In recent years, the fashion industry has undergone a radical transformation. Today, through online platforms, mobile applications, and advanced artificial intelligence, brands offer highly personalized experiences, recommending outfits based on individual preferences. As of 2026, personalization in digital fashion is going to be shaped by a tighter regulatory framework under the EU GDPR, EU AI Act, and EU Data Act, requiring brands to balance innovation with strict ethical and legal standards.

1. Fashion in the Digital Era

Digitalization has gone beyond simple e-commerce. Brands are now prioritizing immersive experiences through augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR). These technologies often process biometric identifiers—such as facial geometry or body measurements for virtual fittings. According to current interpretations by European Data Protection Authorities, these activities require explicit consent and robust security measures, as they involve sensitive data that defines an individual’s physical identity.

2. Personal Data in Digital Fashion

Data collected by fashion companies can generally be categorized as follows:

•   Identification data: name, email address, phone number, and postal address.
•   Behavioral data: purchase history, browsing activity, clicks, time spent on pages, and style preferences.
•   Biometric and other sensitive data: body measurements, 3D scans, images, and information derived from wearable devices.
•   Synthetically generated data: AI-generated profiles used for testing or simulations, which must be clearly distinguished from real user data to prevent algorithmic bias and ensure transparency.

Improper processing of these data today results not only in GDPR fines but also in potential AI compliance penalties, which can be more severe for systems found to be manipulative, discriminatory, or misleading.

3. Regulatory Framework

While the GDPR remains the cornerstone of data protection, the legal landscape will be complemented by the EU AI Act and the Data Act in 2026. Fashion companies must ensure that their recommendation algorithms are transparent, explainable, and compliant with high-risk AI requirements. Furthermore, with the rollout of the Digital Product Passport (DPP), the concept of “data” in fashion now bridges the gap between consumers’ personal information and a product’s environmental footprint, creating a holistic transparency obligation that encompasses both user data and product lifecycle information.

4. Ethical Challenges

Beyond legal compliance, the use of personal data in digital fashion raises substantial ethical questions. Extreme personalization can lead to continuous consumer surveillance, potentially undermining trust between brands and customers. In addition, algorithmic systems that generate product recommendations based on demographic or behavioral data may produce discriminatory outcomes, such as limiting access to certain collections or price ranges for specific user groups.

Transparency remains a critical challenge, as many consumers are insufficiently informed about what data is collected and how it is processed. In this context, the principles of privacy by design and by default play a crucial role. Additionally, excessive personalization may contribute to the creation of “filter bubbles,” where users are repeatedly exposed to a narrow set of products, styles, or brands that align with their past behavior. This phenomenon can reduce consumer autonomy, limit exposure to diverse market offerings, and constrain the freedom to explore alternative identities within digital fashion environments.

Since 2024, the prohibition of dark patterns under the Digital Services Act has strengthened user protection by limiting manipulative interface design practices. From February 2025, the EU AI Act will further reinforce these safeguards by prohibiting certain forms of AI-driven behavioral manipulation that undermine users’ autonomy and decision-making. Together, these frameworks address both deceptive choice architectures and algorithmic nudging practices, promoting fairness and consumer autonomy on digital platforms.

The filter bubbles phenomenon is now directly addressed in the EU AI Act. From August 2, 2026, transparency obligations will come into force for AI systems that interact with humans or generate content. Under these rules, providers must ensure that users are aware of AI interactions, thereby mitigating the risk of opaque algorithmic confinement. Although the final deadline for systems embedded in high-risk regulated products extends to 2027, most recommendation engines used in retail must already comply with strict disclosure rules. Excessive personalization that confines consumers to a narrow set of options could be considered a risk to fundamental rights, such as informational self-determination. Under the AI Act, providers must implement risk assessments and mitigation strategies to ensure personalization does not inadvertently manipulate or unduly restrict users’ exposure to different products. By connecting this to Explainable AI, fashion brands must now not only protect data but also provide clear explanations of the rationale behind automated style decisions, strengthening consumer trust and mitigating the ethical risks associated with algorithmic bias or hidden nudging.

