Search Results for: labour exploitation

13 more brands under investigation in Milan for labour exploitation

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 5 minutes

A crisis for the fashion industry, or a reflection of the economic system at large?


Authorities in Milan are cracking down on labour exploitation in the fashion supply chain, placing 13 more brands under investigation after a major operation revealed severe irregularities. A sweeping inquiry has uncovered new allegations of abusive conditions linked to several manufacturers, prompting prosecutors to widen the scope of the probe. The Milan Prosecutor’s Office has now demanded documentation from 13 major fashion brands to demonstrate their compliance with labour and safety laws. Garments tied to these companies were discovered in warehouses run by Chinese subcontractors, leading investigators to call for deeper scrutiny.

From D&G and Prada to Adidas, Versace, and Gucci, the Milan Prosecutor’s Office has sent documentation requests to verify compliance with safety and legal controls.

But is labour exploitation unique to fashion, and to Italy, or is it a feature of the economic system itself?

The Milan probe: fashion & illegal hiring


Once again, the fashion industry is in the spotlight. Another 13 major groups have come under the scrutiny of Milan prosecutors. Late on Tuesday, 2 December, labour protection officers of the Carabinieri, under the mandate of Prosecutor Paolo Storari, carried out raids at corporate offices, demanding documents proving that safety and legal compliance checks had been performed along the supply chain.

Within days, the companies must provide investigators with the requested materials. Based on this documentation, the prosecutor’s office will decide whether to seek judicial oversight—under Italy’s anti-mafia legislation—or bring formal charges related to illegal labour intermediation (the so-called caporalato system) under Law 231.

Milan: 13 more brands under investigation


13 more brands under investigation — who are they?
The brands required to submit documentation include Missoni, Off-White Operating, Adidas Italy, Yves Saint Laurent Manifatture, Givenchy Italy, Ferragamo, Versace, Gucci, Pinko, Prada, Coccinelle, Dolce & Gabbana, and Alexander McQueen.

Investigations have identified cases of “Chinese migrant labour being used under conditions of severe exploitation,” with work performed “on behalf of” the brands listed. Workshops visited across Lombardy, Tuscany, and Marche revealed hazardous conditions, extremely low pay, excessive hours, and workers without contracts, protective equipment, or overtime compensation—many threatened because of their irregular immigration status.

The documentation requested from the companies is extensive: registry extracts, contracts, organisational charts, role descriptions, board minutes from January 2023, internal control system reports, supplier accreditation procedures, internal audit plans and results, monitoring and traceability plans, supplier lists, and financial statements for 2023–2024, including sustainability reports.

The prosecution appears to be urging companies to regularise their operations.

Patterns of exploitation 


This investigation is part of a broader effort to dismantle subcontracting networks marked by severe labour exploitation. Previous cases involving Alviero Martini, Armani Operations, Loro Piana, Valentino Bags, and Manifatture Dior revealed similar dynamics. Tod’s was also investigated, although judicial oversight was denied due to jurisdictional and substantive considerations.

Except for the unusual Tod’s case, interventions have not begun from direct sweatshop conditions linked to major brands. Instead, they start from the observation that checks along supply chains were insufficient or ineffective, allowing illegal practices to persist.

Judicial administration—already implemented for certain companies—aims to establish transparent supplier registries. Separately, illegal labour charges may lead to managers being held personally accountable in court.

Made in “Chitaly”: Chinese workers operating in Italy


In a post dedicated to the contradictions of 1 May 2023, we discussed “Made in Chitaly” to illustrate how the abuses seen in Rana Plaza or in the forced labour of Uyghurs in China have parallels in Italy. Thus, we see a clear, global pattern.

To preserve high profit margins, brands outsource production to Chinese-run workshops, requesting the lowest possible prices. This keeps the mythology of “Made in Italy” alive. At least for those with no understanding of quality but who seek only a famous label. Minimum wage is nowhere to be found.

Yet major publications, including Business of Fashion, frame this as an Italian issue. But is it truly confined to Italy?

From subcontracting to the system: the wider mechanism


While these cases occur in Milan, the underlying pattern is not local but global. Labour exploitation involving Italian brands may describe the immediate facts, yet the mechanism extends far beyond Italy. Opaque, multilayered subcontracting chains are deliberately structured to reduce costs through distance and deniability. Each additional layer dilutes responsibility, making it easier for major groups to claim ignorance while benefiting from lower production costs.

Fashion is not unique in this respect. The same system is at work across logistics, agriculture, electronics, beauty, automotive manufacturing, and more. Wherever cost reduction becomes the primary objective, labour is the pressure point.

The real issue: capitalism as the underlying engine


The fashion industry is now deeply entrenched in global capitalism, shaped by conglomerates such as LVMH, Kering, and Richemont, as well as private equity. In fact, luxury giants and shareholder rule. Publicly traded empires prioritise profit margins, scalability, and acquisitions. Fashion is no longer about creativity—it is a financial asset.

Let’s be direct: sweatshops and fashion are connected, but fashion did not invent exploitation. It merely mirrors the logic of the economic system that governs it. What we see in these investigations is not an isolated malfunction but a structural feature of capitalism: extraction, exploitation, and the relentless pursuit of cheaper labour.

There is no fully ethical business under capitalism—only degrees of complicity.

