Explorations

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 »

Luxury sweatshops: “What people don’t want to see”

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 2 minutes

The ugly truth behind the fashion industry — and why consumers look away


Luxury sweatshops are a glaring yet often ignored reality in the fashion world. A disturbing contradiction, indeed. Last night, RAI3’s Report exposed how major luxury brands—including Alviero Martini, Giorgio Armani, Dior, and Valentino—outsource production to factories where workers endure deplorable conditions. The investigation also revealed systemic tax evasion, helping explain how these brands maintain profits despite market instability.

In essence, luxury brands pay an average production cost of 30 to 50 euros in the outskirts of Milan, then sell these items in Via Montenapoleone for 1,500 to 2,500 euros.

The narrative pushed by these fashion giants is predictable: blame the Chinese subcontractors for exploiting workers. But the truth? The real culprits are the brands themselves—maximising profits while squeezing contractors, who are underpaid and forced into unethical labour practices. Whether subcontractors are Chinese or Italian, the exploitative practice remains the same.

Luxury sweatshops: Why does this keep happening?

Two key reasons:

  1. This is standard practice. Without strict, enforceable regulations, nothing will change. Voluntary agreements and empty promises won’t fix a broken system.
  2. Consumers ignore it. As one anonymous interviewee admitted: “It’s something people don’t want to see.” Luxury sweatshops and exploitative subcontracting happen in plain sight—yet we choose to ignore them.

What’s even more ironic? People baulk at prices from independent designers—brands with tiny margins that fight to produce ethically—yet stay silent when luxury brands demand astronomical markups built on exploitation.

Final thoughts: The death of true luxury


We’ve said it before: luxury is dead. The existence of luxury sweatshops proves it. Today’s “luxury” is a hollow status symbol, propped up by human suffering.

But we can change this. Real luxury isn’t about a logo or a price tag. It’s about craftsmanship, fairly paid. Ethical labour. Skilled hands treated with dignity. High-quality materials and exclusivity –  which cannot come from mass production at the cost of people and the planet.

It’s time to reject complicity. 

Reject fake status symbols. Vote with your wallet. No luxury can exist at the cost of human dignity.  Support brands that value ethics over exploitation. 

Luxury sweatshops: “What people don’t want to see” Read More »

Valentino under investigation by Milan Court

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 3 minutes

Subcontracting: A supply chain system built on denial


Valentino is the latest brand to come under scrutiny by the Milan Court.
Specifically, Valentino Bags Lab Srl—a subsidiary of the Roman fashion house that produces bags and travel accessories—is being investigated for subcontracting production to Chinese factories that allegedly exploited workers.

According to a 30-page court decree reported by Reuters, judges overseeing preventive measures appointed a one-year administrator to Mayhoola’s investment firm (the Qatari parent company of Valentino) for failing to ensure “adequate checks on contractors’ working conditions or technical capabilities.”

Milan’s Carabinieri Labour Protection Unit—a specialised police division dedicated to enforcing labour law—inspected seven Chinese-owned subcontractor factories on the city’s outskirts that were producing Valentino bags. They found 67 workers: seven undeclared and three undocumented. The Carabinieri report outlines exploitative conditions, including sub-minimum wages, excessive working hours, poor safety standards, and illegal dormitories with unhygienic conditions.

This marks the fourth investigation shaking the luxury fashion industry, following similar actions involving Alviero Martini SpA, Giorgio Armani Operations, and Manufactures Dior, all of which were later revoked.

Subcontracting: A supply chain system built on denial


The low-cost subcontracting system isn’t driven solely by top brands seeking higher profit margins—manufacturers operate under the same logic. It’s a well-known practice across the industry: everyone does it, yet all pretend it doesn’t exist. Everyone passes the buck. No one ever seems to know anything.

To maximise profits, brands demand ever-lower production costs. In response, manufacturers must preserve their margins, so they outsource to third parties. This results in extended chains of subcontractors, often with little or no oversight. Production is externalised, and brands relinquish control over their supply chains—whether intentionally or by design.

More than fashion: A symptom of capitalism


The system of subcontracting—especially low-cost, opaque subcontracting chains—is not unique to the fashion industry. It’s a symptom of a broader capitalist dynamic marked by extraction, exploitation, and systemic opacity.
In particular:

1. A practice typical of extractive capitalism

It stems from a model where profit maximisation overrides everything else, including transparency, workers’ rights, and environmental responsibility. Subcontracting allows companies to:

  • Reduce direct liability
  • Cut costs
  • Avoid regulations and unions
  • Claim ignorance when abuses occur (“plausible deniability”)

This logic is widespread across sectors like construction, electronics, agriculture, logistics, and, of course, fashion—any industry where labour can be shifted to where it’s cheapest and least protected.

2. Amplified in the fashion industry

Fashion epitomises this system for several reasons:

  • Rapid seasonal cycles and the demand for constant newness push production to be faster and cheaper.
  • Fragmented, globalised supply chains make transparency difficult.
  • Brand-driven business models mean labels rarely own the factories they depend on, distancing themselves from labour conditions.
  • Marketing dominates manufacturing—brands invest more in image and storytelling than in how and where their products are actually made.

So while fashion didn’t invent the system, it amplifies it—making it one of the clearest expressions of capitalism’s outsourced conscience.

Final thoughts


In conclusion, Valentino is just the latest in a growing list of top-tier brands caught in the web of exploitation. But the real issue isn’t just one brand—it’s the system itself.

This ongoing scandal undermines the luxury industry’s carefully curated narrative. Premium prices are justified in part by the “Made in Italy” promise: craftsmanship, quality, and ethical production. Now, that promise rings hollow. The growing popularity of TikTok exposés on Chinese-made luxury bags reflects a broader disillusionment. People are waking up to the disconnect between branding and reality.