5. Practical Cases and Examples

5.1 Responsible Practices

•   Burberry: The brand has experimented with blockchain-based systems, such as participation in the Aura Blockchain Consortium, to enhance product authenticity and traceability. These decentralized solutions aim to ensure transparency and data integrity while avoiding unnecessary exposure of sensitive personal information. They align with standards for the EU Digital Product Passport, scheduled to come into force in 2027, and strengthen both ethical and environmental transparency.
•   Stitch Fix: This online personal styling platform relies extensively on customer data to generate personalized outfit recommendations. Users are informed about the nature and purpose of data processing activities and are required to provide explicit consent, contributing to greater transparency, trust, and compliance with AI and data regulations.
•   Farfetch: As a global luxury e-commerce platform, Farfetch has implemented consent management tools and privacy by design practices that allow customers to exercise greater control over the information they share with brands and third parties, aligning technological innovation with ethical standards.

5.2 Risk and Breach Scenarios

Even established fashion brands have faced significant challenges in protecting personal data. While acknowledging that the following cases rely on public accounts and media reports documented during 2025, and without prejudice to the factual accuracy of such claims or ongoing legal outcomes, these examples offer critical insights into the industry’s vulnerabilities:

•   Shein: The company has been reported to have faced substantial administrative sanctions from the French data protection authority (CNIL) in connection with its use of tracking technologies that allegedly did not fully comply with GDPR consent requirements.
•   Kering Group (parent company of brands including Gucci, Balenciaga, and Alexander McQueen): Public reports indicate that a cyberattack in 2025 may have resulted in the exposure of customer data, such as names, email addresses, and phone numbers, leading to reputational concerns and regulatory attention.
•   Louis Vuitton: The brand has reportedly experienced multiple data security incidents in different jurisdictions, including Hong Kong, prompting data protection authorities to launch investigations.
•   SABO: An unsecured database was reported to have exposed large volumes of customer records, demonstrating the legal and fiduciary consequences of insufficient technical security measures.

These cases demonstrate that, beyond formal compliance, robust cybersecurity and data protection practices are essential. Inadequate safeguards may result in financial penalties, regulatory scrutiny, and a long-term erosion of consumer trust.

6. Conclusion and Future Perspectives

The Collection and processing of personal data has become a strategic necessity in digital fashion. Looking to the future, emerging technologies—including generative artificial intelligence and immersive metaverse environments—will pose new regulatory and ethical challenges. By 2026, the industry’s focus will have shifted toward Explainable AI, where fashion brands must not only protect data but also clearly explain the rationale behind automated styling recommendations. This dual focus on data protection and explainability should strengthen consumer trust, mitigate algorithmic risks, and ensure that personalization in fashion remains ethical, transparent, and legally compliant.

The post Do You Want the Right Outfit? Personal Data, AI, and Privacy in the Digital Fashion Industry appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

The global fashion industry’s complex production networks expose it to legal and ethical vulnerabilities, particularly concerning labor standards and compliance. Recent judicial proceedings reported by the media have highlighted these challenges in multiple jurisdictions. While these cases are sub judice and not subject to merit evaluation here, they serve as a catalyst for examining broader questions about how the law interacts with corporate practices. This article provides a systemic analysis of supply chain governance, compliance frameworks, and the role of law in fostering corporate accountability beyond litigation.

2. Supply Chains and Legal Challenges

Modern fashion supply chains are highly fragmented, involving numerous cross-border contractors and subcontractors. This fragmentation increases legal complexity and dilutes direct oversight by brand owners. Key areas of concern include labor law compliance, environmental regulation, and corporate liability for violations occurring at distant tiers of production. The conventional focus on formal contractual compliance often fails to detect manipulative practices that undermine workers’ rights.

2.1 Limits of External Controls

Even with external oversight—such as labor inspections, legal audits, or financial controls—companies may implement internal practices that evade detection. For instance, in some Italian contexts, reports indicate situations where employers formally paid workers their full wages but then required partial cash reimbursements, making the violations invisible to external monitoring. Similarly, workers may hold contracts that formally comply with labor regulations, but which stipulate a number of working hours far below those actually worked. In practice, employees often work significantly more hours than indicated on paper, without corresponding overtime compensation or proper contractual recognition. In some cases, workloads are so excessive that they seriously undermine the physical and mental health of workers. These practices illustrate not only the limitations of traditional control mechanisms but also the risks of superficial compliance when external evaluators rely solely on documentary evidence rather than on-site audits and observations.

