fashion industry

French Senate passes law to curb ultra-fast fashion 

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 2 minutes

Targeting exploitative practices—or protectionism against China?


On Tuesday, 10 June, the French Senate approved a law to regulate ultra-fast fashion, with provisions that could ban advertising by Chinese e-commerce giants like Shein and Temu. The move amplifies France’s push to rein in the textile industry’s environmental toll—but raises questions about whom the law truly serves.

Last year, France’s National Assembly (the lower house) passed a bill to mitigate the textile sector’s ecological damage. Now, the Senate has voted nearly unanimously for a modified version, drawing a sharp line between fast fashion and ultra-fast fashion. The latter—dominated by Shein’s 7,200 daily new designs and Temu’s $5 dresses—faces stricter rules, while European brands like Zara and Kiabi escape the heaviest burdens.

The environmental stakes are undeniable. Ultra-fast fashion’s rock-bottom prices come at a cost: 35 garments are discarded every second in France, and the average person buys 48 items a year, according to the state agency Ademe. The law imposes penalties of up to €10 per item (or 50% of the pre-tax price) by 2030 for non-compliance with sustainability criteria.

But the political subtext is harder to ignore. French retailers like Jennyfer (liquidated in April) and NafNaf (in receivership since May) have long blamed Chinese competitors for their decline. By tailoring restrictions to platforms like Shein, the Senate risks framing this as a trade war—not a principled stand against exploitation.

Before implementation, the law must clear procedural hurdles: EU notification and reconciliation between parliamentary versions. Yet its asymmetry is already glaring. The bill attacks the symptom (ultra-fast fashion’s waste) while sidestepping the disease (an industry-wide race to the bottom on labour and ecology).

Final thoughts


The fast and ultra-fast fashion market is undeniably expanding—but so too are its consequences. These aren’t just environmental disasters; they’re social ones, built on exploited labour and disposable consumption. If the solution exempts European players clinging to the same model, is this really about ethics—or just economic self-interest?

The unanimous French Senate vote may suggest consensus, but it doesn’t resolve the contradiction. A truly ethical stance would challenge the exploitative model itself—whether the label reads “Made in China” or “Made in Europe.”

So, let’s return to the central question: Is this law a stand against fast fashion’s abuses—or merely a stand against China? The answer, much like the industry it targets, may not be as sustainable as it seems.

French Senate passes law to curb ultra-fast fashion  Read More »

Sustainable packaging, unsustainable fashion: A broken system in a green box

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 2 minutes

Bain & Company’s report exposes fashion’s latest eco-effort—does it go far enough?


Sustainable packaging is the next frontier for luxury brands. A recent report by Bain & Company, in collaboration with Fedrigoni Group — a global manufacturer of specialty papers, self-adhesive materials, and RFID (radio frequency identification) technologies — highlights how sustainability is becoming a real competitive edge in high-end packaging.

Sustainable packaging — fashion’s latest eco-effort


According to Luxury Packaging: Resolving the Tension Between Creativity and Impact, more than 30% of luxury packaging sales will rely on sustainable solutions within the next three years.

The report is based on a survey of over 500 companies across the luxury packaging value chain — including designers, manufacturers, distributors, and luxury brands themselves. As Bain & Company puts it: 

“We found clear signs that sustainability has risen in importance.”

Key insights include:
• A reduction in packaging size will lead the charge in improving supply chain sustainability
• Sustainable packaging revenue will grow in the next three years
• Innovation will heavily focus on advanced paper solutions

Despite the importance of the tactile experience in the luxury world, brands are becoming more conscious of their environmental responsibilities.

Final thoughts: The packaging is sustainable—too bad fashion isn’t


Of course, packaging is part of the solution. Cutting down on excess and switching to better materials is a positive step. But here’s the real question: are these companies ready to address the elephant in the room?
In case anyone missed it, the elephant is overproduction.

Because unless the industry tackles the systemic issue of producing too much, too fast, it’s just a case of sustainable packaging for an unsustainable fashion system.
The box may be green—but what’s inside remains the problem.

Ultimately, put in these terms, it leads us to say: this is greenwashing.

What do you think?
Leave a comment below and let’s talk about it — (you’ll need to register first).

Sustainable packaging, unsustainable fashion: A broken system in a green box Read More »

Luxury downturn: Dior bets on J.W. Anderson—Can a creative vision alone revive sales?

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 2 minutes

Why the industry focuses on hype rather than heritage and systemic change


We can’t help but reflect on the ongoing luxury downturn—a reality affecting nearly every brand—and how these brands scramble to stay relevant in the face of it.

The appointment of J.W. Anderson as Dior’s new creative director, replacing Maria Grazia Chiuri, comes at a critical moment. Amid declining luxury sales, one question looms large: Can a single designer revive sales in a struggling market?

The short answer? No—not alone.
While a star designer like Anderson can inject fresh energy and buzz, Dior’s long-term recovery will depend on much more than creative flair.

The “cool factor” vs. timelessness


Anderson will oversee all of Dior—menswear, womenswear, couture, and accessories. His distinctive edge and subversive take on classics—think mismatched earrings, deconstructed tailoring—may go viral. But luxury doesn’t just live in the moment. It thrives on heritage.

The risk? Dior might veer too experimental. In times of uncertainty, core clients may turn to safer bets like Chanel or Hermès, brands that offer timelessness over trend.

The designer’s vision vs. commercial realities


Anderson is known for his avant-garde, gender-fluid aesthetic, as seen at Loewe. He might appeal to Gen Z shoppers—but that comes with the risk of alienating Dior’s more traditional clientele.
Maria Grazia Chiuri delivered commercial success with accessible elegance and feminist messaging—pieces like the “We Should All Be Feminists” T-shirt. Anderson now faces a tightrope walk: staying innovative while remaining commercially viable.

But here’s the deeper issue:
Luxury consumers are simply spending less. Even the most visionary design won’t translate into sales if wallets stay closed.

The luxury downturn: External forces matter


A volatile market, inflation, and global instability—including what we might call Trump’s TACO behaviour (Trump Always Chickens Out or Threatening, Authoritarian, Chaotic, Opportunistic)—create unpredictable conditions. No matter how bold Anderson’s vision is, LVMH will need to heavily back it with marketing muscle.

And therein lies the message:
LVMH’s decision shows that the fashion system still bets on the status quo—hype, marketing, and overproduction—rather than investing in long-term heritage, and, most importantly, in systemic change.

Final thoughts


The luxury downturn is real. So is the unstable economy. Dior bets on J.W. Anderson. In fact, the industry continues its game of musical chairs—rotating male designers in hopes of reviving sales—without addressing the core issue. Creative directors set the tone, yes. But in a downturn, what luxury truly needs is systemic reinvention, not just another new voice at the helm.

What’s your take?
Should luxury brands lean into hype or return to heritage during crises?

🖤 Leave a comment below, or get in touch via WhatsApp or email—we’d love to hear your thoughts.

Luxury downturn: Dior bets on J.W. Anderson—Can a creative vision alone revive sales? Read More »

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

/ Leave a Comment
Reading Time: 2 minutes

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


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

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

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

Fashion industry supply chain: What the agreement proposes


The protocol introduces a “dual track” system:

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

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

National relevance & industry reservations


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

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

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

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

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

The agreement: Voluntary… For now


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

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

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

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

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 »