Judicial Authorities have required several luxury fashion companies to produce documentation relating to their organisational and management models, as well as internal audits or audits commissioned from external consultants, for the purpose of assessing the adequacy of internal supply-chain control systems and the nature of the legal and commercial relationships between lead companies and their subcontractors. Such requests are aimed at identifying potential negligence or, in the most serious cases, complicity in unlawful labour practices.

The alleged cases of caporalato reportedly involve primarily the employment of workers of Chinese nationality in so-called “workshop-dormitory” facilities, in which systemic violations of regulations concerning hygiene, occupational health and safety, remuneration, payroll documentation, and working time are alleged to constitute an established modus operandi.

These developments have triggered significant public and institutional debate in Italy. On the one hand, public institutions and industry associations have stressed the need to safeguard the reputation of the “Made in Italy” label—widely recognised as a hallmark of quality, tradition, and craftsmanship—from practices capable of undermining its credibility. On the other hand, trade unions, civil society organisations, and workers’ rights movements have strongly criticised the political and regulatory management of the issue.

The proposed anti-caporalato certification

In response to these concerns, the Italian Government has introduced, within the draft Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Bill (Disegno di Legge sulle PMI), a new measure providing for the establishment of a voluntary supply-chain compliance certification. The purpose of this instrument is to certify compliance with labour legislation and to prevent and combat labour exploitation in contractual relationships with suppliers and subcontractors.

Under the proposed framework, fashion companies applying for the certification must demonstrate, through appropriate documentation, that their contractual arrangements and commercial relationships with suppliers comply with applicable labour, occupational safety, and social security legislation. At present, the certification scheme is voluntary in nature and does not предусматри mandatory inspections or structured independent third-party audits, unlike many product or process certification schemes.

The stated objective of the certification is to identify compliant supply chains, reward virtuous undertakings, eliminate anomalies and critical issues within the supply chain, and provide assurances to the market regarding regulatory compliance and respect for human rights.

The proposal has attracted substantial criticism from political actors and trade unions. According to several labour organisations, the certification risks being reduced to a purely formal or “facade” label in the absence of effective monitoring and verification mechanisms. Such shortcomings, critics argue, may weaken the legal accountability of lead companies and result in a form of de facto de-responsibilisation, including from a criminal law perspective, where violations by subcontractors or third-party manufacturers are subsequently identified.

Furthermore, critics contend that the absence of external oversight, periodic inspections, or binding obligations may significantly undermine the effectiveness of the certification and fail to produce tangible improvements in working conditions at the lower tiers of the supply chain, where labour exploitation is most prevalent and severe.

Conversely, proponents of the measure—including certain industry associations such as Confindustria Moda—maintain that the certification constitutes an initial step toward enhanced supply-chain transparency in a sector of international relevance and strategic importance to the Italian economy, and that it may assist companies in evidencing their commitment to preventing unlawful labour practices.

In any event, the effectiveness of the proposed certification will depend upon its future legislative development. In particular, should the scheme remain voluntary and lacking robust, independent oversight mechanisms, there is widespread concern that it may prove insufficient to ensure effective social sustainability.

The debate surrounding caporalato in the Italian fashion industry exposes a fundamental tension: the global celebration of luxury products associated with craftsmanship and quality on the one hand, and, on the other, documented instances of labour exploitation highlighting the need for more stringent regulatory frameworks and effective supply-chain enforcement. While the proposed anti-caporalato certification may represent a potentially useful instrument, its effectiveness will ultimately depend on stronger commitments to oversight, transparency, and corporate social responsibility.

Authors: 

Camilla Gentile – Close to ius

Isabella Carantani – Close to ius

The post Caporalato in Italian fashion appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

On this occasion, many observers noted a striking resemblance to Kolhapuri chappals. These traditional, handcrafted sandals have been produced in India for centuries, particularly in the states of Maharashtra and Karnataka.

Within days, the issue spilt out of the confines of the fashion industry to be addressed in various national and international media, under two aspects: is it cultural appropriation or legitimate inspiration?

Indeed, the debate has opened a window on a broader and recurring question in the fashion world: what legal and cultural space do traditional expressions occupy in the global fashion landscape today? And what tools exist to protect the rights – tangible or intangible – of the communities that cherish this knowledge? [1]

Kolhapuri chappals are not just footwear; they represent a recognised craft tradition that has been handed down over time, to the point of being recognised and labelled as a geographical indication (GI) in India in 2019.

