their supposed wickedness.

Sustainable fashion brands target mainly affluent consumers, creating an elite who can afford ethical products, while the poor are excluded from this possibility. This approach emphasizes wealth as a criterion for virtue and denies less well-off people the ability to aspire to these standards.

Furthermore, fashion itself is inherently unfair in terms of looks, race, skill, and wealth. Thus, sustainability discourse risks stigmatizing and regulating those in poverty.

The common portrayal of sustainability unjustly vilifies the poor for their lack of resources, stigmatizes them for consuming fast fashion, and labels them as flawed individuals within a consumerist system. While this may not have been the original intention, sustainability discourse has become a “new Victorian morality” that regulates and punishes those living in poverty. By shifting the discussion towards brands that define themselves as “guided by values”, the moralization of consumption becomes increasingly evident. Fashion isn’t just about the “cool stuff,” but focusing on values means that the customer buys a product that reflects their deep-seated beliefs. Brands claim to “create value for customers”, and these values become an integral part of consumers’ lives. In other words, virtuous and respectable consumers are considered good consumers, while those who do not follow the values are rightly condemned as bad and vicious people. This becomes particularly relevant when applied to the concept of sustainability, considering it a brand value. The needy are deprived of means and desirable goods and are now also deprived of sustainable and ethical values or are not very conscious, at least compared to the “enlightened” consumers who are dedicated to sustainable fashion. Or even worse, because they are considered deplorable, they are included in an inferior culture.

Conclusions

According to the reflections contained in von Busch’s study, the values promoted in the context of sustainability in fashion can limit the opportunities of the less well-off to use fashion as a tool to overcome their precarious condition. On the one hand, the more socially elevated sections of people have less need of fashion for social mobility or for control over their lives. On the other hand, the consumption of the lower classes is accused of being unsustainable and their habits are often perceived as problems that need to be corrected, while their values and cultures need to become “aware” and “rectified”.

Per superare queste limitazioni, si suggerisce di spostare l’attenzione dalle vendite di prodotti sostenibili alle pratiche sostenibili, legate all’uso e alla cura dei vestiti. Questo significa mettere in luce il fatto che molte persone praticano già la sostenibilità attraverso la cura dei propri abiti, facendoli durare e non legando necessariamente la sostenibilità all’acquisto di beni costosi o simbolici. Questa prospettiva metterebbe in luce il potenziale democratico della moda e aprirebbe la strada a una comprensione più approfondita delle pratiche di cura che vanno al di là degli oggetti stessi.

To overcome these limitations, it is suggested to shift attention from the sales of sustainable products to sustainable practices related to the use and care of clothes. This means highlighting the fact that many people already practice sustainability through the care of their clothes, making them last and not necessarily linking sustainability to the purchase of expensive or symbolic goods. This perspective would highlight the democratic potential of fashion and pave the way for a deeper understanding of care practices that go beyond the objects themselves.

Fashion can have democratic potential and should in fact be seen as a social practice beyond consumerism and the reproduction of identity. To fully embrace the democratic potential of fashion, it is suggested to emphasize experimentalism combined with limitations on power, as proposed by political philosopher Roberto Unger. According to Unger (2007)*****, democracy is a form of radical experimentation that does not preserve the status quo, but leaves the future open for people-led reorganization. Therefore, democratic fashion should be based on Unger’s ideas, so as to allow people to actively participate in social and political reorganization.

Questo approccio richiede di considerare la moda non solo come bene di consumo o come strumento per l’affermazione dell’identità, ma come una pratica sociale più ampia. Si dovrebbe andare oltre la reazione immediata di incolpare il “fast fashion” e adottare un approccio olistico delle iniziative di sostenibilità, che coinvolga tutte e tre le dimensioni dell’ecologia della moda: l’ambiente, le relazioni umane e la soggettività, attraverso la promozione dell’azione degli utilizzatori, dell’autostima e delle “capacità della moda”. This approach requires considering fashion not only as a consumer good or as a tool for identity affirmation, but as a wider social practice. One should go beyond the immediate reaction of blaming “fast fashion” and adopt a holistic approach of sustainability initiatives, involving all three dimensions of the ecology of fashion: the environment, human relationships and subjectivity, through the promoting user action, self-esteem and ‘fashion capabilities’.

Finally, it is essential to avoid the hypocrisy of luxury producers and not systematically punish the poor for their aspirations. Sustainability in fashion should be founded on the democratic, dynamic and vital principles of fashion, staying within the limits of the planet. This implies overcoming approaches hidden behind virtuous sustainability that favor social stratification. Although the global increase in the production of fashion items is a challenge to face, sustainability promoters must be aware of not penalizing the less well-off for their aspirations and work to improve democratic principles in fashion.