We suggest reading this post: Behind the Seams: Fashion Industry & Forced Labour

Social washing as the final disguise


As public scrutiny increases, so do corporate campaigns emphasising social responsibility. This is social washing: the social counterpart of greenwashing. Marketing narratives multiply, while evidence remains scarce. Ethical imagery obscures extractive practices. The gap between branding and reality continues to widen.

In this context, social washing becomes the final layer of the system—an effort to reassure consumers while the underlying logic remains unchanged.

Final thoughts


The expansion of the probe, with 13 more brands under investigation in the Milan area, sends a clear signal. It’s a stark warning for the industry — but will shoppers take notice, or simply shop as usual?

Yet, this is not a uniquely Italian scandal, nor a flaw specific to the fashion industry. It reflects a global economic structure that treats labour as a cost to be minimised. Social responsibility campaigns may attempt to soften the narrative, but they cannot obscure the systemic logic that produces these outcomes. Read: capitalism.

Until that logic is questioned, cases like these will continue to surface—across fashion and every other industry built on the same foundations. And everyone will just say: we didn’t know…

13 more brands under investigation in Milan for labour exploitation Read More »

Fashion subcontracting: new measures to combat labour exploitation in Italy

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 3 minutes

The government’s paradoxical solution: a magic trick that makes accountability disappear down the supply chain


Fashion subcontracting is a hot-button issue, posing significant reputational risks for luxury brands. In response to recent sweatshop scandals, Minister for Made in Italy, Urso, has proposed a controversial solution: exempting client companies from responsibility.

This approach was crystallised in an amendment—nicknamed the “Save Tod’s” clause—following a request for special administration of the Tod’s Group by the Milan prosecutor’s office. Approved last Tuesday as part of the annual law for SMEs, the amendment allows fashion companies to obtain a “supply chain legality” certification. In practice, it absolves top brands from accountability for labour conditions at the bottom of their supply chain.

The legislation, recently approved by the Senate Industry Committee, states that fashion groups are not liable if they had pre-existing “organisational models” designed to prevent crimes, overseen by an internal body with autonomous control powers. The consequence is clear: major fashion houses could soon be completely relieved of responsibility for exploitation within their own production networks.

Confindustria Moda & reputational advantage


Confindustria Moda, which helped draft the legislation, defends the measure: “The enormous pressure on brands creates sector-wide difficulties,” they state. “While it’s right that each leader organises work correctly, we can’t ask for more. Ongoing investigations send the wrong message to workers.”

For fashion brands under recent scrutiny, this voluntary supply chain certification offers a clear exit strategy. Companies can choose to undergo external audits with their suppliers. Once an implementing decree defines the parameters, compliant brands can display a “certified supply chain” mark.

This provides a reputational advantage and, crucially, legal protection. If a certified supplier is later found to have irregularities, the lead company would be shielded from judicial administration.

Fashion subcontracting — critical voices: “A shield for exploiters”


The government’s move has drawn sharp criticism from unions and opposition parties, who accuse it of effectively legalising labour exploitation.

Alessandro Genovesi of the CGIL union called the amendment “a very serious precedent.” He stated, “Faced with judicial allegations of criminal exploitation, the government is erasing the crime. From a tax shield for evaders, we have moved to a criminal shield for those who exploit.”

The CGIL, excluded from government talks with industry representatives, is demanding stricter measures, including verification of worker-to-production ratios, application of collective labour agreements, and limits on subcontracting.

Echoing this outrage, Democratic Party Labour Representative Maria Cecilia Guerra denounced the policy as “a coup that weakens the fight against labour exploitation.” She explained the practical effect: “A company can sell €500 shoes from a contractor paying workers €2.50 an hour, yet face no audit. The client’s responsibility is swept away by a certificate.” She and colleague Arturo Scotto condemned it as “a step backwards by a right-wing party with no interest in protecting job quality or ethical businesses.”

Final thoughts


In conclusion, we must ask: who seeks subcontracting to get the lowest possible production prices? And in that pursuit, what do luxury company owners expect? Can the cheapest labour cost ever correspond to the highest labour standards?

Fashion subcontracting and sweatshop conditions are a critical yet systemic issue. The fundamental paradox of the government’s new measures is that they legalise the very conditions that lead to labour exploitation. The complex subcontracting chains, driven by the luxury sector’s pursuit of the lowest costs, are now being fortified with a legal shield. The proposed “solution” does not raise labour standards, verify fair wages, or limit outsourcing. Instead, it offers brands a path to waive liability, ensuring that the highest standards of luxury can continue to rest on the lowest standards for workers’ rights.

Italy is not solving the crisis; it is guaranteeing impunity for the powerful at the expense of the vulnerable.

In short, the Italian government is offering a false solution. Protection for brands—not for people.

Fashion subcontracting: new measures to combat labour exploitation in Italy Read More »

Fashion and sweatshops: “Labour Exploitation? A limited phenomenon,” claims Capasa (CNMI)

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 3 minutes

Luxury fashion: Workers endure modern slavery as prices spiral out of control


The link between fashion and sweatshops becomes increasingly entangled. According to Capasa (CNMI), labour exploitation in the industry is an “isolated phenomenon.” But is this truly the case? Or has fashion been wholly absorbed by finance, dominated by hedge funds and pure capitalism? The question strikes at the heart of today’s debate about fashion’s ties to the global economic system.