This is precisely why the Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture (MACCIA) has asked Prada to publicly acknowledge the cultural inspiration for those sandals and to find a way to enhance and involve, perhaps collaboratively, local artisans. [2]

Indeed, there is no unified international system for the protection of traditional cultural expressions, which are thus excluded from the primary forms of intellectual property protection, such as copyright, trademarks, or industrial designs. This leaves room for gray areas, where inspiration and replication meet without the boundaries between what is permissible and what is appropriate always being clear.

In this particular case, there is no evidence, at least in the state of infringement of formally recognised legal rights. Yet, the perception of an imbalance remains, especially where there has been no involvement or recognition of the relevant communities.

Beyond strict legality, the issue is now intertwined with the concept of corporate responsibility, which in its modern declinations also includes ethical, cultural and social aspects.

The recent EU Directive 2024/1760 [3] on corporate due diligence imposes an obligation on large companies to identify, prevent and mitigate negative impacts on the environment and human rights throughout the entire value chain. Although it does not explicitly refer to cultural expressions, the text also opens up scenarios for greater accountability regarding the social and cultural impact of production and creative choices.

In this sense, some experts believe that ignoring or omitting the cultural value of a craft tradition could be part of assessments related to social sustainability and fairness in economic relations.

As is often the case, the most immediate judgment came from consumers, particularly social media users. Indeed, critical comments multiplied on the various platforms, accompanied by hashtags such as #NotYourChappal or #CulturalCreditNow. Several international media outlets covered the news, and in India, there was discussion of a “missed opportunity” to engage local artisans in a collaborative project.

While it has helped raise the international visibility of Kolhapuri chappals and generated an increase in sales of these traditional sandals, the affair remains far from closed. Prada has stated its commitment to responsible design practices, increased cultural engagement, and opening meaningful dialogue with local artisan communities in India, while also assuring MACCIA of its intention to honour and preserve the unique craftsmanship that represents local Indian excellence and tradition.

However, this is not the first time a fashion house has been accused of tapping into cultural heritages without direct involvement, and it probably will not be the last. The issue extends beyond the single episode and raises a central question for the future of fashion: how can we balance creative freedom with respect for the traditions from which we draw inspiration?

Camilla Gentile – Close to ius 

Camilla Gentile graduated in Law in April 2019 from the University of Brescia with a thesis on the legal protection of industrial and intellectual property rights in the fashion sector. After completing her legal training at a law firm specializing in civil and criminal law, she furthered her expertise in industrial and intellectual property, developing a specialization in brand and creativity protection, with a particular focus on the fashion and design industries. After obtaining her qualification to practice law, she registered with the Bar Association. As a co-founder of the law firm Close to Ius, she combines her expertise in industrial law with extensive legal consultancy in fashion law, Made in Italy, environmental and social sustainability, assisting companies and entrepreneurs in complying with industry regulations and managing responsibilities while promoting sustainable strategies. The firm, cited by the prestigious Forbes magazine, was also a finalist at the Legal Community Forty Under 40 Awards in the category Law Firm of the Year – IP & TMT. She collaborates with the international journal Fashion Law Journal, contributing through articles and partnerships with her law firm, bringing an international perspective to industry-related legal matters.

Isabella Carantani – Close to ius

Isabella Carantani earned her Law degree from the University of Brescia in 2019 and obtained her license to practice law in 2021 after completing training in civil and criminal law.

In January 2022, she co-founded Close to Ius, a law firm known for its modern and personalized approach to legal consulting, assistance, and training for professionals and businesses. The firm has been featured in Forbes magazine and was a finalist at the Legal Community Forty Under 40 Awards in the category Law Firm of the Year – IP & TMT.

Isabella Carantani is a senior contributor for the Fashion Law and Influencer Marketing section of the online legal magazine Ius in Itinere, where she writes articles on topics such as fashion law, sustainability, intellectual property, influencer marketing, artificial intelligence, and privacy. She also collaborates with the international Fashion Law Journal, bringing an international perspective to industry-related issues thanks to her expertise and the contributions of her law firm.

