human rights

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 »

Violence against women: a cultural problem

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 3 minutes

With regressive attitudes growing amongst the young, how do we build a future of prevention?


Yesterday, 25th November, marked the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, established by the UN in 1999. However, reflection and action cannot be confined to a single day.

Tragically, not a day passes without news of a femicide. And if not explicitly, then there are reports of online violence, manipulation, oppression, and the absence of equal opportunities. In other words, there are constant attempts to silence and diminish the female figure.

It is a sobering thought that this violence was only formally recognised as a violation of human rights in 1993, with the adoption of the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (DEVAW) by the UN General Assembly. This was further reinforced by the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, which also acknowledged it as a human rights violation.

Right. Formally recognised only in 1993…

Violence against women: data and context


The data on femicides are not just ‘crime news,’ but the last, tragic link in a chain. According to Istat, over 31% of women in Italy have experienced some form of physical or sexual violence in their lifetime (from the age of 16). Furthermore, the European Parliament states that one in three women in the EU has experienced physical violence, sexual violence, or threats as an adult.

United Nations data indicate that one woman or girl is killed every 10 minutes by an intimate partner or family member.

Femicide is the culmination of violence that often began much earlier. We need to talk about it to recognise the signs long before it is too late.

As Laura Bates, founder of the Everyday Sexism Project, insightfully notes:

“For the first time in history, repeated studies are suggesting that the most misogynistic, outdated, regressive attitudes towards women and girls are now the most common amongst the youngest.”

Dismantling stereotypes: the “I didn’t expect that.”


How many times have we heard “but he was a good guy”? It is time to dismantle this dangerous cliché. The “monster” does not exist; what exists is the “normal” man who does not accept rejection and who considers a woman his property. Violence lies there, in pathological jealousy, in control, in stalking. We must learn to recognise these red flags, because there is no such thing as a “violent look”.

A focus on prevention: what can we actually do?


Beyond indignation, we need prevention. Prevention means sexual and emotional education in schools, to teach respect and how to manage emotions. It means supporting anti-violence centres, which save lives every day. It means, for each of us, not looking the other way when we hear a worrying argument from a neighbour. Violence is fought with culture.

Yet, in Italy, the government appears to disagree with this approach. Indeed, Minister Roccella has stated that there is no data to prove that sexual and emotional education in schools helps to prevent violence.

Final thoughts: violence against women is a cultural problem


Before we conclude, we also want to suggest reading a powerful testimony written by one of our friends—a heartbreaking story of abuse that sheds light on the real, everyday consequences of this cultural problem. (Find it here.)

As we reflect on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, we must be clear that the problem is systemic. Women start from a disadvantaged position, as we are still considered a possession of men—whether husbands, partners, or family members. We are still considered less than men.

The subordination or perceived inferiority of women is the oldest prejudice in human history.

Violence against women is a cultural problem. And fighting it requires an everyday commitment—especially in a society facing cultural regression.

Violence against women: a cultural problem 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 »

Black Carpet Awards: Side events or true inclusion?

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 2 minutes

Does celebrating diversity in collateral events really promote inclusion?


The third edition of the Black Carpet Awards recently lit up the Teatro Manzoni during Milano Fashion Week. The event is promoted by the Afro Fashion Association. It celebrates Leaders of Change—individuals of all origins and backgrounds who have distinguished themselves by promoting diversity, inclusion, and equity within the creative industry. 

While such initiatives are undoubtedly meaningful, they also ignite a critical question: should diversity be honored in separate, side events, or should all origins, voices, and experiences be seamlessly integrated into the main stage?

Black Carpet Awards: The dual edge of the side event


Creating a side event like the Black Carpet Awards has both strengths and limitations:

Strengths:

• It shines a spotlight specifically on Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (DIE). And it ensures that those values and the people embodying them aren’t overlooked.
• It builds vital visibility and fosters a powerful sense of community, making representation the central theme rather than a footnote.

Limits:

• By existing “outside” the official calendar, it can unintentionally reinforce the idea that diversity is a niche topic, not an integral part of the industry’s fabric.
• It risks creating a separation: the official stage for the mainstream, the side stage for diversity.

However, in one of our previous posts, we explored whether fashion is a matter of representation or money. Disability, of course, adds another layer to the question.

Final thoughts: Diversity fully integrated


So, where does this leave us? Side events like the Black Carpet Awards are vital because they provide visibility, role models, and communities that might otherwise remain unseen. Yet keeping these celebrations separate risks reinforcing the idea that diversity is an exception rather than the norm.

True inclusion means weaving diverse voices into the industry’s very core. Camera Moda should fully integrate diversity into the main and official events, making it a core value rather than an add-on.

Progress will not be achieved by parallel stages, but when the main stage itself reflects the richness of all identities. Diversity should no longer need its own platform; it should be the platform.

🖤 What are your thoughts? We want to hear from you:

💬 Comment below (registration is quick and easy)
📧 Send us an email
📲 Message us on WhatsApp

Your perspective is a vital part of this discussion.

Black Carpet Awards: Side events or true inclusion? 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 »