human rights

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 »

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 »

Horror and beauty

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 3 minutes

On dignity, clothing, and what we owe each other


Horror and beauty. 

Every time we sit down to talk about clothes, we look at the news — people being bombed, displaced, losing their lives—and think: does any of this really matter?

This is where we’re coming from. That feeling of futility, of powerlessness — wondering how fashion can matter when set against a backdrop of human suffering. 

We mistrust easy answers. The world feels too fractured, too painful, to allow for certainty.

Is it irresponsible to talk about fashion right now?

Clothes document the human condition.


What people wear when everything falls apart is a story — one that speaks of dignity, resistance, and survival. Still, we recognise that we speak from a place of privilege. We can choose what to wear. For many, that choice no longer exists.

Throughout history, clothing has never been only about choice. It has been a form of resistance, a way to preserve identity, a silent protest. In moments of displacement, a garment can become the last piece of home a person carries.

Think of the garments of the displaced. What does a refugee wear? Clothes become tools: extra layers against the cold, hidden pockets for money, protection from the elements. What remains on the body is reduced, essential. And still, within that, there are gestures of agency.

A woman in Gaza evacuates wearing her neighbour’s borrowed sandals—her own destroyed in the chaos. She didn’t choose them; they were simply what was available. Weeks later, in a tent, she washes her only remaining dress by hand and hangs it to dry on a wire. This act is not about fashion. It is about dignity. In caring for that dress, she affirms, I am still here.

We still dress. In cities under siege or after natural disasters, people wash a shirt, mend a seam, fix a shoe. Not out of vanity, but to hold on to something human.

If clothing can be a tool of dignity, it can also be part of systems that strip it away. Not only in war zones, but in the everyday violence of how fashion is made. The way we produce and consume fashion is not neutral. It is tied to labour, to resources, to lives. Choosing differently, when we can, is one small way of refusing that indifference.

So is it irresponsible to discuss fashion right now?


It could be. We’re not sure. And maybe that uncertainty is the only honest place to start.
What we do know now is that it becomes meaningful if we use it as a door to talk about crimes against humanity and the planet—including who is bombing and what we can do. That includes naming power directly. 

We’ve opened that door. 

Writing, or doing our job in fashion, does not mean turning away from suffering. It means staying with the discomfort. And recognising that even in the darkest moments, people hold on to small, fragile expressions of self.

Without excess, we hold space for horror and for beauty. Not because we have an answer, but because letting go of either would mean losing what makes us who we are. Perfectly aware that for many, that horror doesn’t stop. So we use our platform to amplify these voices, to speak against Netanyahu’s government and the Trump regime devastating humanity.

As historian Timothy Snyder wrote on his Substack, Thinking About:

“If we do not say something ourselves about this horror, we allow ourselves to be changed.”

We don’t speak for the woman in Gaza. We cannot know what her dress means to her. What we can do is listen — and, where we can, act. And say clearly whose side we are on, because we do not want to normalise this.

Horror and beauty. We hold both.

What will you do with what you’ve just read?

Horror and beauty Read More »

No business fit for the future can ignore modern slavery

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 4 minutes

A new global ISO standard seeks to stop businesses from using complexity as an excuse for inaction


The ISO 37200 standard enters the conversation at a critical moment. For all the talk of ethical sourcing in annual reports, the brutal reality is that modern slavery is not shrinking. It is exploding. Reading Susan Taylor Martin’s report for Reuters, we felt a sense of bitter recognition.

Every now and then, we highlight modern slavery, which often appears in the context of fashion but extends far beyond it, as one of today’s most pressing issues.

When leaders speak about preparing their organisations for the future, the conversation often revolves around artificial intelligence, quantum computing, or the race to net zero. Boards scrutinise geopolitical tensions and trade realignments, while businesses re-engineer supply chains for resilience and speed.

Yet, amid this strategic recalibration, one issue demands equal — if not greater — attention: how to ensure that growth does not come at the expense of human dignity.

Modern slavery: a rising issue


Today, an estimated 50 million people worldwide are trapped in forced labour or human trafficking. These abuses are frequently concealed within the intricate webs of global supply chains that underpin everyday commerce. (Source: Reuters).

Even more alarming is the trend. In fact, the number of people living in conditions of modern slavery has risen by 25% over the past decade.

“Shockingly, the number of modern slaves has increased 25% over the last decade.”
— Susan Taylor Martin


This risk extends far beyond distant markets. It is a systemic challenge that affects organisations of every size and sector. As supply chains become increasingly fragmented and opaque, the likelihood of exploitation rises. 

Modern slavery remains one of the most disturbing and complex issues facing global business. This statistic is not just a number. It represents a systemic failure of voluntary corporate oversight — a failure the new global standard hopes to address.

ISO 37200 standard: a new benchmark to stop modern slavery


It is against this backdrop that a new international benchmark — ISO 37200 — has been developed. Dedicated specifically to the prevention, identification and response to human trafficking and forced labour, it represents the first global standard of its kind.

Following public consultation, the standard will be published later this year. Its purpose is clear: to help organisations “prevent, identify, mitigate, remediate and report” modern slavery risks across their operations and supply chains. Crucially, it is designed to complement existing legal and regulatory frameworks rather than add layers of bureaucracy. The aim is not to create additional reporting burdens, but to enable companies to move beyond compliance exercises and “box-ticking” towards meaningful action.

Ahead of its release, leaders would do well to examine their own governance structures. Do clear lines of accountability exist? How deep is their understanding of supply chains — particularly beyond first-tier suppliers? Do robust procedures, staff training, and effective escalation mechanisms support those policies? And most importantly, can organisations respond responsibly and decisively if they uncover exploitation?

It may be tempting to assume that certain industries are more exposed than others. While risks do vary by geography and sector, exploitation can occur anywhere. The underlying principles — sound governance, transparency and ethical conduct — are universal.

The new ISO framework builds upon a British Standard introduced in 2022, reflecting the United Kingdom’s long-standing leadership in responsible business practice. Early adopters of that standard have already demonstrated how embedding worker protection at the heart of operations strengthens credibility and resilience.

By establishing a common language and shared framework, ISO 37200 standard aims to bring global consistency to the fight against modern slavery. No single company or country can address a challenge of this scale alone. Collective action is essential.

Final reflections


We frequently expose modern slavery within the fashion industry. But our attention to the issue began long ago — including the persecution and forced labour of the Uyghur minority in China, linked to supply chains across fashion, technology, automotive, and other sectors.

Our previous investigations into supply chain abuses have shown us that regulation alone is insufficient. This is why the publication of ISO 37200 is not just a policy update. It is a potential lifeline for auditors and compliance officers striving to effect change from within.

As one industry leader observed, consensus-based international standards have the power to accelerate “real, practical change — at scale.” Modern slavery cannot be dismissed as “the price of doing business”, nor can it be considered too complex to tackle. It demands deliberate, coordinated effort.

With the imminent publication of the ISO 37200 standard, the question for leaders is no longer “Do we have a policy?” but “Do we have the courage to look deeper?” 
As we continue to investigate these issues, we will be watching to see which companies adopt this standard — and which continue to look the other way.

Because any organisation that claims to be future-ready must be prepared to say — unequivocally — that it will not tolerate modern slavery.

No business fit for the future can ignore modern slavery 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 »