Fashion & lifestyle

French fast fashion law: does it actually address the problem?

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 6 minutes

What are the real reasons behind the law: environmental protection or protectionism?


On June 29, the French Parliament passed the fast fashion law. It is a landmark bill designed to curb the rise of ultra-fast fashion, targeting major Asian e-commerce platforms such as Shein, Temu, and AliExpress. The legislation uses two criteria to classify ultra-fast fashion: the volume of clothing placed on the market and the relative cost of repairing garments. Each company’s score determines the penalties it faces.

Tabled two and a half years ago, the law introduces per-item fees that could reach up to €20 by 2030. However, the levy remains capped at 50% of a product’s pre-tax price. It also bans advertising for ultra-fast fashion brands, including promotions by social media influencers. Companies must display messages encouraging more moderate consumption. Part of the revenue will be directed towards textile collection and recycling infrastructure.

At first glance, this appears to be a significant step forward in Europe’s fight against the environmental impact of disposable clothing. The textile industry is responsible for nearly 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The rapid growth of platforms offering ultra-cheap garments has only intensified concerns over overproduction and waste.

But before celebrating, we should ask some uncomfortable questions. Especially when viewed alongside the EU-wide Extra-EU parcel tax approved just six months ago.


Huge landfill of textile waste questioning whether the French fast fashion law actually addresses the problem

The French fast fashion law: why are European brands exempt?


The most controversial aspect of the legislation is not what it includes, but what it leaves out.

As Green Party lawmaker Charles Fournier pointed out during the parliamentary debate, the original proposal was “considerably scaled back”. European fast fashion companies such as Zara, Kiabi and H&M are largely excluded from measures targeting ultra-fast-fashion platforms.

But is Zara’s business model fundamentally different from Shein’s? Both produce massive volumes of clothing, much of it low-quality and designed for short-term use. Both contribute to the same environmental crisis. Yet under this legislation, French and European fast-fashion giants face no penalties, no advertising bans, and no regulatory pressure.

If the environmental objective is to reduce the impact of disposable fashion, why should similar business models be treated so differently?

This is the same question we raised in December when the EU approved the Extra-EU parcel tax. If fast fashion is destructive and unsustainable, on what basis should its European version be exempt from comparable measures?

This isn’t environmental policy. It’s industrial protectionism dressed in green clothing.

A fragmented European approach


The French law also highlights a broader problem: Europe still lacks a coherent strategy.

In December 2025, the EU introduced a €3 charge on parcels valued below €150 entering the bloc from outside the EU.  Italy followed with its own €2 per-parcel levy, explicitly projecting €245 million in annual revenue. 
At the time, we noted a critical flaw: the tax applies per parcel, not per item. Three items shipped together incur the same €3 charge as a single item – which incentivises consolidation, not reduced consumption.

Now France has introduced a different system altogether: a per-item fee that specifically targets Asian platforms while leaving European competitors untouched.

The result is a patchwork of national and European measures rather than a coordinated policy addressing the environmental impact of fast fashion across the Single Market.

If Europe is serious about tackling overproduction and textile waste, shouldn’t the response be equally consistent?

The uncertainty surrounding the advertising ban


Among the law’s most significant provisions is the ban on advertising by ultra-fast fashion companies, including influencer promotions.

As explained above, the advertising ban only applies to companies classified as ultra-fast fashion under the law’s scoring system.

However, its future remains uncertain. The European Commission has questioned whether this measure is compatible with EU law. France argues that it is relying on principles similar to those used to regulate advertising for products such as alcohol and cigarettes, but if the Commission ultimately disagrees, the ban could become unenforceable.

And if the ban falls, what’s left? A per-item fee that – even at its maximum €20 by 2030 – remains capped at 50% of the product’s pre-tax price. For a €10 item, that means a maximum fee of €5. Hardly prohibitive.

This raises a troubling possibility: was the law designed to look tough while containing a built-in escape clause? 

The French government can claim victory on environmental grounds, but if the key measures are struck down or prove unenforceable, the actual impact will be minimal.

The revenue question remains unanswered


When we analysed the EU parcel tax in December, we asked whether measures presented as environmental policy might also serve another purpose: generating public revenue. 12 million parcels per day at €3 each would generate over €13 billion annually – a staggering sum that would flow into government coffers.

The French law attempts a more virtuous framing – fees will go “towards collection and recycling infrastructure.” But without transparency on how much will actually be collected, whether it will genuinely fund recycling capacity, or if the infrastructure can even handle the volume, scepticism remains warranted.

Will the fees collected from Shein purchases be used to build actual recycling facilities? Or will they disappear into general budgets while the mountains of textile waste continue to grow?