Recently, Italy’s Antitrust fined Armani €3.5 million for “unfair commercial practices,” accusing the brand of misleading consumers by using social responsibility as a marketing tool. The group responded with “dismay and astonishment,” vowing to appeal.

From greenwashing to social washing, the playbook is familiar. But what’s the point of penalising a single luxury brand when the issue is systemic?

Fashion and sweatshops: Isolated incidents or structural crisis?


Publications like Business of Fashion often frame labour exploitation as an “Italian problem.” Yet when Dior—a French brand owned by LVMH—faces similar scandals, it becomes clear the decisions driving exploitation aren’t made by the artisans sewing handbags in Italy. Corporate boardrooms dictate them.

While independent brands and fashion countercultures might seem like authentic alternatives, the industry as a whole remains deeply entrenched in global capitalism, ruled by conglomerates (LVMH, Kering, Richemont) and private equity.

Fashion in the grip of finance


Is fashion truly free, or just another capitalist tool? We celebrate it as a creative expression, but how much autonomy does it really have? These forces are shaping how we experience the industry today:

  1. Luxury giants & shareholder rule – Publicly traded empires like LVMH (Louis Vuitton, Dior, Fendi) prioritise profit margins, scalability, and acquisitions. Fashion is no longer about creativity—it’s a financial asset.
  2. The privatisation of taste – Trends are engineered: pre-fall collections, “resort” lines, and limited-edition drops exist solely to fuel hype and endless consumption. Even “underground” movements (streetwear, sustainability) are swiftly co-opted.
  3. Extractivist fast fashion – Shein, Zara, and H&M epitomise hyper-capitalism: exploitative labour, planned obsolescence, and algorithms (not designers) dictating trends.

Is change possible?


Resistance exists—but is it enough?

  • Slow fashion: Timeless, ethical designs that reject disposability.
  • Vintage & second-hand: A quiet rebellion against overproduction.
  • Independent brands: Fleeting oases before acquisition or collapse.

Yet, as long as fashion remains a multi-billion-dollar machine, these remain mere drops in the ocean. Finance still dictates the rules—and profit will always outweigh ethics in boardrooms.

Final thoughts: No more illusions


Let’s be blunt: Fashion and sweatshops are deeply connected. The system of deliberately opaque, low-cost subcontracting isn’t an “isolated phenomenon” (apologies, Mr. Capasa)—it’s the beating heart of modern capitalism. Extraction. Exploitation. The relentless pursuit of cheaper labour.

This isn’t just about fashion. It’s about what we value:

  • Should clothes be financial instruments or cultural artefacts?
  • Can creativity survive when quarterly reports matter more than craft?

The uncomfortable truth? There’s no ethical fashion under capitalism—only degrees of complicity.

So this leaves us facing the radical question:
Can we imagine post-capitalist fashion? Or is it doomed to serve profit forever?

What do you think? Is there room for radical change—or is this just idealism?

Fashion and sweatshops: “Labour Exploitation? A limited phenomenon,” claims Capasa (CNMI) Read More »

Next in line: Loro Piana investigated for labour exploitation

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 3 minutes

The count begins again — yet another high-end brand faces allegations, exposing systemic abuses in fashion’s supply chain


Next in line: Loro Piana.
The luxury label has become the latest name under scrutiny. So, the count begins again. Another crack in the polished image of luxury fashion.

The Milan Court has placed Loro Piana S.p.A., part of the LVMH group and chaired by Antoine, the son of French tycoon Bernard Arnault, under judicial administration for one year. The company is accused of indirectly subcontracting production to Chinese-owned firms allegedly involved in labour exploitation.

This makes it the fifth luxury brand caught in the web of investigations into labour rights violations within Italy’s high-end supply chain — following Giorgio Armani Operations, Alviero Martini S.p.A., Manufactures Dior, and Valentino. So far, charges against the first three were dropped before conclusion, but the abuses were real.

As Corriere reports, “Loro Piana S.p.A. failed to verify the actual operational capacity of the contractors and subcontractors it relied on, and neglected to carry out meaningful inspections or audits over the years to assess the true state of its supply chain and working conditions.”

This development clashes with the recent signing of a “protocol of understanding,” involving the country’s most representative trade unions and employers’ associations, aimed at ensuring compliance with the law within the high-end fashion supply chain. Yet their actions tell a different story.

Loro Piana: The investigations reveal systemic issues in luxury fashion


According to prosecutors, Loro Piana outsourced the production of garments — including jackets — to third-party companies where labour exploitation allegedly occurred. The Milan court has placed the brand under one year of judicial supervision, which may be lifted early if the company takes adequate steps to comply with labour laws.

As reported by Corriere della Sera, the investigation revealed that Loro Piana entrusted manufacturing to Evergreen Fashion Group S.r.l., a company that lacked its own production facilities. Evergreen subcontracted the work to Sor-Man S.n.c. in Nova Milanese. Without sufficient production capacity, Sor-Man outsourced once again — this time to Chinese-managed factories Clover Moda S.r.l. (in Baranzate) and Dai Meiying (in Senago).

These facilities reportedly employed undocumented Asian workers off the books, under inhumane and unsafe conditions. Workers were housed in illegal dormitories and forced to endure gruelling shifts — including nights and public holidays — as evidenced by spikes in electricity usage. They were paid far below the legal minimum wage, operated hazardous machinery without proper training, and lacked both health monitoring and basic workplace protections.