Workers in such environments face increased vulnerability. Beyond the fear of direct retaliation, they often worry about losing their jobs if the company closes or reduces operations. The discrepancy between formal contracts and actual working conditions can further inhibit reporting. In some Italian industrial districts, reports indicate that workers who attempted to protest or assert their rights were occasionally subjected to physical intimidation or violence, further discouraging complaints and reinforcing a climate of fear. Effective compliance, therefore, requires multi-layered strategies, including secure and anonymous whistleblowing channels, systematic field audits, and comprehensive education on labor rights and reporting mechanisms. These measures are essential to ensure that formal legal compliance translates into genuine protection of workers’ rights, addressing not only procedural compliance but also the practical realities of workplace safety and worker empowerment.

2.2 Protection Programs and Incentives for Reporting

To address such vulnerabilities, some policy frameworks propose protection programs that combine legal safeguards with financial incentives for reporting abuses. Examples include temporary subsistence support for reporting workers, job protection guarantees, relocation assistance, and access to legal or social services in the worker’s language. These measures recognize that fear of retaliation and loss of livelihood significantly hinders disclosure and that systemic enforcement requires enabling workers to participate as informed and supported actors within the regulatory framework. Furthermore, in cases where subcontractors operate as sole-source suppliers, policy proposals often suggest strengthening the prime contractor’s or client’s responsibility to ensure that workers receive full and fair remuneration, effectively linking the client’s liability to the actual payment owed, rather than allowing gaps or delays to be masked by intermediary arrangements. This approach aims to reduce the circumvention of labor standards and reinforce accountability throughout the supply chain. 

3. Corporate Accountability Beyond Litigation

Increasingly, corporate accountability encompasses proactive measures that anticipate and prevent harm rather than react to the outcome of legal disputes. Internal monitoring, codes of conduct, CSR programs, and the adoption of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria integrate ethical standards into corporate strategy. For example, some fashion houses regularly conduct third-party audits of their suppliers, evaluating working conditions, health and safety compliance, and environmental impact. Others implement mandatory training programs for suppliers, covering topics such as workers’ rights, anti-discrimination practices, and sustainable sourcing. Some brands have introduced digital traceability systems to track the production of garments from raw materials to finished products, allowing real-time identification of potential risks and irregularities.

Furthermore, mandatory due diligence regimes in several jurisdictions require companies to systematically identify, assess, and mitigate potential adverse impacts, including human rights violations and environmental damage. In practice, this may involve corrective action plans with specific deadlines, contractual obligations for suppliers, and monitoring mechanisms that integrate data analysis and field inspections. Judicial proceedings, even if pending, can draw attention to structural weaknesses, prompting companies to strengthen their compliance culture, enhance transparency, and commit to continuous improvement. In this way, litigation—even if unresolved—serves not only as a warning but also as a catalyst for embedding proactive accountability measures across the corporate ecosystem.

4. Judicial Scrutiny as a Learning Moment

Judicial review uncovers gaps in legal frameworks, such as the adequacy of protections in transnational contexts, disparities in enforcement across jurisdictions, and challenges in assigning liability for infringements that occur in complex supply chains. In many cases, courts effectively intervene to fill gaps that supervisory authorities are unable to address, often due to resource constraints, limited staffing, or structural deficiencies within regulatory agencies. Through judicial review, legal ambiguities are clarified, enforcement standards are interpreted in practice, and systemic weaknesses are highlighted. Rather than adjudicating individual guilt in this analysis, judicial oversight is framed here as an opportunity for lawmakers, regulators, and corporate actors to refine accountability and compliance models. By identifying recurring patterns of noncompliance and interpreting regulatory obligations, courts contribute to strengthening both legal and ethical standards, encouraging proactive corporate behavior and pushing authorities to enhance monitoring and enforcement frameworks. In this way, judicial proceedings serve not only as a mechanism for dispute resolution but also as a structural driver for institutional and corporate improvement, particularly in contexts where regulatory bodies face limitations in resources or operational capacity.

