the issue of animal welfare is at the heart of the debate within the luxury industry. For example, under pressure from various stakeholders, including NGOs, a number of companies have made the choice to abandon animal fur and to replace it with alternative raw materials. Some have opted for synthetic fur, a petrol by-product, despite the fact that they are criticized for the pollution this causes. Others, mainly small innovative start-ups, have developed natural raw materials. For example, Amadou Mushroom Leather, awarded the Kering Innovation prize in 2016, developed a leather made from Amadou mushrooms. Orange Fiber, meanwhile, has specialized in the creation of textiles from citrus fruit fibers. Lastly, the start-up Just Ananas makes luxury goods using Piñatex, a fabric created using fibers from pineapple leaves. Let’s consider the last example to better understand the challenges of reconciling luxury and sustainable development by taking animal welfare into account.
Some luxury brands have been criticized for practices encouraging the exploitation of workers and children. What is your opinion on this issue?
“It’s obviously a scandal... I am more involved with it in my work, which is plant-based natural leather. There was absolutely no regulation of anything related to leather tanning produced in Europe. Chemical products, emissions, and so on, even the harmfulness of “Crome”, wasn’t regulated, one of the most harmful and chemical products in the tanning industry, a chemical used in tanning to dye leather. Confronted with this, Europe outsourced production and suddenly it was countries like India and Bangladesh that had to carry out these production stages with workers who had no protection whatsoever, exposed to chemical and carcinogenic substances without knowing the risk. In some countries, such as India and Bangladesh, children, sometimes even those younger than ten, work there... when you buy a product, you don’t know what’s gone into making it.
“This is why it’s important to talk about this and it’s important that brands get engaged and carry out awareness-raising campaigns online so that people know what they’re buying and so that they avoid buying products that have no manufacturing information. It’s proof; when there’s a lack of information on products, there has to be something going on behind the scenes.”
The use of rare, animal-based raw materials contributes to the luxurious nature of luxury products. This practice is now being challenged on grounds of animal welfare. What do you think about this?
“We can have rarity without having to use animal materials. We can have rarity in cosmetics, such as floral scents that are very rare and therefore more expensive. It’s the same thing in fashion and leather goods; with plants, there are products that are still little used, including the pineapple, I’m talking about that because I’m familiar with it, for now it’s a niche that makes it rare and therefore prices are not low.
“It’s always the same problem of communication, of the presentation of the product. If Louis Vuitton presented a range of plant-based bags tomorrow, it would have the whole Louis Vuitton brand behind it and that wouldn’t change. So of course, if he launched it without fanfare by putting a bag on a corner, nothing would happen. I think that the advantage luxury brands have is savoir-faire, whatever the materials used.
“The brands are almost obligated to take sustainability and responsibility into account, and consumers, for their part, are more and more informed about this issue, which will lead brands to give them information. There are regular consumers who are turning away from the brands because they’re better informed, there are more and more videos thanks to the development of social networks, there are loads of videos from L214. Once you’ve seen that type of video, it’s difficult to carry on consuming in the same way. There’ll never be perfect world, but if some well-informed individuals change their consumption habits, that’ll be enough.”
2.3. The perceived contradiction between luxury and sustainable development: origins and solutions
2.3.1. The sources of consumer reluctance towards sustainable luxury offers
Including sustainable attributes in a product or service generally provides an added value to the offer and thereby makes it more attractive from the consumer point of view. Luxury presents an exception, in view of the perceived contradiction between its world and that of sustainable development. It is thus possible to identify eight sources of dissonance that help to understand the perceived gap between these two concepts (luxury and sustainable development), and thereby clarify the reasons for consumer reluctance towards sustainable luxury products. These are grouped around the dimensions of the concept, the environmental dimension and the social dimension (Table 2.2). They are illustrated below with verbatim accounts2.
Table 2.2. Sources of dissonance between luxury and sustainable development
(source: (Dekhili and Achabou 2016))
| Sustainable development | Luxury | |
| Dimensions of the concept | Sharing AltruismRationalityLower quality | ExclusivitySelf-interestImpulsivitySuperior quality |
| Environmental dimension | Preservation of resources | Use of rare resources, waste |
| Social dimension | Social equalityFairness in employmentAnimal welfare | Social inequalityUnfairness in employmentLack of animal welfare |
The first source of dissonance is related to the two concepts themselves, which have opposing dimensions. The first contradiction relates to exclusivity (versus sharing). If the concept of sustainable development refers to practices encouraging donations, exchanges, second-hand sales and recycling, luxury, for its part, instead evokes exclusivity, which implies the scarcity of a product:
But this [sustainable practices] slightly harms the image of luxury products that we make, I like to think that if I buy a luxury textile product that I’m the first to have it, that it’s made of high-quality materials, never touched before. I think that the sustainable aspect would put me off a little bit.
Owing to their strong emotional dimension, luxury products are little suited to the logic of donating and sharing. Consumers show an emotional attachment to the luxury products they buy (Carrigan et al. 2013). They associate them with cherished memories and a strong symbolism that leads them to reject the idea of having to be separated from them, even when the products reach the end of their lifespan: “if it’s a question of fabric from a piece that has a history, that belonged to a star in a famous film, you might as well keep it to maintain specific symbols for a family, or an era”, “I’m not sure that a woman would want to be separated from her handbag even if she doesn’t use it anymore!”
The two concepts – luxury and sustainable development – are then opposed in terms of the dimension of self-interest (versus altruism). Sustainable development refers back to “others”, such as the well-being of future generations, the protection of animal species and the working conditions of employees. However, luxury evokes more selfish considerations: “We talk a lot about the environment but no one pays attention, everyone just wants to enjoy themselves. I buy a product, I see whether I like it but I don’t think about the consequences, I think about what I want”, “especially when I want to enjoy myself, I don’t think about pollution”.
Another point of opposition between the two concepts relates to the dimension of impulsivity (versus rationality). When we talk about “sustainable development”, we often think about thoughtful behavior that takes into account the environmental and social impact of the strategic choices and practices implemented. Luxury, perceived as being part of a care-free world, is far from