According to the investigation, Loro Piana’s production model was structured to cut costs and maximise profits. 
Indeed, that’s how capitalism works, isn’t it?

Final thoughts


In case we needed further proof: this isn’t just about Loro Piana. It never was. What we’re seeing is a pattern.
Subcontracting is not an accident — it’s a symptom of a supply chain built on deliberate denial.
The real issue isn’t one brand. It’s the system itself.
A system fuelled by capitalist logic: extraction, exploitation, and carefully maintained opacity.

For further context, revisit this post:
👉 Valentino Under Investigation: Subcontracting as a Supply Chain System

The count has begun again.
Next in line: Loro Piana.
And after the roll call is complete — after one name, then another — will anyone finally admit the truth?
This isn’t about a few bad apples.
It’s about a rotten tree.

Next in line: Loro Piana investigated for labour exploitation Read More »

Labour, today: what has (not) changed

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 4 minutes

An update on labour exploitation, modern-day slavery and human rights


On May 1st, we celebrate labour. But it may be more honest to look at how that work exists.

Because in 2026, labour exploitation has not disappeared. It has become more complex, more fragmented — and easier to ignore.

The system hasn’t changed. It has scaled.

Investigations into global supply chains continue to confirm what is often treated as an exception: exploitation is not on the margins of production. It sits at its centre.

From garments to electronics, companies still achieve cost efficiency, in part, through pressure that travels down the chain — until it reaches those with the least power to resist it.

Labour — What the system depends on


Recent benchmarks by KnowTheChain, a project of the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, offer a useful lens.

Across industries, performance remains low. In the food and beverage sector, reports from Brazil’s coffee production describe working weeks stretching beyond legal limits, degrading living conditions, and cases of debt bondage. In technology manufacturing, only a handful of companies score above average — and none adequately respond to specific allegations of forced labour.

Even where policies exist, enforcement is inconsistent.
And the model itself — particularly just-in-time production — continues to create conditions where abuse becomes more likely, not less.

The workers the system relies on most


Migrant labour sits at the core of many of these sectors: construction, agriculture, logistics, care.

And yet, it is also where vulnerability concentrates.

Many workers arrive already in debt, having paid high recruitment fees for jobs that do not match what was promised. Once employed, their position is often tied to temporary visas, employer sponsorship, or informal arrangements that make leaving difficult and speaking out risky.

What follows is not always visible, but it is consistent: wage theft, excessive hours, unsafe conditions, restricted movement.

Between 2022 and 2025, authorities and researchers have recorded thousands of cases globally, with agriculture and construction showing the highest concentration. Most involve violations that are not exceptional, but systemic — embedded in how labour is managed, priced, and controlled.

Workers are essential to the system. But remain structurally exposed within it.

Italy: luxury and labour exploitation, side by side


Closer to home, investigations between 2025 and 2026 have made this contradiction harder to ignore.

In subcontracted workshops supplying major luxury brands, authorities uncovered what they described as “heavy exploitation” of migrant workers — often underpaid, sometimes undocumented, producing goods sold at exponentially higher prices.

At the same time, some brand units have been placed under administration due to labour abuses, while others have cut large numbers of suppliers following violations.

These are not isolated incidents.

Prosecutors have pointed instead to a “generalised manufacturing method”— a system where responsibility fragments across layers of subcontracting, and where visibility fades as production moves further away from the brand.

Luxury, in this context, does not sit apart from exploitation.
It can exist alongside it.

The pressure behind the product


Speed drives part of this dynamic. The rise of ultra-fast fashion has intensified cost pressure across supply chains, forcing suppliers into continuous price reductions and unstable production cycles. Those at the top transfer downward what they cannot absorb — through lower wages, longer hours, and compromised conditions.

This is not an unintended outcome. It is the economic logic of scale and acceleration.

Transparency, but on whose terms?


There are signs of movement.

The European Union is advancing toward stricter supply chain traceability, and some brands have begun mapping their networks more systematically. In Italy, a recent agreement introduced a voluntary system for suppliers to disclose labour conditions and obtain certification.

But the key word remains: voluntary.

Transparency is still, in many cases, a choice — not an obligation. And beyond the first tier of suppliers, visibility remains limited.
At the same time, new regulations are emerging globally. Investigations into forced labour are increasing, and legislative frameworks are slowly taking shape.

But the pace of regulation does not yet match the speed of production.

What remains unchanged


This creates a familiar contradiction.
Even as sustainability becomes a dominant narrative, labour conditions often remain secondary:

  • supply chains extend beyond clear accountability
  • companies regularly outsource responsibility
  • “green” transitions risk, excluding the very workers they depend on

In fact, what is presented as progress does not always translate into protection.

What May 1st should remind us


In conclusion, labour exploitation today is not hidden because it is rare. It is hidden because it is structural.

It exists in subcontracting.
In pricing models.
In the distance—geographical and economic—between brands and workers.

And often, in the gap between what is communicated and what is practised.

On a day that celebrates workers, the question is not only how far we have come.

It is also: who remains invisible in the system we continue to participate in?

Labour, today: what has (not) changed Read More »

Legal shield for luxury: is this the solution to ending luxury brands’ exploitation of workers?