5. Media, Public Perception, and Legal Neutrality

Media coverage plays an important role in shaping public understanding of corporate conduct. While transparency can drive reforms, there is also a significant risk of reputational damage arising from premature or incomplete judgments, particularly in complex cases where facts are not fully established. In highly publicized industries such as luxury fashion, the stakes are especially high: brand image, consumer trust, and investor confidence can be affected long before judicial proceedings reach a conclusion. The complexity of global supply chains, multiple jurisdictions, and layered corporate structures makes it easy for commentators, journalists, or the public to jump to conclusions that may later prove inaccurate or incomplete. Maintaining neutrality in academic and professional analysis requires careful use of terminology—describing cases as alleged, reported, or under investigation—and respect for the principle of presumption of innocence. Such rigor helps ensure that reflection on systemic challenges and corporate practices is objective and evidence-based, while mitigating the risk of reputational harm unrelated to effective legal findings. 

6. Digital Tools and NGO Support for Vulnerable Workers

In recognition of the vulnerabilities faced by migrant and low-wage workers, NGOs and institutional initiatives have developed digital tools that provide multilingual information on labor rights and reporting mechanisms. For example, inter-institutional helpdesks offer guidance via phone, messaging apps, or online platforms in workers’ native languages. Similarly, mobile applications enable workers to document irregularities, access legal advice, and connect to support services. While these tools help reduce informational asymmetries and lower barriers to reporting, they are no substitute for on-the-ground law enforcement and protection, which remain essential for effective rights protection.

7. Comparative and International Perspectives

Corporate accountability) norms vary globally, reflecting differing legal traditions, enforcement capacities, and socio-economic priorities. In the European Union, the recent adoption of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) establishes broad obligations for companies to integrate human rights and environmental risk assessment into their corporate governance and supply chain management. This Directive requires companies above certain thresholds to identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for adverse impacts on their operations and those of their business partners, and to integrate these processes into their risk management systems.

National implementation of the CSDDD is planned for the coming years, with a gradual application to large enterprises starting in 2027 for companies with more than 5,000 employees and substantial turnover, followed by subsequent phases in 2028 and 2029 based on the company’s size and revenue. Before these dates, Member States must transpose the directive into national law by 26 July 2026.

In Italy, although the European CSDDD has been adopted at the EU level, it has not yet been fully transposed into national law. Italian authorities are currently working to implement the directive at the national level, reflecting ongoing efforts to align national rules with EU-wide due diligence obligations. This situation highlights that — while European norms are increasingly shaping corporate expectations and responsibilities — Italian corporate responsibility law continues to rely on existing frameworks, such as non-financial reporting requirements and administrative liability under Legislative Decree No. 231/2001. Specifically, Legislative Decree 231/2001 establishes the administrative liability of legal entities — a form of corporate criminal liability — for certain offences committed in their interest or to their advantage, including labor exploitation, thus encouraging the adoption of organizational models aimed at preventing unlawful conduct.

Furthermore, Italian authorities are actively pursuing initiatives that combine regulatory oversight with industry cooperation: prosecutors and industry bodies have collaborated on voluntary transparency and supply chain monitoring schemes, and government proposals have been put forward to introduce legal certification mechanisms for fashion companies to demonstrate compliance with labor laws and safeguard the reputation of “Made in Italy.” In many producing countries, enforcement capacity and regulatory frameworks vary significantly. Some jurisdictions lack the resources or institutional infrastructure necessary to effectively monitor complex supply chains, resulting in regulatory asymmetries that multinationals must manage.

In many producing countries, enforcement capacity and regulatory frameworks vary significantly. Some jurisdictions lack the resources or institutional infrastructure to effectively monitor complex supply chains, resulting in enforcement asymmetries that multinational companies must manage. These disparities underscore the value of comparative and transnational frameworks — including international soft law instruments such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and OECD guidelines — which help harmonize expectations and offer guidance for voluntary compliance initiatives beyond national borders. These frameworks support companies in managing legal and ethical risks internationally, complementing national regulation and promoting consistent global standards.