What genuine reform would look like

If Europe were truly serious about addressing fast fashion’s environmental impact, we would see measures that apply equally to all players – regardless of their country of origin. 

Genuine reform might include:

  • Minimum sustainability standards for all clothing sold in the EU
  • True cost pricing that accounts for environmental externalities
  • Product durability requirements and mandatory repair rights
  • An outright ban on destroying unsold inventory
  • Supply chain transparency to address environmental and forced labour concerns


Instead, we’re getting a fragmented, inconsistent approach that protects domestic incumbents while appearing to take action.

Final thoughts


The French fast fashion law is not without merit. It signals that European policymakers increasingly recognise the environmental challenges posed by disposable fashion and represents one of the most ambitious attempts so far to regulate the sector.

But let’s not mistake it for what it isn’t. 

This is political theatre – a gesture that appears tough on Asian platforms while carefully exempting European brands whose business models are not fundamentally different.

The question we posed in December remains unanswered: if fast fashion is destructive — as we all agree it is — why are we protecting our own version of it?

Until European policymakers confront this contradiction honestly – and apply the same environmental standards to Zara, Kiabi, and H&M that they apply to Shein and Temu – the French fast fashion law will remain what it appears to be: tariffs dressed as sustainability, with the environment serving as a convenient pretext for industrial protection rather than a genuine environmental objective.

The environmental challenges created by fast fashion are global. Any lasting solution will ultimately need to be equally consistent.

French fast fashion law: does it actually address the problem? Read More »

One piece, one story: The Clay Indigo Short Sleeve by GoodNeighbors Shirts

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 4 minutes

Genderless, artisanal slow fashion for modern humans — care for the planet, style for the people


This is The Clay Indigo Short Sleeve Shirt by GoodNeighbors Shirts.
In a system that produces tonnes of disposable clothing, we curate: one piece, one story. A radical view for ethical and aesthetic resistance — meaningful garments, an expression of good design. Slow fashion — made to last, made by hand.

The Clay Indigo Short Sleeve arrives with quiet distinction. It sits with ease — relaxed yet refined, tailored yet effortless. 100% cotton denim against the skin. The design features a distinctive clay-indigo hue — a colour born from the earth itself, not from synthetic vats. The wide open collar with its small loop invites versatile styling. A single chest patch pocket holds the day’s essentials. Two side slits and a back yoke with two pleats — plus a single loop — allow the fabric to move with you, not against you. The front closes with sustainable Takase shell buttons — repurposed from the food industry — each one carrying the subtle iridescence of the sea, a small act of waste reduction.

It honours the creativity of meaningful design: a shirt coloured through traditional clay-dyeing techniques, creating a depth and character no synthetic process can replicate. A garment that holds memory — of water, of place, of craftsmanship — yet feels entirely of the moment. Honest, understated, and made to be lived in.

Clay indigo. Earth after rain, riverbeds at dusk, pottery worn by time. The iron-rich clay of Fujioka City — Aoki’s birthplace — sinks into each fibre, leaving a soft texture and a mottled gradient only nature could create. Every piece distinct. Each a landscape.

The Clay Indigo Short Sleeve — naturally dyed cotton shirt by GoodNeighbors Shirts. Suspended against a muted grey backdrop. Earth-born colour, tailored ease.

Natural dye, tailored comfort — genderless slow fashion for modern humans


The design:
Relaxed-fit short-sleeved tailored shirt. 100% cotton denim. Distinctive clay-indigo colour — naturally dyed with red clay from Gunma. Wide-open collar with a small loop for versatile styling. Single front chest patch pocket. Two side slits. Back yoke with two pleats and a single loop for ease of movement. Sustainable Takase shell buttons — repurposed from the food industry. Fine stitching details: 90/20 stitch count. Made in Japan.

The make:
Made in Japan — by GoodNeighbors Shirts, a small artisanal brand revered for its textile expertise and natural-dyeing techniques. This denotes more than origin — it signifies integrity: a genuine commitment to craftsmanship and style. Every stitch reflects skill and purpose, ensuring a garment that stands apart. 
Each piece is hand-dyed by designer Akira Aoki using traditional mud-dyeing techniques. The iron-rich clay from his homeland naturally penetrates the fibres. No chemicals are used. Both soil and water are returned to nature after use. Every detail, from the shell buttons to the final pleat, is curated with care. Produced in limited runs.

The Clay Indigo Short Sleeve Shirt: earth-born colour with a story to tell


The Clay Indigo Short Sleeve Shirt offers a rare balance of character and versatility. Open, buttoned, or with a scarf through the loop — it’s yours to shape. From morning coffee to evening aperitivo, from studio to street, it simply works.