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 7 minutes

Report Rai3: fashion sweatshops and the unbroken link between luxury and labour abuse


While Italy was in the midst of Men’s Fashion Week, Rai3’s Report aired a hard-hitting investigation into the labour exploitation behind the luxury brands now seeking a legal shield. Thetopic itself was not new: recently, media outlets have reported on sweatshops hidden behind the façade of Made in Italy. What Report did differently was to go further—attempting to speak directly with manufacturers, workers and brand owners.

Among the major figures contacted, only Diego Della Valle—chairman of Tod’s Group (Tod’s, Hogan, Fay and Roger Vivier)—agreed to appear on camera. His appearance, however, raised more questions than it answered. The investigation revealed that audits had been conducted within the supply chain, yet Tod’s disregarded their findings.

Some commentators accused Report of daring to criticise an industry that represents a significant share of Italy’s GDP. We strongly disagree. When an industry operates—directly or indirectly—through sweatshop conditions, exposing it is not only legitimate, it is necessary.

Judicial administration and labour abuse


Several luxury brands have been placed under judicial administration over failures to monitor labour exploitation in their supply chains.

Valentino Bags—a company controlled by Valentino and responsible for producing bags for the brand—was among them, alongside Loro Piana, Armani and Dior. In one of the Chinese workshops producing Valentino bags, the Carabinieri found a child playing among fabrics and industrial machinery.

In July 2025, the Milan court ordered judicial administration for Loro Piana, the Italian high‑end clothing brand controlled by LVMH. Investigators found that production had been entrusted to companies that subcontracted work to Chinese workshops where workers were exploited.

Unfinished leather handbags in a sparse workshop, representing the hidden production behind luxury brands seeking a legal shield.

Della Valle: “The Chinese workshops are not our concern”


In October, the Milan Prosecutor’s Office requested preventive judicial administration for Tod’s SpA. The investigation uncovered serious violations of workers’ rights across the subcontracting chain responsible for producing the brand’s goods. Prosecutors stated that the company was aware of these practices, leading to an investigation for caporalato (the gangmaster system).

Following similar measures against multiple fashion brands, Milan prosecutor Paolo Storari also requested a six‑month advertising ban for Tod’s. Through an exclusive interview with Diego Della Valle, Report reconstructed the luxury supply chain: production is outsourced to Italian firms with no manufacturing facilities, which then subcontract to Chinese workshops.

Della Valle argued that responsibility should not extend beyond the first level of the supply chain. This position is deeply problematic. If a brand entrusts production to intermediaries that do not manufacture anything themselves, what does it expect to happen? And why do brands choose this model in the first place?

In the Tod’s case, one of the most serious issues to emerge was the failure to act on clear audit findings. Problems were identified, yet deliberately overlooked.

The attempted legal shield for luxury brands


Against this backdrop, Article 30 of the Small and Medium Enterprises Bill—approved by the Senate and debated in the Chamber of Deputies—attempted to exempt major fashion brands from liability for crimes committed along their production chains.

Widely described as a legal shield for luxury brands, the amendment was eventually withdrawn following protests by trade unions, workers and the Clean Clothes Campaign. It will now return to the Senate.

During his interview with Report, Minister Adolfo Urso stated that caporalato in Italy had been “brought by the Chinese”. A staggering statement that shifts blame away from the structural drivers.

Shifting blame to the lowest—and weakest—links in the chain conveniently ignores who sets prices, who designs supply chains and who ultimately benefits from lower production costs.

Made in Chitaly: the testimony that explains everything


One of the most powerful moments in Report was the testimony of Andrea Parisi, owner of Spectre Srl, a company specialising in the finishing of heels for luxury footwear.

Until recently, Spectre employed 34–35 people and worked for all the major luxury brands. Today, only three workers remain.

Parisi explained how brands outsource work to companies that possess no machinery, which then subcontract—unofficially—to Chinese workshops capable of producing tens of thousands of units at prices that are economically impossible under legal conditions.

A heel paid €0.80 per piece (€1.60 per pair), he explained, should cost at least twice that amount. This pricing mechanism drives law-abiding Italian manufacturers out of the market, depriving them of contracts, revenue, and skilled labour.

“The most serious loss,” Parisi said, “is our workforce.” Competing, he explained, is impossible unless one is willing to break the law.

Andrea Parisi’s most touching words:

“The fashion sector in Italy no longer exists. But at this moment we don’t even have the tools to fight anymore, how are we supposed to go forward? Must our workers be reduced to ‘Vietnam conditions’? What have we come to? Behind subcontracting, lies undeclared labour, lies precarious employment, exploitation. It must be abolished, full stop, and it must be done tomorrow morning. It’s Made in Italy if the workers’ ethics are respected. Otherwise, write on the products ‘Made in Italy 50%’, at least tell the truth.”

A structural system, not an anomaly


The idea of serving luxury products to everyone has generated this system. The so-called democratic luxury.

As Della Valle said: “We survive because people recognise in us an absolute quality. How many people buy a bag or a pair of shoes from me? Many have the money to do so, then there are those who love them, who perhaps don’t have the money, they make a sacrifice, and to those people you can’t say: ‘You’re working your arse off to buy this little thing, and these people are a bunch of wankers.’”

So brands serve entry price products while, at the same time, cut their costs as much as they can to maximise profits. Let’s clearly state this: the idea of democratic luxury is as contradictory as illiberal democracy: it does not exist. It is either one thing or the other.