It’s not about bad apples. It’s about a broken tree.

Valentino under investigation by Milan Court Read More »

Gaza: May 15 – 77 Years since the Nakba

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 2 minutes

The world watches as Israel commits genocide against Palestinians


In Gaza, we are witnessing Israel commit genocide against Palestinians, while the world stands still. Few speak out. Only Spain and South Africa have dared to act.

May 15 marks 77 years since the Nakba—a catastrophe whose consequences still unfold before our eyes. But we’re not just remembering history; we’re watching it repeat.

Children are starving. People are dying. We cannot remain silent in the face of such suffering.

In 1948, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forced to flee their homes, displaced with no hope of return. Many still hold onto the keys to those homes, clinging to the dream of returning one day.

This event, remembered every year on May 15, is known as the Nakba—the catastrophe.

Now, 77 years later, history repeats itself.

Thousands in the occupied Gaza Strip have once again been forced to abandon their homes—most of which have been destroyed by Israeli bombings. In the occupied West Bank, forced displacements by Israeli forces and settlers continue, as documented in No Other Land, a powerful film shedding light on life in Masafer Yatta.

Recent alarming statements from Israeli officials suggest a clear intention: to occupy Gaza and forcibly displace its population.

Gaza: Silence is complicity


Amnesty International has already denounced these actions as genocide and protested in Rome against the Italian government’s silence.

“Genocide,” as defined by the UN, refers to acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

South Africa has formally accused Israel of genocide, backed by extensive evidence. This is not vague or debatable—it is the worst crime under international law.

During Eurovision 2025, Spanish television defied the veto and sent a message of solidarity with Gaza:

“When human rights are at stake, silence is not an option. Peace and justice for Palestine.”

Yes, Spain is right: silence is complicity.

Watch again the video we shared in 2023 by Dr. Gabor Maté—it’s still incredibly relevant.

Gaza: May 15 – 77 Years since the Nakba Read More »

Women in fashion industry: 1.2% drop in board presence proves systemic exclusion 

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 3 minutes

Fashion isn’t a job for women: Italy’s fashion industry is losing female leaders


The women in the fashion industry narrative has always been a paradox: an industry run by women, but led by men. New data reveals a 1.2% drop in female board representation in Italy’s fashion sector. This isn’t just a statistic—it’s proof that fashion isn’t a job for women at the decision-making table.

Women remain marginalised not only in creative director roles—where they’re still a stark minority—but across all decision-making positions. The gender inequality is undeniable.

The big picture: Women’s shrinking leadership


Despite five years of progress, female representation in top corporate roles has declined. The Women and Fashion: The 2024 Barometer (an observatory promoted by PwC Italia in collaboration with Il Foglio della Moda) shows that fewer than one in three leadership positions in Italian fashion are held by women. (Source: Pambianco).

The fifth edition of this study examined female presence across the entire fashion supply chain, quantitatively and qualitatively, using a sample of 106 companies associated with the National Chamber of Italian Fashion (CNMI). In 2024, women held 30.6% of governing roles, down from 30.9% in 2023.

The workforce paradox: Women at the bottom, men at the top


The numbers grow more concerning at board level, where the figure drops further: just 25.8% female representation in 2024, down from 27%—a 1.2 percentage point decline.  Looking at the transition from 2023 to 2024, the data highlights a troubling trend.

Yet moving down the industry pyramid to the broader workforce, female representation is far more prominent. In 2023, women accounted for 59.3% of total employment in the textile and clothing sectors.

In terms of job roles, the highest concentration of women is found in clerical positions, where they represent 59.1% of employees. In the clothing sector alone, this number rises to 73.8%. Women also make up 45.7% of workers in textiles and 64.3% in clothing. 

However, female representation declines sharply in executive and management positions.

In the tanning and accessories sector, women make up 49.6% of employees. Of these, 70.5% are in operational roles, 27.5% hold administrative positions, and a mere 2% are in managerial roles.

The exception (SMEs) vs. the rule (big brands)


There are, however, some encouraging signs from the SME sector. In small and medium-sized enterprises—often family-run—nearly three out of four CEOs are women. Family-run businesses buck the trend, but in major fashion houses, male leadership remains the norm.

As for the areas of focus, women in management roles are primarily found in production (19%), administration and accounting (16%), design (12%), and sales (10%).

Women in the fashion industry: Creative director gap


Even in creative roles—where women’s influence is assumed—men dominate the spotlight. A study conducted by the British Fashion Council (BFC) found that only 14% of creative directors across luxury brands in Europe and North America are held by women. Only 1% of these positions are held by individuals from minority backgrounds. Specifically, Black women in these roles lack representation, highlighting a need for further diversification. 

This means that despite women being significant luxury fashion consumers, their voices are underrepresented at the creative leadership level. 

Final thoughts: Fashion isn’t a job for women


The numbers don’t lie—fashion isn’t a job for women. At least, not at the top.

Italy’s fashion gender gap isn’t just persisting—it’s widening. A 1.2% drop in female board representation may seem small, but it’s symptomatic of a deeper problem: An industry built on women’s labour still refuses to give them power.

Why?

  • At the grassroots level, women dominate the workforce (59.3%).
  • In the boardroom, they’re reduced to a shrinking minority (25.8%).

The result? Fashion’s leadership remains a man’s world—even as women work behind every stitch.

Should quotas be enforced? And why do so many brands still equate creative genius or managerial ability with masculinity? Does the industry have a real cultural problem?

These numbers call for more than just discussion—they demand accountability. Will the industry finally listen?

Women in fashion industry: 1.2% drop in board presence proves systemic exclusion  Read More »