8. Conclusion

This article used judicial proceedings reported in the press as a catalyst for a broader reflection on systemic governance and accountability within the fashion industry. It emphasizes that corporate responsibility cannot be reduced to legal avoidance; proactive frameworks such as due diligence, ESG integration, and worker-support mechanisms are essential for sustainable and equitable industrial practices. The current judicial review, though unresolved, highlights the complexities of fashion law globally and the potential for legal innovation. Scholars, policymakers, and industry stakeholders can leverage this moment to strengthen governance, expand protections, and align legal frameworks with evolving social expectations.

References

European Union. (2024). Directive (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024 on corporate sustainability due diligence. Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32024L1760

Ethical Trading Initiative. (2023). Just Good Work App develops new interface for workers of all literacy levels. https://www.ethicaltrade.org/resources/blog/just-good-work-app-develops-new-interface-workers-all-literacy-levels

OECD. (2017). OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/corporate/mne/

Ruggie, J. G. (2013). Just Business: Multinational Corporations and Human Rights. W. W. Norton & Company.

Reuters. (2025, May 26). Italy’s fashion brands sign accord to fight worker exploitation. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/italys-fashion-brands-sign-accord-fight-worker-exploitation-2025-05-26

Reuters. (2025, July 22). Italy moves to safeguard fashion sector reputation after labour scandals. https://www.reuters.com/en/italy-moves-safeguard-fashion-sector-reputation-after-labour-scandals-2025-07-22

The post Judicial Proceedings as a Catalyst for Rethinking Fashion Law and Corporate Accountability appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

In the absence of a common definition recognized by all the scholars and dictionaries as well, we want to start from the definition of geopolitics given by the Oxford Languages as “politics, especially international relations, as influenced by geographical factors”.

Accordingly, the concept of geopolitics started as a study on how the geographical position and the geographical peculiarities of a state (such as the presence of borders secured by mountains or rivers) could lead the political actions of that state in respect of other states, where the first aim is protecting its own sovereignty and boosting and increasing its power on other states.

As times passed, observes noted that other peculiarities may influence the geopolitical relation, other than the pure geographical characteristics. Social behaviour, different scales of values and believes may influence indeed the actions of a state in relation to others.

In this sense it is worth noting, by way of example, that, in fact, many Western countries condition their support for developing countries on strengthening the protection of human rights. Furthermore, environmental protection is increasingly becoming a factor that may influence relations among nations.

Likewise, sustainability and its implementation in many rules related to the fashion industry are reshaping relations between different countries, opening or limiting access to richest markets. 

The new corpus of rules governing fashion and sustainability in some jurisdictions (namely USA and UE) are indeed influencing the affected industries beyond the borders of the territories to which it applies. 

Indeed, fashion can be viewed through the lens of geopolitics. 

In today’s globalised world, power is expressed through subtle and complex systems of interdependence, namely economic dependence,  the traits of which are clearly visible within the intricate and endless tiers of the textile supply chain. 

The industry’s economic reach – and its impact on job creation, international trade, and economic growth – makes fashion a true soft power that exerts influence beyond national borders. 

The new perspective means that the new fashion rules do not relate to the garments per se (as for rules related to the safety of dyes used for textiles) but to the way in which they are produced and the impact of production on human rights and environment. In this regard,– in terms of sourcing transparency, relevant precedents are the US Clean Diamond Trade Act of the 2003 and the Canadian Kimberley Process for the trade of rough diamonds.

This article aims to provide an example on how a highly globalized industry must deal with rules and requirements decided by those states that drive the most relevant markets and the transition towards a greener and perhaps more human-centred world.

New rules to ensure sustainability

Relegating fashion to a gilded cage of catwalks and glossy social campaigns is rather anachronistic, as the marriage of sustainability legislation and fashion transcends superficial glamour and serves as a nuanced reflection of global geopolitics and evolving regulatory trends. 

In a bid to achieve climate neutrality by 2050, the old continent stands at the forefront of the green transition, propelling a transformative and ambitious agenda.

The initiatives launched have adopted a global approach, ranging from product design – with the flagship Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation – to the fight against greenwashing – with the Green Claims Directive – to waste management – with the revision of the Waste Framework Directive – to reporting.

On the latter, the tension is due to the attractiveness of ESG parameters for investors as synonymous with resilience and long-term growth.

EU institutions have enacted the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive for large companies and are currently drafting the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, two complementary pieces of legislation that prioritise transparency and accountability as key drivers in compelling companies to wisely manage their social and environmental impacts.