As Luca Bertazzoni (Report) said: “The point is that those Chinese companies which President Meloni claims to be fighting are now an integral part of the system and continue to be sought by the major fashion brands to maximise profits. Take the case of Mr Yang, whom we had met a year ago after the Carabinieri found Dior bags inside his workshop in Opera, where workers were being exploited.”

Gian Gaetano Bellavia – expert in corporate criminal law, explained further: “The Italian who wins the contract always keeps his own margin, and it’s the Chinese contractor who has to cut his margin. So then the Chinese contractor perhaps goes to a Pakistani, right? Who is even more desperate than the Chinese.”

This system is not limited to handbags or footwear, nor is it an exception. Furthermore, it is not solely an Italian issue—is Dior an Italian brand? And doesn’t LVMH owns Loro Piana? The problem is structural and global. To be clear, it also exists beyond fashion. Yet, this breadth is not a mitigating factor but an aggravating one.

As Bellavia noted, it is a “war among the poor to serve the rich”. Those at the top remain silent, protected by distance, complexity and legal ambiguity.

Final thoughts


In conclusion, this operating system is not new. As young women working in fashion in the late 1990s, we witnessed its gradual consolidation. For over twenty years, opacity has prevailed. If we saw that, how did nobody question what was happening?

Today, instead of dismantling the system, the Italian government proposes a legal shield for luxury.

But when luxury products are made through exploitation, who is responsible? The last link in the chain? Really? Or those who decide to maximise profits by compressing production costs from the top down?

If Italian manufacturing has been decimated, responsibility lies with both political choices and brand strategies. Blaming labour exploitation solely on the weakest links in the chain is not only dishonest—it is shameful.

A legal shield is not the solution. These companies have money, power and structure. They must be responsible for workers’ conditions and for the reality behind their products. Choosing ignorance forfeits accountability.

Luca Bertazzoni offered a definitive direction:

“If high fashion were to abandon the subcontracting chain that allows it to make profits by producing at rock-bottom prices, Italian artisans could go back to work, with full respect for workers’ rights.”

So, forget a legal shield for luxury. The real solution is clear: dismantle the subcontracting chains that allow luxury brands to profit from cut‑price labour. Only then can Italian artisans return to work under conditions that respect dignity and rights.

Ethics. Fairness. A level playing field.

And hold the brands responsible.

Legal shield for luxury: is this the solution to ending luxury brands’ exploitation of workers? Read More »

Illegal labour subcontracting in the fashion industry: A landmark agreement signed

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 2 minutes

Authorities and brands commit to tackling exploitation: Progress or just a promise?


Apparently, the fashion industry is finally ready to address one of its most uncomfortable truths: illegal labour subcontracting.

On Monday, May 26, after a year of negotiations, the “Memorandum of Understanding for the Legality of Procurement Contracts in the Fashion Production Chains” was signed at the Milan Prefecture. The agreement seeks to promote legality, fairness, and transparency across the supply chain while supporting the sector’s development.

Prompted by investigations from the Milan prosecutor’s office—targeting brands including Alviero Martini S.p.A., Dior, Armani, and most recently Valentino—the Milan Prefecture identified the urgent need for concrete measures. This agreement is meant to improve working conditions, combat exploitation, and curb tax evasion and other illicit practices within fashion manufacturing.

Fashion industry supply chain: What the agreement proposes


The protocol introduces a “dual track” system:

  • A digital supply chain platform: Manufacturing companies will voluntarily register and provide detailed data about their structure, workforce, and production phases.
  • A “green list” of verified companies: Brands can access this list to identify suppliers with transparent and traceable operations.

To incentivise participation, compliant companies may earn a “Certificate of Transparency in the Fashion Sector” and gain access to regional benefits offered by Lombardy.

National relevance & industry reservations


Luca Sburlati, President of Confindustria Moda, emphasised the national significance of the initiative despite its territorial foundation:

“The national scope is clear—both due to the broad representation of the signatories and because fashion supply chains transcend regional borders.”

He suggests expanding the framework nationwide. Yet not all stakeholders are fully on board. The Camera Nazionale della Moda Italiana (CNMI) expressed concerns:

“Some essential elements must be redefined operationally to prevent unintended negative consequences for companies and the supply chain.”

In particular, CNMI is wary of potential breaches in brand confidentiality and the handling of sensitive data within the platform.

The agreement: Voluntary… For now


So, the fashion industry has finally signed an agreement to end illegal labour subcontracting—luxury sweatshops. But a healthy production chain costs more—are brands truly ready to pay the price?

Participation in the platform remains voluntary, raising concerns about the real impact of the initiative. Without mandatory enforcement or clear consequences for non-compliance, there’s a risk that only a handful of “virtuous” companies will engage—while others continue to operate in the shadows.

If transparency is truly the goal, will good intentions be enough?

Illegal labour subcontracting in the fashion industry: A landmark agreement signed Read More »

Behind the Seams: Fashion Industry & Forced Labour

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 3 minutes

Understanding the joint roles of brands and consumers


Let’s delve “behind the seams” to unveil the link between the fashion industry and forced labour. The connection is robust, a topic often discussed yet incredibly overlooked by consumers despite the information.