[1] E. Cerchia B. Pozzo, The New Frontiers of Fashion Law, MDPI, 2020, pp. 1 – 26

[2] https://www.maccia.org.in/event-details.php?album_id=25

[3] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1760/oj?locale=it

The post The Case of Prada Sandals and the Debate on Cultural Appropriation in Fashion appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

Seamstresses from Manifattura San Maurizio, the productive company linked to the Max Mara Group, have launched a massive strike in order to protest against the Italian luxury fashion giant. Allegations include piecework pay, psychological pressure, and denial of basic rights.

According to their declarations, the shifts are exhausting, there is physical and psychological pressure, and the general workplace atmosphere is toxic.

“They called us milking cows,” report the seamstresses who produce the brand’s iconic coats. “They said we’re fat, obese, and even suggested exercises we could do at home to lose weight. We’re practically paid per piece, and they even monitor how often we go to the bathroom. But we’re all women, and we all have menstrual cycles. It’s inhumane, and we want this to stop.”

The unrest publicly surfaced during the presentation of the new Fashion Hub Project, which involves the redevelopment of the former Fiere di Mancasale area, with Max Mara playing a leading role. The protest moved there, with banners and workers demanding respect and reform.

The working conditions do not fit our times and clash with the concepts of sustainability and social responsibility promoted (and in any case legally owed) by the company.

“We’re stuck in the 1980s,” said Erica Morelli, General Secretary of the provincial union Filctem CGIL. “Despite our efforts to establish constructive dialogue, the company’s management has erected a wall and refuses to hear our demands. This strike is meant to send a strong signal to management — we need a new phase of relations based first and foremost on respect for workers”.

One of the most critical issues raised is the use of piecework pay, a system in which wages are determined by output rather than time worked. Although it is not inherently illegal, Article 2100 of the Italian Civil Code imposes strict conditions on such arrangements to ensure that they do not endanger the health or safety of workers, in compliance with the Italian Constitution. In this case, workers complain of unsustainable production rhythms, resulting in physical strain and illness.

“Organisational rigidity, physical exhaustion, individual pressure, lack of financial recognition and promotions, and no willingness to engage with union representatives — this is the daily reality for 220 skilled workers at this Max Mara Group facility,” wrote Filctem CGIL of Reggio Emilia in a statement.

Despite requests for comment from several media outlets, Max Mara has yet to issue an official statement. The company’s silence, especially during such a reputationally sensitive time, risks becoming a liability for a brand that prides itself on Italian craftsmanship and excellence.

The trade union describes “The reasons for the protest include denied leave, imposed holidays, unsustainable rhythms that lead to physical harm and occupational diseases, and a total lack of wage recognition. This is the daily life of 200 employees who have now decided to say enough and are demanding that management engage in constructive dialogue,” the statement continues.

Their appeal to the public is unequivocal: “These women are demanding dignity, respect, and the guarantee of basic rights — rights that in 2025 should no longer be up for negotiation. Their exasperation must be heard not only by the company’s leadership but also by local institutions and the community of Reggio Emilia, from whom we ask full solidarity.”

The Max Mara case happens at a time when corporate due diligence on human rights and labour practices is becoming a legal and reputational requirement. In Europe, in accordance with the new EU Directive 2024/1760, large companies are required to assess and mitigate negative impacts on the environment and human rights, including those related to workers, along the entire value chain, respecting the ESG criteria, namely environmental, workers’ rights, and governance sustainability.

If these allegations were to be confirmed, the affair would represent a serious breach of corporate social responsibility and a failure of internal due diligence mechanisms regarding the protection of workers, which is even more serious when we are talking about a high-risk sector such as fashion and textiles.

“It is unacceptable that an international brand like Max Mara, which proudly labels its products ‘Made in Italy,’ would deny rights to those who actually create that excellence,” declared Sonia Tosoni, national secretary of Filctem CGIL, and Simone Cavalieri, regional secretary of Filctem  Emilia-Romagna.

Also really concerning is the reported failure to apply the relevant National Collective Labour Agreement (in Italian “Contratto collettivo nazionale di lavoro”, shortened CCNL) for the textile sector. Failure to enforce the CCNL or a fair contract could even, in an extreme case, lead to a violation of Article 36 of the Italian Constitution, which guarantees workers fair pay and decent working conditions.

Max Mara is not the first luxury brand to make headlines for such disputes. In recent years, Italian authorities have uncovered, for example, cases in which luxury bags sold for thousands of euros were produced in workshops under inappropriate conditions and with very low production costs. These cases are highlighting the crisis in an industry where production chains are often out of control.