Both directives emphasise the importance of disclosing sustainability information, while considering the impacts and risks of internal sustainability targets and across the supply chain. The desired outcome is a structural synergy between sustainability strategies and business models to understand, first, how sustainability efforts affect the company’s growth and performance, both structurally and financially, and second, to make it easier for potential investors to  evaluate the associated risks.

To this end, the CSRD elevates ESG reporting by fully equating it with traditional financial statements while improving comparability and interoperability through single reporting standards for the benefit of investors. The CSDDD – as sustainability goes beyond just climate – will impose environmental and human rights due diligence across all the tiers of the value chain, supported by directors’ duty of care and civil liability. 

The position of the British lawmaker is not dissimilar. In the UK, sustainability is being driven by a series of wide-ranging measures such as the Green Claims Code, the Plastic Packaging Tax, and, above all, the Sustainability Disclosure Standards which are due to be implemented by July 2024 and will set out corporate disclosures on the sustainability-related risks and opportunities, with an eye to global comparability.

Across the Atlantic, the United States are strategically using sustainability initiatives as weapons to differentiate the American manufacturing sector from that of China in their ongoing trade war.

At the federal level, the Fabric Act and the Americas Trade and Investment Act aim to boost local manufacturing through tax incentives and targeted circular strategies, and offer US companies an alternative to produce domestically, by providing better infrastructure and access to low-cost capital for circular textile businesses. The ultimate goal is to incentivise the reshoring and nearshoring of manufacturing from China to the US, thus putting an end to the constant search for cheap workforce in countries with poor labour policies. 

Another recent initiative is the US SEC’s long-awaited Climate Disclosure Rule, which will require both domestic and most foreign private issuers to identify and disclose material climate risks and impacts on their business strategy, operations and financial condition.

Similarly, key American jurisdictions have mirrored the same trend.

Emblematic is the New York Fashion Sustainability and Social Accountability Act – as well as its twin initiative, the Washington State’s House Bill 2028 – which mandates supply chain transparency, ESG disclosure and due diligence for apparel companies operating in New York with annual global sales of $100 million.

The state of California also experienced a major regulatory shift. Its key measures are three: California SB 253 and SB 261 which, albeit at different annual revenue thresholds, require companies operating in the state respectively to report on direct and indirect emissions and to disclose climate-related financial risk reports biannually; and the Textile Recovery Act of 2023, introduced to facilitate the collection, repair and recycling of used textiles.

As the West advances sustainability agendas, Asian powerhouses – on which global textile production has depended so far – are implicitly called to reshape their legal scenario on sustainability and labour practices.

Thus, India has recently refined the ESG disclosure scheme by introducing the Business Responsibility and Sustainability Core framework which covers, with a comprehensive approach, the risk areas related to environmental protection and human rights within the supply chain and requires top listed companies to identify and address those potential risks. 

Meanwhile, in China, the days when ESG compliance was simply the result of the codes of conduct imposed by Western companies seem to be over. As Europe’s quest for environmental protection comes to a standstill, in a landmark move, the Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges have just introduced their first mandatory guidelines on ESG disclosure for major listed companies, borrowing the principle of double materiality already endorsed by the EU CSRD.

While this is undoubtedly a watershed moment, with increasing scrutiny of human rights and environmental practices, Beijing will soon be required to provide greater protection for its workers. And that future is not so distant, given the expected approval of the EU Forced Labour Regulation and the US Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, both aimed at preventing goods contaminated by human rights abuses from entering or being exported to the EU and US markets. 

Sustainability: a chess game where players win or lose together

Amid these legislative developments, the geopolitical implications of sustainability policies are becoming increasingly clear. Beyond the cases where the violation of environmental rules and human rights can hinder the access to the most prosperous markets, the race for sustainability is not just a domestic issue. It is rather a chess game that reflects broader international dynamics, tied together by massive regulatory reporting efforts, given the reputational value of ESG credentials as a key asset for attracting capital by providing investors with consistent, comparable, and decision-useful information.