How to style:

For the studio: worn loose over a simple tank or fine-gauge tee. The open collar traces the line of the collarbone — understated, unhurried. The clay-indigo holds the light like dried river earth. Roll the sleeves once or twice. Let the hem fall where it falls. A shirt that doesn’t rush.

For the city: paired with tailored trousers or crisp denim. Button it — or leave it open like a second skin. Loop a scarf through the collar for a whisper of colour. The clay speaks of tradition; the cut speaks of today. Walk like you know where you’re going.

For the weekend: styled open over a white tank, tucked into wide pants that sway. The side slits grant freedom. The back pleats make space for the long lunch, the lingering conversation. The pocket holds a phone, a metro card, a pressed flower. The cotton remembers the clay it came from.

For the modern humans who curate, not consume — whose wardrobe is a library of dog-eared favourites, each piece a chapter in their story.

🌟 The Clay Indigo Short Sleeve – GoodNeighbors Shirts

Limited quantities. Like a river stone — smooth, distinctive, shaped by time and tide. Designed for daily wear. For personal style. For life.

🖤 To enquire: DM @suite123 | WhatsApp | Email

Available by appointment for private shopping in Milano or worldwide — from screen to doorstep.

P.S. Ask us why the collar loop changes everything. Or how earth, water, and fabric become a philosophy, not just a process. We are here for the conversations, not just the transactions.

One piece, one story: The Clay Indigo Short Sleeve by GoodNeighbors Shirts 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 »

Green law, dirty leather: LVMH and deforestation 

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 4 minutes

LVMH-owned Italian leather maker lobbied to weaken EU anti-deforestation law while importing hides linked to forest destruction, NGO says


Greenwashing has become so pervasive that the connection between LVMH and deforestation rarely springs to mind when thinking of the luxury giant. But a new investigation by environmental NGO Global Witness suggests it should. The findings, shared exclusively with POLITICO, reveal fresh links between LVMH’s supply chain and forest destruction in South America. They also raise uncomfortable questions about who really pays the price for luxury leather.

LVMH and deforestation: An artisan crafting a luxury handbag in the foreground with a dark, depleted, dying forest in the background.

LVMH and deforestation: The Global Witness investigation


Global Witness has uncovered evidence that Nuti Ivo — an Italian tannery group owned by LVMH — imported hides from Paraguay through suppliers allegedly tied to large-scale deforestation in the Gran Chaco forest, one of South America’s most threatened ecosystems.

The timing is critical. The EU’s anti-deforestation regulation (EUDR), approved in 2023, is designed to keep products linked to recently cleared land out of European markets. Beef, cocoa, soy, palm oil, and cattle-related products are all covered. But parts of the leather industry are now lobbying for leather to be excluded from the regulation. Their argument is that leather is only a byproduct of the meat industry and therefore should not be considered a driver of deforestation.

One of the most vocal advocates in this debate has been Fabrizio Nuti, CEO of Nuti Ivo and president of Italy’s tannery association. During discussions in the European Parliament, Nuti argued that stricter traceability requirements could become impossible for the sector to manage, especially regarding imports from South America.  

Traceability gaps and deforestation links


Yet according to Global Witness, companies connected to Nuti Ivo sourced hides from Paraguayan suppliers linked to over 100,000 hectares of deforestation. Including land claimed by Indigenous communities. Trade records show that in 2025 alone, the Nuti Ivo Group imported thousands of tons of leather from Paraguay. Moreover, traceability remains alarmingly thin: the group can track only part of its hides back to individual slaughterhouses, leaving significant blind spots within the supply chain.

LVMH responded by stating that it is committed to ending deforestation across its operations and supply chains by 2025. The group also said it has never lobbied to weaken the EU deforestation regulation. After being confronted with trade data showing imports from Paraguay, the company described the quantities as “very small” and linked them to contracts that predated its acquisition of Nuti Ivo in 2023. LVMH added that discussions were underway to phase out those remaining agreements.

But environmental organisations disagree with attempts to exempt leather from the EUDR. In a joint letter to the European Commission, groups including Human Rights Watch and ClientEarth argued that excluding leather would undermine the logic of the law: if meat from cattle raised on deforested land is banned, they say, the animal’s skin should not be treated as an innocent byproduct.

Source: POLITICO, reporting on an investigation by NGO Global Witness (published April 27, 2026)

From green certifications to greenwashing: a familiar pattern


This is not an isolated case. In This is Greenwashing, when we tried to find sustainable options to print, we realised how tricky the situation is. Specifically, we acknowledged a global scandal of green labels: companies accused or convicted of environmental crimes continued to obtain and trade under “green” certifications.

“Over a 25-year period (1998–2023), at least 347 companies received sustainability certifications despite being publicly accused of illegal logging, deforestation, or fraudulent environmental practices” (ICIJ, Deforestation Inc., 2023).