In a recent post, we exposed the symbiotic relationship between luxury brands and fast fashion, both operating within the capitalistic framework. Today, we peel back another layer, examining recent cases.

Behind the seams of luxury brands


First, we happened to read a BOF post: “Luxury brands lag on efforts to reduce forced labour.” Reduce? But isn’t it appalling that brands discuss reducing forced labour instead of eliminating forced labour? By the way, the graphic in the attachment gathered luxury brands and fast fashion brands. All the most popular ones! (see it here).
Second, these days, the news reported the case of Alviero Martini. The company is under investigation for starving wages.

These two elements confirm our thesis: luxury brands and fast fashion share the same pattern, just for different pockets. But, above all, they highlight how deeply this issue is rooted in the fashion system, revealing it as a consolidated practice to maximise profit.

Also, it is interesting to notice that luxury brands often blame fast fashion while hiding their practices that are no different! Luxury brands exploit people’s work precisely as fast fashion does. Whatever the “made in” label says.

According to “Knowthechain” – a non-profit organisation:
“Today, an estimated 24.9 million people around the world are victims of forced labour, generating $150 billion in illegal profits in the private economy.”

Forced labour & modern-day slavery


Forced labour refers to individuals compelled to work against their will, under threat of punishment or coercion. In other words, individuals suffer exploitation as they are deprived of their freedom, coerced into labour without fair remuneration, and subjected to conditions over which they have no control. Forced labour can take various forms, including human trafficking, debt bondage, and other forms of modern slavery, and it is a violation of fundamental human rights as well as international labour standards.

Although condemned and prohibited by national and international laws, the practice is widespread. What’s worse? People, through their purchases, endorse this despicable system.

The fashion industry has no moral fabric, just as individuals who ignore the issue despite the available information.

Are you willing to shut your eyes when buying a logoed bag?
Did you know there’s an alternative? Small, independent brands offer luxury handbags with the finest materials, quality and skilled craftsmanship, all at just 1/3 the price of a branded bag. But while the logoed ones may be easy to sell, only a niche audience can appreciate true quality.

Your decisions as a consumer can shape an industry that values humanity over profit. Don’t compromise ethics over status.

What happens “behind the seams,” the dark connection between the fashion industry and forced labour, is extensively covered in the media. Read, share, and take action. But do not close your eyes. Ignorance is not an option; it’s time to confront the truth.

Behind the Seams: Fashion Industry & Forced Labour Read More »

Italian luxury fashion investigation: Milan court expands probe

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 4 minutes

Labour exploitation in the high-end segment of the fashion system


Reuters reports that Italian police have visited the headquarters of nine high-end fashion firms as part of the Italian luxury fashion investigation into the alleged exploitation of workers employed by subcontractors. Officers requested documents relating to corporate governance and supply chain controls.

In December 2025, the investigation had already involved thirteen other brands, including Dolce & Gabbana, Gucci, and Prada.

This time, the companies that received the orders are Brunello Cucinelli, Moncler, Chanel, Bulgari, Jacob Cohen Company SPA, Etro, Stefano Ricci, Goyard Italie and Owenscorp Italia.

These brands became linked to the probe after authorities found subcontracting records and goods traceable to them during previous searches of two Chinese-run workshops accused of exploiting undocumented workers.

None of the companies is currently under criminal investigation, nor have prosecutors sought court-ordered administration for any of them. Most of the firms did not immediately reply to requests for comment. Chanel said it is cooperating with the Italian labour investigation and has terminated its relationship with the subcontractor.

The two Chinese-run workshops made garment bags, shopping totes, and pouches for Brandart and F. VL., both of which were raided by the Carabinieri. Those suppliers passed the goods directly to the nine fashion brands, which sold them under their own names.

Carlo Capasa, president of the Camera Nazionale della Moda Italiana, described these as isolated cases. The growing number of brands linked to the investigation suggests otherwise.

More importantly, these investigations reveal the production model behind luxury fashion.


Italian luxury fashion investigation illustrated by an empty textile factory with rows of industrial sewing machines.

The subcontracting labyrinth


Although these investigations are unfolding in Milan, the dynamics at play are anything but local. What we are witnessing is a global production model built on opacity. The exploitation uncovered among subcontractors serving luxury brands is not an exception — it is the predictable outcome of layered supply chains designed to reduce costs while distancing brands from legal and reputational responsibility.

Every additional layer of subcontracting increases the distance between the brand and the factory floor, making accountability progressively harder to establish while labour costs continue to fall. Brands can legitimately claim they had no direct relationship with the workshop where abuses occurred, even though those workshops ultimately exist to produce their goods.

This mechanism is hardly unique to fashion. Similar structures operate in electronics, agriculture, logistics and automotive manufacturing. Wherever relentless cost reduction becomes the overriding objective, labour is usually the first variable to be squeezed.

The financialisation of luxury


Luxury fashion has changed profoundly over the past few decades. Once dominated by family-owned ateliers centred on craftsmanship, the industry is now largely controlled by listed groups and investment-driven owners. Growth targets, quarterly earnings and shareholder expectations increasingly shape business decisions. Fashion houses have become financial assets as much as cultural ones.

Sweatshops and luxury fashion are therefore not disconnected realities. They are products of the same economic logic: maximise margins, outsource costs and push production through increasingly fragmented supply chains. These investigations do not expose an isolated failure — they reveal a system operating as intended.