About Authors:

Mario Di Giulio: Visiting Lecturer (Fashion and Ethics) and Member of the Scientific Committee of the Master in Fashion Law (LUISS University in Rome)

Giulia Tuccio: LLM in Fashion Law (LUISS University in Rome)

The post Fashion law, Sustainability and Geopolitics: A non-obvious but concrete nexus appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

As many other industries, the fashion industry faces ethical issues in a continuous manner: issues related to the environment, but also the labor conditions and employments, as well as exploitation of animals and endangered species. That is not so different from other sectors, but fashion (that includes also luxury) emphasizes these issues because it often satisfies superfluous and unnecessary desires.

After all, an Italian saying goes: “this is a luxury” to mean something that is needless.

Considering the increasing sensibility that people worldwide are paying to sustainability and the achievements of the Sustainable Development Goals set out for the 2030 Agenda, it becomes clear the progressive willingness by the consumers to buy, as well as from the producers to make, fashion sustainable and first of all ethical.

Just for the sake of clarity, the word sustainable should involve actions and decisions aimed at satisfying the need of the current generations through actions and decisions that do not compromise the possibility of the future generations to satisfy their own; while ethics involve more concepts like morality and behavior that affect lives of human beings and animals. 

It is clear, however, that sustainability per se includes ethical choices, since it is pursued to ensure equal chances between generations that do not exist contemporarily.

Why a new approach?

Ethics is a value that may be influenced by many factors: personal belief, religion, but also state of need: a Latin saying goes primum vivere, i.e. the first priority is to stay alive. Having this in mind, it is clear that, except for certain values like the protection of the human life, ethics may involve values which may differ a lot from country to country, from region to region, from people to people.

It is sufficient to think of the use of animals for the leather. Many fashion designers are defining themselves sustainable just because they do not use leather made by animals and just because they recycle plastic bottles or crop wastes. However, is that sufficient? How good is the message given by the use of plastic bottles if it could be understood as “you may use how many plastic bottles you want, since they could be recycled”, when it is clear that the recycled plastic bottles are just a minimum number of those that are produced? Moreover, what about the possibility to recycle the shoes made by recycled plastic when they are not usable any longer? In addition, what about the dispersion of micro-plastics when the shoes are used? Who is able to know how much oil derivatives are used to transform crops waste into the so-called eco-leather?

On the other hand, animal leather is for the biggest part made from animals that are killed for nutrition purposes and not only for their skin (as it happens, instead, for most of the cases when they are killed for the fur). Thus, for those persons who are vegan, it could be understandable that they do not accept animal leathers.  It might seem a little odd if, instead, they are carnivorous, but they still complain about animal leather. However, also in this case, the reality is more complex: because tannery may have a relevant impact on environment and many issues may be considered with reference to intensive farming, the relevant effects on global warming, the cruelties imposed to animals, and, last but not least, how and whether animal leather may be efficiently disposed.

It is therefore evident that, as it happens in many circumstances of life, when theory comes to practice many are the issues at stake, while the way to address them may be difficult and unclear. 

Grey areas leave space to green washing and unwanted consequences

As for many human activities, it is clear that also the fashion industry has grey areas that leave space to wrong messages, intentionally or not. It is not only a  matter of greenwashing where the information given is untrue or misleading, in many cases the issue raises from the fact that the consumers are not allowed to have a clear picture of what their loved brand makes.

Another example may be of help. With regard to diversity and inclusion, is it sufficient for being inclusive to represent diversities in the advertising? Or should the brand also produce its garments for those who are overweight or have disabilities of whatever nature? Is it sufficient to produce these garments if then the relevant distribution is limited or very restricted? Moreover, how much is a brand inclusive when it does not ensure fair wages to the models or engage models only if they are underweight?

These considerations could be applied in many fields and one-way perspectives many times influence them. Is fast fashion so much unethical if it creates job opportunities for poor people? And may we consider ‘green’ a brand that wastes a lot of energy in advertising, covering the facades of buildings in the very center of the cities, often hiding the artistic beauty of those buildings?

It is obvious that every choice has different consequences and may be evaluated with different scales of values, where, in many circumstances, nobody is in the position to claim that the relevant decisions are better than those taken by others.