In our eBook, we explore how sustainability language can sometimes coexist with business practices that tell a very different story. Especially in industries where supply chains are long, fragmented, and difficult to monitor.

📘 Download This is Greenwashing — here

Final thoughts


The luxury industry has long sold itself on an idea of perfection. Flawless products, pristine images, and increasingly, unassailable sustainability pledges. But the case of LVMH and deforestation reveals a less polished reality. One where legal loopholes, opaque supply chains, and quiet lobbying efforts can undermine even the most well-intentioned green laws.

If leather is truly a byproduct, then it inherits the environmental cost of the meat it accompanies — not a free pass. The EUDR exists precisely to close that kind of accounting trick. Exempting leather wouldn’t just weaken the regulation; it would signal that luxury, once again, plays by different rules.

For LVMH, the path forward is clear but not easy. Promises to end deforestation by 2025 mean little if supply chains in 2025 are still tied to Paraguay’s disappearing Gran Chaco. The industry needs less lobbying and more traceability. Fewer claims of “very small” quantities and a full accounting of every hide.

Because in the end, green laws don’t fail in Brussels. They fail in the gap between a CEO’s testimony and a forest on fire. And that gap is where luxury must finally choose a side.

Green law, dirty leather: LVMH and deforestation  Read More »

One piece, one story: The Suspenders Trousers by Meagratia

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 3 minutes

Vintage-inspired tailoring for modern humans: slow fashion, no gender, no noise 


This is The Suspenders Trousers by Meagratia.
In a system that produces tonnes of disposable clothing, we curate: one piece, one story. A radical view for ethical and aesthetic resistance — meaningful garments, an expression of good design. Slow fashion —made to last, made by hand.

The Suspenders Trousers arrive with presence but no stiffness. They hold their line without holding you back. A tailored pinstripe softened by an unexpectedly plush handfeel — structure that doesn’t fight the body. The attached suspenders, nostalgic yet modern, designed for ease. No cinching. Just a clean fall from shoulder to hem. A silent gesture of considered dressing.

They honour the discipline of tailored form: four front tucks that release into a refined drape, not bulk. The inner satin drawstring — hidden, pragmatic — lets you adjust without breaking the outer silhouette. A trouser that champions softness without losing its spine.

Black, but not flat. The pinstripe adds a ghost of rhythm — faint, like light through venetian blinds. Against the matte fabric, those thin lines catch just enough attention. A neutral with a secret. 

Curly-haired brunette models The Suspenders Trousers by Meagratia — black pinstripe trousers with integrated suspenders — paired with a black t-shirt, a black blazer draped over the shoulders, and black leather booties. Neutral grey studio background.

Genderless contemporary tailoring for modern humans

The design:
Tailored pinstripe trousers with integrated black suspenders. Tapered silhouette sitting at the natural waist. Four front tucks release volume without widening the hip; the inner satin drawstring fine-tunes fit from inside, unseen. Two side slip pockets. Two back welt pockets, one button-closed. Black suspenders on black pinstripe — tonal, not loud. 
Fabric: 63% polyester, 34% rayon, 3% polyurethane (soft as flannel, resilient as tailoring). 

The make:
Made in Japan. Soft-handle fabric that moves like knitwear but holds a crease. Clean internal finishing, reinforced tucks, suspenders attachment points stress-tested. Designed to be worn all day — from desk to dinner — without bagging at the knee or cutting at the waist.

The Suspenders Trousers: the bridge between comfort and polish


The Suspenders Trousers offer something rare: tailoring that breathes. You move from morning meeting to evening train without tugging or tightening — because comfort and poise are not opposites.

• For the studio or office: paired with a loose cotton poplin shirt, half-tucked. A uniform for creating or presenting. Hands free.

• For a weekend market or walk: worn with a plain white tee or thin cashmere knit. Suspenders relaxed. A balance of proportion and soft tailoring.

• For an evening out: worn with a sleeveless top or a tucked-in silk blouse. Suspenders doing the work of a belt — cleaner, quieter. Minimal heel or leather flat. The peak of quiet luxury.

For the modern humans who curate, not consume — whose wardrobe is a library of dog-eared favourites, each piece a chapter in their story.

🌟 The Suspenders Trousers – Meagratia
Limited edition. Like a second skin with a spine — one for personal style. For life.

🖤 To enquire:  DM @suite123 | WhatsApp | Email

Available by appointment for shopping in Milano or worldwide — from screen to doorstep. From our hands to your daily ritual.

P.S. Ask us about why pinstripes don’t need contrast to work. Or how to build a full uniform that moves from dawn to dark without a single tuck or tug. We are here for the conversations, not just the transactions.

One piece, one story: The Suspenders Trousers by Meagratia Read More »