*von Busch, O. (2022). “What is to be sustained?”: Perpetuating systemic injustices through sustainable fashion, Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 18:1, 400-409, DOI: 10.1080/15487733.2022.2069996

**Guattari, F. 2000. “The Three Ecologies”. London: Athlone

***Hanson, K. 1990. “Dressing Down Dressing Up –The Philosophic Fear of Fashion.”Hypatia 5 (2): 107–121. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.1990.tb00420.x

Puoi ascoltare qui l’articolo: Audio-à-porter – Cocò vintage e secondhand

A Bollate, comodissimo se arrivate con il treno da Milano, c’è un negozio consigliato a chi ama il vintage. Con Sara Freddo, un’amica che mi fa conoscere questo posto, ci divertiamo moltissimo a provare abiti di ogni epoca e ad ascoltare Concetto Serranò, il proprietario, che ci parla della sua attività.
“È nato come negozio second-hand, ma la mia passione è sempre stato il vintage. Così quando qualche anno fa si è liberato lo spazio affianco e ho avuto il posto necessario, ho potuto realizzare l’abbinamento con il vintage. Piano piano sono arrivate anche le fiere, i mercatini come East Market e altri eventi per raggiungere il più possibile gli amanti del vintage”.

Di solito capi, accessori e altri oggetti (per uomo e donna) sono portati qui in negozio dai clienti oppure andate alla ricerca?
“Abbiamo migliaia di tesserati che ci portano varie cose in conto vendita. Inoltre la ricerca è continua, è la parte più bella, più stimolante di questo mestiere. Vivo di ricerca. Di pezzi vintage e particolari. On line, girando, ricevo proposte giornalmente. Quando si trova il pezzo, quello bello, è festa! Ed è quasi un dispiacere poi venderlo. Alcune volte torno a casa, con l’aria sconsolata dico a mia moglie che ho venduto il tal oggetto e lei mi chiede: ‘Ma non sei contento?’. No, perché ora non lo rivedo più! Come quando ho venduto una parte del mio archivio ‘sacro’ a un’amica di New York: una grande soddisfazione, ma… C’era anche una speciale gonna di Krizia, solo due esemplari nel mondo. E poi abiti in metallo, conchiglie, tanti pezzi unici”.

E questa?
“È una scultura fatta da Gina Lollobrigida! Sì, c’è un po’ di tutto. Anche i patch anni ’80-’90”.

Un’area del negozio è destinata alle pellicce, vintage e second-hand, che sono recuperate e tinte in modo da renderle moderne e ancora utilizzabili, invece di essere gettate o dimenticate.

Sul sito Concetto racconta dell’idea del negozio: “Nel tuo armadio ci sono abiti che non utilizzi più, magari indossati una sola volta e pagati a caro prezzo. Lo stesso abito potrebbe interessare ad un’altra persona, non disposta a spendere cifre esorbitanti per comprare l’equivalente del nuovo. Da questo nasce l’idea del mio negozio, un luogo accogliente, circondato da opere d’arte, dove incontrarsi, confrontarsi e scambiarsi abiti, borse, collane, bracciali, accessori, ecc.”.

Troverete veramente di tutto (solo le scarpe sono nuove). Gli abiti da cerimonia o per una serata di gala vi lasceranno senza parole. Ogni cosa qui è praticamente nuova, anche se vintage! La selezione è davvero molto accurata. 

Link http://cocoabbigliamentousato.it

English – Cocò vintage and second-hand: the love for the search for quality items and garments that continue to be used

In Bollate, very easy if you arrive by train from Milan, there is a shop recommended for those who love vintage. With Sara Freddo, a friend who introduces me to this place, we have a great time trying out clothes from every age and listening to Concetto Serranò, the owner, who talks about his business.
“It was born as a second-hand shop, but my passion has always been vintage. So when a few years ago the space next to me was free and I had the necessary place, I was able to combine it with vintage. Little by little also the fairs, the markets like East Market and other events have arrived to reach vintage lovers as much as possible”.

Are garments, accessories and other items usually brought to the store by clients or are you looking for them?
“We have thousands of registered members who bring us various things on consignment. Furthermore, the research is continuous, it is the most beautiful, the most stimulating part of this profession. I live of research of vintage and particular pieces. On line, going around, I receive proposals daily. When the piece is found, the beautiful one, is a party! And it is almost a sorrow then to sell it. Sometimes I come home, with a disconsolate air I tell my wife that I sold a particular item and she asks me: ‘But not are you happy?’. No, because now I don’t see it again! Like when I sold a part of my ‘sacred’ archive’ to a friend in New York: great satisfaction, but … There was also a special skirt by Krizia, only two pieces in the world. And then metal dresses, shells, many unique pieces”.

And this one?
“It is a sculpture made by Gina Lollobrigida! Yes, there is a bit of everything. Even the patches of the 80s and 90s”.

An area of ​​the store is for furs, vintage and second-hand, which are recovered and dyed to make them modern and still usable, instead of being thrown away or forgotten.

On the website Concetto tells about the idea of ​​the store: “In your closet there are clothes you no longer use, maybe worn only once and paid dearly. The same dress could be of interest of another person, not willing to spend exorbitant figures to buy the equivalent of the new one. From this comes the idea of ​​my shop, a welcoming place, surrounded by works of art, where to meet, confront and exchange clothes, bags, necklaces, bracelets, accessories, etc.”.

You will really find everything (only the shoes are new). Ceremonial or gala evening dresses will leave you speechless. The selection is really very accurate and everything here is practically new, even if vintage! 

Link http://cocoabbigliamentousato.it