A proposal to address the issues from a legal perspective

As mentioned above, the factors that could affect ethical choices can be many and not easy to be dealt with in a clear manner. The existing legislation in many countries is addressing the issues related to untrue or misleading messages, sanctioning greenwashing and misleading advertising. These rules, however, address only a part of the problem because of the criticalities that have been exposed above.  

Many of the same issues may also refer to sustainability. 

The creation of taxonomy regulations may be of help, but – also in this case – the regulations are the result of choices that could be opined because they are the results of lobby actions and compromises and often disagreed based on the personal belief of every consumer. 

In this regard, a principle that has to be ensured is the right of consumers to exercise conscious choices.  

So, one of the criteria that should be used as the main guideline should be transparency rules that oblige the brands to explain why their action should be considered ethical or sustainable every time that ethics and sustainability become a driver for their promotions. 

The simple list a of greenhouse gas emissions or the potential recyclability of a product does mean that this product is better than another one that causes  major carbon print but offers more job opportunities or ensures its full recyclability? it is a matter of choices that the consumers should be able to evaluate with their own assessment. 

Moreover, brands should give sufficient information to explain why they declare themselves inclusive, for example making available data in terms of employment, advertising and productions.

If a brand claims sustainability just because of plastic recycled, it should explain how and when the recycled plastic may be recycled again, explain as well what is the impact of recycling in terms of dioxide emissions for a small production compared to other materials or the same plastic when it is new.  It should also be explained how much plastic is actually recycled.

If the brand uses eco-leather, it should explain how much oil derivatives have been used to make it and what is the relevant impact on the environment. While if a brand uses animal leather, it should explain whether the leather comes from intensive farming, in compliance with no cruel practices, as well as how the items could be disposed when wasted.

In this regard, many steps have been taken or are in the process to be taken at a global level, such as: 

1. the European Union Commission proposed the Eco Design for Sustainable Products regulation  , which is aimed at improving transparency, among others, on products  for their capability of being recycled, use of sustainable raw material, carbon and environmental footprints;
2. the European Union Commission also proposed the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, which requires companies with 500 employees or 150 million euro turnover worldwide, to ensure protection of humans and the environment during all the supply chain passages, including those that take place outside of Europe; 
3. The State of New York is considering the issue of the Fashion Sustainability and Social Accountability Act that would require transparency regarding environmental and social impacts of fashion labels. This Act, if passed, shall require fashion brands to disclose greenhouse gas emissions, as well as usage of energy, water, material and plastic through traceable processes. 

However, we must face the fact that sometimes choices may be in contrast among themselves: just for the sake of clarity, Western countries are asking developing countries not to use coal because of the gas emissions, not considering that in those countries coal is still necessary to ensure better life conditions. Is that ethical considering that Western countries use life standards that are one of the biggest causes of global warming? 

Considering the above, there should be a simple rule, if a brand claims to be sustainable or ethical: 

1. first of all, it should give sufficient information to explain why and to which extent it believes it is so; and
2. secondly, it should be obliged to reply to the requests of information that come from consumers in this regard.

The second aspect is fundamental. 

Transparency should also mean that if a brand claims to be ethical or sustainable, it is obliged to address and reply to the questions posed by the consumers in public forms. In fact, it is clear that certifications by third independent parties may not be sufficient, since these auditors make assessments applying agreed procedures that could address just part of the issues, while the consumers should know what is beyond the procedures, what has been considered and what has not. Last but not least, the independency of third parties’ judgement has all to be proven when it comes from those firms that have always been involved as consultants by the same brands in the past.

How these matters may be regulated and how the exercise of consumers’ request have to be dealt with is a matter pertaining to the lawmakers and, in this field, lawyers could help to figure out possible solutions.

What is clear is that greenwashing is only a part of the global issue and maybe it is only the peak of an iceberg, where the real matters are under the water. 

Written By: Mario Di Giulio

A member of the Scientific Committee and visiting lecturer (Ethics and Fashion Law)  at the Fashion Law Master held by LUISS University in Rome. He is adjunct professor of Law of Developing Countries at Campus Bio-Medico University. Partner at Pavia e Ansaldo Law Firm, he is co-founder and Vice President of The Thinking Watermill Society, a non profit organization focused on technological innovation and sustainability matters.

The post Ethics and Fashion Industry: The Need of a New Legal Approach appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.