Several possible legal avenues open up for the Manifattura San Maurizio workers. The choice will depend exclusively on Max Mara’s reaction and possible collaboration with the institutions in order to rebuild a healthy, safe and valued working environment.

“We can’t take it anymore. We’ve endured abuse in silence for years,” one of the seamstresses told the Italian newspaper Il Fatto Quotidiano.

Maria Giulia Prezioso Maramotti, Board Manager of the Max Mara Fashion Group,  rejected all charges: “We do not recognise ourselves in the allegations that have been made. On the contrary, we have also received many messages of solidarity from the majority of our employees in San Maurizio”. Nevertheless, the Italian Deputy Minister of Labour confirmed that the National Labour Inspectorate had received “some reports that drew attention to problematic situations within the company context, particularly regarding the treatment of female workers”.

The future of this protest depends on the position that Max Mara will take, but also on the results of the national labour inspectorate’s checks.

It is hoped, of course, that an agreement will be reached and that excellent working and production conditions, which Max Mara has always praised, will be restored.

The post Inside Max Mara workers’ strike appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

Anuj Kumar, Founder & Editor-in-chief at Fashion Law Journal on behalf of the organisation lauds the initiative of CAM for choosing this topic with a great panel of experts. The speakers from industry shared their practical experiences and insights with the participants. Here’s the summary of Conference sessions:

I session: Litigating in the fashion industry: why arbitration is a good idea? With Luca Chiama (Legal Director, Prada Group) and Elisabeth Vestin (Partner, Hannes Snellman)

The fashion industry has an international scope so it is frequent to face cross-border disputes. That’s why most of the contracts, in fashion, are standardised, so the clauses affixed are almost the same. In addition, fashion is always moving: brands are constantly embracing new opportunities, taking advantage of digitalization, metaverse, NFTs… and this makes so important to find flexible solutions. In particular in fashion luxury business, brand reputation and image are really important, so confidentiality becomes a plus.

According to Elisabeth Vestin, internationalisation in the fashion sector doesn’t came at the beginning, but it is a process and this means it takes time. Fashion has always been focused on the products (clothes, accessories, etc), but now fashion is expanding: restaurants, venues etc. Therefore fashion has grown a lot. What is really important is the message, the prestige, the exclusivity. Regarding fashion law, it is principally about IP: it works with the brand, with creators, and for the products. But, actually, it is so much more than that. As a legal you have to face with supply chain (that could be in-house – for largest businesses – or in other countries – for the smallest-), reselling, digitalization, service providers, etc. This evolution involves the enlargement of different fashion law areas, not only the IP one.

Luca Chiama, from Prada, says that it is important to know what kind of relationship a legal has to regulate and in which type of sector. The luxury industry has specific characteristics, totally different from any other. So you have to think: “What is the interest you want to protect? Do you need a confidentiality clause? Etc” That’s how you can decide the clauses in different types of contracts. By the way it is difficult to standardise all the clauses, because every agreement is different. In every contract and every arbitration it is possible to cover the strongest position or the weakest one and that’s why you have to consider the counterpart rights and duties.

Arbitration could be a good opportunity, also for smaller brands, because it is super effective and rapid. Frequently, arbitration clauses are not included because of procedural costs. However, if we consider the duration of a court proceedings and its cost in the long time, arbitration becomes the best solution.

II session: Most common topics between trademark issues and distribution agreements: can arbitration be a good mechanism for resolving such disputes? With Ghada Qaisi (Audi International arbitrator) and Erika Levin (Partner, Fox Rothschild)

In fashion distribution contracts, a lawyer has to manage risks relying on contractual law and mandatory law. The most important thing, in international distribution contracts, is to protect the brand: that’s what makes fashion luxury industry different from any other. It is fundamental to minimize impacts and effects on the client’s products.

So whether you are an in-house lawyer or not, the aim is to balance the relationship between the brand and the distributor, understanding the other part, for example in the determination of non- waiver clauses.

In any case it is fundamental to enter in detail and deeply know the process. If you know the distribution, the season sale, etc you can judge in a proper way, otherwise you risk being superficial. Every distribution contract or agreement has to be decided by in house counsel with all company details, respecting the interest of the brand.

Most of the disputes, in fashion luxury sector, concern distribution contracts, rather than supply chain. That’s because, with a distribution contract, you are giving your products and your brand to another entity, which is often on the other side of the world. This makes very difficult to define the applicable law and the law coordination. Because of this the most important resource becomes the comparative law, combined with tolerance approach. Anyway, arbitration is a really good tool in fashion, being able to be used for any area, not only distribution.