Within such a model, ethical production becomes difficult to sustain because commercial pressure continually rewards lower costs over greater transparency. There are only varying degrees of responsibility.

Final thoughts


The Italian luxury fashion investigation highlights that these cases are not isolated incidents but symptoms of a production model built on fragmented supply chains. Whether it will lead to lasting structural change remains uncertain.

Previous investigations have also shown that closing individual workshops does not necessarily dismantle the system. Suppliers can disappear, reopen under different names, or continue operating for different clients, while the economic incentives that created the problem remain unchanged.

This is neither an Italian problem nor one unique to fashion. It reflects an economic model that systematically pushes production towards the lowest possible cost while distancing brands from responsibility. Until that underlying structure changes, similar investigations will continue to emerge — not only in fashion, but across industries built on the same logic. And each time, the response will sound familiar:

We didn’t know.

Italian luxury fashion investigation: Milan court expands probe Read More »

Animal fur: “ban” on a voluntary basis by Camera Moda

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 4 minutes

A step towards ending animal abuse or another non-binding guideline?


Camera Nazionale della Moda Italiana (CNMI) has recently published new guidelines banning animal fur. Is it a crucial step toward eradicating animal abuse? Could be. But the guidelines are voluntary.

Animal fur: the new guidelines


Camera Moda released new regulations on animal fur. Starting from the next edition, September 2026, brands are invited to avoid presenting garments and accessories made from animal fur during Milano Fashion Week shows.

Notice the wording: invited, not required. This is no hard ban. No fines, no disqualification, no exclusion from the official calendar. Creative and entrepreneurial autonomy? Fully intact.

AI-generated image: a luxurious fur coat left on an empty fashion week front-row chair. Dim runway lights. Quiet tension. Text on the right: "Invited, not required. Animal fur: a 'voluntary' ban by Camera Moda." Fur is still present but no longer fully welcome — suspended between luxury and obsolescence.

Voluntary by design, but why?


At first glance, a “voluntary ban” sounds like an oxymoron. If it’s voluntary, can we call it a ban at all?

Yet context matters. CNMI’s move doesn’t emerge from nowhere. It builds on a sustainability path the association started back in 2012, and it reflects a concrete legislative fact: Italy banned fur farming as of 2022. You can’t raise animals for fur on Italian soil anymore. Imported fur, however, remains perfectly legal.

So the guidelines sit in a strange in-between space. They echo the law’s spirit without enforcing it. They push toward ethical fashion without punishing those who resist.

Let’s not forget: animal fur is not a necessity. It never was — at least not in any modern context. In 2026, with exceptional faux fur, recycled materials, and innovative textiles on the market, using real fur is an aesthetic choice, not a functional one.

Italy no longer allows animals to be farmed for fur. That’s the law. CNMI’s guidelines simply ask: if we don’t raise them here, why should we showcase them here?

What changes, really?


For many major luxury brands, nothing changes. Gucci, Prada, Armani, Valentino, Versace — they all went fur-free years ago, often ahead of any industry guideline. For them, this is validation, not transformation.

For those still using fur, the message is softer: keep your autonomy, but know the runway is no longer neutral ground. Showing fur in September 2026 won’t get a brand kicked out of Fashion Week. But it might get you noticed — and not in a good way.

That’s the real lever here: reputation. In an industry built on image, reputational pressure can sometimes move faster than legislation. CNMI is betting that fashion houses care more about public perception than about sanctions.

A step or a trick?


Let’s be honest. A genuine ban would require oversight, enforcement, consequences. This has none of that. From a purely legal standpoint, it’s barely more than a strongly worded suggestion.

But here’s where it gets familiar.

If you’ve been following Italian fashion politics lately, you’ve seen this movie before. The voluntary nature of the fur guidelines echoes something much darker: the attempt to make labour exploitation voluntary too.

Remember Article 30 of the Small and Medium Enterprises Bill? Approved by the Senate, debated in the Chamber of Deputies, it tried to exempt major fashion brands from liability for crimes committed along their production chains. Human rights abuses. Wage theft. Caporalato — the gangmaster system that reduces workers to modern slaves.

Widely described as a legal shield for luxury brands, the amendment was eventually withdrawn following protests by trade unions, workers, and the Clean Clothes Campaign. It will now return to the Senate.

But the logic behind it never left: let brands decide for themselves whether to be responsible.

Final thoughts


In conclusion, what does the Camera Moda animal fur ban mean? Is this a definitive victory against animal abuse? No. Absolute bans are still rare, and voluntary guidelines won’t stop every brand.

The fur guidelines say: we invite you to be ethical, but no pressure.
Article 30 said: we invite you to monitor your supply chain, but if you don’t, don’t worry — you won’t be liable.

Same melody. Different verse.

No sanctions for fur. No liability for labour. In both cases, the system protects the brand, not the victim — whether that victim is an animal or a worker.

CNMI’s fur guidelines are not bad. They move the needle, however slightly. But they also reinforce a dangerous logic: the idea that the fashion industry should regulate itself voluntarily.

But if the fashion industry can be trusted to self-regulate on animal welfare, why not on human welfare?

Because we’ve already seen the answer. When given the chance to self-regulate on labour, major brands lobbied for a law that said: don’t hold us accountable.

Animal fur: “ban” on a voluntary basis by Camera Moda Read More »