III session: The future of litigation: NFTs and metaverse with Jalal El Ahdab (Partner, Bird & Bird) and Beatrice Grifoni (Design, Communication and IP Legal Director, Valentino)

First of all the session starts with the definition of metaverse and NFTs. Metaverse is a massively scaled and interoperable network of a real time rendered 3D virtual words, which can be experienced synchronously and persistently by an effectively unlimited number of users. NFTs are cryptographic assets: they are digital media but also certificates (i.e. intelligent contracts).

The importance and the particularity of those ones, is that it is possible to convert NFTs into physical products, within a certain period of time. Anyway NTFs are much more expensive than physical products, so this makes the transformation not so attractive.

Users have two options: buy on the primary market or resell in the second market. On the primary market they can just buy an NFT or they can buy an NFT, having the chance to get the related physical item. This means the company makes money from the purchase of the NFT. On the secondary market the company makes money from the royalties (because the brand always retains the rights related to the NFTs). However, NTFs could be a interesting instrument to authenticate and prevent counterfeiting.

In this digitalization process, there’s another important key: the blockchain. It would be interesting to enforce arbitration to blockchain/metaverse. For example concerning: blockchain service agreement, subcontracts, IP, regulatory issues, etc. So, it is possible to use blockchain/NFTs technology in the dispute resolution process: to manage procedure and evidence in arbitration proceedings; have the possibility to tokenise awards/NFT arbitration award; cybersecurity; confidentiality; efficiency; notification of unidentified person through NFTs. Arbitration through blockchain would be a perfect tool, but it would work only if everything remains anonymous, otherwise the arbitrator couldn’t be really fair.

The conference gave the opportunity to discuss deeply on the fashion arbitration system, in Italy and beyond, exploring the metaverse implications in a fresh and concrete way.

Fashion Law Journal was the Media Partner of the Conference. This conference summary is reported by Camilla Gentile, Editor at Fashion Law Journal

The post 13th Milan Chamber of Arbitration Annual Conference discusses Role & Potential of Arbitration in Fashion appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

1- Can you tell us what’s your role at Dior and what does it concern?

I’m Legal, Ethics and Compliance Director EMEA (Europe, Middle East, and Africa) – a region of almost 30 countries -. I manage a legal team of 6 people. Principally, we follow the legal aspects of the whole supply chain, from the production – part of it is based in Italy – to the commercialization of the final product, passing through corporate governance, service agreements, real estate and events (when not managed centrally); in general, all the legal matters around the life of a boutique and a local subsidiary within the Region Europe and Middle East.

2- What’s your educational and professional background? How much is important, as a legal, to achieve language skills?

My journey was very complex, with many attempts. I graduated in law, at the University of Rome, and I started the notary path. I abandoned it for many reasons and then I decided to become a lawyer. After my career in a law firm, I started to work for Heineken and I stayed there for 5 years: with this experience I definitely switched to the in-house career.

Later, I moved to Fendi and, now, I have been working at Dior for almost 3 years. When I started my career in fashion law this field didn’t have recognition. The figure of the fashion lawyer already existed but it didn’t have a name and it wasn’t recognized, while now it is for sure. I didn’t attend specific courses on fashion law, simply because they didn’t exist. I learned everything through my experience and my legal knowledge. So much so that, I took part in the creation of the first Master in fashion law at LUISS University, in Italy, with Ms. Angela Del Vecchio and we worked together to create, effectively, THE fashion lawyer as it is nowadays.

I studied English and German, in young age, and I improved English with experience. I didn’t really know French and never studied it, so I learned it once I came in France with Dior. Professionally, the most important skill is the English one because, in a company, you find yourself working with people from very different countries. Anyway, French is a plus, for sure, and it becomes mandatory when you decide to live in Paris and work with French people. In the fashion law field, maybe, French could be more important than English, but I don’t think it is mandatorial.

3- As a legal, how do you relate with other departments (e.g. production, retail, etc)?

Collaboration is fundamental, both for lawyers and legals, and it is very important in order to understand the business. This depends, mainly, on the lawyer’s curiosity. I think that curiosity is one of the most important things in this job. If you don’t know the business, you could give not useful or even wrong advice. Additionally, because the fashion field is very fast and challenging, if you don’t know your client’s needs the risk is to “stop” – create troubles – the business.

In order to add something more to your job, you have to speak with people, go to places, learn as much as possible about the business: know the industry deeply. Therefore, collaboration and curiosity are the most important qualities in order to work harmoniously with other departments.

4- What’s the most important area in which a fashion company looks for employees? Is the legal one of them?

In most of the industries, not only fashion type, support roles (legal, finance, etc.) are more suffering as a research-of-staff point of view. If the core business is production or selling, those will be the biggest ones in terms of workforce. Despite that, legal support is very important and the industry knows that it is fundamental.

Honestly, I saw an increase of the legal area in the last years, not only in fashion companies.

5- What’s the relationship between in-house and external lawyers?  

It depends. When we need particular or specific technicalities or knowledge it is fundamental to work with external lawyers (e.g. due diligence, acquisitions, etc).

On the other side, we work with external lawyers in foreign countries: in this case the lawyer is our referent and representative for that area. This happens because we can’t follow all the specific procedures in every country and we can’t be always there physically.

We work mostly in-house because fashion is a really fast industry and it is difficult to receive a real time feedback from externals. We are very business oriented and we have to give quick response to business and to different departments. We are their reference, their advisor and our role is to manage risks and crises.

Despite that, sometimes we need an external support for the above reasons.

6- How much is important, for a legal position, the knowledge of the fashion world?

According to me it is essential, as a legal in-house or as an external consultant. That’s because this is a specific and particular sector, so the lawyer needs to know the maison, the group history, the core business. A standard approach doesn’t work for us.

It is really important to have passion and a fashion culture. This is a world of enthusiasts and it is important to be on the same wavelength of the client. We want somebody that knows the industry, that is passionate and that has a brand knowledge, also from an image and reputational point of view. That’s the only way to be efficient and to be an added value.

7- What’s the ideal path for who’s interested in fashion law, in particular at Dior?

There are three main pillars for a fashion legal, as an in-house but also as an external: real estate (core business of many fashion industries), IP rights (but in a very smart way: not only anticounterfeiting, but also collaborations, marketing, etc), industrial law (production, suppliers, contracts, etc).

Also, compliance (anticorruption, anti moneylaundering, etc) and sustainability are really actual and useful – even if I think that the last one could constitute an independent department (because it doesn’t involve only legal knowledge but also a very technical and practical support) -. Nowadays, it is very important also the knowledge of the digital law world (NFTs, blockchain, metaverse, etc). On the contrary, I don’t think it would be so helpful a background on administrative law, criminal law, tax law (maybe it could be useful in the finance area), M&A or litigation.

8- What is your advice for those who want to look for a job like yours? 

For sure it is important to have a solid base on the above topics. It is very important to have skills in as more languages as possible (at least 3 languages – where English and French are the best, in my opinion). Now it is more difficult and the level is always higher: there is a high competition, especially in fashion law and especially for in-house positions. I think that being a young lawyer or a young legal is an added value because of the different worldview, the digital skills, the freshness, the knowledge of new technologies.

Fashion is really fast, as I said, so freshness, young age and determination are your strength. This market is not inaccessible, but it is important to give an added value and be specialized in new fields.

9- How have COVID and war impacted on your job and in the fashion industry?

Covid and war are two particular circumstances that have never been experienced before, so nobody knew how to manage them. Despite this, those helped many industries to understand the value of a good in-house lawyer. That’s because when there was the necessity to take important and fast decisions, this was totally on us. For example: open or close the production, being able to organize a catwalk (or online catwalk), security matters… legal decisions had (and still have) immediate reactions on business.

So we are almost entrepreneurs inside the industry. Covid gave us a strong impact on the business and on many decisions. We achieved a great visibility in the company.

We used to work on the background and now we are more entrepreneurial and we take many risks, giving feedbacks based only on our legal knowledge and this was (and is right now) very challenging.

10- What’s the strategy, in particular for fashion luxury industry, to achieve and manage sustainability?

We are not omniscient, and this is a very technical topic. So I think that the role of a legal should be more centred on avoid the risk of greenwashing or paying attention on marketing strategies. The in-house lawyer has to guide the process through communication and decisions, working together with production and technical departments.

The post In Conversation with Mr. Lorenzo Maria Di Vecchio: Legal, Ethics & Compliance Director EMEA at Christian Dior Couture appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.